to the asylum offices at the department. it would move to their venue. >> what happens in that venue? >> so as i understand it, then those officers will review and do an interview to define whether or not credible fear exists or likelihood credible fear exists, then refer the person to asylum hearing. >> and how long is the asylum hearing take? >> i'm not familiar with that. they are referred to immigration court for that purpose. >> now, does border patrol and immigration, do you have enough resources to process all these children showing up? >> so we are, in fact, processing them rather quickly given their age and the circumstance. yes. >> the present law provides that you find a suit able place for each one.

>> right. we were there friday where this problem is most acute. we heard from the folks on the ground that are doing this work that they can process within the first 20 hours or so. then the rest of the time that they're in our custody is waiting for suitable space to send them to. >> are the children entitled to protect under the prison act. >> they are. >> that is your understanding? >> yes. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> chief vitiello, let me ask you a couple of questions following up on bobby scott's questions if someone tells you a name, do you have any way to verify it for a 13-year-old who simply says this is my name? >> agents will use their experience.

if a person has documents or some. >> if they have no documents, they simply say, i'm joe. >> so unless they have a prior history in the u.s. >> so if their prints aren't on file, they tell you a name, you have to accept the name. do you know their age other than guessing it because they tell you their age, is that correct? >> again, if they have other documentation, et cetera, we can verify them. it's essentially an interview done by law enforcement. >> you say you do your best on trafficking, but if they are from countries where people put a gun to their parents' head, they are going to do their best by not having their parents killed so they are going to lie about being victims of trafficking, isn't that correct? >> i'm not sure i understand. >> the minority would have you believe, the reverend would have you believe people come here because they are trying to escape this murderous violence that exists in every country but detroit, michigan. the question is you are trying

to and he appreciate you are trying to figure it out, but you don't know if they are victims of trafficking. if they don't have tattoos and they've never been identified with fingerprints, you don't know if they are gang members coming to this country or in some other way coming here to commit crimes, is that correct? >> so agents can try to verify whether or not -- >> look, i appreciate it. i work with border patrol a lot. i appreciate everything you are trying to do. i am trying to ascertain with the president willfully and deliberately forcing into this country a vast amount of people you are trying to look through and do the best you can, how you are being swamped and what your limitations are. what bioidentification are you taking from a 1-year-old, 5-year-old, 10-year-old, 15-year-old person? >> so that's all based on interview. >> a bioidentification. fingerprints? >> under 14, no. >> okay.

if i'm under 14 or i say i'm under 14 and i look under 14 and i'm a gang member deported, you don't know ba because you are not taking his fingerprints. if i'm under 14 and being trafficked, you can only hope you can spot the fear to find out whether or not they are actually being brought here for p illicit purposes by someone who says they are an accompanying parent. all that's true. and you are taking no bioinformation. these people can disappear completely and the name and statement they gave is of no value because you have no markers to then recover jose or jane or whoever who says, i'm 13, i'm coming here and this is my name. at the point you turn them over, you no longer have any ability to bring them back because you have no identification, isn't that true? >> it's much harder that way. >> so children are, in fact, a very useful tool for an adult to bring in because you don't have

any identification for them. if they simply say if they grab a 12-year-old or 13-year-old and say i'll get you over the border, you get me over the border, tell them i'm your mom, they can do that. you have no protection against that, isn't that true? >> i assume that's possible. that is not what we are seeing currently. >> what you are seeing is a flood of illegals coming here prepped to say whatever they need to say to get to stay here because the president of the united states told them in no uncertain terms if they get here, he won't allow you to enforce the law. isn't that true? s. >> that is not reflected in the reporting i see. >> the numbers are skyrocketing. is there dramatic new violence in the areas these people are coming from? dramatic new violence? or in fact are they coming from areas like guatemala where violence is down, isn't it.

>> there are four major factors. >> is violence down and are people coming in different numbers? >> i'm not specifically aware of the violence. >> is there anyone who can answer the question of is there any proven correlation between violence and people and where they're coming from? i can tell you one thing, and i have a lot of people who are first, second and third generation who came in on programs and they've worked with me. they do not come from the poorest areas of mexico. they come because they have association. i would say until you prove it to this committee, we cannot accept the length you are claiming between some violence and this refugee status versus the link between the president's not enforcing the law, not living up to his responsibility, not letting you live up to his responsibility, and this carnage that can occur when children are

pushed over the border, in some cases left in the desert. mr. chairman, i appreciate you holding this important hearing and i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. just a note. mr. judd, you mentioned there was a catch-and-release policy. i wanted to note for the record that this isn't a policy, it's the law and has been the law since 1997 when we had the flores case settled and dick armey's bill in 2002 that was enacted in law, signed by president bush and then reenforced in the 2008 statute. it's not just some random decision, it's required by law. i wanted to ask you, mr. vitiello. you have been in the border

patrol 29 years. i think you probably have a good sense how all of this works now as compared to past years. i no doubt that the number of children arriving each day is likely placing a strain on border patrol agents and facilities. but would you say the situation evidence is a security problem, necessarily? >> in the reports that we got friday when we were there, it was clear to me that based on the reporting that's available locally in rio grande valley, families and children are coming out of zones on the border. if rio grande valley, most of this traffic is coming out of a couple of zones there. by and large the traffic is seeking out agents, not the reverse. people are coming up. >> they are trying to find you to give themselves up.

>> that was what we heard friday. >> and make their, whatever claim. i would note for the record when someone comes and appears, and again this is not a new policy, this is the law congress created, there are several ways to comply with the law and gain status. if you are the victim of trafficking in the anti-slavery law we passed unanimously in this committee, you are eligible for tb as a victim of trafficking. if you are a victim of crime and a law enforcement officer in the united states requests it, you are eligible for a u-visa. if you are a child that's been abandoned and you have no one here, you can be eligible for a special immigrant juvenile visa. that was really created because we had kids-0 i remember this goes back to the '70s, where you had a child who appeared 5 years old, no parents, they're in

foster care, but what is their status? if they are part of the country, you have to give them some status. so these kids may fit into some of those categories that congress created, and then there is a further category which is asylum. if you take a look at the origin of most of these kids, it's pretty clear there is a problem going on in three countries in central america. that doesn't mean all these kids will be eligible for asylum. they have to have, the case has to be established and looked at individually. they may or may not be qualified. if they aren't, they are going to be removed back to their country of origin, isn't that correct? >> that is correct. >> the only way to do that is to have a case by case. i'm sorry we don't have a witness from the department of justice because the immigration law judges are actually employees of the department of

justice. it occurs to me we have these extraordinary delays because we don't have enough personnel, not necessarily in i.c.e. or border patrol, and i'm sure you could always use more, but we don't have enough immigration law judges and lawyers to adjudicate these matters. are you able to comment on that? >> that is our experience. we would like to see those cycle faster for a number of reasons. it's part of the work we are doing within the unified command room. >> one final question. the administration recently announced it's going to be opening a 700 bed family detention center at the federal law enforcement training center in new mexico. i'm interested in this and going to be following it closely. i want to make sure, i guess this is to you, that we learn the lessons of the hudo center in the past. i remember when that opened and

we sent the chief counsel for my subcommittee down. we had 5-year-old children in prison uniforms and conditions so egregious, lawsuits filed and the facility was closed. i agree we need to have facilities to accommodate this surge, but i hope as you do that, we are learning the lessons from the mistakes of the past. i don't know if you can comment on that facility? >> you are correct that we are in the process of increasing family detention unit, detention in artija. we are planning for 700 beds. yes, we are very well aware of the flores settlement agreement. we are aware of the requirements which are vast. our family residential standards is a five-inch book. there's a lot of requirements we must meet under flores.

