S. Hrg. 113–776 

CHALLENGES AT THE BORDER 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 9, 2014 

EXAMINING THE CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES, AND RESPONSES TO 

THE RISE IN APPREHENSIONS AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER 

JULY 16, 2014 

EXAMINING AND ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES BEHIND THE 

RISE IN APPREHENSIONS AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
BORDER SECURITY—2014 
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

91–171 PDF 2016

S. Hrg. 113–776 

CHALLENGES AT THE BORDER 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 9, 2014 

EXAMINING THE CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES, AND RESPONSES TO 

THE RISE IN APPREHENSIONS AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER 

JULY 16, 2014 

EXAMINING AND ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES BEHIND THE 

RISE IN APPREHENSIONS AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN. Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Chief Counsel 

BLAS NUN ̃ EZ-NETO, Senior Professional Staff Member 

HOLLY A. IDELSON, Senior Counsel 

STEPHEN R. VIN ̃ A, Deputy Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

ANDREW C. DOCKHAM, Minority Counsel 

DANIEL P. LIPS, Minority Director of Homeland Security 

SARA BETH GROSHART, Minority Counsel 

JORDAN E. KAYE, Minority Investigator 

CORY P. WILSON, Minority U.S. Secret Service Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper.................................................................................................. 1, 285 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 4, 314 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 22 

Senator Johnson.............................................................................................. 25, 305 

Senator Baldwin.............................................................................................. 28, 302 

Senator Landrieu ............................................................................................ 30, 310 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 33 

Senator Ayotte................................................................................................. 35, 307 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 38 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Carper................................................................................................ 55, 333 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 58 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2014 

Hon. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ....................................................... 6 

Hon. R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security ............................................................. 7 

Thomas S. Winkowski, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ...... 9 

Mark H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children 

and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ..................... 11 

Francisco L. Palmieri, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Caribbean and 

Central America, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department 

of State .................................................................................................................. 12 

Juan P. Osuna, Director, Executive Office of Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice .............................................................................................. 14 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Fugate, Hon. W. Craig: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 61 

Greenberg, Mark H.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Kerlikowske, Hon. R. Gil: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Join prepared statement .................................................................................. 61 

Osuna, Juan P.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81 

Palmieri, Francisco L.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Winkowski, Thomas S.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 61 

APPENDIX 

Chart submitted by Senator Coburn ...................................................................... 88 
Page

IV 

Information submitted by Senator Landrieu ......................................................... 89 

Charts submitted by Mr. Kerlikowske ................................................................... 93 

National Immigration Forum statement for the record ....................................... 95 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Mr. Fugate ........................................................................................................ 101 

Mr. Kerlikowske ............................................................................................... 101 

Mr. Winkoswki .................................................................................................. 101 

Mr. Greenberg ................................................................................................... 173 

Mr. Palmieri ...................................................................................................... 201 

Mr. Osuna ......................................................................................................... 248 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2014 

Michael Shifter, President, Inter-American Dialogue .......................................... 289 

Eric L. Olson, Associate Director, Latin American Program, Woodrow Wilson 

International Center for Scholars ....................................................................... 291 

Eric Farnsworth, Vice President, Americas Society/Council of the Americas .... 293 

Richard Jones, Deputy Regional Director for Global Solidarity and Justice 

in Latin America and the Caribbean, Catholic Relief Services ........................ 295 

Bryan Roberts, Senior Economist, Econometrica, Inc. ......................................... 297 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Farnsworth, Eric: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 293 

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 347 

Jones, Richard: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 295 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 396 

Olson, Eric L.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 291 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 341 

Roberts, Bryan: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 297 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 408 

Shifter, Michael: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 289 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 336 

APPENDIX 

National Immigration Forum statement for the Record ...................................... 428 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Mr. Shifter ......................................................................................................... 433 

Mr. Olson ........................................................................................................... 438 

Mr. Farnsworth ................................................................................................ 447 

Mr. Jones ........................................................................................................... 451 

Mr. Roberts ....................................................................................................... 458 
(1) 

CHALLENGES AT THE BORDER: 

EXAMINING THE CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES, 

AND RESPONSES TO THE RISE IN APPREHENSIONS AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2014 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Landrieu, McCaskill, Baldwin, 

Heitkamp, Coburn, McCain, Johnson, and Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER 

Chairman CARPER. Let me begin today by calling us to order and 

thanking our witnesses for joining us to discuss the current humanitarian challenge that is playing out along our Southern Border with Mexico, with unaccompanied children as young as 4 years 

old arriving in record numbers almost every day. 

Before discussing the Administration’s robust response to this 

current situation, however, I think it is important to try to put 

things into context. Over the past decade, we have made significant 

progress in securing our borders. Since 2003, for example, we have 

spent about a quarter-of-a-trillion dollars to enforce our immigration laws, more than doubling the size of the Border Patrol along 

the way. We have also built 670 miles of fencing and have deployed 

force multipliers such as high-tech cameras, radars, drones, and 

other aircraft up and down our border. 

In 2006, just 8 years ago, the Border Patrol apprehended more 

than a million people at the border. Last year, we stopped just over 

420,000. Some got through, but most did not. And while the most 

recent recession played a role in that drop, I think it is clear that 

the investments we have made in recent years have paid off. Although overall migration is still at historic lows, we are now facing 

a large surge, as we know, in undocumented immigration from the 

Central American countries, including unprecedented numbers of 

unaccompanied children and families showing up at our borders. 

Some are saying that the current situation shows that our borders are not secure. I do not believe this is true. And, let me be 

clear. These children and their families are not slipping past our 

borders undetected. They are being apprehended in large numbers 
2 

by the Border Patrol almost as soon as they touch the United 

States, often turning themselves in voluntarily. 

People from Central America, unlike Mexico, must be flown back 

to their countries. This is a costly process that can take months 

and sometimes even years. This process is even more complicated 

for unaccompanied children and families because our laws, appropriately, require different treatment for these groups. Children 

must be handed over to the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) and families must be detained in special facilities 

that include educational opportunities for children. 

Our border security system has been overwhelmed by the sheer 

numbers of these children and families. The Administration and 

Secretary Johnson have responded to the situation with what I describe as an ‘‘all hands on deck’’ approach. The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is coordinating with the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS)-wide response to the problem. The Department of Defense (DOD) has provided space on some of its military installations to house unaccompanied minors until Health and 

Human Services can find a placement for them. And, we surged 

Border Patrol agents, we surged immigration judges and other personnel to the border to help process these individuals. Finally, just yesterday, the Administration proposed some $3.7 

billion in emergency funding to deal with this situation. And, while 

we are still trying to drill down on it and understand fully what 

it calls for, we do know that the Department of Homeland Security 

will receive $1.5 billion to detain and deport more families, build 

some temporary additional detention facilities for the Border Patrol, and enhance investigations into human smuggling networks. 

These resources are urgently needed. 

I am concerned, however, that while we continue to focus a great 

deal of attention on the symptoms of the problems along the border, we also continue to focus too little attention in addressing the 

underlying causes. As I mentioned earlier, we spent nearly a quarter-of-a-trillion dollars securing our borders since 2003. At the 

same time, only a small fraction of this amount has been invested 

in addressing the root causes in Central America that are encouraging young people and their families to risk life and limb and 

make the long and dangerous trek to South Texas. 

Seeking a better life in the United States is nothing new. Most 

of us here today are here because someone in our family a generation or more ago decided to come here to take advantage of what 

America has to offer. But, for some of those Central Americans, especially the children and parents who often send them on their 

journeys, the decision can be a desperate one. Life in parts of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras is more than difficult today. It 

can be deadly. I have seen it firsthand, even this year. 

Violence has been steadily increasing in the region, with homicide rates in all three countries among the highest in the entire 

world. Kidnapping and extortion are endemic. Meanwhile, these 

countries have stagnant economies that create too few jobs and opportunities for their citizens. Faced with this violence and lack of 

hope at home, people from the region are voting with their feet and 

risking their lives on the nearly 1,500-mile journey to the United 

States. 
3 

I believe that the United States, along with Mexico, Colombia, 

and along with many others, need to do a better job of helping Central American countries help themselves. How? In large part, by 

helping them create a more nurturing environment for job creation. 

Restore the rule of law. Lower energy costs. Improve workforce 

skills and access to capital. And, improve the prospects for the 

young people so that more of them are willing, even eager, to stay 

home and help build their country up. 

I am dismayed to hear some of our colleagues suggest that the 

answer is to cutoff funding for these countries. And, while I am a 

strong advocate of tough love, it strikes me as an extremely shortsighted step to take and one that will likely do more good than 

harm in the long run. If we had taken that approach with Colombia some 20 years ago, a country I visited earlier this year, it would 

be a failed nation today instead of one with a vibrant economy that 

has become a strong ally of ours. 

Do our neighbors and their leaders in Central America need to 

do more to provide a brighter future for their own citizens? You bet 

they do! But, this is not the time to abandon them. Do we really 

think that making things worse in these countries is going to somehow improve the situation on our borders? I do not think so. 

I am encouraged that the Administration has included $300 million in its emergency supplemental request for the State Department, some of which will be used to deal with the root causes of 

South American migration. But, these funds should be seen as a 

downpayment. This cannot be one and done. If we are serious 

about improving conditions in this region, we will need to do more, 

and, frankly, so will others. And, I would emphasize this. This is 

a shared responsibility. This should not be all on America’s shoulders. This is a shared responsibility. That includes the Mexicans. 

It includes the Colombians. It includes other countries in Latin 

America. It includes many development banks and so forth. 

But, keep in mind, Plan Colombia took more than a decade to 

bear fruit. I think we face a similar commitment here today, hopefully, not that long, but a similar commitment. And, making that 

commitment will not only prove ourselves good neighbors, but ensure that we will not continue to face an expensive humanitarian 

crisis at our borders a decade from now. 

Addressing the factors that are pushing people out of Central 

America is important, but we also need to address the factors that 

are pulling them here in the first place. Some are saying that the 

current surge in migration from Central America is somehow tied 

to the actions that President Obama has taken to help undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children years ago 

come out of the shadows and live without fear. Many of those making this argument are the same people who oppose immigration reform and have rejected our bipartisan Senate efforts to update the 

outdated immigration laws that often drive people to try and enter 

our country illegally. 

From what I have seen and heard, the biggest factor that pulls 

people to come here is the desire to have a better life, a job, and 

in the United States. But, our broken immigration systems do not 

do enough to provide legal avenues for workers we want and need, 
4 

nor does it provide the most effective tools to ensure that employers do not exploit undocumented workers. 

The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill 

more than a year ago. I would be the first to say it is not perfect. 

Are there parts of it I would like to change? You bet, I would, and 

I am sure Dr. Coburn and others feel the same way. And, parts of 

it need to be changed. But, it would tackle some of the root causes 

that are pulling these migrants to come here and to live and to 

work by providing legal avenues for them to do so and then return 

to their own countries. It would also further increase the security 

of our borders and enhance our ability to enforce our immigration 

and workforce laws in the interior of the country. 

Last, The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the 

immigration reform bill passed by the Senate would increase our 

country’s gross domestic product (GDP)—increase our country’s 

GDP—by, I think, anywhere from 3 to 5 percent, and decrease our 

budget deficit by a trillion dollars over the next 20 years. And yet, 

just last week, we learned that our friends in the House of Representatives have decided not to even debate immigration reform 

this year. I believe this is a mistake. I truly hope they will reconsider this decision. 

With that having been said, let me turn to my friend, Dr. 

Coburn, and then we will hear from our witnesses today. Thank 

you all for joining us. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. I would ask unanimous consent that my remarks be submitted. 

Chairman CARPER. Without objection. 

Senator COBURN. I would welcome each of you here. 

I would make some observations, as I have studied this. No. 1 

is that we have known about this problem escalating since January, and yet there was no mention of it or any request for it in the 

President’s budget. 

No. 2, the best way to stop the flow is to send them back. I understand our 2008 trafficking law prohibits us to do that at this 

time in a timely manner, but, in fact, we want to stop this flow. 

No. 3, the root cause of this can be mediated somewhat by our 

ally, the Mexican government, and whether or not we have done 

everything that we can do in that regard to utilize their help in 

this problem remains to be seen. 

I want to welcome each of you here. Thank you for being here 

and I look forward to your testimony. As many of you know, I sent 

questions to you ahead of time so that we could get complete answers rather than waiting on answers for the record, and I thank 

you for being here. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, Dr. Coburn. 

We welcome our colleagues, as well. 

I am going to provide brief introductions for our witnesses and 

then listen to you and then we will have a good conversation. 

Our first witness is no stranger here, William Craig Fugate. Mr. 

Fugate is Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency at the Department of Homeland Security. In this role, Mr. 

Fugate has helped coordinate emergency management efforts be-
5 

tween all levels of government and external partners in the private 

and the community sectors. Prior to joining FEMA, Mr. Fugate 

served as the Director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management. Craig, nice to see you. Thanks for joining us and for your 

service. 

Our second witness today is Gil Kerlikowske. Mr. Kerlikowske is 

the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In 

this position, he oversees this Nation’s dual mission of protecting 

national security objectives while promoting economic prosperity 

and security. As Commissioner, he runs the largest Federal law enforcement agency and the second largest revenue collecting source 

in the Federal Government. Prior to joining CBP, Mr. Kerlikowske 

was the Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and as I recall, he has been a police chief in a place 

or two, maybe even Buffalo and Seattle, if I am not mistaken. 

Our next witness is Thomas Winkowski. Mr. Winkowski is the 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE). In this position, Mr. Winkowski advances ICE’s missions to promote homeland security and public 

safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of approximately 

400 Federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. Mr. Winkowski has also served in a variety of leadership roles during a long and distinguished career with CBP. Most 

recently, he served as the Acting Commissioner prior to the appointment of Mr. Kerlikowske. 

Next, we have Mark Greenberg. Mark is Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at 

the Department of Health and Human Services. Prior to this, Mr. 

Greenberg directed the Georgetown University Center of Poverty, 

Inequality, and Public Policy. During his career, he has frequently 

provided technical assistance to State and local government regarding poverty reduction strategies. Mr. Greenberg also serves as both 

the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and the Acting Commissioner for the Administration of Children, Youth, and Families. 

Our next witness is Francisco Palmieri. He is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Caribbean and Central America, Bureau of 

Western Hemisphere Affairs for the Department of State. Mr. 

Palmieri has served in the Dominican Republican, in El Salvador, 

in Honduras, and is a Senior Desk Officer for Venezuela. He has 

also led the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL’s) Latin American and Caribbean Program Offices, where he was responsible for over $800 million in programs, 

including the Colombia and Mexico/Merida operations and 19 Narcotics Affairs offices throughout the Western Hemisphere. Prior to 

his current assignment, he served as Deputy Executive Secretary 

in the Department of State’s Executive Secretariat. We are delighted that you are here today. 

Our final witness is Juan Osuna. Mr. Osuna serves as Director 

of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at the Department of Justice (DOJ). Leading up to his appointment as Director, Mr. Osuna served the Department of Justice as an Associate 

Deputy Attorney General working on issues such as immigration 

policy, Indian Country matters, and pardons and commutations. 

Prior to this, he oversaw civil immigration-related litigation in the 
6 

1The joint prepared statement of Mr. Fugate appears in the Appendix on page 61. 

Federal Courts as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil 

Division Office of Immigration and Litigation. Mr. Osuna also 

teaches immigration policy at George Mason University of Law in 

Arlington, Virginia. We are delighted that you are here. 

Thank you all for your presence, for your preparation, for your 

testimony, and Craig, why do you not lead us off. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. W. CRAIG FUGATE,1 ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Coburn, and 

other Senators. 

Mr. FUGATE. The timeline for FEMA’s involvement in this actually started about mid-May. The Secretary had elevated the response based upon the number of children that were being held 

into detention at Customs and Border Protection. At that time, 

FEMA offered what assistance we could. We were not sure if this 

was commodities or technical assistance. The initial assistance we 

provided was mainly advisory technical assistance and help identifying some resources within the faith-based community for some 

immediate needs. 

Towards the end of May, about May 30, there was a Deputies 

meeting at the White House with the National Security Council on 

this issue that we participated in as FEMA. We were asked what 

else we could do. Based upon authorities that FEMA had received 

in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, as the 

principal advisor to the administration on emergency management 

issues, we felt that there would be some additional resources or assistance we could provide. 

Based upon that, we were asked by the President through the 

Secretary to coordinate—and again, I want to be very clear about 

this—a very narrow focus on supporting two lead agencies, Customs and Border Protection and the Administration for Children 

and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), focused on the 

humanitarian issues surrounding the children that were being held 

in detention, because there was not enough capacity to place them 

in beds. 

So, our focus has been using our authorities under the National 

Response Framework (NRF) through interagency agreements to coordinate across the Federal agencies’ existing authorities and existing funding to meet the needs of the humanitarian aspect of these 

children that were, for days, being held in detention cells. We 

worked with everybody from the General Services Administration 

(GSA), Department of Defense, within our own Department of 

Homeland Security, Coast Guard and others for transportation resources. The focus of our assignment has been on what we could 

do to either bring additional services in the field at the level that 

CBP had or assisting the Administration for Children and Families 

on getting more capacity to house children and process children. 

Through the interagency and through the National Response 

Framework, that has been our role. 
7 

1The joint prepared statement of Mr. Kerlikowske appears in the Appendix on page 61. 

We have not used our authorities under the Stafford Act, nor 

have we used any disaster funds in that manner. We have used existing funding that we have had. Most of the additional assistance 

that FEMA has provided has been done through interagency agreements. That is actually built into the National Response Framework when we respond to disasters where there is not a Stafford 

Act event. This is similar to what we did in Haiti, when, under direction from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), FEMA provided additional assistance in Haiti. We 

did that through interagency agreements where the fund transfers 

were done so that we were performing work under existing authorities and funding that agencies were authorized to do. 

But, since that time, we have added, in cooperation with all the 

partners, about 3,000 additional beds for children and families. 

Numbers have come down, but we still faced a problem of too many 

children that are in detention for more than 24 hours, and too 

many children that are still within the custody of CBP for more 

than 72 hours before they are placed. Although we have made 

progress, that progress is oftentimes disrupted when we see sudden 

influxes of kids coming in faster than we can discharge them and 

we back up. The last week, we have seen our numbers drop, but 

we have not been successful yet in ensuring that no child is in a 

detention facility for more than 24 hours and no child is in CBP’s 

custody for more than 72 hours. 

We work diligently, particularly through the work of the Administration for Children and Families, to try to make sure we are 

placing all of the youngest children. There was a massive effort 

this weekend to make sure that children under five were placed, 

and then we went to children under 12, to try to get as many of 

those children out of detention, to a bed, to an appropriate level of 

care. 

But, the children continue to come across the border. It is a very 

fluid situation. Again, we will continue our role until such time as 

the system is stable and children are being placed in a timely manner, and we will then at that point consider our part of this completed, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Fugate. 

And, Gil, please proceed, Gil Kerlikowske. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. R. GIL KERLIKOWSKE,1 COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Yes, sir. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 

Coburn, distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you and to discuss the role that 

the United States Customs and Border Protection is doing in addressing this influx of unaccompanied children along the Southwest 

Border. 

