ensures the effective adjudication, financial responsibility, and excellent customer service. i appreciate that part. and it anticipates implementation of new laws and policies as a cause for this. i think the administration has made the decision to totally tear asunder the rule of law and grant administrative amnesty to 5 or more million people and do so while this congress is out of session. how would you respond to that, director rodriguez? >> well, first of all, let me start by saying -- am i audible? daca offers no benefit to the individuals coming over the border. they are not eligible for daca or any version of daca. secondly, to the extent -- and i'm not familiar with the specific contract that you described. we prepare for surges in work that can come from all kinds of sources. so i will certainly look into that particular contract when i return to my office this afternoon. but i would not necessarily

attribute it to the situation at the border. as far as adults, roughly 15% are asserting credible fear claims. as far as children, it is in the low single digits the number of individual -- number of children who are actually claiming, making asylum claims at some point in the process. that's a different process than the credible fear process. i just thought those facts would be potentially helpful. >> we have those who are lawfully present during daca. there's an anticipation that daca will be expanded. anybody thinks that -- they think if they can get into america, they get to stay into america, stay in america and we know -- we know that number is well above 98% who get into america who get to stay in america. the asylum applications that come. this woman will apply for asylum. before she's heard, the baby will be born, and there will be an anchor in this country. that came right under my nose. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman.

i will now recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here, director. i'm looking at numbers from u.s. cis from march of 2014, and it indicates -- looks like through march of 2014 that there have been a cumulative total since 2012 of 553,197 requests approved under daca, the president's law that passed his lips but not congress. do you have any updated numbers since march? where are we now? obviously more than 553,000. >> yeah, i believe that -- and we'll make sure to get the committee specific updated numbers. i believe that the, but please

don't hold me to this, the number now is -- >> who do i hold? i want to get somebody i can hold to. >> i just don't have it at my fingertips. i'll get you the exact information you need. i believe the number is now at 714,000 of individuals who have been daca recipients. that is my understanding. >> i see. you said that in an answer to an earlier question that you've heard people say there's a culture of getting to yes, but there's also a culture of getting to no. i would submit to you based on your own numbers that the figures bear out there's a culture of getting to yes. you can't get to 700,000 and maybe have 20,000 noes and not have a culture of yes. you said you observed a credible fear interview. let me ask you in your prosecutorial role, did you ever prosecute any drug crimes? >> yes, sir. >> okay. so i'm curious.

during your prosecution of drug crimes, did you ever refer to someone who gave money to buy a big load of drugs as a drug trafficking victim? someone that paid massive money to get a load of drugs, did you ever refer to them as a drug-trafficking victim? >> yeah, let me suggest that perhaps we're talking about apples and oranges, but no, i certainly did not refer to somebody -- >> well, let's talk about the apples and oranges, director. when someone pays a human trafficker to move them, then i would submit to you they're not a victim, they're a participant in the human trafficking business. they're keeping the human traffickers in business. when i was down there, let's see, weekend before last south of mccallan, right on the river,

talking late at night to one of the border patrolmen there who's hispanic, he was telling me that, you know, 90% of the time when you ask them out there bit river, they say, oh, i was fleeing gangs and gang violence. he said, i get tough with them because i know where they're coming from, and i speak the language well, and i tell them, you may tell that garbage to somebody else, but you and i both know that it was gangs that brought you up here. that's who the drug cartels normally hire to bring people up here through mexico. and he said, 90% of the time or better they'll say, well, you're right, but we were told to say we're fleeing gang violence. are you aware, director, of who it is the powerful drug cartels in mexico hire to move people who have paid their thousands of dollars to cross mexico to the u.s.?

do you know who they hire? >> no, not specifically. i mean, obviously i know there are the human trafficking environment involves drug cartels, involves all kind of alien smugglers. the human traf environment involves drug cartels, involves all kind of alien smuggler- the human traff environment involves drug cartels, involves all kind of alien smuggler- the human traff environment involves drug cartels, involves all kind of alien smugglers. it's not exactly our lane, so i'm not fully familiar with -- >> would you call them criminals? >> human traffickers and drug cartels? >> yes. >> sure. >> that get paid to move people illegally into the united states. >> sure. i've prosecuted alien smuggling, yes. of course they're criminals. >> so i would submit to you that's what we're talking about. we're talking about people who are paying criminals. and i would submit to you that the evidence will get down and dirty and show that there are many gang members that are getting paid to transport people to the u.s. only to have them get here and say, i'm fleeing gang violence. so i would encourage you to be more skeptical in these interviews without further evidence.

