U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–040 PDF 2014

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 29, 2014 

Serial No. 113–78 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 29, 2014 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 1 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 3 

WITNESS 

The Honorable Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, United States Department of 

Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 37

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 48 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security ................................ 92 

(1) 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:33 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Coble, Smith of Texas, 

Chabot, Bachus, Forbes, King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, 

Chaffetz, Marino, Gowdy, Labrador, Farenthold, Holding, Collins, 

DeSantis, Smith of Missouri, Conyers, Nadler, Scott, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Johnson, Pierluisi, Chu, Deutch, Gutierrez, DelBene, Garcia, Jeffries, and Cicilline. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Kelsey 

Deterding, Clerk; George Fishman, Counsel; Andrea Loving, Counsel; Dimple Shah, Counsel; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief Counsel, Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian; Tom 

Jawetz, Counsel; and David Shahoulian, Counsel. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Judiciary Committee will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the 

Committee at any time. 

We welcome everyone to this morning’s oversight hearing on the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. And I will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. 

I want to extend our welcome to Secretary Johnson for testifying 

before us today for the first time. 

The Obama Administration has taken unprecedented and most 

likely unconstitutional steps in order to shut down the enforcement 

of our immigration laws for millions of unlawful and criminal 

aliens not considered high enough ‘‘priorities.’’ 

The DHS does this under the guise of prosecutorial discretion. 

The beneficiaries include many thousands of aliens who have been 

arrested by State and local law enforcement or are convicted criminals who have been put in removal proceedings and who DHS simply has let back onto our streets. 

In addition to simply not pursuing removable aliens, the DHS 

has been granting hundreds of thousands of them administrative 

legalization and work authorization. 
2 

The Department of Homeland Security does this under many 

guises, invoking doctrines with esoteric names, such as Deferred 

Action and Parole in Place. 

The net effect of these policies has been described by former ICE 

Acting Director John Sandweg: ‘‘If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero.’’ 

Over the past few years, ICE has been claiming to have removed 

record numbers of unlawful or criminal aliens from the United 

States. 

Of course, to the extent these numbers are valid, they would 

have simply reflected the vast increase in enforcement resources 

provided by Congress in recent years. 

ICE’s budget has increased from approximately 3 billion in 2005 

to 5.8 billion in 2013. However, ICE’s removal numbers simply rely 

on smoke and mirrors. 

In fact, almost two-thirds of the removals claimed by ICE in 2013 

involved aliens apprehended by the Border Patrol along the border 

or intercepted by inspectors at ports of entry. 

When we look at the number of true ICE removals of aliens residing in the United States, we see that they have fallen 43 percent 

from 2008 to 2013. Even President Obama has admitted that ICE’s 

record removals are deceptive. 

Removals are down so dramatically because the Obama Administration is twisting the concept of prosecutorial discretion beyond all 

constitutional recognition, all in an unprecedented effort to create 

immigration enforcement-free zones. 

Most disturbingly, despite the Administration’s pledge to 

prioritize the removal of serious criminal aliens, DHS is releasing 

thousands of such aliens onto our streets. 

The Judiciary Committee discovered through subpoena that, between October 2008 and July 2011, the Department of Homeland 

Security declined to seek removal for almost 160,000 aliens who 

had been arrested by State and local law enforcement officers. 

After these aliens were then released into our communities, 

about 17 percent were rearrested on criminal charges within only 

3 years’ time. 

The crimes charged include nearly 8,500 DUIs, over 6,000 drug 

violations, and more than 4,000 major criminal offenses, including 

murder, assault, battery, rape, and kidnapping. 

In one of the most horrific cases, an unlawful alien DHS decided 

not to pursue after being arrested for attempted grand theft was 

later arrested on suspicion of killing a man, chasing those who had 

robbed his 68-year-old grandfather. 

These crimes never would have been committed had DHS pursued these aliens for removal. Unfortunately, none of this has 

shamed the DHS into changing its irresponsible practices. 

The Center for Immigration Studies recently obtained ICE documents revealing that, in 2013, ICE declined to pursue removal 

thousands of times against convicted criminals it had encountered. 

And ICE also discovered that, in 2013, ICE released from detention over 36,000 convicted criminal aliens that it had actually put 

in removal proceedings. 
3 

I have asked DHS for identifying information on these released 

criminal aliens so that we may determine what new crimes they 

have gone on to commit. 

I hope and expect that Secretary Johnson will fully cooperate in 

providing this vital information to the Committee and the American people. 

The end result of DHS’s practices is that the American people 

have lost all confidence in this Administration’s willingness to enforce our current immigration laws or use any enhanced enforcement tools that Congress may give it. 

This, in turn, has made it exceedingly difficult for Congress to fix 

our broken immigration system. Unfortunately, we can only expect 

DHS’s efforts to evade its immigration law enforcement responsibilities to escalate. 

President Obama has asked Secretary Johnson to perform an inventory of the Department’s current enforcement practices to see 

how it can conduct them more humanely. 

These are simply code words for further ratcheting down enforcement of our immigration laws. We do not know yet how far Secretary Johnson will go. 

Persons within and without the Administration have pressured 

him to no longer seek to remove previously deported aliens who 

have illegally reentered the United States or aliens who have absconded from their removal proceedings and become fugitives. 

Some have demanded that DHS grant administrative legalization 

to parents who endanger their children’s lives by bringing them 

here illegally in perilous journeys. 

Others have gone so far as to demand administrative legalization 

for the entire universe of millions of unlawful aliens who would receive a special pathway to citizenship under the Senate’s massive 

comprehensive immigration bill. 

Secretary Johnson is not responsible for the dangerous and irresponsible decisions made by DHS before he was sworn in last December. We can only hope that he will bring back a level of adult 

responsibility to the enforcement of our immigration laws. 

But his recent comments that he is considering scaling back one 

of the DHS’s most successful programs to identify and remove dangerous aliens, Secure Communities, cause me grave concern for the 

future of immigration enforcement. I look forward to the testimony 

of Secretary Johnson today. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte, and Members of 

the Committee. 

We all join in welcoming you, Secretary Johnson, to the House 

Judiciary Committee as Secretary, and long before you had a distinguished career both in public service and in the private sector. 

But the thing that I like most about it is that you are a Morehouse College graduate, and that has a special resonance for many 

in the Congress and in our communities. 

Before your appointment to the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Johnson served as general counsel of the Depart-
4 

ment of Defense where he oversaw many critical reforms, including 

ending the discriminatory policy ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’’ 

Given this background, I can think of no person better equipped 

to lead the Department of Homeland Security and carry out the 

President’s directive to review our immigration policies to ensure 

that we are carrying them out in the most humane way possible. 

Yesterday the President of the United States announced a delay 

to this review to provide my House colleagues the room they need 

to pass legislative reforms, whether through the Senate bill or several House bills, and I am committed to work with them to achieve 

needed reforms of our system. 

Most of us agree that the system is broken and that only Congress can permanently fix it. So the Secretary’s testimony and 

opinions here today will be very important to us all. 

We should get started on that process right away before the window for reform closes. Every day that passes without a vote in the 

House is a day that thousands of families are torn apart, that businesses are deprived of critical skills and that brilliant entrepreneurs and investors are forced to take their resources and talents elsewhere. Every day that passes is also a day in which we 

fail to jump-start our own economy. 

The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the House 

and Senate immigration reform bills, S. 744 and H.R. 15, would decrease the budget deficit by $900 billion over a 20-year period. So 

I stand committed to work with my colleagues for legislative reform. 

But if my colleagues won’t act to fix a system that most agree 

needs it badly, then I fully support the President doing what he 

can under the current law to improve that system. 

I agree with the President’s call to make our immigration system 

reflect American values. People who commit serious crimes and 

pose a danger to the public should be our highest priorities for removal. 

Those with strong ties to this country, the spouses of citizens and 

permanent residents, the parents of citizens and dreamers, and 

those who have worked productively in the United States for many 

years should not be. 

We know the Administration has the authority to set enforcement priorities, and it also has the authority to set detailed guidelines to ensure that those priorities are carried out by deportation 

officers, trial attorneys, and other enforcement personnel. 

This authority has been specifically recognized by my colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle of this Committee, including a letter sent 

by current Members to the Clinton Administration urging it to 

issue guidelines on prosecutorial discretion. 

So far, we have heard hardly more than excuses for not doing immigration reform: The Senate bill has too many pages; the House 

wants to take its time and do reform step by step; we must secure 

the border before we can discuss anything else. 

Well, I think the newest excuse for not working to reform the 

system is that the Republicans cannot trust the President to enforce the law. 

Put aside the fact that this Administration has set records with 

respect to enforcement spending, detentions, prosecutions, and re-
5 

movals, but ‘‘can’t trust the President’’ excuse strikes me as an extremely odd complaint from a legislative body. 

What is the point of passing any bill if we have that kind of an 

impasse? How many other issues of national importance do my colleagues think Congress should ignore until they have someone else 

that they might prefer in the White House? 

It is time to cut out the excuses and get to work doing the people’s business. Americans agree the system is broke, and they 

strongly support comprehensive immigration reform. And so it is 

our duty to stop passing the buck and get to work. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

And, without objection, all other Members’ opening statements 

will be made a part of the record. 

We thank our only witness, the Secretary, for joining us today. 

Secretary Johnson, if you would please rise, I will begin by 

swearing you in. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Let the record reflect that the Secretary responded in the affirmative. And it is now my pleasure to introduce him. 

Jeh Charles Johnson was sworn in on December 23, 2013, as the 

fourth Secretary of Homeland Security. Prior to joining DHS, Secretary Johnson served as general counsel for the Department of 

Defense where he was part of the senior management team and led 

more than 10,000 military and civilian lawyers across the Department. 

Secretary Johnson was general counsel of the Department of the 

Air Force from 1998 to 2001, and he served as an Assistant U.S. 

Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1989 to 1991. 

In private law practice, Secretary Johnson was a partner with 

the New York City-based law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton 

& Garrison. 

Secretary Johnson graduated from Morehouse College in 1979 

and received his law degree from Columbia Law School in 1982. 

The Secretary reminded me this morning that he has a connection to this Committee as well that many Members will find of interest. In the early 1990’s, he worked briefly for then-House Republican Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Ham Fish of 

New York. 

Secretary JOHNSON. It was actually the 1970’s, Congressman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Oh. 1970’s. Well, that is way before my time. 

But I thank you for that information as well as the information 

that many Members of the Committee may find of interest, that 

there are 10,000 military and civilian lawyers in the Department 

of Defense. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing we will 

leave for future discussion. 

In any event, we look forward to your testimony. Your written 

statement will be entered into the record in its entirety. 

And we ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. To 

help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table 

and, when the light switches from green to yellow, you will have 
6 

1 minute to conclude your testimony. And we welcome you to the 

Committee. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEH C. JOHNSON, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

You do have my prepared written statement. 

Let me just summarize a couple of things within my 5 minutes. 

First, thank you for inviting me. I look forward to our discussion 

this morning and this afternoon. 

I begin by pointing out that, as the leader of the Department of 

Homeland Security, I recognize that our most valuable asset is our 

men and women, and I have pledged numerous times to support 

them in good times and in bad times. 

My first full week on the job I went to South Texas to attend the 

funeral of CBP Officer Darrell Windhaus, who died in the line of 

duty in South Texas. 

Yesterday we lost another one, Border Patrol Agent Alexander 

Giannini, age 24, who died in the line of duty in what appeared to 

be a one-car accident in Arizona. And I am sure that the Members 

of this Committee join me in mourning his loss and expressing condolences to his family. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here. As I mentioned, I know 

a number of Members of this Committee from other contexts, from 

the House Armed Services Committee, from private life, and it is 

good to see you. 

Let me begin by saying that, in my judgment, counterterrorism 

must remain and should continue to remain the cornerstone of the 

mission of the Department of Homeland Security. 

As the President mentioned yesterday at West Point, core Al 

Qaeda has been largely decimated, but in the last several years, we 

have seen the rise of Al Qaeda affiliates, Al Qaeda adherents, and 

other Al Qaeda-like organizations around the world. 

We have to be vigilant in regard to those organizations. We are 

concerned, I am concerned, about the so-called lone wolf who would 

attack us in this country, domestic-based independent actors who 

commit or attempt to commit terrorist acts, as evidenced last year 

by the Boston Marathon bombing. 

We in the Department of Homeland Security need to be vigilant 

against all these potential threats, and I believe we are. 

I believe it is also particularly important, given the decentralized 

and diffuse nature of the terrorist threat that the homeland faces, 

that we spend a lot of time and effort working closely with State 

and local law enforcement, first responders through training, 

through working together and JTTFs and so forth, preparedness 

grants. 

We have an initiative that I am personally involved in and particularly interested in, countering violent extremism at home 

through engagements in local communities. 

I believe it is important, where possible, that we push out our 

homeland security beyond our borders where we can do so consistent with agreements with other governments. 
7 

I believe it is important that we establish in as many places as 

feasible preclearance capabilities in overseas airports that are last 

points of departure. 

In terms of border security, we have devoted an unprecedented 

amount of resources. Thanks to the support of this Congress to that 

effort, over the last number of years apprehensions have gone 

down, but we have seen a rise recently in apprehensions, particularly in the Rio Grande Valley sector in South Texas. 

We are seeing a rise that we have to address and we must address and I am developing a plan to address, in particular, with regard to illegal migration by those other than Mexicans coming from 

Central America and unaccompanied children. 

The problem of unaccompanied children is one that I am very familiar with, having personally visited McAllen Station, Texas, several weekends ago to see the problem myself. 

I have directed a number of actions in response to that situation 

which I would be happy to discuss further with Members of the 

Committee. We are developing a campaign plan for the southwest 

border, which represents a whole of DHS approach. 

You are correct, Chairman, that I am engaged in a review of reforms to our enforcement priorities. And the President has asked 

me to wait, for reasons that I agree, before announcing those reforms to give the House of Representatives the opportunity this 

summer to act on comprehensive immigration reform. 

It is something that I very much support and believe in for a 

number of reasons, including added border security, mandatory EVerify, enhanced criminal penalties for those who would hire undocumented, as well as the earned path to citizenship. And both 

the President and I urge the House of Representatives to act. 

We are doing a number of other things, which I would be happy 

to discuss in more detail, in the Department to enhance morale, to 

enhance our process for budget deliberations and our acquisition 

process. 

And we are making great progress in filling the numerous seniorlevel vacancies. Including myself, since December, the Senate has 

confirmed seven presidential appointments for senior leadership 

positions in DHS. 

I believe it is critical to the morale and good work of the Agency 

that we have a new energy, new leadership in the department, and 

we are making good progress there. 

Thank you, Chairman. And I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Johnson follows:] 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Secretary Johnson. 

We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions. 

And I will begin by recognizing myself. 

Secretary Johnson, I appreciate the President’s recognition of the 

importance of doing immigration reform. I and, I think, most Members of Congress believe we need to do immigration reform as well. 

But it needs to be recognized by the President and by you and 

others in the Administration that, when the President says that he 

is going to set a time limit and then consider taking actions himself, which many of us read to be the President again repeating, 

‘‘I have a pen and a cell phone and, if you don’t act, I will,’’ that 

that makes doing immigration reform harder, not easier, because 

those who may like what the President decides to do administratively have less reason to negotiate the hard decisions to be made 

about how to enforce our immigration laws in the future. 

And those who do not agree with the President’s position on immigration reform say, ‘‘Why should we negotiate if we can’t trust 

the President to enforce the laws as they exist.’’ 

So I just expressed to you my ongoing concern that the President 

is being helpful to the process when he works with the Congress 

and suggests that he wants to accomplish immigration reform, but 

he hurts the efforts in the Congress when he says, ‘‘If you don’t do 

it’’ and the suggestion is further, ‘‘If you don’t do it my way, I will 

act unilaterally,’’ when many of us believe the United States Constitution does not give him the authority to do that. 

But let me turn my questions to another subject, and that is 

there are now 858,779 non-detained aliens with final orders of removal who have not been removed. The vast majority of these 

aliens have simply absconded and become fugitives in the U.S. 

It is, to me, crystal clear—is it to you?—that, if we do not detain 

aliens in removal proceedings, many will simply become fugitives 

and not be required to leave the country? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Chairman, you are correct that there are a 

large number of undocumented in the country who are fugitives 

who have absconded after final orders of removal. I have looked at 

the same numbers. 

One of the things that—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me get into the details here. 

It has recently been revealed that, in 2013, DHS released from 

detention over 36,000 criminal aliens in removal proceedings or 

after they had been ordered removed, aliens with convictions ranging from homicide to sexual assault, to kidnapping, to aggravated 

assault, to drunk driving. 

DHS stated in response that many of these aliens were released 

as a discretionary matter after career law enforcement officers 

made a judgment regarding the priority of holding the individual, 

given ICE’s resources, and prioritizing for national security reasons. 

Isn’t it true that ICE attorneys decide whether to offer bond and 

set the amount of the bond? So isn’t it also true that the DHS could 

have detained most of these criminal aliens, but simply chose not 

to? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Chairman, I myself would like a deeper understanding of this issue. I have your letter on the subject. We re-
14 

sponded yesterday. I don’t know whether you received the response 

yet, sir. 

But my understanding so far is that a number of those released 

in fiscal year 2013 were as the result of an order from an immigration judge or by an immigration officer acting pursuant to, consistent with, Supreme Court precedent and other law. 

Certainly there is an amount of judgment that goes into that. So 

if someone is released, they are released pursuant to conditions 

that are intended to guarantee their return. 

But I look at the same list you have seen, and I have seen some 

pretty serious criminal convictions on that list, including homicide 

and other things. 

And so I want a deeper understanding of this issue myself to 

make sure that we are doing everything we should be doing to ensure public safety in this process. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And you note the homicides. For example, it 

was stated by the Department that mandatory releases because of 

court decisions account for 72 percent of those homicides. And, obviously, the Congress needs to address that. 

Some of those mandatory releases were because of being held for 

a length of time the courts felt were inappropriate, and we need 

to make sure that that is addressed so that they are removed from 

the United States after they have served their sentences for homicide. 

But that still leaves 28 percent of the murderers, a substantial 

number of people, who the DHS simply voluntarily released. So I 

hope that you will look into what is happening there and try to 

help us understand how this can be fixed. 

