by folks who, through connections or friendship or whatever, wound up in those post and i think it caused significant damage to the iraqi army. we want to make sure the same thing doesn't happen in afghanistan. and if you could continue to let us know as you look at the force getting better and getting worse, the leadership, those kinds of things. i know you'll keep an eye on it and it will be helpful to us because it will tell us if something is starting to go sideways. >> i know they put into place some programs to look hard at the professionalism of the afghan officers. they have their own academy and a non-commissioner officer course that they send folks to. one of the main things is the trust between the military and the people.

i am absolutely committed to continue to work that, sir. unique inomewhat armyt times, the pakistan has moved people out of their, the nature of whether they have gone elsewhere but still up for discussion. it seems there is a real interest to do something in those areas. do you see this as a window we haven't had in a while to try to create some form of security in >> any timeecho that pakistan will continue to work their own operations, i think that's a win. i think we try to do that in 2010 and 2011 at a much smaller level.

the afghans and the pakistanis have to continue to work that. >> this is the furthest i have seen them push in a very long time, and i am hopeful that it can make, in terms of easy being a general term and make your life little bit easier in those regions that if they clean up some of the mess on their side, there might be less leaking over to your side. hashe pakistani army suffered great casualties himself. >> i'm sure you'll continue to tell them, we talk about how many troops will remain but if we don't have a sofa agreement, it completely changes the whole yourssion and i trust that efforts will be to continue to tell whoever will be their leader how critical this is and

basically everything else. all the other efforts line-up with this. expressedndidates their desire to have it continued presence. they know the consequences if they do not do that. >> one of the concerns i have, that whole region is that they are also americans fighting with them over there. americans who have passports. my fear is if they take a look back to our country, and they can be people who can be extraordinary weapons against us. i am wondering your efforts coordinating with homeland security, the fbi, everything

else to keep an eye on what is going, it directly affect their homeland. >> we all share your concern on that one. the defense of the homeland starts with the away game and understand working with combatant commanders. so that we stop it there before it comes to the homeland. homeland, homeland security and will have to deal with the consequences if we fail in that regard. seen the huge influx of heroine and my home state and other states. much of it coming across the border. we have seen drugs coming in through the straits of florida and other areas. and we have had testimony that there is not near enough equipment. personnel, things needed to try to stop that.

us youru try to give best land as to how to make a change in this area? or how to beef up our efforts? >> it requires a government approach that includes all of the inter-agencies as well as close cooperation between pacific command, northern command, and southern command in order to work to close any of those that are out there between the geographic commanders and scenes between the commanders and enter agency partners in order to stem the flow. and it's got to go to the far reaches. you have to go to the root cause of the problem and try to stem it from there. >> i know you will keep an eye on that effort as well.

>> i like to thank you gentlemen, your families, the service personnel you represent for truly dedicating your lives to serving the people of this country and keeping us safe. in your written comments, you speak about the greatest threat is to the government of syria and iraq. and then it threatens to destabilize the entire region and their connections are growing throughout north africa and europe and southeast asia. if this situation doesn't improve significantly, when do they become a threat to the united states? are we there already? >> i think that they threaten ,ome of our regional interests

our key partners in the region. continued to they strengthen, they will ultimately present a threat to the homeland. we talked about the threat of foreign fighters. problemes a significant not only for us, but the partners that we rely on. >> the admiral spoke about the away game. do we have eyes on the ground to make the assessment on what is happening in iraq and how we are going to address it? theow we are looking at all options out there but are we starting to narrow those down? reaching the time of the tipping point where it may be to even take advantage of some of those options that are there?

