exercise possibrosecutorial discretion. so -- i would like to understand of the 400,000 or so deportations, who actually are being deported because, for example, i get concerned when recent reports indicate that i.c.e. field offices in detroit is placing people with strong family ties without any criminal record into deportation proceedings. it is kind of reminiscent of what has been coming out regarding the veterans administration. it is one thing to have a policy directive such as the morton memo. it is another to what is actually going on out in the peeled and the exercise of that discretion. i recognize that the morton memo also says that these are guidelines and that your agents have -- can prosecute people who are here illegally. i think in terms of scarce resources, and establishment of priorities of how we ought to be enforcing our law and it would be -- good for us to have that

kind of breakdown from you. i would like to request -- >> well, one of the things that i learned from my department of defense experience is clear guidance in -- is indispensable. you don't issue clear guidance to the field and the -- how it is implemented is not going to look at all like what you intended. d.o.d., whatever they issue new guidance, they always socialize, train to it the field and down the chain of command and so i spent a lot of time talking to our work force about how to better implement policy changes that are issued in washington, out of associate -- how to verbalize them and i'm determined to do a better job in that regard. >> good. my understanding is that under the programs, some 500,000 young people have come forward to participate. they are now -- many of them are now in the renewal process. i believe.

because it has to be renewed every two years. i understand that the department, your department, is suggesting that applicants apply for renewal up to four months before the expiration of the two-year term. i know that's to give them enough time so that there is no gap which would subject them to deportation. what is your department doing to ensure that renewals are handled expeditiously and what's your department planning to do in processing i delays leading to lapses in the status? >> we have been preparing for this for some time now and one of the things we are doing is we are not requiring individuals to submit all of the same documentation they submitted two dwreers ago unless there has been some new event in their life like -- criminal conviction or something. but we are not requiring the individuals go back and submit

very same paperwork all over again. you are correct that we had over 600,000 applicants two years ago, about 500 applications were granted. that's a large number of people that we were able to get through the system. and so i believe that in the renewal process, you know, that good work will continue. >> you would like to stay in touch with you regarding how that is going because half of a million, that's a lot of people. thank you very much. >> it is senator three. >> thank you. >> excuse me. >> thank you, secretary johnson, for joining us today. >> nice to meet you. >> your efforts on behalf of our country. you have got a tough job.

one attribute of this administration that has caused a lot of people concern is tendency some of them observe within the administration to in effect modify existing statute by executive -- sometime plus executive order. other times through executive memorandum within a particular department. as you know, justice jackson came up with this three-part analysis that's -- pretty simple and can be applied to a lot of circumstances. reiterated in moore versus regan. in category i, when the president acts pursuant to authorization by congress, is his power is said to be at its zenith. his power is said to be at its

by light and sort of a twilight zone or -- it can be a little bit unclear whether the president acts either in the absence of a particular congressional authorization but also -- or in the absence of a particular congressional prohibition. the president's authority, justice jackson explained, is at its lowest ebb when the president acts in a manner inconsistent with -- prohibited by congress in a statutory directive. now, using theories of prosecutorial discretion, the morton memoranda, that we are -- was described earlier and the program that had been criticized as -- an effort to mount a de facto elective implementation of certain legislative proposals that were considered and rejected by congress.

congress has not ever adopted because as implemented, they effectively, i'm told, telling agents if an immigrant meets these certain qualifications, if these characteristics are present, we don't quantity you enforcing the law. would you agree if that's the case to the extent that -- assuming hypothetically it could be the case, where -- where would that put us in justice jackson's three-part analysis? >> first of all, i wrote a paper about dames and moore in-law school. my recollection is the decision of the supreme court in '79 or '80 concerning iran -- >> '81, close. >> yes. the -- what you laid out i have quoted often when i was the senior lawyer for the department

of defense and the war powers context. president's war powers are at their zenith when he is acting, committing military purpose sunt to statutory authorization. so we applied and construed the aumf a lot. i was the -- the general counsel of the department of defense. i see the morton memo and i believe that the morton memo guidance could be clearer but i very much believe in the notion of prosecutorial discretion. in my conversations with the ero work force, we have all agreed that they should be devoting their time and effort and resources that they have to going after enforcing against the worst of the worst and the question is how do you do that? how do you find the worst of the worst? where do you draw the line? >> of course, that's why prosecutorial discretion is necessary because we have scarce government resources and you can't expect people to do it all.

>> correct. >> normally, as you know, based in the only in a position you now hold on the one -- you held in the department of defense, former position as an assistant u.s. attorney earlier in your career. prosecutorial discretion usually means discretion. and it leaves significant amounts of discretion in the hands of the prosecutor to best -- >> or his boss. >> or the prosecutor's boss. where you have gotting ing a de assuming there is a directive, as i'm told the directive is being carried out in this fashion, where you have agents on the ground being told do not enforce the law in this entire category. i think that's a little bit different than prosecutorial discretion, isn't it? isn't that a mandate not to enforce the law? >> well, when i was in ausa in the southern district of new york, in 1989, '90, '91, we used to make an effort to get to at

least a thousand indictments a year. there would be a big push towards the ends to try on get over a thousand. you can do that very easily if you prosecute a lot of marijuana cases. but we were not focused on marijuana. we were focused on the crack epidemic going on in new york city. and if we had focused on marijuana cases, we would get to a thousand indictments guy the month of march probably. that would not be the most effective enforcement of our federal narcotics laws. so -- i think that that principle translates into the remove ve allen forcement conte and i believe very much you can and we ought to be able to do that. the question is how and where do you draw the lines and where do you prioritize and where you don't. i don't think that that necessarily amounts to and i don't believe that it has amounted to simply declaring off-limits large categories of people. >> i understand the point. i see my time has expired.

i need to wrap up hear. my concern is that when you have a national memorandum with national impact and when agents i'm informed are being told on the ground do not enforce the law where these circumstances are present, that is meaningfully legally constitutionally different than what you described. where an individual office has only so many prosecutors and so many agents. and so many resources to devote. and -- they maintain some true discretion to decide, how, when, whether, to extent what laws to enforce, what circumstances are going to trigger the use of those resources. again, what we are talking about here is a national memorandum that i'm told that is being implemented nationally in a way so as to just write often tire provisions of federal law to the ex-thaentd that's happening, that's very troubling and very different than what you describe. thank you, mr. chairman. i see my time has expired.

>> thank you. senator did your bind. >> thank you. secretary johnson, thanks for being here. >> good morning. >> i would like to address an aspect of the unaccompanied children's issue. i don't know if it has come up during the course of this hearing. i think it should. there are undoubtedly many reasons these crossing the border. an "l.a. times" writer won a pulitzer prize for her book, "enrique's journey." that book explained what she believed to be the reason why 75% of the children were coming across the border. she was referring to some 48,000 children as young as 7 years of age crossing our border. over half of them by themselves. and the reason they were crossing the border was not on its its face obvious. it was not something sent by the president or congress by politicians or maybe the things

that might first come to mind. they were looking for their mothers. looking for their mothers. and that, i believe, has led them to do things that are unimaginable to those of us with children or grandchildren. to think a child as young as 7 would hop a freight train and what they found is as a result of looking at this, at the university of houston, they found that these kids, as they were coming into the united nations were cold, hungry, helpless, and half of them unaccompanied, hunteded like animals by corrupt police bandits and gang members, the university of houston study found most of them robbed, beaten, raped, usually several times. some killed, some named by these railroad trains. that, to me, cannot be overlooked in this conversation. before we start asking for

pronouncements from the president, let us stop and reflect as fathers and grandfathers about these ball bees and these children who are desperate to find their mothers in america. if this is not a searing indictment of our broken immigration system and the need for change, i can't think of anything that is. i want to thank senator flake. he and i sat together for many, many months working on a comprehensive immigration bill. we gave and took back and forth. your heart is in the right place, senator. we may come out a little differently on this issue, i know where you are because you and i both worked for that bill. now we have got to pass that bill. in the meantime, some things are happening. when you came to see me, on your path to this position, i asked you for things. i asked you to come to the detention facility and meet those who were about to be deported from the united states and you said you would. friday you are going to. in broadview, illinois.

at the broadview facility. i will be there to greet you on that visit and you will meat with some local people and share your thoughts about the current deportation policy. the president said he wants congress to act on immigration reform and is withholding decisions that can be made by the executive in the hopes that congress will do this before the end of july. in the meantime, i hope that you are in the process of reviewing our deportation policy. what can you say to us today about these deportations? >> first, i look forward to visiting the detention center in chicago. the whole reason i'm going is because you mentioned this to me when we had our first visit together. i believe very much in the role that i should have in reviewing our detention conditions, something i did at d.o.d., something i did intend to continue to do. the one we are going to friday is not first one i have been to.

