finally get some movement. >> we will be talking more about this in the coming weeks and months. jeremy herb and >> it was about and those men and women who are almost mortally injured in war who, because of the huge advances that have been made in medical trauma treatment over the last 10 years, are now being saved. almost everybody who falls on the battlefield is being saved. i wanted to write about what life was like for these people. i started off with a question having seen some people who were pretty gruesome me names. --gruesomely maimed. wouldn't it be better off if

they were dead? >> david would spoke with the veterans and their families as well as surgeons, combat medics, and nurses on the daily struggles for those severely wounded. learn more tonight at 8:00. >> no. homeland security janet napolitano testified at a house judiciary committee oversight committee thursday. the hearing posted on heard june 15 mel hollande de furring deportation for some illegal immigrants who fall -- on deferring deportation for some illegal immigrants.

>> the judiciary committee will come to order. the chair is authorized to declare recesses. we welcome everyone to this hearing will. i recognize myself for an opening statement and then the ranking member. welcome to today's oversight hearing of the department of common security. dhs is responsible for the enforcement of america's immigration laws. the department seems to work to undermine those laws. it is actively working to make sure many others did not enforce our immigration laws either. obama administration officials decided to grant amnesty under the guise of deferred action to potentially millions of illegal immigrants. this decision ignores the role of law that is the foundation of

our democracy. exercising its responsibility to see it is executed, at the executive branch is not have the power -- does have the power of discretion on the case by case basis. it cannot be used to systematically dismantle our laws. the supreme court noted that the president's constitutional power to enforce our laws does not imply that they can forbid their execution. president obama understood this winnie admitted last year that "there are laws on the books that congress has passed said the administration cannot just suspend deportations through executive order." president obama has broken his promise. this decision to grant administrative amnesty on a mass scale ignores the rule of law. the amnesty agenda is a win for

illegal immigrants but a loss for americans. when illegal immigrants are allowed to live and work in the u.s., unemployed american workers have to compete for scarce jobs. with 23 million americans unemployed or underemployed, this amnesty only makes their lives harder. the amnesty is also a magnet for fraud. many illegal immigrants will falsely claimed that they came to the u.s. as children and this administration refuses to take the steps necessary to check whether the claims are true or not. the department of home and security have gone out of its way to avoid the enforcement of immigration laws. the policy of non-enforcement will continue to cost innocent americans their jobs. you also must be extremely concerned about the recent disclosure of national secrets. the sources of intelligence must

be kept strictly secret. when the seekers' become public knowledge, american lives are threatened. recent weeks include operational details of the osama bin laden raid, specifics about cyber security, and information about a drone strikes. our enemies now know how we will hunt them which will make the hunt more difficult. this depends on our ability to protect the secret. when the secret become public knowledge, our people are put in jeopardy. when our enemies know our secrets, american lives are in danger. the ability to keep secret depends on identifying the causes of the recent weeks and putting a stop to them. that is why i have asked to interview senior officials who may have information on how the seekers' become public. the department of common security has the response

ability to prevent terrorists from attacking. we must protect the details of our intelligence gathering. that concludes my opening statement. that his opinion is his own but the facts are not. i am keeping a record. i want to announce to him of all the things i think are serious misstatements of fact, which i will be taking to the floor or publishing otherwise, i think i mentioned this before. i think you have given me some

work to do already. i would like to say to all the members of this committee, i wanted this to be a civil hearing in which we exchange views, make criticisms, the voice opinions, but i would like it to be done at in keeping with the reputation of the house judiciary committee so that we do not get out of control. i am sure the chairman will agree with me on that. i welcome you, madam secretary. i had some issues about some security incidents in detroit. i would like not to take up our time talking about them here,

but i will be looking forward to it. destroy it him -- the detroit windsor tunnel is the largest commercial border crossing in north america. it these threats are a of a concern both to our country into canada as well. the other couple of things that i wanted to commend you on is the fact that we have improved border security. having listened to some of my colleagues, i thought the border security on the southern end of our country was in bad shape, but border security is more

secure thaan it has ever been before i think due to increased border enforcement efforts. and authorized border crossings are at a 40-year low. we have not seen numbers this low since 190072. -- 1972. i commend homeland's security for that. if there are other and said he would like to share with us and we have time i would like to do it. if not, i would like to get more information from you or your staff. at the same time, immigration removals' have been at an all- time high. gen short of 400,000 last year

-- just short of 400,000 last year. what is more impressive is the makeup of the numbers. for the first time ever, persons with criminal convictions made up more than half of the removals and more than 90% met the enforcement priorities, which includes a recent border crossers and repeat violators. even in the critical shortage of funds and personnel, i think the strategies of your departments are affected -- effective. the policy among in i.c.e.

conjunction with the civil liberties office has a new policy to protect victims of domestic violence and other crimes and insurer that they are reported. the dream act, a conservative created idea, which i support has be en very effective. young people brought to this country from no fault of their own. are given if they go into the service and graduate and do a few other things that indicate they want to be good americans like the rest us, are given a

special way to achieve their dream of citizenship. thank you for coming back again. i will put the rest of my statement in the record and take the chair man for his generosity. by thank you. our witness is janet napolitano. m she is the third secretary of dhs. pryor, she was in a second term as governor of arizona. she served as attorney general of arizona and u.s. attorney for the district of arizona. she's a graduate of santa clara university where she won a truman scholarship and was balloted tour in --

valedictorian. before office, and she served as a clerk on the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit and practiced law in phoenix, arizona. we look forward to your testimony. please began. >> thank you. i am pleased to join you to address the homeland's security issues that fall within the jurisdiction. this is down by 40 it time testifying before either the senate or the house. nearly 11 years after the 9/11 attacks, america is stronger and more secure thanks to the work of the men and women of dahs and our partners across the enterprise. every day more than 230,000 dhs

employees ensure the safety and security of the american people in jobs that range from law enforcement officers to disaster response coordinators'. . the men and women of dhs are committed to our mission. i think each of them for our service. homeland security begins with a home town security. as part of our commitment, we have worked to get tools and resources into the hands of state and territorial officials and first responders. to this has led to significant advances. we have made great progress to protect and prevent terrorist attacks against our citizens and are critical infrastructure.

we have increased our ability to distribute information at all levels. we have invested in training for local law enforcement and first responders of all types in order to increase capacity at the local level. we have supported and sustained prepared is in response capabilities across the country to more than $36 billion in homeland's security grants since 2002. we also have made substantial advances in securing our nation's borders and enforcing the immigration laws. we have worked to streamline and facilitate the legal immigration process. i would like to discuss our efforts with respect to immigration consistent with the jurisdiction over this important and essential issue for our country. over the past 3.5 years, this administration has deployed

unprecedented levels of technology and resources to protect our borders. these efforts have achieved significant results and illegal immigration and sims are at their lowest level since 1971. this decrease in apprehensions of those seeking to enter illegally, one of the best indicators of the thames, is combined with increased seizures and drugs, weapons, and contraband. we continue to deploy an unprecedented amount of manpower and technology while expanding our relationships and partnerships with federal and local partners as well asith the government of mexico. the obama administration has undertaken the most serious and sustained action to secure the southwest border in nation's history.

this includes increasing the number of border patrol agents nationwide from approximately 10,000 in 2004 to more than 21,000 today with nearly 18,500 votes on the ground. we also have worked and continue to work to enforce and minister our laws in a cohesive way that is marked and that maximizes the resources that congress has given us. our priorities are to enhance public safety, national security, and the integrity of the immigration system while respecting the rule of law. we carry out these priorities by focusing our resources on the identification and removal of criminal aliens, repeater immigration violators, and those

of other west pose a threat to safety our national security. we have expanded the frequency of the investigations and programs that track down criminals and threats on our streets and in our jails. these efforts have it cheap historic results. -- have achieved a historic results. these efforts are enhanced by our use of prosecutorial discretion including my june 15 announcement regarding the availability of deferred action for individuals who came as children. these policies permit the efficient use of our resources, insuring that we do not divert them away from the removal of

convicted criminals by pursuing the removal of young people who came to this country as children and to have called no other country home. implementation of the process is under way. we will be ready to accept applications on august 15. we have made numerous improvements to our administration of immigration benefits and services, continuing our tradition as a welcoming nation to those seeking refuge and asylum. this department has come a long way. in the 11 years since 9/11 to enhance the protection of the united states and engage our full range of partners. come and we had made progress to enforce our immigration laws.

threat against our nation continue to exist into a ball. dhs must continue to of all as well. we continue to be ever vigilant of threats of promoting and protecting our essential rights. i think the committee for your attention as we work together to keep the country's state. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you. i will recognize myself for questions. let me mention the subject of the leaks that i feel has endangered our national security and put american lives at risk. there is bipartisan concern for those weeks. you have the chairs the committee saying that the extent of these leaks are deeper and more dangerous than any we have

seen in recent years. had you had the opportunity to talk to the president or his national security advisers about these leaks and how to prevent them in the future? >> i have spoken with the head of the dni about the leaks. he is leading an investigation. i take these very seriously. they do endangered homeland security. >> according to video reports, it was high-level administrative officials who was the source of these leaks. have you take any action to find out more about how they occurred and why? >> i have not myself. others are looking into the source. >> do you favor the appointment of a special counsel to investigate these leaks?

let me say that when we had the incident of a single week during the last bush administration, the president did appoint a special outside counsel. would you support such an outside counsel being appointed? >> there are a number of individuals that are looking into the source of the leaks. i do not know that appointing another one would add value. >> let me explain why i think it would. the administration has appointed individuals to investigate itself. i am not sure how much confidence the american people will have that that is going to be an objective investigation. it would be far more credible for the a ministration to appoint a special counsel, an outside party, to get to the bottom of the leaks.

i'm disappointed they have not been willing to do that. let me go to the subject of the administration trying to implement some of the dream act ofvisions with out a bovote congress. individuals who have pending dream act applications will be eligible for advance parole. i mentioned this earlier. it is my understanding they would be do you have a reason to think otherwise? >> this is a deferred action. >> i know it does not advance. would individuals be eligible to receive that status would be considered? >> there may be particular individuals but the program is designed to be a case by case analysis only for deferred

action spirit >> they might be considered for advance parole? >> there are so many individual factors that go into each case that i do not want to make a categorical answer. >> you said some individuals might be. that is of some concern to me. if they get that status that will enable them to get lawful permanent status which is the path to citizenship. if he go down that road as i think he may be doing, we need to be aware of the consequences of that action. >> if i might respond. the factors that go into this are the factors played out in my memorandum to our department head on june 15. this is clearly a deferred action analysis. there may be factors independent of -- >> i know if his case by case. this will put them on the path to citizenship.

