provide the information about the whereabouts of the child to the department of homeland security both immediately prior to and immediately after the release. >> and the names of who they are placed with? >> yes. we provide that information to the department of homeland security. >> after that fact do you track these children to ensure they appear at their imfwrags hearing? >> we do not play that role after the time we release the child then this subsequent issues relating to the immigration proceeding itself will be the responsibilities of the department of justice. >> okay. in a june conference call with congressional staff hhs stated they are not mandated nor will they be checking immigration status of relatives or sponsors for the unaccompanied children. i'm interested in the procedures hhs uses to verify the identity and immigration status of the individuals to whom the unaccompanied child is released. to clarify does hhs verify until

integration status of the sponsors to whom the unidentified children are released? >> we verify the identity of the individual -- >> that's not the question i asked you. the immigration status. >> we do not verify the immigration status of the individual. our focus in the release is first identify the least restrictive setting in the child's best interest. as we do that we also need to look at safety to the child, safety to the community, risk of flight, so we go through the overall process of looking at the individual placement to queen sure that it is a safe and appropriate placement for the child. >> let me saw follow up question. isn't it true that if you place an unaccompanied child with an illegal alien sponsor, that the significant likelihood is they would not want to bring that child to a deportation hearing before an immigration judge for

fear they would expose their own illegal status? >> so, for us as we go through the process of identifying sponsors, we ensure that the sponsor understands they have a responsibility to make the child available for proceedings -- >> again that's not the question i asked you. the question i asked you was would it not be likely that they would not comply regardless of whether you tell them that's their responsibility if, in fact, they are an illegal alien to begin with, why would they expose themselves in front of an immigration judge? >> so, for the child in those circumstances, this, you know, this is about who the child should live with while they are awaiting removal proceedings and during the removal proceedings >> you're missing my point. my point is, is i'm all for having the children in the best place. don't get me wrong.

but if you're not checking immigration status of those that you place with them, and if, in fact, they are not here legally, the likelihood that her going to show up before a judge is markedly diminished because it exposes them. so the question i would ask you is why you don't ask for status of the people that you place these children with? >> so, the specific aspects of what happens in the proceedings are best addressed by my colleague at the department of justice. >> i one that. i'm asking you the question why you don't ask the status of the people with whom you're placing the child? why you do not ask that question? because in all likelihood they are not going to show for an immigration hearing. >> so, for us the focus needs to be on a safe and appropriate placement of the child.

>> you're not going to answer my question. why you do not ask that question of those people with whom you're placing these children? >> so even if we have the information as to the parent or other relative's immigration status we would still at that point need to look at the totality of the circumstances. >> i don't disagree with that. i'm asking why do you not ask that question? is it the policy of hhs not ask the status of the person with whom you're placing the child. >> we do not -- >> is that the policy of hhs of this country? >> yes, it is. that's the case. yes. >> let me run through the order of those, my colleagues who have come in to participate.

senator johnson is up next. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for holding this hearing and thank the witnesses. mr. greenberg, president of the united states, according to an article in the "atlantic" met with a group of advocates and others coalition for humane immigrant rights and others. and according to this article he told the groups he had to enforce the law even if that meant deporting hard cases with minors involved. sometimes there's an inherent injustice in where you are born and no president can solve that

obama said but the president must send the message that you can't just show up on the border, plead for asylum or refugee status and hope to get it. quote, then anyone can come in and it means, of course,ively we don't have any kind of system. obama said quote, we're a nation with borders that must be enforced. do you agree with that statement, mr. winkowski and mr. greenberg? >> yes. >> then i wonder why anyone would question the motivation for young people to come here since the latest information we have that in fiscal year 2013, 20,805 unaccompanied children from el salvador, guatemala and honduras were apprehended by the border patrol and in that same year, 2013, 1,669 of these

unaccompanied children were repatriatated back to their home countries. if you were one of these children and you were there in one of these countries wouldn't you think your odds are pretty good? >> yeah. but there is a a legal process. that legal process takes its time to make its way through the system and that's part of the challenge that we have that the director talked about from the standpoint of staffing of judges and just the legal process that takes place. it takes time to get to a point of removal in some of these cases. >> but despite what you have to say, mr. winkowski, and you're sitting in el salvador and one out of ten don't show up with a permission slip, only one out of ten show up before a judge.

