to pay. $10 billion up front is what we would consider down payment. because we have to do this quickly before we go home. >> for how long? >> however long that $10 billion lasts, that's why we call it a no year. we don't lock it into a single year. year.uly believe that the $10 we believe the $10 billion is going to last. let's go through the normal process and we will have the independent review. >> is it to improve the v.a.?

>> that is what it is for. i don't know what the senator's schedule is, but we will have to see. >> it is unilateral. >> how when there is only one this not bew can considered unilateral? >> you will have to ask the democrats why they did not come. i heard all sorts of rhetoric that this was a take it or leave , that we had not been negotiating in good faith. comee wanted to do was together in public, make the offer, and leave. just did.at we that is all that would have happened had the democrats not

come. >> how much are you offsetting? >> we will find the offset through the appropriations process the next year. the first year there is no offset. it is $10 million immediately. undert year we compete the spending caps? >> spending caps are still in place. withw did you negotiate senator sanders? >> it has been wonderful. senator sanders is a good friend. we want the same outcome, quality health care delivers in a timely fashion to our veterans. he has a believe we can do it a different way. he has a belief more money and more people will solve the problem. the acting secretary testified a little while ago that there are tens of thousands openings right

now within the veterans' health add vague -- then tens of thousands of openings yet they're asking for 10,000 more people. even in his testimony it clearly says they don't have a way to determine what's an appropriate staffing level. so that's why we're saying, give us some time without the pressure of the end of next week to go through a normal process for the appropriations. >> how do you feel putting out your offer, regardless of the reasons for not being here, how does this advance thing when's the clock is running so fast towards the end of next week and solve this before the recess? >> how did senator sanders advance the process by rushing out before we had this meeting and not bringing it to the meeting? this isn't tit for tat. this is first public meeting when he in four weeks. the number needs to know where we are -- the public needs to

know where we are and certainly needs to know the house is willing to put $10 billion emergency mandatory funding up immediately. >> from your point of view, is the ball now in senator sander'' court. is it up to him to act? >> don't know where the ball is right now. i wish i did. he's put something out. we put something out. whether he get back together monday if he wants to do so to vote on something. look, the house can turn something around very fast. the senate cannot. they are bound by rules that require a lot of time to allow a bill to lay over. the clock is tolling in the senate. the house has time in the early portion of next week that we can do some things. >> you said $10 billion for private care or internal resources? >> no, that's what the senate bill was. what c.b.o. says was the cost of

initiating the choice portion of this legislation. $10 billion first year, $25 billion second year. and i already offered this number to senator sanders. this will not be a surprise to him. we offered $10 billion and said the house is not -- i said it in the press, we have not been trying to offset every penny. >> but there's nothing in this $10 billion that includes the new v.a. request? this is all based on senate and house bills that came to conference? >> correct. >> what about the 27 leases? >> that's in. that's in. >> you said they vote monday. if you don't hear back, will you vote on your proposal monday? >> now look, at some point you have to vote. and get a conference out so both parties can take it and go forward. continuing to delay serves nobody. i'm not accusing anybody of delaying.

i'm just saying this meeting was being held specifically to allow the public to understand what's been going on behind closed doors and there's negotiations going on every day all day for the last four weeks. >> when it comes to appropriations, what sort of metrics are you looking for? >> i don't understand your question. >> when you come to reappropriate $10 billion when it's gone, reup, what are you looking for from an oversight perspective from the v.a.? >> i don't want to see anymore waiting lines for veterans. i think that is probably the most important metric and i think what you're going to see is over a two-year period whether or not there's going to be this rush to leave the v.a. system, which i don't believe is going to happen. there's a fear by some of my colleagues everybody will leave

the v.a. i believe there will be a certain portion of people that will leave the v.a. and many will stay inside the system because they're very comfortable with it. so it's my hope as senator sanders said on the floor when they passed their bill that this two-year pilot program will be deemed a success and it will be made longer than two years so veterans, if they choose, can seek care outside of the v.a. >> what do you say to the fact the regular appropriations process has pretty much been broken for a little while here? >> in the senate it has. >> in the congress overall -- >> no, in the senate it has. house passed seven appropriation bills this year. >> congress passed none -- >> because the senate hasn't done it. house has done their work.

house has done their work. the only reason we haven't been in regular order is because the senate has chosen not to pass a budget. senate has chosen not to pass appropriation bills. thank you. >> thank you. >> a headline in "roll call" says -- "a congressional fix for the veterans' health care crisis remains stalled over the price tag. he continues saying the two sides are closer paying for access to private care for veterans on long waiting lists five he spoke for 10 minutes.

>> thank you very much for coming. i have with me a number of colleagues from the senate committee on veterans awareness. it is no great secret to the american people the congress is dysfunctional. despite enormous problems we're getting virtually nothing done for people of our nation. my strong hope has been and remains -- and remains, that on this issue the need to address the very serious problems facing the veterans of our country and veterans' administration, that on at least this issue we can overcome the dysfunction and partisanship that have done so much damage to our nation. in the last four years some 2 million more veterans have come into the v.a. for health care. primarily because of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. in addition the veterans administration is treating an

aging veterans' population with many folks having serious medical needs. to give you just one small example of the challenges facing the v.a., and this is amazing, some 500,000 men and women have come back from iraq and afghanistan with either ptsd or traumatic brain industry -- today, today over 49,000 vet vans are getting outpatient mental health appointments. today, tomorrow, monday, tuesday, wednesday. every day. that is just outpatient mental health appointments. everybody knows that they are unacceptability long waiting times for tens of thousands of veterans in many facilities throughout our country. and everybody with common sense knows to accomplish the goal that we are striving for to provide quality health care to our veterans in a timely manner,

the v.a. needs more doctors, needs more nurses, needs more medical personnel and in many, many facilities, needs more space. congress asked the new acting secretary of the v.a., sloan gibson, to assess the needs of the v.a. we said sloane, you're in there. tell us, what are the needs of the v.a.? and what he told my committee and i understand it today has told the house committee is that in fact v.a. needs more doctors, more nurses, more medical personnel and more space. so that we do not two years from now find ourselves in the place we are today. but it's not just sloane gibson. yesterday 16 major veterans' organizations, these are the people in many ways know the v.a. better than anybody else. these are the folks going into the v.a. 16 mage vert vans' organizations including the v.f.w., disabled

american veterans, vietnam veterans, iraq, afghanistan veterans and many others, they made the same exact point and the point they made is yes, we've got to provide emergency contracting care to private facilities and whatever but we have to strengthen the v.a. so they can provide quality care in a timely manner. these organizations and we also believe veterans living more than 40 miles away from a v.a. facility should be able to go to a private doctor. but the issue is whether or not v.a. is going to have doctors and nurses and space that they need. as you know, legislation passed here in the senate overwhelming

vote, bipartisan vote with the strong help of senator mccain by 93-3 vote. that legislation according to the c.b.o. was going to cause $35 billion. at the same time, the house of representatives passed their legislation. that legislation is estimated to cost $44 billion. we have been working very, very hard on this legislation. i have been accused by some moving the goal posts. i guess i have. we moved the goal posts to a much lower and more realistic number. the proposal we're offering cost less than $25 billion. that's $19 billion less than what the house passed. $10 billion less than what we passed. our legislation addresses in a significant way exactly what the veterans' community needs to do.

