and respect not only with european governments but european companies and corporations. >> i will take the last one first because it is the easiest. of course they like the agreement because it is opening up a new market for them and they've largely gotten out of the security game. that is our providence province primarily. but the germans have a long-standing approach to the problem. ..

also national sovereignty. the primary threat to national sovereignty. the one last.we have to be aware of the effect that this is having on all of our sunni allies. the administration is suggesting strongly that he ran can be our ally against the islamic state. it is simply not true. it is not true on every level. herein does not regard the islamic state is meant to me the way we do. the islamic state city revolutionary power to take power in the sunni world. world. it does threaten the iranian interest to a certain degree in southern iraq. it is also created tremendous opportunities to secure control of iraqi politics. and as an ally against the islamic state.

the polarization in the region where sunni allies don't trust us at all and think that our war against islamic state is simply going to facilitate the riser ran throughout the region. as a result we have a coalition of over 60 partners that can defeat the islamic state which is 20 or 30,000 guys and why can't we defeated? because our partners don't really want to defeat it. they have signed up just to be polite to us. defeat it means facilitating iranian hegemony all of these. clicks a question up there. >> sure. i am with run for america. you talked a lot about how we have about negotiating position. how do we get that negotiating position back and what are some stuff we

can take to kind of fix our negotiating position and our regional respect? i know obviously we take back some of our sanctions, the height of sanctions. what more what more can we do to put pressure on iran that would not send them into the open arms, russia and china. >> well, i don't think this administration is capable of coming up for correcting the mistakes that have already been made in coming up for the negotiating position. i think that the onus on the u.s. congress to take a very close look at what is emerging. each day it seems like there is a new element is even worse than what we have for. but i think that we need to walk with the table and let the economics forces take their course. even without

the sanctions the iranian regime itself for is so many bad economic policies and corruption that i think over time ago opposition will grow. i am not sure that it is possible to really walk this back clicks some time for one more question. clicks just very briefly. asked that question what in congress to. well, they can do a number of things. they can vote no and they will have that opportunity. that is an important expression of the of the american public that emanates from congress. congress can also try to inherit -- ensure to the degree that it can sanctions continue at least legislative sanctions that have been imposed. congress can also establish a team be come a technique

that has been used in the past to monitor the implementation of this agreement so that there are outside experts with access to all of the intelligence who can confirm compliance or detect and ensure that noncompliance is detected. and finally, we need to protect the american people. one of the most important things that we can do is continue to emphasize and to build our missile defense capabilities because iran is working on their icbm commanded will have the capability to have a nuclear weapon, and the united states will be held hostage in the future. so there were four things that congress could do. >> time for more question. >> okay. right here then. >> five. two statements. the us is a guarantee or of stability.

looking at things in a broader context since we abandon their obligations the petrodollar. grand and iraq. keep selling their oil for us dollars. looking away from a pistol just reggie for peace, there is potential for a new global kind of understanding that would bring economic stability because we have what is the lesser financial system. to turn people off of the term the key creating instability rather than stability. >> am i'm not the best person to talk about it on the economic side. clicks we can always move on >> i am not an economist, but go ahead clicks one or two. there is a feeling out there i.

i noticed my talk to groups. because of being on the cusp of energy independence we don't need the region anymore. that kind of thinking is clearly influenced the white house, house even if it is not explicitly in the documents and so on. i think that the events of the last few years have shown that it is simply not true. we are not ready to give up and leave the region because it has a way of following us wherever we go. i don't think that really answers your question about the economics of the 12i think that you're going to be guarantors of the global stability and guarantors of the global economy. given given the fact that this region continues to be our supply of oxygen we we're going to be concerned with want to be or not clicks one more question. last question. i promise.

clicks thanks. look up the heritage foundation. my question is based on two assumptions which i think a reasonable. we will get a bad deal and the next administration will have to do a lot to shore up us credibility. assuming a both of those take place what are your thoughts about the us extending a nuclear security guarantee or umbrella along the gcc countries plus jordan and egypt as a way to try to stem, stop nuclear proliferation in the region. i want region. i want to stress not talking about conventional security guarantee for purely a nuclear one. the us will be of interest on back. >> sure. it is not going to work. it is not what they want. they don't want will believe it. we we just passed on the easy part of the equation

which is stopping of getting a bomb to begin with. we just showed that we don't have the gumption to go the distance with them on that. the lso. the allies have drawn the conclusion that we are not willing to go the distance. wireless suddenly going to be happy with our nuclear guarantee? to the saudi's really believe that we might trade an american city for riyadh? they simply won't believe the guarantee that we are giving and they will conclude that the only way that they can force us to pay any attention to them is by developing their own by developing their own nuclear weapons. by the way with regard to that it is amazing to me as a student obama administration talking

points. and it is very amusing to watch them shift over time. two years ago when the 2012 election come already three years ago now the concern was the israeli doubts about the obama administration's willingness to go the distance that the iranians the obama administration put their surrogates out and said no there was a process inside the administration. they looked of his carefully and came to the conclusion that if they did not stop the iranians in a convincing way there would be proliferation throughout the region and pres. obama is a nonproliferation hock car something he regards as one of the most important aspects of his legacy. and and so israelis and jews and americans don't worry. president obama will take care of this problem. he knows he knows that if he doesn't there will be

proliferation. really unhappy. they will proliferate because it will give them a nuclear guarantee. >> i would i would just say that is a very important question. friends and allies who rely our security guarantee this administration is that everything can to undercut the credibility of the us nuclear deterrent overtime. everything it can and is now beginning to change because of russia copresent aggression. is very important.

