>> the last summer there was a surge of unaccompanied minors crossing the u.s.-mexico border from central america. witnesses testifying that include officials from the justice department, health and human services, immigration and customs enforcement and u.s. citizenship and immigration services. ron johnson of wisconsin is the chair of the hearing. [inaudible conversations] ..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. this hearing will come to order. i went to first welcome our witnesses scared i appreciate your testimony, which i thoroughly read and study. the hearing is really called to take a look at a one year look back at the humanitarian crisis that we experienced last year as unaccompanied children streamed across our border in record numbers. the flow has been reduced, but i would still say it is almost the humanitarian crisis levels. rather than read an opening statement i ask unanimous

consent to enter my written statement into the record. i would like to concentrate on a piece of mr. greenberg's testimony. i want to read a little bit of it as soon as i find it. mr. greenberg and his written testimony says in recent years the number of unaccompanied children referred to hhs unaccompanied children each year within the range of 67000. until fiscal year 2012, those numbers increase from 2012 to 2014 from 13625 in fiscal year 2012 to 24668 in fiscal year 2015 to 67,496 and fiscal year 2014. he goes onto say as i discussed later the numbers fall considerably in the last year those still it is high relative to the case inspired in fy 2012. we presented the charted number of times that graphically

depicts the dramatic increase in the unaccompanied children coming in primarily from honduras, guatemala and el salvador. i do this from a standpoint of trying to lay out pictorially when did it all occurred and what happened. there is one dramatic event that occurred in 2012 called deferred action of childhood rivals. implemented by this human ministration with the not a lot of denial saying that didn't really cause the pushback. there's multiple fact is, no doubt about it. i think it is quite clear unilateral executive action and deferred action on childhood arrivals was the primary cause for the surge. what i want this hearing today to talk about is the incentives we create in this country, in

our lives for people to come into this country illegally. we are a nation of immigrants. we need to recognize the fact that people that come into this country by and large come for the exact same reason our ancestors came here. they are seeking the opportunity this country offers people. we need to understand to a certain extent we respect that if it's done legally. we cannot tolerate an uncontrolled border and unsecure border and immigration process out of control all based on illegal immigration. we have to take a look at our laws and deal with incentives for illegal immigration. i would certainly look at deferred action on childhood arrivals as one of the incentives that created this crisis. that is from my standpoint but i went to glean from this hearing today in the testimony and questions we will be asking. serious issue of peoples lives are put at because of these

incentives and we need to get to the bottom of this. the other point i want to make is the difficulty in getting the information to solve this problem. part of the problem is three different departments with five different component agencies dealing with the and its children are passed from one department and agency to the other and we don't keep a flowing record in each agency is charged with a certain responsibility in the process and there's just no overall coordination of everybody's after and from my standpoint i don't believe we are truly enforcing the laws the way they were meant to. as a result we incentivize illegal immigration that scott is taught. without i turn it to our ranking member, senator carper. >> thank you mr. chairman. welcome. good to see you. thank you for joining us for your testimony.

one of the things most of this year, whether democrat or republicans agree on is that it is important we address not just symptoms of problems but that we address root causes that contribute to those problems. the chairman has said there is no one single reason why all these people decided to come up to our country in droves the last couple of years. i suggest one of the reasons they want to come up here is because for a number of years they have lived hellacious lives. we contribute directly to. we buy a lot of illegal drugs appear. a lot of it goes through honduras, guatemala, salvador. we sell them guns guns are used to arm their games. the kings make money off the drugs that are sold here. the environment for job creation

in those countries is not very good because the lack of rule of law and when we deport people we don't always support as we know miners are families with children. adults, adult males with a criminal record race criminal record resend right down there. and what did they do? they go to work and the work they go one creates an even more dangerous unappetizing, uneconomic environment. a whiskey that in mind. we contribute us directly to the difficult lives in those countries and we have some obligation to do something about that. i will talk about that in a moment. a year ago we face a humanitarian crisis at our southern border. tens of thousands of women and children were turning into border patrol agent seeking protection after a grueling trip border officers were overwhelmed and many of this.

so were shelters to house children and families. to address the crisis our government swung into action on most fronts. we sought to comply with the 2007 among eight president george w. bush with unaccompanied minors and set up emergency shelters. researched agents and judges to border areas work to find homes for the children in such cases could be adjudicated. passover to the governments of guatemala honduras and salvador to launch a true campaign leading them know about the dangers of the trip to the north, to the u.s. only collaborated with the government of mexico said the nation might strengthen the integrity of the southern border and it has. many others provide support including local communities and faith leaders. one year later we no longer have a crisis of the proportion we did a year ago. many families and children flee

these countries but the numbers are clearly down by a little more than half. in fact while that is improvement it's not enough improvement. even though the crisis appears to be over we have humanitarian responsibilities to protect the children in our custody and a moral obligation to treat them fairly under our laws until we change the laws. even as we try to resolve cases more expeditiously and return to their own countries do not have grounds to remain here. i look forward to hearing from witnesses about how they work together to effectively process and care for so many children. all borders and agencies are better equipped to devanagari they handle another influx and there's still a lot of progress made. one area is our immigration court system and as we all know court or badly understaffed even before last summer's border search for tens of thousands of

cases and wait times are much worse. you might not get a hearing before november 29th teen. clearly unacceptable. that is what i wrote to colleagues on the appropriations committee this year urging them to send a request for 55 immigration judge teams. i'm pleased to say the request appears in both chambers. they sure will be a big help. they often advance more efficiently when accompanied miners have a lawyer. not surprisingly most of these minors cannot afford one. that is why in delaware in communities across the country many lawyers stepped up to the place to offer pro bono legal services. i could not be prouder of the legal community in my own state. many miners out of the country to ensure an efficient and

effective border security immigration system is incredibly important. however it is also -- we must not lose sight by so many folks feel the need to realize the border integrity with mexico. we need to work with these countries honduras, guatemala come out salvador. we need to work with mexico. when it to work with columbia and others, nonprofit steward of the the causes of violence and poverty and all the stuff we try to do. not many years ago we carried a similar challenge and most people would agree our support along with that of others helped turn the country around to the implementation. we know mexican immigration has leveled off in large part because of the advances in that country. meanwhile central american migration aspect because of intense violence and poverty in the region.

people are vulnerable to gang violence. the governments must take the lead on this and they are. these three countries have joined together in unprecedented original author called the alliance for prosperity for citizens. home depot likes to advertise if you can do if we can help. and we have an obligation to do that. later today senior perpetrators to take up request for infusion of federal aid to central america. i hope the appropriators will heed the president's call for new investment therein by doing so benefit generations of children succumb. needles and haystacks there's a lot of haystack in the border. we are trying to pick out the needles in the needles are people families trying to get through, human traffickers trying to get through.

we need to make the haystack smaller. one of the things we need to do that to support the industry should proposal. i think this'll work as well. in the meantime a whole bunch of other stuff we would hear them talk about today. thank you. >> thank you senator carper. i agree if you take a look at what is causing an unsecure border to root causes are insatiable demand for drugs and the testimony before this committee is general mccaffrey. if you want a metric that shows you how unsecure the border is it is how much of the drugs or be entertained in. 5% to 10% even know what the agency spent $25 billion on the war on drugs. that is their root cause within the overall root cause of the problem there are individual situations and mrs. unaccompanied children from

central america. there is root cause there. it is the tradition of the committee to spread witnesses so if you'll rise and raise your right hands. do you swear the testimony did before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. thank you. our first witness will be transformed. am i pronouncing that correctly question are good. mr. osuna is the director for the executive office at the u.s. department of justice. mr. osuna served at the doj from june 2010 to december 2010th where he worked on immigration policy and other issues. per may 20,922,010 he was deputy assistant attorney general in the civil division office of

immigration litigation. prior to positions he served as chairman of the board of immigration appeals. mr. osuna. >> today in iraq for a second. if i can ask a favor. i'm not real good at acronyms. dhs i've got that. in reading your testimony a couple of used a lot of acronyms. if you persist in doing that you are going to lose me. so try to show some temperance they are. thank you. >> good morning mr. chairman senator carper and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to speak about the executive office for immigration review. our goal is border search of the work we do with our federal partners on the issue. our role in the removal process charged with violating immigration laws and they should be removed from the united

states. to carry out the mission of the judges and 50 of immigration ports around the country and the board of immigration appeals. other cases start of the department of homeland security charged a filing with our immigration courts. among the challenges facing courts purchases are pending caseload referred to earlier, senator carper. by far the most we've ever had. the backlog grew during recent budget cuts when they were able to hire judges and replace those who loved. while the immigration judge corps were shrinking we continue to receive new cases resulted in continuously rising backlog. the courts received 80,000 cases between july 14, 2014 and june 30th this year. we are taking steps to increase capacity to adjudicate cases to hire enough for and hire judges offers priority.

overall there are now 247 immigration judges around the country and dozens more in the hiring process. but our federal partners returned last year's border search adding new priorities to existing priority for all cases. specifically we added a unaccompanied children and adults who arrive with children. we depend on partners that dhs to identify groups with the immigration court in process cases as quickly as possible consistent with due process. as anticipated when we identify the focus of our limited resources on priority cases it has a significant impact on the non-detained nonpriority cases awaiting adjudication. thousands of cases schedule far into the future to make room. overall 45% of case completion so far this year has a category priority and individuals detained by ice and those who

crossed last year. the numbers provide insight into the immigration courts are doing. in july 182014 -- july 18, 2014 until june 30th this year the immigration courts received 35,000 cases for respondents are dhs identified as unaccompanied children. it's important to know many cases involving children may not be pending before the court because they are really from removal and immigration services that you heard from earlier which have initial jurisdiction over cases. the pending case is currently 23,000. with the goal of the initial hearing for unaccompanied children within 21 days after receiving the case to report 27,000 children have initial hearing scheduled by an immigration judge and they have issued more than 6800 orders of removal. under the law said she had an

individual scale for noticed hearing to establish the person is removable. immigration judges have issued at extension 5900 cases. children who appear without an accompanying adult may require special care modifications to normal procedures. we have a guidance for adjudicating cases with respondent of the unaccompanied child. further circumstances may require specialized doctors for children's cases. following last summer surge, all immigration courts are equipped to handle a doctorate. immigrants also receive specialized training in april of this year regarding juvenile cases. we recognize the presence of a representative can increase efficiency with children papers

taken numerous tests to encourage pro bono counsel to provide representation and are aware of resources when they appear before immigration judges. we operate a legal orientation program for custodians under which custodians are provided with information on pro bono resources and immigration court process and roles and responsibilities. a few months ago was launched 24 immigration courts to provide direct representation to unaccompanied children. last year's border search pose challenges for all including ours. we work towards hearing cases as quickly as the due process allows. tests included making circumstances and refocusing resources. we are a continuous contact with dhs and hhs on how to improve collective handling of these challenging cases. thank you and i'm happy to

answer any questions you may have. >> thank you mr. juan osuna. next of mr. mark greenberg for children and families at the u.s. department of health and human services hhs. we got that one right. by the way, i like your acronym. he also serves as deputy secretary and acting commissioner for the administration for children and families. before joining hhs. >> chairman johnson, ranking member carper thank you for inviting me to testify today. in my testimony i will be describing responsibilities of

the department of health and human services in relation to unaccompanied children and talk about the key developments relating to responsibilities to the hearing on the topic. when unaccompanied children are referred to at the department of homeland security, we initially placed them in a network of shelters while staff worked to determine if they have an appropriate sponsor with him to commit while waiting immigration proceedings. when they arrived a child is provided with a complete medical examination within 48 hours training staff to determine if they may be a victim with abuse or crime or trafficking and they receive medical dental health services education services a vehicle rates presentation and access to legal services access to religious services on a case management to clinical counseling. while it shares the calcareous we have a responsibility to

place them in the least restrictive settings in the best interest of the child taken into consideration the risk of harm to themselves or the community a risk of flight. initially we seek to place children with a parent or a close relative or if not possibly more distant relative or family friend. if we can't identify a sponsor and the child doesn't get the immigration were these the children will remain in hhs care until he or she turns 18 at which point will remain to the 18-year-old to the custody of the department of homeland security. we seek to ensure the sponsorship is safe and appropriate to require verification of identity and relationship to the child potential sponsor must undergo background checks in complete an assessment another series of concern and a set of cases

perform code studies as an additional safety measure. is part of the process potential sponsors must agree they will ensure the child appears that court proceedings and must agree to inform the department of justice and department of homeland security of any change of address and in addition when we release the child we provide the address information to the department of justice and homeland security. i now want to highlight key development from last year's hearing. last year was the highest number of children in the history of the income in the children program. this year numbers are down significantly the still high in historic terms. last year we received 57,000 referrals from the department of homeland security in the first eight months of this year we received fewer than 18,000. last year the president directed

the secretary of homeland security to establish an interagency group the unified coordination group to identify across the administration. bcg continue to operate with an ongoing role to facilitate request from homeland security or hhs if needed and include requests for additional capability, operational coordination, planning support, situational assessment, critical transportation agencies. for operating the unaccompanied children program presents challenges because of uncertainties on how many will arrive and when. lessons from last summer we developed a capacity framework to ensure we have enough year-round standard as to quickly add temporary bad when there are seasonal fluctuations.

this model reduces funding during low capacity while preserving the ability to respond to future increases. since 2011 would reduce the amount of time children stay in shelters from an average 72 days to more than 30 days. we maintain the average this year at 34 days. while we seek to ensure all releases are appropriate now sometimes a child may develop concerns about his or her placement in april expanded the helpline for children in distress or stances. in addition starting this hhs is beginning to offer post-release services to a child's monster in the first six months after release if placement has been disrupted or is at risk of disruption. december last year we published our interim final rule that safeguards that all of our facilities have to been meant to

attack children from sexual abuse. last september expanded legal representation in june 15th we issued a proposal for contract areas to further expand provisions of legal services. we welcome the community and congress and efforts to improve the program. thank you and i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. greenberg. mr. phil miller is a field operations and removal for the u.s. immigration and customs enforcement the u.s. department of homeland security. that is i.c.e. and that's a lot easier to say. mr. miller has survived? >> i.c.e. is good. we served as immigration inspector 1996 and a deportation

officer 1998. 2001 an office director in 2009. mr. miller. >> thank you good morning. members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the role in addressing the ongoing challenges on on the company children arriving in the united states. i currently serve as the assistant director worried oversea direct and coordinate activities throughout the nation's 24 field offices and their sub offices. this includes transportation removal of children to further agency goals and ensure compliance with agency policy. as you know in 2014 there was an unprecedented influx of children from central america to the united states. we continue to address this issue in a manner comprehensive, coordinated and humane.

as part of the unified effort, i.c.e. is responsible for quickly and safely transporting children from the custody of u.s. customs and border protection to custody of hhs. and if ordered the removal of the children following conclusion of immigration proceedings. both functions are critical links in the process. while a company children are not housed or short-term care and custody requires use of agency resources and time and attention of officers. during the time the i.c.e. maintains custody of children for transportation and pending her placement, they are separated from adult detainees. unaccompanied children have snacks, drinks from officials, telephones and other resources. i.c.e. transports children via ground commercial air.