now, i have been working -- and we all have -- with our republican colleagues in the house, led by jeff miller, chairman of the house committee for veterans' affairs. we put good faith offers on the table again and again. and have tried to meet the republicans more than halfway. but i'm sad to say at this point i will only conclude with great reluctance the good faith we have shown is simply not being reciprocated by the other side. just an example, last night at 10:00 in the evening, the co-chair of the conference committee, mr. miller, announced that there was going to be a so-called conference committee today. the purpose of the conference committee was to hear his proposal. today an hour or so, i received a letter, one-page miller, which he states, quote, i'm asking you to join me in convening the conference committee monday,

july 28, 2014 for a formal vote on this proposal. in other words, what he's saying is take it or leave it. now every sixth grader in this country understands the united states congress consists two of bodies, the u.s. house of representatives and u.s. senate. and every textbook, civic textbook talks about the need for the house and the senate to come together on legislation. that's the way it historically has been done. it's not somebody saying here's my bill. come to a meeting. vote for my bill. end of discussion. that's not democracy. that's not negotiations. so i say to mr. miller trust me, i very much will be back in vermont this weekend. i am prepared to be here this weekend, prepared to be here

tomorrow evening to start serious negotiations in terms of house we work out our differences. so that in fact on monday or tuesday the house and senate can pass some serious legislation. let me now introduce -- who's here, patty want to go? john? >> bernie pretty much laid it on the line. access is the big issue in the v.a. it's the issue we heard about when the v.a. blew up in arizona. big our around this country. if we're going to address the access issues, it's going to require the v.a. to get -- hire more doctors and nurses and address facility concerns that bernie just talked about. i was not here in 2003 but i would bet anybody that's here they did not talk about offsetting the wars in iraq when they decided to fight that war. taking care of our veterans is cost of war. we need to do right by them.

these benefits. we need to come together as house and senate. we need to depoliticize this and do what's right from our veterans. the fact is it's going to cost money. we need to do it. thank you. >> i want to thank our chairman. i believe like all of us do, when it comes to caring for our nation's heroes, we cannot accept anything less than excellence. there's been major bipartisan efforts in both house and senate to move legislation addressing the problems we know are plaguing our men and women in uniform. in fact, as chairman sanders said, six weeks ago the united states senate voted 93-3 -- 93-3 to pass the bill to reform the

v.a. system. so there's no reason republicans and democrats, house and senate, can't come together on behalf of our nation's heroes. i'm very disappointed it hasn't happened already but there is still time. and right now there's more policy we agree on that we disagree on. i would like to remind all members of our committee one of the most important things that is agreed upon and that is the commitment that we have made not only congress but as a nation when we send brave men and women to war, our service members sacrificed so much and we need to make sure our country is there for them when they come home no matter what. no matter what. it's clear there's good and reasonable ideas on the table right now for how we can get this done, but i'm concerned the proposal put forward by house republicans this morning is moving us in the wrong direction. so i hope our republican counterparts can step back, look at why we are really here and work with us to build on the bipartisan momentum that we saw in this congress just a few

weeks ago. , to truly address some of the immediate accountability and transparency concerns plaguing the v.a. and fix its deep-seeded structural and culture challenges. the clock is ticking and our nation's veterans are waiting. >> thank you. the whole premises behind a conference committee is there are co-chairs. the chair from the house side, the chair from the senate side. there's no such thing as one chair, co-chair, unilaterally saying here's my bill and we're going to take a vote on it. that just isn't the way things should happen. every single state has thousands and thousands of veterans counting on us to do the right thing and remember just a few months ago, this whole issue of wait times and how we have a commitment to support the veterans to the benefit and health care that they earned, that was the big news. we should stay the course. i'm pleased to be a member of the conference committee. every single state, hawaii, the senate bill was practically passed unanimously passed items

that helps our veterans in hawaii to create a new clinic in the community, work with native hawaiian health care corporations to expand the capacity for veterans' care. there are other items for every single member of both the house and the senate. so we need to get on with the business at hand, and that is to keep to the promise that we made to our veterans and not to be fooling around with unilateral take it or leave it propositions. thank you. >> last month the president of the united states nominated a republican from my state, bob mcdonald, to be the secretary of the v.a. he was confirmed -- passed out of committee yesterday unanimously out of the veteran'' committee, support from people in both parties. he was hired by the president to do what our legislation and the senate does. he was hired by the president to support what the veterans' service organizations from the

legion to v.f.w. to paralyzed vets to polish-american veterans and every other organization wanted. that's primarily three things -- bring accountability to the v.a. number one. number two, it's to help those veterans that have had to take care of the vet vans outside the v.a. if they had to wait 30 days or longer. and third, scale up the v.a. that means more doctors, more nurses, more physical therapists, greater capacity, more expansion of community-based outpatient clinics, expansions of veteran'' hospitals all over this country. the president of the united states did not hire bob mcdonald. we're not going to confirm bob mcdonald to be president and c.e.o. of a private hospital. the veterans' administration, 6.5 million veterans got care last year. 85 million patient visits. if you're in the v.a. system,

you're getting good care. we need people, we need to help make sure everybody has access. that's what this legislation will do long term. that's why it's so important. >> just quickly, my view is this letter has a typo. the typo is the reference to this proposal. it should be the proposal, the purpose of a conference committee was to confer, to have a conference. and to say my way or the highway, take it or leave it, is really a disservice not only to the congress but to our veterans. i am actually more saddened than angry that we have come this close to an agreement and now seem to be veering away from it. i want to thank chairman sanders for his great work. senator murray beforehand, chairman of this committee, which has been a bipartisan group seeking common ground and the fact of the matter is, we

have so much more in common than in conflict. we have in common a commitment to our veterans on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the congress and we ought to see this moment, to keep faith with our veterans and make sure that we leave no veteran behind. the veterans' administration is at a turning point. time is not on our side. we need to demonstrate we can be functional if we want the v.a. to overcome its dysfunction. and right now is the opportunity and challenge to do it. thank you. >> any questions? >> do you have an objection to the plan as it is or how presented here?