and mr. chairman, i would ask that i be allowed to submit to the record the evidence from honduran security minister an do you remember row arturo corrales that there's been a tremendous drop in homicides between 2012 and june of 2014, from 32,05 to 2,634. so it doesn't appear things are deteriorating down south. thank you.so it doesn't appear deteriorating down south. thank you. i yield back. >> without objection, so ordered, we'll enter that into the record. i'll now recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. powe. five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you once again for being here. of course, i'm from texas. been to the border a lot. down there this weekend. saw federal officials and state

officials both trying to secure the texas mash/mexico border. went down the river, the rio grande river./mexico border. went down the river, the rio grande rive/mexico border. went down the river, the rio grande rive/mexico border. went down the river, the rio grande rive/mexico border. went down the river, the rio grande river.s/mexico border. went down the river, the rio grande river. they see us coming in a state boat, folks that are in the water swim back. coyotes in a raft moving folks, he bails and leaves the raft on its own. rocks were thrown at us going down the river. does not seem to be uncommon based upon the law enforcement officers that i was with. just ask a lot of questions to the people who are on the front line about the influx of the people from really all over the world. border patrol sector chief said -- i asked him, who's coming? he said it's 144 countries have come recently, from all over the world, including ukraine, coming into texas from mexico. shows the magnitude of the problem. was in honduras and guatemala earlier in the year.

saw the beginning of some of these folks that are making the trek. and here's the message, whether it's a right message or not, that if you get to the united states, you can stay. especially if you're 17 or under. you're going to be able to stay. the united states will take care of you. based on that, people move. the people motivating this are the drug cartels. in this whole scheme of things, the winners, the people who are making money are the drug cartels and the coyotes. they're the ones that make the money off of smuggling people and trafficking people, which as you know, as a lawyer, that is different. but they make the money. drug dealers for $6,000 tell folks in central america, give us $6,000, that'll get you three tries to get into the united states.

get to the texas/mexico border, they're turned over to individuals -- individuals are turned over to coyotes. many of them, but not all, but many of them, criminal gangs, ms-13 gangs. juveniles under 17. criminals. to smuggle them into the united states. many of them are used as bait in a sense that they start moving some people into the united states. drug cartels call border patrol, say here comes more folks crossing the border. they use them as decoys to move their drugs further downriver across the river. so the drug cartels are the criminals. and the ms-13 gang and the smugglers. so that message is out there that right or wrong, we'll take care of folks. people hear that all the way down to central america and all over the world, 144 countries coming in.

my question goes back to deferred action that has been talked about incessantly since you've been here all morning. do you think expanding deferred action to include more people is legal? if the administration does it -- set congress aside. administration just defers action to another group of people. i'm not talking about specific individuals, but to another group. you think that would be legal or not? >> it is my understanding that there is -- and my legal understanding, and it's something that's been acknowledged by scholars across the political spectrum that, yes, there is prosecutorial discretion which can be exercised in these sorts of situations. >> all right. is there a limit? >> of course there's a limit. it's based on whatever the law actually allows. >> what does the law allow?

>> in most enforcement realms, generally there is pretty broad discretion. >> so it could allow everybody? >> i'm sorry? >> technically, if it's broad, it allows -- could be expanded to allow everybody. just everybody who wants to come. if it's discretionary. >> i don't think that's what anybody is suggesting or saying. >> but you're not saying it's unlawful to expand it to include more people. >> again, it's my understanding based on my experience, based on my reading that there's pretty broad prosecutorial discretion. >> based on your position, where you are in this long chain of immigrants and all of the things we've been talking about, expanding that concept of deferred action, do you think more people will come or less? >> i think the key thing when we talk about daca -- >> excuse me. do you think more people would come? be encouraged to the united states? >> not if they don't believe

that there is benefit. and i think it's been made very clear that there is no benefit for individuals who are currently trying to address our border, unless they have a claim such as an asylum claim. >> but they may perceive that daca will apply to them, whether they realize the legal ramifications or not once they're here. don't you think that would encourage -- >> i think it's possible there are unscrupulous individuals who are trying to deceive those people who are attempting to enter our country through the border. the fact is daca offers -- or nothing like daca offers those individuals any benefit. >> they're surprised when they get here in many cases. that daca doesn't apply to them. is that a fair statement? >> i've actually looked at latin american media where it's reported that daca offers them no benefits. >> all right. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. i'm over time. >> thank the gentleman. will now recognize the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. rodriguez, thank you for being here.

start with a little bit of housekeeping in reviewing your confirmation proceedings over in the senate. i note that april 3rd executive meeting, senator grassley pointed out you had admitted to the judiciary committee you were personally aware of e-mails between political employees and career prosecutors discussing the decision to decline to prosecute the new black panther party voter intimidation case and that had contradicted the testimony of your boss, mr. perez. so i thought i'd take the opportunity to ask you if you were aware of any e-mails between lois lerner or a different member of the internal revenue service and career prosecutors in the department of justice regarding the prosecution or investigation of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. >> you're asking me if i know anything about lois lerner, congressman? >> if you're aware of any e-mails --

