president's executive action on immigration. ity had also found to defund in congress. what can democrats do? >> it is interesting because there is difficulty getting consensus within his own caucus. to avoid a government shutdown, the president will need a fair number of democratic votes to keep the government open, and in order to do that, there are members of the hispanic caucus who are willing to say that you homeland security and put our nation's security at risk simply to keep the government open. i suspect that there will be a lot more negotiation. they must have some leverage in that negotiation over not wanting to see a government shutdown happen. >> there is clearly some leverage for democrats. you see them supporting a bill that was funded through the rest

of the fiscal year except for the department of homeland security which would be funded just maybe through february. >> there are infinite possibilities to how that will play out and whether or not they choose to split the two, that is up for negotiation from what i understand, so anything is possible at this point. but i think democrats are pretty strong in wanting to keep the government open and wanting to make sure that all agencies of the government are not -- they're funding is approved through the next year. >> congressman laboratory, republican from idaho, set a few days ago that republicans should keep the shutdown as one of the tools in the toolbox. it is something that paid consequences for at the ballot box. how close do you think it will get. really have a few days before of targeted adjournment date

december 12? >> there is a segment of the republican caucus that will try , sort ofto abstract government by tantrum is how i would explain it. i do not think the leadership in the republican caucus is willing to go that far. the democrats have leverage because they will need democratic votes to pass a funding bill before we leave town next week. >> are you having those conversations with republican leadership given your new role? >> i am not the head of the caucus until next year i'm a so i am not having those discussions with those people right now. i suspect that the chairman is involved. >> on the broader issue of immigration, the congressional hispanic caucus has had an up-and-down relationship with president obama over the last few years on his record on immigration issues. so if you would survey his time

in office, what letter grade would you give the president on how he handled immigration? .> i think he deserves a b+ there are areas where obviously we would like to have see more done on immigration. clearly, the president has been limited by certainly gold precedents, but overall, he has been very receptive on that issue, far more receptive than the republican leadership in the house has been in their delay and stalling tactics and promising to work on comprehensive immigration reform, going back on that pledge, and essentially sitting on their hands and doing nothing blame game.the the president understands the issue. i think he fundamentally understands what is at stake for the hispanic community. overall, he has done a pretty decent job. >> how do you feel voters are going to be reacting to this? one of the big questions was whether the president would have

done this before midterm elections and democrats lost the senate -- is the hispanic community glad to see what the president did, hoping he will go further, worried about congressional action? >> if you believe in polls, and there is some question as to whether or not they are really accurate, the polling information is based on how the questions are phrased. but if you are a believer in polling to give some indication of where things are, among the hispanic community, it hasn't gone up tremendously since his announcement of executive action. that is -- that has gone up tremendously since his announcement of executive action. and that is across the board politically with the hispanic community. we are not monolithics. there are a variety of political viewpoints that the community as a whole has seen as very an official and positive.

clearly, we are looking for a permanent legislative solution, and we are going to continue to push for that because that is what this country needs. >> when you look at other polls though, and americans seem to be divided about the president taking this action alone. i am wondering particularly between minority communities, african-americans and hispanics specifically. there seems to be attention there over jobs. do you hear about it? >> i do not. i think that is an argument people use to try to divide communities. i think there are far more common issues among the minority communities. if you look at voting rights, those with the supreme court decision did to gut voting rights for latinos, hispanics, asians, and every other minority group, there is far more in common there than difference. in immigration, there are certain segments of african immigrants who are just as highly impacted as hispanic immigrants with respect to

changes to immigration. and we have enjoyed tremendous support from the black caucus on the issue of immigration in congress. if you look at issues of civil rights, police abuse, and the list goes on and on, there are farm your just far more issues that we have in common. i think that is often used as a red herring to divide communities, competition for job scenario, but if you going to communities and talk to folks not are affected, i do think that is really a true issue. i do not feel that people think they are losing jobs to immigrants, you know, because of the president's announcement of his executive action. beenu look at who has impacted, these people have been in the country for many years and many have citizen children here. to school they contribute to their communities. they have been working for a long time, often at the margins, takingormal work sector

in payroll taxes or social security taxes. if you bring these people out of the shadows, it will be a net benefit for this country. labor immigrants to the force or getting them into the formal work sector benefits the country tremendously. what these viewers folks will have to do in order to get this temporary status under the executive order, and what will they not get? >> it is important to remember that they do not get legalization or citizenship. they do not even get in the line for citizenship. all it does is it re-prioritizes ice enforcement actions will be. all it says to a certain group of people who qualify, these people who is been in the country a certain amount of time and either have permanent resident children or children that are citizens, simply all it does is take away the fear of them being deported.

