so custom and border protection has built out one processing center. another one is coming online in mid-july. so at this point, we have not reached the 72 hours. but we're building more capacity to get children in beds. but also health and human services is stepping up placement for the longer-term care of these children. our other hope is, is that the quicker we can place children long term, either reunited with legal guardians or parents or with foster families while they await further proceedings, the fewer beds that will be required. we have increased capacity. but the number of children coming in have increased as well. and we have not reached the 72-hour mark. >> and i guess the follow-up to that is, in your coordinating role, do you feel that the resources necessary to be successful have been made available to you? >> yes, sir. the challenges again in building out facilities and bringing on additional foster care

facilities, these are licensed facilities. it is diligent work by a lot of federal agencies to get this work, and it is time consuming. that's why we looked at some intermediate steps to increase bed capacity within custom and border protection. but you do have, i believe, additional requests that have been identified from omb that there will be additional resources required in the next year. we continue to work within our authorities and within the budgets we currently have. >> mr. vietello, can you tell us whether or not the border patrol as it's presently staffed can meet this influx of young people coming across the border? >> as is typical, the men and the women of the border patrol have stepped up to this task. i think you heard the secretary describe that we were there on friday. we watched the hard, diligent, heroic work they are doing to make the best of the situation. it's our -- it's my assessment

and what we heard from the leadership on the ground down there, the agents that are involved in this crisis, we are adequately staffed and even better staffed than we were this time last year. so we are concerned as this goes on about staffing levels and our ability to do the other patrol border functions. but the reports that we got on friday, i'm very comfortable that they have the resources that are available and they're using them in an adequate way to protect the border. this isn't a security problem in the sense that this population, both the family units and the children, are not trying to evade apprehension at the border. they're essentially coming in an area that's -- that's well known by us, well patrolled by us. they're not evading arrest. and the other locations along the border were adequately or -- we are better staffed or the

same staffing that we had last year. so there is some risk involved here, but the reports that we heard on friday don't concern me. >> thank you. i yield back. >> chairman recognizes gentleman from new york, mr. king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary johnson, let me thank you for your testimony today. before we get into this issue thank you for what you've done as far as counterterrorism efforts. i want to personally thank you for that. it's greatly appreciated. on this issue, let me get to the question that the chairman is raising regarding deterrence. in your statement you say that you want to emphasize there are no free passes. i understand what you mean by that, but if you're parents in central america, in effect this can look like a free pass. you're making the situation more humanitarian. you're making more facilities available. as mr. fugate said, you're providing support to families. all which is understandable. that's our obligation as human beings. on the other hand, if you're a family in guatemala or el salvador this in a way is a free

pass. it's a better life than they're getting in south america. i don't understand how that's going to restore what's happening. and on the issue of diplomatic engagements, it would appear that as the chairman said the southern border of mexico is the key here. do we have any realistic hope that mexico is going to be cooperative on that? also you mentioned going into the coyotes? what's the time frame on that? as a practical matter we've been trying to do that for years. is there any reason to think the homeland security or doj can expedite that or be more effective? i'm not reflecting on you. i'm just saying we've been doing this for as long as i can remember, going after the coyotes. they're still there. i guess what is the deterrence? because the more you take what is proper humanitarian action, the more you're making it, to me, more accessible and more hospitab hospitable, and it seems to be almost a catch-22. unless we can step up diplomatic

efforts regarding the southern border of mexico. and going after the coyotes. >> well, a couple of things. first, i'm convinced that the principal reason these kids -- from everything i've heard, everything i've seen, and from my own conversations with these kids, the principal reason they're leaving is the push factor from the countries they're living. the conditions in honduras, for example, are horrible. it's the murder capital of the world. there is -- there is this misinformation out there that there is a permissos. that's what we're hear ing. free pass. you get a piece of paper that says, welcome to the united states. you're free. that's not the case. when you're apprehended at the border, irregardless of age, you're a priority for removal. they're giving a notice to appear in a deportation proceeding. the way the law works, the 2008 law, we are required to give

that child to hhs. and hhs is required to act in the best interest of the child, which most often means placing that child with a parent who is here in the united states. but there is a pending deportation proceeding against the child. now, in terms of -- but that's not a free pass. in terms of -- >> but if i were a parent in guatemala, wouldn't i sooee tha as being a free pass? a 5-year-old child getting an order to show up in immigration court, are you going to actually deport that child? to me, it is a free pass. from their perspective. >> congressman, i don't see it as a free pass, particularly given the danger of migrating over 1,000 miles through mexico into the united states. especially now in the months of july and august that we're facing. a lot of these kids stow away on top of freight trains. which is exceedingly dangerous. i spoke to one kid who was about 12 or 13 who spent days, climbed

on top of a freight train. a boxcar. and these kids, sometimes they fall off because they fall asleep. they can't hold on any longer. it's exceedingly dangerous. >> i'm not saying it is a free pass. i'm saying how do we change their minds, not think it's a free pass, considering the poverty we're under. also if i could ask you on that, is the situation any worse in honduras today than it was two years ago or three years ago? any tougher economically or gangwise in these countries than it was several years ago before we had this mass influx? >> i know it's been bad for a while. i know it's been bad for a while. if you're asking me to explain why the influx over the last cup of months all of the sudden -- >> if you could, yeah, sure. >> i'm not sure i have the answer to that question. i do believe that the smuggling organizations are putting out a lot of disinformation about the conditions, the legal conditions here in the united states to induce this activity. and i agree with you, congressman, that we have to put in place, and i think we're doing this, a number of

deterrent factors. increased housing to detain parents, adults who come to this country with their children, expedited removals, and the public relations campaign. and one of the things that i'm doing in addition to everything else we've done on the public relations front is i'm talking to the u.s. conference of catholic bishops about how they can help. and i've had very good conversations. and i think that they will. because they realize that the dangers of a parent sending a child for this type of migration. >> thank you for your service. yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. chair now recognizes the gentle lady from texas, ms. jackson-lee. >> let me thank both the chairman and the ranking member for the spirit of this hearing. and the combined recognition that this is a humanitarian crisis way beyond our

imagination, we might use hindsight, mr. secretary, and look at this and say why did we not see it. i think the variables of the world would argue that the world remains in crisis in many areas, and it makes it very difficult, even when individuals are your neighbors, to be able to spot crises maybe before they begin to show themselves. so i am grateful for the response of the border patrol and the agencies and the president who is recognized that we have come. let me first of all acknowledge that this should not be political grandstanding. and i would commend some of my colleagues to read -- i'll hold up this article that says "why 90,000 children flooding our border is not an immigration story." in a survey of 404 by the united

nations, they found that 58% of these children were forcibly displaced. and to a degree it warranted international protection. meaning that if the united states breached its responsibility, and i know some adhere to the u.n. i do. i respect it as an international organization. we would be breaching many of its conventions that we have adhered to. so we're doing the right thing. i think it's important that i ask unanimous consent to put this in the record. an article dated june 16th, 2014. >> without objection. >> i also want to hold up what we're talking about. we're talking about a little baby holding a bottle. maybe not even carried by his own family. we're talking about children who are not in the taj mahal, but are desperate. and may be internally displaced or chased off by the violence of their countries. and we're trying to respond to it. i think that is very important.

i think it's also important to note that the wilbur force act was signed in 2008 by president bush. this is the one about unaccompanied children that were supposed to be handled by hhs. it was legislation that originated in a judiciary committee. i remember it very well. and the idea was for 20 children or 100 children to be handled by it was not an open door policy. it was never, if you will, amnesty. then i want to put into the record june 15, 2012 statement by i.c.e., accused of being the open-door policies june 15, 2012. come to the united states under the age of 16 and continuously resided in the united states for five years.

what child can imagine that they would fit under daca? it is clearly an issue of devastating human smuggling and human trafficking, something my colleague, my chairwoman mrs. miller, myself have looked at and included this language even in our authorization bills some few weeks ago. so i ask these questions as long as we can keep the facts. it is not an issue of the wilbur force bill. it is a question of detention facilities, as well the need for diplomatic interaction as we've done with the crisis and the leaders of guatemala, el salvador and honduras. they are in crisis. they are violent. i ask you about creating more processing centers, and as well, the senate passed about a 2 billion out of their labor hhs, is this what you need, about $2

billion to $3 billion to make sure we can respond to this? i also ask if someone would address the question, and i thank the border patrol for the work they've done, the suggestions that there have been some form of abuse. i think we should not run away from challenges that have been made regarding the treatment of these children. i think we should be open. we want to make sure they have facilities. i appreciate your response to those questions. >> congresswoman, i will answer quickly and ask my colleagues if they would like to supplement. in general in response to your question, we need to identify and create more processing space, more shelter space for hhs, before they place the kids and more detention space for adults which children. we do not have a lot of detention space for family units. so as a deterrent and simply deal with the sheer numbers, we

need to create more detention space for adults who bring their children. that's one of our principle goals as part of this process. i ask administrator fugate or chief patelo if they have anything they want to add? >> no. >> i would add on the claims of abuse, my chief, the commissioner and secretary have been very direct and we are all focused on that issue. there is no room for abusive detainees in custody, specifically children. will be fully cooperative in all manner getting to the bottom of those allegations. >> i'm glad to hear you say that publicly and openly, we are not running away from it, we are investigating and care about these children and will address this in the way the united states has always done in a humanitarian crisis. >> the lady's time expired. the secretary has to leave 12k:30. i will strictly enforce the five-minute rule. gentleman from alabama mr.