The second issue I want to address is the issue of Secure Communities. It has been one of the most efficient mechanisms for removing dangerous aliens from the United States. 

Through Secure Communities, the fingerprints of everyone arrested and booked for a crime by local law enforcement are checked 

against FBI criminal history records and also checked against DHS 

immigration records. If fingerprints match DHS records, ICE can 

seek immigration holds against the aliens and launch removal proceedings. 

Former ICE Director John Morton has stated that, just to give 

you some sense of it, in very large jurisdictions in the United 

States, the rate of recidivism for criminal offenders can be as high 

as 50 percent or more. 

When ICE can come in and remove offenders from a given community so that they can’t reoffend, well, guess what. We take that 

recidivism rate to zero. 

So, for example, if you have 100 criminal offenders, we are able 

to root them out. That is 50 crimes that will not happen over the 

next 3 years as a result of our enforcement efforts. 

Do you agree with former Director Morton as to the power of Secure Communities? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I don’t believe we should scrap Secure 

Communities. I believe, given the reality of where we are with this 

program in this country, that we need a fresh start. 

We have mayors and governors signing executive orders and 

passing laws that limit our ability to effectively carry out this pro-
15 

gram, and I think the goal of the program is a very worthy one 

that needs to continue. 

So as part of the overall effort I am embarked in right now, I 

want a fresh start to this program and I want a fresh conversation 

with mayors and governors around the country to make this program work more effectively. We have got limitations being erected 

on our ability to conduct this program. 

And I think it is an important program, but it is gotten off to 

bad messaging, misunderstanding in State and local communities 

about exactly what it is. Some people think it is a surveillance program. But you are right. It is sharing fingerprints between one 

Federal agency and another. 

And I think, with clearer guidance and clearer understandings 

by mayors and governors, commissioners and sheriffs, of what our 

priorities are, we can go a long way to improving the Administration of this program, sir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, not administrating the program is also a 

missed opportunity to address the problem with the release of 

criminal aliens back into our society. 

Because when State and local law enforcement go to the trouble 

of identifying people and sharing that information and giving DHS 

more information about who should be removed and then they 

don’t see them removed, as is the case in 85 percent of the aliens 

identified through Secure Communities in 2013, not being deported, I think that builds a lot of mistrust in the system and will 

cause the system to fail of its own. 

So we encourage you to improve that system and to utilize it to 

a greater extent. 

My time is expired. 

And I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. 

We appreciate your testimony here today, Secretary Johnson. 

My concern is about the large numbers of people who are being 

deported each year who have committed very little violation except 

those related to their undocumented status. 

They are people who have lived here for years, some for decades, 

many of whom were brought as children. They have jobs and families, including U.S. citizen sponsors and children or other close 

family who have legal status. 

Their only offense arises from not being here lawfully. They can’t 

get licenses. They can’t drive. They can’t work. So they use frequently a fake Social Security card and so on. 

Let me ask you, as you complete your review of enforcement 

practices, will you take a close hard look at who is being targeted 

to make sure these people who have only immigration status violations are not made priorities? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. The concept of prosecutorial discretion 

is one that has been around for a long time in the criminal justice 

context and this context. 

And I think, with the resources we have from Congress, we have 

to continually re-evaluate how best to prioritize who we enforce the 

laws against. And so that would be part of my objective. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 
16 

Now, what factors do you think that the Customs and Border 

Protection and ICE should consider before referring some of these 

cases for prosecution? 

I think that is an important consideration that comes from your 

experience and your analysis in the position that you hold now. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think that the priorities, in general, should 

be threats to national security, public safety, and border security. 

And so I want our men and women to focus on those priorities at 

the various points in the system. 

I do believe that, at the border, at the border, the priorities have 

to be a little different for the sake of border security, border integrity. 

I don’t expect our Border Patrol agents, for example, to try to 

prioritize as they see people literally crossing the Rio Grande and 

stepping onto the shore. 

I think we have to maintain border security and we have to 

avoid practices and policies that operate as magnets for further illegal migration. 

But I do believe that our people should be encouraged to focus 

on, first, border security, public safety, national security. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

I understand that much of the spike in immigration prosecution 

is related to Customs and Border Protection’s Consequence Delivery System, which promises to assign some form of law enforcement consequence to nearly every person apprehended at the border. 

These prosecutions come at significant expense. And, by contrast, 

your Department could effectuate a voluntary return or a form of 

removal for many of these people at little or no cost. 

In deciding whether this is a good use of Federal resources, do 

you think it is important for CBP data and methodology on recidivism to be made public? 

Making the data and methodology public and ensuring that it receives close scrutiny might help to either increase confidence in our 

current approach or lead to other improvements. What is your 

view? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Let me answer that two ways. 

First of all, I think that we should be careful to disincentivize illegal migration, as I suggested a moment ago. 

I also support greater transparency in our policies, whether it is 

use of force at the border—and we have made some good progress 

there in making those policies more transparent—or other aspects 

of government policy. 

And I have been an advocate for that in this Department and 

when it comes to our counterterrorism activities by the Department 

of Defense when I was general counsel. 

Mr. CONYERS. My time is expired. I thank you for your responses. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. 
17 

Secretary Johnson, first I want to thank the Department of 

Homeland Security for their support for the National Computer Forensic Institute. It has solved many crimes. 

It was initially designed for financial crimes, but they have actually solved hundreds of pedophile cases and child predator cases. 

And it trained law enforcement agents and judges all over the Nation. So I thank you for that. 

The Department of Homeland Security is in a partnership with 

the Drug Enforcement Agency and ICE and local agencies to combat what I would call an epidemic of synthetic drug abuse. In May, 

you had Project Synergy, which actually seized millions of dollars, 

I think over 200 arrests. 

There is two things that really alarm me about this. One is the 

targeted age. Most of the users of these synthetic drugs are between the ages of 14 and 25. At least one survey recently said 1 

in 9 high school students is using synthetic drugs. 

And then the results, which range—and I have a photograph 

which I am going to share privately with you. But it is a picture 

of two young people who actually died of an overdose from synthetic drugs, and the drugs were actually found there on the scene. 

And we have had those cases all over the United States. 

The second is that, not only that, it is causing long-term psychotic depression or psychological damage to our young people. 

But the most alarming thing—and I want you to maybe comment 

on this first—is it is my understanding from that operation that 

the great majority of these funds being made—and we are talking 

about millions and millions of dollars—were being sent to terrorist 

organizations in Yemen and Lebanon. 

So I would ask you—first of all, we are talking about hundreds 

of millions of dollars from the sale of synthetic drugs here in the 

United States being used to fund terrorism, our enemies. 

Do you believe that synthetic drug proceeds are funding terrorist 

and extreme organizations? And is this a national security issue? 

That would be my first question. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. Sir, I agree with you. 

I recently attended a briefing on transnational criminal organizations that are engaged in—billions in illegal narcotic activities, and 

we are beginning to see a connection between these organizations 

and terrorist organizations where one is supporting the other. 

So I agree very much with that observation, and I agree very 

much with the national security concerns that we should all have 

in this regard. 

Within the Department of Homeland Security, HSI—Homeland 

Security Investigations—is very involved, as you pointed out, with 

DEA in dealing with the problem of synthetic drugs. 

HSI, in my observation, is a terrific aggressive law enforcement 

organization. I have a good deal of confidence in their ability to address this issue, and I appreciate your interest in this. 

Mr. BACHUS. From what I have read and learned from talking 

to DEA and other agencies, the actual majority of these funds derived from the profits are going to the Middle East. 

Have you found that to be the case? Are you aware of that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I share that observation. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. 
18 

When I was on the Oversight Subcommittee, we had hearings 

on—and we focused on cocaine from Colombia. But I think synthetic drugs, which you don’t hear a lot of talk about, should be 

getting the same attention today. And I am not sure the American 

people realize just how serious this type of drug use is. 

Would you like to comment on that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. It is a growing epidemic, sir. And when I 

was a prosecutor 25 years ago, it was crack cocaine. Now we are 

seeing other illegal narcotics that are causing a lot of destruction 

and heartache in our community. 

And I think the Department of Homeland Security has a role in 

addressing this through HSI, CBP, other organizations within the 

Department. I think we have got a role, and I think we need to 

make an investment in this. So I agree with your assessment, and 

I share your concern. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. 

The last thing I have learned is almost all of these synthetic 

drugs, the material is being produced in China and then shipped 

to the United States where, actually, $1,000 worth can be turned 

into $250,000 on the street. 

The State of Alabama—and I am very proud of our legislature— 

they recently passed a law which is Senate Bill 333, which tries to 

stay one step ahead of drug producers. 

What that law does—what happens is the drug producers and 

the people marketing these will change the contents just a little to 

sort of stay ahead of the law because, you know, most of the laws 

say it has to be a certain material and it has to be a combination. 

And so all they do is tweak that drug. And I have actually been 

told that what they will do when they outlaw a certain combination, they will actually get on the phone and tell the folks in China, 

‘‘Change that formula.’’ 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Time of the gentleman has expired. 

Secretary can respond if he has a response. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I share the Congressman’s concern. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to join in welcoming Secretary Johnson, especially as a 

former constituent and a graduate of Columbia Law School in my 

district. 

Mr. Secretary, as you know, Congress passed a number of years 

ago the 9/11 Commission Implementation Bill which mandated 

that all maritime cargo must be scanned before it is loaded onto 

ships bound for the United States. 

When we wrote the law, we recognized that 100 percent scanning 

would be difficult to achieve overnight, which is why we gave DHS 

flexibility, 5 years to comply and allow for extensions of the deadline in certain cases. 

We assumed that 100 percent scanning would be phased in and 

that the Department would make an honest effort to comply with 

the law. 
19 

Can you tell us what the Department is doing to make progress 

on container scanning. And do you commit to work with us in good 

faith to develop a plan for implementing the law? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. As you and I have discussed, Congressman, I am very much aware of the 2007 law. It was first brought 

to my attention in the Senate confirmation process. 

And my general view is, if there is a duly enacted law by Congress that mandates certain things, I have got to make a good-faith 

effort to try to comply. 

Now, as you know, this particular law is a very large unfunded 

mandate. And so, when I got into office, I took a careful look at it. 

I have been to ports. I have looked at the logistics to try to set up 

a 100 percent scanning regime at overseas ports. 

And it is, to be frank, a very, very large project. And I have 

asked my folks, first of all, ‘‘What is in our best national security 

interest?’’ Second, as long as the law is on the books, we have got 

to make a good-faith effort to try to comply with it. 

And so I have had the conversation with Senator Markey, with 

you and others about how I am exercising my authority under the 

law to waive application of the law for the next 2 years. 

But in that same letter, which I think you have seen, I have also 

talked about some of the steps we will take for a plan to try to get 

us there, in other words including raising the percentage of cargo 

that is scanned to move in the right direction on this and demonstrate we are making our best efforts at trying to comply. And 

it is set forth in the letter, which I think you have seen, sir. 

Mr. NADLER. Yes, I have. I want to thank you for your willingness to work with us. 

And I know that Homeland Security Ranking Member Bennie 

Thompson has been a great champion of this issue, too. And I am 

sure that he and I and perhaps others will want to meet with you 

to discuss in greater detail how we can develop a mutually agreeable path forward. 

I would like to also say that it is obviously the policy of the Administration that we should close the detention facility Guantanamo. 

We have been told by U.S. generals and others that the presence 

of that facility and our actions there have fueled terrorist sentiment and have been used to recruit terrorists who seek to do us 

harm. 

Can you tell the Committee if you believe that keeping Guantanamo open is a threat to our national security. Is it 

fomentingrecruitment of terrorists abroad and so forth? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you for bringing me back to my last 

job in public service. 

Yes. I believe that the existence of Guantanamo as a detention 

facility represents an issue of national security. It has been a recruiting tool by Al Qaeda. 

I also believe that the guard force there is remarkably professional. It is a very well-run facility, but it is also hugely expensive. 

And there is going to come a point where—we may already be 

at that point it is no longer making sense from a taxpayer point 

of view to maintain such a hugely expensive multimillion dollar fa-
20 

cility for what are today, I believe, something like less than 160 detainees. 

And so I know the President is committed to closing the facility, 

and I think that that for a number of reasons is a worthwhile objective. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

My last question is back to immigration. In recent months, we 

have heard reports about Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

officers conducting routine immigration enforcement actions at 

courthouses around the country. 

People have been apprehended by ICE when they went to the 

courthouse to pay a traffic ticket, to answer criminal charges, or to 

obtain a protective order. In one case, a person was detained when 

he appeared in court to get married. 

These enforcement actions will make immigrants afraid to appear for criminal hearings, to exercise their First Amendment 

rights to petition the government for redress of grievances, to seek 

protective orders in connection with instances of domestic violence, 

to advocate for the equal justice under law, and conduct other important civic business. 

ICE already has a policy regarding enforcement in sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals and places of worship. 

Do you agree or not that courthouses, which are essentially for 

the protection of our constitutional rights, only if you have access 

to those courthouses, should be added to the list of sensitive locations for ICE-appropriate discretion? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I received the letter on this, and I was a little surprised to find out that courthouses are not on the list of 

what we consider to be sensitive locations, though there is a separate policy dealing with courthouses that ICE has. 

My view is that, as you articulated it, courthouses are special. 

We ought to have a special policy with regard to courthouses. 

However, I can readily—I can see certain circumstances where 

somebody really dangerous shows up at a courthouse where ICE or 

law enforcement, in general, needs to apprehend that person, just 

can’t afford to let him go. 

Mr. NADLER. That would be the same if that person appeared at 

a hospital, too. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I can foresee exigent circumstances where 

somebody truly dangerous who is a fugitive or otherwise should be 

arrested on the spot, and I would support that. But this is an issue 

that I intend to look at more closely. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. We appreciate your appearance today. Also, I appreciate your friendship, your service in 

the Department of Defense, and your service in your current position. 
21 

I was not surprised when I read on your confirmation hearing 

that you pledged transparency and candor with Congress, and it is 

that transparency and candor that we appreciate and we ask today. 

We have had testimony before this Committee that violent criminal gangs are a major problem in the United States and some of 

those gangs, such as MS-13, are one of the most violent. 

We have had—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am sorry, sir. I didn’t hear—— 

Mr. FORBES. MS-13, one of the most violent criminal gangs, that 

as many as two-thirds—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. FORBES [continuing]. Of their members were here illegally. 

Last year, when ICE began releasing convicted criminals, I asked 

then-Director Morton how many of those released were members of 

violent criminal gangs, and I think the Committee was shocked 

that he didn’t have a clue. 

Based on your letter that you submitted, I think, yesterday to 

the Committee, we now know that in excess of 36,000 criminals 

have been released. 

And the question I would have for you today is: Of the 36,000 

released, do you have any clue how many were members of violent 

criminal gangs? 

Secretary JOHNSON. If you are referring to the letter I think you 

are referring to, it is a letter signed by the Deputy Secretary yesterday. 

And I believe that there is an attachment to the letter that has 

a numerical breakdown by category of the criminal convictions, and 

it may—— 

Mr. FORBES. But it says nothing about whether they are members of violent criminal gangs. 

So my question is, one: Do you know of any records that you 

have of how many of those members released were members of violent criminal gangs? 

Secretary JOHNSON. If we have it, I will be happy to provide it. 

Mr. FORBES. You don’t know of any today? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Sitting here right now, I don’t know whether 

it is broken down—— 

Mr. FORBES. Do you know whether we even ask individuals who 

are detained if they are members of a violent criminal gang? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I suspect we do in the immigration enforcement process, but I—— 

Mr. FORBES. I would suggest you have no record of that. And, if 

you do, if you would correct me on that. 

The third question is: Isn’t it true that individuals can receive 

asylum for withholding of removal if they simply claim that they 

have renounced their membership in a gang? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am not sure about that, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. And then let me ask you this—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I know the asylum process. I am not—— 

Mr. FORBES. Let me ask you this question. 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. Sure of the specific answer to 

that question. 
22 

Mr. FORBES. Did you conduct a town hall meeting at DHS office 

in Fairfax, Virginia, on April 23, 2014, with ICE agents and officers 

present? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. FORBES. Did they voice strong concerns to you that gang 

members, other public safety threats, and criminals are being released due to new Administration, DHS policy such as DACA, and 

John Morton’s arrest priorities memorandum? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We talked about a lot of things. 

Mr. FORBES. Did they express concern about what I just outlined 

to you? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I recall discussions about pay. I recall discussions about—— 

Mr. FORBES. That is not my question. And you know I have only 

got a certain amount of time, Mr. Johnson. 

Did they or did they not express strong concerns to you that gang 

members and public safety threats and criminals were being released based upon the Administration’s policies? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t recall that statement in that way. 

Mr. FORBES. Let me suggest that they did. 

Secretary JOHNSON. But I’m not doubting they did if somebody 

says they did. 

Mr. FORBES. The following question is this: Did these officers and 

agents tell you that the Administration policies have tied their 

hands, preventing them from keeping many dangerous criminals 

off the streets, and that, in their opinion as boots-on-the-ground officers in the field, the new policies are a failure? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t recall it that way. I do recall a recognition that we should be going after the worst of the worst in our 

enforcement priorities. 

Mr. FORBES. So you have no recollection that these agents expressed these concerns to you? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That’s not what I said. 

Mr. FORBES. Do you have a recollection of that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I recall a general discussion about our enforcement priorities, and I recall that we all agreed that we should 

focus on the worst of the worst. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Secretary, I understand what you recall there. 

That is not my question. My question is, do you or do you not recall 

them expressing strong concerns about the issues I just raised to 

you? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Not exactly in the terms you stated it. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. But pretty close to those terms? 

Secretary JOHNSON. In general terms, we had a discussion about 

our enforcement priorities. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. And, Mr. Johnson, thanks for not answering 

that question. It certainly is a violation of what you pledged that 

you were going to do in transparency and—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I gave you my best recollection, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. I understand. I would think that would be a strong 

thing that you would remember if it was expressed that way, and 

it was expressed that way as I understand it. 

