To reagan, one of his watchwords was, peace through strength. He presided over an enormous buildup in defense spending. The current trajectory of defense spending is down to below 3 of gdp. Which is going to be as low as it was back in before 1941. Would you support a significant increase from current levels in the Defense Budget and do away with the sequester . I absolutely support the concept of peace through strength. I think the most important thing the federal government spends money on is National Defense. You cant rely on state governments. You cant rely on corporations. You have to have a National Defense. Priorities,at National Defense is the number one priority. Looking at dollars spent, i always say a priority. With regards to the sequester, the last budget we produced, we have a fiveyear budget that balances, eliminates the military sequester, and spends money above the military sequester. But we do eliminate five departments of government. If you want a strong defense, fine. 18if you run up an trillion deficit, then i think you may the country weaker. I will spend as much money as i can get out of congress, however i wont run up another 10 trillion in deficit. If youou are saying that cant politically succeed in cutting five departments of government, which has not succeeded during my lifetime, you would not be in favor of an increase. I think that twists my words. I am in favor of a strong National Defense. Im not trying to twist your words. I think it is a mistake to acknowledge that you are going to admit defeat. This is the reason you cant. There are people on our side. Are, are conservatives who ill spend anything and i dont care if it bankrupts the world. We have got to have it. That is wrong. You will be a weaker country. The number one threat to our National Security is our debt. We are borrowing a Million Dollars a minute. I am not all in no matter what. We spend what we can from what comes in. We bring in 3 trillion every year, we spend 3 trillion. That is very simple. Everybody understands that. Nothing rational in washington. It is bankrupting the country. I think it threatens us and makes us weaker. I want to be clear you think the current levels are adequate, for do we need to increase at some point . I think it is a mistake to going to spend 4 of gdp or we are weak. If you are going to protect the country, you have a strategic vision. If tomahawk missiles are important, we need to have a discussion with our military folks, how many do we need for next year . We dont breed aside that we are five to spend pre that we are going to spend 3 of gdp on this. What i have done in the past is, my fiveyear balanced budget eliminated the sequester from the military, of our military spending to grow out of the sequester and did so while balancing the budget. That is my preferred vision. If we want every song again, we should balance the budget and spent on military defense. A topical issue that you addressed earlier, isis and the president considering a proposal to put a safe haven for the Syrian Rebels in syria with the help of turkey, and u. S. Bombing to enforce it. Good idea . The Syrian Rebels . I read a good description. I dont mean to be flippant but that is the best description ive read. A former cia agent said the only thing moderate about rebels is their ability to fight. Been a conduit for giving weapons to isis. I voted against arming these people because the ultimate irony is, we will be back here fighting against our own weapons within a year. I was found to be correct. We are going back to the middle east, which i support begrudgingly. I think it is a mess there. But we are going back in and we are fighting against our own weapons. Of weapons went into syria in 2013 alone. Many found their ways into the hands of isis. I dont think there are any moderates there. 2 million christians are on the other side of the war. We shouldnt be involved in it. The only reason i am forgetting , is becausethere we have an embassy and a consulate which should be defended. How do you defeat isis if you allow them to have a safe haven inside syria . Isis will never be defeated until the people who live there decide to rise up and say this is a barbaric form of islam. That would be the turks rising up, the iraqis rising up. The thing is, we have to question if there is one overwhelming truth that cannot be disputed by the facts, it is this every time we have toppled a secular dictator, it has been replaced by chaos and the rise of radical islam. Look at hillarys war in libya. What has happened . It is chaotic. Was the biggest promoter of getting involved in the syrian civil war. Libya is an absolute disaster. You had qadhafi, but you had some stability in libya. Now that hes gone, our ambassador is assassinated. Our embassy has fled into tunisia. Libya is now chaotic. There are jihadist groups running amok. Republicans who love a republican intervention, iraq is worse off now. Do you think we are better or worse off with hussein gone . There was more stability under hussein. And iraq was able walk against iran a bullwark against iran. You had a geopolitical stalemate. Iraq istopple hussein, a huge mess. A year ago, many on the side of intervention wanted to bomb assad. Had wet do it bombed a side a year ago, who do you think would be in damascus now . Isis. Because become stronger of our involvement in the syrian civil war. Intervention has unintended consequences and we have to be careful and think about what we are doing. I want to open this up we and our allies gave 600 tons of weapons. Qatar and our allies and the saudis together put 600 tons of weapons into syria. Most of it wound up in the wrong hands. R think we are worse off fo it. Do i see any questions out there for senator paul on anything regarding Foreign Policy . We have one right here. [inaudible] the question is regarding iran. I guess we now have the second extension. Your colleague will be on later. He has great concern over that second extension. So do i. One of the interesting things that has come out in recent weeks has been netanyahus response to this. He thinks extension is a good thing. That will may be some of the debate. I think we need to and should do everything we can to prevent iran from having a Nuclear Weapon. That includes the threat of force. Andink the sanctions i voted for every sanction that has come forward in the senate the sanctions have brought them to the table. I think it would be a mistake to push them away from the table. If you Institute Sanctions again right now, there is a very good chance the International Coalition will collapse. I think also that there is a certain bit of irony for the group that believes in virtually imited power for the president but they want to circumscribe the president s capacity for diplomacy. I think sanctions do have to come before congress but i think it is a mistake to pass new sanctions in the middle of ifotiations, particularly they start out with something that is a nonstarter position for aniran. If you start out with no enrichment, there will be no negotiations. Anybody else . Right here. In europe, the russianukraine crisis seems to be more important than here in the u. S. How important do you think this is for the u. S. , and what went wrong, and what could be a solution . I thought we said no hard questions. [laughter] im not sure there is an easy answer to your questions. I agree that because of proximity, europe sees this in a heightened way over the way it is seen here. I dont think it would be correct to say that we dont see it as important. If you are talking about International Order and trying to look at an international civilized and stable world, allowing one country to invade the integrity of another is an step that words and a real problem. That being said, it is difficult to understand. Even when the most hawkish members of Political Parties here are not advocating sending military troops, i think there are ways of talking about and introducing either defensive money intons, and or ukraine, that could bring russia to negotiating on this. I think also trade is an important part of this. I think trying to get independence or having other alternative sources of gas would have less dependency. People fail to understand that dependency goes both ways. Russia requires foreign capital and continuous trade. While europe could be heard by cutting off natural gas, so will russia. I think there are limitations to it. Im not sure what the easy answer is. I think part of it, when you have an analysis of the current president , when the current president sets redlines and doesnt adhere to them, that may encourage other people to step through. I think there has been a certain fecklessness in this president s Foreign Policy that may have encouraged these transgressions. I want to ask you a practical political question. There have been some rumors that you may be considering a run for the white house. I assume that you will probably announce sometime next year if you are going to do that. I asked a lot of republicans about your candidacy. Here is what they tell me, they say, fascinating person saying interesting things about the buty needing to reach out, i dont think he will ever make it out of the primaries because of his Foreign Policy positions and security positions. A super pac will take your positions and hit them one after another and you wont survive. That,hink the thing is that fails to understand the people in the country. It also fails to understand who i am and what i support. I grew up as a reagan republican. Peace through strength is something that i believe viscerally. Do i believe defense is the number one thing . Absolutely. Anyone who wants to say otherwise will have to argue with the facts. I have budget plans to get rid of the military sequester. People have to argue with the facts. People want to call names or say this or that. In iowa, they ask ordinary republicans who live where i live in middle america. They ask them, they put it in general terms, they said, do you agree more with john mccain and more intervention, or do you agree more with rand paul and less intervention . I think that is a great way to put it. Im not talking about all or none. I think we do have to intervene with isis. But i do believe less. We have been everywhere all the time and we are about the bankrupt our country. I want less. Mccain wants more. He wants 15 wars more. There is a more and a less argument. Iowa, 41 agreed with me. This is not a small movement, nor is it easy to say that people like myself who believe in less intervention can be characterized as people who dont believe in strong National Defense. That is a caricature. We will see what happens. You think the republican landscape has changed enough politically we have always been there. 