Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  December 30, 2015 12:29pm-2:30pm EST

12:29 pm
states. >> the homeland security investigation, the counterterrorism and expectation you're not has opened up a number of investigations with respect to the number -- >> do we know a number? >> he said 20 million in a year. you can give me that number. i'm asking the people calm on the travelers. do we know if any of those sometime before they come here. >> there were 113 investigations by homeland security investigations with regard to that matter. the bulk of those investigations have been closed and in fact, there are 18 ongoing investigations associated with serious nationals. >> 113 number specific to the question i asked. you may have traveled to syria. >> i do not have a specific
12:30 pm
number. i am telling you on the overstays that were identified. >> it could be much higher than 113. >> mr. jordan, unique or to answer your question -- you interrupting me every time i begin. >> i'm sorry, keep going. >> there are investigations over the last year in fiscal year 15. there've been 118 investigations of serious. i cannot tell you which ones of those entered the country on the visa waiver program. ..
12:31 pm
>> no, sir. i was not in the office he-- office appalled at that point. i knew-- do know it's been encouraged to continue the work by director rodriguez and continue the work they've been engaged in in regards to social media. i'm aware of no memorandum secret or otherwise that bars them from using social media. >> real quick, different subject, but in your opening statement you mentioned the last time you testified and i'm curious, do you think the situation in libya today is more stable than it was in 2011, or less stable? >> the hearing on which--
12:32 pm
>> i'm asking your opinion on the stability. >> i would refer to the state the parma and my personal opinion is not relevant. it's no more stable, but had nothing to do with the issue-- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i will refer to the state department on that for their judgment. >> you are the chief diplomatic officer for policy and i think your opinion is relevant. >> what is the question, mr. chairman? >> the question mr. jordan asked you, what is your opinion of that question? >> with isil? >> yes. >> or with libya? >> well, with both. >> i give that answer with regard to libya and as far as isil think it remains a
12:33 pm
substantial threat and is treated by such but every rational political leader i know across the world and in addition to the european leaders and secretary johnson, attorney general lynch met with last week >> gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. good morning and i want to think the witnesses were helping the committee and for your service to our country. i do want to go back, about the overstay issue because last week ms. tracy who is a fine person just did not have her numbers with her. and responsive to a huge number of questions unfortunately and i'm sure she is a fine person, but we are after the facts and she did not have many. okay, so she told us last week and we had a recess during the hearing so she could call the office and she told us
12:34 pm
20 million people a year have come in under the visa waiver program and she said there was 2% overstay each year is what she told us, which comes to 400,000 overstays per year. are you telling me something different here today? >> the estimates is in that's range, but the number-- >> i'm good with that. i don't want to waste my time on that, but i was-- i thought i was going to come out with less facts then when i came in with. >> the issue of the overstay and the submission of the report that is underway-- >> it's been under way a long time. i'm not a young man, so i don't even want to do a more on this because i don't do gets going to happen. we have been promised that per year and when i see the report i will believe it. let me go on. look, between what the director said even yesterday-- look, if
12:35 pm
you talk to the folks in our national security community, the islamic state is using social media as a main recruiting tool. this is their game. this is their world. they are doing this all the globe and yet if we look at what homeland security is doing, we don't have a regular widespread requirement that our people review the social media of people coming from trouble areas where you have a lot of terrorists, places like pakistan, afghanistan, syria, iraq, tunisia, parts of north africa where you have got a lot of support for radical jihad, violent jihad and we are not reviewing the social media even though that is the world in which they operate and we don't regularly review that and that's
12:36 pm
major problem. so, look, i think if someone is applying for citizenship to the united states, is entirely reasonable that we ask for their social media contacts, their information. these people don't radicalize overnight. a lot of them have had public statements, not their private e-mails. i know tashfeen malik, maybe her stop was directed and private, we should have got that anyway. we should have said we want your social media, both private and public. that is entirely reasonable to ask people coming from countries that are known to sponsor terrorism. layer we doing that? why aren't we asking people for their-- look, i will present massachusetts 52% request the social information on media. from applicants to college, they
12:37 pm
want to know what's going on on your facebook, your social media if the employer-- if half of the employers in america are doing that in the private sector, if your colleges are doing that for students, why the hell with the department of homeland security do it for someone coming from a terrorist country or a country that sponsors terrorism coming into the united states? it would seem to be i daresay a no-brainer, but it's not happening, so it has me worried that we are not doing any of this. anyone care to respond to that? >> i can certainly take part of that question, congressman. as i tried to make clear in my opening remarks, we have been piloting and again, a number of cases touch-- >> very few though, it's a pilot program and i know you have pilot programs, but we have
12:38 pm
millions and millions of people that are out there that want to come into this country and we are doing a very small bits. we don't even look at their public stuff. that's what kills me. dhs doesn't even regularly require that there'd ministration office-- we don't even look at their public stuff. >> to be clear, we are moving both in the refugee and other immigration contacts we have been doing some of it. we are working-- >> you have three very small pilot programs going. will, we have talked to the folks overseas and we know what they are doing and it's not regular routine, not widespread, just to be fair and even and i talked before the hearing about what's going on in beirut. we have not had eight regular vetting team there in a year. they fly in and fly out because of the conditions there, but i don't want happy talk. sometimes i hear a lot of that, that we are doing fine overseas and when i drill down and go to beirut, when i go to the syrian border, what you're telling us
12:39 pm
is just happy talk and they say they don't have the resources, they didn't have the resources when we had 160 applicants a week and now they are getting 16000 a week. and we have the same amount of resources we had before. it troubles me greatly. i don't think we are doing a good job and i think we can do better. i would like to get the resources to the people to that people well and then if we deem them eligible, then you can take them in as refugees, but we can be smart and then we can be compassionate, but right now it doesn't seem like we are doing either. i will yield back. >> we will now recognize the delman from michigan for five minutes. >> mr. rodriguez, going back to that issue that my colleague mr. lynch broached with you, dhs
12:40 pm
has indicated that again three pilot programs. we talked about that and it includes social media. has dhs ever had a policy preventing adjudicators and attorneys-- attorneys from reviewing social media post? >> i'm not a wear of policy that presented it-- prevented, obviously there are very-- various privacy and other government issues and there has never been a privacy issue and during the time i have been director and that secretary johnson has been secretary, what we have been doing is, in fact, piloting and developing the capacity to use social media in a thoughtful, functional manner -- >> the per se bothers me a bit. >> i'm sorry? >> the per se bothers me a bit. >> i am not aware of a policy--
12:41 pm
>> why wasn't it happening? >> i would not read too much into the phrase, per se. i am not aware of their air was heavy many prohibited the use-- >> then we have conflicting reports than in the last several days that there was or wasn't. >> i know for where-- well during my tenure as director we have in fact been developing and piloting that capacity. >> so is a good policy that we look into social media? >> i do believe and i believe many of my intelligence partners have the same view that there is information of value that may be garnered from social media and we are in the process of doing that as we speak. >> mr. bersin, why did dhs wait if there are three basic pilot projects we took 2014, to create these pilots?
