[Senate Hearing 113-854]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-854
REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR
UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN AND RELATED MATTERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
JULY 10, 2014--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-808 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Vice
TOM HARKIN, Iowa Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
JACK REED, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas MARK KIRK, Illinois
JON TESTER, Montana DANIEL COATS, Indiana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico ROY BLUNT, Missouri
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
Charles E. Kieffer, Staff Director
William D. Duhnke III, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski..............
1
Prepared Statement...........................................
4
Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby...........................
5
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel Coats.......................
6
Prepared Statement of Senator John Boozman.......................
8
Statement of Hon. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary, Department
of Health and Human Services...................................
8
Prepared Statement...........................................
9
HHS's Mission and Role...................................
10
Steps HHS is Taking in Response to the Rising Number of
Unaccompanied Children.................................
10
Supplemental Appropriations Request......................
11
Statement of Hon. Jeh Johnson, Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security.......................................................
12
Prepared Statement...........................................
14
Statement of Hon. Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., Counselor of the
Department, Department of State................................
17
Prepared Statement...........................................
19
The Problem..............................................
20
Statement of Juan P. Osuna, Director, Executive Office for
Immigration Review, Department of Justice......................
22
Prepared Statement...........................................
24
Immigration Court Process................................
25
Asylum and Protection Under the Convention Against
Torture................................................
25
Legal Representation for Children........................
26
Adjudication Priorities..................................
26
Budget and Resource Impact...............................
26
HHS Unaccompanied Children Funding...............................
28
Need for Additional Funds........................................
29
Effects on Border Without Supplemental...........................
29
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act...............
30
Placement With Sponsors..........................................
31
Deportations, Number of..........................................
32
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Funding.......................
32
Border Patrol Agents.............................................
33
Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime Bill....................
33
Immigration Proceedings Caseload.................................
34
National Guard Use...............................................
36
Detention Center Locations: Consult With State, Local Officials..
37
Financial Impact on Local Communities............................
38
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: Detention Center Funding
38
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals...........................
39
Detention Versus Alternatives to Detention.......................
42
Legal Services...................................................
43
Health and Legal Services........................................
43
Trafficking......................................................
45
Justification for Emergency Supplemental.........................
47
Public Messaging in Central America..............................
50
Border Security: Mexico Assistance...............................
50
Removal Process, Expediting......................................
51
Fort Sill Facility...............................................
54
Length of Stay...................................................
55
Shelter Services.................................................
55
Length of Stay...................................................
55
Congressional Visits.............................................
56
HHS Supplemental Request.........................................
56
Future Planning..................................................
59
Smuggling Rings..................................................
61
Humanitarian Treatment...........................................
61
Immigration Status...............................................
62
Immigration Reform...............................................
62
Voluntary Return: Mexico.........................................
64
Reprogramming....................................................
66
Discretion.......................................................
66
Legal Services...................................................
68
Number of Unaccompanied Children.................................
70
Repatriation, Return of Unaccompanied Children...................
71
Border Security: Rio Grande Valley...............................
71
Placement With Sponsors..........................................
71
Immigration Process..............................................
72
Additional Committee Questions...................................
73
Questions Submitted to Secretary Sylvia Burwell..................
74
Questions Submitted by:
Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski...........................
74
Challenges to Increasing Shelter Capacity..............
74
Ensuring Adequate Access to Social Services............
74
Senator Patrick J. Leahy.................................
76
HHS Reprogramming......................................
76
Legal Counsel for Unaccompanied Children...............
76
Identification of Parents..............................
77
Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................................
77
Senator Mark Pryor.......................................
79
Senator Richard C. Shelby................................
80
Failure to Budget in Advance...........................
80
Fiscal Year 2014 Funding...............................
80
Budget Estimates.......................................
81
Selection of UAC Housing Facilities....................
82
Senator Jerry Moran......................................
82
Senator John Boozman.....................................
83
Questions Submitted to Secretary Jeh Johnson.....................
83
Questions Submitted by:
Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski...........................
83
Adhering to the 72-Hour Rule...........................
83
Detaining and Removing Family Units....................
84
Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................................
86
Demographics of Unaccompanied Children.................
86
Refugee Act of 1980....................................
88
Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act of 2006..............
89
Accountability.........................................
90
Senator Mark Pryor.......................................
91
Budget Request.........................................
91
Effect on U.S. Customs and Border Protection...........
91
Working with Border Authorities in Mexico..............
92
Biometric Identification...............................
92
Senator Mark Begich......................................
92
Circumstances, Reasons that Led to Migration...........
92
Securing the Southwest Border..........................
93
Senator Christopher A. Coons.............................
93
Alternatives to Detention..............................
93
Legal Orientation Program..............................
94
Asylum Officers........................................
94
Senator Richard C. Shelby................................
94
Illegal Migration by Families..........................
94
Senator Jerry Moran......................................
95
Tracking Unaccompanied Children........................
95
Stemming the Flow of Border Crossings..................
95
Senator John Boozman.....................................
98
Money Spent to Address Problem.........................
98
Questions Submitted to Hon. Thomas Shannon.......................
101
Questions Submitted by:
Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski...........................
101
Senator Patrick J. Leahy.................................
104
Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................................
105
Senator Mark Pryor.......................................
109
Senator Mark Begich......................................
111
Senator Christopher A. Coons.............................
111
Senator Richard C. Shelby................................
112
Senator John Boozman.....................................
114
Questions Submitted to Juan P. Osuna.............................
116
Questions Submitted by:
Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski...........................
116
Legal Representation Services..........................
116
Immigration Judges.....................................
116
Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................................
117
Legal Services for Unaccompanied Minors................
117
Senator Mark Pryor.......................................
117
Influx of Unaccompanied Children.......................
117
Immigration Backlog....................................
118
Senator Richard C. Shelby................................
118
Immigration Judges.....................................
118
Senator Susan M. Collins.................................
118
Gang Members Claiming Asylum...........................
118
Senator John Boozman.....................................
119
Legal Representation for Illegal Immigrants............
119
Material Submitted Subsequent to the Hearing.....................
120
Prepared Statement of:
American Immigration Lawyers Association.................
120
Border Security and Enforcement........................
120
Detention and Custody..................................
121
Screening..............................................
121
Ensuring Meaningful Access to Asylum, Humanitarian
Relief and Due Process...............................
122
Church World Service.....................................
123
U.S. Must Ensure Protection of Unaccompanied Children
and Adequate Funding for Refugee Resettlement........
123
Episcopal Church.........................................
125
Ethiopian Community Development Council, Inc.............
126
Fire Suppression Funding Solutions Partner Caucus........
127
First Focus Campaign for Children........................
130
HIAS.....................................................
133
Jewish Statement on Unaccompanied Children at the
United States-Mexico Border..........................
135
Human Rights First.......................................
136
Review of the President's Emergency Supplemental
Request for Unaccompanied Children...................
136
International Rescue Committee...........................
139
Kids in Need of Defense..................................
141
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.................
144
National Immigrant Justice Center (Heartland Alliance)...
145
Forced Migration: Unaccompanied Children Flee
Increasing Violence and Danger in Central America....
146
Fair and Efficient Hearings: the Importance of Legal
Counsel for Unaccompanied Children...................
147
Emergency Supplemental Request: Misguided Allocations
for Enforcement and Deterrence.......................
148
Retaining Critical Due Process Protections for Children
in Times of Crisis: The Importance of the William
Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection and
Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA)..................
149
Record of Refugee Council USA............................
150
Tahirih Justice Center...................................
152
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees............
153
U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants...............
156
A Refugee Crisis.......................................
156
USCRI Data on Unaccompanied Immigrant Children.........
157
Emergency Funding Needs................................
157
USCRI's Six Policy Solutions...........................
157
Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights.............
158
Preserving Necessary Protections for the Most
Vulnerable Children..................................
158
REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR
UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN AND RELATED MATTERS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met at 2:32 p.m., in room SD-106, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairwoman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Mikulski, Leahy, Harkin, Murray,
Feinstein, Durbin, Landrieu, Reed, Tester, Udall, Shaheen,
Merkley, Begich, Coons, Shelby, Cochran, Collins, Murkowski,
Graham, Kirk, Coats, Blunt, Moran, Hoeven, Johanns, and
Boozman.
opening statement of chairwoman barbara a. mikulski
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Shelby is on his way from
voting, and the official part of the hearing will begin
shortly.
I just wanted to do two things. One, as you all know, today
is the hearing on the supplemental request submitted by the
administration to cover the unexpected and unanticipated needs
of the significant number of unaccompanied children coming to
our border. I want those who follow our committee so very
closely to know that, on Tuesday, we will be marking up the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and we will do a full
committee markup on the defense appropriation on Thursday.
The committee should be alerted that if we can get other
things done during the week, with appropriate notice following
the rules, we will do so. However, we will not do anything
until after Tuesday afternoon.
So we know that Tuesday morning will be the Subcommittee on
Defense markup. We will look also for opportunities, because
there is unfinished business at the full committee level, the
opportunity, perhaps, to go to the floor with one or more
bills, and, of course, we will have to look for where we will
go after our hearing on the supplemental for unaccompanied
children.
We are also keenly aware that there is a need by many
members to be able to catch planes this afternoon, which is
why, with the indulgence and concurrence of everybody, I would
like to start my opening statement, so that we can get to the
witnesses, for those of you who might have to leave.
We will be recognizing people in their order of arrival,
and we will proceed in that direction.
So for today, the purpose of today's hearing is to examine
the President's emergency request for the funding of $3.7
billion to address the crisis of children from Central America
crossing our southwestern border by the thousands.
Their situation is extremely dire. The United States of
America has an obligation to deal with this emergency.
These children are seeking refuge. They are seeking refuge
from organized crime, despicable gangs, vile human traffickers
who are exploiting and profiting from human misery and
desperation, primarily in three countries--Guatemala, Honduras,
and El Salvador.
They are willing to risk their lives in order to get away
from the terrible violence.
The President's emergency request totals $3.7 billion for
caring for the humanitarian needs of the children; detention
and enforcement at the border; identifying their legal status
under our rule of law; and robust deterrence in the children's
home country by going after and prosecuting the organized crime
syndicates, the smugglers, the coyotes, and the traffickers.
There also is a funding request for a massive education
campaign warning Central American families about the dangers
and false hopes of the journey. We also need to make sure that
we are working with the Central American countries in
structuring repatriation and reintegration.
Today, our witnesses will be Secretary Sylvia Burwell from
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); Secretary
Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS); Ambassador Tom Shannon of the State Department,
Ambassador Shannon, an experienced South American hand,
counselor to John Kerry, and specifically appointed by
Secretary Kerry to be his point person on all matters related
to this crisis at our borders.
And then also, we will have Juan Osuna, the executive from
the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) at the
Department of Justice (DOJ), a witness that particularly
Senator Shelby wanted.
We had hoped that Attorney General Holder could have come.
We respect, of course, your presence, sir, and welcome it.
Attorney General Holder is traveling.
And we hope that as the full Senate gains more knowledge
about this, we will look forward to hearing from the Attorney
General as well.
Now this Appropriations Committee, and particularly my
Appropriations subcommittee chairs, realized early on that the
President's fiscal year 2015 budget request was inadequate to
this growing emergency. Our committee had to make some hard
choices. And in the bills we have already marked up, we had to
make hard choices in the funding related to Homeland Security,
Human Services, State Department, and Justice.
While the Murray-Ryan budget deal gave us tremendous
certainty, the actual budget is quite spartan. And therefore,
we did the best we could.
Our appropriations job now is to make sure that the
resources to deal with this are met. There needs to be food and
shelter for children seeking refuge. Border agents in detention
facilities need to be available. We want to be able to relieve
the overworked and highly stressed Border Patrol agents who are
doing a great job at the border.
And there needs to be shelter. We now have too few beds to
care for these many children while we determine their legal
status.
We need to add immigration judges and legal services to
make sure that we can determine their legal status in a way
that meets all requirements of the law, the law that is on the
books, and at the same time honor the fact that America is a
country of the rule of law.
There also has to be muscular deterrence, going after
criminals and gangs who so exploit these children and their
families, who mislead them, misinform them, and even abuse them
as they make this perilous and treacherous journey from Central
America.
I know there are many like myself who support comprehensive
immigration reform, and there are many views on that. But I
caution my colleagues, today's topic is not about immigration
reform. It is about meeting this refugee crisis.
The best way to make sure the surge in children is
temporary is to pass the emergency supplemental, making sure we
have a deterrence strategy against the smugglers and
traffickers, and a real effort by the Central American
countries to also be a source of deterrence.
Right now, 57,000 unaccompanied children have arrived. We
can expect as many as 90,000 by the year.
Last week, I toured the border with three of the witnesses
at this table, Secretary Burwell, Secretary Johnson, and, of
course, Ambassador Shannon.
We saw young children, some as young as 5, 7, 9. They had
one instruction: Cross the border, turn yourself in, and hope
for the best.
Border agents who found them find these children
dehydrated, malnourished, scared. Many have been abused. They
come here relying on smugglers' false promises, smugglers that
are part of dangerous gangs and cartels who see women and
children like commodities, to be able to buy and sell them
across the borders.
Children leave home based on lies, endure dangerous
journeys and the threat of being trafficked along the way.
President Obama has come before us to ask for designated
funds to meet the emergency. I believe that this is an
emergency designation. The Budget Control Act defines an
emergency as spending for the prevention or mitigation or
response to loss of life or property, or a threat to national
security that is sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary.
I agree with the President, and I believe that this
situation is an emergency.
Our first goal must be to protect the safety and health of
the children, and make sure that we have the resources to do
it.
Our second goal is to make sure that their legal status is
determined under the law that we have, so that then their
future can be legally determined.
And third, there must be a muscular deterrence strategy to
discourage families from sending their children with smugglers
who profit from them.
We look forward to listening to our witnesses, and I look
forward to working with our colleagues in order to be able to
move the President's supplemental.
I also want to note that though we are hearing from
government witnesses today, we have opened up the hearing
procedures for any nonprofit that wishes to submit testimony to
the committee. We have already heard from 13 of them, and those
records will be open for the next 2 weeks.
prepared statement
The President's urgent supplemental also included $615
million to prevent and fight wildfires. We are not going to go
into that today. Today, the subject of thousands of children at
our doorstep will take the committee's attention.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the President's
emergency request for funding of $3.7 billion to address the crisis of
children from Central American crossing our Southwestern border by the
thousands.
Their situation is extremely dire. The United States has both a
security and moral obligation to help resolve this emergency.
These children are seeking refuge from organized crime, gangs and
human traffickers who are exploiting and profiting from human misery
and desperation in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
The President's emergency request totals $3.7 billion for caring
for the humanitarian needs of the children, detention and enforcement
at the border, identifying their legal status under our rule of law,
robust deterrence in children's home countries by breaking down and
prosecuting organized crime syndicates of smugglers and traffickers,
conducting a massive education campaign warning Central America
families about the dangers and false hopes of the journey, and guiding
Central American countries' institutions for repatriation and
reintegration of deportees.
Our witnesses today are Secretary of Health and Human Services
Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, Ambassador
Thomas Shannon of the State Department and Juan Osuna, Director, with
the Executive Office of Immigration Review in the Department of
Justice.
My appropriations subcommittee chairs and I realized early on that
the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request was inadequate to
address this emergency.
We had to make some hard choices in the bills we've already marked
up to increase funding for the Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of Health and Human Services, the State Department, and the
Department of Justice. Because though the Murray-Ryan budget deal gave
us tremendous certainty, the actual budget is still Spartan.
Our job as Appropriators is making sure resources are at the border
now for food and shelter for the children seeking refuge, for border
agents who are overworked and detention facilities with too few beds,
for transportation to shelters and to home countries, for immigration
judges and legal services so they can bring final resolution to cases,
and for muscular deterrence to go after criminals and gangs who mislead
and misinform Central American families.
And while I support comprehensive immigration reform, that's not
the topic of today's hearing. Today is about meeting emergency funding
needs. The best way to make this surge of children temporary is to pass
an emergency supplemental and undertake a substantial deterrent
strategy so we can attack the smugglers and traffickers and inform
families of the risks of coming here.
Already this year, 57,000 unaccompanied children have arrived, and
we expect 90,000 by the end of the year. In addition, more than 39,000
parents with children have arrived. I saw the crisis last week when I
toured the border with our witnesses. Young children, ages 5, 7 and 9
years old, are given one instruction: cross the border and turn
yourselves in.
Border agents find them dehydrated, malnourished, scared and
abused. They come here relying on smugglers' false promises. Smugglers
are part of dangerous gangs and cartels that see everything as a
commodity--women, children and drugs. Children leave home based on lies
to endure the dangerous journey and the threat of being trafficked into
vile situations.
President Obama has designated these funds as an emergency. There
are very specific criteria in the law for this designation. The Budget
Control Act of 2011 defines ``emergency'' funding as spending for ``the
prevention or mitigation of, or response to, loss of life or property,
or a threat to national security that is sudden, urgent, unforeseen and
temporary.''
I agree with President Obama that this funding meets those
criteria. The situation along our border is dire.
Our first goal must be to protect the safety and health of children
and to make sure we provide the resources to do that.
Our second goal must be a muscular deterrence strategy that
discourages families from sending their children with smugglers out for
profit. But a great nation can't let these children suffer once they
turn themselves in at our border.
Children as young as 5 years old need food and housing while the
Justice Department ascertains the legal status of children seeking
refuge under the rule of law.
I look forward to hearing from the representatives of the
administration about their plans to address this emergency. We also
received testimony from faith-based and social service organizations
that we will make a part of the official record. We will leave the
official record open for 15 days so we can hear from many voices on
this issue.
I note for the committee that the administration has also requested
supplemental funds to prevent and fight wildfires, totaling $615
million. I have asked Senators Reed and Murkowski to closely examine
this request, as chair and ranking member of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee.
Chairwoman Mikulski. So we look forward to moving the
hearing along and dealing with the supplemental.
I now turn to my vice chairman, Senator Shelby, for his
remarks.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Why are we here today? We are here because our Nation's
immigration system is broken. We are here because the Obama
administration, as well as previous administrations, have
failed to secure our borders and has ignored our existing
immigration laws for a long time.
Is it anything new? Over the years, we've spent billions of
dollars on immigration enforcement, but to no avail.
Currently, we have millions of illegal immigrants in our
Nation. The result of President Obama's failure, I believe, to
enforce immigration law currently on the books has been
predictable. And that is one of the reasons we are here this
afternoon.
Now we are being asked by President Obama to approve a $3.7
billion request to resolve the current crisis at our border.
There are several questions that I think need to be answered.
What exactly is the $3.7 billion going to address? Will this
request be the end or will it be the beginning of many new
requests by the administration for emergency funding?
And while the President is seeking billions for the
admission, detention, and care of illegal children and adults
only--yes, only--$45.4 million, is my understanding, is
requested for the Department of Justice's adjudication and
immigration proceedings. This fact is very troubling to me.
Estimates suggest the expense for HHS is more than $15,000
for every minor in U.S. custody--$15,000. For HHS alone, the
President requests an additional $1.8 billion, with no firm
policy to stem the influx and no way to pay for it.
I personally have no confidence that pouring billions of
dollars into our current immigration system will solve the
crisis. I think we have to get serious about enforcing our
current laws and protecting our border, if we are ever to get
different results.
In 2011, HHS took custody of 6,560 unaccompanied children
coming into this country illegally. Today, that number has
skyrocketed. Indeed, last October, roughly 52,000 unaccompanied
children have illegally entered the United States.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) estimates that as many
as 150,000 children may attempt to cross the border in 2015.
If we continue to double down on the same failed
immigration policies, where does that take us in 2016, 2017,
and beyond?
I look forward to working with the chairperson here to
ensure that we do not reward illegal immigration. I believe
that we must start with actually securing our border, which we
have never done; enforcing our Nation's immigration laws, which
we don't do; and definitively saying no to people who come here
illegally.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Shelby.
If there any statements to be submitted for the record, it
will be inserted, without objection.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel Coats
Chairwoman Mikulski, thank you. And thank you to our witnesses for
appearing today.
Like my colleagues, I have watched with increasing frustration the
rapidly growing humanitarian crisis on our southwest border. More than
60,000 unaccompanied alien children (UACs)--mostly from Guatemala,
Honduras, and El Salvador--have been apprehended on America's southern
border during this fiscal year. Another 50,000 family members--one or
both parents traveling with their children--have been apprehended
during the same time period.
To put these numbers in perspective, just 3 years ago the Border
Patrol apprehended just 16,000 unaccompanied alien children. In fiscal
year 2008, the number was half that--only 8,000.
We cannot sit back and let this situation grow worse, as it does
day by day. We must find a way to solve this humanitarian crisis and
stem the flow of unaccompanied minors entering our country. There is a
way to do it and it should be guided by key principles that reflect the
country's rule of law and compassionate hearts. I believe the solution
involves four key components:
1. Enforcing existing law to stop the influx of illegal immigration and
return those who have already come.
First, we must stop the influx of children. That means going after
the cartels, smuggling organizations, and traffickers. It also means
returning the children who have come here--to show the children who
will come soon that the dangers of the journey are not worth it.
The children who are making these dangerous treks from Central
America are attempting to escape dire situations, often in the hands of
smugglers, largely because of false information and promises they have
received that are not true. They long for a better life and have been
told this is how to get it. Sadly, the latest survey from Doctors
without Borders in southern and central Mexico found that 58 percent of
their patients suffered at least one episode of violence along their
way from Central America to the United States. This includes these
children.
One media network did a series called ``Borderland'' that followed
the path of Central American migrants, including children. They found
that 80 percent of all migrants will be assaulted, 60 percent of women
will be raped and only 40 percent of all migrants will actually make it
to the border.
But why now--why in the last 2 years have the numbers of UACs and
family units skyrocketed? Because in 2010, the White House began
administratively chipping away at our Nation's immigration laws. This
generated whispers of hope that ran rampant through the families of our
Central American neighbors and gave many the false impression that
reaching American soil guarantees a new life.
This belief spread in 2012 when President Obama took a further step
by essentially halting the removal of illegal immigrants who arrived as
minors. Since that time, the rate of children coming illegally across
our border has increased exponentially. Bringing us to the dramatic
number we see in May and June of 2014--more than 10,000 per month. This
cannot continue. The rule of law must be restored.
2. A viable repatriation plan.
Second, the Administration must deliver a clear message and its
actions must match its words--these children will be sent back.
To give force to this statement, we must develop a viable
repatriation plan. Repatriation sends a clear message that the United
States will send children back to their home country and unite them
with their families. Parents will see children returned home, and
perhaps not spend the money and risk the danger of sending their
children away. We must deter children from even starting this arduous
journey.
A viable repatriation program must include a streamlined and
appropriate processing system. The Administration has some flexibility
under current law to move families and children through immigration
proceedings in an accelerated manner. However, I believe--and the
Secretary of Homeland Security has stated--that we need to go further
changing current law to treat all unaccompanied alien children the
same. This would allow Central American children who qualify to choose
voluntary return rather than the drawn out immigration proceedings that
should lead to their removal.
I also believe we need to go another step further. The Secretary
needs the discretion to apply expedited removal to children in certain
circumstances--like the crisis we face today. To deter children from
taking this dangerous journey, we must return those who have already
come. Otherwise, the tide of illegal entry will continue to rise.
3. Working with the governments of Central American countries and
insist they fully cooperate.
Third, the United States must make clear to Central American
leaders that any assistance from our country is contingent on working
with our government to break this cycle of illegal immigration. Unless
we engage in a cooperative effort, the current cycle will remain
intact. These countries can help law enforcement crack down on
smugglers.
4. Reasonable care for the children while they are here.
Lastly, the vast majority of the new funding the President is
requesting would go to caring for illegal immigrants who are already
here. This would include housing, transporting, and caring for the
children and families already in the United States.
It is our responsibility as a nation and a compassionate society to
care for the hurt and displaced, but we cannot simply open our arms and
encourage all the world's children to strike out on their own, face
endless dangers, and come to our shores.
As unaccompanied minors await their day in court, we must continue
to provide adequate housing and care. Our country should continue to
meet the needs of children who have been sent here. However, we should
also not be taxing the resources of our military bases in order to
accomplish this priority.
Given how rapidly this situation is escalating, the United States
has a moral responsibility to swiftly solve this crisis. This situation
involves more than just unaccompanied minors. We cannot ignore the
national security implications of a weak border.
At the end of the day the journey to the border of the United
States is incredibly dangerous. I believe all of us, Republicans and
Democrats, should be able to agree on one thing: the children involved
in this situation are not the ones we should be blaming for the
problems on our border.
Rather, through the Administration's open border policies and
refusal to enforce our Nation's immigration laws, we find ourselves in
this situation where we have created a false sense of opportunity,
which has exacerbated this humanitarian crisis.
In closing, I would ask members of this Committee to examine
closely the reason we are here today--an emergency supplemental. As we
near the end of fiscal year 2014, I think it's appropriate that we
consider the needs of agencies saddled with this crisis. But to ask for
funding into fiscal year 2015 is inexcusable. The Administration simply
cannot say it did not foresee this crisis when the President submitted
his fiscal year 2015 budget request. And instead of giving his agencies
the resources they need to tackle this problem, he's asking for off-
budget money--much of it with out-year costs. This is largely an fiscal
year 2015 budget amendment. We should consider the fiscal year 2015
needs in the context of the fiscal year 2015 bills for these agencies.
As we proceed through this hearing, I urge my colleagues to be
conscious of that.
Madam Chairwoman, that concludes my statement. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator John Boozman
Thank you all for being here. This is such an important issue for
the whole country. I know the challenges your men and women are seeing
on the ground are vast as you all work in a coordinated manner to
address the current crisis with unaccompanied children (UACs) arriving
on our doorstep. Securing our border and respecting and enforcing rule
of law have always been priorities of mine, as they are for my
constituents at home in Arkansas. That being said, those things have
not been happening and the President has been picking and choosing what
laws to enforce and that has led us to the crisis we're currently
facing. To address this issue, this week the President requested $3.7
billion taxpayer dollars without any strings attached or policy changes
that will prevent this from intensifying further and happening again
down the road. To me, that is unacceptable. I understand that these are
children and the need to provide resources to meet their needs, and no
one believes that money isn't part of the solution, but we cannot
continue to throw money at a problem that won't be solved if the Obama
Administration won't discuss policy fixes with Congress and continues
to go around our laws and act by executive order. We need to ensure
that any allocated resources are used wisely. These children need to be
taken care of while in the U.S., but returned to their own countries as
soon as possible. Certainty of return is the only way to shut the wave
off. I look forward to discussing this request with my colleagues, but
no decision Congress makes on this issue should be taken lightly.
Chairwoman Mikulski. We are now going to turn to our
witnesses. Rather than go through lengthy introductions, I am
going to just suggest that Secretary Burwell start, Secretary
Johnson, Ambassador Shannon and then Mr. Osuna be the wrapup
from Justice.
Secretary Burwell, you can just go right on, in the
interest of time and expedition. STATEMENT OF HON. SYLVIA
MATHEWS BURWELL, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
Secretary Burwell. Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member
Shelby, and members of the committee, I want to thank you for
the opportunity to discuss these issues today.
The influx of unaccompanied children across our Nation's
borders is an urgent humanitarian situation that calls for a
robust humanitarian response. It is a complex, evolving
situation for which there are no easy answers. It is a
situation we are taking very seriously across the
administration, recognizing our dual purpose of taking care of
these children while we also enforce the law.
As a Nation of laws, we must acknowledge that many of the
children crossing our borders do not have a legal basis to
remain in this country. We must acknowledge that we are talking
about children, many of them young children who are escaping
unthinkable violence and living in conditions that are
difficult for many of us to imagine.
Oftentimes, they are preyed on by smugglers who have made
it their business to bring unaccompanied children across the
borders.
I had the opportunity to meet a few of these children last
week, as the chairwoman mentioned. We visited a Customs and
Border Patrol station along with a temporary shelter at an Air
Force base in Texas, and we met the remarkable Americans who
are caring for these children and supporting this mission in
other important ways.
Some of the folks work for CBP, FEMA, and HHS. Others are
grantees and community members. All are going above and beyond.
The children had heartbreaking stories to share. A teenage
girl told us how she had fled her home when her uncle had been
murdered in front of his house. Sadly, this story is not an
anomaly. Many of these children are escaping violence and
threats by gangs, and they and their families are being preyed
upon by smugglers.
A situation of this magnitude calls on all of us to work
across Government to enforce the law and to care for these
children in a manner that honors our values.
Federal law says that the HHS role is to feed, shelter, and
provide medical care for unaccompanied children until we are
able to place them in a safe and suitable setting with family
members or sponsors, while they await immigration proceedings.
As the number of children has grown, our resources have
been stretched thin. In fiscal year 2011, an estimated 6,500
unaccompanied children came into our care. This increased to
13,600 in 2012, and almost 25,000 in 2013. As of July 6, over
50,000 children have been apprehended and placed in our care in
fiscal year 2014.
To address the associated challenges, HHS has put together
a two-pronged strategy for our part. One is first to drive down
the length of time that children remain in shelters. The other
is to expand our shelter capacity.
When it comes to time that children are in our care, we
have made significant progress. Since 2011, when it took 75
days, we have reduced that time to 35 and are continuing to try
to make progress, so we move even more quickly.
On permanent shelter capacity, we have added about 1,700
beds since January, and we have also opened temporary shelters
with three military bases across the country.
While temporary solutions were necessary in the short term,
makeshift solutions do not make long-term fiscal sense.
Temporary shelters cost more than the permanent shelters.
PREPARED STATEMENT
As we move forward, the reality is that we don't have
enough beds, and we don't have sufficient resources to continue
to add beds to ensure that the children are not staying in the
holding facilities at the border. That is why the President has
made the request that we are discussing today, and we believe
this investment will allow our department to bring on the
additional capacity that we need.
The gravity of this situation calls for a robust and
compassionate approach that reaches across government and
empowers us to enforce the law.
Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sylvia Mathews Burwell
Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the
Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) work to address the
recent rise in unaccompanied children crossing the southwest border
into Texas. This influx requires a robust humanitarian response on both
sides of the border, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to
discuss HHS' role in addressing this situation with you. I want to
thank Senator Mikulski for joining Homeland Security Secretary Johnson,
Ambassador Shannon, Associate Administrator for Response and Recovery
at FEMA Joe Nimmich, and me on a fact-finding visit to a Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) Border Patrol station in Texas and our
Department's temporary shelter located at Joint Base San Antonio-
Lackland. We experienced firsthand the complexity of the current
situation.
To help us deal with the immediate situation, I will highlight the
Department's role under the law in caring for unaccompanied children
who are apprehended by CBP; the steps we take to place children with
appropriate sponsors who can care for a child while awaiting resolution
of their case; the challenges we face as we work to meet the needs of
this unprecedented number of children; and the President's emergency
supplemental appropriations request.
In our trip to Texas last week, it was clear that the current
influx of unaccompanied children across our border is the result of
complex human tragedies--families separated by thousands of miles,
children risking their lives to flee dangerous situations in their home
countries, and communities across Central America devastated by
violence (due in part to the drug trade and transnational criminal
organizations) and facing an exodus of the next generation.
Unaccompanied children are subjecting themselves to serious risks to
make the journey here and our Border Patrol stations are overcrowded to
the breaking point.
This is not an issue that lends itself to easy answers, but I am
confident that, working together, we can care for the unaccompanied
children in a way that honors the values of the American people while
at the same time enforcing the law and dissuading children from
undertaking this dangerous journey.
hhs's mission and role
The children who are apprehended while trying to enter the United
States without a parent or guardian are one of the many vulnerable
populations that HHS serves. By law, the Administration for Children
and Families (ACF) must accept unaccompanied children under the age of
18 (except those from Canada and Mexico) who are apprehended by CBP
into its care and custody. ACF provides grant funding to 63 nonprofit
organizations, including faith-based organizations, to operate shelters
around the country to care for these children until they can be placed
with sponsors, usually parents or other relatives, while awaiting
immigration removal proceedings.
Faced with a dramatic rise in the number of unaccompanied children
coming into our care and custody, and without sufficient capacity at
our permanent shelters, the Department has had to establish temporary
emergency shelters. In recent weeks, we have opened shelters on three
military bases--Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in Texas; Fort Sill in
Lawton, Oklahoma; and Naval Base Ventura County in Oxnard, California.
The growth in numbers is staggering: in fiscal year 2011 an
estimated 6,590 unaccompanied children entered our country. In fiscal
year 2014, we are preparing for a scenario in which 90,000 of these
children cross our borders. Reasons for this increase are complex. A
key factor is the high level of violence in Honduras, El Salvador, and
Guatemala, the countries of origin for most unaccompanied children,
which is exacerbated by a misperception that the United States is
issuing ``permisos'' or permits for children and families who cross the
border to remain in the United States. This misperception is
propagated, in part, by individuals offering smuggling services to
vulnerable children, many of whom have been separated from their
parents by thousands of miles.
At the direction of President Obama, on June 2, the Administration
established a Unified Coordination Group to leverage Federal resources
to provide humanitarian relief to address the ongoing situation. In
coordination with the Departments of Defense (DOD), Homeland Security,
Justice, State, and the General Services Administration, we are working
to better understand the reasons for the increase in the number of
unaccompanied child arrivals; develop strategies to expand capacity to
serve the rising number of unaccompanied children; and identify new
facilities to serve as shelters for the unaccompanied children.
steps hhs is taking in response to the rising number of unaccompanied
children
As the number of unaccompanied children apprehended has outstripped
HHS's shelter capacity, Border Patrol stations have become very
overcrowded and children are remaining in CBP custody far beyond the 72
hour limitation laid out in Federal law. At HHS, we are addressing the
time children spend in CBP custody through two key strategies: (1)
reducing the amount of time that children remain in our care before
being placed with a sponsor (typically a parent or other relative) who
can care for them safely and appropriately while their immigration case
is processed; and (2) expanding our shelter capacity. We have made
progress in both areas, though significant work remains.
In the last 3 years, ACF has streamlined its placement process,
reducing the average amount of time unaccompanied children spend in
shelters. ACF has cut the average length of stay for all unaccompanied
children from 75 days between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2011 to
fewer than 35 days in fiscal year 2014. In June, the Department
launched a pilot project in two of our permanent shelters to further
expedite the process for children who are being released to their
parents in the United States while awaiting immigration proceedings.
This expedited process still includes the critical steps to assuring
child safety (such as background checks of potential sponsors and
screening the child for abuse, abandonment, neglect, trafficking and
serious mental health issues), but speeds up the process so that we are
able to more quickly move children out of CBP detention facilities and
shelters and into more appropriate settings. If successful, we will
expand the use of this expedited process to additional shelter sites.
Speeding the process alone will not solve the problem. We must
expand our shelter capacity so that we can serve the children who are
already here even as we work across the Federal government to stem the
flow of unauthorized children crossing the border.
Today, we have space for approximately 6,600 children in our
permanent shelters and specialized placements (such as foster care for
very young children)--an increase of about 4,700 over the shelter
capacity in place in July 2011 and an increase of about 1,700 since
January 2014. In addition, we have opened three emergency shelters that
can serve a total of 2,975 children at a time.
But even with these expansions, we do not have enough capacity to
take unaccompanied children into our care quickly and overcrowding at
CBP facilities remains a serious problem. Over the July 1-7 period, an
average of 2,000 children were in CBP custody awaiting HHS placement
and a majority had been in CBP custody for more than 72 hours. In June,
CBP opened a temporary holding facility for unaccompanied children in
Nogales, Arizona, which has relieved some pressure in the border patrol
stations. Many children at the Nogales facility are subsequently placed
in our shelters on military bases.
Thus, we are continuing to seek additional locations that can serve
as temporary or permanent shelters. However, the bottom line is that
our current appropriation simply is not sufficient to allow us to bring
on and maintain the shelter capacity that is needed to address the
current situation.
Finally, there is one other important element to HHS's role in this
response. Through the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Preparedness and Response (ASPR), HHS has been providing emergency
response and medical support to some CBP facilities, when requested by
DHS, including the new facility in Nogales, Arizona. Members of the
Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service, the Office of
Emergency Management, and the National Disaster Medical System are
providing public health and medical coordination, medical screening,
basic medical care, vaccinations, and mental health screening for
unaccompanied children at the Nogales facility in addition to
augmenting ACF-contracted staff in temporary shelters on military
installations. This work has helped speed up medical screenings and
vaccinations all children receive who come it HHS custody and has
reduced emergency room visits and helped address important health
issues while unaccompanied children are in CBP custody.
supplemental appropriations request
We appreciate the Committee's willingness to provide ACF with
increased funding based on updated arrival estimates in the annual
fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 appropriations bills. Coupled
with the Department exercising its transfer authority, the increased
funding in fiscal year 2013 allowed ACF to serve all incoming
unaccompanied children transferred to its care. In fiscal year 2014, we
have taken several steps within our current authority to increase
funding for the UAC program before coming to Congress with a
supplemental request. First, the Department used the Secretary's
transfer authority to provide the maximum amount of available funds to
this program. And in June, we notified Congress of the need to
reallocate up to $94 million from several Refugee and Entrant Assistant
programs to the unaccompanied children program to further augment
funding for the UAC program. Reallocating these funds is not without
serious implications. These funds are needed by states, local
governments and voluntary agencies to help refugees and asylees
maximize their potential in the United States. These programs provide
them with the critical resources to assist in becoming integrated
members of American society. The United States has a solemn commitment
to assist refugees and asylees, who have fled persecution and have
often spent years in refugee camps waiting for a chance at a new life.
We did not make the decision to reallocate these funds lightly. We
simply did not have other options when faced with our legal duty to
care for unaccompanied children and after exhausting our transfer
authority.
Even these additional funds are not sufficient to care for the
growing number of unaccompanied children in the United States. The
President's emergency supplemental request seeks an additional $1.8
billion for HHS to provide care for these children, consistent with
Federal law, while also maintaining services for refugees. With these
funds, HHS will be able to acquire additional capacity in the near term
to accommodate the growing number of unaccompanied children, and
continue the ongoing medical response activities that our Department is
supporting. It also provides resources for HHS to establish more
permanent capacity that will allow us to replace temporary shelters,
reducing our need to use DOD facilities, and will allow us to shift to
more cost-effective care for these children. We are requesting
additional funding for the remaining months of fiscal year 2014 and
then going forward. Securing these funds now will enable us to better
manage the program, including the need to secure additional permanent
shelter capacity and increase the number of children we can serve and
to reduce the use of temporary shelters provided by DOD.
conclusion
In my trip last week, I witnessed the remarkable work of our men
and women on the ground, protecting our borders and caring for
children. This is truly a unified government and community response,
with employees across the government working side by side every day to
respond to the tremendous challenges presented. And they are not doing
it alone. Top-notch organizations around the country serve as our
grantees and operate shelters that provide compassionate care to
unaccompanied children. Communities are pitching in, too--from donating
astroturf for a recreational space to arranging religious services for
the children. Americans can be proud of the work carried out through
partnerships between government entities, the military, and
communities.
Congress is a key partner in this response as well, and I
appreciate the attention that you and your colleagues have paid to this
important issue. I look forward to working with you on our response and
ensuring that HHS and our partners have the necessary resources to
provide care for unaccompanied children, provide needed services to
refugees, and do best by our communities.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Secretary Johnson. STATEMENT OF HON.
JEH JOHNSON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chair
Senator Shelby. Thank you for hearing us today.
You have my prepared statement. Let me just summarize it
with some less formal observations about this request.
First of all, I believe we can and we will stem this recent
tide of illegal migration into the Rio Grande Valley sector.
The request that we have made for a $3.7 billion
supplemental is, indeed, a lot of money for the taxpayer. I
think Senator Shelby asked the right question: What will it
address? What am I being asked to pay for?
And from my perspective, this request has the right focus
on deterrence, added detention, and removal, and removal more
quickly than we have done in the past.
From my perspective, the supplemental seeks $1.1 billion
for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $879 million of
which goes to adding detention capacity for adults who bring
their children--family units, as we refer to them. We have
already begun the process of building increased detention
capacity for family units at Artesia, New Mexico, where I am
going tomorrow. We need money to build additional family unit
capacity.
$109 million goes to ICE for working with the three Central
American countries from which this migration is coming, to
expand their own resources.
With respect to the Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
$433 million is requested, $364 million of which is for added
Border Patrol agents' overtime and the like, for their
capacity.
As DOJ will point out, there is a $640 million request, $45
million of which goes to more judge teams and to an increased
caseload of 55,000 to 75,000 cases a year. The Deputy Attorney
General and I have already agreed that with this added
capacity, the recent influx should be the priority.
The State Department is seeking $300 million, $295 million
of which is for repatriation and reintegration into society.
Members of the committee, doing nothing is not an option.
At our current burn rate within the Department of Homeland
Security, ICE will run out of money in mid-August. Given the
added transportation costs, given the added enforcement costs,
Customs and Border Patrol will run out of money by mid-
September, at the current burn rate, given the situation we
face.
The one additional point I would like to add is the
transfer authority that we have requested within the Department
of Homeland Security and between HHS and DHS, in our view, is
critical, on the basis of the possibility of evolving
circumstances.
I would also like to point out that we are not starting
from standing still. We have already done a number of things to
address the recent influx. We have, with respect to the adult
population that is part of this recent migration, already
dramatically reduced the expedited removal time, the turnaround
time, from something like 33 days to 4 days with respect to the
adult population.
I personally witnessed, when I was in Guatemala 2 days ago,
an airplane of adults coming back, who were being repatriated
to Guatemala. And we have asked for additional capacity for
repatriation.
With regard to the family units, I have already noted that
we have built Artesia, New Mexico, which is a Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), into a detention center
for family units. I am going there tomorrow to highlight that
fact, and we need to build more.
With regard to the unaccompanied children, this is
obviously a major challenge with a humanitarian component to
it. I know that personally. Along with Secretary Burwell, we
have spent considerable time ourselves with the children, and
we are bound and determined to do the right thing.
But we are and we must request added resources to move
these cases quickly. Along with the Department of Justice,
there is a public relation awareness campaign, which the First
Lady of Guatemala herself, along with this government, has
spearheaded.
This is the First Lady of Guatemala's public awareness
campaign, which she gave me yesterday--``Stay back home''--that
she's asking the children of her country to hear.
The Guatemalans have established a task force that I
witnessed yesterday. And the Mexicans, I am pleased to note,
announced on Monday that they intend to add to their border
security along their southern border.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So considerable progress has already been made in this
regard to stem this tide, among other things. But the
supplemental is, in our judgment, an absolute necessity to
address the situation.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeh Johnson
Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of this
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the
Department's efforts to address the recent rise of unaccompanied
children and adults with children crossing the Southwest border in the
Rio Grande Valley in South Texas.
The recent and dramatic rise in illegal migration across our
border, from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, presents a major
challenge to the United States. Particularly because so many of those
crossing our border are children, there is also a humanitarian
dimension to this problem, which the U.S. Government is bound and
determined to respect. As Americans, we will adhere to domestic and
international law, due process, and the basic principles of charity,
decency, and fairness. But, in the final analysis, our border is not
open to illegal migration.
Our message is clear to those who try to illegally cross our
borders: you will be sent back home. We have already added resources to
expedite the removal, without a hearing before an immigration judge, of
adults who come from these three countries without children. We have
worked with the governments of these countries to repatriate the adults
quicker. (Indeed, while in Guatemala City 2 days ago, I personally
witnessed a flight of repatriated adults returning home.) Within the
last several months, we have dramatically reduced the removal time of
many of these migrants. Within the law, we are sending this group back,
and we are sending them back quicker.
Then there are adults who brought their children with them. Again,
our message to this group is simple: we will send you back. We are
building additional space to detain these groups and hold them until
their expedited removal orders are effectuated. Last week we opened a
detention facility in Artesia, New Mexico for this purpose, and we are
building more detention space quickly. Adults who brought their
children here expecting to make it to the nearest bus station in the
United States were surprised that they were detained at Artesia. They
will be sent back quickly, with the sad recognition that the large sum
of money they paid a criminal smuggling organization to get them to the
United States will go to waste.
Then there are the unaccompanied children. As I have said many
times, the long journey for a child, in the custody of a criminal
smuggling organization, from Central America to the United States is
dangerous. Many of the children are exploited, abused and hurt. Under
our laws, an unaccompanied child from Central America must be
transferred from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and placed by HHS in a
situation that is in the best interest of the child. But, the removal
proceeding against the child continues. Every child will retain the
right, like adults, to assert a claim of asylum or seek other
protections. But, unless the child has been granted asylum or some
other protection in this country--and the vast majority will not--he or
she will be sent back and we seek additional resources to do that
quickly.
Those who cross our border illegally must know there is no safe
passage, and no free pass; within the confines of our laws, our values,
and our resources, they will be sent back to their home countries.
I am grateful that the Senate Appropriations Committee included in
its fiscal year 2015 DHS appropriations bill an additional $164.5
million to address this surge in unaccompanied children. However, given
the current dramatic increase in apprehensions and activities
associated with unaccompanied children and family groups, the resources
necessary to appropriately address this issue are simply not available
within the current fiscal year 2014 budget or the proposed fiscal year
2015 appropriation. To effectively address this emerging crisis, the
President has requested emergency supplemental appropriations of $3.7
billion to comprehensively address this urgent humanitarian situation,
including $1.5 billion for DHS to support more detention and removal
facilities and enhanced processes as well as increased activities to
disrupt and dismantle the human smuggling organizations that bring
these individuals across U.S. borders.
Put plainly, without supplemental funding, in August U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will run out of money and DHS
would need to divert significant funds from other critical programs
just to maintain operations. Likewise, the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) will be unable to address the influx of children
by securing sufficient shelter capacity, leading to more children being
held at short term border patrol processing stations for longer periods
of time. Going forward, HHS will be unable to set-up more stable, cost-
effective arrangements for these children, Border Patrol agents will
have to be re-assigned from their border security work to assist at
facilities housing children, and ICE will lack the resources needed to
sufficiently maintain and expand detention and removal capacity for
adults with children who cross the border illegally. Without additional
funds, the Department of Justice (DOJ) will be unable to keep pace with
its growing caseload, leading to longer wait times for those cases
already on the docket. And absent dedicated resources in Central
American countries, we will not make progress on the larger drivers of
this humanitarian situation. For this reason, supplemental resources
are urgently needed to continue forward with the aggressive response
that the administration has deployed to date.
This emergency supplemental request is a direct result of the
urgent situation in the Rio Grande Valley. In fiscal year 2013, CBP
apprehended approximately 24,000 unaccompanied children at the border.
By the end of June of this fiscal year, that number has already doubled
to more than 157,000, and it continues to climb. We are preparing for a
scenario in which the number of unaccompanied children apprehended at
the border could reach up to 90,000 by the end of fiscal year 2014.
I know that additional money alone will not fully address the
challenge we face, and we do not make this request lightly. While
building capacity is necessary, we must also ramp up our ability to
safely and quickly return the influx of these recent border crossers,
which is exactly what we are doing.
As I have previously testified, we have established added capacity
to deal with the processing and housing of the children and families
and we are actively exploring additional options. To process the
increased numbers of unaccompanied children and family groups in Texas,
DHS has brought the children to our processing center at Nogales,
Arizona, before any unaccompanied children are sent to HHS, to whom DHS
is mandated by law to transfer custody once they are identified as
unaccompanied children. We are also arranging additional processing
centers to handle the rise in the Rio Grande Valley, including adding a
1,000-bed processing center in McAllen.
Critically, DHS is also building additional detention capacity for
adults who cross the border illegally in the Rio Grande Valley with
their children. For this purpose DHS has established a temporary
facility for adults with children on the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center's campus at Artesia, New Mexico. The establishment of
this temporary facility will help CBP process those encountered at the
border and allow ICE to increase its capacity to house and expedite the
removal of adults with children in a manner that complies with Federal
law. Artesia is one of several facilities that DHS will use to increase
our capacity to hold and expedite the removal of the increasing number
of adults with children illegally crossing the Southwest border. DHS is
ensuring that after apprehension, families are housed in facilities
that adequately provide for their safety, security, and medical needs.
Meanwhile, we will continue to expand use of the Alternatives to
Detention program to ensure compliance with notices to appear before
immigration judges for removal proceedings. DHS has also surged USCIS
officers to hear credible fear claims and conduct the screening
process. DOJ is temporarily reassigning immigration judges to handle
the additional caseload. These immigration judges will adjudicate these
cases as quickly as possible, consistent with all existing legal and
procedural standards, including those for asylum applicants. Overall,
this increased capacity and resources will allow ICE to return certain
migrants from Central America to their home countries more quickly.
DHS has brought on more transportation assets to assist in the
effort. The Coast Guard loaned air assets to help transport the
children and families between CBP facilities. ICE is now leasing
charter aircraft to transport unaccompanied children to HHS custody.
Throughout the Rio Grande Valley sector, we are conducting public
health screening for all those who come into our facilities for any
symptoms of contagious diseases or other possible public health
concerns.
In order to effectuate the safe and timely return of these
migrants, we are engaging with senior government officials of
Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico to address our shared
border security interests, the underlying conditions in Central America
that are promoting the exodus, and how we can work together to assure
faster, secure removal and repatriation.
Just yesterday I returned from Guatemala. Joined by SOUTHCOM
Commander General John Kelly and Ambassador Thomas A. Shannon, I met
with President Otto Fernando Perez Molina to discuss the urgent
situation and to express our commitment to work with Guatemala to stem
the flow of individuals, address the root causes of the influx, and to
expand the capacity of these countries to receive and reintegrate
repatriated migrants.
As a part of these international engagement efforts, the United
States has committed foreign assistance resources to improve the
capacity of these countries to receive and reintegrate returned
individuals and address the underlying security and economic issues
that cause migration. This funding will enable El Salvador, Guatemala,
and Honduras to improve their existing repatriation processes and
increase the capacity of these governments and nongovernmental
organizations to provide expanded services to returned migrants.
Additional resources will support community policing and law
enforcement efforts to combat gang violence and strengthen citizen
security in some of the most violent communities in these countries.
DHS has also added personnel and resources to the investigation,
prosecution, disruption, and dismantling of the smuggling organizations
that are facilitating border crossings into the Rio Grande Valley. ICE
Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) is deploying 60 additional
criminal investigators and support personnel to their San Antonio and
Houston offices for this purpose, as well as supplementing this with
additional intelligence and programmatic support from ICE headquarters.
ICE will continue to vigorously pursue and dismantle these human
smuggling organizations by all investigative means to include the
financial structure of these criminal organizations.
We have increased CBP staffing and detailed 115 additional
experienced agents from less active sectors to augment operations
there. On June 30, I announced the immediate deployment of 150 U.S.
Border Patrol agents to the Rio Grande Valley sector to augment illegal
entry detection efforts while enhancing processing and detention
capabilities.
Our plan of action is comprehensive and wide-reaching. However, the
measures that we have taken--which have been critical and must be
sustained--are and will continue to be costly. Many of these activities
were not contemplated at the time Congress passed the fiscal year 2014
DHS appropriations act. With such a dramatic increase in the number of
unaccompanied minors and family groups being apprehended, significant
additional resources are needed. As a result, the President sent a
letter to Congress on June 30, providing an update on the
Administration's efforts to address this situation and requesting
congressional action on emergency supplemental appropriations
legislation to support the following:
--an aggressive deterrence strategy focused on the removal and
repatriation of recent border crossers;
--a sustained border security surge through enhanced domestic
enforcement, including interdiction and prosecution of criminal
networks;
--a significant increase in immigration judges, reassigning them to
adjudicate cases of recent border crossers, and establishing
corresponding facilities to expedite the processing of cases
involving those who crossed the border in recent weeks;
--a stepped up effort to work with our Central American partners to
repatriate and reintegrate migrants returned to their
countries, address the root causes of migration, and
communicate the realities of these dangerous journeys; and
--the resources necessary to appropriately detain, process, and care
for children and adults.
Specifically, the President has requested your support on emergency
supplemental appropriations legislation providing DHS with $1.5 billion
for fiscal year 2014 and 2015 costs related to surge in unaccompanied
children and families. Of this amount, $433 million is included for CBP
and $1.104 billion is included for ICE.
Of the $433 million included for CBP, $329 million is for
operational costs to include care, feeding, and transportation costs of
unaccompanied children and family groups. In addition, this amount
would provide $35 million for new processing and detention facilities
at Nogales and McAllen. Finally, the request supports CBP's efforts to
detect and interdict unaccompanied children across U.S. borders,
including $29 million for increased CBP support of the Border Security
Task Forces, particularly along the Southwest border, and $39 million
for an additional 16,526 flight hours (above the level in the
President's fiscal year 2015 Budget request) and 16 additional crew
members for CBP's Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
Of the $1.104 billion included for ICE, $995 million is for
operational costs to include the detention, alternatives to detention,
prosecution, and removal of family groups, as well as transportation
costs of unaccompanied children to HHS custody. Another $109 million is
included to support increased efforts to detect, disrupt and dismantle
efforts to smuggle unaccompanied children and family groups across U.S.
borders.
The requested amount would include $116 million for operational
costs associated with the transportation of unaccompanied children to
HHS custody, and $879 million for 6,350 additional family unit beds,
23,000 additional alternatives to detention participants per day,
additional prosecution capacity, and related transportation and removal
costs for family groups. Finally, the request strengthens ICE efforts
to detect and disrupt efforts to smuggle unaccompanied children across
U.S. borders, including $46 million for 179 additional members of the
Border Security Task Forces, particularly along the Southwest Border,
$38 million for additional domestic and international investigations
and intelligence support, and $6 million for Operation Torrent Divide.
As the urgent situation presented by the influx of unaccompanied
children and families in south Texas continues to evolve, we will look
to use every available tool to ensure that we are addressing these
challenges and changing circumstances, including the potential use of
transfer authority if necessary and appropriate.
Finally, I want to once again thank Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking
Member Shelby, and members of this committee for this opportunity to
testify and for the strong support that I have received from the
committee since becoming Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security. We are committed to continuing to work closely with the
committee and Congress on this critical issue, and to keep you
informed. DHS is updating members and staff on the situation in
conference calls two times a week, facilitating site visits to Border
Patrol facilities in Texas and Arizona for a number of members and
their staff, and providing daily updates to the Appropriations
Committee on border apprehensions data.
In cooperation with the other agencies of our Government that are
dedicating resources to the effort, with the support of Congress, and
in cooperation with the Governments of Mexico and Central America, I
believe we can stem this tide and address the broader issues. The
requested supplemental funding is critical to enabling the Department
to fulfill its mission and address the dramatic surge in unaccompanied
children and families in a manner that maintains border security and
reflects our laws and values.
Thank you for listening and I look forward to your questions.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you, Secretary Johnson.
Ambassador Shannon.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS A. SHANNON, JR., COUNSELOR OF
THE DEPARTMENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ambassador Shannon. Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chairman, Senator
Shelby, members of the committee, thank you very much for this
opportunity to testify before you on the President's
supplemental budget request.
My colleagues, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
and the Secretary of Homeland Security, have described well the
situation in front of us, both the crisis and the challenge. I
would like to address briefly the foreign policy implications
and the larger diplomatic challenge we face.
I would like to start by making three broad statements
about the migration crisis that we are facing at this point.
First, migration by unaccompanied children is not a new
phenomenon along our Southwest border. However, what we are
facing now in terms of its size and its composition is. It is
unprecedented and it is unique in terms of its drivers, and, we
believe, its solution.
It is unprecedented and unique first because, historically,
migration by unaccompanied children has been a Mexican
phenomenon. It is no longer. Actually, the numbers of
unaccompanied Mexican children have been dropping over time,
but what we have been seeing is a dramatic increase in the
number of Central American children.
And from our point of view, this means that something is
driving them out of Central America. This is a Central
American-driven process.
Second, while the motives behind migration are mixed, and
while many of those coming to the United States are driven by
traditional factors such as family unification and economic
opportunity, it is evident from interviews with them, both by
our Customs and Border Patrol officials and by non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) that work along the frontier, that
underlying much of the migration is a fear of violence and
especially activity by criminal gangs. In other words, there is
a significant push factor to this migration.
The third point is that the migration is regional. And
while much of it is directed toward the United States because
of existing migrant networks in the United States, and the
attraction of our country, the impact of this migration is
being felt throughout the region. The U.N. High Commission on
Refugees has registered a 400-percent increase in asylum
requests in neighboring countries, which means that when
children decide they either can't make it to the United States
or they don't want to run the risk, if they feel they have to
leave, they do. And they are going elsewhere in the region.
Because of this third point, we believe that our diplomatic
approach in the region and our foreign policy approach has to
be regional in nature also, and that we have to involve the
source in the transit countries, but also those who are
affected broadly by migration.
In the process of working up this supplemental request and
looking again at our broader Central American strategy, we have
come up with a five-step or five-part strategy that we are in
the process of implementing.
The first step is establishing a common understanding of
what is happening and why between the United States, the three
source countries--Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador--and the
major transit country, Mexico.
The second step is fashioning a common public messaging
campaign to deter migration, especially by children. This
campaign highlights the dangers of migration, but also counters
misinformation from smugglers seeking clients.
The third step is improving the ability of Mexico and
Guatemala to interdict migrants before they cross into Mexico
and enter the established smuggling routes that move the
migrants to our border.
Fourth is enhancing the capacity of Guatemala, Honduras,
and El Salvador to receive and reintegrate repatriated migrants
to break the cycle of migration and discourage further efforts
at migration.
The fifth step is addressing the underlying causes of
migration of unaccompanied children by focusing additional
resources on economic and social development, and enhancing our
citizen security programs to reduce violence, attack criminal
gang structures, and reach out to at-risk youth. This strategy
is a cooperative effort defined by collaboration between the
United States, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. It
is a new approach to address migration issues that reflects the
growing ties and common interests created among our countries
by demographics, trade relations, and increased security
cooperation.
As we looked at the portion of the supplemental that
belongs to the foreign affairs community to the Department of
State and to our partners in DHS and the Department of Justice,
we decided that we would allocate $300 million in two fashions,
$5 million on public diplomacy of messaging and $295 million in
economic support funds broadly divided between the headings of
prosperity, governance, and security.
I am happy to discuss why we did this and how it is that we
propose to use these monies.
As noted by my colleagues, we believe this request is
reasonable and necessary. It builds on work we are already
doing in Central America, and it takes advantage of existing
expertise and experience, and expands our ability to encourage
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to work with us closely on
an issue of compelling human drama and national interest.
This request will also allow us to build a new
comprehensive and collaborative approach with Central America
and Mexico to problems that have an immediate manifestation in
migration, but underlie the larger development and security
challenges facing our closest neighbors.
PREPARED STATEMENT
By working to meet the challenge of illegal migration of
unaccompanied children to the United States, we will be
advancing broader interests in the region and giving substance
to our vision of an Americas where democracy and markets
deliver economic and social development.
This is an investment worth making, and I thank you for the
opportunity to discuss this request with you and look forward
to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas A. Shannon
Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chairman, members of the committee, thank you
for this opportunity to testify before you on the President's
supplemental budget request to address the increase in child and adult
migration from Central America in the Rio Grande Valley areas of the
Southwest border.
It is an honor to appear before you with the Secretaries of
Homeland Security (DHS) and Health and Human Services (HHS), as well as
Director Osuna from the Justice Department, to describe the
supplemental budget request, and to explain how we would use the
proposed funding to address the migration crisis unfolding on our
southwest border.
My esteemed colleagues have laid out the dimensions of this crisis,
and its impact on existing resources at DHS, HHS, local law enforcement
agencies, State humanitarian and disaster response teams, municipal and
State governments, and on local communities as they face an
unprecedented surge in attempted migration to the United States by
unaccompanied children.
We are facing an acute crisis on our southwest border, as tens of
thousands of children leave Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to
travel through Mexico to the United States. Driven by a mix of motives
and circumstances, these children are fleeing their homelands in search
of their parents, better life opportunities, and, in some cases, safety
from violence and criminal gang activity.
The human drama of this migration is heightened by the nefarious
role of smuggling operations. Smugglers exploit these children and
their families, preying on their desperation and hope, while exposing
the children to grave dangers, abuse, and sometimes death as they move
the children along a journey of more than one thousand miles.
