>> i believe it's less than fy-13. fy-13 i believe was 36,000. i think the number for fy-30 will be about 30. and i think it should be lower. >> so about 30,000, plus or minus criminal aliens have been released? >> pursuant to legal requirements, orders of a judge, that is why i have raised the approval authority for that. i think one of the biggest problems with getting any kind passed theion issues congress is the lack of trust of the american people and their ability to enforce law. why would you pass another law when the administration fails to enforce the current laws that are on the books? why pass it up when that is not going to be enforced either? you hear about 68,000 illegal aliens that has been released, that further erodes the trust of the american people. the american people want to see border security. they want to see deportations. they want to see enforcement of

the law. and when they see that 50%, 50%, 49% i'll give you that, of the illegals in this country are visa overstays, these are people that are -- we're not chasing a footprint in the desert, we know who they are. we've got their name. they've had an interview at a consulate or an embassy, they came here on a visa. we know who they are. that's low-hanging fruit for enforcement. so, i ask you this -- how many of the visa overstays are granted immunity through the president pasha action? any? >> offhand, i don't know. i don't know the answer to that. congressman, i will say this -- i would like to see this congress pass a bill. i would like to work with congress on passing a bill. the president said that would be his preference. the problem is we have no partner -- >> i think congress can pass a bill when the american people start regaining trust in the administration to actually do their job and enforce the laws that are already on the books. and i yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. or work from texas.

. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i want to begin by thanking you for your accountability. you mentioned you've been before congress 13 times in the 12 months you've been here, five times before this committee. your responsiveness to our requests, and the questions and your commitment to transparency, i think there's a long way to go still within the department, but in the last 12 months we've seen more transparency than we've seen in years. and so i really appreciate that. and through you, i want to thank the president for this very difficult decision that he made, a very imperfect decision by its very nature. a temporary way to address some of the fundamental problems that require a legislative response. but i think the status quo is untenable. as you and others have said, it tantamount -- it amounted to effective amnesty, and we're going to gain some accountability. and we're going to bring families and people who are working in our communities out of the shadows, and a community like mine, el paso, where 25% of the population are immigrants, more than 40% of the kids who

live in my community are raised by parents who are immigrants, this is going to be a boom. it's going to make us more secure. a city that's already the safest city in america today, and i tell people not in spite of the number of immigrants who are there, but in large part because of them. so on behalf of the people i represent, i want to thank you, and i want to thank the president. i do, however, want to address an issue that congressman smith and duncan brought up, and that is the release of convicted criminals. senator cornyn and i wrote a letter to ice have yet to receive a response, almost a month ago, with important questions about the status of those who have been released, where they are, how we improve our working with local law enforcement so that our police and sheriff's departments know when these criminals are released and are able to track them and account for them.

so we just appreciate your commitment to getting me and senator cornyn response to that. >> part of the -- one of the things i've directed when it comes to releases of those with criminal records is that we notify local law enforcement when that happens. that's part of -- that should be done. i will personally look for your letter from you and senator cornyn and make sure it's responded to promptly. if it hasn't been already, i will look. to make sure we have a general rule of responding within 14 days to members of congress. >> and mr. secretary, i'd like to -- to make a point, and try to turn it into a question about the president's response to the immigration system thus far. i feel like there's been this implicit political bargain where there's going to be stepped-up enforcement and deportations. i believe this president has deported more people from this country than any president prior, 2 million at this point.

and unfortunately, many cases that's breaking up families. which this current action, i think, will help reduce. and i think the bargain was that, in return we were going to be able to gain the trust of both parties in congress and be able to pass meaningful immigration reform. now, that obviously has not happened. and so, i'm concerned about some comments that you've made, and the president has made, about stepping up border security about prioritizing the deportation of recent arrivals. i spent some time in artesia at the deportation center there -- i'm sorry, the family detention center there which has really effectively become a deportation machine. i think we are shortcutting due process, and i think we threaten to return families and have returned families and children into some very dangerous situations. certainly there are those who should be deported. but certainly there are those who qualify for asylum in our

country, and i think we need to honor that process, so, when you mention the facility in dilley, texas, i want to make sure that in our effort to satisfy security concerns, we don't shorten due process for those. when it comes to border security you and others have said the border has never been more secure. we're spending $18 billion a year, 20,000 border patrol agents. in the el paso sector the average agent apprehends 4.5 people a year. not in a week, not in a month, but for the entire year. so when we talk about stepping up border enforcement, and this southern border campaign strategy, i'd like to know what that means for my community. is that simply repositioning resources along the border, as my colleague congressman barber said, moving the border patrol up to the line of the border? instead of being set back. or are you asking for ultimately more border patrol agents, more

walls, more of these militarization measures which i think show us that you have a problem with diminishing returns right now. you mention 1.6 million apprehended in 2000. not even 500,000 this year. at what point do we have enough security on the border? >> first of all, i've been to artesia myself. that facility there. it's being closed. i want to make sure we have adequate ability for effective attorney/client communications. we've made some enhancements there. but it's being closed in lieu of a larger facility in dilley, texas, as i mentioned earl yerp. -- earlier. i want to make sure that the conditions of detention there are adequate, and meet the appropriate standards. i believe that added detention capability on the southern border, and some disagree with me, is essential to border

security. and it's essential to border security going forward in the future. it is correct that apprehensions are way down from where they were 15 years ago. resources are way up. but i believe we can do better. and so, i'm not going to sit here and declare we have a secure border. we can do better. and i think we know how to do better. and the congress and the executive branch together can spend the time and effort to do better on border security. we've made great strides but there is more to do. our border -- southern border campaign plan is not simply repositioning assets. it is to bring a more strategic, consolidated approach toward how we secure our border, bringing to bear the assets across my department. not in a stovepipe fashion, but

in a more coordinated way, region by region, so that there is one person in the southwest who is responsible for bringing to bear all of the assets of my inartment on border security arizona, new mexico, and texas. >> the gentleman's time has expired. thechair recognizes incoming chair of oversight. congratulations. >> thank you for being here. i hope you are able to convey the love and gratitude for those who serve in the customs patrol who put their lives on the line every day in this country. we thank them for their service. what you say to someone who believes the president took action to change the law? >> we did not change the law. we acted within the law. >> can you play the clip?

this is from november 25. this is the president in nevada talking about this. but, what you are not paying attention to is the fact that i just took an action to change the law. >> you say it did not change the law. the president says he change the law. >> he acted within our existing legal authority. i have been a legal authority for 30 years. someone plays me an eight-word speech, iom a know it is suspicious. [laughter] that was very nice. >> it says -- you are absolutely right that there have been eight significant number of deportations. what you are not paying attention to is the fact i just took action to change the law. that is point number one. point number two.