as i mentioned in my opening statement, i have been to mcgowan station, texas with my wife, who is sitting right there, to see these children on mother's day. and one of them told me something almost exactly like what you said. i asked her where is your mother? she said, i don't have a mother. i'm looking for my forein the united states. i encountered this in a very personal way. i understand it. the review that i am undertaking is comprehensive. i'm talking to our work force about our policies and how they believe we can more effectively implement our policies and i'm also talking to large groups of people on the outside, across the spectrum, on better, more effective, fairer enforcement policies. i believe we can do a better job. i believe we can have clearer guidance and i believe we can

better train it to the work force so what we intend to be implemented is implemented. that's my overarching goal, senator. >> i thank you for that. the statistics that come back that suggest over 40% of those deport vd no criminal record. at least that is what -- that was the case a few years ago. those with criminal records, i'm not pleading for. they have lost their right as far as i'm concerned. to even be considered at this moment. those without criminal records and technical immigration violations, many times were breaking up families. families where many american citizens are in that household, children and spouses and families that are being broken up. i think that we are better than that. i think we can keep america safe and honor our laws and, yet, enforce them in a fashion that's truly american. a nation of immigrants that should be proud of its heritage. you i thank you for your public service. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for being here.

thank you for your service. there is no job more important in the administration than protecting our homeland. i appreciate your service in this very important role. i note we discuss immigration, i myself is the son of an immigrant from cuba. i'm a passionate advocate for legal immigration. will is month stronger advocate for legal immigration in the u.s. senate than i am. but at the same time, i think much of the discussion of immigration i morse, disregards, the humanitarian crisis that is caused by illegal immigration. as you know, i represent the state of texas and the state of texas immigration is not something abstract that we read about in the newspapers. immigration is something as texans we deal with every day and illegal immigration is as

texans we deal with every day. the humanitarian crisis that comes from our failure to secure the borders is staggering. in 2013 the border patrol reported the emergencies and crimes it encountered. and most of the cases were those that came here illegally were the victims so there were 2, 3sh346 rescues. 445 deaths. indeed, last year i received a letter from one of my constituents and brooks county. a veterinarian who has worked with ranchers, texas ranchers, mexican ranchers, his entire life. this veterinarian wrote, quote, i live in a brooks county ranch with my wife. in 2012, 129 bodies of deceased illegal aliens were found our county. on private ranch land. most of those bodies were found

within 15 minutes of our front door in any given direction. we believe those bodies represent only 20% to 25% of the actual number of illegal immigrants dying in this area. in one week of last july, i personally rescued 15 people, most were central americans, that were lost and close to dying from dehydration and heat exhaustion. that same week i pound a deceased person that had been laid across a dirt road in order to be found. he was a 31 year owed man from el salvador. this is a humanitarian crisis that we have a legal system in place that is failing to secure the boarder and that is incentivizing people crossing illegally. secondly, we have in particular humanitarian crisis with respect to unaccompanied minors. that's a crisis that's direct

consequence much policies of the obama administration. in 2011, there were roughly 7,000 unaccompanied minors that were apprehended. in 2012 that number rose to 14,000. in 2013, it rose to 24,000. in 2014, your agency is estimating it is going to be as high as 90,000. in 2015 the administration is estimating it will rise all the way to 145,000. it is important to understand what these numbers represent. these numbers represent children. little boys and little girls that their parents are handing over. not to some noble social worker trying to help them. they are handing over to international global criminal cartels that smuggle human beings in and put these kids among other places on top of fast-moving freight trains. these are criminals who sexually

assault and physically assault and who sometimes murder these children. these are little girls that are sometimes being sold into prostitution and sex slavery. mr. secretary, you testified to this committee that the increase is as a result of violence in central america. there is surely violence in central america. if you look at the statistics, in particular, you can see where they were -- unaccompanied minors in 2011 and 2012, midway through 2012 is where the administration unilaterally brought amnesty to some 800,000 people that had been minors. so-called docket proceedings. you can see shortly after that, the numbers spike dramatically. is it really your testimony that granting amnesty to some 800,000

people who came illegally as children had no effect in causing a dramatic increase in children being handed over to international cartels to be smuggled in here illegally? >> first, it is not amnesty. it is deferred action. second, it applies to people that came into this kungtri as children prior to june 2007. that's seven years ago. it does not apply to anybody who comes into this country today, tomorrow, or yesterday. the -- earned path to citizenship contemplated in the senate bill does not apply to anybody who comes into this country today, tomorrow, yesterday. applies to people that came into the country by year end 2011. i believe, senator, the primary motivator for the reason -- for this spike in migration, i'm not a sociologist and not an expert, is the situations that senator

durbin and others laid out in that's countries. >> mr. secretary, my time has expired. with all respect, in my view, that argument is a red herring. that explains why there is an increase in central america because of the problems and challenges those nations are experiencing. in 2011, 15% of the otms of the mexicans april helpeded were unaccompanied minors. 2014 that number has grown to 37%. there is nothing about the violence in central america that would cause people to be handing over their children, little girls, little boys, separately, may have caused more people from central america to come here but not the kids. i will say this in closing. because my time has expired. it has been widely reported that president obama, the administration is contemplating yet another amnesty like two years ago, just a couple of months before the upcoming

election. i will say to you and i will urge you to pass on to the president that i think that would be a great mistake. i think it would be contrary to rule of law. i think that granltding yet another amnesty, would result in those numbers going even higher and would result in even more little girls and little boys being subjected to violence and horrific dangerous conditions and it would be a serious mistake for us to go down that road. thank you. >> thank you, senator cruz. senator schumer. >> thank you. thank you, secretary johnson. i'm very glad you are there and you are off to a great start. i wouldn't expect anything less than a new yorker. although i hear senator menendez claims you are a new jersjer ne.

earlier this year, due to backlogs at uscis, it was take being a year to process the iowan 30 applications. that's where u.s. citizens petition to bring their immediate relatives from foreign countries, spouses, parents, minor children. earlier this year i sent you a letter on this issue and you did a great job alleviate something of the dialogue. i have several cases in my office where our men and women in uniform had to wait up until a year to be reunited with their relatives. i think that it is unfair that our veterans are getting caught in the backlog. they more than anyone else deserve to be reunited with loved ones and a support system as soon as possible. so the backlogs at uscis tend to increase and did he crease depending on world events. but i think there should never be a time when veterans have to wait more than six months to reunite with your families. would you be willing to commit to creating a special process

for making sure the average processing time for i-130 veterans never takes longer than six months? >> senator, i'm you a where of your interest in this issue. i do believe that we should do everything we can to make life easier for our veterans, those that served in uniform. i think we should be -- i think we should pay attention to their situation. the six months -- i don't know whether that's feasible but i do -- >> can you work towards making it happen? >> i talked to my staff about this issue. i agree that we should work to help -- >> you agree with the congress september of expediting things for our veterans? >> yes, sir. >> good. okay. thank you. next. more parochial issue but one of great importance to the northern -- western portion of my state. the buffalo bills.

they are an important -- what do they have to do with you? you will find out in a minute. the buffalo bills, servage important economic engine to the western new york community. but many of their fans are in canada but do not come to games because the traffic traveled to buffalo through our entry on game days. in other words, normal sunday, not much traffic. but when the bills games -- there is a huge amount of traffic. yet, the staffing levels at the border do not take that into account. we have huge back locks and people stop coming because they miss the game. you have done a great job adding new agents to the ports of entry in western new york. we talked about it. you have acted on it. i thank you for that. the question is now whether with these new agents and resources, can we make it's easier for canadians to attend bills games on the eight sundays of the year in and the games are in buffalo? it would be a huge boost to western new york's economy.

