Transcripts For CSPAN Hearing On Unaccompanied Immigrant Children Sponsor Background Checks 20151205

Together, how that partnership worked. Sen. Mccain when the terrible tragedy of 50 veterans dying in phoenix that were part of the phoenix v. A. Because theyre on a phantom waiting list, it happened that triggered this whole crisis that continues with the v. A. The leaders asked me to negotiate with bernie, who was at that time chairman of the Veterans Affairs committee. I must say to you that it was a very colorful and xrated experience. I believe that my reward will be in heaven, not here on earth. [laughter] wedid reach an agreement, did compromise, and i think the v. A. And the country is better off great i think its the first step in reforming the v. A. , not the last. To anyone whoy asks from Bernie Sanders is an honest man. Hes an honest man, and his word is good. Once we reach an agreement, that agreement stops. And now hes brushing his hair, which is really a remarkable thing. [laughter] so, im obviously in strong disagreement with him on his basic philosophy and the role of government. An honest individual to work with to reach an agreement, i respect Bernie Sanders. We really appreciate it. Sen. Mccain chairman mao said, darkest waste always before its totally black. Weekends newsmakers, our guest is governor Bob Goodlatte of virginia. He talks about the committees work on immigration and sentencing reform as well as other issues related to counterterrorism and gun violence. The biggest thing that we can do with regard to gun violence is to enforce the laws that we currently have on the books. We have hundreds of them at the federal level, thousands that this at the state and local level, and the record over the last six years is one of steadily declining enforcement of our gun laws. Let me give you a few examples. In 2010, the last year for which data, but the partial data we have for subsequent years would confirm this, in that year approximately 72,000 people lied on their instant check form when they went to buy a gun from a lawfully licensed firearms dealer. Of those 72,000, 5000 were referred by the fbi and other Justice Department entities for prosecution to the 94 u. S. Attorneys offices in the country. Of those, only 62 were prosecuted. The odds are that if you go to a gun store right now and deliberately put false information on the form, have you been convicted of a felony, do you have a Mental Health disability that would prohibit you from owning a firearm, the odds are that even if you do caught, theu are odds are less than one in 1000 that you are going to be prosecuted. That is indefensible, and so to try tolook at ways make more new laws, we should be very serious about making sure the laws we currently have are being prosecuted. See the rest of that interview with congressman goodlatte tomorrow, at 10 00 a. M. And 6 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Cspan presents landmark cases, the book, a guide to our landmark cases series which explores 12 Historic Supreme Court decisions, including marbury versus madison, korematsu versus the United States, brown versus the board of education, and roe versus wade. Book features introductions, background, highlights, and the impact of each case. Written by a veteran Supreme Court journalist and published by cspan in cooperation with cq press. Cases is available for 8. 95 plus shipping. Get your copy today at www. Cspan. Org landmarkcases. Part of the fbi investigation of the deadly shootings in San Bernardino, california is accessing the suspects phone data through the phone companies. Since the nsas Data Collection program was shut down for days prior to the shooting, that shut down ordered by the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, leaves all nsa records offlimits to fbi agents. The Associated Press reports that authorities were able to obtain roughly two years worth of calling records directly from the phone companies of the married couple blamed in the attack. The period covered the entire time that the female suspect lived in the United States, although her husband had been here much longer. On this mornings washington journal, we spoke about the itss new protocol and potential impact. This is 15 minutes. Joining us for conversation on the National Security agency, and collection program, two guests. And stewartguliani, baker. To both of you, thank you for joining us this morning. Have heard about this program, section 215, the collection of metadata. What does it include specifically . Guest the Program Collected metadata, that is to say, who you were calling, and who was calling you. All of the calls into and out of the United States. Database,t in the locked up the database, and said, the u. S. Government can go into the database if they are theying a terrorist, and have a terrorist number, and want to see who is in touch with the terrorist. Host as far as the nature of the information that it took in did a deal with content, or was it more logistical . Guest it did not deal with content, but we have to remember, it is extremely revealing. Metadata tells you a lot about someones life. The program was extremely invasive. Congress did the right thing by limiting it. Host since you both brought it up, the limits on it. What limits were placed on this program . Look, wengress said, will have this program, but we will not allow it to be quite as broad a you cannot collect all the records in america, or in a particular state. You can collect records if you bee a reason for it to collected. Its not completely eliminate the problem of the government collecting large amounts of information on innocent people. The original program was filled with protections. You can only go into the database if you had reasonable suspicion. There were only 20 people authorized to go in. The number of searches work 300500 per year. This was not a dragnet program. There were a lot of protections on going in. What the changed program does is essentially say, the government cannot collect all of that and put it in one place. Have to go to individual carriers and ask each of them to look through the records that they have collected and stored. Hat is what they are doing now again, they have to have a reasonable suspicion with respect to terrorist numbers before the collect the information. It is it i have about is not anywhere near as fast, probably not as copperheads of as comprehensive, and if you look at San Bernardino, we would have liked to have known smmediately who those terrorist were talking to, and have a theirassessment of connections. The old program would have done that. Now, the data is locked away. Host can i ask, what was the justification for the broad collection of information . Guest if you are trying to quickly determine, who are these with, you in touch need to be able to do the search of a be able to get it quickly, and that is the only way you will be able to control how you get that data. The phone Companies Keep it as long as they find it useful, which is certainly not as long as they might find it useful. Host if some incident happens and you have to get a wide scope of who is talking to whom and things of that nature. Two important points the agency said that these would not enhance their intelligence capability, so we have no evidence that this would undermine their ability to investigate legitimate terrorists. The second point is this program has not proven to be effective. There were two independent boards that looked at the nationwide called Metadata Program, and what they concluded as they never stopped an act of terrorism. Aboute of the assertions whether limiting the program will actually have an impact on National Security joining us, ifs you want to ask them questions about nature of collecting information and things associated with that, 202 7488001 for republicans, 202 7488000 for democrats, and independents, 202 7488002. You can also post on our website, on our Facebook Page at facebook. Com cspan, and on twitter cspanwj. Mr. Baker, what do you think about what she said . I do not want to paraphrase. Guest it is fair to say it never stopped a plot that it was designed to stop, but it was designed to stop plots where careful reparation and recruiting and planning for an operation was carried out in a terrorist safe haven, and terrorists coordinated here and quickly launched an attack, which was what happened in 9 11. The reason it never stopped a plot is that we wiped out those plots at the source by taking away the taliban and al qaeda safe haven. What is truly troubling as we are getting rid of this program just as there is a new safe iraq emerging in syria and , as we have seen in paris and now possibly in San Bernardino, about people in that safe haven are planning and recruiting for attacks on the United States and the west, and we have deliberately blinded ourselves to carrying out a quick assessment of possible attacks, identifying possible attacks just when we need the program most. Guliani, what do you say about that . Guest there is no purpose to investigate people who were not associated with terrorism, and that is what a dead a collected a lot of information about people who the government did not need about. They have to go to the intelligence court and request information when they believe they need it. That is assistant to allow us to respond to emerging threats and emergencies. If the government needs information, they are able to get it in a timely fashion. Host the first call is from a hamas in milwaukee, wisconsin is from mohammed, from the milwaukee, wisconsin. The nsa was collecting this information from the past several years, and killers, bernardino especially the man, were in contact with other people who the fbi and department, security say were on a known terror watch list, they were known to be in contact with them why was somebody like this, they were collecting all this credit card data, telephone data, why would someone with the oldest ammunition online using credit cards possibly, all the machine guns and everything, the department of Homeland Security and the fbi failed the United States and the public by not being able to control these people. What happened to all of the data that was collected on these guys . Guest let me address that first. The program that we are talking about today is designed to get people who are in touch with terror by phone outside the do notstates, and so we know at least i do not know from the report, whether the or ints were online encrypted form or whether they were actually phone calls. If they were phone calls, then they should have shown up, but if the phone call occurred after that would be over, and it would have been very difficult for the fbi or nsa to identify those contacts and quickly determine whether there was a broader plot. That i want to respond to fear it in a case like San Bernardino, there are still a lot of facts that we do not know. Been impossible for the fbi it would not have been impossible for the fbi to collect information. Could have gone for an authorization. The idea that we have reason to believe someone will do something and commit a terrorist attack and the government has ample authority to get the information they need, including call records and other types of data. Is dataain, our topic collection by the nsa. 202 7488001 for republicans. 202 7488000 for democrats. 202 7488002 for independents. What happens to the information that has already been collected . Where does it reside now . Guest the database still exists, but it has been locked away. The government has asked for searches to run compare how effective the new program is compared to the old program. So far, they have not gotten that authority. In fact, i suspect the aclu is litigating to prevent that. Host is that true . Guest it is important to remember that a federal court ruled that this program was illegal. It went beyond what the law allowed. Happen to is going to all of this information that was collected by the government illegally . It should be destroyed. The government did not have authorization to do what they were doing. Host and the house had legislative efforts to take hold of that information and allow the fbi, nsa, and others to gain access to it. Guest i think senator causes and senator cruz have requested that. Sooner rubio, i am sorry. Host is it easily interchangeable among those that need it . Guest yes. Connie in oklahoma, republican line. You are on, go ahead. Caller i am . Host yes, go ahead, please. Caller ok, here i go. I hear him. We are going to put you on hold for a second. We will go to another call. If you do not mind turning your television downstairs we go to jimmy next, san antonio, texas, democrat line. Hi. Caller yes, i was a member under an assay for over 40 years. I know what the program is like. I know it works. It is Nothing Better than getting raw data then you can work on immediately then waiting three days or four days to find out what that data is. And ourct our sources means of gathering that information. The other important thing is tree,ith us, it is like a you know. You find out where the root is, and then from the root you lead frome trunk, and then the trunk to the branches, from the branches to the leaves. What this Program Change has done is prohibited the nsa from finding out a source and then tracing it up without going to private companies to ask for the information, which could be compromising in the information. Guliani . Cooley o guest the reforms that were made still leave ample space for information and get it in an accelerated manner if there is an