The Rio Grande Valley (RGV) area of Texas has experienced a 

significant increase in illegal entrants, including increased numbers of unaccompanied children and family units. Most of these are 

from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. 
8 

I was confirmed for the position on March 7, and less than 2 

weeks later, I was in the Rio Grande Valley, in McAllen, Texas, to 

see this for myself and to look at the challenges that the men and 

women of Customs and Border Protection were facing. I have since 

made two return visits and I am completely focused on this to 

make sure that we do everything we can to address this increased 

flow of children crossing the border. 

The recent dramatic increase is difficult and distressing on a lot 

of levels. And, to date, this fiscal year (FY), the number of unaccompanied children encountered by CBP is over 57,000. It has 

more than doubled compared to the previous year, and as of July 

1, there were just over 2,600 unaccompanied children in our custody. 

Well, we are working closely with our counterparts to surge 

every available resource—personnel, facilities, equipment, supplies—to quickly, safely, and humanely process these children in 

accordance with the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and to support the transfer of the custody to 

the Department of Health and Human Services. We are also surging resources to maintain border security operations. In addition, 

115 Border Patrol agents were recently added to the South Texas 

area, and Secretary Johnson has also just added an additional 150 

agents on top of that. 

Unaccompanied children are an incredibly vulnerable population, 

and while in our custody, they are provided shelter, medical assistance, and basic necessities. These may be adequate for a shortterm stay, but CBP’s facilities are clearly not designed, nor were 

services put in place, to accommodate such large volumes for an extended period of time. 

We are working with ICE and Health and Human Services and 

FEMA and others in the Federal partnership to ease these current 

conditions through the utilization of alternate facilities, the 

Nogales Placement Center in Arizona and a facility recently secured by the GSA for Customs and Border Protection to use in 

McAllen to process and temporarily hold children that are awaiting 

transfer to Health and Human Services custody. 

The Border Patrol has established medical units at our busiest 

border stations. We are conducting public health screenings. We 

have the assistance of the United States Coast Guard Corpsmen 

and the Public Health Services so that all of these adult and child 

detainees can receive medical care. FEMA has provided hygiene 

items, shower services, and many other things, services that have 

improved the care for these detainees in the past several months. 

Assistance from non-governmental and charity organizations 

have had a big impact on the governmentwide effort to accommodate these children, and I could not say enough about them. The 

additional support has provided relief to these law enforcement 

agents and officers who have been taking care of these kids. 

I have ben down there and witnessed firsthand these employees 

going above and beyond their regular duties. They are absolutely 

committed to making sure these children are treated in the most 

respectful and humane way, and, frankly, heartfelt way possible, 

under really difficult circumstances. 
9 

1The joint prepared statement of Mr. Winkowski appears in the Appendix on page 61. 

We are working around the clock to address this issue. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I would certainly invite all of 

you to tour and to visit these facilities and to see some of this firsthand, and I know that some of you already have. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Kerlikowske. 

And, Mr. Winkowski, you are recognized, please. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS S. WINKOWSKI,1 PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 

Coburn, and Members of the Committee, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s role in addressing the rise in apprehensions along the 

Southwest Border, namely the Rio Grande Valley, and our response. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your support 

and for taking the time this spring to visit Mexico, Guatemala, and 

El Salvador in order to better understand the underlying causes of 

this surge. Thank you, sir, very much. 

Through the whole government, we are determined to address 

the situation in a manner that is comprehensive, coordinated, and 

humane. On May 12, Secretary Johnson declared a Level 4 condition of readiness, which was the first step to bring the full interagency resources to bear. On June 1, President Obama, pursuant 

to the Homeland Security Act, directed Secretary Johnson to establish a unified coordination group. Craig talked about that. This 

group includes DHS and all of its components, the Department of 

Health and Human Services, Defense, Justice and State, and the 

General Services Administration. 

When CBP encounters a child attempting to enter the United 

States, CBP begins the interview process to determine the child’s 

status, review available documentation, and determine if the child 

is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, an unaccompanied child who is a national of Canada or Mexico may be permitted to withdraw his or her application for admission and be repatriated immediately. However, this is not true for the vast majority of children encountered in the Rio Grande Valley, because almost all of them are nationals of Honduras, Guatemala, and El 

Salvador, and according to TVPRA are required to be processed by 

receiving a notice to appear in order to see an immigration judge. 

Upon determining that an unaccompanied child does not have 

the option under TVPRA to withdraw his or her application for admission, CBP notifies ICE and the Department of Health and 

Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement. Once HHS notifies 

CBP and ICE that a shelter bed is available pursuant to requirements of the law, it is ICE’s legal responsibility to quickly and safely transport the unaccompanied child from CBP custody to an ORR 

shelter facility. 
10 

ICE transports unaccompanied children via ground, commercial 

air, and ICE charter flights. In order to speed up the safe transportation of unaccompanied minors to ORR shelters, ICE has leased 

additional charter planes and is working closely with the Houston 

Airport Authority to have ICE escorting officers fly to Houston 

rather than making the trip to the Rio Grande Valley, where both 

inbound and outbound flights are limited. ICE is also using reverse 

escorting for unaccompanied children, where ICE Enforcement and 

Removal Officers (EROs) from other parts of the country are assisting in supporting the transportation needs in the Rio Grande Valley, thus allowing for more escorting capabilities. 

All 24 of ICE ERO Field Offices have primary and back-up juvenile coordinators, each of whom receive annual specialized training 

with respect to the unique vulnerabilities of children. In addition, 

ICE has detailed around 200 officers to the Rio Grande Valley to 

assist with the increased children and transportation needs. 

In addition, ICE has surged criminal investigative resources for 

the prosecution of those who smuggle the children. In May 2014, 

there were 163 arrests of smugglers along the Southwest Border. 

The Secretary has directed a 90-day surge of ICE Homeland Security Investigation Special Agents, 60 personnel, to offices in San 

Antonio and Houston to work with the Department of Justice to 

ramp up our prosecutions of smuggling organizations. 

ICE is also building additional detention capability for adults 

who cross the border illegally in the RGV with their children. Recently, we have established a temporary facility for adults with 

children in Artesia, New Mexico, and you are welcome any time to 

visit. The establishment of this temporary facility will help CBP 

process those encountered at the border and allow ICE to increase 

its capacity to house and expedite the removal of adults with children in a manner that complies with Federal law. 

Finally, we have worked with the government of Honduras, El 

Salvador, and Guatemala to repatriate the adults quicker, which 

has resulted in a prompt issuance of travel documents moving from 

what took normally 14 days now to 3 days. Within the last several 

months, we have, therefore, reduced the expedited removal time of 

this population. For those adults who fall outside the expedited removal process, the repatriation period has also dropped. Within the 

law, we are sending this group back, and we are sending them 

back much quicker than we ever have done before. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my opening statement 

and look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks for your testimony. 

Mr. Greenberg, you are recognized. Please proceed. 
11 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Greenberg appears in the Appendix on page 66. 

TESTIMONY OF MARK H. GREENBERG,1 ACTING ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Mr. GREENBERG. Thank you. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 

Coburn, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to 

talk with you about HHS’s responsibilities in relation to unaccompanied children. Today, I want to talk about the steps that we take 

to care for the children when they are referred to us, our responsibilities to identify appropriate sponsors with which the children 

can live while they are awaiting enduring immigration proceedings, 

and the challenges we are facing as a result of the increased numbers of unaccompanied children. 

Under the law, when an unaccompanied child is in CBP custody, 

they refer the child to us. We fund shelters through grants to nonprofit organizations, a number of which are faith-based service providers. When a child arrives at a shelter, the child is provided with 

a complete medical exam within 48 hours, conducted by a doctor 

or a nurse practitioner. All children receive vaccinations and 

screening for tuberculosis. 

Soon after the child comes to us, shelter staff conduct an initial 

interview with the child. The interview is used as a first round of 

screening to determine if the child may be a victim of abuse, a victim of a crime, or a trafficking victim, and to determine if the child 

has any immediate mental health needs. These screenings determine whether the child needs specialized services, a home study 

prior to release to a sponsor, and whether the child is a potential 

victim of trafficking. 

Children in our shelters receive medical, dental, and mental 

health services, education services, opportunities for physical activities, a legal rights presentation, access to legal services, access 

to religious services, case management, and clinical counseling. 

While children are in our shelters, we seek to place them with 

appropriate sponsors. Under the law, we have a responsibility to 

place children in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child. To date, in fiscal year 2014, about 95 percent 

of children who have left our shelters were released to a parent or 

relative or a non-relative sponsor. If there is no appropriate sponsor, the child stays in our shelters until they turn 18, at which 

point they are remanded to DHS custody, or in some cases, the 

child may be repatriated or may qualify for immigration relief. 

Before we release a child to a sponsor, we verify the sponsor’s 

identity and relationship, if any, to the child. The staff conduct an 

assessment of the child’s past and present family relationships and 

the relationship to any non-relative potential sponsor. There is a 

background check, including a public records check for criminal 

history, interviews with the child to discover any criminal or domestic violence concerns, a written assessment of the child and the 

sponsor that is completed by case managers and clinicians. A fingerprint check is required if any concerns are raised, including if 

there are concerns about the child’s safety or if the sponsor is not 

the parent or legal guardian. 
12 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Palmieri appears in the Appendix on page 76. 

As part of the process, HHS notifies potential sponsors that they 

have a responsibility to ensure that the child appears at all appointments and court proceedings relating to their immigration 

case, that the sponsor has a responsibility to cooperate if there is 

a removal order. HHS also informs sponsors of their responsibility 

to notify DHS and the Department of Justice of any change of address. HHS also notifies DHS of the name, address, phone number, 

and relationship of the child to the sponsor prior to the release to 

the sponsor, and, again, notifies after the release has taken place. 

In recent months, the number of children arriving has increased 

markedly, straining our ability to place children in shelters in 

timely fashion. We are actively working with our colleagues at 

DHS, Department of Justice, and other Federal agencies through 

the coordination efforts of FEMA, both to identify additional efficiencies, to shorten the time the children can be with us without 

jeopardizing child safety, and to expand the number of shelters 

that can be used to receive children. 

Over the last 3 years, we have reduced the amount of time children are in our custody from 72 days to less than 35 by identifying 

a number of efficiencies that do not compromise child safety, but 

we are continuing those efforts to identify additional ones. 

We have also worked to identify additional facilities, including 

the temporary facilities that have been made available to us from 

the Department of Defense at Joint Base San Antonio Lackland, 

Ventura Naval Station, and Fort Sill in Oklahoma. We are continuing in our efforts to identify both public and private facilities. 

It is a complex situation with a number of challenges. We welcome working with the Committee and Congress in efforts to address it. Thank you, and I will be happy to answer questions. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Greenberg. 

Mr. Palmieri, you are recognized and we welcome your testimony. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANCISCO PALMIERI,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR THE CARIBBEAN AND CENTRAL AMERICA, 

BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. PALMIERI. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Coburn, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here to discuss the Department of 

State’s response to the sharp rise in the number of unaccompanied 

children arriving at our border, the direct link between this activity 

and dire economic and social conditions in the region, as well as 

the influence of smuggling networks, and what we are doing to further the national security interests of the United States. I appreciate your interest and look forward to working with you on this 

important issue. 

The Administration is deeply concerned by the substantial increase in the number of children from Central America who are 

leaving their countries and attempting unauthorized immigration 

to the United States. 

The Department of State is implementing a five-part strategy. 

We are working on a common approach to the problem with the 
13 

source countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and 

with Mexico in its role as a transit country. 

We are creating an updated public messaging campaign with El 

Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico to discourage families 

from sending their sons and daughters on this dangerous journey. 

We are helping El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras expand 

their repatriation and reintegration efforts. 

We are working with Mexico to stop migrants at Mexico’s Southern Border and interrupt the well-known smuggling routes used in 

Southern Mexico. 

And, finally, we are leading a new whole of government effort to 

address the underlying causes of this migration, especially the security concerns and lack of economic opportunity in the region. 

We know that these children are primarily arriving from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Central America faces daunting 

economic, governance, and security challenges which impact the 

citizens of the region and the choices they make. 

Our vision for Central America is a secure, well governed region 

that creates opportunities for its people within its borders. This is 

the only path to diminish the factors driving high immigration 

flows. 

The political, economic, and social conditions in El Salvador, 

Guatemala, and Honduras are challenging, with extreme violence, 

endemic poverty, declining farm incomes, and weak public institutions, all combining to create an environment that many people 

want to abandon. Aggressive smugglers seek to exploit the situation. 

My colleagues from the Department of Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services have described the scope of 

the enormous challenges that they face in processing unaccompanied children, adults with children, and adults arriving at the 

border. They are working tirelessly to protect our borders, enforce 

our laws, and meet the pressing humanitarian needs of migrants, 

especially the children. This effort not only serves to enforce U.S. 

laws, but is also the right thing to do to help these vulnerable children. 

Our diplomatic engagement in support of this effort has been 

sustained and intense. Last month, Vice President Biden traveled 

to Guatemala and met with the leaders to establish that we all 

must take steps to stem the flow of undocumented migrants. 

In Panama on July 1, Secretary Kerry obtained agreement on 

greater collaboration from the three governments. And, on July 3, 

all three nations’ foreign ministers traveled to Washington to meet 

with nine different U.S. Government entities at the Department of 

State. At our request, all three countries have increased consulate 

staffing levels at the U.S.-Mexico border to expedite processing of 

unaccompanied children. 

The President spoke to Mexican President Enrique Pen ̃ a Nieto in 

June about Mexican efforts to improve the security at its Southern 

Border. We are working with Mexico to accelerate its Southern 

Border strategy that will increase Mexican inspection and interdiction capacities and reduce human smuggling across Mexico’s borders. 
14 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Osuna appears in the Appendix on page 81. 

As part of the broader interagency effort, we are also working to 

increase immediately the migrant repatriation capacity for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras so that these governments can 

accept more migrants from the United States each week. 

Finally, the Department continues to focus on a longer-term approach to address the systemic issues Central American countries 

face and that are creating the push factors behind this phenomenon. We are applying a more balanced regional approach to 

integrate prosperity, security, and governance assistance in order 

to reduce the root causes that are driving migrants to the United 

States. However, we must be realistic. In order to achieve the substantial transformative change in Central America that truly will 

stem migration flows, all the governments must demonstrate the 

political will and necessary commitment. As Chairman Carper 

noted, it must be a shared responsibility. 

We will continue to work closely with Congress on a comprehensive whole of government approach that provides the necessary resources to meet this migration challenge. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Chairman CARPER. Mr. Palmieri, thank you so much. 

Mr. Osuna, welcome and please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF JUAN P. OSUNA,1 DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION REVIEW, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. OSUNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. 

Chairman, Senator Coburn, and other Committee Members. Thank 

you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the Justice 

Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. 

Our agency is responsible for conducting civil immigration removal proceedings throughout our immigration courts around the 

country and our appellate level, the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

Our caseloads follow immigration enforcement patterns along the 

border and in the interior of the country. Every individual that the 

Department of Homeland Security formally charges with being removable from the United States results in another case for our immigration courts. With nearly 375,000 matters pending at the end 

of June, we are facing the largest caseload that the agency has ever 

seen. 

Overall, we have 243 immigration judges in 59 immigration 

courts around the country. Many of our courts are located at or 

near the Southern Border, including in San Diego, CA, El Paso, 

TX, and Harlingen, TX. Many of our courts are also located within 

ICE detention centers for efficiency reasons, including the border 

locations of East Mesa, CA, Eloy, AZ, and Port Isabel, TX. 

The highest priority cases for EOIR have been those involving 

detained aliens, and the agency has focused on the efficient and 

timely adjudication of such cases, which often involve individuals 

that DHS charges with being removable from the United States because of criminal activity. 

The current situation along the border is prompting us to reset 

our priorities across the entire immigration court system, not just 
15 

courts near the border, but across the entire system, as, along with 

our Federal partners, we respond to the President’s request, or directive, to focus additional resources on the cases of recent border 

crossers. 

From now on, the following four types of cases will be a priority 

for the entire immigration court system: unaccompanied children; 

detained cases involving adults who arrive with children; adults 

who arrive with children who are not detained because of lack of 

detention space currently, but who are released on alternatives to 

detention, such as electronic monitoring; and regular detained 

cases. This means that these cases will go to the front of the line 

for adjudication, and immigration judges will be assigned to make 

sure that these cases are heard promptly and ahead of all others. 

While in most cases there are already sufficient numbers of immigration judges assigned to hear regular detained cases, we will 

be assigning a significant number of judges to bring to a priority 

the other matters I mentioned, especially those of unaccompanied 

children and families who—or, adults who arrive with children in 

recent weeks. 

This change has consequences for the broader immigration court 

caseload. Cases not considered a priority will take longer to adjudicate. However, given the seriousness of the situation along the 

border, it is the appropriate response by our agency, a part of the 

all-hands-on-deck response that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. 

The utmost priority for every case, however, will remain that 

every fact is considered and every application of law is correct and 

that people appearing before our immigration judges receive due 

process of law. We will do these cases quickly, but we will do them 

right. 

In order to continue to meet its mission of the timely adjudication of cases, EOIR must be provided with the ability to properly 

staff our immigration courts with the judges and staff that we need 

to process cases effectively and efficiently. In 2010, the Department 

and our agency placed a great deal of emphasis on the hiring of 

new judges, and this met with significant success as we were able 

to ramp up pretty quickly. However, the effects of funding constraints over the last few years resulted in a hiring freeze in 2011, 

and that has had a worsening impact on EOIR’s operations, increasing the number of cases pending and extending court dockets 

further into the future. 

Earlier this year, the fiscal year 2014 Appropriations Act included funds enabling the Department to lift the hiring freeze, and 

we are in the process of hiring more than 30 new immigration 

judges that will be coming on board over the next few months, and 

those judges also, if necessary, will be assigned to prioritize the 

cases of recent border crossers. 

In March, the President sent his fiscal year 2015 request to Congress for additional funding, and the President’s request once again 

includes good funding for EOIR that will enable us to hire more 

than 30 additional judges, if that is approved. 

And then, finally, I would like to highlight the President’s request yesterday for supplemental funding that was transmitted. 

That includes funding for additional judge teams. It also includes 

some funding for additional efficiencies that will make these cases 
16 

move through the court system more efficiently, and I ask for your 

support for that request, as well. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Coburn, despite the large caseload that 

we face, we continue to meet every challenge presented, and this 

situation at the border is no different. With your support, we will 

contribute to the governmentwide response that is called for. 

Thank you for your interest, and I look forward to answering any 

questions you might have. 

Chairman CARPER. Mr. Osuna, thanks so much for your testimony. Our thanks to all of you for excellent testimony. 

I just want to start off by going back in time little bit. I want 

to talk about two guiding principles for me. All of us have our guiding principles that come from different places—our experiences, our 

parents, and so forth, our faith. For me, one of the guiding principles, John, actually came from being in Southeast Asia, the place 

where John McCain spent a whole lot more time than I did. 

