months we have seen important suction sayses. important messages campaigns about the dangers of those journeys has effectively countered false messages. increased focus on smuggling networks and honduras and yacgu led to the arrest of children. apprehensions are down to levels not seen since january 2013. but we know that this must be sustained by increased commitments by both the administration and congress. and so yes, we have as one alternative offered at the direction of the white house a new program that will allow parents lawfully present in the united states from those three countries to petition for their children in el salvador, guatemala and honduras to come to the united states as refugees. those children not eligible for refugee status may be considered on a case by case basis for humanitarian parole.

it is equally important we fund this strategy which could take as much as $5 billion over five years to fully implement. we believe again that there is reason for optimism about central america. the three threaders of the northern triangle have taken tough decision and are investing in their own national budget. we have a vision and plan and we want to work with you to help central america and help protect u.s. national security. thank you very much. >> we move to mr. kaplan. sorry, ms. hogan, sorry. >> ranking member, members of subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to share how u.s. aid is respond together challenge of unaccompanied minors, migrating from central america to the u.s. lowereder. our response to this challenge is consistent with u.s. aid's mission to partner, end poverty

and resilient democratic society while advancing our security and positive parity. in recognition of the gravity of the development challenges in central america and impact of those challenges could have on the united states, usa has maintained funding levels in central america even in a constrained budget environment. in fact, we've shifted approximately $100 million over the last five years from the usa programs in south america to central america. however, as a recent spike of unaccompanied minors over the summer clearly demonstrates, more needs to be done. this is why the administration requested additional resources in the fy 2014 supplemental budget. we believe these additional resources will result in security and development gains that far exceed their cost, even in the short run. through the regional security initiative, we are supporting crime and violence prevention programs that expand

opportunities for youth living in high crime neighborhoods and strengthening the institutions charged with administering justice and keeping people safe. usa's prevention strategy revolves around smart targeting. both geographic and demographic. concentrating prevention efforts on high risk youth in high risk communities. i am pleased to report that we have independent evidence that our programs are working. the final results from a rig vows four-year impact evaluation carried out by vanderbilt university and el salvador, guatemala, honduras and panama show that. reporting crime is lower and citizens feel safer in the neighborhoods where we are working p. when compared to 2010 baseline, in the same target communities, the vanderbilt evaluation found that in guatemala, 60% fewer residents reported being aware of homicide. in honduras, 57% fewer reported being aware of extortion.

and in el salvador, 36% fewer reported being aware of illegal drug sales in their neighborhoods. in short, where u.s. aid works, people see their communities getting better. adoption, ownership and expansion by central american governments are more important than ever. president hernandez of honduras publicly committed to allocating 30% of funds collected through the country's security tax to support prevention programs like ours. in guatemala, the government has expanded u.s. aid successful 24-hour port model to additional communities. and the government of el salvador lodged its ambitions new national strategy for violence prevention in february to empower municipalities to lead prevention efforts. while insecurity is cited as primary driver for the migration of miners from the region, lack of jobs and economic opportunity at home is also a critical

factor. usa's development program also seeks to improve educational opportunities and lively hoods for the poor and rural areas. these programs remain imminently relevant because they compliment and amplify our youth and urban oriented crime prevention programmi programming. for example, a youth aid partnership unlocked $25 million to help spur job creation. as part of the feed the future in honduras, sustainabling ary cultural practice to the region to help livelihood even food security of 50,000 families. these kind of economic development programs align with our crime prevention to build a foundation for prosperity. and in so doing, relief the pressure on youth and their families to migrate north. usa continues to successfully utilize partnerships with the private sector to sustain our

investment in central america. we have leveraged approximately 40 million in private sector resources to support at risk youth. in honduras we developed 41 partnerships to strength thej keying ary kcultural value chains. we are also partnering with starbucks to help with the coffee outbreak. we recognize that our current levels of resources are insufficient to spur the large scale transformative change needed in the region. additional funding would enable us to significantly scale successful programs in the communities in greatest need and fully implement the u.s. government strategy for engagement with central america balance is the three interrel e interrelated objectives of prosperity and governance and security. thank you very much and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. mr. kaplan? >> chairman salmon, ranking

members, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to testify on behalf of the interher can foundation. an assistanwe appreciate there subcommittee's long standing support of our mission to help people in the region lep themselves. in poor communities we see the cost of too few jobs and lack of educational opportunities. in northern triangle of central america one quarter of the population consists on less than $2 a day. violence is crawling. a community safety is broken down. facing these threats families do not know where to turn. in this context the if invests carefully to help local citizens gain some control over their lives by carrying out initiatives this they themselves

conceive. they demonstrate their commitment by contributing their own funds to the ef important providing about $1.30 for every dollar invested by the ief making the u.s. a minority poortener in the development projects we support. today our active portfolio includes 81 projects representing $37 million in combined investment in our grantee partners. in the three northern triangle countries, we support initiatives in over 880 communities. our work is not limited to youth but 45% of our investment in the three countries benefits youth, young people directly. our work is having a real effect. 14,300 jobs have been created and the northern triangle alone 80% of our partners attract household income reported an increase on average plor than doubling household income in a year. and it has reduced the appeal of migration. at beginning of a funded project in el salvador, 83% of

participants under 26 said they would consider migrating. by mid project the number is down to 22%. grantee partner this guatemala combined education about the risk of high gracing with a credit program and training for small farming businesses. by the end of the grant 7 the% of the 730 young participants said they decided ton migrate.8 of the 730 young participants said they decided ton migrate. of the 730 young participants said they decided ton migrate.9 of the 730 young participants said they decided ton migrate.t of the 730 young participants said they decided ton migrate.hf the 730 young participants said they decided ton migrate.e% of the 730 young participants said they decided ton migrate.% of the 730 young participants said they decided ton migratnton mi . we have seen when disadvantaged youth come together on their own initiative, to start their own small businesses and exercise leadership, and team work for the benefit of their community, they are less likely to leave. why? because they become invested in the present and future of their home communities. 1 honduran teenager recently told us before participating in the program i wanted only to follow the american dream. now i believe that i can create my american dream here.

the if does much plor than send dollars to the region. this is only part of the story. our whole approach is designed to strengthen the capabilities of our grantee partners so they can take on even bigger challenges. fundamentally we want them to learn from each other and be leaders in their own communities. in the process, they create social and economic anchors at home and demonstrate their preference to stay. in fact, i am encouraged. because we see many opportunities at the grass roots level to address the causes of youth migration. the impact of a single thriving community, organized group of rural poor, may seem small but they become the safe havens and incubators of change that inspire others. if reached, if empowered, and if connected to each other, they are capable of generating the change so desperately needed in the region. they need a chance to become a citizen. fupdmentally they are the ones who will change their communities and countries.

45 years ago, a small congressional delegation of members of this committee paid a visit to central america. what they learned is not surprising. that true long lasting change depends on large part on thriving communities. communities that provide not only social and economic opportunities for the most marginalized but are themselves foundations upon which democracies are built. one result from that trip is the creation of the interamerican foundation. which helped support the protagonists, not participants, in their own development. our work naturally compliments other u.s. efforts for improving prosperity, governance and security in central american countries. again, i thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the if and our thousands of grass roots partners in the region. >> thank you. i'm going to go ahead and ask questions and yield to the ranking member. my first question, maybe it would be most appropriate for

you, mr. secretary, or ms. wheezener, but according to the information, the administration will at least last friday, individuals residing in the u.s. can petition for refugee status for their children even spouses living in central america. this is therefore a family reunification program resumably the priority three, p-3 category under 8cfr section 207, principle refugee admitted to the united states may request follow to joint benefits for his or her spouse and or unmarried children under the age of 21. if the family has become separated. my question is this, are the family members living in the u.s. who petition for these children refugees? are they refugees and if they have -- if they are, have they been deemed as such, have they been deemed refugees.

if not, under what authority are the nonrefugees living in the united states under a whole host of statuses allow to petition refugee status for their family member? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i am going to turn to ms. wheezener who is much more dap at this because i think this is not the standard program you are describing. it is something quite different and it is not -- it is designed no focus on the children in country who are the ones that were trying to get out of such a difficult circumstance in this northern triangle countries without having them attempt this very dangerous journey and try and enter the country in the undocumented status as they did last year. katherine? >> sure. so to try to answer your question and please follow up if i missed part of it, but you asked if this is part of the p-3

