to keep the government from shutting down this coming friday night. live coverage of the house continues again at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. we will go back to the senate judiciary committee hearing ith secretary kristen nielsen. secretary nielsen: electricity will be restored. >> last week i wrote to fema, specifically the administrator brock long, because of reports and we verified them with people in connecticut that they have been told that the transitional shelter assistance program will be ended for them because their homes are now tatterable in puerto rico despite the absence of water, electricity and reliable structures. would you agree with me that

the standard of habitability should include those factors? secretary nielsen: i would agree with you that we need to do more and we are doing more. as you know, we have the first and foremost duty to protect the safety and security immediately after an event in response. h.u.d. works with us on the longer term housing, and right now what we're seeing is the transition from short-term housing to longer term housing through recovery. right. blumenthal: people are out of their shelters in connecticut and likely in puerto rico without the section 8 or other h.u.d. programs. secretary nielsen: i am happy to look into that, sir. senator blumenthal: i'd like you to look into it. i'd also like you to give me what the standard is for habitability because certainly it should include water, electricity, and a reliable roof, that is a structure that

can be regarded as safe and secure, would you agree? secretary nielsen: i'd be happy to look into it, yes, sir. senator blumenthal: let me just close on the topic that's been raised, unfortunately, repeatedly. i know it's one that's uncomfortable for all of us here. i am not going to repeat the word, but at any point in that conversation on thursday, did the president of the united states use that four-letter word, end with s, in combination with any other words or alone that you heard? secretary nielsen: sir, respectfully, i have answered this. i've been very patient with this line of questioning. i am here to tell you about the threats our country faces and the needs and authorities that are needed by the department of homeland security. i have nothing further to say in a meeting that happened over a week ago. i'd like to move forward and discuss ways in which we can protect our country. senator blumenthal: let's -- i agree, expand on the compromise

that was offered. the proposal that senator durbin and senator graham and others, the bipartisan proposal that was suggested, would you agree with me that it's an encouraging step and should be built on because we want to avoid the mass draconian deportation that otherwise will occur to these very brave and talented young people that have come to our country? secretary nielsen: yes, sir. i think anyone who is willing to work towards a solution to this. as i said, my staff has continued to meet with their staff since that meeting and i'm very hopeful we can agree upon a deal amongst us all that increases border security, that ends chain migration and diversity lottery and also accounts a permanent solution for the daca population. >> senator hirono. senator hirono: we'd like to move on. before i ask you to what

happened in hawaii this weekend, you testified you did not hear the president use the word s-hole or s-house, although you may not hear it. did you hear senator graham hear the word s-hole or s-house at the meeting? secretary nielsen: ma'am, no. senator hirono: there are hytened tensions between north korea and the united states and you touched upon the department of homeland security's efforts with regard to disaster responses. what happened in hawaii could qualify as that, of course. so the false emergency alert about a ballistic missile threat to hawaii induced real fear and panic throughout the eye lands and although the threat were false the fear were real. i understand there were system failures involved. i'd like to ask you a question what we can learn about the systems failures and how we can improve the emergency alert systems, not just for hawaii but for every state.

so can you explain to me exactly what the role of your department is in overseeing state emergency alert systems? secretary nielsen: yes, ma'am. so we provide the backbone of an alerting system which state and locals are able to tap into to reach their citizens. it's called the integrated public alert and warning system. it provides for a variety of capabilities, including geotargeting, so we can alert those who are in harm's way. but the decision in this case to utilize that backbone and how it was utilized was the state's decision. senator hirono: it all started with human error. so obviously we need to identify the human failures and correct them and then to the extent there were system failures because there was a very long span of time from the first alert and then correcting that alert. so that seems to point to some communication and other kinds of failures that we ought to be addressing. so do you have the spobalt to convene state -- responsibility

to convene state emergency managers to make sure each state has an alert system that functions properly? secretary nielsen: we do request a variety of information from state and locals on their alert warning systems as part of our threat assessments conducted by fema as well as anytime we provide grant assistance. oftentimes the request is to use federal money to improve systems. we work with the states to ensure that makes sense. senator hirono: do you have an overall responsibility or part of your responsibility is to make sure every state's alert systems work properly? secretary nielsen: what we do -- yes and no. so in other words, we provide the backbone to ensure anytime if the president or the department of homeland security would need to send an alert to citizens with an impending catastrophic event, for example, we can do that. the state and localities then often use that backbone to distribute and disseminate their own messages. as you know state and locals have their own systems that you

can opt into with other types of noncatastrophic event. snow, for example, or major rainstorm, something their citizens should be aware of. senator hirono: this had the -- this could have been totally catastrophic. do you have standards in ensuring state emergency management agencies use best practices in a situation like what occurred in hawaii on saturday? secretary nielsen: so fema has been in touch with the emergency manager in hawaii. we have offered our support for any after-action they perform. i asked my folks at d.h.s. to do their own after-action to make sure we are clear when we receive an alert and warning from a state, both that it is disseminated properly but also we can verify. initial lessons learned. we would work with the states, particularly in this threat, to ensure they're kked to those who can quickly verify whether that threat is real or not. in that case that would be the department of defense. we are in active conversations with them to ensure they can

improve their system, yes, ma'am. senator hirono: you would agree there are responsibilities at f.c.c., for example, they have acknowledged they have a certain responsibility. d.h.s. the state. and pacific command because the order to send out this alert should have come from pacific command upon getting the notification from northern command there was a missile launch and where it was heading. so we can improve all of those communications. secretary nielsen: yes. senator hirono: was your department aware that hawaii emergency management agency did not have a mechanism entirely in place to address the false alarm situation and alert -- and an alarm retraction mechanism? secretary nielsen: we were not aware before this occurrence, no, ma'am. senator hirono: are you going to work with states to ensure they have that mechanism? secretary nielsen: yes. senator hirono: they say it's purely a state exercise but i think that understates the

problem because i believe addressing issues with alerts about a ballistic missile threat from a foreign country -- everyone assumed it was from north korea -- is not only a state problem. would you commit to working with me to ensure that states, not just hawaii -- we have to include guam: already in an uniform and effective way to alert their people of missile threats? secretary nielsen: yes, i will. i'd like to work with you to ensure we're providing specific instructions on what to do upon an alert. senator hirono: once hawaii e.m.a., the emergency management agency, realized it sent out a false alert, it apparently wasn't clear to them whether or not they needed to consult with fema before sending out a retraction. do you know what the requirements are, where they're supposed to get fema somehow agreement, involvement in order to send out a false alarm message? secretary nielsen: no, ma'am.

they don't need to get anything from fema to send out a retraction. senator hirono: that's another clarification of clear communication that has to occur. secretary nielsen: yes, we all should clarify that. senator hirono: so how can d.h.s. play a role in ensuring all of the systems involved in sending out alerts and retracting them are understood by all the states? are you taking some very specific steps to ensure that this is happening? secretary nielsen: yes, i had asked the administer of fema to ork with the state emergency management agencies to make sure the standard operating procedures are clear both on issuing alerts, based on the fact they are alerted and making a course correction in the very small cases when that might be necessary. senator hirono: are there formal plans in place to respond to a ballistic missile attack? we are not talking about hawaii

or guam. north korea is building a missile to reach the continental u.s. is there a plan in place in your department on how states are to respond to a domestic missile attack? secretary nielsen: we continue to work with the states to understand the threat and the effects of it. the federal interagency we had an exercise in february -- we will have an exercise in support of state and local response. senator hirono: i understand when you say cabinet level, it was the subcabinet level, not at your level. secretary nielsen: nope. sorry. the cabinet level will occur in february. we had a deputy exercise in fall. senator hirono: make sure every state has in place -- secretary nielsen: let me be clear. the cabinet level will exercise will clarify the roles and responsibilities of the federal government so that includes, as you say, d.o.d., to the extent we're talking about an alert and warning system, we want to

make sure the f.c.c. which is undertaking an assessment, is clear so we'll clarify that at the same time we're working with state and locals to make sure they have the information they need. senator hirono: thank you. it sounds as though everybody's onboard. especially after what happened in hawaii to make sure this doesn't happen in hawaii or anyplace else for that matter. i want to get to the question of daca because i was at the meeting at the white house where you said that -- you also said that today that no daca participant had lost their status. secretary nielsen: i did not say that. i said 21 have lost their status because they committed a crime. senator hirono: i am talking about 15,000 i am informed lost their status. daca participants had to renew their status and only those whose status expired at a certain time frame were allowed to renew after the ending of daca was announced. so there were thousands of participants in daca who were already on renewal status. now they -- and so they