it re-prioritizes resources or they should be, which is ongoing after criminals and felons and proceedings removal to that specific group of people. so we're looking at reprioritizing not deporting and splitting up families, but going after the criminals and felons. >> would about government benefits, welfare, social security, medicare? >> many of those will not apply to them, although they will be given to a certain segment of the folks affected by the executive order, they will be given work visas to be able to work in this country legally. that is taking them somewhat out of the shadows, but they still will not have the full plethora of rights and responsibly these that legal or minute residents and citizens have. >> on the permanent legislative solution, there is some discussion among house republicans about doing something next year. you have the homeland security chairman saying he wants to do a

border security bill. you have chairman pete sessions talking about a guest worker program. they will want this in a so-called peace male step by step strategy -- in a piecemeal strategy. do you think democrats would be able to accept a solution that is piecemeal? >> i do not speak for all , but i share probably the majority of democratic viewpoints, but i think we want to see a solution that is a long-term, permanent one and comprehensive. this is something we have been working on for more than a decade in congress. i have been in congress for 12 years could when i first got elected, i specifically wanted to serve on the judiciary committee to work on a comprehensive immigration approach. the republican tactic, which is

a very shortsighted one, has always been to try to pick thesis out of it and try to fix those. but once you look at the whole immigration puzzle, it is like a spider web. with one part, it has repercussions throughout the rest. sit downally need to and embrace the comprehensive approach. the piecemeal approach is not going to completely overhaul the broken parts of our immigration system. with the focus on border security, factually, there are fewer people crossing the borders. ofre are record numbers applications because of the executive order. they will reprioritize towards keeping people from coming in. we have spent aliens of dollars to make our -- spent billion of dollars to make our southern strengthened, and i do

not think there is much more money that you can throw at it unless you want to throw money at a problem in a very wasteful way. so this obsession with republicans that we need to -- i don't know -- throw alligators on the southern border and build a moat, again, i just think that is rhetoric that misses the mark . let's get our hands are on a complex problem. the work is already been done on that. again, this is not something we just took up this year. this is a piece of legislation we have been working on for more than a decade. so there is, oh, we will get to it next year or give us more time, and that is really just a stall tactic. i think there is a lack of ideas about how to thoughtfully tackle the biggest problems in our broken immigration system. >> given that, this is a really

difficult problem because they will have a very different answer. they talk about it he smeal approach because they do not like the comprehensive approach. two years of an all-republican congress at the very least with a democratic president, will anything get done? >> that will be incumbent upon the leadership in the house and the senate. we are elected to govern. their job will be to try to govern. i think it will be very telling. very much going with the majority that they have in the senate and house. if you look at the comprehensive bill that managed to pass the senate on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, it really took a lot of negotiation and a lot on both sideske to come up with something that was acceptable to everybody. nobody got 100% of what they , but peoplenment thought this was a game changer,

a way to fix the system that both sides could agree. i suspect that next year with republicans in control of the house and the senate, there will not be those full brunt -- full-blown bipartisan discussions. it will be their members of their caucus meeting together to come up with piecemeal approaches and there will not be that sense of compromise. i think it is very telling that the way they want to go about immigration reform is piecemeal, and i think the way they want to do it is going to be in a take it or leave it manner and not really having a thoughtful discussion and not trying to get their hands around the problem. they want it to some politically acceptable for the constituents that photo to elected them. >> given that, is there more you expect the president to do by himself, by executive order? >> i do not know within the legal conference what is left that the president can do. i know he is reviewing certain cans of enforcement that he

perhaps act on, but whether or not the legal precedent exists remains to be seen. the president has been dedicated to stay within the conference of the law. i do not know that there is much more the president can do. but i am hopeful that, by virtue of the fact that was the executive order is implemented, the country does not fall off the cliff into the ocean, and then people will see, hey, there is a really thoughtful way to do this and it does not have to be an all or nothing approach. that is my hope. >> we have talked a lot about republican divisions, their strategies, but there are some democratic -- not divisions really ideologically and not as many of them, but there is a sense that, with nancy pelosi as , steny hoyer, all remaining on in their positions, it indicates that there is agitation among the younger and less senior members of the