are the parents of individuals of those who received a dream at amnesty, would they be eligible for a prosecutor cheri about -- prosecutorial action? >> they may independently be subject to an exercise should they have a case before i.c.e. >> dhs does not currently require applicants to provide a certified school transcript. it seems to me that is the only way to prove that they were in the country and are eligible under some of these provisions. do you plan to require them to provide that certified school transcript or not? >> we're still working through the details. our plan is to except different kinds of documents and do fraud

prevention efforts. >> over thousand individuals have already been granted the status under these provisions. >> we are working through the details over what records they have to produce. i.c.e. already had several individuals and have looked at those. >> about a thousand individuals have already been approved? >> for deferred action. >> we still do not know the details about whether it transfers will be required. >> anything to show residency, what have you. we will evaluate on the case by case basis those documents. >> it may not be required? >> that is fair to say. >> thank you. thank you, secretary and the

paul lozano. -- secretary napolitano. i wanted to start off with the threats at the border crossing in detroit. are there any comments you can make at this time? >about the bomb threats that shutdown the bridge deck? they are of national concern. do you have any information you can share with us at this time? >> let me just say that the fbi has an open and active investigation there. we are providing all assistance necessary. we take this seriously. we're also looking at how long the closures were, to see

whether there are ways to more swiftly clear a bridge or a tunnel. >> thank you. the chairman of this committee mentioned amnesty twice. it is much less than it usually does. the dream act, can you help us clear up this notion of some kind of deferred amnesty being involved in this? >> it is not amnesty. this is really the development we have been looking at over the last several years of how do we clear out the backlog of non priority cases so that we can focus on criminals, recent repeat crossesrs, violators. as he went to the case by case

analysis of the existing backlog, it became clear to me that we needed to do something in addition to that. that resulted in the conclusion to offer to year -- two year analysis. >> what about the recent arizona case that court opinion gave us some strong support for the executive branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion. it do you have any comments you could share with us about that matter? >> the supreme court validated the fact that the federal government ultimately has the discretion in choosing how to enforce the nation's immigration

laws. i think their language is very strong. if you go back to president, you have reno versus the arab american anti-discrimination leak. alternately, you have article 3 of the constitution, reaffirming the executive has discretion on how to prosecute or prioritize resources for. >> our subcommittee on crime issued a subpoena for information related to individuals who are arrested, identified by i.c.e. for removal but never taken into i.c.e. custody. i'm told you produce nearly

250,000 individuals satisfying the subpoena and you continue to provide additional information. how is that coming along? we do not normally have subcommittees issuing subpoenas. >> we have been trying to comply with the subpoena and to provide documents. a lot of the requests are for documents and formats other than how we maintain the documents. i think we just received another request. i want to say mid july. we intend to comply. i have other questions but we will be submitting them to you.

thank you. >> the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> bossy but. let me compliment new -- thank you. let me compliment you for being a packers fan. i commend you for your very good judgment. one of the biggest problems we have is a visa overstays. up to 40% enter the country illegally and did not leave before their visas expired. what kind of figures do you have about the visa overstays and what plans do you have to track down those who overstay their visas as well as whether we should have some type of exit check when people leave the country? >> let me break that in to teach of the zero parts. on the overstays, based on

numbers from the visit we could have had as many as 1.6 million. last year i directed that we had to go back. we had to identify the overstays. we had to evaluate their status and make referrals. we found in that evaluation that half of those have left the country. we just had matched the record appropriately. and numbers of others have changed their status. we have made referrals. with respect to this, with respect to an exit system, we have given congress our plan on how we get to a biometric exit system.

we begin with the data said that we previously did not have in one place to easily search. we have given our plan and not sent this to move forward. one of our new project is with canada. we're going to match with cannon said their entry data for land in trees. even if we do not have an ability to mark our exit data, we will take their injury data and put it in our system. >> thank you. that gives me to the story that appeared yesterday. it said that the csa approved flight training for 25 illegal aliens that was owned by another illegal alien. the flight school attendees included a two it entered the country illegally and 70 who had

overstayed their allowed admission to the united states. the story goes on to say that there were over 25,000 foreign nationals in the registry that were not in the other data base. it had not been vetted. this sounds like a 9/11 deja vu. i am wondering what the department of common security is going to do to make sure that everybody who is in flight school is properly that it if they are a foreign national. if they are a foreign national. >> we took steps in 2010 to make sure that all foreign students who are in this country applying

to flight school are thvetted. we have been doing it for two years. you do not have a rig in thing but you need a written moa so we're going to put that together. correct how long will that take? >> very quickly. we want to make sure we're very tight there for obvious reasons. >> the story also said that the goa did not provide the number of individuals who were not properly vetted. do you have the numbers and? >> all i can say is that foreign students are vetted and have been for several years. if they apply to the faa, there is a re-vetting. the faa data base is routinely

pinged against the national security database. >> thank you. >> thank you. five years ago congress passed the implementation bill which mandated that by this month all maritime containers must be scanned before they're loaded onto ships bound for the united states. we recognize that 100 service scanning would be difficult to achieve overnight. why we gave five years to comply. we assumed it would be phased in and the department would make a good-faith effort to comply. dha just recently granted itself a two-year extension. your letter to congress explaining the extension repeat some of the same objections we

heard five years ago that congress rejected. you have said that you prepared a layered approach. if we pat down and can grandmothers and 4 year old because you must check 100%, why it with the same not be held true for maritime containers tax tha? that is the law. i'm concerned they simply agree that they did not agree with the law and has not made any good faith efforts.

the security companies want to work with the department on implementing the law that telesat the department will not even talk to them. dhs claims it is $60 million. o $20 per container. why does dhs continue to resist comply with the law? will you commit to work with us in good faith to make progress toward the mandate that congress passed into law five years ago of scanning 100% of cargo containers?

>> in my view, we have made a good faith effort. we have conducted pilot projects abroad. we have met with commercial carriers. we have met with foreign governors who would have to give us the ability to install things abroad. there has been extensive research done. it was done by us and by my predecessor. we did it independently. we both came to the same conclusion that the goal is the right goal. how we get there -- >> 100% scanning? >> of the safe delivering. >> congress decided that a layered approach of inspecting high risk cargo once it is here was not sufficient. that is the law. it is not up to the department to change that. >> we have a very extensive

program including the container security initiative and others. >> all of which congress know about and decide it was not sufficient. congress decided and the president signed into law a law that says you must implement 100 term scanning as quickly as practical within five years. you decided that it is not practical, which is not your decision. you are making no attempt to implement the law. >> you and i contacted disagree on that. we continue to improve efforts to inspect containers, and to have trusted shippers. >> is it true that under 4% of containers are inspected before they get here?

>> it probably depends on the port. >> nationally is under 4%? >> i cannot give you that number. >> that leaves us 96% short. >> thank you very much. this is an important hearing. this is an issue i have been involved with for 25 years. it never seems to get any easier. i would like to make a request that because of the amount of time we have here tomorrow, i know we have the opportunity to submit questions. my consent would be that and my questions be responded to hopefully within 30 days and

that i would have the opportunity for the record have a response to the questions that were asked. >> i reserve the right to object. >> the gentleman from north carolina. >> i appreciate the opportunity to respond to my good friend from north carolina. i do not intend to ask any trick questions. i am not asking these questions. they will not be something that requires a great deal of research are whatever. it is really more on policy and try to understand the policy on some of these issues. sometimes we get responses that really are not complete. i except orsay

disagree on it. just for the record. >> i have some serious reservations about what the gentleman is proposing. i assume she presented this that does not apply to all other people. his intention may be good. i do not have the same level confidence and all of the other numbers. it seems to me that each of us has the opportunity to have dialogue with the secretary and members of the administration by calling them, having dialogue with them on their own. it seems to me to set up this procedure is something that is unnecessary. i am happy to listen to the gentlemen.

i'm trying to keep from objecting. >> i appreciate the comments. i certainly do not disagree with your statement about the committee as a whole. i can completely except and appreciate your kind remarks. >> i appreciate the gentleman acknowledging it. [laughter] >> i do not intend for this to be a precedent. this is not a special thing. that is why we have unanimous consent policy here or wherever. i have never asked for this before. we have a very limited amount of time. there's a tremendous agenda. i would like to ask some simple issues particularly having to do with criminal immigrants and not limited to and having an opportunity to respond to it.

it would be totally consistent with everything that we are doing here, only giving the secretary an opportunity to put these things together. that is the whole purpose of having that hearing. >> we have had a good discussion on this subject. does the gentleman from north carolina object? >> let me continue to reserve. let me continue to be clear on why i am continuing to object. i think all of us are frustrated by the five minute rule. we're all frustrated by the short time that the record is kept open for responses from the administration. a better route to cover that's would be to extend the time for us to have this kind of back and

forth from the shorter time that we have been having a bit from a longer time so that people can go back and forth. i think i am inclined to object. >> may i respond? i think that everybody on this committee, particularly those that my good friend and others, cover the 25 years we have search on this committee as it relates to the amount of time that members have taken respectively that the portion i've taken in relation to my good friend mr. watt and others is not even a tiny blip on the radar screen. >> for that reason, i am having real trouble objecting. i know his intentions are good.

i really think we would be setting a bad precedent if we did this for that reason. >> i must object. >> life will go on. my questions however will probably be a little more complex after the hearing i will submit some. does the dhs plan to give authorization from all people who are exempt from the deportation under the exempt deportation under the executive order of june 15? how many illegal immigration as a result of that will receive work permits? >> clarification. there is no executive order perce. this is a memorandum from myself to the component head of

the department of plant security, setting out the deferred action program. the answer is yes. you will be able to apply for work authorization. >> we keep saying we do not want to talk about amnesty or what ever. at least on a temporary basis, and this is a defacto amnesty. we are all entitled to an interpretation. if you're allowed to stay, you get there. how many illegals will be given work permits? >> they can apply for work authorization. they will have to meet the standards for being eligible. >> will be two or three people or two or 300,000 people? we have 30people out of work.

>> by my back up a moment. this was an issue that i thought about the play before i wrote my memorandum. jobs for americans are very important. my conclusion was that there are lots of different ways to stimulate job creation. some of them are before the congress. we should not balance the american economy on the backs of children that were brought here. >> because of the time and the help of my good friend, i really would like to have some succinct answers just out of respect for time. how many people as a result of this that are legal in this country will be able to work in this country -- that are illegal in this country will be able to work in this country? do you have an approximate number? >> i tried to keep my answer

sustained. there is no real answer. >> we talk about borders. we do not talk about the 22 million people that are here illegally. is it true that worksite enforcement is down 70% over the past three years? >> that answer is partially true. it is down from 5000 to 1500. we have been able to remove 100,000 more fellows from the country and the number of finite auds. >> if you had increase the number of enforcements and some

of reducing its 700, i would assume that exponentially would even be a better situation. likes even if we had not made any adjustments for our priorities, you are still talking about a maximum of 5000 cases in the past. it is a better trade up to go after the employees themselves. >> i cannot agree with you. agentst true that guesi.c.e. are asked to not remove a legal steering excitation? -- during an evacuation? >> it depends. >> you have to answer my questions. we accept the fact that a large percentage of people that

illegally come to this country never crossed the southern border. the people that were the perpetrators of 9/11 or visa overstays. [unintelligible] i.c.e. has identified 50 high risk posts. why does the administration's proposed budget reduce funding for the visa program for fy2012. >> the difficult choices had to be made. we have other things we can do to make sure that a visa applicants are vetted against our data bases. while it is nice to have officers in different places, it is not something essential to national security. >> thank you very much. i see my time has expired.