But, I remember going into the makeshift office of my commanding officer (CO) in the Navy, my squadron. He had a cartoon 

blown up and mounted on his wall behind his desk, and it was a 

cartoon of one person, a guy, looking pretty disheveled, and on a 

very small island with one tree and being surrounded by alligators 

who were trying to get him. And, the caption under the cartoon 

was, ‘‘It’s hard to remember that your job was to drain the swamp 

when you are up to your eyeballs in alligators.’’ It used a different 

word than ‘‘eyeballs.’’ 

But, for me, one of my guiding principles is to figure out, do not 

just address the symptoms of problems, but let us go to the underlying causes. We need to address the symptoms. There is a lot to 

do, and a lot we are doing, and a lot more we need to do, and we 

need to be your partner in doing that. We also need to make sure 

that we are addressing the underlying causes. 

The other thing that has been helpful to me in my life is to, in 

trying to figure out how to deal with a problem or a crisis, to ask 

the question, what is working someplace else? Figure that out and 

do more of that. Find out what works. Do more of that. 

John McCain was good enough to bring me down to Arizona 

more than a year ago to visit the border with Mexico in his State. 

I have been all the way along our border from the Pacific Ocean 

all the way over to the Gulf Coast. And, we have seen a dramatic 

change, one, in the people that are coming across, and we have 

seen a dramatic change in where they are coming across. It has 

kind of moved from West to East. 

There was a time when most of the folks that came across were 

Mexicans, as you know, a lot of them. And, we still have Mexicans 

who try to get into our country illegally, as you know, but not nearly as many as before. In fact, I am told that the net migration 

might actually be going the other way, back from our country into 

Mexico these days. 

Here is the first question I want to ask in terms of finding out 

what works and doing more of this. Why this shift in Mexican migration, almost to maybe an out-migration? Why has this occurred, 

and what can we learn from that? 
17 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We have seen those changes that have been 

very dramatic. By the way, I think every CO must have had that 

same cartoon. 

But, we have seen those changes, and I think because of the 

work that I did for the President on the drug policy issues, the 

safety and security that has increased within the government of 

Mexico, the fact that economic opportunities are better now within 

Mexico, and we know that in the three Central American countries 

that we have been talking about, neither of those—economic opportunity nor safety and security—have been something to write home 

about. 

Chairman CARPER. Others, please. Mr. Winkowski. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes. Thank you for that question. I agree with 

what the Commissioner has said and I think you just have a whole 

different dynamic when you look at flows. We know with Central 

America the difficulties they have down there with their economy 

and other challenges. As time goes on, you are going to see other 

parts of the world, for example, India, migration from India into 

the United States, and we have already seen spikes of that in the 

last few years. 

But, the whole flow is changing. I just read yesterday where 

Mexico has signed a billion-dollar deal with BMW to build a factory 

down in Mexico. Creation of more jobs in Mexico, and to the Commissioner’s point, the economy is prospering there. It does come 

down to, I think, so much come down to opportunity, and the folks 

that we are encountering on the border from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador do not have that economic opportunity. 

Gangs, violence, as well as family members here, and that is what 

is driving it. 

Mr. PALMIERI. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman CARPER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PALMIERI [continuing]. Also, I think you talk about what is 

working, and the trade integration that has happened in North 

America between the United States, Canada, and Mexico has created a growing prosperity in Mexico that has contributed to that 

new migration flows there. We do have a trade agreement with 

Central America. We need to push these countries to more actively 

integrate their economies and to take full advantage of that trade 

agreement and to expand economic opportunity and job creation in 

their own countries as a way of stopping this, as well. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

A couple weeks ago, the Vice President was just back from Guatemala—I think Secretary Johnson is actually there today, is he 

not? And, I was talking to the Vice President and I asked him, trying to find out what he learned, and one of the things he told me 

is that 80 percent of the kids, the young people, unaccompanied minors who are coming to this country—come from the worst neighborhoods, the worst communities, the most violent and dangerous 

neighborhoods, about 80 percent of them. 

I put myself as a parent. I am the parent of some adult sons. 

But, I put myself as a parent in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and I live in one of those communities with a lot of violence, 

not much opportunity, much chance for an education to get a job, 

and I hear that there are some folks that are willing to, for a cou-
18 

ple thousand dollars, to take one or more of my kids out of that, 

through Mexico, across the border, welcomed there by our Border 

Patrol, who are required by law to do that and to accept and receive them, to care for them, and to eventually replace them in a 

safe setting, in many cases with their families, a member of their 

families, who may be undocumented, who may be undocumented 

themselves. Now, that is a strong magnet to pull young people out 

of those three countries and to send them North, through 

hellacious conditions, in many cases. 

The idea of putting my kids, when they were 4, 5, 6 years old 

on top of a train and send them halfway across the country—not 

in a train, not in a passenger train, on top of a freight train, moving, for 1,500 miles—I mean, who can imagine doing that? These 

people are desperate. 

And, if I were in that situation, I might do the same thing. How 

do we get to the people and change that mindset? How do we 

change that mindset to turn off the flow so the parents will say, 

damn it, I want my kid to stay here, have an opportunity, have a 

future here. How do we do that? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. I think there are several steps. I think, for instance, Gil talked about some of those. I think we have to continue 

to work with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras on capacity 

building. We need to stress to them the importance that they secure their borders. I know during my time in CBP that the Border 

Patrol and Office of Field Operations sent a lot of time in Guatemala stressing and showing different training and things of that 

nature. I have not been down to the border, but from what I have 

been told, it is very porous and it is wide open. So, we need to build 

capacity there and DHS is the best in the business there when you 

are looking at, whether it is the borders or the detention sites. So, 

we have to continue to focus in on that. 

I think the other area is Mexico. You talked about that. I think 

we need Mexico to continue to move forward here in helping us. As 

you mentioned, these people are just walking through Mexico, 

using Mexico as a transportation corridor and showing up on our 

doorstep. We are America, and we do the right thing for these kids 

and for these adults. But, nonetheless, it wears on the system. 

When you do apprehend, then you have to have a policy where 

these individuals are detained and brought through the system 

quickly and a decision is made whether the people get to stay here 

or they are removed, and if they are going to be removed, they 

have to be removed quickly so it sends a message, if you will, the 

deterrent factor. We are seeing that happening now, Mr. Chairman, in Artesia, our new facility that we have that we just opened 

up in Artesia, New Mexico, for family units. We are already seeing 

people saying that, ‘‘I did not realize I was going to detention. I 

thought I was going to be released.’’ With the Director’s support 

and his judges, our removal hearings are moving much quicker. 

That begins that process of sending the deterrent message. If we 

are going to be successful, in my view, that is what we have to do, 

and I will tell you that Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras 

have been pretty good partners for us. I mentioned in my statement that we took removal from 14 days to 4 days, and a lot of 

that had to do with those three countries giving us travel docu-
19 

1The posters submitted by Senator Coburn appear in the Appendix on page 88. 

ments much more quickly. So, they have been a good partner in 

that regard, but there is a lot more work to be done. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thanks. 

With that, I am going to stop and yield to Dr. Coburn. Thank you 

all. 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Palmieri, what actually is Mexico doing to 

help us on this problem right now? 

Mr. PALMIERI. Dr. Coburn, in the last year, Mexico has returned 

over 85,000 adults and children from its territory back to Central 

America. In the current calendar year, they are on pace to return 

over 90,000 adults and children back to the countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. On Monday, President Pen ̃ a 

Nieto announced the launch of its Southern Border Strategy, which 

they hope will increase their ability to interdict and disrupt these 

smuggling networks. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Winkowski, I have a question for you. I have recently spoken 

to a whistleblower, an ICE agent in a regional office, who shared 

with us over ten—if we could get those posters1 up—documented 

examples of terminated notices to appear for unaccompanied alien 

children (UAC), which you can see in these posters. The reason for 

these terminations therein resulting in any and all removal proceedings is listed as prosecutorial discretion. This term is written 

‘‘PD’’ on these documents, transmitted back to the ICE agents. 

Explain to me, if you would, prosecutorial discretion in the context of canceled notices to appear. Under what policies and procedures does the Office of Chief Counsel issue these? What is the reason that they are issued? What happens to illegal alien children 

once their Notice to Appear (NTA) is canceled? Is there followup? 

In the specific examples provided to us by this ICE agent, PDs 

were issued for minors. So, what is the status of a child given once 

their NTA is terminated through a PD? What followup is conducted 

to ensure the child’s welfare? And, is the child able to attend school 

with no status? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Well, obviously, we have prosecutorial discretion. We have the Morton memo that is really the document that 

guides what our priorities are and lays those out, I think, very 

clearly. I am not familiar with this particular case. I have learned 

in this business, in my short time over at ICE, if you look at one 

case—if you have seen one case, you have seen one case. I do not 

know all the details why the NTA was declined to be filed. I will 

be more than happy to look into it, but I am unfamiliar with this. 

Senator COBURN. Do you have any idea how often this happens—— 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. No, I do not. 

Senator COBURN [continuing]. With children? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. No, I do not. No. 

Senator COBURN. All right. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. I know that all the children, sir, are given NTAs 

and entered into removal proceedings. 

Senator COBURN. Well, I would appreciate any feedback you can 

give me on that. 
20 

1The response to the question submitted by Senator Coburn appears in the Appendix on page 

131. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Absolutely, sir.1

Senator COBURN. Mr. Greenberg, once the Department of Health 

and Human Services releases an unaccompanied child to a sponsor 

with a notice to appear before an immigration judge, does HHS report to the Department of Homeland Security on the number of 

UACs who have been released on their own recognizance? 

Mr. GREENBERG. Dr. Coburn, we do not release the unaccompanied children on their own recognizance. We are only releasing 

them to a parent or relative or other sponsor. At the time that we 

do the release to that individual, we provide the information about 

the whereabouts of the child to the Department of Homeland Security, both immediately prior to and immediately after the release. 

Senator COBURN. And the names of who they are placed with? 

Mr. GREENBERG. Yes. We provide that information to the Department of Homeland Security. 

Senator COBURN. Do you, after that fact, track these children to 

ensure they appear at their immigration hearing? 

Mr. GREENBERG. We do not play that role. After the time that 

we release the child, then the subsequent issues relating to the immigration proceeding itself will be the responsibilities of the Department of Justice. 

Senator COBURN. OK. In a June conference call with congressional staff, HHS stated they are not mandated nor will they be 

checking the immigration status of relatives or sponsors for the unaccompanied children. I am interested in the procedures HHS uses 

to verify the identity and immigration status of the individuals to 

whom the unaccompanied child is released. To clarify, does HHS 

verify the immigration status of the sponsors to whom the unidentified children are released? 

Mr. GREENBERG. We verify the identity of the individual. 

Senator COBURN. Well, that was not the question I asked you. 

The immigration status. 

Mr. GREENBERG. We do not verify the immigration status of the 

individual. Our focus in the release is, first, identifying the least 

restrictive setting in the child’s best interest. As we do that, we 

also need to look at safety to the child, safety to the community, 

risk of flight. We go through the overall process of looking at the 

individual placement to ensure that it is a safe and appropriate 

placement for the child—— 

Senator COBURN. OK. Let me ask you a followup question. Is it 

not true that if you place an unaccompanied child with an illegal 

alien sponsor, that the significant likelihood is they would not want 

to bring that child to a deportation hearing before an immigration 

judge for fear they would expose their own illegal status? 

Mr. GREENBERG. As we go through the process of identifying 

sponsors, we ensure that the sponsor understands they have a responsibility to make the child available for proceedings, including 

removal. 

Senator COBURN. Again, that is not the question I asked you. 

The question I asked you was, would it not be likely that they 

would not comply, regardless of whether you tell them that is their 
21 

responsibility? If, in fact, they are an illegal alien to begin with, 

why would they expose themselves in front of an immigration 

judge? 

Mr. GREENBERG. For the child in those circumstances, this is 

about who the child should live with while they are awaiting the 

removal proceedings and during the removal proceedings, and—— 

Senator COBURN. You are missing my point. 

Mr. GREENBERG [continuing]. Again, the sponsor has the responsibility. 

Senator COBURN. My point is, I am all for having the children 

in the best place. Do not get me wrong. But, if you are not checking 

the immigration status of those that you place with them, and if, 

in fact, they are not here legally, the likelihood that they are going 

to show up before a judge is markedly diminished because it exposes them. So, the question I would ask you is why you all do not 

ask for status of the people that you place these children with. 

Mr. GREENBERG. The specific aspects of what happens in the proceedings are, I think, best addressed by my colleague at the Department of Justice—— 

Senator COBURN. No, I understand that. I am asking you the 

question, why you do not ask the status of the people with whom 

you are placing the child. 

Mr. GREENBERG. The—— 

Senator COBURN. Why do you not ask that question, because, in 

all likelihood, they are not going to show for an immigration hearing. 

Mr. GREENBERG. For us, the focus needs to be on a safe and appropriate placement for the child. 

Senator COBURN. So, you are not going to answer my question. 

Why do you not ask that question of those people with whom you 

are placing these children? 

Mr. GREENBERG. Even if we had the information as to the parent 

or other relative’s immigration status, we would still at that point 

need to look at the totality of the circumstances. 

Senator COBURN. I do not disagree with that. I am asking you 

why you do not ask that question. 

Mr. GREENBERG. Sir, the reason—— 

Senator COBURN. Is it the policy of HHS not to ask the status 

of those people with whom you are placing the child? 

Mr. GREENBERG. We do not specifically inquire as to the immigration status. 

Senator COBURN. Is that the policy of HHS of this country? 

Mr. GREENBERG. Yes, it is—— 

Senator COBURN. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. GREENBERG. That is the case. Yes. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Let me just run through the order 

of those who came—my colleagues who have come into participate. 

Senator McCain was an early arriver. Senator Johnson, next. Senator Ayotte, next. She just left. She will probably be back. Senator 

Baldwin. Senator Heitkamp. Senator Landrieu. 

And, Senator McCain, I just want to say, thank you for encouraging us to hold this hearing. We have another next week. And, 

thank you very much, again, for hosting me down in your State a 
22 

year ago. Thank you. And, for all the work that you have done on 

the immigration reform legislation. Senator McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing and I thank the witnesses. 

Mr. Greenberg, the President of the United States, according to 

an article in the Atlantic, met with a group of advocates and others, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and others, and 

according to this article, ‘‘He told the groups he had to enforce the 

law—even if that meant deporting hard cases with minors involved. Sometimes, there is an inherent injustice in where you are 

born, and no President can solve that, Obama said. But Presidents 

must send the message that you cannot just show up on the border, 

plead for asylum or refugee status, and hope to get it. Quote, ‘Then 

anyone can come in, and it means that, effectively, we do not have 

any kind of system,’ Obama said. Quote, ‘We are a nation with borders that must be enforced.’ ’’ 

Do you agree with that statement, Mr. Winkowski and Mr. 

Greenberg? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes. 

Senator MCCAIN. Then, I wonder why anyone would question the 

motivation for young people to come here, since the latest information we have, that in fiscal year 2013, 20,805 unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras were apprehended by the Border Patrol. In that same year, 2013, 1,669 of 

these unaccompanied children were repatriated to their home countries. If you were one of these children and you were there in one 

of these countries, would you not think your odds are pretty good? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes, but there is a legal process and that process takes time to make its way through the system, and that is 

part of the challenge that we have the Director talked about from 

the standpoint of staffing of judges and just the legal process that 

takes place. It takes time to get to a point of removal in some of 

these cases. 

Senator MCCAIN. But, despite what you have to say, Mr. 

Winkowski, if you are sitting there in El Salvador today and one 

out of 10 do not even show up when they get the permiso slips— 

only one out of 10 show up actually before a judge, is that not true? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. I have heard that number, yes. 

Senator MCCAIN. You have heard that number? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes. 

Senator MCCAIN. You do not know? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. I have heard various numbers, but that is one 

of them. It is—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, is that a valid number? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. That is a number—— 

Senator MCCAIN. You would not even know how many, what percentage do not show up with a permiso slip? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Well, that is—for the judge? 

Senator MCCAIN. Yes. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. For the EOIR? Perhaps the Chief Judge can 

help me on that. 

Mr. OSUNA. Senator, if I may—— 
23 

Senator MCCAIN. Yes. 

Mr. OSUNA. I have heard the 90 percent number, and that number is actually not accurate. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, what is the accurate number? 

Mr. OSUNA. The accurate numbers that we have is for all juvenile cases. Now, these are not subdivided unaccompanied minors. 

Our database—— 

Senator MCCAIN. It should be subdivided unaccompanied minors, 

Mr. Osuna. They are the ones that are coming. 

Mr. OSUNA. We are working with our partners to try to get better data on the actual numbers. But, the numbers for juveniles 

that we have, and then we have overall numbers. The number that 

we have is that 46 percent of juveniles actually do not show up for 

their immigration hearings—— 

Senator MCCAIN. So, half the people. Only half the people do not 

show up. 

Mr. OSUNA. That is correct. 

Senator MCCAIN. I see. 

Mr. OSUNA. Now, I should note, however, that not showing up for 

an immigration hearing carries considerable consequences. Whether you are an adult or a child or anybody that actually is issued 

a notice to appear and is required to appear before an immigration 

judge and does not appear, that judge then issues, essentially, an 

order of removal, and that order of removal can be enforced after 

them not showing up. 

Senator MCCAIN. But, the fact is, in 2013, 1,669 out of 20,805 

were actually in that year returned. That is one out of 20, roughly. 

So, I mean, the fact is that people show up and they have every 

reason to believe, according to these numbers—and I will be glad 

to look at your numbers, even if it is only half—that there is ample 

incentive for them to come to this country. 

The President initially said that he believed that the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act, which would provide the same status for 

Central America as we have for Mexico and Canada, that amendment would be supported. Do you support that, Mr. Winkowski? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. I support a system, whether it is—— 

Senator MCCAIN. I just asked if you support amending the bill. 

I am not asking what you support. I am asking if you support 

amending the bill. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Winkowski, I have been representing the State of Arizona for 

many years, and I have never seen anything like your instructions 

to—signed by your name—Interim Protocol for Visitations and 

Tours to CBP Detention Facilities. Are you telling me when I visit 

a detention facility that I cannot bring a cell phone with me? Are 

you saying that? A U.S. Senator visiting a facility, these are the 

instructions that you have signed? Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. That the visitors cannot bring cell phones—— 

Senator MCCAIN. A visiting Member of Congress? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. I do not recall saying that. What I recall has 

been some time—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Let me provide you with a copy. It says, see 

distribution, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, Interim Protocol 
24 

for Visitations and Tours to CBP Detention Facilities. You did not 

see your own memo? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. That would be me. 

Senator MCCAIN. OK. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I did issue that memo, and we have had huge 

numbers of—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Am I allowed to bring a cell phone with me 

when I go onto a facility in Nogales, Arizona? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Not to take photographs—— 

Senator MCCAIN. I am not allowed to take photographs. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Not to take photographs inside the facility. 

Senator MCCAIN. Why not? Why am I not allowed to do that? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. The children have a right to privacy and that 

is why we are not having their faces shown on media clips. 

Senator MCCAIN. I may want to take a photo of something else. 

And also, in your—— 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I think if you wanted to take a photo, we 

would certainly make arrangements for you to take a photo, just 

not of the children. 

