as they come across the border, as they turned themselves into border patrol, and as others interview the children in other it isies in the region, evident that like all migrations, there are mixed mime -- motives. an underlying theme is the violence. if we overlay on maps where the children are coming from and where gang and drug cartel presence is greatest, they lie on top of each other. >> some of us have called for cutting off assistance to the government of guatemala and honduras if they do not do more. i believe the governments have responsibilities. i shared that with the ambassadors and heads of straight -- state. but it is important to point out

the firstatemala, lady launched a massive media campaign urging children not to migrate. perez's party in the bottom on congress introduce legislation to introduce penalties and combat smuggling. the first lady lady has also played a prominent role in terms of public messaging. there is a newnd agreement signed between the withnment and mexico reference to be border security between their two countries. some similar agreements and decisions by the mexican government in addition to those bilateral government -- pursue and seek to

11 eight those who seek to ride the train of death. is that information i am -- is it correct? or is it wrong? if it is right, is there anything off of his happening? >> it is correct. the efforts by the central american governments and first ladies to highlight the dangers of the legal migration northward, especially for unaccompanied children, has been welcomed the bios -- by us. what we are able to do is change the diamond nation -- change the dynamic. previously, migration meant going to the u.s. looking for work. seen as immediately

important to the countries. but now that the faces of the migrants are unaccompanied children, it has created a political dynamic they must respond to. they are responding. visits by the first ladies of guatemala honduras and theirs to work with governments has been an important part. mexico has begin to engage in a helpful way. the southern border initiative, onch you are referring to, the mexican southern border with guatemala. aat has also established tiered system of interdiction that will help manage the flow of migrants across those borders. separating out the legal migrants who work in the border area. and attempted to interdict illegal migrants.

as i noted earlier, mexico, while a transit country, is becoming a destination country. many of the migrants are staying in mexico either because they are seeking work or are recruited by cartels. seeing as we fashion strategies, a new opportunity for partnerships with mexico and also won a mullah, also the door, and honduras -- and also guatemala, el salvador, and honduras. >> thank you for being here. i want to begin with the phenomenon that has occurred. we had a debate on border security as part of immigration reform. we focus onhings was the effectiveness of border control. there is the issue of sign cutting.

the agents would try to determine how many people had come across the border because we could not detect all the people. as a result of not getting to any kind of scientific way of resolving it, we ended up with the border control amendment that you care -- that the chairman should earlier. what has changed? we feel -- we felt like we had no idea who was coming across because they were trying to avoid authorities. later, they are trying to turn themselves into us. tell me what has happened in the last 12 months that has won 80 degrees change the behavior of people coming to our country. degreesat has 180 changed the behavior people coming into our country. >> one of our primary purposes

is to understand the drivers and the networks that are moving these people. the marketing being used by smugglers has played an important role. >> i had a nice conversation prior to this. i want to know -- unless we answer that question, we are not going to -- i have some of the background stuff. that phenomena of people coming to our country. instead of avoiding the authorities, turning yourselves in. you have to have some got ut instinct.some g what willgglers know happen. they know they will be taken into custody and turned over to eight hs. -- hhs. what we have tried to highlight is the process does not ended there.

the children go into deport haitian -- deportation proceedings. that has been absent from the marketing strategy. what happens along the frontier is understood by smugglers. that's why they have been successfully marketing this. >> addressing that policy issue certainly needs to be a part of what we are doing. a groupson presented to i senators yesterday -- thought his presentation was very lucid. i thought he did a good job laying out -- that was a joke. i thought he laid out the problem very well. one of the things he talked about that i think is correct is 4/7ths of the people coming in are dolts. -- are adults. we are focused on the children

issue. a big part of the people coming in are adults. is that correct? >> i'm not familiar with -- you dolts coming in -- the adults come in and get removed immediately. unless you're talking about adults with children to read >> there are three categories. adults,, adults with minors, and then minors. phenomena, a large group of adults. adults with minors. what are we doing with them at present? >> dhs can answer this better understandingd my is adults with minors, we were initially unwilling to separate the children from the adults. the adults were being held, put into deportation or seatings -- proceedings, and then released.

we have begun to deport them. has gone toight honduras. we are planning additional flights. >> i don't know the solution. i am seeking answers. some have said the big problem we have with the minors is we are putting them with guardians within the country. many of them are not that -- are not documented. they are not likely to show up back in court. some have advocated we put these young minors in detention facilities. was your response -- what is your response? department of homeland security more than a state department issue. i would say that holding children in detention for a long time is bad for kids. oureed to hasten proceedings or put them with families. >> the first deportation

proceedings are occurring. is that correct? >> for adults with minors. the proceedings have been ongoing over time. >> is there a concern that when the children are placed with guardians are foster parents, whatever our terminology is, in they are undocumented, -- and they are undocumented, there is a concern they will not come back to the courtroom. it appears to me we have a policy issue. well the cartels and gains may be taken invention -- while the cartels and gangs may be taking it.ntage of >> there is no doubt. one of the purposes of the

supplemental is to increase the speed of the hearings. i'm not sure of the key -- the number who show and don't show. there is a reason to show up, toecially if you are trying file a request for asylum. >> what percentage of the young people who are here, what percentage of them are in need of asylum protection? mr. swartz? >> i think that is a question we are examining. insightave a lot of into what has occured. how many are needing asylum? >> is a question we would have to analyze and respond to you in writing. this is a developing -- >> i'm not asking for the official doj statement. as asking you as an expert,

if you were having a conversation with someone, what is your sense of the number of young people were coming into this country during this phenomenon that need asylum? >> again, senator. i understand -- >> you are not going to be a good witnesses if you won't answer questions. as ican speak to the -- said, the criminal justice aspect. and the impetus for the children to flee. whether the bases for the year asylum -- of their asylum will have to be determined. >> is the range. >> i'm not prepared. >> it doesn't give me a lot of faith in the public officials who are dealing with this issue. if they don't have sums -- some kind of got instinct as to the number of people coming into

this country that might actually need asylum. that doesn't give me any -- a very good sense of you having a handle on the situation. >> i will certainly talk with my colleagues in the executive office of immigration review to get their views on that question. i can speak to the criminal aspects. cananterbury all center -- the other witness answer? >> i don't have the figures from our own government. the u.n. commission thinks 58% of the migrants could have a concern. >> could. let me just say typically when people ask for an appropriation to deal with an issue, they have a sense of the magnitude of the problem in each ever-glory we are trying to solve here he if

you are asking for us to solve a ifblem, and i hope we will, you don't really have a sense of the magnitude we are dealing with, it is unsettling to think of the money coming to a problem we don't understand necessarily. how big be problem is or what the solutions are. i think you 40 -- i thank you for being here. i hope we will put forth policies that will help. >> before i can call on senator boxer, let me create a framework. i know we have a lot of questions. some of us attended the session yesterday. in which the appropriate officials will be best -- to answer them.

here in the. swartz context of the hearing on central america and how we change the context of that. legitimate questions. i did to put in context, not ask the department to come ofe to talk about the status asylum seekers and the likelihood. it is a legitimate question, but i don't want anybody to feel he is not being forthcoming. i do not ask him to come here -- it is not his jurisdiction. i asked him to tell us how to fight crime in central america. others can continue to ask what i want to set the record. >> i appreciate that point of view. i would hope that officials would be communicating with each other in departments.