>> thank you. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> thank you. the gentleman from california has follow up questions with your agencies. do you anticipate any difficult y that he or other members may have? >> we endeavor to do our best to respond in a timely manner. >> thank you. you have talked about the student visas, deferred action. august 15 you indicated would be the application date. when would they expect to get some kind of documentation? well that documentation and allow them to do? >> we expect guidance by the first of august. we anticipate within a short time of when they sent in their

applications they will receive an acknowledgement that their application is complete and is ready to be processed. they will get a number. if the number will enable them to track their application. >> will they be able to get on an airplane? >> yes. >> with that or subsequent documentation? >> they will be put into the system. any idea then is that t removal action would be stayed until we complete the judicatory process. >> thank you. can you give us a status of your department's implementation and whether or not your regulations will be the same as those in the department of justice? >> they will meet standards but

they will not be identical because our facilities are t.fferent spirit we hav we have initiated this. we're following is strongly. we're going to be issuing guidelines or standards that meet the peraeit. >> i understand that there is technology or the container trucks can drive through a scanner and essentially get track is goinghe 10 or 20 miles an hour. >> of the current track scanners we use for a sample at the border where we have thousands of trucks cross, the trucks that go through is 3

miles per hour. >> is there any reason why that cannot be universal? why you cannot do 100%? >> of what? >> container trucks leaving the port. >> that requires a longer answer then time permits. we would use the material. seaborne containers go through a whole different layered process of security that is different than land born trucks. >> on what portion of containers is scanned before they leave the? >> it depends on the port. we use a targeting system to identify high-risk cargo.

we have a process for certifying trusted shippers and others that are moving containers all the time to the united states. we are doing some random checking their. when we have containers that do not meet the standards, what we do to make sure that those containers are safe before they enter a u.s. port. >> the final question i have, can you talk about the agency's use of the federal prison industry program? >> we used fpi under contract. i believe we use them here in d.c. >> what do you mean by used? >> i believe we have a contract with them. >> the federal prison industry

is a program that if we want to maximize the use of because you have prisoners they're getting job training using the prison industry program for management purposes, encouraging them to be more likely to get a job when they get out here and we wanted to make sure that the department of common security is using the program so that we get the best benefits. the number has been declining of the past few years. >> i would be happy to verify that for you. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> you have made several references to responding to requests for writing in a timely

fashion. he last appeared before this committee october 26 of last year. following that hearing, a number of questions were cemented in transmitted to you in a timely fashion. -- were submitted to you in a timely fashion. do you regard this to answer questions as being timely? >> obviously not. it is before this hearing. >> >> we have responded and the committee members for whatever reason do not get the response. as they prepare for hearings, they ask us for new copies. in addition, would lead to remind the committee that we try

to be timely but we have well over 100 committees and subcommittees submitting questions to rust. >> your statement today says you answered these in a timely fashion and is not rebutted by your failure to answer the question until nine months after the last hearing? a few minutes before this one? >> again, representative -- >> mr. chairman -- may i get an opportunity to grant to the question? >> you've already answered it once. >> can we have regular order? >> i would like that. >> i just want clear up what i said. we're often in a situation where we are resubmitting questions to answers -- answers to questions. >> that's not the case. >> that's what you want us to look into. >> we want you to answer the questions in a timely manner.

>> fair enough. >> you say this begins with hometown, tribal, and territorial officials. how does cancelling your agreements in arizona to a downtown security. >> can you really clean your helping hometown security? >> these are task force, not in the jails, but the task forces, the ones you refer to, are remarkably on a productive and very expensive. in the six of the seven arizona agreements we have on the task force's, they have produced zero removals in two years.

the only one doing anything with the department of public safety and what we already had a task force with them. it costs us per removal almost 10 times as much through secure communities or through the 287g jail model. >> i would like to know why it is that you will like utilize local law enforcement to apprehend individuals that are illegally in the united states and then promptly moved to remove them from this country. that is not what is happening in virginia. i can assure you. >> if i may, representative, one thing we have done to replace the ineffective 287g test forces the expansion of secure communities in the jails themselves, where we've prefer fingerprints to the criminal data base and the immigration database. you'll see our ability to

apprehend and remove criminals has gone up dramatically because of it. >> does this mean -- criticism -- does this mean he will remove from the website the section that refers to 287 g success stories? >> there may be some success stories. >> why are you counting them if there are success stories that you think is a program that is flawed. >> i will tell the people to take them down. the program is expensive and does not work the way congress intended. >> overtime surveys have found the department of common security employees are less satisfied with their jobs that the government average. ice rink 222, fema 231, tsa 232, all other components rent 224. you have a morale problem that

has only gotten worse since you have taken over. i think you will agree low morale has the ability to impact how effectively public servants to their jobs. what is the cause of the morale? are there many due to the policies from the administration that prevent agencies from doing their jobs? what are you doing to address the serious morale problems? >> the morale issue is one i am concerned about. we want our employees -- good morale, well trained. we have looked into the numbers. one of the real sources was that our first line or mid- level supervisors were promoted without training on how to actually be a supervisor. that caused a lot of discontent. there are other reasons as well.

i meet regularly now with our component heads and have directed them in turn to take all action necessary to do what we must to bring the more up. we also brought an experts from opm and other places and have looked at other departments that were able to go from low to high. techniques for things they did from the management standpoint when we had -- and attended to employ them as well. >> my time has expired. i do have additional questions i will submit to the chairman and right thing and i hope he will answer them in a real timely fashion, not nine months after we submitted them like last time. >> i understand your point. >> what do you consider to be timely? >> it depends on the questions. some require multiple departments. >> 60 at the outset of multiple departments are involved. >> i will commit that we will aim for 60, yes.

if we have to have more we will tell you why. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the last exchange may illustrate the concern that i was expressing about the gentleman from california's unanimous consent request. i was feeling really bad about it. the responses of the secretary make it clear that putting the administration or any of these departments in a 30 day straight jacket is just not viable. although i fully support the administration responding to our oversight and responding to

legitimate questions that are raised. i want to express my gratitude for your cutting back on the 287 g program. i think it was the least successful biggest abomination of any program i have observed in our local communities. to turn local law enforcement away from their primary responsibilities and in many cases just absolute which hunts and doing something that is the primary responsibility of the federal government. in fact, it's so biased me against ice it is hard for me to say something nice about them. now i have to say something nice about them.

>> can i write it down? >> actually, i think the efforts you have made and the intellectual property area dealing with counterfeit goods and things online, i think while there have been some problems obviously, i think i saw has done a commendable job. -- ice has done a commendable job. to acknowledge there can be successes and failures at the same time, i have already acknowledged some of the failures. i would point out the success in north carolina that led to

arrest in charges of trafficking in counterfeit drugs, pills that were circulating that were counterfeit in north carolina. ice did a good job. without even asking a question, let me say that i also applaud the administration's decision regarding the young the people who are here under the dream act category so to speak. if anybody, regardless of what your position is on immigration -- if anybody deserves to be treated as if they were -- one month, two years have no connection to the country and

which they were born, had no responsibility for bringing themselves into this country. if you consider their parents irresponsible or renegades, we should not pass that along to their children. the only place that they know as home has been the united states of america. if anybody deserves the benefit of this policy, it is these young people. i do not know how anybody can argue with that. i hope you get this program implemented and all of the rules in place quickly so these kids can get into a normal pattern. they have been educated here. the notion that we would invest all of this money and sent -- to send them back to a country they have no connection to just seems to me to be absolute folly. i want to publicly applaud the

administration and you, madam secretary for this change in policy. i hope as some point we will get around to setting up some additional rational immigration policies to set up a comprehensive immigration policy in our country. to get them out of this temporary status that you have been able to justify for them. with that, maybe i will submit some questions and give them 30- 60-90 days to respond also. i do want to encourage you to respond to my friend from california there. their questions as timely as you can. i yield back. >> the gentleman from ohio is

recognized for his questions. >> i just have a few questions. i am trying to fit their around his head here. all right. i would like to ask about how our customs and border patrol is handling counterfeit products coming into our country? intellectual property in the united states is responsible for spurring the industry and developing new technology and creating jobs. i know we are focused on how we can get new jobs into the country. however many bad actors are replicating trademarked american goods and shipping them back into the united states for sale here -- these fake products have a negative impact on the economy. the dangerous oftentimes for the health and safety of the american people. the customs and border patrol agents, they generally make the first contact with the shipments are coming into the country.

it is critical that your officers are able to communicate valuable information with the rights holders, the actual company here that would be producing legitimate products, not the fake products that are coming in. those of the best individuals who are suited to authenticate the products and make sure they're actually real or that they are fake. that is why congressman po from taxes and i have introduced the four and toughen protection act. -- foreign counterfeit protection act. perhaps your staff brought that to your attention or maybe you are familiar with the legislation, can we count on your support for it? >> i am not directly aware of the bill but i am aware of the

issue. when we buy counterfeit products, there has been a pre- existing legal opinion that we were barred from telling the actual holder of the trademark about the infringing product. my understanding is also that that has been revised to unchanged so that barrier along exists. >> that is the very issue. it has been improved somewhat. there are still some problems with it that we like to work with you on that. it is critical to creating jobs and protecting the rights of the people here who are producing the legitimate products. i was encouraged -- i was encouraged to see that you allow your officers to share information about suspected

counterfeit to the trademark owner, to help them determine if the product is counterfeit or not. i am concerned about the seven day waiting period for them to see if it bears a counterfeit mark. there could be no meaningful disclosure to trademark owner and the product will not be denied entry. while i understand your agency came up with this procedure as a way to protect the interests of the grey market importers, i am concerned that this far your agency has been -- and willingly created a giant loophole for the most unscrupulous of counterfeiters. what makes you think that a person willing and able to create a fake product that looks real will not use the seven-day. to produce phony documents, fake certificates in an attempt to show the counterfeits are genuine? they might not be able to seek help from one source to make sure the product or documents are real. the owner of the trademark,

this new procedure whereby the differences to the importer and not the trademark holder, potentially that kind of deception creating a loophole as i indicated to actually usher counterfeits into the country. we certainly appreciate your looking into that. >>but the thing that is a very fair. and i would be happy to not only look at about work with you on this problem. >> finally i would like to turn now to another recent issue with counterfeits coming across the border. in the latest attempt to rip- off u.s. trademarks, it appears certain criminals have found a new approach, that of counterfeit coupons. last week there was a police raid adapter arizona where police confiscated $2 million worth of assets in a home-based business that was responsible for producing and distributing

a counterfeit coupons on websites affecting more than 40 u.s. consumer-products manufacturers including a company based in my district that is proctor and gamble. the alleged leader of the operation robyn ramirez is accused of bringing them from overseas in large quantities and selling them on her website for 50% of the face value. the scope of the investigation has an economic impact on the hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. i would ask you to look into the matter and make sure you are doing everything possible to protect businesses here so that we can create jobs. >> thank you. does the gentleman from virginia have unanimous consent request? >> yes, i would ask that the printout we have of the department's website under the icy e section entitled success -- ice section entitled "287g success stories with small print scores of success stories with regard to the 2870 program.

i ask they be made apart of the record. >> without objection. >> before asking any questions, i would like to ask unanimous consent to put some material into the record. some have questioned the secretary's legal authority to set immigration enforcement priorities and exercise prosecutorial indiscretions on a case by case basis. i would like to enter into the record a decision that explains immigration officials have broad discretion, a memorandum by the research service analyzing the secretary's memorandum on may 28, 2012 letter from 100 law professors to our president addressing the executive's authority to grant

administrative release. a bipartisan letter establishing prosecutorial discretion as well established and was granted in case law and they november 17, 2000 memorandum laying out the authority for exercising prosecutorial discretion. >> without objection. >> i would also like to ask unanimous consent to put in to record statements from the community including evangelical immigration table, the traffic conference bishop, the evangelical lutheran church in america and the support of the dream act announcement. >> without objection. >> i am mindful that we are joined today in this hearing

byelia acosta brought to the united states,karen who was 5 years old, these are wonderful young people who have achieved great things in their education. every time i go to speak to a school whether it is people getting their ph.d. in physics or whether it is a law school or high school, some young person will come up and say i am a dream act kid. of all of the people who deserve our consideration.

if you could see these young people. i would like to thank you for the actions you have taken to allow these young people -- the facto americans. this is their country but the papers are not in order. for taking the steps you did that allow them to live normal lives until we get our act together here in the congress. i would like to note that in the process of getting our act together the house did in fact pass the dream act in december of 2010. it got 55 yes votes in the senate. because of their crazy rules we could not get 60 rules to pass. -- 60 votes to pass. hopefully we will have the opportunity to pass that and reform the law top to bottom. i have a concern i would like to

raise about the implementation of the applications. is not about your department. it is about people who would prey on young people. every time there is an announcement, there are unscrupulous people who will try to charge people, notary publics to say you need to pay as this or that. i am hopeful that the department will take some steps. there is no reason why a defect 0 american who is an 18-year- old kid on the honor roll need to pay some key to a lawyer or anyone else to get this application under way. have you thought about efforts we might make to make sure unscrupulous people do not take advantage in this situation? >> yes. the whole issue of fraud that has been a problem and immigration, we're trying to address it in a couple of ways.

