the aflcio or what they are. just so we get clear, he keeps talking about the testimony about the i.c.e. union. are there i.c.e. members on the border stopping people from crossing the border? >> my understanding is the responsibility of u.s. customs and border patrol. >> there we go. so there's one union you should stop talking about at the border since i.c.e. agents aren't at the border of the united states. but why let the facts get in the way of a good story? so here once again we talk about gang members, gang members. do you ask 5-year-olds whether they're in gangs? >> again, i'm looking into -- >> because you got to ask them all, right? 3, 4, 5, 6, 7-year-olds. >> it is my understanding when we believe someone presents a national security or criminal justice threat, based on the biometric data we collect, we follow up. i don't imagine we often do that with 5-year-olds or probably never. >> that's what i thought. but they're probably going to want you to ask 5-year-olds if they're gang members.

do you check them for ebola virus? >> well, i do know that individuals -- >> because they're very concerned about that. >> i do know that individuals do receive health screenings at the border. >> they do receive health screenings. so maybe next time they're going to ask you, you should check them, see if they have that virus before they contaminate everybody in the united states. so when they come across -- so what we hear constantly is about -- and just so we have clear, i wish i had the article, but it appears the american public, 70% of the american public, looks at the children at the borders as refugees. they don't look at them as people coming here to take away jobs from hard-working american citizens. they look at them as refugees. they don't look at them as gun-toting, tattoo-wearing, disease-ridden criminal elements coming to destroy america.

but as refugees. i would suggest that people go down to the border and visit. i think you will see that they are refugees too. there's going to be another trip, bipartisan trip, this coming thursday. i look forward to participating in that. and i guess as a member of the select committee an intelligence, we have absolutely no reports from our intelligence services. this isn't these guys. these are the guys that are there to protect us and everything. they're saying they have found no relationship between those people crossing the border and gangs. none. haven't been able to find any. they're searching because they want to find some for you. but they haven't found any yet, any connection yet. they're trying to say there aren't any, but it's just not the prevalent case. what you have is children fleeing violence, fleeing poverty, and trying to reunite with their families. all of those things are true. i want to ask you a question because there was a time in

california when they had good old governor pete wilson decided he would propose proposition 187 using similar language that is being used today about disease-ridden, gang-banging, tattoo-wearing people taking away jobs and corrupting america. so he proposed proposition 187 so they wouldn't be able to get educated. do you know how many people became citizens of the united states of america in, like, 1994, '95, and '96? >> i confess i don't actually know. >> over a million. promoted by none other than pete wilson. so pete wilson said, you know, i really don't like those immigrants. you know what immigrants did? they came. here's the issue, mr. rodriguez. it was $95 back then. it is now how much? >> it's my understanding that the naturalization fee now is -- i think it's about $680. >> so it's a lot more than it

was back then. are you doing anything in order to make citizenship? because it just seems to me if somebody wants to become a permanent resident of the united states, that is they want to renew their permanent resident, it's around the $400 range. but it's over $600 if you want to become a citizen. why is it so much more expensive if you want to be a citizen than if you just want to be a permanent resident? >> the price of any particular benefit, the cost of any particular benefit is determined by the time and effort involved in adjudicating that benefit. so naturalization, we're talking about language interview, we're talking about a general interview. so there's a significant time and effort involved. we have to pay our own way. >> my time is up. >> and you have fee waivers that are granted to about 20% of our applicants. >> okay. you might want to decide -- thank you for the indulgence of the chair. you might want to decide to kind of switch. that is to say, if i want to make a permanent relationship

with the united states, a citizen of the united states, you might want to have that cost less. i just want to maybe hang around for ten more years, not make that permanent. because the guy that does want to become a citizen or the woman, he learns english and civics and takes a big chance because he might fail the test. whereas, the other person just pretty much automatically gets extended for ten years. might want to switch that around since there are 8.8 million permanent residents that can become citizens today, 6 million of them mexican nationals that could become slcitizens overnig. might want to think about that so they can defend themselves. >> we thank the gentleman. now recognize the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director rodriguez, i do appreciate your testimony. i'd like to give you a little bit of a narrative of what's in the front of my mind listening to this. that is that i took mr. gutierrez's advice last weekend

and went down to the border. started at the mouth of the rio grande river, right there at the physical border. worked my way upstream all the way to loredo. stopped at multiple places in brownsville, mcallen, other places at the river and received briefings from border protection, border patrol, from each law enforcement entity that's down there, including the department of public safety of texas and texas rangers and talked to people on the street. here's what comes out of that for me. that is -- and they will all tell us that daca is the magnet. one of the excuses is the '08 law for the other than mexican unaccompanied alien children. that is developing into a broader policy because it's being exploited. these children are being sent into the united states at the expense of the american taxpayer. but i met with them. i went also to an hhs not-for-profit subcontractor who are housing 188 of the

unaccompanied alien children between the ages of 10 and 17. there were 144 males and 44 females. that's the 188. there and many other places we learned this. they said that in some cases 100% of the females that are being sent out of central america are given birth control before they leave because it's anticipated that they will be raped along the way. i don't believe that number is 100%. i see other numbers that are less than that. but those that are sexually abused, the reports that we got and asking this question at nearly every stop, range between one-third of the females that are coming up -- this is the children, the under-18 children between one-third of them raped and up to 70% of them raped. that does comport with the expectation that handing them birth control pills. so apparently it's this. i expect my daughter, my granddaughter, my niece, my neighbor, whoever it is that's in custody when they send them is going to be raped and i can deal with the sexually transmitted diseases and the

mental trauma and the physical trauma as long as she doesn't have a baby that comes along with that. that seems to be the psychology. and we went into the centers where they are detention centers and the border patrol and saw unaccompanied alien children, males and females. we saw mothers with nursing babies. we saw women that were ready to have a baby. and we watched that process go all the way through, and we went to the bus station to see where they're being dispatched out across the country. i did go and do these things. and here's -- asylum is a big piece. at a border crossing upstream from that crossing and downstream from loredo. and i have in this phone here a video of two kwie yoe tees that loaded a pregnant female in and braisingly took her across the river within plain sight of the border patrol and the local city police, deposited her on the shoreline. she gave herself up for asylum. before she gets a hearing, the baby is an anchor baby. there's not a level of anxiety

about this happening on an hourly basis in front of the bodder patrol and city police. there's anxiety on my part because i'm watching the rule of law being deconstructed by this administration. i have in my hand here, this is a request for proposals from your operation dated june 19th which i'd ask be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> this is 162 pages titled "solicitation contract order for commercial item." one of the things it says in the rfp is this. based on experience over the past few years, u.s. cis estimates that application petition receipt levels could increase or decrease up to 2 million forms over the next five years. for asylum applications, up to 2 million. and the decision has not been made by this administration to expand daca, which is the foundation for this human tragedy of thousands of girls

being raped on their way from the central america to the united states. and apparently we don't have a conscience about what's happening to -- and boys, too, by the way. significant numbers being sexually abused. not to mention the murders and death that take place along the way. this administration has made the decision. this rfp put out by your administration would not have been put out if the decision weren't at least on the cusp of imminent. can you tell me what might cause the administration to retract from this, this addition, this rfp asking for the ability to process -- by the way, u.s. cis, this is from the report, needs to acquire records management and support services for its service centers, the objective of the acquisition is to provide comprehensive record management services for service centers in a manner that ensures efficient, effectived adjudication, financial responsibility, and excellent customer service. i appreciate that part. and it anticipates implementation of new laws and policies as a cause for this. i think the administration has

made the decision to totally tear us under the rule of law and grant administrative amnesty to 5 or more million people and do so while this congress is out of session. how would you respond to that, director rodriguez? >> well, first of all, let me start by saying -- am i audible? daca offers no benefit to the individuals coming over the border. they are not eligible for daca or any version of daca. secondly, to the extent -- and i'm not familiar with the specific contract that you described. we prepare for surges in work that can come from all kinds of sources. so i will certainly look into that particular contract when i return to my office this afternoon. but i would not necessarily attribute it to the situation at the border. as far as adults, roughly 15% are asserting credible fear

