>> we've seen those changes that have been very dramatic. by the way, i think every ceo must of had that same cartoon. but we seem those changes and i think because of the work that it did for the president on the drug policy issues, the safety and security that has increased within the government of mexico, the fact that economic opportunities are better now within mexico, and we know that in the three central american countries that we've been talking about, neither of those economic opportunity or safety and security have been something to write home about. .. please? mr. kerlikowske? >> thank you for that question. i agree with what the commissioner has said and i think you just have a whole different dynamic when you look

at flows. we know with central america, the difficulties they have down there with their economy and other challenges. as time goes on, you're going to see other parts of the world, for example, india, migration from india into the united states. and we've already seen spikes of that in the last few years. but the whole flow is changing. i just read yesterday where mexico has signed a $1 billion deal with bmw to build a factory down in mexico. the creation of more jobs in mexico and to the commissioner's point, the economy is prospering there. it does come down to, i think, so much comes down to opportunity. and the folks that we're encountering on the border, from guatemala, honduras, and el salvador, don't have that economic opportunity.opportunit. gangs, violence as well as family members here and that's what's driving it. >> mr. chairman, also i think

you talk about what's working and the trade integration that's happened in north america between the united states remember canada and mexico has created a growing prosperity in mexico that has contributed to that new migration flows there. we do have a trade agreement with central america. we need to push these countries to more actively inat the investigate their economies and take full advantage of that trade agreement and expand economic opportunity and job creation in their own countries as a way of stopping this as well. >> thank you. a couple of weeks the vice president was just back from guatemala. secretary johnson is there today, is he not? and i was talking to the vice president. i asked him trying to find what he learned and one of the things he told me is 80% of the folks, young kids, unaccompanied minors are coming from the worst

neighborhoods. the worst communities, most dangerous violent neighborhoods about 80%. put myself as a parent of adult sons, but put myself as a parent in honduras, guatemala, el salvador and i live in one of those communities with a lot of violence, not much opportunity, not much chance for an education to get a job and i hear that i have some folks willing for a couple thousand dollars take one or more of my kids out of that through mexico, across the border, welcomed there by our border patrol who are required by law to do that and accept and receive them, to care for them and eventually place them in a safe setting in many cases with member of their families who may be undocumented. now, that is a strong magnet to pull young people out of those three countries and send them north through hellacious

conditions. putting my kids when they were 4, 5, 6 years old on top of a train sending them across the country, not in a train, on top of a freight train moving for 1500 miles. who can imagine doing that. these people are desperate. how do we -- if i were in that situation i might do the same thing. how do we get to the people and change that mindset? how do we change that mindset to turn off the flow. so the parents say i want my kid to stay here, have opportunity and have a future here. how do we do that? >> i think there's several steps. for instance we talked about some of those. i think we've got to continue to work with guatemala, el salvador and honduras on capacity building. we need to stress to them the importance that they secure their borders. i know during my time in cbp that the border patrol and

office of field operations spent a lot of time in guatemala stressing and showing different training and things of that nature. i have not been down to the border but what i have been told it's very porous, very wide-open. we need to build capacity there, and, you know, dhs is the best in the business there when you're looking at already it's the borders or detention sites. we got to don't focus in on that. i think the other areas mexico. you talked about that. i think we need mexico to continue to move forward here in helping us. as you mentioned these people are just walking through mexico, using mexico as a transportation corridor and showing up on our door step, and, you know, we're america, and we do the right thing for these kids and adults. nonetheless, it wears on the system. when you do apprehend, then you have to have a policy where

these individuals are detained, and brought through the system quickly and a decision is made whether people get to stay here or they are removed. if they are going to be removed they have to be removed quickly so it sends a message, if you will, a deterrent factor. we're seeing that happening now, mr. chairman in our new facility that we have, we just opened up in new mexico, family units, people saying that didn't realize i was going to detention i thought i was going to be released. we have a flight with the director supporting his judges moving hearings, moving much, much quicker. that begins that process of sending deterrent message. if we're going to be successful in my view we have to do that. in my view, guatemala, el

salvador and honduras have been good partners for us. i mentioned in my statement we took removal from 14 days to four days and a lot had to do with those three kruns giving us travel documents much more quicker. they have been a good partner in that regard but a lot more work to do to be done. >> thanks for that. i'm going to stop and yield. >> mr. palmieri, what actually is mexico doing to help us on this problem right now? >> dr. coburn, in the last year mexico has returned over 85,000 adults and children from its territory back to central america. in the current fiscal -- the current calendar year they are on pace to return over 90,000 adults and children back to the

countries of el salvador, guatemala and honduras. on monday the president announced the launch of its southern border strategy which they hope will increase their ability to interdict and disrupt these smuggling networks. >> all right, thank you. mr. winkowski, i have a question for you. i've recently spoken to a whistle blower and i.c.e. agent who shared with us often -- if we can get those posters up -- documented examples of terminated notices from unaccompanied alien children which you can see in these posters. the reason for these terminations, they are resulting in any and all removal proceedings, it's lutzed as

prosecution. it's transmitted back to the i.c.e. agents. explain to me, if you would what this prosectorial discretion under notices to appear. under what policies and procedures does the chief counsel issue these. what is the reason they are issued. what happens to illegal alien children once their nta is cancelled. is there follow up. specific examples provided to us by i.c.e. agent pds were issued for minors. what's the status of a child given once their nta is terminated. what follow up is conducted to ensure the child's welfare and is the child able to attend school with no status? >> well, obviously we have prosectorial discretion. we have the memo that's the

document that guides what our priorities are. and lays those out, i think, very, very clearly. i'm not familiar with this particular case. if you look at one case, if you've seen one case you've seen one case. don't know all the details of why the nta was declined to be filed. i'll be more than happy to look into it. but i'm unfamiliar. >> do you have any idea how often this happens? >> no. >> with children? >> no, i don't. i know that all the children, sir, are given ntas entered into removal proceedings. >> okay. i would appreciate any feedback you can give me on that. >> absolutely, sir. >> mr. greenberg, once the

department of health and human services releases an unaccompanied child to a sponsor with a notice to appear before an immigration judge does hhs report to the department of homeland security on the number of uacs who have been released on their own recognizance? >> dr. coburn, we do not release unaccompanied children on their own recognizance. we only release them to a parents, relative or other sponsor. at the time when we do the rethrees the individual we provide the information about the whereabouts of the child to the department of homeland security both immediately prior to and immediately after the release. >> and the names of who they are placed with? >> yes. we provide that information to the department of homeland security. >> after that fact do you track these children to ensure they

appear at their imfwrags hearing? >> we do not play that role after the time we release the child then this subsequent issues relating to the immigration proceeding itself will be the responsibilities of the department of justice. >> okay. in a june conference call with congressional staff hhs stated they are not mandated nor will they be checking immigration status of relatives or sponsors for the unaccompanied children. i'm interested in the procedures hhs uses to verify the identity and immigration status of the individuals to whom the unaccompanied child is released. to clarify does hhs verify until integration status of the sponsors to whom the unidentified children are released? >> we verify the identity of the individual -- >> that's not the question i asked you. the immigration status. >> we do not verify the immigration status of the individual. our focus in the release is

first identify the least restrictive setting in the child's best interest. as we do that we also need to look at safety to the child, safety to the community, risk of flight, so we go through the overall process of looking at the individual placement to queen sure that it is a safe and appropriate placement for the child. >> let me saw follow up question. isn't it true that if you place an unaccompanied child with an illegal alien sponsor, that the significant likelihood is they would not want to bring that child to a deportation hearing before an immigration judge for fear they would expose their own illegal status? >> so, for us as we go through the process of identifying sponsors, we ensure that the sponsor understands they have a responsibility to make the child available for proceedings -- >> again that's not the question i asked you.