rogers is recognized. >> thank you. do you believe we had control of our border, our southern border? >> he recognized when i took office we had some real issues in the rio grande valley sector, in particular, with those coming from guatemala, el salvador and honduras. >> any areas of the border we had a fence we had children coming across? for example, southern part of california. >> this has not been a big phenomenon in southern california or arizona. >> any place we had a fence, have we had 5-year-old children coming across the border? >> not in very large numbers. it's got a lot to do with the fact south texas is so closely located to central america, too. that's the migration path. >> the rio grande valley, if we had the same fencing we have along the southern border of california, do you believe these children would be coming across the border in numbers they are

coming across or anything close to it? >> it's hard to answer because you are talking about the rio grande river, which is a very -- >> i've been there. i know what i'm talking about. we don't have a fence down there. if we did, we wouldn't have 5-year-old children coming across. this congress in 2006, because i was here. we authorized and appropriated the money for 700 miles of fencing. we've gotten most of that. that was done in 2009. we haven't had any more since then. this is what we get for it. let me ask this. i've been down to the large detention facility. i've seen the folks we detain be debriefed, cleaned up, put on a bus and sent back. why aren't we doing that with these children? >> first of all it's being used as a processing center for the unaccompanied children. they are leaving and going to hhs custody for shelter and then placement. >> why aren't we putting them on a bus like we normally do and sent them back down to guatemala.

>> because the law requires i turn them over to hhs, sir. >> the law required obamacare to be kicked in two years ago. that hasn't stopped the administration before. it's a humanitarian crisis. it's a national security crisis for our country. i don't know why these children are being treated differently. you talked about wanting to talk to the guatemalan government. what you need to do is ask the guatemalan government where they want these kids dropped off when the buses bring them back down there. what are we doing other then taking them and putting them in a facility here which makes it more likely we'll keep them here for months and years. what are we doing to get them turned home? >> we are creating additional detention space for adults who bring their children. i want to consider any option for stemming this tide, sir. the law requires, the law that was created in 2008, requires that we turn these kids over, they're unaccompanied to the

department of health and human services within 72 hours, generally. that's what we do. they are turned over with a notice to appear that is effectively a deportation proceeding commenced against them. the law requires i turn them over to hhs. >> do you believe these are exegent circumstances? >> yes. >> do you believe the president should issue an executive order to deal with this crisis? >> i'm not sure i can comment on that. of what nature? >> to supersede the law. this is not the first time -- >> last time i -- >> i don't know why he can't do it with these children. >> last time i looked an executive order can't supersede the law. >> that's what i thought. right now we have a crisis. i don't see this administration doing anything about it other than trying to house the children. i understand the humanitarian basis for that, but we need to send a signal to these other

countries that it's not going to work. you can't send your children up here and let them stay. we'll turn them right back and give them right back to you. that's what i'm looking for you as a way to do this. that's a clear signal to these parents not to send these children in the future. tell me what you can do other than give them to hhs. nothing. have you called the national guard out? or asked for it? >> like i said, i would like to consider every option presented. i went through in my prepared testimony the 12 or 13 steps we've taken to deal with the crisis, which includes building more detention space. >> the speaker of the house last week called on the president to mobilize the national guard to give relief to the border control and fema in this crisis. why can't you call on the president to do that? >> sir, if you're asking me if i can take an unaccompanied child, turn him around in the border and send him back to guatemala, i don't believe the law would

permit us to do that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> recognizes mr. higgins from new york. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we had an incident in buffalo regarding facilities for undocumented and unaccompanied children in grand island, new york. a local developer offered to gsa a property that the local developer doesn't own and either represented that the property was vacant and developable or federal agents assumed that the property was vacant and unavailable. that offer of property made its way from gsa to hhs, and finally to the department of homeland security where 3-d hs agents showed up at the property unannounced, and upon their arrival, they realized the

property wasn't vacant. wasn't available. and found it to be a 236-room functioning hotel and spa. now, it would seem to me that someone that represents they own a property and knows anything about it and offers that property to the federal government for use under this program, some due diligence would have had to have occurred to verify either the assumptions another to refute the misrepresentations that were made. are you familiar with this? can you offer any -- >> i've been informed that somebody within dhs looked at a hotel in upstate new york, and we were quickly informed that it's an up-and-running,

functioning, occupied hotel. it's not a viable candidate for this situation. >> i think this misses the point. my real concern is that again, a local developer, doesn't own the property, reaches out to a federal agency and makes its way through one, two, three other federal agencies and federal agents show up at the property. it's confirmed then, it could easily have been confirmed through some kind of internet search, google, that the property was not available. it just created a lot of confusion in the local community. >> well, i imagine it's just some investigators being thorough. as i mentioned, that property obviously is not an option to deal with this situation. it's an up-and-running occupied

hotel. >> just seems to me more due diligence could have, should have been exercised here before federal agents were sent unannounced to a functioning hotel and spa facility for the purposes of housing unoccupied children that cross the border. i yield back. >> gentlemen, i'd like to remind the members the purpose of this hearing is to address unaccompanied minors crossing the border. the chair now recognizes dr. brown from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, january 29th of this year, department of homeland security issued document, an ad actually requesting people to apply for a job to accompany these children,

these unaccompanied children to be placed across the country. in that document, it said up to 65,000 kids. back in january of this year, the department already knew these kids were coming. was actually trying to get contractors, independent contractors to come onboard to accompany these kids. at what point did you all have a knowledge that there were going to be up to 65,000 children, unaccompanied children coming into this country? obviously this is before january 29th. >> congressman, i heard about this solicitation. i don't know where this estimate comes from or what it's based on. i can't comment. >> i didn't ask about the document it. asked at what point did the department project that there were going to be 65,000 children coming into this country? >> like i said, i don't know where that estimate comes from. i heard about this document, but i've never seen it.

>> the point is, what have you all done? if january the department understood that there were going to be up to 65,000 unaccompanied children coming to the united states, as a medical doctor, i try to prevent disease. i try to prevent problems with my patients. the administration should be doing the same thing. if you knew that up to 65,000 unaccompanied children were going to be coming to this country, for pete's sake, you should have been doing something about it. i don't see where this administration or department of homeland security has done anything. am i wrong? >> very clearly, since i've been in office, we've known that there is an issue of a rising tide of unaccompanied children coming into this country. i've known that since i've been in office for six months. the issue intensified, i'd say for me at least, in the period april or may.

in april, i asked my staff to develop an overall campaign plan for the southwest border, the rio grande valley in particular to deal with the children and deal with the rising tide of those coming from honduras, guatemala and el salvador, adults and children. i saw this myself when i visited there in january. >> mr. secretary, i apologize for interrupting. i just have about two minutes left and i've got a lot of questions. the point is, nothing has been done for just get ready for these children to come. is that correct? >> i have to disagree. >> i would like to know what you all have been doing to try to stop the flood because i believe the administration policies is what's invited these kids to come here. i understand that these kids are being placed with family members across the country. i have seen some statistics that over 90% of these individuals,

and you just said, that they were begin a notice of peer. 90% have actually absconded and never have been heard from again. how are you tracking, following up with these individuals if they don't show up in court? >> i don't know where the 90% comes from. i do know that through hhs we have a process to track the kids when they move. if they move with their, with the adult whose supervision they're under that hhs places them with, there is a process to track them. i inquired and i'm told -- >> these kids have come here illegally. they've been law breakers already. you place them with families and it's my understanding that some of these families may be illegal themselves, is that correct? >> i'm sure that's true in certain segments, yes. >> what is the department doing to try to deport ordeal with

these families that are illegal in themselves? and then you've got another law breaker in the kid. y'all should be following up. i don't have but just a second or two, but who has given the department of homeland security the directive of not enforcing the law to deport people who are identified who are here illegally? >> i'd have to disagree with that characterization, sir. there are priorities for removal. focused on public safety, national security and border security. and we've prioritized the an enforcement of the law in that manner. >> well, i disagree. it's been very obvious the president has been very public that he said that he's not going to deport these illegal aliens. we don't even deport people who have broken the law and committed felonies. i think this administration is inviting these kids, inviting illegal aliens to come to this

country and wants to give them legal status. i find that intolerable. thank you, mr. chairman. my time expired. >> chair recognizes ms. jackson lee for the purpose of entering statements into the record. >> i ask unanimous consent to submit the american immigration lawyers association statement dated june 24, 2014. statement of the women's refugee commission dated june 24, 2014, and finally, a "the washington post" story, younging my rants stuck in limbo mexican border, children stuck alone in shelter basis june 22, 2014. unanimous consent. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. i would also ask unanimous consent to submit statement from the first focus campaign for children facinging my rant children and families. >> without objection, so ordered. >> mr. secretary, thank you for your testimony so far today. everything you've done so far to address the issue we are

discussing in today's hearing, and i'd like to commend through you your director in el paso for ice, adrian mesias, your assistant director. there have been not accompanied alien children butting my rant families transported from the rio grande valley to el paso. hundreds so far. more plane loads coming in this week. your team on the ground in el paso has been exceptional how they are handling and processing these families and how they are working with social service groups like annunciation house to make sure the children and families and security of our country are protected. thank you for that. i also want to, you and i discussed this privately, but i want to say publically that the border patrol agents, cbp officers on front lines of this crisis are doing an extraordinary job in very difficult circumstances. we hear story after story of