Next question, final question I have for you is, we now know, 

based on a GAO report, that DHS has purchased 84 million rounds 
23 

of ammunition, totaling $19 million. Can you tell us and give us 

a report back as to what that ammunition is used for and what caliber bullets are being used for? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Sitting here right now, I can’t give you that 

information. But I’d be happy to provide that to you.3 

Mr. FORBES. And just for the record, the information I gave came 

from the ICE union who was present at that particular hearing 

with you, and they stated that that’s what they expressed. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Chair thanks the gentleman, recognizes the 

gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Secretary, in the aftermath of the typhoon in the Philippines 

many Members of Congress, and many people in the Filipino community, pushed for temporary protective status. Can you give me 

an update on what the status of the TPS for those in the Philippines is today? 

Secretary JOHNSON. It is under review, and I believe we are close 

to the finish line on that review, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Good. Keep pushing. 

I understand that under the Prison Rape Elimination Act that 

regulations in Homeland Security are going into effect at this time. 

Are you proactively trying to renegotiate private contracts to make 

sure that the new regulations apply to contractors as well as the 

government facilities? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’ve checked on the status of that, and I believe that we are, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can you say something about the use of solitary confinement in government facilities and private facilities? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, an immigration facility is not like a 

prison. I can imagine circumstances in any detention facility where 

somebody needs to be separated and placed in some form of solitary 

confinement for reasons of safety, force protection, or other circumstance. So I wouldn’t rule it out necessarily. But I do recognize 

that an immigration detention facility is different in nature from 

a prison where convicted criminals are being housed. 

Mr. SCOTT. Changing subject to Fast and Furious. It’s my understanding that this process started during the Bush administration, 

that the Attorney General during that Administration was aware 

of it, and it continued into the Obama administration. But when 

Attorney General Holder found out about it, he put an end to it. 

To the best of your knowledge, is anybody in your Department now 

facilitating the trafficking of firearms to terrorists and drug dealers? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Not to my knowledge, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

In terms of airport screening, there is a program spot screening 

passengers by observation techniques. Are you familiar with this 

program? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, I believe I am. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can you explain how this can be done without ethnic 

profiling or how it can be done effectively? 
24 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think that behavioral screeners at airports—it is a pretty sophisticated methodology. I’ve had one or two 

briefings on it, and I’ve had the same question and the same concern. I’m satisfied that, whether it is airport security or other activities of the Department of Homeland Security, that there are 

ways to do what we need to do to screen for aviation security 

threats, other threats, without engaging in sort of any racial 

profiling. 

Now, immigration enforcement, border security, is different from 

law enforcement in general. It’s different from stop and frisk in 

general. We do in various contexts take account of the nationality 

of people in the Administration and enforcement of our immigration laws. And so there’s a distinction there. But I do believe that 

we should not be engaging in racial profiling per se. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Could you say a word about the process for reviewing incidents 

of use of deadly force by Border Patrol officers and whether or not 

that review process is adequate? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. This issue has been one that I have focused on in my 5 months in office. As I suggested earlier, I think 

that transparency in our policies goes a long way to removing a lot 

of the controversy that may exist about a policy. And so a couple 

of months ago I encouraged CBP to make their use-of-force policy 

public, and the same with other components of DHS, and they have 

done that. 

I also encouraged the Chief of the Border Patrol to think about 

incorporating expressly into the policies issues about rock throwing, issues about when an agent feels threatened by a vehicle, and 

he did that. And I believe that we now have a use-of-force policy 

that takes account of those things, which have been controversial 

in the past, but also preserves the agent’s ability to defend himself 

if his life is truly threatened or he is in harm’s way. So I think we 

are in a better place that we were before, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And is the review process adequate? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m sorry? 

Mr. SCOTT. When there is the use of deadly force, you review 

each case. Is that right? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. And is that review process adequate? I understand 

that in no case has anyone been sanctioned for inappropriate use 

of deadly force? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe our officers should be held accountable for misconduct. I believe in that generally. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding 

this hearing today. And I thank the Secretary for appearing and 

his testimony. 

As I’m listening to the testimony here, I happened to hear an exchange earlier that you have developed a plan to address the OTMs 

and the unaccompanied children and that that has become a significant problem on the southern border, especially the southern tip 

of Texas. I heard that correctly, Mr. Secretary? 
25 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. KING. Yes. And can you describe this plan to this Committee? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Sure. A couple of things. And it’s definitely 

a work in progress. We are building on this, because it is a growing 

problem and we need to take steps to address it. And I am open 

to additional steps. In fact, when I go back to my office I am going 

to have a meeting on this very subject to look at all the options on 

the table. 

But what we have done so far, I have declared what’s called a 

Level 4 state of readiness, which means we need to draw upon resources and assets of other departments to help us out. And I appointed within CBP a Federal coordinator for that effort. Number 

two, I have personally contacted the Secretary of HHS to highlight 

this as a problem that together we need to address, and she recognizes her obligations under the law to take these kids as soon as 

we identify them as unaccompanied children. 

Mr. KING. Just for the information of this Committee, is this the 

plan that the President has asked you to withhold until such time 

as we get through the August break? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No, this is something totally different. 

Mr. KING. Okay. Could you describe the plan that the President 

has asked you to withhold until we get to the August break? I 

think this Committee is really interested in what it is, the sword 

of Damocles that is hanging over our head. We would be very interested in knowing what that is. 

Secretary JOHNSON. What I am doing, what I am in the middle 

of reviewing right now is our enforcement priorities. That is what 

the President asked me to review in March. I actually had begun 

thinking about that before he made public his request, and I am 

still in the midst of the review. But he has asked me to hold on 

the announcement of that until the end of the summer. 

Mr. KING. So if I asked you the question on what that might materialize to be as you know it today, your answer to me would be 

you don’t want to answer that question? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m not in a position to answer it right now, 

and my review is not complete, sir. So if I gave you an answer it 

would be a premature answer. I’m sorry, I misunderstood your 

question earlier. 

Mr. KING. Well, thank you. I take it that this is some type of derivation of the DACA plan. That is what we anticipate here. This 

Committee, on this side at least, understands that there is specific 

Federal law that the President has ordered ICE not to follow. And 

there is a lawsuit that is out there now that is working its way 

through the courts, the case of Crane v. Napolitano, that addresses 

this separation of powers issue and prosecutorial discretion. 

I’d ask you, does your policy that you’re enacting now, the DACA 

policy—which I refer to as the deferred action for criminal aliens— 

does that create groups or classes of people as a result of the directive that we refer to as the Morton memos or DACA? 

Secretary JOHNSON. DACA, as I understand it was enacted 2 

years ago, and something like 600,000 people have enrolled in the 

program. It is up for renewal later this year. I anticipate that it 

will be renewed. 
26 

Mr. KING. Does it create groups or classes of people? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m not sure I understand your question. 

Mr. KING. By the definitions and the directives that are DACA 

or the Morton memos, is the result of that that the definitions create groups or classes of people, rather than, as I saw seven times 

referenced in that document delivered by Janet Napolitano, she 

said seven times, or referenced to, on an individual basis only, 

prosecutorial discretion on an individual basis only. I am asserting 

to you that it creates groups or classes of people and asking you 

whether you agree or disagree. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I now understand your question. The way 

DACA works, there is an individual assessment of whether or not 

the person can be in the program based on a background check, 

based on the particulars of that person’s situation. 

Mr. KING. So as the clock has turned yellow, do you agree or disagree that it produces and results in groups or classes of people? 

Secretary JOHNSON. There is a class of people who are eligible for 

the DACA program, but they’ve got to go through a background 

check for criminal history and so forth. 

Mr. KING. May I ask you another question? I have an amendment that is pending a vote right now on the floor of the House 

of Representatives with regard to the Justice appropriations that 

directs the Attorney General to investigate these tens of thousands 

of criminals that have been released onto the streets, partly as a 

result of this program, partly of others. If that becomes law, will 

you cooperate with the Department of Justice in that particular investigation? 

Secretary JOHNSON. You can always count on me to comply with 

the law, sir. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Appreciate it. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here with us today. I 

think that your openness is really a breath of fresh air here for the 

Committee, and the transparency that you are seeking to provide 

to not just the Committee, but to the country, is very welcome. 

It is often said that the Immigration and Nationality Act is as 

complicated and convoluted as the Tax Code, and I think that is 

about right. Therefore it can be very confusing. I mean, it is easy 

to throw numbers around and impressions can be created that may 

not be accurate. 

For example, it was stated earlier, I think by the Chairman, that 

the Committee had learned that between 2008 and 2011 ICE declined to take enforcement action against 160,000 people who were 

arrested by State or local law enforcement agencies. Now, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service produced the subpoena 

and provided us with a report, and according to their analysis more 

than 60 percent of those people were legal permanent residents of 

the United States. They couldn’t be removed until they were convicted of an offense. 

So I think it’s important to note that we are not just talking 

about individuals who are present without proper immigration doc-
27 

uments. We are talking people who are legal permanent residents 

of the United States, in some cases have lived here for decades, 

and maybe ran afoul of the law. 

I’m concerned that as we take a look at how we are applying our 

enforcement standards, that we take a look at the nature of the offenses that are at issue. We know that the most common Federal 

prosecution in the United States today is felony reentry after removal. And in most of those cases, from best we can tell, those are 

individuals who are trying to get back to their families here in the 

United States. They are doing what former Governor Bush described as an act of love. They are trying to come back to be a parent to their children. 

And so I’m hopeful that we can take a look at what we are actually doing here when you take a look at the review. I was looking 

at former Director Morton’s detainer memorandum. I think it is 

very instructive why so many communities are refusing to cooperate with the Department today. And in fact the State of California 

passed a law saying they will not respond to the Department of 

Homeland Security. It says a prior felony conviction, but it doesn’t 

actually specify that could—if that conviction is really just about 

immigration, trying to get back to their kids, we look at it differently than if you commit a criminal offense. 

An individual has illegally reentered the country after a prior removal or return, an individual who has an outstanding order of removal. These are really immigration offenses and they deter individuals from cooperating with the police, which is why all the police chiefs have come out against the Secure Communities program. 

So I guess my question to you, Mr. Secretary, is as you take your 

review of our enforcement, I think we all agree that we want to 

focus on people who are violent, who harm others. But I’m noticing 

that the single biggest removal category in 2013, more than half, 

was for immigration violations. Are you going to be able to take a 

look at those issues as you review this, sir? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m in the midst of taking a look at those 

issues. One observation I’ll make, I think that as I’ve looked at this 

guidance myself, which covers a multiyear period, I see a certain 

lack of clarity in the prioritization and the guidance, and I think 

we could do a better job there. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I thank you very much for that. And I wanted to just briefly touch on the unaccompanied alien minors. I know 

that you are concerned about the surge and that it is important. 

And we have recognized as a Congress, we’ve passed a law that 

these little children are not going to be treated as criminals. But 

what efforts can we make to deal with Central American nations 

so that they can take some responsibility for these little kids, I 

mean, some 3- and 4-year-old kids that end up in our custody? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’ve had this conversation with the Ambassadors from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, this 

exact question. And I think a lot of it is public messaging in 

English and in Spanish. Don’t send your child or send for your 

child through south Texas. A processing center in south Texas is 

no place for a child. 

I think that we have to work with the governments of Central 

America on migration from their countries. I plan to go to Guate-
28 

mala myself in the month of July on this issue. And there are a 

number of other things that I think we can do. And I’m sensing a 

fair amount of receptivity from those governments to work with us 

on this. I think we all recognize, including them, that we have a 

problem in this area and we need to more aggressively address. 

And that’s one of my priorities, and I’m personally invested in it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I see my 

time has expired. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. 

Recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, thank you, Secretary Johnson, for being here with us today. 

Mr. Secretary, I know you—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. Nice to see you again, sir. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. 

I’m sure you’ve heard about the case regarding Meriam Ibrahim, 

the Sudanese Christian who was sentenced to death for apostasy. 

Her husband is a U.S. Citizen and she has two young children, one 

of which was just born 2 days ago in her mother’s prison. Now, 

both of these children are eligible for U.S. citizenship, and this case 

has become so high profile that many of us are deeply concerned 

about Meriam’s safety in Sudan, especially if she wins her appeal 

and is released back into the Sudanese society at large. 

So my question to you, Mr. Secretary, will you assure this Committee that you will prioritize this case and quickly review the possibility of granting Meriam a safe haven in the United States? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, I will personally, along with 

the appropriate component heads, take a look at this case. It 

sounds troubling. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. Is this a case you were aware of at this 

point? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I was generally familiar with the case, I 

think. But I will take a look at the case, yes, sir. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Secretary, the DHS Act of 2002, as you may know, lays out 

the roles and responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of Infrastructure Protection. First, can you tell us which Federal agency 

has the primary responsibility of protecting the electric grid? And 

secondly, has your Assistant Secretary made recommendations to 

protect the electric grid from all known significant hazards, to include EMP and GMD, as mandated, of course, in her role? And if 

not, why would DHS hesitate to do everything possible to protect 

the electric grid from potentially catastrophic events? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Within DHS, sir, NPPD, our National Programs Protectorate Directorate—I think I have got that right—is 

responsible for critical infrastructure, including power grids and 

the like. In conjunction with other Federal agencies, we have that 

responsibility. But it’s not ours alone. It’s a shared responsibility 

with other Federal agencies. But within DHS, that’s the place 

where it belongs. And I agree with the sentiment of your question 

about the importance of protecting power grids and substations and 

the like. 
29 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, we have a letter from DTRA that expresses 

that the primary responsibility of protecting the power grid is assigned to the Department of Homeland Security with assistance 

from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And I guess I’m 

just wondering why this isn’t even insinuated right now in your 

emergency protocols, electromagnetic pulse or geomagnetic disturbance. And I’m hoping that if nothing else comes from this, that that 

is on your radar, because we have additional information that 

seems to indicate that the threat is more significant than we have 

been aware of. Will you take that back? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I will be happy to take a look at that, sir. 

Mr. FRANKS. All right. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I am going 

to yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Chair thanks the gentleman, recognizes the 

gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you. Welcome to the Judiciary Committee. 

And let me on the record thank the many men and women of the 

Department of Homeland Security that I have had the privilege of 

working with for more than a decade, certainly since the heinous 

act of 9/11. All of us are committed to the security of this Nation, 

and we know that every day members of your staff, of this Department, are on the front lines unthanked. Not unappreciated. I’m 

sure my Members on this panel would say that they are appreciated. But they go by every day without thanks. And every day 

that we stay secure in this Nation we owe them a debt of gratitude, 

and I want to publicly make that point. 

We work together to improve their work performance, how we 

can add resources that are effectively used, not just throwing 

money after an issue. And we are a team. And I think that is the 

approach that I hope that you perceive these questions, certainly 

mine, and recognize that we have to do this together. 

I have a series of questions, and let me quickly proceed with 

them. I have worked with my colleague, Congresswoman Lofgren, 

for a number of years, and Members of this Committee, on the unaccompanied children. I know that you were at the border. The 

numbers should be stated for the record, some 60,000, an increase 

of over 800 percent since 2011. My Subcommittee on Border Security and Maritime Security on Homeland Security had a hearing 

and markup which we added language to the border security authorization bill on the determination of resources used in a slightly 

different perspective, on the issue of human trafficking, unaccompanied children. 

But I raise these issues. I would partly like them to come in writing, because I have another series of questions. 

I am concerned about the detention conditions of these children. 

We know that this Committee some years ago referred the HHS jurisdiction in particular on these children, particularly the families 

and youth commission. I understand that detained immigrants are 

the cleanup persons in some detention centers. I don’t know if they 

are cooking food, but they are cleaning up. I want to know what 

is your understanding of that situation and whether children are 

used to clean up and do work as well. 
30 

What kind of legal representation does the DHS provide, or are 

they seeking to have a structure providing legal representation for 

these unaccompanied children? 

If you could answer that. Let me just give my questions, I think 

it is important, because some of them you will have to give in writing and I apologize to you. 

I have a sheriff that you have had the opportunity to meet with 

in Harris County who has mentioned the effectiveness of 287(g). 

Let me say that he has done an enormous job with respect of including or writing an MOU that would include having ICE at the 

table. But the real point is that under 287(g) we are finding out 

that 85 to 90 percent of the people are not terrorists and drug cartel members, but simply trespassers, marijuana possessors, mostly 

people working in the community, not dangerous. 

And therefore, the funding that we are using is not capturing 

people to allow us to be safe. I would like to know whether you are 

assessing the effectiveness of 287(g) and the moneys that we spend 

for it. 

Many of us have worked for the people who are now residing in 

Camp Liberty. The MEK has been declared a nonterrorist group in 

the United States. My understanding as these individuals at Camp 

Liberty are trying to assimilate and receive status in the United 

States, that DHS and FBI officers are asking them to deny their 

affiliation with the MEK, which is no longer a terrorist group. That 

poses a great difficult for any of these individuals trying to get here 

to the United States of America. 

So I would like you to begin on the children and then work on 

the issue of the 287(g). But I would like you to get to MEK. So if 

you can’t get to everything then just answer MEK and I will take 

the others in writing. 

Secretary JOHNSON. First of all, thank you for those questions. 

We are concerned about the plight of the MEK, and we are taking 

a special look at interviewing them, screening them for the purposes that you have referred to. I am not on the ground there, I 

am not firsthand familiar with how that process is going, but it’s 

something that I know our government is focused on, and we have 

made commitments that we seek to fulfill with regard to the MEK. 

I’m very focused on the issue of the children in south Texas, as 

you know, Congresswoman. I visited there personally. I’m concerned about detention conditions, as I was in the Department of 

Defense, our detention facilities in DOD. I took a special interest 

in conditions of confinement and advocated for and saw a number 

of improvements to our conditions of detention. And so that’s a special interest of mine that I’m continuing at DHS. 

My understanding of the work program is it’s voluntary in nature at our facilities. Nobody is required to work if they don’t want 

to. It is a form of activity for people who want to work and get paid 

for their work. Now, is it a lot of money? I don’t think it is. But 

it is a voluntary program. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me just conclude by saying, if I can 

explore it further with you, if we can engage in meetings on this, 

as well as a further understanding of the actual questioners or people on the ground in Iran regarding Camp Liberty. You are not 

there, but the question has to be, if they have been removed off the 
31 

list, why would that be asked or seen as a bar, meaning that they 

have to denounce it? And I do think we need to be fair in the process. 