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

i'm looking at numbers from u.s. cis from march of 2014, and it indicates -- looks like through march of 2014 that there have been a cumulative total since 2012 of 553,197 requests approved under daca, the president's law that passed his lips but not congress. do you have any updated numbers since march? where are we now? obviously more than 553,000. >> yeah, i believe that -- and we'll make sure to get the committee specific updated numbers. i believe that the, but please don't hold me to this, the number now is -- >> i want to get somebody i can hold to. >> i just don't have it at my fingertips. i'll get you the exact information you need. i believe the number is now at 714,000 of individuals who have

been daca recipients. that's my understanding. >> i see. you said that in an answer to an earlier question that you've heard people say there's a culture of getting to yes, but there's also a culture of getting to no. i would submit to you based on your own numbers that the figures bear out there's a culture of getting to yes. you can't get to 700,000 and maybe have 20,000 nos and not have a culture of yes. you said you observed a credible fear interview. let me ask you in your prosecutorial role, did you ever prosecute any drug crimes? >> yes, sir. >> okay. so i'm curious. during your prosecution of drug crimes, did you ever refer to someone who gave money to buy a big load of drugs as a drug

trafficking victim? someone that paid massive money to get a load of drugs, did you ever refer to them as a drug-trafficking victim? >> yeah, let me suggest that perhaps we're talking about apples and oranges, but no, i certainly did not refer to someone -- >> well, let's talk about the apples and oranges, director. when someone pays a human trafficker to move them, then i would submit to you they're not a victim, they're a participant in the human trafficking business. they're keeping the human traffickers in business. when i was down there, let's see, weekend before last south of mcallen, right on the river, talking late at night to one of the border patrolman there's, who's hispanic, he was telling me that, you know, 90% of the time when he asks them out there by the river, they say, oh, i

was fleeing gangs and gang violence. he said, i get tough with them because i know where they're coming from, and i speak the language well, and i tell them, you may tell that garbage to somebody else, but you and i both know that it was gangs that brought you up here. that's who the drug cartels normally hire to bring people up here through mexico. and he said, 90% of the time or better they'll say, well, you're right, but we were told to say we're fleeing gang violence. are you aware, director, of who it is the powerful drug cartels in mexico hire to move people who have paid their thousands of dollars to cross mexico to the u.s.? do you know who they hire? >> no, not specifically. i mean, obviously i know there

are the human trafficking environment involves drug cartels, involves all kind of alien smugglers. it's not exactly our lane, so i'm not fully familiar with -- >> would you call them criminals? >> human traffickers and drug cartels? >> yes. >> sure. >> that get paid to move people illegally into the united states. >> sure. i've prosecuted alien smuggling, yes. of course they're criminals. >> so i would submit to you that's what we're talking about. we're talking about people who are paying criminals. and i would submit to you that the evidence will get down and dirty and show that there are many gang members that are getting paid to transport people to the u.s. only to have them get here and say, i'm fleeing gang violence. so i would encourage you to be more skeptical in these interviews without further evidence. and mr. chairman, i would ask that i be allowed to submit to the record the evidence from

honduran security minister that there's been a tremendous drop in homicides between 2012 and june of 2014 from 32,045 to 2,634. so it doesn't appear things are deteriorating down south. thank you. i yield back. >> without objection, so ordered, we'll enter that into the record. i'll now recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. powe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you once again for being here. of course, i'm from texas. been to the border a lot. was down there this weekend. saw federal officials and state officials both trying to secure the texas-mexico border. went down the river, the rio grande river. they see us coming in a state boat, folks that are in the water swim back.

coyotes in a raft moving folks, he bails and leaves the raft on its own. rocks were thrown at us going down the river. does not seem to be uncommon based upon the law enforcement officers i was with. just ask a lot of questions to the people on the front line about the influx of the people from really all over the world. border patrol sector chief said -- i asked him, who's coming? he said it's 144 countries have come recently, from all over the world, including ukraine coming into texas from mexico. shows the magnitude of the problem. was in honduras and kwaut guate earlier in the year. saw the beginning of some of these folks that are making the trek. and here's the message, whether it's a right message or not,

that if you get to the united states, you can stay. especially if you're 17 or under. y you're going to be able to stay. the united states will take care of you. based on that, people move. the people motivating this are the drug cartels. in this whole scheme of things, the winners, the people who are making money are the drug cartels and the coyotes. they're the ones that make the money off of smuggling people and trafficking people, which as you know, as a lawyer, that is different. but they make the money. drug dealers for $6,000 tell folks in central america, give us $6,000, that'll get you three tries to get into the united states. get to the texas-mexico border, they're turned over to individuals -- individuals are turned over to coyotes.

many of them, but not all, criminal gangs, juveniles under 17, criminals, to smuggle them into the united states. many of them are used as bait in a sense that they start moving some people into the united states. drug cartels call border patrol, say here comes more folks crossing the border. they use them as decoys to move their drugs further down river across the river. so the drug cartels are the criminals. and the ms-13 gang and the smugglers. so that message is out there that right or wrong, we'll take care of folks. people hear that all the way down to central america and all over the world, 144 countries coming in. my question goes back to deferred action that has been talked about incessantly since

you've been here all morning. do you think expanding deferred action to include more people is legal? if the administration does it -- set congress aside. administration defers action to another group of people. i'm notals,ut tanother group. you think that would be legal or not? >> it is my understanding that there is -- and my legal understanding, and it's something that's been acknowledged by scholars across the political spectrum that, yes, there is prosecutorial discretion which can be exercised in these sorts of situations. >> all right. is there a limit? >> of course there's a limit. it's based on whatever the law actually allows. >> what does the law allow? >> in most enforcement realms, generally there is pretty broad discretion. >> so it could allow everybody? >> i'm sorry? >> technically, if it's broad, it allows -- could be expanded

to allow everybody. just everybody who wants to come. if it's discretionary. >> i don't think that's what anybody is suggesting or saying. >> but you're not saying it's unlawful to expand it to include more people. >> again, it's my understanding based on my experience, based on my reading that there's pretty broad prosecutorial discretion. >> based on your position, where you are in this long chain of immigrants and all of the things we've been talking about, expanding that concept of deferred action, do you think more people will come or less? >> i think the key thing when we talk about daca -- >> excuse me. do you think more people would be encouraged to the united states? >> not if they don't believe there's benefit. i think it's been made clear there is no benefit for individuals who are currently trying to address our border, unless they have a claim such as an asylum claim.

>> but they may perceive that daca will apply to them, whether they realize the legal ramifications or not once they're here. don't you think that would -- >> i think it's possible there are unscrupulous individuals who are trying to deceive those people who are attempting to enter our country through the border. the fact is nothing like daca offers those individuals any benefit. >> they're surprised when they get here in many cases. is that a fair statement? >> i've actually looked at latin american media where it's reported that daca offers them no benefits. >> all right. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. i'm over time. >> thank the gentleman. will now recognize the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. rodriguez, thank you for being here. start with a little bit of housekeeping in reviewing your confirmation proceedings over in the senate.

i note that april 3rd executive meeting, senator grassley pointed out you had admitted to the judiciary committee you were personally aware of e-mails between political employees and career prosecutors discussing the decision to decline to prosecute the new black panther party voter intimidation case and that had contradicted the testimony of your boss, mr. perez. so i thought i'd take the opportunity to ask you if you were aware of any e-mails between lois lerner or a different member of the internal revenue service and career prosecutors in the department of justice regarding the prosecution or investigation of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. >> you're asking me if i know anything about lois lerner, congressman? >> if you're aware of any e-mails -- >> i only know what i've read in the paper about that situation. >> so while you're in the department of justice as chief of staff for the civil division -- >> civil rights division.