we have an entire team there it's been there two weeks to make sure we address as many of the flores requirements as necessary. >> time of the gentlewoman expired. chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia mr. forbes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. judd, you are here as i understand it, representing the border agents, is that true? >> that's correct. >> how many border agents would that be that you would represent? >> roughly 16,500. >> you were asked if the law changed and i think were answer was thought had not changed, is that correct? >> when it comes to the transportation of unaccompanied alien children. >> but you wouldn't deny that the an enforcement policies of this administration have changed, would you? >> the an enforcement policies have changed. >> mr. crane, you are representing the i.c.e. agents, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> how many i.c.e. agents would you be representing? >> approximately 5,000, sir. >> are you familiar with whether

or not homeland security secretary johnson conducted a town hall meeting at a dhs office in fairfax, virginia, on april 23, 2014 with i.c.e. agents and officers present? >> yes, sir. i have spoken with the officers that were present at the beginning. >> attorney general, did the i.c.e. agents voice strong concerns to the secretary that gang members, other public safety threats and criminals are being released due to new administration dhs policies such as deferred action for childhood arrivals and john morton's arrest priorities mey ies memor up memorandum? >> yes. that was reported to me. >> this tied their hands keeping many dangerous criminals off the streets and their opinion is new policies are a failure? >> yes, sir. that is the message every dhs and i.c.e. leader is hearing at every field office. when they go up to these town hall meetings, officers and

agents are saying exactly the same thing each time, these policies are not working. >> were these statements clear enough for secretary johnson to understand them? were they forceful enough for him to remember? >> the statements that were relayed to me, absolutely, yes, sir. >> would it surprise you a month later when testifying before us he couldn't remember those statements and how they were phrased? mr. judd, your testimony as i understood it earlier representing that 16,500 border agents, was that from the interviews you are getting, they are telling you, these individuals coming over, that one of the primary reasons they are coming because they think there is a lenient an enforcement policy in place in the country, is that a fair representation? >> when we were on break, i made a couple phone calls to agents in the processing centers. they reiterated exactly that. >> do any of those interviews reflect that they're coming here

equally because of this violence, uptake in violence that's taken place? >> that is one of the other reasons they are reporting, yes. >> do you have any evidence? mr. issa mentioned this uptick of violence alleged here taken place since 2009, do any of you have anything you can supply to the committee today of any particular uptick in the violence that's happened in all these countries that's taken place? >> i do. in honduras the killing of children is way up in recent months. >> can you speak to the cites the data of the national police in guatemala shows the lowest level of violence since 2004. would you dispute those figures? >> i'm less familiar of the situation in guatemala, but i do

know that the number of people -- i'm sorry, the agency that did a survey of children that were something like 400 children reported something like 60% had actionable claims for asylum. >> mr. chairman, i would just end by saying that the biggest complaint i heard today from those supporting the administration is that the title of this hearing was wrong. we just have the representative from 16,500 border agents who say it's not wrong. we heard somebody say let's take a vote. as i understood mr. judd's testimony earlier, he said we need to have catch-and-release policy go away, enforce the law, not grant special status and increase our man power or protect our man power shortage. if we can get a lot of that, a lot of us would love to vote on that today. if that i yield back. >> the chair asks unanimous consent that the document, data

from the national police of guatemala that shows the lowest level of homicide rates in that country since 2004. without objection, that will be made a part of the record. chair recognizes the gentlewoman of texas, ms. jackson lee. >> thank you very much. i would never underestimate a hearing that deals with the vulnerability of children. let me associate myself, bishop, and let me thank you for your service and commitment to humanitarian issues. i happen to represent cardinal dinardo in the houston galveston council. i hope you will tell him i said hello to him. i hope you work with him, as well. and you know the compassion he has. i think it is appropriate my chairman and i and ranking member put together to put on the record we are long overdue

for putting comprehensive immigration reform on the floor of the house and passing it and moving forward so our good friends at i.c.e. and our border patrol agents will have a road map that they can address. i want to just say on the record, and i'll pose a question, that you said other nations are watching and our moral standing is at stake. i only have a short period of time, bishop. would you quickly say what you mean in that? >> yes. well there are many other nations much less populous and poorer than we are that are accepting hundreds of thousands of refugees, people who are fleeing violence in their home countries. our nation has been on record for decades to say that we have, you have a responsibility to receive these people who are

fleeing the violence. when the violence or rather when the refugees come to our borders, it behooves us to act under the same principles we've enunciated to them. >> i thank you so very much. in jordan for example, there are about a million syrians that have come across the borders to jordan. let me go to for a comment about the laws changing. removal proceedings are still in place. if you determine that there should be removal proceedings, there is a process under the law for you to proceed through the immigration courts, et cetera, and some of these families with children can be deported, is that not correct? >> yes. >> and the children can be deported, going through removal proceedings, is that not correct? >> yes. >> i would like to know what ages, mr. vitiello, mr. judd, have you been seeing coming across the border? what is the range of ages? >> we have children as young as

5, younger than that. >> you've seen someone like this, of this age? you can see, i don't know you can see it's a babysitting on the floor? you've seen babies? this just happens to show children laying on floors. you've seen those circumstances, right? >> we have. >> so you as a parent or being around children, would not argue that this baby has the cognitive thought to apply for asylum or not show up at a hearing, is that not correct? >> that would be correct. >> we know is there a wide vast range of ages. i do want to say thank you. i know you have been extending yourselves, i.c.e. and border patrol dealing with these children. let me say thank you for your service. it is clear that the removal proceedings are still there. the president has not changed that or suggesting that it's the president changing laws. they are still in place?

>> yes. >> thank you. the impression is you are against the administration, you are against the president, is that accurate? >> that is absolutely not correct. i'm here testifying from a law enforcement perspective. and i have to give that perspective if i hope that there is going to be any positive change. >> we welcome that. we want to engage you. the senate passed almost a $2 billion allotment for immigrants. we need to do the same. would more resources for your agents, overtime, the better facilities, would that be helpful to you? >> of course it would. >> the question of the law. i want to be clear. as my colleagues said in 2002 we passed a law to provide for hhs assistance. then we came forward in 2008 signed by president bush the

idea of the responsibility for those human traffic those smuggling. is it not true in the course of your work that you have seen human smugglers, individuals who are smuggling and human traffickers? have you seen those individuals? would you venture to say their character and integrity is not at any level equal to those who you would respect? >> time of the gentlewoman has expired. gentleman can answer the question. >> absolutely not. >> time of the gentlewoman has expired. >> would they not say the president's policy has changed and they have not changed? >> it is ridiculous to this committee to suggest that. >> time of the gentlewoman has expired. >> the law is the same. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. >> i yield back. >> the time of the gentlewoman expired. there is no time to yield back. gentleman from iowa recognized five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

thank the witnesses for your testimony. i'm looking at an article printed 25th june, 2014. periodical which is guatemala newspaper. it's an a.p. story in spanish. it says in spanish and english that 2/3 of the children that are unaccompanied minors coming to the united states are coming from guatemala, el salvador or honduras. only 12% come from mexico, though the rest come through mexico. kind of like our drugs come through mexico. 80% are male, 83% are over 14, unaccompanied minors, 15, 16, 17 years old. i'd say first, mr. vitiello, is that consistent with what you have observed on the border? >> that is consistent. >> mr. crane? >> i don't have that type of data, sir.

>> i didn't guess that was the case. also the case for mr. judd? >> from what i've been told from the agents, yes. >> thank you. i ask unanimous consent to introduce this article into the record? >> without objection, the article will be made part of the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i looked at other data here. as i roll it out through this and listen to the testimony about the fear of violence, and that being at least proposed as the primary reason these young people are leaving their countries, so i began to check this out. i see that eight of the top ten most violent countries in the world are central america or northern south america. among these countries. i'll read the list 1 through 10, honduras, most violent. 94 point murders for 100,000. venezuela second, belize third, 44.7, el salvador with 41.2

murders, homicides per 100,000. guatemala, jamaica, swazaland, africa, st. kitts, south africa, colombia tenth. these are shocking numbers. that would tell us the most violent countries in the world, eight of ten of them are to our southern border. united states homicide rate 6.5 per 100,000, mexico 18.2. roughly triple that of the united states. both those numbers have gone up over the last five years. yet going south it gets far more dangerous. i wonder, what can i compare that to? venezuela, 53.7. number two most violent country in the world has to look up to detroit. violent death rate in detroit, homicide rate in detroit 54.6 compared to venezuela 53.7. the rest of the countries range down from 53.7 down to colombia 30.8. if we are going to move kids

into america with the idea we are going to get them away from violence, we have to keep them out of detroit. i don't see people that are exiting detroit because the city is that dangerous. some probably do. we should put this in perspective. i also make the point that these children coming here, these thousands of unaccompanied minors coming here, there was a child in one of my towns that was found wandering on the street in a neighborhood. several blocks away from her mother who was sleeping during the day because she was working at night, to her credit. she nodded off and the child got out and walked away. our department of human services picked this child up, referred by a resident, identified the mother and said to her, if this happens again, you are in danger of having your child taken away from you. because we don't tolerate child endangerment or child abandonment in the united states. we don't tolerate it in iowa, we

don't tolerate it in america. yet we are watching tens of thousands of kids being aband abandoned into the united states pushed across 1,000 miles of mexico in some of the most dangerous terrain and dangerous drug and cartel violence that there is, and somehow we as a country are reuniting these families by bringing these children under force of law, violating the law and completing the crime, putting these children into households where there is an illegal mom, illegal dad or both no country in its right mind would repatriate families who abandoned their children and pushed them across thousand miles of mexico and handed them over to border patrol and said hand them over to i.c.e. hhs is going to deliver them into these households and not enforce the law? this is so appalling to me. i would ask, mr. judd, with this concept i have laid out here, how do we respond to this if we are going to be a nation of laws and have rule of law?