>> i don't think it is too late to do anything right now. as you may be aware, we are completing the assessment phase and we have been working with the security force partners there up in kurdistan and in the baghdad area, the places to understand what the situation on the ground is, what their capabilities are and what options we might have to assist them and address this threat in the future. >> i heard a comment made recently that perhaps we should take the machiavelli and approach and let the militias and the terrorist fight each other, stand back and let our enemies fight each other. are there risks to that? >> in general, i think there's risks to allowing things to resolve themselves, particularly

when there are interest that could affect their country. would beyou think that an option the united states should look at with regards to a rack? >> i think we should look at all options that might be available to us and how we can address this particular problem. >> would that be your option? as we complete the assessment right now, i think we would have discussions as part of his , before reaching any conclusion. you know the president has requested $5 billion for the partnership fund. what top priorities would you like to see this fund accomplish? >> it can help with some partnership activities and it

gaining help us additional resources that we might need to enable our partners that i think would be very helpful in enabling our partners in a variety of different ways. >> had you see special operations forces evolving, giving the demand that senator king touched on, the pressures that you're looking at. you mentioned the size of the force that you would look at in different countries including afghanistan. do you see the special ops evolving? >> the level of strength we are going to be at is adequate.

i think it is important that we continue to focus on some of the work that has excellently been done by the admiral in his role, continuing to strengthen our relationship with other soft and military partners so we do have dependable relationships and partners out there we can work with and depend upon to accomplish the broader efforts. i think it is important we continue to have soft forces in locations where they can assess and understand and most importantly, work with our international partners who share our interest. generals, ifk you, we are going to be conducting ct operations outside of afghanistan, how effective is that going to be?

>> conducting operations into afghanistan from locations outside of afghanistan? >> throughout the region as well. if you would lose all your forces within the country. >> i think it would be a very challenging approach for us to continue to effectively do that. certainly, there are things we can look at, but i think it would be challenging to try to address problem's in one country from other regions. >> would that be a priority of yours to explain to the administration the importance of keeping the forces there? >> i think it is my responsibility to always advise how we use our precious soft sources in a manner that gives us the most effective. i agree with general hotel and i have not taken a look at

what the end result would the on if you'res, but talking about afghanistan, it involves relationship and capability of pakistan and really what our government is trying to do. confirmed, to, if provide those assessments that would be required to continue to accomplish that mission. >> i appreciate your comments to senator mccain and senator ayotte expressing your desire to have that flexibility and be able to make decisions based on what is happening on the ground. >> senator mccaskill? are smugglers moving through mexico right now with impunity? are smugglers moving children through mexico with impunity right now?

>> i would say the effect of the mexican government and their armed forces are not as effective as they could be. they're trying to interject them -- not trying to interdict them, i did not have specifics on that, but i doubt it. they're just not being effective. >> i think it is important once you're confirmed to get a handle on this. it appears to me that the information is that these are cartel based smugglers. the same enemy we have been funding mexico to fight for as long as i have been in the united eight senate and at a certain point in time, the american people deserve metrics on how successful the money we have been pouring into mexico has actually been in enabling the mexican military to do the basics. it is obvious that buses and trains are moving loaded with

thousands of children for miles through mexico, and clearly somebody has decided that they don't give a damn. control areas do of mexico they give the freedom of movement to do what you are saying. i think that is certainly a priority if we look at national security. if we have a neighbor to the south that has decided this is means there are a lot of other things they think is acceptable that threaten our national security. and generalcampbell hotel, that i say your name right? >> votel. macro at our coin strategy and the pillars of our coin strategy. thataq there is a belief the pillars, we did the

political peace come we did the security piece and we did the economic piece, it would be successful. the political peace did not turn out so well. in the economic piece is an abject failure because we spent literally hundreds of billions of dollars building infrastructure and facilities that are in crumbles now. that are inoperable. movement among your level of leadership in the military to take another look at the coin strategy? i predict we will have the same problem in afghanistan. we have been highlighting the ridiculous power plant we spent $300 million on. we have the highway. it is almost as if we are so good as a military and so focused on her mission that we get blinders on and say we can impose this and build these

highways and power lines. can build these health facilities and build these schools. we can impact while we are there the functioning capability of a government or of a new game. it appears to me that we put a band-aid on a cancer that it really is not something that is being successful. is it time to take another look at the coin strategy? >> i will take a shot at that. take aitary continues to look at all of the tactics, techniques, and procedures to continue to adapt and make sure we are flexible. we'll was have to remain cognizant that there are lessons learned in you to grow. on the coin peace, this isn't just a military piece, it is a whole government approach and the military can look at one piece we have to bring in the

entire inter-agency to bring the lessons and make sure we sustain that. we work whatever country we are working in to build capacity, it is a whole government peace, not just the military piece. the people of the country have to want that. they have the put forth effort as well. and i think the leadership makes a difference. >> that is one of the things that happened, the blurring of the lines between the inter-agency. the funds morphed into infrastructure anorak and moved into major league infrastructure in afghanistan where i know the power plant was usaid. -- wee highway building took that over.

