of course, we have more experienced officers, and the and decisions, issuances deferrals, are reviewed by more senior officers and are the basis of discussion to talk about what the officer looked at, what they based their decision on, what questions they might have considered or pursued. there is, of course, an ongoing training program as people are settling into the job. rep. duckworth: approximately equivalent to an infantryman who goes to basic training, and we send him to combat, under the supervision of more experienced leaders. if we can trust our young americans to go to combat, i think we can trust our consular

officers who are under the supervision of much more experienced officers. >> i think it is also worth noting we are talking about foreign service officers. these are people who have gone through a very rigorous, competitive program to be admitted to the service. many are lawyers or have worked in immigration law or have been teachers. many are former military. rep. duckworth: by no means are these inexperienced people. they get about the same amount in terms of quantity of training as somebody we are sending into harm's way. i'm sure you are proud of our officers, and i thank them for their service. we must do everything in our power to protect our country, but we can do it without evolving into demagoguery and focusing on imaginary problems. i agree we must consider any and all options to improve our refugee process, but let's remember these refugees are fleeing the same terrorists we

are fighting, isis and the a side regime. turning our backs on people who are being persecuted and killed the trays our nations ideals and values and weekends -- weakens us. as we've already discussed, our process requires the sevenoration of vetting separate homeland security departments. it takes about two years to complete. said thatuez, you this process is incredibly regress. i would like to know if there are any other ways we can strengthen the refugee vetting process. i think we should come if there are. are there any other ways we can further strengthen this process? mr. rodriguez: i think one key way we have started to use piloting is the use of social

media research. that wee other tools can use that i would not necessarily feel comfortable setting,g in a public but needless to say, we are in a constant process of looking at our securityrce and law enforcement vetting across all lines of business. i think it's helpful to talk about refugees, but i think it's also important that we realize are these security tools ones we need to think about all our lines of business. rep. duckworth: it's not a stagnant process. you are constantly reviewing, and when you have new cases, you go back and look at other things that can be done. mr. bersin: i think the so-called hot wash, the after-incident, particularly with the tragedy of that

proportion, leads to a lot of examination and soul-searching about how we strengthen the system. we will never get to a point where that process ends. this is clearly an example of something that requires continuous improvement, and when we have an incident, a tragedy of that proportion, yes, we look at what could've been done, what should we have known, what can we know, and begin to address that. rep. duckworth: do you have a process in place that is a periodic review of your processes that result in further improvements? mr. bersin: we do within dhs and in the interagency. there's a constant review on an annual basis. for example, the watchlist guidance, how do we manage these vetting processes? rep. duckworth: i yield back. rep. chaffetz: i think the gentlewoman. we will recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. , i'mmeadows: mr. bersin

going to come to you. you are a smart guy, yale, harvard, oxford. looking at your resume, you are a gifted attorney. as i look at all of that, i am puzzled by your opening testimony. let me quote you here. says the second major shaping influence is we realize 99% of all trade and travel in the united states is perfectly lawful and legitimate. how do you know that? mr. bersin: the estimate comes from when the cvp makes with regard to cargo and the people coming in and out of the states. we have those assessments. following that

logic, since it's an estimate, of the 20 million people who come here with a visa, you are saying between 2% and 1% come here for less than lawful purposes. mr. bersin: if you apply that figure -- rep. meadows: if you apply it to one, you have to apply it to the other. it's lawful or it's not lawful. mr. bersin: when you look at the globalized world in which we operate, with the 70,000 containers that come in -- rep. meadows: you are talking more about trade? mr. bersin: i'm talking about the one million people a day. rep. meadows: when we look at terrorist activity, we are talking about 20 million people who come here with the visa and perhaps overstay. mr. bersin: 20 million people come under the visa waiver program. rep. meadows: of that, how many overstay? mr. bersin: the estimate, as i indicated on the chairman -- to the chairman, when the overstay report comes out, the numbers suggested it is a relatively small number. rep. meadows: you are talking

about the internal document? mr. bersin: that's correct, sir. rep. meadows: what is the number on that internal document? mr. bersin: it's less then -- rep. meadows: what is the number? mr. bersin: you have a two-inch binder with all kinds of research. it's got our pictures and bios. you knew i was going to ask this question. mr. bersin: i do, but i also have a duty -- rep. meadows: are you going to give us a number? mr. bersin: no, i'm not going to give you a number. there is a report in preparation with a process that has to be followed. rep. meadows: is that the report that has been in process for 20 years? the person who appointed you, misses napolitano, promised it to this congress in december of 2013 that it would be here. are you while still working on that report? don'trsin: mr. meadows, i

think you have enough time for me to explain why it is happen. i take the criticism. i think it is fair. rep. meadows: when will we get the report? mr. bersin: that report is in process, and the expectation is it will be delivered to the congress within the next six months. rep. meadows: so help me understand this. we are supposed to believe you that you are vetting all the people coming here with unbelievable a surety, and it's going to take six months to give me a number? let me quote you. 400,000 is in the range .f the estimate made that's an interesting -- in the range of an estimate made. 500,000in: 400,000 to are the total overstays, and that was the clarification asked for. mr. bersin: answered this -- rep. meadows: answer this.

the gao said there were potentially 1.6 million overstays in 2011. the gao said potentially there were over one million overstays in 2013. how did you make such good progress, mr. bersin? if it's only 500,000 now -- if you take the same numbers come it means there could be as many as 4000 people here doing unlawful things. mr. bersin: the difficulty in the overstay process we have had for 20 years is the entire exit industry, the exit from our wastry, from the time it organized, did not build in the notion we would screen people on the way out. rep. meadows: that is exactly what i wanted to get to. mr. bersin: your testimony here today is, you don't know who leaves this country. mr. bersin: i didn't say that. rep. meadows: you do know how

many people leave? mr. bersin: we have a portion to the different mechanisms. yes, we know a certain portion, those who come by air and leave by air. rep. meadows: if they leave by boat or walk, you don't know? northernn: in the border, we've worked with the government of canada an entry-exit process. it's communicated to us for non-us citizens and non-canadians. also, the areas we do know -- rep. meadows: your under sworn testimony -- do you know the number of people that leave the united states each and every year? you are under sworn testimony. yes or no? give you a we can large proportion of those, but not all. rep. meadows: i yield back. rep. chaffetz: i will rank and denies the ranking member, mr. cummings. cummings: as i listen to

this, it's very upsetting. it really is. one of the things that i will go to my grave remembering is katrina. we had a situation where people told everybody that things were going to be all right, that we had an emergency. they said, when the rubber meets the road, everything will be fine, but when it came time for meet the road, we discovered there was no road. when we look at the secret service, a number of situations where things are not as they appear to be, and the thing is that lives depend upon a lot of these. i guess what i'm trying to figure out is, what did we learn? we can go through this all day.