>> we have to take the parents into custody when they take custody of the children. we are not given them that opportunity because we give them over to h h everyone s and they gave hem over to this new escort service. my co-worker here with me today sat next to an el salvadoran 8-year-old on a play with somebody from this new service. when they got off the plane here in washington, d.c. that, child was reunited with the parent. that child was reunited with the parent and wasn't done under any law enforcement supervision or oversight. >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> unanimous consent requested? >> i think there is some consent request on both side. >> i have unanimous consent request. >> the gentleman from georgia is

recognized for five minutes. >> parliamentary inquiry? >> my quarry is, is there a a unanimous consent required to interest doo us a record into this committee? >> we'll consult the parliame parliamentarian momentarily. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when i first heard about this increase in the numbers of children unaccompanied children appearing at our borders, my first thought was what is it that is driving that kind of fl flow, a spectacular rise in the numbers of children? what is driving that? what would cause a parent -- because all parents love their children regardless of where they are, el salvador, guatemala, honduras, america,

virginia, which happens to have a population of 8.6 million people, virginia, with a 42,000 square miles with a medium household income of $61,000. those people love their children there. and guatemala, 8.2 million people, same as virginia. about 43,000 square miles as opposed to 42,000 for virginia. about the same size. per capita income, $4,000. but they love their children.

what would cause someone to let their children be unaccompanied except by whatever, we call them coyotes and what not, how many of those youths actually when they leave home make it to the border of the u.s.? is anybody concerned about that? i am, but i'm concerned really about what would drive a parent to put their child in danger like that? it has to be more than just the president promising you may be able to -- i don't know what the argument is that's being raised. it's ridiculous to think that people would put their children at risk, but i would tell you even if a parent in virginia had 70 children a month being

murdered in that state, they would look to relocate those children somewhere if they could not take them themselves. in honduras, which has the highest homicide rate in the world over the last three years, 70 children were murdered monthly. and there were 102 children murdered last month, the month of may in honduras. in this country guatemala, 99.5 murders per week. so take a place like virginia and you impose the same conditions in virginia and you trap the parents there. the parents love their children. want to see them grow up. they are going to get them out of there. so what is causing that?

what is causing that? it's got to be something more than the president offering somebody something. it's probably the war on drugs with the militarization of the police forces with the ms-13 gang. 54,000 ms-13 and 18th street gang members in el salvador, guatemala, honduras since 2005. murders of men and boys increased 292%, while murders of women and girls increased 364% in that region. children with parents in the u.s. are targeted for gang extortion because they are perceived to be receiving remittances. there is just so much violence down there that we cannot relate to here, but if we were in the

same situation as those parents are down there, we would be trying to get our children here. so it's really not a matter of illegal immigration, it is a humanitarian disaster with children. not parents, but children, babies. it's a humanitarian disaster and we should be about trying to solve the problem as opposed to simply looking for fodder to blame the president for something else. >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> i seem to be recognized for unanimous consent request. i have a case here united states versus ms. martinez dated december 13, 2013, judge andrew hannon and accompanying fox news

article i asked unanimous consent to be introduced to the record. >> i have some unanimous consent requests. >> the gentlewoman will state her request. >> i would like to enter into the record a statement from the hebrew immigrant aide society, faith alliance against slavery and trafficking, paper on the nexus between human trafficking and immigration, a statement from the american bar association, a statement from kids in need of defense, a statement from the u.s. committee for refugees and immigrants, statement from the safe passage project, report on mission to central america, the flight of unaccompanied children to the united states by the catholic bishops forced from home, lost boys and girls sent to america from the women's refugee commission. considerations for hondurans and the american asylum process from the jesuit conference of the united states. a letter from the california

latino legislative caucus, as well as data from the u.n. office on drugs and crimes for year 2000-2012. and the u.s. department of state report on guatemala, pointing out there's been a significant increase in violence and that the police in guatemala who are earlier referenced are part of the violence problem in guatemala. >> the gentlewoman from texas. >> a letter from first focus, campaign for children, the president lesley argues against eliminating daca. i would like to submit into the record a statement dated june 15, 2012 from department of homeland security on daca, indicating that any eligible person for daca has to continuously reside in the

united states for at least five years preceding the date of their application. the date of this memorandum june 15, 2012. >> i ask that the following articles be included in the record. article of february 19, 2013, report puts guatemala national police under the gun. march 26, 2014, renewing police reform efforts in guatemala dated april 2014. guatemala police force adds over 2,000 new given police corruption police chief found guilty for killings. that is june 6th. >> all these documents are made part of the record. >>ing what purpose does the texas seek recognition? >> actually the gentleman from

utah recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. >> moving right along. >> thank you for being here. those from the border patrol and i.c.e., question. are you aware of any internal assessment regarding why these children are coming north the way they are? is there any internal assessment you have seen within your organizations? >> there are several reports from varying locations about the intelligence. >> our committee would like to have a copy of those. are you aware of any? >> yes. i'm aware of external/internal intelligence reports. >> what do they say? >> pardon me? >> what do they say? >> they talk about various factors. >> in the essence of time, could you provide those to this committee? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. >> mr. judd, when these

unaccompanied minors are coming across, how are are they communicating who they are and where they want to go? >> when they come to the processing center, obviously if they are 5 years old, that's difficult. we have to turn them over to hsi. when they are older than 14 years old they give us numbers, we allow them to call the parents or the relatives or whomever. they tell us exactly where they want to go. >> someone who has papers in their pocket or address and location? >> sometimes. >> what sort of vetting is done to figure out whether the authenticity of the relationships? >> we can't. there is no vetting we can do. >> what happens to them? do we put them on a plane or bus? >> yes, sir. we process them with the information they give us. we take them at the information

face value, ero turns them over to hhs. >> they are escorted under i.c.e.? >> yes. they are turned over to i.c.e. and i.c.e. officers fly them to place thaemt directed by oir. >> when they get to the destination what vetting of the person do they do? >> on our end, we don't. we turn them over to orr. prior to that typically we try to verify addresses. >> when you say verify addresses, that that address is a real address? >> and that there is someone there that is going to verify they will receive the child. >> in terms of vetting who they are given, they could be begin to a drug cartel, a gang, a sex trafficker. you just say, are you you? is that all you say? >> there is no verification of who that person is. >> my daughter flew from salt lake city to phoenix, she

happens to be 13 years old. she knows what she is doing, speaks great english. we had to provide delta telephone number, social security, provide a driver's license when they approached them. we are taking 13-year-old kids, 12-year-old kids, 5-year-old kids, taking them and we are with zero vetting, no vetting, no questions asked and we are handing them over to somebody in the united states? that's what's happening? >> would the gentleman yield? >> no. i'm asking these people. >> they don't know. they are not in charge of it. >> i'm asking the people here in this panel. i ask unanimous consent to put another 30 seconds back on the clock, please. >> will be recognized for 30 seconds additional. >> the people here on this panel. are the four of you involved in i.c.e. and the border patrol, do we do any vetting whatsoever of who we turn these minors over to?