You have heard of the efforts made by DHS and HHS to apprehend,
screen, process, place, and in some cases return these children. You
have also heard of the resource and infrastructure challenges we face
along our Southwest border. The need for additional funding to meet
these challenges is great, but such funding is necessary to ensure that
these children, an especially vulnerable class of migrant, are treated
in a humane and dignified fashion as we enforce our laws and meet our
international obligations.
I would like to describe to you our diplomatic efforts to address
this phenomenon, and to highlight how supplemental funding would be
used along with existing resources to address the factors that are
driving children from their homes in Guatemala, Honduras, and El
Salvador.
the problem
Migration by unaccompanied children is not a new phenomenon. It has
ebbed and flowed for some time. However, what has changed is the size
of the migration and the source countries. In the past, most children
migrating illegally to the United States were Mexican nationals. Under
existing law, these children could be returned to Mexico through
expedited removal. In 2008, we returned 34,083 unaccompanied (Mexican)
children to Mexican authorities. Vigorous enforcement of our laws, new
forms of law enforcement partnerships with Mexico through the Merida
Initiative, and efforts by the Government of Mexico to address the
factors driving such migration helped reduce the number of
unaccompanied children from Mexico who were apprehended attempting to
enter the United States.
As you are well aware, this decline has been offset by a surge in
unaccompanied children migrating from Central America. While we have
witnessed an increase in such migrants from Central America over the
past several years, more than 50,000 unaccompanied children from
Central America have been apprehended along our Southwest border this
fiscal year. Of these migrants, nearly three-quarters are males between
the ages of 15 and 17 years of age.
Efforts to understand the drivers of this migration by the United
Nations High Commission of Refugees, NGOs, and information collected in
interviews conducted by Customs and Border Protection officials
highlight the mixed motives behind this surge in Central American
migration. For the most part, these children have abandoned their homes
for a complex set of motives that combine a desire to be with their
parents and pursue a life of greater opportunity and wider possibility.
Underlying some of this migration is a fear of violence in their home
communities, and a fear that criminal gangs will either forcibly
recruit or harm them.
In short, this migration trend is the product of economic and
social conditions in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. A
combination of poverty, ineffective public institutions, and violence
have combined to push these children from their homes and to begin an
arduous and dangerous journey.
While the United States has been the primary destination of these
migrants, largely because family members are already here, the impact
of the migration has been felt throughout the region. The United
Nations High Commission on Refugees has identified a more than 400
percent increase in asylum requests made by unaccompanied children from
Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador in neighboring countries.
To address the challenge posed by the migration of unaccompanied
children, we have fashioned a five-part strategy designed to stem the
flow of migrants, screen them properly for international protection
concerns, and then begin timely repatriation. This strategy consists
of:
--One: Establishing a common understanding of what is happening and
why between the United States, the three source countries--
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador--and the major transit
country, Mexico.
--Two: Fashioning a common public messaging campaign to deter
migration, especially by children. This campaign highlights the
dangers of migration, but also counters misinformation or
smugglers seeking clients.
--Three: Improving the ability of Mexico and Guatemala to interdict
migrants before they cross into Mexico and enter the
established smuggling routes that move the migrants to our
border.
--Four: Enhancing the capacity of Guatemala, Honduras, and El
Salvador to receive and reintegrate repatriated migrants to
break the cycle of migration and discourage further efforts at
migration.
--Five: Addressing the underlying causes of migration of
unaccompanied children by focusing additional resources on
economic and social development, and enhancing our citizen
security programs to reduce violence, attack criminal gang
structures, and reach out to at-risk youth.
This strategy is a cooperative effort defined by collaboration
between the United States, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El
Salvador. It is a new approach to address migration issues that
reflects the growing ties and common interests created among our
countries by demographics, trade relations, and increased security
cooperation.
So far, our diplomatic outreach has created a common understanding
of the problem of migration by unaccompanied minors and the
responsibility of all the countries to address it. President Obama's
outreach to Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, Vice President
Biden's trip to Guatemala to meet with the leaders of Guatemala, El
Salvador, and Honduras, Secretary Kerry's meeting with these leaders in
Panama during the inauguration of the incoming Panamanian president,
DHS Secretary Johnson's trip to Guatemala to meet with President Perez
Molina, Under Secretary of State Sarah Sewall's trip to Honduras, and
my own engagement with the Foreign Ministers of Guatemala, El Salvador,
and Honduras were all part of intense engagement over the last several
weeks.
Our engagement has also allowed us to fashion a common public
message that has received support from the highest levels of government
in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. For example, the visits of the
First Ladies of these countries to the Southwest border to meet with
unaccompanied children, and their subsequent public statements urging
their compatriots not to send their children north or expose them to
smugglers have echoed powerfully in their counties. Combined with
public messaging campaigns by our Embassies, the governments of these
countries and Mexico, we have helped create a new and dynamic debate
about illegal migration that undermines efforts by smugglers to entice
young people into migration through misinformation about the risks of
the journey and the benefits they will supposedly receive in the United
States.
The announcement of Mexican President Pena Nieto of a new Mexican
southern border strategy was a welcome step towards improving Mexico's
ability to exercise greater control along its border with Guatemala.
Announced in the presence of the Guatemalan president, this initiative
is a manifestation of a new willingness to work together along their
border. To match this level of cooperation, we are working to provide
support to Mexico's southern border initiative and intend to provide
$86 million of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) funds,
and we are working with Guatemala to improve its border controls, with
special focus on building joint task forces that link all agencies with
responsibility for border control.
In regard to repatriation and reintegration, Vice President Biden
announced during his trip to Guatemala $ 9.6 million to improve the
ability of the source countries to increase the number of repatriated
migrants they can receive and assist in their reintegration.
Our work in Mexico through the Merida Initiative, and in Central
America through the Central America Regional Security Initiative
(CARSI), has allowed us to build the relationships, understanding, and
capacity to help the Central American source countries to address the
underlying causes or drivers of migration by unaccompanied children.
Our development assistance work conducted by USAID has also allowed us
to build new assistance partnerships that can be turned to helping our
partner countries address the economic and social development issues
that also contribute to migration.
the supplemental request
The success we have enjoyed so far, while important, is not enough
to stem completely the migrants moving towards our Southwest border.
The supplemental request, although focused largely on addressing
resource and infrastructure issues along our border, also has an
important component focused on the work I have described. The $300
million request allocates $5 million on public diplomacy and messaging,
and $295 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF) on an initiative
broadly grouped under the headings of prosperity, governance, and
security.
The $125 million directed toward prosperity would focus on
improving economic opportunity and creating jobs, improving customs and
border controls to enhance revenue collection and economic integration,
and investing in energy to reduce the cost and improve access to energy
as a driver of economic growth.
The $70 million requested for governance would focus on improving
public sector management, fiscal reform, and strengthening the
independence, transparency, and accountability of the judiciaries in
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The purpose of these funds would
be to promote rule of law, attack corruption, and enhance the
efficiency and efficacy of government.
The $100 million requested for security would focus on expanding
community based program to reduce youth crime and violence, expand
national police capacity, attack gangs and organized crime, promote
prison reform, and enhance migrant repatriation capacity. These funds
would allow us to work with our partners to improve citizen security
and address the violence that is one of the principal drivers of
migration.
We believe this request is reasonable and necessary. It builds on
work we are already doing in Central America, takes advantage of
existing expertise and experience, and expands our ability to encourage
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to work with us closely on an
issue of compelling human drama and national interest.
This request will also allow us to build a new, comprehensive, and
collaborative approach with Central America and Mexico to problems that
have an immediate manifestation in migration, but underlie the larger
development and security challenges facing our closest neighbors. By
working to meet the challenge of illegal migration of unaccompanied
children to the United States, we will be advancing broader interests
in the region and giving substance to our vision of an Americas where
democracy and markets deliver economic and social development. This is
an investment worth making. I thank you for the opportunity to discuss
this request with you and look forward to your questions.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you, Ambassador Shannon.
Mr. Osuna.
STATEMENT OF JUAN P. OSUNA, DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE
FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
Mr. Osuna. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Vice Chairman
Shelby, and other members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today about the Justice
Department's role in the Government-wide response to the
situation along the southern border.
In addition to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney
General could not appear today because he is actually traveling
at the border.
I will be concentrating my testimony today on the Executive
Office for Immigration Review, which is the largest component
of the DOJ portion of the supplemental, and it is the agency I
head.
EOIR is responsible for conducting civil immigration
removal proceedings through our immigration courts around the
country and our appellate level court, the Board of Immigration
Appeals. Our caseloads follows immigration enforcement patterns
at the border and in the interior. Every individual that the
Department of Homeland Security formally charges with being
removable from the United States results in another case for
EOIR.
The 375,000 matters pending at the end of June, we are
currently managing the largest caseload the immigration court
system has ever seen.
Overall, there are now 243 immigration judges in 59 courts
around the country. Many of our courts are located along the
southern border, including San Diego, Harlingen, Texas, and El
Paso. Some courts are actually located within ICE detention
centers for efficiency reasons, including the border locations
of Eloy, Arizona; Port Isabel, Texas; and East Mesa,
California.
The highest priority cases for EOIR have been those
involving detained aliens, and the agency has focused on the
timely adjudication of those cases, which involve individuals
that DHS has apprehended and charged with removal from the
United States, often for criminal convictions that make them
removable.
The current situation along the Texas border is prompting
us to reset priorities across the entire immigration court
system as we along with our Federal partners respond to the
President's directive to focus additional resources on the
border, particularly on those, as the Secretary said, who
entered the border in recent weeks.
From now on, the following four types of cases will be the
highest priorities for the immigration courts. Detained cases
will continue to be a top priority, but to those we are going
to be adding those involving unaccompanied children, adults who
arrive with children who are detained, and adults who arrive
with children who are not detained and are released on
alternatives to detention, such as electronic monitoring.
This means that the cases will go to the front of the line
for adjudication, and immigration judges will be reallocated to
make sure that these cases are heard promptly ahead of others.
While there are already likely sufficient number of
immigration judges assigned to the regular detained cases, what
the prioritization of the rest of the cases means is that we
will make additional judges available from the regular
nondetained dockets to make sure that those cases are heard
promptly--again, namely unaccompanied children and adults who
arrive with children.
This will have large consequences for the broader
immigration court caseload. Cases not considered a priority
will take longer to adjudicate, in some cases considerably
longer. However, given the seriousness of the situation along
the border, it is the appropriate response for our agency.
Regardless of the changes in priorities that we are making,
our overriding principles will remain that every fact is
considered, every application of law is correct, and all
persons appearing in our courts will receive due process of
law.
In order to meet its mission for the timely adjudication of
cases, EOIR must be provided with the ability to properly staff
our immigration courts with the judges and staff to most
efficiently process cases.
In 2010, we began an aggressive hiring effort to address
the significant rise in caseload, and this met with
considerable success.
Unfortunately, sequestration and funding constraints that
resulted in hiring freezes had a negative and worsening impact
on our operations, increasing the number of cases pending
adjudication and extending court dockets far into the future.
This year's appropriations act included funds enabling the
department to lift the hiring freeze, and we began an
aggressive hiring effort to back fill more than 200 vacant
positions nationwide, including at least 30 new immigration
judges. And the President has presented his request for fiscal
year 2015, which also includes an increase for our agency and
would add another 30 judges or more.
I would like to just highlight for the rest of my time the
President's request for $71 million presented yesterday for
supplemental DOJ funding to address the border situation. This
request includes $64 million to be directly appropriated to DOJ
and $7 million to be transferred to DOJ from funding
appropriated to the State Department.
Of the $64 million appropriated to the Justice Department,
the EOIR would be allocated $38.7 million to support additional
immigration judge teams, and $6.7 million for equipment and
technology to maximize our flexibility and ensure that our
judges are available when we need them and where we need them.
In addition, the request includes $2.5 million for
successful legal orientation programs, and $15 million for
direct legal representation for children in immigration
proceedings.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In addition, the request includes just over $1 million for
DOJ's office of immigration litigation to support the expected
workload increase, and finally the $7 million that would be
transferred from the State Department would support a wide
range of DOJ programs designed to build law enforcement
capacity in Central America to combat transnational crime.
I ask for your support for the President's request.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Juan P. Osuna
introduction
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Shelby, and other distinguished
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with
you today about the Department of Justice's Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR), and our contributions to the Governmentwide
response to the humanitarian situation in the Rio Grande Valley areas
of our Nation's Southwest border. The Deputy Attorney General could not
appear before you today because he is traveling on the Southwest
border. Border issues generally, and the humanitarian situation that we
will discuss today, are top priorities for the Department of Justice
(DOJ).
EOIR administers the Nation's immigration court system, composed of
both trial and appellate tribunals. Removal proceedings before EOIR
begin when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) formally charges
an alien with being removable from the United States. EOIR's
immigration judges decide whether the alien is removable based on the
facts and the DHS charges and, if removable, whether the alien is
eligible for--and merits relief or protection from--removal. EOIR is
responsible only for civil immigration proceedings, and EOIR's
adjudicators have no role in state or Federal criminal proceedings.
EOIR's immigration judges, for example, do not determine the guilt or
innocence of aliens charged with criminal wrongdoing at the border or
in the interior of the country.
Overall there are now 243 immigration judges in 59 courts around
the country. Many of our courts are located near or along the southern
border, including in San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and
Harlingen, Texas. Some courts are located within DHS detention centers,
including the border locations of East Mesa, California; Eloy, Arizona;
and Port Isabel, Texas.
The appellate level of EOIR is the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA), which sits in Falls Church, Virginia. The BIA consists of 15
board members, supported by a staff of attorney advisors, and is headed
by a chairman. The BIA has nationwide jurisdiction and hears appeals of
immigration judge decisions. When appropriate, the BIA issues binding
precedent decisions interpreting complex areas of immigration law and
procedure. Either an alien or DHS may file an appeal with the BIA.
At the end of fiscal year 2013, EOIR's immigration courts had
350,330 cases pending, marking an increase of approximately 23,000
cases pending over the end of fiscal year 2012. In the first three
quarters of fiscal year 2014, that pending caseload grew by
approximately 25,000 cases, reaching 375,373 cases, our highest
caseload to date. The pending caseload is directly tied to both the
number of cases that DHS files in the immigration courts and EOIR's
ability to complete those cases with available resources.
Each immigration court's caseload is tied directly to DHS
enforcement activities. DHS determines both detention space allocations
and the filing of charging documents. As such, EOIR is in regular and
continuing contact with DHS to anticipate and respond to caseload
trends. Through this close coordination, our two departments are able
to explore additional ways of handling the removal adjudication process
more efficiently and focus resources on the highest priority cases.
immigration court process
DHS initiates removal proceedings when it serves an individual with
a charging document, called a Notice to Appear (NTA), and files that
NTA with one of EOIR's immigration courts. This is the same process
currently being followed for the large numbers of unaccompanied minors
and adults with children that have been crossing the border in recent
weeks.
When the immigration court receives the NTA from DHS, the court
schedules a removal hearing before an immigration judge. There may be
one or multiple hearings, depending on the nature of the case. Removal
proceedings begin with a ``master calendar'' hearing, during which the
immigration judge ensures that the individual understands the alleged
immigration law violations. The judge also provides information on
available free or low cost legal representation resources in the area.
Then, generally, the immigration judge will schedule an ``individual''
hearing at which both parties will present the merits of the case to
the immigration judge.
The outcome of many removal proceedings depends on whether the
individual is eligible for relief or protection from removal.
Immigration law provides relief or protection from removal to
individuals who meet specific criteria. In most removal proceedings,
individuals admit that they are removable based on the charge contained
in the NTA, but apply for one or more forms of relief, such as
cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, asylum, or other
remedies provided by immigration law. For cases involving adults with
children, DHS will issue an NTA to each family member, although the
individual members may, if appropriate, appear together in consolidated
proceedings before the immigration court.
Unaccompanied minors are placed in immigration proceedings when DHS
files an NTA with the immigration court after the child is placed with
an appropriate sponsor or in the care of HHS' Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR), thereby allowing the child's case to begin in the
court location where the child will be residing and avoiding delays due
to changes in venue. Cases involving children are placed on the court's
juvenile docket. All immigration courts have arranged for specialized
juvenile dockets, which consolidate children's cases for master
calendar hearings. Twenty-six immigration courts are actively hearing
children's cases on these dockets. The cases generally proceed under
the laws that apply to adults, but judges employ their training to take
into consideration the special vulnerabilities and needs of children.
We provide specialized training to immigration judges who are expected
to hear cases involving juveniles. In addition, the Office of the Chief
Immigration Judge has issued an Operating Policies and Procedures
Memorandum that deals exclusively with the handling of cases involving
unaccompanied children.
asylum and protection under the convention against torture
All EOIR staff members understand the importance of asylum claims
and claims for protection and the need to decide these life-changing
cases expeditiously while taking appropriate time to consider all of
the relevant facts and applicable law. While we take seriously our
responsibility to decide cases in an expeditious manner, the utmost
priority for every type of case is ensuring that every respondent is
treated fairly and that the facts and arguments presented by the
parties are considered in accordance with U.S. immigration law.
There are two types of asylum processes--defensive and affirmative.
The defensive asylum process generally applies to aliens who are in
removal proceedings before EOIR and who request asylum before an
immigration judge. The process is called ``defensive'' because it can
provide aliens with relief (a ``defense'') from removal from the United
States. The affirmative asylum process generally applies to aliens who
have not been placed into removal proceedings and who initially file
asylum applications with DHS's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS). Affirmative asylum applicants whom USCIS does not
find to be eligible for asylum and are not in lawful status are served
with a NTA and the cases are referred to immigration court, where
immigration judges conduct a de novo hearing of their asylum cases.
Generally, a person in removal proceedings would express a desire
to file an asylum application at a master calendar hearing. The
immigration judge would then schedule the person's case for an
individual hearing on the merits of the asylum claim. Asylum claims
asserted by UAC are always initially heard by USCIS, and their
immigration court cases may be administratively closed pending a USCIS
interview and decision on the asylum application. The immigration judge
will consider the asylum application if it is not granted by USCIS.
legal representation for children
Children are not guaranteed representation in immigration court
proceedings, and the need for legal services far exceeds available pro
bono resources. The removal cases of unaccompanied children are often
continued multiple times in order to allow a child the opportunity to
seek legal representation. The Department of Justice is taking action
to encourage legal access and, in some cases, direct representation to
children.
DOJ recently launched ``justice AmeriCorps,'' a grant program that
will enroll approximately 100 lawyers and paralegals as AmeriCorps
members to provide legal services to the most vulnerable of these
children. This program, a partnership with the Corporation for National
and Community Service, responds to Congress' direction to EOIR ``to
explore ways to better serve vulnerable populations such as children
and improve court efficiency through pilot efforts aimed at improving
their legal representation.'' In addition, DOJ believes the AmeriCorps
members will help identify unaccompanied children who have been victims
of human trafficking or abuse to assist in the investigation and
prosecution of those who perpetrate such crimes on those children.
adjudication priorities
EOIR has been working closely with its Federal partners in order to
respond to the recent increase in migrants along the southwest border.
As a result of this coordination, EOIR will be refocusing its resources
to prioritize cases involving migrants who crossed the southwest border
in recent weeks and are placed into removal proceedings by DHS. EOIR
will now prioritize the adjudication of cases involving unaccompanied
children, adults with children in detention, adults with children
released through ``alternatives to detention,'' and other individuals
in detention. To realign our resources with these priorities, EOIR will
reassign immigration judges in immigration courts around the country
from their regular dockets to hear the cases of individuals falling in
these four groups. Lower priority cases will be rescheduled to
accommodate higher priority cases.
In addition, as DHS builds additional detention capacity, including
for family units, EOIR will assign additional judges to handle the
cases of those individuals who are detained and placed in removal
proceedings. These judges will help adjudicate new cases as quickly as
possible consistent with fairness and due process and all existing
legal and procedural standards, including those for asylum applicants.
Because some immigration judges will be reassigned to immigration
courts along the southwest border, the recent migrant influx is likely
to impact the dockets of immigration court locations nationwide.
Therefore, EOIR will also focus its attention on hiring new immigration
judges to adjudicate cases in immigration courts around the country.
EOIR also plans to expand its legal access programs in order to improve
access to legal information and counseling for those facing removal
proceedings. EOIR this week sent to the Federal Register a rule to
provide for the appointment of temporary immigration judges to assist
with the situation.
Although adjudication priorities are changing, all cases will be
adjudicated consistent with all substantive and procedural rights and
safeguards applicable to immigration proceedings. EOIR remains
committed to working with our Federal partners to help address this
urgent border situation as it continues to evolve.
budget and resource impact
EOIR must maintain the ability to properly staff our immigration
courts with the immigration judges and support staff needed to most
efficiently and fairly process cases. In 2010, the Department and EOIR
placed a great emphasis on the hiring of new immigration judges in
order to address the rapidly rising caseloads. The effort met with
significant success, increasing our immigration judge corps and adding
more law clerks to assist the judges.
Unfortunately, funding constraints that resulted in a hiring freeze
beginning in January 2011 had a negative and worsening impact upon
EOIR's core mission, and increased the number of cases pending
adjudication and extending court dockets further into the future. And
more than 100 immigration judges--more than one-third of the
immigration judge force--are eligible to retire in fiscal year 2014
alone.
In February 2014, the fiscal year 2014 appropriations act included
funds enabling the Department to lift the hiring freeze and EOIR began
a hiring initiative to backfill more than 200 vacant positions,
including at least 30 immigration judges.
The Department continues to seek the resources necessary to hire
additional immigration judges, BIA attorneys, and other staff; to
provide them with sufficient training and tools, and to continue
pursuing other improvements that will benefit the immigration court
system and the parties who appear before EOIR.
On March 4, 2014, the President presented his fiscal year 2015
budget request to Congress. EOIR's request includes $347.2 million in
discretionary budget authority, which is approximately 11 percent above
the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The resources the President's
budget requests for EOIR for fiscal year 2015 are essential to our
ongoing efforts to recruit, train, and equip top-quality immigration
judges and court staff.
As you know, the President has proposed a supplemental funding
request for fiscal year 2014 that includes $64 million to be
appropriated to DOJ and $7 million to be transferred to DOJ from
funding appropriated to the State Department. Of the $64 million
appropriated directly to DOJ: EOIR is requesting $38.7 million to
support 25 additional immigration judge teams, in addition to 15
temporary immigration judges EOIR will designate $6.7 million for
equipment to maximize our flexibility and ensure that our judges are
available where we need them; $2.5 million for the Legal Orientation
Program (LOP) and the Legal Orientation Program for Custodians (LOPC),
which provides direct assistance to adults and custodians of children
in the immigration court system, including legal orientation
presentations to the adult care givers of unaccompanied children in
EOIR removal proceedings; and $15 million for direct legal
representation to contract with lawyers to represent approximately
10,000 children in currently in immigration proceedings. DOJ's Office
of Immigration Litigation within the Civil Division is requesting $1.1
million to support the expected workload increase in the Civil
Division's Office of Immigration Litigation.
In addition, $7 million of the Department of State request would
support the wide range of DOJ programs in the region, including vetted
units, Regional Legal Advisors, and Senior Law Enforcement Advisors.
This funding will allow DOJ to assist Central American countries in
combating transnational crime and the threat posed by criminal gangs.
The aim is to address the issues that have been a factor in forcing
many migrants to flee Central America for the United States.
Specifically, the State funding for DOJ would provide legal and law
enforcement advisors for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras and allow
the Department to initiate law enforcement and prosecution training
programs in each of the three countries to build capacities to
effectively handle ongoing complex investigations, emphasizing the
investigation of human smuggling organizations; improve communication
between law enforcement and prosecutors regarding enforcement actions
on the border, particularly in cases involving human smugglers; and
help create teams of human trafficking prosecutors and organized crime
prosecutors who could respond when needed on short notice.
conclusion
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Shelby, and distinguished
committee members, despite the caseload challenges that it faces, EOIR
continues to make great strides. Our adjudicators and staff are
dedicated professionals who work every day to ensure efficient and fair
immigration court proceedings, both at the trial and appellate levels.
EOIR faces the demands of a large and increasing caseload, but, with
Congress's continued support, we are confident that EOIR will
effectively meet that challenge.
Thank you for your interest and for the opportunity to speak with
you today. I am pleased to answer any questions you might have.
Chairwoman Mikulski. I want to thank the witnesses for
their testimony, and now we are going to go to questions.
You can see the enormous interest of the committee, that we
have 24 of our 30 Senators who are members of this committee
who are participating.
It will be led off by myself and Senator Shelby, followed
by Senators Tester and Alexander, Udall and Moran, Murray and
Collins, Merkley and Johanns. That is the first hour. I can go
to the second hour, but we are going to move right along here.
I would like to go to the written testimony of Secretary
Johnson, and I really ask my colleagues on the committee to
turn to page 2, the second paragraph. What this says is,
without the supplemental funding in August, and then, Mr.
Secretary, you elaborate on what will happen if we do not pass
the supplemental. So I would ask my colleagues to look at it,
but I am going to go to you, Secretary Burwell.
Of the $3.7 billion, $1.8 billion is at HHS. Now, if we
don't pass the supplemental by August, what will happen? You
gave a compelling narrative about the situation of the
children, but what is it that you need $1.8 billion to buy?
And that is what America's middle class is asking. We are
worried about these children, but back home, they are worried
about their children.
Could you tell us why this is urgent, why you need the $1.8
billion, and what happens if we don't do this supplemental?
HHS UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN FUNDING
Secretary Burwell. The money for HHS is purely for the care
of the children, and we generally refer to that as beds, and 84
percent of that we say is for beds for the children, and 14
percent for other services, and 2 percent just in terms of
administrative costs over time.
But with regard to when we say a bed, what we mean is
actually the full care for the child. And I assume that we are
going to talk about that throughout the hearing today, in terms
of whether that is the fact that all of those children receive
a wellness exam. And that is important to the public health of
our Nation. It is important to the public health of those
children.
Each of those children also receives mental health
interviews. As we have talked about, these children have been
in, some of them, very tragic situations, and we need to make
sure that as we place those children, we consider those types
of things. The child is in our care.
In addition, we are not putting an additional burden on the
communities when the child is in our care. When the child is in
our care, we actually do many of the health examinations as
part of our system where the child is.
In addition, we are educating and providing some
educational components for those children so they are not in
the system.
And so the cost for us in terms of the overarching cost is
really about the care.
The 14 percent are other services. Those are legal services
and certain health services that go beyond what we provide. So
if a child actually has a situation that requires medical
attention that is beyond basic child welfare that the
physicians and other medical attendants can take care of and
the child must go to the hospital, we pay for that care, the
Federal Government. And part of HHS's responsibility pays for
that care.
In addition are the costs that we are talking about when we
say the legal costs. The type of assistance that we pay is for
the children when they come in to receive materials, and
sometimes those are done by video and sometimes those are done
in person.
And they receive two types of information. One is the
children come to understand and know their rights and
protections that they have as part of this process. The second
thing is the children are actually taught, and it is explained
what the immigration proceedings that they will face will be.
For some of the children, we do additional supplemental
group education sessions where they can ask questions, and
overtime for certain children that have special needs.
That is what the money is for.
Chairwoman Mikulski. So what happens is, while Ambassador
Shannon and the State Department are supposed to be encouraging
people not to come, and I think the fact is there is not enough
money going after the gangs, they meet the Border Patrol, and
then they come to you while their legal status is being
determined.
Now then this goes to this: So if we don't pass this bill
before this August recess, what happens?
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS
Secretary Burwell. So for us, there are two things that I
think are important in terms of the time sensitivity. If we
continue on the current trajectory that we saw in May-June,
what happened in May and June is the number of children that
came through DHS exceeded the number of beds that we had
available at HHS. And what that means is that those children,
whenever that number exceeds, those children are at the border.
And those children are in detention and holding pens until we
can move them.
And so the ability of HHS, so if we stay on the current
trajectory--and we are actually doing pilots to try to speed
our process. We are doing everything we can. There are three
variables: the number of kids, the number of beds, speed with
which HHS can move the children. We are working on that speed
as much as we can, but we need to do this in a safe and secure
way.
And what it is about is in August, if we continue on the
May-June trajectory, the ability for HHS to bring on beds so
that we no longer have more coming in than I can process at HHS
and our teams can on a daily basis, they will be backed up at
the border.
The other thing just for economic perspective----
EFFECTS ON BORDER WITHOUT SUPPLEMENTAL
Chairwoman Mikulski. And then what happens to you at the
border?
Secretary Johnson. Senator, because of the recent spike in
migration, we have had to surge within ICE transportation costs
and the cost of building increased detention capability, most
notably for the family units.
To be honest, ICE had very, very few beds for family unit
detention capability, and we have had to build more to deal
with this, to send people back quicker.
The Border Patrol has been working overtime, so we have
incurred those overtime costs as well as simply the cost of
caring for all the children at the border.
And so as I said earlier, at the current burn rate, ICE is
going to run out of money in mid-August, and we project that
CBP is going to run out of money in mid-September. If there is
no supplemental, we are going to have to go to some very
dramatic, harsh form of reprogramming, which I am sure the
committee is familiar with, away from some vital homeland
security programs that I am sure that members of this committee
care a lot about, or risk Antideficiency Act violations, which
is intolerable to me. So that is the situation we face.
Chairwoman Mikulski. So with my time expired, the fact is
that the failure to act does not save money for the taxpayer.
What it essentially does is back up the ability of these
children to be in a safe and secure surrounding. They will be
primarily at the border with Border Patrol agents who are law
enforcement, dedicated law enforcement people, in situations
that are in facilities that were never meant to house children.
So they have overcrowding, poor sanitation, a variety of things
there.
So that would be a big chokepoint, and you have to start
reprogramming money from other homeland security. Is that
correct?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Well, again, please go to page 2 of
the testimony of Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
I am going to turn to Senator Shelby, but before I do, I
just want to say one thing. I have seen now in action the
people caring for the children at Lackland, the faith-based
organization under contract. I have seen what your Border
Patrol people are doing. I get a sense of this. I just really
want to thank all of the men and women who work for our
government and those fantastic faith-based organizations along
the border and others reaching out to you for the way they are
really trying to meet this in a way that is humane, legal. But
ultimately we need to prevent the way these children are being
continually exploited by the traffickers.
Senator Shelby.
TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Secretary Johnson, is the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008, which you are very
familiar with--I know it was a well-meaning piece of
legislation, because we are against human trafficking for
adults, children, everything like that--but is that part of the
problem in detaining and processing these children now?
We have heard reports that we probably need to change that
law in some way, amend that law, as we talk about more money.
Do you want to address that?
Secretary Johnson. TVPRA, which became law in 2008,
requires that when we identify a child as an unaccompanied
child, I am required to give that child over to the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS), and HHS acts in the best
interest of the child.
We are talking about unaccompanied children who don't have
with them an adult to make decisions on their behalf. So I
believe that the intentions behind the law, the spirit of the
law, reflect very worthwhile principles and reflect our
American values, frankly.
I do believe that--and this is not part of this particular
request. I do believe that some type of added discretion on my
part would be helpful to address this particular situation.
And so right now, what we have in mind is treating
unaccompanied migrants from the three Central American
countries, which are what we call noncontiguous countries, as
being from contiguous countries.
Right now, we have the discretion to offer unaccompanied
children from a contiguous country--i.e., Mexico--the ability
to accept a voluntary return. And a lot of them actually do
accept voluntary return.
And so we want the flexibility in this current situation to
have that discretion to offer someone from a Central American
country.
Senator Shelby. So if we amended the law to give you that
discretion, you think that would help you to some degree?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Thank you.
Director Osuna, the administration announced on Wednesday
that in immigration proceedings, unaccompanied alien children
will now be given priority over adults. We have seen no
explanation of how resources will be allocated to achieve this
end. Just bear with me a minute.
At the moment, it is my understanding--correct me if I am
wrong--the docket for detained persons takes priority over
other cases, but it is the docket for nondetained persons--
children, or whatever--where the unaccompanied alien children
(UAC) children are placed.
If you don't shift resources to where the problem is, how
do you prioritize these cases? And I guess following up on
this, how many children are being detained as opposed to
nondetained status? Give us an idea there.
Mr. Osuna. Sure, Senator. To answer your question about how
to address this without more resources, we don't.
The point of the setting of the new priorities that now
include unaccompanied children is to be able then to shift
immigration judge and immigration court resources away from the
nondetained dockets, which are a big portion of the dockets, to
the unaccompanied children.
Now the unaccompanied children, for the most part, are not
detained. The vast majority of them are actually released by
HHS and put in the care of a custodian, often a family member.
Senator Shelby. Is it most of the time a family member?
Mr. Osuna. That is correct.
PLACEMENT WITH SPONSORS
Secretary Burwell. Yes, about 55 percent are actually
parents and getting us up to another 30 percent will be other
family members, such as relatives, sisters, brothers, aunts,
uncles.
Senator Shelby. For people who are nondetained--in other
words, they come in, we process them, we examine them and all
this, and they are put out with their family or to a church or
somebody who will take them that is responsible, what is the
lag time to--say you did it today--until there is an
adjudicated hearing on whether they will be allowed to stay or
go home?
Mr. Osuna. Are you talking just about for unaccompanied
children?
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Mr. Osuna. Okay.
Senator Shelby. Undetained children, and then detained.
Mr. Osuna. Unaccompanied children for the most part are not
detained, and so--I think what you are asking is the lag time
between the time that it comes to the court system and the time
that there is a hearing. That varies significantly from court
to court.
In some courts, it can take a few weeks. In some courts, it
can take a long time, sometimes over a year.
The point of setting these new priorities is to make sure
that those cases are now heard much more promptly than they
have been. They will go to the front of the line for
adjudication.
Senator Shelby. As we speak, what percentage of children
that meet the adjudication process are sent home, and what
percentage stay in the United States, currently?
Mr. Osuna. I am not familiar with the numbers as to how
many children are actually sent home. That is a DHS function.
I can tell you that our immigration judges, their
responsibility is to issue removal orders or to grant relief
from removal, in some cases.
DEPORTATIONS, NUMBER OF
But the actual numbers of how many are actually sent home,
I would defer to Secretary Johnson.
Senator Shelby. Secretary Johnson, do most of the children
after adjudication stay in this country?
Secretary Johnson. Up until the recent situation, the
average pace at which unaccompanied children were deported was
something like 1,800 year.
Senator Shelby. And how many stayed? Thousands?
Secretary Johnson. Eventually, if there is a final order of
deportation, and they have gone through the process, they
should be returned to their home countries.
Senator Shelby. Should be.
Secretary Johnson. We have done that at a rate of about
1,800 per year. And part of this request is so that we can
accelerate that process, so that more are returned, given the
current situation.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Tester.
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION FUNDING
Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you all
for being here.
I will start with you, Jeh Johnson. $433 million is slated
to go to Customs and Border Patrol, $364 million for overtime
and new border agents.
Where is the other $70 million going?
Secretary Johnson. Good question.
Senator Tester. You can get back to me on that. That is
fine.
Secretary Johnson. I am happy to do that.
BORDER PATROL AGENTS
Senator Tester. Are these agents going to be permanent, the
agents you are hiring with the additional $364 million?
Secretary Johnson. It is, I believe, for overtime and
related costs. In terms of actual numbers of hired personnel, I
would have to get back to you on that number.
Senator Tester. Okay, because if in fact we are able to get
this situation solved, we need to visit about whether those
agents need to be permanent or not.
Secretary Johnson. Just so it is clear, a lot of that cost
is embedded in simply caring for the kids, the Border Patrol
caring for the kids.
Senator Tester. Okay. I got you. But that requires bodies.
And if it requires permanent bodies to care for the kids, are
they going to be permanent?
ADMINISTRATIVELY UNCONTROLLABLE OVERTIME BILL
Inside baseball: administratively uncontrollable overtime
(AUO).
Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. If that bill were to pass, would that help
this money go further?
Secretary Johnson. If the AUO bill that I know you have
sponsored, and there is a companion version in the House, were
to pass, long term, we believe that overtime costs would go
down. You would have a more stable environment. I believe it
would contribute to this, yes.
Senator Tester. It would contribute to make this money go
further.
Secretary Johnson. Yes, I believe that.
Senator Tester. I might be working with you on this, Madam
Chairman, later.
Mr. Osuna, how many courts exist right now on the southern
border?
Mr. Osuna. Along the southern border, we have six, I think
is what I had in the testimony, three nondetained and three
detained.
Senator Tester. You have six courts right now. How many
additional courts will this supplemental be able to give you?
Mr. Osuna. The supplemental will allow us to hire
additional immigration judges. Now those immigration judges,
because the situation is going to result in caseloads rising
throughout the country, will be sent to various courts, some
along the border, but many in courts far from the border.
Senator Tester. Here's where I am getting to: How many
additional kids will this allow you to process?
Mr. Osuna. I don't have an answer for that, Senator, and
this is why, because we expect that, certainly, a large number,
perhaps the vast majority of individuals that DHS has
apprehended and Justice will be placing will end up in our
courts. Until we actually start seeing those cases, we don't
have a good handle on the actual number of minors that will be
coming through our courts. We know it will be substantial.
IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS CASELOAD
Senator Tester. Look, I want to help you with this. But how
can you come to us with the budget request if you don't know
how many courts, or how it is going to speed up this process? I
think every one of you talked about speeding up the process to
make sure the kids who appropriately need to get back to their
country do.
So how can you give us a budget request if you don't know
how it is going to speed the process up? I want to be helpful.
I want to vote for this.
Secretary Johnson. Senator, may I?
Senator Tester. Sure.
Secretary Johnson. The assumption underlying the request
from DOJ is that we will be able to add an additional caseload
of 55,000 to 75,000 cases per year, overall.
Senator Tester. Okay. And right now, they are handling how
many a year?
Secretary Johnson. Right now, the pending caseload is
275,000.
Senator Tester. 275,000. Okay. Significant.
How many kids are coming over the border every day?
Secretary Johnson. These days, the total apprehension of
the kids unaccompanied is about 250. It was higher. It is down
to somewhere to between 200 to 250 per day.
Senator Tester. Okay, so we will be able to make
significant inroads into these kids, as far as moving them
through the process, if in fact this money gets to the
Department of Justice, correct?
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Senator Tester. On the TV programs, I hear Senators and
House Members talk about how when these kids are processed,
they never end up back in court. Is that true? And does this
money help that not occur?
Mr. Osuna. Let me just correct the number. There are
375,000 cases pending in our courts right now, Senator.
There has been a lot of talk about the in absentia rate.
The numbers that have been thrown about are actually not
accurate. There are a significant number of unaccompanied
juveniles, juveniles that don't end up in immigration court.
The current rate is 46 percent in absentia rate.
However, I should note that there are significant
consequences for somebody who gets notice for a hearing before
an immigration judge and doesn't show up. That immigration
judge then has to issue an order of removal, an in absentia
order of removal that is enforceable, whether that is an adult
or a child.
Senator Tester. Will any of these dollars help with the in
absentia rate?
Mr. Osuna. There are some dollars going to the LOPC
program, the Legal Orientation Program for Custodians. That is
a program that we have that has been very successful in cutting
the in absentia rate by about 40 percent.
Senator Tester. Okay, I want to thank you all for your
testimony.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Mikulski. You are exactly right, Senator Tester.
And I think we have all just said that.
How do they know what to ask for unless they can honestly
say how many cases are coming? But if you are not talking to
DHS--well, let's go to Senator Alexander. He has been waiting.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And I thank the witnesses for coming.
I think we agree that this is an extraordinary problem and
an extraordinary amount of money. But with all respect, it is
an incomplete plan for dealing with the problem.
And it is not a new problem. We have known about this for a
couple years, all of us have known about it.
But in our system of government, it is the President's job
to lay out a specific plan for what we should do about it. It
is our job, then, to say, no, we don't like that, we are going
to change this, and respond to that.
This is not a complete plan, to me. What are missing are
three things. Number one, first, we need to secure the 320
miles of border in the Rio Grande Valley, where a majority at
least, maybe most of the children, are coming. This is an
extraordinary, you say unprecedented, surge of illegal
immigrants, unaccompanied children. We need an extraordinary
response.
The quickest way to deal with it and to send a message back
to these three countries is that those children are coming
home.
Second, we need to make it as clear as we can as rapidly as
we can that what will happen to these children if they come to
our country is that they will be treated with respect and
humanely, and sent home, taken home, as soon as we responsibly
and safely can do it.
And number three, we need to know from the President what
changes he wants to make in the 2008 law that apparently is the
source of a good deal of the problem.
He said last Monday that he had some changes he wanted to
make. We need to know what those are, if we are being asked to
spend this kind of money.
Let me go through those three things, real quickly.
Number one, to secure the border. If we want an
extraordinary response to an extraordinary problem, why don't
we consider using the National Guard? President Obama has done
that once. President Bush did it in 2006. He was reluctant to
do it. I was one of four former governors who was in the Senate
who urged him to do it. We had been Commanders in Chief of our
local Guards. He did it.
And in both cases, it had the desired effect, and the
Government Accountability Office said it worked. If the
President were to use the National Guard for this 300-plus
miles of border, that would send a clear signal in those
countries to those parents or those smugglers or whoever is
responsible for this, that the children are coming home, and
that the border is closed to them.
That would be the first thing. That would be one thing we
could do to make the extraordinary response meet the
extraordinary problem.
The second would be to make it clear that the children are
coming home safely but as quickly as we possibly can.
Then the third thing to do would be this law in 2008. None
of us are for human trafficking, but the amendments in 2008
seem to have created an unintended consequence that contributed
in a dramatic way to the problem. And the President said that
he wanted to make changes in the law, but now we haven't heard
exactly what those changes are.
We have heard from Mr. Johnson that one of those changes
might be to give him more discretion, so that a child from one
of those three countries could voluntarily be sent home, which
apparently they can't today.
NATIONAL GUARD USE
So let me start with this question. Secretary Johnson, if
in the past President Bush and President Obama used the
National Guard in a specific instance and used it effectively,
why wouldn't that be a good tool, both to get the job done on
that border and to send a clear message to those countries and
the people of those countries that those children, if they come
here, will be sent home as quickly and safely as we possibly
can?
Secretary Johnson. Senator Alexander, I know from my days
as General Counsel of the Defense Department, any time you
deploy an armed force, you should do so with a clear plan and a
clear objective and clear rules of engagement.
Unlike the situation we faced in 2006, 2007, this migration
is all surging into one very specific area of the Rio Grande
Valley. We know exactly where they are going. And unlike the
previous rise in migration we faced in 2006, 2007, this
population, for the most part, wants to be apprehended. They
are not seeking to evade law enforcement or the National Guard.
So simply building an added presence on the Southwest
border on the Rio Grande itself will not necessarily stem this
tide.
Senator Alexander. By that logic, we should just open the
border.
Secretary Johnson. No, not at all, Senator. What I do
believe we should do is consider all lawful options, all lawful
and humanitarian options.
I have continually asked my staff, for example, I want to
hear every conceivable option.
So as this thing evolves, is the National Guard a
possibility? The National Guard in Title 32 status is hugely
expensive for the Department of Defense. We have surged a lot
of resources already. But I want to consider all lawful
options.
I would not take some use of the National Guard off the
table for consideration as this situation evolves.
But, Senator, I do agree with you that we need to turn this
population around, and we are taking a number of steps to do
that. We have dramatically reduced the repatriation removal
time for the adults who are part of this population. We are
building detention capability for the family units who are part
of this population. And we are turning that around.
I am going to New Mexico tomorrow to make a point of that,
so that people see that they are coming back.
And with regard to the unaccompanied children, you have
heard from the Department of Justice that that process can take
as long as over a year. We need to dramatically reduce that
because we have to show that if you do not qualify for some
form of humanitarian relief under our laws, you must be sent
home.
Senator Alexander. Madam Chairman, my time is up, but I
hope somewhere in the discussion, Mr. Johnson, one of the
witnesses will tell us exactly what the President wants us to
do about changing the 2008 law, so the children can be sent
home more quickly and as safely as possible.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Mikulski. About the National Guard, we have
heard this also in other quarters. However, I would just bring
out that the State Department--and this goes to where do you
need to be muscular, and the deterrents--I believe it has to
come more out of the State Department. And the fact that they
only asked for $100 million to go after the traffickers and we
also need Secretary Johnson using the authorities of the
Department of Homeland Security working with our FBI to be
going after the cartels, the drug smugglers, and so on, that
are actually doing massive ad campaigns to recruit them.
So having guys with guns at the border, I am not so sure to
do, or going right to these host countries and having the
deterrents----
Senator Alexander. Well, in one sentence, Madam Chairman,
what the Guard did under President Bush was not substitute for
the Guards at the border. It took over some of the
responsibilities and permitted the Customs people and other
people to spend their time doing the things they were trained
to do.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Well, what I do want to say, Senator
Alexander, a lot of us feel there has to be real deterrence and
going after the really bad, despicable guys.
So Senator Udall and then Senators Moran, Murray, and
Collins.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. Thank you very much,
Madam Chair. I very much appreciate the testimony of all of the
witnesses.
Secretary Johnson, thank you for your visiting Artesia. As
you noted in your testimony, Artesia is the first facility you
have stood up independent for women with children.
DETENTION CENTER LOCATIONS: CONSULT WITH STATE, LOCAL OFFICIALS
When you visit it, I would like you to think in terms of
what are going to be the additional burdens on this small
community. You will see a facility that is running a law
enforcement facility on the same campus. It is a very small
facility. They are now expecting and predicting 670 women and
children in a very short period of time.
I included in DHS appropriations markup last week added
language directing DHS to consult transparently with State and
local governments and avoid imposing costs on local communities
for these types of temporary facilities.
My first question is, prior to DHS making a decision to use
FLETC, this training center, for family detention, did you
consult with State and local officials?
Secretary Johnson. I believe we did. That is a standing
instruction of mine to my staff. Before we make a decision to
go someplace for increased detention for processing, we should
consult with the State and local government.
Senator Udall. And is there a process to have an ongoing
briefing with State and local officials in place for things
that occur, changes in mission, and what happens at the
facility?
Secretary Johnson. Yes. I have personally spoken, for
example, to the Mayor of McAllen, Texas, about the situation in
the surrounding communities and McAllen. I have met with the
Governor of Arizona when I went to Nogales. And I suspect that
I will be meeting with officials in New Mexico tomorrow when I
go there.
If it is not on my agenda, I will build it into my agenda.
Senator Udall. Good. I am sure that the Mayor of Artesia
would very much like to meet with you and talk with you.
His description was that he heard on one day that there was
a rumor, and 2 days later, the facility was open. He had very
little information, concrete information he could tell his
constituents in the community.
Now the communities with detention centers like Artesia are
very concerned about incurring costs and strains on their
infrastructure and other resources. In Artesia, for example,
the mayor told my office that increased bus and vehicle traffic
is creating traffic problems near the entrance of this law
enforcement training center. But the city does not have the
funds to install the necessary traffic signal. His police have
had to respond to incidents at the detention center.
I don't believe local communities should bear the costs of
the crisis at our border. Is there any funding in the
supplemental request to help offset any cost the new detention
centers impose on State and local governments?
Secretary Johnson. Not directly. I don't believe that there
is.
But I do agree that we should endeavor to minimize the
burden on the surrounding communities and that we should be
mindful of the burden that is being imposed in places like
Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern California. And so I want
to work with local mayors and sheriffs, to better enable us to
do that.
FINANCIAL IMPACT ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Secretary Burwell. And I would just add with regard to the
question in regard to funds in the supplemental to prevent or
help with burden in local communities, as Mr. Shelby reflected,
the cost is large. And the cost is large because we, the
Federal Government, when the children are with HHS, take on the
majority, the vast majority of anything that the children need,
so that we are not burdening the community when we are there.
So in that sense, I understand the number is very large.
Part of the reason it is large is because we take care of the
children from beginning to end.
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER: DETENTION CENTER FUNDING
Senator Udall. But, Secretary Burwell, I think you used in
your testimony, a statement, ``No additional burdens on a
community.''
And that is what I am asking for, Secretary Johnson,
because I believe that if you don't have it in this
supplemental, it is not going to happen.
So I think you are in a position of really having an
incomplete plan before us because you are going to rush to set
up these facilities. You are not going to anticipate the needs,
and there is going to be a real problem there.
What is the cost of operating the family detention center
at FLETC for a year? And, in the absence of a supplemental,
where is that funding going to come from?
Secretary Johnson. The cost of running the detention
facility we have set up in Artesia, I don't have offhand. I can
get you that. I would be glad to do so.
[The information follows:]
ICE estimates costs of $20.9 million in fiscal year 2014 which
includes converting the facility as well as operations through
September 30, 2014. In fiscal year 2015, ICE estimates costs of $54
million for full year operations. In the absence of a supplemental, DHS
requested a reprogramming on August 1, 2014, which has been approved by
both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Senator Udall. That would be great.
Secretary Johnson. Not doing anything, frankly, is not an
option, because it would require us to simply run out of money,
as I mentioned, in mid-August and make some dramatic
reprogramming steps.
Senator Udall. No. I understand that. You said that
already.
But where is the funding coming from right now to set up
the facility that will house 607 women and children?
Secretary Johnson. It is coming from our existing ICE
budget.
Senator Udall. Existing ICE budget. So it is being taken
away from what?
Secretary Johnson. It is being taken from other aspects of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
I am sorry I went over a little over, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Collins.
DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS
Senator Collins. Secretary Johnson, I think all of us can
agree that we are facing a humanitarian crisis of the first
magnitude. More money may well be needed to deal with the
consequences of this crisis, but it does not address the causes
of the problem, and that is what is troubling to me.
It is contrary to the evidence to think that some 57,000
children would undertake an extremely dangerous journey to
reach our borders if their parents did not think that they
would be allowed to stay here once they arrived.
The administration has pointed to changes made in our
immigration laws in 2008 as a partial explanation for the surge
in the number of unaccompanied children. And I think many of us
would agree that the law does, indeed, need to be revised. But
it doesn't explain the surge.
If you look at the chart that I have distributed, the surge
in unaccompanied children did not begin following the passage
of the 2008 law. In fact, the numbers actually declined between
the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011. The wave of children
arriving here clearly began in 2012. So we need to look at what
happened that year.
Well, on June 15, 2012, President Obama took unilateral
action and announced his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA) policy. Now, let me make clear that I think the
President's action was motivated by compassion. But it seems
clear to me that it sent the wrong message to those parents in
Central America. And it demonstrates what happens when the
President unilaterally decides to issue an Executive order
affecting immigration without securing the border.
The number of children more than doubled between fiscal
year 2011 and fiscal year 2013. Yet until just recently, the
President did not even speak out to warn their parents and to
tell them that the journey would be horrendously dangerous for
their children, and that they would be sent home.
We know that many of these children have been abused or
harmed on their way here. And when the wave became evident 2
years ago, the President took no action at that time to try to
stem the tide.
We know that it will take a long time before all of these
children have hearings that could lead to their being sent
home, if they show up at all for the adjudications.
So my question is, what specifically is the administration
doing to propose changes in the laws or regulations right now,
so that these children can be safely and immediately put on
planes and returned to their parents?
And wouldn't such an action send the strongest possible
message to the people of Central America that they should not
allow their children to go with these smugglers and come here?
Secretary Johnson. Senator, first of all, I know this from
personal conversations with these kids--I have spoken with
dozens of these kids, and I know from talking with Border
Patrol officers who have spoken with these kids--the first
thing they say when you ask them why did they come here, it has
to do with the conditions in the three Central American
countries.
``My mother told me that the gang was going to kill me'' or
``My brother was killed.'' It is also initially that.
Second, clearly, they know that if they come to the United
States, our laws require certain things, that we transfer them
to the Department of Health and Human Services. But it is also
the case that the criminal smuggling organizations are creating
considerable misinformation about the state of our laws, and so
forth. In order to induce the family members to pay $3,000,
$5,000, whatever it is, they tell them things like you will get
a free pass, and it will expire at the end of June or the end
of May.
The fact is, and I have been saying this publicly now for
weeks, and it is being repeated in Central America in the
Spanish press, that the deferred action program that was
established 2 years ago is for children who have been in this
country for 7 years, since June 2007. So it is simply wrong to
say that if you come here today, tomorrow, or yesterday, you
are going to benefit from DACA. So we continue to say that. We
continue to repeat that.
And they are saying that and repeating that in the Central
American countries. I said that yesterday in a press
conference, I believe.
But we are dealing with criminal smuggling organizations
that, in order to induce payments of money, will put out
considerable disinformation about this.
Now, you have asked about changes in law. I believe, and I
agree that people in Central America need to see illegal
migrants coming back--the children, the children accompanied by
their parents, and the unaccompanied adults. And we are doing
that. We are already dramatically reducing the time it takes
for that to happen, and so we are asking for the additional
resources to my department, to the Department of Justice, to
turn these people around quicker, including the children.
So we are asking for that. And in terms of the change in
law, as I said a moment ago, and this will be in a separate
submission. We are asking for the ability to treat
unaccompanied kids from Central American countries in the same
way we would someone from a contiguous country, so that we have
the ability to offer them voluntary return, which the kids from
Mexico do accept.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Well, first of all, thank you, Senator
Mikulski, for holding this hearing today. I think everybody in
this room, Republicans and Democrats, are at least in agreement
that what we are seeing along the Nation's Southwest border is
simply unacceptable.
As some have mentioned, the numbers of young people and
children crossing our borders, often by themselves and almost
always with nothing beyond the clothes on their backs, is
really staggering. And as everyone here knows, we are not just
talking about a few individual cases. We are talking about tens
of thousands of young, often unaccompanied minors entering the
United States.
And I want to be very clear about the circumstances that
these children are facing, the circumstances that are causing
them to cross a continent by foot and seek safety here in the
United States. These are not people coming here to take jobs or
get some kind of free ride. These are children, many of them 7
or 8 years old. They are fleeing some terrible violence in
their home countries.
They are actually being sent here, often by desperate
mothers and fathers who have had to look them in the eyes and
literally tell them to run for their lives.
And I just have to say, as a mother and grandmother, I just
can't imagine what that would feel like if you were a parent
saying that to your child.
So I think we have to be clear about what this is. This is
a refugee crisis that we are seeing along our southern border.
And as Americans, we all kind of think about refugee crises
as situations that happen far away to somebody else. But I
think we need to open our eyes, that this is something
happening in our country and it is happening right now.
This doesn't only affect the Americans who live on our
southern border. This affects every single American community.
We have heard in my home State over the last few weeks in
Washington that we are seeing some headlines and press reports
that some of these children may be sent to facilities at Joint
Base Lewis-McChord. It is just a few miles from downtown
Seattle.
So all of us, regardless of what State we are in, need to
take this situation very seriously.
Now, I am particularly concerned about the condition and
care of the young women and girls who are being detained along
our border. So many of them, as we know, face unbelievable
hardship in their home countries, and I am hearing that many of
them have endured physical abuse, sexual abuse, violence, human
trafficking, and a lot of them have fled in hopes of avoiding
those kinds of fates.
So it is important that we talk about the resources the
administration needs to have to fight organized crime on the
border. Very important. But I am also focused myself on giving
the administration the resources they need to protect these
children and to treat them humanely while they are being
detained.
We were talking about things like food and water and
diapers. But it also means we have to be prepared to protect
these children and young people, particularly the young women
and girls, from having to once again face that same kind of
violence and abuse and human trafficking that they are actually
running away from in their home countries.
Some of these kids will be sent back to their home
countries, but we can't ignore the legitimate cries for help
from refugee children. We often ask our friends around the
world to support refugees fleeing violence, and it is our turn
in this country now, and I think we have to accept that as part
of this.
We focused on fighting organized crime on our border,
reducing illegal immigration, but we cannot lose sight of our
responsibility to provide these children with the most basic
legal information and guidance. And we have to make sure that
they have valid claims for asylum, and that someone is actually
there to help them pursue that.
More than a year ago now, we all know Republicans and
Democrats here in the Senate voted to pass comprehensive
immigration reform. I know that is not the focus of this
hearing. But we have seen too many tragedies at our border and
our communities, and it is a tragedy that the House has not
taken this up, because that is one of the ways that we can fix
this long-term, comprehensive strategy.
And I thank my colleagues who have worked on that.
DETENTION VERSUS ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
But my question for the panel today is, why is the
administration pursuing costly detention of families instead of
relying on more cost-efficient and effective alternatives to
detention?
Secretary Johnson. Senator, I believe that in order to deal
with the current situation, and I agree with the comments of
many of the Senators here, we have to return people and we have
to show others in Central America that we are returning people.
That is how to deal with the existing situation.
In order to do that and do that quickly, we are building
detention capability for adults who bring their children here.
We did not have much of that type of detention capability until
very recently. And so we are turning the adults around faster,
and we need to turn the adults with children around faster in
order to send people home.
Senator Murray. So it is a message, as well as anything
else.
Is the administration making sure that each of the children
who are detained can pursue asylum and have legal
representation from a qualified attorney, receiving fair
hearings? Are we assured of that as well?
Secretary Johnson. It is part of our standard procedure to
make sure that people are informed of their rights in this type
of situation.
LEGAL SERVICES
Secretary Burwell. And with regard to when the children
come to HHS, a number of things happen. First, the children are
informed of their rights. They are informed of the immigration
proceedings.
For those children who are identified--and usually they are
identified at DHS, if they have a different potential status
than an unaccompanied child. But that is checked again. And if
that happens in terms of the issue of asylum for the child,
then appropriate steps are taken to connect that child with
someone who can help them with the asylum process.
In addition, with the children, we continue to try and in
some cases--under 2,000 but over 1,000 cases--we actually
connect them sometimes with pro bono and other legal services
when there are extreme circumstances.
As you pointed out, there are children who have extreme
circumstances with regard to things that have happened to them
along the way, and they need special types of help and support.
Senator Murray. I don't want to lose sight of that in all
of this. So I appreciate that.
HEALTH AND LEGAL SERVICES
Secretary Burwell. Yes, and that is a part, as I mentioned,
when we think about the numbers, 14 percent of the money that
HHS has asked for is for health and legal services that are
beyond the basic service that we provide for all children,
because there are some children who have extreme needs, whether
those are legal or health.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Mikulski. I am going to turn to Senator Johanns.
But just a comment to be made. I know that many Senators
have had to leave because of their flights and they had to
leave.
I want to protect the rights of every single Senator, and
if any Senator had to leave, I am going to make sure the record
is open, that they may submit their questions in writing, and
ask the Departments to respond in 2 weeks. It has been a long
hearing, and I just want to make sure that everybody has the
ability to do that.
Senator Johanns.
Senator Johanns. Thank you, Madam Chair. You are
uncompromising in your fairness toward the members, and I
appreciate that.
Let me say to the witnesses, thanks for being here.
This morning, I was driving into work and I was listening
to NPR. You might be shocked by that, but I was listening to
NPR.
And this very well-spoken gentlemen, I wish I would have
gotten his name, came on and talked about his travels through
Central America very recently, his interviews with families he
had talked to. It was very extensive and very informative.
Basically, what he was saying, at the risk of paraphrasing
his comments, is that the coyotes or the smugglers or the
cartel or whatever it is, go to these families and promise
everything. ``We will get your kids to the border. They will be
received by the United States of America, the government. They
will be taken into custody. They will be eventually reunited
with family members. And the chances of ever being deported and
sent back home are slim to none.''
And then they rip the families off. They hit them for
$3,000, $5,000, $7,000, not a small amount of money in that
part of the world. And then all the way up to the border, they
abuse these children, they starve these children, they rape
these children. They take them through hell on Earth, all with
the promise that here the United States Government will take
care of them.
I have listened carefully to your testimony today, and I
believe you are proving their case. No reflection on you, Madam
Secretary. You have to deal with the law that was given to you
in 2008, December 23. I took the opportunity to review that
law.
But here is what is resulting: You tell me, Mr. Secretary,
that 1,800 get deported. Those are pretty darn good odds. The
chances are you are not going to get deported.
Forty-six percent don't show up. Now, I appreciate your
comments about, boy, if you don't show up, you are in really
big trouble with us, because when we catch up with you, you are
going home. Well, we have 12 million people here in the United
States that have those circumstances.