out reach, working with a different faith based and advocacy groups and with the steering groups and others. the application itself is available on-line. it will be based on existing application forms. there will be a fee associated with the application as i think all of us understand. we are going to do that. i will reach out to the justice department themselves to see if they can help us in this regard. >> i am glad to hear that. i think it is something in our own communities. i want to talk a little bit

about the history of the dream act. for many years we worked together on this. i will never forget the late paul deal more who was a very conservative man. there were many things we did not agree on. he called me and described a young man in his little town in ohio who was the valedictorian of the high school. he was the quarterback on the football team. he went to go get a document and it was only then he was told he was not born a in the united states. he said, i will straighten this out. i will go down to the federal government and straighten this

out. he went on the day before christmas and it put him in handcuffs. the little town was outraged. gilmore understood this issue in a way that was a visceral. that conservative republican put his name on the dream act as a co-sponsor. i am hopeful as we move forward we can get the kind of consensus that we want on this issue and we are able to do the right thing not only for these young people but for our country. they are a part of a rich future for our country. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. i think we all know there is two issues here. one is whether the substance of what is being done is appropriate. the second is at least up to a short period of time ago many of us thought we were still a nation of laws. we want to make sure we do what we do in a legal matter. i know it is always dangerous to put too much work --

credence into the work our elected officials do. i want to go back to something that the chairman said earlier. he said there are enough flaws in the book by congress that are clear in terms of how we can enforce our immigration system that for me issuing an executive order to ignore the mandates would not conform with my role as president. he said that on march 28, 2011. my first question for you so we can understand, to your knowledge were there any laws that changed between march 28, 2011 and today that would change with the president said? >> no. >> do you feel that the president was inaccurate and what he stated on march 28,

2011? >> i think it is important to understand what actually occurred here. >> i am just asking if what the president stated on march 28, 2011, was he correct in that statement? >> as a general manner, yes. >> no laws have changed since that time. i noticed that you said the memorandum that you issued was not an executive order per se. i do not know. i am just harping back to my old law school days and the bible we had was the law dictionary. i look at the executive order and says an order issued on behalf of the president regarding a constitutional provision law or treaty. was this memorandum that you issued issued on behalf of the president? >> it was under my authority as the secretary setting the priorities for the enforcement of the nation's immigration laws in an effort to deal not only with these compelling cases

but the continued effort to clear the backlog to deal with the more -- >> is it your opinion that the authority that you issue this under as your authority has greater authority than the president of the united states? >> a lot of authority going far back about the ability to prosecute or set priorities. >> that is not all my question with all due respect. my question is a very simple one. do you feel you have greater authority than the president of the united states on this matter? >> this is a case but his determination. this is a case by case determination design very carefully to be stated clearly within prosecutorial discretion presidents. -- precedents. >> to the president announced a this policy from the rose garden. i know that you are saying this was issued by you. it was the president and announced the policy as president of the united states. the law dictionary says carefully an order issued by on behalf the president regarding a law or treaty. are you saying this was issued without -- not in conjunction with the president of the united states?

>> this decision came from the department of romance security. -- homeland security. the president approved of the decision which is what he denounced at the rose garden. it had already been announced the morning by myself. >> the president announced the policy. he is the one appointed you, is that not correct? what's that is true. -- > > that is true. >> you take your authority from the president. >> and the constitutional laws of the united states. >> and you hold a constitutionally directed office. can you tell me what part of article 2 is your authority? >> i would go to section 3, the obligation to carry out the loss -- laws faithfully. to execute the laws. >> as i understand it, the president of the united states, you do not dispute the fact when he said he did not have

authority to issue an order to do what you have now issued as secretary of common security. -- homeland security. what you feel you have that authority and a capability to do? >> we are well seated in the law, that is correct. >> and again, you can see that the president did not have the authority to issue the order you wish? -- you issued? >> that is not what i said. i said in the executive order was not involved. >> but he did -- he could not have issued an executive order based on what he said. >> could he have waived a magic wand and say everybody is home free? know. -- no. can a prosecutor's office a on a case by case basis we will defer -- >> could he issue an executive order to save -- to do what you did? >> yes. >> thank you. >> the president's statement is being quoted but only partially

because the rest of the statement is "now what we can do is prioritize enforcement since there are limited resources and say, we will not go chasing after this young man or anybody else who has been acting responsibly and would otherwise qualify for legal status if the dream act passed." the rest of the statement is important. >> thank you. reclining my time. i am pleased to have you here. i want to congratulate you. i do not care who did the action, whether you or the president, i am please the was done.

it was the right thing to do. it was the fair thing to do. i happily got on the telephone and called as many of my friends to tell them who were feeling so at risk having been brought to this country at an early age and found a could not participate. thank you. thank you. having said that, i want to ask you about the visa program. we have reforms needed to minimize the risk. you know, there is conflict and opinions even in the president's job panel's a bout this program. i am concerned about what is said in this report. for example -- i will read directly from this. restricted agency's oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for u.s. workers. elements of the program that could serve as worker protections such as requirements to take wages, of the says, temporary status, -- visas, -- it goes on to talk secondly about the program that

lacks provisions for holding employees accountable to program requirements when they obtain h1b workers when it discusses the staffing companies. changes have in combination increased the pull of h1b workers at lower the cap for eligibility. you know, i know we try sometimes to have all things always in this country when we are trying to help people and companies etc. we have an employment problem in america. we have serious education problems. we are told by those who try to protect the program and expand the program that we have occupations that are desperately needed to do some of the jobs that are needed.

perhaps in silicon valley and other places. they have to look for importation of workers to do that. some of us maintain that many of these companies have the kind of campuses that should include more training, more development. we want our education system to put more people into the pipeline. with these kinds of concerns, what can you do to ensure that these kinds -- that the oversight that is needed is done? those of us here at this level of government making public policy, we have to weigh in on whether or not we want to continue to support, expand, or what have you. what roles will you play? >> i am not personally familiar with that report. i will follow up. we will follow up with the of

what we have done in response and pursuant to the rip -- recommendations to it. >> thank you. i look forward to it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you madam secretary for your testimony today. a number of curiosities have arisen listening to you. did you have discussions with president obama with regard to the policy within the june 15 memorandum prior to issuing the decision? >> i did not. >> would members of the white house a direct tax -- access to the president? once i informed the white house prior to the release of the memorandum that was my intent to do so. the internal meetings that we worked on and how we developed the program started in early may. >> does that mean your staff had communications with white house staff in regard to this?

you had a sense the president supported it? >> yes, they raised no objection to my intent to prioritize cases in the fashion that we have. >> were you surprised a new issue the memorandum that the president had a press conference scheduled within hours? >> no. >> that was coordinated with the dhs and white house? >> it is a major announcement to how we are prioritizing education enforcement and is appropriate for the president to speak to it. >> he pointed out article to section 3 in the constitution. i thought i had memorized. i looked it up. you assert your responsibility under the constitution. >> one of them, yes. >> of congress is going to direct -- congress writes the laws. the president has been clear on that. i think you will agree with the statement the president said. if congress is to read a lot

that directs an executive branch to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, how would we read that bill if we wanted the laws enforced that you have decided will not be? >> i cannot speculate as to how you would read that but i would simply say based on my history as a prosecutor there are lots of laws on the books within the framework of which prosecutors make -- >> we understand prosecutorial discretion. when i looked through the reference to prosecutorial -- prosecutorial discretion. i see it mentioned four times in here. it looks almost as if this is written anticipating the constitutional objection that i assure you i will print -- there is a separation of powers. the executive branch cannot legislate by executive order or memorandum. we cannot allow the article ii

legislative branch. only the congress acting to its authority can confer these rights. you have directed the director to issue a work permit for people who fit within four classes. this is not an individual directive. establishes for classes with and it to issue a work permit that does not exist. our vises and work permits are creations of congress, the -- not the executive branch. will you send this before we -- will you rescind this before we have to take it to court? >> i will not resend it. is right under law.

it fits within our priorities. although it came out of the department of common security, the president is four square behind and embraces the policy as the right thing to do. >> the president challenged it. we have to assert to this authority. the founding fathers envisioned each branch would carefully protect the authority invested within the constitution. when you cross those lines and there are a list of things that have been done by this president, this one is the most clear. i accepted the prosecutorial discretion when it dealt with individuals. i do now when it deals with groups of people created by a memorandum. i do not when it deals with a work permit order to be issued the does not exist in the united states code. that is a province of congress. we will see each other down the line in litigation. >> thank you, mr. king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, madam secretary. i would like to address the topics. i want to welcome the young

hispanics who are here with us this morning. let me tell you. when you have seen sacrament -- celebratory napolitano handing -- you have seen the secretary standing tall on the policy that the federal government is about to implement, that means your dreams are very much alive. now, secretary, as you probably expected, i want to raise the same issue with you this morning because the last time you appeared before the committee, mainly for the crisis in puerto rico. i want to express my gratitude to you and your team for traveling to puerto rico last week in order to investigate the situation firsthand and to meet with the governor and myself. i think our meetings were positive and productive. i hope you will agree. on tuesday i wrote you a letter. in addition to think he --

thanking you for your business, i noticed your presence underscored the federal government's commitment to working with local law enforcement to expand our efforts to combat drug trafficking and related violence on the island. i said i was heartened to hear you be clear that public -- declare that puerto rico's crisis has your full attention and our model moving forward. i also expressed agreement with your statement that the definition of success should be significant as sustained reduction in the number of homicides on the island. i think we all recognize the urgency and light of the severity of the situation. in my letter i strongly endorsed your plan to develop a law enforcement strategy specifically tailored for porter rico and the neighboring islands. i believe the strategy will ensure our efforts are coordinated and will help to

identify gaps in the current approach that can be filled. i respectfully ask this be coordinated with the department of justice. personnel are working side by side with your men and women on the frontlines of this fight. finally, i know that any meaningful struggle you will require reasonable allocation of personnel and resources whether temporary or enduring basis. in the five-year period between 2007 and 2011 the number of homicides nationwide fell 20%. in the same. period, the numbers of murders rose by over 55% in puerto rico. the law enforcement footprint on the island has not evolved in the face of the profoundly changed circumstances. it is my fervent hope that the forthcoming law enforcement strategy will be action oriented and more recognize an

enhanced response is required if we are to be successful in the shared endeavor. madam secretary, i just want to give you the opportunity to tell me and my fellow members of this committee in broad terms, how do you envision going forward on this issue? i thank you. >> thank you. yes, i went to puerto rico because i am troubled by a number of things in terms of the crime situation there. the homicide rate being twice that of mexico is a real eye opener. on my return, i have already met internally with my staff and we have appointed an internal person to help coordinate. we will reach out to doj and a particular to the u.s. attorney in puerto rico. i think it will take all of us working together to get a handle on this and get that crime rate down. that is what our intent is. >> thank you. i yield back.