program. it is not exactly part of the p-3 program based on people out of their country of origin already as refugees. you asked if the parents themselves in the united states would be considered refugees under this program. they are not. they are considered under the statuses under which they are here. so they are either here as lawful permanent residents or additional six statuses that are eligible to apply. so the refugee claim is a claim of the child themselves. the child facing the risk of persecution, either they experienced persecution or have one in the five protected grounds. race, religion, their nationality, their political opinion or their membership in a particular social group. so maybe another way to put it is that the eligibility to petition in this program is one category. and those are the parents and

their statuses here in the united states. but in tosorder to be granted refugee status, the child has to show they are eligible for that status. >> so it is not the p-3 program? >> it is not the p-3 program. >> if a minor spouse is not granted status, they will be considered for parole. what kind of visa will they then be entering the united states with? and how will we be able to ensure that they don't overstay if their two-year renewal is not approved? and finally the administration noticed the parolees would be able to attend school. would a minor be allowed to attend university in would they qualify for federal grants, state aid and what is the real difference between a refugee and parolee who can potentially apply for doca if parole status is not renewed. >> i can definitely talk about differences between the offer to

refugees who settled and what is available it parolees. for details on the parole program, i have to refer you to the department of homeland secure whoit administers the po roll pro groom. when a refugee comes to the united states under our settlement program, they are eligible for a range of benefits. which is settlement and replacement grant administered from the state department through reset elment agencies and also eligible for follow-on refugee benefits from heap health and human servicees. which is like enrolling in school, when they are of age, getting housing. these are children with parents so we are assuming their parents have homes and job. so it is more about getting them into school as refugees. there is no cost to apply to the program in either case. if you come as refugee your medical check is free and you will get a loan to take the flight to the united states which you then have to repay back later.

parolees is a temporary -- sorry, one of the more important aspects of refugee reset elment is it is a path to relegalment status and permanent citizenship. that's one of the main differences of parolees. as you noted, it often last two years and you have to apply for renewal. none of the benefits i just mentioned for reset elment are available to parolees either. in fact, if you're. eligible for refugee status and are considered for parole then your family has to submit an affidavit of support. which shows that they are able to support you here in the united states. >> and if it is not the p-3 program, what is it? what program is it? >> in country refugee processing which is allowed -- i mean, it is accounted for in the law. the -- both refugee status and parole discretion are in the immigration and nationality act.

>> do you know what law it is under, so we can reference? >> we do. we can get the specific citations. >> thank you. recognize the ranking member. >> first, let me apologize for being late. these days, we have a lot of things going on. you know, i'm upset about something that happens to us, this exodus happened. and i'm very concerned about the origin. of how this happened. and i would just say dwsh-i'll go back and forth. when this whole thing started, everyone is shocked about the kids and conditions and everything else. there is a meeting. we ask the ambassador from these

countries to come to meeting to we can discuss how this whole thing started. can you believe we got one ambassador from the countries. and they sent staffers. meanwhile we have 13, 14, 15 congress members at this kmeeting and we have to now try to deal with staffers. to me, that shows me that maybe they were not as serious at trying to stop this.me, that sh they were not as serious at trying to stop this.with staffe. to me, that shows me that maybe they were not as serious at trying to stop this. to me, that just -- i just don't know if this whole stampede started as a rumor. and all those kids, all of a sudden, came across the border because of the rumors that started. but if 14 or 15 members of congress call for a meeting to try to help, because we were there -- this is the help, you don't accepted a staffer to the meeting.

you try to deal with the situation and see how it can best be alleviated. so i am more concerned at the roots of why this happened. then obviously we have to deal after they get here. i don't want to -- right now, there's a lull. obviously not as many kids coming over. but i don't want to see this being used as a release on the pressure cooker on somebody say all right we start this rumor so we get this rumors and you have a rush of kids coming over. i just don't, you know, i just don't know how you deal with that. >> if i could, the only thing i would say is that i think one of the things that last summer taught all of us, both here in the united states, but especially in these countries, was it was a wake-up call for

some of the countries in terms of what they needed do at home. and what we've seen over the last five months is a real shift in the attention to some of the underlying issues. and some the will to address those issues back home to ensure that some of the areas that were not getting the attention they deserve, geographically, because we know where some of these kids, most of the kids, are coming from and their families. and economically and in terms of level of violence, which were not being attended to by either national governments or local governments. so i do think you see a difference as you saw reflected in the three press dents here last week, in the attention to those causes. >> anybody have any other observation? >> yes. i can't speak to the -- what the