>> i only know what i've read in the paper about that situation. i've never -- >> so while you're in the department of justice as chief of staff for the civil division -- >> civil rights division. >> civil rights division. you're not aware of any e-mails? >> i have no involvement or any awareness other than what you and i both read in the papers, congressman. >> are you aware of when the civil rights division was tasked with beginning the investigation of the irs? >> i left the civil rights division to go to the department of health and human services in september of 2011. i think you're asking about a specific individual who was designated to conduct some review. i'm not fully familiar. that happened, i'm pretty sure, long after i left the civil rights division. >> okay. also during your confirmation hearing it was determined or discovered you had served on the board of directors of casa de maryland, which was an

organization known for finding employment for individuals without proper documentation. so i assume you supported this objective of the organization while you were on the board of directors. >> in the context of the community in which i lived, yes, i did support that mission. >> do you believe that prosecutorial discretion could be used to allow for finding employment or allowing for employment of individuals without proper documentation? >> if the individual has a right, for example, through some sort of deferred action or parole or some other mechanism to be in the united states, then, yes, those individuals can then be given employment authorization. in fact, it's often a good idea so that they're not in the shadow economy. >> so in your opinion, as an attorney, an experienced attorney at that, the -- as the president, you know, looks at

his options for -- to continue to act administratively to change u.s. immigration policy, you know, the chairman asked you at the beginning of the hearing as to whether, you know, what you had reviewed, what were the president's next plans. i'd like to change the question a little bit and ask in your learned opinion, you know, what you know of the law. what do you think the president's options are to act administratively to change u.s. immigration policy? >> so of course no decisions have been made. i think it's important to underscore that at the beginning. i think the options are many that are permissible under the law. that's a deliberation ongoing as we speak. >> give me two examples. >> i'm not really in a position to be able to give specific examples other than to make the general observation that the options are many. >> you could give examples just based on your understanding of the law. you don't have to --

>> well, certainly daca, as we've done it already, is one very concrete example of how that discretion might be exercised. >> all right. i was looking at a u.s. cis chart regarding the number of daca requests by requester country of birth. it lists the top 25 countries of the requester's birth. there are 19,200 requests on this chart from other and unknown countries. so how many of those daca requests have you received from applications whose home countries are listed as state sponsors of terrorism? >> i am not specifically -- i could probably tell you the top five. beyond that, i'm not specifically aware. >> could you get back with the committee with specific numbers on that? >> we can certainly -- absolutely, congressman, yes. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. i'm going to yield to myself for five minutes.

director, again, we thank you for being here. i want to walk through the process and understand some of the metrics. so if you're here -- if you came to this country illegally, you can apply for daca, correct? >> if you qualify under the various criteria -- >> how old can you be before you file for daca? how old can you be? >> it is my understanding you need to be between -- you can be no older than 31. >> so you can be a 30-year-old and apply for deferred action for childhood arrivals? >> that is correct. >> at that time, you're also applying for -- the guidance says you can apply for employment, a work permit. >> that is correct, in order that you not be in the shadow economy, that you pay taxes. that you not be an independent status in any way. >> so you come here illegally and then you apply for daca and you get a work permit.

now, you said there are more than 700,000 people that have been put into this process, correct? >> that is my -- i want to confirm those numbers with the committee -- >> your written testimony says over 580,000. you're now saying something like 700,000. it's hundreds of thousands of people? >> it is hundreds of thousands, yes. >> they're here illegally. you haven't gone through the proper channels. now you're going to apply for daca. you can be 30 years old. you get a work permit. how many of those work permits have been terminated or revoked? >> so, first of all, the key thing about these daca individuals, that they were brought here. they did not come here. these were individuals who were brought here -- >> how do you verify that? >> based on their ages and what we know about their -- >> they could be 30 years old. >> they may well have been brought -- they would have been brought here as children. that's one of the criteria to establish -- >> how long are these interviews? >> i am not specifically -- >> how long was the interview

you sat in? >> i'm sorry? >> you sat in on one of these -- >> that was an asylum interview that i sat in on. >> how long was that interview? >> it was a full hour. that interview. >> and we heard previous testimony from i believe the last hearing that normally these hearings or interviews are 15 to 20 minutes. >> if we're talking about asylum interviews, my understanding is in fact they're quite -- they're generally far longer than that. they are closer to about an hour. >> so a credible, fair hearing you think is how long? >> it was an hour. the one i observed was an hour. it is my understanding that is the norm. >> i think the record will correct you on that one. of the people who applied or get daca, they now have work permits so they can compete for a job against a united states citizen. how many of those get terminated? if you're, for instance, convicted of a felony, how many of those are tell nated? >> as of may 31st -- as of june 31st, rather -- well, i don't know the specific reasons for termination. 147 people have been terminated.

