the boss next to the person you want information from? >> well, again -- >> is it appropriate for the inspector general came out in the interview that our staff has done the oversight committee staff has done, appropriate to have her collect the data to give it to? inspector general? >> i'm not familiar with -- >> if that happened, is it appropriate? >> i'm not going to speculate. >> let me ask another thing because this did happen, mr. chairman, last question. so is it appropriate when the inspector general is doing his investigation, doing his audit, to give information to the very people he's invest gaiting in the course of the investigation and not share that same information with the oversight committee? specifically, may 30th of last year, the inspector general told doug schulman that the terms tea

party, patriot, and 912 were used to put them on a list. they were told that was op the list a year ago. four days later, he told me, general counsel, treasury, the same information but didn't share that with the committee. they have oversight over the inspector generals and agents did not share that with us. is that how it should work? >> again, you're talking about circumstances with which i'm not familiar. each investigation is different. i can't comment on what was appropriate. the investigation without knowing and going through the facts. >> if i could, mr. chairman, and i'll stop. that's the point. you've had a month now to investigate. this is been thee biggest story in the country, and you can't tell me who the lead investigator is? you can't tell the actions the inspector general took which are not typically how investigations are done, you can't sigh if that's appropriate? it's not speculation. this is what happened. you can't say how many agents are assigned to the most important news story, maybe the

most -- >> time expired. the directer will be allowed to answer the question, and if he can't answer it today, we would definitely expect he answer it in writing to us as promptly as possible. >> happy to take questions in writing, sir. >> [inaudible] >> the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. >> thank you, mr. chairman chair, and thank you, mr. director, for your service and for being here today. i happen to agree with those that greater transparency and beater data about requests that government entities are making to internet companies and providers will help inform the discussion that we're having about how to balance legitimate national security needs with privacy rights. i understand it was a issue earlier that google sent a letter to you and attorney holder earlier this week. i'm asked it's permitted to provide reports the number of fisa national security requests

received as well as their scope, and i wondered if you could share with us what your responses to that request. >> that's looked at by justice at this point. >> okay. then earlier this year, google did work with the department of justice and broad strokes the national security letters google receives, and did disclose sures of the numbers hurt national security? >> i'll hypothesize without answer particularly. if you had such figures out there, would not someone who wanted secure communications make a decision as a result of the information? as to what communications, capability they use, so basically, there are issues that need to be discussed in the course of deciding what needs to

be declassified. i think most of us in the government would love to be able to disclose war because it's more understandable to persons, but you have values of trying to protect the country and trying to protect information that enables us to identify and intercept terrorists never to thwart attacks. that's the conflict. >> thank you. the committee's currently also considering reform of the electronic's communication privacy act, and as you know, the senate committee recently reported reform legislation out of committee. members on both sides of the aisle agree that we failed toed modernize the law to maintain reasonable expectations of privacy, especially in the digital age. for routine criminal investigations, i believe law enforcement should use the same standards to search inboxes they use to search files and letters in your home, but our current

outdated law allows police to provide only a subpoena issued without a judge's approval to force service providers to turn over e-mails that have been opened or more than six months old. they are considering legislation that requires government entities to get a warrant before having it, and the department of justice and holder the privacy act failed to keep up with the development of technology, and i wanted to know if you agree it's time to reform the laws to include a warrant standard for stored content. >> i would agree that it's time to relook at these laws given the communications in terms of what the impact on it would have on particular requirements and situations, wait to see what is propose. >> if i have a physical letter, a piece of paper, and -- it's

not the same standard. >> pleased to get back by regular letter or e-mail. >> and in terms of broader reform, in terms of keeping up, do you have recommendations on other reforms that you think we have to look at because the way that folks have community kateed now is very different than the past of chat and other forms? clearly, our laws have not kept up with the changes in technology, and do you have an opinion or ideas of how you want legislation formed there? >> we'll get back to you on that with whatever ideas we have. i think there needs to be reform and particular standards to get particular documents, but it should be done, in my mind, dependent on the atritts of privacy necessary for a particular means of communication or data relating

to communication. if you raise a standard too high, we then do not get basic information to identify terrorists to the point to take the additional investigative steps, identify the subscriber, once we identify the subscriber, identify others in that network. if we, as a result of that level find they are there, get a wiretap. we tend to confuse that which is covered by the fourth amendment and that not covered by the fourth amendment, and so as when one drafts the legislation, my belief is that ought to be kept in mind. >> thank you, and thank you, mr chairman, i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gent p woman and recognizes the gentleman from utah. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and to the director, thank you. you made yourself regularly available to the committee, and as a member, it's helpful, and we appreciate it, and appreciate your service. i want to talk a little bit about a geolocation, meta data,

and the jones case, a supreme court ruling 9-0 that a gps device on a vehicle for an extended period of time is an unreasonable search. it's defined as using a gps device or triang giewlation to tell the specific whereabouts of where a particular phone is. could you help me define what meta data is? what we see in the news is the meta data is is from where they are calling and hoping they call. what else is in the so-called meta data category. >> well, in the case of e-mails, it's information that i think they consider the -- >> what about -- >> information, not the subject line, for instance, that would not be meta data. in terms of the telephone, that's what you arctic latedded principally. >> would it include geolocation

information? >> that's a question i have to get back on. i have not thought about that. >> commit submitted in advance questions we were going to ask here today in part so i could have a dialogue with you. we were good at providing questions we were going to ask. with all do respect, sir, you're the director of the fbi, you've been there for 12 years, you had to have think post jones what are the implications of the jones case, what is geolocation, and how does it apply? >> absolutely. we have been there in the jones case, taken -- the jones case can be applied to a number of ways we utilize geolocation, and each of these different ways, we have taken most conservative approaches because you don't know what is going to be the prodigy of jones. whether it's meta data, i shouldn't do it off the top of my head, but i have to be

certain i look at that one. >> is there a data base of geolocation information warehoused by the federal government? >> not that i'm aware of. >> if you -- post jones, there's been guidance given by the department of justice to the fbi. i would love to see that information and i've seen two unclassified documents through freedom of information agent. is that something you can share with this committee? >> i have to look at that, but if it's unclassified, internal, i have to look at that. >> all right. i guess what i have a problem is this phone right here, the federal government has no problem following this phone, who i call, if i call my 12-year-old daughter, telephone, whatever i called her on, how long i had, but the geolocation is something that we -- i have a bill that i sponsored that would

basically categorize geolocation as content opposed to meta data. if you're going to follow what this telephone number is, where with it is, is that or is that not content? >> yeah, i think that's -- that's a very difficult question, and i want to think about it. it can be meta data or content. depends op the circumstances. >> is there a data base that anybody knows of that -- >> i don't know of a data base that has that specifically addressed in geolocation apart from everything else and other investigation activity that's a geolocation data base. >> post jones, does the fbi believe that there should be a lower or differed standard for law enforcement to access geolocation information from smart phones or other mobile devices than the standard for

attaching tracking devices under jones? >> i have to get back to you on that. i apologize. you gave the questions, and i did not get briefed on. it's my own fault for getting briefed on the questions so i'm better able to answer it. >> i appreciate. mr. chairman, it's terribly disappointing to come to this point, talk about something that's in the headlines of every newscast, i gave the questions in advance. >> and they noted i would be asked them, i might add. it's my fault. >> your staff did great work, i guess, but it's terribly frustrating sir. you're the head of the fbi, directer of the fbi. this is not -- this is an important discussion and dialogue, and i know i won't get an answer. that's the frustration. >> i will communicate with you after i had a chance to review the questions you had and answers you need. >> what's a reasonable time frame for me to start to call foul and say, hey, where's the information? i appreciate it. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman, and we will reenforce our urging that

the questions be answered as properly and, in this case, a meeting take place with the gentleman from utah. he has a very good issue that needs to have your input. the care now recognizes the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you the distinguishedded chair, and i also thank the directer for your presence here today, and, certainly, for your it service o this great country. edward snowden has been characterized by many as by some whose angsts have been called courageous or heroic. it's not my place to characterize one way oar another. a court of law assists in coming to the cop collusion at to what took place in accordance or violation of the laws, but it is clear that he has become a lightninged rod that's sparked what i think is a very important debate in this country that we

in the congress should have. as to the proper ambulance between legitimately held security concerns and concerns for privacy and liberty, which are essential to the preservation of our democracy, and so in that spirit, i wanted to get a sense of some of the particulars to the extent that you can discuss them in open committee hearing related to the recent 2 # 15 acquisition of information connected to the verizon meta data. now, presumably, that was acquired based on the cop -- conclusion by yourself, the fbi, the department of justice, other relevant actors that the meta data for all verizon customers in the united states of america and beyond for three month

period was relevant to a counterterrorism investigation or foreign intelligence acquisition; is that correct? >> if you're talking about the relevance in the mining of relevance, i really have to defer you to the fisa court, but, yes, an order was issued, and i might add, just one piece of the order, there's other aspects of it, that deemed that this information that is -- that was accumulateed, satisfied to the relevant standard in the statute. >> right. in order for the fbi to come to the conclusion it can legitimately pursue the information, i presume, that you have to conclude it's relevant information; is that right? >> yes, sir. for access to this information is very, very limited. there has to be a showing of

reasonable articulate suspicion that the number you are seeking to search for is associated with terrorism, and there a very limited search of the data that is done to answer that particular question, and that process satisfies the relevant standard under the fisa court. >> now, once you pursue information based on that reasonable suspicion standard, what is the process for attempting to inquire content information connected to that meta data presumably on the forward looking basis? >> well, if you want additional information relating to that particular telephone number, you get additional legal process. for instance, subscriber information. if you ultimately wanted to obtain a wire interception, additional legal processes that you have to go through. >> not only the general relevant standard, is it fair to say it's the fbi's position that this

type of meta data information should also be made available pursuant to a court decision if it sought connection to other service providers beyond verizon? >> i can't talk to the specifics of the program. >> okay. is there anything you can say relating to why verizon was deemed for verizon users deemed particularly relevant in such a broad way as it relates to every single user over a three month period of time across the country in more than 300 million people? >> well, again, it goes into the details of the program that i can't get into in open session. i don't know where they got into this when they had -- when you had the classified section on tuesday, but open session would be difficult for me to respond. >> okay. thank you. i respect that. switching topics. in terms of the sequesteration

impact it's had on the fbi, recently, i think the fbi increased efforts connected to illegal piracy in the intellectual privacy space. >> yes. >> that's an important step taken, piracy impacts our commerce and economy and increasingly significant ways. are those fbi efforts impacted in any adverse way connected to your increase enforcement efforts in the intellectual property space? >> i don't think this year. next year they will be. they will be impacted. >> they have been impacted this calendar year? >> we'll have across the board, my expectation is we have to consider dramatic and drastic reductions across the board. >> time of the gentleman expired. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm way over here, director. i want to talk about constituent from houston, texas, named katherine. in july of 2010, she and her husband, business ordinary persons, started two groups, a nonprofit, hoping to be a nonprofit, true the vote, and key street patriots. december of 2010, the fbi domestic terrorism unit inquired about their attendees. january of 2011, the fbi domestic terrorism unit inquired about one of their attendees. january 2011, katherine of the enterprises audited for 2008 and 2009. january of 2011, true the vote, irs questions their nonprofit application. that was the first round. march of 2011, the irs