some of those projects are going to be outside the wire. there is a percentage of the projects you're going to inherit that we can't have any oversight over because we will not be legit the oversight to where they are with the drawdown we are embracing. i watched and analyzed the mistakes in iraq and i think many of them are going to come to pass again a nap in a stand and i wonder if we will do the exact same thing again. >> if confirmed, i will take a hard look at that. ison't want to see what happening anorak today happen in afghanistan in the future. >> their less equipped than a rack was -- they are less .quipped than iraq was iraq was much further along in terms of having essential ability to impact government than even afghanistan.

you so much and i am so proud of what your kid will love. i stand in all of your leadership capacity but i think you're being given an impossible in lightfghanistan and of what the reality is in the country in terms of the american taxpayers ever realizing the investment we hoped from the things we have built. the money we spent on building things for them. >> i think it is an inherent responsibility for all of us to intellectually challenge ourselves about operating concepts and the way we think about the missions that we are given. and i think we have to look at lessons learned and it has to inform our way forward. the current level of leadership year is that i do know that so, as looking very closely at all of these concepts.

counterinsurgency, unconventional warfare and a variety of other things that we think would be important for us in the future. i look forward to working with my community and with this thatttee to make sure those concepts are well vetted and well understood. >> i hope it is a gut check moment about what has worked and what hasn't. and why the failures have occurred. the one thing you guys are bad at is saying we can do this. you are given something to do and you figure out some way to do it and i am proud of that but it works against you in terms of acknowledging that maybe there is something we are trying to do that under the circumstances, doesn't make sense for us to try. thank you three for your service. think all three of you for

your service to the country. >> i have been the par one and i know about the justice center. a came about after i left in 2011. >> i would urge you to go visit, probably the crown jewel of criminal justice in that part of the world and a very modern facility. well-run and the hope is that in the future when an insurgent is captured, they would not be put in a prevention jail. they will go to the justice center where they will be secured and have well trained judges dispose of those cases. important.is a very >> i will do that, absolutely. >> they have to believe that they will be killed or captured. understand that there

will be some sort of repercussions. >> and if they get captured, they are likely to go to jail. look at afghanistan as a line of defense for america. does that make sense? >> it makes sense that in the past that has been sanctuary there that is created conditions to allow organizations to attack our homeland. forces -- the forces that attacked our country at 9/11, they had leadership in our country. had one attack generated by the pakistan taliban and that failed in new york. the bomb did not go often times square. off in times square. >> i think there are more organizations that want to do harm to the homeland and i believe that every single day, the great military and other services are impacting other

attempts that no one here even knows about. organizationsse reside in the border regions. >> i concur with that assessment. >> is al qaeda decimated nonoperational? sure i can say they are completely nonoperational. we have certainly put a significant amount of pressure on them that we are responsible for and i think we have limited their ability to do things that they would desire to do or to use that as a safe haven. tot said, i think we have continue to apply that pressure. if we completely left in january of 2017, is it possible it could regenerate? >> i think it is possible if the conditions were not a place for the afghans to be able to provide security themselves.