i'm trying to get to the bottom line of something you said, mr. .odriguez, about how we prevent first of all, did we learn anything from the san bernardino incident. if we did, what did we learn, and what are we doing about it. we learned me nothing, you can tell me that. i need to know, because i am of to firm belief that we need be frank about this. by the way, i want to know whether it was an intelligence failure. talk to me. what was it? let me tell you something. that six-month thing, you can do better than that. mr. bersin: i was put in an

outer limit on it. rep. cummings: we need to bring in the limit a little bit. mr. bersin: i hear you. what did we learn? the fourth major influence is what secretary johnson and the president have been indicating, that the threat is evolving, and right now we are doing with online,g that is an cyber organizational people. it's the active shooter in the case of lone wolf or lone wolves who aren't necessarily trained or equipped by isil but inspired by the propaganda online. is it wasve learned not in the system. many of the questions that have been pursued and the inquiry this committee is making about how far we can go with regard to social media, how far we can go into people's facebooks and private chats, are all issues that need to be discussed. rep. cummings: idealistically,

what would you do if you had the that we wouldy not have thought about or done prior to the incident? i am trying to get to where we are going to, if we are going anywhere. mr. bersin: with regard to legal authority, i think all of those matters need to be looked at. there are restrictions. the privacy policy in dhs does not prohibit the use of social media for screening purposes. the question is, what are the other purposes? where are the civil liberties and protections that would say to us, no, it would violate our values, but that is the debate. rep. cummings: did you want to say something, mr. rodriguez? we are autopsying

the situation right now. we are hot-washing the situation in the sense we are looking at it to see what lessons were learned. there are some preliminary questions. the point that director komi made about a ripple in the pond, just about everybody leaves a ripple in the pond. the question is, can we find the ripple in the pond? social media is clearly something we need to be talking about. it is something we have been building and continue to build. we've been focusing primarily on the refugee setting. it's also a question of how, when, and who we interview. all of these tools need to be used. one of the questions here it is, do we need to be doing things less in the more, interview setting? that is something we need to be doing.

rep. cummings: following up on mr. maloney's question, did tsa -- does it have all the information it needs? the mr. bersin: issue is to give them automated access, and we believe that decision will be made before six months. rep. cummings: has the request been made? mr. bersin: yes, sir. rep. cummings: you said within six months yet go mr. bersin: i said sooner than six months. i think this one is in the near future. rep. cummings: the only thing i'm trying to get to -- we should all be concerned about this -- is the sharing of information. is that a problem? sometimes, i've found with federal agencies, they act in silos, and the next thing you know, one person has information over here. is that part of the problem?

mr. bersin: that was clearly the case before 9/11. i think the testimony of your witnesses here today and the reality we know is we don't have those silos with regard to the vetting process. there are silos to be sure, but not with regard to the exchange of metadata to make judgments about whether or not a person is a high or low risk traveler. rep. cummings: thank you, sir. >> who doesn't have access to the tide terrorist database? cia doesn't have access to it. are there other groups that don't have access to it? do they not have access to it? who doesn't have access to that tied base? rep. cummings: reclaiming my time. please answer. the terrorist identity environment is a nexus of people in which there is

derogatory information with an international nexus. it it to be operational, comes into the terrorist screening database. the issue on tsa is, in doing , we want themling to have access on an automated basis of the can get flags about potential problems. would think the other groups should have it, too. i recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mullaney. rep. mullaney: bruce richard, we have had the chance to me before. s. richard, we have had the chance to meet before. i appreciate your participation. i found out yesterday in the media that your group has placed

syrian refugees this month in south carolina. i would like to ask you about that. in full disclosure, it's a small number of people. it's one couple. our governor reached out to you and ask you not to do this, and we said previously, you said, one of the considerations you make is whether or not they are going into areas where they would be welcome to the point where it would be easier to assimilate, and i would suggest you that maybe the governor's letter to you might send the message that now is not the right time to send syrian refugees to south carolina. why did you do it anyway, and why did you tell the governor you were going to do it. ms. richard: i didn't know we sent a couple to south carolina. rep. mullaney: how many meetings have you had with me and mr. gaudi and our staff? ms. richard: several.

i do not track all of the refugees coming to the united states. mullaney: how many congressional delegations have you met with? ms. richard: a lot. rep. mullaney: a dozen? andrichard: i will find out get back to you. continuing, and its continuing across the united states. this is all legal, of course. rep. mullaney: you know you have the right to do it. you've been verythis is all canr position that the governors can't stop it. it's not a legal standard you set out to hit. you were going to try to put these folks in places where they would be welcomed so it would be easier to assimilate. ms. richard: i suspect the couple that has gone to south carolina has been welcomed. mullaney: i hope very much they are welcomed in south carolina. i believe that they will be.

here is where we are. where we are is, we are in the middle of the debate nationwide over your vetting processes. we've got the fbi director saying, while good, they are not perfect, and he cannot certify that everybody who comes in is safe. we had a bill that we voted on in the house, had a veto-proof .ajority to pause this program this issue gets a lot of attention. now i have two folks who have been resettled. i'm going to have people who look differently at those refugees than they would otherwise. in the back of their mind, they are going to wonder, i wonder if these are the two who got to the system? the fbi director says it's not safe. doesn't it make it more difficult for refugees to assimilate if we haven't perfected our vetting process?

ms. richard: i think we have a very strong vetting process. rep. mullaney: mr. rodriguez evolving this is an threat. have you change the way you do business in the last six months? ms. richard: we are going over how we vet in an active way. rep. mullaney: have you change the way you vet? have you made any changes since san bernardino? ms. richard: no, but there were no refugees involved in san bernardino. mullaney: didn't we just have a discussion about silos? aren't we going to learn something about the fiance visa process? are you looking at social media? ms. richard: i would have to defer to mr. rodriguez. mr. rodriguez: as i've said clearly, yes. we are not using it 100%.

we have been piloting the use. we are in the middle of a third pilot. i talked about the lessons we learned from that and how they will be applied, but yes, we are building the capacity. rep. mullaney: there is no way to know if the folks who got placed in my state have been through their process -- that process, is there? the process is a long and rigorous one. i don't know with these folks when they were interviewed. rep. mullaney: here is my point. folks on your side of the table, folks on our side of the table recognize the vetting process could be better. i think if we are really interested in having a viable refugee program that allows people to resettle and to integrate and assimilate, that process has to be the very best that it can be, and the folks back home are entitled to that. they are entitled as citizens to

know that if you want to play overens in their community our objections, they are entitled to know that you have done everything possible to make sure it is safe to do so. we i know right now is that can't tell them that. i will ask you to do what we have been unable to do legislatively, which is pause the process until you can give us that guarantee. i yield back the balance of my time. rep. chaffetz: i think the gentleman from south carolina. i now recognize the gentlewoman from the virgin islands. >> thank you, witnesses. i just had several questions related to a hearing that went on last week about the no-fly list. it's our understanding that tsa draws this list from the terrorist screening database, which is maintained by the fbi, and that the no-fly list contains a small subset of names

who "are prevented from boarding an aircraft when flying with him, from, and over the united states." according to the fbi's frequently asked questions, i am going to quote, "before an individual can be placed on the no-fly list, there must be credible information that demonstrates the individual poses a threat of committing a violent act of terrorism with respect to civil aviation, the homeland, the united states broader, orcated a is operationally capable of doing so." could you explain to us what types of information can credibly demonstrate that an individual poses a threat? is bersin: when a name b and youinto the tsdc have a subset go to the no-fly list, there are numerous kinds of data that can establish reasonable suspicion or provide

additional derogatory information that would say, this is not someone we wish to have flying to the united states, within the united states, or out of the united states. things like associations, things like acts. this may the a person who has been involved in a criminal .errorist investigation .very case stands on its own it depends on the facts. there are many kinds of data that would suggest this is a very high-risk person that we don't want to take a chance with. thank you. it's almost unfair since the fbi is not here in asking these questions. can you explain to us what social media -- what the role of social media posting has been for the no-fly list? mr. bersin: i cannot speak to that in terms of the investigative tools that are

used to establish those facts. >> why can't you speak to them? mr. bersin: i am not operationally involved in supervising those activities. >> would you be able to explain to us, visa applicants, any of the witnesses, what information does social media play in the screening for other visa applications? is it only for those who have been considered for the no-fly list? as part of the visa process, as has been described, when the vice counsel is beginning to interview somebody out the window, they have a lot of information about that person. some of that came from the applicant themselves. it's information on their application. some may have come from the interagency screening that has been done. we know if it's an individual who has traveled to the states. on our computer, we can see their face.

