through 20 years serving together but that does not become a burr under their saddle. >> ok. >> so you are not for any changes at all? >> that is probably not realistic, to say that there will never be any changes at all. very frankly, there would probably end up being budget- driven changes of some type. i think we have to start from the standpoint that we have tried some of these things before. the one that we know was a tragic failure was the redox system, which compared to the things on the table today, was pretty moderate. >> can i hear from the apartment on why you initiated this whole process? why do you think there needs to be some changes? what is the rationale? >> it is actually multiple purpose. one is we are looking to our

future force. again, we talk about such concepts as we do not want to hollow out the force as we are changing. we know we are facing drawdowns. we also know that our future force very much can look different in terms of the type of force we must recruit, the qualifications, the technical aspects. as we are doing that review, that prompted us to ask if we are sure we have the correct compensation package going forward. the timing of the review and not only the speed, but the deliberateness of it clearly ties into our budget concerns going forward and the budget and reductions we must meet, so all of that is coming together at the same time, and again, because we are trying to view the budget reductions strategically and as though they are interconnected, this does become part of that discussion, but it is not solely driven because it is a budget exercise.

>> i wanted to jump to a concern i have heard at home and see if any discussion is taking place with this -- i have about 30 seconds left, but is there any incentive currently in the system, which i do not believe there is, to encourage people to stay 30 years? some of the concerns i have heard was that right now, we have many people retiring at 20 years, and we are losing that knowledge and all that experience. is there anything being looked at to encourage people to stay longer? >> as we look at our review, we look at the whole profile and agree that the force today, the services have built their force profile run that behavior. you continue to have percentage points for every year you stay in the military ought to or over 100%, so we do have changes that

have been several years ago as far as retirement, but that will be part of your review. we had a very strong model to look at the impact on retention, but that system forms the process. our senior list advisers are part of the working group. also, they are represented. that is where you have that human piece of this review and experience. >> thank you. i just encourage all of you to as you go through the process to continue to get input from as many people as possible affected by this as well as members of congress. this is a very important topic to, certainly, people in my district about our national security. no changes should be made lightly, obviously. thank you for what you're doing. thank you for your input, and thank you for your service.

>> thank you. ms. davis, do you have another question? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was not sure if we were going to have another run, but there are a few questions, and one is really -- i know how difficult this is in getting input from all the people who you speak to, but i am wondering, within this discussion whether there are really some priorities, perhaps, that have been identified, whether there were some areas in which you feel that you could find savings. can you prioritize any of the benefits for us? what should be protected? what could be modified, reduce, or eliminated, acknowledging, of course, that you would rather not see any reductions at all, and even the targeting here is

problematic, but are there some areas in which you could default -- which you could define for the committee that might be helpful? >> one thing you have to recognize is we are here representing 34 organizations, and that does require a wide diversity. we did have some difference of opinions on health care in the end, the kinds of differences we were talking about were $5 a month, and those were very significant within the coalition. we had a lot of debates over those. whether we should just say no changes. i think there are a reasonable number of groups that would say no changes. the system works. this is what people were promised. we ought to stick with it. i think there are people who would be willing to discuss those things, but i think that it is much tougher on retirement, very frankly, that

health care, and when we were talking about that, we were talking about relatively small differentials. the kinds of things in health care that are on the table now which were very disappointing to us, who did buy into a $2 increase on pharmacy fees, to then have the administration turn around before that even gets enacted and say they are going to raise it to $40 -- that is a big problem, and that raises some serious credibility issues, giving support to the idea that give an inch, you take a mile. that is a very significant concern. every retirement current plan that has been put forth for the past four or five years when you go back to look at the defense advisory committee for military compensation proposal, the defense business board proposal, all of those entail radical

changes. to say we're starting from the wrong place -- we are starting from how much money we can take out of it when we should be starting from what people should learn from a career of service and sacrifice under conditions that can range anywhere up to and including deploying every year and not only your let your family's life. those are the kinds of things that we believe have to be counted as the contribution. that is what people really pay in a career of service and sacrifice. >> i am appreciate what you're

saying. i think we all do. if there are things that you can offer to us, that is always helpful. mr. davis, i do not know if you wanted to comment further. >> i just wanted to second his information, but also, just to remember, when looking at the retirement system, it is important to remember that armed services are there to fight wars, and war is a young man or woman's profession. i look back at some of the stuff i did when i was in the marines come carrying artillery shells and the kind of activity that you do -- are probably could not do it today. when you think about it, it is a young man or woman's profession, and the retirement system should reflect that. >> if i may, just for our department defense witnesses, and you can do this certainly for the record because my time is almost up -- could you also help us understand where you are

looking to address other increased costs and expenditures that we have in our contract is services? i would like to know what we are doing about that. the concern is that we are looking here at retirement benefits, and we see that despite the fact that you're seeing some of those costs, you are maybe doing some -- doing away from some services with our civilian personnel that we would have to go back and then contract with the outside. i would like to know and what else you are doing, how you're going about addressing those issues, so we are talking across the board, and i know i response to one of the other questions, you did say -- this is not the only thing we're looking at, but i would like to know how you're going about that and how far along we are in looking at a lot

of the contract services that also cost us a great deal of money. thank you very much. >> we will take that for the record, given our time. thank you. >> thank you very much. during our whole debate, i was impressed several times, there was reference to military families. as we are looking into the issues of retirement, the military families truly are of service and sacrifice. i just hope that every effort is made to work with military families and get their input. because they really truly sacrament -- sacrifice so much, but they are counting on a very positive, very fulfilling career for their spouses and for themselves. a question that i would have is for mr. davis. has the department of defense consulted with your

organization's great reserve, and have they consulted with other military organizations in association for their input on this issue of retirement reform? >> not to date, no, sir. i think there are probably people who would prefer that they did not. >> we have not been contacted by them for our input. >> i certainly know what a resourced you can be, so i hope that you would be contacted, and i know how broad-base both of your organizations are, and i paid dues. american legion comes to mind. retiree organizations active,

and i just know that they would give heartfelt real world samples firsthand of the consequence of any reform effort. i would like to proceed to mr. kaufman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was in the military in the army on active duty during the first reduction of force that i can remember, which was in the early 1970's, post-vietnam. there was no separation pay has was in the early 1990's, post- gulf war and that reduction of foreswear i think they gave a lump-sum payment to senior non- commissioned officers and officers who were forced out in

that process. i think what is stressful for that population in a reduction in force is that there is no ... understanding of what the system is going to be pretty much until they receive notice that they are going to be out. then there may be a decision that will help them, and there may not. that is unfortunate. i think that is one reason why i think it is important to have a reform that reflects some accrued retirement benefits for people less than 20 years. i think that is something that it is important to look at, watch out for. and certainly i want to reiterate again that i think that whatever system we put in place should not impact the people currently on active duty.

are there any responses from the panel to what i just said? >> i would just comment that the separation pay your talking about, at least as far as the law is concerned, those are deemed -- we do not think that is right, but when you look at the law, it is hard to come to any conclusion that it is deemed a kind of retired pay payment. if you take that and come back into the service and qualify for retirement, they will deduct that separation pay from your retirement pay. we do not like that, but that is the way it is. in other words, under current law, that is the retired pay out late. the separation pay. >> one final point. on active duty in the army and marine corps, i served on combat arms. i was a mechanized infantry in the united states army, and i have to tell you that that

pretty much wore me out. to the casual observer, they will verify that it is -- there is such a wide disparity in occupations in the military. i have to tell you, there are a lot of them that people show up to work in the morning and leave in the afternoon, and it is not a lot different than a civilian job, and there are those jobs that are just tough. i believe that if we cannot recognize that in retirement, we ought to recognize it in hazardous duty pay and all those other things that recognize people that do not punch out on saturday -- on friday afternoon and go home, and just, you know, go day after day after day. i have done the in theater, in war, twice. it is tough stuff.

i think we need to recognize that certainly, i appreciate everybody service in the united states military, but i also appreciate that there are differences. with that, i yield back. >> thank you very much. my goodness, colonel. congressman scott of georgia. ms. davis, anything further? there being no further, thank all of you for being here. you can tell the high interest and appreciation for your service. again, military families experience consequences far beyond today, and we are looking towards a very strong and positive future. the meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> every weekend on american history tv, the people and events that document the american story. this week and, picketing, protests, arrests -- occupy wall street? no, the purchase for the -- the national woman's party and the women's right to vote. and the big picture: why vietnam? also a look at the young harry truman and the 12 years he spent working on the family farm we can schedule or for our schedules in your in box, click the c-span the alert button.

the lead security secretary janice: donna tested -- testified wednesday regarding immigration policy and enforcement. she was asked about the fast and furious atf program, which allow the transfer of funds from arizona mexican drug cartels in hopes of attracting and eventually halting arms trafficking. guns in program were found at the crime scene where an arizona border patrol agent was gunned down last year. secretary said she had no prior briefing on the controversial program, acknowledged there are problems with it and said a full investigation is under way. this is about three hours and 10 minutes.

>> the judiciary committee will come to order. this morning, we welcome secretary-general of the polish town of to the committee for an oversight hearing on the department of homeland security. the department of homeland security was created to protect our country from terrorist attacks, and force federal immigration laws, and provide disaster response and assistance. it also put it -- perform important law enforcement functions related to intellectual property and child pornography. as we begin, i would like to pose two questions -- first, how effectively have a secure our borders? the non-partisan government accounting office has found that only 44% of the southwest border is under the operational control of the border patrol.

nearly 450,000 illegal immigrants into the u.s. each year. meanwhile, mexican drug cartels are out of control and the violence threatens to spill over into the u.s. the administration need to do more to secure the borders and protect the american people. some have claimed water supposedly the largest number of rubles in history. however, even president obama has said the statistics are a little deceptive. in a study by the "washington post, they found the administration has inflated its numbers. my second question is how effectively has dhs protected jobs for american workers? with the unemployment rate of 9%, jobs are scarce, and millions of american families have been hurt. according to the few hispanic center, 7 million people are working in the u.s. illegally. these jobs should go to legal workers. securing these jobs for american workers and legal immigrants should be a priority of the

federal government. each time dhs of arrests, detained, or reports an illegal worker, it creates a job opportunity for an american worker. worksite enforcement actions open up jobs for unemployed american workers. unfortunately, worksite enforcement has plummeted under this administration. administrative arrests fell by 77% from 2008 to 2010. criminal arrests fell by 60%. criminal indictments fell by 57%. criminal convictions fell by 56%. with millions of americans unemployed, it is hard to imagine a worse time to cut worksite enforcement efforts by more than half. these audits are of questionable benefit. the gao has found that ice officials said that because fine amounts are so low, the fines do not provide a meaningful

deterrent. the amount of funds made in the opinion of some ice officials so low that they believe that employers view the fines as a cost of doing business, making the finds an ineffective deterrent. what happens when the ice declines to arrest illegal workers? they go down the street and knock on the door of the next employer and take jobs away from american workers. dhs also signaled that it may grant administrative amnesty to illegal immigrants currently in removal proceedings and the many others who have yet to be placed in proceedings, but we know that when this administration issued deferred action, it routinely grants 90% of the work authorization. how can dhs justify granting work authorization to illegal immigrants when so many american citizens do not have jobs? 23 million americans who are unemployed or cannot find full- time work must wonder why this administration puts illegal

immigrants ahead of them. citizens and legal immigrants should not be forced to compete with illegal workers for scarce jobs. the administration should put the interests of american workers first. that concludes my opening statement, and the gentleman from michigan, the ranking member of the full committee, is recognized for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman smith and members of the committee. i join with you in welcoming the secretary of the department of homeland security, and i wanted to start out by reminding everybody on the committee that we had some hearings about all these jobs that immigrants are taking -- what was it -- in alabama?

and georgia. and nobody wanted the jobs. they cannot get anybody for the jobs. if there is anybody on the committee that thinks that among the millions of unemployed, that they are looking for soup labor, please see me immediately after this hearing so i can put that misunderstanding to rest. the heart of this hearing, from my point of view, is to ask this one question -- who would say that the immigration and customs enforcement, ice, that their time and resources are better spent rating kitchens and fields to deport busboys and farm workers who have been working here for years to support their

families, usually, rather than targeting those convicted of serious crimes or repeat offenders? i think within the resources of this very important agency, we will get the answer to that. two months ago, the immigration subcommittee of the judiciary held a hearing on the chairman's bill. i always love the title of this bill -- "hinder the administration's legal temptation" act.

two weeks ago, that same subcommittee met again to conduct oversight with the director of the immigration and customs enforcement. in both hearings, my conservative friends of the judiciary leveled essentially the same criticism, that the president of the united states refuses to enforce our immigration laws, and is dead set on legalizing hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants with the stroke of a pen. it was called a "back door amnesty" strategy. i will be waiting carefully to see if i hear that rate -- the phrase raised again. of course, this is incorrect.

earlier this year, the director of ios issued a series of memoranda identifying immigration and customs enforcement priorities providing guidance on how ice employees should exercise discretion to carry out those priorities. the memos are not surprising, and i hope they are not controversial to anyone. given the resources limited that he has, ice intends to prioritize, from my understanding of the hearing, the removal of people who threaten our safety, such as terrorists. such as criminals. before focusing on people who

pose no such threat. i will be carefully listening for any objection to that that might occur. no agency or department can do it all. they have to make choices. we will probably have some of these choices that the secretary has to make. the department of homeland security and the department of justice are working together putting these enforcement priorities into action on a department-wide basis. these actions could not have come soon enough. our immigration courts are backed up. we know that. deportation hearings are being

set for -- get this -- 2014. the department of homeland security would act to alleviate this embarrassment just makes coat -- good common sense. so i close by saying that asking us to look at this -- remember, this is the judiciary committee of the house of representatives, and remember that in the two and a half years of this administration, we have deported a record 1 million individuals -- over 1 million individuals. i am not bragging about that, do not get me wrong.

increased website enforcement and targeted employers who break the law by conducting i-9 audits, levying fines, bringing criminal charges, push for the national expansion of secure communities, despite some opposition from some state governments or local law enforcement, and even some advocacy groups, and finally, increased criminal prosecution of immigration offices so much that a legal reentry after deportation is now the most prosecuted felony in the country -- illegal reentry after deportation. i am happy to see ms. napolitano here and welcome her, as does all of us on the committee with the discussions that will follow

this morning, and thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. our witness today is janet appalling tunnel, secretary of united states department of homeland security, sworn in on january 21, 2009. she is the third secretary of dhs pierre prior to becoming secretary, she was in her second term as governor of arizona. while serving, she became the first woman to chair the national governors' association and was named one of the top five governors in the country by "times" magazine. she also was the first female attorney general of arizona and served as u.s. attorney for the district of arizona. she was born in new york city and grew up in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, an albuquerque, new mexico. she is a 1979 graduate of santa clara university where she won a truman scholarship and was the university's first female valedictorian. she received the jurors doctor from the university of virginia.

