The first big clash between Republicans and Barack Obama over his use of executive actions on immigration erupted on Capitol Hill Tuesday when the architect of the policy defended the changes in front of an angry panel.

Jeh Johnson, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who crafted the plan Obama unveiled two weeks ago, deflected intense criticism from a band of Republicans who have vowed to make the president pay for his actions.


“I’m satisfied as a lawyer myself — and the person who has to come here and defend these actions — that what we have done is well within our existing legal authority,” Johnson told the House Homeland Security Committee Tuesday morning.

He also defended Obama’s previous statements indicating that the president did not believe he had the legal authority to act on deportations.

( Also on POLITICO: The new GOP divide)

“I’ve looked at various excerpts of remarks by the president concerning his legal authority,” Johnson said. “I do not believe that what we have done is inconsistent with that.”

Just hours before Johnson was scheduled to appear before the angry Republican-controlled panel, the Associated Press reported that Johnson told the White House he no longer wished to be considered to take over for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel — a move that could prevent the confirmation of the next defense secretary from turning into a proxy war over immigration.

But Republicans still took verbal shots at Johnson on Tuesday. The questioning from Republican lawmakers on the committee served as a preview of the scrutiny that Obama’s unilateral actions will face during the rest of the lame-duck session and into next year, when the GOP will control both chambers on Capitol Hill.

“The president’s decision to bypass Congress and grant amnesty to millions of unlawful immigrants is unconstitutional and a threat to our democracy,” said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who vowed to “use every tool at my disposal” to block the executive actions from being implemented.

( Also on POLITICO: Boehner sells a deal to conference)

As Democrats stayed largely deferential to Johnson, Republican lawmakers took turns grilling the DHS chief over the executive actions, questioning him on everything from the legality of the moves, DHS’s immigration enforcement operations, and whether the actions were unfairly disadvantaging U.S-born workers.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, played a brief clip of Obama’s remarks during his visit to Chicago last month to promote the immigration actions, when Obama told hecklers: “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took action to change the law.”

Upon viewing Obama’s remarks, Johnson insisted that the administration “acted within existing law” and added: “Listen, I’ve been a lawyer for 30 years. Somebody plays me an eight-word excerpt from a broader speech, I know to be suspicious.”

( Also on POLITICO: Lawmakers make 'hands up' gesture on House floor)

His answer clearly did not satisfy Chaffetz.

“This is why we have a hard time believing that Homeland Security is doing the right thing,” he told Johnson.

And Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.) took issue with Johnson’s assertion that Republican presidents had taken similar executive actions on immigration — particularly the so-called “Family Fairness” program that protected certain undocumented immigrants who did not qualify for amnesty under the 1986 law but who were related to those who did.

“I will not allow you to go there,” Meehan said, interrupting Johnson’s argument. Such programs were “authorized after an act of Congress … here, you have created a class of people in contravention of congressional intent.”

Key GOP lawmakers had already signaled that they will have no mercy in grilling Johnson over Obama’s immigration actions – a move that is overwhelmingly opposed by Republicans on Capitol Hill, who are scrambling to come up with a response.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a senior member on the committee, said he planned to question Johnson on the timing of the executive action, details on the level of security on the southern border, and the scope of the directive that Obama announced nearly two weeks ago.

“How far can the president go in an executive order?” King said Monday, noting that despite his opposition to the executive action, he holds Johnson in high regard. “This is almost like a mass amnesty, almost, and the degree of it, I think, it’s unprecedented.”

Johnson defended the sweeping executive actions issued last month that will shield some 5 million undocumented immigrants from being deported – noting that he personally recommended each of the Homeland Security changes to Obama.

Sens. Lindsey Graham (left) and Jeff Sessions (right) are pictured. | Getty

Because of limited resources for immigration enforcement, it’s “simple common sense” to recognize that the immigrants protected by the executive action aren’t a priority for deportations, Johnson argued. Instead, they should be held accountable, the secretary added.

“The reality is that undocumented immigrants … have been in this country for years, raising American families and developing ties to the community,” Johnson told lawmakers Tuesday morning. “Many of these individuals have committed no crimes and are not enforcement priorities. It is time that we acknowledge this as a matter of official policy and encourage eligible individuals to come out of the shadows, submit to criminal and national security background checks, and be held accountable.”

Johnson’s testimony came amid some movement within House Republicans on how the conference will formally respond to Obama’s executive action. House GOP leaders are beginning to coalesce around a two-step strategy that would allow them to respond to Obama’s executive action and avoid a potential government shutdown – a plan they started selling to their members during a closed-door session Tuesday morning.

Republican leaders are pushing for a measure from Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) that states that the executive branch cannot exempt “by executive order, regulation, or any other means, categories of persons unlawfully present in the United States from removal under the immigration laws.” Meanwhile, top Republicans are advocating for a so-called “Cromnibus” that will fund nearly all federal government agencies through September 2015, while keeping money for immigration enforcement agencies on a shorter funding leash.

Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee will hold its own hearing later Tuesday on Obama’s executive actions with assorted legal experts and immigration advocates examining whether the directives are constitutional – a move that the panel’s chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), called an “unprecedented power grab.”

Still, Johnson – who was confirmed to his current job by a 78-16 vote last year – is well liked by many Republican lawmakers who have praised the way he has run the beleaguered Homeland Security Department, aside from his role in Obama’s immigration executive actions.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters on Monday evening that Johnson is an “outstanding guy,” and noted that he worked closely with Johnson when he served as the top lawyer at the Pentagon.

“At the end of the day, it’s President Obama that I’m upset with, not the people around him,” said Graham, one of the co-authors of the Senate immigration reform bill that passed last year.

But a Johnson nomination to lead the Pentagon was almost sure to inject Obama’s controversial immigration directive into the DOD confirmation fight – which was already set to be a contentious battle over the administration’s foreign policy.

“Secretary Johnson is not the right nominee for the Department of Defense because he does not have the depth of understanding that we need at this point in history,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a top critic of Obama’s immigration policies.

When a reporter noted that Johnson used to be the Pentagon’s top counsel, Sessions responded: “He was a lawyer. We need somebody who’s been in the Middle East, who knows what’s going on, who can make judgments the American people can believe are independent judgments by someone of integrity, not someone who’s mouthing the policies of the White House.”