the question i asked you was would it not be likely that they would not comply regardless of whether you tell them that's their responsibility if, in fact, they are an illegal alien to begin with, why would they expose themselves in front of an immigration judge? >> so, for the child in those circumstances, this, you know, this is about who the child should live with while they are awaiting removal proceedings and during the removal proceedings >> you're missing my point. my point is, is i'm all for having the children in the best place. don't get me wrong. but if you're not checking immigration status of those that you place with them, and if, in fact, they are not here legally, the likelihood that her going to show up before a judge is markedly diminished because it exposes them. so the question i would ask you is why you don't ask for status

of the people that you place these children with? >> so, the specific aspects of what happens in the proceedings are best addressed by my colleague at the department of justice. >> i one that. i'm asking you the question why you don't ask the status of the people with whom you're placing the child? why you do not ask that question? because in all likelihood they are not going to show for an immigration hearing. >> so, for us the focus needs to be on a safe and appropriate placement of the child. >> you're not going to answer my question. why you do not ask that question of those people with whom you're placing these children? >> so even if we have the information as to the parent or other relative's immigration status we would still at that point need to look at the

totality of the circumstances. >> i don't disagree with that. i'm asking why do you not ask that question? is it the policy of hhs not ask the status of the person with whom you're placing the child. >> we do not -- >> is that the policy of hhs of this country? >> yes, it is. that's the case. yes. >> let me run through the order of those, my colleagues who have come in to participate. senator johnson is up next. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman and

thank you for holding this hearing and thank the witnesses. mr. greenberg, president of the united states, according to an article in the "atlantic" met with a group of advocates and others coalition for humane immigrant rights and others. and according to this article he told the groups he had to enforce the law even if that meant deporting hard cases with minors involved. sometimes there's an inherent injustice in where you are born and no president can solve that obama said but the president must send the message that you can't just show up on the border, plead for asylum or refugee status and hope to get it. quote, then anyone can come in and it means, of course,ively we don't have any kind of system. obama said quote, we're a nation with borders that must be

enforced. do you agree with that statement, mr. winkowski and mr. greenberg? >> yes. >> then i wonder why anyone would question the motivation for young people to come here since the latest information we have that in fiscal year 2013, 20,805 unaccompanied children from el salvador, guatemala and honduras were apprehended by the border patrol and in that same year, 2013, 1,669 of these unaccompanied children were repatriatated back to their home countries. if you were one of these children and you were there in one of these countries wouldn't you think your odds are pretty good? >> yeah. but there is a a legal process.

that legal process takes its time to make its way through the system and that's part of the challenge that we have that the director talked about from the standpoint of staffing of judges and just the legal process that takes place. it takes time to get to a point of removal in some of these cases. >> but despite what you have to say, mr. winkowski, and you're sitting in el salvador and one out of ten don't show up with a permission slip, only one out of ten show up before a judge. isn't that true? >> i've heard that number, yes. >> you've heard that number. you don't't know? you wouldn't know how many percentage don't show up with a permission slip >> for the judge?

>> yeah. >> perhaps the chief judge can help me on that. >> senator, if i may. i've heard the 90% number and that number is actually not accurate. >> what is the accurate number? >> the accurate number -- we're trying to get better data. the numbers for juveniles we have, we have juvenile numbers and overall numbers. the number that we have is that 46% of juveniles actually don't show up for their immigration hearings. >> half the people. only half the people. >> no. they are not showing up for immigration hearing carries considerable consequences. whether you're an adult or a child or anybody that actually is issued a notice to appear and

required to appear before an immigration judge and does not appear that judge issues an order of removal and that order of removal can be enforced after them not showing up. >> in 2013, 1,669 out of 20,805 were actually in that year returned. that's one out of 20 roughly. so, i mean, the fact is that people show up and they have every reason to believe, according to these numbers and i'll be glad to look at your numbers, even if it's only half, that there is ample incentive for them to come to this country. the president initially said that he believed the trafficking victims protection act which would provide the same status for central america as we have for mexico and canada, the

amendment would be supported. do you support that, mr. winkowski? >> i support a system whether it's -- >> i just asked if you support amending the bill. i'm not asking what -- if you support amending the bill. >> yes. >> thank you. mr. winkowski, identify been representing the state of arizona for many years. and i have never seen anything like your instructions to signed by your name interim protocol for visitations and tours to cbp detention fasts. are your telling me when i visit a detention facility that i can't bring a cell phone with me? are you saying that? united states senator visiting a facility, these are the instructions that you have signed? is that what you're saying? >> that the visitors -- >> this is a visiting congressional, member of congress. >> don't recall saying that.

what i recall is -- >> let me provide you with a copy. says see distribution, r. gil winkowski commissioner interim protocol for visibilityations and tours to cbp detention facilities. you didn't see your own memo? >> that would be me. >> okay. >> that would be me. i did issue that memo. we have had huge numbers of -- >> am i allowed to bring a cell phone with me when i go on the a facility in nogales, arizona. . >> not take photographs. >> why? >> the children have a the right privacy and that's why we're not having their faces shown on -- >> i may want to take a photo of something else. >> if you want to take a photo we would make arrangements for you to take a photo just not of the children. >> that's not the instructions you have given, sir. have any physical or verbal

contact with detained children unless previously requested and specifically -- oh, have any physical or verbal contact with cbp detainees and/or staff? your telling me i can't even speak to staff there >> snarkts i'm not telling you you couldn't speak to the staff. >> why did you issue these instructions >> we've had requests by hundreds and hundreds -- >> i'm talking about members of congress, sir, which you said applies to members of congress. i'm not asking about the hundreds. i'm talking about the responsibilities i have in my own state. >> it does and we would make special arrangements for special considerations, senator. >> that is not according to your instructions and when i was there then the border patrol and the people there said that they didn't want me speaking to any of the staff or children. i view that as a violation of my responsibilities. >> i'm not familiar with your -- >> you're not familiar. they were carrying out your

instructions, sir. i want it fixed and i want it fixed immediately, understand. if a member of congress can't visit a facility in his own state, the people of arizona elected me and i'm not supposed to even carry a cell phone with me, you have overstepped your responsibilities and your authority, sir. and i want those instructions revoked as far as members of congress are concerned and i want it done today. do you understand? thank you, mr. chairman. >> our next senator to be recognized, senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i come from manufacturing so root cause analysis is in my dna and mr. chairman i think you asked the right question. how do we stop the flow? from my standpoint what is causing all the illegal immigration in this country is

we actually incentivize it. when we pass a comprehensive immigration bill in the senate that includes $262 billion in welfare benefits to non-u.s. citizens that creates an incentive. when we ask money to beef up detention facilities to allow a greater time forced a to adjudication. near incentivizing parents to put their kids at great risk coming across mexico because they know if they reach the promised land they are home free. we're creating incentives. when president obama two years ago issued a memorandum to defer action on childhood arrivals which codified fact we won't send people home we're creating that incentive. we're trying to stop human trafficking. are we actually increasing it

because we have smugglers earning $3,000 per child? so i guess i would like to first of all, if we're going to solve the problem let's understand the numbers. mr. kerlikowske you're the best person to ask this. how many unaccompanied children have come in to this nation since doca was issued two years ago. how many kids? >> i have the number of children that have been apprehended in this fiscal year of 57,000. i can give you the information on going back to doca. >> i would like that. of 57,000 how many have been returned? >> we only -- the united states customs and border patrol is in the apprehension. >> so who would know the number of how many of those have been returned? >> the numbers i have that we talked about, about 1300, 1500. >> very low percentage senator mccain was talking about.

how many of those are from mexico? 57,000, how many are mexican citizen? >> the breakdown has been that honduras, el salvador, guatemala contain about 80, 78 to 82% of the people we've encountered. the rest are from other countries including mexico. a smaller number from mexico. >> the point i'm trying to get at is in the 2008 bill we created expedited procedures for people from contyingous nations, canada and mexico. if we have illegal immigrants from mexico are we actually expediting those procedure? who can answer that? department of justice, hhs. who is doing this? >> yes. if i remember the numbers correctly and i stand corrected, i think last year border patrol did expedited removal on 11,000

children, i believe. that made its way in on to united states, did expedited removal. very little activity up in the northern border. >> i wouldn't doubt that. >> but, yes. best of my recollection during my time border patrol was using expedited removal. >> what's the timeline for deportation? i mean, how long does it take to go through the adjudication process. let's first talk for the expedited procedures for mexicans and then i want to talk about other than mexicans. >> my understanding of expedited removal it's immediate. virtually immediate for people that come in. >> if there's 20% that are basically mexican which is expedited procedures, 20% of 57,000 is roughly 10,000, right? >> yeah. 10 to 11,000.

why we only deported 1700. >> the number of 11,000 the border patrol executed from an experiod dited removal standpoint. under the expedited removal rosees you have to determine a couple of things. >> so how long does that take to determine a couple of things. >> under expedited removal it's very quick. kit be the same day. >> so, again, if 20% of the 57,000 unaccompanied children are mexican, subject to those expedited procedures it could be the same day how come we only deported what is it senator mccain, 1700? when the number is closer to 10 or 11,000. >> i think the number that i was quoting was from the south central american countries. to include mexico. try to break them into different buckets here.