9 11, iwere attacked on would have voted to go to war with those who attacked us and annihilate them and let the that,f the world know you do this, this is the result. This is a warning to the rest of the world that we will never tolerate being attacked. Im right there with most of america and most of the party. Im not right there when you tell me we need roots on the ground in 15 different countries. Say,lso not there when you we need 6 of gdp for military spending. How about 4 . If you set a number, i think there is a problem. If you tell me we are going to run a trillion dollar deficit, im not for that unless you are going to pass a budget and eliminate everything else. It cant be one or the other. There has to be fiscal sanity. Thank you so much for being here. [applause] senator Robert Menendez now joins us. Senator menendez is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Then he will be Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations committee. Senator from new jersey appointed in 2006, i believe. City, of cubank emigrants who arrived here i think the year before you were born. Classic american story. You heard senator paul. I wonder, do you feel sometimes that you have switched Political Parties when you listen to the senator . No. [laughter] a great deal of respect for senator paul. He has interesting perspectives. I think part of your line of questioning with senator paul came to the question of, when is strength appropriate . After 22 years serving in congress between the house and senate, ive come to the clearview that weakness, not strength, invokes provocation. That is a global message. It is a global message whether you are dealing with the russian invasion in ukraine, when you are dealing with china in the south china sea, in conflicts with japan and south korea, and it is true in so many other parts of the world. My own perspective is that we always seek to use diplomacy. We always seek to use economic inducements, whether positive or negative, to get a country to act in a certain way. Crediblebility to have strength is important in order to back up those actions, economic or diplomacy. I truly believe that weakness invites provocation and russia is a great example of that. For me, president putins kgb. His orientation, he is an admirer of peter the great because he extended the russian empire. As you look at president putins evolved ine has accordance with his speeches. When it comes to ukraine, which is very significant for the ukrainian people, and i would say very significant for europe, but even has a more significant consequence globally, if the International Order can be upended without consequence, then other actors will look and say, what did the United States and the west do to russia in terms of invading a sovereign country without provocation, annexing parts of this country . Much, youwer is not will see other global actors thinking that strength will allow them to do what they wish to do. That is consequential for the United States. Since we are on russia, has the response from the west been adequate to meet the challenge that you put to the global order in ukraine . I would hope that what we ,egan to do with the europeans which is important in terms of keeping multilateralism in this respect, can be handsome can be enhanced beyond. Some people dont call it an invasion, but when you see thousands of russian troops, tanks, surface to surface missiles, and a host of armored vehicles, cross from one country to another, where i come from that is an invasion. You have an invasion taking place, then you have the ceasefire, now you have a second invasion. You see the annexation of crimea, now you see the part of Eastern Ukraine being pursued by russia, which is critically important. They probably want to create that land bridge to make the totality of their crimea investment a total success. For me, what we have done in sanctions has been important. 180 on committee voted a bipartisan basis in the midst of a sea of partisanship. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has passed just about every major piece of legislation, and almost never a almost every nominee in strong bipartisan votes. Policy,lates to foreign bipartisanship is incredibly important to send a global message. Votedk as the committee under my legislation that we should get defensive weapons to the ukrainians to fight for themselves. It is part of the calculation that putin will have to make. How many russian soldiers go back to their families if the ukrainians can defend themselves . And sanctions, russia is an extraction country. It relies on its extraction particularly of oil. With oil so low, the ruble has been falling dramatically. Today, their announcement that they will go into recession, this is a critical moment. Either russia will continue its second invasion and extension, or we will have an opportunity to have them change their calculus. If we dont, what stops china from saying, im going to take those territories in the south china sea, what stops north korea, what stops the iranians in their march towards Nuclear Weapons . There is a global consequence to what we do. President obamas response to , anybill in the senate was lethal aid to the ukrainians beyond the minimum would make things worse because it would escalate the situation, make putin even more engaged, more inclined to act faster. What is your response to that . My response ishat we havent done anything, nor has ukraine, to provoke russia. Russia has already taken the most aggressive actions. Calculate,putin will what will be my potential losses if i go further . If they believe they can continue on the course they are on, they will follow that course. Commentaryis a sad that we would not give a sovereign country who is looking to the west the ability to defend themselves. This is not about u. S. Forces going in. This is about the ability to defend themselves. You cannot fight tanks with night vision goggles. At the end of the day, you have to have the ability to have i respectfully this agree with the president as does every member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Is that going to move in the senate, do you think . I hope that in the closing , that is one of the two most passed bills. I think it would be robustly supported by congress. At the same time, there is an effort to extend ukrainian loan guarantees. I think they need the wherewithal to defend themselves. There may be an opportunity and i look forward for that to happen. Lets turn to isis and the syrian campaign. Who votedne of those against going to war with iraq in 2003, if im correct. Many in your party were highly critical of bush and his conduct in the war, and now we have a democratic president taking the country back to war, not in the same way, but conflict in iraq. You heard senator paul talk about the need for congressional authorization. Do you agree with that . Is it likely to pass . Let me just take the premise of your question and characterize it a little bit differently. Were of all, when we , in whichseptember 11 i lost hundreds of citizens of new jersey, i supported president bush. It was the right engagement. It was against bin laden, al qaeda, the perpetrators of september 11. When we went to iraq, i spent a lot of time doing what any member of congress would have done. Looking at what was necessary to make a determination about whether or not we should authorize the use of military force. I have a standard. If i believe the cause is right, i will vote to send my son and daughter to defend the country. If i believe the cause is not right, i wont send anyone elses. Looking atat i spent the iraq situation indicated to me that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, no clear and present danger to the United States, no imminent threat, and we were going to take our eye off the prize, which was al qaeda. That is why i voted no. I believe in strength when it is necessary. I believe in diplomacy when it can be achieved. F, i reference to the aum agree with senator paul that the authorization for force in this case where the administration has stated there will be a multiyear campaign, that congress should act to make such an authorization. I think the nation is stronger when we are acting together. On i think creating limits how that authorization moves forward is important. A 2001 authorization for the use of force that has taken us to multiple parts of the world when it was never envisioned for that is overly broad use of military force. To fight the fight against isil is important. I feel differently from how senator paul describes it. I want to make sure we succeed against isil before it has the operational capacity to create a september 11like attack. I dont wish to leave it alone to succeed. I dont want to leave it alone to succeed. That is one of the critical elements. You have american generals suggesting that at some point we may need to reduce Ground Troops, not just as justice trainers but as target errors, local troops on the ground. Ams to have a the limitation on use of american Ground Troops . I think that what we are doing now is incredibly important, assisting both the iraqis, the kurds, in doing something that the committee was far ahead of its time when it voted on a bipartisan basis to arm abetted Syrian Rebels. A time when those rebels could have made a very significant difference. Moment, as critical well as that the committee give the authorization for the use of military force on a bipartisan basis. That brought john mccain and Barbara Boxer together, a pretty big spectrum, to agree on the assad wasrce when killing his people with chemical weapons in violation of international law. That gave the president the wherewithal to get russia to turn assad around. Whether you are being killed by chemical weapons are not doesnt matter, but for the international norm, it did. It relates to spotters and special forces, i think that will be necessary. At the end of the day, what we who haveist the kurds shown themselves to be resilient, to assist the iraqis, and to now help those who are willing to fight is incredibly important. Cut at the end of the day, you have to make a determination in isois a National Security threat, you have to have the wherewithal to defeat them. Would you support the president on the idea of a safe haven in syria. Haven. S easy to say safe are we in it ourselves is it us in the turks . To use yourg aircraft and other elements to syrianely ensure that no air flights can take place in the area you designate. Significant and it requires a lot more than the United States. We are a superpower but we are not omnipotent. There are shared obligations here. With the use of force resolution against isis pas in the senate pass in the senate and with the democrats both foreign . For it . Know that in the Senate Democratic caucus where i recently raised this issue there was a strong appetite to have an authorization through the use of force, well structured, that would give the president to wherewithal the wherewithal to fight isis. Isil. Why dont we opened it up. Does anybody have any questions for senator mendez, misconduct of Foreign Policy, or anything else . Way back there. Senator mendez, one of the other responses to the russian invasion of the ukraine is that your legislation with senator corcoran sanctions russia. And the possibility that things will change or there will be a postputin russia, how do you build flexibility into the bill to respond to a changing situation . That is a good question. It is similar to the efforts that we did when i authored all of the iran sanctions, along with my colleague. Created flexibility for the president to be able to changesto evolving which have not taken place in irans position in its pursuit of Nuclear Power for Nuclear Weapons. I would think that we would do the same thing with the russians. In russia, our cause is simply to restore the international to stop itsr russia aggression, particularly now, in Eastern Ukraine. I think that