we have a background of information we can ask people about. t directs the line of questioning that will be used. if we are interested because they have close family members in the states, we are going to be pursuing that. if we are interested in where they studied or what they studied, it will depend on the individual. it happens frequently that the consular officer comes to a decision that if everything that is being said is true, he or she is comfortable approving that visa, but they want to confirm some of that information. based ont want it only the interview or what is being said in the interview. and what the -- in that case, they refer the case to the fraud team at the consulate. everyone has a fraud officer or office, and they often use social media. >> the social media component

does not come in until the case is flagged, and at that point, the fraud office will use that? >> at this point, that is when we typically might use social media as one of the ways. if we want to know someone really works at a particular place, we might have one of the local employees call that place and ask to speak and confirm it that way. following the review the attack in san bernardino, which is looking at the k1 process but is applicable to all that we do, the agencies are looking at the broader use of social media. >> i'm sorry. i don't have a lot of time, and i'm an inpatient pertinent. -- person. at what point in the process does social media, in? is it when they consider that there is a question as to

whether the information given is correct, or does it come to the officer when the individual steps to that screen? you are saying it happens if there is a question about them and going to the fraud component. is that correct? that is exactly right. either the officer is fully satisfied and approves it or has decided to refuse the case and isn't going to waste resources doing more research, or he is at a point where he's ready to issue but wants to confirm some of the data that has been provided, and social media is one of the tools we may use in the process of confirming information given to us. >> thank you. rep. chaffetz: i think the gentlewoman. i now recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker. rep. walker: "the washington post" reports that christians are being terrorized in u.n. refugee caps. christians are

underrepresented in refugee camps because they are at risk of being attacked by non-christians? we are very concerned about christian refugees. most refugees are not in camps in the middle east. we place a priority on resettling refugees who are christian or minorities if they are in danger. rep. walker: did i hear you earlier say that christians are not fleeing syria because they feel safe? can you hold? i would like to play that back. i'm pretty sure that is what you said. would you play that video? rep. chaffetz: please get back to us on that question. they are underrepresented in part because they make up a small percentage of refugees from syria. rep. chaffetz: that's the problem. rep. walker: miss richards, how

many christians have we brought in in the last couple years? in the last five years, how many christian refugees have we brought in? ms. richard: 4% have been christians. walker: there were 2 million christians decimated. according to pope francis, he calls it genocide. last month, a syrian bishop was pleading for rent some money. 200 hostages held. do you know what isis does to young females? it's brutal. i'm sure you are aware of that. please tell me why we have brought in 53 christians. how do you know they are class -- they are christians you echo what is the process? 4% of the 2400's total syrians brought in since 2011, christians or other minorities.

they are brought in because they feel they are in danger because of that. we agree with you 100% that these people should be given a chance for resettlement. alker: you said today because christians are not fleeing syria because they are feeling safe. ms. richard: 10% of the prewar population of syria was christian. we are seeing less than 10 bing percent -- 10% of the refugees coming out who are christian. it is proportional number of people in syria are staying in the cost rate -- in the country. a higher percentage feel assad.ive of they are the ones who come out, those are the people we want to help. see whyker: do you there is a credibility issue? i would like to yield the balance of my time for my friend mr. trey gowdy. gowdy: i -- rep.

want to see if we can disabuse some folks of some incorrect understandings of current dumb laws. would you agree with me that it is currently against the law for somebody who crosses the border without permission to possess or purchase a firearm? mr. rodriguez: i am remembering back to my days prosecuting gun crimes. it's been a while. my recollection is, yes. owdy: it is sometimes unfair to put pop quizzes to folks who haven't done something in a while. if you've crossed the border without permission, you cannot possess a firearm. if you've overstayed a visa, you cannot legally purchase or possess a firearm. if you are legally here on a visa, only in limited

circumstances can you legally possess or purchase a firearm. those are all categories with existing law where you can't purchase or possess a firearm. on the lists made available to federally licensed firearms dealers so they can make sure they don't sell firearms to those categories of prohibited people. mr. bersin: i'm not familiar with the atf process in regards to that. i don't believe that dhs circulates those lists. rep. gowdy: this is the frustration i face. i listen to an administration call for additional gun laws. they want additional gun control in the wake of almost every tragedy. that's the very first place they run. it just forces me to ask, i wonder how we are doing with the

current gun laws we have? i am not going to ask you for the statistics. you shouldn't be prepared and probably would not be prepared, but i would encourage both of you to go back and look at the statistics coming out of the department of justice on how many prosecutions exist for current gun law violations. if we are going to create a list with no due process called a watchlist, then at a minimum, you ought to give the list of visa overstays to federally-licensed firearms dealers. that list already exists. you're due process rights have already been afforded to you. if there's going to be a list given to ffl, i would think it would be the visa overstay list as opposed to a list conjured up by folks we are not familiar with. i want to encourage both of you to put on your former hats, and maybe we can meet privately and find out what you learn.

thank you.tz: the gentleman yields back. mr. conley from virginia is no record knives. now recognized. connelly: let me ask about the line of questioning that somehow implies we ought to prioritize a particular religious group over all others. rodriguez, miss bond, would that be constitutional? refugees, related to one of the five ways that someone can be determined to be a refugee is if they have been persecuted on the basis of their religion. from the perspective of my office, it doesn't matter what their religion is, but if it's the reason they are being persecuted, they could qualified to be determined to be a

refugee. connelly: that was not the question. could you and your office put a little asterisk and say, we will give you extra weight if you are of a particular religion? do you have the authority to do that? ms. richard: if it is the cause of their persecution -- connelly: that's not the question. ms. richard: i'm not going to bring one of more religion than the other. nelly:" you will look at the case irrespective of religion. ms. richard: yes, i am comfortable with that. connelly: we are trying to help people who are suffering violence, oppression, discrimination, and provide a safe haven. after all, it's not a huge

population, 70,000 a year? ms. richard: proposing to go to 85,000 this year. mr. connelly: and the actual number of syrian refugees is very small. ms. richard: that's right. mr. connelly: have i got it right that it's under 3000 in the last three years? ms. richard: 2400 total since 2011. mr. connelly: in the last four years. why is that such a small number given the fact we have 4.5 million syrian refugees? ms. richard: part of the reason that of the first response to refugee crisis should not be to resettle people. it should be, make sure they are safe where they've gotten to. also, make sure the crisis is resolved. most refugees would prefer to go home and live in peace in their home country.as time went on, it became clear that for some of the syrian refugees, there would be no home again.