>> civil rights division. you're not aware of any e-mails? >> i have no involvement or any awareness other than what you and i both read in the papers, congressman. >> are you aware of when the civil rights division was tasked with beginning the investigation of the irs? >> i left the civil rights division to go to the department of health and human services in september of 2011. i think you're asking about a specific individual who was designated to conduct some review. i'm not fully familiar. that happened, i'm pretty sure, long after i left the civil rights division. >> okay. also during your confirmation hearing it was determined or discovered you had served on the board of directors of casa de maryland, which was an organization known for finding employment for individuals without proper documentation. so i assume you supported this objective of the organization while you were on the board of

directors. >> in the context of the community in which i lived, yes, i did support that mission. >> do you believe that prosecutorial discretion could be used to allow for finding employment or allowing for employment of individuals without proper documentation? >> if the individual has a right, for example, through some sort of deferred action or parole or some other mechanism to be in the united states, then, yes, those individuals can then be given employment authorization. in fact, it's often a good idea so that they're not in the shadow economy. >> so in your opinion, as an attorney, an experienced attorney at that, the -- as the president, you know, looks at his options for -- to continue to act administratively to change u.s. immigration policy, you know, the chairman asked you at the beginning of the hearing

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

exercised. >> all right. i was looking at a u.s. cis chart regarding the number of daca requests by requester country of birth. it lists the top 25 countries of the requester's birth. there are 19,200 requests on this chart from other and unknown countries. so how many of those daca requests have you received from applications whose home countries are listed as state sponsors of terrorism? >> i am not specifically -- i could probably tell you the top five. beyond that, i'm not specifically aware. >> could you get back with the committee with specific numbers on that? >> absolutely, congressman. yes. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. i'm going to yield to myself for five minutes. director, again, we thank you for being here. i want to walk through the process and understand some of the metrics. so if you're here -- if you came to this country illegally, you

can apply for daca, correct? >> if you qualify under the vary criteria. >> how old can you be before you file for daca? how old can you be? >> it is my understanding you need to be between -- you can be no older than 31. >> so you can be a 30-year-old and apply for deferred action for childhood arrivals? >> that is correct. >> at that time, you're also applying for the -- the guidance says you can apply for employment, a work permit. >> that is correct, in order that you not be in the shadow economy, that you pay taxes. >> so you come here illegally and then you apply for daca and you get a work permit. now, you said there are more than 700,000 people that have been put into this process, correct? >> that is my -- i want to confirm those numbers with the -- >> your written testimony says

over 580,000. you're now saying something like 700,000. >> it is hundreds of thousands, yes. >> they're here illegally. you haven't gone through the proper channels. now you're going to apply for daca. you can be 30 years old. you get a work permit. how many of those work permits have been terminated or revoked? >> so, first of all, the key thing about these daca individuals, that they were brought here. they did not come here. these were individuals who were brought here -- >> how do you verify that? >> based on their ages and what we know about their -- >> they could be 30 years old. >> they would have been brought here as children. that's one of the criteria to establish -- >> how long are these interviews? >> i am not specifically -- >> how long was the interview you sat in? >> i'm sorry? >> you sat in on one of these -- >> it was an asylum interview. >> how long was that interview? >> it was a full hour. >> and we heard previous

testimony from i believe the last hearing that normally these hearings or interviews are 15 to 20 minutes. >> if we're talking about asylum interviews, my understanding is they're generally far longer than that. they are closer to about an hour. >> so a credible, fair hearing is how long? >> it was an hour. the one i observed was an hour. it is my understanding that is the norm. >> i think the record will correct you on that one. of the people who applied or get daca, they now have work permits so they can compete for a job against a united states citizen. how many of those get terminate? if you're convicted of a felony, how many of those are terminated? >> as of june 31st -- well, i don't know the specific reasons for termination. 147 people have been terminated. >> so you've -- wait, there's over 700,000 and there's been how many that have been terminated? 100? >> i would rely actually on the number that's in my testimony. again --

>> it's not specific. there's no number. >> oh, i thought you had a specific number of -- >> no, that's the problem. we've been asking -- >> we were talking about hundreds of thousands of people. there's no dispute about that. 147 individuals have been terminated as of the end of june. >> how do you get this information? if somebody is convicted of a felony in utah or north carolina, how do you get that information? whose responsibility is that? >> that is -- it comes to us through various mechanisms. could be reported to us by the individual as part of the renewabr renewabr renewal process. >> really? you think that's going to happen? >> or it comes to us through other processes. >> so you just wait? >> through law enforcement agencies. >> do you get reports of this? do you have a list of this information? is there anything proactive you do to get this information? >> my understanding at this point is we get the information from a variety of different sources. >> when you get this work permit

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

700,000 people in the workforce that wouldn't be there otherwise. >> what we have explained about the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, we don't have the resources to remove 10, 11 million individuals. so the question is are we going to have them exist in the shadow economy or work and pay taxes. the choice that been made to work and pay taxes. >> that's not what the law is and that's what's sickening about this. i yield back and recognize the gentleman from arizona. my apologize. >> thank you. i appreciate it. sir, i guess, you know, the first thing to deal with any problem is dissect it and realize what it is. from my perspective, two main concerns i have. number one, the rule of law and constitution of the united states has been undermined here and continues to be undermined. number two, tens of thousands of

children have been put at terrible risk and continue can be put at risk. i'm convinced, just going to tell you up front where i'm coming from. intelligence report interviewed a significant number of these unlawful imgrans coming over. 95% of them cited that the primary reason for migrating to the united states was the perception of united states immigration laws granting free passes allowing them to stay. there's no question in my mind, when you see -- you've got projected from 2011 through 2015 now, 2,230% increase in these unlawful immigrants coming over the united states border. now, that's a systemic issue there. i'm absolutely convinced the

president's telegraphic message superfund central america and other places is the central reason this kumpltd i lay the suffering and some of the things that happen to these children at the feet of the president of the united states. i have no doubt about that. certainly that's an opinion but it's a strong conviction and, i think, one upheld by the evidence. so my question is to deal with those things. first of all, i know you're oath of office is to uphold the constitution. i'm not trying to be tough or arrogant but trying to make a appoint, how can you defend article 1 section 8 clause 4 which specifically bestows on congress the duty to create immigration law given his rewriting the law at his executive whim. how do you deal with your oath of office in following some of those perspectives? >> well, among other things i

don't necessarily -- i don't accept the characterization that we're simply ceasing in any way to enforce immigration law. we're exercising our discretion to prioritize the most important cases, most serious cases for enforcement and removal and investigation and focusing on those and dealing with individuals not in those occasion. >> let me try to accept that. do you agree -- i'll ask you, leave an open question. does the president have the capability with existing funding to help stem the flow of unlawful immigrants into the united states. does he have the ability now? >> certainly some capabilities. the administration made clear it needs additional funding in order to deal with what has been onsignificant surge, a significant issue, significant

surge across the border. >> he can't do that now, correct? >> more resources are needed to be able to deal with that. >> are you saying without additional funding that the president cannot cease to use his prosecutorial discretion authority to shield a whole category from prosecution or can't implement standards. he can't do that without additional funding. correct? >> the credible fear standard is the standard that's in law. >> and always standard, as you know, almost 600% greater incidence than it was before under this administration. almost 600%. i'm just wondering how do we close our eyes to the fact that this president's message to central america and other places was that we won't do anything. if somebody comes over, that is their perception. it occurs to me if the president

is the cause of this, and i absolutely believe the american people believe he is, he also has the ability to send a different message and end the suffering of these children. i believe that's real. sometimes they try to make it that people want to secure the border, like i do, as somehow we don't care about the children and we do. i'm convinced the children we might give a better living standard here, we're going to hurt four or five more by incenting them to make this dangerous, treacherous trip where they run into all kinds of problems. if we have this issue, can't we call on the president to send a message back that, no, there's a false thought here they will be welcomed here and won't be sent back. right now they don't think so. he's getting ready it's another executive order that underscores that concern. >> the message that these individuals for the most part

