chosen to leave the nrc at this particular moment. in my new position i will have the opportunity to continue research and writing, teaching as well, and to train a new cadre of policy experts. my experience at the and i've come to see what this plays in policymaking much iati safety and also more frequently discussed security and safeguards issues and the need to treat the three hole is particularly. it's been an honor and pleasure to serve my country as chairman of the n.r.c. for the past 2 1/2 years. i'm grateful to president obama for nominating me, and i appreciate the talented and hard-working staff at the n.r.c. more than i can say.conf and after i leave, the n.r.c. will maintain its well deserved reputation as one of the best

agencies in the federal government. i'm confident that the commission will continue to function effectively after my departure, and i wish my colleagues all the best. their work, together with our dedicated staff, will enable the n.r.c. to remain an effective, independent and trusted regulator. i greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all today, and i'm happy now to answer your questions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much, professor macfarlane. do you think the united states' nuclear energy industry will ever recover from fukushima and start growing again? hat will make that happen? >> well, i think that i would separate that out. i wouldn't say that the nuclear industry is suffering necessarily because of

fukushima. i think there are larger issues at play here, mostly economic issues. what would help that would probably be some price on carbon, my view. >> most u.s. nuclear facilities are more than 40 years old, and most want to extend their lives to 60 or even 80 years. how much confidence do you have that they can be extended to that extent and still operate safely? >> well, we've extended the to nsed life of 74 reactors 60 years. already. so that's in progress, and we've seen a number of reactors go beyond their 40-year life. they have aging management programs in place, and we regulate that closely. the issue of going from 60 to 80 years is an issue that is under consideration at the

n.r.c. now, and you'll have to ask my colleagues in the future where they're going with that. >> you've said a new rule is needed for firming up rules for closing reactors. does that effort have any chance of moving forward in your absence? > i certainly hope so. >> how much confidence do you have in your foreign counterparts that they are maintaining the highest possible standards for their nuclear plants? >> well, that's a broad question. you know, i have a lot of confidence in many of my foreign counterparts. as i said in my speech, we work very closely together in a number of different forum, and there's some great regulators out there that are operating very safely. there are others that need to probably improve a bit, and, you know, there are more and more efforts in place these

days to help them do that. there is something called the world association of nuclear operators. it's on the industry side, and it is stepping up its game a lot since the fukushima accident to bring everybody along. and there are a lot of active discussions within the international atomic energy agency on how to improve as well, but we are really working hard at the n.r.c. to try to ensure that we have a big reach out there, too, and we help other countries that need the help. >> what effect do you think the china-u.s. agreement on climate change will have on the nuclear power industry? >> i'm going to pass on that one. i don't know. >> what role should a carbon tax play in a clean energy future? >> well, this is my view, but i

think a carbon tax would be very helpful in readjusting the situation for all those kinds of electricity producers and not, when you have the transportation side as well, to go forward with those who don't produce carbon, it will give them a boost, and that includes he nuclear industry. >> can you talk about the fire and explosion at the wipp? for those of you either here or out in the c-span audience, wipp stands for waste isolation pilot plan. so can you talk about the fire and explosion at wipp facility in new mexico in february of 2013,&what this means for the n.r.c.'s knowledge about and process for licensing storbling facilities? >> well, i want to be clear that the n.r.c. does not regulate wipp, ok? we didn't have a piece of that,

and i don't want to say much about the fire and then the subsequent explosion or whatever it was, conflagration at wipp because, again, it's want appear area of my expertise. there's some department of energy folks here, and you can try to corner them later. sorry, pete. but i think there are lessons to be learned from wipp that are very important for us, not just the department of energy, but for the n.r.c., to learn and to examine, and i think we need to wait a little bit until more analysis is done on exactly what happened, but we need to learn a number of lessons on how, what best practices should be followed in disposing of waste.

it can be disposed of safely, but i think we need to take a step back and see what we learn. >> what lessons can be learned from the safety issues that the n.r.c. has worked through with the plant in omaha, and what is the future of n.r.c. oversight f that facility? >> well, we are -- we're still continuing our oversight of fort calhoun and continuing to work hard there. we've put in a lot of hours there, and to ensure that they are going to be operating safely, they're operating now, and we are continuing our oversight, and we will reduce our oversight once they have shown us that they're ready for that. and that's how we'll go forward with it. >> you have opposed the yucca mountain site, but support geological storage in general. what bothered you about the

yucca mountain? >> you know, i have not looked in detail at yucca mountain since 2003 or so. i have not read the yucca mountain license application. i have not read a number of the n.r.c. reports on yucca mountain, so i don't have a view on yucca mountain right now. you know, that was work i did long ago, and right now i don't have a view on it. >> well, this is a question you might have just answered, but to be fair to the person who sent it in, what would you say to the new senate leadership if it makes a move to revive the yucca mountain site? >> i think yucca mountain is not just a technical issue, clearly. it's clearly a political and societal issue, and those pieces need to be resolved for any repository.

clearly the societal and political side has to be resolved, as well as the technical side. >> one last quo yucca mountain. an n.r.c. report issued in october said yucca mountain is safe. the commission recently voted to support continued, long-term storage of nuclear waste at reactors. you had a problem with that. may i ask why. >> well, i basically answered that, but can i see that question again? it seems to be tying together two separate things. it's tying together yucca mountain and the continued storage role, which i view as totally separate. yes, the n.r.c. issued volume three of the safety evaluation report in october. it has not issued some of the other volumes yet, so it has

not issued a complete safety evaluation report. but we'll be doing that by january as we promised. on the continued storage rule, yes, i had a problem with part of it, and as i said in my speech, it had to do with the fact that i thought that account for indefinitely storing this material and the environmental impacts of that, if there are not some kind of institutional measures in place in perpetuity to make sure this stuff remains safe, this material remains safe. so that was one of my problems. >> thank you. >> how long could a licensing process actually take for a new permanent geological storage site, and where should it be? >> ever since i started talking about nuclear waste disposal in 1996, everybody says, where should she put it? i don't know. we're blessed in this country.

we have an enormous country. there's lots of potential sites. the first part of the question, sorry, i'm going to keep asking to go back. how long could the process take? you know, who knows? i leave that up to you. you're probably more expert on hat than me. >> what happens to money in the nuclear waste fund that has been collected from american electricity consumers? >> it's still in the nuclear waste fund. congress has that, so i suggest ou ask congress. >> why did you and the n.r.c. take the lead role on the federal government's interagency cybersecurity forum? >> well, we have a lot of experience regulating cybersecurity issues. we've been working -- we've had regulations in place on

cybersecurity since 2009, and we've actually been dealing with this issue since the early 2000's, 2003, 2004. so we have probably amongst other government regulatory agencies and executive branch regulators, amongst the most experience on this issue. so it seems natural for us to take the lead. >> what role does that effort play into your efforts to boost nuclear facility safety and security? >> well, it's important for nuclear facilities and nuclear reactors to be protected from all the kinds of hacks that you read about. i'm sure you all read the paper today, seeing how you are press people, and you read about the state department's recent troubles. we don't want that kind of thing happening at a nuclear reactor or nuclear facility where there are grave implications.

and so that's what we are rying to be protective of. >> some of the largest owners of nuclear plants are seeking millions of dollars in subsidies from electricity consumers in states such as illinois, ohio, and new york, to continue operating their plants. do you support such subsidies, and if so, why? >> we regulate nuclear power reactors, materials. we don't get into the pricing plans, etc. we don't handle that bit. that's for the state public utility commission. >> what dent you get done during your tenure as n.r.c. chairman? >> that's -- i don't know where o start. i've been ambitious. i would have liked to have seen

more done with the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. i think there's a lot more work to be done there to make that front and center in people's minds. that's one piece of it. i'd like to see more done with public engagement as well. those are some areas, but i think we've overall accomplished quite a lot in 2 1/2 years. i think we have a lot to be proud of. >> what are the biggest challenges that your successor at the n.r.c. will face? >> well, as i said, the agency is not facing the future that five years ago people envisioned. five years ago, seven years ago, the nuclear industry was really expecting to expand, and that's what the information we were getting from them, we expanded as well to prepare for

license applications, and that started to fall apart and, you know, as the recession hit, a number of other factors came into play, and so we have to ensure that we have the right agency for the times. that means we need to have the right skill sets, the right resources, and manage them appropriately, and that's what we're in the process of figuring out. so the next chairman will have to continue making sure that that process gets complete and that the agency is really well equipped to deal with the future. >> and following on, what advice would you give to your replacement? > get a top-notch staff. you can't do anything without a top-notch staff, because you have way too much to do. and to rely a lot on the staff at the n.r.c. overall. the staff are fantastic.

they have a world of experience , and they're the ones who will help you get things done. >> did the white house influence your decision to step down? >> absolutely not. you can ask them. they were probably as surprised as everybody else. >> what do you think regulations specific to decommissioning reactors should look like? what do you think should be changed? >> well, i think there are a number of issues that need to be dealt with. first of all, as i said, reactors that are decommissioning are regulated under operating reactor regulations. now, when you take spent fuel out of the core of the reactor, you don't really need to have a guard force surrounding that core. you need to adjust the security. you may need to adjust the

emergency planning rules. so i think those issues are sort of first and foremost, and that's where we're getting a lot of exemption requests from the plants that are currently decommissioning. i think there's a discussion about the post-shutdown -- the activities report, the psdar. i've been trying to get away from acronyms. that's another piece of advice, get rid of the acronyms. this report is something the power plants provide us, but we don't have any teeth to approve it or disapprove it, and i think this is something we should consider, whether we need that or not. i think there are a number of issues out there that we need to think about and consider going forward. >> some people think that building small modular reactors are the future. does this technology pose any advantages for licensing them?