>> of course i have an objection to his plan. essentially as you heard from all of us, many of you know from the veterans' organizations, the v.a. today provides good quality health care for those people who get into the system. i tell you go to vermont and i suspect many parts of this country, people will say is this the story in today's paper, television in vermont, v.a. saved my life. we heard that story all over the united states. all over the united states. the problem we're having is absolutely outrageous wait periods in various parts of the country. the reasoning you have those wait periods is we don't have medical personnel and space to treat veterans. and that is one of the issues we have got to deal with. of course, have to figure out how best way for that. i again, just made the point,

you cannot talk about negotiating. you cannot talk about a conference committee when somebody says i'm asking you to join me in convening the conference committee for a formal vote on this proposal. that's the way congress is supposed to work. yes, ma'am. >> the way it's come together, criticizing your co-chairs and it seems it has been derailed, can you explain why it's hopeful and if you see a deal coming together? >> i am hopeful that we can come up with an agreement because tend of the day, i do hope, i do believe that every member of the united states congress understands is what a terrible thing it would be to turn our back on the needs of men and who put their lives on the line to defend us and many of whom today have serious problems. and i believe many members of congress of the constitution understands that. that is my hope. and i'm prepared to work as hard as i can to make that happen. i'm more than aware of that. where there's a will, there's a way. unanimous consent and ways to move things quickly if there is

a desire to do so. >> you said your bill would cost less than $25. can you provide a little more detail on cha what that means. >> somewhere between $23 billion and $25 billion. how is that? ok. >> did you to say if he intends to say take it or leave it? i see the letter but it might be wait you're interpreting it. >> i'm asking you to join me in convening the conference committee monday july 28, 2014 for a formal vote on this proposal, this proposal means the proposal he brought forth. by the way, the meeting we had at 12:00, didn't have a written proposal that.s0 does not sound negotiating. i will get on the phone as soon as i'm out of here is to ask him to sit down with me and with other members, senator byrd should be there, congressman and ranking members of the committee and let's do it. >> it sounds like a divide, it sounds as though you believe

chairman miller is moving towards trying to privatize the v.a. >> i don't want to get into that right now. the answer is -- the answer is very simple, i have said, what the veterans' organizations have said, what the acting secretary of the v.a. has said, what common sense tells us, v.a. needs more doctors, more nurses, more medical personnel and more space. they need us and that's what i'm fighting for and what we're fighting for together. yes, ma'am? >> is there something with the republican colleagues who did attend the meeting this afternoon? what did you have to say to them? >> i have not yet. it just took place a little while ago. >> senator, representative miller said it's not the proposal and the fact based on the senate bill, the first seven titles of the senate bill are

concluded in the proposal and he said there's an offer that's out there that talks continue. >> if that's the case, good. let's sit down -- again, any honest reading of what he says has come to a conference committee to vote on this proposal. that sounds to me like take it or leave it. >> he also said acting secretary gibson and others mentioned in the testimony today that there are vacancies, they have a lot of vacancies for doctors and nurses at the v.a. now and they can't -- in other words, they can't fill those jobs. >> you're raising it and that's why they have to get going immediately. let me tell you what i do worry about and you raise a good question. we have a crisis in terms of the numbers of primary care doctors with the v.a. and private sector. you have a crisis in terms of the number of nurses, and that's why we have to get moving right away. to delay it makes a difficult situation even more difficult.

>> i just want to say with regard to the boyfriend, it is an important question, the number of docs and nurses were short. there's also legislation out there remove caps on loan forgiveness, which could make a big, big difference as far as recruiting docs to the v.a. that needs to be included in comprehensive package that will move the v.a. in a direction we can be proud of. >> john is right. what we have in our legislation is to give the v.a. the capability now to provide debt forgiveness to medical schools, students, who want to work for the v.a. also to fill residency physicians as well. that's one way we can bring more medical people into the v.a. all right. yes, sir? >> can you describe the working conditions are considered bad by doctors, is that why they can't recruit -- >> i mean, give you -- the pay is low but to be honest with you, we have a crisis very much what i worried about, we don't have enough primary care physicians. there's an estimate we need

50,000 more physicians in the next 20 years. one of the positions as john mentioned we put in here is not steal primary care physicians from other facilities but make sure we go into medical and and we offer incentives to allow those people to go into the v.a. >> is the request for $17 billion in additional funding, kidding things? no. you are asking me to assess the problems and i am trying to be honest. actingciate the secretary pass secretary. thank you all very much. paul ryan announced a plan thursday to address poverty and economic mobility. you can see the entire event

online at c-span.org. here a bit of what he had to say. would start a pilot program called an opportunity grant. it would consolidate 11 federal programs into one stream of funding to participating states. the idea would be to let different states try things. more funding for more flexibility. participation would be valid very. no state would be asked -- forced to join. let's see what works. it don't work -- make promise after promise. let success build on success. here is what it would work.

-- how it would work. each state would submit a plan to the federal government. that plan would be at -- lay out in detail the plan. state would get more flexibility. to combine into one funding stream 11 different programs. things like food stamps, cash welfare. this new simplified stream of funding would become the opportunity grant to read it would be budget neutral. the state would get the same law, not ar current penny less. the state would say, give us some space in we can figure this out. he federal government would say, go to it. on four conditions. first, you have to spend it on people in need. no funny business. second, every person who can work should work. third, you have to give people choices. the state federal welfare agency

must be -- cannot be the only game in town. test theou have to results. the federal government and the state must read on a neutral ofrd-party to keep track progress. if approved, the state could use the money to expand programs. in other words, families and the would have a choice. they would not just be a federal or state agency. instead, they could choose from a list of providers. .e are talking non-profits for-profits like america works. or even community groups unique to your neighborhood. these groups could work with people one-on-one. provide a personalized aid through case management. think of it this way. right now, you have to go to a bunch of different options to enroll in a bunch of different programs. each with different rules.

under the grant, you could go to one office and work with one person for all your needs. that person would give you financial assistance and would also act as a personal resource. maybe you are struggling with an addiction. you need counseling. maybe you come from a broken family and you need a network of support. the point is, you would work together. to get from where you are to where you want to be. flournoy is our guest on q&a. >> if you are in government, you will are dealing with the daily journey of the inbox. you are focused on the crisis of the day. part my response to these were represent -- to my responsibility as undersecretary of defense was requisite -- absent in the secretary. developing issues for the when you -- prince -- are in a think tank, your trying to not

second-guess the policymaker on the issues of the day. their gaze.o raise thehey can say, what are issues i'm going to confront five years or 10 years from now? offormer undersecretary defense and cofounder for the center for national american security michele flournoy. and currenton defense policy issues. sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span q&a. >> in a few moments, the foreign ministers of el salvador, honduras, and guatemala of childrene status crossing the border. after that, members of the house science and space committee talk with two astronauts aboard the

international space station. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. the house oversight and government reform committee is looking into political activities at the white house any hearing on c-span3 at 9:00 eastern. c-span two the house foreign affairs subcommittee on the middle east and north africa or markup resolutions related to the israeli-palestinian conflict. >> next month on book tv, former republican congressman and presidential candidate ron paul. he has written more than a dozen books. the latest is the school revolution, on the education system. for three hours sunday, august 3. and mary frances berry.