she served as a clerk for judge schroeder on the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit and practiced law in phoenix. we welcome you today and look forward to your testimony. please proceed. >> thank you chairman, ranking member, and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify this morning. today, i would like to update the committee on the progress we are making, particularly with respect to our efforts to prevent terrorism and enhance security, secure and manage our borders, and enforce and administer our nation's immigration laws. i think i will begin there. the obama administration's approach to immigration enforcement has been widely discussed among those who like to debate the topic, including members of this committee. our policies have been simultaneously described as engaging in a mean-spirited effort to blindly deport record

numbers of illegal immigrants and alternatively described as comprehensive amnesty that ignores our responsibility to enforce the immigration laws. these opposing views are both correct, and it is my hope that moving forward, we can have a civil and fact-based dialogue about immigration enforcement. here are the facts -- overall, in fiscal year 2011, ice removed or returned nearly 397,000 individuals, the largest number in the agency's history. 90% of these removals' fell within one of our priority category is. 55% or more than 216,000 of those removed were convicted criminal aliens, and 89% increase in the removal of criminal aliens from fiscal year 2008. this includes more than 87,000

individuals convicted of homicide, sexual offenses, dangerous drugs, or driving under the influence. of those we remove without a criminal conviction, more than 2/3 in fiscal year 2011 fell into the priority categories of recent border crossers or repeat immigration law violators. as part of the effort to continue to focus on high priority cases, vice, in partnership with the department of justice and across the department of homeless security -- ice hasn't limited policies to make sure those enforcing immigration laws make appropriate use of the discussion the already have in considering the types of individuals prioritize for removal from the country. policy will help immigration judges, the board of immigration appeal, and the federal courts to focus on adjudicating high- priority removal cases more swiftly and in greater numbers, enhancing ice was the ability to

remove convicted criminals. it will also promote border security as it sharpens focus on recent border entrance and allows for the expansion of operations along the southwest border. we have also stepped up our efforts against employers who knowingly and repeatedly hire illegal labor and have taken action to identify these -- visa overstays and enhance refugee screening and also to combat human trafficking. additionally, since 2009, we have carried out major reforms to the immigration detention system. these reforms ensure the health and safety of the detainees in our custody and allow ice to maintain a significant robust detention policy. i hope this makes clear -- we cannot on the one hand be on the verge of removing for the third consecutive year a record- breaking number of unlawful

individuals from the country with the highest number of criminal removals' in history and at the same time the abrogating our law enforcement and responsibilities. similarly, exercising discretion with more speed and prioritization and i it -- at any time in history, protecting victims of domestic violence, engaging in worksite enforcement is not cosmetic tinkering. it is real change with we real results. invested discretion in our immigration enforcement officers and immigration lawyers is not amnesty. it is a prioritization system that begins with finding and removing individuals who are criminals and repeat offenders. at the same time, our officers have the legal responsibility to remove all lawful individuals from the country. they will also do so according to priorities, but they will also do their job. this administration is committed to making sure that we have a southern border that is safe,

that a secure, that is open for business. we are more than two years into our southwest border initiative, and based on previous benchmarks set by the congress, it is clear that the additional manpower, technology, and infrastructure we have added are working. apprehensions have decreased 36% along the southwest border over the past two years and are less than 1/3 of what they were at their peak. we have matched decreases in apprehensions, and they are a rough way to estimate how many are attempting to immigrate. we have matched decreases in apprehensions with increases in seizures of drugs, cash, and weapons peer violent crime in united states border communities has remained flat or falling in the past decade. finally, u.s. citizenship and immigration services continues to improve our ability to provide immigration benefits and

services to those legally eligible in a timely and efficient manner by streamlining and modernizing our operation. our priorities are common sense. they enhance public safety. they help secure the border. they promote the integrity of the immigration laws. yet, i think we all do recognize that more is required to fully address our nation's immigration challenges. president obama is firm in his commitment to advance immigration reform, and i personally look forward to working with the congress in a bipartisan way to achieve this goal and to continue to set appropriate benchmarks for our success in the future. i want to thank this committee for its support of our mission to keep america safe. i want to thank the men and women who are working day and night to protect and defend our country, often at great personal risk. and i look forward to a dialogue with this committee on these important issues or any other issues you wish to raise.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i will recognize myself for questions, and the other members will be recognized. my first question is this -- dhs currently declines to detain any criminal immigrants that are now held in our local jails, and the result is they are released into our communities. the congressional research service says that under this administration, over half of the criminal immigrants identified, 300,000-plus, have been released. yet, when i asked what crimes these release criminals have been charged with, dhs bonds that ice does not track this data, so we do not even know what crimes were committed by the criminal immigrants that dhs refused to detain. i just wondered if that is the case. do we not determine what crimes had been committed? do we not know what crimes were committed by those individuals that dhs refuses to detain?

it seemed so incredible that we would be releasing individuals without even knowing what crimes they might have committed, but i hope there is a good answer. >> i am not personally familiar with the study that you reference, but we detained and have beds at the number that the congress funds, which is roughly around 34,000, and there are decisions -- >> my question was not about the number release or the beds. my question was about do you know the crimes committed of those that you refuse to detain? >> i will look into that. i will assume, because of my work with ice and in this field over the past several decades that dissension decisions are made just as they are made in normal criminal prosecutions, based on public safety and based on risc -- >> do you know whether the crimes were committed or not -- >> i do not know exactly how they are trapped, but i will find out for you.

>> my information, incredibly enough, is that you do not know what crimes were committed, and these individuals are still being released. second question is this, that i wrote you in august requesting to be provided a list of the immigrant criminals that dhs has declined to detain. your staff have been cooperative, and i appreciate their assistance. i was told that dhs has generated a list of names, and it was being cleared before it was given to me. instead, a letter i received yesterday from the assistant secretary for legislative affairs contained no names whatsoever but simply summary statistics about the secure communities program. to me, this was not a good faith response, so i am just wondering, what happened to the promised cooperation? i would like a commitment from you that by 10:00 a.m. next monday, i get the information that i was promised and i would like to be delivered by that time, and can i get a commitment from you that i will get that information?

>> i will look into that, mr. chairman. >> let me say to you that it has been two months since i requested the information. we have had a good and -- a relationship with your staff here i was told that the list was available and had to be cleared, and now, suddenly, it has to be cleared. if i do not get the list, i will have no choice but to issue a subpoena, so i hope we can get that list. let me go on to my next question. you heard me mention this in my opening statement. worksite enforcement has dropped 70% over the past two years. agents are district not to detain or remove most agents working illegally. they can simply walk down the street, knock on the door of another employer, and take another job away from an unemployed american worker. at an information subcommittee hearing two weeks ago, the eyes director stated that illegal workers not detained "can

obviously continue to try to find employment." my question is -- why does the administration allowed illegal workers to take jobs away from the unemployed american workers? why do you not make an effort to detain them and remove them and send them home? >> if i might, let me address the numbers, and then go to the detention. first of all, if you only look at the numbers in terms of percentages, you are right. the percentage has dropped in terms of workers who are being put into removal proceedings, but the base number is very small. between 2008 -- before this administration, to fiscal 2011, you are talking about a reduction from around 5000 workers removals' to 1500. you have to look at that in conjunction with the increase in criminal alien removals, which we have increased almost 100,000

over the same time -- >> again, not talking about criminal immigrants -- >> i am making this point because because we have prioritized and because we are removing more criminal aliens, you are going to see more of those in detention because they are more serious. with respect to the individuals we find -- and the individuals we find at work sites -- >> that was not responsive to my question, and you did not answer my question, which was why is the administration intentionally allow the illegal workers to walk down the street and take other jobs from americans. why are there not being detained? why are they not being removed? >> they are being handled the way they always have, mr. chairman. >> the previous administration did a lot better job of worksite -- i will have to respect fully -- >> you admitted a while ago that my statistics were correct. >> that is right, and as i tried to explain. if you actually look at the

numbers, yes, you are right. but it is a small part of removal operations, and in exchange for that 3500, we have increased the removals' of criminal aliens who are dangerous public safety -- >> i understand that. and we're still talking about thousands of individuals taking jobs away from american workers. >> not necessarily, but we can discuss that further. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized. the gentleman yields to the gentleman from new york. >> thank you. madam secretary, there are many and serious problems with respect to immigrant detention. i want to focus on the repeated transfers of detainees between facilities. according to a june 2011 report, about 2 million detainee transfers between 1998 and 2010, often over long distances that required the use of airplanes. almost half of all detainees were moved at least twice. these transfers lead to an

efficient removal hearings that cost $366 million in transportation alone, a fact that should concern my friends on the other side of the aisle, among others, and the problem seemed to be growing. transfers tripled between 2004 and 2009. moving detainees aware for a -- away from where they live in peace their ability to detain council, often on a pro bono basis, since they are often moved when the removal hearings are already under way, the entire process bogs down, and they lose access to evidence as well as friends and family, which makes it difficult to show in court that there are not a flight this, and this causes often unnecessary and costly detention. this and recognize the process needs reform. as director announced a series of changes, including an office of detention, policy, and planning, to revise transfer policy. in october 2009, the special

adviser to is recommended that detainees represented by counsel should not be transferred outside the area of less and there are exigent health and safety reasons, and when this occurs, the attorney should be notified promptly. july last year, vice adopted an online locator system, so council, france, and family could at least locate the detainees pierre despite this, there still has not been a comprehensive change to detainee transfer policy. now, my question -- do you agree that we need a change to policies which lead to the repeated transfer of detainees so we can finally protect their due process right to improve the efficiency of our immigration accord? >> there are a number of reasons why we want to limit transfers of detainees. cost, efficiency, access to counsel, access to family members. the practical problem we confront is that we do not always had detention beds where we have detainees, and that causes their to be movement. one of the things we are doing

through our office is trying to contract for more beds in some of our higher intensity areas so that we can limit the number of movements among our detainees. >> do you have an estimate of when the new policies to appropriately limit transfers would be in place? >> it is our policy now to limit transfers. question really is when we will have contracts for more beds, and as soon as we can get them, we will get them. >> until you have time to get more beds, you cannot believe limit transfers? >> we limit them as much as we can. damage to budget cuts negatively impact your ability to adopt a more humane and cost-effective transfer policy? >> the congress gives us a certain amount of money. we have to operate as efficiently as possible within the scope of that appropriation. we cannot remove 10 million people from this country. we have to make choices.

we have to prioritize. but in that conjunction, yes, it we do not have the money to move, and, if more importantly, the justice apartment, the marshalls, everybody else involved in the system does not have the ability to manage that, it is a problem. >> thank you. among many problems relating to these transfers, one that struck me was the impact it has on att's ability to be represented by counsel. a recent report from human rights watch says, "attorneys with tickets of experience told us they had not once received prior notice from eyes of an impending transfer. is often relies on detainees themselves to notify attorneys, but the transfers are rise suddenly, and the detainees are routinely prevented from or are otherwise unable to make the necessary call. as a result, attorneys have to search the online locator. once the client is found, the challenges inherent in

conducting legal representation across thousands of miles can completely sever the attorney/client relationship, which is especially true when the same person is transferred repeatedly. can you commit to me and the committee that you will take whatever steps are necessary to try to reduce significantly detainee transfers far away from council? location of counsel should be a determinant in who gets transferred to wear. can this be part of the new policy on dvd transfers? >> i think it should be one of the factors taken into account, and i do think the fact that we now have a locator where we did not have one before -- it sounds like a simple thing, but given the number of people rushed through the immigration system in a given year, it was a difficult i.t. thing to get done because of how fast moving it

is. >> would you agree that it would be a better practice and policy to notify council when a client has been transferred, not make them look around in the online system? >> i think to the extent possible, we should do that. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> thank you. madam secretary, it is no secret that you do not like the act, and you have given numerous statements and speeches that you would like to see the real id act repealed and in its place, put something else on the books. that is not going to happen. the suggestion did not get off the ground in the last congress and has not gotten off the ground in this congress. the current exemption or extension that dhs has given is

not january 13, 2015. are you going to extend it again? >> representative, first of all, i cannot take full credit for opposing the accurate when i was involved with the national governors' association, it was bipartisan and uniform amongst all the governors that the line in the appropriations bill did not appropriately incorporate concerns of state officials on how you actually implement and was an unfunded mandate. that being the case, we did work with the governor on pass it. for whatever reason the congress decided they did not want to take that up. it would have been better to do so. now the governors are still uncomfortable with implementing. they have budget constraints of their own, but we agree with the goal of the bill, which is to have a more secure, particularly driver's license, so we are working with the states, and a number of them --

i think 22 -- are almost at the point where they would meet, and others are along the way -- >> are you going to draft the boom on the states that refuse to comply or cannot comply as of january 15, 2013, meaning the non-compliant driver's license cannot be used to enter federal buildings, nuclear power plants, get on a plane, or is there going to be a further delay in this? >> i cannot say right now. there is a year between now and then to work with the states. i think the governors generally agree with the goal. it is just how you get there. >> they are not going to get a unilateral revenue sharing out of the congress on this, so they can increase the cost of driver's license, as my state has, but you are -- your rules review in your shop only

consists of three professional staff members and one administrative support person, and as there are more documents submitted by the states not in compliance, how do you expect to get through the paperwork with just four people working on it? >> if we need to put more people on the project, we will. i have not been informed that we need to do so. >> i am getting back to the question that i asked, and i do not think you answered. if states are out of compliance on january 15, 2013, will personnel be instructed not to accept non-compliant identifications to get into the federal facilities or to get on a plane? >> representative, i really do not like to speculate on things that could happen over a year from now. i will work with the states. we will work with the states and

bring them into compliance if we can. >> ok, when are you going to start informing the state's of how and when the policy will be enforced? >> we say in regular contact with governors about it. i suspect when they have their winter meeting here in january, that will be one of the topics we take up with them. >> the 9/11 commission was very firm in saying that we had to have secure id after looking at the it -- id's that the hijackers were able to get for themselves. the longer the administration and governors do not want to do this, delay this, the more risk the american public has on a terrorist that wants to commit a major act of terrorism. i spent a lot of time during my chairmanship to try to prevent that from happening. this is still a hole in the

system that can be exploited, and it is not due to a lack of congressional action, for once. it is due to a lack of implementation by dhs and a lack of will by the governors in providing for the sake new security of their driver's licenses. i am not for a national id card, but the longer this goes on, if there is a major terrorist attack, because it has not been implemented, for whatever reason, there will be a huge push for a national id card, so i think it is in the interests of everybody to make sure that it is implemented the way it was written and passed in 2005. thank you. >> thank you. the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, is recognized. >> thank you, madam secretary. the alabama law that was recently passed allows alabama

to inquire into immigration status. is the department of homeland security working with alabama in helping them to implement the law? alabama's immigration law allows alabama officials to inquire as to immigration status. is the department of homeless security working to help you implement that law? i am not in that sense. we have a working on a challenge to that. >> how would that law affect hispanic citizens? >> i do not know the answer to that question right now. it has just gone into effect. >> you would have to assume that hispanic citizens would be adversely affected because they would have to be showing it about everywhere they go. a situation that other citizens

would not have to do. >> i think that should be a real concern, you are correct. >> the present rate elimination act -- has that been applied to ice facilities? >> yes, we have a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment by officers -- but detention officers. >> how are we doing on that? have there been any complaints of sexual harassment and illegal sexual activity? >> yes, there are complaints, and when there are, the instruction is that they are to be explored, and they are to make sure that if there needs to be corrective action taken, whenever that may be, under the circumstances, that is to be done. >> how are we doing in that area? >> my understanding is that we are being very firm in this area

and dealing with those complaints expeditiously. >> are you familiar with the front-line expos a -- expose from a few weeks ago? >> yes. >> was that accurate? >> no. >> can you give an update on work with religious groups as far as people with religious dress can get through security? >> we are working -- the issue for us is what to do with those who wear -- who have bulky clothing on and particularly bulky head gear. this can affect particular religious groups and religious beliefs. we have a process that we follow that i think has accommodated both religious group believes and our security needs, but we continue to have ongoing dialogue, as i think we should.

>> do you have detainees with mental illness that caused problems like people who are incompetent that stay in ice, kind of limbo, and definitely? >> given the number of people we have in detention at any given time, and over the course of the year, i am certain we have some detainees that have mental health issues, as well as those set physical health issues. >> what is done for those in limbo -- those mentally incompetent, but those that sit there indefinitely. >> one of the things we are trying to do by the prayer tradition problem -- process and reviewing the cases on the docket, a speedup -- is speedup having the case is heard.

