assumptions and throw out a or go on the evening news or repeat the tired old talking points to satisfy the base in a fundraising letter. i think there is a lot to be said for the smoke-filled room or the alcohol-filled room, but that was one part that i definitely contrasted to today. >> maybe also we should go back to reporters have to write things down, they can only be there live and they have to write things down? >> it's always better to see it yourself. >> i think we're going to have some questions, so as we go over the questions the audience had, do you want to tell the story you told me before you got out here about robert ales. >> in light of the author who wrote about the 1976 campaign,

nixon had a movie on the wall that showed the campaign. he had an idea that people would write down the questions and pass them on and they would answer just the questions the staff wanted them to answer, but it looked like they only came from the audience. so these are all yours. >> i might put them in a certain order, but i promise not to edit them. so one of the questions that we have is would the civil rights act have passed if nixon had won in 1960 and '64? >> i think it probably would have, because in 1957 when the civil rights act was pending on the senate floor and lbj scaled it back and compromised, dropped entirely this provision that would have allowed the attorney general being sued and compromised the jury panel, effectively all white juries in the south, nixon was close to

tears. it seems so paradoxical now, but he had a good record on civil rights. in 1960 when martin luther king was in jail, nixon didn't do it because he thought it would look like a grandstand play and he didn't want to be accused of exploiting it. there is a scene of witnesses seeing jackie robinson leaving there in tears telling him it's the right thing to do, and he said, no, i don't want to look political. and kennedy did the right thing and got credit for it. again, it kind of flew under the radar of the white press. it was seen as a huge gesture in the black community. so important, in fact, that martin luther king, sr., said now because of his call, he

would vote for him. he has a bigot for a father. and then he took a beat and said, but we all have our fathers, don't we? john f. kennedy understood about fathers. >> a different kind of question. another fascinating person. i'm so glad one of our audience members wanted us to ask you to tell us about richard russell and his role and also about his relationship with president johnson. >> well, richard russell was from georgia. his father had been the justice and then the chief justice of the georgia supreme court. he had come to washington in a new deal. he was a basic supporter of franklin roosevelt's rural aid and farm aid and school lunches. he was just an implacable segregationist, and it must be said he was also a hopeless racist. he was raised in an era when he was taught by his ancestors to believe that the civil war was a

noble lost cause and in that line of faulkners he could always imagine himself on that afternoon in 1963 when confederacy might prevail. so he knew the world was chaj i changing. he knew he was fighting a legal battle so he made up his mind he would fight it as hard as he could. his relationship with president johnson was incredibly close, very intense. johnson had made it his business to cozy up to russell. he called him the old master. and russell was a very shy and somewhat sad bachelor, but the johnson family managed to entice him to a lot of sunday evening dinners at their house, having had sam rayburn for lunch. and he loved their daughters like his own. when lucy got married, he gave her an autographed copy of "gone

with the wind" for her wedding present. i guess the best thing you could say about him was after the filibuster was over and he had lost and the bill was passed, he stood right up and said, it's our indiduty to obey it, it's t law of the land. we have to comply with it and there will be no monkey business of having action. so he was not without class. >> it's so fascinating there are three senate buildings and one of them is named after reverend dickson and one is named after richard russell. >> and the other one a supporter of this bill who tragically died young. >> let's find another good question. this is really a follow-up to something we've been talking about, but i know people are thinking about it. two interesting themes resonate with me, politicians who allow their beliefs in civil rights to

evolve and the need for bipartis bipartisanship. and the question is are these dead in today's environment? you live in washington, d.c., yes? >> you don't see many examples of it, and you certainly don't see many examples of, really, political courage in confronting these questions. or to put it another way, bill cout from ohio, it was it would-thirds black. he thought it was the right thing to do. and he realized his caucus would be in jeopardy -- imagine this, it's an election year. '63 is running up to an election year, but 1964 is an election year. the congress, instead of saying to president johnson, your problem is you have a bunch of hate-filled people in your party and you can't resolve this issue. you have large majority in both houses but it's your fault you

can't fix it. don't blame us. we'll go to the polls and see which parties like us better. instead they cooperated in passing the bill. i think it would be hard to believe there are consultants and pollsters and an amen chorus that let them speak of it today. if it were up to speaker boehner, he would have made a lot of deals with president obama on some topics, but as he said on leno recently, a leader of followers is much like taking a walk. >> doesn't he lose his leadership next year? >> he does, he loses his leadership. they thought he was too high-handed with democrats in

not skuconsulting the party. he did, in fact, lose his leadership. >> one of the many virtues of the book is you really mastered the arcain of the house. can you talk about compare and contrast on that specific issue of bipartisanship politics? >> whenever anyone threatens a filibuster in the current situation where the democrats control the senate -- it's usually the republicans -- everybody collapses in a heap and gives up and says, we're not even going to try to change your mind. in this case, and a lot of veteran aids who i talk to from that era are going nuts saying harry reid should make the opponents conduct a filibuster and make them hold the floor and let all their business grind o e a halt and let them say, what

are you doing with this kind of spectacle? instead of ted cruz in "green eggs and ham" which really isn't a filibuster at all, and they'll let him do it. what i don't understand is in the filibuster, it's not the filibusters have have the burden. it's the people who are trying to break the filibuster with who have the burden, because at any moment someone can call for a quorum saying absent a majority, and they have to produce 51 warm bodies in realtime. which means they had to set up an elaborate system of rosters and platoons, people would have to be ready to get out of bed and come in and be present. under the rules of the senate, if a quorum couldn't be mustered, there were all sorts of things that would kick in, but it would basically reset the clock on the debate, giving fill

buste d -- filibusters more time. they thought it would make them compromise with the southerners in a way that was not useful. i think the huge difference is there are really not filibusters anymore, there are threatened ones and everyone just gives up. >> you had something about the opening day of the senate game? >> they all went to the opening baseball game, and you would have thought for one day they could have just enjoyed the pastime. a loudspeaker went off at the stadium and 15 senators leaped up from their seats to go back, and bennett sat there munching his peanuts and had a wonderful time watching the game. because he didn't have to go back. the rest had to rush back. >> how many people did you interview and what types of

source materials did you use in writing this book? >> i think i interviewed a couple dozen people because it was a race against time and death to find some of them. >> could you mention a few? >> one i was especially proud of finding, cornelius r. kennedy, and i went to all kinds of places, but dirkson's papers are in illinois in a wonderful little library basically devoted to him and bob michael and ray lahood. even the people at the library did not know where kennedy was or if he was dead or alive. thanks to the internet and a little bit of creative searching, i found he was nafta live at 91, living in charleston, west virginia. he had suffered a series of strokes that impaired his short-term memory but not his

long-term memory. i went to have a wonderful morning with him. he was very frail but very clear about his memories of the time. that was wonderful. another one i found, wonderful guy named john stewart who worked for hubert humphrey, and he and his wife had left washington in the '70s to go work for the tennessee authority in knoxville. he is very much alive and still thriving. h and the final one that i found, everyone remembers john lindsey as the mayor of new york, but he was on the upper east side on the make, going someplace else. i kept seeing references to a legislative aide of him named robert kimball. my default assumption when i see these names are that they are dead. i just did a google search of robert kimball, and what came up, this was the robert kimball better known to me as the

complete lyrics of cole porter, ira gershwin. i called him and we had a wonderful visit. he wound up being this dean of theater musical scholars. who knew. all because of the internet. all because of the fact that you can find people. >> another question. what is barry goldwater's role in opposing the bill and how does this opposition differ at all from southern democrats? >> his was kind of a libertarian, stay out of my bedroom philosophy. he said he had no objection to gays serving in the military, because it didn't matter if you could shoot straight. he was one of six opponents in the senate because he did so on civil liberties grounds saying

the interference of private property that the public accommodations section could involve would include snooping and big brothering and ratting people out. i think he was sincere in that, i don't think he was a racist. but as the final speeches were being made, the "new york times" recorded that dirkson looked at barry goldwater in the eye as if to shame him but then two weeks later he nominated him at the convention in san francisco. it was a paradox that one of the handful of bills became law. >> what lesson can immigration reform advocates take away from the passage of the civil rights act? >> this is something i thought about a lot, especially in the last months as i was finishing up the book and thinking of beginning to talk about it with other people. i do wonder why religious groups -- the national conference of catholic

beneficiary obishops, or even the aspects of the evan je -- he hae -- evange lirlical association. i' the other thing that was both depressing and inspiring for me about writing a book, 50 years ago, we like to think of ourselves as living in a uniquely divisive and civil age. there is nothing that could ever be said, and there is nothing said about barack obama that wasn't said about kennedy or

lyndon johnson or civil rights. it's eerie when you see women sit down in their perfect penmanship and use the n word and say these hateful things to the president. i saw a letter in the kennedy library in the night of the march of washington that evening, there was a postmark from huntington, west virginia, a letter addressed john f. kennedy care of martin luther king, the white, question mark, house, washington, d.c. and the letter read in its entirety, grab the nigger vote, you just lost mine. and people would put this on paper. it's clear that we're not the only generation suffering with a lack of manners. >> moving to another body that played a big role in civil rights. so the question is, now that the supreme court has got the voting rights act -- i'm sure you've heard this question before -- is the civil rights act next?