bot past ands, presenth. brooks.ber, arthur in-depth. television for serious readers. >> the president of el salvador, guatemala, and honduras are meeting with president obama to discuss the status of unaccompanied children crossing the border illegally. the foreign ministers of those three countries discussed the issue at the wilson center. this is little more than one hour. >> good morning.

it is a pleasure to have all of you here. a special welcome to our distinguished guests. we will be joined by the other two foreign ministers. welcome to the ambassador of honduras and his colleagues who will join us. [speaking foreign language] welcome everyone. the wilson center is proud to host the ministers of el salvador and honduras. they will be discussing this situation of young people who have been migrating an unprecedented numbers into the united states. this situation is a human tragedy and aroused well-deserved concern in all of our countries. push and pull factors are

involved. there is the lore of a better life in the united states, and in many cases, the opportunity to be reunited with family members that live here. there is the personal safety fear because of high levels of violence in these communities that drive people away. to be certain, there are no simple solutions to the problem. a number of measures can be taken to dissuade young people from making the trip north. the governments of the countries represented have already taken a number of these steps. a longer-term challenge that has to do with poverty and violence are going to require sustained efforts. to invest in education, jobs, and rule of law. these are things that primarily have to be done in each country and led by their government and society. there is also, since this is an issue that binds us together, opportunities to do things

together across the region am central america to north america. our colleagues at the wilson center have been covering this issue extensively. chris wilson, those testify in congress among convening discussions with civil society leaders and others. this is a strong commitment to see it -- central america, and also migration is a major concern for many of us at the wilson center. a few months ago we did a report with the migration policy institute where we look specifically at central america, the three countries here. what we should be doing together in terms of managing migration. in terms of regional competitiveness so we can manage migration but also deal with the long-term concerns. it was a report that came out

that actually was had people from all five countries involved. we did this before the major flow started, but there are some ideas in terms of longterm security in the five countries and what binds us together, and why we benefit by working together that would be worth looking at. the wilson center president is not with us. she is at the aspen institute cochairing a panel. she let me know she spoke with the secretary last night. one thing that he pointed out is the fact that migration flows are decreasing noticeably. the foreign ministers pointed this out from the numbers they have. we are seen a 50% drop for on the last 15 days. what this should allow us to do is focus on the positives, on

the because is. it is something in the interest not only of el salvador, honduras, guatemala, but the united states. welcome to the foreign ministers of el salvador and guatemala. good to have you here. the wilson center's latin america program is proud to be a trusted space where this can be discussed. i'm very pleased to turn this over to the director of the latin american program at the wilson center. [applause] >> thank you very welcome to everyone. thank you for your patience. thank you to the ambassadors of el salvador, honduras, and the three distinguished ministers of el salvador, guatemala. as you notice, the crisis has

given rise to a roiling debate in the united states, not only in the congress where there are divergent opinions over how to respond, but in the cities and towns across the united states that have been asked to shelter large numbers of children pending the review of their cases. for all the hardships that have been suffered by these young people and the divisions here about how to respond, i see one silver lining in this crisis. it has focused renewed attention on the insecurity and lack of opportunity that affect millions in central america. i can recall, and there's some veterans of previous eras in u.s. relations with the region, i can recall no time since the 1980's when so much u.s. ed and policy attention has been paid to the region. we may have differing opinions on what is responsible for the

surge in these miners, but there can be little dispute over the objective conditions from which they come. according to our own department of homeland security, seven dorian children come from extremely violent regions where they perceive the risk of traveling alone to the u.s. is preferable to remaining at home. poverty levels in this northern triangle of three countries have gone down since the 1990's. it is still the case that approximately 45% of seven dorian's -- salvadorians are poor. there is no magic bullet to address these problems. they have taken decades, if not centuries to develop. progress is possible with the right leadership, sufficient resources, active civic participation, and adherence to the principles of transparency and accountability.

a critical ingredient for policies to be successful is political will and leadership from the region itself. i believe that a long-term solution depends not only on what the u.s. government is prepared to commit over the long term, but what responsibility central american actors are willing to assume to transform their own countries. i'm optimistic central americans came together with the support of the international community to in their fratricidal wars, a similar effort back in the may to convert this current crisis into an opportunity for building more inclusive and democratic societies. i would like to thank the associate director eric olson, and the interns in this building for all of their assistance in putting the event together.

i would like to now turn the program over to the distinguished host for national public radio, whose voice dominates the commutes of so many of us. it is an honor to have you here, and an honor to host these foreign ministers. >> thank you. [applause] i thought you must be referring to someone else. thank you all the same. thank you for your remarks. it's an honor to meet you all, and to share this platform with you. to hear a much discussed american news story from the perspectives of other countries that are so clearly affected. i'm speaking with three diplomats. i understand that. i wish to begin with an undiplomatic question. we have heard the problem

described, whose fault is it? [laughter] you looked down carefully. would you like to begin? >> thank you. i think this is, can i speak in spanish? i'm going to speak in spanish. it is more comfortable for me. [speaking spanish] this question doesn't get to the point. this isn't a matter of finding guilty parties or finger-pointing. it is a matter of sharing responsibility. we have been speaking to central america from the standpoint of challenges. citizens challenges.

we have this responsibility that we see as a shared one. that is differentiated. we have to, in the case of drug trafficking, we have to look at it from the standpoint of the producing countries on the one hand, and consuming countries. hondurans, our belief is, that the lack of opportunities, the levels of violence, of cultural exclusion that we see in honduras, and have seen, are not only the responsibility of hondurans. this is a problem that is all encompassing. it ties into the tragedy of our

country, which has led us to situation of a war being waged in our territory about having been the ones to take the bulk of the hits by way of deaths. and having a large international crime organizations that have stolen our country, these can be separated in honduras. there are other problems, clearly. when i talk about transnational crime, i'm talking about certain difficulties, which are tied to the issue of migration. that is, trafficking of minors, sexual exploitation, labor exploitation. but the correlation in the case of honduras, organized crime and those cities from which the large flows of migrants, are one and the same.

that is why i strike this equation, to the principle of burden sharing these of the this phenomenon that we have seen over the last couple of months. i'm referring to this historic flow of unaccompanied minor immigrants. >> you can speak in spanish or any language you like. it will be translated. [laughter] i will just mention, because there is a webcast, if there is a portion you are able to say in spanish, that will be outstanding. to reach the widest possible numbers of people. the foreign minister of honduras has talked about co-responsibility, multiple countries are responsible.