-- cases heard. >> do we have people in limbo there indefinitely? >> well, there are people in limbo in the immigration system generally. the fact of there are people in limbo is one of the reasons why we hope at some point in time the congress could take up immigration reform. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, scott. the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, good to have you on the hill. do you agree with president obama's statement that removal numbers are deceptive, and do you know what he meant by that? i think he might have been re--- referring to voluntary returns.

>> what i think he was referring if i recall the context, representative, was that overall removal numbers are up. we removed 3 and 97,000 people last year, more than ever before, but he was explaining you also have to look at what was in that number, and he was referring to the effected we greatly increased the number of criminal aliens that are removed within the context of the overall number. >> so voluntary returns would not have been part of that statement? >> i do not think so. >> ok. over the leak of the bush administration, i'm told yearly removals' went up in excess of 90%. will the current administration come close to this rate of increase? >> i would have to check those numbers. i do not know where those numbers come from.

>> i do not recall my source, but if you could get back to us on that, i would appreciate that. >> yes, sir. >> last week, you told senator dick durbin that it costs in the neighborhood of $23,000 to $36,000 to annually remove one, but earlier this year ice provided the judiciary committee with data including the total cost of $12,198. the disparity is significant. have you seen the cost report from ice? >> i do not know if i have seen that report. the numbers that i gave was what it cost to go through the entire removal, including through the court system, and that is an estimate, of course.

i do not know if the ice number, with respect to ice, is part of that only. >> i am drawing a blank on my source. i do not recall where i heard this, but i heard that d.h. just might consider reopening cases in which aliens with final order of removal have already been removed from the united states. is there any credence to that? >> that would be news to me. >> a look at. if you could check that out -- >> ok. i do not think that is accurate. >> ok. might dhs reopen cases reducing this is unknown to you? >> no. -- you say this is on known to

you? >> no. >> last week, he said their absence unusual strategic you said that absence of unusual circumstances, -- you said that absent cases, with unusual circumstances, they would not be removed. would you elaborate on what would constitute an unusual circumstance? >> there are so many human factors in to immigration, so many variations in the cases. when might be where someone is needed to come back to be a witness in another on going, and related criminal prosecution, and where the department of justice asks us to bring someone back. >> prosecutorial discretion is already being exercised as it always has been by the agents and officers on the front line, closest to the facts in the cases involved.

why did the department of justice of bureaucrats in washington have to go back and double checked the work and expertise of those front line law enforcement professionals? >> well, representative, i have led large prosecution offices many times as a u.s. attorney and as an attorney general. he is in portent for fairness -- it is important to have guidance as to what the priorities are. it is a big field test at there are a lot of agents. you are right, they have a lot of expertise. they know where they stand, and where our priorities are. it put step into a free-market >> thank you. i see my -- it puts them into a framework. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madame secretary.

i want to talk first about a security issue. dns sec was ordered across the federal government in 2008 by a windy, and in 2010, the white house said that the zone was a major milestone for internet security. on the homeland security website, it is quoted as being of critical importance to securing a federal internet domain. here is my question -- do you think it is important that u.s. government policies toward the internet should preserve the effectiveness of off ticket -- authentication technologies from a cyber security point of view?

>> yes. >> thank you very much. i want to get into the immigration issue, the detention issue. last week, the aclu filed a lawsuit accusing ice of failing to protect female detainees from sexual assault by a security guard. nine women are identified as having been sexually assaulted by a guard when he transported them out of the facility during a release process without appropriate supervision, and countless others may have been assaulted. in april this year, the national immigrant justice center filed a complaint with your office for civil liberties alleging serious mistreatment of 13 gay and transgendered detainees alleging sexual assault, the nile of medical care, and the

use of long-term solitary confinement, and 36 of my colleagues brought this complaint to your attention and to the attorney general earlier this year. i understand it is still under review. going back to mr. scott's question, it is my understanding that the department of justice has specifically excluded immigration detention facilities from their proposed rule. they seem to be relying on ice's detention standards on sexual abuse, but those are not mandatory. i am wondering if, by your answer to mr. scott, you are agreeing that that prison rate elimination act ought to, in fact, be imposed on detention standards in ice detention. >> i would have to look at the act before making a blanket agreement, but going through the

problem that we are trying to address, which is if there is inappropriate, wrong, or criminal conduct, and it can be in some circumstances criminal, by some officers against detainees, that needs to be dealt with efficiently, from way, and quickly. we have a -- firmly, and quickly. we have a zero tolerance policy for that conduct. >> you inherited an awful mess in terms of the attention when you came in. there were a lot of stories in "the new york times," the washington post" and you brought in an expert to try to put some order to it. there was a pretty good report. it does not look to me that we have implemented that report fully. can you address that? >> i would say we have

implemented good measures of that report. we use it as our guide post. we created a separate office to deal with the tension, and the minute a number of the contractors. >> i see my yellow light. i do not want to be rude, but i know the chairman is going to gavel me down. perhaps i can follow up with some of the detailed questions i have for you. i have a final question on how we are going to interact with the new alabama law that makes it a felony for an undocumented person to engage in any business transaction with the government entity. what that means is if you have a mother that is undocumented, and she gets a library. for both of her u.s. citizen children, -- library card for both of her u.s. citizen children, she would have two

families budget felonies, and would be the worst of the worst, under that law, she would have two felonies, and would be deported -- under that law she would have two felonies and would be deported. >> the underlying principle is that it is for the federal government to set immigration law enforcement priorities. >> so, we will look beyond the mere convention? >> we will look at the cases individually, yes, as we will in other cases as well, not just alabama. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, madame secretary. did the president give any information or -- get any information or guidance from you or anyone in the department before his decision to support

the ouster of president mubarak, or support the rebel forces in libya? >> no. >> ok. did the president get any information or guidance from homeland security before his decision to pull out the troops from iraq, or drawdown in afghanistan? do you assist in that at all, or anyone from your department? >> again, these are not matters within the purview of the department of homeland security. >> so, they were considered unrelated to our own homeland security? >> well, homeland security covers so many fields, that what i would say it simply is that if the question is world we

involves -- were we involved -- >> did you provide information that would have been utilized? >> not that i know of. >> last year, admiral mullen said the national debt is the biggest single threat to our national security. we of millions of people coming into this country on visas, some legally, who come in, get health care, and leave without pain. it is an ongoing problem. we now are seeing that we americans are not getting health care as quickly as they need because we are moving to ration care. it should be an important issue. we of enquired of the state department the applications for visas. they tell us there is no provision in the application that indicates whether they have been diagnosed with any condition, heart problems, cancer, pregnancies, and needed

surgery is -- needed surgery is on the applications for visas. that is not considered at all when people come in. we are also told that even though the spells's name is on the application, a -- spouse's name isn't on the application, they do not check the spouse codename on the. -- spouse's name on the beforest watch whilist confirming the visa. do you think it is not worth it? >> i've not seen what the state department has said. >> my question is would it be a good idea to check the spouses on a terrorist watch list? >> when the things we have been able to do is unified databases, search engines in such a way that those kinds of security checks could be more easily

done. >> but if they do not do the checks, it is a problem, is it not? >> it could be a problem. >> let me move on. to you make a final decision on who was put on your counter- violent extremism working group? >> we have an individual in the department who is the lead. >> are you consulted at all? >> i have not been now. >> are you aware the president is a member of the working group? >> i cannot answer that. i do not know if that is an accurate statement. >> you can look in your own web site and find the documentation. he is been on your work group. -- has been on your work group. you know how many members of your counter-violent extremism

are members of the muslim brotherhood? >> again, since i am not involved in the deployment -- if i might elaborate on my answer -- >> my time is running out. i have a serious question that needs to be confronted. >> i would like to have the ability to expand my answer is that is all right with you. >> i do not have time, i am running out, and i cannot be filibustered. let me ask you, mohammad elebiari was a member of the working group, you promoted him, and i have documents that say you swore him in as a member -- let's see, as the homeland security advisory group. he is apparently been given a

secret clearance. do you know him? >> yes. >> ok. >> were you aware that he had a secret clearance? >> i believe everyone on our homeland security advisory council ultimately gets a secret clearance. >> were you aware that he spoke at the big event in texas honoring the ayatollah khamenei? >> i am not aware at all the places he has spoken. >> the chairman's time has expired. >> secretary, were you aware that one week ago today from his home computer he accessed the s lic data base, got information, and has been shopping a story to

national media on the islam of phobia -- islamaphobi directed at texas. were you aware of that? >> no. >> i'm telling you it happened. do we need to appoint somebody, or you'll have that investigated itself, and if so, by who? >> since i do not know the facts, i will have to look into the effected >> so, you will look into that col. >> does it concern you at all that it happen? >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madame secretary for being here today. i am a sponsor of the severe travel in counter-terrorism partnership act, which would allow you to bring additional

eligible countries into the visa waiver program by modifying the primary qualifying criteria for entry. i'm doing that for many others. on wednesday, october 5, house home and saw the committee on -- the house holman subcommittee -- home and subcommittee had a testimony that said it would be terrific to expand visa waiver. he did not have the technical specifications about the department put the data capabilities, but he said any changes would be rolled out over a period of time, and that would allow them to meet the necessary requirements. what i have been telling folks about why i support this program is that it is not your father's and visa waiver program that

your agency and others have been working hard to increase the security in this program, and how it would perform. i was hoping that you might speak about what the department is doing -- the work on this data, and what we might be seen in the coming weeks and months that would increase our knowledge on who is coming and going? >> well, representative qiugley, we would like to provide not only technical assistance, but support -- poland has been an ally of ours a long time. very good relationship. so, i think that would be a good thing for the united states to do. with respect to these the waiver generally, when the things i was

explaining earlier that we a been able to do over the past several years is really make our data systems both by graphic region by a graphic and biometrics, much more rope -- biographical, and biometrics, much more secure. part of this is what we have done to incorporate with respect to flights leaving for the united states. part of that has to do with united bases with psa databases in a way they were not united prior to 2009. >> i think you testified earlier to the seven about this, and you were stressing biographical information, and the new research that is being done, the new work you are doing, and why that is more important or more

feasible than biometrics. can you focus on that for a moment? >> biometric, as we look for it to italy for exit, is extraordinarily is it as we look to it for exit -- as we look for it for the exit, it is extraordinarily more expensive. >> could you explain why and countries that participated in a visa waiver program under this new information actually makes us safer? >> part of the agreement to be a visa waiver country is also the agreement to sign other agreements, like one called the preventing and combating serious crime, which relates to the exchange of criminal history

data bases. in exchange for these a waiver, there are other agreements we get from countries in the program. >> very good. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madame secretary, for being here. the gao has reported that 44% of the border is somewhat secure, 56% is not secure. do you agree? >> no, and i do not think that is exactly what they said. i have seven -- testified to this several times 10th they were using the phrase operational control, which is somewhat misleading because it does not capture not just the border patrol, but the technology and infrastructure that goes along with that. >> so it is not an accurate statement? >> no. >> so, who controls the other to 36% if we do not have operational control?

>> we have the responsibility for the entire border, as you know. it includes manpower, technology, and the infrastructure we have put down at the border. it is very different than it was even three or four years ago. >> i agree. it is worse. the iranians apparently think our border is less secure than we do, otherwise they would not go to mexico to smuggle in explosives into the united states. what do the iranians know about the cross border traffic of the drug cartels that we are missing? in my opinion there have access to the united states and back to mexico. so, it seems like the iranians obviously knows something about the lacks border than we do. 27% of the people in the federal

penitentiary are foreign criminal aliens. that means they are illegally in the united states when they commit a felony. all of those 27%, when fourth of the population in the federal penitentiaries got here some way, and a legally according to the statistics of the bureau of prisons. if the border is still secure -- let me give you some insight as to the texas border, where i have been numerous times in areas that are not exactly as safe as you claim. the share of common on any given day, we will call them in the border jail, and s, people are in your gel that our foreign nationals -- jails that are as foreign nationals? the most recent one had the average at 34.5% from foreign countries. these are cross border criminals, people that come to

the united states, many of them commit their crimes, and go back where they are from, and must their cause by local law enforcement could these are people in jail with immigration violations. based on your experience, do you think 34% is a high number of foreign nationals in anyone's gel? >> listen. >> i am listening you listen. you are a lawyer. the natchez rebels of the time expires. do you think 34.5% of the people in jail from a foreign country is a high number or not? >> pinned the border communities in texas, arizona, new mexico, and california have either had violent crime rates the same or decreasing and the last five years and dramatically so. they are listed, al pesto,

austin, san diego, among the safest communities in the united states appeared -- united states. i am reclaiming my time. i am not talking about 6 -- specific towns. the crime is between ports of entry. it is not necessarily in the city. the crime is in between. the jails are occupied by 34% foreign nationals. my question is simple. do think that is a high number? >> if that is accurate, and i do not know that that is accurate, it is one of the reasons we installed secure communities in the border in jail first. >> let me ask you another question. the 20-point deferred prosecution memo that came out, mr. morton testified there was what was the white house input

on that. do you agree that there was -- that there was white house input on that. do you agree there was white house input? >> well, because immigration involves two major agencies, dhs and doj it is entirely appropriate, and yes, there was coordination with the white house. >> do you know a statutory authority, not a court authority, for deferred prosecution's? congress, that is us, passing laws allowing for deferred prosecution -- prosecutorial discretion, excuse me. >> forget congress. go back to article two, sections 1 and 3 of the constitution. >> the constitution does say that congress is to be responsible for law is on

nationalization. >> article two section 3 says the executive branch will make sure the law has been carried out and has been interpreted to mean that the executive branch has crossed a tour of discretion. >> i did not ask you about that. i am asking about constitutional, legislative, statutory authority to ignore portions of the law based on a memo. is there is the tory authority to do that? in the constitution does say that the executive branch is to enforce law of the land. it seems to meet the executive branch is giving a test to a lot of folks under the guise -- a pass to a lot of folks under the discretion.osecution o >> mr. chairman, can i respond?

i would simply say that prosecutorial discretion by prosecutors and immigration has been enforced and done by republican and democratic administrations, and it makes sense. >> let me also add an say that the ngo a study that he referred to that found only 44% of the border was under operational control, found only 50% was under actual control, so it is a lot less than many people might think. the gentleman from california is recognition of the gentlewoman from california is recognized. if the gentleman from california is recognized -- the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> i think it is is our available resources to target those in need it the most, which

is serious felons, drug traffickers, and others that would do america harm. this is common sense. we should be using our scarce taxpayer dollars not to deport stevens, but to primarily -- students, but to primarily convict those who pose a threat to public safety. while some say you are doing something new, i know that all law enforcement bodies set priorities, and republicans and democrats have called for more discretion. your agency, under both republican and democratic administrations have issued policies on the use of prosecutorial discretion. as a longtime prosecutor, you know you cannot enforce the law and prosecute if you cannot count on the court's docket. our immigration court system is incredibly backlog. more than 300,000 cases are

pending at any time, and immigration judges are scheduling hearings for 2014. it makes sense that you are reviewing that backlog adopted to sort through the cases. is it not right that code 6 use 202 has you enacting authorities, and have we not directed you to repeatedly prioritize the removal of serious criminal aliens and fund programs that specifically targets such populations? in fact, in this effort, could you tell me how it enhances your ability to swiftly removed people that are a priority to the agency? >> the answer is yes, congress has given such direction. i did not know the exact number of the citation, but i think that is accurate. what we are doing, if you think about the immigration system in

segments, the segment is who is being picked up for removal, and that is where we are prioritizing our enforcement efforts so you have operations like cross checks, where we'd of thousands of criminal fugitives just a couple of weekends ago. then we have the three of the thousand or so cases already on the master docket, and it turns out those are not prioritize that all, so you get is never- and record dates. what we are doing is going through those regions never- ending court dates, -- never- ending court dates. we are trying to facilitate the removal of criminal aliens from the country. it is one of the reasons we are going to continue to see those numbers go up. >> why is this not amnesty and not a free pass? >> excuse me?