12:42 pm
>> the activities with regard to social media have been conducted by the components, prince of the cas, mr. rodriguez is agency, palm and security investigation, rice and the cbp has conducted their activities. there was no headquarters overarching policy prohibiting that. to the contrary, these pilots have been going on under secretary johnson leadership and he has encouraged the components to actually-- >> why did we wait until 2014 to initiate these pilots? mr. rodriguez, could you help me on that? why did we wait till 2014 to create these pilot projects? >> i don't know. again, during my tenure-- >> can you bring the microphone closer? >> i am unable today to speak
12:43 pm
what occurred before. i certainly would be happy to get that information to the extent it's not privileged and get that before the committee. >> when can we get? we are getting used to hearing we don't have that information. >> i think for us here, the main point is we are doing it. one of the reasons-- i just don't know what occurred years before i got here. what we can say now is that we are doing it. we are doing it in an abundant manner and are looking to have it the useful for screening purposes and that seems to be the most important discussions. what happened three or four or five years ago i cannot speak to >> what are the result of what you are doing now? >> will, i think there is less there that is actually screening value than you would expect, at least in those small early samples. some of the things that we have
12:44 pm
seen have been more ambiguous than clear. there are challenges in terms of people using foreign alphabets to code and that's a capacity that will need to be developed. as everyone has absorbed, many of these communications as we have learned from the director may have applied in the san bernardino, situation are private communications, not openly open posts. those are challenges we have identified. that said, i think we all continue to believe there is a potential for there to be information of screening value of particularly as congressman lynch and you have absorbed and particularly high-risk environments. >> i think recent events have shown that there is probably significant significant important information that we can use from social media and we would hope that would continue and we would hope to get more answers and not to push back that this is something we don't
12:45 pm
know. we have to know that and when we hear and we saw in the video earlier the white house representative telling us that we are doing everything in our vetting process is secure and we see results that are horrendous take place like in san bernardino, we have a problem. i yield back. >> now will recognize the delman from california, mr. lieu, for five minutes. >> thank you and let me first think the panel for the public service. i have a question for mr. rodriguez, but first i want to make a statement. i am honored to be a us citizen and that is because you get amazing benefits of being a us citizen of the most amazing country in the world and when that constitution applies to you against your government, but for some time it does seem to be that the executive branch has been blurring the lines between us citizens and foreign nationals and some have it backwards let me give you three
12:46 pm
examples. 2011, the executive branch delivered late and i believe wrongfully executed an american citizen the a drone strike. the department of justice has now said at least four americans have been killed by us drone strikes for american citizens. the second example, the executive branch to the nsa has been seizing hundreds of millions of phone records of us citizens. they knew who we called, when we called, who called us, but ration of those calls and got so bad that congress had to stop the early this year. and prevent an essay from violating the fourth amendment rights of us citizens and then the third example, which is social media. there are reports, abc news says a secret policy blocks agents from looking at social media of folks seeking entering the us to the visa program and reports-- politico says secretary johnson
12:47 pm
believes that there are privacy reasons for why dhs is doing this. mr. rodriguez, you mentioned again the privacy reason. i just want to note the u.s. constitution does not apply to foreign nationals seeking entry into the united states. so, do not give foreign nationals seeking into the united states rice that the us citizens have. if you cheek a job in the public sector or in my office we will look at your social media and the response i have from you all today is, well, now you are doing three small pilot projects that is not an adequate response and my question to you is, you need to reverse that policy. in fact, if there is a secret policy and maybe if there is it, but at the very least you need to have a departmentwide policy to look at social media, not just three small pilot projects and i want to know why you can't
12:48 pm
starting tomorrow have a departmentwide policy doing this instead of having three small pilot projects? and. >> there is not now nor was there ever a secret policy privity use of social media. there needs to be a structure to these things. there needs to be a plan for doing these things and that is what we have been doing for many many months now. in fact, a third of the pilots and we are talking meson numbers, a third of the pilots is being applied to thousands of individuals. i won't go into detail on that because i don't want to tick people off as to what we might be looking at. i agree with you that us privacy structures applied to us citizens, not in the same way to foreign persons. there are numerous examples in the manner in which we receive people at ports of entry, what we do at our foreign posts that
12:49 pm
are evidence of that distinction, so i do not-- i'm not sure i accept the premise of somehow we are safeguarding the privacy of foreign nationals to any greater degree. however, there are legal concerns that do need to be-- >> we asked dhs earlier this week to give us a legal case or to prove in the constitution that says there is any legal concerns with looking odds anything related to a foreign national seeking entry in the united states and i don't know where these legal concerns come from and i don't understand the quote that secretary johnson has attributed to him saying there are legal concerns about scrutinizing web postings. what is that case you all are relying on? >> again, i am not the privacy law expert for purposes of this hearing. in fact, there are issues that we need to make sure are satisfied with respect to
12:50 pm
potentially treaty obligations that apply, with respect to our own laws that may apply, a variety of issues and we are exploring-- >> let me just suggest u.s. constitution does not extend privacy protection to foreign national seeking entry to the united states. need to not just have three pilot programs. it needs to be pilot seat-- policy of our government to look at social media and other information of a people seeking entry into the united states and with that i yield back. >> mr. lieu, i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article put out today, this is from msnbc. isa fox news and i'm siding msnbc. [laughter] >> fair and balanced. there enough.
12:51 pm
the title of this article, exclusive homeland security rejects vetting social media and included is a attachment supposedly from the united states to did-- citizenship and united states services and we are not vetted that, but in the spirit of getting to the bottom of this, i would ask unanimous consent to enter that in the record. now recognize the delman from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. is it your understanding of the presidents plans to bring 10000 refugees into the country this year? >> yes, sir. >> can you tell them their contacts payor what it cost per refugee per year to bring them here? >> i don't have a per refugee cost. the overall program, though, is when you add together the cost of the state of parma, department of homeland security and health and human services that provides assistant to help
12:52 pm
refugees once they are here is close to a billion dollars. >> i heard a number about 84000 per refugee. >> i have to double check that. >> what percentage of the 10000 refugees would be-- [inaudible] >> we are bringing people who are the most vulnerable, so we have only brought 2%-- so far, only 2% of the ones we brought, the syrians we brought our fighting age men traveling without any family, so it would be slightly-- it would be a higher percentage in terms of fighting age men with family, but the 2% number you may have heard come with single without family attachment or ties. >> i just hope next time america gets attacked about our fighting age men don't want to resettle somewhere else. hopefully they withstand five
12:53 pm
for our freedom. mr. chaffetz, you said about 20 million-- mr. bersin, and sorry. did i hear that about 400,000 over say? >> that is in the range of the estimate made, yes, sir. >> what are the repercussions for overseeing your visa? >> so, if-- it has to, one potentially legal and one in terms of your attempt to come back and to the country after using the visa. i indicated there is an immigration custom enforcement unit that tracks the overstays. there have been relatively few, but some prosecutions for overstays. there have been removal of people that have over straight and administratively the ported. >> out of 400,000, who have come
12:54 pm
here you have open 113 cases, so not much repercussion for breaking the law for overstaying your visa. >> the main section applied, sir, his inability to get back into the country depending on the facts of your particular over say. >> how many of the terrorists that perpetrated 911 had overstayed their visa? >> a number of them, sir. >> we need to do much better. the syrian refugees, how many of the syrian refugees have been arrested in other countries in 2015, and have been accused of supporting that islamic state? >> i'm not aware of that number. if we have that information, we can certainly-- >> probably actually don't really know, do we? probably can't get that information due to the lack of infrastructure in syria. >> i want to make sure i
12:55 pm
understand the question, this is individuals now in europe. is that your question? >> in europe, yes. >> i don't know and i doubt we would have that information. >> but, we will go ahead and bring 10000 syrian refugees into the country and president obama said we would do this, but yet even fbi director says there is no way we can set these people because we cannot access the syrian database, so wouldn't it make sense to halt this program until we can tell the american people that we can safely protect them? >> in addition to that passage by the fbi director that was played on tb earlier, the fbi director has also acknowledged that our vetting process is on extremely tough and thorough vetting process that involves multiple interviews, queries against multiple databases, so i don't think that was ever what the fbi director said.