isn't that true? >> i've heard that number, yes. >> you've heard that number. you don't't know? you wouldn't know how many percentage don't show up with a permission slip >> for the judge? >> yeah. >> perhaps the chief judge can help me on that. >> senator, if the accurate num trying to get better data. the numbers for juveniles we have, we have juvenile numbers and overall numbers. the number that we have is that

46% of juveniles actually don't show up for their immigration hearings. >> half the people. only half the people. >> no. they are not showing up for immigration hearing carries considerable consequences. whether you're an adult or a child or anybody that actually is issued a notice to appear and required to appear before an immigration judge and does not appear that judge issues an order of removal and that order of removal can be enforced after them not showing up. >> in 2013, 1,669 out of 20,805 were actually in that year returned. that's one out of 20 roughly. so, i mean, the fact is that people show up and they have every reason to believe, according to these numbers and i'll be glad to look at your

numbers, even if it's only half, that there is ample incentive for them to come to this country. the president initially said that he believed the trafficking victims protection act which would provide the same status for central america as we have for mexico and canada, the amendment would be supported. do you support that, mr. >> i support a system whether it's -- >> i asked if you support amending the bill. i'm not asking what -- if you support amending the bill. >> yes. >> thank you. mr. winkowski, identify been representing the state of arizona for many years. and i have never seen anything like your instructions to signed by your name interim protocol for visitations and tours to telling me when i visit a detention facility that i

can't bring a cell phone with me? are you saying that? united states senator visiting a facility, these are the instructions that you have signed? is that what you're saying? >> that the visitors -- >> this is a visiting congressional, member of congress. >> don't recall saying that. what i recall is -- >> let me provide you with a copy. says see distribution, r. gil winkowski commissioner interim protocol for visibilityations and tours to cbp detention facilities. you didn't see your own memo? >> that would be me. >> okay. >> that would be me. i did issue that memo. we have had huge numbers of -- >> am i allowed to bring a cell phone with me when i go on the a facility in nogales, arizona. . >> not take photographs. >> why? >> the children have a the right

privacy and that's why we're not having their faces shown on -- >> i may want to take a photo of something else. >> if you want to take a photo we would make arrangements for you to take a photo just not of the children. >> that's not the instructions you have given, sir. have any physical or verbal contact with detained children unless previously requested and specifically -- oh, have any physical or verbal contact with cbp detainees and/or staff? your telling me i can't even speak to staff there >> snarkts i'm not telling you you couldn't speak to the staff. >> why did you issue these instructions >> we've had requests by hundreds and hundreds -- >> i'm talking about members of congress, sir, which you said applies to members of congress. i'm not asking about the hundreds. i'm talking about the responsibilities i have in my own state. >> it does and we would make special arrangements for special considerations, senator. >> that is not according to your

instructions and when i was there then the border patrol and the people there said that they didn't want me speaking to any of the staff or children. i view that as a violation of my responsibilities. >> i'm not familiar with your -- >> you're not familiar. they were carrying out your instructions, sir. i want it fixed and i want it fixed immediately, understand. if a member of congress can't visit a facility in his own state, the people of arizona elected me and i'm not supposed to even carry a cell phone with me, you have overstepped your responsibilities and your authority, sir. and i want those instructions revoked as far as members of congress are concerned and i want it done today. do you understand? thank you, mr. chairman. >> our next senator to be

recognized, senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i come from manufacturing so root cause analysis is in my dna and mr. chairman i think you asked the right question. how do we stop the flow? from my standpoint what is causing all the illegal immigration in this country is we actually incentivize it. when we pass a comprehensive immigration bill in the senate that includes $262 billion in welfare benefits to non-u.s. citizens that creates an incentive. when we ask money to beef up detention facilities to allow a greater time forced a to adjudication. near incentivizing parents to put their kids at great risk coming across mexico because they know if they reach the

promised land they are home free. we're creating incentives. when president obama two years ago issued a memorandum to defer action on childhood arrivals which codified fact we won't send people home we're creating that incentive. we're trying to stop human trafficking. are we actually increasing it because we have smugglers earning $3,000 per child? so i guess i would like to first of all, if we're going to solve the problem let's understand the numbers. mr. kerlikowske you're the best person to ask this. how many unaccompanied children have come in to this nation since doca was issued two years ago. how many kids? >> i have the number of children that have been apprehended in this fiscal year of 57,000. i can give you the information on going back to doca. >> i would like that. of 57,000 how many have been