the way that changing the law works -- he goes on. he is the president of the united states. this is why we have a hard time believing that homeland security is doing the right thing. i think the gentleman from south carolina made a very good point. let me move to something else real quickly. you and i have had an interaction the last time you were here about the people that were tied to a terrorist organization were caught illegally crossing the border into texas in november. you said they would be deported. did you deport them? >> no, not at this point. >> what is the disposition of those four people? >> two are detained. the two others were released by the judge. not my preference. they were released by the judge, and they fled to canada. they are seeking asylum in canada. >> you told the world you are

going to deport these four people with ties to a terrorist organization. that is not what happened. >> they are in deportation proceedings. an immigration judge released two of the four and they fled to canada. my intent is that they be deported. but two of them are in canada seeking asylum. >> where did these 2 -- where were they anticipated going and where did they actually go? >> i am not sure of their exact whereabouts, sir. >> but they are currently being held in canada? >> that is my understanding. >> are you going to be ask to be brought back to the united states? >> i don't get involved in individual immigration cases. >> these people had ties to a terrorist organization. >> i think come as we talked about this last time, there is some question about whether or not their affiliation is with what one should consider a

terrorist organization. >> it is a terrorist organization designated by the state department, correct? >> they were, or are, members of the kurdish workers party. >> that is designated by the state department as a terrorist organization, correct? >> i refer you to the state department. >> this is a problem. you tell the world that you are going to deport these four people -- these are terrorists. they get released. my understanding is they go to arizona. they go to the state of washington. the cross illegally into canada. the each put up a $25,000 bond. doesn't that make a lot of questions about what you were doing? deporting criminals? these people have terrorist ties, and i am getting tired of the democrats with this righteous indignation saying they can't find a congress they can work with.

the first two years of the obama administration, the democrats had the house, senate, and presidency and did nothing on immigration. they brought stephen colbert in to testify. that is how bad it was. we actually passed an immigration bill. it was my bill. yearly 390 people voted for. this is as bipartisan as it gets. it took the per country cap from 7% to 15%. it went to the united states senate under harry reid and nothing happened to it -- nothing. i want to continue to work with the administration. there is common ground to be had. but the president and the record is clear. when they had a chance with the house, senate, and presidency, they did not even introduce a bill into the committee, let alone bring it to the process. i appreciate the time and yield it back. >> may i offer some thing for the record? orthere are three articles

letters or statements emphasizing the approach of the president in deporting felons and not families. one is from the natural immigrant justice center, dated december 2, 2014, from the american immigration lawyers association. southern border .ommunity coalition and aclu i ask unanimous consent to submit these to the record. >> without objection. i want to remind that the secretary has 30 minutes left. if you can keep your remarks as short as possible. with that -- >> if i had known we could have played clips -- i was reminded of a scene from cheech and chong , background music, coming to america. you can find it on youtube. i want to thank you for your

accessibility after taking office and i just want to say since we have been dealing with you and your staff, we have seen -- market changes. the fact that you are acts about metrics. this committee in a fully bipartisan fashion passed a border security bill that would have established the metrics. we get to see on the house floor. we have two coupe weeks left before the end of the year. if that bill was rocked to the house floor, you would have a border security bill by the end of the year. with respect to the issue of a in thent solution, context of immigration, the fact of the matter is our choices are very stark, in my view. there are those who believe that

there are millions of people who have been working here in our construction sites, hotels, restaurants, and all across the country, that what we got to do is rope them up and send them back. there are those who believe that we ought to develop a legal pathway to citizenship and a legalization process. when i strongly object to, and the member, i agree with the border security. that is why i voted on the bill to pass this committee. when i strongly object to is the idea that the legalization process should be conditioned on border security. if you define border security, you are making sure that we prevent people from coming here in the future. i don't see what that has to do with the people that are already here. i also cringe when i hear the word border crisis, because in my view, what we are talking about the three separate crises that are interrelated. drug smuggling, human smuggling, and illegal migration. the fact is that those are

crises that do not and/or begin at the border. they begin with economic conditions in mexico and central america and issues of cartel america andcentral mexico as well. with our demand for drugs on the side of the border, and consider the fact that over 1000 cities across this country, fbi statistics show there is a cartel present. if we are ever to address the root causes of those three issues, we really have to start talking about issues of economic development in mexico, central america, and addressing cartel violence. with that in mind, when i would fromand this may becoming left field because i know it is more a department of justice matter -- in the last year, the former governor of the city of mexico was indicted in the

southern district of texas and extradition order has been issued by a judge in brownsville. i would ask that you do whatever you can with respect to the other department heads to see if we cannot bring this general to justice. we talk about drug smuggling, human smuggling, the fact of the matter is it is not the coyotes making the money, it is the people at the top. i yield the rest of my time. >> may i respond, just briefly? i had this thought listening to, 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.

your series of memoranda outlining this policy for him 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 will adding 5 million new competitors to the workforce make it easier for the unemployed americans to find a job?

>> congressman, the fact is that 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? we keep talking about the illegal immigrant. here we go again talking about the illegal immigrant, how we can make it easier for them. 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. >> mr. secretary, is it true that the illegal immigrants granted amnesty will not need to comply with the affordable care act? >> those who are candidates for 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 fined? is that a possibility? >> 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. >> following 9/11 commission report, the staff issued a report on terrorist 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 terrorist in the 1990's as well as the 9/11 hijackers 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, and the perspective of someone whose principal mission is counter-terrorism 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, i want people to submit to 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. i want people to come out of -- >> you testified at the last 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. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> 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. the chair recognizes mr. schwab all from california. >> does the number mean anything to you? >> it sounds familiar. i'm not sure why it sounds familiar. >> would it surprise you to 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. that is a big number. >> what it surprise you that not 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. something that i admire that he was able to shepherd through the committee yet it has not come to , the floor 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. i believe that in many ways by 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.

with that in mind, i want to know, among the 11.3 million undocumented immigrants, do you know how prioritizing felons over families for deportation, what that will do to make us safer? >> the guidance i issued is guidance in clearer terms that spells out exactly the types of onesses that are priority and twos. 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. it is intended to get at criminals who are undocumented in jail. there is a lot of resistance in the communities. an 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 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 or 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 for reports as i understand. going to spend more in the next five years 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 i say ok to more resources and 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 have is lack of coherent data. 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. i would like to see us develop metrics for how we define border security so that the congress and the public understand what we are driving for.