>> mr. winkowski. >> senator, the vast majority of immigrants that are here illegally that are apprehended at the border from mexico are returned almost within the same day and we can -- >> so -- >> they move very quickly. >> unaccompanied children in mexico not counted in your 57,000? >> a part of those 57,000 are those unaccompanied children from mexico. many of them are returned within the same day. i'll be ethiopia give you -- >> give me those numbers. >> i'll be happy -- >> how long does it take in terms of other than mexico, other than canadians to actually go through adjudication process and actually be deported? >> senator our immigration court system has no direct role with the expedited removal process. let me talk about the process whereby somebody gets brought into the country and put through removal proceedings. we break these down between

detained and nondetained. if you're a detained docket about 40% of our dockets are individuals who are detained while awaiting a hearing before an aim integration judge those cases move quickly. i don't have a number. but move within a matter of a few weeks to a few months. if they are on nondetained dockets those take a long time. >> few weeks, few months but we've only returned a fraction of the 57,000 we're talking about here. again, what you're saying doesn't add up with what the numbers are. let me just make my final point because i'm running out of time. i ran out of time. i can't think of a more humane thing to do, you know, maybe sounds cruel, but then to deter parents from sending their dhoirnl the united states. i can't think of a better way to deter parents from doing that is to literally take these minor, identify where they came from,

you know, identify gone online, it costs $207 on a one way trip in terms of plane flight. put them into a hotel, feed them and return them to the country of or gain because i can't think of a better signal to parents in guatemala and el salvador and honduras to say do not subject your children to the beast. do not subject your children to rape and murder. don't send the home the united states because when they get here they will not be allowed to stay. there's 7 billion people in this country that don't live in america. many would like to come. we got to come to a decision in this country whether we'll have totally open borders or a legal immigration system which i want to fix this. we have to address the root cause. the root cause literally is we got to stop incentivizing parents and other immigrants coming in to this nation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> next, senator ayotte would have been next but she stepped

out for a moment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate our witnesses for being here today on a very important hearing. i want to start with a little questioning on what sort of data and statistics we do have available. i know there's a lot of questions about why. and how long this has been going on. we have some very recent statistics that have been shared. but i would like to get a better sense of what's out there and what you can furnish to us as a follow up to this hearing. and so, i start -- i know you're fairly new to the post, mr. kerlikowske. you talked about 57,000 unaccompanied minors this year. do you collect, in terms of border crossings of unaccompanied minors, do you have -- can you give us month by month, year by year data going

back over several years, and isis re monsort of declared >> you're absolutely right, senato. the increase this year so far, and we still have three months left in this fiscal year, has doubled from the year before. and that year doubled from the year before. in early 2013 a number of interagency colleagues, department of homeland security, department of justice, health and human services all met n begin to address this issue, particularly in the rio grande valley. we can give you details going back month by month, year by year. >> okay, and i would appreciate that. and then, mr. winkowski, i'm cure yous to know also -- curious to know what sort of data you can provide us. we testified in an order of border crossings and issuance of notices to appear and then, of course, for unaccompanied minors

would then be referred to dhss. mr. winkowski, can you provide us with year by year and month by month dataç on the issuances of notices to aear on un-- appear on unaccompanied minors? >> absolutely, yes. >> okay. and then, mr. greenberg, you receive referrals from immigration and citizenship. can you also provide and would you characterize for us before providing that specific and more granular day sort of the numbers that you have been seeing recently? >> yes. and we would be able to provide for the children that are referred to us, we can provide country of origin, sex, the age of children and then when the child goes to a parent, relative or other sponsor, what the

nature of that placement is. >> okay. that'll be appreciated. and then, mr. osuna, you gave us some or very recent statistics on record levels of cases pending, but i would also appreciate, again, a more -- a longer timeline and more granular day for us to get a greater understanding than your testimony provided. >> be happy to provide that, senator. >> i have a question, i'm not sure who to direct it to, but i think i would start with mr. palmieri about what do we know about migration of unaccompanied minors to -- from honduras, el salvador and guatemala to other central american countries or south american countries? what sort of anecdotal or statistical information could you share on that? >> it appears the primary route

that salve dohrn, guatemalan and honduran migrants and unaccompanied children are taking are north. there are reports that some do seek to stay in mexico if they can. part of the mexican effort at the border with guatemala is they are trying to issue better documentation of people who are entering their country so that they can track those visitors in a better way as they move through the country and to see where they are ending up. it is, without a doubt, the large numbers end up at our border. >> right. absolutely. for mr. osuna, we know that many of these unaccompanied minors have fled violence. we also know that many have

arrived in the united states in the hand of human traffickers and may have been further victimized on the route to the u.s. border. under the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act and understanding that asylum officers operate under a different department than you, could you still tell us the standards by which those officers and immigration judges upon review will determine which children qualify for asylum or special immigrant juvenile status and, therefore, can remain in the u.s. under the 2008 law? >> senator, the rules for asylum that our immigration judges apply in children's cases in terms of the legal standards are the same as all other asylum applicants. they're set this statute and regulation and interpreted over

the years by case law. that is not, that's not any different whether the person appearing before a judge is an adult or a child. what is different is the process. the, if a child is eligible for or appears to be eligible and wants to alie for a-- apply for asylum, original jurisdiction actually rests with uscia, immigration services at dhs. so what the judge has to do is, basically, suspend adjudication of that case for the moment, refer it to uscia for adjudication, and they make the initial call on, again, asylum or special immigrant/juvenile. >> you mentioned that the standards were the same regardless of being a minor or an adult. what are some of those? remind us. >> generally speaking, an individual applying for asylum has the burden of showing that he or she fears persecution, has a well-founded fear of persecution, a legal standard

based on one of five grounds; race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a political social group. and that's, that's law going back to the 1980 refugee act and our international obligations. >> thank you. >> senator baldwin, thanks so much. senator heitkamp would be next, she's not here right now, and senator landrieu followed by senator mccaskill. >> thanks, mr. chairman. fist, let me -- first, let me thank you for calling this hearing, it's extremely timely given that the president is asking for a $be 3.7 billion supplemental. appropriations committee will have to really carefully consider. as to how we're going to allocate these dollars to solve the problem. number two, i can't think of two better people, literally, who have, you know, calm thinking about how to figure this out and to get to the root of the

problem and then to allocate the, help us to allocate the dollars wisely and then hold people accountable for doing the job. you two have proven yourselves, and both senator carper and senator coburn, you have particularly been strong on accountability which is what i'd like to join both of you on. but i think first of all i want to make sure, and it was just said finally, the laws that are governing this. because there's some p confusion. and i just want to submit to the record what my staff and i have been researching about the laws. because i think we should start there and then policies and rules that may need to be adjusted or changed or perhaps some laws need to be changed. but the basic law, you just said it, is the asylum law of 1980. could somebody talk for one second -- not one -- 30 seconds, about the asylum law in 1980 and

what it said? go ahead. >> the 1980 refugee act which is enshrined in our statutes these days implemented our international obligations with regard to refugees. there were -- >> adults and children. show up at our borders. talk about that. >> and it's, by the way, the same law our colleagues at the state department apply overseas for refugee processing overseas. think about who arrives at our shores -- >> since 1980, anybody who arrives at the shores, go ahead -- >> apply for asylum. >> and they have to say that they're fearful. and that was passed in the reagan administration? >> i think it was right at the tail end of the carter administration. >> carter administration. okay. so, and that's the law today? >> that's correct. >> then this was a second law, there was a second law when the department of homeland security was created. senator feinstein had a stand-alone law. does anybody want to comment

about what that law is? because it has a bearing here. it was incorporated in the -- you all should all know this -- incorporated in the creation of the department of homeland security. anybody familiar with that? >> the homeland security act of 2002 -- >> correct. >> if i recall correctly, it had to do with the expedited removal -- >> it divided the responsibilities for the processing and treatment of unaccompanied minors finish. >> to hhs -- >> to the department of hhs, the department of health and human services. >> right, yes. >> and then this 2008 in the trafficking against trafficking law, in 2008 which was sponsored by biden and brownback, all of these are bipartisan, there were further, there were further additions to this law which basically said children from contiguous countries, mexico and canada, would qualify for immediate repatriation, and children that came from

noncontiguous states could go through this process. now, that was passed in 2008 under the trafficking law. i think it's important for this committee to before we start getting opinions, etc., to try to get to the basic basis of the law. do you all, do you agree? >> amen. >> so if this is not correct, i'd like to know before the end of the day, because i do need a plan. >> that's what needs to be fixed. it needs to be changed to resolve this problem. >> so there are -- yeah. so this is the law, and we should talk about what the i law says, what we think the law should say and then figure out how we're going to deal with this problem. but let me ask you, mr. fugate, because i've had a lot of experience, and you know a lot of experience at fema and how much i believe in you, your leadership and your ability to solve emergencies. so i'm glad that the president asked fema to step into this is situation and try to sort out and give immediate assistance