emergency. I think you will still have this ability to connect the roots and the trees. You will does have it in a way that does not result in mass surveillance that collects millions of americans information, who have no connection to terrorism or terrorist activities . Host mr. Baker . Guest i think that is like saying to someday, we are pointed to a google away from you, but you can still go to the library and look up the information you need, and we are sure you will find it there. Maybe so, but it will not be as fast or as effective, and it will put people at risk. Host connie, lets try her again. Brock, oklahoma, republican line. Go ahead. Caller what i was calling about is everybody in my community is really upset about what the president and Loretta Lynch said today they just seem like they was more concerned with the andims being harassed everything than they was the American People, and i just dont understand that. Host ok, connie. We move on to matt in new jersey, independent line. You are on with our guests. Caller thank you, good morning. I believe the gentleman, mr. Baker hello . Host you are on, go ahead. Caller yes, thank you theater good morning to her it i believe the gentleman, mr. Baker, is correct in his points. However, the First Response ability of a president is to protect the American People, and this president has failed miserably by his deliberate refusal to confront isis, and thank god the french, the russians, the brits, and the germans are doing this. And one question for these good people here why is turkey allowed to support isis by buyinkgg their oil and letting terrorists go freely between syria and europe . Last point, if i may, please obamas supporters the only thing they have left is to falsely accuse gun owners who want to protect their own families of causing problems like this. It is outrageous. Host that is matt in new jersey. Mr. Baker, if you want to pull from that, go ahead. Guest as i have said earlier, the way we stop terrorism plots for 10 years was like taking away the safe haven. Now the safe haven is back. If we are going to concentrate on stopping all of these attacks essentially in the end zone, we are going to have to be much more aggressive about pursuing the plots in the United States, and unfortunately, because of 10 years without serious attacks, congress felt it was free to start taking away those protections as well. I think that is a bad idea. Guliani . Cooley o guest it is possible to have our liberties in ways that still protect National Security, and when you look at events of recent years, what we have seen a lot of them come in many cases, the individuals who were knownhese acts to police and were known to investigators. What that tells us is mass surveillance is not necessarily the solution. Other methods allow governments to Better Connect the dots, better than they did in 9 11, and then potentially the case of the terrorist attacks. Turnaroundis the time usually from a request to a five the court by the nsa. . Guest we do not know what the turnaround time is because the program has only been running for a week or so. As far as i know, there was not any live testing, so we are actually probably giving at work of sanht now as a result bernardino, but there is no information yet on how effective that program has been. We have statements from intelligence officials who look at these changes before they were passed and said that they not believe it would intelligence capabilities, and we have provisions through draft emergencies, so every expectation is that the program will operate just as effectively and efficiently. Guest that is the second time that she has said that, and i agree that that is true, but these are people who work for president obama, and president obama decided to accept this legislation, and you would be a very fully tiebreaking intelligence high ranking intelligence official to say the president like this program, but i do not think it will work. They have little choice but to say, we think we can make this work. Guest it is important to reforms were these result a result of a twoyear debate in congress. Factwere concerned by the that the program had passed and were very concerned that it was operated with very Little Information provided to the members ofsome congress. I do not think we can frame it as a push from one particular person. Specific debate and included voices from across the political spectrum. Host from david in fayetteville, georgia. Go ahead. You are on with our guest. Republican line. Caller good morning, how are you doing . I am doing great. I wanted to ask a question why are we debating Civil Liberties when we are at war . When we are at war, we should use every type of measure, and the government should have every type of access to Everything Possible to keep our country safe. I hear rand paul and ted cruz and donald trump talk about the word privacy, but Chris Christie is dead on that once you are at war, the country has has to that of her do whatever provisions to keep our country safe. Congresstalked about debating this for almost two years, but part of that the house, those tea partydriven pushe that are trying to the Civil Liberties, but we are at war. We need to prepare and do everything we need to do to keep our country safe. Chris christie has to run this country because they do not know what it takes to run this country. They need to know that we have to keep our country safe. Host ms. Guliani . Guest i think it is false to say this is a choice between National Security and liberties. We can have both. But we can also not be blind to the effect that surveillance has had on our country. We talked to journalists who now say look, i have trouble getting people to talk to me because they are concerned that my phone might be surveilled. You talk to companies who are having trouble remaining competitive in the Global Market because consumers have concern about the privacy of their information. I very much agree that discuss a National Security and how we can protect our country is important, but that does not mean we should sacrifice our constitutional liberties, and it does not mean we should sacrifice other values that are very important. Guest i agree. While it would be nice to have Civil Liberties and it is unprovent that is an unproven idea that we can protect our privacy as theessively as congress and aclu want to protect it and also be safe from attacks. Is thenvinced that that case, and i share the view that republicans were complicit in passing this bill. They let their hostility and suspicion of the Obama Administration translate into hostility and suspicion of the Intelligence Community, which i think is a big mistake. I think i told the wall street journal the good news from the Republican Primary Campaign so far is nobody is going to get the republican nomination by running with Edward Snowden as the running mate. Host as far as the Telephone Companies, what is the asset and liability of having the Telephone Company hold onto the information, the metadata . Guest the theory is they will resist and proper requests for data by the resist improper requests for data. They will be an independent check on the governments governing information properly. Improperly. Of course we lose with that, being able to know that we have the information for a set period of time, and that we can quickly compare the information that verizon has with information that at t has about calls. After all, you can call somebody with a verizon phone if you have an at t phone. I think trying to draw that connection requires that we go to more than one place to get the information. That is much less efficient. Host so the telephone, he can turn down a request . Guest they can fight a request. They can say we do not think this is justified, they can ask the five the court to review what has been done the pfizer court to review what has been done. Host same question. Guest it is significant on Civil Liberties, the Telephone Companies holding onto this information. The constitution was never to allow theto government to collect information to people who have no connection to criminal activity. This is a step forward to limiting this kind of dragnet surveillance. You have been talking a lot about how effective these programs are, but there is very little evidence to show that they have been effective. Host 40 is on the phone, kathleen, florida, republican line. You are next. Go ahead. Caller yes, i agree that the isernment or whatever Agency Charged with protecting us has to be able to do it. When we are at war, there are certain liberties and freedoms that have to be sacrificed. The idea that you can make requests for information that might help in preventing an attack should go through a system that could take days or weeks is absolute insanity. We need to be protected, and if groups like the aclu have a problem with that, let them stand in the front lines and see how willing they are to make 6, 7, 8 weeksakes to get a response so that they would be safe. Host ms. Guliani . Guest there is no evidence that getting this information will take 6, 7, 8 weeks, as you say. Our intelligence official saying that they expect that the program will work, so to say that these reforms are somehow making us less safe, we have no evidence to support that contention. Not going to get that information is the aclu is litigating to make sure we cannot check how much faster it would have been to use the old system. They are afraid of the facts, i think. Host one thing that came out of this is the call for backdoor technology to the phone companies. Can you explain that . Guest i am not sure what is meant by dr. Access. Backdoor access. Do you mean access to encrypted information . Host yes. Guest this is a different but related fight that the director of the fbi said makes it possible to find out who they are talking to or what they are saying at least, and he says that the companies that supply that encryption should have a mechanism to decrypt it when a court order is presented to them. Hasthe companies response been, we prefer not to do that. We think it would be bad for business and technologically difficult and potentially a security risk. And now in in paris San Bernardino are going to make that a much livelier debate than it has been up to now. Host senator Dianne Feinstein s show. Sunday komi and i think john brennan would agree that the achilles heel in the internet is encryption because there are now it is a black web. Guest encryption is what helps protect your data when you lose your phone, when you are trying to find medical and financial records on the internet. What Technology Experts have said is there is no way to build or key toal back door decrypt communications in a way that is not going to open up enormous security vulnerabilities in our systems. At a time when we are seeing Security Breaches and hacks monthly or almost daily, it would be very unwise to go down a road where we are actually weakening the very protections that are systems lie on. Encryption guest we have not seen evidence or data on whether encryption is a hindering the ability of Law Enforcement. What we do know is that Law Enforcement has access to potentially more from asian then they have ever had before, so going down a road of weakening the Cyber Security of our systems and the actions of evidence that is needed is unwise. Shane lives in fort pierce, florida, democrat line. Hi. Caller hi. Good morning. My comments this morning is i am listening to you guys talking , you know, i can understand why we would not use every tool we have to catch every terrorism, home grown plot. Me talking on the phone, i feel better for the families are massacred by me talking on the phone. Phone, and the talking about murdering a massive amount of people, i am glad they do catch me. We should use every tool that we have. If you do not want nobody to come help somebody, if you are going to do something heinous, i think you should use every tool this country has to keep us safe that they have been doing. Dont stop. I hope they are still doing it, to tell you the truth. Dont say it on the phone, thank you. That i would simply say here, and he risk is right that we need to take a close look at some of these tools. We do not know much about the San Bernardino killers communications, but those guys in garland, texas, two people armed with semiautomatic weapons who want to do the same thing, apparently, according to the hundreds of Communications Prior to that attack, which we cannot read because they are encrypted. Says we haveuliani never seen it, well, you have not seen it because it is a corrected, and you cannot read it, and the government will never be a to read those in contention those communications. Lot wethere is still a do not know about the San Bernardino shootings and the attacks in paris, whether encryption played a role at all. I want to go back to the caller. That is a question of, should we be listening to everybodys phone calls . I think the answer to that is no. There are values in our country Free Expression that are not just important on paper. They very much contribute to the type of lives we enjoy and contribute to the strength of our country. To ability of journalists report on imported National Security issues and call into question issues by government officials for example, the vietnam war. When we engage down a road of mass surveillance where people are afraid to say things or feel like they are under constant government scrutiny, what we really were ris what we really risk are some of those values. Host the Metadata Program just