>> why is your efforts toward prosecutorial discretion not an amnesty of some claims, and not a free pass? >> it is clearly not. it is what law enforcement does on a routine basis, which is evenly with cases on their facts and make decisions as to which one merits the use of government resources. >> thank you for that. i want to turn toward a different topic. it is on tsa and the racial profiling issue. i would like to ask unanimous consent that this letter could be entered into the record. while this year marks the 10th anniversary of 9/11, here in the judiciary committee i have heard the testimony of americans that were pulled out of line in america -- in airports because they were wearing a turban, put

in glass cages on display like an animal, and even babies were searched, yet no seek has ever committed a terrorist attack, but when they complain about this racial profiling, there has just been a lack of response from the psa, and the guidelines are passed down, many times they are ignored. both tsa and the department of common security claim to have a robust complaint system, however expenses have been woefully inadequate with complaints going unanswered for several months. there was an instance where the response took six months ended basically said you do not have any documentation -- and it basically said he did not have any documentation. we met with the administrator, and he said they're going to have a review of the complaint

system. i want to know what the status is of that review. we avoided for three months for some system to be put into place -- we have waited for three months for some system to be put into place. >> our civil rights and liberties group has been looking into that issue specifically. we of greatly reduced the time it takes to address complaints. we do have outreach to communities. i would suggest that we are very respectable -- respectful of that community, and work with them on a number of areas. the issue from a security perspective is that if there is bulky head gear and balky clothing, the current technology can not ascertain whether there might be something been a and they have to find some way to clear that passenger. >> the time has expired. the gentleman from utah. >> madam secretary, thank you

for being here. you said you disagreed with the gao analysis on the percentage of the border that is secure. what percentage do you think is secure? >> i am looking for a number, i have to go quickly. >> having lived and worked on that border, it is an ongoing process. >> you do not have a percentage? >> i would say it is very secure. >> ok. when did you for speak with eric holder about fast and furious? >> i do not believe i have ever spoken with eric holder about fast and furious crowd . >> how many of your agents have been killed in the line of duty? >> too many. >> do you know? to have a number? >> i would have to double check, but i would say at least 12. >> how many guns in the fast and furious operation were detected in crossing the border?

>> i do not know. >> how many guns from fast and furious were seized at the border? >> i do not know. >> why is it that an operation that big and that important and that much in the news, you do not have the details of? >> well, representative, as you know, it was an atf operation appeared >> in 2009, we know of -- operation. >> in 2009, we know of two instances where ice was asked not to pursue do know of any cases that potential have a conflict with test and curious? >> in the wake of your investigation, i've been aware for some of those two instances. i did not think i've been made aware of any others. >> let me go to testimony you

had last week. u.s. about communication regarding the operation fast and -- you were asked about communication regarding the operation fest than serious. you said not about fast and furious 10 when the agent was killed, it was december 15, i went there a few days after with attorneys for the thing for sure spent at the time, no one had done forensics on the guns, and fast interest was not mentioned. you went on to say that you want to make sure who was responsible for the death was brought to justice. so, i did have conversations about the murder of an agent terry, but at the time no one knew about fast and furious, so that is a different question. yet we have documents that show an urgent fire arms trade requested by agents on the scene. why is it that you, as the secretary of homeland security,

with one of your agents, dead on the scene, did not get briefed about fast and furious? >> i do not know. >> how was that acceptable? did they withhold the information, or is it your responsibility to find the information? >> the focus was we had a bad agent killed in a rugged area of the arizona, and the number one thing on my mind was to make sure that the appropriate resources were dedicated to that investigation. >> but you have guns found on the scene. you testified just last week there was no knowledge of fast and furious. you went out of your way to save the forensics were not done, yet that is not true. >> i am not going to comment on that, i do not know the document to which you refer, of what i can say, and what is clear from the context, is i was speaking to my knowledge at the time, and i did not know about assessed

interest. >> was there any directing to allow the guns to go across the border? >> fast and furious was an atf operation appeared >> if your agents detected weapons you let them go because it was an atf operation? >> the two incidents you refer to reveal when they picked up guns, and ran them, atf came back and said these are part of a larger operation, stand down. after the second incident, that matter was taken by the -- to the assistant u.s. attorney, which is common. the assistant u.s. attorney said that the atf operation would take precedence. >> so, was of the department of homeland security of the policy to allow guns to go into mexico

if they were involved in fast and furious. i am looking for a yes or no. >> no. >> how can you claim the border is more secure than ever, yet the obama administration purposely allowed two thousand guns to be released, and knowing they would go to mexico, yet you do not know if we have detected even one of them? on january 14, you did detect someone in new mexico. there were eight guns found, you did not run a trace on them. i find that stunning. for you to have two dead agents and to have never had a conversation about fast and furious is totally unacceptable. >> the gentleman put the time has expired part >> i know the representative has his opinion on this matter, but i would simply suggest no one takes the death of agents more serious than i, and also one of the

reasons that we have not directly dealt with the attorney general on this is that he has very quickly and appropriately put this matter in the hands of the inspector general. >> the gem from arkansas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to talk about the memo that was raised earlier today, the morton memo from june, and the part entitled factors to consider when exercising prosecutorial discretion. i am familiar with the concept. in my experience that has been more of a bottom-up discretion exercised by individual prosecutors. that having been said, when i look at the list of factors, and the degree of specificity in that list, it strikes me that

whether intended to be this or not, it strikes me that it is a road map for retaining illegal immigrants. it seems to me, you can look at this list, and meet a few of these categories, and have a good chance at being pushed to the bottom of the prosecutorial list. that is particularly so when i look at the draft memo that referred to the dream act that came out of u.s. citizenship and immigration services last year. i understand we have had assurances that that draft memo was just a draft, and parts of it were not included in the morton them all. -- memo. my question is, looking at the extensive nature of the list of

factors to consider, in your experience as a prosecutor, have you ever seen, or are you aware of other memos like this in the context of other crimes? for example, in the context of federal crimes to the department of justice, or any other crime? are you familiar with memos this expensive that laid out with this specificity what the prosecutorial discretion is? i have never seen such detail. i would be interested in hearing your view on that. >> the department of justice has the u.s. attorneys' manual which is to guide the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and it is pretty sick. there is a lot there. also, representative, there is a november, -- i think 19 -- it is a memo that lays out the

exercise of prosecutorial discretion and immigration cases, and specifies what a significant federal interest is in that connection. that has been concerned been cited by ice in the previous administration. >> sure. the u.s. attorney's manual lathes fell broadly for individual prosecutors -- lays out broadly for individual prosecutors the guidance for them as they prosecute cases. i have never seen, and i would like to if you can point to other guidance with this specificity, i would love to see it, particularly when they consider things like whether the person subject to prosecutions spouse suffers from an illness.

that seems extraordinary when you are deciding whether to prosecute someone for a criminal act. >> if i might explain? >> yes. >> here is what can happen in the immigration context -- you have a u.s. citizen's spouse who is very ill and requires home care, and the issue is do you deport someone who has been taking care of the u.s. citizen spouse, and then put that spouse into much more expensive health care? do allow the spouse to stay in country. >> sure. >> those are the kind of scenarios the need to be adjudicated or look that case- by-case. >> if you take this list, you can come up with a number of different individual circumstances.

most prosecutors know the difference between prosecuting a petty thief and a terrorist. without the specificity here, i could make the case that certain aspects of the dream act are implemented in here, not verbatim, but when you read all of the policy documents that relate to this stuff, it is not difficult to see that this, in my opinion, and a lot of people in my district of arkansas -- in our opinion, this looks more like it policy document. the nisei couple of things -- i am running out of time. -- let me say a couple of things, i am running out of time. the ice union issued a press release in response to this. these are union members. they said "unable to pass immigration agenda through legislation, the administration is now implementing its through agency policy and bypassing

congress." this is a union agreeing with me, which does not happen a lot, but on this particular instance i would welcome your commentary >> i would say we are not by passing the congress care as much as we'd like the congress to address -- your comment. >> i would say we are not by passing the congress. i met with all of the directors in this area and we went through and talk about the operations going on, and how they will impact public safety, and how we want to guide our resources. this is a group is fully engaged. they get it appeared >> but me quickly mentioned a couple of things -- did get it. >> let me mention a couple of things. it seems when we see in terms of state legislation in arizona, alabama, virginia, and other states that is passed to

address immigration issues -- it seems to me that that is simply the state's reaction to what they see as the federal government's failure to do its job on the border, and not just in this administration, but administration after administration, including the one that i served in, the last one. it seems to me that if the federal government was truly secure in the border, you would not have to deal with a lot of these state laws that are percolating up to address what these folks back in the states see as the federal government's failure to do its job. again, it goes across administration. i have one more question. >> i would like the ability to respond. >> the gentleman put the time has expired -- gentleman's time has expired. we will let the secretary

respond. >> i would suggest that most of the information about the border that is distributed is not accurate, and one of the things i'm trying to do is get accurate information to the congress, and invite anyone to come to the border, and in my judgment i think a number of the states are acting because the congress has failed to act. >> to attend -- thank you. >> madam secretary, thank you for sharing your time with the judicial committee this morning, recognizing the challenges of multi-the jurisdiction for homeland security. i wanted to complement you on one aspect of your very auguste resume, and that is that you are a graduate of the virginia law school. is one of the best law schools in the nation toward a just wanted to make no -- nation.

i just wanted to make note about a fellow law school. let me raise some questions, and repeat what i heard you say in your opening statement, that 90% of the deportations are for already deportations -- >> for the fiscal year 2011. >> fiscal year 2011. it looks and use it to the global surge were repeat violators -- you say that two thirds were repeat violators. the reason i want to clarify this is because many of us who have been advocating for a comprehensive approach to immigration might take offense to the recitation by the administration that they have done more than bush, clinton,

etc. in deportation, because we might take offense it might have an impact on the people we believe could readily be legalize or given some status to a comprehensive approach. when you look at these numbers and clarify them, many of us would not have a disagreement that this is the appropriate approach to take. so, i just want to recite these numbers into the record, and ask the question, is the administration stepped away from its commitment to comprehensive immigration reform? >> not at all. the president wants it. i would like to see it, and i'm ready to work with congress on a moment's notice. >> let me pose a question on our detention facilities, which you have overlapping jurisdiction. i've worked on trying to improve those facilities, particularly as it relates to women and

children. we made some progress where there are facilities that address the question of women and children waiting for deportation, putting families together. it does come to my attention that we of have some instances at the detention facilities. i read an article on assaults by officers in those facilities. are you aware of that, and if not, what kind of procedures are in place to protect those incarcerated when not criminal, who are waiting for action through the courts, or waiting for action in deportation, and they include families, children, and in particular women. >> as i explained, we have a zero tolerance policy for any misconduct of that nature. there is a grievance process. there is a process by which we will immediately deal with officials or officers who are found to have committed that

kind of conduct. we are constantly auditing or reviewing, particularly the facilities we contract with. we've reduced the number of contractors. >> could i ask you whether or not you are insuring efficient attentiveness, and staffing to insure the highest level of protection to those noncriminal -- everyone should be protected, but certainly those noncriminal families and children waiting on noncriminal processing? >> i think we are. >> let me proceed, and i would ask if i could follow up after the fact, but i want to go to the morgan -- morrison amendment -- morton amendment. part of it is delineation.

i claim a good relationship with unions from all over the sector, including the union my colleague just mentioned. we can differences of opinion, and i appreciate prosecutorial discretion is used all of the time. one aspect of his delineation that i think should be noted is dumb matt mead memo includes factors such as the length of -- noted the memo includes factors such as the length of time a person has lived in the country, and whether the person has a lawful resident as a parent, child, or spouse. the thing that is an unreasonable, if you will, framework, and ties the hands of prosecutors in making an appropriate decision on behalf of the people of the united states? >> no, i think it is an important factor to consider given that the congress gives us

the resources only to remote about 400,000 a year could >> the gentleman put the time has expired at >> i had one last question. the less gentleman have gone on and on on the red light. >> we will be happy for you to ask another question. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. >> there have been a number of legislative initiatives introduced by members of congress on a comprehensive immigration reform. i want to defend the congress in the sense there is a body politic of those of us in the house and the seven dead desire comprehensive immigration reform. -- and senate that desire comprehensive immigration reform. you have a process where those who been here have access to

legalization. is that still a readily acceptable approach to look at what answer the concerns of colleagues? that would be individuals are working and paying taxes? when that not be an aspect we would look at? >> yes, but with the clarification that because i think these terms get confused -- access to legalization against access to leadership -- citizenship -- >> two distinct points, is that my understanding? >> yes. that is a common use. >> the gentleman put the time has expired -- gentleman put the time has expired. >> madam secretary, did you ever approve sanctioned --

>> no, not to my knowledge. >> why would you not allow gun walking? i do not think those kinds of investigations were presented to me. >> there is a reason you do not allow contraband cash and guns to walk. can you give us those reasons? >> i cannot like to speculate. every prosecutor make different decisions. i do not believe i was represented with that decision. >> cannot think of any reasons not to let contraband while outside the care, custody, or dominion of law enforcement officers? >> in drug cases or firearms cases, or wherever, when you are trying to work the case up from

the low level to the higher levels and get a more serious criminal off of the street, you let contraband get into the hands of others. >> then you immediately arrest them. i did it for 16 years. you never let drugs, cash, or guns walk. when did you learn of fast and furious for the first time? >> i learned of it after the death of agent terry? >> when did you learn of the gun walking in fast and furious? >> some time before his death and early spring. >> did anyone communicate with mexican authorities that guns were being allowed to cross our border into mexico anin

contravention of their gun laws? >> i do not know of any cases. >> review make proper use of rule 135? >> sure. >> so there is no prohibition in arizona from using these prosecutorial tools used in every other district? >> no. >> so there is no reason why this gun trafficking case would be handled the way it is handled in all other cases? >> i will not second-guess fast and furious. it is under investigation now. >> i am not asking you to say anything they have already said. do you agreed there were problems with fast and furious? >> i thought you were asking a more specific question. obviously, there were questions with fast and furious. you do not want to let guns with the kind of power -- firepower

and about get out of your control. >> is firepower the only reason? >> if you want to cross-examine me -- >> i am not cross-examining you. >> the matter in which the case was handled is under the jurisdiction of the attorney general. there were problems. absolutely. >> when you were the u.s. attorney in the district of arizona, did you have a title three cases? >> yes. >> or they are approved by whom? >> the court. >> worthy department of justice to contend they did not know about fast and furious with be disingenuous at best. correct? >> i do not know those

specifics. that was not within the department of homeland security. >> i am asking you as a former prosecutor. the department of justice has to approve those applications. in those applications is a narrative or a summary of the case. someone at the department of justice had to know about fast and furious for the t3 to ever have been approved. was ever't know if a t3 approved in fast and furious. >> if there was a t3, the department of justice would have to have known about it. >> i will leave that to your investigation. what i do know that after the death of agent terry, the fast and furious label became apparent.

obviously, the operation did not succeed. the inspector general has been under investigation right now. from a law enforcement perspective, fast and furious was troublesome. >> mr. chairman, if i could have an additional 30 seconds, which may be custom this morning -- >> without objection. >> my point on fast and furious is that there were not just problems. there were -- it was wrong from its inception. what i take offense at is when the attorney general and others on the other side of the aisle say that only when problems became apparent -- this investigation was a problem from the beginning. i will ask you one final question. you mentioned twice this was and atf investigation. this was actually an --

investigation. >> i do not know what it was handled by an ausa. i do not know anything about that. >> there would be more than one federal law-enforcement agency involved. correct? >> i cannot comment on that. i just do not know the answer. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> secretary napolitano, you have done an admirable job here this morning. it is impressive to see a long table and a big room with a bunch of men, ready to question one solo with his down there. that witness has no control.

just have to respond to the questions, sometimes the insinuations, sometimes which can border or which can be political in tone. inappropriate. you had been gored -- have endured. it is part of your job. it is not the most pleasant aspect of the job. you have acquitted herself well before this committee. i appreciate your service to be patient. i will not blame every problem that insists this was immigration or federal law enforcement -- i will not blame that on you or make

irresponsible or appear to be irresponsible for that. nor will i say that the obama administration is immune to the normal problems that crop up in the course of the federal government's delayed. you will have some bad choices made and some good things done, too bad. those things should be pointed out. you will -- you were not the secretary of homeland security in 1999. the department of homeland security was not created until three years later. in 1999, we saw members of congress expressed frustration with the imf about the issue of prosecutorial discretion.

when chairman smith led a bipartisan -- wrote to a bipartisan letter to attorney general janet reno on that topic, he specifically urged the in best to use prosecutorial discretion to avoid unfair nets -- unfairness and "unjustifiable hardship." in an op ed in the new york times, chairman smith complained was spending its time on cases that cry out for compassion instead of focusing resources on hardened criminals or hardened criminal aliens. i would like to enter the letter and the out a into the record.