for the immediate cry us on the border which is -- crisis on the border which is in senator mccain's state primarily and texas. i understand why he's very upset. authority over this $3.7 billion? where does your authority begin, and where does it end in your mind now? >> currently, and not in the supplemental will i have any budgetary authority. >> you have no budgetary authority in the supplemental. >> no, senate. >> do you have any authority for what's being spent now? >> no, senator. >> so who does this. >> the agencies, as the budget was passed, the authorization and the appropriations for those agencies. so with the president's direction, i gained the new authorities. unless an agency was authorized to do the work they were doing or they had funds or congress had granted transfer authority within those funds to address this issue, i had no new authority -- >> so why did the president give

you the authority? why didn't he give them the authority? what is it in your authority that enabled you to do things they can't do? >> well, in the homeland management reform act, you gave us authority not onlyç for staf to act, but as principal adviser to the secretary of the homeland security committee and the president as well as congress on emergency management matters. we took the approach when asked to assist that this was a humanitarian issue and that we had the ability to convene across the inner agency all the agencies to work together. we have authorities within the national framework to set up and operate under interagency agreements to transfer frundz funds from one agency to another who may have capabilities but not authorization or funding. this is what we did in haiti where we used federal resources to support usaid. >> okay. but let me ask you this, though, because my time is short, and i want to get to dhh because this

is what i'm very concerned about. i agree that the children need to be handled potentially differently than other immigration issues, and that health and human services has a role. but my concern, mr. chairman, is that i am fairly current and up-to-date on the very mediocre job that's being done in our own foster care system in the united states today. and let me just give you some statistics. on any given day, we have 500,000 kids that are in foster care. i mean, in the united states 691 new children come into our foster care children this 50 states. in 50 states. so with a high caseload by casey and pew, low -- high turnover rate of social workers, not enough judges anywhere, we're getting ready to add to this system that's not the strongest this group of children that have no paperwork or little paperwork, many have no birth

certificates. so i am really concerned about this, as all of us are. so i'm going to end because i've gone over my time with just saying what i'm going to be focused on is accountability, who's in charge, what the land is, who's going to be held responsible before we spend, you know, $3.7 billion in addition to the $2.5 billion that's already in four appropriation bills that are moving their way through the process. so we've got a lot more questions to be answered before, i think, we run too far ahead. not that -- let me just speak for myself, i want to be helpful. i absolutely want to be helpful. but i do have quite a few more questions. thank you. >> those are great questions. would you say we're fortunate not only to have senator landrieu serve, but she chairs the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over department of homeland security, and she's a great partner in that regard as well. thank you especially more your caring. she's been down to guatemala

probably more times than all of us together, and we applaud you for your concern and for being here today. senator mccaskill. >> thank you. i'd like to talk about the push factors that are causing families -- and, by the way, all these cultures are very family-centric, and the notion that they are sending their children off on a very dangerous proposition seeks to the real problems they have in their countries. and, obviously, the root of the problem is the lack of rule of law. in these countries. now, back in 2010 we began a ram called the central america -- a program called the central america region security initiative, and i know some of you should be familiar with this. from 2008 to 2011, u.s. agencies have allocated $350 million to help the exact countries that these children are coming from with the problems of corruption,

gang activity, lawlessness, all of the things that are causing these families to be ripped apart. now, i'm assuming -- and please confirm for the record -- that both doj and state use contractors for this program, the carsi program. >> yeah, that's correct. >> all right. i have looked, and i can't find any ig,ñ reports on any of these programs. be -- are you aware of any analysis that has been done about the effectiveness of these programs? >> yes, i am aware that there these programs? >> yes, i am aware that there have been -- there was a gao report that was prepared on carsi. >> i did find the gao report. i didn't find the i.g. report. are you aware of any i.g. reports >> i'm not ware but will check.

>> the gao report found the state department didn't provided equate in couldn't oversight in other programs that we've looked at. i guess my question is how many in couldn't contracting officers representatives do you have for these contracts? >> i will have to get that number for you. >> i would like to know also how many contractors we have overseeing contractors on these contracts? because what we found in the past is the contractors are watching the contractors and sometimes the contractors are hired to come in to testify about the contractors overseeing the contractors. can you provide us the list of the contractor the scope of the contract as well as the oversight being conducted on each contract managed or co-managed by state, usaid in guatemala, el salvador and honduras. >> i'll take that back. >> we have no indicators the

money we're spending these programs are working. and tens of thousands of children showing up at our border is a metric that what we're doing is not working very well. >> some metrics have been done. in the limited areas where our assistance is operating particularly the model police precincts, the community policing programs, youth outreach centers that usaid is running, we have seen and been able to document with metrics a decrease in violence. a decrease in gang activities. the problem is the limited nature of those programs -- the scope is not systemic enough. recently in honduras, the president, new president took office in january. has put up an additional $600,000 of honduran money to begin replicating some of the aid youth outreach centers because they had an impact.

we have some metrics showing that these programs are having an impact on some of the systemic conditions. the problem is replicating them quickly and they've been limited in scope because of the amount of funds available for them. >> this is a real important issue, getting on top of what we're doing now and whether it's working in these countries because as my colleagues pointed out, these children, it is -- it would be much better for them to be reunited with their families in these, in their home countries in an environment that is safe. that is the best possible outcome. so if we've got something that's working, it is time for you tool say hey this, is what we're doing that's working and it's working here and we can show it's working here and that's something, the administration aware that you have programs that are working well in some areas and is that part of their request of this money?

>> yes. yeah. >> how much of the $3.5 billion is for replicating programs that you maintain are working now? >> the supplemental request includes $295 million for expanded economic support from programs in the region, most of those -- most of that money will go to programs that we think are having an impact and that will have an immediate impact in the region. >> i'm very anxious to get into the weeds on this. i want to understand what these contracts are, who are doing them day-to-day. what are the metrics. how does it indicate they are working and what's the cost replication and i want to track that back to the president's analysis. if we can do it in these host countries as opposed to trying to absorb all these children into our systems that we've already heard is already stressed, it would be a huge, huge positive outcome for these

children. >> we agree. one other aspect of the president's request, though, while carsi has been a security driven program, expanding police precincts, commanding community policing, providing youth outreach centers as part of anti-gang activities the request also includes funds because we believe that we need to get more balance in the u.s. assistance approach to region that we've got to help also on economic growth and job creation side. so there are funds in there that also we think will make an immediate impact on jump starting the economies because i think we'll all agree better job opportunities, better educational opportunities in this vij way to keep people at home. >> i agree. balance is important.

we were spending $327 million in mexico. just to give you a sense of the imbalance that occurred at that time. finally, briefly, i'll take this for the record because i know i'm over my time, but i think it's really important we focus onhe ten years ago, ten years ago we hada yearlong backlog of undetained, and we had 150,000 cases in backlog prior to these thousands of children coming to our border. so this is a long-running problem, and the notion that we can't figure out the systemic things that we needed to do -- and a lot of it is fixing the laws that senator landrieu just went through -- i think we're kidding ourselves that we're not going to be dealing with this kind of crisis on an ongoing basis until we finally get at the systemic problem. this is a backlog that is a decade long. not just this crisis backlog. thank you, mr. chairman. >> great points. senator ayotte and then senator

heitkamp. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to ask about the conditions upon which these children are being brought up here by the shuglers. as i -- smugglers. as i understand it, there are girls who are being raped, as i understand it and boys too, children being abused. what are the conditions upon which -- we've talked a lot about the conditions in the countries and how bad they are, but what are these children being subjected to, and how much are they subjected to these criminal syndicates who are making money off this and are exploiting these children, and what are we talking about is happening to these children? >> senator, a couple things that i think are important. one is that almost all of the children that are being brought into the country are being wrought through smuggling organizations. -- brought through smuggling organizations. often times the smugglers are juveniles themselves. this is a money profit issue. it's often controls overhead by

cartels. there are two modes of transportation that we see right now, one, of course, has been cited as the train that comes up and people taking that dangerous journey on the train. but also a large number of charter buses, mom and pop charter buses driving up here. then the children or the people are held in what are called stashhouses on the mexican side of the border until they can come. the dangers of abuse including just recently the body of an 11-year-old boy found in texas are enormous. >> so a dead little boy, as i i understand it, children being raped, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and exploited. and so one of the things that concerns me is that we're sending a dual message.