returned? >> we only -- the united states customs and border patrol is in the apprehension. >> so who would know the number of how many of those have been returned? >> the numbers i have that we talked about, about 1300, 1500. >> very low percentage senator mccain was talking about. how many of those are from mexico? 57,000, how many are mexican citizen? >> the breakdown has been that honduras, el salvador, guatemala contain about 80, 78 to 82% of the people we've encountered. the rest are from other countries including mexico. a smaller number from mexico. >> the point i'm trying to get at is in the 2008 bill we created expedited procedures for people from contyingous nations, canada and mexico. if we have illegal immigrants from mexico are we actually

expediting those procedure? who can answer that? department of justice, hhs. who is doing this? >> yes. if i remember the numbers correctly and i stand corrected, i think last year border patrol did expedited removal on 11,000 children, i believe. that made its way in on to united states, did expedited removal. very little activity up in the northern border. >> i wouldn't doubt that. >> but, yes. best of my recollection during my time border patrol was using expedited removal. >> what's the timeline for deportation? i mean, how long does it take to go through the adjudication process. let's first talk for the expedited procedures for mexicans and then i want to talk about other than mexicans. >> my understanding of expedited

removal it's immediate. virtually immediate for people that come in. >> if there's 20% that are basically mexican which is expedited procedures, 20% of 57,000 is roughly 10,000, right? >> yeah. 10 to 11,000. why we only deported 1700. >> the number of 11,000 the border patrol executed from an experiod dited removal standpoint. under the expedited removal rosees you have to determine a couple of things. >> so how long does that take to determine a couple of things. >> under expedited removal it's very quick. kit be the same day. >> so, again, if 20% of the 57,000 unaccompanied children are mexican, subject to those expedited procedures it could be the same day how come we only deported what is it senator mccain, 1700? when the number is closer to 10

or 11,000. >> i think the number that i was quoting was from the south central american countries. to include mexico. try to break them into different buckets here. >> mr. winkowski. >> senator, the vast majority of immigrants that are here illegally that are apprehended at the border from mexico are returned almost within the same day and we can -- >> so -- >> they move very quickly. >> unaccompanied children in mexico not counted in your 57,000? >> a part of those 57,000 are those unaccompanied children from mexico. many of them are returned within the same day. i'll be ethiopia give you -- >> give me those numbers. >> i'll be happy -- >> how long does it take in terms of other than mexico, other than canadians to actually

go through adjudication process and actually be deported? >> senator our immigration court system has no direct role with the expedited removal process. let me talk about the process whereby somebody gets brought into the country and put through removal proceedings. we break these down between detained and nondetained. if you're a detained docket about 40% of our dockets are individuals who are detained while awaiting a hearing before an aim integration judge those cases move quickly. i don't have a number. but move within a matter of a few weeks to a few months. if they are on nondetained dockets those take a long time. >> few weeks, few months but we've only returned a fraction of the 57,000 we're talking about here. again, what you're saying doesn't add up with what the numbers are. let me just make my final point because i'm running out of time.

i ran out of time. i can't think of a more humane thing to do, you know, maybe sounds cruel, but then to deter parents from sending their dhoirnl the united states. i can't think of a better way to deter parents from doing that is to literally take these minor, identify where they came from, you know, identify gone online, it costs $207 on a one way trip in terms of plane flight. put them into a hotel, feed them and return them to the country of or gain because i can't think of a better signal to parents in guatemala and el salvador and honduras to say do not subject your children to the beast. do not subject your children to rape and murder. don't send the home the united states because when they get here they will not be allowed to stay. there's 7 billion people in this country that don't live in america. many would like to come. we got to come to a decision in this country whether we'll have totally open borders or a legal

immigration system which i want to fix this. we have to address the root cause. the root cause literally is we got to stop incentivizing parents and other immigrants coming in to this nation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> next, senator ayotte would have been next but she stepped out for a moment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate our witnesses for being here today on a very important hearing. i want to start with a little questioning on what sort of data and statistics we do have available. i know there's a lot of questions about why. and how long this has been going on. we have some very recent statistics that have been shared. but i would like to get a better sense of what's out there and what you can furnish to us as a follow up to this hearing. and so, i start -- i know you're fairly new to the post, mr.