>> well, we'll see when we get some license applications. we're in the process of waiting for license applications. it sounds like the first ones will come in 2016, but again, we'll see. we had been expecting license applications this past year, and the industry walked back in on that. we'll see what happens. i think there's promise in small modular reactors, but again, the proof is in the pudding, and i'll let these guys work through the details. they'll find out if there are issues or not. >> a lot of questions about licensing. as a variety of advanced nuclear reactor designs receive ren venture capital support, as well as press coverage, how will the n.r.c. support the improvement of the licensing process for these designs, which may not fit into the current formula? rather, into the current

framework. >> formula, framework. i think the question refers to generation four designs, nonlight water designs. and i think we are prepared to deal with those, but i don't see any coming anytime soon. again, the small modular reactor license applications, which are much closer to completion, are still not on our plate. i don't expect these advanced designs will be on the n.r.c.'s plate for many years. but as we working with the industry understand that they're getting closer, the n.r.c. will, of course, respond and be prepared to deal with them. >> what, if anything, can the n.r.c. do to help low performing plants move out of heightened oversight? >> well, we're working closely

with low performing plants,, and you know, providing them a lot of feedback. again, i think this is something that the institute for nuclear power operations is focusing on as well, because they also don't want to see plants stuck at the low-performing level for years and years and years. so we're working together to try to improve that. >> is the n.r.c. staff ready to evaluate new technology like reactors cooled by sodium or lead? >> well, we just had that question on advanced reactors. >> right. same -- >> same answer, yeah. >> are there ways to safely reduce the cost of generating a nuclear plant to make them more competitive with natural gas and wind power? >> again, i regulate the

plants. i don't construct them or design them or build them. and i leave it to those people who are expert in that to answer that kind of question. >> as a geologist, do you think franking is safe, and why or why not? >> well -- >> and let me give you a related question so you can knit it all together. how has the fracking boom affected the nuclear power industry? >> well, i'll take the latter one first. i think, you know, i think a number of factors have affected the nuclear power industry economically. this is just my point of view, but i think that, first of all, the demographic shift from the north to the south and west that has been occurring for more than 10 years has reduced demand in the midwest, northern

part of the country. the 2008 recession, which has hung on in the upper midwest persistently, has also reduced demand and, of course, the low price of natural gas has not contributed to the rosy picture there for nuclear power plants. so i think all of these factors have played a part. in terms of fracking, i am not an expert on this. i will hold forth from saying anything, except to say that it appears that fracking, in some cases, does cause earthquakes. >> back to fukushima, was an overriding issue when you came in and still is, what, instead of the nuclear plant operators to ensure they spend what is needed to keep them safe from the type of catastrophic accident that occurred at fukushima, and are you confident that they will take appropriate another prevent uch an accident?

>> the incentive that nuclear plant operators have to ensure that this kind of accident won't happen is they really don't want to lose that asset. and they really don't want to deal with the aftermath. and i think they are all on board with that. and they have been very responsive to the orders that we put out. i think we are ahead of quite a few countries in terms of getting that additional equipment on site, at reactors, in safe structures. we will be completed, that will be completed by 2016, and many plants will be done before then. so we ad the n.r.c. and the industry have worked really hard to try to make that happen. as i said, there's more to do, and we have to keep our focus on that going forward, but i think we're in a good place

right now. >> the 2015 c-span video competition is underway, taupe all middle and high school students to create a five to seven-minute documentary on the theme, the three branches and you, showing how a policy, law, or action by the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the federal government has affected you or your community. there's 200 cash prizes for students and teachers totalling $1 hundred,000. for a list of rules and how to get started, go to studentcam.org. >> coming up on c-span, the house foreign affairs committee examines the influx of unaccompanied minors at the u.s. southern border. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, "washington journal" looks at the congressional agenda and a safe surveillance legislation and the president's national security team. and at noon, the house picks up a bill dealing with e.p.a. regulations. the senate foreign relations

committee holds a confirmation hearing today for tony blinken, the nominee to be secretary of state. he's currently the deputy national security advisor. you can see this hearing live at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> acting secret service director joseph clancy provides an update today on secret service operations following the rezz i go haitian of the director. the house judiciary committee is investigating the follow-up to security breaches at the white house. the hearing is live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> here are a few of the comments we recently received from our viewers. >> i just have to tell you that to see these people in person, to hear them have the panel discussion or congressional to ng, it is so important

understand the context and to listen to the statement in its entirety. >> i have been watching for a few years, and i really think that book tv is the greatest program on tv. i just really like, you know, how these authors pick the time to not only present a summary of what they rate, but the moderator always does a great job of stimulating the conversation. yeah, it's what i look forward o on the weekend for me. >> i watch c-span all the time when i'm home. it's the only station i have on most of the time. i think it's absolutely expert. i watched all of the debates around the country. thank you for the book talks

and for the history. i like i'm tv, and i'm thankful it's here, and i use it in my class. i teach at a community college in connecticut. thank you very much. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. email us at comments @.org.org. c-span s a tweet, #comments. hearing next, a hearing on the influx of unkpped children at the southern u.s. border. officials from the state department, the u.s. agency for international development, and the interamerica foundation testified before the house foreign affairs subcommittee on the western hemisphere. the hearing is 90 minutes.

>> i yield myself as much time as i may consume to present my opening statement. good afternoon and welcome to this, the second hearing that i've convened on the humanitarian crisis that resulted from thousands of unaccompanied minors showing up at our southern border. i've been engaged on this issue from the beginning, not only as the chairman of this subcommittee, but also as a member of the speaker's working group on the unaccompanied alien child crisis. i traveled with several of my colleagues to the region and saw first hand the insecurity and the poverty that plagues the region. while while the ad miss sites a -- cites a drop in the children, the fact is that the conditions in el salvador,

honduras, and guatemala continue to be very grave. i convened the second hearing because my colleagues and i are mindful of the high levels of gang violence and the lack of opportunity right here in our hemisphere, not only affects the lives of millions in central america, but affects the united states too, as we've seen. indeed, the pursuit of peace and prosperity throughout the western hemisphere should be a key national security objective of the united states. as round reagan said back in 1984, central america is a region of great importance to the united states, and it is so close. since sal var to is closer to houston, texas, than houston is to washington, d.c. i've consistently been supportive of u.s. efforts to assist the region to build capacity to strengthen their respective police forces so they can build -- better confront the high levels of criminality brought on by gangs

and drug trafficking organizations. between 2005 and 2012, there was a 340% increase in murders of women and children in honduras. while he will sal var to maintains the world's highest rate of homicides against women and girls, guatemala ranks third. there is widespread mistrust of law enforcement and impunity rates as high as 95%. in addition to the need for stepping up capacity building for law enforcement, all three of these northern triangle countries lack stable institutions and are playinged by corruption, so u.s. efforts to improve governance are imperative. the question remains, however, and this is why i've convened the second hearing, in this time of tight budget, are we evaluating each and every individual program that we fund applying metrics and determining what works and what doesn't work? i had asked during the last hearing for usaid to provide me with specific program by

program metrics and to this date have yet to receive the information in its entirety. i am aware of the vanderbilt study, a $3.5 million study to evaluate some of usaid's program in the region. unfortunately, the study does not provide us with project by project evaluations and cost benefit analysis, and that may not be available right now. i've said this before, the u.s. taxpayer is very generous and wants to help the people of he will sal var to and honduras find a path to peace and prosperity in their respective countries. however, they also demand that we spend their hard-earned taxpayer money wisely and achievable -- excuse me, and achieve measurable results. as a result, we must acknowledge the previous programs in central america have failed. despite u.s. investments, these countries continue to flail and these failures ultimately contributed to the crisis along our border. it is our responsibility and