all 24 offices have primary back of juvenile coordinators each of whom received annual specialized training with respect to the vulnerabilities of children. field office juvenile coordinators come a duty i personally performed in 1999 service a local subject matter expert on proper processing transportation and placement of unaccompanied children. they monitor practices for compliance with regulations entered in policy and are on call 24 hours a day seven days a week. currently due to backlog immigration processes take months or years had once they are removed, i.c.e. takes enforcement action based on the stated priorities. according the hhs transfers custody and will remove the child and the receiving

government. we take a number of steps to prevent further surge. the recent arrivals and those attending cross-border priorities for apprehension and removal. second, the implement procedures for obtaining travel documents and transferring children through streamlined process that allows officers to perform other responsibilities. third, secretary johnson has personally met with high-level officials in el salvador, mexico, honduras and guatemala to secure cooperation in the flow citizens into the united states. other humanitarian influx is a challenge, the indications are that efforts are paying off. quite confident we will not see a repeat of last years numbers we are better prepared than ever before to deal with the arrival of unaccompanied children along

the southern border. with committee support we work closely with sister agencies to address the care and processing arriving in the united states in a unified manner. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and i welcome questions. >> her final witnesses mr. joseph langlois. associate director of the refugee asylum in operations for the u.s. citizenship and immigration services. at the u.s. department of homeland security. mr. langlois has a career civil servant at usis survey from an asylum officer to chief of the saturn division. mr. langlois. >> mr. chairman, senator carper and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing. my name is joseph langlois and i'm the associate director of the refugee asylum and

international directorate within the u.s. citizenship and immigration services uscis. i oversee the asylum program at uscis which plays a critical role in the long tradition of providing protection for those who have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution. my testimony today will focus on the uscis row of adjudicating asylum applications filed by unaccompanied children. the trafficking of it comes protection reauthorization act of 2008 changed the track for unaccompanied children seeking asylum in removal proceedings and introduced a new role for uscis. prior only immigration judges have jurisdiction to adjudicate

asylum applications filed by unaccompanied children in removal proceedings. unaccompanied children in removal proceedings now have now have the ability to file their applications with uscis. this arrangement allows unaccompanied children to initially present their claims in a non-adversarial interview with a uscis officer rather than adversarial proceedings before an immigration juncture. while the four admin which the claim is initially heard is changed, the eligibility standard remains the same. in addition, if the asylum officer does not grant asylum they coordinate with i.c.e. to transfer the case back to

immigration were unaccompanied children may renew their asylum claims and adversarial proceedings before an immigration judge. since implementation of ttpra in 2009 approximately 13000 unaccompanied children have filed asylum applications after having been placed in removal proceedings. since tvpra became law six years ago uscis has granted asylum to approximately 4000 unaccompanied children. while the number of unaccompanied children being granted has been low compared to the number of arrivals and the number of applications, uscis serves a vital role in protecting unaccompanied children who have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution by providing a non-adversarial

forum to elicit their claims. the asylum application process generally begins when a minor who's determined to be an unaccompanied minor by cbp for i.c.e. indicates in removal proceedings and then instructs the unaccompanied child to file the asylum application was uscis. in the meantime the immigration judge granted a continuance of the proceedings or administratively closes proceedings in order for the unaccompanied child to file the applications was uscis and for uscis to adjudicate the asylum. during the attendant say, officers communicate with attorneys to provide progress reports on the case, verify status of removal proceedings

confirmed court hearing date and arrange for the transfer of files between i.c.e. and uscis. after a uscis receives the case they cannot admin person in-depth non-adversarial interview of the unaccompanied child to fully explore the plan. in addition the asylum officer researchers conditions and completes a wide range are required by and biographic security checks. the asylum officer determines whether the applicant is eligible for asylum and drives the decision before any decision is finalized a supervisor refused to case to ensure the decision is supported by the record and comports with the law. in conclusion, uscis plays an important role in adjudicating asylum applications for the

small portion of unaccompanied children who choose to apply. uscis continues to monitor friends of application filing and stands ready to meet any future challenges with a firm commitment to quality and integrity. thank you for the opportunity to testify. more than happy to answer your questions. >> thank you mr. langlois. as i stated earlier, their multiple causes for children in the country. does anybody want to take a look at the chart and dispute my overall conclusion about the primary cause of this type of children was deferred to action on childhood arrivals. the message that if you get to america you are pretty well home free. anybody want to volunteer a challenge for the conclusion?

mr. greenberg. he twitched. >> i do want to make clear that hhs is not an immigration agency are responsible for policy. as indicated by responsibilities here are principally providing the appropriate sponsors. the work on reasons for why children is principally the work that is done by the state department and homeland security and i would refer to the recent gao report but did not pass. they gao report highlights the importance of crime and violence and economic conditions.

>> let me ask. has there been a dramatic increase in crime reduction to economic conditions in central america starting 2012 would be a trigger for that a catalyst for the enormous spike. i've got the murder rates homicide rates per hundred thousand. quite honestly in most countries they drop from el salvador in 2009, 2011 70 2012 is 43 23rd teen 40. again really central america is not america and it got a huge bridge differential. i am looking up what caused the spike. let me just say no one is disputing that is certainly a possible cause right there. when they get the numbers they

are. since 2009 from el salvador, guatemala and honduras, there have been 109,000 unaccompanied children coming to the country. as the children coming in 2009 we returned 30%. 2010 we returned 22%. 2011 we returned about 24%. 2012, 12%. 2013, 6.2%. 2014 2.7% in 2015 about 3.8%. we cannot relate to return versus when they came and that that is when they return versus children come into the country. and all they've returned 5.7% 6248 unaccompanied children with 109,000 illegally. is that sending a signal to people in central america that if you come into america you got a 95 94.3% chance of being able

to say. is that a disincentive for making the trip or incentive for making the trip? anybody want to answer that? i would say it's an incentive. mr. miller. >> are currently in your testimony 6800 final orders of removal issued. those are adjudicated cases ordered to remove from the country. so far fiscal year 2015 we removed 569. why are we removing 6800? >> the data shows the fiscal year as of mid-june we removed 1500 unaccompanied children. in terms -- >> 1500 versus 6800.

>> of the police minister a book at all the cases we have to work and i can tell you if i task my officers with going out after criminals in our community are going out after juveniles who are not criminals in our community, it is good policing to go after criminals. we face dynamic environment and jurisdiction with tasty taters. rather than officers going to be able to pick up convicted criminals in a jail we have to go out with teams and find people in the community. they are very resource intensive and if we have to prioritize populations we are making appropriate prioritization. >> as long as we talk about criminals. on sunday we went her to two euros cap james steinberg had seven prior felony convictions. according to an i.c.e. data 121

aliens were released and subsequently charged with homicide related offense. what do you have to say about that lack of enforcement? >> i what do you have to say about that lack of enforcement? >> i don't think the two are necessary with the larger data we've been talking about the house at about. that represented reasons why those persons could no longer be detained. they are both circuit court decisions. >> tell me specifically what is preventing us when we have people in this country illegally and they have had seven prior felony conviction why aren't we able to deport those individuals? >> in that case her detainer was not honored. >> who didn't honor it? >> san francisco sheriff did not honor or detained. >> so you have no legal authority to detain the person

yourself? or apprehend and deport them. >> in that case they had no standing felony narcotics warrant and we feel strongly that the appeasement the right decision to resolve the criminal warrant before we relaxed a further civil action. >> what is dlp? tell me what happened. what happened in the case at the individual is seven prior convictions and he had been released repeatedly and now a young woman is dead. why did that happen? >> in that instance he completed serving a federal sentence for the code reentry after deportation by an aggravated felon when he completed the sentence. >> why didn't i.c.e. pick him up immediately upon that and deport him. but is preventing us from doing

that? we've got them in custody. why is that i.c.e. escorting the person back to his country of origin. >> there is a narcotics warrant and the bureau of prisons as we would've done the same thing we seek to resolve all criminal warrants before we go forward with removal. datacenter practice for a number of years. we operate that within the program as a matter of agency direction the officers are to resolve outstanding criminal warrants before proceeding. >> there's no criminal warrant for release in general society to create a murder or committing murder. does that make any sense to you? it doesn't make sense to the american public. that is the problem and what we are trying to grapple with. that's the problem we need to solve. senator carper. >> how to resolve the problem? we've got a guy who's been

incarcerated repeatedly. he is then jail in san francisco. is there a drug charge against him? >> to resist a felony warrant for narcotics and i think the secretaries taking steps to the priority enforcement program to bring a number of locations not honoring immigration detainer's. with established request for notification then look to overcome a lot of concerns that our state and local partners have been working through secure communities and by establishment working through the program we hope to have communities like samba cisco combat and work proactively. >> is there something we need to do to make sure something like

this doesn't happen again? >> i'm not an attorney. i can't speak to the nuances of law or policy. i'm told there's limited ability to force communities to accept detainer's. also that has not been in historical police product is. usually we work collaboratively to resolve foreign and transfer custody when requests are made. some of the recent court decisions called into question i.c.e.'s ability to request communities hold inmates for 42 hours beyond -- 48 hours beyond the expiration of the sentence and that is one of the reasons secretary johnson and the enforcement program has created a paradigm communicating with jurisdictions before the person is released from custody and safely and effectively ensure the transfer of custody. >> this is one we can work on together to do a better job on.

>> very good. i asked my staff to look and see if only the united states to which folks are fleeing to ask for asylum. what about these other countries. how about mexico? how about the leaves? how about panama? how about nicaragua. they gave me these numbers. i found it interesting the united states is the only country experiencing significant increases in the three central american countries i have 32. together mexico, panama nicaragua, costa rica and belize have reported an increase of almost 100%. almost 1200% from 28252,014. it's like a 12 fold increase. it's not just the u.s.

they just want to get out of honduras guatemala and salvador and the numbers speak volumes. the numbers are down by about half. a little bit more than half of this year to last year. let me ask you by the number is down by so much. >> senator, i think there's a number of reasons. i think the administration does a lot of measures we put in place last year not only here domestically the partners in mexico and central america have had an effect. i would defer to my colleagues on the enforcement agencies here. the admin is ration does feel that has been part of the reason why the numbers are down is because -- >> any others want to share thoughts with us, please? don't be shy.

>> i was just talked to mr. osuna that the secretary johnson and secretary saldana has met with officials coupled with the department coverage in coordination with the state department trying to overcome the message the marketing by smuggling organizations last year that there were a real opportunities outside the law and that seems to be taking hold mr. greenberg said our colleagues from state department know more about this than the programs being operated. it seems all indications are the messages well received and international partners are working in a high degree of collaboration to ensure we don't have the humanitarian crisis we did last year. >> good, thanks. give us one example is something the congress needs to continue to drive the numbers down. give us one good idea.

mr. langlois. >> well -- >> do it briefly. one good answer. >> i think a lot parading with the nationstates that are on perimeters of these three countries to build their asylum adjudication process would assist us in this endeavor to have sanctuary provided by countries and the surrounding area. we have been working with mexico for quite some time. >> okay, thanks. mr. osuna, one good example. >> support for funding. as we saw last year in opportunity to work collaboratively. we are doing that effectively. mr. greenberg and i've been traveling together to make sure teams are aware of the need to work together. it is difficult last year. the department had to reprogram

hundreds of millions of dollars to take away from functions to accomplish the mission. but contingency funding in the 2016 budget would have flexibility to deal with unaccompanied children and any other unforeseen crises on the border. >> mr. greenberg. one good example. >> any to largely defer to my colleagues on this one. what i would highlight is ensuring efficiency of the legal process for arriving unaccompanied children that the the -- are essential. >> supports the president request for more funding for research that that enables us -- >> 55 scenes. >> the appropriators have picked it up. >> resources are critical to have the capability to move cases.

>> you did a great job of those acronyms too. >> when they quit when out the message he sent his 2.7% are returned from 2014. even using the updated numbers, that is about 10%. in other words the message we send if you get to america, 90% or more will get to stay. that is the message that mexico is doing a far better job of increasing apprehensions by 79%. that is the number one reason our numbers are down and that is a good thing. senator peters. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the panelists for being here today and for your testimony. as i've said on repeated occasions, ultimately we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform to deal with these issues in a comprehensive way which is why we need to have comprehensive immigration reform. at the hearing discussing

childhood of bibles and the action for parents of americans i spoke about his event example of the daca program and what that means in individual lives. one who came a very young and as no other life other than being an american and came here not her decision with a parent, became valedictorian of her high school and is now at the university of michigan with dreams of becoming a physician and get without daca protections she would be deported which makes no sense whatsoever and jimmy is not good public policy as well. i would like to enter if i may a report from the american immigration council. it speaks to the concern you raise as to whether or not the daca program is responsible. it is a special report at june 2015. >> without objection. >> a sick way to highlight one

part of a bar in the 20 report the office stated in a five-month period between march and july 20:12 p.m. accompanied mentor program received on the 7200 referrals surpassing fiscal year 2011 showing from the report verizon unaccompanied minors predated implementation of the daca program. furthermore after january 1, 2007 would not be eligible. while i don't have the report the cato institute did a report on july 29, 2014 and the cato institute said first the surge began long before the june 15 announcement of daca. it discussed in 2012 but the search was underway at that time period from october 2011 through march 2012 there were 93%

increase in usb apprehensions over the same period in 2011. texas governor rick perry warned president obama about issues before the announcement. second they also raise children coming now are not legally able to apply. there certainly reports from independent groups as wide-ranging as the american immigration council to the cato institute which dispel the notion. it goes back to what i said at the beginning of my comments that congress needs to roll up sleeves and we have to work to pass comprehensive immigration reform. we will provide clarity and certainty and border security and ensure immigration system is fair for all and make our country stronger. it's also important to remember when we talk about the unaccompanied children here today were for two kids who came to the united states to seek a better life and often flee violence and expectations. social services organizations in

michigan have cared for the children including teenagers who fled from trafficking in gang violence which leads to severe depression and attempted suicide as well. the united states has legal obligations to consider the welfare and allowed their asylum claims to have their day in court. that leaves my question to mr. langlois. he talked about your asylum program. if you can speak to the specific examples of the child who comes forward who was granted asylum what are they facing? talk specifically to give us two or three examples. ..

but the majority are fleeing severe violence that is connected to a least one of the protected grounds your so that's the overall view of what is occurring here. >> these children that come before you you said that go into non-adversarial situation but it looks as if the number that gets into that is smaller than unaccompanied minors that are coming across. so is it a child, let's say a 10 year old asked as i want to file an asylum claim? where do they even know that is the evidence that they need to go? >> individuals who were deemed to be unaccompanied children by

cbp or i.c.e. are placed in removal proceedings in front of an immigration judge. went there in front of the judge, they must request to apply for asylum window in front of the immigration judge in the adversarial hearing. >> how is a 10 year old going to know that? >> the individuals that are in proceedings sometimes to have counsel on sometimes do not. i'm not familiar with it occurs in front of an immigration judge judge. >> senator, i can take that on. it can be challenging for judges when their children in front of them. as you can imagine and she pointed out, a 10 year old in front of the judge sometimes it is the challenge the judge to be able to find exactly the case is all about. judges take the necessary time to get to know what the child is all about what the child's case is all about. sometimes judge will children

come back a couple of times in order to get them comfortable in order to hear what actually happened to them and what they wish to apply for asylum. the point of taking the time of the judge taking the time is not just all clear what the child's case is all about but also to give the child a chance to find a lawyer. there are a lot of organizations out there that are stepping up and providing lawyers for these kids. for the most part the process in immigration court is designed to get the child comfortable, to the thank you, mr. chairman with the case is about into the java chance to find a lawyer or represented second in a system. >> if i may just take a brief follow. the image is striking to every 10 year old child stand in front of a judge and standing next to them at the a government attorney basically seeking to have him deported.