kerlikowske. you talked about 57,000 unaccompanied minors this year. do you collect, in terms of border crossings of unaccompanied minors, do you have -- can you give us month by month, year by year data going back over several years, and when -- we sort of declared crisis in recent months but it seems to me that this is of some duration. >> you're absolutely right, senator. the increase this year so far and we still have three months left in this fiscal year has doubled from the year before, and that year doubled from the year before. in early 2013 a number of interagency colleagues, defendant homeland security, department of justice, health and human services all met to begin to address this issue,

particularly in the rio grande valley. we can give you details going back month by month, year by year. >> okay. i would appreciate that. and then, mr. winkowski, i'm curious to know also what sort of data you can provide us. we've testified in an order of border crossings and then issuance of notices to appear. and then, of course, for unaccompanied minors would be then referred to dhss. mr. winkowski, can you provide us with year by year and month by month data on issuance much notices to appear to unaccompanied minor? >> absolutely. yes. >> okay. and then mr. greenberg, you received referrals from immigration and citizenship. can you also provide and would you characterize for us before

providing that specific and more granular data sort of the numbers you've been seeing recently? >> yes. we would be able to provide for the children referred to us we can provide country of origin, sex, the age of children and then when the child goes to a parent, relative or other sponsor what the nature of that placement is. >> okay. that will be appreciated. and then mr. osuna, you gave us some very recent statistics on record levels of cases pending. but i would also appreciate, again, a more, a longer timeline and more granular data for us to get a greater understanding than your testimony provided. >> would be ethiopia provide that, senato -- would be happy to provide that,

senator. >> i have a question and i think i'll start with mr. palmieri. what do we know about migration of unaccompanied minors to, from honduras, el salvador and guatemala to other central american countries or south american countries? what sort of information could you share on that? >> it appears the primary route that el salvadorian and guatemalan and honduran migrants and unaccompanied children are taking are north. there are reports that some do seek to stay in mexico if they can. part of the mexican effort at the border with guatemala is they are trying to issue better documentation of people who are entering their country so that they can track those, those visitors in a better way as they

move through the country and to see where they are ending up. it is without a doubt the large numbers end up at our border. >> absolutely. for mr. osuna, we know that many of these unaccompanied minors have fled violence. we also know that many have arrived in the united states in the hand of human traffickers. and may have been further victimized on the route to the u.s. border. under the trafficking victims protection re-authorization act and understanding that asylum officers operate under a different department than you, could you still tell us the standards by which those officers and immigration judges upon review will determine which

children qualify for asylum or special immigrant juvenile status and therefore can remain in the u.s. under the 20808 law? >> senator, the rules for asylum that our immigration judges apply in children's cases in terms of the legal standards are the same for all other asylum applicants. they are set in statute and regulation and interpreted over the years by case law. that's not any different whether the person appearing before a judge is an adult or a child. what is different is the process. if a child is eligible for or appears to be eligible and wants to apply for asylum or special immigrant status the initial jurisdiction over those cases rests with the u.s. cis. so the judge has to basically suspend adjudication of the case for the moment, refer it to dhs

and they make initial call on asylum. >> you mentioned that the standards were the same regardless of acminor or an adult. what are some of the -- >> generally speaking -- >> remind us. an provide applying for asylum has the burden of showing that he or she fears persecution, has a well pounded fear of persecution is the legal standard based on one of five ground. race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group and that's a law going back to 1980. >> thank you. >> senator landrieu. >> first let me thank you for calling this hearing. it's extremely important. very timely. given that the president is asking for a $3.7 billion

supplemental, which came to congress and the appropriations committee members of which i'm one and the chair of this committee, appropriations committee will have to really carefully consider as to how we're going allocate these dollars to solve the problem. number two, i can't think of two better people literally who have, you know, calm thinking about how to figure this out and to get to the root of the problem and then to help us allocate the dollars wisely and hold people accountable for doing the job. you two have roven yourselves and both senator carp per and senator coburn you have been strong on accountability which i would like to join both of you on. but i think first of all, i want to make sure, and it was just said finally, the laws that are governing this, because there's some confusion and i just want to submit to the record what my

staff and i have been researching about the laws, because i think we should start there and then policies and rules that may need to be adjusted or changed or perhaps some laws need to be changed. but the basic law, you just said it, is the asylum law of 1980. could somebody talk for one second -- not one second, 30 seconds about the asylum law in 1980 and what it said. go ahead. >> via 1980 refugee act which is enshrined in our statutes these days implemented our international obligations with regard to refugees. >> adults and children show up at our borders. talk about that. >> it's by the way the same law that our colleagues at the state department apply overseas. but if somebody, anybody who arrives at our shores -- >> since 1980. anybody that arrives at the shores, go ahead.