they had seen terrible things happen to their families. for the most vulnerable people who can't make it on their own in the cities and towns in the middle east, which they have fled, we have a program to offer resettlement in other countries, and the u.s. is the leader in taking refugees under that program. my understanding is that it takes on average for syrian refugees 18-24 months. is that unusually long? ms. richard: it's longer than other countries. mr. connelly: and the reason for that is? ms. richard: we are very thorough. ms. richard:mr. connelly: we are being careful. flee an insurgent group or the syrian army shelling your village, you may have to leave with what is on your back and your family. ms. richard: that's correct. mr. connelly: you don't have documents to prove who you are. ms. richard: our colleagues at dhs are finding that many of the syrian refugees do have documents, but documents are not

the only piece of evidence that they have to provide to make the case they are bona fide refugees . it is a multilayered review. mr. connelly: all right. think thisez, i question is to you, but i know you covered the use of social media. we've got a pilot program. in the private sector, when people are looking at employment, they go to public social media sites as part of the screening process. why wouldn't we do that when it comes to granting somebody a status to come into the united states, whether it be refugee status, visa, and so forth? why wouldn't we do that like we do any other background document? that may well be

where we end up. i think we've been focusing on areas where we detect heightened risk. in many of our conversations when we talk about individuals coming from countries where there is active terrorist activity, recruitment, those seem to be the areas where we should primarily focus. i think the question is going to valueat ends up being the ? if in fact there is value, if value,k shows there is we may end up in the place you describe. that is what we have been evaluating for months. we are certainly increasing the .cope of our pilots it may well be that the point you make turns out to be correct. mr. connelly: i guess i'm a little puzzled, as somebody with

public sector and private sector management experience. the private sector sees the value in using it as part of the background check when they are hiring. why wouldn't we do that in this case? mr. rodriguez: i personally believe that as we get further into this, we will discover information of value. i think what is also going to happen is people will go underground, knowing we will look at those mediums, and they will seize to use them -- cease to use them. rep. chaffetz: i now recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. heinz. heinz: i asked this question the other day. want to ask you. do you have any idea how many passports are reported stolen

each year? mr. bersin: i am pausing, because i know as the former vice president of interpol, which maintains the lost and stolen passport database, i have a number of how many there are. i would refer to miss bond who administers the passports. bond: in terms of u.s. passports store never year, i'm going to find out right now. >> what about non-u.s. passports? individual governments report that data to interpol, so yes, we can go to interpol and ask that. that is not data this government maintains. >> if you could get both of

those for me, as well. rodriguez, or mr. with that awareness that we don't know, i would think that some of you would know how many passports are stolen. that is what this whole hearing is about. we want to know, what is the standard procedure when a passport is stolen or missing? what is done to make sure it's not fraudulently picked up and used? >> when a u.s. passport is reported lost or stolen, we immediately deactivate it. you wouldn't be able to travel with it. we notify interpol. >> what about a passport from ?omewhere else in the world are we notified in any way ech? mr. bersin: when someone comes to the port of entry or applies

to a program and presents the passport, that is part of the database. the stolenld be document database of interpol, which has just under 55 million records in it. if there then be told were an alert that that was in the database, and further inquiry would be made. >> is there a penalty for a country that does not report this type of information? mr. bersin: with respect to that, currently no, there is not a penalty. in fact, that is one of the problems we have in terms of international information sharing. >> how do we know that those passports that had been stolen are being reported to interpol? mr. bersin: we have as part of our visa waiver program, of the 38 countries as part of the visa

waiver program, that's a requirement. >> is there a penalty for one of those countries if they do not report? mr. bersin: they would then be subject to being suspended or being put on provisional status in the visa waiver program. >> there is a penalty? mr. bersin: yes, sir. >> is that automatic? mr. bersin: no, sir. >> it has to go through a procedure quickly? mr. bersin: yes, but it is the monitoring of the visa waiver program that is done on a that, underis representative miller's bill, would be shortened to a one-year period. >> let me ask this. what about syrian refugees? let's use the syrian refugees who are being resettled in europe. are they able to travel to the united states through the visa waiver program?

ms. bond no, they are not. >> i'm glad to hear that. let me go back to the social media question. did i hear you correctly when 'su said that an applicant; social media profile is now part of the screening process? no, we areez: piloting it with certain groups. the size of those groups is increasing. i don't want to leave the impression that that has become a comprehensive part of what we do. we are building towards that. >> could you discuss the lessons that have been learned from the piloted programs? is getting info from social media working? mr. rodriguez: so far, the information we have seen in the pilots has been ambiguous rather than conclusive about an individual's intent, and it shows the importance of, however

we proceed down this enterprise usedcial media, that it be in the context of all the rules we used to screen people, that this be thought of a holistic process that involves interviews, screening across law enforcement and intelligence databases. now, the things that we have seen so far are relatively ambiguous. they would not necessarily lead you to conclude that the trigger further inquiry. chairman, forgive me, but i have an answer for mr. heise 's question. on average, 300,000 passports worldwide are reported lost or stolen, and about 20,000 passport cards, which as you may know are used for people who are going across land borders.

>> 300,000 u.s. citizen passports? ms. bond: exactly. it is perhaps of interest that when we are adjudicating visa applications, we checked against the interpol database to make sure the person is not presenting a passport that has been reported lost or stolen. rep. chaffetz: miss kelly is now recognized for five minutes. kelly: i wanted to ask about information sharing with our allies. the 9/11 commission recognize the importance of working with other nations when it wrote in its report, "the u.s. government cannot meet its own obligations to the american people to prevent the entry of terrorists without a major effort to collaborate with other governments. we should do more to exchange withrist information trusted allies and raise u.s. and global border security standards for travel and border crossing over the medium and long-term through extensional into -- extensive international cooperation."

it has been 11 years since the 9/11 commission. how are we doing on information sharing with our allies? miss kelly, i am probably in a better position to respond to that. international information sharing relates to that third, the second major influence on our vetting process, the idea that the homeland security process is inherently transnational, which means we need to increase the information sharing with our foreign borders. -- thehat, for example visa waiver program, with regard to the 38 countries in the visa waiver program, they are required by congressional statute to provide information known by suspected certain -- on suspected terrorists. also, certain criminal information under the preventing

and combating serious crime. part of secretary johnson's enhancements introduced during the summer that are echoed in representative miller's bill on the visa waiver program actually now will embody the requirement for countries that do not respond under those agreements, that there would be sanctions. i think one of the challenges we face is that we do not have the kind of information sharing internationally that would be of utility. that's why the administration, led by secretary johnson, actually went to the u.n. and a resolution the idea that we need to be sharing information about foreign in ways weighters had not been. the point is well taken. mr. connelly: how has it been accepted?

. kelly: how has it been accepted? mr. bersin: the countries that want the benefits of the visa waiver program will understand this is not optional, and in fact, since the secretary began the enhancements last summer, we have seen in our engagements with visa waiver countries a real stepping up. that, frankly with the events in havee, including paris, together led to greater willingness on behalf of european countries to extend their willingness to share information. ms. kelly: information sharing is one piece of the puzzle, but there are other ways to engage our global partners. to the extent you can discuss about our existing databases draw on information gathered by our international allies and

partners. it probably would be more appropriate in a different setting to go into detail about is ingested data and disseminated. ms. kelly: i will yield back. rep. chaffetz: i recognize the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell. in rough figures, how many people are on the terror watch list? -- rep. russell: in rough figures, how many people are on the terror watchlist? on the consolidated terrorist watchlist, we are talking just under one million. rep. russell: under one million? .what countries constitute the

greatest threat in terms of attempts to enter thatnited states illegally would be perhaps flagged of being on these lists? mr. bersin: of those one million records, there are subsets of the no-fly list, which is about 100,000, and the selectee list, which is 25,000. i cannot give you a breakdown on the countries from which they come. rep. russell: one or two come to mind. mr. bersin: the ones in which we've seen terrorist threats would be candidates. rep. russell: such as? mr. bersin: we have seen threats in libya. we have seen threats in pakistan. we have seen threats in a variety of countries in the middle east in the lebavant. rep. russell: of the half

