U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–454PDF 2015

UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN: PRESSING

THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A STRATEGY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

NOVEMBER 18, 2014

Serial No. 113–237

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

MATT SALMON, Arizona, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Roberta S. Jacobson, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western 

Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................. 5

Ms. Elizabeth Hogan, Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Latin 

America and the Caribbean, U.S. Agency for International Development ..... 13

Mr. Robert N. Kaplan, President and Chief Executive Officer, Inter-American 

Foundation ............................................................................................................ 23

Ms. Catherine Wiesner, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, 

Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department of State ......................................... 31

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Roberta S. Jacobson: Prepared statement ................................... 8

Ms. Elizabeth Hogan: Prepared statement ............................................................ 15

Mr. Robert N. Kaplan: Prepared statement .......................................................... 25

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 52

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 53

(1)

UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN: 

PRESSING THE ADMINISTRATION FOR 

A STRATEGY 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2014

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Matt Salmon (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SALMON. A quorum being present, the subcommittee will 

come to order. 

I will start by recognizing myself and the ranking member to 

present our opening statements. 

Without objection, the members of the subcommittee can submit 

their opening remarks for the record. And now I yield myself as 

much time as I may consume to present my opening statement. 

Good afternoon and welcome to this, the second hearing that I 

have convened on the humanitarian crisis that resulted from thousands of unaccompanied minors showing up at our southern border. 

I have been engaged on this issue from the beginning, not only as 

the chairman of this subcommittee, but also as a member of the 

Speaker’s working group on the unaccompanied alien child crisis. 

I traveled with several of my colleagues to the region and saw firsthand the insecurity and the poverty that plagues the region. 

While the administration cited drops in the total number of children travelling north since our first hearing on the topic back in 

June, the fact is that the conditions in El Salvador, Honduras, and 

Guatemala continue to be very grave. I convened this second hearing because my colleagues and I are mindful that the high levels 

of gang violence and the lack of opportunity right here in our hemisphere not only affects the lives of millions in Central America, but 

affects the United States, too, as we have seen. Indeed, the pursuit 

of peace and prosperity through the Western Hemisphere should be 

a key national security objective of the United States. 

As Ronald Reagan said back in 1984, ‘‘Central America is a region of great importance to the United States, and it is so close. 

San Salvador is closer to Houston, Texas, than Houston is to Washington, DC.’’

I have consistently been supportive of U.S. efforts through 

CARSI to assist the region to build capacity to strengthen their reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:13 Feb 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_WH\111814\91454 SHIRL
2

spective police forces so they can better confront the high levels of 

criminality brought on by gangs and drug-trafficking organizations. 

Between 2005 and 2012, there was a 340 percent increase in murders of women and children in Honduras. While El Salvador maintains the world’s highest rate of homicides against women and 

girls, Guatemala ranks third. There is widespread mistrust of law 

enforcement and impunity rates as high as 95 percent. 

In addition to the need for stepping up capacity building for law 

enforcement, all three of these northern triangle countries lack stable institutions and are plagued by corruption, so U.S. efforts to 

improve governance and democratic values are imperative. The 

question remains, however—and this is why I have convened this 

second hearing—in this time of tight budgets, are we evaluating 

each and every individual program that we fund, applying metrics 

and determining what works and what doesn’t work? 

I had asked during the last hearing for USAID to provide me 

with specific program-by-program metrics and, to this date, have 

yet to receive that information in its entirety. I am aware of the 

Vanderbilt study, a $3.5 million study to evaluate some of USAID’s 

programs in the region. Unfortunately, the study does not provide 

us with project-by-project evaluations and cost-benefit analysis, and 

that may not be available right now. 

I have said this before: The U.S. taxpayer is very generous and 

wants to help the people of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras 

find a path to peace and prosperity in their respective countries. 

However, they also demand that we spend their hard-earned taxpayer money and achieve measurable results. As a result, we must 

acknowledge that previous programs in Central America have 

failed. Despite U.S. investments through CARSI, these countries 

continue to fail, and these failures ultimately contributed to the 

UAC crisis along our border. 

It is our responsibility and yours to ensure that going forward, 

that we have very serious buy-in and political will from each of 

these three countries. And every agency involved in administering 

programs needs to be accountable for the effectiveness of each specific program. The goal is to help empower these countries to improve governance and build prosperity so that their citizens can 

prosper there. 

Unfortunately, the Obama administration continues to 

incentivize the mass exodus of citizens from those countries by 

changing immigration policy by decree. On Friday, Vice President 

Biden announced an in-country refugee processing program as part 

of a strategy to deal with the unaccompanied minor crisis. Now, at 

first glance, the idea is a very good one. We have all talked about 

the treacherous journey these children must make to get to our 

border, so offering those people who might qualify for refugee status the opportunity to apply in their countries would be a good way 

to dissuade them from otherwise travelling up our southern border. 

Upon closer inspection, however, it appears that this program is 

yet another example of President Obama’s flouting of immigration 

law. This newly announced program allows family members 

present in the United States under varying statuses, including deferred action, to petition for children and spouses in Central America to be interviewed for refugee status. If they are ineligible, the 

3

newly announced program allows for humanitarian paroles on a 

case-by-case basis. 

It is very important that the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration provided a witness to answer to the 

many questions my colleagues and I have about this newly announced in-country processing, particularly to understand the criteria being applied to both refugee and parole eligibility. The answer to problems plaguing the region is not to further incentivize 

citizens of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to leave. Rather, 

we should double down on serious efforts to empower people of the 

region to achieve lasting peace and prosperity in their country. 

Using this crisis to attempt to create favor for sheer political gain 

is wrong. Sadly, I believe that that might be what the President 

is doing. 

I am looking forward to hearing from each of our witnesses about 

what their specific agency or bureau is doing to address the crisis 

with the seriousness it deserves. 

Assistant Secretary Jacobson, thank you for being with us today. 

Ms. Hogan, Mr. Kaplan and Ms. Wiesner, I am pleased you are 

here as well. I look forward to hearing how assistance programs 

can be refocused on income generation and economic development 

to help provide empowerment and opportunity to the citizens of 

Central America. And anyway, I would like to offer an opportunity 

for opening comments by my colleagues as well. 

Representative Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to thank you, Chairman Salmon. 

Very timely hearing. 

And I want to note at the outset that I am encouraged by El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras’ willingness to work together to 

address the factors contributing to the child migration crisis. We 

saw, on our southern border earlier this year, we saw more than 

68,500 unaccompanied minors apprehended between October 1 of 

last year and September 30 this year. It is a 77 percent increase 

compared to Fiscal Year 2013. And while there is a lot of good in 

their plan, I am concerned that the plan does not address corruption, security, rule of law, enough. It appears to be a centralized 

top-down approach that does not empower municipalities or individual citizens as uniform approach for the three very different 

countries with varying political wills. 

Additionally, in June, Vice President Biden announced that the 

U.S. would provide $9.6 million to Central America. In July, the 

administration requested an additional $300 million for programs 

in Central America. I am interested to know what the administration’s strategy for Central America, Latin America, and Caribbean 

region in general is before we start increasing the flow of money. 

I am deeply concerned and alarmed by this administration’s attempt at backdoor amnesty through the new in-country refugee 

and parole program announced Friday, which allows children and 

their parents who have a parent or spouse in the U.S. that is a deferred action for childhood arrivals or DACA recipient, deferred action recipient granted for at least 1 year, or deferred enforced departure recipient to initiative a refugee application. I look forward 

to digging deeper into that during the question-and-answer period 

today. 

4

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

And I yield to the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to the witnesses for coming. Before we get into this 

hearing, this is the first time this subcommittee has met, I believe 

since we were here at the very end of September for a very important issue that you really led on trying to get our Marine back from 

Mexico. And I just wanted to, one, just publicly say how thankful 

we are that he is back, but, two, to thank you for your leadership 

on this. I bugged you on the House floor numerous times. And I 

know you were frustrated about how long it was taking, but you 

never let that deter you. You stayed with it. You were travelling 

down there to meet with him, and I can tell you my constituents 

in Florida were really pumped when he came back, and a lot of 

that has to do with your hard work. 

Mr. SALMON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. DESANTIS. I will. 

Mr. SALMON. I do want to say that after having met Sergeant 

Tahmooressi when he came home and followed up on numerous occasions with friends and family, I am very, very worried about him. 

And I have mentioned this, and I would just like to ask anybody 

out there in the sound of our voice to pray for him and to offer your 

support because he is going to need all the help he can get. He was 

already diagnosed with PTSD, and the 7 months plus in prison 

only made it worse. And I am very concerned about his well-being. 