can seek asylum and they have to say they are fearful. that was passed in the reagan administration? >> i think it was right at the tail end of the carter administration. >> carter administration. that's the law today. >> that's correct. >> then there was a second law, there was a second law, when the department of homeland security was created, senator feinstein had a standalone law. does anybody want to comment about what that law is because it has a bearing here. it was incorporated in the -- you should all know this -- incorporated into the creation of the department of homeland security. is anybody familiar with that law? >> the homeland security act of 2002 -- >> correct. >> if i recall correctly hit to do with the expedited removal -- >> it divided the responsibilities for the procession and treatment of unaccompanied minors between the department of hhs and department of health and human service.

and then in 2008, in the trafficking against trafficking law, in 2008 which was sponsored by biden and brownback, all of these are bipartisan, there were further -- there were further additions to this law which basically said children from contyingous countries, mexico and canada would qualify for immediate repatriation and children from. nonc noncontyingous states could be repatriated. i think before we start getting opinions to get the basis of the law. do you agree? >> amen. >> if this is not correct i would like to know before the end of the day. because i do need a plan. >> it needs to be fixed. that needs to be changed to solve this problem. >> so this is the law and we

should talk about what the law says, what the law -- we think the law should say and then figure out how we're going to deal with this problem. let me ask you, mr. fugate, because i've had a lot of experience and you know, a lot of experience with fema and how much i believe in you, your leadership and your ability to solve emergencies. so i'm glad the president asked fema to step into this situation and try to sort out and give immediate assistance for the immediate crisis on the border which is in senator mccain's state primarily and texas i understand why he's very upset. but let me ask you, mr. fugate, do you have budgetary authority over this 3.7 billion? where does your authority begin and where does it end, in your mind now? >> currently not in the supplemental will i have any budgetary authority. >> you have no budgetary authority in the supplemental. >> no, senator. >> do you have any authority for

the money being spent now? >> no, senator. >> so who does have budgetary authority for the money spent now >> the agency as the budget was passed the authorization and appropriations for those agencies. so with the president's direction i gained new authorities. unless an agency was authorized to do the work they were doing or had funds or congress granted transfer authority within those funds, i had no new authority. >> why did president give the authority. why didn't he give them the authority. what's in your authority? >> the homeland security act, the post-katrina reform act, a the president and congress on emergency management matters. we took the approach when asked to assist this was a humanitarian issue and that we have the ability to work across

all agencies. we have authorities within a national framework to set up and operate under interagency agreements to transfer funds from one agency to another who may have capabilities but not authorization or funding. again this is what we did in earthquake in haiti where we used federal resources to support usaid. >> let me ask you this because my time is short and i want to get to dhh because this is what i'm very concerned about. i agree that the children need to be handled potentially different than other immigration issues and that health and human services has a role but my concern, mr. chairman, is that i am fairly current and up to date on the very mediocre job that's being done in our own foster care system in the united states today and let me give you some statistics on any given day we have 500,000 kids in foster care. i mean in the united states. 691 new children come in to our

foster care system in 50 states. so, with a high caseload by casey and pew, low high turnover rate of social workers, not enough judges anywhere, we're getting ready to add to the system that's not the strongest, this group of children that have no paper work. or little paper work. many have no birth certificates. so i'm really concerned about this as all of us are. so i'm going end because i've gone over my time with just saying what i'll be focused on is accountability, who is in charge, what the plan is, who will be held responsible before we spend 3.7 billion in addition to the $2.5 that's already in four appropriation bills that are moving their way through the process. so we got a lot more questions to be answered before i think we run too far ahead. not that -- let me just speak

for myself. i want to be helpful. i absolutely want to be helpful. but do i have quite a few more questions. thank you. >> those are great questions. thank you for spending some time down in guatemala and we applaud you four concern. senator mccaskill. >> i would like to talk about the push factors that are causing families and by the way all these cultures are very family centric and the notion that they are sending their children off on a very dangerous proposition speaks to the real problems they have in their countries, and obviously the root of the problem is the lack of rule of law. in these countries.