So I look forward, Mr. Chairman—I thank the Chairman—I look 

forward to, Mr. Secretary, pursuing these more definitively, both in 

terms of the detention center and children, 287(g), which I mentioned to you, and the MEK. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time has of the gentlewoman has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just say I agree with my colleague from Texas about 

Camp Ashraf and the injustices that have gone on, and appreciate 

you looking into that. 

Secretary Johnson, back in 2011 and 2012 I had conversations 

here in a hearing with Secretary Napolitano about one of the top 

advisers at Homeland Security, named Mohammed Elbiary. I had 

asked her if she knew about his downloading of two documents utilizing the classified secret clearance that she had given him and 

she said no. However, the night before the director of the Department of Public Safety in Texas had been assured she was briefed 

that evening about the situation. So either Secretary Napolitano 

lied to me or we have people at Homeland Security that are lying 

to State officials. Neither of those is a good situation. 

So I have got a letter here dated May 28 asking to you look into 

this. She said later in 2012 she had looked into the situation and 

said that he, Mr. Elbiary, did not shop these documents he 

downloaded. And the fact is there is a reporter that did the story 

and I know from talking to the reporter even yesterday that nobody 

contacted the reporter to get the information. It’s kind of like asking Tsarnaev: Are you radicalized? Asking his mother: Are you 

radicalized? And then being satisfied that a Boston bombing won’t 

occur. It is not adequate, and we hope that you will look into that. 

I have letter dated May 28 asking you to do that. Would you look 

into the matter further? It is a serious matter if someone with the 

Homeland Security Advisory Council has shopped information he 

downloaded. Wouldn’t you agree? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I read the exchange that you had with Secretary Napolitano a couple of years ago. I’m not—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. But my question is, do you agree that if someone 

on the Advisory Council has shopped documents to a national 

media outlet that he downloaded that would be a serious matter, 

wouldn’t it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I agree that unauthorized disclosures of government information is problematic. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. So would you agree to look further into the 

matter since nobody bothered to contact even reporter that put it 

in print that that had happened? 

So also I found the Texas resources very reliable and I’ve provided information that from October 2008 to April 2014 Texas identified a total of 177,588 unique criminal alien defendants booked 

into Texas county jails. These individuals have been identified 

through the Secure Communities initiative in which Texas has participated since August of 2008. A review of these 177,588 defend-
32 

ants shows they are responsible for at least 611,234 individual 

criminal charges over their criminal careers, including 2,993 homicides, 7,695 sexual assaults. 

And I know that these numbers are staggering. ICE’s total docket for 2013 was 1,813,504, with total departures of 386,000. So to 

the end of fiscal year 2013, less than 2 percent of ICE’s caseload 

was in detention, and they report 872,000 cases on the docket who 

had received final orders of removal but had not yet been deported. 

Since those cases are only counted after due process has been exhausted, sir, I know you are new to the situation, but are you going 

to formulate a plan to reduce the massive numbers of aliens in this 

country illegally that have been ordered removed from the United 

States? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I may be new to the job but I’m responsible 

for the Department from the day I started. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Sure. 

Secretary JOHNSON. In general I believe that we need to do a better job of working more effectively with State and local law enforcement. 

Mr. GOHMERT. My time is running out and I just need to know 

whether or not you are going to formulate a plan to reduce those 

numbers and the backlog awaiting deportation—been ordered deported. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think we need to reduce the backlog, but 

I need help from Congress to do that. You give me the resources 

to do the job. I have a finite amount of—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Sir, that is the amazing thing. If you do the job, 

and we see you doing the job, then you get the resources you need. 

I have other questions, and I would ask that the letters dated 

May 28 and May 29 be provided to the Secretary in seeking written 

answers to the questions, if you would be amenable to having those 

answered for me. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. I look forward to your letter. 

I will read it personally. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Thank you. Let the record reflect those are 

being provided at this time. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. You did it very well, Mr. Chairman. It is a hard 

one to pronounce. Thank you. 

Secretary Johnson, welcome to the Committee. In your short 

time in office you have already proven yourself a worthy successor 

to Secretary Napolitano. She traveled to Puerto Rico in 2012, and 

I hope you will visit the island as well. 

I would like to outline an narrative for you and then ask you to 

comment. I took office in 2009. That year there were about 900 

homicides in Puerto Rico, home to less than 4 million American 

citizens. In 2010 there were nearly 1,000 homicides. And in 2011 

there were over 1,100 homicides, an average over 3 a day, the most 

violent year in the territory’s history. 

In each year our homicide rate was four to six times the national 

average and twice as high as any State. Of every 10 murders in 

Puerto Rico, seven to eight are linked to the drug trade. Puerto 
33 

Rico is within the U.S. Customs zone and is used by organizations 

transporting narcotics from South America to the U.S. mainland. 

Given this crisis, I examined the level of resources that DHS and 

DOJ were dedicating to combat drug-related violence in Puerto 

Rico and it was clear that the Federal law enforcement footprint 

on the island was inadequate. Let me give two examples on the 

DHS side. 

First, in 2011 patrol aircraft from the Coast Guard, the lead 

agency for maritime drug interdiction, conducted a meager 150 

flight hours of drug interdiction operations in Puerto Rico. If Puerto Rico were a State, that would have never been allowed to occur. 

Second, and also in 2011, CBP closed a boat unit in San Juan that 

had seized over 7,000 pounds of drugs the previous year. Clearly 

there was a disconnect between the problem in Puerto Rico and the 

Federal response. 

Along with colleagues like Congressman Michael McCaul, who is 

now the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I did everything within my power to highlight the need for additional Federal resources in Puerto Rico. My colleagues here can attest to this, 

having heard me raise this issue every time a DHS or DOJ official 

appears before this Committee. I have no alternative because the 

stakes are too high. 

Starting in 2012, our message finally began to sink in, particularly at DHS. Much of the credit owes to Secretary Napolitano who, 

as noted, traveled to Puerto Rico and upon her return created a 

DHS task force charged with taking steps to reduce Puerto Rico’s 

murder rate. As a result of this initiative, ICE surged 30 agents 

to Puerto Rico last year where they made hundreds of arrests and 

seized vast quantities of illegal drugs and firearms. 

Between 2009 and 2013, the Coast Guard tripled the number of 

days its ships spent conducting counterdrug operations in the waters of Puerto Rico. The number of Coast Guard flight hours increased from 150 in 2011 to approximately 1,000 in 2013. And 

CBP, having assumed control of the counterdrug Aerostat radar 

program this year, moved quickly to repair the radar in southern 

Puerto Rico that had been destroyed because of bad weather in 

2011. 

The result of this DHS effort, combined with enhanced effort by 

DEA and DOJ and other DOJ component agencies, has been remarkable. Puerto Rico still has the highest murder rate in the 

country, but the number of homicides this year is on pace to be 40 

percent lower than 2011. 

The lesson, Mr. Secretary, is clear. When the Federal Government is committed to combating drug-related violence in Puerto 

Rico, hundreds of my constituents’ lives are saved each year. I’d 

like to give you the chance to comment on the narrative I just laid 

out, and I hope you can assure that Puerto Rico will continue to 

be a top priority for the agency you now lead. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, first of all, thank you for the comments. I’m pleased to know that we have been able to make 

progress since 2012 in what is obviously a very, very important 

issue and a very big problem. 

Hopefully, I’d like to be able to continue the progress that Secretary Napolitano began in 2012. This is an issue for me that I in-
34 

tend to focus on, and hopefully together we’ll be able to continue 

to make that progress, make good progress. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief 

statement and then I have some questions after that. 

The Department of Homeland Security last year released 36,000 

criminal immigrants into our neighborhoods. This would be considered the worst prison break in American history, except it was approved by the President and carried out by immigration officials. 

By the Administration’s own admission, 90 percent of those who 

were voluntarily released had committed thousands of crimes such 

as murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, drug trafficking, and hit 

and run. Should someone be charged with crimes against humanity? 

Here are some of the other ways the President has ignored or undermined current immigration laws. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 

requires the DHS to prevent all unlawful entries into the U.S., yet 

the Government Accountability Office reported in 2011 that only 

6.5 percent of the southwest border is under full control. The DHS’ 

widespread abuse of prosecutorial discretion ignores the statutory 

requirement to apprehend and remove illegal immigrants. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement weakened the rules that 

required illegal immigrants to be detained. The Administration has 

undercut the ability of local law enforcement officials to apprehend 

illegal immigrants, and currently the DHS is reviewing deportation 

policies and no doubt will weaken them even more. 

If the President cannot be trusted to enforce current immigration 

laws, how can he be trusted to enforce future immigration laws? 

Mr. Secretary, a couple of questions. First of all, in regard to the 

homicides that have been committed by those who were voluntarily 

released, will you be able to provide this Committee with the details of those homicides? Who was involved, the nature of the 

crime, the date, and so forth? 

Secretary JOHNSON. It is something that I am interested in understanding further, and I will provide that information to you 

also. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Okay. You have that information, do you 

not, in hand? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m sorry? 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. You have and information available to you, 

do you not? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I will share that information to you once I 

have it. I wrote you a letter. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Right. 

Secretary JOHNSON. We wrote you a letter that was signed out 

yesterday that more generally talks about this issue. But I’m interested in understanding further some of these more serious cases, 

and I will share that information with the Committee. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Okay. You had that information or you 

wouldn’t have been able to give us the details you did in the letter 

that you wrote. When can we expect to get the details of those 

homicides? 
35 

Secretary JOHNSON. Not long after I get it. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Do you expect that to be in the next week 

or two? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m not sure, but not long after I get it, sir. 

I will make that commitment to you. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Okay. Are you saying under oath right now 

you do not have that information? 

Secretary JOHNSON. What’s that? 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Are you saying under oath right now you 

do not have that information? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I personally do not have the information 

about the specific details of those cases. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Not you personally, but the DHS does not 

have that information? Are you saying that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Somewhere in the Department hopefully 

that information exists. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Okay. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have asked for a greater understanding of 

these particular cases, and I’m waiting for the answers to that information. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. And you will get that to us, we hope, in 

a timely fashion. Is that right? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t have a problem with sharing further 

details about these particular cases with the Committee. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Okay. Thank you. 

My second question is this: In your prepared testimony for today 

you said comprehensive immigration reform is not amnesty. Let me 

read you the definitions of amnesty. The first is from Black’s Law 

Dictionary, ‘‘A pardon extended by the government to a group or 

class of persons. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act 

provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already present in the 

country.’’ And from Merriam-Webster Dictionary, ‘‘The act of an authority as a government by which pardon is granted to a large 

group of individuals.’’ 

Now, whether individuals pay a fine or back taxes to receive citizenship is irrelevant to the definition of amnesty. Therefore, would 

you agree that the Administration has given amnesty to thousands 

of individuals and that the Senate immigration would have provided amnesty to millions of individuals, at least under the definitions that I just read from you Black’s Law Dictionary and from 

the Merriam-Webster Dictionary? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Through prosecutorial discretion, we 

prioritize our use of resources. And through the DACA program, we 

can defer action to a certain category—— 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Mr. Secretary, that is not an answer. Do 

you agree with the Administration’s policies that resulted in amnesty to hundreds of thousands of people and do you agree that the 

Senate bill would have provided amnesty to millions of people 

under the definitions that I just read you? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That’s not what I consider amnesty. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. So you disagree with Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of amnesty? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t believe that DACA or any act of prosecutorial discretion in the administration of our immigration laws 
36 

constitutes amnesty as I understand the concept of amnesty, and 

I think I do. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Why wouldn’t your concept of amnesty include the definition of amnesty in Black’s Law Dictionary? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m not sure the answer to your question. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Well, it seems to me it is kind of amazing 

that you would disagree with the longstanding definition of amnesty as given in various dictionaries. Now, it is not the first time 

the Administration wants to change the definition or change the 

terms. But I am absolutely amazed that you don’t recognize the 

legal definition of amnesty. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent to 

put into the record two statements. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Sure. Would the gentlewoman describe those 

statements? 

Ms. LOFGREN. One from the National Immigration Forum and 

one from the Human Rights First organization. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, those will be made a part of 

the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from 

Texas seek recognition? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would like to ask unanimous consent to add 

into the record a report by First Focus, ‘‘The Cost of Inaction: Why 

Children Can’t Wait for Immigration Reform.’’ 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, the document will be made a 

part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

Washington, Ms. DelBene, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Secretary Johnson, thank you, for being here today. I want to 

take a moment and thank you and FEMA Administrator Fugate for 

traveling to Oso, Washington, the site of a massive landslide in my 

district that tragically took the lives of 43 people. I think you will 

agree, it is impossible to describe the scale of what happened without being able to be there to see it, and I appreciate you coming 

out. 

The support of the Department through FEMA assistance has 

been very critical to everyone there. And as we continue with the 

recovery efforts, I look forward to continuing to work with you and 

FEMA to make sure that we have all the Federal resources available to support the communities of Oso and Darrington and Arlington as they continue in this long rebuilding process. So thank you 

again. 

I want to turn to the issue of immigration policy, which is particularly relevant in my district because we have the border with 

Canada, the northwestern border with Canada. Under Federal law, 

right now CBP officers have the right to stop and conduct 

warrantless searches on vessels, trains, aircraft, or other vehicles 

anywhere within a reasonable distance from an external boundary 

of the United States. 

Currently, Federal agents from CBP operate in a 100-mile zone 

drawn from any land or sea border, and this distance was established by regulation over 60 years ago. And while this may be sensible in some areas, especially in the southern border, in Washington State we have seen the Border Patrol set up checkpoints 

that disrupt commerce and hassle residents. I am particularly concerned about racial profiling complaints that we have received during vehicle stops. And I want to point out that last September in 

Washington State the Border Patrol reached a settlement agreement in a lawsuit alleging that the agency was engaging in discriminatory conduct in its stops. 

As a review of the Department’s immigration policies moves forward, I’d ask you to take a close look at this. We need to provide 

our Federal officers with the tools they need to keep our borders 

safe and also keep our Customs and Border Patrol agents focused 

on their mission near the border. And so I wanted to ask for your 

commitment to review the 100-mile zone, whether this is a reasonable distance from the border, in particular for the northern border. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, I will take a look at that. I will also 

take a look at our enforcement activities generally, at sea and elsewhere. It is a topic that I’m interested in as the head of this agency, as a lawyer, as a former prosecutor. 

I also want to comment on what I saw when I was in Oso. I 

think all the Members of the Committee should appreciate the remarkable community effort that we saw the day we visited there. 

Private citizens, local law enforcement, Federal law enforcement, 

State law enforcement, and just neighbors who had been at the site 

of the mudslide for like 2 weeks with no sleep trying to help their 

neighbors, trying to find evidence of their loss. It was a really remarkable effort. And so I just wanted to note that as well. 
57 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. 

Secretary JOHNSON. And I hope that your constituents are in a 

better place as a result, and please send them my regards. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, I will. 

Also, on Sunday The New York Times reported that, even as the 

Federal Government cracks down on undocumented immigrants 

and forbids businesses to hire them, it’s relying on tens of thousands of immigrants each year to provide essential labor, usually 

for a dollar per day or less at detention facilities. And in Washington State, at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, a privately run detention facility, detainees led a hunger strike recently 

to protest their conditions, which included concerns about their severe undercompensation for the labor they provide to keep these facilities running and without protections afforded to other workers. 

The vast majority of ICE detention facilities are operated under 

contracts with private prison companies and county governments. 

Given that, is there any statutory or regulatory impediment that 

would preclude DHS from requiring these contractors to pay wages 

to detainee workers that are higher than a dollar per day? 

Secretary JOHNSON. As I mentioned a moment ago, my understanding of the program is that it is on a voluntary basis. But I 

am concerned about conditions of confinement at our facilities. This 

is something that I have spoken to you and Adam Smith about, in 

particular the one in Washington State. I sent a group from my 

front office out a couple of weeks ago to visit this facility when the 

hunger strikes had started there and I intend to visit it personally 

myself, along with other detention facilities. In terms of the law 

and the legal requirements, that is something I would want to look 

into. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, I would appreciate it. Because I have 

met with individuals who were released from the detention center 

in Tacoma and they said that folks were put in solitary confinement for work stoppages, failing to show up to cover shifts. And so 

clearly that does not describe a voluntary scenario. But compensation has been important when they feel like they haven’t had adequate food and they need to work to get enough money to buy 

things from the commissary and a dollar per day does not help 

them out very much. So I would appreciate your feedback on that 

going forward. 

And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman and recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here. A few questions about several things. 

One, my friend from Texas, Ms. Lee, has made some comments and 

questions about the MEK and their status overseas. I have some 

further questions, but I’m going to put those in writing and will 

tender those to you and ask for a written response to myself and 

the Chairman. 

Secretary JOHNSON. That’s fine. 

Mr. POE. The 36,000 that have been released, walk me through 

this. As a former judge I’d like to kind of figure out what their 

legal status is. What is their legal status in the United States now 

that they are released? 
58 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, your Honor—— 

Mr. POE. Hey, I’ve been called worse. What is their legal status 

in the United States now that they have been released? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, it depends. My understanding is that 

some of those 36,000 were lawfully in the United States. Others 

were not. Others were undocumented. 

Mr. POE. The undocumented, what is their status? 

Secretary JOHNSON. They are undocumented immigrants that are 

subject to removal. 

Mr. POE. Excuse me for interrupting. I have 5 minutes. So they 

are technically illegally in the United States? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Those who were undocumented, who were 

convicted of a crime. Now, there are all sorts of variations on this. 

We are talking about a class of 36,000 people. 

Mr. POE. I understand. 

Secretary JOHNSON. But if you are undocumented and you are 

here and there is no special status, there is no special program—— 

Mr. POE. So you’re illegally in the—— 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. You’re not DACA, you’re here illegally. 

Mr. POE. Okay. The ones that were released that are undocumented that are now illegally in the United States again, did they 

get work permits? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Do they have what? Sorry. 

Mr. POE. Did they get work permits when they were released 

from custody? After being released from custody, they are now illegally in the United States again, did they get a work permit? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I couldn’t say categorically one way or the 

another. I’d have to know each individual case. 