12:56 pm
>> i think that's exactly what he said. he said we don't have access to any records because we don't have cooperation from syrian government, so we cannot adequately vet these people. >> there is considerable data that we use as i have repeated many times. in fact, there have been people who have been denied refugee status because of information that we found in law enforcement intelligence database as well as hundreds of people that have been placed on hold either because of what was in those databases or that in common nation with information discovered during interviews. in fact, that has been acknowledged by director combe be in a grin you can play one passage on tv that is not the totality of what director combe be as set about our screening process. >> i appreciate your confidence and if we miss just 1% that's 100 terrorists in a did not take that many in paris and it did not take that many in san bernardino. >> we now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> take you, mr. chairman. i want to follow up with what
12:57 pm
immediately preceding the discussion with you, ms. richard you are assistant secretary of the bureau of population refugees and immigration for the state department; right? is it fair to say you're intimately similar with the vetting process of the refugees coming to this country? >> [inaudible] >> would you turn your microphone on, please? >> i don't know the vetting process as intimately as mr. rodriguez because he oversees the people doing the vetting, but i am responsible for the overall programs. >> that's what i'm interested in. the overall program, because i think what a lot of people don't realize and you correct me if i am wrong about this, ms. richards, if you are someone off-line to be a refugee who will be resettled, relocated, you applied to the unhcr, the united nations high commission on refugees. am i correct on that?
12:58 pm
>> yes. >> and when you apply, you are in one of these migrant camps and you have your little kids with you and you don't know where you will turn a and you apply to the un h cr, you don't get to say what country you want to go to. am i correct in that? >> correct. e can express eight preference if you have family living in one of those areas, but you don't get to decide. >> you don't get to decide. >> and noticed-- most refugees do not get resettled. most eight in the country in which they fled. >> let's look at it from the shoes of someone who wants to do harm to the united states. if you are an isis terrorists anyone to sneak into the us, that would be the dumbest avenue you could take to apply for unhcr resettlement to the united states because you could end up in norway, after the 24 month vetting process.
12:59 pm
am i correct? >> i agree. it's not an efficient way for a would-be terrorist to enter the united states, but that does not mean we let down our guard because it would only take one bad guy to completely ruin the entire program and we love this program. this program does so much good for tens of thousands of people every year. >> sure and by the way the shooting in california, where those perpetrated by refugees? >> no, sir. no refugees have carried out terrorist activities in the united states. >> no refugees have carried out terrorist activities in the united states, so what i have been more concerned about is the visa program. i want to follow up. director rodriguez, fbi director james comey reported publicly that the agency had no incriminating information about the shooters in the san bernardino case. is that consistent with your understanding? >> that is what i have come to
1:00 pm
understand from director combe be. >> director rodriguez, an assistant secretary has also been publicly reported that both the state department and dhs followed all the vetting and background check policies and procedures in this case. is that also correct? >> yes, sir, it is. >> mr. bersin, the k-1 process begins when an american citizen petitions to bring their fiancé to the us. is that correct? ..
1:01 pm
not interviewed at a time. that's actually one of the planes that we are exploring right now. again the adjudicative purpose for the interview access point is limited. it is to determine whether the relationship exists and if it were satisfied on the information provided fact that
1:02 pm
should be granted. and again this is where we say very clearly we should not act like nothing is wrong here. i don't want to be giving as the congressman worries a happy talk. this is something we need to be talking about whether certain individuals need to be talking about at that stage. >> i do encourage you to work hard adding an interview in the process. secretary johnson is quoted if there were legal limits on the ability to do some background investigations i think that was really unfortunate for a phrase that he used but let's see if we can kind of demystified out a little bit. do you agree that noncitizens who are not in the united states who are not afforded any protections under the amendment? >> that's my understanding.
1:03 pm
>> u.s. attorney being modest, not only is that your understanding, it is the wall the fourth amendment doesn't apply to the citizens who are not here any more than the eighth amendment of the non-us citizens who were not here. would you agree that there is no legal bar to accessing data from the noncitizens who were not present in the united states
1:04 pm
the extent of trying to ascertain that the veracity. >> but you and i didn't just use polygraphs in the previous slide because we had doubts. sometimes it sends is the person to embrace the truth when it might be a threat that they will be pally graphed.
1:05 pm
you certainly can't admit it in court so it's not only the result but it's the threat of you may be polygraphs and sometimes provides people the incentive to either tell the truth or they need not apply in the first place. >> that can be one reaction from an individual and i'm not aware of any policy that would prevent that and i'm also not aware operation we at a cbp in any regular way. >> let me tell you where i find myself. in the series of words like extensive, thorough, careful, i've heard talk from the multiple come all the connection with the word of adding that it's all but it's all inside the word of adding.
1:06 pm
there was nothing in the system that we used that would pick that up. there was no data that we would turn into the actionable information to deny admission. there was one argument of there and we missed it, that is one set of corrective measures. there was nothing in her background about this administration says we missed or should have picked up on and yet there are still 14 dead people, so how does that make us feel better.
1:07 pm
if it weren't for the data in the system that it would be over relieved. the issue that you asked is factually was their data in the system by which we could tell that this risk exists into the answer to that is no. i think the inquiry that's being made today is a valid one. we need to look at is long and hard this long and hard in the utilization of the means and there is no policy in the dhs against the social -- >> nothing in the privacy policy that would bar the screening purpose. >> while it wouldn't because that wouldn't apply to the
1:08 pm
citizens. i want to tell you the dichotomy as i see it and have a choice. we can either tell the american people our processing systems are flawed and we have information that is otherwise available to let them deal with that or we can just tell our felicitous and if we miss nothing, we did everything we were supposed to do and there's still 14 in california so you need to get used to the risk. neither of those is acceptable i would argue to you. >> i haven't heard anyone that was involved in a law enforcement or the homeland security enterprise that would say that we need to strengthen our systems. we have been doing that continuously since 9/11. >> the time is expired. forgive me for noticing the trend of extending time, but i will yield back. >> sql. [laughter] we've all recognize the gentleman from new mexico.