Senator MCCAIN. That is not the instructions that you have 

given, sir. Have any physical or verbal contact with detained children unless previously requested and specifically—oh, have any 

physical or verbal contact with CBP detainees and/or staff. Are you 

telling me that I cannot even speak to the staff there? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Senator, I am not telling you you could not 

speak to the staff. We would make arrangements—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, why did you issue these instructions? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We have had requests by hundreds and hundreds—— 

Senator MCCAIN. I am talking about Members of Congress, sir, 

which you said applies to Members of Congress. I am not asking 

about the hundreds. I am talking about the responsibilities I have 

in my own State. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. It does, and we would make special arrangements for special consideration, Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. But that is not according to your instructions, 

and when I was there, then the Border Patrol and the people there 

said that they did not want me speaking to any of the staff or children. I view that as a violation of my responsibilities. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I am not familiar with your—— 

Senator MCCAIN. They were carrying out your instruction, sir. I 

want it fixed, and I want it fixed immediately, understand? If a 

Member of Congress cannot visit a facility in his own State, and 

the people of Arizona elected me and I am not supposed to even 

carry a cell phone with me, you have overstepped your responsibilities and your authority, sir, and I want those instructions revoked 

as far as Members of Congress are concerned and I want it done 

today. Do you understand? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE I understand. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Our next Senator to be recognized is Senator 

Johnson. 
25 

1The response to the question submitted by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 

148. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I come from manufacturing, so root cause analysis is just in my 

DNA. And, Mr. Chairman, I think you asked the right question. 

How do we stop the flow? 

From my standpoint, what is causing all the illegal immigration 

in this country is we are actually incentivizing it. But, when we 

pass, I am sorry, a comprehensive immigration bill in the Senate 

that includes $262 billion in welfare benefits to non-U.S. citizens, 

that creates an incentive. When we are asking for $3.7 billion to 

beef up detention facilities, to allow a greater time for adjudication, 

that is creating incentive. As we are talking about, we are not 

turning these people back. We are actually incentivizing parents to 

put their kids at great risk coming across Mexico because they 

know if they reach the promised land, they are home free. We are 

creating incentive. 

And, of course, when President Obama 2 years ago issued a 

memorandum, Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA), 

which basically codified the fact that we are not going to send people home, we are creating that incentive. And, we are trying to stop 

human trafficking. Are we actually increasing it, because we have 

smugglers earning $3,000 per child? 

So, I guess I would like to, first of all, if we are going to solve 

the problem, let us understand the numbers. Mr. Kerlikowske may 

be the best person to answer this, or somebody else. How many unaccompanied children, have come into this Nation since DACA was 

first issued 2 years ago? How many kids? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I have the number of children that have been 

apprehended in this, or encountered in this fiscal year at 57,000. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK—— 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I can certainly give you the information on 

going back to when DACA—— 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. I would like that.1

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. OK. 

Senator JOHNSON. Of those 57,000, how many have been returned? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. The United States Customs and Border Patrol is in the apprehension—— 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. So, who would know the—— 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We do not—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Who would know the number of how many of 

those have been returned? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. The numbers I have that were talked about 

1,300, 1,500. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. So, a very low percentage—— 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Very low—— 

Senator JOHNSON [continuing]. As Senator McCain was talking 

about. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. How many of those are from Mexico? Of the 

57,000, how many are Mexican citizens? 
26 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. The breakdown has been that Honduras, El 

Salvador, Guatemala contain about 78 to 82 percent of the people 

that we have encountered. The rest are from other countries, including Mexico. A smaller number from Mexico. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. The point I am trying to get at is in the 

2008 bill, we did create some expedited procedures for people from 

contiguous nations, right, Mexico and Canada. So, are we following 

those expedited procedures? So, if we have illegal immigrants coming from Mexico, are we actually expediting those procedures? Who 

can answer that? The Department of Justice? HHS? I mean, who 

is doing this? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes. If I remember the numbers correctly, and 

I will stand corrected, I think last year, Border Patrol did expedited removal on 11,000 children, I believe, that made its way onto 

United States and did an expedited removal. Very little activity up 

on the Northern Border. 

Senator JOHNSON. I would not doubt that. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes. Best of my recollection during my time 

there, Border Patrol was using expedited removal. 

Senator JOHNSON. What is the timeline for deportation? I mean, 

how long does it take to go through this adjudication process? Let 

us first talk about for the expedited procedures for Mexicans, and 

then I want to talk about other-than-Mexican (OTM). 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Well, my understanding on expedited removal 

for it is virtually immediate for people that come in that are eligible under expedited removal. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, if there are 20 percent that are basically 

Mexican, which would be expedited procedures, 20 percent of 

57,000 would be roughly 10,000, right? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ten to 11,000. Why are we only deporting 

1,700—— 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. I remembered a number of 11,000 that Border 

Patrol executed from an expedited removal standpoint. But, under 

the expedited removal process, you have to determine a couple 

things, and then that person—— 

Senator JOHNSON. So, how long does that take to determine 

those couple things? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. My understanding is, under expedited removal, 

it is very quick. It can be the same day, assuming—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Again, so, if 20 percent of the 57,000 unaccompanied children are Mexican, subject to those expedited procedures, 

it could be the same day. How come we have only deported, what 

is it, Senator McCain, 1,700, when the number is closer to 10,000 

or 11,000? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Well, I think the number that I was quoting 

was from the Central American countries. It did not include Mexico. I am trying to break them into different buckets here. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Mr. Kerlikowske. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Senator, the vast majority of immigrants that 

are here illegally that are apprehended at the border from Mexico 

are returned almost within the same day, and that they move very 

quickly. 
27 

1The response to the question submitted by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 

150. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, are the unaccompanied children from Mexico not counted in your 57,000? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. A part of those 57,000 are those unaccompanied children from Mexico. Many of them are returned within 

the same day, and I will be happy to give you—— 

Senator JOHNSON. So give me those. I want to know—— 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I would be happy to give you those——1

Senator JOHNSON. So, I want to go to the Department of Justice, 

then. How long does it take in terms of other-than-Mexico, otherthan-Canadians, to actually go through the adjudication process 

and actually be deported? 

Mr. OSUNA. So, Senator, our immigration court system has no direct role with the expedited removal process. So, let me talk about 

the process whereby somebody actually gets brought into the country and then put through removal proceedings through our court 

system. 

We break these down between detained and non-detained. If you 

are in a detained docket, in other words, about more than 40 percent of our dockets currently are individuals who are detained 

while awaiting a hearing before an immigration judge. Those cases 

tend to move pretty quickly. I do not have a number for you, but 

they move within a matter of a few weeks to a few months. If they 

are on the non-detained dockets, those are the ones that take a 

long time. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, again, a few weeks, few months, but we 

have only returned a fraction of the 57,000 that we are talking 

about here. So, I mean, again, what you are saying does not add 

up with what the numbers are. 

And, let me just make my final point because I am running out 

of time. I have run out of time. I cannot think of a more humane 

thing to do, even though it maybe sounds a little cruel, than to 

deter parents from sending their children to the United States, and 

I cannot think of a better way to deter parents from doing that as 

to literally take these minors, identify where they came from, I 

have gone online. It costs $207 on a one-way trip in terms of a 

plane flight. 

Put them into a hotel, feed them, and return them to the country 

of origin, because I cannot think of a better signal to parents in 

Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras to say, do not subject your 

children to the beast. Do not subject your children to rape and 

murder. Do not send them to the United States, because when they 

get here, they will not be allowed to stay. 

There are seven billion people in this world that do not live in 

America. Many of them would like to come. And, we have to come 

to a decision in this country whether we are going to have totally 

open borders or we are going to have a legal immigration system, 

which I want to fix this. But, we have to address the root cause 

in this, and the root cause literally is we have to stop incentivizing 

parents and other immigrants coming into this Nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
28 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Next in the questioning, Senator Ayotte 

would be next, but she stepped out for a moment. Senator Baldwin, 

you are up, and then Senator Heitkamp, when she comes back, and 

if she does not, then Senator Landrieu. Senator Baldwin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate our 

witnesses for being here today for a very important hearing. 

I want to start with a little questioning on what data and statistics we do have available. I know there are a lot of questions about 

why, and how long this has been going on. We have some very recent statistics that have been shared, but I would like to get a better sense of what is out there and what you can furnish to us as 

a followup to this hearing. 

And, so, I start with I know you are fairly new to the post Mr. 

Kerlikowske. You talked about 57,000 unaccompanied minors this 

year. In terms of border crossings of unaccompanied minors, can 

you give us month-by-month, year-by-year data, going back over 

several years? We have sort of declared crisis in recent months, but 

it seems to me that this is of some duration this trend began. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. You are absolutely right, Senator. The increase this year, so far—and we still have 3 months left in this fiscal year—has doubled from the year before, and that year doubled 

from the year before. In early 2013, a number of interagency colleagues, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, 

Health and Human Services, all met to begin to address this issue, 

particularly in the Rio Grande Valley. We can give you details 

going back, month-by-month, year-by-year. 

Senator BALDWIN. OK. And, I would appreciate that. 

And then, Mr. Winkowski, I am curious to know, also, what sort 

of data you could provide us. We heard testimony in an order of 

border crossings and then issuance of notices to appear, and then, 

of course, unaccompanied minors referred to HHS. Mr. Winkowski, 

can you provide us with year-by-year and month-by-month data on 

the issuance of notices to appear to unaccompanied minors? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Absolutely. Yes. 

Senator BALDWIN. OK. 

And then, Mr. Greenberg, you receive referrals from Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement. Can you also provide, and would you 

characterize for us, before providing that specific and more granular data, the numbers that you have been seeing recently? 

Mr. GREENBERG. Yes, and we would be able to provide, for the 

children that are referred to us, country of origin, sex, the age of 

children, and then when the child goes to a parent, relative, or 

other sponsor, what the nature of that placement is. 

Senator BALDWIN. OK. That will be appreciated. 

And then, Mr. Osuna, you gave us some very recent statistics on 

record levels of cases pending, but I would also appreciate, again, 

a longer timeline and more granular data for us to get a greater 

understanding than your testimony provided. 

Mr. OSUNA. I will be happy to provide that, Senator. 

Senator BALDWIN. I am not sure who to direct it to, but I think 

I would start with Mr. Palmieri—about what do we know about migration of unaccompanied minors from Honduras, El Salvador, and 
29 

Guatemala to other Central American countries or South American 

countries? What sort of anecdotal or statistical information could 

you share on that? 

Mr. PALMIERI. It appears the primary route that Salvadoran, 

Guatemalan, and Honduran migrants and unaccompanied children 

are taking are north. There are reports that some do seek to stay 

in Mexico, if they can. Part of the Mexican effort at the border with 

Guatemala is they are trying to issue better documentation of people who are entering their country so that they can track those 

visitors in a better way as they move through the country and to 

see where they are ending up. It is, without a doubt, the large 

numbers end up at our border. 

Senator BALDWIN. Absolutely. 

For Mr. Osuna, we know that many of these unaccompanied minors have fled violence. We also know that many have arrived in 

the United States in the hand of human traffickers and may have 

been further victimized on the route to the U.S. border. Under the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, and understanding that asylum officers operate under a different department 

than you, could you still tell us the standards by which those officers and immigration judges, upon review, will determine which 

children qualify for asylum or Special Immigrant Juvenile Status 

and, therefore, can remain in the United States under the 2008 

law. 

Mr. OSUNA. Senator, the rules for asylum that our immigration 

judges apply in children’s cases, in terms of the legal standards, 

are the same as all other asylum applicants. They are set in statute and regulation and interpreted over the years by case law. 

That is not any different whether the person appearing before a 

judge is an adult or the child. What is different is the process. 

If a child is eligible for, or appears to be eligible and wants to 

apply for asylum or Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, the initial 

jurisdiction over those cases actually rests with U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services (USCIS) at DHS. So, what the judge has 

to do is basically suspend adjudication of that case for the moment, 

refer the case over to DHS, USCIS for adjudication, and they make 

the initial call on, again, asylum or Special Immigrant Juvenile. 

Senator BALDWIN. You mentioned that the standards were the 

same regardless of being a minor or an adult. 

Mr. OSUNA. Generally speaking—— 

Senator BALDWIN. Remind us. 

Mr. OSUNA [continuing]. An individual applying for asylum has 

the burden of showing that he or she fears persecution—has a wellfounded fear of persecution is the legal standard—based on one of 

five grounds: Race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. And that is law going back to 

the 1980 Refugee Act and our international obligations. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator Baldwin, thanks so much. 

Senator Heitkamp would be next. She is not here just now. Senator Landrieu, followed by Senator McCaskill. 
30 

1The information submitted by Senator Landrieu appears in the Appendix on page 89. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me 

thank you for calling this hearing. It is extremely important, very 

timely, given that the President is asking for a $3.7 billion supplemental, which came to Congress and the Appropriations Committee 

members, of which I am one and the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Homeland Security. The 

Appropriations Committee will have to really carefully consider as 

to how we are going to allocate these dollars to solve the problem. 

No. 2, I cannot think of two better people, literally, who have 

calm thinking about how to figure this out and to get to the root 

of the problem and then to help us to allocate the dollars wisely 

and then hold people accountable for doing the job. You two have 

proven yourselves, and both Senator Carper and Senator Coburn, 

you have particularly been strong on accountability, which is what 

I would like to join both of you on. 

But, I think, first of all, I want to make sure—and it was just 

said, finally—the laws that are governing this, because there is 

some confusion. And, I just want to submit to the record1 what my 

staff and I have been researching about the laws, because I think 

we should start there, and then policies and rules that may need 

to be adjusted or changed, or perhaps some laws need to be 

changed. 

But, the basic law—you just said it—is the Asylum Law of 1980. 

Could somebody talk for 30 seconds—about the Asylum Law in 

1980 and what it said. Go ahead. 

Mr. OSUNA. The 1980 Refugee Act, which is enshrined in our 

statutes these days, implemented our international obligations 

with regard to refugees. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Adults and children show up at our borders. 

Talk about that. 

Mr. OSUNA. And it is, by the way, the same law that our colleagues at the State Department apply overseas for refugee processing overseas. But, if anybody who arrives at our shores—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Since 1980, anybody that arrives at the 

shores—go ahead—— 

Mr. OSUNA. That is right can apply—— 

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. Seek asylum—— 

Mr. OSUNA [continuing]. Can seek asylum—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. And they have to say that they are fearful. 

And that was passed in the Reagan Administration? 

Mr. OSUNA. I think it was right at the tail end of the Carter Administration—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. The Carter Administration. OK. So, and that 

is the law today. 

Mr. OSUNA. That is correct. 

Senator LANDRIEU. There was a second law when the Department of Homeland Security was created. Senator Feinstein had a 

stand-alone law. Does anybody want to comment about what that 

law is, because it has a bearing here. It was incorporated in the 

creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Is anybody familiar with that law? 
31 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. The Homeland Security Act of 2002—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Correct. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. If I recall correctly, it had to do with the expedited removal—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. It divided the responsibilities for the processing and treatment of unaccompanied minors—— 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. To HHS. 

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. Between the Department of 

Homeland Security—— 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes. 

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. And the Department of Health 

and Human Services. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Right. Yes. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And then, in 2008, in the Trafficking Law in 

2008, which was sponsored by Senators Biden and Brownback—all 

of these are bipartisan—there were further additions to this law, 

which basically said children from contiguous countries, Mexico 

and Canada, would qualify for immediate repatriation, and children that came from non-contiguous States could go through this 

process. Now, that was passed in 2008 under the Trafficking Law. 

I think it is important for this Committee to, before we start getting opinions, et cetera, to try to get to the basis of the law. Do you 

agree? 

Chairman CARPER. Amen. 

Senator LANDRIEU. So, if this is not correct, I would like to know 

before the end of the day, because I do need a plan. 

Senator COBURN. That is what needs to be fixed. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. That needs to be changed in order to solve this 

problem. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes. So, this is the law and we should talk 

about what the law says, what we think the law should say, and 

then figure out how we are going to deal with this problem. 

But, let me ask you, Mr. Fugate, because I have had a lot of experience, and you know, a lot of experience with FEMA and how 

much I believe in you, in your leadership and your ability to solve 

emergencies. So, I am glad that the President asked FEMA to step 

into this situation and try to sort out and give immediate assistance for the immediate crisis on the border, which is in Senator 

McCain’s State primarily, and Texas. I understand why he is very 

upset. 

But, let me ask you, Mr. Fugate, do you have budgetary authority over this $3.7 billion? Where does your authority begin and 

where does it end, in your mind now? 

Mr. FUGATE. Currently, and not in the supplemental will I have 

any budgetary authority or—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. You have no budgetary authority in the supplemental? 

Mr. FUGATE. No, Senator. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. So, do you have any budgetary authority 

for the money that is being spent now? 

Mr. FUGATE. No, Senator. 

Senator LANDRIEU. So, who does have budgetary authority for 

the money that is spent now? 
32 

Mr. FUGATE. The agencies. As the budget was passed, the authorizations and appropriations for those agencies. So, with the 

President’s direction, I gained no new authorities. Unless an agency was authorized to do the work they were doing or they had 

funds, or Congress had granted transfer authority within those 

funds to address this issue, I had no new authority and no new 

money. 

Senator LANDRIEU. So, why did the President give you the authority? Why did he not give them the authority? What is it in your 

authority that enabled you to do things that they cannot do? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, in the Homeland Security Act, the PostKatrina Emergency Management Reform Act, you gave us authorities not only for Stafford Act-related disasters, but also designated 

the FEMA Administrator as the principal advisor to the Secretary 

of Homeland Security the National Security Council, and the President, as well as Congress, on emergency management matters. We 

took the approach, when asked to assist, that this was a humanitarian issue and that we have the ability to convene across all the 

agencies to work together. We have authorities within the national 

framework to set up and operate under interagency agreements, to 

transfer funds from one agency to another who may have capabilities, but not authorization or funding. Again, this is what we did 

in the earthquake in Haiti, where we used Federal resources to 

support USAID. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. But, let me ask you this, though, because 

my time is short and I want to get to HHS, because this is what 

I am very concerned about. I agree that the children need to be 

handled, potentially, differently than other immigration issues and 

that Health and Human Services has a role. But, my concern, Mr. 

Chairman, is that I am fairly current and up to date on the very 

mediocre job that is being done in our own foster care system in 

the United States today, and let me just give you some statistics. 

On any given day, we have 500,000 kids that are in foster care 

in the United States. Six-hundred-and-ninety-one new children 

come into our foster care system in 50 States. So, with a high caseload, by Casey and Pew, high turnover rate of social workers, not 

enough judges anywhere, we are getting ready to add to this system that is not the strongest this group of children that have no 

paperwork, or little paperwork. Many have no birth certificates. 

So, I am really concerned about this, as all of us are. So, I am 

going to end, because I have gone over my time, with just saying 

that what I am going to be focused on is accountability, who is in 

charge, what the plan is, who is going to be held responsible, before 

we spend $3.7 billion in addition to the $2.5 billion that is already 

in four appropriation bills that are moving their way through the 

process. So, we have a lot more questions to be answered before I 

think we run too far ahead, let me just speak for myself. I want 

to be helpful. I absolutely want to be helpful. But, I do have quite 

a few more questions. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Those are great questions. Let me just say 

that we are fortunate on this Committee not only to have Senator 

Landrieu serve as a member of this Committee, but she Chairs the 

Appropriations Subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the De-
33 

partment of Homeland Security and she is a great partner in that 

regard, as well. But, thank you for—especially for your caring. She 

has been down to Guatemala probably more times than all of us 

put together and we applaud you for your concern and for being 

here today. 