-- leter and the -- letter and the op-ed into the record. >> you might want to put those letters in the context. they were referring to not making general categories of individuals eligible but going through on a case by case basis. i would not want the gentleman to give a misimpression about the content of those letters. >> the letter and article will speak for themselves. you have made your duly noted position from the record. i look at the immigration laws that created on fairness and injustice in 1999. -- unfairness and injustice in

1999. they looked like the same issues we are dealing with today. no wonder that prosecutorial discretion has not diminished in that time. you are talking about prosecutorial discretion to be law enforcement priorities. what about cases that "cry out for compassion." >> thank you for your opening comments. i would simply say that nothing in director morton's memo suggests categorical amnesty for any group. it suggests there be a case by case analysis of the circumstances. there are cases that require immediate deportation. there are cases where we note

the nation's public safety is involved. we have repeat violators and use the chips. there are other cases -- we have repeat offenders an. part of having a reasonable immigration system is the ability to look at those. >> thank you and i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. johnson. we will go to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. adams. >> thank you, mr. secretary. -- mr. chairman. i was interested in what you said about alabama. you said you do not have the funds and you have to prioritize. why not let states helped to be a force multiplier for your agency?

>> the most important way that states help us right now is through secure communities. that is an important tool and we have now been able to expand it to help identify criminal aliens. >> i listened as many of my colleagues asked questions. one said something and i was watching your reaction. i was surprised that you did not say if that is the problem, we need to look into it. if someone is shopping a story, that concerns me. you did not step up and say, we will put national security over any type of politics. will you look into what congressman gohmert mentioned earlier? >> i do not remember

specifically what he brought up. if there are policy issues involved -- >> i want to make sure we are putting our national security above politics at all times. >> will the gentlewoman yield for just a moment? >> i will in just a moment. i will get through my questions. if they are in deportations that is in their home country, you release them back into the community based on a ruling? >> there is a supreme court case, which is a due process case. if the home country cannot accept or will not accept, it gives us a six month the tension. . -- month detension period. >> some of these people have committed heinous crimes.

one prisoner killed a woman after china refused his entry. if i remember reading this correctly, they have not located her heart and lungs. another one killed a police officer at fort myers because he was released by police because the home country would not take them. the government is required to sanction countries that refuse to repatriate. you are supposed to order or give the country who refused to take back its alien to order the it ibiza -- the visa to be suspended. how many have you recommended? >> what we have done is work

with countries that refuse to six -- refused to accept their aliens back. >> you are telling me you have not done any. >> not that i know of. if we are talking about the same thing. >> these are people who are pending removal, but their home countries would not take them. a country it uses to take back its aliens, and we secretary of state must order visas be suspended. how many times have that -- has that happened. >> i would have to look into it. >> i have listened to that all morning long. i have been amazed at some of the answers given know when you

were coming to this committee. you have death of agents during fast and furious. we have iran trying to get across the border. you have deaths of our citizens and law enforcement agencies because they are being released into our country after committing crimes. you are telling me you do not know now. first you said you had not done it. now you do not know if you have. >> excuse me, rep. in this committee, i try to provide as accurate information as i can. what i am is suggesting to you is that we have been working through the state department with some of the countries that

routinely refuse to accept illegal aliens back. i do not know, for diplomatic reasons, if the department had -- >> is there any reason dhs need not comply to this duly enacted statute? >> that is a gotcha question. we have been working with the with countriesnt o that it used to take back. >> that is not a gotcha. i will ask respectfully if you will give me that number. how many times? he said first you did not do it. now you say you do not know. i will accept it in writing so

that there will be no understanding -- no misunderstanding. i yield back. >> madam secretary, i would first like to applaud you for crafting a common-sense policy. i would like to address the department's work in puerto rico. many experts, including the u.s. attorney in miami, have recognized that as the federal government curtails the southwest border, drug- trafficking organizations are turning to the caribbean as an alternate means to get their products to end users in the u.s. approximately 80% of the south american cocaine that arise in the puerto rico is transported to the u.s. mainland. the 20% of cocaine that remains

in puerto rico for local consumption is the primary cause for the island's's hawaii number of murders. from the -- the island. number of murders. i have made several high-profile drug arrests of the past year. i am concerned that component agencies are not devoting sufficient resources to address the drug trafficking through puerto rico. i have a couple of questions for you. how has dhs responded to the situation whereby drug traffickers are set think part of their operations from the southwest border to the caribbean. ?

the soy a former agent in puerto rico. this is -- i am a former agent in puerto rico. this is like a moving target. you cannot leave one area un protected because they just go there. i want to know if you have given additional resources to the caribbean and the region. the second question is really did -- is related. there has been a surge entering the island, particularly from the smaller caribbean islands. it took because start over an hour to respond to a suspected drug shipment on the eastern part of the island. protection in the area is minimal. what is the department doing in terms of resources and coast

guard resources? the first question is in general. are you taking a look at our area and the voting additional resources like he should in terms of protecting our border -- devoting additional resources like you should in terms of protecting our border? >> thank you. i do not want to make too big a point of this. it that bad drug trafficking has moved into the -- the fact that drug trafficking has moved into the area you speak up is that we have been affected to a large degree. we are looking at if we have the right amount of co-starred aspects -- assets already deployed there. do we need to change the kind of vessels we have. we have the best team in puerto rico. we will evaluate that continue

to evaluate if we have the bike number of agents. we are working with a unit down there at the right number of agents. -- we are working with the unit down there. >> i have met with attorney general holder to go over the details. i would appreciate it if you gave me the time to sit down with you. >> the gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> i just want to get some clarification. earlier he testified that congress has only appropriate about 400,000 deportations. is that for the arrest, removal and his -- and deportation?

>> it is a commonly used number and it is the number referred to in the appropriations bill. >> usually is just a dollar amount. >> earlier a committee member was talking to you about the discrepancy between the ice number. it was $30,000 per person deported. i appreciate you will get us the information. when you were speaking earlier, he said that they -- that does not ice once include the other factors. >> it may not include the

justice department figures. >> last week, he stated that the number was $23,000 and set up $30,000. that was only what dhs has. >> i will get that with you. obviously, you want to make some points with those numbers so you need to have the accurate numbers. >> i would also want to know if that number came from internal complications of the actual breakdown in costs. if you can tell us that. is that all internal competition or from external sources? >> i will find out from you -- i will find out for you. could be from a number of sources. a lot of people were included. >> that number jumped out at me.

we learned that that number came from the center for american progress, a liberal think tank. if you could get some clear case and on that -- it you could give us some clarification on that -- >> because we -- because we have never comprehensively addressed immigration in the congress, what gets lost is the total cost of the system. there are different appropriations subcommittees.

it would be beneficial to look at the system as a whole >>. administration officials have said you do not have the resources to pursue deportation because the money is not there. breaking down the numbers is extremely important, especially in these tough budgetary times. as we are looking at the problems the federal government is having living within its means and we do not have the money to actually enforce our immigration laws, if certain

states would want to act as our small suppliers, shouldn't we be looking to them and embracing that to be able to enforce those immigration laws? >> it is important to recognize that what is involved here is who sets the immigration priorities for the country. that is a federal responsibility. we work with states and localities. the primary way we do it is to secure communities. as you heard in earlier conversation with members, we have been criticized by some communities who do not want to buy this big in secure communities. i believe is that we do not want to be criticized in secure communities. >> the gentleman from florida. >> madam secretary, thank you for being here. i am concerned with the

department of homeland urbanty's formula for initiatives. i am concerned they the -- there are more than 100 municipalities and four international airports and numerous sports been used -- venues. it is also home to banking, health care, and other industries. the national access point center for the americas and the national hurricane center are

located there. it covers 300 miles of coastline. the coastline is porous and a risk for drug trafficking. port everglades is the home of more cruise ships than any port in the world. in addition, it is a gateway to south america. millions of people and commerce across the border through south florida. the port of miami imports and exports more than 7.8 million tons of cargo annually to more than 100 countries and 250 ports around the world. is the fourth leading container ports in the nation.

the point is also a primary distribution center for -- the port is also a primary distribution center for petroleum products. for tiernot qualify a 4 1 funding. it will have its funding for the upcoming year dramatically reduced. reduced from $70 million down to $9 million. the formula does not include the 300 miles of coastline, four international airports and cruise ship ports located there.

several questions. should this area be considered by the department in its form in the? -- in its formula? 11 are eligible for tier 1 funding. for the safety and security of the millions of americans who live that do business in southwest florida, i urge you to expand the tier 1 funding to include this area. >> i would make two point. the reduction in tier 1 identification was in reaction

to congress's reduction in funding overall. the question presented to us is whether we dole out smaller amounts of money or to we continue to fund prior tier 1 locations. we made a decision to restrict the number of locations. are valued by risk and consequence. national elements you describe, coastline, critical infrastructure, economic impact are all taken into account. as i recall, when we made the decision to cut back and identify tier 1 and tier 2, there was a clear delineation from the top 10.

that is where miami was. if congress puts more money in, it goes back to prior year levels. >> the decision to expand tier 1 was a decision made by your office. i understand the decision congress makes about funding. the decision of the department homeland security to keep the tier 1 finding the same at 2/ -- and to slash the funding for the miami -- i urge you to reanalyze the consequences and bob in the decision. i yield back.

>> madam secretary, back in february i recall you and i were on the phone on a another important issue that had come to a premature end because you had to attend a memorial service. do you remember that conversation? >> i do not remember the conversation. i remember it being murder of -- zapata. >> i remember it because it was at the point where fast and furious was becoming an issue -- . we have done a lot of work. i want to run through some questions that concern me. earlier today, you said this was an atf operation. out of concern for the investigative process and the prosecutions ongoing, we have

avoided interviewing -- he works for you. he is an i.c.e. agent. >> i know that there was a field agent assigned to a task force for deinfliction -- deconfliction purposes. >> it is our judgment that he was aware that there was gun walking going on. he had that information. when you assign somebody like that, do you have a flow of information back to your department so that somebody in your department could have, should have or would have known about the operation? >> we have hundreds of operations and thousands of agents on a daily basis.

to my knowledge, the fact that an agent was a sign somewhere about some matter would not necessarily come to i.c.e. headquarters, much less the dhs headquarters. >> fire and forget. kind of like the missiles -- s you send off and it looks for it. >> i do not agree with that. i became aware as i have testified here and in other committees after the death of agent terry.

i knew the details and the name fast and furious no later than march. >> eric holder testified he knew only a few weeks before the interview he had in the baby for this committee. he, basically, heard about it in the newspaper. you have two dead agents who worked for you. brian terry was gunned down with two weapons from fast and furious. let's go through a few questions. >> wait just a minute. that insinuation is not accurate. >> let me finish my question. we could have the record read back. >> it is the insinuation i am

objecting to. go ahead and answer be -- and ask the question. >> for 3 months you had a dead border patrol agents and there was no i.g. investigation. what did you do since february to find out about fast and furious. we would get you the unredacted ones. people on the ground to do those were fast and furious weapons within hours. it was known at the time. the question is, a homeland security employee is gunned down. two weapons found at the scene. agents on the ground note that it was fast and furious before brian terry was laid to rest. before you told us about an i.g.

investigation. are you going to have your i.g. looked into a when they are a aware of gun walking and they do nothing? is that appropriate to have your i.g. investigate? yes or no, please. >> that question merits a lengthier response and i will give that to you. >> when brian terry was gunned down, you knew that he was gunned down with fast and furious weapons. what did you do between italy and march to find out the details about his loss of life? earned you out race today that you were not informed that aren't you outragede

to find out that agents do and you did not know. >> your insinuation -- >> please answer the question. >> the representative is combining a lot of things. he will give me these questions, i would be happy to respond in writing. >> you became aware that brian terry had been gunned down. between december and february of 2011, what did you do to discover further conditions around his death. the second question, which was equally straightforward, earned curious that the

justice department withheld from you the knowledge of fast and furious, including the knowledge that you had an agent dead =? >> we should all be outraged at the death of agent teerry. -- agent terry. the fbi was in charge of that investigation. as quickly as i could get to arizona, i met with the fbi. i met with the ausu --going the -- met with the ausa who was going to do that investigation. i will happen to -- i will be happy to answer your questions

in writing. >> there is a broad range of questions people can ask. you are expected to be an expert on each and every one of them. eli expected to know the answers from the tip of your fingertips. we appreciate the effort nonetheless. studies by the wall and institute showed that 93% of those identified by secure communities where latino as of 2010. given the scope of secure communities, that number seems alarming behind. -- seems alarmingly high. many of my constituents look at that number and conclude that

the secure communities program may be encouraging local officials to profile against the latino community. i am not suggesting this is conscious activity on behalf of local law enforcement. that number does trouble me. i am 1 during a bad -- i am wondering if you can explain that figure and if the dhs can address that? >> more fundamentally, what we have done through our civil- rights and civil liberties unit is to establish monitoring. we have enough communities in the program to get a substantial number. monitor those numbers to see if any are out of kilter with

criminal prosecutions generally in an area. it statistically there are significant variances, to have the ability to go in and look at it by now. -- look at the file. we do not intend to keep those numbers secret. they will be posted when they become available with appropriate explanations. >> can you understand the concern that people might hesitate to cooperate with local law enforcement and perception, backed by official figures, lead people to suspect that certain communities are being racially profile? >> i can understand that concern. we have secure communities in the now jurisdictions to know how you work with secure

communities and how the police departments continue their relationships with local, how you do it but policing in the right way. there are best practices that are developed and being shared. what i am is suggesting is that we need to continue to watch the numbers and to do it in a statistically ballot way to make those numbers -- valid way to make those numbers representative of the program. >> when legal residents are rested under this program, how are they detained? -- arrested, how long are they detained? >> they cannot be detained more than 48 hours. >> are they allowed to contact

council or their families during that process? -- counsel or their families during that process? >> there is a form that is in english and spanish. of it. get you a copy of inpu >> it is important that people arrested under this program be able to communicate with family. >> they are not arrested under this program. secure communities is a data sharing agreement between us and the fbi to check in the plants against criminal databases and -- check fingerprints against criminal databases and

immigrants databases. >> i misspoke. there are people caught up in this that do not have the chance to contact family and counsel. >> if there is a match that shows they are citizens, we stop right there. nothing else happens. >> a little power and a resident -- a legal, permanent resident could not be accidentally deported because they have been picked up? >> we deal with a lot of people. there have been instances in the past. under this program, once a match has been made at its reveals this is a lawful permanent

resident or a citizen, that is it. they may be held under whatever criminal law they may have violated. >> mr. chairman, i would like to yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. >> thank you. madam secretary, since you seem fuzzy about -- let me make sure you understand. he was a featured speaker in 2004. you had him in your pilot extremism working group. you promoted him. you swore him in. according to your testimony here

today, that is where he got his security clearance. he has written glowingly on the man osama bin laden relied on heavily. he has written about the holy land foundation's funding of terrorism. he has still remain in this homeland security advisory council. he acts as a week ago the state and local communities database's- -- a week ago, he accessed the state and local community database. our security is being compromised. he is using it to help his friend politically. i have one question.

