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 produce

herman it expansion on section 179 and other longer-term extensions and the president blew it up so we will do a clean one year deal. >> does that, kate your task next year? >> yes we will have more work to do but this has more uncertainty. >> one question on that part of the president's objection is the income tax not being extended here which is some thing you talked about and supported. even if you're unhappy with him on this point you take the point on income tax credit? >> i do intend taking up the issue on reforming income tax credit i put up a lot of -- put up a plan on a lot of issues surrounding poverty and i think it needs to be improved and there is some issue that needs to be addressed but those were stimulus parts of the tax code which if you recall the pitch

arry summers and other made, deal. >> in that atmosphere what is our honest assessment of the chances for good tax reform really taking shape. >> it will not be for a lack of trying. >> we think it is fundamentally the key cornerstone for faster economic growth. where going to spend next year and a fair on after focusing on growing the economy getting a healthier economy, creating obs and getting people back to work.

we will reform that allows all businesses to have faster economic growth and the manner and style we do that is clear for people like haul ryan and nora hatch but i don't know how clear it will be for this administration. we also have to remember that we cannot ignore the individual side of the code. perhaps at this president it is not achievable because he likes higher tax rates which i think hurts economic growth. if we can get halfway toward comprehensive tax reform is a good step in the right direction i think that is great. >> you are open to tackling the corporate side of things? >> mind you the pass-throughs pay taxes higher than individuals under these codes and that is a big wrinkle. >> as senator mcconnell indicated after the election

there open to that -- >> we have been talking and we will exhaust the possibilities. >> what about dynamic scoring to get tax or form done do you have to have dynamic scoring? >> the right way to describe this is we should have the most accurate scorekeeping possible. one thing that congress does not do in scorekeeping is that it assumes that people's behavior will not change of taxes change. that's ridiculous. we know that is not accurate. i'd rather call it accurate scoring or reality-based scoring. we will improve our scorekeeping capabilities so that we can have the most accurate scorekeeping possible. we think it is important that policymakers make decisions with the best information possible. if we don't do that will have tax reform relieve economic growth on the table.

we want to make sure the decisions we make our maximizing the possibility for growth and the potential for growth. we want the measuring stick that we use to make sure we can take that into account when we an act tax -- >> at sounds like we can expect to see changes in the house. >> you can expect more accurate corekeeping. >> while chairman camp is still there you have been careful about not getting too deep in the policy details from your perspective but you are a supporter of the camp plan when it came out to my's a good framework at least for us to think about? does that indicate where you will start? >> i think that camp deserves a lot of credit for taking on what was really a heroic effort. you mentioned scorekeeping a second ago and one of the handcuffs he had placed upon him was the static

scorekeeping. the revenue targets. there are other issues and hopefully we can improve those things we can improve the product the committee produces. i see it as a marker -- not a starting point but a marker. there is one inescapable conclusion no matter how you slice it which is, if we're going to lower our tax rates and we have to to be competitive, there will have to be based rocketing involved -- base broadening involved with that to close loopholes. in order to see that base roadening, it may change the scope of that but it is summing that has to happen in order to have lower tax rates. >> you are in the room with 150 ceos, what you need from them? >> see the horizon, work with us to look at the big picture and work with us to look at the

end of the day and the horizon. what we are after at the end of the day is a globally and internationally competitive tax system so that the place where you want capital to be destined is america. so where you want to be domiciled is america and so that the tax system is putting you in the best possible position to succeed, grow and create jobs and invest. >> don't think so much about the narrow tax expenditure that was maybe in your purview, lane or area but look at the end product. lower tax rates and a smarter international tax base. if you are to bring capital from overseas you should bring it back any darn day you want to. >> watching what happened to the camp plan which the speaker famously dismissed with blah blah balh, and quickly ran aground the you feel a distant -- different atmosphere in the house?

>> dave had to work within the confines of issues that i think made it hard if not impossible to write the perfect tax reform. there is no such thing as the perfect tax reform bill but because he had these restrictions the rules he worked with at the time made it more difficult to write a good iece of legislation. at the same time you have an administration that likes high tax rates on individuals. which is bad for growth, bad for pass-throughs and that became a problem in and of itself. hopefully what we can do is with more accurate scorekeeping and smart tools we need for program legislation, we can put it -- pro growth run legislation -- legislation, we can put it on the president's esk. it's going to happen because it

must happen for economic health and for survival. the question is when? it is one to three years from happening. either 2015 or 2017 the way that i see it. sooner would be better for all of us but we will see. >> what about trade? that seems to be in area where there is some meeting of the minds between the house and the administration. >> i am cautiously optimistic. i'm not try to be too dismissive of the administration possibility of working with congress but this is one of the issues -- administration's ability of working with congress but this is one of the issues we want to ee it. the could be an increase in gdp for our export markets. it is a great opportunity and have to get it right you with the hill, ppa, others and a

japanese have a flash election december 14. hopefully with those behind a that frees up -- with those behind abe, that frees up issues. it is important the disagreement does not set us back with respect to a precedent on our other agreements. if we can get a good agreement with ppp and get tpa through congress than i am consciously -- cautiously optimistic. that we can help continue to set the stage for global growth going the right direction. the rule of law in free enterprise, the thing that the american economy and america should be leading in. the fact that we have not had a trade agreement negotiated successfully gives me a little pause. the ones that we passed were negotiated by the past administration so this one does not have experience negotiating these and i want to make sure in the closing months that we

get this right. >> you are for fast-track correct? >> yes. >> what about -- is it going to be renewed? >> addled don't think we shouldn't i am with jeff hensley on this issue. if we are going to reform welfare for low income individuals we should reform welfare for businesses as well. i think it is important for economic reasons and moral authority reasons and with the new majority coming in i think we will have more people in the house for sure and definitely in the senate. your editorial page has done a spectacular job in my opinion of fleshing this issue out. >> you just talked about welfare for individuals i want to go to. -- i want to go to entitlements.?

we spent a lot of time visiting areas and thinking about poverty, after that experience how will you be a different ways and means chairman in 2015 than you might of been in 2013? >> i guess one of the priorities i intend on advancing and spending my time on is producing fast-track economic growth and upward mobility and removing the barriers that make it hard for people stuck in poverty to get up and on their way. i believe this committee has so much jurisdiction and it is the committee in charge of welfare laws. i really believe it is time for what i call a welfare reform 2.0. when we reformed welfare in 1996 that was one program. the last few years in addition to traveling the country and meeting with heroic people and doing a phenomenal job of fighting poverty grassroots groups doing a great job we also looked at all the federal

government programs in the poverty fighting space. what was interesting is this had not been done before, none -- no one in the federal government had looked at all the government does in the space of addressing poverty. no such analysis existed so not only did we quantify the 92 programs at $800 billion year, we went through each of these programs to look if they are orking or not. the point is it is a real mixed bag in the second point is that all the success and now the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty with trillions of dollars spent has been solely measured on input. how me programs are we spending, how many incomes are we spending. you should think about the government as well, are we getting people out of poverty? is it working? is upward mobility

occurring? we need -- i'm bringing a bill to the floor next week that patty and i negotiated to move our metrics system and government toward measuring the effectiveness of these policies nd outcomes. we wanted to take that get those metrics and translate it into better policy so we can focus on reworking our poverty fighting strategies not to -- in concert with the private sector with an eye toward getting people off of welfare into work. so that to me -- we need an verhaul of our approach. metrics, and translate it into better public policy so we can focus henri reworking our poverty fighting strategies, not -- in concert with the