He is a very troubled young man, and he needs our thoughts and 

our prayers. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And I agree wholeheartedly with that, and our 

veterans when they come back with the post-traumatic stress obviously very difficult then to be put in that situation where that condition is being exacerbated. We all need to keep him in our 

thoughts and prayers because it is not going to be easy for him. 

But I just wanted to publicly thank you for your determination, 

and I think that this subcommittee had a lot to do with it under 

your leadership. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you very much. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule VII, the members of the subcommittee will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the official hearing record. And, without objection, the 

hearing record will remain open for 7 days to allow statements, 

questions, and extraneous materials for the record, subject to the 

length limitation in the rules. 

I am going to go ahead and introduce the panel now. First of all, 

we have the Honorable Roberta Jacobson. She is the Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the Department of State. 

She has also served as the Senior Coordinator for Citizen Security 

Initiatives in the Western Hemisphere, and as Deputy Chief of 

Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru. 

And on a personal note, I have not found in my political and professional experience anybody that I enjoyed working with more 

5

than her. She is a professional in every way and has a big heart 

and a big mind. 

And I am so appreciative of all the great work that you have 

done. And I just want you to know there is a lot of good will emanating from committee members. We might differ on policy and 

have questions, but we never, ever have a trust gap with you, and 

I want you to know that from the bottom of the heart. 

Ms. Hogan, another stellar individual that we have just been 

thrilled to be working with, is the Acting Assistant Administrator 

for U.S. Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Latin 

America and the Caribbean. Previously, she served as the director 

of the agency’s Haiti Task Team, overseeing reconstruction efforts 

after the 2010 earthquake, and we thank you for being here. 

Mr. Robert Kaplan is the President and CEO of the Inter-American Foundation. Previously, he worked at the Inter-American Development Bank in the Division for Mexico, Central America, Dominican Republican, and Haiti. 

We also have Ms. Wiesner. She is the Deputy Assistant Secretary, and she is here in an advisory capacity, and we appreciate 

that. She is Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at the State Department. Previously, she worked at the Pentagon in the African Affairs Division 

and as a consultant in the fields of humanitarian assistance, peace 

process, and post-conflict programming. 

You all understand and know the lighting system. It will be 

green until the last minute. And then it will go amber. And it will 

let you know that you have got 1 minute left. And then when it 

goes red, you are out of time, and we would appreciate if you conclude there. And then we will have questions from members. 

So, Ms. Jacobson, I will recognize you first. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERTA S. JACOBSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. JACOBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me start by associating myself with Congressman 

DeSantis’ comments. I think that for all of us who worked to get 

Sergeant Tahmooressi home, we greatly appreciate your leadership 

in this matter. 

I would like to thank you and the members of the committee for 

being here today to talk about the U.S. strategy for engagement in 

Central America. I know that many of you and you, personally, Mr. 

Chairman, have been so involved in our efforts to develop a humane and effective response to the unaccompanied children and 

families arriving at our Southwest border. Although we are encouraged that the numbers have decreased recently, we know we cannot let up in our efforts to protect vulnerable migrants and address 

the underlying factors that push them north. 

This year, as noted, more than 50,000 unaccompanied children 

left their homes in Central America to make that journey. And the 

spike in migration is a warning sign that longstanding challenges 

in Central America remain very problematic. We must address the 

underlying factors compelling migration, or we are doomed to repeat that migration. 

6

We believe that the essential condition for finding a solution is 

present, and that is political will in the region. Last week, the 

Inter-American Development Bank hosted a conference on Central 

America, where Vice President Biden and the Presidents from the 

three northern triangle countries spoke about opportunities and 

challenges for growth. The Presidents publicly presented a plan 

called the Alliance for Prosperity, and it includes a clear-eyed assessment of the region’s challenges and specific steps that they 

themselves will take to resolve them. 

But their message at the conference was simple. They will take 

those tough choices to address the challenges, but they need our 

help. So, over the past 18 months, the U.S. Government has taken 

a hard look at both our approach and our investments. While security is paramount, we have broadened our vision for how to achieve 

it and developed an interagency strategy that both aligns and supports the objectives of the Alliance for Prosperity. 

To achieve that vision in which all the citizens in Central America choose to remain and thrive in those countries, we need to focus 

on prosperity, governance, and security. Prosperity agenda fosters 

integration of a regional market of 43 million people so that local 

businesses can become more competitive and the region attractive 

to international investors. Economic growth and economic opportunity has to give young people options beyond criminality or immigration. 

Our governance agenda recognizes that economic growth and security are only sustainable when the rule of law and democratic institutions flourish and civil society and media can play their rightful roles and corruption is reduced. 

And the prosperity and governance agendas are essential for the 

security agenda which we must act on effectively now. Otherwise, 

the payoff from those other two will not bear fruit in the longer 

term. 

We are a long way from achieving those goals in Central America, and that was obvious last summer in the risk that thousands 

of children took, the risk of ever-present rape, abuse and death, to 

flee the dire conditions in their home countries. 

But, Mr. Chairman, over the past few months we have seen important successes. Our public messaging campaigns about the dangers of those journeys has effectively countered false messages. Increased focus on smuggling networks in Honduras and Guatemala 

has led to the arrest and rescue of over 235 children, and the Government of Mexico has been a vital and capable partner. Apprehensions are down to levels not seen since January 2013. 

But we know that this must be sustained by increased commitments by both the administration and Congress. And so, yes, we 

have as one alternative offered, at the direction of the White 

House, a new program that will allow parents lawfully present in 

the United States from those three countries to petition for their 

children in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to come to the 

United States as refugees. Those children not eligible for refugee 

status may be considered on a case-by-case basis for humanitarian 

parole. And it is equally important that we fund the implementation of this strategy, which could take as much as $5 billion over 

5 years to fully implement. 

7

We believe, again, that there is reason for optimism about Central America. The three leaders of the northern triangle have already begun to take tough decisions and are investing their own 

national budgets. We have a vision and a plan, and we want to 

work with you to help Central America and protect U.S. national 

security. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobson follows:]

8


91454a-1.eps
9


91454a-2.eps
10


91454a-3.eps
11


91454a-4.eps
12


91454a-5.eps
13

Mr. SALMON. We will move to Ms. Hogan. 

STATEMENT OF MS. ELIZABETH HOGAN, ACTING ASSISTANT 

ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE 

CARIBBEAN, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. HOGAN. Thank you. 

Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sires, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to share how USAID is 

responding to the challenge of unaccompanied minors migrating 

from Central America to the U.S. border. Our response to this challenge is consistent with USAID’s mission, which is to partner to 

end extreme poverty and promote resilient democratic societies 

while advancing our security and prosperity. 

In recognition of the gravity of the development challenges in 

Central America and the impact those challenges could have on the 

United States, USAID has maintained funding levels in Central 

America, even in a constrained budget environment. In fact, we 

have shifted approximately $100 million over the last 5 years from 

USAID programs in South America to Central America. 

However, as the recent spike of unaccompanied minors over the 

summer clearly demonstrates, more needs to be done. This is why 

the administration requested additional resources in the Fiscal 

Year 2014 supplemental budget. We believe these additional resources will result in security and development gains that far exceed their costs, even in the short run. Through the Central America Regional Security Initiative, or CARSI, we are supporting crime 

and violence prevention programs that expand opportunities for 

youths living in high-crime neighborhoods and strengthening the 

institutions charged with administering justice and keeping people 

safe. 

USAID’s prevention strategy revolves around smart targeting, 

both geographic and demographic, concentrating prevention efforts 

on high-risk youth and high-risk communities. I am pleased to report that we have independent evidence that our programs are 

working. The final results from a rigorous 4-year impact evaluation 

carried out by Vanderbilt University in El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Honduras, and Panama, show that as a direct result of USAID programs, reported crime is lower, and citizens feel safer in the neighborhoods where we are working. 

When compared to a 2010 baseline in these same target communities, the Vanderbilt evaluation found that, in Guatemala, 60 percent fewer residents reported being aware of homicides; in Honduras, 57 percent fewer reported being aware of extortion; and in 

El Salvador, 36 percent fewer reported being aware of illegal drug 

sales in their neighborhoods. In short, where USAID works, people 

see their communities getting better. 

The adoption, ownership, and expansion of proven approaches by 

Central American governments are more important than ever. 

President Hernandez of Honduras has publicly committed to allocating 30 percent of the funds collected through the country’s security tax to support prevention programs like ours. 

In Guatemala, the government has expanded USAID’s successful 

24-hour court model to additional communities. 

14

And the Government of El Salvador launched its ambitious new 

National Strategy for Violence Prevention in February to empower 

municipalities to lead prevention efforts. 

