U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

95–482 PDF 2015

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 14, 2015 

Serial No. 114–40 

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 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

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 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

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 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

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

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 14, 2015 

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 Charles Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 6 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

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

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 41 

Material submitted by the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 81 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 94 

Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 98 

Prepared Statement of Church World Services (CWS) ......................................... 103 

Response to Questions for the Record from the Honorable Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security ................................................................. 104 

(1) 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Smith, Chabot, Forbes, King, 

Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Marino, Gowdy, Labrador, 

Farenthold, Holding, DeSantis, Buck, Ratcliffe, Trott, Bishop, Conyers, Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson, Chu, Deutch, 

Gutierrez, Jeffries and Peters. 

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

George Fishman, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security; Andrea Loving, Counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security; Kelsey Williams, Clerk; (Minority) 

Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, 

Parliamentarian and Chief Legislative Counsel; Aaron Hiller, Chief 

Oversight Counsel; Tom Jawetz, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security; Maunica Sthanki, Counsel; and 

Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will 

come to order, and without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

We welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing on Oversight of 

the United States Department of Homeland Security. In a moment, 

I will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement, and 

then I will recognize Mr. Conyers, when he arrives. I do want to 

advise everyone, as the Secretary is already aware, many Members 

on the Democratic side are meeting with former Secretary Clinton, 

and when they arrive, we will recognize Mr. Conyers for his opening statement, but we are going to proceed, because we appreciate 

the Secretary’s time as well. 

Good morning to everyone, and I want to extend our welcome to 

Secretary Johnson for testifying before us today for the second 

time. When Secretary Johnson testified last year, I stated that he 

was not responsible for the dangerous and irresponsible decisions 

made by DHS before he was sworn in. I stated that we could only 
2 

hope that he would bring back a level of adult responsibility to the 

enforcement of our immigration laws. 

Unfortunately, since that hearing, and under Secretary Johnson’s 

leadership, the deterioration of immigration enforcement has accelerated. DHS, under the Obama administration, has taken unprecedented steps in order to shut down the enforcement of the immigration laws for millions of unlawful and criminal aliens not considered high enough priorities. This is done under the guise of 

prosecutorial discretion. 

Unfortunately, new priorities issued by Secretary Johnson last 

November have turned the flight from enforcement into a headlong 

rush. Although DHS previously deemed fugitive aliens to be a priority for removal, Secretary Johnson’s guidelines, these aliens are 

no longer a priority if they were issued a removal order before January 1, 2014. 

This means that DHS is disregarding removal orders that have 

already been issued and wasting the millions of taxpayer dollars 

spent to obtain the orders. 

Although DHS claims that gang members are a top priority for 

removal, gang members are most often convicted under State, not 

Federal law, and State convictions for gang-related activity are ignored under Secretary Johnson’s priorities. 

Secretary Johnson considers that secondary as priorities for removal of aliens convicted of significant misdemeanors, such as domestic violence, sexual abuse, or exploitation, burglary, unlawful 

possession of a firearm, drug trafficking, or drunk driving. Yet, 

even this priority falls away if the aliens simply show factors warranting relief. 

Despite DHS’ pledge to prioritize the removal of serious criminal 

aliens, in the last year, the number of administrative arrests of 

criminal aliens has fallen by a third, and the Department continues 

to release thousands of such aliens onto our streets. 

U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement has admitted to releasing 30,558 aliens with criminal convictions in 2014. Last Friday, we received data from DHS regarding the recidivist activity of 

these criminal aliens ICE released in 2014. 1,423 have already 

been convicted of new crimes like vehicular homicide, domestic violence, sexual assault, DUI, burglary, and assault, among many others. 

Because of the failure of this and previous Administrations to detain criminal aliens and the failure to vigorously pursue fugitives, 

there are almost 180,000 convicted criminal aliens currently in removal proceedings who are living in our neighborhoods, and almost 

170,000 convicted criminal aliens who have been ordered removed 

yet are also living free. 

Under the Obama administration, the total number of such convicted criminal aliens who are not being detained has jumped 28 

percent since 2012, as shown by this chart. The tragic impact of the 

Department of Homeland Security’s reckless policies on the safety 

of Americans was made all too apparent in recent weeks. A convicted criminal alien, who had been deported numerous times, 

killed an innocent American woman on a popular pier in San Francisco. 
3 

ICE had recently issued a detainer for the alien, which San 

Francisco, a sanctuary city, simply ignored and proceeded to release him. Unfortunately, DHS openly advertises that jurisdictions 

can ignore its detainers. 

While testifying this March, ICE Director Saldan ̃ a expressed her 

enthusiastic support for mandatory detainers. Then, the very next 

day, she retracted that statement made under oath and called 

mandatory detainers highly counterproductive. 

There are now more than 200 jurisdictions, including San Francisco, which refuse to honor ICE detainers. This effectively releases 

criminal aliens onto the streets with all too tragic results. 

Secretary Johnson’s solution, the Priorities Enforcement Program, is a failure. Politely asking for cooperation from sanctuary 

cities is a fool’s errand. The clear answer to this problem is for 

DHS to mandate compliance with detainers and for this Administration to defend the mandatory nature of detainers in Federal 

court. 

Unfortunately, the Administration has taken neither of these 

crucial steps to keep our communities safe. Prior to Secretary Johnson’s appointment, DHS, under the Obama administration, went 

beyond simple nonenforcement and took the leap of granting administrative amnesty to a class of hundreds of thousands of unlawful aliens. Then, last November, Secretary Johnson announced that 

DHS would grant such deferred action to over 4 million more unlawful aliens. By granting these classes of people deferred action, 

he would bestow benefits such as legal presence, work authorization, and access to the Social Security trust fund, and the earned 

income tax credit. 

It is within the constitutional authority of Congress, not the Administration, to grant such benefits to classes of unlawful aliens. 

Twenty-six States believe that Secretary Johnson’s planned grant 

of deferred action en masse would cause them irreparable harm. 

They challenged the plan in Federal court. The judge agreed with 

the States and has granted a temporary injunction. 

The court stated that the Administration is not just rewriting the 

laws. It is creating them from scratch. An appeals court has rejected the Administration’s request of a stay of that injunction. 

While the continuing injunction against unconstitutional affirmative grant of deferred action is a welcome development for the 

health of our Constitution, the court was clear that it was not 

interfering in any way with Secretary Johnson’s nonenforcement of 

our immigration laws. 

The American people have rightly lost all confidence in this Administration’s willingness to enforce our current immigration laws. 

This has become the single biggest impediment to Congress’ ability 

to fix our broken immigration system. I look forward to testimony 

of Secretary Johnson. 

And now it is my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of 

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

opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and our distinguished witness, Secretary Jeh Johnson. 

When you last testified before this Committee, I said that given his 

distinguished record of public service, I could think of no person 
4 

better equipped to lead the Department of Homeland Security, and 

to carry out the President’s directive that we carry out our immigration policies in the most humane way possible. 

Much has happened in the past year, and I am pleased to say 

that I stand by my initial assessment, which is not to say, Mr. Secretary, that there is not still a great amount of work to do. 

In your written testimony, you speak in great detail about your 

efforts to counter the global terrorist threat, which has become decentralized, more diffuse, and more complex. I agree that ISIL and 

al-Qaeda have moved to a new phase of the conflict, recruiting, at 

risk, individuals hoping to inspire attacks in the West. The Department rightly combats this threat with a combination of heightened 

security measures and community outreach. 

But I wonder if the Department has also taken note of a recent 

study by New America which demonstrates that since September 

11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by White 

supremacists, antigovernment fanatics, and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims? 

Another study released last month by the Police Executive Research Forum shows that State and local law enforcement agencies 

feel far more threatened by right wing and antigovernment terrorism as they are about ISIL-inspired attacks. And I hope that 

you will provide us with some assurance today that our priorities 

are in order and that the Department focuses on homegrown extremism with the same forcefulness it has shown in countering 

threats from abroad. 

The immigration actions you initiated last November through a 

series of memoranda should make our immigration enforcement 

system smarter, more efficient, and ultimately more humane. Carrying out these reforms clearly has not been easy, but meaningful 

reforms rarely are. Your job has been made harder by the refusal 

of conservative leadership in the House to allow a vote on the immigration reform bill that passed the United States Senate 2 years 

ago with 68 votes. 

It has been made harder by their refusal to consider the bipartisan House bill, H.R. 15, which had 201 cosponsors in the last 

Congress, and is made harder by the barrage of litigation that you 

had to fight off as you have attempted to implement common sense 

and entirely lawful immigration reform. 

At the end of the day, it only makes sense that people who commit serious crimes and pose a danger to the public should be our 

highest priorities. 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. Who could disagree 

with that? 

We are already seeing a positive impact from the reforms that 

have been implemented, and I thank you for your tenacity. Certainly, we may disagree about the implementation of some of the 

enforcement reforms, and that is something that we will monitor, 

but I believe we are heading in the right direction. 

One area that is particularly in need of urgent reforms involves 

the detention of mothers and children in secure jail-like facilities. 

You recently acknowledged that substantial changes must be made 
5 

to the current policy of detaining thousands of these families, some 

for many months, and some for longer than a year. We are monitoring these changes because we know from experts that family detention is causing real lasting damage to these children. 

We look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that 

all aspects of the Department of Homeland Security operate in a 

way that reflects our American values and continue to honor the 

contribution of immigrants to our great Nation. 

One final note. The Chairman spoke about the tragic death of 

Katie Steinle, an innocent young woman who was walking with her 

father on a San Francisco pier. Our hearts go out to her family. 

But as we think about the proper way to respond to the situation, 

we must make sure we do not adapt policies that would diminish 

public safety and undermine our commitment to the Constitution 

and civil liberties. 

And so I ask, Mr. Chair, unanimous consent to enter into the 

record yesterday’s New York Times editorial entitled, ‘‘Lost in the 

Immigration Frenzy.’’ I thank you and I look forward to hearing 

the testimony of our witness, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and without 

objection, the editorial will be made a part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
6 
7 
8 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, all other Members’ opening 

statements will be made a part of the record as well, and we will, 

again, welcome our distinguished witness. And Secretary Johnson, 

if you would please rise, I’ll begin by swearing you in. 

Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give shall 

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 

you God? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. Let the record reflect 

that the witness responded in the affirmative, and we’ll proceed to 

the introduction. 

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 Air 

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

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

In private law practice, Secretary Johnson was a partner in 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. 

Mr. Secretary, your entire written statement will be entered into 

the record, and we ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 

minutes or less, and we welcome you again. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, 

SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman. I can do that. You 

have my prepared testimony, as you noted. Chairman Goodlatte, 

Congressman Conyers, Members of this Committee, it’s a pleasure 

to see you again. 

Chairman, last time I was here, I noted, or you noted that 38 

years ago, I was an intern for Congressman Hamilton Fish, who 

was a Member of this Committee. I recall, after talking to some of 

the congressional interns who were here, 38 years ago very vividly, 

Congressman Fish sent me to a hearing of the Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution over on the Senate side 38 years 

ago this month. I remember it like it was yesterday. The witness 

was talking about the abolition of the electoral college, and in the 

middle of his testimony, he had a massive heart attack and 

dropped dead. I hope not to make such news today. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We hope and pray not either. 

Secretary JOHNSON. In all seriousness, as you know, Chairman, 

the Department has many missions. We have 22 components, 

225,000 people. We are focused on a number of things. My top priority for 2015 has been management reform, ensuring that our Department functions most effectively and efficiently for the American 

people. 
9 

I am pleased that we have filled almost all the vacancies that existed in my Department when I came in 18 months ago, most recently with the Senate confirmation of our now TSA administrator, 

Vice Admiral Pete Neffenger. We are doing a number of other 

things to reform and make more efficient how we conduct our business. We are focused on aviation security; of course, we are focused 

on counterterrorism, which, in my view, remains the cornerstone of 

our Department’s mission. 

We’re focused on cybersecurity. I refer the Members to an op-ed 

that I submitted, which appears today in Politico on Federal 

cybersecurity and how I think we need to improve our mission 

there and the things we are doing in DHS to improve our Federal 

civilian.gov network 

On immigration. Respectfully, it is a fiction to say we are not enforcing the law. Apprehensions are down. They are down considerably from where they were a year ago, but there are still apprehensions daily, in particular, on the southern border. I am pleased that 

the spike we saw last summer on the southern border has not returned, and apprehensions, which are an indicator of total attempts to cross the border, are down considerably. If the current 

pace continues, apprehensions will be at the lowest since some time 

in the 1970’s. 

In terms of enforcement and removal. Without a doubt, the new 

policy that I announced and am directing prioritizes threats to public safety and border security. Without a doubt, we are moving increasingly in the direction of deporting criminals, absolutely, and 

I stand by that because I believe it is good for public safety. 

I am pleased that of those in immigration detention now, 96 percent are in my top two priorities for removal. Seventy-six percent 

are in my top priority for removal, that is, those apprehended at 

the border, convicted felons. That is the direction we are moving 

in with the resources we have. I believe we need to continue to 

focus our resources on criminals, on threats to public safety, on 

border security. 

Part of that is fixing our relationship with State and local law 

enforcement. The Secure Communities Program had become legally 

and politically controversial to the point where something like 300 

jurisdictions had enacted or imposed limitations on their law enforcement’s ability to cooperate with our immigration enforcement 

personnel. That needed to be fixed because it was inhibiting our 

ability to get at the criminals. 

And so what the President and I did was to replace the Secure 

Communities Program with the new Priority Enforcement Program, which I believe resolves the legal and political controversy, 

and we are actively reaching out to State and local law enforcement and jurisdictions to introduce the program and encourage 

them to work with us. Of the 49 biggest, I am pleased to report 

that some 33 have indicated an agreement and a willingness to 

work with us. Only five of those 49 have said no, so far, but we 

are going to go back to them. This is a work in progress. 

The County of Los Angeles is a big one that has agreed to work 

with us in the new program, to more effectively get at threats to 

public safety. That is the direction, I believe, we should go in for 

the sake of public safety, homeland security, and border security. 
10 

As the Chairman referenced, our deferred action program for 

adults is pending right now in litigation. The district court issued 

an injunction. That matter is on appeal right now. Oral argument 

on the appeal was last Friday. We await the decision. 

And Chairman, Congressmen, I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Johnson follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I’ll recognize myself. 

You claim to prioritize immigration enforcement against criminal 

aliens, and the number of available immigration detention beds you 

utilize continues to fall. Thirty-four thousand are authorized. Only 

24,000 to 26,000 are being utilized. 

So can you explain to me the continued increase in the number 

of convicted criminal aliens in removal proceedings who have already been ordered removed who are not being detained by DHS? 

The number of these convicted criminal aliens allowed on our 

streets has gone up by 28 percent in less than 3 years. And again, 

I’ll direct your attention to the chart over there. From 270,000 to 

almost 350,000, these people are out on the streets, and many, 

many of them are committing new crimes. 

And I would very much like you to explain how this priority system is working when you’re not fully utilizing it, not removing 

350,000 people who have been ordered removed, and not even 

using the capabilities that the Congress is paying for. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, last time I looked, the number of those 

detained in immigration detention has been going up. Last time I 

checked, it was up to around 31,000. That’s a day-to-day report I 

get, and the last time I checked, it was up to around 31,000. That 

is less than the full capacity that Congress has given us of some 

34,000, to be sure, but it is moving in the direction of—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Given that there is 350,000 on the street, 

should we be providing you with additional capacity, or when are 

you going to get to the 34,000? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, like I said, it’s trending in that direction. We have, as you know, established greater capability to detain 

those who bring their children with them, and I have issued policies to reform those practices because of the special considerations 

that go into dealing with children, but we have increased the capacity. It is going up, and one of the reasons I think it’s lower than 

34,000 is, frankly, the apprehension rates are lower, and because 

of the problem we had with Secure Communities, which was inhibiting our ability to conduct interior enforcement. Some—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me ask you about that. Why do you think 

that cooperation with ICE and their detainer should be voluntary? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, if I could just finish my sentence. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Sure. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Some 12,000 detainers last year were not 

acted upon by State and local jurisdictions. I do not believe that we 

should mandate the conduct of State and local law enforcement 

through Federal legislation. I believe that the most effective way 

to work with jurisdictions, particularly the larger ones, is through 

a cooperative effort, and I believe State and local law enforcement 

believes that as well, through a cooperative effort with a program 

that removes the legal and political controversy. One of the problems we have—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me ask you about that. Isn’t it true that 

some of the worst offending jurisdictions have declined to even participate in your New Priority Enforcement Program? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would disagree with that, sir. 
25 

Mr. GOODLATTE. It’s my understanding that five Priority A jurisdictions, the highest priority have said, outright, no. 

Secretary JOHNSON. And as I indicated a moment ago, 33 have 

indicated a willingness to participate in one way or another. Of the 

49 top, 11 are still considering it, and we’ve contacted literally hundreds. But the 49 I’d mentioned are the 49 top priorities because 

they are the largest jurisdictions, and the overwhelming number 

have indicated a willingness to work with us. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Of the 276 so-called sanctuary cities where they 

have publicly taken a position to not cooperate with ICE, last year, 

some 8,000 criminal aliens were released by those communities 

onto the streets of their communities and of this country. And in 

the short time since those 8,000 were released, they have already 

committed nearly 1,900 new crimes. Why wouldn’t it be a priority 

to do everything possible to mandate, influence, whatever the case 

might be, for them to honor ICE detainers rather than to see this 

occur? 