>> i don't know how much bang for the buck they are getting for the taxpayer dollar. in addition to how many people 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 to what is being asked if i don't know how well we are spending the current money. >> i would encourage you if you haven't already to look at the speech i gave on border security in october to a think tank called csis, where i laid out a lot of the investment and the data concerning illegal apprehensions of illegal immigrants to get at a clearer picture of what you are getting on your investment. >> any 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 400,000 and 500,000. >> the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> thank you. thank you, secretary, for being before us. 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. i'm worried about threats from isis and terrorists coming into 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 rather than do what we do to them, which is to push them out for 10 years. there are people who have just have taken too long.

the backlog is so long for some of these people to get through the process even though they qualify. i'm thrilled that we are going to get good people -- our 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. i just want to thank you, mr. 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. it is a delight to be with you again. i'm going to try to ask three quick questions. i asked for your brevity, if possible. first question 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. deferred action is simply a 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 here raise

, families here. i will move on to the second question. >> they already are. >> they are, but they don't have the legal claim to our entitlement system that they now will. it is $18 trillion in the hole and most of them are based on being lawfully present in this country to be eligible for entitlements. how 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. i want them to come forward -- >> >> 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. i am down to 34 seconds. last question is, in your opening statements, a lot of the attributes you 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. for the record, overwhelmingly, the americans in my district support what president obama has done. they have your back. i want to ask secretary johnson, the president's executive action was certainly a step in the right direction, and for many it speaks to the moral, social, and 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 an additional $3 billion

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. the program fingerprints individuals booked in state and local jails submitted electronically to the fbi for criminal background checks. it allows ice to identify potentially removable individuals. the program has been controversial, both legally and politically. it is my understanding that the priority enforcement program which will replace securing the cities under the administration plan 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 biometric collection and 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 detainers on people. we will have requests for notification. a detainer in litigation has often meant the court determines that state and local law enforcement did not have the legal authority to hold that person simply because of the detainer when they would have otherwise released them. in places that we have requests for notification so that we are notified before the individual is released 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 should economics play a role 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. thank you for being here and let me begin my questioning on a positive note. i was in a meeting with a number of republicans from new york who strongly opposed the executive order. several went out of their way to say they dealt with you as a lawyer and had the highest regard for your professionalism and integrity. they made a point of saying that first. >> it goes downhill from here, thank you. [laughter] >> i oppose the executive order for a number of reasons. we can debate the legality of it.

the case where 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 what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system. that is what i see here. part from the -- apart from the legalities, which i think are significant the fact that very , few people have faith in the government. in this case, we have the president saying time and again he does not have the power to do this. anytime over the last six years the president could have issued , this executive order. he did not issue the executive order until after the elections were over. if the president felt this was the consensus of the american people, it should have been part of the campaign debate. that is how, in a democracy, people express their views. there was silence on this issue throughout the campaign. the republicans won both houses and the president issued this

order. i would say 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 of july first? he could issue his executive order, we could take what action we want, legislative, appropriations wise, but during that six months, the president would have an opportunity to frame the national debate on trying to come to an immigration bill. 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 executive order and the american people could decide who is right and who is wrong. congress could take what action it felt it had to. 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 we are trying 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 did exactly 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 president said he would wait. 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 done a lot of waiting period 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. again, my respect for you. my friend from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. secretary, 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 millions 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. my hope 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.

going forward, those apprehended 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. >> so it is 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 committee who i believe i can work with on a comprehensive solution legislatively. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes mr. meehan. >> thank you, chairman, and secretary. i have a great deal of respect for you but i have some fundamental disagreements with a couple of the points that were made. you are the one who said somehow somebody -- what you are doing is creating an opportunity for them to be lawfully in the country. i think it is a unquestioned point that as the law stands

today, anybody who illegally enters the united states is a deportable alien. what has happened by this directive is the president has stepped into the authority of congress to determine if under the existing law you have identified somebody who will lawfully be here so long as they, using prosecutorial discretion, they won't be deported as long as they aren't a threat to public safety or border security. how can you create a class of people who are beyond prosecution and not be violating the constitutional separation of powers in which congress has clearly articulated its intent? >> first, during the period of deferred action, you can lose membership in that program if you commit a crime. >> but you can also have a lawfully articulated ability under the president's directive to be here if you don't. that is an expression of a constitutional protection that does not exist except for the president's overreach.

>> congressman, this type of action has existed in one form or another going back decades. it was exercised in the reagan and bush administrations. >> i will not allow you to go there. it was exercised after activity by congress. >> to protect a class of people that the congress did not. >> the congress already clearly articulated intent to include those. there was the fulfilling of congressional intent. here, you have created a class of people in contravention of congressional intent. >> first of all an assessment of , deferred action will be made on a case-by-case basis. if i may, sir, the way i look at it is, i know you will appreciate this, when i was an assistant united states attorney, we used to enter into deferred prosecution agreements with individuals.

you may have committed a crime, you have been charged, but if you behave for the next six months, 12 months, whatever, we are going to defer prosecution. >> i understand. my time is limited. we all understand prosecutorial discretion. this changes that, which creates a class of people despite prosecutorial discretion, who may be here because the president created that category, not congress. that is a clear violation of the constitutional principles. he's acting in a capacity beyond his ability to do so. >> i respectfully disagree. >> on what basis? >> they are lawfully present in this country -- >> how are they lawfully here when the intention of congress was clear? they can be deportable. it does not mean they will be deportable. >> the congress has not given me the resources to deport 11 million people.

>> i appreciate that. >> that does not exist. >> they are not lawfully here. that is prosecutorial discretion. every speeder on 95 could be stopped but we can't stop everyone. but that doesn't mean they are going over the speed limit. your level says there is no speed limit. >> if i may finish my sentence -- they are here. from my homeland security perspective, i want them to come forward and get on the books. >> they are here, but you said they were lawfully here. under congressional intent, they are not lawfully here. yet the president has created that category. >> this is a form of executive action that was not invented in this administration. it goes back decades. it was.tary, i'm sorry to disagree with you. i will work with you, but i disagree with you. >> mr. perry from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. secretary.

appreciate your service. is there a document system present that allows illegal immigrants to avoid the law? is there a forged document system present in some form around the border where people that come here illegally obtain social security numbers and other documents that provide them access to america? >> in other words, a criminal network that provides false -- >> >> whatever you want to call it. is there one present? >> i would imagine that there is. >> is using forged documents to gain access to employment, social services, do we consider that lawful? >> i do not believe so. >> i would agree with you. what is the dhs estimate for those here illegally, including those with terrorist affiliations or motives, who have used falsified documentation to gain access to our nation? >> i don't have that number offhand but i can get it for you. >> you have a number? >> if there is such an estimate

i will undertake to get it to you. >> i'm sure there is an estimate. i'll also say that we've written your office on several occasions requesting information and have not gotten any answers. i'm concerned about the ability or your willingness to give us those answers. we have major league baseball players who have become mvps, made millions of dollars, and after the fact, we found out they weren't here lawfully and used forged documents. these are high profile people. an individual in california deported three times came back on the fourth time and shot a police officer dead. we had an individual in north carolina that went up to baltimore kidnapped a girl and , raped her. that person was here illegally and deported on numerous occasions and used falsified documents. all have used falsified document

s. to that end, my question is, how does your department screen these folks to ensure the security of the citizens of america? especially when people that don't recognize or respect the law, terrorists, people with terrorists affiliations, that won't use proper documentation, how can we as american citizens be confident that this plan to screen up to 5 million people that came here unlawfully in many cases, how can we have confidence based on those examples that i've cited, that your agency and this policy is going to work? >> based on the experience that we had with the program two years ago, i believe that we will be vigilant in terms of looking for fraud in the application process. the other part of my answer to your question is, through our

re-prioritization, i want to get at the criminals. i want clearer guidance so that workforceforcement has the ability and the capability and the resources and time to go after the type of individuals that you cite. >> we want that too. with all due respect, i have no confidence and i don't think the american people have any confidence that that is going to work. we appreciate your hope. we appreciate the resources being targeted to those individuals. maybe it could be better but i , see no plan and you have given me no plan with any specific metrics. we have been working on this for years. none of us want these people in our community. i've got two daughters. heaven for bid one of them falls prey to something like that. mr. secretary, that is not an adequate answer. thank you. i yield back.