have won the appropriations request came up. i apologize if you feel i am off topic. >> totally legitimate question. i just don't want -- i invited witnesses here with a purpose. that doesn't mean they might not have some broader knowledge. but when they do not, i'm not going to suggest they are not being forthcoming. i do believe the appropriators are getting, in their hearings, had some of those questions asked. i know the senator is pursuing some of this line of questioning. i don't want you to think he anybody toon -- think the administration is being evasive. senator boxer, thank you. >> i think you could help senator corker and others if you

went back and looked at how many of all those that have sought asylum, the children, got asylum. i think it is an important point. from what i gather, is about 50%. i would appreciate your doing that as well. i want to thank my chairman and may thinking member. -- and ranking member. we can do some thing about this. regardless of party. if ever we were able to be brought together, i pray that our sense of humanity would bring us together. noticedfetime, i have innocent children bring us together. standing in front of us. we have to deal with this in a smart way. we had to step up. -- we have to step up.

i think there are two main questions. do we need to change the 2008?isan law from i have not said anything about today until how i feel. what open to seeing out -- we should do. i believe that bill, that bush bill, the feinstein bush bill, does give the administration the flexibility it needs. i don't know what their view is. they are looking at it. that is my view. i think under the law we can do the right thing for these children and the right thing for our nation. is what we are balancing. -- that is what we are balancing. the second question is, do we need more resources? without a doubt. i can't believe people were standing up who voted against confrontation -- conference hence of -- comprehensive

immigration reform. senators --ith and and hope the senators will move together and lead us. many of the children are fleeing their homes. i'm not saying many -- all but the most. making the treacherous journey because they are coming from some of the most violent places in the world. the murder rates in these countries are some of the highest. with hundred worse -- with hundred worse -- with hondourus title of murder capital of the world. in many cases, these vulnerable boys and girls are fleeing for their lives. here is the thing. they are not just clean to the u.s. this is an important point that was raised by mr. shen.

-- shannon. safety in other countries like mexico, panama, belize. since 2009, asylum applications are up over 700%. what does this say? it tells us this is not just an american problem. it is a regional problem. i don't believe we can solve it on our own. nor should we. investor shannon, i have a question. why would the administration -- ambassador shannon, i have a question. why wouldn't the administration call a meeting with the organization of american states? it seems to me this is the right venue. what we take care of have to do here, this is a way to take a look at this as a broader problem. can you react?

>> is a good suggestion. we have had an opportunity to do several events related to this question. there was a conference held in nicaragua under the u.n. commission of high -- of refugees. we were able to fashion documents and approaches that allowed us to understand, in a common fashion, how this dynamic, this crisis of migration. was held innference mexico city. the government of honduras held a regional migration conference where we were also present. >> that is really good. i'm talking about a regional summit at the highest of levels. we utilize the oas.

it was set up -- i can't imagine -- i have talked to the administration about this idea. they seemed open to it. i hope you'll take back this idea. the american people, when they look at this, they are compassionate. we have a few who were not, let's be clear. the ugly side has shown. overwhelmingly, people want to do the right thing. they also know this is a regional deal. we cannot do everything alone. it is too hard. we are coming out of some hard times. i want us to do our share. i want the countries in the region to. please take that back. the department of justice runs programs for- two central american countries.

complete like lawlessness when you read about it. these children are so fearful they are going to be abused by these gangs, tortured. if they do not get recruited, killed perhaps. notyou explain to us -- i'm an expert on what is happening on the ground -- can you give us a sense of what is going on on the ground? >> senator boxer, i can start and then turn to ambassador shannon. it is clear in these countries, violent is endemic -- violence is endemic. it is the backdrop for the surge we are seeing now. even if it is not causing every child to leave, it is destabilizing each and every one of these countries. it undercuts economic growth. it makes it dangerous for

individuals to simply live in those countries. in terms of what we are doing on -- ground, i response has our response has short-term and long-term goals. we hope to you -- to be building the kind of capacity that will allow them to address the violent climb -- crime that addressed's -- affects the citizens. these gangss -- operate across borders. that, with the state department funding for our resident legal advisers, our law enforcement advisers, or criminal investigative group, we can work on thinking through what systemic changes need to be made. we have seen this. we have seen the possibility of

doing this. colombia being the most recent and relevant example. we took a country that some consider to be on the edge of being a failed state. with the commitment of that country, were able to think through changes through their prosecutorial system. a democraticte policing system. the rights of citizens to be tried and protected. this is a question of having the funding to make this possible. the department of justice has not received appropriations. we received it from the state department. >> i want to say, that is the kind of thing the american people need to know. that is why a high-profile conference, where the region -- ato see the world cares

high-profile summit would be very helpful. >> if i might add, the mexican attorney general has suggested we have a meeting. attorney general holder welcomes that idea. this problem came to light this year with this huge influx of unaccompanied children in legally entering this country. when it did, people started to look at it. the first thing we heard was, it was because of the 2008 law. before we doaid, that, we have to look at the facts. we did. prepared of aph legal children injuring -- of illegal children injuring. this is only apprehension.

have you seen this chart? the chart hits you quickly. thes not the 2000 late -- 2008 law. in 2000 10.000 inter- if anything, the direction of this was going down. in 2012, it skyrocketed. you have 38,000 in 2013. this year, we have 52,000. the numbers that exploded were from although -- el salvador, guatemala, and had doris -- honduras. before you can resolve a problem, you have to know what is causing the problem. what happened before 2012? >> great question and important graph. at a point.explode

there's pressure building before that. the pressure is building for a variety of reasons. very little of it has to do with the immigration debate here. children whos with have been detained and in country with aspiring migrants indicates they have little understanding of the dynamics of the immigration debate. what they do will -- no and understand is how people are treated on the frontier when they arrive. when we suffered a economic downturn. the hemisphere itself and central is particularly devastated by this. 2011, -- from 2009-2011, you had the stress because of this. cartels moving

into parts of central america in order to control the drug trafficking operations. building alliances with gains. the stressors that are driving linking the cartel activity to gain activity. ty.gang activi >> if the economic downturn was 2009, it went down. it was not until 2012 that it went up. what is your view, briefly? a variety of causes. one hears everything from coffee and patient issues -- >> i appreciate the coffee and all that. it is one of the things we are trying to study and

understand. understanding it is the -- underlying it is the economic stability. >> in 2012, did we have any significant event that occurred >> did the president sign any executive orders in 2012. the would argue that dynamic of the migration -- >> are you telling me that his executive order -- we are not going to send children back -- is not going to cause annexed lausanne on, that people understood when they got here, they would not be sent back. you say and that has nothing to do with the explosion in numbers? >> the traffickers use a marketing strategy. dot smugglers were able to is fashion a marketing strategy

for kids who wanted to leave, for parents wanted their kids to leave and were able to show that, when the kids got to the frontier, that they would not be removed immediately. >> that marketing strategy was based upon the change in policy that the resident took in 2012. is that a fair statement? >> i think it is based on the noncontiguous test or disagree that the president's executive order in 2012 had no effect on this explosion that has occurred? >> i agree with ambassador channon. suggests thatce traffic marketers are -- traffickers or marketing the children will be not turn back in the united states. as far as we can tell, there is a general portrayal that is not

on actual u.s. law. is there an impression that the president gave in 2012 the has caused this new marketing program? >> we have been very clear that the children, should they not have international protections, concerns or needs will be deported. let me thank both of you for your work here and your testimony. as you pointed out, that the spike is related to the instability in the three countries involved because of the criminal activities within the story countries. i think this is what you responded to the question. that has caused a gang activities. andas caused trafficking traffickers will use whatever they can in order to make money

so they will advertise the circumstances. is that this true country has been one of the strongest in working with the international community to encourage countries where there are serious concerns about safety of people within their country to have an understanding that there border can be a sanctuary for those who otherwise are at risk. that is what we have been urging countries around the world to do. we have participated in international efforts to provide safety for people who are not safe in their native country. i think we all want to make it clear, a point that we have all stressed, that it is not safe to put your child in the position of a trafficker or in the position of being taken to our border.

