make the area reasonably safe for settlement from indian raids but when they -- the texas war for independence broke out, the rangers played a major role in texas gaining its independence by saving -- stavegging off the mexican army long enough to allow the collin nistses to blir as a result, texas became its own independent nation for about 10 years. >> watch all of our events on saturday at noon eastern on c-span's book tv. coming up tonight on c-span, homeland security secretary jeh johnson on the president's immigration order. then, a look at the 2015 congressional agenda. senator rob portman and congressman hollen. after that, which mcconnell discusses his priorities in the

congress. that is followed by paul ryan on u.s. tax policy. he is the incoming chair of the tax committee. the washington post reported today that president obama will nominate ashton carter to be the next secretary of defense, succeeding chuck hagel. mr. ashton carter is a trained as a deputyo served secretary of defense from october, 2011 to december, 2013. the announcement could come as early as this week. jeh johnson reportedly removed himself from consideration for the defense position. secretary johnson testified today about president obama's immigration order that would delay the deportation of undocumented workers with citizen children who have been in the u.s. for more than five years.

hours.mittee is two [gavel] >> the committee on homeland security will come to order. the committee's meeting today to hear testimony from secretary jeh johnson on the administration's recent executive actions to grant temporary relief to millions of unlawful immigrants and the effect such actions will have on the security of our nation's borders. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. today we are here to talk about illegal immigration and the grave consequences of the administration's recent actions to bypass congress. immigration reform is an emotional and divisive issue. there's no doubt about that. but the president's unilateral actions to bypass congress undermine the constitution and threaten our democracy. let me be clear -- our immigration system is broken and we need to fix it. america has always stood proudly as a beacon for hope for

millions who are seeking a better life. and we should work hard to keep it that way. but regardless of where you stand on this issue, there's a right way to do this, and there's a wrong way. and, unfortunately, the president has taken the wrong way. in addition, the president has risked breaking something much more fundamental, and that is our democratic process. we are a nation of laws, yet this unprecedented executive power grab undermines the principle that the people, not just one man, should be the ultimate decision makers in our country's most important political matters. this action also has poisoned the well here in washington at a time when americans desperately want their government to work together. we are facing crucial challenges that require congress and the white house to cooperate, from combating overseas threats to

driving economic growth. but making an end around congress, the president has deliberately and willfully broken the trust that is needed between our branches of government. the president knows the damage of these actions. in fact, he has said over 20 times in his presidency that he did not have the authority to take executive action on immigration, and that this is "not how democracy works." he also said doing so would lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. he was right. and it will. history has proven that amnesty perpetuates a cycle of illegal entry into this country. this was true in the 1980s, and it has proven true under this administration's abuse of prosecutorial discretion. a power to decide when to prosecute law breakers and when

not to, a power which should be used narrowly and carefully. this administration has done the opposite. they've taken a sweeping approach to prosecutorial discretion that makes a mockery of the law. the consequences are very real. this summer the administration's refusal to enforce our immigration laws enticed at least 60,000 unaccompanied children to make the perilous journey to our borders. many traveled to the united states under misinformation regarding the administration's granting of permissions. we can expect many, many more to do the same because of the president's recent actions. the lax interior enforcement policies adopted by this administration, coupled with even the perception of amnesty, become a powerful magnet that encourages more illegal immigration. we essentially tell citizens of

other countries, if you come here you can stay. don't worry, we won't deport you. the reality on the ground is that unless you commit multiple crimes, the chances of you being removed from this country are close to zero. this year, the u.s. border patrol apprehended almost 500,000 individuals along our southern border, but less than half were deported. those who remained were given notices to appear before an immigration judge with a court date years away and released into the country. we know that the majority will never check back in with the authorities. if we don't think that message is making its way back to mexico and central america, we are simply fooling ourselves. we will see a wave of illegal immigration because of the president's actions. at its core, the president's u.n.'s amnesnilateral plan is deeply unfair to the millions waiting in line to become a part

of our great nation and it demonstrates reckless regard for america's security. we have a formal immigration process for a reason -- to promote fairness in allowing people to enter the united states and to keep those who will seek to do us harm outside of our borders. sadly, the department of homeland security is unprepared to handle the coming surge that the president's policies will incite. border patrol's resources are restrained as immigrants pour across the border making it difficult to identify smugglers, criminals, and potential terrorists. we need to reform our immigration laws but we need to do it the right way. that means starting the process in the law making branch of our government. congress will address immigration reform. but we need to do so in an intelligent way and in keeping with the wishes of the american

people. the majority of americans do not agree with the president's executive actions. they want congress to find a solution, one that begins with securing our borders. i look forward to hearing from the secretary and i hope that he will address the serious concerns congress and the american people have about the president's decision. we cannot turn a blind eye to the real threats which these actions will bring to our country's doorstep. with that, the chair now recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding today's hearing. i'd like to thank secretary johnson for making the time to be here to discuss recently announced executive actions on immigration and border security, as well as your fifth appearance before this committee in your short 12-month period shows that you are accessible and i

appreciate it. since 1956, presidents have granted temporary immigration relief to imedpacted individuals on 39 separate occasions. therefore, it would seem changes outlined by president obama on november 20 are not outside the bounds of presidential authority as provided under our constitution. approximately 11 million undocumented individuals are forced to hide in the shadows even as they live and work in plain sight in communities big and small across our nation. time and again, the house republican leadership has been unwilling to act to fix our broken immigration system. in the face of this crisis and absence of congressional action, the president acted in a measured way that is likely to improve both our nation's security and economy.

specifically the president announced an establishment of the deferred action for parental accountability program which delays deportation for immigrants who have lived illegally in the united states for more than five years but have children who are citizens or have green cards. contrary to messaging from those who disagree with the president and many of his policies unrelated to immigration. this deferred action does not provide relief to recent border crossers. if the applicant can pass a criminal background check and pay a fee, he or she could qualify for work permit and avoid deportation for three years at a time. approximately 4 million immigrants are expected to qualify for this temporary relief. this provides our deferred enforcement in order to keep families intact in light of congressional failure to provide such relief is not novel. the family fairness program

implemented by president reagan and expanded by president george h.w. bush provided the enforcement for close family members of individuals legalized by the immigration reform and control act. president obama's directive rightly prioritizes the removal of undocumented individuals who have committed serious crimes, thus enhancing the safety of our communities. i'm troubled by the extreme criticism and disdain that this temporary limited set off action has received by some in congress. the concept of families with working parents and children who attend school is consistent with the values we all hold. now with the president's announcement, this value or fabric of america is now being called renegade and a basis for more illegal action. a fair criticism may be that vulnerable people in violence-ridden communities in central america will be misled

by enterprising coyotes and smugglers about the scope of individuals covered by the president's action. i look forward to hearing from secretary johnson about planning efforts that will be rolled out in anticipation of such misinformation. we all know that recent border crossers would not be covered, even if there is an upsurge based on information, congress has made significant investment in personnel and equipment at the southern border that should ensure that dhs is able to effectively respond to any continue creases in attempted border crossings. let me be clear. the president's executive actions are a good start. however, there are still many people whom i believe deserve such consideration but are left out. specifically, i would point to agricultural workers. the president's executive action does not provide specific relief

to an estimated quarter million of those workers that might be eligible for some type of deferred action. more remains to be done to address these labor needs for america's farmers. where executive action remains solid, there is an opportunity for congress to legislate. let me close with two thoughts. to those who have said the president's actions do not represent the will of the american people, i say you need to listen better. americans, by wide margins, believe our immigration system can be fixed in a fair and humane way that does not jeopardize our security. second, to those in congress who have embraced the idea of putting the department of homeland security in budgetary limbo while every other fellow agency is funded for fiscal year 2015, i say you should really think about the message that sends about congress' commitment to homeland security. in closing, it's my hope that

congress will use this action as a starting point to legislate permanent fixes to our nation's immigration system and further improve our border security. mr. chairman, i am willing to work with you throughout the remainder of this congress and the next congress to make these legislative changes happen. and i yield back. >> i thank the ranking member. we are pleased here to today secretary jeh johnson back to the committee. as always, we may not agree on all the issues, but we do so with civility. and mr. johnson, as many of you know, has a distinguished record, both at the department of defense and at the department of justice. and we appreciate your service for the department of homeland security. and with that, you are recognized for an opening statement. >> thank you, chairman mccall, ranking member thompson, committee members here. let me begin by saying in the same vein as the chairman's