caucus. so how do you get at that? how do you tell someone who has been in congress, entering their seventh term, somebody that ants to be ambitious, maybe tim ryan or someone like that, that decides to go to the senate, how do you get at taking people into leadership in a different way? >> that is interesting because i have been thinking a lot about that with respect to the congressional hispanic caucus. i will be the chairwoman next year. i know some of the restorations of being a newer, younger member and really wanting to get involved in some of these meaty issues that i care about and affect my constituents. i think there are ways in which you can include younger and newer members, reaching out to them and inviting them to participate in ways that the old , sort of, seniority-only system does not allow them much input or impact. my goal is going to be to try to of that newerlent

and younger members, their passion and energy, and really put them in positions to be front and center on some of these issues that normally they are not given an opportunity to speak on. whether that is through events that we do in different communities or with the press, we will try to field our best teams and allow those members int have a vested interest wanting to work together and pushed legislation through that they care passionately about and that affects their key constituents. and i think there will be, at some point, a big change within the democratic caucus in terms of how we utilize our members and how we field our best teams. i think seniority plays a role, and i think it should, but that does not mean that you walk out -- lock out some of the fresher

faces and voices. >> to follow up on that, this is withtle inside baseball the decision about who would be ranking member on energy and commerce. e in that won out ther position. was that a blow to caging up that seniority system a little bit or do you see some hope that this new idea cap -- >> i think ranking memberships are interesting. i think more of it is about personalities. i think people genuinely think that seniority should count for something. probably the consensus in a majority of the caucus is that it should not be the sole determinant. simplyt think it was won based on seniority. folks who supported frank, it is the determined effort he does on messaging and the work he has done for years with members in the caucus. there have been instances in the last congress where members that

were younger became ranking members of her more senior members. i think that probably shifts -- security is important, but let's look at other sectors, as well. as long as you continue, again, to not allow the full bench of the democratic congress to participate in areas where they really can contribute, i think people may start looking for alternate ways to become ranking or who should be the spokespeople on particular issues. >> we have a little bit more than a five-minute spirit i want to ask what your priorities are as the incoming caucus chair of the hispanic caucus. >> there are a number of areas in which i think we will really need to push for some progress for our community. definitely the area of voting rights. i think the supreme court decision really impacts millions of voters and has the potential

to very much disenfranchised communities. voting rights needs to be an area where we focus a lot of time and attention. immigration will continue to be one of those issues that will continue to percolate and that we may see some action or a tendon -- or attempted action on it, and we will be very involved in terms of what goes forward. standard & poor's recently published a report which is not a radical progressive organization, but it said one of the biggest threat of economic growth is the rising income inequality in this country. that needs to be addressed. there are a bunch of issues. health disparities and i could go on and on. the does are probably in terms of issues that i am looking at, some top ironies. >> the recent decisions like grand juries in ferguson and new york, do they play into that? does that make it a higher priority for you? it's definitely in the areas of

civil rights and voting rights, that is an area we will be very involved in in the upcoming term. definitely how our communities are policed and how we interact together as a society are questions that we cannot continue to ignore. i think there is this critical and we need to look closely at these issues and figure out a solution that our communities are not torn apart by violence, and they are not torn apart and segregated. pushes forhe chc diversity in presidential appointments. what do you want to push on that? >> definitely, i mean, we are pushing to try to make sure that the fortune 500 companies in this country and the government looks like the america of this day. if you look at congress, for

example, women make up more than half of the population. we are about 17% or 18% of elected representatives. hispanics are the fastest-growing ethnic group in this country, but we are underrepresented in congress. those continue to be issues we care about. we will focus on not just trying to diversify presidential appointments, but witness panels that testified before congress. as long as i have been here, most of the panels have mostly been white men that testified before congress on a host of there, and i know that are very qualified individuals from ethnic backgrounds. the same sort of demographic -- demographic gets asked to come and testify in hearings. there are appointments to the federal bench. there is a constant need to remind folks that there are stellar, outstanding, and

eminently qualified candidates that are hispanics and they ought not the overlooked. >> you are a member of the special committee of the benghazi investigation and a report cannot after thanksgiving. you were appointed by nancy .elosi is there a timeline to do much more be on this? >> i will tell you that when i was asked to serve on that committee, i gave it a lot of thought. when i agreed to it, we were given binders with all of the reports that have been generated . i have read through all of them.

