under the 1961 sports broadcasting act and the comparable provisions for the mlb one year after the bill's enactment. it would authorize a commission to congress regarding the league's behavior and it would allow congress to reauthorize exemptions every five years based in, in part, on commit mentes to aid public service organizations. how much is the nfl willing to commit to aid those organizations? >> well, we have made

substantial commitments. we made five years to the domestic violence hot line. >> what is the amount of those commitments? >> i think it's $4 to $5 million a year. >> you have made a commitment to the -- >> national domestic violence hot line. >> would you be willing to make commitments of the same or comparable size to other organizations that do similar kinds of work? >> i cannot make that commitment today. >> who can make that commitment? >> i want to make sure we're trying to get the rest of the members in, so your time is expired. >> who can make that commitment? >> that's something we discuss with our entire team. who are those leading organizations, the organizations at grass root level that need the support to support our families, to support nfl personnel. so that's a collective decision that was made for us to support the national domestic violence hot line and the national sexual assault resource center. >> thank you very much. >> senator booker?

>> i just want to thank the ranking member for we should be revisiting this after the new year when i assume you'll be chairperson. the issue of accountability keeps coming up only can be held by this body should we have the chance to revisit this and see the progress that's going to be made. i'm going to go quickly. you obviously mr. vincent are saying that you're seeking to held fund and a lot of the charity you numerated in your opening statement was about funding and supporting prevention, treatment, and the like. and that's true you see those organizations often need more resources, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> real quick, the major league baseball does not have a tax exempt status, is that correct? >> the actual league. >> right.

>> does that hurt your financial bottom line? >> i don't think so. >> and so i don't think so either. >> i think we're doing well. >>. the congressional budget office says if we remove those teams, those leagues unlike major league baseball, there's a number of leagues including the nfl that have a tax exempt status. the budget office says if we prove that status it would yield millions of dollars a year annually back to taxpayers. and so my question is to you, understanding that these organizations need more funding, why does the nfl need a tax exempt status when we could be redirecting the money to domestic violence prevention programs? >> what i would say, let me make it clear. all league -- >> you don't have to numerate that.

i'm familiar with individual teams revenues. i'm asking you right now, i have to justify to my constituents why the nfl is multibillion dollar organization has tax exempt status. do you believe that unlike -- that just like the major league baseball, do you believe you should have tax exempt status? >> we're ran just like a trade association, very similar. >> so you think you should continue to enjoy a tax exempt status? >> it's not to enjoy. today that's how we're currently ran. our clubs, again, all revenues taxed. senator, i saw your proposal. and i do believe that when we combine both public and private resources, we could fund some of the things in your proposal. this is how we both collectively, privately and public resources, we can make a difference in the area of domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse. >> i appreciate that and the charity. my simple point is our professional leagues that enjoy as the senator just said, exemptions to a lot of laws and

enjoy tax exempt status should not enjoy a tax exempt status. where that money that the congressional budget office could save taxpayers millions of dollars annually. that could be used to invest in programs that we have to rely on the charity of the nfl. i don't think that's adequate. let me shift gears real quick. i feel very fortunate having played college football to have a lot of friends that have played in the nfl, played in the nba, and some friends that are still in the nfl and nba. and i have been described to me that resources is dazzling when

they let the players know we're here for you. if you're stuck at a club and can't get a ride, the nfl is there for you. you can call. and the nba, this i know. thank you for shaking your head. and so one of concerns i have when it comes to calling that team for issues of domestic violence that often the incentive, from my experience and what i know about my friends that are players, and i only know the nba and nfl players, that the objective is to keep that player out of the news, to keep issues quiet and to me that works against ultimately what the goal is when it comes to domestic violence which is bringing light and attention to a problem. as opposed to creating an environment where it's swept under the rug. one of the big concerns i have

is this rapid response that clearly we see that i know about personally that the response doesn't have two different objectives that are contrary to actually dealing with the problem that might be encountered. and i just like in the second that i have left, if you could give me assurances that what i know to be the case from friends who have played and are playing in the nfl and nba, that this system will be changed in way that puts the victim's needs and concerns ahead of that player's ability to remain on the field and the corporate interests that exist to keep that player being productive. i'd like both nba and nfl representatives to do so and i'm done. >> that is at the core of what we're talking about, what we have been evaluating is to make sure the victims and survivors have the support that they need. we recognize that we have to break the culture of silence. the programs that you mention, the last four years, that was my sole responsibility. player programs and services.

it's a shared responsibility. those programs are put in place in collaboration with the players association to assist families. we want to encourage the families to seek out proper help, proper assistance. i can assure you moving forward in the area of domestic violence, assault and child abuse that we want to make sure that we break that silence that the victims and survivors are safe. >> i'll make the same assurance. part of our training and education program that we're roling out with our teams and have shared at the highest levels is to make sure that this is not something that is discouraged but encouraged both for people to get help, but also to report behavior that's in violation of certainly of any criminal law and any violation of the nba's codes of conduct. >> and just return to the chair, that's the accountability we need to make sure these systems are changing. i think it's ridiculous that the nfl and other sports teams enjoys tax exempt status. >> thank you, senator booker. thank you for emphasizing that point because i won't have time for questions. i will just submit some questions for the record, but that particular issue is of interest to me and obviously the fact that the baseball oh, and basketball association don't enjoy the status and the nfl continues it. my main point is we saw this case with donald sterling. and we saw immediate and swift

action. in fact, michael jordan praised the nba saying a powerful message was sent that there can be zero tolerance. it's clear that in some cases these organizations can act swiftly and do act swiftly. the question is in this issue of domestic violence why you don't. i think that what we're hearing from many of my colleagues today is what the is the culture within these organizations that prevent it from acting as swiftly as was in the case of donald sterling. so i'm going to submit some questions for the record, but i also, too, want to be on record that the nfl, i'm hearing from my constituents as i have raised this issue related to what is a very hateful name in negotiation with the nfl, but my constituents now are just

flabbergasted that the nfl continues to enjoy a tax exempt status. for what purpose? and yet on these issues of having a name of hatred for a team and then having these cases of domestic violence to say nothing of the incidents of what happened with players, the nfl is not showing the leadership that i believe it should. it certainly doesn't deserve the tax exempt status. i'm going to submit questions for the record and i want to thank my colleague for her leadership on this issue. and certainly want to work with her in her role as previously understanding these issues from a perspective of how we can get some cultural issues engrained into these institutions. i want to thank you. >> i'm going to state on the record that i'm going to miss a vote. i think i would vote aye on the nominee and the record should

reflect that. but i'm going to skip that because the questions that need to be asked here in the long-term can have more impact on a problem that's pervasive and important than one more vote in a confirmation that's going to occur with or without my vote. i'm going to stick around. >> thank you, madame chair. thank you all for being here. i'm going to limit my comments to the national football league. all of you, domestic violence is important. i would have played in the nfl had it not been for my lack of size, speed and talent. that was my goal. i want to begin by saying, mr. vincent, i have the highest respect for you. we have a lot of friends in common. your representation among many in league circles is high as anyone i have ever heard. i remember drafting you in 1992 and sorry to see you leave in '94. in any event, i appreciate your service at both as a player for the nfl and now for the league. i do want to make two points about the nfl that are important and ask you this question. the nfl doesn't just play for three hours on sunday. the nfl is a 24/7 endeavor that wants americans to admire the people they put on the field. the league has established a contract with one of the providers and want them to wear those. this is an ongoing endeavor. it wants young people to look up to these athletes, and they do. being involved in youth football, this is very sad, but it is true in some instances. some of the only positive male role models that many young americans today have happen to be the professional athletes they'd see on sundays or at nights on television. this is a sport that's not just played three hours at a time. it has deep impacts throughout

society. there are millions of young americans who look up to these players and whatever happens or does not happen with them has a deep impact on them. buzz pa for many of them, it's the only male role model they have in their u lives in the case where is people go wrong. and that's why the ray rice case so interested me. because the situation with mr. rice involved someone that my son actually personally admired. my sons came to admire ray rice because one of my sons kind of plays a hybrid running back position. he's not the tallest kid on the team, but he's very quick. he looked for someone on the national football league who had the same attributes and that was ray rice. he really looked up to him. a few weeks ago he wanted to know why ray rice wasn't playing. and i had to explain. the impact of that was extraordinary.

