the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 49 23 directs me to report the same back to the house with sundry amendments with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill do pass. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on state of the union has had under and deration h.r. 3293 recommends the that the bill pass. the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

the amendment ises -- the amendments are adopted. third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: the bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and or other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. pleads take all conversation thafse floor. please clear the aisles. please clear the back aisle. mr. speaker. -- >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. please clear the aisles. on both sides. >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk.

the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i'm opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will reminority motion. the clerk: mr. enyart moves to recommit the bill, with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount insert increase by $10 million. page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $10 million. page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $20 million. page 27, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $20 million. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. enyart: this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it become to committee. if adopt, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.

mr. speaker, today we come together to vote on an amendment that will not only create infrastructure, but create much-needed jobs as well. before joining the ranks of congress last year, i served in the ranks of our nation's military. as a commander of the illinois national guard, i oversaw the largest deployment of troops overseas since world war ii. also well known across the state and familiarly -- particularly along illinois' mississippi river border, were the efforts of the men and women of the illinois national guard during flood season. efforts, resources and dollars that can be saved with the preventive measures funded in this amendment. the amendment before us today provides an additional $10 million to the army corps of engineers for projects that could include levee construction, levee repair, flood mitigation, and flood

prevention. too often i sent those guards men and women to fight flood watters from the mississippi river. too often, i've seen levees break, rivers flow over their borders, and sandbags give way. and all too often, i've seen the aftereffects of destroyed homes, lost belongings -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. the house will -- if the -- the gentleman will not resume until the house is in order. the house will come to order. the gentleman will not resume until the house comes to order. please take conversation office he back aisle. -- please take conversations off

the back aisle. the gentleman may continue. mr. enyart: too often i've seen he vows break, rivers flow over their banks, and sandbags give way. all too often i've seen the destroyed homes, lost belongings and the anguish of starting over again. just last week three bridges across the mississippi river have been closed due to flooding. 20 roads, highways and interstates have been closed or temporarily shuttered in illinois alone due to floodwaters and the mississippi river is expected to crest 10 feet above flood stage in some areas this week. this isn't just a mid western issue. in the past five years, every single state in our great nation has experienced floods or flash flooding. every dollar that we send to the army corps to prevent flooding will be put back into our economy if american families are spared the expense of flood cleanup.

we must pass this amendment to provide critical dollars to the army corps while creating good-paying jobs for men and women across our nation. this amendment makes all the difference for the people of alton, illinois, where the mississippi river is at flood stage this week. this amendment makes all the difference for the people of grand tower, illinois, where the army corps doesn't have the funding to fix the structural inadequacies of the levees the corps build 60 years ago. communities are depending on us or leadership. also included in the amendment is an additional $10 million for energy efficiency and renewable energy account. current language in the bill is almost $is 1 -- is almost $113 million less than 2013 and $530 million less than the administration's request. we simply cannot afford such harsh reductions in funding for an area where our country

desperately needs growth. energy efficiency and independence. a great example of energy efficiency infrastructure and operations is southern illinois university in my home district, and my alma mater. s.i.u. is committed to sustainability and green operations across campus. the university of be-- the university believes that higher education should be ecologically sound, socially just, and economically viable. giving students a healthy environment in which to live and learn. s.i.u. was again named a green college by the princeton review. s.i.u. maintains green jobs and green processes through their vermi composting center, designed to take food scraps from dormitories and turn it into compost for gardener -- gardens. it's programs like these that

this amendment will support. now like all of you, i have the opportunity to listen to my constituents this past week. over and over again, my constituents stopped me to ask, why do we spend billions of dollars, billions of tax dollar, build and rebuild other nations around the world while so many of our critical improvements need to be made here at home? this amendment won't address all those needs here in america, but it is an improvement to this appropriations bill. and an investment to the long-term needs of our country. i urge you to vote yes for flood safety. vote yes for jobs. vote yes for energy independence. i urge you to vote yes for this amendment. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: claim time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. simpson: the administration's budget request nearly $1 billion below last year's for the army corps of engineers. that's what the administration proposed to us. we restored that, in fact, increased last year's army corps of engineers budget by $25 million. at the same time cutting $50 million out of the overall billism wish he would talk to the administration about their budget request. this is a balanced bill, made more balanced by the two days of amendments we have debated, some accepted, some not accepted, from all our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we have already taken $45 million out of the account. i know it's an easy account to target to take money out of. but at some point in time you have to stop. if we've already taken $45 million out of the account, an important characteristic of any member of this body is to know when to talk and when that shut up. it's after 9:00. i encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill and for the underlying bill.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. enyart: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill. s that five-minute vote. -- this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

>> this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 254, the ase are -- the chair: have all members now voted. any members wishing to change heir vote? the yeas are 253 and the nays are 170. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid pon the table.

>> mr. speaker, today, thursday, july 10, i was unavoidbly detained or in my district on official business in my state on official business until 8 p.m. tonight and i would like to indicate and ask unanimous consent for the following votes if i had been present. on roll call vote 379 under the bill h.r. water and energy appropriations act, i would have voted. i would have voted. yes. 381, i would have voted no. on roll call vote 382, i would have voted yes.

on 383, i would have voted yes. on 384, i would have voted yes. on 385, i would have voted no. on 386, i would have voted yes. on 387, i would have voted yes. voted no.would have on roll call vote and number 392, i would have voted no. i ask unanimous consent that these be placed appropriately in the record for official business in my state in my absence today. i ask unanimous consent. the chair: without objection. the gentlelady's statement will appear in the record. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, last week, i joined my colleague, mr. messer, to introduce the strengthening transparency in higher education act, legislation which will ensure seful information is will help the entire college population. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. the house is not in order. the gentlewoman will resume. ms. foxx: students and families must weigh through massive amounts of information.

the higher education act requires 26 different categories of information be available and there are many additional state and federal requirements. our bill will streamline the maze of information with the consume-tested college dashboard and will provide students with enrollment, completion and average loan debt and wage data. with college costs rising, students need to make informed decisions about their future. the strengthening and transparency education act will help them do just that. i yield back. ifment the gentlewoman from texas seeks recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.

mr. speaker, it's our job to work on behalf of the american people and in h.r. 4923, i'm very pleased to note that twor jackson lee amendments passed that will expand the opportunities for small businesses and promote the environment. one amendment increases the funding for economic minority impact in order to create jobs, a chag challenge that the american people asked us to meet. a second amendment reprogram funds to increase support for environmental justice that is very important to very many sites from northeast to southeast. as you know, i also was able to get an amendment in the bill dealing with the department of interior and set up ain office and outreach for jobs. we must create more jobs and create more jobs and leading out

by this nation to create more jobs is very important. i'm please that the dredging port g that the houston needed was put in this bill. and the port will be able to continue to serve as one of the largest ports in the world. i'm delighted this legislation had these elements in it and i look forward to the bill going o the senate and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any other one-minute requests? the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 15 minutes as the designee of the ajority leader.