yours to ensure that going forward, that we have very serious buy-in and political will from each of these three countries, and every agency involved in administering programs need to be accountable for the effectiveness of each specific program. the goal is to help empower these countries to improve governance and build prosperity so they can prosper there. unfortunately, the obama administration continues to incentivize the maximum exodus of citizens from those countries by changing immigration policy by decree. on friday, vice president biden announced an in-country refugee processing program as part of a strategy to deal with the unaccompanied minor crisis. at first glance, the idea is a very good one. we've all talked about the treacherous journey these children must make to get to our border. so offering those people who might qualify for refugee status the opportunity to apply in their countries would be a good way to dissuade them from

otherwise traveling up our southern border. upon closer inspection, however, it appears that this program is yet another example of president obama's flouting of i am nation law. this newly announced program allows family members present in the united states under varying statuses, including deferred action,to petition for children and spouses in central america to be interviewed for refugee status. if they're knowledgeable, this allows for humanitarian paroles on a case by case basis. it is very important that the state department's bureau of population refugees and migration provided a answer to the many questions my colleagues and i have about this new al announced in-country processing, particularly to understand the criteria being applied to both refugee and parole eligibility. the answer to questions playinging the region is not to further incentivize citizens of

el salvador, guatemala and honduras to leave. rather, we should double down on serious efforts to empower people of the region to achieve lasting peace and prosperity in their country. using this crisis to attempt to create favor for political gain is wrong. sadly, i believe that that might be what the president is doing. i'm looking forward to hearing from each of our witnesses about what their specific agency or bureau is doing to s s the crisis with the seriousness that it deserves and assistant secretary jacobson, thank you for being with us today, miss hogan and miss kaplan, and i look forward to hearing how assistance programs can be refocused on income generation and economic development to help provide empowerment and opportunity to the citizens of central america , and anyway, i'd like to offer an opportunity for opening comments by my colleagues as well. representative duncan?

>> i want to thank chairman salmon, very timely hearing. i want to note on the the outset i'm encouraged by the willingness to work together to address the fact they're contributing to the child migration crisis we saw on our southern border earlier this year, which saw more than 68,500 unaccompanied minors apprehended between october 1 of last year and september 30 this year. it's a 77% increase compared to fiscal year 2013. while there's a lot of good in their plan, i'm concerned that the plan does not address corruption, security, rule of law enough t. appears to be a centralized top-down approach that does not empower municipalities or individual citizens, and it's a uniform approach for the three very different countries with varying political wills. additionally, in june, vice president biden announced that the u.s. would provide $9.6 million in central america, to central america n. july, they requested an additional $3hundred million for programs. i'm interested to know what the

strategy for central america and latin america and the caribbean region in general is before we start increasing the flow of money. i'm deeply concerned and alarmed by this administration's attempt to back door amnesty through the new refugee and parole program, which allows children and their parents who have a partner or spouse in the u.s., that is a deferred action for childhood arrivals or daca recipient, granted for at least one year or deferred and departure recipient to initiate a refugee application. i look forward to digging deeper into that during the question and answer period today. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. i yield to the gentleman from florida. >> thanks, mr. chairman. thanks to the witnesses for coming. before we get into this, this is the first time this committee has met i believe since we were here at the very end of september for a very important issue that you really led on trying to get our marine back from mexico.

i just wanted to, one, just publicly say how thankful we are that he's back, but two, to thank you for your leadership on this. i bugged you on the house floor numerous times, you know, and i know you were frustrated about how long it was taking, but you never let that deter you. you stayed with it. you were traveling down there to meet with them, and i can tell you my constituents in florida were really pumped when he came back. a lot of that has to do with your hard work. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i will. >> i want to say after having met the sergeant when he came home, and followed up on pneumonia laus occasions with friends and family, i'm very, very worried about him, and i've mentioned this. i'd just like to ask anybody out there in the sound of our voice to pray for him and to offer your support, because

he's going to need all the help he can get. he was already diagnosed with the tsd, and the seven months in prison only made it worse, and i'm very concerned about his well-being. he's a very troubled young man, and he needs our thoughts and our prayers. >> i agree whole-heartedly with that. our veterans, when they come back with the post traumatic stress, it's very difficult, but then to be put in that situation where that condition is being exacerbated, we all need to keep him in our thoughts and prayers, because it's not going to be easy for him. i wanted to publicly thank you for your determination and i think that this committee had a lot to do with it under your leadership. i yield back. >> thank you very much. the members of the subcommittee will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the official hearing record, and without objection, the hearing record will remain open for seven days to allow statements, questions,

and extraneous materials for the record subject to the length, limitation and the rules. i'm going to introduce the panel now. first of all, we have the honorable roberta jacobson, the assistant secretary for the western hemisphere affairs at the department of state. she's also served as the senior coordinator for initiatives in the western hemisphere and is deputy chief of mission at the u.s. embassy in lima, peru. and on a personal note, i've not found in my political and professional experience anybody that i enjoyed working with more than her. she is a professional in every way and has a big heart and a big mind, and i'm so appreciative of all the great work that you've done, and i just want you to know there's a lot of good will emanating from committee members. we might differ on policy and have questions, but we never, ever have a trust gap with you and what i want you to know that from the bottom of the

heart. ms. hogan, another stellar individual that we've just been thrilled to be working with, at acting assistant administrator for u.s. agency for international development bureau for latin america and the caribbean. previously she served as the director of the haiti task team overseeing reconstruction efforts after the 2010 earthquake, and we thank you for being here. mr. robert kaplan is the president and c.e.o. of the interamerica foundation. he worked at the development bank in the division for mexico, central america, dominican resandub haiti. we also have ms. weisner, the deputy assistant secretary, and she's here in an advisory capacity, and we appreciate that. she is deputy assistant secretary in the bureau population at the state department. previously she worked at the pentagon in african affairs division and as a consultant in the field of humanitarian

process. you all understand and know the lighting system. it will be green until the last minute, and then it will go amber, and it will let you know that you've got a minute left, and then when it goes red, you're out of time and we'd appreciate you conclude there. and then we'll have questions from members. so ms. jacobson, i'll recognize you first. > thank you, mr. chairman. let me start by associating myself with the comments. i think that for all of us who worked to get the sergeant home, we greatly appreciate your leadership in this matter. i'd like to thank you and the members of the committee for being here today to talk about the u.s. strategy for engagement in central america. i know that many of you, and you personally, mr. chairman, have been so involved in our efforts to develop a humane and effective response to the unaccompanied children and families arriving at our southwest border. although we're encouraged that

the numbers have decreased recently, we know we cannot let up in our efforts to protect vulnerable migrants and address the underlying factors that push them north. this year has noted more than 50,000 unaccompanied children left their homes to make that journey, and the snake migration is a warning sign that long-standing challenges in central america remain very problematic. we must address the underlying factors compelling migration or we are doomed to repeat that migration. but we believe that the essential condition for finding a solution is present and that is political will in the region. last week the interamerica development bank hosted a conference on central america where vice president biden and the presidents from the three northern triangle countries spoke about opportunities and challenges for growth. the president publicly presented a plan called at lines for prosperity, and it includes an assessment for the specific steps that they themselves will take to resolve

them. but their message at the conference was simple. they will take those tough choices to address the challenges, but they need our help. so over the past 18 months, the u.s. government has taken a hard look at both our approach and our investments. while security is paramount, we have broadened our vision for how to achieve it and developed a strategy that both allianz and supports the objectives of the alliance for prosperity. on to achieve that vision in which all the citizens in central america choose to remain and thrive in those countries, we need to focus on prosperity, governance, and security. prosperity agenda fosters integration of a regional market of 43 million people so that local businesses can become more competitive and the region attract i have to international investors. economic growth and economic opportunity has to give young people options beyond criminality or immigration. our governance agenda recognizes that economic growth and security are only

sustainable when the rule of law and democratic institutions flourish and civil society and media can play their rightful roles and anti-corruption is reduced. and the prosperity and governance agendas are essential for the security agenda, which we must act on effectively now, otherwise the payoff from those other two will not bear fruit in the longer term. wr a long way from achieving those goals in central america, and that was obvious last summer in the risk that thousands of children took, the risk of ever present rape, abuse, and death to flee the dire conditions in their home countries. but mr. chairman, over the past few months, we have seen importance successes. our public messaging campaigns about the dangers of those journeys has effectively countered false messages, increased focus on smuggling networks in honduras and guatemala has led to the arrest and rescue of over 235