private sector, with an eye toward getting people off of welfare, into work. we need an overhaul of our approach. this is something i am going to spend a lot of time working on because i think it is essential if we want to reignite the american idea. the condition of your birth doesn't determine your outcome of life in this country. >> so it is a bipartisan bill. to get that done, what can you practically do next year? what is achievable on this front? >> the way i look at the next two years, get what you can get done for the sake of the economy, for economic growth, for making a difference, and really get ready to govern. i tried to do budget agreements with this white house for a long time. the president is not interested in fundamental entitlement reform. so get ready to govern. prepare for what inevitably must occur to get us off this debt crisis. a lot of people like to think that is not a problem anymore. it is still out there. let's get prepared. let's prepare, let's get the policies ready, let's get all the things you need to do in congress ready, and let's go to the american people and show the country what a real, thoughtful, thorough agenda of

getting us off this debt crisis looks like. faster economic growth of strong foreign policy defense. show the country what a real governing agenda looks ike. so, get ready to govern in 2017 by giving the country and agenda in 2015 and 2016. in the meantime, pass what we can pass to help improve people's lives. >> what is the agenda on health care? partly, knowing that there are a lot of gop concerns about the health care act, but also knowing that we continue to live in this atmosphere of uncertainty of what our health care is going to be. what is the smart way in your perspective? >> to articulate what the alternative looks like? >> outright repeal? >> repeal and replace. just from knowing this law very

well and studying it and looking at it, i think obamacare collapses under its own weight for lots of reasons. providers going bankrupt, access problems, fiscal problems, the scorekeeping was miserable, denying choices of people. wait until the employer mandate kicks in. i'm sure many of you have had your hr people look like -- look at this. i do believe this law will be replaced. not simply because i desire that, just because i don't think it is a sustainable law. the faster we can articulate a better approach that gets at what we are trying to get to in the first place, affordable health care for everybody in this country, but a market based patient centered approach where choice and competition drive the result, not price controls and arbitrary regulations.

>> we are going to go to questions in a minute. i have to ask one more thing. you mentioned 2017 a couple times. you are known for being a family man who is worried about the impact of politics on your ids. are you ready to declare that you are not going to be a candidate like senator portman did today? >> i didn't know he did that. rob is a great guy, one of my favorite people around here. that is a decision i've long been saying i will deal with in 2015. right now i want to focus on 2014 issues. i'm sticking to my timeline. i'll make the decision in 2015. >> what are going to be the key deciders? >> i'm pretty much -- people know me, i have a young family, that is number one in my mind. i don't have to be the guy.

where can i make the most difference? plenty of other considerations as well. >> you talk also about other contenders. after the election, there have been some faces including scott walker getting more national attention. a lot of gop governors out there are making noises. are you encouraged by the overall feel? >> i am encouraged. i'm not going to touch the next question with a 10 foot pole. just so you know. there are a lot of good quality people. >> let me try up this way. >> go ahead, give it a shot. >> it is a real question. there is a lot of smart experimentation going on at the state level. a lot of governors are trying stuff. who do you look out at across

the country in the gop ranks -- >> a lot of them are friends of mine. john case, great guy, had a huge margin. scott in wisconsin. people think this is just taking on employee unions. don't underestimate the value of the education reforms that come with this. getting rid of last in first out. really impressive reforms. look at what stan brown backed it in kansas. look what mike pence has done in indiana. all those people are very good friends of mine that i served with or grew up with. we have a good stable of people. >> is there anything that looks more appealing than other alternatives? > why don't we open it up? >> do we have questions from the audience? let's get a microphone. over here.

>> matt and i were talking about this at dinner yesterday. >> you are not a big fan of the administration these days. >> we have our moments. we try to do a good job for our students. the idea is, the workforce. the old model of, go to college and worked the rest of your life, that is dead. we know with the pace of technology, you have to go back to school every 10 or 20 years. a big portion of that is coming from the employers and the corporations who have training and tuition reimbursement programs. those are capped interestingly at 5250, $5250 a year. hat hasn't changed in 20 or 30 years. >> you are asking for a tax extension? >> exactly. the idea is levering a lot of

private sector money in the process. by raising that, do you then lever a lot of private money for retraining? >> let's back up and look at all the money we spend. one of the bipartisan successes of this congress is, we looked at the job training programs at the federal government. we dramatically streamlined and overhauled them, sending money back to the states so that they can go to the individual in the form of a scholarship or to the employer themselves, who can set up a curriculum, or to the whatevers for this very thing. this is something i wrote a lot about in our poverty plan. >> giving the money to -- >> go to the individual. it is our approach on most things. do you run -- that was interesting.

do you do the bureaucratic, progressive, big government, one-size-fits-all, top-down, washington knows best approach? or do you run the resources through the individual? health care, retirement security, education, through the individual, into a marketplace where you get to compete for our business as people. i think i know what model works better. right now, we have an ideology we are trying to deal with to get through this to get to these objectives. we could save so much money and help so many more people if we go with a patient-centered, choice-based, market-based approach on all these hings. that is what we are trying to get to. in education, yes, and i think you can take the tens of billions of dollars we spend a

year and do that before we get into a tax issue. you are needlessly raising another person's rates with an extension. >> another question? yes please, right here. >> i'm disappointed to hear about the one-year extension. is there any hope that we can do something to make that a two-year? >> we would like to have it permanent. we passed in the house bonus appreciation permanence in the house. that was in this agreement that the president blew up. we have to go back to the drawing board. we made our intentions clear. you have to wait for another round of legislative session. if he blew up this last one, he is president for two more years, we will see. > thank you very much. [applause]

>> we could see tax extenders be renewed. richard you've written about this in bloomberg. give us an overview here. how much does this bill cost? how long is the extension? and what are some of the tax breaks involved? >> the bill the house is going to be voting on this week is known as a one-year extension. where they revive a bunch of tax breaks that laps at the end of 2013 and extend them through 2014. so they only extend them through december 31 of this year. the bill is about $45 billion, the biggest breaks in there include the production tax credit force wind energy, the research tax credit for businesses, the ability for an individual to deduct state

sales taxes and a provision that helps multinational finance committees defer taxes. so it's a real collection, a hodgepodge, a mish mash of tax breaks for individuals and businesses, and it's got enough support usually to carry everybody, enough members to support it even though there are a lot of provisions in there that individual members would pick on and complain about. >> why do theed these need to be revived now? >> what's driving the timing is end of congressional year so congress is trying to get out of here by the end of next week. the second is the tax filing season that starts in january. the i.r.s. says it needs congress to move as soon as possible to decide what the tax system looks like for 2014 so they can finish all the forms, get the instructions ready, and start being ready with their computers to accept returns. so if you don't know whether you can deduct state sales tax and you live in a state like

nevada, florida, that doesn't have income tax the i.r.s. doesn't know what to do. so they need to move now for the filing system to open on time or even a little bit late. >> how would congress propose to pay for all of these tax extensions? >> they're not. this bill doesn't have any offsets or any significant offsets. it would add to the federal deficits over the next decade. that's an accommodation where they agreed these things are -- were in policy and existence in 2013 and they should continue going forward and you shouldn't have to pay for that. >> you sent out a tweet. dave camp and ron widen. you say so dave camp's bill extends almost every lapsed tax break. one exception is a pet project of rine widen's.

what's going on here? >> so we don't know much about the why but there are about 55 tax breaks that were expired and only a handful that didn't get extended in the house bill. one of those is a tax break for plug-in two and three-wheeled vehicles, electric motorcycles basically. one maker of those vehicles is in oregon, the home state of ron widen and he's been a big advocate of that tax break. dave camp left it out and widen is saying anti-innovation. he's not happy about that. and going forward, look, the two had a working relationship they and senator reid in the senate were getting close to a deal to make a bunch of these breaks permanent and extend the rest for two years. that deal fell apart last week and there's been a bit of animosity back and forth since then. >> ron widen is not going to be the head of that finance

committee much longer. you just tweeted about the future chair, hatch. the president and his liberal allies are unlikely to get a better tax extenders deal in the next congress. what's the likelihood of this moving forward whether with the white house or house democrats? >> it seems unlikely that something will happen before the end of this year. you've got some house democrats who are fine with it. the white house today is saying basically that they're ok with the general idea of the short-term extension. we'll see what happens when it gets over to the senate whether they try to make minor changes or major changes or just accept the bill as it is. but when you have a bill like this that expires at the end of 2014 then all of a sudden congress has to deal with this next year. so orrin hatch will be the new chairman in the senate, dave camp is retiring at the end of this congress so you've got

paul ryan coming in. so you've got a new team with the same issue coming back at the same problem in 2015. >> you can follow richard ruben n twitter. >> coming up on c-span homeland security secretary jay johnson defends the president's immigration order. then "washington journal" live with congressman kevin brady of texas and senator ben carden of maryland.

here are some of the programs you'll see this weekend.

