out-migration. why has this occurred and what can we learn from that? >> we've seen those changes that have been very dramatic. by the way, i think every c.o. must have had that same cartoon. but we've seen those changes, and i think because of the work that i did for the president on the drug policy issues, the safety and security that has increased within the government of mexico, the fact that economic opportunities are better now within mexico, and we know that in the three central american countries that we've been talking about, neither of those economic opportunity nor safety and security have been something to write home about. >> others, please? mr. kerlikowske? >> thank you for that question. i agree with what the commissioner has said and i think you just have a whole different dynamic when you look at flows.

we know with central america, the difficulties they have down there with their economy and other challenges. as time goes on, you're going to see other parts of the world, for example, india, migration from india into the united states. and we've already seen spikes of that in the last few years. but the whole flow is changing. i just read yesterday where mexico has signed a $1 billion deal with bmw to build a factory down in mexico. the creation of more jobs in mexico and to the commissioner's point, the economy is prospering there. it does come down to, i think, so much comes down to opportunity. and the folks that we're encountering on the border, from guatemala, honduras, and el salvador, don't have that economic opportunity.opportunit. gangs, violence as well as family members here and that's what's driving it. >> mr. chairman, also i think you talk about what's working

and the trade integration that's happened in north america between the united states remember canada and mexico has created a growing prosperity in mexico that has contributed to that new migration flows there. we do have a trade agreement with central america. we need to push these countries to more actively inat the investigate their economies and take full advantage of that trade agreement and expand economic opportunity and job creation in their own countries as a way of stopping this as well. >> thank you. a couple of weeks the vice president was just back from guatemala. secretary johnson is there today, is he not? and i was talking to the vice president. i asked him trying to find what he learned and one of the things he told me is 80% of the folks, young kids, unaccompanied minors are coming from the worst neighborhoods. the worst communities, most

dangerous violent neighborhoods about 80%. put myself as a parent of adult sons, but put myself as a parent in honduras, guatemala, el salvador and i live in one of those communities with a lot of violence, not much opportunity, not much chance for an education to get a job and i hear that i have some folks willing for a couple thousand dollars take one or more of my kids out of that through mexico, across the border, welcomed there by our border patrol who are required by law to do that and accept and receive them, to care for them and eventually place them in a safe setting in many cases with member of their families who may be undocumented. now, that is a strong magnet to pull young people out of those three countries and send them north through hellacious conditions. putting my kids when they were

4, 5, 6 years old on top of a train sending them across the country, not in a train, on top of a freight train moving for 1500 miles. who can imagine doing that. these people are desperate. how do we -- if i were in that situation i might do the same thing. how do we get to the people and change that mindset? how do we change that mindset to turn off the flow. so the parents say i want my kid to stay here, have opportunity and have a future here. how do we do that? >> i think there's several steps. for instance we talked about some of those. i think we've got to continue to work with guatemala, el salvador and honduras on capacity building. we need to stress to them the importance that they secure their borders. i know during my time in cbp that the border patrol and

office of field operations spent a lot of time in guatemala stressing and showing different training and things of that nature. i have not been down to the border but what i have been told it's very porous, very wide-open. we need to build capacity there, and, you know, dhs is the best in the business there when you're looking at already it's the borders or detention sites. we got to don't focus in on that. i think the other areas mexico. you talked about that. i think we need mexico to continue to move forward here in helping us. as you mentioned these people are just walking through mexico, using mexico as a transportation corridor and showing up on our door step, and, you know, we're america, and we do the right thing for these kids and adults. nonetheless, it wears on the system. when you do apprehend, then you have to have a policy where

these individuals are detained, and brought through the system quickly and a decision is made whether people get to stay here or they are removed. if they are going to be removed they have to be removed quickly so it sends a message, if you will, a deterrent factor. we're seeing that happening now, mr. chairman in our new facility that we have, we just opened up in new mexico, family units, people saying that didn't realize i was going to detention i thought i was going to be released. we have a flight with the director supporting his judges moving hearings, moving much, much quicker. that begins that process of sending deterrent message. if we're going to be successful in my view we have to do that. in my view, guatemala, el

salvador and honduras have been good partners for us. i mentioned in my statement we took removal from 14 days to four days and a lot had to do with those three kruns giving us travel documents much more quicker. they have been a good partner in that regard but a lot more work to do to be done. >> thanks for that. i'm going to stop and yield. >> mr. palmieri, what actually is mexico doing to help us on this problem right now? >> dr. coburn, in the last year mexico has returned over 85,000 adults and children from its territory back to central america. in the current fiscal -- the current calendar year they are on pace to return over 90,000 adults and children back to the countries of el salvador,

guatemala and honduras. on monday the president announced the launch of its southern border strategy which they hope will increase their ability to interdict and disrupt these smuggling networks. >> all right, thank you. mr. winkowski, i have a question for you. i've recently spoken to a whistle blower and i.c.e. agent who shared with us often -- if we can get those posters up -- documented examples of terminated notices from unaccompanied alien children which you can see in these posters. the reason for these terminations, they are resulting in any and all removal proceedings, it's lutzed as prosecution. it's transmitted back to the

i.c.e. agents. explain to me, if you would what this prosectorial discretion under notices to appear. under what policies and procedures does the chief counsel issue these. what is the reason they are issued. what happens to illegal alien children once their nta is cancelled. is there follow up. specific examples provided to us by i.c.e. agent pds were issued for minors. what's the status of a child given once their nta is terminated. what follow up is conducted to ensure the child's welfare and is the child able to attend school with no status? >> well, obviously we have prosectorial discretion. we have the memo that's the

document that guides what our priorities are. and lays those out, i think, very, very clearly. i'm not familiar with this particular case. if you look at one case, if you've seen one case you've seen one case. don't know all the details of why the nta was declined to be filed. i'll be more than happy to look into it. but i'm unfamiliar. >> do you have any idea how often this happens? >> no. >> with children? >> no, i don't. i know that all the children, sir, are given ntas entered into removal proceedings. >> okay. i would appreciate any feedback you can give me on that. >> absolutely, sir. >> mr. greenberg, once the department of health and human

services releases an unaccompanied child to a sponsor with a notice to appear before an immigration judge does hhs report to the department of homeland security on the number of uacs who have been released on their own recognizance? >> dr. coburn, we do not release unaccompanied children on their own recognizance. we only release them to a parents, relative or other sponsor. at the time when we do the rethrees the individual we provide the information about the whereabouts of the child to the department of homeland security both immediately prior to and immediately after the release. >> and the names of who they are placed with? >> yes. we provide that information to the department of homeland security. >> after that fact do you track these children to ensure they appear at their imfwrags hearing?

>> we do not play that role after the time we release the child then this subsequent issues relating to the immigration proceeding itself will be the responsibilities of the department of justice. >> okay. in a june conference call with congressional staff hhs stated they are not mandated nor will they be checking immigration status of relatives or sponsors for the unaccompanied children. i'm interested in the procedures hhs uses to verify the identity and immigration status of the individuals to whom the unaccompanied child is released. to clarify does hhs verify until integration status of the sponsors to whom the unidentified children are released? >> we verify the identity of the individual -- >> that's not the question i asked you. the immigration status. >> we do not verify the immigration status of the individual. our focus in the release is

first identify the least restrictive setting in the child's best interest. as we do that we also need to look at safety to the child, safety to the community, risk of flight, so we go through the overall process of looking at the individual placement to queen sure that it is a safe and appropriate placement for the child. >> let me saw follow up question. isn't it true that if you place an unaccompanied child with an illegal alien sponsor, that the significant likelihood is they would not want to bring that child to a deportation hearing before an immigration judge for fear they would expose their own illegal status? >> so, for us as we go through the process of identifying sponsors, we ensure that the sponsor understands they have a responsibility to make the child available for proceedings -- >> again that's not the question i asked you. the question i asked you was

would it not be likely that they would not comply regardless of whether you tell them that's their responsibility if, in fact, they are an illegal alien to begin with, why would they expose themselves in front of an immigration judge? >> so, for the child in those circumstances, this, you know, this is about who the child should live with while they are awaiting removal proceedings and during the removal proceedings >> you're missing my point. my point is, is i'm all for having the children in the best place. don't get me wrong. but if you're not checking immigration status of those that you place with them, and if, in fact, they are not here legally, the likelihood that her going to show up before a judge is markedly diminished because it exposes them. so the question i would ask you is why you don't ask for status of the people that you place

these children with? >> so, the specific aspects of what happens in the proceedings are best addressed by my colleague at the department of justice. >> i one that. i'm asking you the question why you don't ask the status of the people with whom you're placing the child? why you do not ask that question? because in all likelihood they are not going to show for an immigration hearing. >> so, for us the focus needs to be on a safe and appropriate placement of the child. >> you're not going to answer my question. why you do not ask that question of those people with whom you're placing these children? >> so even if we have the information as to the parent or other relative's immigration status we would still at that point need to look at the totality of the circumstances. >> i don't disagree with that.