mr. gohmert: these are the times that try men's souls. having been to the border a couple of weeks ago, going to the border tomorrow, next i know from my experiences there it's a . aumatic time for so many but i keep coming back to what a west african told me a few years ago, when my wife and i were in est africa with mercy shifts

, re in the harbor of pogo caring for people there. number of the west africans wanted to meet before i left, they knew i was member of congress. man, e oldest, their wise after we had a lovely time visiting said, we wanted to meet with you so that we could give you a message to take back to washington. he said, we were so excited here in africa when you elected your first black president of the united states. he said, but since that happened, we have seen america and eaker and weaker

basically he was saying that we know as christians where we go when we die, but our chance of can g peace in this life nly come if america is strong. so he implored me to go back and hare here in washington that africa wants a strong america, that africans who love peace want and need a strong america. , en i was in nigeria recently visiting with heart broken, devastated mothers of daughters who were kidnapped by a radical

as they they wept would talk about their experiences. three girls who had been captured and been table escape, their tales of the horrors from g. ical islam were sickenin especially for a father of three girls. there in he message nigeria, conveyed by different people, different ways, different words but in essence ust as the elderly african gentleman said a few years ago, please stop getting weaker. you're hurting all of us.

e need a strong america. mr. speaker, a strong america means an america that abides by the law and does what is talked about throughout the bible, about being impartial and fair and that means enforcing the law impartially, that no matter who you are, we must enforce the law across the board. that means whatever your age, wherever you're coming from, you as abide by the laws just the people who are american citizens do. it means that if we do not keep america strong, economically, by

not spending more than we have national security through our military and through our different departments and branches that are supposed to keep us secure, if we don't apply the law across the board and make sure that people attempting to come into this country have the law impartially enforced, we will not stay strong. we move into that third world category where the law is unfairly enforced, it's enforced against different peoples in different measures. and as someone like me who has

been a judge and has had to look civil litigants and felons in the eye and tell them what the times whend, even at i disagreed with the law, but i new it was constitutional, i applied the law because it's what must be done to keep america strong. because when we begin to play favorites, we weaken america. when we cut our defense department just down to the nub and require them to do so many ings with much less money, we're hurting our security. we're not remaining strong. when we have a fed that's creating money, and as i was told at the fed one day, we

can't possibly print all the money we're creating, just adding digits, they're cheapening the value of the dollar and it will pay a toll someday. that weakens us. we got to abide by the law and that means the president of the united states must do so. it means the attorney general of the united states, the highest ranking law enforcement officer as attorney general must apply the law fairly, not unfairly and unjustly and showing great partiality as this attorney general has been doing in his coverup. in his aggressively going after political enemies of the president. in his refusing to -- refusing and wholly failing to re-- wholly failing and refusing to go after the i.r.s. to

investigate. it's very clear, the smell gets worse daily from those involved in the scandal at the i.r.s. and this attorney general does nothing. the message continues to go out around the world that the once great america no longer stands firmly on the constitution, stands firmly on the law and enforces it across the board. our chairman of judiciary, bob goodlatte, put together just a ittle note indicating things that the president can do without congress doing anything more at all. things that this administration can do. and as my friend, chairman goodlatte, points out, president obama's policies have caused a

crisis at our southern border and he has tools at his disposal to fix it. here are several steps the president can take now to stop the surge at the border. number one, send the strong public message that those who enter illegally will be returned. he can use the bully pulpit to ake clear, you're not coming into the united states illegally. you come through our ports of entry and you must come legally, or you will be returned. from where you came. some have been coached, apparently, we hear and read, to claim asylum once you're here. even under the wilber force bill -- the wilberforce bill, you don't get asylum if you're coming in from a country where

ou're not at risk. another point, chairman goodlatte, stop abusing presidential doctor or prosecutorial discretion authority over the past five years, president obama and administration officials have abused prosecutorial discretion, a tool that was meant to give the executive branch flexibility in individual cases. instead, he stretched this authority beyond all recognition to shield entire categories of people. know researching individual cases to determine whether prosecutorial discretion would require nonprosecution. just exempting massive numbers of people. that's not discretion, that's mass amnesty. and this president has been doing it and it has to stop.

the message sent to the world is that if you get in the u.s., you will not be deported. stop releasing convicted criminal aliens from detention. the immigration and customs enforcement, and i don't blame them, i know too many i.c.e. agents, they're good people they want to do the right thing, but they have a commander in chief that's directing them to do the wrong thing. they have released over 36,000 criminal aliens from detention who were removed -- were in removal proceedings or had been ordered removed. that's 36,000 criminal aliens. texas has statistics indicating there have been over 100,000 criminal aliens responsible for ver 600,000 crimes against

american citizens and what does this administration do? protects and encourages criminality by failing to enforce the law. implement tougher standards for credible fear claims. apparently this administration is happy to just accept someone aying the words credible fear. that is not a credible fear. they can detain asylum seekers until their claims are proved valid. instead this administration gives a slip of paper that people coming in illegally is their ticket to stay in the united states illegally. and it makes sense for them to think that because it tells them they must report to a court in

the united states at some point in the future. how can they report to the court if they don't stay in the united states illegally. the president can also restore agreements with local law enforcement agencies and allow them to enforce immigration laws. that was our history, the supreme court was not concerned about precedent so much as they were supposed to be, decided that arizona had to allow lawlessness because this administration was allowing lawlessness. the administration can employ diplomatic resources to stop the border crisis. let's look for example -- let's look, for example, these numbers

2014, elor fiscal year salvador, that appears to be happy with thousands and thousands of its people coming ilie -- illegally through mexico to america. now we read that actually mexico is actually complicit with some of these countries and encouraging them, virtually, to come to america illegally. el salvador, fiscal year 2014, supposed to get 22,281 -- supposed to get $22,281,000 and for fiscal year 2015, supposed to get $27,600,000. we're increasing by $5 million the amount of money at least the administration wants us to, $5 el on more dollars to

salvador. for what reason? gee, i don't know. about the only thing they're known for right now is sending people illegally into the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. seeing no designee of the minority leader seeking recognition, under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for the remainder of the time until 10:00 p.m. as the designee of the majority leader. r. gohmert: thank you.