there is no important -- no improvement of that child's status. that child will be put in deportation. that,o have to be mindful ambassador shannon, the number you gave, not our number, the number the international community, the representative suggests that 50% of these children may need some form of protective service. that is an international responsibility of the united states -- responsibility the united states also has to be mindful. let me address with the chairman raised initially. the president is asking for $3.7 billion. $3.4 billion is dealing with the consequences of a failed policy within the native countries. instabilityy means that is not safe for families and children therefore they are putting their unaccompanied

children at risk by transit to the united states. $300 million is being used for dealing with the causes. we have programs in these countries. we have the millennium challenge corporation that is operating in honduras and el salvador. we have partnership for growth operating in el salvador. we have the central america regional security initiative. we have programs that were intended to deal with some of these issues. to me, the most successful program that was initiated to deal with a global problem that affected our country was that had significant resources identify with the u.s. initiative that made a consequential difference for future generations. what does it take to have that

type of effort for safety of children in honduras and el salvador and guatemala? how can we change these programs? if we are going to spend $3.7 billion and you clearly have made the case that these funds are needed, we would like to be able to at least start down the path of the united states using its international development assistance to keep children safe in these three countries. white frankly, i haven't seen that from the administration. what is the date? dr. shannon? >> thank you so much for that. i appreciate the larger point which is an important one, the safety and well-being of children is art of a larger -- part of a larger approach of u.s. assistance. build our programs, the

idea was to address the country cover handsomely and integrated fashion in the hope that we would be able to address the concerns of children and adults, and the different sectors and factors of a society. but obviously, what we are looking at now is something distinct, something dramatic. >> the supplemental budget is dramatic, on the number of prosecutors on the number of personnel on the border, on the new facilities. it's a dramatic. except it's not dramatic and making a change in the three countries where the children are coming from. why not? why not at least put forward a proposal that could have a consequential impact? forhi nt reagan did that hiv-aids?

why are we not doing this for our hemisphere? >> the $300 million we are asking for is designed to operate in three countries. so it is concentrated and it's designed to address the printable drivers, we think, of this migration, which is the violence but also economic opportunity and corruption and for public institutions. we think by doing this, we are going to advance the well-being of the children. but the idea of fashioning a larger policy, not just in these three countries but throughout the region around children, is a good one. do you really believe that if congress approved the 3.7 billion dollars exactly as the administration suggested that it would have a major change in the three countries as it relates to the safety of children? it will have a positive impact. >> that's not my question. >> so much of the violence is

localized. it all depends on the strength of gang structures. the $300mportant is million will connect to programs we already have ultimately will be a down payment in a larger effort to fashion a new kind of central america. >> senator, if i might address that. i think that money can be consequential from the department of justice's point of view in putting our personnel on the ground to work with their counterparts. it doesn't necessarily take that much money but it takes a sustained commitment. it won't help and -- it won't happen overnight. generally to change the way society addresses criminal justice. we think it can be an important step. . . it's just a down payment. it's not going to happen overnight but it is an essential first step. >> this committee has jurisdiction over development assistance. i would just hope that we would

be able to weigh in on a in thisan basis opportunity to make a difference in the way that we provide development assistance in these three countries to make children's and families feel more confident of their it should -- of their future rather than putting them on trains to another country. now that we have an opportunity and unfortunately a crisis to this allies people's thinking -- to crystallize people's thinking. >> thank you for the pressure. i appreciate it. thank you both for being here and thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing. this is an issue i care deeply about.

have huge central america and communities so i am aware of these issues. there is no doubt that the violence in some of these cities are as bad as anywhere in the world. if that is the reason people want to leave those countries. we have to examine the reason why they want to come here as opposed to going to panama or some other place that is a lot closer or staying in mexico and what it is that is driving them here. andink it is unfortunate counterproductive to ignore both the reality and applications of our immigration laws and the impact that is having on this crisis. i say that as someone who is a demonstrated supporter and continues to believe that the country needs to reform its toigration laws to live up our heritage as immigrants. but word-of-mouth on this issue is increasing powerful. word-of-mouth is what people are getting information in south -- and sent -- in central america. ofy weren't -- the word

mouth is that traffickers are saying there's a special law that allows you to stay. there is a special law that expires in july or in august to create a cop -- a time constraint so that people do it immediately and now. ie special law they .2 -- understand it is not the way it was written, but the deferred action that was taken in 2012. that is what they say. we can say come under this law, you're not allowed to stay because you don't meet the criteria. that is technically accurate. if you look at how it is applied in reality, not that law but are immigration policies, they are right that there is a special practice. if you arrive in the u.s. as an unaccompanied minor or as a parent with children, you are not treated the same as someone who arrived here as a single male adult who traveled across the border. yesterday that

70% of people with unaccompanied minors are part of a family unit are in the united states and they know the process. the process is your apprehended. if there is someone in the united states and they can turn you over to, in many cases, these children party have parents in the united states, these children are turned over to the parents. they know there are backlogs in the court system. they are given a notice to appear. in some cases, they think it is a permanent. in some cases, they never show up for the notice. that is the reality of the law. in truth, if you arrive in the u.s. as an unaccompanied minor, you are going to get the state, at least for an extended period of time. .hat word-of-mouth gets back people report what has happened and that takes on a strong application. saw --way, i also written documents the day that now what is happening is that there are individuals crossing -- i don't know what the figures are or how widespread it is -- but we have found instances --

perhaps, if this is not true, you will pointed out -- but there are instances where there are unrelated adults were posing as parents of children as family units at the border. is that correct? >> our understanding is that there are some circumstances where there are false documents to establish family units. >> if you arrive in the united states as an adult, you have a better chance if you arrive with children. there is also evidence of that i have seen that there are churches and nongovernmental organizations in mexico and in central america that are both advising, assisting, and in some instances encouraging people to undertake's journey as well. least, i think we are naïve if we think that the governments view this as a

problem for them. they see this as a u.s. problem for the u.s. to solve and we are naïve to think that 13% of the combined growth of domestic product is made up by the united states. it behooves you to have as many people as possible in the united states sending back the mittens as. back this -- sending remittances. i say they do have an interest in this and that is why they have been less than cooperative. they have been less than cooperative in some regards in addressing this. i say this in the context of this is just one more reason in my mind why long-term this country has to address this issue. i believe that if we had a legal immigration system that was better that would be a conduit for people who want to come to the united states to come in a way that is safe, if we had enforcement mechanisms that worked better, people would be discouraged from entering the country. but this is in evidence that

what we have in this country is a disaster that needs to be addressed. be i also don't think we can naïve about the reality of what is happening in this regard and understand the complexities of what is driving these folks across the border and making this happen. i did want to ask you briefly about the two points that i raised. the first, is there in fact evidence that there are ngo's, church groups and others who are assisting and encouraging others? what i mean by assistance is providing transit routes and just encouraging people to do this acting as facilitators. >> i'm sure there is plenty of people taking advantage of this migrant train for their own good or the good of their organization. most of them are criminals. there are ngo's and church-related groups that provide shelter to migrants along the way. inisited one into petula --

