the bed space in the federal prison system. it's increased every year to date, right up to this year. the federal government prints money, they keep putting money into it. and at some point the american people have to realize it's an economic cost that is burdening them, the american taxpayer. i don't see this being sustained. at some point in time it's got to be addressed. i give the attorney general and the president credit in trying to do something about it. i just hope that the members of congress will get onboard, cut the polarization, cross party lines and do what has to be done. right now you have senator booker from new jersey, my home state of new jersey, rand paul,

and a number of others that are truly looking at criminal justice and prison reform. i hope others jump onboard and do what has to be done to get the laws changed. >> at 9:00 a.m. this morning, c-span will be covering a hearing by the house judiciary over criminalization task force. it's about the need for criminal code reform and the over federalization in federal criminal law. 9:00 a.m. cspan3. next up is mark from ft. lauderdale, florida. >> caller: how you doing? >> good. >> caller: thank you to c-span and mr. kerik for bringing this subject to the front. i called in on the inmates line or ex-inmates line because i did some federal time myself. you had a little while ago you stole my thunder when they

mentioned how things look very different when the shoe is on the other foot. the fact is mr. kerik as he was coming up through the police force and climbing the ladder, and even when you reached the top of the food chain, all we thought was prisoners and criminals deserved more time, they were getting off too easy and that sort of thing. i'm very glad to see now that you've been through it you realize how rough things can be for people that fall into the system. in the prisons, i met some fallen politicians and a judge, and they all said the same thing, if only i knew then what i know now. >> why were you in jail? >> bank fraud. >> were you guilty? >> caller: i thought i wasn't, but the judge thought i was. >> thank you, sir.

bernard kerik, any response? >> if somebody told me before i left for prison, you are going to go to prison and meet really good men. you are going to meet good and decent men, meet great fathers, great businessmen, meet great professionals, good professionals, doctors, lawyers, judges, whatever. that are really good people. i honestly would have laughed. i would -- i wouldn't have agreed at all. i have to tell you, i went to prison and i was housed with lawyers, i was housed with doctors. i was housed with other professionals that made mistakes. i want to go back to your caller. when you asked him was he guilty. he didn't think he was, the

judge thought he was. there are people in prison today that had no criminal intent. they didn't -- i know men that didn't even know they did anything wrong. the days of criminal intent are pretty much over. you don't have to intend to commit a crime in the federal system. you can wind up in federal prison, which is pretty scary, but at the end of the day, yeah, they made a mistake. they did something wrong, but they paid their price. they are good family people. hard workers. i met some really, really hard workers. all i'm saying is once they've done their time, once they've paid their price and paid their debt to society, then give them back their life. give them back their constitutional and their civil

rights. make them whole again. that's all i'm asking because today as it stands, that does not happen. >> should that also apply to violent criminals who have paid their debt to society? >> i think they have to be looked at. like i said earlier, there are people that do bad things that belong in prison. somebody pays their debt to society at some point in time, when does that debt end? i think for violence, you know, that's something that has to be looked at. my concern, my bigger concern is the nonviolent prisoners. you have right now today, as of last year, you had 27,000 men in minimum security prison camps in the federal system. that means they're not violent

because they couldn't be there if they were. and they're doing under ten years in prison. these men can go back into society, they can work, they can pay taxes, they can take care of their families, but in reality, we prevent them from doing that. that's one of my principle concerns. >> rick is calling from absecon, new jersey, on our democrat's line. >> caller: good morning, mr. kerik. >> good morning, sir. >> caller: i appreciate you. i'm pretty sure you are rehabilitated and i think you're a cool dude. my question was basically asked by that tweet. i want to ask a quick question, if i can. if i had basically the power to

become president of the united states right now, i would give you back your position. would you look into other cases right now, especially talking about the case about 13 years ago about a young man named dominic souter, basically ran an israeli urban moving system company out of weehawken, new jersey, and look into his businesses, as well, would you as commissioner reopen that case? they were housed in a new york city prison for a couple of months. does that ring a bell to you? >> no. no. the name doesn't even sound familiar. >> let's take his question. >> whether -- go ahead. >> let's broaden it a little bit.

have you talked to your former colleagues about your reform efforts, and have you met any of the people that you put in jail since you've been out? >> no. i haven't met anyone that i've put in prison, but i talked to a number of my colleagues. peter, i have to tell you, initially when we had these conversations, and i think some of my best conversations actually were in prison. a number of my former colleagues, people that work for me, keep in mind in the new york city police department i had 55,000 men and women that worked for me and the new york city department of correction i had 13,000. it's a pretty big group of people, many of which came to prison to see me. during the course of our conversation, when we talked about the criminal justice

system, i think initially they thought i was losing my mind. until we're sitting in that visit room and we look around the room and i start identifying people and what they've done. this guy, he's a commercial fisherman and he caught too many fish. they see him with his kids, his grandchildren, his family. then they get to talk to his family when they leave. they see a young man 19, 20 years old doing 10, 15 years for a low-level drug offense. and they talk to his family. and they get to understand the devastation that it's caused the family. or they see a businessman or an attorney that's in prison doing a year and a day, a 75-year-old attorney doing a year and a day. he's 75 years old, a year and a day? what's the sense in sending him? put him on home confinement.

why -- it's just -- i don't think anybody comprehends time and this is prosecutors, judges, cops, me, nobody understands what it's like to live by a clock that stands still. no one. until you've done it. people say to me, and they have said, especially the press. they love to jazz this and jazz it up in the media. you went to a minimum security camp. it's a country club. club fed, they call it. really? well, my answer to that is find the finest hotel you can find. here in manhattan, you have the st. regis, you have the four seasons. take one of those hotels, walk into one of their finest suites and go into the bathroom, which

is about, i don't know 12 by 15. lock yourself in that bathroom for a year and then tell me how luxurious it is. the deprivation of pfreedom is not luxurious. i don't give a damn where you are at. i don't care what your facilities are like. if you can't tuck your kids into bed at night or you can't say their prayers with them or visit them to school or you can't go and take them to a school event then it's pretty horrific, especially for someone that for their entire life has abided by the law. it's horrifying. i just think, for my colleagues, they didn't get it. they didn't understand it until they were physically there and got to see it. a number of them today look at

it very differently. >> carson, california, you're on with bernard kerik. >> caller: thank you, commissioner kerik. i appreciate your valuable input to the country via c-span. >> thank you. >> caller: i was arrested 32 years of age. for the first time in my life being a former district attorney investigator, 23 years as a private investigator, was arrested for a nonviolent or allegedly, according to what the laws were at the time. served five years of a sentence with plea bargains. i think that the reality is we have to understand that these problems begin with the local district attorney and their efforts to make convictions whether they are valid or not.

unfortunately, we have a local police force and district attorney who are looking at numbers. i would like you to give me some input or give the nation some input on the problems that we are experiencing with the efforts to prosecute at the lowest level. thank you. >> carson what were you convicted of and were you guilty? >> caller: i was convicted in a plea bargain of assault with a deadly weapon a police officer. >> do you think you were guilty? >> caller: i absolutely was not guilty, but by the dynamics of our local system as commissioner kerik knows, we have a necessity to plea bargain.

i was originally arrested for nine felonies and three misdemeanors, but had to plea bargain as they were throwing up 25 years in my face. bear in mind again, i had never been arrested in my entire life until i was 52 years of age. >> how did that change your life? >> it changed it profoundly, as commissioner kerik indicated. you are not done when you've served your sentence. you have a permanent stigma attached to you. even at age 60 now, it's impossible for me to get meaningful employment. >> thank you, sir. bernard kerik. >> listen, i understand what he's saying.

this system has to be fixed. i want to touch on the prosecutor thing and the law enforcement thing in general. nobody is more pro-law enforcement than i am, even with all i've been through. people violate the law, they need to be held accountable. but our system is flawed. and on the prosecutorial end, i worked with some of the most incredible, phenomenal prosecutors, both at a local and county level and a federal level. i was a federal drug agent for five years assigned to the new york dea task force. i think i worked with some of the best prosecutors in this country.

you have to keep in mind whether it's a local county prosecutor or a federal prosecutor. their performance evaluation is based on three things. one, their conviction rate. two, the amount of time that someone is sentenced. and three, the positive press they bring to their office. those are pretty much the things they are judged on, their performitheir performance evaluations are based on. that has a lot to do with fairness in prosecutions. a federal public defender is not judged and based on acquittals. they are based on how many cases they can get off their desk. the system is flawed. we need to have oversight of prosecutor prosecutors who violates laws

and enforce it. real oversight. and they need to be held accountable. it's not all of them. it's not most of them. they need to be held accountable. real accountability. if we had that, we would see less of those problems. >> vernon is calling in from mineral wells, texas, on our republican line. >> caller: yes. mr. kerik, did i understand your crime was not paying social security tax on a illegal alien that you hired? >> yes, sir. some of that. >> caller: that's amazing that could be a felony. i never would have believed that. >> take my word for it.