will ultimately not qualify in the united states, that message has been delivered. >> they are not hearing it, my friend. 95% of them say this is why they are coming. that's this president's fault. i yield back. go ahead and answer the question. >> the flights have started going back. the message is delivered. in most cases these individuals will not be able to stay in the united states. including leadership in those countries. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> director, can you clarify when you say most cases they are going to be sent back, there's no metric i see that says that. >> in other words, recognizing that some individuals may be able to claim status in the united states, qualify for asylum. some status that enables them to

stay in the united states. in the majority of the cases these individuals will need to be sent back to their countries. >> thank you. appreciate the time. get right to it. just a little ago secretary testified on this committee. he claimed administration unilateral amnesty problems created legal ambiguity for the status of illegal aliens. i objected at the time. on page 6, the docket does not confer legal status on the resip yen. you agree it's wrong any action that creates a legal ambiguity. >> it certainly doesn't create a status, that's the thrust of your question. >> what secretary johnson basically said was is because of these mismatch of policies we

created legal ambiguity for people who walk across the border illegally. daca not part of this program. do you agree, legal ambiguity or do you believe they are illegally into the united states, coming in illegally, there's an ambiguity to that situation. >> i don't know the specific context in which secretary johnson might have been speaking. our people who are benefiting from daca, do they otherwise have a legal right to be in the united states. it is a requirement in order to qualify for daca that you not have another legal basis to be in the united states. those are individuals who, in fact, are not gaining any sort of perfectly inventory status through being able to be in the daca program. i don't know secretary johnson's comments about legal ambiguity were made so i'm not able to speak to them. >> i'll ask you directly. do you believe there's a legal ambiguity that is caused by

differences -- he includes states and other things. it goes back down to the bottom line. if you cross over our border illegally, that doesn't automatically, by the basis of fact or changing or diversion or discretion change the legal fact you walked across the border illegally. correct or not? >> i suppose that's true by definition, congressman. in order to qualify for the daca status, again, you have no other legal basis, means you have no other legal basis to be in the united states. >> let me just follow up. i apologize, several different meetings going on. earlier when asking you, requirement of daca that they were brought here by someone else. that's not true. daca enter before age 16, under 31 when applying.

i think sometimes there needs to be -- i think there's a misunderstanding on daca and some of the things many of us don't like because of the way it basically subverted the regular process. lets move onto something else. what steps made as part of the advance team planning, in anticipation there's some sort of path to legalization. how much has been spent on that? >> i don't specifically missokn. there were efforts to prepare for compensation reform specifically as contemplated in central bill 44. i can certainly get back to you with that information. >> can we have time and money when you get back? >> yes. >> "new york times" reports prioritizing processing of daca applications over those trying to enter the country lawfully. in fact, until recently a u.s. citizen could obtain green card in five months or left. after instituted daca service

diverted attention in typical wait lengthened to 15 months. why are you prioritizing illegal aliens over u.s. citizens. >> first of all, i'm pleased to report i-130 petitions returned within normal processing times. we have surges of work -- >> so you're saying within five months now. >> now win five months or around five months. >> okay. i apologize. around five months or five months? because around five months could be eight. it could be ten. it could be two. i'm trying to get a clarification. >> at five months. >> at five months. thank you. let me go back then. i'm glad it's back where it should be. why was there a process you were prioritizing these over those who are immediate relatives of u.s. citizens. >> congressman we have surges of work that come from all different sources. our job is to implement entirety

of our mission, balance among business. one of the things from the daca experience, we learn important lessons on how we observe surges in work, which is why we were able over time to return to our normal processing times for i-130s. >> okay. again, it's just frustrating i know for those here legally, doing it the right way, to put off any length of time or surge over a program that has put them behind the priority. that's something very frustrating as you look at it. how much is the service spent on daca applications? again, spent moneywise, timewise on this, again, applications. you talk about the surge, how you've adapted, how much you had to divert. how much does it cost you? >> my understanding, i don't know the specific, i do know the fee collected for employment authorization and biometrics has enabled us for processing daca applicants. >> we can get back to you with

specific information. >> my time has expired at this point. >> i just wanted to, as you proceed, it's my understanding, but please confirm this, that all of these applications were paid for by the applicants through their fees. there was no taxpayer funds involved in these application processes. >> congresswoman, that is my understanding as well. >> if the gentleman from georgia will yield back, we'll -- as we wrap up, just a few items we'd appreciate if you would provide for the committee. first, regarding the daca application, could you provide the metrics by which you can sustain this claim that there's no net expense to this?

my understanding, there is no daca fee. there is for biometrics, there is for worker application. if you have 700,000 plus people getting a daca application and there's no application fee, i'd be curious to figure out where under the circumstances those funds. >> we will provide you information on the cost of daca. >> when would you -- when do you anticipate we're going to get this? what's reasonable for us to get these documents? >> would 30 days be appropriate? >> i'm not sure if the information is immediately available, whether it's going to take it time to assemble. >> thirty days. that would be fine. >> next one is, 147 felony convictions, these are people, daca recipients, 147 referred to ice for removal, we would love to know how many of those have been removed from the united states and have they been

referred to ice for removal. probably reverse order. how many referred to ice for removal and how many removed from the united states? we also need updated credible fear numbers, and we would also like to know how many work authorizations have been granted. this would be comprehensive over everything that you do. you can break it out in category, but certainly how many work authorizations have been approved. >> thank you, congressman. we will work to get you that information as soon as possible. >> if you can break that number out for the work authorizations for daca, we would also appreciate it. again, if it's reasonable to think we could have these questions in the 30-day window. >> i believe so. if i'm mistaken -- >> we hope you can prioritize that. we appreciate your participation

here. this concludes today's hearing. i think i thank the witness for attending. that objection all members have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. the hearing is now adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> more now on congressional onns for spending bills border security. we spoke with a reporter covering the issue. >> him again crisis. -- the entegris bonded immigration crisis. where is the money being allocated in this? >> about two thirds of the money is going to border security. most of the going to the department of homeland security.

they're looking to beef up that transports the migrants was there apprehended at the border and also supports the immigrants after their case. also a lot of money go into putting more judges on the border, including allownferencing to quicker hearings before a judge. they're hoping to get done within seven days of migrants been apprehended at the border. >> the pointed out this bill is far less than what the president had proposed, but there's also a bill that was introduced -- what was cut out? why was i figure not acceptable? >> we don't know exactly what was cut out. but they said it did not seem like he was getting enough support. in order to get as much support as possible, they really had to peer down that spending.

a lot of people were worried that the money wasn't necessary. >> what about the reaction of the conference when it was released today. >> they seem to get pretty decent support even though there was a group of conservative republicans who are concerned about money. they're concerned they did include changes to an executive order that came out in 2012 that deferred action on immigrants who arrived in the u.s. as children. they were concerned that issue was not addressed. some are also concerned the summer is going to turn around and jam them like a copperheads of immigration overhaul that they are fundamentally opposed to. they're about to say no money at all. the president can do it using his own executive powers right now and that no additional money is needed. youre of headlines in piece is no wildfire all iron dome funding going to the israel missile-defense program. in the't those included house bill? iron dome was included in the senate bill, correct?