questions -- excuse me, may of 2011, king street patriots were visited by rather members of king street patriots went to the fbi after their request about questions, how are they doing anything you need to tell us? a report. october 2011, through the vote, irs questioned their application. they wanted to know who their facebook people were, all of their tweets, who they were tweeting to, personal knowledge of their family, every place they'd ever spoken -- this is katherine -- every place she is intends to speak, who they were speaking to, the names of the participants, the copies of transcripts, everywhere they intended to speak, asked about p 300 questions, including who is doing the training, what is the background of the trainers, and they asked who your lawyers were and the background of the lawyers that represented them

and the qualification of the lawyers, ect.. i will furnish you the 300 questions, mr. director. three more visits by mail or by rather phone by the fbi, june, november, and december to the king street patriots, and then the irs in february of 2012 questions the nonprofit status again through the vote, the third round, and at the time, i sent the department of justice an inquiry saying is this group, these people, urn investigation for criminal offenses. i get a letter back from the justice department that says they are not under criminal investigation, but it continues. they were visited later by the atf. they were visited by osha. they were visited by tceq. they were visitedded by the irs, fourth round. all of these irs questions are coming from cincinnati, and they

get, finally, another question from the irs from utah. that was in march of this year. april of this year, here comes the atf again. another unscheduled visit to their business. now, i've read the civil rights law. it's important, and you have a right in the fbi to enforce civil rights violations. the way i understand the law, you can't target a group because of their beliefs. the irs already said -- some people in the irs, said they already targeted certain tea party groups because they were tea party groups. my question without details, my question in a hypothetical case, irs targeting groups with information you saw they inquired about, ironically, all inquiring about a group for over several years, does that appear

to be something -- if a complaint filed with the fbi, the fbi would investigation and a civil rights violation. >> that's right. >> it would be part of the ongoing agent vaition, and the ongoing investigation, i should say of the circumstances relating to the irs. that was visited these individuals, and i will go back and look at the predication for that particular visit ourselves to follow-up on that aspect of it to the extent that these persons were paid visits by the bureau. >> all right. thank you, mr. director. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

director i thank you for the service to the country both in the military, as a prosecutor, and as a law enforcement officer. three areas, starting with the aft because it states in part there's probably cause to believe there's a violation of the espionage act, and this is what i focus on, aider and abetter or a coconspirator. if the standard is probable cause, why in the world would they add the phrase at the very least if they were not contemplating a prosecution? >> i don't know why they added those. >> well, you were very distinguishedded prosecutor. i was not at all distinguished, but i was a prosecutor. i don't remember ever adding it, and i'm vexed why they say at

the very least? >> i just don't know. >> also on the application for search warrant, they requested a nondisclosure order citing the five different reasons. now, it was my experience, and i assume yours, under oath when they appear before the judge. >> yes. >> do you know which of the five categories of the -- that would need to be shown for a notary public disclosure order -- nondisclosure order was testified to in this case? which of the five reasons stach torely that you seek the order would it play? >> i'm not that familiar with the facts to answer that. >> but you would agree with me that when you are before a judge, and you are swearing out your affidavit, asked for a nondisclosure order, you have to have evidence that one of the five factors is in play. >> i'm not all that familiar with the statute. i say that when you file avid, everything in there ought to be accurate and prepare to swear to every item in that.

>> all right. do you ever recall discussing the rosen investigation with the attorney general? >> no. >> do you know -- well, let me ask you this. if it said the the very least there's probable cause there's a crime committed, was there discussion of dieting rosen? >> not that i have. >> if you had more than probable cause, why would there not be discussion of indicting? >> could have been discussion -- as you well know, the way the united states attorney and the agent in terms of what was in the affidavit, and you have done hundreds of affidavits yourself in the discussion between the lawyer and the agent is for the lawyer to get what the agent knows, and, of course, the investigation to get it written up to get approvals you need. i'm sure that happened here. did not come up to my level to have that discussion. >> all right. so it is fair to say that you

were not part of any conversations with respect to whether or not something along the lines of indictment should be considered for the reporter, but you do not know whether or not the conversations took place, but you, yourself r, were not part of them? >> have not. >> okay. does the bureau have a policy with respect to shopping judges or not shopping judges? if you go to a magistrate, is there a policy on judge shopping? >> no, not that i'm aware of. >> all right. let me switch gears. there's an allegation this week of diplomats in prostitution overseas, does the bureau have jurisdiction to invest gait that? >> i have to look at that. initially, i would say -- well, i'd have to look. i'd say no, but there may be,

off the top of my head, i could be missing something. i'll get back to you on that. >> if there was an allegation that the state department attempted to interfere with or influence investigation, is that something they have jurisdiction over? >> first instance, i'm not certain. we may -- going back to the question about the activities overseas, if it imp kateed a disclosure of u.s. secrets, for instance, we would have, perhaps predication for being involved in the overarching investigation. as to the second question, i just can't say. >> i've been out of the business for a while, but i think it may be a crime to travel for the purpose of soliciting underaged sex. i could be wrong by that. >> underaged, yes. >> all right. >> i do believe that that would be covered, but i have to check on that. i have not done this work for some time. >> yes, sir. all right. finally, with respect to benghazi, and this is not a

trick question. i think the answer's obvious. the quicker you get to a crime scene, the better you're going to be able to invest gait it and process it; right? >> absolutely. >> all right, and the bureau did not get to the crime scene for how long? >> i think two weeks. >> and why did the bureau not get to the crime scene in benghazi for two weeks? >> there were a number of factors. ..

>> the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. >> by the time we get to this i think my friends and i agree with the gentleman from south carolina. this doesn't make sense. many times this has happened with the folks that can see what is happening up here. those are some of the things that we are concerned about. the people in the ninth district

including the work of the police and law enforcement agency. >> i get that. this includes directing the coordination of the information between foreign and domestic intelligence communities. we have been hearing from the state and local law enforcement about taking control of standing of the pilot program. is that the case of what is going on? >> who would be excluded? >> i think that this includes the regional intelligence centers and some of us are concerned at some point. we have explained sufficiently state and local law enforcement of this includes greater

integration of the intelligence capacity around the country. >> so you're saying this is an existing program. >> well, i'm not certain exactly which program is being talked about. >> it certainly includes state and local law enforcement and there is part of the killer undertaking. for instance, part of it is the role to charge this has been the various divisions or districts as being in charge, including the coordination, i should say, under this. >> now, okay. >> this seems to include the

pilot program and the stuff that was already there. >> i guess that i am confused in terms of specifically what programs are talking about and i would be happy to get back to you. >> okay. i would like to talk about the electronic communications policy act we have krysta brown not a little bit. in your last little bit, i want to open this up and say, is it -- what do you believe it is and what you he believe it would be? >> just my do think that it is outdated. as i indicated before, i would caution against reading standards for obtaining basic

amendment information because you eliminate much of the data. we also have concern a concern about raising standards which are impacting our ability to conduct cases in this process or otherwise. >> had a professor the talked about the fourth amendment and whether or not it exists even today. is there a way that we have balanced lives in this in a new environment in which it seems to be metadata. we call it be things, but we are collecting such large scales -- do you think that we have a hard line to focus in which we protect civil liberties. in which people understand there would be a reason to investigate.

>> i think that given the new technology and the ability to communicate in a number of ways and the statute needs to be upgraded. you can identify terrorists by looking at the protected data. in the case of a terrorist who wants undertook to kill americans, it will be something that looks like it could be worth that johnson and. >> depending upon these court decisions on what isn't metadata and what is protected, i am concerned that we are in a situation with some of the older rules that may be balanced in a

way that we are going to have to look at this. it has always been okay and we are now trying apples and oranges. thank you for your service, thank you for being here. >> thank you. the gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador. >> thank you, director for your service. i was a criminal defense attorney. i am a little bit concerned by the answer from the administration about the investigation. it seems to me -- and how many times in your law enforcement practice have you had the opportunity to investigate somebody who you did not intend to prosecute. >> as i said before, that happens all the time. >> the question is -- i want to be very specific about this.

not that you don't prosecute. that is the purpose of the investigation is to find out if you need to prosecute somebody. but to actually look into people's private information and private communications who you do not intend to prosecute -- do you understand my specifics? >> i think that i do. i think that maybe we are passing each other. there can be a husband-and-wife that are avoiding taxes. and this could lead to probable cause. >> you have the cost to believe that they are both committing a crime. you determine after the investigation that one committed the crime and the other did not commit the crime. >> that is an option. yes. >> tell me how often a prosecutor investigate somebody that they do not intend at any time to file charges.

seems to me much broader than the fourth amendment. >> you know whether or not the person is going to be prosecuted in terms of testimony. we make the decision day in and day out. we are not going to prosecute a particular person and they will cooperate with us. often we will investigate them for a period of time and then make a decision. consequently we have no thought about prosecuting and their testimony. >> with the attorney general says. what you have said is that this individual would never intended to be prosecution. i've never heard of an investigation ever where you went after an individual when there was no intention if that person was going to be prosecuted or not. but if i'm having a problem with. >> i am not certain that i said that. i was not put in a position to make that determination. >> that is what the turnout in

turn attorney general said in that light. >> i would have to go back and look specifically at. >> would you think that would be inappropriate to go after somebody that you do not intend to ever prosecute because that has been the excuse of this administration. i'm having a hard time with that extra. >> i do think there are a number of occasions where we have the ability and capability and may be willing they can make a determination for this or other things. >> there are competing interests. >> when you make a determination, the problem with the wilson subpoena in this investigation is that mr. rosen was never intended to be prosecuted according to the attorney general. so this was a fishing expedition. something that went beyond the fourth amendment which was unnecessary. that is why they have to go around shopping for different

judges that would actually approve of the subpoena. >> i do not perceive it as a fishing expedition at all. in these investigations you focus on the fbi from the federal government. that is who we want to identify with. to do that, we have to show that the information went to this person to the person who ultimately published it. you gather facts in terms of the individual who had the security. >> when you go to the judge, you say that you are intending to prosecute this person who has violated the law and you have reasonable suspicion to believe this. how often have you as a law enforcement officer submitted a subpoena to a judge saying that

you suspect someone violated the law and you have no intention to ever prosecute a person. and you didn't think the investigation would be a leak to the prosecution. >> i would ask if you would allow me to please ask this question. if the allegations made in that case violated the espionage act, saying that he was -- there was probable cause and he was at least an eight and a better and later said -- and later the record was sealed for 18 months, it seems like those are the facts. if those were the case, why would you not prosecute the individuals?