>> the senate commerce

committee heard from representatives of the national football league, baseball, basketball association and hockey league. about how they're addressing issues of domestic violence and professional athletes. here is part of what former n.f.l. player and current executive vice president of football operations troy vincent had to say in his opening remarks. >> when i consider these issues, domestic violence was a way in my home. my brother and i watched helplessly numerous times as my mother was beaten and knocked unconscious as we dialed 911. we watched how she struggled to seek help and find the courage to say no more. the complexities accompanying this remain reel to me today. i've committed my life's works for the last 20 years adds an

advocate in order to keep others from experiencing this lifetime pain. i relate to the 20 million victims, survivors of domestic violence, sexual abuse, in every community across our great nation. in addition, i had the honor and the privilege of playing in a national football league for 15 years. 12 of those years i served as a union official. four of those years i served as the players association president. i support the interest of all players and a fair process. i led these efforts. i know the majority of our current and former players are terrific husbands, fathers, and men who have made incredible contributions to their communities. players know that league standards are not labor issues nor management issues. they're issues that concern

everyone. in 2007 the league and players union worked closely together to develop a personal conduct policy. i was part of those efforts. and today, just as in the past, the league has invited the n.f.l. pmp a along with other experts to assist us in setting the highest possible standards. the n.f.l. has taken a number of steps to improve how we respond to ins depth of domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual assault. first, through efforts personally led through the commissioner, the n.f.l. has undertaken a thorough review of our personal conduct policy having consulted with over 100 leading experts across a broad rake of subjects. our goal to set clear rules to govern accountability for misconduct to establish a fair process for our players and employee discipline. we will create a conduct committee responsible for review and recommend changes to the personal conduct policy going forward. experts will continue to advise

both the conduct committee and the commissioner so that we always have the right voices at the table on both educational and disciplinary work. second, we are deploying a comp hebsive mandatory education program for more than 5,000 men and women in the n.f.l. family. our goal is to ensure that everyone understands and has the full scope of this behavior and is familiar with the warning signs associated with these crimes. education also promotes prevention. by standard intervention how individuals can appropriately and safely help those at risk is another key focus area of our education. third, we are training critical response teams to help prevent and respond quickly to family violence and sexual assault. including safety, medical, legal, and financial support. supporting re

leading domestic assault and sexual assault violence including a hot line and the resource center. fifth and finally, we are raising aness of this critical issue. domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual assault, in collaboration with the no more campaign and the joy for heart foundation, the n.f.l. is airing public service announcements during our game. we're promoting awareness for those who play, coach, and manage our game at all levels including healthy relationship education as well as dating violence, domestic violence child abuse and sexual assault education. we've learned a great deal from our mistakes and by listening to experts the more we've listened the more we've learned and become more aware of these complexities. both of the problem and the solution. we are working hard to balance

the issues of a fair process with the goal of preventing and punishing these behaviors. we believe that wearing the uniform of n.f.l. player is a privilege. it is not a right. every member of the n.f.l. community must embrace this unique leadership role. that we play in our society. and the trust that you place in us. we look forward to working with the committee to advance these goals. i know we all share. thank you for this opportunity. and chairman i thank you for your lifetime service in this area. >> thank you mr. vincent. that was excellent testimony a good t, and beginning. thank you. >> to see the full hearing on

professional athletes and domestic violence go to c-span.org. >> the committee will come to order. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. today we are here to talk about illegal immigration and the

grave consequences of the administration's recent actions to bypass congress. immigration reform is an emotional and devicive issue. there is no doubt about that. but the president's unilateral actions to bypass congress undermine the constitution and threaten our democracy. let me be clear. our immigration system is broken and we need to fix it. america has always stood proudly as a beacon for hope for millions who are seeking a better life and we should work hard to keep it that way. but regardless of where you stand on this issue, there is a right way to do this and there is a wrong way. unfortunately, the president has taken the wrong way. in addition, the president has risked breaking something much more fundamental, and that is our democratic process. we are a nation of laws. yet this unprecedented executive parapower grab

undermines the principle that the people not just one man should be the ultimate decisionmakers in our country's most important political matters. this action also has poisonned the well here in washington at a time when americans desperately want their government to work together. we are facing crucial challenges that require congress and the white house to cooperate. from combating overseas threats to driving economic growth. but making an end run around congress the president has deliberatively and willfully broken the trust needed between our branches of government. the president knows the damage of these actions. in fact he has said over 20 times in his presidency that he did not have the authority to take executive action on immigration. and that this is "not how democracy works." he also said doing so will lead

to a surge in more illegal immigration. he was right. and it will. history has proven that amnesty perptwuts a cycle of illegal entry into this country. this is true in the 1980s and it has proven true under this administration's abuse of prosecutorial discretion. a power to decide when to prosecute law breakers and when not to. a power which should be used narrowly and carefully. this administration has done the opposite. they have taken a sweeping approach to prosecutorial discreppings that makes a mockery of the law. the consequences are very real. this summer the administration's refusal to enforce our immigration laws enticed at least 60,000 unaccompanied children to make the perilous journey to our borders. many traveled to the united states under misinformation regarding the administration's

granting of per misos. we can expect many, many more to do the same because of the president's recent actions. the lax interior enforcement policies adopted by this administration coupled with even the perception of amnesty become a powerful magnet that encourages more illegal immigration. we essentially tell citizens of other countries if you come here you can stay. don't worry, we won't deport you. the reality on the ground is that unless you commit multiple crimes the chances of your being removed from this country are close to zero. this year the u.s. border patrol apprehended almost 500,000 individuals along our southern border but less than half were deported. those who remained were given notices to appear before an immigration judge with a court date years away. and released into the country. we know that the majority will

never check back in with the authorities. if we don't think that message is making its way back to mexico and central america, we are simply fooling ourselves. we will see a wave of illegal immigration because of the president's actions. at its core the president's unilateral amnesty plan is deeply unfair to the millions who are waiting in line to become a part of our great nation. and it demonstrates reckless disregard for america's security. we have a formal immigration process for a reason, to promote fairness in allowing people to enter the united states and to keep those who will seek to do us harm outside of our borders. sadly, the department of homeland security is unprepared to handle the coming surge that the president's policies will incite. the border patrol's resources are already strained as

immigrants pour across the border making it difficult to identify smugglers, criminals, and potential terrorists. we need to reform our immigration laws. but we need to do it the right way. that means starting the process in the law making branch of our government. congress will address immigration reform but we need to do so in an innocent way and in keeping with the -- intelligent way and in keeping with the wishes of the american people. the majority of americans do not agree with the president's executive actions. they want congress to find a solution, one that begins with securing our borders. i look forward to hearing from the secretary. and i hope that he will address the serious concerns congress and the american people have about the president's decision. we cannot turn a blind eye to the real threats which these actions will bring to our country's doorstep.