Now, I have to say, the Department is not operating with clean 

hands when they go to these communities and say don’t release 

8,000, because the Department released 30,000 last year under 

their own procedures. And again, that helped to contribute to this 

growing list now of nearly 350,000 individuals who are either 

under a deportation order or have deportation proceedings pending 

who have been released by ICE or by others and are out on our 

streets. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, if you’re asking me should we reduce 

or eliminate the criminals who are undocumented who were released by sanctuary cities—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And by the Department. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I agree that we should work to reduce that 

number, absolutely. I agree with the spirit of your question. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But the trend is going the wrong way. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I disagree that through Federal legislation 

we should mandate how State and local law enforcement relates to 

us. I don’t think that that’s going to solve the controversy in the 

courts. And in terms of the 30,000, as you know, Chairman, I have 

issued—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. How about incentivizing them? 

Secretary JOHNSON. As you know, Chairman, I have issued new 

guidelines to deal with releases of those who have been convicted 

of something from immigration detention to tighten up on it, higher 

level approval authority, and that we should no longer release 

somebody for budgetary or reasons of lack of space. We will find 

the space if there is somebody that we think should be detained 

and we can detain them consistent with the law. That has been my 

directive. I want to see that number go down, too. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan is 

recognized. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. 

Johnson. We are very pleased to have you here. And I was just 

looking over your article in the newspapers today about 

cybersecurity, and you say ‘‘Often, sophisticated actors penetrate 

the gate because they know they can count on a single user letting 
26 

his guard down, but we’ve increased and will continue to increase, 

with Congress’ help, to do much more.’’ 

Do you have an additional comment about that? I’m going to put 

this in the record. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, Congressman. I have been struck by the 

fact that very often, the most sophisticated far-reaching attacks, 

whether in the private sector or in the government, by the most sophisticated actors often starts with a simple act of spear phishing, 

someone opened an email that they shouldn’t have, and so a large 

part of our efforts have to be education of our workforce about not 

opening suspicious emails, emails they don’t recognize 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. On immigration enforcement priorities. Over the past 61⁄2 years, this Administration has set many 

new immigration enforcement records. Over the first 6 years, the 

number of people removed was so much greater than it had been 

under past Administrations, but the President was famously described as the deporter in chief. The Washington Post recently reported that your Department is now on pace to remove fewer people in the current fiscal year than in the past fiscal years. Can you 

explain why the removal numbers went down in this past year? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, as I mentioned, Congressman, I’d like 

to see us move in the direction of focusing on threats to public safety, and that’s what we’re doing. While the overall number of deportations has been going down, an increasing percentage of those we 

detain, and hopefully those we ultimately remove are convicted 

criminals, recent border arrivals illegally, and threats to public 

safety. That is the direction that I believe we need to go in. 

Mr. CONYERS. Good. Let me ask you about the decision to replace 

Secure Communities with Priority Enforcement Program. I understand the Secure Communities, the fingerprints of every person arrested and booked for a crime by local law enforcement are checked 

not only by the FBI, but also against Department of Homeland Security immigration records. Will that interoperability still be 

present under the Priority Enforcement Program? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Excellent. Now the Montgomery County chief of 

police recently said his office notifies ICE when serious criminals 

are set to be released, and ICE is always able to get there on the 

day of release to assume custody. Would you say ICE will generally 

take appropriate action when notified about the release of a serious 

criminal? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We will generally take appropriate action to 

avoid the release of a serious criminal, absolutely, yes 

Mr. CONYERS. Very, very good. And finally, can you comment on 

this shooting of Kate Steinle in California. In general, how do you 

respond to people who say that our southwest border is not secure? 

How secure is our southwest border compared to other times in our 

history? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Over the last 15 years in the Clinton, Bush, 

and Obama administrations, we—and I include in the statement, 

we, the Congress as well—have made historic investments in border security. For example, 15 years ago, there was only 70 miles 

of fence on the southwest border. Now there is 700 miles of fence. 

We are up to 18,000 and change in terms of border patrol per-
27 

sonnel on the southwest border, and I believe that is reflected in 

the numbers. 

In the year 2000, apprehensions on the southern border were 1.6 

million. In recent years, they are down around 400,000. This year, 

I suspect, will be somewhere in the 300,000’s, even lower. That is 

due, in very large part, to the investments we have made in border 

security with this Congress, and I want to continue that progress 

through investments in technology, surveillance equipment, and so 

forth. 

In terms of the San Francisco case, Kate Steinle, and I hope I 

pronounced her last name correctly. It’s a tragedy. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Just finally, I understand that Mr. 

Lopez-Sanchez has returned to the country multiple times after 

being deported, but in most instances, hasn’t he been apprehended 

right away? Can you give us a little illumination on that subject? 

Secretary JOHNSON. My understanding is that he was deported 

five times and returned five times and he was prosecuted for unlawful reentry three times, and served fairly significant jail sentences. 

Mr. CONYERS. Uh-huh. 

Secretary JOHNSON. He was in BOP custody serving his last sentence. We put a detainer on him. Then he was transferred to the 

San Francisco sheriff. We put another detainer on him, and he was 

released. My hope is that jurisdictions like San Francisco, San 

Francisco County will cooperate with our new program. 

I was pleased that Senator Feinstein wrote the mayor and asked 

that San Francisco participate. As the sheriff himself has acknowledged, I personally met with the sheriff in April to ask for his participation in the PEP program, along with other San Francisco area 

sheriffs in the month of April. 

And so as I said, I’m making the rounds with a lot of jurisdictions. My Deputy Secretary and I and other leaders in DHS have 

been very, very active for the purpose of promoting public safety to 

get jurisdictions to cooperate with us on this. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy, the Chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank the 

gentleman from Texas for letting me go in his spot. 

Mr. Secretary, I’ve been on this Committee for almost 5 years 

now, and I have listened as witnesses primarily called by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have repeated with almost 

catatonic frequency, certain phrases, phrases like ‘‘citizenship for 

11 million aspiring Americans,’’ as if 11 million of any category 

could all pass a background check. Phrases like ‘‘functional control 

of the border,’’ phrases as benign sounding as ‘‘sanctuary cities,’’ 

and I’ve listened pretty carefully, Mr. Secretary, as I’ve heard argument after argument after argument made against empowering 

State and local law enforcement to actually enforce immigration 

laws. Have you had a chance to look at the criminal history of Mr. 

Lopez-Sanchez? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe I have, yes. 
28 

Mr. GOWDY. It dates back to 1991. The criminal conduct occurred 

in five separate States. He’s committed local, State, and Federal 

crimes. He was and is, by any definition, a career criminal. He violated at least three separate statutes when he simply picked up the 

gun before he shot and killed an innocent woman walking with her 

father. 

So, to me, Mr. Secretary, he is exhibit A that we must not have 

functional control over the border or he wouldn’t have reentered so 

many times. And he is, I’m assuming, not able to pass anyone’s 

background check. I would hope that somebody with his criminal 

history couldn’t even pass our friend in the Senate’s comprehensive 

immigration reform background check. 

Now, I want us to look at a legal issue in a second, Mr. Secretary, but I want to read a quote to you, and I want to ask you 

if you know who said it. ‘‘I want people who are living in the country undocumented to come forward, to get on the books and subject 

themselves to a background check so I can know who they are and 

whether it’s the current DACA program or a path to citizenship, 

whether it’s deferred action or earned path to citizenship. From a 

Homeland Security perspective, I want people to come forward.’’ Do 

you know who said that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I don’t know if I said it or not, but that 

is consistent with my own sentiment, so I could have said that. 

Mr. GOWDY. You did say that. Now, I want you to tell me what 

in defendant Lopez-Sanchez’s background leads you to believe that 

he would, to use your words, come forward? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, clearly he is not the type of person 

that would ever qualify for any sort of deferred action. 

Mr. GOWDY. I know that. Nor is he the type of person that would 

come forward, Mr. Secretary. So my point is, my point is when you 

have a—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. May I finish my sentence, sir? 

Mr. GOWDY. Sir? 

Secretary JOHNSON. May I be allowed to speak? 

Mr. GOWDY. You are welcome to answer the question that was 

asked, yes. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, give me a chance, please. He is not any 

kind of person who would qualify for any type of version of deferred 

action in my book or earned path to citizenship. He is a criminal, 

a dangerous criminal multiple times over. 

When we talk about encouraging people to come forward, what 

we’re talking about are people who we hope will report crime, who 

will participate in American society fully. Obviously somebody like 

this is not coming forward. That case is a tragedy. 

Mr. GOWDY. No, he is not coming forward, Mr. Secretary. I’ll let 

you answer the question, Mr. Secretary, but I’m not going to let 

you run out the clock. 

You’re right, he’s not coming forward, and he doesn’t need to get 

on the books because he’s already been on the books. In fact, better 

that being on the books, Mr. Secretary, he was in Federal prison. 

So I want to know why was somebody in Federal prison with a 

Federal detainer on him released to a sanctuary city? 

Secretary JOHNSON. You’d have to ask the Bureau of Prisons. 

Mr. GOWDY. Have you asked the Bureau of Prisons? 
29 

Secretary JOHNSON. We’ve had detainer on him, both when he 

was in BOP custody and when he was in the custody of San Francisco. 

Mr. GOWDY. I know you did. My question to you is—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m quite sure that there are a lot of questions being asked right now. In my book, he is exhibit A for why 

jurisdictions need to work with our Priority Enforcement Program. 

Secure Communities was not working. There were over 12,000 detainers of mine that were not acted upon—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, then why don’t you make them mandatory, 

Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. Because the program was not 

working. 

Mr. GOWDY. Why don’t you make the detainers mandatory? If cities like San Francisco are not complying with Federal detainers, 

why don’t you make them mandatory? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think that would be a huge setback in our 

ability to work with State and local law enforcement, and I suspect 

they would agree as well. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I do not agree, and I’ll tell you why I don’t 

agree, Mr. Secretary. What I find ironic is you are not willing to 

mandate Federal detainers, but you are willing to mandate that 

State and local law enforcement cannot assist you in enforcing immigration laws. I mean, help me understand that. You can empower a city like San Francisco to ignore Federal law, but you 

won’t empower State and local law enforcement to actually enforce 

immigration laws. Help me reconcile that. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Can I speak? 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir. You can have the rest of the time. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. Thank you for giving me 7 seconds. 

Mr. GOWDY. No, you take all the time you want to answer the 

question because I think it’s important. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m sure you’re aware of this. The Secure 

Communities Program was hugely problematic in the courts. The 

courts were saying that State and local law enforcement does not 

have the authority under the due process clause of the Constitution 

to hold people until we could come and get them. Last time I 

looked at the Federal legislation, you cannot rewrite the due process clause of the Constitution, so that is a problem. 

I do not believe that mandating through Federal legislation, the 

conduct of sheriffs and police chiefs is the way to go. I think it will 

be hugely controversial. I think it will have problems with the Constitution. I want to see us work cooperatively with State and local 

law enforcement, and I believe that they are poised to do that. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, my time is up, Mr. Secretary. The last time 

I looked, we had a supremacy clause, and Federal law trumps 

State laws, so God knows it trumps the law in San Francisco. And 

when I hear the phrase ‘‘sanctuary city,’’ as benign sounding as it 

is, it may have been a sanctuary for that defendant, but it sure as 

hell was not a sanctuary for a young woman walking with her father. 

So at a minimum, change the name of whatever benign sounding 

program cities like San Francisco want to follow, and the money 
30 

ought to be caught, and I would hope that you would insist that 

Federal detainers be honored and not be discretionary, and with 

that, I would yield back to the Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, first I want to welcome Secretary 

Johnson, and as the former Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I would like to remind Mr. Gowdy that the supremacy 

clause does not trump the Fourth Amendment, and that the Federal courts have held detainers unconstitutional as violations of the 

Fourth Amendment. So when Secretary Johnson said there were 

troubles in the courts, there were, indeed, troubles in the courts, 

and I want to commend the Administration for trying to follow a 

policy that is not unconstitutional and illegal on its face as the 

prior policy was. 

Now, Secretary Johnson, I have heard significant concerns about 

mistaken, even fraudulent issuance—I realize this is off the one 

topic we’re supposed to talk about, of O-1B and O-2 visas to aliens 

coming to the U.S. to work in the motion picture industry. Movie 

and TV production jobs provide the livelihood for a great many 

New Yorkers, so I take very seriously allegations that CIS is improperly allowing unqualified aliens to fill those jobs. 

I would like your agency to take a serious look at these assertions or allegations. Would you commit to working with me on this 

issue? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. On an allied topic, we have been asked, 

and I’ve looked at it sympathetically, frankly, to increase the number of H-1B visas. And, in fact, we voted out of this Committee an 

increase of 50,000 H-1B visas, which most of us on our side of the 

aisle voted against only because of the provision to eliminate an 

equivalent number of diversity visas, but the assertion that we 

need more H-1B visas because we have to bring engineers and others to this country to fill positions that we can’t fill here, we’ve 

heard that repeatedly. 

And yet we see the recent stories about the Disney Company and 

others laying off hundreds of their own American employees who 

were then forced to train foreigners who came here on H-1B visas 

to replace them. Now, if that is true, that is a very serious failing 

of the H-1B program, and it being used to displace American workers rather than to supply people for slots that American workers 

can’t fill. 

Is the Department looking into that, as to how that program is 

being abused, and can it be fixed properly? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Through the H-1B program, those who hold 

visas are not supposed to replace Americans with the jobs, as you 

know, as you pointed out. 

Any such allegations are very troubling to me. I believe that such 

matters should be investigated. I also believe that Congress can 

help in this regard. I think that Congress can help through increased enforcement mechanisms for situations where an employer 

does, in fact, replace American workers with H-1B holders. That is 

a recommendation that has been made to me, and I support that. 
31 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, the United States has a 

longstanding commitment to refugee protection. We pride ourselves 

in our open and welcoming refugee and asylum laws. I understand 

that these laws need to be balanced with legitimate border security 

initiatives, obviously, but I’m concerned that in our quest to expedite the removal of individuals from our country, we may be deporting those with serious persecution claims. 

Recently, DHS instituted a pilot program expediting the deportation of Central Americans beyond the normal expedited removal 

process. These detainees are apprehended by CBP and then detained by ICE away from the general population. They are not 

given any ‘‘know your rights’’ presentations or access to attorneys, 

and are deported in a matter of days. 

Advocates on the ground are being told that these detainees are 

being held at facilities, particularly in the Port Isabel Detention 

Centers and other facilities in South Texas. I’m also concerned that 

we may have transferred our burden of border security to the Mexican Government, and that they are summarily deporting Central 

American refugees without offering them any protection under 

international law. 

Under U.S. pressure, Mexico has more than doubled its detention 

of deportation of Central American children, families, and adults 

over the last year without commensurate resources into identifying 

and offering protection to legitimate refugees. I find these practices 

troubling, given that there are several news reports about the horrific violence in the region, especially against women and girls, An 

article stating that Central Americans are being killed upon their 

deportation to Mexico and the United States. 

I would like to enter some of these into the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. If the gentleman will at some point designate 

which one, we’ll put them in the record. 

Mr. NADLER. I will indeed. Law enforcement involves enforcing 

those laws that provide protection from persecution, too, and we 

have an obligation to make sure that we don’t undermine that at 

our borders or at our friends’ borders. 

What is the Administration doing to ensure that Central Americans’ refugees’ international protection claims are being honored by 

both our government, and, that is to say, that they have an adequate opportunity make their claims with proper legal assistance, 

and by the government of Mexico? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, a couple of things there, Congressman. 

First, we have prioritized, among our CIS personnel, interviews of 

people on the border, particularly from Central America who may 

have a reasonable fear claim and a credible fear claim. 

In the most recent guidance I issued, I directed that these interviews be conducted in a reasonable period of time as quickly as 

possible. My hope is that we can get those done, on average, 

around 14 days after apprehension, so that’s one thing when it 

comes to refugees. 

The other thing that we have begun, which I’d like to see more 

use of is in-country processing in Central America. Advice we got 

last summer when we were dealing with the spike there is we need 

to offer people a lawful safe path to the United States. And so we 
32 

set up in-country processing, the ability to interview kids in the 

three Central American countries who have parents who are lawfully here to see if they would qualify for refugee status. 

Frankly, not enough people have taken advantage of the program. It’s in the low thousands. I would like to see more use that 

method versus trying to make the journey through Mexico, which 

is very dangerous and crossing our border illegally. And so we are 

encouraging people to make use of that program in Central America, and I want to see us publicize it, put emphasis on it because 

it is the lawful safe path to come to the United States. 

Mr. NADLER. My time is expired. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognize 

the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I preface my questions 

with just a comment. And that’s, we mentioned the Secure Communities Program several times this morning, Mr. Secretary, and I 

would just note that the Administration never went to court to defend the Secure Communities Program when the issue was before 

the courts. But let me turn to my questions. 