>> there can be other competing interests. >> that goes back to the question asked by the gentleman from idaho. i think it is our consideration. and why would we go for the judge in order to get a search warrant to go through the e-mail records. >> why not tell him? >> i am not that familiar and this includes agent that is on it in the department of justice. >> i think the gentleman for yielding. >> mr. chairman, you have asked questions and i thank you for being here. >> this concludes the hearing today. we thank the director. you have answered a lot of

questions. we very much appreciate that. i will join all of my colleagues and virtually everyone of every one of them, i thank them for their service. you have a remarkable record as director of the fbi. we will submit questions to you in writing and i think you have made a few commandments to do that. we find it very important to have those additional integrations. we will have five days to submit additional written questions for additional materials for the record. and we thank you again. the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> up next, remarks from senators marco rubio of florida and rand paul of kentucky at the feet and freedom coalition conference. later a confirmation hearing for todd jones. president obama's pick of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. according to the centers of disease control, prescription painkiller control is the fastest-growing blood drug problem in the u.s. tomorrow we will testify holt live coverage of the hearing at

9:00 a.m. eastern. next, law enforcement and till rights officials testified. we will also hear from a father. his judiciary committee hearing is about 2.5 hours. >> successful immigration reform must address effective interior enforcement. this is an integral piece of the puzzle. it cannot just be fixated on securing the border, which undoubtedly is an issue of paramount concern. we must focus on interior enforcement or what to do with unlawful immigrants make it past the border and those who violate and become unlawfully present in the united states. any immigration reform effort must follow a legalization program and this is required in order to ensure that future

generations do not have to be legalizing millions more people. interior enforcement of immigration laws is critical to success of our immigration system. unfortunately, the senate bill actually weakens interior enforcement in many areas or is simply ineffectual the senate bill provides an unworkable framework for deporting gang members and directs dhs to ignore criminal convictions under state laws for crimes such as human smuggling and harboring and trafficking and gain crimes when adjudicating this.

we cannot allow the president to continue shutting down federal immigration enforcement efforts dhs has released thousands of criminal immigrant detainees while providing an ever-changing number to congress regarding us. dhs is forgetting i.c.e. officers from enforcing the laws that they are bound to uphold. a federal judge has already ruled that the actions are likely in violations of federal law. it is placing unlawful immigrants in enforcement free

zones. including any other administration that has to generate bogus numbers in order to do so. ultimately the american people have little trust and it will do so in the future. they want to ensure that the president cannot really turn off the switch on immigration enforcement. the bill contains such a mechanism. not only does the bill strengthen immigration enforcement by giving them the tools to to enforce our laws, but ensures where the federal government fails to act, some can pick up the slack. including states and localities that are provided with congressional authorization to assist in the enforcement of the federal immigration laws. states and localities can also enact and enforce their own

immigration laws as long as they are consistent with federal law. it shows how to avoid the mistakes of the past with regard to immigration law enforcement, especially the 1986 immigration law. the bill expands criminal activity for which we can remove aliens, including criminal gang membership, manslaughter, rape, failure to register as a sex offender. the bill ensures that these individuals cannot take advantage of our generous laws. in addition to provisions, this strengthens federalized make it more difficult for foreign terrorists and other foreign nationals who pose national security concerns to enter and remain in the united states. the bill bars pterosaur aliens who threaten national security from receiving immigration benefits, such as naturalization and discretionary relief from removal. such provisions are particularly relevant following the boston

bombings were naturalized aliens maimed americans. under the bill, no immigration benefits can be provided to immigrants until all backend and security checks are completed. another item that the senate bill fails to include. rather, the senate bill actually authorizes the secretary to waive that context. the bill also improves our nation's first line of defense. additionally it lives up to its name and provides much-needed assistance to help immigration and customs enforcement officers carry out their jobs of enforcing federal immigration laws while keeping them safe. not only does this allow local law enforcement officials working in communities to pitch in to enforce the laws, but it strengthens national security and protect our communities from those who wish to cause us harm. and it provides a robust interior that will maintain this

for the long term. i look forward to hearing from all the witnesses today and i think chairman trey gowdy for introducing this game changing legislation. >> we recognize the gentle lady from california. >> over the past six months, this committee is engaged in a series of civil discussions regarding immigration laws. with few exceptions unchecked exceptions, we recognize that the immigration system is broken and that it must be fixed for america's businesses and families. most of the members have recognized that one time or another that deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants is not realistic and it would tear parents away from children and separate spouses and leave gaping holes and businesses and communities across the country. that is why today's hearing is so disappointing. portions of the bill should be

familiar because they rely heavily upon bills that we consider as part of the 112th congress. provisions would allow people to be detained indefinitely or perhaps permanently. but the discretionary decision of the secretary of homeland security without due process -- i'm confident that some of the swimmers were never survive constitutional scrutiny. the bill troubles me more because of how similar it is in the 109th congress, hr 44317. this contains many provisions, including provisions that essentially turn all undocumented immigrants, whether they cross the border into criminals and everyday they stay in the u.s., they continue to commit a crime. under this bill, many stay and he or she would be committing a

crime. the family members may be committing criminal acts for driving them to the doctor. this then goes further by unleashing the states to enact similar laws and authorizing many across the country to enforce immigration laws. many have the power to apprehend and arrest based on your suspicion that the person might be unlawfully here. and the state can put them in jail for being here. it is impossible without thinking of the lessons we have learned about what happens when local police officers are turned into federal immigration agents and we now know that it damages policing practices and leaves communities less safe. this includes legal residents and undocumented persons alike. for years we have heard this

from major organizations such as the police foundation, the international association of chiefs of police and the chiefs association. chris burbank testified last year that placing immigration agents -- excuse me. it undermines essential community policing. recently, we heard it from a survey of last and 44% of those surveyed say they are less likely to contract the police people who witness crime are free to contact the police this

would increase public safety and we also know that enforcement authorities can result in unconstitutional racial profiling and unlawful detentions. the poster child for this bad behavior is joe our pile, and the self styled most toughest sheriff in america. this includes unconstitutional racial profiling while participating in this agreement with the federal government and the enforcement of our own immigration laws and we are not alone. lester the justice department concluded that the deputies in north carolina engaged in discrimination against latinos, which included arrests without

probable cause. the justice department also talked about the settlement agreements with east haven connecticut and widespread racial discrimination and abuse against latino residents. it also involves a criminal arrest of police officers on charges such as excessive force and constraints conspiracy. even federal immigration officers with decades of experience sometimes make mistakes leading to the removal of u.s. citizens and permanent residents. imagine what will happen when we turn over his power to the people who cannot understand the complexities of immigration laws such as the rules surrounding automatic acquisition and derivatives simitian ship and adjudications and petitions and the list goes on. it is a gross understatement at times. we all share the goal they

cannot be done without devastating our economies and communities. i hope the yield back my time. >> thank you. >> i think thank the gentleman for his statement. all of their members need to be making their statements are part of the record. we welcome our panel today. we will begin by spurring you on. do you swear the swear the testimony will get will be the whole truth so help you god? >> yes. >> yes. >> but the let the record reflect that all responded in the affirmative.

>> she serves as the president of the arizona sheriffs association and was named chair of the year by the national sheriffs association. he earned his mastermasters degree and graduated. mr. chris crane currently serves as the president of the national immigration and customs enforcement council of the american federation of government employees.

..

in division to served on the national association border immigration committee since 2012. sheriff, in the u.s. air force, having served five years in the air force, also part of the national security institute. sam page is a law enforcement officer par excellence. i don't want to embarrass you, sam, but i want to my mate you. a fend asked me how well i knew sam page, and i said i know him very well. and my friend said he is a good sheriff and more importantly he is a good man, and i wanted to introduce sam. good to have you and your colleagues with us today. i yield back. >> i'll add my welcome to that given by the distinguished gentleman from north carolina.

>> shaw was a 17-year-old honor student being recruited when his future was cut short bay gang member in the united states illegally. mr. shaw as since cam peeled -- campaigned for the law to be enacted that would prevent los angeles for being a safe city for gang members and. it's my particular pleasure to introduce the honorable randy krantz who this commonwealth attorney in virginia, position he has held since 1995. the director of the bedford county violent crime response team and the legal adviser for the bedford forensic nurse program. additionally he is part of the internet crimes against children task force, and got his juris doctorate from the university of

richmond and an mar degree from liberty university and continued his education in my law. many, many years ago. more than 20. you are very welcome today, randy. ms. a bean na durden is the mother of dominic durden who was killed in a vehicle collision with an illegal immigrant. dominique was a licensed pilot. he was killed when he was riding his motorcycle to work and was hit by an illegal immigrant in a pickup truck who mad two drunken driving conviction but was not in possession of a driver's license. dominic was miss durden's only child. mr. karen tumlin is from the national immigration law center and has been with them since 2005 and her focus has been on serving low income immigrants. he also worked as a research associate at the urban institute

before going toluol, where -- going to law school. and she spent a year as a loose scholar in thailand, working on a study on child trafficking. miss tumlin earned a jd and masters degree in public policy from the university of california at berkeley. miss claressa martinez decastro is the directoff or immigration at the national council of laraza, she oversees the organization's work to advance imimmigration priorities and efforts to expand advocacy and electoral participation. a naturalized united states citizen, a graduate of objection -- occidental college. this is a large panel, and i want to assure you, your written

statements will be entered into the record in their entirety and i ask that each of you summarize your testimony. there is a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow, you will have one minute to conclude your tim. when the light turns red, it signals the witness' five minutes have expired. and i want to also note that i have an amendment on the floor in the national defense authorization act coming up in a little bit, and i will have to step out. chairman gaudy or others will fill the chair. we'll keep the hearing going in a smooth fashion. i apologize for not being here for all of it but i will bell for almost all of it and all of your testimony is important to me. we'll start with you sheriff babeu. am i pronouncing that correct? good, thank you. >> sheriffs paul works just as well. thank you, mr. chairman, and members for allowing me to testify today.

a little bit about pinal county. we're larger geographically than the state of connecticut. we only have 15 counties in arizona. and we're still a rural county, we have 400,000 residents and we're a full service law enforcement agency, meaning we're primary responders to the majority of the residents of our county. we're not on the border. in fact we're 70 miles north of the border. yet we're the number one pass-through county in the united states, over 3,000 counties. how can that be? well, terrain features, the interstates, naturally funnel through pinal county on their way to metro phoenix, and other parts of -- possibly to your districts and people you represent. according to a recent gao study says that 56% of the border is not under operational control. that is a term that has been used in the past. a metric, if you will, by the border patrol.

in my point, and the point of most americans, 44% is a failing grade. america can secure the border if we replicate the success of what has been accomplished in the yuma sector. mr. chairman you pointed out in my introduction i served as a commanding officer, an army-of-nor a year and a half in yuma, and i can speak to that experience but what happened there is of the nine sectors from california to texas, we, in direct support of our heroes in the border patrol, were able to bring a 97% reduction in illegal entries and drug smuggling in that sector. so i reject anybody saying that the border cannot be secured. three key elements in the mccain-kyl policeman, former senator kyl from the state of california. the prime author of the

legislation, and the three key pom opponents of that was 6,000 armed soldiers, which the senate bill does not have for a period of two years so you can get in sequence to the second step, is build and complete a double barrier fence. originally authored by representative -- former representative from san diego, ranken -- not ranken -- duncan hunter. in fact president clinton to his great credit, signed that bill. he wanted three barriers and gave them two. and it's not just build a border fence for 2,000 miles of it's 700 miles of approximately 2,000-mile border, and it's already predetermined area that high trafficked areas and areas where there's built up or urban centers that are there. and you have inpractice red cameras. cameras, lighting, and sensors to detect incursions as well.