so we're sending a message, they've gotten an impression in those countries that the you send your child on that -- if you send your child on that journey that, yes, you're leaving, obviously, the conditions that we want to work more effectively to improve in those countries, but they're going on this deadly journey in some instances or just a journey that can change who they are for the rest of their lives was we've said they're getting an impression in their countries that once they get here, they can stay. and so what concerns me is that our policies that we're sending this message that they can say is also inhumane in the sense that these children are being put on this deadly journey. so if you could comment on that in terms of how important it is that people understand from

those countries a clear message from the united states of america not to send your child on this journey because of what's happening to your child, but also if they got the message that we're going to follow our laws and they won't be able to stay as humane as we all want to be, it's inhumane to send them on this journey. >> senator, if senator coburn wouldn't mind if we could also show the other, the poster, it's an example of one of the posters -- >> please do. >> -- that are going up all over in central america. they're going up in bus placards and overheads on highways. this essentially says i thought it would be -- i thought my son would be able to get his papers in the united states, in the usa, that wasn't true. .. the usa. thatstates. that wasn't true. there are other posters, radio spots, television spots being

broadcasts. these three countries, by the way, working with their embassies are also very supportive in doing their own messages. two parts. it's dangerous to try and make this journey, and you will not be given a free pass. >> well, i appreciate that we're doing this public information campaign, but our leaders need to be clear. and i saw that secretary johnson on the sunday shows was pressed no less than six times if these minors, if they came here through this deadly journey whether they would be returned to their countries, and he would not answer that question. and so in addition to that, the white house press secretary was asked that very same question about the ambiguity in which these wouldn't answer the question. so it is one thing for to us put up a public information campaign but if the leaders of our country and the leaders in these positions aren't clear as to what our intention is, and that

we intend to follow our law and if we have a system where only as, senator mccain asks, only one out of 10 actually are going to show up the proceeding and go through the process, then we're talking out of both sides of our mouths and we're doing a disservice to these children because we're sending this message tor parents, yes, please take this risk, send them on the deadly journey and, when they get here, there really will be permitted toea stay, which is contradictory to these messages. i think we need to speak clearly with one voice and i would ask you to comment on that? >> would the senator yield for a second? the number one message to stop this is planes arriving in honduras and s guatemala with these children back home. that sends the message. this, as long as it is less than 10%, won't stop anything.

when they see them returning afte lr making this harrowing trip, that's when they are going to get the message. until that happen, it is going to continue. >> as a follow-up i would ask, you know, our law, as i understand it, one of the issues isue the legal treatment is different between, for example, mexican, y canadian, those children that would come in, the population we're talking about from el salavador, guatemala, honduras, and i guess i'm not clear why, why we should make that distinction in the sense that, one set of children, both setou of children, as we think about it, could be as vulnerable to trafficking. do you think this distinction in our law should continue to exist? this one that is making it more difficult for to you gift option ofin returning these children me quickly as soon as they return? i know we talked about it a lot

at this hearing but what's your position on it? >> senator, i know the law was, from 2008, was passed with all of, the emphasis to prevent thee children from being trafficked, particularly sex trafficked. >> now they're being trafficked. >> and others. i think that what we're interested in is certainly the flexibility. i think it has to be carefully considered because of the reasons that congress went to such trouble to spend that time and effort passing that original lawes but from our standpoint, from the customs and border protection standpoint the act to have some flexibility would be very helpful. >> okay. thank you. >> let me make a couple of quick points before he recognize senator heitkamp. the true campaign is something you heard about former attorney general but we amount a truth campaign in this country to try to convince kids to stop smoking if they were and not to start if

they wereon thinking of it, hugy successful, hugely successful. hard-hitting campaign messaging designed by young kids in many cases. what we need here is a truth campaign. seeing money in the president's proposal, supplemental proposal, to mount a truth campaign. i think it has four pieces to it. you mentioned a couple. dr. coburn mention ad couple of those pieces. one of those is to remind the parents down there of perils they subject their parents too if they put them on the train to have them come up. the second kind of reception they will get here. can't be one of open arms that they will stay here for a indefinite period of time. the point tom race, idea following will be returned, young people will be returned in a number of cases. one thing is this, message of hope in their own country they can have a future, a good life to provide for themselves and n safety. the fourth piece is important as well. thanks.

with that, senator heitkamp. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for not having been here during some of the discussion. i had to go sit in the chair. this is an issue i'm deeply concerned about, on a number of levels and you're hearing kind of, a broad scope of concern for the children, the safety of the children. but also concern forr the safety of our border and who are these kids.on i know that senator baldwin asked for aal number of metricsn terms of how the age of the children. she asked a number of questions regarding who they are, male, female. and i think one of the things we need to be very, very careful about here is our assumption y these kids are here and why the kids are coming to the border. aer lot of us have talked about their parents sending here for rescue or for safety reasons and for a better life. we need to be very careful that not every kid is going to fall into that category.

and that, not doing metrics on the front end is disturbing because, who are these kids? you have got 72 hours to process them. i guesss my first question could be, to you, gil, coming to north dakota. your work asy drug czar made a very significant and important contribution to my state. i wantrk to publicly acknowledge you. i'm grateful that you have taken on this new level of public service kind of from the pot to the frying pan here in crisis but i i want to just ask you, what, what's your judgment in terms of percentages, looking at up in members? and are your border agents trained and sophisticated enough toe create categorieses of kid? whether they are gang-bangers coming in here to seek a new little of contribution in terms of the underground and crime? are they, are they kids who

aren't just being smuggled? because there's a difference between smuggling and trafficking. we need to make that clear. doesn't mean that kids who are being smuggled don't eventually become trafficked but how many of these kids are actually initiated into this process in a trafficking category? and then what are their ages. so can you just kind of give me what your sense is right now? >>ar my sense having watched it pretty carefully in mcallen, brownsville, fort brown and other places and watching these experienced border patrol agents interview and talk with these youngan people is that they're - they're very sophisticated these agents at being able to determine information. 14 andeo above they are all fingerprinted. those fingerprints are run againstte databases here in the united states so that if it was somebody a little bit older that had been deported or had been arrested or was involved in a gang. we need better cooperation,

better communication with those other three countries to make sure. the vast majority of what we're seeing are not in that threat category. but we have to be very careful. >> well, as, has been reported and i don't have any personal knowledge of this, that the number of drug seizures on the border since this crisis has decreased because resources have been deemployed to deal with the emergency of this crisis, is that correct? >> the number of drug seizures has decreased in that particular sector but a couple of things actually havingt? watched it pretty carefully for the five years i served as the policy advisor. those numbers fluctuate a lot. now that we have two states where you can grow your own marijuana, i'm not so sure that marijuanare coming in from mexio will continue at the amount it did. i think there are a lot of things going on but i'm confident in chief kevin oaks in

the rio grande valley, his determination that he will make every available resource. rio grande valley by the way had an additional 500 border patrol agents over the last several years. they will make every effort to make sure we're also doing our due diligence and our border security and i will watch it carefully. >> but this wouldn't be the first time someone created or helped augment a crisis so they could run the border and seek access for other kinds of illegal activity across the border? >> you're right. the smugglers are very smart. thefo people involved in drug trafficking work every day to try and beat the system, yes, ma'am. >> my point is as we're trying to deal with these humanitarian crisis for those who truly are there in that category, we need to double down on the law enforcement portion of this so we know what in fact we're dealing with. those of us who have been involved in law enforcement know that a juvenile can be just as dangerous as an adult.

we need to be very, very careful who we're letting into this country, undocumented. the final thing i want to point out because i'm running out of time is, i had the honor of going down to mexico with cindy mccain and amy klobuchar. we h received a number of briefings about the kind of activities that the mexico government is engaged on the southern border. their southern border strategy, obviously their southern border strategy in this case, their efforts to buildout the southern border may have caused this surge, i don't know. we should be asking that question but where are the mexican officials on pursuing their southern border strategy and how do you see that as a tactic to basically dispel this crisis? >> thank you, senator. mexican president pineto

announced on monday this southern strategy his government has been working on for some time. we expect it will allow the mexican government to improve interdiction capabilities on the border. they will dedicate resources to disrupt the alien smuggling networks and traditional routes they use through guatemala and southern mexico. in addition, they are trying to also implement better documentation of people who are crossing their border. so that they can track them better in the country. there is no question it is a very big border with mexico, with guatemala and belize and, it is, it is open in a lot of places. so they have quite a job in front of them. >> i would suggest that there would be a huge incentive to continue that effort on the south border if, if, the

e stopped at our border. because one of the things that concerns the state of mexico or the country of mexico is having these refugees in their jurisdiction. so, everything that we can do to assist them in their border security, but also sending a message that safe passage, not being, accuser to, but, turning a blind eye to movement of young children north won't be something that is in the best interests of the united states of america, the country of mexico, and the children of central america. and somehow that message needs to be a lot clearer than what it hasme been. >> president obama has spoken with president pineto about this issue. earlier i mentioned that mexico had deported over the year

201,385,000 adults and children. the numbers i have of unaccompanied children, over 8,000 were deported last year. its institute, its national migration institute, operates 35 detention centers and they are committed to working with us to improve their detention rates and return rates to central america asc well. >> i can tell you just from having been t on the border, unaccompanied minors, it is not a new issue. it is in crisis because of the numbers but we haven't been dealingun with unaccompanied y well in this country or in mexico or all where i think the region. so we need to have a regional response to this crisis. it can't just be the united states responding and processing. it has to be regional. obviously all the discussion you had here today about prevention,

how you build a better society. but again i'm very concerned we not categorize all these kids in one basket, that is critically important that w we understand that this is more complicated than just a number of children being smuggled in for a better life in the united states ofnd america. >> thank you. i have a question for those of you who worked in homeland security because i'm getting a lot of push, a lot of reports from pushback from homeland security w from the whistle-blowers. so i have two questions for all of you that work in home, do you believe that employees at dhs have the right to communicate with us as members of congress? >> yes, senator. >> yes. >> yes, sir. >> do dhs employees have the right to communicate with the dhs office of inspector general? yes. >> yes. >> that's the law, sir.