>> let's lay out the plan to the american people. how many troops are we going to have afghanistan? >> 9800. by the end of 15, the proposal is half of that. what percentage of counterterrorism forces will exist? >> there's a number of 900 earlier today. >> the total number of special operations forces is approximately 2000. today, we are roughly 3000 plus that are focused. enablerses some of our and we are very reliant. >> and you get back with me on that?

we were told 7000 yesterday? >> i think that is the total soft effort that is resident that includes the efforts to train and advise that. january 2015, i was told 18 hundred and use a 2000? is that about right? let's fast-forward to january of 2017. how many do we expect to have? >> i don't know the we have the answer to that. >> let's look at what we could have. we are down to security cooperation forces. is that true? >> that is true. >> i believe rough numbers probably in the neighborhood of 250. >> let's say it is 1000. what will the chief mission the?

the foreignlows military sales. and the counterterrorism forces involved in iraq? >> i don't have that number. >> how about zero? it may be it, but i don't have that number. >> this is the plan. the question is, do we change the plan? who fills in the delta? rate on a scale from a to f the ability for the pakistani army and the afghan army to cooperate together to provide counterterrorism capabilities to protect our homeland. >> my gut would tell me that it is not very good.

on the low end of the scale. >> i have been told a deep ice very prominent people. >> i agree with general campbell's comments. >> if we can't rely on the afghans and the pakistani elements to defend america from a regenerated al qaeda type force, and us being outside the country is not advisable, it seems to me that the line of defense that america enjoys today is going to vanish if something doesn't change. is that a fair statement? >> following your analogy, that would be a fair statement. >> dewey wanted to vanish? finally, if the election process is not resolved within the andtitutional process, somebody doesn't except being robert e lee and somebody excepting being grant, what is

the likelihood of afghanistan holding together? >> if they can't get to the selection process tom a show the rest of the people that they have done this political transfer of power peacefully, the coalition forces will not continue to stay there after 2014. i think it greatly increases the risk for afghanistan. as to the ethnic makeup of the afghan security forces, 45% pashtun.on -- are what percentage of the senior military leadership in the afghan security forces are tajik? is a disproportionately large? not have the percentage and i would think that it is probably low. >> i think that it is actually high and if there is a failure

of two sides to reconcile the election process, the army will fracture along sectarian lines. faction along sectarian lines. i think right now the nsf has been holding strong. they have become for lack of a better term apolitical. >> would that be in jeopardy if you do not get the election result? >> if the election does not get resolved, then what will probably happen is that -- my opinion is they will revert to what they have done for years and go back to tribal affiliation. >> that is my fear too. thank you very much for your service. >> thank you, senator. >> and you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for being here. general campbell, how would you describe the level of terrorist threat in afghanistan and pakistan right now whether from the taliban or others?

>> the level directed against the u.s. or inside of afghanistan? >> both. >> i couldn't put a percentage or threat level. what i would tell you is because of the great work of the men and women, the special operations forces in our agency, the threat to the homeland because the keep pressure on the networks, continues to be mitigated. we haven't had another 9/11 type attack. that is not because people haven't been trying to do that. to give you a percentage on how it is inside, i have not been on the ground since april. >> if i understand your testimony correctly, it is that the threat to the homeland has been mitigated because of the pressure that we are putting on them currently. anthat is right, that raises obvious question, we have been

advised that in 2016 among the troop level will be reduced to 1000 troops and in 2017, reduced to nothing. out,at plan is carried what will be our capability to engage in counterterrorism operations and keep that pressure drew described on them to prevent terrorists from carrying out a serious threat on the homeland? mentioned,al votel we would have to take a look at other methods to do that. as he stated and i stated earlier, for the next two years we will continue to work hard at building the capacity of the afghan forces to have a better force. we will continue to work on that. we will also depend upon what pakistan does, how they continue to evolve. if we go to zero as you stated, and we do have a threat at that point in time still, we will

have to come up with a different strategy to be able to keep that threat -- mitigate that threat. >> in your personal judgment, are you concerned about our ability to execute effective counterterrorism with a troop presence at zero? >> i am not the commander on the ground. i am very comfortable where we are today based on everything i know and the great capacity of our forces. continues to be one of the missions we have. i will make sure this committee and my leadership understands the resources i believe are required to carry out that mission. ask a couple questions of admiral gortney. i want to start on missile defense. 300 86 rockets

have been fired at israel. the threat facing both the u.s. and our allies is quite real. in last year's defense authorization act, the senate required the department of defense to study missile defense threats from the south, such as the gulf of mexico. can you discuss the potential threats that may face the homeland from the south? confirmed, i am going to have to learn more about that particular mission. i am not aware of the study of a ballistic missile threat from the south. i have been focusing most against the north korean and iranian threat. i will have to get back to you on that. >> i look forward to continuing that discussion. let's shift to a different aspect, which is border security. borderselped secure the after 9/11.