Madam Secretary, I read through the law. I took the time to
look at the 2008 law. Look at what you do. And again, it is no
reflection on the job you are doing. It is what you have to do
under the law that Congress gave to you in December 2008.
You are responsible for their care and custody. You have to
do an immediate age determination. You have to establish
policies and programs as to how you are going to care for these
unaccompanied minors. You have to make sure that when you are
ready for placements, that they are safe and secure placements.
So in order to do that, you have to do, literally,
assessments of the family, the home, the environment, to
determine whether they are going to be safely placed. You have
to make sure that there is access to ongoing information. You
have to do legal orientation presentations. You have to give
information about access to counsel. Child advocates can enter
into this. And it just goes on and on and on.
Now, I don't doubt that this was well-intentioned. I wasn't
here at the time, but it strikes me as the kind of law that
came along and people bought into it. I haven't checked the
vote record on this, but I bet it passed with a bipartisan
amount of support.
But my question is, if the coyotes are promising these
families that these kids are going to get to the United States,
they are going to be received into custody, they are going to
be cared for, isn't your testimony today establishing without a
shadow of a doubt that that is in fact exactly precisely what
you are going to do when those kids are in your custody?
TRAFFICKING
Secretary Burwell. I think that the question of the
overarching plan, which is something that has been raised, is
an overreaching plan, and we are one piece of the plan. We are
the part that when a child actually gets here, how we treat the
child, and I think that is the reflection and a question about
us and our Nation and our values.
I think what we are saying, and what we are asking for in
the supplemental is the support to make the coyotes' promise
not true. And the way we do that is by speeding the time with
which people go back.
So the way we break the promise and the part of coyote lie
that we need to do--you are right, the numbers are not high.
And I think my colleague Secretary Johnson has said that is our
objective. That 1,800 number, I think we all believe is not the
right number to send the signal that it is appropriate to
deter. Because what we want to do is make the coyotes' promise
that they are living off of not correct.
I am not sure that what we want to do as a Nation, when the
child is here and in our care, 20 percent of these children
this year are 11 or under. And so how one treats, how we
believe we should treat--and I agree. I am glad you read the
law and you could hear from our conversations in the back and
forth the requirements in terms of treating the child
appropriately, making sure they are safe, those are the
responsibilities. But I think to get to the root of what you
are appropriately reflecting in terms of these coyotes, the
smugglers, these people who are taking many families down an
inappropriate path is we have to make sure that we are sending
a deterrent signal.
Senator Johanns. I will wrap up, Madam Chair, because I am
completely out of time on a complex issue. But having said
that, I don't see anything in what you are requesting here that
is going to impact the story that they are telling down there
and what is causing these kids to come to United States.
Because they are coming here believing that if they can just
get here in custody, they are not going to go home.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Madam Chair, thank you very much.
Chairwoman Mikulski. We are going to going to turn to
Senator Landrieu and then we will come to Senators Coons and
Leahy.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to begin with the law, which is I think the
appropriate place to begin, and follow up on some of the
questions that have already been asked. Everybody has been
referring to the 2008 law, which I have also reviewed. But I
think we have to go back to the base law, which is the 1980
Refugee Act, which establishes the basic right of refugees to
come to this country. And it was ordered because of the fall of
Vietnam, because of asylum-seekers in the late '70s. Refugees
were in need of protection, resettlement, asylum, refugees from
Vietnam, Jews from the former Soviet Union. There was a
humanitarian crisis of Vietnamese boat people, et cetera. It
was signed and enacted unanimously and signed into law in 1980.
Senator Feinstein, who is here today, will recall because
she introduced several pieces of legislation to build on this,
her legislation was never passed standalone, but it was
incorporated into the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act.
That act separated the refugee status for children away
from adults, unaccompanied children, because of her concerns--
she can speak more eloquently to this than I can--about several
incidents, but one, in particular, that was really gruesome
were Chinese children who were shipped here in a container and
some of them might have died on the way. She can explain other
things about what was in her mind.
So we have to go back a long way when we talk about this
law--it wasn't 2008, it wasn't 2010, it is the asylum law--and
figure out who we want to give asylum to and under what
conditions, et cetera. That is number one.
Number two, I want to help, but I also have strong feelings
about right now, today, a lack of accountability as to what
agency in front of us is ultimately in charge. Each of you has
a part, but I want to support something where there is one
agency in charge with some budgetary authority coordinating
with others. Otherwise, it is going to be a disbursal of funds,
no metrics, no overall accountability.
And I think this is a really important issue to get correct
for many reasons. One, we have to secure borders. Two, we have
an obligation to the taxpayers to spend their money well. And
three, we have lots of children that are depending on us to get
this right, and families.
We already have a plan, and this is for you, Mr. Shannon,
because you have been very, very quiet. Not too many people
have addressed their questions to you, but I have some
questions for the State Department.
I worked for several years with many Members, Republicans
and Democrats, and the Government of the United States has a
plan. It is called the United States Government Action Plan on
Children in Adversity. Are you familiar with this plan?
Ambassador Shannon. I am not familiar with it.
Senator Landrieu. You might want to get a copy of it and
read it. It is very on-point, because it is the State
Department's plan.
I am just going to read the first paragraph: The goal of
the U.S. Government Action Plan on Children in Adversity, which
these children clearly would be in adversity, is to achieve a
world in which all children grow up with protective family care
and free from deprivation, exploitation, and danger. This plan
is grounded in evidence that shows a promising future belongs
to those nations that invest wisely in their children, while
failure to do so undermines social and economic progress. Child
development is a cornerstone for all development and is central
to U.S. and diplomatic efforts. I want to underscore that:
``Diplomatic efforts.'' The plan seeks to integrate
internationally recognized, evidence-based, good practices into
all of its international assistance initiatives with the best
interests of the child.
And I am proud to say that with my help and others,
particularly on both the Republican and Democratic side, we
underscored the importance in this plan of children being in
families, because families are the basic institution of all
governments and societies.
So, Madam Chair, in my time, I just want to point out to
the committee that there are several laws that need to be
reviewed. There is a plan that the State Department already
has, which the gentleman who is in charge and testifying here
is unaware of. They may want to read that.
There are a couple of the things happening in the State
Department that might be well funded to help their part of
this.
And in closing, because my time is short, to the Justice
Department, I want to make mention that, as chair of Homeland
Security, I am fairly clear about some of these numbers. You
have a backlog of 375,000 kids. The average to deal with them
right now is from 3 to 5 years.
So that is what Mr. Tom Homan, who is the head--this is
Homeland Security, Secretary Johnson--Tom Homan testified to
our committee of a backlog of over 300,000, 3 to 5 years to
adjudicate.
So we have to, A, make sure we are talking about the right
amount of money, right performance standards, right
accountability. I am willing to work with you all on it, but I
still have quite a few questions.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Cochran.
JUSTIFICATION FOR EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Johnson, let me direct my question to you.
The number of unaccompanied children crossing the Southwest
border into the United States is expected to increase by 2,000
percent. Yet the administration did not request any increase in
funding for any of the agencies responsible for addressing this
problem, in the fiscal year 2015 budget despite the fact that
the administration was aware of these worsening conditions at
the time.
So given these facts, how do you justify this request as an
unforeseen emergency supplemental requirement?
Secretary Johnson. Senator, I would say this, we have very
definitely over the last 2 years seen a rise in illegal
migration by unaccompanied children. Up to now, the way we have
dealt with that is work with the Government of Mexico on a plan
for their southern border. We have added additional resources,
some with the support of this Congress, to the Southwest
border. We have worked with the Government of Guatemala on a
task force because there we have known about this issue now for
some time.
It really spiked rather dramatically beginning in January
and then most notably in the period of about March-April. That
is when it really spiked. I saw it for myself, when I went to
McAllen, Texas, in May.
But it is the case that it has been rising, and we have
attempted to deal with it in a variety of ways that have been
incorporated in prior submissions.
Senator Cochran. What is the outlook in terms of improving
either the capacity to deal with the increase in numbers, or in
working with local governments to try to establish some
alternative to the U.S. as a safe haven for these migrants?
Secretary Johnson. The assumption in this supplemental
request is that there will be approximately 90,000
unaccompanied children crossing the border in fiscal year 2014
and 145,000 in fiscal year 2015. I believe that we will address
this tide. I also believe that it is crucial that we have
transfer authority in case we are more successful than what is
implicit in the assumption to devote to things like increased
detention capabilities, so that we can effectively turn people
around. That is part of this request.
What is also part of this request is money to support
repatriation and reintegration in Central America, so that we
can return people quicker. You see that reflected in the State
Department submission, and I believe in my own submission from
DHS, sir.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Madam Chair and Vice Chair
Shelby. Thank you for chairing this important hearing and for
your personal engagement in traveling to Texas and to visit
with those who are serving our country and to hear the stories
from individuals, children, and adults who are part of this
extraordinary humanitarian and refugee crisis on our southern
border.
I think the evidence is clear that the children who we are
seeing, and who are being interdicted at our southern border at
record numbers are fleeing dramatically increased levels of
violence in three Central American countries--Guatemala, El
Salvador, and Honduras.
And if this increase in refugees coming to the United
States was caused by some change in policy, we would see a
comparable flood of refugees from other countries throughout
Central America, but we don't. It is just these three
countries. And it is because of conditions in those countries,
as your testimony has suggested.
So it is my hope that a significant share of the investment
of the action that will be taken as a result of this emergency
supplemental will focus on those countries.
As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I was
pleased to see Secretary Kerry and Vice President Biden
personally engage in making visits with the leaders of these
countries, and I would like to hear a little bit more about the
intended increased investment in the three countries of focus.
And as a Judiciary Committee member, I also just want to
comment that I am pleased this requests additional badly needed
resources for immigration judges, for an expansion of the legal
orientation program, for counsel for minors, because while we
know we have a significant backlog, we have significant unmet
detention costs and humanitarian costs, I think we need to act
now to fix our most urgent problems rather than removing the
basic due process protections embedded in the TVPRA, a law that
was adopted unanimously by Congress and signed into law by
President Bush.
So thank you to our four witnesses for being here, and I
look forward to working with you.
First, Ambassador Shannon, if you could, could you just
give us more details about the $300 million State Department
request and what your plans are for in-country processing in
these three countries for a comprehensive approach? What is the
baseline funding requested in the State foreign ops
appropriation, and why is it not greater?
And then secondly, if we can, if both you and Secretary
Johnson would speak to the media campaigns. It is a very modest
amount of money. In my view, perhaps more is required, to
ensure that parents understand that their children are most
likely not going to be granted the opportunity to stay in the
United States. Only those few who are genuine refugees will
have a chance for asylum. A majority will be deported back to
the countries of origin.
Ambassador Shannon.
Ambassador Shannon. Thank you very much, Senator. I
appreciate the questions and I appreciate the opportunity to
respond.
Let me start with the public messaging campaign, because
that has obviously been a focus of the President, Vice
President, Secretary Kerry, Secretary Johnson, Secretary
Burwell, and our embassies in Central America, as we attempt to
deal with the misinformation presented by the human smuggling
networks, but also to start a larger debate about migration in
the region, because, as noted, this is an unprecedented
phenomenon in terms of the composition of the migrants. To have
children leaving in these numbers, we have never seen before.
And as we have dealt with our public messaging, we focused
first on the danger of the journey. Secondly, on, as Secretary
Johnson noted, that there is no pass to get in, that one does
go into deportation proceedings, independent of the outcome of
those proceedings, and that within the supplemental, we are
making a request for money that is designed to accelerate those
proceedings and ensure that there is timely handling of these
cases, especially of children who do not have international
protection needs.
However, that said, it is important to know that our public
messaging campaign is not just our campaign. It is also a
campaign that the Government of Mexico and the Governments of
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have joined.
In fact, the first ladies of those countries have visited
our Southwest border, have met with their citizens that have
come across the border, especially the children, have used
those opportunities to communicate directly back to their
countries and especially back to mothers and fathers in their
countries but also in the migrant communities that exist here
in the United States, to highlight the dangers and to highlight
the misinformation that the smugglers are providing.
We are already spending about $200 million in this public
messaging campaign that Vice President Biden announced during
his trip to Guatemala several weeks ago. And within this
supplemental request, we are asking for $5 million for public
diplomacy.
Part of this is for public service announcements and
additional public engagement. But a big hunk of it is actually
going to be focused on the community of return migrants, so
that they in their own communities can begin to talk about what
happens with them on their journeys.
PUBLIC MESSAGING IN CENTRAL AMERICA
Senator Coons. Ambassador, I am out of time. If you had a
brief response about if we are doing enough in these three
countries to bring stability and security?
Ambassador Shannon. We need to do much more, obviously. I
mean, we have through our Central America and regional security
initiative and through our bilateral assistance addressed some
issues related to violence and economic development and job
creation, but the $300 million will allow us to focus on a few
new areas, but also accelerate work that we are doing. But this
will be a down payment.
Secretary Johnson. Madam Chair, may I add to that, please?
Chairwoman Mikulski. Yes.
Secretary Johnson. Senator, public messaging is critical
here, for the reasons Ambassador Shannon said.
When I was in Guatemala 2 days ago, it was a rather awkward
moment, frankly, standing next to the president of that
country, telling his citizens ``don't come to our country,
because if you do, we will send you back, and it is dangerous
to do this.'' But the public messaging is critical.
Ultimately, I believe that, in addition to the public
messaging, the population in Central America and the parents up
here who are thinking about sending their kids need to see that
we are sending people back.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Hoeven and then Senator Leahy.
BORDER SECURITY: MEXICO ASSISTANCE
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I would like to ask Secretary Johnson and also Mr. Shannon,
is Mexico helping stem this flow and secure the border? If they
are helping, what are they doing? If they are not, why not?
What are we doing to get them to engage to help stop this flow
of illegal aliens from Central America?
Secretary Johnson. Senator, let me take the first crack at
that. This has been the subject of conversations at the highest
level of both governments, President to President, me to my
counterpart, as recently as yesterday when we were in
Guatemala. And I believe that the Mexicans will step up and
assist us in the security of their southern border.
They announced on Monday a plan for added security on their
southern border to deal with the migration and to put in place
a guest worker program for Guatemalans who come into the
southern part of the region. But a component of that will also
be border security.
And I will defer to Ambassador Shannon.
Ambassador Shannon. Well, thank you very much, Senator. As
Secretary Johnson noted, the Mexican President along with the
President of Guatemala announced a Mexican southern border
initiative, which is focused on the border between Mexico and
Guatemala, which all the migrants have to cross. And that is
really the first point at which they can be interdicted in a
meaningful way.
And what the Mexicans have done is effectively create a
three-tiered layer of interception and interdiction, where they
will be looking at documents and border crossing cards as
people move across that border, and attempting to address the
human smuggling networks and routes that move up the coast,
both by bus and by train in an effort to stop these smugglers
and to turn especially the children around.
Last year, Mexico removed from country in expeditious
fashion over 8,000 unaccompanied children. And they do
interdict, not at the rate that we would like to see, largely
because of resources and because of the vast nature of the
terrain they are working across, but they understand that this
is a problem of monumental proportion.
And what they don't want is for these children to be caught
somewhere between our Southwest border and their southern
border, especially to have those children grouped in the states
of Tamaulipas and Michoacan, where they would be subject to
criminal gangs that operate in that part of Mexico.
Mexico also along our frontier has built a considerable
consular network, which has actually facilitated our ability to
remove expeditiously unaccompanied children from Mexico,
because they can confirm their nationality and ensure they have
travel documents and remove them from the country in quick
fashion.
And also, the Mexicans have been working with the Central
Americans to highlight the important nature of this challenge
and the importance of having a regional approach.
So the engagement with Mexico has been positive, and I
think it is going to bear fruit.
Senator Hoeven. When will this plan be implemented? How are
you going to measure it? What access do you have to actually
get some metrics to see if they are going to stop the flow?
Ambassador Shannon. The plan was announced on Monday, and
it is being implemented as we speak.
We are spending $86 million of merit initiative money to
work with Mexican officials in enhancing these border controls,
especially on Customs and also interdiction along rivers
between Guatemala and Mexico. And we are working with the
Guatemalans on their side of the border, helping them establish
an interagency task force that also controls the rivers, the
mountains, and some of the key areas that they are moving
migrants across.
And we are going to judge our metrics in terms of who is
being returned and who is appearing on our Southwest border.
But we will be following this very closely. In fact,
Secretary Johnson and I were just there yesterday.
REMOVAL PROCESS, EXPEDITING
Senator Hoeven. Secretary Johnson, isn't the most effective
deterrent for young people leaving Central America coming to
our country actually having the people in those countries--
Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador--seeing those young people
returned? Isn't that the most effective deterrent versus an
advertising campaign?
And how can you assure us that these funds will be used to
accomplish that, to secure the border and return these young
people to their home country?
Secretary Johnson. I agree that they need to see people
coming back. They need to see that they wasted their money when
they gave the smuggling organizations whatever it is, $3,000,
$4,000, $5,000. And a large part of this supplemental request
goes to expediting and accelerating the removal process, and
building increased detention capability. That is what a lot of
this is about, because I agree, we need to----
Senator Hoeven. Can you do it without repeal of the 2008
law?
Secretary Johnson. I believe we can, yes, sir. I believe
the 2008 law reflects fundamental values and commitments of
this country that we should continue to adhere to. But I also
believe that through increased detention capability, added
resources by my Department and the Department of Justice, we
can and we should turn people around quicker and send them home
quicker.
Senator Hoeven. So you can ensure that you can enforce the
border and return people expeditiously even with the 2008 law
in place?
Secretary Johnson. I believe that what we have requested,
which goes in very large measure to detention and removal
capability, will get at this problem.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. I am glad to hear that, Secretary Johnson. I
agreed with President Bush when he signed the 2008 law. I think
it speaks to our moral values as a country. Just as we don't
tell Jordan, ``Because they are being overwhelmed with refugees
to send them back to Syria to be killed.'' We have to set an
example ourselves, and following our law is a good way to
start.
On the way over, I was stopped by somebody in the press who
said he heard from a Republican Member of the House that we are
not doing enough and we should be changing our immigration
laws. I reminded him that we came together, Republicans and
Democrats, a year ago. And after weeks of working in the
Judiciary Committee on markups into the evening, and then a
long debate on the floor and many amendments, we passed an
immigration bill, with both Republicans and Democrats voting
for it.
The Republican leadership in the House, I don't mean to
sound partisan, but I am tired of the sniping that we don't
have a better immigration law. They won't bring up anything. It
is a lot easier to snipe than actually have to vote. You have
to vote yes, or you have to vote no. You are on record. It is
much easier to complain that it is somebody else's problem.
Well, they get paid the same as I do. They ought to pass a
bill.
You said in your testimony our border is not open to
illegal immigration. I agree with you.
And I don't believe that all these children qualify for
immigration protection. But some do, and our laws, and
international law, protects them.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has
found that more than 50 percent of these children have been
forcibly displaced from their home countries, fleeing gang
violence, rape, domestic violence, and human trafficking.
The distinguished senior Senator from California worked
hard on the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act,
which says that the children arriving from Guatemala and El
Salvador and Honduras, kids who are fleeing extreme violence,
violence that is killing 7-year-old children as the New York
Times reported today, should be interviewed by child welfare
specialists and have an opportunity to tell their story to a
judge.
That is how we identify victims of trafficking and sexual
violence and persecution.
I just want you to know, I am willing to help. Secretary
Johnson, 2 or 3 hours before the Vice President arrived in
Guatemala, where he wanted to announce some money, they were
calling me to see if we could reprogram the money.
We may want to plan a bit further ahead than that. But I
can assure you that I will fight tooth and nail changes in the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.
We have to do the right thing. We will help you.
But when you have 8- or 9-year-old girls who are being
raped by gangs and sent here by their parents to escape that
kind of violence, I am not sure Americans all really feel that
we should immediately send them back.
We routinely ask other countries to support refugees
fleeing violence. Let's uphold our own law and tell us
specifically how can we do that, and then we will look for the
funding. We need a long-range plan.
In the meantime, I hope the other body will pass an
immigration bill.
Any of you want to respond?
Secretary Johnson. I do, Senator.
Senator Leahy. Just asking.
Secretary Johnson. In my 27 seconds, I have a letter
written by a number of Senators, including Senators on this
committee. And there is a sentence in the first paragraph that
I absolutely agree with. ``We strongly believe that in
responding to this humanitarian crisis, we must not set aside
our fundamental commitment as a nation.''
That statement is the bedrock of my public service, whether
I am Secretary of Homeland Security or General Counsel of the
Defense Department.
In dealing with this or responding to a terrorist attack,
we should not jettison the law. We should not bend the law. And
we should not set aside our values. And it is in times like
this, when adherence to our laws and principles, in my view, is
most important.
Senator Leahy. I am very familiar with that letter, as you
know.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you all for being here.
I will be honest with you, I really feel like you are going
to have a lot of problems with the proposal you are giving us,
because it is not balanced. And I think you have heard that
from both sides today in the sense there has been real concern
over the cartels advertising falsely to come up, and if you get
here, you are going to get amnesty. Those kinds of things.
The other thing is in regard to the ability to
administratively deal with the young people, the people, in
general, that are here.
You mentioned, Mr. Osuna, that you had 1,800, 2,000 people
that you sent back last year. How many administrative judges
did you have to do that?
Mr. Osuna. We have 243 immigration judges.
Senator Boozman. How many additional are you asking for?
Mr. Osuna. So the supplemental will add an additional 25
immigration judge teams, which, when added to another
regulatory initiative that we have going, could take us up to
about 40 judges.
Senator Boozman. An additional 40.
Mr. Osuna. From 243.
Senator Boozman. So 243, so 283. Then you have a 375,000
backlog.
Mr. Osuna. Let me add that we are also in the process of
hiring through fiscal year 2014 appropriations.
Senator Boozman. But again, we are talking about 2,000
versus 375,000. If you multiplied your judges by 10, you would
still be in trouble.
Mr. Osuna. There is no question, Senator, that there are a
large number of cases that are not in the four priorities that
I mentioned in the beginning that are going to be lasting for a
long time.
Senator Boozman. What about the people who have been in
detention already? Are they at the back of the line? Are we
going to do the new people first? Are you going to go back and
do these 375,000?
Mr. Osuna. The folks who are detained right now are
actually at the top of our priority list, currently, for
obvious reasons. They are detained.
What we are doing with the resetting of priorities is we
are adding the recent border crossing cases to that priority.
And what that, of course, is going to mean are big consequences
for the other largest portion of our caseload, which is the
nondetained.
Senator Boozman. Again, I am not the sharpest guy in the
world, but that doesn't make sense to me, in the sense of
increasing by 40 administrative judges, working through a
backlog of 375,000, plus the additions that we are talking
about coming if we don't develop a plan.
My understanding is Fort Sill has 1,200 kids out there. How
long are they going to be out there?
FORT SILL FACILITY
Secretary Burwell. In terms of the children and how long,
Fort Sill is one of our temporary facilities. And part of the
reason that we need the money and we need the money soon is
because permanent facilities are much cheaper.
In terms of what we do is we contract. And when we can use
the permanent facilities--so you get a sense of the range of
what a bed can cost, a bed can cost between $250, up to $1,000.
Our ability to plan and go into grant agreements with people
over an extended period of time affords us the opportunity to
do this in a much more cost-effective fashion. We are hopeful--
--
Senator Boozman. So how long do you think that they will be
housed there?
LENGTH OF STAY
Secretary Burwell. Right now, with the Department of
Defense, we have 120 days. We have renewed that for additional
days. If we can get the money funding----
Senator Boozman. How do you educate them? How do you
provide health care, the basic things for all these facilities?
SHELTER SERVICES
Secretary Burwell. Through grantees that are on the
facilities in Fort Sill, in the facilities in Lackland. These
are often religious organizations that do child welfare
services. They are licensed organizations that provide the
suite of services and enter into grant agreements and agree to
provide the care.
Senator Boozman. What I would like, Madam Chair, is, again,
not pie-in-the-sky. Like I say, when you look at it logically,
there is no way we can adjudicate these people. I am very
concerned about that.
I am also very concerned about how they are being housed,
and I hope it is not pie-in-the-sky like the adjudication
process is, because when you are talking about keeping people
for a long time, it sounds like we possibly are going to be
keeping some people for a long time.
As far as the education process, the health care process,
that has to get worked out. I have to see it on paper, so that
we truly can provide the money that it is going to take.
But again, the biggest thing is, the biggest deterrent is
making it such that they realize that if they come to this
country, they are going to go back.
LENGTH OF STAY
Secretary Burwell. Madam Chair, if I might clarify that the
children in our care, in 2011, as I mentioned earlier, it was
about 75 days that it took for placement of a child with a
sponsor that we believed was safe, appropriate, and informed of
the immigration process. We have cut that down to 35 days.
Several weeks ago, we had started a pilot for the group of
children that we think we can place most quickly to reduce the
time.
As I mentioned, the three variables that are about cost for
us at HHS are, number one, the number of children that are
coming across through the border; number two, the number of
beds we have and the type of those beds in terms of what we
have to pay for them; and number three is the speed with which
we can appropriately place. And we will work on all three of
those levers.
Senator Boozman. And very quickly, because the chairman is
going to gavel me, but you don't have any problems with
Congressmen showing up and looking at facilities in their
districts or their States unannounced? There have been some
reports that has been a problem.
CONGRESSIONAL VISITS
Secretary Burwell. With regard to the question of visiting
the facilities, we welcome Members of Congress to visit our
facilities. And I think I speak on behalf of my colleague in
terms of both sets of facilities.
What we are responsible for, though, is to make sure that
we can appropriately handle guests when they come. And that has
to do with both making sure that we can provide the information
that you as Members need in terms of the types of research and
information you need and protecting the children.
So the one thing we do ask, is we do ask that there is
scheduling.
Right now, since have we opened the temporary facilities,
of which you were referring to one of them, there have been
over nine visits by elected officials and over 90 elected
officials have come through. We want to schedule those quickly
and appropriately--and the scheduling is simply a matter of our
ability to make sure that we are managing the work that the
people are doing on the ground.
We welcome it. The scheduling is a part of trying to be
respectful, so that we do the appropriate things for Members
who come to see as well as respecting the children as well as
respecting the Border agents and grantees who are working to
serve those children.
So we are sorry if there are misunderstandings or miscom-
munication. We do schedule. And those are the reasons we do.
Let me be clear: We welcome Members to come.
Secretary Johnson. I couldn't say it any better.
Chairwoman Mikulski. We are now going to turn to Senator
Feinstein. But I want to respond to a question from Senator
Boozman. You asked certain questions about the immigration
judges.
Sir, I want to acknowledge the validity of your questions,
and I want to point out where we are here, which is why Senator
Shelby and I are passionate about a regular order.
This is a supplemental to the fiscal year 2014
appropriations. This is not for fiscal year 2015. This is a
supplemental for fiscal year 2014. In other words, to get us to
October 1. Am I correct in that?
HHS SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
Secretary Burwell. Some of the funding, and I think in
terms of how we have written the supplemental, would be funding
that would be paid out in 2015 and it would be above the
current levels in terms of what the President's budget
proposed.
And the reason is, if we bring on a contracted bed----
Chairwoman Mikulski. But isn't that like if you do a
contract with the Catholic charities or the Baptist charities
or so on?
Secretary Burwell. It is outlays versus obligations, in
terms of if we enter a grant agreement with someone, and we
enter a grant agreement 2 weeks before October 1, the idea that
we will have to take those beds down.
So at current levels, so you have a sense, we would have to
take off about 1,600 beds, if we were at the 2015 level.
Chairwoman Mikulski. But by and large, this is for fiscal
year 2014.
I am going to turn to Senator Feinstein. But remember this,
we have to pass our appropriations for fiscal year 2015. If you
want more immigration judges, we have to pass the CJS bill.
That is where the immigration judges are. And that is why we
would really urge, if we could get our bills back on the floor,
and for anybody who has other amendments, leave us alone. Let
us get our bills done. We are ready to move on homeland
security. Foreign ops is already to go.
So we have the fiscal infrastructure to do fiscal year
2015. Regular order. No poison pill amendments. Let us come to
the floor.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I
listened to your words early on. I want you to know that I am
fully supportive of this supplemental, and I agree with what
you have said.
I would just like our distinguished heads and secretaries
to know I kind of, in the Senate at least, began this effort
legislatively back in 2002. And I want to tell you what
happened.
I was home. I turned on the TV, and what did I see? I saw a
15-year-old Chinese youngster shackled, handcuffed, and tears
rolling down her face in front of an immigration judge. She had
no interpreter, no counsel. She had been held in a jail cell
for 8 months and was detained another 4 months.
She was one of the survivors from a container of Chinese
who came to this country, one of the very few. And I believe
her parents died coming across the ocean.
And I thought at the time, I am going to take a look at the
law and see what we can do. So I introduced this unaccompanied
minor bill.
The purpose is pretty much as Secretary Johnson has
elucidated, and that is to see that unaccompanied youngsters
who came from countries that were far away, through no
initiative of their own, for the most part, really would have a
process that was somewhat different. They would be transferred
into HHS and they would be able to at least have help in terms
of pro bono counsel, in terms of an advocate, in terms of
research as to whether there was a place to bring them back to
their country or whether there was a place for them here.
Now the numbers of people at that time in that year was
about 5,000. Now we have 60,000.
I just want to thank you both. I have had my staff go to
all the facilities that are starting up in California, in
Arizona, and they come and tell me that they are really well-
run, and that people are moving quickly, alertly, whether it is
Customs, whether it is Border Patrol, whether it is ICE, any
other staff. And I am really grateful for that.
You have moved, Secretary Johnson, I really respect you.
You are a man of your word. You do what you say you are going
to do. And I find you a very impressive Secretary of Homeland
Security.
And, Madam Secretary, I have known you, but it is pretty
clear from your comprehensive discourse here today that you
really, too, know what you were doing.
From 2002, we were not able to move the bill through and we
worked with large numbers of groups, church groups, other
groups. And I think the bill grew somewhat and then finally it
was included in this trafficking bill in 2008 and actually
signed by President Bush at that time.
To Secretary Johnson, who said he thought he might need
added discretion, I would like to refer you to section
235(b)(3), which says the following: Except in the case of
exceptional circumstances, any department or agency of the
Federal Government that has an unaccompanied alien child in
custody shall transfer the custody of such child to the
Secretary of HHS not later than 72 hours after determining that
such child is an unaccompanied alien child.
Now, what this does is trigger a number of other
provisions. But what I would say is that the exception is the
case of exceptional circumstances. And I would urge HHS and DHS
to sit down and set the exceptional circumstances. It may be
the number of children coming through in a week or a month,
however you see it, and how the process might be modified to
give you more time.
I agree very much with what you said, Secretary Johnson,
about the values of this country. And I think if people see the
children, if they know the growth of crime, and particularly in
Honduras, which today is reportedly the murder capital of the
world, the fear that people have.
Now I don't think a mother in this country necessarily acts
the same way as a mother in Honduras, Guatemala, or any other
place, because their options are so limited.
So I hope that this exception is enough to give you what
you need, Mr. Secretary, in terms of added discretion.
I just wanted to take that opportunity to say this. This is
really hard, and from 5,000, we have gone now to 60,000. And I
offer to work with you.
I hope the bill does not need amending, because it took 6
years to get where we are, but I thank you for your good work,
and I wanted an opportunity to say that.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Excellent.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And thank you each for your testimony here today. I have to
tell you, I have been looking at the handout that Senator
Collins had presented in terms of the numbers that we have seen
over the years since 2009, and the very dramatic rise beginning
in 2012. And I come back to the fact, as the Chairman has
noted, that we are here today, you are here today presenting
this as an emergency supplemental.
This is a crisis. This is a humanitarian crisis. And I
think this pulls at the heartstrings of all of us as we
recognize that these statistics, these are not numbers, these
are lives, and these are children's lives.
But I find it just very difficult and very troubling to
think that we are just now trying to get our hands around this.
And we have seen these numbers grow from 24,000 in 2012, to
38,000 in 2013, to 52,000 in 2014, and actually now 57,000.
And so I am frustrated and I am concerned, as I am sure
that all of you are. But I just can't understand why we have
not had you before us prior to this time, why it is now part of
an emergency supplemental request. And to hear testimony from
both secretaries about the very immediate need to act before
August or the consequences in terms of how these children will
be cared for when they are here in this country are quite dire,
as you stated.
So, Secretary Johnson, you have said that doing nothing is
not an option. And you have outlined some of the things that
you have done within your department to reduce the transfer
time, some additional detention facilities being built. But it,
certainly, is not translating in terms of what we are seeing in
the numbers coming.
And so the proposal that what we do is we build out more
permanent detention facilities, more permanent beds because,
somehow or other, those are less expensive than temporary
facilities, I want to believe you, Secretary Johnson and
Secretary Burwell. You have all said we need to stem the tide.
Well, we all want to stem the tide and that is what we are
trying to drill down on, how do we reduce these numbers, how do
we reduce these bar charts that are real-life children.
And if we are successful in what we are doing, we are now
going to have detention facilities that we have put in place in
New Mexico and around the southern border that we need to gear
up quite dramatically.
And if you do what you are hoping and we fund what you are
hoping for, we have now in place facilities that would
seemingly no longer be necessary if we have done what we all
hoped we would do before this became a crisis.
So I am trying to reconcile what is being asked for here in
this emergency supplemental. And as much as I can lament about
we shouldn't be where we are, we are where we are. And that is
a shame.
But I guess my question to you, Ms. Burwell, is, do we
truly understand what the strategy and plan is going forward
beyond August? We haven't seen legislation from the
administration. We are making the assumption that the numbers
are going to continue to grow, and that is why we are going to
need the request you have within your budget. But if we are
doing what we are all talking about doing, which is to reduce
the times and to have a process that is greater, better
expedited, is this the right answer?
FUTURE PLANNING
Secretary Burwell. So I think there are two things, and one
is at the beginning of your comments with regard to the
numbers. The chart that Senator Collins handed out, I think an
important thing we need to distinguish is that it includes the
Mexican numbers.
Because there is a different process and procedure for the
Mexican numbers, the vast majority of those never----
Senator Murkowski. But in fairness, the Mexico numbers are
actually going down.
Secretary Burwell. Right. So if we take those numbers out,
and then we look at the actual numbers that we have received as
unaccompanied children, from the year 2011 to 2013, 6,500 to
13,600. That is a 108-percent increase. The increase from 2012
to 2013 was about to 25,000. That is an 81 percent increase.
Let's just say we all thought, at a minimum, it would be a
90 percent increase. Let's just take the average of the 2 years
of increases, and we are working off a higher base. So anytime
you are going to say there is a 100-percent increase off of
24,000, you are estimating something big.
What this Congress and the administration funded in the
fiscal year 2014 appropriations was enough money for 54,000.
The secretarial transfer that the Secretary before me did was
$44 million. That got us to a place where we would have had
60,000.
So last year we had about 25,000. We had planned for
60,000. That was a worst-case scenario. That was far greater
than the increases we had seen in percentage terms off of a
larger base.
What we are seeing now are numbers, as has been reflected
in everyone's comments, that are far beyond. So the planning
element, I think in terms of the question of why we are here.
With regard to your second question, which I think is a
very fair one, it is related to how we make sure that we stay
in front. We are extremely hopeful that you are correct, that
the plan we are putting in place will not lead to the numbers--
--
Senator Murkowski. I think we need to have more than just a
hope, a hoped-for policy.
Secretary Burwell. And part of what we have asked for in
the supplemental is the ability to have transfer authority. If
the needs aren't there, and we are trying to plan ahead so we
don't have the backup at the border, and if the needs are not
there, HHS, as the Secretary mentioned in his opening comments,
we are very willing and happy to transfer any funds that are
not needed to the other departments. The transfer would occur
to any of the departments, most likely to HHS, but could occur
to any. And we think that is an important part of trying to
balance the planning ahead with what you are rightfully
pointing to. We need these numbers to come down.
So we are trying to balance that need for what you said in
your earlier comments--did you not plan for the worst?--making
sure that we do that, and at the same time create a space for
the success we hope we have.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman
Ambassador Shannon, in your remarks, you said that part of
this strategy is to attack criminal gang structures. That
implies someone is responsible to coordinate that effort. That
would also imply, I think, intelligence operations and criminal
prosecutions. So can you give us sort of an outline of the
plan? Who is in charge? And what intelligence assets you need?
And are they reflected in this budget? Or where are they coming
from?
Ambassador Shannon. In the supplemental request, we have
asked for $100 million for security, which would augment
activities we are already undertaking under the Central
American Regional Security Initiative.
Some of that has to do with law enforcement capacity
training. Some of it has to do with community policing in order
to address the structure of gangs in communities and to work in
communities to find alternatives to gangs, especially for at-
risk youth.
There is no specific money aimed at intelligence activities
related to gangs, and most of the work around immigration
security-related issues would be done by ICE and by our CBP
operations here.
However, we do have intelligence activities that are
focusing on that, that I cannot discuss in this environment.
But most of the activities focused on breaking down the
smuggling networks, and working with the local police and local
authorities, would fall within the range of Homeland Security.
We are, however, working through the Judiciary to enhance
the Judiciary, and especially to improve their ability to
prosecute these cases.
SMUGGLING RINGS
Senator Reed. Secretary Johnson, if Homeland Security has
the responsibility for identifying and targeting the smuggling
rings and disrupting those rings, do you have the resources to
do that?
It seems to me that what the Ambassador is saying is that
there is money here to go in and try to do antigang activity as
much as we do in major urban centers in the United States,
which is important. But these children are getting here because
this is a business. These are pretty hard-nosed people. We have
to put them out of business, to be blunt.
Does this plan or these funds or your efforts in Homeland
Security specifically go after these people?
Secretary Johnson. Part of our request will go to not only
working with the Central American governments on the law
enforcement effort there, but our own Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI)-DOJ efforts, which is something we have
already begun.
In the month of May, we made 163 arrests of those attached
to smuggling organizations. And I am actively working with DOJ
right now to get at the money flow, the interdiction of money
from the United States.
And, Senator, to simply underscore your point, I want to
read briefly from my operations report that I got this morning,
which is unclassified. HSI McAllen special agents reported the
rescue of a Honduran national who was reportedly held against
her will and threatened by human smugglers in the arrest of two
citizens of Mexico for violating the alien smuggling statute.
The relative reported that the smugglers demanded $2,000 for
the release of the victim. The smugglers stated to the relative
that if they did not pay the money, they would decapitate the
victim or sell her to a brothel cantina.
Those are the kinds of groups we are dealing with. So I
think it is crucial, as part of this effort, to not only return
people and build detention capacity, but to get at these
smuggling organizations.
And I think I can, and I think we should.
HUMANITARIAN TREATMENT
Senator Reed. Well, I think in terms of priority, that has
to be at the same level as the humanitarian treatment of these
children.
Let me raise a final question, which is that in some
respects, these are unavoidable costs, because what we are
talking about is creating a standard from which we are
maintaining these young people. We can't, for many reasons, our
basic values as a Nation, allow a facility suitable for 12
children to be inhabited by 100 children. So these costs are
unavoidable.
Secretary Johnson, I think what happens then, if we don't
do this, then you are going to have to find some monies from
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), from
cybersecurity efforts, from a host of different functions,
because, again, we have a problem now. We will have a much
greater problem, if we are seen as basically mistreating these
children who are in the custody of the United States. Is that
fair?
Secretary Johnson. Senator, that is a very fair statement.
Yes, sir.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Madam Secretary, if one of these children are placed with a
relative in the United States, do we check the legal status of
that relative?
IMMIGRATION STATUS
Secretary Burwell. In terms of legal status with regard to
the immigration status, that is not something we do with regard
to legal status that is relevant to what we believe is the
safety of the child. And there are a number of conditions that
we are guided to with regard to----
Senator Graham. So are we in fact turning children over to
people who are here illegally?
Secretary Burwell. We do not know the answer to that
question, but we can assume.
IMMIGRATION REFORM
Senator Graham. I think we should know the answer to that,
because the likelihood of them showing up for a hearing is
zero.
If the person who is taking care of them is illegal, I
doubt if they are going to bring them to a deportation hearing
or any other kind of hearing. So I would like to see that
changed in our law.
Mr. Secretary, is this problem a result of failing to pass
comprehensive immigration reform or is it something else?
Secretary Johnson. Senator Graham, if I may, to your prior
question also, before I answer this one, I do not think that
removal of the parent who probably has been in the interior for
years is the answer to dealing with this current situation.
Senator Graham. Mr. Secretary, it is all about signals
here. You are right. You are trying to say we are going to tell
people back in these countries stop this, and the best way to
stop this is to send the kids back. I don't think you are--you
are reinforcing another bad problem when you don't check the
legal status of the person.
There is zero hope they are ever going to get into the
legal system, because the person you turned the child over to
is illegal themselves, and you are just compounding the
problem.
I am pretty far out there on reforming immigration, but I
think you are reinforcing bad behavior.
Now, to my point, is this problem a result of the failure
to pass immigration reform or is it something else?
Secretary Johnson. I believe it is essentially three
things: The conditions in the Central American countries.
Senator Graham. Which has nothing to do with immigration
reform.
Secretary Johnson. The reality of how we treat these kids,
pursuant to the 2008 law.
Senator Graham. Which has nothing to do with immigration
reform.
Secretary Johnson. And the misinformation that is being put
out there by the smuggling organizations about the current
state of legal----
Senator Graham. I agree with you on all three. And it has
the zero to do with----
Secretary Johnson. Senator, if I may----
Senator Graham. I want to pass immigration reform, but I
want to stop this narrative that if we passed some law, we
wouldn't have this problem.
Secretary Johnson. Senator, I do believe----
Senator Graham. I couldn't disagree with you more, Madam
Chairman. I think this is the result of somebody in these
countries believing that if you can get here, you can stay. And
I don't know what is driving this, but Senator Coons made a
good point. They are all coming from three countries.
Those three countries have crime problems, but most of
these are kids. So there is this idea that a kid gets a better
deal in America than somebody else. And I think it goes back to
the 2012 change by the President, but there is no use debating
this. Let's look forward.
Knowing what we know today, would we write the 2008 law the
same? Knowing what we know today, the problem we have in front
of us, would we write the 2008 law exactly like we did?
Secretary Johnson. Senator, I can't----
Senator Graham. How can you say yes, we would? Clearly, we
wouldn't.
Senator Feinstein is one of the world's best Senators and
nicest people. What she addressed was a real problem. She is
talking about A, and we are dealing with B.
This 2008 law never envisioned this problem. It envisioned
the Chinese girl and other people who were being sexually
exploited.
I understand not wanting to throw somebody back into the
hell they came from. But we are now being overrun by folks. It
is hell to get here.
And I agree with you, to stop it, you have to let somebody
down there know, stop doing it. If we don't change the 2008
law, then we are never going to get a handle on this problem
because the 2008 law had nothing to do with this problem.
So I think we should adjust our laws to meet the needs in
front of us, so I am very disappointed to hear that the
administration believes, after everything we have been dealing
with the last 2 years, there is no reason to change law. I just
find that almost impossible to understand.
VOLUNTARY RETURN: MEXICO
But let's get to this point about Mexico. The difference
between Mexico and these three countries is substantively
different, right? The time to get somebody back to Mexico is
because it is contiguous and is different. Is that correct?
Secretary Johnson. Yes. Plus we have the legal authority
now to offer an unaccompanied child voluntary return to Mexico.
Senator Graham. Right. So there is a screening process when
you turn somebody over to Mexico. We don't just throw them over
the border. We look and see if they apply for refugee or asylum
status, right?
Secretary Johnson. That is correct, sir.
Senator Graham. So I think you are onto something, of
trying to create similar conditions for these countries as to
Mexico.
In that regard, I think you are pursuing a good solution.
Secretary Johnson. Yes. That is what I said earlier.
Senator Graham. Yes. Fundamentally, we have to change this
law. We are nuts if we don't.
And as to Senator Reed's problems, we are nuts if we don't
go after these groups. We need to make their life hell. We need
to get the Mexicans and every other group to form a task force
and hunt these guys down and put them in jail. It should be
like a military operation, because it is a national security,
humanitarian threat that I haven't seen in a very long time.
And I think our response, our sense of urgency, is woefully
inadequate. And it is not just a money problem. It is a will
problem.
We need to have the will to do something about this
stronger than those who are abusing the law and abusing these
children.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Mikulski. I am going to turn to Senator Shaheen.
I understand Secretary Johnson has to step out to take a
quick phone call. Why don't you do that and come back and join
us, okay?
Senator.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Madam Chair. And let me thank
my colleague, Senator Durbin, for being willing to let me go
ahead of him. I very much appreciate that.
I want to follow up on what Senator Graham was pursuing
about what is happening in those three countries in Central
America.
And I wonder, Counselor Shannon, if perhaps you could talk
a little bit about what has changed in the last 3 years or 2
years in those countries to encourage this influx of children
and families? And also whether we are seeing that same kind of
influx into other neighboring countries from Honduras,
Guatemala, and El Salvador?
Ambassador Shannon. Senator, thank you very much for the
question.
We have not seen the same flows from other Central American
countries. In other words, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Panama,
and Belize are not sending people to the United States the way
Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador are.
Senator Shaheen. Maybe I wasn't clear in my question. I
appreciate that. What I am asking is, are we seeing people from
those three countries going into neighboring countries close to
them at the same rate, or in similar rates?
Ambassador Shannon. We are seeing that. As I noted in the
testimony, the U.N. High Commission on Refugees notes that
asylum requests in surrounding countries are up 400 percent.
And what I noted is that it is not obviously at the same rate
or the same number. In fact, the numbers are quite small in
comparison. But they are much, much higher than historically
they have been.
And that indicates that there are groups of children who
are fleeing. And when they determine that they cannot flee to
the United States, either because they don't have the money or
they are not prepared to take the risks, but that they must
flee, they go to the nearest place possible.
So from our point of view, although the vast majority of
these children are moving toward the United States, this is a
regional problem. And for that reason, it needs to be addressed
regionally.
And as Senator Landrieu noted, it is a problem related to
children, and it is a problem related to what happens to
children when they are caught in environments in which the
breakdown of state authority and the presence of gangs in
communities and controlling the communities puts these children
at risk.
Now, in terms of what has happened over the last 3 years,
it is going to take sociologists I think a long time to dig
through that data. But I think what is evident is that as
Mexico has become more successful in its activities through the
Merida Initiative in combating drug trafficking and drug
cartels, and as Colombia has become more effective in attacking
the FARC and changing the nature of drug trafficking out of
Colombia, the burden has fallen largely on Central America. And
it has largely fallen in the three countries that offer easy
jumping-off points into Mexico and into the drug-trafficking
routes that lead to the United States.
But in the process of Mexican cartels moving into Honduras
and Guatemala, and looking for ways to facilitate the movement
of drugs through the region, they have obviously built
relationships with gangs. And this has provided gangs with
levels of wealth and weapons and communications equipment that
historically they have not had and has allowed them basically
to take over and control parts of communities, which puts at
risk teenagers.
And what we are seeing in the groups that are leaving these
three countries and moving northward is that 75 percent of them
are between the ages of 14 and 17, which means they are in
recruitment age, both males and females.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I am going to cut you off at
that point. I am sorry to do that, but I have a question for
Secretary Burwell that I would also like to have answered.
One of the things that I am hearing from organizations in
New Hampshire is concern about the movement of money out of the
Office of Refugee Resettlement and concern that if this
appropriation goes through, that money might not be replaced
and the services offered through that office might not be
available. That is a concern that if we are hearing about
refugees in New Hampshire. So can you speak to that?
REPROGRAMMING
Secretary Burwell. Because we actually take the concerns
that it sounds like folks at home are articulating, that is why
we actually asked for the backfill for the $94 million.
I think you all know we sent reprogramming up to the Hill,
and we have started in on that reprogramming.
Those funds that we have taken out of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement, to have a sense of what those funds do, a number
of those funds go to schools that are impacted by high refugee
populations. A number of those funds go actually to affect
Haitian and Cuban refugees. That affects Florida
disproportionately. And a third category of that money is money
that is sometimes going to States to help where there are
disproportionate numbers of refugees in what is our other
refugee program.
We had to make choices in order to continue on a path of
making sure we can move children from the border and from DHS
to HHS. They were difficult choices, and choices that we hope
in the supplemental can be taken care of.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you all very much for
your efforts to address this crisis.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Each year, under Presidents Republican and Democrat, the
United States of America issues a report card on human rights
to the world, where we grade other nations as to their record
on human rights. That is pretty bold of us, isn't it, to hold
ourselves out in judgment of other nations? And one of the
things we ask is how those nations treat refugees and children.
We don't have a very long record when it comes to refugees
in this country, primarily because of location. Haitians,
Cubans, Vietnamese, Hmongs. We have had some, but certainly,
when you look at the state of the world with 2.3 million
refugees coming out of Syria and fewer than 200 coming to the
United States, we are kind of on the periphery of this issue
until now.
Now we get to face it in our backyard, our border.
DISCRETION
I just got a report about two children that came from The
Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights at the University
of Chicago Law School. Samuel and Emily are siblings,
amazingly, ages 3 and 6--3 and 6. They got here from Honduras.
I don't know how.
When they initially arrived in the United States, they were
very quiet and didn't open up. They were clearly victims of
trauma. After 2 months of care and custody of these 3- and 6-
year-old children by HHS, Emily revealed that both children had
been raped by members of a local drug cartel.
I think about those children when I think about this
debate. Are they the exception? God, I pray they are. But I am
afraid there are many more with similar stories.
So, Mr. Secretary, Secretary Johnson, I think you are a
good person. I even have evidence you are a good father,
because I got to meet your son. And I know you are a good
lawyer.
When you ask for added discretion, so that we can
voluntarily deport some of these children, I think about these
two. Where I grew up in downstate Illinois, you wouldn't enter
a courtroom with a 3-year-old or 6-year-old without someone
standing next to them, representing them, explaining to them,
trying to speak up for their rights.
And I worry about what we are asking for here. And here's
why I worry. Let's get right down to dollars. There is a
request for $15 million in this multibillion-dollar
appropriation request for direct legal representation to
contract with lawyers to represent approximately 10,000
children--10,000 children in immigration proceedings. I think
we are dealing with 50,000 to 90,000 new children this year.
It strikes me that this number is grossly inadequate to
make sure these children have someone standing next to them, to
protect them, maybe to explain this to them. That is the first
thing that crosses my mind.
The second thing is, what are we returning them to?
Honduras, the murder capital of the world, where it is not safe
to even have your children outside of your home, where garbage
is piled in the street so the poorest can go through it and
maybe find something to eat because that is all they have.
What kind of social service agencies are we referring these
kids to when we return them to Honduras?
Beds. I get it. I want these kids to be in the safest,
cleanest place possible. I couldn't live with it any other way.
But as I understand it, 85 percent of these children are
reunited with family, 55 percent with parents, 30 percent with
relatives. So when we are talking about beds it sounds like,
for the most part, at least 85 percent of it is for temporary
beds. I assume that is what we are discussing.
Finally, before I ask you to comment on this, I authored
the DREAM Act. I am proud of it. We passed it in the House and
Senate. We can't beat the Republican filibuster in the Senate,
except for the comprehensive immigration bill.
I asked this President, my friend, to sign DACA. He did,
and I am proud that he did. And I am not going to stand here
and let people blame those two actions on what we are facing
today, because during the same period of time there was a 700
percent increase in children fleeing from the three primary
countries to neighboring countries, not the United States.
It had nothing to do, as you said, Mr. Secretary, with
DACA, which sets a 2007 target. DACA eligibility doesn't extend
any later than that.
So I would appreciate it if you could respond to this in
the time remaining.
Secretary Johnson. Senator, the only thing I will say is a
request for discretion as long as I am Secretary means a
request for the ability to do the right thing. That is how I
see it. I have met with enough of these kids now, including a
15-year-old in Nogales 2 weeks ago who was 3 months pregnant,
to have a real sense for what these kids go through.
We have heard about how before they leave Central America,
some of these kids parents will actually give them birth
control, in case they are raped along the way. And so whatever
we do, whatever discretion I am given to address the situation
will be the discretion to do what I believe is the right thing
for the country and for these kids.
Senator Durbin. There is not enough money being requested
to provide the kind of representation and advocacy necessary to
protect these kids. It is not even close--10,000 out of 90,000.
And I would like to hear Secretary Burwell's thoughts.
LEGAL SERVICES
Secretary Burwell. There are different portions in terms of
sometimes it is provided by Justice and sometimes by DHS. We do
provide the counsel that I described in the initial stages. And
then for the extreme circumstances, such as that that you
described, HHS does provide counsel and we try to connect with
pro bono counsel.
You are right that we do not have the resources to provide
counsel for all the children that pass through and go to
sponsors. But there are a group that we do that for.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, I just want to associate myself with
everything that Senator Durbin just said. He hit the nail on
the head.
I also want to thank all of you for the work you do.
As we hear more and more about the situation with these
young people coming across the border, you know what my ears
are hearing? Round them up and ship them back. It sounds like
we are doing dealing with cattle or some kind of livestock.
Just round them up and ship them back.
Senator Murkowski had it right. This is a humanitarian
crisis.
Again, Senator Durbin talked about a couple cases. I
suggest anybody who wants to know what is behind all this, read
Enrique's Journey. It is a great book. Read it.
Now I have a problem with the administration, this
administration. On the one hand, they say we want to send kids
back as soon as possible. Then they turn around and say, well,
but these kids are escaping violence and drugs and sexual abuse
and gangs. How do you reconcile those two?
Ship them back as soon as possible, and they are escaping
violence and drugs. That doesn't sound to me like those two
statements are compatible. How do they exist side-by-side?
The focus, our focus, ought to be simply on making sure
these kids are, first, safe, that they are fed, that they are
clothed, that they are sheltered, and they get not only good
health services, but mental health services, and under the law
that they have every meaningful--that is the key word--
meaningful opportunity to apply for asylum.
Are we a country of laws? That is what the law says.
Now, there are some that want to modify this law. And I
hear voices from this administration who want to modify this
law.
Now, Secretary Johnson, I have no doubt that you are a good
and decent and honorable person. I think you do a great job.
But you want flexibility. There is danger in flexibility, not
just because of you but because of everybody that works under
you and the Border Patrol.
A lot of these kids who come over there and they see
someone in uniform, it is a flashback to what they just came
from, where the people in uniform may have been beating them up
and on the side of the druglords. Are they going to open up
about who they are and what they are?
That is why we have a law that says you have to transfer
them within 72 hours to HHS.
Now, HHS is supposed to provide all of these things for
these kids, shelter, clothing, meaningful counsel. People to
stand alongside of them, so that they can tell their story, so
they can apply meaningfully for asylum.
You can't do that with the Border Patrol. I am sorry, you
just can't do it. And you can't do it just as somebody comes
across the border. They need to be taken in, as they said, and
given these protections under our laws, under international
law--under international law.
Some people want to modify the law to let DHS ship them
back right away. I hear this from the administration.
And you may say, Secretary Johnson, that you are going to
be very careful on this. That is why we have laws. That is why
we set it up this way. I don't know who's coming after you, or
how long you are going to be there. And I don't know all the
people who work underneath you and how good they are.
They may have in their head the best thing is round them up
and ship them back.
I rely upon Health and Human Services to make sure these
kids are protected and that they have their full legal rights
in this country.
They are supposed to be transferred within 72 hours. Now it
is what? Six or 7 days before they get transferred, that they
are held. And now, HHS, they don't have the wherewithal to do
it, to take care of these kids, the mental health providers,
social workers, child advocates who can look after not rounding
them up and shipping them back, but the best interest of the
child when they arrive here, and protecting their rights under
U.S. and international law.
So we have a situation where I am sorry I have to disagree
with this administration. This administration should be saying
we should follow the law. These kids need to be protected. They
need to have HHS protect them and care for them and give them
every meaningful right to apply for asylum.
Now the problem is HHS doesn't have the money to do it.
They should do it, but they don't have the money to do that.
That is what this supplemental is about, to allow HHS to follow
the law, which they aren't right now. But they can't. They
can't follow the law because they don't have the money to do
it. They can't transfer them within 72 hours, my fellow
Senators, because they don't have the money to do it.
So that is why this supplemental, Madam Chair, as you said,
is so critical.
We can't turn our backs on these kids. We can't hold
ourselves up, as Senator Durbin said, as some paradigm of human
rights protections in the United States and then say round them
up and ship them back.
Should they say that to the Syrians who are escaping or
other refugees around the world? Round them up and ship them
back. We are better than that.
And I have to disagree with my friend from South Carolina.
We are not being overrun by these kids. We are a country of 300
million people. We are talking about what, 50,000, 60,000,
90,000 at the most? That is overrunning America? Nonsense.
We can deal with this. Now, lest anyone think now, Harkin,
you want to just let them keep coming. No. Look, we have to
work with these other countries. We have to do things in those
other countries.
It is a complex issue, as some of you have stated. It is
not going to be solved overnight. It is not going to be solved
with SOUTHCOM and a few military people. It is not going to be
solved with that. It is going to be solved over a longer period
of time.
But in the meantime, the single the most important thing is
to take care of these kids to make sure they are safe, they are
housed, they are sheltered, they are clothed, they are fed, and
they have legal protection, and they can apply for asylum
meaningfully, not with the Border Patrol, not as soon as they
come across the border--I read your testimony--but after they
had due process and where HHS can take them in and provide them
with the kind of shelter and support that they need.
Now after that, we can talk about returning them, but not
until they have had adequate counsel, advocates for them to
stand by their side, to let them know what their legal rights
are in this country.
So I hate to be so emotional about it, but when I hear this
coming from the administration--ship them back, we have to do
something as soon as possible. But they are fleeing violence
and drugs and gangs. No. They are fleeing violence, drugs, and
gangs and all kinds of things, yes.
I disagree with my friend from South Carolina also that you
are reinforcing bad habits with bad habits. I have never
considered a bad habit for any human being to leave a bad
situation where they are being killed, beat up, sexually
violated, denied their basic human rights, denied the
opportunity to live a life and they want to seek it someplace
else.
That is not a bad habit. That is sort of in the human
spirit that I thought we liked to extol in this country.
So I guess I have run out of time, I have used up my time.
And so, therefore, I guess I don't have a question. But I hope
I have made my point.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator, you can also submit questions
for the record. And thank you for your statement.
Senator Shelby.
NUMBER OF UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, I have been told that there
are currently on 162,000 children with Homeland Security. Is
that number about right or wrong?
In other words, in this country who have come in over the
years that are still pending?
Secretary Johnson. I don't know whether that number is
accurate.
Senator Shelby. Can you furnish the number for the record?
Check it out?
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
[The information follows:]
As of July 10, ICE has transported 44,549 UAC in fiscal year 2014.
Senator Shelby. It is a lot of children, isn't it?
Secretary Johnson. 162,000 people is, in my book, a lot of
people. Keep in mind that of that population, assuming that
number is accurate, of that population, a lot of them may have
turned 18 by now.
Senator Shelby. And you have only sent home, is it 1,800
period, or is it 1,800 a year?
Secretary Johnson. About 1,800 per year.
Senator Shelby. That you have adjudicated and sent home.
Secretary Johnson. Yes. But up until this recent situation,
yes.
REPATRIATION, RETURN OF UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN
Senator Shelby. Suppose at the rate they are going with
52,000 people, children, detained, came in and were apprehended
in the country, if this number continues to grow, there could
be hundreds of thousands of children coming here, could it not?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, which is why we believe we need to
add resources to the process of repatriation and return for
UACs, while preserving the ability to make a claim for
humanitarian relief.
BORDER SECURITY: RIO GRANDE VALLEY
Senator Shelby. Along the border with Texas, the Rio
Grande, mainly, area, do they just walk across the border? Is
the border unprotected? There is no fence there or anything? Or
do they just come up and say take me into custody?
Secretary Johnson. The Rio Grande Valley sector is bordered
by the Rio Grande River, and it is a windy river.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely. It is 360 miles long or
something.
Secretary Johnson. And they swim across; they walk across.
And if you look at a map that the Border Patrol will show you,
it is tending to concentrate in one particular area.