i'm asking why do you not ask that question? is it the policy of hhs not ask the status of the person with whom you're placing the child. >> we do not -- >> is that the policy of hhs of this country? >> yes, it is. that's the case. yes. >> let me run through the order of those, my colleagues who have come in to participate. senator johnson is up next. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman and

thank you for holding this hearing and thank the witnesses. mr. greenberg, president of the united states, according to an article in the "atlantic" met with a group of advocates and others coalition for humane immigrant rights and others. and according to this article he told the groups he had to enforce the law even if that meant deporting hard cases with minors involved. sometimes there's an inherent injustice in where you are born and no president can solve that obama said but the president must send the message that you can't just show up on the border, plead for asylum or refugee status and hope to get it. quote, then anyone can come in and it means, of course,ively we don't have any kind of system. obama said quote, we're a nation with borders that must be enforced. do you agree with that

statement, mr. winkowski and mr. greenberg? >> yes. >> then i wonder why anyone would question the motivation for young people to come here since the latest information we have that in fiscal year 2013, 20,805 unaccompanied children from el salvador, guatemala and honduras were apprehended by the border patrol and in that same year, 2013, 1,669 of these unaccompanied children were repatriatated back to their home countries. if you were one of these children and you were there in one of these countries wouldn't you think your odds are pretty good? >> yeah. but there is a a legal process. that legal process takes its

time to make its way through the system and that's part of the challenge that we have that the director talked about from the standpoint of staffing of judges and just the legal process that takes place. it takes time to get to a point of removal in some of these cases. >> but despite what you have to say, mr. winkowski, and you're sitting in el salvador and one out of ten don't show up with a permission slip, only one out of ten show up before a judge. isn't that true? >> i've heard that number, yes. >> you've heard that number. you don't't know? you wouldn't know how many percentage don't show up with a permission slip >> for the judge? >> yeah.

>> perhaps the chief judge can help me on that. >> senator, if i may. i've heard the 90% number and that number is actually not accurate. >> what is the accurate number? >> the accurate number -- we're trying to get better data. the numbers for juveniles we have, we have juvenile numbers and overall numbers. the number that we have is that 46% of juveniles actually don't show up for their immigration hearings. >> half the people. only half the people. >> no. they are not showing up for immigration hearing carries considerable consequences. whether you're an adult or a child or anybody that actually is issued a notice to appear and

required to appear before an immigration judge and does not appear that judge issues an order of removal and that order of removal can be enforced after them not showing up. >> in 2013, 1,669 out of 20,805 were actually in that year returned. that's one out of 20 roughly. so, i mean, the fact is that people show up and they have every reason to believe, according to these numbers and i'll be glad to look at your numbers, even if it's only half, that there is ample incentive for them to come to this country. the president initially said that he believed the trafficking victims protection act which would provide the same status for central america as we have for mexico and canada, the amendment would be supported.

do you support that, mr. winkowski? >> i support a system whether it's -- >> i just asked if you support amending the bill. i'm not asking what -- if you support amending the bill. >> yes. >> thank you. mr. winkowski, identify been representing the state of arizona for many years. and i have never seen anything like your instructions to signed by your name interim protocol for visitations and tours to cbp detention fasts. are your telling me when i visit a detention facility that i can't bring a cell phone with me? are you saying that? united states senator visiting a facility, these are the instructions that you have signed? is that what you're saying? >> that the visitors -- >> this is a visiting congressional, member of congress. >> don't recall saying that.

what i recall is -- >> let me provide you with a copy. says see distribution, r. gil winkowski commissioner interim protocol for visibilityations and tours to cbp detention facilities. you didn't see your own memo? >> that would be me. >> okay. >> that would be me. i did issue that memo. we have had huge numbers of -- >> am i allowed to bring a cell phone with me when i go on the a facility in nogales, arizona. . >> not take photographs. >> why? >> the children have a the right privacy and that's why we're not having their faces shown on -- >> i may want to take a photo of something else. >> if you want to take a photo we would make arrangements for you to take a photo just not of the children. >> that's not the instructions you have given, sir. have any physical or verbal

contact with detained children unless previously requested and specifically -- oh, have any physical or verbal contact with cbp detainees and/or staff? your telling me i can't even speak to staff there >> snarkts i'm not telling you you couldn't speak to the staff. >> why did you issue these instructions >> we've had requests by hundreds and hundreds -- >> i'm talking about members of congress, sir, which you said applies to members of congress. i'm not asking about the hundreds. i'm talking about the responsibilities i have in my own state. >> it does and we would make special arrangements for special considerations, senator. >> that is not according to your instructions and when i was there then the border patrol and the people there said that they didn't want me speaking to any of the staff or children. i view that as a violation of my responsibilities. >> i'm not familiar with your -- >> you're not familiar. they were carrying out your

instructions, sir. i want it fixed and i want it fixed immediately, understand. if a member of congress can't visit a facility in his own state, the people of arizona elected me and i'm not supposed to even carry a cell phone with me, you have overstepped your responsibilities and your authority, sir. and i want those instructions revoked as far as members of congress are concerned and i want it done today. do you understand? thank you, mr. chairman. >> our next senator to be recognized, senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i come from manufacturing so root cause analysis is in my dna and mr. chairman i think you asked the right question. how do we stop the flow? from my standpoint what is causing all the illegal immigration in this country is we actually incentivize it.

when we pass a comprehensive immigration bill in the senate that includes $262 billion in welfare benefits to non-u.s. citizens that creates an incentive. when we ask money to beef up detention facilities to allow a greater time forced a to adjudication. near incentivizing parents to put their kids at great risk coming across mexico because they know if they reach the promised land they are home free. we're creating incentives. when president obama two years ago issued a memorandum to defer action on childhood arrivals which codified fact we won't send people home we're creating that incentive. we're trying to stop human trafficking. are we actually increasing it

because we have smugglers earning $3,000 per child? so i guess i would like to first of all, if we're going to solve the problem let's understand the numbers. mr. kerlikowske you're the best person to ask this. how many unaccompanied children have come in to this nation since doca was issued two years ago. how many kids? >> i have the number of children that have been apprehended in this fiscal year of 57,000. i can give you the information on going back to doca. >> i would like that. of 57,000 how many have been returned? >> we only -- the united states customs and border patrol is in the apprehension. >> so who would know the number of how many of those have been returned? >> the numbers i have that we talked about, about 1300, 1500. >> very low percentage senator mccain was talking about. how many of those are from

mexico? 57,000, how many are mexican citizen? >> the breakdown has been that honduras, el salvador, guatemala contain about 80, 78 to 82% of the people we've encountered. the rest are from other countries including mexico. a smaller number from mexico. >> the point i'm trying to get at is in the 2008 bill we created expedited procedures for people from contyingous nations, canada and mexico. if we have illegal immigrants from mexico are we actually expediting those procedure? who can answer that? department of justice, hhs. who is doing this? >> yes. if i remember the numbers correctly and i stand corrected, i think last year border patrol did expedited removal on 11,000

children, i believe. that made its way in on to united states, did expedited removal. very little activity up in the northern border. >> i wouldn't doubt that. >> but, yes. best of my recollection during my time border patrol was using expedited removal. >> what's the timeline for deportation? i mean, how long does it take to go through the adjudication process. let's first talk for the expedited procedures for mexicans and then i want to talk about other than mexicans. >> my understanding of expedited removal it's immediate. virtually immediate for people that come in. >> if there's 20% that are basically mexican which is expedited procedures, 20% of 57,000 is roughly 10,000, right? >> yeah. 10 to 11,000.

