laxalt: yes. rep. jeffries: so you joined this lawsuit and made the decision on january 26, and you announced that decision consistent with your views as it relates to the nevada constitution. you didn't consult with the government when you made that decision? mr. laxalt: mr. congressman, i'm independently elected and it is my job -- rep. jeffries: i'm not arguing that you should have. i just want to establish the fact that you didn't. it is a matter of public record. i just want to make sure that i'm clear. you didn't consult with the government. mr. laxalt: as is in the record. rep. jeffries: i appreciate that. if i could enter into the record, an opinion piece nevada's right choice on immigration. a february 2 article. chairman gowdy: without objection. rep. jeffries: it says, a public dispute broke out when nevada attorney general adam laxalt went against governor sandoval's wishes and joined the lawsuit filed by 25 other states. you will agree that the current immigration system is broken and that

attorney general laxalt, welcome, you may begin. >> mr. chairman, ranking member conyers, and members of the committee, my name is adam paul laxalt, attorney general of nevada. on behalf of nevada i thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the state's lawsuit challenging president obama's unilateral executive action granting deferred action to over four million people. i represent one of the 26 states that has sued the federal government. the state's lawsuit, while immigration is the substantive issue underlying the president's executive action, this lawsuit is not ultimately about immigration. rather it's about the president's attempt to change the law through unconstitutional executive action. like most of us, i am the descendent of immigrants. my ancestors came here in search of a better life. my grandfather, paul laxalt, was the son of an immigration sheep hearder. he rose to become the governor of nevada and united states senator. in our nation's history, similar stories have been repeated over and over. they are what we h

attorney general laxalt, welcome, you may begin. >> mr.irman, ranking member conyers, and members of the committee, my name is adam paul laxalt, attorney general of nevada. on behalf of nevada i thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the state's lawsuit challenging president obama's unilateral executive action granting deferred action to over four million people. i represent one of the 26 states that has sued the federal government. the state's lawsuit, while immigration is the substantive issue underlying the president's executive action, this lawsuit is not ultimately about immigration. rather it's about the president's attempt to change the law through unconstitutional executive action. like most of us, i am the descendent of immigrants. my ancestors came here in search of a better life. my grandfather, paul laxalt, was the son of an immigration sheep herder. he rose to become the governor of nevada and united states senator. in our nation's history, similar stories have been repeated over and over. they are what we have c

so attorney general laxalt, if i ask you, the president as -- congress, as i understand it has the authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, is there anything in the constitution that says if the congress doesn't want to act because they like where the policy is or even because they can't act that somehow that shifts the constitutional right over to the president and that he can take any actions that he otherwise couldn't have taken constitutionally? >> thank you mr. congressman. you know this is the crux of the argument and -- of the lawsuit and it is certainly one of my biggest concerns that has been so for many years going back probably to when i was a law student at georgetown. our constitution is eroding, and the executive branch continues to take more and more power. i can't think of a more clear example of something that the constitution clearly says the congress is supposed to perform and as i said earlier, congress has debated this, the president did not get the policy he wanted now he's decided to do it. i'd like to read a quote in answering to professor legomsky. i

titus: just this morning nevada attorney general laxalt testified before the house judiciary committee claiming that implementation of dapa an extension of daca, would cause undue economic hardship for our state. well i'd like to see his evidence because data show that granting administrative relief to qualified undocumented immigrants would actually contribute to economic growth. thanks to these executive actions, the legal work force will expand and average wages for all workers will increase by $170 a year. the federal deficit will be reduced by $25 billion and g.d.p. will grow from $90 billion to $210 billion over the next decade. furthermore, it's estimated that expanding daca and dapa will increase nevada's g.d.p. from $700 million to $1.7 billion over the next 10 years and lead to $21 million in additional tax revenue for the state over the next five years. so in short, general, not implementing the president's actions is not only morally indefensible but also economically foolish and i might add holding up d.h.s. funding for this purpose is a shameful pliptcal act that puts ame