1:09 pm
>> thank you mr. chair. everyone that is here today, thank you for being here. assistant secretary, i want to ask you about the report of the office that was issued by the visa if the council affairs at the state department. according to this report in 2014. the visa that has received significant attention recently are classified as they know on immigrant visa, is that correct >> is an unusual hybrid. we crush it as an immigrant case
1:10 pm
we do all of the work that we could do for the immigrant visa case for example they have to undergo a medical exam to show that there are no communicable diseases. we wouldn't do we put into that frame on immigrant. but when we actually issue the visa it is a non- immigrant visa because until that person has married to the petitioner and then apply for the adjustment to the legal permanent resident status, they don't have the right to remain in the united states after entering so they are not coming in on an immigrant visa but it's the immigrant visa unit that does all of the preparatory work. >> are we saying although it is classified, you're saying for the record they must go through everything through the complete process? >> right.
1:11 pm
>> how many non- immigrant visas we have in the united states or processing in your department and what are some of the other non- immigrant visa? >> examples are those that we issued in the foreign diplomat. they are on business or they might be coming for example. if i am coming in under the non- immigrant fiancé is there another step that happens. i have to have a non- immigrant so i come back and give you a marriage license in the
1:12 pm
additional screening. >> in most cases if they get married and remain in the united states and they have 90 days to do that we give them a one entry visa and they have 90 days to add their entry to marry or depart. most of them having married remain in the united states and therefore they get in touch with the director's colleagues to address the status and they would provide proof that they have married. we don't interview the spouse just the application for the fiancé on immigrant visa.
1:13 pm
my question to you, they've directed the state department to review. what is the review and when will it be completed and what is the objective, can you outline that, please? >> it is an interagency effort we are working very closely with and other parts of the government to take a look at every single element. we are examining have to see what more can we do there. then we have invented and transferred to the embassy. it is under the direction of my
1:14 pm
colleagues. >> my understanding is that we hope to be providing a review to the nsc in january. i'm going to recognize myself for questioning and then we will do one more democrat and then we will recess until approximately 11 a.m. or whenever the votes conclude. with that i will recognize myself. the state department is helping to prioritize the most vulnerable yet in syria, only 29 people were christians. i would think they are some of
1:15 pm
the most vulnerable people. less than 3% of those brought in representative lee 10% of the population. that's one reason that we have brought in terms of the iraqi refugees and the christians and minorities. >> i would appreciate if you get back to me on this. i would spend a half hour going through if i could. please get back on that question. >> we are bringing christians from syria. >> 29 in the whole year. >> they make up a smaller part of the refugees from syria. >> and that's the problem.
1:16 pm
the visa is for the variety of reasons including 9500 or the suspected links to terrorism of the 122,000 revoked how many of those people are still in the united states. it was -- >> you have no idea how many of those people in the united states of the revoked visas that you give those two. how many are still in the united states of america? >> i don't have that. >> the state department who gave the visa thought about it and got more information and decided we better revoked dot 9500.
1:17 pm
those that have that information -- >> when well i guess that information? >> if he -- we will provide that when it starts up again. is it a key indicator with the threat. it could be depending on the facts.
1:18 pm
it's been a disproportionate number, hasn't it? how quickly we forget about 9/11 it's not even in the top three priorities that the secretary of homeland security, that's what i have a problem with. this memo of november 20, 2014 where the secretary outlined the priorities for the deportation, category number two. and i want you to understand what i'm seeing at the end of the category. again this is in the top you're top are you ready for the removal but number two. these aliens should be removed unless there are factors indicating that it's not a threat to national security, border security or public safety. and should not therefore be an enforcement priority. i don't know how you come to that conclusion about your not a threat to public safety border
1:19 pm
security or national security. first of all they are here illegally. that should be enough in my book. but let me listen list of the offense of domestic violence, sexual abuse or exploitation, burglary, unlawful possession of a firearm, drug distribution and trafficking and driving under the influence. and you've got to be kidding me. do you think that is if a woman is raped black >> do i think that is terrorism? it is an egregious horrible crime. >> it is for that woman, it is for that family, and you don't deport them. how do you do that you give them an excuse to make a decision some poor officer there to say
1:20 pm
you know maybe they should go ahead and stay here in this country. we have more than 66,000 criminal aliens in your control and you let them go. you didn't deport them, you let them go. why do you do that? >> mr. chairman, the policy provides that if they are a threat to national security or border security or public safety that they are eligible. it's been a give me a scenario where if a woman is raped in a person is here illegally that they are not a threat to public safety. >> i didn't say that. >> that's what the memo said. >> they would be subject unless they are a threat to border security -- >> how are they not a threat to public safety? the >> if a woman is raped and perpetrator is convicted that is a felony and a serious crime. that is a top priority for
1:21 pm
removal. >> it's not the top priority. it's priority number two for the department of homeland security, so says the memo. >> that person would be removed. >> it says unless. >> johnson went out of his way to tell people if you commit rape in that situation if you commit a burglary don't necessarily. >> it is a removable offense. >> unless it's priority number two for the department of homeland security. i want some answers about that. i'm going to give you a copy to read, and i want to understand why you let 66,000 criminal aliens remain in the united
1:22 pm
states of america. that is a threat to the homeland and your resume and every american. those should be priorities. you had been in your possession and position and you let them go yet you did not deport them. >> the memo that you just referred to. >> i just wanted to make sure that we have it. can we get it quickly? >> i will now recognize the gentleman from new york. >> this is an important hearing. the chair and said how quickly we all forget. i want to thank all of the members of congress that are remembering 9/11 including in
1:23 pm
the omnibus that we will be voting on tomorrow. so, i think that that is a wonderful way to remember 9/11 by providing permanent home care to the heroes and heroines and survivors. we need to work together on this whole area. they didn't find her in the database but according to the report from the ig in 2015 from the department of homeland security,. they didn't identify 7300 people that have links to terrorism, and i find that very troubling.
1:24 pm
and according to this ig report, this happens because tsa wasn't authorized to receive full information from that time of the database that the database run by the national counterterrorism center. we have two main questions. one is if people are dangerous they have to figure out how to get them into the database. but it's extremely troubling that they are in the database given to them which happened in this particular case. so, i would like to ask can you please explain why tsa didn't have access to all the information and the tide database which would have kept 73 people out of the country that have links to terrorism. >> the 73 people referenced in the report were people that were credentialed to be in the
1:25 pm
critical infrastructure so of equal importance this was not a visa situation. subsequent investigations actually demonstrated the 73 were not known as suspected terrorists. the larger point that you make which is tsa access to the data, something under consideration itv and the policy consideration that access could be made and is certainly under consideration right now. >> it seems to me that you've got to have access to this if people don't have access to it and making decisions about who comes into the country. i mean, i think that is something that we can all agree on. we certainly want legitimate visitors that anyone on a terrorist watch list, you know, we shouldn't be granting access. so can you give me any reason why tsa shouldn't have access to say that it's under consideration that they have
1:26 pm
access why in the accessed why in the world would they not have access to this counterterrorism list when it's there to decide who comes in and who doesn't? >> at the it's a policy decision including tsa that doesn't have access to the data map. >> did they have to? who is starting to access? >> nobody would be authorized to receive that information directly from -- >> but they are not receiving it. >> at this moment, nobody as i indicated, it has been under the review and i believe that a decision will be made. >> and who will make that decision? the >> and agency process that will determine. >> who has the ultimate decision? >> alternately the secretary will work with his counterparts in the cabinet cabinet cabinet and a decision that will be made by the inter agency in the
1:27 pm
united states government. >> the interagency. >> at the end of the process. >> for the president of the united states. >> it would be in the process of the national security council headed by the ambassador. >> i would like the committee to send a letter at least opposite on expressing that this policy change should take place. >> which ntp has the final say on whether a visa applicant is approved to receive the data
1:28 pm
they issue the visa when it has cleared there are no objections and red lights so we will not issue over the objection of the partners. >> my time is up. >> we will go into recess and reconvened no sooner than five minutes after 11 and we will pick up from there. >> the last set of questions and answers have to do with the access to tie the data and i talked about the policy change that was underway.