stated that, it never dealt with the concept of conversation. Isst that metadata extremely revealing. If i call a suicide hotline, you may be able to infer a lot about my life. If i call a minister, you might be able to infer my religion. Simply because a program did not deal with content does not completely remove the impact it has on peoples privacy and the intrusion. F guest you can gain content if you have, in the United States, if you have a court order that authorizes interception of content, and it is a higher standard than the standard of reasonable suspicion. But i think it is important to say yes, metadata can tell you a lot, but it is only searched when we had reasonable suspicion that someone was in touch with terrorists. Withmeone is in touch terrorists and also calling a suicide hotline, i think the authorities need to know. Host from maryland, robert is next up, and next up, independent. Hi. Caller there was a program on hbo labeled spymasters, and i think all show remorse for policy the mistakes, mistakes that weve made in our country. I am a vietnam veteran also. With gandhi, what is the religion in the far east . With hinduism, with christianity, with buddhism, it is not about religion. It is about when people are abused. That is the issue that i have heard the former cia director say. It is about people feeling abused, but we keep this casting it as being religion. It is retribution. People are tired of this abuse, and all of these good cia people that we have we are overworking them with these bad politics that we make. Host mr. Baker . Guest i think there is always a problem in the Intelligence Community. It is always subject to suspicion, and it is unfortunately that former al of the Intelligence Community, but it is part, unfortunately, especially the last 50 years, i really want to be protected, give the intelligence agencies everything they need, and then five years later, oh, that is too much, we ought to cut it back and be a little more measured about what we authorize the Intelligence Community to do. Guest i think it is really important to note that a lot of the outrage on the program is the fact that is shrouded in secrecy. You have members of congress who drafted the patriot act to said look, it was never my intent to allow this kind of surveillance. Members of congress who said it were not aware of the surveillance. And you had members of the public who were deprived of the debate before we should engage in these massive programs. So the notion that the distress that now has resulted from the disclosures is not justified i do not think really tells us the whole story. Host by the way, the documentary spymasters, we had two people behind it on a program last week. If you want to see more about the documentary anything that andducers found out the things that the producers found out, go to cspan. Org. Two stewart baker, a former nsa general counsel. And Neema Singh Guliani of the american Civil Liberties union. Mike, republican line, ohio. Over theur government last 100 years, 200 years have been dishonest. Since we cannot trust our government. I am a conservative, i do not believe in abortions or our government should take our money for any purpose. Our government is not trustworthy. The more power you give them to spy on us the more they will spy on us. I do not knew nothing do nothing, my neighbors are not a threat. Our governmente should be able to access anybodys records anytime they want. They might say they are getting a warrant but i do not trust them. Host about that level of distrust, mr. Baker. Guest that is unfortunate and wrong. I worked in the government in many capacities. Many of the people on the program i worked with here at. They are responsible americans who believe in Civil Liberties. Who believe and privacy but wanted to make sure we were protected from attack. To say it is quite wrong you cannot trust the government. Host im sure that is not the first time you have heard that. Guest we need transparency and accountability. We need to know what programs are being run and what americans are being impacted. It is hard to have confidence in our intelligence agencies when we have a secret intelligence court that has had Little Information revealed about their command and a legal basis for their opinion. Address this distrust we have to reform the laws that have proven to be used improperly. We need to have that transparency and accountability so americans know what is happening. You can do that in a way that maintains the secrecy that intelligence agencies need to operate. Host this is the fisa court . Guest they authorized nationwide collection that an independent oversight was a misinterpretation of the law and a federal court said was a misinterpretation of the law and Congress Said it was a misinterpretation. It is not surprising that in the wake of the revelations that people have a level of distrust about our intelligence agencies and what has been authorized. Guest this court has existed since the 1970s. It consists of federal judges, the same ones who sit on other cases. Oversight, the extent to which a judiciary, congress, are involved in overseeing what information is searched is unparalleled anywhere in the world. We have more oversight for Intelligence Community than any other country. Those countries are gathering intelligence on us, americans, and american institutions. We have largely not entirely disarmed ourselves in that intelligence battle in a way that will turn out to be very dangerous. The fact is you cannot have intelligence programs if you tell your adversaries everything you are doing. Has said is guliani would like to have everything about these programs may transparent. If you do that you will not have an intelligence program. Guest that is not my claim. There are parts of these programs that need to be kept secret. The American People deserve to know how much of their information is being collected. It is congress job to oversee these programs and they need to know how Many Americans are being affected. When you have members of congress saying i never knew about these programs, they have existed over a decade and federal courts calling them illegal, it is hard to see that being appropriate. I agree with stuart that there needs to be a global conversation. It is not enough for the u. S. To look at his laws, we have to examine many intelligence partners who give us information and who we provide information to. Host what elements of the do we have to take on with our Global Partners . Guest developing standards with for what information we provide and receive from them. It is good to have laws here but if a Foreign Government can get the same information and give it to the u. S. Without following restrictions, we will have americans whose rights are violated despite the changes in the law. Host what do you think, mr. Baker . Guest it boils down saying the aclu would like more restrictions on their intelligence programs. The restrictions should extend to what foreign nations collect and use when they engaged in intelligence collection. I have not heard any suggestion about how we would effectively control chinese or russian intelligence programs entering information this minute against us. Host as far as some was metadata is searched by the nsa, does that person know that that took place or can they know . Guest if it is used in a criminal case, yes. There are mechanisms i which the fact of the search will be made available to the descendent, but that is rare. Theres only 300 to 500 searches a year for any purpose. Host guest that is not accurate, we have seen the government take the position that even as evidence for section 215 is gathered, that the government has no notice obligation. Extend to people who have the information search but were never charged with a crime. The notion that americans whose information is collected and searched are receiving notice from the government, even after an investigation has been closed is not accurate. Host steve is in phoenix, arizona, democrat. Caller good morning. I agree that there could be concerns. The other side is that if you shut down the collection of information you pretty much stop listening to your enemies. That is a big part of how we won world war ii is listening to germany. The admiral that ran their fleet , i cannot think of his name, he did not think the germans Communications Work listening, that they could not crack the code. Lost an element took eight guys in paris to kill 130 people. And sever did you know, two People Killed 14 people. The terrorists have lost the element of surprise. Democracyocracy versus islam. In islam, a lot of people both for the offices in their religion. Vote for the offices in their religion, it is islam versus capitalism. They have restrictions on the religion and capitalism lets you buy anything. To the firstk point you raise, no one is saying that is when there is reason, the government should be able to get information, what the constitution requires a process and that there because. There be cause. We can maintain the ability to gather information about terrorists while remaining consistent with these values. Point, extremism comes in many forms, Muslim Americans are not the root of this problem. I do not know if that was suggested but it is an important point to make. Host mr. Baker . Guest there is no doubt we have done a better job than we have used to of reducing the catastrophic damages that could because by an attack we were not prepared for. O people killing 14 is not an acceptable outcome. We need to do a better job to protect against the kinds of attacks we saw in San Bernardino and garland, texas and paris. Host jackson, tennessee, independent line. Caller we should not let fear rule us, without our rights we will not be saved or free. A quote from abraham lincoln, america will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms it will be because we destroyed ourselves. Three greataid forces will be world, stupidity, fear, and greed. We cannot let extremists make us fearful. We have to have our rights. I stand with the aclu lady. We cannot let fear rule us. We need our rights and freedoms because we do not want the terrorists to dominate us because to me it is like the line in the fly scenario, the fly cannot lock not belie and lion out. Ck the guest i do not think this program is driven by fear, getting rid of this program is stupidity. It was a valuable backstop against an attack from a safe haven that was planned and executed here. Planned abroad and executed here. Of whata possibility happened in San Bernardino. We are stupid to ignore that possibility. Guest i do not think that reflects the debate over the patriot act, it was a rushed bill that happened in the wake of 9 11. It received very little debate. It was used in a way that congress did not intend. After an attack or a tragic event, there is a kneejerk reaction to pass policies that are not good for our liberty or security. Mexico,s cruces, new republican line. Chuck. Caller i had an interesting observation, there are two forms of collection, the one in the government which is being destroyed by the sel you. By the aclu. Another one by google and private entities that looks at our profile, the aclu is allowing them to collect information on us. If they attack the government that wants to protect us. Wantsogles of the world to profile us to get information. I do not understand why the aclu wants to shut down steps to protect us it does not do anything with the commercial entities. By the way, i was in the business, and i used the fisa court and it takes forever to get something through. If you get something to me that will attack us and you want to have readily available information to find out what is going to happen, this law is going to cut us down. It is not good. Guest two important points, private collection should raise concerns and there should be Standards Companies follow to ensure they are appropriately protecting the rights of their customers. There is a big difference between google collecting information and the nsa collecting the information, google cannot put you in jail. A college the differences between private sector collection and government collection. Guest there is a big difference. , google is not going to protect you from a terrorist attack. The reason the government needs this information is much more significant and much more valuable to a society then having better focused apps. It is striking to me that technology is making it easier to hide communications with encryption. And it also making it easier to gather information quickly and efficiently and go through it to find suspicious behavior. The aclu is off for the intelligence the new technologies that make it difficult to catch terrorists and against using the new technology that would make it easier to catch them. We need to recognize that sometimes what the technology is taking away with encryption, we should be counterbalancing by using a data and the capabilities. The last point, for our listener, i have a lot of contact with the fisa court and wrote about the experience in a book. That made your point, the court was so afraid of critics like saying you are a rubber stamp that it was far beyond the law in imposing restrictions on what we could do and contributed to the success of the attackers on 9 11. Guest i want to respond, that is not an accurate reflection of the aclu to say we are against everything that protect security and or everything that protects privacy. When you have programs that courts have found the legal that have proved to be ineffective