>> that would not be an accurate characterization of my answer either. i'm happy to brief you and other members of this committee on the implementation plan. we spent considerable time on it. if you will let me know the last time you send me a letter that was answered and the date i will , be sure that it is answered. >> thank you, mr. secretary. let me just say that i don't envy your position right now. it has been a productive hearing. i think you have been forthright in your answers. it is a very emotional, divisive issue. i hope we can resolve it in congress. i can tell you this committee, and i think the ranking member feels the same way, we are committed to passing in the next congress a border security bill and we look forward to working with you on that. thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> this hearing stands

adjourned. [gavel] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> next, from the wall street journal ceo council, a look at the 2015 congressional agenda with senator rob portman and congressman chris van hollen. then, incoming senate majority leader mitch mcconnell discusses his priorities in the congress. that is followed by house budget committee chairman paul ryan on u.s. tax policy. >> on the next washington journal, kevin brady of texas on the government funding deadline and efforts to pass tax

extenders before the end of the year. then, senator ben cardin discusses the president's integration plan, efforts to stop racial profiling, and the works left for congress before christmas break. your calls and comments live every morning on washington journal. you can also join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> wednesday, republican leaders on foreign policy. bobby jindal, ted cruz and senators john mccain and bob corker, the incoming chairs of the senate armed services and foreign relations committee, discuss u.s. engagements in the middle east and national security issues. we will be live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> anne compton who recently

retired as abc news' white house correspondent on her over 40 years covering the white house and the administrations of gerald ford through barack obama. >> we sat there and watched him listen to a group of second graders. he came in and whispered to the president. andy whispers. nobody interrupts the president. the president stood and said he had to go. he went into a side room and then we heard that it was two two plane crashes in new york. they said, stay right here, the president will talk. i said, no. there are live cameras in the cafeteria. the president has to speak there. he didn't want to scare the children but he did go into that cafeteria. he said, i must return to washington. we raced to the plane.

the doors slammed and then the pentagon was hit. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> the wall street journal ceo council is hosting its annual meeting in washington dc this week. next, a discussion on the agenda for the incoming 114th congress with senator rob portman of ohio and congressman chris van hollen. this is half an hour. >> good morning, one and all. senator, you made news this morning. i don't know whether to commiserate or congratulate. you said you are not going to consider a presidential run. >> they said i couldn't come this morning unless i made news. that was only thing i could think of.

>> that was it? so we saw last month a somewhat seismic event. we are going to see a very different congress next month. i think the title of this panel is something like, new spirit or more paralysis. i would like to get your sense of optimism about whether this congress can do things. >> i'm very optimistic. i'm probably a little naive about it. i see so much promise. when i made my announcement this morning, i said i think getting the majority makes a huge difference. the senate has been largely dysfunctional, unable to deal with even the most basic issues. we republicans also have a responsibility to work hard to make that happen. it includes a budget for the first time in seven or eight

years. that will enable us to do more things like tax reform and regulatory relief. i believe we have an opportunity. all of those are bipartisan issues. they have support on both sides of the aisle. there are differences of opinion as to how to approach them, but they all address a fundamental issue in our country. stagnant wages, lowest economic growth, and time for us to give the economy a shot in the arm. we have a chance to do that. i'm hoping the president will work with us. i think we ought to take a page out of chuck schumer's book, who said democrats are not focusing on jobs and wages. that is what we are focused on as republicans. that is what is keeping people from achieving their dreams and moving the country forward.

although we may be the cleanest dirty shirt in the closet, as you have heard from other folks in this congress, we are not near our potential in terms of growth and the ability to bring back wages. that is the opportunity. >> would it be fair to say that you are a little more gloomy on that front? >> i'm an optimist by nature but i'm going to wait and see. just for the record, since my friend mentioned the schumer remarks, i disagree with his political and policy analysis. going forward, there are some areas of potential agreement. if people are willing to sit down and negotiate on these things. rob mentioned some of them. with respect to the budget, the long-term budget, right now we have a debate going on within

the republican caucus in the house over whether or not to threaten the government shutdown over the immigration issues. that is one example. while rob talks about potential in the senate, i don't see much changed in the house in terms of the center of gravity in the caucus. i don't see it being a spirit of compromise. areas where we may be able to move forward, these are areas where i think these are the top of the list. that doesn't mean i assigned huge probability to them. rob and i have talked a lot about tax reform. there is a fair amount of overlap and convergence between some of the plans the administration has put forward and some of our republican colleagues. it is easy to talk about in the abstract. everyone is for tax reform in the abstract.

the plans that have been put on the table didn't get a warm reception. before he left, senator baucus put on the table a tax reform plan. and dave camp in the house. from my view, lots of flaws, but at least it was an incredible effort. the speaker of the house is one of the first people to walk away. it would be great to see some progress in that area. on the budget, if we could get a short-term budget agreement, that would provide some stability and certainty. that agreement expires at the end of this coming fiscal year. in september 2015, the agreement that provided some stability to

the fiscal process and the spending process disappears. it will be interesting what we do. you could have budget resolutions if the senate and house were able to work that out. but budget resolution is only an agreement that finds the two houses of congress. if you want to make progress, everyone has an event the table. >> i did a very informal poll of my people last night. what would be the things you would like congress to do? one said corporate tax reform, another said immigration reform, and the other said, both of those. if we were to look at corporate tax reform, senator, are you of the mind that your own caucus

can actually rally around a distinct corporate tax reform plan that would advance? what would that look like? >> we have to. i have to urge the ceos in this room to get more engaged in this issue. i met one ceo who was in town yesterday and he expressed skepticism. this is not the approach we ought to be taking. the approach we ought to be taking is, it has to get done. if we don't have that approach, we find ourselves mired in the same partisan gridlock. the president is asking for some revenue to come out of this process. i don't know all of you but i know some of your businesses. some of you work with a lot of c corp.'s. they will tell you the same thing. every day, another investment banker or accounting firm is coming to you and saying, why are you an american company? it makes more sense elsewhere. inversions is the tip of the iceberg. you are the experts. i think you would tell us that

american companies are not competitive. after-tax profits are not competitive enough to enable you not just to avoid inversion, but to acquire another company, to grow and expand. look at the companies taking over. some of them -- we love foreign investment. i think we will wake up five years from now and say, what happened? >> what would a plan look like? >> it has got to be a lower rate. it starts with that. the president has said and chris has said, we both served on the supercommittee which ended up not being super, but we did talk a lot about corporate tax reform. you have to lower the rate and have a more competitive international system.