First of all, what is the Administration’s position on sanctuary 

cities? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’d like to see—— 

Mr. CHABOT. Does it have one? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, yes, in the sense that I want to reduce, 

if not eliminate, the jurisdictions that don’t want to cooperate with 

us and—— 

Mr. CHABOT. But as far as the existence of actual cities, has the 

Administration actually come out and either condemn them on the 

one hand, or condone them on the other hand? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, whatever label you put on it, there are 

a whole lot of jurisdictions, something like 300 that—— 

Mr. CHABOT. What’s the definition of a sanctuary city? 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. Do not cooperate with our immigration enforcement personnel. 

Mr. CHABOT. What’s your operating definition of a sanctuary 

city? 

Secretary JOHNSON. There are so many around. I just know that 

there are 300—something like 300 jurisdictions that have enacted 

ordinances, executive orders, acting pursuant to State law that will 

not cooperate with us because of the controversy around the Secure 

Communities Program. 

Mr. CHABOT. So, in essence, these communities are refusing to 

cooperate with the Federal Government in the enforcement of the 

Federal immigration laws. Would that be a fair representation? 

Secretary JOHNSON. To one degree or another. 

Mr. CHABOT. To one degree or another. Okay. Thank you. And 

one of the things that’s so annoying, so aggravating, so frustrating 

to a lot of us, and a lot of people that bring this whole topic up 

with me is the fact that this Administration seems to be anxious 

to aggressively pursue communities, States, that are enforcing the 

immigration laws. Arizona is an example, and all the way to the 

U.S. Supreme Court on that. 

So when a State is enforcing our immigration law or immigration 

laws, we go after them. We pursue them. We basically, in that 
33 

case, stop them. However, we have communities all over the country that are refusing to enforce the immigration laws, and we saw 

this tragic incident in California with this totally innocent 32-year 

old woman who was brutally murdered by somebody who shouldn’t 

even have been here. 

And the Administration really, in essence, hasn’t actively opposed cities that are flaunting our immigration laws. Can you understand that frustration that a lot of people have? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, all I know is I’ve been spending a 

whole lot of time of my own meeting with mayors, governors, county execs, sheriffs who have been opposed to cooperating with us to 

encourage them to eliminate those barriers. That has not included 

Arizona. That’s including a lot of very large jurisdictions that have 

passed these types of laws to encourage them, to repeal them, or 

interpret them in a certain way consistent with our new program, 

which is aiming at getting at the criminals. 

Mr. CHABOT. Let me switch gears. Has the Administration 

reached out to the Steinle family, to your knowledge? 

Secretary JOHNSON. To who? 

Mr. CHABOT. To the family of the woman who was brutally murdered by this individual who had committed seven different felonies in four different States in my understanding, who had been 

deported, kept coming back, has the Administration reached out to 

that family? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m sorry, I don’t know the answer to that 

question, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. If I would just note that the Administration has 

reached out in a whole range of homicide cases, criminal cases 

around the country, and I’m not being critical of them having done 

that. I think certainly there are times when the Administration 

should do that, but there are also times—perhaps they need to do 

that. I would—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. CHABOT [continuing]. Strongly recommend that. Could you 

check into that and see if they have or haven’t? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Speaking for myself, I have developed a 

practice of reaching out to every sheriff or commissioner or chief 

who has had a law enforcement officer who has died in the line of 

duty myself. I write a letter personally. 

Mr. CHABOT. My understanding is they have not, but I would ask 

that the Administration check into that. I’m almost out of time. Let 

me ask you: The fence, how long is our border with Mexico? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Twenty-seven hundred miles, I believe. 

Mr. CHABOT. And how much of the fence is actually complete at 

this point? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Seven hundred, pursuant to congressional 

direction, something around 700, yes, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. What did the Administration do back in 2010 

which suspended expansion of the virtual portion of the fence? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, my understanding is that the 700 

miles, it’s 700 and change, was built pursuant to congressional 

mandate. I know that there was some litigation around an environmental issue. I also know that a lot of the southwest border is very 

remote, as I’m sure you know. Some of it includes the Rio Grande. 
34 

Other parts of the border are very mountainous, and so the fence 

we have built has been built in places where it makes the most 

sense to have a fence. 

Mr. CHABOT. And my time is expired, but just let me conclude 

by noting that that’s one of the other things that I think is very 

frustrating to the American public is the fact that the law says the 

fence is to be built. I know not all of it is a fence, as we all understand it. Some of it is virtual. But the length of time this has taken 

and the environmental lawsuits that have been filed and all the 

rest, the fence needs to be completed. We need to have a secure 

border. I yield back my time. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe that it’s almost all completed pursuant to the mandate we have from Congress, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. I don’t think that’s correct, but I’ll follow up on it. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. Recognizes 

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for being here and for the work that you do on behalf 

of our country to keep us safe. It is a tough job, but you have approached your duties with skill and dignity, and we very much appreciate that. 

I want to touch just briefly on the tragedy in San Francisco, the 

young lady who was walking with her father, obviously an outrageous situation. She was shot and killed, and I think whenever 

an innocent citizen loses their life, it should cause us to review 

what are the policies, what could be changed that would make our 

communities safer? 

Some have said we ought to do mandatory sentencing, but my 

understanding is Mr. Sanchez just had finished 4 years in prison 

for the prosecution, so it doesn’t appear that that is necessarily the 

answer. 

One of the questions I wanted to explore was the policy of transferring from the Bureau of Prisons to a locality on a warrant. It’s 

my understanding that there was like a 20-year old warrant, it was 

a bench warrant for Mr. Sanchez, but the underlying offense was 

possession of a small amount of marijuana. 

Now, I don’t fault—I don’t know. I mean, we’ve asked the Bureau 

of Prisons, you know, what discretion they had, and clearly, if you 

had an outstanding warrant against somebody who committed a 

crime, you know, 2 weeks ago, you don’t want the Department of 

Homeland Security to thwart that criminal prosecution or locality, 

but if you have a very old warrant with an offense that, you know, 

probably wouldn’t be prosecuted, is there some way that we could 

explore either clearing those warrants if there is no intent to prosecute? 

I mean, in that case, you would have a situation where probably 

the arresting officer is retired, there would be no witnesses, you 

couldn’t really have an effective prosecution. Further, in the State 

of California today, possession of a small amount of marijuana is 

an infraction. I mean, it doesn’t even give rise to a prosecution. 

What are your thoughts on that process? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I agree with the spirit of your question. I 

think that in a situation where the Bureau of Prisons has someone 
35 

that they are about to release because that person has completed 

his sentence and there’s an immigration detainer, and there’s a 20- 

year old warrant on a marijuana charge, there ought to be some 

discretion and balancing built into that so that—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Or maybe some communication with the locality 

to find out whether they intend to prosecute? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Look, I think we need to look at this question. 

It may be that they give priority to a criminal warrant, which 

in all cases is not necessarily the best outcome. And so I want to 

look at the question of whether or not we and BOP can work more 

effectively together to make the appropriate assessment that it’s 

better that this person go to immigration detention versus go to a 

jurisdiction on a 20-year-old warrant. So—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I’m glad to hear that, and I would like to 

keep apprised of the progress on that, because I think it’s an important element of this situation that has sort of not been examined. 

I want to talk today about the GAO report just released today. 

You may not have had a chance to review it. But it really talks 

about the manner in which the DHS is screening and caring for unaccompanied children when it comes to Mexican children at the 

border. 

And this is an issue that I’ve raised in the past both publicly and 

privately, that Mexican children under the age of 14 are presumed 

not to be competent to make a decision about whether to voluntarily return. But what the GAO found is that we’re not really getting the kind of examination that the law envisioned under the 

trafficking provisions. 

It does trouble me, and I know there are several Members on 

both sides of the aisle who are concerned. You have a child who 

may be a victim of trafficking, they may have been a victim of sexual abuse, and yet their interrogation is conducted by a uniformed 

officer who may or may not speak their language in front of other 

people, other children. You wouldn’t have a police agency in the 

whole United States that would interview a child sexual abuse victim in that manner. 

So I’m wondering, now that we have the GAO report, whether we 

can revisit how we are doing these interviews and whether we 

might take a clue from police agencies around the United States 

to make sure that potential sex-trafficking victims who are children 

are interviewed in an appropriate setting by skilled nonuniformed 

people so that we can get the truth of whether they’re in fact a victim or whether they’re not. 

When you’ve had a chance to take a look at that report, could 

we discuss this further? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m aware of the report and its conclusions. 

I haven’t had a chance to carefully study it, but it is something 

that we will look at, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Chair thanks the gentlewoman. 

I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
36 

Mr. Secretary, it’s always good to see you. Thank you for being 

here. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Always good to see you too, Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. At the opening of this hearing, the Ranking Member, for whom I have enormous respect, complimented the conservative leadership of the House for impacting and even slowing some 

of the policies of this Administration. I assumed he was talking 

about the policy of releasing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay or 

perhaps releasing criminals on our streets. And while I’m sure the 

leadership would be flattered, they’d be the first to say we still 

have a lot of work to do. 

He also mentioned that your job needs to be done humanely. You 

know, and we’ve talked about before, we have a huge gang problem 

in the country. It’s a growing problem. And, in fact, if we took gang 

members in the United States today, they would equal the sixthlargest army in the world. 

So my question to you is this: Is it humane to leave individuals 

who are here illegally and who have been active participants in a 

criminal street gang, or who intentionally participated in an organized criminal gang, to remain in the United States? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Such an individual is among my top priorities for removal, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. Good. If that’s the case, and that is indeed the 

memo that you mentioned, we had a little difficulty because 3 

months ago your Director of ICE, Sarah Saldan ̃ a, did not have a 

clue when she was asked—and you can look at the testimony and 

the record—when we asked her how many criminal aliens with violent gangs has ICE and/or CBP processed and deported since DHS 

updated its policies, the policies you reference? How many has ICE 

or CBP released? And, third, what type of process is DHS using to 

determine who is a member of a criminal gang? 

So my first question to you is, can you give us today the number 

of criminal aliens with violent gang ties that ICE and/or CBP has 

processed and deported since your policy was updated? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, that is a knowable number, which we 

can get to you for the record. 

Sitting here right now, I don’t know the number, but it is a 

knowable number. 

Mr. FORBES. And here is the problem we have. This is one of 

your top priorities. The Director said she didn’t have a clue. And 

today when we have a hearing to look at this, we don’t have that 

number. So if you would get it back to us. But I would assume then 

that you also don’t know how many ICE or CBP has released. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Again, it’s a knowable number, sir. I just did 

not come prepared with the number. If I could have anticipated 

your question, I would have. 

Mr. FORBES. I would have just thought if it was one of your top 

priorities, that might have been a metric you would look to see if 

it was working. So let me ask you this third one—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. It absolutely is one of my top priorities, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. But you just don’t know whether it’s working or 

not? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Like I said, it is a knowable number. I just 

don’t have it with me. 
37 

Mr. FORBES. But you don’t know the knowable number. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do know this. I have mandated as part of 

that same directive that we track who we remove—— 

Mr. FORBES. Can I ask you this, because I don’t have but 5 minutes. What type of process are you using to doing that tracking 

that you’ve mandated? How do you know who is a member of a 

criminal gang? Do you ask them? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, in fact, we have tightened up the guidance so that we can more effectively identify—— 

Mr. FORBES. Share with us, if you would, as a Committee how 

you’ve tightened it up. Do you ask the individuals if they are members of violent criminal gangs? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, if you’re referring to applicants for deferred action, the answer is yes. 

Mr. FORBES. So your testimony today is that you ask every member who was an applicant whether they’re a member of a violent 

criminal gang. Because that would be in conflict with what the Director said. So that is your testimony today? 

Secretary JOHNSON. My understanding is that when—— 

Mr. FORBES. Let me just make sure. You’re saying it is the policy, you’re sure of that, or you don’t know what the policy is? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I know that being a member of a criminal 

street gang is certainly a disqualifier. 

Mr. FORBES. I understand that, but if we don’t know who they 

are, it doesn’t help us. Can you state under oath today that you 

know that each one of those applicants are asked whether they’re 

even a member of a violent criminal gang? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe the answer is yes, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. You believe it is. But you do not know? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well—— 

Mr. FORBES. Can you confirm that and get it back to us for the 

record? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. FORBES. Do you know whether or not they’re reviewing their 

criminal records, their trial records? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m sorry, what’s the question? 

Mr. FORBES. Do you know whether the applicant’s trial records 

are reviewed before a decision is made as to whether or not they 

will be released? 

Secretary JOHNSON. A trial record? 

Mr. FORBES. Yes, sir. 

Secretary JOHNSON. What’s a trial record? 

Mr. FORBES. A trial order would be when they are going to court 

and they are prosecuted for a crime, there would be a record of 

that. And the reason it’s important is because oftentimes it doesn’t 

say on their conviction that they were a member of a violent criminal gang. Unless you’re reviewing the records, you wouldn’t have 

any way of knowing. 

I know, Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I know what a criminal record is. I don’t 

know if I’ve ever heard the term ‘‘trial record.’’ 

Mr. FORBES. Well, let’s use your word then, as criminal record, 

if you want to, but the problem with the criminal record is it 

doesn’t always show all the details that were in the trial. And if 
38 

you don’t know that, you won’t know whether when they plead they 

were actually a member of a violent criminal gang or not. 

Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back. 

Very concerning that you have a major priority and we don’t 

even know the metrics as to whether or not it’s working or not. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, that would be a mischaracterization of 

what I said, sir. 

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

And the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 

Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you very much. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your testimony. 

To my colleagues, I think I’ve said this before, that I have sat 

on the Homeland Security Committee since 9/11, the tragedy of 9/ 

11. I think it is important to note that Secretary Johnson has made 

incredible advances in securing this Nation. And I always say, 

when we are apt to criticize the Transportation Security Administration and other agencies within Homeland Security, that we have 

faced challenges, but America has been made safer and more secure with the creation of this Department. 

In particular, let me thank Secretary Johnson for noting the decrease in the surge of unaccompanied children. But as well, when 

a group of us went to visit Karnes and Dilley in San Antonio and 

viewed circumstances that were unacceptable to us, viewing children and mothers, that the Department was responsive. And we 

appreciate the decrease in population legally of mothers and children dealing with the unaccompanied circumstances. 

I think it is important to take note that this is a huge challenge 

in securing this Nation. And so allow me to quickly—and, Mr. Secretary, if you would just say yes or no—the reasons, because I want 

to get to my real questions. But I just want to say the PEP program that you have announced, would that have been a sizeable 

intervention for the sheriff’s department and other sanctuary cities 

to be able to respond to a circumstance like Mr. Sanchez? Does this 

give them a greater latitude and remain their sanctuary city—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. Status? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And let me just say for my colleagues, a sanctuary city is not the choosing of the Secretary of Homeland Security, it is states’ rights. It is individual cities making their determination. 

I would offer to say and ask unanimous consent to put into the 

record, and might I do this so my colleagues know with my deepest 

sympathy to that family, and I personally apologize to the family 

for this tragedy that has occurred in San Francisco, none of us 

would want to counter that or to support that or to be supporters 

of comprehensive immigration reform and support that violent act. 

But I do think it’s important to note that murders in San Francisco, for example, compared to cities of Indianapolis and Dallas of 

the same size, those murders are at 5.75 and Indianapolis at 15.17 

and 11.39. Over the years, the homicides in San Francisco have 

gone down. 
39 

I don’t necessarily want to condemn sanctuary cities, but I do 

want to condemn the idea of communication. And I want to join 

with Mayor Ed Lee who said: Could somebody simply pick up the 

phone? 

I’m looking at an order of activities here, and I see that ICE sent 

a detainer on 3/27/2015. And my question to the law enforcement 

of that city, it would not negate the sanctuary city authority to 

have simply picked up the phone and called ICE to be able to say: 

This individual who has a long criminal history is in our facilities. 

Mr. Secretary, was that a possibility, in light of this horrible 

tragedy, that we don’t diminish, could that have been a phone conversation to ICE at that time from the sheriff’s department and not 

violate their sanctuary city rules per se? 

Secretary JOHNSON. My strong intent with the new PEP program 

is that we have the type of cooperative relationship with local law 

enforcement such that we get notification before somebody is released—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right. But they could have also—— 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. So that we get there in time to 

pick them up when they are released. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And they could have also made a call at that 

time as well. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I won’t get into warrants and order, but they 

could have made a call. 

Let me move quickly to this issue of violent extremism and just 

cite for you an article from The New York Times that made it clear 

that since 9/11 there were 19 non-Muslim extremist attacks versus 

7 Islamic militant attacks. And we all know that we are concerned 

about ISIL and a cell in every state. But I am concerned as well 

about Homeland Security looking at violent extremism that are 

dealing with antigovernment feeling or racist feelings. 

I have every respect for opinion and speech that expresses hatred 

toward me because I’m an African American, but not violence, as 

evidenced by Mother Emanuel. 

Can you explain what you will be doing about capturing those 

who are engaged in violent, antigovernment activities, and, of 

course, racial violence that is rising as a perspective of domestic 

terrorism? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, of course, there’s always the law enforcement approach to hate crime, to violence. Our CVE efforts 

across the Department should be comprehensive, in my view. I 

have personally spent a lot of time on CVE engagements, as you 

know. We attended one together in Houston about a month ago. 