>> caller: it sounds like somebody high up in power had a personal grudge against you to prosecute you for that when there are politicians taking bribes that are never prosecuted. senator robert torricelli took bribes. the person who bribed him, i understand was prosecuted, but senator torricelli got off. so somebody wanted to take care of him, but the criminal was actually the briber, not the one who was bribed in that case. >> do politics play a role in convictions? >> they are not supposed to, but the reality is they do.

there is selective prosecutions all the time in this country. you would have to be blind to say there isn't. there is. be it politically selective, personally selective, it happens. it's human nature, it shouldn't happen, but it does. that's another arena of accountability that should be looked at. that's the way we operate. it happens. it's not supposed to, but it does. anybody who says it doesn't or anybody who thinks it doesn't, need to open your eyes and take another look. >> derek is calling in from new york. derek, go ahead. >> caller: 21 years ago i was working for a lady.

i'm a junior plumber. i was pulled over in a car, beaten up by the police, charged with assaulting a police officer and charged with reckless endangerment. charged with a felony. i had money so i was able to bail myself out. i was witness to a murder. due to the fact i was witness to a murder, they wind up dropping some of these charges. i still have that felony on my record. now, i don't understand -- then also, i sued new york city for this. got awarded six figures, but how come the police were never put in jail for what they done to me? police lie. i don't understand why this continues to go on. police lie and they don't ever get charged or held for what they've done. new york city paid me over six figures for what happened to me, but nothing ever happened to the police. >> bernard kerik, can you speak to that in general? >> i can't speak to that individual issue because i don't know about it.

what i can say is the statement he just made that police aren't held accountable, i have to say that's not true. police are held accountable in many, many circumstances. i can't talk about his specific issue, but if you pick up the "new york post" or the "new york daily news," the several times a month there are police officers that are held accountable for ethical breaches or some illegal activity. whether it's assault, whether it's a drug-related issue, no matter what the case is, please are held accountable. in new york city in general, you have the manhattan d.a.'s office or local district attorney's office that looks at these issues. you have the civilian complaint review board that would look at an assault issue like that.

then quite often you have the federal government will come in and they will also look at an incident like that where an officer is involved in assault to see if there is any federal civil violations. i can't -- do things slip through the cracks? of course. police officers are definitely held accountable when they are caught. >> mark from homer, alaska. >> caller: hi. thank you. thank the guest for his honesty and taking this cause up because it's a scourge on our nation and it's an embarrassment. first of all, he's made some excellent points. the prison lobby is getting built up because of the private prison industry. that's one of the first things we need to eliminate. it's our duty as citizens to incarcerate people and it's not

something we can farm out to a corporation. once that happens, we've got to lobby and we know how powerful the lobby industry is. i'd also like to say that the presumptive or mandatory sentencing came about back in the 80s when we, i guess we lacked a way to manipulate the voting base. so politicians would talk about being tough on crime and that's how they got elected. by instilling all of us with fear. >> mark, we are running out of time. let's get a comment from commissioner kerik on the privatization issue. >> privatization is doable in certain circumstances in lower-level facilities, but i

would not, i'd never sign a contract with a private correction company that had a mandate to have that contract for 20 years, and i would have to guarantee them a 90% occupancy rate. i'm not -- this isn't a hotel. anybody that would sign a contract guaranteeing an occupancy rate in the facility is bizarre. you would have to be doing something illegal, unconstitutional to sign that contract. but i would sign a private contract with a private organization if they can garn me tee a reduction in recidivism. guarantee me that, i'll think about signing the contract. >> what is your view on the death penalty and has it changed? >> my view on the death penalty is the same as it was before. i think that someone that kills

someone intentionally with malice and they are convicted, i think personally, i have no objection to the death penalty. what i do have an issue with today, and i would feel extremely uncomfortable with, i would have to see incredible, incredible evidence to prove the person was guilty. we've seen way too many cases where there has been prosecution misconduct in death penalty cases that have been overturned, and that scares me. i'm for the death penalty, but i think there have to be guarantees in the system where there is oversight on the prosecutors that prosecute these cases, to ensure when somebody is convicted of a death penalty case that they're really guilty. >> what is your advice for

ex-felons who may not have your resources or felons who don't have your resources? >> i have to tell you something, i have enormous resources and i have enormous support, but i can tell you that i'm not doing probably much better than any of them. they have to stay strong. they have to stay committed. they've got to try to focus and get beyond all the negativity and all the stigma and do whatever they have to do to stay out of prison. don't go back. it's not as easy as it sounds. especially for -- go ahead. >> no. go ahead and finish, sir. >> it's not as easy as it sounds, especially for guys that are uneducated. we have people that come out of prison that are uneducated,

they're illiterate. they are going to have enormous problems finding jobs, bake low-level jobs. it's an extremely difficult circumstances. >> if people are interested in following you in this work, where is the best place for them to go? bernard kerik on twitter. the kerik group.com is my company website. >> i will remind you that extremism and the defense of liberty is no life.

>> let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> senator goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 republican national convention. this weekend on american history tv's "reel america" sunday at

4:00 p.m. eastern on cspan3. baseball does strike me -- i don't want to get metaphysical about this. it's a good sport to be the national pasttime of a democratic nation because democracy is about compromise and settling. you don't get everything you want and baseball is like that. there's a lot of losing in baseball. everything that goes to spring training knows it's going to win 60 games, knows it's going to lose 60 games. you play the whole season to sort out the 42. if you win 10-20 games you're mediocre. you win 89 games, you have a good chance to play in october. it's the sport of the half loaf, as is democracy. >> george will on his latest book "baseball and wrigley field" and the recent

controversy surrounding one of his columns. coming up in a moment, an event with house leadership as they hold a bill signing ceremony for legislation that was approved this week reforming existing federal job training programs. that's live coming up here on cspan3 momentarily. again this event with house leadership and the bill signing ceremony for existing federal job training programs set to get under way in just a moment. while we wait, a look at some of the floor debate from earlier this week on extending those federal job training programs.

>> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their marks. >> no objections. >> i rise in the work force innovation and opportunity act and yield myself such time as i may consumed. >> gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam specker. men and women across the country are struggling to make ends meet. many lost a job and others are making more for less. learning a new skill or trade can open the door to that next opportunity a worker desperately needs, yet too often flawed policies stand in the way. quite frankly, our nation job training system is broken. we have too many ineffective programs, too much bureaucracy and very little accountability. the voices of job creators are stifled, state and local leaders are tied up in red tape and hard-earned taxpayer dollars are wasted. we've known about these problems for years, but have failed to

act until now. we have an opportunity to advance reform that will help all americans compete and succeed in today's work force. the work force innovation and opportunity act -- good morning, everyone. thanks to the hard work of the members that are here, in a few minutes i'll sign hr-803, a job training retraining bill that will help many people in america have better access to the kind of skills that are needed in today's work force. there are about 4 million job openings in america, in round numbers 4 million americans looking for work, but the skills needed for those jobs aren't held by the 4 million people looking for work. so what this bill does is consolidates the number of job training programs, provides flexibility at the local level,

in addition to all that, this is a great opportunity for us to show that we can get things done. we can listen to the american people, work together on their behalf because their priorities, frankly, are our priorities. with that, i'll turn it over. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker, for bringing us together. thank you for your leadership. thanks to chairman klein, chairwoman fox, ranking member miller, ranking member john tierney, where we can come together in a bipartisan and overwhelming way to support this jobs training bill. it's recognition the american people are very talented. it's very recognition that the private sector stands ready to work with the work force to provide the training. we have the talent, we have many, our workers have many skills. they need specific training to be a match to meet the needs