1:29 pm
from time to time the policy change has to do with automated access of tsa to tie the data. responding to mr. wahlberg i indicated that the number of visa overstays that number was correct, but my staff corrected me and i apparently misheard this relates to both the program also all visas. there's approximately four to 500,000 overstays but when the reporter does come, i believe it is in route to the congress, it
1:30 pm
will indicate a visa overstay for the program that is considerably lower than the number i suggested in accurately in my testimony. thank you sir. >> i appreciate the clarification. now the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you very much. in your testimony, and your testimony, you talked about the various watch lists that were coordinated and maintained as a result of 9/11. can you talk about how someone gets on one of those watch lists? >> there is a formal watchlist in the united states following 9/11. there is an interagency process and any agency can nominate and there are standards that govern
1:31 pm
the movement of a name on to the terrorist screening database watchlist. >> does there have to be some level of proof based on suspicion? the >> the standard followed for most all cases is reasonable suspicion. there are placements based on a couple other factors that are smaller but for various organization or other reasons. but it's pretty easy to get somebody on the list. what about getting off the list if for some reason let's say i was on the list come how easy would it be to get off, and would i know?
1:32 pm
>> it is believed is the way that people typically know that they are on. if they are not permitted to fly abroad or in the united states, there is a redress process people can apply to be removed to ask to be removed. >> do you know how long that process typically takes? are we talking years or months? >> it depends on the redress application. >> and there are american citizens on the list. he has any idea about how many americans? >> the number of american citizens that are on the no-fly no fly list of the select list are very, very small fraction. >> but they are a substantial number. >> there is a -- there are less than .1% i'm told with regards to the no-fly list. >> i guess my concern with this is that there has been a lot of
1:33 pm
talk recently about using the watchlist for purposes other than they were intended for instant in determining whether or not americans are able to exercise their right under the second amendment. do you think that it is the list to be used outside of what they were designed for? >> i haven't heard that and i don't believe that it would be apples and oranges. >> i want to ask a quick question about the folks that are coming into this country for the visa. that's been in the counselor's division service, right? is that a lot of the entry level job that almost everybody at the state department has to start off with and do a stint in the counselor services section? the >> almost every officer will serve in the first was second to her. >> and how long typically what
1:34 pm
someone served in that position? >> two years. >> how many folks coming into the united states have been there for an extended period of time and have an extended level of experience? he testified they are adequately trained that everybody's first stint i would assume they don't choose to stay there. >> the people as they arrive at the post doing this as a first experience consular tour they are carefully monitored -- >> but how many stay? >> we come in in a cone. >> i wanted to ask when we are admitting refugees in with folks
1:35 pm
what level of coordination is there in that state, do we talk to the governor's or anybody in the state? i know the governor in texas who is none too pleased about some folks that are being resettled in texas. >> every governor, i think 49 of them have a state rescue coordinator that is involved in making sure that the governor's office works with and talks to the local groups. >> but they have nothing to stop it or any formal process for expressing concerns they are basically just informed. >> we insist that our local partners consist with local government officials including the state refugee coordinator from the governor's office, so they should be consulted. can you give me a definition of what consultant means i if you will give me an idea what that
1:36 pm
means. >> who is coming, where are they going, all that information. >> so basically -- >> the states don't have a lot of opportunity. thank you i yield back. >> now the gentleman from illinois. >> how long is the training process for the officers? >> the officers going out for the first time are taking a training course that is six weeks long at the institute here and then as i said after arriving at the post normally engaged in the process each post setup for assigning a more experienced officer to work with them for the first few months. also of course we have managers
1:37 pm
and the issuances and refusals of the less experienced officers are reviewed by more senior officers. based on what questions they asked, but they might have considered or pursued and so there is of course an ongoing training program as people are settling into the job. >> so approximately while the equivalent to those who give to basic training and then we send them to combat under the supervision of the more experienced leaders and if we can go to combat in that experience we should be able to trust the officers and have trained and are under supervision of experienced. these are people that have gone through a very rigorous
1:38 pm
competitive service many of them have worked in immigration or have been teachers or are in the military. >> even so they get the same amount in terms of the quantity of training as somebody they are sending into harms way. >> i believe we must do everything in our power to protect our country but we can do it without evolving into a demagoguery on the imaginary problem. we must consider any and all options to improve the security of the refugee screening process but let's remember they are fleeing the scene that we are fighting crisis and the brutal regime turning our backs on people who are being persecuted and killed betrays the nation's deeply held values and ideas and weakens national security and
1:39 pm
helping them recruit a new generation of terrorists through anti-american propaganda and as we've already discussed it already requires the collaboration of the vetting of seven separate homeland security departments and takes on an average of two years to complete it's incredibly rigorous and i would like to know are there other ways we can strengthen the refugee process because i think we should if there are that are there other ways we can strengthen this process? >> one way we have been starting to use piloting could be the use of social media research. there are other tools that we could use that i wouldn't feel comfortable discussing in a public setting but needless to
1:40 pm
say we are in a constant process of looking at how we reinforce our security and law-enforcement vetting across all lines of business, so i think that it's helpful to talk about refugees and also important that we recognize security tools are ones we need to think about using across all the lines of business. >> is this something you've are constantly reviewing when you have new cases you go back and look at other things that could be done? >> i take a tragedy of that portion leads to a lot of examination and soul-searching of how soul-searching account of the strengthen the system and we will never get to the point where the process ends. this requires continuous improvement and when we have an
1:41 pm
incentive for that portion yes we look very carefully at what should we have known, what can we know and then begin to address it. >> do you have a process in place that is in review of the process that results in further improvement for adjustment? >> there's a constant review for example the watch watch listing guidance and how do we manage these vetting processes. >> we now recognize the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you each of you for your testimony. i'm going to come to you. you are a smart guy yale, harvard, oxford, you look at the resume, you are a gifted attorney. as i look at all of that i am
1:42 pm
puzzled by a little bit of your opening testimony. tell me and let me quote you here because it says that the second major shaping influence is 98 or 99% of all travel in the united states is perfectly wall for and full and legitimate. how do you know that? >> the estimate comes when they make judgments about cargo into those assessments. >> following the estimate of those that come here with the visa you are saying between two to 1% come here for less than the purposes. >> if you apply to figure -- >> if you apply to one you have to apply it to all.