Senator Shelby. So even if we gave the money that has been
requested here, $3.7 billion, it doesn't solve the problem in
any way. It helps you deal with the current problem. It doesn't
solve the problem, does it?
Secretary Johnson. In my judgment, it will definitely stem
the tide if we provide this funding.
Senator Shelby. Senator Graham asked the question, I didn't
hear a clear answer to it, maybe you don't know, but these
children, most of them who are trying to come to this country,
do they have parents or uncles or aunts in this country
already, legal or illegal? Do you know?
PLACEMENT WITH SPONSORS
Secretary Burwell. Yes, when we place the children, the
majority of the children are placed with relatives.
Senator Shelby. So they know who their relatives are, where
they are, and so forth?
Secretary Burwell. The children, in some cases, know. In
other cases, as part of the HHS process, we learn and make that
determination through questions and an interview process in
terms of trying to understand the child.
Senator Shelby. Now if people are here legally, they come
as immigrants legally, and their children are where they came
from, the country of origin, can't they go through the legal
process and bring their children to this country? Isn't there a
legal process for that?
IMMIGRATION PROCESS
Secretary Burwell. I would defer to my colleague from
Justice on the process.
Mr. Osuna. It depends on their current status. If they are
here illegally, Senator----
Senator Shelby. If they are here legally and they wanted to
bring their children that are, say, in Central America
somewhere.
Mr. Osuna. There is one category for lawful permanent
residents who can petition for their family members. That would
be the only category that is currently available, I believe,
for them to bring the relatives over.
Senator Shelby. Well, I know money, it is a humanitarian
problem, but it is an immigration problem, a big one for this
country.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Well, that concludes the number of
Senators who wanted to ask questions or make statements and ask
questions.
I think this has been an excellent hearing. The fact that
25 Senators came from this committee to participate, and the
other five had commitments for which they will submit
questions.
We also want to thank the witnesses for their
straightforward, candid commentary, but also for the work that
they do every day.
In addition to dealing with this situation, they also have
other pretty significant responsibilities. And we know they are
working 36-hour days and 10-day workweeks. And I think it is
pretty impressive.
And also, to the men and women who work under those
agencies, it is pretty impressive when you meet the Border
Patrol agents and also the response of particularly our local
faith-based organizations. To me, it was very heartening and
touching to see the way the Baptist child welfare agency was
running the Lackland facility. It was A-plus in terms of any
standard of child welfare. What was particularly interesting to
me was the Catholic Charities in Oklahoma had come to Lackland
to work with the Baptists to learn what was the most effective
way to deal with this.
So I think we are doing a lot. But the question is, what is
it really we are going to do? There is the urgent supplemental
that meets the needs of today. Every single colleague has said,
we do need to look at the long-range implications of this.
Some talk about a more military interventionist strategy.
Some talk about changing the law on refugees. These are not
necessarily my personal direction, because when you are talking
to the children, you find out why would a mother making minimum
wage somewhere scrape together $3,000--you can imagine what it
took to save that amount of money--to send it to essentially a
scoundrel to bring her daughter or son across the border, and
to know the treacherous, dangerous journey that they are going
to do. You would only risk that, the danger so severe--we all
heard these stories that are so wrenching that we don't even
want to repeat some of them in public because of their
poignancy.
The fact is that it is because in Guatemala, Honduras, and
El Salvador, the violence is so bad that the violence of the
journey is less, and a risk that they will take.
And then to say we are going to send them back. Send them
back to what? The gangs that tried to recruit a little girl and
threatened the family that if the two young girls didn't join
the gang, they would be killed, mutilated, or turned into
something called queens. I won't even talk here about what that
means. I could not bring myself to describe it.
So what are we going to send them back to? It is not like
Juan Valdez is going to greet them at the airport with roses. I
think we have to get a real strategy here to know why they
left.
Now I have said repeatedly, and I will say this again, that
I have felt over the last decade we have fought four wars. We
fought one in Afghanistan because of an attack on us. We fought
one in Iraq that members voted for; I did not. Then we fought
the cyberwar, which continues to be a significant threat. And I
don't minimize the threat of terrorism. Then I talked about the
war at the border, but I was worried about drug dealers. I
wasn't worried about children.
But the children are coming because of the drug dealers. So
sure, we can talk about root cause in poverty. I don't minimize
that. But we have to really now, I think we have to really
focus on our hemisphere. I believe we have had 3 decades of
uneven policy in terms of looking at our own hemisphere and in
Central America.
Senator Harkin knows about it, and Senator Shelby. We come
from a background that heard about the nuns who were assaulted,
the Maryknoll nuns, the assassination of Oscar Romero, war
after war, brutality after brutality. And then, just when we
are ready to deal with it, some other thing turns our head, and
we are off running, putting on flak jackets, visiting some new
issue.
So I think we need to, in addition to all the other wars we
have to fight, or bring to a closure, and they are significant,
you know, as Mr. Homeland Security, that there are a lot of
threats to this country. But I believe the threats of the
children, the children are not threats. The children are coming
because of the threat to the children.
And I think we need to meet the urgent needs here. We have
to then really focus on our hemisphere, and have a focused way
that deals with the crime, deals with corruption, deals with
exactly where a mother will risk sending her daughter on a
perilous journey because it is less violent than what she would
find staying at home with her grandmother.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
So we have a lot of work to do. The record will be open for
2 weeks. I invite any nonprofit to submit testimony.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the various Departments for response
subsequent to the hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Secretary Sylvia Burwell
Questions Submitted by Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski
challenges to increasing shelter capacity
Question. One of the basic challenges for expanding capacity is
simply HHS finding service providers who are able to do this kind of
work. Shelters must meet state licensing standards and local zoning
requirements. This has been a challenge in some cases, particularly as
they ramp up and seek new facilities.
Finding shelters has also become more of a problem given the more
intense focus on the unaccompanied children issue. Some organizations
wishing to expand shelters and provide care for these children are
confronting opposition from local communities, even if they had
operated shelters in the community for years.
Funding uncertainty has also been an issue. HHS has not been able
to guarantee potential grantees that funding will be available for more
than short periods of time.
HHS provides shelter and care for unaccompanied children through a
network of grantees across the country. Can you talk a little about the
challenges HHS has faced in expanding capacity to house children?
Answer. The number of unaccompanied children arriving at the border
has steadily increased since fiscal year 2011, approximately doubling
year over year, and more than doubling this year. In response, the HHS
Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) increased shelter capacity and
prepared for increased arrivals. However, in May and June of 2014, HHS/
ORR experienced a sudden increase in the numbers of unaccompanied
children, which exceeded expectations. The number of children referred
to HHS in May 2014 was more than three times the number referred in May
2013 and the number referred in June 2014 was more than four times the
number in June 2013. This presented the challenge of needing additional
capacity in a short period of time.
In response, HHS/ORR worked with the Department of Defense (DOD) to
add temporary capacity at three DOD installations, while continuing to
work on expansion of capacity within the HHS/ORR traditional grantee
network. New providers were found through outreach to national child
welfare networks, states, and HHS Administration for Children and
Families (ACF) regional administrators. These providers were brought on
board through the Urgent and Compelling grant process. Additional non-
DOD facilities for temporary shelters were sought during May and early
June, but no additional temporary shelters were opened. In some cases,
community opposition to facilities made them untenable.
In addition, since HHS/ORR's standard capacity under law must be
State licensed, grantee organizations must work with a variety of state
licensing agencies, zoning agencies, and health and safety agencies
within a state before a new grantee can begin operations or before an
existing grantee expands its capacity. This process can take as long as
120 days.
Question. What has been the impact of funding uncertainties on HHS
being able to expand capacity?
Answer. HHS is unable to enter into negotiations with grantees for
the provision of services (such as shelter for unaccompanied children)
without having funds available to pay for these services. While the
final fiscal year 2014 appropriation provided a $492 million increase
for the unaccompanied children program (total of $868 million), these
additional funds were not available until January 2014. As a result,
the negotiation and licensing process for many of the new beds was
postponed, and HHS/ORR had brought fewer than 1,000 new beds on line by
May when the sudden increase in unaccompanied child arrivals began. Had
the full $868 million been available at the beginning of fiscal year
2014, additional beds would have been available in May, so that HHS
could have more rapidly placed children referred from the Customs and
Border Patrol (CBP) and would have been able to avoid or reduce usage
of the more expensive temporary beds on DOD facilities.
ensuring adequate access to social services
Question. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of
2008, Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the Flores Settlement
Agreement all prescribe certain protections for unaccompanied children.
These protections are based on the recognition that unaccompanied
children represent a particularly vulnerable population.
As the number of children has dramatically increased it has put
stress on all aspects of the system, including children's access to a
variety of critical services. The Administration has said that they are
considering policy changes to make it easier to return children from
Central America to their home country. Many of these children are
fleeing very dangerous situations in their home countries, many were
abused by smugglers or traffickers, and some may be eligible for relief
under U.S. immigration law.
Children who have suffered abuse often have difficulty disclosing
that to police officers or immediately to other strangers. They are
more likely to talk to social workers, legal counsel, and other
advocates. These professionals, and the protections afforded to
children under current law, help protect the best interest of children.
Many children transferred to HHS care are victims of abuse or
trafficking and may be eligible for asylum. What role do legal
representatives, mental health providers, social workers, or other
child advocates play in looking after the best interests of the child?
Answer. Unaccompanied children generally leave their home countries
to escape violence, trafficking, persecution, poverty, a lack of
protection by local authorities, or to reunify with families. To help
ensure the best interests of the child are met, ORR provides certain
legal services to unaccompanied children in HHS custody through a
contract with the Vera Institute of Justice. These include a ``know
your rights'' presentation, legal screening, and legal representation
in limited circumstances. Legal screening is provided by an attorney,
paralegal, or Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) accredited
representative who determines whether the child is potentially eligible
for legal relief. The contractor also tries to identify and coordinate
pro bono legal representation, including after children are released to
sponsors. A list of free legal services available near the shelter's
location and near the home of the sponsor is provided.
Specific to trafficking, ORR grantees are trained to use ORR
assessments to screen every child in our care for possible trafficking
concerns. If a child is assessed as being a possible trafficking
victim, grantee staff works with ORR employees to ensure that the child
is screened by an attorney and referred to ORR's Anti-Trafficking In
Persons Division.
Each child is individually assessed by a clinician and case
manager. Clinicians conduct individual and group counseling sessions on
a weekly basis for all children, and case managers meet with the child
regarding the progress of the child's family reunification case on a
weekly basis. The clinician's assessment includes screening for
possible trafficking concerns and assessing the child's current and
past medical and mental health status. If a particular concern is
identified, further psychological assessments may be ordered, home
studies may be conducted, and further counseling is provided until the
child is released. If a child is assessed as being a possible
trafficking victim through this process, grantee staff again work with
ORR employees to ensure that the child is screened by an attorney and
referred to ORR's Anti-Trafficking In Persons Division.
Trafficking victims and other children with special needs may also
be appointed a child advocate in certain locations. Child advocates
identify and advocate for the best interests of the child regarding any
decision made for the child, whether by ORR, an attorney, or the
immigration court. Child advocates also create a report about the best
interests of the child and provide the report to ORR to assist in
making release and other decisions and recommendations.
Question. As the number of children coming to the U.S. has
dramatically increased, what is the Administration doing to ensure that
children have access to these critical services?
Answer. The Unaccompanied Children program provides food and
shelter, as well as individual case management, screening by
professionals for mental health issues, access to mental healthcare
when needed, and access to legal services. HHS has continued to provide
this same set of services in all of its shelters, including the
temporary shelters operating on DOD bases.
Question. We urge other governments, whether Jordan, Lebanon, or
countries in Africa to provide a safe haven to millions of refugees
fleeing violence. What is different here? Are we asking those countries
to adopt a standard that we unwilling to apply to ourselves?
What does international law say about deporting people who are
fleeing violence and may have legitimate claims as refugees, and what
are you doing to ensure the law is respected?
Answer. By law, HHS is required to accept unaccompanied children
under the age of 18 (except those from Canada and Mexico) who are
apprehended by CBP into its care and custody while they await
immigration proceedings. HHS does not determine which individuals are
allowed to come to the U.S. as refugees or which unaccompanied children
are granted immigration relief. For answers to these types of
questions, including questions of international law, I respectfully
refer you to the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and State.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
hhs reprogramming
Question. Prior to the Administration's request for emergency
supplemental funding, HHS reprogrammed funds previously intended for
refugee resettlement programs in states including Vermont, which
provide essential services to refugees from places like the Sudan and
Somalia, in order to put more funds towards the UAC program. These
state programs already receive extremely limited funding and the
reprogramming of what is a significant portion of their funding would
be devastating. In Vermont, this cut in funding will force refugee
resettlement programs to turn away refugees fleeing persecution. This
seems like a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Does this supplemental request include funds to make those programs
whole and ensure that deserving refugees in Vermont, Oregon, Maryland
and states around the country don't bear the burden of this
humanitarian crisis on the Southwest border?
Answer. At the time the supplemental request was submitted, our
cost projections--based on the number of children arriving at the
time--indicated that it could be necessary to reprogram up to $94
million from refugee services to the Unaccompanied Children (UC)
program. The emergency supplemental request includes funding to
backfill the $94 million reprogramming from refugee programs within the
``Refugee and Entrant Assistance'' account. Since the date of the
hearing, the number of arrivals has dropped significantly and we were
able to suspend operations at the temporary shelters operating at DOD
facilities. The resulting cost savings have allowed us to release some
of these refugee funds for refugee services.
The Administration's coordinated efforts to address the
humanitarian situation at the southwest border has contributed to
slowing the pace of unaccompanied children arriving. Without additional
funding, HHS will not be able to maintain its year-end standard shelter
capacity and needed surge capacity if the facts on the ground change
quickly. A lack of adequate funding undermines HHS's ability to
prudently plan for these contingencies and to secure the most
efficient, lower cost, longer-term solution.
Question. How are you going to prevent a gap in funding for our
other state refugee resettlement programs?
Answer. If refugee funds are needed for the unaccompanied children
program (either in fiscal year 2014 or because fiscal year 2015 funding
is inadequate), then States and non-profit organizations may have to
reduce services in the coming year. We will continue to work diligently
with the Congress to secure stable funding sufficient to meet our
commitments to all the populations we serve. Adequate fiscal year 2015
funding for all programs within the Office of Refugee Resettlement is
critical to ensuring that HHS has the resources it needs to care for
unaccompanied children who come into our custody and to help refugees
succeed in the United States.
legal counsel for unaccompanied children
Question. Providing legal counsel for unaccompanied children is a
critical element in ensuring that they are receiving appropriate
screening to determine if they are the victim of human trafficking or
persecution or have other claims to immigration relief. How will the
Department of Health and Human Services ensure that attorneys have
access to the detention facilities where these children are being
detained? What will the process be for providing lawyers access to
these children?
Answer. HHS/ORR contracts with the Vera Institute of Justice to
carry out the Legal Access Project, which provides presentations to the
unaccompanied children in HHS shelters (either video or in person,
depending on location), explaining their rights as part of the
immigration legal process. There is also screening to determine whether
a child may be eligible for any type of immigration relief. The
contractor also tries to identify and coordinate pro bono legal
representation, including after children are released to sponsors. A
list is provided of free legal services available near the shelter's
location and, again, near the home of the sponsor. Some children
receive direct legal services through the project. In the last 3 years
of the contract, the number of children receiving direct legal counsel
increased from 2 percent to five percent.
The amount of the contract is based on an estimate of the number of
children in care for the year. In fiscal year 2013, the contract was
for $13 million, and most of the funding went to 22 subcontractors to
cover presentations to children in shelters. Approximately $2 million
was spent for the Vera Institute to provide direct legal representation
to unaccompanied children.
identification of parents
Question. The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has stated that
they fingerprint any sponsor a child is released to with the exception
of the child's parent. How does ORR verify parentage in those
situations?
Answer. In accordance with Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008, HHS requires verification of a sponsor's
identity and relationship, if any, to a child before releasing a child
to a sponsor. To meet this requirement, HHS requires care providers to
complete and document a thorough assessment of the child's past and
present family relationships, and relationships to non-related
potential sponsors. HHS care providers evaluate the nature and extent
of the sponsor's previous and current relationship with the child and
the child's family, as well as the sponsor's motivation for wanting to
sponsor the child. If the child is not being released to his parent or
legal guardian, the care provider considers the child's parent or legal
guardian's perspective on the child's potential release to a particular
sponsor. To verify the relationship between parent and child, HHS uses
several methods, including an interview with both the child and the
sponsor, and authentication of legal documents. The primary method of
verifying the relationship between parent and child are through the
child's birth certificate and the sponsor's, which are then verified by
consulate staff of the child and parent's home country for
authentication.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Each day, 691 new children enter the foster care system
because of abuse or neglect. Each week, 4,852 children find themselves
on the beginning of their journey through ``the system.'' Over 79,000
children will call this system home for more than 3 years and more than
23,400 young adults will ``age out'' of the system without a safe,
permanent family. Of those that age out, studies indicate that over
half experience homelessness and that nearly 30 percent are
incarcerated. The U.S. domestic child welfare system is chock-full of
problems, yet this humanitarian crisis along the Southwestern border is
estimated to bring as many as 9,000 unaccompanied minors into foster
care this year.
Can our domestic child welfare system effectively manage this
burden? How will supplemental funds for HHS be directed towards
improving outcomes for unaccompanied minors who enter our foster care
system?
Answer. There is little interaction between unaccompanied children
and the traditional state foster care system, while in HHS care.
In cases where an immigration status is granted, or the child
receives a letter of eligibility from HHS as a victim of trafficking,
the child may be eligible to apply for placement into the HHS
Unaccompanied Refugee Minor (URM) foster care program. HHS provides
grants to 15 states which serve approximately 1,600 URM children and
youth in foster care, the full cost of which is supported with HHS
funds. The URM program traditionally has served unaccompanied refugee
children who are identified in countries of first asylum as requiring
foster care upon their arrival in this country. HHS works with two
national voluntary agencies, the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service to identify
placement in affiliated agencies under contract with state refugee
coordinator offices. While most children in the URM program are placed
in licensed foster homes, other licensed care settings are utilized
according to children's individual needs, such as therapeutic foster
care, group homes, independent living, or residential treatment
centers.
Any allegations of abuse after a child is released from HHS care is
reported through the state's child welfare system which in turn
investigates the allegations. A child that is found to be abused or at
risk of abuse by a sponsor could be placed in state foster care.
Question. Does DHS have any measures in places to track
unaccompanied children after they are placed in the custody of HHS or a
guardian designated by that Department?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is required to
refer and transport unaccompanied children to HHS/ORR care within 72
hours of a child's identification as an unaccompanied child, absent
exceptional circumstances.
HHS/ORR provides DHS with the addresses of sponsors, typically
parents or other family members, to whom unaccompanied children are
released.
After release HHS no longer retains legal custody of the children
and does not track whether a child remains with the sponsor. Sponsors,
prior to taking custody of the children, agree to bring children to
court proceedings and to notify DHS and the immigration court of any
change in the child's address. To ensure the safety of the children,
HHS carefully screens the children for signs of trafficking and
smuggling in order to prevent the child's release to a sponsor who
smuggled or trafficked the child, and potential sponsors are required
to undergo background checks and complete an assessment process that
identifies risk factors and other potential safety concerns.
Question. How do your Departments work together to help ensure that
these children do not end up in the hands of predators or sex
offenders?
Answer. HHS does not release children to sponsors who have been
convicted of (including a plea of no contest to) a felony or
misdemeanor involving child abuse or neglect; spousal abuse; a crime
against a child or children (including child pornography); or a crime
involving violence, including rape, sexual abuse, or homicide. HHS will
not release a child to a sponsor who has been convicted within the last
5 years of a felony involving physical assault, battery, or drug
related offenses. Similarly HHS will not release a child to sponsors
with pending criminal charges that compromise the sponsor's ability to
ensure the safety and wellbeing of the child.
HHS may require a home study be conducted by a child welfare expert
prior to release of the child to a sponsor that has prior convictions
for offenses that do not automatically bar them from serving as a
sponsor.
Question. If the child does not show up for their immigration court
proceedings, do DHS officials check up on them to make sure that they
are safe?
Answer. Sponsors are given information about their responsibilities
vis-a-vis the child including the requirement that the child attend all
immigration hearings to which they are a party. After a child is
released from HHS/ORR custody, HHS does not track the child's legal
case. For information related to these children's court appearances you
should contact the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR),
which operates the immigration court system.
Question. Do DHS and HHS share any information about the child's
guardian or whereabouts after they are released from HHS custody?''
Answer. As part of the process of placing a child with a sponsor, ,
HHS notifies potential sponsors of their responsibility for ensuring
the minor appears at all proceedings related to his immigration case.
HHS also informs sponsors of their responsibility to notify DHS within
ten days and EOIR within five days of address changes.
HHS provides notification to DHS of the name and address of the
sponsor both prior to and after the child is released to the sponsor.
Additionally, HHS staff coordinates with EOIR staff and provides them
with the current address of the sponsor at the time a child is placed
with that sponsor.
Question. We are being asked to consider an emergency supplemental
appropriations bill worth $3.7 billion. Clear lines of authority and
responsibility need to be established and accountability for the money
must be a priority. We need to identify who is in charge of fixing the
deep-rooted, systemic problem, what the plan is, and who is going to be
held responsible for delivering results.
Who is accountable in each of your departments or component
agencies and how are they part of a coordinated whole-of-government
approach?
Answer. The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), led by Director
Eskinder Negash, is the office within HHS's Administration for Children
and Families (ACF), led by Acting Assistant Secretary Mark Greenberg,
which has the responsibility for the care of unaccompanied children
until they may be released to an appropriate sponsor. HHS
responsibility for unaccompanied children is in accordance with the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 Sec. 462, TVPRA of 2008 Sec. 235, the
Flores Settlement Agreement, the Perez-Olano Settlement Agreement, and
the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. This office
works in coordination with others across HHS as well as with partners
in the other Federal agencies, such as the Departments of Homeland
Security, Justice, and State.
Question. What are the specific goals of each of your departments?
What are the metrics and the benchmarks of success or failure in
addressing this emergency situation, for the remainder of fiscal year
2014, for fiscal year 2015, and beyond?
Answer. The goal for HHS/ORR with regard to unaccompanied children
is that while the children are in our care, we ensure that they receive
care that is in the best interests of the child and in accordance with
all applicable laws. This includes ensuring that children receive
needed medical attention and are screened by professionals for
trafficking and mental health issues. In addition, we work to place
children with appropriate sponsors, generally parents or other family
members, who can safely care for them while their immigration case is
processed. We also work with our Federal partners to ensure the timely
and safe transition of children from DHS custody to HHS care. Some of
the indicators we follow include tracking timeliness in placing
children in available shelters to minimize the amount of time spent in
CBP facilities, the number of children released to appropriate sponsors
to expedite the process and minimize length of stay, and overall
capacity to ensure we are prepared for any future influx.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
Question. The President's Budget was released in March. It is hard
for me to believe that the Administration did not know that the influx
of unaccompanied children was occurring at a pace that might outpace
resources. Why was the influx of unaccompanied children not flagged as
a priority in the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS),
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the State for Foreign
Operations funding request? How is the Administration going to ensure
that the OMB can be agile in their requests and give Congress time to
ensure oversight for crisis's build over time like this one?
Answer. At the time that the fiscal year 2015 budget was put
together, we did not have sufficient data to estimate the amount of
funding that would be needed in fiscal year 2015 with any degree of
certainty. Moreover, we had just created an interagency work group to
examine this issue to see if unaccompanied children could be served
more efficiently.
The number of unaccompanied children arriving at the border has
steadily increased since fiscal year 2011, approximately doubling year
over year and more than doubling this year. In response, the HHS Office
of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) increased shelter capacity and prepared
for increased arrivals. However, in May and June of 2014, HHS/ORR
experienced a sudden increase in the numbers of unaccompanied children,
which exceeded expectations. The number of children referred to HHS in
May 2014 was more than three times the number referred in May 2013 and
the number referred in June 2014 was more than four times the number in
June 2013. This presented the challenge of needing additional capacity
in a short period of time.
At the time the budget was released, we said that as additional
information became available we would provide revised cost estimates to
the Appropriations Committees. Revised estimates were provided through
a May 30th letter to the heads of the Appropriations Committees.
Question. On May 12th, Secretary Johnson declared the influx of
unaccompanied children a Level IV condition of readiness within the
Department of Homeland Security, which meant that the capacity of the
Customs and Border Protection and the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement were at full capacity. Has HHS issued a similar
declaration? If not, please explain.
Answer. The Secretary of HHS does not have this type of emergency
designation structure, but Secretaries Sebelius and Burwell have
maximized their authorities to respond to this crisis. These actions
include, transferring the maximum amount of funding possible ($44
million) into the refugee appropriation to provide additional resources
to the unaccompanied children program, notifying Congress of our intent
to reprogram resources within the refugee appropriation to the
unaccompanied children program, and providing Commissioned Corps
Officers and resources to assist Customs and Border Patrol in providing
medical care to children in their facilities and to provide mission
support to various parts of HHS engaged in the response. HHS drew staff
from throughout the Department to staff the Unified Coordination Group
(UCG) led by FEMA.
Question. In many instances Licensed Faith Organizations are
helping HHS care for the unaccompanied children. Will the Department
report back to this Committee what lessons they are learning from the
Faith Organizations and how lessons learned can help HHS prepare for
any future, similar crisis?
Answer. Services are provided through licensed grantees, generally
nonprofit organizations, many of which are faith based organizations.
HHS/ORR has field specialists and project officers who work closely
with grantees, and we are communicating with grantees regularly,
including on-site visits. We seek their input on issues ranging from
mechanisms for improving intake processes, to ensuring children are
well cared for while in HHS care, and improving the process of vetting
and releasing children to appropriate sponsors. Over the past year, we
have worked with grantees to develop ways to reduce the length of time
children remain in HHS care while ensuring the safety of the children.
Input from grantees has helped us reduce the average length of stay by
half since fiscal year 2011, and we will use their experience and
lessons learned as we prepare for the future.
Question. There have been reports that ICE and CBP have taken
biometric identification from some of the unaccompanied minors near the
border. Because most of these minors lack proper identification
biometrics appears to be a reliable way to ensure these minors are
accounted for as they pass through several agencies (DHS, HHS, DOJ),
family members in the U.S., and even as they are sent back to their
home countries. Furthermore, it is important that our agencies are able
to protect these children's identities. Are DHS and HHS properly
leveraging the biometrics captured, is there inter-agency cooperation?
Please describe the current or planned system to accurately account for
these minors as they stay in the U.S. and as they leave.
Answer. HHS does not take biometric identification (e.g.
fingerprints) from unaccompanied children, but we have a robust system
for ensuring that children are released to appropriate sponsors who can
safely care for them while their immigration case is processed. HHS
does carefully screen the children for signs of trafficking and
smuggling, and potential sponsors are required to undergo background
checks and complete an assessment process that identifies risk factors
and other potential safety concerns. A fingerprint background check is
required if any risk factors are raised, if there is any concern for
the child's safety, or if the sponsor is not the child's parent or
legal guardian. HHS also receives a copy of the child's birth
certificate and the sponsor's, which are then verified by consulate
staff of the child and parent's home country for authentication.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
failure to budget in advance
Question. The number of Unaccompanied Alien Children entering the
United States illegally has increased almost every year since 2004.
Yet, when the number of unaccompanied alien children was projected to
double in fiscal year 2015, a projection established before the budget
request's submission, the Department chose not to include an increase
in the President's request.
Why did the Administration ignore this issue in their fiscal year
2015 budget request?
Answer. At the time that the fiscal year 2015 budget was put
together, we did not have sufficient data to estimate the amount of
funding that would be needed in fiscal year 2015 with any degree of
certainty. Additionally, we had just created an interagency work group
to examine this issue to see if unaccompanied children could be served
more efficiently. At the time the budget was released, we said that as
additional information became available we would provide revised cost
estimates to the Appropriations Committees. Revised estimates were
provided through a May 30th letter to the heads of the Appropriations
Committees.
The number of unaccompanied children arriving at the border has
steadily increased since fiscal year 2011, approximately doubling year
over year and more than doubling this year. In response, the HHS Office
of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) increased shelter capacity and prepared
for increased arrivals. However, in May and June of 2014, HHS/ORR
experienced a sudden increase in the numbers of unaccompanied children,
which exceeded expectations. The number of children referred to HHS in
May 2014 was more than three times the number referred in May 2013 and
the number referred in June 2014 was more than four times the number in
June 2013. This presented the challenge of needing additional capacity
in a short period of time.
At the time the budget was released, we said that as additional
information became available we would provide revised cost estimates to
the Appropriations Committees. Revised estimates were provided through
a May 30th letter to the heads of the Appropriations Committees.
fiscal year 2014 funding
Question. The $1.8 billion requested in the supplemental is not
limited to fiscal year 2014 needs. With multi-year authorities
requested in the supplemental, the Department apparently intends to
rely significantly on the supplemental funding in fiscal year 2015
instead of base funding.
How much money does the Department specifically need to meet
custody costs through the end of the current fiscal year?
Answer. The request for emergency supplemental appropriations is
based on the assumption of up to 90,000 unaccompanied children in
fiscal year 2014 and 145,000 unaccompanied children in fiscal year 2015
coming into HHS care. As you know, this humanitarian situation is very
fluid, and the requested funding will allow HHS to effectively plan to
follow the law and care for unaccompanied children in the most cost
effective way possible. On May 30, the Administration estimated HHS
would need $2.28 billion to serve 145,000 unaccompanied child arrivals
in fiscal year 2015.
Since the date of the hearing, the number of unaccompanied children
referred to HHS fell considerably. In July, 5,305 children came into
HHS custody, compared to 9,431 in May and 10,197 in June. The reduction
in arrivals coupled with increased shelter capacity and discharges from
our care allowed us to eliminate the backlog of children who are in
Border Patrol custody for more than 72 hours. . Without supplemental
funding HHS could face three challenges:
--First, we will be unable to maintain the number of beds we will
have in place at the end of fiscal year 2014. Additional
funding sooner rather than later enhances our ability to plan
and to secure lower cost, longer-term solutions, including
surge capacity that we can utilize in the future should we
again face a significant increase in the number of children
arriving.
--Second, there remains uncertainty about the number of children we
will need to house over the coming months. Additional funding
is critical for fiscal year 2015 to be in a position to plan
prudently.
--Third, without additional resources, we may need to use funds that
would otherwise be provided to states and communities to help
refugees who we have brought to the United States integrate
into their new communities. Additional funding is critical for
HHS/ORR to be in a position to plan prudently and secure lower
cost, longer-term solutions in fiscal year 2015.
Question. We understanding that the timing can fluctuate based on
factors such as the availability of additional beds for unaccompanied
alien children, but when does the Department estimate it will run out
of money in fiscal year 2014?
Answer. The request for emergency supplemental appropriations is
based on the assumption of up to 90,000 unaccompanied children in
fiscal year 2014 and 145,000 unaccompanied children in fiscal year 2015
coming into HHS care. As you know, this humanitarian situation is very
fluid, and the requested funding will allow HHS to effectively plan to
follow the law and care for unaccompanied children in the most cost
effective way possible. Additional funding sooner rather than later
enhances our ability to plan and to secure lower cost, longer-term
solutions, including surge capacity that we can utilize in the future
should we again face a significant increase in the number of children
arriving.
budget estimates
Question. On May 30th, the Office of Management and Budget notified
Congress that HHS' Unaccompanied Alien Children program would need
$2.28 billion in fiscal year 2015 based on an estimate of 145,000
children. The Department of Health and Human Services' estimates for
illegal crossings in fiscal year 2014 have fluctuated greatly, however,
from 26,000 at the beginning of the fiscal year, to a revised estimate
of 70,000 children this week.
How was the $2.28 billion for the fiscal year 2015 request
developed and are you still estimating 145,000 unaccompanied alien
children?
Answer. The $2.28 billion estimate was made by multiplying 145,000
unaccompanied children by an average cost of $15,665, including shelter
care and post-release services. This average cost assumes that all
unaccompanied children can be served in standard shelter beds which are
significantly cheaper than the temporary beds which were needed to
accommodate the sudden influx of children arriving in May and June. The
145,000 arrival assumption was made by looking at monthly arrivals for
the first 8 months of fiscal year 2014, comparing the number of
arrivals each month with the number of arrivals for the same month in
the previous year (e.g., 6,427 unaccompanied children arrived in April
2014, an increase of 121 percent over the number of arrivals in April
2013) and projecting forward based on the average month to month
percent increase.
As recent experience has demonstrated, it is very difficult to
estimate the number of children who will arrive. That is why HHS plans
to develop a stock of standard shelter capacity as well as surge
capacity that can be utilized if the number of children arriving
increases.
Question. How many of these children will be transferred into HHS
custody?
Answer. The 145,000 estimate is for children in HHS custody only.
selection of uac housing facilities
Question. Individual communities have concerns about the processes
in place for acquiring new facilities to house Unaccompanied Alien
Children (UAC). The Center for Domestic Preparedness in Anniston,
Alabama was selected as a potential UAC housing facility. On July 2nd,
after concerns about this choice were expressed, as it would have
transported these children more than 900 miles away from our southern
border to a facility ill-equipped to house them, Anniston was removed
from the potential site list.
What are the processes in place at HHS for identifying potential
UAC facilities? Specifically, how are community concerns addressed?
Answer. There are many factors that HHS considers when assessing
whether a facility could serve as a temporary shelter. This includes
the amount and configuration of the space; the availability of services
such as food, HVAC, showers, and bathrooms; accessibility to an airport
to facilitate the release of children to their sponsors and
transportation of children from CBP facilities to the shelter;
availability of grantees to staff the shelter; the safety and security
of the facility; and local community support.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
Question. The fiscal year 2015 Senate Labor/HHS appropriations bill
provided $1.94 billion for the funding for the Unaccompanied Alien
Children Program, $340 million below the $2.28 billion the Office of
Management and Budget requested in a letter to the Committee on May
30th. While the Department may need additional funding by the end of
the current fiscal year, it appears that this supplemental request also
attempts to make up for the difference between what the Senate provided
in fiscal year 2015 and what OMB requested outside the budget request.
If funding was necessary in fiscal year 2015, why didn't the Department
request it in the budget?
Answer. At the time that the fiscal year 2015 budget was put
together, we did not have sufficient data to estimate the amount of
funding that would be needed in fiscal year 2015 with any degree of
certainty. Additionally, we had just created an interagency working
group to examine this issue to see if unaccompanied children could be
served more efficiently. At the time the budget was released, we said
that as additional information became available we would provide
revised cost estimates to the Appropriations Committees. Revised
estimates were provided through a May 30 letter to the heads of the
Appropriations Committees.
Question. The Supplemental requests $1.8 billion for the
Unaccompanied Alien Children program, even though the Department needs
approximately $400 million to run the program through the end of the
fiscal year. Why are you asking for additional funds for fiscal year
2015 when Congress has not yet appropriated fiscal year 2015 funds? Is
this simply a way to avoid the budget caps?
Answer. The request for emergency supplemental appropriations is
based on the assumption of up to 90,000 unaccompanied children in
fiscal year 2014 and 145,000 unaccompanied children in fiscal year 2015
coming into HHS care. As you know, this humanitarian situation is
fluid, and the requested funding will allow HHS to effectively plan to
follow the law and care for unaccompanied children in the most cost
effective way possible. On May 30th, the Administration estimated HHS
would need $2.28 billion to serve 145,000 unaccompanied child arrivals
in fiscal year 2015. This estimate assumed that none of the more
expensive temporary beds HHS is currently using would be needed in
fiscal year 2015.
Since the date of the hearing, the number of unaccompanied children
referred to HHS fell considerably. In July, 5,305 children came into
HHS custody, compared to 9,431 in May and 10,197 in June. This
reduction in arrivals coupled with increased shelter capacity and
discharges from our care allowed us to eliminate the backlog of
children who are in Border Patrol custody for more than 72 hours.
Without supplemental funding HHS could face three challenges:
--First, we will be unable to maintain the number of beds will have
in place at the end of fiscal year 2014. Additional funding
sooner rather than later enhances our ability to plan and to
secure lower cost, longer-term solutions, including surge
capacity that we can utilize in the future should we again face
a significant increase in the number of children arriving.
--Second, there remains uncertainty about the number of children we
will need to house over the coming months. Additional funding
is critical for fiscal year 2015 to be in a position to plan
prudently.
--Third, without additional resources, we may need to use funds that
would otherwise be provided to states and communities to help
refugees who we have brought to the United States integrate
into their new communities. Additional funding is critical for
HHS/ORR to be in a position to plan prudently and secure lower
cost, longer-term solutions in fiscal year 2015.
Question. How much funding is needed for the remainder of fiscal
year 2014?
Answer. The request for emergency supplemental appropriations is
based on the assumption of up to 90,000 unaccompanied children in
fiscal year 2014 and 145,000 unaccompanied children in fiscal year 2015
coming into HHS care. As you know, this humanitarian situation is very
fluid, and while the situation has recently eased the requested funding
will allow HHS to effectively plan to follow the law and care for
unaccompanied children in the most cost effective way possible.
Question. Madam Secretary, if a parent or guardian of an
unaccompanied child is identified in the U.S., do you check the
immigration status of the parent or guardian, and at what stage of the
process do you perform this check? If not, why not?
Answer. HHS does not inquire about potential sponsor's immigration
status. Our focus is on ensuring the safety and security of the
children and to place them in the least restrictive setting that is in
the best interest of the child, in accordance with the Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.
______
Question Submitted by Senator John Boozman
Question. As a member of the medical community, I'm concerned with
the health issues I'm hearing about at the border--TB, H1N1,
meningitis, scabies. I understand that in many instances, the
situations these children were in prior to the horrific travel north,
many have been less than desirable, but after that journey, they may be
even worse off. What's being seen on the border in terms of sickness
and disease and how is it being addressed? Given what you are seeing,
how much do you estimate will be spent on medical expenses of the new
arrivals and how much has already been spent?
Answer. The safety of the children we care for in this program, and
the safety of the American public, are our foremost concern. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) believes that the
children arriving at the U.S. border pose little risk of spreading
infectious diseases to the public. When children come into the HHS/ORR
program, they are given a well-child exam, which includes the
Administration of appropriate childhood vaccinations to protect against
communicable diseases such as varicella, measles, mumps, rubella,
meningococcal disease, and pertussis. They are also screened for
tuberculosis, and receive a thorough mental health exam.
It is common for children coming from border patrol to have issues
such as small scratches, lice and sometimes scabies. These are treated
on a normal basis at our facilities.
When children are determined to be infectious with a communicable
disease of public health concern while at the Border Patrol station,
HHS/ORR will locate a program that is able to properly isolate them.
Following established infectious disease protocols, children who are
identified as exposed to communicable diseases of public health concern
may be treated prophylactically to halt the course of the disease,
tested to determine immunity to the disease, and/or placed in programs
that have the capacity to quarantine.
HHS provided medical support at the CBP detention facility in
Nogales, Arizona. This allowed us to provide vaccinations and medical
screening to children before they were placed in HHS shelters, speeding
both medical treatment and the time it took to release a child to a
sponsor.
The HHS portion of the emergency supplemental request includes $6
million for medical support.
______
Questions Submitted to Secretary Jeh Johnson
Questions Submitted by Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski
adhering to the 72-hour rule
Question. Currently, how long are these children in DHS custody
beyond 72 hours?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security makes every effort to
transfer those unaccompanied children who do not voluntarily return to
Mexico or Canada and children from all other countries within 72 hours
of determining that they are unaccompanied, as required by Section 235
of the TVPRA (8 USC 1232) to HHS. Accordingly, subsequent to
apprehension and processing by CBP, those unaccompanied children who do
not qualify for voluntary return are required to be placed with HHS
within the prescribed timeframe. During the migration surge, HHS was
not able to accept the number of children in CBP custody. This led to
children remaining in DHS custody well beyond the allowed time and well
beyond CBPs capacity to hold them.
Question. What impact is this having on the children?
Answer. DHS is committed to providing unaccompanied children with
the best accommodations possible. Under existing legal authority, both
DHS and HHS are ensuring the welfare of unaccompanied children in their
respective custody, including that the children's nutritional and
hygienic needs are met while in our custody; that children are provided
regular meals and access to drinks and snacks throughout the day; that
they receive constant supervision; and that children who exhibit signs
of illness or disease are given proper medical care.
Question. And what impact is having these children in your work
areas having on your agency's morale and your agents' ability to
perform their regular duties?
Answer. The detention and processing of these unaccompanied
children requires a significant amount of personnel, some of whom are
being diverted away from their regular duties. The Border Patrol has
detailed 265 agents to the Rio Grande Valley to augment operations.
Enforcement operations geared toward South Texas Campaign targets have
increased as well. Regarding morale, the Border Patrol has a dynamic
and resilient workforce and recognizes the impact that a change in
responsibilities and/or an increased workload has on its personnel.
Agents are encouraged to take advantage of the variety of assistance
programs made available through CBP such as the Employee Assistance
Program, Peer Support or Chaplaincy.
detaining and removing family units
Question. As word spreads that DHS is detaining more family units,
does the Administration believe more women and children will decide not
to make the dangerous journey to our borders?
Answer. As I have stated, our message continues to be clear--our
border is not open to illegal migration. Unless they qualify for some
form of humanitarian relief, individuals migrating illegally will be
sent back to their home countries consistent with our laws and values.
DHS is committed to fair, smart, and effective enforcement of this
nation's immigration laws. As part of our enforcement strategy, DHS has
increased the available facilities to house and expeditiously remove
adults with children, while still providing them with full access to
make protection claims under current U.S. law.
Traditionally, DHS has maintained very little detention space for
adults traveling with children. Consistent with the President's
emergency request for supplemental funding, DHS has sought to
significantly increase that capacity. In the last 2 months, DHS has
opened an additional family residential facility in Artesia, New
Mexico, and Karnes County, Texas, and removals from both areas have
already begun. DHS will seek to acquire additional facilities for this
purpose, but lack of supplemental funding will make this more
difficult. DOJ is temporarily reassigning immigration judges to handle
the additional caseload. These immigration judges will adjudicate these
cases as quickly as possible, consistent with all existing legal and
procedural standards, including those for asylum applicants.
Additionally, we have re-initiated and intensified our public
affairs campaigns in Spanish, with radio, print, and TV spots, to
communicate the dangers of sending unaccompanied children on the long
journey from Central America to the United States, and of putting
children into the hands of criminal smuggling organizations. CBP has
developed and launched the Dangers Awareness Campaign to communicate
these dangers to children and their families who are considering the
journey and is working with stakeholders in Central America and the
United States to encourage the use of Dangers Awareness Campaign
materials. I have personally appealed through an open letter to the
parents of those who are sending their children from Central America to
the United States, distributed broadly in Spanish and English, to
highlight the dangers of the journey, and to emphasize there are no
free passes or ``permisos'' at the other end.
These measures will increase the safe and prompt removal of those
apprehended crossing our border, and will also send the message to
Central America that our borders are not open to illegal migration.
Since DHS announced plans to add additional detention capacity to
detain and remove adults with children, the number of apprehensions of
family units has decreased dramatically. Although there is no one
factor that can be attributed to this decrease, and seasonal migration
trends are almost certainly at play, DHS is confident that its
comprehensive and sustained response to the challenge is making a
difference. In order to continue the good work already done, it is
important that Congress act to pass the President's request for
supplemental funding to support our efforts.
Question. How many families per month is DHS currently repatriating
to their home countries?
Answer. The number of aliens identified as being members of family
units who are removed fluctuates based on a number of factors. From
October 2013 through September 6, 2014, ICE has removed 714 individuals
that U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Patrol apprehended and
identified as being members of family units. Please see the chart below
for a monthly breakout of the total.
FISCAL YEAR 2014 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 6, 2014, ICE REMOVALS OF BORDER
PATROL-IDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF FAMILY UNITS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct-13......................................... 48
Nov-13......................................... 43
Dec-13......................................... 31
Jan-14......................................... 29
Feb-14......................................... 29
Mar-14......................................... 39
Apr-14......................................... 47
May-14......................................... 31
Jun-14......................................... 23
Jul-14......................................... 230
Aug-14......................................... 130
Sept-14 (through 9/6/14)....................... 34
------------------------
Total.................................... 714
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data notes:
ICE Data
--Fiscal year 2014 data is updated through 9/6/2014 (ICE Integrated
Decision Support v1.16 run date 9/8/2014; ENFORCE Integrated Database
as of 9/6/2014).
--U.S. Marshals Service Prisoners have been excluded.
--Includes Removals from the detained and non-detained dockets.
--Removals include Returns. Returns include Voluntary Returns, Voluntary
Departures and Withdrawals under Docket Control.
--Removal counts exclude lag removals (removals from previous fiscal
years whose cases were not closed in the system of record until this
fiscal year).
Question. How will increased repatriations deter additional family
units from making the treacherous and fruitless journey to our border?
Answer. As I have stated, our message continues to be clear--our
border is not open to illegal migration. Unless they qualify for some
form of humanitarian relief, individuals migrating illegally will be
sent back to their home countries consistent with our laws and values.
Some migrants in DHS custody have stated that they were told or
believed that family units, upon entry into the United States, would be
provided a permit to stay legally in the United States. Removal of
family units--alongside efforts to counter misinformation--make the
point powerfully to migrating communities that illegally entering the
United States will likely result in enforcement and removal action, not
legal status or an ability to remain.
Additionally, we have re-initiated and intensified our public
affairs campaigns in Spanish, with radio, print, and TV spots, to
communicate the dangers of sending unaccompanied children on the long
journey from Central America to the United States, and of putting
children into the hands of criminal smuggling organizations. CBP has
developed and launched the Dangers Awareness Campaign to communicate
these dangers to children and their families who are considering the
journey and is working with stakeholders in Central America and the
United States to encourage the use of Dangers Awareness Campaign
materials. I have personally appealed through an open letter to the
parents of those who are sending their children from Central America to
the United States, distributed broadly in Spanish and English, to
highlight the dangers of the journey, and to emphasize there are no
free passes or ``permisos'' at the other end.
These measures will increase the safe and prompt removal of those
apprehended crossing our border, and also sends the message to Central
America that our borders are not open to illegal migration.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
demographics of unaccompanied children
Question. What are the major demographics of the children you see
coming across--especially in the Rio Grande Valley? Can you confirm
that the percentage of girls in fiscal year 2014 is now some 40
percent, up from just 23 percent 2 years ago?
Answer. In fiscal year (FY) 2012, 15.9 percent of the nationwide
apprehensions of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) were females. In
fiscal year 2014 (as of July 10, 2014), 29.1 percent of the nationwide
apprehensions of UAC are females.
Question. Can you provide me with detailed data on the number of
boys vs. girls you see coming across the border, divided by age group
(0-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16+) and country of origin?
Answer. Please note this information is specific to the Rio Grande
Valley area only.
USBP RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTORP UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN APPREHENSIONS BY CITIZENS, GENDER, AGE
FY 2014 TD THROUGH JUNE
Data includes Deportable Aliens OnlyP Data Source: EID (Unofficial) as of 7/25/14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Female Male
Citizenship ------------------------------- Female --------------------------------- Male Total
0-5 6-10 11-15 16+ Total 0-5 6-10 11-15 16+ Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albania...................................................... ..... ...... 1 3 4 ..... ...... 3 13 16 20
Argentina.................................................... ..... ...... ...... 1 1 ..... ...... ....... ....... 0 1
Bangladesh................................................... ..... ...... ...... ...... 0 ..... ...... 1 2 3 3
Belize....................................................... 1 ...... 6 ...... 7 ..... 1 4 1 6 13
China, Peoples Republic of................................... ..... ...... 1 27 28 ..... ...... ....... 33 33 61
Colombia..................................................... ..... ...... ...... ...... 0 ..... ...... ....... 1 1 1
Costa Rica................................................... ..... ...... 1 ...... 1 ..... ...... 3 ....... 3 4
Dominican Republic........................................... ..... ...... 1 ...... 1 ..... ...... 3 ....... 3 4
Ecuador...................................................... 1 16 66 63 146 ..... 19 95 150 264 410
El Salvador.................................................. 119 637 2,183 1,866 4,805 114 706 2,929 3,707 7,456 12,261
Guatemala.................................................... 68 260 1,111 1,095 2,534 57 308 2,269 4,594 7,228 9,762
Honduras..................................................... 214 841 2,629 2,013 5,697 244 991 3,232 3,539 8,006 13,703
India........................................................ ..... ...... ...... ...... 0 ..... ...... ....... 2 2 2
Mexico....................................................... 6 24 153 247 430 12 95 2,123 3,066 5,296 5,726
Nepal........................................................ ..... ...... ...... ...... 0 ..... ...... ....... 1 1 1
Nicaragua.................................................... ..... 10 23 27 60 ..... 9 38 48 95 155
Peru......................................................... ..... 1 4 5 10 ..... 4 6 10 20 30
Romania...................................................... ..... ...... ...... ...... 0 ..... ...... ....... 1 1 1
Syria........................................................ ..... ...... ...... ...... 0 ..... ...... ....... 1 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 409 1,789 6,179 5,347 13,724 427 2,133 10,703 15,170 28,433 42,157
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the numeric break-down in fiscal year 2014 of
unaccompanied children, as compared to single adults and to families,
in aggregate and by country of origin? (Please report number of
individuals in each category.)
Answer.
U.S. BORDER PATROL RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR APPREHENSIONS BY DEMOGRAPHIC
FY 2014 TD THROUGH JUNE
Data includes Deportable Aliens Only Data Source: Enforcement Integrated Database (EID) (Unofficial) as of 7/25/
14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single
Citizenship FMUA* Adults UC Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALBANIA..................................................... 52 229 20 301
ARGENTINA................................................... 2 8 1 11
AUSTRALIA................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
AUSTRIA..................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
BAHAMAS..................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
BANGLADESH.................................................. ........... 228 3 231
BELIZE...................................................... 11 15 13 39
BENIN....................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
BOLIVIA..................................................... ........... 18 ........... 18
BRAZIL...................................................... 58 105 ........... 163
CANADA...................................................... 1 ........... ........... 1
CHILE....................................................... ........... 3 ........... 3
CHINA, PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF.................................. 2 885 61 948
COLOMBIA.................................................... 9 90 1 100
COSTA RICA.................................................. 6 60 4 70
CUBA........................................................ ........... 46 ........... 46
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC.......................................... ........... 171 2 173
ECUADOR..................................................... 107 2,091 410 2,608
EGYPT....................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
EL SALVADOR................................................. 9,535 21,947 12,261 43,743
EQUATORIAL GUINEA........................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
ERITREA..................................................... ........... 5 ........... 5
ETHIOPIA.................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
FRANCE...................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
GEORGIA..................................................... ........... 3 ........... 3
GHANA....................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
GREECE...................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
GUATEMALA................................................... 6,175 28,809 9,762 44,746
GUYANA...................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
HAITI....................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
HONDURAS.................................................... 24,744 20,904 13,703 59,351
HUNGARY..................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
INDIA....................................................... ........... 163 2 165
INDONESIA................................................... ........... 2 ........... 2
IRAN........................................................ ........... 1 ........... 1
JAMAICA..................................................... ........... 5 ........... 5
MACEDONIA................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
MEXICO...................................................... 1,405 40,197 5,726 47,328
NEPAL....................................................... 2 314 1 317
NICARAGUA................................................... 88 707 155 950
NIGER....................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
PAKISTAN.................................................... ........... 8 ........... 8
PANAMA...................................................... ........... 5 ........... 5
PARAGUAY.................................................... ........... 2 ........... 2
PERU........................................................ 95 269 30 394
PHILIPPINES................................................. ........... 2 ........... 2
POLAND...................................................... ........... 2 ........... 2
ROMANIA..................................................... 66 24 1 91
RUSSIA...................................................... ........... 3 ........... 3
SOUTH AFRICA................................................ ........... 1 ........... 1
SOUTH KOREA................................................. ........... 1 ........... 1
SPAIN....................................................... 3 2 ........... 5
SRI LANKA................................................... 2 40 ........... 42
SYRIA....................................................... ........... 3 1 4
TAJIKISTAN.................................................. ........... 1 ........... 1
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO......................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
TURKEY...................................................... ........... 22 ........... 22
UKRAINE..................................................... ........... 1 ........... 1
UNITED KINGDOM.............................................. ........... 1 ........... 1
UNKNOWN..................................................... 1 1 ........... 2
URUGUAY..................................................... ........... 2 ........... 2
VENEZUELA................................................... ........... 5 ........... 5
VIETNAM..................................................... ........... 3 ........... 3
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 42,364 117,420 42,157 201,941
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Family Unit (FMUA) subject apprehensions include all USBP apprehensions of adults (18 years old and over) with
a FMUA classification, and all accompanied children (0-17 years old).
refugee act of 1980
Question. For unaccompanied children taken into custody by CBP as
illegal entrants, who conducts the ``credible fear'' screening for
these children and at what point in the process?
Answer. CBP officers and agents conduct screenings on unaccompanied
children in accordance with the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA). The screening occurs
during the routine processing at CBP facilities.
Question. How are they given special consideration given their
minor status?
Answer. Consistent with the TVPRA and the Flores Settlement
Agreement, CBP trains its officers on the policies, procedures, and
responsibilities which they are expected to follow with juveniles, from
initial encounter through release or removal. CBP continues to ensure
the needs of the children are being met, including that they receive
the necessary food and shelter, and that they receive priority
processing before adults are processed. All unaccompanied children are
separated from unrelated adults, are held in the least restrictive
setting available, and are monitored closely.
Question. How does the process differ for Mexican children, who may
be put into the expedited removal process, versus children from ``non-
contiguous'' countries?
Answer. When DHS seeks the removal of an unaccompanied child, the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act requires that DHS
place the child in removal proceedings under section 240 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, with the exception of unaccompanied
children who are from contiguous countries. Children from Mexico and
Canada may be permitted to withdraw their applications for admission in
certain circumstances, if CBP determines the unaccompanied children
meets the following criteria:
1. No fear of return;
2. Not a victim of trafficking and there is no credible evidence of
trafficking risk; and,
3. Has the ability to make an independent decision (generally, over
the age of 14).
If the child meets the requirements and is offered a withdrawal,
then the return is conducted in accordance with contiguous country
agreements regarding the method of repatriation. If CBP cannot make
such a determination, then the child must be transferred to the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Except in the case of exceptional circumstances, DHS is required to
transfer unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries or those
from Mexico or Canada who do not voluntarily return to their home
country, to HHS within 72 hours of determining that the child is an
unaccompanied child. In emergency circumstances, such as in the case of
the recent influx of unaccompanied children, CBP makes every effort to
transfer the children to HHS custody as soon as possible. HHS is
responsible for the care and custody of unaccompanied children while
they are in Federal custody based on their immigration status.
Question. Are the credible fear screeners specially trained to
identify possible asylum claims or evidence of trafficking when
interviewing traumatized children?
Answer. All new CBP officers and agents are provided instruction
during basic training on the screening, arrest and detention, search,
care and treatment, placement, custody and consent requirements, and
rights of juveniles. CBP Officers and Border Patrol agents are trained
to recognize children who may be victims of trafficking or at risk of
being trafficked. Indicators may be identified through questioning, as
well as verbal and non-verbal cues. These screenings are an essential
step in protecting children from being exploited by human traffickers
and to ensure we do not further their exploitation.
Additionally, incumbent CBP officers and agents are required,
annually, to take the on-line CBP course Human Trafficking Awareness
and Unaccompanied Children, pursuant to applicable law. CBP is also in
the process of working with civil society partners to develop a video-
based course to provide CBP officers and agents enhanced instruction on
interacting with children. The goal of this video course is to increase
the capacity of agents and officers to speak with and screen children
so that they may better determine if the children display abuse or
human trafficking indicators. This training will also build awareness
about the conditions from which children may be escaping, and will
include information about age appropriate reactions to trauma and
exploitations children may have faced during their journey.
Question. What percentages of UACs by country of origin are
currently being found to express a credible fear of persecution if
returned to their country of origin? Further, what percentages are
being granted permanent asylum once that process unfolds?
Answer. As required by the TVPRA, unaccompanied children from
contiguous countries are screened to determine whether they fear a
return to their home country for any reason, and to determine if they
should be permitted to withdraw their applications for admission.
Unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries, as well as those
from contiguous countries who do not withdraw their applications for
admission, are generally placed into removal proceedings before an
immigration judge. While the immigration judge has jurisdiction over
the removal proceedings, United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) has initial jurisdiction over asylum claims filed by
unaccompanied children pursuant to the TVPRA. Thus, although these
unaccompanied children are in removal proceedings, any application for
asylum must be filed with USCIS and not with the Immigration Court.
Only a small percentage of unaccompanied children apprehended by
CBP have applied for asylum, and those who do have historically
represented a small percentage of the total asylum applications filed
with USCIS in any given year. In fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014
through June 30, 2.5 percent of unaccompanied children apprehended by
CBP subsequently applied for asylum. As of June 30, 2014, a total of
1,532 unaccompanied children have applied for asylum with USCIS in
fiscal year 2014. This is approximately 4 percent of the total number
of asylum applications received by USCIS in fiscal year 2014 through
June 30.
Below are the approval rates by year for unaccompanied children
asylum cases decided by USCIS under the TVPRA initial jurisdiction
provision, since the TVPRA was enacted. These approval rates do not
include unaccompanied children asylum cases decided by the Immigration
Courts, in cases in which USCIS did not grant asylum, but instead
referred the case back to the Immigration Courts for adjudication. We
defer to the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration
Review with respect to that information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year TVPRA UC Approval Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2009 \1\........................... 6.3%
Fiscal year 2010............................... 42.1%
Fiscal year 2011............................... 38.1%
Fiscal year 2012............................... 44.2%
Fiscal year 2013............................... 35.0%
Fiscal year 2014 Q3............................ 64.7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The initial jurisdiction procedures under the TVPRA were implemented
at the beginning of the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2009 on March 23,
2009, the effective date of the TVPRA.
post-katrina emergency reform act of 2006
Question. Do you have or will you have budgetary authority in the
$3.7 billion request to solve this issue or responsibility for the
planning and success of the interagency response?
Answer. The President's Emergency Supplemental Request for
Unaccompanied Children and Related Matters did not include a request
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA's
responsibility is in the coordination and support of our Federal
partners. FEMA is using existing funds and authorities to coordinate
the actions of the Unified Coordination Group which was established to
support our Federal partners in those coordination efforts. The
President's directive creating the UCG does not obligate any agency to
reimburse another agency for the resources used to address the UAC
humanitarian situation.
Question. I want you to succeed in ensuring that our response to
this emergency is coordinated in the most humane way possible. However,
I think it is important to have a person representing the
Administration who is responsible for the planning, implementation,
budgetary outlays and ultimate success or failure of our response to
this stated crisis?
Answer. FEMA is currently supporting the Federal response as
defined by the Presidential Memorandum--Response to the Influx of
Unaccompanied Children across the Southwest Border from June 2, 2014.
The Presidential Memorandum identified the current situation as an
``urgent humanitarian situation'' requiring a unified and coordinated
Federal response. The document directs the Secretary of Homeland
Security to establish an interagency Unified Coordination Group to
ensure unity of effort across the executive branch in response to the
humanitarian aspects of the situation, consistent with the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5
(Management of Domestic Incidents), including the coordination with
state, local, and other nonFederal entities.
Secretary Johnson has directed the FEMA Administrator, subject to
his oversight, direction, and guidance, to serve as the Federal
Coordinating Official (FCO) for the U.S. Government-wide response.
The President's June memorandum requires all departments and
agencies to provide full and prompt cooperation, resources, and
support, as appropriate and consistent with their own responsibilities
for addressing this situation under existing authorities and in
compliance with statutory requirements. The FEMA Administrator,
operating as the FCO, executes these responsibilities consistent with
all applicable laws and regulations, including legal requirements
governing the appropriate care and custody of unaccompanied children.