border patrol agents bringing toys from their own homes for these kids who are in incredibly vulnerable, difficult situations. border patrol agents working in cramped conditions. sometimes conditions that i know you are addressing, but border on perhaps unsafe, unsanitary and i know we are quickly changing that. i want to thank all these agents and officers who are on the line facing this issue directly. to follow up on ms. jackson lee's comments, i want to thank you and the office for civil rights and civil liberties for addressing the claims and allegations brought by the aclu and others about mistreatment offing my rant children in custody. we don't know what the facts are. we just know the allegations have been made. you have promised to follow up on that aggressively and get to the facts and address that issue once we have all the facts. i want to thank you for that, as well. mr. chairman, i would like to

address the larger context of this issue brought up by you and your opening remarks about what has created the conditions for this crisis that we have right now. i will acknowledge, i do think that the president's piecemeal administrative approach to this when it comes to the dreamers or through daca might contribute to a perception there are these permicos available in the united states. mr. king's point that given the way these children are processed and begin an order to appear and placed with families in the united states, that may create the perception. there's also the fact congress in the year and half i've been here has been unable to vote on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. i think that contributes to this issue. miss jackson lee brought up the wilbur force act under president bush. all those facts about congress and the administration's ability or inability to deal with

immigration are lost on the families and parents of these unaccompanied children who are sent north. i can only imagine. we celebrated my daughter molly's 6th birthday yesterday. i can only imagine what that must be like to be in a position to put her on a train north through mexico up to the border with united states, not knowing how she will fare, if she will get there, what will happen to her once she arrives. conditions have to be really bad, unimaginably bad, to me, for that to happen. while i agree maybe mexican do more, although i find it ironic so many of us question we have an appropriate border policy that he we would be implementing or imposing one on another country. mexican do more. perhaps we could completely fence the border and build a giant moat with alligators to keep kids and people away. maybe we could put these kids on a bus and drop them off at the border with guatemala. i don't think any of those consistent, one with the law, two with our values, three with

my conscience or the conscience of many of the people in this country. i think which have to address the issues in those countries of origin. we have complicity in this. we are the world's largest drug market. those countries are in between the world's largest drug suppliers and the world's largest drug market. i think your public relations campaign, mr. secretary, to those countries, to tell them this is a dangerous journey is well intentioned. i don't know how effective that's going to be. we need a public relations campaign in the united states. if you use drugs, you are complicit in the dangers these children face. we do have a humanitarian crisis here. there is no easy solution. it certainly won't be solved by walls or border an enforcement. i think we need to go to the countries of origin. with that, mr. chair, i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes miss miller from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. unfortunately the central americas have had a very long history of both bad economies and violence, and both these

things are probably as bad now as they have ever been, but to say that's a reason we suddenly have tens of thousands of children, children almost entirely coming from guatemala, the honduras and el salvador, traveling thousands of miles through mexico illegally entering the united states simply isn't true. i think it can be laid directly at the feet of president obama as a result of his daca policy in 2012. i hope our hearing doesn't judge just point out the problem which is very, very bad, getting worse, no end in sight, but i hope we can coalesce around actual options and solutions. several weeks ago i called on the president to call up the national guard. clearly, this is a national emergency. i don't think individual states like texas or arizona would have to fit the bill if they had their own national guard come up. this is a national problem. a number of members of congress subsequently joined me and i appreciate that in calling up the national guard.

last week both governor rick perry and speaker boehner, as well, asked the president to call up the guard. i also called on the administration several weeks ago, almost a month ago to begin a very aggressive public relations campaign in the centrals telling parents not to put their children in danger by paying mexican drug cartels up to $8,000 a head to smuggle their children into the united states. i'm glad to see that this was actually number 11 on the secretary's list of his action list he testified to today in our hearing. regarding mexico, which is our neighbor and in fact one of our largest trading partners, they are behaving so badly and so dishonorably they are complicit in human smuggling coming up from the centrals. i think we need to take additional steps now to protect america by getting our neighbors' attention. instead of increasing funding, hundreds of millions of dollars as the president called for, i

think we need to stop foreign aid to the centrals immediately. i'm going to give you a couple of examples of what some of our usaid is being used for. developing civil society programs. climate change. addressing the gender gap in education and work force. we would be better off spending this money in thor in cities of america. start with detroit. i would say no more money from america until they step up to their own responsibilities and stop their citizens from illegally migrating to the united states. again, regarding mexico, how can we continue to have free and fair trade with a country that not only takes our money but is actually profiting from these drug cartels from human smuggling of children? it is sickening to watch these children on the top of the train, the beast as they call it, sitting on the top of these trains coming up thousands of miles through mexico and the mexican government is doing

nothing. we need to act decisively, we need to act now. i would say no more financial assistance either from the united states to the centrals that are shipping up their children to mexico, through mexico and to the united states. and i also think in regard to trading with mexico, we need to reopen, reexamine and perhaps repeal both nafta, which is the north american free trade agreement, and i think we need to do the same with cafta, central america free trade agreement. we need to whack them, our neighbors, to understand that they are just not going to keep taking our money and we are just going to be sitting here like this. we are not the atm machine while this humanitarian crisis is happening with these innocent, innocent children. i would just ask the witnesses what you think of these additional options. secretary asked for options. in my opinion, we are not going to enforce our way out of this. we are not going to enforce our way out of this situation.

we need to have some policy change and here are some suggested options. do any of the witnesses have a comment? >> congresswoman, i agree with you that a key to solving this problem is mexico and central america, which is why we, i personally, i'm in dialogue with them. i believe in a number of respects we have a very valuable relationship with the government of mexico. in a number of respects that promotes the economies of our countries and this continent. but i do believe that we have to engage with them on our shared border security interest. i intend to have that conversation with them. our president has had that conversation with their president. we need to stress the situation that exists in south texas as a result of the migration that

passes through their country from central america. we are doing that. and i believe the discussions had been ratcheted up, if you will, over the last several months as a result of the situation we face. i agree with you with respect to that. and with respect to daca, we have to keep reemphasizing as i did in the letter i sent, which i believe was probably read by millions of people by now, at least i hope it was, daca is for kids who have been in this country for seven years. not for somebody who crosses the border today or tomorrow or yesterday. it's for somebody who's been in this country seven years. the smuggling organizations have a motive to distort and to pass out disinformation to encourage parents to pay them $3,000 or $4,000 a person to bring their kid into this country. that's what they're doing. they launched a misinformation campaign, which we have to

correct. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair recognizes ms. sanchez from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, gentlemen, for being before us today. i want to make a couple of comments to some of the things i heard here and i want to ask you questions. first of all, people are slamming mexico because they've got these drug cartels, et cetera. the reality is the demand is coming from the united states. i mean, where are we? why haven't we done something about this demand for drugs? it's a supply and demand issue. people, americans are putting cash on the barrel head to get these drugs. so we can't just look at a country that is transiting drugs or a country sending drugs, what are we doing about the demand here in the united states?

because that's where this money comes from. secondly, i just want to address, and i agree on so many things with miss miller, especially when it comes to borders, but i would have to respectfully disagree on a couple of things i heard from her about not working with central american countries or mexico. first of all, we know this has been proven time after time after time that the education of a mother around the world, the education of a mother is central to the nucleus of the family, stability of the family and the economics of the family. this is a long-term investment we make when we have usaid in so many countries working to educate young ladies because they will be the mothers of the future. and with respect to working with institutions or working with make institutions in countries,

we also do that. if you have a place, a country, and you can't trust the judicial system, you can't think you are going to get a fair shake if you get picked up off the street or if you've got a business saying you can't get a contract enforced, but that's what makes america so great is that we have these incredible institutions. these democratic institutions, by the way you guys, and these judicial institutions we work on every day to make great america and we try to put that and help other countries to do. i think these types of things we are working on in other countries are incredibly important to give hope to people who live in those countries and to have them have an ability to stay in those countries and not leave them and come up to an america that we know right now when we see the border is being

taxed. i would like to ask you about this whole issue because some have said that gang members or individuals with criminal records are the ones that are accompanying these children who are coming up and being apprehended. my first question is, how does the border patrol screen these individuals for these issues? and what are your findings so far? >> each of the individuals who are arrested are interviewed by law enforcement professionals. so their observations plus the biometric capture of their fingerprints are checked against the data basis of the holdings of the united states government. everybody over 14 gets all ten fingerprints taken sent against the ncis data base to check against their prior criminal record from the united states. we have reports where this is probably the most acute reports

of people who are recognized as being gang members as part of the population that's under 17. >> my last question because i'm running out of time. given the influx of these unaccompanied minors coming into the country, mostly across the texan border, you are putting border patrol there. where are these personnel and resources coming from to handle this influx? what about the other areas if you are pulling them from other areas, what are we seeing happen there? >> we looked carefully and taken a handful of folks from along the southwest border from areas that are not as active as what we are seeing in the rtv. those people are dedicated for more boots on the ground for the border patrol function and to gather intelligence to find leads for investigative follow-up to hand over to i.c.e. to attack the networks that are responsible for the alien smuggling in that area.

