lofgren: mr. chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. today we come together to address vulnerabilities in our visa waiver program to make our country safer. what is the visa waiver program? it was established long before 9/11. in order for a country to be admitted into the program, fewer than 3% of its applicants for a visitor's visa can be denied. off the denial has nothing to do with security, rather it is based on the judgment whether the applicant is able to return to his home country. persons who are poor are often judged less likely to return han a more affluent applicant. that's the reason why there are no impoverished countries in the visa waiver program. most of europe, japan, singapore, australia, south korea and the like are in the program. 38 countries in all. the 38 countries agree to share security information with the united states. the visa waiver program also is allowing americans to travel to these countries without getting visitor visa. they are then checked against da

lofgren. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and director rodriguez, good to see you here again. welcome to the immigration subcommittee, i'm sure we will hear from you to the extend you're able to discuss security measures taken by the agency especially in light of the news coming out of san bernardino in my state. so i'm going to focus on other elements that are part of your important mission. as we know a year ago secretary johnson issued a series of directives, two of which have been held up n a dispute with republican governors. i won't address that because the supreme court is going do so. i'd like to talk about some issues that were not the subject of the litigation, specifically the parole program for immigrant entrepreneurs: you know, one of the things that keeps our country ahead of the game economically is the tech sector and we have failed in our necessary effort to reform the immigration laws which is really the result that is necessary. but the president was trying to think and secretary johnson was trying to think about things that could be done consistent with the

zoe lofgren: that is very good information. i yield back. trey gowdy: director rodriguez, at the end i am going to make sure that congresswoman has exactly the same amount of time. if i don't asked this question now, i will forget. something she said prompted me to want to ask it strikes me there are two things to say to our fellow citizens, one is we listed as it relates to the female terrorist. that is just a risk we will have to accept as an open society. the other alternative is to say, this is what we have learned from that pattern. this is what we are doing differently to prevent the next one. which is it, and what assurances could you give that we are going to do it differently so there is not a repeat of this. leon rodriguez: again, i think the point i made earlier is we are looking at everything. we are looking at cases that may have happened today, and we are looking at all of the issues related to where we can do the job better. and make sure that to the extent of our ability, we will never eliminate all risks come of it to the ex

lofgren whenever he comes. but the gentleman from the great state of texas, former united states attorney, mr. radcliff. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. thank you, director osuna, for being here today. we are concerned about the impacts of illegal immigration in this country and what many see as an environment of lawlessness created by this administration which it comes to the enforcement of immigration laws and in efficiency of the immigration system. one of the things that highlights that is a fact that was related by the chairman, the fact a that there are approximately 459,000 immigration cases waiting for action right now were. and you know, it would appear that that type of backlog of cases really amounts to de facto amnesty because allows individuals in this country perhaps illegally to remain here without any repercussion as their cases are stuck in administrative limbo. so i'm anxious to hear your testimony today about plans to reduce that backlog. one of the cases that i want to

chairman, representative lofgren, those are the initiatives that we have under way. it's positioning for the agency to have a positive 2016. thank you and i'm pleased to answer any questions. >> thank you, director. i'm going to recognize myself for an opening and when think colleagues from california and michigan get here we'll recognize them. we may go to questioning from the gentleman from iowa and texas before then. within the department of justice the executive office for immigration review is charged with overseeing the immigration courts and the board of immigration appeals which is the highest administration authority. as the delegates of the attorney general, the immigration judges serve an important function. they award asylum to those fleeing prosecution, and they also order or removed the aliens who violated our law. whether our law requires aliens to return to their land or stay in this country will depend on the ability of the immigration judges to faithfully apply the law that congress enacted to their cases. because of the relative obscurity of immigr

lofgren whenever he comes. but the gentleman from the great state of texas, former united states attorney, mr. radcliff. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. thank you, director osuna, for being here today. we are concerned about the impacts of illegal immigration in this country and what many see as an environment of lawlessness created by this administration which it comes to the enforcement of immigration laws and in efficiency of the immigration system. one of the things that highlights that is a fact that was related by the chairman, the fact a that there are approximately 459,000 immigration cases waiting for action right now were. and you know, it would appear that that type of backlog of cases really amounts to de facto amnesty because allows individuals in this country perhaps illegally to remain here without any repercussion as their cases are stuck in administrative limbo. so i'm anxious to hear your testimony today about plans to reduce that backlog. one of the cases that i want to

chairman, representative lofgren and other members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the department of justice's executive office for immigration review. the eoir is to hear the cases and decide which of the individuals should be removed from the united states and which are eligible for relief or protection from removal. the agency carries its mission out through our core of 250 immigration judges in 58 courts around the country and the board of immigration appeals. each of our cases begins with the department of homeland security files a charging document with oun of our courts. among the challenges facing the courts is the larger growing caseload. there are more than 450,000 cases pending around the country. this backlog grew in recent years due to budget cuts when they were limited in hiring immigration staff to remays those that left