>> only for border patrol and vetting they do during the initial intaking and processing. when i.c.e. hands them over to hhs, hhs does the vetting where these children go to. they do background investigation on the sponsors, and they do the vetting. that is hhs' responsibility. they would do a background investigation. >> so what sort of vetting do you do in the prepart, in the beginning? >> during the arrest in the book and cycle, law enforcement professionals, border patrol agents interview the individual themselves or if it's part of a family unit they'll interview the parents to get the information about their destination in the united states, manner which they entered, where they are from, what country they are coming from. >> mr. vitiello, what percentage of the border do you have under operational control? >> i don't have that information. >> less than 10% as it was last time it was assessed? >> i don't have that information in front of me. >> it would be inaccurate to say

it's changed since then? >> the border changes every day. >> how do you testify yesterday you have an adequate supply of personnel? s those are the words you used. then mr. judd, i would appreciate your perspective. >> i appreciate you bringing that up. i could have been a bit more precise. >> you were fairly precise. you said, quote, you were adequately staffed. you went on to say you were adequately or better staffed at the same time than last year. jud >> i didn't want people to comply we were not concerned about this problem. when we visited with the secretary we were told by folks on the ground there, the issue of large numbers of family units and these children entering this specific area. my remarks were designed to inform everyone that the deployments outside those two zones are as well staffed as they were last year or better staffed. >> time of the gentleman has expired. mr. judd will be allowed to answer the questions. >> adequately staffed to process them but have to strip the line

to do it. we create holes on the lines. yes, we are able to process these people no doubt about that. the actual border takes a hit because we have to take people out of the field to do that process. >> the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, miss chou. >> i heard mr. judge say these children are released to these relatives then they disappear. i don't know how you could sayu. >> i heard mr. judge say these children are released to these relatives then they disappear. i don't know how you could say such a thing when once they leave your jurisdiction, you don't know what the end result is. you don't know the end result for these children. >> we can track that through. what happens, we have to assign what's called an a-number, an alien number. that can be tracked and you can see what court dates they have,

everything that is associated with it and it will show if they showed up for their hearing. from what's been reported to me from intelligence is that they don't show up to their hearings. in fact, the bishop in his written testimony on page 11 said that they don't show up to their hearings. if you don't mind, i'll quote it. >> let me just keep on 0 going. just two weeks ago i visited the unaccompanied minors being housed at the naval base in ventura county. i did see more than 175 children who had been transferred from the border. thank goodness a facility was clean and safe, but i came to understand after my visit to the shelter that there are a lot of misconceptions about what is going on. i came to understand that these children are not given a free pass to enter our country.

just like this hearing is a misnomer, an administration-made disaster, also this term catch-and-release is a misnomer because these children are not just released into society. they, first of all, are released to a relative, but that's because of a law that dates back to 17 years ago and that was reenforced by two laws signed in by president bush. so yes, they are with relatives. then they have to have a notice to appear. they have to go through a court hearing. they have to apply if they are going to stay here and they can only stay here if they qualify for asylum or special juvenile status visa or u-visa for victims of violent crimes. so nothing has changed in the law. nothing has changed with regard

to the obama administration. all these laws were laws were d the obama administration. what we do have is a broken immigration system. we have a court system that has not been in operation because of the lack of immigration judges, the huge backlog and so all these children are being held up with regard to their final dispensation. actually, there is something else i want to ask about this situation because it is disturbing children as young as 4 years old have to appear in court without counsel against an experienced i.c.e. trial attorney. they are left alone to present a defense to their removal, making it nearly impossible for them to assert a claim for relief even if they do qualify. in fact, just two days ago my

colleagues and i led my mr. jeffries and several other members of the committee introduced the vulnerable immigrant voice act to provide for attorneys for unaccompanied minors and individuals with mental disabilities. i believe that this is cost effective because detained individuals who have information regarding their rights prior to their first hearing spend an average 11 fewer days in detention, and that means more than $164 a day for every individual that is detained, which adds up to a lot of money. so what procedures are currently being put in place to ensure unaccompanied minors understand the immigration proceedings they are being placed into and have legal assistance to apply for the relief they may be eligible for? >> when the child goes in front of the immigration judge, like i said we looked at in the last five years for every unaccompanied child we filed a

case with uir, 87% of them are still in proceedings. there is a lack of immigration judges, first of there's a lot of continuances with unaccompanied children. when they're placed with a sponsor or family member, they certainly can attend a hearing and help the child through. i'm aware of our office of principle legal adviser thinks that supplying an attorney to an unaccompanied child may benefit and make this move faster. so i would have to defer to doj, the immigration judges, on how those hearings are conducted. i'm sure they're conducted differently in every part of the country. >> time of the gentlewoman has expired. chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gomer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know it's been a long day for all of us, but i appreciate your patience because this is important.

having spent the weekend down at the border, all along the border along the rio grande on public dirt gravel roads, miles from a hard top road, seeing dozens of people being processed out in a public area on dirt roads in the middle of the night, i've got a better sense of this. the issue of a free pass came up in a hearing in which pete king from new york was asking secretary johnson. and pete king said, if i were a nar parent in guatemala, wouldn't i see that as being a free pass? a 5-year-old getting ordered to show up in immigration court. are you going to actually deport that child? to me, that's a free pass from their perspective. secretary johnson said, congressman, i don't see it as a free pass, given the danger of migrating over 1,000 miles through mexico into the united

states, especially now in the months of july and august. a lot of these kids stow away on top of freight trains, it's exceedingly dangerous. so he's saying because of the danger to get here, it's not considered by homeland security as a free pass. but as to the child once they enter the united states, it's a free pass. and what is occurring by this administration luring these children into america by the promise of a free pass once they get here, there are children that are suffering and being hurt, being lured here to their detriment. now, if they get here successfully, that's a different story. but having looked at hundreds and hundreds of people lying on a concrete floor this weekend in texas in the sally port because there's nowhere else to put them, and i ask about, well, i

hear there's 18 cases of scabies here. where are they? oh, you see the little red crime scene tape over here? that's the best we can do because health and human services won't come pick up these people in a timely manner so they're lying here on a concrete floor, and those 18 in that little area behind that red crime scene tape are our scabies cases. we're still looking for all the lice cases and the other cases, the flu cases. and i didn't get this from the federal people but from texas folks that just sent 2,000 doses of h1n1 doses to the air base. they say there's a case of h1n1 at lackland. does anybody know for sure that's not true, or do you know that we definitely have at least one case of h1n1? >> when we were there last friday, they did confirm a si

single case of h1n1. >> right. and are you familiar with the incubation period? i can understand it can be one to seven days before it manifests itself. >> i spoke to the doc about that. i don't know the particulars. >> and, listen, i appreciate your commendation of fema and these other federal agencies, but the fact is in 2008 when the democrat-controlled house and senate passed a bill that made children the responsibility of health and human services, which is also trying to take over all our health care now, so they seem to be kind of busy. but when that pass and was signed into law by president bush, we really tied the hands of our border patrol and our i.c.e. agents because as i was seeing this weekend, you've got

hundreds of kids, and you got to wait on hhs to come get them. >> would the gentleman yield? >> no, i wouldn't. my time is limited. i would like that addressed. let me ask you this way. if border patrol had the responsibility of the children, then you could move without having to wait for hhs, correct? >> well, there's a couple of different pieces of, you know, the government that have to do this. right now under the law, the responsibility is to move folks to hhs. their resources are building with the help of the inner agency, with the help of dod and fema, et cetera. >> all right. well, my time is running out. let me just indicate that of all these people i watched in a public area in the dark of night being interviewed, they were all very honest, very candid. not one of them said they were fleeing because of violence. they were saying, well, the mother for these two is in miami and been there for four years,

has a good job there. so now that we know the children can come and not have to go home, we want to get them with their mother in miami. and these three over here, their fathers are in north carolina and have a good job. now that we know they can stay, get a good education, we want to get them with their father in north carolina. all of them there illegally. folks, we have sent the message to the world that we're open to anybody that wants to come in, and i'm telling you, we are not doing our job as a congress and the federal government's not doing their job in protecting us from those people are coming in. >> the gentlewoman will state her unanimous request. >> i would like to place into the record the homeland security act of 2002 that was the act that transferred this responsibility to health and human services during the

republican majority and signed into law by president bush. >> there may be a limitation on the number of pages that can be submitted into the record, but -- >> there is. >> i would caveat the request with that. >> and i would ask unanimous consent to submit the bill that changed that act in 2008. modified that. >> without objection, those documents that meet the size conditions will be made a part of the record and the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. deutsch, for five minutes. >> thanks, mr. chairman. it's estimated this year more than 60,000 children will cross the u.s.-mexican border without parents or guardians. some estimate the migration offen accompanied children could be as high as 90,000. this year, 127,000. it's a tenfold jump from the previous year. now, some of my colleagues, some of my republican colleagues on this committee are suggesting that they're here because of the, as we just heard, the free pass they know they can get if they simply arrive here.