>> finally, will you make sure that that message is sent down the chai yn in your organizatio? >> we'll re-emphasize it. >> thank you. commissioner, this past weekend, a member of congress in oklahoma attempted to visit the site at fort sill. he was refused access. would you comment on that? >> it's a dod facility. i actually couldn't comment. i would not be familiar with it. it would not be under jurisdiction of customs and border protection but i would be happy to work with people to find out what occurred. >> anybody else have any knowledge on that? >> senator, it is a dod facility that is being operated by an hhs grantee. we are making available towards four members of congress but we do seek to get the tours scheduled in advance so we can ensure they are structured in a

way that needed tour guides are in place that it is consistent with theca set of responsibilits that the staff at this facility have. >> so actually, hhs's jurisdiction to make sure that accomplish what is you want to accomplish but the fact that a member of congress shows up to look at an acute problem for us that we have the homeland security under supposedly humanitarian crisis and he is denied access, can you explain that? >> so we absolutely want to insure that members of congress are able to visit the facility. >> except when showed up? >> we are structuring towards on a regular basis for members of congress and, and would very much want to insure for him and fors any other member congress that we can facilitate making tours available. >> so again, so i understand, so i can report to congressman bridenstein, it was because it wasn't structured is the reason

he was denied access? >> the, it is, as i understand it,? arriving at the facility without it being a scheduled tour. again we would want to -- >> i would want members of congress to come on unscheduled basis just as a good check. >> the, we want to encourage members of congress to take tours. we -- >> only at your time convenience? >> excuse me sir? >> only at your time convenience. i'm saying a random check by a member of congress is great for this country. they see what it is, not what is prepared to be to show. >> senator coburn i should say we are proud of the facilities. we encourage members congress come to see them. we believe members of congress

would be pleased. >> i will tell you made a brief just errorco denying congressman bridenstein access to that facility. i don't know who made the decision. first of all i think it was illegal to keep a member ever congress fromt visiting one of these camps regardless if they come at 3:00 in the morning they should have access. mr. kerlikowske, i want to cover a couple of areas. with you on the demographics of the of unaccompanied children. the administration reports in been an increase in number of uac who are girls and those who are under the age of 13. according to crs in a june 3rd press release following administration press call, the administration claims the demographic change in the uache population has increased response in the usa crossing border. however crsla was unable to find any data to illustrate the change. so it noted it is unclear

whether the increase in girls and children under 13 is simply because of the number of all uac has increased or number of girls ander children under 13 has increased as a proportion of all uac. according to a june 25th demographics report from the nogales processing center, out of total number of children in their custody at that time, the overwhelming majority were older than age 12, 887, and 557 were male. so yesterday, a i.c.e. memo reported that on june third indicates males between the ages of 15 and 17 compromised 47% of all t of the other than mexican uacs, and nearly 30% were 10 to 13. so three questions for you. why would the administration claim that the demographic of these children is increasing young when in fact it is not and female, based on their response to the situation on that data

when in fact the demographic appears to be quite the opposite? that is the first question. second, can you provide us with the actual statistics that show how q much of this uac populatin is actually female and under 13. and according to the conference calls with congressional staff, if a uac turns 18 in the custody of hhs, he or she is turned over to dhs custody. what happens to the unaccompanied children who are returned to dhs custody after turning 18?c are they released on their own recognizance? >> i can respond to the first two questions. first, senator, thank you for giving that question in advance because it involved the calls from thepo white house. it involved crs data, i.c.e. data, data from us, et cetera. i tried very hard to drill down into that could make sure i could find with all these different sources exactly what was what and give you the

information. so what i can tell you is that in that group we are seeing far more mothers and far more younger children than we have seent in the past. and that i will -- >> those are not unaccompanied children. >> both. >> i know. i'm saying mothers with their young children are not considered unaccompanied children. family units. we consider them family units, you're right, senator. the other part as far as when someone turns 18 in hhs custody, think i would ask that you ask mr. winkowski because i believe they would be turned over to i.c.e. rather than back to customs and border protection. >> okay. >> senator, thank you for that question. when they turn 18 they are handed over to us. we issue the nta and put them in removal proceedings. >> all right. one question for mr. osuna, what is the percentage of over the

last year, the year before that, year before that, of those that don't show for their hearing? >> the overall percentage for the entire population that is issued a notice to appear and is required to appear before immigration judge is the no-show rate is 17%. one, seven. that means that 83% do show. as i mentioned earlier, the percentage is little bit higher for juveniles. >> but you said you didn't know exactly that number, is that correct? >> well we do have unaccompanied juveniles, meaning the kid is coated as a juvenile case in our database where i mentioned earlier. we don't have a good handle on data is not there, unaccompanied minors, which one of juveniles are unaccompanied minors. >> you will try to find that date out for us? >> we're working with our partner agencies to get nor specific data on that. that is --

>> mr. kerlikowske, i have one more question to ask you. i don't know if we sent this one to you. i think we did. we asked for internal information on cpp memo on bottlenecks and unaccompanied child process. several press reports reported on this memo may 30th, from the deputy chief of cpb. staff asked for this document. yesterday's staff meeting with you, objected saying it is preadditional material and internal unsigned document which is according to the congressional rules is not a legitimate reason to deny congressional request. it is for foia request but not for congressional request. "the washington times" and other news outlets have reported extensively on the contents of the document potentially waiving any privilege, executive or otherwise. cpb is claiming over contents of the document. at a minimum i would request

that the department of homeland security explain the decision to me in write, citing the actual legal authority that allows you to withhold that document from congress. and i would appreciate it if you would do that. i have some questions on the basis of that. which i think most of them we have covered because we've asked for the statistics. one of the things that was concerning to me in that, the press reports in that memo by mr. viteo, that the uac crisis is compromising dhs capables to address other transborder criminal areas. i think we pretty well addressed that in your answer. so i have a summary of that. i think my time is up. the chairman's back and he's voted, right?we >> i have. and, be happy to receive your vote. >> i have other questions for's the record i would like to

submit. >> no problem at all. no problem. craig fugate, i don't think you've been asked enough questions and i really, let me say how much i appreciate your, your willingness to rearrange your schedule in order to be here for the entire hearing. what i would like to do is, is going tore come back to this. one of our colleagues, senator landrieu raised this question, but try to understand your role in appropriations of fund and authorization of the appropriations of those fund. she thinks a lot about hurricanes and the golf of mexico. we think about them on the east coast. we're very mindful great work you and your team did in response to superstorm sandy. one of the questions we would ask you, in terms of expenses that flow from this, all hands on deck operation, how does that affect, if at all fema's ability to do other, some of your other

work in terms of disaster relief? whether it isfe hurricanes or noreasters, that kind of thing, how does it affect it at all? >> there is always an effect but senator, you built and fund fema to handle multiple disasters simultaneously across the country as well as catastrophic disasters. we really use the tools you've given us authority and funds used to build and support inneragency. we have 75 people that have been working on this as well as our fema core teams which we have surged to support custom and borders and detention areas and in processing facilities. we were able to manage response to hurricane arthur and maintain support here. we are very much aware we have to be ready for the catastrophic disasters but you have built capacity and capabilities into fema that allows us to support this as well as our ongoing responsibilities. >> thank you for that response. thank you for taking on this in addition to all your other responsibilities overseeing this

difficult challenge and our response to it. question if i go with mr. palmieri. i stopped by a report by u.n., not only country seeing a huge increase in the migration of unaccompanied minors from guatemala and south of honduras and i saw somewhere where a number of asylum seekers in mexico, nicaragua, belize, costa rica, pan marks i think over 700% ifas i'm not mistaken. what does that say is happening in the three central american countries that we focused on today? >> i think it further confirms that endemic violence in these societies, the street crime, the gang intimidation and forced recruitment, lack of educational opportunity, the poor job prospects in these countries fr

young people are driving, are driving people away. and out of these countries. and we've got to do a better job working with these countries to address these, these basic systemic problems that they're confronting. the supplemental has $295 million that tries to get at a better prosperity agenda, that improves economic opportunity but also at the same time maintaining our efforts to address the security conditions in the countries. i have toim admit, i was not awe of the high increase in asylum requests in other countries. >> off of a low base but pretty substantial increase, very substantial. >> i will look into that to try to get additional data for you. i do know the mexicans have seen

