this is about an hour and a half. >> 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 the administration 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 salvador 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 el salvador 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 plagued 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 el salvador 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 plaguing 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 address 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. and i want to note on 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. in 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 numerous 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 inter-american foundation. he worked at the development bank in the division for mexico, central america, dominican republic and 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 inter-american 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. we are 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 our 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 programming. 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-plagued 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. in 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. in 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 inter-american 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. in 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 el salvador, 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 and 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, p-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? and member? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am going to turn to. i am going to turn to weisner is not in fact the standard program that you are describing. ,t is something quite different and it is designed to focus on the children in country, who are 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 undocumentede status as they did last year. >> to try to answer your question, and please follow-up if i missed part of it, but you p-3d if this is part of the

program, that is people out of their country of origin already as refugees. we asked if the present -- if the parents themselves in the u.s. would be considered refugees under the program -- they are not. there considered under these statuses of which they are here. so they are either lawful permanent residents or the statuses that are eligible to apply, so the refugee claim is a claim of the child themselves. the child facing a risk of persecution, either they have theyienced persecution or have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country on one of the five protective grounds. the five effect in grounds are their race, the religion, their nationality, their membership in a particular social group, so may be another way to put it is that the eligibility to petition in this program is one category, and those are the parents and

her status as here in the united states, but in order to be granted refugee status committee shall themselves as to show that they are eligible for the status. >> so it is 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 daca 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 health and human services. it includes things like assistance enrolling in school when they become of age, if they are of age assistance getting jobs. these will be children joining parents, so 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 -- but 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. do you have it for the in country? 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. the hispanic caucus called a meeting 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 these 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 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 sentss 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. >> this is true. [laughter] 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 arduous 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 and considered a refugee?

no just the children -- 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 theyr refugee status, then can be considered for parole. >> my time's up. are we -- thank you.

i'll just yield 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. the 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 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 statute uses the word foul. -- the word shall. 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. >> but 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 an acceptable number. 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. >> right. >> somebody who had been here illegally. 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. secretary jacobson was 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 the seattle international foundation. it shows that from 2010 to 2012, 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 coordinating any of the 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 combination of resources that 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 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 development 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 of 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, 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 which do not necessarily exist some of the central american countries to provide that gap and a n high school four-year college, which most of these kids will not have access to. as that -- at that conference today, there will be chilean students. we are doing a lot of work, in fact, with arizona. both with asu and some of the college community systems. this is where i think some of our best private, public work can be done.

>> secretary jacobson, i not only serve on this committee but on the education and workforce committee also. worked with arizona state and the community college system for years and years. in fact, i used to represent them in my private life. i really would love to figure out a way -- at least, maybe some pilot stuff -- in arizona and i would love to work with you and the secretary with some on to tie, innovative ways. because that really is the way to empower people. that is the way to get them out of poverty. that is the way to get freedom. so i would really love to work with you on that. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member. >> yes. you know, years ago when we used to deport criminals. i think we just sent them back. have a situation now where we send them back with a knowing what they

did, and is there any follow-up these people e of reappear again? >> what i'm going to give you a sort of a partial answer because some of the rest of it back to you on t as well as checking with my dhs and justice department brother and. we have worked over the last years and doing better and giving them the criminal history. they ask legitimately to know what kind of crimes they so they can know what they, as a receiving country, how they have to prepare themselves. some of that information is now able to be transferred to other government. pilot programs in

central america and the caribbean to try convey as much within tion as possible, our own laws, so that they can give countries an idea of the history of criminal deportees. beyond that, obviously, those folks are put into a system so that in the future, when they back into mpt to come the country through legal registered in e the system as having criminal records in the united states. and that jalopy possible. if they come in via undocumented or illegal means, obviously, that is a different story. but obviously, that information is put into both the state department and dhs databases. >> i have actually done quite a bit of research on this, and we are talking about whenever engine negated. they were arrested and

arraigned for an accused crime, it they can never get to adjudication because either dhs deports them or let them go. so that is one of the big missing problems. certainly, if they are deported, they do not go straight into prisons in those countries. they are out free. and, of course, they do not come back to legal way. the other stirring situation the unaccompanied minors -- remember how we were told that -- they didn't come to the entry point. they came to like the middle ground. why did they do that? because the senate took all agents at the checkpoints and, meanwhile, the bad guys would sneak through other places. they were used as decoys. so it is not about being able a good handle on them,

i was told by the sheriff, he said that some had been in the prison 10 times or more. four different crimes. so they had been arrested, flight by ins, arrested on another crime a few months later or a year later. it is a serious problem. chair recognizes mr. duncan. >> thank you, i just have a few follow-up questions. the us is contracting out the refugee process to the international organization for migration. so why are you not working with the un migration agencies if in situation is so dire central america -- these children are having to escape the situation there. >> in fact, we are doing both. we work with the international organization of migration around the world on the processing of resettled refugees.