remarks, we won't always agree, we have not always agreed, but i do appreciate the friendship and the collegiality that we enjoy between individual members of this committee and their staffs and me and my staff. this is the 12th time i've testified before congress in 11 months. fifth time before this committee. i feel like i know a number of you well. on november 20, the president announced a series of executive actions to begin to fix our immigration system. the president views these actions as a first step toward reform of the system and continues to count on congress for the more comprehensive reform that only ledgegislative changes can provide. the actions we took will begin to fix the system in a number of respects. to promote border security for

the future, and to send a strong message that our borders are not open to illegal migration, we prioritize the removal of those apprehended at the border and those who came here illegally after january 1, 2014, regardless of where they are apprehended. we also announced the next steps to strengthen our border security efforts as part of our southern border campaign strategy which i first announced earlier this year. to promote public safety, we made clear that those convicted of crimes, criminal street gang members and national security threats, are also priorities for removal. to promote accountability, we encourage those undocumented immigrants who have been here for at least five years, have sons or daughters who are citizens or lawful permanent residents, and do not fall in to one of our enforcement priorities to come out of the shadows, get on the books, and pass national security and

criminal background checks. after clearing all their background checks, these individuals are eligible for work authorization will be able to pay taxes and contribute more fully to our economy. the reality is that given our limited resources, these people are not, and have not been for years, priorities for removal. it's time reaction knowledge that and encourage them to be held accountable. this is simple common sense. to rebuild trust with state and local law enforcement, which are no longer honoring i.c.e. detainers, we are ending the controversial secure communities program as we know it and making a fresh start with a new program that fixes existing problems. to promote u.s. citizen slp we will enable application to pay the 680 naturalization application fee by credit card around expand citizenship public awareness.

to promote the u.s. economy, we will take administrative actions to better enable u.s. businesses to hire and retain qualified, highly skilled foreign-born workers. the reality is that for decades, presidents have used executive authority to enhance immigration policy. president obama views these actions as a first step toward the reform of the system and continues to count on congress for the more comprehensive reform that only changes in law can provide. i'd like to add to that, i, too, would welcome the opportunity to work with members of this committee on comprehensive immigration reform legislation. i recommended to the president each of the homeland security reforms to the immigration system that he has decided to pursue. these recommendations were the result of extended and candid consultations i had with the leadership of immigration and customs enforcement, customs and

border protection, and u.s. citizenship and immigration services. along the way i also spoke with members of the workforce who implement and enforce the law to hear their views. in my own view, any significant change in policy requires close consultation with throws who administer the system. we also consulted a wide range of stakeholders, including business and labor leaders, law enforcement officers, religious leaders, and members of congress from passed legislation that the presidents were implementing, a very strong distinction from the case that we have today. thank you for your attention to these remarks and i look forward to your questions. the chairman recognizes

himself or questions. i would have to and go -- there is a right way to do this and a wrong way. obviously i disagree with the president's approach in this case. presidents reagan and bush worked with congress. congress passed legislation the presidents were implementing, a very strong distinction have from today. my question -- i have several questions. one first is, the president said over 20 times that he did not have the legal authority to do this, to take this executive action, and that this is not how democracy works. do you agree with that prior statement? >> chairman, i know from 30 years as a lawyer that when someone paraphrases remarks from somebody, i want to see the full q&a. i want to see the full context to know exactly what the person said. i've looked at various excerpts

of remarks by the president concerning his legal authority to act. i do not believe that what we have done is inconsistent with that. in fact, we spent a lot of time with lawyers and we spent a lot of time with doj's office of legal counsel. they wrote what is, in my judgment, a very thoughtful 30-page public opinion on the available legal authority to act to fix -- >> there is no -- i have no doubt about your actions after the election on this issue. but i will say, i will be happy to provide you with the written statements that i have personally read to your office. it is confusing and it poses a bit of hypocrisy i think to the american people, because after the election he reversed his course. after the election now he says that he does have the legal authority to move forward. who should we believe -- the president before the election

who said he didn't have legal authority to take this action, or the president after the election who says that he does have the authority to take this executive action. >> congressman, what i know is we spent months developing these reforms and we spent a lot of time with lawyers, very close consultation with lawyers. there were some things that they told us they thought we did not have the legal authority to do and are reflected in the olc opinion, and this were things they told us very clearly that we did have the legal authority to do. the analysis was very thoughtful, very time consuming, and very extensive. and i'm satisfied as a lawyer myself and the person who lass to come here and defend these actions that what we have done is well within our existing legal authority. >> i have no doubt with respect to your integrity. but i think the timing of these statements makes it look more political to me, that this is a political decision rather than a

policy decision. i know you've run this through all the legal traps. but i think that is what we're concerned about are these prior statements that he didn't have legal authority, and now he does. so perhaps he wasn't following the correct legal advice at one juncture or the other. did he get the right political -- or legal advice before the election or -- because he has changed his tune on this. and i think that's what's so confusing to members of congress and the american people about the authenticity of this president's decision. >> well, you refer to timing. i originally received an assignment to look at our authority to take executive action in the spring. we began to develop reforms in the spring. we were urged by many in congress to wait, so we waited until the summer. we got to the summer. we were urged then to wait until

late summer, which we did. once we knew the speaker was not going to be able to marshal the votes in the house of representatives for reform, we decided we were going to act in late summer. then we were urged to wait until after the mid-terms which we've done. so we've waited a considerable amount of time, more than -- >> my time is limited. i know you have, but it has under undermined our principles in dempsey. he also stated earlier this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. do you agree with that statement by the president? >> no. in fact, we prioritize recent illegal migrants. we prioritize those who came here illegally afternoon january 1, 2014. and i intend to highlight that fact wherever i go. in fact, i'm going to our new detention facility in texas week after next to highlight the fact

that we've expanded our detention capability and recent arrivals illegally are priorities for removal. and i intend to go to the country of mexico to work with them on their own interdiction efforts. so wherever i go, i intend to highlight the fact that these new reforms prioritize recent illegal entrance. >> again, i just look at history. in 1986, the amnesty law was passed. and it led to a wave of illegal immigration. i look at today. i had 60,000 children unaccompanied crossing my border in texas through the rio grande valley sector. as a result of daka, you can't deny that the traffickers are going to message this, now this executive action and sproitexploit it. i've had high level people in the state department tell me this, they're worried about this being taken down to the central america countries and exploited

and we're going to see a surge and a wave of illegal immigrations. i'm telling you, it is going to happen and this department needs to be ready for that to protect the nation from it, because it's coming in my judgment. there is no question about it. the last question is on fraud. 20% of daca applications denied at fraudulent. we saw after 1996 with being the 1993 world trade center bomber, one of them, had fraudulent documentations exploiting the 1986 amnesty law. what are you going to do to verify that these people are not fraudulently entering the country without posing security threat to the country? >> that is something i, too, am concerned about. fraudulent applications have the potential to undermine the whole process. so in the implementation, in the

planning for the implementation, i want to be sure that we take a hard look at best practices to avoid fraudulent applications, fraudulent misuse of the program. that's a priority of mine. >> well, we look forward to working with you on that. with that, i know that the chair recognizes the ranking member for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, there are striking similarities between president obama's executive action and those similar actions taken by president reagan and president george h.w. bush on addressing this problem. your statements to this committee is that the department of justice has provided authority by which the president is acting.

are you comfortable with that or did you participate after the issuance of that authority in the development of a recommendation to the president? >> yes, sir. let me add this. whenever i assess a legal question, both as a lawyer for the department of defense, and now as a cabinet secretary, and the viability of a legal issue, i welcome a thorough opinion like the one we have from olc. but i also ask myself, could i defend that action before a committee of congress if called upon to do so. and i'm fully comfortable that we have the legal authority to push forward these reforms in particular, specifically with regard to deferred action, that is an authority that presidents have used for decades, as you have pointed out, in various

different forms. that's noted in the olc opinion. so i'm fully comfortable that deferred action is an inherent executive branch tlortauthority that can and should be used from time to time. and we've done so here. >> what i'd like to add to that, from those other actions, congress had not moved forward and that was why president reagan and george h.w. bush did pursue the executive order route, because of the inaction of congress. and so while there are differences of opinion, i want that has a question that we have not done our job as members of congress and the problem gets worse. those 11 million people who are here, we have to address. another issue that i'm concerned about, mr. secretary, the department's unity of effort.