>> my time is up and i thank you. i'll submit the rest of my questions for the record. thank you. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. meehan. >> mr. secretary, i'm very grateful for your leadership of this agency at this particularly difficult time. you know my respect for you. i do respectfully disagree with you on this issue with regard to the deferred action on child arrivals. i've been, as you know, a prosecutor and we've been fighting violence and drugs for the last decade or more. the one changed factor has been the new permissive policy of this administration on deferred action for child arrivals. i also want to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues both here and on the other side. i hope every college kid who is sitting here with their visions of the important world they're playing with social activism and looking at investments for

colleges or global warming will appreciate that when they're sitting in their dorm smoking dope purchased from these drug gangs, this is the implication, and maybe there is a little time for social activism there, too. regardless, let me ask you a question about your apprehending children at the boarder with adults and you are going to hold them and send them back, and i appreciate that policy. let me understand what's the distinction if you take an adult with their children who arguably are more responsible because they're with their children. and yet if the child comes without their adult, we're going to take the child at the border and reunify with an adult who is probably here not under legal status. so what's the difference? why aren't we obtaining this child, reunifying and returning

both of them? >> if an adult is apprehended at the border and brought their children with them, they are priority for removal. we are guilding additional space to hold them so they can be returned quickly. we need to do that. i believe that is important to do. >> but what it's difference? >> the difference is if you are talking about reuniting a child with a parent who is in the interior, first of all, the law requires that if it's in the best interest of the child to do that, we will do that. there is a deportation proceeding pending against the child at that point. with respect to the parent, if the parent is a convicted criminal, has a criminal record or is in some respect a priority for removal under our existing policies, then they should be removed. >> with all due respect, what percentage right now of children are appearing for these

hearings? >> i do know that unaccompanied children in removal proceedings are, in fact, removed. >> what percentage once reunited are returning for these status hearings? >> i don't have that percentage. i know -- >> probably not very high. >> i don't have the number offhand. >> that is something we should know if this is so fundamental to the policy. i don't know the answer, but want to be very honest with the american people. this idea somehow we are going to institute legal proceedings and take -- we've got 65,000 children that have come over the line. now, you know and i know, when suppose we go through a legal process and find that that child has, is now subject to judicial order for return, you know and i know when i was a prosecutor, it

took two agents to accompany that child back to his country. we used to fly an individual back. 65,000 children. how are we going to return them? >> congressman, i'll say two things. first of all, we are talking about children as young as 5 and 7 years old. this is a humanitarian issue. >> i know that. >> so when you're talking about somebody who is desperate to be reunited with her mother or her father in the united states, i think as americans, we need to be careful about how we treat these kids. >> my time -- we all get it. this is what's so difficult about this. we are dealing with children and we get it, but we ought not be leaving the american people with the false impression that somehow the system is going to work and is actually going to lead to removals. once those children are here, they're staying here. >> the other point i make, if i

could, is that we have to stay focused through this situation on public safety, national security and border security. so there are a number of people who are in this country who still need to be removed, to whom we need to continue to apply resources. i've got to keep my eye on that ball, as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. svehla from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by respectfully disagreeing with my colleague from michigan with trade with mexico. the total trade volume between the trade of michigan and mexico is $52 million. michigan exports $12 billion in products to mexico. and 175,000 jobs in michigan depend upon trade with mexico. over the past few weeks, as i've

tried to wrap my arms around this situation, as you have, what it's boiled down to, in my view, is i view it as three separate crisis. we have the crisis in central america. tomorrow the house committee on foreign affairs will be addressing that. we know that the white house has initiated a response in that regard, so we'll save that for another day. the second crisis i see is a logistical crisis with respect to this sudden influx. you've addressed well the detention aspect of that. one thing i am wondering about from the ajudd kative standpoint, what do we need to

do to make our ajuktive process more efficient? >> we are searching i.c.e. and doj resources into the region to deal with removal proceedings, to deal with asylum claims. we need more lawyers and judges down there and more teleconference to expedite the run of the mill removal proceeding, which i'm sure you know can take a long time. we have resources all around the country we think we can devote to this so that everybody is doing a fair share of the work here. we would like to see the process move more expeditiously when it involves removal of asylum

claims. we have a plan to do that. >> is the administration request in terms of dollars, does it include this part of the process? >> i believe it does. >> the third crisis i see and i have some figures here that suggest that in the last fiscal cycle, that 85% of the unaccompanied children that were being detained were being reunited with family. do you know if that is an accurate reflection of what we are seeing to date in this fiscal cycle? >> i know that just over 50% of those unaccompanied children that hhs is placing is placing with a parent. i've seen the number 85% to suggest that 85% are being placed with a family member, but i don't know that to be -- i've seen it, but i don't know that to be accurate. i've seen it in various places. >> that sounds like the

statistics i looked at in terms of the last fiscal cycle. my point, i suppose, is that's the third crisis i see which is addressing immigration reform crisis. in my view, those parents and those family members of these children are being reunited with are the people working in our hotels and our restaurants and our construction sites. it's certainly something we need to address very quickly. just yesterday in texas, local leaders met and they did address one thing that we are seeing in terms of the 72-hour detention. some of the folks have been taken to buses so they can be sent to the other facilities. but the numbers are so overwhelming that the bus stations are closing because there's not enough buses. some of the local nonprofits are having to take care of some of those families. my question is, what federal

grant programs are there that we can tap into on an urgent basis so these nonprofits working alongside cbp and dhs down there can work with? >> i know we had a terrific volunteer effort. i know the red cross has really stepped up as well as a number of texas-based volunteer organizations have done a heroic job. in terms of grant making, i'd have to take a closer look at that to see what might be available. perhaps administrator fugate has thoughts. we can look at that. >> we can work with your office on those few points. i want to thank you, mr. vitiello and agents at border customs and patrol. i have witnessed first hand on plane rides up to the capital brownsville your agents caring

for these unaccompanied minors. i know how hard they are working. i want to thank you and your agency on behalf of all the people that i represent. >> thank you, sir. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me say for the record thank you, gentlemen, for your service for our country. secretary johnson, i'm a big fan. i think you are the right man at the right time in this job. you have an immense challenge ahead of you. all the different hats you have to wear to protect our country. we are in a crisis situation in this country. if my comments show frustration, let me toll you i am frustrated. i'm frustrated by the crisis on the border. last night we saw the irs commissioner continue to obstruct congress' investigation into irs' targeting of conservative groups by a crashed hard drive and lost e-mails. i'm frustrated that brian kerry's death hadn't been vindicated through the fast and furious investigation. i'm frustrated when we receive

the release of terrorists from guantanamo bay and not informing congress. a lot of lawlessness in this country. i think about and i'm reminded of john adams who, regardless of the mood in boston, defended the british soldiers in the boston massacre. regardless of how we feel about immigration reform in this country, how can we sit by and watch our country's national sovereignty, my country's national sovereignty violated over and over and over on our southern border? not just this situation with children, but for a long time we've seen an increase in illegal immigrants coming into this country. we are calling the guatemalans and el salvadorans. i'm concern about middle eastern, asians and africans coming to this country, not to take the job, not so they can have a better life, but possibly do harm to this great nation. that is a concern.

if children can come across because agents are changing diapers or doing other things other than securing the border, i'm sure that elements that want to do harm to this country can exploit our southern border also. let the record show since 2006, there's been an increase of over 9,000 cbp agents in this country, since 2006 and now. over 9,000 more agents to secure our border and our border is less secure today, i think, than it ever has been. i want to read a portion of a late draft memo from deputy chief vitiello. the large quantity of dhs interdiction intelligence investigation processing detention removal of resources currently dedicated to address unaccompanied alien children is compromising dhs capabilities to address other transport or criminal areas such as human 134ugling, trafficking, drugs, weapons, commercial and financial operations. if the u.s. government fails to

deliver adequate consequences to deter aliens from attempting to illegally enter the u.s., there will be a greater increase in the rate of resit it very many. for facilitating human smuggling as a direct member of illicit alien smuggling organization or private facilitator. these consequences must be delivered at the border and within the interior the united states, ag through expand i.c.e. homeland investigations to target individuals facilitating unaccompanied alien children, family unit traveling to the united states. i agree with those words completely. this administration's mishandling of this situation encourages more lawlessness, encourages more folks to come here. if you talk about utilizing the resource of the united states, everything at your disposal, we heard the national guards will be called out. article 4 section 4 guarantees every state that joins this

union protection against this, protection against this, article 4, section 4, look it up. every resource. how about voice of america? are we directing a spanish-speaking voice of america into central america saying you cannot come into this country illegally? you will not get citizenship? in fact, you are going to be deported back to your home country. that is a resource we can use are we doing that? maybe we are, but we should. just like we should have national guard on the border. mr. secretary, you mention in your statement that we should do everything consistent with the laws and values of this country. we have laws on the books. the 2006 secure fence act, we've got a very porous southern border. we don't have a defense act. if you enter this country illegally, you will be deported. you cannot enter this country illegally. are we enforcing that? we seem to be looking the other way. are you willing to say if you

enter the united states illegally of any age you will be deported back to your home country? >> congressman, as you well know, we have to prioritize removals in accordance with the resources congress gives us. i have a finite amount of an enforcement resources, border security resources. so for the sake of homeland security, what we need to do is go after the worst of the worst first, which is what i believe we are doing. i think we could do a more effective job of that. i believe that we need to prioritize and go after those who represent threats to public safety. >> we increased your officers almost 9,000. >> yes, we have. >> and i'm sure deputy chief definitely thanks you for that. i support it, too. in terms of your question about border security, let me say this. i continually inquire in this current situation, are we taking our eye offer the ball?

i want to know in the rgv sector, in particular, that our border patrol agents are focused on border security as well as dealing with the volume of the kids that are coming in. over the last 1 1/2 months or so, we surged a lot of resources into that part of the country. fema, hhs and others, coast guard's down there to support cbp in their effort. as recently as i think yesterday, the chief and the deputy chief and i discussed this. i'll let the deputy chief answer for himself, but i believe it's the case that our border patrol agents on the border are on the job, they continue to do their job. >> mr. secretary, i'm out of time. whatever the chair will allow, let the record reflect that the president asked for additional $1.4 billion to assist this effort and we are $18 trillion in debt. with that, if the deputy secretary would like to answer and you'll allow that.