. >> the funniest women in the zoe lofgren you, tina fey, aim el poehler and amy schumer. >> make jokes about. i'm a good deflection for all the humor. >> you're carving out a good lane here in the big-time movies as a comedic actor. >> we wouldn't be able to hang out. i like to have fun and usually in comedy it's about making people laugh and having fun so i like doing it, and, you know, >> got a few opportunities and this one is a really, really funny movie and everybody will love it. >> you're quizzing us apparently. >> you need to give us some answers. you have a paddle with two faces on. it just show in the form of the paddle your answer. >> i was a driver for a limousine company. >> cena. >> i'll go tina. >> you're wrong. i was correct. >> hive a reoccurring dream that i've been chased by an airport by a middle schoolteacher. >> that's all tina. >> 50-50. >> you'll be awarded at the end. >> once i ate an entire pizza because if you finished it you would get it for free. >> that's tina. >> no, that's tina. >> was it on your cheat day. >> if i'm eating pizza to get a day. >> my dad

lofgren and i offered up a similar bill. 304 members of congress agreeing on something, really? and i think most members, republicans and democrats, see the importance of privacy. mr. calabrese, let me start with you. i have a lot of questions and i only have five minutes. the warshack case, the s.e.c. lost the warshack case. they did not appeal that, did they? >> no, the case was not appealed. >> the s.e.c. wants for civil investigations, the way i see this legislation it's to protect us from the s.e.c. and the irs. and the epa. without this legislation they could keep doing what they're doing. would you like to comment on that? civil agencies snooping around in e-mails and i use the word snoop as my word. >> we've already seen agency overreach. we saw it in the tea party investigation. there was no question there was an improper investigation searching for a much broader category about people than anyone, i think here is comfortable with, looking at what people are reading, looking at their donor list. it's wrong. and it disturbs me that if someone could have a relevant standa

lofgren and i filed a similar bill in 2013. i want to get a vote on the bill. 304 members of congress agreeing on something. really? and i think most members, republicans and democrats, see the importance of privacy. mr. calabrese, let me start with you. i have a lot of questions and i only have five minutes. the warshak case the s.e.c. lost the warshak case. they did not appeal that, did they? >> no, the case was not appealed. >> it was not appealed. the s.e.c., the way i get it the s.e.c. wants a carve-out for civil investigations. the way i see this legislation, it's to protect us from the s.e.c. and the irs and the epa because without this legislation, they could keep doing what they're doing. would you like to comment on that, weigh in on that, civil agencies snooping around in e-mails and i'm using the word snoop is my word. >> we've already seen agency overreach. i mean, we saw it in the tea party investigation. there was no question that there was improper investigation that was searching through a much broader category

lofgren. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'm sorry i was late. i was at a meeting also on an immigration matter. i ask unanimous consent to put my full statement in the record. >> without objection. >> i would just note that we have ramped up expenditures on immigration enforcement over the past decade substantially. we have increased the funding for the border patrol and for i.c.e. vo quadrupled the expenditures there. but our funding for the immigration courts has lagged far behind. we've had a 70% increase for courts and a quadrupling of expenditures for -- at the border. and i think, you know, no system is perfect. i'm not going to say having worked as a lawyer in this system many, many years ago, but you can't just keep jamming more into the system. you need to ramp up the capacity in the immigration courts. and we're making some baby steps forward on that now, but i am concerned, given the demographics of the immigration judges, we are facing a tidal wave of retirements among the ranks of immigration judges. now, those are funded positions