can be done. Observeshdraws and that those sanctions would be relieved. It is not for the sake of punishing russia on a permanent basis, it is the purpose of restoring International Order that you cannot offend the International Order without consequences. Anybody else have something . Yes, right over here. Gentleman in the glasses. You. Ank senator mendez, thank you for your work with my home state. Given all thatk, support that the community and was there sonate, much resistance on the part of the administration to pursue that policy . Where do you see us going with iran . What is the guidance that you would give here for resolving this in the Nuclear Ambition that they have . That i havest say followed around for nearly 20 years. Followed iran for nearly 20 years. Learned when i learned it was going to help create operational capacities, not in the National Interest in security interest or security. I led a successful efforts to stop those voluntary contributions. Wasnt the centerpiece of global attention, i was following it. I have the following it for 20 years. Recent the arabians are off the table in negotiating with us is because of the sanctions and the consequences to its economy. The only reason the ayatollah, who is the ultimate decider here i read a lot of expectation about president rouhani and Foreign Ministers are you rouhani, but it is the ayatollah who holds the Nuclear Portfolio and will decide whether an agreement can be reached or not. For the ayatollah, the question is regime change. Is this an attempt by the United States and the west to ultimately change the regime in iran, or is it really about stocking Nuclear Weapons . What do you think he believes . I think that he will decide the question, is in fact he believes that regime change if you believes regime then he wont. If you believe that comes within iran, and you will. Has been my philosophy. I believe in diplomacy, in the negotiations that the administration has pursued. But i believe in negotiations true strengths. When you are conducting a negotiation, you hope to be in the position of strength. You dont wantl, to portray that you want the deal more than the other side. If you want to deal more than the other side, the other side has a sense of it and it will be a matter of how far they will take you before the deal breaks. In this context with the iranians, the question is that we need them to understand that 20 years of obfuscation, 20 years of violating international norms, violating Un Security Council resolutions, has a of havinge underground facilities if you want a Peaceful Nuclear facility in a country that has one of the Largest Oil Reserves in the for supposedly domestic energy, you dont develop it underground. You dont develop it underground. You dont need a plutonium reactor, which is basically a pathway toward nuclear bomb. The sanctions got been there. The problem is that after a year of negotiation, but it seems to it seems to me is that the only reason progress can be claimed is because we, the United States and europe, have to move closer and closer to where the uranium position as an pursuit of the deal. We were told at the beginning of the negotiation that iraq would ultimately have to be dismantled. Now we are talking about recalibrating it or what levels of plutonium it can create. We were told that the facilities had to be closed, now we are talking about recalibrating what they do their. We were told that there was no right to enrich and now it is a matter of how much enrichment can take place. We havent even talked about the missile capabilities that iran has with his jihad missiles, the breadth and scope of what it can hit. Under the articles of natos engagement, there are real concerns. As i have traveled the regions i have heard from many people that iran is allowed to achieve Nuclear Weapons and we will now pursue a path of nuclear armament, because under the theory of mutual selfdestruction we cannot afford iran to have a Nuclear Weapon and not us. Reasons, it is in the National Interest and security of the United States to make sure that iran does not achieve this. That prospective sanctions, sanctions that go , if bywhere we are today march you have no agreement, real imposing that which has been lifted or suspended would move forward. Negotiation is not something that is acceptable. They continued to move their research and development. They continue to have their infrastructure in place. They are getting billions of dollars in relief, which is fueling what . Their wherewithal to create greater capacity. We are weakening we havent lifted, but we are weakening the realities. You see a resurgence in the iranian economy. You see a mild growth taking place. Pc business lined up, chomping at the bit, had the dynamics have changed. For the ayatollah, if the west keeps coming toward me in a deal, i keep sitting pretty. Would you be willing, personally, to induce those additional sanctions if you dont see i am looking for an opportunity to do it well before how nationalng on Defense Authorization works, whether it would be open to an amendment process. Senator paul and the president say that would undermine the negotiation. That everysimply say time i have led on the sanctions that brought iran to the table, i was told the same thing. I was told that this would break the international that europe would never follow. All of that was wrong. Is anyone going to do this willingly . No, but we have to lead. I would rather be in a negotiation where there is a real consequence to not striking a deal, because if we continue down this course, we will weaken ourselves to a point that the iranians will believe there is no credible military threat on the table. They will believe that the sanctions will never be reimposed, and they will move forward. I dont believe that is true. If we continue down the path of giving them the wherewithal to be able to move forward, not dismantling, but just freezing in time at some point in time, when the International Sanctions regime is largely diminished to the point that they can move forward, the only option for this or any future president will be a military option. Why should we wait till that moment when that is the only option . I believe that calibrated, prospected sanctions this cannot continue forever, that is a good negotiating step. It doesnt move you away. I think we have time for one more question if anybody has one. Yes, sir. Concerningquestion russia and ukraine. What will it take to start discussions with ukraine concerning membership in nato . Was it a mistake to engage ukraine in the possibility of entrance into nato . For estonia, true latvia. That could be true for others. Putin did this in georgia, in moldova. It is interesting to see the moldova elections that just took place. That, for so long as you do not have offensive weapons along what is the Eastern Europe part assigned to europe, than if is in a position you put offensive weapons, that changes the dynamics. For so long, all you are talking about is a defensive possibility, im not sure why that evokes putins actions. Well before any real discussions of nato, the conversation was about ukraine looking towards european union. Putin and hisor eurasian view, his new rush if you, ukraine is an essential element. Oris not about its defense concern about security. It is the concern about this new russia. Without ukraine, it is difficult to envision that new russia. I dont know which one of us is willing to suppress the operations of other peoples for the same freedoms we enjoy in the United States. Mendez, sometimes i think i am watching changing parties. This was a fascinating discussion. Thank you so much for joining us. [applause] next, Homeland Security secretary jeh johnson defense the president S Immigration order. The 2015ook at congressional agenda. Mitch mcconnell discusses his priorities in the congress. The budgetlowed by committee chairman, paul ryan, on u. S. Tax policy. Wednesday, a healing of the recall of defective car airbags manufactured by the takada corporation. Join the head of the national Highway Traffic Safety Administration before the house energy and commerce committee. That is live at 10 00 a. M. Cspan 10 00 a. M. On cspan 3. Wednesday, Republican Leaders on Foreign Policy. Louisiana governor bobby jindal, senator ted cruz, and senators ,ohn mccain and bob corker discuss u. S. Engagements in the middle east and National Security issues. We will be live with the Foreign Policy and issues of Foreign Policy initiative on cspan 3. Tour takepan cities cspan on the road, traveling to u. S. Cities to learn about their history and literary life. This weekend we partnered with Time Warner Cable to a visit to waco, texas. As we began to receive the nal, we began turning over the besides bsides. Gospel music was not widely heard in the white community. But the flipside would be heard even less. What we discovered quickly was s wereny of the b directly related to the civil rights movementi. We didnt know the sheer number aint no there segregation in heaven type songs. It was a very dangerous thing in the deep south. Singing that sort of song out loud, that is a risk. The texas ranger hall of fame was set up in 1976 for the 175th anniversary of the rangers. It honors 30 rangers who made measured contributions to the service of rangers. We have painted portraits of all those rangers. They began with steven f. Austin. He was very successful with his rangers. He not only managed to make the area reasonably safe for settlement, but when the texas war for independence broke out, the rangers played a major role in texas gaining its independence. To allow the colonists to build their own army and develop a strategy. As a result, texas became an nation. Ent watch all of our events on sunday afternoon at 2 p. M. Homeland security secretary jeh johnson testified about the president S Immigration executive order, announced on november 20. He appeared before the house Homeland Security Committee Tuesday for two hours and 10 minutes. The committee on Homeland Security will come to order. The committees meeting today to hear testimony from secretary jeh johnson on the administrations recent executive actions to grant temporary relief to millions of unlawful immigrants and the effect such actions will have on the security of our nations borders. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Today we are here to talk about illegal immigration and the grave consequences of the administrations recent actions to bypass congress. Immigration reform is an emotional and divisive issue. Theres 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, theres a right way to do this, and theres a wrong way. And, unfortunately, the president has taken the wrong way. In addition, the president has risked breaking something much more fundamental, and that is our democratic process. We are a nation of laws, yet this unprecedented executive power grab undermines the principle that the people, not just one man, should be the ultimate Decision Makers in our countrys most important political matters. This action also has poisoned the well here in washington at a time when americans desperately want their government to work together. We are facing crucial challenges that require congress and the white house to cooperate, from combating overseas threats to driving economic growth. But making an end around congress, the president has deliberately and willfully broken the trust that is needed between our branches of government. The president knows the damage of these actions. In fact, he has said over 20 times in his presidency that he did not have the authority to take executive action on immigration, and that this is not how democracy works. He also said doing so would lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. He was right. And it will. History has proven that amnesty perpetuates a cycle of illegal entry into this country. This was true in the 1980s, and it has proven true under this administrations 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. Theyve taken a sweeping approach to prosecutorial discretion that makes a mockery of the law. The consequences are very real. This summer the administrations 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 administrations granting of permissions. We can expect many, many more to do the same because of the president s recent actions. The lax interior enforcement policies adopted by this administration, coupled with even the perception of amnesty, become a powerful magnet that encourages more illegal immigration. We essentially tell citizens of other countries, if you come here you can stay. Dont worry, we wont deport you. The reality on the ground is that unless you commit multiple crimes, the chances of you being removed from this country are close to zero. This year, the u. S. Border patrol apprehended almost 500,000 individuals along our southern border, but less than half were deported. Those who remained were given notices to appear before an immigration judge with a court date years away and released into the country. We know that the majority will never check back in with the authorities. If we dont 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 waiting in line to become a part of our great nation and it demonstrates reckless regard for americas security. We have a formal immigration process for a reason to promote fairness in allowing people to enter the United States and to keep those who will seek to do us harm outside of our borders. Sadly, the department of Homeland Security is unprepared to handle the coming surge that the president s policies will incite. Border patrols resources are restrained as immigrants pour across the border making it difficult to identify smugglers, criminals, and potential terrorists. We need to reform our immigration laws but we need to do it the right way. That means starting the process in the law making branch of our government. Congress will addresS Immigration reform. But we need to do so in an intelligent way and in keeping with the wishes of the American People. The majority of americans do not agree with the president s executive actions. They Want Congress to find a solution, one that begins with securing our borders. I look forward to hearing from the secretary and i hope that he will address the serious concerns congress and the American People have about the president s decision. We cannot turn a blind eye to the real threats which these actions will bring to our countrys doorstep. With that, the chair now recognizes the Ranking Member. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for holding todays hearing. Id 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 12month period shows that you are accessible and i appreciate it. Since 1956, president s have granted temporary immigration relief to imedpacted individuals on 39 separate occasions. Therefore, it would seem changes outlined by president obama on november 20 are not outside the bounds of president ial authority as provided under our constitution. Approximately 11 million undocumented individuals are forced to hide in the shadows even as they live and work in plain sight in communities big and small across our nation. Time and again, the house Republican Leadership has been unwilling to act to fix our broken immigration system. In the face of this crisis and absence of congressional action, the president acted in a measured way that is likely to improve both our nations 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 half green cards. Contrary to messaging from those who disagree with the president and many of his policies unrelated to immigration. This deferred action does not provide relief to recent Border Crossers. If the applicant can pass a criminal background check and pay a fee, he or she could qualify for work permit and avoid deportation for three years at a time. Approximately 4 Million Immigrants are expected to qualify for this temporary relief. This provides our deferred enforcement in order to keep families intact in light of congressional failure to provide such relief is not novel. The Family Fairness Program implemented by president reagan and expanded by president george h. W. Bush provided the enforcement for close family members of individuals legalized by the Immigration Reform and control act. President obamas directive rightly prioritizes the removal of undocumented individuals who have committed serious crimes, thus enhancing the safety of our i am troubled by the extreme criticism and disdain that this temporary and limited a set of action has received by some and congress. The congress the concept of working families who would achieve schooling consistent with the values we all hold. Now with the president s announcement this value of the fabric of our america is being called renegade and the basis for more illegal action. Thatr criticism may be Vulnerable People in violence ridden communities would be misled by enterprising coyotes and smuggled. I look forward to hearing from secretary johnson about Planning Efforts that are being rolled out in anticipation of such misinformation. We all know the recent border crisis would not have recovered congress has made significant advancement in personnel and equippingending the southern border to make sure dhs is able to assist and border crossings. Let me be clear. The president s executive actions are a good start. However, there are still many people whom i believe deserve such consideration but are left out. Specifically, i would point to our agricultural workers. The president s executive action does not provide specific relief to an estimated quarter million of those workers that might be eligible for some type of deferred action. More remains to be done to address these labor needs for americas farmers. Where executive action remains solid, there is an opportunity for congress to legislate. Let me close with two thoughts. To those who have said the president s actions do not represent the will of the American People, i say you need to listen better. Americans by wide margins believe our immigration system can be fixed in a fair and humane way that does not jeopardize our security. Second to those in congress who have embraced the idea of putting the department of Homeland Security in budgetary limbo while every other fell 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, its my hope that congress will use this action as a starting point to legislate permanent fixes to our nationS Immigration system and further improve our Border Security. Mr. Chairman, i am willing to work with you throughout the remainder of this congress and the next congress to make these legislative changes happen. And i yield back. I thank the Ranking Member. We are pleased here to today secretary jeh johnson back to the committee. As always, we may not agree on all the issues but we do so with civility. And mr. Johnson, as many of you know, has a distinguished record, both at the department of defense and at the department of justice. And we appreciate your service for the department of Homeland Security. And with that, you are recognized for an opening statement. Thank you, chairman mccall, and Ranking Member thompson, Committee Members here. Let me begin by saying in the same vein as the chairmans remarks, we wont 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 ive testified before congress in 11 months. Fifth time before this committee. I feel like i know a number of you well. On november 20th, the president announced a series of executive actions to begin to fix our immigration system. The president views these actions as a first step toward reform of the system and continues to count on congress for the more comprehensive reform that only ledgegislative changes can provide. The actions we took will begin to fix the system in a number of respects. To promote Border Security for the future, and to send a strong message that our borders are not open to illegal migration, we prioritize the removal of those apprehended at the border and those who came here illegally after january 1, 2014, regardless of where they are apprehended. We also announced the next steps to strengthen our Border Security efforts as part of our southern Border Campaign strategy which i first announced earlier this year. To promote Public Safety, we made clear that those convicted of crimes, criminal street gang members and National Security threats, are also priorities for removal. To promote accountability, we encourage those undocumented immigrants who have been here for at least five years, have sons or daughters who are citizens or lawful permanent residents, and do not fall in to one of our enforcement priorities to come out of the shadows, get on the books, and pass National Security and criminal background checks. After clearing all their background checks, these individuals are eligible for Work Authorization will be able to pay taxes and contribute more fully to our economy. The reality is that given our limited resources, these people are not, and have not been for years, priorities for removal. Its time reaction knowledge that and encourage them to be held accountable. This is simple common sense. To rebuild trust with state and local Law Enforcement, which are no longer honoring i. C. E. Detainers, we are ending the controversial secure Communities Program as we know it and making a fresh start with a new program that fixes existing problems. To promote u. S. Citizen slp we will enable application to pay the 680 naturalization application fee by credit card around expand citizenship public awareness. To promote the u. S. Economy, we will take administrative actions to better enable u. S. Businesses to hire and retain qualified, highly skilled foreignborn workers. The reality is that for decades, president s have used executive authority to enhance immigration policy. President obama views these actions as a first step toward the reform of the system and continues to count on congress for the more comprehensive reform that only changes in law can provide. Id like to add to that, i, too, would welcome the opportunity to work with members of this committee on comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. I recommended to the president each of the Homeland Security reforms to the immigration system that he has decided to pursue. These recommendations were the result of extended and candid consultations i had with the leadership of immigration and Customs Enforcement, customs and border protection, and u. S. Citizenship and immigration services. Along the way i also spoke with members of the workforce who implement and enforce the law to hear their views. In my own view, any significant change in policy requires close consultation with throws who