While insecurity is cited as a primary driver for the migration of 

minors from the region, the lack of jobs and economic opportunity 

at home is also a critical factor. USAID’s development programs 

also seek to improve educational opportunities and livelihoods for 

the poor in rural areas. These programs remain imminently relevant because they complement and amplify our youth and urbanoriented crime prevention programming. For example, in El Salvador, a USAID partnership unlocked $25 million for small businesses to help spur job creation. As part of our Feed the Future investments in Honduras, USAID is promoting sustainable agricultural practices in the country’s drought-plagued region to improve 

the livelihoods and food security of 50,000 families. These kind of 

economic development programs align with our crime prevention 

programs to build a foundation for prosperity and, in so doing, relieve the pressure on youths and their families to migrate north. 

USAID continues to successfully utilize partnerships with the 

private sector to supplement and sustain our investments in Central America. We have leveraged approximately $40 million in private sector resources to support at-risk youth. In Honduras, we 

have developed 41 partnerships with companies to strengthen key 

agricultural value chains. We are also partnering with coffee industry leaders, like Starbucks, to help coffee farmers recover from the 

devastating impact of the coffee rust outbreak. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, despite the continued commitment of 

the region’s governments and private entities, we recognize that 

our current levels of resources are insufficient to spur the kind of 

large-scale, transformative change needed in the region. Additional 

funding would enable us to significantly scale successful programs 

in the communities in greatest need and fully implement the U.S. 

Government strategy for engagement with Central America, balancing the three interrelated objectives of prosperity, governance, 

and security. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hogan follows:]

15


91454b-1.eps
16


91454b-2.eps
17


91454b-3.eps
18


91454b-4.eps
19


91454b-5.eps
20


91454b-6.eps
21


91454b-7.eps
22


91454b-8.eps
23

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Kaplan. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT N. KAPLAN, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION 

Mr. KAPLAN. Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sires, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to testify on behalf of the Inter-American Foundation, 

an independent U.S. foreign assistance agency that works directly 

with the organized poor in Latin America and the Caribbean. 

We appreciate the subcommittee’s longstanding support of our 

mission to help people in the region help themselves. You well 

know the long list of push factors in Central America that contribute to the individuals’ decisions to leave their community. In 

the poor communities where the IAF works, we see the human 

costs of too few jobs, barriers to starting and sustaining small enterprises, and a lack of educational opportunities. 

In the northern triangle of Central America, one quarter of the population subsists on less than $2 a day. Violence is chronic. Government institutions are too often absent, and community safety 

nets have broken down. Facing these threats, families do not know 

where to turn. In this context, the IAF invests carefully to help 

local citizens gain some control over their lives by carrying out initiatives that they themselves conceive. 

Our grantees demonstrate their commitment by contributing their own funds to the effort. On average, they provide about $1.30 

for every dollar invested by the IAF, making the U.S. a minority 

partner in the development projects we support. Today our active 

portfolio in Central America includes 81 projects, representing $37 

million of combined investment by the IAF and our grantee partners. 

In the three northern triangle countries, we are supporting local 

initiatives in over 880 communities. Our work is not limited to 

youth, but 45 percent of our investment in these three countries 

benefits young people directly. 

Our work is having a real effect: 14,300 new jobs for low-income 

people have been created. In the northern triangle alone, 80 percent of our grantee partners who track household income reported 

an increase, on average more than doubling household income in 

a year. And it has reduced the appeal of migration. 

At the beginning of an IAF-funded project in El Salvador, 83 percent of participants under 26 said they would consider migrating. 

By mid-project, the number was down to 22 percent. A grantee 

partner in Guatemala combined education about the risks of migration with a credit program in training for small farming businesses. 

By the end of the grant, 79 percent of the 730 young participants 

said they had decided not to migrate. 

Equally important is building citizens’ ability to engage their 

government, a challenging goal in poor communities where many 

citizens are not equipped to voice concerns or engage with local officials. 

We have seen that when disadvantaged youths come together on 

their own initiative to build skills and safe spaces, start their own 

small businesses, and exercise leadership and teamwork for the 

benefit of their community, they are less likely to leave. Why? BeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:13 Feb 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_WH\111814\91454 SHIRL
24

cause they become invested in the present and future of their home 

communities. 

One Honduran teenager in Tegucigalpa recently told us: ‘‘Before 

participating in the program, I wanted only to follow the American 

dream. Now I believe that I can create my American dream here.’’ 

The IAF does much more than send dollars to the region, and the 

direct results of the projects we fund tell only part of the story. Our 

whole approach is designed to strengthen the capabilities of our 

grantee partners so they can take on even bigger challenges. Fundamentally, we want them to learn from each other and be leaders 

in their own communities. In the process, they create social and 

economic anchors at home and demonstrate their preference to 

stay. 

In fact, I am encouraged because we see many opportunities at 

the grassroots level to address the causes of youth migration. The 

impact of a single thriving community, an organized group of rural 

poor, or an inspired young person in an urban slum may seem 

small, but they become the safe havens and incubators of change 

that inspire others. If reached, if empowered, and if connected to 

each other, they are capable of generating the sea change so desperately needed in the region. They need a chance to become citizens because fundamentally, they are the ones who will change 

their communities and their countries. 

Forty-five years ago, a small congressional delegation of members 

of this committee paid a visit to Central America. What they 

learned was not surprising, that true long-lasting change depends 

in large part on thriving communities, communities that provide 

not only social and economic opportunities for the most 

marginalized but are themselves foundations upon which democracies are built. One result from that trip was the creation of the 

Inter-American Foundation, which helps support the protagonists, 

not participants, in their own development. 

Our work naturally complements other U.S. efforts for improving 

prosperity, governance, and security in Central American countries. 

Again, I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the IAF and our thousands of grassroots 

partners in the region. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaplan follows:]

25


91454c-1.eps
26


91454c-2.eps
27


91454c-3.eps
28


91454c-4.eps
29


91454c-5.eps
30


91454c-6.eps
31

Mr. SALMON. I am going to go ahead and ask questions, and then 

I will yield to the ranking member. My first question, maybe it 

would be most appropriate for you, Assistant Secretary, or Ms. 

Wiesner, but according to the information the administration released last Friday, individuals residing in the U.S. will be able to 

petition for refugee status for their children and their spouses living in Central America. This is, therefore, a family reunification 

program, presumably the priority 3, P–3 category. Under 8–CFR 

Section 207, a principal refugee admitted to the United States may 

request follow to join benefits for his or her spouse and/or unmarried children under the age of 21 if the family has become separated. 

My question is this: Are the family members living in the U.S. 

who will petition for these children refugees? Are they refugees, 

and if they are, have they been deemed as such, have they been 

deemed refugees? If not, under what authority are the nonrefugees 

living in the United States under a whole host of statuses allowed 

to petition refugee status for their family member? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I am going to turn to DAS Wiesner, who is much more expert in this, because I do think that this is not, in fact, the standard program that you are describing. It is something quite different, it is designed to focus on the children in-country who are 

obviously the ones that we are trying to get out of such a difficult 

circumstance in the three northern triangle countries without having them attempt this very dangerous journey and try and enter 

the country in the undocumented status as they did last year. 

Catherine. 

Ms. WIESNER. Sure. So to try to answer your question, and 

please follow up if I missed part of it. You asked if this is part of 

the P–3 program. It is not exactly the P–3 program; that is based 

on people who are out of their country of origin already as refugees. 

You asked if the parents themselves in the United States would 

be considered refugees under this program. They are not. They are 

considered under the statuses under which they are here. So they 

are either here as Lawful Permanent Residents or the additional 

six statuses that are eligible to apply. So the refugee claim is a 

claim of the child themselves, the child facing a risk of persecution, 

either they have experienced persecution or they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country on one of the five protected grounds. The five protected grounds are their race, their religion, their nationality, their political opinion, or their membership 

in a particular social group. 

So maybe another way to put it is the eligibility to petition in 

this program is one category. And those are the parents and their 

statuses here in the United States. But in order to be granted refugee status, the child themselves have to show that they are eligible for that status. 

Mr. SALMON. So it is not the P–3 program? 

Ms. WIESNER. It is not the P–3 program. 

Mr. SALMON. If a minor or spouse is not granted refugee status, 

they will be considered for parole. What kind of visa will they then 

be entering the United States with? And how will we be able to ensure that they don’t overstay if their 2-year renewal is not apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:13 Feb 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_WH\111814\91454 SHIRL
32

proved? And then, finally, the administration noticed the parolees 

would be able to attend school? Will a minor be allowed to attend 

a public university once he or she becomes of age? Will they qualify 

for Federal grants and State aid? And what is the real difference 

between a refugee and a parolee who can potentially apply for 

DACA if his parole status is not renewed? 