third insures sequence -- third, in sequence, the concept of enforcing the law. when that hand -- couldn't get in in the yuma sector until the first two components were there armed soldiers and building the infrastructure necessary, and when they enforce the law, we saw the numbers drop dramatically. so, that's what is called the proof of concept. that should be brought to all other sectors. i strongly oppose the senate's -- what's referred to as the gang of eight plan, because they offer all of these other items of a path to citizenship prior to ascertaining and guaranteeing that the border is secured, that the laws are enforced. secretary napolitano on almost a daily basis proclaims the u.s.-mexican border is secure. as part of the legislation, why

i favor this as opposed to the senate bill, is the senate allows the secretary of homeland security six months to come up with a plan to secure the border. my question is, i believe that was her job for the last four and a half years to secure the border, and when you look at numbers of 123,000 illegals apprehended where i live in the tucson sector, that is last year, ladies and gentlemen. and that just reflects those who are apprehended, not those who got away or got through. and last year -- just over a year ago, our county, pinal county, led the 21-member law enforcement agency effort with the largest drug busts in the history of arizona, two to three billion dollars against members of the sinaloa cartel. 108 firearmses. not handguns but rifles,

ak-47s. and these -- what law enforcement we call clues that the border is not more secure. the expect -- sect -- the secretary and others point to the dip in the numbers and that's more a reflection of the economy. i'm here in support of mr. gaudy's safe act, and we have seen this movie before before in 1986, and if we continue down that path it will have a more devastating effect. thank you for allowing me to speak. >> thank you, sheriff paul. we now welcome mr. crane. we are still reading through the safe act introduced by congressman trey gaudy. my initial reaction is one of great appreciation and support for congressman gaudy's efforts. i applaud congressman gaudy and his staff for creating a bill

that makes public safety a priority through reforms to enforcement. unfortunately gang of eight legislation before the senate reflects an absence of law enforcement inputs it contains in tangible plan for border secure and is nors interior enforment altogether and simultaneously creating a path to citizenship for members of criminal street gangs, and most other criminal aliens. we hope that members of both parties in the house and the senate, will review the provisions of the safe act as gang of eight legislation ignores interior enforcement and continues practices which have led to the nation's current immigration problems. with these overstays accounting for 40% of 11 million illens in the united states illegally. s744 speaks only of increases to border enforcement, not interior

enforce. investments in border security will never address the problem of visa overstays which account for nearly half of all illegal aliens currently in the united states. investments on the border will also do nothing to ensure that everyone who successfully crosses the border illegally is apprehended and removed as that is also i.c.e.s interior enforcement mission. since 9/11 the border patrol has tripped in size and i.c.e. has become smaller. i.c.e. is task end we apprehending and removing 11 million illegal aliens in the united states, as well as 30 million aliens legally in the u.s. who are soldier removal for status violations, generally being criminal convictions inch sort, i.c.e. polices 40 million people in 50 states, guam, and puerto rico, with 5,000

officers, a force half the size of the los angeles police department. of those 5,000 officers hundreds work as detention guard in detention centers instead of performing law enforcement duties do to the elimination of detention guard positions during the transition from ins to dhs. the transitionals split i.c.e.'s 5,000 officers into two separate positions with two different arrest authorities, thereby crippling the agent's ability to use its handful of officers across the full spectrum of immigration enforcement. the gang of eight so-called comprehensive reform ignored red flags of i.c.e. and dot nothing to reform interior enforcement and the agency tasked with the mission. the safe act takes aggressive steps to fix these problems and adds additional officer positions. establishes the same arrest

authorities for all officers, takes law enforcement agents out of detention centers, replacing them with detention guards, provides additional i.c.e. trial attorneys, support staff, and much needed protective equipment for officers and agents who face growing criminal populations that are increasingly violent and confrontational. in order to combat the criminal alien problem within the united states, and keep dangerous criminals off the streets, drafters of the safe act clearly reviewed current immigration laws and identified areas of concern in an effort to eliminate loopholes for criminals and keep communities safe. the safe act ads upon aggravated felony charges involving the sexual abuse of children, homicides, manslaughter, child pornography,le passport fraud,

and child abuse. it makes gang members deportable, makes dangerous criminals we can't deport, and expands on espionage and other criminal activities and provides support for local law enforcement and keeps cripples awful the street in conclusion it's our point that the approach taken in the safe act is the approach needed to fix our broken immigration system, to effectively address the thousands of concerns throughout our nation's broken immigration system, we must take a diligent and systemic approach of reviewing current laws, practices, and resources, to prevent repeating the mistakes that currently exist and ensure that future laws can be effectively implemented and enforced. thank you, and that concludes my testimony. >> thank you, mr. crane. sheriff page, look. >> thank you, mr. chair, co-chair, and distinguished

members of the house of representatives judiciary committee. i give getting from north carolina. i believe you all in congress have one of the toughest jobs in the nation today. you're being asked to fix a broken innings system in the u.s. and to make sure that your legislation will provide a solution that will last for many years to come. i come before you today not as an expert in immigration law or border security. i'm just one of 3,080 sheriffs in america asking for help in solving the border security immigration problem. between 2011 and 2012, 12 mexican cartell associates were arrested in our county. along with lots of marijuana, millions of dollars of cash, kilos of cocaine, ar15 firearms and sorted firearms. the sheriff mentioned earlier, he had two drug related execution style murders in the past five years. according to the dea report, north carolina is second place compared to the atlanta region

in dug trafficking routes by the mexican drug cartels, reportedly operating in 1200 cities in america inch two to three days here's he relationship to to border in two or three days illegal drugs from the border can be in the united states or north carolina. and north carolina sits 2010 i pressed working with the federal i.c.e. problem. two detainees have returned back to be rearrested. it cost us $330,000 to house to the inmates and 66% of those arrested were charmed with traffic-related phones. i've traveled to arizona and texas in the past three years to see first hand what my fellow sheriffs-dealing with along the border, experiencing drug trafficking, human trafficking, illegal immigration and other than mexican -- and this information has been shared with sheriffs from north carolina and across the u.s. while i was at a briefing, i had the opportunity to ask a question of secretary napolitano. why have we not declared the

mexican drug cartel a terrorist organization and what is the problem for the administration to place a regular force on the border. she said, sheriff, we're not at war with mexico. can you imagine how frustrating that answer was to me? i tend to differ with the secretary because in the past six years, 58,000 mexican citizens have been murdered by the mexico drug cartel in mexico just south of our border. that's a war elm that's a drug war. i have read the proposed house bill 2270, and these are my comments. quickly i'll say the bill empowers all law enforcement in america to cooperate making our communities safer. federal i.c.e. agents get the congressional backing they needed for a long time. the bill allows border from agents agents to cross federal land. and the bill places oversight and accountable on the secretary of homeland security. the bill provides needed funding for immigration detension reforces and detension ourses and does not reward mine jims who heave become sanctuary

cities in violation of a u.s. immigration law and the bill reduces the chances chances chal criminalities of all types from receives benefits and status in our country because i believe that senate bill 744 we talked about earlier, it does give a path to citizenship for those criminally charged or illegally in our country. bill improves the visa issuance process and i have read the public safety provisions of 744 introduced by the gang of eight and also reviewed your proposed safe act and the short amount of paces your houghs bill will restore the rule of law and immigrationens forcement in america and the authority for i.c.e. agents to conduct proper security and immigration enforcement. senate bill 744 fails to meet that standard and i believe its provisions would not only provide amnesty for criminal sitors but could endanger the public. i do not believe s744 has the

goal of -- costs were stated in debates in the senate about the decline in technology usage in my opinion you can't place a cost on one single american life when it comes to homeland security. secretary napolitano said this was not an immigration bill but a public safety bill. my comment is, if it was a public safety bill, how come law enforcement wasn't involved in the crafting of the bill? >> the border security in s744 seems to be secondary to amnesty. i personally thank the -- want to thank you all for giving me the opportunity to come before you today and answer your questions, and i look forward to any question you might have. >> mr. shaw, welcome. >> thank you very much. mr. goodlatte, thank you for holding this hearing. in march 2008 the american dream came to a screeching halt for my

son. jamelle was just 17 years young and a football superstar destined for greatness when he was gunned down three doors from my home while his mother was serving in iraq. jamelle was a junior at los angeles high school and being looked at by universities such as rutgers and stanford. when i spoke to my son he was on his way home from the small mall. he said i'll be right home. i never made it home. in the next time i saw my son he was laying on the ground dead. according to the coroner, who testified at the trial, he was shot in the stomach first and while he was lying on the ground with his hands covering his head, pleading for his life. he was shot again. the bullet went through his hands and straight into his head. on the day of my son's funeral, the lapd came to our home to inform us that they had captured the p. they believed who

murdered jamelle. we also learned he was executed by an illegal alien gang member from mexico with a history of violence. we often here -- hear supporters of people who are here illegally saying children brought to the u.s.a. by no fault of their own, as if that makes everything right. but many people overlook the fact that their parents made achiest violate our laws. the parents of my son's killer made a choice to leave the their country illegally, enter america illegally and they're illegal alien son made the choice to join the gang. the illegal alen charged with murdering my son had been previously arrested in november 2007 for assault with a deadly weapon, and battery on a police officer. yet he was given early release from jail on march 1st, 2008. a saturday night. the very next day, he executed my son and left him for dead like he was a piece of trash in the street. according to the district attorney's office in los angeles, jamelle was executed

because of the color of his skin, and the color of his red spiderman backpack. we learned from the sheriff baca of the los angeles county sheriff's department that shot colors from jail order latino gang member inmates to kill black males when they're released from jail. so why aren't politicians outraged? could it be because some politicians care mow about potential votes of illegal ailents granted amness city rather than the safety of u.s. citizens? sheriff baca had a violent gang member in the custody that was also in the country illegally, and yet they still released him back into our streets to murder our children. why? politicians say they want the violent ones. but too often when they catch them, they simple my release them back into the community, only to commit more crimes. to this day, we still don't know why the sheriff's department negligently released illegal alien gang banger from jail and why was he given a six month

early release. we till don't nye why i.c.e. didn't pick him up from jail. orifice was even called by the sheriff's department for pickup. they refuse to tell us what happened. according to a report conducted by senator dianne feinstein several years ago the majority of all gangs in the u.s.a. consist of illegal alien gang members. in spite of this report, senator feinstein still supports the useless gang provisions in the gang of eight illegal immigration bill which rewards illegal alien gangs with a path to citizenship. why? why would elected officials reward gang bangers who are in the country illegally with amnesty and the path away to citizenship. the trial of my son's killer finally began on april 24th, 2012. on may 9th, 2012, he was found guilty of first degree murder for which the jury recommended the death penalty on may 23rd,