specifically can we do things like making sure we have premium staffing on the lanes on -- on the bridge during the three hours before the game on game days? and having created -- having dhs create a setup at the stadium during the bills games so fans can sign up and conduct next us interviews so they can use the nexus lanes for future games, which would speed up things for everybody and -- the only way we know who is a bills fan is who is at the games. it is often hard to do these interviews because they are in remote locations. bringing them to bills games would make it's easier for thousands of fans to get the card. next thing, finally, would you agree to meet with whomever the next owner is we are looking for a new owner of the bills. we are all working very hard, myself, congressional delegation, and the governor, county executive, and the mayor, to make sure the bills stay in buffalo. so we are going to have a new owner. one of the things had a would be helpful is if you would i a

degree to meet with the next owner to develop a comprehensive plan to employee the speed of traffic over the board other game day. >> my answer concerning getting bills pans to bills games depends entirely on who they are playing. just kidding. >> they don't win that much. we wish they won more. >> senator, i think you know that i have spent a lot of sometime working on expediting travel across the northern border. the peace bridge, i have been to detroit. i have been to port huron. looking at the backlog over the bridge and in mill areas district. i want to -- i appreciate the importance of expediting travel across the few bridges we have on the northern border. i want to help out the situation there. whether it is meeting the bills owner or not, i mean -- i would

be happy to meet the bills owner at some point. but i want to work with you on this. >> right. would you like into these two things? aside from the meeting, premium staffing on game day and not city hall day it doesn't have to be but just for the hours before the game. and the possibility of having dhs do a nexus setup at the bills stadium during -- >> i will look into it to see whether it is feasible. as you know, we have limited numbers of people. >> i do. but because of our increase in the budget and because you were good enough to put some of them on the niagara frontier we have more than what we had before which makes it possible to do these things. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator schumer. i have a number of questions for you. and then i think senator flake has a few questions. that will probably end our hearing. thank you for your patience and most importantly, thank you for your service. in march of this year, you may or may not recall i wrote to you about the detention policies and

practices of your agencies and i expressed a number of concerns regarding they detention of literally hundreds of thousands of people, i.c.e. broke a record in 2012 by detaining 477,000 people. that's about five times the number detained 20 years ago. and i know that -- you are hearing from both sides of this issue. the contention we heard this morning -- emphasizes the importance of passing immigration reform so we can address many of these questions. my concerns expressed in march essentially dealt with the excessive detention of long-time lawful permanent residents and asylum seekers who are kept in detention without nip opportunity appear before a

judge or who -- constitution requires bond hearings to protect detainees' rights as you well know. so the lack of bond hearings for thousands of immigrants is a real concern for many of us, including myself. so -- let me reiterate the -- the question that i asked. i is this a way for the department of homeland security had a worked with the department of justice to provide for immigration, bond hearings, to all individuals, detained by the department after no more than six months of detention, the time the united states supreme court has held presumptively reasonable? >> senator, we -- i remember your letter. i hope spoynded to it by now. if i haven't i apologize. >> you responded to it, mr. secretary. but -- or i should correct myself, you did not personally.

the agency did in the person of thomas winkowski. who in effect said -- i may not be doing full justice to the letter. that you -- that these -- issues raised in my letter, this was one of them. require consultation with our partners at doj, including the executive office for immigration review. that was back in mid april. >> okay. there is a case in the ninth circu circuit, rodriguez, that was decided last year and it is under review right now in doj and dhs where we are considering whether to petition for cert in the case. it directly implicates this issue. there is a mandatory detention statute for certain categories

of individuals and my understanding of the rodriguez case is that it says that after a six-month period, there should be a bond hearing in certain circumstances. ask so the case is under review right now. my general view is that we need to enforce statutes and listen million they are declared unconstitutional but the case sunday review right now. it is something we are actively looking at. >> in my view, mr. secretary, you had that discretion now. the statute does not require that you deny bond hearings. in fact, the better view of the policy here, i would suggest respectsfully is that i did in my letter is that you grant the bond hearings and let me also say that this is -- the other question raised in my letter is whether the definition of custody can be expanded to

include alternatives to detention. alternatives that would prevent flight where the detainees are not in any way a risk to public safety. those are two proposals that i have advanced, not original to me, that would comply with the statute and wouldn't require a court decision, wouldn't implicate a necessity for you to wait for a court decision. >> i'm aware of that question about the definition of custody. i recall that you asked that question. i know it is under review right now. >> i'm -- >> this type of issue i can't do anything without lawyers. >> and i am not going to press you because i can sense from your response that you are -- let me put it this way. i hope that you will get back to

me about these issues in a timely way. let me dash ask you, finally, i have heard from a great many connecticut constituents who have mixed status family. parts of their families are here legally. sometimes their children have been born here. sometimes they have children who are brought here and as infants or very young children have been grnted status. they live in pier of having parents or siblings or children deported. i would like to ask you the question that has been asked and in a slightly different terms. maybe with a different viewpoint. are you considering expanding this to include more young people who were brought here as children and who have deep ties to our communities but may not meet all of the present requirements? i'm thinking about young people who are pursuing their education

and narrowly miss being eligible for this because they passed their 31st birthday or because they had to leave the country at some point after is 2007 due to extraordinary circumstances. >> the president asked me to undertake a review in march of our enforcement priorities. i'm still undertaking that review. it encompassed a number of things. i haven't reached conclusions yet. as you know, i'm sure from public accounts, press accounts, he's asked me to wait to see what congress does with comprehensive immigration reform and before i report results of my review but i'm reviewing a number of different things and haven't reached any firm conclusions at this time. >> i appreciate that answer. and i would just urge having listened and met and come to

know many of the connecticut young people who unfufl are excluded from this deferred action status, who have lived here and studied in connecticut and -- whose lives are here, that you would expand the status, deferred action status, if the congress fails to act. my hope is that congress will act. >> my hope is, too. >> i know we share that view. if it fails to do so, i would strongly urge that the deferred action be expanded. senator make? >> thank you. >> just a couple of other specific questions. before do i, that you mentioned when we talked about motivations for people coming here, that you believe the primary motivation is the situation in these countries. i just have to say that that

conflicts with -- an internal unreleased documented that i believe you have a copy of now and it has been cited by the media where interviews were done in n the rio grande valley by the secretary intelligence analyst and others interviewing 230 family units that have come across. this was in may. may 28 of 2014 is when this report was released. asking the main purpose of it was to quote the report was to determine the factors compelling the otms to migrate to be the united states in addition to other migration issues. it says that of those 230, it said that the information -- high percentage of the subjects interviewed stated their family members in the u.s. urged them to travel immediately because the united states government was only issuing i am congratulation permits until tend of 2014.

obviously it is bad information but it -- they believe that -- that there is -- lax enforcement or some new program that needs to be addressed you about this administration to let people know that that is not the case. the issue was the main reason provided by 95% of the interviewed subjects. 95% seems more of a primary reason than the economic or security situation in their country. the second reason was related to increased gang related violence in central america. 95% listed as the primary reason some expectations of a program that would allow them to stay. i would plead with the administration, the president needs to state unequivalent cably those that will not be able to stay and will not

qualify under any other program and any deportation poll is review will not contemplate allowing them to stay. that would be, i would think, incredibly helpful and if you could relay message back to the president, we are trying to do so as well. with regard to arizona, you mentioned that people were being pulled off the line. think in arizona, i had staff down at the facility. they mentioned that as many as 200 officers, border patrol offices, were being utilized to process these families and unaccompanied children. that obviously is going to pull people off the line. what are we doing in terms of additional resources for arizona? the tucson sector. >> i believe a number of things, senator.

including reassigning people from within the interior. i can get back to you with a more detailed breakdown of work allocations and so forth. you know, it is possible that a border parole officer or agent could be involved in the proper processing of a migrant near the border even in regular circumstances. but -- no doubt this surge has required that we reallocate that we ask people to do things that they normally don't do in addition to their normal responsibilities and we are working to try to restore the equilibrium because i agree with you our border security personnel need to focus onboarder security. i -- i'm the first one to acknowledge that. the document -- everyone -- a number of people here referred to it. i have not seen it. i keep hearing about a draft document. i don't know how reliable this survey is.

i'm sure five minutes after i walk in -- ten seconds after i walk out somebody will put it in my hands and i get to read it. gist don't know how reliable that various is. i tend to agree with senator durbin a 10-year-old or 7-year-old, principle motivation are the circumstances they are leaving and they want to be with their mother and father. >> certainly. i don't think any of us deny that. not many 10-year-old and 7-year-olds are actually climbing on a bus or train alone from guatemala. it is usually kids older than that or smugglers taking them in. also, one other question. i.c.e. is responsible to take a -- family unit, i guess, put hem in a bus stop and i guess some of that was going on in arizona. is that happening anymore? >> my understanding is that with regard to -- the people that we are -- the vuds we are now

sending there are the uacs, unaccompanied children who under the law have to go to hhs. whether it is possible that we need to send more family units for processing, i wouldn't say and i can't rule that out. my understanding is that since about june 1, we have been sending principally, if not exclusively, the unaccompanied children there for processing. >> then i.c.e. takes a family unit to a bus stop and drops them off there. with an order to you a pier at someplace and time. what care is being taken to ensure that's actually a family unit? we hear anecdotal evidence that 16-year-old will say, well, i belong to that family and they get to the bus stop and say see you later. is i.c.e. required to do due diligence to make sure that's -- >> i'm sure -- i'm sure there is some type of protocol in place to ensure that a group of people

who claim to be family unit are, in fact, a family unit but i am sitting here don't know what that is. >> thank you. thanks for your indulgence. i appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i'm going to close this hearing. the record will be kept open for one week. we thank you very much for your service and for your helpful and forthright testimony today. thank you.