>> that question has been asked of me three times in the past 36 hours. i think some advocates of civil rights worry that the current courts' emphasis, and just this morning, the decision on the campaign finance case, that the whole elevation of private property rights and this whole question in the lobby lobby case about religious liberty and who would be entitled to withhold service from what groups on what grounds, i think people do worry that some of this body of law is at risk. the problem with the voting rights act comes back again to the dysfunctionalty of our current politics. in that case the courts had been warning congress for years they needed to do something about addressing and updating this formula. because the congress knew to touch it at all would be to lead to a tremendous unraveling. so the congress punted and got what it deserved in a way, which

is this rebuke from the court. but i think it's interesting to hear people like congressman lewis and people who were there on the front lines 50 years ago. i think they are very mindful that this fight is an ongoing one and there would be constant vigilance. it's wonderful there is an african-american president in their view, but it's not the end of the journey, it's just part of the journey. >> the voting rights act is a specific provision that was declared unconstitutional was even more agressive in terms of its intrusion on states than the civil rights act. not that our supreme court wouldn't find problems with the civil rights act also, but they're not exactly the same. >> they're not exactly, no. >> could you talk to us a little bit about if you come across any talk about supreme court justices. after this act of 1964 passed, they have to opine on it and they do relatively quickly. >> yeah.

>> i'm sure you're aware that the presidents and supreme court justices talked much more frequently or openly than they do now? >> yes. and played poker. the thing you pointed out is that by december of 1964, this court had upheld the public accommodations section the heart of the law. i can commend it because they're nice to me, but there is a very good piece in the current issue of atlantic monthly, about a series of books, including mine, and another by bruce ackerman, a professor of law at yale. i did not realize this whole situation there in which justice brennan -- there is a case pending in the court, and i'm going to get this wrong, but it involved the whole question about whether the federal government could apply either the 14th amendment to the states, and justice brennan was afraid if the court decided the issue, it would create another backlash akin to the backlash that had come with brown.

it would take the heat of the congress to pass a strong law and resolve the issue legislatively. so he, in a wonderful kind of internal process in congress, managed to get them delay it long enough and the law was passed in the meantime and they did not have to take action. if i misdescribed some aspect of that, i cop a plea, but that's basically the outline of what happened, and it's a very interesting window into the fact that the supreme court is, then and now, not a wholly political institution and certainly a human institution as well. >> thank you. a couple more questions. i asked that one already. i asked about that one. so i know you're asked this question a lot, too, and you bring it up in your book, so i guess it's fair game to talk about the fact that we have a black president. i was just reading today an article in the "new york times," there is a big debate going on right now, i'm sure you followed it, about president obama's

statements toward african-americans and he's being criticized by some african-americans for being too critical of african-americans. >> yes. >> i'm not asking you to answer that question, i'm just inviting you to talk about where we stand today and how writing this book has made you think differently about where we stand today having an african-american president and how, you know, our politics has changed with regard to race. >> i think it's been striking, you know, that with the exception of his remarkable speech during the campaign in 2008 about race -- that speech was made in this building, wasn't it? >> it was. >> he's had trouble addressing the question of race as the first black president in part because he is the first black president. and i have a working theory, hard to prove, that the times when he's gotten into the most trouble have been, as with skip gates' case in cambridge when he criticized the police, or in the trayvon martin when he dared to

say that if he had a son, he would look like trayvon. those are the moments he faces a firestorm of backlash from the right and other parts of the country, how dare you say this? how dare you say this? if bill clinton had said the same things, he would have face that backlash. president obama has a huge burden, and it is paradoxical that by his person he has done so much to elevate the topic, but it's hard for him to talk about it, i think, openly. to me one of the most remarkable documents of his presidency is -- you probably saw pretty early on, a young african-american boy came into the oval office and the president leaned forward to touch his hair, and the boy was touching hair that was like his, and that was a picture that said a thousand words. it's interesting when you ask about that, because in the spring of 1963, robert kennedy had a meeting with some black intellectuals and artists in new

york that is really credited with profounding affe inly affe thinking on the question. james baldwin would be there, lena horne and others, and he wanted to make the case that the kennedy administration was doing more than any had done. indeed it was. they made the case back to him, yeah, but it's not nearly enough, and if this is the best a white american can do, it's pretty terrible. and he tried to say to them, look, a hundred years ago my an assess toran -- ancestors came from ireland. there is no reason you couldn't have a black president. he was wrong but only by five years. >> a couple more questions. there are a lot of other things going on in this period, and one of the interesting stories that you tell is how the issues around economic policy, they get

entwined but then disentangled with the civil rights issues, particularly the tax law that the president wants to pass. tell us about that. >> i didn't really realize until i started this research how crowded those first two and a half years in the kennedy administration were, how cheek by jowl these events were so when he made that speech about passing the bill, alabama had been integrated, and that night four hours after the speech, he was shot. then lbj is juggling calls with j. edgar hoover and members about the bill. president kennedy's domestic legislative priority was to get a big tax cut which he thought would be an economic stimulus. in those days there was a strong

caucus in congress that was fiscally conservative who thought you couldn't have a tax cut because you couldn't afford it. one who was most against that tax cut was harry bird of virginia who was a segregationist. so the challenge was to get support from senator bird to move the tax cut along so it could get out of the way, clearing the deck for civil rights. johnson knew if the tax bill was still pending when the civil rights bill came up, they would be hopelessly entangled and you would never make progress on the other and they would be held hostage of one another. but the incompleteness of the 1964 civil rights act and the part of the story that is so unfinished is the economic inequality that persists in america today and that is so racially disparate. he talked about babies beia bla

white baby being born on the same day, and a lot of blacks are in ifinfinitely better toda. on the story of wages, it's about half. when president obama talks about the growing inequality gap, that's sort of -- i suspect next week at the lbj library, there will be plenty of speakers who will grapple about the legacy of work that remains. >> johnson did try to address some of those issues, and maybe i'm pushing this too far, but it seems -- an argument could be made that the '64 act really was a turning point in the '60s, too, that we look at those two periods as distinct. there is the early '60s that stopped around 1964, and there was common agreement about the civil rights act even though you

proved that there wasn't. then you get into this other period, which of course the vietnam war is deeply involved in, but also economic improvement that lyndon johnson is trying to create where we still have a lot of disagreements about those laws. >> just bays after the 1964 civil rights act was passed, the riot acts started. how do you address longstanding imbalances? the civil rights goal was to be color blind and race neutral, and the thinking was if you just remove the barriers, people can thrive and the town will out and nature will take its course, and of course we've seen that wasn't really true. but it's a triumphant ending to the story in a way, but it's also eerily poignant, because it isn't an ending triumph, and it's sort of the end of the '50s -- i guess assassination is the end of the '50s, but the '64

act is really the end of national unity on anything. after that we get into territory that's much more familiar feeling about the divisions that persist. >> two questions about the people you talked to. looking back, is that how they look at it? did you talk about this at all with your interviewees? and i wonder if they thought about that at the time. >> i think at the time they were so focused on getting the bill passed and getting a foot in the door, i think they knew it wouldn't finish the job. and the ardent civil rights supporters knew other things needed to be done, but this would mean you could never backslide all the way. i think it's also clear from the legislative history and from the debates, and hubert humphrey at one point says explicitly that nothing in the law should be interpreted as allowing quotas

in hiring. i think many people who supported it would not support it if they thought it would lead to affirmative action. as much as we would like to think the support of the bill came from moral high purpose and moralism, he thought a great deal came from the practical hopes of members of congress that passing the bill would stop the demonstrations and stop the disorder in the streets, and of course the disorder in the streets got worse. >> got worse. >> so that's part of it. but i was moved in talking to people, many of whom now have full, rich, long lives of doing other things, when they talk about this they get a certain tone in their voice and they knew then and they are proud now that they were living in really amazing times. >> so it's just wonderful that you were able to capture that. i want to thank you for this conversation and thank you for that book. i think that leaves us with a little optimism that maybe this could happen again, that moment you captured. >> we got through the civil war and we're still hanging in here.