children, and the government of mexico has been a vital and capable partner. apprehensions are down to levels not seen since january 2013. but we know that this must be sustained by increased commitments by both the administration and congress, and so, yes, we have, as one alternative, offered at the direction of the white house a new program that will allow parents lawfully present in the united states from those three countries to petition for their children in el salvador, guatemala and honduras to come to the united states as refugees. those children not eligible for refugee status may be considered on a case by case basis for humanitarian parole. it's important we fund the implementation of this strategy, which could take as much as $5 billion over five years to fully implement. we believe again that there is reason for optimism about central america. the three leaders of the northern triangle have already begun to take tough decisions

and are investing their own national budget. we have a vision and a plan, and we want to work with you to help central america and protect u.s. national security. thank you very much. >> we move to mr. kaplan. i am sorry, ms. hogan, sorry. > thank you. members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to share how u.s. aid is responding to the challenge of unaccompanied minors migrating from central america to the u.s. border. our response to this challenge is consent with u.s. aid's mission, which is to partner to end extreme poverty and promote resilient democratic societies, while advancing our security and prosperity. in recognition of the gravity of the challenges in central america and the impact those challenges could have on the united states, u.s. aid has maintained funding levels in

central america even in a constrained budget environment. in fact, we've shifted approximately $100 million over the last five years from u.s. aid programs in south america to central america. however, as the recent spike of unaccompanied minors over the summer clearly demonstrates, more needs to be done. this is why the administration requested additional resources in the fy-2014 supplemental budget. we believe these additional resources will result in security and development gains that far exceed their costs, even in the short run. through the central america regional security initiative, we are supporting crime and violence prevention programs that expand opportunities for youth living in high-crime neighborhoods and strengthening the institutions charged with administering justice and keeping people safe. both geographic and demographic, concentrating prevention efforts on high-risk

youth and high-risk communities. i am pleased to report that we have independent evidence that ur programs are working. the final results carried out by vanderbilt university in panama show that, as a direct result of u.s. aid programs reported crime is lower and citizens feel safer in the neighborhoods where we are working. when compared to a 2010 baseline in these same target communities, the vanderbilt evaluation found that, in guatemala, 60% fewer residents reported being aware of homicides. in honduras, 57% fewer reported being aware of extortion. and in el salvador, 36% fewer reported being aware of illegal drug sales in their neighborhoods. in short, people see it getting better.

adoption and expansion of proving approaches by governments are more important than ever. president hernandez of honduras has publicly committed to allocating 30% of the funds collected through the country's security tax to support prevention programs like ours. in guatemala, the government has expanded u.s. aid successful 24-hour court model to additional communities, and the government of el salvador launched its ambitious new national strategy for violence prevention in february to empower municipalities, to lead prevention efforts. while insecurity was cited as a primary driver, the lack of jobs and economic opportunity at home is also a critical factor. u.s. aid's development programs also seek to improve educational opportunities and livelihoods for the poor and rural areas. these programs remain imminently relevant because they complement and amplify our youth and urban oriented

prevention proamming. for example, in el salvador, a youth aid partnership unlocked $25 million for small businesses to help spur job creation. as part of our feed the future investments in honduras, this is promoting sustainable agricultural practices in the country's drought-playinged region to improve the livelihoods and food security of 50,000 families. these kind of economic development programs align with our crime prevention programs to build a foundation for prosperity, and in so doing, relieve the pressure on youth and their families to migrate north. u.s. aid continues to successfully utilize partnerships with the private sector to supplement and sustain our investments in central america. we have leveraged approximately $40 million in private sector resources to support at-risk youth n. honduras, we've developed 41 partnerships with companies to strengthen key agricultural value chains. we're also partnering with

coffee industry leaders, like starbucks, to help coffee farmers recover from the devastating impact of the coffee rust outbreak n. closing, mr. chairman, despite the continued commitment of the region's governments and private equities, we recognize that our current levels of resources are insufficient to spur the kind of large-scale transform active change needed in the region. additional funding would enable us to significantly scale successful programs in the communities in greatest need and fully implement the u.s. government strategy for engagement with central america, balancing the three interrelated objectives of prosperity, of governance, and security. thank you very much, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. mr. kaplan? >> chairman, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to testify on behalf of the interamerican foundation, an i understand anti-agency that works direct with the organized poor in latin america and the

caribbean. we appreciate the long-standing support our mission, to help people in the region help themselves. you well know the long list that contribute to decisions to leave their community n. poor communities, we see the human costs of jobs, barriers to jobs and lack of opportunities. in the northern triangle of central america, one-quarter sub cysts on less than $2 a day. violence is chronic. government institutions are too often absent and community safety nets have broken down. facing these threats, families do not know where to turn. in this context, they invest carefully to help local citizens gain some control over their lives by carrying out initiatives that they themselves conceive. our grantees demonstrate their commitment by contributing their own funds to the effort. on average, they provide about $1.30 for every dollar invested by the i.e.f., making the u.s. a minority partner in the development projects we support. today, our active portfolio in central america includes 81

projects representing $37 million of combined investment by the i.f. and our grantee partners. in the three northern triangle countries, we are supporting local initiatives and over 880 communities. our work is not limited to youth, but 45% of our investment in these three countries benefits youth, young people directly. our work is having a real effect. 14,300 new jobs for low-income people have been created. in the northern triangle alone, 80% of our grantee partners who track household income reported an increase on average more than doubling household income in a year. and it has reduced the appeal of migration. at the beginning of a project in he will sal var to, 83% of participants said they would consider migrating. my mid-project, that was down to 22%. they combined education about the risks of migration with a credit program and training for small farming businesses. bit end of the grant, 79% of the 730 young participants said

they had decided not to migrate. equally important is building citizens' ability to engage their government, a challenging goal in pure communities where many citizens are not equipped to voice concerns or engage with local officials. we have seen which disadvantaged youth come together on their own initiative to build sandills start their own businesses and exercise leadership and teamwork for the benefit of their community, they are less likely to leave. why? because they become invested in the present and future of their home communities. one teenager recently told us, before i participating in the program, i wanted only to follow the american dream. now i believe that i can create my american dream here. the i.f. does much more than send dollars to the region, and the direct results of the projects tell only part of the story. our whole approach is designed to strength be the keanlts of our partners so they can take on even bigger challenges. we want them to learn from each

other and be leaders in their own communities. in the process they create social and economic anchors at home and demonstrate their preference to stay. in fact, i am encouraged, because we see many communities at the grass roots level to address the causes of youth migration. the impact of a single thriving community, an organized group of rural poor, are an inspired person and may seem small, but they become the safe haven and incubators of change that inspire others. if reached, if empowered, and if connected to each other, they are capable of generating the sea change so desperately needed in the region. they noticed a chance to become citizens, because fundamentally they are the ones who will change their communities and their countries. 45 years ago, a small congressional delegation of members of this committee paid a visit to central america. what they learned was not surprising, that true, long-lasting change depends in large part on thriving communities. communities that provide not only social and economic

opportunities for the most marginalized, but are themselves foundations upon which democracies are not. one result from that trip was the creation of the interamerica foundation, which helps support the protagonists, not participants, in their own development. our work naturally complements other u.s. efforts for improving prosperity, governance and security in central american countries. again, i thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the i.a.f. and our thousands of grass roots partners in the region. >> thank you. i'm going to go ahead and ask questions, and then i yield to the ranking member. my first question, maybe it would be most appropriate for you, assistant secretary or ms. weisner, but according to the information the administration released last friday, villeds residing in the u.s. will be able to petition for refugee status for their children and

their spouses living in central america. this is, therefore, a family reunification program, presumably the priority three, -3 category. under section 207, a principle refugee admitted to the united states may request and follow joint benefits for his or her house and/or unmarried children under the age of 21 if the family has become separated. my question is this -- are the family members living in the u.s. who will petition for these children refugees? are they refugees? and if they have -- have they been deemed as such, and if not, under what authority are the nonrefugees living in the united states under a whole host of statuses allowed to petition refugee status for their family member? >> thank you, >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am going to turn to weisner who is much more expert in this

because i do think that this is not, in fact, the standard program that you're describing. it is quite different. it is did he signed to focus on the children in country who are -- it is designed to focus on obviously the ones that we are trying to get out of such a difficult circumstance in the three northern triangle countries without having them attempt this very dangerous journey and try to enter the country in the undocumented status as they did last year. >> to try to answer your question and please follow-up if i miss part of it, you asked if this is part of the p-3 program. it's not exactly the p-3 program. that's based on people who are out of their country of origin already as refugees. you asked if the parents themselves in the united states would be considered refugees under this program. they are not. they are considered under the statuses under which they are here. they are either here as lawful permanent residents or the additional six statuses that are