in april realization that our nuclear forces and nuclear capability have deteriorated that we must act to do this. here now beginning to take some of the steps. this steps. this is for the next administration to restore our capability and the perception. you'll find it around the globe. >> two points. kind of a guarantee boiling down the credibility. i don't think this administration has enough credibility left. stop the program in 2,003

with a military military strike of the bush administration. overthrown saddam hussein. he expected that he would suffer the consequences from the bush of ministration. the libyan disarmament was an often overlooked victory for the bush administration the libyan civil war and finally i would just say that this is an administration that puts a high priority on engaging with enemies and protecting the interest of his friends. if you do that long enough you will find more enemies unless friends. clicks okay. clicks mike. >> i had another thought related to what i said earlier in my remarks. and

it is that i think there is a mistake when thinking about the calculations of these countries nuclear weapons to think of it as totally symmetric. the saudi desire or the desire of other states in the region to have a nuclear weapon is not simply to deter the iranians from using their nuclear weapon. the problem with the iranian nuclear program when the saudi's and the rest of them look at it is not that they will have this up what -- awesome weapon of the disposal. it is that the united states because more differential to iran because in every area

they have this weapon. so there is a way in which it is a kind of bargaining chip with the united states about his policy and a strategy toward the region. the united states and the international community in general for the region in general. leverage which the iranians have succeeded in gaining. >> just a final. happens to be involved in bolivia negotiations. still secret. i wrote a book on it in 2,009. a very little-known book. but it does, i think show that there is a prospect for good outcomes, good agreements. hope we did is sale the ship over libya. we learned that ships with hundreds of metric tons of nuclear equipment everything that was associated with their nuclear program

command we also loaded on the longer-range missiles and brought it back to the united states. that was a good outcome. very. very clean, very good. libya, iran, two different cases just like north korea is different. they are all different. libya demonstrated was if we have a strategy that a strategy that brings together all the tools of statecraft was not just diplomacy, but diplomacy, but diplomacy along with economic sanctions along with the intelligence tools along with the other instruments that we can bring to bear in a coherent strategy we can prevail. >> the panel has done a great job today. in given us a lot to think about. thank you for giving us your valuable time. please join me in thanking them with a round of applause. [applauding]

>> tomorrow homeland security secretary j johnson talks about efforts to seek now works. live coverage for the center for strategic and international studies at 1:00 p.m. eastern time here on c-span2. >> this week on first ladies, influence in ladies, influence and damage,

lucretia garfield and mary arthur mcelroy. lucretia garfield was an educated woman and a believer in women's rights when her husband was assassinated she returned to ohio and a short his legacy the making their home into an early version of a presidential library. chester arthur a widower because pres. and his sister mary arthur mcelroy fills the role of first lady and establishes white house social etiquette used by future first ladies for decades. lucretia garfield decades. lucretia garfield and mary arthur mcelroy this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2 original series first lady's influence and image examining the women who fill the position of first lady and their influence in the presidency from our washington to michelle obama sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span2.

>> the summer book tv will cover book festivals from around the country and top nonfiction authors and books. next weekend we are live at the harlem book fair the nation's flagship african-american literary event with author interviews and panel discussions. live from the nation's capitol for nation's capitol for the national book festival celebrating its 15th year. that is a that is a few of the events this summer on c-span2 book tv. >> last year members of unaccompanied minors central america increased and prompt of the reevaluation of border security and the treatment of underage detainees. a senate hearing on that topic included testimony from immigration and justice department officials. [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. this hearing will come to order. i want to first welcomed the wiesseand >> i want the first welcome my witnesses in the appreciate your testimony which i have i have thoroughly read and studied. the hearing is really called to take a look at when you look back the humanitarian crisis we experienced last year as on a company of children stream across the border in record numbers. the flow has been reduced but i still say that would still say that it's almost at the humanitarian crisis levels. ..

to fix the dramatic increase in unaccompanied children. and i do this from the standpoint of trying to lay out pictorially way all

occurred and what happened. happened. there is one dramatic event that occurred in 2012 called deferred action on childhood arrivals implemented by this administration. there is an awful lot of state denial. that didn't really cause the bush factor. multiple factors, no doubt about it. it is it is really quite clear that that unilateral executive action that deferred action on childhood arrivals was the primary cause for the search. what. what i want this hearing today to talk about is the incentives we create in this country, and our lives people to come to this country illegally do we are a nation of immigrants. we need to recognize the fact that people come to this

country by and large are coming for the exact same reason our ancestors came here seeking the opportunity that this country offers. we need to understand that. you a certain extent we need to respect that if it is done legally. we cannot tolerate an uncontrolled border, and unsecure border, and immigration process that is out of control all based upon illegal immigration. so we must take a look at our laws and take a look at incentives for illegal immigration. i would certainly look at deferred action on childhood arrivals has one of those incentives that creates this crisis. from my standpoint that is what i want to glean from this hearing today in a testimony and the question will be asking. but serious issue. people's lives are put at risk because of these incentives them and we need to get to the bottom of this. he other.i want to make is the difficulty in getting the information to actually solve this problem. problem. part of the problem is we

have three different departments the five different component agencies dealing with this and these children are passed from one department and agency to the other. and we do not keep a real record and each agency is charged with a certain responsibility in the process, and there is just no overall coordination of everyone's effort. from my standpoint, i do not believe we are truly enforcing the laws the way that they were meant to be. as a result we continue to incentivize this kind of illegal immigration and that has got to stop. with that i turn it over to our ranking member. >> thank you. good to see you. thank you for joining us today for your testimony. one of the things most of us here, whether democratic or republican agree that it is important be addressed not just symptoms of the problems but that we address root causes underlying

causes that contribute to those problems. there is no one single reason why these people decided to talk to our country and drove the last couple of years. but years. but i would suggest that one of the reasons why they want to come up here is because for a number a number of years they have lived hellacious life. we contribute directly. we buy a lot of illegal drugs appear a lot of it comes right through honduras, guatemala, el salvador. we seldom guns. those guns are used on gangs the gangs the gangs make money off the drugs are sold here. the environment through job creation in this country's is not very good because of the lack of rule of law. and finally to poor people we don't always deport them

as as we know, unaccompanied minors or families with children. but adults are particularly adult males that have a criminal record, we send them right back. what do they do? they go to work. the work they go to his creating an even more dangerous, unappetizing, on economic environment. economic environment. so keep that in mind. we contribute directly to the very difficult lies they have in those countries, and we have some obligation to do something about that. i'll talk about that in just a moment. we faced a humanitarian crisis at the southern border. tens of thousands of women and children were turning nestles and the border patrol agents seeking protection after a grueling trip central america. border officers were overwhelmed. shelters to house these children families. to address this crisis our government swung into action on multiple fronts. we sought to comply with the 27 law signed by former