2012. on november 2, 2012, the judge upheld the jury's verdict and sentence. my son's killer is now in san quentin on death row, waiting for his execution, and my son's body is now in the englewood cemetery mortuary -- excuse me -- -- waiting for justice. my family and i support a law called jamelle's law, and we continue to support jamelle's law. jamelle's law, like hr2278, will deport illegal alien gang members from the u.s.a. like hr2278, jamelle's law would not wait for them to commit other crimes. but would deport them for being in a gang while living in the country illegally. this is why we strongly support the strengthened and fortifying enforcement act, hr2278, also nope as the safe act. the safe act makes being in a gang and being in the country

illegally a deportable offense. we hope all elected officials will support congressmen's bill. i would like to end by saying five years have passed and there are still many, many unanswered questions regarding the execution of my son. i would like too ask everyone here, everyone listening to hearts the people hereafter illegally, and everyone who wants to help people here illegally a question. what would you do if your child was shot in the stomach and shot in the head by an illegal illent, documented gang banger, negligently released from jail? would you still support illegal immigration and unsecured borders? i think not. thank you for giving me the opportunity talk about my beloved son, jamelle shaw ii, who i love with all my heart and soul. thank you. >> thank you, mr. shaw. for that very compelling testimony, and you have all of our shared sympathy for that

dramatic loss. mr. crantz, welcome. >> mr. chairman, ranking member conyers, other members of the commit year, it's the privilege for a local prosecutor who is charged with the duty of pathfully executing the laws in their jurisdiction to come before the committee and have an opportunity to be heard and i want to tell you that i can only imagine the difficult job you have of balancing and weighing all of the competing interests and needs and fundamental fairness. but the fact remains that, like politics, all crime is local. at the end of the day it's the states and the localities that have the ultimate responsibility to protect their citizens by faithfully executing the laws, protecting and serving. sitting behind me today is my

chief deputy, west nantz, in charge of prosecuting crimes against children. and one of the things we have learned in prosecuting those types of crimes is that three elements really are the key to successful law enforcement, and i believe that mr. gaudy's bill helps accomplish those three things. it enhances the communication, cooperation and coordination of all dedicated law enforcement officers who are trying to protect and serve. if we do not have the communication and coordination and the cooperation, then local law enforcement is handcuffed. every day across courthouseses in each state in each town, in each hamlet, in each little city, there will be a commonwealth attorney or district attorney, victim witness advocate, explaining to a family why a tragedy has happened to their loved one.

and the context of crimes against children, we have learned that we can cooperate with our federal colleagues, we can create a seamless web of protection to protect children from internet predators to work alongside of and in cooperation with atf in enforcing firearm laws, with the drug administration, and in enforcing narcotics trafficking and working in multidisciplinary task forces that involve local, state, and federal. this isn't an either-or solution but it has to be a purposeful solution. in our county in bedford county, also setting behind me today is mr. gary babb. he was a sheriff deputy, the seth of detectives in bedford county. his son, adam, was struck and maimed by a drunk driver that was an illegal alien. this particular driver, mr. ramos, had previous convictions for driving

suspended and manufacturing false driver's licenses. at the time of -- he struck adam babb, it became his second dui conviction. this bill, if in effect, and if that situation happened again, someone like mr. ramos would be deportable. in my written testimony i indicated at the time he may not have been deportable, i learned today he may in fact have been deported. the reason that i indicate that, part of the issue is between local and federal enforcement is those communication channels where we can obtain the information with need that when we set down with those victims, and we explain to the families, what has happened to the offender, when will they be bee reeseed? anything that can assist to us provide that closure, to provide the information, would be of great assistance to local law enforcement. but the key elements are communication, coordination, and cooperation. i believe this biffle giveses

the opportunity to do that. as a commonwealth's attorney and a prosecutor, its just as much my job to clear the innocent as it is to convict the guilty. and i believe that all dedicated prosecutors who operate from that ethical paradigm share that view. nothing prevents local, state, and federal agencies working together in cooperation but the first step is to fully fund and fully man the personnel at the federal level who have the primary responsibility to do that. this bill would allow that to be done. it would also allow the local and state prosecutors, law enforcement, and other dedicated professionals to work alongside. one of the key interests for prosecutors is that it would provide training and education and the ability to learn and to work alongside. so, members of come, it is my humble request that you consider this bill and note our support for it. thank you. >> thank you, mr. krantz, miss

durden, welcome. >> thank you. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. >> hit the button on your microphone there. >> mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity -- >> pull up it closer to -- >> -- to testify today. thank you. last year around this time my life seemed very normal and ordinary. my only child dominic, my best friend, my rock and support system, shared a house, the bills and responsibilities. we enjoyed each other's company and in 30 years we were never apart for longer than three weeks. he brought nothing more -- nothing but pure joy into my life and i loved being dom's mom. he was born january 22, 1982, in germany. at the age of ten we moved to the u.s.a. and adapted very well to our new life here. i was a german immigrant myself and became a u.s. citizen. dominique enjoyed the rotc program and later got his private pilot's license.

took an internship with a local tv station and also volunteered with fema, the local emergency response force, and at different fire stations. in 2002 he received the volunteer of the year award from the city of marino valley for giving over 1,000 hours of his time. dominic was always a 4 pot student. he accumulated -- 4.0 student, he had 111 school and work award certificates, from from former president bill clinton and u.s. senators dianne feinstein and barbara boxer. dominique also received the 2013 presidential award from cpra, the california public safety radio association. seven years ago he became a 9-1-1 dispatcher for riverside sheriff's department and worked very tough and stressful job. he loved that challenging task, and everytime he was on duty, the deputies in the field would feel safe and in good hands. the trusted him and called him

he best dispatcher around. his ultimate goal was to become a helicopter pilot for the police department. law enforcement was his passion. his coworkers became his friends and he was a huge part of their lives and families. his laugh and presence would light up the room. life was great in so many more awesome things and wonderful events to come. but, however, life changed brutally and instantly on july 12, 2012, at 5:45 a.m. my world as i knew it was torn into shreds and my heart ripped into pieces. my only child, the love of my life, the reason for being, was taken from me in the bling of an eye. no words can describe the cruciate deep and agonizing pain you feel when you get that kind of call to tell you your precious life you brought into this world will not come home anymore. it's difficult to explain to you what and how i feel of not having my incredible son around anymore. at holm i was filled with joy

and laughter is now an empty and quiet house and the pictures, with his ashes around my neck, and the precious memories are all i have left. this is enough pain for a lifetime but it gets much worse. i was informed that the driver of the truck that killed my son instantly was a 24-year-old from guatemala, here illegally without a license-without insurance or illegally registered vehicle. and on a probation from a prior dui. and to add even more pain and grief, this guy had a lengthy arrest record and has been in and out of court and prison prior to this. he was arrested for grand theft and armed robbery in november 2008 and given tee years probation. in august 2010 he was arrested for dui and a probation violation, and given three more years of probation. in may 2012, he was arrested again on a dui, while on probation from the prior dui,

and given probation again. less than 60 days litter he killed my son. since 2008, he had been given a free pass to do what he wants without consequences or action from or law. he knew hi was unlicensed and wasn't allowed to drive but on july 12-2012, hefronted our laws. -- flaunted-under laws. he hit ask and killed my son she was charged with a misdemeanor for making an unsafe left turn. he was in jail for a short time, posted bail, and then taken into i.c.e. custody where he was granted bail by a federal judge and walked out after paying $10,000. the man who risked everyone's life, up licensed and illegal ex-was free to continue to break all of our laws. last month's sentencing the judge read 16 letters that cried out for a tough sentence. he was allowed to speak and took no responsibility, no ownership,

showed no remorse or offered any apology help told us that god takes life, gives life, he was on his way to work. he clearly showed all of us and the judge that he will continue to do what he wants without any regard for anyone else or the law. and still the judge only gave him a mealsly 90 days in jail with five years probation itch felt victimized all over and lost all my trust and faith in the system and the law. everyone who has learned about the case also has expressed outrage and disbelief in how our system failed in such a huge way. my son did not have too die on that tragic day if the system and laws had been working. he should have been deported immediately after his arrest in 2008. but he wasn't. he should have been detained and deported after his first dui, but he wasn't. he should have been detained and deport after his second dui. but he wasn't. why does the department of homeland security protect

illegal alien criminal? i have learned that my story and how i was treated is not the exception but the rule. i am bigging you to make huge impact in all of our lives. we can't lose anymore loved ones to unlicensed driver whose kill over 7200 victims per year of which 4,000 are killed by illegal aliens. the safe act would help prevent this from happening to another family, another fine young person. the bill will improve immigration law enforcement so that more criminal illegal aliens will be removed from our communes and fewer will try to come in the first place. it will allow i.c.e. to deport criminals quickly without waiting months or years for an immigration judge. the bill will make -- makes anyone who is convicted of two dui offenses deportable. the bill we give more resources to i.c.e. to do its job. this is badly needed because i.c.e. agents want to do their

duty but they do not have enough officers and enough funding to deport the huge number of illegal alien criminals. because illegal aliens have no fear of being caught and deported, they behave with a sense of impunity and lack of personal responsibility for their conduct. finally, the would allow local governments and law enforcement agencies to assist i.c.e. by arresting illegal aliens they encounter. if i.c.e. had more funds for detension of criminals, then soon would not have been released on bond while awaiting trial. and he would not have been a risk to others. please don't let one of your loved ones become the next victim. please pass the safe act this year and thank you so much for letting me testify. >> thank you, miss durden, we suppress our sympathy. >> therapy, and ranking -- chairman, and rankening members. it's my pressure --

>> make sure the green light is on. >> how about now? yay. chairman, ranking member, members of the commit yeah. it's my pleasure to be here today. thank you for this opportunity to discuss the safe act, and why it would have serious and far reaching negative consequences if enacted. the safe act, if enaberdeen, would radically change the laws and policies governing immigration in the united states. first, it would obliterate federal oversight and control over our nation's immigration policies. secondly, it would put into the hands of state and local jurisdictions the ability to detain, essentially without limit, potentially indefinitely, individuals based solely on suspicious they might be removable from this country. third, it would radically increase detention for nothing more than civil immigration violation. the impact of these changes

would be nothing short of disastrous on american families and communities. it would lead to patterns of unjustified and unconstitutional detentions, as well as patterns of unconstitutional racial profiling based merely on one0s appearance or the fact they may speak with an accent. what i would like to do is focus on just two provisions in the safe act. and explain them a little bit. of course i'm happy to answer any questions that the committee members may have afterwards. so first, the safe act would allow not only every state but also any locality within the state to pass civil or criminal laws so long as those laws mirror federal immigration law. this would not be a patchwork of 50 state immigration regimes. it would be literally thousands upon thousands of different regimes. make no mistake and let's be

clear. this is not cooperation of state and localities with federal officials in terms of enforcing immigration law. it puts states and localities in the driver's seat and the federal government in the back seat. a couple of years ago, georgia tried to do exactly this, and we sued them in court. they passed a state criminal penalty to criminally prosecute individuals who are harboring or transplanting undocumented, individuals they said this mirrors federal law. we can do it. however, when they were defending that law in court, they made clear that they intended to prosecute u.s. citizens, teenagers, who were driving their mother to the grocery store to get milk. and so the question before the committee is, is that good policy? does that make sense? do we want to prosecute overnight everyday acts of kindness by u.s. citizens to their family members?