At the moment, my priority has been focusing on communities 

that I believe are most vulnerable, at least some members of the 

community, to appeals from ISIL, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist 

groups overseas who are actively targeting individuals in these 

communities. And so I think we need to focus on communities that 

themselves have the ability to influence somebody who may be 

turning in the direction of violence. 

Without a doubt, there is the potential, the very real potential 

of domestic acts of terrorism. I just went to Oklahoma City for the 

20th anniversary of the bombing there in April. A program that 
40 

counters domestic violent extremism, domestic-based violent extremism, is in my judgment a little more complicated. 

The terrorist threat to the homeland from overseas that I’m concerned about is one that is making active efforts to recruit people 

in response to ISIL’s recruitment efforts. And so we’ve been, as you 

know, very focused on that. But I do agree with the spirit of your 

question that violent extremism in this country can exist in a lot 

of different forms, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent to include these 

two documents in the record? And may I just put one sentence on 

the record—I thank you for your indulgence—is, Mr. Secretary, I 

implore you to consider domestic terrorism. And I’d like to work 

with the Department to seriously add that to its broad agenda. I 

think it would be a vital and important step forward. And let me 

thank you for your service. 

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

was a long run-on sentence, but we will allow it. And those two 

documents will be made a part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing. 

Mr. Secretary, I appreciate also your testimony here. 

But listening to the testimony about ICE detainers—and I want 

to pause for a minute here. 

Can I have a clear path? Thank you. 

Listening for the moment about ICE detainers, this first question 

occurs to me, and that is that, how long have we been operating 

under ICE detainers when they were mandatory? Do you know 

when their inception was? 

Secretary JOHNSON. ICE detainers go back a long way. They go 

back—— 

Mr. KING. 1996? 

Secretary JOHNSON. When I was a Federal prosecutor 25 years 

ago, we had immigration detainers. 

Mr. KING. Okay. So they were mandatory for a long time. And 

how long has this been a problem? In your testimony you said that 

in the last year 12,000 ICE detainers were ignored or not responded to by local law enforcement, 12,000. Is that indicative of 

a problem we’ve had over a 20-year period of time or is that a 

short-term anomaly? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think that that number has been growing 

with the number of jurisdictions that have been passing ordinances 

and laws and signing executive orders that limited their ability to 

cooperate with us. So I suspect the number has been growing annually, sir. 

Mr. KING. Would it be perhaps in sync with a 2012 ACLU ‘‘fact 

sheet’’ that was sent to local law enforcement nationwide that said 

that ICE detainers are not mandatory because no penalty existed, 

and they have this legal rationale, reach, if there is no penalty 

then there is no law to be enforced? Are you familiar with that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m not familiar with that fact sheet, sir, no. 

Mr. KING. Okay. And I would make sure you’ll get a copy of that 

so you are. But February 25, 2014, so can you tell me if that’s 

about the date that the number of local jurisdictions ignoring the 

detainers began to accelerate? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do not know the answer to that question, 

sir. 

Mr. KING. But we do know that the Department has cooperated 

to some degree with ICE—or, excuse me, with ACLU. And I’m looking at a letter that was sent to a Member of Congress, Member of 

this Committee, dated February 25, 2014, from U.S. Immigration, 

it’s from ICE. It says: ‘‘While immigration detainers are an important part of ICE’s effort to remove criminal aliens who are in Federal, state, and local custody, they are not mandatory as a matter 

of law.’’ 

The Congress was informed February 25 that ICE and your Department was going to back away from detainers. And I’m listening 

to ICE spokesmen tell the people that are trying to enforce the law 

in San Francisco that’s it’s all their sanctuary city policy, not a policy that has to do with ICE’s decisions. 

So I’d just raise this as a point that there are a whole series of 

jurisdictions that are culpable here. And I want to ask, have you 
49 

sat down or do you have people in your Department that have sat 

down and calculated the resources necessary to enforce all of the 

law? And I would express that in synch with Rudy Giuliani’s 

former policy in New York, the broken windows policy, we arrest 

people that break the law as quickly as we can and enforce the law 

so that there is an expectation that it’s a deterrent. 

To get to that point, to restore the respect for immigration law, 

which has been damaged perhaps—I still believe we can repair it— 

what would the calculation be for the resources necessary to accomplish such a thing? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, you refer to restoring respect 

for immigration law—— 

Mr. KING. Let’s just call it full enforcement, then, so I don’t run 

out of time. 

Secretary JOHNSON. That’s exactly what I’m trying to do with our 

new Priority Enforcement Program. 

Mr. KING. And what resources do you need then to do that? 

You’ve got more beds than you’re using. You’ve increased the number of officers. We’ve got significantly fewer arrests taking place. 

That doesn’t convince me that there are fewer border crossings. I 

mean, if the order were issued to arrest half the people you were, 

that would be all that it would take to see those numbers go down. 

It’s never been indicative to me of lower border crossings. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I’m glad you asked that question, what 

resources do we need? I would like to see our immigration enforcement personnel put on a pay scale with other law enforcement personnel. As you probably know, a lot of them are topped out at GS9. One of our executive actions was to have pay reform for immigration enforcement personnel. 

Mr. KING. I’m happy to take that conversation up, as I do believe 

that we ought to be as supportive as we can of especially the people 

that put their lives on the line. But they want to also do their job, 

and I want to make sure we have the foundation to get that done. 

And when you were asked the length of the fence, how long is the 

border, the southern border? 

Secretary JOHNSON. How long is the southern border? 

Mr. KING. Yes. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe it’s 2,700 miles, sir. 

Mr. KING. I brought that up because I want to give you an opportunity to state that. It’s actually very close to 2,000 miles. The estimates run just a little bit under that. 

But I bring this up because I think it’s important for this Committee and for you and the public to consider what we’re doing. 

We’re spending $13 billion on our southern border to secure our 

border. That’s the 50-mile line when you add everything up. I don’t 

know anybody else that even tracks that number. That comes out 

to be a little less than $6.6 million a mile. 

Now, that might not be astonishing unless you think that about 

25 percent of those that are attempting to cross the border actually 

are interdicted, and many of them are released again, maybe for 

five times. Actually 27 times is the highest number that I see. 

We’re building interstate highway across expensive Iowa cornfields for $4 million a mile. That’s two fences. That’s grading, paving, shouldering, and signage and all the things necessary, plus ar-
50 

cheological and environmental. If we can build interstate highway 

for $4 million a mile, we could take a third of that budget down 

there. In a matter of 2 years we’d have that whole thing, a fence, 

a wall and a fence. We would have patrol roads in between two noman’s land zones. 

And, by the way, if we do that, these fences don’t have prosecutorial discretion. They will be effective. The Israelis’ is up to at 

least 99-point-something percent effective. They put $1.8 million a 

mile in theirs. They had 14,000 illegal crossings. In one section it 

cut it to 40. 

And so I think there’s an economic equation that your Department could bring forward. And I’d very happy to sit down and go 

through the numbers, I spent my life in the contracting business, 

and I think that we could put a lot better application to these resources than are being used today. 

And I thank you for your testimony. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

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

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And first I’d like to recognize and say hello to Mr. Johnson, who 

is from the other great city in Tennessee, which has the secondbest barbecue, but the greatest HBCU in the country in Fisk, 

where his father was actively involved. 

I want to follow up on Ms. Jackson Lee’s questions. We need to 

be concerned about threats from afar and recruitment of our people 

from afar in ISIS. But the fact is we’ve got more of a threat domestically to our lives than we do internationally. 

An article in The New York Times just this past year, June 16, 

just this past month, cites the fact that since 9/11 an average of 

nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average 

of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the U.S. Most were 

disrupted. But the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 

fatalities over the past 131⁄2 years. 

In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year 

in the decade after 9/11, causing 254 fatalities, over 5 times as 

many as the Muslim-caused facilities. This was according to a 

study by a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. And that total has increased since the 

study was released in 2012. 

So I ask you about our efforts to curtail domestic right-wing extremists. I believe that in 2011, it might have been a department, 

that funding was cut or even abolished. And is there any consideration that you’ve given to increasing funding and/or renewing that 

department? I think the Department of Homeland Security in 

2009, the Department disbanded the Extremism and Radicalization 

Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division. 

Do you think it would be appropriate to have that division recreated or reinstated? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, if you don’t mind, let me answer it this way. We fund over $2 billion a year in grants to state 

and local law enforcement for homeland security/public safety purposes of a lot of different stripes. So the first responder equipment 
51 

that we fund is valuable whether it’s a terrorist attack, a mass 

shooting incident, motivated by whatever purpose. 

So, for example, the Boston Marathon attack, which is very definitely an act of terrorism, the first responders there were funded, 

to a very large measure, by my Department, even though they were 

local. 

And so our grant money goes to a lot of valuable things to promote public safety. We have active shooter training, for example. 

Mr. COHEN. I understand that and appreciate that, sir. But what 

I’m asking about is the Department had a department called the 

Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, and apparently that division was 

not reinstated. That’s different than grants. That’s something specifically looking at the Internet and seeing if they can’t ferret out 

some of these folks before they get their weapon and go to a church 

and commit a mass atrocity. 

Have you considered reinstating such a division in light of the 

fact that the statistics are overwhelming that they are continuing 

to threaten our people? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I agree with the spirit of your question 

when it comes to the statistics. I would have to look into your specific question, sir. 

Mr. COHEN. I’d appreciate if you would. 

After Charleston, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of 

America noted that we need, as everybody I think would agree, 

freedom of worship, we need freedom from fear. Houses of worship 

need to be safe. The national security grant program provides 

grants to communities to buy surveillance equipment and shatterproof windows. Much of that goes and has been going and I’m 

pleased it has been going to Jewish organizations and synagogues 

which have been targeted over the years with threats. 

But now that we see in the South in particular, and we’ve seen 

it over the years, but a rash recently of attacks on African American churches, can your Department look into requesting an increase in funding so that it can cover African American churches 

that are also threatened in this day and time? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We can, sir. I just met with officials of the 

American Jewish Committee last week who are very complimentary of the relationship that we have with the Jewish community 

in this regard. 

And as I think I mentioned to you, Congressman, my great 

grandfather was a Baptist preacher in southwest Virginia near Roanoke in a little town on the Virginia-Tennessee line called Bristol. 

And back in the turn of the century 115 years ago, a lot of that— 

being a Baptist preacher in that part of the world meant breaking 

up the occasional lynching attempt. So I appreciate the importance 

of your question, sir. 

Mr. COHEN. And I appreciate your service. Thank you, sir. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. King, for 5 minutes—I mean, Mr. 

Franks for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FRANKS. You’ve insulted both of us, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you, sir. 
52 

Secretary Johnson, a report from the National Academy of 

Sciences places ‘‘an estimate of $1 trillion to $2 trillion during the 

first year alone for the societal and economic costs of a ’severe geomagnetic storm scenario’ with recovery times of 4 to 10 years.’’ Another report, from Lloyds of London, stated that between 20 million 

and 40 million people in America are at risk of extended outages 

for up to 1 to 2 years in duration. And I can read you excerpts of 

11 major government reports that all share very similar findings 

for hours here, as you know. And yet the Federal Government has 

really done next to nothing to help protect the electric grid. 

And so I just would remind you that year you testified that it 

was the main responsibility of the National Programs and Protections Directorate, or the NPPD, within Department of Homeland 

Security, along with other, of course, relevant agencies, to protect 

the electric grid. So I’d like to ask you what is being done today 

at DHS to protect the grid from geomagnetic disturbance or from 

weaponized electromagnetic pulse, and do you support legislative 

efforts like the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act that has now 

come out of the Homeland Security Committee to actually focus on 

this threat and act upon it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. In general, sir, I’m very supportive of the efforts being made. I know that the threat that you mentioned is one 

that we study and evaluate. I’m happy to get back to you more specifically for the record in answer to what detailed steps we are taking and how we regard this particular threat, sir. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I appreciate that. I hope that you would take 

a special look at the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act. It’s 

going to be entirely within your purview to respond to it. And I 

think it’s something you’ll probably support. 

I sort of changed the subject there, but I have to get back to the 

subject now of the Constitution. I have the privilege here of 

chairing the Constitution Subcommittee, and so that’s part of the 

predicate. 

Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution—provides that 

the Congress shall have power to ‘‘establish an uniform Rule of 

Naturalization,’’ and grants Congress plenary power over immigration policies. That’s very, very, very clear. 

Aren’t your administrative actions and your agency’s administrative actions to exempt millions of unlawful and criminal aliens 

from any threat of enforcement of our immigration laws a usurpation of Congress’ constitutional role? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Inherent in the enforcement of any law, sir, 

is the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and that’s what we do in 

the enforcement of our laws, that’s what the Department of Justice 

does, and that’s what multiple other agencies do. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, in all due deference to you, prosecutorial discretion is one thing, the suspension of the law is another. 

And I will probably leave it right there, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
53 

This is a hearing where Republicans are arguing that the Administration is not enforcing the immigration laws and that this is 

leading to increased crime. 

Exhibit A, the murder of Ms. Steinle in San Francisco. And that 

event happened within the last 2 weeks. And I am really impressed 

with the speed by which this Committee has sprung into action to 

bring this issue before a hearing, you know, I mean, and then going 

to take advantage of it for political purposes is basically what’s 

happening. 

However, something like the flying of Confederate battle flags in 

national park space is something that is salient, germane, and current. They want to put that off to a Committee for a study or for 

a hearing that will never be held. 

So it’s politics what we’re playing up here, Secretary Johnson. I 

appreciate your service, by the way. What we have is a situation 

where Ms. Steinle was allegedly murdered by Mr. Juan Francisco 

Lopez Sanchez, who had been in Federal custody for about 6 years 

on a felony illegal entry into the U.S. ICE had a hold on him, so 

that when he was released from the Bureau of Prisons he would 

go into ICE custody for deportation again. 

However, ICE also has a policy that when a local jurisdiction has 

an active warrant against an individual, then ICE yields to that 

local authority holding that warrant. And that local authority, San 

Francisco County in this case, decided to pursue its warrant. So it 

took custody of Mr. Sanchez, Mr. Lopez Sanchez, and after they 

took custody of him, ICE had a warrant or a detainer lodged 

against Mr. Lopez Sanchez so that when San Francisco finished its 

prosecution, then it would turn Mr. Lopez Sanchez back over to 

ICE for deportation. 

And then what happened was, after Mr. Lopez Sanchez was in 

the custody of San Francisco County, the authorities there decided 

not to prosecute him, which meant that he was eligible for release, 

and ideally it would have been to ICE which had the detainer in 

place. However, due to its local politics, San Francisco County had 

a situation, a sanctuary policy, where they did not honor those 

warrants. 

So I go through that to say that it was not the fault of ICE, or 

it was not a breakdown in Federal immigration enforcement that 

resulted—that resulted in Kathryn Steinle’s murder allegedly by 

Mr. Lopez Sanchez. It was not the fault of your Department, although they’re trying to make it appear to be that way. 

And in fact, under this President, there have been—this President is now known as the Deporter in Chief. Why is that, Mr. 

Johnson? Is it because over 2 million people have been deported 

under his Presidency, which is more than were deported under the 

previous Administration in 8 years with 17 months left on this 

term? Is that the reason why he’s known as the Deporter in Chief? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, let me answer your question. Let me 

answer—let me say two things, sir. One, as I have mentioned, I believe it is important that we focus our deportation resources on 

threats to public safety. And with our new policy, I believe we are 

doing that increasingly so. 

A higher percentage of those in immigration detention today 

than used to be the case are those who are in my top two priorities 
54 

for removal. Seventy-six percent of those in immigration detention 

today are in my top priority for removal, the felons, those apprehended at the border. So I want to focus our resources on threats 

to public safety, and I know the President supports that and he 

shares that view. 

The other thing I’ll say in response to your question, sir, is, as 

I mentioned earlier, I think we need to evaluate carefully whether 

it is appropriate in every case for a criminal warrant to be a priority over an immigration detainer. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. I agree. 

Secretary JOHNSON. It may not be. There may need to be some 

additional flexibility and discretion built into that. So I want to 

evaluate any such policy. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank the Chairman. 

Secretary Johnson, on November 20, 2014, the President issued 

his now somewhat famous executive order. You did a memo regarding DACA and deferred action. You recall all that, Mr. Johnson? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. And then February 16 of this year, Judge 

Hanen has a ruling that blocks the action of the President and the 

action outlined in your memo, correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. And during the hearing in front of Mr. Hanen, 

Judge Hanen’s court, January 15, 2015, your counsel represented 

to the court, ‘‘No applications for revised DACA would be accepted 

until the 18th of February 2015.’’ Is that correct, Mr. Johnson? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t know exactly what the colloquy was, 

sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. This is from your counsel and from the court. 

But regardless of what it was, the representation that no applications would be—for revised DACA—would be accepted until the 

18th of February, that turned out to be wrong. Is that accurate, 

Mr. Johnson? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, in fact—— 

Mr. JORDAN. That representation that was made in front of the 

court was not accurate. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Like I said, I don’t know the exact colloquy. 