now back in 2010 we began a program called the central america regional security initiative called carsi. from 2008 to 2011 u.s. agencies have allocated $350 million to help the exact countries that they children are coming from with the problems of corruption, gang activity, lawlessness, all of the things that are causing these families to be ripped apart. now, i'm assuming and please confirm for the record that both doh and state use contractors for this program, the carsi program? >> yeah, that's correct. >> all right. i have looked and i can't find any i.g. reports on any of these programs. are you aware of any analysis that has been done about the effectiveness of these programs? >> yes, i am aware that there

have been -- there was a gao report that was prepared on carsi. >> i did find the gao report. i didn't find the i.g. report. are you aware of any i.g. reports >> i'm not ware but will check. >> the gao report found the state department didn't provided equate in couldn't oversight in other programs that we've looked at. i guess my question is how many in couldn't contracting officers representatives do you have for these contracts? >> i will have to get that number for you. >> i would like to know also how many contractors we have overseeing contractors on these contracts? because what we found in the past is the contractors are watching the contractors and sometimes the contractors are hired to come in to testify about the contractors overseeing the contractors. can you provide us the list of the contractor the scope of the

contract as well as the oversight being conducted on each contract managed or co-managed by state, usaid in guatemala, el salvador and honduras. >> i'll take that back. >> we have no indicators the money we're spending these programs are working. and tens of thousands of children showing up at our border is a metric that what we're doing is not working very well. >> some metrics have been done. in the limited areas where our assistance is operating particularly the model police precincts, the community policing programs, youth outreach centers that usaid is running, we have seen and been able to document with metrics a decrease in violence. a decrease in gang activities. the problem is the limited nature of those programs -- the scope is not systemic enough.

recently in honduras, the president, new president took office in january. has put up an additional $600,000 of honduran money to begin replicating some of the aid youth outreach centers because they had an impact. we have some metrics showing that these programs are having an impact on some of the systemic conditions. the problem is replicating them quickly and they've been limited in scope because of the amount of funds available for them. >> this is a real important issue, getting on top of what we're doing now and whether it's working in these countries because as my colleagues pointed out, these children, it is -- it would be much better for them to be reunited with their families in these, in their home countries in an environment that is safe.

that is the best possible outcome. so if we've got something that's working, it is time for you tool say hey this, is what we're doing that's working and it's working here and we can show it's working here and that's something, the administration aware that you have programs that are working well in some areas and is that part of their request of this money? >> yes. yeah. >> how much of the $3.5 billion is for replicating programs that you maintain are working now? >> the supplemental request includes $295 million for expanded economic support from programs in the region, most of those -- most of that money will go to programs that we think are having an impact and that will have an immediate impact in the region. >> i'm very anxious to get into the weeds on this. i want to understand what these contracts are, who are doing them day-to-day.

what are the metrics. how does it indicate they are working and what's the cost replication and i want to track that back to the president's analysis. if we can do it in these host countries as opposed to trying to absorb all these children into our systems that we've already heard is already stressed, it would be a huge, huge positive outcome for these children. >> we agree. one other aspect of the president's request, though, while carsi has been a security driven program, expanding police precincts, commanding community policing, providing youth outreach centers as part of anti-gang activities the request also includes funds because we believe that we need to get more balance in the u.s. assistance approach to region that we've got to help also on economic growth and job creation side. so there are funds in there that also we think will make an immediate impact on jump

starting the economies because i think we'll all agree better job opportunities, better educational opportunities in this vij way to keep people at home. >> i agree. balance is important. we were spending $327 million in mexico. just to give you a sense of the imbalance that occurred at that time. finally, briefly, i'll take this for the record because i know i'm over my time, but i think it's really important we focus on the structural and systemic obstacles to the backlog of undetained. ten years ago, ten years ago we had a year long backlog of european detained. and we had 150,000 cases in a backlog prior to these thousands of children coming to our border. so this is a long running problem and the notion that we

can't figure out the systemic things that we need to do and a lot of it is fixing the laws that senator landrieu just went through, i think we're kidding ourselves that we're not going to be dealing with this kind of crisis on an ongoing basis until we get at the systemic problem because this is a backlog that's a decade-long. not just this crisis backlog. thank you. >> great points. senator ayotte. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to ask about the conditions upon which these children are being brought up here by the smugglers. as i understand it there are girls are being raped, as i under it, and boys too. children being abused. what are the conditions upon which -- we talked a lot about the conditions in the countries and how bad they are, but what are these children being subjected to, and how much are they subjected to these criminal