that the speaker talked about about those job vacancies. so this is really important in making sure we have a work force for the 21st century, skilled and trained to meet the needs of the private sector and entrepreneurial spirit of america. now we have to create more jobs to be filled by this trained work force, but today is a good day. again, i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to mr. klein. chairman klein. >> thank you. thank you for bringing us together here. this has been a good week, a good week for america, a good week for this institution. it shows what happens when we come together and work towards a common goal. in this case the common goal is helping americans get back to work. get the skills they need to fit those jobs that the speaker talked about that were open. like leader pelosi, i'm going to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

george miller was a real pal, a real ally as we got together to do this. our friends in the senate sometimes are hard to reach. in this case they came together and worked with us. so now i hope that we can build on this success and do some more things together to put america back to work. i think now, mr. miller. >> thank you, chairman klein, thank you, mr. speaker. this is a remarkable bill. this has been a long time coming. i think it was worth waiting for because this bill is forward looking. it's innovative and it does much more to tie our federal work force investment dollars to local and regional employers who can customize the needs that they have with community colleges, with vocational schools, with local high schools to develop the work force that they need in their region, in their state. that's a very exciting proposal

to see that kind of connection put forth in this legislation. again, i want to thank everybody who worked on this, republicans and democrats and the house and the senate. and also there is a remarkable number of staff hours in bringing this bill to the point where we are sending it to the president's desk. i really want to thank remarkable staff on both sides of the aisle and our committee for the hours they put into this. with that i would like to recognize subcommittee chair fox. >> thank you, mr. miller. you won't often hear me say amen to something that george miller says, but i want to say amen because i think his comments were right on. all the comments that have been made have been very appropriate. i want to add mine to that. the speaker pointed out to us in leadership meeting the other day, this is something he, that came to his attention 20 some years ago.

came to my attention 20 some years ago when i was a community college president. i've been interested in this issue of consolidating work force development programs and making sure that we bring accountability to the program so that the money that's being spent is going directly to services for people who need to develop skills for the jobs that are currently available. everyone's touched on that, but i also want to emphasize the fact that nothing around here gets done without a lot of collaboration and cooperation, and particularly the hard work of the staff. we get the credit. they get to do a lot more work. so i want to particularly acknowledge the staff of our committees for working on this. i want to thank the speaker for his interest in this also. and for asking me a long time ago to serve on the education committee. when i first came here i thought, i was on the education

committee and the legislature and we didn't get a lot done. this is a monumental achievement. i'm grad to have played a very small part in getting to where we are. thank you all very much. >> as i hear my colleagues make their statements, i couldn't help but remember 1998 when our speaker was one of our leaders in the education and work force committee. when we came to an agreement he said, this is long, long overdue. thank goodness we were able to compromise and come together and pass this. here we are many, many years later saying it again. it was long overdue. i want to say they mentioned everybody getting an opportunity to get training and to get education for all, and that's

what we fight for. finally, i want to say that i made a point in my freshman year that i wanted to be very specific about minorities being mentioned, be they hispanic, african-american, asian pacific, all groups, specified that we are going to create programs in education and job training through the department of labor so they can get better paying jobs. that is what is happening here today. so mr. speaker, thank you for inviting us. we are honored to be able to make a statement like we have made. thank you.

mr. speaker, why are you suing the president? that bill was passed in the house, by the way 415-6. it changes the way job training programs are funded. it now goes to the president's desk for his signature. we have more live coverage coming today. the national governors

association is kicking off their annual summer meeting in nashville. on c-span2 we'll show you several working group discussions including an education in jobs panel with remarks from vice president joe biden. that will start 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. at 4:00, kentucky governor and nevada governor will head up a discussion on education and economic development. this week, arizona representative paul grijalva will talk about the progressive caucus. 40 years ago, the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. throughout this month and early august, american history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration. this weekend, hear the supreme court oral argument, united

states v nixon as the watergate special prosecutor contests the president's claim of executive privilege over his oval office recordings. >> the president may be right in how he reads the constitution, but he may also be wrong. and if he is wrong, who is there to tell him so? and if there is no one, then the president of course is free to pursue his course of erroneous interpretations. what then becomes of our constitutional form of government? >> watergate 40 years later. sunday night at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on cspan3. the homeland security and health and human services secretary defended president obama's request for $3.7 billion to address the increasing number of unaccompanied immigrant

children crossing the u.s. southern border. the administration says the request will go to support related operational costs, and for additional immigration judges and lawyers to hear the many cases. secretaries jay johnson and sylvia burwell testified before the appropriations committee yesterday. this is about three hours. >> senator shelby is on his way from voting and the official part of the hearing will begin sho short shortly. as you all know, today is the hearing on the supplemental request submitted by the administration to cover the unexpected and unanticipated needs of the significant number of unaccompanied children coming to our border. i want those who follow our committee so very closely to know that on tuesday we will be

marking up the defense appropriations subcommittee and will do a full committee mark-up on defense appropriation on thursday. the committee should be alerted if we can get other things done during the week, with appropriate notice following the rules, we will do so. however, we will not do anything till after tuesday afternoon. we know tuesday morning will be the subcommittee on defense mark-up, we'll look also for opportunities because there are unfinished business at the full committee level. the opportunity perhaps to go to the floor with one or more bills. and of course, we will have to look for where we will go after our hearing on the supplemental for unaccompanied children. we are also keenly aware that

there is a need by many members to be able to catch planes this afternoon, which is why with the indulgence and concurrence of everybody, i would like to start my opening statement so that we can get to the witnesses for those of you who might have to leave. we will be recognizing people in their order of arrival. and we'll proceed in that direction. so for today, the purpose of today's hearing is to examine the president's emergency request for the funding of $3.7 billion to address the crisis of children from central america crossing their southwestern border by the thousandses. their situation is extremely dire. the united states of america has an obligation to deal with this

emergency. these children are seeking refuge. they are seeking refuge from organized crime, despicable games, vile human traffickers profiting from museumian misery and desperation in three countries, guatemala, honduras and el salvador. they are willing to risk their lives in order to get away from the terrible violence. the president's emergency request totals $3.7 billion for caring for the humanitarian needs of the children, detention and an enforcement at the border, identifying their legal status under our rule of law, and robust deterrence in the children's home country by going after and prosecuting the organized crime syndicates, the smugglers, the coyotes, the traffickers. there also needs to be and there is funding request for a massive

education campaign warning central american families about the dangers and false hopes of the journey. we also need to make sure that we are working with the central american countries in structuring repatriation and reintegration. today our witnesses will be secretary sylvia burwell from health and human services, secretary jay johnson, secretary of homeland security. the ambassador tom shannon of the state department, ambassador shannon an experienced south america hand, counselor to john kerry and specifically appointed by secretary kerry to be his point person when all matters related to this crisis at our borders. then also, we will have juan osuna, executive of the

executive office of the justice department. we hoped that attorney general holder could have come. we respect your presence, sir, and welcome it. secretary holder -- i mean attorney general holder is traveling. we hope that as the full senate gains more knowledge about this, we will look forward to hearing from the attorney general, as well. this appropriations committee and my appropriations subcommittee chairs realized early on that the president's fiscal year 2015 budget request was inadequate to this growing emergency. our committee had to make some hard choices. in the bills we've already marked up, we had to make hard choices in the funding related to homeland security, human services, state department and justice. though the murray ryan budget deal gave us tremendous certainty, the actual budget is

quite spartan. therefore, we did the best we could. our appropriations job now is to make sure that the resources to deal with this are met. there needs to be food and shelter for children seeking refuge. border agents and detention facilities need to be available. we want to be able to relieve the overworked and highly stressed border patrol agents who are doing a great job at the border. and there needs to be shelters who now have too few beds to care for these many children while we determine their legal status. we need to have immigration judges and legal services to make sure that we can determine their legal status in a way that meets all requirements of the law, the law that is on the books, and at the same time honor the fact that america is a country of the rule of law. there also has to be muscular deterrence going after criminals

and gangs who so exploit these children and their families. who mislead them, misinform them, and even abuse them as they make this perilous and treacherous journey from central america. i know there are many like myself who support comprehensive immigration reform, and there are many views on that. but i caution my colleagues. today is not the topic -- today's topic is not about immigration reform. it is about meeting this refugee crisis. the best way to make sure the surge of children is temporary is to pass the emergency supplemental, making sure we have a deterrence strategy against the smugglers and traffickers and a real effort on the host country or the central american countries to also be a source of deterrence. right now 57,000 unaccompanied children have arrived. we can expect as many as 90,000 by the year. last week i toured the border