as the doctor said across the street, the lady supposedly asked him, what did you give us to keep? >> i invite you to spend a little bit of time with him and pick up this book. [ applause ] american history tv in prime time continues tonight with the gettysburg college civil war institute's annual conference on the war in 1864. you'll first hear about robert e. lee's strategy followed on a discussion how ulysses s. grant planned his campaign against lee in virginia. also a discussion of the sand creek massacre. a u.s. army attack on a cheyenne and arapahoe village in the colorado territory. and we'll focus on john bell hood's tennessee campaign that led to the near total destruction of his army. american history tv all weekend,

every weekend. and weeknights in prime time during congressional recesses on c-span 3. up next, home land security secretary jeh johnson on administrative options to deal with the increasing number of unaccompanied migrant children crossing the u.s.-mexico border. he recently testified before the house homeland security committee along with fema administrator craig fugate and u.s. border patrol deputy chief ron vitiello. this is two and a half hours. the committee on homeland security will come to order. the committee is meeting today to examine the current crisis at the border regarding unaccompanied children. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. today on the southwest border, we are facing an escalating

refugee crisis. parents are handing over their young children by the thousands to cartels who are profiting by smuggling these kids to the united states. many are under the age of 10, including some barely old enough to walk. these children with no parents, relatives or legal guardians risk a perilous and sometimes fatal journey riding buses or trains from central america via mexico. as a father of five, it's unimaginable to me at what would compel a parent to risk the lives of their children on such a dangerous passage, not to mention the risk of sexual assault, exploitations and the potential to be trafficked. when they arrived at the border, the children are simply turning themselves in to the nearest border patrol agent. however, patrol stations are not set up to handle this massive and growing number of detainees,

let alone children. shelters have been established like the one at lackland air force base in san antonio. we've all seen the photos of hundreds of children piled on top of each other and the flow shows no signs of abating. every member of this committee, including myself, is gravely concerned about the safety of children no matter where they come from. since october, 52,000 -- 52,000 -- unaccompanied minors have crossed into the united states from mexico. nearly two-thirds of those cross through receithe rio grande valn texas. cvp estimates that next year, more than 150,000 unaccompanied children may attempt to cross our borders. this is a crisis. it's a crisis that's been in the making for years, one that we should have seen coming. but few concrete actions have

been taken. the department of homeland security and the united states government as a whole has been slow to act, turning a blind eye to the warning signs. the fact is these children are making a dangerous journey based on misinformation and the false promise of amnesty. the first step is for the administration to acknowledge the cause of this problem. no one questions the fact there are horrible economic conditions and violence in central america. but these conditions are not new. what is new is a series of executive actions by the administration to grant immigration benefits to children outside the purview of the law. a relaxed enforcement posture along with talk of comprehensive immigration reform. it is beyond dispute that such a narrative causes this behavior and has people coming to our

country illegally. in fact, el salvador, guatemala and honduras seem to be encouraging youth to come to our borders based on these policies. these children reveal that 70% believe they are going to stay in this country. the administration should send an unambiguous message that those arriving will be promptly sent home. i for one do not want to see another child harmed because we have not clearly articulated the realities on the ground consistent with current law. yesterday i was glad to see secretary johnson's letter, an open letter to the parents of children crossing our southwest border, notifying them that there are no free passes into the united states, and this is a good start. but a lot more needs to be done. in addition to a robust and effective public service campaign, we should also engage with the government of mexico to

step up their efforts to secure their southern border. i call on the president of mexico and his interior minister to do just that. i'm very concerned that this recent surge is weakening our border security efforts here at home. border patrol agents and ice officers who are looking after these children are being taken away from their main duty, their mission of tracking down drug and weapon smugglers, as well as criminal aliens. operation control of the rio grande valley, the biggest sector of the nation, may be suffering, and cartels will no doubt exploit this situation. recently the state of texas announced that it would surge border security operations along the border to fill a void left by the federal government. securing the border is a responsibility of the federal government. states should not need to protect what is in the federal government's role under our constitution. the president needs to

immediately send the national guard to the southwest border to deal with this crisis. we need to find solutions to this crisis and soon. and while secretary johnson has largely inherited the current situation, i look forward to hearing now how he is planning to respond to this emergency. again, i want to thank the witnesses for being here today on such short notice. the chair now recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you, and i want to thank you also for holding today's hearing. i want to thank the witnesses also for their testimony. on a daily basis, ages of children ranging from toddlers to teenagers, are fleeing violence, depression and horrible situations, many of them sent by their families. they're simply looking for a safe haven.

as a significant humanitarian crisis develops, we are finding their origins to be complex as its implications. it is irresponsible to attribute this crisis to one u.s. policy, or for that matter, one u.s. president. this crisis is not just an immigration matter, nor is it just a foreign policy matter. this crisis is not exclusive to the united states. much of the western hemisphere is reeling with this crisis. according to the united nations, these children are streaming into mexico, panama, nicaragua and belise as well as canada and the united states. from our perspective, we seem to be barraged on a daily basis by troubling images of vulnerable children, men that are stealing their dolls and teddy bears, crossing the border into the united states and being immediately apprehended by border patrol officers. this fiscal year alone, border

patrol officers have apprehended and detained over 50,000 unaccompanied children at the southwestern border. the number of kids arriving at our border without their parents seems to grow by the day. the influx of these kids have strained border patrol resources, but the men and women of the border patrol have risen to the challenge. in 2008, then-president george bush signed the whim wr transportation act. the law recognizes that special care is required for the young and vulnerable. the border patrol is required to take young children that are not from mexico into custody, screen them and transfer them to the department of health and human services' office of refugee resettlement. i would note for the record that

during this troubled time, even the border patrol has had to ramp up activities in the rio grande valley, the racial effectiveness rate has improved. for those out there who are looking for simple answers to lay the blame on president obama's actions or even the immigration reform legislation passage, i would note that neither apply to these kids. hence, the recent surge of unaccompanied children is due to lax immigration enforcement does not pass the smell test. in a time of crisis such as this, mr. chairman, we need to get our priorities in line and find both near term and long-term ways to address this situation. on june 2nd, the president tapped secretary johnson to establish a unified, coordinating group to ensure federal unity of effort to address this situation. in turn, secretary johnson

appointed fema member craig fugate to lead those officials throughout the executive branch. looking at the long term, we need to do more to turn the tide on this crisis by, among other things, fostering greatest ability among our neighbors and dissuading families from taking such action. over the weekend, secretary johnson issued a public service announcement in various central american countries, debunking the myths about u.s. immigration policy and informing the parents about the danger of traveling from central america to the united states. today i want to hear from the department about the response and their work with other fellow agencies, including the departments of health and human services, defense and state in addressing this crisis. we need to organize all our fellow agencies involved, not just the hs to effectively address the sudden surge. looking beyond the hs, there are

questions to ask about hs's resources for that matter. states' engagement through regional initiatives, do these programs have enough funding and personnel to be effective? i recognize that the panel assembled today may not be in a position to answer this question, but it is a question i will be pursuing. dehumanizing and labeling these kids and their parents will not yield a solution. labeling this as an administration failure will not address what is actually going on in el salvador, honduras and guatemala that would cause a parent to hand over their son or daughter to a smuggler or seeing that chi -- sending that child through a perilous trek to the united states. at this time, mr. chairman, we

can use our platforms to rise to the occasion and be helpful, or we can engage in political grandstanding at the peril of young lives. it is my hope that this committee with its strong history of bipartisanship can could see the former and be a model for effective leadership on this matter. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the ranking member for his constructive comments. other members are reminded that open statements may be submitted for the record. we're pleased here today to have a distinguished panel of wnt witnesses before us here today. first the secretary, jeh johnson, of homeland security was sworn in on december 23rd, 2014 as a force secretary of the department of homeland security. prior to joining dhs, he served as general counsell for the department of defense where he served as part of the senior management team and led civilian lawyers across the department. as general councsel, he oversaw

systems in guantanamo bay and we talked privately that you have traveled many times down to my home state of texas and seen this crisis firsthand. we thank you for doing that. he is accompanied today, this morning, by mr. greg fugate, at minim -- the administrator of the federal service agency, and mr. vitiello and mr. fugate will not be here to answer any opening questio statements but will be answering any questions we have. the chair now recognizes mr.