1:43 pm
>> you look at the 70,000 containers that come in -- >> so you are talking about trade. >> and also the million people a day. >> so we are talking about 20 million people who come here with the visa and perhaps overstay. >> of that, how many overstay? >> on the clarification that i need to come its way in the overstay report comes out the numbers i have seen suggested is a relatively small number of -- >> so you are talking about the internal document. >> that's correct. >> what is the number on the internal document? >> what's the number?
1:44 pm
you have a binder that has all kinds of research and as our pictures and biographies, said you have done good research. you knew i was going to ask this question. >> i'm not going to give you a number because there is a report in the per patient with a process to be followed. >> is the process for 20 years? person who pointed you promised to this congress in 2013, december, 2013 that he would be here so are you all still working on a report? i note you don't have enough time for me to explain why it happened but i take the criticism. i think it is a fair criticism. >> when will we get to the report? >> i believe that it's in process and the expectation is that it will be delivered to the
1:45 pm
congress in the next six months. >> so help me understand this we are supposed to believe you that you are vetting all the people coming here with unbelievable surety and it's going to take six months to just give me a number? let me quote you you said that 400,000 is in the range of the estimate made. that is an interesting -- it is in the range of the estimate made. >> 400 to 500,000 on the total overstay and that was the clear vacation that i asked for. >> for the answer to this, you said that there was potentially 1.6 million in 2011 and they said there was over a million in 2013.
1:46 pm
how did you make such good process it is only 500,000 now which is if you take the same numbers that means there could be as many as 4,000 people here doing unlawful thing is. >> the difficulty in the process we have for over 20 years is in fact there is the entire exit industry from the country to the first from the time that it is organized it did not build in the notion that we would screen the people on the way out. >> so you don't know who needs this country. >> i said the difficulty -- >> so you do know. >> we had a portion through the different mechanisms. yes we know a certain portion, those that come by air and leave by air.
1:47 pm
>> so you don't know. >> no. in the northern border we worked out in canada the entry and exit process where the entry into canada is communicated to us for the non-us citizens to adopt so for that portion we know. we also know the area's -- >> you are under sworn testimony. the last question do you know the number of people that leave the united states each and every ear? you are under sworn testimony. yes or no. >> we can give you a large portion of those but not all. >> now recognize the ranking member here you >> thank you very much. as i listen to this, it is very upsetting. it really is. one of these i will go to my grave remembering the situation
1:48 pm
there where people constantly told everybody things would be all right. when the rubber meets the road everything will be fine. but when it came time for the rubber to meet the road, we discovered there was no road. the chair man and i think when we look at secret service, we look at a number of situations where things are not as they appear to be and the thing is it depends on a lot of these things. so i guess what i'm trying to figure out is what did we learn. we can go through this all day but i'm not going to get to the bottom of something that you said about how we present and what we are doing now to make sure. first of all, did we learn anything from the san bernardino incident, and if we did, what
1:49 pm
did we learn, and what are we going to do about it and what are we doing about it? if you tell me that we learned nothing that's okay you can do that or if you tell me we learned something, but i need to know was i am a firm really fast -- a firm believer. what was it, talk to me. >> by the way let me tell you something, that six-month thing you can do better than that. we need to get the information faster than that. but go ahead. i was putting an outer limit. >> we need to bring in the limit for little bit. >> as i indicated the fourth major influences what the secretary johnson and the president has been indicating
1:50 pm
that the threat is evolving and in fact right now we are dealing with something that is online the active shooter in the context of the lone wolf or the lone wolf inspired by the propaganda that is online. and i think what we learned is that it's not in the system and many of the questions that have been pursued and the increase this committee increased this committee is making about how far can we go with regards to social media and how far can we go into people's casebooks and private chats at all issues that are legitimate need to be discussed. >> idealistically, what would you do if you had the resources today that we wouldn't have thought about were done prior to the incident
1:51 pm
>> to get where we are going if we are going anywhere. >> with regards to the legal authority i think all those matters need to be looked at. there are restrictions and for example it doesn't prohibit the use of the social media for the screening purposes. the other purpose are the other civil liberties protections that state would violate the values to go there but that is the debate that i take. >> we are half watching the situation in the sense that we are looking at it to see what lessons we've learned. there are some lessons we've
1:52 pm
learned. the question is can we find the rebel and upon the social media something we have been building and continue to build and we have been focusing primarily on the refugee setting and we are going to be looking at also using it in the non- refugee settings as well. it's also a question of how, when and who we interview because all of them need to be used together so one of the questions here is to be need to be doing things differently, more or less in the interview setting that is something that we are digging into as a part of our interagency collaborative process. >> following up on the question comment did they submit a request for all of the information in the database? >> as i said mr. cummings, they
1:53 pm
have access right now. the issue is to give them automated access and the into the belief that decision will be made in the next six months. >> has the request been made? of >> yes. >> and you said within six months? it is in the near future. >> we all should be concerned about this the steering of information is that a problem? i found in the agencies somebody has the mission over here and over there is that the problem? >> that was the case before 9/11 and the testimony of your witnesses here today we don't have have the silo in regards to the vetting process.
1:54 pm
there are others to be sure but not with regards to the extremes of david a to make the a judgment about whether or not a person is a high or low risk traveler. >> who doesn't have access to that database, tsa doesn't have access to it. are there other groups that don't have access to it? the visa waiver people do they not have access, who doesn't have access to that base? the it comes into the terrorist screening database and the issue
1:55 pm
on tsa is doing its credentialing we want them to have access on an automated basis so that they can get flags and that's the issue at stake right now. i now recognize the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. south carolina. >> thank you mr. chair. ms. richards, we had the chance to meet before coming you and i met with the congressmen to talk about the resettlement program and the staff worked together closely on that and i appreciate your participation. we found out yesterday in the media that your group has placed some cerium refugees this month in south carolina. it isn't specific to these folks but our governor had reached out
1:56 pm
to you and asked you not to do this and we had met previously you said one of the things that your organization considers is whether they are going into areas where you deal they would be welcomed to the point that they would be easier to assimilate and i would suggest maybe the governor's letter to you might send a message that now is not the right time so why would you do it anyway and why did you tell the governor you were going to do it? >> i didn't know we sent a couple. how is it possible that happened without you knowing about it? how many meetings have you had with our staff? how many delegations have you met within the last year? >> lots.
1:57 pm
i will find out and get right back to you. the program is continuing and this is all legal of course. >> we know you have the right to do it and you have been very candid in the position to the governors don't have the right to stop it and that's the law but it's not the legal standard that you set out to hit. you try to put them in places they will be welcomed since easier for them to assimilate. >> i suspect the couple that has gone to south south south carolina is welcome there as well but i would like to know -- >> i would hope very much they are welcomed in south carolina and knowing what i know about my here's where we are. we are in the middle of the debate for your vetting process. we have the fbi director saying that while they are good, they are not perfect and can't
1:58 pm
survive everybody that comes in is safe and not a national security threat. we had a bill that we voted on in the house and a veto majority to cause the resettlement program. this issue gets a lot of attention. the folks in the neighborhood will find out who they are and i have people that look differently at those refugees than they would otherwise and in the back of their mind they will always wonder if it's the two that cost to the system. they tell us it is not safe. doesn't it make it more difficult for the refugees to assimilate if we haven't perfected the vetting process? >> we have a very strong vetting process. >> he just said that this is an evolving threat of changing the
1:59 pm
way you do business. have you changed the way that you've done venting in the last six months? >> we are going over it in a very active way, not because -- >> have you changed the way that you -- >> to make it even better. >> have you changed anything since the san bernardino? >> there were no refugees involved in san bernardino. >> i get back but didn't we just have a conversation about silos and aren't we going to learn something about the visa process and apply to the refugee process, are you looking at social media? >> you are looking at the social media? the >> we are using it 100%. we've been piloting the use and we are in the middle of the third pilot. we talked about the lessons we learned from that and how they will be able to apply it respectively but yes, we are building the capacity.