and have gone far beyond authorized, that is a problem that needs to be recognized by congress and the judiciary. There are steps the government can take to protect National Security that they can do that within the bounds of the constitution. I was a federal employee just as you, we have a responsibility and a duty to comply with the law and the constitution. Guest this program was reviewed by 25 judges, one judge Still Believes that it is ilegal. Decidedher court has that as adopted by the most recent law and approved for six months, it is legal. The only reason there were terminations of you legality is because the aclu argued to all 25 that it was illegal. Techniquenow of a new the aclu approves of. Guest the only court to reach the merits of this program found that it was illegal. When we talk about guest say that the new sixmonth program authorized the sixmonth extension is is illegal, the court says no it is legal. Guest that is inaccurate to the Second Circuit said the case is moot. We have a reform by congress, and the issues you raise are no longer relevant. That is different than examining the program and understanding the effect it has on Civil Liberties. Yes, there are new technologies and Law Enforcement may want to take advantage of new opportunities to investigate crimes effectively. That does not eliminate the constitution or the need to get a warrant. It does not eliminate protections we enjoy. To frame this as an issue to say we either have to collect everything with no protections whatsoever, or we have nothing is not an accurate way of looking at it. The government is able to collect information about people who pose a threat and they can do so following the appropriate procedures that protect the amazing the American Peoples liberties. Guest i remember when the Boston Police got access to database where they can look up suspects quickly, the aclu criticized that. Name a new technology the aclu has said we do not have a legal problem with. Guest the aclu does not have a problem with the government using new technology in certain cases when it is targeted, when they go to a court and get a warrant and when there was appropriate notice. To say that we should just use any new technology, ignoring the very impact it has on privacy and ignoring whether it raises constitutional issues is not consistent with what the public wants, and not consistent with the laws. Guest that says we will challenge every single new technology with the argument that it is probably unconstitutional and then wait wait tocourts to see see what the courts have to say. Guest that is inaccurate. Host Neema Singh Guliani of the ,merican Civil Liberty Union former legislative counsel for the aclu, and the former nsa ge mark wright talks about the program and whether it poses a National Security risk. Former secret Service Agent bill gates discusses his work as a security agent to help workplaces prepare for active shooter cases. You can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. Light at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Ah saldana testified this week before the Senate Judiciary committee about the challenges for operations faces. The Committee Heard from a panel of immigration policy analysts and a representative from the National Sheriffs association. This is just over 2. 5 hours. I have a very short statement. I want senator sessions to have speak. R time to several years ago, the obama promised focusing on violent offenders, people ,ocused convicted of crimes not just families. Although there has been more funding for enforcement, the president promise goes unfulfilled many criminals remain. Enough . L enough be even those with violent criminal histories arent being removed as promised to the extent they should be and american citizens are paying the price while officers are constructed to look the other way. The Administration Says it doesnt have the resources to enforce the law against all undocumented criminals but a lack of resources doesnt seem to be the problem. Its a lack of the policies of this administration. When first preparing for this hearing, several officials informed the committee they were unable to testify because the hearing wasnt in response to a particular crisis. Congressional oversight is contingent upon any crisis. Its a constitutional responsibility of all of us and when he listened to the testimony today, i hope you keep 179,027there are undocumented criminals with final orders of removal. Thousands of victims. Unable to do the job they signed up to do. Do we still think there is no crisis . Myeserve the remainder of time and call on senator sessions. Thank you for your strong leadership with this committee and your commitment to oversight and ensuring our agencies you frameseparately the questions well. Well we all know the Obama Administration is removing fewer total aliens and a few years ago, the focus of the day was on the dramatic fall in removal of criminal aliens from the interior of the u. S. , and. Larming Development Members of the administration have made public statements about the need to focus limited enforcement resources on criminal aliens first. T admits normal important it serves our policies to remove criminal aliens. On may 10, 2011, the president said we are focusing limited resources on violent offenders and people convicted of crimes, not just people looking to scrape together in income. President r ago, the said we are going to keep focusing on enforcement resources on actual threats to our security, not families. The contention is they had to stop normal up and create executive amnesty programs like a deferred action for parents of americans. Simply cannot possibly remove everyone, the administration said. And focus only on removing criminals and other highpriority aliens. Onlyll establish today not our total removal down but the number of removals to criminal aliens from the interior of the u. S. The socalled priority has decreased significantly. Today, there are not more aliens. There are hundreds of thousands of known criminal aliens in the u. S. While we are not seeing a decrease in crimes committed, we see a decrease in removals of notinal aliens and its that the administration has fewer resources than they did in years past. Available of funding for removal of aliens has decreased steadily. The administration does substantially less with substantially more. Unlawfully innd the u. S. Is subject to removal under the law. They dont have to commit a crime. Those who commit crimes are surely higher priority for removal. Theres never a reason to allow a dangerous criminal to remain in the u. S. Nope should ever have to bury a child because the government failed to keep violent criminals out of the country. Protecting the lives of innocent americans is one of the most basic duties of government. Our goal should be to probably remove such criminal aliens. There is nothing wrong controversial about such a policy and the president even says this is what they are vigorously doing but is it true . In late july, the Senate Judiciary Committee Heard testimony from grieving family members who lost loved ones to criminal alien violence. The whole nation watch, really we heard their moving really. Ir call forheard the action. This failure cannot continue. The American People have pleaded with congress and the president to create a fair and lawful system of immigration that serves their interest and. Rotect their security but the politicians and officials have promised to do that to get elected and have failed to do so even the obvious need for the removal of criminal aliens, which the administration deems is needed is just not happening. Once again, i will like to thank the witness, an experienced prosecutor. We are glad to have you here. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You in. Ld like to swear do you affirm the testimony you are about to give over the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god . Thank you. Short but to give a introduction. I invite you to go to our Committee Website for a full biography. Saldana is director of ice. She was confirmed by the senate in december last year. Previously, she served as the u. S. Attorney for the Northern District of texas. As you heard, served very well there and served also as assistant u. S. Attorney for the Northern District of texas and worked in private practice. Im ready for opening statement. Saldana i wanted to thank you personally. I had all my Senior Leadership in lastoss the country week to maryland. You were asked by our folks to provide a video in support of our Overall Mission and efforts. They got a great kick out of it. I wanted to thank you for taking the time to do that. As senator sessions has mentioned, it is the administrations objective and my objective personally to focus on a smart and effective enforcement of our immigration laws. This was very similar to my focus as a u. S. Attorney. I had to make difficult decisions over 10 years on which cases we could prosecute, which areas we would prosecute them in. I had 100 counties and 100,000 square miles to cover. We could not take each and every case and we are approaching our mission similarly. I took this job last year because i wanted to lead this Extraordinary Group of women and men at immigration and Customs Enforcement who have a very significant Law Enforcement mission, which is what i wanted to continue doing, which i began as a u. S. Attorney. I had a small hope that i could bring even somewhat rational voice to a set of issues that are full of highly charged apprehended by so many people in the country and have so great importance to the country. Those individuals pose a threat to Public Safety or apprehended crossing the border recently illegally our armed forces are priorities. These priorities were set forth by the secretary is little more than a year ago. A little more than a year ago. They guide everything we do at enforcement. I know most of you are familiar with our priorities. One focuses on Border Security, National Security, Public Safety stop 42 safety. Priority two focuses on those who have committed misdemeanors. And priority three focuses on those individuals who have been issued a final order of removal. Ground in our efforts to remove dangerous criminal aliens in the interior of the country. Despite overall apprehensions perhaps not the presently, removal numbers are lower than they have been but we are moving at removing more criminals, thereby achieving the president objective. 2015, 98 im really proud of this 98 of all removal fell into one of the three enforcement priorities. Criminalsonvicted reflecting a three point increase over 2014. Are as younumbers say but thats proportionally. At interior removals only, those not apprehended at or near the border, that figure relative to the total jumps to 91 are criminals. With respect to all aspects of focusor enforcement, we on convicted criminals and individuals who threaten Public Safety. Of course this committee very well knows that there are also times when despite our best efforts, and i will assure you there is no one sitting on their laurels at immigration and Customs Enforcement we are very actively continuing to pursue criminal aliens but they do despite our best efforts get released from our custody. We cannot remove any undocumented immigrants this is really important, really i want the American Public to understand that i dont willy nilly release people. We have to have a final order of removal and travel documents to the country of origin. Not forget, lets the decision that limited our detain to remove and removable aliens. It restricts the amount of time individual can be held in post order custody. Six months, typically. Then thereafter. Whether its a result of protracted appeals or refusal of a country to accept nationals back, this accounts for somewhere between 30000 and 40,000 convicted criminal alien releases in recent years. That number dropped significantly over time. I mentioned one aspect of our interior for enforcement enforcement. We use our Priority Enforcement Program to expand our access to these dangerous criminals. The u. S. Government ironically faces daily criticism for not being flexible in its we are not a onesizefitsall solution but rather an approach that works with state and local governments, something important to me when i was in dallas , thatg with 100 counties we have a Good Relationship with state and local Law Enforcement and we tailor our program to Community Safety need and the needrocess to fit of that jurisdiction, ensuring we remove as many convicted criminals as we can without Damaging Trust with local communities. This trust is critical so communities feel secure reporting crimes, thereby making everyone safer. You continue working with these jurisdictions. I do have good numbers with first that to the first six months. The number of jurisdictions previously not cooperating with us doing so now is over 50 . Each day, our objective is to conduct our interior enforcement strategies in way that supports community policing. If an encouraging sign that counties like los angeles, which the deputy in i personally worked hard to speak to their elected officials and tried to get them that to the table, have done so. Fresno,e, san diego, sonoma, monterey in california, a state with texas that has so many undocumented immigrants. Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. You have my commitment to work with each member of your committee to 40 strong and productive relationship currently and in the future. I want to announce that after i asked my question, senator sessions is on to take over and i was told i could go ahead without the regular member being here. If any of you have the responsibility of speaking as a ranking member, id be glad to defer to you before i ask questions. Ok. On june 29 of this year, the department requested a reprogramming of 130 million of your agency for immigration byorcement to the dhs and the way, thats what this question is about. I have an introduction before i ask you the specific question. I have less than a month later, you testified about how ice employees must exercise every day discretion and focus the agencys limited resources in order to ensure the of of im sorry, just a minute. Anyway, we had to removals of criminal aliens for fiscal year 2015 down 22 from fiscal year 2014 and down 38 from fiscal year 2012. Removal of criminal aliens from the interior of the country as opposed to the border for fiscal year 2015 were down 27 from 2014 down 53 from 2012. Away willingly gave 100 million despite repeated complaints about how youre doing the best you can with limited resources. My question is how do you andify this reprogramming how many additional criminal aliens could have been taken off the american street with 113 million you dont now have with your budget . Director saldana im sorry, thank you. I think the number you stated is out of our six plus billion dollar budget. Resources butuse im not familiar specifically with the i think these were dollars that went to the department and stayed within the department. As you know, our bed numbers, which have been typically holding at 34000 and prior years, are down this past year. Excesssult, we had some dollars. You, our effort i appreciate every dollar we get our effort with respect to our Mission Overall is removal. It is not detention or Holding People unnecessarily. We make the decisions on filling the beds. We made our decisions throughout the year as judiciously as possible and we still ended up with excess money. The department has an overall Public Safety mission that could have used that and i trust did wisely. Killing that your testimony before this committee in july, you said your Agency Welcomes any 287 g partners. Even conceded there had been a decrease in 287 g participation which he said is not because u. S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement not wanting that partnership, its because jurisdictions have either withdrawn or not coming to the table anymore. Yet in response to a question for the record on this subject, the department revealed there are 10 jurisdictions in seven states with applications pending for years. One has been pending since 2008. Seven have been pending since 2010 or 2011. To have been pending since 2012. How can you say then that the isrease in the 287 g program because jurisdictions have either withdrawn or are not coming to the table anymore when there are 10 jurisdictions with applications have been pending for years . Director saldana you know senator that the secretary has been looking at every aspect of our Immigration Enforcement efforts and 287 g is one of them. We had his entire upheaval with respect to communities, a lot of litigations. We needed to move forward. With respect to those jurisdictions that werent coming back to the table. We are currently considering whether or not it makes sense at this point now that we have six expandunder our belts to to 87 g and the secretary and i will be discussing that further. Sen. Grassley ok. Ton would you plan adjudicate a longer lens of what you just said you are looking at . Director saldana we are in the midst of it right now. Sen. Grassley all right. I think he senator from minnesota was here before you were. Then im going to turn it over to senator session. Thank you, senator. I like to draw your attention to two letters i just sent to ice by 18 of myed colleagues on the question of whether ice is interfering with the abilities of mothers and children held in family detention act centers to access legal representation. Many of us have argued that the administration should end the presumptive detention of these families. The vast majority of them are fleeing conflict and violence in their own countries and are seeking asylum here. Necessary to ice and its contractors do not hinder families to access pro bono counsel. I get to receive a response from these letters. Will you commit to me today that he will take a look into this matter and provide me with the request information . Director saldana of course. May i share a couple points with regard to that now . Mind you, we have 500 congressional inquiries in a given year. Thats not an excuse but i apologize for any delay. We are actually improving in the turnaround time and we will keep working at that. You are familiar im sure with the California District Court which has significantly impacted are dealing with processing undocumented immigrants, particularly family units. Children and unaccompanied children. The judge gave us into october 23 to come to compliance with this principle element. Is weas impacted us most are now from the time a person withoked in to the time we respect to family units the judge has imposed more or less a 20 day requirement. We are actually meeting that. We essentially have turned the family detention as a result of that decision. Once again, we are appealing it because we believe its impacted our flexibility we need in enforcing our immigration laws. We are complying with that decision and essentially have turned from detention into essentially processing folks, getting them physical examinations, getting them off in an orderly manner. That turnaround is about 20 days. Decisionge before this was about 60 days although there were some much longer. Before that, i issued a directive of several things i wanted done. This was my fifth month on the job. I directed our Field Office Directors and everybody out there and ensured the American Public that we were doing some things to take a close look at family detention. Again, the judges order impacted that to some degree but i was asking for more reviews of why people were staying in custody beyond 90 days. Thats not happening anymore. Up a Family Advocacy advisory group, a number of which is here with us today, mr. Rosenblum. Its a starstudded list of people in the area of detention and family units and social services and enforcement. A crosssection of those i keep getting commented on the categories. I am a lawyer. I much prefer having a lawyer on the other side than having a pro bono representation because we can get along and move the case forward. Pro bono representation are lawyers. Director saldana thats what im saying. I prefer to have a lawyer even in this context. Access toensure legal our folks and weve done some includingeady, additional space, making sure everybody understands the rules of the road, and working in constant communication with our working groups. We have an advocacy working group, including the aclu who are talking to us about what they need more with respect to legal action. I look forward to pulling your letter and making sure we get you more time and response. Thank you. My time has expired but i appreciate you getting back to me. Thank you very much. We yield to senator derby next. Sen. Derby thank you for being here. You know my regard to you and your professionalism. I did warn you before you took this job that not only was it difficult, but he would be instructed by your superiors on the basis of politics what laws to enforce and which laws not to enforce. I have some sympathy with your challenge but no sympathy for the administrations failure to enforce the law. Sanctuary cities which we have spoken about quite a bit where all were asking for local is sharent to do information and to honor federal detainers in an effort to reform light of then in kate steinle case was blocked by our friends across the aisle, something i think was a big mistake to do. You alluded to the detention policies with regard particularly to the unaccompanied minors and those with a single of built. Adult. I know you were constrained by some of the litigation that has gone on. That if there is no consequence associated with entering the u. S. Illegally and you will be simply processed as you say you are doing now and released, there is no deterrent and people will not return for their Court Ordered removal hearing. I think a number of us have tried to communicate both to you and secretary johnson and the president , this perception that the president is not dedicated to enforcing the law congress has passed is perhaps most egregiously evidenced by the executive action he has taken has undermined Public Confidence in the federal governments enforce our immigration laws on the books. What it has done is to undermine our ability to actually fix what i think you and i would both agree is broken. Public confidence has dissipated. I just want to ask you one question about unaccompanied minors. We start to see another uptake in Central America and we relicense circumstances under which those children and families are fleeing. I previously, commented its hard to imagine how bad things must be before a mother or father would put a minor child in the hands of Transnational Criminal Organizations and be smuggled from Central America through mexico and into the u. S. Many of whom would be assaulted, robbed, killed, or injured perhaps fatally. I think one of the things that concerns me the most about the Current Situation is there is no comprehensive background check for the sponsors for these unaccompanied minors and we found out as a result of whistleblowers coming forward that some of these children are being put not only in custody of noncitizens but people with criminal records, some of which there is evidence of their involvement in trafficking and other crimes and potentially subjecting these children to exploitation or worse. Person i know you as a of strong conscience and very professional, but doesnt that bother you that the u. S. Government would be placing children in the hands of people with criminal records and people who have not been adequately screened and who may and fact be continuing the exploitation of are we knowen that supported by some of east these Transnational Criminal Organizations . Of course itana bothers me. I have learned and read as you have learned about this allegations being made i do that ice is not in the children placement business. We turn over any children apprehended health and Human Services are the ones who placed the children. Im going to look further into i am at leastuse interested as an american citizen and ask questions about that and see if theres anything these do to help but questions and what can be done about it are more appropriately directed towards the department of health and human sources services. Sen. Corynn you happen to be the witness. I dont think it satisfactory to people that Officials Say thats not my job and im not responsible. So i do appreciate your willingness to look into this further and i hope we can have more of a conversation about this and how we get to the bottom of it but to me it demonstrates like a sanctuary cities situation where many of the criminals who are not removed as a result of sanctuary cities policies in fact pray on and exploit the minority communities we say we are trying to protect. Here these children are being exploited and preyed upon perhaps by human traffickers and others who would exploit them as a result of the policies some people view as beneficent. In fact trapping them and i speak about in an unspeakable situation. I look forward to our conversation. Director saldana thank you. Sen. Durbin i think the senator for our effort to pass this bill. Many people critical this Administration Today voted against comprehensive Immigration Reform. One of the requirements under the bill was for those who are undocumented in the u. S. Who wish to continue to reside here and work here come forward and face a criminal background check. Would that help us root out the criminals who are among the undocumented population so they could be deported . You need to turn on your microphone again. As a u. S. Aldana attorney, i enforce 3000 laws. Here are the laws that currently comprise the immigration and nationalization act that bound us to our process as we engage in. Even for ardinary lawyer with 30 Years Experience so i would hope despite republican medications ive heard that we still go forth and forward with Immigration Reform because hearing a bit here and there is not going to get us there. Sen. Durbin with an estimated 11 million undocumented, Immigration Reform requires them to come forward to is a criminal background check in order to continue to reside and work in this country. That would have been a real step forward in making america safer. It was opposed by many of those questioning you today on this panel. It also would have made a andatic, new investment Border Security between the u. S. And mexico. 3. 6e spending roughly now billion a year on Border Security. The Immigration Reform bill opposed by several members of this panel would have increased that to 46 billion from 3. 