Using authorities under the National Response Framework through
interagency agreements, FEMA has been able to coordinate across the
Federal agencies' existing authorities and existing funding, to build
the overall capability needed to address the humanitarian needs of
unaccompanied children.
accountability
Question. We are being asked to consider an emergency supplemental
appropriations bill worth $3.7 billion. Clear lines of authority and
responsibility need to be established and accountability for the money
must be a priority. We need to identify who is in charge of fixing the
deep-rooted, systemic problem, what the plan is, and who is going to be
held responsible for delivering results.
Who is accountable in each of your departments or component
agencies and how are they part of a coordinated whole-of-government
approach?
Answer. On my and others' recommendation, in June the President
directed an inter-agency Unified Coordination Group be created to
address the situation, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002
and other authorities. I appointed FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate as
the Federal Coordinating Official. In this role, Administrator Fugate,
subject to my oversight, direction and guidance, leads and coordinates
Federal response efforts to ensure that Federal agencies are unified in
providing relief to the affected children. U.S. Customs and Border
Protection maintains primary responsibility for border security
operations at and between ports-of-entry and, working with U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, provides for the proper care of
unaccompanied children when they are temporarily in DHS custody. DHS
will continue to coordinate closely with the HHS, State, Defense,
Justice, the General Services Administration and other agencies, to
ensure a coordinated and rapid government-wide response in the short-
term and to undertake broader, longer-term reforms to address the root
cause behind these recent migration trends. We also continue to work
closely with the governments of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El
Salvador.
Question. What are the specific goals of each of your departments?
What are the metrics and the benchmarks of success or failure in
addressing this emergency situation, for the remainder of fiscal year
2014, for fiscal year 2015, and beyond?
Answer. With respect to unaccompanied children, consistent with
legal requirements, the goal of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) is to process, refer, and transfer unaccompanied children to the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for placement as
soon as HHS has bed space available, and within 72 hours after the
child has been identified as an unaccompanied child. CBP processes
unaccompanied children after apprehension at the border, and contacts
HHS so that HHS can locate available space at one of its facilities.
Once HHS has identified the appropriate bed space, DHS will transport
the child to the facility, as the law requires. DHS is required by law
to transfer unaccompanied children to the custody of HHS within 72
hours after determining that such child is unaccompanied, except in the
case of ``exceptional circumstances.''
The metric DHS will use and provide to Congress to benchmark this
goal will be the speed by which DHS processes and transfers
unaccompanied children out of DHS custody and into an HHS designated
location. In many cases, delays in transferring unaccompanied children
out of CBP short-term holding facilities will be due to lack of HHS
capacity to receive these children in HHS shelters. In the case of any
exceptional circumstances, such as any surges experienced during the
remainder of fiscal year 2014, as well as for fiscal year 2015 and
beyond, DHS will closely monitor the number of children held beyond 72
hours, and, for children held beyond 72 hours, the average length of
time in CBP custody.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
budget request
Question. The President's Budget was released in March. It is hard
for me to believe that the Administration did not know that the influx
of unaccompanied children was occurring at a pace that might outpace
resources. Why was the influx of unaccompanied children not flagged as
a priority in the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS),
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the State for Foreign
Operations funding request? How is the Administration going to ensure
that the OMB can be agile in their requests and give Congress time to
ensure oversight for crisis's build over time like this one?
Answer. The issue of unaccompanied children has always been a high
priority for the Administration. Personally, I have been fully immersed
and engaged in this issue since coming into office. I have been
increasingly concerned about the substantial increase in the numbers of
unaccompanied children and adults with children that DHS personnel are
apprehending at the border, particularly in the Rio Grande Valley.
These are some of the most vulnerable individuals we encounter. On
numerous trips to the region, I have seen the children there first
hand--a significant number of whom were under twelve years old.
The President's fiscal year (FY) 2015 Budget was transmitted to
Congress in March 2014. Officials from DHS and HHS coordinate regularly
on the issue of unaccompanied children. Both DHS and HHS were aware of
the rising trend in apprehensions of unaccompanied children and the
fiscal year 2015 Budget was based upon the data on apprehensions of
unaccompanied children that was available at that time. In fiscal year
2013, CBP apprehended more than 24,000 unaccompanied children at the
border. In just the first 9 months of fiscal year 2014, that number has
doubled to more than 57,000. Officials from DHS and HHS coordinate
regularly on the issue of unaccompanied children. Both DHS and HHS were
aware of the rising trend in apprehensions of unaccompanied children
and the fiscal year 2015 Budget was based upon the data on
apprehensions of unaccompanied children that was available at that
time.
This dramatic increase in apprehensions and activities associated
with unaccompanied children and adults with children, the resources
necessary to appropriately address this issue are simply not available
within the current fiscal year 2014 budget or the proposed fiscal year
2015 budget. To effectively address this emerging crisis, the President
requested an emergency supplemental appropriation of $3.7 billion to
support detention and removal facilities and processes appropriate for
children and adults with children, as well as increased activities to
disrupt human smuggling activities that bring these individuals across
U.S. borders.
The Administration has a long record of working closely with
Congress to ensure that all parties are aware of developments like this
one and have provided Congressional staff with regular briefings on
this issue. The Administration is committed to working closely with
Congress to ensure that there is sufficient time for the necessary
oversight mechanisms to be in place to ensure their successful
implementation.
effect on u.s. customs and border protection
Question. According to news reports, the influx of unaccompanied
children has preoccupied CBP officials and resulted in the CBP missing
opportunities to apprehend other threats. Please explain the severity
of this problem. Presently, how is CBP working to resolve this issue?
Answer. While the recent influx of unaccompanied children has
challenged enforcement capabilities, the Border Patrol has no
quantifiable evidence that its border security mission has been
negatively impacted. As mentioned previously, the Border Patrol has 265
detailed agents to the Rio Grande Valley to augment operations,
offsetting any negative impacts.
working with border authorities in mexico
Question. How exactly is DHS working with the border authorities in
Mexico to help with the influx of unaccompanied children?
Answer. CBP has several capacity building efforts, both ongoing and
planned, to enhance the border security capabilities of Mexico. CBP and
the Government of Mexico (GoM) deployed assets to high trafficked areas
along the shared border in an effort to deter Transnational Criminal
Organization (TCO) activities under the auspice of the Cross Border
Coordination Initiative (CBCI). CBCI provides an operational framework
to enhance public safety and degrade and disrupt the ability of
criminal organizations to engage in the smuggling of illegal drugs,
currency, weapons, ammunition and people.
CBP is working with GoM to assist in the training of approximately
400 Gendarmerie officers who will be used to enhance efforts along
their northern border as well as the targeting of TCO activities along
their southern border. Mexico's Gendarmerie is a special unit of
Policia Federal who will be used to address public safety concerns
throughout Mexico.
CBP is also partnering with GoM in the Operation against Smugglers
Initiative on Safety and Security (OASISS) program. OASISS is a bi-
national prosecutorial program with Mexico's Attorney General that is
focused on combating human smuggling across the Southwest Border by
identifying and prosecuting Mexican nationals in Mexican courts who
were arrested for alien smuggling in the United States.
biometric identification
Question. There have been reports that ICE and CBP have taken
biometric identification from some of the unaccompanied minors near the
border. Because most of these minors lack proper identification
biometrics appears to be a reliable way to ensure these minors are
accounted for as they pass through several agencies (DHS, HHS, DOJ),
family members in the U.S., and even as they are sent back to their
home countries. Furthermore, it is important that our agencies are able
to protect these children's identities. Are DHS and HHS properly
leveraging the biometrics captured, is there inter-agency cooperation?
Please describe the current or planned system to accurately account for
these minors as they stay in the U.S. and as they leave.
Answer. CBP collects biometric information for all inadmissible
applicants in accordance with the applicable regulation, 8 CFR 236.5.
The regulation states biometrics are collected for inadmissible
applicants, including unaccompanied children that are age 14 and older.
CBP collects biometric information for immigrants over age 14,
including fingerprints and photographs, in accordance with 8 CFR
264.1(g); and, CBP collects biometric information for most nonimmigrant
visitors between the age of 14 and 79, in accordance with 8 CFR
235.1(f). The biometric data that is collected for inadmissible
applicants is stored in the DHS ``IDENT'' data systems.
If unaccompanied children are under the age of 14, CBP photographs
the unaccompanied children and generates an A-number on their behalf.
A-numbers are unique personal identifiers used to create individual
immigrant files known as A-files. The A-file contains all personal
immigration and naturalization records. If an unaccompanied child is
allowed to remain in the United States, biometrics would be collected
when the person turns age 14 (within 30 days of the 14th birthday), in
accordance with 8 CFR 264.1(g).
CBP places all unaccompanied children whom CBP seeks to remove into
removal proceedings before an Immigration Judge from the U.S.
Department of Justice. CBP makes every effort to transfer unaccompanied
children who do not voluntarily return to Mexico or Canada to HHS
within 72 hours of determining that they are unaccompanied children.
HHS is responsible for the care and custody of unaccompanied children
while they are in Federal custody based on their immigration status.
While HHS and DHS work together closely, there is no automated system
that links the biometric identification between CBP and HHS.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Begich
circumstances, reasons that led to migration
Question. Is CBP tracking the circumstances and reasons that have
led to the migrant children to the United States when they are
apprehended at the border?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is identifying
data and collaborating with other immigration, law enforcement, and
border security agencies to monitor, identify, and review critical
issues dealing with migration surges along the southwest border.
CBP and the immigration enforcement community are assessing the
data that we and other agencies currently have to identify the root
causes in an effort to develop a forward looking solution. There is
currently a whole of government approach to this problem which is
focused on identifying and collecting the required information that
would enable us to better understand the root causes and develop
operational responses to help mitigate.
Question. If we aren't collecting data to identify the root causes
of this problem, how can we put together a forward-looking solution?
Answer. CBP is identifying data and collaborating with other
immigration, law enforcement, and border security agencies to monitor,
identify, and review critical issues dealing with migration surges
along the southwest border.
DHS, through its CBP, ICE, and I&A components, is working
diligently to understand the range of reasons for this surge in illegal
migration. This work includes interviews and debriefs with migrants in
our custody, intelligence gathering and analysis, working with our
partners in Mexico and Central America, and robust smuggling
investigations. These actions will enable us to have a meaningful
impact on the surge and reduce the flow of illegal migration, in
addition to informing many of the reasons for this surge.
securing the southwest border
Question. What is DHS doing to make sure we not only secure our
southwestern border but also ensure that Mexico secures its own
southern border, to help manage the flow of people before it reaches
us?
Answer. DHS continues to have a productive and mutually-beneficial
relationship with our counterparts in the Government of Mexico based on
the doctrines of co-responsibility of our shared border and co-
management of migration issues. The core of DHS interest lies in
improving joint border management, which includes everything from
investigations to disaster response, admissibility determinations to
joint operations, and appropriate information sharing to the
repatriation of Mexican nationals. The majority of DHS programmatic
efforts with Mexico are focused on expediting the legitimate flow of
goods and people and interdicting and preventing the illicit flows of
people, weapons, drugs, and currency.
Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto formally announced Mexico's
southern border strategy on July 6, 2014, at an event which included
Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina. As part of this new strategy,
DHS will engage with the Government of Mexico, as requested, to provide
training and technical assistance to improve security and manage the
flow of goods and people through southern Mexico. Further, DHS will
work with the Government of Mexico to take a coordinated approach to
engagement with the Government of Guatemala, as well as other Central
American governments whose citizens are also entering the U.S.
illegally and therefore impacting the migration surge.
Additionally, I signed a Memorandum of Cooperation and Bilateral
Strategic Plan with my Guatemalan counterpart during a visit to
Guatemala on July 9, 2014. These agreements will formalize our
partnership and ensure a coordinated, strategic, approach to issues
concerning border security, immigration management, and information
sharing. Of note, the strategic plan includes the goal of continued
engagement between U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Border
Patrol and their Guatemalan counterparts to build capacity to patrol
and manage Guatemala's borders.
By promoting the idea of co-management and co-responsibility for
border security and immigration, we can effectively engage our partners
in Mexico and Central America to address the illicit flows of goods and
people through the region.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons
alternatives to detention
Question. The Administration has requested $879 million for ICE for
a combination of detention and alternatives-to-detention (ATD)
programs. How much of the funds would be spent on detention and how
much would be spent on ATD?
Answer. The Administration request includes $731.3 million for
detention and $32.7 million for the Alternatives to Detention program.
The remainder of the $879 million is for the prosecution and removal
costs associated with these populations.
legal orientation program
Question. The Administration's emergency supplemental request
includes $15 million for legal representation for unaccompanied minors
and $2 million for expansion of the Legal Orientation Program. Please
explain why it is important for children who may have asylum or human
trafficking claims to be represented by counsel in a removal
proceeding.
Answer. We respectfully refer you to the Department of Justice's
Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the Legal
Orientation Program.
Question. Removal proceedings are adversarial; an asylum case can
include cross-examination of witnesses before a judge. How does DHS
ensure that a child has a full and fair opportunity to present a legal
argument in this setting?
Answer. We respectfully refer you to the Department of Justice's
Executive Office for Immigration Review.
asylum officers
Question. Does the Administration's emergency supplemental request
include funds for hiring more asylum officers to promptly adjudicate
asylum applications? If so, please provide some detail on that aspect
of the request and how an increased number of asylum officers might
impact detention costs.
Answer. No, the Administration's emergency supplemental request
does not include funds for hiring more asylum officers. Consistently,
only a very small percentage of unaccompanied children have applied for
asylum. In fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 through June 30, only
2 percent of unaccompanied children apprehended by CBP subsequently
applied for asylum. Likewise, unaccompanied children apprehended at the
border who subsequently file for asylum represent only a very small
percentage of the total asylum applications filed with the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in any given year.
As of June 30, 2014, a total of 1,532 unaccompanied children have
applied for asylum with USCIS in fiscal year 2014. This is
approximately 4 percent of the total number of asylum applications
received by USCIS in fiscal year 2014 through June 30.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
illegal migration by families
Question. How will this action actually deter families from making
the dangerous journey?
Answer. From past experience, we know that detention and rapid
removal, following all appropriate due process, is an important
deterrent to illegal crossing. For example, in 2005, after noting a
significant increase in illegal crossings of Brazilian nationals, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prioritized its bed space for
detaining and removing all Brazilians apprehended while trying to
illegally cross the border. The approach yielded results. After 60
days, attempted illegal crossings by Brazilians were down 90 percent.
As a result, DHS is building additional detention capacity for
family units that cross the border illegally in the Rio Grande Valley.
For this purpose, DHS has established a temporary facility for family
units on the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's campus at
Artesia, New Mexico, and modified an existing ICE facility in Karnes,
Texas. The establishment of this temporary facility and the
modification of the Karnes Family Residential Center will help ICE to
increase its capacity to house and expedite the removal of such
families in a manner that complies with Federal law. Artesia and Karnes
are two of several facilities that DHS expects to use to increase our
capacity to hold and expedite the removal of the increasing number of
family units illegally crossing the southwest border. DHS is ensuring
that, after apprehension, families are housed in facilities that
adequately provide for their safety, security, and medical needs and
that necessary due process needs are met.
Question. Will DHS be able to work with DOJ to remove these
individuals?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security has been working
closely with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to ensure that
proceedings before DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review with
regard to these individuals are completed in a timely manner. DOJ is
temporarily reassigning immigration judges to handle the additional
caseload. These immigration judges will adjudicate these cases as
quickly as possible, consistent with all existing legal and procedural
standards, including those for asylum applicants. We expect additional
family unit removals to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to
continue after full and appropriate due process and other protections
are afforded.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
tracking unaccompanied children
Question. Secretary Johnson, if an Unaccompanied Alien Child (UAC)
is transferred into the custody of a parent or guardian, what are the
steps in place to ensure that the child appears at their immigration
hearing? Does the Department of Homeland Security track UACs once they
are released from HHS custody?
Answer. Pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008, with the exception of certain
unaccompanied children from contiguous countries whom the Department of
Homeland Security may permit to withdraw their applications for
admission and return to their home country, unaccompanied children
apprehended at the border are generally placed in removal proceedings
under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Like all
other individuals on ICE's non-detained docket, unaccompanied children
ultimately released to the custody of a parent or guardian are subject
to supervision requirements as determined by their local ICE
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Field Office until their case
comes to a final resolution.
As with adults, unaccompanied children who do not appear for their
immigration court proceedings may be ordered removed in absentia by an
immigration judge. Upon receipt of notification that an unaccompanied
child has been ordered removed by an immigration judge, ICE ERO will
take appropriate enforcement action based on its national security,
public safety, and border security priorities.
Question. What percentage of UACs does not appear at their
immigration hearing?
Answer. DHS is responsible for continued immigration case
management, while the Department of Justice's Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR) is responsible for scheduling immigration
hearings before an immigration judge.
DHS does not record or statistically report on the number of
unaccompanied children who have been issued a Notice to Appear and who
have absconded from their immigration court proceedings, and defers to
the EOIR with respect to this information.
Question. What is DHS's process for handling UACs that do not
appear at their hearing?
Answer. Under section 240(b)(5)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (``Act''), an immigration court shall order removed in
absentia any alien who fails to appear at his or her removal hearing if
DHS establishes by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence that
written notice of the hearing was provided to the alien and that the
alien is removable. Generally, the written notice is considered
sufficient if it was sent to the most recent address provided. However,
a removal order entered in absentia may be rescinded by the immigration
court if the alien can establish either (1) that, within 180 days of
the order, he or she was unable to appear because of exceptional
circumstances or (2) that he or she did not receive written notice of
the removal proceeding and cannot be constructively charged with having
received notice of the proceeding. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1229a(b)(5); 8 CFR
Sec. 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A). DHS has the discretion to join or oppose
these motions to reopen as appropriate.
As noted above, upon receipt of notification that an unaccompanied
child has been ordered removed by an immigration judge, ICE ERO will
take appropriate enforcement action based on its national security,
public safety, and border security priorities.
Question. How many of these fugitive UACs are actually subsequently
removed by DHS?
Answer. Of the 1,695 unaccompanied children removed in fiscal year
(FY) 2011, 82 were fugitives; of the 1,809 unaccompanied children
removed in fiscal year 2012, 91 were fugitives; and of the 1,868
unaccompanied children removed in fiscal year 2013, 108 were fugitives.
stemming the flow of border crossings
Question. What specific actions have you taken to stem the tide of
UACs crossing the border?
Answer. To stem the tide of undocumented children and families
seeking to enter the United States, we have been in contact with senior
government officials of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico to
address our shared border security interests, the underlying conditions
in Central America that are promoting this mass migration, and how we
can work together to assure faster, secure removal and repatriation. I
traveled to Guatemala on July 8th and 9th, where I met with the
President of Guatemala and senior government officials from Mexico to
discuss a range of further steps to improve the regional response to
this migration.
DHS, together with DOJ, has added personnel and resources to the
investigation, prosecution, and dismantling of the smuggling
organizations that are facilitating border crossings into the Rio
Grande Valley. In May, ICE concluded a month-long, targeted enforcement
operation that focused on the logistics networks of human smuggling
organizations along the southwest border, with operations in El Paso,
Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, and San Diego that resulted in 163
arrests of smugglers. Building on these efforts, on June 23rd, DHS
surged approximately 60 ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)
criminal investigators, intelligence analysts, and support staff to the
Rio Grande Valley as part of efforts to target and dismantle human
smuggling operations across the southwest border. ICE will continue to
vigorously pursue and dismantle these alien smuggling organizations by
all investigative means to include the financial structure of these
criminal organizations. These organizations not only facilitate illegal
migration across our border, they traumatize and exploit the children
who are objects of their smuggling operation.
We have re-initiated and intensified our public affairs campaigns
in Spanish, with radio, print, and TV spots, to communicate the dangers
of sending unaccompanied children on the long journey from Central
America to the United States, and of putting children into the hands of
criminal smuggling organizations. CBP has developed and launched the
Dangers Awareness Campaign to communicate these dangers to children and
their families who are considering the journey, and is working with
stakeholders in Central America and the United States in order to
encourage the use of Dangers Awareness Campaign materials. I have
issued an open letter to the parents of those who are sending their
children from Central America to the United States, which has been
distributed broadly in Spanish and English, to highlight the dangers of
the journey and to emphasize there are no free passes or ``permisos''
at the other end. DHS is also stressing that Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) does not apply to children who arrive now or
in the future in the United States, and that to be considered for DACA,
individuals must have continually resided in the United States since
June 2007. We are making clear that the ``earned path to citizenship''
contemplated by the Senate bill passed last year will not apply to
individuals who cross the border now or in the future, but only to
those who have been in the country for the last two and a half years.
Question. Is the Department prosecuting the smugglers that bring
these children into the country?
Answer. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) utilizes a
comprehensive human smuggling strategy that leverages the full
complement of the agency's equities and authorities. ICE Homeland
Security Investigations (HSI) focuses its efforts on human smuggling
organizations (HSOs) posing the highest degree of risk to the United
States and uses different factors to target these organizations. These
factors include volume, violence, dangerous methods, national security
risk, the co-mingling of unaccompanied children in smuggling loads, and
other public safety considerations.
ICE's goal is to address HSOs as far away from the United States as
possible and, subsequently, disrupt the organization at every step
along the criminal continuum, to include source and transit countries,
as human cargo proceeds toward the United States. Recognizing that the
number of unaccompanied children apprehended by CBP has risen each
year, ICE is increasing and sharpening its efforts to counter HSOs
facilitating this increasing trend.
During May 2014, ICE HSI conducted a successful month-long human
smuggling operation, Operation Southern Crossing, throughout the five
southwest border offices of Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Phoenix, and
San Diego. Due to the recent significant levels of human smuggling
occurring near and through Texas' Rio Grande Valley, this operation
focused heavily on the investigation and enforcement actions in
southeast Texas. The operation resulted in the initiation of 119
investigations, 163 criminal arrests, 60 indictments, and 45
convictions. The operation also netted the seizure of 9 firearms, 29
vehicles, and more than $35,000 in proceeds. During the course of these
investigations, 40 unaccompanied children were encountered.
In June 2014, ICE HSI commenced Operation Coyote, a 90-day human
smuggling initiative, focused on the San Antonio and Houston areas of
responsibility. ICE HSI has deployed 60 personnel to these offices as a
force multiplier for the execution of human smuggling investigation and
enforcement actions during the operational period. The detailed
personnel include 46 special agents, 4 technical enforcement officers,
and 10 intelligence research specialists. After less than a month into
this operation, 192 smugglers and their associates had already been
arrested on criminal charges, more than 500 undocumented immigrants had
been taken into custody, and more than $625,000 in illicit profits had
been seized from 288 bank accounts held by human smuggling and drug
trafficking organizations. Concurrently with this operation, ICE HSI is
leveraging money remitters' transaction data to target and disrupt
illicit proceeds associated with identified smuggling activity.
ICE remains committed to working with CBP, and other Federal,
state, local, and tribal partners on operational activities and
information sharing in order to combat HSOs at every opportunity.
ICE will continue to evaluate the current trends associated with
human smuggling in order to more effectively counter the actions of the
criminal organizations involved in this criminal activity.
Question. How many have you prosecuted in the last year, in the
last 3 years, and in the last 5 years?
Answer. ICE has recorded the following statistics related to human
smuggling over the last five fiscal years (FYs):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of Human
Fiscal Year Smuggling # of Arrests # of # of Asset Seizures
Investigations Indictments Convictions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009............................ 2,268 2,316 1,252 1,338 $9,351,591
2010............................ 2,217 2,554 1,446 1,546 $15,327,370
2011............................ 2,246 2,576 1,458 1,629 $6,368,898
2012............................ 2,099 2,717 1,548 1,579 $7,454,056
2013............................ 1,777 2,718 1,854 1,802 $5,219,924
2014 (as of 7/30/2014).......... 1,550 2,358 1,267 1,213 $8,203,782
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Mr. Secretary, if the supplemental request is meant to be
a holistic approach to stem the flow of UACs, why did the
Administration not send over the legislative proposal outlined in the
President's letter on June 30, 2014? In particular, the President's
letter asked for Congress to provide you more authority to deport UACs
to noncontiguous countries in Central America.
Answer. I continue to make myself available to work with Congress
on the best approach to address this humanitarian situation, in a way
that ensures due process for those making protection claims, while also
achieving the timely and safe removal of individuals apprehended at our
borders.
Question. Mr. Secretary, if there is no disincentive against
illegally crossing the border, how do you expect to stem the flow of
UACs?
Answer. Deterrence is a key part of the Administration's
comprehensive strategy to stem the tide of unaccompanied children and
adults with families crossing the southwest border. As I have stated,
our message continues to be clear--our border is not open to illegal
migration. Unless they qualify for some form of humanitarian relief,
individuals migrating illegally will be sent back to their home
countries consistent with our laws and values. As part of our
enforcement strategy, DHS has increased the available facilities to
house and expeditiously remove adults with children, while still
providing them with all appropriate protection claims that the law
affords. I am pleased to report that in July, for the first time this
year, apprehensions of unaccompanied children and adults with children
have dramatically decreased. This is welcome news, but we cannot
predict with certainty the cause of this dramatic decrease or what
cooler fall weather will bring with regard to this migration pattern.
That said, DHS has, and continues to take a number of measures to stem
the tide, which we believe have been effective. However, DHS must
continue these efforts and expand on the progress made, which will
require supplemental appropriations from Congress as the President has
requested.
Question. Why is the Administration backing away from this
necessary policy change outlined in the June 30th letter to Congress?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues to
advocate for additional congressional support to maximize the ongoing
U.S. Government efforts to reduce the surge of unaccompanied children
entering the United States.
Question. How can we stem the tide of UACs coming into this country
if the large majority of them stay here indefinitely?
Answer. DHS and other Federal departments and agencies continue to
work closely with our Mexican and Central American partners to address
the root causes of migration and stem the flow of adults, adults with
children, and unaccompanied children into the United States. As the
U.S. Government continues to communicate to Central American partners,
sending children to travel illegally to the United States is
exceedingly dangerous and should not be done. As for those
unaccompanied children who are sent across the border despite such
warnings, DHS generally places these children in removal proceedings.
DHS would like to continue to work with Congress to ensure legal
authorities are in place to maximize the impact of all U.S. Government
efforts, including ensuring tough penalties exist for those who smuggle
vulnerable migrants such as children.
Federal agencies have been working closely together for some time
to address the increased number of children, and our efforts this past
summer are a testament to that work.
But working together our agencies can only do so much. This
situation is a prime example of how our immigration system is broken
and demonstrates the need to fix our legal immigration system.
Question. Approximately 1,700 UACs are deported each year. Even by
the most conservative estimates, that means we are deporting less than
12.5 percent of the illegal children that cross. What is happening to
the other 87.5 percent of children remaining in the United States?
Answer. Unaccompanied children not removed in a single fiscal year
may be in various stages of the immigration process. Some may have been
granted a form of relief or protection from removal (e.g., a
trafficking visa, special immigrant juvenile status, or asylum). Others
may be awaiting their removal hearings on a non-detained docket; still
others may have been ordered removed but are awaiting the issuance of
travel documents from their country of origin.
Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the care of unaccompanied
children was transferred from the legacy Immigration and Naturalization
Service to the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) of
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). See Homeland
Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296 Sec. 462(a), 116 Stat. 2135,
2202 codified at 6 U.S.C. Sec. 279(a). As such, the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) is required to transfer unaccompanied children
to HHS ORR custody within 72 hours of determining that such children
are unaccompanied. After DHS transfers the children to HHS ORR custody,
HHS ORR has sole responsibility for the care, custody, and placement of
the unaccompanied children.
Accordingly, for questions relating to the circumstances of
unaccompanied children outside the disposition of the removal process,
DHS defers to HHS ORR. For questions relating to any ongoing
immigration proceedings, DHS defers to the U.S. Department of Justice's
Executive Office for Immigration Review which administers the
immigration courts.
Question. How many UACs are becoming legal residents?
Answer. We interpret the reference to ``becoming legal residents''
as referring to unaccompanied children obtaining lawful permanent
resident (LPR) status. There are multiple routes to lawful permanent
residence, and certain unaccompanied children may be eligible to seek
this form of relief under our laws. Some unaccompanied children may be
eligible for asylum, which may in turn enable those individuals to seek
LPR status. Some unaccompanied children may eventually be eligible for
lawful permanent residence under the Special Immigrant Juvenile
provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Some unaccompanied
children may have a parent in the United States who is either a U.S.
citizen or LPR, and through which the child may be able to obtain LPR
status based on a family petition. These and other circumstances are
examples of how an unaccompanied child may become an LPR. However, none
of the data that USCIS captures on the relevant forms relating to
lawful permanent residence identifies a child as an unaccompanied
child. As a result, USCIS is unable to provide the number of
unaccompanied children that are becoming LPRs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Boozman
money spent to address problem
Question. What kind of metrics are going to be provided to Congress
if this money is appropriated?
Answer. DHS will continue to keep Congress closely informed about
the UAC situation, including providing the average time in custody for
unaccompanied children nationwide, which is an important indicator of
our response efforts.
Question. Why does this request not include policy changes as
alluded to in President Obama's letter, to solve the problems that are
causing the crisis rather than simply ask for money to manage it? The
President's letter does say that ``separate from this request'' it is
working to ensure that it has the ``legal authorities'' to expedite the
removal of unaccompanied minor children from non-contiguous countries.
Why should this be separate and when will we get those legislative
recommendations? Would it not save the American people money to solve
the crisis as soon as possible rather than later? Would not changing
the provisions of the TVPRA immediately be a much more cost-effective
measure than spending $1.8 billion dollars toward care for the UACs, so
that they can be sent home rather than cared for in this country?
Answer. The situation in the Rio Grande Valley is, without
question, an urgent humanitarian situation that requires all of our
collective efforts to solve. To address the situation on the southwest
border, our strategy has been three-fold: (1) process the increased
tide of unaccompanied children through the system as quickly and safely
as possible; (2) stem the increased tide of illegal migration into the
Rio Grande Valley; and (3) do these things in a manner consistent with
our laws and values as Americans. The President has requested this
emergency supplemental appropriation of $3.7 billion, including $1.5
billion for DHS to support additional detention and removal facilities
and enhanced processes, as well as increased activities to disrupt and
dismantle the human smuggling organizations that lure these individuals
into the dangerous journey from Central America. This appropriation is
critical to ensuring the continued effectiveness of the series of
immediate and planned actions DHS has implemented to address this
urgent situation.
As you are aware, on June 2nd, President Obama, consistent with the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, directed me to establish a Unified
Coordination Group to bring to bear the assets of the entire Federal
Government on this situation. This group includes DHS and all its
components, the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS),
Department of Defense, Department of Justice (DOJ), and State, and the
General Services Administration. I, in turn, designated Federal
Emergency Management Agency Administrator Craig Fugate to serve as the
Federal Coordinating Official for the U.S. Government-wide response.
DHS, together with its interagency partners, continues to actively
work with senior government officials of Guatemala, El Salvador,
Honduras, and Mexico to address our shared border security interests,
as well as the underlying conditions in Central America that are
promoting this mass migration. On June 20th, Vice President Biden
visited Guatemala to meet with regional leaders to address the influx
of unaccompanied children and families from Central America and the
underlying security and economic issues that are causing this
migration. The Vice President announced that the United States will be
providing a range of new assistance to the region, including $9.6
million in additional funding for Central American governments to
receive and reintegrate their repatriated citizens, and a new $40
million U.S. Agency for International Development program in Guatemala
over 5 years to improve citizen security. An additional $161.5 million
will be provided this year under the Central American Regional Security
Initiative to further enable Central American countries to respond to
the region's most pressing security and governance challenges. In
addition, I traveled to Guatemala on July 8th and 9th, where I met with
the President of Guatemala and senior government officials from Mexico
to discuss a range of further steps to improve the regional response to
this migration. And, on July 25th, President Obama and I met at the
White House with the Presidents of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador
to ensure continued progress to address the situation. These
collaborative efforts are ongoing.
We have also made strides in the investigation, prosecution, and
dismantling of the smuggling organizations that prey on vulnerable
families and children in Central America, and facilitate border
crossings into the Rio Grande Valley. In May, ICE's HSI conducted a
month-long initiative along the U.S. southwest border in which 163
alien smugglers and other violators were arrested. HSI special agents
also obtained 60 indictments and 45 convictions, seized 29 vehicles, 9
firearms and more than $35,000 in illicit proceeds. Building on these
efforts, on June 23, HSI surged 60 special agents, intelligence
analysts, and support staff to the RGV as part of HSI's ongoing efforts
to target and dismantle human smuggling operations across the southwest
border. As of July 21st, 192 smugglers and their associates have
already been arrested on criminal charges, more than 500 undocumented
immigrants have been taken into custody, and more than $625,000 in
illicit profits have been seized from 288 bank accounts held by human
smuggling and drug trafficking organizations.
DHS has also re-initiated and intensified our public affairs
campaigns in Spanish, with radio, print, and TV spots, to communicate
the dangers of sending unaccompanied children on the long journey from
Central America to the United States, and the dangers of putting
children into the hands of criminal smuggling organizations. CBP has
developed and launched the Dangers Awareness Campaign to communicate
these dangers to children and their families who are considering the
journey, and is working with stakeholders in Central America and the
United States in order to encourage the use of Dangers Awareness
Campaign materials. I have issued an open letter to the parents of
those who are sending their children from Central America to the United
States, which has been distributed broadly in Spanish and English, to
highlight the dangers of the journey and to emphasize there are no free
passes or ``permisos'' at the other end. Furthermore, we continue to
stress that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) does not
apply to children who arrive in the United States now or in the future,
and that to be considered for DACA, individuals must have continually
resided in the United States since June 2007. We are making clear that
the ``earned path to citizenship'' contemplated by the Senate bill
passed last year will not apply to individuals who cross the border now
or in the future; but only to those who have been in the country for
the last two and a half years.
As President Obama, the Vice President, and I have said, our border
is not open to illegal migration and we will send recent illegal
migrants back. We have sent this clear message through our recent
action; removals from the Artesia facility of Central American adults
with children who recently crossed the border illegally in the Rio
Grande Valley began on July 14th. Removals of adults with children from
Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador continue, following full and
appropriate due process and other protections being afforded.
Under our laws, once CBP makes a determination that an individual
is an unaccompanied child from Central America, or any other non-
contiguous country, that child must be transferred from DHS to HHS.
Unaccompanied children from Mexico or Canada may be repatriated to
their country of citizenship without being transferred to HHS, or
placed in removal proceedings if they do not present any trafficking
victimization indicators, do not express a fear of returning to their
home country, and are able to make an independent decision to withdraw
their application for admission. Mexican or Canadian unaccompanied
children who present such indicators must be transferred to the custody
of HHS, similar to those unaccompanied children from Central America
and other non-contiguous countries. Throughout this time, removal
proceedings against such children are ongoing. Every unaccompanied
child will retain the right, like adults, to assert a claim of asylum
or seek other protections. But, unless the child has been granted
asylum, or some other protection in this country, he or she will be
ordered removed.
Question. How much money has been spent since October 2013 on
transportation of UACs to communities throughout the country, and what
form has this transportation taken (bus, plane)?
Answer. As of July 10, 2014, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) has spent $28,826,763 on transporting 44,549
unaccompanied children to U.S. Health and Human Services facilities.
ICE has primarily transported unaccompanied children by air, but has
also used buses in some cases.
As of July 10, 2014, CBP has spent $3,600,000 on transferring
unaccompanied children from CBP facilities in Rio Grande Valley to
another CBP facility in Nogales, Arizona. CBP used the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) emergency air contract to transfer
unaccompanied children via chartered aircraft.
Question. President Obama's deferred action policies were
originally justified as a way to ensure limited resources were spent
only on the Administration's ``enforcement priorities.'' How much money
has been spent on implementing DACA and prosecutorial discretion
policies? How does this request, which alone is more than two thirds of
ICE's budget last year, change your view of what should be your
enforcement priorities and the use of limited resources?
Answer. Regarding implementation of Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) bore no
cost. With respect to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS), the table below provides data regarding DACA obligations by
cost category since inception. When reviewing the table, it is
important to note that the reported obligations represent the tracked
costs that USCIS incurred, or projects to incur, for the DACA program.
The tracked costs do not include a share of USCIS overhead costs such
as management and oversight, customer service, and other costs. The
USCIS fee for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-
765), the Application for Travel Document (Form I-131), and the
Biometrics Services fee include an allocation of these costs which are
also borne by all other fee paying applicants and petitioners. DACA
revenue has been sufficient to cover DACA costs, and USCIS expects this
will continue even as costs (such as salaries) increase over time.
DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS
USCIS Fiscal Year 2012-2014 Obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Fiscal
Cost Category Year 2012
Obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employee Salary and Benefits......................... $503,664
Employee Overtime.................................... 1,446,145
General Operating Expense............................ 6,540,303
Contracts............................................ 6,934,083
Rent/Facility Costs.................................. .................
------------------
Total.......................................... 15,424,195
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Fiscal
Cost Category Year 2013
Obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employee Salary and Benefits......................... $52,432,529
Employee Overtime.................................... 15,004,576
General Operating Expense............................ 12,132,209
Contracts............................................ 36,851,046
Rent/Facility Costs.................................. 16,371,643
------------------
Total.......................................... 132,792,003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Fiscal
Cost Category Year 2014
Obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employee Salary and Benefits......................... $88,212,608
Employee Overtime.................................... 1,636,773
General Operating Expense............................ 5,578,432
Contracts............................................ 28,476,777
Rent/Facility Costs.................................. 8,443,551
------------------
Total.......................................... 132,338,141
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the implementation of prosecutorial discretion, ICE
spent $18.8 million to complete reviews of more than 407,000 cases.
______
Questions Submitted to Hon. Thomas Shannon
Questions Submitted by Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski
Question. Do you believe that expediting adjudication and
deportation procedures can, by itself, stop the migration that we are
seeing from Central America? Is it reasonable to assume that these
individuals will continue to risk their lives to gain entry into the
United States?
Answer. Expediting adjudication and deportation procedures alone
will not deter the flow of individuals emigrating from Central America.
Fear of violence, prospects for educational and employment
opportunities, and family reunification will continue to be factors
that draw migrants to the United States, despite the publicized dangers
of the journey. Although deportation is an important and visible sign
that migrants without documentation are not guaranteed permission to
stay, the Department of State recognizes that domestic conditions in El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras afford limited opportunities for
their citizens, including returned migrants. The United States is
committed to partnering with Central America to improve economic
prosperity, security, and governance to create conditions that reduce
underlying factors that lead to migration.
Question. Do you have reliable data on the portion of these
migrants who are motivated to come to the U.S. because of fear of
violence in their home countries?
Answer. Although there is not a single reason that explains the
increase in unaccompanied children migrating to the United States,
violence in the countries of origin is frequently cited as a principal
factor. An April 2014 UNHCR report noted that out of 404 children
interviewed, 192 cited violence as one of their reasons for migrating.
It is estimated that up to 70 percent of homicides in El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras occur in the cities from which unaccompanied
children emigrate. Honduras' homicide rate of 90 per 100,000, the
highest in the world, is 14.6 times the global average of 6.2 per
100,000; El Salvador's and Guatemala's rates are fourth and fifth
highest in the world, respectively, at 41 and 39 per 100,000. In
Honduras, the single largest place of origin of unaccompanied children
is the San Pedro Sula/Choloma/El Progreso metropolitan area, which has
a homicide rate of approximately 179 per 100,000. Significant places of
origin in El Salvador and Guatemala also include major metropolitan
areas where crime and violence tends to be at its highest. In Honduras,
the National Observatory of Violence reported that violent deaths of
women increased by 246 percent between 2005 and 2012.
Question. Do you have reliable data on the portion who are fleeing
domestic or sexual violence, or who are victims of trafficking?
Answer. We are aware of the high levels of domestic and sexual
assaults present Central American countries. An April 2014 report by
UNHCR noted that out of 404 children interviewed, 85 cited abuse in the
home as one of their reasons for migrating. El Salvador and Guatemala
have two of the highest rates of murders of women in the world. In
2013, the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Women in Honduras
received 4,903 complaints of domestic abuse, and violent deaths of
women increased 246 percent from 2005 to 2012.
We know that organized criminal groups in this region profit from
multiple forms of human trafficking and also force, co opt and/or
coerce adults and children to engage in illicit activities. In addition
to the risk of trafficking in their country of origin, these children
may experience human trafficking during the dangerous journey to the
United States or once inside the United States.
Question. In addition to more efficient deportations, some have
called for cutting aid to the governments of countries from which the
majority of undocumented minors are coming, if those governments do not
stop this exodus. It seems to me that would make the situation worse,
but what is your view?
Answer. Cutting off aid to our partners in Central America will not
resolve the migration crisis; it will exacerbate it. Weak economic
growth, low investment in vocational education and training, increased
insecurity, declining rural incomes, and ineffective use of limited
public sector resources are among the various factors encouraging
family units and unaccompanied children to migrate. U.S. assistance
addresses those causes of instability, and a loss of such assistance
would result in an even worse environment for children in those
countries. U.S. investments have been and must continue to be met with
resources and reciprocal commitments by Central American governments.
Additionally, President Obama and the Presidents of El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras issued a joint statement following their July
25 meeting in Washington, reiterating a ``commitment to prevent
families and children from undertaking this dangerous journey and to
work together to promote safe, legal, and orderly migration.'' They
pledged to pursue the criminal networks associated with child
migration, to counter misinformation about U.S. immigration policy, to
work together to humanely repatriate migrants, and to address the
underlying causes of migration by reducing criminal activity and
promoting greater social and economic opportunity.
Question. We do need willing partners in Central America if we are
going to have any chance of effectively addressing the root causes of
this migration. But given the lack of educational opportunities and the
high rates of unemployment in those countries, what incentive do those
governments have to stop it? To put it bluntly, isn't it better for
them if these people become our problem, not theirs?
Answer. The Central American governments recognize that they have a
responsibility to respond to the challenge of unaccompanied child
migration. That it is a shared responsibility which requires a
regional, comprehensive solution to address issues of security,
prosperity and governance--all of which play a role in migration. These
governments are committed to working with the United States to take
meaningful steps toward economic integration to improve
competitiveness, create opportunity, and spur job creation. They are
also building their capacity to receive repatriated migrants.
Question. What is the total amount currently pending for fiscal
year 2014 for these programs, including the regular budget request and
this supplemental? How long would it take to spend this money?
Answer. The $300 million supplemental request includes $295 million
for foreign assistance, of which $70 million is for governance, $125
million is for prosperity, and $100 million is for security. In
addition, the request includes $5 million for public diplomacy
programming, whose regular budget is under public diplomacy
appropriations. While an exact crosswalk for requested supplemental
funding for foreign assistance is not possible because some
supplemental programs are multi-sectoral, we estimate that the fiscal
year 2014 regular appropriations level for comparable governance
programs is $13.88 million; $40.33 million for prosperity; and $161.5
million for citizen security.
The Department of State and USAID believe programs related to the
following will have the quickest impact: energy; workforce development;
support to coffee farmers; expansion of 24-hour courts; programs that
increase access to justice and mobile court facilities; community-based
programs to reduce crime and violence; efforts to improve border
security; and repatriation assistance. However, actual obligations and
subsequent rates of expenditure would substantially depend on the form,
content, requirements, and timing of supplemental appropriations, and
whether the programs are new, which would require additional time
execute.
Question. A portion of this request is dedicated to financial
management and reform. That is long overdue, since most of these
countries have very low tax rates and they have been relying on foreign
aid to pay for basic services for their people. Do you plan to
condition our assistance on these types of reforms, since ultimately
they have to be responsible for meeting the needs of their own people?
Answer. Improving governance, especially the effective delivery of
government services to citizens, is an important aspect of improving
life in Central America. Historically, El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras have had low levels of tax collection and suffered from
corrupt and non-transparent practices, further straining their ability
to address the complex root causes that drive migration. Increased
government revenue, if used effectively, could allow Central American
governments to provide needed services for their citizenry. Through
diplomatic engagement and technical expertise, the United States can
help them sexpand domestic resources and improve the management of
public expenditures.
Programs to increase financial transparency, professionalize budget
and expenditure practices, and improve tax administration will only be
effective if we have willing partners and institutions with which to
work. To that end, we will monitor these assistance programs, and there
will be no tolerance for corruption. The governments in the region
acknowledge that addressing the current migration situation is a shared
responsibility, and we expect them to be willing and transparent
partners in programs dedicated to financial management and reform.
Question. What reliable data do you have that media campaigns will
deter people fleeing violence or seeking a better life from making the
trip to the U.S.?
Why not use existing U.S. Government resources such as the Voice of
America Latin America Service and Public Affairs Officers who are
fluent in Spanish? Wouldn't using these existing resources allow for a
quicker response to this crisis?
Answer. In focus groups, residents of the region indicated that
they had only a vague understanding of U.S. immigration policy, and
many have misperceptions about potential benefits or opportunities they
might be afforded under existing law or as a result of prospective
reforms. Many potential migrants believe they will be allowed to stay
in the country long enough to pursue legal immigration status. Our
public awareness campaigns work to counter these misconceptions with
intending migrants and their family members, explaining facts about
deportation proceedings and U.S. immigration laws to dispel the belief
migrants can easily exploit perceived loopholes in U.S. immigration
policies.
The credibility of the message is enhanced when it is delivered by
people the communities trust and this is why locally designed and
implemented campaigns are important. The individual delivering these
messages matters as well as the content of such messages. Ambassadors,
public affairs officers, and other U.S. Government officials are active
in local Spanish-language media to discuss the facts of the situation
and emphasize both the dangers of the journey to the United States and
to correct misunderstandings about legal immigration benefits for those
making the trip. Media activity should be augmented by widely-
disseminated, U.S.-branded campaigns, including in indigenous
languages. Voice of America's Spanish Service is disseminating news and
information on the perils minors face through television and radio
stations in Central America.
Question. Why are youth training programs a public diplomacy
function?
Answer. Our public diplomacy programs are uniquely positioned to
reach out to youth in the region, through an existing network of
Binational Centers, programmatic interaction, and social media
engagement. These programs are consistent with a global focus by public
diplomacy to engage youth audiences with an opportunity agenda focused
on access to education, pathways to economic success, safer
communities, and more responsive local governance, while also providing
information about the United States to shape a better understanding of
U.S. policy and partnership in the region. Expanded PD programs in
Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras targeting at risk youth and
repatriated migrants would develop skills and leadership among 16- to
18-year-olds, shrinking the opportunity gaps they face and
strengthening their ability to remain in their home countries. These
programs would include:
--Tech Camps offering intensive technology workshops to develop
leadership and computer skills for youth to influence change in
their communities.
--The Youth in Enterprise program features workshops, field visits,
and internships facilitated by U.S. experts on small and
minority business development, providing youth with the
entrepreneurial skills to create their own businesses.
--Sports programs led by U.S. sports envoys and experts, directed at
young people in target migrant generating areas, offer
alternatives to the violence of gang activity by promoting
positive leadership and life-skills activities through sports.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. Assuming that any long term solution to this exodus
requires effectively addressing its root causes, why is less than 10
percent of the supplemental being requested for that purpose?
Answer. In the short term, the Administration scaled the
supplemental request to provide an infusion of targeted support to the
specific cities and regions of origin of most of the migrants to
mitigate factors driving their departure from their homes. This amount
takes into account the absorptive capacity of Central America in the
immediate period. The $300 million requested will allow the Department
and USAID to bring to scale existing successful programs and fill gaps
where previous investments have been under-resourced. Ultimately,
however, this mutual supplemental request is only a down payment.
The supplemental will address the principal drivers of violence,
economic opportunity, corruption, and poorly performing public
institutions prompting migration. The Administration is carefully
reviewing the fiscal year 2016 budget request, which will demonstrate
its commitment to sustained engagement in Central America for economic
prosperity, security, and governance to address the underlying factors
of the migration.
Question. Do you have reliable data on the portion of these
migrants who are motivated to come to the U.S. because of fear of
violence in their home countries? Do you have reliable data on the
portion who are fleeing domestic or sexual violence, or who are victims
of trafficking?
Answer. Although there is no single reason that explains the
increase in unaccompanied children migrating to the United States,
violence in the countries of origin is cited frequently as a factor.
While the Department of State does not have specific data that shows
the number of children fleeing specific types of violence, we are aware
of the high levels of human trafficking as well as domestic and sexual
assaults present in these Central American countries. For example, the
murder probability faced by Hondurans citizens is 14.6 times the global
average of 6.2 per 100,000 and in El Salvador, the police reported
approximately 2,000 cases of domestic violence in 2013.
We know that organized criminal groups in this region profit from
labor and sex trafficking, and also force adults and children to engage
in illicit activities. In addition to the risk of trafficking in their
country of origin, these children may experience human trafficking
during the dangerous journey to the United States or once in the United
States as well. The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for
determining if an individual is a victim of trafficking, or has a
credible fear of return to their country of origin that might give rise
to a claim for international protection.
Question. Obviously, many of these Central Americans are economic
migrants. But many are also fleeing horrific violence. We urge other
governments, whether Jordan, Lebanon, or countries in Africa to provide
a safe haven to millions of refugees fleeing violence. How will you
ensure that we respect both domestic and international law and our
moral obligations to protect people fleeing from violence?
Answer. The United States is committed to meeting its obligations
under the Refugee Convention and other applicable domestic and
international law. The Department of Homeland Security is responsible
for determining if an unaccompanied child who is apprehended trying to
enter the United States is a victim of trafficking, has a credible fear
of persecution, or is at risk of trafficking on return to their country
of origin. Those seeking to remain in the United States may also raise
asylum and other claims for protection under U.S. immigration law. I
refer you to DHS for all questions regarding the specifics of immigrant
processing in the United States.
Additionally, the Department of State's Bureau of Population,
Refugees, and Migration funds the International Organization of
Migration to train and build the capacity of governments and civil
society in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to identify, screen,
protect, and refer unaccompanied children to appropriate services
throughout the migration process.
Question. A portion of this request is dedicated to financial
management and reform. That is long overdue, since most of these
countries have very low tax rates and they have been relying on foreign
aid to pay for basic services for their people. Do you plan to
condition our assistance on these types of reforms, since ultimately
the Central American governments are responsible for meeting the needs
of their own people?
Answer. Improving governance, especially the effective delivery of
government services to citizens, is an important aspect of improving
life in Central America. Programs to improve financial transparency,
professionalize budget and expenditure practices, and improve tax
administration are only effective if we have willing partners and
institutions with which to work. To that end, we monitor these
assistance programs and have zero tolerance for corruption. The
governments in the region have acknowledged that addressing the current
migration situation is a shared responsibility, and we expect them to
be willing and transparent partners in programs dedicated to financial
management and reform.
Question. What incentive do the Central American governments have
to stem the tide of migration from their countries to the United
States, and what assurance--if any--has the Administration received
regarding their cooperation? How will this money be used if the foreign
government does not display the capacity or political will to partner
with us on these issues?
Answer. President Obama and the Presidents of El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras issued a joint statement following their July
25 meeting in Washington reiterating a ``commitment to prevent families
and children from undertaking this dangerous journey and to work
together to promote safe, legal, and orderly migration.'' They pledged
to continue to pursue the criminal networks that smuggle or traffic
children, to counter misinformation about U.S. immigration policy, to
work together to humanely repatriate migrants, and to address the
underlying causes of migration by improving security and promoting
greater social and economic opportunity.
The implementation of a comprehensive and collaborative strategy
for Central America--one that addresses security, economic prosperity,
and governance--is more than simply sending foreign aid. Illegal
migration from Central America is spurred by economic stagnation, weak
governance, and insecurity. We will work with our regional partners and
international institutions to jointly promote regional prosperity;
transparent, democratic governance; and will strengthen security
cooperation to reduce gang violence and organized crime.
We are committed to working closely with the Governments of El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to address the factors that affect
migration and build their capacity to receive repatriated migrants.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Please identify the office or bureau within the
Department of State that has the capacity and expertise to address this
issue of international child welfare?
Answer. Given the complexity of issues relating to unaccompanied
child migration--under the context of international child welfare--the
Department of State's engagement is led by my office, supported by a
number of different bureaus and offices. The Bureau of Western
Hemisphere Affairs coordinates outreach and engagement with the
Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, and is
working with the National Security Council and the U.S. interagency to
develop a broad-based, long-term strategy for Central America that will
address underlying causes of migration. The Bureau of Population,
Refugees, and Migration funds a program implemented by the
International Organization for Migration (IOM) to build the capacity of
the Central American governments to identify, screen, protect, and
refer unaccompanied child migrants to appropriate services throughout
the migration process. USAID, through IOM, is working to build the
capacities of the relevant entities in El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras to provide post-arrival assistance for returning families with
children and unaccompanied children; the program also will strengthen
governments' capacities to address underlying conditions contributing
to migration. The Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
engages on the potential trafficking nexus related to the migration of
unaccompanied children.
USAID and the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
(INL) implement programs under the Central America Regional Security
Initiative designed to address the underlying causes of migration.
USAID programs provide social and economic opportunities for at-risk
youth, build community resilience, improve relationships between police
and communities, and improve the rule of law through institutional
strengthening. INL has trained police units in these countries, many of
which have increased their attention to smuggling organizations and
illegal migration. The Office of the Legal Adviser coordinates closely
with these bureaus to ensure compliance with our international and
domestic obligations.
Question. What specifically is the Department of State doing,
directly or through the U.S. Agency for International Development, to
work with the countries of origin in Central America to expand their
capacity to develop functioning child welfare systems?
Answer. On June 20, Vice President Biden announced $9.6 million to
increase the capacity of Central American governments to receive,
reintegrate, and care for repatriated migrants, including unaccompanied
children. USAID, through the International Organization for Migration
(IOM), will work to improve and expand existing repatriation centers
and train and build the capacity for personnel involved in repatriation
efforts in each country. Funds will expand the capacity of governments
and non-governmental organizations in government reception centers to
provide the following services for returned unaccompanied children:
develop referral mechanisms to address psychosocial needs; undertake
health screening; provide for basic immediate needs; provide counseling
and/or education to discourage further emigration; and ensure safe
return to home communities. The Bureau of Population, Migrants, and
Refugees (PRM) will also work with IOM to build the capacity of the
Central American governments to identify, screen, protect, and refer
unaccompanied child migrants to appropriate services throughout the
migration process. Our fiscal year 2014 Supplemental Request includes
an additional $20 million for repatriation programs. We will continue
to work with the Central American governments to assist in their
development of functional child welfare systems.
Question. Who is leading the whole-of-government effort with
respect to addressing the root causes of this migration of
unaccompanied children?
Answer. At the direction of the President, the Department of
Homeland Security established a Unified Coordination Group (UCG) June
1, led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The UCG includes
various governmental agencies and is designed to leverage Federal
resources in a whole-of-government approach to provide humanitarian
relief to the ongoing situation on the U.S. Southwest border.
The State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs is
leading the Department's response, working to address underlying
factors contributing to migration of unaccompanied children, in
coordination with other State Department bureaus as well as USAID.
USAID and the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
Affairs (INL) implement programs under the Central America Regional
Security Initiative designed to address the underlying causes of
migration. Additionally, USAID has bilateral assistance programs that
focus on economic growth and governance in the region. INL has trained
police units in these countries, many of which have increased their
attention to smuggling organizations and illegal migration. The Office
to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons provides funding in
Central America and Mexico for trafficking prevention and protection
and as to enhance institutional capacity to enforce anti-trafficking
legal frameworks.
Question. What specifically is the Department of State doing ,
directly or through the U.S. Agency for International Development, to
work with the countries of origin in Central America to ensure that
there is adequate and protective reintegration capacity--into families
or family-like settings--for the children that the Department of
Homeland Security anticipates beginning to return in large numbers?
Answer. The Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs coordinates
outreach and engagement with the Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, and Mexico and is in the process of developing a broad-based,
long-term strategy for Central America that will address underlying
causes of migration. The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
funds a program implemented by the International Organization for
Migration (IOM) that helps build the capacity of the Central American
governments to identify, screen, protect, and refer unaccompanied child
migrants to appropriate services throughout the migration process.
USAID, also through IOM, is working to build the capacity of relevant
entities in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to provide post-
arrival assistance for returning families with children and
unaccompanied children; the program also will strengthen governments'
capacities to address underlying conditions contributing to out-
migration. The Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
provides funding in Central America and Mexico for trafficking
prevention and protection and to enhance institutional capacity to
enforce anti-trafficking legal frameworks.
Question. Does the Department of State recognize the critical
nature of family strengthening, reunification and creation as part of
the approach to addressing the root causes of the UAC migration?
Answer. Yes, we recognize the importance of strong families in the
reintegration and reunification process for unaccompanied children.
Question. Assuming yes, how is the Department of State planning to
work with the countries of origin, both diplomatically and
programmatically, to address these issues, including ensuring that
repatriation and reintegration efforts are focused on placing children
in safe, permanent and nurturing families or family-like settings.
Answer. To respond to the immediate need to increase Central
American governments' capacity to receive returned migrants, the
Department of State and USAID are working to expand and improve
existing reception centers for repatriated migrants, provide training
in migrant care and transport to immigration officers, and expand the
capacity of governments and NGOs to provide services to returned
migrants. A sustainable solution requires a comprehensive approach in
each Central American country to address issues of security, economic
prosperity, and governance. All three objectives reinforce one another;
and we must commit to a sustained engagement with these partners to
address the underlying factors so that families in the region can
prosper in safe communities.
Question. How does the Department of State respond to the concern
expressed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
and many in the U.S. stakeholder community who work with the UAC
population that these children pose far more than an illegal
immigration and enforcement problem and that they are arriving in such
large numbers, undergoing trauma and terrible risk on the way, because
the conditions of a forced migration exist in their countries of
origin?
a. Does this flow of children include refugees? Is the United
States honoring its obligations under the Vienna Refugee Convention and
Protocol?
b. If the United States implements expedited removal for UACs from
El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, will that be in violation of our
commitment not to refoul refugees who have a well-founded fear of
persecution in their country of origin?
Answer. The problem is complex, and the Department is coordinating
across multiple bureaus and offices and working closely with the
interagency to help address the economic and social challenges in El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that are contributing to these
outflows. Those challenges include extreme violence, endemic poverty,
and often ineffective public institutions, which combine to create an
environment that many people want to abandon. The presence of families
already in the United States and the aggressive criminal activities of
smugglers (including the spreading of misinformation about immigration
benefits) are also important factors. The Department, led by the Bureau
of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA), has been working with these
countries to address these issues. In addition, the Department's Bureau
of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) has supported the
International Organization for Migration (IOM) since 2010 to build the
capacity of government officials and civil society in Central America
and Mexico's southern border with Guatemala to identify, screen,
protect, and assist vulnerable migrants, including children.
Under U.S. law, a refugee is someone who has fled from his or her
country of origin and is unable or unwilling to return because he or
she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on religion, race,
nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social
group.
An ``asylum seeker'' is an individual who believes he or she is a
refugee, but whose claim has not yet been evaluated. Asylum is a form
of protection that can be granted to people who meet the definition of
a refugee and are already in the United States.
An unaccompanied child who has arrived in the United States may
seek asylum, although most do not. Many, but not all, UACs appear to be
leaving for reasons related to situations of violence, lack of
opportunity, and other conditions.
Whether any of the children will qualify for refugee protection
under U.S. law is ultimately a case-by-case determination dependent on
the specific facts of each case, after a hearing before a trained
asylum or immigration judge--something all of these migrants will have
an opportunity to present, regardless of the removal procedure they
undergo.
The Department of Homeland Security screens children to determine
the validity of their asylum claims consistent with our domestic law
and international obligations.
The United States fully honors our obligations as a party to the
1967 Protocol to the 1951 Refugee Convention. The United States does
not refoul anyone that U.S. authorities have determined to have a well-
founded fear of persecution in their home country based on race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion.
No unaccompanied alien children are presently subject to Expedited
Removal, regardless of whether they are from a contiguous (Mexico,
Canada) or non-contiguous (El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala) state.
Expedited Removal only currently applies to adults and children
accompanied by their parents. If DHS determines that a UAC from a
contiguous state is not a victim or a potential victim of trafficking,
does not have a fear of persecution, and is able to make an independent
decision to withdraw his/her application for admission, the UAC may be
permitted to voluntarily return.