>> so you've -- wait, there's over 700,000 and there's been how many that have been terminated? 100? >> i would rely actually on the number that's in my testimony. again -- >> it's not specific. there's no number. >> oh, i thought you had a specific number of -- >> no, that's the problem. we've been asking you -- your department -- >> you and i agree wear talking about hundreds, hundreds of thousands of people, there's no dispute about that. 147 individuals have been terminated as of the end of june. >> how do you get this information? if somebody is convicted of a felony in utah or north carolina, how do you get that information? whose responsibility is that? >> that is -- it comes to us through various mechanisms. could be reported to us by the individual as part of the renewal process. >> really? you think that's going to happen? >> or it comes to us by other processes. >> so you just wait for it -- >> through law enforcement agencies. >> do you get reports of this? do you have a list of this information?

do you surf the databases? is there anything proactive you do to get this information? >> my understanding at this point in my tenure is we get the information from a variety of different sources. >> when you get this work permit and you're here, are there any limits to the type of work you can do? can you get a job in law enforcement? >> if you are otherwise qualified for that job. now, i know most very often law enforcement agencies have various sorts of -- >> but there's no limits on the type of job you can get. >> in and of itself, there is no limit unless that job itself has some limits associated with it. >> what do you say to the united states citizen who's doing everything legally and lawfully that they're now competing for a job with somebody who came here illegally and applied and obama administration said, well, we're just going to defer that, you can go ahead and compete for that job, what do you say to that person? >> i've had the opportunity during the course of this brief time as my tenure to meet some of the daca recipients. these are individuals who are

going to school. in one case, somebody who's about to graduate -- >> what do you say to the citizen who now has to compete with 700,000 people in the work force that wouldn't be there otherwise? >> what we have explained about the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, we don't have the resources to remove 10 million, 11 million individuals. so the question is, are we going to let them persist in the shadow economy or are we going to have them work and pay taxes? the choice that has been made is to enable them to work and pay taxes and go to school and become upstanding -- >> that's not what the law and is that's what's sickening about this. i yield back and recognize the gentleman from north -- sorry, the gentleman from arizona, my apologies. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate it. from my perspective there are

too many concerns that i have. number one, the rule of law and the constitution of the united states is undermined here and continues to be undermined. number two, there are tens of thousands of children that have been put at terrible risk and continue to be put at risk. interviewed a sick number of these unlawful immigrants that were coming over. and 95% of them, 95% of them cited that the primary reason for migrating to the united states was the perception of united states immigration laws granting free passes or permissos allowing them to stay. there's no question in my mind, when you see -- you've got projected from 2011 through 2015 now a 2230% increase in these unlawful immigrants coming over

the united states border. now, that's a systemic issue there. and i am absolutely convinced that the president's telegraphing of a message to central america and mexico and other places is the fundamental reason that's occurred. so i lay the suffering and some of the things that happen to these children at the feet of the president of the united states. i have no doubt about that. and certainly that's an opinion but it's a strong conviction and i think one upheld by the evidence. so my question is really to try to deal with those two things. first of all, i know your oath of office included swearing to uphold the constitution. i'm not trying to be tough on you or arrogant here, i'm trying to make a very important point. how will you be able to defend the president's end run around article 1 section 8 clause 4 which specific bestows on congress the duty to create immigration law, given his rewriting the law at his

executive whim? how do you deal with your oath of office in following some of those perspectives? >> well, among other things i don't necessarily -- i don't accept the characterization that we're simply ceasing in any way to enforce immigration law. we are exercising our discretion to prioritize the most important cases, the most serious cases, for enforcement and removal and investigation. and focusing on those in dealing with individuals who are not in those categories -- >> all right, let me try to accept that, then. so then would you agree that the president -- do you agree, i'll ask you, leave it an open question, does the president now have the ability with existing funding to help begin to stem the flow of unlawful immigrant in the united states? does he have that capability now if. >> there's certainly some capabilities. certainly the administration has made clear that it needs

additional funding in order to deal with what has been a significant surge. one that we all agree is a significant issue, a significant surge across the border. >> he can't do that now, correct? >> more resources are needed to deal with that -- >> are you saying that without additional funding, that the president cannot cease to use his prosecutorial discretion authority to shield whole categories of unlawful immigrants from prosecution, or he cannot implement tougher standards for credible fear claims? he can't do that without additional funding, correct? >> the credible fear standard is a standard that's in law and that's -- >> and it's also a standard as you know has been accepted almost 600% greater incidents than it was before, under this administration? almost 600%. and i'm just wondering, how do we close our eyes to the fact that this president's message to central america and other places

was that we won't do anything and that if somebody comes over, they'll be -- that is their perception. and it occurs to me that if the president is the cause of this, and i absolutely believe the american people understand that he is, that he also then has the ability to send a different message and to end both the suffering of these children -- and i believe that's real. sometimes they try to make it that people want to secure the border, like i do, that somehow we don't care about the children, and we do. and i'm convinced that the children that we might give a better living standard here, we're going to hurt four, five more by inscenting them to make that treacherous, dangerous trip where they run into all these kinds of problems. so if we're going to stem that issue, can't we call upon the president to send the message back that, no, there's a false thought here that they will just be welcomed here and they won't be sent back. because right now they don't