>> yes. they give money to fighting wildfires out west. and more funding for the iron dome system in israel. on the house side, chairman roger says he was hoping to get the iron dome issue separately. that is something they think they can get tickets or are pretty quickly. for the wildfire issue, that is something to have been grappling with for a long time. they want to change the way is notes funded considered a natural disaster and under the fema program. but the house budget chairman likeryan -- it seems chairman rogers and the leadership to step up and decided that was something they could deal with later. >> let me ask about an item you tweeted out. between 2008, the potential bargaining chip is democrats hope to bird -- what is that law all about?

houseluded in the proposal? how does it affect the overall debate with the senate? >> that easily passed both chambers of congress as an anti-trafficking bill. conservatives say it encourages immigrants to come across the border because it gives them their day in court. they say a lot of immigrants, and then they never show up at their immigration hearing. you immediately deport all central american children. they are worried to allow central american children to self deport immediately. they are concerned it is not giving this children due process. right now mexican and canadian immigrants are allowed to choose self deport. looks like they have got a few days left. >> yeah. it looks like they're going to dig up the measure on thursday.

that means no amendments. then they will run away from town for five weeks. >> she is appropriations reporter for cq roll call and also cq.com as well. thank you for the update. >> thank you. >> in a few moments, president obama announces new sanctions against russia. in 10 minutes, secretary of state john kerry meets with the ukrainian foreign minister. president obama has announced additional sanctions against russia. he spoke with reporters at the white house before leaving for kansas city. this is 10 minutes.

>> good afternoon, everybody. in the netherlands, malaysia, a show you, and countries around the world, families are still in shock over the sudden and tragic loss of nearly 300 loved ones. they are senselessly filled with their civilian airliner was shot down over territory controlled by separatists backed in ukraine. his grieving families and their nations are our friends and allies. it made our prayers and outrage, the united states continues to do everything in our power to help bring home their loved ones, support in international investigation and make sure justice is done. however, shootdown

russia and its proxies and ukraine have failed to cooperate with the cooperation and take the opportunity to pursue a diplomatic solution to the conflict in ukraine. his russian backed separatist have continued to interfere in the crash register -- investigation. they continue to shootdown ukrainian aircraft in the region. because of the actions civilians continue to die needlessly every day. meanwhile, russia continues to support the separatists and encourage them and train them and arm them. withatellite images along information that has been classified in recent days showed forces inside russia have launched artillery strikes into ukraine. another major violation of ukraine's sovereignty. and we have information that russia continues to build up its

own forces near the ukrainian border. in the warm russian military equipment including artillery and armored vehicles and air defense equipment has been transferred across the border to the separatists. thee the beginning of crisis in ukraine, united states has worked to build a strong and international coalition to support ukraine, it sovereignty, its territorial integrity, it's right to determine its own destiny, and to increase the pressure on russia for actions that have come to mind of ukraine's sovereignty and integrity are in ability to make its own decisions. the core of the coalition is the united states and european allies. recent days, i will continue to court in a closely with our allies and partners and ensure -

i have spoken several times with the prime minister of netherlands and the prime minister of australia. yesterday had a chance to speak with prime minister cameron of ho united kingdom, president llande of france, and the president of italy. the situationthat should be resolved. we have also made it clear as i have many times that if russia continues on its current path, the cost on russia will continue to grow. today is a reminder that the u.s. means what it says. we will rally in standing up for the freedom -- rights and freedom of people around the world. the thing on the measures we announced two weeks ago the u.s. imposing new sanctions.

the exports of specific goods and technologies to the russian energy sector. we're expanding sanctions to more russian banks and defense suspendingnd we are credit that encourages exports to russia and financing ford financial development targets in russia. at the same time the european union is joining us in imposing major sanctions on russia. the most significant and wide ranging sanctions to date. in the financial section the eu is financing state-owned banks in russia. in the energy section the eu will stop exporting specific goods for russia. in the defense sector the eu is isoting new exports and

halting the export of sensitive technology to russia's military users and because we are closely coordinating our actions with europe the sanctions were announcing today could have an even bigger bite. russia's actions in ukraine and the sanctions we have imposed have made a week russian economy even weaker. areign investors increasingly staying away. even before our actions today, nearly $100 billion in capital was expected to fully russia. their energy, finance, and defense sectors are feeling the pain. projections for russian economic growth are down to near zero. major sanctions we announcing will continue to ratchet up the pressure on russia including the cronies and companies that are supporting their illegal actions in ukraine. is once again i slating itself from the international community, setting back decades

of genuine progress. and it does not have to come to this. it did not have to come to this. it does not have to be this way. this is a choice that russia and president putin in particular has made. there continues to be a better choice, the choice of de-escalation, the choice of joining the world in a diplomatic solution to this situation, a choice in which russia recognizes that it can be a good neighbor and trading partner with ukraine, even as ukraine is developing ties with europe and other parts of the world. i am going to continue to engage president clinton and our european partners in pursuit of such a diplomatic solution. it is important for russia to understand that meanwhile we will continue to support the people of ukraine who have elected a new president, who have deepened their ties with europe and the united states, and that the path for a peaceful

resolution to this crisis involves recognizing the sovereignty, the territorial integrity, and the independents of ukrainian people. today, the people of ukraine, i hope, are seeing once again that the united states keeps its word. we are going to continue to lead the international community in support for the ukrainian people, and for the peace, security, and freedom they very richly deserve. thanks very much. it is not a new cold war. it is a very specific issue related to russia's unwillingness to recognize that ukraine can chart its own path. i think if you listen to president poroshenko and the ukrainian people, and they have consistently said they seek good relations with russia. what they cannot accept is russia arming separatists who are carrying out terribly destructive activities inside of ukraine, thereby undermining the ability of ukraine to govern

itself peacefully. that is something that no country should have to accept. the sooner that russians were recognized -- russians recognize the best chance for them to have influence inside of ukraine is by being good neighbors and maintaining trade and commerce, rather than trying to dictate what the ukrainian people can aspire to, rendering ukraine a vassal state to russia, the sooner president putin and russia recognizes that, the sooner we can resolve this crisis in ways that does not result in the tragic loss of life we have seen. >> so far, we have not stopped vladimir putin. our sanctions enough, or have you considered legal aid to ukraine? ask the question is not ukrainian capacity to out fight the separatists.

they are better armed than the separatists. the issue is, how do we prevent bloodshed in eastern ukraine? we are trying to avoid that. the main tool we have to influence russian behavior at this point is the impact it is having on its economy. the fact that we have seen europeans who have real legitimate economic concerns in severing certain ties with russia, stepping up the way they have today, is an indication of both the waning patience that europe has, with nice words from president putin that are not matched by actions, but also recognition, as a consequence of what happened to the malaysian airlines flight, that it is hard to avoid the spillover of what is happening in ukraine impacting europeans across the board.

we think that the combination of stronger u.s. and european sanctions is going to have a greater impact on the russian economy than we have seen so far. obviously, we cannot, in the end, make president putin see more clearly -- alternately, that is something president putin has to do on his own. we can make sure we have increased the cost for actions i think are not only destructive to ukraine, but that ultimately are going to be destructive to russia as well. >> the bbc analysis of the u.s. and eu sanctions on russia says that europe's leaders were moved to act by the outrage at the way lexuses half an hour.

-- this is half an hour. >> good morning, everybody. thank you for being here with us. it is my pleasure to be able to welcome the foreign minister to washington. this is the second time that he and i have had a chance to be thoroughlyt and discuss the issues of ukraine, the challenges of the region, and i deeply appreciate his making time today at a critical time in the region. we meet today less than two weeks after malaysian airlines

flight 17 was tragically shot out of the sky and the separatist-controlled territory of ukraine. crashe victims of that and their families clearly a thorough international investigation that is unimpeded in any respect some people have access to the site, so that families can know that their loved ones are being treated with the decency that any family anywhere in the world would expect in the circumstances. the u.s. supports a thorough international investigation into this heinous act and we support the efforts of the lesions -- the malaysians, dutch, and australians to secure the site so that those investigations can take lace now. they are overdue and it is

absolutely important for the separatist to stand back and permit this access to take place. the work of the investigators is absolutely critical. it has been 10 days since this plane went down. investigators have still not received full, unfettered access to the crash site. without this access they have no way to click debris -- collect debris, or collect other evidence from the scene to provide the kind of examination that is necessary. they still cannot even ensure that all the victims' remains have been removed. an unsupportable burden for any family to have to bear and it is an and -- and an acceptable standard for behavior com, period. the site has to be cordoned off

and the evidence has to be preserved and russia has to use its considerable influence among the separatists in order to be able to help ensure this basic approach of common decency. well beyond the crash site, the fighting is continuing. poroshenko has made clear and -- the ukrainians are ready to accept a mutual cease-fire now. not in the future, now. they have proposed a peace plan that includes serious and substantive dialogue with the russian-backed separatists with international participation because they understand that this is the only way the crisis will come to an end. with theing, i talked foreign minister and raised

and agreed that there is a way to try to put some very specific proposals on the table to try to move forward but the russians and their so-called volunteers are continuing to ship arms and funds and personnel across the border. we hate -- we see this. there is clear evidence. we now have clear evidence of our -- artillery and rocket fire from russia into ukraine and while the russians have said they want to de-escalate the notlict, their actions have shown a shred of evidence that they really have a legitimate desire to end the violence and and the bloodshed. as a result, the russian-backed separatists refused to lay down their arms and be part of the political process. they continued to fire an ukrainian forces.