pres. george w. bush dealing with unaccompanied minors. they set up emergency shelters. researched ages and immigration judges to border areas and works to find safe homes for the children until the cases could be adjudicated. we also worked with the governments of guatemala, honduras, and salvador to lunch what i call the truth campaign for letting the people in those countries know about the dangers of the trip to the north to the us and we collaborate with the government of mexico so that that nation might better strengthen the integrity of the southern border, and it has. in an effort to provide support including local communities and faith leaders. one year later we no longer have a crisis at least out of the proportion we did a year ago. many families and their children are still fleeing these countries, those numbers are clearly down by a little more than half. in fact, while this

improvement, is that enough? no. but even though the crisis appears to be over we still have humanitarian responsibilities to protect the children in our custody, and have a moral obligation to treat them fairly under our laws and to change those laws. we must do this even as we try to resolve their cases more expeditiously and returned to their own countries those who do not have grounds to remain here. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how they work together to affect how you work together to effectively process and care for so many children. while our borders and immigration agencies are better equipped today than ever to handle another influx there is to others still a lot of progress that must be made. i would like to focus on immigration court systems. as we know immigration courts are badly understaffed even before last summer's border search. wait times of gotten worse.

in fact some immigrants were informed that might not get a hearing before november of 2019. literally unacceptable. i wrote our colleagues earlier this year urging them to fund the pres.'s new immigration judge teams. i am pleased to say the request appears to have garnered support. new judges will not solve the problem entirely call but they will be a big help. advancing more efficiently with unaccompanied minors have a lawyer. not surprisingly, most of these minors cannot afford one which is why and delaware and the communities across the country many lawyers have stepped up to the plate to offer pro bono legal services. i could not be more proud of the legal community in my own state but many whiners still lack attorneys. so there is work to be done. this is incredibly important. we must also not lose sight of the reason why folks feel the need to flee. we need to work with these three central american

countries to honduras guatemala, el salvador need to work with mexico colombia the bank and others to help root out the causes of violence and poverty. not that many years ago we found a similar challenge in columbia. most people would agree there are support to help turn the country around. the economic advances in that country. meanwhile migration migration a spike in poverty in the region. people are particularly vulnerable. the governments of governments of guatemala, honduras, the seller must take the lead on this they are. they have joined together and unprecedented to improve the largest.

they can do and we can help. i hope the appropriate will be the call for new focus on investment and by doing so new hope and prosperity to benefit generations to come. needles in the stacks a lot of his takes on the border. trying to get through. the administration's proposal. a new version. thank you.

you take a look at before this committee, gen. mccaffrey. if you really want a metric this shows you how unsecure are border truly is. how is. how much of the drugs are actually interdicting. five or 10 percent. spending about $25 billion. i agree that that is a root cause but within that overall root cause of the overall problem their individual situations. i think is a root cause there. if you will all rise and raise your right hand.

thank you. >> are first witnesses. june 2010 to december 2010 when he worked on immigration policy and other issues. for me 2,009 to june 2010 the deputy assistant office of immigration. he served as chairman of the board. >> good morning. clicks if i could just out. i'm not real good acronyms.

you just, got that. a lot of acronyms to be persistent doing that. you lose me. try to show some temperance. >> chairman thank you for the opportunity to hear the case of individuals we carry out this mission we carry out this mission a growing

pending caseload. resulting continuously rising back on. taking steps to increase our capacity. overall we added a few weeks ago 10247 immigration judges around the country. we take steps to respond to last year's border search by

adding anew priority to a new priority to existing priority for all detained cases. we depend on our partners aware

had an initial hearing scheduled by the date that passed and immigration judges have issued 6,800 orders of removal. the orders result from failure to appear for scheduled hearing when ice established the person is removal. orders of removal has been issued in 5900 cases. children who appear in

immigration court proceedings without an adult may require special care and modifications to normal procedures. we have a place guidance for cases where the respondant is an unaccompanied child and there may be special dockets for children's case. 39 courts 39 courts have current active numeral dockets. they receive specialized training regarding juvenile cases. we recognize the presence of a representative can increase immigration efficiencies with children. we children. taken numerous steps to encourage promo presentations and ensure unrepresented children are aware of the resources. we operate illegal orientation program under which custodians are

provided important information on pro bono resources. a few months ago we lost some representation otherwise direct representation to unaccompanied children. significant challenges for all federal agencies including ours. he responded by taking steps toward hearing these cases as quickly as due process allows including makin docket adjustments and refocusing our immigration core resources. how he can continue to include our collective handling. thank you enough happy to answer any questions you may have. clicks thank you. our next witnesses mr. mark greenberg acting assistant secretary for the administration for children and families of the us department of health and

human services. we got that one right. i like your acronym. he serves says is acting commissioner of the administration for children you families. >> chairman, ranking member, members of the committee thank you for inviting me to testify today. i will be describing the responsibilities of the department of health and human services in relation to unaccompanied children and then talk about a a set of key developments relating to those responsibilities as the committee's hearing on this topic last summer. when unaccompanied children are referred to we initially place them in one of the network or shelters while

staff or to determine if they have an appropriate sponsor with whom they can live. when they arrived at a shelter child is provided with the complete medical examination within 48 hours. trained staff conducts trainings future of the child may be a victim of abuse or crime or human trafficking. children and can receive medical dental, medical, dental, mental health services education services for recreational opportunity, legalize presentation, access to legal services access to religious services management and counseling. while the children care at the shoulders we have responsibility to place them in the least restricted settings in the best interest of the child taking into consideration the risk of harm to themselves or to the community or risk of flight.

initially we seek to place children with a parent or close relative worth that is not possible while most distant relative of a family friend if it cannot identify an appropriate sponsor and the child does not get repatriated or attain immigration relief the children will remain in hhs care until he or she turns 18 at which time we will remand the 18-year-old to the 18 -year-old to the custody of the department of homeland security. we seek to ensure sponsorships are safe and appropriate to require verification of the sponsor's identity and sponsor's identity and relationship, the potential sponsor must undergo background checks can complete an assessment that identifies risk factors and other serious concerns and in a set of cases caseworkers perform home studies as an additional safety measure. as part of the placement process

potential sponsors must agree that they will ensure that the child appears at court proceedings and must agree to inform the department of justice and department of homeland security of any change of address and in addition to release the child to the sponsor we provide the address information to department of justice and department of homeland security. and. and i want to highlight key developments. the highest number of children in the history of the unaccompanied children program. this year the numbers are down significantly, though still high in his tour terms. last year terms. last year we received over 57,000 referrals the department of homeland security and the first eight months of this year we received fewer than 18,000. last year the pres. directed the sec. of homeland security to establish an interagency group, a unified coronation group group to ensure unity of effort across the administration.