what happened or didn't happen with him had an impact on him and other young people across america because it served as an example of what happens in society and in life when someone does the wrong thing. that's why i'm so interested in that case. my understanding from the testimony i watched on television a few minutes ago is that you stated that the commissioner nor the league had seen the video but it didn't need to because everything that. is that correct? >> yes. if i can, senator, again, the commissioner had stated he had not yet seen the video and as i mentioned earlier, i think any one of us who had witnessed that saw that despicable act. >> the point is that mr. rice, whatever we saw on the video, he basically had already told the commissioner that whatever that video showed, he admitted to. is that correct? >> yes. >> so basically not having seen the video is the same as having seen it in this instance. that's what you have said here today.

you didn't need to see the video because they already knew what happened. the only male role model they have in their u lives in the case where is people go wrong. and that's why the ray rice case so interested me. because the situation with mr. rice involved someone that my son actually personally admired. my sons came to admire ray rice because one of my sons kind of plays a hybrid running back position. he's not the tallest kid on the team, but he's very quick. he looked for someone on the national football league who had the same attributes and that was ray rice. he really looked up to him. a few weeks ago he wanted to know why ray rice wasn't playing. and i had to explain. the impact of that was extraordinary. what happened or didn't happen with him had an impact on him and other young people across america because it served as an example of what happens in society and in life when someone does the wrong thing. that's why i'm so interested in that case.

my understanding from the testimony i watched on television a few minutes ago is that you stated that the commissioner nor the league had seen the video but it didn't need to because everything that. is that correct? >> yes. if i can, senator, again, the commissioner had stated he had not yet seen the video and as i mentioned earlier, i think any one of us who had witnessed that saw that despicable act. >> the point is that mr. rice, whatever we saw on the video, he basically had already told the commissioner that whatever that

video showed, he admitted to. is that correct? >> yes. >> so basically not having seen the video is the same as having seen it in this instance. that's what you have said here today. you didn't need to see the video because they already knew what happened. >> as i acknowledged in the beginning, we made a mistake. >> i'm trying to understand the process by which, and you may have explained this already, what is the process? i know what would have happened if he tested for marijuana.

i know what would have happened if he tested positive for steroids. what is -- is this a completely arbitrary process based on how he feels or is there are a set model in place for what an action equals, an admitted action. there was not a dispute. he admitted that what he did and described it, to an extent that you didn't need to see the video. what was the criteria used to lay out punishment? >> we failed to impose proper discipline. >> i wanted to know what is the process in place moving forward i suppose as well, but at the time, what was the process if someone came forward, admitted they punched their fiance in the face in an elevator, by what measure did the commissioner decide? why three games instead of ten? was it fully just arbitrary or was there something he looked to? >> he looked back to some of the past cases when he's actually tried to impose harsher discipline. it was appealed and knocked down. that shows the severity of what we know about these crimes. he went back and -- >> appealed to an arbitrator? >> the players association appeals those -- appealed that offense. the discipline that was handed out in the past was appealed and knocked down. >> so your testimony that if a player comes forward and says to the league, i just punched my fiance in the face and knocked her out and the commissioner decides to spend him for a year,

is the players union will file an appeal because one year is too long for someone that just punched their fiance? the players association has that ability. >> and they have been successful? >> that's one of our -- that's where we have our challenge. >> what's the criteria now? >> that's what we're developing. to see the case, to hear the case. right now understanding and learning the complexities that are associated has been talked earlier about having internal investigations or parallel investigations with law enforcement, but we're looking at again severe discipline, our august 28th letter to both the owners and also the players, the commissioner spelled out very clearly u first. offense, a minimum of six games. give him the ability to impose more severe punishment. >> my time is up.

>> thank you very much. first, i wanted to comment. i have never seen so many women representing major league sports in this country at a moment of high u profile importance for the leagues. i think it's a good thing. i think it's terrific, and i would tell all of you to go back to the organizations you represent and say that you need to be at the table more often, not less often. but i don't think i ever recall seeing this many women representing professional sports at a moment like this in our country's history, so i wanted to make note of that. i had a question to the national hockey league. in reading about the suspension of the player that occurred recently, i think he's a defenseman for the kings. i won't try to pronounce his name. i noticed in the article that

the team was complaining because his salary was going to continue to count against the salary cap while he was punished. i found that interesting because it creates a financial incentive for the team to not punish. so my question to you, yes or no, does the league favor removing a salary -- counting against the salary cap during a time of suspension? >> when suspension was imposed, it was determined by the league office that the suspension should be with pay, so while the team continues to pay the player, that money counts against the team's salary cap. subsequently, we reached an agreement with the union to change the treatment for the team's perspective for a host of conditions so that it's no longer counting against the cap. >> so are you saying, and is this true with all of you that have caps, that when someone is suspended for misconduct with pay that that pay counts against the salary cap so the team is

being financially punished for doing the right thing? >> this wasn't dis plin imposed by the team, it was imposed by the league. so the team doesn't have an incentive one way or the other to act or not act. >> but the team could impose it and wouldn't it still count against their salary cap? >> only if they were choosing to pay the player during the discipline. >> okay. well, is that true with the other leagues? if someone is suspended with pay, does that count against salary caps? >> we just had our last two when we look at the adrian peterson and greg hardy, they were put on the commissioner's exempt list, the team was penalized. there's a salary cap. so the team is actually being punished because that is a cap hit. >> okay. well, i think you all ought to look at that. you need to remove every disincentive there is to punish players who have bad conduct. if a team is going to have money

count against the salary cap even when the player is not playing, that's going to weigh in favor of a much shorter suspension for the team imposed discipline. i will follow up on that. do any of you have a process in place now to independently investigate the facts? >> yes, senator, i'll answer that question. as we talked about with the recent case involving the player jeffrey taylor, we immediately commenced an independent investigation, retained two outside counsel, including two former prosecutors, one of whom had extensive history in dealing with the kmooesic violence. >> do you have an independent? >> under the cba, we do. >> your own investigators? they are pulling records, pulling 911 tapes, all of that? >> yes, we have an internal process for conducting investigations on all misconduct. >> i can't let the hearing be over. i don't know if they put you hear because they know how much all of us adore you, but as you noticed -- >> i was fired. >> that always happens after you leave, the affection resurfaces. i want to get that in as a huge cardinal fan, you were a huge part of our organization in many ways. does mlb have an independent investigation process? >> yes, we do. it's not my department, but we do have a department of investigation. >> i would like to know what happened on the investigation on the rodriguez case. i would like to know what the outcome of that investigation

was. i would like to know if they asked mr. rodriguez if he paid the plane ticket for the victim and the witness to go back to venezuela. >> i would have to get that information. >> thank you. does the nfl have its own independent investigation? >> yes, ma'am, with our internal security department. >> how many of you, yes or no, have an independent program for

just wives and significant others where the players are not allowed to attend? whether it is a confidential, here are the issues you're going to face, here are phone numbers you can call if you're in financial stress, here are phone numbers you can call if you've been abused, how many of you have an independent program like that for spouses and significant others? >> we do in the nfl. >> mlb? >> some teams have them. uniformly, we don't all have them, but it's something we're developing. >> i'll have more questions on that. >> yes, i think as michelle roberts explained earlier, we in the players association have

been meeting with our family organizations to determine the best way to provide resources going forward. >> you don't have an independent one now? >> no. >> some of the articles were saying, there was no place for us to go. the teams weren't reaching out to us. it was all about the players. >> our program extends to the players' families and our doctors have been accessed by players' spouses. >> do you have an independent program for initiation into the league? an independent program for the spouse of the player? >> to the extent they exist they would exist at the team level. >> i would like to have your league look at whether there should be a policy that's required. what about mandating reporting to law enforcement? do any of you have a policy at the league level that a coach is required or an assistant, any

team personnel is required that they learn of conduct by a player that is illegal in terms of a felony assault or any kind of assault that you are required to report that to law enforcement? >> yes, ma'am, we have that in place. >> so right now if a coach, if a player calls his coach and says, i was drunk, got in a fight with my wife, popped her in the face, i just left the house, she's called 911. when he calls that coach, is that coach then required to pick up the phone and call the police? >> that coach is required to do so, yes, ma'am. >> that is a coach ever failed to do that? how long have you had that policy? >> it's been in place for some time now. i can't tell you the number of years, but he is required to call. >> i would luk to know how many times coaches have called.