administer the system. We also consulted a wide range of stakeholders, including business and labor leaders, Law Enforcement officers, religious leaders, and members of congress from both sides of the aisle. We also consulted with the department of justice and we received a formal written opinion from the justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel concerning can 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. I thank the secretary. Chairman recognizes himself for five minutes for questions. I have to echo again in my opening statement, theres a right way to do this and a wrong way. Obviously i disagree with the president s approach in this case. President s 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. One first is, the president said over 20 times that he did not have the Legal Authority to do this, to take this executive action, and that this is not how democracy works. Do you agree with that prior statement . Chairman, i know from 30 years as a lawyer that when someone paraphrases remarks from somebody, i want to see the full q a. I want to see the full context to know exactly what the person said. Ive looked at various excerpts of remarks by the president concerning his Legal Authority to act. I do not believe that what we have done is inconsistent with that. In fact, we spent a lot of time with lawyers and we spent a lot of time with dojs office of Legal Counsel. They wrote what is, in my judgment, a very thoughtful 30page Public Opinion on the available Legal Authority to act to fix there is no i have no doubt about your actions after the election on this issue. But i will say, i will be happy to provide you with the written statements that i have personally read to your office. It is confusing and it poses a bit of hypocrisy i think to the American People, because tlen after the then after the election he reversed his course. After the election now he says that he does have the Legal Authority to move forward. Who should we believe the president before the election who said he didnt have Legal Authority to take this action, or the president after the election who says that he does have the authority to take this executive action. Congressman, what i know is we spent months developing these reforms and we spent a lot of time with lawyers, very close consultation with lawyers. There were some things that they told us they thought we did not have the Legal Authority to do and are reflected in the olc opinion, and this were things they told us very clearly that we did have the Legal Authority to do. The analysis was very thoughtful, very time consuming, and very extensive. And im satisfied as a lawyer myself and the person who lass to come here and defend these actions that what we have done is well within our existing Legal Authority. I have no doubt with respect to your integrity. But i think the timing of these statements makes it look more political to me, that this is a political decision rather than a policy decision. I know youve run this through all the legal traps. But i think that is what were concerned about are these prior statements that he didnt have Legal Authority, and now he does. So perhaps he wasnt following the correct legal advice at one juncture or the other. Did he get the right political or legal advice before the election or because he has changed his tune on this. And i think thats whats so confusing to members of congress and the American People about the authenticity of this president s decision. Well, you refer to timing. I originally received an assignment to look at our authority to take executive action in the spring. We began to develop reforms in the spring. We were urged by many in congress to wait, so we waited until the summer. We got to the summer. We were urged then to wait until late summer, which we did. Once we knew the speaker was not going to be able to marshal the votes in the house of representatives for reform, we decided we were going to act in late summer. Then we were urged to wait until after the midterms which weve done. So weve waited a considerable amount of time, more than my time is limited. I know you have, but it has under undermined our principles in dempsey. He also stated earlier this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. Do you agree with that statement by the president . No. In fact, we prioritize recent illegal migrants. We prioritize those who came here illegally afternoon january 1, 2014. And i intend to highlight that fact wherever i go. In fact, im going to our new detention facility in texas week after next to highlight the fact that weve expanded our detention capability and recent arrivals illegally are priorities for removal. And i intend to go to the country of mexico to work with them on their own interdiction efforts. So wherever i go, i intend to highlight the fact that these new reforms prioritize recent illegal entrance. Again, i just look at history. In 1986 the amnesty law was passed. And it led to a wave of illegal immigration. I look at today. I had 60,000 children unaccompanied crossing my border in texas through the Rio Grande Valley sector. As a result of daka, you cant deny that the traffickers are going to message this, now this executive action and sproitexploit it. Ive had high level people in the state department tell me this, theyre worried about this being taken down to the Central America countries and exploited and were going to see a surge and a wave of illegal immigrations. Im telling you, it is going to happen and this Department Needs to be ready for that to protect the nation from it, because its coming in my judgment. There is no question about it. The last question is on fraud. 20 of daca applications denied at fraudulent. We saw after 1996 with being the 1993 World Trade Center bomber, one of them, had fraudulent documentations exploiting the 1986 amnesty law. What are you going to do to verify that these people are not fraudulently entering the country without posing Security Threat to the country . That is something i, too, am concerned about. Fraudulent applications have the potential to undermine the whole process. So in the implementation, in the planning for the implementation, i want to be sure that we take a hard look at best practices to avoid fraudulent applications, fraudulent misuse of the program. Thats a priority of mine. Well, we look forward to working with you on that. With that, i know that the chair recognizes the Ranking Member for questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, there are striking similarities between president obamas executive action and those similar actions taken by president reagan and president george h. W. Bush on addressing this problem. Your statements to this committee is that the department of justice has provided authority by which the president is acting. Are you comfortable with that or did you participate after the issuance of that authority in the development of a recommendation to the president . Yes, sir. Let me add this. Whenever i assess a legal question, both as a lawyer for the department of defense, and now as a cabinet secretary, and the viability of a legal issue, i welcome a thorough opinion like the one we have from olc. But i also ask myself, could i defend that action before a committee of congress if called upon to do so. And im fully comfortable that we have the Legal Authority to push forward these reforms in particular, specifically with regard to deferred action, that is an authority that president s have used for decades, as you have pointed out, in various different forms. Thats noted in the olc opinion. So im fully comfortable that deferred action is an inherent executive branch tlortauthority authority that can and should be used from time to time. And weve done so here. What id like to add to that, from those other actions, congress had not moved forward and that was why president reagan and george h. W. Bush did pursue the executive order route, because of the inaction of congress. And so while there are differences of opinion, i want that has a question that we have not done our job as members of congress and the problem gets worse. Those 11 Million People who are here, we have to address. Another issue that im concerned about, mr. Secretary, the departments unity of effort. How will the southern Border Campaign address challenges around that. The southern Border Campaign strategy that weve developing is an initiative to bring to bare all of the departments resources in a particular region of the country on Border Security. We are, in my judgment, too stovepiped in that approach. Cbp, i. C. E. , fema, coast guard, we are too stovepiped. We need to bring a more strategy approach to it so what we are doing is creating two task forces. West task force, joint Task Force East to focus on Border Security in the southeast and in the southwest. I expect to announce the new leaders of those task forces very soon. And were developing a timeline for getting this done. I issued as part of these various directives here a directive devoted toward the southern Border Campaign strategy and set forth here what the goals and lines of effort are to be. As you know, i think weve received a lot of bipartisan support from this effort and i intend to move forward with it. The comment has been made about number of undocumented children coming in recent years. Your department requested supplemental funding to address the needs to work with that. Congress did not give you the money. Can you continue to maintain the level of support to address that issue if Congress Continues to refuse to give you the money necessary to do that job . It will be very difficult. We have as part of our fy15 budget request a request for an additional 750 million. Most of that will go to expanded detention capability and resources. We set that up in response to the spike in illegal migration last summer and we want to maintain that and we want to add to it. And so i refer to the new detention facility in dilly, texas a moment ago. That is a capacity for up to 2,400 spaces. We need to pay for that. But, it is a vital aspect of our southern Border Security, in my view. And, frankly, im disappointed that congress has not supported us in that vital Border Security effort. I hope that congress will act to fund that and to fund the expanded flights, the repatriation that weve developed since last summer. We need to pay for these things and i know every member of this committee wants to support an enhanced Border Security so im urging congress to act so we can pay for it. Mr. Secretary, what do you project to be the number of people coming across the border illegally this year . The number of people crossing the border illegally this year . Fy14, i believe that total apprehensions which are an indication of attempts to cross the border illegally, 477,000, how many will succeed without being apprehended . There is a calculation that is something in excess of that number. You add, as im sure you know, apprehensions plus turnbacks, plus what we call gotaways and you get an estimate for total illegal migration, i believe. But id be happy to provide this number to you, what our Border Patrols best estimate is but i believe it is some percentage in excess of the 477,000, 479,000. Thats what i feared, more than half a Million People will succeed coming into the United States illegally this year. If you were to succeed in achieving your goal of operational control of the border, what would you like to get that number down to . From half a million to what . Well, very clearly, sir, id like to see that number come down. In fy2000, we had 1. 