they continue to operate with an ongoing role to facilitate requests from department of homeland security are hhs if needed which can include requests for additional capability operational coronation planning, support a situational support situational assessment critical transportation capability. for us operating for us operating the attic of the children program presents multiple challenges because of uncertainties about how many children will arrive and when. incorporating lessons we developed the bed capacity framework to ensure that we have enough year-round standard beds with the ability to quickly add temporary beds when they are seasonal fluctuations. this is a model that reduces funding during times of low capacity while preserving the ability to respond to future increases. since 2011 we have reduced the amount of time children stay in shelters from an average 72 days to a little

more than 30 30 days maintaining the average this year at 34 days. while we seek to ensure that all releases are safe and appropriate we know that sometimes a a child may develop concerns about his or her placement. in april we expanded our alpine in order to receive calls from children who are in distress circumstances. in addition hhs is beginning to offer post-release services to a child and sponsor of the first six months after the release is a of the placement has been disrupted or is at risk of disruption. december last year we published our interim final rule. outlines safeguards and all of our facilities implementing to protect children from sexual abuse. last september we provided funds to to grantees to expand legal representation. on june 15 we issued a proposal for contractors to

further expand the provision of legal services. of a happy to answer any questions. >> mr. greenberg are next witnesses mr. phil miller, assistant director of the field operations enforcement our mobile operations for us for the us immigration and customs enforcement us department of homeland security. that is nice command a whole lot easier to say. mr. miller has served in a variety of positions. mr. miller has served in a variety of positions and becoming a deportation officer and 98. special agent in 2001 and field office director of the new orleans field office. clicks thank you and good morning. chairman, ranking member members of the committee, thank you for the of the

opportunity to appear before you today. i currently serve as the director for field operations where i oversee direct and coordinate the operational activities throughout the nation's 24 field offices and their sub offices. this includes the transportation and removal of unaccompanied children to further agency goals and ensure compliance with agency policy. as you know there was an influx. we continued to address this issue in a manner that is comprehensive, coordinated comanche rain. possible possible for quickly and safely transporting unaccompanied children from the custody of us customs and border protection to the custody of hhs and if ordered the removal of these children

following the conclusion of immigration proceedings both of which are critical links in the overall process. all unaccompanied children are not housed in detention facilities. short-term care and custody requires the use of agency resources and the time and attention of ice officers. during the time that ice eyes maintains physical custody of the attic of the children impending the placement such minors are separated from adult detainees. on the company children part provided regular access to snacks, drinks, telephones and other resources. ice transports of the company children via ground commercial, air, and as charter flights. all 24 field officers on primary and backup juvenile coordinators each of whom receive annual specialize have met

with high level officials in the following countries to secure their operation in stemming the flow of their citizens into the united states. while the humanitarian influx is a seasonal challenge, early indications are that our efforts are paying off. i am confidant we will not see a repeat of last year's numbers, but we are better prepared to deal with the arrival of unaccompanied children along the southern border. we continue to work closely with sister agencies to address the care and processing of unaccompanied children arriveing in the united states in a unified manner. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and i welcome your question.

>> our final witness is joseph langlois. he is the associate director of the refuge asylum for the u.s. citizenship service a >> at the us department of homeland security, a career civil servant serving for more than 35 years in various positions. >> chairman, sen., and other distinguished members of the committee for thank you for the f kennedy testified today's hearing. associate director of the refugee asylum within us citizenship and immigration services us eis at the department of homeland security. i oversee the asylum program which plays a critical role

in upholding our nation's long tradition of providing protection for those who have been persecuted

changed but the eligible standard for asylum remains the same. in addition, if the asylum officer doesn't grant asylum we coordinate with ice to transfer the case back to immigration court where unaccompanied children may review their asylum claims in proceedings before an immigration judge. since implementation of tvpra in 2009, approximately 13,000

unaccompanied children have filled asylum applications after having been placed in removal proceedings. since becoming law six years ago, uscis has granted asylum to approximately 4,000 unaccompanied children. while the number of unaccompanied children being drafted 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-ad advisary forum to list their claims. it starts when a minor is determined to be an unaccompanied minor indicates an

intention to apply for asylum in removal proceedings. ice instructs the child to file with uscis and the immigration judge grants a continuous of the removal proceedings or closes the proceedings in order for the unaccompanied child to file the application with uscis and for uscis to adjudicate the asylum application. during the pendency of the asylum case, officers communicate with ice attorneys to provide progress reports on the case verify the status of removal hearing, confirm court dates and plan for the transfer of files between ice and uscis. an asylum officer conducts an in-person, in-depth interview of

the unaccompanied child to fully explore the asylum claim. in addition the asylum officer researches countries' conditions and a wide range of biographic security checks and then determines if the person applying is eligible for asylum and draft as decision. before any decision is finalized, a supervisor reviews the case to make sure the discussion is decide by the record and comports with the law. uscis plays an important role in adjud adjudikating applications for the small population that applies. we monitor the trends of new filings and stands ready to meet future challenges for a firm commitment to quality and

integrity. thank you for the opportunity to testify. i will be more than happy to answer questions. >> thank you mr. langlois. let me start with the chart. as i stated earlier, there are multiple causes for children coming into the country. does anybody want to take look at that chart and dispute by overall conclusion of the primary cause of the spike of unaccompanied children coming into the country was defered action on childhood arrivals and the message that sent to central america that if you get to america you are home free. anybody want to volunteer to challenge that conclusion? okay. mr. greenberg? can you twist? >> i do want to make clear that

hhs is not an immigration agency and not responsible for immigration policy. our responsibilities here are principlely about providing the shelter for children and getting them to appropriate sponsors. the work on reasons for why children are coming is really the work that has been done by the state department and homeland security and i would refer to the recent gao report looking at this. certainly the goa report highlights the importance of crime and violence and economic conditions in the home countries. >> let me ask, has there been a dramatic increase in crime or reduction in economic conditions in central america starting near 2012 that would be kind of a trigger for that? be a catalyst for that type of

enormous spike? i have the homicide rate for hundred thousand and in most countries they have dropped from el salvadore in 2009 71 2010 64 and 2013 down to 40. i realize central america is not america. you have a huge wage difference and there are other factors. but i am looking at what caused that spike. i would say no body is disputing that is certainly a real possible cause right there. but let me get numbers here. since 2009, from el salvadore, guatemala and honduras there have been 109,000 unaccompanied children coming to our country. of that we returned 30% and in