eligible to apply. the refugee claim is a claim of the child themself. the child facing a risk of persecution, a well-founded -- either they have experienced persecution or they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their own country on one of the five protected grounds. the five protected grounds are their race, religion, their nationality, their political opinion, or their membership in a particular social group. so the -- maybe another way to put it is that the eligibility to petition in this program is one category, and those are the parents and their statuses here in the united states. but in order to be granted refugee status, the child themselves have to show that they are eligible for that status. >> it's not the p-3 program. >> it's not the p-3 program. >> if a minor or spouse is not granted refugee status, they will be considered for parole. what kind of visa will they then

be entering the united states with? and how will we be able to ensure they don't overstay if their two-year renewal is not approved? and then finally, the administration noticed the parolees would be able to attend school. will a minor be allowed to attend a public university once he or she becomes of age? will they qualify for federal grants and state aid? and what is the real difference between a refugee and a parolee who can potentially apply for dacca if his parole status is not renewed? >> i can talk about some of the differences between the offer to refugees who are resettled and what's available for parolees. the for details on the parole program i'll have to refer you to the department of homeland security who administers the parole program. when a refugee comes to the united states under our resettlement program, they are eligible for a range of benefits which include a resettlement and replacement grant that's administered from the state

department through our agencies. then they are also eligible for follow-on refugee benefits from. it includes things like assistance enrolling in school when they become of age, if they are of age assistance getting jobs. we assume their parents already have housing and jobs. it's more about getting them into school as refugees. there's no cost to apply to the program in either case and -- if you come as a refugee, your medical check is free and you will get a loan to take the flight to the united states which you then have to repay back later. parolees is a temporary -- one of the more important aspects of refugee resettlement is that it is a path to legal permanent status and citizenship. and that's one of the main differences with parolees. that's a temporary status. as you noted it often usually lasts for two years and you have to apply for renewal. none of the benefits that i just mentioned for resettlement are

available to parolees, either. in fact, if you are not eligible for refugee status and considered for parole, then your family has to submit an affidavit of support which shows that they are able to support you here in the united states. >> if it's not the p-3 program, what is it? what program is it? >> it's called in country refugee processing. which is allowed. it's accounted for in the law. the refugee status and parole discretion are in the immigration and nationality act. >> do you know what law it's under? >> we do -- we can get the citation. >> that's fine. i recognize the ranking member. >> first of all, let me apologize for being late. these days we have a lot of

things going on. i'm more -- i'm upset about something that happened to us this exodus happened. and i'm very concerned about the origin of how this happened. and i would just -- i'll go back and forth. try to follow me. when this whole thing started everybody's shocked about the kids and the conditions and everything else. it a meeting was called and we asked the ambassadors from these countries who come to the meeting so we can discuss how this whole thing started. would you believe we got one ambassador from the countries? meanwhile we have like 13, 14, 15 congress members at this meeting and we have to now try to deal with staffers.

to me that chose me that maybe -- that shows me that maybe they were not as serious at trying to stop this. to me that just -- i just don't know if this whole stampede started as a rumor and all these kids all of a sudden came across the border because of the rumors started. if 14 or 15 members of congress call for a meeting to try to help because we -- this is the hispanic caucus trying to help, you don't send a staffer to the meeting. you try to deal with the situation and see how it can best be alleviated. i am more concerned the roots of why this happened and then obviously we have to deal after they get here. i don't want -- right now there's a lull.

obviously there's not as many kids coming over. i don't want to see this being used as a release on a pressure cooker on somebody say, all right, we start the rumors and get the coyotes to get these rumors and you're going to have a rush of kids coming over. i just don't -- i just don't know how you deal with that. >> if i could, mr. sires. the only thing i would say is that i think one of the things that last summer taught all of us both here in the united states but especially in these countries was it was a wake-up call for some of the countries in terms of what they needed to do at home. and what we have seen over the last five months is a real shift in the attention to some of the underlying issues and in the will to address those issues back home to ensure that some of the areas that were not getting

the attention they deserved, geographically, because we know where some of these kids -- most of the kids are coming from, and their families, and economically and in terms of level of violence which we are not being attended to by either national governments or local governments. i do think you see a difference as you saw reflected in the three presidents here last week in the attention to those causes. >> anybody have any other observation? >> i can't speak to the -- what the ambassadors did here, but i have to say that on the ground in the communities where we are working, hundreds of communities throughout the region, the conditions on the ground are really as horrendous as everybody has been describing them. with levels of violence and poverty. >> i don't doubt that at all. i'm a hispanic.

i think i know a little bit about the western hemisphere. what my concern is this business of using a rumor or starting a stampede to release the pressure. of what's happening in this -- so we have to really try to address -- i know you're doing your best but i don't know if it's enough. i don't think this is going to be over. i think this is going to continue and that obviously we are going to have to deal with the immigration issue here in america and how to deal with other own issues here. >> you also have governments that have stepped up their anti-smuggling legislation and the units that they are using to go after those traffickers and to put out the messages that this won't be tolerated. i think that's very -- >> i think what happened was

they -- those governments realized how upset this country was and they were concerned that maybe some of the aid would be cut if they don't step up to the plate and start doing some things about what's going on in their own country with their own children. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for your work on this this summer. it was a real problem. you had to try to get your hands around and head around what was going on. the president's supposed to consult with the congress to establish the number and groups of refugees eligible for admission each fiscal year. miss jacobson, under what authority are you establishing the in-country refugee and parole program? >> i'll be happy to ask katherine to say anything further that she needs to, but my understanding is that when the numbers for the fiscal year are sent to congress as they were this september --

>> 4,000. >> those numbers obviously are the numbers that we are working with. those are the numbers that will include any increases in central america. obviously program like this would take time to set up. we would not expect numbers of any magnitude to really be seen until, frankly, quite a ways down the road. frankly probably late into 2015. were we to need any additional numbers beyond that 4,000 there is some flexibility within the overall numbers. but we anticipate those numbers being adequate for the coming year. >> you're telling me nobody's been processed through this program to date? >> no. that's correct. the program itself will not even begin to take applications into it any earlier than at least the beginning of december. it has not begun.

and obviously as a new program this will begin and we will see in terms of the kinds of response that we get. >> who sets the cap? >> in a program like this there is no cap at the outset. we have to see who qualifies for it. >> it's just an open number of refugees able to come into this country? >> obviously what we sent to congress is the overall cap in refugees. that stands. that cap won't be -- >> what's the cap for 2015? >> 4,000 for this region. i don't know the global number. >> the global number is 70,000. that's established by presidential authority and presidential determination. >> that's from all countries? >> that's globally. so 70,000 is a cap. it's what we budget against. >> what's the cap for central america? >> within that we make allocations. for latin america and caribbean it's 4,000. >> do you anticipate any change in increasing those numbers for central america? >> we left it at 4,000 because we thought that was probably

appropriate. but there is some flexibility to change it if need be over the course -- >> we are seeing afghans, iraqis. there's a global need of people seeking to come to this country. i guess what i'm asking are you planning on expanding the number from central america or are you going to leave it sort of like it is, status quo? >> at this point we left it at 4,000. i would just add that in addition to including the in country program specifically in the report that went to congress in september, we did the required consultations with the judiciary committee where this program was raised and also did staff briefings back in september. there's been some consultation in advance of the vice president's remarks on friday. >> i'm not saying which number is right or wrong. i'm trying to get my head around what you're going to do with that allocation. i have a question, in this country you can vote when you're 18, sign a contract and be tied to that, get married, you can be tried as an adult. everything i'm reading here you're identifying children as 21 and younger. why?

>> that's the definition of minor children that d.h.s. uses according to the law. >> we asked d.h.s. to come to this hearing and they refused. that's my request. it's interesting because a parent is eligible to request program access for his child who is a resident in one of the three countries, the parent is at least 18 years old. you're going to identify a child as 21 or younger but you're saying parent has to be at least 18. it seems to be some hypocrisy there. if we need to change that in the law, we'll change it. but there is hypocrisy of the two ages. in the united states you're a child until you're 18 years old. do you agree with that? >> the definition of a minor youth is in the law. but obviously if the petitioning parent is 18 the child going to be significantly younger than that. >> my wife says i'm still a child.