how will the southern border campaign address challenges around that. >> the southern border campaign strategy that we've developing is an initiative to bring to bear all of the department's resources in a particular region of the country on border security. we are, in my judgment, too stovepiped in that approach. cbp, fema, coast guard, we are too stovepiped. we need to bring a more strategy approach to it so what we are doing is creating two task forces. joint task force west and joint task force east to focus on border security in the southeast and in the southwest. i expect to announce the new leaders of those task forces

very soon. and we're developing a timeline for getting this done. i issued as part of these various directives here a directive devoted toward the southern border campaign strategy and set forth here what the goals and lines of effort are to be. as you know, i think we've received a lot of bipartisan support from this effort and i intend to move forward with it. >> the comment has been made about number of undocumented children coming in recent years. your department requested supplemental funding to address the needs to work with that. congress did not give you the money. can you continue to maintain the

level of support to address that issue if congress continues to refuse to give you the money necessary to do that job? >> it will be very difficult. we have as part of our fy-15 budget request a request for an additional $750 million. most of that will go to expanded detention capability and resources. we set that up in response to the spike in illegal migration last summer and we want to maintain that and we want to add to it. and so i refer to the new detention facility in dilly, texas a moment ago. that is a capacity for up to 2,400 spaces. we need to pay for that. but, it is a vital aspect of our southern border security, in my view. and, frankly, i'm disappointed

that congress has not supported us in that vital border security effort. i hope that congress will act to fund that and to fund the expanded flights, the repatriation that we've developed since last summer. we need to pay for these things and i know every member of this committee wants to support an enhanced border security so i'm urging congress to act so we can pay for it. >> the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. >> mr. secretary, what do you project to be the number of people coming across the border illegally this year? >> the number of people crossing the border illegally this year? >> the total number this year. >> fy-14, i believe that total apprehensions which are an indication of attempts to cross the border illegally 479,000.

,>> how many people will succeed and entering without being apprehended? >> there is a calculation that is something in excess of that number. you add, as i'm sure you know, apprehensions plus turn-backs, plus what we call got-aways and you get an estimate for total illegal migration, i believe. but i'd be happy to provide this number to you, what our border patrol's best estimate is but i believe it is some percentage in excess of the 477,000, 479,000. >> that is what i heard. more than half a million people will succeed coming into the united states illegally this year. if you were to succeed in achieving your goal of operational control of the border, what would you like to get that number down to? from half a million to what? >> well, very clearly, sir, i'd

like to see that number come down. in fy-2000, we had 1.6 million -- >> right. if i may interrupt you for a minute, what are were your metrics in determining whether the border is secure or not? >> well, the border patrol has metrics. i've asked that they improve upon that. i recently issued a directive to better define our border metrics . that is a work in progress. >> so you don't have the metrics today to determine whether the border is secure. >> the border patrol does have metrics which i believe i've shared with various members of this committee. i've asked that they refine that and they're in the process of doing that. >> okay. so again, i don't think that we have the metrics we need to determine whether the border is secure or not. let me read a sentence from your -- page 3 of your statement today. " our executive actions emphasize that our border is not open to future illegal

immigration, that those who come here illegally will be sent back unless they qualify for some form of humanitarian relief under our laws." is it true, though, that the department of of homeland security is already releasing illegal immigrants from i.c.e. custody? >> i'm sorry, what was the last part of that question? >> is the department releasing illegal immigrants now from i.c.e. custody instead of sending them home? >> i believe that we have a number of those who are released on bond, if i understand your question, through. through a directive, i recently asked i.c.e. to have a higher level approval authority for when that happens. >> again, to put that in simple language, i.c.e. is releasing individuals who are in the country illegally which is contrary to your statement that they would be sent home. and it also seems to me contradicting your statement is the fact that very few

individuals who have entered the country illegally who have not, in your terms, committed other serious crimes are going to be sent home. it is going to be a very, very small fraction. it may be 1% or 2%. so i don't think your statement here is true to say that those who come here illegally will be sent back. it is a very small subset of those who come into the country illegally. >> well, let me say two things, sir. during the summer we dramatically reduced the repatriation time for adults from 33 down to four days. and we have built added detention space for family units which i'm hoping this congress will support. >> that's nice but that's not answering my question. once again, you are not going to be sending people back home just because they're in the country illegally and in fact i think you've just admitted i.c.e. is already releasing individuals who could be returned home but are not being returned home. furthermore, i think you're also releasing individuals who have been convicted of crimes in the

united states and putting them back out on our streets and in our communities. do you want to estimate how many thousands of people are being released who are criminal aliens? the last several years i think it totals 30,000 people. do you have any idea what it might be this year? >> the issue of release of those convicted of crimes is one that i focused on for the last several months. so what i directed to i.c.e. is that there be a higher level approval authority for a circumstance when somebody with a criminal record is released from immigration detention on bond. i also directed that a release of somebody with a criminal record should not occur because of fiscal constraints. we will find a way to pay for that. >> i hope you can. because as i say, right now you are releasing criminal aliens, you are releasing individuals who should be sent home and i don't think that's the way our enforced.d be thank you, i yield back. >> ms. jackson lee.

>> mr. chairman and the ranking member let me thank you for this , hearing. this is the important work of the united states congress. it is unbiased fact finding. secretary, again, thank you for your service and the importance of your related service in the department of defense, and as well your knowledge and work with u.s. department of justice. i, frankly, believe that we can clarify the president's comments and he was in fact extremely consistent. and i have a series of questions. as i understand the executive order, it does not confer immigration status, nor does it confer a pathway to citizenship. is that correct? >> correct. >> and my interpretation of the president's remarks over the years has been his lack of authority to confer immigration status or citizenship. my interpretation, but i think it would be documented by his words, and you're telling us today that in the executive order, you nor the president has done that.

>> deferred action does not grant legal status in this country. >> or pathway to citizenship. >> or a green card or a pathway to citizenship. >> let me move on, mr. secretary, to put into the record these words. "a comprehensive approach to immigration reform is long overdue and i'm confident that the president, myself and others can find common ground to take care of this issue once and for all that" those were the words of speaker boehner, which i took literally in 2012. to date, this congress has not placed -- this house has not placed on the floor of the house one single immigration bill that responds to what i thought were welcoming words by the speaker. we have not had an up or down vote. and in this committee, which i want to congratulate, the clarm -- chairman and ranking member have worked in a bipartisan matter. my subcommittee chairwoman and myself have passed hr-1417, a border security legislative initiative and it has never seen

a day on the floor of the house to provide an up or down vote. my questions and concerns would be our interpretation. president reagan signed into law in 1986 a bill that many people tried to muffle their words but they used the word "amnesty." i'd make the argument that president reagan saw a humanitarian crisis and decided to act. in the phoenix case in 2012, justice roberts said that presidents, in addition to the executive order, have a right to humanitarian relief. so let me pursue. questioning regarding the daca and the issue that this may work to cause border crossers as a result of this announcement. could you just quickly point out the daca relief deals with existing persons here in the united states, and one other

aspect is to expand the time frame from two to three years. could you quickly answer that? why don't i just give you this other question so that we won't be delayed with respect to the other question. i always thought secure communities have had a legal and political issue. and you have streamlined secure communities. let me say that my law enforcement officers locally have said that it is problematic. so in your prioritization of terrorists and others you streamlined that. i would also like to indicate in your new facility that i'm very interested in in dilly, texas, that it will be accommodating and with the right kinds of resources for family and children. if you would answer those questions, mr. secretary. >> yes, ma'am. the current daca program is for those who have been here since july -- or june 2007 which is almost seven years -- over seven years. you have to have been here over

seven years, come here under age 16 and have to have been born after 1981. we advised the criteria that by rolling back the cut-off from 2007 to 2010 we removed the birthday limitation from post-1981 to any time. we've made the eligibility for the temporary period three years instead of two years. with regard to the dilly facility that we're opening up, i've sent my own staff -- my own lawyers down there to ensure that the conditions are adequate for family units and it is something that i'm committed to ensuring. >> and secure communities that you streamlined, which have really rounded up mothers and fathers and people who are no threat to the united states of america. >> i support the goal of secure communities. the goal of secure communities is to get at criminals so they can be put in removal facilities. >> absolutely.