Regardless of country of origin, no UAC who seeks asylum or
expresses a credible fear of persecution in his/her country of origin
will be returned until his/her case has been heard before an
immigration judge or an official from the U.S. Citizen and Immigration
Services (USCIS).
Question. Exactly who within the Department of State will oversee
the programming of this money and how?
Answer. Within the Department of State, the Bureaus of Western
Hemisphere Affairs and International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
Affairs, along with the Office of Foreign Assistance Resources, in
coordination with USAID, will ensure that appropriated foreign
assistance funds reach the intended recipients and targeting the
underlying factors driving migration. This collaborative process will
enable the Department to align programming--both new and existing--to
our long-term regional strategic goals and verify the appropriate
implementers are carrying out these programs. Furthermore, since the
supplemental budget request for Department of State and USAID includes
a blend of foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement funding, robust
public diplomacy and outreach efforts will complement our foreign
assistance programming.
Question. How will these efforts be effectively coordinated within
the rest of the U.S. Government?
For example, if DHS significantly increases repatriations to El
Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala in the coming months, how will the
Department of State ensure the concomitant reception and reintegration
programs are in place to receive them?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID work through the
established interagency process in Washington to coordinate assistance.
The Department will also utilize existing in-country coordination
mechanisms at our embassies. We expect this coordination to continue on
repatriation centers.
Our supplemental request includes $20 million for repatriation
assistance based on the initial assessments of the necessary costs to
improve the repatriation capacities of source countries. Should there
be an increase in processing returnees, the supplemental request also
asks for the flexibility to respond to such surges in repatriations
with the necessary capacity to process returnees and provide the
appropriate assistance to repatriated family units.
Question. Does the Department of State believe the $400 million for
the next 15 months will be sufficient for this purpose?
Answer. The Administration's $300 million supplemental request
responds to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding migration from
Central America. Requested funding expand scope and scale existing
successful programs, fill gaps where needed investments have been
under-resourced, and expand U.S. ability to encourage El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras to work together to address the underlying
factors driving emigration. The Administration is using existing
funding where feasible to address the underlying factors contributing
to the migration through the Central America Regional Security
Initiative and bilateral assistance programs. We are also working to
strategically prioritize these issues in fiscal year 2016 budget
request.
Question. We are being asked to consider an emergency supplemental
appropriations bill worth $3.7 billion. Clear lines of authority and
responsibility need to be established and accountability for the money
must be a priority. We need to identify who is in charge of fixing the
deep-rooted, systemic problem, what the plan is, and who is going to be
held responsible for delivering results.
Who is accountable in each of your departments or component
agencies and how are they part of a coordinated whole-of-government
approach?
Answer. The Secretary has asked that I, as the Department of
State's Counselor, lead the Department's participation in the U.S.
government's whole-of-government, coordinated approach regarding
migration from Central America. I have traveled to each of the source
countries to view the on-the-ground situation firsthand and conducted
high-level meetings with the Foreign Ministers of El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico. I am an active participant in the
interagency coordination process led by the National Security Council.
Question. What are the specific goals of each of your departments?
What are the metrics and the benchmarks of success or failure in
addressing this emergency situation, for the remainder of fiscal year
2014, for fiscal year 2015, and beyond?
Answer. The Administration's supplemental request intends to
increase the capacity of Central American governments to receive
returned migrants and address the underlying factors driving migration.
In tandem with existing resources and programs, this funding would
allow us to enhance our engagement in Central America and advance an
integrated and comprehensive approach to the economic, social, and
security challenges driving migration. Specifically, programming
intends to address the lack of economic opportunity, violence, and
ineffective state institutions.
The Department, USAID, and our embassies in the region are
continually monitoring the effectiveness of our assistance and
evaluating how best to provide funding to achieve U.S. objectives. For
example, the State Department and USAID are establishing a
comprehensive results framework to monitor the progress of programming
under the Central America Regional Security Initiative. This results
framework is intended to complement the effective evaluation programs
already in place. In addition, a recent evaluation by Vanderbilt
University indicated USAID's work with at-risk youth in select
municipalities in El Salvador is highly successful in reducing crime.
Similar studies are underway in Guatemala and Honduras. The Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs' Model Police
Precinct program demonstrated significant results in El Salvador and
Guatemala. Collectively, these results indicate which programs are
having positive impacts and where we work with the countries involved.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
Question. The President's Budget was released in March. It is hard
for me to believe that the Administration did not know that the influx
of unaccompanied children was occurring at a pace that might outpace
resources. Why was the influx of unaccompanied children not flagged as
a priority in the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS),
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the State Foreign Operations
funding request? How is the Administration going to ensure that the OMB
can be agile in their requests and give Congress time to ensure
oversight for crisis's build over time like this one?
Answer. Migration by unaccompanied children is not a new
phenomenon, and it has ebbed and flowed over time. This fiscal year,
however, the scale of migration has resulted in the apprehension of
more than 50,000 unaccompanied children from Central America along the
U.S. southwest border. The Administration's request for emergency
supplemental funding reflects these extraordinary circumstances. The
request includes flexibility to allow for an agile response across U.S.
agencies to address this migration.
The State and USAID portion of the supplemental request addresses
the underlying factors of migration and immediate repatriation and
reintegration needs, especially in El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras. State and USAID intend to work with the U.S. interagency to
implement these assistance programs. In addition, State and USAID are
carefully reviewing the fiscal year 2016 budget request to ensure
sustained engagement in Central America for prosperity, governance, and
security, beyond the supplemental request.
Question. Considering the influx of unaccompanied children into the
U.S. and that there are reports that neighboring countries to Honduras,
Guatemala and El Salvador have reported a 400 percent increase in
children requesting asylum, does the President consider this a
humanitarian crisis? If so, when can we expect to see a comprehensive,
multi-national approach and policy to combat the violence and failed
states in our hemisphere? A funding bill of this size does not address
the root of the problem and I would like to hear what policy steps the
Department of State and the Administration are going take.
Answer. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras suffer from some of
the highest homicide rates in the world. According to United Nations
statistics from 2012--the latest figures publicly available--the murder
rate faced by Hondurans citizens is 90.4, almost 15 times the global
average of 6.2 per 100,000. Given the precarious security situation in
these three countries and the tight fiscal environment we have faced
over the last 5 years U.S. assistance has focused on citizen security,
primarily via the Central America Regional Security Initiative. We
partner with other international and regional actors to achieve
security goals. However, we know violence is only one of the underlying
factors contributing to the surge of unaccompanied children arriving in
the United States from Central America. Weak governance and lack of
economic opportunity are other factors that contribute to out-
migration. We are working with the National Security Council and the
U.S. interagency to develop a broad-based, long-term strategy for
Central America that will address underlying causes of migration.
U.S. assistance is needed to help improve governance and economic
prosperity. To this end, we must build upon and expand proven programs,
in partnership with Central American countries, which address the
economic and educational deficiencies in the region and will improve
the public's trust and confidence in domestic institutions. We envision
an economically-integrated Central America that provides economic
opportunities to all of its citizens; more democratic, accountable,
transparent, and effective public institutions; and a safe environment
for its citizens to build their lives in peace and stability.
Question. I understand there is a request for $300 million for the
State Department. How will that make a dent in the belief by foreign
families that children will be able to stay in the U.S. if they come
here? How are we targeting criminal smuggling organizations to combat
their lies to families?
Answer. President Obama and the Presidents of El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras issued a joint statement following their July
25 meeting in Washington, reiterating a ``commitment to prevent
families and children from undertaking this dangerous journey and to
work together to promote safe, legal, and orderly migration.'' They
pledged to pursue the criminal networks associated with child migration
and to counter misinformation about U.S. immigration policy. Ongoing
host government-led efforts in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
include media campaigns and law enforcement investigations targeting
organizations engaged in human smuggling.
U.S. public awareness campaigns promote facts about deportation
proceedings and U.S. immigration laws to dispel the belief children can
easily exploit perceived loopholes in U.S. immigration policies and
inform parents who are considering sending their children that they
will not be allowed to remain in the United States.
Ambassadors, public affairs officers, and other U.S. Government
spokespersons actively engage local media to discuss the facts of the
situation and emphasize both dangers of the journey to the United
States and the lack of legal immigration benefits for those making the
trip. Their public messages augment widely-disseminated U.S.
Government-branded public service announcement campaigns, including in
indigenous languages. We requested $1.6 million in the fiscal year 2014
Supplemental Request to increase targeted messaging, focusing on
Facebook (bought ads and content placement), leveraging the public
service announcements already produced by U.S. Customs and Border
Patrol, host country government campaigns, and locally produced U.S.
Government-branded messaging.
Question. How is the Department gauging the effectiveness of the
current deterrence efforts in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador?
Answer. The Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are
taking steps to deter migration from their countries. Each government
is accepting the return of families on direct flights, an important and
visible sign that no undocumented migrant is guaranteed permission to
stay in the United States. The three countries are conducting media
campaigns with messaging underscoring the dangers of the journey to the
United States and correcting misinformation about U.S. immigration
policy.
There have been public declarations from high-level government
officials warning citizens of the dangers of the journey and urging
them not to migrate. For example, El Salvador's President Sanchez Ceren
spoke publicly about the dangers of travel by unaccompanied children,
the Guatemalan and Honduran First Ladies publicly urged parents not to
send their children, and the Guatemalan Ambassador to the United States
has made multiple public statements noting migrants will not receive
immigration benefits if they arrive in the United States without
documentation.
In addition, Honduran, Guatemalan and Salvadoran law enforcement
are increasing focus on investigating smuggling networks. On June 20 a
U.S.-trained unit of the Honduran National Police stood up ``Operation
Rescue Angels'' on the border between Honduras and Guatemala to focus
on unaccompanied child migrants. To date, they have stopped over 100
children and captured seven smugglers.
All of these actions are important in stemming the increase in the
number of unaccompanied child migrants arriving at the U.S. southern
border. We are encouraging the governments to continue their
multifaceted approach to discourage potential migrants from making the
dangerous journey to the United States.
Question. The emergency supplemental request includes an ``economic
support fund.'' Under the request, some portion of those funds would be
used to expand the capacity of governments and non-governmental
organizations to provide ``services'' for returned migrants. Would you
provide a comprehensive list of the types of services that the economic
support fund would cover?
Answer. The Economic Support Fund (ESF) account is authorized to
support a range of social, economic, rule of law, and development
objectives globally. The fiscal year 2014 Supplemental Request would
use ESF to expand the capacity of Central American governments to
receive returned migrants; enhance job creation and improve economic
growth; further effective, accessible, independent legal systems
operating under the rule of law; and address border security.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Begich
Question. What steps is the State Department taking to fix the root
causes of bringing migrant children to the U.S. from Central America?
Answer. The Department of State and interagency partners are and
have been working closely with our Central American partners to address
the complex and systemic challenges these countries face. Slow job
creation, low-quality public education, low investment in vocational
education and training, insecurity, declining rural incomes, and
ineffective use of limited public sector resources are among the
various factors spurring families and unaccompanied children to migrate
from Central America.
The U.S. Government seeks to address violence in Central America
through the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI).
Through CARSI, the United States works with partner nations to
strengthen institutions to counter the effects of organized crime,
control their borders, uphold the rule of law, and protect human
rights. Department of State and USAID's CARSI prevention programs
provide at-risk youth with alternative opportunities to joining gangs
while community policing programs improve communication between police
and community members to make their neighborhoods safer.
The United States foreign assistance promotes regional economic
growth, infrastructure modernization, and collaboration. Millennium
Challenge Corporation (MCC) programs in Honduras and El Salvador are
focused on improving infrastructure and market access. In addition,
Honduras is engaged in an MCC threshold program to improve its
efficiency and transparency in providing public services. Other
Department of State and USAID initiatives designed to provide critical
economic, educational, and commercial opportunities include Pathways to
Prosperity in the Americas, the Small Business Network of the Americas,
Women's Entrepreneurship in the Americas (WEAmericas), La Idea, 100,000
Strong in the Americas, and Feed the Future.
Ambassadors and Public affairs officers at U.S. embassies in the
region are continuously engaged in messaging on U.S. immigration
policy, and have consulted with host governments on recent campaigns to
stem the flow of unaccompanied minors to the United States.
Question. Will the $300 million in this request fix these issues?
Answer. The U.S. Government's vision of an economically-integrated
Central America that provides economic opportunities to its people;
more democratic, accountable, transparent, and effective public
institutions; and a safe environment for its citizens to build their
lives in peace and stability will require a long term approach. We are
working to include governance, economic prosperity, and security
funding for the region in our out-year budget requests. These efforts
will not only mitigate the factors causing migration but they will
protect the U.S. national security interests. The United States cannot
solve these problems alone. We will look to the Central American
governments to provide their own financial and political commitments to
address the factors driving migration.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons
Question. Could you tell us what your plans are, if any, for in-
country processing in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador? Do you see
this as part of a comprehensive approach to this humanitarian crisis?
Answer. The Administration is considering taking additional steps
to further deter unlawful and dangerous migration to the United States.
To stem the flow of migrant children attempting to enter the United
States, we are considering a small pilot project to explore whether
children could go through a process to determine if they are eligible
to come legally to the United States before they leave their home
countries. Our goals remain twofold in the United States as well as in
the region: provide an effective deterrent for illegal migration
through criminal smuggling networks, while protecting legitimate
humanitarian claims. Any in-country program would be governed by these
goals.
This is a pilot project and we expect this to be very modest in
size. The standard to achieve refugee status is very high, and will not
be changed. This will not be an avenue to reunite children with
undocumented family members in the United States.
Question. Could you describe the current efforts led by the State
Department to enhance public safety in Guatemala, Honduras and El
Salvador? How would the emergency supplemental funds help change the
situation on the ground?
Answer. The Department of State is and has been working closely
with our Central American partners to address the complex and systemic
challenges Central America faces, including public safety. The U.S.
Government's citizen security program in Central America is the Central
America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI). Through CARSI, the United
States works with partner nations to strengthen institutions to counter
the effects of organized crime, uphold the rule of law, and protect
human rights. CARSI prevention programs dissuade at-risk youth from
turning to crime and community policing programs facilitate trust
between police and community members. Weak economic growth, low
investment in vocational education and training, increased insecurity,
declining rural incomes, and ineffective use of limited public sector
resources are among the various factors encouraging families and
unaccompanied children to migrate.
We envision an economically-integrated Central America that
provides economic opportunities to its people; more democratic,
accountable, transparent, and effective public institutions; and a safe
environment for its citizens to build their lives in peace and
stability. Efforts toward this end will not only mitigate the factors
causing migration, they serve to protect the U.S. national interest. In
order to obtain that vision, we must work with regional and
international partners toward three priority objectives: governance,
economic prosperity, and security. All three objectives reinforce one
another; and we must commit to a sustained engagement with these
partners. Of the $300 million fiscal year 2014 Supplemental Request,
the Department of State and USAID requested $295 million of Economic
Support Funds for programs organized under the three priority objective
areas. This request represents a down payment on a new strategic
approach in the region. The supplemental also requests $5 million in
public diplomacy funds to increase public messaging in the region about
the dangers of the journey.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. The Department of State has come to Congress requesting a
large sum of additional money, but the Department of State and USAID
have not yet obligated the majority of fiscal year 2014 assistance for
the Western Hemisphere, which totals $1.46 billion.
What is the current assistance pipeline for Honduras, Guatemala,
and El Salvador, and how critical is the $300 million supplemental
request given that significant unobligated balances remain in fiscal
year 2014?
Answer. Consistent with the requirements of section 653(a) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, prior to the obligation of
funds, the Administration provided to House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations country/program allocations by account for foreign
assistance funds appropriated in the State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Appropriations Act, 2014 (SFOAA). The 653(a) allocations for
fiscal year 2014 foreign assistance are still being reviewed by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations; therefore, fiscal year
2014 assistance has not yet been obligated. The Administration's $300
million supplemental request fills critical gaps where needed
assistance investments have been under-resourced, while bringing to
scale existing successful programming models to address needs in
Central America comprehensively.
Question. Why did the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request
decrease assistance for the Western Hemisphere by $147 million below
the fiscal year 2014 level, given the urgency of the situation?
Answer. The fiscal year 2015 budget reflected an environment of
fiscal constraint. The fiscal year 2015 request prioritized citizen
security assistance, including for Central America, and did not
indicate a reduced level of interest in the hemisphere. Given the
current extraordinary circumstances, the Administration requested
emergency supplemental funding to address the needs and requirements
posed by the current humanitarian situation on the U.S. southwest
border. In addition, the Administration will include the appropriate
level of resources to address the driving factors of migration in its
current internal review of the fiscal year 2016 budget request, which
will be finalized and submitted to Congress next year.
Question. The supplemental request for $295 million in the Economic
Support Fund appears to be aimed predominately at bolstering existing
programs conducted by USAID and the Department of State in Honduras,
Guatemala, and El Salvador.
What new programs does the supplemental request propose to initiate
in these countries? Should Congress approve the supplemental request,
do you anticipate that any new programs will be operational by the end
of this fiscal year?
Answer. The Administration's foreign assistance supplemental
request--$295 million--includes funding to scale up successful existing
programming models to achieve broader impact as well as address
critical gaps where investments have been lacking and under-resourced.
Through the fiscal year 2014 Supplemental Request, State and USAID will
scale and target current and new programs in Central America to
addresses the underlying factors--including a lack of economic
prosperity, governance, and security driving--the migration of
unaccompanied children. For the Department of State, new programming is
expected to build on current successful models in the areas of
assistance to provide fuller access to affordably energy, improved
customs and border controls, justice sector reforms, corrections, and
police capacity assistance. For USAID, also building on current
successful models, the new assistance is targeted for public financial
management and fiscal reform, justice sector, community based youth
programs, and repatriation.
The Department and USAID believe the new and expanding programs in
the following areas will have the quickest impact on the ground:
energy; workforce development; support to coffee farmers; expansion of
24-hour courts; programs that increase access to justice and mobile
court facilities; community-based programs to reduce crime and
violence; efforts to improve border security; and repatriation
assistance. However, actual obligations would substantially depend on
the form, content, requirements, and timing of supplemental
appropriations as well as whether the programs are new, as these
require added time to responsibly and effectively plan and execute.
Question. What evidence can you point to today to demonstrate
success of the Department's existing programs at addressing the push
factors for UACs?
Answer. U.S. programming in Central America has focused on
addressing the complex causes that drive migrants, including children,
to leave El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
In El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, the United States supports
community-based Model Precinct Programs to connect citizens with law
enforcement in neighborhoods identified by the host government as most
affected by violent crime. In the Villa Nueva suburb of Guatemala City,
this approach has led to reduced gang activity in 78 schools, greater
reporting of crime, higher conviction rates, and stronger
investigations, contributing to a nearly 20 percent reduction in
homicides. There have been similar reductions in homicide and crime
rates in El Salvador's precincts.
The Department of State supports vetted units of host-nation law
enforcement, operating under the mentorship of U.S. Federal law
enforcement agencies. These elite host-country units have been behind
some of the regions' biggest law enforcement successes. In Honduras,
the national police sent a U.S.-trained unit to the Guatemala-Honduras
border to focus on smuggling networks. They have since rescued over 100
children from smugglers and turned them over to Honduran authorities
for care as part of Operation ``Rescue Angels.''
Small Business Development Centers provide business counseling to
over 10,000 businesses, which have created over 5,000 new jobs in El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The Women's Entrepreneurship in the
Americas Initiative (WEAmericas) encourages inclusive economic growth
by promoting women's economic empowerment in the Americas, and reducing
the barriers women often face when starting a business. WEAmericas
small grants are directly benefiting over 2,000 women in the El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
USAID has established more than 120 Outreach Centers in Honduras,
Guatemala, El Salvador, and Panama that provide safe spaces, learning
opportunities, and life skills development for at risk youth. These
centers provide a package of assistance that includes municipal crime
prevention plans, crime and violence data tracking, youth outreach
centers, job skills training, community policing and improved community
infrastructure (additional street lights, cleaned up parks, etc.),
targeted on the major source locations, including San Pedro Sula,
Tegucigalpa, La Ceiba, Guatemala City, and San Salvador.
The $300 million supplemental request is a down payment on a new
strategic approach and we are working to include governance, economic
prosperity, and security funding for the region in our out-year budget
requests. The U.S. Government's vision of an economically-integrated
Central America that provides economic opportunities to its people;
more democratic, accountable, transparent, and effective public
institutions; and a safe environment for its citizens to build their
lives in peace and stability will require a long term approach. These
efforts will not only mitigate the factors causing migration, but they
serve to protect the U.S. national interest. We cannot solve these
problems alone and will look to the Central American governments to
provide complementary financial and political commitments to address
the factors driving migration.
Question. Do these governments possess the necessary political will
and basic capacity to enact domestic reforms to address the ``push
factors'' of unaccompanied child migration, which include lack of
economic, educational and employment opportunities, and gang violence?
Answer. The Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
recognize that this is a regional problem that requires a comprehensive
approach to address issues of security, economic prosperity, and
governance--all of which play a role in migration. We are committed to
working closely with these governments to build their capacity by
improving and expanding repatriation centers, providing training on
migrant care and transport, and enabling the Central American
governments to provide expanded services to returned migrants.
Question. What prospect is there that simply sending them more
foreign aid money will ensure they can meet these needs?
Answer. The implementation of a comprehensive and collaborative
strategy for Central America--one that addresses security, economic
prosperity, and governance--requires more than simply sending more
foreign aid. Migration from Central America is spurred by economic
stagnation, weak governance, and insecurity. We will work with our
regional partners and international institutions to promote regional
prosperity through economic integration; transparent, democratic
governance and fiscal management; and strengthened security cooperation
to reduce gang violence and organized crime. We cannot solve these
problems alone and will look to the Central American governments to
provide complementary financial and political commitments to address
the factors driving migration.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Boozman
Question. Recently both Secretary Kerry and Vice President Biden
met with leaders in Central America to discuss this growing
humanitarian crisis. What assurances has the U.S. received form the
leaders of these countries that they are committed to address and put
an end to the rampant migration as well as to increase the security
situation in their own countries? Additionally, can you elaborate on
what specifically the U.S. is doing and what we plan to do with the
resources that have been allocated and committed to aiding these
efforts? Can we consider these countries serious partners in this
endeavor?
Answer. President Obama and the Presidents of El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras issued a joint statement following their July
25 meeting in Washington reiterating a ``commitment to prevent families
and children from undertaking this dangerous journey and to work
together to promote safe, legal, and orderly migration.'' They pledged
to pursue the criminal networks that smuggle or traffic children, to
counter misinformation about U.S. immigration policy, to work together
to repatriate migrants humanely, and to address the underlying causes
of migration by improving security and promoting greater social and
economic opportunity in Central America.
In El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have all launched media
campaigns, law enforcement investigations targeting organizations
engaged in human smuggling, and programs to combat poverty. The Central
American presidents indicated to President Obama that they are working
on a comprehensive plan to address the underlying causes of the
humanitarian situation on the border. These governments are working
with us to address their shared responsibility to address the urgent
humanitarian situation on the U.S. southern border.
On June 20, Vice President Biden announced $9.6 million to increase
the capacity for Central American governments to receive, reintegrate,
and care for repatriated migrants, including unaccompanied children.
Program elements will include improvement and expansion of existing
repatriation centers; training and capacity building for personnel
involved in repatriation efforts in each country; and building the
capacity of the Central American governments to identify, screen,
protect, and refer unaccompanied child migrants to appropriate services
throughout the migration process.
Our supplemental request represents a down payment on our new
approach in the region to increase governance, prosperity, and security
in coordination with our regional and international partners. The $295
million of Economic Support Funds will allow the Department of State
and USAID to expand successful governance, economic growth, and citizen
security programs in the region that are already having an impact but
are not of sufficient scale or scope to stem the flow of undocumented
migrants.
Question. The supplemental request states that beyond initial
assistance to these Central American countries, the Department of State
and USAID will assess the progress and cooperation of recipient
governments in order to determine if further assistance will be
provided. How will you measure progress and cooperation specifically?
Answer. The Department of State, USAID, and our embassies in the
region continually monitor the effectiveness of all programs and
evaluate how to best allocate foreign assistance to advance U.S.
objectives. This monitoring and evaluation process informs us which
programs are successful and which programs could be scaled up or
expanded within Central America, with the commitment of the countries
involved.
Furthermore, the Department of State and USAID are developing a
comprehensive results framework that will compile the results from our
country-by-country programs and collectively evaluate the progress of
our security assistance programming under the Central America Regional
Security Initiative (CARSI), which includes assistance to El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras. This results framework will complement the
evaluation programs already in place. For example, a recent independent
evaluation by Vanderbilt University indicated USAID's community-based
prevention programs are highly successful in reducing crime and
increasing the reporting of crimes in El Salvador; results for
Guatemala and Honduras are forthcoming but look promising as well.
Similarly, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
Affairs' Model Police Precinct program in El Salvador and Guatemala has
reduced crime, increased reporting of crimes that do occur, and
improved the administration of justice in those committees where it is
operating.
Question. Beyond the supplemental request, the Administration is
requesting the authority to use an additional $384 million of prior
year funds to address the issue of unaccompanied child migrants from
Central America. On top of this, the fiscal year 2015 Senate SFOPS bill
includes an additional $100 million to address these same topics.
Exactly how much money is needed for these efforts? Will a more
specific plan be submitted to Congress to explain how exactly you plan
on spending this money?
Answer. The Administration's fiscal year 2014 emergency
Supplemental Request includes $295 million of foreign assistance for
the Department of State and USAID to address the underlying factors of
poverty and insecurity that are contributing to the migration of
unaccompanied children. Programs will promote economic prosperity by
increasing access to affordable and reliable energy, promoting small
businesses and local economic development, and providing in-demand
skills to at-risk populations. To address corruption, a lack of
transparency, and impunity in the region, programs will seek to
strengthen judicial systems and expand resources for the management of
public expenditures. Additionally, resources will bolster current and
new programs in police capability and community-based policing, prison
reform, countering transnational crime and illicit trafficking, and
building repatriation capacity in the region.
The Administration has made investments in Central America,
including $642 million for the Central America Regional Security
Initiative. However, to respond comprehensively to the factors driving
migration, additional investments, particularly for prosperity and
governance, are needed. The emergency supplemental request is a down
payment on those requirements; it brings to scale existing successful
programming models while filling gaps in areas that have been under-
resourced.
The Department of State and USAID are internally reviewing the
fiscal year 2016 budget to ensure sustained engagement in Central
America, in order to provide the long-term commitment necessary to
address this crisis and stem the flow of unaccompanied children. The
emergency supplemental requests $125 million for prosperity for
programming for energy, improved income opportunities, rural coffee
farmer income support, and workforce development. The request includes
$70 million for governance assistance for public financial management
and fiscal reform and to strengthen judicial independence, transparency
and accountability. Finally, $100 million was requested for security
programming to expand community-based programs to reduce youth crime
and violence, prison reform and assistance, national police capacity
and capabilities, capacity to counter transnational criminal
organizations, smuggling networks, and counternarcotics trafficking,
and to provide repatriation assistance.
______
Questions Submitted to Juan P. Osuna
Questions Submitted by Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski
legal representation services
Question. The Justice Department's supplemental request includes
$15 million for legal representation services for children going
through the immigration court system.
On June 6, the White House announced a new initiative called
``Justice AmeriCorps'' led by the Corporation for National Community
Service (a HHS agency), but funded at $2 million by the Justice
Department's Executive Office of Immigration Review. This program will
provide pro bono legal assistance to the children in court supporting
approximately 100 AmeriCorps members for 3 years.
On July 9, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government,
including the Justice Department, for failing to provide legal
assistance to children going through immigration court proceedings.
Their lawsuit claims that both the Constitution's Fifth Amendment Due
Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act's provisions
requiring a ``full and fair hearing'' before an immigration judge are
being violated.
The Executive Office of Immigration Review cannot administer a
grant program or provide legal assistance via Justice Department
attorneys. How will this legal representation program work? Will it
simply be an extension of the Justice AmeriCorps program?
Answer. EOIR may use a variety of methods for providing legal
representation to certain children in some cases, including grant
programs (such as continuing the Justice AmeriCorps program) and
contracting with non-governmental organizations.
Question. Is $15 million for a legal assistance program?
Answer. $15 million is to provide funding for a legal
representation program designed to provide legal services and
representation to some of the children in immigration proceedings.
Question. How is DOJ tracking the amount of unaccompanied children
they work with? How many children would receive legal representation
with a $15 million program?
Answer. EOIR has added a data field to its case tracking system to
track recent border entrants, including unaccompanied alien children
that have been identified by DHS on charging documents filed with the
immigration court. EOIR estimates that between 4,000 and 10,000
children, depending upon the average cost of each case, would be
represented with a $15 million program.
Question. Given the recent lawsuit by the ACLU, what would it cost
the Federal Government to provide legal representation to all children
going through immigration court proceedings?
Answer. The Department cannot comment on pending litigation and
does not have an estimate on the cost of providing legal representation
at this time.
immigration judges
Question. The Justice Department's supplemental request includes
$45.4 million to hire, train and equip additional immigration judges.
The request would cover hiring 25 permanent immigration judges and 15
temporary immigration judges. Immigration judges are a full-time
unionized workforce.
What is a temporary judge? How long will their judgeships last?
Will they receive the same amount of training as permanent judges? When
can we expect to see them in the courtroom?
Answer. Temporary Immigration Judges are individuals designated or
selected by the Director of EOIR, with the approval of the Attorney
General, to adjudicate immigration cases. As such, temporary
Immigration Judges will be designated for renewable terms not to exceed
6 months. Temporary Immigration Judges will be trained as necessary to
complete the dockets assigned to them. EOIR plans to have temporary
Immigration Judges hearing their assigned cases within the next few
months.
Question. Immigration judges typically go through 10 months of
training before hearing cases in the courtroom. When can we expect the
25 permanent judges to start hearing cases?
Answer. The Immigration Judge hiring process generally takes
approximately 10 months. New Immigration Judges receive five weeks of
initial training during their first year. A timeframe for when this
group of new judges will begin hearing cases strongly depends on when
the supplemental is enacted.
Question. Will all of these judges--both permanent and temporary--
be headed to the Southwest Border? How will courthouses be able to
accommodate these 40 new immigration judge teams?
Answer. The rise in unaccompanied alien children and families with
children that enter our country is not limited to the Southwest Border.
As such, EOIR will shift resources, including Immigration Judges, to
adjudicate cases involving unaccompanied alien children, adults with
children that are detained, adults with children that have been
released on alternatives to detention, and other detained cases.
Temporary Immigration Judges will supplement the work of the
immigration court so that the permanent judges can address the four new
priorities. EOIR projects that adequate courtroom and staff space will
be available for the requested 25 Immigration Judge teams and 15
temporary Immigration Judges.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
legal services for unaccompanied minors
Question. The Justice Department launched a program earlier this
month to send 100 lawyers and paralegals to provide legal services to
unaccompanied minors in immigration custody, but 100 people are not
enough to help all the children who need aid. The Obama Administration
announced last week that it would send more immigration judges and
officers to the border to move cases more quickly, but the plan does
not guarantee counsel for unaccompanied minors. The reality is that
Immigration Courts are seriously overwhelmed by the number of removal
proceedings. Consequently children wait on average 578 days before a
Hearing. The Administration has proposed that the Department of Justice
receive a smaller portion of Supplemental Funding compared to other
agencies--$64 million out of $3.7 billion in supplemental funds--yet it
seems as if the delay in processing these cases in large part lies with
the judicial system.
Please explain how the Department of Justice plans to expedite
cases with this $64 million increase.
Answer. With this funding, EOIR plans to hire 25 additional,
permanent Immigration Judge Teams, in addition to 15 temporary judge
teams, in order to help address the immigration court caseload. Each
Immigration Judge Team consists of an Immigration Judge, Language
Specialist, Legal Technician, Clerk and Law Clerk, as well as a BIA
Attorney and Paralegal for every other team. These additional
Immigration Judge Teams will provide EOIR with a greater capacity to
hear cases overall. In addition to hiring additional permanent
Immigration Judge Teams, EOIR will use $2.5 million of this funding to
expand its Legal Orientation Program (LOP) and Legal Orientation
Program for Custodians of Unaccompanied Alien Children (LOPC), which
provide legal orientation presentations in an effort to generate
efficiency in the immigration court system, as well as $15 million to
provide direct legal representation services to children going through
immigration proceedings. These additional resources will assist the
court in more efficiently adjudicating cases involving unaccompanied
alien children.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
influx of unaccompanied children
Question. The President's Budget was released in March. It is hard
for me to believe that the Administration did not know that the influx
of unaccompanied children was occurring at a pace that might outpace
resources. Why was the influx of unaccompanied children not flagged as
a priority in the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS),
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the State for Foreign
Operations funding request? How is the Administration going to ensure
that the OMB can be agile in their requests and give Congress time to
ensure oversight for crisis's build over time like this one?
Answer. The Department of Justice defers this response to the
appropriate Administration officials.
Question. The solution is to return these children safely and
quickly home to their families and I support the efforts to hire more
judges to accelerate this process. How will the funds requested ensure
that there is a higher rate of unaccompanied children who are currently
with their relatives awaiting judicial proceedings actually show up to
their hearings?
Answer. Of the funds requested, $15 million would be used to fund
legal representation for some of the unaccompanied children. Based on
past experience, EOIR expects that children with legal representation
will be more likely to appear for court proceedings because they will
have counsel appearing with them.
immigration backlog
Question. The number of judges and courts is woefully low, even
with the supplemental request. Has DOJ considered incorporating any
legal help from outside groups to help get through the backlog of
cases?
Answer. As an adjudicative agency, EOIR must steadfastly ensure
that it is, and appears to be, neutral. It would be inappropriate for
immigration court functions to be performed by people or organizations
other than those employed by EOIR. EOIR and DOJ recognize the need for
additional Immigration Judges, which is why the fiscal year 2015
President's Budget requested an additional 35 Immigration Judge Teams
for the court system. Additionally, EOIR is working to select 32 more
Immigration Judges in fiscal year 2014.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
immigration judges
Question. According to information we received from the Department
of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review, a fully-trained
Immigration Judge hears, on average, 700 cases per year. However, the
supplemental request before us projects that immigration judges will
nearly double their output, hearing an additional 550 cases a year.
According to the president of the National Association of Immigration
Judges, the Obama Administration's proposal ``will not be sufficient to
deal with the long-term scarcity of resources that the immigration
courts have had to deal with, coupled with the current surge.''
How will immigration judges increase the number of cases they hear
each year from 700 to nearly 1300?
Answer. EOIR does not project that its Immigration Judge Corp will
increase the number of cases heard annually from 700 to 1300. EOIR's
current estimate remains that its Immigration Judges will hear
approximately 700 to 800 cases per year. Additional Immigration Judges
will improve the capacity of the immigration courts to hear more cases
overall.
Question. Are immigration judges really so underworked right now
that they can handle almost an 80 percent larger caseload?
Answer. EOIR's Immigration Judges are not currently underutilized.
Furthermore, EOIR does not anticipate its Immigration Judges will
handle an 80 percent larger caseload. EOIR still projects that its
Immigration Judges will each hear approximately 700 to 800 cases
annually.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
gang members claiming asylum
Question. Recently, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
ruling in a case called Martinez v. Holder, in which it held that a
former member of ``MS-13''--the notorious El Salvadoran gang--was
eligible for asylum under U.S. law. Given this ruling, does it concern
you that some of the unaccompanied minors crossing the southern border
could be members of gangs--but may untruthfully claim that they no
longer belong to the gang? Are you comfortable with a policy that
allows potential gang members to claim asylum in the United States?
What steps will you be taking to ensure that immigration judges who are
adjudicating asylum claims will be able to differentiate between asylum
seekers who no longer belong to a gang, and those who do?
Answer. EOIR is an adjudicative agency. Immigration Judges
adjudicate cases on a case-by-case basis, according to current U.S.
law, regulations, and precedent decisions. Immigration Judges consider
all evidence and arguments presented by both parties and decide each
case based on that information. DHS-ICE attorneys advocate on behalf of
the United States in these proceedings. It is incumbent upon them to
raise issues such as gang membership to the tribunal, and present
evidence about those issues, as appropriate. If a DHS-ICE attorney
disagrees with an Immigration Judge's decision, the attorney may appeal
that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Boozman
legal representation for illegal immigrants
Question. The request seeks $15 million to provide legal
representation to illegal immigrants. Under current law, illegal
immigrants are not entitled to taxpayer funded counsel. (See 8 U.S.C.
1362, and also TVPA Section 235(c)(5)) Isn't this an inappropriate
request?
Answer. Providing government-funded counsel to qualifying
unaccompanied alien minors is not prohibited by section 292 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides that aliens' right to
counsel in immigration proceedings does not include a right of
representation at the government's expense. Section 292 does not bar
the government, in its discretion, from providing funding for legal
representation in certain cases where it might enhance the
effectiveness and efficiency of immigration proceedings involving
qualifying unaccompanied alien minors.
Question. I understand that with the increased flow of children,
the Department of Justice has requested money for more immigration
judge teams and these UAC cases will be prioritized. Do you think this
prioritization of these newest cases will make those already in the
system and waiting, less likely to show up? I have heard that only 1 in
10 show up already. Are there any statistics to show the correlation
between the amount of time one waits and how likely the person will
show up for court?
Answer. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) does not
believe that the reprioritization will change the in absentia rate. The
estimate that only 1 in 10 aliens appears for appointments scheduled in
immigration courts is inaccurate. The actual in abstentia rate is far
lower. The in absentia rate for all aliens in fiscal year 2013 was 15
percent. The in absentia rate for juveniles is 46 percent. For
additional information, please see P1 of EOIR's fiscal year 2013
Statistical Yearbook located at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/statspub/
fy13syb.pdf.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Chairwoman Mikulski. We will continue our discussion. The
committee stands in recess until the full committee will be
marking up next Thursday the defense appropriations with the
modification that if we can get other things done this week, I
am sure going to do it.
[Whereupon, at 5:41 p.m., Thursday, July 10, the hearing
was concluded, and the Committee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
MATERIALS SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARING
[Clerk's Note.--The following outside witness testimonies
were received subsequent to the hearing for inclusion in the
record.]
Prepared Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) submits this
statement to the subcommittee on immigration and border security. AILA
is the national association of immigration lawyers established to
promote justice and advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law
and policy. AILA has over 13,000 attorney and law professor members.
Since 2011, the United States has experienced a dramatic increase
in the number of unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala,
and Honduras apprehended at our southwestern borders. The escalation in
the movement of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) is a regional
humanitarian crisis driven primarily by the rapid growth in crime,
violence and poverty that has affected the region for many years. The
number of unaccompanied children apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) jumped from 17,775 in fiscal year 2011 to 41,890 in
fiscal year 2013. Estimates are that more than 90,000 unaccompanied
children will enter the United States in the current fiscal year.
What is happening on our southwestern border is not merely an
American problem but a humanitarian crisis that affects the entire
Central American region. Already the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa
Rica, and Belize have all experienced a spike in migrants coming to
their countries to seek asylum. UNHCR reports that from 2008 to 2013
there was a 712 percent increase in asylum applications from nationals
of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. By all accounts it is
generating such substantial numbers of people fleeing for reasons of
violence and fear that it should be deemed a refugee crisis.
On June 2, 2014, calling the situation ``an urgent humanitarian
crisis,'' President Obama announced that coordination of the U.S.
response to this crisis would done by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). On July 8, the White House released a summary of its
emergency supplemental appropriations request to Congress of $3.7
billion to respond to the regional humanitarian and refugee crisis.
At the outset, AILA strongly recommends that the supplemental
request not be used to authorize new authority to erode legal
protections for children. That could result in the immediate and tragic
reality of children being thrown back into dangerous conditions where
the potential for violence and abuse is high. AILA specifically opposes
the curtailment of existing statutory protections for unaccompanied
children, particularly provisions set forth in the bipartisan
Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA),
which was unanimously approved in the Senate. The standard of care and
protection of this vulnerable population, developed over the past two
decades, must be safeguarded and should not be undermined during this
temporary humanitarian crisis. A direct response to the factors driving
these children out of their countries would better address and stem the
migration of these children.
AILA is pleased to see that the President's request seeks
substantial additional funding for the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) to address the shelter, custody and processing of
unaccompanied children. The request also states that it will maintain
services for refugees which are served by the same agency within HHS
that has responsibility for unaccompanied children, the Office of
Refugee Resettlement (ORR). This commitment is critical since ongoing
and future services for refugees should not be compromised by diversion
of resources to this more recent humanitarian crisis. AILA is concerned
that the $300 million request for funding to address the root causes of
the humanitarian crisis appears inadequate considering the overwhelming
needs.
border security and enforcement
The supplemental request includes an additional $1.5 billion for
ICE and CBP to engage in apprehension, detention, and removal
activities. While AILA recognizes the importance of combatting
smuggling and criminal enterprises, especially for the purpose of
maintaining public safety, the amount requested is excessive and
unnecessary given the unprecedented level of funding already dedicated
to DHS for immigration enforcement and border security which has
resulted in a dramatic rise in enforcement. From 2000 to 2012
immigration enforcement funding increased to $18 billion, more than 350
percent growth over that period.\1\ Immigration detention continues to
rise and now totals about 430,000 individuals each year, at a cost of
$2 billion annually. Removals are at a record high as are the
percentages of removals that are expedited removals. Federal criminal
prosecutions of immigration-related status offenses are also at a high,
up 468 percent from fiscal year 2003. Recognizing these continued
investments in border security and enforcement, a substantial ``surge''
in enforcement resources would be an unwise use of finite taxpayer
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Migration Policy Institute. ``Immigration Enforcement in the
United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery,'' January 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
detention and custody
Federal law requires that unaccompanied children be cared for in
the least restrictive setting that is in the child's best interests.
Until the number of UAC increased dramatically this year, the Federal
government had typically placed children in federally contracted
shelter facilities and where possible identified suitable relatives to
serve as guardians. That practice is the most consistent with national
and international child welfare standards and is far less expensive
than the Federal taxpayer shouldering the cost of institutional care
for children.
AILA is deeply concerned about the repeated emphasis in the
supplemental request on detention for families. DHS should not expand
the use of detention for families as a means to address the
humanitarian crisis or to deter future arrivals as the holding of
families in detention centers is generally inappropriate, opens the
door for abuses and inhumane conditions, and should only be used in
extremely rare circumstances. In 2009, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) was forced to close a Texas family detention facility
after being sued for abuses and poor conditions. Family detention is
now used only on a limited basis. Detention hinders the ability of
children and families to gain access to counsel and compounds trauma
which in turn severely impacts their ability to seek and receive
protection. The administration should not only expand, but switch
completely to, alternatives to detention, which are far more cost-
effective and humane.
screening
Currently law requires that unaccompanied children from non-
contiguous countries be transferred to ORR within 72 hours of
identification. ORR screens the children for medical and other
immediate needs as well as for vulnerability factors such as
trafficking or fear of persecution. Although the supplemental funding
request does not mention changing the screening process for
unaccompanied children, some lawmakers have called for authorizing
legislation that would apply the process used for children from
contiguous countries (primarily Mexico) to children from non-contiguous
countries. Such a change raises serious humanitarian and child welfare
concerns. Currently, Mexican children are treated differently under the
TVPRA and face nearly automatic repatriation, with limited screening
for relief that takes place within 48 hours of apprehension, and
without the advice of counsel. Their deportation decisions are not made
by immigration judges, but by CBP officers and agents.
For any unaccompanied child, CBP facilities are not a suitable
environment for interviewing minors, nor are CBP officers and agents
the best officials to conduct interviews about sensitive topics such as
persecution, trafficking, and other possible trauma. All unaccompanied
children should be screened by a professional with training in child
welfare, trauma, counseling, and international humanitarian and
immigration law. Having USCIS asylum officers conduct the initial
screening would be an improvement compared to CBP officers doing
screening, but this step would not be sufficient to ensure that
children are not forced back to countries where they may experience
further victimization and danger.
Protocols for screening unaccompanied children could be improved
upon by adopting best practices from the criminal justice and child
welfare fields which have developed comprehensive protocols for rape,
sexual assault and child abuse cases. These criminal justice and child
abuse practices are designed to ensure that complainant victims are
given adequate time to report such incidents given the trauma victims
suffer and the need for time to recover emotionally and physically.
Moreover, such interviews are done in safe setting and manner that
minimizes the likelihood of re-traumatizing the victim.
Nearly all unaccompanied children have undergone a lengthy and
difficult, likely harrowing, journey to the United States. They very
likely have experienced violence, trauma, persecution, or been
trafficked. Like sexual assault or child abuse victims, unaccompanied
children may require several days or weeks before they are able to
adjust to a new environment and speak about their experience.
Accordingly, the 48-hour timeframe during which CBP interviews these
children under the contiguous country processing method will compromise
the ability of most if not all children from having meaningful access
to legal and humanitarian protection. Efforts to expedite processing
should not rush children to explain their situation until their
immediate medical and psychosocial needs are met and until they are in
a safe environment.
Finally, rather than water down the legal protections for children
coming from Central America that were enacted by a bi-partisan and
unanimous Senate in 2008, Congress should strengthen the process for
screening Mexican children and bring it on par with what is required
for children from non-contiguous countries. There is no valid reason
for treating vulnerable unaccompanied children differently based on
their country of origin. All children should receive careful and robust
screening and protection to ensure their safety and well-being.
ensuring meaningful access to asylum, humanitarian relief and due
process
While the influx of unaccompanied children compels the
administration and Congress to act swiftly, consideration should be
given to ensure that vulnerable children are not pressured to make
quick decisions that may jeopardize their well-being. Every
unaccompanied child should have the opportunity to consult with legal
counsel and appear before an immigration judge in removal proceedings
before he or she is deported.
The immigration courts have chronically been underfunded especially
when compared to the dramatic increase in funding for immigration
enforcement in the past decade. As mentioned previously, immigration
enforcement funding has increased exponentially in the past decade. By
comparison, immigration court funding grew from $150 million to $300
million during from fiscal year 2000 to 2012. The disproportionate
funding given to enforcement has resulted in such dramatic growth in
enforcement that the courts are unable to keep pace and have a backlog
of about 350,000 cases. The underfunding of the courts has resulted
from decisions made by congressional appropriators and is the principal
reason the processing of immigration cases suffers from substantial
delays. Congress should make a concerted effort now to correct that
resource problem.
The Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review
(EOIR) should be adequately funded to hire enough judges and staff to
not only provide hearings for children without scheduling delays, but
to reduce the existing backlog and to reduce the need for video
hearings that can curtail children's rights to properly present their
cases. The supplemental funding request for immigration judges,
however, is insufficient. If 75 additional judge teams are necessary to
adequately respond to the crisis, which appears to be the case from the
supplemental request, then 75 teams should be requested instead of
repurposing the 35 new teams already requested for fiscal year 2015,
which could exacerbate the court backlogs already affecting immigrants
nationwide.
The Asylum Division of the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) should also be funded to hire more asylum
officers to promptly adjudicate asylum applications. However, any
proposal to provide children and families with prompt hearings cannot
compromise standards of due process and fairness. Summary removal
procedures, such as expedited removal or pre-hearing voluntary
departure, should never be used for children, and AILA opposes any
authorizing legislation that would do so.
Children who have survived trauma or persecution or live in fear of
return should not be left to navigate the laws on their own. The lack
of counsel compounds the vulnerability of children as they move through
our nation's complicated removal system. AILA recommends that all
children should be provided counsel in removal proceedings when they
cannot afford a private attorney or obtain pro bono counsel. In
addition, EOIR's Legal Orientation Program (LOP) and Legal Orientation
Program for Custodians of Unaccompanied Alien Children (LOPC) should be
sufficiently funded to ensure that every child receives the benefits of
these programs. While not a substitute for legal representation, it is
the only opportunity for most unaccompanied children to obtain
information about their rights and responsibilities under the law,
information vital for them in any proceedings. AILA is pleased that the
supplemental request acknowledges the need for funding legal counsel
and LOPs. However, AILA remains concerned that the requested amount--
$15 million for legal representation and $2.5 million for LOP--is
insufficient to meet the current needs.
______
Prepared Statement of Church World Service
u.s. must ensure protection of unaccompanied children and adequate
funding for refugee resettlement
Church World Service (CWS), a 67-year-old humanitarian
organization, urges the U.S. Government to address the needs of
unaccompanied children seeking safety in the United States by
prioritizing their well-being and ensuring access to lifesaving
protection. To uphold our legal and moral responsibilities, the
administration and Congress must provide an urgent increase in funding
for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to provide services for
these children, a coherent plan to ensure children in need of
protection are treated in a manner that reflects their unique needs and
vulnerabilities, and a long-term strategy to address the varied and
complex root causes of displacement in the region.
The number of unaccompanied children fleeing violence in El
Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras has increased substantially over the
past 3 years, from 6,800 in 2011 to an estimated 90,000 in 2014. These
children are fleeing drastic increases in violence, conscription into
gangs, trafficking, abuse by smugglers and sexual assault. Some of
these children are bona fide refugees and asylum seekers, and the
majority of them meet criteria for international protection.\1\ The
demographics of these children have changed, and instead of older
teenage boys, more of these children are girls, younger children and
victims of trauma. It is critical that the United States and
international community prioritize their protection, safety and care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Children on the
Run: Unaccompanied Children Leaving Central America and Mexico and the
Need for International Protection. 2014. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWS strongly condemns proposals that have focused on expeditiously
removing, detaining and denying these children access to life-saving
protection, and urges the administration and Congress to ensure that
the assessments of protection needs required by international
obligations \2,\ \3\ are conducted and that the services required by
U.S. law \4\ are provided to protect these children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Articles 2, 3, 6 and 22, The Convention on the Rights of the
Child. .
\3\ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, A Framework for
the Protection of Children..
\4\ U.S. Code Title 22: Foreign Relations and Intercourse, Chapter
78: Trafficking Victims Protection. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensure Access to Protection for Unaccompanied Children Fleeing Violence
It is important to note that unaccompanied children are not
breaking the law when they enter the United States. Individuals have
the right to seek protection from persecution and violence, both
through international \5,\ \6\ and U.S. law.\7\ Under current U.S. law,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is required to take child
migrants into custody, screen them for protection concerns and transfer
them to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of
Health and Human Services. ORR places children in foster care or
reunites them with relatives in the United States and CBP places the
children into deportation proceedings, issuing them a Notice to Appear
in immigration court.\8\ Children from Mexico are almost always
immediately deported, as they are treated differently under U.S. law.
Expedited removal of non-Mexican children is illegal under the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Article 14, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
.
\6\ United Nations General Assembly, Declaration on Territorial
Asylum, 14 December 1967, A/RES/2312(XXII). .
\7\ U.S. Code Title 8: Aliens and Nationality, Chapter 12:
Immigration and Nationality, Section 1158: Asylum. .
\8\ Providing Comprehensive Services for Unaccompanied Children at
Immigration Court. Kids In Need of Defense. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWS is strongly opposed to proposals that would undercut the TVPRA,
as these are important standards established by Congress that should
not be weakened now just because more children are in need of these
protections. Deporting unaccompanied children more quickly, before they
are screened for trafficking and protection concerns would only
perpetuate a crisis of vulnerable children whose concerns are not being
addressed and who are passed along to further exploitation and abuse.
Summarily deporting these children would place them back into the hands
of smugglers, gangs and dangerous criminal organizations and increase
the power these groups hold over children and entire communities. The
United States is under obligations to both international and U.S. law,
as well as a basic moral compass, to safeguard against refoulement \9,\
\10\ (unsafe return) and turning children over to people who will
traffic or exploit them. Also, expanding the use of detention for
children and families will do nothing to improve the humanitarian
crisis faced in Latin America or along the U.S. border. Detention is
costly and makes it harder for those fleeing persecution to apply for
protection. Rather than detention, community-based alternatives better
meet the needs of these vulnerable populations, while keeping costs low
and ensuring appearances at immigration court proceedings.\11\ Congress
and the administration should increase resources for immigration courts
to maintain the integrity of the U.S. immigration system by ensuring
that cases can be resolved in a timely, but not rushed, manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Convention and
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. .
\10\ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Note on Non-
Refoulement, 23 August 1977. .
\11\ Human Rights First, Response to Surge of Unaccompanied Minors
and Families at the U.S.-Mexican Border Must Reflect American Ideals.
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Government should not further militarize the United
States/Mexico border or assist Mexico in militarizing its southern
border. Such action would be counterproductive to ensuring access to
protection, and would offer no solution to the many children fleeing
violence. Any efforts to keep children who are fleeing persecution from
finding life-saving access to protection in the United States or
elsewhere would fly in the face of the fundamental values upon which
this country was founded. The United States already spends more than
$17 billion a year on border enforcement, and should instead prioritize
identifying, disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal
smuggling networks that prey upon these children. At a time when the
United States is encouraging Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon to maintain
access to protection for the millions of Syrian refugees, the United
States cannot abandon its standards of protection simply because the
numbers of unaccompanied children have increased. Especially as the
number of children, while meaningful, pales in comparison to the number
of Syrian refugees who continue to be welcomed in nearby host
countries.
Provide Unaccompanied Children Adequate Services, While Maintaining
Services for Refugees
As the number of unaccompanied children has exceeded projections,
the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), the agency responsible for
the care of these children, has addressed its budget shortfall by
reprogramming $94 million from refugee services. These drastic budget
cuts are having devastating consequences for refugees and the
communities that welcome them. CWS urges the administration and
Congress to increase ORR's budget by at least $200 million in fiscal
year 2014 to meet the needs of unaccompanied children and refugees,
asylees, Iraqi and Afghan SIV recipients who served alongside U.S.
interests, Cuban and Haitian entrants, and all populations in ORR's
care. In addition to supplemental funds urgently needed this year, ORR
will require at least $3.167 billion in fiscal year 2015 to respond to
this crisis without sacrificing funds for vital refugee services.
Support Regional Efforts To Improve Child Protection
Asylum requests by Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans seeking
refuge in the neighboring countries of Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa
Rica, and Belize have increased by 712 percent since 2009, with even
more fleeing to safe havens within their own countries. In Honduras
alone, murders of women and girls have increased by 346 percent, and
murders of men and boys are up by 292 percent since 2005. The U.S.
Government should work with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to
mitigate the reasons these children have to flee, with an eye to their
well-being in their home countries and during their journeys.
CWS urges the U.S. Government to support the capacity building of
well-trained, well-resourced and accountable asylum, humanitarian
admissions, anti-trafficking, and child protection systems in Central
America and Mexico. The United States should also increase financial
assistance and encourage other international donors to fund the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to expand their presence
in the region to assist countries of origin in preventing displacement,
conduct Best Interest Determinations (BIDS) for children, establish
refugee resettlement processing, and protect and assist internally
displaced persons and asylum seekers.
The current humanitarian crisis will only be solved when violence
is reduced, trafficking is not feasible, and children can find security
in their home countries. CWS urges the administration and Congress to
support programs that help children enroll and remain in school and
gain jobs skills training, which can help secure children's futures and
prevent displacement. These solutions, implemented together, are far
preferable and more effective than walls that keep children in need
out.
______
Prepared Statement of the Episcopal Church \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement was submitted by Alexander D. Baumgarten
and Katie Conway on behalf of the Episcopal Church. Alexander D.
Baumgarten is the director of government relations, and Katie Conway is
the immigration and refugee policy analyst for the Episcopal Church, a
multinational religious denomination based in the United States with
members in 15 other sovereign nations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We thank Senator Barbara Mikulski, Chairwoman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, and Ranking Member Shelby for the opportunity
to submit this testimony. We welcome this hearing and the chance to
raise our voice in support of a humanitarian approach to both the root
causes that force children from their homes and the reception
vulnerable migrants receive when they arrive at our Nation's borders
seeking safety and peace. Therefore, we strongly support the additional
$1.8 billion in emergency supplemental funding for the Office of
Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which cares not only for unaccompanied
immigrant children such as the ones we see arriving daily but also for
refugees, victims of trafficking, survivors of torture, Cuban/Haitian
entrants, and Iraqi and Afghan SIV holders who supported U.S. troops
abroad. This funding is critical to ensuring that the United States
fulfills its humanitarian, legal, and moral commitments to vulnerable
people. The Episcopal Church has been engaged in the work of providing
humanitarian aid abroad and refugee resettlement domestically since the
Presiding Bishop's Fund for World Relief was established in 1939, and
we continue those services today.
Over the past 3 years, Episcopal communities and service
organizations have witnessed the rise in arrivals of children forced
from their homes by pervasive violence and instability, exchanging the
known dangers at home for the unknown dangers of a journey to the
United States in a desperate search for peace and protection. In the
past month, Episcopal communities and service organizations on the
border and throughout the country have witnessed the arrival of tens of
thousands of families, the majority of whom are women traveling with
children. Episcopalians are already engaged in responding to the needs
of these children and families through loving service: meeting families
at bus stations with needed food and hygiene supplies, helping migrants
released from detention reunite with family, and offering pastoral care
to both children in ORR custody and adults in detention. We are not
alone in this response and we hope that Congress and the administration
will join us in addressing this humanitarian crisis with the compassion
and resources necessary to ensure the protection of vulnerable people
at our borders and within the region.
When women and children cross borders it signals an evolving
humanitarian crisis, not a security threat. It is not illegal for
adults or children to enter the United States and ask for protection
under both international \2\ and U.S. law.\3\ For children traveling
unaccompanied from countries other than Mexico and Canada in
particular, the law requires that Customs and Border Patrol screen
these children for protection concerns before they are transferred to
the Office of Refugee Resettlement where they will be placed in foster
care or with family members until a child's immigration case is
heard.\4\ This outflow of people seeking security, economic
opportunity, and reunification with family members, however, is not
only occurring at the United States' southern border. Other stable
countries in the region, such as Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Costa Rica,
and Belize have reported that asylum requests from Honduran,
Guatemalan, and Salvadorian nationals are up 712 percent since 2009,\5\
reinforcing the sustained and regional nature of this migration crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Article 14, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.http://
www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a14
\3\ U.S. Code Title 8: Aliens and Nationality, Chapter 12:
Immigration and Nationality, Section 1158: Asylum. http://
uscode.house.gov
\4\ Providing Comprehensive Services for Unaccompanied Children at
Immigration Court. Kids In Need of Defense. https://supportkind.org/en/
about-us/resources/doc_download/70-a-treacherous-journey-child-
migrants-navigating-the-u-s-immigration-system-section-3
\5\ Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children Leaving Central
America and Mexico and the Need for International Protection. United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 2014.http://unhcrwashington.org/
children
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the regional dynamics of the present situation, the growing
levels of displacement within the region,\6\ and mixed migration flows
of children, families and adults arriving at border's across the
region, The Episcopal Church welcomes the Obama administration's
recognition of the need for emergency funding, and hopes that Congress
will take the necessary steps to fund the care of vulnerable children
by ORR, while maintaining vital funding for refugees and other
populations of humanitarian concern already resettled to the United
States and awaiting resettlement from dangerous situations abroad.
Beyond the necessary additional funds for ORR, we urge Congress to
provide more funds in the supplemental to increase legal services for
unaccompanied children in the United States, ensuring that they receive
the guidance and representation they need and that, if deported,
children are not returned to situations where they will experience
violence or exploitation. We also ask that Congress robustly support
programs to reduce violence and increase citizen security in sending
and transit countries so that individuals, particularly children and
families, are not forced to undertake these perilous journeys. We are
particularly concerned by the language in the supplemental request that
could discourage persecuted individuals in Central America from seeking
asylum and protection, and we oppose any proposals that would weaken
protections for children or return them to unsafe situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Associated Press. ``UN pushes for migrants to be called
refugees'' 9 July 2014 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/
the_americas/un-pushes-for-migrants-to-be-called-refugees/2014/07/08/
8c13f25e-0655-11e4-a7ef-9ed5d8510e81_story.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While The Episcopal Church recognizes the necessity of enforcement
policies and the responsibility of the government to protect its
citizens, we also believe our nation's laws must be both proportional
and humane,\7\ and must respond to the needs of communities. We have
grave concerns about the administration's request in the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations bill for funding to expand the inhumane
practice of family detention, and support the increased use of
alternatives to detention. The poor conditions and documented abuses
that led to the end of family detention at the T. Don Hutto Residential
Center in 2009 \8\ should not be forgotten. Faith communities and
community organizations across the country stand willing to assist in
the implementation and expansion of community-based alternatives to
detention programs which are more cost effective and humane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ General Convention, Journal of the General Convention of...The
Episcopal Church, Columbus, 2006 (New York: General Convention, 2007),
pp. 532-533. Web 9 July 2014: http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/
acts/acts_resolution.pl?resolution=2006-A017
\8\ Berstein, Nina. ``U.S. to Reform Policy on Detention for
Immigrants,'' The New York Times, 5 August 2009, http://
www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/us/politics/06detain.html?pagewanted=all
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States is capable of meeting this challenge with
compassion, and providing regional solutions that address the root
causes of violence and instability in sending countries that force
people to flee their homes. We stand ready to work with Congress and
the administration in the implementation of humanitarian solutions to
this crisis and ask Congress to move quickly to ensure that ORR is able
to fulfill its mandate to protect and serve unaccompanied children
while maintaining vital services for refugees.