6 million right. If i may interrupt you for a minute, what are were your metrics in determining whether the border is secure or not . Well, the Border Patrol has metrics. Ive asked that they improve upon that. I recently issued a directive to better define our bothered metrics how we should define Border Security. So that is a work in progress, sir. So you dont have the metrics today to determine whether the border is secure. The Border Patrol does have metrics which i believe ive shared are various members of this committee. Ive asked that they refine that and theyre in the process of doing that. Okay. So again, i dont think that we have the metrics we need to determine whether the border is secure or not. Let me read a sentence from your page 3 of your statement today. Our executive actions emphasize that our border is not open to future illegal immigration, that those who come here illegally will be sent back unless they qualify for some form of humanitarian relief under our laws. Is it true, though, that the department of Homeland Security is already releasing Illegal Immigrants from i. C. E. Custody . Im sorry, what was the last part of that question . Is the department releasing Illegal Immigrants now from i. C. E. Custody instead of sending them home . I believe that we have a number of those who are released on bond, if i understand your question, through. Through a directive, i recently asked i. C. E. To have a higher level Approval Authority for when that happens. Again, to put that in simple language, i. C. E. Is releasing individuals who are in the country illegally which is contrary to your statement that they would be sent home. And it also seems to me contradicting your statement is the fact that very few individuals who have entered the country illegally who have not, in your terms, committed other serious crimes are going to be sent home. It is going to be a very, very small fraction. It may be 1 or 2 . So i dont think your statement here is true to say that those who come here illegally will be sent back. It is a very small subset of those who come into the country illegally. Well, let me say two things, sir. During the summer we dramatically reduced the repatriation time for adults from 33 down to four days. And we have built added detention space for family units which im hoping this congress will support. Thats nice but thats not answering my question. Once again, you are not going to be sending people back home just because theyre in the country illegally and in fact i think youve just admitted i. C. E. Is already releasing individuals who could be returned home but are not being returned home. Furthermore, i think youre also releasing individuals who have been convicted of crimes in the United States and putting them back out on our streets and in our communities. Do you want to estimate how many thousands of people are being released who are criminal aliens . The last several years i think it totals 30,000 people. Do you have any idea what it might be this year . The issue of release of throws convicted of crimes is one that i focused on for the last several months. So what i directed to i. C. E. Is that there be a higher level Approval Authority for a circumstance when somebody with a criminal record is released from immigration detention on bond. I also directed that a release of somebody with a criminal record should not occur because of fiscal constraints. We will find a way to pay for that. I hope you can. Because as i say, right now you are releasing criminal aliens, you are releasing individuals hop should be sent home and i dont think thats the way our laws shouldd be enforcehould be viewed. Mr. Chairman, to the Ranking Member again, let me thank you for this hearing. This is the important work of the United States congress. It is unbiased fact finding. Secretary, again, thank you for your service and the importance of your related service in the department of defense, and as well your knowledge and work with u. S. Department of justice. I, frankly, believe that we can clarify the president s comments abdz and he was in fact extremely consistent. And i have a series of questions. As i understand the executive order, it does not confer immigration status, nor does it confer a pathway to citizenship. Is that correct . Correct. And my interpretation of the president s remarks over the years has been his lack of authority to confer immigration status or citizenship. My interpretation, but i think it would be documented by his words, and youre telling us today that in the executive order, you nor the president has done that. Deferred action does not grant legal status in this country. Or pathway to citizenship. Or a green card or a pathway to citizenship. Let me move on, mr. Secretary, to put into the record these words. A comprehensive approach to Immigration Reform is long overdue and im confident that the president , myself and others can find Common Ground to take care of this issue once and for all. Those were the words of speaker boehner, which i took literally in 2012. To date, this congress has not placed this house has not placed on the floor of the house one single immigration bill that responds to what i thought were welcoming words by the speaker. We have not had an up or down vote. And in this committee, which i want to congratulate, the clarm chairman and Ranking Member have worked in a bipartisan matter. My subcommittee chairwoman and myself have passed hr1417, a Border Security legislative initiative and it has never seen a day on the floor of the house to provide an up or down vote. My questions and concerns would be our interpretation. President reagan signed into law in 1986 a bill that many people tried to muffle their words but they used the word amnesty. Id make the argument that president reagan saw a humanitarian crisis and decided to act. In the phoenix case in 2012, Justice Roberts said that president s, in addition to the executive order, have a right to humanitarian relief. So let me pursue. Questioning regarding the daca and the issue that this may work to cause Border Crossers as a result of this announcement. Could you just quickly point out the daca relief deals with existing persons here in the United States, and one other aspect is to expand the time frame from two to three years. Could you quickly answer that . Why dont i just give you this other question so that we wont be delayed with respect to the other question. Ive us a thought secure communities have had a legal and political issue. And you have streamlined secure communities. Let me say that my Law Enforcement officers locally have said that it is problematic. So in your prioritization of terrorists and others, you have veem streamlined that. I would also like to indicate in your new facility that im very interested in this dilly, texas, that it will be accommodating and with the right kinds of resources for family and children. If you would answer those questions, mr. Secretary. Yes, maam. The current daca program is for those who have been here since july or june 2007 which is almost seven years over seven years. You have to have been here over seven years, come here under age 16 and have to have been born after 1981. We redvised the criteria that by rolling back the cutoff from 2007 to 2010 we removed the birthday limitation from post1981 to any time. Weve made the eligibility for the temporary period three years instead of two years. With regard to the dilly facility that were opening up, ive sent my own staff my own lawyers down there to ensure that the conditions are adequate for family units and it is something that im committed to ensuring. And secure communities that you streamlined, which have really rounded up mothers and fathers and people who are no threat to the United States of america. I support the goal of secure communities. The goal of secure communities is to get at criminals so they can be put in removal facilities. Absolutely. The program, as you know, was becoming legally and politically controversial. Mayors and governors signing laws and executive orders prohibiting their Law Enforcement from working with ours on this. And so i want a fresh start so that we can better enforce Public Safety and removing criminals. I thank you. Mr. Chairman, as i yield back, i just want to say that in an article in our local newspaper, a mother who had used a nanny for a number of years, who had been in this country for 13 years, dependent as many 00 42 55 michael mike d. Rogers mothers across america are, on child care in the house, she was celebrating, not politically, democrats, republicans, the opportunity for her nanny to become, in some way, status to stay in this country, and to do good work, and to protect her children. I yield back. Chair recognizes mr. Rogers from alabama. Thank you, chairman. Thank you mr. Johnson for your service and for being here. Earlier this year you testified before this committee, and when we had a bunch of younger people coming across the border illegally. And during that hearing i asked you when we were talking about the reason why they wouldnt be removed within 24 hours like we do adult illegal aliens coming across the border and you made the point of saying statutorily the governments required to allow these children to go through or the younger people, to go through a hearing process, and that that had to be complied with. My request, my inquiry to you was, arent these exigent circumstances . And you said yes. I said, well under those circumstances, 00 44 00 Jeh Charles Johnson cant the president write an executive order that would allow you to go ahead and remove those younger people like we do adults. And you said, the president doesnt have that authority to ignore a statute by executive order. Isnt it true that our current statutory law requires that these people that are covered under executive order be removed from the country . I recall that exchange, and i recall that the particular words, extraordinary circumstances, or exigent circumstances, whatever was in the law, could not be read as broadly as to permit voluntary departure and basically obviate the entire statute. That was the reading of the statute that i had at the time. I do not believe, to the extent this is your question, that that is inconsistent with anything weve done and announced week before last. I disagree with you. The statute is very clear at present. That these illegals who are in this country are to be removed once theyre located. My next question, you talked about how the people are going to be defined under this executive order by being here a certain number of years, or the age or whatever. How do you determine that how theyre presenting themselves is accurate . For example, if they say ive been here seven years. How do you get them to prove it . And how do you know that the way they prove it is valid . For example they say well ive been living at this address for the last seven years, and heres the power bill over that period of time. And the power bill is in another persons name. And they say but i rent from that person. And that person says oh, yeah, and its a complete fabrication. How do you prove the residency is accurate when