let me dig deeper though. is there another way you would like to express this? who is at fault? we want to diagnose the problem so we apply the proper solution. please. >> [speaking spanish] i apologize for not speaking in english. i will be speaking in spanish. we take a cold hard look at the numbers. the crisis of children has very concrete policies that are resulting in the current juncture. it goes back 35 years ago, although it has reached a height in the last couple of years. now you've got the coyotes who have convinced the families of the children that at this point in time, if they bring the children to the united states,

they will be allowed to stay. then you've got the lack of [indiscernible] that believe that promise. it would seem like there was this migration of children. but it isn't really a migration. 400,000 new babies are born, and so we have a half million under 18 years of age. so this isn't jordan with refugees flooding in. this relates to this specific phenomenon, duping families into thinking they can bring families

as a business. $2500 is the cost the coyotes charge to cross across the river. or up to $7,000. this is so profitable that for the last year the number of coyotes offering this service has grown exponentially in many communities. that said, as this is a relatively small number compared to the overall group of children, it hasn't led to the wholesale displacement of communities. however, the migration of central americans into the u.s. generally speaking is something you have to break down and numbers. i don't pick we have a single explanation in this case. the largest immigration has not taken place in the last 45 years, not even the last 50 years.

in 2001-2008, and it stopped. the surge stopped with the economic crisis in the united states. before that, when hundred 50,000 would move every year. overall, that 1.5 million who have moved are now citizens. only 100 some odd thousand are not yet citizens. they have residency of one type or another we think. 180,000 are already citizens. this is a long-standing process. from 2001-2008 there was a surge. there are a number of factors. chief is the u.s. economy, which is binar -- very dynamic. there was a demand for workers.

another important element behind this migration, 2-3 tropical storms, large storms hit our country and others, contributed to the communities giving rise to immigration now. there is also a drop of mexican immigrants into the u.s. the coyotes had to make up for that loss by bringing in central americans. all this added to the fact that a wage difference between u.s. and central america is a factor now. this can't be attributed to one administration, one given

policy. this is a social phenomenon that transpired in a period of time that are still there from 2008 on. immigration growth has been relatively slow compared to earlier. >> with my poor spanish, i believe you're telling me that there was less demand by mexicans to travel to the united states, and the coyotes move south. trafficking networks moved south in search of human beings and found your countries prayed that is what you are telling me. >> the total children coming to the u.s., you had at least 17,000 for mexico. a 2011, it was down to 11,000.

when you see the trend of mexicans, when it reaches this low, the next year is when you see the surge in central american children coming. it's a good business. it is very profitable. there are very specific elements that have been created for illegal migration of people that explains this. why do i use this explanation? we always discuss it as a question of law enforcement. it is a question of how markets work. how the markets work, they will find solutions for the problems. if we have the idea or follow the idea that this is a

law-enforcement problem, and we can only solve this through law enforcement, we will stop it as well as the drug wars. >> how do you change the market for human beings? >> you have to attack the smuggling networks. this is something we haven't done. we capture smuggling networks seven weeks ago in guatemala. how much noise have you heard? >> nothing. >> it's not important enough. how many people did we capture in guatemala? 14. how many in mexico? 15. how many in texas? 45. they were based in texas. this is something, how this business has been developed over the years.

definitely we need to tell the story, with children you can't really get it. there are limits for everything. maybe an adult says i can give you money, and that is an a legal concept, but that is an adult. that type of network, we create many programs for children definitely. >> we have human smuggling. martinez, would you like to add? >> [speaking spanish] we have already said this phenomenon has multiple causes. some reasons have been aired here by my colleagues. there is another situation, there has been a lack of

opportunities in points of origin of migrants, education, and security. when we were talking with joe biden with this, this is a matter of finding guilty parties in the short term, but to address the current crisis, and think in long terms, that lead to this migration are not [indiscernible] and we have been working in coordination with the northern triangle together. the traffickers and persons are

pounding the borders more carefully. we have a campaign in the three countries, making parents aware of the risk in sending their children to the u.s., and putting them in the hands of people who are involved. we can talk about the other things we've been doing to stanch this flow of unaccompanied minors but we have made a proposal to the obama administration about the measures that need to be taken now. these are in effect in the countries of origin.

to create opportunism, businesses, such that people feel motivated to stay home and work where they live. the second approach would be a wager on technical and vocational training. if we offer young children and teenagers good education, good training, for them to come into the labor market, that is going to spur them to stay in their countries of origin. the approach, we have been focusing the cities in each country where there is the biggest problem of violence and gangs, and we are going to have to create teams for law enforcement, and sure the

reinsertion of those who have been picked up [indiscernible] but you said something about needing to invest in security. >> is there a lack of government? >> no. the sheer size, this is not something that can be caught in isolation. we have to tackle it. organized crime does not respect laws or borders. if we do not come together in a war against the organized crime, there is no other solution.

certainly, the networks and trafficking have people who collaborate with them. the only way for us to tackle this is to join forces. those seizures or arrests need to be made with us. one country, operating alone, will not be able to do this. >> i think that a thing that has not been said and, i want to point out that it seems diverse, the response you have gotten from the three of us, you can complement them. if, you see it another way.

i fully agree and it was said by my colleagues that examining the causes for migration, it is a historical phenomenon. you have places where economic development is happening. this comes as an attraction for people to find a better life. even if that is not true sometimes. they think that they are looking for something better. i talk about violence and, in the case of honduras, the homicide rates are high and we have data that supports that.

it is related to drug trafficking. if you have that in mind and you have a small budget like honduras has, you give 20% of your gross national product to the cost of security. >> is that a correct number? you are currently spending 20%? >> [speaking spanish] >> let's say that 20% of gdp is devoted to the overall cost of violence and then 1.8% is for health care.

how would it be possible when we talk about lack of opportunities? what we see is that if we do not break from the vicious cycle, one thing impacts on the other hand, for any government, it is like a snapshot of our country that shows us what our vulnerabilities are and shows us the shared responsibility that needs to be taken by transit and destination countries. so, we should work together to break the cycle. violence does not encourage investment.

we have been working over the last couple of years with large initiatives to create jobs and attract foreign investment. if the risk factor is high, how much can we actually do to really attract investments and jobs? the first thing is to focus on containing violence and creating a safer environment. we are talking about citizen security and legal certainty. there is trust in state institutions that are undermined by organized crime. this is the fight against corruption. organized crime has had -- has

undermined the credibility of democratic institutions, without a doubt. this is something that we accept and we are working on this. so, yesterday, there were non-government organizations here who had, fortunately, decided to join the government of honduras to engage in the process for purchasing medicine and helping honduras with what they are doing to ensure a more open and transparent administration. when we talk about violence and we talk about market behavior, as huo was saying about the land of opportunities, these are

things that we cannot see in isolation. all of these are part of an overall approach. there is no single cause or responsible party. we have to have a comprehensive and pragmatic approach for us to take care of the immediate crisis at hand and the humanitarian emergency of unaccompanied children and adolescents. >> what is the u.s. responsibility here? >> we could spend a long time talking about that. i think that there are two things that have already been mentioned here and i will paraphrase them in my own words.