couldn't apply for renewal. so these are the young people that lost daca status, 15,000 of them. take my word for it. i'm glad after the california court ordered d.h.s. begin to renew these applications, you have done so. secretary nielsen: yes. senator hirono: i commend you for that. i wonder what's happening to the 15,000 who have lost their status. are you creating an expedited procedure for them to have their daca status restored? secretary nielsen: i will get back to you on that, ma'am. i am not familiar with 15,000 who lost their status. as i understand the program ends march 5. so let me get you the -- senator hirono: not everybody ended then. secretary nielsen: i understand there were 20,000 who decided not to renew who were able to renew. senator hirono: we are talking about people that lost their status because they were in the middle of renewal and so they could not renew in the time frame they were given after the

announcement. secretary nielsen: i am happy to get back to you. senator hirono: you see my sense of urgency. senator grassley: senator booker. senator booker: thank you very much, mr. chairman. first of all, i just want to say about the daca issue going on right now, to me this is a very profound moral issue in this country. it's a moral issue because many of these children do not even have memories of their own country and now in our nation they are doing things extraordinary. in my state we have daca recipients, dreamers who are serving in the military. we have dreamers who are first responders. we have dreamers who are entrepreneurs. one young lady who sat in my office employs hundreds and hundreds of people. i am sure aware, because you probably met with these people -- you met with dreama, yes? secretary nielsen: i have not met with daca recipients as secretary of homeland security.

senator booker: before? secretary nielsen: not as self-identified, no. senator booker: these people are not only hanging in the balance of policy but it's a grievous anxiety. it's undermining their life and their well-being and their ability to serve. this moment for them, these weeks and weeks of waiting on something where 80% of americans agree, republicans and democrats agree that we should find a way for these folks to say this this country, what is happening right now is unacceptable treatment to people who are fellow americans but for the documentation. i want to just turn, though -- and you have to forgive me, listening to the testimony has changed my line of questioning a bit because this is very personal to me. i sit here right now because when good white people in this country heard bigotry or hatred, they stood up.

moving into my home community we were denied housing because of the color of our skin. there was white americans from the county who banded together to fight against racism, to fight against hate speech, to fight against people based upon their ethnicity, based upon their origin, based upon their religion. what went on in the white house, what went on in the oval office is profoundly disturbing to me and i'll tell you this. i heard about it when i was in puerto rico when it happened. and here i was there trying to help a community dealing with savage challenges. i can't tell you how many puerto ricans brought up that conversation in the white house. i returned to atlanta to go to the king center awards and from the greatest luminaries from the civil rights movements down to average americans, this was on their mind. i returned to newark, new

jersey, and i talked to african-americans from africa. i talked to central americans. i talked to regular newarkers and this was top on their mind. yesterday i talked to the ambassador from haiti and to see all they're doing as a result of this conversation. now, i've been in the oval office many times and when the commander in chief speaks, i listened. i don't have amnesia on conversations i had in the oval office going back months and months. i had individual meetings with the president and i've had group conversations where there was, as you said, cross-talk. and why -- why is this so important? why is this so disturbing for me? why am i frankly seething with anger? we have this incredible nation where we have been taught that

it does not matter where you're from, it doesn't matter your color, your race, your religion, it's about the content of your character, it's about your values and your ideals and yet we have language that from dick durbin to lindsey graham, they seem to have a much better recollection of what went on. you're under oath. you and others in that room that suddenly cannot remember. it was martin luther king that said there's nothing in this world more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity and so here we are in the united states of america and we have a history that is beautiful and grand and also ugly where from this nation to others we know what happens when people sit by and are bystanders and say

nothing. when oval office rhetoric sounds like social engineering, we know from a human history the dangers of that. our greatest -- our greatest heroes in this country spoke out about people who have convenient amnesia or who were bystanders. king said a man dies when he refuses to stand up for that when he stands up for that. a man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice. a man dies when he refuses to take a stand. weisle said we must take sides. never the victim silence, encourages the tormenter. never the tormented. gandhi said silence become cowardess, cowardess when we occasion -- when the occasion demands speaking out like lindsey graham did and acting accordingly. this idea that the commander in chief of this country could with broad brushes talk about certain nations and thus cast a

shadow over the millions of americans who are from those communities and then you could even say in your testimony the nor weekans were preferenced by them -- secretary nielsen: sorry -- senator booker: let me finish. i'm sure you will remember the six words from our president, the six words that he said after charleston, virginia, last summer. people marching with tiki torches and hate when he said there are very fine people on both sides. ery fine people on both sides. when the commander in chief peaks or refuses to speak, those words just don't dissipate like mist in the air. they fester. they become poison. they give license to bigotry and hate in our country.

i know you're aware of a 2017 g.a.o. report that found, and i quote, out of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since september 12, 2001, far right-ring extremist groups were responsible for 73%. when i go through the black belt in the south, when i'm in atlanta, black churches in newark, they're concerned about jihadist islamic terrorism. we watched the twin towers from newark go down. but since 9/11, 85 violent incidents, 73% were with people ho held bigoted, hateful ideas about minorities. dozens injured. nine americans killed in a church shooting in charleston, south carolina, by a wheat

supremacist. another in kansas after a white supremacist targeted them for their ethnicity saying get out of my country. six americans killed and four others wounded in wisconsin. where white supremacist targeted individuals for their religion. the commander in chief in an oval office meeting referring to people from african countries and haitians with the most vial and vulgar language. that language festers when ignorance and bigotry is alive with power, it's a dangerous force in courn. -- our country. your silence and amnesia is complicity. right now in our nation we have a problem. i don't know of 73% of your time is spent on white supremacist hate groups. i don't know if 73% of your time is spent concerned about the people in fear in

communities in this country, seek americans, muslim americans, black americans. the fact pattern is clear in this country. i hurt when dirk durbin called me, i had tears of rage when i heard about this experience in this meeting and for you not to feel that hurt and that pain and to dismiss some of the questions of my colleagues saying, i've already answered that line of questions, when tens of millions of americans are hurting right now because of what they're worried what happened in the white house, that's unacceptable to me. there are threats in this country, people plotting. i receive enough death threats to know the reality. kamla receives enough death threats to know the rate. hazi knows enough death threats. and i have a president of the united states whose office i respect who talks about the countries of origins of my fellow citizens in the most despicable of manner.

you don't remember. you can't remember the words of your commander in chief. i find that unacceptable. mr. chairman, i'm grateful to be on this committee. i'm more than ever today happy i am here. thank you. senator grassley: thank you. senator graham. secretary nielsen: sir, could i just respond? senator grassley: wait, senator graham. go ahead and respond. secretary nielsen: would that be ok? i would just like to say i do clearly -- and i want to be clear on this -- abhor violence in all of its forms. i couldn't agree with you more that the department of homeland security has a duty to stop and prevent violence in all of its forms. our preventing terrorism programs have been reassessed and relooked at just this year to ensure we actually are going after the threats to include white supremacy, not just to focus on what was focused on in years' past. so just to -- i would just like to say that to you. i share your passion.

it's unacceptable. it can't be tolerated in the united states under the authorities that i have at the department of homeland security, violence in any form will not be tolerated. senator grassley. -- senator grassley: thank you. senator graham. senator graham: welcome. senator booker, glad you are here. if we shut down the government that would be a bad idea? secretary nielsen: yes, sir. senator graham: yes, sir. does the president intend to extend daca past march 5 by executive order? secretary nielsen: not that i am aware of. senator graham: do you think he has the legal authority to do so? secretary nielsen: i believe the attorney general believes such exercise is unconstitutional. it's for congress to fix. senator graham: so i agree with that. i want everybody on this committee to know i don't believe the president can extend this by executive order. on march 5, a lot of bad things

will again to happen. seems like we ought to try to avoid that if we can. do you agree? secretary nielsen: yes, sir. senator graham: whose idea was it to do the meeting on tuesday? secretary nielsen: as far as i know it was the president's. senator graham: i will say something that some people may not like, but i thought he did a really good job. he talked about comprehensive immigration reform. do you remember that from tuesday? secretary nielsen: i do remember that being raised. senator graham: is he still supportive of comprehensive immigration reform? secretary nielsen: he's happy to listen to proposals and have the discussion but there are some immediate needs. senator graham: i agree with that. he said he wanted to do comprehensive? secretary nielsen: he said he was open to it. yes, sir. senator graham: i think he said he wanted to. do you remember him saying we need to be bipartisan when it comes to immigration reform? secretary nielsen: very important. senator graham: ok. he still believes that? secretary nielsen: yes. senator graham: do you remember him saying the word "love"? secretary nielsen: i don't remember him saying the word "love." i remember him saying care.