they present themselves to you . Good question. And the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate that theyve lived in this country continuously for the fiveyear period. So the onus is on the applicant to come forward with something that satisfies the immigration officer, the examining officer, that they have, in fact, lived in this country. I do not believe that that will be as simple as, you know, take my word for it. My next question, you talked about how the people are going to be defined under this executive order by being here a certain number of years, or the age or whatever. How do you determine that how theyre presenting themselves is accurate . For example, if they say ive been here seven years. How do you get them to prove it . And how do you know that the way they prove it is valid . For example they say well ive been living at this address for the last seven years, and heres the power bill over that period of time. And the power bill is in another persons name. And they say but i rent from that person. And that person says oh, yeah, and its a complete fabrication. How do you prove the residency is accurate when they present themselves to you . Good question. And the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate that theyve lived in this country continuously for the fiveyear period. So the onus is on the applicant to come forward with something that satisfies the immigration officer, the examining officer, that they have, in fact, lived in this country. I do not believe that that will be as simple as, you know, take my word for it. There will have to be some sort of documented proof that will be developed in the implementation process by cis. I think you acknowledged from an earlier question, this is an area that is going to be wrought with fraud. All sorts of lies and exploitation are going to be driven to this point, and i think its going to be impossible for yall to be able to determine who, in fact, qualifies under this very broad and illegal executive order. May i ask this question . Do you think that the people that are going to fall into this category are going to be able to draw medicare and Social Security . And other Public Benefits . People who qualify for deferred action are lawfully present, but they do not have a lawful status, like lawful permanent resident or citizen. One of the virtues, i think, of accountability is you get people a Work Authorization, and then they pay taxes on the books. Part of the taxes they will pay, as i understand it, would be a deduction for Social Security. So the answer is yes, they will be able to qualify not be eligible for Public Benefits of the type that most people would would receive. But medicare and Social Security, they would . You would generally, as i understand it, be eligible if youre around long enough to get back what you put in. What you invested originally. So the answer is yes. Normal Public Benefits we would think of. Well, participating in medicare and Social Security, both of which are struggling financially through solvency, to have this added burden, i think, is irresponsible. Now, you made point about being given documentation for a work permit. Is that accurate . This program will issue affirmatively document to an illegal saying they have a legal status of some sort . As a separate matter, those who apply for deferred action can also applied for a Work Authorization, which is not a green card. Its a separate form of Work Authorization that the secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to provide. But it will be a legal status of some sort . They will be considered lawfully present in the country, just like the dhaka kids. Do you know the department of Homeland Security to establish and carry out that program and for writing that documentation . How expensive will it be for you . Well, the program will be fee driven. An applicant has to pay a fee. I believe that were contemplating that the fee be 460 per applicant, which is what it is for daca. Uscis is a feebased organization. It pays for itself. Great. Thank you very much. I yield back. Mr. Keating from massachusetts. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for having the hearing. Thank you mr. Secretary. The title of todays hearing is open borders, the impact of president ial amnesty on Border Security. Before this hearing gets too far let me be very direct, secretary, is this amnesty . No. No in my judgment. Not legally is it even functionally amnesty . The Current Situation amounts to amnesty. We want people to be accountable, to come out of the shadows, get on the books, and pay taxes for the threeyear period of deferred action. Thank you mr. Secretary. I have another question. Does this represent a permanent solution this executive order, in your opinion . No. And let me say again, i would welcome the opportunity to work with the members of this committee who i know are interested in Immigration Reform on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, since ive been in office, we have not had a willing partner in the house of representatives. But i continue to want to work with members of this committee and members of the house, members of the congress, on a comprehensive Immigration Reform piece of legislation. Because youre correct, this is not a permanent solution. But it is in our existing Legal Authority to issue, to fix the broken system, and we feel that we had no choice. Secretary, general Barry Mccaffrey served as a witness during a Border Security hearing before this committee in the last congress and he unequivocally said that the lack of comprehensive Immigration Reform is a direct threat to our National Security. Would you comment on that . Part of comprehensive Immigration Reform that was passed by the senate enhanced Border Security. More resources, more technology, more surveillance. I support that. And i agree with that. And im hoping that the congress will act on our pending request for added Border Security on the southwest border in response to last summers spike. Border security is integral to National Security. So i agree with that, sir. I know that theres some limitations on what you can say, and most of the members of this committee have been briefed in classified manner on this issue, but can you enlighten us, and the members of the public, too, as to some of the means that have been implemented in terms of Border Security, particularly use of satellites, to a greater extent, and use of military assets that we have that we no longer need that can be surplused and used in the border. When i go down on the border, the southern border, and i talk to our Border Patrol about what they need, they almost always tell me, more vehicles, more surveillance, more technology. Were moving in the direction of a riskbased strategy to Border Security, Homeland Security, aviation security, because we now have the capability to surveil highrisk areas of the border. And so we need to continue in that direction. We need more technology. That includes aerial surveillance, as well as mobile surveillance on the ground and a number of other things. Weve made considerable investments, congressman, over the last 15 years. Which has shown some good results. But i believe that we can do better and we should continue to do better in this regard. Im disappointed we do not have a vote in the house at this stage on the senate bill or a bill like that. But let me ask you another question, my last question. And that is, theres some discussion by members, that have asked you questions in terms of your ability to send people back. Can you be clear about your fiscal resources to do that right now. What youre capable of. Are you capable of sending everyone back . How much do you need . If were really serious about this, how much do we need to fund your agency so that we can do what the members of this committee are asking you to do . Well, the answer to that question is reflected in our current budget request. And let me say this, i know that there are some contemplating some form of shortterm c. R. For the department of Homeland Security to get us to march. That is, in my judgment, a very bad idea for Homeland Security. Because, during that period of a c. R. We cannot engage in new starts. Weve got some Homeland Security priorities that need to be funded now. For example, were back in a president ial election cycle. I cannot hire new secret Service Agents until i get an appropriations bill passed by this congress. Not another c. R. For a couple of months. I cannot continue to fund our enhanced detention capability in texas with another c. R. That gets me to march. I need the help of congress to support and build upon Border Security, which i believe all of you support. So, im urging that we act on our current appropriations request now for the for the purpose and for the sake of Border Security and Homeland Security. Thank you, mr. Secretary, for those direct answers. I yield back. Chair recognizes miss miller from michigan. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Good morning, mr. Secretary. Appreciate your attendance here this morning. Obviously there is a huge divide, certainly in congress, and i think out there in the heartland, as well, about whether or not this is a constitutional overreach by the president. And just listening to your testimony, and i read through your testimony last night, and hearing you answer some of the questions, you obviously had a very, heavy, heavy, heavy reliance on the olcs opinion, the 33page opinion that they issued in here through mr. Holders department of justice. And you said, i wrote a note when you said that they were very, very thorough. But yet it seems to me that the questions that you did ask them were specifically tailored, the three questions that you asked the olc, were very specific in nature, and perhaps there were some questions that you could have asked that you did not. But i would just could you tell us the process in which you actually asked these three specific questions of the olc . Because i see some of the states are going to be suing. Im sure this is going to be a question probably determined by the courts, and you your department had such a heavy reliance on them. Well, i know from my days at the department of defense, and now, that the way we typically work with olc is to put to them specific questions. Do we have the authority to do x . Do we have the authority to target x y z military objective, for example . And so, we developed the two or three most significant questions that would be part of this executive action package to be put to olc for them to consider. They came back with this very thorough opinion, and i will say that as a lawyer myself, and as someone whos been a lawyer for a Government Agency im fully comfortable with whats been in here. I know im going to have to be the one to defend it. Well, if i could, in 2012, when the this administration created the daca policy, theres nothing that we could find of any opinion from the olc regarding that. Just would seem to be sort of a glaring oversight from there. So theres is there such a memo . If there is such a memo we would like to see that. I can only speak to 2014. And we wanted to be thorough but certainly as you were looking at this you would have asked olc was there ever a memo in regards to daca . Never asked that question . I am not aware of one. Based on everything ive asked and been told im not aware of one, have not seen one. I wanted to be thorough this time around though. We think there was a glaring omission about that, as well. And again in regards to the olc and this will be determined in the courts i think, since i mean i certainly believe this is a constitutional overreach by this administration, and as i say, it appears that some of the states are going to court on that. I was also taking notes here, secretary, as you mentioned, about the fees. The 460 fee. I did some quick math, probably not right, but times 4 million, 1. 