the fact that the united states, traditionally, views the issue of drug trafficking and the consumption of drugs in the u.s. as a matter of public security is unacceptable from the standpoint of central america. there has to be a different way to look at this issue. we talk about how many people there are. they are engaged in the trafficking of adults and, how many of them operate within the u.s.? i don't know if this was the diplomatic -- we had a meeting in panama about the issue of security and i started to receive a lot of information about how the cartel

were setting up shop. we have to ask how drugs are distributed when they come into the u.s. that is the huge drug consuming country. what we believe traditionally is the blessing of central america and the bank. it is the bridge between the north and the south and the heart of the hemisphere has become the biggest tragedy. as a result, there is a demand that is eager to receive a good in the south that is transported through our territory now.

drugs that come into the united states come to honduras. >> are there problems with united states? what about the assistance that the united states could provide? >> do you need more? >> we do. we saw the problem coming and we made a call to the international community. we called for a central american strategy that contains four components. strengthening the institutions for combating crime and the law enforcement approach. and, a time frame of funds.

now, there were amounts pledged and the execution of these projects are currently lower than the needs. we are not saying that this is something that has to be financed only by the international community or the united states. our countries are taking in resources. there are budgetary difficulties that we have to combat the enemy of such magnitude. drug trafficking, much more resources than necessary. also, the structural phenomenon needs to be attacked. the lack of opportunity and in many of our communities, we have to with youth who being extorted

by organized crime. they are told that if they do not collaborate, we will kill you and if you do collaborate with us, you will have the easy money to buy whatever you want for yourself. on the other hand, the children are excluded and they do not have sufficient educational opportunities or labor opportunities. what we have suggested to the u.s. and the international community is an alliance or partnership with these countries. ultimately, it creates prosperity for the united states because we are connected. there has to be a common front to solve this problem. >> getting back to my numbers, i find that the narratives are

ideological and they are not based on facts. >> we do not know anything in washington about ideological. >> i know. you guys are about scientific evidence for issues. [laughter] that is not just washington. that is everywhere. questions of governance, okay, poor governance is reflected on certain data. mortality rates should go up. murder rates go up. school cover should be going down or stagnate. health reform should be implemented. no reform for the judicial or social security taking place. everything is happening in central america. you see the trends.

look at maternal mortality. it is going down. primary school coverage is going up. murder rates are going down during the last five years in all the countries. so, numbers are not supported. the idea that poor governance is taking place, some good governance is taking place. a number are our countries. so, you can solve your problems. you have an 8 billion dollar budget. it is a marginal part of it. >> you mentioned forms of aid

from the united states and it would be less than $2 billion. >> if we continue this way, when are we going to achieve a goal that is important for affecting migration? secondary school coverage is critical. we have secondary school coverage in guatemala. >> 27% >> secondary school coverage. if we continue with our resources, we will have secondary school coverage in the next 15 years. if you provided us funding, we can cut that to half. it is a question of funding. the political decision is there. the institutional capacity you

can believe. the money is not. the second part is a question about taxpaying in central america. it has to go up in countries like guatemala. taxpaying has to go up. we have discovered a push for fiscal reform in the beginning of the term. because of the constitutional norms and the elements, it is diluted. we are taxing personal income. how much taxation provides personal income in el salvador? that is nothing compared to the u.s. or other countries. still, 2%. the average in latin america is 4%. we collect 0.7% in personal

income tax. to give you an example -- >> you are meeting john boehner later, right? >> i am meeting with anyone in the u.s. who is pushing for less taxation. i believe that our levels of taxation are so low that even conservative americans would not support it. i took the tea party manifesto on taxation and was going to publish it in guatemala to see the reaction. i was pretty sure that everybody would call me a communist. guatemala would be communist. we need to improve taxation. why i am saying this. it depends on these elements. larger contributions, definitely. and, improving taxation at the same time.

>> i have many more questions and i see that our time is running down. we want to stay on schedule. i invite a few questions and the audience. if i call on you, stand and state your name. time is short. ask a direct question and we will answer as we can. right here in the front -- or, in the third row. >> i am penny starr. can you address more about border security in your country? they have to breech the border of your country to get to our border. >> you are asking if they are trying to keep people in? >> i am asking about border security.

>> what we were saying before, we have seen the flow of unaccompanied minors doesn't correspond with records that we have in official border points. evidently, there is a route that the traffickers follow that is the route that these unaccompanied minors follow. when they leave our country, they leave irregularly. in el salvador, our laws determine that a minor cannot leave without a notarized item from parents.

we are increasing patrols throughout the borders. these individuals, these children, are not leaving through regular points of exit. we have reinforced and strengthened our border to guarantee that we do not have a irregular flow out of our country. as parents, we understand the feeling that a father or mother has in order to meet their children. we would like to say to them that it is not worth it. it is not worth risking the lives of your children. >> a related question. >> it is important, again, on the question of what we are doing and what we should do. we identified this as a problem. we have been working with

mexico. one is the agreement that we signed a few weeks ago in which they stayed in mexico for three days within a territory. the whole territory of -- that is if you want to go for tourism or business. you can do that. you would be amazed how many guatemalans do the supermarket in mexico. 50% of consumers come from guatemala. after the 80 kilometers, the controls get strict. you cannot go with that. the idea of the card is that everybody is identified. if you do not have a card, you cannot get in.

you can say, i am a guatemalan and i have my card. they will stamp it. after 80 kilometers, more strict. you are going to have three levels of control. you may say, they can go around the controls. it is so easy. they go in the river. you can go one by one, if you want to. that improves your chances if you want to go to the u.s. illegally. if you want to go to the u.s., you want to take a convoy. it is cheaper for everybody. that is what you need to control. that is what 95% of people go through. same thing in guatemala.

we have a project of $350 million and 10 legal crossings with the same level of security on both sides. there is a security border. the engineers of mexico designed this crossing and we are going to have the same thing. it is a lot of money for us. it will be worth it. we think that we will have that in place. >> if you allow me, i have a comment. i've a quick comment in connection with what honduras is doing. in the past few weeks, the president decided to work with the director of migration in honduras.

there were blind spots. they are crossings that are not defined border crossings. activities were conducted there. illegal trafficking activities of minors. this had an effect on us. and, many of the coyote groups need to be brought in to justice. it is a good idea to make a distinction from regular migration from irregular migration. regular migration is a reality of the globalized world. no one can deny that. if we look at this viewpoint, there would be a contradiction.

the northern triangle countries have been pioneers. we have worked towards moving our goods and services quickly from one border to the next. the same thing happens regionally. one could say that there is a contradiction. on the one hand, we are facilitating the movement of goods and services. we have to stop the movement of people. so, how can we try to solve this contradiction. we have to look at legal migration alternatives. the experience that has come out of this shows, once again, that the harder migration measures

are, the more sophisticated illegal trafficking networks are going to become. the harder it is to meet an objective, the greater the risk. there are issues that come out of the process that we need to address. we talk about resources and assistance from the u.s. i want to say a couple things about that. there was a senate decision that froze 35% of the funds for central american security initiative because we have not certified that the efforts by the government are sufficient in

certain areas. the question that we pose is, are the funds ready or are they not ready? they are there and they do not get to us. i am not good with numbers like my colleague from guatemala. i am not good with numbers like my colleague from guatemala. my view, as a woman, is humanitarian in nature. apart from the figures and the way that we use these figures to base our opinions, we are talking about children and families that are being broken. i think this is important. i think we need to be logical when it comes to these prophecies and think about these things. what have we gotten out of this? what have we gotten out of the strengthening and hardening of the border issues in the states?