compassion. senator graham: well, we'll get the tape. he said love, we should do this with love. what i heard tuesday was a president who seemed to understand it had to be bipartisan. phase one is just a down payment. it needs to be comprehensive. we need to go to merit-based immigration. we need to secure our border and be fair to the immigrants and need to emphasize security but he said love. thursday. are you aware that the senator durbin and the president talked at 10:00, around that time thursday morning? secretary nielsen: only through news reporting after the fact. senator graham: ok. are you aware of the fact that dick durbin called me and said i had the best conversation with the president, we need to follow-up on it? secretary nielsen: i am aware now. senator graham: i said, great, dick. i'll call the white house and set up a meeting, you are now?

secretary nielsen: yes, sir. graham what -- senator graham: what happened between 10:00 and 12:00? secretary nielsen: i don't know. senator graham: i am going to find out and i am not going to ask you because between 10:00 and 12:00 we went from having conversations between senator durbin which i believe every word and the president that was very hopeful and by the time we got there something had happened. so tuesday we had a president that i was proud to golf with, call my friend, who understood immigration had to be bipartisan. you had to have border security as essential. you have to have border security with the wall but he understood the idea we have to do it with compassion. i don't know where that guy went. i want him back. this go forward, how does movie end? what's going to happen? secretary nielsen: i hope that

we can find a legislative package that addresses those four pillars that it appeared to me -- senator graham: let's go through those four pillars. border security. do you expect that the democrats will give the president everything he wants for border security in phase one? secretary nielsen: no, sir. that's why we took the priorities that he issued in the fall and we called them down. senator graham: merit--based immigration. do you believe we will move through a merit-based immigration system in phase one? secretary nielsen: completely and fully, no. senator graham: do you agree with me that the reason we want is the democrats give us everything we want on border and merit-based immigration and go to nuclear family in terms of future immigration flow, they won't have any leverage when it comes to the rest of the 11 million? secretary nielsen: i have not seen any proposal where they give us everything -- senator graham: trust me on that. i deal with them a lot. they are not. i will not give the 11 million legal status and hope one day

y'all will deal with us on border and merit-based immigration. do you understand leverage? secretary nielsen: yes, sir. senator graham: do you think the president understands leverage? secretary nielsen: yes, sir. senator graham: here's what i would suggest to you. in phase one to expect my friends on the other side to go comprehensive for us and daca for them is not going to happen. i'm telling my friends on the other side, daca and nothing else is not going to happen. the sweet spot is daca plus, more than the daca kids, and making down payments on border security, moving slowly but surely toward a merit-based immigration system to be followed by phase two. can i describe phase two as i see it? secretary nielsen: yes, sir. please. senator graham: thank you very much. phase two as i see it is we move further toward border security in its full sense, that we begin to find a pathway forward for the 11 million not

included in phase one who are not crooks, drug dealers, rapists, felons, which is the overwhelming majority of the 11 million, that once we get a glide path for them i expect in return that when they're through the system we'll have a merit-based immigration system based on the economic needs of the country that will have a secure border and we'll increase legal immigration so people in the future don't have to cheat. does that sound pretty reasonable? secretary nielsen: it sounds like a phase two. senator graham: ok. so i'm going to try to get you through phase one. if the president is watching, i'm still in the phone book. don't give my number out but call me he. this has turned into an s show and we need to get back to being a great country where democrats and republicans work together to do something that we should have done years ago. to the 700,000 young people,

some young, some older, we're not going to leave you behind. i don't know how this movie ends, but you're going to be taken care of. to those who want to begin to fix a broken immigration system, you're going to get something too. i don't know how we right the ship. dr. king said something pretty poignant about us. he said we came on different ships. we're all in the same boat now. so here's my hope. that we can find through phase one a reason down payment on border security, begin to correct some of the problems when it comes to chain migration, deal with the daca population fairly and with a sense of compassion and set up phase two and all i would say, madam secretary, we need your help. secretary nielsen: sir, i've been ready.

i would offer anybody who would like to meet with me to further the discussion. we need to do it. senator graham: i will take you up on that offer. to the country at large, things will get better. it will not end in way. the president ran hot. i think i know why. something happened between tuesday and thursday and we'll get to the bottom of that. and quite frankly, i got pretty passionate and i ran a little hot too. somebody needs to fix this problem. obama couldn't do it. bush couldn't do it. both of them to their great credit tried. do you think president trump can do this? secretary nielsen: i think he wants to do it, yes, sir. senator graham: i think dick durbin has been one of the best people you could ever hope to work with that he's he a decent, honest man, a liberal democrat. yeah, he said yeah. and i'm a conservative republican but on this and other things we can find a way forward. so mr. president, i'm going to

end today where i ended tuesday. close this deal. thank you, madam secretary. secretary nielsen: thank you, sir, for your leadership on this. senator grassley: i would hope senator -- secretary harris -- senator grassley: i don't know if that's a demotion or promotion. senator grassley: you don't have to answer this, senator graham, but it seems to me that in phase one we ought to least be able to agree we should make it -- make it easier to remove dangerous criminals in phase one instead of waiting for that. you know, that's just a simple -- that's a commonsense test. you ask that to any american and they would say yes. senator graham: i think that's a good idea among other good ideas. i am glad we are talking about phase one rather than s holes. senator grassley: senator

harris. senator harris: thank you, mr. chairman. there's so much that's taken place over the last week and during the course of this hearing that frankly stirs in me, as in my colleague, senator booker and others, great emotion. i join issue with the statements of senator booker. i am deeply concerned and troubled about the words that i believe that dick durbin has shared with us that came from the president of the united states. i believe that the words spoken by any president of these united states are powerful words. and should be spoken with the spirit of unifying and not dividing our country. should be spoken in a way that brings dignity to other human beings and does not demean them . i am deeply concerned when we are just having celebrated the birth of dr. martin luther king

who spoke about the effect of racism in tchun and words that are motivated by racism. for so many reasons they are harmful. they have led to death. at their mildest form which is not mild, it suggests to one group of people that they are inferior and to another that they are superior to their fellow man. this is a pivotal moment in the history of our country. when we are having discussions about whether the people of norway -- and will use your words, madam secretary, and you spoke about how they were referred to as by contrast to the people of africa and the various country, the 54 countries of africa and haiti and we speak of them and you spoke of them according to the president as the people of norway -- well, you know, they work very hard.

the inference being the people of the 54 states of africa and haiti do not. that is a fair inference. and you run the department of homeland security and when you say you don't know if norway is predominantly white when asked by a member of the united states senate, that causes me concern about your ability to understand the scope of your responsibilities. and the impact of your words much less the policies that you promulgate in that very important department. you opened by talking about a number of statistics that paint the threat the country faces from terrorism. particularly you spoke of those who commit acts of terror who are not born in this country. the study you mentioned, however, leaves out some of the most rampant terror attacks that we've seen lately which

were domestic acts of terror. as has been mentioned, there is a report from the f.b.i. and d.h.s. which outlines white supremist extremist and i quote, the report says, will likely continue to pose a threat of lethal violence over the course of the next year. the report states that white supremacist extremists are responsible for 49 homicides and 26 attacks from the year 2000 to 2016. more than any other domestic extremist movement, i am quoting. it is deeply troubling that in your opening comments when you talk about the threats to our nation, our homeland to national security that you fail to mention a report that outlined a very specific threat to us as the american people. deeply troubled. you must understand the inference, the reasonable inference that the american

public is drawing from the words you speak much less the words of the president of the united states. now, i'd like to move on and talk about your management of your agency. you and i spoke several times during your confirmation process both at a personal meeting on november 2 and in your november 8 confirmation hearing before the homeland security committee. in your confirmation hearing on november 8 you stated you would issue guidance to your agents stating that daca recipients and dreamers are not enforcement priorities. have you done that? secretary nielsen: they are not enforcement priorities, ma'am. senator harris: have you issued to your agents that guidance? secretary nielsen: that is clear -- i personally have not, no. senator harris: you also committed that you would make clear that d.h.s. employees that daca recipients' information will not be shared

for enforcement purposes, have you done that? secretary nielsen: it is not proactively shared. if it's a national security threat that's a different matter. the daca information is not proactively provided. i have verified that. senator harris: that's not my question. not have you verified that -- secretary nielsen: it's in existing written documentation. senator harris: my question i will repeat is based on a commitment you made to me in another united states senate hearing. secretary nielsen: i am saying written it already exists do so i didn't need to redo it. it already exists. senator harris: have you made that clear? secretary nielsen: yes, i have. senator harris: hundreds of thousands of employees in your department. secretary nielsen: i have had multiple meetings and i have clarified again and again. senator harris: have you had written directive to the hundreds of thousands of employees to in your agency? secretary nielsen: it already exists. senator harris: so you've not done it? secretary nielsen: why would i do it again? it already exists.