i put forward a proposal. you can get to 25%, it could be revenue-neutral. you could have a competitive international system. dave camp set out a 95% exemption. it enables us to be competitive. 25% is just getting us down to the average. which is what ronald reagan did in 1986. >> [indiscernible] >> frankly, it is three things. corporate sense that tax reform helps the board room. it is not about the boardroom. it is about the workers. we talked about wages and jobs. wages are down about 8% since the recession, medium family net worth down about 40% and studies have shown the number one benefit of corporate tax reform is workers. it is about the people that you employ and we have to get that

message out there so that people care about this. second, k street and if folks in this room are not willing to tell lobbyists to forget trying to protect, this is good for the economy, we have to come together and make this change for the good of the country and keep the american companies here, if it doesn't everyone will come up with their handouts. don't touch my preference. you get the rate down to 25% you have to touch a lot of preferences even if you assume it will be revenue neutral. the third issue is that it is hard. there's a temptation among my colleagues to say, let's have another repatriation holiday. and some of you have been pushing for that and i think it is a huge mistake. it takes all the steam out of tax reform, you cannot have another repatriation as we had 10 years ago which was disappointing in terms of the revenue it produced and the

investment, because then folks think every 10 years who have repatriation so let's keep that $2 trillion overseas and allow congress to lower the rate every 10 years and never get at the core issue. those are the three issues for those of you who are for repatriation, i hope you will think about that because it may seem like it helps in the short term but your back in the same situation and it is not a solution and does not allow america to be more competitive. there is plenty of reason to be skeptical but i think as a group, i hadn't meant this to be such a ra ra session but this group has got to be out there on point. we have to get the be rt, the chamber and others engaged on this. with some specifics. chris said it rightly everybody

is for tax reform but everybody gets nervous at the details. >> was it your plan that your side could support -- >> i think so. >> no, i'm talking to -- >> if you go back a number of years the president put back corporate tax reform which overlaps in many ways with the dave camp proposal but the issue today has been in many ways the issue of house republicans was that you can only do tax reform if you do all tax reform. if you're dealing with corporate tax for me have to do with a pass-through issue but the position taken by house republicans that you should do everything at once is going to create unsurmountable problems because it also gets into a range of budget issues and what role revenue should play in the long-term efforts to reduce the deficit through a combination of cuts but also revenue including getting rid of certain tax

expenditures. so when you bring in the individual piece and say you can only do corporate reform if you're going to do individual reform it creates deadlock right away. if our senate republican colleagues can convince the house republican colleagues to back off that demand and look at the areas of overlap then there is potential for moving forward. the dave camp proposal also generates one-time revenue. both the president and dave camp, which we haven't mentioned, but is a huge issue. the transportation trust fund will begin to be insolvent and revenue will not meet the demands starting in april we need a long-term solution or at least a multiyear solution.

the camp plan and also the president's planned use some of that one-time revenue for that purpose. beyond that there are obvious issues. we have the highest rate and we should bring it down but lots of people are benefiting and probably the biggest tax expenditure is accelerated depreciation. frankly, when the economy has been slow it has not been a good time to scale back on accelerated depreciation because you want to incentivize investment in the short term. that is why this does get complicated. >> let's talk about the one thing that might happen. we spent a lot of time talking about some and that may well not happen i'm curious what you think if i were to throw this out. there might be a grand bargain or some kind of bargain on the energy front that would be keystone -- you've talked a bit about this. if you were to throw in

infrastructure related aspects you might be able to get enough to support in congress for something like that -- what is your sense on one thing of significance next year through congress? >> i do want to give up on tax reform because i think it is needed and is important that we get the authority done and we want to get back in the business of exporting you promise in their down the last few years. regulatory relief we talked about briefly, there is so much to do there and it can be bipartisan. we get back to the basic notion of cost analysis but i think you're right, energy is one where there is huge potential and there are three things that i think should be included. one is keystone xl. it makes us more energy dependent and also the national security issues -- we should do that and the senate will have the votes to do that in the house already assumed they had

the votes and that will go to the president's desk and i hope he will sign it. energy efficiency is another way. we got to the senate floor twice and harry reid would not allow amendments but it is popular and adds jobs. taking something like 78 million homes off the grid by the year 2030. it is a big deal, and adds jobs and doesn't hurt the economy but does deal with emissions in a responsible way. and permitting reform is part of energy because right now we have a very uncompetitive process whether oil-gas or wind-solar. then lng exports. there is a process that would allow us to take further advantage of what has been an enormous boost to the economy in the last several years. we talked about how weak this economic recovery is. by historic standards average growth was about 11% during these last six years as a

compared to 20% with other recoveries but without energy, we would be in much tougher shape. i think energy is one but also those other three are ones that we can and should make progress on. >> i forgot that we did have questions we wanted to throw out there, i don't know if it's possible to move to the third one -- >> if i could respond briefly -- >> i want you to respond but it has to do with priorities that all of you would like to see congress address. that is not the one. i blame the recent knowledge gridlock on washington on president barack obama, the dysfunction in congress -- >> i fully endorse the portman energy efficiency bill and it would be nice if they can move that out of the senate and if the house would pass that.

i don't know if it will pass but you might have a better idea. with respect to the keystone pipeline whether you are for or against it and you want to wait on nebraska we can agree that is not an energy policy. the good news from an energy policy perspective is we now see the price of oil come way down, huge dividends to consumers around the country. it is pretty much a good news story so much on energy. what i would encourage everybody to look at actually is the issue -- the price of carbon pollution right now and take a look at the fact that the president has got a regulatory approach but has indicated he would much prefer to take a market approach. your former secretary of treasury and a lot of people are involved in this issue who

recognize that we are paying a price for carbon pollution in the country and around the world. that price should be captured in a market way and a market approach would be far preferable to the regulatory approach. i hope people will begin to take a look at that because if we don't take the market approach the other approach the president has outlined in the absence of any alternatives is going to be the policy. i would hope people would engage with our colleagues in congress. there was a time when this was not a partisan issue, when senator mccain and others were involved in the effort to deal with climate change in a smart market-based way but it unfortunately has become a totally political issue. we talk energy policy and this is a major piece of energy policy. >> let me see if we can tee up this question, if the congress

could give up just one policy, cutting the budget or energy policy? immigration, i know it is not high on your list at the moment and that the president's actions have not exactly enhanced that front, what is your sense, is it dead for the next congress? might republicans try to take something up? >> with 27% support for that and corporate tax reform takes it by a fairly wide plurality. >> the legal system is broken and i think the way we should respond to the overage, it is unconstitutional and maybe illegal but it is to legislate. that is our most effective tool, not that there won't be court cases -- not that there will be -- not that congress doesn't want to use the power of the

first to a certain extent i think the leaders in congress and you'll hear from mitch mcconnell in a moment, no one is talking about government shutdown. everyone is talking about dealing with the budget in a responsible way and trying to get as much of the current continued resolution pushed to the end of the fiscal year. but i think we ought to legislate and we had to legislate on areas withers a lot of agreement and fill in some any of the holes left out by the executive order. that would include security at the border but also the workplace were you all need to weigh in. we have a system now that doesn't work and deal with the entry-exit system. the system is broken. secondly, we have to deal with this broader question of how to get the people to this country who we need to grow the economy. we do need to deal with the h-1b visa issue but also a broader look at immigration policy and how do we encourage more legal immigration.