Mr. POE. Of the 36,000, did any of them get work permits? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t know the answer to that, sir. 

Mr. POE. Will you find out the answer to that question? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We will try to find the answer out, yes, sir. 

Mr. POE. Just roughly. You don’t need to go through all 36,000. 

Just roughly, percentage-wise, I’d like to know that. 

So let’s take the ones that were undocumented. They are released. If they are rearrested for something, some other crime, then 

they are back in the status, they are back in jail again, and they 

go through the process again. Is that correct? In other words, 

they’re not given some kind of stay out of jail free card now they 

have been released, talking about the undocumented ones. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I agree generally with that, yes, sir. That 

should not be the case. 

Mr. POE. Okay. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Correct. If you are released under some conditions and you commit a crime, then that obviously changes the 

circumstances and somebody needs to reevaluate whether you 

should be running around on the streets. Correct. 

Mr. POE. My understanding is your Department has the authority, obligation to report to the State Department those countries 

that do not comply with repatriation. In other words, a person commits a crime in the United States, they are a foreign national—forget whether it is legally or illegally—but they are foreign national, 

they go to prison, they are ordered deported back to where they 
59 

came from when they get out of prison, and countries don’t take 

them back. Why would they? They have enough criminals of their 

own. 

The law says under some circumstances, after you make a recommendation to the State Department, that those countries can 

lose visas. Do you know of any time that that has happened in recent years, where that has actually been made, that somebody 

won’t take them back—China is a good example of those that don’t 

take them back, there are other countries, Vietnam—where they 

refuse to take them back and that country lost diplomatic visas or 

any kind of visas because of their failure to take it back? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I know that there was a case several years 

ago. I’ve forgotten the country. 

Mr. POE. Grenada, I believe it was. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m sorry? 

Mr. POE. Grenada or Granada. One of those two. 

Secretary JOHNSON. It was a country, I’ve forgotten which country. But I know that that occurred several years ago. 

Mr. POE. Would you get us an accurate report on that, when the 

last time that actually occurred where the recommendation was 

made? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. POE. It seems to me that this problem is going to continue 

when countries don’t have any sanction, punishment if you will, for 

failure to take back their lawfully deported criminals. And myself 

and others on the other side have legislation to try to fix this problem. 

I have other questions besides the MEK, but I am going to yield 

back my time to the Chairman. Thank you. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, recognizes the 

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Secretary Johnson. 

I guess I’d like to first of all start out by saying that I am disappointed, saddened, that you are not going to announce in the 

coming weeks. The President said that he had instructed you to do 

a review and to humanize our deportation processes in the next 90 

days. So I was waiting for a couple of weeks to give you time to 

finish that review. I want to make that clear. 

I was in Richmond, Virginia, yesterday. I wish my colleagues on 

the other side of the aisle had been in Richmond, Virginia, with 

me. They would have met a woman who has a GPS ankle bracelet, 

two American citizen children. And I assure you, because of the 

ankle bracelet you might have thought of her as a criminal, I saw 

a mom. I saw a mother of two American citizen children. And she 

said, please help me. And I’m going to help her. And I hope you 

do, too, Mr. Secretary, continue to help people like her from this 

broken immigration system. 

I met three other women there—and there were reporters that 

come from Washington, D.C.—and one after another they told me 

about their broken families. We met a young woman, beautiful 

young woman, 18 years old, been her since she was 6, spoke in two 

languages. Clearly the United States is their home. 
60 

And so I simply say to my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle, I hear you. You want to talk about law and order and law 

and order and law and order. And I’m for law and order, but I’m 

also for compassion and justice. And we can find a way where you 

can have your law and order, and I think we can find a way where 

we can have justice and compassion, too. People make mistakes. 

There is a broken immigration system. We should find a way. 

The day before that, last Friday or last Saturday, I was in Riverside with Takano, and the day before that I was with Loretta 

Sanchez on Friday. That’s how I spent my Memorial weekend, 

going and visiting. And everywhere there was the cry, Mr. Secretary, from people being deported, from families being devastated, 

from a community saying get the work done. 

So I wanted to simply say to my colleagues, look, we don’t have 

to do it the way the Senate says, but I think we have to do it. 

And let me just stay this, Mr. Secretary. While I’m disillusioned, 

I’m conflicted, too, because I think it is a pretty grand gesture on 

the part of the President of the United States, I think, in my opinion, it is a pretty grand gesture on his part to say no to me, to say 

no to those mothers in Richmond and that I met over the weekend 

in Riverside, to say no to millions of people who support him, voted 

for him, cherish him, love him, and have protected him, for him to 

say no to us because he wants to say yes to you, because he wants 

to reach an agreement with you. I think that is a pretty grand gesture, especially when I have seen the kind of disdain that some 

Members on the other side of the aisle have shown for him. I think 

it is a pretty grand gesture. 

And my point is I, like the President of the United States, want 

to work with you. I respect that you are the majority party in the 

House of Representatives and therefore get to dictate how it is 

things proceed. But I beseech you that there has got to be a way 

that we find some commonality. 

And I want you, Mr. Secretary, to understand that I want to be 

supportive. When you guys talk about criminals, criminals, criminals, you think we like criminals? I want to find a seamless process 

in which you commit a violation of the law and if you are an immigrant in this country, you pay the price here and you are 

seamlessly deported from the United States of America. I don’t 

want them here either. 

But the only way we are going to reach that is if we fix the system completely, because, unfortunately, when you talk about felonies, that they are felons, it is a felony to reenter the United States 

of America once you have been deported. But who on the other side 

would not reenter this country to regain your relationship and your 

love with your wife and your children? Which one of you would not 

reenter illegally this country? Every one of us would. 

I’ve had dinner, I’ve sat down with Members of the other side. 

I know how much you love your wives and your children. I know 

how much you cherish your families. I know what you would do 

and I think you know what I would do. So let’s simply find a way 

where we can find law and order and some compassion. 

And lastly I just want to say this. Mr. Secretary, I’m so happy 

this is the first hearing. I hope to have many, many more in which 

I actually ask you questions. But you know what, Mr. Secretary, 
61 

look, maybe you don’t need my advice, but I know you are going 

to be just fine as Secretary because you come from a great family 

tradition. And I know one day you’re going to see your grandpa 

again and he is going to be very proud of when you were Secretary 

of Homeland Security. Thank you so much for being with us this 

afternoon and this morning. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the Chairman. 

And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. Have you had an 

opportunity to meet with the president of the ICE officers union? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No, I have not. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will you meet with him? Will you meet with him? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would like to. I would like to meet with the 

president of that union. I would like to meet with the president of 

AFGE. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Okay. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would like to meet with other labor leaders. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I hope you have a chance sooner rather than later 

to meet with the ICE officers, and particularly their labor union. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I just committed to do that on TV. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I know. I appreciate it. That’s why I said I do appreciate it. 

Operational control of the border. I don’t think that’s unreasonable to ask. What’s your understanding, what percentage of the 

border do we actually have operational control of? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We don’t exactly compute it that way. We 

have got a fairly sophisticated analysis that demonstrates on the 

southwest border, for example, where we have enough assets that 

we feel that we have got pretty good situational awareness, where 

in the more remote areas we have other assets, surveillance assets, 

but we don’t have as much boots on the ground, we feel like we’ve 

got a—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I’m sorry. Time is so short here. You evidently 

wrote a letter to Senator Durbin. You said, ‘‘I do not believe that 

deportation quotas or numeric goals are a good idea.’’ Can you explain to me why you don’t think numeric goals are a good idea? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Because I think that the analysis into what 

constitutes a secure border requires a more sophisticated approach. 

It’s not just the number of attempted crossings but who’s crossing. 

Where are they from? Are they drug dealers? Are they recividists? 

Are they criminals? I think there’s a more sophisticated analysis 

that goes into what constitutes border security. 

Mr. Chaffetz. So where they’re from and if they’re a criminal or 

not—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. And the chief of the Border Patrol agrees 

with me. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You say the Border Patrol agrees with you? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I just don’t understand. We all try to look at the 

same set of metrics. You’re saying that metrics aren’t necessarily 

a good idea, and it depends their intent on crossing the border as 

to whether or not to actually have operational control. Explain that 
62 

to me a little bit more. I don’t understand that. If you’re saying we 

have to look at their intent, where they’re from, if they’re criminals. So it’s okay if they don’t have bad intent, but it’s not good 

if they have evil intent? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe metrics are very important, but not 

just one metric. I don’t believe that it is as simple as one statistic 

like effectiveness rate. I think that there is more that should go 

into what constitutes a secure border, and we have that analysis—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Is that something you can share with us? 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. And I think it needs further refinement. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Is that something you can share with us? I’d love 

to see what your version of that is, but I haven’t seen that. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’ve had that conversation with other Members of the Congress. I’m happy to have it with you, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. And if there was some sort of document there, I would sincerely appreciate it. 

Biometrics. You said, quote, and this is during your Senate confirmation, ‘‘Biometric exit is in my judgment the gold standard. It’s 

a place that we eventually ought to get to,’’ end quote. How do we 

get there? And I want to add another part of this because I think 

they do go hand in glove. You said that it is your goal, I believe 

in response to Mr. King, that if you had enough resources, then you 

would be able to detain and deport more people, correct? But you 

haven’t asked for more resources, have you? In fact, your request 

for the number of beds is going down, isn’t it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, in response to the question about biometric exit, I do believe that it is definitely a worthwhile goal, and 

it requires resources from Congress. We are operating and living 

in fiscally constrained times with huge national debt and a huge 

deficit. So we ask the Congress for resources. It’s your prerogative 

to give us more. It’s your prerogative to give us less. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you have a plan to fully implement the entryexit program? Do you have a plan to do that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe we do. I believe we have a plan to 

get to biometric exit, but it requires resources from Congress. It requires resources from you. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And the resources that you talk about, if you’re 

going to get tougher in this situation, people are here illegally, you 

said if we gave you the resources you’d make that happen. But 

you’re not asking for more resources, are you? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have to prioritize where I think it’s important. I believe it’s important that we add resources to the southwest border, which is why we’ve asked for additional boots on the 

ground and we’ve asked for additional surveillance resources. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But then why did you ask for less beds? But 

you’ve asked for less beds. Why less beds? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Because the budget realities, we must 

prioritize. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, that is, with all due respect, a 

nonsensical answer. It’s just circular in its nature. You’re asking 

for less resources, but you’re saying if you had more resources 

you’d do your job better. And yet you’re asking for less. And that 
63 

doesn’t add up, Mr. Chairman. It’s something we further need to 

explore. 

Secretary JOHNSON. May I answer? May I be allowed to answer? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Secretary definitely can answer the question. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. We make a budget submission 

every year, as you know, Congressman. We’re given a top line to 

work with. We’re given budget reality to work with. And we have 

to make hard choices. And in my view, in my judgment, the priorities must be border security, without a doubt, particularly southwest border and some of the challenges we face there. We have 

asked for additional surveillance technology there. We have got to 

deal with cybersecurity. We have got to be mindful of the 

counterterrorism threat. We have got to provide grants for urban 

areas that face terrorist threats. We have got priorities. 

Now, I would like to be able to fund every single thing that I believe is a priority, but Congress is only going to give me so much 

money, and so I’ve got to make hard choices. I’d like to have biometric exit. I think it would add to our homeland security. But over 

the years we have had to make some hard choices about 

prioritization. And so it’s a goal. Unfortunately, we haven’t been 

able to fund it as quickly as we would like. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And, Mr. Chairman, I would just say when we 

have to release criminal aliens because there aren’t enough beds, 

they’ve made a conscious decision to have less beds, and that’s 

what I have a problem with. Yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

And, Mr. Secretary, biometric entry-exit is not a goal, it’s the 

law. And we would like to see expeditious efforts made, and we actually think the cost of that is coming down with the development 

of new technology. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, 

for 5 minutes for his questions. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Johnson, so what you’re saying basically is you have to 

prioritize, and from the standpoint of your priorities, you believe 

that border security trumps the number of beds that the Congress 

would want versus what you’ve asked for in your budget. Is that 

correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Not necessarily, sir. Detention of those who 

are dangerous is part of border security. It’s part of homeland security, part of national security, part of border security. Every year 

we make an estimate of what we think we will need in terms of 

detention space. It’s the Congress’ prerogative to agree or disagree 

with that. But homeland security, border security, that’s my mission, so that’s my priority. Detention of those who are dangerous 

is very much part of that. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Okay. Let me ask the question this 

way. I understand that we spend $2 billion per year on immigration detention alone. The House Appropriations Committee is currently considering an appropriations bill for DHS that requires the 

Department to maintain 34,000 beds, while the President’s budget 

only requested roughly 30,000 beds. Do you really need these extra 
64 

beds that the House Appropriations Committee says that they 

want to give to your Department? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, our request, as I recall it, was for bed 

space for about 31,000 or so. Obviously that number could change 

based on current circumstances. So we’re seeing a rise in illegal migration in south Texas, for example, which may require additional 

bed space. So it’s a number that can fluctuate up and down. It’s 

not necessarily a flatline number. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. You asked for roughly 31,000 and 

they now want to give you more than that, 3-plus-thousand more 

beds. How much does that cost? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t have the exact number. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. All right. Well, let me ask you this. 

The 2011 ICE Performance-Based Detention Standards update existing ICE standards to address gaps in previous standards with 

regards to health and safety conditions. ICE facilities include private prisons as well as ICE-owned facilities, and they operate 

under widely varying detention standards. 

According to reports from ICE, almost half of the average detainee population is not covered by the most recent PBNDS standards. What is DHS’ timeline for ensuring that all facilities that 

hold detainees operate under the most recent standards, and why 

do we continue to hold detainees in facilities that cannot commit 

to complying with the most recent standards? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’d like to take that for the record and get 

back to you in writing, if I could. Sitting here, I don’t know the answer to your question. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. All right. Detaining an immigrant costs over $150 a day. Of course immigration detention is purely 

civil. That is, we’re only detaining individuals in a civil proceeding 

to make sure that they show up for their court date. That’s the reason why we’re detaining them, not as criminal punishment. I understand that there are alternatives to detention such as ankle 

monitors or checking in by phone, which costs anywhere from 70 

cents to $17 a day. What plan does your Department have for expanding the use of these alternatives to detention? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The Alternatives to Detention program that 

we have, and I know that it’s part of our budget submission for this 

year, is in my judgment an important program and a reasonably 

effective program. I’m sure we could always do better, but I think 

we have become pretty sophisticated in terms of alternatives to detention and the conditions under which we release people to ensure 

their return. So I think Alternatives to Detention in general is an 

important program. Could we do better? I suspect we can, and so 

we have to continue to try to make improvements in that area. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you. With that I’ll yield the 

balance of my time back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, you had a very distinguished career as an attorney, so I want to ask you some legal questions. What is the difference between prosecutorial discretion and the wholesale failure 

to enforce a category of law? 
65 

Secretary JOHNSON. Prosecutorial discretion is a prioritization. 

Now, somebody who is a low priority is not necessarily therefore 

beyond the reach of the law. They are a low priority, but they don’t 

have any sort of status that says you hereby have amnesty. 

Mr. GOWDY. Are there limits on the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m sorry? 

Mr. GOWDY. Are there limits on the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion? 

Secretary JOHNSON. DACA, as I understand it, is an act of prosecutorial discretion on an individual basis? 

Mr. GOWDY. No, no, no. Are there limits on the theory of prosecutorial discretion? Are there any categories of law that the chief executive really actually has to enforce and this time we really mean 

it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. As a lawyer I will tell you I believe there 

are. I think that there comes a point where something looks like 

a wholesale abandonment of the enforcement of the law versus 

prosecutorial discretion. So I would agree with that assertion and 

that proposition. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, there are at least three different categories of 

law. Law can forbid conduct, like the possession of child pornography. Law can require conduct, like registration with Selective 

Service. And law can even tell one branch you have to do something like sentence within these parameters. Does the doctrine of 

prosecutorial discretion apply to all three of those categories of 

law? 

Secretary JOHNSON. DACA is an individual assessment of people 

who are eligible for DACA treatment, and then they have to go 

through a process of background check and so forth. 

Mr. GOWDY. I’m not just asking about DACA. You were a prosecutor. Our Attorney General has concluded he doesn’t like mandatory minimum, so they’re no longer going to inform the grand jury 

or the sentencing court what the drug amounts are. I’m not talking 

about DACA specifically. I’m trying to determine whether there are 

any limits to this theory called prosecutorial discretion. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe there are. 

Mr. GOWDY. Give me a for instance. Give me a category of law 

where you can’t rationalize due to a lack of resources your failure 

to enforce a law. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Like I said, sitting here I’m not sure I can 

answer specifically your question in hypothetical terms, but I do 

believe that there comes a point when something amounts to a 

wholesale abandonment to enforce a duly enacted constitutional 

law that is beyond simple prosecutorial discretion. I’m agreeing 

with you in principle. 

Mr. GOWDY. You mentioned in response to one of my colleagues’ 

questions a lack of resources and a need to prioritize. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. GOWDY. Can the legislative branch prioritize for you what we 

think your enforcement mechanisms ought to be or the priorities 

of your Department? Does it only come from the executive branch 

or can the legislative branch say, we really want you to detain this 

category of alien and we really mean it? 
66 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think that’s a good question. I think that 

there is a role for the legislative branch in making national priorities in how we enforce and prioritize the law. So, for example, if 

I may, Congress can ratchet up criminal penalties for certain 

things. That’s an act of prioritization. I think that’s an act of 

prioritizing, telling the executive branch where we want your priorities to be, and so there are enhanced penalties here. 

Mr. GOWDY. But, Mr. Secretary, that enhanced penalty is meaningless if there’s no prosecution. You would agree with me there. 

We can raise the statutory maximum on all crimes. If you mean 

to tell me the executive branch has the unfettered discretion not 

to enforce a category of law, what difference does it make what the 

statutory maximum is? Nobody’s ever going to be prosecuted. 

Secretary JOHNSON. That’s not what I said. 