ambassador did here, but i have to say that on the ground, in the communities where we're working, hundreds of communities through out the region, the objective conditions on the ground are really, everybody has been describing them with levels of violence and poverty. >> i don't doubt that at all. okay. i'm a hispanic. i think i know a little bit about the western hemisphere. but my concern is that this business of using a rumor or starting a stampede to release the pressure of what's happening in this. so we have to really try to address. and i know you're doing your best. but i don't know if it's enough. because i don't think this is going to be over. i think this is going to continue and then obviously we will have to deal with the immigration issue here in

america and how to deal with the issues here. >> but you also have governments that stepped up anti-smuggling legislation and the units that they are using to go after those traffickers and to put out the message that this won't be o tolerated as well. >> i think what happened is those governments realize how upset the country was and were concerned that some of the aid would be cut if they don't step up to the plate and start doing some things about what is going on in the home country with their own children. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. recognizing mr. duncan. >> thank you. thank you for the work on it this summer. it was real problem and you tried o get your hands around and head around what was going on. the president is supposed to consult with congress to establish a number and groups of refugees eligible for admission

each fiscal year. so ms. jacobson, under what authority are you establishing the incountry refugee program? >> i'll be happy to ask katherine to say anything further that she need to but my understanding is that when the numbers for the fiscal year are sent to congress as they were this september -- >> 4,000. >> those number is are the numbers that we are working with. those are the numbers that will include any increases in central america. obviously a program like this would take time to set up. we would not expect numbers of any magnitude to really be seen until frankly quite a ways down the road. frankly, probably late into 2015. were we to need any additional numbers beyond that 4,000, there is some flexibility within theover all numbers. but we anticipate those numbers being adequate for the coming

year. >> so you're telling me nobody has been processed for this program to date? >> no. that's correct. in fact, the program itself will not even begin to take applications into it any earlier than at least the beginning of december. it has not begun. and obviously as a new program this will, you know, begin and we will see in terms of the kinds of response that we get. >> who sets the cap? >> well, in the program like this, there is no cap at the outset. we have to see who qualifies for it. >> just an open number of refugees are able to come into the country? >> what we sent to congress is the overall cap in refugees. that stands. that cap won't be -- >> what's the cap for 2015? >> 4,000 for this region. i don't know what the global number is. >> 70,000 is the global number. established by presidential authority and presidential determination. >> from all countries?

>> globally. exactly. 70,000 is the cap is what we budget. >> what's the cap for central america some. >> within that we make allocations and for latin america and caribbean the allocation is 4,000. >> do you anticipate any change and increase for central america out of that number? >> we left it at 4,000 because we felt that was appropriate but there is flexibility to change if need be over the course -- >> we are seeing syrian aef ru gees, afghans, iraq pooeps there is a global need of people seeking to come to this country. i guess what i'm asking, are you plan awning expanding the number from central america or leave it at scattus we could. >> at this point we left it at 4,000. in addition to the report that went to congress in september we did reports from the judiciary committee where it was rayed and staff briefings in september so there's been consultation in response to the vice

presidential remarks. >> i'm. saying what is right or wrong, i'm just trying to get my mind around the allocation. >> yes. >> can you vote when you're 18. sign a contract and be tied to that when you're 18. you can get married. tried as an adult when you're 18. everything i read, you'refiding children as 21 and younger. why? >> that's the definition of minor children that dhs uses according to the law. >> by the way, we asked dhs to come to this hearing. and they refused. that is my request. >> it is interesting because a parent is el jebl eligible to request. if the parent is at least 18 years old but can you identified a child as 21 or younger but a parent has to be at least 18. it seems to be hypocrisy there. if we need to change that in the law, we'll change that. but there is hypocrisy of the two ages.