>> you're allowing the children and from what i'm hearing you-all have found a way to get these children into this country without them having to take that journey across mexico and on the trains and everything that we have seen. what specific circumstances would you allow a second parent residing in the home country say el salvador to be added to the child's petition? mom, if she's in el salvador, or dad, can come with them. >> they have to be the parent of the child or they have to be -- have been married to the petitioning parent in the united states at the time that that parent received their legal status in the united states. >> is that common practice for other countries as well for refugee status? do we allow mom and dad to come with the child? >> that's the p-3 program that

the chairman spoke about previously. >> historically in the p-3 program do we allow the mom and dad to accompany the child? >> it's usually the child accompanying the mom and dad in that case. >> what circumstances would prevent a parent from being considered for refugee status? >> the same definition for refugee status applies for the child as for the parent. if the parent is not eligible for refugee stay turks they could be considered for parole. -- status then they can be considered for parole. >> my time's up. are we -- thank you. i'll just with go back right now. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i guess the issue with me is, our policies that are adopted particularly unilaterally by the administration more and more, that affects the behavior that we see. when the president did the administrative amnesty for minors in 2012, that was a signal that was sent. you had biden going down this

summer, no, it doesn't apply to you. only if you were here the certain time. the honduran president said there is a lack of clarity in u.s. laws that were contributing to this surge. i wanted to-ask and my colleague from south carolina mentioned d.h.s. and i wish they were here. an issue i think does send a signal for people to come illegally that involves both d.h.s. and department of state. it is this. i was shocked when we received this report on the judiciary committee. fiscal year 2013 i.c.e. released 36,700 convicted criminals who were in the country illegally rather than have them detained pending outcome of deportation proceedings. and we always hear we have to focus the resources on criminals. people who mean us harm. some of the convictions these people were convicted, 193 homicide convictions, 426 sexual assault convictions, kidnapping. aggravated assault, vehicle

theft, drug trafficking. very, very serious offenses. and yet d.h.s. is releasing these individuals into american society rather than repatriate them back to their nation of origin. now, what does that have to do with the state department? here's why. not all of them, we asked d.h.s. to provide us the list of offenses and identify reasons to the best they could why they were released. some of the people they claim they want to return them to their home country, but their home country just won't accept them. they are only allowed to hold people for so long under binding court decisions. so they have no choice but to release them. the way i understand the system is supposed to work you have somebody, let's say been convicted of rape, they are here ill really, no right to be here, -- illegally, no right to be here our government is supposed , to go to that country, let's say it's china, you go to china and you say, hey, here take --

if china doesn't take them back, then we are under section 1253 subsection delta, the secretary of the department of state shall order the consular offices in that foreign country to discontinue granting visas to nationals and citizens that have country until d.h.s. has certified they are accepting their convicted foreign nationals. secretary jacobson, we know that some these people who had been convicted are from countries in the western hemisphere. has the state department ordered any consular offices in any of those countries to stop granting visas because those countries have not accepted some of these convicted criminal illegal immigrants? >> we have not, congressman. the main reason we have not is you, i think, realize, the cutting off of visa services to a country is an extreme step that really leaves us -- >> actually, it may be that, but

as i read it, i think the statute says that the secretary of state shall order. >> the only thing that i would like to add is, all three of these countries are taking back criminal deportees. they may not be taking back all of them and they certainly are not taking back as quickly as we would like in terms of the court's ability to hold them or -- >> i understand that. what the countries are doing is one thing. i want to hone in on how the state department -- >> to have documentation to go home that's what we have to work out with the country. >> i understand that. my point is these people are being released. clearly there was a break down somewhere along the line. as i read the statute, i think a lot of my colleagues on judiciary, we believe that's the way the system works. you don't take them back, state then takes the step that it's an obligatory duty the statues uses

the word -- statute uses the word foul. it's discretionary, up to the secretary to determine whether that step needs to be taken. as i read it congress has expressed the will the secretary of state needs to do this. is it an obligatory duty? >> i'm sitting here before you. i want to be honest. i'm not lawyer and my lawyers at the department would get nervous if i tried to interpret law here. but those countries are taking back criminal deportees. they have not refused as a matter of policy -- >> just the three countries at issue here. >> in particular, yes. >> but there are other countries in the western hemisphere who are not taking some -- if there's not, then we are getting two different stories between state and d.h.s. that's why i think it would have been good to have d.h.s. here. >> i would have liked to have my colleagues here. i think what we are talking about is a question of whether it's a country's policy not to take back any criminal deportees

or whether they are simply not taking back as many or as quickly as we would like them to take back. >> i don't even think it's a policy. as soon as d.h.s. notifies the state department that the government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, maybe it has to be in all cases. it seems clear to me that if we are in a situation where we are releasing, d.h.s. is releasing a lot of these people, maybe they are not notifying the state department about everyone they are releasing. i want to know that, too. maybe they are notifying the state department and the state department is not taking the step that the statute requires. maybe the state department is actually returning a portion of them. i think -- you look at some -- president, people on the very far left who essentially an open border, people on the far right don't want -- they want to stop

even some legal immigration, everyone in that whole gambit believes that when people are here and committing serious criminal offenses that we need to protect the american people. >> we are in the same place on that. let me assure you that d.h.s. and the state department work closely on the issue of criminal deportees. when we are notified by d.h.s., we work really closely with them to push very hard to get countries to take back those criminals. >> not hard enough to where you would actually stop the issuing of visas. >> we succeed very often in getting criminal deportees returned. >> i appreciate that. we had 193 homicide convictions, 20 of those individuals from the western hemisphere very often maybe return 15 of them. that means five people that are going to be released by i.c.e., which i don't think is acceptable. i want to get to the bottom. maybe this is something we could

do jointly between this committee and judiciary. >> if the gentleman would yield. it's something that i am pursuing. our sheriff of maricopa county approached me. i don't know if you remember a few weeks ago the two sheriff deputies in california that were murdered by an illegal. he had been jailed four different times and released by d.h.s. four different times. then he told me there are thousands that come through his jail alone that are flagged by d.h.s., whether it's a rape or murder or drug charges, they are flagged and then they are taken and they don't know where they go. the sheriff has no idea whether they are released into the states, here in the states, or deported and sent back. he does know that they are coming back to his prison again because they are being

rearrested for different crimes that they have committed since the original crime that they were arrested for. >> mr. chairman, we can get -- we get some people from homeland security because at the end of the day 36,000 convicts, total number of convictions in fiscal year 2013, 88,000 convictions among that class, that clearly is not doing what is necessary to keep the american people safe. there is a breakdown somewhere. it was tough getting the information from d.h.s. to begin with. i want to see -- i think the system is supposed to work where they are not accepting them and there are consequence and most countries will probably rather accept them and accept the consequences. we need to make sure that that's -- >> it needs to be a joint hearing as you said. we are pursuing it. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes, i would.

i'm chairman of the oversight subcommittee and we are looking into the issue. of the released prisoners and the subject you talked about in maricopa county. i don't think you limited to this committee and judiciary, i think you involve the homeland security committee. you're talking about dhs and state working well together but they work so well together dhs is not sitting at the table today. >> i will go through one more round of questions if it's all right. my first question is regarding a report that was released today by the seattle international foundation. to 2012,that from 2010 this is for you, ms. hogan, the u.s. foundation invested $488 million in central america. moving forward, how will the obama administration work with private donors to leverage these resources to ensure that federal

government's dollars are maximized? also, are you currently coordinate any of what-private partnership with these foreign countries focused on book a programs and workforce competitiveness? if so, can you tell us how they work and how they contribute to economic prosperity in the communities where they are administered? >> thank you very much for the question. i will start with the work we are doing with private sector workforce development that we do. in central america as well as mexico and the caribbean we have seen some really great successes as a result of that thatnation of resources the private sector brings to bear along with the training we can provide. what the private sector is looking for are people who have the kind of skills that can go into the jobs that they have opening doors -- openings for. with computer skills, market-oriented training, what we have been able to see is these companies picking up these

youth to go work for them. in fact coming one of our programs, we have seen 77% of the youth that come out of our workforce training programs either go to work or go back to school for increased education. the other thing we are seeing is that youth that come out of these training programs, these workforce develop and programs, are also sometimes opening up their own businesses based on the skills they develop as a result of this training. we are very excited about it. it keeps kids in the communities and the companies get the kind --skill mix they made and it they need and it has been a successful and flourishing partnership with some of the key countries of the region. as far as how we work with private foundations, one of the things we are doing in central america is designing what we call a safe city's approach to be sure that we can bring all the resources to bear any particular place-based strategy

so that we draw upon the resources not just of the u.s. government but come as we are already doing, with the private sector, but also with international, other donors for example in with the international developer and banks it might be investing in this as well as private foundations. what we are doing is scoping out who has interest in this community, who has something to bring to the table for support and how can we maximize our impact by bringing all of that together under one strategy, one set of metrics for one set of results? >> mr. chairman -- >> yes, thank you. >> i will go from this hearing to speak at nasa which is a student exchange convention here in town. as part of the president's 100,000 strong in the americas which is not a government program, we have raised over $3 million of private funds to try to do these university to university partnerships.