we deal with the worker program in some way because that is an obvious need. there is an opportunity to do that. i don't know the answer if it will happen because a lot of folks are understandably ticked off at the president for usurping what would normally be a legislative prerogative but i think we can respond by legislating. it won't be exactly what came out of the senate, it will be stronger on enforcement and will deal more with this notion of bringing people with skills into the country. if we do that i think there's a possibility of us working with the president. >> do you think something will happen on immigration? >> the answer is in the hands of our republican colleagues. i would point out that there is a piece of legislation that meets all the issues rob just mentioned, very big on border security and some publicans and we put too many resources into order security, interior enforcement, h-1b visas, worker program, it is called the bipartisan bill that passed the

senate was 68 votes and right now is sitting in the house of representatives. at the end of this year that goes away. all the work that was done on the bipartisan basis is gone, up in smoke and we are in a new congress. the fastest way to get comprehensive immigration reform would be for the speaker of the house to allow us to vote in the house of representatives on a bipartisan senate bill. if it goes down, it goes down but why not have a vote on the bipartisan bill that passed the senate? republicans will be doing themselves a huge favor if they allowed a vote on that bill in the united states house and it would do the country a favor as we get immigration reform but it would get an issue off the republican plates going into a presidential election year. and republicans in the house can vote no. we have enough republicans and a

house that would vote yes to get it to the president's desk, he could site tonight and the issue would be covered in a smart comprehensive way. >> let me say quickly -- >> i don't know if what he is saying is accurate in terms of the votes lie. i don't believe it will work as a result. >> did you not vote that? >> i did not particularly because of the lack of enforcement, not at the border where there were improvements made but in terms of the workplace. if you look at the pilot program in the senate bill, the new program to deal with the workforce, that program which has a new requirement and would be able to look more carefully at documentation results in more than half of the people who apply who do not have documents that are legal getting to the system.

until we deal with that magnet, we are not going to solve this problem. i propose something where you have matching documents in terms of photographs and some people have passports and so on and there is a way to tighten it up but the senate was not willing to take that up as an amendment. i understand there is some concern about dealing with the workplace but until you do you can have the strongest border security and you can even deal with some of these other issues i talked about on visas and you can still have people coming to the country. i think stronger enforcement works and we should have learned from the 86 bill were we never put in the quarter sanctions and therefore we legalize 3 million people and another 6 million people came. we have to have stronger enforcement for this to work. >> all of us would have written this bill a little differently if it was our own bill that it is the product of compromise and as i indicated there were a lot of folks who said the additional

border security went overboard but that was the price people paid to get it out of the senate. we should pass it. it deals adequately with inferior enforcement. there we have it. but, you know if you guys are , going to pass a different immigration reform bill i look , forward to seeing it. >> let's get some things over to john. >> lets get questions from the audience. yes, please. >> pat garrity from florida blue, the blue cross plan in the state of florida. i'm interested in hearing where you think health care is going now that you see we are living with a law that has flaws clearly and did not go through a conference process -- we have had the debate going on a full repeal but i think most of us feel that we need to fix what we have got, what is the opportunity that you see going forward to have some compromise around fixing what we have?

first, i wanted to tell you, jack there is enormous , uncertainty right now. there is a case working its way through the courts that may say the federal exchange, 36 states have it including ohio there may , not be an ability under the law to subsidize. i don't know if chris would agree with me but i think that , undermines the entire obamacare project. there is a lot of uncertainty. i mentioned earlier that i thought we should focus on these economic growth issues and clearly health care is when i go one. back home and talk to my business community and small business owners they are concerned about the costs of health care which have accelerated. an article in "the wall street journal" today. it was about the middle class squeeze. i talked about wages going up and expenses are going up. the biggest one is health care.

that is the middle-class squeeze. i don't think with this president we can do much. i think there will be a repeal vote in the house or the senate but will not pass and won't go to the president because we don't have the votes. then we get busy on three or four things are possible, this work week issue as cause a lot 30-hour more part-time work in my state. i don't care what the administration says. i'm talking to people telling me they had to call people in and say we cannot afford obamacare and we you are down to 28 hours. and the person says how about my car payment or house payment? find another part-time job. that is happening. you are seeing these numbers accelerating dramatically. >> you think there are things that are fixable? >> i think we have to repeal the vote and start over i think there is a better way to address the whole issue. but that is one way to deal with it. come up going back to the 40 hour rather than a 30 hour requirement and then medical device tanks which is not something the american people are generally familiar with but

what a stupid tax. it is driving jobs out of this country, including out of ohio, and that is where there was a lot of bipartisan support. there are folks who have medical device companies in their states who are democrats who understand this is an issue that is to be fixed so i think there are things like that where i could see us making limited progress. >> the democrats have had to be protective of this bill, not wanting it to be dismantled but i assume that you don't think it is perfect. could you see an avenue for fixing various things that would make it work better? >> if there are specific proposals put forward to improve the afford will care act, there have been some changes along the margins that of and made over the last couple of years on some less controversial things. my view is that we have had four or five years in the house where

the mantra has been repeal and replace, there has never been a replacement proposal put forward. that's because i believe the fundamental idea behind the affordable care act if you take that market-based approach which was advocated in the 1990's by a lot of conservative thinkers making sure individuals take responsibility. and those who cannot afford it will get a tax credit. the idea of having everybody in the pool is fundamental to the concept of insurance. one of the reasons people have struggled to come up with an alternative because it is hard to. i don't know that there's some kind of device like that. if people want to put forward different ideas, the medical device tax -- i disagree with rob but i think we could all agree that is not at the heart of the affordable care act.

that is not dealing with the fundamental reforms of the affordable care act. the reason for the medical device tax was because more people will now be covered and get insurance and more people will be able to afford the products offered by the medical device community. i'm sure there is a range of opinion. >> we have two minutes left, is there another quick question on a difficult topic? >> we do have some here. sam is stepping forward. >> congressman, could you please give us a sense -- we have talked during this forum a little bit about the very radical shift in energy production in the u.s. and you spoke briefly on energy policy, we have restrictions and prohibitions on the export of crude oil and tight restrictions on lng that came out of the energy crisis of the 70's, what is so hard about getting that changed?