johnson for five minutes. >> members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about our efforts to address the recent rise of unaccompanied children and others crossing our border in the rio grande valley. with me today to answer questions are craig fugate, the administrator of fema, and ron v vitiello of the border patrol. to be clear, we face an urgent situation in the rio grande valley. last year, the cbc stopped 50,000 children at the border. those from guatemala, el salvador and hon dduras make up three-quarters of that migration. on friday i traveled to south texas for the fourth time in office, this time to lead an administration team to oversee

our efforts there. while there we met with officials at mcallen and lackland to review the situation and hear directly from those on the ground what their needs are. while there i spent time talking to the children again. it is a vivid reminder that this is a humanitarian issue as much as it is a matter of border security. we're talking about large numbers of children without their parents who have arrived at our border hungry, thirsty, exhausted, scared and vulnerable. how we treat the children in particular is a reflection of our laws and our values. therefore, to address the situation, our strategy is threefold. first, process the increased tide of unaccompanied children through the system as quickly as possible. two, stem the increased tide of negotiation through the rio grande valley, and three, do

these things consistent with the laws and values of our americans. so here's what we're doing. first, on may 12th, i declared a level 4 condition of readiness within dhs, which is a determination that the full capacity of cbp and ice to deal with the situation is full and we need to draw upon additional resources across all of dhs. i appointed deputy chief a tr vitiello to address this. then the president directed me to establish a unified corporation group to bear the assets of the entire federal government on this situation. this group includes dhs and all of its components, the department of health and human services, defense, justice, state and gsa. i in turn designated craig fugate to my right to serve as

coordinating official for the u.s. government-wide response. third, we have discussed added strategy for the housing of the children. we are considering others. fourth, dhs and hhs are increasing spanish-speaking case management staff, increasing staff handling incoming calls from parents and guardians, raising awareness of the hot line powered by fema and hhs, urging staff to handle the bed capacity and facilitate shelter designations. here i must note from personal observation that our border patrol and other cbp personnel, as well as personnel from hhs, ice, fema and the coast guard are doing a remarkable job in difficult circumstances. all of these dedicated men and women deserve our recognition, support and gratitude.

fifth, dhs is building additional detention capability for adults who cross the border illegally in the rio grande valley with their children. for this purpose, dhs is establishing a temporary facility for adults and children on the federal law enforcement training center's campus in artesia, new mexico. the establishment of this temporary facility will help cbp process those encountered at the border and allow ice to increase its capacity to house and expedite the removal of adults with children in a manner that complies with federal law. artesia is one of several facilities that dhs is considering to increase our capacity to hold and expedite the removal of the increasing number of adults with children illegally crossing the southwest border. sixth, dhs has brought on more transportation assets to assist in the effort. the coast guard is loaning their assets to help transport the

children. ice is leasing additional charter aircraft. seventh, throughout the rgv sector, we are conducting public health screening for all those who come into our contagious diseases or public health concerns. both dhs and hhs are ensuring that the children's nutritional and hygenic needs are met while in our custody. that children are provided regular meals and access to drinks and snacks throughout the day, that they receive constant supervision, and that children who exhibit signs of illness or disease are given proper medical care. we made clear that all individuals will be treated with dignity and respect and any instances of mistreatment reported to us will be investigated. eighth, working through fema's national response coordination center, we are coordinating with volunteer and faith-based organizations to help us manage the influx of unaccompanied

children crossing the border. the american red cross providing blankets and other supplies and through their restoring family links program is coordinating calls between children in the care of dhs and families anxious about their well-being. ninth, to stem the tide of children seeking to enter the united states, we have also been in contact with senior government officials of el salvador, honduras and mexico to address the interests. and how we can work together to ensure faster, secure removal and repatriation. last week president obama spoke with mexican president pena nieto about the situation as has secretary kerry. this past friday vice president biden visited to meet with regional leaders to address the influx of children from central america and the underlying security and

economic issues that are causing this migration. the vice president announced the u.s. will be providing a range of new assistance to the region including additional funding for central american governments to receive and reintegrate their repatriated citizens and a new $40 million u.s. agency for international development program in guatemala over five years to improve citizen security. and additional 161.5 million will be provided this year to the central american regional security initiative to enable american countries to respond to the nation's most pressing security and government's challenges. i will travel to guatemala on july 8, 9. the government of el salvador has sent additional personnel from its consulate in the u.s. to south texas to help expedite repatriation to its country. tenth, dhs, together with doj,

has added personnel and resources to the investigation, prosecution and dismantling of the smuggling organizations that are facilitating border crossings into the rio grande valley. 11th, we are intensifying our public affairs campaigns. in spanish, with radio, print and tv post to communicate the dangers of sending unaccompanied children on the long journey from central america to the united states and the dangers of putting children into the hands of smuggling organizations. as the chairman noted i have personally issued an open letter to the parents of those who are sending their children from central america to the u.s., which has been distributed broadly in spanish and english to highlight the dangers of the journey and to emphasize there are no free passes or permissos at the other end. we are stressing the deferred action of childhood arrivals does not apply to children

who arrive now or in the future in the united states, and that to be considered for doca, individuals must have continually resided in the united states since june 2007, seven years ago. we're making clear that the earned path to citizenship contemplated by the senate bill passed last year will not apply to individuals crossed the border now or in the future. only to those that have been in this country for the last year and a half. 12th, given the influx of unaccompanied children we have increased staffing and detailed 115 additional experienced agents from less active sectors to augment operations there. i'm considering sending 150 more border patrol agents based on my review of operations there this past week. 13th, in early may i directed the development of a southern border and approaches campaign

plan effort that is putting together a strategic framework to further enhance security for our southern border. finally, we will continue to work closely with congress on this problem and keep you informed. dhs is updating members and staff on the situation in conference calls twice a week and we're facilitating site visits to border patrol facilities in texas and arizona for a number of members and their staff. i have directed my staff to be forth right in bringing to me every conceivable lawful option for consideration to address this problem. in cooperation of the agencies of our government that are k dedicating resources to the effort with the support of congress and cooperation, i believe we will stem this tide. thank you. >> thank you. the chair recognizes himself for questions. let me say first i commend you

for your immediate response to this crisis. but we do have a crisis on the border. it's in our backyard and impacting my state, particularly, probably the greatest. when i see our military base is now turning into refugee camps in the united states i think that's something i thought we would never see in the united states. i talked with the senior officials down the rio grand valley sector. we have 250 -- over 250 children being apprehended every day down there. and i think the saddest thing is the exploitation of these children. i think as you recently mentioned in your open letter, you said it's dangerous to send a child on a long journey from central america to the united states in the hands of smugglers. many children are traumatized. psychologically abused or worse beaten.

starved, sexually assaulted or sold into the sex trade. they're exposed to psychological abuse at the hands of the criminals. we see these publications down in central america saying if you come into the united states, you can stay. now whether that's a misinterpretation of our policies, i think there's a lot of confusion out there. i personally believe that this administration's policies have contributed to this problem and have encouraged more people to come. when i talked to law enforcement, whether it's border sheriffs, they believe that this problem will continue until we provide a deterrence, a strong message that if you do come, you cannot stay. and so secretary johnson, what are you doing in that respect? what deterrence are we providing to stop this?

if we don't provide that deterrence, this problem will not stop. >> i agree. first of all, we need to stem the tide. these gentlemen here to my left and right are leading an effort to deal with the current capacity but we have got to stem the tide. i believe among the things i listed here that what is critical is we correct the record. we straighten the misperceptions. the smuggling organizations are creating a misinformation campaign that there's a free pass. i even heard that you have to get here by may 2014 in order to get your free pass. the smuggling organizations have an incentive to induce these kids to have their families pay money to smuggle them up here. they're putting out

misinformation which we're trying to correct through our public awareness campaign. but we're also building as i mentioned, increased detention capability for adults who bring their kids into the country to expedite their removal and return back to their home nations. the other thing that we in the department of justice are very focused on right now is going after the networks of smuggling organizations through their financial transactions, through prosecuting the personnel. we surged doj and criminal investigators for that purpose. we have need to stem the tide. >> i think that -- i know in 2006 we had a brazilian crisis and provided mandatory detention and it worked. i think the administration needs to look at that. i think the national guard -- i know dod doesn't like that option. if they could help with the influx and allow border patrol to do their job on the border, i think that would be helpful as well. in the limited time i have i want to focus on what i think could be a very good solution to this problem in addition to deterrence.

you and i talked about this issue. it has to do with mexico. and mexico's cooperation with the united states. they are allowing this to happen in their country. the drug cartels are exploiting the children. we know that the mexicans southern border is completely wide open. i know that we have offered assistance to mexico that to date i don't know whether that has been accepted but my information is that it is not -- has not been. i would like to commit my efforts to work with you to get efforts to work with you to get that problem solved because i think as you look at these children, they're all coming from central america. if we can close the southern border of mexico, that stops 99% of our problems here. mr. secretary, if you wouldn't mind commenting on that issue. >> first, as i mentioned in my

owning comment, i want to hear every legally available option, whether it's from my own staff or inner agency or members of congress or former government officials. i want to hear every available option. clearly, the key -- a key to this is what the government of mexico can do. i agree with your assessment. as you and i have discussed in private. we need to engage that government at the senior most levels and we have begun that in president to president discussions. and i have had discussions with my counterpart. i think that mexican -- the mexican southern border are shared border security interest is the key. i also think that engagement with the government of guatemala is the key which is why i'm going there next month. but this is a critical way to stem the tide.