with that, the chair now recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding today's hearing. i would like to thank secretary johnson for making the time to be here to discuss recently announced executive actions on immigration and border security as well as your fifth appearance before this committee in your short 12-month period shows that you are accessible, and i appreciate it. since 1956, presidents have granted temporary immigration relief to impacted individuals on 39 separate occasions. therefore, it would seem changes outlined by president obama on november 20th are not outside the bounds of presidential authority as provided under our constitution. approximately su million undocumented individuals -- 11

million undocumented individuals are forced to live in the shadows even though they live and work in plain sight. time and again the house republican leadership has been unwilling to act to fix our broke combngration system. in the face of this crisis, and in the absence of congressional action the president acted in a measured way that is likely to improve brotesdz our nation's security and economy. specifically, the president announced an establishment of the deferred action for parental accountability program which delays deportation for immigrants who have lived illegally in the united states for more than five years but have children who are citizens or have green cards. contrary to messaging from those who disagree with the president and many of his policies unrelated to immigration, this deferred action does not provide relief to recent border crosses. if the applicant can pass the

background check and pay a fee he or she could qualify for a work permit and avoid deportation for three years at a time. approximately 4 million immigrants are expected to qualify for this temporary relief. this purports to provide deferred enforcement to keep families intact is not novel. the family fairness program implemented by president reagan and expanded by president george h.w. bush provided deferred enal forcement of family members legalized by the immigration reform and control act. president obama's directive rightly prioritizes the removal of undocumented individuals who have committed serious crimes thus enhancing the safety of our communities. i am troubled by the extreme criticism and disdain that this temporary and limited set of

action has received by some in congress. the concept of families with working parents and children who attend school is consistent with the values we all hold. now with the president's announcement this value or fabric of america is now being called a renegade and a basis for more illegal action. a fair criticism may be that vulnerable people in violence ridden communities in central america will be misled by enterprising coities and smugglers about the scope of individuals covered by the president's action. i look forward to hearing from secretary johnson about planning efforts that are being rolled out in anticipation of such misinformation. we all know that recent border crosses would not have -- would not be covered even if there's an upsurge based on misinformation congress has made significant investment in personnel and equipment at the southern border that should

ensure that d.h.s. is able to effectively respond to any increases in attempted border crossings. let me be clear. the president's executive actions are a good start. however, there are still many people whom i believe deserve conversation but are left out. specifically, i would point to agricultural workers. the president's executive action does not provide specific relief to an estimated quarter million of those workers that might be eligible for some type of deferred action. more remains to be done to address this labor needs for america's farmers. whether executive action re mains there is an opportunity for congress to legislate. let me close with two thoughts. to those who have said the president's actions do not represent the will of the american people i say you need to listen better. americans by wide margins believe our immigration system can be fixed in a fair and

humane way that does not jeopardize our security. second to those in congress who have embraced the idea of putting the department of homeland security in budgetary limbo while every other federal agency is funded for fiscal year 2015, i say you should really think about the message that sends about congress' commitment to homeland security. in closing ds my hope that congress will use this action as a starting point to legislate permanent fixes to our nation's immigration system and further improve our border security. mr. chairman, i am willing to work with you throughout the remainder of this congress and the next congress to make these legislative changes happen. and i yield back. >> i thank the ranking member. we are pleesed to hear -- to have here today secretary jay johnson back to the committee. as always, we may not agree on

all the issues but we do so with civility. mr. johnson, as many of you know, has a distinguished record both at the department of defense and at the department of justice. and we appreciate your service for the department of homeland security. with that, you are recognized for an opening statement. >> thank you, chairman mccall, ranking member tax reformson, committee members here. let me begin by saying in the same vain as the chairman's remarks, we won't always agree, we have not always agreed, but i do appreciate the friendship and the collegiality that we enjoy between individual members of this committee and their staffs and me and my staff. this is the 12th time i have testified before congress in 11 months. the fifth time before this committee. i feel like i know a number of you well. on november 20, the president

announced a series of executive actions to begin to fix our immigration system. the president views these actions as a first step toward reform of the system and continues to count on congress for the more comprehensive reform that only legislative change ks provide. the actions we took will begin to fix the system in a number of respects. to promote border security for the future and to send a strong message that our borders are not open to illegal migration, we prioritize the removal of those apprehended at the border and those who came here illegally after january 1, 2014 , regardless of where they are apprehended. we also announce the next steps to strengthen our border security efforts as part of our southern border campaign strategy which i first announced earlier this year. to promote public safety we

make clear that those convicted of crimes, criminal street gang members and national security threats are also priorities for removal. to promote accountability we encourage those undocument combd grants who have been here for at least five years have sons or daughters who are citizens or lawful permanent residents and do not fall into one of our enforcement priorities to come out of the shadows, get on the books, and pass national security and criminal background checks. after clearing all their background checks these individuals are eligible for work authorization will be able to pay taxes and contribute more fully to our economy. the reality is that given our limited resources these people are not and have not been for years priorities for removal. it is time we acknowledge that and encourage them to be held accountable. this is simple common-sense.

to rebuild trust with state and local law enforcement which are no longer honoring ice detainers we are ending the controversial secure communities program as we know it and making a fresh start with a new program that fixes existing problems. to promote u.s. citizenship we will enable applicants to pay the $60 naturalization fee by credit card and expand citizenship public awareness. to promote the u.s. economy we will take administrative actions to better enable u.s. businesses to hire and retain qualified highly skilled foreign born workers. the reality is that for decades presidents have used executive authority to enhance immigration policy. president obama views these actions as a first step toward the reform of this system and continues to count on congress for the more comprehensive reform that only changes in law

can provide. i would like to add to that i too would welcome the opportunity to work with members of this committee on comprehensive g immigration reform legislation. i recommended to the president each of the homeland security reforms to the immigration system that he has decided to pursue. these recommendations were the result of extended and candid consultations i had with the leadership of immigration and customs enforcement, customs and border protection, and u.s. citizenship and immigration services. along the way i also spoke with members of the workforce who implement and enforce the law to hear their views. in my own view, any significant change in policy requires close consultation with those who administer the system. we also consulted a wide range of stakeholders including business and labor leaders, law enforcement officers, religious leaders, and members of congress from both sides of the

aisle. we also consulted with the department of justice and we received a formal written opinion from the justice department's office of legal counsel concerning enforcement prioritiesization and deferred action. and that opinion has been made public. thank you for your attention to these remarks. i look forward to your questions. >> i thank the secretary. the chairman recognizes himself for five minutes for questions. i would have to echo again in my opening statement there is a right way to do this and a wrong way. obviously i disagree with the president's approach in this case. presidents reagan and bush worked with the congress. congress passed legislation that the president's were implementing a very strong distinction from the case that we have today. my question -- i have several questions. first is the president said over 20 times that he did not have the legal authority to do this, to take this executive

action and that this is not how democracy works. do you agree with that prior statement? >> chairman, i know from 30 years as a lawyer that when someone paraphrases remarks from somebody i want to see the full q&a, i want to see the full context to know exactly what the person said. i have looked at various excerpts of remarks by the president concerning his legal authority to act. i do not believe that what we have done is inconsistent with that. in fact, we spent a lot of times with lawyers and we spent a lot of time with d.o.j.'s office of legal counsel. they wrote what is in my judgment a very thoughtful 30-page public opinion on the available legal authority to act to fix this -- >> there's no -- i have no doubt about your actions after