>> the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman and madam secretary for being here. when you were here back in october we discussed the week before he had been online using the security clearance you have given him when you placed him on the advisory -- the homeland's security advisory council. he used that to access the state and local intelligent data base and download the material. we have information that he shot at trying to claim texas was islamophobes. since that time, you told me personally at that time that you were going to look into it.

you were not going to appoint somebody. you yourself would look into it. what did you find out? >> i found out the statements that have been made in that regard are false, misleading and objectionable. >> you need to know that you have people who are applying in your department. the texas department of public safety has been told the investigation was done. he did access the classified information with his own private computer. he did download the documents that we knew he did. the one thing they could not confirm because they did not talk to a reporter or the people that he shopped the story to, they could not confirm that he shopped the story. are you saying right here before this congress that as secretary of homeland security it is a lie that he down loaded

material from a classified website using the secret security clearance to give me? -- you gave him? are you saying that is a lie? >> i in saying that is inaccurate. that is correct. >> what is inaccurate about that? >> a number of things. we have several people on the home and security advisory committee who are muslim. they have been helping law enforcement for a long time. he was recognized by the fbi -- >> i did not say anything about that. confine your effort as to what i -- confine your answer to what i said and what you find misleading in it. >> one of the things i find misleading is that he's -- he somehow downloaded classified documents. >> you are saying the state and local intelligence and data base is not classified? >> i am saying as part of my note he did not out of -- as far

as i know, he did not download classified documents. >> one of the gains that it played about people who come up here and testify as they have somebody not provide them adequate information so that they can come in here and say "so far as i know, not to my knowledge." the obscure the truth. has his status changed? it did not bother you that he access to information? >> he accessed some information. what bothers me is the allegation made against anybody that happens to be muslim. >> the allegations are not because he is muslim. you follow me around the world. you see me hugging muslims a round the world. the ones that i hug are our friends. this administration has a hard time recognizing members of terrorist groups that are allowed into the white house. you are aware of that happening, are you not?

>> absolutely not. >> the evidence speaks for itself. obviously you are kept in the dark about a lot of these things. are you aware of what the freedom and justice party is in egypt? >> representative of -- >> are you aware of what the freedom and justice party is in egypt? it is a simple question. it does not afford an interruption. is she aware of what the freedom and justice party is in egypt? >> with the secretary respond to the question. >> yes. >> are you aware that his foundation that is now had their charter pulled because they failed to provide the information that the government requires to keep their status? are you aware that was before the status was pulled called the freedom and justice foundation?

>> i will not get into a debate did not some of this -- >> i am asking you if you know simple facts. >> i would like -- >> use a you will not get into a -- you say you do not want to get into a debate. i do not want a debate. this is a question and answer. are you aware of that being the name of his foundation that now has the 501c3 status pulled. >> the insinuation -- >> will you answer the question -- >> can we have regular order? last i will allow the witness to answer the question. >> please answer just the question. >> with all respect, i believe you are insinuating that i and members of my staff -- >> i am not insinuating anything. i am asking a direct question. >> let me say -- >> were you aware of the freedom and justice foundation --

>> let me say to the gentleman from texas, i do not think you're going to get a different answer. >> i would ask the assistance of the chairman to direct the witness to answer the question as asked. it is very simple, yes or no. >> you are free to give a final answer. >> i would like to say to this committee -- >> that does not sound like a yes or no. >> mr. chairman, regular order. >> the answer is not responsive. >> madam secretary, do you have anything to add? >> i did not know this was a court with rules of evidence. i was hoping i could explain my answer. >> do you want to proceed to do just that? >> my question was a yes or no answer. >> regular order. >> the reasons there are rules of evidence are so witnesses do

not go off on a -- >> mr. chairman, can we have regular order. >> the gentleman's time has expired. as the witness said anything to add? >> yes. this committee has a long and proud tradition. these kind of accusations demesne the committee. the fact that we would -- the insinuation me or my staff would allow -- >> i have not insinuated -- >> mr. chair, regular order. >> and me say to the gentleman -- >> there is no insinuation. -- >> regular order. >> to come in here with an allegation. but said the committee will be in order. i understand the frustrations of the gentleman from texas but i do not believe he will get a different answer. his time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you. are you familiar with these

cases, the louis decker case in new york, the case in california. you familiar with those names? >> i may know them by different descriptors. >> let me briefly go through these and i will talk about specifically criminals. as a former judge and prosecutor as you work, crime is something that none of us like. there are some criminals that are still halt -- they are still here and do not go home when they are supposed to. louis decker was a grandmother in new york when she was ordered a murder by bangladesh. -- she was murdered by a citizen of bangladesh.

he was illegally here in the united states. the system worked while in prison he was ordered back to bangladesh. he never went back to bangladesh. it would not take and here he gets out of prison and he murders louis decker. steals her car and some other things. ashton klein mcmurray, a 16- year-old child coming come from a football game was murdered and beaten by an individual from cambodia. the same situation. he never went back when he was supposed to. ben luck was sent to prison for armed robbery. it's out of prison and was ordered to go back to vietnam but they never took him back. he gets out and murdered five people in san francisco. we have this recurring issue of criminals committing crimes from foreign countries. the law requires the go back home. they do not take them back. we actually have a lot and says they are supposed to be some

diplomatic and the says that are supposed to be rejected for people who do not go back. my investigation of the law, i can only find one time since the law was written that one country was sanctioned for failure to take back lawfully convicted criminals from their country by the isle of be says and that was gone up. it took back 112 after recension them. -- after we sanctioned them. the way i understand, your department is to let the state department know these countries are stonewalling the system -- i think gaming the system. they just want to leave them here and make them our problem. i only see one case and that was several years ago. the concern i have is, why is that not happening more often

that the country is sanctioned by diplomatic vises for failure to take back lawfully convicted felons. when i read the law it is a requirement that they shall take back -- the the says will be denied to these countries, diplomatic visas or other vises. i do not see that happening even though the loss as a shock. -- even thoughh the law says "shall." the state department is supposed to reject the visas. can you help us out with that? >> he really identify two problems. there is a supreme court precedent that says we cannot hold people indefinitely. there is a time limit on that. the other is the practical problem that there are a few countries in the world who refuse to accept them. the state department is well aware of this. i think the moves they are making is something you should

address to them. there are well aware of the problem. >> what i hear from the state department is, they are passing the buck. they did not get the information from you from the countries that are not compliant. that is the answer i get from them. that is what i am asking you the question. are you furnishing them the state department, the affirmation of these countries that refuse to take their citizens back? the issue is not what i am concerned about. that is the law and i understand that. it cannot keep them in jail. that is not the issue. the issue is that they get out. and there are problems. the state department is media for mission and they do not get it from you. are you getting that information to state about noncompliance? >> there must be because they are taking action and issuing these countries the diplomatic tools they are using a something--- is something you should address to them. >> do you know of any other

country that has been sanctioned and we refuse to give them the says about the noncompliance? -- refused to give them visas due to noncompliance? >> i do not know of any. >> i have more questions but i will submit them to the record because i know you will not let me keep talking. >> the gentleman from utah is recognized. >> thank you, madam secretary. i appreciate you being here. 40 appearances is an impressive number. i want to talk very quickly. i sponsored a bill, hr3012. fairness for high skilled immigrants at the got rid of the cap limitations. we passed it out of this committee and is in the house. -- it is in the senate. is it something the administration would be ok with? but some would have to look into that.

that sounds right. let me verify that. >> i want to give to the southwest border. i am concerned, the president, yourself, the attorney general have all said the selfless -- southwest border is more secure than it has ever been before. an operation fast and furious, the government purposely allow 2000 weapons to get into the hands of the drug cartels. how many of those weapons were detained at the border? >> i cannot answer that. >> my understanding is there has not been one single gun from operation fast and furious apprehended by, and security or any other law enforcement other than the two weapons that were found at the scene at the death

of brian carry. -- brian terry. is there any -- am i wrong in that? what can i answer that. i do not know. >> let me ask you this. one of the things that has been touted is when you look at the different sectors a run the country and the protection we are trying to provide this country, the tucson sector is by far the most problematic. my question for you is, if the number of detentions is going up, does that mean that the border is more secure? if the numbers -- if the number of detentions is going down, does that mean the border is more secure? which one is it? >> it is down. >> does that mean it is more secure? what more apprehensions show it is more secure. >> the way it works is that -- this is something difficult to measure. the apprehension numbers are used as a proxy for how many

are attending. -- attempting. we actually think we are now picking up almost everybody trying to cross the border illegally. we can look at that because we are looking at crime members in phoenix, stash house in phoenix. other conditions for their turn -- for whether to get into the country. >> in phoenix the crime rate between 2008 and two dozen that -- and 2006 was 6%. to claim it is more secure, i look at nogales. that is the biggest city on the border in the most problematic sector. if you look at it as a nine in -- at 2009 to 2010, the total number of offenses recorded is up 92%. >> if i might, i know the arizona situation very well and pay a lot of attention to it. the phoenix violent crime rate, kidnapping, stash houses, and other things associated with the illegal immigration, way

down. it does not correspond to any other number i have seen or what the sheriff tells us. >> this is from the department the police. let me read some members. 2009 to 2010, burglaries' up hundred 13%, and grand theft auto up 70%, assault up 81%, damage to property up 81%. it does not sound like this is the most secure border we have ever had. >> i will tell you this. there are probably a number of reasons for that. i would challenge the accuracy of those numbers for a number of reasons. said me a question and i will be happy to answer it for you. >> that would be great. we have operational control of the border yet? >> i think the southwest border is as secure as it has been in

decades. >> what percentage of the border is secure? >> i would say that we have the ability to move men, air cover to the entire southwest border. >> but we have not recovered a single gun from fast and furious even though we purposely give the drug cartel 2000 weapons? this is the concern. i would disagree that it is more secure than ever. >> will the chairman yield? >> yes. >> i want to touch on a couple of things. the county office last year said that only 40% of the border is under control. do you disagree with that? >> yes. it gets into governmentees and different --

>> their objective is not under the thumb of the administration. the other thing i want to make sure i heard correctly is that you thought everyone crossing the border illegally was being picked up? >> in some areas, yes. >> i do not think you made that clear. the border agents i talk to in texas told me that several individuals would cross across the border for every person apprehended. >> the border patrol would be happy to provide you with a briefing. we are surging in -- >> in what area do you think you are picking up immigrants trying to cross illegally? >> i would have to give you a list. at least one of the arizona sectors we are getting virtually everyone.

it is certainly one in three. -- more than one in three. that is the typical statistic. >> for you to say, i doubt that is true. >> we are picking up a lot of people, mr. chairman. >> to suggest that there is no illegal immigration going on in arizona is a joke. >> that is not accurate of what i said. i said i think in one of the sectors i think we are getting virtually all. i think the tucson sector is a very active sector. when i compare the numbers in the tucson sector to what they were a few years ago, there is almost no comparison. it is night and day. >> i wish i had more time. the chairman from south carolina.

>> you mentioned a term eight times in this memo. prosecutorial discretion. i want to ask you about this phrase. it was important enough to use multiple times. prosecutors who have a lot of discretion - we have the discretion whether to indict in some states and when to call a case to trial or to send us a bargain, but i am interested in which there are any limits to discretion. i can tell you, madame secretary, i had to prosecute a lot of cases where i disagreed with the underlying law. i never understood or agreed with the disparity in the cocaine power. i never agreed with the disparity. it never entered my mind to subordinate the legislative intent with my own. i say to people who think that

they benefit from these episodic exceptions to the administration of law equally to be careful. today it may benefit you. tomorrow it may not. with respect, their defense is not this administration or the department. their defense is that we are a nation of laws and not a nation of men or women. let me ask you this. if he decided that he thought marijuana should not decriminalized, does he have the ability, the power, does he no longer prosecute marijuana cases? >> perhaps the law is still in the books. there are lots of examples around a country where marijuana cases are not being prosecuted. >> i asked if the administrator had the authority to have a memo to say we will not prosecute marijuana cases because we do not agree.