why we only deported 1700. >> the number of 11,000 the border patrol executed from an experiod dited removal standpoint. under the expedited removal rosees you have to determine a couple of things. >> so how long does that take to determine a couple of things. >> under expedited removal it's very quick. kit be the same day. >> so, again, if 20% of the 57,000 unaccompanied children are mexican, subject to those expedited procedures it could be the same day how come we only deported what is it senator mccain, 1700? when the number is closer to 10 or 11,000. >> i think the number that i was quoting was from the south central american countries. to include mexico. try to break them into different buckets here. >> mr. winkowski. >> senator, the vast majority of

immigrants that are here illegally that are apprehended at the border from mexico are returned almost within the same day and we can -- >> so -- >> they move very quickly. >> unaccompanied children in mexico not counted in your 57,000? >> a part of those 57,000 are those unaccompanied children from mexico. many of them are returned within the same day. i'll be ethiopia give you -- >> give me those numbers. >> i'll be happy -- >> how long does it take in terms of other than mexico, other than canadians to actually go through adjudication process and actually be deported? >> senator our immigration court system has no direct role with the expedited removal process. let me talk about the process whereby somebody gets brought into the country and put through removal proceedings. we break these down between

detained and nondetained. if you're a detained docket about 40% of our dockets are individuals who are detained while awaiting a hearing before an aim integration judge those cases move quickly. i don't have a number. but move within a matter of a few weeks to a few months. if they are on nondetained dockets those take a long time. >> few weeks, few months but we've only returned a fraction of the 57,000 we're talking about here. again, what you're saying doesn't add up with what the numbers are. let me just make my final point because i'm running out of time. i ran out of time. i can't think of a more humane thing to do, you know, maybe sounds cruel, but then to deter parents from sending their dhoirnl the united states. i can't think of a better way to deter parents from doing that is to literally take these minor, identify where they came from,

you know, identify gone online, it costs $207 on a one way trip in terms of plane flight. put them into a hotel, feed them and return them to the country of or gain because i can't think of a better signal to parents in guatemala and el salvador and honduras to say do not subject your children to the beast. do not subject your children to rape and murder. don't send the home the united states because when they get here they will not be allowed to stay. there's 7 billion people in this country that don't live in america. many would like to come. we got to come to a decision in this country whether we'll have totally open borders or a legal immigration system which i want to fix this. we have to address the root cause. the root cause literally is we got to stop incentivizing parents and other immigrants coming in to this nation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> next, senator ayotte would have been next but she stepped out for a moment.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate our witnesses for being here today on a very important hearing. i want to start with a little questioning on what sort of data and statistics we do have available. i know there's a lot of questions about why. and how long this has been going on. we have some very recent statistics that have been shared. but i would like to get a better sense of what's out there and what you can furnish to us as a follow up to this hearing. and so, i start -- i know you're fairly new to the post, mr. kerlikowske. you talked about 57,000 unaccompanied minors this year. do you collect, in terms of border crossings of unaccompanied minors, do you have -- can you give us month by month, year by year data going back over several years, and

when -- we sort of declared crisis in recent months but it seems to me that this is of some duration. >> you're absolutely right, senator. the increase this year so far and we still have three months left in this fiscal year has doubled from the year before, and that year doubled from the year before. in early 2013 a number of interagency colleagues, defendant homeland security, department of justice, health and human services all met to begin to address this issue, particularly in the rio grande valley. we can give you details going back month by month, year by year. >> okay. i would appreciate that. and then, mr. winkowski, i'm curious to know also what sort of data you can provide us. we've testified in an order of border crossings and then issuance of notices to appear.

and then, of course, for unaccompanied minors would be then referred to dhss. mr. winkowski, can you provide us with year by year and month by month data on issuance much notices to appear to unaccompanied minor? >> absolutely. yes. >> okay. and then mr. greenberg, you received referrals from immigration and citizenship. can you also provide and would you characterize for us before providing that specific and more granular data sort of the numbers you've been seeing recently? >> yes. we would be able to provide for the children referred to us we can provide country of origin, sex, the age of children and

then when the child goes to a parent, relative or other sponsor what the nature of that placement is. >> okay. that will be appreciated. and then mr. osuna, you gave us some very recent statistics on record levels of cases pending. but i would also appreciate, again, a more, a longer timeline and more granular data for us to get a greater understanding than your testimony provided. >> would be ethiopia provide that, senato -- would be happy to provide that, senator. >> i have a question and i think i'll start with mr. palmieri. what do we know about migration of unaccompanied minors to, from honduras, el salvador and guatemala to other central american countries or south american countries?

what sort of information could you share on that? >> it appears the primary route that el salvadorian and guatemalan and honduran migrants and unaccompanied children are taking are north. there are reports that some do seek to stay in mexico if they can. part of the mexican effort at the border with guatemala is they are trying to issue better documentation of people who are entering their country so that they can track those, those visitors in a better way as they move through the country and to see where they are ending up. it is without a doubt the large numbers end up at our border. >> absolutely. for mr. osuna, we know that many of these unaccompanied minors have fled violence.

we also know that many have arrived in the united states in the hand of human traffickers. and may have been further victimized on the route to the u.s. border. under the trafficking victims protection re-authorization act and understanding that asylum officers operate under a different department than you, could you still tell us the standards by which those officers and immigration judges upon review will determine which children qualify for asylum or special immigrant juvenile status and therefore can remain in the u.s. under the 20808 law? >> senator, the rules for asylum that our immigration judges apply in children's cases in terms of the legal standards are

the same for all other asylum applicants. they are set in statute and regulation and interpreted over the years by case law. that's not any different whether the person appearing before a judge is an adult or a child. what is different is the process. if a child is eligible for or appears to be eligible and wants to apply for asylum or special immigrant status the initial jurisdiction over those cases rests with the u.s. cis. so the judge has to basically suspend adjudication of the case for the moment, refer it to dhs and they make initial call on asylum. >> you mentioned that the standards were the same regardless of acminor or an adult. what are some of the -- >> generally speaking -- >> remind us. an provide applying for asylum has the burden of showing that

he or she fears persecution, has a well pounded fear of persecution is the legal standard based on one of five ground. race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group and that's a law going back to 1980. >> thank you. >> senator landrieu. >> first let me thank you for calling this hearing. it's extremely important. very timely. given that the president is asking for a $3.7 billion supplemental, which came to congress and the appropriations committee members of which i'm one and the chair of this committee, appropriations committee will have to really carefully consider as to how we're going allocate these dollars to solve the problem. number two, i can't think of two better people literally who

have, you know, calm thinking about how to figure this out and to get to the root of the problem and then to help us allocate the dollars wisely and hold people accountable for doing the job. you two have roven yourselves and both senator carp per and senator coburn you have been strong on accountability which i would like to join both of you on. but i think first of all, i want to make sure, and it was just said finally, the laws that are governing this, because there's some confusion and i just want to submit to the record what my staff and i have been researching about the laws, because i think we should start there and then policies and rules that may need to be adjusted or changed or perhaps some laws need to be changed. but the basic law, you just said it, is the asylum law of 1980.

could somebody talk for one second -- not one second, 30 seconds about the asylum law in 1980 and what it said. go ahead. >> via 1980 refugee act which is enshrined in our statutes these days implemented our international obligations with regard to refugees. >> adults and children show up at our borders. talk about that. >> it's by the way the same law that our colleagues at the state department apply overseas. but if somebody, anybody who arrives at our shores -- >> since 1980. anybody that arrives at the shores, go ahead. can seek asylum and they have to say they are fearful. that was passed in the reagan administration? >> i think it was right at the tail end of the carter administration. >> carter administration. that's the law today. >> that's correct. >> then there was a second law, there was a second law, when the department of homeland security

was created, senator feinstein had a standalone law. does anybody want to comment about what that law is because it has a bearing here. it was incorporated in the -- you should all know this -- incorporated into the creation of the department of homeland security. is anybody familiar with that law? >> the homeland security act of 2002 -- >> correct. >> if i recall correctly hit to do with the expedited removal -- >> it divided the responsibilities for the procession and treatment of unaccompanied minors between the department of hhs and department of health and human service. and then in 2008, in the trafficking against trafficking law, in 2008 which was sponsored by biden and brownback, all of these are bipartisan, there were further -- there were further additions to this law which basically said children from

contyingous countries, mexico and canada would qualify for immediate repatriation and children from. nonc noncontyingous states could be repatriated. i think before we start getting opinions to get the basis of the law. do you agree? >> amen. >> if this is not correct i would like to know before the end of the day. because i do need a plan. >> it needs to be fixed. that needs to be changed to solve this problem. >> so this is the law and we should talk about what the law says, what the law -- we think the law should say and then figure out how we're going to deal with this problem. let me ask you, mr. fugate, because i've had a lot of experience and you know, a lot of experience with fema and how much i believe in you, your leadership and your ability to solve emergencies. so i'm glad the president asked fema to step into this situation