>> i encourage you. i think you're right. the state department has a role to deal with central america in this crisis. with that, recognizing the ranking number. >> thank you, mr. secretary for your excellent testimony. how often have you had a discussion with secretary kerry on this situation? what i'm looking for is right now the microscope is on you. are you having discussions with other officials of the cabinet? >> oh, yes, definitely. on june 1st, as i noted, the president established a -- a government wide effort pursuant to the homeland security act to deal with this, and set up a unified coordination group, which i oversee, administrator

fugate is in charge of it, which brings resources and assets of not only dhs but hhs, doj, department of defense, and so we have an effort, which fema day to day, craig and his staff day to day, coordinate and support but in addition to that, we're in routine -- i'm in routine conversation with my cabinet counterparts about this issue. i'm having a meeting with my cabinet counterparts after this testimony, as a matter of fact. and last friday, i brought a group of interagency colleagues down to mccowan and langley, myself, not langly, lackland, myself, to see the situation. so we're in good consultation with all these other agencies. >> i'm just trying to make sure there is an understanding that it is not just jeh johnson who

is responsible for this issue, but there are other players also who actually we need to have conversation with. one of the conversations i think would be important is under existing law, how long would the children be in custody of dhs before they're passed off to hhs? >> under existing law, we are required to transfer the child within 72 hours to hhs from the point at which we identify the child as an unaccompanied minor. i know that the provision in the law says there's an exception for extraordinary circumstances. but in general the legal requirement is 72 hours. >> and i guess my question to administrator fugate is, have you been able to coordinate the resources so that 72 hour pass on is working? >> at this time, with the number of children coming in, we're not

meeting the 72 hours. but since june 1st, we've added over 3,000 beds to the health and human services office of refugee resettlement. including the three military bases that previously were referenced. in addition to that, we wanted to get these kids as quickly as we could from the detention facilities to a bed, even if we could not get them to hhs' custody. so custom and border protection has built out one processing center. another one is coming online in mid-july. so at this point, we have not reached the 72 hours. but we're building more capacity to get children in bed. but also health and human services is stepping up placement for the longer-term care of these children. our other hope is, is that the quicker we can place children long term, either reunited with legal guardians or parents or with foster families while they await further proceedings, the fewer beds that will be required.

we have increased capacity. but the number of children coming in have increased as well. and we have not reached the 72-hour mark. >> and i guess the follow-up to that is, in your coordinating role, do you feel that the resources necessary to be successful have been made available to you? >> yes, sir. the challenges again in building out facilities and bringing on additional foster care facilities, these are licensed facilities. it is diligent work by a lot of federal agencies to get this work, and it is time consuming. that's why we looked at some intermediate steps to increase bed capacity within custom and border protection. but you do have, i believe, additional requests that have been identified from omb that there will be additional resources required in the next year. we continue to work within our authorities and within the budgets we currently have. >> mr. vitiello, can you tell us

whether or not the border patrol as it's presently staffed can meet this influx of young people coming across the border? >> as is typical, the men and the women of the border patrol have stepped up to this task. i think you heard the secretary describe that we were there on friday. we watched the hard, diligent, heroic work they are doing to make the best of the situation. it's our -- it's my assessment and what we heard from the leadership on the ground down there, the agents that are involved in this crisis, we are adequately staffed and even better staffed than we were this time last year. so we are concerned as this goes on about staffing levels and our ability to do the other patrol border functions. but the reports that we got on friday, i'm very comfortable that they have the resources that are available and they're

using them in an adequate way to protect the border. this isn't a security problem in the sense that this population, both the family units and the children, are not trying to evade apprehension at the border. they're essentially coming in an area that's -- that's well known by us, well patrolled by us. they're not evading arrest. and the other locations along the border were adequately or -- we are better staffed or the same staffing that we had last year. so there is some risk involved here, but the reports that we heard on friday don't concern me. >> thank you. i yield back. >> chairman recognizes gentleman from new york, mr. king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary johnson, let me thank you for your testimony today. before we get into this issue thank you for what you've done as far as counterterrorism efforts. i want to personally thank you for that. it's greatly appreciated. on this issue, let me get to the question that the chairman is raising regarding deterrence. in your statement you say that you want to emphasize there are

no free passes. i understand what you mean by that, but if your parents in central america, in effect this can look like a free pass. you're making the situation more humanitarian. you're making more facilities available. as mr. fugate said, you're providing support to families. all which is understandable. that's our obligation as human beings. on the other hand, if you're a family in guatemala or el salvador, this in a way is a free pass. it's a better life than they're getting in central america. i don't understand how that's going to restore what's happening. and on the issue of diplomatic engagements, it would appear that as the chairman said the southern border of mexico is the key here. do we have any realistic hope that mexico is going to be cooperative on that? also you mentioned going after the coyotes? what's the time frame on that? as a practical matter we've been trying to do that for years. is there any reason to think the homeland security or doj can expedite that or be more effective?

i'm not reflecting on you. i'm just saying we've been doing this for as long as i can remember, going after the coyotes. they're still there. i guess what is the deterrence? because the more you take what is proper humanitarian action, the more you're making it, to me, more accessible and more hospitable, and it seems to be almost a catch-22. unless we can step up diplomatic efforts regarding the southern border of mexico. and whatever pressure we can bring and going after the coyotes. >> well, a couple of things. first, i'm convinced that the principal reason these kids -- from everything i've heard, everything i've seen, and from my own conversations with these kids, the principal reason they're leaving is the push factor from the countries they're leaving. the conditions in honduras, for example, are horrible. it's the murder capital of the world.

there is -- there is this disinformation out there that there is permisos. that's what we're hearing. free pass. you get a piece of paper that says, welcome to the united states. you're free. that's not the case. when you're apprehended at the border, irregardless of age, you're a priority for removal. they're given a notice to appear in a deportation proceeding. the way the law works, the 2008 law, we are required to give that child to hhs. and hhs is required to act in the best interest of the child, which most often means placing that child with a parent who is here in the united states. but there is a pending deportation proceeding against the child. now, in terms of -- but that's not a free pass. in terms of -- >> but if i were a parent in guatemala, wouldn't i see that as being a free pass? a 5-year-old child getting an order to show up in immigration

court, are you going to actually deport that child? to me, it is a free pass. from their perspective. >> congressman, i don't see it as a free pass, particularly given the danger of migrating over 1,000 miles through mexico into the united states. especially now in the months of july and august that we're facing. a lot of these kids stow away on top of freight trains. which is exceedingly dangerous. i spoke to one kid who was about 12 or 13 who spent days, climbed on top of a freight train. a boxcar. and these kids, sometimes they fall off because they fall asleep. they can't hold on any longer. it's exceedingly dangerous. >> i'm not saying it is a free pass. i'm saying how do we change their minds, not think it's a free pass, considering the poverty we're under. also if i could ask you on that, is the situation any worse in honduras today than it was two years ago or three years ago? any tougher economically or gangwise in these countries than it was several years ago before we had this mass influx? >> i know it's been bad for a

while. i know it's been bad for a while. if you're asking me to explain why the influx over the last cup of months all of the sudden -- >> if you could, yeah, sure. >> i'm not sure i have the answer to that question. i do believe that the smuggling organizations are putting out a lot of disinformation about the conditions, the legal conditions here in the united states to induce this activity. and i agree with you, congressman, that we have to put in place, and i think we're doing this, a number of deterrent factors. increased housing to detain parents, adults who come to this country with their children, expedited removals, and the public relations campaign. and one of the things that i'm doing in addition to everything else we've done on the public relations front is i'm talking to the u.s. conference of catholic bishops about how they can help. and i've had very good conversations. and i think that they will. because they realize that the dangers of a parent sending a child for this type of

migration. >> thank you for your service. yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. chair now recognizes the gentle lady from texas, ms. jackson-lee. >> let me thank both the chairman and the ranking member for the spirit of this hearing. in the combined recognition that this is a humanitarian crisis way beyond our imagination, we might use hindsight, mr. secretary, and look at this and say why did we not see it. i think the variables of the world would argue that the world remains in crisis in many areas, and it makes it very difficult, even when individuals are your neighbors, to be able to spot crises maybe before they begin to show themselves. so i am grateful for the response of the border patrol

and the agencies and the president who is recognized that we have come. let me, first of all, acknowledge that this should not be political grandstanding. and i would commend some of my colleagues to read -- i'll hold up this article that says "why 90,000 children flooding our border is not an immigration story." in a survey of 404 by the united nations, they found that 58% of these children were forcibly displaced. and to a degree it warranted international protection. meaning that if the united states breached its responsibility, and i know some adhere to the u.n. i do. i respect it as an international organization. we would be breaching many of its conventions that we have adhered to. so we're doing the right thing. i think it's important that i ask unanimous consent to put this in the record. an article dated june 16th, 2014.