Thank you for carrying the costly burden of public service, and for
the opportunity to submit these views to the committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ethiopian Community Development Council, Inc.
The Ethiopian Community Development Council, Inc. (ECDC) is
grateful for the opportunity to provide written testimony to the
Committee regarding President Obama's emergency supplemental request to
address the influx of unaccompanied children.
ECDC was established in 1983 to respond to the needs of a growing
Ethiopian community locally and quickly became a multi-service provider
with national and international reach. We focus on African refugees and
immigrants, although we have been resettling refugees from all over the
world for 23 years. We are one of the nine national refugee
resettlement agencies that partners with the U.S. Department of State,
and the only one that works with ethnic community-based organizations
as our resettlement partners.
ECDC urges Congress to pass the President's emergency supplemental
appropriations request and in particular, to approve the appropriation
of $1.8 billion to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for additional capacity
to care for unaccompanied children while maintaining services for
refugees. With these funds, HHS will have the resources to be able to
care for the children currently projected to come into the custody of
the Department of Homeland Security, and still provide promised
services to the other vulnerable populations that fall under ORR's
mandate including refugees, asylees, Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrant
Visa recipients who assisted U.S. efforts, Cuban and Haitian entrants,
victims of human trafficking and survivors of torture.
ECDC is very concerned over the current funding crisis at ORR that
will cause extremely detrimental consequences for refugees resettled in
the United States and the communities that embrace them, and may even
lead to the demise of the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program as we know
it. To accommodate the steep increase in the number of unaccompanied
children fleeing violence in Central America and entering the United
States during fiscal year 2014, ORR has reprogrammed $94 million from
its fiscal year 2014 budget for refugee services to meet the needs of
these arriving children. While it is critical that these vulnerable
children receive protection and care in the United States, we are
equally concerned that another vulnerable population, resettled
refugees, will be harmed if ORR does not receive additional funding in
fiscal year 2014.
It is crucial that the United States do everything it can to care
for these vulnerable children on the border, but one vulnerable
population cannot be served at the expense of another. Cuts to refugee
services hurt refugees already here and the communities where they
live, impeding the refugees' ability to obtain education, employment,
and stability. Integration programs that have been promised such as
employment services so refugees can attain self-sufficiency, grants
that assist local schools with refugee children, preventive health
programs which ensure the health and safety of refugees as well as
their neighbors, and English classes that help resettled refugees start
their new lives as Americans, will all be drastically cut.
Additionally, we have recently been informed that some states, such as
Florida, have decided that because they will not receive this funding
to support refugees, they will not approve future refugee arrivals at
the same level. Thus, ORR's funding shortfall and reprogramming of
funds will have an impact on the entire U.S. Refugee Resettlement
Program. This means that refugees who have been languishing in camps
for decades, having already passed their medical and security checks
and patiently waiting to be resettled, will have to wait even longer or
may not be able to come to the United States at all.
The United States has a long history of offering assistance to
those who seek safety within its borders, and refugee resettlement has
been an important foreign policy tool since the end of World War II.
Having welcomed over 3.1 million refugees to start new lives in our
country since 1975, the United States must continue its global
leadership in the area of refugee resettlement. Rather than
reprogramming funds from one vulnerable refugee group to inadequately
help another, ORR needs increased funding to meet the needs of all
refugees who fall under its mandate and to prevent the collapse of the
entire U.S. refugee resettlement program.
To this end, ECDC makes the following recommendations:
--Provide additional funding to the Office of Refugee Resettlement as
contained in the $1.8 billion request for HHS in the
President's requested emergency supplemental appropriation.
--Include language in the appropriations measure that ensures that
the accounts within ORR/HHS for refugee services and for the
unaccompanied children remain separate.
In conclusion, we thank the Senate Appropriations Committee for
this opportunity to present our concerns and recommendations, and hope
that they are seriously considered at this critical time.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fire Suppression Funding Solutions Partner
Caucus
The Fire Suppression Funding Solutions Partner Caucus urges the
Committee to address the vexing issue of wildfire suppression funding
in an emergency supplemental package, or in any other vehicle that may
become law. We respectfully request that the committee correct this
wildfire suppression funding challenge by adopting the administration's
request for: (1) $615 million in emergency supplemental funding for
fiscal year 2014 suppression operations; and (2) a new mechanism for
funding suppression, which mirrors the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster
Funding Act (H.R. 3992; S. 1875).
Forecasts are predicting that our nation is facing another intense
fire season putting lives and properties at risk and harming our public
lands and the many resources and jobs they provide. We are concerned
about reports indicating the USDA Forest Service, and possibly the
Department of the Interior, will run out of suppression before the end
of the fiscal year.
We respectfully request that the $615 million fiscal year 2014
suppression shortfall be funded through an emergency supplemental
before the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the USDA Forest Service
(USFS) are forced to transfer funds from non-suppression accounts. Over
the last 2 years, DOI and USFS were forced to transfer funds from
important land management, restoration, and public service programs to
pay for emergency fire suppression. Transfers have real and negative
impacts on a host of important activities that are vital to care for
our nation's public and private lands and translate into less land
management, road maintenance, lost jobs, among many more impacts, and
long-term increased fire risk and costs.
Numerous fire seasons over the past decade have required fire
funding transfers from non-suppression accounts, clearly demonstrating
the urgent need to change the suppression funding model at the USFS and
DOI. Therefore, we additionally request that the committee adopt the
Administration's proposal that mirrors the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster
Funding Act (S. 1875; H.R. 3992) as part of the supplemental package in
order to significantly reduce this cycle of ``robbing Peter to pay
Paul'' that continues to erode the ability of the USFS and DOI to
effectively manage their budgets. It is time to end the cycle of budget
deficits due to costly wildfire seasons and provide up-front resources
to first responders and stable budgets for public lands. More than 230
organizations throughout the country representing a diverse set of
interests in natural resources support the Wildfire Disaster Funding
Act.
We appreciate your support and the recognition that addressing the
fire suppression funding challenge is critical to achieving our
collective goal of healthy and resilient landscapes. We look forward to
continuing to work with you on these important issues.
The following are groups supporting the Wildfire Disaster Funding
Act:
3 Legs Collaboration Services
Alamo Navajo School Board, Inc.
Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group
Alliance for Community Trees
American Bird Conservancy
American Canoe Association/Canoe--Kayak--SUP--Raft--Rescue
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Forest & Paper Association
American Forest Foundation
American Forest Resource Council
American Forests
American Hiking Society
American Loggers Council
American YouthWorks
Appalachian Mountain Club
Applegate Partnership and Watershed Council
Arid Land Innovation
Arizona Conservation Corps
Arizona Fire Chiefs Association
Arizona Prescribed Fire Council
Arizona Wildlife Federation
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Association of National Grasslands
Association of Partners for Public Lands
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
Black Hills Forest Resource Association
Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition
Black Hills Resource, Conservation, and Development
Blue Goose Alliance
Blue Mountains Forest Partners
Boulder County, CO
BRL Services Inc/BRL Logging
Bull Moose Sportsmen's Alliance
California Deer Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fire Safe Council
California Forestry Association
California Ski Industry Association
California Waterfowl
Catch-A-Dream Foundation
Center for Heirs' Property Preservation
Center for Sustainable Communities
Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council
Choose Outdoors
City of Ashland, OR
Civil War Trust
Clean Water Action
Clearwater Resource Council
Colorado Timber Industry Association
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
Conservation Legacy
Conservation Northwest
ConservationCorps, MN & IA
Criley Consulting
Defenders of Wildlife
Ducks Unlimited
Earthjustice
Eastern Arizona Counties Organization
Ecosystem Workforce Program
El Tesoro Retreat Center
Elliotsville Plantation, Inc
Endangered Species Coalition
Environment America
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
Environmental Stewards
Estrada Collaborative Resource Management, LLC
Federal Forest Resource Coalition
Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology (FUSEE)
Flagstaff Fire Department
Flathead Economic Policy Center
Foothill Conservancy
Foothills Conservancy of North Carolina
Forest Business Network
Forest County Economic Development Partnership
Forest Energy Corporation
Forest Guild
Forest Health Task Force
Four Forest Restoration Initiative Collaborative Stakeholder Group
(4FRI)
Fourth Sector Strategies
Framing Our Community, Inc.
Friends of the Columbia Gorge
Friends of the Urban Forest
Front Range Roundtable
Future Forest, LLC
Gila Tree Thinners
Gila WoodNet
Global Parks
Grassroots Outdoor Alliance
Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association
Great Old Broads for Wilderness
Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Hawks Aloft, Inc.
Idaho Conservation League
Idaho Forest Owners Association
Illinois Firefighter Association
Indiana Forestry & Woodland Owners Association
Intermountain Forest Association
Intermountain Roundwood Association
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Association of Fire Fighters
International Association of Wildland Fire
International Mountain Bicycling Association
Intertribal Timber Council
Jara Landworks
KHII Radio
Lake County Resources Initiative
Lemhi County
Little Colorado River Plateau RC&D
Lomakatsi Restoration Project
Los Padres ForestWatch
Louisiana Forestry Association
Maine Audubon
Mainland Planning, Inc
Mass Audubon
Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions
Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition
Massachusetts Resident
Masters of Foxhounds Association
McCutchanville Volunteer Fire Department
Mid Klamath Watershed Council
Montana Conservation Corps
Montana Wilderness Association
Montana Wood Products Association
Mottek Consulting
Mountain States Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association
Mt. Adams Resource Stewards
Mt. Taylor Machine, LLC
Mule Deer Foundation
National Alliance of Forest Owners
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Forest Service Retirees
National Association of State Foresters
National Association of University Forest Resources Programs
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
National Federation of Federal Employees
National Network of Forest Practitioners
National Parks Conservation Association
National Rifle Association
National Ski Areas Association
National Trust for Historic Preservation
National Volunteer Fire Council
National Wild Turkey Federation
National Wildfire Institute
National Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Refuge Association
National Woodland Owners
Nevada Conservation Corps
New Mexico Forest Industry Association
New Mexico Prescribed Fire Council
New Mexico State Land Office
Northbrook Public Works
Northern Arizona Wood Products Association
Northern Forest Center
Northwest Connections
Northwest Forest Worker Center
Northwest Youth Corps
Outdoor Alliance
Outdoor Industry Association
Partnership for Rural America
Partnership for the National Trails System
Pheasants Forever/Quails Forever
Pinchot Institute for Conservation
Pope and Young Club
Public Lands Council
Public Lands Foundation
Public Lands Service Coalition
Quail and Upland Wildlife Federation
Quality Deer Management Association
Resource Management Service, LLC
Restoration Technologies
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research
Ruffed Grouse Society
Rural County Representatives of California
Safari Club International
Salmon Valley Stewardship
San Juan Forest Health Partnership
San Juan Woody-Invasives Initiative
Sierra Club
Sierra Forest Legacy
Siuslaw Institute
Society of American Foresters
South Carolina Wildlife Federation
South Dakota ATV/UTV Association
South Dakota Campground Owners Association
Southeast Youth Corps
Southern Environmental Law Center
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now
Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative
Southern Oregon Timber Industries Assn.
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
Southwest Conservation Corps
Southwest Forests Sustainable Partnership
Spatial Interest, LLC
Sustainable Northwest
Swan Ecosystem Center
Taos County Economic Development Corporation
Teller County Home Builders Association
Texas Forestry Association
The Conservation Fund
The Corps Network
The National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds
The Nature Conservancy
The Trust for Public Land
The Wilderness Society
The Wildlife Society
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Tierra y Montes SWCD
Town of Laona, Forest County, WI
Tread Lightly!
Tree Musketeers
Tribal Environmental Policy Center
Trout Unlimited
Twin Willows Ranch
Upstate Forever
Ute Mountaineer
Vail Resorts
Village Reconstruction and Development Project
Wallowa Resources
Washington State Fire Fighters' Association
Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition
Watershed Research & Training Center
West Range Reclamation, LLC
Western Environmental Law Center
Wild South
WildEarth Guardians
Wildlife Forever
Winter Wildlands Alliance
Wisconsin Off-Road Vehicle Park, Inc.
Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association Inc.
Wyoming Mining Association
Wyoming Stock Growers Association
York Land Trust
Zuni Mountain Forest Collaborative
______
Prepared Statement of First Focus Campaign for Children
Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
Senate Committee on Appropriations, we thank you for the opportunity to
submit this statement for the record for this hearing to consider the
President's supplemental request to address the humanitarian crisis on
the country's southern border.
The First Focus Campaign for Children is a bipartisan advocacy
organization dedicated to making children and families a priority in
Federal policy and budget decisions. As an organization dedicated to
promoting the safety and well-being of all children in the United
States, we urge Congress to work towards finding comprehensive
solutions to address the Central American child migration crisis that
prioritizes the best interest of the child and addresses both the
immediate needs of the child refugees who have recently entered the
United States as well as the root causes of their migration.
There is no doubt that the recent influx of unaccompanied children
across the Southern border represents a humanitarian crisis. Recent
data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reveals that since
October 1, 2013, 52,193 children have entered the United States, with
the majority coming from Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala
and a significant increase in the number of girls and young children.
According to a recent report by the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR), the majority of the children are escaping extreme
violence and instability in their home countries, spurred by drug
traffickers and increased gang activity. While some children are also
motivated by domestic abuse, extreme poverty, high unemployment rates
and hopes of reunifying with family members in the United States, the
vast majority are fleeing desperate situations which force both youth
and their families to make the very difficult decision to stay and
accept near certain death or risk ``probable death'' by migrating to
surrounding countries. Of the children who have recently arrived to the
United States, UNHCR estimates that nearly two-thirds qualify for
international protection as refugees due to violence and abuse in their
home countries. On their arduous and dangerous journey, many children
fall victim to trafficking, sexual abuse, and violence.
The administration continues to struggle to meet the needs of these
children, and as a result children are spending significant amounts of
time in border patrol centers and large emergency shelters, both of
which are inappropriate settings for children. Thus, it is essential
that Congress allocate more funds immediately to ensure that the
agencies tasked with caring for these children have the sufficient
resources to do so. However, we are also gravely concerned with certain
areas of the President's supplemental request which seek to expand
family detention and fall short on ensuring children due process as
well as addressing root causes of the children's forced migration.
We support the $1.8 billion request for the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) to ensure that the Office of Refugee
Resettlement has the resources it needs to care for children under its
care. Not only will this help ensure we are connecting children to
vital services, but will also ensure that other refugee services are
not compromised. We encourage guidelines to be established to ensure
that children are placed into community-based care whenever possible,
including placement with parent or relative sponsors, and strengthen
screening mechanisms and expand follow-up services to ensure children
are being placed in safe and appropriate settings. When community-based
care is not an option, children should be placed in proper facilities
and other settings that are adequately equipped to meet the medical,
mental health and other special needs of children, as well as pregnant
and parenting teens, rather than placing children in large
institutional settings. In recognition of the dire need to provide HHS
with additional resources for these children, enclosed is a former
letter signed by over 50 organizations in support of a full committee
hearing on the appropriations bill marked up by the Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies subcommittee on
Thursday, June 12, 2014, to provide these critical resources.
We are disappointed with the request for additional funding to
expand family detention centers, such as the center that recently
opened in Artesia, New Mexico. The administration ended the policy of
family detention in 2009 with the closing of the T. Don Hutto detention
facility in Texas due to the public outcry concerning the conditions
families and children were subjected to in such settings. These
settings remain inappropriate for children, particularly those who are
victims of trauma. Rather, we encourage funds to be used to expand
effective and cost-efficient alternative to detention programs for
parents with children.
We also believe it is essential that all children placed into
removal proceedings have access to legal representation. While we are
pleased to see that the supplemental request for the Department for
Justice includes resources for direct legal representation for
children, we are concerned that the $15 million allocated for counsel
is insufficient to meet the demand and guarantee the due process rights
of children. Failure to provide counsel would increase the risk of
children being inappropriately denied humanitarian relief and returned
to dangerous situations.
Finally, we are also gravely concerned with the insufficient funds
included in the supplemental request for the Department of State to
address the root causes of the problem causing children and families to
flee Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. It is clear that the extreme
violence in this region has grown incrementally over the years and the
governments in these countries have failed to provide their citizens
with protection. The requested $295 million is insufficient to stem the
systemic violence being driven by drug cartels, gangs, and smugglers
that have taken over the region and robbed children and families of
their sense of security. Furthermore, more resources are needed to
establish strong repatriation and reintegration programs that include
youth safety and development components to ensure that returned
children are afforded both security and opportunity. Successful
programs require time and resources, and our government should not be
moving to return any child without assurance that we are returning them
to a capable guardian and safe environment.
We thank you again for the opportunity to submit this written
testimony. We look forward to working with Congress in the weeks ahead
to find solutions to address this humanitarian crisis that uphold our
American values of putting children first and protecting them from
harm. Rather than weakening protections for these child refugees, all
budget and legislative proposals should strengthen protections and hold
the best interest of the child paramount.
[Enclosed letter follows: Sign-on letter to Chairwomen Mikulski and
Ranking Member Shelby]
July 10, 2014
Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
Chairwoman, Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Shelby,
Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
RE: Labor-H subcommittee bill to address unaccompanied children crisis
Dear Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby: The undersigned
organizations urge you to bring the bill marked up by the Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies subcommittee on
Thursday, June 12, 2014, to the full committee and report it to the
Senate with the increase in funds to address the needs of children
coming to the United States alone. The subcommittee bill includes an
important increase for fiscal year 2015 in funding for unaccompanied
alien minors, children who are fleeing desperate situations in their
home countries, making a long and dangerous journey, and entering the
United States alone. The Government continues to struggle to respond to
the increase in the number of migrant children fleeing their homes,
leading to the humanitarian crisis we now face.
Most of the increase in children coming to this country alone is a
result of children from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador leaving
terrible and dangerous situations in their homes and fleeing to other
countries. These children are risking their lives to escape near
certain death as a result of extreme violence and instability in their
communities, including sexual violence, regularly witnessing
atrocities, abuse, and violations of their human rights such as forced
prostitution or conscription. As a result, neighboring countries such
as Costa Rica, Belize, Mexico, and Nicaragua have experienced a
significant increase in the number of children crossing their borders.
Many of these children are also coming to the United States alone; the
number more than doubled each year from 2011 to 2014, from about 6,560
in 2011 to an estimated 60,000 this year and projections to increase
next year. Of the children who come to the United States, the United
Nation High Commission on Refugees estimates that nearly two-thirds
qualify for protection due to violence and abuse in their home
countries.
The government agencies tasked with caring for these children
remain insufficiently prepared to address the needs of this population.
These children face extremely difficult and violent conditions in their
home countries and on the arduous and dangerous journey, during which
they face the continuous threat of trafficking, abuse, and gender-based
violence. Once the children arrive in the United States our system is
often failing to meet even their most basic needs, let alone helping
them through the trauma and uncertainty they experience.
The Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies realized the tremendous need and
included $1.9 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services
to help meet that need, as well as expanded transfer authority to
respond to future needs. In a time of tight budgets and difficult
appropriations decisions, this allocation to the agency that is tasked
with caring for these children a reveals a necessary prioritization to,
at the very least, meet the basic humanitarian needs of these children
and ideally to provide ongoing support to help them through their
traumatic experiences. While not sufficient to fully meet the needs of
these children or to fully address this issue, the subcommittee
appropriations bill is a major and necessary first step.
Yet a full committee hearing on this bill has not been scheduled,
making the appropriation of these essential funds uncertain. Any delay
in appropriating these emergency funds means more children in the
United States will suffer due to a failure to respond to this pressing
issue. We urge you to report the Labor, HHS, Education and Related
Agencies appropriations bill to the full Senate and include at least
$1.9 billion to ensure the safety and well-being of these vulnerable
children.
Sincerely,
National:
Alliance for a Just Society
Alliance for Children and Families
Americans for Immigrant Justice
Asian Americans Advancing Justice-AAJC
The Bridge Project
Children's Advocacy Institute
Council on Social Work Education
First Focus Campaign for Children
HIAS
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)
FosterClub
Foster Family-Based Treatment Association
Latin America Working Group
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
Mi Familia Vota
MomsRising
NACAC
National Association of Council for Children
National Association of County Human Services Administrators
National Association of Social Workers
National Coalition for the Homeless
National Crittenton Foundation
National Education Association
National Employment Law Project
National Immigrant Justice Center
National Immigration Law Center
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
National Network for Youth
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants
U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW)
Women's Refugee Commission
Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights
State/Local:
Central American Resource Center (CARECEN) of Northern California
Children's Action Alliance (Arizona)
Children's Alliance (Washington)
County Welfare Directors Association of California
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
Justice For Immigrants San Jose, California
John Burton Foundation (California)
Juvenile Law Center (Pennsylvania)
Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition
National Association of Social Workers, Arizona Chapter
New Mexico Voices for Children
OneAmerica (Washington)
Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish (California)
PACT Santa Clara County, California
Partners for Our Children (Washington)
Promise the Children (Massachusetts)
Public Policy Center of Mississippi
Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (California)
Texans Care for Children
Wisconsin Council on Children and Families
______
Prepared Statement of HIAS
The surge of unaccompanied children at the United States-Mexico
border is a humanitarian crisis. The U.S. Government must ensure that
the safety and well-being of migrants--particularly children--are at
the heart of every policy decision made in response.
HIAS supports President Obama's $3.7 billion Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Request for fiscal year 2014. The $1.83 billion increase
for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) must be approved if we are
to provide migrant children with appropriate care and ensure that the
United States maintains our country's commitments and obligations to
asylum seekers and refugees.
More than 52,000 unaccompanied children have crossed the southern
border of the United States in the last 9 months, and it is expected
that 80,000-90,000 will arrive by the end of the current fiscal year.
U.S. law requires that the children from Central America have their
cases heard by an immigration judge before they can be deported. The
system was designed to serve the 6,000 to 8,000 kids who used to come
to the United States every year--it cannot handle 80,000. This is
indeed an emergency, and it should be funded as such. Congress must act
swiftly to provide additional funding to ORR and other agencies that
are responsible for serving these children.
Increased funding must not be attached to the repeal of laws
intended to protect the safety and welfare of unaccompanied children.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008
includes important protections for vulnerable children such as ensuring
access to legal and social assistance. This legislation must remain
intact as child safety is a recognized national priority and
humanitarian imperative.
Although only recently brought to the attention of the public,
migration from the ``Northern Triangle'' of Central America--El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras--has risen steadily as violence has
increased and transnational organized crime has gained a foothold in
the region. Honduras has the highest homicide rate in the world, and as
the murder rate has risen, so has migration. In these countries, gangs
forcibly recruit children as young as five. Kids who refuse are
tortured and killed by the gangs. They are also targeted by vigilante
groups who indiscriminately kill young people in neighborhoods known
for gang activity. There are few employment opportunities; about a
third of young people in the urban areas of these countries are not
employed or in school. A recent report from the UN refugee agency
(UNHCR) found that more than half of the children they interviewed
cited violence, sexual abuse, forced gang recruitment, and other forms
of exploitation as the main reason they fled. The police do not protect
them and the weak governments in the region do not control the
violence.
The journeys these migrants take are extremely dangerous, making
them vulnerable to sexual assault, trafficking, and exploitation. In
most cases, the unaccompanied children have fled relentless violence
and hopelessness in search of a safe place and a better life.
With governments unable to ensure the safety of their citizens,
children and families are fleeing to the United States, as well as
other countries in the region including Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, and Belize. In fact, the United Nations refugee agency
(UNHCR) reports a 712-percent increase in asylum applicants from the
Northern Triangle in these countries, an indication that people are
fleeing in all directions and that the influx of asylum seekers is not
unique to the United States.
It is absolutely crucial for Congress to ensure that everyone in
danger of persecution is given a meaningful opportunity to seek asylum
under U.S. law. In 2005, a congressionally authorized U.S. Commission
on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Report on Asylum Seekers in
Expedited Removal found that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was
not following its own rules to ensure the protection of migrants with a
fear of return. The study found that in 15 percent of observed cases
where an arriving non-citizen expressed a fear of return, CBP summarily
deported the individual without referring him or her to an asylum
officer.
Since the study was released 9 years ago, CBP has not demonstrated
that any measures have been taken to address the protection
deficiencies faced by asylum seekers who cross the border. The
Administration and Congress must not further expand expedited removal
of migrants--particularly unaccompanied minors--until CBP has taken
steps to address these deficiencies.
The right to family unity has long been a cornerstone of U.S.
refugee policy. Many of the children coming to the United States are
seeking to reunite with their families in a place of refuge; many are
the children of the 269,000 Salvadorans and Hondurans legally
authorized to live and work in the United States under Temporary
Protected Status. Because of the failure of the House of
Representatives to follow the Senate's lead and pass comprehensive
immigration reform, these children have been separated from their
parents for years with no hope of being able to legally reunite with
their parents.
Given the lack of hope for family reunification and the extreme
violence in their home countries, the United States should offer
humanitarian parole or other relief to these children. This would open
family unity and refugee processing channels south of our border while
undercutting smugglers.
This crisis requires a holistic approach that prioritizes safety
and opportunity for children in the countries of the Northern Triangle.
The U.S. Border Patrol and other Government officials that come into
contact with migrant children once they arrive at our border should be
trained to deal appropriately with them. Children should be screened in
a non-adversarial setting by officials trained to interview children
who can assess whether the child has a credible fear of return.
Children who flee the violence who have asylum claims must be able to
make them.
Furthermore, systems and funding should be in place to ensure that
these children have competent legal representation and are not left
alone to represent themselves in court. Congress should allocate funds
to the immigration courts to process cases quickly and should fund
programs to help ensure the safe return and integration of children who
are sent back to their home countries.
As a global humanitarian leader, the United States must respond to
this crisis in a thoughtful and calculated manner thoroughly consistent
with international refugee law and American principles of due process.
The entire world is watching our response--other nations around the
world are receiving increased numbers of vulnerable migrants from
Northern Triangle countries and other trouble-spots. We must set a good
example for them to follow.
Congress must immediately increase funding to ORR for fiscal year
2014 so that the influx of children at the border is not paid for by
the refugees from Iraq, Syria, Eritrea, Sudan, and Ukraine and
elsewhere who have been generously offered protection by the United
States. The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program is a key component of our
Government's foreign policy and we should not be pitting the interests
of resettled refugees directly against those of migrant children.
Due to the current crisis, ORR--which has long been underfunded--
faces an enormous funding shortfall and has ``reprogrammed'' funds that
had been budgeted to pay for services for refugees who arrive in the
United States from around the world. This reprogramming has already
started to have devastating consequences for recently arrived refugees.
Many successful programs are at risk, including those that support
micro-enterprise, child care for refugee families, Cuban-Haitian
entrants, elderly refugees, and school impact grants.
Throughout our history, America has been defined by our generosity
toward those who seek a safe haven from violence, oppression, and
persecution. We must build and maintain processes that reflect the
American tradition of offering a chance at a new beginning to those who
seek safety and freedom. As a global humanitarian leader, the United
States has an obligation to fairly and objectively assess asylum
applicants who arrive at our borders in a manner consistent with
international refugee law and American principles of due process. The
United States must show leadership in helping unaccompanied children
while maintaining our commitment to asylum seekers and refugees.
[Attached is a statement of 20 Jewish organizations urging the U.S.
Government to protect both unaccompanied children and refugees.]
Jewish Statement on Unaccompanied Children at the United States-Mexico
Border
July 7, 2014
As organizations deeply rooted in Jewish values, we support
policies that promote human rights, ensure the protection of children,
and fulfill the Torah's mandate to ``welcome the stranger.'' As such,
we are very concerned about the urgent humanitarian crisis on the
United States-Mexico border. Migration of vulnerable children and
others from the ``Northern Triangle'' of Central America--El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras--has risen steadily as violence has increased
and transnational organized crime has gained a foothold in the region.
The safety and well-being of these migrants--and particularly the
unaccompanied children--must be at the heart of every policy decision
made in response to this humanitarian crisis.
The only long term solution to this crisis is a holistic approach
that prioritizes safety and opportunity for children in the countries
of the Northern Triangle. Increased border enforcement must be
accompanied by more meaningful measures to ensure that all migrants in
danger of persecution have access to a meaningful opportunity to seek
asylum. Children in particular must have the legal and social
assistance they need to determine whether or not they have a refugee
claim or other forms of legal relief available to them and, above all,
to ensure that their lives are protected.
It is crucial that we deal with this urgent humanitarian situation
while maintaining our country's commitment to asylum seekers and
refugees. As organizations based on Jewish values, we oppose any plans
to ``reprogram'' funds that had been budgeted to pay for refugee
resettlement services. Such cuts to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
would have devastating consequences for recently arrived refugees as
they begin their lives anew in our communities. The Administration and
Congress should not be pitting the interests of resettled refugees
directly against those of migrant children. Based on the Jewish values
to which we adhere and our proud history as a community and nation
established by immigrants and refugees, we urge the U.S. Government to
protect both children and refugees in a humane manner.
Anti-Defamation League
AJC (Global Jewish Advocacy)
AJFCA--Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies
AMEINU
B'Nai B'rith International
CCAR--Central Conference of American Rabbis
HIAS
JCPA--Jewish Council for Public Affairs
JLC--Jewish Labor Committee
JWI--Jewish Women International
Keshet
NCJW--National Council of Jewish Women
Rabbinical Assembly
The Soloman Project
T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights
Uri L'Tzedek
URJ--The Union for Reform Judaism
The Workmen's Circle (AR)
______
Prepared Statement of Human Rights First
Human Rights First is a nonprofit, nonpartisan human rights
advocacy organization that challenges America to live up to its ideals.
For over 30 years, we've built bipartisan coalitions and teamed up with
frontline activists and lawyers to tackle issues that demand American
leadership, including the protection of the rights of refugees. Human
Rights First oversees one of the largest pro bono legal representation
programs for refugees seeking asylum in the country, with offices in
New York, Washington, DC, and Houston, Texas, working in partnership
with volunteer attorneys at U.S. law firms.
review of the president's emergency supplemental request for
unaccompanied children
Earlier this year, Human Rights First conducted research at key
southern border areas in Texas, Arizona, and California, including the
Rio Grande Valley to study the situation of children and families
crossing the border.\1\ Our review of the President's emergency
supplemental request is based on our eyewitness research and over 30
years of nonprofit legal services and expertise in refugee and asylum
law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Human Rights First met with officials from Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Border
Patrol (OBP) and Office of Field Operations (OFO), and U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services in key locations along the southern border
including the Rio Grande Valley, southern Arizona, and the San Diego
area. The full Human Rights First Blueprint on How to Protect Refugees
and Prevent Abuse at the Border is available at: http://
www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/how-protect-refugees-and-prevent-
abuse-border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Rights First has expressed concern about some key aspects of
the strategy reflected in the administration's emergency supplemental
request sent to Congress to address the unprecedented influx of
children and families at the United States-Mexico border. All proposed
actions should be consistent with U.S. refugee protection and human
rights commitments, and include protection mechanisms. The organization
supports increased resources to conduct timely immigration court
proceedings, facilitate access to legal information and counsel, care
for unaccompanied children, and for the Office of Refugee Resettlement
to have the capacity to both meet the needs of unaccompanied children
and refugees. Human Rights First is deeply concerned that some of the
strategy reflected in the request would undermine the integrity of the
U.S. asylum system and set a poor example for the rest of the world.
Human Rights First cautions that proposals to increase family detention
or rush cases through the process would be out of step with the United
States' legacy of protecting those fleeing persecution, trafficking,
and other serious human rights violations. There is also an imbalance
in resources, with insufficient resources requested to address the root
causes of the conditions prompting flight and not enough requested to
address protection, case adjudication, and legal information and
representation.
As President Obama and Congress try to address this crisis, they
should do so in ways that strengthen the integrity of the immigration
and asylum systems, reflect American ideals, and uphold our Nation's
obligation to protect refugees. The administration's proposal gets only
some of that right. While it includes provisions to increase resources
for agencies handling the influx, the proposal could do serious damage
by increasing detention for children, families, and asylum seekers.
There are far better and less expensive alternatives that address the
multiple needs of these families and our Nation's security. Decisions
to detain should be based on case by case determinations rather than
blanket policies designed to deter others from seeking this country's
protection.
While the request includes emergency funds to alleviate the
pressure on the agencies managing the influx and staffing immigration
courts, it also includes substantial resources sought by the
administration to detain children and adults. President Obama is
requesting $879 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to
cover costs that include immigration removal, as well as expanding
available detention facilities and pursuing alternatives to detention.
In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security rightly ceased using its
primary detention facility for families after multiple reports of
inappropriate conditions and treatment of children and families. Human
Rights First has advocated for increased funding for alternatives to
detention that cost a fraction of the $160-per-day it takes to maintain
an adult detention bed. That approach has proven successful as the
Government's current contract for alternatives results in a 97.4
percent compliance rate with final immigration hearings.
While Human Rights First welcomes the administration's decision to
not include in its appropriations request changes to the Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) that would weaken legal
safeguards for unaccompanied children, it notes that the President has
reaffirmed his intent to continue to seek authority to limit the
safeguards in processing cases of unaccompanied children. Human Rights
First urges the administration and Congress to maintain the law's
crucial protections for unaccompanied children who face particular
risks from trafficking.
Human Rights First notes that unless the delays in the immigration
court system are addressed nationally, and not only at the border, the
integrity of the system will continue to be at risk. By directing
increased resources toward those recently apprehended at the border,
asylum seekers around the country will be left waiting for years for
their cases to be resolved. We recommend that money requested for
immigration courts and judges be increased and distributed across the
nation, rather than only to adjudicate detained cases at the border.
Congress should fund at minimum the 35 additional immigration judge
teams called for in the president's fiscal year 2015 appropriations
request as well as the additional immigration judge teams called for in
the emergency supplemental request, but in the long term should add
substantially more, and match the 225 new immigration judge teams that
were called for in the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform
proposals last year.
Rather than spending billions on more immigration detention,
Congress should support fiscally prudent and effective alternative
appearance measures and timely immigration court hearings nationally--
including for individuals who are not held in immigration detention. In
order to address the longstanding delays in immigration court hearings
and strengthen the integrity of the system, the administration must
look at the big picture.
Based on our research, we believe that as Congress considers the
president's emergency supplemental request, it should appropriate funds
to:
1. Fund an Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Initiative
Immigration detention facilities are not appropriate settings for
children and parents with children. Furthermore, there are more cost-
effective alternatives that are appropriate in many cases. ICE
currently spends over $2 billion, or $160 per person per day, on the
detention of up to 34,000 immigrants on any given day.
--Children and families should not be detained, especially in
existing detention facilities. In 2009, DHS ceased using its
primary detention facility for families after multiple reports
of inappropriate conditions for and treatment of children and
their parents. The United States should not hold n children,
including infants and small children, in immigration detention.
Families should only be held for processing in custody for
short periods of time and in conditions appropriate for family
detention. Per requirements of the Flores agreement on
treatment of children in DHS custody, DHS should always place
children in the least restrictive setting appropriate. If
families are detained because they are determined to be a
danger or a flight risk, and alternatives are not appropriate,
then DHS should only use facilities and standards appropriate
to civil immigration detention.
--For cases that need supervision, DHS needs funds to launch an
Alternatives to Detention initiative for border cases. The
supplemental should fund ICE to launch a nationwide initiative
to increase its use of alternatives to detention for cases
released in the border areas and elsewhere who pose no security
risk but that need additional supervision to mitigate flight
risk. This initiative should provide case management,
supervision, and/or monitoring to support appearance in the
area in which individuals relocate upon release. For families,
Congress should use the supplemental to direct DHS to build on
models of community-based alternatives, such as the pilots
underway by Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and the
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
--ICE must be able to respond on a case-by-case basis. The American
immigration system works best when each case is considered on
its own merit. However, ICE currently lacks the latitude it
needs to make custody decisions on a case-by-case basis. The
supplemental should grant ICE the ability to shift funds, where
appropriate from detention to other measures to support
appearance.
2. Increase Access to Legal Information and Counsel Early in the
Process
Many immigrants and asylum seekers apprehended in the border lack
access to accurate information and in some cases have been given
misinformation about the immigration process in the United States. The
Legal Orientation Program (LOP) provides for competent nonprofit
lawyers to explain U.S. procedures to detainees and helps migrants
determine the most appropriate course for them. According to a 2012
Justice Department study, LOPs create efficiencies in adjudication by
reducing processing time and time spent in detention, and saved the
Government approximately $18 million.
--Fund DOJ to expand access to early legal information
presentations--including for families. LOP is a proven program,
and especially if processing and deportation for recent border
crossers will be accelerated, immigration detainees should be
given access to lawyers within a few days of arrival. Congress
should appropriate funds to expand LOP from the existing 25
sites to all facilities nationwide.
--Fund DOJ to support increased quality representation early in the
process for indigent asylum seekers. The bill should fund
expansion of projects to increase access to legal counsel for
vulnerable populations, including unaccompanied children. A
2014 independent study by NERA Economic Consulting found that
providing counsel to indigent immigrants could effectively pay
for itself.
3. Reduce Backlogs and Vulnerability to Abuse, With Fair Case-by-Case
Decisionmaking
Prior to the most recent surge, in March 2014, there were already
over 366,000 cases are pending nationally for approximately 19 months.
Similarly, because the USCIS Asylum Office continues to divert
resources to addressing credible fear and other protection screenings
at the border, the backlog in affirmative asylum cases has grown
substantially since the influx at the border. The supplemental should
address the imbalance in funding for the courts and address the backlog
nationwide. If the bill simply re-directs immigration court resources
to expedite cases of migrants detained or released into alternatives to
detention on the border, it will only exacerbate national backlogs in
the non-detained dockets especially. The Asylum Office needs funding to
manage both expedited removal and its affirmative caseload.
--Fund EOIR to increase immigration court staffing nationally to
address removal hearing delays and eliminate hearing backlogs
with adequate time and safeguards to ensure access to justice
and fairness. The bill should include funding to increase
resources and staffing for the immigration courts to ensure
that nationally individual merits hearings are generally
scheduled within approximately 6 months of the filing of an
asylum application.
--Fund USCIS to increase asylum office staffing and resources to
reduce backlogs and for the conduct of in-person credible fear
and reasonable fear interviews with adequate time and
safeguards to ensure access to justice and fairness. The bill
should fund the Asylum Division to conduct timely screening
interviews in expedited removal and reinstatement of removal
without diverting officers from the affirmative asylum process.
4. Do Not Weaken Protection Safeguards including the TVPRA
DHS should not weaken safeguards including protections within the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) to identify
and protect asylum seekers, victims of trafficking, vulnerable children
and others with protection concerns and the bill should provide funds
to for timely in person protection screening. Unaccompanied children
should be screened for protection concerns by experts outside of a law
enforcement agency, and screening should occur after an individual has
had some time to recover from what are often traumatizing journeys,
outside of border detention facilities, and in conditions that do not
place children in a compromised position to discuss their
victimization. A 2005 U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom report on adult asylum seekers processed in expedited removal
found that border officers often failed to follow procedures designed
to identify individuals with protection concerns. As documented by a
2011 Appleseed report on the concerns of screenings of Mexican
unaccompanied children at the border, the challenges of a screening in
these conditions are especially acute for children, many of whom are
extremely young, potentially victims of trafficking, and unable to
express fears to an armed border officer after long and harrowing
journeys.
--Unaccompanied alien children (UACs) should receive appropriate
screenings and referrals to HHS custody for care and evaluation
for protection or reunification. Congress should not amend the
TVRA to expedite the screenings and removals of Central
American UACs. Congress should support increased funding for
the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to meet the needs of
both unaccompanied children and refugees.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Rescue Committee
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) thanks Chairwoman Barbara
Mikulski, Ranking Member Richard Shelby, and the Senate Appropriations
Committee for holding this important hearing on the funding needs to
respond to the surge in arrivals of unaccompanied children from Central
America to the United States border. The IRC shares the Committee's
deep concern about the safety and wellbeing of unaccompanied children
at our borders and we are prepared to provide support to the United
States Government to respond in the most appropriate way.
The IRC is a global humanitarian organization with a presence in 40
countries worldwide and in 22 cities in the United States. We provide
emergency relief and post-conflict development and help refugees and
other vulnerable people uprooted by conflict, violence and disaster to
find protection and rebuild their lives. Since its inception, the IRC
has been involved in virtually every major refugee or other
humanitarian crisis and resettlement initiative around the globe.
The IRC is recognized globally as having expertise in child
protection in humanitarian emergencies, bringing in capacity in areas
such as: child protection systems, child-friendly spaces, registration,
family tracing and reunification, best interest determinations, case
management and psycho-social services, protection information
management and inter-agency coordination. This expertise is specific to
our work with children affected by forcible displacement, most often in
a transnational or cross-border setting. The IRC currently implements
large-scale, multi-sectoral child protection responses in at least
eight countries impacted by arrivals of displaced children around the
world.
The IRC is also one of the largest voluntary agencies serving
resettled refugees in the United States, and has historically served
resettled refugee children (and to a lesser extent other immigrant
children) through services such as home studies, legal guardianship
assistance, case management, family reunification support, specialized
psychosocial services, access to health and education, and services to
child victims of trafficking. These services have been delivered within
a broader framework of IRC's resettlement support, in public-private
partnership with U.S. Federal and State government offices, under the
umbrella of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
The IRC has not historically extended its child protection services
here in the United States to the so-called ``unaccompanied alien
children'' (UAC) population. So if the IRC is speaking out today on
behalf of the protection needs of the unaccompanied children arriving
in the recent surge, it is because we firmly believe that there is now
sufficient and compelling evidence to suggest that violence is a
predominant factor in what has become a forced displacement situation.
This means that no less than the integrity of the United States and its
proud historical record of championing the protection of asylum seekers
and refugees is at stake.
The IRC recognizes that the nature of the migration flow of the
UACs from the three principal source countries of Honduras, El
Salvador, and Guatemala is ``mixed'' in nature. Mixed migration is by
its very nature characterized by the melding of people on the move,
some of whose predominant motivation may be economic or family-
reunification related in nature while others are fleeing targeted or
generalized violence or persecution. The IRC believes that the current
flows of unaccompanied children is a complex mixture of: bona fide
refugees; others who may qualify for other forms of immigration relief;
and yet others who will not qualify for protective status here. This
complex reality requires that the most scrupulous of due process
safeguards be put into place to preserve the right of all children to
seek asylum (and a sub-set to be recognized with asylee status or other
immigrant status as appropriate to their individual circumstances). It
also requires that all of the children enjoy, at a minimum, the full
range of special protections they deserve given their special status
and unique vulnerabilities as children while they are on U.S. soil.
With this in mind, the IRC urges the Committee to consider five
main imperatives when reviewing the President's emergency supplemental
request:
--Preserve the right to seek asylum for unaccompanied children and
improve conditions for children while in Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) custody.
The IRC clearly recognizes that enforcement has a place in any
response to any mass migration or refugee emergency along our borders.
Yet, measures of deterrence that are intended to--or have the effect
of--denying vulnerable children the right to reach a safehaven have no
place in a humanitarian response. ``Stemming the flow'' in an emergency
situation, where a substantial percentage of children may have
international protection needs, should not be the principal policy
objective. Children who flee violence and are desperate to reach safety
with a relative in the United States will not be deterred from trying,
and enforcement measures intended principally for deterrence will force
these children underground, raising the ``transaction costs'' and
making them even more vulnerable to smugglers and traffickers. The IRC
is also concerned that the enforcement approach announced by the
administration may expand the detention of children in DHS-run
facilities without systematically addressing reports of unacceptable
conditions in these facilities.
--Ensure that due process is scrupulously observed, as per our laws
and fundamental American values.
The IRC supports the administration's announced intention to deploy
more resources to expediting immigration procedures and expand legal
representation services, in principle. However, much more information
about plans is needed. Any expedited procedures put into place must
strictly observe due process standards that are age-appropriate and
trauma sensitive. And in such processes, all children need and deserve
competent legal counsel to be able to articulate their fears and
understand their rights and responsibilities. The funding levels
requested for the Department of Justice (DOJ) which specifically relate
to these intentions would not appear to go nearly far enough to ensure
this imperative.
--Ensure that the Administration has the funding that it needs to
mount an appropriate humanitarian response, and encourage the
administration to strengthen collaborative partnerships with
non-governmental and community-based organizations to improve
protection and care services.
The IRCs is pleased to see the Administration requests a very
substantial amount of funding for the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) to care for unaccompanied children. The IRC hopes that
these funds will not only be used to expand shelter capacity but will
also be deployed towards improving the existing care and services model
to better correspond with the current volume of children. We also urge
that these funds prioritize post-release services so that children
released to sponsors are safe and well-cared for in our communities and
their sponsors are in a better position to help children comply with
immigration processes. Finally, we urge Congress to request that HHS
review its partnership model and enhance its transparency with non-
governmental and community-based organizations, to ensure that
voluntary organizations that are ready and able to provide needed forms
of material aid and protection services to children in custody and
post-release are able to contribute to the national response. At
present, agencies that are not a shelter-manager have virtually no
entry point for assisting HHS to meet its challenges.
--Ensure that sufficient funding is made available, in a timely
fashion, to avoid the consequences of HHS's announced re-
programming of $94 million from the U.S. Refugee Admissions
Program (USRAP) to meet the needs of the UAC population.
The IRC believes that the needs of extremely vulnerable
unaccompanied children should not be pitted against the equally
compelling needs of refugees who have arrived or are waiting to travel
to the United States under the USRAP. The USRAP is an important
instrument of U.S. foreign policy which is designed to contribute to
the global effort to respond to multiple humanitarian crises around the
world simultaneously. Cuts to USRAP will negatively impact the
integration of refugee men, women and children as well as the American
communities that welcome them. And cuts could have a devastating impact
on thousands of refugees from countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan,
Burma, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo if the admissions
program is taken off course by an unrelated crisis within our own
borders. The unaccompanied minors' humanitarian needs are no less
deserving, and must have their needs met through separate funding.
Dismantled state refugee assistance programs will be costly to re-
build. A timely ``fix'' to the announced re-programming of USRAP funds
is required, before states and voluntary agencies are forced to
discontinue services.
--Ensure the proposed foreign policy response is appropriate to the
needs and the situation in the home countries of the children,
and is based on programs proven to be effective.
The IRC welcomes the Administration's intent to strengthen
emergency aid and development assistance to the home and transit
countries. However, the funding requirements are grossly insufficient
and the overall orientation of the foreign policy approach must be
carefully examined to ensure that it is both appropriate and based on
methodologies that are proven to be effective. Congress should be
vigilant of any technical assistance to source countries which entrench
mano dura policies, which effectively criminalize ``being a poor
child'' and make innocent children targets of the police, and will only
provoke more displacement beyond borders. Any efforts to ``push back
the border,'' leaving unaccompanied children at the mercy of transit
countries who have neither the capacity to shelter and protect them nor
to fairly process their asylum claims is fundamentally wrong. The
strengthening of child protection systems and asylum systems in
countries of transit requires a massive investment and a very long-term
view--and there is no low-cost, short-term investment or ``quick fix''
that will allow the United States to effectively close its borders and
leave our southern neighbors to try to cope. In such a scenario,
children will be returned to serious harms, tantamount to indirect
refoulement by the U.S. Government. There is also no evidence that
``information campaigns'' of the type designed to dissuade desperate
persons from leaving their country are effective; in fact, such
approaches when targeted towards persons fleeing violence are highly
inappropriate and contrary to international law and the right to seek
asylum. Indeed, such approaches would be soundly rejected by the U.S.
Government if practiced by other, far less well-resourced Governments
bordering conflict, violence- or disaster-impacted countries. Such
attempts at a ``quick fix'' to stem flows will simply divert precious
financial resources from programming that is proven to enhance
protections, such as funding NGO shelters along migration routes (who
have the required competence to share information with migrants and
asylum seekers about risks of migration). Return and reintegration
programs must also be holistic and sustainable in approach, relying on
the expertise of national and international NGOs with a proven track
record in this area.
In closing, allow me to paraphrase the words of a young Central
American mother who recently fled to our borders with her young child:
``Thank God the U.S. border control caught us, now my child is am
safe.'' For the IRC, these simple words represent two realities:
First, this population is not generally a threat to our country and
is not coming here for the principal purpose of disappearing into the
shadows to work without papers. Undocumented economic migrants or
foreign nationals who wish to do our nation harm do not thank God they
were caught. The children currently in our Government's care are
announcing themselves at the border and, by doing so, they are
effectively requesting protection. This is the way a proper border
security system with appropriate asylum safeguards is supposed to work.
The large numbers may present a very real challenge to systems and
budgets, but this great democracy can meet this challenge.
Second, this young mother's words suggest that this population is
coming to the United States because they believe this is a country of
laws, where people fleeing terrible dangers will be safe and where they
will be treated with fairness and dignity. Let us uphold that promise
and not retreat from our fundamental values.
______
Prepared Statement of Kids in Need of Defense
The United States is experiencing a refugee-like crisis. Children
from Central America are running for their lives because their
countries have become virtual war-zones and their only choice is either
run or stay and be killed. The crisis is not only on our doorstep, but
it is being felt regionally. This is not an inconvenient immigration
problem, it is a serious child protection issue. There is no simple and
swift solution. It is complex and needs both short-term and long-term
attention and solutions. How we respond to a crisis of children in need
of safe haven says a lot about our country and ourselves. The United
States has correctly been quick to demand that other countries around
the world protect children in danger by offering care, compassion, and
a commitment to long-term solutions. We can do no less.
The numbers speak for themselves. From 2004 to 2011, the numbers of
unaccompanied children coming to the United States each year averaged
6,800. In fiscal year 2012, their number jumped to more than 13,000.
The following fiscal year, 2013, more than 24,000 children came. This
fiscal year, 2014, we're on track to see over 70,000 and some estimates
are as high as 90,000. Next year their number is expected to increase
to 127,000. One weekend not long ago, 1,000 children crossed alone into
the United States.
The United States is not alone in experiencing the flow--this is a
regional crisis. The kids are fleeing to wherever they can. Many decide
to go north to the United States because they have family here or a
connection to the United States, but the United Nations Refugee Agency
(UNHCR) found that asylum requests by Hondurans, Salvadorans, and
Guatemalans seeking refuge in countries south has increased 712
percent. Children are also fleeing within their own borders. The top
three sending nations of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala are
experiencing significant numbers of their own people being internally
displaced.
Not only have the numbers changed, but who is coming is different.
For years it was much more common to see older teens, the large
majority male, coming to the United States alone. Now there is a
significant increase in children under age 12 and almost half the
children coming are girls. Many experience sexual violence during their
journey; a number are pregnant from rape that occurred either in their
home country or while they were migrating. The fact that children are
coming younger and that more girls are coming despite the well-known
risk of sexual assault along the journey underscores the desperation
that is pushing the children out of their home countries.
Honduras has had the highest murder rate in the world for the last
4 years, according to the United Nations. The president of Honduras
said in a visit to the United States last week that the Honduran
children coming alone to the United States ``are displaced by war.''
The State Department has issued a warning to Americans not to travel to
Honduras or El Salvador. The violence level in all three countries is
described by our own Government as being ``critically high'' and ``the
police can't protect you.''
A March 2014 report by the U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR) on
unaccompanied children in Central America and Mexico found that the
primary reason for these children's flight is increasing violence in
Central America driven by drug cartels and a variety of other criminal
elements, and that the majority of these children should be screened
for international protection. Numerous other reports confirm this, as
do the children referred to Kids in Need of Defense (KIND): most
describe fleeing forced gang recruitment and violence for refusing to
join with criminal groups, as well as threats and harm to family
members and friends.
Smugglers are clearly taking advantage of the situation and doing
what is best for business, likely spreading false information to gain
more clients. Ironically, the smugglers and traffickers are often
connected to the gangs and narco-traffickers that drove the children
out of their home countries to begin with. The United States needs to
prioritize identifying, disrupting and dismantling the transnational
criminal smuggling networks.
The U.S. system that governs the custody, care, release, and social
and legal services for these children was not built to address the
needs of these numbers of children. The system must be entirely re-
worked in order to embrace child protection as its core. Our current
system does not use a best interests of the child standard in
decisionmaking regarding these children, despite the fact that it is
the cornerstone of child protection around the world and the basis of
our child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Our immigration system
is adversarial and treats children not much differently than adults.
While KIND welcomes the administration's supplemental request of
$3.7 billion to address the humanitarian crisis at our borders. But we
are concerned about the allocation of funding in the request. While we
well understand the need for support to the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) at the border given the huge numbers of unaccompanied
children presenting themselves at our southern border, the funding--
$1.1 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and $433 million
for Customs and Border Protection, dwarfs the funding request for the
Department of Justice (DOJ)--$64 million--for immigration judges and
legal services. Chronic underfunding of our immigration courts has long
pre-dated the current crisis. The result is years-long backlogs and
cases that stretch into years. This situation will only get worse,
particularly if the 40 immigration judge teams are only temporary. This
funding is a short-term and ineffective patch on a long-term and deep
problem. Significant more funding, proportionate to DHS, must be
provided to the DOJ.
The provision of counsel for unaccompanied children must be a
significant part of this funding. The request's allocation of $15
million is inadequate to reach a majority of the children. It would be
unconscionable for the United States to adjudicate these children's
cases without an attorney, as many may qualify for refugee status, as
UNHCR has found. This means they are fleeing a level of persecution
from which they need protection outside their borders, in a country
that can provide them asylum. This means that the majority of these
children could face serious harm, even death, if returned to their home
country.
It is nearly impossible for unaccompanied children to represent
themselves in immigration proceedings. The large majority of these
children, who range in age from toddlers to teenagers, do not speak
English, have had little education, have no idea how the United States
immigration system works, and do not know their rights or the options
open to them. The U.S. immigration system is complex and arcane even
for those trained to work within it. Many of the children are
traumatized by their experiences in their home countries that pushed
them to flee, and by the difficult and dangerous journey to the United
States.
If adjudications and deportations are expedited, as the
administration has said it will do, it is even more vital that children
have attorneys as they will need particular assistance and guidance in
presenting their case in an abbreviated length of time. If
unaccompanied children are forced to remain in custody until their
cases are adjudicated, to not provide counsel to a child who is also
deprived of his/her liberty would be a shockingly inhumane and a stark
violation of human rights. These children deserve a full and fair
adjudication of their cases.
How could a 5-, 9-, 12-, even 15-17-year-old be expected to present
their case before an immigration judge and defend against a government
attorney who is arguing for the child's deportation?
Counsel for unaccompanied children who are released from custody
would mean that immigration judges would not have to postpone
adjudication repeatedly, as they often do, hoping that when the case is
heard the next time, the child will have found a lawyer. These
continuances clog up already hugely overburdened court dockets and are
a waste of time and money. Children with representation are more likely
to appear for their court dates and obey court orders. Counsel would
result in efficiencies that allow for cost savings to the government.
The provision of counsel does not need to be limited to appointed
counsel. The most efficient use of resources would be to use a mix of
pro bono and appointed counsel. The private sector has contributed
significantly to the representation of unaccompanied children in
removal proceedings, donating tens of millions of dollars worth of pro
bono representation. Pro bono efforts, however, must be reinforced by
government resources to support representation of children in cases for
which counsel is needed very quickly or for which no attorney has been
found.
Allowing the most vulnerable immigrants to appear in immigration
court alone, ``is simply not who we are as a nation. It is not the way
in which we do things,'' Attorney General Eric Holder said in testimony
before the Senate Judiciary Committee.\1\ As Attorney General Eric
Holder also stated, ``It is inexcusable that young kids. . . have
immigration decisions made on their behalf, against them . . . and
they're not represented by counsel.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Oversight
Hearing, March 6, 2013.
\2\ Terry Greene Sterling, Undocumented Kids Crossing the U.S.
Border Alone in Increasing Numbers, The Daily Beast, Mar. 23, 2013
(available at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/23/
undocumented-kids-crossing-the-u-s-border-alone-in-increasing-
numbers.html) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Julie Myers Wood, told the House Judiciary Committee in a February 5,
2013, hearing, ``In any new legislation, Congress should consider
taking steps to assist indigent and vulnerable aliens to retain counsel
at Government expense. This is particularly important for unaccompanied
minors and immigrants with competency issues. Although ICE attorneys
and immigration judges regularly identify legitimate claims by aliens
who are not represented by attorneys, the system should not rely on the
ability of opposing counsel or overworked judges to locate valid
claims.''
Ms. Myers Wood also noted the inefficiencies in the system created
when a detained immigrant does not have a lawyer and called it
``abominable'' that under our current system, unaccompanied children or
those with mental disabilities don't have counsel.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Katharina Obser, Importance of Counsel for Asylum Seekers and
Immigrants in Detention Stressed by Faith, Civil Rights, Legal, and
Other Leaders, Human Rights First (April 26 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the request for DOJ, the request for the State Department--
$300 million--is a start, but Central America has been neglected by the
United States in terms of development assistance for years--and we are
now seeing the result. The top sending countries of these children--
Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala--need stronger support from the
United States to develop their national child welfare systems, for
example, which are nominally functional and are unable to provide even
limited protection or assistance to children who need protection. Long-
term support for these systems, as well as other humanitarian and
development assistance, would enable children to stay in their home
countries and prevent them from feeling they have to leave their
country to save their lives.
This leads to another significant gap in the United States'
treatment of these children--a lack of return and reintegration
assistance. We largely do not know what happens to children when they
are returned. In one case we do know, a boy deported from the United
States was murdered 17 days after his return by the very gang members
on whom his unsuccessful claim for U.S. protection was based. As a top
destination country, we must ensure the safe return and reintegration
of unaccompanied children into their home country so that we do not
return these children to harm and so they can remain sustainably in
their home communities.
KIND's Guatemalan Child Return and Reintegration Project is an
example of how such programs can be created in the future with success.
KIND has partnered with four local nongovernmental organizations in
Guatemala which help provide services to returning children, based on
an intake conducted by KIND social workers before the child leaves the
United States. The NGOs follow up with the child to check in and visit
as needed. To date, KIND has helped 117 children return safely and
remain sustainably in Guatemala.
KIND is hopeful that this historic migration of unaccompanied
children to the United States will in the end result in a U.S. system
with enhanced child protection mechanisms and one in which children are
treated as they need and deserve to be treated--as children first and
foremost.
______
Prepared Statement of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
``We are facing a humanitarian emergency to which we cannot close
our eyes or our hearts,'' says Linda Hartke, president of Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS). The organization calls on all
people of faith to stay true to our values. ``We are compelled to
provide safety, due process, and compassion to the thousands of
children who are fleeing Central America,'' adds Hartke.
LIRS is working with the Government and with a national network of
social service partners to address this crisis. We welcome the Senate
Appropriations Committee's review of President Obama's $4.3 billion
supplemental budget request, which includes $3.7 billion in emergency
appropriations to address the unprecedented influx of child migrants
from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
With a 75-year history of serving refugees and migrants, LIRS has
over 30 years of experience helping to resettle children from all over
the world, including Central America. Our particular expertise working
with this vulnerable population guides our policy positions and informs
our advocacy.