perhaps we ought to stop sending them money when they're costing us even more money. so let's get this right. we're paying el salvador to cost us billions of dollars in return. guatemala. to a i have been down to the border in recent weeks and people said they were coming from guatemala. of course, they don't say they are coming from violence. violence is down. certainly not up, certainly not

spiking. so it makes it clear that there is a huge spike in people going to america because this administration is making clear to central america, south america, that if you come, you get to stay. why? because they are not interested in what words politicians are saying here in washington, they are more interested in what the politicians are doing. and what they are doing is allowing hundreds of thousands of people to stay in america nce they get here illegally. and apparently this administration thinks that guatemala is costing america what this administration says is a need for billions of dollars.

gee, they are doing a good job of flooding us with immigrants. this administration is asking for the upcoming year that we $1,000. to $77 million, honduras, foreign assistance, to honduras. we have people coming up here from honduras. what does this administration do ? their policies are actually causing people to rush to america because this president won't stand firm and enforce our borders and our laws. the administration says let's give them an extra $7 million.

and take $41 million. even mexico. , theyar friends in mexico just, in foreign assistance were ,9pposed to receive $206 90,000. it's understandable that this administration would have a guilty conscience because it woos this administration, it was is eric holder's administration that forced the sale ever weapons of criminals they expected to go to the drug cartels in mexico, that we know have caused at least one

erican's agent death and suspected hundreds of deaths in mexico while i would be outraged at this administration. people say what about the children. he let me tell you about a 16-year-old who came to me in tears. e said shy was driving there

family of this poor child consisted of her and her single no, ma'am and she and her mom were struggling to pay their bills, to get by. she was working after school. her mom was working all she could. but even with her mom working as hard as she could and with her working after school and trying to study, they couldn't afford to pay for comprehensive on her car. all they could afford was liability as the law requires. you needed to have liability, in case you caused an accident. her car was totalled. the illegal alien car was damaged, but he was able to drive it away.

was allowed to drive it away because this administration says states, you can't enforce immigration law. and we're not doing it. that's what this administration's actions clearly show. and for this poor child, she says, what do i do? i can't afford another car. we cannot comprehensive insurance. we still got to pay that car off. how are which going to get by. we captain buy me another car and i can't get to work and i can't pay my bills and my mom is heartbroken and means we can't get by. and why? administration sin

cavalier attitude is allowing people to come into this country illegally. and because this administration fights so hard legally, using every measure it can to keep states from using their own law enforcement to protect themselves, the states are not able to arrest illegal aliens. how many u wonder people have to suffer in this country before the law will be enforced and it will be impartially applied across the board. how many times do we have to do damage to people in other countries who want to come

legally who have been spending money and time year after year to apply to come legally when we are sending the message doing them damage, sike logically, you want to come in, you have to come in. doesn't matter what he says. don't listen to his lips or his words. they are not sending people back. think about all the children in american schools around this country because this administration, to their credit, is trying to be fair and impartial with all the disasters they are causing. they're shipping people with disease, people who will not be able to help pay for their

education. they are shipping them all over the country and it's going to cost the local communities and those states all over the country because this administration will not enforce the border. well, interesting, looking at one provision of the constitution, i hadn't heard anybody talk about, we have been talking about it in my office in talking with some friends about it. called my constitutional law professor from baylor university, and he's looking at it. well, what do you do? do the founders ever think about what a state can do when the federal government refuses to protect them and the state is being invaded? mr. speaker, what would you call it when about 300,000 people come into your state in a matter

of months, short months, and then the report comes that there so in the pipeline on their way up? and then we get the story in the news that mexico has reached and agreement to facilitate more people coming from guatemala, hey, we'll let you come, come on. the e going illegally in upes. free passage through mexico. that would seem to be a conspiracy between countries conspiring to help violate the united states law. so what is this administration's response with regard to mexico and guatemala?

let's keep sending them millions of dollars. every dime ought to be cut off from any country that does not help the united states enforce our own laws. but if the united states, federal government, obama administration won't enforce the laws, what's at stake to do? well, you look at article 1, section 10, the third clause down there, the third provision section 10, apparently they anticipated times, quantity find it's been used yet, but times when the federal government has not or will not or cannot protect the state from an invasion. then it says, the actual

wording, no state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any duty of tonage, keep troops or ships or enter in any agreement with a foreign state or engage unless actually invaded. if a state is actually invaded, this says basically that the state can start putting taxes on things, traveling in interstate commerce in order to defend its borders. it can call up troops. can even use ships of war. even in times of peace, it can enter agreements with other states, say new mexico, arizona, if they were interested, or even with a foreign country, texas,

if this is an invasion, texas could enter into agreements with mexico directly if there is an actual invasion. so, mr. speaker, what do you call it when 300,000 people, twice as many as those invaded france on d-day come into your state so quickly and get word upt 300,000 are on their way and those children sitting in school rooms are going to have people forced into their school rooms without money. people ask what about the children? it would seem that our ocean here in congress should require us to provide for the common defense. to provide for those within our jurisdiction that we should not

encourage other countries against the will of the american people or against the will of any state to force them to assume hundreds of thousands of people that will bankrupt the state, bankrupt their schools and do great damage to their children, to their neighborhoods , because the people are forced there by government that refuse to follow the constitution of the law. we have interesting days ahead. may god give us wisdom to choose wisely. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentleman seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now a journ. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted

>> what would this a bonus depreciation part of the bill do? they can usually deduct the cost of that equipment over years as it depreciates. it allows companies to deduct a

few percent of the cost upfront in the first year two incentive five businesses to buy equipment and invest. riting about the threat into the dough the gop tax cut calling it a corporate giveaway. what do they mean? >> the specific complaint is that house republicans want to make this permanent. they want extended indefinitely. they don't want to, with any way to pay for it because tax cut doesn't need that offset. the white house points out that it carries a significant price tag of $287 billion and the republicans have opposed a number of their provisions and taking part the republicans want to make a tax break without coming up with the same. >> groups are calling for passage of the bill. what are the key conservative members that they are working on to get this past question my >>

it should have brought republican support. means to the ways and committee. it should have problem getting to the house. the key debate is what they do when it comes to the senate. they are trying to push a much shorter extension of this provision as they get extenders done. it is supposed to be a permanent extension. >> we hear the term extenders a lot. what are they specifically referring to? >> we're talking about this package of tax provisions that are temporary and expire on a regular basis. congress decides they want to extend them several times every couple of years. they call it the extenders package. we have this percent -- said of provisions that they actually expired at the end of 2013.