it is not a gotcha question. there is nothing confusing about it. before you came here today, were you given information about him using the a community database and taking information he downloaded and shopping it to be needed? >> no. >> if anyone from homeland security, your staff, advised anyone else that you were briefed last night, they would be wrong. is that correct? >> yes. >> thank you. >> i reclaim my time. thank you for your testimony, madam secretary. >> when you responded to the gentleman from texas and this discussion about prosecutorial

discretion, you referenced section 3 of the constitution. can you expand on that and how article 2, section three grants prosecutorial discretion? >> it says that we must faithfully execute the laws of the united states. in reno versus the anti american immigration bleague, it analyzes how you analyze discretion. >> i wanted to make the point that if the constitution does not say so, you can make references to those cases. it says, he shall take care that the laws should be faithfully executed. the presidential oath says, i

will faithfully execute the laws of the united states. i just wanted to clarify that. it is not an issue. when we see be litigation coming forward against alabama, arizona and any state that wants to pass immigration laws, the executive branch is litigating that through the courts. if eric holder is successful in scrubbing the immigration laws from the states, that leaves the federal government with the exclusive authority to enforce immigration law. does it now? >> when we have partnerships like secure communities, that allows us to focus. >> it the attorney general is successful in the litigation he has initiated, rather than be

secure communities component of this, there would be no latitude for states to pass immigration laws that would enforce at their discretion. >> that would be no latitude for states to make laws that surpass federal immigration policy. >> it looks to me like it and this issue is going down the path of shutting down all state laws on immigration regardless of if it goes beyond mirroring federal law, which is what arizona was designed to do. it takes away the authority of the states to do immigration enforcement. i will take you through some data that was addressed. the 84.5% of foreign nationals that are occupying it jails-- on the 34% of foreign nationals

that are occupying the jails on the border states. there is data that shows that we have 25,064 arrests of criminal aliens for homicide. that covers some years. i would put that up against the losses we have had on the southern border. 25,064 arrests for homicide means at least one grade -- one grave. that means those are americans killed at the hands of criminal aliens. you mentioned 400,000 beds and that is all congress gives you. i do not remember hearing a request from the administration to look at the assets deployed on the southern border. it would not be just your

department. that ranges in the area of $12 billion, about $6 million a mile. i have yet to hear anybody put all that together and ask county prosecutors, and how many judges -- how do we get 100% up enforcement on that border so that we can save these 25,064 lives. can you put together a proposal to rearrange the assets so that we can bring 100% enforcement at it and that drug smugglers go because we do not have the prosecutors? have you put that package together? >> i will take this in two bites. somebody accused of homicide would be detained and would be a priority case. we have created room on the

master got it to move that case through. >> they might be released into society. >> as i mentioned earlier, one of the things is important to look at is the entire immigration system from where we get investigation to prosecution to incarceration and to the removal. each one of those crosses different federal agencies. we have a comprehensive enforcement strategy we used. we have moved i.c.e. resources down to the border. we have more resources at the southwest border that had ever existed before. that is not to say congress does not have the ability to look at it overall. >> what can you ask of this

congress to give you 100% of what you need on the border? >> the best way to answer is to say we believe with the asks we have made at the border and the movement of i.c.e. resources to the border fromth the dhs perspective, we have been able to greatly improve that border. >> the gentlemen's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. u.s. border patrol agents have tough jobs. they are out there in the middle of the night trying to track down illegal aliens, drug smugglers, weapons smugglers and other contraband. they are fired at with weapons provided by government agencies.

sometimes when did and sometimes killed. i wonder if you can comment on a court decision that came down in the case of the prosecution of one of your agents, jesus diaz, jr., who was sentenced to two years in prison for lifting the arms of a handcuffed 16-year old drug smuggling suspect. that is a common technique used by law-enforcement to force people to the ground, to lift their arms to force them down on the ground if they are attempting to escape. this prosecution took place at the behest of the mexican government. it was conducted by the same

u.s. attorney's office that prosecuted two agents they were subsequently granted a pardon or had their sentences commuted by president bush. are you familiar with this case involving jesus diez? "i am not familiar with the decision. they have very difficult job under difficult physical circumstances. this is a 24/7 job. >> this case has been pending for a few years. that seemed like a serious sanction. both your inspectors general office and ice cleared his agent

of any wrongdoing. nonetheless, he was subsequently prosecuted. the law enforcement officers advocates council, an organization that looks out for the interests of people doing these dangerous jobs, says this was a totally improper prosecution of this individual. you are not at all familiar with this? >> i am not. >> would you look into this and report back to the committee and let us know your thoughts are about the prosecution of one of your agents? >> i would be happy to review the decision. >> let me ask you this. how often do you meet with attorney general holder? >> it varies. not that often really. >> d think it would be helpful in light of the fast and furious

debacle and in light of prosecutions like this one that the department of government ought to be in forming your department on a more regular basis of what they are undertaking so you can be better informed and the outspoken and representing the interests of your agents and the responsibilities of your department? let's think i am outspoken in the interest of my agents. >> if you do not know about these incidents. it went on for a long period of time. if you are not informed, how can you be effected? >> the note. what is the question? >> shouldn't you have closer communications with the other principal law-enforcement agency of the federal government says you can know what is going on in your agents are being endangered by allowing weapons to walk when they are

being prosecuted by u.s. attorneys. pressure was put on our government from the mexican government, don't you think somebody in your department should have been informed of that or somebody involved in this kind of cross border politics where drug smugglers -- i am aware of the prosecution of a deputy in texas for attempting to stop drug smugglers. the people who are getting -- there are the people trying to enforce the law. >> i think my number one interest when we had a dead at agent was to get the shooters. some of whom have fled into mexico. >> i think that is a laudable goal. but it is too late. the fact of the matter is, there

needs to be a better communications. somebody can say, this is a crazy idea. you are giving guns to drug smugglers that are going to come back and be used. >> it will be -- i think this committee has to avoid a rush to judgment here. it seems to me that there will be lessons learned from this and they're very well may be changes in the field as a result of this. the question you ask me, however, was how often i met with attorney general holder. i was saying in the context of things, given his schedule and my schedule, the myriad of responsibilities week -- we each have, not that often. >> you have indicated he will investigate this matter with regard to jesus diaz, one of

your agents that is facing two years in prison. if the prosecution in this case, if the conviction is not overturned on appeal, would you recommend to president obama that he pardoned the agent if you find as your inspector general found and as the ice office of professional responsibility found there was no wrongdoing on his part. if you find that to be the case, would you recommend to the president to protect your agent? >> i don't play what ifs. i will be happy to review the case and get back to you. >> for the record, he made a commitment that you would review this officer is a prosecution. >> i would -- i said i would review the decision. >> he would review the decision carried further would you make a commitment to this committee that you would respond in writing to the committee your

assessment of your review? >> we will get back to the committee. yes, sir. >> i will take that as a yes. >> i will take -- we will get back to the committee. >> good afternoon. first of all, i want to state i have the utmost respect for the ice agents. i kind of look at us as colleagues based on our experiences. some of the best people i have ever worked with him -- they have an extraordinary circumstances that work under. i do have a total respect for those individuals. you raised an issue concerning the zabetas case.

within 60 days -- >> six months. >> -- it would be released if nothing is done. does that pertain to removal from the country or if they have committed a crime? >> it is a due process removal case. >> if there is a crime committed by an individual that is here illegally, -- >> they still serve the sentence. >> de you see a problem with the six month time period whereby you may not in conjunction with the u.s. attorney's office you now have time to get that completed? >> i think we have to be guided by the supreme court. when it says you have to move, you have to move. you have to meet the timeline to the set. >> he stated earlier that

congress needed to act more so when it comes to immigration. can you explain to me what should congress be doing pursuant to enforcement? >> one of the areas i think congress should look at enforcement is in terms of employers. right now it is very difficult to get to a felony case. the fines are too low to be a deterrent. the employers are the batman for much of the illegal immigration that goes on. that's i think is an area that deserves examination. >> i prosecuted one of those as the u.s. attorney. we did send hundreds of illegals back. i'd like to see more of that. you are right. it is the magnet. can i ask you a question. do you support total amnesty? >> know. >> he stated earlier -- i don't play gotcha.

we have slight variance is on our discussion of why we prosecute a case and not other cases. do you agree with me that there is not a strickland to fall on? >> yes. >> i am going to go back to the factors for considering discretion. give me your input. give me your feeling of something like this. i have not seen a list like this as a prosecutor. i have had manuals on my desk. i did not memorize them by any stretch of the imagination. d you have any problems with -- i will just rattle off three or four. you have heard one of these. when a person has a u.s. citizen personnel spouse -- when

a person is a primary caretaker with a disability, whether the person or spouse is pregnant or nursing, and finally whether the person suffers from severe mental or physical illness, i am not familiar with any other federal crimes code that applies such strict parameters before enforcing the law. can you help me out here? >> here is what we are doing. i think what director morton is correctly doing is saying we want to prioritize those who are criminals, fugitives, repeat violators, those we are capturing at the border, those who raise natural -- those who raise national security interests. in terms of where we want to put our manpower, those are the things that affect public safety

in our community. i deploy into extra secure communities among other things, we are seeing the composition of the numbers changed and the composition is changing to reflect we are deporting more criminals than ever before. with respect to others who don't fit in those priorities, they are not given amnesty. there are some factors to take into consideration. it is merely an effort to elucidate the factors. >> you don't see this as a strict guidelines. the prosecutor is the prosecutor because he or she is qualified to put in there in that position. they do have that discretion? >> that is right. one of the things we have done a speak with the lawyers to handle these matters. we have treated them like those who had -- to have been able to

look at many number of factors. >> as stated by the commissioner who participated in this. this is not an invitation to ignore the law? >> not at all. >> i have a couple of other questions. i trust you as a law enforcement colleague as i said before, you are going to keep politics out of enforcing immigration laws. >> one of the things -- the insinuation of politics has been made by others. i would remind the committee and i actually have the testimony, when i testified in the senate in the spring of 2009, not too

long after i had become the secretary of homeland security, i said specifically that we were going to focus of criminal aliens. we were going to prioritize with the emigration universe. there was no question as to whether that was proper or not. >> can i ask a question. >> if you have one question, we have two more witnesses. >> i would never criticize you in a political aspect at all. i know how tough the job is as a prosecutor. let's switch gears for a moment. let's talk about the month for a moment. we have quite a disaster in pennsylvania where i am from. fema for alk about moment. d u feel that fema or is there

some way in congress we can give them the authority to step into a state when fema feels it is necessary even before a governor asks for help? >> in reality, that is what happens. one of the things we have been very successful at in terms of disaster management is what we see a disaster coming hurricane flooding and mother and i ran for example is to agree deploy resources and to pre declared disaster before the speakers even hit. and what is put speed and a mass on target. >> thank you. had this time i am going to yield myself five minutes in the sequence the chairman had listed the speakers. i apologize for coming in a little late. i have been in a classified briefing for one hour and a half

or i would have been here. i certainly want to associate myself with a couple of things. you have a very tough job. we all recognize that. there are some very tough issues we are all dealing with. i don't want to make your job more complicated. i think when i finish here, he will accept the fact have not done that. when i walked in, my good friend and colleague was talking about the number of precious dollars we have to do the jobs that we have to deal with. as chairman of the emigrations of that committee of this committee, i have been working on immigration issues for 25 years. it seems to me there are still some issues that boggles my mind

how we are dealing with them. one is the issue, there is no answer to it and it can be spun a different number of ways, when we have millions of people unemployed, the president of the united states would put out an order to put on hold approximately 300,000 deportation -- people who are actually in the deportation process. there has been millions of dollars prosecuting these -- >> that is not exactly what happened, but go ahead. >> for the sake of brevity, i will let you have some time to set the record straight. but however many there are, we will set aside for a second. are you aware of the current income tax credit program or refunds?

>> yes. >> these are where individuals are some money, but not quite enough money to pay any income tax. at the end of the year and they are eligible for a tax refund even though they paid no taxes. are you also aware that last year, there were 2.3 million people illegally working in this country -- this is per the obama treasury department records. 2.3 million people illegally working in this country that received over $4 billion in tax refunds. this is a 4% increase over what to illegal immigrants were receiving in tax refunds after paying no taxes of the past five years. this is a matter of the record. i will not ask you to respond to that. however, you may or may not know the answer to this. if you don't know the answer to

this i would like to see if you could get me the answer. of the 300,000 or what ever the magic number is of people who are in the process of being deported, how many of those have received these tax refunds? also, of those who have received a tax refunds, how many have any form of a criminal record? >> the first of all, i do not know the answer off of the top of my head as you might anticipate. on the case by case review of the cases on going is designed to make sure we are moving priority cases through the detained pocket to removal from the country. those who have a criminal record are those who fit within the priority category. what we are trying to do is clear the dockage -- remember the dockets are upsetting cases in 2014 and 2015. >> i know some cases that have

been pending for five or six years with just one extension or continuance after another. some arbitrary and capriciously in my opinion. there is hopes that one day amnesty will solve all the problems in the cases will disappear. >> well we are trying to do is we prioritize the cases in the system so the most serious ones go first. >> this gets back to the issue of what constitutes criminal. prioritization is important. is three drunk driving arrests consider criminal acts as a robbery? of salted? burglary? maybe you can give us a written assessment of how these priorities work. when somebody has been a rested with a three drunk driving arrests and on the fourth time

they kill somebody, we have case after case after case of these where there are still living and in the deportation process. >> i agree with you. i think those cases are the ones we want to put into retention and remove beard i will be happy to describe to you level 1, 2, 3 and how that works. >> the want to send it to the committee in writing or t want to -- >> i think we provided a breaking news that already. we would give you something. >> if you would for my benefit and, of the number of people who have received income-tax -- this $4 billion in the last year, how many of those individuals that actually had a criminal record? to me a criminal record is being put in jail for drug driving. >> if you could refer to my staff the treasury report to

which are referring, that would be helpful. >> we will be happy to get to the appropriate person on your staff. i appreciate the job you're doing. i don't agree with everything, but i do agree it is complicated. i hope we can work together for the sake of the country. >> north dakota. >> mr. jordan. >> madam secretary, the good news is i am last. i would just like to continue with the discussion of what some people got administration amnesty. i realize you call discretion, we talked about the fact the have limited resources. the reality is every prosecutor has limited resources. that is not testified that policies if they happen to be bad policies.

prosecuting more people who were uneducated or have less education than and those who had more education? >> education all attainment in and of itself is -- >> you talk about how we should be prosecuting more employers perhaps. is that a fair representation? >> that is correct. >> would there be a situation where you think a prosecutor would ever be justified and

discriminating against employers who had less education by prosecuting them more. >> i think what we look at our employers -- that is not my question. >> it is an impossible question to answer. >> one of the criteria you have in your discretion is to look up persons who are pursuing education in the united states. effectively by those people who cannot afford to pursue that education who might beat under education, you have a discrimination against them. >> i would disagree. it is important to look at factors altogether. >> i am looking at the wording. the other thing i would like to look at is this. you have one person in the

criteria were your spouse is pregnant. is there ever a situation where you would think a prosecutor could prosecute more individuals who were unmarried or same-sex marriages and therefore did not have a spouse that was pregnant. is there ever a situation or that would be justified? >> i think the memo speaks for itself. >> is there any other law or he would allow a prosecutor to say that if you have a pregnant pause, we are going to be less likely to prosecute and if you don't have a pregnant spouse? >> i think in being a former u.s. attorney and attorney- general very familiar with county attorneys and the district attorneys, there are always situations where he made situations are taken into

account. >> are you telling me if you have an employer that you want to go after, you think it prosecutor should be able to prosecute those individuals who are unmarried or perhaps did not have spouses that are pregnant more than those who have a pregnant spouse? >> i just can't answer the question as he phrased it. >> in all respects, these are your policies did you have written or proved from your department. what you have set in here is that a prosecutor can discriminate in favor of people who have more education when you talk about whether they are going to be prosecuted for being in here illegally. there is no crime or you would justify saying we are willing to prosecute people with less education martin we do people with more education. it is a bad policy. there is no situation where he would look at an employer and say, if you have a pregnant pause, we are not want to prosecute you for violating the immigration laws.