million a year who we think are overstating their visas -- over visas, given that we have no comprehensive tracking program, which countries have abused this the most? mr. bersin: remember, in order to come into the country in the first place, whether by the visa or visa waiver program, there is extensive vetting against all of the lists. country,to enter the there is betting. it's not a question of people not being on the right lists. rep. russell: i understand the visa waiver will have a higher bar, but for those who have been granted visas and have overstayed them, which countries violate that the most? who would they be echo what countries? mr. bersin: the first point is

that they were not on any of the lists, the suspected terror lists we have discussed. in terms of what the breakdown is, i cannot -- rep. russell: do a couple countries come to mind? mr. bersin: i suspect there are those in which many of the people come from countries in which you send people here, and you might see people here for violating the no-work rule, people who are coming here -- they purport to come for tourist reasons, and they end up staying to work. those are going to be a different subset of countries. rep. russell: that goes to my point, mr. secretary. problem ande of the trying to protect our country, it is enormous. we certainly recognize the dedication from the

administration and folks like yourselves. you didn't just enter this field. you've been at it for decades. i point these things out because , wouldn't we want to focus on those particular areas where the threat may be highest? waivers, onceisa an individual obtains an electronic system travel authorization, it is good for two full years, as long as the passports valid, but given that thans rise has been less two years, what steps are being taken to change the two-year eligibility of the electronic travel authorization? russell,n: yes, mr. the ability to dial-up and dial is one of theity secretary is aware of. it's contained in the miller bill.

secretary johnson, as part of his own enhancements, added questions. rep. russell: don't you think we ought to reset all eligibility at this point given that isis has been on the rise for less than two years, and now, we had two-year eligibilities out there? mr. bersin: the way in which these databases operate and the way in which the vetting process takes place, there is 24/seven/365 revetting of that against whatever information may come into the database. it is updated by this constant refreshing of the database and revetting. rep. russell:rep. russell: my last question, with the is, given indulgence, that we have 1.8 million chinese

who come to the united states each year for travel and the light, they don't have trouble conducting business. aheado you see as the way so that we can secure our people the best when other countries seem to be able to operate? -- chinaly difference is not a member 0 of to become 1 -- is not a member of the visa waiver program and not slated to become one. you do further time in which a u.s. official actually look someone in the eyes from the consular affairs office to the

time when a cbp officer see that person coming in. that has been all of this security vetting before this person arrives. >> to hear eligibility. -- two year eligibility. >> we now recognize the gentleman from california. >> i want to thank everyone from testifying. i wanted to talk to you in , asral about mr. -- about mr. rodriguez said, areas of heightened risk. the pre-adjudicated threat recognition intelligence operations team. before this committee and the house judiciary committee last year, you said, "the patriot

program will be rolled out incrementally worldwide throughout 2015. willimplemented, patriot prescreen 100% of applications online before the department adjudicates the application." can you tell me a little bit about how staff is using the rolloutprogram and the in a sense of areas of heightened concern? what differentiates an application going through this program versus the general population? so the patriot system is actually installed abroad and it works with the visa security units. the homeland security investigators, thought -- 11's, whotors, the 18

are situated abroad to decide if this person should or should not receive a visa. automates thestem vetting process so that the kinds of checks we talk about are actually being done through the federated computer search of all the databases so that when a visa security agent working at the consular affairs office, they have the benefit of that and if something needs to be , that thend proceeds. it is an automation and an acceleration and a telescoping of the process so that the consular officer has the benefit. >> to the point about agencies working together, at least the concept is that everyone is working together. tell me a little bit about -- i appreciate the background, but how are you getting this to make sure that you are getting really good recurrence on the system? the planned for the

visa security units to expand something that is a decision that is being made subject to the budgetary resources being made available. but there is a positive result, yes. rep. desaulnier: you evaluated that it is working in high risk areas, and the middle east, and islamabad, i am told. coming from california, to specifically san bernardino, ms. malik went through this system, is that right? >> yes. at the 20 posts where we have visa security units, those review all would be issued visas. in other words, if a consular officer has approved a visa, he then gets a second look by the

dhs.agues from of course, they are all working together in the same space. if there were disagreements, they would be talking about, i am seeing this and i think it is not a good case and so forth. it is extremely close collaboration. colleaguesom the dhs have access to the dhs data. a lot of that has to do with things like overstays or people who were refused admittance at -- border even other arrived even though they arrived with a visa. sometimes, those are instances where it is possible to resolve and approve issuance. threat, it security may have been a mistake. so the program, you think, is working in terms of your assessment?

but this is a heightened screening process using the resources more effectively. ik wentnately, ms. mal through this program. it will be helpful to know what kind of evaluation you use. mr. rodriguez, it is a little , we want you to do your due diligence. when is the point when you say, the pilot project has some merit and should go forward? we're moving both in the refugee cut -- mr. rodriguez: we're using in the refugee context pretty aggressively and quickly. ,he next time we are together we will have a whole lot more to say about the subject.

i would not venture to talk beyond that. >> we now recognize the german from alabama, mr. palmer, for five minutes. palmer: earlier, you pointed out that refugees may request any country for refugee status. is that correct? >> i didn't understand the question. rep. palmer: in response to a question for mr. cartwright, you because theyt entered into one particular country, that doesn't mean they will gain entrance. >> that is correct. representative palmer: has it a person isyou that not necessarily prevented from entering the united states,

particularly in regard to the number of lost and stolen passports? example,eone is, for accepted in a country that is a , they may, country at some point, obtain citizenship in that country. rep. palmer: it is five years. in response to a question , youer that you gave didn't really make that clear. he asked you if someone could -- go through the visa waiver program, and i don't think you made that clear. : i apologize if that was unclear.

the question is, can these people arriving in europe qualify? palmer: what we're trying to figure out is how many holes there are in the bucket as far as ours -- as far as our ability -- we sit here trying to get information and it is increasingly difficult to get straight answers. the answer to his question, frankly, is that if they stay there long enough they can get a visa waiver. my question is, are we evaluating those people, whether they are citizens of belgian, france, germany, it doesn't matter. are you evaluating those? ms. bond. bond: i apologize for the fact that i was responding to a to arrivingerence refugees.

an individual who has become a citizen of a visa waiver country is eligible to apply. those are not always approved. , so i wouldprogram ask them to respond. palmer: the issue is, after the betting, what -- after the vetting --there is a provision that says people who traveled to syria, iraq, other war zones and are not therefore diplomatic reasons, that those people could not participate in the visa waiver program. palmer: they don't have the same databases and the same security for passports in a lot of european countries that we do.

particularly on the fingerprint not using the are information that interpol has. vetting these people before they come and whether they are citizens of another country or not. they go through the ting that we talked about. palmer: it is my understanding that you had an opportunity to evaluate her and didn't take advantage of the social media. it concerns me that we're not doing our duty diligence to make sure we know who is coming into the country and make sure we know that people who pose a threat to us are kept out. would you like to respond? that is, without question, the intent.