Senator McCaskill, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. 

I would like to talk a little bit about the push factors that are 

causing families—and, by the way, all these cultures are very family centric, and the notion that they are sending their children off 

on a very dangerous proposition speaks to the real problems they 

have in their countries. And, obviously, the root of the problem is 

the lack of rule of law in these countries. 

Now, back in 2010, we began a program called the Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI), and I know some of you 

should be familiar with this. From 2008 to 2011, U.S. agencies 

have allocated $350 million to help the exact countries that these 

children are coming from with the problems of corruption, gang activity, lawlessness, all of the things that are causing these families 

to be ripped apart. 

Now, I am assuming, and please confirm for the record, that both 

DOJ and State use contractors for this program, the CARSI program. 

Mr. PALMIERI. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator MCCASKILL. All right. I have looked, and I cannot find 

any Inspector General (IG) reports on any of these programs. Are 

you aware of any analysis that has been done about the effectiveness of these programs? 

Mr. PALMIERI. Yes, I am aware that there have been. There was 

a GAO report that was prepared on CARSI. There have been—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. I did find the GAO report. I did not find the 

IG reports. Are you aware of any IG reports that have been done? 

Mr. PALMIERI. I am not aware, but I will check for you, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Now, the GAO report found that the 

State Department had not provided adequate in-country oversight 

in other programs that we have looked at. I guess I would consider 

ommitting my question is, how many in-country contracting officers 

representatives do you have for these contracts? 

Mr. PALMIERI. I will have to get that number for you, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I would also like to know, how many contractors we have overseeing contractors on these contracts, because 

what we found in the past is the contractors are watching the contractors, and sometimes the contractors are hired to come and testify about the contractors overseeing the contractors. 

Mr. PALMIERI. I understand. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Can you provide us with a list of the contractors, the scope of the contracts, and the cost of each contract, 

as well as the oversight being conducted on each contract managed 

or co-managed by State, USAID, DOJ, in Guatemala, Honduras, 

and El Salvador? 

Mr. PALMIERI. I will take that back, ma’am. 
34 

Senator MCCASKILL. We do not have any real indicators that the 

money we are spending down there on these programs is working, 

and I would say tens upon thousands of children showing up at our 

border may be a performance metric that what we are doing is not 

working very well. 

Mr. PALMIERI. There are some metrics that have been done, and 

in the limited areas where our assistance is operating, particularly 

the Model Police Precincts, the Community Policing Programs, 

Youth Outreach Centers that USAID is running, we have seen and 

been able to document with metrics a decrease in violence, a decrease in gang activities. The problem is the limited nature of those 

programs are not—the scope is not systemic enough. 

Recently, in Honduras, the new President who took office in Jan- uary, has put up an additional $600,000 of Honduran money to 

begin replicating some of the USAID Youth Outreach Centers because they have had an impact. So, we do have some metrics that 

are showing that these programs are having an impact on some of 

the systemic conditions. The problem is replicating them quickly, 

and they have been limited in scope because of the amount of funds 

available for them. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, this is a real important issue, getting 

on top of what we are doing now and whether it is working in these 

countries, because, as my colleague, Senator Landrieu, just pointed 

out, these children—it would be much better for them to be reunited with their families in their home countries in an environment that is safe. I mean, that is the best possible outcome. 

So, if we have something that is working, it is time for you all 

to say, hey, this is what we are doing that is working, and it is 

working here and we can show that it is working here, and that 

is something—is the administration aware that you have programs 

that are working well in some areas, and is that part of their request of this money? 

Mr. PALMIERI. Yes, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. How much of the $3.5 billion is for replicating the programs that you maintain are working now? 

Mr. PALMIERI. The supplemental request includes $295 million 

for expanded Economic Support Fund Programs in the region. Most 

of that money will go to programs that we think are having an impact and that will have an immediate impact in the region. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I am very anxious to get into the weeds on 

this. I really want to understand what these contracts are, who has 

them, what they are doing day to day, what the metrics are, how 

we know they are working, and what the cost of replication is. And 

then I want to track that back to the President’s analysis, because 

if we can do it in these host countries, as opposed to trying to absorb all these children into our systems that we have already heard 

is stressed, it would be a huge positive outcome for these children. 

Mr. PALMIERI. We agree, and one other aspect of the President’s 

request, though, while CARSI has been a security-driven program, 

expanding Model Police Precincts, expanding Community Policing, 

providing some Youth Outreach Centers as part of anti-gang activities, the request also includes funds—because we believe that we 

need to get more balance in the United States assistance approach 

to the region, that we have to help, also, on the economic growth 
35 

and job creation side. So, there are funds in there that also, we 

think, will make an immediate impact on jump-starting the economies, because I think we will all agree, better job opportunities, 

better educational opportunities in this region is a way to keep people at home. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I agree, and balance is important. In 2009, 

the United States was spending $4.4 million on police training in 

Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador combined. We were spending $327 million in Mexico, just to give you some sense of the imbalance that occurred at that time. 

And, finally, briefly, and I will take this for the record because 

I know I am over my time, but I think it is really important that 

we focus on the structural and systemic obstacles to the backlog of 

undetained. Ten years ago we had a year-long backlog of 

undetained, and we had 150,000 cases in a backlog prior to these 

thousands of children coming to our border. 

So, this is a long-running problem, and the notion that we cannot 

figure out the systemic things that we need to do, and a lot of it 

is fixing the laws that Senator Landrieu just went through—I 

think we are kidding ourselves that we are not going to be dealing 

with this kind of crisis on an ongoing basis until we finally get at 

the systemic problem, because this is a backlog that is a decadelong. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator McCaskill, great points. 

Senator Ayotte, and then Senator Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask about the conditions upon which these children 

are being brought up here by the smugglers. As I understand it, 

there are girls who are being raped, as I understand it, and boys, 

too, children being abused. What are the conditions upon which— 

we have talked a lot about the conditions in the countries and how 

bad they are, but what are these children being subjected to, and 

how much are they subjected to these criminal syndicates who are 

making money off this and are exploiting these children, and what 

are we talking about is happening to these children? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Senator, a couple things that I think are important. One is that almost all of the children that are being 

brought into the country are being brought through smuggling organizations. Oftentimes, the smugglers are juveniles themselves. 

This is a money, a profit issue. It is often controlled overhead by 

cartels. 

There are two modes of transportation that we see right now. 

One, of course, has been cited as the train that comes up and people taking that dangerous journey on the train. But, also, a large 

number of charter buses, mom-and-pop charter buses driving up 

here. Then, the children, or the people are held in what are called 

stash houses on the Mexican side of the border until they can 

come. 

The dangers of abuse, including, just recently, the body of an 11- 

year-old boy found in Texas, are enormous. 
36 

1The posters submitted by Mr. Kerlikowske appears in the Appendix on page 93. 

Senator AYOTTE. So, a dead little boy, as I understand it, children being raped, correct? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator AYOTTE. And exploited. And, so, one of the things that 

concerns me is that we are sending a dual message. So, we are 

sending a message—they have gotten an impression in those countries that if you send your child on that journey, that, yes, you are 

leaving, obviously, the conditions that we want to work more effectively to improve in those countries, but they are going on this 

deadly journey, in some instances, or just a journey that can 

change who they are for the rest of their lives because we have 

said—they are getting an impression in their countries that once 

they get here, they can stay. 

So, what concerns me is that our policies, that we are sending 

this message that they can stay, is also inhumane in the sense that 

these children are being put on this deadly journey. So, if you could 

comment on that in terms of how important it is that people understand from those countries a clear message from the United States 

of America not to send your child on this journey because of what 

is happening to your child, but also if they got the message that 

we are going to follow our laws and they will not be able to stay. 

As humane as we all want to be, it is inhumane to send them on 

this journey. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Senator, if Senator Coburn would not mind, 

if we could also show the other poster.1 It is an example of one of 

the posters—— 

Chairman CARPER. Please do. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE [continuing]. That are going up all over in 

Central America. They are going up in bus placards and overheads 

on highways. 

This essentially says, ‘‘I thought my son would be able to get his 

papers in the United States, in the U.S.A. That was not true.’’ 

There are other posters. There are radio spots. There are television spots being broadcast. And, these three countries, by the 

way, working with their embassies, are also very supportive and 

doing their own messaging. Two parts. It is dangerous to try and 

make this journey, and you will not be given a free pass upon arrival. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, I appreciate that we are doing this public 

information campaign, but our leaders need to be clear, and I saw 

that Secretary Johnson on the Sunday shows was pressed no less 

than six times if these minors, if they came here through this deadly journey, whether they would be returned to their countries, and 

he would not answer that question. And, so, in addition to that, the 

White House Press Secretary was asked that very same question, 

about the ambiguity in which these children would be treated, and 

he said that the law will be applied, but he would not answer the 

question. 

So, it is one thing for us to put up a public information campaign, but if the leaders of our country and the leaders in these positions are not clear as to what our intention is and that we intend 

to follow our law, and if we have a system where only, as Senator 
37 

McCain asked, only one out of ten actually are going to show up 

for the proceeding and actually go through the process, then we are 

talking out of both sides of our mouths and we are doing a disservice to these children because we are sending this message to 

parents that, yes, please take this risk, send them on the deadly 

journey, and when they get here, they really will be permitted to 

stay, which is contradictory to these messages. 

So, I think we need to speak clearly, with one voice, and I would 

ask you to comment on that. 

Senator COBURN. Would the Senator yield for a second? The No. 

1 message to stop this is planes arriving in Honduras and Guatemala with these children back home. That sends the message. This, 

as long as it is less than 10 percent, will not stop anything. When 

they see them returning after making this harrowing trip, that is 

when they are going to get the message. And, until that happens, 

it is going to continue. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, as a followup, I would ask, our law, as I 

understand it, one of the issues is the legal treatment is different 

between, for example, Mexican, Canadian, those children that 

would come, and the population we are talking about from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and I guess I am not clear why 

we should make that distinction in the sense that one set of children—both sets of children, as we think about it, could be as vulnerable to trafficking. So, do you think that this distinction in our 

law should continue to exist, this one that is making it more difficult for you to get the option of returning these children more 

quickly, as soon as they return. I know we talked about it a lot at 

this hearing, but what is your position on it? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Senator, I know the law was—from 2008— 

was passed with all of the emphasis to prevent these children from 

being trafficked, particularly sex trafficking—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, now they are being trafficked. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE [continuing]. And others. I think that what we 

are interested in is certainly the flexibility. I think it has to be 

carefully considered because of the reasons that Congress went to 

such trouble to spend that time and effort passing that original 

law. 

But, from our standpoint, from the Customs and Border Protection standpoint, the ability to have some flexibility would be very 

helpful. 

Senator AYOTTE. OK. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Let me just make a couple of quick points before I recognize Senator Heitkamp. 

One, the term ‘‘truth campaign’’ is something you probably have 

heard about as a former Attorney General, but we mounted a truth 

campaign in this country about 12 years ago to try to convince kids 

to stop smoking, if they were, and not to start, if they were thinking of it. Hugely successful. A hard-hitting campaign. Actually, the 

messaging that helped was designed by young kids, in many cases. 

What we need here is, I think, a truth campaign. I was pleased 

to see this money in the President’s supplemental proposal—I 

think it is $5 million—to mount a truth campaign. I think it has, 

like, four pieces to it, and you have mentioned a couple. You and 

Dr. Coburn have mentioned a couple of those pieces. 
38 

One of those is to remind the parents down there of the perils 

that they subject their children to if they put them on that train 

to come up here. 

A second is to remind them of the kind of reception that they are 

going to get here, and it cannot be one with open arms. You are 

going to stay here for an indefinite point of time. 

The point that Tom raises, the idea that folks are going to be returned, including young people are going to be returned, in a number of cases. 

But, the fourth piece of the message is this. It is a message of 

hope in their own country, that they can have a future, that they 

can have a good life, be able to provide for themselves and live in 

safety. And, the fourth piece is important, as well. 

All right. Thanks. And, with that, Senator Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize for not having been here during some of the other discussion. I had to go sit in the chair. This is an issue that I am 

deeply concerned about on a number of levels, and you are hearing 

kind of a broad scope of concern for the children, the safety of the 

children, but also concern for the safety of our border and who are 

these kids. 

I know that Senator Baldwin asked for a number of metrics in 

terms of the age of the children. She asked a number of questions 

regarding who they are, male/female. 

And, I think that one of the things we need to be very careful 

about here is our assumption about why these kids are here and 

why the kids are coming to the border. A lot of us have talked 

about their parents sending them here for rescue or for safety reasons, for a better life. We need to be very careful that not every 

kid is going to fall into that category and that not doing the metrics 

on the front end is disturbing, because who are these kids—you 

have 72 hours to process them. 

And, I guess my first question would be to you, Gil, and again, 

I would like to thank you for coming to North Dakota. Your work 

as the Drug Czar has made just a very significant and important 

contribution to my State, and so I just want to publicly acknowledge you and I am grateful that you have taken on this new level 

of public service, kind of from the pot to the frying pan here, in crisis. 

But, I want to just ask you, what is your judgment in terms of 

percentages, looking at the numbers, and are your Border agents 

trained and sophisticated enough to create categories of kids, 

whether they are gang-bangers coming in here to seek a new level 

of contribution in terms of the underground and crime? Are they 

kids who are not just being smuggled, because there is a difference 

between smuggling and trafficking. So, we just need to make that 

clear. It does not mean that kids who are being smuggled do not 

eventually become trafficked. But, how many of these kids are actually initiated into this process in a trafficking category? And, 

then, what are their ages? And, so, can you just kind of give me 

what your sense is right now. 
39 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. My sense, having watched it pretty carefully 

in McAllen, Brownsville, Fort Brown, and other places, and watching these experienced Border Patrol agents interview and talk with 

these young people, is that they are—and including—they are very 

sophisticated, these agents, at being able to determine information. 

Fourteen and above, they are all fingerprinted. Those fingerprints are run against the databases here in the United States, so 

that if it was somebody a little bit older that had been deported 

or had been arrested or was involved in a gang. We need better cooperation, better communication with those other three countries to 

make sure. The vast majority of what we are seeing are not in that 

threat category, but we have to be very careful. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Well, as has been reported, and I do not have 

any personal knowledge of this, that the number of drug seizures 

on the border since this crisis has decreased because resources 

have been deployed to deal with the emergency of this crisis, is 

that correct? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. The number of drug seizures has decreased in 

that particular sector, but a couple of things, actually, having 

watched it pretty carefully for the 5-years I served as the President’s Drug Policy Advisor. Those numbers fluctuate a lot, and now 

that we have two States where you can grow your own marijuana, 

I am not so sure that marijuana coming in from Mexico is going 

to continue at the amount that it did. So, I think there are a lot 

of things going on. 

But, I am also confident in Chief Kevin Oaks in the Rio Grande 

Valley and his determination that he will make every available resource. Rio Grande Valley, by the way, has had an additional 500 

Border Patrol agents over the last several years. They will make 

every effort to make sure that we are also doing our due diligence 

in our border security, and I will watch it carefully. 

Senator HEITKAMP. But, this would not be the first time someone 

created or helped augment a crisis so that they could run the border and seek access for other kind of illegal activity across the border. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. You are right. The smugglers are very smart. 

The people involved in drug trafficking work every day to try and 

beat the system, yes, ma’am. 

Senator HEITKAMP. My point is, as we are trying to deal with 

this humanitarian crisis for those who truly are there in that category, we need to double-down on the law enforcement portion of 

this so that we know what, in fact, we are dealing with, and those 

of us who have been involved in law enforcement know that a juvenile can be just as dangerous as an adult, and we need to be very 

careful about who we are letting into this country undocumented. 

The final thing I want to point out, because I am running out 

of time, is I had the honor of going down to Mexico with Cindy 

McCain and Amy Klobuchar and we received a number of briefings 

about the kinds of activities that the Mexican government is engaged in on their Southern Border Strategy. Obviously, their 

Southern Border Strategy, in this case, is—it may be—their efforts 

to build out the Southern Border may have caused this surge. I do 

not know. We should be asking that question. But, where are the 
40 

Mexican officials on pursuing their Southern Border Strategy and 

how do you see that as a tactic to, basically, dispel this crisis? 

Mr. PALMIERI. Thank you, Senator. Mexican President Pen ̃ a 

Nieto announced finally on Monday this long-awaited Southern 

Strategy that his government had been working on for some time. 

We expect that it will allow the Mexican government to improve its 

interdiction capabilities along the border, that they are going to be 

dedicating more resources to disrupting some of the alien smuggling networks and the traditional routes they use through Guatemala, through Southern Mexico. In addition, they are trying to also 

implement better documentation of people who are crossing their 

border so that they can track them better in the country. 

There is no question, it is a very big border with Mexico, with 

Guatemala and Belize, and it is open in a lot of places, so they 

have quite a job in front of them. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I would suggest that there would be a huge 

incentive to continue that effort on the South Border if the refugees 

were stopped at our border, because one of the things that concerns 

the State of Mexico, or the country of Mexico, is having these refugees in their jurisdiction. So, everything that we can do to assist 

them in their border security, but also sending a message that safe 

passage—not being accusatory, but turning a blind eye to the 

movement of young children north will not be something that is in 

the best interest of the United States of America, the country of 

Mexico, and the children of Central America. And, somehow, that 

message needs to be a lot clearer than what it has been. 

Mr. PALMIERI. President Obama has spoken with President Pena 

Nieto about this issue. Earlier, I mentioned that Mexico had deported over the year 2013 85,000 adults and children. The numbers 

I have of unaccompanied children are over 8,000 were deported last 

year. It is Instituto Nacional de Migracion. It is National Migration 

Institute, operates 35 detention centers, and they are committed to 

working with us to improve their detention rates and return rates 

to Central America, as well. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I can tell you, just from having been on the 

border, unaccompanied minors, it is not a new issue. It is in crisis 

because of the numbers. But, we have not been dealing with unaccompanied minors very well in this country or in Mexico or all 

through, I think, the region. And, so, we need to have a regional 

response to this crisis, and it cannot just be the United States responding and processing. It has to be regional. And, then, obviously, all the discussion that you have had here today about prevention. How do you build a better society? 

But, again, I am very concerned that we not categorize all these 

kids in one basket, that it is critically important that we understand that this is more complicated than just a number of children 

being smuggled in for a better life in the United States of America. 

Senator COBURN [presiding]. Thank you. 

I have a question for those of you that work at Homeland Security, because I am getting a lot of reports of push-back from Homeland Security from the whistleblowers, so I have two questions for 

all of you that work in Homeland Security. Do you believe that employees at DHS have the right to communicate with us as Members 

of Congress? 
41 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Yes, Senator. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes. 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. Do DHS employees have the right to communicate with the DHS Office of Inspector General? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Yes. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes. 

Mr. FUGATE. That is the law, sir. 