syndicates who are making money off this and exploiting these children and what are we talking about is happening with these children? >> senator, a couple of things that i think are important. one is that almost all of the children that are being brought into the country are being brought through smuggling organizations. oftentimes the smugglers are juveniles themselves. this is a money profit issue. often controlled overhead by cartels. their two modes much transportation we see right now one, of course, has been cited as the train that comes up and people taking that dangerous journey on train. also a large number of charter buses. mom and pop charter buses driving up here. then the children, the people are held in what are called stash houses on the mexican side of the border until they can come. the dangers of abuse including

just recently the body of an 11-year-old boy found in texas are enormous. >> so dead little boy, as i understand it, children being raped, correct. >> yes, ma'am. >> and exploited. and so one of the things that concerns me is that we're sending a dual message. so we're sending a message, they've gotten an impression in those countries that if you send your child on that journey, that, yes, you're leaving, obviously, the conditions that we want to work more effectively to improve in those countries, but they are going on this deadly journey in some instances, or just a journey that can change who they are for the rest of their lives because we've said they are getting an

impression in their countries that once they get here they can stay. and so what concerns me is that our policies that we're sending this message that they can stay is also inhumane in the sense that they children are being put on this deadly journey. so, if you could comment on that in terms of how important it is that people understand from those countries a clear message from the united states of america not to send your child on this journey because of what's happening to your child, but also if they got the message that we're going to follow our laws and they won't be able to stay as humane as we all want to be, it's inhumane to send them on this journey. >> senator, if senator coburn wouldn't mind if we could also show the poster that's an example of one of the posters. >> dplees. >> that's going up all over in

central america. they are going up in bus placards and overheads on highways. this essentially says, i thought it would be -- i thought my son would be able to get his papers in the united states, in the usa. thatstates. that wasn't true. there are other posters, radio spots, television spots being broadcasts. these three countries, by the way, working with their embassies are also very supportive in doing their own messages. two parts. it's dangerous to try and make this journey, and you will not be given a free pass. >> well, i appreciate that we're doing this public information campaign, but our leaders need to be clear. and i saw that secretary johnson on the sunday shows was pressed no less than six times if these minors, if they came here through this deadly journey whether they would be returned to their countries, and he would not answer that question.

and so in addition to that, the white house press secretary was asked that very same question about the ambiguity in which these children would be treated, and he said that the law will be applied but he wouldn't answer the question. so it's one thing for us to put up a public information campaign, but if the leaders of our country and the leaders in these positions aren't clear as to what our intention is and that we intend to follow our law and if we have a system where only as senator mccain asked, only one out of ten are actually going to show up for the proceeding and actually go through the process, then we're talking out of both sides of our mouths and we're doing a disservice to these children because we're sending this message to parents that, yes, please take this risk, send them on the deadly journey, and when they get here, they really won't be permitted to stay, which is

contradictory to these messages. i think we need to speak clearly with one voice. i would ask you to comment on that. >> would the senator yield for a second? the number one message to stop this is planes arriving in honduras and guatemala with these children back home. that sends the message. this, as long as it's less than 10%, won't stop anything. when they see them returning after making this harrowing trip, that's when they're going to get the message. until that happens, it's going to continue. >> well, as a follow-up, i would ask, you know, our law, as i understand it, one of the issues is the legal treatment is different between, for example mexican, canadian, those children that would come, and the population we're talking about from el salvador, guatemala, honduras, and i guess

i'm not clear why we should make that distinction in the sense that one set of children -- both set of children as we think about it could be as vulnerable to trafficking. so do you think that this distinction in our law should continue to exist? this one that is making it more difficult for you to give the option of returning these children more quickly as soon as they return. i know we have talked a lot about it at this hearing, but what's your position on it? >> senator, i know the law from 2008 was passed with all of the emphasis to prevent these children from being trafficked, particularly sex traffic -- >> well, now they're being trafficked. >> and others. i think that what we're interested in is certainly the flexibility. i think it has to be carefully considered because of the reasons that congress went to such trouble to spend that time and effort passing that original law. but from our standpoint, from the customs and border