think so. he's getting ready to do some other executive order that certainly underscores that concern. >> the message that these individuals for the most part will ultimately not qualify to stay in the united states, that message has been delivered -- >> well, they're not hearing it, my friend. 95% of them say this is why they're coming and that's this president's fault and i wish i didn't have -- >> the flights have started -- >> i yield back. go ahead and answer the question. >> the flights have started going back. and the message has been delivered that, in fact, in most cases these individuals will not be able to stay in the united states. that message has been delivered by the president, by the secretary, it's been delivered many different ways. including by leadership in those countries. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. director, can you clarify, when you say most cases they're going to be sent back, there's no metric that i see that says that. >> well, in other words, recognizing that some individuals may be able to claim

status that enables them to stay in the united states, either qualify for asylum or be able to establish some other status that enables them to stay in the united states. in the majority cases, these individuals will need to be returned to their countries. >> now recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate the time. let's get right to it. in just a little bit ago, hhs secretary johnson testified before this committee on may 29th and he claimed that the administration's unilateral amnesty policies have created legal ambiguity for the status of illegal aliens. i objected to that point at the time. and on page 6 of your testimony you write the docket does not confer legal status on a recipient. you agree with me that secretary johnson is wrong that any deferred action or prosecutorial discretion creates a legal ambiguity? >> well, it certainly doesn't create a permanent status. i think that's the trust of your

question -- >> the thrust of my question is legal or not? what secretary johnson basically said was, because of these mismatch of policies, we've created legal ambiguity for people who walk across our borders illegally. and according to your testimony you say daca is part of that mismatch of priorities and programs. would you agree with secretary johnson, do you believe there's legal ambiguity, or do you believe they're illegally into the united states, coming in illegally, that there's an ambiguity to that situation? >> i don't know the specific context in which secretary johnson might have been speaking. our people who are benefitting from daca, do they otherwise have a legal right to be in the united states? it is a requirement in order to qualify for daca that you not have another legal basis to be in the united states. those are individuals who, in fact, are not gaining any sort of permanent status through being able to be in the daca program. but i don't know the context in

which secretary johnson's comments about legal ambiguity were made, so i'm not really able to speak -- >> okay, i'll just ask you directly, do you believe there's a legal ambiguity that is caused by the differences of -- he actually included states and other things -- it goes back down to the bottom line. if you cross over our border illegally, that doesn't automatically, by the basis of fact or changing or diversion or discretion, change the legal fact that you ought to cross our border illegally, correct or not? >> i suppose that's true by definition, congressman. i mean, in order to qualify for the daca status, again, you have no other legal basis -- it means you have no other legal basis to be in the united states. >> let me just follow up on that. i apologize, i've had to go out -- had several different meetings going on. i think earlier when mr. chaffetz was asking you, you said a requirement of daca is someone -- they were brought here by someone else and that's just not true.

daca only requires claiming to have entered before age 16, even if unlawfully on a visa, and be under 31 when applying. i think sometimes there needs to be -- i think there's misunderstanding here on daca and some of the things that many of us don't like because of the way it basically has subverted the regular process. let's just move on to something else at this point. what steps are taken as part of the advance team planning effort secretary johnson mentioned on february 7th in anticipation there will be some sort of path to legalization? how much has been spent on that? >> i don't specifically know. i do know there were efforts to prepare for the possibility that comprehensive immigration reform specifically as contemplated in senate bill 744 -- i can certainly get back to you with that information. >> okay, can we have time and money on the written answer that you'll provide back. >> yes. >> thank you. "new york times" reported the obama administration is pry over tidsing the processing of daca applications over those trying to enter the country lawfully.

in fact, until recently, a u.s. citizen could obtain a green card for an immediate relative in five months or less. the service diverted its attention to daca recipients and the typical wait lengthened to 15 months. why are you prioritizing illegal aliens over the relatives of u.s. citizens? >> i'm pleased to report the petitions have returned to within normal processing times. we have surges of work -- >> you're saying within five months now? >> now it's within five months 0 around five months. >> okay, i apologize. around five months or five months? because around five months could be eight. it could be ten. it could be two. i mean, i'm just trying to get a clarification. >> it's at five months, congressman. >> at five months, okay, thank you. okay. why -- let me just go back, then. get us back to where we should be. why was there ever a process in which you were prioritizing process of these applications over those who were immediate

relatives of u.s. citizens? >> congressman, we have surges of work that come from all different sources. our job is to up plement the entirety of our mission, to balance among different lines of business. one of the things from the daca experience is we actually learned some important lessons on how we absorb surges in work which is why we were able, over time, to return to our normal processing times for these i-130s. >> okay. again, it's just frustrating i know for those who are here legally, who are doing it the right way, to have been put off for any length of time or surge over a program that has put them behind the priorities. that's just something that's very frustrating. how much has the service spent on daca applications? >> i'm sorry -- >> again, spent money-wise, time-wise, on this, again, these applications. you talk about the surge, how you've adapted, how much have you had to divert, what does it cost you in that realm -- >> my understanding, and i don't know the specifics what i do know is that the fee collected for employment authorization and