84 billion. Just wondering, because youre again the olc is saying you need to do it, guarantee it, on an individualized case by case review is what theyre saying. So is some of the questions even this morning were talking about the limited amount of resources that you have, so are you going to do 4 million case by case reviews. How in the world are you going to pay for this . Really is that going to be enough . I mean right now you have a couple of dozen field stations. Im not quite sure the mechanics of doing a case by case review and i think that will be such an important critical component for the department so that youre not just doing a free for all, and just rubber stamping and really taking a look at all of this. So how do you envision that all unfolding as you do a caseby case review of over 4 million individuals . We have an implementation period of a startup time of six months. Daca was 60 days. We determined that for this one we needed six months to make sure that we get it right. We know from the daca experience that the program, if the fee is set at the right level, will pay for itself. So the fee for daca is 460 per applicant. And thats the same fee that well be charging here. With regard to the number 4 million, let me say this, 4. 1 million is the estimated potential class of those who would be eligible. Not all of those will come forward. As the daca experience shows. The estimated potential class of daca kids is over 1 million. But the number of those who are actually enrolled is somewhere around 600,000 or 700,000. Then of those who come forward some will not qualify because they didnt survive the background check or for some other reason they didnt establish proof of living here for five years. So the number 4. 1 is the estimate of the total potential class. But not all of those will be enrolled in the program. Thank you very much. I think my times expired here. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chair recognizes mr. Barber from arizona. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing, and thank you, mr. Secretary, for being with us today. I want to start by just saying how much i appreciate, and i think im going by other members on both sides of the aisle of this committee, how much i appreciate the forthrightness with which you approach the questions and the concerns that we have, and the leadership youve provided to the department over almost the last year. As you know, mr. Secretary, you visited my district within a month of your appointment, your confirmation. And you saw firsthand, you heard firsthand from people who live along the border, work along the border, what their hayne issue is. They are concerned about people coming here illegally, seeking work. But theyre even more concerned about the traffic of drug smugglers, and the potential violence that comes with them. Thats one of the reasons i cosponsored along with many members of this committee the Border Security results act which passed unanimously here. Its important to stress, unanimously in this committee. It has yet to be brought to the floor. I also cosponsored with almost 200 other members hr15, a bipartisan bill that would include the Border Security results act, and the immigration provisions of the senate bill which passed bipartisan passed the senate. Ive said from day one that the Congress Needs to act, and we have failed in our responsibility to act to secure the border, and to fix the broken immigration system. And because of that failure, unfortunately, executive action has been taken. I believe it should be done in concert with congress, but we have failed in our side of the bargain. I fully support the mccain flat bill which is sitting there ready for us to take up. Could you, mr. Secretary, initially my first question is, could you address how the executive action korts with the mccain flake bill particularly as it regards Border Security and immigration. I know its not comprehensive, it cant be, but to what extent was that bill a template for action that can be taken and must be taken to security the border, and to fix the system . Well, the executive actions that we have taken are no substitute for f744 which does a number of things, including an earned path to citizenship. Thats whats contemplated in the bill. We do not have executive authority to provide an earned path to citizenship. We do have executive authority to provide deferred action to those who have been here for years, similar to the bill who have not committed any crimes and basically become integrated members of the American Society to offer them the opportunity to be accountable. That is not citizenship. That is not permanent residence. It is simply you are deemed lawfully present in the country for a period of time. We also are, through executive actions, enhancing Border Security in a number of ways, but again, Border Security is something thats not cost free. So, weve reprioritized recent illegal entrants, which we plainly have the authority to do. But i need help with resources. I need help on the southern border in arizona, in texas, new mexico, for added detention capability, added surveillance capability, added vehicles, added equipment. And im hoping that congress will support me on that. I received your letter about the eastern border along arizona. And i plan to, if youll have me, come back early next year to arizona. I owe the ranchers another visit. And i want to come back to arizona now with the years did the benefit of the Years Experience in the job, to talk more about Border Security and see what we can do. I appreciate your willingness to come back, and look forward to having you there. Let me just focus in my remaining time on the issue of Border Security. I think the answers, from my experience, having worked on this issue for congressman giffords in my own right is pretty straightforward. Border patrol agents at the border, not 10, 15, 20 miles back on the defense, in that strategy which i think has failed in that area. More horse patrols in the rugged territory. Arrow statistics that will allow us to have radar looking down into the mountains to see where the smugglers are coming from. More mobile Surveillance Systems at the border. And i hope that your task force that youve established, the western task force, will look at these strategic options, and include stakeholders such as ranchers, business people, residents of the communities there, as well as others, to make sure we get it right going forward. Thank you. Congressman, i can affirm for you when i talk to Border Patrol myself, the one thing they mention always, aero stats so i believe thats a Border Security priority. Thank you mr. Secretary. Thank you mr. Chairman. I yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from south california mr. Duncan. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this hearing. It comes as no surprise that i disagree with the president and what hes done with this executive action. Its not as much the issue of immigration, and dealing with undocumented workers, as it is what he actually did. I think he crossed a line with constitutional separation of powers. But, i hear a lot of doublespeak. In his speech, and in the words that ive heard today. I give you an example. The president said in his november 20th speech about this unconstitutional executive action that undocumented workers broke our immigration laws. And i believe that they must be held accountable. Thats directly from his speech. Felons, not families, criminals not children, gang members, not a mom who is working hard to provide for her kids will prioritize just like Law Enforcement does every day. But, in the hill publication may of 2014 it documented that dhs released 68,000 Illegal Immigrants with criminal convictions. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials last year released 68,000 Illegal Immigrants with criminal convictions. That comes from an end of year weekly departures and detention board. How do you reconcile, mr. Secretary, what the president said, with the actions of the agency . Well, with regard to those who are released from immigration detention, this is something ive worked on myself. First of all, there is a Supreme Court case, savadas versus davis which you may have heard of, which mandates that after six months, if the person is not going to be repatriated in the foreseeable future, we have to let them go. So why arent we repatriating these people . Well, thats something that requires a willing partner on the other end. Which ive had conversations with the state department about to further encourage countries to take these people back faster. And we had a hearing in the Foreign Affairs committee about that last week and those countries should take these. I mean theyre required to take these back. I didnt enter may i finish my sentence. Yeah, thank you. A number of releases are mandated by law and Supreme Court jurisprudence. A number of releases are ordered by an immigration judge. With regard to the instances where an immigration official who works for me releases somebody with a criminal regard, what ive recently directed is that the approval for that be at a higher level of the i. C. E. Field officer. I want to know that were applying a consistent standard to those circumstances, because they jeopardize Public Safety, and ive also directed that a person should not be released because of reasons for fiscal constraint, which is what we faced when we had sequestration in fy13. We will find a way to pay for it if we believe somebody should not be released for reasons i think some reports came out, mr. Secretary, that sequestration really had nothing to do with the release of folks last year. I could go back and find the documents. Let me ask you this. At the end of the year of 2014, how many criminal aliens have been released . What will your yearend weekly departures and depension report show for 2014 . I believe its less than fy13. Fy13 i believe was 36,000. I think the number for fy30 will be about 30. And i think it should be lower. So about 30,000, plus or minus criminal aliens have been released . Pursuant to legal requirements, orders of a judge, that is why i have raised the Approval Authority for that. I think one of the biggest problems with getting any kind passed theion issues congress is the lack of trust of the American People and their ability to enforce law. Why would you pass another law when the administration fails to enforce the current laws that are on the books . Why pass it up when that is not going to be enforced either . You hear about 68,000 illegal aliens that has been released, that further erodes the trust of the American People. The American People want to see Border Security. They want to see deportations. They want to see enforcement of
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.