>> yes. >> just to reiterate, we've been surging the resources that the border patrol has, cbp, the department into rgp the last several years. so they are better resourced now than they were last year. this particular issue is a challenge for us. in fact, there are more people focused on moving the flow and booking in and processing both allenes and adult family units and adult males, all the people that come across. they are better resourced than they have been previously. >> thank you for that. for the record, i would like to include the article that has his memo. >> without objection, so ordered. chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. secretary, thank you for your attention and your agency's hard work on this crisis. i just want to go through a few questions. first, would you agree, mr. secretary, that we have a broken immigration system in the united

states? >> yes. >> would you agree that because we have a broken immigration system, because there is great uncertainty about our immigration system that in this chaos, this crisis with unaccompanied minor children has occurred? 2. >> i wouldn't put it that way but i believe uncertainty in the law and uncertainty that i believe the smuggling organizations are creating is a reason for the recent influx. >> mr. secretary, you would agree that this crisis and the attention your border patrol agents has had to give to these children has diverted away from their attention to securing the rest of our southern border? >> as i mentioned a moment ago, that is an issue that i'm constantly focused on to make sure that doesn't happen. as i think the deputy chief's comments reflect, we've surged a lot of resources into the rio

grande valley sector to make sure that everybody remains focused on their job in addition to dealing with the recent increase to processes people through the system, as well as maintaining our presence on the border. i believe we are continuing to do that. >> miss miller, my colleague from michigan, placed this crisis and its blame squarely at the feet of president obama's daca program, the deferred action program. that was implemented in 2012, is that correct? >> daca was implemented june 2012. >> here we are where the peak levels of unaccompanied children migration is occurring in 2014, is that right? >> yes. daca is intended for kids who came into this country seven or more years ago. >> if miss miller is indeed right this is squarely the

president's fault because of daca, wouldn't you have expected to see these peak levels of children coming across the border perhaps 2012 or 2013 rather than now? i guess i'm asking, is it fair to solely place this on daca or is this something much more complex? >> let me be clear. i believe first and foremost, and i believe most people believe first and foremost, from everything i heard, everything i've seen and my own conversations with these children, that the principal reason they are leaving their countries is the conditions in those countries. they are really bad. it has to be really bad for a parent to want to part company with his or her own 7-year-old. that is the principal reason we are seeing this. i do also believe that the smuggling organizations are creating a misinformation campaign about the legal

situation in this country. it's in their interest to create that misinformation. and i believe they are. i believe, therefore, it's imperative for us to correct the record about what is available and what is not to somebody who crosses the border. >> mr. secretary, you would agree there are some short-term and long-term solutions to what we can do? >> yes. >> a short-term would be something you've already done, writing an open letter to the parents of children crossing our southwest boarder to dispel the myths about what it means to come here, and the dangers that the children will go through in their path. >> if there were -- if this administration's policies were the principal reason they are coming here, would you see kids from a whole bunch of other countries, too. >> would you agree another short-term solution would be working as the president and vice president have been doing so, to work with mexico and guatemala on that much smaller border between mexico and guatemala, in addition to working on our much more vast boarder? >> yes. >> mr. secretary, would you

agree that a long-term solution would be putting certainty in our immigration policy so that there are not misconceptions as to what it means to children anywhere across the world? >> yes. >> thank you, mr. secretary. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> chair recognizes mr. palazzo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do believe daca and our failure of enforcing our immigration laws are the cause of this. the number of unaccompanied children has grown since 2012. last year it was a record of 5,000, now we have 65,000. i don't blame just the president for not enforcing our immigration laws. i know many do. it's not just that. it's even members of congress.

talking about a pathway to amnesty lays out the welcome mat for people around the world that want to come into the united states illegally, why our borders are not secured. it's irresponsible to talk about what we'll do before we can stop the flow into the country. this is not a surprise what has happened. it's everyone. we need to secure our borders and make sure people cannot get into the country illegally. we need to make sure people can overstay their visas. if i can get a quick answer. my constituents are frequently on flood alert. we prepare for emergencies, invest in mitigation, we are still dealing with the aftermaths of sandy, irene and lee. the president's smart budget request did not ask for additional funding to pay for this crisis at the border. we know we knew about it as far back as january. here is my question. how can you guarantee me and my constituents that the money to address the crisis at the border

won't come from the same pots that helped pennsylvanians back home deal with floods by putting fema in charge, you've kind of signalled a disaster declaration is coming. i'm concerned that our flood disaster funding will be constantly drained by the situation. if you can quickly answer that. >> well, i can assure you, congressman, that if your constituents or anybody else faces a major disaster, we will support a response. >> but is it coming out of those same pots of money? are we draining the money that will be used for flood disasters by using fema? is it coming out of that same pot? >> fema's coordinated role doesn't mean that fema is undertaking to support all these agencies. all these agencies are paying for this out of their own -- >> i'm just worried about where the money is coming from. does that mean that pot get drained a little more?

quickly. >> congressman, the funds being used for this were already funds expended under current authority to deal with these issues. funding that's being directed is done through inner agency agreements. money is not coming out of drf to pay for those functions, which are primarily funded by congress. >> if i could go back to the -- you know, if it's not our lack of enforcing immigration laws, then why don't they stop somewhere in mexico? why come all the way to the united states? why put these children a thousand miles and risk their lives to get to the united states? there's nowhere in mexico that is better than honduras or guatemala? i don't buy that. i don't think the american people do either. department of homeland security was created to stop bad things from happening before they happen. here's a copy of the ad that dhs put out in january 29th. in fact, we wanted an answer from the contractors by february

19th. it said there will be approximately 65,000 children in total. my question is, who knew that there was going to be 65,000? the largest amount that ever came was 5,000. somewhere we pull out this number of 65,000. it happens to be correct. why was the administration surprised? why are we acting surprised now if in january we expected this to happen? and why weren't we prepared if we expected 65,000? why didn't we do anything to stop this in advance? you talked in your testimony that the president talked to the president of mexico last week and vice president biden just recently -- why then if back in january 29th we anticipated this happening? >> first of all, i don't know where thatte estimate comes fro. >> it's in dhs' ad. >> i don't know where the estimate comes from. i don't know who created the 65,000 estimate. in all likelihood, we'll probably exceed that at the rate

we're going. we've known this has been a problem since i took office six months ago. i've been hearing about this issue going back to my confirmation hearing. so -- and we've known we've had a problem in the rio grande valley sector, which is why in april i asked my staff to create a campaign plan for the rio grande valley sector in particular for the southwest border to bring to bear all the resources of dhs on this issue. we've known we've had an issue with third-country nationals, children and adults. i issued the campaign plan in early may. the numbers very clearly have spiked more recently in april, may, which has required us to bring to bear the resources of the entire federal government. >> but we shouldn't be surprised because we saw it coming as far back as january. somebody did in dhs. i'd like to know who it is, if you could find out. >> i'm not disagreeing with you.

>> but it went from 5,000 to 65,000. something happened. when the largest amount that ever came of unaccompanied children was 5,000, which was last year, something happened that 65,000 showed up and somebody knew about it. and surprise? >> i think it was more like 38,000 last year. >> well, from 5,000 to 38 to 65. >> no, sir. you want to somehow put it on the doorstep of d.a. can. i keep saying that -- >> no, no, no. i'm blaming congress as well. and our lack of immigration enforcement. there's nothing wrong with our immigration laws. we just don't enforce them. we've released 36,000 criminal aliens backn to the streets. 160 of them committed murder. if we could release people who have committed murder, i'm sure it has something to do with it. thank you. >> gentleman's time is expired. mr. richmond from louisiana.