and in the united states, you're a child until you're 18 years old. do you agree with that? >> the definition after minor is in the law. but obviously, it is the petitioning parent is 18, the child will be significantly younger than that. >> my wife says i'm still a child. >> there is true. >> so you are allowing children and from what i'm hearing, y'all have found a way to get these children into this country without them having to take thattard uus journey across mexico and on the trainings and everything we have seen. under what circumstances would you allow a parent to come in from the second country to be added to the child's petition and considered refugee? not just talking about the children. mom, if she is in el salvador or dad can come with them. >> right. they have to be the parent of

the child or they have to be -- have been married to the petitioning parent in the united states at the time that that parent received their legal status in the united states. >> okay. is that common practice for other countries as well? for refugee status? do we allow mom and dad to come with the child? >> that's the p-3 program that we spoke of earlier. >> do we usually allow the mom and dad to eye company the child? >> it is usually the mom and dad that accompany the child in that case. >> what circumstances would prevent a parent from being considered for refugee status? >> same definition applies for the parent's as the child. >> okay. my time's up. are we going to have a -- thank you. i'll just yield back right now. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i guess the issue with me is,

our policies adopted particularly unilaterally by the administration, that affects the behavior that we see. and when the president did the administrative amnesty for minors in 2012, that's a signal sent. you had biden going down this summer saying no, no, no. doesn't apply to you. only if you are here at a certain time. honduran president said there is a lack of clarity in u.s. law contributing to this surge. i wanted to ask and my colleagues in south carolina mentioned dhs. i wish they would have been here. an issue that does send a signal that allows people to come el little when, both with the dhs and department of state, it is this, i was shocked when we received this report on the judiciary committee. releasing 36,700 convicted criminals in the country illegally rather than have them

detained pending outcome of deportation proceedings. we have tocriminal, people who mean us harm. some of the convictions of people that were convicted, 193 homicide, 426 sexual assault, kidnapping, aggravated assault. vehicle theft, drug trafficking. very, very serious offenses. and yet, dhs is releasing these individuals into american society rather than repatriate them back to their nation of origin. now, what does that have do with the state department? here is why. now not all of them, we asked dhs to provide a list of offenses. and identify why the best they could why they were released. some claim they want to return them to their home country but their home country won't accept them. they are only allowed to hold people for so long under binding

court decisions so they have no choice but to release them. and the way i understand the system is supposed to work is that you have somebody let's say convicted of rape. here illegally. no right to be here. our government is supposed to go to that country. let's just say, let's say cliepa. you go to china. and you say, l.a., here take. and if china doesn't take them back then we are under a, the secretary debt of state, shall order the counsellor in that foreign country to discontinue granting visas to flags yals and citizens of that country until dhs certified they are accepting their convicted foreign nationals. so secretary jacobson, we know that some of these people who had been convicted are from countries in the western hemisphere. has the state department ordered any counselor in any of those countries to stop granting visas

because those countries have not accepted some of these convicted criminal illegal immigrants? >> we have not, congressman. and the main reason we have not is that as you, i think, realize the cutting off of vietnam vees why services to a country is an extreme step that really leaves us -- >> actually, if may be that. but as i read it, i think the statute says that secretary of state shall order. >> the only thing i would like to add is, all three of these countries are taking back criminal deporties. they may not be taking back all of them and they certainly are not taking back as quickly as we will like in terms of the court's ability to hold them for authority. >> i understand that. and what the countries corpsing is one thing. but way toi want to hone in on the -- >> that's what we have to work

out with the country, right? >> i understand that. but my point is these people are being released. clearly there a break down somewhere along the lines. now, as i read the statute, i think a lot of my colleagues on judiciary, we believe that the way the system works. you don't take them back, the state then takes the step that it is in an obligatory doughty. you suggested that may be a an extreme pleasure and it is up to the secretary to determine whether that step needs to be taken. as i straed, congress expressed a will that secretary of state needs to do this. >> is it an owe ligtory duty? >> my lawyers would get nervous if i tried to interpret law here. but those countries are taking back criminal deporties. they have not refused as a matter of policy -- >> you're talking about just the three countries at issue here.

>> in particular, yes. >> but there are countries who have not taken some of this, because if they're not then we get two different stories between dhs -- that's why it would have been good to have dls here. >> i would have liked to have my colleagues here. but it is a question of whether or not the country's policy to take back criminal deporties or they are not taking back as many or as quickly as we would like them to take back. >> i don't think it needs to be policy. as soon as dhs notifies the state department that government of a foreign country denies or unreasonableably delays accepting an alien to who is a citizen. maybe it has to be in all cases. i don't know. but it seems clear to me that if we're in a situation where we're releasing, dhs is releasing a lot of these people, maybe they are not notifying the state department about everyone they are releasing. i want to know that information too. maybe they are notifying the

state department and state department is not taking the steps that the statute requires. maybe the state department is actually returning a portion of them. but i think, you know, you look at the -- someone the president or people on the very far left, essentially on the far right, want to stop even legal immigration, everyone in that whole gambit believes when people are here and committing serious criminal offenses we need to send them back -- >> let me assure that you the dhs and state department work closely on the issue of criminal deporties. when we are notified by dhs, we work really closely with them to push very hard to get countries to take back those criminals -- >> but not hard enough to where you would actually stop the issuing of visas. >> we succeed very often under getting criminal deporties returned. >> i appreciate that.