senator harris: let's talk about why you would do it again. let's talk about the data there has been an increase of i think threele-fold of the number of people who are noncriminals by isis own definition who have been detained in your department. will you give me that number, please? how do you reconcile your point which is that it's clear to the agents in your department when the data supplied by your own agency does not reflect that? secretary nielsen: the data i have has 92% last year being criminals and those final orders of removal. senator harris: where we have information there has been an increase in the number of people, nearly three times the number of individuals, no criminal history, has compared to the same period last year, are you saying that's incorrect? secretary nielsen: i'm saying i don't have the data that you're looking at. is it final orders of removal, is there another national security threat? senator harris: no criminal history. secretary nielsen: that's not what i asked. is it a final order of removal? senator harris: we are talking

about the people you are contacting. are you prioritizing equally people with no criminal history as you are those who you described earlier as being criminals because they are felons? secretary nielsen: we prioritize those with criminal convictions as well as those with final orders of removal. senator harris: do they have equal priority in your agency? secretary nielsen: they are both top tier priority for enforcement. senator harris: do they have equal priority? secretary nielsen: ma'am, we are going to enforce the law. if there is a final order of removal, we will remove you. senator harris: do you have a budget request? secretary nielsen: i don't have the figure for f.y. 2018. senator harris: do you know if your agency is adequately funded? or do you need more resources? secretary nielsen: we make sure we have the tools and resources to do our job. senator harris: i am assuming you have adequate resources question is why you can apply equal resources to those who

are felons and those who have no criminal records. secretary nielsen: ma'am, we will not ignore the law. if you have gone through the system and you have a final order of removal, you are a priority to be removed. senator harris: this past saturday, following a recent u.s. district court ruling, your agency resumed accepting daca reflull applications. will you commit to providing direct notice to all daca recipients about their ability and right to renew? secretary nielsen: we -- i will look into that, yes, ma'am. senator harris: you will recall -- secretary nielsen: it's posted on the website and posted for anyone who is a current daca recipient they can read it and understand how they can reapply. senator harris: it is also posted on your website, is it my understanding, that we are no longer accepting initial or renewal requests for deferred action for childhood arrivals, are you aware that's on your website? secretary nielsen: no, i am not. senator harris: i suggest you

get to that right away. secretary nielsen: we will clarify. senator harris: you said you would issue guidance to front line officers on d.h.s. sensitive location policies and in line of the case you have been asked about this hearing about the 10-year-old with is he reboundal palsy surgery -- share balance palsy surgery, can you tell me that you have -- secretary nielsen: we have clarified the guidance and we had discussions with leadership on how to ensure that every person who enforces the law understands what the sensitive locations are. the sensitive locations have not changed since 2012. senator harris: what guidance -- did you provide the guidance to all of the agents in your department? secretary nielsen: it's in writing. senator harris: when did you issue that? secretary nielsen: we will provide it. it's the same guidance that's been in existence since 2012. what we have done is clarify and reinforce existing guidance. senator harris: and you'll send me that clarification? secretary nielsen: yes. senator harris: you mentioned

in the case of rosa maria hernandez that your agents were being helpful in escorting that family, the 10-year-old who needed surgery -- secretary nielsen: to the hospital. senator harris: to the hospital. i suggest it's not helpful for border patrol agents to follow an ambulance to a hospital and then arrest a 10-year-old after her surgery and i would ask you to review the efficacy of the conduct of your agents and your perspective on what happened that day. secretary nielsen: i am happy to provide you the actual facts what happened. i'd also just like to say if i could, chairman, if you don't mind, it's not a fair inference to say that my comments about norway were in contrast to any other country. what i was describing was the president's views upon meeting with the prime minister and what i was quoting was what he was told in meeting with the norwegian delegation. that's what he were repeated. words that he repeated that i repeated. it was not in contrast.

with respect to white supremacy, we expanded our prevention efforts in the department of homeland security to ensure we in fact are going after violence of any kind, any kind is not not appropriate and i will not allow it to occur if it's within our authority to stop. senator harris: mr. chairman, i would just ask that the record -- sure we can all review it -- will reflect in the opening statements when discussing challenges to our homeland in terms of security the white supremist threat was not mentioned. thank you. i have no further questions. senator grassley: here's where we are now. we have senator coons when he comes back for 10 minutes and then i had requests from durbin, leahy, whitehouse, hirono for second round. that would be five minutes apiece. i'd like to ask some second-round questions, too, but i'll go to senator durbin first before we go to coons. i do -- you can see i have been abandoned by everybody on my

side. o i got to get done by 2:00. everybody understand, cooperate in that respect. go ahead, senator. secretary nielsen: sir. since it's been three hours, can we take a five-minute break. senator grassley: sure. now is the time to do it. secretary nielsen: ok. thank you. senator grassley: that may mean we go with coons first. >> oh, no.

>> because here's what we face as i understand t because of the california court decision, your agency is opening for those who previously were protected by daca and whose protection or registration has come to an end, an opportunity to reapply. is that correct? secretary nielsen: yes, sir.

senator durbin: we know come march 5 the president said the program is over. those who would have expiring daca protection as of march 5 would not be able under the president's directive of september 5 to apply for new daca status s. that correct? secretary nielsen: that's correct. senator durbin: you have said, i asuper it reflects the add m., you do not believe -- it reflects the administration, you do not believe president trump has the right to extend the march 5 deadline. secretary nielsen: yes, sir. senator durbin: we heard two weeks ago from your agency any changes to daca that we decide to go forward with will take several months, i think they said six months to implement. have you heard that? secretary nielsen: i have not. senator durbin: i think that's true. the point i am getting to is this. this is matter of urgency. i hope you agree. secretary nielsen: do i.

senator durbin: this week we think is a senator durbin: i think that's true. critical week. do you know what the position the administration is on the california decision? are they going to accept it or are they going to appeal it? secretary nielsen: don't. last i checked in with the department of justice they were considering their options. i don't have an jutch date. senator durbin: should they choose to appeal t. it could end in a matter of hours. it's possible. because i believe it's injunctive relief that has led to this decision. hire court -- higher court can decide differently. secretary nielsen: yes, sir. senator durbin: point i want to get back to from lindsey graham. many things we can talk about. i will address one issue. we're talking about two phases, that's what the president said on tuesday of last many things talk week. we believe, senator graham and i and many others, there are lots of big issues involving immigration, involving security. but we also believe there is a sense of urgency and immediacy to dealing with daca. and to doing it in a fashion where the president's checklist, the four items, are included. that's why we have brought

forward this bipartisan approach. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join with us in bringing this matter forward this week. we know, i think we know, the parameters of what we're discussing and we should act with that sense of urgency. one of the things on your must-have list, which you passed out on tuesday and brought to us again today in a different form, relates to asylum protection. and you use the example of a child at the border of being coached, to use the words, credible fear. and that triggers a certain reaction. but i would like to call your attention to something that i hope can add another perspective. it's an article entitled, when deportation is a death sentence. written by sara stillman, published in the new yorker. i want you to read t i hope you'll read it. it talks about what happens when the agents who are involved in this don't ask the

right question, don't hear the answer, and send many women back to their death. and they go through cataloging when that has occurred. there is a requirement, as i understand it, in the in the manual, before deportation a person must be asked, do you have any fear or concern about being returned to your home country or being removed from the united states? would you be harmed if you return? and if the agent asking the question has though authority to evaluate the validity of that fear, if the answer is in the affirmative, they are referred to an asylum officer s that your understanding? secretary nielsen: yes, sir. senator durbin: they are told in the same manual, err on the side of caution. apply the criterion generously. it turns out an aclu report in 2014, before your time, found that 55% of those who were stopped and questioned were not asked that critical question. and that of those who ended up

saying affirmatively they were concerned, only 40% were protected and allowed to stay. i hope you'll concede, asylum seek remembers not entitled to lawyers. children as young as 3 years of age have been asked to represent themselves. with a lawyer in the process, someone seeking asylum has five times the likelihood that they'll be allowed to stay in the united states. so when you get into the area of asylum, making this quicker, you also run the risk that you are sending people to their death. i'm not exaggerating because we know the central american countries have, unfortunately, the highest murder race in the world -- rates in the word. the gang activity down there we fear coming to the united states is rampant down there. how would you balance that? how would you address those two concerns? secretary nielsen: i would look at them separately. i do look forward to reading this article and certainly to see what we have done since