>> thank you, mr. secretary, for coming today. let me just go back to some basic questions. i've heard today a number of times that we should send the kids back. do many of the kids actually not make it and die along the long route to make it to our border? >> the route is definitely treacherous. i can't tell you with any degree of certainty who doesn't make it because i'm just not in a position to know that. i have heard in a number of different places that these kids are exploited by the smuggling organizations. they travel over a thousand miles up the coast of mexico on trains and trucks. it's getting hot. it's exceedingly dangerous. >> and what happens to them if we just turn them around? >> well, if we just turn them around, they just go back to the

conditions that they were motivated to leave from. >> if they make it back. if they make the long journey back. besides the humanitarian reasons and reasons of conscience and our morals, the william act would keep you from turning them around, wouldn't it? >> well, the 2008 law is not in con flukt with commencing a deportation proceeding against the child. it's my understanding that the law would not permit an expedited removal of an unaccompanied child. that's my understanding of the law. we do expedited removals. let's say a mexican crosses the border. they're apprehended by one of the chief's border patrol agents. we can do an expedited removal of the mexican right back into the country of mexico. we can do expedited removals of adults into central america

where there's no immigration judge involved. but in terms of an expedited removal for an unaccompanied child, my understanding of the law is that's not available. >> and as much as you heard today that we should just either turn them around or expeditiously remove them, do you know of any legislation introduced that someone put their name on to repeal the william force act? >> not to my knowledge. >> we also talked a little bit about -- and i heard you mention a little bit about mexico and the fact that you have -- the vice president has met and the president has had telephone conversations. has the government of mexico started taking any steps, any affirmative steps to help us with this issue? >> we have over the last several years been in discussions with them about our shared border security interest, and we've increased that engagement in light of this current situation.

and i believe we'll continue to have productive conversations. >> well, specifically on this issue and the fact you just mentioned we're looking at probably over 60,000 unaccompanied minors this year, have they taken any steps to help us with this issue right now, besides just conversations? >> i'm sure they will help us with the public affairs campaign. excuse me. and we will continue our discussions about our shared border security interest. i've had those discussions beginning in february, and i believe they'll be productive. >> mr. chairman, and i know the secretary has to leave, so i'll yield back so my colleagues can ask some questions. >> thank you for that. to get through all the members in the time we have, i am going to strictly enforce a five-minute rule. mr. perry from pennsylvania. >> thanks, mr. chairman. and if it hasn't already been

done, i'd like to submit a copy of the advertisement that's been referenced. i would also like to just reject categorically any claims made by members of this committee that somehow america or american citizens are at fault for this crisis, this situation on the border. with that having been said, gentlemen, thank you very much for your service in these difficult times. we're very appreciative. i would like to turn to mr. vitello. is that correct? thank you, sir. how long have criminals been smuggling people across the bord border, to your knowledge? >> my entire career, 29 years. >> so at least 29 years. and have smugglers lied to people south of the border that might be interested in seeking to cross the border about the conditions or what they might encounter or their status when they come here? have smugglers lied to people in the past?

>> that is the experience of the border patrol. >> so in your opinion, in your estimation, what has changed recently in the last two or three years that has fostered this immense increase in traffic, especially of people that are young? 17 and below coming -- what has changed? and are there any metrics at all you know of to support the claim you might make shortly? >> i think lots of things have changed. i think the -- i mean, we've talked about all of the push factors. i've seen these reports. people are fleeing, you know, difficult conditions. they're reuniting with family in the united states. they're fleeing economic uncertainty and failed governments, both locally and nationally. >> so the conditions that you're talking about, the crime, the uncertain conditions, the poor conditions economically, what has changed dramatically? because would you admit that the numbers have increased dramatically? >> no doubt about that. >> is there a corresponding increase dramatically in

poorness of conditions in these countries south of the border to correlate? >> i just don't know. i think it's been a while that those conditions have existed. >> yeah, it's been a while, right? my concern is there's some narrative here that seems to be perpetrated among the american citizens that somehow things have exponentially decreased south of the border and that's counterpart to this exodus south of the border into the united states. that's what's causing it. i'm not sure it's true. you don't know at this time of any metric that would support that. >> not metrics. >> so do you think there's any difference in our policy? and i would agree with the remarx of mr. barletta that a congress that has implied that wholesale amnesty might be in order if you make it across the border. but are there any other policies from the administration or otherwise that might be contributing to this circumstance currently on the border? >> i think that we're addressing in the broad spectrum all of the things that i believe will help

make this better. >> i understand. but is there any particular policy that might be -- you know, whatever the numbers are. 5,000 to 38,000 to 68,000. is there anything you can think of that supports it? >> i'm not sure i'd categorize it as policy. we've struggled not to have a sufficient level of, in this case, detention for people who bring their children across the border. as it relates to the unaccompanied children, the law dictates how they're processed, both in the initial for book in and deportation proceedings, and then turning over to -- >> i understand that, but what's changed to drive so many to come recently? what's changed? >> i'm not sure. >> okay. i'm not sure. and i'm not sure either, but i think our policy has changed. the public perception that you can come here and stay has changed. >> i've seen those reports. those are reflected in the intelligence we've collected. it's in the -- >> it's not reflected? >> no, it is reflected.

in the open source reports. >> so has human trafficking also gone up as a result of these increased numbers? >> i'm not sure it's gone up. i think these populations have gone -- have increased, which leads me to believe that smuggling has increased as well. >> all right. mr. secretary, i have to move on. i appreciate your answers. regarding the 29 january advertisement for escort services, i understand you were on the job for about a month. so you're somewhat unaware. do you know what drove that policy decision? do you have any idea? to advertise. >> i haven't seen the document. >> i'm going to provide it and have it -- >> i believe it's an improvement document. >> plthere's a couple points of contact. if you could in writing respond to me about what the policy decisions were that drove the advertisement. and do you know if this is unprecedented? have we advertised for these escorts in the past? and if not, why not? and if now, why now? >> i'd have to see the --

>> all right. i yield back, but i would like those answers in writing. can i get a commitment to get them? >> i always believe in being responsive to congress. >> thank you. >> chair recognizes gentle lady from new york, ms. clark. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank mr. secretary, mr. vitiello for your testimony here today. it's been very enlightening. i want to thank you for your thoughtful approach to really handling a multifaceted, multidimensional, very complex crisis. there are a lot of moving parts here. and it's clearly something that we have to work with in terms of a work in progress. i was glad to hear about the diplomatic component to what you're doing in terms of reaching out to el salvador, honduras, guatemala.

my question is a logistical one, similar to the one mr. vella raised. what exactly do you anticipate in terms of the logistical challenge of reuniting children who don't have any relatives in the united states? how do we work with embassies, consulates to reunite children from various countries with their parents back home? and how do we identify that? have you given thought to that as of yet? >> well, once the child's identified as an unaccompanied child, the law requires dhs turn the child over to hhs. so your question really goes to hhs. >> okay. >> and their process, which i'm not fully equipped to answer. but they have a process of identifying a family member and acting in the best interest of the child. >> very well. i just wanted to get a sense

because i can imagine it's a daunting task. i did want to comment for the basis of this hearing that i find it very troubling that we would want to move a military operation such as the national guard to our borders to address unaccompanied minors. and i just want to put that on the record because we can't say it's a humanitarian crisis on the one hand. and i think just about every colleague has acknowledged that. and then want to put arms on the border to meet children who are fleeing clearly an untenable situation in their homelands. do you have a sense of the average amount of children coming in daily and which nations, what percentage are

coming from what nations? >> in the rio grande valley sector, where almost all of this is occurring, we're encountering about -- the number varies, but we're encountering lately about 350 a day. >> and do you have a sense -- are they -- i mean, do you get a sense that they're being -- for instance, if they're being smuggled, are they children from varying countries, or are they typically grouped by country? >> honduras, guatemala, el salvador. >> so you could conceivably run into children traveling together but from different countries? >> i'm not sure about that. i'm not sure about the -- how they configure themselves in these groups. i do know that something like three-quarters of them are from honduras, el salvador, guatemala. >> i'd be interesting, mr. secretary, if we could drill

down at some point to get a better sense of which countries seem to have a larger percentage of children coming in. if, mr. vitiello, if you could get a sense of, are these children meeting in the desert? are they meeting on railway cars? because at least what we're seeing from the press is that the children tend to gravitate and come across together, so you're not seeing individual kids necessarily but children traveling together. >> they're very clearly coming in groups. they're herded, shepherded by a civilian guide at various points along the journey. that's part of the smuggling organization. and it starts at the point of origin in central america and goes through mexico. so they're clearly traveling in groups. they're not traveling alone. and the numbers are roughly equivalent among the three countries.