that's a question i'll have for the record. i don't have time to ask all of you that, but i will for the record. i think you get my drift listen, i think all of you are terrific people and want to do the right thing. but you've got to understand that the status quo is not acceptable. that turning the other way and thinking that this problem is being handled by these players and their families out of the light, many, many, many families are suffering. and i think you all know that in your hearts. so i'm going to keep following up. there will be more accountability in the future and i'll have a number of questions for the record and thank you for being here. i will turn the hearing over to mr. rubio for more questions. if you finish your questions and senator rockefeller is not here, you need to recess the hearing because he is coming back? no, you can gavel out. i am going to go vote now. thank you. >> i won't keep you, but i wanted to give you the opportunity to respond. in his answer to my question outlined the role the nfl played in the past in defending players

accused of domestic violence and other infractions. what's the role if a player -- i wanted to lay the groundwork in mr. rice's story. he game forward and admitted to the facts to such an extent that we have heard here today that the league didn't even need to see the video to know what happened. they learned nothing new from the video they didn't already know. in a case like that, what is the nfl's role in supporting the player or what role do they play in that process? >> first of all, the players have the option to have us in attendance if they have a meeting or conversation with the commissioner, so we support them in that way. if a player chooses to grieve or appeal after a discipline has been handed down such as in the ray rice case, we do prepare that appeal and represent the player on appeal. i think it's worth noting for the record, under the personal conduct policy, that appeal goes back to the commissioner for his review of his own decision. so that is what was different in the ray rice case because we

fought for neutral arbitration. >> so when these instances in the past where mr. vincent outlined the reality that in the past -- his testimony was that the commissioner felt limited by the punishment he could apply to mr. rice because of previous instances where he had instituted a punishment and had had been successfully appealed. who are those instances successfully appealed to? or maybe you know the cases that you were referring to when you outlined that in your testimony? >> the one that comes to mind is the brandon marshal. >> the one with the instance down in south florida with his wife? >> yes, sir. and the suspension that was imposed was three games. it was appealed and knocked down to two. >> that suspension was appealed to an independent arbitrator? >> no, back to the commissioner. >> so the commissioner lowered his own decision? >> it was actually appealed -- the pa appealed it and the arbitrator knocked it down to

two games. >> so based on the brandon marshal incident, which as i recollect, an instance where his wife was arrested in that case because he had been stabbed in the stomach with a bottle. she was the one that was arrested in that case although the facts now have turned out to be something different. and he has clearly stated she was not at fault. but in that case, the commissioner's punishment was three games, but on appeal from the nfl pa and independent arbitrator lowered it to two games. so my understanding is she was the one arrested in that case although the facts now turn out to be something different. and he has clearly stated she was not at fault. but in that case, the commissioner's punishment was three games but on appeal from the independent pa, they lowered it to two games. do you know that was the fact that that was the instance on his mind when he settled for the suspension? >> i wasn't involved in the ray rice situation. >> okay.

what is it the nfl pa looks at when they make the appeals? what are the grounds for an appeal? for example, does the nfl pa have any criteria to where they think you go too far for punishing a player because they punch their fiancee in the face? >> we don't have criteria. first, we have to see what the player wants to do. if the player wants to appeal, no matter what our advice, is we have a duty to do so. we felt mr. rice was in the double jeopardy situation because there is no new evidence that emerged. there are different grounds in each case. i hate to say it's case by case, but it is. >> i understand the differencetion in the rice case. he received one suspension and then when the video came out, they added additional suspension and the nfl pa punished him

twice for the same thing you already knew about that. my question is moving forward. god forbid we wake tomorrow to a new ray rice type case and a player decides to appeal. i guess your argument is that at that point the nfl pa has the same obligations as a lawyer would to a client to defend them irrespective of what his personal views may be about the conduct. >> that's correct. >> and so we know what we don't have is established precedent in which we know at some point there is an appropriate suspension that is unappealable. that's what you're working on now? >> yes, sir. that's exactly what we're working on is a criteria and commissioner spelled that out in his august 28th letter. a minimum aggravating factors that will impose more severe discipline. >> i would just like to say, again, some of the earlier points, we like that policy to be collectively bargained. i think one of the senators said, you know, we know what happens if a player has marijuana in his system. we know what happens if

basically if there is a drug policy violation. and this is one of the reasons why. because there is instint ski. because there is no standard. because neither one of cuss give you a criteria for what happens next. that's why this policy needs to be collectively bargained. >> there are players that because they used performance enhancing drugs, some instances involving, you know, cold medicine that they took without documenting appropriately, they're suspended for more games than mr. rice was. that's why i think the public looks at that and says this doesn't make a lot of sense to us. i do want you to know, the nfl nature of it is because i'm more familiar with this league. the take away from today's hearing to be clear is going to be talked about in the days to come. and for mr. vincent, i think the league is going to have to deal with the fact that your statement here today that the commissioner didn't need to see the video because he already knee what had happened, i think that is it going to be problematic moving forward. i know many of my colleagues are

going to be concerned about that statement as well. i think some of the perception was, and i was under this perception twhaenlt accurate and honest with the league about what he had done. but in, fact today the testimony has been that league fully understood what he had done because he -- there is nothing that we see in that video that he hadn't already told people about and despite that the sentence handed down or the punishment handed down was so limited. i know you admitted to day that punishme punishment was not strong enough. >> let me make sure that i'm firm and correct what i said. no one needed to see, again, the commissioner had stated he had not seen the second video. he acknowledged his mistakes on not handing out the proper discipline on the initial round. >> no, i understand. and i guess my point on that is that your statement is he didn't need to see the video because he

already knee what had happened. >> that's my opinion. i think that's the general public's opinion. >> okay. all right. i appreciate all of you being here today. i know it's been a long hearing. do we have a script for the comments after? just basic. the record will be open for two weeks and with that, the hearing is adjourned.

now we're going to take you live to the justice department where we're expecting a statement by attorney general eric holder on today's new york city grand jury decision in the eric garner choke hold death. the associated press reporting earlier that the justice department will conduct a federal investigation into that death of an unarmed black man after a grand jury declined to indict the white police officer who applied the move according to a department official today. that official said federal authorities will investigate. now live coverage. >> good evening, i want to

provide an update regarding a case involving eric garner, a staten island resident who died tragically in july of this year. since mr. garner's death, the united states attorney's office for the eastern district of new york, the civil rights division and the federal bureau of investigation have been monitoring the local case closely while allowing the local investigation led by the district attorney's office in staten island to proceed first. earlier today the grand jury declined to return an indictment in this case. now that the local investigation has concluded, i'm here to announce that the justice department will proceed with a federal civil rights investigation into mr. garner's death. this afternoon, i spoke to the widow of eric garner to inform her and her familiar live our decision to investigate potential federal civil rights violations. i've been in touch with president obama and the mayor regarding our decision.

now prosecutors will conduct an independent, thorough, fair, and expeditious investigation. in addition to performing our own investigative work, the department will conduct a complete review of the material gathered during the local investigation. now we've all seen the video of mr. garner's arrest. his death, of course, was a tragedy. all lives must be valued. all lives. mr. garner's death is one of several recent incidents across our great country that have tested the sense of trust that must exist between law enforcement and the communities they are charged to serve and to protect. this is not a new york issue nor a ferguson issue alone. those who have protested peacefully across our great country following the grand jury's decision in the ferguson have made that very clear. as the brother of a retired police officer, i know in a very personal way about the bravery

of the men and women in uniform who put their lives at risk every day to protect public safety. the vast majority of our law enforcement officers perform duties honorably and committed to respecting their fellow citizens' sicivil rights. it is for their sake as well that we must seek to heal the breakdown in trust that we have seen. i traveled to atlanta to begin a series of interactions to begin this process. and officials around the country at every level of the united states department of justice will continue this vital on going work. as the justice department's independent investigations into the deaths of michael brown and eric garner proceed, i will continue these conversations as we seek to restore trust, to rebuild understanding and to foster cooperation between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

i know that substantial numbers of people in new york and across the country will be disappointed and will be frustrated by the outcome of the state grand jury proceedings today. many will plan to voice their disappointment publicly. this is the right. this is the right of all americans. as i have said as we said throughout our history, the most successful movements have been those that adhere to the principles of nonviolence. remain peaceful in the demonstrations and not enjoy the activities in our attention and they're serious matters that our nation must confront. thank you. >> join us tomorrow when washington journal will have much more on today's grand jury decision not to indict in the eric garner case in new york. congressman and congressional