with three of the witnesses at this table. secretary burwell, secretary johnson, and ambassador shannon. we saw young children. some as young as 5, 7, 9. they had one instruction. cross the border, turn yourself in, and hope for the best. border agents who found them find these children dehydrated, malnourished, scared. many have been abused. they come here relying on smugglers' false promises. smugglers that are part of dangerous gangs and cartels who see women and children like commodities, to be able to buy and sell them across the borders. children leave home based on lies, endure dangerous journeys and the threat of being trafficked along the way. president obama has come before us to ask for designated funds to meet the emergency. i believe that this is an emergency designation. the budget control act defines

an emergency as spending for the prevention or mitigation or response to loss of life or property or a threat to national security that is sudden, urgent, unforseen, and temporary. i agree with the president, and i believe that this situation is an emergency. our first goal must be to protect the safety and health of the children and make sure we have the resources to do it. our second goal is to make sure that their legal status is determined under the law that we have so that then their future can be legally determined. and third, there must be a muscular deterrence strategy to discourage families from sending their children with smugglers who profit from them out of profit. we look forward to listening to our witnesses, and i look forward to working with our colleagues in order to be able to move the president's supplemental. i also want to note that though we're hearing from government witnesses today, we've opened up the hearing procedures for any

nonprofit that wishes to submit testimony to the committee. we've already heard from 13 of them, and those records will be opened for the next two weeks. the president's urgent supplemental also included $615 million to prevent and fight wildfires. we're not going to go into that today. today the subject of thousands of children at our doorstep will take the committee's attention. so we look forward to moving the hearing along and dealing with this supplemental. i now turn to my vice chairman, senator shelby, for his remarks. >> thank you. thank you, madam chair. at this time, i'd like to request that my full statement be inserted into the record. >> without objection. so ordered. >> why are we here today? we're here because our nation's immigration system is broken. we're here because the obama

administration, as well as previous administrations, have failed to secure our borders and has ignored our existing immigration laws for a long time. is it anything new? over the years we've spent billions of dollars on immigration enforcement, but to no avail. currently we have millions of illegal immigrants in our nation. the result of president obama's failure, i believe, to enforce immigration laws currently on the books has been predictable, and that's one of the reasons we're here this afternoon. now, we're being asked by president obama to approve a $3.7 billion request to resolve the current crisis at our border. there are several questions that i think need to be answered. what exactly is the $3.7 billion going to address? will this request be the end? or will it be the beginning of many new requests by the

administration for emergency funding? and while the president is seeking billions for the admission, detention, and care of illegal children and adults, only, yes, only 45.4 million, as my understanding, is requested for the department of justice's adjudication and immigration proceedings. this fact is very troubling to me. estimates suggest that the expense for hhs is more than $15,000 for every minor in u.s. custody. $15,000. for hhs alone, the president requests an additional $1.8 billion with no foreign policy to stem the influx and no way to pay for it. i personally have no confidence that pouring billions of dollars into our current immigration system will solve the crisis. i think we have to get serious about enforcing our current laws

and protecting our border if we're ever to get different results. in 2011, hhs took custody of 6,560 unaccompanied children coming into this country illegally. today that number has skyrocketed. indeed, last october roughly 52,000 unaccompanied children have illegally entered the united states. customs and border protection estimates that as many as 150,000 children may attempt to cross the border in 2015. if we continue to double down on the same failed immigration policies, where does that take us in 2016, '17, and beyond? i look forward to working with the chairperson here to ensure we do not reward illegal immigration. i believe that we must start with actually securing our

border, which we have never done, enforcing our nation's immigration laws, which we don't do, and definitively saying no to people who come here illegally. thank you. >> senator shelby. we're now going to turn to our witnesses. rather than go through lengthy introduction, i'm going to just suggest that secretary burwell start. we'll just go right on in the interest of time. >> chairwoman ma cull ski, i want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues today. the influx of unaccompanied children across our nation's borders is an urgent humanitarian situation that calls for robust humanitarian response. it is a complex, evolving situation for which there are no easy answers. it is a situation we are taking very seriously across the

administration, recognizing our dual purpose of taking care of these children while we also enforce the law. as a nation of laws, we must acknowledge that many of the children crossing our border do not have a basis to remain in this country. we must acknowledge we're talking about children, many of them young children, who are escaping unthinkable violence and living in conditions that are difficult for many of us to imagine. oftentimes, they are preyed on by smugglers who have made it their business to bring unaccompanied children across the borders. i had the opportunity to meet a few of these children last week, as the chairwoman mentioned. we visited a customs and border patrol station along with a temporary shelter at an air force base in texas, and we met the remarkable americans who are caring for these children and supporting this mission in other important ways. some of the folks work for cbp,

fema, and hhs. others are grantees and community members, all going above and beyond. the children had heartbreaking stories to share. a teenage girl told us how she had fled her home when her uncle had been murdered in front of his house. sadly, this story is not an anomaly. many of these children are escaping violence and threats by gangs, and they and their families are being preyed upon by smugglers. a situation of this magnitude calls on all of us to work across government to enforce the law and to care for these children in a manner that honors our values. federal law says that hhs' role. is to feed, shelter and provide medical care for unaccompanied children until we're able to place them in a safe and suitable setting with family members or sponsor while they await immigration proceedings. as the number of children has grown, our resources have been stretched thin. in fiscal year 2011, an estimated 60,000 came into our children. this increased to 13,600 in 2012

and almost 25,000 in 2013. as of july 6th, over 50,000 children have been apprehended and placed in our care in fy '14. to address the associated challenges, hhs put together a two-prong strategy for our part. one is first to drive down the length of time that children remain in shelters. the other is to expand our shelter capacity. when it comes to time that children are in our care, we've made significance progress. since 2011, when it took 75 days, we reduced that time to 35 and are continuing to try and make progress so we move even more quickly. on permanent shelter capacity, we have added about 1700 beds since january. and we've also opened temporary

shelters with three military bases across the country. while temporary solutions were necessary in the short term, makeshift solutions do not make long-term fiscal sense. temporary shelters cost more than the permanent shelters. as we move forward, the reality is that we don't have enough beds and we don't have sufficient resources to continue to add beds to ensure that the children are not staying in the holding facilities at the border. that is why the president has made the request that we are discussing today. and we believe this investment will allow our department to bring on the additional capacity that we need. the gravity of this situation calls for a robust and compassionate approach that reaches across government and empowers us to enforce the law. thank you, and i welcome your questions. >> secretary johnson. >> thank you madam chair, vice chair, senator shelby.

thank you for hearing us today. you have my prepared statement. let me just summarize it with some less formal observations about this request. first of all, i believe we can and we will stem this recent tide of illegal migration into the rio grande valley sector. the request that we have made for $3.7 billion supplemental is, indeed, a lot of money for the taxpayer. i think senator shelby asked the right question. what will it address? what am i being asked to pay for? and from my perspective, this request has the right focus on deterrence, added detention and removal. and removal more quickly than we have done in the past. from my perspective, the supplemental seeks $1.1 billion for immigration and customs

enforcement. $879 million of which goes to adding detention capacity for adults who bring their children. family units as we refer to them. we've already begun the process of building an increased detention capacity for family units at artesia, new mexico, where i'm going tomorrow. we need the ability to build additional family unit capacity. $109 million goes to i.c.e. for work with the three central american countries from which this migration is coming to expand their own resources. with respect to the customs and border protection agency, $433 million is requested, $364 million of which is for added border patrol agents overtime and the like. for their capacity. as doj will point out, that's a $64 million request, $45 million of which goes to more judge teams and to an increased caseload of 55 to 75,000 cases a year. the deputy attorney general and

i have already agreed that with this added capacity, the recent influx should be the priority. the state department is seeking $300 million. $295 million of which is for repatriation and reintegration into society. members of this committee, doing nothing is not an option. at our current burn rate, within the department of homeland security, i.c.e. will run out of money in mid-august. given the added transportation cost, given the added enforcement cost, customs and border patrol will run out of money by mid-september at the current burn rate, given the situation we face. the one additional point i'd