for biometrics has enabled us to pay for the costs of processing the daca applicants. >> can you get -- >> we can get back to you with specific information -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> my time is expired at this point. >> i just wanted to, as you proceed, it's my understanding, but please confirm this, that all of these applications were paid for by the applicants through their fees and there was no taxpayer funds involved in these application processes. >> congressman, that is my understanding as well. if the gentleman from georgia will yield back. as we wrap up, director, we have just a few items that we would appreciate if you'd provide for the committee. first, regarding the daca

application, could you provide the metrics by which you can sustain this claim that there's no net expense to this? my understanding is there is no daca fee, there is for biometrics, there is for the worker application, but if you have 700,000 plus people getting a daca application and there's no application fee, i'd be curious to figure out where you get those funs. >> we will provide you information on the costs of daca. >> when would you -- when do you anticipate that we're going to get this? what's reasonable for us to get these documents? >> i would -- 30 days be appropriate?30 days be appropriate? i'm not sure whether the information is immediately available, whether it's going to take time to assemble -- >> 30 days, that would be fine. next one is of the 147 felony convictions, these are people -- daca recipients, the 147, who have been referred to i.c.e. for

removal, we would love to know how many of those have actually been removed from the united states and have they been referred to i.c.e. for removal? probably asked that -- should ask that in reverse order. how many of those 147 have been referred to i.c.e. for removal, and how many of them have actually been removed from the united states? we also need updated credible fear numbers. and we would also like to know how many work authorizations have been granted. this would be comprehensive over everything that you do. not just -- if you can break it out in category, but certainly how many work authorizations have been approved? >> thank you, congressman. we will work to get you that information as soon as possible. >> if you can break that number out for the work authorizations for daca, we would also appreciate it. again, is it reasonable to think that we could have these questions within the 30-day window? >> i believe so. if i am mistaken about that, i

will certainly let the committee -- >> we hope that you can prioritize that. we appreciate your participation here. welcome. this concludes today's hearing. i want to thank all the -- thank the witness for attending. without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. the hearing is now adjourned. on the next "washington journal," richard gage of "architects and engineers for 9/11 truth." he believes the world trade center was brought down by explosives inside the buildings, not the airliners that flew into

them. you can see him at 9:15 a.m. eastern friday morning on c-span. at 9:15 eastern on saturday morning on c-span, kurt eichenwald of "news week." he recently wrote about conspiracy theories about u.s. national security. >> author sylvia jukes morris is our guest on this week's "q&a." >> she was so beautiful and so smart and also so witty that she became -- she was just always irresistible to men. i don't -- never saw even in old age, i gave her 80th birthday party, and richard cohen, the washington columnist, was at this party. and they sat together after dinner having coffee and at one point she began to stroke his beard. and afterwards he said, "heavens, i've never met an 80-year-old before that wai wand to leap into bed with." she had this vampish quality,

seductive quality, her whole life. >> the life and career of clair booth lewis and sharing their personal relationship. 8:00 eastern sunday night on "q&a." wendy sherman, the top u.s. nuclear negotiator, this week said she hopes to complete negotiations over iran's nuclear program by november. but testifying before the senate foreign relations committee, she declined to set a firm deadline to finish the talks. >> this hearing will come to order. we have two panels today to give us an overview of the status of the p 5 plus 1 talks. looking back at what we've learned over the last six months and looking ahead at what might change between now and november

that ultimately gets us the type of deal we all hope for. what i'd like to hear from our witnesses who have been across the table from the iranians, given the underwhelming concessions achieved today, is what you have learned over the last six months that leads you to believe that we can reach a comprehensive deal in the next four months. now, i think everyone knows where i stand. i've been skeptical of the iranians' sincerity from day one. and i cannot say that i am any less skeptical today than i was six months ago. i do not believe tehran has had a change of heart about its nuclear program. if it did, i don't -- i would think that the whole militarization aspect of it would be part of something that hasn't -- still have to be negotiated but what be up front, as a matter of fact, i think it should have been up front from

the very beginning in order so that we could define truly the nature of these negotiations in a way that the world would not just suspect that iran was pursuing nuclear weapons but would know it. i do believe that the iranians want relief from sanctions. and that is why they are at the table. i also believe we have the leverage in this negotiation and that we should use it to get a good deal, and if not a good deal, then no deal at all. now, on that i will say that i have joined with the administration many times and secretary sherman has on different occasions, publicly and privately, said that no deal is better than a bad deal. but lately i hear refrains from the administration, but if no deal, what? which suggests that, in fact, if we have no deal, there are those who suggest that that is a choice between getting some type of a deal or having to go to a