Mr. GOWDY. No, but you cited something the legislative branch 

can do, which is raise the statutory maximum. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. GOWDY. What I’m trying to get at is what can the legislative 

branch do when we want—and I’m not talking about immigration 

right now, I’m talking about any category of law—if we really want 

the law enforced? I mean, this time we really mean it, Mr. President. We want you to enforce the law. What are our remedies? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think that the legislative branch in general, whether it’s the enforcement of immigration laws, the enforcement of criminal laws, or how we conduct counterterrorism operations, needs to be careful not to intrude into the discretion that 

the executive branch should normally have. You cannot, with all 

respect, micromanage certain functions that the executive is 

charged with carrying that out. I know from experience, whether 

as an AUSA or as the General Counsel of the Department of Defense responsible for signing off on the legality of specific military 

operations, that the legislative branch can and should and has the 

prerogative to set the broad parameters for national policy, and the 

executive should be given a certain amount of discretion, based on 

existing circumstances, to implement and enforce those laws. And 

there is a line between those two that I think is probably a little 

difficult to articulate, but I believe both branches have a role in 

that process. 

Mr. GOWDY. I’m out of time. But, Mr. Secretary, I will say this 

in conclusion. Our politics may differ. I don’t have any idea, I don’t 

know you well enough to know. But you’re a former prosecutor, and 

there are other former prosecutors on this Committee, and the 

beauty of this country is even if our politics differ, we still respect 

the rule of law. 

And we are playing with the foundation of this Republic when 

we decide selectively which laws we’re going to enforce due to political expediency. That transcends politics, and it begins to impact 

the foundation of this Republic. And I would urge you to help me 

find where that line is between prosecutorial discretion and just deciding you don’t like to enforce a law. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Chu, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CHU. Yes, Congresswoman Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you for yielding. 
67 

I just wanted to point out that, in fact, Congress has identified 

the priority in the appropriations language for 2013. We prioritized 

the removal of criminal aliens. 

And I thank the gentlelady for yielding and yield back. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

And thank you, Secretary Johnson, for meeting with the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. We had a very fruitful 

dialogue on the deportation policies, and I appreciate that. 

I would like to ask questions about removals without due process. And I know that those on the other side of the aisle are saying 

that there’s too much prosecutorial discretion, but actually I believe 

that the opposite is true, and that is immigration agents now deport most people without ever bringing them before an immigration 

judge. In 2013, more than 70 percent of all people that ICE deported were subject to summary removal procedures which bypassed immigration courts entirely and lacked fundamental due 

process. For these hundreds of thousands of individuals, immigration agents are the jury and the judge. And, in fact, deportation decisions are made so quickly that there’s no time to see if a person 

merits discretion or needs protection. 

Take the case of Gerardo Hernandez Contreras from San Diego 

who entered the U.S. when he was 15 years old and later married 

a U.S. citizen and had two U.S. citizen children. In 2012, he was 

driving to pick up ice cream for his kids when he was pulled over 

by the San Diego Police Department for talking to his wife on his 

cell phone while driving. So the immigration officials were called 

to the scene, and just 1 day later he was deported to Mexico, a 

country that he had not lived in for a decade. 

He appears to be a prime candidate for prosecutorial discretion. 

He had no criminal history, had lived in the country for over a decade, had U.S. Citizen family. But instead he never had the opportunity to present this case to a judge. He was pressured by Immigration to sign a voluntary return form and was not informed of 

the consequences of doing so. By signing the form, he waived the 

right to a hearing and consented to removal from the U.S. and now 

faces the 10-year ban before reentering. Because the Morton memo 

does not apply to Border Patrol, they are not required to screen individuals prior to deportation to determine if they are eligible for 

discretion, and so he slipped through the cracks. 

So, Mr. Secretary, it’s of great concern to me that those like Mr. 

Hernandez Contreras who lives within 100 miles of the border and 

are apprehended by Border Patrol are subject to less due process 

than those apprehended by ICE in the interior where ICE is required to screen for prosecutorial discretion. And do you believe 

that the Department’s enforcement priorities should require the 

Border Patrol to at least screen individuals for prosecutorial discretion? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I can’t comment on the specific case, 

but in general I believe that in the process of prioritization CBP 

officials should evaluate whether a case is a priority 1, 2 or 3 all 

along the way. As I commented earlier, however, I think that there 

are special considerations at the border, that you can’t ask a Border Patrol agent when he’s watching somebody crossing the Rio 

Grande to engage in that sort of balancing and discretion. So it’s 
68 

normally something that’s done in the interior or once somebody 

has crossed into this country illegally. 

I do think that we should, and this is one of the things I’m seeking to do, I think we should do a better job of providing our people 

with clearer guidance about what our priorities should be and 

spending the time to educate and train the workforce on those 

guidelines so that they understand them, they understand what’s 

expected of them, and they are truly making the effort to prioritize. 

I don’t think we’ve spent—when I say ‘‘we,’’ I mean the leadership of my Department—has spent enough time talking to the 

workforce as I’ve tried to do over the last several weeks, as I’ve 

conducted my review, and I’ve spoken to ERO leadership, as well 

as a number of people in the workforce. And Congressman Forbes 

cited an example earlier in Fairfax, Virginia, where I had a session 

with a number of people on the front lines in the workforce enforcing our immigration laws. 

So I think an important element of the answer to your question 

is better communication between leadership and the front lines and 

more effective and clearer guidance. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. 

Recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Farenthold, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Johnson, I serve on the Transportation Committee, so 

I also want to talk to you for a second about the TSA before I get 

into a more pressing issue. Currently the passenger fee associated 

for TSA screening is $2.50 per enplanement with a maximum of $5 

each way. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 increased that from 

$2.50 to $5.60 per one way, regardless of the number of 

enplanements. 

Now, do I understand correctly that since 2001 your agency has implemented the underlying law so with the $2.50 you maxed out 

at $10 each way? So I guess it’s $2.50 for enplanement with a maximum of $5 each way or $10 for a round trip. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think that’s right. Yes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Right. So my office is hearing some rumors 

that there may be a different way you interpret what we’re doing. 

But given this precedent, it seems the correct thing to do is to look 

at the $5.50 will max out at $11.20 per round trip. Is that what 

you all are planning so we can put some of these rumors to rest? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I don’t want to get this wrong. I know 

I’ve looked at this issue. I would need to refresh my recollection on 

how we propose that the fee be calculated, because I want to be 

sure I get this right, Congressman, and I’m happy to get back to 

you on that. 

I do know that one way or another we need to fund our activities. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Absolutely. It’s a billion dollar expense to the 

flying public, but it falls I think under the category of a user fee 

rather than a tax. If you don’t fly, you don’t pay it. 

Secretary JOHNSON. One way or another we need to pay for the 

executive branch’s activity. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, if you could just let me know just to 

make sure that there’s no intent to go beyond what I think Con-
69 

gress intended was $11.20 per round trip max on that, kind of follow the same implementation. 

But I want to get to something more important. You testified 

early on in your testimony, and there were a couple of questions 

about the issue we had with the increasing number of minor children that are crossing the border. In fact, there are two facilities 

in the district that I represent that house those children, one in 

Driscoll, Texas, and one literally four blocks from my residence. 

And I’ve toured one of those facilities and spoken to the people, and 

they say they can’t deal with the children fast enough, there are 

so many coming in. You mentioned that you went to a facility in 

McAllen that was overcrowded with children. 

And your suggestion in answer to one of the questions of how we 

fix this is an ad campaign saying it’s dangerous to cross the border 

illegally. And I’m concerned that that isn’t enough. I think in a 

well-intentioned manner we have created an incentive for parents 

who are in this country, lawfully or unlawfully, to hire a coyote to 

bring their children across, let them get captured, and we deliver 

them to the parents at over a billion dollars, I think, last year expense. I think the numbers are—they’re thousands. And I don’t 

want to get the number wrong either. Do you think an advertising 

campaign really is going to be enough, or are there some policy 

changes that we need to make to solve this? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No, clearly not by itself, sir, and I don’t 

think I really got a chance to finish my answer to the question. 

Public messaging directly to the parents of these kids is an important aspect of it, but it’s not the only answer clearly. I think that 

we have to do a better job of attacking the network, and I’m reviewing statistics recently—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, my question, just real quickly, my fear 

is that as drug cartels who run a lot of these human smuggling operations are losing revenue, whether it’s increased enforcement or 

legalization of marijuana in parts of this country, they’re losing 

revenue, my fear is that these coyotes turn more into traffickers 

and either hold out for more money once the child is across the border or, worse yet, take those children into sex slavery and some 

form of human trafficking. 

I want to give you an opportunity to fully outline what you propose because I really am concerned we are unintentionally 

incentivizing very, very dangerous conduct that has already cost 

the life of at least one child I’ve seen and will cost the lives of 

more. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Going after the network is important, and 

we are increasing prosecutions of smugglers. I think smuggling organizations, as you’ve pointed out, are the key to this. Nobody freelances across the southwest border that I’ve seen. They’re all paying smuggling organizations to get them up the east coast of Mexico into South Texas and then into the interior of our country, 

$3,000 or $4,000 a head, or whatever the amount is. 

So I think an important part of this is increased prosecutions of 

smuggling organizations, those engaged in this activity, many of 

whom can be found in the United States. And so I think that’s part 

of it, and I think that there are other things that we need to consider that I’m considering this afternoon when I go back to meet 
70 

with my team on UACs because this is a problem that we have to 

address for a number of reasons, including the humanitarian reasons. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Any way I can help, please let me know. I see 

my time has expired. I would like to spend some more time with 

you talking about it. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Johnson, thank you for being with us today. 

As you’re aware, the House Appropriations Committee just released the text of the Homeland Security appropriations bill, which 

again contains the detention bed mandate, something that there’s 

been a lot of talk of here today. And it says ‘‘that funding made 

available under this heading shall maintain a level of not less than 

34,000 detention beds through September 30, 2015.’’ What’s the 

purpose of detention, Secretary Johnson? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Public safety. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And the purpose is, as I understand it, to ensure 

that compliance with immigration court proceedings is upheld. Isn’t 

that correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Those with immigration court proceedings, 

some are released pursuant to conditions, if we don’t think they’re 

a risk of flight and they’re not public safety; but those who are considered to be a risk to public safety should be detained. 

Mr. DEUTCH. That’s not what I’m asking. The purpose for detention, first and foremost, is to ensure that these undocumented immigrants wind up appearing in court. Isn’t that why we have it? 

Isn’t that the basis for the system? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is one of the purposes, yes. We also 

need to pay attention to public safety, too. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I understand that, and paying attention to public 

safety is exactly what law enforcement does. Are you aware of any 

law enforcement agency in this country, any other law enforcement 

agency that’s required to hold a certain number of people every 

day? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No. 

Mr. DEUTCH. So why do we do it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The statutory requirement is beds, not people. A lot of people think it’s people, but it says beds. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Right. In fact, one of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee made the point that the detention bed mandate, not only is it people, but it’s meant to be people because it’s 

meant to be a deterrent, because apparently he believes, some of 

my colleagues believe, that it is Congress rather than law enforcement that should enforce the law. How do you feel about that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, as the exchange I had with Congressman Gowdy reflected a few minutes ago, I think that a core function of the executive branch is to enforce the law, which includes 

prosecutorial discretion. That’s something that I engaged in 25 

years ago as a Federal prosecutor, and anybody else in this room 

who’s been a prosecutor has done the same thing. 
71 

Mr. DEUTCH. And every law enforcement agency in America has 

the ability to make their own decisions, to exercise their discretion, 

except in this case where Congress has stepped in and has insisted, 

the interpretation of my colleagues, some of my colleagues here, is 

not yours, though it should be, but the interpretation here is that 

it means people. And the cost then is $2 billion a year, $2 billion 

a year that we spend, at a cost of $160 per detained person per 

day, when there are alternatives that cost anywhere from 17 cents 

to $18 per day. The average cost for alternatives to detention is 

$5.94. 

In this case, why shouldn’t we let immigration officials do their 

job the same way we let law enforcement exercise discretion in 

every other place in our country? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, look, don’t miss understand me, 

please. There are lots of people in the removal system who should 

be detained, who should not be at liberty. We make estimates every 

year of what we think our detention bed space should be. Congress 

comes to their own number, and they give us their own number. 

And that’s the back and forth we have every year. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Right. But, Secretary Johnson, ICE detained nearly 

500,000 people in 2012, it was a record number of detention, when 

there are alternatives. And so with these detentions and the interpretation that Congress has put forth, there is no discretion that 

can be utilized. 

So my question to you is, instead of having this back and forth 

over how this should be interpreted, why do we have this requirement, this detention bed mandate, in law to begin with, why does 

it come through the appropriations process instead of through a debate about policy that should take place in this Committee, and 

shouldn’t we through these alternatives to detention be working to 

save taxpayers’ money while at the same time making sure that 

immigration officials can do their job? Why are we mandating this? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, first of all, I think that’s a discussion 

you should have with your colleagues. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Secretary Johnson, I’m asking you. I don’t believe 

we should. And I have had this discussion. And a lot of my colleagues can’t understand why it is that when we spend so much 

of our time here talking about taxpayers’ dollars and making decisions wisely and spending decisions wisely, that in this case we 

have a policy that benefits a certain group that costs $2 billion a 

year and that it’s a policy that we impose that we don’t impose on 

any other area of law enforcement. It tears families apart. There 

are less expensive ways to do it. I don’t believe we should have it 

at all. And I’m asking you whether you agree with me. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Look, I think that there are a certain number of people in the system who should be detained. 

Mr. DEUTCH. We agree. We absolutely agree with that, Mr. Secretary. I’m talking about all of the others that could be released on 

a whole host of alternatives to detention which would save taxpayers’ money, that would not put communities at risk, that would 

permit these people to move, to go back to their families, still ensuring that they’re going to show up in court, which is what the 

detention system is meant for. 
72 

Secretary JOHNSON. If I could just be permitted to finish my sentence? 

Mr. DEUTCH. Please. 

Secretary JOHNSON. There are some people who can and should 

be detained. Congress has got to allocate resources to enable us to 

do that. 

I also believe that there are instances where it is not necessary, 

given the cost to the taxpayer, to detain people who are in the system, and therefore alternatives to detention is something that can 

and should be looked at and funded by this Congress. 

Now, arriving at the right balance between what we devote to 

those who should be detained and those who can be released as an 

alternative to detention is a difficult job that we have to continually evaluate to achieve that balance that ensures public safety 

and maximizes the efficient use of taxpayer dollars. So that’s what 

I am interested in doing and working with the Congress to try to 

achieve. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Unfortunately, Mr. Secretary, we’re insisting on a 

mandate rather than engaging in that discussion. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Time of the gentleman has expired by over 2 

minutes. And I would only add to the Secretary’s comment that 

right now there are over 860,000 such people who are under deportation orders and who are not detained and have not left the 

United States. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Holding, is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Secretary, in the Supreme Court’s decision of 

Kendall v. The United States, the court stated that to contend that 

the obligation imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully 

executed implies a power to forbid their execution is a novel construction of the Constitution and entirely inadmissible. Would you 

agree with that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Without knowing who wrote it, I agree with 

that, yes, sir. 

Mr. HOLDING. Good. You think the DHS has been living up to 

this Supreme Court decision? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe that’s my obligation as the head of 

the agency, and that’s what I seek to do. 

Mr. HOLDING. Good. 

Now, in recent press reports I learned that DEA Administrator 

Leonhart was called onto the carpet by the Attorney General for 

apparently her desire or expression of wanting to enforce drug laws 

in the United States as they’re on the books, and particularly the 

marijuana laws. And I was surprised that the Attorney General, 

chief law enforcement officer, would have a problem with another 

law enforcement officer wanting to uphold the laws of the United 

States. 

So with that in mind, I was listening to your response to Mr. 

Nadler a little bit earlier today, and I was refreshed because he 

was asking you about the scanning of ship containers, and you 

said, well, that you had looked at it and it’s a duly passed law, and 

being a duly passed law, that it is your job to enforce it. And you 
73 

echo that with my question about Kendall v. The United States, that it’s your job to enforce duly passed laws. 

So as you’re doing the review in the Department for the President, to let the President know about enforcement priorities, if you 

were to do this review and come back and say, well, I’ve had various field hearings with the rank and file, the boots on the ground, 

I’m hearing from them. I’ve looked at the resources of the Department. I’ve looked at the challenges that we have. And in the interest of public safety, we have gang members coming across the border infiltrating our immigrant communities here, we have drug 

dealers coming across the border, we have child molesters, violent 

felons, we’re picking them up, we’re not able to detain them all. We 

have many tens of thousands that have been released, I’ve seen 

that. The deterrent effect of not enforcing the laws is terrible. We 

have now people lining up at the borders trying to get across the 

borders because they don’t believe that we’re enforcing the laws, 

I’ve seen that. And you tell the President, in talking to the rank 

and file, morale is down amongst our agents, they believe that 

their mission is to enforce the laws, they want to enforce the laws, 

they believe they’re being inhibited from doing so. 

So you make this review, and you come to the President and say, 

the laws are duly passed, and I believe it’s my duty to enforce the 

laws, and that’s what I intend to do, do you think, based on your 

experience with the President, that he will say to you, well, you’re 

hired to do a job, confirmed to do a job, go do your duty, do your 

best to uphold your oath and enforce the law? Do you think he 

would have a different response of, well, what you’re telling me 

doesn’t really match with what I believe that the policies of the 

United States ought to be, and they don’t match with my politics, 

and they don’t match with what I’d like the law to be? So do you 

think the President, like the Attorney General, would call you on 

the carpet and have some concerns if you were to come back with 

a review as I described? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That’s a good question, and I appreciate the 

way you articulated it, because I’ve been not just the head of the 

department of our government, but the senior lawyer for the largest department of our government, and I’ve had occasions to make 

some really tough legal judgments over the first 4 years of this Administration in the conduct of our counterterrorism policies. 

Let me answer the question this way. I am appointed by this 

President. My political loyalty is to him. I have a higher obligation 

to the law, to the Constitution and the laws duly enacted by this 

Congress, and I will not participate in something that I do not believe squares with my legal obligations, which are higher than any 

other obligation, except perhaps the obligations I owe to God, to 

conduct myself in this office. That’s the oath I took. The district 

judge who swore me in, administered the oath to me, said, you’re 

about to take an oath, your oath is not to Homeland Security, your 

oath is to the Constitution. And I believe that. I believe that very 

passionately. 