very u know, we have a strong relationship with unhcr. we recently gave them a grant as an initial consultation to work in central america, with the express purpose of up their presence there, understanding the dynamics of internal displacement within these countries, and working with the government to increase protections of children at harm. >> are they setting up idp camps in central america? >> they are not setting up camps, but they are working with the governments to understand the particular days of internal displacement. >> is it a competitive bidding process? may be talking -- because i don't think we type of ered any have acting at -- what we with the iom is on the

repatriated folks who go back the united states -- the families and adults -- and we with iom to do the repatriation of those folks who came -- >> in different countries -- >> there are two different contracts. >> if i may add to what you just said. the usaid has a $7.6 million to help the iom upgrade nts prepare to the reception services that they provide to repatriated migrants. we have seen that the government, in turn, have up to the plate in terms of making more space available, getting volunteers people, to processing making sure they get food when get off the plane, giving them medical referrals, job referrals, etc.. so they have been doing quite a and we have seen -- i

actually got to see a plane of migrants repatriated in honduras. it went very, very smoothly. i think the island has done a very good job in standing by. >> congressman, just to clarify, the island does do a lot. the implement this program for usaid. they are the existing contract for us in quito, ecuador. it is that center we are going to be expanded to accommodate program in central america. that contract contribution was aawarded to island several years ago, it competitive process posted online for the existing settlement center. >> okay. vice president biden talked 9.6 million ing central americans in july -- a lot of money promised. the president promised the money this week over in china. where is this money coming from? does it come out of your budget, the state department?

>> as you know, the $300 million of the present was talking about was in the supplemental that were sent to congress the summer. and a 9.6 million dollars at the vice president talked about -- i think it was when he was earlier in june -- were funds that we reallocated within the state department that we thought was much urgently needed, quite honestly, in central america for things like repatriation and resettlement of migrants. get this ason i ask, i question a lot, someone in the administration is promising $100 million here, a $1 billion there. your budget is finite. it is set by congress. so are you all syncing your budget? what programs are being changed here? >> certainly, some of the funds are coming from reallocation. there was a congressional re-notification that would

for about ew days ago funds for inl nd to be reallocated toward central americans. those, i believe, were number lly funds from a of years ago, destined to iraq that can no longer be used. those are being reallocated for central america. some funds have been from elsewhere. the $300 million, as you know, was the supplemental request. know, the o, as you $300 million in the supplemental request was out of a $3.7 billion overall request. so the foreign aassistance portion of it was quite small. although the foreign assistance restrained, quite we are aware, it is, in fact, more efficient if we use those funds in the countries to try dress as root causes than if

we try to deal with the effects of it right here on our territory. not arguing ttoday about the appropriate use or inappropriate use of money, but guess i am concerned, as a member of congress, that i would love to see a breakdown of the state department budget all the promises made, and where that money is coming from. how your reallocating that money. mr. chairman, that might be a request that the committee as a to the state department because there are a lot of promises made by the administration that we have to enough money through acr or a re-appropriations bill. i would love to see that. the last thing that i would like to ask, mr. chairman, is are ly for dhs -- and they i wonder, how t many new dhs people will be required to implement this program?

>> do mean in country refugee processing programs? >> right. >> i do not know that we have a specific number yet of the individuals, although, in be carried is will on by others. frankly, as we implement all these measures, i do not think there's any doubt that we will need some additional people in our embassies in all three countries. i mean, my understanding is that dhs has refugee interview locations and six latin american countries, bbut not in the northern triangle countries. >> that is correct. >> are they planning to shift personnel or add? >> they do circuit rides in many parts of the world. some refugee -- that

is the model we will be using in central america. there will be no additional burdens on the embassies. >> okay, that is a good thing. mr. chairman, i had an expense an afghan interpreter -- served with the third infantry to get ook two years army vouches the for -- a number of others -- to get this gentleman into this country. fought with our military, was threatened by the taliban, lost his uncle by the process. it took two years. he was chased from the embassy home and evaded the taliban numerous times. out there and that i would hope the process is at least as taxing for refugee coming from central america as it was for somebody coming from afghanistan. and i see that in that it should not be taxing.

it cannot be taxing for people in afghanistan who serve our nation. >> and it begs a bigger question. i understand that the numbers, even though there is a 4000 number, that can be exceeded if from another area, right? is that correct? what i mean is that the total number for the world is 70,000? >> 70,000. >> so if you decide to reallocate that or have 10,000 come from central america, you have to shrink it somewhere else so it stays under the total amount, right? >> there would have to be a reallocation if the number went about 4000. there is some flexibility built into the system. we also will not be accepting applications before december. the fiscal year 2015 ccomes pretty soon thereafter. would be e the concern

are very calamitous situations in other parts of you world -- sudan, and as mentioned, afghanistan -- and it would be tragic -- i hope it on a more t based serious people globally, and it is an equal standard. i would hope that because, you know, someone get to hear uncomfortable re with their living and someone the threat of death in another part of the world, i would hope that the greater consideration would be given to the latter. is prioritization given to those who at the greatest risk of harm. you nd -- gentleman, do have any questions? >> thank you, mr. chairman. you holding this hearing tto shed light on what is going on. ms. wiesner, do have this in front of you with a list of categories?