Senator COBURN. Finally, will you make sure that that message 

is sent down the chain in your organizations? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We will reemphasize it. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

Commissioner, this past weekend, a Member of Congress in 

Oklahoma attempted to visit the site at Fort Sill. He was refused 

access. Would you comment on that. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. It is a DOD facility, so I actually could not 

comment. I would not be familiar with it, and it would not be 

under the jurisdiction of Customs and Border Protection, but I 

would be happy to work with people to find out exactly what occurred. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Does anybody else have any knowledge on that? 

Mr. GREENBERG. Senator, it is a DOD facility that is being operated by an HHS grantee. We are making available tours for Members of Congress, but we do seek to get the tours scheduled in advance so that we can ensure that they are structured in a way that 

the needed tour guides are in place and that it is consistent with 

the set of responsibilities that the staff at the facility have. 

Senator COBURN. So, actually, it is HHS’s jurisdiction to make 

sure that that accomplishes what you want to accomplish. But, the 

fact that a Member of Congress shows up to look at an acute problem for us that we have in Homeland Security under a supposedly 

humanitarian crisis, and he is denied access, can you explain that? 

Mr. GREENBERG. We absolutely want to ensure that Members of 

Congress are able to visit the facility—— 

Senator COBURN. Except when he showed up. 

Mr. GREENBERG. We are structuring tours on a regular basis for 

Members of Congress and would very much want to ensure, for 

him and for any other Member of Congress, that we can facilitate 

making tours available. 

Senator COBURN. So, again, so I understand, so I can report to 

Congressman Bridenstine, it was because it was not structured is 

the reason he was denied access? 

Mr. GREENBERG. It is, as I understand it, arriving at the facility 

without it being a scheduled tour. And, again, we would want to 

provide for a scheduled tour. 

Senator COBURN You would want Members of Congress to come 

on an unscheduled basis just as a good check. 

Mr. GREENBERG. We want to encourage Members of Congress to 

take tours. We are actually very—— 

Senator COBURN. But, only at your convenience. 

Mr. GREENBERG. Excuse me, sir? 

Senator COBURN. Only at your convenience. I am saying, a random check by a Member of Congress is great for this country be-
42 

cause they get to see what it is, not what is prepared to be the 

show. 

Mr. GREENBERG. Senator Coburn, I should say, we are proud of 

the facilities. We encourage Members of Congress to come and see 

them. We believe that Members of Congress will be pleased by 

what they see if they come. 

Senator COBURN. I would just tell you, I think you made a grievous error in denying Congressman Bridenstine access to that facility. And, I do not know who made the decision, but I think it was 

illegal to keep a Member of Congress from visiting one of these 

camps. Regardless if they come at three o’clock in the morning, 

they should have access. 

Mr. Kerlikowske, I want to cover a couple of areas with you on 

the demographics of the unaccompanied children. The Administration reports, in 2014, there has been an increase in the number of 

UAC who are girls and those who are under the age of 13. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in a June 3 press 

release following an Administration press call, the Administration 

claims the demographic change of the UAC population has influenced the response to the increase in the UAC crossing the border. 

However, CRS was unable to find any data to illustrate the change. 

So, it noted, ‘‘It is unclear whether the increase in girls and children under 13 is simply because the number of all UAC has increased or if the number of girls and children under 13 has increased as a proportion of all UAC.’’ 

According to a June 25 demographics report from the Nogales 

Processing Center, out of the total number of children in their custody at that time, the overwhelming majority were older than age 

12, 887, and 557 were male. 

So, yesterday, an ICE memo reported that on June 3, it indicates 

that males between the ages of 15 and 17 comprised 47 percent of 

all of the other-than-Mexican UACs, and nearly 30 percent were 10 

to 13. 

So, three questions for you. Why would the Administration claim 

the demographic of these children is increasingly young when, in 

fact, it is not, and female, based on their response to the situation 

on that data when, in fact, the demographic appears to be quite the 

opposite? That is the first question. 

Second, can you provide us with the actual statistics that show 

how much of this UAC population is actually female and under 13? 

And, according to the conference calls with the congressional 

staff, if a UAC turns 18 in the custody of HHS, he or she is turned 

over to DHS custody. What happens to these unaccompanied children who are returned to DHS custody after turning 18? Are they 

released on their own recognizance? 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I can respond to the first two questions. And, 

first, Senator, thank you for giving that question in advance, because it involves the calls from the White House, it involves CRS 

data, ICE data, data from us, et cetera. So, I tried very hard to 

drill down into that to make sure that I could find, with all of these 

different sources, exactly what was what and give you the information. 
43 

So, what I can tell you is that in that group, we are seeing far 

more mothers and far more younger children than we have seen in 

the past, and then I will—— 

Senator COBURN. But, those are not unaccompanied children. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Both, families—— 

Senator COBURN. I know, but I am saying, mothers with their 

young children are not considered unaccompanied children. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Family units. 

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We consider them family. You are right, Senator. 

Senator COBURN. Yes. OK. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. The other part, as far as when someone turns 

18 in HHS custody, I think I would ask that you ask Mr. 

Winkowski, because I believe they would be turned over to ICE 

rather than back to Customs and Border Protection. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Senator, thank you for that question. When 

they turn 18, they are handed over to us. We issue the NTA and 

put them in removal proceedings. 

Senator COBURN. OK. All right. One question for Mr. Osuna. 

What is the percentage, over the last year or the year before that, 

of those that do not show for their hearing? 

Mr. OSUNA. The overall percentage for the entire population that 

is issued a notice to appear and is required to appear before an immigration judge is—the national rate is 17 percent, one-seven. 

Senator COBURN. OK. 

Mr. OSUNA. That means that 83 percent do show. As I mentioned 

earlier, the percentage is a little bit higher for juveniles. 

Senator COBURN. But, you said you did not know exactly that 

number, is that correct? 

Mr. OSUNA. We do have the percentage of juveniles, meaning 

that the case is coded as a juvenile case in our database—— 

Senator COBURN. Right. 

Mr. OSUNA [continuing]. And that is the number I mentioned 

earlier. What we do not have a good handle on, because the data 

is just not there, is unaccompanied minors. Which ones of those juveniles are actually unaccompanied minors. 

Senator COBURN. And, you are going to try to find that data out 

for us? 

Mr. OSUNA. We are working with our partner agencies to try to 

get more specific data on that. That is a—yes. 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Kerlikowske, I have one more question to 

ask you, and I do not know if we sent this one to you. I think we 

did. We had asked for some information on an internal CBP memo 

on bottlenecks in the unaccompanied child transfer process. Several 

press reports reported on this memo on May 30 from the Deputy 

Chief of CBP. Staff asked for this document. 

In yesterday’s staff meeting with you, they objected, saying that 

it is pre-decisional material and an internal unsigned document, 

which is, according to the congressional rules, is not a legitimate 

reason to deny a congressional request. It is for a FOIA request, 

but it is not for a congressional request. The Washington Times 

and other news outlets have reported extensively on the contents 
44 

of the document, potentially waiving any privilege, executive or 

otherwise, CBP is claiming over the contents of the document. 

At a minimum, I would request that the Department of Homeland Security explain the decision to me in writing, citing the actual legal authority that allows you to withhold that document 

from Congress, and I would appreciate it if you would do that. 

I have some questions on the basis of that, which I think most 

of them, we have covered, because we have asked for the statistics. 

One of the things that was concerning to me in the press reports 

on that memo by Mr. Vitiello, that the UAC crisis is compromising 

DHS’s capabilities to address other trans-border criminal areas, 

and I think we have pretty well addressed that in your answer. 

And, I think my time is up, and the Chairman is back and he 

has voted, right? 

Chairman CARPER [presiding]. I have, and they will be happy to 

receive your vote. 

Senator COBURN. I have other questions for the record I would 

like to submit. 

Chairman CARPER. No problem at all. 

Craig Fugate, I just do not think you have been asked enough 

questions. Let me just say how much I appreciate your willingness, 

I understand, to rearrange your schedule in order to be here for the 

entire hearing. 

What I would like to do is I want to come back to this. One of 

our colleagues, I do not know if it was Senator Landrieu, had 

raised this question, but trying to understand your role and the appropriation of funds and the authorization for the appropriation of 

those funds. She thinks a lot about hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. We think about them on the East Coast. We are very mindful 

of the great work that you and your team did in response to 

Superstorm Sandy. 

One of the questions we would ask is, in terms of the expenses 

that flow from this all-hands-on-deck operation, how did that affect, 

if at all, FEMA’s ability to do some of your other work in terms of 

disaster relief, whether it is hurricanes or Nor’easters and that 

kind of thing? How does it affect it, if at all? 

Mr. FUGATE. There is always an effect, but, Senator, you built 

and you fund FEMA to handle multiple disasters simultaneously 

across the country as well as catastrophic disasters. So, we really 

used the tools that you have given us the authority and funds to 

build capacity to support the interagency effort. We have about 75 

people that have been working on this, as well as our FEMA Corps 

teams, which we have surged to support Customs and Borders and 

the detention areas and in the processing facilities. We were able 

to manage the response to Hurricane Arthur as well as maintaining support here. 

So, we are very much aware that we have to be ready for the catastrophic disasters, but you have built capacity and capabilities 

into FEMA that allows us to support this as well as our other ongoing responsibilities. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Well, thanks for that response. 

Thank you for your willingness to take on, in addition to all your 

other responsibilities, the overseeing of this difficult challenge and 

our response to it. 
45 

A question, if I could, for a man who goes by ‘‘Paco.’’ Mr. 

Palmieri, I was struck by a report from the United Nations not 

long ago that the United States is not the only country seeing a 

huge increase in migration of unaccompanied minors from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. I saw somewhere where the 

number of asylum seekers in Mexico, Nicaragua, Belize and Costa 

Rica, Panama, had grown by, I think, over 700 percent, if I am not 

mistaken. What does that say about what is happening in the three 

Central American countries that we focused on today? 

Mr. PALMIERI. I think it just further confirms that the endemic 

violence in these societies, the street crime, the gang intimidation 

and forced recruitment, the lack of educational opportunity, the 

poor job prospects in these countries for young people, are driving 

people away and out of these countries and we have to do a better 

job working with these countries to address these basic systemic 

problems that they are confronting. The supplemental has $295 million that tries to get at a better 

prosperity agenda, that improves economic opportunity, but also, at 

the same time, maintaining our efforts to address the security conditions in the countries. 

I have to admit, I was not aware of the high increase in asylum 

requests in other countries. 

Chairman CARPER. It is off of a low base, but it is a pretty substantial increase—very substantial. 

Mr. PALMIERI. I will look into that and try to get additional data 

for you. I do know that the Mexicans have seen an increase, and 

I was aware of that. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. In my opening statement, you may 

recall I mentioned we spent about a quarter-of-a-trillion dollars 

over the last decade enforcing our immigration laws, trying to 

strengthen our Nation’s borders, especially on our Southern Border. 

We spent a whole lot less—far less—helping Central American 

countries like the three we are talking about today to address the 

root causes of immigration. 

As I understand it, during the same decade that we have been 

spending $225 billion to protect and strengthen our borders along 

Mexico, we have spent about $2 billion across all of Central America, not just in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, but roughly 

1 percent of what we have spent just on the border, and most of 

that aid is focused on improving security in those three countries, 

not on broader economic development and job creation to help give 

people a reason to stay there and to want to live there. 

Let me just ask you to react to that. 

Mr. PALMIERI. Senator, I share your views on the need for us to 

have a better balance in our assistance strategy toward the region. 

The security investments are important. We have to improve their 

abilities to control their own borders, to interdict all kinds of illicit 

activity that is both trafficking and smuggling people and other— 

and drugs across their borders. 

But, I think it is time for us to take a long look at if there is 

more that we can be doing on the economic growth side and in attacking the problems of corruption in these governments so that social service delivery is better, so that education is better in these 

countries, by holding these governments accountable. 
46 

I think you had it right in your opening statement, Senator, this 

has to be a shared responsibility. The United States cannot fix this 

problem, but I think we can be a part of the solution with Mexico, 

with Colombia, as you mentioned, and we will do our part at the 

State Department, sir. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

A quick followup, if I could. Of the $300 million in the President’s emergency supplemental request, any idea how much of that 

$300 million will go toward addressing some of the root causes that 

we have been talking about here today that are in part behind the 

surge in migration from Central America? 

Mr. PALMIERI. Yes. All of the assistance is designed to focus on 

having an immediate impact. $121 million of it is for the economic 

growth side, which contains funds that do get at root causes, but 

also contain funds for the Youth Outreach Centers and for some of 

the vocational education that we think can help address immediate 

issues related to the immediate flow of people, as well as the 

longer-term solution. I believe there is an additional $70 million, 

more or less, for governance activities. 

And then the rest is in security, including, which we consider 

very important, and I know my ICE colleagues will agree, we have 

to be able to expand the repatriation capability of the three countries. That is, we have to expand their ability to receive more people as our process gears up to return them more quickly and more 

efficiently. 

Chairman CARPER. I was in, I am not sure if it was El Salvador 

or Guatemala recently, where the center where they receive people 

coming back in—which country is it, El Salvador or Guatemala? 

Mr. PALMIERI. The Guatemalans really have gotten it down, and 

it is a testament to the seriousness with which they understand the 

risks their citizens face in making that journey and wanting to welcome them back and helping them reinsert them into their country. 

But, it is Guatemala, Senator. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

We talked a little bit already about truth campaigns and to message clearly, repeatedly, particularly to the parents of these three 

Central American countries the perils that their children face in 

trying to send them north, the likely reception that they will get 

here, the likelihood that they will be returned, ultimately. But, the 

most important message, I think, is to convey a message of hope. 

There is not, frankly, in those countries, much reason to be all that 

hopeful. We have law enforcement officers that are corrupt in too 

many cases. In too many cases, the judges are corrupt. 

I remember sitting in a meeting with the President of Guatemala 

and his Interior Minister and talking about corruption in their 

prisons. And I said, Mr. President, some of your prisons here, the 

inmates run the prisons and they receive, or are paid for, indirectly, some of the guards, to bring in cell phones and they operate 

their illegal activities from the prisons using the cell phones provided by the guards. I said, Mr. President, there is technology that 

can be used to basically wipe out the ability to use cell phones from 

a prison and said, you have that capability in your prisons and you 

do not use it. 
47 

There is a lot of work that needs to be done. We can do so much. 

They need to do their share, as well. The key to almost the success 

of any entity I have ever come across, whether it was government, 

business, athletics, church, schools, is leadership. Leadership is. 

And, we have a responsibility, certainly, to provide leadership as 

a Nation, but, frankly, these countries need some leadership of 

their own. 

And, fortunately, at a time when Colombia was on the ropes and 

it looked like they may be down for the count not that long ago, 

you will recall, I do not know, it was about 20 years or so ago, a 

group of gunmen rounded up the Supreme Court of the country of 

Colombia, took them all in a room and shot them to death. And, 

20 years later, Colombia is, I think, by most people’s judgment, is 

a successful country—economically strong, viable, great trading 

partner with us, great ally with us, and they are in a position now, 

having been helped by us through the Colombia Campaign, to turn 

north and provide the same kind of assistance to others, and I 

think they are willing to do that and we need to make sure that 

they do. 

I think what I would like to do here is I would like to close out. 

You all were good enough to give us an opening statement. I am 

going to ask each of you to take a moment to give us a closing 

statement, and sometimes I use closing statements—I think it is 

about a minute’s worth from each of you, if you would—but I look 

at this as an opportunity to see where the consensus lies and 

where the consensus may lie in terms of what we should be doing, 

our responsibilities here on the legislative side, to address not just 

the immediate problems on the border, but also the underlying 

causes. 

And, I will say, Mr. Osuna, if you would please go first. Just give 

me a good minute, if you would, please. 

Mr. OSUNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to just note 

that I have been doing this job for a while and being in this area 

for a long time, I have never seen an interagency effort coordinated 

the way that this effort is being done from the top down. It is pretty impressive, and as you said, it is an all-hands-on-deck approach. 

We are ready to do our part in the immigration court system by 

prioritizing these cases of recent border crossers. We think that 

that will have an effect over time. And, we ask for your support 

through the supplemental funding bill, as requested by the President. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. PALMIERI. Mr. Chairman, I have an acute personal interest 

in the work that ORR is doing and HHS, FEMA, CBP, and ICE. 

My mother arrived as a legal immigrant, but was orphaned as a 

teenager in the United States. And, the work these people are 

doing to protect these children is really outstanding work. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. Mr. Greenberg. 

And, Senator Johnson, what we are doing right now is I just 

asked them each to give us a one minute closing statement, just 

some guidance and advice for us as we are trying to put it all together. I will recognize you as soon as they respond. 

Go ahead, Mr. Greenberg, please. 
48 

Mr. GREENBERG. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The children 

that are arriving are an enormously vulnerable group of children. 

While most of them are older boys, we have seen an increasing 

number of girls. We have seen an increasing number of very young 

children. They come with significant needs. It is important that we 

address those needs when they arrive, just as, at the same time, 

it is important that we enforce our Nation’s immigration laws. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks. Mr. Winkowski. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

say thank you for holding the hearing. I thought it was, really, a 

great hearing. 

Just several issues that I think we need to be mindful of. No. 1, 

we are focusing on Central America right now for obvious reasons, 

but I believe it is important for the Committee to also realize that 

we have other hot spots around the world. This is not going to go 

away. Lots of people want to come to America, and the flows are 

all changing, as I had mentioned before. It was the flows of Mexicans coming in. Now we are seeing other-than-Mexicans. And, you 

see hot spots around the world—India, other locations. And, we 

have had some experience with that already. Those challenges are 

going to continue to get larger and larger and I think we really 

need to play a leadership role in that, not only from our standpoint 

but from the State Department’s standpoint of capacity building 

and things of that nature. So, that is No. 1. 

No. 2, I think we have some tough choices to make. These are 

very difficult issues. I am a father. I understand why these children want to come. I have walked the halls of Lackland Air Force 

Base with Secretary Johnson. I have been down to McAllen, other 

locations. It is absolutely heartbreaking. However, if we want to 

make an impact here, want to make some inroads here, we have 

to make some tough decisions. 

We have to work very closely with Guatemala and others for 

them—Guatemala to shore up their Northern Border, Mexico to 

shore up their Southern Border with Guatemala. We have to continue to be very proactive from the standpoint of investigating the 

networks. And, when these individuals make it into the country, 

we have to make sure they have their due process, and once a decision is made to remove, be able to remove quickly. 

I think when you look at the issues that were faced in 2006 with 

the Brazilians and years before that we had a rash of Hondurans, 

as I understand it, what changed the dynamic of it all was the ability to apprehend, detain, and deport quickly. And, I believe we 

need to have more discussion on that. I think that, to me, is the 

critical issue that we all face, and then, of course, needing the 

funding and supporting the supplemental. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you very, very much. Gil. 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Having spent 5 years in the White House and 

now working for Secretary Johnson, I can tell you that we could 

not ask for better leadership, more heartfelt compassion, more support for the work that we are doing. It is very clear I am in the 

twilight of my career, and to be in this position—— 

Chairman CARPER. Hopefully, a long twilight. 
49 

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. And, to be in this position and to be able to 

work with not only the people at the table, but, quite frankly, 

whether it was watching a Border Patrol agent or a Customs official who was encountering a child walking up a bridge from Mexico, to see the work that they are doing really—it makes you incredibly proud. 