and try to sort out and give immediate assistance for the immediate crisis on the border which is in senator mccain's state primarily and texas i understand why he's very upset. but let me ask you, mr. fugate, do you have budgetary authority over this 3.7 billion? where does your authority begin and where does it end, in your mind now? >> currently not in the supplemental will i have any budgetary authority. >> you have no budgetary authority in the supplemental. >> no, senator. >> do you have any authority for the money being spent now? >> no, senator. >> so who does have budgetary authority for the money spent now >> the agency as the budget was passed the authorization and appropriations for those agencies. so with the president's direction i gained new authorities. unless an agency was authorized to do the work they were doing or had funds or congress granted

transfer authority within those funds, i had no new authority. >> why did president give the authority. why didn't he give them the authority. what's in your authority? >> the homeland security act, the post-katrina reform act, a the president and congress on emergency management matters. we took the approach when asked to assist this was a humanitarian issue and that we have the ability to work across all agencies. we have authorities within a national framework to set up and operate under interagency agreements to transfer funds from one agency to another who may have capabilities but not authorization or funding. again this is what we did in earthquake in haiti where we used federal resources to support usaid. >> let me ask you this because

my time is short and i want to get to dhh because this is what i'm very concerned about. i agree that the children need to be handled potentially different than other immigration issues and that health and human services has a role but my concern, mr. chairman, is that i am fairly current and up to date on the very mediocre job that's being done in our own foster care system in the united states today and let me give you some statistics on any given day we have 500,000 kids in foster care. i mean in the united states. 691 new children come in to our foster care system in 50 states. so, with a high caseload by casey and pew, low high turnover rate of social workers, not enough judges anywhere, we're getting ready to add to the system that's not the strongest, this group of children that have

no paper work. or little paper work. many have no birth certificates. so i'm really concerned about this as all of us are. so i'm going end because i've gone over my time with just saying what i'll be focused on is accountability, who is in charge, what the plan is, who will be held responsible before we spend 3.7 billion in addition to the $2.5 that's already in four appropriation bills that are moving their way through the process. so we got a lot more questions to be answered before i think we run too far ahead. not that -- let me just speak for myself. i want to be helpful. i absolutely want to be helpful. but do i have quite a few more questions. thank you. >> those are great questions.

thank you for spending some time down in guatemala and we applaud you four concern. senator mccaskill. >> i would like to talk about the push factors that are causing families and by the way all these cultures are very family centric and the notion that they are sending their children off on a very dangerous proposition speaks to the real problems they have in their countries, and obviously the root of the problem is the lack of rule of law. in these countries. now back in 2010 we began a program called the central america regional security initiative called carsi. from 2008 to 2011 u.s. agencies have allocated $350 million to help the exact countries that

they children are coming from with the problems of corruption, gang activity, lawlessness, all of the things that are causing these families to be ripped apart. now, i'm assuming and please confirm for the record that both doh and state use contractors for this program, the carsi program? >> yeah, that's correct. >> all right. i have looked and i can't find any i.g. reports on any of these programs. are you aware of any analysis that has been done about the effectiveness of these programs? >> yes, i am aware that there have been -- there was a gao report that was prepared on carsi. >> i did find the gao report. i didn't find the i.g. report. are you aware of any i.g. reports >> i'm not ware but will check. >> the gao report found the

state department didn't provided equate in couldn't oversight in other programs that we've looked at. i guess my question is how many in couldn't contracting officers representatives do you have for these contracts? >> i will have to get that number for you. >> i would like to know also how many contractors we have overseeing contractors on these contracts? because what we found in the past is the contractors are watching the contractors and sometimes the contractors are hired to come in to testify about the contractors overseeing the contractors. can you provide us the list of the contractor the scope of the contract as well as the oversight being conducted on each contract managed or co-managed by state, usaid in guatemala, el salvador and honduras. >> i'll take that back. >> we have no indicators the money we're spending these programs are working.

and tens of thousands of children showing up at our border is a metric that what we're doing is not working very well. >> some metrics have been done. in the limited areas where our assistance is operating particularly the model police precincts, the community policing programs, youth outreach centers that usaid is running, we have seen and been able to document with metrics a decrease in violence. a decrease in gang activities. the problem is the limited nature of those programs -- the scope is not systemic enough. recently in honduras, the president, new president took office in january. has put up an additional $600,000 of honduran money to begin replicating some of the aid youth outreach centers because they had an impact. we have some metrics showing

that these programs are having an impact on some of the systemic conditions. the problem is replicating them quickly and they've been limited in scope because of the amount of funds available for them. >> this is a real important issue, getting on top of what we're doing now and whether it's working in these countries because as my colleagues pointed out, these children, it is -- it would be much better for them to be reunited with their families in these, in their home countries in an environment that is safe. that is the best possible outcome. so if we've got something that's working, it is time for you tool say hey this, is what we're doing that's working and it's working here and we can show it's working here and that's something, the administration aware that you have programs that are working well in some areas and is that part of their request of this money? >> yes.

yeah. >> how much of the $3.5 billion is for replicating programs that you maintain are working now? >> the supplemental request includes $295 million for expanded economic support from programs in the region, most of those -- most of that money will go to programs that we think are having an impact and that will have an immediate impact in the region. >> i'm very anxious to get into the weeds on this. i want to understand what these contracts are, who are doing them day-to-day. what are the metrics. how does it indicate they are working and what's the cost replication and i want to track that back to the president's analysis. if we can do it in these host countries as opposed to trying to absorb all these children into our systems that we've already heard is already stressed, it would be a huge, huge positive outcome for these

children. >> we agree. one other aspect of the president's request, though, while carsi has been a security driven program, expanding police precincts, commanding community policing, providing youth outreach centers as part of anti-gang activities the request also includes funds because we believe that we need to get more balance in the u.s. assistance approach to region that we've got to help also on economic growth and job creation side. so there are funds in there that also we think will make an immediate impact on jump starting the economies because i think we'll all agree better job opportunities, better educational opportunities in this vij way to keep people at home. >> i agree. balance is important. we were spending $327 million in

mexico. just to give you a sense of the imbalance that occurred at that time. finally, briefly, i'll take this for the record because i know i'm over my time, but i think it's really important we focus on the structural and systemic obstacles to the backlog of undetained. ten years ago, ten years ago we had a year long backlog of european detained. and we had 150,000 cases in a backlog prior to these thousands of children coming to our border. so this is a long running problem and the notion that we can't figure out the systemic things that we need to do and a lot of it is fixing the laws that senator landrieu just went through, i think we're kidding ourselves that we're not going to be dealing with this kind of crisis on an ongoing basis until we get at the systemic problem because this is a backlog that's a decade-long. not just this crisis backlog.

thank you. >> great points. senator ayotte. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to ask about the conditions upon which these children are being brought up here by the smugglers. as i understand it there are girls are being raped, as i under it, and boys too. children being abused. what are the conditions upon which -- we talked a lot about the conditions in the countries and how bad they are, but what are these children being subjected to, and how much are they subjected to these criminal syndicates who are making money off this and exploiting these children and what are we talking about is happening with these children? >> senator, a couple of things that i think are important. one is that almost all of the children that are being brought into the country are being brought through smuggling organizations. oftentimes the smugglers are

juveniles themselves. this is a money profit issue. often controlled overhead by cartels. their two modes much transportation we see right now one, of course, has been cited as the train that comes up and people taking that dangerous journey on train. also a large number of charter buses. mom and pop charter buses driving up here. then the children, the people are held in what are called stash houses on the mexican side of the border until they can come. the dangers of abuse including just recently the body of an 11-year-old boy found in texas are enormous. >> so dead little boy, as i understand it, children being raped, correct. >> yes, ma'am. >> and exploited. and so one of the things that

concerns me is that we're sending a dual message. so we're sending a message, they've gotten an impression in those countries that if you send your child on that journey, that, yes, you're leaving, obviously, the conditions that we want to work more effectively to improve in those countries, but they are going on this deadly journey in some instances, or just a journey that can change who they are for the rest of their lives because we've said they are getting an impression in their countries that once they get here they can stay. and so what concerns me is that our policies that we're sending this message that they can stay is also inhumane in the sense that they children are being put on this deadly journey.

so, if you could comment on that in terms of how important it is that people understand from those countries a clear message from the united states of america not to send your child on this journey because of what's happening to your child, but also if they got the message that we're going to follow our laws and they won't be able to stay as humane as we all want to be, it's inhumane to send them on this journey. >> senator, if senator coburn wouldn't mind if we could also show the poster that's an example of one of the posters. >> dplees. >> that's going up all over in central america. they are going up in bus placards and overheads on highways. this essentially says, i thought it would be -- i thought my son would be able to get his papers in the united states, in the usa. thatstates. that wasn't true. there are other posters, radio spots, television spots being broadcasts.