>> the program, as you know, was becoming legally and politically controversial. mayors and governors signing laws and executive orders prohibiting their law enforcement from working with ours on this. and so i want a fresh start so that we can better enforce public safety and removing criminals. >> i thank you. mr. chairman, as i yield back, i just want to say that in an article in our local newspaper, a mother who had used a nanny for a number of years, who had been in this country for 13 years, dependent as many mothers across america are on child care in the house, she was celebrating, not politically, democrats, republicans, the opportunity for her nanny to become, in some way, status to stay in this country, and to do good work, and to protect her children. i yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. rogers from alabama.

>> thank you, chairman. thank you for your service and for being here. earlier this year you testified before this committee, and when we had a bunch of younger people coming across the border illegally. and during that hearing i asked you when we were talking about the reason why they wouldn't be removed within 24 hours like we do adult illegal aliens coming across the border and you made the point of saying statutorily the government's required to allow these children to go through -- or the younger people, to go through a hearing process, and that that had to be complied with. my request, my inquiry to you was, aren't these exigent circumstances? and you said yes. i said, well under those circumstances, can't the president write an executive order that would allow you to go ahead and remove those younger people like we do adults. and you said, the president doesn't have that authority to ignore a statute by executive order. isn't it true that our current statutory law requires that

these people that are covered covert under this executive order be removed from the country? >> i recall that exchange, and i recall that the particular words, extraordinary circumstances, or exigent circumstances, whatever was in the law, could not be read as broadly as to permit voluntary departure and basically obviate the entire statute. that was the reading of the statute that i had at the time. i do not believe, to the extent this is your question, that that is inconsistent with anything we've done and announced week before last. >> i disagree with you. the statute is very clear at present. that these illegals who are in this country are to be removed once they're located. my next question, you talked about how the people are going to be defined under this executive order by being here a certain number of years, or the

age or whatever. how do you determine that -- how they're presenting themselves is accurate? for example, if they say i've been here seven years. how do you get them to prove it? and how do you know that the way they prove it is valid? for example they say well i've been living at this address for the last seven years, and here's the power bill over that period of time. and the power bill is in another person's name. and they say but i rent from that person. and that person says oh, yeah, and it's a complete fabrication. how do you prove the residency is accurate when they present themselves to you? >> good question. and the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate that they've lived in this country continuously for the five-year period. so the onus is on the applicant to come forward with something that satisfies the immigration officer, the examining officer, that they have, in fact, lived in this country.

i do not believe that that will be as simple as, you know, take my word for it. there will have to be some sort of documented proof that will be developed in the implementation process by cis. >> i think you acknowledged from an earlier question, this is an area that is going to be wrought with fraud. all sorts of lies and exploitation are going to be driven to this point, and i think it's going to be impossible for y'all to be able to determine who, in fact, qualifies under this very broad and illegal executive order. may i ask this question. do you think that the people that are going to fall into this category are going to be able to draw medicare and social security? and other public benefits? >> people who qualify for deferred action are lawfully present, but they do not have a lawful status, like lawful permanent resident or citizen. one of the virtues, i think, of

accountability is you get people a work authorization, and then they pay taxes on the books. part of the taxes they will pay, as i understand it, would be a deduction for social security. >> so the answer is yes, they will be able to qualify -- >> not be eligible for public benefits of the type that most people would -- would receive. >> but medicare and social security, they would? >> you would generally, as i understand it, be eligible if you're around long enough to get back what you put in. what you invested originally. >> so the answer is yes. >> not the normal public benefits we would think of. >> well, participating in medicare and social security, both of which are struggling financially through solvency, to have this added burden, i think, is irresponsible. now, you made point about being given documentation for a work permit. is that accurate? this program will issue affirmatively document to an illegal saying they have a legal status of some sort? >> as a separate matter, those who apply for deferred action

can also applied for a work authorization, which is not a green card. it's a separate form of work authorization that the secretary of homeland security has the authority to provide. >> but it will be a legal status of some sort? >> they will be considered lawfully present in the country, just like the daca kids. >> do you know -- the department of homeland security to establish and carry out that program and for writing that documentation? how expensive will it be for you? >> well, the program will be fee driven. an applicant has to pay a fee. i believe that we're contemplating that the fee be $460 per applicant, which is what it is for daca. uscis is a fee-based organization. it pays for itself. >> great. thank you very much. i yield back. from. keating massachusetts. >> thank you for having the hearing. thank you, mr. secretary. the title of today's hearing is

open borders, the impact of presidential amnesty on border security. before this hearing gets too far , let me be direct. is this amnesty? >> no. no in my judgment. >> not legally -- is it even functionally amnesty? >> the current situation amounts to amnesty. we want people to be accountable, to come out of the shadows, get on the books, and pay taxes for the three-year period of deferred action. >> thank you mr. secretary. i have another question. does this represent a permanent solution this executive order, in your opinion? >> no. and let me say again, i would welcome the opportunity to work with the members of this committee who i know are interested in immigration reform on both sides of the aisle. unfortunately, since i've been in office, we have not had a willing partner in the house of representatives. but i continue to want to work

with members of this committee and members of the house, members of the congress, on a comprehensive immigration reform piece of legislation. because you're correct, this is not a permanent solution. but it is in our existing legal authority to issue, to fix the broken system, and we feel that we had no choice. >> secretary, general barry mccaffrey served as a witness during a border security hearing before this committee in the last congress and he unequivocally said that the lack of comprehensive immigration reform is a direct threat to our national security. would you comment on that? >> part of comprehensive immigration reform that was passed by the senate enhanced border security. more resources, more technology, more surveillance. i support that. and i agree with that. and i'm hoping that the congress will act on our pending request for added border security on the

southwest border in response to last summer's spike. border security is integral to national security. so i agree with that, sir. >> i know that there's some limitations on what you can say, and most of the members of this committee have been briefed in classified manner on this issue, but can you enlighten us, and the members of the public, too, as to some of the means that have been implemented in terms of border security, particularly use of satellites, to a greater extent, and use of military assets that we have that we no longer need that can be surplused and used in the border. >> when i go down on the border, the southern border, and i talk to our border patrol about what they need, they almost always tell me, more vehicles, more surveillance, more technology. we're moving in the direction of a risk-based strategy to border security, homeland security, aviation security, because we

now have the capability to surveil high-risk areas of the border. and so we need to continue in that direction. we need more technology. that includes aerial surveillance, as well as mobile surveillance on the ground and a number of other things. we've made considerable investments, congressman, over the last 15 years. which has shown some good results. but i believe that we can do better and we should continue to do better in this regard. >> i'm disappointed we do not have a vote in the house at this stage on the senate bill or a bill like that. but let me ask you another question, my last question. and that is, there's some discussion by members, that have asked you questions in terms of your ability to send people back. can you be clear about your fiscal resources to do that

right now? what you're capable of. are you capable of sending everyone back? how much do you need? if we're really serious about this, how much do we need to fund your agency so that we can do what the members of this committee are asking you to do? >> well, the answer to that question is reflected in our current budget request. and let me say this, i know that there are some contemplating some form of short-term c.r. for the department of homeland security to get us to march. that is, in my judgment, a very bad idea for homeland security. because, during that period of a c.r. we cannot engage in new starts. we've got some homeland security priorities that need to be funded now. for example, we're back in a presidential election cycle. i cannot hire new secret service agents until i get an appropriations bill passed by

this congress. not another c.r. for a couple of months. i cannot continue to fund our enhanced detention capability in texas with another c.r. that gets me to march. i need the help of congress to support and build upon border security, which i believe all of you support. so, i'm urging that we act on our current appropriations andest now for the purpose the sake of border security and homeland security. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for those direct answers. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes ms. miller from michigan. >> thank you very much. good morning, mr. secretary. appreciate your attendance here this morning. obviously there is a huge divide, certainly in congress, and i think out there in the heartland, as well, about whether or not this is a constitutional overreach by the president. and just listening to your

testimony, and i read through your testimony last night, and hearing you answer some of the questions, you obviously had a very, heavy, heavy, heavy reliance on the olc's opinion, the 33-page opinion that they issued in here through mr. holder's department of justice. and you said, i wrote a note when you said that they were very, very thorough. but yet it seems to me that the questions that you did ask them were specifically tailored, the three questions that you asked the olc were specific in nature. perhaps there were some questions that you could have asked that you did not. but i would just -- could you tell us the process in which you actually asked these three specific questions of the olc? because i see some of the states are going to be suing. i'm sure this is going to be a question probably determined by the courts, and you -- your department had such a heavy reliance on them. >> well, i know from my days at the department of defense, and now, that the way we typically work with olc is to put to them specific questions. do we have the authority to do