2010, 22% and 2011 we returned 24%, 2012 we returned 12% 2013, 6.2% 2014 it is 2.7% and right now 3.8 percent. that is the return verses the children coming into the country. in all we returned about 5.7 percent, 6 248 unaccompanied children and we had 109,000 coming into the country illegally. is that sending a signal as an unaccompanied child you to come america you have a 94.3% chance of staying. is that an incentive or is that incentive for making that trip?ybody anybody want to answer that? >> i would say it's an incentive.

mr. miller? i think you have said there are 6800 final orders of removal that have been issued. so, those are the cases people have been ordered to be removed in this country. in 2015 we have removed 569. why aren't we removing the 6800? spinnaker the data shows it is as of mid-june we have removed 1500. in terms of -- >> i have to look at all of the cases that we have to work and i can tell you that if i'm going to task by officers with going out after the criminals at large in the communities were going out after juveniles who are non- criminals in the community, i think it is good policing to go

after the criminals. we face very dynamic environment environment in a number of restrictions that are no longer honoring so rather than my officers being able to go and pick up criminals, convicted criminals in the jail, we have to go out with teams and find these people in the communities that are resource intensive and if we have to prioritize the populations i think we are making appropriate prioritization giving our policing response. >> as long as we are talking about this the captain was killed by an illegal immigrant that had dissented prior felony convictions. according to data provided from fiscal year 2010 to 2014. they were charged with the offense. what do you have to say about that act of enforcement? >> i don't think that -- the

larger data that we've been talking on the house side about representative number of different reasons why those persons could no longer be detained. they are both criminal circuit court decisions -- what is preventing us in the country illegally that had seven of her prior felony convictions why aren't we able to report those individuals? >> the case wasn't honored. >> who didn't honor is? stanek san francisco didn't honor the detainer that we launched. >> so you have no legal authority to detain that person yourself? or every independent? >> the gentle man had an outstanding narcotics warrant and we feel strongly that they made the right decision to resolve the criminal warrant before taking -- we were allowed to take further civil action.

tell me what happened in that case with that individual had seven prior felony convictions and he had been released repeatedly obviously and now a young woman is dead. why did that have been? >> in that instance he completed serving a federal sentence for illegal reentry after the deportation by an aggravated felon. when completed that sentence -- >> why didn't i see -- we have him in custody committee serves the sentence. why aren't they right there at the present or ask escorting him back? >> there was a narcotics warrant and as we would have done the

same thing we would seek to resolve all of the criminal organs before we go forward with removal. that has been our past practice number of years and he operated in we operate in the criminal alien program as a matter of the agency direction and officers are to resolve outstanding felony criminal warrant before proceeding in the removal. >> but he was released in the general society to create a merger were to commit a murder. >> does that make any sense to you? it doesn't make sense to the american public and that is the problem we are trying to grapple with. >> how do we solve the problem? there is a disconnect. we got a drug charge against him

>> there was a state felony warrant and i think that that the secretary was taking very proactive steps into enforcement program to trick to bring a number of locations that were not honoring the immigration detainer's and we have established the request of the notification that looks to overcome a lot of the concerns of state and local partners had in the have in the secular communities and by the establishment working through the priority enforcement program we have to have communities like san francisco come back and begin working with us proactively. >> isn't something we need to do here to make sure something like this doesn't happen again? >> i'm a law enforcement officers and i can't really speak to the nuances of the law or policy. i'm told by the attorneys that there is limited ability to force the communities to accept the immigration detainer's.

usually we work collaboratively and then transferred custody when requests are made. some of the recent court decisions called into question the ability to request the communities hold into the sheriffs hold their inmates for 42 hours the bond 48 hours rather beyond the expiration of the sentence. and that is one of the reasons by secretary johnson going forward in the primary enforcement program has created a paradigm with the jurisdictions before the person is released from custody and being able to safely and effectively end in sure the transfer of custody. >> this is one that we can work on together to give a better job. >> very good. >> i would ask my staff to look to see if it is only the united states to which folks from guatemala and salvador are fleeing to ask for asylum trade what about these other countries

and mexico how about the believes were cannot? the united states is the only country significant increases in those central american countries that i alluded eluded to. together mexico, panama nicaragua costa rica and belize reported an increase of almost 1200% from 2008 to 2014 it's like a 12 fold increase and it's not just the u.s.. they just want to get out and the number speaks volumes. the number is down by about half. it's downright loathe more than half of last year. let me ask you why the number is

down so much. >> i think the administration feels a lot of the measures we've taken in place last year with our friends in mexico and central america had an effect. and i will defer to my colleagues at the enforcement agencies here, but the administration does feel that is a part of the reason why the number is down is because many of them -- >> others, please, don't be shy. >> in that both secretary johnson have met personally with a number of central american officials coupled with the departments outreach and coordination in the state department trying to overcome

the message and marketing by the organizations last year but there were these opportunities that were outside the law and it seems to be taking hold. the colleagues in the state department know a little bit more about this and the programs that are being operated that it seems the indications are that message is being well received and the international partners are working in a high degree of collaboration to ensure that we don't have the same kind of humanitarian crisis that we did last year. >> give us an example of what the congress needs to do to drive those numbers down. >> briefly just one good answer. >> i think that cooperating with the nationstates that are on the perimeters of the three countries to build their asylum

education process would assist us in that endeavor to have a sanctuary provided by countries that are in the surrounding area. we've been working with mexico for quite some time on their asylum system. >> thinks. >> one good example of what he can do. >> support the president's request for the funding. we saw last year there was an opportunity to work collaboratively. we are doing that effectively. we've been traveling together to the southern border to make sure our teams are aware of the need to work together but it was difficult last year the department had to reprogram hundreds of millions of dollars to accomplish the mission and i think that we would have the flexibility to not only deal with unaccompanied children but any other unforeseen crisis on the border.