now the effort is to get them extended retroactively through 2014 print house republicans would like to see several the permanent piece of the tax code. led by ron wyden are pushing a limited encouragement. they want a two-year extension. 2014 and 2015. it doesn't make sense to try to make these permanent when you want to continue having the debate about the tax cut going forward. >> the house and senate are far apart. any chance a bill will pass in both bodies? the expectation is that some resolution is going to be reached. the issue of timing is a key piece. they don't want to see these tax provisions necessarily go away.

harry reid has indicated he wants them but doesn't think it will come up. >> peter schrader is reporting. >> the senate appropriations committee looks at president obama's request for more money to deal with the increasing number of unaccompanied minors. then, the senate armed services committee considers several military nominations, including the heads of special operations enforcement in afghanistan. >> keep in touch with current phone any time. c-span radio and audio now.

c-span radio now. dustin's -- long distance charges may apply. >> the senate appropriations committee consider the presence request for emergency spending. witnesses in the hearing including jeh johnson and sylvia burwell. >> senator shelby is on his way from voting. the official part of the hearing will begin surely shortly.

hearing will begin shortly. i just wanted to go over two things. one, as you all know, today is the hearing on the supplemental request submitted by the administration to cover the unexpected and unanticipated needs of the significant number of unaccompanied children coming to our border. i want those who follow our committee so very closely to know that on tuesday we will be marking up the defense appropriations subcommittee, and we will do a full committee markup on the defense bill -- defense appropriation on thursday. the committee should be alerted that if we can get other things done during the week with appropriate notice following the rules, we will do so. however, we will not do anything

until after tuesday afternoon. so we know that monday, tuesday -- tuesday morning will be the subcommittee on defense markup. we'll look for also opportunities because there are unfinished business at the full committee level, the opportunity perhaps to go to the floor with one or more bills, and, of course, we will have to look where we will go after our hearing on the supplemental for unaccompanied children. we're also keenly aware that there is a need by many members to be able to catch planes this afternoon, which is why with the indulgence and concurrence of everybody, i would like to start my opening statement so that we can get to the witnesses for those of you who might haveh+ t leave. we will be recognizing people in their order of arrival, and

we'll proceed in that direction. so for today the purpose of today's hearing is to examine the president's emergency request for the funding of $3.7 billion to address the crisis of children from central america crossing our southwestern border by the thousands. their situation is extremely dire. the united states of america has an obligation to deal with this emergency. these children are seeking refuge. they're seeking refuge from organized crime, despicable gangs, vile human traffickers who are ex employeding and profiting from human misery and desperation primarily in three countries, guatemala, honduras, and el salvador. they are willing to risk their lives in order to get away from

the terrible violence. the president's emergency request totals $3.7 billion for caring for the humanitarian needs of the children, detention and enforcement at the border, identifying their legal status under our rule of law, and robust deterrence in the children's home country by going after and prosecuting the organized crime syndicates, the smugglers, the coyotes, the traffickers. there alsol7 needs to be, and there's a funding request, for a massive education campaign warning central american families about the dangers and false hopes of the journey. we also need to make sure that we are working with the central american countries in structuring repatriate.

the ambassador tom shannon of the state department, ambassador shannon, an experienced south america hand counselor to john kerry and appointed by secretary kerry to be his point person on all matters related to this crisis at our borders, and then also we will have juan usuna from the executive office of immigration review at the justice department, a witness that particular senator shelby wanted. we had hoped that attorney general holder could have come. we respect, of course, your presence, sir, and welcome it. secretary holder -- i mean attorney general holder is traveling, and we hope that as the full senate gains more knowledge about this, we will look forward to hearing fr)q attorney general as well.

now, this, the appropriations committee, and particularly my appropriations subcommittee chairs, realized early on that the president's fiscal year 2015 budget request was inadequate to this growing emergency. our committee had to make some hard choices, and in the bills we've already marked up, we had to make hard choices in the funding related to homeland security, human services, state department, and justice. though the budget deal gave us tremendous certainty, the actual budget is quite spartan and, therefore, we did the best we could. our appropriations job now is to make sure that the resources to deal with this are met. there needs to be food and shelter for children seeking refuge. border agents and detention facilities need to be available. we want to be able to relieve the overworked and highly stressed border patrol agents

who are doing a great job at the border, and there needs to be shelters who now have too few beds to care for these many children while we determine their legal status. we need to have immigration judges and legal services to make sure that we can determine their legal status in a way that meets all requirements of the law, the law that is on the books, and at the same time honor the fact that america isxa country of the rule of law. there also has to be muscular deterrence going after criminals and gangs who so exploit these children and their families, who mislead them, misinform them, and even abuse them as they make this perilous and treacherous journey from central america. i know there are many like myself who support comprehensive immigration reform and there are many views on that, but i caution my colleagues today's not the top -- today's topic is not about immigration reform.

it is about meeting this refugee crisis. the best way to make sure the surge of children is temporary is to pass the emergency supplemental making sure we have a deterrent strategy against the smugglers and traffickers and a real effort on the host country -- or where the central american countries to also be a source of deterrence. right now 57,000 unaccompanied children have arrived. we can expect as many as 90,000 by the year. last week i toured the border with three of the witnesses at this table, secretary burrell, secretary johnson, and, of course, the ambassador shannon. we saw young children, some as young as 5, 7, 9. they had one instruction, cross the border, turn yourself in, and hope for the best. border agents who found them find these children dehydrated, malnourished, scared. many have been abused.

they come here relying on smugglers' false promises. smugglers that are part of dangerous gangs and cartels who see women and children like commodities to be able to buy and sell them across the u%eááy children leave home based on lies, endure dangerous journeys and the threat of being trafficked along the way. president obama has come before us to ask for designated funds to meet the emergency. i believe this is an emergency designation. the budget control act defines an emergency as spending for the prevention or mitigation or response to loss of life or property or a threat to national security that is sud, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary. i agree with the president and i believe that this situation is an emergency. our first goal must be to protect the safety and health of the children and make sure we have the resources to do it. our second goal is to make sure that their legal status is

determined under the law that we have so that then their future can be legally determined. third, there must be a muscular deterrent strategy to discourage families from sending their children with smugglers who profit from them out of profit. we look forward to listening to our witnesses and i look forward to working with our colleagues in order to be able to move the president's supplemental. i also want to note that though we're hearing from government witnesses today, we've opened up the hearing procedures for any nonprofit that wishes to submit testimony to the committee. we've already heard from 13 of them, and those records will be opened for the next two weeks. the president's urgent supplemental also included $615 million to prevent and fight wildfires. we're not going to go into that today. today the subject of thousands