>> if i may also add, that is also the purpose of the review that is currently under way to examine what more can we do as part of the process. the very thorough review that factone did not reveal the that she was coming to the united states. the purpose of the review is to look at, is there more that we can do in order to identify this if possible. palmer: that is our number one obligation to the american people. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you actually gave me a great lead-in.

hearing, i the last was so frustrated i was having -- i was having trouble making it as fair and possible. when you don't have any information on the administration and there is this continual sense that we are doing everything and a matter what we do, you will have some gaps. i want specificity. toctly what are you doing close those holes, in sure the gaps get narrowed? i don't want to hear that we are working together. i think that getting a response during this hearing, we can really assess the value. beyond that, keeping this country safe, there should be no .imitation

you want to be proactive about it. it shouldn't take one tragedy after another. i expect that you come to this committee and say, wow, we figured out 12 things we can do better and now we want your assistance to make sure those are fully immigrated. given that i wouldn't hire anyone today in my official capacity or my unofficial capacity if i don't do a facebook chat -- a facebook check. what are you doing with great specificity that is proactive in nature that gives us the confidence that you evaluate, with or without a tragedy, figuring out how you takeafely and effectively into account everything you need to control to do a better job?

give me one that you are doing since the last tragedy in san bernardino? . >> first of all, let me say that we all agree with you 100%. there is nothing more important than getting it right and there is never a point when anybody would say, ok, this is good enough. we are always looking for ways to improve the vetting and improve the screening and to identify a trigger that indicates that we should look more carefully at this case. in the case of malik, there wasn't anything in that case that was a flag. one of the things that is under way since the tragedy in san bernardino was a careful examination about what else can we look at?

>> can you be specific about that? there is a review process and people are talking about it. for example, would it make sense to interview someone after arrival in the united states, after marrying the fiance. should they be interviewed again at that point? ifshould they be looking at there is some other database they should be looking at. that is an example of what they are looking at the review process. you go outside your agencies and tell me how you are using the same process with all of your international partners. do they get to weigh in? do we take their ideas credibly, too> -- credibility, too?

what could we have done better to maybe not approve that ms. malik came to the united states in the first place. because she is not going to be alone. we know that other folks are going to try to get here or frankly are already here. ms. bond: i will give it an willr and then i think mr. want to -- mr. will want to speak to this. because she was a citizen of pakistan, what more can we do in terms of our collaboration to try to share information about people who might be a threat to our citizens or people of pakistan? and information do we have how do we share that effectively? my time ism:

expired, but mr. chairman, with your indulgence, i would like to -- i want specificity. what is transpiring after these conversations that would give our constituents the sense that we are getting better all of the time and this is a constant process that is meaningful. the -- can i add just add -- rightfully said, how do we get additional information? -- in regards to the domestic affairs, the federal bureau of investigation has the principle counterintelligence and intelligence function. with regard to abroad, it is the national security agencies that do that. we use that information.

would think a classified hearing in which you would understand exactly what the fbi is doing in a classified setting and what the intelligence agents are doing, i think would be of great utility. >> we have all participated in all of these high-level -- i want to make sure the viewers take thatthat members very seriously and we still have questions. for all the witnesses, and sort of in conclusion as we get toward the end of the hearing, we basically have lost control of our borders. we have somewhere between 11 and 15 million people here who are who are illegal entrants. is that correct? 11the usual number is

million. the number i have always heard is 11 and actually declining. 11 and 15, pretty much everyone agrees. we will just take it at 11. about half of the people here overstate a visa or a taurus ,hing or a student, i am told and the others just came across the border illegally. >> that is consistent. >> we are talking about the visa waiver control. 4-6 million people in that range that overstayed their visas. visa waiver program in the history of mankind is the obama waiver.

order ton executive allow those people to stay despite them being there and legally. is that correct? the president gave an executive order -- >> we are not implementing it. the court has stopped us. >> we had to go to court. you have thousands of them that are illegal. it is your job, mr. rodriguez. have that the removals actually -- where are my figures here? 244,000 removed. 2013, 133,000. ,000.year, down to 104

are these figures correct? >> they sound right to me. >> these are correct. it is not a matter of resources. isis doing less with more resources. in fact, criminal alien arrests have declined by 11% between 2012 and 2013. are you aware of that? is it your job to deport these people? >> it is not my job. >> under homeland security. we have illegals here. the consular official interviewed the female terrorist from san bernardino how many years ago, a couple of years ago? >> in 2014. mica: but she came here and

she was fully vetted according to the process that we have now, is that correct? >> yes it is. rep. mica: and she thwarted that process. is there anything you can recommend to us that we can do to stop that? it, and what -- she thwarted it, and we have hundreds of thousands of people. you can see why the american people have concerns about what is coming next. is there anything you can recommend about what we could do to change that situation? >> we are conducting a very thorough review. of what it is that we do. rep. mica: did you take that interview? e that interview?

>> no. rep. mica: have any of you known to -- many of you know anyone who has joined isis of the christian faith? does anyone know anyone who is involved or -- just thought i would ask that question. doorusly, we closed the too late. we also have now information at isis has obtained syrian passport machines. does anyone know anything about that? have they obtained them? >> i do have some information on that. in august 2015, the state department received a report of 3800 stolen syrian -- rep. mica: this is not stolen. there are many stolen. 300,000 losttoday or misplaced american passports. captured that isis has

passport machines in syria. is that correct? mr. bersin: i have seen open-source reports to that effect. rep. mica: that creates a whole new set of problems. you are the refugee screener lady. the syrianthat refugees our first vetted by the u.s. -- by the u.n. is that correct? entrance fromnded the u.n.? >> not necessarily. sometimes, if someone comes to the attention of the embassy. rep. mica: that is a small, small percentage. have you vetted the u.n. process? checking with syrians to see if

they have any isis connections? richard: we wouldn't check with the assad regime. rep. mica: the u.n. they are recommending these people, that is where you're getting them from. they tell us, don't worry, the u.n. has approved these people. are referringhey the case is to us with things we have asked them to find. do you think the u.n. is vetting them with syrian and assad officials? >> i hope they don't check with the assigned officials because some of these people are fleeing aside torture chambers -- fleeing assad torture chambers. >> i would like to get some information on the vetting process. -- isstion, first off

there any specific guidances, doctrines, directives, or memoranda in effect now, either from this or a previous that ties the, hands of investigators in regards to getting the information they need to make informed decisions for those seeking to enter the u.s.? mr. bersin: there is no constitutional provisions for people trying to enter the u.s. specific guidances, doctrines, or memorandum, in effect now or in previous administrations, that ties the hands of investigators in regards to getting the information they need to make informed admission

decisions for those seeking to enter the u.s.? mr. bersin: i am not familiar with any except to the extent that there are privacy concerns. i'm aware of no restrictions of that kind. constitution do not apply to refugees or noncitizens. >> mr. rodriguez. >> no. ms. bond. >> no. >> under the current policy and procedure, you have access to all the information you need to make an accurate security assessment. we can only strengthen it. i think that is what the discussion has been. we seek to strengthen it. we have the authority to the screening that we need to do, yes.