>> well, i think the administrator has to write a -- or discretion to say what cases will be prioritized and which ones will not be and how those lower priority cases will be handled. >> i am not talking about a case by case. the truth is, you already have the authority to decide on a case by case. in other words, there is no need for this memo. it to give you no other authority that you had before you drafted it. it leaves some of us to think that it was a political memo and not a legal one. can you understand the skepticism of some of us? you already have the authority to decide on a case by case basis. why publicize it? by announcing to the world unless it was for political purposes? >> it is the outgrowth of several years. it was a 2010 priority on our

memos. there was a 2011 memo on discretion. the move began going case by case through the 350,000 cases in the backlog. we found that in doing so, that was not enough to really clear out and get out of the huge backlog we had in a lower priority cases. this memo takes the lowest of the low priority cases. >> i am familiar with the policy. my response to that is, if you are right on the policy, then you ought to be able to convince the people who passed the laws that it is a legislative issue not an executive issue. that is an example of congress saying to the judge, you have the discretion when it comes to sentencing. it will be 60 months for a

garden variety regardless of whether you think that ought to be. my guess is when you were the u.s. attorney in arizona, if a judge deported below the guidelines, it would appeal because it was out of their discretion. my question is, what is our remedy as lawmakers when you ignore laws that have been passed? what is our remedy? to cut off the funding? to direct to you? the explanation i have heard is one of resources, that we do not have the resources to prosecute this category. tomorrow it may be another category case. and the day after, another category case. at first blush, it strikes me that it takes many resources to identify whether your memo applies are not as it would to prosecute the case. how long have they been in the

country? what is their educational background? what is their age? do they have a record of serious misdemeanors'? that takes resources. it strikes me -- >> the gentlemen's time has expired. the witness has answered the question. >> you and i clearly disagree on what discretion means and how it can be applied. on the resource question, there will be a process in the adjudication of the process. this is not anticipated to be coming out of taxpayer funds. >> the gentle lady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madame secretary. i want to comment the intellectual property enforcement work, particularly through operation in our sights. the efforts to protect american consumers from top defect drugs that are sold online.

you have had some investigations that have been very important for our area. there was an investigation last year that led to prison sentences for owners of a los angeles jewelry store who illegally imported and sold, perfect designer jewelry. -- sold counterfeit designer jewelry. some tested positive for hazardous levels of lead. lab tests showed there is nearly 28% times levels. despite that, these items were labeled "lead-free." you were able to attack a terrible problem there. i also want to applaud you for the announcement with regards to our dream act students who were brought here by their students. they came here without

documentation through no fault of their own. they grew up in the u.s. and want to contribute to this country. in fact, we have dream act students right here in the audience. this means a lot to them. the policy will help to ensure that we do not focused our limited tax care resources on individuals who do not pose a threat to our country. they want to give their part to this country that they call home. the question has to do with immigration courts. as a longtime prosecutor, you know that you cannot enforce a law and prosecute people effectively if you cannot get -- our system is backlogged. there are many of pending cases. if you are an attorney in phoenix who is trying to get a court day, he will have to wait until 2014.

in el paso -- in all possible, you have to -- in el paso, you have to wait until the year 2016 to even have a schedule for the case. that does not make sense. can you describe what dhs is doing to fix this problem? how was your memorandum clear up this backlog? >> representative, we have been addressing that. it is a question for dhs and the department of justice. we have been addressing it through offering administrative closure to a low priority cases that are clogging the backlog. we have been able to offer closer to about 8% of those cases. by what is coming into the immigration court system, making sure that those are a public safety case, the criminals, the recent border crossings, the repeat violators, those are the ones that we prioritize and. those get the full attention.

>> let me also ask about the historical precedent prioritize. when the director first issued his priorities in the discretion memos, some critics attacked the memos as unconstitutional and in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. the same attacks have continued in the wake of your memo. i wonder if you can respond to this claim and describe for us some of the historical precedents for issuing guidance such as this. >> there is a lot of historical president's going back decades. i mentioned a few of the cases. cheney versus heckler. the reason arizona decision of the supreme court is very clear that in the immigration field, we possess and should possess

enormous discretion on how to enforce the laws. >> in fact, doesn't chapter 6 of the u.s. code specifically direct you to establish national immigration enforcement policies? >> that is true. >> and may congress, have not directed you to prioritize serious criminal challenges? >> yes you have. >> aside from congress's direction, hasn't dhs issued similar guidance regarding discussion? -- discretion? >> that is right. they issued a very lengthy memo with all of the president's. -- the existing precedent.

that memo was cited by julie meyers. there is a long track record. i think it is important to emphasize what we are trying to do is increase the proportion of those removed from my country, but those of them who are convicted criminals, recent border violators, or repeat violators. >> the gentle lady's time is expired. the gentleman from arizona has five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary napolitano for being here. the 9/11 commission report and the 2011 bipartisan report by and senators on the massacre said it was a major failure to acknowledge the true enemy explicitly as violent islamist extremism. the dhs office certification said the did not have the

minimum essential acquirements for how to collect information about violent, islamist extremism. madame secretary, if you cannot identify your enemy, it cannot defeat him. multiple agencies knew that a major was communicating with awlaki. political extremists and political correctness seems so extreme. that incident was deemed workplace violence. eric holder came before this committee and after being asked numerous times, he refused to acknowledge to our chairman that radical islam could be a factor in the terrorists and threats. i think this kind of political correctness is killing americans.

agents inside this administration have told members of this congress that there are often afraid to identify the terrorists and his ideology when the enemy cloaks himself in religion. my question is this -- if an agent inside an agency needs to identify the next terrorist and says he is motivated by a religious ideology, will that agent be punished? >> no. >> do i have your word on that? >> we look at varying ideologies. the notion that we will not say "terrorist" or "islamist" is not accurate. i go to bed at night thinking of how to protect our country. there are individuals of a variety of religions.

that seek to harm us. islamist is certainly one. >> i have a letter from multiple organizations. including an unindicted co- conspirators in the holy land trial. this letter is addressed to you and to eric holder and leon panetta. it demands a purge of all counter terrorism training materials on the grounds that some of the materials reflected poorly on islam. within days, the administration commenced an unprecedented purge of its counter-terrorism materials. an investigation, radical islamist ideology is being purged, along with information about mainstream islam without distinction. essentially, political correctness is prevailing over the recommendations of the 911 report and the bipartisan senate report.

has your agency also purged counter terrorism training materials along with the internal discussions that reference radical islamist out ideology and practice? >> not that i am aware of. >> what about the contents of the letter? >> no, i have not. let me say that there is a lot of training material out there. we are constantly revising and improving based on the intelligence we get and receive and how that is analyzed as to what are the evolving threats against the u.s. but that is not a purge. that is evolution training materials. >> are you aware of the purge within the fbi? >> no. >> thank you for coming by. i appreciate you answering the questions. >> you bet. >> the gentleman yields back his remaining time. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to go back to the feed for the process of will begin in august. is it true there will be a fee waiver process as well so there'll be people who will be able to wave so it will cost the american tax payers? >> it is not yet final. >> but there will be a fee waiver option? >> there may be a slight exception and may particular very deserving cases. >> ok. there could possibly be a fee waiver in certain instances. >> but let me be very clear, we have not yet decided on this. i do not want the expectation out there but applicants that there will be a broad fever process. -- broad fee waiver process.

>> there'll be more discretion on the part of dhs. >> on a hardship basis. >> the memo you put out shortly after the supreme court ruling was a process of many memos. there was a memo that came out what our two years ago. that was your memo. what is concerning for a lot of us when you are talking about discretion is what the next memo, out will be in terms of waiting are not allowing the -- waiving are not allowing the actual prosecution are certain laws that are in the books? will it be the next memo that comes out? what is our remedy as legislators? do we have to in every single law that we passed through congress and that the president signs, do we need to add a clause that says we really need it? you have to enforce these laws? the discretion you are talking about seems like this means that the law has been written and signed with the president does

not really mean anything if they have the discretion to disregard them. what we do as legislators to make sure that we get the laws that are passed actually fully enforced by the executive branch. >> rep, i have been an executive my whole career. it is hard for need to get into the legislative mind-set. i will say that we are enforcing the laws. we removed more people from this country than any prior administration over a similar time period. i get criticized for that. we remove more criminals, repeat violators. more than 90% are in those priorities. that will increase. i think it is totally within discussion about how you take the laws and say, look, no law enforcement has unlimited resources. we have to make decisions. >> do we have to say, look,

this law is mandatory. you have to enforce it. is that the route we have to go? judges are not allowed to waive the minimums that are put in place by the legislatures. this is what i want to get at. when we have a situation when the executive branch does not enforce the law, but provides waivers are deferments or where ever you want to call it, we have a situation where the executive branch because all- powerful. you can wave are not enforce any law that is on the books. i completely and totally destroys the constitutional framework of our country. i guess that is -- i want to jump quickly.

my time is limited. the director was testifying last week. you said there were no removals' for the design attacks was -- for the arizona task programs. >> for six of them. >> there were seven of the end? >> we could give the actual numbers. it is not a secret. >> the word "removal" is very specific. you are removing the person. that does not necessarily mean an illegal immigrant was found by that agency that was part of the task force and was handed over but does not actually removed. in 2010, 110 illegal aliens were processed. 74 processed in 2011. how many of those were removed even though they were processed? i noticed that you use the same words here. ice has the discretion they have been using.

>> i think the goal is -- >> the witness may answer the question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. our goal is to remove those people who have been committing crimes in the country. we use removal as the key number. another comparison you might make is between those task forces and secure communities. we have that in all of the border states. we have literally found thousands of criminals and aggregated felons. administrative, cost-effective way, it is better. >> you are recognized for five

minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the gentleman from south carolina talked about discretion with you. let me ask you this -- what are you at homeland security doing to ensure that the discretion policies does not result in the release of 17-year-old gang members in our communities? >> a gang member would not qualify. perhaps i can put that in the book, right? >> if there is an arrest or a felony or a serious demeanor, that person will not qualify.

>> i thank you for that. i will answer to my own words -- i will insert my own words into geographical waters that are far extended for my district. that can be harmful exercise, but i am told that cook county, illinois is a so-called sanctuary that is not cooperate. they are experiencing a massive wave of gang-related homicides. in chicago. might better cooperation help to how do we alleviate the murder crisis in chicago? >> yes, i agree. >> let's meet go back to the alien minors. what is being done to ensure that alien miners at the border

could turn out to be a 17-year- old gang member to not be released in our communities? >> there is guidance and supervision in the field. there is a delivery system, which i can explain in detail before you or have someone explain to you. it would be our intention to make sure that our agents pick the person up. >> thank you. i think i have time for one more. what about transnational gangs? they are comprised largely of foreign-born nationals. is it better to deport them before they commit major crimes

rather than after? in 2005, the house passed the legislature altered by mr. sense and to allow for the deportation of all alien gang members. do you support such legislation? >> i am not familiar with that. i am reluctant to comment on that. >> can you get back to me on that? >> yes. >> thank you. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentle lady from florida is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. madame secretary, we meet again. i will ask you some very similar questions since the last time we talk. in december responded to my request on how many people have been deported under section 243 b. i believe your letter said that was the last act in getting countries to repatriate and use diplomatic efforts. that was in december. now we are here in july. have you invoke any? have you recommended an aide to the department of state? >> well, again -- >> it is just a yes or a no. have you recommend any to the department of state? >> again, the information as to which countries are not working with us -- >> i will take that as a no. we will move on. i have a lot of questions. a simple yes or no was what i was asking you.

if you want to go into further detail, i would love you to respond in a letter. but a yes or no is perfectly satisfactory to whether you have submitted any persons to the department of state under 243 b. >> i will get back to you in writing. >> is it true that agent terry was shooting a beanbag the night he was killed? >> i will get back to you. >> is it true that you have policies for your law enforcement officers on how to respond to active shooters? >> i will get back to you in writing. >> so, you plan to not answer any of my questions this afternoon? >> let me explain -- >> mr. chairman! >> could we please have regular order? >> thank you. >> how to respond to an active

shooter -- an active shooter is trying to kill people in combined or populated area through fire arms. i sent a letter once i heard about this. it was reported all over the news. fox reported that the active shooter forced a design for all employees, civilian and law enforcement officers, and no one should rush into a situation where others could get hurt. here is something from some of the border patrol agents. all immigration officers have been required to watch a video. when i asked, you said they are not designed to mandate law enforcement actions. however, these are your training materials, are they not? >> they are concerned for situational awareness.

it is consistent with all federal law enforcement. we can supply that to you. >> thank you. the letter i received said that it was not mandated. i have concerns we have a border patrol agent who may or may not have been shooting a beanbag weapon against very high-powered weapons. you are only to shoot back when your life is threatened. as a law enforcement officer who wants to protect my community, if i was out and about, even off-duty, and someone starts shooting in a populated area or threatens someone's life that was not my own, i would be required to act to stop the aggression and save those lives. i want to make sure that this is not something you are telling your armed law enforcement officers to do to just run, wait, and hide. >> they're trained in the situations.