like to add is the transfer authority that we've requested within the department of homeland security and between hhs and dhs, in our view is critical based upon the possibility of evolving circumstances. i'd like to also point out that we're not starting from standing still. we've already done a number of things to address the recent influx. we have, with respect to the adult population that is part of this recent migration, already dramatically reduced the expedited removal time, the turnaround time from something like 33 days to 4 days with respect to the adult population. i personally witnessed when i was in guatemala two days ago an airplane of adults coming back who were being repatriated to guatemala. and we've asked for additional

capacity for repatriation. with regard to the family units, i've already noted we've built artesia, new mexico, which is a federal law enforcement training facility into a detention center for family units. i'm going there tomorrow to highlight that fact. and we need to build more. with regard to the unaccompanied children, this is obviously a major challenge with a humanitarian component to it. i know that personally, along with secretary burwell. we've spent considerable time ourselves with the children and we're bound and determined to do the right thing. but we are and we must building -- requesting added resources to move these cases quickly. along with the department of justice, there is a public relations, an awareness campaign which the first lady of guatemala herself, along with this government, has spearheaded. this is the first lady of

guatemala's public awareness campaign which she gave me yesterday. stay back home. that she's asking the children of her country to hear. the guatemalans have established a task force that i witnessed yesterday, and the mexicans, i am pleased to note, announced on monday that they intend to add to their border security along their southern border. so considerable progress has already been made in this regard to stem this tide, among other things, but the supplemental is, in our judgment, an absolute necessity to address this situation. thank you. >> thank you, senator johnson. ambassador? >> madam chair, mr. vice chairman, senator shelby, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you on the president's supplemental budget request. my colleagues, the secretary of health and human services and the secretary of homeland security have described well the situation in front of us, both the crisis and the challenge.

i would like to address the foreign policy implications and the larger diplomatic challenge we face. i would like to start by making three broad statements about the migration crisis that we're facing at this point. first, migration by unaccompanied children is not a new phenomenon along our southwest border. however, what we're facing now in terms of its size and its composition is. it's unprecedented and unique in terms of its drivers. and we believe its solution. it's unprecedented and unique first because historically, the migration by unaccompanied children has been a mexican phenomenon. it is no longer. actually, the numbers of unaccompanied mexican children have been dropping over time. what we've been seeing is the dramatic increase in the number of central american children. and from our point of view this means that something is driving them out of central america. this is a central american driven process. second, while the motives behind

migration are mixed, and while many of those coming to the united states are driven by traditional factors such as family unification and economic opportunity, it's evident from interviews with them, both by our customs and border patrol officials and by ngos that work along the frontier that underlying much of the migration is a fear of violence. and especially activity by criminal gangs. in other words, there's a significant push factor to this migration. the third point is that the migration is regional. and while much of it is directed towards the united states, because of the existing migrant networks in the united states, and the attraction of our country, the impact of this migration is being felt throughout the region. the u.n. high commission on refugees has registered a 400% increase in asylum requests in neighboring countries. which means that when children decide they either can't make it to the united states or they don't want to run the risk if they feel they have to leave, they do, and they are going elsewhere in the region. because of this third point we

believe that an approach in the region, our diplomatic approach and foreign policy approach has to be regional in nature and that we have to involve the source and the transit countries. but also those who are affected broadly by migration. in the process of working up to the supplemental request and looking again at our broader central america strategy, we've come up with a five-step or five-part strategy that we are in the process of implementing. but first part, the first step is establishing a common understanding of what is happening and why. between the united states, the three course countries, guatemala, honduras and el salvador and the major transit country, mexico. the second step is fashioning a public common agency committee to deter migration especially by children. this highlights the dangers of migration but also counters misinformation for smugglers seeking clients. the third step is improving the ability of mexico and guatemala to interdict migrants before they cross into mexico and enter the established smuggling routes

that move the migrants to our border. fourth is enhancing the capacity of guatemala, honduras and el salvador to receive and reintegrate -- repatriated migrants to discourage further efforts of migration. the fifth step is addressing the underlying causes of migration of unaccompanied children by focusing additional resources on economic and social development and enhancing our citizen security programs to reduce violence, attack criminal gang structures and reach out to at-risk youth. this strategy is a cooperative effort defined by collaboration between the united states and mexico, guatemala, honduras and el salvador. it's a new approach to address migration issues but reflects the growing ties and common interest rated among our countries by demographics, trade relations and increased security cooperation. as we look at the portion of the supplemental that belongs to the foreign affairs community, to the department of state and to our partners in dhs and the department of justice, we decided that we would allocate $300 million in two passions. $5 million on public diplomacy

and messaging and $295 million in economic support funds broadly divided between the headings of prosperity governance and security. i'm happy to discuss why we did this and how it is that we propose to use these monies. as noted by my colleagues, we believe this request is reasonable and necessary. it builds on work we're already doing in central america, takes advantage of existing expertise and experience and expands our ability to encourage guatemala, honduras and el salvador work with us on an issue of compelling human drama and national interest. this request will also allow us to build a new and comprehensive and collaborative approach with central america and mexico to problems that have an immediate manifestation in migration but underlie the larger development and security challenges facing our closest neighbors. by working to meet the challenge

of illegal migration of unaccompanied children to the united states, we will be advancing broader interests in the region and giving substance to our vision of an america where democracy and markets deliver economic and social development. this is an investment worth making, and i thank you for the opportunity to discuss this request with you and look forward to your questions. >> thank you, ambassador shannon. mr. osuna? >> good afternoon madam chair, vice chairman shelby and other members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the justice department's role in the government wide response to the situation along the southern border. notion the attorney general, the deputy attorney general could not be with you today because he's traveling at the border. i'll be concentrating my testimony today on the executive office for immigration review which is the largest component of the doj portion of the supplemental, and it is the agency that i head. uir is responsible for conducting civil immigration removal proceedings through our immigration ports around the country and our appellate level

court, the board of immigration appeals. our case load follows enforcement patterns at the border and at the interior. every department formally charges removable from the u.s. resulting in other case for uir. with 375,000 matters pending at the end of june, we are currently managing the largest case load the immigration court system has ever seen. overall there are now 243 immigration judges in 59 courts around the country. many of our courts are located along the southern border, including san diego, texas and el paso. some courts are located within i.c.e. detention centers for efficiency reasons, including the border locations in arizona and. the agency has focused on the adjudication of those cases which involve individuals that dhs has apprehended and charged with the removal from the u.s. often for criminal convictions that make them removable.

the current situation along the texas border is prompting us to reset priorities across the entire immigration court system as we along with our federal partners respond to the president's directive to focus additional resources on the border. particularly on those that the secretary said who entered the border in recent weeks. from now on, the vortex of cases will be the highest priority for the immigration courts. detained cases will continue to be a top priority, but to those we are going to be adding those involving unaccompanied children, adults who arrive with children who are detained and adults who arrive with children who are not detained and are released instead of -- on alternatives such as electronic monitoring. this means these cases will go to the front of the line for adjudication and immigration judges will be reallocated to make sure these cases are heard promptly ahead of others. while there are already lack

sufficient number of immigration judges assigned to the regularly detained cases, what the prioritization means is we'll make additional judges available from the nondetained dockets to make sure those cases are heard promptly. again, namely unaccompanied children and adults who arrive with children. this will have large consequences for the broader immigration court case load. cases not considered a priority will take longer to adjudicate in some cases, considerably longer. however, given the seriousness of the situation on the border, it is the appropriate response for our agency. regardless of the changes for priorities that we are making, our overriding principles will remain that every fact is considered, every application of law is correct and all persons appearing in our courts will receive due process of law. in order to meet its mission, uir must be provided with the ability to staff our courts with the judges and staff the most efficiently processed cases. in 2010, we began an aggressive hiring effort to address the significant rise in case loads and this met with considerable

success. unfortunately, sequestration and the funding constraints had a significant impact on our operations, increasing the number of cases pending adjudication and extending case dockets into the future. this appropriations act included funds enabling them to lift the hiring freeze and we began a hiring effort to fill vacant positions nationwide, including at least 30 new immigration judges. and the president presented his request for fy '15 which also includes a good increase for our agency and would add another additional 30 judges or more. i'd like to just highlight for the rest of my time the president's request for $71 million presented yesterday for supplemental doj funding, to address the border situation. this request includes $64 million to be directly appropriated to doj and $7 million to be transferred to doj from funding appropriate to the state department.