with reports of increasing unrest in iraq, join us for reactions to the violence. you will hear from president obama followed by senator john mccain and other senators after an armed services committee briefing on iraq. finally, house speaker john boehner from his weekly briefing. that's on our companion network c-span. and then at 9:00, the annual radio tv congressional correspondents dinner with white house chief of staff dennis mcdonough and comedian nick offerman. our live coverage gets under way at 9:00 eastern, also on c-span. hillary clinton recounts her tenure as secretary of state from her published memoir, "hard

choices." that's live tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. this saturday we will have live coverage of the iowa state republican party convention happening in des moines. speakers include louisiana governor bobby jindal, kentucky senator rand paul, and 2012 presidential candidate rick santorum. that sartz at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> one of the things people don't always recognize is that during the war of 1812 it was fought from 1812 until after 1814, early 1815. it was really about the america re-establishing its independence against the british. this was sort of our second american revolution. this flag is the object for which francis scott key penned the words which became our national anthem.

>> the image in 1995, the flag was made to look old and restored. there was a whole bottom section that was reconstructed. when the flag was moved into the new exhibition space, there was a delivered decision by the curators not to do that again. what we wanted was that the flag would come to metaphor for the country. it is taggered and torn but still survives and the message is really the survival of both the country and the flag. we are not trying on make it look pretty. we are trying to make it look like it endured its history and still can celebrate its history. >> this year marks the 200th anniversary of the british naval bombardment of fort mchenry during the war of 1812. learn more about the flag francis scott key wrote about while we tour the smithsonian's star spangled banner exhibit. sunday night at 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern. part of american history tv. this weekend on c-span 3.

>> when i started covering congress you had people like senator russell long, will burt mills p. danny into trouble. but overall, these were people who knew it -- they were all very intelligent. they knew how to craft legislation. they knew how to do a deal and all worked with whoever the president was, their party or the other party. yes, there was politics but at the end of the day they usually fond a way to come together and make decisions for the good of the country. today you just don't see that anywhere. first of all, i think the quality of the members of congress, the house and senate, in terms of their intelligence and work ethic has diminished. they're still great people and i

shouldn't malign some of the -- there are wondersful members on both sides but i think they're the minority. i think increasingly people are driven by politics and their own survival. you know, i think the hardest work they do is raising money, not learning the issues, crafting deals. it's making speeches and positioning themselves to get reelected. >> emmy award winning journalist lisa myers is leaving washington, d.c., behind. find out why sunday night at 8:00 on q&a. how speaker john boehner said he could work with, quote, whoever gets elected as the next majority leader in the house. the speaker did not formally endorse a potential candidate after eric cantor was defeated in his primary this week. other topics include violence in iraq and the u.s./taliban

prisoner swap. this is just under ten minutes. good morning, everyone. eric cantor has been a true friend. i want to thank him and thank his staff for their service to our conference. and thank them for their service for our country as well. there's no one around here who works harder, puts more thought into advancing our principles and the solutions that we want to enact for the american people. i look forward to him continuing to lead our floor efforts here over the summer. as for the future, let me share a little bit with you. what i told the members yesterday. this is a time for unity, a time to focus on what we all know is true, that the president's policies have failed the american people. his administration can't get our

economy back to real growth, and he continues to endanger our troops and citizens with his failed foreign policies. on this point, the administration can't provide basic services to our veterans. we need to elect a congress that not only has the will to stop the president but the power to do so as well. every day we are showing the american people we've got better solutions. today we'll act on two more jobs bills that will help small businesses invest and grow. unfortunately, senate democrats continue to sit on their hands and failing to act on the dozens of jobs bills sitting over in the senate. but guess what? so long as the american people continue to ask the question where are the jobs, we are going to continue to be focused on this one issue. i said on tuesday that the transfer of five hardened terrorists has made americans less safe. i mean that, and i'll stand by it. when asked last week whether the

freed terrorists could return to plotting attacks on americans, president obama recently said absolutely. well, i don't think that's about half of it. this exchange has encouraged our enemies and increased the risk to our military and civilian personnel serving around the globe. those who would argue the opposite i think are incredibly naive. one of our citizens' greatest protections was knowing that the united states does not negotiate with terrorists. that issue now, that principle, has been compromised. america's willing to make deal with terrorists, that's the new obama doctrine. back in january, i urged the president to get engaged with what's going on in iraq. and this week we've seen big cities in iraq overrun with terrorists. the obama administration's failure to reach a status of forces agreement continues to have serious consequences for

iraq and american interests in the region. the administration's failed policies in syria, libya and egypt and its failure to implement a broader strategy for the middle east is having a direct impact on the situation in iraq. the united states has and will continue to have vital national interest in iraq. but the progress made there is clearly in jeopardy. the president has celebrated our exit from iraq as a hallmark of his foreign policy agenda. our focus should be instead on completing our mission successfully. i would urge the president once again to get engaged before it's too late. [ question inaudible ] >> what has happened in the past few cycles?

[ inaudible question ] what do you attribute to this where it seems like if the wind blows the right way? >> i'll let the political pundits describe and figure out what happened in that election. every election is different. i went through a primary process myself. and you have to understand, the american people are being squeezed by obama's policies. the economy is not growing. incomes aren't growing, we are not creating enough jobs. two-thirds of americans see no increase in wages but food prices are going up, gas prices are going up and health insurance costs are going up. so there's a lot of frustration that's out there. they look to washington and wonder why we can't resolve these issues. they are hard to resolve when you've got a president who won't engage. [ naud it

[ inaudible question ] >> i ran my race in a way i thought i should run my race, but i'm not going to analyze that race down there. >> do you want kevin mccarthy to be the house majority leader? and also, how important is it, do you think, for unity in it your conference to have a red state republican at the leadership table? >> well, i do think the members are going to make this decision. we are going to do it next week. i'm sure some will argue it's too soon, some will argue it's too long, but it's important we resolve this issue in a fair amount of time so that we can do the work that we were elected to do. so the members will make the decision about who the next majority leader is. >> it's a big deal for you. you talked about how important it was to have eric cantor at your side. do you want kevin mccarthy at your side? >> i've worked with all other 434 members of congress before. i can work with whoever gets elected.

>> speak her boehner, the issue at hand in mr. kantor's race, was that of immigration. people say immigration reform is dead because your conference will not move out of fear of what happened to mr. cantor. is immigration reform dead? >> let me debunk the first premise of your question. secondly, the issue with immigration reform has not changed. the president continues to ignore laws he signed into law violating his oath of office. he did it again with release of these taliban five. and i reminded the president again yesterday that every time he does this it makes it harder to gain the trust of our members to do the big things that need to be done around here. >> are you worried about immigration as an issue in 2016 then, it's not going to happen this year? >> listen, the president is going to have to demonstrate that he can be trusted to implement a law the way it was passed. >> you say that the people who think this bergdahl swap was a good deal are naive.