black caucus member hakeem jeffries will join us to talk about that case and law enforcement relations with minority communities in general. later, wisconsin republican shawn duffy will talk about federal funding and immigration policy. the program goes live tomorrow and every day starting at 8:00 a.m. peern eastern on our compa network, c-span. >> "the wall street journal" is hosting the ceo council annual meeting. yesterday attendees heard from incoming senate majority leader mitch mcconnell about his plans for the senate in the next congress. his remarks run just under 20 minutes. >> thank you very much, senator mcconnell, for being here. he had to work harder than you know to get here because it's washington and it rained. and, you know, washington doesn't cope with many things well, including rain and so,

thank you for percent veering. and you won the senate. congratulations. >> one of my better months. >> exactly. >> you know, let me start with the 10,000 foot level if washington. i think the words dysfunction and congress have gone together a lot in the last few years. you've talked from the minute you guys won the majority about fixing the way the senate works. talk a little bit about how you're going to do that and what you have in mind when you say that. >> rarely does an issue like functioning resonate with the american people. but it clearly did. there were two things that we heard all over the country this year. number one, people were very upset with the administration. you could have figured that out pretty quickly. but they were also not happy with the fact that we don't seem to do anything anymore. it was pretty clear to those of us who work in the senate, the

reason we weren't doing is the senate. we evolved into a body that basically doesn't ever pass anything except in an emergency situation. so i feel like we have an obligation to the american people to be responsible, right of center, conservative governing majority which involves allowing votes on matters. i mean you had a freshman democratic senator in los angeles running for relection who had never had a role call vote on an amount on the floor of the senate in six years. and his opponent brought that up on a routine basis. so not only did it not work politically, it didn't work for the government. so we'll be working longer. we'll be working harder. and there will be an opportunity for members of both the majority and minority to offer their ideas and to get votes.

i know that sounds revolutionary, i know. but we're going to pass individual appropriation bills and funneled the government rather than balling everything up into a continuing resolution which only further underscores the dysfunction. >> you know, one of the things that helped to blow up the senate in the last few years was the democrats' invoking what is known as the nuclear option which is a rule to say you can't filibuster presidential nominees. can you get them recruit with 51 votes. your side hated it. you're going to be in charge in a matter of weeks. are you going to stick with that rule or are you going to get rid of it? obviously there are some people saying let's keep it in place and let the democrats get a taste of their own medicine. >> the worst thing about it is the way it was done. the rules of the senate requires 67 votes, a very high threshold to change the rules of the senate. very clear. senators a continuous body. it doesn't adopt rules at the beginning of every session like

the house -- every congress like the house does. so what was done was the majority leader moved to change the rules in the senate and said you can't do it. he appealed the ruling and the chair overturned it with 51 votes. thereby setting a precedent that any majority at any time for whatever reason could change the rules in the senate. it's impossible to unring a bell so the precedent is there, regretfully. but your question is what do you do about it? and we're going to have an indepth, lengthy discussion on this on december 9th. we invite the our freshmen to come back. and there are points of view on both sides of this. leaving the way it was done, there are those who argue this was the way it was until 2000. even though the rules permitted

filibustering executive branch and due jisjudicial appointm ne. there are those arguing that put aside the way it was done, this is, in fact, the way it was up until 2000 when the democrats decided to start filibustering george w. bush's circuit court nomination. so i can't give you the answer to what we're going to do but we're going to have a discussion. >> you know, most people would agree at this point most important relationship in this town is now the one between you and the president. talk about what that relationship is like from your point of view. and how you think it evolves now. >> we don't have any personal difficulties. in fact, i negotiated. some with argue the only bipartisan agreement that's we have with this administration involved by the vice president and myself. the vice president is not a free agent. he was allowed to do so by the

president. the two-year extension of the bush tax cuts and december 2010 the budget control act and august of 2011 the fiscal cliff deal. and news of 2012 were all bipartisan negotiations. so i don't have any fundme ntaa negotiating. when you look at the way the president reacted to what could only be described as a butt kicking in the election, you know, maybe you could explain away us winning red states for senate races. how do you explain the governor of maryland, the governor of massachusetts? the governor of illinois? by any objective standard, the president got crushed in this election. so i've been perplexed by the reaction since the election, the sort of in your face dramatic move to the left. so i don't know what we can expect in terms of reaching bipartisan agreements.

that's my first choice to look for the things that we actually agree on if, there are any. at least on trade, i think there's a potential for agreement, trade agreements are more popular in my conversation than they are in the democratic -- than they are in the democratic conference. comprehensive tax reform. we all think it ought to be done. so fate president's view has been that he wants a trillion dollar ransom to do it. in other words, he wants a trillion dollars in scorable revenue for the federal government as a condition to do comprehensive tax reform which reagan and tip o'neill agreed would be revenue neutral to the government, from a congressional budget office point of view. that's, you know, we're not going to pay a trillion dollar ransom to do something that would make the country more competitive. certainly need to do it. want to do it. but we don't -- are not going to under any circumstances give

this administration a trillion dollars more in revenues as a condition for doing it. >> to the people in this room who want corporate tax reform, what do you tell them the chances are that you get from here to there in the next two years? >> i would tell all of you to lob i didn't think president to agree with us what the purpose of this all is. to make america more competitive. you know, they've already gotten plenty of tax increases. i mean we've had a tutorial in the last six years over spending, borrowing, taxing and overregulation. on the front page of your paper today, points out how much regular americans are falling behind. we know this stuff doesn't work. we've had an experiment here for six long years. if the president wants to make the country more competitive, the single best thing he can do would be comprehensive tax reform. you notice i keep saying comprehensive. it will be tricky if not impossible to convince my members that you get a rate down

here and pass throughs get a rate up here. so i think there are two things that we really ought to have an understanding about at the beginning. but large and small businesses should be treated be treated th it ought to be revenue neutral with the government. if we have those kichbds of understandings before we start down this path, i think we can get there. >> but you can sort it out from personal tax rates, right? >> the president wants higher rates, my point of view, we would have the same type of rate for everybody. but at the very least, we don't think big businesses should have a tax rate down here and pass through businesses have a tax rate up u here. >> the other thing that people would ask for from washington is please stop the unpleasant

surprises, no more government set back scenarios, give us predictability, no more market rattling events. can you give us assurance on that point? >> i have made it very clear, the day after the election, no more government shutdowns and no default on the national debt. we need to quit rattling the economy with things that are perceived by the voters as disturbing. having said that, there's still a lot of change that the people would like to see and the president is going to have to -- there's no way to work around the president of the united states. i like to remind people he's the only person in the country who can sign something into a law and get the members of his party

to make a deal. we are having a firing squad in the wake of the last election. regardless of what action the president takes, there are 12, 15 democrat who is wanting to get back to normal and who seem to me to be more willing to do that even when the president doesn't want to do it. >> although that center got a little wiped out in the last election, on the democratic side? >> look at the vote on the keystone pipeline. this might surprise all of you in the room, the most calls i got from senate democrats were happy at the last election, they said they were happy that we were going to get back to normal and that people were going to be honored and people would be

encouraged to share their ideas. if you look at the keystone pipeline vote, i think it's a core of the senate democrats who don't like dysfunction, who think we ought to work together to achieve at least what we can agree on. >> you know, one of the questions at the moment is whether you can convince your caucus to fund the government between now and the end of the fiscal year in september. there's a conservative group that downtown want to do that because they think that the budget is leverage against president obama who has done this executive order on immigration. >> in the short-term, the senate will be in a reactive role. i mean, we're going to support what the house republicans send over to us. next year, we'll be co-call

partners on that issue. i think what -- i think other members aring gob supporting that. >> talk about immigration, you mentioned it earlier and the president's executive order has royaled the waters, but your centers passed comprehensive immigration reform a couple of years ago, is it possible now? is that what you seek? can that be done in this environment? >> if you'll allow a historical analo analogy, a guy named henry clay tried to hold the counld b coun together before the civil war. we had new territory all the way to the pacific. a lot of potential new states which always raised the issue of whether they're going to be slave states or free states.

clay cobbled together a whole lot of compromise a whole lot of other things. the senator from illinois took it apart and every piece of it passed separately, and only five senators voted for every piece. why this point? i think what's made it really difficult for the congress to swallow is the comprehensive nature of the way it's been presented. our democratic colleagues in the senate, who suspect this is the case in the house, or focus like a laser on one issue, and that is that people who are in the country no matter how they got here, and what happens to them? what's their status? there are a whole lot of other aspects to this that are part, as the proud husband of an immigrant who came here not speak english, i'm a big supporter of legal immigration.

the legal immigration system is a pretty big mess. what i think we ought to do is bust it up, pass as much of it as we can. starting with border security, which is a way of reassuring the american people that we're not going to have another calamity like we have had. and the speaker will have to give you his take on it. but i would bust it up, if i were -- h2a, ag worker provisions, e-verify and some of the other things we can get pretty broad agreement on, open it up for amendment, but i don't know what the fate for senate democrats would be. but put it on the president's desk, a bill that proves we can strengthen immigration.