Ms. WIESNER. So I can definitely talk about some of the differences between the assistance offered to refugees who are resettled and what is available to parolees, but for details on the parole 

program, I will have to refer you to the Department of Homeland 

Security, who administers the parole program. 

So when a refugee comes to the United States under our resettlement program, they are eligible for a range of benefits, which include a resettlement and placement grant that is administered 

from the State Department through our resettlement agencies. And 

then they are also eligible for follow-on refugee benefits from 

Health and Human Services. And it includes things like assistance 

in enrolling in school when they become of age. If they are of age, 

then assistance getting jobs and housing. These will be children 

joining parents, so we assume that their parents already have 

housing and jobs, so it is really more about getting them into 

school as refugees. 

As well, there is no cost to apply to the program in either case, 

but if you come as a refugee, your medical check is free. And you 

will get a loan to take the flight to the United States, which you 

then have to repay back later. 

Parolee is a temporary—sorry, one of the more important aspects 

of refugee settlement is that it is a path to legal permanent status 

and to citizenship, and that is one of the main differences with parolees. That is a temporary status. As you noted, it often usually 

lasts for 2 years, and you have to apply for renewal. 

None of the benefits that I just mentioned for resettlement are 

available to parolees either. In fact, if you are not eligible for refugee status and are considered for parole, then your family has to 

submit an affidavit of support which shows that they are able to 

support you here in the United States. 

Mr. SALMON. And if it is not the P–3 program, what is it? What 

program is it? 

Ms. WIESNER. It is called in-country refugee processing, which is 

allowed—I mean, it is accounted for in the law. Both refugee status 

and parole discretion are in the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Mr. SALMON. Do you know what law it is under just so we can 

reference it? 

Ms. WIESNER. We can get the specific citations. 

Mr. SALMON. That is fine. 

I recognize the ranking member. 

Mr. SIRES. First of all, Chairman, let me apologize for being late. 

These days we have a lot of things going on. You know, I am 

upset about something that happened to us as this exodus happened. And I am very concerned about the origin of how this happened. I will go back and forth. Just try to follow me. 

When this whole thing started—and everybody is shocked about 

the kids and the conditions and everything else. The Hispanic Caucus called a meeting, and we asked the Ambassadors from these 

33

countries to come to the meeting so we can discuss how this whole 

thing started. Do you believe we got one Ambassador from these 

countries, and they sent staffers. Meanwhile, we have like 13, 14, 

15 Congress Members at this meeting, and we have to now try to 

deal with staffers. 

To me, that shows me that maybe they were not as serious at 

trying to stop this. To me, that just, I just don’t know if this whole 

stampede started as a rumor. And all these kids all of a sudden 

came across the border because of the rumors that started. 

But if 14 or 15 Members of Congress call for a meeting to try to 

help—this is the Hispanic Caucus trying to help—you don’t send 

a staffer to the meeting. You try to deal with the situation and see 

how it can best be alleviated. So I am more concerned about the 

roots of why this happened. And then, obviously, we have to deal 

after they get here. 

Right now there is a lull. Obviously, there is not as many kids 

coming over, but I don’t want to see this being used as a release 

on a pressure cooker on somebody saying we start this rumors and 

we get the coyotes to get these rumors, and you are going to have 

a rush of kids coming over. I just don’t know how you deal with 

that. 

Ms. JACOBSON. If I could, Mr. Sires, the only thing I would say 

is that I think one of the things that last summer taught all of us, 

both here in the United States but especially in these countries, 

was it was a wake-up call for some of the countries in terms of 

what they needed to do at home. And what we have seen over the 

last 5 months is a real shift in the attention to some of the underlying issues and in the will to address those issues back home to 

ensure that some of the areas that were not getting the attention 

they deserved geographically, because we know where most of the 

kids are coming from and their families, and economically and in 

terms of level of violence, which were not being attended to by either national governments or local governments. So I do think you 

see a difference, as you saw reflected in the three Presidents here 

last week, in the attention to those causes. 

Mr. SIRES. Does anybody have any other observation? 

Mr. KAPLAN. Yes. I can’t speak to what the Ambassadors did 

here, but I have to say that on the ground, in the communities 

where we are working, hundreds of communities throughout the region, the objective conditions on the ground are really as horrendous as everybody has been describing them with levels of violence 

and poverty. 

Mr. SIRES. I don’t doubt that at all. I am a Hispanic. I think I 

know a little bit about the Western Hemisphere. But my concern 

is this business of using a rumor or starting a stampede to release 

the pressure of what is happening in these countries. 

So we have to really try to address—and I know you are doing 

your best and some of the USAID is doing their best, but I don’t 

know if it is enough because I don’t think this is going to be over. 

I think this is going to continue, and then, obviously, we are going 

to have to deal with the immigration issue here in America and 

how to deal with our own issues here. 

Ms. JACOBSON. But you have also had governments that have 

stepped up their antismuggling legislation and the units that they 

34

are using to go after those traffickers and to put out the message 

that this won’t be tolerated as well, so I think that is very important. 

Mr. SIRES. I think what happened was those governments realized how upset this country was, and they were concerned that 

maybe some of the aid would be cut if they don’t step up to the 

plate and start doing some things about what is going on in their 

own country with their own children. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 

Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for your work 

on this this summer. It was a real problem and you went to try 

to get your hands around and head around what was going on. 

The President is supposed to consult with Congress to establish 

the number and groups of refugees eligible for admission each fiscal year. 

Ms. Jacobson, under what authority are you establishing the incountry refugee and parole program? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Well, I will be happy to ask Catherine to say anything further that she needs to, but my understanding is that when 

the numbers for the fiscal year are sent to Congress, as they were 

this September——

Mr. DUNCAN. Four thousand——

Ms. JACOBSON. Those numbers obviously are the numbers that 

we are working with. Those are the numbers that will include any 

increases in Central America. Obviously, a program like this would 

take time to set up. We would not expect numbers of any magnitude to really be seen until, frankly, quite a ways down the road, 

frankly probably late into 2015. Were we to need any additional 

numbers beyond that 4,000, there is some flexibility within the 

overall numbers, but we anticipate those numbers being adequate 

for the coming year. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So you are telling me nobody has been processed 

through this program to date? 

Ms. JACOBSON. No. That is correct. In fact, the program itself 

will not even begin to take applications into it any earlier than at 

least the beginning of December. It has not begun. And, obviously, 

as a new program, this will begin, and we will see in terms of the 

kinds of response that we get. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Who sets the cap? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Well, in a program like this, there is no cap at 

the outset. We have to see who qualifies for the——

Mr. DUNCAN. It is just an open number of refugees that are able 

to come into this country? There is no cap? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Obviously, what we sent to Congress is the overall cap in refugees. That stands. 

Mr. DUNCAN. What is the cap for 2015. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Four thousand for this region. I don’t know what 

the global number is. 

Ms. WIESNER. Sir, the global number is 70,000, and that is established by Presidential authority and Presidential determination. 

Mr. DUNCAN. That is from all countries? 

35

Ms. WIESNER. That is globally, exactly, and so 70,000 is a cap. 

It is what we budget against. 

Mr. DUNCAN. What is the cap for Central America? 

Ms. WIESNER. And then, within that, we make allocations. For 

Latin America and the Caribbean, the allocation right now is 4,000. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Do you anticipate any change and increase in those 

number for Central America out of that global number? 

Ms. WIESNER. We left at 4,000 because we thought that was 

probably appropriate, but there is some flexibility to change it if 

need be over the course of the——

Mr. DUNCAN. We are seeing Syrian refugees. We are seeing Afghans, Iraqis. There is a global need of people seeking to come to 

this country. So I guess what I am asking, are you planning on expanding the number from Central America, or are you going to 

leave it sort of like it is, status quo? 

Ms. WIESNER. At this point we left it at 4,000. I would just add 

that in addition to including this in-country program specifically in 

the report that went to Congress in September, we did the required 

consultations with the Judiciary Committee, where this program 

was raised, and also did staff briefings back in September, so there 

has been some consultation in advance of the Vice President’s remarks on Friday. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And I am not saying which number is right or 

wrong. I am just trying to get my head around what you are going 

to do with that allocation. 

I have a question just reading this. You know, in this country, 

you can vote when you are 18. You can sign a contract and be tied 

to that when you are 18. You can get married. You can be tried 

as an adult at 18. But in everything I am reading here, you are 

identifying children as 21 and younger. Why? 

Ms. WIESNER. That is the definition of minor children that DHS 

uses according to the law. 

Mr. DUNCAN. By the way, we asked DHS to come to this hearing, 

and they refused. That was my request. 