anor increase and i was aware of that. >> all right.t in my opening statement you might recall that i mentioned that we spent a quarter of a trilliondollars over the last decade enforcing our immigration laws, trying to strengthen our nation's border especially on the southern border. we spend a whole lot less, far less, helping central american countries like theso three we're talking about today, to address the root causes of immigration. as i understand it during the same decade we're spending $225 billion, to protect and strengthen our border along mexico, we spent $2 billion across all of central america, not just in el salavador, guatemala and honduras, roughly 1% of what we just spent on the border. most of that aid is focused on improving security in those three countries, not on broad economic development and job

creation, to give people a reason to stay there and want to live there let me ask you to react to that. >> senator, i share your views on the need for us to have a better balance in our assistance strategy towards the region. the security investments are important. we have to improve their abilities to control their own borders. to interdict all kind of illicit activity that is both trafficking and -- trafficking and smuggling people and suggests across their borders but i think it is time for us to take a long look if there is more that we can be doing on the economic growth side, and, in attacking the problems of corruption in these governments so that social service delivery is better. so that education is better in these countries. by holding these governments accountable. i think you had it right in your

opening statement, senator. this has to be shared responsibility. the united states can'tby fix ts problem but i think we can be a part of the solution with mexico, with colombia as you mentioned. and we'll, we'll do our part at the state department, sir. >> thank you. a quick follow-up if i could. of the 300 million in the president's emergency supplemental request, any idea how much of that 300 million will go toward addressing some of the root causes we've been talking about here today? they're behind, in part behind the surge in migration from central america. >> yeah. all of the assistance is designed to focus having an immediate impact. 120 million of it is for the economic growth side which contains fund that do get at root causes. but also contain funds for youth outreach centers and vocational

education we think can help address immediate issues related to the immediate flow of people as well as longer term solution. i believe there is additional 70 million more or less, for governance activities, and then, the rest is in a security, including, which we consider very important, and i know, my i.c.e. colleagues will agree, we have to be able to expand the repatriation capability of the three countries. that is, we have to expand their ability toto receive more people our process gears up to return them more quickly and more efficiently. >> i was, i'm not sure whether it was el salavador or guatemala recently, center where they receive people back in. which i country, el salavador or guatemala? >> the guatemala system, the

guatemalans have got it down. it is testament to which seriousness they understand the risks their citizens face in making that journey and wanting tohi welcome them back and helpg them reinsert them back into their country but it is guatemala, senator. >> thank you.pi we talked a little bit already about truth campaigns and to message clearly, repeatedly, to particularly to the parents of these three central american countries, the perils that their children face trying to send them north. the likely reception they will get here.tr likelihood they will be returned ultimately. but the most important message, i think, to convey message of hope. there is not frankly in those countries much reason to be all thatey hopeful. you have law enforesment officers are corrupt. in too many cases judges are corrupt. i remember in a meeting with

president of guatemala and his interior minister talking about corruption in their prisons. mr. president, some of your prisons here, the inmates run the prisons. and they receive or pay for indirectly some of the guards for to bring in cell phones. and they operate their illegal activities from the prisons, using cell phones provided by the guards. i said, mr. president, you know there is technology that can be used to basically wipe out the ability to, use cell phones from a prison? and, said do you have that capability in your prisons and you don't use it. you don't use it. there isa a lot of work that needs to be done. we could do so much. they need. to do their share. key almost success of any entity i ever come across, whether government, business, athletics, church, schools, leadership. leadershipen is, we have

responsibility, certainly to provide leadership as a nation. but frankly these countries need some leadership of their own. fortunately at a time when colombia was on the ropes and looked likee they may go down fr count not that long ago, you recall, it was about 20 years or so ago, a group of gunmen rounded up the supreme court of country of colombia, took them all in a room and shot them to death, shot them to death. 20 years later, colombia i think by most people's judgment is a successful country. economically strong, viable, great trading partyer in with us, great ally with us, they're in a position now being helped by us through the colombia campaign to turn north and provide same kind of assistance to others. i think they're willing to do that. we need to make sure that they do. i think, what i would like to do here, i would like to close out, i was going to give a opening

statement. ask you each to takeat a momento give a closing statement. sometimes i use closing statements, about a minute's worth from each of you if you would, i look for opportunity to see where consensus lies and where consensus may lie in terms of what we should be doing, our responsibilities here in the legislative side, to address, nod t just immediate problems on theer border but also the underlying causes. mr. osuna, if you would please go first. give me a good minute, if you would, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to just note i've been doing this job for a while, being in this area for a long time. i've never seen an inneragency effort coordinated the way this effort is being done from the top down. it is pretty empress sieve. as you said it is an all hands on deck approach. we're ready to do our part in the immigration court system by prioritizing these cases of recent border crossers. we think that will have effect over time. we ask for your support through

thees supplemental funding requested by the president. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, i have a personal interest in the work that orr is doing and hhs and fema is doing in cpb and i.c.e. my mother arrived as a legal immigrant but was orphaned as a teenager in the united states. the work these people are doing to protect these children is really outstanding work. >> thank you. mr. greenberg. senator johnson and i asked give us one minute closing statement, to give us advice for us to put all together. i recognize you as soon as -- mr. greenberg, please. >> thank you,vi mr. chairman. the children that are arriveing an enormously vulnerable group of children. while most of them are older boys, we have seen, increasing number of girls.

we have seen an increasing number of very young children. they come with significant needs. it's important that we address those needs when they arrive. just as at the same time it is important that we enforce our nation's immigration laws. >> thank you. mr. winkowski. >> first of all, mr. chairman, i would like to say thank you for holding the hearing. i thought it was really a great hearing. really just several issues that think we need to be mindful of. number r one, this, we're focusg on central america right now for obvious reasons. but, i believe it is important for the committee to also realize that we have other hot spots around the world. thise is to go away. lots of people want to come to america. the flows arehe all changing asi had mentioned before. it was flows of mexicans coming in that we're seeing, other than than mexicans. you see hot spots around the

world, india. other locations. and we've had some experience with that already. that problem, those challenges are going to continue to get larger and larger and i think we need to play a leadership role in that not only from our standpoint but the state department's standpoint of capacity building and things of that nature. so that's number one. number two, i think we have some make.choices to these are very, very difficult issues. i'm a father. i understand why these children want to come. i'veul walked the halls of lackland air force base with secretary johnson. i've been down to mcallen and other locations. ita is absolutely heartbreaking. however if we're, we want to make an impact here, want to make some inroads here, we have to make some tough decisions. yount know, we've got to, you know, work very closely with guatemala and others, guatemala, to shore up their northern

border. mexico to shore up their southern border with guatemala. wegu have to be, continue to be very proactive from standpoint ofno investigating the networks. and when these individual make it into the country, we've got to make sure they have their due process. once they, a decision is made to remove, be able to remove quickly. i think, when you look at the issues that we're faced in 2006 with the brazilians and years before that, we had a rash much hondurans as i understand, what changed the dynamic of it all was the ability to apprehend detained and deport quickly. and i believe we need to have more discussion on that. and i think, that's, to me, is the critical issue we all face and needing funding and supporting the supply meant.

>> thank you very much. gil? >> having spent five years in the white house and now working for secretary johnson i can tell you that we could not ask for better leadership, more heartfelt compassion. more support for the work that we're a doing. it is very clear, i'm in the twilight of my career and to be in this position -- >> hopefully a long twilight. >> and to be in this position and to be able to work with, not only the people at the table but quite frankly, whether it is launching a border patrol agent orhe customs official who is encountering a child walking up a bridge from mexico, to see the work thatic they're doing, real, it makes you incredibly proud and i would last say, we appreciate the tough questions from members of congress. we're prepared to answer them to the very best of our ability and to be as forthcoming with you all as we can be.