is there any other place where we have in our justice system in america where we just about a young child to stand before a judge without any kind of legal representation and plead the case of? >> not to my knowledge. i think where immigration court because there is no right to appointed counsel in immigration court we have a situation. when it comes to children it's all the more striking which is why we're trying to do we can with our federal partners to increase representation programs. to try to provide as much capacity not just our lord but also for responsible adults to support and assist the children that are coming before our judges. >> that's kind of be a frightening experience for 10 year old who may be the victim of violence from where the king. there think that. may be a victim of sexual trafficking. their template, scared and we expect them to understand that the need to strip leading that they have an asylum claim spent

a can be very intimidating for obvious reasons which is why we do we can to try to get specialist training to our judges as how to handle children coming before them. they are not just, not like any adult case. they have to specialized training, specialist procedures, specialized children and dockets which are referred to earlier, and certainly there's that much of the bigger challenge because of the numbers. >> senator baldwin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you and ranking member carper for holding this hearing. and thank eyewitnesses for your insight and time. when we held a hearing about a year ago, i was very interested in the discussions that the committee and the witness panel had about root causes of the surge that we experienced in 2014. and it was clear to me that violence and instability in

number of central american countries were key factors that pushed children to make a very perilous journey to our borders. it's critical that we continue to understand the causes so that we can ensure that we don't see another surge as we did last year. so i wanted to start on that topic, and i recognize we didn't have a state department witness on our panel today, but mr. miller, at the beginning of your written testimony utah globe about the push and pull factors that led to the influx. you also mentioned in your testimony and in response to a question that secretary johnson and the director of met with officials in honduras and

guatemala and el salvador to request their cooperation in stemming the flow of their citizens to our borders. i'm wondering if you can ally for us or share with us some of the specific efforts that came out of those meetings and consultations? >> thank you senator. while i was a present for those meetings, we were meeting with those officials to try to figure out an effective communications strategy to kind of overcome a lot of the marketing that smuggling organizations were doing to try to encourage children thinking that they would be receiving some kind of immigration benefit that was not actually waiting for them on the other side. it appears that the collaborative efforts are yielding results. that, and i would say that my understanding of the gao report and the state department has a very robust plan to continue

that communication. and the appointed to a number of indicators of economic difficulties. some of them stemming from agriculture problems, some of them died to the lack of opportunities for these children. and i think that as we continue to work with central america and partners and work collaborative with the department of state we hopefully will be able to continue to address those in a unified u.s. government manner. >> thank you. right now as was noted by our ranking member, and the appropriations committee in the senate is looking at the president's request for foreign assistance to implement a new strategy for engagement in central america.

the president's request is at odds with the amount allocated by the house and there appropriations process. i guess mr. miller come in your opinion, what would the impact be on these root causes of the migration if congress did not engage in a funding level that met the president's request? >> i would have fear that we would begin to backslide and lose some of the gains we have experienced in the past year. we are trying to those of our ability to mitigate a very dangerous journey for these children. and i think a more effective and the more that we can do through the state department to meet their needs in their home country and work collaboratively with our foreign partners, we are going to mitigate or diminish the humanity in crisis on our border which from my perspective as a law enforcement officer is a good government

function. >> mr. langlois you did a great job of sort of outlining the two tracks of asylum proceedings them adversarial and nonadversarial as a result of congress is passing the measure in 2008. you talked quite a bit about some of the training required to conduct child appropriate interviews to make sure that asylum officers get that type of specialized knowledge in the asylum cases into the with children. i would if you talk little bit more in detail about the training. was that initiative back in 2009, or was that in response to last year's surge or both?

>> the training to conduct interviews with children has been a long-standing training i believe with the asylum core. i believe the first children's guidelines, for example, came out in 1995 or 1996. so we've had a history of interviewing children for asylum in the united states. and we have utilized a lesson plan to teach individuals the appropriate technics. we've had a number of outside professors consultants, ngos assistance with a lesson plan. so it has been a long tradition. the numbers started to increase

most recently, which emphasized of course the importance of the training. but we've been conducting his training i believe since about 1995 come if my recollection is correct. correct. >> in terms of the resources available to minors who go through your nonadversarial process, tell me about the translation services that are available to minors. and also it's not adversarial, but did ms. get legal assistance in negotiating that process speak with unaccompanied children just like all asylum applicants have to provide their own interpretation without government expense. we have an interpreter on the telephone that listens in to the interpreting to make sure that it is correct, and fraud is not agree. but the unaccompanied child needs to provide his own interpreter as well as an

attorney is that no government expense. i did mention that over 90% of individual unaccompanied children are represented by the time they get to us but that's coming from the courts is where they start before coming to us and 90% is the number that we are looking at. but it's no expense to the government i believe. >> senator ayotte? >> i want to thank all of you for being here today. went to the things i wanted to follow up on went secretary johnson testified -- when secretary johnson testified about the crisis we're facing from unaccompanied children from central america, one of the things he recommended at the time, in fact when he testified before the senate appropriations committee, and i recall hearing him say this, i think was before this committee as well he talked about the differences in

the law between countries that are contiguous to the training of america and countries that are not contiguous to the trance state -- to the credit of america. and he said in transit changing the law were asking for the public to treat unaccompanied kids for central american country the same way as some contiguous countries. and would help if the senate amended the law for children to treat the children safe from it noncontiguous country as a contiguous country. so as i understand it allows different if the child is of mexico, for example, that comes to the border in terms of what rights and legal explanations can be given that they can voluntarily return and that that cannot happen with a central american country. is that true? and to talk about steps we could help, is isn't that one of the steps we could take consistent with what the secretary johnson told those at the time of this

crisis? >> whoever is the best person to answer that. >> senator, that is my understanding of it as well. i know operationally border patrol, if encountered in a mexican national a canadian national they can work collaboratively to the local repatriation agreement to sure for children who wish to withdraw the application and return voluntarily, they work collaboratively with those respective conference to ensure the safe return of those children. to the secretary's point that if we have that flexibility with other countries, for those children who at the time encounter by cbp whether it's border patrol or at the ports of entry come if you wish to withdraw the application and return to the country. with outstanding repatriation agreement with those countries. we have many opportunities to think that repatriation and a safe and humane manner. given the opportunity, will be able to exercise a broader spectrum of dilley for those children who were not seeking

any kind of protection. >> and i understand that this law was put in place i believe when president bush was in office in which we were changing, treating the contiguous countries differently than a noncontiguous, but it seems to me that it's outlived its purpose and that you should be given the same tools as the secretary previously asked us. so is this a tool that you would still like to have mr. miller? >> yes, ma'am. we support the secretary's effort to have broad-spectrum ability to the best thing in the interest of the children that we encounter. >> very good, thanks. i also wanted to point out when senator peters had asked you, as all of you about the relationship between, for example, the president's executive orders and daca and

influx of unaccompanied children. at the time come and i recall this as well when we were dealing with the real influx secretary johnson made actually a point of being very clear with a central american country because clearly it was an impression regardless of how they got the impression, but it was clearly an impression at the time that some of you could receive a pass if you made to the united states. and i know that he clearly said he wanted them to understand that the children would not benefit from the president's daca order. and so this clearly was some contribute back in the sense that there was an impression or a misimpression in central america or children were being given a misimpression by perhaps the coyotes are the folks who are trying to make money off of them and bringing them here. and so would you agree with me that was a piece of -- certainly

the secretary address at the time and had concerns about? >> yes. our colleagues from cbp and their post-interdiction interviews, we are well aware that was a marketing strategy of the smuggling or decisions that i think the secretary worked extensively both, you know to educate and inform that that was not the case that they were not passes, and persons were interdicted after january 12014 throughout their immigration court proceedings confront the lifecycle as we call it of the immigration process, they would retain of interdiction and thus remains a priority. do you think that is being clearly communicated now so that is not being conveyed or do you think that's still a concern that is being misrepresented in those countries. to those of my knowledge from our colleagues in the state department that message has been received and it seemed to have contributed to the

reduction and influx for sure. >> thank you all. >> thank you, sir i got. mr. miller, i'm a lot confused. because earlier, you just said children are not, that is to come by lot for this member in the people, children coming in now they did not have the benefit of the first action of childhood our rifles. but you said, so they are a priority but in answer to my questions you said that there is a really the criminals. so which is it? are these removal of children coming in here now is not a priority or not? >> it is a priority, but what most law enforcing agencies, they prioritize criminal actions or the apprehension of removal of criminals higher than the apprehension -- >> secretary johnson front of a budget hearing appropriations committee hearing, april 29 2015 quote said judges should the population of central

america that you were sending people back. that were sector instituted. okay, we've got this show central american you are sending people back. mr. miller, does it send this adecco i wish when people were sent them back when we are sending summit between 2.7, and maybe as many as 10% back? let's take a look at the number. from 2009, unaccompanied children, 109,000 of them into the country, according to some of my figures that's pretty close, we've returned a little over 6000. which is about 5.7% rate. i agree with senator peters and deferred action for childhood arrivals does not legally apply to these children but in reality, isn't that what really children in central america are relying on? the reality of the situation is if you get into america you've got a very low percentage chance very low probability of

being returned? isn't about the reality? let me ask you this way. do you believe we are as secretary johnson said to are we showing the population of central america that we are sending people back? in any meaningful way speak with i think across a broad sector yes, we are. we have worked effectively with the adult population. we continue to make strides with the family units and we will work collaboratively with our partners here at the table, that simply put, the juvenile process takes longer to mature i don't have the data with me that shows the persons that have been removed when their interdicted and would be entered into the court process. we see across the spectrum that by the time the case is matured many other people who have gone through this process and been adjudicated fully by the immigration court, they may have reached the age of majority for the case matures.

that's not something that anyone member is at fault for. that is something that is the nature of the process. these children upon interdiction have due process rights and we have to wait for those rights to mature. i can take that going forward we will continue to utilize our efforts appropriately. i think i stand by my previous statement. it makes good sense as imagined by limited resources and i am faced with the task of going after criminals or going after noncriminal children to i think it's the appropriate choice to go after the criminals first. >> i think we need to disincentivize children for making the dangers passive. test hhs take the status of immigration status, legal status of sponsors of unaccompanied children that they turn unaccompanied children over to? >> we do make inquiry of a potential sponsor as to their immigration status.

>> 100% of the time? >> we make inquiry in all cases. in addition to that of those cases they are subject to fingerprinting. we will get immigration information in the context of the into print speeds so if you find someone in this country illegally, do you still turn the this unaccompanied children over to an illegal immigrant parent? >> in the process of placing a child with a sponsor, we make inquiry about immigration speed a simple yes or no answer. du turn unaccompanied children over to illegal immigrant parent? >> we will place a child with an undocumented parent. >> that you notice undocumented? >> that's correct. >> do you notify i scored dhs about about? >> will provide information about the location and address of the spot at the time that we release the child. >> genotyping agencies that that individual is in this country illegally? >> we will speed a very simple

question. do you notify, do you inform dhs or eyes that you you just place a child with someone in this country illegally? >> we will respond to any inquiry we received -- >> no, no. just answer the question. do you tell dhs or eyes that you just place a child with some of that unit is in this country illegally? yes or no you tell them speak with we don't often do we do so. we will provide speech that is a no. can you say no? that's no. they don't inform i scored the a just? >> we will provide the information upon the request. >> do they ever ask you for? for a? >> in some circumstances i understand they do. >> probably pretty river i'm not judging whether this is right or wrong but in your testimony you do state that children have the privilege of representation, but at no expense to the government. then you are talking about come we are doing request for quotation on legal services.

can you square the only? if current law is that there can be no expense to government and get we occasionally grants for people to provide legal representation, just how do i guess get around the law which is basically happening, correct? >> we are complying with the law, senator. and we have a specific responsibility under the law to help children end up gaining legal representation. >> on the one hand there's a lot of says there can be no government expense you like to provide legal representation but if there's another part of law that gives you the authority to have legal representation at government expense. is that basically what's happening? >> the law makes the we should be maximizing the use of pro bono resources come and we do seek to maximize the use of pro bono resource -- >> but you are also granting money for certainly asking for requests and paying for legal representation, are you not? >> that's correct.

>> again it's your testimony that says legal representation is supposed to be granted but at no expense to government and yet you are paying for it. >> we are -- >> just a conflict in the long? >> we do not believe it's a conflict in the law. we're following the requirement speak out the weather is a real conflict in the law that we ought to close spent senator, the law is good that it says that we should be using pro bono to the maximum extent possible. that makes clear that if we're doing that and we should be doing additional things beyond the spent it looks like the law is clear in different minister and no expense the government and it is clear and we should be spending money. again i think that's a conflict we need to address. mr. osuna, real quick. what is the average time to adjudicate one of these claims? to you have that at all? are we talking months? are we talking years? >> you're talking for

unaccompanied children. our commitment is to the initial hearing in 21 days. we are hearing -- we are adhering to that spent that's just the initial. undocking adjudications -- >> i don't have that. because these kids to take of my colleagues mentioned you take a long time. some cases have resulted in removal borders because the child probably did not have a claim to -- >> a low percentage of those. >> so they can take us in that amount of time. i will say that legal representation does help because for obvious reasons -- >> making sure the person shows up. >> so that does help in speeding up for court hearings at least at the beginning of the process. but yes, they can take a lot of time. i don't have a number to give you entrance of the latest surge of children but it is certainly a matter of months and not weeks

spent isn't it more of a matter of years? >> it depends. it depends if the child doesn't apply, then they can. >> begging the indulgence of my ranking member. mr. langlois is talk about a very low percentage of these uac's obtain any kind of asylum but yet we have a very low percentage of people with orders to remove the so again i do see how we can, this has got to be a very, very lengthy process. i don't see any come when you go back to 2009 and just see what very low percentage of people that have been returned and the very low percentage and total up to 109,000. this is got to be a very lengthy process. >> they can be and is not just asylum but also kids can also apply for special immigrant juvenile status which is also which is even more complicated because it involves a state court systems. that is the law that we have the

that is the law we work through. again i think we certainly work to these cases as quickly as again consistent with due process. i know my colleagues do as well spend i'd appreciate that. i pray she tried to comply with the law. that's what this committee is trying to later, the conflict within the law can be sent as we create for people coming to the country legally. we need to address those. senator carper. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i want to go back to root cause begin with a different focus your among the things that chairman and i agree on our the idea that if folks who are citizens of honduras, el salvador and guatemala want to come to this country to work for a limited predict either want to go home, change our immigration laws so that that can happen. there are other come and that's

when element of comprehensive immigration reform legislation that passed the senate several years ago. give us some advice, if we are to piecemeal immigration reform of attempt to do comprehensive immigration reform, what advice would each of you have to give us of an element or to to include into legislative effort to address the issues that we are addressing here today? mr. osuna? >> to comment, send it to. the administration does support the comprehensive immigration reform bill that the senate passed a couple years ago. that rough framework i think is something that the administration and all the agencies here are behind. specifically for my agency, that bill and other proposals have included significant resources and other additional tools for the immigration court system and we would of course ask that any

comprehensive immigration reform the bill taken into consideration that the needs of the court system and the resource constraints. >> mr. greenberg, same question. >> given a role in the process i think i need to defer to my college agencies on this one. >> there enough. mr. miller. >> i would say that in looking to fix the broken immigration system we would favor things the opportunity to balance the age of the conviction versus the statutory requirement that we have today that, regardless of the age of the conviction, many times our offices are compelled to take action. and as a result frequently we exercise a great deal of resources on the initial encounter with the individual, only for that to be mitigated thereafter i think if we look at the temporal element for enforcement prioritization and how individual are charged under the immigration act, that would

allow us to even better them efficiently deploy our resources spent this is a really simple example of what you said. spent very as simple example would be our products convention from the 1980s. at times frequent they could when the person is seeking comfort example to have their green card renewed will be a referral to i.c.e. for enforcement action because the person has this narcotics conviction from the 1980s. as the statutory framework is today, we are asked to take the appropriate enforcement action which leads to arrest and charge the person as an aggravated felon, not withstand any kind of what the person has done since that initial conviction. >> okay, got it, thanks. mr. langlois? >> individuals as we discussed themon individuals who are attending to enter the united states unauthorized come for a variety of reasons.