there is very little information . many were done in a very bipartisan way. benghazi was a series of unfortunate opportunistic events that piled on top of each other, equaling a tragedy. said ithe -- a chairman would rather ask a question twice than not ask it at all. the nine reports that we have at our disposal that have been generated about this topic answer every question more than twice or three times. i do not think there is a lot of factual information that is left to be found. i suspect that the point of the select committee on benghazi is not so much the factual record,

but to try to use it as a -- tical message peace piece. unless something changes, i do not think there is much left. there are numerous committee reports with plenty of information. >> do you know how much it is costing? >> estimates were about $3 million as a budget for the select committee on benghazi. that could go even higher. i do not know the ultimate amount. to me, it seems like what should have been done is a report should have been read and an outline created of what is left to be investigated. we have been asking with a focus of the committee is or what you are looking at or what

information you think is missing or not there. we have not received that. congressional baseball game has been scheduled for june 11. as a member of the congressional women's softball team for the press, i have found it fascinating you do not play in the softball team but you are out there with your male colleagues on the baseball field. what is that like for you? >> well, you're half right. men'sted playing on the baseball because the women's softball team did not exist at the time. i played for many years and then the women's soft will team came into exist did -- existence the year i gave birth to my son. i played for two years after on both teams. , itry to go back and forth became problematic. not to mention that hitting fastballs and trying to do those at different times during the week really messes with your

timing. [laughter] so i made the executive decision that i had to stick with one, and it is just a tradition that i played on the men's congressional baseball team, so i wanted to stay there. i also think it is symbolic to show that anything we perceive as the men's world or that men can do, women can do just as well, if not better here that think my batting average underscores that. >> are you asking freshmen women to come onto the baseball team? scouting for good talent. but because of the women's softball team existence, it is very hard to get women to play on the men's team. it is just a comfort level that is higher with softball with other women. but it is really one of the greatest experiences in the congress. it very much.

it is the way in which i have gotten to know a lot of my republican including colleagues and friends i have made. >> thank you very much congressman linda sanchez. appreciate your time. >> my pleasure. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] reportersack with our . let me begin with what you heard about immigration and really the prospects for anything beyond in the 114thty congress. >> i remember very clearly in 2006, it seemed like there was a real bipartisan effort coming together. president bush was advocating for that to her the message remains the same from the two sites. republicans really want to take a step-by-step approach with border security.

they say comprehensive is why we need to do it. the words spiderweb which i thought was interesting. like two morends years of nothing, two or use of rhetoric. in the presidential election comes into being, and windy you ever fix the actual problem when everybody agrees the system is broken? the homeland chairman saying he wants to do border security legislation, but leadership did not bring it up in the 113th. what have you heard about them pushing this in the 114th? >> if you ask them, they will say that the immigration is -- system is broken and we want to do it, but it is not at the top of their priority list for what they want to do in the 114th congress. you can push the border security bill, and it may be able to pass. anything beyond that, whether it

is a guest worker program, whether it is so sort of legal fodder for the people here, very difficult to see that passing , andut help from democrats now democrats would clearly have leverage on that. >> would democrats work with republicans on immigration? actuallyicans have not presented them with that, but they will be faced with it. we do not talk a lot about what would happen in the senate. the senate did pass a bipartisan comprehensive bill. you still have john mccain, lindsey graham, marco rubio, but you have a lot of democrats leaving. you have new republicans coming in who are unlikely to be as friendly to that sort of approach. without the house being a willing heart and are in this, i do not know that you could pass to be -- pass that same bill.

>> last year, it was a minority supportedcans that it, which is 14 senators. >> coming up to this week, congress' last week of the 113th congress, go through sort of what they are planning. >> a lot of it sounds like taking it right to the brink you look at the terrible term and putting together all the spending issues with potentially different deadlines and pulling out homeland security funding. sounds like a lot of last-minute decisions on bills that my deciding thing the border and a lot of chaos while they are trying to get out of town and the government will shut down if they do not pass any funding bill. that will make as real busy. >> what have you heard about the tallies on the republican side for going ahead and funding homeland security but just in the short term? there are some conservatives who said we are not voting for that.