the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff signed off on the deal on the metric of national security. do you think the chairman of the joint chief of staff is naive? and the secretary of defense -- >> they are dead wrong on this issue. releasing these five people, negotiating with terrorists is a principle we've not violated. we now violated it and put americans at risk as a result of it. [ naasz [ inaudible question ] >> no. i'm not going to analyze what happened in this election. they are all different. i'm sure at some point people are going to hear about what really happened. >> surely you must have a takeaway dealing with issues like immigration. if eric cantor can be branded he is supporting amnesty, how can your party move forward regarding this issue? >> we don't know that that is

the issue or was the issue in the election. >> it was one of the issues, though, don't you think? >> on iraq, do you think the u.s. should be launching air strikes? if not, what should the u.s. do? >> well, i think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the iraqis have been asking for. i don't know enough of the details about the air strikes to comment whether we should or we shouldn't. but it's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year. it hasn't -- it's not like we haven't seen over the last five or six months these terrorists moving in taking control of western iraq. now they've taken control of mosul. they're 100 miles from baghdad. and what's the president doing? taking a nap. >> homeland security secretary jeh johnson discusses the

federal government's response to the unaccompanied children at the u.s./mexico bordzer. joining him, craig fugate and customs enforcement and health and human services department. this is about 30 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm joined by fema administrator craig fugate, cbp administrator gill correspond cowski, i.c.e. removal operations associate director tom holman and health and human services acting assistant secretary mark greenberging. we're here to update you on the steps we are taking to address the surge in unaccompanied

children along our nation's southwest border, focused in the rio grande valley sector. last year cbp encountered over 24,000 unaccompanied children crossing the border. by may of this year the number has already doubled to just over 47,000. this correlates with an overall rise in illegal migration into the rio grande valley sector principally by what we refer to as third country nationals, those from guatemala, el salvador and honduras that represent about three-quarters of this population. i saw this situation vividly for myself on may 11th, which happens to have been mother's day, when i visited mcallen processing center. i approached a 10-year-old girl and asked her, where is your

mother? she responded, i don't have a mother. i'm looking for my father in the united states. i returned to washington the next day determined to do something about this situation. as i testified to congress yesterday, this is a problem of humanitarian proportions in the rio grande valley sector. now, here is what we are doing about it. number one, on may 12th, monday, i declared a level four condition of readiness within the department of homeland security, which is a determination that the capacity of cbp and i.c.e. to deal with the situation is full and we need to draw upon the resources of the entire department of homeland security. i appointed the deputy chief of the border patrol to be the coordinator of that effort for a

dhswide response to the situation. number two, on june 1st, the president pursuant to the homeland security act directed me to establish a unified coordination group to bringing to bear the assets of the entire federal government to deal with this situation. this includes dhs and all of its components, hhs, the department of defense, the department of justice, gsa, and the department of state. i have, in turn, appointed fema administrator craig fugate to serve as the federal coordinating official for that u.s. governmentwide effort. in this effort, our goal is to quickly and safely transport the unaccompanied children out of cbp custody into the hands of hhs, supplementing the process all along the way in a safe and humane manner into ultimately a safe and secure environment that is in the best interest of the

child pursuant to the requirements of the law. fema has dedicated 70 people full time to coordinating this effort. on top of that, folks from across agencies of our government are working around the clock to address the effort. number three, we're looking for more space for processing and temporary shelter. the department of defense has loaned us lacklan air base to house kids before hhs finds guardians, ft. sill in oklahoma, hhs also is using a dod fa siltd in ventura, california, to deal with the processing of influx of people into south texas. we're also sending unaccompanied children to arizona for processing and p then to hhs. gsa is also assisting in the efforts to identify additional

space. number four, we brought on proper transportation assets. the coast guard, at my direction, is loaning air assets to assisting in transporting the children from dhs to other shelters. i.c.e. is also leasing two additional charter aircraft. number five, we're doing a preliminary screening for health reasons for all of those who come into our facilities in it south texas. the office of health affairs and coast guard are lending resources to this effort. every child is provided a health screening on site. number six, we called upon nongovernmental organizations, volunteer organizations, and charity organizations to assist in this effort. at our request, the american red cross is providing humanitarian needs for the situation, including blankets an hygiene kits, faith-based groups like the texas baptist men, have

provided shower trailers in south texas. number seven, the department of justice is loaning resources and immigration judges for faster removal proceedings. in addition to all of this, we know we must do something to stem this tide. number eight, i've been in contact with the ambassadors and other officials of all four countries, guatemala, el salvador, honduras and mexico, affected by this to talk about our shared border security interest and faster repatriation. i plan to go to guatemala myself in july to continue my personal engagement with this situation. number nine, we have re-initiated our public affairs campaign in spanish and english, radio, print and tv to talk about the dangers of sending kids over the border and the dangers of putting kids into the hands of criminal smuggling organizations. in this regard, i wish to make something very clear.

doca, the program that's been in existence now for two years, which is in the process of being renewed, is for those who came into this country in 2007, seven years ago. those who cross into this country, even children, today, yesterday or tomorrow are not eligible for doca treatment. likewise, the comprehensive immigration reform being considered by congress right now, the earned path to citizenship component of that, is for those who have been in this country since december 31, 2011, about 18 months ago. those who cross our borders today illegally, including children, are not eligible for an earned path to citizenship pursuant to this legislation. i also wish to make clear that those apprehended at our border are priorities for removal.

they are priorities for enforcement of our immigration laws regardless of age. number ten, we've surged criminal investigator resources, and i.c.e. homeland security investigations and cbp for the prosecution of those who smuggle children, families and others. in may hsi concluded a month-long targeted enforcement operation that focused on human smuggling along the southwest border with operations in el paso, houston, phoenix, san antonio, and san diego that resulted in 163 arrests of smugglers. i've directed a 90-day surge of 60 additional hsi personnel to offices in san antonio and houston to work with the department of justice, to ramp up our prosecutions of smuggling organizations. number 11, in may i directed a unified campaign plan to deal

with the southwest border, calling upon all assets of the department in a coordinated way to address security on the southwest border and to fill the gaps, if necessary, to call upon other departments of our government to assist. i've asked that we consider all lawful options to deal with the situations. if there are options, we want to hear about them. finally, the administration has asked for congress' help. we continue to work closely with congress to ensure we have the resources we need to address the humanitarian situation. we appreciate the support we have received from congress in addressing the current situation. and, as we work through the budget for the coming fiscal year. in this, we can and we must do all we can to address the situation. thank you. i'd like to turn it over to administrator fugate. >> good afternoon.

when the president and the secretary made the decision that what we had been doing wasn't bringing all resources of the federal government together, the president asked his secretary to utilize the national response framework. most commonly you think of this as responding to disasters as this. but it's coordinating mechanism where we can bring all of our federal resources together to focus on challenges we're facing. in this case, we're supporting the two lead agencies, custom and border protection at the point of interdiction and their care of these children until which point they're turned over to health and human services and supporting them in their role in refugee resettlement. this is an opportunity that the secretary and the president directed to use tools that oftentimes you think about in disasters, but are the same frameworks we use to bring all the federal resources to bear on this challenge. again, as we continue to work through this, i really see that our role as facilitation.

ear using a lot of the containments we've had but more directed and focused specifically to the unaccompanied children and the focus on their health and welfare through this process. again, as the secretary pointed out, a lot of the initial response has been through the faith-based community. they're acting not only at the point where we are bringing basic care to these children but also a key component in the resettlement opportunities of fostering children as they go through the program. so this process that we have been assigned to is to support the two lead agencies from the point of interdiction to the point of them being placed either reunited with family members or placed in long-term foster care. again, it's the facilitation of all of the federal resources available to spurt this mission. i turn it now over to your lead agencies which are dealing on the ground managing this. i'll start with the commission of custom and border protection first. sir? >> thank you very much,

mr. secretary, thank you. i know there have been a number of issues that have been entered into by all of you regarding complaints that have recently been made. let me assure you i signed an order today that those complaints would be investigated. let me also -- i think i've demonstrated my commitment to not only those types of investigations and the transparency, but let me make a really significant point. in my multiple trips with the border patrol agents i have been watching them do absolutely heroic efforts, not only rescuing children but taking care of them way beyond some of the skill sets. they are doing everything from mixing formula to bringing in their own children's clothing to taking care of these kids in a multitude of ways. as administrator fugate noted,

it takes a toll on those agents, a human toll, but they are absolutely committed to making sure that these children are are treated not only in the most respectful and humane way but, frankly, the most loving way. >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm mark greenberg, acting assistant secretary for the administration for children and families in hhs. the unaccompanied children that are arriving from central america are vulnerable and have significant needs. they're young, separated from their families and they've just survived a hazardous journey. hhs has a responsibility to temporarily take care of these children, to protect them and to work to place each child in the least restrictive setting in the best interest of the child. we fund a network of state licensed facilities that are operated by nonprofit organizations to care for unaccompanied children, mostly in group home settings. when the children arrive in

these facilities they receive medical screenings, all needed immunizations to protect against communicable diseases, they are screened for tuberculosis, they receive a mental health exam as they've received trauma in their home country or on the journey or both. in the facility along with the mental and medical health services they receive nutrition, information on their legal rights, classroom education, opportunities for physical activity, and placement services to facilitate safe release to family members or other sponsors who can care for them. their average stay with us is less than 35 days. the safety of these children and the safety of the american public are our foremost concerns. until the last several years, he we used to receive referrals from are cbp about 7,000 to 8,000 unaccompanied children each year. the number has been steadily increasing. in 2012, we served more than