of children at our doorstep will take the committee's attention. so we look forward to moving the hearing along and dealing with this supplemental. i now turn to my vice chairman, senator shelby, for his remarks. >> thank you. thank you, madam chair. madam chair, at this time i'd like to request that my full statement be inserted in the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> why are we here today? we're here because our nation's immigration system is broken. we're here because the obama administration as well as previous administrations have failed to secure our borders and has ignored our existing immigration laws for a long time. is it anything new? over the years we've spent billions of dollars on immigration enforcement, but to no avail. currently we have millions of illegal immigrants6s in our nation, the result of president obama's failure, i believe, to

enforce the immigration law currently on the books has been predictable, and that's one of the reasons we're here this afternoon. now we're being asked by president obama to approve a $3.7 billion request to resolve the current crisis at our border. there are several questions that i think need to be answered. what exactly is the $3.7 billion going to address? will this request be the end? or will it be the beginning of many new requests by the administration for emergency funding? and while the president is seeking billions for the admission, detention, and care of illegal children and adults, only, yes, only $45.4 million it's my understanding is requested for the department of justi justice's adjudication and immigration proceedings. this fact is very troubling to

me. estimates suggest that the expense for hhs is more than $15,000 for every minor in u.s. custody, $15,000. for hhs alone, the president requests an additional $1.8 billion with no firm policy to stem the influx and no way to pay for it. i personally have no confidence that pouring billions ofo dolls into our current immigration system will solve the crisis. i think we have to get serious about enforcing our current laws and protecting our border if we're ever to get different results. in 2011h hhs took custody of 6,560 unaccompanied children coming into this country illegally. today that number has skyrocketed. last october roughly 52,000

children unaccompanied have entered the united states. customs and border protection estimates that as many as 150,000 children may attempt to cross the border in 2015. if we continue to double down on the same failed immigration policies, where does that take us in 2016, '17, and beyond? i look forward to working with the chairperson here to ensure that we do not reward illegal immigration. i believe that we must start with actually securing our border which we have never done, enforcing our nation's immigration laws, which we don't do, and definitively saying no to people who come here illegally. thank you, madam chairman. >> senator shelby. we're now going to turn to our witnesses. rather than go through lengthy introductions, i'm going to just suggest that secretary burwell

start, secretary johnson, ambassador shannon, and then mr. osani, youqe be the wrap-up fro justice. secretary burwell, we will just go right on in the interests of time. >> chairwoman mikulski, ranking member shelby and members of the committee, i thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues. the influx ever children is an urgent humanitarian situation that calls for a robust humanitarian response. it is a complex evolving situation for which there are no easy answers. it is a situation we are taking very seriously across the administration recognizing our dual purpose of taking care of these children while we also enforce the law. as a nation of laws, we must acknowledge that many of the children crossing our borders do not have a legal basis to remain in this country. we must acknowledge that we are talking about children, many of them young children, who are escaping unthinkable violence and living in conditions that are difficult for many of us to

imagine. often times they are preyed on my smugglers who have made it their business to bring unaccompanied children across the borders. i had the opportunity to meet a few of these children last week as the chairwoman mentioned. we visited a customs and border patrol station along with a temporary shelter at an air force base in texas. and we met the remarkable americans who are caring for these children and supporting this mission in other important ways. some of the folks work for cbp, fema, and hhs. others are grantees and community members all going above and beyond. the children had heartbreaking stories to share. a teenaged girl told us how she had fled heres home when her une had been murdered in front of his house. sadly, this story is not an anomaly. many of these children are escaping violence and threats by gangs, and they and their families are being preyed upon by smugglers.

a situation of this magnitude calls on all of us to work across government to enforce the law and to care for these children in a manner that honors our values. federal law says that hhs' role is to feed, shelter, and provide medical care for unaccompanied children until we're able to place them in a safe and suitable setting with family members or a sponsor while they await immigration proceedings. as the number of children has grown, our resources have been stretched thin. in fiscal year 2011 an estimated 65,000 unaccompanied children came into our care. this increased to 13,600 in 2012 and almost 25,000 in 2013. as of july 6th, over 50,000 children have been apprehended and placed in our care in fy 14. to associated challenges, hhs put together a

two-prong strategy for our part. one is first to drive down the length of time that children remain in shelters. the other is to expand our shelter capacity. when it comes to time that children are in our care, we've made significance progress. since 2011, when it took 75 days, we reduced that time to 35 and are continuing to try and make progress so we move even more quickly. on permanent shelter capacity, we have added about 1700 beds since january. and we've also opened temporary shelters with three military bases across the country. while temporary solutions were necessary in the short term, makeshift solutions do not make long-term fiscal sense. temporary shelters cost more than the permanent shelters. as we move forward, the reality is that we don't have enough beds and we don't have sufficient resources to continue to add beds to ensure that the children are not staying in the

holding facilities at the border. that is why the president has made the request that we are discussing today. and we believe this investment will allow our department to bring on the additional capacity that we need. the gravity of this situation calls for a robust and compassionate approach that reaches across government and empowers us to enforce the law. thank you, and i welcome your questions. >> secretary johnson. >> thank you madam chair, vice chair, senator shelby. thank you for hearing us today. you have my prepared statement. let me just summarize it with some less formal observations about this request. first of all, i believe we can and we will stem this recent tide of illegal migration into the rio grande valley sector. the request that we have made

for $3.7 billion supplemental is, indeed, a lot of money for the taxpayer. i think senator shelby asked the right question. what will it address? what am i being asked to pay for? and from my perspective, this request has the right focus on deterrence, added detention and removal. and removal more quickly than we have done in the past. from my perspective, the supplemental seeks $1.1 billion for immigration and customs enforcement. $879 million of which goes to adding detention capacity for adults who bring their children. family units as we refer to them. we've already begun the process of building an increased detention capacity for family units at artesia, new mexico, where i'm going tomorrow. we need the ability to build

additional family unit capacity. $109 million goes to i.c.e. for work with the three central american countries from which this migration is coming to expand their own resources. with respect to the customs and border protection agency, $433 million is requested, $364 million of which is for added border patrol agents overtime and the like. for their capacity. as doj will point out, that's a $64 million request, $45 million of which goes to more judge teams and to an increased caseload of 55 to 75,000 cases a year. the deputy attorney general and i have already agreed that with this added capacity, the recent influx should be the priority. the state department is seeking $300 million. $295 million of which is for

repatriation and reintegration into society. members of this committee, doing nothing is not an option. at our current burn rate, within the department of homeland security, ic.e. will run out of money in mid-august. given the added transportation cost, given the added enforcement cost, customs and border patrol will run out of money by mid-september at the current burn rate, given the situation we face. the one additional point i'd like to add is the transfer authority that we've requested within the department of homeland security and between hhs and dhs, in our view is critical based upon the possibility of evolving circumstances. i'd like to also point out that we're not starting from standing still. we've already done a number of things to address the recent

influx. we have, with respect to the adult population that is part of this recent migration, already dramatically reduced the expedited removal time, the turnaround time from something like 33 days to 4 days with trop the adult population. i personally witnessed when i was in guatemala two days ago an airplane of adults coming back who were being repatriated to guatemala. and we've asked for additional capacity for repatriatiorepatri. with regard to the family units, i've already noted we've built artesia, new mexico, which is a federal law enforcement training facility into a detention center for family units. i'm going there tomorrow to highlight that fact. and we need to build more. with regard to the unaccompanied children, this is obviously a maurge challenge with a humanitarian component to it.