if the united states gave 10% to support employment programs, the story would be different. >> good morning. my name is jackie. i am from el salvador and i live in the district of columbia. my question is for the minister. i am sorry. many things have been heard and there can be campaigns for children not to come here. as the mother, if my child is not safe in my country, i am going to run risks. if you do not have a good campaign, it is not going to

work. we have a cancer here. you can close the border and we will find a way to get to the states. what is the plan to combat violence in el salvador? >> thank you for the question. i have talked about the measures already. we have focused on municipalities where we have seen the largest number of gangs and the greatest violence. we started with municipalities. you know that we started about two months ago. municipalities and we are going to apply measures to fight gangs and provide safety and opportunities to young people.

we are acutely aware of the problem that you put forward. we know the causes of why some are coming to the united states. >> we look at this from a unilateral viewpoint. we are not strengthening borders. this has to do with trafficking and how the criminal networks use the paths to move. we look at measures so that young people have opportunities. they have opportunities in their communities of origin.

there is a technological institute built and the young people have something else to look forward to. they are no longer saying, my first option is to leave. they say, i have a technical degree that i am getting interest him -- in tourism. we have implemented measures in the western area and the coal so area of the country that allows us to provide opportunities. i agree that we have to intervene in those areas where there are violent acts. >> i am looking behind you. i mean, you. please stand up. ok.

do not stand up. >> i am asking my question in spanish. >> you had a meeting -- the president is holding a meeting with mr. obama. what to expect out of the meeting? are there questions that you would like to pose? specifically, looking at what happened to the u.s. congress and the freezing of the funds by the president? what is the success that the meeting is going to have? >> this meeting is part of a sequence that started with the visit of joe biden in quanah mullah. -- guatamala. we had a meeting with secretary kerry. we received secretary johnson

and the secretary for mexico. i think that this is important. we see those events one after another and they are common ideas. the first is very important. stop the immediate flow of children. of course, the most important parts is stopping the flow of children. it is a humanitarian measure to protect the children. this is important to understand. you are only trying to stop migration. that is not the case. we need to stop this as an essential manner -- matter. we are going to work with united states to top this -- stop this.

the actions involved law enforcement. the other issue that is important is this idea to establish a pattern in the medium term and the long term. this is going to be put in the agenda at the meeting with president biden. these issues are going to be discussed with the administration and a branch of government. also, with congress. congress and the executive

branch are going to make the decision to respond to the situation. our position is a position of cooperation. >> i see there are so many questions here. perhaps some of you will be able to linger and answer. is there a final thought that you would like to leave the people watching on the webcast? >> in my opinion, the first thing that we need to remember is that this is a humanitarian story. there is a political background and a deadlock between different chambers of congress. there is a bipartisan debate in the united states. there are structural issues in the country. we can talk a lot about causes and effects.

we can talk a lot about specific situations and long-term solutions. the important thing here is that, in all of this, we have to think that, apart from the material elements that we have to have to solve the issue, there is a background that needs to exist and needs to provide moral options. i do not think that i am going to start an ideological debate here. we need to look at what we need to do from a correctly humane viewpoint. specifically, when it comes to migrant minors. we are looking for the best interests of the child to do the right thing.

>> it is a humanitarian story. >> thank you very much. do you want to add something before we go? no, no, go ahead. finish. >> i want to end by saying something very important. it has to do with the narrative of the debate here in washington. we are good partners and we can work together. that is very important. one cannot solve these problems if the government does not have the capability to meet the commitment. the united states now has an advantage. three central american governments are meeting promises and have a realistic set of objectives. they do not have problems in facing institutional difficulties.

we have political problems. the u.s. has political problems. the world has political problems. i think that the northern part of central america has a certain maturity. that is important to solve these problems. i focus on these and for these children, they had their rights respected. and, for them to be the subject of due process. and, for them to have the possibility of going through the instances in the u.s. and -- legislation. i talk about the efforts that we are making in our country and we want the u.s. to give us a war. -- give us support.

the second thing that we ask is who operation to delve into the measures that can solve migration processes and the root causes of migration. security is important. economic opportunities are important. if these individuals had the economic opportunities, many of them would never come to the u.s. we say we wanted to be an option and not an obligation. we want people to not be obligated to come here and migrate. we have people will have basic conditions met and then want to emigrate. they have opted to emigrate. we want to help in that area. thank you very much. >> please thank the foreign ministers for taking the time.

[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] more on the situation along the u.s. southern border. from "washington journal," this is 40 minutes. nal continues. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ,ost: congressman raul grijalva democrat from arizona. your republican colleagues yesterday unveiled a $1.5 billion solution.

-- to the border crisis. it would put the national guard moree border and spend than $2 billion less than what the president wants to spend. your reaction? guest: it really avoids the with the dealing humanitarian crisis. it talks about troops at the border, increased in -- enforcement for border patrol, toss about expediting and essentially a noreen the law that exists as we speak. processing the removal, deportation, of these miners and kids. first andnforcement frankly no resources to implement the law. plan, the, under the u.s. would also accelerate immigration hearings for the children flooding across the

southern border, provide additional judges to hear request for asylum and held the children close to where they enter the country in texas and arizona. >> primarily texas. of beingprocess senator in arizona in my district, we reached a peak of 1300 kids, down to about 20 right now. facilities opened up in texas whereas 90% plus of these children are coming through, that makes sense to avoid the travel, and also to avoid the as the numbers of kids trying to get across to windows, -- to windows, so will the need. republicans also want to change the traffic victims protections act to more quickly deported children back to central america. where do you stand? guest: that is the fundamental

line in the sand for many of us. if that indeed is the central part of the legislation, whether it is something the administration proposes, or something the republican majority in the house proposes, many of us will not vote for it. the law is therefore a reason. there is a due process involved in the law and it requires these children have advocates, that they have an opportunity to have someone represent them. i was a five-year-old child to be able to make a claim of asylum or fear of violence. to bel the law has followed. the changing of the law is the political convenience right now. does not really deal with the issue. it is a humanitarian crisis, a refugee crisis, fleeing from violence, and, unfortunately, the whole discussion has been

looped in and tied together with the whole issue of immigration reform and border enforcement or the consequences are that the children are losing in the whole process. >> democrat of texas was on the show couple weeks ago and he said we should change the law with deportations for the kids. we do it right now when children from mexico come across the border. changed in 2000 and apply to all kids to essentially single out mexican kids across minorsder, unaccompanied , children. many of us felt that was diluting the law. now we have this part. i think it is a non sequitur argument mr. claire has that we want these kids treated the same way as we treat mexican kids, because it is not an equity issue, trust me. it is an issue of due process. we feel very strongly about