"x"? do we have the authority to target "x" "y" "z" military objective, for example? and so, we developed the two or three most significant questions that would be part of this executive action package to be put to olc for them to consider. they came back with this very thorough opinion, and i will say that as a lawyer myself, and as someone who's been a lawyer for a government agency i'm fully comfortable with what's been in here. i know i'm going to have to be the one to defend it. >> well, if i could, in 2012, when the -- this administration created the daca policy, there's nothing that we could find of any opinion from the olc regarding that. just would seem to be sort of a glaring oversight from there. so there's -- is there such a memo?

if there is such a memo we would like to see that. >> i can only speak to 2014. and we wanted to be thorough -- >> but certainly as you were looking at this you would have asked olc was there ever a memo in regards to daca? never asked that question? >> i am not aware of one. based on everything i've asked and been told i'm not aware of one, have not seen one. i wanted to be thorough this time around though. >> we think there was a glaring omission about that, as well. and again in regards to the olc and this will be determined in the courts i think, since i mean i certainly believe this is a constitutional overreach by this administration, and as i say, it appears that some of the states are going to court on that. i was also taking notes here, secretary, as you mentioned, about the fees. the $460 fee. i did some quick math, probably not right, but times 4 million, $1.84 billion. just wondering, because you're again the olc is saying you need to do it, guarantee it, on an individualized case by case review is what they're saying. so is some of the questions even

this morning we're talking about the limited amount of resources that you have, so are you going to do 4 million case by case reviews. how in the world are you going to pay for this? really is that going to be enough? i mean right now you have a couple of dozen field stations. i'm not quite sure the mechanics of doing a case by case review and i think that will be such an important critical component for the department so that you're not just doing a free for all, and just rubber stamping and really taking a look at all of this. so how do you envision that all unfolding as you do a caseby case review of over 4 million individuals? >> we have an implementation period of a start-up time of six months. daca was 60 days. we determined that for this one we needed six months to make sure that we get it right. we know from the daca experience that the program, if the fee is set at the right level, will pay for itself.

so the fee for d a c a was $460 applicant and that's the same fee that we'll be charging here. with regard to the number me say this, .1 million is the estimated potential class of those who would be the number of those who are enrolled is somehow about 6 or $700,000 and of those forward some will not qualify. because they didn't survive the some ound check or for other reason they didn't establish proof of living here years.e so the number 4.1 is the estimate of the total potential class. all of those will be enrolled in the program. >> thank you very much. has expired me here. thank you mr. chairman.

chair recognizes mr. barber from arizona. chairman for mr. convening this hearing. saying i start by just appreciate going by other on both sides of the aisle of this committee how much i appreciate the forthrightness ith which you approach the questions and the concerns and you leadership you provided over year.ast as you know, secretary you visited my district within a of your appointment, your onfirmation and you saw first hand you and heard first hand from people who live a long the work along the border what their main aoeurb is. they're concerned about people illegally and seeking work but more concerned of drug smugglers that e potential violence comes with them. that's one of the reasons i cosponsored along with many

committee the board of security results act passed aou man mustsly brought to yet to be the floor. i've said from day one that act and we ds to have failed in our responsibility to act to secure fix the brokento immigration system. failure, e of that unfortunately executive action has been taken. i believe it should be done in but we with congress have failed on our side of the bargain. support the mc cain bill which is sitting there for us to take up. secretary, could

you address how the executive comports with the bill as immigration.o i know it's he an comprehensive. it can't be. extent is that bill a template for action that must border n to secure the and fix the system? >> the executive actions we have are no substitute for s a number of s things including an earn path to citizenship. that's what is con plated in the bill. we do not have executive provide an earned path to citizenship. executive authority to provide deferred action for have been here for years, similar to the bill who crimes committed any and have basically become integrated members of the

society to over them the opportunity to be accountable. that is not citizenship. that is not lawful permanent esidence but you are deemed lawfully present in the country for a period of time. we also are through executive ctions enhancing border security in a number of ways. but again, it's not something is not cost free so we've recent legal entrance which we plainly have the authority to do but i need resources and the southern bordner arizona and in added nd new mexico for detention capability and added surveillance capability and dded vehicles and added equipment and i'm hoping that congress will support me on that. your letter about the arizona.order along and i plan to -- if you'll have year to back early next

arizona. i owe the has an chers another i want to come back to arizona with a year's -- benefit of a year's experience on the talk more about border security and see what we can do. appreciate your willingness to come back and look forward to having you there. focus on that. i think the answers from my on thisce having worked straightforward. border patrol agents at the 10, 15, 20 miles back more horse patrols and looking down to see where the smugglers are coming from nd surveillance stems at the border and i hope that your task the that you established, western task force will look at these options and include

such as ranchers, business people and residents of as well as ies others to make sure we get it right. >> congressman i can affirm for border i talked to the patrol myself one thing they always is arrow stats o i think that's a board of security priority. it comes to no surprise i and ree with the president what he has done with this action. it's not as much the issue of imkpwraeugs and dealing with undocumented workers as it is what he actually did. he crossed a line with of constitutional separation lot of but i hear a double speak in the words that i heard today. you an example. president said in his ovember 20th speech about this

unconstitutional executive action that undocumented workers broke our immigration laws and i believe they must be held accountable. that's directly from his speech. elons not families, criminals not children working hard to pro said for your kids will law itize just like enforcement does every day. may n the hill publication f 2014 it documented that dhs released 68,000 illegal immigrants with convictions. released 68,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions. that comes from an end of year ask detentions report. do you reconcile what the actions said with the of the agency? >> with regard to those who are from immigration detention this is something i worked on myself. there's a supreme court case which you may have

of which mandates that after six months if the person going to be repatriated future we seeable have to let them go. > why aren't we repay the it'sing these people? >> that has have to a willing on the other end. number of releases are mandated by law and a number are ordered by an immigration judge. instances to the where an immigration official who works for me releases record, with a criminal what i've recently directed that at ae approval for that be higher level of the ice field

officer. i want to know that we're standard consistent to those circumstances because they may jeopardize public i've also directed that a person should not be for sed because of reasons fiscal constraint which is what e faced when we had sequestration in fq 'thraoefpblt we will find a way to pay for it we believe somebody should not be released -- i think some reports came the nothing to do ad with the release of folks last year. go back and find the documents. let me ask you this, at the end of the year of 2014 how many criminal aliens have been releaseed? what will your year end weekly report es and detention show for 2014 if it's less than fy thraoefpblt i think the number for fy 30 will be about 30. > so 30,000 plus or minus

criminal aliens will be released it should be t lower which is why i enhanced the approval authority tore that. i think one of the biggest problems with getting any kind f immigration issues passed through the united states congress is a lack of trust that the american people in the enforce the n to laws. they have told me and my why agues have heard it, would you pass another law when the administration fails to enforce the current laws that the books? why pass another one that won't be enforced either? about 68,000 ear illegal criminal aliens that have been released. erods the trust of the american people. the american people want to see order security and deportations. they want it see enforcement of the law. 50%, 50%, 49%that 'll give you that of the illegals in this country are via

overstays we're not chasing a we know who they are. we got their name and they came here on a visa. are.ow who they that's low hanging fruit foreign forcement. you this, how many of the vice visa overstays are granted the president's action. any? >> offhand i don't know. the answer to that. this ssman i will say hough, i'd like to see this congress pass a bill. i'd like to work with congress on passing a bill. the president said that would be his preference. the problem is we had no partner. >> i think congress can pass a bill when the american people start regaining trust in the actually do n to their job and enforce the laws yieldy on the books and i back. >> chair recognizes mr. o'rourke from texas. chairman. ou mr. congress pass a bill. i'd like to work with congress on passing a bill. the president said that would be his preference. the i want to begin by thanking you for your accountability. you mentioned you've been before congress for 13 times in the 12 months you've been here and five

this committee. your sposiveness to our requests and questions and your transparency. i think three long way to go still within the department, but 12 months we've seen more transparency than we've seen in years. appreciate that. and through you i want to thank the president for this difficult made and hat he imperfect decision by its very to re a temporary way address some of the fundamental problems that require a response.ve but the status quo is untenable & it amounted to effective amnesty and we're going to gain accountability and we'll bring families and people who are working in our communities shadows.e in a community like mine, l paso where 25% of the population are immigrants, more than 40% of the kids who live in community are raised by parents who are immigrants, this is going to be a boom.