i know that personally, along with secretary burrwell. we've spent considerable time ourselves with the children and we're bound and determined to do the right thing. but we are and we must building -- requesting added resources to move these cases quickly. along with the department of justice, there is a public relations, an awareness campaign which the first lady of guatemala herself, along with this government, has spearheaded. this is the first lady of guatemala's public awareness campaign which she gave me yesterday. stay back home. that she's asking the children of her country to hear. the guatemalans have established a task force that i witnessed yesterday, and the mexicans, i am pleased to note, announced on monday that they intend to add to their border security along their southern border.

so considerable progress has already been made in this regard to stem this tide, among other things, but the supplemental is, in our judgment, an absolute necessity to address this situation. thank you. >> thank you, senator johnson. ambassador? >> madam chair, mr. vice chairman, senator shelby, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you on the president's supplemental budget request. my colleagues, the secretary of health and human services and the secretary of homeland security have described well the situation in front of us, both the crisis and the challenge. i would like to address the foreign policy implications and the larger diplomatic challenge we face. i would like to start by making three broad statements about the migration crisis that we're facing at this point. first, migration by unaccompanied children is not a new phenomenon along our southwest border. however, what we're facing now in terms of its size and its

composition is. it's unprecedented and unique in terms of its drivers. and we believe its solution. it's unprecedented and unique first because historically, the migration by unaccompanied children has been a mexican phenomenon. it is no longer. actually, the numbers of unaccompanied mexican children have been dropping over time. what we've been seeing is the dramatic increase in the number of central american children. and from our point of view this means that something is driving them out of central america. this is a central american driven process. second, while the motives behind migration are mixed, and while many of those coming to the united states are driven by traditional factors such as family unification and economic opportunity, it's evident from interviews with them, both by our customs and border patrol officials and by ngos that work along the frontier that underlying much of the migration is a fear of violence. and especially activity by criminal gangs. in other words, there's a significant push factor to this migration. the third point is that the

migration is regional. and while much of it is directed towards the united states, because of the existing migrant networks in the united states, and the attraction of our country, the impaskt this migration is being felt throughout the region. the u.n. high commission on refugees has registered a 400% increase in asylum requests in neighboring countries. which means that when children decide they either can't make it to the united states or they don't want to run the risk if they feel they have to leave, they do, and they are going elsewhere in the region. because of this third point we believe that an approach in the region, our diplomatic approach and foreign policy approach has to be regional in nature and that we have to involve the source and the transit countries. but also those who are affected broadly by migration. in the process of working up to the supplemental request and looking again at our broader central america strategy, we've come up with a five-step or five-part strategy that we are in the process of implementing.

but first part, the first step is establishing a common understanding of what is happening and why. between the united states, the three course countries, guatemala, honduras and el salvador and the major transit country, mexico. the second step is fashioning a public common agenting committee to deter migration especially by children. this highlights the dangers of migration but also counters misinformation for smugglers seeking clients. the third step is imflifg ability of mexico and guatemala to interdict migrants before they cross into mexico and enter the established smuggling routes that move the migrants to our border. fourth is enhancing the capacity of guatemala, honduras and el salvador to receive and reintegrate -- repatriated migrants to discourage further efforts of migration. the fifth step is addressing the underlying causes of migration of unaccompanied children by focusing additional resources on economic and social development and enhancing our citizen

security programs to reduce violence, attack criminal gang structures and reach out to at-risk youth. this strategy is a cooperative effort defined by collaboration between the united states and mexico, guatemal ahonduras and el salvador. it's a new approach to address migration issues but reflects the growing ties and common interest rated among our countries by demographics, trade relations and increased security cooperation. as we look at the portion of the supplemental that belongs to the foreign affairs community, to the department of state and to our partners in dhs and the department of justice, we decided that we would allocate $300 million in two passions. $5 million on public diplomacy and messaging and $295 million in economic support funds broadly divided between the headings of prosperity governance and security. i'm happy to discuss why we did this and how it is that we propose to use these monies. as noted by my colleagues, we

believe this request is reasonable and necessary. it builds on work we're already doing in central america, takes advantage of existing expertise and experience and expands our ability to encourage guatemala, honduras and el salvador work with us on an issue of compelling human drama and national interest. this request will also allow us to build a new and comprehensive and collaborative approach with central america and mexico to problems that have an immediate manifestation in migration but underlie the larger development and security challenges facing our closest neighbors. by working to meet the challenge of illegal migration of unaccompanied children to the united states, we will be advancing broader interests in the region and giving substance to our vision of an america where democracy and markets deliver economic and social development. this is an investment worth making, and i thaunk you for the opportunity to discuss this request with you and look forward to your questions. >> thank you, ambassador shannon. mr. osana?

>> good afternoon madam chair, vice chairman shelby and other members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the justice department's role in the government wide response to the situation along the southern border. notion the attorney general, the deputy attorney general could not be with you today because he's traveling at the border. i'll be concentrating my testimony today on the executive office for immigration review which is the largest component of the doj portion of the supplemental, and it is the agency that i head. uir is responsible for conducting civil immigration removal proceedings through our immigration ports around the country and our appellate level court, the board of immigration appeals. our case load follows enforcement patterns at the border and at the interior. every department formally charges removable from the u.s. resulting in other case for uir. with 375,000 matters pending at the end of june, we are currently managing the largest case load the immigration court system has ever seen.