>> i need to to be sure to my colleague on this one but i would highlight is that in and the end showing the efficiency of the legal process for arriving with unaccompanied children of the continued efforts to expand the legal representation are illegal. >> support the request for more funding for the immigration resources. >> those resources are going to be critical to have the capability to move the cases as quickly as we can. >> you did a great job on those acronyms. >> lets me quickly point out the messenger sending is 2.7% of them are returned from 2014 even using mr. miller's updated number that is about 10%.

so the message we are sending is if you get to america 90% or more of you will be able to stay. that is the message in from my understanding, mexico is doing a far better job of increasing the southern border apprehensions by 79% and that's probably the number one reason the numbers are down and that is a good thing. >> senator peters. >> thank you mr. chairman. and thanks to the panelists for being here today and your testimony. as i have said on the repeated occasions i believe that a ultimately we need to deal with these issues in a comprehensive way which is why we need to have comprehensive immigration reform. have a hearing earlier this year the deferred action with a child for the rifles and for parents of americans i spoke about the statistics and both of the program and what that means an individual's lives. one of the individuals is someone who came here very young and knew no other life than being an american and did very

well in school and became the valedictorian of her school and is now the university of michigan with a dream of becoming a physician and without the protections she would be deported which makes no sense whatsoever and to toomey is not good public policy as well. i would like to enter if i may a report from the american immigration council that speaks to some of the concerns he raised whether or not it is responsible for some of the surge that we saw last year is the american immigration council special report of june 2015. basically i will just highlight one part of it where it says in the 2012 reports the office of the refugee stated that in a five-month period between march and july 2012, the program received almost 7200 referrals for passing 2011 referrals

showing" ushering in the report that the rise and accompanied by nurse predated the implementation of the dock up program and furthermore individuals that we could cover arrived at her january 1 27 wouldn't even be eligible. also, i don't have the don't have the report, the cato institute did a report july 29 2014, and the cato institute said first the surge began long before the june 15 announcement and it is true that it has been discussed in late may of 2012 but it was underway by was under way by that time. from october of 2011 through march of 2012 there were 93% increase in the apprehensions over the same period of 2011. texas governor rick. warned him about the issues before the announcement. and second, they also raised.

there are reports from the counsel to the cato institute which dispelled that notion and it goes back to what i said at the beginning of the comments that congress needs to roll up our sleeves and work to test the comprehensive immigration reform and if we do that we are going to provide clarity and certainty and approved the border security to ensure the immigration system is fair for all and make the country stronger. it's also important to remember when we are talking about the unaccompanied children here today, we are referring to kids who came to the united states to seek a better life and also fleeing violence and expectations, social service organizations in shouldn't have cared for some of these children including teenagers that have fled from sexual trafficking and gang violence which leads off the vines to severe depression and attempts at suicide as well. the united states has a legal obligation to continue debate could consider their welfare and

asylum claims to have their day in court. you talked about your asylum program. if you could speak to some specific examples of a child that comes forward what are they facing can't talk specifically and give two or three examples. >> in order to be eligible for asylum in individual needs to show that they have experienced the persecution on one of the five protected grounds because race, religion political opinion. individual miners are coming forward. the vast majority of over 90% that appear in front of us are represented by the council. they appear in front of us and we have small numbers. the approval rating is about 40 to 42%.

but the majority are fleeing severe violence that is connected to one of the grounds so that is the overall view of what is occurring. >> the children that come to you you say they go into the situation but it looks as if the number that gets into it is smaller than those that are coming across so does a child to say i want to follow to make the final in asylum claim or where would they even know that is the avenue they need to take back the >> individuals that her team to be unaccompanied children and place in front of an immigration judge when they are the judge they must request to apply for asylum when they are in front of

the adversarial hearing. >> how is the 10-year-old going to know that? >> the individuals that are in proceedings sometimes have council and sometimes do not. i am not sure how it occurs in front of an immigration judge. >> it can be challenging when they have children in front of them and you pointed out the scenario. sometimes it is a challenge to find out exactly what the case is about. the judges take the necessary time to get to know what the child is all about and the child's case is all about and sometimes they will have children come back a couple of times in order to get them comfortable and here what actually happened to them and whether they wish to apply for asylum. the point of taking the time is not just also to hear what the

child's case is all about but to have a chance to find a lawyer and there are a lot of organizations out there stepping up and providing lawyers for these kids. for the most part the process is designed to give the -- that the child accountable and have the chance to find a lawyer or a representative can assist them. >> if i can take one brief follow-up. the image is striking to have a 10-year-old child standing in front of a judge and then next to them would be a government attorney basically seeking to have them deported. is there any other place where we have in the justice system in america where we allow the young child to stand before the judge without any legal representation and plead the case? >> not to my knowledge.

we are in immigration court because there is no right to a point. we have the situations when it comes to children at some more striking which is why we try to do what we can with our federal partners to try to provide as much capacity. >> that has to be a frightening experience for a toilet that may be the victim of violent. they are trembling, scared coming and we expect them to understand that they need to start pleading that they have an asylum claim. >> it can be very intimidating for obvious reasons, just why we do what we can to try to specialist training to handle them coming before them. they are not like any adult case in the specialized procedures i

referred to earlier and certainly the surge from last year provided much of the numbers. >> senator baldwin. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank you and the ranking member carper for holding this hearing and thank the witnesses for your insight and time. when we held the hearing about a year ago i was interested in the discussions that the committee and the witness panel had about the root causes of the search that we experienced in 2014 and it was clear to me that the violence and instability in the number of central american companies were key factors that push children to make a very careless journey to our border.