of the $64 million appropriated to the justice department, uir would be allocated $31.7 million to support immigration judge teams and $6.7 million for equipment and technology to maximize our flexibility and ensure that our judges are available when we need them and where we need them. in addition, the request includes $2.5 million for the successful orientation programs and $15 million for direct legal representation for children in immigration proceedings. in addition to the request, includes just over $1 million for doj's office of immigration litigation to support the expected workload increase and finally $7 million that would be transferred from the state department with support of wide range of doj programs designed to build law enforcement capacity in central america to combat transnational crime. i ask for your support for the president's request. >> i'm going to thank the witnesses for their testimony and now we're going to go to questions. you can see the enormous interest of the committee that

we have 24 of our 30 senators who are members of this committee that are participating. it will be led off by myself and senator shelby followed by senators tester and alexander, udall and moran, murray and collins, merkley and johanns. that's the first hour. and i can go to the second hour, but we're going to move right along here. i would like to go to the testimony of the written testimony of secretary johnson. and i really asked my colleagues on the committee to turn to page 2, the second paragraph. what this says is, without the supplemental funding in august, and then mr. secretary, you elaborate on what will happen if we do not pass the supplemental. so i'd ask my colleagues to look at it, but i'm going to go to you secretary burwell. if you are the -- of the $3.7 billion, $1.8 billion is at hhs.

now if we don't pass this supplemental by august, what will happen, and you gave a compelling narrative about this situation of the children. but what is it that you need $1.8 billion to buy? and that's what america's middle class are asking. we are worried about these children, but back home, they are worried about their children. could you tell us why this is urgent, what you need 1.8 and what happens if we don't do this supplemental. >> the money for hhs is purely for the care of the children. and we generally refer to that as beds. 84% of that we say is for beds for the children. and 12% for other services and 2% just in terms of administrative costs over time. but with regard to when we say a bed, what we mean is actually

the full care for the child. and i assume that we're going to talk about that throughout the hearing today. in terms of whether that's the fact that all of those children receive a wellness exam and that's important to the public health of our nation. it's important to the public health of those children. each of those children also receive mental health interviews as we've talked about, these children have been in some of them very tragic situations and we need to make sure that as we place those children, we consider those types of things. the child is in our care. in addition, we're not putting an additional burden on the communities when the child is in our care. when the child is in our care, we actually do many of the health examinations as part of our system where the child is. in addition, we are educating and providing some educational components for those children so they are not in the system. so the cost for us in terms of this overarching cost is really about the care. the 12% or other services. they are legal services. and certain health services that go beyond what we provide. so if a child actually has a situation that requires medical

attention that is beyond basic child welfare, that the physicians and other medical attendants can take care of and the child must go to a hospital, we pay for that care. the federal government and part of hhs' responsibility pays for that care. in addition are the costs that we're talking about when we say the legal costs. the type of the assistance that we pay is what we pay is for the children when they come in to receive materials and sometimes those are done by video and sometimes those are done in person, and they receive two types of information. one, the children come to understand and know their rights and protections that they have as part of this process. the second thing is the children are actually taught and it is explained what the immigration proceedings that they will face will be. for some of the children, we do additional supplemental group education sessions where they can ask questions. and over time for certain

children that have special needs, that is what the money is for. >> so what happens is, while ambassador shannon and the state department are supposed to be encouraging people not to come, and i think the fact that it's a little -- not enough money for going after the gangs, they meet the border patrol. and then they come to you while their legal status is being determined. now this then goes to this. so if we don't pass this bill before this august recess, what happens? >> so for us, there 24 things that i think are important in terms of the time sensitivity. if we continue on the current trajectory that we saw in may, june, what happened in may and june is the number of children that came through dhs exceeded the number of beds that we had available at hhs. and what that means is that those children, whatever that number exceeds, those children

are at the border. n those children are in detention and holding pens until we can move them. and so the ability of hhs, so if we stay on the current trajectory and we are actually doing pilots to try and speed our process. we are doing everything we can. there are three variables. number of kids, number of beds, speeds with which hhs can move the children. we're working an that speed as much as we can but we need to do this in a safe and secure way. and what it is about is in august, if we continue on the may/june trajectory, the ability for hhs to bring on beds so that we no longer have more coming in than i can process at hhs and our teams can on a daily basis, they will be backed up at the borders. the other thing just from an economic perspective -- >> what happens at the border? >> senator, because of the recent spike in migration, we've had to surge within i.c.e. transportation costs and the cost of building increased detention capability, most notably from the family units. to be honest, i.c.e. had very,

very few beds for family unit detention capability. we've had to build more to deal with this to send people back quicker. the border patrol has been working overtime so we've incurred those overtime costs as well as simply the cost of caring for all the children at the border. and so as i said earlier, at the current burn rate, i.c.e. is going to run out of money in mid-august and we project that cbp is going to run out of money in mid-september if there is no supplemental. we're going to have to go to some very dramatic harsh form of reprogramming, which i'm sure the committee is familiar with, away from some vital homeland security programs that i'm sure members of this committee care a lot about. or risk anti-deficiency act violations which is intolerable to me. so that's the situation we

faced. >> with my time expired, the fact is the failure to act does not save money for the taxpayer. what it essentially does is back up the ability of these children to be in a safe and secure surrounding. they will be in primarily at the border with border patrol agents who are dedicated law enforcement people in situations that are in facilities that were never meant to house children. so they have overcrowding, poor sanitation, a variety of things there. so that would be a big choke point and you have to start reprogramming money from what really homeland -- other homeland security. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> well, again, please go to page 2 of this testimony of secretary johnson. thank you. i'm going to turn to senator shelby. before i do, i just want to say one thing. i've seen now into action caring

for the children, a faith-based organization. i've seen what your border control people are doing. i get a sense of this. i just really want to thank all of the men and women who work for our government and those fantastic faith-based organizations along the border and others reaching out to you for the way they are really trying to meet this in a way that is humane, legal, but ultimately, we need to prevent a way of these children continually being exploited by the traffickers. senator shelby? >> thank you. secretary johnson, is the protection reauthorization act of 2008, which you are very familiar with, is that -- i know it was a well-meaning piece of legislation because we are against human trafficking in adults, children, everything like that. but is that part of the problem

in detaining and processing these children now? is the problem -- some people have, and we've heard reports that probably we need to change that law in some way. ark mend that law as we talk about more money. you want to address that? >> the tvpra which became law in 2008 requires when we identify a child as an unaccompanied child, i am required to give that child over to the department of health and human services and they act in the best interest of the child. we're talking about unaccompanied minors who don't have children with them to make decisions on their behalf. so the intentions behind the law, the spirit of the law reflect very worthwhile principles and reflect our american values, frankly.

i do believe, and this is not part of this particular request. i do believe that some type of added discretion on my part would be helpful to address this particular situation. and so right now, what we have in mind is treating migrants, unaccompanied migrants on the three central american countries which we call noncontiguous countries as being from contiguous countries. we have the discretion to offer an unaccompanied child from a contiguous country, i.e., mexico, the ability to accept a voluntary return. and a lot of them actually do. my flexibility in this current situation to deal with. >> so if we remanded the law to give you that discretion you think that would help you to some degree?

>> yes. >> thank you. director osuna, the administration announced on wednesday that an immigration proceedings unaccompanied alien children will now be given priority over adults. we have seen no explanation of how resources will be allocated to achieve this end. just bear with me. it's my understanding, correct me if i'm wrong, the docket for detained persons takes priority over other cases. but it's the docket for nondetained persons, children, whatever, where the uac's children are placed. if you don't shift resources to where the problem is, how do you prioritize these cases, and i guess following up on this, how many children are being detained as opposed to nondetained status? give us an idea there. >> sure.

senator, the -- to answer your question about how do you address this without more resources, we don't. the point of setting of new priorities that now include unaccompanied children is to be able then to shift immigration judge and immigration court resources away from the nondetained dockets which are, you know, a big portion of the dockets to the unaccompanied children. now the unaccompanied children for the most part of not detained. the vast majority of them are actually released by hhs and put in the care of a custodian, often a family member. >> explain the -- is it most of the times a family member? >> that's correct. >> yes. about 55% are actually parents. and getting us up to another 30% will be other family members such as relatives, sisters,

brothers, aunts, uncles. >> for people that are nondetained, in other words, they've come in, we process them. we examine them and all of this. and they are put out with their family or to a church or somebody will take them that's responsible. what's the lag time from the -- to say you did it today until there's an adjudicated hearing on whether they will be allowed to stay or go home. >> are you talking about just for unaccompanied children, or -- >> for unaccompanied children -- >> undetained children and then detained.