in your judgment, what additional role did northcom lay given the crisis that we are facing on the border right now? >> northcom is currently providing support to borders and customs who are doing the best they can. we are in support of them. we are providing them construction support, surveillance support, linguistics support, transportation support and surveillance. we can continue to give as much as the secretary asks of us in order to be -- but that is the limit of our authorities at this time. 50,000n that over unaccompanied children have illegally entered the country this year, do you think it is clear that international terrorist organizations are fully aware of our vulnerabilities along the border? >> i would have to assume they are.

whether there is the smuggling of children, smuggling of any kind, drugs, money, weapons, exploited byan be terrorists as well. that is why it is important to look into those seems, to get the surveillance and the ability to do tactic. >> would you agree that the coyotes and cartels are smuggling in all of these little boys and little girls? hardened violent criminal organizations? >> yes sir. operating in territory they control, it gives them the freedom of movement to do what they want to do. they will move whatever they want for money. judgment, could the equipment returning from the

theater of operations be potential utilized by northcom and integrated on the u.s.-mexico border? >> yes sir. those authorities are extended to us, i would request the use much of the capability as we feel is necessary. the department of defense is providing to law enforcement agencies a great deal of surplus equipment that is coming back from iraq. >> the magnitude of the threat on the border, the southwest border in particular, continues to grow. in 2011, border patrol apprehended over 300,000 people unlawfully crossing the southwest border. nearly 50,000 were from countries other than mexico. aliens from were special interest countries.

between 2006 and 2011, nearly 2000 aliens from special interest countries were apprehended along the southwest border. given those numbers, would you agree that establishing control hasur border with mexico serious implications for national security? >> given the seems that are there that we talked about, we want to be able to close all of those for illegal movement of anything. i think from the numbers you described, you described the magnitude that came from the border south of mexico. that is why it is important working with southcom and our partner nations to work on the long-term conditions to prevent the flow of their people into our borders. that is a long-term commitment that our nation has to make. if confirmed, we are working very closely with selfcom --

southcom to do everything we can. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator cruz. senator mccaskill. >> i wanted to talk to you about detainees. mou in into the one march of 2012 with the afghan government and in an effort to reduce tensions, we signed another mou in march of 2013. it established the afghan review board. that process has resulted in the release of hundreds of detainees that we can directly track to attacks on our forces. believe -- and i believe our government shares my belief -- that this is a flagrant disregard of the principles outlined in the mou. howou have any ideas as to bsa, that we can

stop this release of these detainees who have attacked our military? >> thank you for the question. i have not looked at it in those terms. certainly if confirmed i will work with the agency and the authorities that would be required to ensure that we can put some controls on that. i think every military person on the ground is concerned with the rate of detainees released that come back into the fight. i think that is something we have to continue to work with the afghan government on. , wet now, is there a call can continue to show them why this particular individual, and provide them the evidence we have of their wrongdoing.

right now, that is ultimately a sovereign country and their decision to release, we can continue to advise. i will do that if confirmed. >> i know we are in limbo on the bsa. we are in limbo about who is going to lead the country and when we are going to know and whether karzai's influence is going to be significant. i would think they would have a dramatic impact on morale if we are capturing those who have killed our most precious resource in this country and they opened the doors a day later and let them out. i just want to be on record that i know i share with the members of this committee that we want to do anything we can to help make sure that situation does not become the norm. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. we thank you for your testimony, for your service. i hope we can get to, as we say,

markup your nominations very promptly and get you through the confirmation process in the senate very promptly. we will do our best. you have great support on this committee, deservedly so. you have great support from your families which make it possible for you to serve as you do. we thank you, we thank them and we will stand a joint. -- stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> 40 years ago, the water gates candle led to the only resignation of an american president. throughout this month and early august, american history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon

administration. this weekend, here the supreme court oral arguments at the watergate special prosecutor contests the president's claim of executive privilege over his oval office recordings. >> the president may be right in how he reads the constitution but he may also be wrong. wrong, who is there to tell him so? one, then the president of course is free to pursue his course of a roni us interpretations -- erroneous interpretations. >> watergate 40 years later sunday night at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span 3. >> on the next washington journal, we will talk about the criminal justice system, prison reform and terrorism with the

former new york city police commissioner. washington journal live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can also join the conversation on facebook or twitter. >> several life events to tell you about today. a task force will examine what is being called the over criminalization of the criminal justice system. that is on c-span 3 at 9:00 a.m. eastern. also at 9:00 on c-span 2, the subcommittee on health looks at the role of patients in drug development. later on c-span 2, vice president biden is expected to talk to the national governors association about state and federal partnerships. that is at 2:00 p.m. eastern. me -- iall does strike don't want to get metaphysical about this -- but it is a good

sport to be the national pastime of a democratic nation because democracy is about compromise. you don't get everything you want and baseball is like that. it is a lot of losing in baseball. springeam that goes to training knows it is going to win 60 games, lose 60 games. you play the whole season to sort out the middle 42. games, youout of 20 have a good chance to play in october. it is the sport of the half loaf as is democracy. >> george will on his latest book on baseball and wrigley field sunday night at 8:00 eastern on "q&a." >> the senate appropriations committee considered the president's request for nearly $4 billion in emergency spending to deal with the increasing number of unaccompanied

immigrant driven -- children crossing the border into the u.s. witnesses include jeh johnson and sylvia burwell. !o senator shelby is on his way from voting, and the official part of the 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 minors that will be coming to our courts. it will be substantial. >> i want to help you with this, but how can you come to us with a budget request if you don't know how many courts or how it's going to speed this process? i think every one of you talked about speeding up the process to making sure the kids get back to the appropriate that need to go back to the country. i want to be helpful. i want to vote for this.

>> senator, may i? >> sure. >> the assumption underlying the request from doj is that we'll be able to add an additional case load of 55,000 to 75,000 cases a year. overall. >> and right now they are handling how many a year? >> right now the pending case load is 275,000. >> 275,000. okay. okay. significant. how many kids are going to come into the border every day? >> these days, it's up -- the total apprehensions of the kids unaccompanied is about 250. it was higher. it's down to somewhere between 200 and 250 a day. >> so we will be able to make significant inroads into these kids as far as moving them through the process, if in fact, this money gets to the department of justice? correct? >> yes. >> on the tv programs i hear senators and house members talk

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

absentia rate by about 40%. >> i want to thank you all for your testimony. thank you very much, madam chair. >> you are exactly right, senator tester. and i think we've all just said that. how do they know what to ask for unless they can honestly say how many cases are coming. but if you aren't talking to dhs -- but let's go to senator alexander. he's been waiting. >> thank you, madam chairman. i thank the witnesses for coming. i think we agree this is an extraordinary problem and extraordinary amount of money. but with all respect, it's an incomplete plan for dealing with the problem. and it's not a new problem. we've known about this for a couple of years. all of us have known about it. but in our system of government it's the president's job to lay out a specific plan for what we should do about it and it's our job then to say, no, we don't like that. we're going to change this and

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

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

them. that would be the 1st thifirst one thing we could do to make the extraordinary response meet the extraordinary problem. the second would to be make it clear that the children are coming home safely but quickly as we possibly can. and then the third thing to do would be this law in 2008. none of us are for human trafficking, but the amendments in 2008 seem to have created an unintended consequence that contributed in a dramatic way to the problem. and the president said that he wanted to make changes in the law but now we haven't heard exactly what those changes are. we've heard from mr. johnson that one of those changes might be to give him more discretion so that a child from one of those three countries could voluntarily be sent home which apparently they can't today. so let me start with this question. secretary johnson if in the past president bush and president obama used the national guard in