protection standpoint, the ability to have some flexibility would be very helpful. >> okay. thank you. >> let me just make a couple quick points before i recognize senator hooig camp. one, we mounted a truth campaign in this country to try to convince kids to stop smoking. hugely successful. hard hitting. what we need here is, i think, a truth campaign. i'm pleased to see there's some money in the president's proposal, i think $5 million, to mount a truth campaign. i think it has four pieces to it. you've mentioned a couple. one of those is to remind the parents down there of the perils they subject their children to if they put them on that train to come up here. second is reminding them of the

reception they're going to get here. it can't be one with open arms, you're going to stay here for an indefinite period of time. the point that tom raises, the idea that folks can be returned, including young people are going to be returned in a number of cases. the message is this. it's a message of hope in their own country, that they can have a future, that they can have a good life, provide for themselves and live in safety. the fourth piece is important as well. all right. thanks. with that, senator heidt camp. >> thank you. i apologize for not having been here during some of the other discussion. i had to go sit in the chair. this is an issue that i'm deeply concerned about on a number of levels. you're hearing kind of a broad scope of concern for the children, the safety of the children, but also concern for the safety of our border. and who are these kids? i know that senator baldwin asked for a number of metrics in terms of the age of the children. she asked a number of questions

regarding who they are, male, female. and i think that one of the things we need to be very, very careful about here is our assumption about why these kids are here and why the kids are coming to the border. a lot of us have talked about their parents sending them here for rescue or safety reasons, for a better life. we need to be very careful that not every kid is going to fall into that category. and that not doing the metrics on the front end is disturbing because who are these kids? you have 72 hours to process them. i guess my first question would be to you. i would like to thank you for coming to north dakota. your work as the drug czar has made a very, very significant and important contribution to my state. so i just want to publicly acknowledge you, and i'm grateful you've taken on this new level of public service. kind of from the pot to the frying pan here in crisis. but i want to just ask you,

what's your judgment in terms of percentages looking at the numbers? and are your border agents trained and sophisticated enough to create categories of kids, whether they are gang bangers coming in here to seek a new level of contribution in terms of the underground and crime. are they kids who aren't just being smuggled? because there's a difference between smuggling and trafficking. so we just need to make that clear. it doesn't mean that kids who are being smuggled don't eventually become trafficked, but how many of these kids are actually initiated into this process in a trafficking category? and then what are their ages? so can you just kind of give me what your sense is right now? >> my sense having watched it pretty carefully in mcallen, brownsville, and other places and watching these experienced border patrol agents interview

and talk with these young people is they're -- they're very sophisticated, these agents at being able to determine information. 14 and above, they're all fingerprinted. those fingerprints are run against the databases here in the united states. so that if it was somebody a little bit older that had been deported or had been arrested or was involved in a gang. we need better cooperation, better communication with those other three countries to make sure the vast majority of what we're seeing are not in that threat category, but we have to be very careful. >> well, as has been reported and i don't have any personal knowledge of this, that the number of drug seizures on the border since this crisis has decreased because resources have been deployed to deal with the emergency of this crisis. is that correct? >> the number of drug seizures has decreased in that particular sector, but a couple things.

actually having watched it pretty carefully for the five years i served as the president's drug policy adviser, those numbers fluctuate a lot. now that we have two state where is you can grow your own marijuana, i'm not so sure that marijuana coming in from mexico is going to continue at the amount that it did. so i think there are a lot of things going on. but i'm also confident in chief kevin oakes and in the rio grande valley and his determination that he will make every available resource. rio grande valley, by the way, has had an additional 500 border patrol agents over the last several years. they'll make every effort to make sure we're also doing our due diligence and our border security. i'll watch it carefully. >> but this wouldn't be the first time someone created or helped augment a crisis so that they could run the border and seek access for other kind of illegal activity across the border. >> you're right. the smugglers are very smart.

the people involved in drug trafficking work every day to try and beat the system, yes, ma'am. >> my point is, as we're trying to deal with this humanitarian crisis for those who truly are there in that category, we need to double down on the law enforcement portion of this so that we know what, in fact, we're dealing with. and those of who who have been involved in law enforcement know that a jufl can be just as dangerous as an adult. and we need to be very, very careful about who we're letting into this country on documented. the final thing i want to point out, because i'm running out of time, is i had the honor of going down to mexico with cindy mccain and amy klobuchar. we received a number of briefings about the kinds of activities that the mexican government is engaged in on the southern border, their southern border strategy. obviously, their southern border strategy in this case is -- it ma