overall there are now 243 immigration judges in 59 courts around the country. many of our courts are located along the southern border, including san diego, texas and el paso. some courts are located within i.c.e. detention centers for efficiency reasons, including the border locations in arizona a and. the agency has focused on the adjudication of those cases which involve individuals that dhs has apprehended and charged with the removal from the u.s. often for criminal convictions that make them removable. the current situation along the texas border is prompt tougs reset priorities across the entire immigration court system as we along with our federal partners respond to the president's directive to focus additional resources on the border. particularly on those that the secretary said who entered the border in recent weeks. from now on, the vortex of cases

will be the highest priority for the immigration courts. detained cases will continue to be a top priority, but to those we are going to be adding those involving unaccompanied children, adults who arrive with children who are detained and adults who arrive with children who are not detained and are released instead of -- on alternatives such as electronic monitoring. this means these cases will go to the front of the line for adjudication and immigration judges will be reallocated to make sure these cases are heard promptly ahead of others. while there are already lack sufficient number of immigration judges assigned to the regularly detained cases, what the priorization means is we'll make additional judges available from the nondetained dockets to make sure those cases are heard promptly. again, namely unaccompanied children and adults who arrive with children. this will have large consequences for the broader immigration court case load. cases not considered a priority will take longer to adjudicate in some cases, considerably

longer. however, given the seriousness of the situation on the border, it is the appropriate response for our agency. regardless of the changes for priorities that we are making, our overriding principles will remain that every fact is considered, every application of law is correct and all persons appearing in our courts will receive due process of law. in order to meet its mission, uir must be provided with the ability to staff our courts with the judges and staff the most efficiently processed cases. in 2010, we began an aggressive hiring effort to address the significant rise in case loads and this met with considerable success. unfortunately, sequestration and the funding constraints had a significant impact on our operations, increasing the number of cases pending adjudication and extending case dockets into the future. this appropriations act included funds enabling them to lift the

hiring freeze and we began a hiring effort to fill vacationant positions nationwide, including at least 30 new immigration judges. and the president presented his request for fy '15 which also includes a good increase for our agency and would add another additional 30 judges or more. i'd like to just highlight for the rest of my time the president's request for $71 million presented yesterday for supplemental doj funding, to address the border situation. this request includes $64 million to be directly appropriated to doj and $7 million to be transferred to doj from funding appropriate to the state department. of the $64 million appropriated to the justice department, uir would be allocated $31.7 million to support immigration judge teams and $6.7 million for equipment and technology to maximize our flexibility and ensure that our judges are available when we need them and where we need them. in addition, the request includes $2.5 million for the

successful orientation programs and $15 million for direct legal representation for children in immigration proceedings. in addition to the request, includes just over $1 million for doj's office of immigration litigation to support the expected workload increase and finally $7 million that would be transferred from the state department with support of wide range of doj programs designed to build law enforcement capacity in central america to combat transnational crime. i ask for your support for the president's request. >> i'm going to thank the witnesses for their testimony and now we're going to go to questions. you can see the enormous interest of the committee that we have 24 of our 30 senators who are members of this committee that are participating. it will be led off by myself and senator shelby followed by senators tester and alexander, udall and moran, murray and collins, americaly and johans. that's the first hour. and i can go to the second hour, but we're going to move right

along here. i would like to go to the testimony of the written testimony of secretary johnson. and i really asked my colleagues on the committee to turn to page 2, the second paragraph. what this says is, without the supplemental funding in august, and then mr. secretary, you elaborate on what will happen if we do not pass the supplemental. so i'd ask my colleagues to look at it, but i'm going to go to you secretary burwell. if you are the -- of the $3.7 billion, $1.8 billion is at hhs. now if we don't pass this supplemental by august, what will happen, and you gave a compelling narrative about this situation of the children. but what is it that you need $1.8 billion to buy? and that's what america's middle class are asking.

we are worried about these children, but back home, they are worried about their children. could you telluous this is urgent, what you need 1.8 and what happens if we don't do this supplemental. >> the money for hhs is purely for the care of the children. and we generally refer to that as beds. 84% of that we say is for beds for the children. and 12% for other services and 2% just in terms of administrative costs over time. but with regard to when we say a bed, what we mean is actually the full care for the child. and i assume that we're going to talk about that throughout the hearing today. in terms of whether that's the fact that all of those children receive a wellness exam and that's important to the public health of our nation. it's important to the public health of those children. each of those children also receive mental health interviews as we've talked about, these children have been in some of them very tragic situations and we need to make sure that as we place those children, we

consider those types of thuings. the child is in our care. in addition, we're not putting an additional burden on the communities when the child is in our care. when the child is in our care, we actually do many of the health examinations as part of our system where the child is. in addition, we are educating and providing some educational components for those children so they are not in the system. so the cost for us in terms of this overarching cost is really about the care. the 12% or other services. they are legal services. and certain health services that go beyond what we provide. so if a child actually has a situation that requires medical attention that is beyond basic child welfare, that the physicians and other medical attendants can take care of and the child must go to a hospital, we pay for that care. the federal government and part of hhs' responsibility pays for that care. in addition are the costs that we're talking about when we say

the legal costs. the type of the assistance that we pay is what we pay is for the children when they come in to receive materials and sometimes those are done by video and sometimes those are done in person, and they receive two types of information. one, the children come to understand and know their rights and protections that they have as part of this process. the second thing is the children are actually taught and it is explained what the immigration proceedings that they will face will be. for some of the children, we do additional supplemental group education sessions where they can ask questions. and over time for certain children that have special needs, that is what the money is for. >> so what happens is, while ambassador shannon and the state department are supposed to be encouraging people not to come, and i think the fact that it's a little -- not enough money for going after the gangs, they meet the border patrol. and then they come to you while

their legal status is being determined. now this then goes to this. so if we don't pass this bill before this august recess, what happens? >> so for us, there 24 things that i think are important in terms of the time sensitivity. if we continue on the current trajectory that we saw in may, june, what happened in may and june is the number of children that came through dhs exceeded the number of beds that we had available at hhs. and what that means is that those children, whatever that number exceeds, those children are at the border. n those children are in detention and holding pens until we can move them. and so the ability of hhs, so if we stay on the current trajectory and we are actually doing pilots to try and speed our process. we are doing everything we can. there are three variables. number of kids, number of beds, speeds with which hhs can move the children. we're working an that speed as much as we can but we need to do

this in a safe and secure way. and what it is about is in august, if we continue on the may/june trajectory, the ability for hhs to bring on beds so that we no longer have more coming in than i can process at hhs and our teams can on a daily basis, they will be backed up at the borders. the other thing just from an economic perspect i'ive -- >> what happens at the border? >> senator, because of the recent spike in migration, we've had to surge within i.c.e. transportation costs and the cost of building increased detention capability, most notably from the family units. to be honest, i.c.e. had very, very few beds for family unit detention capability. we've had to build more to deal with this to send people back quicker. the border patrol has been working overtime so we've incurred those overtime costs as well as simply the cost of