the election on this issue. but i will say i will be happy to provide you with the written statements that i have personally read to your office. it is confusing and it poses a bit of hypocracy i think to the american people because then after the election he reversed his course. after the election he said that now he does have the legal authority to move forward. so we don't know -- who should we believe the president before the election who said he didn't have legal authority to take this action or the president after the election who says hat he does have the authority >> i know we spent months developing these reforms and we spent a lot of time with consultation close with lawyers. there were some things they told didn't have ht we the electriclegal authority to opinion and things

they told us we did have the legal authority to do. analysis was very thoughtful, time-consuming and atensive and i'm satisfied as lawyer myself and the person who has to defend these actions that what we have done is well within authority.ng legal >> and i have no doubt with respect to your integrity but i of the e timing statements makes it look more me, that this is a political decision rather than a policy decision. this know you have run through all the legal traps. ut i think that is what we are concerned about are the prior statements he didn't have legal authority and now he does. he was not following the correct legal advice at one juncture or the other. he get the right legal dvice before the elections or after? because he has changed his tune on this. so ink that is what is confusing to members of congress

and american people about the of this president's decision. >> well, you refer to timing. received an assignment to look at our authority to take executive in the spring, and we began to develop reforms in the spring. we were urged by many in congress to wait, so we waited summer.e we got to the summer. we were urged then to wait until which we did. once we knew the speaker was not to be able to marshal the votes in the house of reform, we ives for decided we were going to act in summer. then we were urged to wait until after the midterms so we waited. my time is limited. it has undermined our principles by bypassing congress. y stated this could lead it a

surge in more illegal immigration. do you agree with that statement by the president? >> no. prioritized recent illegal migrants. we prioritized those who came illegally after january 1, highlight that everywhere i go. i'm going to our new detention the week afteras next to highlight the fact we tkpbdetention and recent arrivals are priorities for removal. i intend to go to mexico to work with them on interdiction efforts. i intend to highlight the new recent prioritize illegal entrants. >> again, i just look at history. in 1986 the amnesty law was assed and it led to a wave of illegal immigration. i look at dhaka.

60,000 children unaccompanied crossing my border texas. daca, you can't deny the trafficers will message his now this executive action and exploit it. i have had high-level people in they ate department say are worried about this being taken down to the central american countries and exploited and we are going to see a surge and wave of illegal immigrations. it is going to happen and this department needs to be ready for that to protect from it.n because it is coming. in my judgment, there's no it.tion about the last question is on fraud. daca applications were democratic as fraudulent. after 1986 to 1993 one ofrade center bomber them will fraudulent

documentation the exploiting the a.mnesty law. what are you going to do to these people are not fraudulently entering the country, including what could be the country?ats to >> congressman, that is too, am that i, concerned about. fraudulent applications have the undermine the whole process. in the planning for the implementation i want to be sure a hard look at best practices to avoid fraudulent applications, fraudulent misuse of the program. that is a priority of mine. >> we look forward to working with you on that. with that noted, the chair the ranking member for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, there are triking similarities between president obama's executive

actionsnd those similar taken by president reagan and george h.w. bush on addressing this problem. your statements to this committee is the department of provide authority by .hich the president is acting are you comfortable with that? did you participate after the in ance of that authority the development of a recommendation to the president? yes, sir. let me add this. assess a legal questi question, both as a lawyer for of defense and now as a cabinet secretary, and issue, iblt of a legal -- viability of a legal issue i

opinion like we have but i ask myself could i defend that action about of a committee if called upon to do so. and i'm fully comfortable that to ave the legal authority in forward these reforms particular. specifically with regard to deferred action, that is an that presidents have used for decades, as you have in various different forms. o.l.c. noted in the opinion. so i'm very comfortable that inherent ction is an executive branch authority that can and should be used from time to time and we have done so here. >> i would like to add to that in those other actions congress moved forward and that s why president reagan and george h.w. bush did pursue the

xecutive order route, because of the inaction of congress. so, while there are differences i don't think there's a question that we have not done our job as members of the the problem gets worse. those 11 million people who are we have to address. another issue that i'm concerned about, mr. secretary, the effort.nt's unity of andwill the southern border the campaign address the challenges around that? southern border campaign strategy we are developing is an initiative to bring to bear all the department's resources in a particular region of the border security. too e, in my judgment, stovepiped. ice, fema, coast guard,

we are too stove piped. we need to bring a more comprehensive strategic approach. e are creating two regional task forces. oint task force west, joint task force east, to focus on border security in the southeast, focus on border security in the southwest. to announce the new forces of those task very soon and we are developing a time line for getting there done. i issued as part of these directives here one devoted toward the southern border campaign strategy and set forth what the goals and lines of effort are to be. a lot we have received of bipartisan support for this effort and i intend to move with it. >> a comment has been made about he number of undocumented

children coming in recent years. your department requested upplemental funding to address the needs to work with that. not give you the money. can you continue to maintain the support to address that continues to ess refuse to give you the money job?sary to do that >> it will be very difficult. our f.y. 2015t of request a request for an initial $750 million. that will go to expanded deposition capability and resources. that up in response to

the spike in illegal migration we tonight and maintain that and add to it. o, i referred to the new detention facility in dilly, texas, a moment ago. capacity for up to 2,400 spaces. that.ed to pay for but it is a vital aspect of our southern border security in my iew, and, frank ly, i'm disappointed that congress hasn't supported us in that vital border security effort. and i hope that congress will act to fund that and to fund the flights, the epatriation that we've developed sense last summer. we need to pay for these things. know every member of this committee wants to support enhance the border security so i my congress to act on request so we can pay for it. >> the chair recognizes the texas, mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

r. secretary what do you project to be the number of people coming across the border illegally this year? >> the number of people crossing the border this year? >> yes, this year. f.y. 2014 i believe total which are an indication of total attempts to 477,000. about > how many will succeed in actually entering without being apprehended would you guess? >> there's a calculation that is something in excess of that numb number. i'm sure you know, turnbacks ns plus plus what we call gotaways and estimate of total illegal migration. happy ve, but i would be to provide this number to you,

what our border patrol's best i believe it is some percentage in excess of the 477,000 to 479,000. >> over a half million people in coming into the united states illegally this year. in ou were to succeed achieving your control of operational control of the border what would you like to to, from half a million to what? >> very clearly, circumstances i -- sir, i would like to see that come down. f.y. 2000 we had 1.6 million -- >> if i may interrupt you, what metrics in determining whether the border is secure or not? patrol has border metrics and i have asked they improve. directive to better and e our border metrics how we should define bird security. that is a work in progress. >> so you don't have the metrics

today to determine whether the border is secure? patrol has metrics which i have shared with various members of this committee. asked that they refine that and they are in the process of doing that. i don't think that we had the metrics we need to determine whether the border is not.re or let me read a sentence from your page three of your statement. emphasize ve actions our border is not open to future illegal immigration and throws be come here illegally will sent back unless they qualify for some form of humanitarian leave under our laws. is it true though that the epartment of homeland security is already releasing illegal custody?ts from ice >> i'm sorry what was the last part of the question? releasing epartment illegal immigrants from ice sending them d of home? >> i believe that we have a those who are released

on bond if i understand your directive i ugh a a ently asked ice to have higher level approval authority for when that happens. simple , to put that in language, ice is releasing individuals who are in the illegally which is contrary to your statement that they would be sent home. seems to me contradicting your statement is the fact that very few who have entered the lowho have not y committed other serious crimes are going to be sent home. be a small fraction, 1% or 2%. so i don't think your statement to say those who come here illegally will be sent back. subset of y small those that come into the country illegally. >> let me say two things, sir. during the summer we dramatically reduced the rebate final for adults from 33 to four days and we have