And, I would last say that we appreciate the tough questions 

from the Members of Congress. We are prepared to answer them 

to the very best of our ability and to be as forthcoming with you 

all as we can be. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks, Gil. Craig. 

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not approach this 

as a set of acronyms. I do not approach this as this is a policy 

issue. I do not approach this as to why it is happening. It has happened. It is happening. We have very small children who early in 

this process were spending far too long in a detention cell, sharing 

a toilet and eating food that was microwaved because that is all the 

agents could provide in the initial push. 

Our focus has been on meeting the immediate needs of these 

children. We have to constantly remind ourselves, these are somebody’s children, oftentimes trying to be reunited with a family 

member here, who took a journey that none of us could imagine. 

And, when they came here, we should have the compassion to be 

able to take care of their basic needs while we focus on the whys. 

But, I have to focus in on the now, and until we have enough capacity to ensure that these children are not kept in detention, that 

there is a bed, medical care, decent food, a shower, clean clothes 

until we have enough capacity, we fail these children. 

The President’s supplemental request is very specific in ensuring 

that we have the capacity within the agencies, particularly within 

Custom and Borders, but more importantly within the Office of 

Refugee Resettlement, to ensure that these children are properly 

cared for while they are in our custody until final determination is 

made. That has been my focus and that will continue to be the 

focus until such time as we have stabilized this. 

But, we should never forget, these are children. They are now in 

our custody. It is our duty to make sure that these children are 

cared for properly. 

Thank you, sir. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you for that comment and thought. 

All right. Senator Johnson, and then I will say a few words and 

we will close it out. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Fugate, first of all, I think we all share your sentiment. I 

mean, we are a compassionate society. We understand these are 

children. We want to show true compassion. I think the point that 

a lot of us are making here today is true compassion really would 

be to prevent this from happening, to actually attack the root 

cause, which I will restate again is the incentives we are creating 

for parents to send their children on this arduous journey. 

And, I have to agree with Senator Coburn. As nice as those posters look like, they will do nothing, nothing in comparison to what 

planeload after planeload of children being returned to their families in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador would do. That is 
50 

the most important thing we could do to deter parents from doing 

this to their children. 

I do want to get back to—and, also, I understand that you folks 

are working hard, and we appreciate your service, and you are constrained by the laws which we much change expeditiously. And, 

you are also constrained by Executive Orders (EO) that I think 

were misguided. So, you are following the law. I understand that 

and appreciate your efforts. But, we have to change those laws. We 

have to undo some of these Executive Orders so that we have a 

more rational system to reduce or eliminate those incentives for illegal immigration. 

I want to go back a little bit to Mexico in terms of what they are 

doing to help stem the tide. If we have busloads of children, I have 

seen the pictures of children hanging onto trains, I am actually 

surprised that they have turned back 85,000. I mean, are there any 

documented instances where Mexico officials have actually interdicted a bus and sent it back? I mean, where are we getting this 

from? 

Mr. PALMIERI. The Mexican authorities regularly send busloads 

of interdicted undocumented migrants moving through their country to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. I do not have a specific anecdotal case of a bus of children that was perhaps on its 

way to the U.S. border having been stopped, but we do know that, 

on a regular basis, Mexico sends busloads of people back to all 

three countries. 

Senator JOHNSON. But, we are basically relying on their statistics 

in terms of how many people they send back? 

Mr. PALMIERI. Their statistics, our ICE attaches at our Embassy 

in Mexico City. The State Department officials at the Embassy in 

Mexico City work with and talk to these people, as well. So, I do 

not think it is just a statistical base. They also have the direct personal relationships that I think are critical to making sure Mexico 

does follow through. 

Senator JOHNSON. One thing we have learned is Mexico does a 

pretty good job securing its Northern Border, as Marine Sergeant 

Tahmooressi found out. I am happy that he is actually going to get 

a hearing today. I am hoping he gets released immediately. If he 

is not released, what is the State Department, what is the Department of Justice going to do, what is President Obama going to do 

to secure Sergeant Tahmooressi’s release? 

Mr. PALMIERI. I know that the State Department has facilitated 

visits for him with his attorneys, with his family. We will continue 

to provide the full range of American citizen services that we would 

provide to any and every American detained in a similar situation. 

Senator JOHNSON. Is the State Department, is President Obama 

as outraged as I think most Americans are by the Mexican Government’s mistreatment of Sergeant Tahmooressi? I have seen the videos. I have seen how easy it was for him to accidentally get into 

that lane. This is outrageous, as he has been held for over 100 

days. Are we going to demonstrate that kind of outrage and demand his return if he is not returned today? 

Mr. PALMIERI. I know that my colleagues at the American Embassy in Mexico City, in Tijuana, and in Washington are working 
51 

vigorously on this case to expedite as speedy a resolution to it as 

we can. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, I hope if he is not released, they act 

more vigorously. Let us put it that way. 

I just want to go back to, as long as we are talking about the 

State Department here, the $300 million request for, I guess, improving conditions in those Central American countries. We are 

finding we are not particularly good at improving our own economy. Is that not a pipe dream to spend $295 million trying to improve the conditions and expecting that is going to solve the problem, as opposed to sending planeloads full of these kids back to 

their families? 

Mr. PALMIERI. I think we need to be doing everything we can on 

all levels, both promoting better economic growth, expanding repatriation, sending more people back. All of these things have to be 

done. This is a complex problem and there is no easy, simple solution—— 

Senator JOHNSON. But, there are things that are going to be far 

more effective and far less costly. Again, let us just go through the 

numbers. The President is asking for $3,700 million. You divide 

that by 57,000, that is $65,000 per unaccompanied child. Literally, 

if we would buy a plane ticket, put them up in a hotel room, give 

them some good meals, let us say we spent $1,000 per child. That 

would be $57 million to return the children to their families. Is 

that not far more effective spending? And, would we not be better 

off spending that $300 million to improve the immigration services 

in those countries so there is a place for us to return the unaccompanied children? 

Why do we not kind of reorient our thinking, realize that we cannot spend $300 million and really expect to even make a dent in 

improving the condition of those countries. And, as Senator Coburn 

said, the most effective message we can send, as opposed to a slick 

little poster there, is literally sending planeloads in a very humane 

fashion of these children back to their families. 

Mr. PALMIERI. Part of the request will expand the capacity of 

these governments to receive additional repatriation flights, and so 

that is envisioned in the request. I think what we think, a more 

balanced approach that tries to address some of the underlying root 

causes is also essential, not just to stopping the current problem, 

but to creating the conditions so that in the future, these people 

have a better alternative in their homes—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Have we not been doing that for years? I 

mean, literally, have we not been trying to do these things for 

years? 

Mr. PALMIERI. We have, and the scale of how we have provided 

our assistance—the Youth Outreach Centers is an excellent example—it just does not reach a broad enough segment of these countries to make a difference, and expanding some of that assistance, 

we think, can make a difference. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for your indulgence. 

Chairman CARPER. No, I am glad you came back. Thanks, Ron. 

Thanks for those questions and for your participation. 
52 

I think we have come to the end. Again, I want to say special 

thanks to Craig Fugate for changing his schedule to be with us and 

for your participation, for all of you for your participation. This is 

an extraordinary panel, good people, hard jobs. We are glad that 

you are willing to do them. We commend you and the teams you 

lead in service to our country. 

It is not an easy one, is it? And there, frankly, are not a lot of 

easy answers, but there are answers and we have had a chance to 

chew on some of those today. I think this has been called by me 

and by others the all-hands-on-deck moment, and all hands are on 

deck and we are finding out how well this team works, and I am 

encouraged that, given the magnitude of challenges, it is working 

pretty well. 

Everything I do, I know I can do better. I think it is true for all 

of us, and it is true for responses like this and we have to just 

focus on how to do better as we go along. 

As Senator Johnson has heard me say more than a few times, 

find out what works and do more of that. Somehow, something 

worked in Mexico. Something has worked in Mexico and, as we 

have seen, the tide, the surge of Mexicans coming across our border 

has largely stopped, not entirely, but largely stopped. We have a 

bunch of Mexicans now who want to go back to Mexico, and there 

are some lessons to be learned there. My hope is that we are going 

to learn those, not only in terms of our actions in the agencies that 

you are involved in lead, but also in terms of the laws that we pass 

and the appropriations that we make. 

I think I will close with a scriptural reference here, Ron. Believe 

it or not, we have a Bible study group that meets here in the Capitol. Democrats and Republicans about once a week get together 

and pray together, read the scripture together. We have a prayer 

breakfast that I do not usually get to because they meet early on 

Wednesday morning and I am usually on a train. 

But, our Chaplain here is always reminding us of the most important rules or commandments in the Bible, and one of those is 

found in the New Testament, to love the Lord thy God with all thy 

heart, all thy soul, all thy mind. And, the second one is to love thy 

neighbor as thyself. Those answers were given in response by Jesus 

to a bunch of Pharisees. They were trying to trick him up, always 

trying to get him into trouble with the Romans so they could get 

rid of him. And, he is a pretty smart guy, and so he responded with 

a question that they did not quite know how to handle. 

But, when he said, love thy neighbor as thyself, they asked him 

in response, well, who is our neighbor? And, you will recall, hee famously told the story or the Parable of the Good Samaritan. And, 

it is a good question for us to ask today. Who is our neighbor? And, 

if we really love our neighbor as ourselves, how do we treat them? 

The folks in Mexico and Canada and these three Central American countries, they are our neighbor, but so are the people on the 

other side of the world, and we have a reputation as a Nation of 

trying to treat others, not just in our own neighborhoods, not just 

in our own communities and States, but in other countries, as well, 

as neighbors. 

We have to be very careful here in making sure that we are responding in the way that the scripture would admonish us to do, 
53 

that we do not create a situation where parents in Honduras and 

Guatemala and El Salvador literally take their flesh and blood and 

put them on top of a freight train or in one of these buses in the 

hands of people they do not know and to send them through all 

kinds of peril to get to the U.S. border. 

We have to change that dynamic, and there are a lot of ways to 

do that. We talked about some of them today, and a week from 

today, we are going to have a hearing on how we might do that further, how we might further change that climate, that dynamic in 

Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador so that, hopefully, 10 

years from now, we are not going to have a hearing here that revisits this issue and says, why are we still wrestling with this problem? We want to be able to say, well, we learned something about 

Mexico a number of years ago. We did not entirely fix that, but we 

largely have. We had problems with Colombia. We helped solve 

that, largely. And, we can do this, as well. 

And, again, the last word I would say, this is not on our backs 

alone. We have a responsibility. We have a moral imperative, if you 

will, to try to do the right thing here. We have a fiscal imperative, 

because we do not have unlimited resources. We have a fiscal imperative to do it in a cost-effective way. Find out what works, do 

more of that. And, frankly, we have to make darn sure that other 

countries that have a dog in this fight—Mexico, even Colombia, 

other nations, and, frankly, non-profit organizations and interdevelopment banks—that they are involved in this, as well, just 

with us, in harness with us. If we do this together, we will make 

great progress and we can feel good about what we have done 

somewhere down the road, and, hopefully, the folks that we are 

trying to help will feel a lot better, as well. 

With that, the hearing record is going to remain open for 15 

days, until July 24, 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and 

questions for the record. 

This has been a good hearing, a helpful hearing, and we are 

grateful for everyone who has participated in it to make it so. 

Thank you so much. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(55) 

A P P E N D I X 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 

(285) 

CHALLENGES AT THE BORDER: 

EXAMINING AND ADDRESSING THE ROOT 

CAUSES BEHIND THE RISE IN APPREHENSIONS AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2014 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room SD– 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Pryor, Landrieu, Baldwin, Coburn, 

McCain, Johnson, and Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER 

Chairman CARPER. The hearing will come to order. 

I want to begin today by thanking our witnesses for joining us. 

At last week’s hearing, we examined the Administration’s response to the current humanitarian challenge at our Southern Border with Mexico, where unprecedented numbers of undocumented 

Central American children and families are seeking to enter the 

United States. Today, we are here to discuss the root causes of this 

surge in migration from Central America, and it is my hope that 

all the witnesses will also talk about some things that they are 

working on and that they would think that we should do more of 

in order to address these root causes. We are really interested in 

what is working. Let us figure out what is working and do more 

of that. The converse of that would be true, as well. 

This is a humanitarian crisis, one that the Administration and 

Secretary Johnson are taking extremely seriously. Many of the 

Central American children and families arriving at our borders 

have heartbreaking stories to tell. We will hear about some of those 

stories shortly, but I believe they require a humane response and 

one that honors our obligations under United States and international law and is consistent with the admonition that we should 

love our neighbors as ourselves. 

It is not, in my opinion, a border security crisis. These Central 

American children and families are not somehow slipping past the 

massive amount of security technology and manpower we have deployed along the Southern Border of our country in recent years. 

They are being apprehended shortly after stepping on U.S. soil, 
286 

often searching out Border Patrol agents instead of running away 

from them. 

But, it is obviously not an acceptable situation to have hundreds 

of unaccompanied children arriving at our Southwest Border each 

day. It is not acceptable to us as a country of laws, including immigration laws. And, it is not acceptable as a humanitarian matter, 

given the extreme risks that these people face trying to come to our 

country illegally. 

One of the factors that is pulling people to come to the United 

States is the perception in the region that they will be able to 

stay—even if it is just for a year or two—while their immigration 

cases are processed. In truth, that often has been the case for many 

children and families. People from Central America, unlike Mexicans, cannot be turned around at the border. They must be flown 

back to their countries. And, this process is even more complicated 

for unaccompanied children and families because our laws, appropriately, require different treatment for these groups. In practice, 

this has meant that repatriating children and families can take not 

days, not weeks, not months, but in some cases, years. 

In order to combat the perception that it is somehow possible to 

get a free pass to come and live in the United States, the Administration is taking extraordinary measures to speed up these cases. 

For example, it has surged immigration judges down to the border 

to expedite processing of cases, including cases involving families 

and children. It has greatly expanded its ability to detain families 

while their cases are heard. 

It has worked with the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, 

and Honduras to expedite the issuing of travel documents for their 

citizens which are needed before someone can be repatriated. This 

process used to take more than 30 days. Now, it takes as little as 

4 days. 

And, senior Administration officials, including Vice President 

Biden, Secretary Johnson, and Secretary Kerry have traveled to 

the region in recent weeks to make clear that there is no shortcut 

that someone, even a child, can take to get permission to live here. 

In other words, those who are apprehended at the border will, in 

most cases, be returned to their home countries as promptly as possible. 

So, the Administration has clearly been fully engaged on this 

issue. Now, Congress needs to do its job and work in the near term 

to help stop this surge. Just last week, as we know, President 

Obama asked us for $3.7 billion in emergency funding to address 

this challenge at the border. Without this money, we have been 

told that the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could run out of money sometime this summer. It goes 

without saying that we cannot allow that to happen. 

As necessary as this money is, though, it is only one piece of a 

complex puzzle, and there are strong and entrenched problems in 

Central America that are driving so many to make the risky journey north. Unless we take a hard look at those underlying problems, we will keep spending money to repeat the heartbreaking 

symptoms at our borders. In fact, since 2003, I am told we spent 

almost a quarter-of-a-trillion dollars enforcing our immigration and 

customs laws and strengthening our borders along Mexico. 
287 

Seeking a better life in the United States is nothing new. For 

some of these Central Americans, especially the children and the 

parents who often send them on their journey, the decision can be 

a desperate one. Everyday life in parts of Guatemala, El Salvador, 

and Honduras is more than just difficult today. It can be deadly, 

and some of our witnesses will speak to that today. 

Violence has been steadily increasing in the region, with homicide rates in all three countries among the highest in the entire 

world. Kidnapping and extortion are endemic. Meanwhile, these 

countries have stagnant economies that create too few jobs and opportunities for their citizens. Faced with this violence and lack of 

hope at home, it is no wonder that so many people are willing to 

risk their lives or the lives of their children on a nearly 1,500-mile 

journey to the United States. 

We need to help these countries help themselves, but we cannot 

do it alone and we should not do it alone. This must be a shared 

responsibility, first and foremost with the Central American governments, but also with the broad community with vested interests 

in the region. That includes Mexico, Colombia, the multilateral 

banks, the private sector, and institutions of faith. 

The steps we need to take are not easy; they are difficult. But, 

I believe that the road map is clear. We need to work with our 

partners to create a more secure and more nurturing environment 

for job creation in Central America, and I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses today about what some of those steps might be. 

Based on my recent conversations and trips to the region, I believe that one of the critical needs there is to foster economic 

growth. How do we do that? Well, a number of ways, but by helping to restore the rule of law, to help lower energy costs, improve 

educational outcomes, to improve workforce skills, and improve access to capital. 

Now, I am not suggesting any of this is going to be quick or easy 

to do. It is going to require sustained investment and focus on the 

region by the United States and others. But, it can be done. In fact, 

we have already done it with two of our most important allies in 

the regions to our south. 

Twenty years ago, you will recall, Colombia was close to being a 

failed State. I remember when a bunch of gunmen rounded up the 

Supreme Court of Colombia, took them into a room, and shot them 

to death not all that long ago. And then there was the economic 

situation in Mexico was so bad that more than a million Mexicans 

were apprehended trying to cross our borders every year. 

Today, we are seeing record low numbers of Mexicans being apprehended at the border, with some researchers suggesting that 

more Mexicans may actually be leaving the United States each 

year than are coming here illegally today. And, Colombia has become a vibrant economy and a trusted democratic partner in the 

region. 

Of course, these two countries still face challenges. We all do. 

But, I believe we can all agree that there has been a dramatic 

turnaround in both countries. 

One of my guiding principles, as I said earlier, is to find out what 

works and do more of that. We need to figure out what worked in 

Mexico, or what is working in Mexico, what worked and what is 
288 

working in Colombia, and do more of that. I look forward to hearing about that during our hearing today. 

One of the keys in both countries, I believe, has been economic 

growth the ability for people to have a job, find a path to a better 

life. In Mexico, the North American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA), helped make it possible, its emergence as a middle-income nation. And in Colombia, one of the keys has been a sustained investment in improving security for their citizens through 

Plan Colombia. 

We need a similar commitment to Central America, and in making that commitment, we will not only prove ourselves good neighbors, we will ensure that we will not continue to face an expensive 

humanitarian crisis at our borders a decade from now. I am encouraged that the Administration has included $300 million in its 

emergency supplemental request for the State Department, some of 

which will be used to deal with the root causes of the Central 

American migration. But, these funds should be seen as a downpayment. This cannot be ‘‘one and done.’’ If we are serious about 

improving conditions in the region, and I think we must be, we will 

need to do more, and, frankly, so will others. 

That said, I would normally turn to Dr. Coburn. He is in a meeting right now with one of our other colleagues, Senator Feinstein, 

on matters relating, I think, to their work on the Intelligence Committee. He will be joining us probably after this first vote, which 

is going to be underway just very shortly. 

Normally, after Dr. Coburn and I have made opening statements, 

we go right to the witnesses. In this case, I am going to ask if any 

of our Members would like to just make a brief statement for just, 

like, maybe a minute or two before—anyone? All right. Fine. Fair 

enough. 