but very often okay so we have 193 homicide convictions. let's say 20 of the individuals from the western hemisphere, very often, return 15 of them, just five people, you know, that are going to be released by ice, which i don't think is an acceptable number. i want to get to the bottom and maybe this is something we can do jointly between this committee and judiciary -- >> if the gentleman would yield. >> yes. our sheriff of maricopa county approached me, i don't know if you remember the two sheriffs murdered by someone here illegally, he had been in our jail four different times and released by ins -- or excuse me, by dhs, four different times. and then he told me there are thousands that come through his jail alone that are flagged by

is dhs p. whether rape or murder or drug charges. they are flagged and then taken and they don't know where they go. the sheriff has no idea whether they are released into the states or if they are deported and sent back. but he does know that they're coming back to his prison again because they are being rearrested for different crimes that they committed since the original crime that they were arrested for. >> look, and mr. chairman, we can get dhs here, get people from homeland security, because at the end of the day, 36,000 convict and total number in fiscal year 2013, that clearly is not do wlag is necessary to keep the american people safe. so there is a break down somewhere, and it was tough getting the information from dhs to begin with, but i want to see because i think the system is

supposed to work to where they are not accepting and consequences and most countries would rather accept them than accept consequences. >> it needs to be a joint hearing be as you said. we are pursuing it -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes, i would. i'm chairman of the oversight subcommittee on homeland security and we are looking at the issue much released prisoners and subject you are talking about in maricopa county. so i don't think you limit it to this judiciary. i think you involve the homeland security committee. and secretary jacobson was talking about dhs and state work and they work so well together, dhs is sitting together at the table today. >> all right. if it is all right, we will go through one more round of questions. and my first question is, regarding a report released today, by the seattle international foundation, it shows from 2010 to 2012, this is

for you ms. hogan, u.s. foundations invested $488 million in central america. so moving forward, how will the obama administration work with private donors to leverage these resources, ensure that federal government scholars are maximized. also, are you currently coordinating any public-private partnership, el cal have a doer, guatemala, honduras. can you tell us how they work with economic prosperity in the community. >> thank you very much for that question. i will start with the work we're dwog the private sector on work force development that we do in central america as well as mexico and the caribbean. and we have seen some really great successes as a result of that combination of resources at the private sector brings to bear along with the training that we can provide. and what the private sector is looking for are people that have

the kind of skills that can go into the jobs that they have opening for. and so, with work life skills, computer skills, with market sore yented training, what we have been able to see is these companies picking up these youth to go and work for them. 77% of the youj that come out of our work force training programs either go to work or go back to school for increased education. the other thing that we're seeing is that youth to come out of these training programs, these work force development pro grooms, are also sometimes opening up their own businesses based on the skills that they developed as a result of this training. so we're very excited about it. it gives kids in the community, the companies get the skills set they need and it has been a very successful flourishing partnership with some of the key companies of the region. as for as how we work with private foundations, one of the

things we are nothing central america is design wling what we call a safe city, to bring sure we can bring all of the resources to bear and faith based strategy and draw a upon the resources, not just of the u.s. government but as we are already doing with the private sector and also with other don't force school many. with the international development banks that might be invest flg this. as well as private foundations. and so, what we're doing is scoping out who has interest in this community. who has something to wring to the table for support. and how can we maximize our impact by bringing all of that together under one strategy, one set of metrics and one set of results. >> mr. chairman -- >> yes, thank you. >> i'm going from this hearing

to a student exchange speech in town. as far as 100,000 strong in the americas, which is not a government plo groom, we have raised over $3 million of private fund. to try and do these university to university partnerships. but the part i'm proudest of is not the partnership -- fraunk frankly, the vocational training schools or community colleges that don't exist in the central h american countries to provide that gap between high school and four year college which most of these kids will not have access to. at that conference today there will be chilean students at montclair state. we are doing work with asu and college systems. this is where our best work with be done in places like central