It is interesting because a parent is eligible to request program 

access for his child who is a resident in one of the three countries 

if the parent is at least 18 years old, but the child—you are going 

to identify a child as 21 or younger, but you are saying a parent 

has to be at least 18. There seems to be some hypocrisy there. 

If we need to change that in the law, we will change it. But there 

is hypocrisy of the two ages. In the United States, you are a child 

until you are 18 years old. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. WIESNER. The definition of a minor youth is in the law, but, 

obviously, if the petitioning parent is 18, the child is going to be 

significantly younger than that. 

Mr. SALMON. My wife says I am still a child. 

Mr. DUNCAN. This is true. 

So you are allowing the children. And, from what I am hearing, 

you all have found a way to get these children into this country 

without them having to take that arduous journey across Mexico 

and on the trains and everything that we have seen. 

What specific circumstances would you allow a second parent residing in the home country, say El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras, to be added to the child’s petition and be considered a refVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:13 Feb 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_WH\111814\91454 SHIRL
36

ugee? Not just talking about the children. Mom if she is in El Salvador, or dad, can come with them. 

Ms. WIESNER. Right. So they have to be the parent of the child, 

or they have to have been married to the petitioning parent in the 

United States at the time that that parent received their legal status in the United States. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Is that common practice for other countries as well 

for refugee status? Do we allow mom and dad to come with the 

child? 

Ms. WIESNER. That is actually the P–3 program that the chairman spoke about previously. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Historically, in the P–3 program, do we allow mom 

and dad to accompany the child? 

Ms. WIESNER. It is usually the child accompanying the mom and 

dad in that case. 

Mr. DUNCAN. What circumstances would prevent a parent from 

being considered for refugee status? 

Ms. WIESNER. The same definition for refugee status applies for 

the child as for the parent. If the parent is not eligible for refugee 

status, then they could be considered for parole. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. My time is up. 

Are we going to have another round of questions? I just yield 

back right now. 

Mr. SALMON. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. DeSantis. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess the issue with me is our policies that are adopted particularly unilaterally now by the administration more and more, 

that effects the behavior that we see. When the President did the 

administrative amnesty for minors in 2012, that was a signal that 

was sent. You had Biden going down this summer saying, no, no, 

no, it doesn’t apply to you, only if you were here a certain time. 

The Honduran President said there was a lack of clarity in U.S. 

laws that were contributing to this surge. 

I wanted to ask—and my colleague from South Carolina mentioned DHS. I wish they would have been here. An issue that I 

think does send a signal for people to come illegally that involves 

both DHS and Department of State. I was shocked when we received this report on the Judiciary Committee: Fiscal Year 2013, 

ICE released 36,700 convicted criminals who were in the country 

illegally rather than have them detained, pending outcome of deportation proceedings. We always hear, we got to focus the resources on the criminals, the people who really mean us harm. 

Some of the convictions that these people were convicted: 193 homicide convictions, 426 sexual assault convictions, kidnapping, aggravated assault, vehicle theft, drug trafficking, very, very serious offenses. And yet DHS is releasing these individuals into American 

society rather than repatriate them back to their nation of origin. 

Now, what does that have to do with the State Department? 

Here is why. Now, not all of them. We asked DHS to provide us 

the list of offenses and identify reasons to the best they could why 

they were released. Some of the people they claimed that they want 

to return them to their home country, but their home country just 

won’t accept them. They are only allowed to hold people for so long 

37

under binding court decisions, and so they have no choice but to 

release them. 

The way I understand the system is supposed to work is that you 

have somebody, let’s say that has been convicted of rape. They are 

here illegally. No right to be here. Our Government is supposed to 

go to that country. Let’s say it is China. You go to China, and you 

say, hey, here, take your national. And if China doesn’t take them 

back, then we are under 8 U.S.C. Section 1253, subsection delta, 

the Secretary of Department of State shall order the consular offices in that foreign country to discontinue granting visas to nationals and citizens of that country until DHS has certified that they 

are accepting their convicted foreign nationals. 

So, Secretary Jacobson, we know that some of these people who 

had been are convicted are from countries in the Western Hemisphere. Has the State Department ordered any consular offices in 

any of those countries to stop granting visas because those countries have not accepted some of these convicted criminal illegal immigrants? 

Ms. JACOBSON. We have not, Congressman, and the main reason 

we have not is, as you, I think, realize, the cutting off of visa services to a country is an extreme step that really leaves us sort 

of——

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, actually, it may be that, but as I read it, 

I think the statute says that the Secretary of State shall order. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Sir, the only thing that I would like to add is all 

three of these countries are taking back criminal deportees. They 

may not be taking back all of them, and they certainly are not taking back as quickly as we would like in terms of the court’s ability 

to hold them or authority to hold them. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And I understand that. What the countries are 

doing is one thing. I want to try to hone in on how the State Department——

Mr. JACOBSON. You have to have documentation to go back, and 

that is what we have to work out with the Country. Right? 

Mr. DESANTIS. No, no. I understand that, but my point is these 

people are being released, so clearly there was a breakdown somewhere along the line. Now, as I read the statute, I think a lot of 

my colleagues on Judiciary, we believe that that is the way the system works. You don’t take them back, the State then takes the step 

that it is an obligatory duty. The statute uses the word ‘‘shall.’’ 

Now, in your initial response, you suggested that that may be an 

extreme measure, and that it is a discretionary—it is up to the Secretary to determine whether that step needs to be taken, and as 

I read it, Congress has expressed the will that the Secretary of 

State needs to do this. So is it an obligatory duty? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I am sitting here before you. I want to be honest. 

I am not a lawyer, and my lawyers at the Department would get 

nervous if I tried to interpret law here. But those countries are taking back criminal deportees. They have not refused as a matter of 

policy or their own law. 

Mr. DESANTIS. You are talking about just the three countries at 

issue here? 

Ms. JACOBSON. In particular, yes. 

38

Mr. DESANTIS. But there are other countries in the Western 

Hemisphere who have not taken some of the deportees because if 

there is not, then we are getting two different stories between 

State and DHS. That is why I think it would have been good to 

have DHS here. 

Ms. JACOBSON. I would have liked to have my colleagues here, 

but I think what we are talking about is the question of whether 

it is a country’s policy not to take back any criminal deportees or 

whether they are simply not taking back as many or as quickly as 

we would like them to take it back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I don’t even think it needs to be a policy. I think 

as soon as DHS notifies the State Department that the government 

of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an 

alien who is a citizen—maybe it has to be in all cases, I don’t know. 

But it seems clear to me that if we are in a situation where we 

are releasing, DHS is releasing a lot of these people, maybe they 

are just not notifying the State Department about everyone that 

they are releasing. I would want to know that information, too. 

Maybe it is that they are notifying the State Department, and the 

State Department is not taking the step that the statute requires. 

Maybe the State Department is actually returning a portion of 

them, but I think, you look at someone, the President or people on 

the very far left who want essentially an open border; people on the 

far right don’t want—they want to stop even some legal immigration—everyone in that whole gambit believes that when people are 

here and committing serious criminal offenses, that we need to protect the American people and send them back. 

Ms. JACOBSON. We are absolutely in the same place on that, and 

let me assure you that DHS and the State Department work really 

closely on the issue of criminal deportees. And when we are notified by DHS, we work really closely with them to push very hard 

to get countries to take back those criminal deportees. 

Mr. DESANTIS. But not hard enough to where you would actually 

stop the issuing of visas? 

Mr. JACOBSON. We succeed very often in getting criminal deportees returned. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I appreciate that, but very often, so we had 193 

homicide convictions. Let’s just say 20 of those from the Western 

Hemisphere, very often maybe we return 15 of them. That means 

you have five people that are going to be released by ICE, which 

I don’t think is an acceptable number. I want to get to the bottom, 

and maybe this is something we can do jointly between this subcommittee and Judiciary. 

Mr. SALMON. Actually, if the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Yep. 

Mr. SALMON. It is something I am pursuing. Our sheriff of Maricopa County approached me—I don’t know how many of you remember a few weeks ago the two sheriff deputies in California that 

were murdered by an illegal——

Mr. DESANTIS. Right. 

Mr. SALMON [continuing]. Somebody that was here illegally. 

Well, he had been in our Arpaio’s jail four different times and released by INS—or, excuse me, by DHS four different times, and 

then he told me there are thousands that come through his jail 

39

alone that are flagged by DHS, whether it is a rape or a murder 

or drug charges, they are flagged, and then they are taken and 

they don’t know where they go. 