>> i want to open it up to questions if somebody's got one. if not, i'm happy to keep rolling here. health care, there were questions earlier about the affordable care act. you're a big fan of the affordable care act. and there was a repeal affixed to debate. how do you view the affordable care act? >> i think you're joking. it's the single worst thing we have passed in the last century, and it's the biggest step to europeanize america's health care. but the chances of the president signing a full repeal are pretty limited. there are parts of it that are extremely toxic for the american people, the elimination of the

40-hour workweek, the medical device tax, the health insurance tax. you can anticipate those types of things be voted on in the senate. such votes have not been allowed in the past. who may ultimately take it down to the supreme court of the united states. it's a very significant case that will be decided before june on the question of whether the language of the law means what the language of the law said, is that subsidies are only for states who set up exchanges, many states have not. if that were to be the case, i assume that you could have a mulligan here, a major do-over of the whole thing. if that's something that's mitt mitigated through the supreme court. >> one more question and we'll have to let you get out.

one of the imminent questions is whether is going to give the president a new version what's called the -- the who is seems likely to ask for that. is it going to be granted and how difficult will that be to work through congress. >> there's a bipartisan desire in the congress to pass an aumm. i think the administration was less interested in that than we were. i think we probably will. it looks like this is going to be a long-term engagement at some level by us, i think it's appropriate for the congress to weigh in and i expect that we will. >> how open ended, how long-term is that going to be? >> we'll see, that's a very complicated issue. as recently as earlier this year, the president was calling us the junior varsity, it's

clearly not a junior team, it's an nba team, with some serious threats and implications for our country. >> are you optimistic that this can be a bipartisan issue? is it becoming a bipartisan issue? >> there are people on both sides of the aisle that feel that benign neglect is not going to lead to a good outcome. that we'll have to have some level of american involvement, probably a big discussion about how much vomt. but i don't think we can ignore groups that make it clear they want to kill us by beheading american citizens and making sure we see it. >> you have been kind to take a break on a busy week and a busy day. hopefully we can do it as time rolls on next year. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> coming up tonight on cspan 3,

legal experts analyze president obama's immigration executive order. then a british house of commons committee holds a hearing on developments in syria and combatting isis in iraq. and later, white house cyber security co-ordinator michael daniel discusses the government's role in cyber security. >> now a house judiciary committee hears testimony on president obama's executive order on immigration. witnesses include legal experts who express whether the president has legal authority to issue the order. this is three hours, 40 minutes. good afternoon, this hearing of the judiciary committee will come to order. without objection, the committee has authorized us to take -- this morning's hearing on president obama's executive

overreach on immigration. u i'll begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. i also want to point out to the members and to the audience in attendance today, you're all welcome to be here, but rule 11 of the house rules provides that the chairman of the committee may punish breaches of order and decor rum by censure and exclusion from the hearing. president obama has just announced one of the biggest congressional power grabs ever by a president. he has declared unilaterally that by his own estimation, almost 5 million unlawful immigrants will be free from the consequences of their lawless actions. not only that, he will in addition bestow on them work permits and other benefits. and president obama has stated over 20 times in the past that

he does not have the constitutional power to take such steps on his own. and has repeatedly stated, i am in the a king. we'll now ask for the video be rolled. >> the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. because there are laws on the books that congress has passed, there are enough laws on to the books by congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system, that for me simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. >> i can't solve this problem by myself. we're going have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen. wire also a nation of laws, that's part of our tradition. and so the easy way out is to

try to yell and pretend like i can do something by violatiing our laws. i can't simply ignores laws out there, i have to work to make them change. i have to bypass congress and change the law myself. but that's not how democracy works. see, democracy is hard. but it's right. changing our laws means doing the hard work of changie ing mi and changing votes, one by one. >> sometimes when i talk to emigration advocates, they wish i could just bipass congress and change the law myself. but that's not how it works. i swore an oath to uphold to the

laws on the book and i know some want me to bypass congress and do things on my own. believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, i promise you, not just on immigration refortunately. -- reform. but that's not how ---that's not how our system works. that's-that's not how your democracy functions, that's not how our constitution is written. >> the problem is that i'm the president of the united states, i'm not the emperor of the united states. my job is to execute laws that are passed. and congress right now has not changed what i consider to be a broken immigration system. and what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place, even if we think that in

many cases the results may be tragic. >> we are a nation of immigrants, but we're also a nation of laws. so what i have said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system and i have done everything that i can on my own. >> what i have be what i have been able to do is make a legal argument that i think is absolutely right, which is that given the recourses that we have, we can't two everything that congress has asked us to do. what we can do is then carve out the dream act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are americans that we should welcome, but if we start broadening that, then essentially i would be ignoring the law in a way that i think would be very difficult to defend legally. so that's not an option. >> as "the washington post's"

own fact checker concluded, quote, apparently he's changed his mind. president obama admitted last week that i just took an action to change the law, end quote, and i should add a jeweled crown worthy of king james of england who dispensed with the revolution by dispensing laws passed by parliament. it is congress's duty to write our nation's laws and once they are enacted, it is the president's responsibility to enforce them. article 2, section 3 of the constitution requires the president to take care that the law be faithfully executed. president obama wants a special pathway to citizenship for 11 million unlawful immigrants and without any assurance that our nation's immigration laws that will be enforced in the future and he's upset that america won't change his immigration laws to his liking. thus he has decided to act unconstitutionally under the guise of prosecutorial

discretion. while presidents do have the power to exercise prosecutorial discretion, congre discretion, this power must be judiciously used. prosecutorial discretion is a powerful tool that must be used responsibly and that exercising prosecutorial discretion does not less on the in s's commitment to enforce the immigration laws to the best of our ability. it is not an invitation to violate or ignore the law. evening president obama's department of homeland security secretary jeh johnson has admitted to to the committee that there are limits to the power of prosecutorial discretion and that there comes a point when something amounts to a whole scale abandonment.

the obama administration has crossed the line from any justifiable use of its authority to a clear violation of his constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws. there is a difference between setting priorities, focusing more resources on those cases that seem more serious and setting enforcement free zones for millions of unlawful aliens. by boldly proclaiming that there will be no possibility of removal for millions of unlawful aliens, president obama eliminates entirely any deterrent effect our immigration laws have. al he states plainly that those laws can be ignored with impunity, such actions will encourage others to come here illegally, just like his action for childhood arrivals program encouraged tens of thousands of unaccompanied alien minors and families to make the dangerous

trek to the united states. the president relies on a memo prepared by his justice department's office of legal counsel, to explain that those actions are constitutional. immigration's discretion in -- limits on enforcement discretion are both implicit in and fundingmental to the constitution reese allocation of governmental powers between the two governmental branches, the memo admits that the executive cannot under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion attempt to effecti effectively rewrite the laws to match it's effectiveness. in heckler versus chieney decision, as to amount to anned a jew indicatithe memo is an in

president obama's actions. the president also mistakenly claims that his actions are nothing new. it is u true that previous presidents of both parties have provided immigration relief to groups of aliens, sometimes themselves abusing the power of prosecutorial discretion, however, usually the actions were based on emergencies in foreign countries, thereby ar y arelying on the broad constitutional power given to a president to conduct foreign affairs. for example chinese students were protected from deportation after the tian'anmen's square, and after the devastating earthquake of 2010. what about president george h.w. bush's family fairness policy which the white house cites to justify his power grab? size and scope matter and only about 80,000 aliens applied to that program.