tapachula yesterday. run --he opportunity to to speak with migrants there. their purpose is to provide a place for migrants to stop. dowhen they speak to them, they tell them they should reconsider this trip, it is dangerous, that this is not the right thing to do? >> some of them do. i don't know that all of them do. they also deal with women who are being trafficked in southern mexico and providing shelters for them. at least in the shelter i was in, i was told a do highlight the dangers. but their primary purpose is to provide shelter as opposed to providing guidance. >> i have one more question. in theheard reported media and have spoken to folks who have taken the journey,

women on this journey are advised to take contraception is because they can expect to be sexually assaulted. is that accurate? >> not just women but girls. >> thank you. >> senator kaine. >> thank you. i am going to try to spend just a a little bit on diagnosis and then more a prescription. tock on the diagnosis -- what degree is violence a factor in this flood of youngsters to the border? is it a major factor, a minor factor or no factor? >> i believe it is a major factor. >> i agree it is a major factor in two ways. the mapping suggests that these children are coming from the most violent areas. we are not seeing a next version of individuals coming from every country. to the extent that violence is a major factor in this, to what

extent is the drug trade a factor? a major factor, a minor factor or no factor? hashe drug trade is what expanded the reach of gangs in central america and has provided the gangs with the money and the transnational connections they smugglingay a role in operations but also in trying to control large parts of their communities. so it's significant. connection between gangs and the cartels is significant. is beingit is -- so it driven by violence is a major factor and being driven by the drug trade is a major factor. >> nearly all the drugs transiting central america are going to the united states. recognize that our

consumption is a major factor in this regard. >> the way i look at this challenge, and i lived in el the childrenduras, are being largely chased out of their neighborhoods by violence, violence connected to a drug drug trade that is intimately connected to the demand fors' drugs. the demand of those dollars is so significant that it is warping the institutions of the central american nations in a very dramatic ways. as refugeesf folks not connected to the united states, it is intimately connected to the united states. in a syrian if camp in turkey a year ago.

i remember asking myself the question, when i see lebanese who are not really that wealthy and they have refugees in equivalent of one quarter of the population that have arrived in lebanon in the space of three years and they are having to do double shifts in schools to educate refugee kids, or i see the number of syrian refugee kids in jordan and they are having to deal with a number of refugees driven there by violence when they have few natural resources of their own and i saw those countries dealing with this massive influx of refugees, one quarter of the population. and i found myself asking myself a year ago, i wonder how the united states would deal with refugees they came to the united states driven by violence from somewhere else. i wonder if we would deal with them in the same ways that lebanon or jordan or turkey is dealing with refugees. and that is what we are seeing,

refugees coming here german by violence, driven by violence that is connected to the united states. so we have a connection with this. we have an obligation to try to be creative in solving it. i echo the comments that the chairman made before i arrived about how disappointing it is to see the dwindling funding. the presidents original budget a hundred million dollars for the detention of folks at the border who might come unaccompanied. now we will take it up to $3.8 billion. it seems to me we could spend money a little bit better to deal with the problem of violence that is driven by u.s. drug trade in these nations and that would be better for the youngsters and for us. let me ask you about drug interdiction. drugrespect to

interdiction, because the combination of austerity -sequester and the removal of security elsewhere, he watches 75% of the drugs that come into the united states just go right by him because he doesn't have the resources to interdict either between central america and the united states are even coming into the central american nations. with more vigorous support from drug interdiction so these drugs don't even land in these dental american nations, would that be a way we could potentially help reduce some of the violence that is being experienced in the three nations we are talking about? >> the short answer is yes. obviously, we have to deal with the consequences today. the gangs are not going away. and having established themselves, they will continue to look for any source of revenue they can find, whether it is shakedowns, operating other illegal activities, or drug trafficking. as we look for ways to reduce

the pressure on central america, we will have to recognize that the gangs are now embedded in central america and dealing will them is going to be a significant task. >> from the department of justice perspective, we agree that interdiction is critical. we also agreed that we have to strike against these gangs. we've done so. we will continue to do so, tardy -- targeting their leadership here and in the northern triangle. responsibility. these criminal groups operate in our country and in those countries as well. >> one of the things that puzzles me is, when i lived in central america, there was a great deal of cultural several similarity between el salvador and nicaragua. samere there not the number of youngsters coming from nicaragua? >> i think a lot of it has to do

with historic migration patterns. it is not just nicaragua. it is also costa rica and panama. historically, these countries have not migrated to the united states in the way that el salvador and honduras have. and the migration networks that have been established over time make it easier for migrants coming from those countries to settle in the united states. but it also has to do with the drug trafficking patterns and the traffickers coming out of the andes looking for easy jump points into mexico. the mexican cartels have found especially honduras an easier mark then either nicaragua or costa rica or panama. also thed add to that penetration of gangs varies from country to country. nicaragua does not face executive the same issues with regard to ms 13 or the 18th street gang. >> thank you. >> let's all agree that we have a humanitarian crisis on the

board that needs to be addressed. i want to confine my questioning on the definition of the problem and what we really should be the definitions of the problem is unaccompanied children. what we are debating is whether we need to spend more money. and if we do spend, how it should be spent. asking instart out by just a sentence, what is the achievable policy goal we should be addressing right now? mr. swartz. goal ischievable policy to work with these countries, the three source countries in particular, to build their justice systems so they can address these issues in the first instance, lessen the likelihood there will be -- >> mr. shannon. >> to build partnerships with mexico as a transit and designation country. >> you are missing the mark.

our goal needs to stop the flow. unaccompanied minors a came to this country. it will be 90,000 potentially by the end of this fiscal year. we have to stop the flow. that is an achievable goal. i don't think we can achieve solving the drug problem or improving their economies are reducing violence. i don't care how much money you spent. i have seen that exact same chart. i have done a fair amount of cap notions on that. mr. swartz, do you know what percent of these unaccompanied children we sent back over the past five years? senator, i understand you have asked for that information from the department of justice. >> your answer is no. since 2009, we have returned

16.8 -- 60,800 children out of 174,000 unaccompanied minors that come into this country. that is a rate of 9.6%. more than 90% of those children are still in this country. over time, it is really defined. in 2009, we said that about 23,000. in 2011, under 19. 2012 summer with deferred action on childhood arrivals, 8.6. we are down to 4.3%. obviousit is pretty what is a real correlated cause to the spike in unaccompanied children. i want to talk about the push factors and how unrealistic it is that we can spend any amount of money on it. just tell me what we already spent. in the last three years, we as u.s.56 million

economic assistance to those three countries and terms of drug control we spent $76 billion to control drugs. do you really think throwing a few hundred million dollars down there is going to solve that problem at all? i would say not. let's talk about murder rates. mr. shannon, you said the pressure is building. the fact of the matter is, in el salvador, murder rates spiked. it is down to 40. water molokai my it has declined . honduras, yeah, it builds up to 91 in 2011. it's down to 87 in 2013. to put that in perspective, the murder rate in detroit in 2012 is 55, 54.6. in new orleans, 52.2. i would be looking more to the

policy poll factor in terms of causing this. i also want to talk about spending in general. we have spent a lot of money in terms of ice and custom border >> in 2008, we spent $17.5 billion on those programs. million orthe $1.2 mullahs returns, that is $14,900 per deportation and removal. in 2012, we spent $21.4 billion. divide by six and 50,000 removals and returns, that is $33,000 for removal or return. , we spend a lot of money on a per person basis in terms of what agencies have to

spend the money on in terms of individuals. we have more than doubled spending since 2000 and eight. why do we need another $3.7 billion tobacco will have any effect whatsoever? mr. shannon. >> i believe it will. immediate impact will be to allow us to manage the flow of people coming across the border in a better and faster fashion. determinelow us to those who have protection needs and those who don't. >> how do you answer the fact that we have doubled spending from $14,000 per return to over $33,000 in 2012? why do we need more? why are we spending so ineffectively? >> as a corollary, all the ,pending on border enforcement is that related to returns?