caring for all the children at the border. and so as i said earlier, at the current burn rate, i.c.e. is going to run out of money in mid-august and we project that cbp is going to run out of money in mid-september if there is no supplemental. we're going to have to go to some very dramatic harsh form of reprogramming, which i'm sure the committee is familiar with, away from some vital homeland security programs that i'm sure members of this committee care a lot about. or risk anti-deficiency act violations which is intolerable to me. so that's the situation we faced. >> with my time expired, the fact is the failure to act does not save money for the taxpayer. what it essentially does is back up the ability of these children to be in a safe and secure surrounding. they will be in primarily at the border with border patrol agents

who are dedicated law enforcement people in situations that are in facilities that were never meant to house children. so they have overcrowding, poor sanitation, a variety of things there. so that would be a big choke point and you have to start reprogramming money from what really homeland -- other homeland security. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> well, again, please go to page 2 of this testimony of secretary johnson. thank you. i'm going to turn to senator shelby. before i do, i just want to say one thing. i've seen now into action caring for the children, a faith-based organization. i've seen what your border control people are doing. i get a sense of this. i just really want to thank all of the men and women who work for our government and those fantastic faith-based organizations along the border and others reaching out to you for the way they are really trying to meet this in a way

that is humane, legal, but ultimately, we need to prevent a way of these children continually being exploited by the traffickers. senator shelby? >> thank you. secretary johnson, is the protection reauthorization act of 2008, which you are very familiar with, is that -- i know it was a well-meaning piece of legislation because we are against human trafficking in adults, children, everything like that. but is that part of the problem in detaining and processing these children now? is the problem -- some people have, and we've heard reports that probably we need to change that law in some way. ark mend that law as we talk about more money. you want to address that?

>> the tvpra which became law in 2008 requires when we identify a child as an unaccompanied child, i am required to give that child over to the department of health and human services and they act in the best interest of the child. we're talking about unaccompanied minors who don't have children with them to make decisions on their behalf. so the intentions behind the law, the spirit of the law reflect very worthwhile principles and reflect our american values, frankly. i do believe, and this is not part of this particular request. i do believe that some type of added discretion on my part would be helpful to address this particular situation. and so right now, what we have in mind is treating migrants,

unaccompanied migrants on the three central american countries which we call noncontiguous countries as being from contiguous countries. we have the discretion to offer an unaccompanied child from a contiguous country, i.e., mexico, the ability to accept a voluntary return. and a lot of them actually do. my flexibility in this current situation to deal with. >> so if we remanded the law to give you that discretion you think that would help you to some degree? >> yes. >> thank you. director osuna, the administration announced on wednesday that an immigration proceedings unaccompanied alien children will now be given priority over adults.

we have seen no explanation of how resources will be allocated to achieve this end. just bear with me. it's my understanding, correct me if i'm wrong, the docket for detained persons takes priority over other cases. but it's the docket for nondetained persons, children, whatever, where the uac's children are placed. if you don't shift resources to where the problem is, how do you prioritize these cases, and i guess following up on this, how many children are being detained as opposed to nondetained status? give us an idea there. >> sure. senator, the -- to answer your question about how do you address this without more resources, we don't. the point of setting of new

priorities that now include unaccompanied children is to be able then to shift immigration judge and immigration court resources away from the nondetained dockets which are, you know, a big portion of the dockets to the unaccompanied children. now the unaccompanied children for the most part of not detained. the vast majority of them are actually released by hhs and put in the care of a custodian, often a family member. >> explain the -- is it most of the times a family member? >> that's correct. >> yes. about 55% are actually parents. and getting us up to another 30% will be other family members such as relatives, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles. >> for people that are nondetained, in other words, they've come in, we process them. we examine them and all of this.

and they are put out with their family or to a church or somebody will take them that's responsible. what's the lag time from the -- to say you did it today until there's an adjudicated hearing on whether they will be allowed to stay or go home. >> are you talking about just for unaccompanied children, or -- >> for unaccompanied children -- >> undetained children and then detained. >> unaccompanied children for the most part of not detained. i think what you are asking is the lag time between the time it comes to the court system and the time there's a hearing. and that varies significantly from court to court. some courts it can take a few weeks. in some courts it takes a long time. sometimes over a year. the point of setting these in priorities is to make sure those cases are now heard more -- much more promptly than they happen. they will go to the front of the line for adjudication. >> as we speak, what percentage

of children that are -- meet the adjudication process are sent home, and which -- how many, what percentage stay in the u.s. currently? >> i am not familiar with the numbers as to how many children are actually sent home. that is a dhs priority. or a function. i can tell you our immigration judge's responsibility is to issue removal orders but the actual numbers of how many are sent home i'd defer to secretary johnson. dofshlths most of the children after adjudication stay in this country? >> up until the recent situation, the average pace at which unaccompanied children were deported was something like 1800 a year. >> and how many stayed? thousands? >> well, eventually if there's a final order of deportation and they've gone through the

process, they should be returned to their home countries. >> should be. >> we've done that at a rate of about 1800 a year. and part of this request is so that we can accelerate that process so that more are returned, given the current situation. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, madam chair and all of you for being here. let me start with you, jeh johnson. 433 million are slated to go to custom and border patrol. 364 for overtime and new border agents. where is the other $70 million going? >> good question. >> you can get back to me on that. that's fine. >> i'd be happy to do that. >> are these agents going to be permanent? the agents you are hiring with the additional 364? >> it's, i believe, for overtime and related cost in terms of the actual numbers of hired personnel, i would have to get back to you on that number.

>> if, in fact, we're able to get this issue resolved we need to visit about whether those agents need to be permanent or not. >> a lot of that cost is embedded in simply caring for the kids. the border patrol caring for the kids. >> okay. i got you. but that requires bodies. and if it requires permanent bodies to care for the kids, are they going to be permanent? if that bill were to pass would this help that money go further? >> if the auo bill that i know gives sponsors, there's a companion version in the house were to pass, long term, we believe that overtime costs would go down it would be a more stable environment. i believe it would contribute to this, yes. >> contribute to make this money go further? >> yes, i believe that. >> i might be working with that on this later. mr. osuna, how many courts exist right now in the southern border? >> along the southern border, we

have -- well, six, i think, is what i noted in my testimony. three detain and three nondetained. >> how many additional courts will this supplemental be able to give you? >> the supplemental will allow us to hire additional immigration judges. those immigration judges, because this situation is going to result in case loads rising throughout the country, will be sent to various courts. some along the border, but many in courts far from the border. >> here's where i'm getting to. how many additional kids will this allow you to process? >> i don't have an answer for that, senator. and this is why. we expect that certainly a large number, perhaps most of the vast majority of the individuals that dhs has apprehended will end up in our courts. until we start seeing those cases, we don't have a good number -- good handle on the actual number of