>> some conservatives want specific language that says none of the money can be used to implement president obama's orders. people say that is perfect recipe for a government shutdown. you can satisfy some conservatives with making sort of the funding leash for the dhs a little bit shorter, maybe january or february instead of march. >> what are you hearing? >> there will be sent chaos to do not forget, you'll have to raise the debt ceiling again come early next year. so it will start right over again. >> editor in chief with "roll reporter congressional for political, thank you for your time. 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 watched a group go through their bill. someone whispered to the president and i was stunned. whispers -- nobody interrupts the president, even in front of second graders. the president stood and said he had to go. and then we heard he discovered that it was two plane crashes in new york. we were in the parking lot outside the school, and they said to stay right here, and i said, no, there are a lot of cafeteria, and he will speak there. he did not want to scare the children hear it but he did go to the cafeteria and said it was an apparent terrorist attack. washington. then the pentagon was hit.

>> tonight on c-span's "q&a." >> comments we recently received from our viewers. i want to complement c-span on being able to bring together two different ideologies like they did this morning from the cato institute and the immigration policy center. i think you need more programming that way among people who can conduct themselves with a very civil tone. and i applaud you for that. toology can be overturned reach a common ground. i think there should be more programming to that effect. thank you very much for c-span. i listen to c-span pretty much on a daily regular basis. i find it to be very informative.

it takes a very good look at all of our different allocations so citizens can understand exactly who we elect and what is being done and congress. it is important that the citizens have a nice outlet for them to see the proceedings that go on. so i appreciate c-span, and regardless of whether or not it coulter, i just wanted to know that there are young people -- i am 18, and i watched c-span on a regular basis to make sure i understand what is happening in my country. thank you. caller: the american history tour -- [indiscernible] i just watched it in its entirety. it is priceless. so many people of the world do

not understand them own selves am a but if they watch american history, they can see themselves in america and why we're such a great and wonderful nation of all the peoples of the world. thank you. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. , e-mail us, or you can send as a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. at a recent hearing on capitol hill, homeland security secretary jeh johnson testified about president obama's recent executive order on immigration, saying it was within his authority to act and that the byion had been reviewed legal counsel. under the order, undocumented people will be able to stay in the u.s. temporarily if they

meet a certain set of criteria. the action also calls for additional resources for law enforcement along the u.s.-mexico border. this hearing was held by the house homeland security committee. it is just over two hours. >> the committee on homeland security will come to order. committees meeting today to hear testimony from secretary jeh johnson on the administration's recent executive actions to grant temporary relief to millions of unlawful immigrants and the effect such actions will

have on the security of our nation's borders. anow recognize myself opening statement. today, we are here to talk about immigration and the grave consequences of the administration's recent actions to bypass congress. immigration reform is an emotional and divisive issue. there is no doubt about that. at 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 "hope for millions who are seeking a better life, and we should work hard to keep it that way. 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 power grab undermines the principle that the people, not just one man, should be the ultimate decision-makers in our country's most important political matters. this action also has poisoned the well here in washington at a time when americans desperately want their government to work together. we are facing crucial challenges that require congress and the , fromhouse to cooperate combating overseas threats to driving economic growth. an end around congress, the president has deliberately and willfully broken the trust that is needed between our branches of government. the president knows the damage of these actions. in fact, he has said over 20 times in his presidency that he did not have the authority to

take executive action on immigration and that this is "not how democracy works." he also said doing so would lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. he was right, and it will. history has proven that amnesty perpetuates a cycle of illegal entry into this country. 1980's, and in the it has proven true under this administration's abuse of prosecutor old discretion. a power to prosecute lawbreakers 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 discretion that makes a mockery of the law. the consequences are very real. this summer, the administration's refusal to enforce our immigration laws enticed at least xd thousand unaccompanied children to make

the perilous journey to our borders. many travel to the united states under misinformation regarding the administration's granting of permissions. we can expect many, many more to do the same because of the president's recent actions. the last interior enforcement policies adopted by this administration, coupled with even the perception of amnesty, become a powerful magnets that encourages more illegal immigration. we essentially tell citizens of other countries, if you come here, you can stay. do not worry, we will not deport you. the reality on the ground is that unless you commit multiple crimes, the chances of you are 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