thee were too divided by number of arrests and convictions? i want a total picture. if we're going to say that all this money is divided into the number of deportees, then we can take a lot of people off the border that our border states have asked us for in terms of enforcement so that people will be deterred from coming. >> i am trying to provide some reasonableness. >> and i'm trying to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. >> of course we need more time to vet these numbers properly. our meeting yesterday and sylvia burwell talked about how much it would cost per bed per child per day. her answer was somewhere between a0 -- between $250 and thousand dollars. if i don't plan on a vacation properly, i'm not spending a

thousand dollars per day to stay at the most expensive hotel. again, the debate we are having is, does this administration, who apparently didn't plan on this even though the action caused it, does it really need another $3.7 billion to handle this? if we're going to try to spend money trying to solve the drug countries, isse that just a pipe dream that we're going to have any effect whatsoever on that? >> i don't think it is a pipe dream. we have had examples of having a transformative effect of the criminal justice system of other countries. it is been for the benefit to the national security of the united states. we have to engage with these countries. to the tunengaged of a billion dollars over the last -- years, just economically.

>> thank you for the testimony. i agree with what is been said by my colleagues. let's get at the real goal here. the real goal is to stem the tide of unaccompanied minors. this is a humanitarian crisis. we have got to do something. our concern about the president's request is that it seems to be geared at maintenance of a problem rather than fixing a problem. i was glad to hear your ambassador shannon, of what this really is and what caused the spike. we can talk about violence in those countries. we can talk about drug trade, cartels, but it doesn't explain the spike. a senatele will blame considering immigration reform,

but the president's plan did not apply to these kids. by the contemplated house or the senate would have allowed this kind of spike. it is, as you said, this is a successful marketing strategy that the smugglers have latched onto. weould submit that unless change the incentives, it will continue to work. a lot of these people in the smuggling trade were in the drug .rade a lot over time have gone over to human smuggling because penalties are less than drug smuggling. we have corrected some of that but not all the way. we need to deal with those issues. if you look at this right now, for the smugglers, this is a sweet cake. they're able to have this ,arketing strategy which works because as we know, most of these kids are allowed to stay, and the possibility for prosecution for them is minimal,

because they don't even have to come into the country. they get them through mexico, taken to the border, tell them where to cross, and never cross into the country. we can still go after them, but we can't arrest him. smugglers, things are not going to change until the incentive structure changes. thatoncern that i have is if you look at the president's request, $1.8 billion just for the department of health and human services which has no role in border enforcement or deportation, it is to take these kids and house them and place them with a sponsor. as has been said by senator rubio, the net effect, the practical effect right now, what is there on the ground regardless of what we say and advertising campaigns, whatever the president said and i want to

complement the president for saying what he is said and the vice president for saying what he is said that most of these kids will not qualify, they are saying the right things. i think the administration is. the problem is, it is not backed up by actions. when the president says that your kids will be deported, they will not be able to stay, that is belied by the facts on the ground. the facts on the ground are that an unaccompanied minor or a child with a mother comes across very few are actually being sent back. , director of the white house security policy counsel said that if you look at the history of these kids in cases that apply to them, it seems unlikely that the majority of these children are going to have the ability to stay in the united states. they are saying that. case, but the the

practical effect of our policy is that once a child is placed with a sponsor, it is extremely unlikely that they are going to be deported. thesaid if we are to stem tide and start sending the right signals to families down south, it will need to involve literally thousands of kids being repatriated. i think everybody recognizes that. when planes show up and the smugglers and families realize that their money was ill spent, that they subjected the children of potential abuse or abuse for nothing. right now, what they see is these kids being placed with a sponsor, being given a court date months or years in the future, and then, think about it from it, they -- the charge of hhs is to place a child in the least restrictive environment that is in their best interest. if you draw that out a bit,

would we be placing a child with a sponsor, either parent or relative or someone else in this country, and is it in the child's best interest later to rip that child away from the family member and deport them later? i think the families that are coming, and certainly the smugglers understand that is not going to happen. stillcentive structure is there. my concern, i think a lot of our concern is that until we change that structure, until we can that we the process so are not having to place these children here in this country only to show up or not show up later at some type of hearing or weal proceeding, until change that incentive structure, the smugglers will continue. for them, it is a successful strategy with very little downside. not even having to come into the country.

it used to be when you had human smuggling, he had to get them across the arizona border, place him as someone else. -- wast someone as risk at risk of being caught. now, that is not likely. they have a good gig going. we need to change the incentive structure. i have rambled a bit. a change in this behavior on the part of the smugglers and the families that they are preying on changing unless we change into his -- the incentive structure here? >> changing the incentive structure will change a particular form of migration. no changes smugglers turning the kids in the border. it won't stop the migration. the migration has to be addressed in the home country, because these kids alike boomerangs. how far we throw them. for those who feel they are under threat and for those that

are hopeless in their home countries, they will come back. quarks are resident legal advisor has put together a joint honduras,lving guatemala and el salvador, aiming exactly at how we can engage those countries in the prosecution of smuggling. a genuine claim of persecution. those should have in their home in the home-- countries -- as long as we are placing these children and they have achieved their desired goal to be reunited with family members or to stay a long time, incentive zone change. that is my concern. as a bigger driver than everything else right now. >> let me just go through a quick series of things. i want to make sure so we have

an absolutely replete record. are there more border patrol agent's, customs inspections, than at anys now other time that you can recall? >> yes, mr. chairman. -- matter of fact >> children placed with the we have two choices. we can either deal with the cost of detaining the child, or we , we think they're being place regarding the may not show up, we can place an ankle bracelet on them which would be more humane than detention and far less expensive. there are options for us to consider as we deal with whether a person has the right or not to

ultimately seek asylum. -- is there anyway we can change the smugglers marketing? we should be smashing the smuggling networks. i would say to some of these individuals, cooperate with us in terms of who were the smugglers who brought you here, and start prosecuting them. when the smugglers know that there is a consequence to them, they may go to jail in that country are here, we will have a change in their marketing, believe me. thatcan say in that regard one of our resident legal advisers in one of the northern tribal countries will be traveling with his counterparts to interview children here in the united states for precisely that purpose. >> i want to include in the record, since much has been made 2012 and the deferred action