these three countries, by the way, working with their embassies are also very supportive in doing their own messages. two parts. it's dangerous to try and make this journey, and you will not be given a free pass. >> well, i appreciate that we're doing this public information campaign, but our leaders need to be clear. and i saw that secretary johnson on the sunday shows was pressed no less than six times if these minors, if they came here through this deadly journey whether they would be returned to their countries, and he would not answer that question. and so in addition to that, the white house press secretary was asked that very same question about the ambiguity in which these children would be treated, and he said that the law will be applied but he wouldn't answer the question. so it's one thing for us to put up a public information campaign, but if the leaders of our country and the leaders in

these positions aren't clear as to what our intention is and that we intend to follow our law and if we have a system where only as senator mccain asked, only one out of ten are actually going to show up for the proceeding and actually go through the process, then we're talking out of both sides of our mouths and we're doing a disservice to these children because we're sending this message to parents that, yes, please take this risk, send them on the deadly journey, and when they get here, they really won't be permitted to stay, which is contradictory to these messages. i think we need to speak clearly with one voice. i would ask you to comment on that. >> would the senator yield for a second? the number one message to stop this is planes arriving in honduras and guatemala with these children back home. that sends the message.

this, as long as it's less than 10%, won't stop anything. when they see them returning after making this harrowing trip, that's when they're going to get the message. until that happens, it's going to continue. >> well, as a follow-up, i would ask, you know, our law, as i understand it, one of the issues is the legal treatment is different between, for example mexican, canadian, those children that would come, and the population we're talking about from el salvador, guatemala, honduras, and i guess i'm not clear why we should make that distinction in the sense that one set of children -- both set of children as we think about it could be as vulnerable to trafficking. so do you think that this distinction in our law should continue to exist? this one that is making it more difficult for you to give the option of returning these

children more quickly as soon as they return. i know we have talked a lot about it at this hearing, but what's your position on it? >> senator, i know the law from 2008 was passed with all of the emphasis to prevent these children from being trafficked, particularly sex traffic -- >> well, now they're being trafficked. >> and others. i think that what we're interested in is certainly the flexibility. i think it has to be carefully considered because of the reasons that congress went to such trouble to spend that time and effort passing that original law. but from our standpoint, from the customs and border protection standpoint, the ability to have some flexibility would be very helpful. >> okay. thank you. >> let me just make a couple quick points before i recognize senator hooig camp. one, we mounted a truth campaign

in this country to try to convince kids to stop smoking. hugely successful. hard hitting. what we need here is, i think, a truth campaign. i'm pleased to see there's some money in the president's proposal, i think $5 million, to mount a truth campaign. i think it has four pieces to it. you've mentioned a couple. one of those is to remind the parents down there of the perils they subject their children to if they put them on that train to come up here. second is reminding them of the reception they're going to get here. it can't be one with open arms, you're going to stay here for an indefinite period of time. the point that tom raises, the idea that folks can be returned, including young people are going to be returned in a number of cases. the message is this. it's a message of hope in their own country, that they can have a future, that they can have a good life, provide for

themselves and live in safety. the fourth piece is important as well. all right. thanks. with that, senator heidt camp. >> thank you. i apologize for not having been here during some of the other discussion. i had to go sit in the chair. this is an issue that i'm deeply concerned about on a number of levels. you're hearing kind of a broad scope of concern for the children, the safety of the children, but also concern for the safety of our border. and who are these kids? i know that senator baldwin asked for a number of metrics in terms of the age of the children. she asked a number of questions regarding who they are, male, female. and i think that one of the things we need to be very, very careful about here is our assumption about why these kids are here and why the kids are coming to the border. a lot of us have talked about their parents sending them here for rescue or safety reasons, for a better life. we need to be very careful that

not every kid is going to fall into that category. and that not doing the metrics on the front end is disturbing because who are these kids? you have 72 hours to process them. i guess my first question would be to you. i would like to thank you for coming to north dakota. your work as the drug czar has made a very, very significant and important contribution to my state. so i just want to publicly acknowledge you, and i'm grateful you've taken on this new level of public service. kind of from the pot to the frying pan here in crisis. but i want to just ask you, what's your judgment in terms of percentages looking at the numbers? and are your border agents trained and sophisticated enough to create categories of kids, whether they are gang bangers coming in here to seek a new level of contribution in terms

of the underground and crime. are they kids who aren't just being smuggled? because there's a difference between smuggling and trafficking. so we just need to make that clear. it doesn't mean that kids who are being smuggled don't eventually become trafficked, but how many of these kids are actually initiated into this process in a trafficking category? and then what are their ages? so can you just kind of give me what your sense is right now? >> my sense having watched it pretty carefully in mcallen, brownsville, and other places and watching these experienced border patrol agents interview and talk with these young people is they're -- they're very sophisticated, these agents at being able to determine information. 14 and above, they're all fingerprinted. those fingerprints are run against the databases here in the united states. so that if it was somebody a little bit older that had been deported or had been arrested or

was involved in a gang. we need better cooperation, better communication with those other three countries to make sure the vast majority of what we're seeing are not in that threat category, but we have to be very careful. >> well, as has been reported and i don't have any personal knowledge of this, that the number of drug seizures on the border since this crisis has decreased because resources have been deployed to deal with the emergency of this crisis. is that correct? >> the number of drug seizures has decreased in that particular sector, but a couple things. actually having watched it pretty carefully for the five years i served as the president's drug policy adviser, those numbers fluctuate a lot. now that we have two state where is you can grow your own marijuana, i'm not so sure that marijuana coming in from mexico is going to continue at the amount that it did. so i think there are a lot of

things going on. but i'm also confident in chief kevin oakes and in the rio grande valley and his determination that he will make every available resource. rio grande valley, by the way, has had an additional 500 border patrol agents over the last several years. they'll make every effort to make sure we're also doing our due diligence and our border security. i'll watch it carefully. >> but this wouldn't be the first time someone created or helped augment a crisis so that they could run the border and seek access for other kind of illegal activity across the border. >> you're right. the smugglers are very smart. the people involved in drug trafficking work every day to try and beat the system, yes, ma'am. >> my point is, as we're trying to deal with this humanitarian crisis for those who truly are there in that category, we need to double down on the law enforcement portion of this so that we know what, in fact, we're dealing with. and those of who who have been

involved in law enforcement know that a jufl can be just as dangerous as an adult. and we need to be very, very careful about who we're letting into this country on documented. the final thing i want to point out, because i'm running out of time, is i had the honor of going down to mexico with cindy mccain and amy klobuchar. we received a number of briefings about the kinds of activities that the mexican government is engaged in on the southern border, their southern border strategy. obviously, their southern border strategy in this case is -- it may be -- their efforts may have caused this surge. i don't know. we should be asking that question. but where are the mexican officials on pursuing their southern border strategy, and how do you see that as a tactic to basically dispel this crisis? >> thank you, senator.

mexican president nieto announced finally on monday this long-await the southern strategy his government had been working on for some time. we expect that it will allow the mexican government to improve its interdiction capabilities along the border, that they're going to be dedicating more resources to disrupting some of the alien smuggling networks and the traditional routes they use up through grauatemala, through southern mexico. in addition, they're trying to also implement better documentation of people who are crossing their border so that they can track them better in the country. there's no question, it is a very big border with guatemala and belize. it is open in a lot of places. so they have quite a job in front of them. >> i would suggest that there would be a huge incentive to

continue that effort on the south border if the refugees were stopped at our border. because one of the things that concerns the state of mexico or the country of mexico is having these refugees in their jurisdiction. so everything that we can do to assist them in their border security but also sending a message that safe passage -- not being accusatory, but turning a blind eye to the movement of young children north won't be something that's in the best interest of the united states of america, the country of mexico, and the children of central america. and somehow that message needs to be a lot clearer than what it's been. >> president obama has spoken with president nieto about this issue. earlier i mentioned that mexico had deported over the year