2:00 pm
>> and there is no way to do with the placed into the process or not. the process is a very long and rigorous one so i don't do what they were interviewed and -- >> i apologize i'm running out of time. folks on your side of the people and oversight of table and oversight of people recognize the vetting process could be better. i think if we are really interested in having a viable refugee program that allows people to resettle and integrate and assimilate, that process has to be the very best that it can be and the folks back home are entitled to that as citizens to know that if you're going to place citizens in the community, which is what you've done over our objections, they are entitled to know that you have done everything possible too sure it is safe to do so. and all i know right now is that
2:01 pm
the camp told them that so i will ask you to do what we have been unable to do what is lately which is paused the process until you can give that guarantee and tell us the folks back home are safe and with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentlewoman from the virgin islands for five minutes. >> thank you mr. ranking member and witnesses for being here today. i just thought of several questions related to a hearing that went on last week about a no-fly list. it's our understanding that page also list from the terrorist screening database is maintained by the fbi and that of the no-fly list contains a small subset of names who are prevented from boarding an aircraft were flying into, thrown it over the united states. assistant secretary, according to secretary, according to the fbi's frequently asked questions
2:02 pm
i'm going to close here. an individual may be placed on the no-fly list there must be credible information that demonstrates the individual poses a threat of committing a violent act of terrorism with respect to civil aviation, homeland, the united states interest located abroad or it's operationally capable of doing so. ..
2:03 pm
>> a person involveed in a criminal case investigation. every case comes on its all four points. it depends on the facts, but there's many kinds of data that would suggest that this is a very, very high-risk person that we don't want to take a chance with. >> okay, thank you. >> i know it's almost unfair since the fbi is not here. >> can you explain what the role of social media has in posting the no-fly list? >> i cannot speak to that in terms of investigative rules to determine those facts, ma'am? >> why can't you speak to that? >> i'm not superviseed to talk about activity.
2:04 pm
>> what information does it play for other visa applications for the no-fly list? >> as far as visa process when the vice counsel is begining to interview somebody at the window they have a lot of information about that person. some of it came from the applicant itself. it's information that's on the application. some comes from the screen that's been done. we know, for example, if it's an individual that's traveled to the united states. a photo taken. we know that they've traveled. we have a background of information of things that we can ask people about. the line of questioning that's going to be used if we're
2:05 pm
interested because they have close family members in the state, then we are going to be pursueing that. if we are just interested, it'll fend on the individual. it happens that officer comes through audition that if everything is being said is true, then he or she is comfortable aproveing that visa, but they want to confirm some of that information. everyone has a fraud officer or office and they often use social media. >> so the social media component does not come back until the case is flag and then at that point the fraud office will use that? >> at this point that is when we typically might use social media as one of the ways.
2:06 pm
for example, if someone really works at a particular place we might have local staff call. as far as review following atack on san bernardino, which i said is looking at the k-1 process, which is applicable to what we do, the agency -- >> i guess i'm trying to pinpoint. i'm sorry, i don't have a lot of time and i'm an inpatient person, anyway. in what part of the process does it come in as to whether or not the information that's been given is correct or does it come to the officer when the individual steps to that screen, it happens if there's a question about them and goes to fraud component; is that correct?
2:07 pm
>> that's exactly right. either the officer is fully satisfyed or decided to refuse the case and isn't going to waste doing more research or as at a point where it's willing to issue but once confirmed data and social media is one of the tools that we use in the process of confirming information that's been given to us. >> okay, thank you. >> we now recognize the gentleman of north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. christians are terrorize in camps. is it true that christians are underrepresented because of their risks of being atacked from nonrefugee camps? >> we are concerned about
2:08 pm
christian refugees. most of them are not in the middle east. we set a priority if they've in danger. >> you set a priority? did i hear you say earlier that christians are not fleeing syria because they feel safe? >> no, 4% -- >> can you told because i would like to play that back because that's i'm pretty sure that you said. please give us back on that question. >> we are bringing christians from syria. >> they are underrepresented because they make a mall percentage of the refugees from syria. >> that's not the problem. >> i'm moveing on. >> because they feel safe. how many christians have we brought into in the last five years? i have a question n the last five years how many christians have we brought in? >> 4%. >> you brought in 53.
2:09 pm
you tell me that's 4%. according to numbers not hard no find we can see cnn and wikipedia. 2 million christians. according to pope francis he calls it geneside. you know what isis does to these ladies? how do you know they're christians? what's the process? >> we had just checked the number of 4% total syrians, 1 # have been christians or other minority. we agree with you 100% that these people should be given a chance of resettlement. >> would you like me to retrack
2:10 pm
that? some christians, how many is some? >> 10% was christians. >> around 2 million. >> we are seeing less than 10% coming out. >> 200,000. >> why is this? because a higher percentage of them support assad and feel safer with him there. the ones that chose to come out, those are the people that we want to help. >> i want to yield the remaining of my time. >> i want to make sure we disabuse some folks with respect to current gun laws. mr. rodríguez, would you agree with me that it is currently against the law for somebody who
2:11 pm
crosses the border to possess firearm? >> my recollection is that, yes, that would be -- >> it is sometimes unfair to put pop quizzes to folks that haven't done something in a while. you cannot legally purchase or possess a firearm. if you have overstayed a visa, you cannot legally possess a firearm. in fact, only with visa, limited circumstances where you can possess a firearm. all those lists made available to federally licensed dealers to
2:12 pm
make sure they don't sell to those prohibited people. >> i'm just not familiar with the atf process with regard to that. i know that -- i don't believe dhs circulates those lists. >> well, this is -- this is the frustration that i face. is i listen to an administration call for additional gun laws. they want additional gun control in the wake of almost every tragedy. that's the very first place they run and forces me to ask, i wonder how we are doing with the current gun laws that we have. i'm not going to ask you for the statistics because i'm not going to tell you that i was going to, but ill encourage you both as former prosecutors to go back and look at statistics from the department of justice on how
2:13 pm
many persecutions exist for current gun law violations in all those three categories. if we are going to create a list, by the way, no due process, watch list, at the minimum you ought to give the visa overstays. we already know. if there's going to be a list given to ffl's, i would think it would be the visa overstays list. maybe we can meet privately and find out what you've learned. with that, i would yield back. >> the gentleman yields back.