, since you want to make sure that we get the word out, let's get the word out there. how do you actually qualify for a deferred action? you must have come to the united states under the age of 16, and you must have continuously resided in the united states for at least five years preceding meanste of 2012, which that if you are not physically in the united states and can 2007, and among other eligibility, you would not be eligible to adjust your status, is that a correct understanding? yes. >> you not only have to be here, but you had to be in

school, you have to have graduated from high school, you have to have obtained an education developments at the be -- -- certificate or you can't do all of that. you're been your before 2007. so without objection, i will include the homeland security eligibility for deferred action in the list of items. truee ask you, is it not that president obama has deported more migrants than any president in recent history? >> that is correct, mr. chairman. fact, some of of called him the deported in chief. er in chief.t isseems that congress failing to act to reform our

immigration system. in the absence of the failure, has been congress's successful role is to dramatically increase borders and customs enforcement to the point that we have had the most detentions and deportations than at any other time. the me ask two final questions. are all 60,000 of the children that we have estimated arrived? did they all pay smugly to get here? smuggler --l pay a did they all pay a smuggler to get here? ones, somethe older have come on their own. >> and those who rode the train

of death, did they have a smuggler? >> typically, yes. >> the national security aserests, if we do nothing it relates to central america except tell essential americans to get your act together, what will be the consequence of that? >> i think it will have serious law enforcement consequences for the united states. operate in the united states as well. when we had a concerted effort in columbia, did we not achieve taking a country that of virtually on the verge not being able to control its own internal sovereignty, being run by drug lords, and ultimately change the country to what is now one of the finest democracies in the western hemisphere? >> we did, mr. chairman.

we know how to do this. >> i want to thank you for having the hearing. it is been very educational. i would like to also enter in the record an article from the wall street journal entitled "future of our deported." tabled also like to enter 39 from the u.s. department of thatand security document senator johnson was referring to. it really challenges the notion and stipulates the differences between removals and returns. i think returns are diminishing at a pretty high level. here is what i would like to say. this is a humanitarian crisis. i think everybody here, most of us have children. to see what is happening with so many children from other countries breaks our heart. at the same time, within emergency supplemental, it seems to me that what we should be

addressing is if there is something we can immediately do to change the incentive structure. we talked a little bit about what the phenomenon is. i do think it would be very important for all of government on the executive side to address what is causing this spike. i do think there is a marketing that is taking place. it is based on policies. if you look at returns, the returns issue is a big part of this. very few people are being returned. greatartz, i know you are public servants, but let's talk about the asylum issue. 50%, is what it also means is that if you ever make it to court, which very few do, you then have a 50% chance -- a 58 percent chance where no

action is being taken against you. i don't want to get into a debate about what asylum is. we have different categories. i do think it is important over time to define that. i do think it is important for that develop policies affect the region. i do think some of the partnerships are important. i think senator kaine's comments about traveling to central america. in fairness, you can see that the u.s. demand for drugs is ravaging these countries. that is a fair statement. that is fair. i would think that during this. of time we have an emergency that what we would address is the incentive structure and trying to address the problems that senator johnson raised. and then come back and look longer-term at what we need to

do throughout the region to onsibly have some impact what is happening. some of the central american countries don't have this issue. i think we should look at why they don't and why others do. thank you for hearing. i think what is before us is an acute issue that we need to first address. i hope that over time the committee will develop a longer-term plan. are running high on both sides. hopefully there will be some consensus to a policy that will stem the flow as quickly as possible and let us address the longer-term issues. thank you both very much. >> one request for mr. swarts, i would like you to produce to the committee what would the detentions of children and the deportations of children prior

to 2009. let's say eight years prior. secondly, the only thing i would say is that there's a difference between passion and emotion. some of us are passionate about some of these issues and some are passionate about the size of government or cost of government, the spending of government. it is not so much emotion as it is passion. with the appreciation of the committee for your testimony, your excuse at the time. i like to call up the second panel. she has been recognized for her book. she serves as a board member of kids in need of defense. arnzen, the cynthia

director of the latin american program for scholars here in washington. i would ask the audience was leaving to do so quietly, please. stephen johnson, the regional director for latin america and the caribbean at the international republican institute. let me welcome you all to the committee. panel,id to her previous your full statements will be included in the record in their entirety without objection. i would ask you to try to summarize them in about five minutes or so so we can engage in a dialogue. we will start with you. if you would turn your microphone on.

>> thank you for inviting me to speak and testify before you today. . am sonja nazario it recruits pro bono attorneys to represent unaccompanied children. i first went to central america to write about civil wars in the early 80's. i focused on unaccompanied children 15 years ago, writing the modern-day odyssey of one whose mother left him in honduras when he was just five years old. 11 years later, he went in search of her in the u.s. by riding up the length of mexico on top of freight trains. last month, i returned for the first time in a decade to his home in a neighborhood of tegucigalpa. i lived there for one week.

i saw a huge change in my children are migrating to the u.s.. a level of violence directed at them that astounded me. i have lived through argentina's dirty war and written on top of seven freight trains controlled by gangs through most of mexico. spooked, butly after a week, i thank god i got out of and rick is neighborhood alive. -- out of his neighborhood alive. this has got a new reach and viciousness to the violence. children are being targeted here and throughout the country. they are kidnapped, found hacked apart, heads cut off, skinned alive. sometimes at night, men in facemasks strafe anyone on the street. war taxes are imposed on virtually everyone. if you don't pay, the narco's kill you.

other neighborhoods are worse. an 11-year-old sixth-grader told me he had to leave honduras soon no matter what. he has been threatened twice by narco's and he fears the worst. last march, his father was killed by gangs. three people he knows were murdered this year. a girl his age was clubbed over the head, dragged off by two men who cut a hole in her throat, stuffed her panties and it and left her broken body in a nearby ravine. i can't be on the street, says christian, who says that narco roads passed by on these in taxis. they shoot at you, i have seen so much death. gangs are forcibly recruiting children as young as 10 to be the foot soldiers throughout the country. children told me they had two choices, join or get out to stay

alive. this is no different than child soldiers who are forcibly conscripted in sudan. girls face particular dangers. recently, three girls were raped and killed. one of them eight years old. 215-year-olds were abducted and raped. a girl i interviewed were been threatened by gangs said, it is better to leave then have them kill me here. christian told me, i am going this year, even if i need to ride on the train. children like christian fully understand how lethal the journey can be. neighborhoods are dotted with people who have lost limbs to the train. many know someone who has died in that attempt. kidnappingartel is 18,000 central americans off those trains every year. they prefer children. and killnd ransom

children whose relatives can't or won't pay. you would have to be honestly crazy or desperate to save your life to ride on the train now. , not all,ese children are refugees. refugees flee their country for safety because they face persecution and possible death and can't turn to their government to protect them. the narcollions, cartels, mostly mexican, have simply rerouted inland to honduras. 2011, the narco's grip in the neighborhoods tightened. year thenot the first u.s. started to see a surge in unaccompanied children. we must address the situation, but by treating these children humanely. that means more than using the

word in the title of legislation. to roll back basic protection of the trafficking victims reauthorization act of 2008 and expedite deportation, means border patrol will give even trafficking victims a cursory screening. their job is to secure our borders, not to take information from traumatized children. that thehas found screening of mexican children for protection concerns by border patrol has been a failure. full,child should have a fair and timely hearing before an immigration judge and an attorney. while kind has recruited thousands of volunteer lawyers, more than 70% of children still present on plex immigration cases without counsel due to the surge. picture a seven-year-old boy that i saw alone in court shivering with fright, expected

to argue against the government's attorney who is battling to send him home. then he finished by saying we must bolster security in honduras and the region, not by funding her up police and military, but by strengthening ,ccountability, the judiciary and child protection. lesson 1/10 of the president's proposed three point $7 billion funding request is for aid to this region. u.s. a id hasg, closed its program. we show deep concern for girls who are kidnapped in nigeria, but not for girls kidnapped by narco's in honduras. why? how can we demand that countries nearlyring syria take in 3 million refugees but turn our backs on tens of thousands of children from our own neighbors? process,rt change due i believe that congress and this