as to the white house's claim that it covered more than 1.5 million aliens. "the washington post" fact checker concluded that the 1.5 million figure is too fishy to be cited by either the white house or the media. indeed, the 100,000 estimate that the -- "the washington post" assigned the white house claims three pinocchios, in granting deferreded action to a totally unpress defected number of aliens, president obama has clearly kmeeded his constitutional authority. no president has so abused and misused the power of prosecutorial discretion as has president obama. by acting lawlessly and assuming lettigislative power, the obama administration is driving full speed ahead to a constitutional crisis, tilting the scalers of our three-branch government in his favor and threatening to unravel our system of checks and

balances. president obama has entered the realm of rewriting the laws when he can't convince congress to change them to match his personal tastes. as law professor dade rubenstein has written. the more broadly or generally a systematic policy applies, the more it takes on the hue of law. rather than working constructively with the new men and women americans elected to represent them in congress, the president is making his relationship with congress increasingly toxic by unconstitutionally acting on his own. tragically, president obama's shortsighted actions have further set back congressional efforts to enact legislation to reform our broken immigration system. i look forward to today's hearing and the testimony of our imminent witnesses. now i yield to mr. conyers for his opening statement. >> thank you.

ladies and gentlemen -- >> in the hearing room, members of the audience must behave in an orderly way or they will be removed from the audience immediately. [ inaudible ] >> remove the members of the audience from the hearing room. [ inaudible ]

>> the gentleman from michigan for the interruption, but he is now advised to proceed with his opening statement without penalty for the delay. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee and those who have joined us here this afternoon in the house judiciary committee, i would respectfully disagree with a number of assertions by our chairman. president obama did not change the law, he acted within the law consistent with the constitution

and past precedent. now i have not noticed that there were many constitutional law professors on the committee, and i am certain that when president obama decided two weeks ago to use his authority under existing law, to do what he can to fix our broken immigration system, i could have not been more pleased. i defy any of my colleagues on this committee or anyone in congress to tell me our immigration system is not broken. we know that it is. but i am disappointed that this congress, like a number of them before it, has done nothing to fix the problem. republican leaders in the house

won't allow us to vote on a bipartisan bill, s-744 that passed the senate last year, with 68 votes out of 100. this committee has marked up a series of bills each one of them les palatable than the next, but hasn't even reported them to the floor. and so i would urge that you consider that the only bills that we have seen on the floor would have deported dreamers and the parents of united states children denied basic protections to children fleeing violence and persian accumulation. -- persecution, now faced with this congressional inaction, the president of the united states

decided it was time to take action. the president's reforms will help to secure the border, focus our resources on deporting felons, not families. and require undocumented imp grants to pass a criminal background check and pay for their fair share of taxes in order to register for temporary protection from deportation. now these actions will keep millions of families with united states citizen children from being torn apart. families led by hard working mothers and fathers. and finally, these actions are not only appropriate, but they are lawful. there's a great deal of information available, publicly to support the president.

on november 20, 11 prominent legal scholars wrote a letter explaining the president's action at, quote, explaining that the president's actions are within the power of the executive branch and that they represent a lawful exercise of the president's authority. i ask unanimous consent to include that in the record. >> without objection, it will be made a part of the record. >> thank you. >> the letter was signed by a former head of the department of justice office of legal counsel and a person who worked in the solicitor general's office. it was signed by liberal professors like lawrence tribe and conservative professors like

eric posner. five days later, 105 immigration law professors echoed that conclusion and provided substantial constitutional, statutory and regulatory authority for these actions. that letter also reviews the historical precedent that support the president's move. and i ask unanimous consent that the letter from 135 investigative immigration professors be included in the record. >> without objection, it will be made a part of the record. >> thank you. as people who were once charged with providing legal counsel to the government on this precise

question, they write that, quote, we have all studied the relevant legal parameters and wish to express our collective view that the president's actions are well within his legal authority, in quotation. and of course, the administration requested a formal opinion by the office of legal counsel and made the document public nearly two weeks ago. and i ask nacunanimous consent include in the record the office of legal counsel opinion. >> without objection, it will be made a part of the record. >> thank you, again. and of course the administration requested a formal opinion by the office of legal counsel and made this document public nearly two weeks ago. now i know that many members on

the other side of the aisle are not pleased about the president's decision. we continue to hear calls for shutting down the government. some have even talked about censoring the president or suing the president. or even worse. but it seems to me, ladies and gentlemen, that the majority now has a choice. they can do what we were elected to do. they can come to the table and work to pass a real immigration reform bill. they can hold a vote. and that is exactly what i am prepared to do today. i thank the chairman for his tolerance and i yield back any time that may be remaining. >> chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the eygentlen

from texas, mr. smith for his opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman, i also want to thank the gentleman from south carolina for yielding me his time. [ inaudible ] >> i'm not agreeing with u you. >> the committee is not in order. the capitol police will remove the disruppive members of the audience immediately. >> i have been here 30 years, this isn't justice, man. 30 years. 30 years and y'all are passing a bill. >> my children were born in this country. [ inaudible ] please.

give us the opportunity. [ inaudible ] >> you may leave now and the capitol police will escort you out as soon as they return.

>> the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. before he took office, president obama swore an oath to, quote--yet he is now taking executive action to legalize millions of illegal immigrants, all on his own. contrary to constitution. this administration is undermining the separation of legislative and executive powers thatfounders wrote into the constitution to prevent tierney,

and president obama is violating the constitution which explicitly reserves immigration policy for congress. article 1, section 8 clause 4 of the constitution. that congress shall have the power to -- uniform rule of naturalization. the supreme court has long found that this provision of the constitution grants congress full power over immigration policy. in addition by suspending the enforcement of our immigration laws against nearly half of the illegal immigrants in the united states, president obama is violating his duty under the conversation that the laws be faithfully executed. president obama further described the limitations placed on his role as president. he has explicitly stated many times as the chairman noted that he does not have the power to grant executive amnesty without the authorization of congress.

for instance on march 28, 2011, he stated that, with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. the executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws. and congressional scholars agree, congressional law professor john hill of the indiana school of law writes that, quote, there is a word for the president's plan to issue an executive order granting residency status for over 5 million undocumented aliens now living in the u.s. unconstitutional. this is unquestionably law making. president obama has now apparently forgotten what any first year law student understands, that the president cannot make a law without the consent of both houses of congress. congressional law professor of

the south texas college of law writes, it cannot be the rule of law that the president can create arbitrary criteria of where the law will not apply and then exempt anyone who meets that criteria. this is a very broad type of policy against enforcement that is so extreme as to announce an abdictation of the president's authority. despite the heavy media bias in favor of amnesty, a recent nbc news "wall street journal" poll found that americans oppose his executive amnesty by 48% to 38%. the american people know the president's executive amnesty grants work permits to millions of illegal immigrants, which hurts many hard working americans who struggle to find full-time work and good paying jobs.

the obama administration has placed the interests of illegal immigrants above the needs of many employed and unemployed americans. this amounts to a declaration of war against american workers. the constitution is not a technicality, it is a document that is preserved our freedoms for more than two centuries. every american should be very concerned about president obama's violating the constitution and not enforcing the laws of our nation. chair thannings t s -- >> thank you mr. chairman p when president obama spoke from the east wing of the white house two weeks ago about the steps he would take to improve our broken immigration system, he was responding to loud and sustained calls for action from people all

over the country. he can't change the law, but he can take certain actions within the law. to the president recognized what we all know, the immigration system is badly broken. many families face the threat of separation from deportation every day. skilled immigrants want to drive innovationings and create jobs and opportunities here, but instead we erect barriers and make them go elsewhere to build their companies. i was thinking with my family at thanksgiving all we have to be grateful for, but i'm not grateful that the farm workers that put that food on our table -- i have worked across the aisle to enact sensible immigration reforms and we have come close several times.