that they're coming here, they're trying to come to the united states due to the administration's immigration policies. but as we've heard all day, and i'm sorry i've not been able to be in the hearing the entire time and i appreciate the witnesses very much for your being here. but as we've heard, these unaccompanied children are embarking on what are very dangerous journeys of hundreds of miles to escape the violence in their home countries of el salvador, honduras, and guatemala. honduras is the homicide capital of the world with young boys having a one in 300 chance of being murdered. in 2013, a honduran woman was killed every 15 minutes. in el salvador, 174 people were murdered in may of 2013. a year later, that number climbed to 356 in may. in guatemala, which is suffering from the spillover of mexican drug cartel violence, 98% of

crimes go unprosecuted. these are some of the reasons unaccompanied minors are making what is an extremely dangerous journey across mexico to the united states. according to a recent study issued by the u.n. high commissioner on refugees, 58% of unaccompanied children crossing into the u.s. could raise potential international protection needs. 78% of the total number of unaccompanied children fleeing from el salvador will qualify for international protection. 40% from guatemala. 57% from honduras. and 64% for mexico. this is a humanitarian crisis. as a global human rights leader, if that's a role that we're to play in this country, if we take that responsibility seriously, our credibility is on the line to ensure that unaccompanied children fleeing violence in their home country are treated humanely and with fairness when they enter the united states. now, i also serve on the foreign affairs committee. i meet regularly with representatives from jordan, from turkey, and from lebanon.

now, according to the u.n. high commissioner on refugees, these three countries have taken in nearly 2.5 million syrian refugees since the conflict began. moreover, it's been reported that germany has offered to resettle approximately 25,000 syrian refugees. these countries are continuing to be inundated by hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees fleeing the mass slaughter in syria, and we support their efforts and we praise these countries for keeping their borders open to people fleeing violence in their home countries who are seeking safety. we praise them for doing that. as we urge other countries around the world to keep their borders open to people fleeing violence in their home countries, especially children fleeing violence in their home countries, it's incumbent upon us to treat people fairly and humanely who are fleeing extreme violence in central america and

seeking safety in the united states. if we're to be taken seriously at all when we speak out in support of human rights. now, bishop, i have a question for you. tell me whether you believe the united states as a global human rights leader has an obligation to treat unaccompanied children seeking safety in our country fairly and humanely. >> i certainly believe that we have a responsibility, and the world is watching us. they see us as a leader in human rights. and so, how we deal with this much smaller population of people that are showing up at our borders, i think, will be looked a the with a great deal of interest. >> what's the age of the unaccompanied children you see crossing the border? >> by definition, it's anyone that's under 17. >> and -- i understand that. is there -- do you have a sense how many of them are under 13,

under 14? >> we could get back to you on sort of the specific breakdown of the demographics, but it's generally the older age, you know, 14 through 17, but we've seen them in each of the categories. >> and do these children come across the border tell you they were -- do you have a sense, any of you, how long the journey is walking from el salvador or walking from honduras or guatemala to the united states? >> not specifically, but it's got to be days. >> do they ever -- bishop, do they ever walk? they just -- how do they get here? >> gentleman's time is expired. the witness will be allowed to answer the question. >> i don't think many of them walk all the way. they walk part of the way. many of them will catch the train that's referred to as le bastia. some of them, if they have enough money, they will get bus tickets that take them part way.

>> thank you. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. thank you all for being here today. bishop, do you know how many refugees we accepted in the united states last year? >> i don't have those numbers. >> that number is 70,000. so i think the united states has done a pretty good effort of reaching out to all communities and accepting people. do you know how many immigrants we accepted into the united states last year? >> do not. >> it's in the millions. so for anybody to suggest that the united states is not accepting people from other countries, i would really differ with you, especially on our refugee status. i've heard a lot of reasons why this is happening. if you look at this chart to my right and to your left, the numbers started increasing in fy-12. so the law change in fy-08 and fy-09, you had about the same number as fy-10 and fy-11.

then all the sudden the numbers started increasing by 124%. this year we're estimating an increase of 1300%. what has changed in those years in the country conditions in honduras, el salvador, and guatemala? do you know? >> i do not know, sir. >> is there any evidence that country conditions have -- because we've heard a lot of bad things about those countries from the other side. and i agree that the conditions are not great. but has anything significantly changed in the last three years in those three countries? do you know, mr. judd? >> i couldn't answer that. i have no idea. >> is there any evidence that anything has changed in those countries overwhelmingly that today the police is more corrupt than it was three years ago? do we have any evidence of that? >> nothing specific. >> so we believe that the conditions are about the same as

they were in fy-09, fy-10, and fy-11, do we not? >> i'm just not an expert on what is happening in those locations. i know that the group -- i've synthesized the reports we've developed, that have been developed by our agents in the field. there are four major factors that are -- >> and what are those four major factors, quickly? >> it's the violence, it's the economic conditions or the lack of opportunity, it's the failed, you know, services, rule of law, et cetera, and there is open source reporting. we have our own reporting that says people are under the belief, whether it's been promoted by smugglers or others, that there is some kind of benefit to being -- >> but those first three factors have not -- are not any different today than they were in fy-08. do you have any evidence that they are? >> i don't know the difference. >> i would submit to you that they're not. that it -- they have always been corrupt countries. they have always had corrupt police. and the thing that is changing

is your number four factor, which is that they now believe that they can remain in the united states. mr. crain and mr. judd, when you talk to your agents, what are they telling you? what are they saying these children are saying? why are they coming to the united states? >> again, our agents are required to interview these individuals, and the biggest report that we're getting is they're coming here because they can stay. >> because they can stay. i find it outrageous that anyone would say that things have changed dramatically in any of these three countries. i find it outrageous that nobody understands, it seems, on the other side that inviting and saying that we are going to actually allow people to stay, whether it's for a month or for two years or permanently, that anyone would imply that is not an incentive. because if i had children, if i had been born in honduras, in

guatemala, or el salvador and i i believed there was a chance for me to remain in the united states, i would do anything in my power to bring those children here. what do you think, mr. judd and mr. crain, the one single thing we could do right now to stop what i do believe is a humanitarian crisis but is a humanitarian crisis that has been create by this president and the lack of enforcement? what's the one thing we could do today to change it? >> i'm going to have to answer, i want to stop the smugglers. i want these individuals to be safe. i've seen too many dead bodies in the desert. i don't want to see anymore dead bodies. i want them to present themself at ports of entry. i want to stop the smugglers. >> thank you. mr. crain? >> if it's just one answer, we have to send a different message to the world. that starts with enforcing the laws we have on the books and taking a second look at things like daca. >> if we start enforcing the law today, i will submit to you that

we can save children. you won't see those dead bodies. you won't see these girls that are getting raped. and you won't see these children that are getting abused by these criminal gangs. i think it's time that we took this very seriously and we stop playing games on immigration. thank you very much. >> chair thanks the gentleman. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to add into the record an article entitled "why 90,000 children flooding our border is not an immigration story," and this is out of thenationaljournal.com. >> without objection. the document will be made a part of the voluminous record of this hearing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. first of all, one simply needs to google things and you find a different reality than that being expressed here. poorest country, central america, nicaragua.