one reason however, is that they are fleeing persecution that they have a well-founded fear of prosecution or the been persecuted in the past and their claims should be heard. we should design the law to effectively and efficiently through those claims. senator, you mentioned a needle in a haystack. to a great degree that analogy rings true, where you're trying to get to that new efficiently and effectively in order to grant asylum to individual who deserve protection but effectively and efficiently deny those individuals that are not eligible, and return those individuals. so to the extent that the law can grapple with that balance that's what i would encourage. >> thanks. thank you all. so what i think in your testimony today i got mentioned

that roughly 4000 unaccompanied minors have been granted asylum. was not correct? >> that is correct. that was in my testimony. since 2009. >> would you give us some idea since 2009 roughly, how many unaccompanied children have asylum? just roughly. >> yes. since 2009 approximately -- i don't have it figured exact speed just really rough. >> actually i can take it from right here. from 2009 come we are dealing with roughly 13,000 individuals have applied for asylum since 2009. via the court. so there in front of an immigration judge. they requested to file for asylum at every given a continuous and then they have filed. so 13 as of the end of the

second quarter spent is it safe to assume that more than 13,000 that haven't filed haven't been before a court? >> the process can take time and -- >> earlier i noticed i said the process seems mindnumbing. when i read your testimony, come down on the candidate i thought maybe i didn't have enough coffee. i don't drink coffee on the train but he said no, it isn't the coffee. i listen to you speak your today. it is hard to wrap my head when i think i speak for the chairman as well. it is confusing. and a long and tortured road, but i don't know if there's something, something that we can do to help make it clear, more straightforward or not. i which are the interested in exploring that. i do don't mean to be critical of your test.

about you presented it very well. boy, it is run and long, tortured road. i want to go back to the idea attorneys for unaccompanied minors at no expense to govern, steps we can avoid the i'm proud to steps we take in delaware our chief justice supreme court and the staff have really reached out to law firms all over our state and asked them to help out. they have answered the call. it enables us to provide a lot of legal counsel for young people and frankly, at not much cost to the government. we need to do more of that. why is it in our financial interest to ensure these kids have legal counsel? is there some associations with more than a people have legal counsel, kids have legal counsel, to actually show up for a hearing? does it expedite the process or

does it slow down? anybody. >> there's no question based on expensive or immigration or so with these cases over many years that having counsel at the start of the process especially for child takes the process more efficient. immigration judges grant. continuances. the legal issues are clear. immigration judges don't spend a lot of time trying to tease out with a case is all about. in terms of efficiency there's little doubt that counsel at the beginning of process makes our court process much more efficient. >> mr. chairman, one more quick question if i may. >> absolutely. >> mr. langlois, i understand we begun to allow a limited group of children from guatemala, honduras and el salvador to a point in their home countries to come to the u.s. as refugees to understand this is limited to those of parents in this country who are citizens or legal permanent residents who meet certain requirements. could you describe this new

effort and why it has become? >> certainly. it even has has an acronym for the central american -- >> i'm sure it does here. [laughter] >> the central american miners refugee and roll program from for short that came program, was designed to give an alternative to individuals in these three countries a safe and legal alternative to taking a dangerous road to the united states with smugglers. the program allows individual who are lawfully present in the united states to file for their children that remain in unmerited children remain in these three countries. a file at dna testing is done -- they file. at dna testing is done to make sure the relationship is valid.

then we have state department, the marriage of the program. the a range of the child to preliminarily interview in the country when the case is right to be present as the refugee or for parole, i uscis refugee officer will conduct the extensive interview. we will do background checks on the interview, fingerprint. we also do checks on individual who is petitioning. that is in the united states to make sure that there in the status ethically but also if there's any criminal record of that individual, and then we arranged to the refugee program if you didn't refugee for them to come to the united states. >> thanks for that explanation but that sounds like common sense and i think it sounds like pretty idea. tranten thanks. this is the nicotine. to eyewitnesses, thank you for your testimony get spent on plenty of senator carper's fine

example by allowing each of you to the opportunity to make one final comment. but if i did i want to requote secretary johnson for this appropriation hearing on april 29, 2005. have to show the population of central america you're sending people back. to go to our ranking member of position to find out what works and do more of that. we have an example of what worked. in 2000 that were experienced a real surge with brazilian immigrants. three times higher than the previous year 31,000. as result of that in 2005 dhs secretary chertoff deployed operation texas hold 'em where they prioritize existing space dedicate its face and began detaining and removing all of the illegal brazilians were apprehended using expedited removal. by the following year the number of people coming in illegally from brazil dropped from 31,063, to 1460. so did i think what this

hearing, i just want to thank you all for your testimony. this has been very enlightening. very complex problem multiple root causes. i certainly have my thinking in terms of what the private root causes but what we've done for me testimony we found from answers to question is so much so here's a broken immigration system. it is. that's a very valid acknowledgment or it's a broken system. it's convoluted. it's within these three departments in five different agencies trying to grapple. it's not fully coordinate. often there are conflicting laws. i really do want, i'm pleased to hear that our ranking never used the word piecemeal reform. i realize this administration doesn't want to talk about that but listen to we don't do comprehensive very well. because it is complicated. these things are not easy to deal with. when i asked secretary jeh johnson when he was before this committee was to work with this

committee, let's identify these problems these conflicts. white house said the rally situation is we're not going to do comprehensive immigration reform. not in the next 18 months. even by secretary johnson's mission come we are not going to situational awareness on the border. so let's take a look at the problems, take a look at the conflicts let's look at the convoluted process, let's try and fully coordinate this. let's start making incremental groups, i come from a manufacturing background, root cause analysis. let's look at the root cause of individual problems and working with you with your help with youryour expertise. again, i truly appreciate your service and i understand you are dealing with the loss we've got. that's will be have to deal with. i think the only thing that is realistic and we can publish at least in the next 18 months, let's not use piecemeal because that may have the wrong connotation. how about a step-by-step continuous improvement process? i think we have that attitude.

if the ranking member is willing to work with me, let's prioritize those individual problems and we can address and start fixing this on a step-by-step basis. with that, let's start with i'm sorry, i do have my notes and i can't read mr. osuna. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator carper, i would just say that the boarder surges lash it was unprecedented i've been doing this a job for a long time and i've never seen the level of interagency coordination and discussion at this engendered fully from the start, from when we first started identifying this issue in late april may. i think that it's been a challenge for all the agencies butbut we don't do this weekend i think it has had an effect and we look forward to continue our discussion with you and with our fellow partners at the other agencies spent i think i speak for the ranking member. we talked to customs and border protection i think they did and extraordinaire job grappling

with the very, very difficult problem. i think they kind of circumvented symbols and god bless them for doing that. we are a very compassionate society. this was a human chain crisis and the people in those agencies rose to the chance. i think we want to give him kudos for doing that. mr. greenberg spent i'm tom carper and i approve that message. [laughter] >> accurate bipartisanship. >> thank you senators. first i just want to underscore the remarks about how closely the agencies are, in fact, collaborating and cooperating in these efforts. actually first met juan nation where both indexes and physical facilities as philip miller indicated that he and his colleagues and i went to get again to texas this year to look at those facilities and there is and our staffs talk everyday. so we are seeking, we have distinct responsibilities in the process that we're very much we

appreciate the importance of coordination and we're working hard to accomplish that. senator johnson, i wanted to follow-up on the issue around legal representation. my understanding is that the statutory language that you are referring to is language which is seeking to declare that does not a right to paid council at the expense of the government. we are good this is not about a right to -- i complete that there is an inconsistency in language but we would be happy to follow-up with you and your staff and look at this more closely. and then finally i just want to indicate that having been before the committee a year ago there's been tremendous pro course of this last year. we look for to continue to build on it. we look forward to working with you and doing some. >> mr. miller. >> thank you senator. i go with my colleagues, never before has there been greater

coordination equalities agencies and different departments have different statutory requirements, different fiscal restraints placed upon them we had an amazing level of cooperation making joint decisions, sharing information in a way that i think is truly without precedent. as a result of that we continue to work collaboratively collaboratively batches of a should lead to an unaccompanied children but we continue to work collaboratively with immigration judges on how to better streamline these processes can look at what can we do more efficiently to reduce the non-detained daca. one of our initiatives is part of secretary johnson's memoranda which is to give opportunities to people who did not want to continue, the non-detained court settings that they don't be one of the department's current priorities. making operatives at a level where people can give us constructive feedback and then we can share that information across someone government come all the agencies and departments dealing with these issues. while there's a lot of work to

be done, clearly, i think we're all in agreement with that. what was learned last summer is that we don't have to just sit there with her own agency and grapple with these struggles the rabble with these struggles by sharing information we can work within a framework where given today and hope to work with the committee for a better framework tomorrow. >> we want to work with you. and mr. langlois. >> certainly the border search laughter presented a wide range of challenges for the asylum court in its attempt to adjudicate cases. we experienced an increase in our case loads of credible fear, reasonable fear and, of course, i'm unaccompanied children's claims in the affirmative context. individuals that have suffered persecution they serve a just but very efficient adjudication of their claim. they deserve protection and we

must effectively give them that and efficiently get than that. we have cooperated at unprecedented levels with cbp as well as i.c.e. as well as others to assist us in that endeavor. i think that as usual all procedures or systems can be improved and we work very hard in order to do that. i think we've got an incredibly committed asylum core that is applying itself diligently to this task and cooperative fully with our partners in this task. >> thank you, mr. langlois. again i want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony for your thoughtful answers to our questions. i will have more questions for the record. in particular we just got to get our arms around information, the data. you have had the kind of data to really highlight where the problem areas in which need your

address. so want to work of older agencies to give that information. but history record will remain open for 15 days until july 22 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and those additional questions for the record. this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> white house spokesman we've reported this afternoon about issues facing the obama administration. they are expected to include the iran nuclear talks from airstrikes against places and the south carolina vote on the confederate flag. live coverage expected to start about 12:30 p.m. eastern. congress is back today from its fourth of july break. this week the house plans to continue and he finished up work on a bill to fund the injured department epa and the number of other agencies that are related. off one house agenda to making changes to the no child left behind federal education program. house gals in at qb and they can. you can watch it live on c-span. ascended this week takes up a

separate proposal day with no child left behind that would give states more authority and would also be built did it on a federal appeals court judge. live senate coverage on c-span2. >> this summer book you will cover both festivals from around the country and top nonfiction authors and books. >> philanthropist mike bezos the father of amazon.com founder jeff bezos, talked about his expenses integrating from cuba as a bona fide american freedom. this conversation about immigration with walter isaacson

takes place at the national constitution center in philadelphia. it's about 30 minutes. >> well, the immigrant sometimes is the one who best understands that concept of freedom and what america is all about. tell us about your experience as an immigrant. how did you get your? what did you feel? >> all right, good thank you. first of all for allowing me to be your the conversations have been so unbelievable. i'm over the top already, doing something that is so, we take for granted, these discussions these conversations. it's unbelievable. so go back to 1958 back in cuba, and i was at that time maybe 13 14 years old.

i was fine. i was a teenager doing my thing going to school, minding my own business. there was no thought of ever leaving cuba. my dad is he owned a lumber mill which he worked hard at. that's where i learned my work ethics from get up at 5:00 in the morning and worked until 5:00 in the evening. so it was but it was a good comfortable life. then all of a sudden things changed. it was kind of topsy-turvy. all of a sudden what you thought was yours is no longer yours. it's been deemed to be taken over and shared with others, and that happens in all industries all private property

disappeared. then as i was even the schools the schools that i was going to they got shut down because they were changing the curriculum from the curriculum that we had to one that was more communist oriented. so over a two-year period i really didn't have much to do except perhaps potentially get in trouble. that's when my parents decided that i needed to get out of cuba. >> what age? >> that process started when a recipient. it took about a year to get everything going. my brother and my sister were much older than i. i was a surprise. of the family. and my brother was a civil engineer and they wouldn't let him out because he was a

professional. misys was a teacher. they wouldn't let her out because she was a professional. and then my mom and dad said you've got to be the one that gets out to get a draft you you're going to the army for whatever and then we're all stuck up if you go out then we might find ways. and in those days this is in 1961, when the process started. they were letting kids go out by themselves without any major concern. the process started, and just to show you how we were talking earlier about how picky people can get. when my parents put an application for my passport and i was ready to leave, it was obvious that i was going to leave.

a group of, i don't know who they were to be honest with you, but they were some sort of authority. they were in uniform. they came into town and they inventoried my room because everything that was in my room at that time had to be there when i left. we couldn't dispose of, even though it wasn't mine. it was my parents. a 16 year old didn't own much of anything. so that's kind of a power-hungry that people get. and finally we get a telegram this has you've got an exit for the day after tomorrow. we lived in san diego cuba, which is on the -- santiago, cuba. we had to go to havana. we had high tail it. and my parents dropping off at the airport. they wouldn't allow them to go inside the airport so they just dropped me off.

i walked in, went through check-in, and i left landed in miami. by myself but fortunately there was a group of churches and organizations that have gotten together and they were the ones that were collecting all these cuban kids. at 16 i was on the older side of the kids that would come out. they were some that were five, six, seven. and they would try to find a place for them to stay and tv placed until the parents or their relatives would come out. i still remember walking out of the airport out of the airplane and somebody's asking me do you have any family in miami? i said no. come over here. there were about five or six of

us and then there were some boys and girls, and the girls went in one day and did some can't and the boys went to another tent to another camp. >> you ended up being very successful. explain how that happened. >> fortunately, things just happen. we went within three weeks of being in this camp, i get a call to come to the office. i walked into the office and it was a suitcase with a heavy coat on top of it and i said i'm in trouble. and an airplane ticket to philadelphia. and i was going to wilmington delaware, and they were giving scholarships to cuban refugees, high school in wilmington, to go to high school. so i landed in philadelphia.