military action. i reject that as a choice. i believe that there are significant interim steps in between that lead as far from that ultimate conclusion. and i also get concerned when i hear, if no deal, what? because that implies that you have to get a deal at any cost. and so i know that there are those in the disarmament community and in the editorial pages who suggest that those of us who want to really make sure that we get a good deal somehow have this penchant for war. i find it particularly amusing as it relates to myself. i was one of the handful of people who voted against the war in iraq, for example, at a time that it was overwhelmingly popular to vote for war. so -- but as someone who has followed this for 20 years, from my days in the house of representatives on the house foreign relations committee to

the present, i know that the iranians have gotten us to a point that by defying the international community, we now accept things that we would never have thought were acceptable. levels of enrichment, changing their facility, now closing their facility, changing the nature of their plutonium reactor. so they have succeeded in moving us well along the lines of what they ultimately wanted by defying the international community. including the present president of iran who has boasted about that while he was moving that program along, he was able to keep the west from significantly sanctioning iran. so if past is prologue, i think my skepticism is well rooted. now, what i want to know is whether you believe an extension will give us a good deal, a deal that alters iran's nuclear heading, postpones breakout,

dismantles iran's illicit nuclear infrastructure, puts us in place in a long-term inspection verification and monitoring regime, and calibrates sanctions relief to specific benchmarks, including a resolution of the possible military dimension of iran's program. now, i want to be very clear. i'm not looking for the state department's talking points today. i want to hear from our panelists why they believe, pacpac based on their experience over the last six months, four additional months will make a difference. what the committee needs to hear now is what happened at the negotiating table that brought iran closer, to their view, to a deal if only they had another four months. now let me close by saying what i have always said. i support the administration's diplomatic efforts. i have always supported a bipartisan, two-track policy of diplomacy and sanctions. at the same time, i have always believed that we should only relieve pressure on iran in

exchange for long-term, verifiable concessions that will fundamentally dismantle iran's nuclear program. and that any deal be structured in such a way that alarm bells will sound from vienna to washington, moscow and beijing, should iran start its program any time in the next 20 to 30 years. i also want to be clear today that i do not support another extension of negotiations. at that point, iran will have exhausted its opportunity to put real concessions on the table and i will be prepared to move forward with additional sanctions. with that let me recognize senator corker for his remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to say that i think those are excellent opening comments and i think there has been bipartisan concern about where iran is. actually, looking back over our notes, we looked back at the hearing we had on october of 2013.

where i think wendy and david body were here. and we talked about the extraordinary effort internationally that had been put in place to get iran where they were when these negotiations began. and i think the statement you mentioned, and hopefully this will play out in this way, but iran's compliance with all u.n. security council resolutions would be the ultimate test as to whether they really were willing to deal with us in the appropriate way. i think all of us wish you well and all of us -- i don't know of a soul here that doesn't want to see this resolved in a diplomatic way. i know we've had numbers of briefings. classified, some unclassified. and i will say, in fairness, the chairman is right. i mean, in each case, on the important issues, we feel the goal posts move.

and in march, of course, the issue of enrichment was basically agreed to. going to be very difficult, i think, to walk that back. but then on so many other issues that are related and tied to this, we see the goal posts again continue to move. i know that david's testimony today has done a good job i think with sanctions. he's going to talk about the relief that iran is getting during this next four-month extension. but i think all of us are concerned that the -- rightly so, i think you all are concerned too, that the international community having come together to put pressure on iran the way that we have is dissipating. and it will be very difficult to bring back together, if we end up in the wrong place here. so i'll close. i think the chairman's comments speak well for most of the committee, candidly. i'll just close by saying this. i hope that today you'll

publicly commit that there will be absolutely no more extensions. none. no matter where we are at the end of this four-month period there will not be additional extensions. we'll either come to final agreement or not. because i think people are very, very concerned about what happens if we have a series of rolling end-arm agreements, if you will. secondly, i hope you'll commit as john kerry has said, there needs to be congressional buy-in. i hope you will agree to some format that gives congress the ability to weigh in on this final deal. i know everybody says these sanctions cannot be weighed without congress, well, they can. they can be waived without congress weighing in. i actually believe that acknowledging congress playing a role in one of the biggest issues that this administration is going to deal with relative to reaching agreement, relative to nuclear issues, i think that congress can be an important and valuable back stop to the

administration as they negotiate this. because i know that congress has sent out very, very strong signals as to what they believe, what we believe, would be an acceptable arrangement. so thank you for being here. i appreciate your service to our country. i appreciate the updates that we receive by phone and in person. and again, all of us want to see success but are very concerned about where we are at this moment. >> thank you, senator corker. for the record, your full statements will be included in the record without objection. ask you to summarize them in about five minutes or so so we can enter into a dialogue with you. with that, madam secretary, you're recognized. >> good morning. thank you, chairman menendez, ranking member corker, and distinguished members of the committee. i'm pleased to be here along with undersecretary cobeen to discuss the status of negotiations related to iran's nuclear program. as you say you have my written statement so i will summarize its key points. mr. chairman and members, our goal is to prevent iran from