america. >> i acknowledge on this committee and on the education work force committee also, i have worked with fresno state and maricopa county college system for years and years and years. i used to represent them as well in my private life. i would really love to figure out a way, at least maybe doing pilot stuff, in arizona and i would love to work with you and secretary of education to try to come up with innovative ways. because that really is the way to empower people. that's the way to get them out of poverty. the way to get freedom. i would love to work with you on that. claire recognizes the ranking pleb. >> yes? >> you know, years ago, when we used to deport criminals, i think we would just send them back. do we have a situation now where we send them back with a rap

sheet knowing what they did. is there any knoll-up to see if some of the people reappear again? here in the states. >> i'm going to give you sort after partial answer because some of the rest of it i'm going to get back to you on as well as check in with my dhs and justice department brethren. we have worked over the last number of years to work with those in the region and give them information on the criminal history of the people they will accept as deportyes. they know the crimes they committed to so they can be prepared as the receiving country -- if they go back into the communities, how do they have to prepare themselves. some of that information is now much better able to be transferred to other governments. we have pilot programs. i know dhs and justice worked

with countries in central america and in the caribbean to try and convey as much information as possible within our own laws. so that they can give countries an idea of the history of criminal deporties. ond yobeyond that obviously tho folks are put no a system so that in the future when they might attempt to come back into the country through legal means they are registered in the system as having criticism flal records in the united states and that should not be possible. if they can come in undocumented or legal means, that's a different story but that information is put into both state department and dhs data basis. >> i've done quite a bit of research thon and the ones we

are talking about were never adjudicateed. they are arrested and arraigned but never get to adjudication because their flagged and ins comes and gets them. and either deports them or lets them go before they are ever even ajoudcated p. so that's one of the big missing problems. if they are deported, they don't go serving prisons of the countries. they are scot-free. of course they don't come back the legal way. and the situation with the unaccompanied minors, remember how we were told -- they didn't come to the not try point. they came to the -- like the middle ground. why did tle they do that? because it took all kind of agents off of the check point and meanwhile bad guys would sneak through other places. they were used as decoys. it is not about getting a good

handle on it. because as i was told by sheriff arpaio, he has some in his prisen ten times or more. for ten different crimes. been arrested, flagged by ins, released. back in jail, arrested on another crime a few months later or year later. a serious problem. chair recognizes mr. duncan. >> thank you. i just have a few follow-up questions. u.s. is contracting out refugee processing to the international organization from migration. so why aren't you working with the agency, if the situation is so dire and central america that these children are having to escape the situations there? >> sure. in fact we are doing both. we work with the international organization of migration around the world or the processing of reset elled refugees.

as you flow we have a very strong relationship with unhr as well. recently giving them a grant as around $770,000 for their work in central america with the purpose of building up presence there, understanding dynamics of internal displacement and working with the government to increase protection for children at risk of harm in their own country so they won't have to sleep. >> are there camps in central america -- >> they aren't setting up camps but they understand the internal displacement. >> how does the u.s. work with -- >> i don't have those figures -- >> why was it awarded to them -- >> i don't think we have offered any contracting yet for incountry processing. >> my understanding is -- >> the mou we have with the iom

is on the repatriated folks who go back from the united states. the families and adults. and we have contracted with iom to do the repay tree asian of folks who come during the summer -- >> and the country -- >> there's two different contracts. >> usa has. . /* 7.6 million grant to help governments prepare to upgrade the reception services that they provide to repatriated migrants and we have he is not that the governments in turn have stepped up to the plate in terms of making more space available, getting volunteers to help in processing people. making sure they get food when they get off the plane. giving them medical referrals, job referrals et cetera. they have been doing quite a bit.

i got to see a plane of migrants repatriated in honduras. and it went very, very smoothly. and i think that iom has really done a very good and is standing by to see if additional services may be required. >> just to clarify, they do a lot. they implement the program, the existing contract forus for the skasting reset elment support center in ecuador. and it is that center we will be expanding to a accommodate this program in central america. when that contract contribution was awarded to iom several years ago, it was a process for the existing settlement. >> right, okay. >> vice president -- >> a lot of money promised. the president promising money in week over in china. where is this money coming from?