the second provision i would like to highlight has already been referenced this morning in opening statements. it's a provision we have seen before. it just takes a different form. this provision would overnight allow for criminal penalties, criminal prosecutions, against the 11 million americans in waiting who are undocumented now, and members of our communities, and our family. and again, the question is, do we want to criminalize that mother? do we want to spend precious resources detaining and deporting people who are part of our communities and part of our family? we don't have to guess at what would happen when you give this kind of immigration enforcement power to state and local governments. the evidence is piling up. again, referenced in the written testimony. we seive it and the federal finding after federal finding, from the department of justice, against the 287g programs run by

maricopa county and others. we also have search it also the state efforts to implement their own immigration laws have taken effect, and again,'ll give you an example. this one from alabama. when alabama's racial profiling law was allowed to take effect, we staff head hotline with our legal partners to take calls from individuals about what was happening. and what we heard was story after story after story of individuals who were being stopped based nothing more on their skin color. i would like to urge the committee to eject this wrong-handed, wrong-headed, and single, mined approach to the deep issues in our immigration system. >> thank you. miss martinez. >> thank you, acting chairman gaudy and ranking member conyers for the opportunity to testify on behalf of nclr. there is clearly too much

tragedy related to -- for the last two decades the problems in our immigration system have large live prompted one prescription enforce: while enforce. is essential, alone it cannot fix all of the problems which are resolvable if we don't keep providing a one dimensional response to matter its consequences. the strengthening and fortifying enforcement act unfortunately largely focuses on adding strength to an old prescription that has not cured our ills but will have detrimental side effects. it has ensuring federal enforcement agents have the resources they need, the benefits are far outweighed by some of its other provisions. and let's be clear. no one disputes that the

perpetrators of the kinds and tragedies described here today should stay in our communities. that should not happen. but this bill would make arizona's sb1070 the law of the land. known as the she me your papers law, 1070 was condemned by the country's civil rights community because it legitimatized racial profiling and every facet of mainstream america was represented among those opposing it, including members of law enforcement. frustration over federal inaction to face the broken immigration system, led many americans to express support for it, but not because they thought 1070 would fix the problem but because they wanted action. since then, the message coming from states that debated copycat laws in 31 states rejected that approach, while the six that adopted it face lawsuits and injunctions, the message was that the only federal government could fix our immigration system

the way that is required. this committee has the ability to provide the real solutions, and it is imperative that you fix the system, not make things worse. but rather than assert congress' responsibility to create an orderly system, this bill is an unnecessary delegation of authority. the effect of that delegation will be to create a patchwork of laws that will add more chaos, not more order, to our immigration system. there is widespread evidence that delegating to states and localities the enforcement of federal immigration laws threatens civil rights, and that has been mentioned here by members as well as miss tumlin. by expand such practices hr2278 would lead to racial profiling and ongoingful detention because everybody who looks illegal would be subject to law enforcement stops, arrests and detention and would criminalize

otherwise innocent behave. the legislation would increase the possibility for example, that a church taking in undocumented children after their mother got deported, would be subject to harboring charges. to some, the violations of rights and values of show me your papers policy may seem like collateral damage to the nation's two million hispanics, 75% of whom are united states citizen, the damage is not collateral at all. according to the pew research center, one in ten latinos and immigrants of -- latinos and citizen immigrants report being stopped and questioned about they're immigration status. that means that over a few years most hispanics face a stackal certainty they will be stopped by police based on ethnicity. if that were happening to all americans, i suspect we would not be having this debate. a patchwork of immigration laws is bad for the nation and is a recipe for disaster for the

latino community. at a time when momentum is building for the immigration reform our country deserves it is disheartening to be taking a look back instead of forward. our country deserves better. the way you restore the rule of law is to a have a legal innings him in that takes the legitimate traffic out of the black market, low us immigrants to come with visas and vetted rather than with smugglers and allowing immigrants who are raising families in the u.s. to come forward go through criminal background checks and get in the system and on the books if they've qualify. the enforcement and deportation only approach cannot get us there. adding more layers to it may seem the politically easying there to do and this committee has been doing almost exclusively that for the last 20 years in this case those proposed new layers in the name of immigration enforcement will have serious negative effects

across the country and especially in communities where people look like me. i urge you to take this matter more comprehensive approach and pass the real solutions we need, and i agree with mr. labrador who yesterday said we need to have a comprehensive approach to immigration because it is the right thing to do some it this right policy, and i urge him and all of you to make those true solutions a reality. thank you very much. >> thank you, miss martinez. chair will now recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. backus, first questions. >> thank you. let me address the two witnesses at the end of the table, and i think you know that i have advocated for comprehensive approach, and because i don't think we ought to have two classes of long-term residents. i even support a pathway to citizenship but i think it ought

to be earned. and let me ask you about someone with two dui convictions. do you think that they have earned citizenship or do you think we ought to allow them to stay in our country? >> well, if we are talking about the senate immigration bill, which i think was reverendded easterly -- reverend earlier as allowing criminal offenses that were described here, as allowing those people to earn citizenship, that is not the case, and we wouldn't agree with that. i think that -- >> well, someone has two dui convictions, would you agree that they do endanger public welfare and safety and the lives of not only our citizens but of other undocumented people in our country? >> i think that offenses that

endanger the public safety and national security need to be taken -- >> do you think that dui -- do you think that's -- >> that is part tooth the legislation that we are supporting in the senate bill. >> so if someone had two dui convictions they could be -- >> i believe that is in the current legislation. is that correct? >> yeah. i would say the following. tioounnt bed aketeraviteralin t@ earning citizenship in any way. what about a gang member of a gang that has sworn -- or uses violence? >> so, again, what is in the

senate bill right now is that individuals who are gang members are excluded from that bill. if that's proven. but i do want to be clear that one thing we're concerned about is, suspicion. and particularly when you -- were are -- someone is in a gang -- >> i think there ought -- >> based upon skin color. >> when it comes to violence -- i consider device as a violent crime. certainly can lead to some tremendous violence. and i think that advocates of a dui bill are going to have to think about raising the bar, because when you raise it, you may eliminate 100,000 or 50,000 people in our country, but you may -- those that are behaving in a responsible manner you're not excluding. let me ask you this. in alabama -- i spoke against --

i ran in an election when 70% of the neimi -- people in my district supported themes bill and 61% of the neimi district strongly supported it, and i won almost 70% of the vote. didn't lose one voting place. so they gave me a path. but i didn't oppose the fact that -- and don't think we can enforce a comprehensive immigration bill without the assistance of local law enforcement. and i don't see how you enforce our criminal laws laws and our statues or any of our laws once they been laws, without assistance of local and state law enforment. that the only enforcement we have in most of the counties i represent. we may have two i.c.e. agents. and i do -- and i hear you've

say you want it comprehensive. you want it consistent. but then you -- do you not recognize that local law enforcement is going to have to have a major role in enforcing all our law? >> so, there's a difference between assisting and leading, and in -- with respect to law enforcement, would say the following. it's really grinned on what law enforcement officers have been telling us for the last several years and even before that, about what they need to do their own job. first and foremost, law enforcement officials, including scores of law enforcement officials who wrote an amicus brief, they said we know best how to position police our communities and keep them safe,

and in addition they have said, when people are afraid to talk to us, when members of immigrant communities will not come forward and report crimes to us, we cannot do our job. it is astounding what is in the most recent report in our written testimony about what latinos say about coming forward to law enforcement. a whopping 28% of u.s.-born latinos, u.s.-born, u.s. citizens -- >> i'm saying dish guess i'm just saying, can we have enforcement, interior enforcement, without local law enforcement being involved in and empowered? >> the gentleman's time is expired. i would now recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a very unusual situation we have here today.

we never have eight witnesses at a time. this sets a -- some kind of a record. but we welcome you all anyway. and i want to ask about how this bill, attorney tumlin, is even more stringent and maybe unconstitutional, than a bill passed seven years ago called hr4437. and it essentially tried to do some of the things but not all of the things that are present

here in hr2278. because we're doing more than strengthening enforcement. we're turning over the responsibilities normally of the homeland security and the immigration authorities, to local police. so, this isn't a matter of taking powers away from local enforcement. this is a matter of having them begin to become immigration agents. what are your thoughts in that regard, ma'am? >> thank you, ranking member conyers, absolutely, this bill, the safe act, goes well beyond

what we saw in hr4437. it does so in three ways. at least. first, as you indicated, it absolutely surrenders control to state and local jurisdictions in terms of enforcing immigration law. it allows them to create their own crime and civil penalties to arrest, detain, and investigate individuals for those. ...

>> no matter if they have been here five or 10 or 15 or 35 years. >> thank you so much. mr. castro from the national conflict. did you want to add anything to this discussion? >> i think the main thing here, and i do agree, that the either or approach does not work. we need to find a balance. i think that having lost and put

a bull's-eye on the forehead of this is probably not striking the right times. i think we can do better than that. we need laws that are going to remove the types of criminals that are being talked about. i do agree particularly in the immigrant community. those criminals are in the vulnerable population first and foremost. we are not allocated for them to remain there or elsewhere. again, it is about balance and the big issue here is that we have seen now for several court proceedings and findings and lawsuits that unfortunately this type of delegation of law at the state and the local level is leading to racial profiling. there are disagreements, to be

fair. obviously we have heard from those testifying here that they would like to go full throttle on those policies. there are very important voices in the law enforcement community to either do not support this or are best conflicted because the effect that they have on the strategies and the abilities, which is that public safety is congressmen, congratulations on your landslide election. i do not think that your voters gave you a pass. i think there is a poll that supports this and i don't think that they gave you a free pass. >> you know, i thank you both very much.

i just want to observe that this is going to cost a lot of money if this were put into practice. most states and localities cannot afford it. the federal budget cannot take it always either. i thank you for your opinions and being with us today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes himself for five minutes of questioning. i was going to ask you initially about your support of city council members and practicing sanctuary to actually enforce federal law. i'm going to go another direction. to my friends who are in the local offices. i want you to pay attention what you have heard so far. if you are good enough to

investigate homicide cases, but you are not good enough for us to trust you in this way, you are good enough for drug cases, even though that area has been occupied for decades. you are good enough but you are just not good enough to help with immigration cases. but you are good enough despite the fact that the second amendment clearly occupies that if you want to talk about preemption. it occupies title 18 and all of the statutes. you are good enough to have your own firearms laws. but you are not always good enough with others. it is okay for states also to have armed robberies. we do not just tell the fact that you're the only one who can

include these cases. so i will tell you this. i have worked with state prosecutors and federal prosecutors and state and local law enforcement. if you are good enough to homicide cases, than i trust you to do immigration cases and i think it's a shame that anybody does. if you are good enough to investigate the most serious crimes in this country, but yet we are worried about you understanding the complexities of immigration laws, i have heard a lot about the respect of the rule of law and i am much more interested in adherence to the rule of law. because nothing undercuts the fabric of this republic like people picking and choosing which laws they are going to

enforce, when they are going to do it, when it is opportune for them not to do it politically. i am happy to talk about preemption and supremacy clause and enumerated powers or any other legal concept that you would like to talk about. state and local law enforcement, we say that we trust you to handle these cases, but we will not trust you in these cases. that i will not do. i started this debate. i said that i am happy to find a synthesis between respect for the rule of law that defines us as a republican and a humanity that defines us as a people. i am happy to search for that. but i will not have this at the expense of the rule of law.

if you think you are capable of enforcing immigration laws and if your jurisdiction decides to pass those that are not consistent with this, but consistent with federal law, what do you think? >> absolutely, mr. chairman. i appreciate your remarks. he quite frankly is offensive to hear that. i have close to 700 men and women that work in our sheriffs office and this is their lives and often times for those who are illegal, we do not differentiate and we have several hundred of my staff. what are we saying about them? the fact that we swear an oath to preserve and protect and defend our constitution is putting our lives on the line for all people. the fact that we are in this conversation and debate today.

you trust me. you trust every law enforcement officer to deal with not only the most complex issues for u.s. citizens that we can make life and death decisions with. those that can take another person's life. yet, we are saying that we are not smart enough to ask questions and call out to help. which is what we did. we are not asking for something that we did not have. i only had 13 of my deputies who are certified. i have a full plate. we should be able to talk together and work in concert together and solve an issue. how did we get to this point that the cops are the bad guys. it is because that we, as a country, republicans and democrats have failed to address this issue and we are put in the

crosshairs of our disparities. our motivation. and this is one of the casualties of this. not just the rule of law, but those that those who preserve and protect on a daily basis. >> sure, i appreciate my time that is up. i will talk about how we can ignore this and create sanctuary cities. >> we will get to that. i recognize the gentleman from california. >> i wonder if we would allow the gentleman from illinois to lead. >> yes.