>> without objection. >> i also want to hold up what we're talking about. we're talking about a little baby holding a bottle. maybe not even carried by his own family. we're talking about children who are not in the taj mahal, but are desperate. and may be internally displaced or chased off by the violence of their countries. and we're trying to respond to it. i think that is very important. i think it's also important to note that the wilbur force act was signed in 2008 by president bush. this is the one about unaccompanied children that were supposed to be handled by hhs. it was legislation that originated in a judiciary committee. i remember it very well. and the idea was for 20 children or 100 children to be handled by hhs. more humanitarian. it was not an open-door policy.

it was never, if you will, amnesty. and then i want to put into the record the statement by i.c.e. of daca which has been accused, the statement "come to the united states at the age of 16 and has continually resided in the united states for five years." what child can imagine that they would fit under daca? it is clearly an issue of something that my colleague, my chairwoman, mrs. millan and myself, have looked at and included this language even in our authorization bill some few weeks ago. so i ask these questions as long as we can keep the facts. it is not an issue of the wilbur force bill. it is a question of detention facilities, as well the need for

diplomatic interaction as we've done with the crisis and the leaders of guatemala, el salvador and honduras. they are in crisis. they are violent. i ask you about creating more processing centers, and as well, the senate passed about a 2 billion out of their labor hhs, is this what you need, about $2 billion to $3 billion to make sure we can respond to this? i also ask if someone would address the question, and i thank the border patrol for the work they've done, the suggestions that there have been some form of abuse. i think we should not run away from challenges that have been made regarding the treatment of these children. i think we should be open. we want to make sure they have facilities. i appreciate your response to those questions. >> congresswoman, i will answer quickly and ask my colleagues if they would like to supplement.

in general in response to your question, we need to identify and create more processing center space, more shelter space for hhs before they place the kids and more detention space for adults with children. we do not have a lot of detention space for family units. so as a deterrent and simply deal with the sheer numbers, we need to create more detention space for adults who bring their children. that's one of our principle goals as part of this process. i ask administrator fugate or chief vitiello if they have anything they want to add? >> no. >> i would add on the claims of abuse, my chief, the commissioner and secretary have been very direct and we are all focused on that issue. there is no room for abusive detainees in custody, specifically children. and those matters will be taken up with the office of the inspector general and will be

fully cooperative in all manner of getting to the bottom of those allegations. >> i'm glad to hear you say that publicly and openly, we are not running away from it, we are investigating and care about these children and will address this in the way the united states has always done in a humanitarian crisis. thank you. >> the lady's time expired. the secretary has to leave 12:30. i will strictly enforce the five-minute rule. gentleman from alabama mr. rogers is recognized. >> thank you. mr. johnson, when you took office, do you believe we had control of our border, our southern border? >> i recognized when i took office we had some real issues in the rio grande valley sector, in particular, with those coming from guatemala, el salvador and honduras. >> any areas of the border we had a fence we had children coming across? >> if you're referring to -- >> for example, southern part of california. >> this has not been a big phenomenon in southern california or arizona.

>> any place we had a fence, have we had 5-year-old children coming across the border? >> not in very large numbers. it's got a lot to do with the fact south texas is so closely located to central america, too. that's the migration path. >> the rio grande valley, if we had the same fencing we have along the southern border of california, do you believe these children would be coming across the border in numbers they are coming across or anything close to it? >> it's hard to answer because you are talking about the rio grande river, which is a very -- >> i've been there. i know what i'm talking about. we don't have a fence down there. if we did, we wouldn't have 5-year-old children coming across. this congress in 2006, because i was here. we authorized and appropriated the money for 700 miles of fencing. we've gotten most of that. that was done in 2009. we haven't had any more since then. this is what we get for it. let me ask this. i've been down to the large detention facility. i've seen the folks we detain be

debriefed, cleaned up, put on a bus and sent back. why aren't we doing that with these children? >> first of all nogales is being used as a processing center for the unaccompanied children. they are leaving and going to hhs custody for shelter and then placement. >> why aren't we putting them on a bus like we normally do and sent them back down to guatemala. >> because the law requires i turn them over to hhs, sir. >> the law required obamacare to be kicked in two years ago. that hasn't stopped the administration before. it's a humanitarian crisis. it's a national security crisis for our country. i don't know why these children are being treated differently. you talked about wanting to talk to the guatemalan government. about what we should be doing. i think what you need to do is ask the guatemalan government where they want these kids dropped off when the buses bring them back down there. what are we doing other then taking them and putting them in a facility here which makes it more likely we'll keep them here

for months and years. what are we doing to get them returned home? >> we are creating additional detention space for adults who bring their children. i want to consider any option for stemming this tide, sir. the law requires, the law that was created in 2008, requires that we turn these kids over, they're unaccompanied to the department of health and human services within 72 hours, generally. that's what we do. they are turned over with a notice to appear that is effectively a deportation proceeding commenced against them. the law requires i turn them over to hhs. >> do you believe these are exigent circumstances? >> yes. >> do you believe the president should issue an executive order to deal with this crisis? >> i'm not sure i can comment on that. of what nature? >> to supersede the law. this is not the first time --

>> last time i -- >> i don't know why he can't do it with these children. >> last time i looked an executive order can't supersede the law. >> that's what i thought. right now we have a crisis. i don't see this administration doing anything about it other than trying to house the children. i understand the humanitarian basis for that, but we need to send a signal to these other countries that it's not going to work. you can't send your children up here and let them stay. we'll turn them right back and give them right back to you. that's what i'm looking for you as a way to do this. that's a clear signal to these parents not to send these children in the future. tell me what you can do other than give them to hhs. nothing. have you called the national guard out? or asked for it? >> like i said, i would like to

consider every option presented. i went through in my prepared testimony the 12 or 13 steps we've taken to deal with the crisis, which includes building more detention space. >> the speaker of the house last week called on the president to mobilize the national guard to give relief to the border control and fema in this crisis. why can't you call on the president to do that? >> sir, if you're asking me if i can take an unaccompanied child, turn him around in the border and send him back to guatemala, i don't believe the law would permit us to do that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> recognizes mr. higgins from new york. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we had an incident in buffalo regarding facilities for undocumented and unaccompanied children in grand island, new york. a local developer offered to gsa a property that the local developer doesn't own and either represented that the property was vacant and developable or

federal agents assumed that the property was vacant and unavailable. that offer of property made its way from gsa to hhs, and finally to the department of homeland security where three dhs agents showed up at the property unannounced, and upon their arrival, they realized the property wasn't vacant. wasn't available. and found it to be a 236-room functioning hotel and spa. now, it would seem to me that someone that represents they own a property and knows anything about it and offers that property to the federal government for use under this program, some due diligence would have had to have occurred to verify either the assumptions

or to refute the misrepresentations that were made. are you familiar with this? can you offer any -- >> i've been informed that somebody within dhs looked at a hotel in upstate new york, and we were quickly informed that it's an up-and-running, functioning, occupied hotel. it's not a viable candidate for this situation. >> i think this misses the point. my real concern is that again, a local developer, doesn't own the property, reaches out to a federal agency and makes its way through one, two, three other federal agencies and federal agents show up at the property. it's confirmed then, it could easily have been confirmed through some kind of internet

search, google, that the property was not available. it just created a lot of confusion in the local community. >> well, i imagine it's just some investigators being thorough. as i mentioned, that property obviously is not an option to deal with this situation. it's an up-and-running occupied hotel. >> just seems to me more due diligence could have, should have been exercised here before federal agents were sent unannounced to a functioning hotel and spa facility for the purposes of housing unoccupied children that cross the border. i yield back. >> gentlemen, i'd like to remind the members the purpose of this hearing is to address unaccompanied minors crossing

the border. the chair now recognizes dr. brown from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, january 29th of this year, department of homeland security issued document, an ad actually requesting people to apply for a job to accompany these children, these unaccompanied children to be placed across the country. in that document, it said up to 65,000 kids. back in january of this year, the department already knew these kids were coming. was actually trying to get contractors, independent contractors to come onboard to accompany these kids. at what point did you all have a knowledge that there were going to be up to 65,000 children, unaccompanied children coming into this country? obviously this is before january