6 billion. It would have increased the number of Border Patrol agents from 20,000 to 38,000. Who wouldnt have had to build mr. Trumps wall. The way i basically achieved their fixation with the backdrop with that verification stronger Border Security. Let me ask you this question if i can. Theres going to be testimony from a witness in the next panel suggesting the number of people being deported by your agency has gone down though the evidence of crime has gone up. Director saldana that is true. About two thirds of People International docket come from cbp apprehensions, those at the border force of entry. They are down significantly. Sen. Durbin why are they down significantly . Director saldana i would say its because of effective enforcement and the fact we sent a message you should not cross the border. Sen. Durbin fewer people are trying to cross . Director saldana yes. If the number of apprehensions is proportionate to the number thated to come across reflective of the number trying to come across, they are down. I trust our message has gotten across. Sen. Durbin two thirds of those deported are apprehended at on the border and you say fewer are coming across the border so there are fewer being deported. Director saldana the cbp number is down dramatically. Sen. Durbin what secretary johnson asked for my vote, i said to him not unless you promise to come to illinois on any friday morning. He brought his son with him. I wanted him to meet with those about to be deported and their families. Among them are some people who should have been deported, no question. Among them as well, families being broken up because the mother was undocumented and the rest of the household were american citizens. We have young people apprehended with no criminal record. Waste ofe was a our resources. Where is her focus when it comes to distinguishing between criminals and children . Director saldana the secretarys priorities make very clear and reflect what the president has spoken about and thats not breaking up families. Effective the removal of a mother and two Children Committee harm to a or a convicted child molester . Thats where we are focusing. On pleased with the numbers. The reason for the low number of. Emovals sen. Sessions i would just note and theassociation customs and Immigration Service council said this about a that bill. This is an antiPublic Safety bill and antiLaw Enforcement bill. We urge all lawmakers to oppose final closure and vote today to oppose the bill. They issued that statement on the day it came out for vote. They said ice officers have pleaded with the lawmakers not to adopt this bill but to work with us on real, effective reform for the American People. Thats who we represent, the American People. They go on to say the real proposal will make america less safe. Say this is not a solution. We hear the talking points about the comprehensive bill but when you read the details, these officers were correct. Of thesult of the denial ice officers rights and duties to enforce the law effectively, they suit your predecessor in federal court for denying them the right to conduct lawful activity. Theyve also been reported to have the lowest morale in any agency in the federal government. I dont thinkna sessions a very unusual lawsuit. It shows how badly the situation is and that will enforcement. With regard to the budget come you made reference to turning million which you did not spend under the fiscal year 2015 budget. Do you know how much ice received for detention removal and transportation of aliens . Director saldana i cannot give you the number off the top of my head. Sen. Sessions 3 billion for an is my understanding they came from detention removal and transportation of aliens. According to the information we obtained, your agency removed 150,000 criminal aliens from the interior. Tofiscal year 12, it dropped 135,000. In 13, it dropped to 110,000. , we believe the number is only around 63,000. Do you agree with those numbers . Of criminaldana removals, they sound right. Sen. Sessions thats a dramatic reduction by far more than half. Actually removing less than half as many criminal aliens as you were in just 2011. You are turning back money you were given for that purpose. Director saldana a big portion of that is detention, which doesnt necessarily get us every time. As i said earlier, i am heartened i would like my hands on every criminal alien in the country illegally and to be able to remove them. This is what ive done as a prosecutor and what i did as a u. S. Attorney. Neither i nor the woman and men who work for ice would let go of the criminal alien if they had a basis. Sen. Sessions did you make the decision about what kind of criminal offenses qualify for removal or was that made before you or above you . Director saldana that is in the statute. Usingessions youre discretion to say there has to be more than two misdemeanors or a felony before you remove people. Other people here that commit if theyaffic offenses, are here illegally are not being removed. Director saldana with respect to the statute, the group of people removed are defined there. The secretary and myself are focusing on those in the november 20 memorandum, which are mostly criminals. Thosegain, 59 of all of removed were criminal aliens. That is a recordbreaking percentage of the people we remove. Sen. Sessions forgive me if that doesnt make me feel good because the numbers are dropping dramatically. You are dropping down other removals. You are saying dir. Saldana all i ask you to do is give American Public some perspective. We are talking about apprehensions being down substantially. I would like to thank, and i believe julie, believe truly, that is reflective of enforcement that those crossing the border are going down. It also reflects the numbers of apprehension and the largest part of our apprehensions from the border. Sen. Sessions over a number of years, there has been a lot more expensive in hiring more agents. I trust we have seen a reduction of attempt. We made it somewhat harder. The difficulty is when you accept people other than mexicans and allow them to be released in the country, pending some sort of supporting situation. Deporting situation. I worry about that. My time is of. My time is up. Senator klobuchar. Sen. Klobuchar thank you for your hard work. Im a former prosecutor and worked with Law Enforcement for each years. Four 8 years. We have had cases where we have worked with federal authorities on deportation. Could you talk about the Priority Enforcement Program in terms of coordination with Law Enforcement . Where do you think the strength are, what could be changed to make it better . Dir. Saldana let me make sure we understand, we work with about 3000 jurisdictions across the nation. We have identified in the neighborhood of 300 plus that had at the beginning of this Priority Enforcement Program, not been cooperating with Customs Enforcement. So we have set out everyone, witho bottom to work those state and local noncooperating jurisdictions. As i said earlier, we made a tremendous progress. We have about 56 of those jurisdictions coming back to the table. Thi represents about 76 , i nk, of all of our previously declined detainers. That is tremendous progress in six months. Were going to keep going at that. Even with those jurisdictions that have not come forward, we are going to continue working towards that objective. As i said earlier, it is essential to our mission, not only to our immigration mission. I had Homeland Security investigations as well on the investigative effort. 6000 agents there. They need the help of state and local government. We need good, sound relationships. We need we dont need to be at loggerheads with each others. Sen. Klobuchar many said they didnt handle they didnt care who handled the case, they just want us to get the job done. The worse is worst thing is fighting over whose jurisdiction this is. Sarah durbin touched on this. I keep harkening back to apprehensive perform and the money we had in there for much more Law Enforcement at the border. That was a major piece of the bill in addition to having an orderly process for a lengthy path to citizenship, as well as making it a more straightforward for legal immigrants. Senator franken knows we will have a case where someone will come in legally to work at a dairy, then they want to bring their spouse in. They are allowed to, but their spouse cant work for seven years in a town where the on implement rate is 1 . Were the Unemployment Rate is 1 . Can you go on the terms of innovation site in terms of the immigration side, how this would help you to do your job if we were to pass a company has a bill . Past a comprehensive bill . Dir. Saldana we cannot have removals of the people we are focused on without a final removal. We have courts that have very few judges compared to a 2 million plus national docket. 2 million plus undocumented immigrants on that. Lawsve a current state of that is very difficult to work with. And it actually takes an expert to navigate. Have all ofial to these jurisdictions working with us. As i said and i should apologize, i think i reversed the percentages. Sen. Klobuchar i saw there was action behind you. A flurry of action. Dir. Saldana they were angry with me. Sen. Klobuchar what is the correct percentage so we can make them happy and not be subject to a Washington Post article . Thosealdana about 76 of 3000 jurisdictions have come to the table. Klobuchar that work with you on these priorities . Dir. Saldana it relates into numbers of 56 of those previously declined now being honored in some form. Jurisdictions. Sen. Klobuchar okay good, there is a lot of head nodding. Thank you very much. Thank you mr. Chairman. In a hearing earlier this year in july, you testified that the Law Enforcement notification ens, had been deployed in 11 states. You are confident it could be deployed in all states by the end of the year. Where do we stand now . Dir. Saldana thank you so much for asking the question. We are at 100 . We got all 50 jurisdictions on board and are communicating with them on a daily basis. How is that going . Dir. Saldana of course they would like us, the local church would like us to communicate directly with them. This is the process by going through a central database with the state government. Notify on them then to local jurisdictions, like counties and cities. Sen. Flake as you know, we had the case in arizona, where a man was released and then murdered somebody soon after his release. Bond after his00 immigration hearing. Which means that he became obligated to report to ice upon demand. At that time his most recent criminal offense had not triggered his obligation to report. That is a problem there. He was released from ice custody on january 7, 2013. Arrested for murder that took place on generate the second of this year. During that time he received 2 injunctions against him. There was no communication apparently between the agencies here. On may 28 of this year, response to a letter that i, along with chairman grassley wrote, he stated there is no systematic process for state and local authorities to fight ice to notify ice in a junction that is served. If ice had been aware of those two civil injunctions against this man, would ice have taken any action . Dir. Saldana every decision we make, sir, is based on all the facts and circumstances. Those are material facts. If we had known that it might have altered the position. I cant tell you looking back whether it would have or not. That would be speculation. Its certainly weeks with a certainly something we would have taken into an account. Sen. Flake under the lens program, is the way you could obtain his information . Dir. Saldana it doesnt the other way. Because from releases to state and local. Sen. Flake so we have no right right now no way right now unless there is an effort at the local level to inform you. Dir. Saldana also i have asked all of our people and i will tell you that was part of the disturbing facts that got my attention on this matter but i have asked all of our Field Office Directors. I said, let us look at every flag, every possibility. In this case, we didnt know about these injunctions. But, i want you to run down where you have a question. I think the offense that he was convicted was facilitation of a burglary. It could have been reduced to a misdemeanor. I had told them, any flag that you see, take the time to run it down. Lets get all the information that we can. We continue to work with local jurisdictions to try and do better. Sen. Flake so theres nothing preventing you from putting a notification system in place when information goes the other way. Could that be required of ice woulor would need enabling legislation . Dir. Saldana we need we have criminal databases. But what we dont have are these orders necessarily, which are family matters, as opposed to criminal data. Sen. Flake in july you followed up with us. We asked the number of denied daca requests that have resulted in deportations. My office is not received any of these numbers. Give dou would you have any of those numbers today . Dir. Saldana i do not, senator. That was july . Sen. Flake yes. Dir. Saldana i will have to pull that that is going to be a manual search. Maybe it has already begun. I will get to a status as soon as i can. Sen. Flake if there is a reason we cant, legal is now. Otherwise we would like to get them. We cant, please let us know. You mentioned that effective enforcement is key to reducing border apprehensions. I think we all recognize that. One such program has been very effective in arizona is operation streamline, particularly in the yuma sector. A zerotolerance approach. Doj and ice is pulling back on implementation of that program. How does not square with how does that th square with recognition when we have something that by all accounts is even effective deterrent apprehensions, yet we are pulling back on it . Dir. Saldana operation streamline involves a streamline prosecution. That is the u. S. Attorneys and apartment