in 2006, the senate passed a by partisan bill, but the house republicans squandered the opportunity to close the deal and instead passed an enforcement only bill. last year, the senate again passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill that brought historic adversaries, the chamber and the afl-cio, growers and farm workers, everyone together, with a 68 vote in the senate and again we did nothing with that opportunity here on the house side. in fact i was parol of our own group of eight here in the house where we tried to craft a bipartisan house bill and we did actually write a bill, but in the end, we were unable to move forward. so it was of course in the face of congressional inaction that the president decided to do something. he recognized there are costs to doing nothing and he looked for opportunities that's permitted

in current law to avoid some of the costs. there are many things the president can't do to fix our immigration system and nothing the president did alleviates congress from taking action. i think it's important to remember that the president announced reforms in many different parts of the immigration system, including a new strategy to force enforcement on the southern border, a may raise for i.c.e person nell. i haven't heard anybody complaining about those efforts of the president. no, it's only about the families of american citizens shouldering. and this talk of executive overreach, really is about deporting, i think, the parents of u.s. citizen children and i think it's a darn shame. by this point, much has already been said about the legal authority going back to really,

eisenhower in the 50s, every president has used similar or same authority in the immigration context. the authority stems from the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. in heckler v cheney, the supreme court explained to the president that this does not -- in the supreme court of arizona vrz the united states struck down the majority of arizona's immigration law, broad discretion exercised by federal immigration officials extend to, quote, whether it makes sense to pursue remol at all. in 1999 members of congress from both parties, including members who still serve on this committee, wrote to then attorney general janet reno and asked her to issue specific instructions to guide in the use of prosecutorial discretion and several years later, congress in

the homeland security act specifically directed the director of homeland security to enact national immigration enforcement policies and priorities. that's precisely what secretary johnson has done. now to the family fairness program, which serves as an important historical precursor to the deferreded action for parental -- was announced at a 1987 hearing and it offered protection from deportation to certain spouses and children who were legalized in the 1986 act, when the program was expanded under george h.w. bush in 1990, the ins commissioner estimated that as many as 5 million people will be protected from deported. i heard the chairman's comment about pinocchio and "the washington post," but i would like to ask for unanimous consent to put into the record,

first the decision memo that announced the family fairness policy, dated february 8, 1990 where the department estimates that the family fairness policy provides voluntary departure and employment authorization to potentially millions of individuals and the other document, also dated february 8, 1990, which indicates that the intention or expectation is that greater than 1 million ineligible family members will file for the benefit. >> without objection, those documents will be made part of the record. >> now when then mission never mcnairry -- said it's vital that we enforce the law against illegal entry. the split families encourages violations of the law as they reunite. a strong enforcement strategy can also be a humane enforce

independent strategy. it's no different than today. if there's one key difference between the family farngs program and the deferred action program announced by the president last month is that president reagan and bush offered protection to people who were knowingly and intentionally denied protection by congress when they passed the 1986 act. by contrast, the president is now acting in the face of historic intransigents by house republicans who will if no actions taken by the end of this month have wasted two opportunities in eight years to advance immigration reform bills. the president's actions are lawful, they're also smarkt, because they will allow dhs to focus serious -- finally they are consistent with basic american values like accountability, family unity and compassion. i would note that hr 151 --

there's still time to take this bill to the floor for a vote. and i hope that republicans will do so. and finally, i just want to respond very briefly to the argument and the video that we saw of the president making various comments about the limits of his authority. i guess if the president had stayed multiple times that five plus five equals 15, and then said five plus five equals ten. second the timing of the president's statements are important. -- >> how many finallies can we have, we're going to run out of time here. >> the chair is giving some leniency because the chair's own opening statement was in excess of five minutes. >> i didn't know that but i am almost through, i will just note that those statements were made

before the president asked the secretary of homeland security to do a complete review of what could be -- that resulted in his memorandums by the office of legal counsel, and finally as we will see throughout this hearing, the legal question isn't even a close one. the president has clear legal authority to form removals when it's in the national interest. chief justice roberts reaffirmed that principle just two years ago, our immigration law has recognized this authority, past presidents have used this authority regularly, our president is doing so now and i for one am grateful that he is. and i yield back. >> thanks to the gentlemen, without objection, additional opening statements will be made part of the record. we thank our witnesses for joining us today. if you would all please rise we will begin by swearing you in. do you and swear that the

testimony you give will be the truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? all the witnesses responded in the affirmative. the distinguished professor of jurs prus dense at chapman university. and the professor of law at the university of illinois. he is the co-author of the seven volume treatise on constitutional law, the author of modern constitutional law and he has co-authored the most widely used course book on legal ethics, problem s and materials on professional responsibility. he achieved his ba from harvard university, where he was a member of the harvard law

review. jay seculo, a distinguished professor of law at regent university, he has argued 12 case before the nation's highest court, including mcconnell versus fec where he ensured the constitutional rights of young people remain protected with a unanimous decision guaranteeing that minors can participate in political campaigns. mr. seculo received his phd from regent university, with a dissertation on american legal history. he's an honors graduate from mercer law school, where he served on the mercer law review. mr. thomas h. dupre is a member of the firm's litigation department and it's appellate and constitutional law practice group. in 2013 and 2014, chambers and partners named mr. dupre one of

the leading appellate lawyers in the united states. in 2014, mr. dupre argued and won by unanimous vote a landmark personal jurisdiction case in the supreme court. prior to joining gibson dunn, mr. dupre served as deputy attorney general in the department of justice, ultimately becoming the principal deputy assistant attorney genera attorney general. mary elena encapiea, detector of the national immigration law center, he is a public interest lawyer who specializes in advancing and protecting the lights of immigrant workers, particularly those who are undocumented. she has provided strategic assistance and training to

thousands of social service providers, labor unions and community based organizations. she holds a jury ris doctorate degree from the school of law, served on the commission on immigration and is currently a member of the board of directors of jobs with justice and welcome.u.s. i welcome all of you, i would ask that each witness summarize his testimony in five minute ors less, your entire statement will be made part of the record. to help you stay within that time limit, there is a timing light on your table, when the light switches from green to yellow, you will have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red, that's it, time is up and it signals that you should signal your sentence and your statement. so thank you all, we will now provide first with mr. rotunda. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think it's important to explain i favor immigration of

the united states. it american indians had strict immigration laws, perhaps we wouldn't be here. my parents did not know the language, but did not know the customs. they were strangers in a strange land. my mother told me years later, the first night in the united states, though she was well past the age of toilet training, she had an accident, she was so excited to be heemplt my father was a spy for the americans, he was a good spy because he spoke italian like a native. when he was in his 90s, i remember taking him to the va doctor, and the doctor said, looking at the paper, so you're italian, my father said, no, american. you have to realize, he did not know who was president, he did not know what year it was. he did not know my name. though he knew i was a friend. but he knew he was an american. so i favor reform along the lines of the president, whether

congress exercises the comprehensive immigration reform or goes one step at a time isn't important. the government tells us there's over 11 million undocumented aliens here, we're not going to march 11 million people south of the border. if democracies just don't have mass deportations. but we also all have to agree we have to secure our borders. if a 15-year-old can cross our borders, an al qaeda agent can as well. the issue isn't whether -- whether it's congressional for the president to act unilaterally to write our immigration laws and change the status of almost 5 million americans, almost half of them are here without papers. the president's executive power does not give him the power to govern by decree, it does not give him power to suspend the law. if he can actually do this and get away with it, i guess future presidents can say they'll

suspend more acts of the affordable care act. the president said in his -- repeatedly over the last several years, i think over 20 times, he it traited and reiterated, he does not have the power to do this, and then he did it. why? he says in his statement to the people, congress has failed. congress doesn't fail when it fails to enact a presidential proposal. if the constitution were a computer program, we would not say that the separation of powers is a bug, it's a feature of the program. the framers wanted to make it difficult to enact laws so we have to learn to compromise. the president won't get all that he wants. both sides of the aisle are going to have to compromise as well. article 2 provides that the presidential take care that the laws be faithfully executed. this clause is not a general grant of powers, actually a limitation on powers.