>> again, maybe you need to give your officers that information. they said it was all law enforcement and civilian employees. >> for different purposes. >> i also look forward to getting your information back on 243 b. these are violent criminals. their country refuses to take them back. they are about to commit more crimes. i am concerned that we have an option and it has yet to be

employed when we have people being murdered by the very people that have threatened them, done time in jail, and because their country would not take them back, they are released into the community to kill the victim. but time has expired. i yield back. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. to the last questioner because i have to be in another meeting. >> madame secretary, thank you for appearing before us. we had opportunities to have a conversation before on the other committee. i appreciate your work and your time. i must say as someone who has been involved in immigration law for 30 some years and who was a ranking republican -- believing we had legalization and was

disappointed since it is very important in the what we do. they see how we act and perhaps take advantage of that. that is why it bothers me a great deal that the president had an opportunity for almost three and a half years to work on efforts by the immigration reform five months before an election and announces this particular policy. you come forward and tell us that you cannot tell us all the details because it has not been worked out? normally you work out what the details are and then you declare the policy if the intention is to have the work and not just make a political statement. that is my observation of them. it is a disappointment to me. >> i think i disagree with to. >> i presume that you do. >> i assume that you know i would disagree. let me simply say that this was the evolution of a process that

began in 2010. >> i'd understand that. congress gave you additional funding and directed that it only goes to deportation and removal cases. would not alter your case on discretion? as i understand, a great deal of what you have stated the policy to be is a consequence of limited budgets and therefore the necessity to establish priorities. >> so, you are saying if you give me an unlimited pocketbook, but i take it back? is that the question? >> that was not the question. we did additional funding and directed that you use those funds to use for deportation and removal cases. we do still testified that the

administration would have the same policy as it announced in the memorandum and the president's announcement at the white house? >> yes. there are plenty of criminal border crossers and repeat violators. more than enough for us to remove from the country. you can give us more money. we will take it. >> even if we give you enough money to cover those people included in the discussion decision? >> i think that is unlikely. it is hard to answer the question. >> i guess you do not want to answer. i can understand that you disagree with the underlying law. but that is not the basis upon which to hide behind. there is a definition or it is

not a case by case up already. it is a broad category that has been established. there has been a statement because we are recovering this group of individuals who through no fault of their own in the u.s., it is in fact almost -- but the question is, is anyone at fault for them coming to the u.s.? >> it depends. >> well, does your policy include not only -- you don't call it amnesty -- let's say it is a refusal to take action under the law. what does it do with respect to the individuals who brought them here illegally? are they also covered by

discretion? >> they may be covered by discussion, but they are not covered by the deferred action memorandum. >> so, what would we believe that? individuals covered by this with respect to the dream act, deportation is deferred. does not extend to the relatives as a matter of policy? >> no. >> parents would not be covered by this? all in the students would stay in the u.s.? the parents would be subject to deportation? >> they would be reviewed under a different standard if the case came to ice. >> so, the likelihood is that they would not be. >> if they had a felony or a serious misdemeanor, they would be removable. >> one last question. my time is rapidly depleting

here. yesterday we had testimony from tsa representatives in another subcommittee about the issue of pilot licensing or lessons and checking people. it was brought up that currently, you do not match the list of those who want to apply for a pilot's license with the no-fly list. that seemed to be incongruous that on the no fly list they can't get on the commercial aircraft, but they could go to a pilot training program and not be stopped from doing that. >> the fact of the matter is, there are lots of different ways a person on the no-fly list

would not be in a position to get a private lesson. >> the statement was made on the record yesterday that they are not checked against the no-fly list period. that is disturbing. >> tsa may not be aware of -- >> my time is up. we thank you for your testimony today. there will be questions submitted to you in writing. i know you will endeavor to get those to us in a timely fashion as we define timely here. this hearing is adjourned. "washington journal -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> washington congressman adam smith, the ranking member of the armed services committee talking about sequestration, defense spending, u.s. policy toward syria, national security leaks and other issues. today at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c- span. >> watch american history tv the weekend of august 4th and if it does d.c.'s ban local content vehicles explore louisville ky, home of the church held down, the louisville slugger, and the oldest independent bookstore. >> a lot of the stores i have seen fail our stores opened by people who were interested in having a business, not a love of

books. i think you really have to have a gut attachment to books to care enough about them because your customers are like that. august 4th and fifth on c-span2 and 3. >> on tuesday, fed chairman ben bernanke expressed concerns about the libor system which sets interest rates on financial transactions. the system has been called into question recently over allegations that barclays bank of london tried to manipulate interest rate for its own financial gains. on the economy, chairman bernanke said the top two threat remained the european debt crisis and the fiscal situation at home, in reference to various tax increases and spending cuts

set to take effect next january. it's two hours and 25 minutes.

>> i called the hearing to order. today we welcome chairman bernanke back to the committee to deliver the semiannual monetary policy report.

the financial crisis still weighs heavily on the financial system today. while on the longest depression, and the economy has grown steadily. we have come a long way. there is still a lot of work left to be done to get our economy back to the point where this is readily available. while the economy is not going as fast as we would like, it is important to recognize that it would not be growing at all if congress and the federal reserve had not taken action for financial stability.

the wall street reform act created a framework for a financial system that works in the consumers' interest and never again allows a bank bailout. it ordered barclays to pay a $200 million penalty for its libor manipulation. we need tougher rules in place and strong adequately funded regulatory rules to enforce the rules. some say the cost is too high. those same critics say to under fund this and ignore the reality were caused by ineffective regulations. that is why we created the wall street reform act and why we are sitting today before the crisis. any cost that wall street bears

from playing by the rules pales to the trillions of dollars lost. as they recognize the second anniversary of the wall street reform act, i look forward to hearing from chairman bernanke on how these efforts have further stabilize the financial system. the policy makers can make the financial system more stable. the eurozone economy remains fragile. i would like to hear it on the progress that is being made in the eurozone and how policy makers can protect the economy from the potential fallout if the situation were to worsen. while the fed's role is important, we need to the

knowledge that they cannot solve all of the economy's problems. the housing market has been holding back the economy for too long. i asked this committee to support efforts to give responsible homeowners their response ability to refinance their mortgages. this legislation is fair because it helps homeowners who have been playing by the rules and eliminate barriers and is a cost-effective way to jump- start the economy. it keeps more workers' paychecks in the pocket.

congress also needs to reach a sensible resolution to the fiscal cliff problem at the end of the year. planport the president's to extend tax cuts to the middle-class. today's hearing underlines the importance of effective oversight which has been a leading priority of mine as chairman of the committee. in past 18 months, we have conducted frequent hearings. in the coming weeks, we will conduct oversight hearings with secretary geithner in his role as the head of the oversight council and with the director of the consumer financial bureau. richard cordray.

i have welcomed the steps chairman bernanke has taken to make this more transparent and release communications. i also believe the wall street reform act enhancements to the fed transparency and oversight has had a positive in sight. i now turn to senator crapo. >> the u.s. economy continues to face significant challenges with the eurozone, a tax cliff, and our broader fiscal crisis which includes the need to address the impending solvency of the entitlement programs. a disappointing 8000 jobs were

added in june, holding unemployment steady at 8.2%. he warned congress what would happen if it did not address the fiscal cliff, knowing that this would have a significant impact on the recovery. according to cbo, if all the tax and spending measures under current law were to occur together, the economy would grow at just 0.5% compared to 4.4% expectation absent to these investors. one of the largest private owners of u.s. debt said we have until 2016 to contain our borrowing before bond investors dried up interest rates. others suggest the timetable could be much sooner. the lack of economic growth has some to call for further

expansion of the $2.90 trillion balance sheet through a third round of quantitative easing. there are a lot of questions about how effective the first two rounds of quantitative easing has been, what their long-term effects will be, and what additional route could be. i am interested in learning what could be done. following the june fomc meeting, the fed would continue the extension program. i am interested in learning what had been the result so far and what of the expectations are going forward. another drag are the hundreds of dodd/frank rules that will increase capital formation in the long run and in the short term add to the climate of uncertainty and complexity. the concern i hear most is that regulators do not understand the cumulative affect of the hundreds of proposed rules and that there is a lack of

coordination. that is why it is important that the regulators perform cost-benefit analysis so that we can understand how these rules will affect the economy as a whole and impact our global competitiveness. we need to have rules that are strong enough to protect our economy that can adapt to market conditions to promote credit availability and spur job growth. but many of my colleagues, i am learning about issues related to the setting of the london interbank offer for libor which serves as a big mark for trillions of dollars of loans and derivatives including the cost of many mortgages in united states. barclays agreed to pay a $450 million fine to settle manipulation charges. investigations that banks manipulated the libor process are continuing. questions are being asked

whether regulators took sufficient action. i look forward to hearing from chairman bernanke on all of these issues. >> thank you. to preserve time for questions, opening statements will be limited to senator crapo. the record will be open for the next seven days. with that, i would like to welcome chairman bernanke. he is currently serving a second term as chairman of the board of governors of the

federal reserve system. his first term began under president bush in 2006. before that, he was chairman of the council of economic advisers and served as a member of the board of governors of the federal reserve system. please begin your testimony. >> thank you. i am pleased to present the semiannual monetary policy report to the congress. i will begin with a discussion of current economic conditions and the outlook before turning to monetary policy. the u.s. economy has continued to recover. economic activity has appeared to decelerate somewhat. after rising at an annual rate in the second half, real gdp

increased at a two% rate in the first quarter of 2012. indicators point to a smaller gain in the second quarter. conditions in the labor market improved during the latter part of 2011 and earlier this year, with the unemployment rate falling. after running at nearly $200,000 per month, the average increase in payroll employment shrank $275,000 per month during the second quarter. the weather can account for only a part of this loss of momentum now could job creation. the jobless rate has leveled out at just over eight%. household spending has continued to events.

a somewhat slower rate of growth in the second quarter. declines in energy prices are providing support. households remain concerned about their employment and income prospects and their level of confidence remains relatively low. we have seen modest signs of improvement in housing. in part because of historically low interest rates. some measures have shown up in recent months. a number of factors continue to impede progress. on the demand side, many buyers are deterred about worries of their own finances. other prospective home buyers did not obtain mortgages due to tight lending standards or because their current mortgages are under water.