of justice that have control of that. Department of justice that have control of that. I am not sure what the departments formal stand is on that. As i understand it, i dont think operation streamline, the least of years past, did not distinguish on the status of the immigrant related to that person. If it doesnt meet our priorities, that would not be an effective measure in our view. Again sir, with the focus being on criminals and serious prior offenders, dangers to the community, a reflection of dangers to Public Safety if operation streamline in a particular area, if it included any mom or pop, without distinction further, i think under our current priorities, that would not be included. Sen. Flake thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you mr. Chairman. Welcome director saldana. I hope youre able staff has informed you about some of the regardingthat i have john jock. To have murdered a 25yearold woman in orange, connecticut. Prison,s release from ice field to deport him, as it should have done. I have asked for an investigation by the Inspector General. I hope that you will support and cooperate with an investigation. N. Dir. Saldana absolutely. Dir. Saldana i have written to Inspector General roth, along with two of my colleagues asking for an investigation. To my knowledge, i have not received a response, but i look for your support and cooperation. Dir. Saldana absolutely we will do that. Just like any of these situations where you have somebody assaulted or injured, or murdered, worse, it is tremendously disturbing. Senator,ed earlier, and i think we briefed you on this particular matter. As disturbing as there is, as it is, this is one of the consequences of that decision where we cannot detain someone without end. It requires us, even in post custody situations, to release a legitimatehere is no basis for believing someone would be able to removed. Without a travel document to haiti, they would not have been able to be removed. Your question relates to what efforts did we make. And we did make some effort. If i may interrupt. Number one, i have been totally dissatisfied with the briefings we have received. The information has been completely inadequate. It has changed over time. And even now, i feel that we have not received the full story, which is why i asked for the ig litigation. Number two, its not a question of whether he had to be released, its question of what was done to deport him. Haitiy he is not back in and Casey Chadwick is still alive. That is the question here. I accept your statement that some efforts were made, but they were abysmally and apparently inadequate. Abhorrently inadequate. Much more could have been done in my in the. I think the Inspector General investigation will demonstrate actually that much more should and could have been done. I also want to know what broader problems this particular failing may reflect. Sir, wedana as i said will cooperate with that investigation. I know it leaves you dissatisfied, this explanation. I think your concern is, couldnt you have gone to the country and try to make some efforts locally . We did try to find family members, we could not locate them. He was picked up on a boat coming from haiti. Is that correct . Dir. Saldana that may be, sir. I am not sure how he was apprehended. Without meaning to compare the two, the administration has said that information is gleaned from various sources about refugees coming into this country, and i accept that the presentation that there are means to verify the origins of the person without some document in that persons hands. That could have been done here. Dir. Saldana i wont argue with you on much more how could of been done. We have to rely on the country to accept those travel document and to put them in a form they will accept. That is the frustration we have. There are a whole bunch of countriesd with which we have been trying to work to turn them around on this issue, to get us travel documents. Haiti does not have the interest, apparently, the resources to assist us in doing that. We cant adjust drop them off we cant just drop them off without the country being in a position to accept them. I am as frustrated as you are with these countries. Apart from what haiti is or is not willing to do, i maintain, and i think the Inspector Generals investigation will affirm, that much more could have been done by ice. If that is a problem, why havent you come to the congress . Why havent you gone to the state department . Haiti receives a lot of aid from this country. They have to be held accountable. Dir. Saldana i have personally been to the state department and met with one of our representatives that helps us respect to these countries. We are making all kinds of efforts. The state department can be most helpful in this. I am hoping we can turn around some of these countries. Which other countries have failed to cooperate . Dir. Saldana there are a bunch of them. I couldnt certainly provide you the list. Hina comes to mind, india there are quite a few. The list is long. You can probably imagine some of them. Those that have very unstable governments, those that have cold relationships without. Many of those countries are not cooperating with us. I could certainly provide you a current list. I would appreciate the list. Answer aspreciate an to what efforts have been made with those countries, in the first instance by ice, and also by any other agency of our government to change those practices that resist taking back criminals who commit murder in our community. They have no business being here, as they give a bad name to all of the programs that you administer. They undermine the credibility of our entire immigration effort. I look forward to the Investigation Report by the Inspector General. I want to thank you for being here and answering my questions. I know that your you are newer to this agency. I commend your efforts in texas as a Law Enforcement and your efforts to improve ice. I thank you for being here today. Blumenthal. Senator an excellent line of questioning. Colleague our former opposed legislation that dont with that dealt with china and other countries, both as a republican and democrat. His proposal was that we stop any government officials other than the ambassador as long as they refuse to take back people. We can cut off aid. If it is an essential part of thatration worldwide nations work together. It cannot be accepted that a nation is refusing to take back her minerals that have left the country after being convicted take back criminals that have left country after being convicted. We should have the ability to push back. I would appreciate legislation if his is needed if it is needed. I believe, frankly, you have plenty of powers that could move the needle on this anyway. Finally, this is a longterm problem. Its costing us hundreds of millions of dollars, wouldnt you agree . Dir. Saldana yes sir. Sessions agents and time and effort to go through this. I appreciate you raising this. Sen. Blumenthal if i could add, i make these points as a longtime and passionate supporter of Immigration Reform, providing a path to earned citizenship for the million in people for the 11 Million People in the shadows, as well as eliminating the abuses in that program. H2 thesis, agricultural workers. H2 visas, agricultural workers. I led the effort intercessions previously when we successfully advocated for longterm Immigration Reform. There was an overwhelming bipartisan majority in favor of it. Unfortunately it was never voted on in the house. We can disagree, even on this panel, as to overall Immigration Reform. In this kind of glaring gap enforcement and protection of our citizens i think deserves immediate attention. I continue to be an advocate of governance of Immigration Reform. Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Sen. Sessions is it not true that this refusal to take people a question,aises puts you in a position where you have to release people because you cannot hold them any longer . Dir. Saldana that is right. That is the case here. Ssions you need to go to the cabinet member, mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson needs to go to his boss, the president of the United States, and say, this is unacceptable. We need a policy to deal with these countries. That is my suggestion. Likes know if you would legislation proposed. Congress only appropriate enough resources to remove the approximately 400,000 aliens in this fiscal year. Ice removed only 315,000. That includes interior removals andforce protection Border Protection patrols. In fiscal year 2015, the number 235,000, ofwas only which only 63,000, as you noted before, where criminal aliens, people that committed crimes, like in San Francisco. That is a dramatic drop from the 150,000 criminals removed in 2011. Do you know what our budget for detention and removal was in 2011 . I have the number. 2. 6 billion. What about this year . Its gone up to 3. 4 million, as we noted. Even though inflation is up and the budget deficit are high, Congress Found a considerable amount of extra money for you. , and yout spend it all moved far fewer persons. Removed far fewer persons. My question to you is not what ourened at the border, but focus today is primarily on the removal of criminal aliens. There remains some 11 million , and they are bidding crimes every day. Committing crimes everyday. That seems to be an unacceptable decline in prosecutions and removals. Dir. Saldana as i said earlier sir, again, we are affected by the apprehensions by the ports of entry. That is a substantial number. We have changing demographics. We have an increase in these families. There are all kinds of levels, due process that are afforded them by the courts and statutes. That tends to delay removals. That is why we are working so hard on this effort, to try and make sure that we are reaching as many jurisdictions as we can. Even though the number is large, we want them all. Yoursessions i thought answer to senator flakes question about operation streamline was not adequate. Tolso believe your answer senator grassleys questions , jumping from 71 agreements to 31 is very troubling and unacceptable. We have to have better cooperation with local Law Enforcement. And we need to see what works at the border. Dont wantn people to argue over means and problems, they want to see positive results. Senator cruz, i yield to you. Cruz thank you. The last hearing where you testified, we discussed in 2013 how the obama and mr. Asian had released the Obama Administration have released 400,000 criminally illegal aliens. At that hearing, you misstated that number by a factor of over 2. Discussed 2013, we how the Obama Administration released 193 legal immigrations with homicide convictions. 426 Sexual Assault convictions. 303 kidnapping convictions. 1075 aggravated assault convictions. Vehicle convictions. 9187 dangerous drug convictions. Drugged driving convictions. And 303 latest escape convictions. Ing, i asked you how many murderers and rapists h ere illegally was the Obama Administration releasing, and you did not know. Dir. Saldana for the day before . Yes. I did not know that specific number for the day before. Sen. Cruz similarly ask you, in the several months, how many murderers here illegally has the industry should has the administration released . Dir. Saldana you missed the part earlier, the fact when you say the Obama Administration released, i presume youre talking about ice. You missed my testimony earlier 2 3 of discussed that the releases for 2015 were not within the control of ice. We dont play in this sandbox alone. The immigration courts are a big part of that. Sen. Cruz i asked a specific question. How many murderers has the administration released. Dir. Saldana when you give it to you by fiscal year 2015. Its homicide related, not just murder. About 197. Sen. Cruz how about Sexual Assaults . Dir. Saldana we have a chart broken down by crime. I dont have that chart with me. We can certainly provided to you. Sen. Cruz does that include drunk driving . Since the hearing last july, the administration has released information that indicates its even worse than what we discussed in july. In particular, senator sessions and i sent a letter to secretary johnson asking about ices socalled Priority Enforcement Program. In response to that letter, you, on behalf of the secretary, sent us a letter on october 6, 2015. A letter that without objection i would like to introduce into the record. Letter, the Administration Made a number of rather stunning admission. That letter indicated that at the end of year 2015, there are nondetained illegal aliens who are present in the United States on their own recognizance, has been ordered to leave the country by a final order of removal, but have not done so. That means they are essentially almost one million illegal aliens ordered to leave that have not done so, and are leaving living freely here. Why is ice not supporting those illegal aliens . Dir. Saldana that part of my answer before, when i talked about this issue we have a number of obstacles in our way to remove people. We cannot remove people without a final order of removal. Sen. Cruz all of those have final orders of removal. Dir. Saldana may i finish . Out cruz im just pointing the first optical delisted is not relevant to these that have obstacles. Dir. Saldana may i finish . Final order of removal and perfect travel documents. I do not believe sir you are from the great state of texas, where we understand the real world. I cant believe you would think that either i myself, who spent 10 