yes? would you do me a favor? through u maybe walk me one by one and tell us what these are, and what was the him on le for putting the list? a lawful permanent resident and why did they make it onto the category list? >> so, i'm afraid this is going to be another instance that we are going to be disappointed homeland department of these ty is here because are all -- no, we all are definitely. we would like to present is jointly with them. are these categories presented as lawfully present -- a lot of time, e but if you just walk me through and if you know the rationale. who are these individuals and what is the rationale? >> i can walk you through the categories. lawful permanently candidate.

status ry protected applies to honduras -- they were awarded at different times the past due to natural disasters and events. those both of them in two statuses -- they would be here legally, correct? >> everybody on this list is considered to be lawfully present. >> okay. fully granted for at least one year, what is that? >> it is given --

what is the definition of

at risk of harm? >> i think as the chairman and others outlined in their opening statements, we have insecurities and the nations, as well as the violence towards individual children on a daily basis. >> is there a standard for that? >> it is a discretionary authority granted to the department of homeland security. >> so it is discretionary. >> correct. >> okay. and we now have the current the er that we can often region is 4000, but you have indicated that that number could go up? >> the allocation for the latin american regions is right now it at 4000.

>> and they can go to how many? what ms. wiesner indicated is that it can go up to 4000. when we implemented this this year, we do not address that number. we do not think we would 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? used up to you have 20,000 so far, you could take that 4000-- talking about this program? this program is not begun yet. >> i know.

>> about 6000 refugees ever are this year, from around the world. >> so, in theory, you could move this from 4000 up to 64,000. in theory. that saying that you are, but you have a total of up to that you can use, and if you use 6000 this year, the much higher than 4000. am i losing you? little, because the 6000 of the 70,000 have arrived this year. will year, the allocation probably be informed based on the number that have arrived this year from the region. but it was set at 4000 with the understanding that it would cover the expected number this fiscal year. >> maybe we are speaking pass each other. you categorize this as a program for chain migration? >> i'm sorry, can you repeat the question? >> would you categorize this is a program for chain migration? >> i would not, no. >> okay.

i'm going to yield back in just one moment. i'm going to tell you that i desire within a this institution to figure out how we get immigration reform done. there is early willingness, i sides of the h aisle, without going through programs like this where we have a withholding of removal guarantee. i do not think this is a process in which we should use. my hope is that the president hold off and allow this institution with the senate actually work. and go through proper channels to actually have a new system that is understandable and going to president to the next because we will have a new place, as laws in opposed to presidential executive actions, which i do think it certainly to those who come here without recommendation. and i think election exposes them to greater risk, especially through executive

we're y -- which i know not talking about, but maybe by the next president or overturned by the courts who could expose people here who are without documentation. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> we need permanent solutions the test of thstand time, not just a solution doing what administration or two administrations. the gentleman just illustrated, the laws are so very subjective. made so much discretion to, you know, the person making the decision. my fear is that even though i know it is supposed to be is ority based, my fear that, you know, given the fact that in government, so often, the right hand does not know doing, is eft hand is

that some incredibly needy recipient would be ignored because -- and somebody else, not nearly as needy gets status or ylum refugee status -- and that is hearing, more e than anything, is that we really do believe that we need to have clarity going forward. and that we want to solve the problem with central america. the answer is not some mass out of central america, but it is to solve the economic problems, the security problems, and we want to take that on together. we need your advice and we need your help to figure out what works, what doesn't, where can we put more resources, how can we

we put more resources, how can

we leverage existing resources better, and how can we do a better job. i really appreciate you being here today. i know that, at times, it has felt frustrating -- the line of questioning. it is not meant to be pejorative or, you know, as painful as it has been. it has just been that way because i think there is such a lack of clarity. and we just want to make sure that, going forward, that we all comply with the existing law. we cannot comply with a lot that does not exist yet. for that, again, i would ask ms. weisner if you could give us a citation -- the specific law that this new program falls under -- so that we can understand, going forward, and for the american people who are having an opportunity to watch this hearing, you understand now -- as mark twain said, there is two things you don't want to see being made, sausages and laws -- but we will get to the bottom of it, figure out the solutions, and i greatly appreciate you being here today this hearing is now adjourned. >> next, live, your closing comments on the "washington journal". >> mr. president, the honeymoon is over. >> the honeymoon is over. >> that honeymoon period is over. he will no longer get what he wants just by being president. >> we are going to take the president had on. the honeymoon is over.

host: if this is one of those say, that ou might goes back -- the whole notion for a new moon president. 80 ay this one would go back years or so, when hdr took office. of course, he was working with an overwhelmingly democratic was a lot so it easier to push through his proposals and favor measures, but there has been this notion new president takes office, they get a honeymoon. >> journalist david mark on the world of political terminology. tonight on c-span's "q&a". francine orning, keifer and aaron zitner examine of presidents immigration's proposals.

and later, we have the latest the iran nuclear program talks. as always, you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. morning, a live view of the capitol hill. the president traveled to chicago on tuesday, where he again be talking about his plans of immigration. flag at half staff after the passing of former d.c. mayor. he was 78 years old. is sunday morning, november 23rd.