The sheriff has no idea whether they are released into the 

States, here in the States, or if they are deported and sent back, 

but he does know that they are coming back to his prison again because they are being re-arrested for different crimes that they have 

committed since the original crime that they were arrested for. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, look, Mr. Chairman, you know, we can get 

DHS here, we can get some people from Judiciary, Homeland Security, because at the end of the day, 36,000 convicts and the total 

number of convictions in Fiscal Year 2013, 88,000 convictions 

among that class, that clearly is not doing what is necessary to 

keep the American people safe, and so there is a breakdown somewhere, and I don’t——

It was tough getting the information from DHS to begin with, 

but I want to see, because I think the system is supposed to work 

to where if they are not accepting them, then there are consequences, and most countries will probably rather accept them 

than accept the consequences, and so we need to make sure that 

that is——

Mr. SALMON. It needs to be a joint hearing, as you said, and we 

are pursing it. In fact, you and I talked——

Mr. DUNCAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SALMON. Yes, I would. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on 

the Homeland Security Committee, and we are looking into the 

issue of the released prisoners and the subject you talked about in 

Maricopa County. 

So I don’t think you limit it to this subcommittee and Judiciary. 

I think you involve the Homeland Security Committee, and Secretary Jacobson was talking about, DHS and State working well together, well if they work so well together, why is DHS not sitting 

at the table today? 

Mr. SALMON. All right. I am going to go ahead, and if it is all 

right, go through one more round of questions. 

And my first question is regarding a report that was released 

today by the Seattle International Foundation. It shows that from 

2010 to 2012—this is for you, Ms. Hogan, U.S. foundations invested 

$488 million in Central America. 

So moving forward, how will the Obama administration work 

with private donors to leverage these resources to ensure that the 

Federal Government’s dollars are maximized? Also, are you currently coordinating any public/private partnership in El Salvador, 

Guatemala or Honduras focused on vocational programs and workforce competitiveness, and if so, can you tell us how they work and 

how they contribute to economic prosperity in the communities 

where they are administered? 

Ms. HOGAN. Thank you very much for that question. I will start 

with the work that we are doing with the private sector on workforce development that we do in Central America as well as Mexico 

and the Caribbean, and we have seen some really great successes 

as a result of that combination of resources that the private sector 

brings to bear along with the training that we can provide. 

40

And what the private sector is looking for are people that have 

the kind of skills that can go into the jobs that they have openings 

for. And so with work/life skills, with computer skills, with marketoriented training, what we have been able to see is these companies picking up these youths to go and work for them. 

In fact, in one of our programs, we have seen 77 percent of the 

youth that come out of our workforce training programs either go 

to work or go back to school for increased education. 

The other thing that we are seeing is that youth that come out 

of these training programs, these workforce development programs, 

are also sometimes opening up their own businesses based on the 

skills that they develop as a result of this training. So we are very 

excited about it. It keeps kids in the communities, the companies 

get the kind of skill mix that they need, and it has really been a 

very successful flourishing partnership with some of the key companies of the region. 

As far as how we work with private foundations, one of the 

things that we are doing in Central America is designing what we 

call a safe cities approach to be sure that we can bring all the resources to bear in a particular place-based strategy so that we 

draw upon the resources, not just of the U.S. Government, but as 

we already are doing with the private sector, but also with international—other donors, for example, with the international development banks that might be investing in this, as well as private 

foundations, and so what we are doing is scoping out who has interest in this community, who has something to bring to the table 

for support, and how can we maximize our impact by bringing all 

of that together under one strategy, one set of metrics, for one set 

of results. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. SALMON. Yes. Thank you. 

Ms. JACOBSON [continuing]. Just real quickly, I am going to go 

from this hearing to speak at NASA, which is a student exchange 

convention that is here in town, and as part of the President’s 

100,000 Strong in the Americas, which is, as you know, not a government program, we have raised over $3 million of private funds 

to try and do these university-to-university partnerships. 

But the part I am proudest of are not the traditional partnerships. They are, frankly, the partnerships of either what we call vocational training schools or community colleges, which don’t necessarily exist in some of the Central American countries to provide 

that gap between high school and a 4-year college which most of 

these kids will not have access to. 

And at that conference today, there will be Chilean students who 

were at Montclair State. We are doing a lot of work, in fact, with 

Arizona, both with ASU and in some of the community college systems. This is where I think some of our best private/public work 

can be done in the education sphere in places like Central America. 

Mr. SALMON. Assistant Secretary Jacobson, I not only serve on 

this committee, but I am on the Education and Workforce Committee also, and I have worked with Arizona State and Maricopa 

Community College system for years and years and years. In fact, 

I used to represent them as well in my private life. 

41

So I really would love to figure out a way—at least maybe we 

could do some pilot stuff in Arizona, and I would love to work with 

you and the Secretary of Education to try to come up with some 

innovative ways, because that really is—the way to empower people, that is the way to get them out of poverty. That is the way 

to get freedom. So I would really love to work with you on that. 

The Chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Yes. Years ago when we used to deport criminals, I 

think we would just send them back. Do we have a situation now 

where we send them back with a rap sheet knowing what they did, 

and is there any follow-up to see if some of these people reappear 

again here in the States? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Mr. Sires, what I am going to give you is sort of 

a partial answer, because some of the rest of it I am going to get 

back to you on as well as checking with my DHS and Justice Department brethren. 

We have worked over the last number of years to do better with 

the countries in the region at giving them information on the criminal history of the people that they are going to be accepting with 

criminal deportees. They ask, I think legitimately, to know what 

kinds of crimes they have committed so that they can be prepared 

as a receiving country to know what kinds of—you know, if they 

go back into the communities, how did they have to prepare themselves. 

Some of that information is now much better able to be transferred to other governments. We have pilot programs. I know that 

both DHS and Justice have worked with countries in Central 

America and in the Caribbean to try and convey as much information as possible within our own laws so that they can give countries 

an idea of the history of criminal deportees. 

Beyond that, obviously those folks are put into a system so that 

in the future when they might attempt to come back into the country through legal means they are registered in the system as having criminal records in the United States, and that should not be 

possible. If they come in via undocumented or illegal means, obviously, that is a different story, but obviously that information is 

put into both State Department and DHS databases. 

Mr. SALMON. If the gentleman would yield——

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Mr. SALMON. I have actually done quite a bit of research on this, 

and the ones that we are talking about were never adjudicated. 

They are arrested and arraigned for an accused crime, but they 

never get to adjudication because they are flagged and INS comes 

and gets them and either deports them or lets them go before they 

are ever even adjudicated. 

So that is one of the big missing problems. They certainly—if 

they are deported, they don’t go serve in the prisons in those countries. They are out scot-free, and of course they don’t come back the 

legal way. 

The other interesting thing is during the situation with the unaccompanied minors. Remember how we were told that they came—

they didn’t come to the entry points. They came to the middle 

ground. Why did they do that? Because then it took all kinds of 

42

agents off of the checkpoints, and meanwhile the bad guys would 

sneak through other places. They were used as decoys. 

So it is not about being able to get a good handle on them because, as I was told by Sheriff Arpaio, he has had some that have 

been in his prison ten times or more for different crimes, ten different crimes. So they have been arrested, flagged by INS, released, 

back in jail, arrested on another crime a few months later or 1 year 

later. It is a serious problem. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. I just have a few follow-up questions 

or final questions, rather. 

The U.S. is contracting out refugee processing to the International Organization for Migration. So why aren’t you working 

with the U.N. Refugee agency, UNHCR, to establish IDP camps if 

the situation is so dire in Central America that these children are 

having to escape the situations there? 

Ms. WIESNER. Sure. In fact, we are doing both. We work with the 

International Organization of Migration around the world on the 

processing of resettled refugees, and as you know, we have a very 

strong relationship with UNHCR as well. 

We recently gave UNHCR a grant of 700—around $770,000 as an 

initial contribution toward their work in Central America with the 

express purpose of building up their presence there, understanding 

the dynamics of internal displacement within these countries and 

working with the governments to increase protections for children 

at risk of harm in their own country so that they won’t have to flee. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Is the U.N. setting up IDP camps in Central America? 

Ms. WIESNER. They are not setting up IDP camps, but they are 

working with the governments to understand right now the dynamics of internal displacement. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. What is the cost for the U.S. to contract with 

IOM? 

Ms. WIESNER. I don’t have those figures for you right now. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Was it a competitive bidding process? Why was it 

awarded to them? Why was an MOU given to them? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I think you may be talking—because I don’t think 

we have offered any kind of contracting yet for the in-country processing. I am not——

Mr. DUNCAN. My understanding is an MOU was filled. 

Ms. JACOBSON. But I am talking—the MOU that we have with 

the IOM is on the repatriated folks who go back from the United 

States, the families and the adults, and we have contracted with 

IOM to do the repatriation of those folks who came during the 

summer surge——

Mr. DUNCAN. In their home country? 

Ms. JACOBSON [continuing]. So there are two different—there are 

two different contracts. 