those who remained had a court date years away. we know that the majority will never check back in with the authorities. if we do not think that message is making its way back to mexico and central america am a we're simply fooling ourselves. we will see a wave of illegal immigration because of the .resident's actions the president's unilateral amnesty plan is deeply unfair to the millions who are waiting in line to become a part of a great nation, and it demonstrates reckless disregard for america's security. we have a formal immigration , to promotea reason fairness and 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 becoming 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 i did of ice 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 lawmaking branch of our government. congress will address immigration reform, but we need to do so in an intelligent way and in keeping with the wishes of the american people. the majority of americans do not agree with the president's executive actions. they want congress to find a solution, one that begins with securing our borders. i look forward to hearing from the secretary, and i hope that he will address the serious concerns congress and the american people have about the

president's decision. we cannot turn a blind eye to the real threat 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-and announced executive actions on immigration border security, as well as your fifth appearance before this committee in your shows thatnth period you are accessible, and i appreciate it. since 1956, presidents have granted temporary immigration relief to impacted individuals on 39 separate occasions. therefore, it was seen changes outlined by president obama on november 20 are not outside the bounds of presidential authority

as provided under our constitution. approximately 11 million undocumented individuals are forced to hide in the shadows, even as they live and work in plain sight in communities big and small across our nation. time and again, the house republican leadership has been unwilling to act to fix our broken immigration system. in the face of this crisis and absence of congressional action, the president acted in a tosured way that is likely improve both our nation's security and economy, specifically the president announced and 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 beard concrete -- contrary to messaging from those who disagree with the president and many of his helices unrelated to

immigration, this deferred action does not provide relief to recent border crossers. if the applicant can pass a criminal background check and pay a fee, he or she could qualify for a work permit and avoid deportation for three years at a time. approximately 4 million immigrants are expected to qualify for this temporary relief. purports to provide deferred enforcement in order to keep families intact in light of congressional failure to provide such relief is not novel. the family fairness program implemented by president reagan and expanded by president george deferredprovided enforcement for close family members of individuals legalized by the immigration reform and control act. 's directiveama rightly prioritizes the removal of undocumented individuals who

have committed serious crimes, thrust enhancing the safety of our community. i am troubled by extreme criticism and disdain that this to very limited set of actions has received by some in congress to the concept of families with working parents and children who attend school is consistent with the values we all hold. now with the president's announcement, this value or fabric of america is now being called renegade and a basis for more illegal action. a fair criticism may be that vulnerable people in violence-ridden communities in central will be misled by enterprising coyotes and smugglers about the scope of individuals covered by the president's action. i look forward to hearing from secretary johnson about planning efforts that are being rolled up in anticipation of such misinformation. we all know that recent order crossers would not be covered,

even if there is an upsurge based on misinformation, congress has made significant investment in personnel and equipment at the southern border that should ensure that dhs is able to effectively respond to any increases in a tent did border crossings. clear, the president's executive actions are a good start. however, there are still many people whom i believe deserve such consideration that i left -- that are left out. specifically, i point to agricultural workers be the president's executive actions 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. where executive action remains solid, there is an opportunity for congress to legislate. let me close with two thoughts to to those who have said the president's actions do not

represent the will of american to listensay you need better. americans, by wide margins of a 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 and budgetary limbo while every other fellow agency is funded for fiscal year 2015, i say you should really think about the message that congress' commitment to homeland security. in closing, it is 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 andslative changes happen, i yield back. >> i think the ranking member. we are pleased to have secretary

jeh johnson back to the committee. may not agree on all the issues, but we do so with civility. youmr. johnson, as many of know, has a distinguished record, both at the department of defense and of the department of justice, and we appreciate your service for the department of homeland security. with that, you are recognized for an opening statement. mccall, you, chairman ranking member of thompson, committee members here. let me begin by saying him in the same vein as the chairman's remarks, we will not always agree and have not always agreed, but i do appreciate the friendship and the collegiality 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 wealthy at on november 20, the president announced a series of executive actions to begin to fix our immigration system. the president views of 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 changes can provide. the actions we took will begin to fix the system in a number of respects. to promote border security for the future and to send a strong message that our borders are not illegal migration, we prioritize the removal of those apprehended at the border and those who came here illegally 2014,january 1, regardless of where they are apprehended. we also announced the next steps