So my highest obligation is to the law, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of the law as a lawyer, as someone who’s 

been a government lawyer. And I conduct myself within the mainstream of legal interpretations of duly enacted laws by Congress 
74 

and the Constitution. That is at least how I’ve sought to conduct 

myself in public office, and I hope to continue to do so. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you for your answer. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Before I turn to the gentleman from Florida, let me announce to 

the Members and to you, Mr. Secretary, that a vote series has 

begun. That vote series includes five votes. And we have probably 

time to get the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Garcia, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, in before we have to go for that 

vote series, but then that’s going to take us at least 30 minutes. 

Mr. Secretary, what is your schedule? Are you able to return? 

Because we have several Members on both sides that want to ask 

questions. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have appointments this afternoon, sir, but 

I am happy to stay as long as you need me. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We will make you as comfortable as possible, 

and we will return promptly after the vote series, but we will get 

two more out of the way before we go, and that will save you some 

of the time. 

So the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Garcia, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, good afternoon. Thank you for your service. And 

I want to thank you for your ongoing review, as well as your willingness to meet with the different caucuses who are trying to pass 

and move forward on comprehensive immigration reform. 

Mr. Secretary, we’re coming on our second anniversary of the 

DACA program. Can you give a brief overview of how you think it’s 

working. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m sorry, what’s that? 

Mr. GARCIA. Can you give a brief overview on how you think it’s 

working, the DACA? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We have had something like 600,000 people 

enroll so far. It’s a large number of people. I think our Department 

has done a pretty good job of enrolling those people and administering this program. And we’re reaching a stage where we’re 

going down the road of renewal, and it’s not a big revelation, it’s 

not a big secret. 

And so I would anticipate that the DACA program will continue. 

I am interested in understanding the program better to see if there 

are ways that we can more effectively administer this program. But 

my general sense is that the program is working reasonably well. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you. I recently met a young man in my district named Julio. Julio came to the United States from Honduras 

a month after his 16th birthday, after missing the DACA program 

by 1 month, just 1 month. After graduating from high school he 

worked construction, never thinking he’d be able to go to college. 

His parents didn’t graduate high school. But he eventually was 

given the opportunity at a university in my area, Miami Dade College, and now Florida International University, where he has become a campus leader. 

Julio is an asset to our community, but when he finishes college 

he’s sort of done, his ability. Don’t you think that allowing him to 

stay would be in the spirit of the DACA program? 
75 

Secretary JOHNSON. Is it within? Certainly there’s a spirit of the 

DACA program that reflects the special nature of people who cross 

the border as children. I think in any program like that, that involves large numbers of people, you have to have cutoffs and deadlines and clear parameters. We can’t have a case-by-case judgment 

made with respect to how we’re going to administer this program 

for 600,000 people. So I think there needs to be clear guidelines, 

clear rules. But certainly the case you describe is within the spirit 

of what we’re trying to achieve with the program. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you. 

On another note, jurisdictions throughout the country have expressed frustration and skepticism through the Secure Communities program, including Miami-Dade County formally refusing detainer requests. As part of your review, are you looking into this 

area? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, yes. I am very troubled by how this program is being administered and the reaction we’re getting from a 

lot of governors and mayors, and I think we need to do a better 

job. 

Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Secretary, again, thank you for your service. 

Thank you for your ongoing review. 

I’ll yield back balance of my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank the gentleman. 

Recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. 

I was looking through this list of the 36,000 criminals who were 

released, and some of this stuff is really, really troubling when you 

look at serious, serious crimes—homicide, sexual assault, robbery, 

aggravated assault, domestic violence. I mean, do you agree just as 

a general rule that if somebody illegally enters the United States 

and they’re committing crimes that endanger the life, liberty, or 

property of the American people, the response from our policy and 

our government should be that those individuals are sent back to 

where they came from, correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, yes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. And so I noticed in the response that you 

sent to the Committee that there were certain numbers of criminals who were enumerated as having been released because of 

binding legal precedent. So, for example, there were 10 individuals 

released whose crimes were classified as homicide, willful kill, gun, 

and the reason according to the response was because you’re only 

allowed to hold them for a certain amount of time. And I think in 

those situations it’s because the parent country will not accept 

them back. Is that a fair guess as to why we would be releasing 

people who were out there mowing people down with a firearm? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I know in many cases a person is released 

on conditions because we do not think we have the legal authority 

to continue to hold them. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And you can’t deport them? Is that the nub? I’m 

just trying to figure out—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. That could be one of the reasons, but I hesitate to give a broad categorization of 36,000 different—— 
76 

Mr. DESANTIS. But are there certain instances where there are 

violent criminals who the host countries have not allowed us to return them? Has that, in fact, happened? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is probably the case. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. So my question to you is, have you notified 

the State Department that this is the case, because there’s a statute, 8 U.S.C. 1253 delta, which basically says that upon notification the Secretary of State is supposed to order the consular offices 

in those foreign countries to discontinue granting visas until those 

countries are willing to accept back their foreign nationals. 

So have you notified the Secretary of State that this has happened? And if not, why not? And if not, will you do so in the future? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’d have to check. I’d have to check. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. If you could do that that would be helpful 

because the statute imposes a duty on the Secretary of State. I 

think we’d maybe get some headway if we just were to comply with 

the laws. 

One of the things I saw, there were over 15,000 convictions for 

DUI, and you see reports where there are illegal immigrants driving drunk and killing people. Yet, I was alarmed when I saw an 

anonymous ICE official state that two convictions for DUI simply 

aren’t enough to warrant detention and removal. This is putting 

the American people’s lives in jeopardy. It’s a very serious offense. 

Now, Chairman Smith wrote to ICE before you were DHS Secretary asking them to launch removal proceedings against illegal 

immigrants with prior convictions for drunk driving. So my question for you—and Secretary Napolitano I don’t think responded affirmatively—will you honor former Chairman Smith’s request and 

protect innocent American lives by detaining these individuals who 

have these multiple DUI convictions? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I hesitate to give a categorical response to individual cases without knowing the circumstances of 

the individual cases. In general, I believe that someone who represents a threat to public safety, who is removable, should be detained and removed. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And that would include someone, you would say 

multiple convictions for DUI or repeat performer, that that person 

poses a threat to public safety? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I generally regard a DUI as a significant 

misdemeanor. 

Mr. DESANTIS. A question about U.S. citizens negatively affected 

by some of the Administration’s policies. There was an article in 

The New York Times recently about the DACA program, and basically what they said was the Department had to devote so many 

resources to doing the DACA that these U.S. citizens are now seeing their wait times go if they want to bring in a foreign national 

who’s a spouse or family member. 

So my question to you is, do you find it troubling that legal immigrants and U.S. citizens who have simply been playing by the 

rules are suffering due to the Administration’s desire to grant these 

benefits, which we can both agree were not statutorily mandated? 

This is administrative discretion, as you said. Does it bother you 
77 

that U.S. Citizens are getting the short end of the stick in some 

instances? 

Secretary JOHNSON. My understanding is that that was a temporary phenomenon that abated after a period of time, and my understanding is that that is not the case now. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So you don’t think that that was good that that 

happened? You agree that there’s a problem? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I agree that those who are lawfully in this 

country who are seeking citizenship should not have to wait an unduly long period of time to obtain that. Yes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Very well. I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The Committee will stand in recess, and we will resume immediately following the series of votes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Committee will reconvene. 

I want to again express my thanks to Secretary Johnson for his 

forbearance in giving us as much time as he has today. 

We will turn now to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Marino, who is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. 

Welcome, Secretary. 

My notes aren’t with me; so, I am going to do the best that I can 

as far as asking you some questions. 

You made—and I apologize. You were at a press conference or 

you were at an event that you made a comment concerning that 

people here in this country—and I don’t know if you referred to it 

that illegals here deserve to become citizens. 

Do you recall that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Say that again. I am sorry. 

Mr. MARINO. That the illegals here—now, I am not sure if you 

used the word ‘‘illegals,’’ but the people who are here undocumented deserve to become citizens because a lot of children grew 

up here. 

Do you recall that statement? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t think that’s what I said. No. No. 

Mr. MARINO. It was in the media, and I take with a pound of salt 

what I read in the media. 

So my question is, though: What type of illegals that are here— 

and I don’t mean—I don’t want you to do a broad category—should 

go back? Could you give me an example of people that we do not— 

that should not be here if they are here illegally. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, under our existing enforcement priorities, those who are here undocumented who are convicted of felonies, convicted of serious misdemeanors, convicted of multiple misdemeanors, who are repeat reentrants, who are fugitives from a 

final immigration order are considered priorities for removal. 

That is where we devote our resources in the removal process. 

So, in general, what we say is those who represent threats to border security, national security, public safety. 

Now, there is a lot of devil in those details, obviously. 

Mr. MARINO. Sure. 
78 

Secretary JOHNSON. And you didn’t exactly ask me this, but I 

think that there deserves to be greater clarity in how we define 

what our removal priorities should be. 

But I put them in several different buckets, including threats to 

border security, those who abuse the immigration enforcement system in some way. 

Mr. MARINO. Here is the complex question that I get a great deal 

of the time when I am not only traveling in my district, but around 

the country concerning immigration. 

What do we do with the children that are born here in this country that their parent or parents are here illegally and their parent 

or parents have a serious criminal record? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is a very good question. 

Mr. MARINO. It is a conundrum. It really is. 

Do you have any insight on that at this point? And I know that 

you have only been in your position for several months. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I can’t characterize every case. Hopefully, in 

that circumstance, there is a parent in this country who is in a position to care for his or her child. 

Mr. MARINO. That does not have a serious criminal record? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That does not have a serious criminal 

record. 

Mr. MARINO. I am going to switch gears here a little bit to Guantanamo Bay. 

You said that you think that we need to close that operation 

down, and you said we had some 130, -50—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think at this point there are less than 160. 

Mr. MARINO. Still detained there. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. MARINO. What do we do with those people? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, they should either be prosecuted in our 

military commissions system. 

Mr. MARINO. That we agree on. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I was part of the reform effort in 2009—we 

had at one point been in discussions with the State of Illinois about 

a facility in Thomson, Illinois—or they should be transferred back 

to their home countries, consistent with suitable security arrangements. 

But, you know, we are at a point where we are at the toughest 

cases. At one point, the population at Guantanamo was over 600, 

maybe close to 800. The easier cases have left. The harder cases 

are the ones that still remain. 

And so, obviously, we have got to deal with this population at 

some point or another in one way or another, which could include 

possible continued Lawbore detention, as long as that legal authority still exists, at some alternative location. 

But I believe that Guantanamo is a facility, for a variety of reasons, that should be closed at some point, including the cost to the 

taxpayer right now that it represents. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
79 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

I want to begin by saying that I think the suggestion that this 

Administration has not been properly enforcing the immigration 

law is almost laughable. 

The United States today under this Administration spends more 

on immigration than all other Federal law enforcement agencies 

combined. There have been record removals. 

This Administration has formally deported more people than any 

President in history. Record detentions. This Administration has 

detained more people than any President in history. 

A record of prosecutions. Immigration offenses have now become 

the most prosecuted crimes in the Federal courts. And our borders 

are more secure than ever. Over the last 5 years, border incursions 

have decreased to levels not seen since the 1970’s. 

So this notion that somehow we can’t do comprehensive immigration reform because this Administration can’t be trusted to enforce 

immigration law is totally belied by the facts, and I think that the 

American people know that. 

My first question really is the thing that concerns me tremendously is the large number of individuals who are being detained 

and deported each year who have committed no violation, other 

than those related to their undocumented status, people who have 

American citizen children, American citizen spouses, who have 

worked all the years that they have been here, and, frankly, people 

who would qualify for legal status under the bipartisan Senatepassed immigration bill and the House proposal H.R. 15. 

And I hope, Mr. Secretary, that, as you assess where you will put 

your priorities for prosecution, that you will take into account that 

those individuals—many of them are, in fact, likely to be permitted 

to pursue legal status and it would seem that those shouldn’t be 

priorities in terms of the prosecution as you evaluate what the priorities of the Department are. 

And I would like to ask you now to move to a question about 

guns. 

As you know, according to the GAO, a number of individuals that 

are on are terror watch list have legally purchased firearms in the 

United States in recent years. 

And according to the most recent GAO study, individuals on the 

terror watch list tried to buy guns and explosives 1,453 times between February 2004 and December 2010. 

On 1,321 occasions, 91 percent of those attempts, the FBI was 

not able to block gun and explosive sales to suspected terrorists. 

So my first question is: Do you support legislation that would ensure that the Federal Government has the ability to block gun 

sales to those on the terror watch list? 

And, secondly, some of my colleagues who have raised concerns 

about the accuracy of the terror watch list. 

And I would like to hear from you as to whether or not there are 

efforts underway to update that list as compared to maybe the status of it 5 or 10 years ago when there was some concern about who 

was on it. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, consistent with the position of this Administration, I support sensible gun control laws. I believe that 
80 

part of our mission in the Department of Homeland Security is to 

train, prevent, educate, with regard to mass shootings. 

And we have done that, Secret Service, through our FEMA 

grants. We try to help communities better respond to mass shootings. And we obviously see far too many of these in this country. 

And so, irrespective of motive, when a tragedy occurs that involves multiple deaths, whether it is a terrorist-motivated bomb 

plot or a mass shooting, the Department is prepared to do what we 

can to try to prevent these acts, to minimize the fallout from these 

acts, to provide grants to communities to better prepare for these 

acts by way of first responders and so forth. And so we do what 

we can. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But, Mr. Secretary, what I am asking about is 

specifically a GAO study that showed that, in 91 percent of the occasions, the Federal Government—or the FBI was not able to block 

a gun or explosive purchase by an individual on the terror watch 

list. 

My question is: Do you support legislation that would ensure 

that the Federal Government has the ability to block gun sales or 

explosives sales to individuals on the terror watch list? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would have to study the GAO report more 

specifically before I took a position. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Okay, well, I would ask you and I look forward 

to working with you on this. 

This is a very serious issue where individuals are placed on the 

terror watch list because they are dangerous and they have been 

identified as terrorists and they have the ability to go in and buy 

a gun or buy explosives. That is unimaginable to most Americans. 

And so I urge you to read that report and look forward to working with you to make sure that we prevent such individuals from 

having access to firearms. 

And, with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, good to have you on the Hill. 

Mr. Secretary, in responding to a post-hearing question for the 

record following your confirmation hearing, you were asked whether you had any concerns with the current interior enforcement policies and efforts at ICE, and you stated—and I quote, ‘‘I have 

reached no conclusion at this point. But I anticipate that, if confirmed, I will become fully immersed in this issue.’’ 

Several months have passed since that time, Mr. Secretary. Do 

you have any concerns with the current interior enforcement policies and efforts at ICE? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you for that question. 

I have immersed myself in this issue to the extent I am able to 

do so in 5 months, and I have spent a lot of time talking to our 

ERO workforce. 

One of the things that is apparent to me is our guidance for enforcement could use consolidation and added clarity. I am struck by 

the fact that our guidance exists in a whole series of written docu-
81 

ments, memoranda, issued by ICE leadership dating back to 1976 

all the way into 2012. It is a whole series of things. 

And so, if one wanted to fully understand what our removal priorities are, what our enforcement policies are, you would have to 

look at a whole series of documents. There is no one place you 

could go to do that, and in many places I think it lacks clarity. 

So I am interested in trying to build clarity and trying to consolidate all of this guidance, which would be a very huge project. 

I also think that our removal workforce has some morale issues. 

I think they could use a pay raise. A lot of them are capped at GS9 and are upset about the fact that they can’t go any higher. 

And I have talked to people in our workforce who are contemplating leaving ERO to go to a lower-paying job where they have 

greater pay opportunities, and I think that is unfortunate. 

So, I mean, those are just two issues that occur to me. But I continue to learn more and more about interior enforcement all the 

time. But these are two issues that strike me in response to your 

question. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Secretary, George Washington University law professor, Professor Jonathan Turley, in fact, has appeared before our Committee 

several times. I am sure you know him—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do. 

Mr. COBLE [continuing]. By name and reputation. 

He told the House Judiciary Committee that, in abusing the concept of prosecutorial discretion—and I am quoting the professor 

now—‘‘President Obama is nullifying part of the law that he simply 

disagrees with. It is difficult to discern any definition of the faithful 

execution of the laws that would include the blanket suspension or 

nullification of key provisions.’’ ‘‘If the President can claim sweeping discretion to suspend key Federal laws, the entire legislative 

process becomes little more than a pretense,’’ he said. 

Do you agree with Professor Turley? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Without seeing his entire testimony, I am 

inclined to agree with the passage that you read. 

Mr. COBLE. And so am I. 

Secretary JOHNSON. In terms of blanket exemption in the enforcement of the law, doesn’t really look like an act of prosecutorial 

discretion. 

And this is similar to the exchange I had with Congressman 

Gowdy. I think that there is a line that can be drawn between 

prosecutorial discretion and simply a blanket inability or unwillingness to enforce the law in its entirely. I don’t think that is prosecutorial discretion. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, when I said I agreed, I agreed with the fact 

that it appears little more than a pretense. That is what I meant 

when I said that I agreed with the professor. 

I thank you for being here, sir. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Secretary Johnson, for your presence here today 

and for your service to the country. 
82 

And let me just state for the record I had the opportunity and 

the privilege to work under Mr. Johnson as a young attorney and 

am confident that the skill and ability that he has obviously has 

served the country well in his prior capacity and will continue to 

serve the country well as you move forward as our Homeland Security Secretary. So we are thankful—I am certainly thankful for 

that. 

I wanted to ask a few questions about immigration and whether 

our system is broken and, if so, you know, how we might resolve 

it, based on some of the things that you mentioned in your oral as 

well as in your written testimony. 

We have got about 11.4 million undocumented individuals in this 

country right now. Is that figure about correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. That is what I understand the estimate 

to be. I have seen 11.5, 11.4. Somewhere in there. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, what is the likelihood that these individuals 

in any significant number will self-deport? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think the likelihood is next to zero that 

they will all self-deport. I think we have to be realistic about that 

situation. They are not going away. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And what is the feasibility that we, as the United 

States Government, Homeland Security—any apparatus that we 

have available can engage in mass deportation of such a significant 

number? 