2013 85,000 adults and children. the numbers i have of unaccompanied children are over 8,000 were deported last year. its national migration institute operates 35 detention centers. they are committed to working with us to improve their detention rates and return rates to central america as well. >> i can tell you just from having been on the border, unaccompanied minors, it's not a new issue. it's in crisis because of the numbers. but we haven't been dealing with unaccompanied minors very well in this country or in mexico or all through, i think, the region. so we need to have a regional response to this crisis. and it can't just be the united states responding and processing. it has to be regional. and obviously, all the

discussion that you have had here today about prevention, how do you build a better society? but again, i am very concerned that we not categorize all these kids in one basket. that is critically important we understand that this is more complicated than just a number of children being smuggled in for a better life in the united states of america. >> thank you. i have a question for those of you that work in homeland security because i'm getting a lot of reports of pushback from homeland security from the whistleblowers. so i have two questions for all of you. do you believe that employees at dhs have the right to communicate with us as members of congress? >> yes, senator. >> yes. >> yes, sir. >> do dhs employees have the right to communicate with the

dhs office of inspector general? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> finally, will you make sure that message is sent down the chain in your organizations? >> we'll re-emphasize it. >> thank you. commissioner, this past weekend, a member of congress in oklahoma attempted to visit the site. he was refused access. would you comment on that? >> it's a dod facility, so i actually could not comment. i wouldn't be familiar with it. and it would not be under the jurisdiction of customs and border protection, but i'd be happy to work with people to find out exactly what occurred. >> all right. anybody else have any knowledge on that? >> senator, it is a dod facility that is being operated by an hhs grantee. we are making available tours

for members of congress, but we can ensure they are structured in a way that the needed tour guides are in place and that it is consistent with the sent of responsibilities that the staff at the facility have. >> so actually it's hhs's jurisdiction to make sure you want to accomplish what you want to accomplish. but the fact a member of congress shows up for an acute problem of us under homeland security in a supposedly humanitarian crisis and he's denied access. can you explain that? >> we absolutely want to ensure that members of congress are able to visit the facility -- >> except when he showed up. >> we are structuring towards on a regular basis for members of congress and would very much want to ensure for him and for any other member of congress that we can facilitate making towards available. >> so again, so i understand, so

i can report to the congressman, it was because it wasn't structured is the reason he was denied access? >> it is, as i understand it, arriving at the facility without it being a scheduled tour. again, we would want to provide for a scheduled tour. >> i think you would want members of congress to come on an unscheduled basis just to provide a check. >> we want to encourage members of congress to take tours. we are actually very -- >> only at your time convenience. >> excuse me, sir? >> only at your time convenience. i'm saying a random check by a member of congress is great for this country because they get to see what it is, not what it's prepared to be to show. >> senator coburn, i should say we are proud of the facilities. we encourage members of congress to come and see them.

we believe that members of congress will be pleased by what they see if they come. >> i think you made agr grievou error in denying access to the facility. i don't know who made the decision, but first of all, i think it was illegal to keep a member of congress from visiting one of these camps, regardless if they come at 3:00 in the morning, they should have access. i want to cover a couple areas with you on the demographics of the unaccompanied children. the administration reports in 2014 there's been increase in the number of uac who are girls and those under the age of 13. according to crs in a june 3rd press release, the administration claims the demographic change of the uac population has influenced the response to the increase in the usa crossing border. however, crs was unable to find

any data to illustrate the change, so it noted, it is unclear whether the increase in girls and children under 13 is simply because of the number of all uac is increased or if the number of girls and children under 13 has increased as a proportion of all uac. according to a june 25th demographics report from the nogales processing center, out of the total number of children in their custody at that time, the overwhelming majority were older than age 12, 887, and 557 were male. so yesterday an i.c.e. memo reported that males between the ages of 15 and 17 compromised 47% of all of the other than mexican uacs. nearly 30% were 10 to 13. so three questions for you. why would the administration claim the demographic of the

children as increasingly young when, in fact, it's not, and female? based on the response to their situation on that data when, in fact, the demographic appears to be quite the opposite. that's the first question. second, can you provide us with the actual statistics that show how much of this uac population is actually female and under 13? and according to the conference calls with congressional staff, if a uac turns 18 in the custody of hhs, he or she is turned over to dhs custody. what happens to these unaccompanied children who are returned to dhs custody after turning 18? are they released on their own recog sans? >> i can respond to the first two questions. first, senator, thank you for giving that question in advance because it involved calls from the white house. it involves crs data, i.c.e. data, data from us. i tried very hard to drill down into that to make sure i could find with all of these different

sources exactly what was what and give you the information. so what i can tell you is that in that group, we are seeing far more mothers and far more younger children than we have seen in the past and that i will -- >> so those aren't unaccompanied children. >> both. >> i know, but i'm saying mothers with their young children are not considered unaccompanied children. >> family units. we consider them family yauunit. you're right, senator. the other part as far as when someone turns 18 in hhs custody, i think i would ask that you ask mr. winn cow ski. i believe they'd be turned over to i.c.e. >> senator, thank you for that question. when they turn 18, they hand it over to us. we issue the nta and put them in removal proceedings. >> okay. all right.

one question. what is the percentage over the last year or the year before that of those that don't show for their hearing? >> the overall percentage for the entire population that is issued a notice to appear and is required to appear before an immigration judge is the no-show rate is 17%. that means that 83% do show. as i mentioned earlier, percentage is a little higher for juveniles. >> but you said you didn't know exactly that number, is that correct? >> well, we do have the number of juveniles, meaning the case is coded as a juvenile case in our database. that's something i mentioned earlier. what we don't have a good handle on because the data is not there is unaccompanied minors. which one of those juveniles are unaccompanied minors. >> and you're going to try to find that data out for us? >> we're working with our partner agencies to try to get more specific data on that. that is a -- yeah.

>> i have one more question. i don't know if we sent this one to you. i think we did. we had asked for some information on our internal cpb memo on bottlenecks and the unaccompanied child transfer process. several press reports reported on this memo on may 30th from the deputy chief of cpb. staff asked for this document. yesterday, staff meeting with you objected saying it's p predecisional material and an inside document, which according to the congressional rules is not a legitimate reason to deny a congressional request. it is for a foyer request but not for a congressional request. the washington times and other news outlets have reported on the contents of the documents, reportedly waiving any

privilege. c at a minimum, i would request that the department of homeland security explain the decision to me in writing, citing the actual legal authority that allows you to withhold that document from congress. and i would appreciate it if you would do that. i have some questions on the basis of that, which i think most of them we have covered because we asked for the statistics. one of the things that was concerning to me in that press reports in that memo that the uac crisis is compromising dhs' capabilities to address other transborder criminal areas. i think we've pretty well addressed that in your answers. i think my time is up. the chairman's back and he's voted, right?

>> i have. they'll be happy to receive your vote. >> i have other questions for the record i'd like to submit. >> no problem at all. no problem. i just don't think you've been asked enough questions. i really -- let me say how much i appreciate your willingness to rearrange your schedule in order to be here for the entire hearing. what i'd like to do is i want to come back to this. one of our colleagues, senator landrieu raised this question, but try and understand your role and the appropriations of funds and the authorization of appropriations of those funds. she thinks a lot about hurricanes in the gulf of mexico. we think about them on the east coast. we're very mindful of the great work you and your team did in response to superstorm sandy. one of the questions we would ask is in terms of the expenses

that flow from this all hands on deck operation, how does that affect, if at all, fema's ability to do some of your other work in terms of disaster relief, whether it's hurricanes or nor'easters, that kind of thing. how does it affect it, if at all? >> there's always an effect, but senator you built and fund fema to handle multiple disasters. we've really used the tools you've given us to support the inner agency. we have about 75 people that have been working on this as well as our fema core teams, which we've surged to support custom and boards and detention areas and in the processing faciliti facilities. we're very much aware that we have to be ready for the catastrophic disasters, but you have built capacity and capabilities into fema that allows us to support this as well as our ongoing responsibilities. >> all right. thanks for that response. thank you for your willingness

to take it on in addition to your other responsibility, the overseeing of this difficult challenge and our response to it. question, if i could, for a man who goes by paco. i was struck by a report from the u.n. not long ago that the u.s. is not the only country seeing a huge increase in migration of unaccompanied minors from guatemala, el salvador, and honduras. i saw somewhere where the number of asylum seekers in mexico, nicaragua, belize, had gone up by over 700%, if i'm not mistaken. what does that say about what's happening in the three central american countries that we focused on today? >> i think it just further confirms that the endemic violence in these societies, the street crime, the gang intimidation and forced recruitment, the lack of

educational opportunity, the poor job prospects in these countries for young people are driving people away and out of these countries. and we've got to do a better job working with these countries to address these basic systemic problems that they're confronting. the supplemental has $295 million that tries to get at a better prosperity agenda that improves economic opportunity but also at the same time maintaining our efforts to address the security conditions in the countries. i have to admit, i was not aware of the high increase in asylum requests in other countries. >> it's a low base but a substantial increase. >> i will look into that and try

to get additional data for you. i do know that the mexicans have seen an increase, and i was aware of that. >> all right. in my opening statement, you may recall we spent about a quarter of $1 trillion over the last decade enforcing our immigration laws, trying to strengthen our nation's borders, especially on our southern border. we spent a whole lot less, far less, helping central american countries like the three we're talking about today to address the root causes of immigration. as i understand it during the same decade that we've been spending $225 billion to protect and strengthen our borders along mexico, we have spent about $2 billion across all of central america, not just in el salvador, guatemala, and honduras, but roughly 1% of what we've spent just on the border. most after that is focused on improving security in those three countries, not on broader

economic development and job creation to help give people a reason to stay there and want to live there. let me ask you to react to that. >> senator, i share your views on the need for us to have a better balance in our strategy toward the region. the security investments are important. we've got to improve their abilities to control their own borders, to interdict all kinds of elicit activities that is both trafficking and smuggling people and other -- and drugs across their borders. but i think it is time for us to take a long look at if there's more that we can be doing on the economic growth side and in atta attacking the corruption in these governments so social service delivery is better, so that education is better in these countries.