Ms. HOGAN. Let me just add to what Roberta just said. USAID has a $7.6 million grant to the IOM, International Organization for Migration, to help governments prepare to upgrade the 

reception services that they provide to repatriated migrants, and 

we have seen that the governments in turn have really stepped up 

to the plate in terms of making more space available, getting volVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:13 Feb 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_WH\111814\91454 SHIRL
43

unteers to help in processing people, making sure they get food 

when they get off the plane, giving them medical referrals, job referrals, et cetera. 

So they have been doing quite a bit and we have seen—I actually 

got to see a plane of migrants repatriated in Honduras, and it went 

very, very smoothly, and I think that IOM has really done a very 

good job and is standing by to see if additional services may be required. 

Ms. WIESNER. Congressman, just to clarify, so IOM does do a lot. 

They implement this program for USAID. They are the existing 

contractor for us for the existing resettlement support center in 

Quito, Ecuador, and it is that center that we are going to be expanding to accommodate this new program in Central America, 

and when that contract contribution was awarded to IOM several 

years ago, it was a competitive process posted online for the existing resettlement support center in Quito. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. Okay. 

Vice President Biden talked about providing $9.6 million to Central America, and in July the administration requested an additional $300 million. A lot of money promised. The President promised some money this week over in China. Where is this money 

coming from? Does it come out of your budget at the State Department? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Well, as you know, the $300 million that the 

President was talking about was in the supplemental that was sent 

to Congress this summer, and the 9.6 that the Vice President 

talked about when he was—I think it was probably when he was 

in Guatemala earlier in June, was funds that we reallocated from 

within the State Department’s budget that we thought was much 

more urgently needed, quite honestly, in Central America for 

things like repatriation and resettlement of migrants——

Mr. DUNCAN. I mean, the reason I ask that question, I get this 

question at home a lot, because every time we turn around, the 

Vice President or someone in the administration is promising $100 

million here, $1 billion here, and your budget’s finite. You know, 

it is set by Congress. So are you all shrinking your budget? Are you 

reallocating resources? What programs are being changed here? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Certainly some of the funds are coming from reallocation. There was a Congressional notification that went forward just a few days ago for about $76 million in funds for INL, 

the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, funds to be reallocated toward Central America. Those, I believe, were originally 

funds from a number of years ago destined for Iraq that could no 

longer be used. Those are being reallocated for Central America. Some funds have been from elsewhere. The $300 million, as you 

know, was the supplemental request. That was not taken from 

elsewhere, but even so, as you know, the $300 million in the supplemental request was out of a $3.7 billion overall request. So the 

foreign assistance portion of it was really quite small. 

We continue to believe that although foreign assistance budgets 

are extremely constrained, we are well aware it is, in fact, more efficient if we use those funds in the countries to try and address 

those root causes than if we try and deal with the effects of it right 

here on our territory and our——

44

Mr. DUNCAN. And I am not arguing today about the appropriate 

use or inappropriate use of the money, but I guess I am concerned 

as a Member of Congress and accountable to the taxpayers that I 

would love to see a breakdown of the State Department’s budget 

and all the promises made and where that money is coming from. 

How you are reallocating that money. 

Mr. Chairman, that might be a request that the Foreign Affairs 

Committee as a whole makes to the State Department because 

there are a lot of promises made by the administration that we 

have got to find enough money through a CR or an appropriations 

bill to fund or they have got to reallocate. I would love to see that. 

The last thing that I wanted to ask, Mr. Chairman, really probably is for DHS, and they are not here, but I just wonder, how 

many new DHS personnel will be required at U.S. Embassies in 

the Northern Triangle countries to implement this program? Do 

you all know? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Do you mean the in-country refugee processing 

program? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. 

Ms. JACOBSON. I don’t know that we have a specific number yet 

of individuals, although I think in general this will be carried out 

by others in terms of the—in the countries, the three countries, but 

frankly, as we implement all of these efforts to reduce migration, 

I don’t think there is any doubt that we may need some additional 

people in our Embassies in all three countries. Let me ask——

Mr. DUNCAN. I mean, my understanding, Madam Assistant Secretary, is that DHS has refugee interview locations in six Latin 

American countries but not in the Northern Triangle countries. 

Ms. JACOBSON. I think that is correct. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Are they planning to shift personnel or add? And 

I guess that is my—the gist of it. 

Ms. WIESNER. They do circuit rides in many parts of the world. 

There are some refugee adjudicators based at Embassies, but most 

of the refugee interviews that are done around the world are people 

who come in for a circuit ride of 6 weeks and conduct a number 

of interviews. So that is the model that we will be using to start 

in Central America. So there will be no additional burden on the 

Embassies. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. That is a good thing. 

Mr. Chairman, I had an experience with an Afghan interpreter, 

translator, served with 3rd Infantry, and it took 2 years to get 

someone that the Army vouched for, several generals, I don’t know 

if Petraeus did, but Allen did, a number of others to get this gentleman into this country. Vouched for by the military, fought alongside our military in Afghanistan, threatened by the Taliban, lost 

his uncle during the process. 

Took 2 years. Had his visa issued to come to this country and 

then State pulled it away from him. He was chased from the Embassy home and evaded Taliban numerous times. I throw that out 

there in that I would hope the process is at least as taxing for refugee children coming from Central America as it was from somebody coming from Afghanistan, and I say that in that it shouldn’t 

be taxing. It shouldn’t be as taxing for people in Afghanistan that 

serve our Nation. 

45

Mr. SALMON. Well, and it begs a bigger question. I understand 

that the numbers, even though there is a 4,000 number, that can 

be exceeded if they come from another area. Right? Is that correct? 

What I mean is, the total number for the world is, what, 70,000? 

Ms. WIESNER. 70,000. 

Mr. SALMON. Yeah. And so if you decide to reallocate that or 

have 10,000 come from Central America, you just have to shrink 

it somewhere else so it stays under the total global amount. Right? 

Ms. WIESNER. There would have to be a reallocation if the number went above 4,000. There is some flexibility built into the system. We also, as Assistant Secretary Jacobson noted, won’t be accepting applications before December. So, you know, the Fiscal 

Year 2015 comes to end pretty soon thereafter. 

Mr. SALMON. Because a concern would be that there are very calamitous situations in other parts of the world, Sudan, as you mentioned, Afghanistan, and it would be tragic—I mean, I hope it is 

at least based on the most serious people globally and it is an equal 

standard. 

I would hope that if somebody gets over here because they are 

uncomfortable where they are living and somebody else has the 

threat of death for their religious belief in another part of the 

world, I would hope the greater consideration would be given to the 

latter. 

Ms. WIESNER. And there is prioritization given to cases that are 

at the greatest risk of harm. So there are expedited processes for 

those cases. 

Mr. SALMON. And does the gentleman Sean Duffy have any questions? We have last round if you would like. 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate you holding this hearing to shed light on what 

is going on. 

Ms. Wiesner, do you have this document in front of you with a 

list of categories? 

Yes? 

Would you do me a favor? Would you maybe walk me through 

one by one and just tell us what these are and what was the rationale for putting them on the list. So if you could start with the 

Lawful Permanent Resident. Who is a Lawful Permanent Resident 

and why did they make it onto the category list? 

Ms. WIESNER. So I am afraid this is going to be another instance 

where we are going to disappointed that the Department of Homeland Security is not here because these are all——

Mr. DUFFY. I am sure you won’t disappoint. 

Ms. WIESNER [continuing]. Statuses. No, we are definitely. We 

would like to be able to present this jointly with them. It is a joint 

program. 

So these categories were developed jointly with the Department 

of Homeland Security. These are all considered to be lawfully 

present statuses by the Department of Homeland Security, and in 

designing a program——

Mr. DUFFY. So it is—I don’t have a whole lot of time, but if you 

would just walk me through each one, and if you know the rationale, who are these individuals and what was the rationale, if you 

know, how they got on the list. 

46

Ms. WIESNER. I can walk you through the categories. Lawful Permanent Resident is relatively self-explanatory, I think. 

Temporary Protected Status applies to nationals of El Salvador 

and Honduras. Those are two of many countries that benefit from 

Temporary Protected Status. They were awarded at different times 

in the past due to natural disasters and events. 

Mr. DUFFY. And are the first two, both of them, those two 

statuses would be here legally. Correct? 

Ms. WIESNER. Everybody on this list is considered to be lawfully 

present. 

Mr. DUFFY. Okay. Parolee granted for at least 1 year, what is 

that? 

Ms. WIESNER. So parole is a discretionary authority given to the 

Secretary of Homeland Security to admit people to the United 

States based on an urgent humanitarian need or in the public interest. 