Secretary JOHNSON. With any realistic—I mean, it can’t be done. 

We have to accept the fact that we have 11.5 million undocumented 

immigrants in this country. We have deal with them. I don’t think 

we should allow them to continue to exist in a state of legal ambiguity or in a dark hole. 

I think, from my Homeland Security perspective, I would rather 

deal with this population, encourage them to be held accountable, 

encourage them to pay taxes, get on the books and get on an 

earned path to citizenship so that they go through the necessary 

background checks, they are in a position where they can work legally, and we reckon with this problem, which is why I am a strong 

supporter of immigration reform. 

I think that we have to be realistic about the place we are in 

with respect to these 11.5 million people. There are States now 

where they are permitted to have driver’s licenses. The California 

Supreme Court says that an undocumented immigrant in this 

country can practice law. 

So they are not going away. They are not going to self-deport. I 

would rather see us reckon with this population than to continue 

in the state of legal ambiguity we are in right now. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, I certainly take that position. I think most 

reasonable people would conclude, obviously, based on the fact that 

self-deportation is impractical, unlikely to occur, and mass deportation is impractical in terms of any execution. 

And we have 11.4 million-plus undocumented individuals. We 

need to deal with them appropriately. But we need to address that 

situation. So I appreciate those observations. 

Now, you expressed concern earlier today and in your testimony 

that there has been a substantial increase in the number of unaccompanied minors who have been entering into this country. 
83 

And it is my understanding that that phenomenon really began 

to occur sometime in the fall of 2011 and we have seen a significant increase in and around that moment. 

What are some of the factors, if any, that are leading to this substantial increase in those Central American countries that we have 

experienced? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think that phenomenon is driven largely by 

the circumstances in those countries—in those Central American 

countries, the levels of violence, the levels of poverty. 

Because when you look at—when I see these children and ask at 

McAllen Station, ‘‘Where are you from?’’, they tell us Honduras, El 

Salvador, Guatemala. And you just look at the situation in those 

countries and you have a readily available answer to your question. 

And so I want to try to work with these governments to stem this 

tide and to see what we can do to add to their own border security 

and deal with some of the underlying problems that are causing 

this phenomenon. But I think the principal reason we are seeing 

this is because of what is happening in the source countries. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, what can we do proactively to address not 

just the underlying violence, which seems to be a problem, you 

know, as it relates to some of the drug cartels potentially being 

pushed out of Mexico into Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, in 

a manner that those countries weren’t prepared to address, creating a chaotic situation? 

But, also, there appears to be an absence of any meaningful child 

protective system in those countries and then the absence of border 

security. 

I mean, is there opportunity here for us through your leadership, 

through the leadership of others, for the United States, for Congress, to potentially get behind assisting our Central American 

countries to our southern border beyond Mexico in a manner that 

could alleviate what I think is a humanitarian crisis that we have 

to deal with for those who actually make it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think, first of all, it requires a whole-ofgovernment approach by our government, executive branch and 

Congress, DHS and other agencies of our government. 

And this is something I have had conversations about with my 

cabinet counterparts, who all recognize and appreciate the problem. 

I think it requires a whole-of-government approach in homeland security, national security, and law enforcement. 

And I think it requires an engagement with the Government of 

Mexico because this problem is also their problem. People who migrate from Central America to the United States migrate through 

Mexico, and many of them stop there. 

And so I have had this conversation with the Government of 

Mexico about doing more. And I believe that there is a recognition 

of the problem in our partnership with that government, and I believe that there is a mood and a climate to address the problem. 

I have had that conversation with the senior-most members of 

the Mexican Government, and I think that they want to help. And 

I think the—my sense is that we are in a position right now to 

make some progress with the Mexican Government on that issue. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. 

My time is up. I yield back. 
84 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

And I want to say that I have had the same opportunity to speak 

with senior Mexican officials, who have said the same thing, which 

is a change in their attitude toward their souther border. 

And any assistance the U.S. gives to them to help secure that 

border with Guatemala I think will pay dividends for both Mexico 

and the United States. So I would certainly encourage it. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I wasn’t going here. But I have sat here and listened. I have some other questions I am going to get to. 

But we just spoke of—and my good friend from New York 

brought this up—that there are 11.4, 11.5. I think there are some 

who think it is higher or lower. It doesn’t really matter. 

But these 11.4 million are—and we will use the word ‘‘undocumented’’—they are not here in a lawful status. Correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. For the most part, that is correct. 

Mr. COLLINS. No. No. 

Are they here in a lawful status or not? 

Secretary JOHNSON. For the most part, that is correct. I mean, 

some of them—— 

Mr. COLLINS. No. No. No. 

Reclaiming my time, you can’t have it both ways. If they are here 

in a legal status, then, they are not undocumented. They are here 

legally if they have some form of legal status. 

When you say—and I think this is the problem of a political 

agenda or a want-to or a feeling. It is not legal ambiguity if you 

are here and we talk about a group of people that are undocumented and not here properly. That is not a legal ambiguity. 

So it concerns me that we take this conversation—and, like I 

said, you have answered a lot of questions on both sides very concerned about that we can’t define a secure border. That is a different issue. I will be submitting questions to you, for the record, 

on that. 

But we would not be having this discussion in a large sense if 

these 11-point-whatever million were here and there was a legal 

ambiguity on their status here. 

There is no legal ambiguity. One side wants to do it differently. 

There is another side, which we have taken steps in this Committee to work toward resolving this issue. 

So I want to go to something else, but I just don’t think it is 

being very honest with the Committee to say that there is legal 

ambiguity here. If there were, this would be a whole different discussion. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Sir, there is—— 

Mr. COLLINS. But I do have a question. 

Secretary JOHNSON. There is legal ambiguity in that they are 

here undocumented, but there are States that permit them to have 

driver’s licenses. I consider that an ambiguous legal state, and we 

have to fix it. The system is broken. 

We are not going to deport 11.5 million undocumented immigrants in this country. You and I both know that. We have to deal 

with these populations—— 
85 

Mr. COLLINS. And have you heard—— 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. One way or another. 

Mr. COLLINS. Reclaiming my time, have you heard me say that? 

Have you heard me say that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We have to deal with the problem. 

Mr. COLLINS. Have you heard me say that I would deport 11.4 

million people? 

Secretary JOHNSON. But We have to recognize—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Have you heard me—— 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. They are not going away. 

Mr. COLLINS [continuing]. Mr. Secretary—Mr. Secretary, I am 

not asking you to give a roundabout answer. 

Have you heard Congressman Doug Collins say that we need to 

deport 11.4 million people? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No, I have not. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes or no. 

Secretary JOHNSON. No, I have not. 

Mr. COLLINS. I want to move on to something else because we 

are obviously not going to see eye to eye on this point. Because I 

do believe there needs to be a fix. But if we can’t even agree on 

the fact that there is not legal ambiguity here, there is a problem. 

One of the things I do think we are making progress on is in the 

effort on border protection and, also, homeland security in dealing 

with IP issues and intellectual property issues coming across the 

border and patent-infringing goods making entry into the U.S. 

This is something that is—the intellectual property aspect is very 

important to me and, also, to my State of Georgia. 

Could you provide me with a brief update on the Border Patrol’s 

efforts to develop processes which we can expect over the months 

to work on this issue of patent-infringing products coming across 

the border and areas that this is being discussed? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am happy to have that discussion and engage in a conversation with you or any other Member about border 

security. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. I just asked the question. 

The question is: Can you brief me on the updates of Border Patrol in dealing with patent-infringing products, other things dealing 

with the IP, intellectual property issues coming across our border? 

Just update me or give me an update if you can. If not, can you 

supply it in writing on issues that are going on? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, I can—I will. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Supply it in writing? Okay. 

In February of this year, Director Kubiak testified on behalf of 

DHS in front of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee. 

He stated in his written testimony that ICE is working closely 

with Border Patrol to adopt best practices to ensure their limited 

resources are focused on finding the most egregious violators as it 

relates to IP theft. 

Is this correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe so. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Could you share what some of the best practices 

are that are being adopted? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I can do that in writing. Sure. 
86 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. In looking further, I have also been concerned—and I will just sort of come back and just sort of finish up 

here—I have been concerned with the releases and the detentions. 

And we have discussed this. That has been discussed ad nauseum 

as far as the policy. 

But I do have a question: Are you willing to provide me with 

identifying information regarding any criminal alien released in 

Georgia since 2012 so I can provide appropriate congressional oversight on behalf of the citizens of my district? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe we are in a position to do that, and 

I will do that. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. You will provide that. 

Again, Mr. Secretary, I do appreciate your work. I am very concerned with the answers especially to the first part of our discussion because some of these things are not legal ambiguities. They 

are things that need to be fixed. If they were not, then we would 

not be looking at it from the perspective we are. And that is why 

there is such conversation on this. 

With that, Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Would will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. COLLINS. It is yours, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would just add to your concern that the REAL 

ID Act, which deals with making sure that driver’s licenses or 

other forms of identification help prevent the kind of tragedy that 

occurred on 9/11/2001—that act makes it very clear that a State 

conferring a driver’s license on someone who is not lawfully present 

in the United States does not in any way confer a legal status on 

that individual whose presence is here. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, you are correct in that, and that is 

why there is still not legal ambiguity here. There is a problem with 

a law that provides something else. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. COLLINS. It is the Chairman’s time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I will yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Georgia so he can yield to the gentlelady. 

Mr. COLLINS. I yield to the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think that—and I appreciate the gentleman for 

yielding—that there are certainly instances—and I am sure Mr. 

Labrador has also run into this in his practice—where someone 

doesn’t have documents, but they are, in fact, legally present in the 

United States. It is not all that rare, surprisingly enough. I would 

just add that into the mix. 

Mr. COLLINS. And reclaiming my time—and I do agree with the 

gentlelady, who we agree on many different things—I think, in this 

instance, though— when you discuss 11.4 million, the implication 

was they are all here under legal ambiguity, and that is not the 

case. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am not suggesting that that is the case. 

Mr. COLLINS. It muddies the water greatly on what we are doing 

here. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

very patient gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for his questions. 
87 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here with us today. I want 

to start out with something good because we are going to get to 

some issues that we are going to disagree on. 

But I actually really admire your answers to Mr. Deutch. I don’t 

know if you remember the exchange that you had just a few minutes ago—or about an hour ago about the number of beds. I want 

to make sure that your answer is really clear. 

There is nothing in the law that is mandating you to put 34,000 

people on these beds. Is that correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do not read the law that way. It doesn’t 

read that way. 

Mr. LABRADOR. It doesn’t read that way. And I keep hearing 

that—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. It says ‘‘beds,’’ not ‘‘people.’’ 

Mr. LABRADOR. That is the way I read it as well. And I commend 

you for your answer. I was actually a little bit confused, thinking 

that maybe that was the interpretation of the Administration. And 

I appreciate that you clarified that. I don’t read the law that way 

either. 

Now, I do believe that a critical part of immigration reform is a 

robust ag and non-ag guest worker program. Do you agree that 

such a program is important? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I think that the evidence, at least in my mind, 

is pretty clear that a guest worker program can end illegal immigration. For example, the Bracero program did it in the 1960’s, in 

my opinion. 

The Congressional Research Service found that the Bracero program only worked when combined with greatly increased law enforcement efforts. 

So here is the problem. Employers in my district are telling me 

that legal workers, people who are actually coming to the United 

States legally, are absconding to work in the black market and 

they are being told that they won’t be removed from the United 

States by ICE agents or others. 

Do you agree that ICE’s priorities are maybe undermining one of 

our legal programs that is actually meant to deter illegal immigration? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That sounds like a problem. Yes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. We are hearing again and again in our district 

that people are leaving, for example, the sheep herding program 

and moving on to other industries and that the ICE agents don’t 

have the resources—or are being told not to pick up these people, 

and I am very concerned about that. 

Now, your testimony also indicated that there is no way that illegal aliens will depart. In fact, you just stated a few minutes ago 

that the likelihood is nearly zero. 

And let me tell you that I disagree with you vehemently. In fact, 

my experience is totally different. So my actual experience as an 

immigration lawyer has been totally different than what your testimony is today. 

In my experience, many did leave prior to the bars banning illegal aliens from returning for a decade or more. You are obviously 
88 

familiar with the 3- and 10-year bars and the permanent bars. Is 

that correct, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Familiar with what? I am sorry. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Are you familiar with the bars that are in the 

law right now where, if you are here illegally in the United States, 

you must return to your home country before you can return to the 

United States legally? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. Yes. 

To be clear, what I said—Congressman Jeffries asked me what 

is the likelihood that those 11.5 million people will all self-deport, 

and I said the likelihood of that happening with regard to 11.5 million people is near zero. 

Mr. LABRADOR. That is what I want to clarify. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Do people self-deport? Yes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And people will do it—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. Individually self-deport. Yes. 

Mr. LABRADOR [continuing]. If we have the incentives in the law. 

Do you agree with that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I agree that there should be disincentives to 

engage in illegal migration. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Correct. 

So if, for example, we remove the 3- and 10-year bars, if we repeal those bars that are in the law, don’t you think many people 

would depart and, in essence, self-deport so they can reapply legally to the United States? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do not have any empirical evidence one 

way or another to be able to answer that question. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Well, you should look into that. Because I actually did that with many of my clients when I was an immigration 

lawyer. 

And even when the bars were in place, if there was a high likelihood that they could return even in spite of the bars, they would 

actually go back to their home country and return to the United 

States. 

Don’t you think it would be positive if we actually—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. Intuition says, if there is a shorter period of 

time that you have to go back and then wait, you are more likely 

to go back. Intuition says that. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So right now the waiting period is 3 to 10 years. 

Well, actually, if we removed those bars and they know that they 

can return legally—for example, a U.S. citizen spouse knows that 

they can go back to their home country and they can return legally 

within a matter of months instead of 3 to 10 years—don’t you think 

they would probably more likely be willing to do that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Intuition says that, if the wait period is 

shorter—people are more likely to go back if the wait period is 

shorter. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So don’t you think that would be a good first step 

for us to actually start with something like that, where we could 

actually make a small change in the law and encourage a lot of 

people? 

In my estimation and others, it is about 25 percent of the people 

that are here illegally who currently qualify for some legal status 

but for the bars. 
89 

Don’t you think that would be a good first step for us to try? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, it is hard to comment on that proposal 

in isolation to the exclusion of everything else that is in the works 

in comprehensive immigration reform. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So you would rather have nothing than at least 

have one area where we can fix the status of people that are here 

illegally by having them go back to their home country and return 

in a legal status? 

Secretary JOHNSON. There are many things about our immigration system that needs to be fixed that I hope this Congress will 

act on. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And you don’t want to fix one of them? You want 

an all-or-nothing approach? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think that we have an opportunity on a 

comprehensive basis, either in one bill or several bills, to fix a 

whole multitude of problems that I think every Member of this 

Committee realizes exists. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So your answer is, if we don’t do it comprehensively, then we should fix nothing about the current system? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I won’t be categorical in that way. I am saying that I would encourage the Congress to think about immigration reform in a whole variety of areas. 

Mr. LABRADOR. We can do that, and I agree with you. 

But if we can fix something today, if tomorrow we could get 

something passed that gets rid of the bars so we can help a group 

of people that are here illegally return legally after they return to 

their home country, you would be opposed to that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Sir, I would encourage you to think about 

the whole range of—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. So you don’t want to answer that question? 

Again, your answer is you want all or nothing? That is what you 

are saying? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No. I didn’t say that. I am encouraging the 

Congress to think about a comprehensive solution to this problem. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield? If I may. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman will suspend. The gentleman’s 

time has expired, but the Chair would recognize the gentleman for 

an additional minute so he can yield to the gentlewoman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I just note that, really, it is up to the Congress to 

decide what to legislate and the Secretary doesn’t get to decide. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And I yield back—and I reclaim my time. And I 

agree with that. 

But the position of this Administration, as has been demonstrated by the Secretary and as has been demonstrated by a lot 

of the comments that have been made by the other side and by the 

President, is that they want an all-or-nothing approach. 

And I think that is rather unfortunate because we could actually 

fix—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I don’t think that is what the Secretary said. 

Mr. LABRADOR. We could actually fix—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. For the record, I have not said that. Let me 

make myself clear. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But you won’t answer the question. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have not said that. 
90 

Mr. LABRADOR. You won’t answer the question if it would be 

okay for us to actually fix one portion of the immigration system 

that I think is actually preventing people from returning to their 

home country and coming back legally. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If would gentleman would further yield, I would 

encourage him to bring that and many other items up to the floor 

for a vote. 

Mr. LABRADOR. We will. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

And the Chair especially thanks the Secretary. You have been 

very generous with your time. And I believe, by my count, you have 

taken questions from 32 of the 39 Members of this Committee. 

And we know that there were some questions asked that you 

were not prepared to answer and want to do some research on. 

And if you would respond to those questions in writing as well 

as to any other questions that Members of the Committee may propound to you in writing, we would very much welcome that. 

I also want to take note of one other issue that was raised by 

the gentleman from Georgia and the gentlewoman from California 

and thank you for this, and that is with regard to the REAL ID. 

As you know, the REAL ID Act allows States to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants as long as the licenses are REAL IDcompliant, something, by the way, that I am not in favor of having 

States issue licenses to people who are not lawfully here. 

But be that as it may, REAL ID-compliant means that they 

clearly note that the driver’s license cannot be used for Federal 

purposes and that they have markings that clearly make it different from regular driver’s licenses. 

At the beginning of May, your Department rejected California’s 

illegal immigrant license design pursuant to the REAL ID, and I 

thank you for that. I think it was the absolutely correct decision. 

That decision was made because it did not have markings that 

made it clearly different from normal licenses. That was a great decision. And I want you to know that there are a number of Members of Congress who support that decision and thank you for having made it. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Doing my best to comply with the law, Congressman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

This concludes today’s hearing. 

We thank the Secretary for joining us. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witness or additional 

materials for the record. 

And, with that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:03 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(91) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
92 

*The Committee had not received a response to these questions at the time this hearing 

record was finalized and submitted for printing on August 14, 2014. 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Jeh C. Johnson, 

Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security* 
93 
94 
95 
96 

Æ