does it come out of your budget in the state department? >> the 300 million the president was talking about is in the supplemental coming to congress this summer and 9.6 that vice president talked about, i think when he was in gat plaula in june, was funds we allocated from within the state department that we thought were much more urgently need quite hon lift in central america for things like repay tree asian -- >> i get this question at home a lot. every time turn around, someone is promising a hundred million here, a billion here. and your budge is the finite. it set by congress. are y'all slichrinking your bud? or what programs are being changed here? >> some funds come from

reallocation. there was one a few days ago for 76 million for national narcotic and law ep enforcement funds. those were originally funds from a number of years ago that were destined for iraq that could no longer be used. the 300 million as you know is the supplemental request not taken from elsewhere. but even so, as you know, the 300 million was out after 7 billion, so it was really quite small. we continue to believe that although foreign consistent budgets are extremely small, it is more efficient if we use those funds in the countries to try an address those root causes

than if we deal with the effects of us here on our territory. >> and i'm not arguing today about the appropriate yit use or inappropriate use to the money. but i guess i am concerned about a member of congress and the taxpayers that i would love to see a break down of that. state department's budget and all of the promises made and where all that money is coming from. how you are reallocating that money. that might be a request for the state department. there are a lot of promises made that we have to find enough money through cr or appropriations bill to fund or realallocate. i would love to see that. the last thing way pt to ask is really probably for dhs and they aren't here. i wonder, how many dhs will be required in northern triangle

countries to implement this country. do you know? >> you mean the refugee processing proprogram? >> right. >> i don't know if we have a specific number for the individuals. though i think in general this is carried out by others in terms of the country, three countries. but as we implement all of the efforts to reduce migration, i don't think there's any doubt we may need additional people in our embassies in all three countries. >> my understanding, madam secretary, is that dhs has refugee locations in six countries but not in the northern triangle countries. >> correct. >> are they planning to shift personnel or add -- >> they do circuit rides in many parts of the world. there are some refugee adjudicators but most of the interviews done around the world are people who come under for a circuit ride and conduct

interviews. that's the model used to start in central america. there is no additional burden on the embassies. >> that's a good thing. i had an experience with an afghan interpreter, translator, served with us third infantry. it took two years to get someone that army vouched for, several generals, i don't know if p petraeus did, but allen did, fought along side our military, threatened by the taliban, lost his uncle, two years, had visa to come to the country, then had the state pulled from them. he was chased from the state department numerous times. i throw that out there in that, i would hope the process is at least as taxing for refugee children coming from afghan -- i maep, from central america as spln coming from afghanistan. i say that in that it shouldn't be taxing.

it shouldn't be as taxing for people in afghanistan that srve our nation. >> and it beges a bigger question. i understand that the numbers, even though there so 4,000 number, that could be exceeded if they come from another area, right? is that correct? ? what i mean is the total number for the world is what 70,000? >> 70,000. yeah. >> and so, if you decide to reallocate that or have 10,000 come from central america, you just have to shrink it somewhere else so it stays under the total global amount, right? >> there is flexibility built in the system and we have assistant secretary not accepting applications before december jacobson, excuse me, before december. so you know, the fiscal year '15 comes to end pretty soon thereafter. >> buecause a concern would be

there are very calamitious situations in other parts of the world. and as you mention, afghanistan and it would be tragic. i hope it is at least based on the most serious people globally. and it is an equal standard. if someone gets over here because they are uncomfortable with their living and someone else has a threat of death for their religious belief in another part of the world, i would hope that consideration would be given to the latter. >> there is a greater risk of harm so there is expedited processes -- >> did the gentleman, sean duffy have any questions? we have last round, if you'd like. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you holding this hering to shed light on what is going on. >> do you have this document in front of you with a list of

categories? >> yes. >> would you do me a favor? would you maybe walk me through one by one and just tell us what these are. and what is the rational for putting them on list? >> who is the lawful permanent resident and why did tle mahey it on to the category list? >> i think we will be disappointed that the department of home hand secure isn't here -- >> i'm sure you won't disappoint. >> we are definitely. we would like to show a joint program. these are all considered to be lawfully present statuses by the department of homeland security. and in designing program -- >> i don't have a whole lot of time. if you just walk me through each one. if you know the rational, who are these individuals and what is the rational, if you know, how they got on the list.

>> i can walk you through.