I do know that in November we began issuing 3-year renewals consistent with the policy. It was on the face of the policy and it was 

in the—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, let me read what Judge Hanen said, because 

your counsel actually filed an advisory with the court clarifying, 

saying that even though you said you would not accept applications 

and they would be not be revised, they in fact were up to 100,000. 

And here’s what the advisory—you advised the court, and here’s 

what the judge said. 

‘‘The court expects all parties, including the Government of the 

United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind 

deceptive representations and half-truths. That is why the court is 

extremely troubled by the multiple representations made by the 
55 

government’s counsel, both in writing and orally, that no action 

would be taken pursuant to the 2014 DHS directive until February 

18, 2015.’’ 

So here’s what I want to understand. You said you weren’t going 

to issue, but you had already issued 100,000 3-year deferrals. You 

had to go tell the court: Oh, what we told you in the earlier hearing 

wasn’t in fact true. When did you know as the head of this agency, 

the head of this Department, that the representation made to 

Judge Hanen and to the court was in fact not accurate? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I definitely know that this is an issue 

for the judge that he is very troubled by. 

Mr. JORDAN. That’s not my question. When did you know what 

you had told the court—your counsel had told the court, when did 

you personally know as the head of the agency that it wasn’t accurate? Did you know when they said it? Did you know clear back 

in January when they had the hearing that what they were conveying to the court wasn’t true? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No, I did not know when they said it because I was not—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. So when did you learn? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Sometime around—sometime shortly—I 

don’t have the exact timeframe, but sometime in early March I became aware that this was an issue and wanted to—— 

Mr. JORDAN. And who told you? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t recall, sir. And wanted to be sure 

that we promptly advised the court of this issue and we did. 

I will say also that the fact that we began issuing 3-year renewals was on the face of the policy, which was in the record of the 

court. I know this is an issue, I know the judge is troubled by it 

but—— 

Mr. JORDAN. He’s not troubled by it. He said it was half-truths, 

deceptive representation. He’s extremely troubled by it, and that’s 

his words, not mine. So when a judge says that, that you falsely 

represented something in front of the court, you later learn you did 

that, according to what you just told me, and then you convey it 

to them, I want to know when exactly you learned and how long 

after you learned did you convey to it the court. Do you know that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’ve already answered that question. 

Mr. JORDAN. No, no. But when you learned, did you convey it 

that very day? Did you wait a couple days? When did you convey 

it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t know how many days it was. Could 

have been same day, could have been 2 days. I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you know what day you happened to advise the 

court that you in fact had misrepresented the facts to the court? 

Do you know what day you had sent that advisory? Do you know 

that date? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t know when the advisory was filed. I 

do know—— 

Mr. JORDAN. March 3, 2015. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I was going to say, I do know that it was in 

early March. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. Do you know what else happened on March 

3, 2015? 
56 

Secretary JOHNSON. A lot of things, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, relative to your agency, do you know what 

happened that day? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Refresh my recollection. 

Mr. JORDAN. Same day we were having a little debate in Congress about the funding bill for your agency. So the same day that 

the DHS funding bill passes Congress is the same day you decide 

to tell the court: Oh, by the way, we lied to you back when we 

didn’t give you all the facts earlier on. 

Now, don’t you think it would have been nice if the Congress 

during that heated debate—in fact, I remember you, Secretary, you 

were on TV that entire weekend, that March 1 to March 2, that 

entire weekend, you were talking about if this bill doesn’t get done, 

if we don’t get funding—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. You have your—— 

Mr. JORDAN. No, no, hang on. Sky’s going to fall, world. It would 

have been nice if you’d have also told the Congress and the American people: Oh, by the way, we misrepresented the facts to the 

court dealing with this issue. But you send the advisory the same 

day—the same day that we pass the bill? Be nice if we’d have had 

that information before the date we actually voted on this and went 

on record. 

Secretary JOHNSON. There are so many things wrong with that 

question. I do not have 37 seconds to answer it. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, let me ask—let me just—Mr. Chairman, if I 

could real quick. 

Secretary JOHNSON. There are so many things wrong in the question. 

Mr. JORDAN. March 3 you filed the advisory, right? March 3 you 

filed the advisory. March 3, the DHS bill passes. Those are two 

facts. That just a coincidence? 

Mr. GOWDY. Gentleman’s out of time, but I’m going to allow the 

Secretary to answer the question. 

Secretary JOHNSON. First of all, my recollection is that I was on 

the Sunday shows earlier in the month of February. So that doesn’t 

work, okay? Second—— 

Mr. JORDAN. That’s why I’d like to know when you found out. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t recall when exactly in the course of 

the day, sir, the funding bill was passed. And I really don’t think 

one has anything to do with the other. I knew this was an issue. 

I found out about it in early March. And I wanted the court to 

be—— 

Mr. JORDAN. It was important enough to advise the court. It 

might have been important enough to let Congress know in the 

heat of that debate when this is the central issue of that debate 

that, oh, by the way, our counsel didn’t represent the facts to the 

court like they should have. That’s an important element for this 

body, the Congress of the United States, and the American people 

to know in the course of that fundamental debate we were having, 

and you don’t think it’s important to know that? 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman really is out of time this time, and 

I’m going to allow you to respond, and then I need to go to Ms. Chu 

from California. 
57 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do not believe one has anything to do with 

the other. I do not recall whether Congress voted for our funding 

on March 3 or March 4. I tend to think, but I don’t have the calendar in front of me, that it was on March 4. 

So that is my recollection. I was intensely interested, obviously, 

in the debate going on in this Congress about funding our Department so that I wasn’t going to have to furlough a whole lot of people. So my recollection is that it passed the Congress on March 4, 

but I could be wrong. But I don’t have a calendar in front of me. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Ohio yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Yes, Secretary Johnson, I was one of the eight Congress Members that visited the Dilley and Karnes Family Detention Center, and I was horrified by the situation. And I thank you 

for reevaluating DHS’ family detention policy and your announcement yesterday that ICE will generally not detain families if 

they’ve received a positive finding for credible or reasonable fear. 

It’s a huge step forward and I hope it’ll bring our policies in line 

with our international obligation to protect those that are fleeing 

persecution. 

The families that I spoke with when I was there were not criminals. They were victims escaping extreme violence. I heard from a 

mother from Honduras whose son and daughter were forced into 

the drug cartels. She was raped, as well as her 15-year-old daughter. She and her daughter escaped but ended up in the detention 

facilities for months. 

The mother had a credible fear determination, but then she was 

given a $10,000 bond obligation, which made her desperate because 

she couldn’t afford it, and it might as well have been $1 million because it was unattainable. And then her daughter, in reaction to 

the desperation, had to be taken to the medical unit for wanting 

to commit suicide. 

It’s my hope that DHS’ new policy means that families like these 

will no longer be detained and no longer subject to such unreasonable bonds. So, Secretary Johnson, could you describe how the 

agency will implement this new policy, and how long do you expect 

the review to take? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, much of the reforms that we announced and that I directed are underway already. In terms of the 

review of the cases, the older cases, that review has already been 

undertaken, and it has produced results. 

In terms of the new bond policy, I believe also that that policy 

has in fact been implemented and is underway. The review that Director Saldan ̃ a directed of the facilities themselves, the advisory 

committee, I would have to get back to you in terms of the exact 

status of that. 

Thank you also for visiting the facility, and thank you for meeting with me after you did so. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. In fact, I wanted to get more clarity on the 

bonds for the families. Will ICE continue using bonds for these 

families? And how will you work to ensure that these bonds remain 

reasonable for them? 
58 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I’ve directed that they be realistic and 

be reasonable. And I have asked that I receive regular reports on 

what the bond levels are. And I know that ICE is developing, if 

they haven’t already developed criteria for setting bonds at a consistent and affordable rate. 

When I was at one of these facilities, I was struck by the number 

of people who were there who had a bond set, but they were not 

able to produce the cash. And so this is one of the things that I 

want to be sure we set at a realistic rate. 

Ms. CHU. I also wanted to ask about a different detention center, 

that’s Adelanto Detention Center in California. There have been 

numerous reports documenting inadequate care for the detainees. 

This facility is run by a private company, GEO Group. And we 

know that GEO’s failure to provide adequate medical care resulted 

in the death of at least one detainee, Mr. Fernando Dominguez, 

who was detained for 5 years and died of intestinal cancer several 

days after he was rushed to the hospital with unusual bleeding. 

Now, this facility has recently been expanded by 640 beds, and 

it’s of concern, considering the history of medical neglect. So, Mr. 

Secretary, what is ICE doing to ensure that the private companies 

that it contracts with provides adequate medical care and abides 

by the ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards? 

Secretary JOHNSON. This is a priority of mine. It’s a focus of 

mine. And I believe it is a priority and a focus of Director Saldan ̃a. 

I’ve heard concerns raised about private contractors running detention facilities, and I want to be sure that we get this right both 

with respect to the conditions and with respect to clarity about 

lines of authority and responsibility. 

So when you have a private contractor in the mix, whose responsibility is it day-to-day to ensure the conditions of confinement? 

And so it’s something that we’re looking into and it’s something I’m 

very interested in. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 

former U.S. Attorney, Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. 

Good afternoon. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Good afternoon. 

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Secretary, I first, as a former U.S. Attorney, realize the complications involved with dealing all kinds of local law 

enforcement entities. It can be quite chaotic. However, I am disappointed with the Administration in the way it is not, I think, directly handling sanctuary cities. I think the Administration can 

have a much more direct impact by being aggressive, as it has in 

other areas, to force sanctuary cities to be in contact with ICE. 

I’ve worked with ICE for a great deal of time. I think they are 

some of the best agents that we have in the Federal system. And 

I do agree with your position on the pay. But I put most of the 

blame on sanctuary cities at this point, however, I put part of the 

blame on Homeland because of the void between the detainer and 

a warrant. Now, I know in some situations a warrant may not be 

applicable. 
59 

But give me some insight on how you see or what directive you 

can give to sanctuary cities in particular of letting ICE know when 

an illegal individual, an illegal person that is in this country is 

being released from any facility. Do you have anything on mind at 

this point? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, if it’s somebody that we want for detention purposes, for removal purposes, my hope is that they not 

be released, period. I honestly believe the most effective way to go 

about getting at undocumented criminals in local jails is through 

a cooperative, constructive effort without—— 

Mr. MARINO. I’m sorry to interrupt. I only have a little bit. But 

that isn’t working. So I think you have the authority, I think that 

you need to take the tough position to say—hand out a directive: 

You will respond to us. And if you need something done legislatively, come back to us. With all due respect, sir, I think that the 

Administration is avoiding this because of its propensity to want 

amnesty the way that it does. But that’s a matter for another day. 

But if you want to respond to that, please. 

Secretary JOHNSON. The problem, if I may, is for a long time we 

did take the position that detainers were mandatory, and that was 

leading to a lot of litigation in the courts—— 

Mr. MARINO. Right. I’m aware of that, sir. 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. We were losing. We were losing 

for reasons of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. 

Mr. MARINO. So maybe you need us to help out a little bit. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Frankly, we were losing with a lot of these 

jurisdictions who were passing all these laws saying: Thou shalt 

not cooperate with ICE. 

Mr. MARINO. I understand that. 

Secretary JOHNSON. And that led to a real public safety problem, 

in my view, which I think we are correcting now. 

Mr. MARINO. Well, if any time you think that you need the legislation to help you in that direction, please contact us. 

I want to switch to another situation here, particularly in my district, but it’s happening across the U.S. Last year the U.S. Sentencing Commission promulgated an amendment to the Federal 

Sentencing Guidelines, Amendment 782, which reduced the base 

offense level for all drug trafficking by two levels. The amendment 

was also made retroactive, and as a result, more than 10,000 drug 

trafficking offenders will be released early from prison beginning 

on November 1 of this year. 

And I have in front of me—this pertains to the Middle District— 

there’ll be 68 people released between November 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016, and many more after 2016. And as a State gets 

closer to the border, those numbers increase, because on my list of 

68 people there are about 20 percent, 19 of them, are from outside 

the country. Now, this list doesn’t tell me whether they’re illegals 

or not. 

But I would ask if you could take a look at this, pay attention 

to particularly the list of people that are from outside the country 

to see if they are violent illegals. And that’s probably another way 

that we could stop a great deal of what has been taking place, particularly what has happened over the last 2 weeks, and my condolences do go out to that family. Would you please respond? 
60 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. I’m aware of this issue. I’m aware of 

the adjustment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. I’m aware 

that a number of individuals will be released as a result. I’m aware 

that a number of them are probably undocumented, and we’ve been 

working with DOJ to do the most effective thing for public safety 

in that regard, and we will continue to do so, sir. 

Mr. MARINO. I appreciate that, and I yield back the 1 second of 

my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. Gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the former attorney general from 

Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Chairman. 

Secretary Johnson, welcome back to the Committee. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. When you testified here last May, we spoke about 

drug-related violence in Puerto Rico, the same subject I raise with 

virtually every senior DHS and DOJ official that comes before this 

Committee. Like I did then, I want to outline a narrative for you 

and ask you to comment. I will be brief so you have sufficient time 

to respond. 

In 2011, there were 1,136 homicides in Puerto Rico, an average 

of over 3 a day, the most violent year in the territory’s history. 

That was nearly the same number of murders as were committed 

that year in Texas, which has over 25 million residents compared 

to 3.5 million in Puerto Rico. Most murders in Puerto Rico are 

linked to the drug trade since Puerto Rico is within the U.S. Custom Zone and is used by organizations transporting narcotics from 

South America to the U.S. mainland. 

When I examined the level of resources that DHS and DOJ were 

dedicating to combat drug-related violence in Puerto Rico, it was 

clear that the Federal law enforcement footprint on the island was 

woefully inadequate. Accordingly, I did everything within my power 

to change that dynamic. Starting in 2012, under your predecessor, 

Secretary Napolitano, the message finally began to sink in. DHS 

component agencies like the Coast Guard, ICE, CBP, started to 

step up their games. The Coast Guard has massively increased the 

number of hours that its ships and planes spend conducting 

counter-drug patrols around Puerto Rico. ICE surged its agents to 

Puerto Rico where they arrested hundreds of violent criminals and 

seized vast quantities of illegal drugs and firearms. CBP assumed 

control of the aerostat program from the Air Force and moved 

quickly to repair the radar in southern Puerto Rico that had been 

inoperative since 2011. 

The actions taken by DHS, in conjunction with its Federal and 

local partners, have made a major difference in a very short period 

of time. Each year the murder rate has declined. In 2014, there 

were 681 homicides in Puerto Rico. That is 40 percent lower than 

2011. In 2015 to date, there have been 287 homicides. If current 

trends continue, there will be half as many murders this year as 

there were in 2011. I am not sure if there’s any other jurisdiction 

in the world that has experienced such a steep and rapid crime 

drop. 

It is critical that we keep our eye on the ball and that we sustain 

and strengthen these efforts, especially since, notwithstanding the 
61 

improvements, Puerto Rico’s homicide rate is still four times the 

national average. Rest assured that I will continue to do my part. 

As you know, the Coast Guard is modernizing its fleet of vessels 

in Puerto Rico, replacing our six older vessels with six modern vessels. Last week, I met with Peter Edge, The Executive Associate 

Director of ICE HSI, which is doing great work in Puerto Rico, to 

discuss the agency’s current posture and future plans on the island. 

On the legislative front, I secured language in the DHS appropriations bill that will enable CBP to use both revenues from the 

Puerto Rico Trust Fund and general appropriations from Congress 

to support its air and marine operations in the territory. 

I would welcome any comments you might have and hope you 

can assure me that Puerto Rico will continue to be a top priority 

for DHS. Thank you. 

Secretary JOHNSON. The answer is yes. And since we’d last met 

last year, we have created and operationalized my southern border 

campaign strategy, which brings to bear all the resources of my Department in different regions in a coordinated fashion. We are 

doing away with the stovepipes. 

So we have a Joint Task Force East, for example, which is for 

the southeast part of the country and the maritime approaches, 

where we now have, in a combined and coordinated way, all of the 

border security law enforcement assets of my Department devoted 

toward the southeast. And, so, we now have the Coast Guard, CBP, 

ICE, CIS, working together in a coordinated fashion for—— 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Great. 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. Public safety and border security. And I think that’s a very positive step, and I think it will be 

a positive step for Puerto Rico as well. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you so much. 

Mr. GOWDY [presiding]. The gentleman from Puerto Rico yields 

back. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, 

former Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Johnson, I’d like to go to the 30,000 convicted criminal 

aliens the Administration released last year. It was 36,000 the year 

before. It’s been over 30,000 for the last several years. Arguably, 

about 2,000 of the 30,000 had to be released because of the 

Zadvydas Supreme Court case, but that left 28,000 that I don’t believe needed to be released. 

A partial breakdown of the 28,000 convicted criminal aliens the 

Administration released and didn’t have to, include 5,000 convicted 

or dangerous thugs, 500 convicted of stolen vehicle, 200 convicted 

of sexual assault, 60 convicted of homicide, over 300 convicted of 

commercialized sexual offenses, and over 100 convicted of kidnapping. 