29th. >> congressman, i heard about this solicitation. i don't know where this estimate comes from or what it's based on. i can't comment. >> i didn't ask about the document it. asked at what point did the department project that there were going to be 65,000 children coming into this country? >> like i said, i don't know where that estimate comes from. i heard about this document, but i've never seen it. >> the point is, what have you all done? if january the department understood that there were going to be up to 65,000 unaccompanied children coming to the united states, as a medical doctor, i try to prevent disease. i try to prevent problems with my patients. the administration should be doing the same thing. if you knew that up to 65,000 unaccompanied children were going to be coming to this country, for pete's sake, you should have been doing something about it. i don't see where this administration or department of

homeland security has done anything. am i wrong? >> very clearly, since i've been in office, we've known that there is an issue of a rising tide of unaccompanied children coming into this country. i've known that since i've been in office for six months. the issue intensified, i'd say for me at least, in the period april or may. in april, i asked my staff to develop an overall campaign plan for the southwest border, the rio grande valley in particular to deal with the children and deal with the rising tide of those coming from honduras, guatemala and el salvador, adults and children. i saw this myself when i visited there in january. >> mr. secretary, i apologize for interrupting. i just have about two minutes left and i've got a lot of questions. the point is, nothing has been done for just get ready for

these children to come. is that correct? >> i have to disagree. >> i would like to know what you all have been doing to try to stop the flood because i believe the administration policies is what's invited these kids to come here. i understand that these kids are being placed with family members across the country. i have seen some statistics that over 90% of these individuals, and you just said, that they were given a notice of peer. 90% have actually absconded and never have been heard from again. how are you tracking, following up with these individuals if they don't show up in court? >> i don't know where the 90% comes from. i do know that through hhs we have a process to track the kids when they move. if they move with their, with

the adult whose supervision they're under that hhs places them with, there is a process to track them. i inquired and i'm told -- >> these kids have come here illegally. they've been law breakers already. you place them with families and it's my understanding that some of these families may be illegal themselves, is that correct? >> i'm sure that's true in certain segments, yes. >> what is the department doing to try to deport or deal with these families that are illegal in themselves? and then you've got another law breaker in the kid. you all should be following up. i don't have but just a second or two, but who has given the department of homeland security the directive of not enforcing the law to deport people who are identified who are here illegally? >> i'd have to disagree with that characterization, sir. there are priorities for removal. focused on public safety, national security and border security.

and we've prioritized the enforcement of the law in that manner. >> well, i disagree. it's been very obvious the president has been very public that he said that he's not going to deport these illegal aliens. we don't even deport people who have broken the law and committed felonies. i think this administration is inviting these kids, inviting illegal aliens to come to this country and wants to give them legal status. i find that intolerable. thank you, mr. chairman. my time expired. >> chair recognizes ms. jackson lee for the purpose of entering statements into the record. >> i ask unanimous consent to submit the american immigration lawyers association statement dated june 24, 2014. statement of the women's refugee commission dated june 24, 2014, and finally, a "the washington post" story, young migrants stuck in limbo mexican border, children stuck alone in shelter basis june 22, 2014. unanimous consent. >> without objection, so ordered.

mr. o'rourke from texas is recognized. >> thank you. i would also ask unanimous consent to submit statement from the first focus campaign for children regarding the issue facing migrant children and families. >> without objection, so ordered. >> mr. secretary, thank you for your testimony so far today. everything you've done so far to address the issue we are discussing in today's hearing, and i'd like to commend through you your director in el paso for ice, adrian mesias, your assistant director. there have been not unaccompanied alien children but migrant families transported from the rio grande valley to el paso. hundreds so far.

more plane loads coming in this week. your team on the ground in el paso has been exceptional how they are handling and processing these families and how they are working with social service groups like annunciation house to make sure the children and families and security of our country are protected. thank you for that. i also want to, you and i discussed this privately, but i want to say publically that the border patrol agents, cbp officers on front lines of this crisis are doing an extraordinary job in very difficult circumstances. we hear story after story of border patrol agents bringing toys from their own homes for these kids who are in incredibly vulnerable, difficult situations. border patrol agents working in cramped conditions. sometimes conditions that i know you are addressing, but border on perhaps unsafe, unsanitary and i know we are quickly changing that. i want to thank all these agents and officers who are on the line facing this issue directly. to follow up on ms. jackson lee's comments, i want to thank you and the office for civil

rights and civil liberties for addressing the claims and allegations brought by the aclu and others about mistreatment of migrant children in custody we don't know what the facts are. we just know the allegations have been made. you have promised to follow up on that aggressively and get to the facts and address that issue once we have all the facts. i want to thank you for that, as well. mr. chairman, i would like to address the larger context of this issue brought up by you and your opening remarks about what has created the conditions for this crisis that we have right now. i will acknowledge, i do think that the president's piecemeal administrative approach to this when it comes to the dreamers or through daca might contribute to a perception there are these permicos available in the united states. mr. king's point that given the way these children are processed

and begin an order to appear and placed with families in the united states, that may create the perception. there's also the fact congress in the year and half i've been here has been unable to vote on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. i think that contributes to this issue. miss jackson lee brought up the wilbur force act under president bush. all those facts about congress and the administration's ability or inability to deal with immigration are lost on the families and parents of these unaccompanied children who are sent north. i can only imagine. we celebrated my daughter molly's 6th birthday yesterday. i can only imagine what that must be like to be in a position to put her on a train north through mexico up to the border with united states, not knowing how she will fare, if she will get there, what will happen to her once she arrives. conditions have to be really bad, unimaginably bad, to me, for that to happen. while i agree maybe mexico do

more, although i find it ironic so many of us question we have an appropriate border policy that he we would be implementing or imposing one on another country. mexico can do more. perhaps we could completely fence the border and build a giant moat with alligators to keep kids and people away. maybe we could put these kids on a bus and drop them off at the border with guatemala. i don't think any of those consistent, one with the law, two with our values, three with my conscience or the conscience of many of the people in this country. i think which have to address the issues in those countries of origin. we have complicity in this. we are the world's largest drug market. those countries are in between the world's largest drug suppliers and the world's largest drug market. i think your public relations campaign, mr. secretary, to those countries, to tell them this is a dangerous journey is well intentioned. i don't know how effective that's going to be. i think we need a public relations campaign in the united states. if you use drugs, you are complicit in the dangers these children face. we do have a humanitarian crisis here.

there is no easy solution. it certainly won't be solved by walls or border enforcement. i think we need to go to the countries of origin. with that, mr. chair, i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes miss miller from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would say that unfortunately the central americas have had a very long history of both bad economies and violence, and both these things are probably as bad now as they have ever been, but to say that's a reason we suddenly have tens of thousands of children, children almost entirely coming from guatemala, the honduras and el salvador, traveling thousands of miles through mexico illegally entering the united states simply isn't true. i think this humanitarian crisis can be laid directly at the feet of president obama as a result of his daca policy in 2012. i hope our hearing doesn't judge just point out the problem which is very, very bad, getting worse, no end in sight, but i

hope we can coalesce around actual options and solutions. several weeks ago i called on the president to call up the national guard. clearly, this is a national emergency. i don't think individual states like texas or arizona would have to foot the bill if they had their own national guard come up. this is a national problem. a number of members of congress subsequently joined me and i appreciate that in calling up the national guard. last week both governor rick perry and speaker boehner, as well, asked the president to call up the guard. i also called on the administration several weeks ago, almost a month ago to begin a very aggressive public relations campaign in the centrals telling parents not to put their children in danger by paying mexican drug cartels up to $8,000 a head to smuggle their children into the united states. i'm glad to see that this was actually number 11 on the secretary's list of his action list he testified to today in our hearing. regarding mexico, which is our

neighbor and in fact one of our largest trading partners, they are behaving so badly and so dishonorably they are complicit in human smuggling coming up from the centrals. i think we need to take additional steps now to protect america by getting our neighbors' attention. instead of increasing funding, hundreds of millions of dollars as the president called for, i think we need to stop foreign aid to the centrals immediately. i'm going to give you a couple of examples of what some of our usaid is being used for. developing civil society programs. climate change. addressing the gender gap in education and work force. we would be better off spending this money in thor in cities of america. start with detroit. i would say no more money from america until they step up to their own responsibilities and stop their citizens from illegally migrating to the united states. again, regarding mexico, how can

we continue to have free and fair trade with a country that not only takes our money but is actually profiting from these drug cartels from human smuggling of children? it is sickening to watch these children on the top of the train, the beast as they call it, sitting on the top of these trains coming up thousands of miles through mexico and the mexican government is doing nothing. we need to act decisively, we need to act now. i would say no more financial assistance either from the united states to the centrals that are shipping up their children to mexico, through mexico and to the united states. and i also think in regard to trading with mexico, we need to reopen, re-examine and perhaps repeal both nafta, which is the north american free trade agreement, and i think we need to do the same with cafta, which is the central america free trade agreement. we need to whack them, our

neighbors, to understand that they are just not going to keep taking our money and we are just going to be sitting here like this. we are not the atm machine while this humanitarian crisis is happening with these innocent, innocent children. i would just ask the witnesses what you think of these additional options. secretary asked for options. in my opinion, we are not going to enforce our way out of this. we are not going to enforce our way out of this situation. we need to have some policy change and here are some suggested options. do any of the witnesses have a comment? >> congresswoman, i agree with you that a key to solving this problem is mexico and central america, which is why we, i personally, i'm in dialogue with them. i believe in a number of respects we have a very valuable relationship with the government of mexico. in a number of respects that promotes the economies of our

countries and this continent. but i do believe that we have to engage with them on our shared border security interest. i intend to have that conversation with them. our president has had that conversation with their president. we need to stress the situation that exists in south texas as a result of the migration that passes through their country from central america. we are doing that. and i believe the discussions had been ratcheted up, if you will, over the last several months as a result of the situation we face. i agree with you with respect to that. and with respect to daca, we have to keep re-emphasizing as i did in the letter i sent, which i believe was probably read by millions of people by now, at least i hope it was, daca is for kids who have been in this country for seven years. not for somebody who crosses the

border today or tomorrow or yesterday. it's for somebody who's been in this country seven years. the smuggling organizations have a motive to distort and to pass out disinformation to encourage parents to pay them $3,000 or $4,000 a person to bring their kid into this country. that's what they're doing. they launched a misinformation campaign, which we have to correct. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair recognizes ms. sanchez from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, gentlemen, for being before us today. i want to make a couple of comments to some of the things i heard here and i want to ask you questions. first of all, people are slamming mexico because they've got these drug cartels, et cetera. the reality is the demand is coming from the united states. i mean, where are we?