to strengthen our border security efforts as part of our southern border campaign strategy which i first and after earlier this year. to promote public safety, we made clear that those convicted of crimes, criminal street gang members and national security threats, they are also priorities for removal. to promote accountability, we encourage those undocumented immigrants who have been here for at least five years, have sons or daughters who are citizens or lawful permanent residents, i do not fall into one of our enforcement priorities, some out of the shadows, get on the books, and pass national security and criminal background checks. theirclearing all 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 only given our limited resources, these people are not and have not been priorities for

removal. it is time to 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're 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 by $680 naturalization fee 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 the system and continues to count on congress before the more comprehensive reform that only changes in law can provide. i would like to add to that that i, too, would welcome the opportunity to work with members of this committee on comprehensive immigration reform legislation. i recommended to the president each of the homeland security reforms to the immigration system that he has decided to pursue. these recommendations were the result of extended and candid consultations i had with the leadership of immigration and andoms enforcement, customs 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 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 tom and we received a formal written opinion from the justice department's office of legal counsel concerning enforcement prioritization and deferred action, and that opinion has been made public. thank you for your attention to these remarks. i look forward to your questions. like i think the secretary here are the chairman recognizes himself for five minutes for questions. 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. congress passed legislation that the presidents were implementing a strong distinction from the case that we have today.

i have several questions. first, 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 a democracy works. do you agree with that prior statement? from 30man, i know years as a lawyer that when someone paraphrases remarks from somebody, i want to see the full q&a, 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 time with lawyers, and we spend a lot of time with doj's office of legal counsel. in myrote what is,

judgment, a very thoughtful 30-page public opinion on the available legal authority to act to fix -- >> and i have no doubt about your actions after the election on this issue, but i will say that i will be happy to provide you with the written statements that i have personally read to your office. it is confusing and poses a bit of hypocrisy to the american people, because then after the elections, he reversed his course. after the election, he says that now he does have the legal authority to move forwarto we dd we believe, the president before the election who said he did not have legal authority to take this action or the president after the election who says he does have the authority? what i know is we spent months developing these reforms, and we spend a lot of time with lawyers, very close consultation with lawyers. there were some things that they

told us they thought we did not have the legal authority to do, which is reflected in the opinion, and the were things they told us very clearly that we did have the legal authority to do. the analysis was very thoughtful, very time-consuming, and very expense -- extensive. ims at us for it as a lawyer myself and the person who has to come here and defend these actions that what we have done is well within our existing legal authority. respecte no doubt with to your integrity, but i think the timing of these statements makes it look more political to me, that this is a political decision rather than policy decision. i know you have run this through , but i think traps that is what we're concerned about, these prior statements that he did not have legal authority and now he does. perhaps he was not following the correct legal advice at one the other.

did he get the right legal advice before the elections are after question he has changed his tune on this. i think that is what is so confusing to members of congress and the american people about the authenticity of this president's decision. referring to timing, i originally received an assignment to look at our authority to take executive action in the spring, and we began to develop reforms in the spring. we were urged by many in congress to wait, and so we waited until the summer. it got to the summer and we were urged then to wait until late summer, which we did. once we knew the speaker was not going to be able to marshal the votes in the house of representatives for reform, we decided we were going to act in late summer. then we were urged to wait until after the midterms, which we have done. though we have waited a considerable amount of time. >> my time is limited.

it has undermined our constitutional principles and bypassingacy by congress. you also stated earlier that this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. do you agree with that date and by the president? prioritizedfact, we recent illegal migrants. we prioritized those who came here illegally after january 1, 2014, and i intend to highlight that fact wherever i go. in fact, i am going to our new detention facility in texas after i leave to highlight the expansion of our capability and that recent arrivals illegally our priorities for removal. i intend to go to mexico to work with them on their efforts. wherever i go, i intend to highlight the fact that these new reforms prioritized recent illegal entrants.

>> again, i just look at history. law was passed was led to a wave of illegal immigration. i look at documents. 60,000 children unaccompanied were crossing my border in texas thing the rio grande valley sector. you cannot of daca, deny that the traffickers are going to message this, this executive action, and exploit it. people in the state department have tall me they are worried about this being taken down to the central american companies and exploited, and we are going to see a surge and wave of illegal immigration. i am telling you it is going to happen, and this department needs to be ready to protect the nation from it, because it is coming. in my judgment, no question about it. question is on fraud or 20% of daca