uilt added detention space for family units which hope this country will support. but not s nice answering my question. you are not going to be sending they back home because are in the country illegally. i think you just admitted ice is coulding individuals that be returned home but are not being returned home. furthermore i think you are individuals hoch been convicted of crimes in the united states and putting them in out on our streets and our communities. do you want to estimate how many thousands of people are being who are criminal alie aliens? the last several years i think totaled 30,000. do you have any idea what it might be this year? issue of release of those convicted of crimes is one last several he months and what i directed to ice is there be a higher level authority for a circumstance when somebody with a criminal record is released immigration detention on

bond. i have also directed that a release of somebody with a record shouldn't occur because of fiscal constraints and we will find a way to pay that. >> i hope you can improve the situation because right now you criminal aliens and individuals who should be thathome and i don't think is the way our laws should be enforced. we recognize the gentleman gentlelady from texas. >> there is the important work of the united states congress it is unbiased fact finding. secretary, thank you for your service and importance of your related service in the of defense and as well your knowledge and work of the u.s. department justice. i frankly believe that we can clarify the president's comments in fact extremely consistent. i have a series of questions. executive tand the order, it does not confer

status nor a pathway to citizenship. is that correct. >> correct. >> my interpretation the president's remarks over the ears has been his lack of authority to confer immigration .tatus or citizenship my interpretation, but i think it would be documented by his you are telling us in the executive order you nor the president have done that. action does tphnot grant legal status in this country. pathway to citizenship. >> or green card or pathway to citizenship. >> let me put into the record these words. comprehensive approach to immigration reform that is in par rains. i'm confident the president and myself and others can find of on grounds to take care this issue. those are the words of speaker bush bane are.

not this congress has placed on the floor one single immigration bill that responds thought were welcoming words by the speaker. we have not will an up or down and in there committee which i pt want to congratulatee chairman and ranking member are in a bipartisan manner, my subcommittee care woman and have passed hr 1417 a order security legislative initiate temp -- initiative. has never seen the floor to provide an up or down vote. into law reagan signed in 1986 a bill that many tried their words but they used the word amnesty. would make the argument president reagan saw a humanitarian crisis and decided to act. 2012 phoenix case in justice roberts said the president in addition to the to utive order has a right humanitarian relief.

et me pursue this questioning egarding the daca and issue hat this may work to cause border crosses as a result of this announcement. point out the ly elief deals with existing persons here in the united is es and one other aspect expand the time frame from two to three years. could you quickly answer that? why don't i give you this other uestion so we won't be delayed with respect to the other question. i have always thought secure a legal and ill political issue and you have streamline communities.ecure my law enforcement officers locally have said it is problematic. so in your prioritization of errorists and others you have streamlined that. i would like to indicate in your

new facility that i'm very dealey, attacks accommodating and with the right kinds of resources for family and hildren if you would answer those questions, mr. secretary. >> yes, ma'am. he current daca program is for those who have been here since almost 2007, which is seven years, over seven kwraerlgs. been here over seven years come under age 16 and born after 1981. revised the criteria by rolling back the cutoff from 2007 to 2010. we removed the birthday post-1981 to any time and made the eligibility period three ary years instead of two years. facility we o the are opening in texas i have sent staff, my own lawyers,

down there to ensure the for tions are adequate family units and it is something enseuring.ted to ensuring much >> and they have rounded up eople who are no threat to the united states? >> i support the goal of secure communities. the goal is to get at criminals in removal.be put t was becoming legally and politically controversial. mayors and governors signing laws and executive orders law biting their enforcement from working with ours on this. o i want a fresh start so we can better enforce public safety and removing criminals. >> thank you. mr. chairman, as i yield back i in an nt to say that article in our local newspaper a nanny for had used a a number of years who had been

n there country 13 years -- this country 13 years dependent on child care in the house, she celebrating, not politic politically, democrats and republicans, the opportunity for nanny to become in some way status to stay in this country good work and protect her children. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes alabama.s from >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, mr. johnson. you testified before there committee and when we had a bunch of younger people coming border illegally and during that hearing i asked you talking about the reason why they would not be 24 hours like we do adult illegal aliens you made of significant statutorily the government is required to allow them to go younger people to go through a hearing process and with.ad to be is complied

aren't ry of you is these exigent circumstances and you said yes. i said under those circumstances can't the president write an is executive order that would allow younger peoplehe like we do adults and you said the president doesn't have that to ignore a statute by executive order. that our current statutory law requires that hese people that are covered under this executive order be removed from the country? >> i recall that exchange, and i that the particular words extraordinary circumstances or exigent circumstances, whatever be in the law, could not read as broadly as to permit and tary departure basically obviate the entire statute. hat was the reading of the statute that i had at the time.

i do not believe to the extent question, that that is inconsistent with anything we've done and announced the before last. >> i disagree with you. that atute is very clear these illegals are to be removed located.y are my next question, you talked about how the people are going defined under this a cutive order by being here certain number of years or the age or whatever. how o you determine that they are presenting themselves is accurate? they say i have been here seven years how do you get them to prove it and how do the way they prove it is valid? if they say i have been link at this address -- living at this address and here is the power period of time and the power bill is in another person's name? and they say but i rent from person and that person says

oh, yeah and it is a complete fabrication. do you prove the residency is accurate when they present themselves to you? >> good question. the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate they theis country continuously the five-year period. on the applicant to come forward with something hat satisfies the immigration officer, the examining officer, they have lived in this country. will be aslieve that simple as take my word for it. some sort have to be of documented proof that will be developed in the implementation c.i.s.s by >> i think that you acknowledged from an earlier question there an area that will be wrought with fraud. ll sorts of lies and exploitation will be driven to there point and i think it will to determine who qualifies under this very broad and illegal executive order. do you think that the paoeeople

that are going to fall into able to egory will be draw medicare and social security and other public benefits? >> people who qualified for lawfully ction are present but they do not have a lawful tatus like , rmanent resident or citizen one of the virtues of people bility you get work authorization and they pay taxes on the books. of the taxes they would pay as i understand it would be a social security. >> so the answer is yes, they would be able to qualify -- they would not be eligible for public benefits of the type most people with receive. medicare and social security they would? generally be eligible if you are around long you h get back what invested.

but normal public benefits not what we would think. participating in medicare and social security both of which solvency ling through to have there added burden is irresponsible. point about being given documentation for a work permit. is that accurate? program will issue affirmatively a document to an illegal saying they have legal some sort? >> as a separate matter those who apply for deferred action for a work authorizati authorization, which is not a green card. form of work te authorization that the secretary f homeland security has the authority to provide. >> but it will be a legal status of some sort? considered l be lawfully present like the daca kids. do you know how much it will cost to carry out that program providing that documentation, how expensive for you? program will be fee

driven. the applicant has to pay a fee. we contemplate it will be $460 per applicant which is daca.t is for uscis is a fee based organization. pays for itself. >> thank you very much. i yield back. keegan from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for having the hearing. open borders the impact of amnesty on border security is the hearing. before it gets too far let me be direct, mr. secretary. is this amnesty? in my judgment. >> is it even functionally amnesty? situation rent amounts to amnesty. we want people to be accountable of the shadows, get n the books and pay taxes for the three-year period of deferred action. mr. secretary., does this represent a permanent

solution, this executive action, in your opinion? >> no. i would e say again, welcome the opportunity to work with the members of this know are who i interested in immigration reform on both sides of the aisle. since i have been in office we have not had a the house of r in representatives. work continue to want to with members of this committee and members of the house and embers of the congress on a comprehensive immigration reform piece of legislation. this isyou are correct, not a permanent solution. ut it is in our existing legal authority to issue to fix the roken system and we feel that we had no choice. >> general barry mccaffrey a witness during a border security hearing before the committee in the last said that the lack

threat to s a direct our national security. would you comment on that, please? part of comprehensive immigration reform that was by the senate enhanced border security, more resources, surveillance. i support that and i agree with that. i'm hoping that the congress act on our pending request for added border security on the in response to last summer's spike. integral to ty is national security so i agree with that. >> i know there is some what you can say and most of the members of this committee have been briefed in a classified manner on this issue. but can you enlighten us and the the public, too, as to some of the means that have een implemented in terms of border security particularly use of satellites to a greater of military e

assets that we have that we no that can be surplused and used on the border? >> when i go to the southern and i talk to our border patrol about what they need, always tell me more vehicles, more surveillance, technology. we are moving in the direction based strategy to border security, homeland securi security, after i united nations aviation security -- se we can surrender surveil lie risk areas of the border. aerial surveillance and mobile surveillance on the ground and a number of other things. made considerable , vestments the last 15 years which has shown some good results. but i believe we can do better do better continue to in this regard.