administration will be sending many children back to their deaths. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i welcome your questions. >> as i said before you came back to the chamber, your full statement will be entered into the record. there is a vote going on. i will try to see if we can get you the testimony and then recess and come back for questions. >> thank you very much for this opportunity. i would like to emphasize some of the poinsettia been made by earlier speakers. a long-term solution to what is now this humanitarian crisis depends on the quality of improvements in democratic governance in citizen security in centralment

america. the united states government must be prepared to commit to these goals over the long term and central american actors in and out of government must assume a willingness and a will to transform their own countries. there is no one causal factor. i will focus mostly on the push factors of criminal and drug fueled violence. we have heard the homicide statistics, but as impressive as they are, they tell only part of the story. there is an excessive focus on homicides that is understandable , but it does not capture the other forms of crimes that affect citizens on a routine and intimate really basis. many of these statistics about other crimes are not reliable as civilians to not trust the police or other authorities. this leads to a significant underreporting of the most serious crimes. i would encourage members of the committee to examine a map

prepared by the department of studied security which the cities and towns of origin of the bulk of the undocumented , between migrants january and may of 2014. he found that the largest number were honduran, led by san pedro sula, the most violent city in the world. salvadoran and honduran children come from extremely violent regions where they probably perceive the risk of traveling alone to the u.s. preferable to remaining at home. -- notre responsible solely responsible for the levels of crime, but their role is pervasive and highly organized. i think it is important to highlight that the ms 13 and the 18th street gang were formed in the united states in los angeles

, and that u.s. deportations of gang members who had been convicted of crimes in the united states for years with little or no advanced warning to government officials in the region contributed to the diffusion of gang culture and practices. crime and violence including that perpetrated by gangs have worsened as drug trafficking and other forms of organized crimes have spread. those points have been dealt with extensively. i will not go into them now. but i would like to address is the kind of policy responses that this committee could oversee and that the u.s. congress could take. -- at no that this time since a central american wars of the 1980's that there have been so much -- that there has been so much attention focused on central america. i welcome that attention. i also think that our inability

or our walking away from the many needs of the peacetime era in the 90's and early 2000's had some contribution to the current situation. the initiative that was launched in 2008 in response to the concern about the spillover of organized crime from mexico has focused rightfully on security. it has been under resourced and not focused sufficiently on other government or development objectives. there is no silver bullet to address these problems. they have taken decades, if not centuries to develop. i believe that progress is possible with the right leadership, with sufficient resources, with active participation from central american societies and with integrated approaches. above all, with adherence to the

principles of transparency and accountability. a key ingredient, as we've seen in columbia and so many other places, is a lyrical will and leadership from the region itself. i believe that as large as a current spending request is, before congress, far too little is made available for addressing the root causes of migration in central america. approximately 200 95 million to address economic, governancernments -- and security in the region, but that amount is also to be used for the repatriation and reintegration of migrants in central america. i believe that my time is up and i will say that improving citizenship purity -- citizen security is necessary for fostering economic growth and .or fostering investment

our assistance programs up until now have in to overly focused on counter drug operations and not on providing citizen security and attacking the causes of crime and violence that affect daily lives. i believe we need to make efforts to foster opportunity in the legal economy by investing in human capital formation that matches education and job training with strategic -- with the demands of the labor market. >> chairman menendez, senator corker, thank you for this opportunity to testify on the conditions in central america that are driving out minors as well as adults. while overall apprehension is that the u.s. southwest border, or or a quarter of what they were during the largest waves of mexican migration the took place 14 years ago, the current uptick

among central american rivals is worrisome because of the unaccompanied children that are among the migrants and are taking extreme risks. that highlights the citizen insecurity factor and the presence of criminal trafficking organizations. today,have already heard the region has persistent security challenges, so i won't add to the list except to say that there is a good case to be made for focusing attention on the conditions that compel people to leave their country. 30 years ago, after prolonged periods of civil conflict, is countries chose to exchange military rule for civilian elected leadership. no question, it was the right decision. urging it meant reorganizing government, adopting democratic behaviors and building a base of public servants from a pool that had little experience. police had to be divorced from the armed forces to which they had belonged.

courthouses had to be built, and modern justice systems established. it is a process that is still going on today. unfortunately, crime and violence prey on such societies at their moment of weakness. during this time, colombian and mexican drug traffickers fueled by north american cocaine habits invaded central america. deportations from the united states gave rise to use gangs. our country has tried to help central american neighbors among others such as mexico, establish new justice systems, but these tasks take time and they are resource intensive. central america's traditional models of centralized top-down governance with weak districts and musicality is also leave citizens, mayors and town councils largely out of the business of making their communities more secure. doesn'tork that it

central america, the international republican institute specializes in the development of citizen security mechanisms that reduce the gap between citizens, municipalities and national efforts. we have begun working with public security officials at the ministry level as well as municipal authorities to strengthen citizen input and participation. as well as conduct exchanges with communities throughout the hemisphere that have exemplary citizen safety models. the number of municipalities is huge. there is much work to be done. the united states has many priorities in the world. whatever actions are decided, they should take into account the partnership that our country has entered with central american countries 30 years ago to turn dictatorship into democratic rule. most of the heavy lifting is

being done by our partners. our approach to helping them has to be long-term, comprehensive, consistent and strategic. very much for this opportunity to testify. i welcome your questions. thee are at the end of first vote. we will have about 20 minutes before we will be able to return. i hope you will be able to stay with us. there are questions we want to ask of you. i think each of you have valuable contributions to make. the committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. i expected to be somewhere around 20 minutes. -- i expect it to be somewhere around 20 minutes. >> this hearing will come back to order. to our panelize

and thanked them for their forbearance. there were more votes than i understood there were. we had the last one. the good news is we don't have any more votes until much later. corker is on his way back as well. in the interest of collective time, let me try to move forward with some questions. ms. nazario, you spent time in the communities in which the children are leaving from. some of my colleagues suggest that parents decision to send a on a 2000 mile journey is and a wayortunistic to take advantage of american law.

these parents indifferent to the dangers their children might face on this perilous journey? is it just a question of opportunity, or is it a question of violence, some of which you described earlier? >> i think these parents make a valuation of whether it is safer to bring my child despite the , or is it the journey safer to leave them in the home country. parents who have come ahead of their children often times would say it is more dangerous to put my kid in south-central los ineles than leave them honduras where they are being taken care of by a grandparent or an aunt. shiftedation has radically given what is happening on the ground in honduras. these parents have decided that it is just too dangerous to leave their children there.

i think greater border enforcement is part of that .icture as we have ramped up border enforcement, we have -- a lot of parents come here thinking they are going back quickly. they prefer to live in their home countries with everything they know and love and with their families. when parents come here, they don't buy a bed or furniture, these mothers say they will go back any time. i think now with greater border enforcement they are more clearheaded about it being hard to circulate back home. up theirill just bring children more quickly than they would have otherwise. , half of mexicans went back within a year. they want to circulate back home. with greater border enforcement, fewer than a quarter circulate back within a year because they know it is getting harder to get in and it makes it more costly.

that has been part of a dynamic as well. instance, is it fear or opportunity? >> it is absolutely fear driving this. there has been much talk about 2012, but the actual surge of children began in 2011. that is when we started to see the numbers go up to radically. -- let me askou you, i am wondering about in addition to my arguments about the lack of resources and our disengagement since the wars in central , we fought to create the seeds of democracy and then we didn't nurture it to go fully in all of its dimensions. citizen security, economic growth and opportunity, and all the other things we want to see in a democratic society.