it's going to make us more secure. he city that is already safest city in america today not in spite of the number of imgrants on because of them, so behalf of the people i represent, i want to thank you and the president. i do however want to address an congressman smith and uncan brought up and that is the release of convicted criminals. letter to i wrote a ice and have yet to receive a ago withalmost a month important questions about the status of those who have been released, where they are and how we improve our working with local law enforcement so our departmentsheriff's know when these criminals are released and are able to track for them.ccount so just appreciate your me and nt to getting senator's response to that. >> part of the -- one of the things i've directed when it

releases of those with criminal records is that we local law enforcement part --t happens that's i think that should be done. will personally look for your letter from you and the senator and make sure it's responded to it hasn't been already. but i'll look to make sure we have a general rule of 14 days to ithin members of congress. >> mr. secretary i'd like to a point and try to turn it the a question about president's response to our immigration system thus far. there's been e this implicit political bargain where there will be stepped up deportations.d i believe this president has this ed more people from country than any president prior 2 million at this point. nd unfortunately many cases that's breaking up families, which this current action i

will help reduce. and i think the bargain was that in return we were going to be able to gain the trust of both congress and be able to pass meaningful immigration reform. now that obviously has not happened. so, i'm concerned about some comments that you made and the made about s stepping up border security, advertising the deportation deportation of rec. spent some time at the family detention center which is a deportation machine and we're i rtcutting due process and think we threaten to return families and have returned families and children into some dangerous situations. certainly there are those who should be deported, but who inly there are those qualify for asylum and we need honor the process. when you mention the facility in

to make sure in our effort to satisfy security shorten due on't process for those and when it omes to border security, you you and others have said, the border has never been more secure. 20,000 border control agents in sector.aso 4.5average agent app hepbdz an entire year. when we talk about stepping it southern border campaign strategy, i'd like to for my t that means community? is that simply repositioning border as myng the colleague congressman barber border patrol up to the line of the border nstead of being set back or ultimately more border patrol ask more more walls of these militarization measures which show us that we have a

returnswith diminishing right now. 1.6 million apprehended in 2,000 and not even 500,000 this year. at what point do we have enough the border? been to of all, i've artesia myself. it's being ty there closed. i want to make sure that we have adequate ability for effective attorney client communications. hansments but it's a larger ed in lou of facility. i want to make sure that the conditions of detention there or meet the nd appropriate standards. that added detention capability on the southern disagree with me, is essential to border essential to border ecurity going forward in the

future. it is correct that apprehensions are way down from where they were 15 years ago. are way up, you but i believe we can do better. to sit here and declare we have a secure border. we can do better and i think we how to do better. nd the congress and the executive branch together can spend the time and effort to do security. border we've made great strides but there is more to do. ur border -- southern border campaign plan is not simply repositioning assets. is to bring a more strategic approach toward how we secure our border, bringing across my assets department, not in a stove pipe ashion but in a more coordinated way region "region o there's one person in the

southwest who is responsible for bringing to bear all the assets department on border new mexico arizona, and texas. >> the chair recognizes the government irman of reform and oversight. congratulations. thank you. thank you for holding this hearing. i hope you're able to convey the gratitude for the men and woman who serve in the customs and border patrol and put their nt whose lives on the line every day for this country. service. them for their my question for you mr. to etary, what do you say someone who believes the president took action to change the law? change the law. we acted within the law. >> you can play the clip. this is from november 25th. nevada the president in this. g about

>> but what you're not paying the fact that i just took an action to change the law. it didn't change the law but the president says he changed the law. within existing law. he acted within our existing legal authority. lawyer 30 e been a years. somebody plays me an eight word broader speech i suspicious, okay? that was very nice. says i'm going to read it back. knew your absolutely right there have been significant number of deportations. that's true. but what you're not paying attention to the fact i just the law.on to change that's point number one. point number two the way the law works and goes n, he's pretty clear and he is the president of the united states. his is why we have a hard time

believing that homeland security is doing the right thing. from south ntleman carolina made a very good point. et me move to something else really quickly. you and i had the interaction last time you were here about people withese four ties to a terrorist organization were caught illegally crossing the border in september. you said they would be deported. them?ou deport >> no, not at this point. >> what is the disposition of people?ur detained.e released by s were the judge, not my preference. they were released by the judge they fled to canada and they re seeking alyle uhm in saoeul -- asylum. you u told the world that were going to deport these ties to a had

terrorist organization. > they're in deportation procedures. an immigration judge released two of the four and they fled to canada. that they be deported, but two of them are in asylum.eeking >> where did these two -- were going and ticipate go? did they actually >> i don't know. >> but they're currently being held in canada? understanding. >> are you going to be asked that he be brought back to the united states > i don't generally get involved in individual immigration cases >> but these people had ties to organization. >> i think as we talked about last time, there are some question about whether their is with what should consider a terrorist organization. terrorist conversation designated by the state department, correct?

or are a member of the kurdish workers party. > that is designated as a terrorist organization, correct? >> i refer to you the state department. >> that is the accurate statement. mr. secretary this is the problem. you come and you say "oh you goinghe world that you're to deport these four people tied to terror -- these are and you don't. they get released. they go to -- mynding they go to arizona. go to the state of washington. they cross illegally into canada up $25,000 bonds. doesn't that beg a lot of you're s about what doing in deporting criminals? these people have terrorist ties tired of the g democrats with this righteous that we can'tying find a congress we can work with. obamarst two years of the administration the democrats had the house, the senate and the presidency and they did nothing immigration. i sat on the sub committee. they brought in stephen colbert

testify. that's how bad it was. the country made a change of the we passed the immigration bill. it was my bill. nearly 390 people voted for it and this is bipartisan as it it and worked on high skill imtkpwrapts and visas and took from 7 to 15% t went to he united states senate under harry reid and nothing happened to it. so i want to continue to work with this administration. is common ground that could be had. but the president and the record is clear. the chance with the house, the senate and the presidency, they didn't even bill into the committee, let alone bring it through the process. the time.te yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. noah. >> can i offer something into record? >> yes. >> gentleman is recognized. chairman.you mr. there are three articles, letters or statements the approach of the president in deporting felons

families president one s from the national immigrant justice center dated december 22nd, 2014, and the lawyers immigration association december twaopbd 014 and the southern border communities coalition, acl u 2014. december 2nd, i'm going to ask to submit these into the record. >> i want to remind the members committee that the secretary has three minutes left. keep your remarks as short as possible. mr. secretary if i known we could have played clips i was from ed of the scene cheech and chong with background usic coming to america if anybody had an interest, they can probably find it on youtube to thank you for your success ability since taking i want to say that since we've been doing with you

we've seen ff, market changes and from in community tween this and yours. with respect to the idea of border security, the fact that about metrics, this committee in a fully fashion almost a year ago passed a border security bill that would have established metrics and we've yet it see it on the house floor. weeks left before the end of the year. if that bill was brought to the house floor, you'd have a border by the end of the year. a h respect to the issue of ermanent solution and the context of immigration, the fact choices arer is our very stark in my view. there are those who believe that who e millions of people have been working here in our construction sites and hotels and restaurants and all across country, that what we ought to do is rope them up and send them back.