the part i am proudest of are not the traditional partnerships. they are frankly the partnerships of either what we call vocational training schools or community colleges which don't necessarily exist in some of the central american countries to provide that gap between high schools and a four-year college which most of these kids will not have access to. at that conference today, there will be chilean students from montclair state. we are doing a lot of work with and someoth with asu of the committed to college systems. this is where i think some of our best private-public work and be done the education sphere in places like central america. >> i not only serve on this committee but i'm also on the education and workforce committee. i have worked with arizona state in maricopa community dollar system for years and years. in fact, is to represent them as well in my private life.

i really would love to figure out a way -- maybe we could use an pilot stuff in arizona. i would love to work with you and the secretary of education to try to come up with some innovative ways. that really is the way to empower people. that's the way to get them out of poverty. it's a way to get freedom. i would really love to work with you on that. the chair recognizes the ranking member. ago we used to deport criminals, i think we just sent them back. do we have a situation now where we send them back with a rap sheet knowing what they did? to see ifny follow-up some of these people reappear again here in the states? give you as, i will partial answer because some of i will get back

to you on as well as check in with my dhs and justice department brethren. we have worked over the last number of years to do better with the countries in the region at giving them information on the criminal history of the people they will be accepting with criminal deportees. legitimately to know what kind of crimes they committed so they can be prepared as a receiving country -- if theyt kinds of go back into the communities, how do they have to prepare themselves. some of that information is now much better able to be transferred to other governments. we have pilot programs, i know, that both the hs and justice have work with countries in central america and the caribbean to try to convey as much information as possible within our own laws. so that they can give countries and i you of the history of criminal deportees. beyond that, obviously, those

folks are put into a system so that in the future, when they might attempt to come back into the country through legal means, they are registered in the system as having criminal records in the united states and that should not be possible. if they come in via undocumented or illegal means, obviously, that is a different story. obviously, that information is put into both state department and dhs databases. >> if the john would yield -- i have asked a done quite a bit of research on this. the ones we are talking about were never adjudicated. they were arrested and arraigned for an accused crime but they never get the adjudication ins comes and gets them or either deport them or lets them go before they are ever even adjudicated.

hat is one of the big problems. if they are deported, they don't coach serve in the prisons in those countries. they are out scot-free and of course they don't come back the legal way. the other interesting thing is during the situation with the i company minors, remember how we were told -- they did not come to the entry points. they came to the middle ground. why did they do that? because then it took all kinds of agents off of the checkpoints and meanwhile, the bad guys with snakes or other places. they were used as decoys. it's not about being able to get a good handle on them -- as i he told by sheriffarpaia, has had some in his prison 10 times or more for different crimes, 10 different crimes, so they have been arrested in the released, back in

jail and arrested on another crime a few months later or a year later. it's a serious problem. the chair recognizes mr. duncan. >> i just have a few follow-up questions or final questions. the u.s. is contracting out refugee russes into the international organization for migration. why aren't you working with the un refugee organization if the situation is so dire in central america and the children are having to escape the situations there? >> sure, in fact, we are doing both. we work with the international organization of migration around the world on the processing of resettled refugees and we have a very strong relationship with unhcr as well. we recently given a grant of 700 -- around $770,000 which is initial contribution toward their work in central america with the express purpose of building up their present their

come understanding the dynamics of internal displacement within these countries and working with the government to increase protections for children at risk in their own country so they won't have to fleet. >> is the u.n. setting up idp camps in central america? >> they are not that they're working with the governments of understanding internal displacement. >> what is the cost for the u.s. to contract with iom? >> i don't have those figures right now. . >> is it a competitive bidding process? why was a given to them? >> you may be talking -- i don't think we have offered any contracting yet for the in country processing. >> my understanding is -- we have is on the inatriated folks who go back the united states, the families and the adults and we have contracted with iom to do the repatriation of those folks who came during the summer.

there is two different contracts. whatt me just add to roberta says -- the usa has a $770 million grant to the international organization for migration to help governments prepare to upgrade the reception services that they provide to repatriated migrants. we have seen that government center and have really stepped up to the light in terms of making more space available and getting volunteers to help in processing people, making sure they get food when they get off the plane, giving them medical referrals, job referrals, etc. they have been doing quite a bit and we have seen -- i got to see a fine of migrants repatriated in honduras. it went very, very smoothly. i think iom has done a very good job and is standing by to see if additional services may be required. >> just to clarify, iom

implements this program for usaid and they are the existing contractor for us for the existing resettlement support ander in quito, ecuador that center we will expand to accommodate this new program in central america. when that contract contribution was awarded to iom several years ago, it was a competitive process posted online. >> ok, the president -- vice president and talked about providing $9.6 million to south american. administration requested an additional $300 million which is a lot of money. the president promised the money this week in china. where's the money coming from? does it come out of your edges and the state department? the $300 million the president was talking about was in the supplemental that was sent to congress this summer. the $9.6 million the vice president talked about -- it was probably when he was quite -- in

guatemala in june, that was the funds that we below allocated from the state department budget that we thought was much more urgently needed, quite honestly, in central america for things like repatriation and resettlement of migrants. >> the reason i ask is i get this question at home a lot. every time we turn around, the vice president or someone in the administration is promising $100 million here and $1 billion there. your budget is finite. it is set by congress. so are you shrinking the budget or reallocating resources? what programs are being changed here? >> certainly, some of the funds are coming from relocation. -- reallocation. a congressional movement when through a couple of days ago for $76 million in funds for the international narcotics and law-enforcement fund to be reallocated toward central america. those i believe were originally

funds from a number of years ago destined for iraq that could no longer be used. those are being reallocated for central america. some funds have been from elsewhere. the $300 million come as you know, was the supplemental request that was not taken from elsewhere but even so, as you know, the three and million dollars and the supplemental request was out of a $3.7 billion overall request so the foreign assistance portion of it was really quite small. thatntinue to believe although foreign assistance budgets are truly constrained, we are well aware that it is in fact more efficient if we use those funds in the countries to try to address those root causes that if we try to do with the effects of it right here on our territory at home. >> i'm not arguing today about the appropriate or inappropriate use of the money. aguess i am concerned as

member of congress and accountable to the taxpayers, breakdownve to see a of the state department budget and all the promises made and where that money is coming from, how you reallocate that money. mr. chairman, that might be a request to go to the state department very we got to find or money through a cr appropriations bill to fund or they've got to reallocate. i would love to see that. the last thing that i want to dhs -- theybly for are not here but -- i wonder how many new dhs personnel will be required at u.s. embassies in the northern triangle countries to intimate this program? do you know? >> the in country refugee processing program? i don't know that we have a specific number yet of individuals although i think in general, this will be carried out by others in terms of end

three countries. -- in the three countries. implement these efforts, i don't think there's any doubt that we may need some additional people in our embassies in all three countries. let me ask catherine. dhsy understanding is that has refugee interview locations in six latin american countries but not in the northern triode countries. >> that's correct. >> are they planning to ship personnel or at? >> they do circuit rides in many parts of the world. there are some refugee adjudicators at the app is is that most of the world are people who come in for a circuit right of six weeks and conduct a number of interviews of that's the model we will use to start in central america. >> there will be no additional burden on the embassies. >> that's a good thing. i had an experience with an afghan interpreter, translator who served with the third infantry.

it took two years to get someone who the army -- four, several generals -- i don't know petraeus did but allen did, number of others, to get this gentleman into this country. he was asked for by the military and fought alongside our military in afghanistan threatened by the taliban and lost his uncle during the process, it took two years. he had his visa issued to come to this country and the state pulled away from him. he was chased from the embassy home and evaded the taliban numerous times. i throw that out there. i would hope the process is at least as taxing for refugee children coming from central america as a was for somebody coming from afghanistan. i say that in that it should not be taxing. it should not be as taxing for people in afghanistan that serve our nation. >> it begs a bigger question -- i understand that the numbers, even though there is a 4000 number, that could be exceeded if they come from another area, right? is that correct?

what i mean is, the total number for the world is 70,000? >> 70,000. >> if you decide to reallocate that or have 10,000 come from central america, you just have to shrink it somewhere else so it stays under the total global amount, right? >> there have to be a reallocation of the number went to above 4000. there is some flexibility built into the system. the assistant secretary said we won't be accepting applications before december. year 15 comes to and pretty soon thereafter. that theren would be are very calamitous situations in other parts of the world like sudan, as you mentioned, afghanistan, and it would be tragic -- i hope it is at least based on the most serious people globally

and it's an equal standard. i would hope that -- over heredy gets because they are uncomfortable where they are living on somebody else has the threat of death for their religious belief in another part of the world, i would hope the greater consideration to begin into the latter. whohere is prioritization are at the greatest risk of harm so there is expedited processes for those cases. does sean duffy have any questions? we have the last round. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i appreciate you holding this hearing to shed light on what's going on. you have this document in front of you with a list of categories. would you do me a favor? would you maybe walk me through one by one and tell us what these are and what was the rationale for putting them on the list?