years, even before i came here as a state attorney in texas, running down every terminal i could and putting them in prison for as long as i could based on the justification of the crime. That you would think that the women and men of ice, or myself, would turn their backs on the deportation of criminal aliens that needed to be removed. We are removing everyone we can under the law. This law provides for a lot of due process and a lot of avenues for requesting release. Every decision we make can be looked at by immigration judge, and reversed or enhanced or decreased. It is not just sen. Cruz with respect, what you are saying there consist of non sequiturs. Your First Response was you needed a final order of deportation, which we have over 100,000 who have already received that. ,000 who have already received that. I speak over and over again to ice agents, Border Patrol officers, that are demoralized by the Political Leadership of the Obama Administration that doesnt let them do their jobs. Over and over again in the state of texas, i speak to brave men and women that are risking their lives safe. Ets look further there are roughly one million illegal aliens that have orders of deportation that you have not supported. But its not just that. That you have not deported. , of the 36,007 aliens that ice released from custody in 2013, 1,000 of them have gone on to commit new crimes. These are criminal illegal aliens released from custody that committed new crimes. Of those 1000, how many of those have been supported . Dir. Saldana i dont have that readily at hand. I can get it to you. Sen. Cruz between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2015, the Obama Administration released 61 51 criminal aliens who were specifically convicted of a sexual offense. Why is ice releasing any illegal aliens who have been convicted of a sexual offense . Dir. Saldana sir you missed the part of my testimony earlier. Before your arrival i explained clearly that about 2 3 of the folks that have been released you keep referring to the Obama Administration releasing them that is a mischaracterization, and its misleading to the public. 2 3 of those were under the u. S. Supreme court decision, and we follow the law and the Supreme Court. Sen. Cruz you said you follow the law help me understand then why president obama has issued executive amnesty refusing to follow the law. Which one is it . The ministry should follow the law . Dir. Saldana you and i have a disagreement with respect with that constitutionality. You know that the department of justice has issued that opinion with respect to that. I will tell you this, sir. You also missed my testimony herethere is a complex act that does not leave us a whole probably every illegal alien could be removed. But that is 12 Million People, or 50 million depending on the estimates. I dont think anybody 15 million depending on the estimates. I dont think anybody thinks we can go rounding up people with a 6. 5 billion budget, as grateful as i am for it, believing that we can go and do that under that budget. Wise are reasons to make and smart and effective immigration priorities, which the secretary announced last november 20. We are going about it in a smart way. We are not sacrificing children when we can remove a criminal alien. Any criminal alien that has not been removed, i feel fairly confident there is a very good expiration that comes into this statute that the senate and house has left us with. I have called for and will continue until the day i leave this office to ask, beg you all to consider comprehensive Immigration Reform. Thatcruz i recognize politically the administration supports amnesty for those here illegally. The American People dont agree with the administration on that. You were charged with following the law, the law that Congress Actually passed. Not the policy views of president obama that contradicts the law. You mentioned a minute ago that ice could support the 12 million here illegally. Why is it not doing so . Dir. Saldana i have not run the numbers, but i believe the cbo has. We are talking about billions of dollars to do that. That is not practical and quite frankly, not very smart. Okay, is not smart to enforce federal law to dir. Saldana you are playing games with words, senator cruz. Im to help trying to help the American Public. Sen. Cruz by ignoring the law you are not helping the American Public. Let me ask you a question. He said is not very smart and impractical to enforce the law. How many aliens dir. Saldana thats not what i said. Sen. Cruz how many aliens did the bill Clinton Administration the port . Deport . In eight years, they deported 2 million. Is it the position of the Obama Administration that be bill Clinton Administration was not very smart because it supported 12 Million People . It deported 12 Million People . Dir. Saldana are you serious about this question . Sen. Crusz you said its not smart to use ices resources to deport illegal aliens dir. Saldana your mr. Presenting what i am saying. You are misrepresenting what i am saying. As a u. S. Attorney, i could not enforce 3000 laws, including the migratory fowl act. You know north texas. My jurisdiction is in 100 counties. I have to make tough decisions. Do i want every person that is broken one of those 3000 federal laws to be punished accordingly . Yes, i did. Sen. Cruz if the Clinton Administration could enforce the laws and deport over 12 in people with a smaller budget than yours, why is the Obama Administration unwilling or unable to do the same . Dir. Saldana i beg to differ with you. This administration is enforcing the law, and in a very smart way with respect to the resources that we have. Sen. Cruz if this administration is enforcing the law, what should president obama say to cain steinles parents . Fatherd he say to her who held his daughter in her arms and hurt her last words, h elp me daddy. Dir. Saldana i dont know what the Obama Administration i would do. I met with that family, and i was extraordinarily impressed by them. They expressed their views and feelings to me. I listened. I admire their stamina and ability to be able to articulate to me what a beautiful person she was and how they would like to see some changes. Which is exactly how i opened this testimony. I would like to see changes to the entire immigration system code, which supports the system that is broken and is not effective. And yet we dont seem to be getting that from congress. Sen. Cruz when you met with the family, did you apologize to them on behalf of the president for his supporting policies that have created sanctuary cities across this country that led to roughly to the murder of their daughter . Dir. Saldana i disagree with you that that is a statement of fact. I did not expect that. Sen. Cruz you did not apologize. Dir. Saldana i expressed my condolences for their loss. Sen. Cruz condolences are one thing. Apologizing for the direct consequences of the baylor of the kill your of the policies are another. After meeting with her family, do you now support the the legislation i introduced to prevent another young woman like her from being murdered from an aggravated felon reentering this country over and over again and being walking and to a welcomed to a century city . Sanctuary city . Not saldana i do believe that piecemeal efforts placed on this massive problem is going to do it without confidence of Immigration Reform. Understandi want to your testimony correctly. Are you say no, you do not support kates law . Dir. Saldana you also missed my testimony as to why i cannot support an effort i believe that is the one that increases sen. Cruz amendatory minimum of five years a mandatory minimum of five years for a felon that enter this country. Dir. Saldana last time i checked it was close to a majority of illegal aliens in our current prisons. You are very much aware of the state of our current presence, and they are busting at the seams. Current prisons, and they are busting at the seams. I do not believe increasing the minimum penalty will be the most effective things. The most effective thing with our immigration laws is to reform the entire code. Sen. Cruz i want to make sure that i understand the answer to your question. Dir. Saldana i dont support putting a bandaid on the issue. Sen. Cruz you are a very experienced lawyer, im asking a simple yes or no. Dir. Saldana i have already answered. I have already answered sir. [laughter] sen. Cruz you say you cant enforce the law. There is reason the American People are so frustrated with Law Enforcement officials charged with attacking them who refuse to do their duty. With texting them with texting them administration that will not enforce laws. Readyerican people are for leaders to take seriously the obligation to protect this country. Mr. Chairman, i came at the beginning. Minutes. Five i feel that we just had a 13 minute question and answer but i a bit of ame ways display. I was wondering if i could have some time to do some other questioning. Sen. Sessions absolutely. Franken i recognized when my time was up. I yielded because my time was up. Sen. Sessions i would just say i thought it was a very effective elucidation of fact. If the witness had answered directly, it wouldnt have gone on so long. I recognize the senator. Wouldranken i guess i ask the event in San Francisco was a tragedy. That, if westem read all this testimony, there are limited resources. I will check on this 12 million statistic from the Clinton Administration. I dont know where the senator got that hes leaving out because he had his time here. He is leaving now because he had his time here. That is why i said it was a bit of a display. Of whereome kind that statistic came from . I know senator cruz knows where he pulled that statistic from. But is there anybody on your is wehere the point would hear it testimony after aboutn the second panel the use of resources, and about the challenges you have. Aboute talking sentencing, about retroactive sentence reduction. Senator cruz did the same kind onehing, where he said that of these people is going to be released soon, murder somebody, and he will have blood on your hands. You will have blood on your hands. Its a tactic that basically says that in this country that 310 awfulwhether its tragedies that happen, and choices are made with the resources we have, and sanctuary cities are so for a reason. When people inat the community feel like they can say they can go to the police without fear of being deported, it makes the community safer. Senator cruz, do you apologize to someone who is in the city where people dont feel safe to come forward and therefore, criminals running on the street and they murder somebody . There are real choices that are made here. Tactics really an unfair to take an event that was and take it soic out of context. I do want to ask you to speak to what we just all unless just saw unless you would like to. Dir. Saldana i would. I said, i spent 10 years in line for before a writing before arriving to this agency. I dont know what persons he have spoken to. I have been to quite a few cities. With areas of responsibility. I see people that are at their desk hard at work and appreciate being able to go after the worst of the worst under the current priorities. They are very pleased for what they can do. I am here to do a job. Very disappointed, not that ,t matters, that we are here rather than trying to make my agency more effective i want to work with anyone on either side of the aisle that has ideas to help us. That was not helpful, and thats from here to do. Thats what im here to do. I would invite anyway. Senator flake has arty spent many hours on this. Has already spent many hours on this. Sen. Sessions well, we do have something to suggest. Lets forget all of the actions of the administration that have demoralized the ice options. There is no doubt about that. Becaused mr. Martin they said his policies were blocking them from doing his duty. I never heard of anything such as that. When we have the situation of kate steinle, that shouldnt have happened. This administration should have been on San Francisco, and found out if they committed any errors. Just like senator blumenthals example. When a person comes in and commits a murder and has no roots in this country, you ought to be sure he is deported. The law gives you that authority. That is your responsibility. You just cant sit here in this office and pretend that you dont control events. You have to assert yourself and make sure this country take back these people. You have to make sure your officers are on top of these cities that are not cooperating. You have to be sure, why didnt somebody pick this up and deport this person . Weve seen that criminal deportations have dropped 58 over a few years, while all others have been dropping too. He said this is not they have dropped roughly 90,000, more than half. While your budget has gone up. People are not happy about this. We want let me ask you this is a final question. Heart of somehe issues and the frustrations that we have. The president has issued 2 executive amnesties in 2012 and 2014. Under both of these programs, obtain immigrants can work permits, photo ids, Social Security numbers. Lets say we have an open job for a Forklift Operator in alabama. And it pays 15 lower. Two applicants apply. The first is an american citizen, the Second Applicant answered illegally. And received a president ial id and work permit. Who had more right to that job . The american citizen or the person that entered unlawfully . Dir. Saldana once a person is given lawful status, i leave