13,000 children. in 2013 over 24,000. and the projection for this year was 60,000 before these most recent increases. as the secretary talked about, we are currently using a set of temporary facilities to receive the increased numbers of children with the help of the department of defense, the facilities that are operating at the joint base san antonio and lackland, the naval base ventura county in california and shortly we'll be opening the additional facility in ft. sill, oklahoma. we greatly appreciate the collaboration and cooperation of our federal partners, the cooperation with fema as we work together to address the urgent humanitarian needs of these children. thank you. >> we'll take a few questions. >> secretary? >> yes, ma'am. >> if you're providing these children with so many services, everything from transportation to health care, education,

housing, and even legal representation as the doj has announced, isn't that incentivizing people to come to this country, more people to come rather than making it not an incentive? >> i would say no. first and foremost, i want to reiterate the point that i made a moment ago, which is that if you cross the border illegally today, you are are not eligible for doca treatment nor are you eligible for the earned path to citizenship being contemplated by legislation now before congress, which i sincerely hope and believe congress will pass. it provides for presources. it provides for the earned path to citizenship and a variety of other things to improve our broken immigration system. frankly, it is also hazardous to send a child into south texas to

a processing center and a number of us here have seen them ourselves, they're no place for children. to put a child into the hands of a criminal smuggling organization is not safe either. so, yes, we provide a number of things for children when we find them because the law requires it and because our values require it. but it is not safe. it is not a desirable situation. and i would encourage no parent to send their child or send for their child through this process. yes, sir? >> it sounds like you were really affected by what you saw in mcallen. i'm wondering, how do you respond to that little girl who says she doesn't have a mother to return to? how was that humane treatment 0 to return her back there if she has her father here? and if i have a question for the hhs gentleman. it sounds to me like you guys

have seen this coming, but yet it seems like the agency was caught a little flat-footed in how to respond to this. can you maybe explain what you've been doing the last few years to prepare for this. >> first of all, we've known of a rising tide for some time now. i first heard about this during my senate confirmation process last fall. and the reason i went there it -- i'd been to south texas before in this job, not focused on this issue, but the reason i chose to go there in may is because i was hearing that the numbers were rising. very definitely when i saw it for myself and i had a chance to talk with these kids, meet with these kids, it was a very vivid fel dmon zraigs to me of the problem that we face. it zoomed to the top of my list

in terms of things that are requiring my personal time and attention, along with my other obligations to homeland security. so i guess what i would say is family unification for a child is something that is critical. i want to see every child with a parent who is able to take care of them, and the law requires that we do what is in the best interest of the child. that's what we're doing and that's what hhs' mandate is and that's what they're doing. they're doing an incredible job in the circumstances of handling this increase in this population. i'll turn it over to you, sir. >> thank you. as i indicated in my remarks before, the number of children

has been growing dramatically over these last several years, and we had been steadily building capacity to address the increased numbers. and as noted, from what had been the range of 7,000 to 8,000 to 24,000 last year and anticipating 60,000 this year, we were steadily building the capacity that is needed to have the permanent settings for the children. what has happened in this most recent period is that the numbers, particularly since the beginning of may, have grown at a pace beyond what we had predicted and beyond what the department of homeland security had predicted, and that's what has caused this most recent set of challenges. >> mr. secretary, thank you. two questions. one is, we are assuming that most of these children are part of family that's are also undocumented or they would have

been claimed. is there a process where if a family claims a child they are reported to i.c.e., or does it automatically put them in the road to deportation as well? and how does that process work? and also, for you, how do you think that these -- undergoing deportation practices and the prospect of immigration reform in the house, the comprehensive reform in the house? >> first of all, we do track the whereabouts of those who are given notices to appear. there are ways to do that in the process. that is definitely the case. i would say that, with respect to the parents, there are are no

doubt a variety of circumstances. some could be lawful residents. some cob u.s. citizens. i would not assume that every parent with whom the child is reunited is undocumented. there are a variety of circumstances, i would assume. second, my review is still ongoing. i do believe that there are improvements we can make in how we enforce our immigration laws and how we execute on our removal priorities to better ensure that we are removing those who represent the biggest threats to public safety, border security and national security. i think the thing that this brings home is the need for comprehensive immigration reform, which includes added resources for border security as

well as stability in the law right now. if congress acts, i believe we know our immigration law landscape for years, if not decades, and so there's a lot of anticipation about what comprehensive immigration are reform would do. but it needs to be clear that if the congress acts on the pending legislation, the earned path to citizenship is for those who have been in this country now for a year and a half, not those who are crossing today. but i believe that one of the many are reasons congress needs to act on that is so that we have stability in the law. and as a new it immigration law landscape out there. >> secretary, you're being very ambiguous. you say one moment we're acting in the best interest of the child, which is obviously to live in the united states,s and the second is you're going to follow the law and they are

not -- deportation. does this mean that if kids come across the border, they will be automatically sent home, or that they will be kept here? great incentive -- what you are saying is inviting more people to come here. if you act in the best interest of the children. >> the law requires that we act in the best interest of the child. so when we turn a child over to hhs within 72 hours, which is what the law requires us to do except in certain circumstances, hhs acts in the best interest of the child, which very often means reuniting that child with a parent. that's what the law requires. >> is there any limit to that legal requirement? because there are a lot of children whose best interest are to live in the united states. >> the law requires that when we turn a child over to hhs, hhs then acts in the best interest of the child, determines what is

in the best interest of the child. very often that means reuniting the child with his or her parent in the united states. that's what the law requires. yes, ma'am? >> secretary, two questions. a lot of our audience that is watching are hispanics, some are undocumented parents. we're getting calls. they're wondering, number one, if they're undocumented, does that disqualify them to even get to claim their children and keep their children here? number two, if their income is not enough, they would not be able to keep their children? and number three, have there been deportation already of some of these children back to countries like honduras? we know that the ones that are from mexico -- >> my message to your readership, your audience, of those who may have children in central america who they want to

reunite with is that illegal migration is not safe. illegal migration through the south texas border is not safe. a processing center is no place for are your child. putting your child in the hands of a criminal smuggling organization is not safe. your child will not benefit from doca if they come here now. doca is for those who came here seven years ago. the legislation being contemplated right now, the earned path to citizenship is for those who came here 18 months ago. that is my message to those who are following you in the press. >> what about those who are already here in the centers? we're getting calls for people who want to find their children. they know their children are here because they got a phone call saying they were in the center. >> i am not encouraging in any way, shape or form illegal migration. >> no, no. what i'm saying is, what i'm asking, secretary, is, marie 0 area perez is an undocumented

woman who has a child in a center already here. how does they claim her child? maybe the gentleman from hhs can answer. >> hhs can explain their process. they're required under the law to act in the best interest of the child. >> they'll end up in foster care, for instance? explain to us the process. if a parent is undocumented, does that disqualify them from reuniting with their children? >> sure. let me clarify. when the children come to us, they're initially in these facilities, we seek to identify, do they have a parent in this country. if they don't have a parent in this country or the parent is not appropriate, is there another close relative? and if that's not the case, can there be a friend who is designated by the family. our focus is moving the children out of the facilities and into a sponsor for this period.