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 do not have a state department with us on the panel today. but mr. miller, at the beginning of your written testimony, you talk a little bit about the push and pull factors that led to the influx. you also mentioned in her testimony your testimony and in response to a question that secretary johnson and the director met with officials in honduras and guatemala and el salvador to request their cooperation in the flow of the citizens to the borders and i'm wondering borders and i'm wondering if you can outline for us or share with us some of the

specific efforts that came out of the meetings and consultations. >> we were meeting with those officials to try to figure out the communication strategy to overcome a lot of the marketing of the organizations were doing to try to encourage children thinking that they would be receiving some kind of immigration benefit that wasn't waiting for them on the other side and it appears that those collaborative efforts are yielding results. and i would say from my understanding they have a robust plan to continue the communication and they have a number of indicators in the economic difficulty some of them stemming from agricultural

problems, some of them tied to the lack of opportunities for these children and i think that as we continue to work with our central american partners and collaboratively with the state we will be able to continue those in the unified u.s. government manner. >> thank you. right now as it was noted by the ranking member, the appropriations committee in the senate is looking at the president's request for foreign assistance. the president's request is at odds with the amount allocated in the appropriations process.

i guess in your opinion what would the impact be on the root causes of the migration of congress to not engage in a funding level of access they next year that we would begin to backslide and we are trying to mitigate a dangerous journey and i think the more we can do to meet their needs and to work collaboratively we will mitigate which from my perspective as a law-enforcement officer is a good function. >> you did a great job of outlining the two tracks of

asylum proceedings in 2008. you talked quite a bit about some of the training required to conduct child appropriate interviews to make sure they asylum officers get that type of specialized knowledge. i wonder if you could talk more in detail about the training and the initiation back in 2009 or was that an response to last year's surge or both? >> the training to conduct interviews with children has been a long-standing training with the asylum core.

the first children's guidelines came out in 1995 or 1996. so we have had a history of interviewing children for asylum in the united states and we've had a lesson plan to teach individuals the appropriate techniques. we've had a number of outside professors consultancy and ngos and assist us with a lesson plan. as if it had to be a long tradition. the numbers started to increase most recently. we have been conducting this 1995 my recollection is correct.

>> for those that go through the non- adversarial process, tell me about the translation services that are available to minors and also it is not adversarial but do they get legal assistance in negotiating the process? >> just like all applicants they have to provide their own interpretation without the government asked him to. we have an interpreter on the telephone that listens to make sure it is correct and fraud is not occurring. they need to at their expense as well as an attorney i did mention over 90% of the anna company to are represented by the time they get to us but that's coming from the court

where they start before coming to us and 90 present is the number we are looking at. >> i want to thank all of you for being here today. one of the things i want to follow up on when secretary johnson testified in 2014 about the crisis we were facing from unaccompanied children in central america one of the things he recommended at the time and i think it was before this committee as well, he talked about the differences in the law between countries contiguous and countries that are not contiguous to the united states of america and he said in terms of changing the law we are asking for the ability to treat unaccompanied kids the same way

as contiguous countries and it would help if the senate amended the law for children to treat the same as the noncontiguous country as a contiguous country so as i understand it if a child is from exit over example again comes to the border in terms of both rights and legal explanations can be given and that cannot happen in the central american country and when you talk about the steps they could take to help the situation isn't that one of the steps we could take consistent with what secretary johnson told us at the time of this crisis? >> whoever is the best person to answer that. >> that is my view as fine of operation only they can work

collaboratively in the local repatriation agreements to ensure they work collaboratively with respective governments to ensure the safe return of the children and now if they have that flexibility with other countries for those children who at the time and counter whether it is border patrol or at the point of entry if they wish to withdraw we have outstanding repatriation agreements. we have many opportunities to affect in a safe and humane manner and given the opportunity we would be able to exercise a broad spectrum ability for those that are not seeking any kind of protection. >> i understand that this was put in place i believe when president bush was in office in which we were changing trading the contiguous countries different than the noncontiguous

but it seems to me that it's outlived its purpose and you should be given the same tools. is this a tool that he would like to have mr. miller backs >> we support the secretary's efforts to have broad spectrum ability. >> i wanted to point out when the senator had asked all of you about the relationship between the executive order and the influx of unaccompanied children at the time and i recalled this as well when we were dealing with the influx. secretary johnson made it a

point of being clear with the central american countries because there was an impression, regardless how they got the impression that there was at the time that somehow you could receive a pass if you made it 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 order. so this was a contributing factor in the sense that there was a misimpression in central america were the children were being given a misimpression by the coyotes were other folks that were trying to make money off of them and bringing them here and so would you agree with me that that was a piece of -- or join secretary addressed at the time and had concerns about it. >> a couple of colleagues from cbp and post-interdiction issues were post interdiction issues were aware that there was a marketing strategy in the

smuggling organizations and i think the secretary worked to educate and to inform that wasn't the case that there were not persons who were interdicted after january 12014 through the immigration court proceedings in the lifecycle as we call it of the immigration process they would maintain that interdiction and thus remain a priority. >> you think that is communicated now so that isn't being conveyed or do you think that is a concern. >> that message has been received and has contributed to the influx of the share of.

>> they do not have the benefit of the arrivals. the priorities are related to criminals so they said which is it. most law enforcement agencies prioritize all actions. >> the end of the budget hearing appropriation committee hearing you said you have to show the population in central america but you are sending people back. we have to show that you are sending people back. are we showing people sending them back from literally between

2.7 to maybe as much as 10% back 109,000 have come into the country according to some of my figures, not sure what the number is that that's close. we have returned over 6,000 pages about a 5.7% rate. i agree with the senator it does not legally applied to these children but in reality, isn't that what the children in central america are relying on is that the situation is if you get into america you've got a very low percentage chance and probability of being returned? is that the reality? spinnaker do you believe we are showing the population that we are sending people back to backs

>> across the broad spectrum on the the border and yes we are. we worked effectively and continue to make strides with the family unit and we will work collaboratively with our partners at the table that to 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 they were interdicted and when they entered into the court process. by the time the case is mature to many of the people that have been added to dictate it fully they may have reached the majority that is the nature of the process the children upon interdiction and due process rights.

i can tell you that going forward the community new to utilize the efforts and i think it's still -- i stand by the statement it makes good sense if i have limited resources and i'd faced with a task of going after criminal children. i think it is the appropriate choice to go after criminals. >> when we dispense advice from that i think that's compassion. >> do they check the status of the sponsors of the unaccompanied children ask >> we do make the inquiry of the sponsoring us to the immigration status. spank 100% of the time? >> we make the inquiry in addition to that for those cases that are subject to fingerprinting. we will get them from immigration at the context of the fingerprint. >> so if somebody is in the

country illegally do you still turn those just went over to the illegal immigrant parents? in process. >> yes or no do you turn them over to a legal immigrant parents? >> we will place a child with an undocumented parent. >> that you know is undocumented. >> yes. >> we can provide information then provide information about the location and address if we release the child. spank you notify any agency that individual is in the country illegally.