>> unaccompanied children for the most part of not detained. i think what you are asking is the lag time between the time it comes to the court system and the time there's a hearing. and that varies significantly from court to court. some courts it can take a few weeks. in some courts it takes a long time. sometimes over a year. the point of setting these in priorities is to make sure those cases are now heard more -- much more promptly than they happen. they will go to the front of the line for adjudication. >> as we speak, what percentage of children that are -- meet the adjudication process are sent home, and which -- how many, what percentage stay in the u.s. currently? >> i am not familiar with the numbers as to how many children are actually sent home. that is a dhs priority. or a function. i can tell you our immigration judge's responsibility is to issue removal orders but the actual numbers of how many are sent home i'd defer to secretary

johnson. >> do most of the children after adjudication stay in this country? >> up until the recent situation, the average pace at which unaccompanied children were deported was something like 1800 a year. >> and how many stayed? thousands? >> well, eventually if there's a final order of deportation and they've gone through the process, they should be returned to their home countries. >> should be. >> we've done that at a rate of about 1800 a year. and part of this request is so that we can accelerate that process so that more are returned, given the current situation. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, madam chair and all of you for being here. let me start with you, jeh johnson. 433 million are slated to go to custom and border patrol. 364 for overtime and new border agents. where is the other $70 million going? >> good question.

>> you can get back to me on that. that's fine. >> i'd be happy to do that. >> are these agents going to be permanent? the agents you are hiring with the additional 364? >> it's, i believe, for overtime and related cost in terms of the actual numbers of hired personnel, i would have to get back to you on that number. >> if, in fact, we're able to get this issue resolved we need to visit about whether those agents need to be permanent or not. >> a lot of that cost is embedded in simply caring for the kids. the border patrol caring for the kids. >> okay. i got you. but that requires bodies. and if it requires permanent bodies to care for the kids, are they going to be permanent? if that bill were to pass would this help that money go further? >> if the auo bill that i know gives sponsors, there's a companion version in the house were to pass, long term, we

believe that overtime costs would go down it would be a more stable environment. i believe it would contribute to this, yes. >> contribute to make this money go further? >> yes, i believe that. >> i might be working with that on this later. mr. osuna, how many courts exist right now in the southern border? >> along the southern border, we have -- well, six, i think, is what i noted in my testimony. three detain and three nondetained. >> how many additional courts will this supplemental be able to give you? >> the supplemental will allow us to hire additional immigration judges. those immigration judges, because this situation is going to result in case loads rising throughout the country, will be sent to various courts. some along the border, but many in courts far from the border. >> here's where i'm getting to. how many additional kids will this allow you to process? >> i don't have an answer for

that, senator. and this is why. we expect that certainly a large number, perhaps most of the vast majority of the individuals that dhs has apprehended will end up in our courts. until we start seeing those cases, we don't have a good number -- good handle on the actual number of minors that will be coming to our courts. it will be substantial. >> i want to help you with this, but how can you come to us with a budget request if you don't know how many courts or how it's going to speed this process? i think every one of you talked about speeding up the process to making sure the kids get back to the appropriate that need to go back to the country. i want to be helpful. i want to vote for this. >> senator, may i? >> sure. >> the assumption underlying the request from doj is that we'll be able to add an additional case load of 55,000 to 75,000 cases a year. overall.

>> and right now they are handling how many a year? >> right now the pending case load is 275,000. >> 275,000. okay. okay. significant. how many kids are going to come into the border every day? >> these days, it's up -- the total apprehensions of the kids unaccompanied is about 250. it was higher. it's down to somewhere between 200 and 250 a day. >> so we will be able to make significant inroads into these kids as far as moving them through the process, if in fact, this money gets to the department of justice? correct? >> yes. >> on the tv programs i hear senators and house members talk about this process and how many

end up back in court. is that true? and does this money help that not occur? >> and let me just correct the number. 375,000 cases pending in our courts right now, senator. there has been a lot of talk about the -- the numbers thrown about are not accurate. there is a significant number of unaccompanied -- of juveniles that don't end up in immigration court. the current rate is 46%. however, i should note that there are significant consequences for somebody who gets noticed for a hearing before an immigration judge and doesn't show up. that immigration judge then has to issue an order of removal in absentia order of removal. >> will any of these help with the absentia rate? >> there are some dollars going to the lpc program, the legal orientation program. that's a program that's been very successful in cutting the absentia rate by about 40%. >> i want to thank you all for your testimony. thank you very much, madam chair. >> you are exactly right, senator tester. and i think we've all just said

that. how do they know what to ask for unless they can honestly say how many cases are coming. but if you aren't talking to dhs -- but let's go to senator alexander. he's been waiting. >> thank you, madam chairman. i thank the witnesses for coming. i think we agree this is an extraordinary problem and extraordinary amount of money. but with all respect, it's an incomplete plan for dealing with the problem. and it's not a new problem. we've known about this for a couple of years. all of us have known about it. but in our system of government it's the president's job to lay out a specific plan for what we should do about it and it's our job then to say, no, we don't

like that. we're going to change this and respond to that. this is not a complete plan to me. what's miss, three things. number one, first, we need to secure the 320 miles of border in the rio grande valley where a majority at least, maybe most of the children, are coming. this is an extraordinary, you say unprecedented surge, of illegal immigrants, unaccompanied children. we need an extraordinary response. the quickest way to deal with it and to send a message back to those three countries is those children are coming home. second, we need to make it as clear as we can, as rapidly as we can that what will happen to these children if they come to our country is that they'll be treated with respect and humanely and sent home, taken home as soon as we responsibly and safely can do it. and number three, we need to know from the president what changes he wants to make in the 2008 law that apparently is the source of a good deal of the problem. he said last monday that he had some changes he wants to make. and we need to know what those

are if we're being asked to spend this kind of money. number one, to secure the border. if we want an extraordinary response to an extraordinary problem, why don't we consider using the national guard. president obama has done that once. president bush did it in 2006. he was reluctant to do it. i was one of the former governors who was in the senate who urged him to do it. we've been commander in chiefs of our local guard. he did it. and in both cases it had the desired effect of the government accountability office said it worked. if the president were to use the national guard for this 300-plus miles of the border, that would send a clear signal in those countries to those parents or those smugglers or whoever is responsible for this that the children are coming home and that the border is closed to them. that would be the first thing, one thing we could do to make the extraordinary response meet

the extraordinary problem. the second would to be make it clear that the children are coming home safely but quickly as we possibly can. and then the third thing to do would be this law in 2008. none of us are for human trafficking, but the amendments in 2008 seem to have created an unintended consequence that contributed in a dramatic way to the problem. and the president said that he wanted to make changes in the law but now we haven't heard exactly what those changes are. we've heard from mr. johnson that one of those changes might be to give him more discretion so that a child from one of those three countries could voluntarily be sent home which apparently they can't today. so let me start with this question. secretary johnson if in the past president bush and president obama used the national guard in a specific instance and used it effectively, why wouldn't that be a good tool, both to get the job done on that border and to

send a clear message to those countries and the people in those countries that those children, if they come here, will be sent home as quickly and safely as we possibly can? >> senator alexander, i know from my days as general counsel of the defense department, any time you deploy an armed force, you should do so with a clear plan and a clear objective. and clear rules of engagement. unlike the situation we faced in 2006, 2007, this migration is all surging into one very specific area of the rio grande valley. we know exactly where they are going. and unlike the previous rise in migration we faced in 2006, 2007, this population for the most part wants to be apprehended. they aren't seeking to evade law enforcement or the national guard.