>> as you know with respect to lng there already are some changes. it is on a case-by-case basis but there have been a number of major export efforts that have been approved and as you know the basis for that was for example with respect to lng, to the extent that we had more limited supply it would drive up the cost of using lng for manufacturing here. that scenario we can take a look at lng but this is the same basis -- the same grounds on petroleum. >> would you support lifting -- >> i willing to look at it but what i want to understand is what impact it will have on domestic manufacturing. if we've reached a point where will have minimal impact on the cost of domestic manufacturing than that is something we can look at but the original rationale for it was as i said to make sure that our domestic manufacturers are not put at a disadvantage.

>> i think we have to leave it there -- >> the administrations own studies have shown this will not have a negative impact on manufacturers given the supply and the projections. it's a commodity and a world price. i think it makes sense and i mention that earlier as one of the things you can do with energy policy, certainly lng exports had more considerations than crude oil. i think both of those have ought to be considered. >> that's where we have to leave it. join me in thanking our panel. [applause] >> on the next "washington journal," commerce and kevin brady of texas on the government funding deadline and efforts to pass extenders for the end of the year. -- ben cardin talks about racial profiling.

your calls and comments live every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. today, prime minister david cameron takes questions from numbers of parliament during prime minister's questions time in the british house of commons. see live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. incoming senate majority leader mitch mcconnell spoke to the wall street journal ceo council about his agenda once the republicans take over the majority in the u.s. senate. this is 20 minutes. >> thank you very much, senator mcconnell, for being here he had to work harder than you all know to get here because it is washington and it rained.

washington doesn't cope with many things well including rain. , thank you for persevering. congratulations. you had a pretty good by which i november, mean the kentucky wildcats and louisville cardinal 's teams are off to a great start oh and you won control of the senate. >> one of my better months. >> let me start with at the 10,000 foot level and washington, the words of and congress have gone together a lot in the last two years. you've talked from the minute you won the majority about fixing the way the senate works. talk about how you are going to do that and what you have in mind when you say that. >> rarely does an issue like functioning resonate with the american people, but it clearly did. there are two things we heard all over the country. people were very upset with the administration. you can figure that out pretty quickly. but they were also not happy with the fact that we don't seem

to do anything anymore. it was clear to those of us in the senate that the reason we weren't doing anything was the senate. we have evolved over last three or four years into a body that basically never passes anything except in an emergency situation. i feel like we have an obligation to the american people to be responsible -- right of center, governing majority. which involves allowing votes on matters. democraticreshman senator running for reelection who never had a rollcall vote on an amendment of this and in six years. his opponent, dan sullivan brought that up on a routine , basis. not only did it not work politically but it did not work , for the government. will be working longer and working harder and there will be an opportunity for members of both the majority and the

minority to offer their ideas and to get votes. that sounds revolutionary i know, but we will pass individual appropriation bills rather than ball everything up into a continuing resolution which only further underscores the dysfunction. >> one of the things that helped to blow up the senate was the democrats invoking what is known as the nuclear option which is a rule that says you cannot filibuster presidential nominees, you can get them approved with 51 votes and your hated it. -- your side hated it. you will be in charge in a matter of weeks. are you going to stick with that rule or are you going to get rid of it? some people say let's keep it in place and let the democrats get a taste. >> the worst thing about it was the way that it was done. the rules of the senate require 67 votes, a high threshold to , change the rules of the

senate. very clear. the senate is a continuous body. it does not adopt rules of the beginning of every session -- every congress like the house does. what was done is they moved to change the rules of the senate. the parliamentarian said you cannot do it. it was overturned and they set a precedent that any majority at any time for whatever reason can change the rules of the senate. it is impossible to unring a bell, so the president is there regretfully. your question is, what you do about it? we're going to have an in-depth , lengthy discussion on this on december 9. we invited our freshmen to come back and there are points of view on both sides of this. leaving aside the way it was done, there are those who argued this was the way it was until 2000.

even though the rules permitted filibustering executive branch and judicial appointments, it essentially was never done for the purpose of killing a nomination. even though it was possible it , was never done. there are those who are arguing that -- put aside for a moment the way that it was done, this is the way that was up until 2000 when the democrats decided to start filibustering george w. bush's circuit court nomination. i can't give you an answer but we will have an in-depth discussion shortly. >> people would agree the most important relationship in this town is between you and the president. talk about what that relationship is like from your point of view and how you think it evolves. >> we don't have any personal difficulties. in fact, i've negotiated the only bipartisan agreement we had administration

involving the vice president and , myself and of course he was , not a free agent, he was allowed to do so by the president. the two year extension on the bush tax cuts in december 2010 and the budget control act in august of 2011 and the fiscal cliff deal on new year's eve of 2012 were all bipartisan negotiations. i don't have any fundamental problem with negotiating with the other side. we don't have any personal problems. there is, however, a deep philosophical difference. if you look at the way the president has reacted -- it can only be described as a butt-kicking election. if you joined the governor of massachusetts, or illinois that by any objective standard the president got crushed in the election. so i have been perplexed by the election, ace the sort of in-your-face dramatic

, move to the left. i don't know what we can expect in terms of reaching bipartisan agreements. that is my first choice to look , for the things we agree on if there are any. at least on trade, i think there is the potential for agreement, trade agreements are more popular in my conference than they are in the democratic conference. tax reform, we all think it out -- ought to be done. so far the president's view has , been he wants a trillion dollar ransom to do it. cvonce $1 trillion in revenue for the federal government as a condition to do comprehensive tax reform which reagan and tip o'neill believes would be revenue-neutral to the government. we're not going to pay a trillion dollar ransom to do something that would make the country more competitive. we certainly need to do it, want to do it, but are not going to

under any circumstances give this administration $1 trillion more in revenue to do it. >> to the people in this room that one corporate tax reform, what do you tell them the taxes are that you get from here to there in the next two years? >> i would tell all of you to lobby the president to agree with us what the purpose of this all is. to make america more competitive. they already had plenty of tax increases, we had a tutorial in the last six years of spending, borrowing, taxing, and overregulation. on the front page of your paper today. it points out how much regular americans have fallen behind. we know this stuff doesn't work. we have had an experiment for six long years. if the president wants to make a country more competitive the single best thing he could do would be comprehensive tax reform. you notice i keep saying comprehensive.

it will be tricky, if not impossible to convince my , members set c corp.'s get a rate down here. pass-throughs get a rate up your. two things we ought have an understanding about at the beginning. large and small businesses should be treated the same and that it ought to be revenue-neutral to the government. if we had those can of understandings before we start down the path, i think we can get there. >> but you have to separate it from personal tax reform and have to. >> i know the president enjoys higher rates and wants higher rates. ideally, we would have the same top rate for everybody but at the very least we don't think big business deserves a rate down here and pass through businesses deserved to be up here. >> the other thing is to please