believe are those who that we ought to develop a bath way to citizenship and a legalization process. what i strongly object to and agree we need boarder security and that's why i voted on the bill that passed what i strongly object to is the idea that the ought to be process conditioned on border security because to me if you define as making sure that we prevent people from coming here in the future, i on't see what that has to do with the people that are already cringe when i hear the word border crisis. ecause in my view what we're talking about is a three separate crisis that are enter rated. drug s crisis of smuggling, human smuggling and illegal migration. oregon at the border. economic with conditions in mexico and central

issues of cartel violence as well. end with our demand for drugs on this side of the border as well as the fact that consider the fact that over a thousand cities across country it shows that there's a cartel presence, so i we're believe that if ever going to really address the route causes of those three have to at we really start talking about issues of mexico development in and central america and addressing cartel violence. that -- with that in mind, what i would ask and this may be left field because i know it's more of a department in the last tter, year, the former governor of in the as indicted southern district of texas and n extradition order has been issued by the federal judge down in brownsville, and i would just

ask that you do whatever you can other spect to the department heads to see if we cannot bring this gentleman to justice. talk about drug smuggling and human smuggling, the fact of the i yield the rest of my time. >> may i respond, just briefly? i have this problem, listening to you, congressman. negotiating and arriving at an acceptable piece of legislation that addresses immigration in a comprehensive way, in my judgment, should not be that hard. i have in my private practice negotiated the most complex civil settlements ever on wall street. i believe that if we could strip away the emotion and the politics on this issue, and you brought me the right group of

members of the house of representatives, i could negotiate a bill with you. i'm issuing that invitation again. i believe we could do it. it should not be that difficult. >> the chair now recognizes -- >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. secretary, some people say that our economic security is national security. nearly 20 million americans woke up this morning unemployed or underemployed. the president didn't mention these americans when he announced his plan to grant de facto amnesty and work permits to up to 5 million illegal immigrants. he didn't discuss the competition this would create for them or the impact it would have on their pocketbooks. you served a memoranda outlining this policy for him. it didn't mention them either.

to address this problem and protect the american worker, i introduced legislation prior to the announcement that would make clear that illegal immigrants benefiting from executive amnesty are not authorized to work in the united states. when it comes to illegal immigration, the conversation is always about the illegal immigrants, not the people they will affect. you see, i don't think it is fair. especially around the holidays, to put illegal immigrants ahead of the american worker. secretary johnson, the president keeps saying that his executive action will boost the economy. so tell me, how well adding 5 million new competitors to the workforce make it easier for the unemployed americans to find a job? is thatessman, the fact we have lots of undocumented in this country working off the

books. if that is not apparent, i suggest you spend some time in a restaurant here in the washington dc area and see for yourself. what we want to do is encourage those people to get on the books. i would provide them a work authorization so they may legally continue -- >> how does that make it easier for the american worker? here we go again talking about the illegal immigrant. how does this help the american worker who can't find work and can't provide for his family? who is fighting for them? why don't we talk about the american worker, not what it will do for the illegal immigrants? >> the economy is getting better as i'm sure you know. the question of u.s. jobs, american jobs, is a separate issue. >> will adding 5 million more competitors for these jobs make it easier? >> if i may finish my sentence,

the estimate is that the potential class is up to 4 million. not all of those will apply. the goal is to encourage these people who are working off the books -- and we do have undocumented immigrants working off the books -- to get on the books, pay taxes into the federal treasury pursuant to a work authorization. the assessment is that that will not impinge upon american jobs. true. secretary, is it that the illegal immigrants granted amnesty will not need to comply with the affordable care act? forhose who are candidates and are accepted into the deferred action program will not be eligible -- >> therefore an employer may have a decision to make, do i keep the american worker and provide health insurance or get rid of the american worker and

hire someone who i do not have to provide health insurance and not get find? >> i don't see it that way. >> you don't think any employers will see it that way? >> i don't see it that way, no sir. >> the following 9/11 commission report, the staff issued a report on terrorists travel that made connections between immigration laws and national security. on page 98, it describes how terrorists would benefit from any form of amnesty. the report recognizes that terrorists needed to find a way to stay in the united states if their operational plans were to come to fruition. this tells us what we all know, that terrorists want to get into this country and stay here. does the president's executive action facilitate that by not heeding the advice of the 9/11 commission? how can this administration justify its executive actions on

immigration when it contradicts their findings? >> the reality is that we have an estimated 11.3 million undocumented in this country. from my homeland security perspective, i want to see those people come out of the shadows. i want to encourage people -- >> you did testify in the last hearing -- >> if i may finish my sentence, toant people to submit criminal background checks and come out of the shadows. the problem we have is 11 million people in this country and we do not know who they are. from the perspective of what you just read, we are vulnerable. at the lastfied hearing and you agreed with me. your words were, most criminals do not subject themselves to criminal background checks. >> i want as many as possible.

to the remaining members, due to time constraints of the secretary, we are going to limit questioning to three minutes by unanimous consent. without objection, so ordered. mr. schwabecognizes all from california. >> does the number mean anything to you? >> it sounds familiar. i'm not sure why it sounds familiar. towould it surprise you learn that according to the american immigration counsel, this is the number of immigrants granted temporary relief by republican presidents over the last 50 years? >> that is news to me. nothat it surprise you that a single person who has sat on this dais with me made a single public statement criticizing any executive actions taken by any republican president with

respect to immigration? >> i'm not sure what to say. >> our chair has brought up a number of times that we have a bipartisan bill. floor has not come to the for a vote. it is frustrating to me that we are bringing you here to criticize the president's actions, yet speaker boehner has a bill that addresses border security that has not been brought to the floor. byelieve that in many ways silencing both sides of this issue by not allowing a vote, the speaker has taken his own executive action. that refuses to allow people who oppose immigration reform and those who support it to be a voice of their district and take a vote. want tot in mind, i know, among the 11.3

undocumented immigrants -- 11.3 million undocumented immigrants, do you know how prioritizing felons over families for deportation, what that will do to make us safer? isthe guidance i issued thatnce in clearer terms spells out exactly the types of offenses that are priority 1's and 2's. when we did our review, we found a fair amount of ambiguity that needed to be cleaned up. there was a lot of misunderstanding in the field that led to some of the cases of heart ache that we hear about. the guidance is clearer. with that is a restart of the secure communities program. to get atnded

criminals who are undocumented in jail. ,n integral part of this promoting public safety, is a fresh start on the secure communities program. the last thing i will say is, when we talk about a bill, i believe the speaker's desire for comprehensive immigration reform is genuine. i'll say again that i'm interested in working with members of this community -- this committee on a piece of legislation that addresses our system in a comprehensive way, in a way that our executive actions cannot reach. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from florida. >> thank you for coming today, mr. secretary. i'm not going to harangue you are badger you. i'll ask you to be quick with me so we can get right to what i want to know with all sincerity. in previous meetings, i've been

told a little bit of what you said today, which we need more resources. $8 billion is the backlog of capex as i understand. some of your border folks have told us. when we ask for operational data , to know what the bang for the buck is for the taxpayer, we get very little data. if i was a board member, we would say, i would say, how can andy ok to more resources more effort and more taxpayer involvement when i don't know the return on investment for the capex and i don't know what the operational effectiveness is other than macro data. can you shed any light on that? am i missing the boat here? >> i'll shed light on my commitment to more transparency.