drawing the line on this portion of the law, because we have seen what the experience has been with the mexican kids. the u.n. commission said there may be up to 50-60 present -- percent of mexican kids in those areas fleeing for their lives. law, their of the only interviewed by a border patrol agent and the assessment as to whether or not they have a right to claim asylum or go through the process is secondary to the primary issue, the border. worth not passing anything over the 2008 law? >> it is a difficult question. if we're talking about passing something of convenience, something that is more of a political coverage for people, the law becomes an issue thrown out, yes. nation, the

humanitarian values, asylum values, the values we have established in law and can -- and tradition and practice, are that important. it is a difficult question because you want to process the kids. if nothing is done, the law is in place and then like it or not, we are still obligated to follow it. >> it is a funny issue. jeh johnson is the homeland security adviser warning if congress does nothing, the agencies run out of money in mid-august to deal with the situation. unfortunately, i hope, i am not very optimistic coming from the house there will be a bill that could pass and go to the senate and that the senate would work with them on that particular bill, particularly the death the content proposed right now by republican leadership, even the -- in their own caucus, they have folks that do not feel it is tough enough or necessary to add additional

support for the kids and they should just be deported. i would suggest, i am not very optimistic we will end up with a piece of legislation that meets the review by the republican majority in the house and senate. i think it will build up and we will probably deal with this in august. our viewersshow what the house is proposing. $1.5 billion in the border, laws we are talking about force beauty or deportations. it requires dhs to craft an amended plan to gain control of the border, address order security issues, create centers to help families and miners return to their own country, implement aggressive deterrent campaigns in the country of origin, deploy additional judges and establish the commission to craft a metric showing is these conditions are working. we have a fourth line set aside

for border state residents who can call in. jim, florida, democratic caller, you're up first, go ahead. >> good morning. a pleasure to speak with you. you are one of my favorites. first, ito say to you am a pro-life democrat and i am ofo the proud grandson jamaican immigrants. i was really pain to see the way my country greeted a lot of these women and children. ofwas not a very good show our judeo-christian values. i wanted to say to you, i wanted to suggest some solutions here to see if they have families here, if their families can take them, and i would also like to see states with cultural sensitivity, like my state, florida, take them in. i would also like to see our latin american allies

participate. what i am hearing a lot of is how we could reverse the reagan policies that destabilized the region. i am sure these people would and to return to safe homes live in security. thank you so much for what you are doing, god bless you. >> thank you. part of the existing law deals with family unification. family in the united states, to try to link those children to those families. those children would have to be reintegrated back to their country of origin. i think the reintegration centers, transition centers, it is something that is a good idea in the home country so the reintegration deals with the issues of safety and violence many are concerned about. in support of the law, you have national, evangelical, organizations that have come out in strong support of the law

because of the tradition you mentioned. latin america, the root of the issue is central america in this instance. we have a history, this country, a legacy in central america, not a good one. intervention, propping up dictatorships, taking sides in corporate, and intrusions into these countries. and the violence. we did a great job in columbia beginning to end the cocaine highway coming through the united states. they found another highway. that is central america. with that highway came intending syndicates now, beginning to have a huge influence in those countries. when you have a country, the per murder,ation leader in

that one out of every 300 men between the ages of 50 and 30 are destined to be murdered in their country and that is the violence, you can understand why i asked a mom why you are taking your kids with the riskier and the riskier of abuse , the riskier of violence, the death rate, it is a risk worth taking. this is what the senate democrats are proposing to do with the issue along the southern border. $2.7 million in emergency funds. border $1 billion for security and deportation. $50 million for legal services for these migrant children. $200 million to the state department. two dueling proposals in the house and senate and the administration is saying funding needs to be approved before congress adjourned august 1 for

the five-week recess. sandra in alabama, a republican color, good morning. morning. i just wanted to say about the immigration going on, the illegal immigration going on, america has always let people in. i love the country and i love children, but children need to be with their parents. there are a lot of parents over here and i heard there are a lot sending children ahead. a child needs to be with their parent. but i wouldry poor, not take a better home away from my parents. i love being with my parents. host: we will take that point. thet: family unification in family unit priority of the country is the priority all over the world. and in latin america as well. the meeting with those parents, those moms in particular, asking them, why would you take the risk, when they presented the situation in their neighborhoods

and their countries, for the sake of their children, they felt finding them a safe harbor was more important. they were willing to take the risk and having them exposed to what they believe is the danger of their life. said,so have come as i cartels that have taken over there that are charging between 3500 and $6,000 per person. we of human trafficking. we have the issue of people fleeing the violence. and the cartels are having it both ways. there are human trafficking and drug trafficking and making money off of it very i always thought the focus of our immigration crackdown and enforcement should be the cartels responsible for the violence in the border i represent, and responsible now excess --tent for the exiting of the children from those countries. press taken look at what these undocumented migrants are

charging. $6,000 for a person for a full ride from central america to the u.s.. person rides to gangs and $500 for an adult and $200 for a child a raft ride across the u.s. mexican border. it has been one of the that somebody hacked into or got the information of these children at these processing centers and suddenly, they're calling a families and saying, we can unify you with our chuck -- your for 5000,omplete lie, $6,000. .50 thousand dollars again, another level of exploitation and adding pain. >> yes. that is the front page of the new york times. the fbi says minors data has been obtained a lizard lake and

these gangs or whoever are telling these people they can get them to their children that are here for a price. margaret in north dakota, independent color, go ahead. caller: yes, i agree with the congressman about the humanitarian crisis. money to charity . i went down there and brought .ood and toys american people need to step up and take care of these kids. but, we also need to secure the border. so, you know, right now, it is like a flag saying, come on in. whole villages have cleared out. on their way up. >> let's talk about securing the

border. cnn is reporting the president is contemplating putting a national guard there? put theans want to national guard there. the governor of texas has done so. guest: i have been somewhat to supported -- disappointed with the ministration on these issues. about puttingon the national guard at the border, it is conceding that the mission there -- the mission on the border has to change. thing, butis one also, how you focus and who you go after is critical on the border. work fornd women who border patrol have a tough job and i admire what they do and respect them. but i think they could be much better utilize with a different mission. instead of talking in circles about this and trying to outdo one another, in terms of how tough you are on the border, look at the mission itself him wherete it, and decide

you need to change your focus. we continue to pile it can billion dollars a year on the 22,000 premier border patrol agent, and various ice contingencies all over the country. someone explain to me why we did not objectively look at that. that is what congress is doing. i agree with security about this important issue. we're doing the same thing over and over again piling resources. this has been a change in the minds of the american people. obviously, we're not doing it right. host: we will go to texas, steve. caller: how are you doing. aid to all five of those countries involved. for clinical reasons, but why