2014 to ensure that the manual and those questions are asked and are followed up on appropriately. we have the duty to protect those who are in fear of their life. i stand very flirm on that. so i'm happy to work with you if there is anything else we can do or not clear, we need to do both of those. senator durbin: i'll conclude by saying, refugee and asylum officers have a dual mission according to one of their own, who stated this, identify people who aren't refugees and who just might harm us, but also to identify and protect real refugees. would you agree? secretary nielsen: absolutely. senator durbin: thank you. >> thank, senator coons is next for 10 minutes. senator coons: thaurnings madam chair. thank you, madam secretary. thank you for your service and answers to so many questions today. i want to cover some ground that's already been touched on in a few places. open some new questions. like so many of us i have had the opportunity to meet with dreamers both in my home state of delaware, where quite a few

are attending delaware state university, but also in the hallway here, both before and during this hearing. did i hear correctly you have yet to meet with any dreamers? secretary nielsen: we have met with many of the associations. we met with many members of congress. but i personally have not to my knowledge met with a dreamer. senator coons: i found it a compelling circumstance an opportunity to hear from them how they came to this country, what their concerns are, and what pressures they are under as we wait to find party path toward resolving this wation. i won't go through it in detail. we heard from senators graham and durbin today a compelling compelling vumry how they reached comparable compromise. we should be ready to move forward on a compromise to address daca. i think it's urgent we do so. we have heard from bipartisan group of former secretaries of homeland security that we cannot wait until march to fix daca. they say, the realistic deadline for successfully establishing a dreamer program

in time to prevept large-scale loss of work authorization is mid january. do you agree with secretaries chertoff, napolitano, and johnson that implementing a successful program by the white house is self-imposed march 5 deadline requires at least 45 days of lead time? secretary nielsen: what i would hope is that we could work with congress to address that. as long as we're finding a permanent solution for that population t. would seem to me through law we can adjust any timelines we need to to ensure they can continue to work. senator coons: the administration would be open to delaying further self-imposed march 5 deadline? secretary nielsen: if we are finding a permanent solution as part of that, we can adjust the timelines. as i testified earlier, the administration itself is not looking to extend the march 5 deadline upon a determination it's unconstitutional. senator coons: i think there remains real urgency. the reason for meeting with them is get a clear sense how it's impacting them.

secretary nielsen: can i not stress how strong i feel about finding a permanent solution for this population. i'm happy to work with you and anyone in the days and minutes that follow this hearing to do just that. i do feel the urgency. i think we owe it to them and the american people and our ideals to find a slufplgtse senator coons: thank you, madam secretary. as for the travel ban we're on the third version of president trump's travel ban which blocks individuals were certain countries, primary muslim majority countries from entering the united states. i have joined more than 100 of my colleagues in the house and senate in filing a series of amicus briefs that have challenged these different travel bans. do you agree that citizenship is an unlikely indicator of terrorism threat as a draft d.h.s. report recently concluded? secretary nielsen: if you are talking about the section 11 report what we found, unfortunately, is 73% of those convicted of international terrorism related charges were foreign born.

in that case that is an indicator. senator coons: foreign born. what has been an issue in a umber of these challenges, the correlation between foreign born and the specific nations that have been identified for the development of this travel ban. i'll just remind you that we who nue, those of us challenged it in court torques see a lack of clear correlation between risk to the united states and the nations that are identified. let me move on if i could to the incidents in char lotsville. n -- char lotsville -- charlottesville. it who challenged it in court torques see a lack of concluded white s poses a consistent threat. do you know whether d.h.s. issued a warning to state and local law enforcement authorities before the deadly attack in chartsville that you -- charlottesville that the unite the right was likely to become violent?

secretary nielsen: i am not aware. senator coons: my concern here is that there were reports, several days before the event, where d.h.s. was clear that an escalating series of clashes had create add potential powder keg and a failure -- had created a potential powder keg, and a failure to notify law enforcement prevented them from being fully prepared to prevent this latest episode of white supremacist extremism. have you the president on this? secretary nielsen: what we talked about generally is terrorism and violence in all its forms. as part a of that yes, we have briefed at a high level the instances we know. the f.b.i., the department of justice is also very involved in that topic. senator coons: is it your sense that the president places a sufficiently high priority on being prepared for and esponding to white supremacist

violence among the various threats to security within the united states? secretary nielsen: i believe that he has been clear that violence in any form that it various might take, i think we continue to do more. state to ensure the and local informations have the information they need state and local informations have the information they need but provide the warning signs, what are we looking for? how do we know as it starts to occur within a community? what more can we do? senator coons: as a member of this committee and co-chair of the law enforcement caucus, i welcome opportunities toe hear from you about how you think we could better strengthen state and local law enforcement and their ability to understand and respond to unacceptable incidents of violence that are rooted in white supremist thinking. i also think it's important that all elected leaders send essages that make it clear how unacceptable these practices and attitudes are within the united states rather than winking at them or inflaming them. i'm a member of the senate foreign relations committee as well as this committee which released a minority report on

putin's assault on our democratcy. in particular actions outside the united states, actions around the world to interfere with elections among our vital western allies. and its implications for u.s. national security. the report notes that russian intelligence circulated a fake u.s. department of homeland security assessment that the 2016 u.s. election was not a victim of cyberattacks. what's the president's strategy , what's the department's strategy for countering the kremlin's disinformation operations like this one which could be significantly misleading to americans trying to better understand what happened and what may happen? secretary nielsen: it's a very serious issue, first of all. underscore that. anything that in any way interferes with the integrity of our election system should be taken seriously. the state department as you know as part of the strategy to address a whole variety of issues, both positive and negative with our retionship with -- relationship with russia, continues to look at this issue. as you know it's a balance.

we have to find the ways to arget our reaction that will have the effect of having them reduce their specific actions. we have to find a way in which best to do that. but it will continue to be a priority in terms of conversations and certainly from a perspective of looking at a variety of ways to do that in our general conversation was the private sector. how can they ensure the information they are providing is accurate? whether it be about elections or something else. senator koonce: the report recommends the president established a fusele cell to coordinate the united states' response to russia's influence operations s that something you endorse? secretary nielsen: i would be happy to look at it. it will take all of government to fight this. senator coons: it l i must say in response to a questioning by a previous senator, i heard you say that you agree that russia interfered in our 2016 presidential election.

you agree that is the unanimous conclusion of our intelligence community. and that given that they are likely to interfere with our next elections in 2018. did i hear that correctly? secretary nielsen: they certainly will try. senator coons: i'm encouraged to hear a you say that clearly. bluntly, for us to be prepared and for to us work together and for us to defend our democracy requires clarity about what happened. can you offer any understanding for me about whether it undermines your leadership to have a president who preetedly changes the subject suggests it didn't happen, suggest that somehow democrats complaining about the outcome of the election or suggest it's a misleading witch-hunt, for us to continue to try and understand what happened in 2016 and to prepare to defend our own democracy from a likely repeated attempt by russia or other adversaries in 2018? secretary nielsen: i do think that clarity is important. i do think we all need to work together to be very clear what specifically happened and how

to prevent it in the future. senator coons: is it puzzling to you the president hasn't been in the lead in defender our democracy from these attacks? secretary nielsen: i'm not sure i would agree with the characterization. i do think we need to do more. that's certainly the -- my intent from the department of homeland security's perfect sper yellow jacket i have. senator coons: this month disbanded the commission on election integrity citing the opposition of many states and ongoing legal challenges, disbanded the he ssion subsequently tweeted the asked the department of homeland security to review these issues and determine next courses of action. what prior experience does the department of homeland security have in investigating allegations of voter fraud in secretary nielsen: voter fraud as i mentioned is a large topic. he subsequently tweeted the the part that d.h.s. plays, we're looking at the integrity of the cybersystems. we'll continue to work with state localities on that. we also do have a program where states come to us with concern about illegal immigrants voting in a federal election.

purely voluntary. if they ask us to look to see if some of their vetters -- voters have the right to vofmente we do that in the system we currently have. those would be the type of roles. other than that we're working with state and locals to ensure if there is anything they need with respect to their infrastructure or systems working with the secretaries of state that we can provide that. senator coons: i'm convinced we face a genuine threat to our next election. i think it's important our president speak clearly about this. i'm grateful for the opportunity to work with you to try to both resolve our pressing challenges and in finding a reasonable compromise on immigration law to protect dreamsers, also more importantly to froket our democracy itself in the next election. i think both are important issues for our nation going forward. thank you for your testimony. >> senator leahy. senator leahy: i was watching on the questions and answers, several months ago the d.h.s.