>> as the refugees that we screen and the immigrant visas that we process, we have quite robust resources that we bring to bear. there are no restrictions on our access to the information that we seek and less we can't get it. there is nothing from the part of our government in terms of seeking information. >> i defer to director rodriguez's judgment on this. if you think there are sources out there that we are not checking that we should be, we are very open to looking at more work on this. but we have a very robust refugee vetting system. >> for there are no firewalls at all between the agencies for sharing this pertinent information? that is my

understanding, yes sir. mr. rodriguez: also mine. >> the screening goes to the interagency process. richard quest -- ms. richard: no. >> ms. richard, you made the testimony that there is no relationship to political asylum and acts of terrorism in this country. true? address.rd: i didn't i said no refugee who came in through this process has carried out a successful terrorist attack. there have been some troublemakers. >> how many of those troublemakers, by the way?

ms. richard: about a dozen. there is also an element of people who break the law, too. fbi.e to revert you to the >> i would like to get those numbers. what happens when they have a problem? ms. richard: the fbi has a program to track people that they are a flame -- that they are afraid -- a counterintelligence program to track people. two iraqs case was the is who were brought to bowling green, kentucky, and it was discovered they had been up to no good in iraq. >> we had a gentleman in arizona tried to to grow up -- blow up the social security building during my first term. there was a reason i asked you a

question at the beginning about guidance over certain memos. mr. rodriguez? mr. rodriquez: no sir. rep. shape its: -- >> ms. richards, you were quoted in this hearing -- mr. cartwright was the shooting in california perpetrated by refugees were resettled? your answer was no. you went on to say that no refugees have carried out terrorist activities in the united states. andcartwright repeated that then you said, that have successfully carried out an attack. ms. richard: the second is correct. rep. chaffetz: the first

statement, by itself, is not correct. the fbi is: i think concerned about a small number of refugees that came in. under the current system, we haven't had anyone recently in that category. rep. chaffetz: i have about a dozen names here. it is up on breitbart. one of the more recent charges is august 12, 2015. i cap announces last name. pronounce his last name. a native of use pakistan of came to the united states as a refugee in 2009 was found guilty in trying to provide support to foreign terrorist organizations and possess an unregistered destruction device. providepired to material support and procured

bomb making materials in the hopes of perpetuating a terrorist attack on american soil." most of the refugees i have interacted with -- we have good, healthy refugee populations in utah, they come from terrible situations. i don't think anyone has suggested that we don't bring any refugees in. what we have asked for is a cause or a timeout so we can make sure the vetting is in place. when we have the fbi director saying that we can only fat -- we can only vet as good as the information is, i think it is a bit of an overstatement. let the go back to the slide from the beginning. this is a deep concern to me. this is the number of people making credible fear. we have people claiming asylum who come somehow to the united states of america.

you can come here legally and sneakly but you can also into the country as i witnessed on the arizona border. they didn't run from border patrol, they wanted to get caught. the reason they wanted to get caught was because they wanted to go through this process. this is a massive rise in the number of people claiming credible fear. how many asylum officers are there at homeland security? corps, give or take, is 400 individuals. rep. chaffetz: in fiscal year peoplee had 5101 claiming credible fear. there has been a lot from this administration about these exhaustive interviews. how much time does an officer spent interviewing and investigating somebody who claims credible fear? inincredible fear --

credible fear, i think it varies on the case. they seem to be approximately an hour. >> on average? mr. rodriquez: that is my understanding. as a former prosecutor, observing those interviews, they appear to be robust interviews by very well-trained officers. rep. chaffetz: you have one officer will take one hour to interview somebody. you have 400 officers and over 50,000 people just in 2014 making that claim. you are looking at the notes, go ahead. in the particular haveof credible fear, we plused up in the locations.

those screenings are being conducted quite expeditiously. rep. chaffetz: that is my concern, that they are too expeditious? my question is, how long is the interview and how many people are doing interviews? mr. rodriquez: i will have to get back to you on the exact numbers. rep. chaffetz: this is the hearing about vetting. i am asking a very specific question. mr. rodriquez: i believe that come at any given time, there are about 40 individuals. we will get you the exact number, but that is the neighborhood of the number. who are in the locations where we are screening individuals who have come across the border and they are conducting those credible fear and reasonable fear interviews, again, within the time frames of the law that our law and policies require. 400?chaffetz: 40 or mr. rodriquez: 400 is the total asylum corps.

they are doing credible fear and reasonable fear and also doing the general work of a silent asylumng -- screening. the 40 are those deployed specifically in meeting our goals in screening individuals who beat credible fear and reasonable fear at the border. rep. chaffetz: i'm assuming they have come across illegally. there are people that come across illegally but a lot of them are coming across illegally . how long are they contained before they had completed that process, on average? roughly --ez: it is i think our target basically is 20 days. in terms of either getting them into x-rated removal or moving them into some sort of proceedings. -- into those people expedited removal or moving them

into some sort of proceedings. rep. chaffetz: give me a date. mr. rodriquez: the end of the first week of january. that isffetz: i think reasonable. the math doesn't seem to add up. here is the problem. refugees have the state department and other assets working towards them. i have huge questions. now, as we look at asylum, we are saying we have 40 people with 50,000 people coming in the door. think of a football stadium full of people coming out as each year. you are saying that these people do interviews, background checks, writeups. they have other responsibilities. paperwork, things they have to do. experience.t i when i went to arizona and i saw people come across and they wanted to claim credible fear,

they would go to a judge, and ,dministrative judge, and say your honor, i have credible fear and they would real statement. then, the judge would stay, we have to go -- the judge would say we have to go through the adjudication process. that means what? when is the next time we are going to see these people? mr. rodriquez: that is an ordinary asylum process. a number of months. rep. chaffetz: years? mr. rodriquez: it can be years. arizona, last in year, the court date they were giving out was for 2020. what often happens is, people coming here illegally claim asylum, they said you might have credible fear, we will give you a court date, and now the backlog is so big that they will not get a court date until 2020. then they apply for a work permit.

how many work permits are you handing out each year? mr. rodriquez: i don't know the exact number. big one.fetz: it is a they are now in the united states legally. they can work and compete with an american taxpayer for jobs and all the other resources. they get benefits, go to our schools, do a lot of things just like an american citizen does. that. a problem with the last time we had the surge, in the summer of 2014, when the administration put a bill up and one of the key elements for that bill was to build an immigration court system that actually would work. you put your finger on the problem. judges 243 immigration and we need many more in order for immigration process to work in aroduce the results timely fashion, either way. the frustration

is that you have to walk down that border in get rid of the people that are here committing crimes. they are here illegally committing crimes and you release them back into the public. us times.00-pl this is the criminal element. they get convicted, they are in your hands, and homeland security says go back to the community. did i say anything that is wrong? mr. rodriquez: the removal priorities are that if an individual is convicted of a felony, they are in priority one for removal. is aincludes rape, that priority one. rep. chaffetz: they plead down to say, sexual abuse and exploitation? mr. rodriquez: if their top count of conviction is rape, then in that case -- rep. chaffetz: sexual abuse is

not? mr. rodriquez: sexual abuse may not necessarily be rape. as a prosecutor, i have seen people pled down to sexual abuse. what sexual abuse actually means in the criminal law is not rape? rep. chaffetz: based on the homeland security directive from secretary johnson, if you commit and are convicted of sexual abuse or exploitation, that is priority to. -- priority two. you are not the top priority. mr. rodriquez: if you are convicted of rape, you are a top priority for removal. let's not have people misunderstand that fact. let's not have the american people believe anything else. rep. chaffetz: look at the list of things that are number two. domestic violence, sexual abuse or exploitation, burglary,

alawful possession or use of firearm, drug trafficking, driving under the influence. mr. bersin: you have heard secretary johnson say that his top priority is national security and public safety. with all due respect, the priority one goes to felonies. -- sexual abuse can be a felony. if it is a finnell -- if it is a felony, it is rewarding one. priority one. rep. chaffetz: why not just get rid of all of them? mr. bersin: you know, when you actually allocate resources -- rep. chaffetz: you are saying it is a resource problem? if someone is convicted for any crime, why are they not deported? why don't they all get deported? why are there exceptions?

than 90% ofmore --ority one and two removal i don't think it is fair to suggest -- rep. chaffetz: we obviously have a policy discussion. i don't think i misunderstand. my point is, you have people convicted. they are here illegally, they are convicted, and you let them go. that is a different issue than the priorities for enforcement. is it true or not true that during two fiscal years, you had 66,000 people in your possession that were convicted of crimes that you released into the public? mr. bersin: what crimes? traffic violation, a misdemeanor.

