Denied as fraudulent. 93 1993nd 1990 world trade bombers exploited the amnesty law. What are you going to do to verify that these people are not fraudulently entering the country, including what could be security threats to the country . Congressman, that is something that i am also concerned about. Fraudulent applications have the potential to undermine the whole process. In the implementation, in the planning for the ample mentation, i want to be sure that we take a hard look at best practices to avoid fraudulent applications, fraudulent misuse of the program. That is a priority of mine. We look forward to working with you on that. The chair recognizes the Ranking Member for questions. There are striking between president obamas executive action and 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 which the president is 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 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, fooeema, 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,. 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 border 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. Ok. 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 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 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 who should be sent home and i dont think thats the way our laws should be enforced. 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 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 always 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 advised 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 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, 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. 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