-- the other thing that people would ask for from washington is please stop the unpleasant surprises. no more government shutdown fiasco scenarios. pick the term you want. give us predictability. no more market-rattling events. can you offer assurances on that front? >> i made it very clear the day after the election that no more government shutdowns and threats to default on the national debt. we need to quit rattling the economy with things that are perceived by the voters as disturbing. having said that, there is still a lot of change -- there's no way to work around and i like to remind people he is the only person in the country to consign -- that can sign something into

law. in the old days deliver the , members of his party to vote for a deal that he makes. they are having an internal circular firing squad in the wake of the election. what i hope is that regardless of the direction the president takes that there will be 10 to 15 senate democrats who want to get back to normal and want to try to do things in the political center. who seem to me to be more willing to do that even when the president doesn't want to do it. >> although that senator got a little wiped out in the election, didn't he? >> i don't think so. look at the vote on the keystone pipeline. this should surprise all of you in the room but about half the , calls i got after the election were from senate democrats. i'm not telling you they were i won,hat i will -- that

but they were saying we would begin to get back to normal. that people's work would be honored and they would have a chance to offer amendments and ideas and committees would function again. i think there is a lot of enthusiasm about those changes in the senate. if you look at the keystone pipeline vote, there is a core of senate democrats who don't like dysfunction and do think we ought to work together to try to achieve at least those things we can agree on. >> one of the questions at the moment is whether you can convince your caucus to fund the government between now and the end of the fiscal year in september, or whether there is a conservative group who doesn't want to do that because they think the budget is leverage over the president to deal with the immigration executive order he has promised he is going to execute. can you get, in the name of predictability, your caucus to agree to fund the government between now and the end of the fiscal year? >> in the short term the senate , will be in a reactive role. we will support what house republicans sent to us.

next year will be more co-equal partners on that issue. right now, our view is to sort it out in the house. we will be supporting that. >> talk about immigration again if you want. you mentioned earlier that executive order has roiled the waters, but your senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform a couple years ago. is it possible now? is that what you will seek? can that be done in this environment? >> if you will allow a historical analogy the most , significant political figure to come out of my state was a long time ago, a guy named henry clay. he made a name for himself by trying to hold the country together prior to the civil war. towards the end of his life, we had won the mexican war and had new territory all the way to the pacific. a lot of potential new states which always raise the issue , whether they will be slave

states or free states. clay cobbled together a massive compromise that included a lot of different things. it was defeated. he was so discouraged, he literally picked up and left town and stephen a douglas who went on to be well known took it apart and every piece of it passed separately and only five senators voted for every piece. >> is a point? i think what has made it really difficult for the congress to swallow is the comprehensive nature of the weight is being -- of the way it has been presented. our democratic colleagues in the senate expect us -- to be focused like a laser on one issue and that is the people who are in the country, no matter matter how they got here and what happens to them and what is their status. there are a lot of other aspects to this that are important. as the proud husband of an immigrant who came here legally,

and ended up in the president's cabinet, i'm a big supporter of legal immigration. the legal system is a big mess . what i think we ought to do is busted up and pass as much of it , starting with border security as a way to reassure the american people will not have another calamity like we have had. and the speaker will have to give you his take on it but i would bust it up if i were to present it to the senate worker provisions and h-2a and some of the other things we can get broad agreement on. have it open for amendment but i don't know what the fate of the provisions that said that it immigrants are interested in would be. but put on the president's desk whatever we could get to him that improves the legal immigration system and particularly strengthens the order which we had not yet done.

is pressed for time, but i want to open up to at least one audience question if we have one. if not, i am happy to keep rolling here. there was a question earlier about the affordable care act. you are a big fan of the affordable care act, obviously. there is a question about what a republican majority does with it. there is a repeal or fix argument. how do you approach the affordable care act? >> i assume you knew he was joking. i think it is the single worst legislation we have passed in at least the last half-century and the biggest step the europeanize american health care. having said that, it bears the president's name. the chances of him signing a full repeal are limited. there are parts that are extremely toxic with the american people. the elimination of the 40 hour

work week, the individual mandate the medical device tax, , the health insurance tax. i think you can anticipate those kinds of things being voted on in the senate. such votes have not been allowed in the past. who may ultimately take it down is the supreme court of united states. this very significant case that will be decided before june on the question of whether the language of the law means what the language of the law says. which is that subsidies are only available to states and set of -- that set up the state exchanges. many states have not. if that were to be the case, i would assume you can have a mulligan, a major do over of the whole thing. presented that opportunity -- presented to us by the supreme court as opposed to actually getting the president to sign a full repeal which is not likely. ,>> we have time for just one more question and i will let you

get out without touching on , but i don't want the opportunity to pass without touching on foreign policy. one of the imminent questions will be whether congress is going to give the president a new version of what is called the authorization to use military force specifically directed at the islamic state. the white house seems likely to ask for that. is it going to be granted and how difficult will it be to work through congress? >> i think there is bipartisan desire in the congress to pass a aumo. i think the administration was less interested in that than we were. i think we probably will. it looks like this will be a long-term engagement at some level by us. i think it is appropriate for the congress to weigh in and i expect that we will. >> how open ended, how long term will that be? >> we will have to see. it is a very complicated issue. as recently as early as this

year the president was calling us the junior varsity. it is clearly not a jv team it is an nba team with serious threats and implications for the country. >> are you optimistic that this can be a bipartisan effort to stop the islamic state? is it becoming a partisan issue? >> i think there are people on both sides of the aisle feel that benign neglect is not going to lead to a good outcome. we will have to have some level of american involvement. probably a big discussion about how much involvement, but i don't think we can ignore groups that make it clear they want to kill us by beheading american citizens and making sure we see it. >> senator mcconnell, you have been kind to take a break in a busy time and a busy day and we appreciate it very much and hope to do it again as time rolls on. >> thanks.

[applause] >> wednesday afternoon, senator mcconnell will meet with president obama in a private meeting in the oval office. in their first one-on-one meeting since the republicans won control of the senate, they are expected to discuss legislative priorities, including government funding for the end of the year and the president's executive actions on immigration. today, a hearing on the recall of defective car airbags manufactured by the takata corporation. officials from takata, honda, and bmw joined before the house energy and commerce committee. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. mpton, who recently retired as the abc news white house correspond, the

administrations of gerald ford through barack obama. like aatched them go bunch of second graders to the bill. presidentup into the and was stunned. i wrote down in my notebook. nobody interrupts the president. the president said he had to go, and then we heard it was discovered that it was two plane crashes in new york. we went out to the pool, now in the parking lot outside the school and said, stay right here. the press will talk to the pool. i said, no. the president has to speak there. he did not want to scare the children, but he went into the cafeteria and said it was an apparent terrorist attack and i must return to washington. we were raced into the plane. the gore was -- the door was

slam and the pentagon was hit. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q1 day. >> [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> good morning. congressman thank you for coming back to the ceo council it is good to have you here i know it is been another busy time. what we start by talking a little about what is going on at this moment with the tax extender deal which you have been pretty involved in. >> the president added deal up a good one at bipartisan with harry reid we would produc