inspector general completed a report on the implementation of resident trump's travel ban. inspector general asked for it to be released but it's still being kept secret. why haven't you released this report? secretary nielsen: as i understand it that's part of ongoing discussions with the i.g. there is no issue with respect to issuing the report. what's at issue -- senator leahy: doesn't the american public have a right to know? secretary nielsen: absolutely. some of the information in it is froketted by privilege. we also want to be sure that employees in the department of homeland security have the ability to talk to each other and -- senator leahy: did the report acknowledge certain d.h.s. officials acted in violation of federal court orders by preventing some people from boarding flights to the united states? secretary nielsen: it does draw a conclusion that is similar to what you're characterizing, unfortunately that particular

conclusion is mistaken. we were looking at a population whose visas had been revoked from a d.h.s. perspective we cannot allow entrance -- senator leahy: no d.h.s. officials acted in violation of the federal court order by preventing people from boarding flights to the u.s.? that did not happen? secretary nielsen: no, sir. we complied in a timely manner. we also complied with the court orders. senator leahy: the inspector general is wrong when he -- if he says that there is a violation of federal court orders by preventing passengers who boarded flights to the u.s.? secretary nielsen: unfortunately, there is two parts of the coin here. by law we have to follow the executive orders. by law we have to follow court orders. we cannot take a court order and decide not to comply with any part of the executive order, whether or not -- senator leahy: take the court order. did certain d.h.s. officials --

secretary nielsen: we complied with all court orders. senator leahy: you do, ok. the report you released this morning, a lot of press on it, but it doesn't answer our questions. the 402 foreign born individuals convicted of terrorism. was that terrorism exclusively in the united states? or was it terrorist acts abroad? or were they arrested abroad and brought to the u.s. for trial? secretary nielsen: it includes all of that, i believe. it is detailed in the report. senator leahy: ok -- secretary nielsen: there had to be a nexus to the united states. senator leahy: the report says exactly which countries they come from? secretary nielsen: no, sir. it does talk about what that pop 350u lation of convictions -- -- population of convictions -- senator leahy: you are going to get me the list, break down how many were in the united states, how many came from abroad, how many committed acts elsewhere.

i know you have to go back through. most are prosecuted by either the bush administration or the obama administration, i'd like to know how it's broken down. secretary nielsen: yes, sir. senator leahy: earlier this month cbp issued a directive on searching electronic devices at the border. including at airports. says they have the right to thumb through travelers' phones and other electronics without any basis for suspicion. they can demand a pass code to unlock it. an they can he -- and they can keep the device if they don't get this pass code. without any probable cause, basis or suspicion. i want to make sure i understand this. i live an hour's drive from the canadian border. if gi to canada, visit some of my wife's relatives, come back, you can drive up in my vermont license plate car, easy to

remember, license plate one, i park and they say we want your laptop and phone and your pass code. i said do you have any reason? they said we don't need one. is that correct? they can do that. i understand they might not with me, but they can do that, is that correct? secretary nielsen: they can search the data that is apparent on the phone. they can't use the phone to access anything that might be stored remotely. senator leahy: they can demand the resident unlock the phone or laptop. and the contents might be on the cloud which is remote. secretary nielsen: they actually, sir, if i could, they will actually ask the pirn in the 100th of 1% cases in which this occur, they will ask the person to disconnect the phone from the network. and usual circumstance it is the person is not able to do that, the c.b.p. official will. it prevents pulling down any data from the cloud. senator leahy: they can require

their pass code and all without any probable cause. if they want. according to the director they have. is that correct? ecretary nielsen: yes. it has to be a reason. there has to be a reasonable suspicion. probable cause that allows them to look into other things. 01%. talking about . senator leahy: will i ask this question when you come before the appropriations committee, i have been trying to get answer from d.h.s. about the hiring and retention issues at the law enforcement center in vermont. please have your staff give us some understanding of that. where the ow federal dollars that we have voted for and being assigned,

where they are going. because we can't seem to find out. your budget comes before my -- the committee where i'm vice chairman, i'm going to want to know the answers to that. and i want -- to know how quickly d.h.s. and c.b.p. who work with the can -- canadian government on preclearance. secretary nielsen: on the willston, vermont issue i'll be happy to provide that. i'm going to canada on thursday. we'll talk about a variety of issues. including preclearance. i'm happy to get back to you at that meeting. senator leahy: please let me know. on the williston one we have been trying to get an answer. frankly i have been trying to be very helpful. i don't want to vote more money. secretary nielsen: we'll follow up. senator leahy: thank you. >> if you want a second round,

you are next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, again, madam secretary. i want to emphasize how mportant the special counsel investigation of russian and collusion and possible obstruction of justice is. i welcome your and collusion an possible obstruction of justice is. i welcome your constructive and positive attitude toward that investigation. on the ou'll talk to question we all want to move on from. that meeting on thursday, i heard senator graham make . eference to a tape he i believe said on the issue

of -- he, i believe, said on the issue of whether or not the president used love -- secretary nielsen: sorry. i know what you are referencing. that was the tuesday meeting he was referencings. the one that was publicly aired. i thinking he was saying go back to the tape. that was on the news. senator blumenthal: you are not aware of any tape of the thursday meeting? secretary nielsen: no. senator blumenthal: have you spoken to others at that meeting who might recall? secretary nielsen: i haven't spoken to senators cotton or perdue or leader mccarthy. senator blumenthal: anyone in the white house? secretary nielsen: no, sir. senator blumenthal: let me talk about the compromise that senators durbin and graham have helped lead. you mentioned that you had not seen anything before that meeting reduced to writing. you are aware there is a summary now in writing? secretary nielsen: i do not --

i penlly do not have t i -- i personally do not have it. i would love to have it. senator blumenthal: i have a copy. don't believe it is classified. you have security clearance and think you would agree it is the only bipartisan deal in town right now, correct? secretary nielsen: there is a bill that i understand was introduced in the house that has not been voted on. as you know. but there is a goodlatte-mccaul bill as well. senator blumenthal: that's not bipartisan. secretary nielsen: it hasn't been voted on. senator blumenthal: it has no bipartisan sponsorship, correct? secretary nielsen: understood. senator blumenthal: if we're going to reach a deal by the end of the week we ought to be working with this deal, correct? secretary nielsen: my staff continues to do that, correct? senator blue then tall: no one will get everything they want at this stage, correct? secretary nielsen: correct. senator blumenthal: let me move on to, again, puerto rico.

and ask you in past crises there have been agreements between fema and the department of housing and urban development. you made reference to hud earlier in terms of -- h.u.d. earlier in terms of h.u.d. carrying out fema's assistance program. why have fema and h.u.d. not reached an agreement? secretary nielsen: with respect to housing? we were -- a couple reasons. one we have some requests that might come through the supplemental or when the budget gets passed. some of it is money that needs to be able to implement its program. generally speaking the rules and roles between the departments are very clear. they are in the national disaster recovery framework and they are spelled out there in terms of the transitional period between response moving through to recovery. senator blumenthal: they have to enter into an interagency agreement. it's customary for your agency and h.u.d. to do so where more

than three months after the hurricane, and there is no such agreement here, i hope that you will reach and agreement because so far only 350,000 of the one million applications for assistance in individual disaster relief have been approved by fema. and h.u.d. could be a really important partner, correct? secretary nielsen: happy to look into that. senator blumenthal: would you leaf with me that the ackage is -- relief package is essential in meeting puerto rico's needs? the house has allocated $81 billion. none of it targeted to puerto rico. would you agree that money has to be specifically allocated to puerto rico? secretary nielsen: the governor continues to be clear what he believes he needs after his state to recover i. i don't have those figures in front of me.

senator blumenthal: he said he needs $94 billion in my visits. he has a lot of evidence and it. rt for let me just finish by asking you, it's a simple question. commit that the policies on location that is there will be it. let no enforcement operations at churches, hospitals, schools, courts will be rigorously followed by both c.b.p. and i.c.e.? secretary nielsen: yes, sir. with one exception. in the courthouse, not all of the courthouse is considered sensitive location. part of the courthouse is a controlled area, we will not target victims in that area. but it is controlled, it is much safer for my officers to in that criminal environment. but with respect to the 2012 list that continues to exist today, yes, you have my commitment. we will not enforce in those locations.