Why did the Administration release them? And is the Administration going to continue to release these types of individuals? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, as you and I have discussed 

previously, I would like to see that number greatly reduced to the 

extent legally possible. And so, last year, ICE, at my encouragement and direction, issued new policies to tighten up on the situation where somebody who has been convicted of a crime and who 
62 

has served their sentence and transferred to immigration is then 

released. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Secretary JOHNSON. And so we have a higher level of approval 

for doing so. We should not release people for lack of space or budgetary concerns. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. Do you expect this number to come down dramatically in the next year? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would very much hope and like to see it 

come down in fiscal year 2015. 

Mr. SMITH. That’s pretty much up to the Administration whether 

it continues to release individuals back into our communities, and 

as you know, many of them are convicted of additional crimes, 

which I think could have been avoided. Doesn’t sound like you disagree with me. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, like I say, I want to see that number 

come down dramatically. As you point out, there is the Supreme 

Court decision which constrains our discretion somewhat. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. That only applies to about 8 percent. 

Secretary JOHNSON. But like I said, and also a lot of it is up to 

the immigration judges, but I want to see this number come down, 

sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. I hope that you can succeed. That number has 

been at 30,000 or over for the last several years, and I haven’t seen 

any improvement. 

A 1996 bill that I happen to have introduced became law, and 

a part of that law mandated that local officials cooperate with Federal immigration officials. Do you feel that San Francisco and other 

sanctuary cities are violating current Federal law? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t have a judgment with regard to that, 

sir. I do believe that the most effective approach is a cooperative 

one. I don’t have—— 

Mr. SMITH. I know—I heard you say that a while ago. You have 

no opinion as to whether you think sanctuary cities are violating 

current Federal law, which I’m assuming you’re familiar with? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do not have a legal judgment on that question, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. I’m appalled that you don’t. One fact is that 

under this Administration, the number of sanctuary cities has been 

increasing dramatically. 

Has the Administration done anything to discourage a city from 

becoming a sanctuary city? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Absolutely, every day. We are with the 

new—— 

Mr. SMITH. No, all these new sanctuary cities where you had city 

councils who had voted to become sanctuary cities, has the Administration—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I personally—— 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. To discourage any of them? 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. Along with other senior officials 

of this Department, engaging mayors, governors, county supervisors, city council members, about cooperating with us pursuant 

to the new program. 
63 

Mr. SMITH. No, not cooperating. I’m asking you if you discouraged any city from becoming a sanctuary city? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am encouraging people to cooperate. 

Mr. SMITH. So the answer is no, you have not tried to discourage 

any city? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have answered yes. 

Mr. SMITH. No, no, you said you’re encouraging cooperation. 

That’s after they become a sanctuary city. I’m asking you, did you 

discourage any city from trying to become a sanctuary city? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, look, there are 300 jurisdictions—— 

Mr. SMITH. That’s pretty critical if you’re not doing anything to 

discourage cities from becoming these sanctuaries. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Irrespective of what label you put on it, 

there are now 300 jurisdictions that have, to one degree or another, 

erected limitations on their ability to cooperate with us. I am trying to—— 

Mr. SMITH. And did you do anything to prevent any of those—— 

Secretary JOHNSON.—I am flying back—— 

Mr. SMITH. Did you do anything to prevent any of those 300 cities—— 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. For the sake of public safety. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Secretary, did you do anything to prevent any of 

those cities from becoming a sanctuary city? 

Secretary JOHNSON. A lot of jurisdictions I meet with probably 

regard themselves as sanctuary cities. I don’t know that there is 

a magic—— 

Mr. SMITH. I think it’s clear you—you don’t want to admit it, but 

I think it’s clear you did not try to discourage any city from becoming a sanctuary city. 

One more question. The President said in regard to the surge 

last summer of illegal immigrants, particularly those coming from 

Central America, that they were going to be sent home. It’s my understanding that roughly 92 percent are still in the United States. 

Why hasn’t the President kept his promise to return those individuals home? 

Secretary JOHNSON. When you’re talking about children, and I 

think that’s what you’re asking about. 

Mr. SMITH. Not entirely, but regardless of how you want to label 

them, the President has said that they would be returned home. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Inevitably, removal and repatriation of a 

family or a child from Central America becomes a time-consuming 

process, because as I’m sure you know, they very often assert an 

asylum claim. 

Mr. SMITH. Do you agree with my statistic that 92 percent, 

roughly, are still in the United States of the individuals the President said we could return? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I haven’t heard it put that way before, so I 

don’t know. I do know that an awful lot of them are still here in 

deportation proceedings right now. 

Mr. SMITH. I think it’s 92 percent contrary to the President’s 

pledge to the American people. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Texas yields back. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez. 
64 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I’m happy to have you 

back here before this Committee. 

First of all, I think the gentlemen just misspoke on the issue. 

Not all jurisdictions call themselves sanctuary cities. It’s a political 

term, political term of art some people appropriate and others 

don’t. 

But it is clear that a Federal district court in Oregon ruled that 

a county violated a person’s Fourth Amendment right to be free 

from unreasonable seizure by keeping the person in custody, based 

on nothing more than an ICE detainer. Now, that’s a Federal court 

that made that determination, not the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

A Federal circuit court, the Third Circuit ruled that because ICE 

detainers are not mandatory but voluntary, with all due respect to 

the gentleman from Texas and the law that he passed in 1996, 

that’s what a Federal court said in the Third Circuit, voluntary, 

law enforcement agencies are free to disregard them, and that is 

exactly what we’re doing. 

So instead of having the Secretary of Homeland Security here 

asking him, well, how many people have you tried to dissuade, the 

Federal courts have said that the detainers are a violation and are 

not enforceable, regardless of what we here believe they are. 

And so why don’t you just haul in the mayor of San Francisco 

and then haul in the mayor of Chicago and haul in the mayor of 

New York and just 300 jurisdictions and bring them before him. 

What are you going to do, lock them up, too? Because they don’t 

abide by the way you look at the world and how things should be 

enforced? These are local jurisdictions that have made a decision 

that as they carry out local police enforcement, which is a local 

issue, this is the way they want to do it, and that they are not 

going to cooperate. 

Now, what they can do, instead of having this hearing here, 

which will lead to absolutely nothing, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this will lead to nothing. This will not lead to a solution. Everybody will feel better. They’ll get a few headlines. They’ll put 

something on their Facebook and they’ll say, well, we put in a day’s 

work, but it will lead to nothing. Why don’t we get to the business 

of making sure. 

Mr. Secretary, I’d like to ask you a question. Of the 11 million 

or so undocumented immigrants, did all of them cross the border 

between Mexico and the United States? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No. As you know, sir, a lot of the undocumented didn’t come here by crossing the southern border. I mean, 

there are a variety of different ways. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Did millions of them come here legally to the 

United States with a tourist visa, a student visa, a worker’s visa, 

and overstay those visas eventually? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Some are visa overstays, yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. So that if you shut down the border, there 

would still be millions of undocumented workers in the United 

States of America? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I think we have done a lot for border 

security. We could always do a lot more, but we have, over the last 

number of years, done a lot, but the reality is that there are mil-
65 

lions of people here undocumented. I am struck by the fact that 

something like more than half of them have been here more than 

10 years. They are not going away. We don’t have the resources to 

deport 11 million people. 

So in my judgment, we have to reckon with this population one 

way or another to make them accountable and to account for them. 

And so, a lot of us want to see us address this population of people 

in a way that promotes law enforcement, and it’s simply the right 

thing to do. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So 11 million people, if not one of them crossed 

the border ever again, there would still be hundreds of thousands, 

indeed millions of visa overstays because the only border into the 

United States of America, isn’t to the surprise of many probably, 

not the border between Mexico and United States, if not LAX and 

JFK and Chicago O’Hare where people enter into the country legally every day, and have overstayed their visas. 

And that we need to also do something—as we look at the broken 

immigration system, we should not just focus on that border, because I think focusing on the border really doesn’t give us the true 

nature of the problem that we confront. 

I’d like to just end because you were asked earlier about whether 

or not when people apply for deferred action, if they’re asked if 

they’re a gang member. Now, of course, if Members of Congress actually filled out the forms or helped people fill out the forms, they’d 

know that they’re asked, so I understand that if you’ve never filled 

out one of these forms, or your staff has never filled one out, you 

wouldn’t know, but I just wanted to make sure that you gave the 

right answer, Mr. Secretary. It is asked. They ask them—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. That’s my—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Have you every—that was your answer. 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. We direct them. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. But it says have you ever been arrested for, 

charged with, convicted of a crime in any country other than the 

United States? So not only do you ask them about here, but you 

ask them about the country of origin, and you ask them particularly if they have ever been a gang member, and they must—and 

I’ll just add this, just so that we can—if you answered yes, that 

you’ve ever been arrested, charged with, convicted of a felony or 

misdemeanor, including incidents when you were in juvenile court, 

which usually are sealed, but not in this case. You want to be a 

DREAMer, you got to tell everybody about everything. 

If you answered yes, you must include a certified court disposition, arrest record, charging document, sentencing record, except— 

for each arrest, unless disclosure is prohibited under State law. 

So I just wanted to make sure that the Committee understood 

that when people apply for deferred action, they not only have to— 

if they answer yes to all those questions, all of those documents 

must be presented, and they do ask. And lastly, they have to be 

fingerprinted, and those fingerprints are checked, Mr. Secretary, 

by? I just want to make sure. Who checks the fingerprints that 

are—that the—DACA recipients? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe it’s a combination of agencies. I believe that’s an interagency process. 
66 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Interagency process. That’s what I thought. So 

it’s an interagency process. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary, for 

coming before us today. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. 

I think Mr. Forbes’ broader point, Mr. Secretary, and I think he 

meant to ask you about transcript as opposed to record. The transcript of a guilty plea or a trial is—you can very well be a member 

of a gang and never be charged or prosecuted with that. I think 

that was his broader point, but with that, I would go to the judge 

from Texas, Judge Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Secretary for 

being here. It was hearing my friend from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, 

talk about all these threats that are apparently, in his mind, conservatives, but I don’t know where his numbers were coming from. 

They are nothing like what I’ve been seeing. 

As I understand, the Underwear Bomber was certainly not an 

evangelical Christian, not a conservative. Do you know for sure, 

was he a member of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula? I know 

that was floated at one time, the Underwear Bomber? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would regard him as part of AQAP, yes, 

sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. And I know that was before your watch, obviously. The Boston bomber—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. That actually happened when I was at the 

Department of Defense. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. 

Secretary JOHNSON. So I’m very familiar with the case. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah. But you aren’t going to take credit for letting it happen, though. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I was at DOD, part of the national security 

apparatus of our group at the time. 

Mr. GOHMERT. You were not in charge of TSA when he got 

through wearing a bomb in his underwear. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I was not in charge of TSA on December 25, 

2009, no, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. Thank you. And then Fort Hood, I know 

some of my colleagues prefer to call that workplace violence, but 

when someone is yelling—indicating that he’s doing it in the name 

of Allah, that doesn’t seem to be exactly a right wing, radical, evangelical Christian. 

But I know there has been a lot of discussion about Francisco 

Sanchez in San Francisco, and I know as a former judge, we had 

an ongoing problem. One guy in particular, I sentenced him—I 

think he had nine DWIs before he got to my felony court, and I 

thought, well, if he’s going to be a threat, I’ll send him to prison, 

and 6 months later, he’s back in my court. 

He said that he was deported 30 days or so after I sent him to 

prison, and I come back, and that’s what keeps bringing me back 

to Francisco Sanchez. He was deported five times. Secretary, have 

you analyzed each of those deportations, where they occurred, and 

where Sanchez may have reentered the country? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have looked at a very detailed timeline of 

each of the five removals. I don’t, sitting here, recall exactly where 

he was removed, from what point, from what station, and we don’t 
67 

know, for obvious reasons, how and when he reentered the United 

States, or, at least, I don’t know. Maybe in a guilty plea or something he acknowledged how and when he did it, but sitting here, 

I don’t know where he reentered or crossed the border each of those 

five times, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Wouldn’t that seem to be important to know 

where somebody reenters five times? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I would encourage you, and I would like to find 

out from somebody in your Department where those five reentries 

were. I mean, were they all down in South Texas or were some in 

the Arizona area, were they California? It doesn’t seem like we’ll 

ever be able to get a grip on dealing with reentries by people that 

come in illegally if we don’t know where they’re reentering. 

The fella I mentioned that I had dealt with when he was back 

in my court, I asked how he came back in, and he said, well, they 

took him to the border and watched him walk across, and then 

after the officials, they took him to the border, drove off, then he 

came back across and ended up back in our county. And so it just 

seems like that ought to be where the focus is. 

Is there any indication that if Mr. Sanchez had been given amnesty somewhere between the first illegal entry and the fifth, that 

he would not have shot Kathryn Steinle? Are there any indications 

that amnesty would have prevented this? 

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

Mr. GOHMERT. I think it’s a pretty basic question. The White 

House is saying that the fault for the shooting of this beautiful 

young lady in San Francisco was because Republicans have not 

passed comprehensive immigration reform, and we know we’ve 

passed laws, we’ve appropriated money to build a fence, to build a 

virtual fence, things that have not been done, and I’m just wondering if we can figure out what the White House is thinking, because, obviously, an amnesty was going to be part of a comprehensive immigration reform, and I’m just wondering if we, all of a sudden, declare Mr. Sanchez as being legally here, if that would have 

kept him from pulling a gun and killing Ms. Steinle. 

I can’t find any correlation to that, and I’m just trying to figure 

out what in the heck the White House thinks would have occurred 

differently if this man had been granted amnesty. I can’t see that 

it would have prevented her shooting. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I don’t—to be honest, sir, I don’t know 

what to say. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And I do prefer you to be honest. Thank you. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am interested in promoting cooperation 

with local law enforcement for reasons of public safety so that we 

can, more effectively, get at people like this individual. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So if there were an amnesty, I don’t see how that 

particularly helps. You just declare everybody legal, then I don’t 

see that it makes a difference, but—and I realize time is running 

out. 

Is DHS still shipping people to different parts of the country 

after they enter illegally, depending on where they have family or 

where they asked to be shipped? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t know that that’s our policy, sir. 
68 

Mr. GOHMERT. Are you saying DHS has not done that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t know that that’s our policy, as you 

stated. Some people—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. I didn’t state it was a policy. I’m just saying 

you’ve done it. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Some people are able to make bond, some 

people are put in our alternatives to detention programs, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So the question was, are you still sending people 

to different parts of the country after they enter illegally? 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Secretary may 

answer if he wants to. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t know, logistically, where we send 

people or how they are placed. I do know that a large number of 

people are making bond and a large number of people are being 

placed in our alternatives to detention program. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So that would be a yes, you’re shipping around 

the country. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from 

Idaho, Mr. Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson, thank you for being here today. Ever since Kate 

Steinle’s murder, DHS in San Francisco have been pointing fingers 

of the blame at each other. In fact, I heard several people on the 

other side say that it wasn’t the fault of ICE that Lopez-Sanchez 

was released. 

But we had a telephone conference last week with a DHS official, 

and my congressional staff asked last Tuesday that even if BOP 

had released Mr. Sanchez to ICE, ICE’s answer said ICE likely 

would have released him to San Francisco because of the outstanding criminal warrant, despite San Francisco being a known 

sanctuary city that does not comply with detainers and routinely 

releases hardened criminal aliens. 

Does it make sense to release a hardened criminal alien who was 

already deportable to a jurisdiction that will never return him to 

you for deportation purposes? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No. 

Mr. LABRADOR. How often does ICE release such criminal aliens 

to sanctuary cities? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t know, but no, to your first question. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So if it doesn’t make sense, why is ICE saying 

that they would have released him to—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I was not part of the conversation with your 

congressional staff, sir, but I’ll stand by my answer. 

Mr. LABRADOR. You’re standing by your answer, but that’s not 

your policy. I mean, it’s great to come here to Congress and give 

us an answer when the policy of the Administration is to release 

these people to these sanctuary cities. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Like I said, it does not make sense to, in response to your question, release somebody. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So what are you going to do about it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. As I said earlier, I think we need to evaluate 

whether greater discretion needs to be built into a situation where 

there is a choice, or there is a jurisdiction that wants the individual 

on an arrest warrant and an immigration detainer. I think that 
69 

there should be some discretion built into what is the best course 

for purposes of public safety. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But it took this young lady’s death to actually get 

to that determination when this is not the first time this has happened? In fact, you keep telling the American people that they are 

safe, that we are stopping illegal aliens, but the only reason we 

knew that Lopez-Sanchez was here is because he killed somebody, 

because we keep releasing him. He’s been detained five times. He’s 

crossed the border. We are not stopping him from entering the 

United States. We just keep catching him committing crimes once 

he’s here in the United States. 

I don’t know that we can say that America is safe when people 

like this continue to come into the United States. 

I’m going to give the rest of my time to the Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. I thank the gentleman from Idaho. I think 

Mr. Labrador’s point, Mr. Secretary, and I’m sure given your background as a law enforcement officer and as a prosecutor, I’m sure 

you can feel and understand the frustration. We kick him out five 

times, he comes back. He reoffends when he does come back. We 

put him in Federal prison, he violates supervised release. We put 

him back in Federal prison, and he is released to a city where we 

knew ahead of time this was going to happen. 

And it would be one thing to release someone to a jurisdiction for 

a murder charge, sexual assault, serious, serious drug offense, it 

would be one thing to do that so they can prosecute him and—particularly if there’s a victim involved, that’s exactly what you would 

want to do. 