ever somebody here waiting for me, to be doing and. i went to high school in wilmington delaware. i graduated from there and it's just one thing after the other. we as parents sometimes don't think that kids listen to what we are telling them. but they are. and i realized that when i was by myself and i didn't have my parents telling anything to do. i kept going back and saying, what would they tell me to do? so if you're a young parent, just keep doing what you're doing. some of it will stick, i can guarantee you. ..

i didn't have my mom and dad to tell me you got to go to college. it was up to me. coming to america with a high school degree, what else do you need? that was a year-and-a-half, tough jobs, what if we need to go to university but the decision after having done that, and you are in the middle and at that point i didn't realize how important it was a years later, having that education is something that once you have that no one can take

it away from you they can take a car or business but that education is yours, yours to do with what you want and utilize it. it became something my wife and i and kids are passionate about. >> we have been talking about rights, liberties, freedom, the economic rights and liberties we have here or the political rights and freedoms. as somebody who left a place where somebody those were withdrawn from you, when did you first become aware of the american system of rights and liberties and how did that affect you? >> became aware very early on. the moment we started placing our kids in public schools, it

became -- my gosh, public schools are an institution, it is duplicated in many places, and we take it for granted. having most other places you have to be of a certain economic class or have a certain job in order to get an education, the amazing thing about, one of the amazing things this country offers education for equality for everybody. unfortunately there have been some bumps along the road but it is there. we need to -- >> do you think we're moving

away from that notion of the case-12 education being the great equalizer? >> we have been moving away from it and the reason for it, the original reason for it, one of the driving forces for us in our family foundation is to try to get back to that leveling the playing field. you guys talk about it early on, as long as the opportunity is there and this is what i found. i had the opportunity given to me in this country and for weather on purpose or by pure luck, it worked for me. i want to make that available to as many people as i can, make that available. removed as many obstacles as possible from having the same

opportunities we all have. >> how you using your philanthropy and the the things to do that? >> the foundation, i will give you a quick background, just back up a little bit, my oldest son jeff, we lived in colombia, venezuela, i was there with work and we get a phone call from him saying i am thinking of opening a bookstore on the internet and i need some money and he had a sweet sweet job on wall street. it was a wonderful job. i said why? what is the internet? that was the second question. his mother said and you do this on the weekends?

at nights? don't quit your job. we were fortunate enough to live overseas, we have saved a few pennies and we were able to be an ad investor and the rest is history. when that became, when we were blessed with that fallout which was one of the things jeff did tell us, i want you to know how risky this is and having been in business, start ups fail 80% of the time but he said i want you to know how risky it is because i want to come home for thanksgiving and i don't want you to be mad at me. it turned out quite well. he's invited for thanksgiving any time he wants. going back to your question the

one thing that became obvious, we formed the foundation our three kids, three children, three spouses, my wife, jackie, and i are the directors of the foundation and when we form the foundation there was no question as to the fact that education was going to be the primary focus and we zero in on aging zero to 18 that is power sweet spot with great emphasis on zero to 5, we really feel if we can get it right, 0-5 a lot of but issues we have been talking about, incarceration for one thing, will not go away but it will be reduced. we go through high school. that is how well we are trying to do we have many different

programs throughout the face of the ages of zero to 18. we also get involved in teaching colleges because that is high-quality teaching. that is our involvement in the education field and again it is public schools charters are included, public-school its that is how we are thinking of making it as available to everybody as we possibly can. >> host: back to the immigrant experience. how do you feel about the way the united states is debating and handling immigration these days? >> guest: probably not any different from the way it has been handled many times before.

in the 60s, cubans coming in trying to get away from castro, same thing was going on in south florida. what are we going to do with all these people coming in. a lot of us didn't want to be there to start with but that is how we end ed up so the conversations about immigration has been around people get to this country. what i am concerned is how to do that once they are here. they are year, last thing we want to do is keep them down because what we need to do is for them to become as american as i am and everybody else is, that is what i believe we need

to do and all that. >> host: tell me your thoughts on the opening to cuba. you have family there you keep in touch. you haven't gone back since 1960. >> guest: i haven't been back. it is funny since last december when the latest announcement about approaching cuba was made the first questions were from my own kids, what do you think? give it time. it is too early. and we can discuss it. it is way too worthy. we haven't seen anything on the

other side. it has been 1-sided. from the united states's side, the willingness to open up, you can open an embassy, nothing wrong with that. that is well-founded. we need to see what the reaction is from those in power in cuba and what is going to happen, what is going to be done is going to be done for the right reasons, whether it is going to be done, and it shouldn't be done for getting american forces to cuba to smokes cigars and drink rum and dance to cuban music that should not be the reason. the reason should be to create a better way for those folks that are still left behind and joy once we get to that point i am all for it.

no reason w i wanted to mention i was thinking about this the other day, when i was in high school in wilmington, delaware, it was daring, right after i left in july of 62, october of '62 was the missile crisis. that is when i couldn't go back to cuba. we didn't see each other for a number of years. during the missile crisis everybody in my civics class at high school this is when we had civics class. everybody in the class had a subscription to u.s. news and world report. if there was anything about cuba in the magazine it was given to me to read it and stand up and give a report. the same thing is happening now.

i need to get back up -- i don't mind at all, but -- >> host: back to education. if you could enlist the seven or eight or five or six things we could do to improve zero to 18 education what would they be? >> oh my goodness. one of the things, 0-5 what we are trying to do is to reach the parents. we have done a lot of -- funded a lot of brain research about babies, non intrusive,

high-quality brain research, registers depending on how the babies are reacting what part of the brains are engaged. as an example, may be aged for 9 months old in this huge thing that looks like a hair dryer from mars and the babysitter, the parent is in front of the baby, interacting so the baby is not threatened in any way. the baby looking at a screen where there is postdoc doing some op-eds or talking or whenever on a tv screen, on a monitor and the baby is fascinated looking at the monitor and. to the monitor and they are registering what is happening in the visual and auditory and how those connections are being made and a couple days later they bring the baby back but this

time they bring the postdoc out from behind the monitor and sits in front of the baby just like pretty much you and i are and they go through the st. interactions but the results are unbelievable. what goes on, the brain activity is manifold in terms of the synapses connected, it is unbelievable. we are using that brain research to demonstrate that if we can -- not to demonstrate but to convey to parents that are too busy to have this information joy at their brain builders from the minute that the baby is born. a lot of things we as parents have taken for granted, the way we raise our kids, there are a lot of parents, the parents we

are trying to reach the don't have that information. they haven't themselves have nothing brought up that way, so they feel there is nothing i can do. the babies will learn when they come to school at 5 years old. by then it is way too late. actually they are finding out was 18 months old in terms of the number of words but it is not the number of words, but the quality of words that were spoken and the interactions with the looking babies, we come up with a way we are saying a parent with two jobs, we say you don't need any more time. the time you have is all the time you need but you have today is that the baby when he changed the diaper or feed the baby.

these are the interactions you need to have with the baby. that is why we're trying to do at that age. obviously different stages of the curriculum we have different programs and as you know in high school our emphasis is leadership programs we do with the aspen institute because those high school lawyers we just don't challenge them enough for ask jeff mentioned he was fascinated by how well they reacted when you ask him to do something but we don't ask him. we just say you don't want to do it, don't do it. i think that is part -- i am not answering your questions, giving you one or two or two four items but high school lawyers, we need

to challenge them, make sure that they get involved and put their education to work, they can see what they are learning is going to yield something, they can see a result right away and that is what the aspen challenge is designed to do, and for those -- i am jumping around quite a bit, but water quality or different projects, selected as a team and again they have to noon to compromise and work as a team and select which challenge, decide which way to which is the best way to do so we are trying to teach them a little bit of

what real life is like. at the end of the project is amazing, the transformation, the quality of the projects they come of with in terms of helping, portraying the concept or idea to the local community, neighborhoods or school about that particular subject, they do a great job at the end of the process, they have seven weeks to do this and this is in addition to their regular schoolwork, at these are regular kids, not selected, they are very random, randomly selected. >> host: i will try to tie together a few things i heard you say, and see how to you it ties into what america is about.

in your last chance to you talked about making not just good projects but civic leaders, kids to chat about something larger than themselves and working together for the civic and, in good. likewise when we talked about education you talked about the opportunity for everybody to get more involved instead of starting off with an unequal playing fields and in some ways throughout it all you talked about this notion of what a civic society is we don't teach civics anymore but in some ways that is what this whole day has been about. what is civics to us? what is our city common ground? how do you think of that having come to america and got involved and making sure the next generation and have the opportunities you had? >> to me civics is stability.

being able to understand that even though we have a differences, we have different desires and we need to be aware our private feelings don't get in the way of other feelings. is a dance we have to have with the we like it or not. we are in this together and how to get that done is something that is not easy. it takes a little training we have to train ourselves. we complain about the lack of movement in washington d.c. in

terms of getting things accomplished. a lot of it starts at the kitchen table. wikipedia have a conversation at the kitchen table for its says it is very 1-sided, that child is going to come from that and also the one cited in one way or the others so at the kitchen table wanting to be aware that there years listening to what is going on and be aware, if it goes all the way from that point as they grow up by example, we lead that effort and not sure i answered your questions but it is getting along going to compromise but there is a lot of that that needs to be done.

we try to get into the kids's minds is the earliest possible. >> host: mike bezos, thank you very much, appreciate it. [applause] >> congress returns today from its fourth of july break and members are working their way to washington d.c.. oklahoma republican mark mullen is tweeting in from the airport traveling breakfast next stop dc and texas democrat dale or traveling with his family and tweeted this picture the quickest way to clear out a section of the airport travel with three kids, excited to have the whole family in d.c. this week. warehouse plans to continue and finish up this work in a bill to fund the interior department epa and other related agencies. also won the house agenda making changes to the no child left

behind federal education program. the house will gavel in at 2 eastern on c-span, c-span2 the u.s. senate will deal with no child left behind that will give states more authority. senators have a vote on a federal appeals court judgeship. he conceded senate live on c-span2. whitehouse spokesman josh ernest's will brief reporters this afternoon about issues facing the obama administration expected to include nuclear talks with iran that have been extended. yesterday against isis and south carolina vote on the confederate flag. live coverage of today's everything begins and a couple moments, starting at 12:30 eastern but while we wait a look at this morning's washington joy land a discussion of the white house plan for overtime pay. >> we are joined on it is a round table to talk about president obama's recently announced plan to change over time eligibility requirements in this country. we are joined in this discussion by beth melito and christine

owens of the national employment law project and to begin discussion, christina, nine years with the president has proposed and what he wants to joy and the reasoning behind it. >> thanks for the opportunity to have this discussion. the president about a year ago directed the labor department to take a look at the current rules that exempt certain workers from the overtime pay retirement, from the requirement for time and half hours worked over 40 hours a week and specifically what he asked the labor department to do was look at what we call white-collar exemption, those that the exemptions for certain executive administrative and professional employees who make above a certain amount of money each year who are paid on a salary basis, not an hourly basis and to meet certain duties. last time these rules were revised was in 2004. they have been revised seven with eight times since they were

passed in 1938. in 2004 the bush administration set the for out -- salary threshold at $23,400 a year. and prescribe certain duties tests for each of these exemptions and that is where it sat since 2004. what the president asked the labor department to do was take a look at the salary tests, the duties test and anything else that might be relevant to updating these exemptions to determine whether or not white collar employees should be exempt from overtime pay requirements or infected at work more than 40 hours a week they should get overtime pay and that is exactly what the labor department's proposal does it looks at takes a simpler approach, attaching a bright line test the says in 2016 if an employee makes less than $50,000

a year, that employee regardless of his or her duties and what did they pay on a salary basis would be eligible for overtime pay. above that $50,000 a year, the employer would have to apply these duties tested the chairman whether or not they would be eligible for overtime pay or exempt from overtime pay. >> this proposals says -- may sound well-meaning but could hurt workers explain. >> thank you for inviting me to be here today. like a lot of proposals out of washington and and state capitals too there are unintended consequences. what sounds good on paper out of the mouths of politicians, government bureaucrats and academics is not always played that well in the business environment particularly for the small businesses who are going to bear a disproportionate burden. when you talk about doubling the salaries in some instances for managers and assistant managers in retail, businesses and those

sorts of things too often the bureaucrats look at businesses as a monolithic group and small businesses are going to be disproportionately hit by this. it will be problematic. >> we are asking our viewers to weigh in as well. 7 x can call 202-748-8,000, republicans 748,001. independents 8002. why is it this rule unnecessary? what was happening the obama administration sought a need to change after 11 years? >> put it in perspective. one thing, the legislation the fair labor standards act has always contemplated the labor department would update its regulation to take into account changes in the economy, wage growth, generally, cost-of-living etc. and in general that has happened. the salary threshold has not been indexed to rise to

inflation so when a salary threshold is set as it was in 1975, and nothing happened until 2004, more people filed into a the exemption meaning, just because inflation causes wages to rise to away at people at incomes in sarasota is perfectly, not only reasonable and authorized but responsible for the government to take a look at the salary thresholds. let's put in context with in means if someone earns $24,000 a year. it means they earn less than the poverty level for a family of 4. ... they have a lot of assistant managers in restaurants, people working in banks, in retail, etc. who may earn $24,000-$30,000 per year but may work as much as 60 hours per week. they do not only not get

overtime pay, they do not get any pay at all for those extra hours. if someone is exempt from overtime pay, if they work overtime hours, they do not get paid at all. not even minimum wage for those hours. people considered white-collar often earn less than hourly employees, and can also earn less than minimum wage. these are folks with a lot of discretion and their jobs, high level duties, they may occasionally do some routine duties, but most are high level. they are on call for the company all the time, and yet, many of them earn poverty level wages not really a middle-class wage. host: do you agree that there

are folks being taken advantage of? if so, how would you address that is not the solution? guest: by a large the people that i represent, the small businesses, the employee 40% of the workforce in this country, by and large, they want to do right by their employees and are offering a fair wage. the assistant manager or manager in the exempt category may not be getting overtime, but they are getting other things, like increased flexibility benefits and promotion potential, which i think is very important. the thought of paying a 19-20-year-old who is an assistant manager over $50,000 is a hard thing for small business owners to absorb. they cannot do it. host: the obama administration estimates this will cost around $240 million to $250 million.