less than we prosecute somebody who might not have a pregnant pause. when you look at the situation of somebody who has a spouse that has an illness, there is no situation that you can suggest somebody has prosecutor suggested in on somebody who has his boss with an illness. what i will ask you, give me the examples that you can of others where prosecutor discretion is there. >> if i may finish, i think the way you deposited the question is determined to reach a particular result. i cannot answer the way you deposited into. >> an altar respect, you just don't want to answer the question because they are the policies he wrote. i will ask you this the same way the chairman did. will you give me in writing a single situation for any agency

in this country has given to their prosecutors a situation where they suggest that they use prosecutorial speak discretion and one of these criteria. he should prosecute less if somebody has an education or you should prosecute them less if they have a spouse that is pregnant. or you can prosecute them less if they have a spouse that is ill. you cannot say that here, i understand because you don't know it. if he would go back and tell me in writing if it exists anywhere in the country, it does not. you ought to look at your policies and say maybe your policies are not appropriate. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. we have no further requests. it has been a long the morning.

you have been here almost at 3.5 hours now. [inaudible] if the tec >> as the file paperwork in the state house and conquered. he becomes the latest candidate to submit his paperwork to the

secretary of state. a date for the presidential primary is expected to be chosen next week. after the signing, governor perry spoke with reporters. this video comes courtesy of manchester. >> it looks pretty good. that is why you do what you do. all right. >> david said he called you. >> this is the formal part. filling out the declaration of candidacy it has been completed. all it needs is a signature on here. this is the filing fee of $1,000.

this is -- we do this every four years. >> i think i know what to put on there. let me just sit down here and write this down.

it is a tradition of respect. i am very honored to be a part of it this morning. i am excited to bring my conservative message to the grand the state. campaign about jobs, so that america can get working again. i am very positive data is an issue that the americans are focused upon. i have put before the american people some very fundamental reforms that will jump-start our economy, open up our federal lands and waters for exploration so that we can reduce our reliance upon will that comes from nations that he america and all too many cases. major tax reform that i laid out two days ago, 20% flat tax to

create jobs and growth all across america. i just carry this with me now. that is it. 20% -- you take your deductions for the dependents, or charitable, your mortgage, your local taxes. he sent it in. it can be that simple. if you want to stay with the old farm and pay the lawyers and tax accountants, you have that choice to. when people look at that full plan, it makes so much sense where we clearly show you can balance the budget of this country by 2020 and to protect future generations by a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. in this corporate loopholes that carve out how lobbyists and tax lawyers in washington that have been feeding at the trough

for way too long. they know that these are not just a lot of talking points. they realize that because as we were talking, i have a record of 10 years helping create a lot with our legislators a climate in texas that over the course of the last decade, we have created 1 million net new jobs. at 6 balanced state budgets. because of $14 million in taxes. this is not just nibbling around the edges. this is what i have done as the

governor of the second most populous state in the nation. reinvigorated our economy in my home state by reinventing the tax code by cutting spending, by getting washington out of the way. that can happen all across the country. it can happen in new hampshire. any state in this nation. but we have to send a message to the entrepreneur that you are born to have the confidence that we are not quite to overtax to, over regulate you, and get washington out of the way and get rid of the one-size-fits-all mentality that all too often comes out of washington whether it is with obamacare or with doodd frank. my campaign is not a campaign with the establishment. it is a campaign for main street. we are trying to bring

opportunity back to main street. people are going to be comfortable that washington is going to do a few things into a few things very well. that is what americans are looking for. i am confident of a look at our jobs plan and their record, they will come to the conclusion that there is one person who actually is not just about rhetoric but is also about record. that is rick perry. >> talking about your message, how you plan on getting it out there? know whether or not we are going to go to the debates or not. there are going to be a lot of debate. i may be a good debater before it is all over with. we have not made any decisions about what we are going to do. getting the message out. obviously we had a good fund- raising. fault are just now starting to

see our full economic plan. it has only been out there for less than 48 hours from the standpoint of getting into the groundwater. what is it in america really needs? they need a president that has the courage to stand up and understand that always done does not come out of washington d.c.. allowing the states that makes them more competitive. you all have a really interesting tax structure. you have a really interesting business climates. if you have the right to work law, you want to create jobs. i said, this is not an anti- union issue. this is about creating jobs. there will be union jobs

created. i just really felt ought to have a choice. if you create the right to work environment, this place will be an absolute job creation. >> what's more video of the candidates. sybil political reporters are saying. track the latest campaign contributions. and helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feet and facebook updates. plus, links to c-span media partners in the early primary caucus states. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> next, a description -- a discussion about the group called "coffee party usa." this is 45 minutes.

guest: we taught -- we try to get people to roll up their sleeves and make decisions together. we once of a discussion at the heart of organizing. organizing is made with your affinity for ideologies. we want to advance that to where it is about host: to pure: some good examples about how your organization does that. guest: we actually need in

coffee houses. betrayed a separate speech and which we can approach things getting ready to work, having the energy to focus on issues that are very complex also, really distort a bipartisan prisons. we want to be able to say, here are the facts about unemployment. here are the facts about campaign finance laws. camera problems of these things together. there is so much gridlock in washington, it is not meant to be like that. there is supposed to be balance of power, but not this kind of gridlock in which we are treating politics like it is a wrestling match. we don't want that. we have to get past that. we wanted to create a new model from the bottom of. let's just problems altogether. host: how you make that happen? guest: some of it is

institutional legislative. we have to change some laws so that we incentivize people to actually cooperate instead of ups trucks. campaign finance laws for instance. have a lot of -- some of us wish to mention their base is happy. they are not rewarded according to the outcome. we have to change campaign finance laws. some of it is psychological. we have to basically set the norms. right now it is ok for people to yell at each other and call each other names and not to work together. at some point we have to say enough as in now. you started on facebook? guest: yes, we started on facebook. how was upset by the kind of ugliness and direct that came out at that time.

i said, we need an alternative to this. we cannot go on like this. we cannot solve anything like this. it just became a bar -- a viral fan page that became an organization of dozens of organizations around the country with 500,000 people in the network. host: you are meeting in washington, d.c. today? guest: we are having our first big rally today. we are going to be right in front of the capital where inauguration's take place. despite the bad weather, we will be out there, hundreds of less speaking out almost like a filibuster. people across the country supported by people like joe says that, former congressman, we said graves, -- lisa graves, we all want to come together and

put aside differences we might have had. we have to focus on core issues in our country. >>host: one of the issues as tax reform and in particular when it comes to the tax code. what needs to change? guest: if a government is broke, it is in part because our tax code is broken. it is not fair and is very complicated. it is getting to the point where it is true there is a revenue problem here. unless we can get past the fact there are people who categorically don't want to raise taxes or close loopholes, we have to get past that. there is basically subsidized corporate warfare going on. tax breaks to oil companies and hundreds of billion dollars that we can save if we close the loophole. host: closing loopholes as one. you are supporting a financial

transaction tax. guest: it is really on wall street transactions. even if we let me just a small -- not even 1%, just half of a percent, we would produce billions of dollars. it would basically help with the income inequality that we have. nobody disputes that we have a terrible income and equity right now. how are required to solve that? that is the kind of thing that is leading to the unrest that you see on the streets. host: he would and tax breaks to oil and gas companies. guest: venture capital gains. the reason that warren buffett pays less than his secretary in terms of percentages because of capital gains. we basically have to close the loophole. it is not the tax reform, it is also wall street reform. that is such a critical part of

how to create a more stable economy. the fact we have "too big to fail" and that the public is subsidizing the gambling that is going on wall street, very high risk that they are incentivized to take because recover their losses. of course there are going to say it is ok to take enormous risks because the public is quick to cover us. it guarantees gambling debts. of course there are going to want that. there is so much to gain from those risks. that is something that we have to say no to. it is not want to happen spontaneously from wall street or even in washington. host: it sounds like your group has taken some of the rhetoric of the 1% vs. the 99%. guest: i definitely think there are so many people in the 1% to also know this is unfair. for anybody who cares about fairness or really cares about the stability of our economy and

getting us past the gridlock will care about reform. why can't we focus on fairness? why can't we focus on sustainability and stability? it is about us having various interests. we have to fight it out like it is a wrestling match. that is not a democracy? host: our guest until 8:30 if you want to ask questions. guest: it will be a year-long campaign where we will confront washington with these problems. we think it is kind of a sickness. it is almost like a family

suffering from an addiction. we need to confront and say we need help. it is not going to happen spontaneously within washington. it is that we are also asking people to really step up and take of leadership as citizens. not just sit back and be spectators. really commit to being part of the democratic process. that is the only way you will be part of the solution. just watching and engaging and shaking your head, it is not enough. >> jury from the democrat's line. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: we need more citizens to act on behalf -- as patriots. i would like to say the last issue with the regulation was in

1999. we need to reinstate glass stiegel immediately. that is the number one step. one thing when it was on the table was mccain. she screamed and give marching orders to all, and the bailout and massachusetts. nancy pelosi squashed any chance of getting it on the floor to reinstate it. there is a house resolution 1489 right now that has upwards close to 50 congressional sponsors were co-sponsors right now. house 1489 will reinstate, the first major step that we need. the system is bankrupt. host: thank you, caller. guest: absolutely. we need to be able to separate

investment banking from commercial banking. it is not complete, but the idea that if we have the public subsidizing investment banking, there will be at investing and we will need more bailouts. we cannot commit to more bailouts. it is not fair. it is not a sustainable process. it could happen tomorrow that we might have to bore trillions of dollars into a another bailout. we already did $700 billion of bailouts. on top of that we did nine trillion dollars more with wall street firms. how is that going to continue? i really don't understand. this is the kind of thing that will require legislative solutions. but it takes the public to demonstrate our political will that we will not tolerate this any more. we have to be involved. it is not enough to have leaders

in washington talk about this. the american people -- i am calling on you to be involved. host: to you have anybody specific on capitol hill to your concerns? guest: what we are trying to do is approach this as much in a non-partisan way as possible. starting on monday be have lobby day. we have commitments from people across the country coming here to not only speak out, but they are meeting with their representatives in washington to really begin a relationship. we are not here just to denounce washington and say, you guys are all awful. we are 26, we have to collaborate. kemi work on this together? -- can we work on this together? do we have to continue like this? we cannot afford it. >> republican line is next.

caller: good morning. i certainly like some of the things she is saying. i think she has a fresh perspective. one thing she has said a couple of times is sustainability. if you think we can support people long term that do not work -- i live in a poor part of georgia where probably we have 20% unemployment if you really took a hard look at it. those 20% are used to not working. their children are used to getting things for nothing. they are used to workers' compensation, disability, they learned how to gain the system. they have a food stamps going on two generations now. we as a government had effectively disabled them up by giving them something and not holding them accountable. that is not sustainable.

there are too many people being born into that. there are not enough people that will produce to be able to support the people not supporting themselves. it has to be a part of what you are talking about. guest: thank you for that. basically we need a big reset on the entire system. this systemic failure. this is a political and financial. yes, there are people who are basically going to what they can within the system or the federal rules we have ended doing what they think is best for themselves and families. these are people who are making billions of dollars as well as people who are unemployed. i guess i am more concerned about people on wall street gaming the system so it is running like a casino and people in washington and gaming the system so they are pouring millions of dollars into

campaigns. $300 billion was spent in 2010 election. compare that to the $60 million that was spent in 2006 for elections. it is a huge jump. it has a lot to do with citizens united and all of the anonymous money pouring into the campaigns. $300 million. half of it to was spent without any idea of where the money came from. it was undisclosed and unrestricted donations. how is that not gaming the system? how is that not leading to policies on things like jobs on the stimulus? whether or not main street is ever going to get help. is main street ever going to get a bailout? that is the kind of thing that concerns me more than people who don't have jobs and who have lost homes trying to do what

they can to have enough money to put food on the table. i guess that is where my priority is. i hear you. i guess the solution to that is we need to have a big reset and what you are really looking at, what will work, what is fair, and whether or not we can have a government that responds to the people as opposed to donors. joe on twitter says -- guest: it is not that i want more taxes. we have to look at the entirety of the taxes. why do we have the tax codes that we have? why do we have subsidies for enormous companies like exxon and bp? that does not make sense. there is no rationale for it. he know, pharmaceutical companies. you could go on.

why is that? it is a huge question we have to answer our -- it is a few questions we have to ask ourselves about moral, political, and a rational basis for our tax code. it is not just about more money. let's stop thinking about bit more or less. big government versus small government, that kind of thinking is productive and simplistic. it does not help us ask questions about what we want to do and what we want to change. we are just stuck on, i want big government or i want smaller government. it does not help us. we want small root -- we want smart government. let's get past the small government debate and think about what is fair and smart. as far as raising taxes or not, i want to look at how we are spending the money. why are we spending so much

money on the pentagon and the military? why do we need hundreds of bases all over the world? they are big questions about why we are doing some of the things we are doing that all of us has to look at in holistic was instead of getting stuck. saying, i am pro-military therefore i want to keep it the way it is. host: what would you do with entitlements then? the wordt's look at entitlement. the fact that we have subsidies for big oil, aren't corporations cutting entitlements right now? there are getting privileges and breaks. for some reason they get that an ordinary people do not have it. social programs that help us to stay alive. why is life not necessary? why is feeding people and keeping them healthy, why is

that not necessary and not important? why is it more important to give money to well companies? we have to look at priorities north carolina of policies are in line with our bodies. host: ron, good morning. go ahead. caller: i am running for president of the united states. my web page is www.mybetteramerica.com is a plan to get america out of the mess that it is. on mybetteramericaplan.com is a plan to have a balanced budget and takes programs that we have and makes them into something for nothing. they will take the government and make it so you don't get benefits, you work for benefits.

host: what is your question for our guest? guest: my question is how come the united states government does not reorganize itself so that it does not give out stuff for free. instead it gives people the opportunity to work for stuff that they need from the government. host: we will leave it there for our guest. go ahead. guest: in part i agree with you. i am not sure i fully understand your campaign. we absolutely need to invest in our future and our infrastructure so there is better education and more opportunities and more encouragement incentivizing education. these are not things -- these are things we can work on together as a nation. we have to commit to this. we have to show we argued that it as a country. right now on washington, they are stuck on what is clear to

happen the next two years and whether they will get reelected. that is not the best way to make decisions about our feature that will effect generations. it is a problem about how we are even approaching the issues. i think it goes back to fight -- campaign finance laws. $6 million average for a senate campaign. that is an incredible account -- the amount of money they have to raise. have to spend the majority of the time in office raising money, not working on issues. is crippling us. it is debilitating our government. this is something we have to put an end to. host: there is a story about those running for president. rick perry raising $17.2 million in a three month period mitt romney raising $13.2 million in

the third quarter. there was a story this morning about her -- herman cain raising $3 billion in october. it would change top presidential politics is done with campaign finance. -- if let's talk about you are going to run for office, you know you have to raise money. it is a game we are playing. we have accepted this game. imagine if we played the game and there is no money involved. if you are running for office, you run on ideas and your integrity and the quality of your character. that is what you vote on. host: you have to have money to travel. you have to advertise yourself. guest: the money that they raise, most of it goes too

appetizing. and most of that advertising is misleading, if not false. -- most of it goes to advertising. it has no bearing on how we voted, and we went somewhere else to get information. imagine, that is the cultural change we could make. the money they raise on ads have no impact on the outcome. because nobody is paying attention. that would be an incredible kind of resistance and protest. host: will the coffee party to endorse a president? guest: we don't want to be out in the business of endorsing candidates. we want people to run on issues. we are tested and making these issues definitive 2012 election issues. we want to ask, where you stand on things like too big to fail, things like the disclose act?