>> it is almost as though this side of the aisle is against enforcement and as for murderers and criminals and drunk drivers. nothing could be further from the truth. when we introduce comprehensive immigration reform, the first 400 pages are enforcement and enforcement. more police officers. and i think that it is regrettable that we are having a debate in which somehow this side of the aisle is weak. this side of the aisle is somehow unsympathetic to the murdering of children. we are not. we think the despicable foreigners to come to the country should be the first in line to get kick out of this country after they have paid the price in our system.

somehow, all of a sudden, this is the debate that would happen. that all of the 11 million undocumented workers in this country, reducing the drug dealers, again members. it is just not the truth. as i hear this debate today, i think to myself what happened to the eight and nine hearings that we had in which people came forward to testify and they said that we need to make a decision. will this be picked here in the united states? either way, that backbreaking work is probably not going to be done by ice. there is a reality in america. we have those come forward that

said let's fix this. they are not all drug dealers or murderers or people who are racing down the street. they are the moms and dads of 4 million american citizen children caught up in a broken immigration system. what do we really want? do we want to law enforcement agencies going after the moms and dads are waking up every day to provide for their american citizen children? >> i say no. but there is a study that 41% of latinos say that they are less likely to speak. those are the ones that are legally in the united states. the undocumented workers in this country are somehow a pariah in which all of the evils of our society should be thrust upon. that is just not the case. if you say 200 of thousands of

young children, one of the things that i always consider is that i hold that my children are never judged by my actions. my children should be judged by their own actions. and children should not be judged by the absence of their parents. they were not knowingly doing anything. they did not have the will to make the decision to come here or not. they have come out of the shadows. you know what they did? they said, i am here. they said welcome. come on down, happy to have you here. come on down and give me your fingerprints and proved to me that you are not a gang banger or drug dealer. if you can do that, i will allow you to work while we fix our broken immigration system.

we started so well. january, february. march. april and may and june. let's finish this. let's not demonize and pick winners and losers. let's say that we have a broken immigration system and i'm going to tell you something. i hope that every american gets a first crack at every job in america. whatever you think you need more of that. i am also for humanity and treating people like human beings. i simply have a plea. can't we just move this agenda forward. i am ready to sit down and not question it. all i am trying to say is that it takes 218 votes. so what are we going to do?

are we going to have this fight again? we have seen this fight before and we have millions of people when they introduced almost the identical legislation and they came to the streets and they protested. they looked at people like me and others and said, let's fix it. i would like to say that i joined this committee after 20 years of service to fix this problem. i am not for criminals, but i am for a decent humane treatment of millions of workers. those who came here to contribute. thank you so much, mr. chairman, for your generosity. >> we introduced the gentleman from north carolina. >> give us an idea of the impact that stricter impact would have on the area that you serve.

>> it is kind of like my situation, i have a responsibility to know who is coming in and out of our facility. as immigration should be able to live from our country. when i talk to the agents across the country and the representatives, they are not getting the support from the people to let them do their jobs and let them do the work. what was discussed earlier today, i am sure that not every sheriff in america wants to do immigration enforcement. but i do support by federal and state and local agencies when we come together to work as a force multiplier. they need help. they need my support. i feel that if we support our

immigration officers in the state, we can do a better job of identifying that percentage. i know that people that are illegal in this country are not permanent. but we want to identify the criminals and get them off the street and put them into prison and get them out of this country. that isn't obligation that i have. >> what good purpose will be served when we deport the criminal aliens. >> i'm sorry? >> when we deport alien criminals. how is that helpful? >> when we can remove criminal elements in our community, that helps to improve our communities by getting the criminals out.

we also have to pay attention to stop the flow back and forth. as i have said, we are picking up individuals that are dealing with the a mexican drug cartel and it is not just my community. when we see that in our communities and without a good defined strategy, we are going to continue to have these problems as we work towards that. we have to fix the borders because if we do not secure our borders, every sheriff will be a border sheriff. >> thank you, sheriff. my friend from arizona. a secure border is vital as we come here as to what is important as robust interior

enforcement. >> sir, i believe that it is critical. almost half of the people who are here now did not make an illegal entry. they never would have come in contact with the border patrol. they came on visas. they came here legally. whose job is it to enforce those laws and police the individuals. we know that a lot of the individuals who have come have engaged in terrorist activities and they have come here legally. we need to be aggressively enforcing our laws with regard to the individuals. but also what we have heard today is the criminal element and there is a disproportionate number of criminals crossing our borders and coming into the country. details are full of criminal

aliens. that is not to say that every person is a criminal. but there are large numbers coming into our country. with our administration's resources, according to the numbers, we deported 225,000 convicted criminals last year. that is bigger than the marine corps and we are not even scratching a-10s in this problem. our involvement in enforcement critical to community public safety as well as national security. >> thank you. we have talked about this twice today. we can talk about this at a later date. it is good to have all of you aboard. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the chair will now recognize

the gentle lady from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i would like to ask unanimous consent of eight letters in opposition to this bill. >> without objection. >> i would like to make sure. i think i was precise. but i think what i said in my opening statement was that the justice department have concluded that they had engaged in discrimination i would like to know about the findings from the department of justice that the sheriff's department did engage in intentional discrimination. my colleague also files a lawsuit, which is still pending. i would like to ask unanimous consent that the complaint and the findings be made a part of

a. >> i never doubted for a moment that you're both right. >> i just have to say that certainly i have a very close relationship with the prosecutors in my county. i have tremendous respect for them, as well as law enforcement agents and i think it is incorrect to suggest that because immigration laws are enormously complex, maybe i am not part of this and perhaps my friend would agree that he is not an immigration expert. i would like to ask about this. let me ask you this question. if you found someone whose mother was a united states citizen, with what that person

have been in the u.s. for three years prior to that. >> quite frankly, right now, we do not do anything in regard to that. if we had 13 deputies who came back east, those would be the only deputies. >> the manual for that is the immigration code that is this pick. i am not insulting you. i value what the law enforcement guys. there are many nuances that are important and critical on whether someone is a citizen or not and you have to be five years in the u.s. prior to the child's birth, two of which have

to be before the age of 14 are sold and it can include this in the united states and also possessions and those are things about whether you are an american. >> we actually have numerous situations. through policy and through i.c.e., he indicated that they shall be allowed to stay here. >> if i can interrupt. it is not about following the policy that the president were i.c.e. outlines. i am not doubting that you are good at arresting people who are drug dealers. >> with that situation, we would not do anything or even ask the question. >> this goes to my question, you outlined where american citizens

have been deported, which is a travesty. you didn't have an opportunity to go through this. we have talked about where the citizens were apprehended and then deported even though they were americans from birth. can you address that issue? >> thank you. indeed there are several of those cases that were documented in the recent findings about maricopa county. in terms of the discrimination and people being deported. somebody doesn't answer the question and they end up being categorized. it has happened to the u.s. citizens. i know it is extremely hard, but it does happen. part of the reason is that the

toxic nature of the immigration debate, that is why we are desperately in need of fixing mess, it has created an environment where there is a lot of people, american citizens and residents who are categorized as a legal. >> let me just say thank you to the parents who have lost children. what happened should not happen to anyone. certainly we do not want people who have done nothing wrong to be stigmatized but our hearts go out to you about going after the criminals here in this room. i yield back this time, mr. chairman. >> picture would now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, >> thank you, chairman.

i would agree with my friend on many issues. i do not agree where he categorizes this by saying that we want all of the hispanics and olivos moved out of the country for no reason at all. this father and mother here, given the fact that they had criminal records, if they were sent in deported back and put into jail when they were supposed to be. the children would be alive today. >> i agree with you. but if there were child's in one case there might have been another that wasn't. that is for the court to

determine. >> reclaiming my time, sir. i know what the court should determine. immigration law, based on this, the immigration laws indicate that they should have been detained or sent back eventually. that is not the issue. ms. martinez, you spoke to the fact of what we need to do. but i think that you did not speak clearly enough and it is going to take enforcement. you did say that a large majority of americans want immigration fix. i want it fixed also. i know that we will not send back 11 million people. i will be standing at the front of the line to argue that. but the question was not asked that way. if you'd asked those people, you would see the numbers significantly decrease. i hear it from people across the

country. there was a statement about enforcement levels of this administration. that is not true. i am disappointed for not addressing this issue with the previous administration in the bush administration. what hhs and the homeland has been doing is those individuals are considered to be individuals that were here and sent back. mamma, i am offended by your statement. because as the chairman said with the u.s. attorney, when i was an attorney for 10 years, thsecret service, fbi, they came and said help us to solve these

criminals and these crimes, no matter if the criminals were dealing drugs or if they were illegals. all of the law enforcement is grassroots. then i went right back for seven years. i went right back to the police officers and sf the federal government. it was very helpful because most of my cases were solved by people there. you pick apart law enforcement in your statement and say that locals should not be having the authority and power to do what they have been doing over the past several years, except when this administration stopped it. that is the backbone of law enforcement. the federal government would not operate without the individuals. as far as the individual driving

mom to store. this person is here illegally, we know that they don't have a license, it is a violation of the law. why would you say that these people are not qualified but the federal government relies on them to enforce the law. >> i appreciate the representatives questioned. i think as a prosecutor that you know in that example that the prosecution that the state of georgia was talking about was not driving without a license. they were talking about the prosecution. >> it is still illegal. you do not think that that is a good law. but the law but they are enforcing our immigration is a bad law.