you bring us your own charts and show us there is absolutely no increase in the numbers of nick rag wans unaccompanied children to this country. none. there is no increase from mexico. it's increased from three specific countries. and you go back. you want to talk about the gaut mall lane police? google it one second. the former head of the gaut ma lane police was convicted on june 6th of this month for murdering people. it is pervasive, the violence. er this part and parcel of the criminal enterprise in many instances that plagues guatemala. and you want us to believe them? the very people that help facilitate these processes. please. the other thing is, let's be clear. i would like a little more honesty here, mr. chairman. we have unions that come here that when their directors give prosecutorial discretion, they get together with their union, right, and then condemn their

supervisors for initiating those prosecutorial discretion memorandums. that is the truth and that is the reality. so you already come. you don't like daca. you don't like anything that has to do with compassion. you don't like anything that has to do with prosecutorial discretion, but it is the law. and i'm happy that the president of the united states is initiating prosecutorial discretion because this is a nation of laws, and it's also a nation of compassion. it's also a nation that understands that there is truth and justice in our law. and apparently everybody -- i mean, all i've heard here today is let's lock them up and throw them back. i haven't heard a solution here. please, tell me what the solution that has been offered here that would stop the children from coming here? other than to say that if we lock them up and sent them back, which is not the law of the land, it is simply not the law of the united states. you want to change the law and you want to send them back? then prepare legislation that says exactly that.

get it passed by the congress of the united states and signed by the president of the united states. but that's not the law. what we hear is now they're bringing diseases. how many times do we have to hear about poor children fleeing drug cartels, crime, violence, murder, rape, and they finally arrive in this country, and what do we do to those children? do we continue what was said in virginia just a couple of weeks ago when mr. cantor's opponent says, i'm going to congress to continue the judeo-christian tradition that this country was founded on. that's the judeo-christian tradition? to take children fleeing murderers, drug traffickers, human traffickers and then demonize them and criminalize them? one of my colleagues on the republican side says, oh, they're reuniting them with their parents.

i'm aghast. really? what a sin. what a sin. the government of the united states is spending money to reunite children with their parents. i say we have sensible comprehensive immigration reform, which i am ready to work and have been ready to work with the other side of the aisle. you know why they're coming? i'll tell you why. because the drug traffickers and the drug cartels, they're filming this hearing. and what they have heard time and time again from the republicans, what? you get a free pass. how many times we heard them say that? you get a free pass. you don't think the drug traffickers and drug cartels print that stuff up and go? let's tell them the truth of what our laws are. the fact is, they're being placed in removal proceedings. we know that. we know the mass majority will not receive anything from the government of the united states, and they will be ordered deported from the united states after going through these long trials and tribulations and murderous road to get here. i got to tell you something.

i am astonished and ashamed that this committee is going to have a trip to visit the centers in texas and have this hearing and prejudges the very expedition we're taking out next week. look, i want to continue the judeo-christian tradition of this country too. that is one that is welcoming of people that are refugees that come here seeking peace and humanity. i don't know about the rest of my colleagues, but i think that should be our goal each and every instance. and i want to thank mr. deutch for reminding of us what we're doing given the terrible crisis of syria and what we've asked other people to do. that's all we're asking. it just seems to be if they come from our own specific hemisphere, it's bad. let me tell you something. we spend trillions of dollars in countries where people don't like us. let's spend some money in countries where people love this nation. i think we would be a lot better off. >> time of the gentleman has

expired. chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. garcia, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank the witnesses for joining us today. i think we can all agree that we have a crisis on our hands. it's profoundly disappointing, however, that some of my colleagues are using this crisis as an excuse for inaction. inaction is what got us here in the first place. we have now waited a full year since the bipartisan senate bill was passed. a full year. if we had passed immigration reform, we'd have taken care of the people who are already here and directed resources to criminals, traffickers and people who wish to do this nation harm. we would have been able to provide reintegration assistance and legal representation to these children, and we would have a comprehensive strategy at the border so we could stop throwing money at the problem

and stop militarizing border communities. just yesterday, speaker boehner wrote the president asking him to send troops to the border, to send national guard troops to the border. to do what? these are children. they need help, not a gun in their face. others are using this as an excuse to use daca. daca is a program secretary johnson testified before this committee as a success very recently. these young people have become assets in our community. they want nothing more than to go to school and contribute to our country, to their country. in fact, i have a dreamer interning in my office this summer. no matter who you think is at fault, the fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of kids arriving at our border each day

hungry, thirsty, often traumatized by the journey. they aren't here because they're trying to game the immigration system. they are here out of desperation. you don't hand your 10-year-old daughter to a coyote and let her travel thousands of miles through a desert on the backs of trucks, through a foreign country because you're hoping she will be your immigration in. they feel they have no other choice. in fact, in many cases, they have no other choice. these kids are coming from places where children are recruited by gangs, where they're used as pawns to coerce their families. they're here because of a foreign policy that has ignored the problems in our own backyard and because the immigration system is too broken to deal with reality. we need to fix our immigration system and invest in this part of the world to get to the root of the problem in this crisis. using these kids to score

political points is unproductive and simply beneath us. stop finger pointing and start governing is what we should be doing. now, i've just been astonished by some of the questions here, but i want to ask any of you there, have you heard any -- with the exception of some of the members across the aisle, have any of you heard u.s. officials saying to people, come to the united states so you can stay? >> i have not heard any u.s. officials say that, no. >> mr. crane? >> no, sir, i have not. >> i wanted to ask the bishop, because somehow you got involved in the conspiracy. somehow the catholic church is now in collusion with the coyotes trying to come

testimony. she said she would rather see them die on the journey, take a chance of diagnose on the journey than to die on her doorstep. and that is the option i believe many of these people feel. >> bishop, one final question. i sometimes look at bumper stickers and i always love the little monogram. you know, wwjd, what would jesus do? could you tell me who jesus would deport, just so i know? >> well, i think we have plenty of indications in the gospel

that jesus identified in a special way with people who are on the margins, with people who have no voice. he told the story of the good samaritan, and he said that the neighbor was the one who showed compassion. i don't think we ever get a pass on compassion, especially to the one who is standing before us. >> thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. >> this concludes today's hearing. thanks to all of our witnesses for attending. without objection -- >> mr. chairman, unanimous consent to put in the record a -- >> i'm going to cover that right now. without objection all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions or materials for the record. and the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. today on c-span, a forum on issues facing education with

state legislators and education leaders. they'll talk about early childhood education, the cost of college, and public perception. live at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. you had broadcast tv and then cable came along. then satellite. but what if satellite had said, you know, we're different than cable? we have a slightly different technology, so we're going to take that and not consider ourselves to be what is in law called an mvpd. so we don't have to negotiate. but satellite didn't do that. and so why should aereo be able to come up with a different technology and say, we don't have to negotiate for copyrighted material? we've said from the beginning, this isn't about being opposed to technology. there's still a technology there in aereo, and maybe there's a business model for it. that doesn't mean you can evade the law to run a business. >> more about the supreme court

decision against aereo with the head of the national association of broadcasters, gordon smith, . tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on c-span3, we complement that con coverage by showing you the most relevant public affairs hearings. on weekends, c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring historic sites. history bookshelf, with the best known american history writers. the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history, with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series, real america, featuring archival government and educational films

from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. at a recent congressional hearing, iraq war veteran travis fugate said he may have gone blind because his va center doctor did not have the right medical information. veterans affairs department officials also testified at the hearing with members questioning why it was taking so long for the department's records to mirror the defense department's. this is just over two hours.