by holding these governments accountable. i think you had it right in your opening statement, senator, this has to be a shared responsibility. the united states can't fix this problem, but i think we can be a part of the solution with mexico, with colombia, as you mentioned, and we'll do our part at the state department. >> thank you. a quick follow-up, if i could. of the 300 million in the president's supplemental emergency request, any idea how much will go toward addressing the root causes we've been talking about here today? they're in part behind the surge in migration from central america. >> all of the assistance is designed to focus on having an immediate impact. 120 million of it is for the economic growth side, which contains funds that do get at root causes but also contain funds for the youth outreach

centers and for some of the vocational education that we think can help address immediate issues related to the immediate flow of people as well as the longer term solution. i believe there's an additional 70 million more or less for governance activities, and then the rest is in security, which we consider very important. i know my i.c.e. colleagues will agree. we have to be able to expand the repatriation capability of the three countries. that is, we have to expand their ability to receive more people as our process gears up to return them more quickly and more efficiently. >> i was in -- i'm not sure if it was el salvador or guatemala, where they receive people coming back in. >> the guatemala system is

really -- the guatemalans have gotten it down. it's a testament to the seriousness with which they understand the risks their citizens face in making that journey and wanting to welcome them back and helping them reinsert them into their country. but it is guatemala, senator. >> all right. thank you. we talked a little bit already about truth campaigns to message clearly, repeatedly, particularly to the parents of these three central american countries, the perils their children face in trying to send them north. the likely reception they'll get here, the likelihood they'll be returned ultimately. but the most important message, i think, is to convey a message of hope. there's not frankly in those countries much reason to be all that hopeful. we have law enforcement officers that are corrupt.

in too many cases, the judges are corrupt. i remember sitting in a meeting with the president of guatemal . and his interior minister and talking about corruption in their prisons. i said, mr. president, some of your prisons here, the inmates run the prisons. they receive or pay for indirectly some of the guards to bring in cell phones. they operate their illegal activities from the prisons, using cell phones provided by the guards. i said, mr. president, you know, there's technology that can be used to basically wipe out the ability to use cell phones from a prison. i said, you have that capability in your prisons, and you don't use it. you don't use it. there's a lot of work that needs to be done. we could do so much. they need to do their share as well. key to the success of almost any entity i've ever come across, whether it was government,

business, athletics, church, schools. leadership. we have a responsibility certainly to provide leadership as a nation, but frankly these countries need some leadership of their own. fortunately at a time when colombia was on the ropes and it looked like they may go down for the count not that long ago, you'll recall -- i don't know, it was about 20 years or so ago. a group of gunmen rounded up the supreme court of the country of colombia, took them in a room, and shot them to death. 20 years later, colombia's, i think, by most people's judgment s a successful country. economically strong, viable, great trading partner with us, great ally with us. they're in a position now, having been helped by us through the colombia campaign, to turn north and provide the same kind of assistance to others. i think they're willing to do that. we need to make sure that they do. i think what i'd like to do here

is close out. i'm going to ask each of you to give us a closing statement. sometimes i use closing statements, about a minute from each of you, if you would, but i look for this as an opportunity to see where the consensus lies and where the consensus may lie in term of what we should be doing, our responsibilities here on the legislative side, to address the immediate -- not just the immediate problems on the border but also the underlying causes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to just note that i've been doing this job for a while. i've never seen an inner agency effort coordinated the way this effort is being done from the top down. it's pretty impressive. as you said, it is an all hands on deck approach. we're ready to do our part in the immigration court system by prioritizing these cases of recent borders crossers.

we think that will have an effect over time. we ask for your support through the supplemental funding p inin requested by the president. >> all right. thank you. >> mr. chairman, i have an acute personal interest in the work that o.r.r. is doing and hhs and fema is doing and zbp and i.c.e. my mother arrived as a legal immigrant but was orphaned as a teenager in the united states. the work these people are doing to protect these children is really outstanding work. >> thank you. >> mr. greenberg. senator johnson, what we're doing is asking them to give us a one-minute closing statement, just guidance and advice for us, trying to put it all together. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the children that are arriving are an enormously vulnerable group of children. while most of them are older

boys, we have seen an increasing number of girls. we have seen an increasing number of very young children. they come with significant needs. it's important we address those needs when they arrive just as at the same time it's important we enforce our nation's immigration laws. >> thanks. >> first of all, mr. chairman, thank you for holding the hearing. i thought it was really a great hearing. really, just several issues i think we need to be mindful of. number one, this -- we're focusing on central america right now for obvious reasons. but i believe it's important for the committee to also realize that we have other hot spots around the world. this is not going to go away. lots of people want to come to america, and the flows are all changing, as i had mentioned before. the flows of mexicans coming in.

now we're seeing other than mexicans. you see hot spots around the world. india, other locations. and we've had some experience with that already. that problem -- those challengers are going to continue to get larger and larger. i think we really need to play a leadership role, not only from our standpoint but from the state department standpoint of capacity building and things of that nature. so that's number one. number two, i think we have some tough choices to make. these are very, very difficult issues. i'm a father. i understand why these children want to come. i've walked the halls of the air force base with secretary johnson. i've been down to mcallen and other locations. it's absolutely heartbreaking. however, if we want to make an impact here, make sop end roads here, we have to make some tough decisions. you know, we've got to work very

closely with guatemala and others. guatemala to shore up their northern border, mexico to shore up their border. we have to be proactive from a standpoint of investigating the networks. and when these individuals make it into the country, we've got to make sure they have their due process, and once a decision is made to remove, be able to remove quickly. i think when you look at the issues that were faced in 2006 with the bazillions and years before that we had a rash of hondurans. what changed the dynamic of it all was the ability to apprehend, detain, and deport quickly. i believe we need to have more discussion on that. i think that's, to me, the critical issue that we all face. of course, needing the funding

and supporting the supplemental. thank you very much. >> thank you very, very much. >> having spent five years in the white house and now working for secretary johnson, i can tell you that we could not ask for better leadership, more heartfelt compassion, more support for the work that we're doing. it's very clear i'm in the twilight of my career, and to be in this position -- >> it hopefully a long twilight. >> and to be in this position and to be able to work with not only the people at the table but quite frankly whether it was watching a border patrol agent or a customs official who was encountering a child walking up a bridge from mexico, to see the work they're doing really -- it makes you incredibly proud. i would last say that we appreciate the tough questions from the members of congress. we're prepared to answer them to the very best of our ability and to be as forthcoming with you

all as we can be. >> thanks. thanks gil. craig? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't approach this as these are acronyms. i don't approach this as this is a policy issue. i don't approach this as to why it's happening. it has happened, it is happening. we have very, very small children who early in this process were spending far too long in a detention cell, sharing a toilet and eating food that was microwaved because that's all the agents could provide in the initial push. our focus has been on meeting the immediate needs of these children. we have to constantly remind ourselves these are somebody's child, often triatimes trying t reunited with a family member here who took a journey none of us could imagine. and when they came here, we should have the compassion to be able to take care of their basic

needs while we focus on the whys. but i have to focus in on the now. and until we have enough capacity to ensure that these children are not kept in detention, that there's a bed, medical care, decent food, a shower, clean clothes, we fail these children. the president's supplemental request is very specific and ensuring we have the capacity within the agencies, particularly within custom and borders, but more importantly within the office of refugee resettlement, to ensure these children are properly cared for while they are in our custody until final determination is made. that has been my focus, and that will continue to be the focus until such time as we have stabilized this. but we should never forget these are children. they're now in our custody. it is our duty to make sure these children are cared for properly. thank you, sir. >> thank you for that comment and thought. all right, senator johnson. then i'll say a few words and we'll close it out. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. foou gait, first of all, i think we all share your sentiment. we're a compassionate society. we understand these are children. we want to show true compassion. i think the point that a lot of us are making here today is true compassion really would be to prevent this from happening, to actually attack the root cause, which i'll restate again is the incentives we're creating for parents to send their children on this arduous journey. i have to agree with senator coburn. as nice as those posters look, they'll do nothing, nothing in comparison to what plane load after plane load of children being returned to their families in guatemala, honduras, and el salvador would do. that is the most important thing we could do to deter parents from doing this to their children. i do want to get back to -- also, i understand that, you know, you folks are working hard and we appreciate your service and you are constrained by the laws, which we must change expeditiously. you're also constrained by executive orders that i think were misguided.