why haven't we done something about this demand for drugs? it's a supply and demand issue. people, americans are putting cash on the barrel head to get these drugs. so we can't just look at a country that is transiting drugs or a country sending drugs, what are we doing about the demand here in the united states? because that's where this money comes from. secondly, i just want to address, and i agree on so many things with miss miller, especially when it comes to borders, but i would have to respectfully disagree on a couple of things i heard from her about not working with central american countries or mexico. first of all, we know this has been proven time after time after time that the education of a mother around the world, the education of a mother is central to the nucleus of the family,

stability of the family and the economics of the family. this is a long-term investment we make when we have usaid in so many countries working to educate young ladies because they will be the mothers of the future. and with respect to working with institutions or working with institutions in countries, we actually do that all over the world. if you have a place, a country, and you can't trust the judicial system, you can't think you are going to get a fair shake if you get picked up off the street or if you've got a business saying you can't get a contract enforced, but that's what makes america so great is that we have these incredible institutions. these democratic institutions, by the way you guys, and these judicial institutions we work on every day to make great america and we try to put that and help

other countries to do. i think these types of things we are working on in other countries are incredibly important to give hope to people who live in those countries and to have them have an ability to stay in those countries and not leave them and come up to an america that we know right now when we see the border is being taxed. i would like to ask you about we this whole issue because some have said that gang members or individuals with criminal records are the ones that are accompanying these children who are coming up and being apprehended. my first question is, how does the border patrol screen these individuals for these issues? and what are your findings so far?

>> each of the individuals who are arrested are interviewed by law enforcement professionals. so their observations plus the biometric capture of their fingerprints are checked against the databases of the holdings of the united states government. fingerprints are checked against the databases of the holdings of the united states government. everybody over 14 gets all ten fingerprints taken sent against the ncis database to check against their prior criminal record from the united states. we have reports where this is probably the most acute reports of people who are recognized as being gang members as part of the population that's under 17. >> my last question because i'm running out of time. given the influx of these unaccompanied minors coming into the country, mostly across the texan border, you are putting border patrol there. where are these personnel and resources coming from to handle this influx? what about the other areas if you are pulling them from other areas, what are we seeing happen there? >> we looked carefully and taken

a handful of folks from along the southwest border from areas that are not as active as what we are seeing in the rtv. those people are dedicated for more boots on the ground for the border patrol function and to gather intelligence to find leads for investigative follow-up to hand over to i.c.e. to attack the networks that are responsible for the alien smuggling in that area. >> my time is up and i thank you. i'll submit the rest of my questions for the record. thank you. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. meehan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i am grateful for your leadership of this agency at this particularly difficult time. you know my respect for you. i do respectfully disagree with you on this issue with regard to the deferred action on child arrivals. i've been, as you know, a prosecutor and we've been fighting violence and drugs for

the last decade or more. the one changed factor has been the new permissive policy of this administration on deferred action for child arrivals. i also want to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues both here and on the other side. i hope every college kid who is sitting here with their visions of the important world they're playing with social activism and looking at investments for colleges or global warming will appreciate that when they're sitting in their dorm smoking dope purchased from these drug gangs, this is the implication, and maybe there is a little time for social activism there, too. regardless, let me ask you a question about your apprehending children at the border with adults and you are going to hold them and send them back, and i appreciate that policy. let me understand what's the distinction if you take an adult with their children who arguably are more responsible because

they're with their children. and yet if the child comes without their adult, we're going to take the child at the border and reunify with an adult who is probably here not under legal status. so what's the difference? why aren't we obtaining this child, reunifying and returning both of them? >> if an adult is apprehended at the border and brought their children with them, they are priority for removal. we are building additional space to hold them so they can be returned quickly. we need to do that. i believe that is important to do. >> but what it's difference? >> the difference is if you are talking about reuniting a child with a parent who is in the interior, first of all, the law requires that if it's in the best interest of the child to do that, we will do that.

there is a deportation proceeding pending against the child at that point. with respect to the parent, if the parent is a convicted criminal, has a criminal record or is in some respect a priority for removal under our existing policies, then they should be removed. >> with all due respect, what percentage right now of children are appearing for these hearings? >> i do know that unaccompanied children in removal proceedings are, in fact, removed. >> what percentage once reunited are returning for these status hearings? >> i don't have that percentage. i know -- >> probably not very high. >> i don't have the number offhand. >> that is something we should know if this is so fundamental to the policy. i would suspect not very high. i don't know the answer, but want to be very honest with the american people. this idea somehow we are going to institute legal proceedings

and take -- we've got 65,000 children that have come over the line. now, you know and i know, when suppose we go through a legal process and find that that child has, is now subject to judicial order for return, you know and i know when i was a prosecutor, it took two agents to accompany that child back to his country. we used to fly an individual back. 65,000 children. how are we going to return them? >> congressman, i'll say two things. first of all, we are talking about children as young as 5 and 7 years old. this is a humanitarian issue. >> i know that. >> so when you're talking about somebody who is desperate to be reunited with her mother or her father in the united states, i think as americans, we need to be careful about how we treat these kids.

>> my time -- we all get it. this is what's so difficult about this. we are dealing with children and we get it, but we ought not be leaving the american people with the false impression that somehow the system is going to work and is actually going to lead to removals. once those children are here, they're staying here. >> the other point i make, if i could, is that we have to stay focused through this situation on public safety, national security and border security. so there are a number of people who are in this country who still need to be removed, to whom we need to continue to apply resources. i've got to keep my eye on that ball, as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. vela from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by respectfully disagreeing with my colleague

from michigan in toerms terms of comments made with the trade with mexico. the total trade volume between comments made with the trade with mexico. the total trade volume between the state of michigan and mexico is $52 million. michigan exports $12 billion in products to mexico. and 175,000 jobs in michigan depend upon trade with mexico. over the past few weeks, as i've tried to wrap my arms around this situation, as you have, what it's boiled down to, in my view, is i view it as three separate crisis. we have the crisis in central america. tomorrow the house committee on foreign affairs will be addressing that. we know that the white house has initiated a response in that regard, so we'll save that for another day. the second crisis i see is a

logistical crisis with respect to this sudden influx. you've addressed well the detention aspect of that. one thing i am wondering about from the adjudicative standpoint, what do we need to do to make our adjudicative process more efficient? >> we are surging i.c.e. and doj resources into the region to deal with removal proceedings, to deal with asylum claims. we've had that conversation with the department of justi.c.e. and they are definitely supporting the effort. we need more lawyers and judges down there and more teleconference to expedite the run of the mill removal proceeding, which i'm sure you know can take a long time.

we have resources all around the country we think we can devote to this so that everybody is doing a fair share of the work here. we would like to see the process move more expeditiously when it involves removal of asylum claims. we have a plan to do that. >> is the administration request in terms of dollars, does it include this part of the process? >> i believe it does. >> the third crisis i see and i have some figures here that suggest that in the last fiscal cycle, that 85% of the unaccompanied children that were being detained were being reunited with family. do you know if that is an accurate reflection of what we are seeing to date in this fiscal cycle? >> i know that just over 50% of those unaccompanied children

that hhs is placing is placing with a parent. i've seen the number 85% to suggest that 85% are being placed with a family member, but i don't know that to be -- i've seen it, but i don't know that to be accurate. i've seen it in various places. >> that sounds like the statistics i looked at in terms of the last fiscal cycle. my point, i suppose, is that's the third crisis i see which is addressing immigration reform crisis. in my view, those parents and those family members of these children are being reunited with are the people working in our hotels and our restaurants and our construction sites. it's certainly something we need to address very quickly. just yesterday in texas, local leaders met and they did address