Mr. DUFFY. So someone who was brought here but it is not a status that is given someone who was already in the United States. 

Is that correct? 

Ms. WIESNER. Correct. 

Mr. DUFFY. Okay. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA). 

Ms. WIESNER. I can’t say much more about that than I think 

what everybody knows. 

Mr. DUFFY. So a quick question on DACA. This was executive action from the President. Right? Is that correct? 

Ms. WIESNER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. DUFFY. And if you are a child who has taken advantage of 

DACA, do you really have legal status or is it just a deferred removal program? You don’t have legal status if you are a child in 

the DACA program; are you? 

Ms. WIESNER. I believe that DHS would make a distinction between a legal status and lawfully present, and would say that 

under the DACA program people are lawfully present. 

Mr. DUFFY. For how long? 

Ms. WIESNER. For the period granted. 

Mr. DUFFY. How long is the DACA program in action? 

Ms. WIESNER. I can’t answer that question. 

Mr. DUFFY. So this is not a long-term permanent status. It is an 

executive action made by the President——

Mr. SALMON. Would the gentleman yield? 

It is only guaranteed through the President’s term. 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Would you agree with that, Ms. Wiesner? 

Ms. WIESNER. I mean, that is the definition of an executive action. 

Mr. DUFFY. Right. So if you are someone who is here in the 

United States and not going to be removed because of executive action, that is good for another 2 years, and they have made this list 

so they can basically engage in chain migration, bringing family 

members up from Central America. Is that correct? 

Ms. WIESNER. I think what you are getting at——

Mr. DUFFY. Is that correct? 

47

Ms. WIESNER [continuing]. Is the status that the children will 

have when they get here, and it is true that if you have refugee 

status, you have a path to legal citizenship. 

It is also true that if you arrive at our border and apply for asylum and are eligible for it, then you have a legal path to citizenship. 

Mr. DUFFY. But that is different——

Ms. WIESNER. So this is offering the same opportunity to the 

same children but before they take the dangerous journey. 

For those who would be admitted under parole, they would be 

admitted under a temporary status as well. 

Mr. DUFFY. But being a Lawful Permanent Resident is something far different than someone who has a status for the remaining 2 years, or while the President is the President. Correct? 

And they are able to take advantage of this program though 

their legal—the legality of their status will only remain for another 

2 years. Is that fair to say? 

Ms. WIESNER. I think it is fair to say that these are all different 

categories, and some of them are permanent, some of them are 

temporary, and they are all considered lawfully present. 

Mr. DUFFY. Maybe you are right that I will be disappointed in 

this hearing. If you are telling me that they are all different categories, you have stated the obvious. That is why I am asking you 

about them. 

Let’s go to withholding of removal guarantee. What is that? The 

last one. 

Ms. WIESNER. I don’t have——

Mr. DUFFY. Grantee—removal of—withholding the removal 

grantee. You don’t know what that is? 

Ms. WIESNER. It means there is a removal order there with—

there is a withholding of a removal order. 

Mr. DUFFY. So there is an order to remove them, but that has 

been stayed. Is that your understanding? 

Ms. WIESNER. I am going to have to refer you to DHS for the details on the category. 

Mr. DUFFY. And they can take advantage of this program. Correct? 

Ms. WIESNER. Everybody on this list is eligible to apply for the 

programs. 

Mr. DUFFY. So there was an order to remove, it has been withheld, and you can take advantage of the program. 

If there are children who are found ineligible for refugee status, 

they could still be admitted if they are at risk of harm. What is 

the definition of ‘‘still at risk of harm?’’

Ms. WIESNER. Well, I think as the chairman and others outlined 

in their openings statements, we have all seen the incredible insecurities facing the region as well as the individual—the violence 

faced by individual children on a daily basis. So——

Mr. DUFFY. Is there a standard for that? 

Ms. WIESNER. The definition of significant harm is a discretionary authority granted to the Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. DUFFY. So it is discretionary. 

Ms. WIESNER. Correct. 

48

Mr. DUFFY. Okay. And we now have the current number that we 

can allow from the region is 4,000, but you have indicated that that 

number could go up. Is that correct? 

Ms. WIESNER. The allocation for Latin America and the Caribbean region right now for refugees is 4,000. 

Mr. DUFFY. And it can go up to how many? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Well, I mean, I think what Ms. Wiesner indicated 

was that the global total is 70,000. When we sent the refugee numbers forward for this year knowing that this program was going to 

start, we did not adjust that number. We did not think we would 

really need more than the 4,000, but it is only elastic up to the 

70,000, but no one believes that it will be expanded, obviously, to 

70,000. 

Mr. DUFFY. Of the 70,000 number, how much of that has been 

utilized? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Globally? 

Mr. DUFFY. I mean, if you have used up to 20,000 so far, you 

might have—you could take that 4,000 up to——

Ms. JACOBSON. Are you talking about with this program? This 

program hasn’t begun yet. 

Mr. DUFFY. No, no. I know, but you said there is a total of 70,000 

that——

Ms. JACOBSON. Right. Globally——

Ms. WIESNER. In the fiscal year. So about 6,000 refugees have arrived so far this fiscal year from around the world. 

Mr. DUFFY. Okay. So if the same was in the next fiscal year, in 

theory, you could move this from 4,000 up to 64,000, in theory. Not 

saying that you are, but you have a total of up to 70 that you could 

use, and if you have used six this year, you can do the same next 

year, the total number could be much higher than 4,000? Am I losing you? 

Ms. WIESNER. A little, because the 6,000 of the 70,000 have arrived this year. 

Mr. DUFFY. Right. And does——

Ms. WIESNER. Next year the allocation will probably be informed 

by the number who have arrived this year from the region, but it 

was set at 4,000 with an understanding that that would cover the 

expected number this fiscal year. 

Mr. DUFFY. Okay. Maybe we are speaking past each other. 

I guess would you categorize this as a program for chain migration? 

Ms. WIESNER. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question. 

Mr. DUFFY. Would you categorize this as a program for chain migration? No? 

Ms. WIESNER. I would not. No. 

Mr. DUFFY. Okay. And I am going to yield back in just one moment. 

I would tell you I think there is a desire within this institution 

to figure out how we get immigration reform done, and I think 

there is a willingness on both sides of the aisle, and I think there 

is an opportunity to get it done without going through programs 

like this where we have a withholding of a removal guarantee that 

I don’t think this is the process in which we should use. 

49

My hope is that the President will hold off and allow this institution with the Senate to actually work and go through proper channels to actually have an immigration system that is understandable, knowable, and going to work from one President to the next, 

because we will have a new system of laws in place and as opposed 

to Presidential executive actions which I don’t think gives certainty 

to those who have come here without documentation. 

And I think it actually exposes them to greater risk, especially 

if executive amnesty, which I know we are not talking about, but 

is overturned by the next President or is overturned by the courts 

that could expose folks who are here without documentation, I 

think, to pretty significant harm. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. We need permanent solutions that will stand the 

test of time, not just a solution during one administration or two 

administrations, and as the gentleman I think just illustrated, the 

laws are so very subjective and it leaves so much discretion to the 

person making the decision. 

My fear is that even though I know it is supposed to be priority 

based, my fear is that, given the fact that in government so often 

the right hand doesn’t know what the lefthand is doing and there 

is not a lot of communication, is that some incredibly needy recipient would be ignored because—and somebody else who is not nearly as needy gets granted asylum status or refugee status, and that 

is why we held the hearing more than anything, is that we really 

do believe that we need to have clarity going forward, and that we 

want to solve the problem with Central America. 

The answer is not some mass exodus out of Central America, but 

the answer is to solve the problems, the economic problems, the security problems, and we just—we want to take that on together, 

and we need your advice and we need your help to figure out what 

works, what doesn’t, where can we put more resources, how can we 

leverage existing resources better, and how can we do a better job. 

I really appreciate you being here today. I know that at times it 

has felt frustrating, the line of questioning. It is not meant to be 

pejorative or as painful as it has been. It has just been that way 

because I think there is such a lack of clarity, and we just want 

to make sure that going forward that we all comply with existing 

law. We can’t comply with a law that doesn’t exist yet, and for that, 

again, I would ask Ms. Wiesner if you could give us the citation. 

I know you are going to go back and look at that of what specific 

law this new program falls under so that we can understand going 

forward. 

And for the American people that are having an opportunity to 

watch this hearing, you understand now, as Mark Twain said, 

there is two things you don’t want to see being made, sausages and 

laws. It is a very messy process, and it is very frustrating, but we 

will get to the bottom of it. We will figure out the solutions, and 

I greatly appreciate your being here today. 

Thank you very much and this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(51)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

52

f


91454n.eps
53

Æ


91454m.eps