evidently they will continue to do so on -- unless they feel some pressure, something real from their russian backers. president vladimir putin can make a huge difference if he chooses to. and we and our european partners will take additional measures and impose wider sanctions on key sections of the russian economy if that is what we must do. we hope that it will not be necessary and if russia ,ontinues to go down this path russia will leave the international community with no choice. unfolding in ukraine has already gone on for far too long. it is well past time for the

violence to stop and the people of ukraine to begin the process of rebuilding their country and rebuilding in a way that can have a relationship with russia, with the west, and the foreign minister will affirm today that we are not asking them to choose between the two and i think ukrainians understand that they have strong ties to russia. they are prepared to have a relationship with russia. they understand that the future of ukraine depends on having a strong relationship with russia. for thisl past time violence to stop. that is why yesterday vice president biden announced a nearly $7 million in rapid assistance for humanitarian and rebuilding purposes to be deployed immediately. specifically, these funds will go toward rebuilding eastern ukraine, including the cities of sloviansk and others, where

people celebrated in the streets when they were liberated from separatist control. we are also asking congress for approval to provide financial support and mentor them to small businesses throughout ukraine. through mechanisms like the public-private partnerships and export promotion initiatives, we are hoping to inject additional resources into ukraine's economy, so that together, all the ukrainians can rebuild their lives, along with their cities. the ukrainian government has taken a number of steps to try to bring about a better future for its people, and to reform the government that failed them so much in the past. including signing and historic association agreement with the european union, and also

finalizing the vital standby arrangement with the international monetary fund. we strongly urge ukrainians to continue the process of reforming their democracy, even if not particularly in this moment of crisis, because this is a troubling time when everyone is looking for those reforms to be implemented. you can make a huge difference in rebuilding confidence, and providing a sense in russia that the concerns expressed by the separatists are in fact being listened to and being incorporated into the political process of ukraine. the united states stands ready to support our ukrainian partners in this effort. a strong democratic government and a strong economy are the keys to providing the ukrainian people with the stability and prosperity that they want and that they deserve. i want to thank prime minister

klimkin for joining me for this meeting. we will work closely together. we are talking about the possibility of when we can find time for a visit to continue this discussion more directly with the prime minister and president. i think we share high hopes for the possibilities of what a resolution of this crisis with the separatists and with russia could bring. a strong ukraine. the respect for their sovereignty. and the possibilities of stability for the region. mr. foreign minister, please. >> good morning, everyone. mr. secretary of state. i would like to thank you for your commitment, for your solidarity, and also for your personal leadership.

and also for your commitment to democratic, united, and european ukraine. it is my first visit. it is a pleasure to be here. and to discuss all issues of bilateral agenda. but first and foremost, their ongoing development in ukraine. i am glad we have the same regional development. and i feel a real commitment and a real solidarity here. we have, in ukraine, clear commitment to the settlement of

the situation, and the peace plan of the president of ukraine. give peace a chance. it includes three main dimensions. it is about the escalation, and that reaching a cease-fire. secondly, it is about humanitarian dimension. and restoring their infrastructure, disruptive on the ground.

of course, it is about political damage. what caps on what is critical -- bilateral cease-fire with the aim of restoring the territorial integrity of ukraine. of course, we need political progress. we need a breakthrough on hostages. we hope to release hostages as soon as possible. it is also the issue of human dignity. we need the osce observers to be present on the ground from the very first moment of cease-fire. the commitment to humanitarian cease-fire, with people wounded -- unilateral cease-fire was broken 100 times. now, it is about bilateral cease-fire. it is about a presence on the ground. it is also about closing down the border. it has also involves stopping the influence of money, arms, and heavy weaponry across the border, because it is a critical condition for region stability.

of course, it is also about humanitarian dimensions. it is about restoration of all disruptive infrastructure, because we have been trying to restore disrupted electricity, water supply, gas supply. we have been trying to bring normal life back to the people. and i am particularly grateful to the secretary of state, to the united states for urgent help, for urgent assistance to

the people, which should be aimed at restoring infrastructure. i believe it was symbolic, but also extremely important. and of course, it is about political process. it is about settlement. and we are ready to give more power to the communities, to the district's, to the regions. it is about giving people more freedom, but also more responsibility, political responsibility and economic responsibility. and it is about not playing up any sort of issues, like using the russian language.

it would be up to every community to decide what language should be spoken. it is about clear ideas. how we can visit dash cam de-escalate the situation on the ground. because we are ready for local actions. we are ready that the real representative, real representative since don't ask -- the real representatives should take responsibility of the situation on the board -- on the ground, on de-escalation, on social and economic development. and in this, we feel solidarity with the united states. and we also have clear and targeted assistance. under difficult conditions on the ground, we have been working round the clock on securing access to the crash site. we have been working on ensuring the possibility for fully transparent and effective

investigation of the tragedy with the plane of malaysian airlines. and of course, for us, it is about human dignity. it is about the possibility of recovering all bodies and body fragments from the crash site. it is about giving back to the friends and loved ones any sort of personal belongings. it is not just a priority. it is an absolute priority for ukraine at the moment. we feel continuous support by

the united states. of course, we have touched upon also a number of issues on our bilateral agenda. and we will be working on that extremely closely. i used the chance to invite the secretary of state to visit kiev and to chair the next meeting of our strategic partnership commission, where we are able to discuss all the issues of bilateral interest, and all the issues of bilateral agenda. >> the first question will be from andrea mitchell of nbc news. >> i want to ask you about ukraine and the sanctions on vladimir putin. first, let me ask you about the sanction in the middle east.

2 u n officials have been reported killed in gaza. israel has hit the electric utility, the only source of electricity for much of the strip. and the israeli media has unleashed a fierce attack on you personally, from the left and the right, unprecedented in hardly any of our experience. there is a quote of a senior official saying that your diplomacy has been "a strategic terrorist attack on israel." others say that if there is an escalation, you are responsible for the unceasing bloodshed. there is also a report of a new palestinian initiative from the palestinian authority, perhaps with hamas joining in. there is a report that you have launched a new initiative as well. if you could clear some of this up, is it hurting your ability to be a mediator here, with these israeli officials attacking you so vociferously?