>> i'm dispointed we do not have in the house at there on then -- at this stage senate bill or a bill like that. let me ask you another question, question. there was some discussion by have asked you questions in terms of your ability to send people back. you be clear about your fiscal resources to do that what you are capable of? are you capable of sending everyone back? if we are you need, really serious about this, how your o we need to fund agency so we can do what the members of this committee are do?ng you to >> well, answer to that question is reflected in our current request. let me say this. i know that there are some some form of the -term c.r. for department of homeland security

to get us to march. is, in my judgment, a very ad idea for homeland security because during that period of a engage in new starts. we have some homeland security priorities that need to be now.d for example, we are back in a cycle.ential election i cannot hire new secret service gents until i get an appropriations bill passed by this congress. not another c.r. for a couple of months. i cannot continue to fund our inanced detention capability texas with another c.r. that gets me to march. congress to lp of support and build upon border ofurity, which i believe all you support. that we act on our current appropriations and st now for the purpose sake of border security and

homeland security. secretary, formr. those direct answers. i yield back. recognizes r mrs. miller from michigan. >> obviously there is a huge divide certainly in congress and the heartland about whether or not in is a constitutional overreach by the listening to your testimony and i read through it last night and hearing you a wer some questions you had very, heavy, heavy reliance on 3 o.l.c.'s opinion their 33-page opinion they issued through mr. hold areas justice.t of you said they were very thrur to me the seems questions that you did ask them were specifically tailored, the asked o.l.c.ns you were specific in nature and erhaps there were questions that you could have asked that you didn't. ould you tell always the process in which you actually

-- these three skpwefs specific questions of the o.l.c. sure this will be a question determined by the court nd your department with such a heavy reliance on them. >> i know from my days at the now tment of defense and that the way we typically work put to them s to specific questions. do we have the authority to do x? do we've the authority to target x.y.z. military objective, for example. the two or oped three most significant questions be part of there be utive action package to put to o.l.c. for them to consider. hey came back with this very thorough opinion. nd i will say that as a lawyer myse myself, and as someone who has

been a lawyer for a government gency i'm fully comfortable with whether is in here because i know that at the end of the day i will have to defend it. >> if i could, in 2012, when the the daca tion created policy, there is nothing we could find of any opinion from o.l.c. regarding that. it just would seem to be a oversight from there. is there such a memo? f there is i would like to see it. >> i can only speak to 2014 and we wanted to be thorough. >> you would have asked o.l.c. a memo with r respect to daca. aware of one. i have not seen one. i wanted to be thorough this time. there was a glaring omission about that. regard to o.l.c. and this will in the courts, i believe this was a constitutional overreach by this and as i say it

appears that some of the states on attachmentourt i was taking notes here, ecretary, as you mentioned about the $460 fee. but times quick math $1 po.84 billion. in a ay you need to do it case-by-case review. so, some of the questions even his morning were talking about the limited amount of resources you have so you are going to do case-by-case reviews. how in the world are you going to pay for this? is that going to be enough? right now you have a couple stations.ds i'm not sure of the phbgs of case-by-case review and that such an important critical component for the -- so you are free for all as you

do case-by-case review of over million individuals? >> we have an implementation six d a start-up time of months. daca was 60 days. we determined for this one we to make sure ths that we get it right. daca experiencee the program, if the fee is set norhe right level, will pay itself. so, the fee for daca was $460 applicant. that is the same fee that we here.be charging with respect to the number four million, let me say this. 4.1 million is the estimated potential class of those who .ould be eligible not all of those will come forward. daca experience shows the estimated potential class of million. is over a but the number of those actually nrolled is about 600,000 to

700,000. throws that come forward some will not qualify because they survive the background check or for some other reason proof of t establish living here for five years. so, the number of 4.1 is the of the total potential class but not all of them will be enrolled in the program. you very much. i think that my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes mr. barber from arizona. you, mr. chairman, for convening this hearing. hank you, mr. secretary, for being with us today. i want to start by saying how much i appreciate and i think members on y other both sides of the aisle of this committee, how much i appreciate forthrightness with which you approach the questions and concerns that we've and the provided to u have the department over the last year. mr. secretary, you isited my district within a month of your appointment, your

onfirmation and saw heard firsthand from people who live and work along the border what issue s. they are concerned about people coming here illegally and seeking work. ut they are more concerned about the traffic of drug smugglers and the potential that comes with them. the reasons i co-sponsored along with many members the border security which passed unanimously here. it is important to stress, nanimously in this committee and is yet to be brought to the floor. also co-sponsored with almost 200 other members h.r. 15 a would san bill that include the border securities results act and immigration rovisions of the senate bill which passed bipartisan in the senate. day one that om the congress needs to act and we have failed in our act to secure to

the border and fix the broken system.ion because of that failure, unfortunately executive action taken.en i believe it should be done in concert with congress but we have failed on our side of the bargain. i fully support the mccain flake to take up.or us ould you, mr. secretary -- my first question is, could you address how the executive action omports with the mccain-flake became as it regards border security and immigration? know it is not comprehensive, it can't be, but to what extent was that bill a template for taken and can be must be taken to secure the border and fix the system? actions the executive that we have taken are no for s. 744 which does an mber of things including earned path to citizenship.

that is what is contemplated in the bill. we do not have executive authority to provide an earned path to citizenship. do have executive authority o provide deferred action for those who have been here for yea who , similar to the bill have not committed any crimes and have basically become of the ed members american society to offer them the opportunity to be accountable. that is not citizenship. that is not lawful permanent residence. simply you are deemed lawfully present in the country for a period of time. we also are, through executive enhancing border security in a number of ways. but again border security is not cost-free.is re prioritiprioritized recent llegal entrants that we have the authority to do but i need

help with resources. southern p on the border in arizona, texas, new mexico for added detention apability and added surveillance capability and added vehicles and equipment. and i hope the congress will that.t me on i received your letter about the along arizona. you will to -- if have me, come back early next year to arizona. ranchers another visit and i want to come back to a zona now with a benefit of year's experience on the job to talk more about border security do. see what we can >> i appreciate your willingness to come back and having you there. let me focus on the issue of border security. think the answers from my experience having worked on this congressman .