who pays that, i do think it is accurate? guest: i think the cost estimate is low. again, this is not a final rule. the department of labor has opened it up to comments for the next 50 days. we will be commenting there. it will have a disproportionate impact on small businesses in this country, especially those in rural areas. host: our guests in this roundtable beth milito and christine owens. we will begin with joe, call again from ohio, line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. my problem with the whole issue is if the whole nation receives

a 50% increase in wages, what is that going to do to union workers or someone who has already established a decent wage? they will not get a 50% increase , so that is like taking a huge wage cut. guest: thank you for your call. i do not think there is much cause for concern there. i will say that unions in general are very supportive of this proposal, as they have been historically of overtime pay proposals. generally what happens is union contracts contemplate what the overtime pay rate are and make some adaptation for union members. i do not think there will be a negative impact on union members. guest: i would disagree. i do not think there is a money tree in the backyard of businesses where they can go out and take off more money. i think joe has a valid concern that employers will not be able

to all of a sudden increase salaries 50%. they will look for ways to cut and ensure that there is not over time to take. host: let's head up to vermont line for democrats, timothy is waiting per. caller: good morning. my question, quite simply, is how is this going to affect the seasonal employees? guest: for some categories of workers and this is pointed out in the rules from the prime of labor, there are already exemptions in place. they would not be entitled to any additional overtime because they are exempt -- categorically exempt from overtime. seasonal workers, amusement park workers, teachers.

guest: i would also add, i agree with beth completely, but if a seasonablye employee is not exempt, and if the employee is a white exempt employee, which is not always the case, or maybe not often the case, but assuming someone is, they would be covered under the rouly if it takes of facts. ulr affect -- under the rule if it takes effect. host: we have noted this is a proposed rule. how long does the process take? guest: the department has set 60 days for commenting on the ur rule.

after that happens, the labor department will then take into account what the comments have been, and that at some point issue a final rule. at that point, congress has an official right to weigh in, i think it is possible that congress considers certain appropriations or actions that could slow down the rule or affect its impact. yes, there are far more ways in which congress can weigh in. host: your reading of congressional reaction so far since last week when the president spoke of this proposed change? guest: certainly concern from leaders on the hill. they will take a close look at the rule and other interests. they want to hear from people out there.

host: just like we want to hear from people out there this morning on "the washington journal" in our roundtable. we will put the numbers on the screen for you. we will go toward life for democrats, john is waiting in missouri. caller: good morning. my question has to do with truck drivers. we get paid by the mile, yet we are on duty 70 hours per week. we could be sitting out there waiting for a loan, and we do not get paid for it. are they going to adjust that and look at that as being on duty? the duty hours. guest: thank you for your question. again, this role, when it takes effect, will only apply to people who fall within the white-collar exemption, which is executives administers, and professional spirit is not likely to apply to any truck drivers. there are other laws that apply

to wages in trucking. i do not know of any immediate plans to address those laws. host: we are looking for your tweets. you can follow along with the conversation, @cspanwj. mary says, i'm so happy for department heads, production assistants in the theater world who routinely get taken advantage of with salary and overtime. mike, good morning. caller: good morning thank you for c-span. i wanted to find out from your panel the history of the overtime law. it seems to me that back in the 1980's, i was working and getting overtime. under reagan in 19 six, i became an executive -- in 1986, i

became an executive. at that time, it cost me about half of my salary. i was in the service job and i became a manager, or executive and lost my overtime. somebody commented on the history of the action -- can somebody comment on the history of that action? guest: the idea behind the white-collar exception is that you are being paid for your job not the hours worked. you are being engaged in management discretionary duties. you oversee other employees. i think you mentioned becoming a manager. you were being paid for a job not the hours worked. that is part and parcel with the white-collar exception. it is based on the duties and the salary threshold. it goes hand in hand, the two

components. that is the thought behind the white-collar exemption. host: kristi noem, if you can weigh in on the fair -- christine owens, if you can weigh in on the fair labor standards act. guest: it was passed in 19 1938. it was a piece of new deal legislation by the first woman in the cabinet, frances perkins. the purpose behind it -- there were really two reasons, one was to ensure that people who worked long hours would actually get overtime pay to represent the greater commitment of time they were making to their job. other reason, which is important even today, was that it was intended to create jobs. rather than employees working employees super long hours, they would actually hire additional

employees. those are the two purposes that have always under girdled the overtime provision. i've mentioned earlier that the salary threshold has been updated seven times since 1938. it was last updated in 2004. before that, it was updated in 1975. i think what could have happened in your case, in addition to becoming a manager, which might have made you exempt, because the salary threshold had not been changed since 1975, and it is not indexed to rise each year with the cost of living or average wage growth, it becomes worth less every single year. more and more employees are captured under the exception simply because the threshold is

frozen. if you were paid the same amount of money every year, that money would be worth less each year because the cost of living goes up each year. that is what happens with the salary threshold. i do not think i mentioned another important part of the labor department proposal is that it would be indexed to rise each year. the department has invited comment on what the proper measure of indexing would be -- whether it should be an inflation measure of some sort or whether it should rise with average salary increases. that is a very important part of this proposal. and one that frankly, if we had since 1935, we would not be having this discussion today. host: a person on twitter asks is what we need a mandatory cap

on all salaries to make sure that everyone is equal? guest: we do not all have equal jobs. with this, you are going from 23,000 dollars to $50,000, more than doubling it. for small businesses, keep coming back to that, but that is an enormous job, something that they cannot absorb, particularly at role areas -- rural areas. think of the pay for a restaurant manager here at washington, d.c. compared to west virginia. that is a different. cost of living differs greatly across the country.

if you're working a job where you're expected to be there well over 40 hours you are unable to go get a second job. so it impacts rural areas just as much as it ikpacts any place else. >> guest: there is no denying certainly business out there that are not following the existing rules. i think department of labor has estimated that about 70% even of employers are out of compliance with existing rules. so that said to throw out

existing rules, rather than focus on educating business owners and working on compliance with existing rules we think would make a lot more sense rather than upending everything and potentially doubling the salary because at the end of the day, i'm hearing from a lot of callers this might mean i will see an increase in my paycheck. that is not the case. again there is finite amount of money. businesses can't go out to a money tree in the backyard and bring in money to double their payroll if you will. they will look for other ways to make sure the bottom line stays the same. they can't just pass on costs to their customers. >> host: christine owens, how do we know there will be anymore compliance under new rules if they eventually come out and proposal process goes through? is there any better way to insure compliance? >> guest: i think there will be more. i think there will be less litigation. part of that, one of the problems with the existing rule with the ridiculously low salary threshold, let's be honest if someone makes $24,000 a year,

which is poverty level for family of four, and either is working 50 or 60 hours a week or on call all the time because he or she is classified as manager that is not a middle class income by any stretch of the imagination. that is not what the fair labor standards act contemplates when it talks about managers and executives and administrators and professionals. so the current salary threshold is obscene, it really is, and that has to be changed. i think that compliance will be easier because of a bright line test. one of the difficulties with compliance right now is that in addition to having to meet the salary threshold an employ hears to determine whether the duties test apply to the individual that the employer wants to classify as exempt and while i think the bush administration made some effort to try to be clear and tighten up those duties test, the reality is they're very vague.

they don't any longer say that someone has to spend at least 80% of her time doing managerial work in order to be considered a manager. so in retail and fast-food and a lot of other low-wage service kind of industries has someone who spend as much as half or more of his or her time doing same things that all the people she supervises are doing yet, because she is classified as a manager, she doesn't get overtime, she is on call all the time. she may end up making less money than the people she supervises. >> host: nape perville illinois michael on the line for independents. good morning. >> caller: hi, i have a comment and question, please let me articulate both of them. first of all, miss molito is disingenuous in her presentation because she is alluding to this rule forcing employers to double the salary of people that they have designated as managers.

that is not true. all it is is that if you're if you don't make 50,000 or whatever the level is, you have got to pay overtime. end of story. and my question is to her, specifically. if these businesses can't afford or can't survive without forcing people to work 60 and 70 hour as week for slave wages, maybe they should go under the model -- capitalist model out of business and be done with it and maybe someone else will have a better idea who can play their employees decent wages and still make a profit. >> host: miss alito. >> guest: businesses i work with pay decent wages in my opinion. this rule will not force employers to pay overtime if they can't pay $50,000. that is just incorrect there. as i said earlier what is it

going to do businesses particularly small businesses are going to have to reexamine their business model there. they can not afford overtime. so in a lot of businesses overtime is already limited, limited there or prohibited there in many instances with small businesses. and larger businesses too. and think you're going to see more of that too. you're not going to see businesses hiring additional workers. you will see small businesses business owner will take over the duties there. they're just going to assume them. because they can't afford to hire additional workers. can't afford to pay overtime, time 1/2. they can't in all instances afford to pay $50,000. >> host: the obama administration estimating these new rules if they go into effect would impact five million workers around the country. we're talking about these rules this morning on the "washington journal." getting your thoughts. jenny up next indianapolis, indiana, line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning. my question this is discussion we happen to have all the time

when desire to raise minimum wage it is going to cost employers more to pay this additional income and so they're going to have to lay off workers? isn't this something that is just absorbed over time as more employees make money, they spend more and so then you're going to have to rehire? so isn't this sort of a red herring argument? then my second question is, why don't we just increase minimum wage or do some kind of an index so we're constantly increasing wages and we don't have to have this discussion? thank you. >> guest: absolutely, thank you very much. i would like to address that. with minimum wage increase economists by and large agree there is negative impact overall on the economy. particularly on like 18 to 25 demographic where you see record levels of unemployment. because they do not get the entry left jobs. employers are not hiring those low level, minimum wage jobs, particularly in areas of the

country where you have seen the increases, increased minimum wage go into effect. so i would disagree it is a red herring. there is a real impact on businesses in this country. >> guest: with due respect i completely disagree with beth's reading of the economic studies which i think by and large come to conclude that there is no significant job loss associated with raising minimum wages. while it is true that youth unemployment or youth employment is at a record low that is trend been in place for 10 or 15 years. there are lots of reasons for it. frankly most in he over the last seven or eight years a lot has to do with adults moving into jobs, jobs that young people had because they were the only jobs that adults could get. so i don't think that has anything to do with minimum wage. there is considerable economic analysis that really just disputes the notion that raising the minimum wage has a negative

impact on employment for anyone including young people. i want to say that, to jenny's comment, she is absolutely right. this kind of argument is raised not only with respect raising minimum wage but every single proposal ever made to improve wages and working conditions and right to safe and healthy bork places and right to be free from discrimination. these are proposals made and arguments made in opposition to ending race discrimination on the job. this is just the standard line of arguments. and i don't, i want to be really clear, i run a small business. i know what it's like to meet work place standards. i know what it's like to raise a budget, to make sure that my employees all get salary increases every single year, to make sure those not exempt are able to have some flexibility on the job without my our incurring massive overtime costs. i know that is not always easy but, we don't expect employees

to put in free labor for their employers. i don't think most small businesses expect that. so i think it is very important to make clear that these costs as jenny said, over time can get absorbed. i was actually listening to an interview the other day with a small business owner from north carolina who said, i'm going to have to do some juggling here. i don't really look forward to doing that but i recognize in the long run this is good for my employees and ultimately good for my business. >> host: for those unfamiliar with the national employment law project, how long have you been around and talk about your work there. >> guest: we've been around over 45 years now. we focus on low-wage workers the unemployed. we do a lot of work getting access to jobs for people with criminal records. and sew our work is both in the states and at the national level. we are involved in most of these minimum wage campaigns that are going on around the country, and

in an effort at federal level. i wanted to note in response to jenny, there is federal legislation that in fact it were to pass would index the minimum wage to rise each year. a number of states have passed minimum wage laws that also index the minimum wages to rise each year. that is completely rational approach. and it was, it is something that would avoid the need to have these fights every five or 10 or 15 years how do we adjust wage levels so people who work for a living can make a decent living from work. >> host: tom has been waiting in leavenworth, kansas, line for independents to talk to us. good morning. you're on the "washington journal." >> caller: good morning, thank you. i want to go back to the minimum wage. i know you've been talk about it a little bit here. but i made some notes about this. someone said that money is worth less each year, so the this increase would be indexed. and i heard words like obscene

to describe the current situation. and if i'm correct it is increase would be from approximately 24,000 to 50,000 a year where this would kick in? well i can get behind that if it was an increase to say, 30,000, and, we do something about proper increase on minimum wage, and index it as well. and for the people above 30,000 or whatever how about putting a maximum numbers of hours for employees can work so that they don't end up working those 60 and 70 hours a week people are claiming they're working? i don't know, just seems like the, the poor, the lowest wage earners in our country are always getting the shaft in order to make it better for the middle class. everybody, everybody wants to

get to middle class on board but they keep forgetting about the poor. and that is my comment, thank you. >> host: beth, i will start with you. are there in between steps, less drastic steps than the doubling you were talking about that nfib could get behind? >> guest: i think there are certainly a lot of things that could be done to take a look at this 1938 law that is really antiquated. it was passed. the fair labor standards act if you think about it, most workers reported to a factory and punched in and punched out at end of the day. very different work place than we have nowadays. if you're a non-exempt employee -- >> afternoon everybody. nice to see you all. i do not actually have any statements to make at the top. josh you want to get started in? >> josh, foreign policy questions for you. >> okay. >> with the iran talks being extended yet again, what is the u.s. hope that it can accomplish

in additional few days that you were not able to accomplish over the past year or more and many other extensions of these talks? >> well, josh, i think the first thing that we have been clear about is that the president will not accept any sort of an agreement that falls short of the political commitments that were made back in april. and, as secretary kerry himself said back on sunday, we have never been closer to reaching a final agreement than we are now. but there continue to be some significant differences that remain, and this is a view, this is a view not just of the united states. this is the view of all of our p5-plus-one partners as well. so that is an indication these talks, at least for now, are worth continuing. and that is what is driving this

decision-making process. and, so, you know we're focused on the quality of a potential deal. we're focused on the usefulness of continuing to talk, and we want to be sure that the joint plan ever action remains in place? it has been place over a year. it opened the door to broader talks. what i did it froze iran's nuclear program in place. it rolled it back in some key aspects. there is a lot of skepticism about republicans whether or not entering the joint plan of action was actually a good idea in the first place. we hear a lot of republicans saying things like, why don't we let the join plan of action remain in place? what we have said we want to make sure we keep the joint plan of action in place continue to freeze iran's nuclear program.

continue to keep it rolled back in some key areas while we negotiate an agreement we believe is consistent with our best interests. what our best interests is shutting down every pathway iran has to a nuclear weapon and insuring that iran will cooperate with the most intrusive set of inspections on a country's nuclear program. >> considering deep levels of resistance that still exist in congress, how concerned are you by extending these talks you're essentially guaranteeing that the congressional review time will double to 60 days instead of 30 days? >> well, a couple of, a couple of things about this i think the first thing that comes to mind is, just because we may be in that period where this agreement, is subject to a 6-day review by congress, that actually -- 60-day review by congress, that reflects more

than 30-day august recess congress will take. the 60-day review may require additional delay but doesn't necessarily insure additional scrutiny. not as if congress will spend entire 60 days to study the agreement. >> spending time in their districts railing against it and hearing from constituents about the possibility of a deal. >> there is possibility of that. we're not concerned -- the second thing i would say is this. we welcome additional scrutiny of the deal. if we're able to reach one, it is one we'll be confident is clearly in our best interests, clearly shuts down every pathway that iran has to nuclear weapon. we would welcome that kind of scrutiny and careful consideration of the agreement. but again that will require us to actually reach a final agreement and, iranians so far have not been able to sign on the dotted line on a final agreement that reflects the broad parameters back in april.