At a time of humanitarian crisis, we ask that the governmental
response to child migration protect the best interest of these children
and uphold our legal obligations to protect those fleeing persecution.
Congress and the Administration should prioritize the best interest of
the child in all decisionmaking, develop an inter-agency response that
leverages the expertise and resources of the Federal agencies
responsible for addressing this challenge, and invest resources in
effectively addressing root causes of migration in Central America and
Mexico.
The administration's request for emergency supplemental funding
raises numerous concerns. First, the Office of Refugee Resettlement
within the Department of Health and Human Services must receive
sufficient funding to both serve refugees through resettlement programs
and to care for unaccompanied migrant children. Each of these missions
is critically important and funding should not be taken from one to
meet the other.
Additionally, expanding the detention of families with children is
gravely disappointing and we reject the premise that it is in America's
interest to incarcerate families. Detention is completely inappropriate
for families and we are keen to work with the Administration to
identify more humane, compassionate and just alternatives. Alternatives
to detention have been demonstrated to effectively serve the interests
of the government in upholding the law while also protecting due
process and ensuring immigrants have a fair chance for justice. LIRS is
a leader in developing community-based alternatives to detention and is
willing to work constructively with the government to implement
alternate solutions at this time.
Finally, adequate funding must be provided for Immigration Judges,
legal representation for unaccompanied migrant children, and the Legal
Orientation Program. The American value of justice for all is arguably
even more important during times of humanitarian crisis. Vulnerable
migrant children must be provided the full protection of their rights
under our laws.
LIRS makes the following recommendations to Congress:
--Provide additional resources to Federal agencies serving
unaccompanied migrant children to meet their needs while they
are in and after they are released from Federal custody.
--Provide a contingency fund for maximum flexibility to respond to
urgent needs of this population.
--Respect legal and humanitarian protections and ensure all children
are treated with safety and dignity.
--Pass legislation such as the Child Trafficking Victims Protection
Act (H.R. 2624/sections 1112 and 3611 of S. 744), the
Vulnerable Immigrant Voice Act (H.R. 4936/section 3502 of S.
744), the Protect Family Values at the Border Act (H.R. 3130/
section 1115 of S. 744) and the Humane Short Term Custody Act
(S. 1817).
LIRS makes the following recommendations specific to the Department
of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement:
--Place unaccompanied migrant children in community-based care, child
welfare shelters operated by NGOs, and other settings
reflecting the needs of such children, including therapeutic
placements, mentor homes, and foster homes for young children
and especially vulnerable teens.
--Make post-release services available for all released migrant
children to help them integrate into their communities; ensure
safe reunifications with their families, mitigating risk for
breakdown; assist with connecting them to immigration legal
representation; and better assure their attendance at
immigration court proceedings.
--Ensure that all unaccompanied children have access to legal
representation as well as spiritual care while in shelters.
LIRS makes the following recommendations specific to the Department
of Homeland Security:
--Establish an emergency initiative, operational guidelines, and
training to facilitate participation by NGOs to support DHS
personnel at U.S. ports of entry and U.S border crossings.
Immediately place child welfare professionals to assist DHS
with conducting the mandated screening for trafficking and
asylum and facilitate ORR's custody and identification of child
protection concerns. NGOs, including LIRS, have experience with
child welfare and anti-trafficking work and can provide child-
friendly and trauma-informed informational briefings to DHS
personnel at U.S. border crossings, and U.S. ports of entry, to
assist in the identification, screening, and referral of
trafficking victims and potential child-trafficking victims.
--Ensure access to monitoring of DHS facilities where migrant
children are held by LIRS and other NGOs and the access of
legal service providers and child advocates.
--Ensure that access to spiritual care is available to all
individuals, including children and families, in detention.
--Maximize the use of alternatives to detention to avoid detaining
families who are in removal proceedings.
Started by Lutheran congregations in 1939, LIRS walks with migrants
and refugees through ministries of service and justice, transforming
U.S. communities by ensuring that newcomers are not only self-
sufficient but also become connected and contributing members of their
adopted communities in the United States. Working with and through over
60 partners across the country, LIRS resettles refugees, reunites
children with their families or provides loving homes for them,
conducts policy advocacy, and pursues humanitarian alternatives to the
immigration detention system. For more information, please visit
www.lirs.org.
Additional resources:
--The June 3, 2014 LIRS statement applauding the President's
announcement on coordinated response to unaccompanied migrant
children can be found at http://lirs.org/press-inquiries/press-
room/140603statement/
--The May 27, 2014 LIRS press release announcing the #ActOfLove
campaign can be found at http://lirs.org/press-inquiries/press-
room/140527newsrelease/
--The LIRS Backgrounder on Protecting Unaccompanied Migrant Children
can be found at http://lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/
LIRS-Backgrounder-on-Unaccompanied-Migrant-Children-FINAL-5-8-
14.pdf
--The 2007 LIRS Report, ``Locking Up Family Values'' may be found at
http://lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/
RPTLOCKINGUPFAMILYVALUES2007.pdf
______
Prepared Statement of the National Immigrant Justice Center (Heartland
Alliance)
Chairman Mikulski, Ranking member Shelby, and members of the Senate
Appropriations Committee: In recent years, the United States has
experienced a steady increase in arrivals of unaccompanied immigrant
children at the southern border, primarily from El Salvador, Guatemala,
and Honduras. The U.S. Government, other governments in the region,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and inter-governmental
organizations are trying to understand why these children are coming
and how to respond, process, and care for them upon arrival in the
United States. As a national leader in immigration law and policy,
Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC)
appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony for today's hearing on
these complex issues. We offer this statement to articulate the urgent
need to provide adequate funding for the shelter and processing of
unaccompanied immigrant children, to ensure that due process
protections are not compromised in a time of crisis and to address the
root causes of children fleeing their home countries.
NIJC is an NGO dedicated to safeguarding the rights of noncitizens.
With offices in Chicago, Indiana, and Washington, DC, NIJC advocates
for immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and survivors of human
trafficking through direct legal representation, policy reform, impact
litigation, and public education. NIJC and its network of 1,500 pro
bono attorneys provide legal representation to approximately 10,000
noncitizens annually, including thousands of unaccompanied children.
NIJC is the largest legal service provider for unaccompanied children
detained in Illinois, conducting weekly legal screenings and legal
rights presentations, which provide an overview of the child's legal
rights and responsibilities in the immigration system, at nine Chicago-
area shelters.
NIJC has played a major role in advocating for reform of the
immigration system, especially related to unaccompanied children and
asylum seekers. NIJC co-convenes the Migrant Children's Defense
Collaborative for legal service providers; actively participates in the
Interagency Working Group on Unaccompanied Children, a periodic meeting
of government agencies and NGOs; and, as part of Heartland Alliance,
serves as the NGO co-chair of the United States-Mexico-Central America
Working Committee on Unaccompanied Children, a gathering of
legislators, policy makers, and advocates from the United States,
Mexico, and Central America. In addition to its expertise regarding
unaccompanied children, NIJC was a founding member of the Asylum
Litigation Working Group and regularly participates in separate
discussions of the Asylum Working Group; together, the groups focus on
monitoring developments in and implementation of laws and policies that
impact asylum seekers. NIJC's years of experience advocating on behalf
of children and asylum seekers, from both policy and direct services
perspectives, and collaborating with colleagues domestically and
internationally, gives it a unique perspective on the immigration
system and its relationship to U.S. obligations under domestic and
international laws.
Today, NIJC is extremely concerned that the protection needs of
immigrant children, families, and others seeking asylum from Central
America, as well as the push factors driving their flight, are being
overlooked. In a misguided effort to attribute increased migration from
Central America to a shift in U.S. immigration enforcement policies,
the genuine violence and persecution from which these individuals flee
has been ignored.
This testimony provides a brief assessment of the current influx of
unaccompanied immigrant children from Central America as well as the
emergency supplemental request, and provides recommendations to ensure
that children are provided due process protections that address their
best interests and ensure they are not returned to face persecution,
violence, or other forms of serious harm.
forced migration: unaccompanied children flee increasing violence and
danger in central america
While various individual factors are causing children to undertake
a treacherous journey to the United States, growing violence and danger
in their home countries is the primary reason the majority of the
children are fleeing to the United States today. Most unaccompanied
children apprehended at the border are from El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras (See Fig. 1), and several reports,\1\ including NIJC's January
2014 policy brief,\2\ have established that the majority of
unaccompanied children flee these three countries due to pervasive
violence, persecution, and abuse. Family reunification may play a role
in the timing of a child's decision to migrate to the United States and
to flee to the United States rather than another country; however, it
is rarely the sole reason for a child's flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See e.g., Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)/Center for Gender and
Refugee Studies (CGRS), A Treacherous Journey: Child Migrants
Navigating the U.S. Immigration System, available at: http://
www.usccb.org/about/migration-policy/upload/Mission-To-Central-America-
FINAL-2.pdf; U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Mission to
Central America: The Flight of Unaccompanied Children to the United
States, 2014, available at: http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-
policy/upload/Mission-To-Central-America-FINAL-2.pdf; Women's Refugee
Commission, Forced from Home: The Lost Boys and Girls of Central
America, 2012, available at: http://womensrefugeecommission.org/forced-
from-home-press-kit.
\2\ Available at: https://immigrantjustice.org/publications/policy-
brief-unaccompanied-immigrant-children-vulnerable-children-face-
insurmountable-o#.Uvqm723ehmc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States is not the only country experiencing a dramatic
increase in asylum seekers from Central America due to this violence.
Together, Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Belize reported a
712 percent increase in the number of asylum applications filed by
individuals from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras from 2008 to
2013.\3\ These numbers demonstrate that the current crisis is a
regional problem caused by country conditions in the sending countries,
rather than a perceived change in immigration policies in the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), http://
unhcrwashington.org/children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, rumors of broken borders or lax U.S. immigration policy
are not the primary cause for the current influx. Since 2008, U.S. law
has required that unaccompanied immigrant children be placed in the
least restrictive setting that is in their best interest.\4\ Moreover,
the increase in the migration of unaccompanied immigrant children to
the United States began in October 2011, more than 6 months prior to
the announcement of President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) program.\5\ If a perceived change in immigration policy
was fueling the current migration, there would be comparable numbers of
immigrant children from other regional countries besides El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras, but this has not been the case.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection and
Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008, (Public Law 110-457),
Sec. 235(c)(2).
\5\ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Children
on the Run, 2014, available at: http://www.unhcrwashington.org/
children/reports, p. 4.
\6\ UNHCR, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violence in the home countries and the failure of U.S. immigration
policy to provide any other option for immigrant families in the United
States to provide safety for their children is forcing children and
their families to make the dangerous journey to the United States. The
story of Jessica and Daniel (pseudonyms), NIJC's clients, illustrates
the danger facing these children:
In 2013, Jessica, a young woman from Honduras, fled to the United
States when she was 17 to seek protection. Throughout her childhood,
her father regularly molested and raped her, and abused her mother.
When Jessica was 10 years old, her mother went to the United States
with her father to try to provide a better life for Jessica and her
brother, but her parents separated when her father continued to abuse
her mother. In 2012, a gang kidnapped Jessica and attempted to traffic
her into prostitution. Jessica escaped but after she reported the gang
to the police, the gang began targeting her. In early 2013, the gang
grabbed her while she was walking to her home, burnt her with
cigarettes and raped her. As a result of the rapes and abuse, Jessica
began to cut herself and became suicidal. She fled to the United States
to find safety and reunite with her mother. She now sees a therapist
and is seeking asylum.
16 year-old Daniel lived with his mother in El Salvador in an area
controlled by the MS-13 gang. In order to get to school, Daniel had to
cross into a rival gang's territory, causing each gang to believe he
was a member of the other gang. Gang members repeatedly threatened him
with a gun and machetes for being in their territory. After they
threatened him for the third time, Daniel stopped going to school out
of fear for his life. When his mother learned of the threats, she told
his father, who lived in Texas. They made the difficult decision that
Daniel needed to go to the United States for his safety. NIJC
interviewed Daniel at a Chicago-area children's shelter before he was
reunited with his father in Texas and determined he was eligible to
apply for asylum. Daniel hopes to continue his studies without the
threat of gang retaliation.
Daniel and Jessica are two of many children who may be eligible for
legal protections in the United States. The Vera Institute and the U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) have determined that between 40
percent and 58 percent of the unaccompanied children currently fleeing
to the United States from Central America and Mexico may be eligible
for some form of protection.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ UNHCR 2014 and Byrne, O. & E. Miller, The Flow of Unaccompanied
Children Through the Immigration System: A Resource for Practitioners,
Policy Makers, and Researchers, Vera Institute of Justice, Mar. 2012,
available at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/
downloads/the-flow-of-unaccompanied-children-through-the-immigration-
system.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fair and efficient hearings: the importance of legal counsel for
unaccompanied children
Unaccompanied children face insurmountable challenges in pursuing
legal protections in the United States. Like all immigrants, children
in the immigration system do not receive government-appointed counsel.
Without an attorney, unaccompanied children struggle to navigate the
complicated U.S. immigration system alone and experience a denial of
due process.
The U.S. asylum system is complex and a successful asylum
application requires considerable resources. An asylum seeker must
gather country condition reports, primary documentary evidence,
affidavits from witnesses in their home country, and medical and
psychological evaluations. The same holds true for those compiling
documentation to support applications for U visas for survivors of
crime, T visas for survivors of trafficking, and petitions for Special
Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) for certain children who have been
abused, abandoned, or neglected. Government data and leading academic
studies consistently show that detention and legal representation are
significant factors in determining if a noncitizen is granted asylum or
another form of relief. One landmark academic study showed that legal
representation in immigration court is the most important factor
affecting the outcome of an asylum application, with asylum grant rates
nearly three times higher for those who have an attorney.\8\ Without
legal counsel, it is virtually impossible for a child to effectively
understand and navigate these complex processes in the face of the
threat of deportation. NIJC's clients, Maria and Roxana (pseudonyms),
were able to obtain relief in the United States with assistance from
NIJC's pro bono attorneys:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ramji-Nogales, Jaya, et. al,. ``Refugee Roulette: Disparities
in Asylum Adjudication,'' Stanford Law Review, Vol. 60, Issue 2, p.
340, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=983946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria and Roxana are 11- and 14-year-old sisters from El Salvador.
When they were very small, their parents came to the United States
hoping to provide a better life for them and left them in the care of
their grandfather. Unbeknownst to the parents, the grandfather
neglected and abused the girls until they eventually ran away to live
on the streets. With the help of another family member, Jessica and
Roxana fled to the United States. The U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) apprehended them at the border, placed them in removal
proceedings, and then transferred them into the custody of the Office
of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) until they could be released to their
parents in Indiana. Through NIJC, Jessica and Roxana were able to
obtain pro bono attorneys to help them understand the immigration
process and to identify any potential relief. At their hearing in the
Chicago Immigration Court, the immigration judge decided to
administratively close Jessica and Roxana's cases, so they can remain
with their parents and begin to heal from the abuse they have suffered.
Without representation, these young girls would have been unable to
navigate the immigration court system at the risk of deportation to a
country where they faced abuse and neglect.
emergency supplemental request: misguided allocations for enforcement
and deterrence
To respond to the influx of unaccompanied immigrant children and
young families arriving at the United States border, the administration
has requested $3.7 billion in supplemental funding, much of which
prioritizes enforcement in a misguided attempt to achieve deterrence
for individuals making the journey. While allocations of $1.8 billion
for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to care for
unaccompanied immigrant children and $116 million for U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to transport unaccompanied children from
overcrowded U.S. Customs and Border Protection stations at the border
to more child-appropriate HHS facilities are urgently needed, NIJC is
alarmed by the request for $879 million for the detention and removal
of families. An increase in family detention beds is a significant step
in the wrong direction, ignoring the government's appalling track
record in detaining families and years of progress moving away from
incarceration and towards more cost-efficient and effective
alternatives to detention. Whereas detention can cost an average of
$159 per day, alternatives--such as telephonic or in-person reporting,
community-based programs, and GPS ankle bracelets--can range from 17
cents to $17 per day.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ National Immigration Forum, ``The Math of Immigration
Detention,'' Aug. 2013, http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/
mathofimmigrationdetention.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIJC strongly supports the request of $45.4 million for Department
of Justice (DOJ) to hire approximately 40 additional immigration judge
teams, given the lengthy backlogs that plague immigration courts across
the country. For example, the Chicago Immigration Court, one of the
most backlogged immigration courts in the country, regularly schedules
hearings for 2016 and beyond. The immigration court system has long
been under-funded, particularly in light of increases in enforcement
funding that have channeled more noncitizens into the removal system.
Other requests for DOJ in the emergency supplemental for legal
orientation programs ($2.5 million) and legal representation for
children ($15 million) are encouraging but grossly underestimate the
overwhelming need for such services.
NIJC urges the administration to redirect funding requested for DHS
(apart from much-needed transportation allocations) to increased legal
services for unaccompanied immigrant children, more robust use of
alternatives to detention, additional immigration judge teams to
improve the adjudicatory process, and universal legal orientation
programs for detained individuals and custodians of unaccompanied
children to ensure full, fair, and efficient due process. In addition,
to effectively address root causes and make it possible for children to
safely remain in their home countries, the Department of State must be
adequately funded to address the conditions of violence and extreme
poverty that force many to flee and promote safe repatriation and
reintegration programs.
retaining critical due process protections for children in times of
crisis: the importance of the william wilberforce trafficking victims
protection and reauthorization act of 2008 (tvpra)
NIJC is alarmed by calls for additional legislative authority to
expedite screenings and deportations of unaccompanied children fleeing
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The TVPRA, which passed the
Senate and House by unanimous consent and was signed into law by
President George W. Bush in December 2008, provides critical
protections for immigrant children and child refugees that should not
be withdrawn. The law was initiated as a response to years of
insufficient screenings of unaccompanied children at the border,
resulting in the return of vulnerable children to situations of
violence, abuse, and persecution from which they fled. The TVPRA
provides child-sensitive procedures for children in immigration custody
and facing removal. In this challenging time, with unprecedented
numbers of vulnerable children arriving at our southern border, the
protections ensured by the TVPRA should be increased rather than
eviscerated.
Specifically, the TVPRA requires that unaccompanied children from
non-contiguous countries be placed in removal proceedings before an
immigration court rather than subjected to a hurried screening and
repatriation process akin to expedited removal. This due process
protection is critical to ensure that children who have been, or fear
being, abused, tortured, and/or persecuted are not summarily removed to
places where they face harm. Under the TVPRA, children have the
opportunity to receive full due process protections in an immigration
court proceeding. They are also afforded time to recover from their
journeys and past trauma, receive legal orientation, seek counsel, and
gather evidence in support of their cases.
The expedited process currently in place for Mexican children (who
receive reduced TVPRA protections) requires them to immediately reveal
their protection claims to the very people who have apprehended and
detained them without access to attorneys or any form of counseling.
This procedure should not be applied to children from non-contiguous
countries and, indeed, should be terminated altogether so that all
unaccompanied children receive a full and fair hearing when facing
deportation. NIJC's complaint to the DHS Office of Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties (OCRCL) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on
behalf of 116 unaccompanied children abused and mistreated while in the
custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) demonstrates that
CBP is not the appropriate agency to screen children for relief.\10\
Approximately one in four children reported some form of physical
abuse, including sexual assault, beatings, and the use of stress
positions by CBP officials. More than half of the children reported
various forms of verbal abuse, including racially and sexually charged
comments and death threats. One 16-year-old girl reported that an
immigration official verbally abused her and accused her of lying when
she tried to explain the threats she faced in her home country. These
appalling conditions do not support CBP assuming a larger role in
screening children for relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Available at: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/
immigrantjustice.org/files/FINAL%20
DHS%20Complaint%20re%20CBP%20Abuse%20of%20UICs%202014%2006%2011.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the current expedited screening procedures for Mexican
children do not screen them for eligibility for Special Immigrant
Juvenile Status (SIJS), a form of protection for children who have been
abused, abandoned or neglected by their parents or guardians. If
children are not provided with access to the immigration court system,
they will not have the opportunity to seek the protection they need and
merit under the law.
Cynthia grew up in Guatemala with an abusive father who physically
and verbally abused her throughout her childhood for any perceived
disobedience, including wearing pants and getting the house wet after
coming in from the rain. Her mother was unable to protect her because
she too was subject to abuse. Cynthia fled to the United States to
escape her father's abuse and find safety and security. It is very
difficult for Cynthia to discuss her father's abuse and it took
numerous meetings with trained legal staff before she felt comfortable
revealing this information. Had Cynthia been subjected to expedited
screening at the border by CBP officers, she would not have been able
to reveal this information. Even if she had notified CBP officers of
her abusive childhood, she could have been repatriated because the
initial screening does not assess children's eligibility for SIJS
protection.
The TVPRA also grants initial jurisdiction over unaccompanied
children's asylum claims to the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) Asylum Office. This allows children to
present their asylum claims in a non-adversarial setting before an
asylum office who is specially trained on interviewing children and to
deal with survivors of trauma. This mechanism makes it possible for
children to fully reveal the nature of their claims and also increases
immigration court efficiency by resolving some cases outside of the
courtroom. This means judges are not required to hold a full asylum
trial and can terminate proceedings upon approval by USCIS.
Expedited processing makes it extremely difficult for child victims
of violence and trauma, and their family members, to effectively make a
claim for asylum or other protections under U.S. law. Like all asylum
seekers, it is difficult for immigrant children who have suffered abuse
in their home countries and during their journey to the United States
to overcome the mental and emotional impact of that harm and discuss
their fears with a stranger. It is also extremely difficult for all
asylum seekers, but particularly child asylum seekers, to understand
how to request asylum at the border and articulate and support a claim
for protection. Moreover, the accelerated nature of expedited
processing in remote locations along the border makes it impossible for
a child to obtain legal counsel during this process.
Children who have suffered and fear persecution, abuse, and
trafficking in their home countries are particularly vulnerable after
their apprehension at the border. Many have been trafficked, exploited,
and coerced in their home countries and on their journey to the United
States. The expedited screening process currently utilized with Mexican
children raises due process concerns for all immigrants fleeing harm,
but as recognized by our law, it is particularly inappropriate for
unaccompanied immigrant children. NIJC urges that our law protect all
unaccompanied children apprehended at the border by exempting them from
an expedited screening process at the border. Efforts underway to roll
back the TVPRA are misguided and threaten to compromise the rights of
children, placing them at risk of experiencing great harm.
conclusion
International law and domestic laws that implement those legal
obligations provide critical due process protections for individuals
fleeing persecution and children are no exception to these protections.
As a nation committed to human rights, the United States must uphold
its commitment to protecting the persecuted, including the youngest and
most vulnerable. Any solution to this humanitarian crisis must be
comprehensive and address the root causes of migration in Central
America, the natural desire for family members to reunite, and our
obligations to protect those fleeing persecution. Unaccompanied
immigrant children have escaped life-threatening violence. We must
ensure that our laws treat children like children and do not send them
back into harm's way.
[Statement submitted by Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director,
Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Record of Refugee Council USA
Ms. Chairwoman, and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit written testimony regarding President Obama's
emergency supplemental request to address the influx of unaccompanied
immigrant children arriving at our southern border.
Refugee Council USA is a coalition of 20 non-governmental
organizations committed to refugee and asylee protection and welcome.
The tragic phenomenon of children arriving alone at our borders is
unfortunately not a new one. In 2002, Congress designated the Office of
Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human
Services as the Federal agency responsible for these children after
they have been transferred from the Department of Homeland Security's
care. ORR's mandate also includes providing programs and assistance to
resettled refugees, asylees, Cuban-Haitian entrants, special immigrant
visa recipients, and victims of trafficking and survivors of torture.
It is ORR's responsibility to provide care to these unaccompanied
children while family tracking efforts are made and then following
their release to foster care or a sponsor while their immigration
status is determined. Furthermore, the bipartisan 2008 Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) further codified U.S.
commitment to protecting vulnerable children arriving at our borders
alone, ensuring that children from non-contiguous countries cannot be
returned home without a full review of their case. Many of these
children are fleeing violence, persecution, poverty and/or abuse in
their countries of origin, and many, though not all, could subsequently
qualify for various forms of refugee protection, child protection, and
immigration relief under U.S. law.
Until fiscal year 2011, arrivals of these unaccompanied children
averaged between 6,000-8,000 each year. However, in fiscal year 2012,
arrivals doubled to roughly 14,000 and then nearly doubled again in
fiscal year 2013 to almost 25,000 children. Arrivals in fiscal year
2014 are estimated to be between 60,000 and 90,000 and it is estimated
that as many as 127,000 could arrive in fiscal year 2015. The vast
majority of these children come from Guatemala, El Salvador, and
Honduras. While traditionally the majority of arriving children have
been teenage boys, the children arriving now are increasingly younger
and there is also an increasing number of girls making the journey.
Also, an increasing number of children are victims of trauma that they
suffered in their home countries and/or on their journeys through
transit countries.
There are several factors influencing the increase in arrivals. In
March 2014 the United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) published a report
that found that of the 404 unaccompanied children they interviewed, 58
percent of these children may have bona fide international protection
claims. While the reasons for departure were often complex and
overlapping, many of these children spoke of fleeing significant
violence, gangs and other abuse from countries in which the governments
have not offered meaningful protection to their citizens, often
allowing murders and violent crimes to be committed with impunity.
These factors, among others, are also causing dramatic increases in
asylum applications throughout the region. UNHCR has documented a 712-
percent increase in the number of asylum applications from citizens of
these three countries in Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and
Belize, combined, from 2008 to 2013.
These unexpected increases in child arrivals over the last 3 years
have significantly strained ORR's limited budgetary resources. In
addition to caring for these vulnerable children, as stated previously
ORR is the Federal Government agency responsible for providing vital
services to resettled refugees, asylees, Cuban-Haitian entrants,
special immigrant visa recipients who assisted the United States in
Iraq and Afghanistan, victims of trafficking, and victims of torture.
Funding to serve all these vulnerable groups has not significantly
increased over the last decade to address their increasing diversity
and number, much less for inflation.
In fiscal year 2012 ORR was forced to reprogram more than $115
million from services to these groups to address the unanticipated
increased needs of unaccompanied children. Since then, these already
underfunded refugee programs have continued to face repeated threats of
significant budget gaps as the levels of unaccompanied children
continued to increase beyond budgeted projections. Fortunately, through
the bipartisan support of Congress and communities around this country,
baseline funding for refugee services has thus far largely stayed
intact. For that we are extremely grateful.
However, on June 20, World Refugee Day, ORR notified Congress of
their intent to reprogram $94 million of fiscal year 2014 funds for
refugee services to programs for unaccompanied children due to a lack
of sufficient funds for the UAC programs. The devastating loss of these
services will mean that far fewer refugees are able to obtain
employment services to quickly find jobs and establish self-
sufficiency; many survivors of torture and trauma will be unable to
access mental health services; elderly refugees will be unable to
naturalize and maintain their benefit eligibility; and, refugee
children will lack the tutoring and after school programs needed to
help them integrate into schools. These cuts will also have an enormous
impact on the States and local communities that welcome refugees,
eroding years of progress in building a successful nationwide refugee
resettlement program and impacting our ability to successfully welcome
future refugee arrivals.
Refugee resettlement is a key component of our foreign policy and
our commitment to international responsibility sharing. The United
States is the global leader in refugee resettlement, providing roughly
70,000 individuals fleeing persecution and violence every year the
chance at a new life. Countries around the world look to the United
States' example in how we respond to refugee crises. How we respond to
the current challenges before us will not just impact the lives of
these vulnerable children seeking refuge in our country, or the
thousands of refugees that are already part of our communities and
beginning new lives here--it will impact our standing in the world as a
country that respects due process, human rights, and the ability to
seek protection.
As the Senate Appropriations Committee considers the President's
emergency supplemental appropriations request, we recommend the
following:
1. ORR's funding in the supplemental must be directed to ensure all
populations under its care are adequately served.
ORR has borne the brunt of this growing humanitarian crisis for too
long, and ORR must receive additional funds in fiscal year 2014 to
ensure that it is able to serve all of the populations that fall under
its mandate. RCUSA supports the $1.8 billion request for HHS in the
requested supplemental.
In addition, Congress should establish and fund a contingency fund
for ORR, as requested in the fiscal year 2015 administration budget
request, to address future unexpected flows in the UAC program and in
any other of ORR's other mandated populations, so that funding for
refugee services remain intact.
2. This emergency supplemental must avoid the intertwining of
emergency funding needs with policy decisions.
This is an emergency situation that requires an emergency response.
Without additional funding for ORR, refugees and other vulnerable
groups and the communities that welcome them across the country will
face significant impacts, and needed relief must not be tied up by
larger policy decisions.
Additionally, the immigration policy decisions to reduce due
process for children under consideration will have weighty negative
consequences. They thus must be considered carefully and deliberately
on their own.
3. The wellbeing of vulnerable children must remain the driving
force behind our policy response.
Congress--and the U.S. Government--must not roll back critical
protections established in the bipartisan 2008 TVPRA. These protections
were set up to ensure the most vulnerable among us, children, are not
sent back to their countries of origin where they could face
significant harm.
We must keep our borders open to children fleeing to us for refuge
and we must maintain a full, fair, and individualized due process for
all those seeking protection. Anything less would be inconsistent with
our Nation's values.
______
Prepared Statement of Tahirih Justice Center
Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and Members of the
Senate Appropriations Committee: Tahirih Justice Center is a national,
nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting courageous immigrant
women and girls from violence. Over the last 18 years, we have provided
holistic legal and social services to thousands of immigrants who have
experienced severe trauma in the form of domestic and sexual violence
and other gender-based violence through offices in the Washington, DC
area, Houston, Texas, and Baltimore, Maryland. We welcome this
opportunity to submit written testimony for the record in order to
lodge our concerns about the supplemental request currently before the
committee.
Tahirih urges that the children fleeing violence in Central America
who are arriving at the U.S. border be treated as humanely as possible
while their claims for protection are adjudicated by qualified
personnel. Tahirih objects to the President's emergency supplemental
request for unaccompanied children insofar as it prioritizes the
detention and rapid repatriation of these children and does not include
measures to adequately protect their safety, well-being, or due process
rights.
In addition, Tahirih strenuously objects to any proposals that
would cause the diminishment of existing protections for immigrant
children. The law currently provides a bare minimum of safeguards for
the basic due process rights of children who may have claims for
humanitarian protection here in the United States. These must not be
rolled back through legislation or policy of any kind.
Tahirih strongly recommends that the Senate Appropriations
Committee consider the following:
--Funding should be directed towards care and adjudication, not
detention and removal. Any appropriations made through this
supplemental should prioritize the safety and well-being of the
children. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
provides shelter to children who have survived the arduous
journey to the United States. Under the law, all children must
be quickly transferred from Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) custody to HHS custody. Overcrowding in HHS facilities
leads to children and families remaining in Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention. ICE detention facilities
are not equipped to hold children humanely and should be
avoided at all costs. As such, funding to HHS so that it can
increase its capacity is essential. The current supplemental
request seeks an unreasonably high proportion of funds for
detention and removal.
--Funding should be directed to Citizenship and Immigration Services
(CIS). Tahirih is seriously concerned that the supplemental
request does not include additional funds specifically for CIS.
DHS must be funded to increase and improve the capability of
CIS and its asylum officers to offer timely and thorough
credible fear interviews. Each child's fear of return to his or
her country of nationality should at a minimum be assessed by
asylum officers who are trained to interview children while
using accurate translation. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
officers do not have the specialized training to conduct these
interviews. The current crisis does not justify lowered
standards of protection and non-specialist officers conducting
critical life-or-death interviews; it demands a greater
vigilance to ensure due process especially for such vulnerable
migrants.
--Funding to hire additional immigration judges must be increased.
The plan put forward by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to move
unaccompanied children's cases to the high-priority list, along
with detained individuals, will not be possible without
increased funding. Without increased funding, an already
strained system reflecting delays of several years for
adjudications would be even more pronounced. We recommend
increasing the amount currently proposed for the DOJ for the
purpose of hiring more qualified immigration judges than
currently envisioned.
--Funding must be allocated to legal services. Whether in detention,
HHS custody, or released to relatives, unaccompanied minors
need legal counsel to navigate our complex immigration system
and access the humanitarian protections to which they may be
entitled. As unaccompanied minors, they face difficult
decisions upon arrival without anyone to consider their best
interests and advise them accordingly. Allocations must be made
for pro bono legal services provided by charitable
organizations to ensure fairness and due process for these
children.
--Protections provided by the TVPRA must not be curtailed in any
fashion. The TVPRA established baseline protections for
children entering the United States which must not be
compromised under any circumstances. The administration seeks
to place the power to exercise discretion and expeditiously
remove children in the hands of uniformed border officers who
are not trained in assessing claims for humanitarian
protection. This is a dangerous proposition. Unaccompanied
children are often exhausted and malnourished, traumatized,
without guardians or legal counsel, and detained by uniformed
officers. Their applications must be assessed by trained
immigration officers or judges. Children may choose to withdraw
their applications at any time, and no changes to the law are
needed. To the contrary, additional protections may be
necessary to ensure that all children fleeing persecution,
including children of Mexican citizenship, are properly
considered. Rolling back minimal procedural protections is not
a necessary or appropriate measure to address the current
crisis.
In short, the current refugee crisis is a humanitarian situation
that demands a humanitarian response. Tahirih urges the committee to
reject any proposals that would result in increased detention, inhumane
treatment, abrogation of due process, or the repatriation of children
who face persecution.
We appreciate this opportunity and welcome your questions or
comments.
[Statement submitted by Archana Pyati, director of public policy,
Tahirih Justice Center.]
______
Prepared Statement of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Mr. Chairman, members of the Appropriations Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to submit a statement on today's hearing on the
Review of the President's Emergency Supplemental Request for
Unaccompanied Children and Related Matters.
As the UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR has particular expertise in the
area of protecting children displaced by violence and conflict.
About half of the world's refugees are children, and they are
considered by UNHCR to be particularly vulnerable in situations of
forced displacement. Because the vulnerability of children is largely
the result of their age and dependence on adults, exceptional
protection efforts for children are needed. In situations of violence
and conflict, children are both indirect and direct targets because of
their age. Unaccompanied refugee children are the most vulnerable, as
they have no adult who is legally recognized to be responsible for
their care. Refugee girls are also more likely than boys to be the
subjects of neglect and abuse, including sexual abuse, assault and
exploitation.
Drawing from our decades of experience and expertise working with
children, UNHCR developed a Framework for the Protection of Children.
This framework informs our position on the international protection of
children, including those who are unaccompanied, in the context of
forced displacement.
UNHCR recognizes the enormous challenges facing the United States
and other countries as a result of the recent large movement of people.
We are witnessing a complex situation in which children are leaving
home for a variety of reasons, including poverty, the desire for family
reunion, and the growing influence of trafficking networks. For some
children, these reasons include violence at the hands of transnational
organized criminal groups and powerful local gangs.
UNHCR recognizes that children are fleeing Central America for a
variety of reasons and that not all of them are refugees; however, our
interviews and our knowledge of the situation in these countries
indicate that a significant number of the kids could potentially face
harm if returned home.
In late 2011, UNHCR and others noted a considerable uptick--the
beginning of what is now known as the ``surge''--in the number of
unaccompanied children coming across the U.S. border. Every year since,
the numbers of UACs crossing the border has essentially doubled. These
children are primarily from three Central American countries--El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras--and from Mexico. Given our mandate
to ensure the protection of those fleeing for their lives and freedoms,
UNHCR undertook a study to understand the reasons for the increase.
Working closely with the U.S. Government and with child protection
experts, UNHCR developed and implemented a sound, fully vetted
methodology to learn from the children themselves why they decided to
leave. Applying this methodology, UNHCR interviewed 404 children from
the four countries, aged 12 to 17, in U.S. Federal custody. Launched in
March 2014, our report, ``Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children
from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico and the Need for
International Protection,'' \1\ reflects the findings and
recommendations of our study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Children on the Run:
Unaccompanied Children Leaving Central America and Mexico and the need
for International Protection, 13 March 2014, available at http://
www.unhcrwashington.org/sites/default/files/1_UAC_
Children%20on%20the%20Run_Full%20Report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The children gave multiple reasons for leaving, including violence,
family, opportunity and improved living conditions. Shockingly, 58
percent of the children cited violence in their home countries as at
least one key reason for leaving. This number varied by country: El
Salvador (72 percent), Honduras (57 percent), and Guatemala (38
percent).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ UNHCR is not alone among UN agencies and other
intergovernmental bodies in the region noting the violent roots of this
displacement. UNICEF, the UN agency charged with protecting children,
recently released a statement saying, ``Clear and compelling evidence.
. . show distinct ``push factors'' are at the heart of why these
children flee. They are often escaping persecution from gangs and other
criminal groups, brutality and violence in their own communities and
even in their homes, as well as persistent conditions of poverty and
inequality. . . '' Bernt Aasen, UNICEF Regional Director for Latin
America and Caribbean, ``Dramatic increase of unaccompanied children
seeking to enter the United States'', 10 June 2014, http://
www.unicef.org/media/media_73755.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) also released
a statement expressing its ``deep concern over the situation of
unaccompanied children migrants that are arriving to the southern
border of the United States of America.'' Commissioner Felipe Gonzalez,
the Rapporteur on the Rights of Migrants of the IACHR and country
Rapporteur for the United States, went on to highlight, ``We are
dealing with a humanitarian crisis involving record numbers of migrant
children on the southern border of the United States, but also in other
countries of the region. Through on-site visits and hearings, we have
seen that our children are dying or being victims of several forms of
violence in many parts of the region, and in this context there are
some children who have been able to flee from these forms of violence,
both inside and outside of their countries. . . '' http://www.oas.org/
en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2014/067.asp
These children shared stories of violence, threats, intimidation
and abuse--experiences that, like for so many children in situations of
widespread violence and conflict, they should never have to face.
``My grandmother wanted me to leave. She told me: `If you don't join,
the gang will shoot you. If you do join, the rival gang will shoot
you--or the cops will shoot you. But if you leave, no one will shoot
you.' ''
--Kevin, Honduras, age 17.
Unaccompanied children and families who fear for their lives and
freedoms must not be forcibly returned without access to proper asylum
procedures. UNHCR calls on all countries in the Americas to uphold
their shared responsibility to protect displaced children, families or
adults who are in need. This is critical over both the short and long
term, as governments implement solutions to address forced displacement
and its root causes.
At the core of refugee protection is the prohibition of returning a
refugee to persecution. This prohibition, known as the principle of
non-refoulement, is the fundamental obligation of States Parties to the
1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and/or its 1967
Protocol, and one that is binding on the United States. A critical
first step in complying with this obligation is to ensure that asylum-
seekers are identified, screened and given full and meaningful access
to asylum. This is particularly critical for children, whose age and
comprehension capacity limits their ability to engage protection
systems on their own.
With the knowledge that nearly 60 percent of the unaccompanied
children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have potential
claims for international protection, it is critical that they be
identified, screened and given access to the U.S. asylum system.
Strengthening identification procedures in the United States and all
other neighboring countries is the critical first step in a
humanitarian response to ensure that those who fear persecution are not
turned away.
Reception of asylum-seekers must focus on protection and not on
deterrence.
As a global leader in refugee protection, the United States has
long led by example in encouraging other countries in the region and
around the world to develop and strengthen their own protection
systems. As the United States decides what actions to take in
responding to the increase in unaccompanied children and families
crossing the southern border, a crucial element to that response is
ensuring that they are treated with dignity and respect. The solution
to the spike in unaccompanied children and families is not to make
seeking protection more difficult.
The right to seek asylum is a protected right reflected in U.S.
law. Seeking asylum is not a crime, nor is it a prohibited act. Any
response to the ``surge'' should not seek to deter children and
families from seeking safety and security. Policies and practices
designed to deter those fleeing persecution from seeking safety and
protection are contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the 1951
Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol as well as other international
human rights instruments.
This is a regional humanitarian problem that needs a regional
humanitarian solution.
UNHCR calls for regional cooperation to:
--Enhance child protection systems in source/transit countries;
--Enhance the capacity of governments to address the humanitarian
consequences of forced displacement through the development of
public policies and protection responses;
--Identify solutions that are in the best interests of children,
including, where appropriate, return and family reunification;
--Reinforce asylum systems in countries of transit and asylum in
Central America and Mexico; and
--Collaborate on violence prevention, citizen security, and
unaccompanied children issues with relevant agencies in source
and transit countries.
While the United States receives the vast majority of asylum claims
from the Northern Triangle, forced displacement from these three
countries is clearly felt elsewhere in the region. At the time that
UNHCR published our ``Children on the Run'' report, available data from
2008 to 2012 showed a 435-percent increase in the number of asylum
applications overall from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras filed in
Belize, Costa Rica, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama. Updating the data to
include 2013 figures, the increase from 2008 to 2013 is now 712
percent.
Moreover, the trends of displacement over the last few years from
the Northern Triangle are not out of sync with other situations of
forced displacement due to conflict. Individuals and families do not
want to flee their homes or their countries if they can avoid it. Many
will often displace internally before seeking refuge outside their
countries.
Given the regional nature of this displacement crisis, the United
States cannot and should not bear the burden of addressing the
situation alone. UNHCR stands ready to support the United States and
other asylum countries in the region--particularly Mexico and
Guatemala--to enhance protection systems throughout the region and to
provide protection to those whose lives and freedoms are under threat.
The United States has been a leader globally and regionally in refugee
protection, particularly in protecting unaccompanied children and
others of our most vulnerable. UNHCR hopes that the United States will
continue to lead by example to encourage and support strong protection
for children and families throughout Central American and Mexico.
conclusion
The increase in arrivals of unaccompanied children and families
along the southern border has no doubt placed great pressures on the
United States' long-standing commitment to protecting those seeking
safe haven in the United States. Understanding what has propelled these
children and families from their homes, providing appropriate reception
conditions, and ensuring protection to those who cannot return, is
fundamental to meeting U.S. obligations to protect refugees and other
vulnerable persons. Perhaps more importantly, it is fundamental to the
United States' moral authority and longstanding identity as a beacon of
hope to the persecuted. UNHCR stands ready to support the United States
and other countries in the region in providing protection to these
children--and families--on the run.
______
Prepared Statement of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants
Ms. Chairwoman, and members of the committee, the U.S. Committee
for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) urges the Senate Appropriations
Committee to pass the President's emergency supplemental funding
proposal and implement policy solutions that are humanitarian focused
and maintain the U.S. core value and tradition of due process. USCRI
also urges you fully fund the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to
assure unaccompanied immigrant children receive adequate food, shelter,
clothing, and medical care while they are in custody while still
maintaining refugee programs.
USCRI sees the direct impact of ORR programs and the vulnerable
communities it serves. USCRI is a national nonprofit organization that
for the past 100 years has helped shape our Nation's history. The
mission of USCRI is to address the needs and rights of persons in
forced or voluntary migration worldwide by advancing fair and humane
public policy, facilitating and providing direct professional services,
and promoting the full participation of migrants in community life. As
part of this mission since 2005 USCRI's Immigrant Children's Legal
Program has provided unaccompanied immigrant children pro bono legal
representation to over 7,500 children in their immigration proceedings.
USCRI has also provided in-home social services and linkages to
education, legal, health, and mental health providers to over 1,000
children.
a refugee crisis
The increasing number of unaccompanied immigrant children arriving
in the United States is due to the violence in Central America.
Honduras leads the world in homicide rates,\1\ with El Salvador and
Guatemala not far behind. The increase in violence is the result of
many factors, poverty, corruption and impunity.\2\ There has also been
an increase in the political and social power of organized crime and
other armed actors. These criminal actors have increased their control
and reach throughout the region. They control communities through fear,
kidnapping, threats, extortion, rape and murder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2012, Honduras' homicide rate was 90.4 per 100,000
population. See the United Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 2013
Global Study on Homicide. Available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/
gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL--HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf.
\2\ The Organization of American States, The Drug Problem in the
Americas, (2013) available at http://www.oas.org/documents/eng/press/
Introduction_and_Analytical_Report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various reports by civil society organizations and the UNCHR have
found that law enforcement in these Central American countries often
cannot provide protection to its citizens.\3\ The U.S. State Department
has recognized that ``crime has exploded in northern Central America
and Honduras now has the world's highest murder rate outside of war
zones.'' \4\ In Guatemala and Honduras, there is sometimes
collaboration between organized criminal groups and members of the
military and police, and police and military involvement in serious
crimes, which leads to distrust of authorities. This distrust makes
reporting of crimes and seeking protection more unlikely and
potentially dangerous.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Gonzalez, Rosmery Austria deniega permiso de venta de armas a
gobierno de Otto Perez, El Periodico, (May 2, 2014) available at http:/
/elperiodico.com.gt/es/20140502/pais/246662/
\4\ http://www.state.gov/j/cso/releases/other/2013/205261.htm
\5\ United Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 2011 Global Study on
Homicide
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another important factor is the forced recruitment of children by
organized crime and local gangs. In Honduras, more than 90 percent of
violence experienced by minors goes unreported to the police,
reflecting the limited capacity on the part of law enforcement to
investigate cases.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Casa Alianza Honduras, ``Analisis de la situacion de Derechos
de la Infancia Migrante No Acompanada en el marco de los procedimientos
de deportacion y retorno a Honduras,'' June 2012. Available at: http://
casa-alianza.org.hn/images/documentos/Observatorio/migrante12.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
uscri data on unaccompanied immigrant children
USCRI conducted an analysis of our database of unaccompanied
immigrant children matched with volunteer attorneys in our pro bono
network from January 2010 through April 9, 2014. During this time the
overwhelming majority of our clients migrated from Central America.
In the analysis we identified primary and secondary reasons for
migration. Thirty-six percent identified violence or direct threats of
violence from gangs or other violent entities as the primary reason
they migrated. Child abuse is the second most frequently cited primary
reason at 26 percent. While unaccompanied immigrant children often come
to meet family in the United States, it wasn't until children had
suffered violence or child abuse that they decided to migrate.
emergency funding needs
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is responsible for serving
refugees fleeing persecution and other vulnerable migrant populations,
including unaccompanied immigrant children. In 2002 the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (HSA) granted the care and placement of
unaccompanied immigrant children to the Dependent of Health and Human
Services' (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). ORR's refugee
programs have been underfunded for many years, but now with the
increase of unaccompanied immigrant children, the already weak budget
is exhausted.
USCRI is seriously concerned that ORR notified Congress on June 20,
2014, of their intent to reprogram $94 million in refugee funds to care
for unaccompanied children. Without Congressional leadership and
intervention America's ability to provide protection for persecuted
persons and a chance at a new life will be dramatically diminished. The
supplemental funding must be approved immediately otherwise Congress
will jeopardize refugees' ability to become self-sufficient and work
towards full integration into life in the United States.
uscri's six policy solutions
We offer these six policy solutions that will work to stop
trafficking, protect children and save money:
1. Respect Families
Allow parents or legal guardians from El Salvador or Honduras who
reside legally in the United States under Temporary Protected Status
(TPS) to apply for their minor children to reunite. Their minor
children may be residing either in the United States or in their
country of origin and their status would be linked to their parents.
This will immediately reduce immigration court backlogs and apply to an
estimated 30-40 percent of the children surrendering at the borders.
2. Keep the Children Out of the Courtroom
Institute a Children's Corps based on the Asylum Officer Corps
model. Children Corps officers would be trained in child-sensitive
interview techniques and Best Interest Determination standards. They
would determine if a child is eligible for legal relief such asylum,
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), Trafficking Victims Visa (T-
Visa) or other forms of legal relief. This would move the adjudication
process from an adversarial, judicial process to an administrative
process for most children. Those who are not eligible for legal status
would be placed in removal proceedings. It is estimated that 40 percent
to 60 percent may be eligible for legal protection.
3. Help Children Avoid the Dangerous Journey
In-Country Processing allows applicants to apply for refugee status
in their home country. The children would have to meet the U.S. refugee
definition, be otherwise admissible, and would be resettled in an
orderly fashion. In-country processing has been used in the past for
the resettlement of Soviet Jews, Vietnamese, and Cubans, so they could
avoid life-threatening escapes. Other countries in North or South
America may also be willing to accept children for resettlement.
4. Engage the UNHCR
Unaccompanied children and adults can receive international
protection from UNHCR after they have fled their home country. Through
long established procedures, the UNHCR could then refer their cases for
resettlement to a receiving country. The U.S. Department of State
coordinates the program, the refugees are interviewed by a USCIS
Officer and, if approved for entry, undergo extensive security and
medical clearances prior to being moved to the United States.
5. Forgive the Children
Grant Children's Protected Status (CPS) to all unaccompanied
children who have already been brought into custody. As precedent, the
Cubans and Haitians who arrived illegally during the Mariel Boatlift in
1980 were given Cuban/Haitian Entrant Status. Simultaneously with the
announcement of CPS, the government could announce a cut-off-date for
all future arrivals. After the cut-off date, new arrivals would be
subject to expedited removal. Granting CPS will relieve the government
of the burden and cost of adjudicating the cases of thousands of
unaccompanied minors. This will increase capacity for the Department of
Homeland Security to handle other immigration cases.
6. Introduce Hope
Create a Regulated Entry Procedure (REP) for 10,000 Unaccompanied
Immigrant Children per year per country from Honduras, El Salvador, and
Guatemala. As precedent, to end the Mariel Boatlift in 1980, a lottery
was established which allows 20,000 Cubans to enter the United States
every year. The hope of ``winning'' has kept Cubans from hazarding the
ocean for the last 34 years. The Central American Children would be
permitted to enter the United States legally through a regulated system
managed and processed by the U.S. Government.
USCRI urges your immediate intervention to honor America's history
of leadership in protecting the most vulnerable.
Thank you for your consideration in this very important issue.
______
Prepared Statement of the Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights
preserving necessary protections for the most vulnerable children
Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
committee: On behalf of the Young Center for Immigrant Children's
Rights at the University of Chicago (``Young Center''), I [Maria
Woltjen] submit this statement for the committee's July 10, 2014
hearing addressing President Obama's emergency supplemental request for
unaccompanied children and related matters. The Young Center operates
the only program providing independent child advocates to child
trafficking victims and other vulnerable, unaccompanied children
pursuant to the Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).\1\ The role of the child advocate is like
that of a guardian ad litem: to identify and represent the best
interests of the child, and to develop recommendations pertinent to
repatriation, custody, detention, family reunification, and legal
representation. For the last 10 years, we have served as the
independent child advocate for many hundreds of vulnerable,
unaccompanied children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008, Sec. 235(c)(6), 8 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1232(c)(6)
(West 2014) (``TVPRA'') (allowing the appointment of child advocates
for child trafficking victims and other vulnerable, unaccompanied alien
children).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We commend the administration for proposing an increase in funds to
ensure that vulnerable children receive appropriate care and
protection. However, we caution Congress against making this funding
contingent upon a roll-back of the TVPRA, passed by a bipartisan
Congress in 2008.
The treacherous journey to the United States-Mexico border is an
act of desperation. The United States has an obligation to ensure that
unaccompanied immigrant children are not returned to situations in
which they will be trafficked, abused, persecuted, or killed and that
they receive meaningful protection while they are in our care. The
UNHCR study, Children on the Run, confirmed that a majority--at least
58%--of Central American children fleeing to the United States would
qualify for international protection.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ UNHCR, Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children Leaving
Central America and Mexico and the Need for International Protection
(Children on the Run), March 2014, at 25, available at http://
www.unhcrwashington.org/children/reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child immigrants are first and foremost children, and we must treat
them as such. In considering the President's request, we urge Congress
to uphold the following principles.
Congress must prohibit accelerated removal proceedings for
vulnerable children. Children's cases should be adjudicated in a
timeframe that respects the child's age, development, and history of
trauma. Children's proceedings should only be advanced when it is in
the child's best interests--not simply to reduce Government expense.
Children's reaction to trauma is complex and can significantly affect
their ability to process information and talk about what they have
experienced. Forcing children to participate in accelerated removal
proceedings significantly increases the likelihood of errors since the
decision maker may have incomplete information. Many children,
particularly traumatized children, are unable, in a short period of
time, to talk about what happened to them, why they are here, what they
are afraid of.
In appropriating funds, Congress should ensure that every child is
represented. All children in immigration removal proceedings should
have an attorney. No child should appear unrepresented in an
adversarial proceeding before a judge where the Government is
represented by a lawyer. The right to counsel for unaccompanied
children is ``an emerging norm under international law'' necessary to
safeguard against refoulement.\3\ Representation by legal counsel in
any proceeding is also a crucial due process protection in keeping with
our Nation's commitment to fair judicial and administrative proceedings
involving children. Unaccompanied immigrant children are unable to
effectively represent themselves in a complex system where they are
unfamiliar with the laws, procedures, or language. In no other domestic
system involving children would a child proceed completely
unrepresented. For those reasons, we also urge Congress to appropriate
the funds requested by the President for the expansion of direct legal
representation programs administered by the Department of Justice
(DOJ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Brian Rowe, The Child's Right to Legal Assistance in Removal
Proceedings Under International Law, 10 Chi. J. Int'l L. 747, 768
(2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent TVPRA child advocates should be appointed for
particularly vulnerable children, including any child who expresses a
fear of return, or if repatriation would separate the child from a
parent in the United States. For over forty years, the Federal
Government has recognized the importance of the appointment of a
guardian ad litem to protect the interests of children involved in the
child welfare system.\4\ International law recognizes the importance of
the appointment of a guardian as a procedural safeguard to ensure
consideration of the child's best interests, particularly in cases in
which repatriation is considered.\5\ The child advocate's role is to
advocate for the child's best interests in all decisions, a role which
is distinct from a legal representative who represents the expressed
(stated) interests of the child. Child advocates' fact-based Best
Interests Recommendations are grounded in U.S. law and well-accepted
international child protection principles. These principles require
consideration of factors including the child's safety, family
integrity, liberty, wishes and development. Best interests
recommendations do not turn on abstract or paternalistic judgments
about where a child may be happier or have access to greater economic
opportunity, rather the focus is on a child's safety and well-being.
Thus, a child advocate may recommend that it is in a child's best
interests to return to his or her country of origin if the child can be
safely returned. Alternatively, the child advocate's Best Interests
Recommendation may indicate that the child will be unsafe upon return
because, for example, there is no responsible adult willing and able to
care for the child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974,
Public Law No. 93-247 (codified at 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 5101-5107).
\5\ See United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC),
CRC General Comment No. 6 (2005): Treatment of Unaccompanied and
Separated Children Outside Their Country of Origin, 21, available at
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/GC6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Child Advocate program should be expanded to serve both
detained and released children as provided in the Violence Against
Women Act of 2013. The Violence Against Women Act of 2013 amended the
TVPRA to provide for expansion of the Child Advocate program to six new
sites over 4 years. These programs are intended to serve both detained
and released children.\6\ It is critical at this time, to expand child
advocate programs to serve the population of detained and released
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Public Law
113-4 (codified as 42 U.S.C. section 1371).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should ensure that all Federal agencies adhere to the
court-approved Flores settlement agreement regarding the care and
custody of unaccompanied children. Children who remain in Government
custody must be placed in the least restrictive setting and provided
with education, recreation, social orientation, and medical services,
in addition to shelter and food. The Flores settlement also provides
that children be promptly released to family while they go through the
immigration process. The Young Center strongly urges the Federal
Government to develop mechanisms to expeditiously release children to
properly vetted, safe sponsors.
Federal decision-makers should consider the child's best interests
in all decisions. All states and territories of the United States have
laws which require that a child's best interests be considered when
decisions are made about a child's custody or other ``critical life
issues.'' \7\ The TVPRA recognizes the importance of best interests
considerations by providing for the appointment of an independent child
advocate to advocate for the best interests of the individual child.
The best interests of the child is determined on a case-by-case basis
and includes the consideration of the child's wishes with due regard
for the child's age and maturity, as well as the safety and well-being
of the child. Domestic and international law both recognize the
vulnerability of children and the need for special safeguards to ensure
safe repatriation and reintegration of children.\8\ No child should be
returned to his or her country of origin without an independent
assessment of the child's best interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Child Welfare Information Gateway, Determining the Best
Interests of the Child (2013), available at --https://
www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/lawspolicies/statutes/bestinterest.pdf.
\8\ TVPRA Section 235(5)(A); General Comment No. 6, para.para.84,
92-93. See also principal of non-refoulement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Government should develop a comprehensive and
collaborative approach to address the causes of children's
unprecedented migration without sacrificing well-established principles
of child protection. This approach should take into consideration the
endemic violence, public insecurity, and weak political structures of
Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, as well as poverty and other
conditions, including the recent 6.9 magnitude earthquake on the border
of Mexico and Guatemala. The level of violence in Central America has
reached a crisis level. Between 2010 and 2013, at least 458 children
under 14 years of age were killed in violent circumstances in
Honduras.\9\ In the first 3 months of 2014, 271 people under the age of
23 were murdered in Honduras.\10\ The U.S. Department of State has
recognized that the level of crime and violence in Central America,
particularly in Honduras, ``remains critically high.'' \11\ This has
led to a nearly 712-percent increase in asylum applications from
citizens of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to the countries of
Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Belize over the past 5
years.\12\ In a study released by the American Immigration Council this
month, nearly 60 percent of Salvadoran children who were interviewed
indicated that crime, gang threats, or violence were the main
motivators for leaving home.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Press Release, Inter-Am. Comm'n on Human Rights (IAHCR), IACHR
Expresses Concern over Violent Deaths of Children, Adolescents, and
Youths in a Context of Citizen Insecurity in Honduras (May 14, 2014),
available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2014/
056.asp.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Department of State Travel Warning, June 24, 2014, available
at http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings/
honduras-travel-warning.html. See also, Public Insecurity in Latin
America, FTI Consulting, Mar. 2014, available at http://
www.fticonsulting.com/global2/media/collateral/united-states/2014-
latin-america-security-index.pdf (stating ``entire portions of its
sovereign territory out of control of the central government due to
drug cartel activity, and extremely high homicide and violent crime
rates, in part due to the ``maras'' (gang) activity'').
\12\ Children on the Run, supra note 2.
\13\ Elizabeth Kennedy, American Immigration Council, No Childhood
Here: Why Central American Children Are Fleeing Their Homes (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Government should engage in meaningful regional
discussions to address the root causes of the forced displacement of
children, and invest in meaningful programs--often operated by NGOs in
the three countries--which can help with the successful reintegration
of children who return to their countries of origin, helping to ensure
their safety so that they are not forced to flee again.
It is critical that Congress protect the 2008 Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA). The TVPRA was intended
to providing meaningful procedural and substantive protections for
unaccompanied immigrant children \14\ from both contiguous and non-
contiguous countries. Prior to the 2008 TVPRA, Mexican children
typically did not enter protective custody. The TVPRA screening was
intended to identify those Mexican children with protection needs:
trafficking victims, those at risk of persecution, and survivors of
other dangers. However, even with these added screenings, the number of
Mexican children in Federal custody did not increase nearly as much as
anticipated, in large part because the screening is undertaken by
armed, uniformed CBP officials whose primary mission is to protect the
borders. Advocates believe that vulnerable Mexican children are not
appropriately identified.\15\ Applying these screenings to non-Mexican
children would significantly increase the number of relief-eligible
children--children at risk of persecution, trafficking, abuse, or other
safety concerns--who are unlawfully turned away at the U.S. border, and
returned to certain harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ An unaccompanied alien child is a child under the age of 18
years, with no lawful status in the United States, and either no parent
or legal guardian in the United States or no parent or legal guardian
available to provide care and custody. 6 U.S.C. Sec. 279(g)(2).
\15\ Appleseed Foundation, Children at the Border: The Screening,
Protection and Repatriation of Unaccompanied Mexican Minors (2011),
available at http://appleseednetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/
Children-At-The-Border1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TVPRA also codified the Government's obligations under the
Flores settlement to place unaccompanied immigrant children in the
least restrictive setting. Placing unaccompanied children in the
custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement allows traumatized
children the space to recover from their journey in a less threatening
environment and to disclose trafficking, persecution, or other
exploitation. Finally, the TVPRA allows children to pursue claims of
asylum before the asylum office, a much more appropriate setting for
children.
[all]