so simply building an added presence on the southwest border on the rio grande itself will not necessarily stem this tide. >> are you suggesting that we -- by that logic, we should just open the border. >> no, not at all, senator. what i do believe we should do is consider all lawful options. all lawful and humanitarian options. and so i have continually asked my staff, for example, i want to hear every conceivable option. and so as this thing evolves, i think we, you know, is the national guard a possibility? the national guard in title 32 status is hugely expensive by the department of defense. we've surged a lot of resources already, but i want to consider all lawful options. i would not take some use of the national guard off the table for consideration as this situation evolves. but, senator, i do agree with you that we need to turn this

population around. and we're taking a number of steps to do that. we've dramatically reduced the repatriation removal time for the adults who are part of this population, rebuilding detention capability for the family units who are part of this population and returning that around. i am going to new mexico tomorrow to make a point of that so that people see that they are coming back and with regard to the unaccompanied children, you've heard from the department of justice, that process can take as long as over a year. and we need to dramatically reduce that because we have to show that if you do not qualify for some form of humanitarian relief under our laws, you must be sent home. >> madam chairman, my time is up, but i hope somewhere in the discussion that mr. johnson or one of the witnesses will tell us exactly what the president wants us to do about changing the 2008 law so that the children can be sent home more

quickly in a safely as possible. thank you. >> the national guard or, we heard this also in other quarters. i would just point out the state department, and this goes after, where do you need to be muscular and the deterrence, i believe it's got to come more out of the state department. and the fact they only asked for $100 million to go after the traffickers and we also need jeh johnson using the authorities of the department of homeland security working with our fbi to be going after the cartels, the drug smugglers and so on that are actually doing massive ad campaigning to recruit them. having guys with guns at the border, i'm not so sure to do it as going right to these host countries and having the deterrence -- >> what the guard did under president bush was not substitute for the guards at the border.

it took over some of the responsibilities that permitted the customs people and other people to spend their time doing the things they were trained to do. >> what i do want to say, senator alexander, a lot of us feel there has to be real deterrence and going after the really bad despicable guys. so, senator udall and then senator moran, murray and collins. >> thank you, very much, madam chair and appreciate very much appreciate the testimony of all of the witnesses. secretary johnson, thank you for visiting artesia as you've noted in our testimony. it's the first facility you've stood up independent for women with children. and when you visited, i would like you to think in terms of what are going to be the additional burdens on this small community. i mean, you will see a facility that's running a law enforcement facility on the same campus. it's a very small facility. they are now expecting and predicting 670 women and

children in a very short period of time. i included in the dhs appropriations mark-up last week added language directing dhs to consult transparently with state and local governments and avoid imposing costs on local communities for these types of temporary facilities. and my first question is, prior to dhs making a decision to use the training center for family detention, did you consult with state and local officials? >> i believe we did. that's a standing instruction of mine to my staff, before we make a decision to go to some place for increased detention for processing, we should consult with state and local -- the state and local government. >> and is there a process to have an ongoing briefing with state and local officials in place for things that occur, changes in mission and what happens at this facility? >> yes, i have personally spoken, for example, to the

mayor of mcallen, texas, about the situation in the surrounding community and mcallen. i have met with the governor of arizona when i went to nogales, and i suspect i'll be meeting with officials in new mexico o changes in mission and what happens at this facility? >> i have personally spoken, for example, to the mayor of mcallen, texas, about the situation in the surrounding community and mcallen. i've met with the governor of arizona when i went to nogales, and i suspect that i'll be meeting with officials in new mexico tomorrow when i go there and if it's not in my agenda i'll build it into my agenda. >> i'm sure the mayor of artesia will would very much like to meet with you and did yous it with you. he heard on one day that there was a rumor and two days later the facility was open and he had very little information, concrete information he could still his constituents in the community about. the communities with detention

centers like artesia are very concerned about incurring costs and restaurants on their infrastructure and resources. in artesia, the mayor told my office that increased bus and vehicle traffic is creating traffic problems near the entrance of this law enforcement training center, but the city does not have the funds to install necessary traffic signals. his police have had to respond to incidents at the detention center. i don't believe local communities should bear the costs of the crisis at our border. is there any funding in the supplemental request to help offset any costs the new detention centers impose on state and local governments? >> not directly. i don't believe that there is, but i do agree that we should endeavor to minimize the burden on the surrounding communities and that we should be mindful of

the burden that is being imposed in places like texas, new mexico, arizona, southern california, and so i want to work with local mayors, sheriffs to better enable us to do that. >> and i would just add with regard to the question of funds in the supplemental to prevent or help with burden in local communities, as mr. shelby reflected the cost is large and the cost is large because we, the federal government, when the children are with hhs take on the majority, the vast majority of anything that the children have so that we are not burdening the community when we are there. so in that sense, we understand the number one -- i understand the number is very large. part of the reason it is large is because we take care of the children from beginning to end. >> secretary burwell, no

additional burdens on a community. that's what i'm asking for, secretary johnson, because i believe that if you don't have it in this supplemental it's not going to happen so i think you're in a position of having an incomplete plan before us because you're going to rush to set up these facilities and you're not going to anticipate the needs and there's going to be a real problem there. what is the cost of operating the family detention center at fletc for a year and in the absence of a supplemental where is that funding going to come from? >> the cost of running the detention facility we've set up in artesia i don't have offhand. i can get you that and i'll be glad to do so. not doing anything is not an option because it would require us to simply run out of money, as i mentioned in mid-august and make some dramatic reprogramming steps. >> i understand that.

you've said that already, but where is the funding coming from right now to set up the facility that will house 607 women and children. >> it's coming from our existing i.c.e. budget. >> it's being taken away from what? >> it is being taken away from other aspects of immigration and customses e es enforcement. >> i'm sorry i went a little over, madam chairman. >> thank you, madam chairman, secretary johnson, i think all of us we are facing a crisis of a humanitarian magnitude. more money may be needed to deal with the consequences of this crisis, but it does not address the causes of the problem and that's what's troubling to me.

it's contrary to the evidence to think that some 57,000 children would undertake an extremely dangerous journey to reach our borders if their parents did not think that they would be allowed to stay here once they arrived. the administration has pointed to changes made in our immigration laws in 2008 as a partial explanation for the surge in the number of unaccompanied children. and and i think many of us would agree that that law does, indeed, need to be revised. but it doesn't explain the surge. if you will look at the chart that i've distributed, the surge in unaccompanied children did

not begin following the passage of the 2008 law, in fact, the numbers actually declined between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011. the wave of children arriving here clearly began in 2012. so we need to look at what happened that year. well, on june 15th of 2012, president obama took unilateral action and announced his deferred action for childhood arrivals policy. now let me make clear that i think the president's action was motivated by compassion, but it seems clear to me that it sent the wrong message to those parents in central america and it demonstrates what happens

when the president unilaterally decides to issue an executive order affecting immigration without securing the border. the number of children more than doubled between fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2013, yet until just recently, the president did not even speak out to warn their parents and to tell them that the journey would be horrendously dangerous for their children and that they would be sent home. we know that many of these children have been abused or harmed on their way here and when the wave became evident two years ago, the president took no action at that time to try to stem the tide. we know that it will take a long time before all of these

children have hearings that could lead to their being sent home if they show up at all for the adjudications. so my question is what specifically is the administration doing to propose changes in the laws and regulations right now so that these children can be safely and immediately put on planes and returned to their parents? and would such an action send the strongest possible message to the people of central america that they should not allow their children to go with these smugglers and come here? >> senator, first of all, i know this from personal conversations with these kids. i've spoken to dozens of these kids, and i know from talking to

border patrol officers who have spoken to these kids, the first thing they say when you ask them why did you come here, it has to do with the conditions in the three central american countries. my mother told me that the gang was going to kill me or my brother was killed. it's always initially that. second, clearly they know that if they come to the united states, our laws require certain thin things. that we transfer them to the department of health and human services, but it is also the case that the criminal smuggling organizations are creating considerable misinformation about the state of our laws and so forth. they're telling in order to induce the family member to pay 3,000, 5,000 or whatever it is. they tell them things like, you'll get a free pass and it will expire at the end of june

or the end of may. the fact is, and i've been saying this publicly now for weeks and it's being repeated in central america in the spanish press that the deferred action program that was established two years ago is for children who have been in this country for seven years since june 2007. so it is simply wrong to say that if you come here today, tomorrow or yesterday you're going to benefit from daca and so we continue to say that, we continue to repeat that and they're saying that and repeating it in the central american countries. i said that yesterday in a press conference, i believe, but you know, we're dealing with criminal smuggling organizations in order to induce payments of money will put out considerable diss information about this. now you've asked about changes in law, i believe, and i agree that people in central america need to see illegal