>> good morning. this hearing will come to order. i want to welcome everybody to today's hearing titled assessing ined a question sis in va data usage for and services provided to visually impaired veterans. my name is mike hoffman, and prior to hearing testimony and asking questions to our witnesses, i ask that each member state his or her name to assist our witnesses in identifying who is speaking. thank you for your cooperation. now let us begin. this hearing focuses on continued problems within va that have caused it's contribution to the vision center of excellence to stagnate. allowed va systems to continue to operate in noncompliance with section 508 with the americans with disabilities act and

compromise other services provided to veterans with visual impairments. the creation of the vision center of excellence or vce as we will refer to it today was mandated by the national defense authorization act of fy 2008. it stated that the department of defense was required to create the facility and to collaborate with the department of veterans affairs in doing so. one of the main responsibilities required in the 2008 mdaa for the operation of the vce was to enable the secretaries of veterans affairs to assess the registry and add information pertaining to the procedures and outcomes for veterans who were entered into the registry and subsequently received treatment through the veteran's health administration. the reference to the registry is

that the department of veterans eye injury and vision registry which we will also refer to as the registry today for convenience, the dod has done a commendable job of populating the registry with over 20,000 unique patient injuries. however, the most recent number va has provided the committee regarding the contribution of the registry is one entry. one compared to 20,000. notably in an october 2013 briefing. va staff stated that the one entry was just a test case to

ensure that the transfer of information would work. so essentially, va had not entered in any veterans information into the registry. which means the very purpose for which the registry was created. to collect the diagnosis. surgical intervention. operative procedures and related treatments. and follow up on each significant eye injury incurred by members of the armed forces while serving on active duty. we will hear from a veteran today who will articulate the importance of va fulfilling its obligation to contribute to the registry. another major issue, we will address today is va's continued failure to bring its information systems into full compliance with section 508 of the

american's with disabilities act. the two separate -- the section 508 addresses access for people with physical, sensory or cognitive disabilities in various types of technologies. two separate memoranda dated july 26th, 2012 issued by then assistant secretary for information and technology roger baker illustrated the ongoing problems with va regarding section 508 kplings. both memoranda reference how recent audits conducted by va show that most of the content and information on va websites was not section 508 compliant. further, in a 2012 va dashboard summary analysis, every sight reviewed showed a status of less than 50% compliance with section 508.

some notable examples include va jobs, e benefits and va forms. va jobs at 80% critical e benefits, 95% critical. and va forms 100% critical. the rating of critical in the analysis states that the listed percentage is the amount of that website that is completely inoperatable. we will hear today in va's testimony that they are making great strides in bringing va systems into compliance with section 508. however, we will also hear from a blinded veteran who must actually navigate these pages themselves. he may be inclined to disagree. with that, i now recognize

ranking member kirkpatrick for her opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i'm ranking member ann kirkpatrick from congressional district one in arizona. the hearing topic today is an important one, and i look forward to an indepth discussion with our witnesses. today we are examining the department of veteran's affairs roll in the operation of the vision centers of excellence and section 508 of the rehabilitation act of 1973 compliance as they relate to proper access and services for blinded veterans. we will also hear the testimony of mr. glenn mini-from the blinded veterans association on hr 1284. a bill introduced by my colleague and miss brownly, a member of the house committee on

veterans affairs and ranking member of the subcommittee on health. this bill will expand the va's beneficiary travel coverage program for some veterans who are not eligible for beneficiary travel, but who are in need of treatment at one of the blind rehabilitation centers or spinal cord injury locations. mr. mini, i look forward to hearing your testimony, and as a result of being a co spoerns of hr-1284, i believe this bill will help remove another access to care obstacle within the va medical system for our veterans. many of our visually disabled veterans would greatly benefit and become capable of living independently in their own homes if able to receive rehabilitation. some of these veterans are not able to receive these treatments because of high travel costs and ineligibility for beneficiary travel under the va programs.

this is a special problem in my district. my veterans have to go do three different veterans hospitals depending on where they live. and travel hundreds of miles this bill will expand eligibility for beneficiary travel so that more veterans are able to receive rehabilitative treatments. i understand that in the current conflict, eye injuries have accounted for approximately 15% of all battlefield traumas. we also know that as many as 75% of traumatic brain injuries in patients, those patients also suffered visual dysfunctions that can affect their quality of life. when the vision center of excellence was envisioned, and established through the 2008 national defense authorization act. the department of defense in collaboration with department of veterans affairs was tasked with

prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment and rehabilitation of eye injuries. while it took some time, i understand that the center is now functioning although problems such as staffing, funding and clear policy remain challenging. in addition to the center, the 2008 national defense authorization act also required the establishment of a vision registry. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the progress of that collaboration. especially enrollment and seamless transfer of va vision care data to the vision registry. mr. chairman, while the wars may be winding down. we know the need will be felt for years to come. section 508 addresses access for the disabled to different types of technology. according to va testimony, va systems are still not compliant with the law.

one of our witnesses today described the difficulty of navigating through the va websites because they are not 508 compliant. causing him frustration and a lot of extra time to get the information he is looking for. eye injured veterans are already challenged and we should be working as fast as we can to ensure that their next encounter on the va websites will not be so difficult. i would like to hear from our va panel, what they are doing to become compliant. why is it taking so long, and what resources are needed if any to aid in becoming compliant. we need to get this right sooner rather than later. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, ranking member kirkpatrick. i ask that all members weigh their opening remarks per this committee's custom. with that, i welcome the first

panel on the witness -- at the witness table, on this panel. we will hear from mr. travis few gate, kentucky national guard retired. mr. terry kavul. united states army retired. all of your complete written statements will be made part of the hearing record. mr. few gate, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for inviting me to speak. it had been the creation had been mandated prior to the time i spoke which was march 2009. only a week before the day i spoke, i have been told that my vision was totally gone, i wouldn't see again. most people who reviewed the case agreed that the vision that i had lost when i was injured i

had some remaining vision, and i had it for three years and then i got an infection, went to the va, and the doctors didn't have access to the proper medical data. so they failed to do preventative surgeries, when i had an emergency situation they didn't have access to the medical documentation, which may have led to the vision loss that resulted after the surgery. since i was here before, i within on, i went to school i

worked to improve myself and my life, i've been active in the va and the veterans association, trying to help other blinded veterans, i meet new young blind men coming from the wars every year. i'm interested in hearing you ask questions about how things have changed since the testimony in march 2009 in which i

participated. if some young man went to the va tomorrow as i did would his doctors have access to electronic data that allowed them to perform preventative surgeries and see all the surgeries he or she had in the past? i'm open for questions. >> mr. fugate. mr. cable, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> i've had an opportunity to assist other veterans on how to

use websites. we've done a good job of describing what 508 is, compliance we've done a good job stating we need to do something about it. i want to talk about what we have done yet. i was asked to investigate 10 websites or 10 web pages for this testimonial. i had the opportunity to design with some help from other blint veterans, a form that helped us to evaluate each of those web pages. in my opinion, each of those web pages failed. each of those web pages failed in different areas. some very major and some very minor when i get the opportunity to read a web page, i like to be

able to navigate properly i can do that with headings. headings is a way for a person like myself to navigate a web page one of the pages i evaluated had no heading level, heading on the page which means that i have to navigate the whole web page to find out what the purpose of that web page is. a sighted person can visualize it and see what that person is right away. >> another i had the opportunity to evaluate was one with link problems.

i was kind of interested and when you said that the forms page failed 100%. i'm in total agreement with that one. when i went to the web page, i listed the links on the page. and it was 217 of them. and these are links to forms. every one of those links were named by a numerical number, had no description on what that form was. another one i evaluated is where i went to it, the web page, the first one i downloaded, it was a form to fill in, the thing i noticed was an image file. for those of us who used a screen reuter, we know we can't look at pictures. i cannot read that image file. the second thing is, it was a form i was supposed to be able to fill out. i can't fill out the information needed to fill out that form.