so you're following the law. i understand that. appreciate your efforts. but we have to change those laws. we have to undo some of these executive orders so we have a more rational system to reduce or eliminate those incentives for illegal immigration. i want to go back a little bit to mexico in terms of what they're doing to help stem the tide. if we've got bus loads of children -- i've seen the pictures of children hanging on to trains. i'm actually surprised that they've turned back 85,000. is there any documented instances where mexico officials have actually interdicted a bus and sent it back? where are we getting this from? >> the mexican authorities regularly send bus loads of interdicted, undocumented migrants moving through their country to guatemala, honduras, and el salvador.

i don't have a specific anecdotal case of a bus of children that was perhaps on its way to the u.s. border having been stopped, but we do know that on a regular basis, mexico sends bus loads of people back to all thee countries. >> but we're basically relying on their statistics in terms of how many people we send back? >> their statistics are i.c.e., attaches in mexico city. they work with and talk to these people as well. i don't think it's just a statistical base. they also have the direct personal relationships that i think are critical to making sure mexico does follow through. >> one thing we've learned is mexico does a pretty good job securing its northern border as the marine sergeant found out.

i'm hoping he gets released immediately. if he's not released, what is the department of justice going to do? what is president obama going to do to secure his release? >> i know that the state department has facilitated visits for him with his attorneys, with his family. we will continue to provide the full range of american citizen services we would provide to any and every american detained in a similar situation. >> is the state department, is president obama as outraged as many americans are by the mexican government's mistreatment of the sergeant? i've seen the videos. i've seen how easy it was for him to accidently get into that lane. this is outrageous. he's been held for over 100 days. are we going to show that time of -- demonstrate that kind of outrage and demand his hurricref he's not returned today?

>> it i know my colleagues in tijuana and washington are working vigorously on this case to expedite a speedy resolution to it as we can. >> i hope if he's not released they act more vigorously. let's put it that way. i want to go back to -- as long as we're talking about the state department here, the $300 million request for, i guess, improving conditions if those central american countries. we're finding we're not particularly good at improving our own economy. isn't that a pipe dream to spend $295 million trying to improve the conditions and expecting that is going to solve the problem as opposed to sending plane loads full of these kids back to their families? >> i think we need to be doing everything we can on all levels, both promoting better economic growth, expanding repatriation, sending more people back. all of these things have to be done. this is a complex problem, and there is no easy, simple

solution. >> but there are things that are going to be far more effective and less costly. let's go through the numbers. the president is asking $65,000 per unaccompanied child. if we buy a plane ticket, put them up with a hotel room, give them some good meals, let's say we send $1,000 per child. that would be $75 million to return the children to their families. isn't that far more effective spending? wouldn't we be better off to improve the immigration services in those countries so there's a place for us to return the unaccompanied children? why don't we kind of reorient our thinking, realize that we can't spend $300 million and really expect to even make a dent in improving the conditions of those countries, and as senator coburn said, the most effective message we can send as opposed to a slick little poster there is literally sending plane loads in a very humane fashion

of these children back to their families. >> part of the request will expand the capacity of these governments to receive additional repatriation flights. so that is envisioned in the request. i think what we think a more balanced approach that tries to address some of the underlying root causes is also essential, not just at stopping the current problem, but to creating the conditions so that in the future these people have a better alternative in their homes. >> haven't we been doing that for years? i mean, literally, haven't we been trying to do these things for years? >> we have, and the scale of how we have provided our assistance, the youth outreach centers is an excellent example. it just doesn't reach a broad enough segment of these countries to make a difference.

expanding some of that assistance, we think, can make a difference. >> i'm out of time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks more those questions and your participation. i think we'll come to the end. again, i want to say a special thanks to craig fugate for changing his schedule to be with us and your participation. for all of you, for your participation. this extraordinary panel, good people, hard jobs. we're glad you're willing to do them. we commend you and the teams you lead in service to our country. it's not easy, is it? there frankly aren't a lot of easy answers, but there are answers. we've had a chance to chew on some of those today. i think it's been called by me and others an all hands on deck moment. all hands are on deck. we're finding out how well this team works. i'm encouraged that given the magnitude of the challenge, it's working pretty well. everything i do, i know i can do better. i think it's true for all of us and true for responses like this. we have to just focus on how to

do better as we go along. senator johnson has heard me say more than a few times, find out what works and do more of that. somehow, something worked in mexico. something has worked in mexico. as we've seen the tide surge of mexicans coming across our border has largely stopped. not entirely, but largely stopped. we have a bunch of mexicans that want to go back to mexico. there's some lessons to be learned there. my hope is we're going to learn thos those. in terms of laws we pass and appropriations that we make. i want to close with -- i think i'll close with a scriptural reference here. believe it or not, we have a bible study group that meets here in the capitol. democrats and republicans get together and pray together, read scripture. we have a prayer breakfast. i don't usually get to meet

because they meet early on wednesday morning, and i'm usually on a train. but our chaplain here is always reminding us of the most important rules, commandments in the bible. one of those is found in the new testament, to love the lord thy god with all thy heart, all thy soul, all thy mind. the second one is to love thy neighbor as thyself. that was the response by jesus in response to a bunch of for pharocees. when he said love thy neighbor as theis, he says, who's our neighbor? you'll recall he famously told the story of the parable of the good samaritan. and it's a good question for us to ask today. who is our neighbor? if we really love our neighbor as ourselves, how do we treat them? the folks in mexico, in canada, and these three central american

countries, they're our neighbor. so are the people on the other side of the world. we have a reputation as a nation of trying to treat others, not just in our own neighborhoods, not just in our own communities and states, but other countries as well as neighbors. we have to be very careful here in making sure that we're responding in the way that the scripture would admonish us to do, that we don't create a situation where parents in honduras and guatemala and el salvador literally take their flesh and blood and put them on top of a freight train or in one of these buses in the hands of people they don't know and send them through all kinds of peril to get to the u.s. border. we have to change that dynamic. and there are a lot of ways to do that. we talked about some of them today. a week from today we'll have a hearing on some -- how we might do that further, how we might further change that climate, that dynamic so that hopefully

ten years from now we're not going to have a hearing here that revisits this issue and say, why are we still wrestling with this problem? we want to be able to say, we learned something about mexico a number of years ago. we didn't entirely fix that. we largely have. but we had problems with colombia. we helped solve that, largely. we can do this as well. again, last word i would say, this is not on our backs alone. we have a responsibility. we have a moral imperative, if you will, to try to do the right thing here. we have fiscal imperative because we don't have unlimited resources. we have a fiscal imperative to do is in a cost-effective way. find out what works, do more of that. we have to make darn sure that other countries that have a dog in fight, mexico, colombia, nonprofit organizations, that they're involved in this as well. we do this together. we'll make great progress. we can feel good about what we've done somewhere down the road and hopefully the folks

we've tried to help will feel a lot better as well. with that, the hearing record is going to remain for 15 days until july 24th, 5:00 p.m., for submission of statements and questions for the record. we're grateful for everyone who's participated to make it so. thank you so much. we're adjourned.

>> the senate appropriations committee holds a hearing on president obama's request for emergency funds to deal with children at the u.s. border. >> coming up, a discussion on how funds requested by the white house would be used to deal with issues at the border. then, senators on the influx of unaccompanied minors of the us-mexico border. a hearing on efforts to protect the border and stop the influx of children.

>> tune into book tv for the harlem book fair, discussions on multicultural, and book tv. >> a discussion on president toma's $3.7 billion request address the situation at the us-mexico border. this is 40 minutes. ter. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now to continue our conversation is doris meissner. previously, among her many background experiences, she was the former commissioner of u.s. immigration service from 1993-2000. the president wants almost $4 billion to be put to issues