we do have a hotline that it is possible to call to get information if a parent believes that their child is in one of the facilities, but we also are reaching out and making contact to make those connections. so our duty is to get the child to a sponsor while they are with the sponsor, they are still fully subject to the removal proceedings, and the removal proceedings and the sponsors have an obligation to cooperate with getting children to the proceedings, to cooperate in the removal process, and to report to dhs and to the justice department if there's a change of address. >> and if the parent is undocumented -- >> i have to follow up. if you could elaborate on two

things. one, you said that you found out about this during your confirmation hearing process, you found out about this looming crisis at the border. so if you could elaborate about what you started doing then or what dhs started doing during that period number one. if you could also elaborate on a time line on what the investigation on the border review of the children will entail, how are you going to hold those people accountable? when can we hear about initial results? >> first of all, what i said earlier is as i was becoming acquainted with the issues that faced the department of homeland security, this was one of the important issues that i knew would be a priority in the confirmation process. we have been focusing now for some time on the southwest border. we've devoted an unprecedented level of resources long term

over the last number of years apprehensions which tend to track overall attempts at illegal migration have gone down. we've dwoelted a number of resources, personnel, technology to the southwest border. there has been this recent influx focused in the rio grande valley sector. we have also in may developed a dhs wide plan to deal with the southwest border generally, which calls upon the entirety of the resources of dhs, which i mentioned in my prepared remarks and if there are gaps we will call upon other elements of the u.s. government to help us out. so we've been focused on the southwest border for some time now in terms of resources and personnel. we have time for one more question. somebody in the back row. steve? >> help us understand the legal

requirement here in the best interest of the child. does that mean that a child who comes into the u.s. illegally who has a parent here might be in a different migration posture than someone who so not a child who comes in illegally. does the best interest of the child make a difference in terms of the adjudication? >> that's not an hhs question. sorry. >> as the secretary said earlier, every child that we process is put into immigration proceedings. they have the chance to go in front of an immigration judge and plead their case and the judge will make the decision whether the child will be removed. they remain a priority of iris. i'll let i.c.e. >> very quickly, the best interest is just in determining where the child should live

while the removal proceedings are pending. >> secretary? >> we've got to go. >> one more question. >> do you want to talk about how many families have been apprehended/released? >> do we have a number of how many are in custody, sir? we will need to learn again how to work together, how to compromise, how to make pragmatic decisions. in the upcoming midterm elections americans will have choices to make about which path they want to go down and whether we'll make the investments we need in our people. i will leave that discussion to others. but for a lot of us, in it the private and nonprofit sectors, we have work to do, too. government doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas, obviously. and even if it wanted, it couldn't and shouldn't try to solve all the problems by

itself. we have responsibilities to do what we can. >> hillary clinton's latest book is called "hard choices" about her time as secretary of state and how her experiences there shape her view of the future. friday, live on c-span2, watch book tv coverage of secretary clinton started at 6:00 p.m. eastern followed saturday morning by a book signing in arlington, virginia, live at 11:00 a.m. eastern. both p events reair saturday night at airt:30. book tv, television for serious readers, every weekend on c-span2. now a house foreign affairs committee hearing on the status of iran's nuclear compliance. national security officials provided remarks and recommendations for next steps. the current nuclear agreement with iran expires next month. this is two hours 45 minutes.

>> this hearing will come to order. we'll ask the members here to take their seats. this morning we are focused on iran's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability and how to stop it. international negotiations over iran's nuclear program are coming down to the wire. indeed, an urgent push is going on as we speak. senior administration officials are sitting with iranians today in geneva. and some critical differences remain, including the status of iran's enrichment capability which is technology key to developing a nuclear weapon. iran's stated desire is to increase from its roughly 19,000 centrifuges today to over 50,000.

the future of iran's plutonium bomb factory at iraq remains unclear. iran continueses to stonewall international inspectors on its past bomb making work. just the other week the country's supreme leader characterized the requirement as part of the final agreement that iran limit its ballistic missile program as, in his words, stupid, idiotic expectations. i think we can presume this is going to be a hard climb here. meanwhile, iran continues its support for terrorism abroad. it continues its quest for regional domination and the abysmal human rights record at home continues where those who are not of the right belief system according to the theocratic state are executed. a nuclear capable iran would be a national security disaster. while the sides might sound far apart, the obama administration

will push very hard to reach a deal before the july 20th negotiation deadline, and this committee may soon be asked to judge a comprehensive agreement. central to this would be evaluating the verification measures needed to ensure that iran cannot cheat. so what types of conditions should u.s. negotiators be demanding? what are you the limits of verification? how does the iaea's reliance on iran's cooperation impact its work? some cite the adage trust but verify. in this case, there certainly can't be trust. if question today is can there be verification? these questions are sharpened by the fact that iran's leaders have invested massive resources and decades of effort into their own nuclear program there. enrichment facilities were built in secret, a violation of its agreement with the iaea.

one was even dug into a mountainside on a military base. another violation. as one witness will testify, when it comes to iran's nuclear program, they have a history of deception, a history of covert procurement and construction of clandestine facilities that are acknowledged only when revealed by the government's adversaries. this dangerous regime has tied its prestige to its nuclear ambitions. and they are not peaceful. given iran's record of clandestine activity and intransigence, clear consequences for violating transparency and p cooperation requirements must be spelled out with zero tolerance for cheating. an immediate test of iran's willingness to cooperate rests with the iaea's attempts to

clarify evidence the international observer group has on the potential military dimensions of iran's programs. for several years, iran has refused to provide information or explanation to the iaea on past bomb efforts. this includes the parchin military base where iran has gone to great lengths to eliminate all traces of any clandestine activity, including demolishing buildings and including removing large areas of soil from the site. iran's willingness to come clean on its past weapons programs should be an acid test for western negotiators. we must ask, what good is striking an agreement and removing sanctions, our only leverage, if iran keeps a capacity to secretly build

nuclear bombs. unfortunately, u.s. negotiators have already made a key concession that will complicate the task of verifying iran's nuclear commitments. the interim agreement of last year would allow iran to maintain a mutually defined enrichment program. this program could give iran a covert weapons program as the ability to produce low enriched uranium that is close to that needed for 0 a nuclear weapon. if iran is left with the capacity to enrich a breakout race to a weapon will be a permanent threat, a threat that undoubtedly would increase as sanctions are eased and the world turns its attention elsewhere. that's especially troubling, given how iranian leaders have spoken of israel as, in their words, a one-bomb country. many on the committee are very

troubled that the obama administration has us on track to an agreement that leaves iran as a permanent nuclear threat to the region and to us. today's hearing will be this committee's latest warning against this ill-considered course of action. i will now turn to the ranking member for his opening statement, mr. elliot engel of new york. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. you and i have made a great deal, as have other members of the committee, about the bipartisan nature of our committee and how you and i have worked hard to make this the most bipartisan committee in the congress. i must say after listening to your opening statement, i agree with it fully. i share your concerns. and i think these are concerns of many, many members of this

committee on both sides of the aisle. so i want to thank you for calling this timely and important hearing. and as the p-5 plus one in iran continue to negotiate an agreement on iran's nuclear weapons program, we need to carefully examine how such a deal could be fully verified. what are the requirements for a final deal? what safeguards are needed to give us confidence that iran has truly seized its drive to develop a nuclear weapons capability? according to the iaea, the joint plan of action interim agreement has paused many of iran's advancements toward a nuclear weapon. however, if this temporary agreement became permanent, it would certainly be inadequate. the status quo would leave too many unanswered questions and an iran that's too close to a nuclear breakout point. the comprehensive agreement is necessary to end the permanent threat of a nuclear iran. we're just weeks away from the july 20th deadline that the

joint plan of action set for a comprehensive deal. there have already been rumblings that an extension will be needed. last week the head of the iaea made clear that his agency would not be able to finish its ongoing investigation of iran's nuclear program before july 20th. that actually might work in our interest if negotiations are continuing but there's no deal and we need an extension. the negotiations between the p-5 plus one in iran have taken place behind closed doors so we cannot evaluate the specific details of the potential deal that's being discussed. i hope we can hear from the administration in open session whenever appropriate. whatever the final form it's safe to say the deal will not be based, as you said, on ronald re gan's old axim trust but verify. on the contrary, there's a tremendous amount of mistrust between the parties.

and the iranians deserve every ounce of suspicion. tehran has spent years developing a covert nuclear program and has violated its obligations under the nonproliferation treaty. under the cloud of mistrust we must examine one of the most important parts of the deal. how do we verify iran's compliance? iran may not make a mad dash for the bomb, but everything i have seen and known about the iran regime tells me they will try to push the boundaries of any comprehensive agreement and test the will of the international community to respond. one of my primary concerns is that even if negotiators are able to reach a deal, we still don't know what we don't know. building covert facilities, illicitly procuring equipment, outsourcing its program elsewhere, these could put iran back on the panel to a nuclear weapon. today is important because congress has an important role to play in this deal. i want to reiterate that.

congress has an important role to play in the deal. it must be approved by congress. to pass such relief, we will have to be convinced that the deal on the table is a good one, which brings us back to the key questions facing our panel today. what are the minimum requirements for a good deal? i know secretary kerry has said no deal is better than a bad deal. i agree. the question is, will we agree on what is a good deal? what sort of verification measures will be needed to give us full confidence that iran isn't cheating or, worse, attempting to break out? and finally, if we can't reach a deal with strong verification measures, what is the alternative? you know, i've been troubled by the negotiations with iran. i hope we have a comprehensive,

verifiable agreement and i hope we are pleased with it. what troubles me is while we are negotiating with iran they continue to enrich. it seems to me we could have and should have made a deal saying to the iranians, if you want to talk with us nor six months, you stop enriching while we're talking. i don't think that was so much to ask. and the fact that it wasn't done troubles me. i'm told it wasn't done because iran wouldn't agree to to. well, if they didn't agree to something as simple as that, what does that tell us, i fear, about their agreements to any kind of -- their akcquiescence o any agreement. i welcome our witnesses. i want to see a dismantling of iran's program. not at the point where we push them back a fews months. i want to see them dismantle the program.