>> turning to afghanistan. the afghan government as you know launched direct talks with taliban in pakistan, furthest direct talks that they have had. what does the u.s. see the significance of those talks and does this increase your optimism for a breakthrough in that peace process? >> well, let me start by saying that the united states welcomes talks between the afghan government and the taliban. this is a this is an important step in advancing prospects for a credible peace. the united states commends the government of afghanistan's prioritization of peace. and reconciliation efforts with the taliban. and we both acknowledge and appreciate pakistan's important efforts to host these conversations. the, josh we talked quite a bit how the united states has been encouraging afghans to participate in an afghan-led process that would bring about a political reconciliation in

afghanistan and, de-escalation if not an end to the violence that has wracked that country more than a decade now. so that's, that is a process we'll continue to be supportive of but ultimately it's a process that must be led by the afghan people. and afghan government of course. >> lastly, on greece. looks like the greeks have shown up with the new talks with eurozone leaders without any new, concrete proposal for dealing with this crisis. i know the president spoke earlier this morning with prime minister tsipras. could you give us details what those two leaders spoke about? >> josh the president began his day having a conversation with chancellor merkel. after concluding that telephone call he had a conversation with prime minister tsipras of greece the conversations reflected the view i articulated yesterday

which is that, all parties continue to acknowledge that it is in their collective and mutual interests for greece to remain part of the eurozone. but the only way we'll succeed in achieving that goal is for all of the parties to agree to a package of reforms and financing that puts greece back on a path toward economic growth and debt sustainability. that is the solution here. and i don't mean to suggest that because it is easy to articulate the solution that it is easy to agree to a solution. in fact this is quite complicated but we continue to take heart in the fact that everyone sitting around that table acknowledges it is in their collective interest for this to be resolved in that way. and so we're going to continue to encourage all sides to participate constructively in those conversations.

obviously the fact they're meeting right now as we speak is is good because it is necessary for an agreement to be reached. okay. julia. >> hi. just earlier today, secretary of defense carter was on the hill for the senate and he said that the u.s. has actually only trained 60 syrian fighters which is far below expectations. was the president made aware of that yesterday when he went to the pentagon? and what did he mean when he said the u.s. would be increasing its support for the moderate opposition in syria? >> well julia the president is regularly updated on our anti-isil efforts. this is a strategy that encompasses a large number of elements including building up the capacity of local fighters, security forces inside of iraq but also building almost essentially from the ground up a

trained, quipped, moderate syrian opposition. we long acknowledged that would be a more challenging, difficult, longer-term task and that is something that is still on going. the president had been regularly updated on this. and, the united states and our coalition partners are looking to do try to accelerate that training process. that includes more resources. that means stepping up our recruiting efforts. and that is what the president was referring to when he made reference we want to do more to build capacity of opposition fighters in syria. i would also point out that we have seen some local fighters in syria with whom our coalition is able to coordinate and these are opposition fighters in northeast syria that have made important progress against isil both not

just driving them out of kobani but actually driving them out of pretty broad areas northeastern syria. . . trying to get an appeal granted.

is there any change in strategy going forward to ask areas the conservative court that already denied this day and are there any talks going on at the white house of an alternative to dig of action to hold immigrants should this go further? be not welcome in the state ruling from the court was predicated on procedural grounds. this'll be an argument for the fifth circuit on friday based on the merits of the case. the administration continues to have a lot of confidence in the power of the legal arguments. this is i would acknowledge a court that is not shown at valve to be -- shown itself to be one easily persuaded by the arguments previously made. but that does not diminish the power of those argument and we are looking forward to a fair hearing before the judge is reset on the panel.

we've got confidence in the department of justice to the department of the administration the other thing important for people to not lose sight of is that we don't just believe in the legal power of these arguments. we actually believe in the importance of these policies being implemented both for the positive economic impact it could have on the country because of the positive impact this could have on public safety all the cries the country but also ensuring a set of immigration enforced the rules that reflect the values that we hold dear in this country. this is a high priority. the president spent a lot of time talking about this and we are confident we will have an opportunity to have our arguments be heard in open court

and we are confident that we will have judges who will listen to those arguments with an open mind. >> josh, we wanted to ask about the president's comments yesterday at the pentagon that he doesn't want the u.s. to play a game of whack a mole with isis in terrorist it is what the u.s. is doing? playing whack a mole. [inaudible] >> well, you've been on the beach more time than i have playing carnival games. here's what i tell you about that. what the president is illustrating is the important of ensuring that we have global forces on the ground that can counter extremist in their own country. the laughable game that the president wasrring to is

that the united states military can be in a position of putting boots on the ground to respond to extremist in every hotspot around the world. what we need to do and a critical part of this anti-sub six strategy is to build up the capacity of global fighters who can stand up for their own country. that does mean airstrikes can be taken in support of operations carried out by local fighters but ultimately we want local fighters to clear isil out, but have a strategy for essentially retaking communities previously held and making sure we can reestablish local government structures and police force and keep the peace in the communities. ultimately that is the

responsibility that cannot be borne by the united states or some other foreign government. it is a responsibility that must be borne by local officials in the central government in iraq and individually in syria. that is what the president is referring to. that is why you've seen the strategy place so much emphasis on building the capacity of local fighters in iraq and syria. >> on the iran deal you sound up into the possibility of a 60 day review period. it sounds like you are almost embraced and not as distinct possibility now. that does raise the prospect for days, potentially weeks. does that postponed -- does the prospect postponed hopes the white house might have for dealing with headaches in the middle east. the question i am getting not is does this deal with iran does

it open up possibilities in other areas and to constrain the nuclear program. perhaps you can get them to agree on ways to deal with the situation in yemen to deal with assad in syria. >> your first question to put it bluntly we don't have the luxury of postponing the kinds of problems that we currently see in the middle east and that is why you had the united states working closely with israel to ensure their safety and security is accounted for. despite the diplomatic friction on display earlier this year those have continued and continues to this day. the concerns we have about the instability in yemen, the continuing isil like iraq and

syria are the subject of extensive conversations with igcc partners back in may. that is an indication they continue to be focused on these broader regional challenges. as it relates to the iran talks come at you call from the beginning of the conversations with iran we have indicated significant concern about the destabilizing impact that iran getting a nuclear weapon would have on the middle east. in fact, that is one of the reasons we entered into these negotiations to try to prevent the destabilizing event from occurring and that has been part of the conversations we've been having with israelis and part of the conversations we have with their cheese easy part or is. also part of the conversations with their p5+1 partners in vienna. i would reiterate that is also why we are clear we we are clear we will only accept a good deal that accepts parameters of the

political agreement. that is the agreement that shuts down every pathway and the kind of agreement that ensures a rental loughery with the most intrusive set of inspections ever imposed on countries nuclear program. so we are mindful of the broader regional challenges even as we focus on this very significantly. >> a political question. what does the white house make of these large crowds showing up for senator sanders in a variety of states. not just areas where you might suspect a large progressive candidate. if he's tapping into something that perhaps hillary clinton should be paying attention to? >> each of you have news organizations that have the benefit of having their reporters on the ground that talk to people at these events and ask them why they are showing up.

>> back in 2008 does the problem. >> even in 2007. [laughter] that was an opportunity based on my personal experience as opposed to afar. i think the thing i would note is even from afar it's clear there's a lot of energy in the democratic side of the aisle and that is a good thing. it is certainly good for the democratic party in the country. so that is a good sign. what impact that has on the candidacy of one candidate over another are believed to all of you. obviously, see a lot of democratic leaning voters charged up and excited about politics and participating in a political event is something we are pleased to see you. margaret. >> there's been a pretty horrific attack and al-shabaab

that we are taking responsibility for her. i'm wondering, you know, if anything will affect president obama's plans to travel there enough whether he has a personal message about going after the base. >> i don't know if any presidential calls on this particular incident to report to you. i can tell you the united states is very mindful of the broader extremist threat confronting countries in africa right now. we've talked quite a bit and the president will be talking about this issue when he arrives at the white house for a visit later this month. the counterterrorism cooperation will be high on the engine to and i'm confident these questions will be on the agenda when the president travels to africa and when the president

has the opportunity to meet with leaders of african countries over the course of the trip. >> on iran, i guess i want to ask comic can you process a little bit about the white house after, what happened -- [inaudible] we talked a little bit about the 60 day scenario. do you think the deal is done or do you think that will now kick off a new way and if it is true that you have real stuff in iraq in yemen, why would that be related to any deal with iran? what does it matter? >> well, let me answer your question this way. we are confident once we have an agreement if were able to reach an agreement it will only be one that reflects the parameters we party established and

generally speaking us every pathway to nuclear weapon and getting iran's cooperation with the most intrusive set of inspections ever imposed on the country's nuclear program. if we are able to reach an agreement like that i am confident we will spend time talking publicly to make sure people understand what's in the agreement. we agreement. we'll agreement. we will be encased in an effort to communicate with countries throughout the region and around the world about what has been agreed to. we are obviously going to want to work closely with the united nations, work closely with the iaea to implement the agreement that will require effort and time and attention as well and that will be part of the effort moving forward. we've been just as candid, margaret, about the fact this will not resolve the concerns with the behavior within. iran continues to unjustly

detain american citizens in their country. that is a source of significant irritation in the relationship between the united states and iran. iran continues to menace our closest ally in the region israel. that is a source of significant turn in the united states. if a source of significant concern by president obama. iran continues to engage in destabilizing activity paramount to the middle east. the most prominent example is in yemen where we see a terrible humanitarian situation and we continue to see 79 b-bravo carrying out acts of violence with the support of iran. >> what it actually any difference? what is your strategy on syria and iraq and if the answer is the taker of the iraq playing first it will help to take and better address the strategic --

[inaudible] if iran is not an ally or a trusted partner, that doesn't solve all the problems. why would it make any difference? >> for all the bad things that man does iran would be more dangerous that they are armed with a nuclear weapon. if iran is making anti-semitic threats against israel, that is something we are very unhappy about. it would be much more dangerous if they have a nuclear weapon aimed at israel. the other concern we have with iran's behavior as they continue to support terror activities around the globe. their support for terrorists is more dangerous if they have the capability to build a nuclear weapon. god for bid transfer the technology into the hands of a terrorist. i recognize sometimes in a political lens would be a whole lot worse outcome as one that is

sometimes not viewed as having a lot of weight. the fact remains a nuclear armed iran would be even more dangerous than the dangerous iran we now confront. >> reviews said reaching a tentative deal with iran will make it much easier to execute a broader hotspot strategy. you are saying forget about that. this is worthy of doing it at valve. >> this is worthy principally for that reason. it makes iran less dangerous. it also as destabilizing as it is in the region, if iran were able to obtain a nuclear weapon would make the situation in the middle east more volatile. i say that because iran were able to obtain a nuclear weapon, it is possible other countries in the middle east including those with whom we have a much stronger relationship with a might decide it's in their interest to obtain a nuclear

weapon. a nuclear arms race in the middle east is not being countries like the united states and france and germany and other members of the p5+1 would contemplate. there has been some speculation the successful completion of an event could pave the way to better relations between the united states and iran. if that is the case we have is they welcome the outcome but that's not the reason we did the agreement. we pursue the diplomatic channel in order to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons false. major. >> now there's the referendum and grace to all principles angela merkel, can you tell us philosophically where the administration comes down on what is the central question disgraced it more as charity or less? people for less austerity argue they've gone through several

rounds and done things the european union has asked of them and the solution is not only debt relief for something different than what has been applied to it now. the european union believes more austerity is the solution. where does the administration come down and have it rendered a judgment and will accuse any of its good offices to move this in one direction or another. >> well, unfortunately it is not simply a question of if they had a little less austerity that we would be able to find a solution or if there is a little more austerity added to the mix that it would lead to an agreement. essentially what we need is both -- >> he said today economic growth those are goals.

how does the the administration believes it is most reasonable and equitable and economically viable to achieve that? more austerity or last? >> well it is going to require all sides to determine what is the best mix of those things is going to be. you know what is clear -- [inaudible] >> he does. his opinion is simply disappeared posterity alone will not lead to a solution and relaxing -- allow increased a lot back the commitments they have previously made in exchange for financial assistance is also not going to be an option. i'm suggesting it will require a mix. that is something of a parties will have to work out. >> what the president mean with

those in the region that there is a glimmer of hope that there could be a political solution to remove assad from power in the area appeared what does that mean? is there a timetable or a method and secondarily, what comes next? a >> what the president has suggested have come clear with each day that president assad has lost legitimacy. it is clear to the world that he no longer has supported the vast majority of the people is the area appeared to be clearly has lost control of the situation of the entire country and it is clear what he is doing to try to hang on his carryout terrible acts of violence against civilians. i do think that has led more and more people to arrive at the conclusion that we arrived at

quite some time ago that it is time for president assad to go in for the central government in syria to leave the country in a way that is consistent with the will and ambition of the syrian people. >> does that mean that those who the president has talked to are prepared to take action to make this happen or is this just a kind of theory they have landed on the table sit on the sidelines and wait for whatever to happen? >> it is fair to say there have been conversations about the need for a political transition in area and they're all sorts of ideas about how to effect the transition. not just the leaders in the region, but others concerned about the instability of the country. the point the president is making is that there is some pain we have had -- that we have supported for a long time. it is becoming clear we are

seeing other countries come around to this point of view as well. >> over the weekend there were several think tanks that sort of took stock of where they believed the negotiations are and there is some criticism of the way the administration is selling her go into overdrive about the imperative to have the dl and sent dl and family that characterized the administration is acting as if the were iran's lawyer when questions were raised about whether they comply, whether in technical ways or statistical ways they live up to the argument. i want you to address that had gone. does the administration feel compelled to not just represent a centrist but argue on behalf of iran. >> not at all. i am confident iran doesn't feel that way and that is apparent from the comments they've uttered over the last year and a

half or so when complaining the way we describe the agreements reached between iran and our p5+1 partners. in fact, the president has been focused on the details and to that extent the administration has taken a loyal worthy approach in making sure if there's one phrase that is inconsistent with the parameters that the agreement was reached in april that we are going to raise significant concerns. the president has been cleared the final agreement doesn't reflect the broad commitments in april we will not have an agreement. at the same time what we also insist on in the agreement are snapback provisions of sanctions and that is an indication the president is serious about ensuring the agreement is in force. if the iaea does detect some

aspect of a final agreement if one is reached that iran is not good enough to come and to come in the president will make sure he has tools necessary to snap sanctions in place and make sure we hold iran accountable for every aspect of the agreement. from that standpoint the administration has demonstrated seriousness and purpose when it comes to reaching the agreement that reflects our prior commitments and the prior commitments that iran has made and the seriousness about ensuring in the agreement on trade and the agreement reaches one that is in force. [inaudible] >> baby that's a better way to say appeared april. >> josh, two subjects. [inaudible] >> well, obviously the vote from the south carolina state senate is consistent with that he is

the president himself has expressed inconsistent with the views governor haley and others who have commented on this have articulated. we obviously welcome that go from the state senate and acknowledge before action can be taken they have to weigh in as well. it is fair to say we are aware that ongoing political process, but also fair to say the entire country is aware of the young going political process in the country is watching. >> on that point two weeks ago i talked to the head of the rnc and he said the country is more united than it is divided. what you say about that when it comes to the confederate flag? >> well i think we have in the last several weeks seemed comments that many people have found surprising, that some people who have previously been supportive of that symbol have

reconsidered that point of view and i think for good reason. again ultimately there is a political process that needs to play out and we want to be respectful but we obviously welcome and the president spoke warmly of the comments from governor haley and we welcomed the vote in the state senate in south carolina. >> on another subject president obama made a statement on nigeria. fredricka wilson out of florida said that there is a marriage between isis and boko haram. could you talk about what is joined -- [inaudible]

and all the other terrorist groups that are in sub-saharan africa as it relates to isis. we see the issue with the missing girls and there is the path is the thought maybe you still are looking for the missing girls out of nigeria. you can find them and you can also deal with boko haram and breaking up that. >> april we are mindful first of mindful first about the fact there some extremist organization around the globe that have saudi propaganda victory by claiming their efforts were coordinated or a wind with the broader isil efforts. our intelligence community is still evaluating the nature of the relationship between those extremist element in nigeria and isil. as i mentioned in response to an earlier question the president -- i would anticipate the president will have a conversation about our ongoing

security cooperation efforts when the president visited the white house later this month. we certainly welcome the promises made to reform the military and follow through on the strategy to defeat boko haram. the united states can provide nigerian authorities as well as regional partners and they develop a comprehensive approach to combat the variety of threats by boko haram poses. but again we are mindful of the security situation in africa and it is one the president was in some time talking about on this trip. >> lastly, an interesting point link to a president obama said about internet access and how

they are going after isis and people of the internet. something she said yesterday on twitter and social media is she is concerned with how the kids don't have jobs and things to do. particularly on the highest level. she is concerned about the possibilities of isis attract young americans through social media. is there that same type of concern at the white house and do you agree with what she is feeling? >> april, i don't know what sort of impact the seasonal conditions may have on this threat, but we certainly are aware of a strategy for isil has employed to use social media to target populations including united states, but also around the world to radicalized individuals. trying to recruit them to join the fight in iraq and.