honduras might be slightly larger than the other two, but they're roughly equivalent. >> very well. i yield back, mr. chairman. i thank you once again. >> mr. plaza is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as an active member of the national guard, i see first hand the importance of the national guard supporting our armed forces to protect our country. as guard members return from overseas, many of them stand ready and willing for their next mission. as many of my colleagues have pointed out today, the national guard can play a pivotal role in securing america's borders. we've seen successful guard missions in the past with operations jump start, phoenix, and nimbus. last year i called on the department to use the national guard to help secure the border. in may 2013, i offered an amendment in this committee to the border security results act, which would ensure that dhs considers lessons learned from past national guard missions on the border. both the current and previous administrations have used the national guard on more of a short-term ad hoc basis rather than on any long-term, strategic

plan. secretary johnson, wouldn't it be beneficial for the department to partner with the national guard and develop a long-term strategy for the guard to assist along the borders? and wouldn't it be the borders would be more secure if we had a well-planned, budgeted strategy that consistently used the guard members rather than just using them sporadically? >> congressman, first of all, i want to consider every option to deal with this circumstance. i take no lawful option off the table. as i'm sure you know, the guard has limitations, including -- a guard can't be involved directly in law enforcement. there are some exceptions to that. and the department of defense obviously has a lot to say about this too. it's their resource. it comes out of their budget. there are a lot of demands on the guard, particularly in this season. we're dealing with hurricane

season. there may be different crises they respond to. but i've heard the calls from some that we put the guard on the border. i'd want to understand better what the options are for the use of the guard depending on the direction of this situation talks. but i don't take any option off the table. but there are definitely some limitations on the use of the guard in this respect, i think, and we have to be mindful of those. >> mr. vitiello, you've been with the border protection for a while. were you a part of any of these guard missions in the past? can you comment on whether there's pros and cons? >> so, yes, we've had a great relationship over the years with the national guard and operation jump start and the ongoing operation fay lynx now in which we use national guard resources to do things like surveillance

and sensor monitoring for us. it's not without its challenges. we were blessed to have the guard when we were building the new 6,000 agents. it gave us a bridge to more capability on the ground. we learned from them and the resources that we're reusing from d.o.d. as they come back from theater and are pressed into service for border security. so we've learned a lot from them in all manner with regard to plans, strategic deployment, et cetera. but having the guard on the border has some limitations. this work is best done by law enforcement agents, in my opinion. learning from the guard, there are some things that they can do. i think the secretary is right to keep our options open. but as it relates to this particular problem, where it's most acute in the rio grande valley, it's not a challenge to arrest people who come as children or families with children. the other zones along the southwest border and in south texas are well patrolled and are either better equipped than they were last year or just as well equipped as they were last year.

>> all right. well, i think originally when i -- last year it was suggesting the amendment was to ask dhs to study the lessons learned. it was to look at it. don't take any option off the table. but with the guards basically sustaining combat missions, humanitarian missions the past 12 years, they've proven they can multitask and do numerous things. i still believe it's much more cost effective and efficient to surge the guard to the border, get the operational control, and work them into your plan. they're going to train somewhere every year. and you could rotate them in, rotate them out. fix the issues, figure out what they could do. to congressman clarke's issue, we don't want kids walking across the border and being met with guns. but there's probably other agencies, nonprofit or federal groups, that could be out there. but our borders are dangerous. people are -- we don't have

control over our borders. we don't know what's coming across. but we do know there's drug cartels, gun running, there's drugs. that would be another mission. it could be an escort mission. it could be a rove and patrol. it could be communications. it could be providing the necessary assistance. because i don't think it would be wise to expand the full-time employees of the border protection agency. i don't think the american people want to see more federal law enforcement agencies when they have this tool, this cost-effective tool at its fingertips. i just want to urge, mr. secretary, to really consider this. i know every member of the national guard that i serve with would love the opportunity to secure our borders. the american people want to know that our borders are secured and that we're safe and sound. so thank you for being here today. >> chair now recognized mr. barber from arizona. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for convening this hearing on this very important issue, this crisis that we're facing on our

borders, particularly in texas and arizona. thank you, mr. secretary, and the other witnesses for being with us this morning. my state is directly affected by the influx of these children from central america. we have the border patrol station in my neighboring district, but nevertheless, the impact is felt throughout southern arizona. i share the concern of many of my colleagues. virtually all of us have either young children or grandchildren, and we can imagine what it must be like for these children to be in a strange environment without their family members. and i just want to say that i've seen what our border patrol agents are doing, and they're doing a noble job trying to keep up with a very difficult situation. the cartels are exploiting the situation in many ways. i want to get to a question about that in a moment. i'm very concerned about the influx and what implications it

has, mr. tesecretary, for the security of the border. i represent one of nine border districts, 83 miles of border. the people i represent, particularly those who live and work along the border, are concerned about their safety. the concern they've expressed to me is as border patrol agents have been pulled into the nogalis station in particular to care for these children, we've compromised their ability to secure the border and keep people safe. right now we have about 1200 kids, i believe, at the nogalis community. they've been moved from the border patrol station into a warehouse where they're trying to accommodate the need. and we've estimated that maybe 60,000 unaccompanied minors will be coming and be apprehended this year. as i said before, the border patrol agents, many of whom have family members that have children, have been bringing in books, have been bringing in toys, bringing in diapers, caring for these children. clearly this is not their job,

but this is what they're doing. first of all, how many unaccompanied minors are still in cvb custody as we speak? and how many of them are in custody in the tucson sector? let me start with that question and i'll move on to two others. >> well, first of all, i'm going to nogalis tomorrow to inspect the situation there. and one of the things i'll be asking is the question you asked. are we having to divert border patrol personnel from their border patrol duties? it's very important to me that we minimize the circumstances of that. the capacity at nogalis, i think, is about 1200. it's near capacity with unaccompanied children. we were at one point sending family units there. we're not.

we're just sending the unaccompanied children there. from that point, they go to hhs custody. overall, children apprehended in the rio grande valley sector that are in custody right now, i don't have the number offhand. it's probably -- i don't have the number offhand. i wouldn't want to hazard to guess, but i can get that to you. >> very good. i appreciate the fact you're going to be asking about the impact that the agents being asked to come to nogalis to staff up for these children, what effect that's having on border security. i've been in touch with people who live and work along the border, ranchers and, in fact, heard from some agents about the fact they've been pulled off shifts, that we have less agents on the ground that are helping to secure the border. so mr. secretary, if you could get back to us with some information about how many have been pulled and what the impact is. and let me just close with this one question. it's a common question. i've been particularly discouraged by the fact that

virtually nobody in arizona knew that these children were coming. i found out about it through the newspaper, the local sheriff found out about it the same way. even the sector chief found out about it as the children were arriving. what steps is the department taking to make sure that if we have any additional transfers like this, that local authorities and officials are properly notified? >> well, first of all, it shouldn't have happened that way. the congressional delegation, local officials should have gotten notice that this situation necessitated that we extend our processing to nogalis. i've instructed my staff that when we have to go to these places, we give the congressional delegation and local officials advance information about that. >> thank you, mr. secretary. and thank you for what you're doing to keep up with this terrible situation. and i particularly want to thank

our border patrol agents for what they're doing every day. i yield back. >> chair recognizes ms. brooks from indiana. >> thank you. and thank you again, mr. chairman, for holding this very important hearing. thank you all for your service. my question i want to follow up on the smuggling questions and actually to chief vitiello. could you please talk with us a little bit about additional resources that are being provided to you all to prosecute the smugglers, and has there been an increase in prosecutions of smugglers in the last six months? >> i would have to get back to you for specifics on prosecution cases in the last six months, but we have surged our own resources to develop leads for case work to understand what we know or what we can know more about alien smuggling networks. i.c.e. has also surged resources at this problem for the same purpose, for them to increase their level of case work looking

at smuggling networks and just to the point as it relates to border patrol resources, the nogales placement center is being conducted on agent overtime. we've added overtime in all of the locations that have helped us process folks, whether it be nogales or el paso and certainly in the rio grande valley. >> so smuggling operations have been going on for years and years. this is in the new. i'm a former u.s. attorney in the bush administration. we did smuggling cases. but this is unprecedented levels is what it seems, obviously with children. what are the smuggling operations? what is your intelligence telling you? what kind of groups? is it ms-13? is it barrio 18? is it the gangs that have developed smuggling organizations, and is that really what's bringing these groups? >> i think that over the years, over the last several years, the sophistication of smuggling networks and their connectivity to cartels has been a concern for quite some time. the work that we have from the field intelligence reports that have been generated to our

office suggest that people contract smugglers both in their point of origin. sometimes they wait until they're in mexico. sometimes they wait until they're at the border. but that's the kind of thing that we recognize. post-arrest interviews give us information. we look for indications for intelligence in things like pocket trash, develop phone numbe numbers, and pass those leads in the local sense to the inner agency and certainly to homeland security investigations to follow up and try to attack those networks as they bring folks in. >> do you have any idea from the young people that you've interviewed how many kids have died? >> i don't have any direct information about that. >> do we have any information about any children who have died or are missing? >> not specifically. i mean, i think that, you know, we recognize that this journey is a very difficult one. certainly at the border over the years we've seen people fail in their attempt by succumbing to

the elements. >> and mr. secretary, as you've indicated, there is a public relations campaign that you initiated. are we talking about increasing prosecutions of smugglers in central america so that we can create that deterrent effect and let people know they are being prosecuted, what the penalties are, and that we're actually catching any of the smugglers, if we are? and maybe if we, in our law enforcement resources, working with the mexican authorities are not being successful in our smuggling prosecutions, i'm curious whether or not we're talking about that. >> the answer is yes. i'd like to add to what the deputy chief said. homeland security investigations, which is part of i.c.e., has been surging resources to deal with the smuggling organizations. in the month of may, they made something like 163 arrests of so-called smugglers. identi i've directed we add resources

to that. the department of justice is also adding resources to this effort. i think the key is the money trail. because the money trail often originates in the united states. so if we can track the money, we can stop the flow of money that goes to pay these organizations to smuggle the kids, we go a long way to dealing with this problem. >> and are you publicizing the prosecution of 160 individuals, which i would commend you, for the month of may in central ameri america, you know, letting everybody know who has been arrested and what has happened? >> it's in our interest to do that, yes. >> and i have grave concern that the groups like ms-13, which are growing in this country, are bringing these kids in who now owe ms-13. would that be correct? they owe them a bit of debt for bringing them into this country. is that fair to say, chief vitiello? >> it is often the case that people contract with smugglers without a payment up front. and so that is a concern.