the president must execute the law faithfully, a whole series of the action of the -- has said this repeatedly, that the president cannot suspend the laws, that he has prosecutorial discretion for approximately acts, refuse to prosecute criminally but not civilly. deportation the supreme court has told us is civil not criminal. the president tells us this deal opportunity apply to anyone who comes recently. he says congress has failed and are we a nation that cruelly rips a child away from their parvelts arms. apparently we will accept this cruelty and rip children from their parents arms. they came here before the arbitrary date of jampb 1, 2012. why couldn't it be january 2, or december 31st? the new dhs policy reads an awful lot, looks like a statute, it has six single spaces pages,

it talks about provisos, benefits, an arbitrary date. it grants apparently for the newspapers, it said repeatedly that these people will now get social security cards. we don't know how social security cards have anything to do with prosecutorial discretion. the olc opinion offers a theory that it relyings on historical incident. and second reading a lot into a fi selected segments of the statute. case law is precedent, historical exampleless are not. in any event, others have already distinguished those the examples. they're not part of my -- about my theory, i'm not going to coupe indicate their efforts in any event. no other president has said he as acted because congress has failed and issued an immigration order. no other president has said that he's doing something that over the last several years has repeatedly said is

unconstitutional. the president should at least explain or the olc opinion should explain why that was wrong. if somebody decided for years that five and five is 11 and suddenly it comes out to 10, we would like to know why? on the road to damascus, he got hit by lightning? why did he change his mind? to the "new york times" said that obama directs congress to enact overall immigration. the olc opinion admits that a general policy of nonenforcement would addition close or exercise case by case discretion. >> regular order, mr. chairman. >> mr. rotunda, if you could summarize the remainder of your statement. it will all be part of the record. >> in my papers i cite about 10 olc opinions as well as supreme court opinions that say that the president does not have discretion to refuse to enforce

civil law and to the olc opinion ignored all of that. they even ignored the statements and the important footnote in the heckler opinion, on which they relied. thank you. >> thank you mr. rotunda, mr. secula, welcome back. al. >> on behalf of the american center for law and justice and over 75,000 of our members, thank you for allowing me to appear today. presidential authority is a task that must be engaged in with only one question. does the president's actions meet constitutional scrutiny? in this case, they do not. it is humbling for this grand song of a russian imgrarnlt to be speaking to you today. my father, his father came here in 1914. in 1929, he filed for citizenship, filed ed d a petit for naturalization. two years later a united states

district court judge in brooklyn new york, granted sam seculo american status. i'm the i get to argue cases before the supreme court of united states and appear before this committee and it's a humbling thing. immigration law was complex for my grandfather in 1931 and it is still complex today. the constitution now -- the constitution however is not. our system of government is straight forward. congress writes the law, the president executes the law, the judiciary interprets the law. this is a separation of powers mandated by our constitution. the president does not make the law. now, with due respect, some of the statements that have been made, the president has stated that he changed the law. and i don't believe there's anyone on this committee that believes the president has the authority to change the law. he was being heckled at an event, similar to what we experienced today. there's passions on the side of the issues. i understand and i think we all

understand. i join the professor and believe in a pathway to citizenship. but i believe to do that through the legal process set forth in the constitution and the president doesn't get to change the law. he actually said that, though. that he changed the law. that was how he handled the question that was asked. he changed the law. presidents cannot change the law. he can't do so constitutionally. he cannot do so under supreme court president and can't change the law to purport with his preferred public policy, much of which i share. the president's executive action really disrupts the delicate balance of separation of powers that is the hallmark of our constitutional framework. justice stated that regarding immigration and immigration issues, talking about being the exclusive power of congress, that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to congress. now 5 and 5 does not equal 15. no matter how many times you say

it. and when 5 and 5 then equals 10, which is correct, that pasting constitutional wrong is not what made that correct. so this reliance that we've seen on some that president reagan's and president bush and president eisenhower made or issued executive action or executive orders, which in some cases may be clearly distinguishable because they didn't set forth a new class, but even if they were not distinguishable, past constitutional acts do not get better with time. they are still just that, constitutional actions. president obama also misplaces his reliance on the authority generally granted to the sec taif of homeland security. it's very different to utilize your resources to determine the status of your prosecutorial mandates and how you're going to use your limited resources. the condition of entry, though, of classes of aliens and having that denied or granted, and creating a class, a new class,

is not what the president has the authority to do. as sympathetic as it might be to the plight of people involved, he simply doesn't have that constitutional authority. with all the emotion we've even seen today, you have to put that aside. it comes back to the same question, does the president have the snort by the way, if you look at the olc memo and compare that with what the president said what the deal is, i asked my colleague if she would recommend her clients accept the deal. the deal the president talked about did not talk about discretion with the agency that could be terminated at any time with case by case determination. that's not the deal the president talked about. that's not the deal the president put in place. and i would not recommend my client to accept the deal that the president has actually offered which is very different from the deal outlined in the olc memorandum. i would ask that to my colleague because standardless absolute discretionary review by government agencies is something i've been dealing with for 30

years at the supreme court of the united states. and it generally does not go very well for the agency. olc said it was required, though, for the president's actions to be deemed constitutional. i said i would not recommend my client to take the deal. in conclusion, in our view, president obama's actions are constitutional. president obama's actions are unlawful. violate the separation of powers and in conclusion, even with sympathy to the cause of immigration reform, impatient presidents may not violate the constitution if they don't get their way. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. due pree, welcome. >> good afternoon. thank you for inviting me to testify and to share my thoughts on the constitutionality of the president's directive granting deferred action eligibility to approximately 5 million people who are currently here in the united states in violation of

our immigration laws. i served as principle deptive attorney general under president bush. i litigated and advised the white house on moigs policy and reform. in my view, president obama's actions exceed his authority under the constitution. the president was correct on the many occasions where he stated that he did not have the power to do what he has now done. reasonable people can disagree over how best to fix our immigration system and while there can and should be a robust public debate about how to address the status of the approximately 11 million people who are here in this country illegally, there should be no doubt that by unilaterally acting through executive action rather than through the congress, the president has circumvented the process our founder's envisioned. the framers of our constitution were well aware of the dangers of executive overreach. that is why they wrote a constitution providing for the separation of powers and why the

first sentence of article 1, section 1 of our constitution states, quote, all legislative powers here-in granted shall be vested in the congress of the united states. the framers also spoke to the president's duty to enforce the laws enacted by this congress. article 2 section 3 provides, that the president, quote, shall take care that the laws be faithfully exec cuted. close quote. in my view, president obama's actions on immigration violate these constitutional provisions. his actions violate article 1, section 1 and separation of powers by rewriting the laws of the united states not through legislative amendment but through executive fiat. they also violate article 2, section 3 because they amendment on the abdue indication of the executive's duty to faithfully execute the laws of united states. let me say a word about the take care claw claus. the president's duty is not optional. the constitution says that she shall take care that the laws be

faithfully executed. and the constitution's use of the word faithfully unscores that the president is to execute laws in away that maintains fidelity to congressional design. it is hard to see how an order directing that federal law not be enforced as to approximately 5 million people amounts to faithful execution. the take care clause does not give a president discretion to choose which laws he will enforce and which he will not as the head of the office of legal counsel under president clinton wrote, kwoek, the supreme court court and the attorneys general have long interpreted the take care clause as standing for the proposition that the president has no inherent constitutional authority to suspend the enforcement of the laws particularly of statutes, closed quote. the consequences of thissish slew not confined to immigration. if the president may use executive authority to simply ignore laws he does not like, then it would be possible for

future presidents to revise everything from federal criminal law to tax law to environmental law and beyond. of course, president obama's directive goes beyond mere nonenforcement of the law. it has the effect of affirmatively granting benefits, including the right to apply for work permits to those falling within its am bit. they have revoked prosecutorial discretion is well established in your nation's legal traditions. the concept predates the founding and finds its roots in the common law of england. now one can dispute that prosecutors in this context executive branch officials with the constitutional may exercise discretion in setting enforcement priorities in deciding what charges to bring or whether to bring charges at all. but there are limits on prosecutorial discretion, it applies to individual cases situations in which the judgment of the prosecutor it would be

unjust or otherwise inadvisable to apply the full force of the law based on the circumstances of an individual case. when i served on the justice department, can recall many instances where we or the department of homeland security made a determination to exercise discretion in individual cases. prosecutorial discretion, however, is not so elastic a concept that can stretch to encompass what the president has done here. granting blanket relief to a potential class of 5 million people. that is what makes president obama's action different from prior instances in which presidents have granted immigration relief. the scale of president obama's directive significantly exceeds what past presidents have done. more over in prior instances, the executive was acting to implement a new statute consistent with the will of congress. here, the executive is taking action precisely because congress has refused to act in the way the president wants. indeed, the president is attempting to write into law what congress deliberately chose

not to write into law. finally, as many on this committee will recall during the bush administration, we were strong advocates of immigration reform and we sought to get a bill through congress when we were unsuccessful, many of us were disappointed and frustrated. but we did not attempt to achieve through executive fiat what we could not achieve through the legislative process. we respected the system the framer's established. i thank the committee for convening this hearing and look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. dupree. >> great. >> we are pleased to have you with us as well. >> thank you, chairman. members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. my name is marry lain that i'm the executive director of the national immigration law center, an organization that is dedicated specifically to helping families low-income immigrant families like mine to contribute their best to our country and achieve the american dream. i'm an immigrant fr