thank you mrshgs chairman. >> now we go to the chairman of the subcommittee on the middle east and north africa who's been focused on iran for a very long time. >> thank you very much, chairman royce and ranking member engel for holding this vitally important hearing. while the administration continues to negotiate a bad and weak deal with iran, while keeping congress in the dark, it is important for us to continue to highlight the menacing nature of the iranian regime and the flaws in the administration's approach to this deception. pe are almost at the end of the six-month agreement, yet the administration has failed to properly consult with congress about important parts of this deal. where are the details? congress has been steadfast in our mission to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and it was only because of our efforts on implementing iran's

sanctions that iran has even agreed to negotiate. i authored with the support of so many members of this committee the strictest sanctions against iran, now we're seeing all of that work undone by the administration that misguidedly and dangerously trust iran despite decades of evidence that tells us thatted mullahs are untrustworthy. time to wake up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we go now to representative ted deutsch of florida, the ranking member on the middle east. and north africa subcommittee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this morning's hearing is on verifying compliance. i fear the hearing topic might be a bit premature. we're now coming up on the july 20th date, the end of the six-month period, and before talking about compliance we find ourselves asking what meaningful

discussions have taken place on reducing the number of centrifu centrifuges? what's the plan to moth ball iraq? has there been any access to parrchin at all? finally, most importantly, when will iran come clean on the military dimensions of its program? these were the fundamental points we had to deal with during the six-month period. as we approach the end of the six months, the notion that we can simply extend for another six months because we don't have a deal yet is not an acceptable one. we need to have some sense that there is movement on the part of the iranians toward a resolution rather than only delay and i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on how we might do that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. deutsch. now to mr. ted po. chair off the subcommittee on terrorism and trade.

>> since the joint plan of action was signed by iran and the p-5 plus one in november the administration has been negotiating with the iranians for a big final deal. i hope our negotiators aren't the same ones that worked in the big deal with trading the big deal with trading the taliban 5 for bergdahl. the administration seems to be giving away the courthouse and mineral rights as well. it seem it is united states would rather have any agreement -- even a bad one -- than no agreement at all. inch is insisting on the right to enrich which would allow them to cheat and come up with a bomb. this could take months or years. they could develop a bomb so fast that we will not be able to detect or stop it. and then saudi arabia, turkey and egypt will want to develop nuclear weapons. we must insist on absolute dismantling of the nuclear weapon capability in any agreement. we are not dealing with nice people and can't believe they will be honest about nuclear development. we must remember the ayatollah insists oh the destruction of israel and the united states and

we must remember the iranians are still developing intercontinental ballistic missiles which could be used against the united states. i have a lot of questions to ask. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, judge. now to mr. brad sherman of california, the ranking member on the subcommittee on terrorism. >> i strongly agree with the statements of the chair and the ranking member reflected that this committee was pushing for strong sanctions on iran over the objection of three administrations and that iran was brought to the table only because congress imposed sanctions that were resisted by the executive branch. in these negotiations, a lot of the focus is on whether iran will enrich, equally important is whether they will stockpile. iran's resistance to enforcement mechanisms betrays an interest in evasion. it's easier to reactivate a

centrifuge cascade than it is to reassemble international sanctions. accordingly we not only need to negotiate with iran what mechanisms there will be to detect evasion but we need to negotiate with our european and asian partners what automatic sanctions reapplication will apply if those -- if any violation is detected. finally, our experience with the soviet union illustrates that you can negotiate a deal and enforce a deal even with an untrustworthy partner and even if the partner has greater capacity for evasion than iran. so i think a deal is physically possible. the question is whether we'll reach one. i yield back. >> thank you. we are joined to help us think through these critical issues by distinguished group of experts here. mr. lauder is a senior adviser

at 2020 strategic consulting. he served as deputy director of the national reconnaissance office for national support and was director of the dci nonproliferation center. we have mr. heinonen. previous he served 27 years at the international atomic energy agency in vienna where he was deputy director and head of its department of safeguards. we have ambassador detrani, prior to assuming his role as president of the intelligence and national security alliance, served as the senior adviser to the director of national intelligence and he was director of the national counter

proliferation center. and we have mr. rademaker. mr. rademaker served for international board of security and nonproliferation and staff director and chief counsel of this committee and we welcome him back. let me say that without objection, the witness' full prepared statement will be made part of the record. that's to encourage you to synthesize this and give us five minutes and members here will have five calendar days to submit questions and any extraneous material for the record. mr. rademaker, if you would summarize your remarks, we'll begin with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, congressman engle, it's a real pleasure to appear before the committee. always nice to come home here to the raeburn office building.

i joined the committee staff in 1993. and one of the foremost issues of concern to the members of the committee in 1993 was the risk that iran might acquire a nuclear weapon. and to me it's really astonishing here we are more than 20 years later and this remains one of the foremost threats to u.s. national security. and i just want to observe at the outset, that i think this committee has consistently paid attention to this problem over for more than two decades. you've provided extraordinary leadership to our nation and i think the american people are very well served by the leadership that this committee has provided under a number of chairmen over the last 20 plus years. i'm glad to see that you're continuing to pay attention to the problem as demonstrated by today's hearing. i have submitted a prepared

statement and so perhaps i'll just summarize the key points that i make. the first point i make in my prepared statement is that iran is not like other countries that say they want to develop civil nuclear energy. they have a track record of deception, of covert procurement and the totality of the evidence strongly suggests that iran is interested in developing a nuclear weapon. they can't be treated like a normal country. that's why the question of verification of any agreement reached with iran is very important and it's a timely hearing you're having today. the second point i make, if you only take away one point from my testimony today, i want it to be this. today we're very much focused on verification of the joint plan of action and the so-called

comprehensive solution that's being negotiated now between the two sides in vienna. and a lot of the focus -- most of the focus in verification discussions is about how do we verify their compliance with the jpa. how do we verify their compliance with the comprehensive solution. i think that's important given iran's track record and i'm joined by experts today that are going to have i think deep insights into how we should go about trying to detect any cheating by iran on those agreements. but i think -- my critical point to you is the focus of verification has to be broader than just compliance with the current agreement and the one that's being negotiated right now. it has to -- verification has to look at what has happened in the past because there are a lot of unanswered questions about the past. it also has to be -- this is even more important, i think we need to be worried about the permanent verification. as i explain in my testimony,

the framework of the joint plan of action and the comprehensive solution is that there's to be a long term agreement here. it's not a permanent agreement. by its terms, it's to be time limited. that's been agreed by the obama administration and p5 plus one. what's being negotiated now will be an agreement that applies for some period of time. i think the iranians -- my understanding is they only want it to be in effect for five years. other experts are saying it needs to run 20 years. i don't know what the p5 plus 1 is asking but the duration of this comprehensive solution is going to be somewhere between five years and 20 years. that remains to be negotiated. so all of these discussions you're hearing now about limits on the number of centrifuges and amount of enriched materials, those limitations will apply while the comprehensive solution is in effect. but the jpa is crystal clear that when that term expires,

when the agreed duration of the comprehensive solution is reached, all of these limitations end and then iran becomes like any other country. everything goes away. let me read the language, following successful implementation of the final step of the comprehensive solution for its full duration, the period they agree to, the iranian nuclear program will be treated in the same manner as that of any nuclear state weapons party to the npt. that means that after five years or after 20 years, whatever the period is, nuclear sanctions on iran go away, our sanctions on iran have to go away and all of that is to end. restrictions on nuclear commerce with iran end so iran can't be singled out and treated differently than other countries. we can't have export controls

that treat iran differently than other countries, nor can the rest of the international community. iran becomes a legitimate partner. so the idea of the comprehensive solution is that for a period of time if iran behaves, if they are not caught cheating and uphold their commitments under the comprehensive solution at the end of the comprehensive solution, they go from being nuclear pariah to nuclear partner. at that point they are subject to the same verification that germany or japan or any other country is subject to. that basically consists of two things, that consists of iaea verification under the safeguards agreement that applies to all countries and the protocol which is enhanced verse verification that they are required to under the jpa. that's it the. there will be more robust verification agreed to under the comprehensive solution. i think the parties are talking