senator blumenthal: will you respond to my letters regarding those fail -- secretary nielsen: yes, sir. >> senator. >> thank you. madam secretary, how would it be possible for someone who entered this country through the visa lottery program and who was a legal permanent resident but has not yet gotten his u.s. citizenship to be responsible for sponsoring 23 other people for visas in the space of seven years? secretary nielsen: as an l.p.r. you have the ability to sponsor. senator hirono: is it possible to sponsor 23 others in a span of seven years? let me put this into context. president trump has been very vocal about the diversity lottery program as well as migration. he cited numerous times neating i was in the white house on thursday about a horrible terror attack which happened on the west side highway in new york city. several times he mentioned that the attacker who was admitted

through the diversity visa responsible for 23 other immigrants erningt the u.s. -- entering the u.s. i would like to get the factual basis for the president's assertion that this person has managed to bring in 23 other people into the country because this is what the president repeated many times. do you have that information? secretary nielsen: i don't have t i'm happy to provide t as you know there is no ceiling on the number of people, to my knowledge, there is no ceiling on the number of people you can sponsor. be happy to provide you the information. hirono: there hirono: there se be this misconception about the so-called chain migration that somehow someone can bring in an entire family tree, which includes just about anybody you can think of, and that not how migration works because you have different groupings of family members that can come in under that system. i would really like to get the factual basis for what the president was asserting as to

this particular immigrant who came to this country. somehow i don't think that there is a factual basis. turning to unaccompanied minors who are apprehended at the border and released to h.h.s., you stated -- they do have to show up for their deportation hearings. you say 90% do not show up? secretary nielsen: yes, ma'am. not just deportation hearings but to their initial hearing. senator hirono: the statistics from the executive office of immigration review shows the vast majority of children do show up and almost every child who has legal representation does show up. i co-sponsored a bill introduced by senator reed last congress and introducing it again this congress that would require the government to appoint counsel to unaccompanied children coming across our border. we know there are children as young as 3 or 4. i have been to immigration court where these young

children. it is very true that if they are accompanied by a lawyer that they are more likely to succeed in their request for asylum. or whatever the refugee status. if you would like to see all the children return for their hearings, don't you agree providing counsel is a good way to do that? secretary nielsen: we have a duty to protect the children that come here, ma'am. i'm happy to work with you and look at the proposal. senator hirono: one way is to ensure they be provided counsel. can you hardly expect four, five, 6-year-old children to represent themselves in these proceedings. i want to turn the priorities, deportation priorities that you have. you indicated that those who have final orders for removal, even those people who have not been convicted of any criminal -- no criminal convictions that they may have final orders of

removal, many of them, a number of them, have received waivers from your department, waivers against deportation. so nobody's arguing that we should not be deporting people with criminal convictions, but do you consider that anyone who has a deportation order regardless of what the basis for that order was and where waivers have been granted in the past should not be looked at and provided waivers? of examples of -- in hawaii there was a coffee farmer who had married an american citizen. who had american children. who was deported. of examples o -- in hawaii there was and he had received a number of waivers. is it not within the authority of your department to grant these waivers? secretary nielsen: ma'am, we look at each case on a case by case basis. what i was trying to assert before and reassert now, we can't ignore the law. if they have gone through all

the courts, they have exhausted all possible appeals and have final order of removal -- senator hirono: there are a number of people with final orders that have had waivers. is it not within the authority of your department to grant these waivers? secretary nielsen: we look at them case by case. senator her robo: -- senator hirono: you have the authority to grant the waivers? secretary nielsen: yes. >> i said hi to quit around 2:00, maybe it's more like 2:10. i have you and harris. senator coons, do you want five minutes? that's 15. i hope that we can -- that nobody else comes in here i'd like to get my questions asked. go ahead, senator booker. senator booker: i can katie bar the door if you'd like. >> go ahead. i'll trust you. enator booker: real quick. i like you believe that dangerous criminals, we should them out of our country.

but when you say criminals, are you talking about people that can be low-level crimes from a decade ago that. still counts as a criminal, correct? secretary nielsen: the ones we target are criminal offenses. in other words, there are some civil offenses that would not fall them out of within our top senator booker: it's a felony for marijuana possession that somebody might have done 10, 15 years ago that's a crime 23458 -- secretary nielsen: yes, sir. senator booker: that person would be prioritize for deportation. secretary nielsen: one of however many we agree on. yes. senator booker: you said earlier, this might be a question for the record because i know you weren't in your position at this time, but you customs ier that the border patrol follows court orders, correct? secretary nielsen: yes, sir. senator booker: i have personal experience with this last year when i went to dulles airport during the first iteration of the muslim ban. there was a temporary a federal judge

requiring the customs and border patrol to provide individuals affected by the accountable ii order access to counsel. i was called to go up there because they were refusing to provide by that and provide counsel. the question for the record, would you please explain to me, i was there myself, they refused to even talk to me or discuss it as i was holding the court order to let the people being detained. could you please for the record -- i have yet to get an understanding of why customs and border patrol was refusing to abide by a court order. secretary nielsen: i would be happy to look into that. senator booker: thank you very much. on december 1, 2017, the department of homeland security's office of inspector general release add detailed report -- released a detailed report detailing an on the spot detentions at six detention facilities. you believe in the dignity of all human beings. secretary nielsen: absolutely. senator booker: they should be treated with that level. the inspector general raised

serious questions about the treatment and care of i.c.e. detainees. the report stated, i quote, we identified problems that protection of detainees' rights, humane treatment, and provision of safe and healthy environment n light of this administration's highly aggressive posture immigrant community, and putting people into these facilities, it's very troubling to me that your own inspector general would have a report detailing the united states of america treating others in an inhumane manner that's an assault to their dignity. so could you immigrant communit and -- affirm to me that you are aware of this report? secretary nielsen: i am aware of this report. senator booker: what actions are you taking right now to address the concerns? secretary nielsen: first of all, looking into both the recommendations and the facts provided, as you might know the homeland security advisory council did its own review independently for the department a year ago, over a year ago at this point, on detention centers. i would like to look at the

recommendations from both to address any issues that remain. certainly any concerns of inhumane treatment. senator booker: you are saying you are going to try to implement the recommendations of the report. can you give me a timeline or assurance? secretary nielsen: happy to come and brief you myself, sir. i have not had an opportunity to understand the depth of any changes that might be necessary. or whether the facts -- i need more information. it just came out in december. i would be happy to do that. senator booker: i'm grateful. will i take you up on that offer. on september 11, right after the attacks, the federal government created -- i know, the national security and exit registration system of the the noncitizen ires visa holders from certain countries to register with the federal government. the registration process includes fingerprinting, photo taking, interrogations, one an individual was registered, they required the person to regularly check in with immigration officials. finally it monitors people who registered with the program to

ensure no one remained in the country longer than the law permitted them. notably the only people who had to registered for the list were from muslim countries with the exception of north korea. i'm wondering do you believe that it is legal and keeping with the values of our country, and our constitution to force people from muslim nations to rengster their presence in the united states? secretary nielsen: based on the fact they are muslim, absolutely not. senator booker: i have introduced legislation trying to prevent that registry being created s that something you would be willing to commit to make sure it does not happen in terms of creating something akin to a muslim registry? secretary nielsen: yes. senator booker: thank you. senator harris: thank you. i think you would agree that all federal agencies, in fact all government agencies, have limited resources. who perform their duties and responsibilities. have to make priorities about where they will use the limited

resources and prioritize based on whatever they perceive to be their mission. your testimony before the homeland security committee, which i am a member, on november 8, i asked you if you agreed with what your predecessor, secretary kelly at the time, said, which is that in terms of enforcement priorities, there has to be something else we're operating more or less at the other end of the spectrum in terms of the range of offenses for which you can detain. and he said, we're operating more or less at the other end of the spectrum. that is criminals. multiple convictions. he said, i asked you that, i quoted that. you said yes, i agree. we should prioritize criminals and any others we're concerned may present a national security concern. i asked you the definition of criminals would include people who have violated the law in terms of the violation of the penal code. asked you to -- i urged you

to consider those as the definition of a criminal. you said, quote, yes, the criminality i would be talking about with respect to enforcement priority is above and beyond the original illegal entry. "the washington post" reported in september of this past year a threefold increase in arrests of noncriminals by your agency. you also in addition apparently have changed the way that you your department and in the past i.c.e. would provide data broken down by individuals who committed the most serious offenses. however this year your report has lumped all criminal offenses and convictions together so you have combined serious crimes with traffic offenses. i would urge you to recall and review your testimony before a senate committee only a couple months ago where you at that point in seeking confirmation of this united states senate

indicated that you saw a difference between criminal offenses, felonies, and those who have entered the country illegally. for example, i would ask you to krt case of u.c. berkeley student luis who remains in in custody but was apprehended on january 46789 he came to this country as a child. he's a political science major. he volunteers at his church. he was the winner of the "san diego union tribune's" young latino champion award. and today is the first day of instruction at u.c. berkeley for their spring semester and instead of being in class, he is in i.c.e. custody at the detente center. madam secretary, i would ask you to consider the previous comments you have made to a committee about your priorities regarding enforcement. take a look at this case and determine whether he fits what you have indicated before to be a priority. if you stand by your previous testimony, he does not.