lofgren and i to look at her immigration file?>> again i'm really citing the general practices and rules. i think you and i both aware of cases regardless of the fact that there may be two dead perpetrators where they are still investigative reasons for me and i'm not speaking necessarily of a specific case. that is the practice that i've lived by be it in my role as the uscis director or when i was a prosecutor previously. i did not talk about cases that were ongoing regardless of those characteristics. i understand why this body would want them and i understand why that information might helpful to this body in discharging its responsibilities. i do not see myself as at liberty to share that information. >> the gentleman recognizes the gentlelady from california. >> thank you mr. chairman. as just picking up where the chairman had left off i disclose that my office did -- the topic of the k-1 application and we revised that with the fbi who has said really this needs to be made confidential because of their investigation and acc

lofgren and mr. conyers whenever they come.in by recognizing the gentleman from the great state of texas for his questions. the former united states attorney mr. radcliff. >> tahank you, mr. chairman, fo holding this hearing. thank you for being here today. the 700,000 texans i represent are certainly concerned about the impacts of illegal immigration in this country and what many see as an environment of lawlessness created by this administration when it comes to the enforcement of our immigration laws and frankly the inefficiency of our immigration system. and one of the things that highlights that is a fact that was related by the chairman, the fact that there are approximately 459,000 immigration cases waiting for action right now. and, you know, it would appear that that type of backlog of cases really amounts to de facto amnesty. because it allows individuals that are in this country perhaps illegally to remain here without any repercussions as their case are stuck in administrative limbo, so i'm anxious to hear some of y

what -- what investigative or prosecutorial strategy would be jeopardized by allowing miss lofgren and to look at her immigration file? >> again i'm really citing the general practices in rules. i think you and i are both aware of cases, regardless of the fact there may be two dead perpetrators were there are still investigative reasons to maintain secrecy. i'm not speaking necessarily to this case. that is the practice i've lived about in my role as director or when is and a prosecutor previously, i did not talk about cases that were ongoing. regardless of those characteristics. i understand why this body would want them. i understand why that information might be helpful to this body in discharging its responsibilities. i do not see myself as at liberty to share that information at this time. >> chair would recognize the gentle lady from california. >> thank you mr. chairman. just picking up where the chairman has left off, i'll disclose that my office did call over and ask for a copy of the k1 application, and we were advised it was the fbi who has said really this needs to remain c

that's why i teamed up with representative zoe lofgren on the other side and lots of other members of congress of both parties to introduce legislation to update the law. there are several bills pending. in fact, these bills have over 300 sponsors right now, bipartisan. to restore the original purpose to protect the privacy of american citizens. this legislation would protect the sacred right of privacy from ever-increasing spying government trolls on americans. our mission is simple. extend constitutional protections to communications and records that americans store online for any amount of time. mr. speaker, technology may change but the constitution remains the same. thomas jefferson said in the declaration of independence, i quote, governments are created to secure our rights. not violate those rights. it's about time we make government protect the right of privacy rather than violate the right of privacy. we need to pass this epca law and get privacy back in america. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair de

lofgren and i will be happy to come to wherever the file may be. >> understood, chairman.thank you. >> with that, we want to thank you, again, particularly for accommodating our vote schedules and for answering all the members' questions and the collegiality is which you always interact with the committee. with that wrxwrx, we are adjour. >>> during this hearing we've been asking for your thoughts on facebook and twitter. the question is should the u.s. increase legal immigration restri restricts. steve writes i think there should be a temporary halt to all immigration until our borders are secured and immigration reform is in place. and vickie says if you let your fear dictate change in the way you've always done things in this country, you've let isis win. you can continue to let us know what you think at facebook.com/cspan and at twitter @cspan. >>> james comey went before the senate judiciary committee today. his testimony focused largely on the terrorist attack in san bernardino and the threat from isis and homegrown terrorists. he answered questions from senators for

consent to insert in the record a dear colleague that was sent to all of us from representatives lofgrenamash, conyers, farenthold and polis in opposition to the cybersecurity measure being part of this omnibus appropriations bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: and one additional concern for me and for many others is an awful provision, and i stress the word awful, in this bill which constitutes a big giveaway to big oil and could lead to an increase in gas prices. big oil gives big money to campaigns and sadly big oil is getting a very big return on its investment with this bill. this provision could intensify climate change, have devastating environmental impacts and does nothing to save consumers money on energy costs. i will be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question and that the previous question is -- if the previous question is defeated, i'll offer an amendment to strike this outrageous provision. compromise is never easy, but in a divided government, it is essential if we are to move forward. one of my biggest critiques of this republican-