>> thanks, gill. craig? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't approach this with acronyms. i don't approach this as policy issue. i don't approach this as to why its happening. it has happened. it is happening. very, very small children who early in this process were spending far too long in a detention cell, sharing a toilet and eating food that was microwaved because that is all agents could provide in the initial push. our focus has been on meeting the immediate needs of these children. we have to constantly remind ours is selfs, these are somebody's child, often times trying to bey reunited with a family member here, who took a journey none of us could imagine. when they came here, we should have the compassion to be able to take care of their basic needs while we focus on the whys.

but i have t to focus in on the now. and until we have enough capacity to insure these children are not kept in detention, there is a bed, medical care, decent food, a shower, clean clothes, we fail these children. the president's supplemental request is very specific in insuring that we have the capacity within the agencies, particularly within customs and borders, more importantly within the office of refugee resettlement to assure the children are properly cared for when they arey in our custody until final determination is made. that is my focus and continue o beor focus until such time as we have stablized this but we should never forget. these are they're now in our custody. it is our duty to make sure these children f are cared for properly. thank you, sir. >> thank you for that comment and thought. senator johnson and then i will say a few words and we'll close it out. >> thank you,>> mr. chairman. mr. fugate, first of all we share your sentiment. we're a compassionate society.

we understand they're children. we want to show true compassion. point a lot of russ making true compassion wouldth be to prevent this from happening. attack the root cause, incentives we're creating for parentsal to send their children on this arduous journey. i have to agree with senator coburn. e as those posters look like they will do nothing, nothing in comparison to what plain load after plane load of children being returned to their families in honduras and guatemala will do. that is the most important thing we can do detour parents doing this to their children. i understand you folks are working hard and we appreciate your service and you're constrained by the laws which we must change expeditiously. and you're also constrained by executive orders i think were misguided. so you're following the law. understand that appreciate your efforts but wey. have to change those laws.

we have to undo many so of these executive orders so we have a more rational system to reduceia or eliminate those incentives for illegal immigration. i want toe go back a little bit to t mexico in terms of what they're doing to help stem the tide. you know, if we've got busloads of children, i've seen the pictures of children hanging on to trains. i'm actually surprised they have turned back 85,000. is there any documented instances where mexico officials have actually interdict ad bus and sent it back? i mean where are we getting this from? >> the mexican authorities regularly send busloads of interdicted, m undocumented migrants moving through their country to guatemala, honduras and el salavador. i don't have a specific anecdotal case of a bus of

children that was perhaps hon its way to the u.s. border having been stopped but we do know that on a regular basis mexico send busloads of people back to all three countries. >> we're basically relying on their statistics in terms of how many people they send back? >> their statistics are i.c.e. attacheson at our embassy in mexico city, state department officials at embassy, mexico city, work with and talk to these people as well. so i don't think it is just statistical base. they also have the direct personal t relationships that i think are critical to making sure mexico follows through. >> one thing we've learned mexico does a pretty good job securing its northern border as marine sergeant tahmooressi finds out. i'm actually happy he will get a hearing today. i'm hoping he gets released immediate. if he is not released, what is

the state department, what is the department of justice going tond do, what is president obama going to do to secure sergeant tahmooressi's release? >> i know that the state department t has facilitated visits for him with his attorneys, with hi ks families. we will continue to provide the full range of american citizen services that we would provide to any and every american detained in similar situation. >> is the state department, president obama, as outraged as most americans are by mexican government's mistreatment of sergeant tahmooressi? i've seen the videos. i've seen how easy it was for him to you know accidentally get into that lane. this is outrageous he has been held for over 100 days. are wen going to show, demonstrate that kind of outrage and demand his return if he is not returned today? >> i know my colleagues at the american embassy in mexico city and in tijuana and in washington are workingde vigorously on this case to expedite a speedy

resolution to itin as we can. >> i hope if he is not released. they act a more vigorously. put it that way. i want to go back, as long as we're talking about state department here, $300 million request for improving conditions in those central american countries, you know, we're finding we're not particularly good improving our own economy. isn't that pipe-dream, to spend $295 million trying to improve conditions and expecting that will solve the problem as opposed to sending planeloads of these kids back to their families? >> i think we need to be doing everything we can on all delves both promoting better economic growth, expanding repatriation, sending more people back, all of these thingsot have to be done. this is a complex problem. and there is no easy solution. >> but things will be far more effective, far less costly.

let's go through the numbers. the president is asking for $3,700,000,000. divide that by 70,000. if we buy a plane ticket, put them up in hotel room, give them good meese, spend $1,000 per child that. wouldepu be $57 million to retun the children to their families. isn't that far more effective spending? wouldn't we be spending 300 milliondollars to improve the immigration services in those countries so there is a place for us to return unaccompanied children? why don't we reorient our thinking, we can't spend $300 million and expect we can't make a dent improving conditions in those countries. as senator coburn said, the most effective message we send as opposed to slick little poster there is literally sending planeloads in very humane fashion of these children back to their families?

>> part of the request will expand the capacity of these governments to receive additional repatriation flights and so that is envisioned in the request. i think what we think a more balanced approach that tries to address some of the underlying root causes is also essential, not just tino stopping the currt problem, but to creating the conditions so that in the future these people have better alternative in their homes. >> haven't we been doing that for years? literally haven't we been trying to do these things for years? >> we have and the scale of how we have provided our assistance, the youth outreach centers is excellent example, it just doesn't reach a broad enough segment of these countries to make a difference. expanding some of that assistance we think can make a

difference. of time,t mr. chairman. thank you for your indulgence. >> i'm glad you came back, ron. those questions and your participation. i think we'll come to the end again. i want to say special thanks to craig fugate forns changing his schedule to be with us and for your participation. for all of you, for your participation, this is extraordinary panel, good people, hard jobs. glad we're willing to commend you and teams you lead in service to our country. it is not easy one, is it? not easy one. frankly are there are not a lot of easy answers but there are answers. we've had a chance to chew on some of those today. i think this has been called by me and by others all hands on deck moment and all hands are on deck and we're finding out how well this team works and i'm encouraged that given the magnitude of the challenge it is working pretty well. everything i do, i know i can do better. it is viewve for all of us and true for responses like this. we have to focus how to do better as we go along.

i, as i said, senator johnson heard me say more than a few times, find out what works, do more of that. somehow something worked in mexico. something has worked in h mexic. asd we've seen the tide, surge ever mexicans coming across our border has largely stopped, not entirely but largely stopped. has a bunch of mexicans want to go back to mexico. there are lessons to be learned there my hope we'll learn those in terms of our actions and agencies involved and lead but also in terms of laws we pass and appropriations that we, that we make. i, want to close with a, think i will close with a little, scriptural reference here. we have, believe it or not we have bible study group that meets here in the capitol, democrats, republicans one a week, meet together, pray together, read scripture. we have a bible prayer breakfast. i don't get to meet because they meet i recall wednesday morning

and i'm usually on a train. our chaplain is reminding us most important rules, commandments in the bible. one is the found in the new testament. love the lord thy god with all thy heart and soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. those responses were given in response by jesus to a bunch of pharisees. they were trying to trick him up. he was pretty smart guy. he responded to a question they didn't know how to handle. they said, who is our neighbor? he famously told the story of the parabell of the good samaritan. that is good question who is our neighbor? if we loveto our neighbor as ourselves how do we treat them. folks in mexico and canada and these three central american countries they're our neighbor and so are people on the other side.

world. reputation as nation trying to treat others not just in our own neighborhoods, not in our communities and states but other countries as well as neighbors. we have to be very careful here making sure we're responding in a way that the scripture would admonish us to h do. that we don't create a, situation, where parents in honduras and guatemala and el salavador, literally take their flesh and blood put them on top of a freight train or one much these buss in the hand of people they don't know and send them through all kind of peril to get to the u.s. border. to change that dynamic. and there ared a lot of ways to do that. we talked about many so of them today. a week from today, we'll have a hearing on how we might do that further. how we might further change that climate, that dynamic in hon doorwe as and guatemala and el salavador. hopefully 10 yearsat from now we'll not have a hearing here

that revisits issue. why are we still handling this problem. weth learned something about mexico from number of years ago. we didn't entire letter fix that. we largely we have. we had problems with colombia. we helped solve that largely. we can do this as well. again, last word i would say, this is not on our backs alone. we have the responsibility, we have i think, moral imperative if you will to try to do the right thing here. we have fiscal impairment. we only have unlimited resources. we have imperative to find cost effective way. we have to make sure other countries with a dog in this fight, mexico, colombia, other nations and frankly non-profit organizations and interdevelopment banks that they are involved in this as well just with us in harness with us. if we do this together we'll make great progress. we feel good what we've done somewhere down the road and hopefully folks we try to help will feel better as well.

with that the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until, july 24th, five p.m. or submission and statements for the record. it has been a good hearing and helpful hearing and we thankful for everyone that participated in it and thank you so much. we're adjourned. of [inaudible conversations].

[inaudible conversations] >> c-span2 providing live coverage the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. every weekend booktv, for 15 years the only television network devoted to non-fiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable and satellite provider. watch us on hd and like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. good morning. on this tuesday morning, the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. they will begin with general speeches until noon. they will take up a pair of procedural votes on nominations to the federal energy regulatory commission.

the nominees are norman bay and cheryl lafleur. if confirmed norman bay would start a four-year term as commissioner and cheryl lafleur will be approved for another five-year term on the commission where she has been acting chair since last november. to live coverage of u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, we wait expectantly