secretary nielsen: i stand by my testimony. i'm happy to look into the facts. aim not prepared to testify to them today because i am not aware of them. senator harris: thank you. during a 4, 2018 interview on agency acting director said he asked the justice department to look into criminal charmings for elected official was sanctuary policies as they are harboring illegal aliens according to 8 u.s.c. 1324. 24 comment was specifically out california elected agencyg officials. after the enact the of the california values act. my question s. is whether d.h.s. is currently working with the justice department to bring section 8 u.s.c. 1324 charges or any criminal charges against state or local officials. secretary nielsen: i believe the request was made. the department of justice is reviewing what avenues might be available. the context of this is of course not only putting my i.c.e. officers at risk but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our

immigration laws. senator harris: you are aware of cases in which this code will be used to criminally charge elected officials? secretary nielsen: i am not aware of any case. it was a request to look into t senator harris: from your department? secretary nielsen: yes. senator harris: at your confirmation hearing you committed that you would report to congress within three months about what you have done to address the i.o.g.'s november 3 report which is entitled major management and perform challenges facing the department of homeland security. are you prepared to keep that commitment which would be march 5? secretary nielsen: yes, ma'am. senator harris: last week the white house disbanded the controversial election integrity -- integrity commission without finding widespread evidence of voter fraud. following its disbanding, chris claimed he would, and i quote, be working closely with d.h.s. and the white house on this issue. my question, final question, mr. chairman, could you please specify does mr. could he vac have an advisory role or any

role at d.h.s. on this matter or any other matter? secretary nielsen: he does not have an advisory role. he's a secretary of state. we're working with secretaries of state to ensure the integrity of systems. he does not have any advisory informal or formal. >> senator as soon as. senator coons: thank you, madam secretary, for a chance to continue to question you on some of the issues i raised previously. first about conditions of detention. on september 26, last year, the aclu filed a complaint asking d.h.s. to investigate 10 cases of pregnant women who were held for weeks at detention facilities in california and texas despite a memo signed by acting director last year barring the practice, quote, absent extraordinary circumstances or the requirement of mandatory detention. i also raised this in person with the then acting director. the complaint by aclu allegationed at least two of these women miscared while in i.c.e. detention certainties because of insufficient health care support during detention.

how many pregnant women are currently in i.c.e. detection centers? what has d.h.s. done to ensure they get the health care they need? secretary nielsen: i can't give you the number. the guidance you referenced by the acting director goes into some detail about the provisions and support that i.c.e. deengs certainties would provide. many of the instances that have been in the press are actually our sister agency related to d.d.s. we're -- h.h.s. we're working with them to make sure the policies align. senator coons: the administration sought in this year's proposal to cut funding grant port security program by half. and i understand there is a proposal being discussed to cut it even further to $36 million. needless to say this program is important to a number of ports on the delaware river. my home state is delaware. why do you think it's prudent to significantly reduce investments in port security? secretary nielsen: what i believe, sir, what we did, what

the administration did was look at all of the grant programs across the board from a risk basis. there are other risks that we need to address. so it's more of an allocation issue. not to say there isn't a risk at the ports. the coast guard continues to be very involved. other parts of d.h.s. and the government that help with the security of the ports. senator coons: in april, senator rubio and i introduced the counterterrorism and screening assistance act. there is a companion in the house. it would strengthen the ability of our allies and partners around the world to track terrorist and foreign fighter travel in particular. directs d.h.s. to provide appropriate versions of custom and border protection, global travel, targeting and analysis systems, software, and other systems, to a foreign partner governments, it also authorizes excess provide nonlethal equipment, supplies, training to foreign governments to further u.s. homeland security interests. does d.h.s. support these goals

and your understanding would it support the passage of this bill? secretary nielsen: to prevent foreign fight frers come together united states, excess nonlethal equipment, supplies, absolutely. we look forward to working with you on it. senator coons: we would appreciate it. about four months ago hurricane maria slammed into the island of puerto rico and both the u.s. virgin islands and puerto rico particularly. to some extent florida suffered stig significant damage. it was catastrophic for puerto rico. what's your sense today four months later, roughly what percent ang the island has power and water? secretary nielsen: the power goes up and down. who are around 60% to 70% water. the story with water is better. there is a lot more we need to do. it's going to be a road of recovery we need to fin to work with them. senator coons: what's the sense of the official death toll in puerto rico? secretary nielsen: i know they are looking at that. it's a state and local determination to determine causation. we have been in close contact with the governor as he does his review and assessment. it's an important figure for to us understand. senator coons: do you believe your department's response to

hurricane maria could have been better? secretary nielsen: i believe we learn lessons as we can. it was an unprecedented response what can i tell you from both a prepositioning to immediate response to the men and women who were there on the ground now. we have one of the largest surge force that is we have ever had. meaning we had people come interesting all parts of government to join with fema. i'm very anxious to learn the lessons learned. senator coons: i'll say while i'm grateful for the service of those united states military and fema who responded, i think it could have been and still needs to be better than it has been. i hear regularly from the puerto rican community in delaware about family members who are still stranded and about failures to respond in a way that i would expect delaware would have received or other states on the mainland would have received. i'm disappointed in the response to date. would love to work with you to try to, as you put it, learn those lessons but also strength yen the response.

my last question, since november the department has terminated t.p.s. designations for quite a few countries. if im' not mistaken, haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere, elal have a dorks ountry with very high homicide levels, liberia, sierra leone, which suffered catastrophic civil wars. our country has long welcomed those seeking ref few from natural disasters and from civil strife. there was as has been discussed at great length an unfortunate meeting last week wrt president was reported to have suggested we don't welcome people from certain countries. in particular countries under difficult circumstances. in my experience some of the greatest americans have come from countries suffering through difficulties. alexander hamilton immigrated here from nevis. i have been to haiti and liberia. there are liberian and haitian americans in my home state who

make great tribshunes to our economy and culture. will you produce the aalcy, input the d.h.s. received from other agencies that justify these determinations in t.p.s.? secretary nielsen: aim happy to work with your staff. to the extent some of the information doesn't belong to me, i have to work with my colleagues to give you an affirmative. yes, i'm happy to walk you through the full analysis. senator coons: thank you for your answers. in my view it's important that we find a way working together to both protect our homeland from those threats. we both see clearly. yet to do so in a way that reflects the values that have made this a country that's long been a beacon for human rights and a place that has welcomed refugees and strengthened by the contributions of immigrants there all over the world. senator grassley: two members left, me with my second round. a couple questions. then i'll go and senator flake will finish up. he's going to use his 10 minutes.

since october 31, that's the terror attack that we had in the united states, calls for an end to the diversity visa, those calls have increased. as you know the controversial program functions as a lottery, allowing aliens from countries with low rates of immigration to the united states a chance to register to commit visa applications. due to random collection applicants, many have expressed concern with the program's susceptibility to fraud. 2017 report found that counselor offices reported widespread use of fake documents to verify applicant's identity. in addition, they state the inspector general report found that aliens from countries with ties to terrorism were permitted to apply for this visa. in a recent response to a letter that i sent asking for a candid assessment of this

program, the state department described the document and identity fraud that exists in the application process and the resource intensive method for uncovering t due to the -- uncovering it. due to the vulnerability to fraud and abuse, it's documented used by terrorist, do you think the diversity visa lottery program should be eliminated? do you think that this visa program has an increased potential for use by terrorists and criminals entering the country and receiving status? the second question is more important than the first. secretary nielsen: sir, i believe as you say it's documented there is a lot of fraud and abuse in this program. with the 80-plus programs that we have for legal immigration, i believe that we can and should do better for the american people to ensure that those who come here are able to contribute. contribute.

and to assimlate into our communities. chairman grassley: in regard to sanctuary cities and statutes, -- states, i applaud this administration's tofertse crack down on sanctuary jurisdictions and insist the communities participate in the program. unfortunately,cies president trump took office a number jurisdictions decided to stop honoring i.c.e. detainer requests. that's dangerous and i worry about the impact an entire state becoming sanctuary will have on public safety. considering that can you describe the trump administration ongoing efforts to crack down on sanctuary jurisdictions and what steps you are taking to encourage communities to cooperate? secretary nielsen: yes, sir. first of all as you know we have asked -- >> we're going to leave this homeland security hearing at this point to go live to the u.s. house. we will return to the hearing if we get the opportunity. live now to the house of representatives for the start of legislative business.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. haplain conroy: let us pray. dear god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask our special blessing on this people's house. they face difficult decisions in give them wisdom so they may execute their abilities to the benefit of all americans. give as well this day acknowledging religious freedom in our land confidence to all people whore