and is there a way out through some new cease-fire that the palestinians may be promoting today? on ukraine, you said that vladimir putin has a choice now. does he still have a choice? we were told the united states was going to be imposing sanctions today. are you giving him yet another chance to prove himself, after everything that has happened? or are these sanctions going to finally be implemented? could you respond to credible reports from the region? we are told government forces have fired back at russian forces who have fired across the border. thank you for taking all of this. >> ready to take the second part

first, and then back to your first question. with respect to ukraine, we are in the process of preparing additional sanctions for europe. that is accurate. what will happen will happen. of course, president putin still has a choice going forward. with respect to his ability to be able to have an impact on the separatists. that is a choice that will be there tomorrow, the next day, and in the weeks ahead in order to resolve this. separate the two. europe is working on the sanctions. we are working with them. we anticipate those additional sanctions. forth with. the point i am making is that in the long road ahead to resolve the kinds of issues -- the gas has been cut off to ukraine. to resolve the movement and flow

of weapons and people across the border. the issue of firing from russia into ukraine -- all of these issues, whatever happens with sanctions today or tomorrow, those issues remain, and they are remaining to be the choices that president putin has to make. we talk today about a political road ahead, the ways in which ukraine could contribute to an effort to try to make it clear to president putin that the agreements originally arrived at in geneva about the political process are indeed being fully implemented. and russia has raised, on a number of occasions, significant questions about whether or not that road has been sufficiently explored. i think the foreign minister and i agreed that there is more we think can be done there. and we are going to talk about it in the days ahead. on the subject of israel, i have talked to prime minister

netanyahu 4 times a day in the last days. last night, we talked, and the prime minister talked to me about an idea and the possibility of a cease-fire. he raised it with me, as he has consistently. he has consistently said that he would embrace a cease-fire that permits israel to protect itself against the tunnels, and obviously not be disadvantaged for the great sacrifice they have made in order to be able to protect themselves just far. the bottom line is that we are working very carefully and i think thoughtfully with our israeli friends, in order to be able to find a way to reduce the civilian loss of life, to prevent this from spiraling downward into a place from which

-- you know, both sides have difficulty finding a way forward, in order to address the underlying kinds of issues. obviously, no one -- no one in the united states, no one i know in the world condones the idea that israel ought to be somehow subject to attack from these tunnels. we have supported, from day one, israel's writer defend itself, right to take action, right to live free from rockets and from tunnels that threaten it. but all we have suggested and that president obama has had several conversations with the prime minister about is the need to try to find, if you can resolve any of those issues through a legitimate negotiation, and ultimately with less loss of life everywhere. i have taken hits before in

politics. i am not worried about that. this is not about me. this is about israel, and israel's right to defend itself, and our strong support for israel's right to defend itself, but about whether or not there is a way forward that can avoid the loss of soldiers from israel and the loss of civilians everywhere. what we put on the table, in fact, allowed israel -- let me make this clear -- allowed israel to continue to deal with its tunnels, even as they were in a short-term cease-fire to try to see if there was a way to reach a sustainable cease-fire. the u.n. has called for this. the international community has called for this. prime minister netanyahu himself has said that he is prepared to embrace it, providing it does not prejudice israel in its way

of protecting itself. and we have made certain that we guarantee that it does not. let me just finish quickly. the fact is that because of our efforts we were able to get a short-term 12 hour cease-fire, which then was expanded to 24. because of confusion over the 12 hours, it did not hold. that does not mean that the right approach is not to try to have an appropriate way to come to the table in order to see if a negotiation to take place. let me emphasize, israel itself accepted a cease-fire under the egyptian formula with no preconditions, cessation of hostilities, negotiations to take place in cairo. that is exactly what we have been talking about. no variation. no deviation.

we have been in touch with the egyptians. we have honored the egyptian concept. if there is a negotiation, it would be in cairo. it would be entirely without preconditions. it would not prejudice israel's ability to defend itself. i think there is a little bit of energy being expended unnecessarily. i do think we will continue to work with our very close friend and ally. i am not going to worry about personal attacks. i think that president obama has it right, and the international community has a right. we say it is more appropriate to try to resolve the underlying issues at the negotiating table then to continue a tit-for-tat of violence that will invite more violence and perhaps a greater downward spiral, which would be much more difficult to recover from. >> do you think it is still possible to get a cease-fire? -depends entirely on the parties at this point.

i mean, we -- we are trying to, very carefully, without, as i said, diminishing israel's legitimate right to defend itself against tunnels and rockets, but to find a way to see if we can spare the people of israel as well as palestinians the possibilities of, at any moment, something going currently wrong when one of those rockets hits a major school in israel or a major population center, lots of people dying. the effort is to find whether or not -- i cannot vouch for it. president obama cannot vouch for it. but we know that we owe it to everybody to see if you can find that way. if, after you get to a table, it proves that there is absolutely left and to honor basic defensive needs of israel, to

deal with the rockets, to deal with the tunnels, to deal with other things, then at least you know you have made that effort to try to find a legitimate way forward. that is our job, to try to do that. and we think we are doing it in a way that completely reinforces israel's rights. i have spent 29 years in the united states senate. i have a 100% voting record pro-israel. and i will not take a second seat to anybody in my friendship or my devotion to the protection of the state of israel. but i also believe, as somebody who has been to war, that it is better to try to find a way, if you can, to solve these problems before you get dragged into something that you cannot stop. it seems to me that this is a reasonable effort, fully protecting israel's writes and interests, and prime minister netanyahu himself sent to me,

can you try to get a humanitarian cease-fire for this time? and if it were not for his commitment to it, obviously, the president of the united states and i would not be trying to make this effort. either i take his commitment at face value, or someone is playing a different game, and i hope that is not the fact. >> on this report, i have such a record of cases of showing, not just artillery fire, but also rocket propelled grenade fire from the russian territory, or cases of russian helicopters intruding into ukrainian airspace. but we never, never fight back. not to provoke the situation, but first and foremost because we are fully committed to international law.

we have our legal and political commitment. and in the sense of united nations, firing from another state consists of an act of aggression. we are fully committed to international law. we never fired back. and there were also many cases when the terrorists tried to position themselves exactly near the border, and fire and ukrainian forces. we also exercised extreme restraint, trying not to fight her, not to provoke the situation, and not to break our obligation under international law.

so all reports on us firing back into russian territory are not true. >> the final question will be from (202) 737-0001 -- our our final question will be from [indiscernible] mr. secretary, what is the united states going to do if russia invades ukraine? should we collect what was the first part? >> what is the united states going to do if russia invades ukraine? >> the president has made it clear that there are many different options. but that would be taken,

needless to say, as not just a violation of all notions of international law, but an exceedingly dangerous action which would wind up with the most severe possible kinds of isolation and sanctions possible, and germany, france, other countries in europe would clearly join into that. there would be a profound impact on the russian economy. i believe that president putin understands that, that the risks are enormous. i think that alliances -- it depends whether you are talking in legal terms or in other terms. we are a partner. we are a strategic ally now.

and we are working very closely, already providing advice and materials to ukraine, as well as other countries doing the same thing. and we are working very, very hard to see if we cannot find the political key to be able to provide redress for the grievances that president putin keeps talking about through the political process, in a way that will recognize that russia has a legitimate interest, which even ukraine has acknowledged. interests about ethnic connection, historic connection, about the religious and historical foundations of russia, all of which can be traced back to kiev and many battlefields in ukraine and so forth.

all of that is understood. what ukraine is looking for is a respect for its sovereignty, and hopefully the political process that is unfolding now will address the concerns in a way that will strengthen that sovereignty, and address the president putin has expressed. europeans who have signed and association agreement are firmly committed to the sovereignty and independence and stability of ukraine, and we will continue to do the things we're doing, in furtherance of that policy. >> thank you, everyone. >> thank you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the house of representatives

on wednesday will consider a republican-sponsored resolution authoring -- authorizing a lawsuit against president obama. we spoke with a reporter covering the issue. >> the house debates a lawsuit against president obama. we are joined by mike liles of "the hill." why does speaker boehner one to soothe the president? >> this plays into the republican narrative we heard for three years, ever since obama has taken the white house, that he has abused his executive authority, that he has stepped out of bounds of the constitution, and boehner said, we have had enough. we are going to sue him. they are pointing to a provision

of obamacare, the health care law the democrats passed without any republican support. and they are saying that a certain delay in one of those provisions is outside of the law. congress did not approve it. we are suing you because of it. >> what does this resolution do? say it passes the house. what does it mean? >> it authorizes the actual chamber to sue the white house. the debate over the one facet of this debate is whether or not they even have standing to do so. a lot of legal scholars say they do not. others say they do. this is going to be tied up in the courts for a long time. you are not going to see any decisions based on this suit pre-election. but just the fact they are going through these motions, certainly, it is red meat to republicans, and democrats have been fundraising on it as well. it is political fodder for both sides, and certainly an exciting debate for us. >> the speaker tweeted, we will debate and pass the resolution.