rep. chaffetz: are there people on priority one and priority two? mr. bersin: there are minor offenses that are misdemeanors. rep. chaffetz: yes or no, 66,000 people over a two-year fiscal year. -- fiscal year period that you had in your possession and released to the public and did not support them? mr. bersin: it is not just a yes or no because the answer is that there are requirements to release people under court decision that you are aware of. rep. chaffetz: that is what is so screwed up about the obama administration. you are here illegally, committing crimes, you deport them. they are a threat to public safety, they are a threat for terrorism, and they should not be released back into the public. >> the priorities are related to your failure to remove these the fact is, of

those 66,000, you did have people convicted of homicide that were released. you had people convicted of sexual assault, rape, child molestation, really significant crimes. the court decisions are a rationalization for why you release them and you did release them. i second the chairman's concern about that. i was a prosecutor. particularly with the child molestation stuff, you do plead that down because you don't want to put the child on the stand. they do and that with offenses that could probably be considered priority two. richard, you were quoted recently saying that the biggest myth was that people coming here to be terrorists in relation to the syrian refugee situation. why are you so dismissive of the idea they could have terrorists

in the refugee flow? i am notrd: dismissive of the idea that terrorist organizations -- >> you said it is a myth. using the biggest myth was that people coming could be terrorists and that your point was that they are likely to be fleeing terrorists. people, even0,000 if 99% of them are no threat, the 1% is a significant number of people that would be injected into our society. we just saw recently two refugees related to the terrorist attack were arrested in a -- to the paris attack were arrested in an austrian refugee camp. we have had people in this country prosecuted for material support to terrorism. you wouldn't knowledge that? the eastern district of her genia, -- of virginia. you had the western district of

texas. a lot of these people came as refugees. some ended up getting citizenship. the fact of the matter is, these are folks that have come to the program and have gone to terrorism. let me ask you this. how is your appraisal of the somali refugee community in minnesota has worked out for the interest of the united states? ms. richard: what i wanted to say was that all bona fide refugees are people who are fleeing terrible things. >> that is the point. i think a lot of us are concerned that we can't tell the difference between a bona fide refugee given what the fbi director has said and what other officials have said. what about the situation with the somali refugees in minneapolis? have settledands there over the past 20 years. we know that there is very high rates of food assistance paid

for by the taxpayer. we have had over 50 people from that community go to join isis or al-shabaab or other terrorist groups. and that something in the united states's interest? ms. richard: no, it is not. >> how did it end up happening? keyrichard: this is the question, why anyone would be attracted by isil and ouster bob -- and al-shabaab. people born in the united states, converts, refugees. >> so you are not sure why it happens? ms. richard: this is a key question for all of us. what is the attraction? in -- the the somali somali situation in minnesota shows that a lot of people coming directly as adults were not necessarily involved.

but then they have families and you have the second generation. you have u.s. citizens. they could have gone up in and it is like a royal flush to be able to grow up in america, and given all that, how do they think the united states? they go join the jihad. ms. richard: i agree with you 100%. why would someone grows up in the united states be attracted to this? point. is the the refugee policies that we have, even passed a vetting initially coming up to figure happent is going to 10-15 years down the road. when i see something like what has happened in somalia, it gives me a lot of cause for concern. got touchedz, we fema leak -- we got tashfeen had the the form that

question, are you a terrorist? she may not have to lie because she may not consider herself as a terrorist. mr. rodriquez: i think you are referring to the consular interview. the refugee screening process, we develop lines of questioning as part of the interview that go beyond what might appear on a mere form. that has existed for years. those are being reinforced. >> what about her adjusted application? mr. rodriquez: under current practice, unless there is a specific trigger or some derogatory information that would lead us to probe into those kind of issues, we don't. obviously, that is one of the things we need to be thinking of. she is traveling from

pakistan and saudi arabia, those are hotbed of ideology. very, very dicey when you start talking about individuals. do you guys need us to change any laws so that we would have a system that would screen out people like tashfeen malik? >> we do have laws that would screen out -- >> you don't think we would need any changes? >> if you identify them. need to giveess you authority or change policy anyway so that they are identified. obviously, if they are identified i would hope they are let in. the question is, is this kind of a bureaucratic mistake or do we need to change policy? i do not at this moment, but i think based on the review that we're looking at now, it is possible that some of

the ideas that we generate might require a change in the law. as we conclude, i do have to get through a couple more and then we will be done. one ofy do believe that the untold stories, one of the biggest threats that we have, are those that are coming illegally to the united states and those that are coming to the country illegally and claiming asylum. through a go vigorous, insightful interview. i think that is a huge gaping hole that has to be plugged. we have a reason why had this huge, growing number. some 150 different countries represented there. people coming that have to be addressed.

in this country, do not have an entry-exit program. there have been times when law has been put in place since 1996. why do not have -- why do we program?an entry-exit >> i am prepared to answer that, mr. chairman to the best of my ability. anre was, apparently, agreement for a hard stop at 1:00 that i had asked. i happen to have a -- rep. chaffetz: i'm sorry, i am not negotiating the end time here. 2012,rsin: starting in cpp started to get the resources to be able to start to develop in earnest the entry-exit system

. as i indicated before, the way in which our airports, our whole ,nfrastructure was constructed you are not able to capture biometrics on the way out. there was no screening on the way out. the focus was screening on the way and. cpp, and i remember this during my tenure there, there were three ways you could do it. you could actually rebuild the infrastructure and that was rejected for cost reasons. rep. chaffetz: who rejected that? mr. bersin: that was a decision made -- i participated. i recommended that in fact we not rebuild all of the airports and the seaports. rep. chaffetz: where is the proposal and when was it rejected? mr. bersin: if it came to the congress, which i don't believe it did, i will endeavor to get it. rep. chaffetz: when will i get

that? consistent with mr. rodriguez's schedule, by the end of january. rep. chaffetz: by the end of the first week of january? i want you to leave right now get to go at 1:00 but i am hopeful that is to get this report. tell me the date. january 30. the second one was to bring cbp officers. we had a highland where cbp -- we had a pilot where cbp officers would be placed at points of entry. that would put resources in functions that we did not have. rep. chaffetz: you were saying this was rejected, those two instances, because of money?

mr. bersin: yes sir. not only money in the first order, because in fact it would have caused a full restructuring of our points of entry. it would also interfere with commercial activities. rep. chaffetz: it was a conscious choice not to have the program? -- if it is are resource problem, why did reprogram $113ty million and give it to secret service and fema. mr. bersin: i am not familiar with that decision? rep. chaffetz: homeland security recently gave $150 million to the next government. -- to the mexican government. i just can't understand why there isn't an exit program. mr. bersin: the effort to get an overstay report, which i have

communicated to the committee is , is part of this process that has been initiated to capture all of the biographic . that a fair amount actually captures biographic. those that come in and those that go out. rep. chaffetz: to most people come in by land, sea, or air. are 182in: there million crossings on the land. we have about one million people . day that are processed in most of the people are coming by air. individual people. of the 182 million crossings that we have, those are repeated crossings. in terms of sheer traffic, it is

the land. people>> with nearly 10 millio, do you collect biometric information? >> we do not. >> it is such a mess and a disaster. >> i will be brief. i will try to be as quick as i can. based on earlier testimony, a finance -- fiancee visa is classified like an immigrant visa. is that correct? screen and test must an applicant pass? because it