obtaining a nuclear weapon. the diplomatic process in which we are currently engaged was designed to achieve that goal peacefully and durably. we have a basic metric for a good agreement. one that cuts off all of iran's potential paths to a nuclear weapon. the plutonium path with the current iraq reactor, the path through the underground facility, the path through swift breakout at the enrichment path, the path that would occur in secret which we will deal with through intrusive measures. we will tie our sanctions relief to iran's performance, only providing relief to iran after it has taken verifiable steps as part of a comprehensive agreement and maintain the capacity to tighten the pressure if iran fails to comply. i cannot tell you today that our diplomacy will succeed because i am not sure that it will. i can tell you that in the past six months, we have made

significant and steady progress. we have exchanged ideas, narrowed gaps on key issues, and identified areas where more hard work is required. for instance, we have had productive discussions about how to reduce the dangers posed by the facility at iraq and fordo. about the protocols necessary for transparency. about the disposition of iran's stockpiles of enriched uranium. no issues have been neglected, none have been finally decided, because nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. and on sum we still have substantial differences including the question of enrichment capacity. as you know, mr. chairman, there is a limit to how dayed i can be in this open session and still preserve the leverage we need in support of the goal we seek. however, the bottom line is that although serious obstacles do remain, we are moving in the right direction. for that reason, roughly two weeks ago the parties to the

negotiation agreed to extend our deliberations for four additional months. we agreed to this extension because we had seen significant progress in the negotiating room and because we can see a path forward, however difficult, to get to a comprehensive plan of action. we will use this time to continue working towards that comprehensive plan for ensuring that iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon and that its program is exclusively peaceful. i note that a year ago iran's nuclear program was growing and becoming more dangerous with each passing day. that is no longer the case. last november as the first step in this negotiation we reached consensus on a joint plan of action in return for limited and targeted sanctions relief, iran agreed to freeze and even roll back key elements of its nuclear activities. in fact, the jpoa has temporarily blocked each of the paths iran would need to go down to build a nuclear weapon. many observers openly doubted

whether iran would keep its commitments under the joint plan. but according to the iaea iran has done what it promised to do during these past six months. the result is a nuclear program that is more constrained, more transparent, and better understood than it was a year ago. a program that has been frozen for the first time in almost a decade. meanwhile, as undersecretary cohen will make clear, sanctions relief for iran will remain limited to amounts that will do little, if anything, to heal iran's deep-seated economic problems. over the next four months the valuable safeguards that freeze iran's nuclear program will remain in place as we strive to negotiate a comprehensive and longer-term plan. i will be blunt and say that we will never rely on words alone when it comes to iran. we have and we will insist that commitments be monitored and verified and that the terms of access and inspection be thoroughly spelled out. our goal is to structure an agreement that would make any

attempt to break out of such an agreement so visible and so time consuming that iran would either be deterred from trying or stopped before it could succeed. speaking more generally, i want to emphasize that engagement on one issue does not require and will not lead to silence on others. the united states will not hesitate to express its view and put pressure on iran when it is warranted, whether in relation to the government's abysmal human rights record, its support for terrorism, its outright hostility towards israel, or its detention of political prisoners, journalists and american citizens. mr. chairman and members of the committee, on this issue we are united in our goals. we are determined iran not obtain a nuclear weapon. it is only because of the leverage created by the executive and legislative branches of this government, by our allies and partners, and by the u.n. security council, that iran has come to the negotiating table in what we believe to be a

serious way. but we all know that sanctions are a means, not an end. we are now in the process of determining whether the end we seek can be achieved through a diplomatic process. that effort is worthwhile because a positive outcome would be preferable to any alternative. a comprehensive agreement would ease anxiety and enhance stability throughout the middle east. it would reduce the likelihood of a regional nuclear arms race. it would eliminate the potential threat of nuclear blackmail. it would contribute to the security of israel and to our partners throughout the region and it would make our own citizens safer. between now and the end of november, we will continue our pursuit of these welcome ends and it is with those high purposes in mind that i respectfully thank you and ask you again for your support. i thank you for the opportunity to be here. i will be pleased to respond to every question and be as specific and detailed as i possibly can, mr. chairman, in this open session. thank you. >> secretary cohen.

>> chairman menendez, ranking member corker, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for your invitation to appear before you today along with my colleague undersecretary sherman to discuss the extended joint plan of action. i will focus my oral testimony on efforts to maintain intense pressure on iran to help achieve a successful outcome in negotiations over its nuclear program and the ever-mounting pressure iran will continue to face during the extended joint plan of action, period, as the p 5 plus 1 seeks a parensive and long-term resolution to the international community's concerns over iran's nuclear program. when we announced the joint plan last november we said we did not expect the relief package in the jpoa to materially improve the iranian economy and it hasn't. the depths of iran's economic distress, distress that resulted in large measure from the collaborative efforts of congress, the administration, and our international partners,

dwarfed the limited relief in the joint map of action. and so today as we start to implement the extended jpoa, iran remains in a deep economic hole. the value of iran's currency, the real, has declined by about 7% since the jpoa was announced last november.