>> do you tell ths that he placed a child with somebody that you know is in this country illegally? yes or no, do you tell them that? i'm not judging whether this is right is right or wrong but in the testimony coming you do states that children have a privilege of representation. if the current law is that there can be no expense to the government at we are issuing grants to provide legal representation.

there is a conflict in the law is what you're saying? there can be no government expense utilized to provide legal representation -- but you are also granting money legally asking for the request and paying for the legal representation are you not? >> that's correct. >> again it's your testimony that this is legal representation is granted but at no expense. and you are paying for it.

but if the conflict between is the conflict between the two address. real quick what is the average time to adjudicate one of these claims? are we talking months or years? the commitment senator frist have the hearing in 21 days and we are hearing to that we are adhering to that? >> at adjudication to the -- >> the cases do take him as my

colleagues will mention, they do take a long time. the child probably didn't have a claim -- >> a very low percentage of those. >> they can take a significant amount of time. i would say the legal. i don't have a number to give you in terms of the latest search of children but it is a matter of months and not weeks.

we have a low percentage of orders. this has to be a very. this has to be a very lengthy process. >> it can be and it's not just the asylum but also kids can apply for a national immigrant jewll status which is more complicated because it involves the state court systems. that is the wall that we have and worked through. i think we certainly worked with this.

they are trying to lay out the conflict in the law for people coming to the country illegally we need to address this and this. senator carper three to >> of >> thinks mr. tran. i want to go back to the root causes again with a different focus. one of the things we agree on is folks that are hunters that want to come to this country for a limited period of time and be able to go home maybe we ought to change the loss of that could happen. and that is one element of comprehensive legislation that passed several years ago. please give us some advice if we were to be piecemeal immigration

reform what advice would each of you have to give us of an element or two to include in the legislative effort to help address the issues that we are addressing today for its >> the administration does support what the senate passed a couple of years ago. that's something all the agencies here are behind specifically for my agency that they have included significant resources for the system and we would of course ask that any comprehensive immigration reform bill pete taken into consideration for the needs of the court system and the constraints.

>> i think i need to be for tonight agents on this one. >> working to fix the broken immigration system we would've would favor the opportunity to balance the age versus the statutory requirement we have today that regardless of the agents conviction many times our officers are compelled to take action and as a result frequently we exercise a great deal of resources on the initial encounter to be mitigated thereafter. i think if we look for the temporal element to the enforcement prioritization and how individuals are charged that would allow us to deploy their resources across the country. >> give a simple example of what you said. >> a simple example could be in a comics -- narcotics.

they are waiting for their green card renewal and the person has this narcotics conviction from the 1980s and is the statutory framework is today we are asked to take the appropriate action to arrest and charge the person as an aggravated felon notwithstanding any kind of what the person has done since that initial conviction. >> we discussed individuals attempting to come through for a variety of reasons. one however is that they are fleeing persecution or they've been persecuted in the past. we should design the law to

effectively and efficiently hear those claims. to a great degree that an allergy brings true where you try to get through efficiently and effectively to grant asylum to individuals who deserve protection or deny those individuals that are not eligible and return. >> in the testimony today i thought someone mentioned that roughly 4,000 unaccompanied minors were granted to asylum is that correct? >> that is correct since 2009.

>> would you give some idea of roughly how many have chosen the asylum just roughly? >> since 2009 approximately i don't have to figure in front of me. i can take it from right here in 2009 roughly 13,000 individuals applied. the court they were given a continuance and then they filed. >> is it safe to assume there are more than 1300 fax >> the process can take time.

>> when i read your testimony i thought maybe i didn't have enough coffee but he said no that wasn't the coffee. it's hard to wrap my head around this and i think i speak for the chairman as well it is confusing and a long tortured road that -- i don't know if there is something we can do to make it more straightforward or not but i would be interested in exploring that. i don't think to be critical you both presented well that it's a long and tortured road. i went back to the idea.

i am proud of what we have done in the state where the chief justice supreme court and the office reached out all across the united states and asked them to help out and they answered the call and it enables us to provide legal counsel and frankly not much cost to the government. we need to do more of that. why is it in our financial interest to try to ensure that these kids have legal counsel? is there an association whether they have legal counsel or show up for hearings, does it expedite the process or slowed down? anybody? >> there is no question based on the court cases over many years having counsel at the start of the process especially for a child makes the process more

efficient. they have integrated the pure continuances. the legal issues are clear. they do not spend time trying to tease out what the case is about so there's little doubt the council makes it more efficient. >> one more quick question. i understand we have a limited group of children from guatemala, honduras to apply as refugees and there are citizens who meet certain requirements. could you describe this effort and why it has begun? >> it even has an acronym for central american minor -- the central american minor's refugee and parole program was designed

to give an alternative to those in the three countries for the safe and legal alternative taking the dangerous road to the united states with smugglers. the program allows individuals that are present in the united states to file for their children but remain in these three countries. testing is done to make sure the relationship is valid and then we have the state department management of the program that arrange for the child to be preliminarily interviewed in the country in the case is rife to be presented as a refugee or for

parole in officer will conduct the interview and we will do background checks fingerprinting to check some individual petitioning and through; all record of that individual that individual to be arranged through the refugee program if they are deemed refugee to come to the united states. >> thank you. >> a fine example by allowing you to have an opportunity to make a final comment before but before i do that i do want to requote secretary johnson before that hearing on april 29, 2005. we have to show the population of fewer sending people back.

to quote the ranking member and we do that well we have an example of what worked in 2005 we were experiencing the search with brazilian immigrants. in the previous year 31063. as a result of that in 2005 the secretary and five observation texas hold them where they prioritized the existing space dedicated that space it began removing all of the illegal brazilians up and using the have handed using the expedited removals. the following year, the number of people coming in dropped from 31,063 to 1460. so again i think that's what this hearing -- by the way i just want to thank you all for the testimony. this has been very enlightening. very complex problem, multiple root causes. i have my opinion in terms of the cause but i think somebody

said it's a broken immigration system and it is. that is a valid acknowledgment. grapple. to use the piecemeal reform of the administration doesn't want to talk about that but we don't do comprehensive very well. with these these things are not easy to deal with. work with this committee and let's identify these problems and conflicts. quite honestly the reality situation as we are not going to do comprehensive reform in the next 18 months either by the secretary johnson's mission we will not have