other cases it means trying to radicalized them and inspire them to carry out the violent acts of terror in their own countries and the united states. this is a threat our national security professional or some mindful of. the department of justice and the fbi has made arrests to prevent that kind of activity and there was an extensive discussion at the counter violent extremism summit earlier this year about passwords we can take in mind to counter the message and from extremists including the extremists backed by isil. what is clear is the most persuasive, the most authentic messaging passwords will be out first that don't originate in the government but actually originate from prominent members of the community. and then speaking out in

opposition to some of the hateful ideology propagated through social media by isil. [inaudible] >> is their concern for the use of social media right now in this country? >> that is the concern we discussed on what was held back in february. this is a can earn that we have quite an extensive amount of time and resources trying to confront. [inaudible] >> i will have to get back to you on that. i didn't get a full read of the meeting. it was concluded one of locked out here. >> on iran, what is the president doing in the white house doing to recognize if

you're able to get a deal, you will have a 360 day review. when you get a and there are obviously a lot of questions among members of congress about the validity and the specific than the framework arrived at previously. what is he doing? >> institution continues to keep members comprised of the ongoing talks in vienna. that is included phone calls from members of the negotiating team here in the united states. it is also included extensive conversations from white house officials are officials from the state department or department of defense with members and staff on capitol hill. you may have noticed on the president scheduled that he will meet with a large number of democratic senators at the white house this evening. i would be surprised if the status of the ongoing iran negotiations, something comes up in the context of that meeting. this is something many members

of congress are paying close attention to in the administration is doing the best we can to be responsive to the interest and help them understand where things stand. there is no doubt the conversations will be more expensive and more robust once there is a final agreement to discuss. [inaudible] can you give us kind of what they're doing while they wait for the breakthrough or not. >> i don't know -- i can give it a day for the last conversation the president had with secretary kerry, but the president is being updated more than once a day by his national security team about the ongoing negotiations and in some cases that there is a briefing on the progress made and some discussion of the kinds of

obstacles that remain to a final agreement. but those are updates the president is receiving from members of the national security team. susan rice delivers those updates, but it is not -- it is not exclusively through national security. the match what is the message the president memorized about the importance of staying with the deadline. i want a good deal. >> as he has been in public, his private conversations are focused on making sure that any sort of final agreement reflects the commitment he has made to shut down a brick pathway at has a nuclear weapon and ensure iran's cooperation with the most intrusive pat of corrections.

that is the only kind of final agreement that the president will sign onto. it also happens to be the only agree with the p5+1 partners will agree to as well. the president has made that very clear in public and private consultations he has had with this team and not as if iran is not willing to follow through on commitments in april and not willing to sign onto a final agreement that reflects the broad outlines, the president is ready to call the team home in these conversations will that go on as long as the team perceive them to be useful because they are making progress in that direction. again, secretary kerry acknowledge they've never been closer to a final agreement than they are now but also that there are still important obstacles to a final agreement that remain in place and the final agreement will not be completed until the obstacles are removed.

>> just a couple of follow-ups on subjects my colleagues have raised. first of all what is going on in the district court involving. is the white house, does the white house have a backup plan and just having us go through the courts which could take a considerable amount of time. while some people are in jeopardy and not risk of being deported. >> june it is important for people to understand the president rolled out a series of executive actions to reform our broken immigration system in november. he did this after his clear republican leaders were not willing to allow a vote on a bipartisan agreement already reached in the senate that we already had bipartisan majority support in the house but because of the obstruction of house republicans was not voted on it could not be a not good.

the president follows through on a thought to do everything within his power to bring more accountability to the immigration system. some parts of the exercise of authority were challenged in the courts and not as the subject of ongoing discussion in the circuit or will be the subject of arguments before the fifth circuit on friday. some of the announcements the president made back in november are moving forward and being implemented. the elements subject to a court challenge are steps the president has taken that he and his team believe are consistent with the proper and appropriate use of executive 30s consistent with the way a handful of presidents and democratic and republican parties have previously used executive authority in the area of immigration. we continue to be confident in legal argument but our lawyers will have an opportunity to make the strongest case possible before the fifth circuit on

friday. >> president believes he's done all he can do about these issues or does he have other options? >> the president does believe he took significant and important action back in november. the president has also been just as direct with his team that they need to continue to be pushing to look for ways we can bring accountability to the system and make sure we have an immigration system that reflects the economic challenges facing the country but also making sure we have enforcement mechanisms consistent with the values of the country. >> just a question on iran. does the white house expects secretary kerry tuesday in vienna for the conclusion of the talks, whether it is an agreement or walking away? will secretary kerry himself remained there? >> or expectation would be yes he would remain in vienna until

we have that now, in one way or another. if there's a need to combat prior to the conclusion he could of course do that. we will have to see. >> my main question is on vietnam. vietnam and cuba. is vietnam in fact a model the way the president is treating vietnam as a major trade partner involved, is this the way despite its human rights problems have been acknowledged by the white house that would in fact deal with cuba itself. >> clearly we would like to see more progress being made on the human rights front in vietnam. that is true in cuba as well. i think where there tends to be some overlap in terms of the way we've view the situation is when it comes to the act that you see we make in vietnam for greater

protection of human rights by what the president has concluded is the most effective way is to engage with the government of vietnam. in the case in vietnam, this encourages them to be part of a transpacific harder shape. they are participating in the negotiations and the fact is if we can complete a tpp agreement and if vietnam signs on, they would be making specific commitments to better protect and reflect the basic rights of workers in that country. that would be important progress. right now we don't just have a moral objection to the way basic universal human right are not protected in vietnam. we recognize that some is this a violation of human rights puts american businesses have a significant economic damage. by engaging with vietnam by

getting them to sign onto the broderick riemann, we can get them to do a better job at least protecting basic human universal right bought the same time do it in a way that levels the playing field for american businesses and workers. this reflects a validation of the president's strategy they just trying to sean and isolated country can in some cases not put as much pressure as actually engaging them. again if we can complete the tpp agreement, then we can get -- we will see vietnam take those kinds of stats. again, this is consistent with the philosophy and cuba that for almost 60 years we tried a strategy of isolating cuba and didn't do nearly as much movement on the human rights

front as we would like to see. the president is hopeful in the years ahead we will see a cuban government will do a better job of respecting and protecting the basic human rights of their people. >> thanks, josh. i am not sure if you heard before you came out about the m-16 crash with the civilian aircraft in south carolina. >> i learned about that before walking out here in the department of defense is working to learn more. is a regular process they have for investigating these incidents. i refer you to the department of defense for the latest on this. >> i want to ask about the promised the president made at the pentagon is that ideologies are not defeated by guns. they are defeated by ideas. this is a larger battle for the hearts and minds that may be a generational battle. what does he mean by generational? does he mean we will be involved in that region for that part of

the world in a significant way for generations to calm? did he mean what we do now we have to do beyond on the ground with weapons and troops but we have to do social media and get involved in the way they view life and the freedom. what did he mean by that? >> cabin, the point the president is trying to make is these are obviously some very wrenching social change is taking place in the middle east. the question before the president and american people is how are we going to confront the situation in a way that reflects the national security interest of the united states. it is the president's conclusion that for example committing a large-scale ground operation to go through the use of our

military might, root out extremists in the dark corners of the middle east is not consistent with our national security interests. that is the better way for the united states to be involved in the effort in her tech derringer is is to support central government that share our commitment to preventing extremist elements from gaining a foothold in from carrying out acts of violence across the region and the world. that is by the united states again has insisted on a a functioning occlusive central government in iraq that can unite the country and security forces to eradicate the extremist element inside the borders. we seek to bring about a political change in syria but that will take a lot longer given the political situation in that country. i think the point the president is making space-bar us to see

the kind of change is not something we should expect to happen next week or even next year. these are longer-term changes we need to see in that region of the world and the challenge for policymakers and leaders that the u.s. government and u.s. military is to determine the proper level of involvement by the united states that reflects the security interest we have in that region of the world. >> someone say you can't reach people that behead people or throw people off buildings they can't be reached. >> yeah, that is true. the point we make is we want to support those elements of iraq and syria and this is the vast majority of the population in those countries that have a similar opposition to the use of those kinds of violent attack takes we do in this country. again, no one is envisioning a

scenario that would turn into a jeffersonian democracy but we can't take care -- we can secure or use the assistance of the united states to support the central government of iraq of trying to secure the country is that those of radical extremist element aren't able to establish a safe haven inside iraq and carry out those extreme acts of violence you just described. >> last one. yesterday we heard defense secretary carter said their 60s here in volunteers and training. the idea was to get 5400 per year. previously we heard general dempsey's singing it would take around 18,000 syrians to really make an impact and i'm curious given the number when the white house described the number as 60 is embarrassing. is there a level of frustration that's been so slow in getting or people trained so they can

ultimately take the fight to isis themselves. >> clearly the number is not enough. we need to continue to accelerate the training and equipping program. what is also undeniable is the importance of making sure the individuals who go through the program are properly vetted. we want to make sure individuals who go through the program that aren't affiliated with extremist groups for example make sure the right individuals go through the training program and set up betting that the individuals take some time. i think it is common sense to conclude what the mechanisms are in place and once they demonstrate success in choosing the right people that you can start to accelerate benefit more people through the system. we have been mindful imprint a candid about the challenges and syria for some time. this is the latest indication of

how significant the challenges are. >> i say what the president has said that clearly we've got a lot of work to do in syria. >> so in addition fan is only 60 of the moderate rebel fighters in the training program, ash carter also said it remains an essential element of the u.s. strategy there. i am wondering what that number doesn't make sense, how do you justify the essential element of a critical strategy or does that require rethinking of the strategy? >> i think he was cleared about the fact it's not the only element. that is something i said in the briefing and many other briefings as well. the reason it is essential is the president is not going to be in a position where we commit u.s. ground troops to a large-scale combat operation inside syria.

it will not happen. the way the ground combat is waged as a focal forces fighting their own country. it will take time for the united states and coalition partners do that the population in syria and china those who are willing to fight but don't have ties to extremist organizations, have a history of carrying out acts of terrorism. make sure the right people are going through the program and it is fair to say the united states and coalition partners are being judicious about deciding which individuals descend into the program. but there is a possibility we can build up some momentum. as we refine the process for vetting individuals there is the potential we could obviously increase the capacity. that is clearly what is needed. the reason he describes this as an essential element of our

strategy is we need local fighters willing to fight for their own country. what the united states and coalition partners can do is back efforts on the field with military air power. that is something that's proved effective already in syria. there are significant areas in northern and northeastern syria were local forces on the ground inside area have made progress against isil forces. there were reports of the border town taken by opposition forces that would essentially shut down the main supply route of isil that reflected an important strategic gain. there's obviously more work that needs to get done. this is an indication the recipe we have laid out an effective fighters on the ground backed by

the effective use of coalition military air power is one that can show important benefits on the battlefield but obviously there's a whole lot more work that needs to get done. >> is that the administration's position that vetting either not being able to find the right kind of people who can get through the venting is the main reason these goals fall short in terms of the number? >> that's an important part of it that we are mindful of the fact we are not willing to train and equip them. we are being judicious about that in the background and characters of those who go through the program. syria is a chaotic place right now and finding those individuals particularly those willing to fight is a challenge. there is no denying that. >> just a question following up on the meeting today. you are engaging with vietnam

vietnam and may have wondered if it's possible, if it isn't better to engage about the symbolic validation of meeting with another official in the oval office. >> again the president has the opportunity to talk about the goals of the meeting in his office earlier. what i would say is the same meeting where they covered a lot of ground both to reflect to deepen relationship between our two countries and the 20 years since the normalized diplomatic relations were restored during the united states and the non. they have the opportunity to discuss the tpp agreement and they had a discussion about human rights and that level of engagement is consistent with the national security interest of the united states. >> i just want to make sure i understand where you see things at the nuclear iran talks on the

way forward. talks will go on as fine as the president considers them useful. does that mean you do or don't say friday is the deadline for are we now on a rolling deadline situation where they continued to talk again as long as useful? >> well at the risk of being overly blunt, there is a deadline june 30th and a deadline july 7 and was previously sad these deadlines were important to applying pressure to iran to sign on to a final agreement. the fact is the deadlines have allowed us to make important progress. we've never been closer to an agreement. there's still some obstacles that remain in the obstacles remain despite the fact they've gone past a couple deadlines now. what we are focused on now is making sure we had the joint plan of action in place and it

continues to be in place then freezes iran's nuclear program enrolls back some key aspects. and we are focused on having a productive conversation and if the conversation continues to be part of it we will happen until we reach an agreement. if not secretary kerry and secretary mo needs will come back home. >> the pressure you are trying to put on iran as to just acknowledge. we seem to be introducing today is the third option, meaning you've always talked about either in agreement or will block away. elevating the extension while they continue to have talks as long as you see its useful seemed to introduce a third option that would allow you to continue talks were not sustained amount of time over the coming weeks, days a month while keeping the same place. is that where you see this

headed? .. bob corker said we have been an agreement and we are much better keeping that an agreement in place for a while and continuing to negotiate. senator graham back in a