how would you assess the effectiveness of current u.s. assistance programs in central america, and what steps could be taken to enhance the quality of programs and ensure a greater impact on these countries? assistance has been most effective in el salvador, where there is a formal partnership for growth. el salvador is one of four countries globally. that are shared objectives come up together between the u.s. government and the salvadoran government. there are regular reporting requirements. ande is accountability metrics. to identify strategic areas for investment. i do believe that the effort to a certain extent has been under resourced. therefore, what you have in the security area are many little points of light, but they don't

connect or necessarily build towards a much bigger national phenomenon. great there has been frustration in a country such as honduras with the lack of and security institutions. therefore, people start from the agencies that have created these units. in many ways, bypassing the leadership structures. tot is why i have tried emphasize the need for transparency and accountability as a key ingredient of any program that we would put in place. you can't just throw money at this problem or set of problems, as much as i do need greater resources are necessary, there have to be specific object does and commitments from the governments to adhere to certain standards. give assistance must be contingent on the willingnessountries'

to abide by that criteria. >> i agree with you and think those are very important. case that this is not a life switch? we are not going to suddenly turn on a certain amount of resources with all the accountability, transparency and conditionality, and find a change in central america from one year to another. it is going to take some time. it took some time to get to where it is, part of it from our own neglect and part of it from the week and corrupt governments that have existed in the region. you're just not going to turn this around overnight. having a commitment here is going to be necessary in order weget it to a point where can see citizen security, where we can see a greater movement towards institutions that are transparent and not corrupt, and

that we will see the benefits of that as we did for example in columbia, a different set of circumstances, but it took some time. is that a fair assessment? >> i would completely agree with that statement. we tend to focus on a crisis and response in the crisis and then turn away once the immediate crisis has dissipated. i think the effort in central america is going to take years. the aid programs to columbia have evolved over almost 15 years now. it takes time to turn things around. i think staying the course but doing so with metrics and measurements in place is the way to go seed. -- is the way to proceed. >> in many respects they are

similar. i think our approach to the problems in central america to the extent that we don't want them on our doorstep, it is important to have a long-term view, that we have a comprehensive route -- policy and it is strategically driven, and not quite as episodic. is for difficult for our country to do because in a democracy we ,ometimes change our priorities and because of our position in the world we have to look at other things that happen that come up on our doorstep that we have to deal with. given that, and given the kinds tools that we have that we can apply to these problems, i think consistency and a strategic vision is really important. sometimes if you don't appreciate the enormity of the change that is involved, for theance, in columbia,

transformation of the napoleonic code to an accusatory of criminal justice system seems like just a matter of changing the laws and retraining lawyers, at what it also entailed was building of court houses, which columbia never needed before, criminal justice tracking systems for cases, evidence warehouses, and forensic laboratories, which they never had. thanded up being much more what was originally anticipated. when you multiply that over something like 1100 municipalities for the various installations and facilities that had to be built, it ended up being quite an investment. i think we have to appreciate that dimension as much as the dimension of changing certain kinds of behaviors. america, we don't have the luxury of having all the criminal elements in the

rural areas as much as that was the case in columbia. in central america, you have criminal elements in the are out inds that the rural areas as well. in also in the capital and the very dense urban areas in the form of drug trafficking organizations. some human traffickers penetrate into those areas as well as criminal youth gangs. this is very difficult to deal with, especially when you are dealing with drug traffickers that have a lot more resources, in many cases than the government does to try to deal with them and try to apprehend them. so it is very difficult to go up against this corrupting power that they have which is tremendous. again, it is going to take time. one of the things that we feel

is key in my organization is that citizen anticipation and citizen security is very important because people in their own neighborhoods know some of the things that need to happen and need to change in terms of leadership. for their authorities to begin to react in a proper way that will deal with the problems that they actually feel. and the top-down leadership of governance that has been the experience in central america long before the transformation to democratic rule is something that is still there and still in peds, to a great degree, the ability for citizens to have a voice. >> thank you very much. senator johnson. >> i know that senator corker asked for consent to include in -- i wouldtable 39 ask for unanimous consent to add my summary of the table.

i would like to speak to it because i would like to provide the full and complete picture in terms of removals and returns, which is what i think the american people really view is duplication. while it is true in terms of removalsmovals, formal , president obama is ahead of the pace of president bush's first and second term. removals are defined as the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or a portable alien out of the united states based on an order of removal. removed owing to the fact -- that is what he removal is. a return is a confirmed movement of an alien out of the united states not based on an order of removal. i think what we are really

trying to do if we are trying to we reallyhe process, want more returns as opposed to removals, which take a whole adjudication process which takes years. we want to create more incentives for people to come. let me lay out the facts in terms of president obama's record on removals and returns, which is what i think most americans would view as total deportations. term, president obama had about 1.5 8 million removals, 1.6 million returns for a total of 3.2 million deportations. president bush in his second term had about 1.2 million but in terms of returns he had 3.8 million versus president obama's 1.6. so total removal and returns a president bush's second term was

5 million removals and returns, 3.2 millions under president obama. term,sident bush's entire there were 10.3 million removals and returns. i just don't think we're being completely complete in our description of what president -- of what president obama has done. if we combine the two, his record is lagging. is leading in terms of removals and returns. again, i think that provides a more complete record of what the problem is. i'm not sure whether you are here doing my first line of questioning, but i would like to give the witnesses the exact opportunity. what should be the achievable goal of u.s. policy?

i like to start mr. johnson. our goals and foreign policy are to protect our country, to defend our nation and our citizens and protect our borders. we have a foreign policy that works with other countries to develop alliances -- what i mean.ine we have this humanitarian crisis on the border, 57000 and this year. secretary johnson said to be 90,000 by the end of this fiscal year. by the end of dust by the end of 2015 it could be 100,000. what is achievable goal to solve the problem narco i think this can be described. briefly. , the on therespect

scope of my current responsibilities, i defer that question to the other witnesses. >> the achievable goal, one would be to speed up the process by which children who might have legitimate cases for asylum or refugee status are heard, so ist that waiting time rapidly gone through and to speed up the process without violating u.s. law and international law regarding the claims of people who potentially have requests. that is a very short term is to more stable and prosperous and safe central america. that is the long-term goal that has to be the focus of this committee, but also an important objective of u.s. foreign policy

>> based on your answer, you're telling me that long-term goal is not achievable in the short term. the me ask you, what is the speeding up of the process of adjudication? that is a goal to achieve what? thedo you want to speed up adjudication process? >> to speed it up so the backlog does not exist and send a message that is exploited by traffickers to play on people's a getand hopes that once to the country they will stay for some number of months stretching into years, so that those cases can be sped up. so that there is an expanded process in a more expeditious process. >> so you're saying the goal is to send a message to the smugglers so that they no longer send children to america unaccompanied. onm just try to focus in whether the goal would be to stop the flow. >> at think the goal would be to

conditions that no longer serve as incentives to the flow. the principal cause i believe it is not the misimpression of the rumors, but the critical if you look at the children that have come this fiscal year and you look at the levels of violence in the areas, those are the most violent places. >> i did point out the murder rate in both new orleans and detroit are comparable to one or two of those countries in central america. we have violence as well. real quick, what would you say is the goal, our short term achieveable goal to address the unaccompanied children problem? >> i think the goal is to protect children from being sent back to dth