i commend you for your cause and what you do and the work you are trying to do, but have you ever taken the time to talk to people like mr. shaw about what they lost, about how their rights were violated and how their constitutional rights were violated, and they are not here today to enjoy their children. you seem to be jumping on the fact that we want to prosecute every legal immigrant is here and send them back regardless of any cost. that is not the case. i have been a prosecutor for most of my life. the rule of law is the rule of law. if you can't sit there and pick and choose what laws you want to enforce. >> okay, what i would like to say is that i think it is part

of it. this is absolutely unspeakable as we heard about it today. >> let me interrupt you. i did not hear you mention one word about that in your opening statement. ms. martinez did. but i did not hear you say in your opening statement. i think that you need to step back and reevaluate and take into consideration what these people are going through and i yield back my time. >> thank you, the gentleman from pennsylvania. we now recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, sir. i have mixed feelings. i am sorry for your loss. it was 30 years ago, excuse me, 40 years ago on may 29, 1973,

that my sister was killed and by a man. i've chosen not to be angry or unforgiving about that to this day. i just wonder why is it that you two have been brought here to share your pain about your loss with the nation. were you called because we wanted to arouse passions and prejudices against people against illegal immigrants. is it because we wanted people

to think that all illegal immigrants are from mexico. they are hispanic. is it because we wanted everyone to feel that all immigrants, illegal immigrants, that they are criminals or drunk drivers or somehow disgorge of our community. is that why you were brought here i cannot think of any other reason other than that you all are here. i believe that this kind of passion and this kind of emotion is very much ill placed for our consideration of legislation

before us. i appreciate the law enforcement personnel who put their lives on the line every single day. those that are asked to do more with less. they are frustrated because they have a job to do. if the federal government cannot get its act together, then it falls on local law enforcement. and it falls on the law enforcement prosecution as well. and the citizens are paying for that. there is a deeper reason behind this that leads to frustration with each other.

we end up pointing fingers at each other. that moneymaking, ladies and gentlemen, it is from the profits of incarceration. legal immigrants this includes those in for-profit private prison companies. skyrocketing stock value on wall street. back in the week of february 20 on a conference call, ensuring to them that incarceration rates

will remain high. an immigration detention would be a strong source of business for the foreseeable future. this can result in dollars of the pocket of business interests. what is happening is that we have turned our attention away from those who are making the money. we are blaming each other for each and everything that ails us. it is really time for this game to end. the private prison corporations are members of the american legislative exchange council. they draft bills state-by-state,

and introduced here in the federal government, it results in these kinds of gross opportunities for business. it is wrong. it is a moral. and it is hurting and killing america. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho. >> before i have my time,. >> that is the most ridiculous presentation, one of the most ridiculous ever. >> sir? >> i'm not going to stoop to this. >> you cannot insult another member. >> i just believe that if you called him out for coming out

here, and he said -- >> if you have a question that you want to ask. >> you know what, sir? >> do not get them to answer my question. >> gentlemen, you are both sustained. sir, if you care to talk about the gentleman from georgia. >> i just happened to run out of this. i would like to give the gentleman two minutes. >> we are going to give him the time, and then we will go to the gentleman. >> i thought you were completing a statement and apparently it was a question. >> correct.

>> i would love to answer your question. we were not brought here for any sympathy or anything. my reason for being here is to put a face to this. i do not think that immigration talks about a lady going to church and that we are going to check her immigration status. i think that this brought a lot of good things to the community. he took care of me. he took care of his friends and neighbors and everybody. and he was wiped out because -- he wasn't deported after his first or second dui. a career criminal.

it is almost like if they ask me to leave, i just come back and they say that you are not allowed here anymore, and you did something wrong. and they say you can say until you tear up the place. and then we will deal with you. so if you question why we were bought brought here, basically when i get married to a wonderful man that supported me, my son can walk me down the aisle. i will never be a grandmother or mother-in-law. >> okay. >> that is why i am here. >> i didn't like the way you do that. because you almost look like no value on my son. because when you said that your

sister was killed by a black man, it made everything that we have to say not important because it was a black man. like we are picking on latinos. but you have to understand that our kids were here and living here and they were murdered by someone living in the country. and i came here. i do not have to say that everybody here is 11 million people or more. i'm going to say that you have people here that are criminals. we have people that were brought here by no thought of their own. my son that was murdered by someone. just because someone was brought here, you act like that gives them freedom to do whatever they want to. that is not fair. from day one that you cross the border, it is illegal. you act like it is insulting to

all americans. i do not think i need sympathy. i think about my son 24 hours a day. for you to try to make it seem like i was brought here to make people cry or feel sorry for me, that is not fair. we love our kids. my son was not bothering anyone. he was walking down the street, coming home from the mall. like many kids do. he was playing football, he was never suspended from school. he was three times and repeat player of the year. he was running track. for you to make it seem like that, we are brought here like

we are puppets. that is insulting to me. if you had a nonchalant attitude, that is not fair. the same with the attorney and the other lady down on the end. they never talk about the crimes and the criminals. you know, they act like this one that that is some kind of honor. that is not an honor. you broke a law to come into this country. you brought your kids over here. that is equivalent to human trafficking. you did that with an infant and you left the child here and you raise them like that and you want us to feel like it is our fault because mom and dad are here to work. >> thank you, mr. jerry. >> my apologies to both witnesses if i have offended

you. it was not my intent to do that. certainly i am a black man. i think that the point that i was making is that is that i am not against all black people, thinking that all black people are criminals. i would like to demonstrate that point. once again, i am deeply apologetic if i offended either one of you. i thank you for spending your time and resources at the call of this committee to testify. that is not your fault that you were called here. i thank you. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from idaho for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i would just like to first thank mr. shaw for

being here. i have five kids and i cannot imagine what you have gone through. i want to thank ms. martinez. i think that you and i are kind of emotional. i think about a broken immigration system that we are trying to fix. for us to think that we cannot reach comprehensive approaches to immigration reform without local law enforcement participating in it, i think it is a mistake. i know that you and i, we want to reach a common agreement on what we need to do. i believe that we have the same goal. but my problem is i think it is unrealistic to think that we will have any kind of immigration reform without having this local law enforcement and giving him the

tools that he needs. i have practiced this for 15 years, and i have no idea that you only have 5000 agents dealing with 40 million people. if you think about 5000 agents dealing with 40 million people, that is why we have the problem that we have today. that is why we have so many people in the united states illegally. for someone to say that you cannot do your job, my friend. that you cannot do your job because you do not understand immigration laws. i found this questioning a little bit interesting. i practiced law for 15 years. without looking at my book, i do not believe that i could have answered the question that she has to because it has been three years and i don't remember the

answer. i think that you would have been able to train your deputies and the people in your office to actually work on this issue. and i also believe that if you would have arrested a young man who claim to citizenship, i know you well enough that i believe that you would have said, let's get an attorney so we can determine if you are a u.s. citizen. i am speaking for you. but can you answer that question? >> yes, likely that scenario would never play out. we have 500 border patrol agents assigned in our county and the only contact that we have had is if there is probable cause and some reason why law enforcement

is they there speaking with someone and that issue came up as required under arizona law to ask the question if we have a reasonable suspicion. not because of the color of their skin or how they talk or how they sound. when we get to that point, that is if it be even is an issue, i.c.e. gives us direction and the answer to the question earlier is the direction we have been given is the person says that they have been here five years. treat them as any other citizen. that is the end of business for us. we deal with what we have to weather a citation or have a good day. that is it. that is what we are doing. >> you are trying to do a job to protect our nation. i think a lot of the job that you do is trying to not only protect us from people that are

here illegally, but drug trafficking and many other things. why do you think that this bill will strengthen your ability to do your job? >> the first thing it does is give us people to do the job with. one of the things that we are supposed to be doing is working every jail in the country. adult probation and parole, getting convicted criminals who end up back on the street. we need the people to do the job. things like that to make sure our dictators are recognized by local law enforcement. that when we put this detainer on and it is ignored, but that ends up back on the street. so many things about this bill will help us do our jobs better. we have two positions with two

different authorities. they have exactly the same training. the two different authorities. we end up in situations where we have to gentleman that need to make an arrest or they can be assigned because they don't have that. it makes no sense. we are pulling our hair out and we had asked to make changes internally. and they will not do it. there are a lot of things in this bill that will help us. we are extremely thankful to the gentleman who has worked with us to try to put this into perspective to get us back on track. >> thank you sir, and thank you ms. martinez. i think it is important to work with local law enforcement and that we figure out a way to make something like this work. there is no way that the house of representatives on immigration reform will pass without actually having the assurance that we are going to feel comfortable that what

happened will not happen again. >> thank you. >> we recognize the gentleman from puerto rico. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good afternoon. let me start by restating my support for immigration reform. we need commonsense reforms that will meet our nation's needs in the 21st century. it must hold true to our american values. this must take into account the challenges that our immigration system faces today and how it is multifaceted. these are not situations that can be dealt with are isolated incidents. that this will not result in a better america and we squander the opportunity that presently exists while true bipartisan

efforts are underway to find comprehensive solutions to these critical issues. the enforcement only approach offered by the setback falls short with what america needs. which is reform what works for our economy that strengthens and secures our borders and helped america attack talent and expertise and allows undocumented immigrants an opportunity to legalize their status and apply for citizenship. that improves efficiency and fairness of our immigration system to reduce illegal immigration. i understand the majority has decided to improve our nation's security. but i do not believe the approach of the safe act, which would combine this with the delegation to enforce their own

immigration laws. that would accomplish that goal. it is very risky. it is a very risky approach with a complicated problem and could cause great harm to communities everywhere by opening the doors to raise profiles and the condensation of otherwise innocent behavior. i am very sorry for the pain that you have suffered. i lost my own brother who was the victim of a carjacking in puerto rico. i relate to this. we are a comprehensive solution and we want to address all aspects of this. this includes crimes committed and also the pain that millions

of immigrants are suffering on a daily basis. because our system is not working. i join the gentleman and thinking in supporting that we have the ability to enforce these immigration laws. my question is for the woman. you mentioned the case of a u.s. citizen born in puerto rico. i also relate to this one who was arrested by chicago police and held for more than three days in the custody of federal agents on suspicion of being undocumented because of this

appearance. do you believe that if they have their own immigration laws with civil and criminal penalties, situations such as the one impacting u.s. citizens could impact this and my accent and appearance, but it would become more prevalent. >> without a doubt. it does not have anything to do with being disparaging to law enforcement. i would like to clarify this. otherwise i will get in trouble when i get home. because i have important members of law enforcement in my family. what we did was actually cite facts and findings and they are bad apples everywhere. i think that that is why there

are voices in the law enforcement community that are concerned about how these laws will interact with a number of things. there seems to be an inherent assumption somewhere here that there are false lines dividing the opinions. and as long as we keep having that kind of conversation, we are never going to get to that here. now, to present this in this debate is simply false. what we believe is that there needs to be a balance. since there has been a lot of talk about public safety, let me just say that i do hope that when we talk about public safety and the public trust, we are making sure that the latino community, 75% who are u.s.

citizens are counted in the public trust. often times in the conversations, it could lead someone to believe that latino citizens are not considered part of that american public order that their chests are irrelevant. there is too much tragedy. we continue to misrepresent what we said. that will not help us. i am sure that we can identify with the tragedies of those who experience loss of their sons because they were beaten to death because someone thought they were mexican. we need to address this problem head-on. >> thank you.