But this is an old drug case. If they were going to dismiss it, why 

didn’t they dismiss it while he was in the Bureau of Prisons? Why 

did it require his presence in San Francisco to decide to dismiss a 

case? He wasn’t going to be a witness anyway. I mean, you get the 

frustration, and—I think it’s being directed to you because we perceive that you are in a position to change that. 

And I know you say ‘‘cooperation,’’ that you are trying to pursue 

cooperation, but I think maybe this week or last week when you 

were talking to some folks on Judiciary, and if I’m wrong, correct 

me, there are five municipalities that have flat out told you they’re 

not going to cooperate with you. So what do we do with them? 

I mean, if they really are refusing to cooperate, surely we have 

to have something more than just going back to them and talking 

to them again. I mean, you work for the United States of America. 

How in the hell can a city tell you no? 

Secretary JOHNSON. First of all, I intend to reattack on the five. 

That was prior to San Francisco. I am not giving up on the five. 

The overwhelming majority have said, yes, they are interested. So 

we are going to continue to push at this. 

And sir, I agree totally with the spirit of your question, and I 

want to evaluate whether some discretion can be built into the 

process so that when we’re faced with a choice like that, we are 

able to make the best choice for reasons of public safety. I won’t 

argue with you there, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. And I’m not going to pick on somebody who used to 

be a prosecutor, because I know you spent a lot of your career 

standing up for victims, but I swear, when I hear the term ‘‘sanc-
70 

tuary city,’’ the only sanctuary it ought to be is for law-abiding citizens. If we’re going to have a sanctuary, it ought to be for them. 

When a young woman is shot walking with her father, with somebody with this resume, either you got to do something or we got 

to do something or maybe we can do it together. 

With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 

Collins. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I share the Chairman’s frustration and other frustrations 

that have been here, because at a certain point in time, you say, 

again, that they just don’t want to cooperate. We’ve got five cities 

say we’re just not going to cooperate. I was just looking on your 

Web site, DHS Web site, which you’ve got a vast array that you 

deal with. 

I want to get ahead of the game. Let’s decide—because I was in 

the State legislature, and I know cities and States are struggling 

financially right now. They have, as you’ve used the term, which 

I do not agree with, that this is simply a prosecutorial discretion 

issue, resources issue. 

One of the things is cybersecurity that you deal with, and you 

enforce cybersecurity laws, you work with law enforcement on the 

local and State level to do that. What if now they just don’t have 

the resources to do that, and they said, you know, we’re just not 

going to enforce that, we’re not going to cooperate with you, Mr. 

Secretary. Would you have an opinion on that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Absolutely. We would engage—we would encourage them to do otherwise presumably, yes, sir. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. But we would—interesting thing. Because 

you said to Mr. Smith earlier, and there’s other things, you know, 

from economic security and everything. You said you had no opinion on sanctuary cities, but yet to the Chairman just now, you said 

you agree with the spirit of his question. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS. So what is it? Do you have an opinion, do you have 

a spirit, do you have a sudden moving internally, what do you feel 

about this issue? Why can we not have the United States Government pass law, and then you have an opinion? You either have an 

opinion, you don’t have an opinion, you agree with the spirit, you 

don’t agree with the spirit. For the American people, it’s just hard 

to understand here. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, let me make this clear. I believe that 

the most effective way to address and enhance public safety is to 

work cooperatively with State and local law enforcement. As a result of our prior—— 

Mr. COLLINS. So I’m going to stop right there, though. So the supremacy clause is optional? 

Secretary JOHNSON. May I finish? 

Mr. COLLINS. Is the supremacy clause optional? I’ll let you answer. 

Secretary JOHNSON. May I finish my sentence? 

Mr. COLLINS. Go ahead. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe that as a result of the prior policy, 

we were inhibited in our ability to promote public safety. With the 

new policy, I believe we’ll be in a much better position to work ef-
71 

fectively and cooperatively with law enforcement. I do not believe 

that Federal legislation mandating the behavior of a lot of sheriffs 

and police chiefs is the way to go. I believe it will lead to more litigation, more controversy, and it will be counterproductive. 

Mr. COLLINS. One, the supremacy clause questions you never answered, but the question you just said there, so you don’t believe 

that mandating what law enforcement in the country does from a 

congressional perspective, because we’re the only ones that Congress does the law writing. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do not believe—— 

Mr. COLLINS. So they can pick and choose what they want to, 

just overwhelmingly? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do not believe that the Federal Government and the U.S. Congress should mandate the behavior of State 

and local law enforcement. 

Mr. COLLINS. So civil rights could be optional? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The most effective way to do this is cooperatively with the new program, and I believe it is going to yield very 

positive results, sir. 

Mr. COLLINS. In the spirit of this, your request. So civil rights 

are optional for States and locals to enforce? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t think that mandating an approach by 

this Congress is the way to go. I think it will be hugely counterproductive, and it will set back—— 

Mr. COLLINS. So the Civil Rights Act was counterproductive? 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. My public safety efforts in this 

regard. 

Mr. COLLINS. No, it’s not. I want to go back to what you’re saying 

because it goes at the heart of what we’re saying. So you’re saying 

the Civil Rights Act was overreach. You’re saying that they 

shouldn’t be enforcing this? I think we’re getting at the issue of it 

here, because at a certain point in time, when does it become just 

wholesale abandonment of prosecutorial discretion when you just 

say we’re not going do this? 

I agree with prosecutorial discretion, but what you’re saying, if 

you just take a whole class off the table in the best sentiments that 

you want, because it leads to other issues like the earned income 

tax credit, are they folks who are eligible? The decisions you have 

affect other issues than simply saying we’re going to hold somebody 

or not. We’re going to address the earned income tax credit issue 

with legislation I’m going to draw, but it has more to do with what 

do we pick and choose to enforce? 

I’m not sure still what your opinion is because you’ve, again, not 

answered it. You just said we’ll work with them. My question is, 

before you come back next year, whenever it is, if we have this 

hearing again, is what if some of these agencies decided they didn’t 

want to enforce something you thought they should? Where is the 

screaming? Where is the outrage? Where is the intent? When 

should Congress pass anything if there is no supremacy clause, if 

there is no worth to what we do to protect civil rights, to protect 

other things? When does each department get to decide that they’re 

not going to enforce their Federal jurisdiction on States and localities who simply say, you know, we’re not going to do it right now? 

Secretary JOHNSON. May I answer? 
72 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I stop, and it’s asked a question. That’s your 

response time. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS. All right. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have 2 seconds. 

Mr. COLLINS. The Chairman will give you all the time. If you’ll 

answer that, he’ll give you all the time you need. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I want to enforce the law. 

May I, Chairman? 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir, you may answer the question. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I want to enforce the law in a way that 

maximizes public safety and border security. That means going 

after the criminals. A big problem with doing that are the number 

of jurisdictions, I don’t know what label you want to put on them, 

sanctuary cities or otherwise, that have erected ordinances, laws, 

policies that inhibit cooperating with immigration enforcement. 

In my judgment, and in the judgment of a lot of other border security immigration enforcement experts, the way to most effectively 

work with these jurisdictions, again, is a cooperative one, not by 

hitting them over the head with Federal legislation that will engender a lot more litigation. And I believe we’re on the path to do that, 

sir. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Secretary, I respect that opinion. I think what 

you have opened up, though, is a Pandora’s box on other things 

that they don’t want to enforce because of other reasons that they’ll 

come up with, and just because this is a political issue for this Administration, they’re going to let that go, but you do open a Pandora’s box to what they will enforce and what they won’t enforce, 

and that’s not what the average American understands when they 

learn Black Letter law and they understand what’s right and 

what’s wrong. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair will now 

recognize the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, 

for being here. Once again, thank you for coming to Houston. I appreciate your personal involvement and FEMA doing an excellent 

job during the floods of May, as I refer to them. 

I direct some questions about foreign fighters, not only from the 

United States going to help ISIS, but foreign fighters in other countries. We know that ISIS uses social media, Twitter, others to recruit, to raise money and to spread their propaganda. What is DHS 

doing to counteract that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. A number of things, sir. Thank you for that 

question. First of all, to deal with the foreign fighter issue, one of 

the things we did last year was to add information fields to the 

ESTA system, the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, so 

that we know more about people who want to travel to the United 

States from countries for which we do not require a visa. 

We have also developed and are developing an additional set of 

security assurances that we can get from visa waiver countries, because a large number of foreign fighters, as you know, I’m sure, are 

coming from and returning to countries for which we do not require 

a visa, and so I want to see us enhance the security assurances we 
73 

get from these countries with respect to people who travel from 

those countries to this country. 

Additionally, on the international level, we’ve done a lot. I sat in 

on and represented the U.S. and the U.N. Security Council session 

in May on the issue of foreign fighters. And in terms of our efforts 

here at home, one of the things that we’re spending a lot of time 

on, that I’m spending a lot of time on are see what we refer to as 

CD engagements in communities in the United States like Houston, for example. 

I had a very good session in Houston on the same visit where you 

and I were together at your middle school, and so in my view, enhancing and refining our CD efforts in this country, which DHS 

participates in, which the FBI participates in and other law enforcement agencies, along with State and local law enforcement, is 

a priority, given how the global terrorist threat is evolving. 

Mr. POE. The other thing I want to discuss with you is repatriation, and what the law is currently in the United States and how 

it’s being implemented, if it is. 

We have this problem that a person comes to this country, commits a crime, goes to Federal prison. While in prison, the way the 

system works, he’s ordered deported. The country doesn’t take him 

back. Six months later, he’s released back across America. What 

are we doing to those countries to encourage them, you take your 

convicted criminals back? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The State Department and I have been in 

dialogue about this, and we have been in dialogue with countries 

that are slow to repatriate people. I have personally had this discussion with my Chinese counterparts when I was in Beijing in 

April, and I believe we made some progress there where they 

agreed to additional repatriation flights, and so China is one of the 

big ones. So we made good progress there, but I think, and I agree 

that there is more work to do in that regard. 

Mr. POE. If I understand, China, number 1, the other top five, 

Vietnam, Cuba, India, Jamaica, refused to take back their lawfully 

deported citizens. Doesn’t the law already allow the State Department, under some circumstances similar to that scenario, to revoke 

visas from that country? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe it does, but I’m not sure. 

Mr. POE. Do you encourage the State Department to do that, 

when appropriate? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would not, at this time, encourage that, sir, 

no, sir. 

Mr. POE. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The judge yields back. The Chair will now recognize 

my friend from Florida, Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Johnson, thanks for being with us today and I want to 

applaud your recent decision to change detention practices for families awaiting their appearance in immigration court, and that’s because many of those awaiting their day in court are mothers with 

young children. 

Why they fled their home countries is no mystery. Central America has been gripped by transnational gang violence, and these 

families are not, as Republican presidential candidate Donald 
74 

Trump has described, to be violent criminals, drug dealers, and 

rapists. These families are fleeing violent criminals, drug dealers, 

and rapists. And many of the mothers currently in custody have 

suffered sexual abuse, witnessed extreme violence, and received 

death threats against themselves and their children. 

How we treat them, Mr. Secretary, colors the reputation of the 

United States on the international stage, and our practice of welcoming these most vulnerable families by essentially incarcerating 

them was wrong and called for change. 

After all, the purpose of civil detention is to ensure that individuals show up in immigration court. These families have every reason to do so. They pose no flight risk and indeed, for many of them, 

returning home would mean risking death. Likewise, we have no 

national interest in subjecting children of any nationality to the 

detrimental psychological impact of detention, which has been documented in several recent studies. 

Your written testimony includes plans to rapidly increase the use 

of ATDs, or alternatives to detention, and it deserves our praise. 

Expanding the use of ATDs from 23,000 in 2014 to 53,000 in 2016 

is the morally respectable and the fiscally responsible thing to do, 

and I am encouraged by this development, and I want to encourage 

you to expand the use of ATDs throughout our greater immigration 

enforcement system. 

Our overreliance on immigrant detention has disturbing implications. A recent report by Detention Watch Network revealed that 

ICE often agrees to contracts with for-profit detention corporations 

that include guaranteed minimum numbers of detainees for specific 

facilities each day. These local lockup quotas in detention contracts 

obligate ICE to pay for a minimum number of immigration detention beds at specific facilities referred to in contracts as guaranteed 

minimums. And for the government to contractually guarantee specific detention center prepaid numbers of detainees, each day is a 

waste of taxpayer dollars, it’s a violation of best practices of law 

enforcement, and it is an affront to our basic concept of justice in 

America. 

The financial implications for taxpayers will also raise in a November 2014 GAO report, and that’s because such quotas often pad 

the profits of private-person companies at taxpayer expense, even 

when slots go unfilled. 

Certainly, detention is invaluable to law enforcement. It’s invaluable when dealing with immigrants who officers determine are 

flight risk or whose release could threaten public safety, but detention is intended to be one of many tools available to ICE to ensure 

individuals show up for immigration court, not the only one. 

But evidence of local lockup quotas may just be the latest symptom of the real disease, which is the mandate imposed by Congress 

in the annual Homeland Security appropriations that requires ICE 

to maintain the detention of 34,000 individuals each day. This detention-bed mandate cost taxpayers over $2 billion a year, $5.5 million per day to enforce, because placing someone in detention for 

nearly $160 a day is far more expensive than proven alternatives, 

like ankle bracelets and supervised release, which are just as effective and far more humane at a fraction of the cost. 
75 

We could save taxpayers nearly $15 billion over the next decade 

through the greater use of alternatives to detention. But as sensible and as fiscally sound as this policy may be, I’m concerned that 

the incorporation of local quotas into ICE contracts is only further 

entrenching the national detention bed mandate into our communities, and I have just a series of questions. I’d ask you can respond 

now or you can provide responses after, Mr. Secretary. 

I would like to know if you’re aware of ICE’s practice of signing 

these contracts with private detention companies that contain lockup quotas? We’re interested to know whether, during contract negotiations, private detention companies insist the contract for specific facilities contain these provisions? Is it the lockup quota for a 

specific facility, is that lockup quota negotiable during negotiations? 

And finally, the November 2014 GAO report that addressed lockup quotas for specific facilities was critical of those, and I’d like to 

know whether DHS made any policy changes in response to that 

report addressing lockup quotas in contracts with private detention 

companies? 

You’re moving in the right direction, Mr. Secretary, and I hope 

you can respond to these questions so that we can save the taxpayers money so we can have a policy that is more humane as well. 

Please. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would refer you to the directive that I 

issued on June 24th in the announcement concerning family detention, which you alluded to in your statement, and I’d like to take 

those questions for the record, sir. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Florida yields back. The Chair 

will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. I have a 

number of questions I intended to ask about cybersecurity, but as 

I sit here, we have now been through most of the Members on the 

panel. I need to ask you a question, and I feel like I need to ask 

you it as not a Member of Congress, neither Republican or Democrat, but just as an American. 

And you were a former prosecutor. I respect your insight on this, 

and I hope that you can share your thoughts in a candid way, and 

this is actually, you know, a follow-up question, in particular, to 

Mr. Collins’ and Mr. Gowdy’s questions. 

We’re a Nation of laws, and as I sit here and listen to this discussion, we are a Nation of laws. It’s what differentiates us. It’s what 

distinguishes us as a civilized society, and in this country we don’t 

discriminate when it comes to the application of the law. In fact, 

the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution, equal protection doctrine, and which extends to States as well, specifically says, it requires us, people in similar circumstances are to be treated in the 

same way, in similar ways. 

And as I think about sanctuary cities and how they have been 

applied and how we have discussed them in this context, how has 

this continued on? How do we continue to accept sanctuary cities 

and its selective application of law? And I would say, historically, 
76 

Americans would view the selective enforcement of laws as a sign 

of tyrannical government. 

It’s inherently unjust. It’s a blatant misuse and abuse of power 

to allow for such an environment to exist. And I’m wondering how 

we expect Americans to respect the rule of law if the Administration’s policy is to enforce them, based solely on edicts from rulers 

rather than from actual rule of law? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Is your question with regard to sanctuary 

cities? 

Mr. BISHOP. It is with regard to sanctuary cities, and to me, as 

a person who represents a good 700,000 people, and one of the very 

issues that I hear about every day is the fact that we have lost the 

ability to enforce the laws as they are written, that we do it in such 

a way that applies in one way to one group in such a way, and another way to another group. And when that happens, we lose the 

rule of law, and folks just simply do not want to comply with the 

law. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, if I could answer it this way: Last 

year, when I took a look at the number—the growing number of 

jurisdictions, States, cities, counties that were refusing to cooperate 

with my own Department in the enforcement of our immigration 

laws, I said, this is something that we have to fix because the number is growing, and it’s affecting public safety, in my judgment. 

And so we took a hard look at the Secure Communities Program. 

We saw how it was becoming an item of litigation in court, and the 

defendant was losing in court in these cases, and we look at the 

political controversy that had been built up around Secure Communities. I concluded that we needed to make a clean break with the 

past and develop a fresh program that I believe is going to fix the 

situation and promote public safety. 