on the supply side, and large number of vacant homes boosted by the inflow continues to divert demand from new construction. after posting strong gains over the second half of 2011, manufacturing production has also slowed in recent bonds. the rise in real business spending and software appears to have accelerated from the double-digit to a more moderate rate of growth over the first part of this year. forward looking indicators of demand suggests further weakness ahead. slowing growth and production appears to reflect economic stresses in europe which together with some of cooling in the economies of other trading partners is restraining demand for u.s. exports. at the time of the june meeting of the market committee, fomc, we projected that under the assumption of a proper monetary policy economic growth will likely continue at a moderate pace and then pick up very gradually. specifically, our projections on the real gdp had a tendency

of 1.9% - 2.4% and 2.2% - 2.8% in 2013. the recovery is held back by tight borrowing conditions and the restraining effects of fiscal policy and fiscal uncertainty. although the housing market has shown improvement, at the contribution to the recovery is less than has been typical. these headwinds should fade over time allowing the economy to grow semi rapidly and the unemployed rate to decline to a normal level. given that growth is projected

to not be above the needed, the reduction in the employment rate seems to be slow. the tendency for participants has the unemployment rate at 7% or higher at the end of 2014. the committee made comparatively strong changes. over the first three months of 2012, at the price index expenditures rose about 3.5% at an annual rate boosted by and large increase in prices that reflected the higher cost of crude oil. the sharp drop in crude oil

prices has brought inflation down. in all the price index, it rose at 1.5 serve in the first five months of this year compared to 2.5% as a whole. it will be at a below the 2% level with the mandate in 2013 and 2014. participants of the fomc meeting indicated a higher degree of uncertainty than normal and that the rest to economic growth have increased. i would like to highlight the two main sources of risk. the first is the euro area banking crisis. the second is the u.s. fiscal situation. financial strains in the euro area moderated in response to steps by the european authorities including the provision of three-year bank

financing. tensions in euro area of financial market intensified more recently, reflecting political uncertainties in greece and losses as spanish banks which return questions about the resilience of the euro area banking system more broadly. euro area authorities have responded by announcing a number of measures including funding for the recapitalization of spain's troubled banks, greater flexibility in the financial backstop including the flexibility to recapitalize directly, and movement toward a unified supervision of the euro area banks.

even with these announcements, the economy remains under significant stress was spillover affect on conditions in the rest of the world including the united states. the possibility that the situation will worsen further remains a significant risks to the outlook. the federal reserve remains in close communication with our european counterparts. we believe the european authorities have strong incentives and sufficient resources to resolve the crisis. at the same time, we have been focusing on the resilience of our financial system including those that might emanate from europe. the capital and liquidity positions have improved substantially in recent years. we have been working with firms to ensure they are taking steps to manage the risk. european developments have resulted in a disruption of global financial markets and to oppose the challenges to our financial system and economy. the second important risk is the domestic fiscal situation. u.s. fiscal policies are on an unsustainable path.

development of a credible medium term plan will be a high priority. fiscal decision should take into account the fragility of the recovery. recovery could be endangered by the confluence of tax increases and spending reductions that will take place next year. the cbo has estimated it the full range were about to take affect, a scenario referred to as the fiscal cliff would occur early next year. fewer jobs would be created in 2013. as you recall, market volatility in spite and confidence fell last summer in part on the debate of the increase on the debt ceiling. similar effects could ensue as fiscal ones come into play. the most effective way the congress could support the economy right now would be to address the fiscal challenges in a way that takes into account the need for sustainability and the fragility of the recovery. doing so earlier would help reduce uncertainty and boost household and business

confidence. in view of the weaker economic outlook, the fomc decided to ease monetary policy by continuing the maturity extension program through the end of the year. this combined sales of short term treasury securities with longer term treasury securities. it puts upward pressure on the prices of those securities. by removing additional longer- term securities from the markets, and the asset purchases have private investors longer-term assets such as mortgage-backed securities

helping to raise their prices and lower their yields making broader positions more accommodative. economic growth is also being supported by the low levels of a target range of zero to 1.4%. as i reported in february, the fomc extended the guidance at its january meeting noting that it is likely to warn low-levels through 2014. the committee has maintained this forward guidance at the subsequent meetings. reflecting concerns about slow progress and the downside risk to the economic outlook, the committee made clear that it is prepared to take further action

as appropriate to promote a stronger recovery and sustained improvement in conditions in the context of price stability. thank you. i would be pleased to take your questions. >> thank you for your testimony. we will now begin the question of our witness. will the clerk please put five minutes on the clerk for each member? i will lead off with a question about the libor scandal. last week you released documents showing that the fed provided early warnings on manipulation in libor market. then timothy geithner your race concerns with president bush's working group on performed recommendations to the british authorities. can you tell the american people what did you know, when did you know if, and what did you do about it? what can we do to restore confidence? >> thank you. libor is a critical benchmark

two contracts. the actions of traders and banks that have been disclosed are not only very troubling but they have the effect of undermining public confidence. regarding the federal reserve's role, and the federal reserve bank of new york takes in data for the fed sytem. it was in the process when it received information about libor submissions, notably a phone call on april level of 2008 in which a trader in barclays told an employee of the federal reserve that he thought that barclays was underreporting its rate. about that same time, stories began to appear in the media. there was an april 16 story. i would like to make two preliminary points before talking about their response to that information. the information the fed received was about the banks

possibly submitting lower ranks and ordered to appear less week. the transcripts of the phone calls have no reference to the manipulation of rates for profit by derivatives traders as alleged by the recent decision. the second point i would like to make is that this issue was complicated during the crisis by the fact that there were very few transactions than occurring overnight. banks are asked to report what they would pay their borrowing at a certain term. it may have been that transactions were not taking place. we will get more information on that as the investigations continue. it is clear that be on these disclosures that the libor

system is structurally flawed. part of the response was to address those flaws. the federal reserve bank of new york after receiving this information responded quickly and set up an internal group to address the issue. it informs all the relevant authorities in both the u.k. and the united states, notably on may 1 president timothy geithner briefed the working group. they briefed the treasury on may 6. it was followed up with enter agency staff briefings to provide more information to the various agencies. they also followed up with the bank of england and the united kingdom. there was active effort to report to all of the relevant policy makers and enforcement agencies the information that had been received. the second step that the federal reserve bank took was to

develop recommendations to address structural problems with libor that i mentioned before. the new york fed released a memorandum list of suggested changes that they submitted to the bank of england on june 1 and following earlier discussions with the bank of england. there are also communications with the british bankers' association which is a private group that constructs libor prior to june 1. the federal reserve bank of new york took the lead. they released information. they are looking for additional

information. we were in supporting mode. we provided reports related to the construction of libor. our staff were in contact with the cftc. i think it is important to note that following the federal reserve bank of new york's disclosures to the appropriate authority that there was a rapid follow up. the cftc was making increase as early as april 2008. it sent requests to banks. they initiated inquiry in 2009. the european commission and a range of regulators are also investigating. we know about the june 27 settlement with barclays. there was a substantial response by the federal reserve bank of new york that information led the investigation. it also contributed to thinking

about how to better structure the libor panel and the libor information collection to avoid some weaknesses that became evident. >> what are the factors that led you to support the extension of the so-called operation twist program and what changes in economic conditions might lead to a stronger policy response in the future? if extensions of operation twist are not possible, was other policy tools are available if the fed decided to provide additional monetary support? >> the federal reserve in december 2008 brought rate down close to zero.

we have had to rely on a number of less conventional policy tools to achieve accommodation. those included quantitative easing programs and the operation twist as i discussed in my remarks. it provides extra financial accommodation for the recovery. the other type of tools we had include communication tools notably our forward guidance which gives the market some sense of how long we think rates will be kept at their current low levels. those are the principal types of tools that we have. we're looking very carefully at the economy, trying to judge whether or not the loss of momentum we have seen recently is enduring and whether the economy is likely to continue satisfactory market conditions.

if that does not occur, we have to consider additional steps. we looked at a range of possible tools mostly involving the balance sheet and communication. the committee meets in a couple of weeks. we will be discussing those tools. we have not come to a specific choice. we are looking for ways to address the weakness in the economy should more action be needed to promote a sustained recovery in the labor market. >> thank you. ever since the dodd/frank conference there has been a debate whether non-bank financial users were exempt from requirements. chairman dodd and chairman lincoln acknowledged it was not perfect and tried to clarify the intent with a joint letter. they stated the legislation does not authorize regulators to

impose margin on end users. in april 2011 they issued a joint proposal that requires them to post a martian to their bank repay a margin to their bank. it stems -- been to post a margin to repay their bank. distance from title 7. i offered an amendment to fill intent by providing an exemption from margin requirements for not the financial end users. but passed the house by a vote of 370-24. is it accurate that banking regulators view the plain language as requiring them to impose some requirement unless congress changes the status sheet?

>> we believe the statute requires us to impose some requirement. we tried to mitigate the effect as much as possible by allowing for exemptions when the credit risk was viewed as being sufficiently small. many small and users would be exempt in practice. >> do you agree the non financials and users of hedging does not contribute to systemic risk and that the economy benefits and that it is appropriate for congress to provide an exemption for non- financial end users that

qualified? >> i agree that they benefit and the economy benefits from the use of derivatives. it seems to be the sense of a large portion of congress that the exemption should be made explicit. that very comfortable with proposal. >> thank you. i want to shift gears back to the question that the chairman asked with regard to what you asked about what tools you still have and how he may approach them. you still have some possible tools to deal with. there is a lot of speculation and concern about whether you are considering another run the quantitative easing. there are questions about how effective it has been and what more can be done. can you discuss for us how effective you feel the quantitative easing has been and whether you feel it is a

tool you should consider going forward? >> we ran out of space to lower short-term rates. we have to look to other tools. we have used asset purchases as a way of providing additional support to the economy. economists differ on terms of how effective the tools have been. my own assessment is that the quantitative easing has been effective in promoting strength in the economy. it was most evidence in q e one -- qe1. qe2 was effective at addressing what was beginning to become a worrisome amount of risk of deflationary in the fall of 2010. it was addressed. my view is that it also

contributed to economic growth. it is hard to judge. it depends on what you think would have happened in the absence. there is questions about side effects, risks that might be associated. i think they should not be used likely. my own view is that these tools to do have a capacity to support the economy. what we will be looking at is really two things. the first is whether or not there is a sustained recovery going on. the other issue with the price stability, notably we would want to react against any increase in inflation risk.

>> thank you. >> thank you very much. let me return for a moment to the issue of libor. can you give us and the millions of americans -- [inaudible] that the current libor is reliable, that the changes that were made have been put in place and that this is an index that is reliable and not being subject to manipulation going forward? >> i cannot give that with full confidence. the british bankers' association did not adopt most of the suggestions that were made by the federal reserve bank of new york.

it is likely that concerns are less bause we are no longer in a crisis. that was when transactions to many were not taking place. i would like to see additional reforms to the libor process. it'll continue to be this. there are a number of people looking at alternative benchmarks like the overnight index swap rates or other types of interest rate that has an advantage over libor as opposed to simply reported rates. >> what steps are you taking right now? your relationship with the bank of england. what are you doing to assure

this index is appropriate. i encourage you to study the alternatives. the libor is so deeply embedded in situ thousands of contractual arrangements that it'll be hard to next week shift to something else. >> we need to continue advocating for reforms to the libor process. it affects -- our ability to influence that is limited. two of the banks have reported that they have been asked for information by investigating agencies. we are following that very carefully. we will see what happens. be able to supply any help we can.

>> let me turn to the monetary issue. the federal reserve has been in some cases pursuing aggressive monetary policy while fiscal policy has not kept up. i presume you are prepared to continue to do that given unemployment numbers, etc. that is regardless of what we are doing on the fiscal and. >> we do the best we can. we will continue to do that. we would appreciate other policymakers playing appropriate roles for themselves as well. >> one of the comment you made is that there will be a need next year for continued stimulus if we're going to reduce unemployment, which is one of your mandates, and that if we reach a solution that is heavy on cuts to spending, heavy on entitlements, that would not

provide stimulus. it would further impact on employment in the country. is that an accurate assessment? >> the first position is do no harm. we need a strategy that addresses the long range stability issues. at the same time if the fiscal cliff is allowed to happen it will certainly have major negative effects on the recovery. the cbo, imf, and many others have made similar recommendationd