so when i hear that we're making progress on it, it's difficult for me to believe. i would like the same opportunity to read a web page as a sighted person, i can do that on web pages. i can go to open culture which is a website from stanford university and access all their information. i can take courses there, do a lot of things on their particular web page. i can go to the national federation of the blind which is probably one of the best websites i know of and read as if i was a sighted person. what concerns me the most, we're sitting here arguing about are we compliant or not. when i went to vietnam, i went

to vietnam as a volunteer, i didn't go because it was the law i went because it was the right thing to do. as we sit here now, i think that the right thing to do is tom make it compliant. whether it's not the law or not. i think it's an issue of -- that you had the right to do it as i look back, in the 20th century. the law became in fact, okay? we're now 13% into the 21st century. and as far as i'm concerned we have not made any progress. and i'm not going to be around for the 22nd century. so i don't think i'm really going to see anything happen. thank you. >> it's really no different than

a denial of care. you have five minutes for your remarks. >> chairman coffman, ranking member kirkpatrick, and other distinguished members of the house veterans subcommittee and oversight investigation, thank you for allowing the blind veterans association and its members to appear before you today. the blind veterans association is here to express our views regarding specific eva issues. the issue i'm going to discuss is hr-1284, the beneficiary travel. as a director of the government, i've already spent many hours and days with members of the house committee on veterans affairs regarding this bill. for veterans who are currently ineligible, title 38 usc section 111 does not cover the cost of

travel for those nonservice connected veterans to one of the 13 blind rehab centers. or to any of the 28 spinal cord injury locations. if the law continues to stay as written. the nonservice connected veteran, must bear the financial hardship of purchasing their own mode of travel to one of these rehab centers. the cause will certainly continue to discourage the nonservice connected veteran from traveling to a blind rehab center or spinal cord injury center. at this time most of the nonservice connected veterans are of the age of 67 years old

and their blindness, vision impairment is due to age related conditions 37 social security is approximately $1450 a month. and with that, having that limited income and requiring them to pay for their own mode of travel to a rehab center, that's going to pay dividends and be detrimental to their monthly income. the chief business office has scored this bill. $3 million. to be honest, i don't think that is true. as the language states in title xxxviii. what we want challenged is it for it to say that it covers nonservice connected veterans. we're not want be $3 million, we're just wanting the wording, the language to state that 1284 covered nonservice connected

veterans as well as service connected veterans so they can have the access to the rehab centers that the va has out there. the 13 blind rehab centers and the spinal cord facilities. in a letter dated may 21st, 2013, undersecretary of health, dr. robert jesse clearly stated, va supports the intent of broadening travel eligibility for those who can most benefit from the program. the va welcomes the opportunity to work with this committee to craft appropriate language so that those who are not service connected can have access to those rehab treatment facilities. one thing i've run into with several of the members, speaking with them is the word pay for or pay go. well, va travel continues to increase every year. and they ask, where are we going to get this $3 million. well, in 2013, the va collected $2.931 billion to the medical

care collection fund, there's money they collected. and i sat up last night listening to last night's hearing. $1.1 billion returned 2 years ago, $1 billion returned last night lo if there's that much money that can be turned in to the va from congress. there is no pay for or pay go, the money's there. it was clearly stated last night in the hearing that the va is giving the money back, so if you want to pay for it, there's your pay go. also, the va right now is currently, there are 147 state veterans homes. i have been collecting data. of the 10% the state veterans house 268 veterans who are there for blindness or visual impairment. each one of those veterans, the va pays a per diem of $1.30 per

day per vet per day. you add that up, 266 bets, 365 days a year. to be honest, the total is $97.5 million annually we're paying to house veterans in state veterans homes just because of blindness. if we can send them to a blind rehab center, get them the rehab they so dearly deserve, how many of them can we offer the opportunity to live

independently? not be housed in a state veterans home but live independently, live on their own. the one thing i did want to mention here is just remember this, there is no cure for blindness. there isn't, no matter how much research we do. what there is, is rehab for those who are blind and visually impaired. getting that rehab will allow them to enrich their lives, become independent, and become active members of their community. so lest not say you're not service connected. we won't send you to a rehab. blindness does not discriminate between service connected and nonservice connected. it doesn't know, blindness is blindness, let's eliminate

service connected nonservice connected let's send the veteran to the rehab that the va is providing. george washington once stated, the willingness to which our young people are likely to serve in any war should be directly per pen chul to how they perceive the veteran of lives of hundreds by allowing them to go to a rehab center. are you willing to co sponsor 1284 so the veteran can get the same rehab the service connected veteran gets? >> mr. mini, thank you for your

testimony. i've got a few questions. again, mr. fugate, unfortunately your story is not likely a unique one. have you found that other blind veterans have gone through similar experiences with va's failure to populate the vision registry? >> it's really hard for me to say that i know individuals who have had situations that amount to my own, but i'm sure that they exist. >> okay. mr. fugate, again, mike coffman. in your opinion what would have been the benefits during your past surgeries, had the va contributed to the vision registry? >> if my information was

successful to the va doctors when i first met them, rather than asking me about the surgeries i had and thumbing through a two inch stack of documents they would have had access to -- better access to the information. they would have seen that the d.o.d. doctors wanted me to have a preventive surgery within the -- within the year. i told the doctor that. the doctor -- my word isn't as strong as the military doctors that had made the suggestion to me at walter reed. >> okay. also, i'm a number. i'm a statistic, and it's

meaningless. there's no research being done on the numbers. if my information and all of the other blinded veterans' information were in this data set, much more information could be discovered and we could direct ourselves forward to help us all much better. >> thank you. again, this is mike coffman. mr. cable, thank you for providing a number of observations and findsings for improving va's compliance with section 508. have you had an opportunity to share your findings with the va? >> this is my first opportunity to do that. i do share my findings with other veterans. i belong to a lot of virtual

support groups in which us veterans talk about problems with veterans websites. you know, how to deal with the inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and how to deal with the problems of filling out forms. so i do that virtually. >> okay. mike coffman again. you stated earlier, mr. cable, you stated earlier that there are many good examples of 508 compliant web pages. do you and your team keep repository of best practices and lessons learned? associated with that do you have a list of performance metrics, that agencies such as va can strive to achieve? >> yes, we do. it is in various forms, it is

not in one form that i would consider accessible yet. and we're in the process of developing that. >> thank you very much. ranking member kirkpatrick. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. fugate, one of the things that our committee has been focused on is creating, making sure there's a seamless transfer of records from d.o.d. to va so that there's no gap at all in the records that a doctor might see the day that you transfer out of the department of defense. i'm curious, did walter reed have the department of defense records and just not look through them? can you just explain to me? >> walter reed had my medical records and it was at the va that i had the complications. it was the transfer between walter reed and the va.

>> so did the va have your department of defense records? >> my first meeting with my doctor at the va was surprising. my father drove me three hours to get to the facility, at the time lived in the appalachian mountains of eastern kentucky. once we got to the meeting, the doctor came and sat with me. and the nurse brought in my records, which was a big, heavy stack of records. i couldn't see them. but i heard the thump and he said there was something along the lines of, he could do -- he couldn't do anything with that, he would have to review it later and find the information and i was sent back home. sent along my way. >> even though you told him that the doctors recommended you have preventative surgery within a year?

>> absolutely. he said, yeah. i told him that numerous times. and after the -- probably the third time he said that it was better for us to wait until an issue occurred. and address it then. and i'm pretty sure he must have been aware i was commuting 2 1/2, 3 hours. >> i'm so sorry that that treatment was not given to you in a timely manner. and i just want to say, your positive attitude is really an inspiration and i thank you for coming again. and i just wanted to take you up on what you said in your testimony and ask you what changes you've seen since your testimony before the committee in 2009? >> i've been deeply involved in my education, but yearly i catch

up with my blind veteran friends at the bva and it's -- every year it gets more discouraging. so for the last year or so, i stopped asking about it. because it just brought -- it was just depressing to me. and this year when i got with them they told me that for the past years the staffing was inadequate and the -- there were no -- the records weren't being fit into the registry, the collaboration wasn't taking place as it was supposed to. i never -- never got any positive information about the progress of the bce. >> if there were one thing that

our committee could do to make a difference in that area, what would that be in your estimation? >> to ask to see what -- to ask the people responsible what -- what they were asked to do. and which of those tasks they've completed. and how lock it took them to complete that task to just hold the people responsible for creating this wonderful tool for us. >> mr. chairman, i think that's what our committee should do. mr. fugate, i understand that you're friends with our colleague, tim lawson. i'm not going to hold that against you. actually, i want to tell you that he is an ardent supporter, a passionate advocate for our veterans and you couldn't have a

better friend. thank you very much for your courage and your testimony here today. i yield back. >> thank you, ranking member kirkpatrick. mr. jules camp, you have five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it seems like i was here a few minutes ago, and i do appreciate having more time to discuss these. i appreciate the testimony. my name is tim jules camp. mr. fugate, i hope i pronounced your name correctly. mine is often misspelled as well. a little follow-up on your particular situation one thing i've seen lacking in my few years of congress is accountability. systems do fail, people do fail. i'm curious with your particular situation, you described it in your testimony, in written and oral testimony. has the va followed up with you after the fact and determined, yes, this is w