you can start with a lawful permanent resident. why did they make it onto the category list? >> i'm afraid this is going to be another instance where we will be disappointed that the department, security is not here. >> i'm sure you won't disappoint. >> we are definitely. we would like to be able to present this jointly with them. these categories were developed jointly with the department, security and they're considered to be lawfully present statuses by the department of homeland security. in designing a program -- >> i don't have a lot of time but you would walk me through which one and if you know the rationale, who are these individuals and what was the rationale if you know how they got on the list? >> i can walk you through the categories -- lawful permanent resident is self-explanatory i think. temporary protected status applies to nationals of el salvador and honduras. those are two of many countries that benefit from temporary protective status. they were awarded at different times in the past due to natural

disasters and events. the first two would be here legally? >> everybody on this list is considered to be lawfully present. granted for one year? >> that's a discretionary authority given to the secretary of homeland security to admit people to the united states based on urgent humanitarian needs or in the public interest. >> so someone was brought here but it's not a status given to someone who is already in the united states? >> correct. >> deferred action for childhood arrivals, dacca? >> i cannot say more about that than what everybody knows. >> this was executive action from the president, right? is takinga child who advantage of daccam do you have legal status or is it a deferred removal program? you don't have legal status of

your a child in the dacca program, do you? >> they would make a distinction between legal status unlawfully present. >> for how long? >> for the period granted. >> how long is the dacca program in effect? >> i cannot answer that question. >> this is not long-term permanent status, its executive made by the president. >> it is only guaranteed through the president's term. would you agree with that? >> that's the definition of an executive action. someone who you or is here in the united states and not going to be removed because of executive action, that is good for another two years. they have made this list so that they can basically engage in bringing family members up from central america? >> i think you're getting at the

status of what children will have an the get here it is true if you have refugee status commute they have to it legal citizenship and a few arrive at the border and apply for asylum and are eligible, you have a legal path to citizenship. samedoes not offer to the opportunity for the same children. for those who would be admitted under patrol, that would be temperate status. >> being a lawful permanent resident is far different than someone who has had a status for the remaining two years where the president is the president, correct? they are able to take advantage of this program though the legality of their status will only remain for the two years, is that fair to say? >> i think it's fair to say these are all different categories and some of them are permanent and some of them are temporary. they are all considered lawfully present. >> maybe you're right, i would be disappointed, you stated the obvious.

let's go to the withholding removal guarantee, what is that? the last one? >> i don't have information on that status. >> you don't know what that is? >> it means there is a removal order -- there is a withholding of removal order. >> there is an order to remove them the but that has been state? >> i will have to refer you to dhs on the category. >> and they can take advantage of this program? >> everybody on this list is eligible to apply for the program. >> so there was an order to remove that has been withheld and you can take advantage of the program. if there is children found ineligible for refugee status, they can still be admitted if they are at risk of harm. what is the definition of still at risk of harm? >> as the chairman and others

outlined in their opening statements, we have all seen the incredible insecurities facing the region as well as the individual -- the violence faced by individual children on a daily basis. >>? >> the definition is a discretionary authority granted to the department of homeland security. >> so it's discretionary. >> correct. >> ok. have the current number we can allow from the regions 4000? you have indicated that number could go up, is that correct? >> the allocation for latin america and the caribbean region right now for refugee admissions is 4000. >> they can go to how many? -- it can go up to how many? >> we indicated the global total is 70,000. when we sent the refugee numbers forward for this year, knowing that this program is going to

start, we did not adjust that number. we did not think we would really need more than the 4000. it is only elastic up to the 70,000 but no one believes that it will be expanded obviously to 70,000. >> of the 70,000 number, how much of that has been utilized? to 20,000 sod up far, you might have -- you can take that 4000 up -- >> this program has not begun yet. >> you said there is a total of 70,000. >>. globally >> about 6000 refugees have arrived so far this fiscal year around the world. >> if the same as in the next fiscal year, in theory, you could move this from 4000 up to 64,000, in theory. i'm not saying that you are. but you have a total of up to 70 you can use and if you've used

six this year and it's the same next year, the total number could be higher than 4000 -- am i losing you? >> a little because the 6000 of the 70,000 have arrived this year. >> right-- >> next year, the allocation will probably be informed by the number who have arrived this year from the region. but it was set at 4000 with an understanding that that would cover the expected number this fiscal year. >> maybe we are speaking past each other. would you categorize this as a program for chain migration i'm sorry, could you repeat the would you categorize this as a case for change migration? >> i would not. >> there is a desire within this institution on how to get

immigration done on both sides of the aisle it's an opportunity to get it done without going through programs like this where we have no withholding of a removal guarantee. i don't think this is the process in which we should use. my hope is that the president will hold off and allow the substitution with the senate to actually work and go through proper channels to actually have an immigration system that is understandable and knowable and will work from one president to the next because we will have a new system of laws in place as opposed to presidential executive actions which i don't think gives certainty to those who have come here without documentation. i think it actually exposes them to greater risk especially executive and the state which we are not talking about -- especially executive amnesty which we are not talking about. but the courts could expose some folks to significant harm. with that, i yield back. >> we need permanent solutions

that will stand the test of time , not just a solution from one or two administrations. as the gentleman just illustrated, the laws are so very subjective. toleaves so much discretion the person making the decision. even though it know it's supposed to be priority taste, my fear is that -- priority-based, my fear is that in government so often the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing and there is not a lot of communication, is that some incredibly needy recipient would be ignored and somebody else who is not nearly as needy gets granted asylum status or refugee status.

that is why we held the hearing more than anything. it's that we do believe we need to have clarity going forward. and that we want to solve the problem with central america. massnswer is not some exodus out of central america but the answer is to solve the problem, economic problems, security problems, and we want to take that on together and we need your advice and major help to figure out what works and what doesn't and where can we put more resources and how we can leverage the resources that are and how can we do a better job. i really appreciate you being here today and i know that at the line of been -- questioning is frustrating but it's not meant to be pejorative or as painful as it's been. it is just been this way because there is such a lack of clarity.

we just want to make sure that going forward, we all comply with existing law. comply with a law that does not exist yet. for that, again, i would ask ms. weisner if you could give us the citation -- i know you will go back and look at that -- what specific love this new program falls under so that we can understand going forward. for the american people who have an opportunity to watch this isring, you understand now martine said, there are two things you don't want to see being made, sausages and laws -- you understand now, as mark twain said, there are two things you don't want to see being made, sausages and laws. i greatly appreciate you being here today. thank you very much in this hearing is now adjourned. . [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, icute, icd visit ncicap.org]

>> here are a few of the comments we recently received from our viewers -- >> i just have to tell you that to see these people in person, to hear them have the panel discussion or congressional important tos so and toand the context listen to the statement in its entirety. book tve been watching for a few years and i think it's the greatest program on tv. i like how the authors take the time to present just what they write but also the moderator

does a great job of stimulating the conversation. forward to itook on the weekends to watch as much as i can. >> i watch c-span all the time when i'm home. is the only station i have on most of the time. i think it's absolutely excellent and i watched all of the debates around the country. thank you for the book talks and for the history. i like all of it and i'm thankful is there and i use in my classroom. i teach at a community college in connecticut. thank you very much. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching by calling us or e-mail us or some this a tweet. join the c-span conversation and like us on facebook and follow us on twitter.

>> acting secret service director joseph clancy provides an update today on secret service operations following the resignation of director julie pearson. the house judiciary committee's investigating the follow-up to security breaches at the white house. the hearing is live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. three -- c-span 3. >> there is a hearing today for the obama nominee to be secretary of state. wants to be the deputy secretary of state. you can see this on c-span three at 2:30 p.m. eastern time. the 2015 c-span student cam video competition is underway which is open to all middle and high school students to create a five-seven minute documentary on the theme " the three branches

and you." a policy by the branches of government has affected you or your community. there is 200 cash prizes for students and teachers totally $100,000. for the list of rules and how to get started, go to student cam.org. " is livengton journal next with your phone calls and a 10:00 a.m., the house returns for general speeches and at noon, members take up the second of three epa regulation bills being considered this week.

the nays are 4 1. 60 vote threshhold, having not bin athemed, the bill is not passed. rejecting conception of the keystone pipeline, and, democrats nairly defeated a effort, southbound nat tor mary, and, the senate republicans, all of whom voted yes will feel the pressure to resurrect the bill. we begin there, 1,700 miles, and some say would