do you want people to know who is giving the money? i want every candidate to answer that. if they love the subsidies, why? these are questions that have to get asked of every candidate. i want people to vote on the answers, not whether or not they have a "d" or "r" or "i" next to their name. host: what about a third party? guest: i don't see how they fit into our politics until we change. there are so many things in the way of creating a viable third party, i feel right now the best solution is for the american people to get in there and reform these corporate parties at. it has been corrupted by money. guest: next caller for annabel

park. caller: good morning. i was glad to hear that you want tax reform. will it be the 47% of americans to pay nothing? i have a neighbor who pays $2,000 last year in taxes. i ask, what did he get, because she was eligible for the earned income tax credit. he got $4200 back. i think every american should pay for something, even if it is a dollar. guest: something i want to clarify is we all pay taxes, every single day we pay sales tax, property tax. there are taxes on so much of what we already do. i think it is very misleading to say there are people who pay no taxes at all. but it is true that we want to

focus on getting people jobs so they are paying income tax as well. absolutely, but, again, it will require arrest to invest money into creating those opportunities and improving our education so that people are more equipped to be part of this economy. there is a huge gap between peoples skill sets right now and the economy. it is true that we have been affected because manufacturing is being reduced in this country and jobs are going overseas. what are we going to do about that? that is a huge problem. that is a problem that cannot be dealt with by one person. as much as i want to create jobs for people, there is nothing i could do right now about the fact there are enormous company is shipping jobs away to other countries.

and then your neighbor is not paying their fair share of taxes. i understand the issue, but let's understand the bigger context, which is that jobs are going overseas. caller: i was up all night worried about how i could not pay my bills. i am in the state that has the highest unemployment rate in the country, the lowest household income per capita in the country. my question is, not only with statewide government and its corruption, but the federalist government and the way that it --, like, for example, congress, nothing getting done, what exactly does the coffee party bring to the table to reform that as far as statewide and country-wide issues? guest: right.

i am really sorry to hear about your situation and i really feel for you. there are people coming to us in exactly your situation. their lives are hanging in the balance, with government basically saying, you know what, there is nothing we can do about it. the other party is not cooperating, i will not do anything about it, i was tried to do what i can to get myself reelect it. it is an incredible kind of cynicism around the reality of our elections right now. what i want to do is change the incentives and the intentions that people bring to these discussions. i don't really know what is going on with the super committee. they're supposed to be there to answer these big questions about what the budget will be and how it will deal with the deficit and help people such as yourself. but i don't know what is going on there. it is an elite group of people

with little transparency making these big decisions, and the consensus right now is very little will get done because they are not incentivize to get anything done because all of them on capitol hill are in a state of permit campaigning and that is what they're focused on and not try to figure out how that can work together to help you. we need to confront them with the truth and say, enough, ok? we need you to focus on -- don't worry about the election, focus on how we could help american people just live. if you want to talk about the way to be allowed, how do you help people and their families so they're actually paying their bills, so they can eat, they have a house, shelter, they have gas in their cars. thatre not close to saying is their focus. they say it, but that is not what we are seeing in their actions. we have to confront them with this truth as the american

people. not as the left, not the right, not independent, but the american people coming together and saying, enough, ok? you are stuck in a bubble in washington while we are hurting. we cannot do this anymore. we don't even want to vote for you anymore. 9% approval rating? don't you think you should do something? don't you think you should care that we are hurting and reject what is going on in washington? host: independent line from sarasota. caller: what we have to do is start something simply. you have to leave something. when it comes to voting, you have to get to the point in the voting were when it comes to congress we have to say, my vote cannot be given with no confidence in the party's.

it is not like kissing your sister. it is like putting everything in front of them and saying, who are these people? they just exist, it is a form. you cannot double flush them because of the constitution, but when it comes to congress, my vote is given with no confidence in the parties. guest: that no confidence is the perfect phrase to use. there is no confidence in the government. there is no confidence in our economy. without that confidence and without the trust, the wheels don't turn. this is why we are stuck. we are stuck in washington, in wall street, we are stuck economically because we did not trust the system. you cannot even say we have a game to play if you don't trust

the rules. we think they are fundamentally unfair. the majority of americans feel that way. there is a lack of trust, trust deficit. that basically says, let's put the brakes on and stand up to this. we will demonstrate. and it is already happening. occupy wall street movement is showing the country there are many people fed up caught willing to go to great lengths to show that the entire system is dysfunctional. host: same thing about the tea party? guest: i think the tea party comes from the same place of discontent. there is something very wrong with our system. it is basically sick and dying. we need to revitalize it. the question is, how? the solutions we hear from the tea party movement are not solutions i don't feel i can get behind because there is a lot of

this stuff that is not spelled out in detail. once it is spelled out in detail, sometimes it is frightening the things they're calling for, cutting social programs, cutting social security. these are things a majority of people don't want if you look at the polls. a majority of the people would prefer to see a raising of taxes but the majority of people are ignored and silenced by washington and the media. polls show that we want government that functions to help ordinary people and not the natural -- and not multinational corporations. host: republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. can you tell me where in the constitution that says anything about fairness? and the reason we have some any lobbyists is because government gets into the businesses they

did not belong. it is easy for me to see that your test another left-wing organization. -- it is easy for me to see that you are just another left-wing organization. this is dreadful. guest: okay, like you, i don't want to see lobbyists governing the country, but that is what we have. we did not consent to a government run by lobbyists or corporations for billionaires'. we signed up for a democratic, representative democracy, a republic. that is not we have right now. and it is not going to get any better if we get stuck on calling each other names, and you calling me liberal -- you calling me drivel. that does not help this country. we need to see each other as human beings and say we're not happy about the current system. can we talk about making it

better instead of hating each other? what is the point of you calling me names? what is the point of view hating me because you don't agree with some of the things i say? my intention is to make things better. can we talk? we don't have to come to the table an agreement, but we have to agree to solve it together because we are the united states of america, we are one people. the laws that affect me affect all of us, and we need to talk to one another so we can show washington that we are not in such disagreement that we cannot be part of one country. we have to be part of one country. we have to agree sometimes that we will not always get our way. we have to have a system that is fundamentally rep, that cares about what we think. i want a government that cares about what you think, and what i think. that is not what we have. we have a government that is interested in giving itself more power and more money.

this is where we say, ok, last set out at least explore the democratic process so our voices can be heard. host: the coffee party will hold a rally on the west lawn today. if you want to find out more, it intervention.com is their website, information about their philosophy and the rally. how is the coffee party fund it? guest: by our members. we have no corporate sponsors, no major donors. we have hundreds of people giving us about $20 at a time. host: no foundation? guest: not yet. we would love to have money from a foundation, people who support what we're doing, but they have not come knocking. but this is funded by a grass- roots people and this is a beautiful process.

host: how much have you raised? guest: about $200,000. host: will it take place despite the weather? guest: yes, we will show our determination. test. we will show that we are determined. we're not going to go away. host: massachusetts, democrats line, for annabel park, good morning. caller: good morning. hello, i had not heard about the coffee party more than maybe two or three times. i have to commend you for your sensibility and talking about what is right for the country. like you, republican, democrat,

it is not as i can see it, i cannot see where republicans reject any of it, there is no sensibility in what they're talking about. it sounds like they're talking about taxes. there is no plan for the future. i do not see any sensibility and what they're talking about. guest: absolutely. again, this is why we focus on incentives, intentions, and i don't know exactly how to get washington to get past the gridlock and their own self interests to basically say, do you care that we have about 10 million homes that will go into default? 10 million homes. out of 55 million with mortgages. this is a crazy situation.

it is not being dealt with because people are stuck on basically whether or not they will get reelected. that is not governing. that is just a state of permanent campaigning. i think part of the solution has to be that people like you, people like me, people like other callers, we have to understand that the government is us and we have to be part of it, whether or not we are volunteering or running for office or talking to our neighbors. let's go knock on doors, talk to our neighbors and convince them that we need a massive surge in participation. not just engagement, we need people to step up and say, i have to save this country. i have to save our future. i am sorry, but i have to tell you, all of you out there, the will to save this country and

make it better for us, it is just not happening in washington. i am sorry, it is not. this is why we need that intervention as a people to say that. it is not the 1%. i commend the message, but it is less than 1% of the people with power in this country right now, and we have to change that because that is not democratic. host: one more call from colorado, the independent mind. caller: -- the independent line. caller: thank you, c-span. i joined the coffee party a little over a year ago. it is amazing the media blackout. somebody wanted to know if there was an alternative to the tea party, which is the coffee party, but the media does not know about it. c-span is doing their job.

when the tea party has a guest, they have tea party members. there is no separate line for coffee party members. the difference between the key and coffee party is the interpretation of bahut "we the people close " are. it is all about if you agree with them, you are an american. host: almost out of time, what is your question? caller: just a comment about the media suppressing the voices. c-span, you have herman cain -- host: we have given 45 minutes to this guest, ms. park, go ahead. guest: it starts with a handful of people trying to change the country. the tea party movement, a lot of

that was successful because there was a lot of money that went into building infrastructure and the got support from people inside washington and fox news, and we did not have that because we really are volunteers and it is very grass roots. that is often what happens, there is a huge difference in terms of resources and infrastructure. it is not just the media decided there something wrong with the coffee party. but in order for us to have real power as an organization, we need to build that for structure and resources. but it is true that the media likes conflict. what we wanted was peace and resolution and cooperation. that is not something considered sexy right now encourage media. they like people to fight. they like real conflict played out because that makes for a good story. well, the real drama going on right now is whether people in america will survive this recession and whether there will

be another recession. there is so much, and that. that is what the media needs to cover is what is actually happening on main street and america, not what is happening in washington, not as what is happening with herman cain and rick perry. it is about you and me just truckling to make it. host: how do you know if your organization has been effective? guest:: if everybody is talking about campaign finance reform, about how all wrong business united's ruling is for the country, if we have a democracy at all, as the election is about at and whether we will end subsidies and loopholes, if that is what the election is about this coming year, we have done our job. host: annabel park is the president and founder of coffee party usa.

citizensintervention.org is their website. thank you for joining us. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," the editor and publisher of "the nation" discusses the 2012 campaign, to occupy it campaign, and we take questions on buddy roemer's campaign for the white house. at a roundtable on the european union's plans concerning the debts of member nations. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. in his weekly address, president obama continues to urge congress to pass his jobs proposal in talks about the actions he is taking this week to of grow the economy.

then a different perspective on job creation from bobby shilling, who delivers the republican address. he talks about the party jobs bill that has passed the house that remain stalled in the sat at. >> this week, a new economic report confirmed what most americans believe to be true. the past three decades, the middle-class has lost ground while the wealthiest few have become wealthier. the average income for the top 1% of americans has risen almost seven times faster than the income of the average middle- class family. this is happened when the cost of everything from health care to college has skyrocketed. in this country, we do not begrudge anyone wealth or success. we encourage it, celebrate it. america is better off when everyone has the chance to get ahead. not just those at the very top of the income scale. the more americans to prosper, the more america prosperous.

rebuilding an economy where everyone has a chance to succeed will take time. our economic problems or decades in the making and will not be solved overnight, but there are steps we can take right now to put people back to work and restore some of the security that middle-class americans have lost over the last few decades. right now, congress can pass it a common-sense job proposal that independent economists will tell us will boost the economy right away. proposals that will put more teachers, veterans, construction workers, and first responders back on the job. proposals that will cut taxes for virtually every middle-class family in small business in america. these are the same kinds of proposals that both democrats and republicans have supported in the past, and should stop playing politics and act on them now. these job proposals are also paid for by asking folks who are making more than $1 million per year to contribute a little more in taxes. these are the same folks who have seen their income go up so much, and i believe this is a

contribution they're willing to make. one survey found nearly seven of 10 million mayors are willing to step up and pay more in order to help the economy. but for july, republicans in congress are not paying attention. they have not gotten the message. but have refused to debate the same kinds of job proposals that have supported in the past, proposals that are supported such as the democrats but independent and republican voters all across america. somehow, though, they found time to debate whether or not we should mint coins to celebrate the baseball hall of fame. meanwhile, their only scheduled to work three more weeks between now and the end of the year. the truth is we could no longer wait for congress to do its job. the middle class families who have been struggling for years are tired of waiting. they need help now. when congress will not act, i will. this week we announced a new policy that will help families whose home values have fallen,

to refinance their mortgages and save thousands. we're making it easier for veterans to get jobs, putting their skills to work. we have reformed the student loan process some more young people can get out of debt faster. and we will keep and nothing more changes like these on a regular basis -- and we will keep announcing more changes like these on a regular basis. they did not take place of the bold action we need congress to make. that is why your voices need to be heard. tell congress to stop playing politics and take action on jobs. if we want to rebuild the economy where every american has a chance to get ahead, we need every american to get involved. that is our real change has happened and that is how it will happen today. thanks. >> hello. i am congressman bobby schilling, a lifelong resident of illinois. for the past 14 years, we have

been the proud owners of st. giuseppe's. it was our dream, a small family-run business. that is not always easy, but it taught me a lot of what i needed to know about how our economy works. with unemployment in my state and the president's home state at 10%, there is no higher priority than jobs. but when i look at things like the stimulus policies coming from the white house, i think the folks there could use a few weeks of wearing flour and pizza dough. they need to understand the american small business owner. when you are a small business owner, you are a troubleshooter. you identify a problem and fix it so it does not come back. temporary band-aids did not do the trick. that is why i am proud to

support the republicans' plans for american job creators. our plan looks out at the problem from the view of small business people and works to clear out barriers to job creation by getting rid of excessive regulations, fixing the tax code, fixing loopholes, and paying down the debt. this would the house passed another bill from the republican jobs plan that stops and iras withholding tax that would hurt companies doing business with the government. this is not just a good idea, it is a bipartisan one. it was in our jobs plan and the president's job plan as well. i am pleased it passed the house with bipartisan support because jobs is not a democrat issue or republican issue. it is a red, white, and blue issue. we owe it to the american people to find common ground. we did it with a free-trade agreement that the president recently signed an we're doing it with the repeal of the withholding tax, and we can do more.

unfortunately, many of the job bills the house has passed are stuck in the democratic-left senate. we call these bills the forgotten 15. these bills are common-sense bills that address those excessive federal regulations that are hurting small business job creation. they were written after listening to farmers, manufacturers, and small business people from around the country. the number of them have bipartisan support. the senate will not give these bills out and vote, and the president has not called for action. politics and pessimism will not get america back on track. i was disappointed to hear the president said at a campaign fund-raiser this week that americans have lost our ambition, our imagination. i respectfully disagree. the people of my district are working harder, making more sacrifices, doing whatever it takes. he is more than welcome to meet

some of them. all they are asking, all you are asking is that we listen and good government out of the way so our economy to get back to creating jobs. imy colleagues and i and the house are doing everything we can to make that happen. republicans have a jobs plan, one with bipartisan support, but it is stuck in the senate. we are asking president obama to work with us and call on the senate to pass the forgotten 15, to help the private sector create jobs, american jobs, desperately needed. let's see if this -- let seize this opportunity. let's build on our common ground. learn more about the republican jobs plant at jobs.gop.com. thanks for taking the time, and have a great weekend. >> i don't want every story to be