>> and so now these young people are coming into our communities owing the gangs some debt. would that be correct? >> it's important for us to know who's responsible for this smuggling and recognize where the networks are in all three countries. >> i certainly hope we keep track of them in our country. thank you. i yield back. >> so the gentle lady's point, this committee will be introducing an anti-smuggling bill in the future. mr. sanford is recognized. >> yes, sir. mr. vitiello, thank you for your testimony. mr. fugate, you've been incredibly patient during this testimony. a lot of questions haven't been directed towards you. given the fact we are in hurricane season and i am from the coast, i'll be calling. and to you, mr. secretary, i'm a huge fan. you know, the things you've done in the united states military are just incredible. i've been watching you over the last couple hours during testimony. i wrote down, bearing of a

military office, verbal dexterity of a philadelphia lawyer, and preciseness of a ceo. so i'm a big fan. but in the few minutes i have, i'm going to ask a couple fairly pointed questions. i'd ask you answer them as qu k quickly as possible. all with the caveat of i'm a big fan. fair enough? >> okay. yes, sir. here it comes. >> you know, going back to being a lieutenant way back when, it just strikes me that, you know, as you guys set up a perimeter in the military, it is not a conditional perimeter. it's not contingent on what mexico might do or pakistan might do. it is an absolute perimeter. i think one of the things the american public is thirsing for is the same kind of decisiveness

and reality they see in the military in a perimeter that isn't breached on the southern border. why can't we have that in short form? >> well, first of all, you have to realize these kids probably want to get caught. in some cases, as -- >> well, not want to. they're running to officers. >> they will run to the nearest officer and say, here i am. >> right. >> so you have to ask, you know, will it increase border presence deter that? >> i guess let me rephrase it. i only have a couple minutes. should we have a border that is in essence conditional? because part of the testimony was based on what we might get mexico to do, what we might not get mexico to do, or what we might get guatemala to do. shouldn't it be at least a goalpost an absolute rather than conditional border? >> we knead to have secure borders, absolutely, if that's your question. we need secure borders. so one of the things that i've

tried to do here in my testimony is lay out all the things we're doing to deal with this situation, which not only involves processing the kids but turning the tide around. >> but i mean, part of what we're doing now -- because i think there's a real difference between words and actions. and a lot of our actions have been absolute. our words have been absolute. the words you used were, we're going to bring to bear all assets of the federal government. i think that most people don't believe that. they believe that if we brought to bear all assets of the federal government, we could have a secure border. >> translator: wel >> well, let me say this. i'm going to say what i said before. i want to know every option, and i want to consider every option. and i'm prepared to seriously consider every lawful option -- >> no, we've been here a couple hours. i understand. but i guess going to the point, though, as a strategy. i mean, you're an able, fit guy.

military guy. as a strategy f you loved your kid and wanted to get him in america, wouldn't you send the kid first, and given our present policy of nondeportation and sending them to a family somewhere domestic in the united states, get them secure and then you'd be able to evade and move and maybe get into the border on your own and then get reunited with your family. >> i have to tell you, the conditions for me to -- my kids are 18 and 19. but the conditions for me to part with them when they were 8 or 9 and say, go have this thousand-mile journey, and i'll see you later, would have to be pretty dire before i'd give up the responsibility. >> if i'm not mistaken, i think a billion people around the earth live on like a dollar a day or some astoundingly know number. i don't remember the exact statistic. i think there are a number of dire circumstances around the globe which goes back to conditional versus -- one last

question since i'm out of time. i think, you know, there was frequent reference to i don't think the law allows me to send an unaccompanied minor home. and my question to you would be, which comes first, the law or the constitution? because as i read through the 14th amendment, i think the constitution is fairly clear on what citizenship entails. >> well, let me be clear. i don't believe that the law would allow us to send an unaccompanied child home in an expedited removal proceeding. they are given notices to appear. deportation proceedings are begun when they're apprehended 37. >> but for practical purposes, would you suggest once they're here, they're here? and you didn't refute that. >> the law requires that once a child is identified as unaccompanied, cbp has to give them to hhs. they do what's in the best interest of the child. that's what the law passed by the congress requires.

>> understood, and i'm out of time unfortunately. i know you have to go, but thank you very much for your testimony, sir. >> thank you. and let me thank the witnesses for your testimony. mr. secretary, let me personally thank you for showing up on such a short notice on such a very important issue. i know you didn't create this. you inherited this. i know you're working hard to resolve it. i pledge the support of this committee to work with you towards that effort. with that, members may have additional questions in writing. without objection, this committee stands adjourned. >> thank you, sir. johnuters reports that kerry will be traveling to central america this week, where many of the unaccompanied minors are believed to have originated. secretary kerry will attend the

inauguration of panama's new president. he's expected to address the immigration issue by meeting with central american leaders during the trip. john cornyn and john mccain joined democratic senator dick durbin on the senate floor this past week to talk about immigration and unaccompanied children entering the u.s. mccain and durbin were among the group of eight who worked on immigration legislation last year that passed in the senate but was never taken up by the house. this is about an hour. >> thank you, madam president. i want to spend a few moments this morning talking about realistic solutions to the ongoing crisis along america's southern border. where we have 1,200 miles of common border with the nation of mexico, which of course has been the gateway now to this humanitarian wave of children, unaccompanied children coming from central america into the united states.

i'll talk more about that in detail, but i first want to comment on something that the majority leader said this morning in his opening remarks. with his what has now become trademark high pesh olie -- high pesh olie and disregard for facts the majority leader suggested that the republican platform was deport first, find solutions later, or never. i find that offensive and it's certainly not true, and i can just assume that the majority leader has had other things that have taken his attention and he's ignored completely the concrete solutions that i and others have been promoting, some of which i'll talk about here in a moment. but the last thing i'd say specifically to this really offensive and untrue comment of the majority leader this morning is if you're truly concerned about this issue, senator

reid, you might want to focus on members of your own party. after all, no less than vice president joe biden has said of the unaccompanied minors flooding across from the u.s.-mexican border, he said qoas it's necessary to put them back in the hands of the parent in the country from which they came" -- close quote. he went on to say once an individual's case is fully heard, if he or she does not qualify for asylum, he or she will be removed from the united states and returned home. that's vice president biden. perhaps the majority leader should talk to him. or he could talk to former -- our former senate colleague, hillary clinton. she said they should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, close quote. that's former secretary of state

hillary clinton, in all likelihood the democratic party's nominee for the president of the united states in 2016. perhaps the majority leader should talk to her. or he could talk to the secretary of homeland security under whose per view this issue -- purview this issue falls most directly who said -- quote -- "under current u.s. laws and policies, anyone who is apprehended crossing our border illegally is a prior to for deportation, regardless of age" -- close quote. perhaps the majority leader should pick up the phone and talk to him. so rather than make offensive politically motivated allegations, perhaps the majority leader should get his facts straight, talk to leaders in his own political party and then work with us on this side of the aisle to try to find some realistic solutions.

as the insurgency rages in iraq and the border between syria and iraq has collapse end and attention here in washington is turned to other parts of the globe, i can tell you without a doubt that today attention of my constituents in texas is still very much focused on what's happening on our southwestern border. and this surge of unaccompanied more than children that are making a dangerous and treacherous journey from central america through mexico and ending up on our doorstep. first of all, though, the administration when this began -- the facts began to unfold said that this human -- that human smuggling operations are responsible for creating a misinformation campaign and that's why we're seeing this surge of unaccompanied minors. there may actually be an element of truth to that if you think about it. because if the human smuggling

operations, the drug cartels, organizations like the zetas and the associated gangs that work with them make money on each and every migrant that passes through these corridors of human trafficking and human smuggling, then they probably are making money, more money the more people that come. they probably make more money the more children and women and other migrants who they kidnap and hold for ransom. so there is some element of that. but then we've been told by the administration that the surge is entirely the result of gang violence and poverty in central america. and that it has nothing to do with president obama's policies or his perceived commitment to our immigration laws, including the enforcement, that only the executive branch can do. a few days ago, however, secretary johnson, the

secretary of homeland security, published what he called an open letter to the parents of children crossing our southwestern border. in which he implicitly acknowledged that the president's immigration policies or the perception that he was less than committed to enforcing those policies have indeed become a magnet for illegal border crossings. referring to the so-called deferred action program that president obama announced in june of 2012, -- you remember the president said i have a pen and i have a phone. basically said i'm going to go it alone, i'm not going to work with congress anymore. that was a product of that mentality and that approach by the president. but referring to that so-called deferred action program that president obama announced in june of 2012, secretary johnson felt compelled in this open letter to inform his readers that the u.s. government's deferred action for childhood arrivals often called daca,

d-a-c-a, does not apply to a child who crosses u.s. border illegally today, tomorrow, or yesterday. doesn't apply. secretary johnson reiterated this point in the very next paragraph when he said -- quote -- "there is no path to deferred action or citizenship or one being contemplated by congress for a child who crosses our border illegally today." now, if the sole driver of the border crisis was, in fact, central american violence and poverty, or smuggling organizations, there's no reason to believe that secretary johnson needed to clarify the details of u.s. immigration policy. after all, if the migrant surge has nothing to do with u.s. policy, as the white house initially insisted, then clarifying what thatol