more horse patrol in the rugged territory. radar looking down in the ountains to see where smugglers, mobile surveillance at the border and i hope that that you have established the western task force will look at these include options and stakeholders such as ranchers, business people, residents of communities to make sure we right going forward. >> i can affirm with you we i one to border patrol myself arrero ey mention is stats. that is a border security priority. >> i yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina mr. duncan. it comes as no surprise i disagree with the president and what he's done with there executive action. it is not as much the issue of

immigration and dealing with ndocumented workers as what he actually did i think he crossed the constitutional separation of powers. a lot of double speak in his speech and the words that heard today. i will give you an example. the president said in the about there peech unconstitutional executive action that undocumented workers broke our immigration laws and i believe they must be held accountable. that is directly from his speech. felons not families, criminals not children, gang members not a mom will be prioritized like law enforcement does every day. in the publication me of documented d.l.s. released 68,000 illegal mmigrants with criminal convictions. officials last year released 68,000 immigrants with

convictions. how do you reconcile what the with actions of the agency? are th regard to those who released from immigration detention, this is something i myself.ked on first of all, there is a supreme which you may have heard of sabadas versus davis mandates after six months if the person is not going to be foreseeable n the future we have to let them go. >> why aren't we repatriating these people? is something that requires a willing partner on the other end which i have had the state ns with department about to further encourage countries to take faster.ople back >> we had a meeting and they them. take they are required to take them back. i didn't mean to interrupt you. if i may finish my sentence,

thank you. releases are plan dated by law and supreme court a number of and order by an immigration judge. regard to where an immigration works for me releases somebody with a criminal record what i have the tly directed is that approval for that be at a higher ice field officer. want to know that we are applying a consistent standard to those circumstances because jeopardize public safety. i have also directed that a released uldn't be because of reasons for fiscal onstraint, what's of which is what we faced with sequestration in f.y. 2013. to pay for it way if we believe somebody shouldn't be released for reasons. reports came out the sequestration will nothing to do with the release of folks last year. go back and find the

documents. let me ask you this. how many of 2014 criminal aliens have been released? hether will your year-end report show for 2014? > i believe it is less than f.y. 2014. f.y. 2013 i believe was 36,000. i believe f.y. 2014 will be about 30. 30,000 plus or minus criminal aliens have been released. pursuant to legal requirements, orders of a judge. i believe it should be lowered. is why i have raised the approval authority for that. > one of the biggest problems ith getting any immigration passed is lack of trust of the american people and administration to enforce laws. i know my colleagues have heard there why would you pass another administration fails to enforce the current laws on the books? won't s another one that be enforced either?

then you hear about 68,000 aliens criminal released. that further erodes the trust of the american people. the american people want it see border security and deportation the law.cement of 49% of y see that 50%, he he will legals are due to overstays. we are not casing a footprint in the desert. are.now who they they came here on a visa. we know who they are. for is low hanging fruit enforcement. i ask you this. ow many of the visa overstays are granted immunity through the president's action? any? offhand i don't know the answer to that. this ssman, i will say though. i would like to see this congress pass a bill. work with e to congress on passing a bill. the president has said that would be his preference. the problem is we have no

partner. >> i think congress can pass a bill when the american people regaining trust in the administration to do their job on enforce the laws that are the books. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the texas.man from >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i want to begin for your g you accountability you mentioned before congress 13 times in the been here, u have five times about of this committee. our responsiveness to requests and questions and commitment to transparency. i think there is a long way to within the department but in the last 12 months we've seen ore transparency than we've seen in years and i appreciate that. and through you i want to thank president for this very difficult decision that he made, decision by its very nature, a temporary way to address some of the tphrpbl that require a legislative response. quo is un status effective amount ed ed to

a.m. nextity and we are going -- amnesty and we are going to gain accountability and bring families and people who are working in our communities out of the shadows. in a community like mine in el paso where 25% of the population are immigrants more than 40% of the kids in my community are who are parents immigrants. this will be a boon and make us ore secure, a city already the safest city in america today and tell people not in spaoeite of number of immigrants but in large part because of them. thankant to thank you and the president. address ever, want to an issue that congressman smith brought up and that is the release of convicted criminals criminals. senator a senator and i wrote a and have yet to

receive a response a month ago with important questions about who have of those been released, where they are, ow we improve our working with local law enforcement so our police and sheriff departments released the krlgs are and are able to track them and account for them so i appreciate commitment to getting us a response to that. of the of the -- one things i have directed when it comes to releases of those with is we notify ds local law enforcement when that happens. that is part of -- i think that should be done. i will personally look for your etter from you and senator cornyn and make sure it has been responded to. look to make sure. e have a general rule of respondi responding in 14 days to members of congress. >> i would like to make a point turn it into a question bout the president's response

to our immigration system thus far. i believe like there's been implicit political bargain where there will be stepped up deportations. i believe this president has deported more people from this president n any prior, two million at this point cases ortunately in many that is breaking up families which this current action i think will help reduce. i think the bargain was that in return we were going to be gain the trust of both arties in congress and pass meaningful immigration reform. that hasn't happened. o, i'm concerned about some comments that you have made and the president has made about security p border about prioritizing the arrivals.n of recent the nt time in artesia at family detention center that has

become a deportation machine. short-cutting due process and i think that we families and turn have returned families and children into some very dangerous situations. certainly there are those that should be deported but some and we need sylum to honor that process. you mention the facility in dealey, texas, i want to make to satisfy effort security concerns away don't shorten due process for those. securityomes to border you and others have said the border has never been more spending $18 billion a year, 20,000 border agents. in the el paso sector the apprehend 4.5 people a year. stepping up about border enforcement and this southern border campaign know gy, i would like to what that means for my commun y

community. simply repositioning resources along the border as my congressman barber said moving the pwoeurtd patrol instead of being set back or are you asking for ultimately more border patrol agents, more walls, more of these militarization measures show us that we have a problem with diminishing returns right now. po.6 million 1 apprehended in 2000, not 500,000 year. at what point do we have enough security on the border? all, i have been to artesia myself. there is being clos closed. we have make sure adequate ability for effective attorney-client communications. we made some enhancements there. but it is being closed in lieu a larger facility in dealey,

texas. the t to make sure that conditions of deposition there are adequate and meet the appropriate standards. detention hat added capability on the southern to border ssential security and essentially to security going forward in the future. correct that apprehensionless are way down from -- apprehensions are way from where they were 15 years ago and resources are way up. do better.ve we can i'm not going to sit here and declare that we have a secure border. do better. i think that we know how to do and the d the congress executive branch together can and effort to do better on border security. we have made great strides but do.e is more to our border, southern border

ampaign plan, is not simply repositioning assets. t is to bring a more strategic consolidated approach toward how we secure or border. bringing to bear the assets cross my department, not in a sto stovepipe fashion but a more is dinate the way so there one person in the southwest who bringing to e for bear all the assets of my department on border security in arizona, new mexico and texas. > the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the incoming chairman of government reform and oversight. ngratulations mr. chafe >> i hope you can convey the gratitude of hrows that put their lives on the lean. we thank them for their service.

do uestion for you is what you say to someone who believes the president took action to law?aining the >> we did not change the law. the law.e within >> can you play a clip. this is from november 25 the in nevada talking about this. video clip] not paying you are attention to is the fact that i change the tion to law. >> so, you say he didn't change president says he changed the law. > we act the within existing law. we acted within our existing legal authority. have been a lawyer 30 years, somebody plays an eight word be suspicious.to ok? very nice.

>> it says i'm going to read it absolutely are right there are a significant number of deportations but what you are not paying attention to the fact i just took action to change the law. so that is point number one. it, the way that the change in the law works and he goes on. he is pretty clear and he is the president of the united states. why we have a hard time -- laureate is doing the right thing. gentleman from south carolina made a very good point. i will move to something else very quickly. we had interaction the last time people here about four with ties to a terrorist organization were caught crossing in september. said they were going to be deport the. did you deport them? not at this point. >> what is the disposition of those four people? .> two are detained

released by s were not my preference. they were released by the uphill and they fled to canada and they seeking asylum in canada. >> so, you told the world that deport these to four people with ties to a terrorist organization. that is not what happened. of them were released -- > they are in deportation proceedings and an immigration judge released two of the four. fled to canada. my intent is that they be deported. of them are in canada seeking asylum. >> where were they anticipating going and where did they actually go? exact not sure of their whereabouts, sir. >> but they are being held in canada? understanding. >> are you going to ask that they be brought back to the states? >> i don't genly