And so that’s what we’ve been doing since the announcement of 

the new program in November. Unfortunately, there is no one-sizefits-all answer to this, because a lot of these jurisdictions have 

erected different types of limitations on their ability to cooperate 

with us. 

Mr. BISHOP. May I—sir. 

Secretary JOHNSON. We have to do this one by one. 

Mr. BISHOP. And I gathered that from the testimony. I know my 

question was a duplication of many other questions. I apologize for 

the fact that I’m asking a question that’s already been answered, 

but the frustration is, how is it possible that we live in a country 

of laws, a Nation of laws that allows these local jurisdictions to set 

up these little buffer areas where the law does not apply to them? 

And I know that we’ve heard about the Fourth Amendment and 

the concerns about the Fourth Amendment, and I respect the 

Fourth Amendment, but we can’t hide behind the Fourth Amendment when the rest of the Constitution applies, when in fact, it’s 

endangering citizens, and when it really prevents us from applying 

the rule of law in a way that’s consistent with every American. 

And I just sit here in frustration as I listen to this discussion. 

I’m wondering why isn’t the Federal Government insisting upon 

these local units of government following the rule of law and not 

allowing this to happen, not allowing this selective application to 

happen? 
77 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, again, I believe that the best approach 

is a constructive one, and I believe that it will lead to much better 

results. It will raise the level of trust and cooperation, because we 

have not been in a good place when it comes to a lot of jurisdictions 

that are just very distrustful of our immigration enforcement efforts, and I want to put us in a better place as long as I’m Secretary. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, former United States Attorney, 

Mr. Ratcliffe. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Johnson, earlier today, as you gave your testimony and 

responded, I think, to the first question, you said something, you 

said, and I’m quoting you here, ‘‘It is a fiction to say that we are 

not enforcing the law,’’ when it comes to deporting criminal aliens. 

Did I hear you correctly? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. And in fairness, and the Department 

clearly is deporting some folks, but I’d hope that you’d agree with 

me that what’s not a fiction is that this Administration has been 

attempting to change the law when it comes to deporting criminal 

aliens, a fact reflected by the President’s executive orders back in 

November? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I disagree. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Why would you disagree with that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Because in my judgment, and in the judgment of the Department of Justice, our executive actions were 

within and are within our existing legal authority. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. I’m not talking about within the authority. I’m 

asking you about changing the law here. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, if it’s in your legal authority to act, 

you’re not, by definition, changing the law. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well, let me ask you about that then. You do 

agree with me that the President’s executive orders in November 

attempts to allow executive amnesty to 4- to 5 million illegal aliens, 

you’d agree with that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Not the way you’ve characterized it, no. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. All right. Then how would you characterize it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. One of the executive actions I signed was to 

create a program by which we can offer deferred action on a caseby-case basis to those who come forward and who meet certain criteria and who, in the judgment of the agency, should be given deferred action. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Which could result in amnesty to up to 4- to 5 

million—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. No. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE [continuing]. Folks here? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I don’t agree with that. That’s not my definition of amnesty. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. Well, you’ve gone on record, regardless, of 

saying that you think the President’s actions in that regard, that 

he acted constitutionally. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 
78 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. All right. And I’ve gone on record as saying I 

don’t think that he has acted constitutionally, and right now a Federal judge in a court of appeals in the Fifth Circuit has agreed with 

me that the President’s request to lift that stay and to proceed to 

take those actions shouldn’t be allowed. But you’ve been asked 

today and talked a lot today about the issue of prosecutorial discretion, and we’re both former prosecutors, so I’d like to ask you about 

something that you said previously in a hearing last year. 

You said, and I’m quoting, ‘‘There comes a point when something 

amounts to a wholesale abandonment to enforce a duly enacted 

constitutional law that is beyond simple prosecutorial discretion,’’ 

end quote. Does that sound like something you said? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That sounds like me, yes. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. And do you believe that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I still do. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. So I know the answer to this question, but 

I’m going to ask you anyway. Do you think that DHS has already 

crossed that line by suspending the law for almost 5 million folks 

that are here illegally? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, again, I would not characterize our executive actions that way, and I would refer you to the opinion of 

the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel issued in November in terms of 

where that line exists. I thought it was a pretty thoughtful discussion. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. But again, you don’t think that wherever 

you think that line is, you don’t think DHS has crossed it at this 

point? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No, sir. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. So that begs the question—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I know that there are people who disagree 

with me, but no, sir. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Sure. That begs the question from me, what 

would it take, in your opinion, for DHS to cross that line because 

I think there’s every possibility that this President will attempt to 

move this line again, and so if this President were to seek to grant 

deferred action to, say, all 11- or 12 million unlawful aliens in this 

country, I would like to hear you on the record on whether or not 

you think that would cross this line? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, again, I’m no longer practicing law. I’m 

just a Secretary. And so I think what you’re asking me for is a 

legal judgment, and again, I believe that the opinion of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel has a pretty good discussion of this exact 

topic, and I recall when I read it, agreeing with the analysis. I 

don’t have it with me, but I recall then agreeing with the analysis. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well, let me ask you about that. So that analysis 

extends—since you had a good discussion with them, would it extend to possibly 11- or 12 million folks? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Doubtful. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. And if it did, would you have an opinion on 

whether it should? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, it depends on the circumstances, but 

I would say I doubt it. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. So when you say you doubt it, you doubt that 

amnesty should be granted to 11- or 12 million people? 
79 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, if you’re referring to the estimated 

population of undocumented in this country, a lot of those people 

are and should be priorities for removal, so in my judgment, someone who is a priority for removal should not receive deferred action. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. I see my time is expired. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Secretary, I thought we were kind of getting toward the end, 

and then two Members came up. Would you want or desire a short 

break, or you want to keep marching on in hopes that we—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I’m happy to keep going for a little while 

longer. 

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you for asking. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir. The gentleman from New York, my friend, 

Mr. Hakeem Jeffries, is recognized. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, distinguished Chair from South Carolina, my good friend, and I want to thank the Secretary for your 

presence here today, your patience, as well as the tremendous job 

that I believe you’ve done as the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

and your prior service. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Who’s known you a lot longer than the gentleman from South Carolina. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. I want to begin by just asking that there are 11 

million undocumented immigrants in this country approximately; is 

that correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is a Pew estimate from a few years 

ago, 11.3, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And has this Congress or any other Congress ever given the Department of Homeland Security the resources that will be required to deport all 11 million undocumented 

immigrants? 

Secretary JOHNSON. No. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And so, therefore, is it reasonable to have a priority policy that focuses on those undocumented immigrants who 

would potentially pose the most danger to the American citizens? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Is that what DHS has done? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. In New York City, we’ve got a technology 

innovation economy that has begun to develop in some significant 

ways for our city and our State as has been the case across the Nation, and I’ve been very supportive of that. Many within the technology sector have indicated that there’s approximately a 20 percent vacancy rate, if not more, of jobs that they cannot fill here in 

America, that’s been part of the impetus for an increase in H-1B 

visas, which I’ve supported. 

I was disturbed, however, by the revelations as to what appears 

to have taken place down in Florida at the Disney Company. I just 

wanted to ask a few questions about that. Before I did, I’d just 

asked unanimous consent that an article from the New York Times 

dated June 3, 2015, titled ‘‘Pink Slips at Disney, But First Training 

Foreign Replacements’’ be entered into the record. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 
80 

[The information referred to follows:] 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And so, as I understand it, approximately 250 Disney workers were laid off at some point in 2014, and then many 

were replaced by immigrants hired by an outsourcing company 

based in India; is that correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That’s basically my understanding, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And is it also your understanding—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. That’s my understanding of the public reporting of it. The matter is under investigation. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. So, as I understand it, those individuals 

were allegedly laid off and then asked, prior to their departure, to 

train individuals connected to this company to replace them who 

were given H-1B visas. Is that the current allegation, as you understand it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, I believe so, but the matter is under investigation. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And so I understand what the law is in this 

area, am I correct that the H-1B visa program, which provides a 

limited number of temporary visas. I believe it’s somewhere in the 

neighborhood of 85,000 a year for foreigners with computer science, 

engineering, or other advanced skills, to fill jobs in American companies when American workers are not otherwise available. Is that 

a correct description of the program? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That sounds basically correct to me, sir. Yes, 

sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And if your investigation determines that this particular company or any other company violated the actual law related to the issuance of H-1B visas and the employment constraints, what are the potential consequences related to a violation 

of the policy? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, that’s actually something where I 

think Congress may be able to help us. 

It’s my understanding that we don’t have enough tools legally to 

deal with that kind of situation, assuming it occurs. And so what 

people have told me is that we could use some help from Congress 

to bolster our enforcement capabilities in a situation such as that 

one. And I can get you a more informed opinion on that answer, 

but that’s what I’m advised of. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I’d be interested 

in your further thoughts in that area. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Farenthold. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Johnson, thank you for being here. We appreciate your 

service to the country. 

First of all, just can you give me a quick response with the percentage, how secure do you think our southern border is? 

Secretary JOHNSON. How secure—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. How secure is the southern border, percentage? 

Secretary JOHNSON. It’s tough to quantify by percentage. As I 

mentioned earlier, I think that over the last 15 years we’ve come 

a long way in our border security—— 
88 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So are we 50, 75? I mean, what do you think? 

You can’t put a number on it? I mean, how can you measure results if you can’t quantify it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The percentage of the border that is secure? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. How secure is it? What percentage of folks are 

getting away that are crossing? Do you have any idea? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Apprehensions, which are an indicator of 

total attempts to cross the border illegally, have gone down considerably in the last year. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So you can’t give me a number. That’s fine. 

I spent some time on our southern border talking to the men and 

women actually in the field. I represent south Texas. Used to represent the border down at Brownsville. So it’s kind of right in the 

backyard of the district that I represent. And I have to tell you, I’m 

hearing a lot of frustration from the rank and file of the Border Patrol. I’m hearing restrictions on overtime are causing smaller teams 

of Border Patrol agents to be sent in pursuit of crossers and that 

prosecutorial discretion means that aliens and drug smugglers that 

our agents risk their lives to apprehend are just getting released. 

I’ve also recently heard the Administration is planning to cut proposed fleet purchases to replace the vehicles that our Border Patrol 

agents desperately need to secure our borders. 

These men and women are brave in danger in a very rough environment. I actually did a ride-along out in the brush, and I understand that it’s tough to protect this country, especially in some of 

the terrain in south Texas. But the Administration’s policies seem 

to completely ignore the fact that they need the equipment and the 

manpower to do what they need to do, and it seems like they’re almost intentionally reducing the morale of Border Patrol agents. 

Tell me, if you had to be on the border working shifts with the 

men and women in uniform, and you know that in all likelihood 

that you’re putting your life in danger to catch illegal aliens and 

dangerous drug smugglers that most likely end up getting released 

from custody and walking away in the end, how would you feel 

about it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, again—well, let me answer it this way, 

if I may. Under our new policy, those apprehended at the border 

are priorities for removal, and those apprehended who arrived in 

this country after January 1, 2014, are priorities for removal. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. But what I’m hearing from the Border Patrol 

agents is they’re catching somebody, and then just a few days later 

they’re catching the same person again. So you deport them, 

they’re taken basically back across the bridge, and my understanding of the contracts with the coyotes is you get three tries to 

get across. 

Secretary JOHNSON. That person should be a priority for removal. 

And I believe that in our current budget request to Congress we 

are asking for more surveillance technology, more border security 

to do a better job. We’ve come a long way in the last 15 years. I’m 

very pleased about that. But I know that there’s a lot more to do, 

sir. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And I know Mr. Gowdy’s bill helps with some 

of that, and we look forward to getting that through Congress. 
89 

Let me take it from the other side. If you were an alien or a drug 

smuggler with the knowledge that as long as you don’t bring more 

than a handful of people across or a certain amount of drugs, under 

the prosecutorial discretion limits that everybody knows, you’d get 

way scot-free. Wouldn’t that just be an incentive to keep going? I 

mean, it doesn’t seem like that would be a deterrent. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I disagree. Those apprehended at the border, 

irrespective of whether they have narcotics with them, irrespective 

of whether they’re smuggling, our priority is removal. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. But what about the drug smugglers 

with small amounts of drugs or the coyotes that are only bringing 

over three folks? My understanding from the Border Patrol agents 

is that if you have less than four, you basically walk as the coyote. 

Secretary JOHNSON. We’ve also, beginning last year, cracked 

down on the smuggling organizations. That’s something that the 

Department of Justice and I instituted last summer. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. But are you telling me that it’s not a fact that 

if you have a small number of aliens or a small amount of drugs 

with you, you’re certainly not going to face any jail time, at worst 

you’re going to be taken back across the border? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, that’s a matter of law enforcement and 

prosecutorial discretion by the Department of Justice. I do know 

that since last year, since about a year ago, we have prioritized 

going after the coyote organizations. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Well, thank you very much. 

I see I’ve only got 5 seconds left, so I’ll yield back the remainder 

of my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Secretary, you’ve been here a good long while. I know you 

have other commitments. I wanted to recognize Mr. Gutierrez for 

any closing reflections that he may have, and then I wanted, at the 

Chairman’s request, to mention a couple matters, and then we’ll 

have you out of there. 

Mr. Gutierrez 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. First, thank you, Mr. Gowdy, for your excellent 

presiding over these hearings. 

One of the reasons, Mr. Secretary, one of us always stays behind 

as part of the minority, to protect the interests of the minority, and 

in the case yours. I was totally unnecessary. As you can see, the 

Chairman is very well balanced and evenhanded in everything. 

I just want to just for the record, because I think it’s very important, I want to say to you, Mr. Gowdy, I share with you the same 

anguish and pain, as I know the Secretary does and every American, at the death of that woman, and that nobody has come here 

to look for excuses or anything else. That woman should be alive. 

That woman should be enjoying life in the United States of America. Mr. Lopez should never have been allowed on the streets of our 

Nation again. 

But I think it is important that we have the facts straight, that 

our system does work, and sometimes it fails us. He was sentenced 

63 months, 51 months, 21 months, 46 months. Four consecutive 

times he was sentenced to over 10 years—and he served them— 

over 10 years in jail because he illegally entered the United States 
90 

of America time and time again, violating. I mean, this is a career 

criminal that we had on our hands. 

So I think we should just try to figure out a way, because I really 

believe this, and I want to put this on the record even though it 

might cause you great damage back in South Carolina, I really believe that if you and I and the Secretary and men and women who 

wanted to solve the problem, we could solve this problem and we 

could save future people from harm. 

This man is not an immigrant. Immigrants come here to work 

hard, sweat, and toil. We should be warm and receiving. This 

man’s a foreigner who came here to cause damage. And let’s fix our 

broken immigration system so we can get rid of the foreigners that 

come here to cause damage and harm and welcome the immigrants. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary, for a long day here with us. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois and for what he 

said and for being always very consistent. In the entire time I’ve 

been on this Committee you have zero tolerance for those who come 

here to do harm to anyone, and that has been your position as long 

as I’ve known you. 

Mr. Secretary, the Chairman wanted me to mention really quickly to you that he had written in March about alleged fraud in the 

Special Immigrant Justice Visa Program, and he pledged again his 

willingness to work with you to cooperate to identify any of the 

sources of the fraud so that it can be eliminated. 

I can tell by the look on your face you may—I’m sure you get a 

lot of letters—you may not specifically recall that one, but I know 

the folks behind you will bring it up. I think it was in March of 

this year. But if not, if we need to get you another copy of that, 

we will. 

Secondarily, it sounds like you are well aware of the Sentencing 

Commission’s change and that you and the Department of Justice 

are working on that. 

I’m not going to ask you about the Fifth Circuit. You couldn’t 

comment on it. I can ask about it anyway. 

The only thing I would add to what my friend from Illinois said, 

there are parts of immigration that you and I and Mr. Gutierrez 

are probably not ever going to agree on, and that’s good, that’s fine, 

that’s the beauty of a democracy. 

I think what we can all agree on is to return someone with his 

criminal history to a jurisdiction that had no intention whatsoever 

of ever prosecuting him, and in the process he is released, should 

be an affront to everyone, irrespective of political ideation. San 

Francisco had no intention of prosecuting him. They dismissed the 

case. You can dismiss it when he’s halfway through his Federal 

prison sentence just as easily as you can when he’s in your custody. 

So I will tell you, I am happy to work within, and I get the commandeering clause, I get the due process considerations. I know 

that those are legitimate. You got court cases out there. If there’s 

a way to get around that—you know, what I find instructive—I 

don’t doubt your power of persuasion, and I know that you’re going 

to go back and talk to those five municipalities that told you no. 

But even after this young woman was murdered San Francisco is 
91 

already on the record saying they’re not going to change their policy. 

So when you have a city like that, I don’t know that cooperation 

and persuasion’s going to work. So we may need to consider something else. I mean, when I look at you, I see the Secretary of Homeland Security for the United States of America. He shouldn’t have 

to ask San Francisco. You shouldn’t have to get their cooperation. 

You, to me, outrank the city supervisors in San Francisco. 

So with that, thank you for your patience. You have a really hard 

job. And we appreciate your current service and your previous service. 

With that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:29 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(93) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
94 
95 
96 
97 

f 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 

f 
103 

f 
104 

Response to Questions for the Record from 

the Honorable Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 

Æ