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

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

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

wants us to do about changing the 2008 law so that the children can be sent home more quickly in a safely as possible. thank you. >> the national guard or, we heard this also in other quarters. i would just point out the state department, and this goes after, where do you need to be muscular and the deterrence, i believe it's got to come more out of the state department. and the fact they only asked for $100 million to go after the traffickers and we also need jeh johnson using the authorities of the department of homeland security working with our fbi to be going after the cartels, the drug smugglers and so on that are actually doing massive ad campaigning to recruit them. having guys with gunss at the border, i'm not so sure to do it as going right to these host

countries and having the deterrence -- >> what the guard did under president bush was not substitute for the guards at the border. it took over some of the responsibilities that permitted the customs people and other people to spend their time doing the things they were trained to do. >> what i do want to say, senator alexander, a lot of us feel there has to be real deterrence and going after the really bad despicable guys. so, senator udall and then senator moran, murray and collins. >> thank you, very much, madam chair and appreciate very much appreciate the testimony of all of the witnesses. secretary johnson, thank you for visiting artesia as you've noted in our testimony. it's the first facility you've stood up independent for women with children. and when you visited, i would like you to think in terms of what are going to be the additional burdens on this small community. i mean, you will see a facility

that's running a law enforcement facility on the same campus. it's a very small facility. they are now expecting and predicting 670 women and children in a very short period of time. i included in the dhs appropriations mark-up last week added language directing dhs to consult transparently with state and local governments and avoid imposing costs on local communities for these types of temporary facilities. and my first question is, prior to dhs making a decision to use the training center for family detention, did you consult with state and local officials? >> i believe we did. that's a standing instruction of mine to my staff, before we make a decision to go to some place for increased detention for

processing, we should consult with state and local -- the state and local government. >> and is there a process to have an ongoing briefing with state and local officials in place for things that occur, changes in mission and what happens at this facility? >> yes, i have personally spoken, for example, to the mayor of mcallen, texas, about the situation in the surrounding community and mcallen. i have met with the governor of arizona when i went to nogales, and i suspect i'll be meeting with officials in new mexico tomorrow when i go there. if it's not on my agenda, i'll build it into my ajnda. >> i'm sure the mayor of artesia would very much like to meet with you and talk with you. his description was that he was -- he heard on one day that there was a rumor and two days later, the facility was open. and he had very little

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

and that we should be mindful of the burden that is being imposed in places like texas, new mexico, arizona, southern california. and so i want to work with local mayors, sheriffs to better enable us to do that. >> and i would just add with regard to the question of funds in the supplemental to prevent and/or help with burden in local communities, as mr. shelby reflected, the cost is large and the cost is large because we the federal government, when the children are with hhs take on the majority, the vast majority of anything that the children have so that we are not burdening the xhocommunity when there are. in that sense we understand the number is very large. part of it, the reason is large is because we take care of the children from beginning to end. >> but secretary burwell, i

think you used in our testimony the statement, no additional burdens on the community. and that's what i am asking for, secretary johnson, because i believe that if you don't have it in this supplemental, it's not going to happen. and so i think you're in a position of really having an incomplete plan before us because you're going to rush to set these facilities. you're not going to anticipate the needs, and there's going to be a real problem there. what is the cost of operating the family detention center for a year and in the absence of a supplemental, where is that funding going to come from? >> the cost of running the detention facility we've set up in artesia, i don't have off hand. i can get you that. i would be glad to do so. >> that would be great. >> not doing anything, frankly is not an option because it will require us to simply run out of money, as i mentioned, in

mid-august and make some dramatic reprogramming steps -- >> no, i understand that. you've said that already. but where is the funding coming from right now to set up the facility that will house 607 women and children? >> it's coming from our existing i.c.e. budget. >> so it's being taken away from what? >> it is being taken away from other aspects of the immigration and customs enforcement. >> thank you. i'm sorry i went a little over, madam chair. >> thank you, madam chairman. secretary johnson, i think all of us can agree that we are facing a humanitarian crisis of the first magnitude. more money may well be needed to deal with the consequences of this crisis. but it does not address the causes of the problem.

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

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