what has the response been by the white house and by democrats generally? >> predictably, they say the republicans do not have standing. they say this is another instance of republicans focusing on undermining a president they simply do not like, rather than doing other business, rather than focusing on the economy and other issues people care about more. again, this plays into the republican narrative that obama has exceeded his executive authority, and that is going to rally the republican base. the democrats have the flip side, and that is going to rally their base. they are fundraising on it. how is this going to affect independents? we will not know until after the election. >> this is a house resolution, so the senate gets no say in it. after the republican conference a day, speaker boehner met with a number of reporters and "the

hill" headline sums it up. impeachment is a democratic scam. he said it is all a scam started by democrats at the white house. how did this grow out -- this comment come out of this talk about the lawsuit? >> another interesting facet of all this. huge disagreement. you will be shocked to hear there is a partisan disagreement over where the debate began. dan pfeiffer was at a "christian science monitor" breakfast on friday, and mentions the lawsuit is a first step toward impeachment. this did not come from nowhere. sarah palin, former representative allen west of florida -- these guys have been pushing an impeachment resolution for a long time. republican leaders have not yet gotten on board. there is a distinction between some of these tea party conservatives, in and out of congress, and the leadership.

when boehner says he is not going to do it, he is pushing back on some of the sarah palin types, who have been pushing to impeach obama for quite some time. >> there have been news reports to indicate the talk about impeachment has driven fundraising for the democrats. >> it certainly has. they're fundraising kick began last thursday, when the rules committee passed the lawsuit resolution. when pfeiffer mentioned the impeachment thing, they jumped on board with the impeachment thing. you have seen e-mail blasts. i forget the last count. probably approaching $.20 thursday, mentioning the lawsuit, asking for money from democrats. they have raised over $2 million in a matter of days. the greatest four-day haul in this election cycle. it is working for the democrats. they are still beating the drum. >> can the same be said for republican candidates? is it working as a fundraising tool? >> i have not seen direct evidence. you can imagine it would be.

in a lot of conservative districts, they agree with boehner and the republicans that obama has exceeded his executive authority, and they will jump on board. they want to see boehner suing the president over what they feel is executive overreach. >> read more at thehill.com. thank you for the update. congress heardhe from minors from central america. this part of the hearing is one hour. rex thank you for being here today. the is an ad hoc hearing by congressional or aggressive caucus. before introduce the conveners of the adcongressional or aggree caucus.

before introduce the conveners of the ad hoc hearing it comes at a very important time. we are waiting for later policy who will make a statement. ellison, who was the have an ad hoc hearing. and yvette clarke will be here c hearing. . those are the people who signed the letter to put this together and invited other members create we have other members that are well. they will have an opportunity to introduce themselves as we go forward. today given everything that is with the refugee issue with the children in this country, the machinations that congress is going to trying to put together a package, we just saw -- heard about the latest example from our colleagues as to what their package is in the

house. the senate has a package, we felt it was important not to be dealing with the subject in a detached way. and washingtonss dc get a direct look and a profound listening of the young people that are with us today and their families. also, from a panel of experts on addressing this humanitarian crisis. that will be the second panel. today's hearing is about listening to the young people. i think we are missing as a congress the point of this issue. we are talking about children. we are talking primarily about their fleeing violence and for their own safety and lives.

we are missing the point that as a nation we are the embodiment of those values of that protect the weaker. the values that protect the people fleeing persecution and prosecution unjustly. today, we are going to hear from those young people that did just that. when people come up with laws and try to do with the supplemental package, we hope they do that in the context of human beings and children. regrettably, these migrant kids that are coming to this country are being blamed for everything right now dealing with the border, dealing with immigration reform and why we do not have it. they are to blame for the reason we need to get rid of it. they are to blame for having more troops on the border.

they are blamed for every disease on the face of the earth. they are to blame for the division that is been racking this nation for two decades regarding the issue of immigration. i think that is a lot to put on their little shoulders. it is time the congress assumed the responsibility for this impasse we have an immigration reform. assume the responsibility that these laws are in place to protect people. quit demonizing and blaming children when sometimes it is important for all of us to look ourselves in the mirror and come to the conclusion that we are not doing our part as a congress. mirror and come to the conclusion that we are not doing our part as a congress. welcomed thet me young people and turn it over to ms. chu. she was instrumental -- she said we needed to have a hearing of this kind where we have real people talk about this issue.

that me turn it over to her for any opening comments. ms. chu. >> thank you, mr. chair. to thenever forget going texas border station two weeks ago and seeing all the children sleepingtention cells on the cold, hard floor. that is what drove me to suggest this hearing. fornt to thank you arranging for this congressional progressive caucus to sponsor this. it is so important to hear first-hand from the children who are testifying here today. they are here about why they drove their homes and why they are seeking protection in our country. it is up to us to find a responsible and moral solution to address this two minutes. crisis and do what is best for each and every child coming to our border. our first priority needs to be protecting those with legitimate claims of persecution and preserving the protection our current laws provide.

today, we remember that we are dealing with real people, young people who have witnessed unimaginable violence and tragedy. we cannot cover our ears. it is time to put politics aside and put these kids first. the answer cannot be legislative existing protections and risk putting them back into deadly violence. we need an effective response that put their interests first and we need it now. i want to thank our very brave witnesses to up come forward to share their personal stories today. >> thank you very much, representative chu. i want to would knowledge -- acknowledge the members that are here today. lee is with us.

direction, mr. o'rourke. ms. newton. ms. jackson lee. mr. lowenthal. thesenyers and individuals have taken time and are here with us today. we are very appreciative. -- as people arrive, we will turn to them for them to -- if they have any questions for the witnesses or reaction to the testimony. with that, let me welcome you. brave, these three fine, courageous young people that are here with us today. dulce.begin with

she is 15 years old and from one of allah -- from guatemala. she lives with her younger sisters, her mom, and stepdad. she groped without her parents. her father died when she was two years old and her mother traveled to the united states when she was young because she cannot support her two daughters as a single mom in guatemala. almost sexually abused by a man working on her uncle's house. when she was told what happened, she immediately left the u.s. to bring her daughters the safety. dulce also witnessed attempted murder of a woman who sold food door to door in her street. she was shot by a man right outside of her home. she saw the woman was badly hurt and fled into her house so she could not also be harmed. residentw a permanent of the united states because of the family court judge in new

not ino declared it was her best interest to be sent to guatemala and she could not be reunified with her father under new york state law. here to joine is us today. that me turn it over to her and her representative to begin discussion. spanish]

dulce, if you would start please. you need to push -- can you push the button? yeah. >> hello. my name is dulce. i am 15 years old and i am from guatemala. i am in the 10th grade in long island, new york. i live with my mom, stepdad, and two little sisters who are five

and 10 years old. i have had a green card since november of last year because a judge in new york said i was a special immigrant. i am grateful for the chance to speak to you today to tell you my story. i hope my story can make you see why it is so important to help protect the many children who are running away from home like i did in their home countries of central america. in 2009 when i was 10, i fled guatemala with my sister to get away from the person who tried to army. harm me. it was difficult living there because i grew up without my mother who left when i was five years old to give us a better life. my father died when i was just two years old. my mom could not support us by herself. i grew up in one of mama with my aunts and uncles.

it was difficult living there because there was lots of violence. i had to walk 30 minutes to get to school. on the way to school, i saw people fighting a lot. school.ngs anin i was scared to walk to school everyday. the worst thing that happened to me was before i came to united states. cousin and i woke up in the morning inserted working -- walking to school. one of my uncles was building a house. we had to cross through the construction site. when we were walking through the house, a worker asked us to come help him with something. when we got close to him, he forces inside the room and closed the door. we asked him what he wanted and he said nothing and try to take our clothes off. we were able to run away from them.