2:14 pm
mr. connolly, for five minutes. >> let me ask you about the line of questioning that somehow applys we ought to prioritize a particular religious group over all others. would that be constitutional? >> well, relateed to refugees, mr. connolly, one of the ways that someone can determine to be a refugees is if they've been persecuteed from religion. it doesn't matter what the religion but if it's a reason for being persecuteed they can qualify. >> that's not my question and i don't think that was the question being asked. are we constitutionally
2:15 pm
permited, is that constitutional, do you have the authority to do that. >> you're going to look at the refugee status irrespective of religion. >> i'm comfortable with that. >> because that's what refugee programs are designed to do. we are trying to help people that suffer violence, discrimination and extremist and provide a safe haven and after all, it's not a huge program, total refugees? >> proposing to go to 85,000. >> have i got it right that it's
2:16 pm
under 3,000 in the last year? >> 2,400 total in the last four years. >> four years? >> yeah. >> why is that such a small number given the fact that there's 4 and a half million syrian refugees? >> part of the reason is that the first response should not be to resettle people, instead to make sure they are safe where they are gotten to and to see request the crisis has resolveed and go back home. however, as time went on, it became clear that for some of the syrian refugees there would be no going home again, they had seen terrible things happen to tpaepls and for the most vulnerable people who really can't make it on their own and the citys and the towns in the middle east in which they fled or the camps that they may be liveing in, we have a program to offer resettlement in other count reus and the -- countries.
2:17 pm
>> is that usually long? >> we are being careful. >> if you flee and the army is going to shell your village or count, you may have to leave with what's on your back. >> the surpriseing thing to me and colleagues can talk about this that many syrian do have documents, but documents are not the only piece of evidence that make the case. it's a multilayered review. >> all right.
2:18 pm
mr. rodríguez, i think this question is to you. i know you covered the use of social media. we have a pilot program. i guess my question would be broader. in the private sector, people go to public social media sites to -- as part of a screening process. why wouldn't we do that routinely, whether it be refugee status, visa, visa statuss and so forth? why wouldn't we do that just like we do any other background document because it's part of landscape now? >> that may be where we end up. obviously in many of our conversations when we talk about individuals coming from
2:19 pm
countries. those seem to be the areas where they primarily focus. i think the question is going to be what ends up being the value and, in fact, there is value, if the work shows that there is value, we may well end up in the place where you describe. that is what we have been evaluating for months now. we are certainly increasing the scope of our pilots, so it may well be that the point that you make turns out to be correct. >> i guess i'm a little puzzled somebody from public sector and management experience. i mean, clearly the private sector sees the value in using it as part of the background check when they are hireing or sceneing, why wouldn't we do that in this case?
2:20 pm
and then i would yield back my time. >> i personally believe that we will discover information of value. i think what is also going to happen the people go under ground and will cease to use them certainly in a public environment. >> thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask this question the other day and, in fact, there were many, many questions as you heard today that she was unable to answer that ought to be rather basic questions so i want to ask you, do you have any idea how many passports are reported stolen each year? >> i'm pauseing congressman because i know that as the former vice president of
2:21 pm
interpol, i have a how many of how many there are. i would defer ms. bond. >> i am going to find out right now. ii did not bring that with me. >> what about nonu.s. passports? do you have any reason to know that number? >> yes, we can go to interpol and ask them for that. that's not data that the government maintains. if you could get those for me as well. whether you or mr. rodríguez with that awareness that we don't know, i would think that some of you know how many passports are stolen, it's kind of what this whole whaering --
2:22 pm
hearing is about and we want to know the problem. what is the standard procedure when a passport is stolen or missing, what, if anything, is done we do to make sure it's not fraudulently picked up and used? >> go ahead. >> when it's reported lost or stolen we deactiveate it. you wouldn't be able to travel with it or board a plane with it and we notify interpol. what about a passport in the world. are we notified in anyway? >> this would be on the veting. when sometimes comes to the port of entry or actually applys to the program presents the passport, that part of the done, vetting would be the stolen, lost, travel database of
2:23 pm
interpol and you would then be told if there were an alert that database would be made. >> is there a country that does not report this type of information? >> with respect to what we currently know, there's not a penalty and, in fact, that's one of the problems we have in terms of international information shareing. >> how do we know that those passports that have been stolen are being reported to interpol. >> we have as part of visa waiver program with 38 country that that's a requirement -- >> 38 count reus, if they do not report that information? >> they would then be subject to being suspended or being put on provisional status in the visa waiver program.
2:24 pm
>> so there is a penalty? >> yes, sir. >> is that automatic? >> no, sir. >> does it have to go to the procedure quickly? >> yes, it's the monitoring visa waiver program that representative miller's bill would actually be shortened to a one-year period. >> okay. let me ask this, what about be it syrian refugees or let's just use the syrian refugees who are being resettled in europe. are they able to travel to the united states to the visa waiver program? >> no, they are not. >> then let me go back. i'm glad to hear that. let me go back, mr. rodríguez, to the social media question. did i hear you correctly a moment ago that an applicant,
2:25 pm
social media, profile is now part of the screening process. we are piloting with certain groups, the size of the groups are increasing. i don't want to leave an impression that that has become a comprehensive part of what we do. we are building as we speak. >> could you discuss the lessons that have been learned as piloted program. getting info from social media working? >> so far the information that we have seen in the pilots has been ambiguous rather than conclusive about an individual's intent and it shows the importance, however we proceed in the social media use that it really be thought of in the context of all the tools that we use to screen people that this be thought about as a holistic process and intelligence
2:26 pm
databases, further investigation and inquirey as the case might be appropriate. right now the things that we have seen are relatively ambiguous, they would not necessarily lead you to conclude that the individual would trigger and under laws they would require further inquirey. >> mr. chairman, forgive me. i do have an answer. how many u.s. passports are reported lost and stolen, 300,000 passports are reported lost or stolen and 20,000 cards are used for people that are going across land borders. >> 3,000 u.s. citizen passports? >> exactly. also perhaps of interest that when we are add skwrud --
2:27 pm
adjudicating. >> thank you, i appreciate the clarification. ms. kelly is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the 9/11 recognition to work with other count reus and prevent the entry of terrorists without a major effort to collaborate with other governments, we should do more to exchange terrorist information with trusted alloys and raise u.s. and global borders to travel and border crossing over medium and extensive cooperation. assistant secretary bond, how are we doing with the process?
2:28 pm
>> international information shareing relates to that -- what i call the second major influence on the vetting process . we need to share the information with our foreign partners. we do that, for example, long way to go, the visa waiver program with regard to 38 countries in the waiver program, they are required by congressional statute to provide information regarding suspecting terrorists and preventing and combating serious crime. part of secretary johnson's enhancements were introduced in the summer on the visa waiver program actually now will embody
2:29 pm
the requirement, legal requirement that the countries that do not respond under the agreements, that there would be sanctions under the visa waiver programs. one of the challenges is we do not have the information sharing. that's why the administration led by secretary johnson in the case went to the un and sought under un security council resolution 128, the idea that we need to be sharing information about foreign terrorist fighters in ways that we had not been. the point is well taken, ma'am. >> and how is it accepted? do you see that there's going to be an improvement? >> there will be an improvement, i suspect to the extent that countries that want very much the benefits including ourselves of the visa waiver program will understand that this is not


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on