i think part of the problem we data.s lack of coherent one of the things i directed in the executive action is, i directed the office of immigration statistics to collect, maintain and report to the secretary data reflecting the numbers of those removed are repatriated by any component of dhs. i intend that this data be part of the package released to the public annually. i'm sympathetic to what you are saying. developlike to see us metrics for how we defined border security so that the congress and the public understand what we are driving four. >> i don't know how much bang for the buck they are getting for the taxpayer dollar. many peopleto how we are capturing and how many are getting through, what is the

return on investment? it is hard for me to say yes or no if i don't know how well we are spending the current money. you would encourage you if haven't already to look at the speech i gave on border security in october to a think tank where i laid out a lot of the investment and the data concerning illegal apprehensions to get at a clearer picture of what you are getting on your investment. data that would help us understand how well the department is working will make it easier for us to be working together. >> there is a misapprehension that things are as worse as they've ever been. apprehensions of illegal immigrants is a fraction of what it used to be. in large part because of the investment this congress has made in border security, we are

seeing a return on investment. i think we can do better. we've invested a lot in surveillance, personnel, over the last 15 years. we have seen a return on investment. apprehension used to be 1.6 million. they are now down to between 400000 and 500,000. >> the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> thank you. i had the pleasure of working with you when you are at the defense department. i'm glad you are staying on at homeland. this is a very, very critical time. worried about threats from coming intororists our country or being embedded in our country, some would say mentoring candidates or what have you. but here we are. we are here to protect america

and americans. thank you for the work that you and all the people who work in your department do on our behalf. i want to go back to something you said, the whole issue of having background checks on people. i live in california. we have a lot of people who for whatever reason don't have the right documents to be in our country. some would qualify and have qualified under our program, but if they have to wait 10 years away from a loved one outside of the country, they have probably broken that and decided to stay and live those 10 years here toher than do what we do them, which is to push them out for 10 years. there are people who have just taken too long. the backlog is so long for some of these people do get through the process even though they qualify. i'm thrilled that we are going -- ourgood people

deacons in our churches, to give us the data, to pay a fine, and say, let us work, let us go on with our lives here. especially if they have usa-born children or legal residence. i'm thrilled that the president understands that. i'm even more thrilled because that allows these limited resources that we have to be trained on the people that i really want to go after. that is these terrorists and these threats to our country. a lot of people say, you are hispanic, so you care about the latino community. we have one of the largest asian populations in the nation. i have romanians, i have all sorts of people from other countries, many of them working. some of them paying taxes.

many of them want to get on an even footing here in the united states. , mr.t want to thank you secretary, because i know that you sat down and took a look and use your lawyer skills to sit down and figure out, how do we make sure that the limited resources we have are trained on the bad guys, not on the people who are really part of our american family. i just want to thank you. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. secretary. i'm going to try to ask three quick questions. is, fundamentally a question about fairness. i think one of the things a lot of people struggle with on the notion of the president's

executive and unilateral action is that it will put a lot of families from around the world in a second-class bus. my question to you would be, is it fair to those families that have been waiting in the queue to go behind a bunch of folks that will get favorable status based on executive action? >> that is not what we've done. through executive action, we cannot grant citizenship. we cannot put somebody in the head of the line for citizenship . we are not granting lawful, permanent residence. aferred action is simply determination that someone should be lawfully present in the country, which is a significantly lower form -- >> the fact is they are able to live here, work your, raise families here. i will move on to the second question. >> they already are. haveey are, but they don't

the legal claim to our entitlement system that they now will. hole $18 trillion in the and most of them are based on being lawfully present in this country to be eligible for entitlements. how'd do you say to that family in mississippi who has been struggling, you get to retirement age and then you begin to collect, what do you say to that family? your retirement system, your health care system, will be less financially solvent than it would have been. what would you say in terms of fairness? >> i would say the people we are talking about are already here. they have been here for years. they have become integrated members of society. >> they are not going to collect social security. they won't collect the way they will. do you get more than you give?

the wall street journal had a very interesting editorial on that point. in yourstion is, opening statements, a lot of the attributes defined could be handled perfectly by work permits. why not just do work permits rather than this de facto, quasi-citizenship that comes with this executive action? >> work authorization is something the secretary of homeland security has the authority to give by statute. that is what we did. >> i have three seconds. i would go for a second question but i don't have it. >> you speak more slowly than we do. the gentlelady from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there was a statement made earlier by the gentleman from south carolina that i know was a gross generalization about the american people as it relates to the executive order. overwhelmingly,

he americans in my district support what president obama has done. they have your back. johnson, ask secretary the president's executive action was certainly a step in the right direction, and for many it , social, and moral family-related reasons that will have a positive effect on our civil society. however, i want to get to the economics of this. it has been raised by a number of colleagues, particularly mr. barletta. it was estimated recently by the center for american progress that this executive action will raise 3 billion dollars in payroll taxes in the first year alone. and $22.6 billion over five years as workers and employers

get on the books and begin paying taxes. even individual states will gain from this. do you believe economic factors like these should play a role in determining our immigration policy? secondly, the issue of securing the city. individuals booked in state and local jails submitted electronically to the fbi for criminal background checks, it allows them to identify potentially removable individuals. the program has been controversial. it is my understanding that the priority enforcement program which will replace securing the city's will rely on the same technology as securing the cities, but will focus on individuals who have been convicted of felonies and significant misdemeanors. please explain how they will maintain the background checks

while also addressing important concerns raised by the court's advocates in local communities. you characterized it accurately. to address the legal concerns arising in litigation, we are no longer going to be putting containers on people. we will have requests for notification. litigation has often meant the court determines that state and local law enforcement did not have the legal authority to do tame that person. in places that we have requests that weification so are notified, unless we have probable cause to tell the nypd for example that the person is undocumented and will be removed. i agree with your question about

economics in immigration policy. i'm not an economist. i will refer you to the president's council of economic advisers analysis, which was issued the week before last, on the impact of our executive actions on the economy. >> i now recognize myself. secretary, it is good to see you today. let me begin my questioning on a positive note. with a numberting of republicans from new york who opposed the executive order. some went out of their way to say they dealt with you as a lawyer. they made a point of saying that first. >> it goes downhill from here, thank you. >> i oppose the executive order for a number of reasons. ofcan debate the legality it. justice jackson, the court struck down executive action by president truman.

he was saying that executive action in questionable cases must be scrutinized with caution because at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system. that is what i see here. the fact that very few people have faith in the government. shouldn't -- in this case, we have the president saying time and again he does not have the power to do this. three times the president could have issued this executive order. he did not issue the executive order until after the elections were over. president felt this was the consensus of the american people, it should have been part of the campaign debate. there was silence on this issue throughout the campaign. the republicans won both houses and the president issued this order. if he believes he

has the right to issue this order, why didn't he say, he realizes things have changed in congress, he disagrees with the fact that the house did not act, and set a deadline. issue his executive order, we could take what action we want, legislative, appropriations wise, but during the presidents, would have an opportunity to frame a national debate. he would be able to focus attention on it and he would have seen republicans in the house and senate in a position where they have to deal with the president. then july 1 comes along, i'm using that as an arbitrary date, the president issues the and the american people could decide who is right and who is wrong. the president could go ahead and implement the order. i just feel there was bad faith in issuing the executive order at this time. if he wants to get the

confidence of the american people, this is not the way to do it. >> in response, i would say we did do that. we said we were going to do this in the spring. the president decided to wait over the summer to see whether congress would act. the speaker, whose desire for immigration reform i believe is genuine, hoped he could get immigration reform through the house of representatives. that did not happen. the speaker told him, we are not going to get a bill. we decided to wait until after midterms and here we are. we have waited for several years. ,> i think the executive order if he felt that strongly about it, he should have issued it before. my time is expired. my friend from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. tary, a pleasure to

see you here. i want to say that i'm also delighted that you'll be staying on at homeland security. i think that you have brought that organization together and for that i thank you. it is my understanding that this executive order, this executive action, will only last for two years under the obama administration and it is not clear what will happen to the affected when the administration is over. this creates a lot of uncertainty and underscores the need for congressional action to clear up and fix this broken immigration system. in your opinion, what will happen to the children and parents who are being encouraged to come out of the shadows in two years if nothing happens?

the nature of executive action is that the next executive can undo it. i would hope that does not happen here. administration to administration, we do not typically undo administrative actions, executive orders, particularly where you are affecting in what i think would be a harsh manner the lives of people who are here in this country. is, first, there is legislation that addresses the same phenomenon in the same way. in the absence of that, my hope is that these executive actions are sustained as good government policy. apprehendedd, those who came here illegally, under our existing policy, are

priorities for removal and will not be eligible for deferred action. there is a clear demarcation between those who have been here for years and those who would think to come here illegally. those people would be priorities. >> how can congress help ensure that these millions of people are not encouraged to go back into the shadows in two years? >> support us through legislation. really time congress stood up and helped fix this problem rather than throwing darts at the administration. >> that is my hope. i believe that it is a solvable problem legislatively and i believe that if we can remove the emotion and the politics we can achieve it. there are several members of this