Let me, then, turn to our panel and make some introductions. To 

each of you, including Mr. Farnsworth, we are glad you made it. 

Nice to see you. I want to welcome all of you. 

Our first witness is Michael Shifter. Mr. Shifter is the President 

of the Inter-American Dialogue. In this position, Mr. Shifter advances the Dialogue’s mission of bringing together public and private leaders from across the Western Hemisphere in order to advance a regional agenda of democratic governance, social equity, 

and economic growth. Prior to joining the Dialogue, Mr. Shifter directed the Latin American-Caribbean Programs at the National 

Endowment for Democracy. Good morning and welcome. 

Our second witness is Eric Olson. Mr. Olson is the Associate Director of the Latin American Program at the Woodrow Wilson 

International Center for Scholars. His research and writing have 

focused on the impacts of crime, organized crime, and violence on 

democracies along with ways to address these problems through judicial institutions and police reform. We really look forward to 

hearing what you have to say and asking questions of you. Prior 

to joining the Woodrow Wilson Center, he was a Senior Specialist 

in the Department for Promotion of Good Governance at the Organization of American States, from 2006 to 2007. 

Our next witness is Eric Farnsworth. Mr. Farnsworth is Vice 

President of the Council of the Americas and the Americas Society. 

He is a recognized expert on hemispheric affairs and the Bureau’s 
289 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Shifter appears in the Appendix on page 336. 

Foreign and Trade Policy and has testified before Congress many 

times. In the past, Mr. Farnsworth oversaw policy and message development for the White House Office of Special Envoy for the 

Americas. He also served at the U.S. Department of State beginning in 1990 and was awarded the Superior Honor Award three 

times and the Meritorious Award once. 

Next, we have Richard Jones. Mr. Jones is Deputy Regional Director for Global Solidarity and Justice in Latin America and the 

Caribbean at Catholic Relief Services (CRS). In this capacity, Mr. 

Jones is primarily responsible for work in peace building, migration, and solidarity and justice. During the past 10 years with 

Catholic Relief Services, Mr. Jones has developed innovative approaches to combatting gang violence and immigration in Central 

America. Before joining Catholic Relief Services, he served in a parish in El Salvador, helping refugees resettle after that country’s 12- 

year civil war. Welcome. 

Our final witness today is Bryan Roberts. Mr. Roberts is a Senior 

Economist at Econometrica, Incorporated. Prior to this, Mr. Roberts 

was the Assistant Director for Border and Immigration Issues in 

the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation at the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS). He has also worked in the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Policy in the Science and 

Technology Directorate, where he has analyzed issues related to 

risk analysis, border security, immigration, and non-immigrant 

travel and trade, among other homeland security areas. He is also 

an adjunct lecturer at George Washington University’s 

Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration. 

With that having been said, we are delighted you all are here. 

We look forward to having a fruitful conversation. This is a timely 

hearing and I am happy that my colleagues are here. We have 

votes starting right now and we will be going in and out, tagteaming here, to make sure we continue to go forward with your 

testimony so we do not waste any time, and hopefully not your 

time. This is going to be a good hearing. Welcome. 

Mr. Shifter, why do you not lead us off. Your entire statements, 

all of you, will be made part of the record, if you would like to summarize. Try to keep to about 5 minutes. If you go way beyond that, 

I will have to rein you in. Thank you. Mr. Shifter. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL SHIFTER,1 PRESIDENT, INTERAMERICAN DIALOGUE 

Mr. SHIFTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, Members of the Committee. I appreciate very much the opportunity to share my views about the root causes motivating Central 

Americans, especially unaccompanied children (UAC), to leave 

their countries and enter the United States. This strikes me as the 

right focus and will help advance United States interests over the 

long term. President Obama’s proposal of $3.7 billion in emergency funds 

will be debated in Congress and across the country. I believe it contains elements that are useful in responding to the urgent situation 

on this side of the border. But, the dire conditions in the three 
290 

main sending countries, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, 

are mostly driving the crisis and need to be addressed. If they are 

not, whatever we decide to do in the United States now will not 

prevent another wave of migrants from these nations down the 

road. 

Today’s crisis is complex and has no single cause or explanation. 

Each of these countries has its own particular features. Migrants 

are coming because they are facing a mix of extreme poverty, lack 

of opportunities, violence, criminality, and abuse. The data are well 

known. Today, more El Salvadorans are being killed than during 

the worst moments of that country’s bloody civil war in the 1980s. 

What these countries all share, however, is a crisis that derives 

from weak institutions and governance. The capacity of these governments to protect its citizens and deliver basic services is very 

limited. Corruption is rampant. 

In thinking about the root causes, it is also important to consider 

the drug trade. Unfortunately, it continues to flourish and is a key 

dimension of the violence in these countries. Studies show that 

most migrants are coming from places where the homicides are 

committed, and many of these homicides are directly or indirectly 

linked to drugs. 

The role of the so-called coyotes is critical, also, in explaining the 

recent surge of unaccompanied minors to the United States. This 

criminal group profits from human trafficking and smuggling 

across the border. The coyotes are also a main source of misinformation about U.S. immigration laws, which is another factor in 

this mix which is creating a perception among the migrants who 

are coming to the United States. 

The U.S. Government has been concerned about these deteriorating conditions for many years. However, the response, as illustrated by the current crisis, has been inadequate. There have been 

good intentions, but scarce resources and little follow-through. A 

comprehensive approach is needed. 

United States assistance should prioritize key institutions, such 

as the police forces and the courts. This is the best way to help advance the rule of law. This is one of the lessons, I think, we can 

take away from Plan Colombia, which did turn around the capacity 

of the police forces in that country. It is also, in the long term, the 

best way to tackle the drug challenge. Fragile institutions cannot 

do the job, no matter how much support we provide for interdiction 

activities. 

Resources should also be assigned to community-based youth 

programs, which can keep children in their home countries. They 

should be targeted to those most likely to leave. Better-targeted 

programs should be undertaken to strengthen education and school 

retention, as well. 

The United States should also encourage better use of the remittance flows to these countries. The focus on financial inclusion, 

which is a main program of the Inter-American Dialogue—we work 

a lot on financial inclusion in Central America and Mexico—should 

be given priority. This can be a powerful development tool to build 

assets for poor families over the long term. 

Just as important as where we direct resources to these countries 

is what our approach is. True partnerships with national and local 
291 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Olson appears in the Appendix on page 341. 

governments, the private sector, and civil society groups are critical. Everyone needs to have a stake in this overall effort to turn 

around such a dire situation. That is the only way any approach 

can be sustainable. 

The same is true in Washington. One lesson we should take 

away from the United State’s successful engagement with Colombia 

for nearly 15 years is that bipartisan support is fundamental. In 

the same way today, broad agreement on a sustained effort to help 

assist our closest neighbors so profoundly connected to the United 

States is crucial. There is no quick fix. Any serious effort will take 

a long time. But, the ominous conditions today require a swift, constructive, and bold response. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Olson, please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF ERIC L. OLSON,1 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, LATIN 

AMERICAN PROGRAM, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL 

CENTER FOR SCHOLARS 

Mr. OLSON. Good morning, Chairman Carper and Senators. I am 

glad that you have invited me. Thank you for the opportunity, and 

I am pleased to appear before the Committee on behalf of the 

Woodrow Wilson Center. 

I just returned from a 6-day trip through Central America’s 

Northern Triangle—Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador—a 

couple weeks ago. It is the latest in a series of research missions 

we have carried out in that area to try to understand the context 

of violence and the desperation there and also get a better handle 

on what United States efforts have been to address these problems. 

I think this Committee hearing is appropriate and I think it is 

well targeted to try to get at some of these underlying drivers and 

push factors that are contributing to this overall problem. The push 

factors are real and overwhelming, suggesting that for many, the 

long odds of coming north are better than the impossible odds of 

staying in their countries. 

There are essentially three factors that we have identified and 

have already been mentioned. Obviously, the first is violence, and 

these three countries are now the most violent region in the world, 

Honduras having the highest murder rate of any country at 90 per 

100,000. Salvador is in fourth place, and Guatemala is in fifth 

place, with just over 40 per 100,000 being killed. And, by way of 

comparison, I would just point out that Colombia is at 31 and Mexico at 20, so double the rate of murders you have in Honduras. 

But, homicides tells only part of the story. It is not all about 

murder. The violence at the community level is overwhelming, and 

it is the result of the presence of criminal networks and gangs who 

extort, kidnap, threaten, and forcibly recruit young people into 

their networks. And, so, while murder is common, extortion and 

fear is constant, forcing people to go along with the criminals or to 

flee. 

Two weeks ago, I was in Honduras and visited a community outside of Tegucigalpa that I have been visiting since the mid-1980s, 
292 

when I lived there. I go back every time I am in Honduras to talk 

to the people in that community and try to understand what they 

are facing. They told me that there are roughly six criminal groups 

in their community extorting every kind of economic activity. They 

extort people on buses. They extort the taxi drivers. Anyone who 

tries to sell something from their house—tamales or tortillas—to 

make a little extra cash, has to pay the extortionists. So, this is the 

kind of violence at the local level that is really terrorizing people 

and driving some of this migration. 

We have also touched on the issue of poverty, and I will just add 

a couple points on that. Roughly two million Central Americans, or 

23 percent of the population, between the ages of 15 and 25 neither 

work nor have jobs. They are known as the ‘‘NiNis,’’ people who 

have no involvement in the economic activity or in education. The 

dropout rate in Central America is roughly 50 percent after elementary school. And, Honduras has a poverty rate of nearly twothirds, with that population living on $1.25 a day or less. In Guatemala, the poverty rate is around 54 percent, but chronic malnutrition is extremely high, about 50 percent for children under the age 

of five. So, all these factors together at the community level are 

playing a major role. 

In my written statement, I suggest a series of ‘‘dos and don’ts’’ 

for U.S. policy. I am just going to skip over those in the interest 

of time to focus on a few recommendations as the Congress moves 

forward. 

As my colleague, Michael Shifter, has said, we have been doing 

some of these things focused on building institutions in Central 

America for a long time, and they are essential and important. But, 

unfortunately, we really have not had much impact. In many cases, 

we have been funding these programs for up to 30 years. So, the 

question is, what do we want to do to turn that corner? 

I think I would put at the first, the front of the list, the issue 

of fighting corruption. Fight corruption by holding people accountable and strengthening the mechanisms of transparency and accountability in government. We do not always do that. We spend 

a lot of time training people. 

Second, I would put at the front of the line the issue of reducing 

violence, not focusing on drug trafficking. I think reducing violence 

at the community level, which is often not related to the transshipment of drugs, is a major priority. 

Third, I would demand more from the Central American political 

and economic elite. You said it yourself, Mr. Chairman. This is a 

situation where we need shared responsibility. The United States 

has a role to play, but so do the Central Americans, and oftentimes, they have not come through on their end of the bargain. 

And, let me just make two more points on what we should consider doing. Fourth, empower civil society. I think sometimes we do 

not have the partnerships in government that we need. Corruption 

has penetrated and taken over institutions of government. So, we 

need to focus more on the role of civil society in monitoring and 

holding governments accountable, and that includes nurturing 

independent investigative journalism. 

And, fifth, and I will end with this, we need to make economic 

opportunity part of the security strategy. We need to integrate 
293 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Farnsworth appears in the Appendix on page 347. 

these two in a way that are complementary. Too many times, we 

put security ahead of economic opportunity and the balance should 

really be between the two, working together to reinforce one another. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. That was excellent testimony, 

very helpful. I am anxious to get back to your five points there and 

ask our panel to kind of react to those. 

Senator Pryor has already voted. He has come back to allow me 

to go vote, and I think Senator Johnson, as well. So, the gavel is 

in your hands. I think Dr. Coburn may show up shortly, before I 

get back. I appreciate very much your doing this. Thank you. Senator Mark Pryor from Arkansas. Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR [presiding]. Well, I want to thank all of you for 

being here and I will try not to do too much damage to the Committee while the Chairman is gone. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Farnsworth, go ahead. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF ERIC FARNSWORTH,1 VICE PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAS SOCIETY/COUNCIL OF THE AMERICAS 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Thank you, Senator Pryor and other Members 

of the Committee, for the opportunity to be here. It is a timely 

hearing and I appreciate very much the opportunity to participate. 

As has already been said, we are witnessing a heart-rending, immensely difficult humanitarian drama on the Southwestern Border. 

Almost 60,000 unaccompanied minor children have been picked up 

there since last October, according to reports, and many of these 

migrant children are, in some cases, less than 10 years old, entrusted by their families to profiteers trading on tragedy to get 

them from Central America through Mexico into the United States. 

And, so, the question has to be asked why families believe their 

circumstances to be so hopeless or desperate as to consider that a 

better option for their children lies in sending them on a potentially treacherous journey to the U.S. border to an unknown future. 

The issues within Central America, and here, we are talking 

about primarily the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, 

Guatemala, and Honduras, have been building for some time, as 

has already been discussed. 

The root of Central America’s problem, in my view, is the geographic reality that it exists between the world’s largest consumer 

of illegal drugs, the United States, and the world’s largest producer, South America. Under normal circumstances, this would be 

bad enough, but with the cessation of the brutal Central American 

wars of the late 1980s and early 1990s, insufficient attention was 

paid, I believe, to reintegrating former combatants, building professional apolitical police forces, reforming judiciaries, rooting out corruption, and creating economic opportunity with an intensive focus 

on broad-based education and training. 

At the same time, natural disasters, including Hurricanes Mitch 

in 1998 and Stan in 2005 and others, caused immense human and 

physical destruction and wiped out significant economic production, 

and manmade disasters, including the Honduran political crisis in 
294 

2009, led to a vacuum in already weak governance that has been 

exploited by drug traffickers and other illegal actors. 

The United States has arguably contributed at some level to the 

problem by deporting hardened criminals back to the region without full coordination with receiving nation officials. Many of these 

folks have already been indoctrinated into the gang culture in the 

United States in its prisons, and at the same time, the export of 

weapons from the United States often falls into criminal hands. 

It is a potent mix, and regional governments have largely proven 

incapable of responding effectively, particularly at the community 

level, as has been discussed. 

One critical component of a solution, I believe, is the creation of 

realistic prospects for economic gain within migrant-sending nations, in other words, good, legal, sustainable jobs offering the prospect for a better life and stability at the local and community level 

that is currently lacking. For years, without such opportunities, the 

young and unemployed have generally pursued one of two options. 

They either attempt the dangerous journey to the United States or 

they throw in their lot with the criminal gangs who have proliferated and transformed the region into one of the most, if not the 

most, dangerous worldwide. And, it is these gangs and the mayhem 

they are creating in El Salvador and the drug gangs and gangs in 

Guatemala and Honduras that are creating the conditions of deep 

personal insecurity that are now pushing a new population of migrants to flee. 

Regional job creation is not a panacea, but it would provide options and possibilities that do not otherwise exist. The Central 

American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA–DR) was a beginning, 

and statistics show that the region has benefited from this trade 

agreement that has been in effect for a decade, as has the United 

States. But, the agreement is a beginning point, not an endgame, 

establishing permanent market access to the United States and 

transparent rules of the game for private sector engagement. It is 

now incumbent on the other parties to the agreement, in addition 

to the United States, to take steps domestically and regionally in 

order to gain the full benefit of the agreement. 

Without an attractive business climate, including enhanced personal security, an educated workforce, improved infrastructure, 

and, critically, regulatory transparency and the rule of law, investors both foreign and domestic will concentrate elsewhere. A lack 

of investment means forgone job creation as well as tax receipts, 

technology transfer, and access to global supply chains, reinforcing 

an already difficult economic scenario. 

In the meantime, I believe we can do more to assist the nations 

in question to improve the business climate, and we must also be 

mindful of the potential unintended consequences in Central America of trade expansion efforts elsewhere, including the Trans-Pacific 

Partnership, taking steps to hold the Central American region 

harmless from potential impacts on regional competitiveness 

brought about through the impact of trade diversion. 

At the same time, we can work to improve regional competitiveness in other ways by encouraging the creation of a true regional 

Central American marketplace, increasing internal market size, 

and improving efficiencies and economies of scale. For example, we 
295 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Jones appears in the Appendix on page 396. 

should higher prioritize, in my view, the cleaner energy agenda for 

the region, increasing energy security while lowering energy costs, 

improving environmental conditions, and reducing regional reliance 

on Venezuela’s strategic energy initiative, Petrocaribe. 

We should promote regulatory convergence and infrastructure 

development, among other things, to build market size, and we 

should continue to work on a regional basis, not just necessarily on 

a bilateral basis only, on the security agenda, seeking multilateral 

cooperation with us and having the countries cooperate with each 

other. This must include the employment of all available and appropriate resources, including security forces, to recapture State 

control of lawless areas and restore order where it is lacking. 

Of course, the primary driver of investment and job creation 

must be the local business community, including entrepreneurs, 

and they should also be seen as a partner in the broader agenda. 

As our sister institution, the Americas Society, has found previously in collaboration with the World Bank and others, violence 

reduction also reduces security-related costs and improves worker 

productivity while the private sector can provide training and labor 

market access for at-risk youth. A number of programs are ongoing 

and showing promise, although the issue of scalability does remain. 

The flow of unaccompanied migrants at the Southwestern Border 

of the United States is a symptom, I believe, tragic as it certainly 

is, of a broader crisis in personal security in the Northern Triangle, 

and that has already been discussed. In order to treat the symptoms effectively, we have to address the cause. That will require 

sustained high-level attention, resources, and a commitment to addressing some very difficult concerns, and in this regard, I really 

appreciated the Chairman’s opening Statement where he talked 

about a longer-term commitment and not a one-and-done approach. 

I thought that was quite appropriate. 

The United States has an immense stake in Central America’s 

success, given our own history and engagement there, and perhaps 

it might be time now to consider a second Kissinger-style commission to develop urgency and consensus for a comprehensive approach to Central American security and development, much as 

was done in 1983, including a focus on job creation and economic 

opportunity. 

So, I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 

to testify and I look forward to any questions you may have. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Mr. Jones. 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD JONES,1 DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR GLOBAL SOLIDARITY AND JUSTICE IN LATIN 

AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN, CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Senator Pryor. I would also like to thank 

Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Coburn for the opportunity 

to call these hearings to look more deeply at the underlying causes 

of why so many children and families are fleeing to the United 

States. 
296 

My name is Richard Jones. I work for Catholic Relief Services as 

the Deputy Regional Director for Latin America and the Caribbean. 

I have been living in El Salvador for the past 24 years. 

What we are witnessing is a refugee crisis due to violence. El 

Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala rank among the top five most 

violent countries in the world. The homicide rates in Honduras are 

eclipsed only by Syria and maybe South Sudan. 

Last month in San Pedro Sula in Honduras, four young boys 

were assassinated and dismembered. They had refused to be couriers for the local gang to carry drugs throughout their community. 

The gangs and the drug cartels are recruiting forcibly young children as early as 8, 9, and 10 years old to be lookouts, drug couriers, 

and foot soldiers. 

Two weeks ago in El Salvador, I met with a woman and her two 

daughters who had recently been deported from Mexico. They had 

left El Salvador because one day the 18th Street Gang members 

knocked on her door and said, ‘‘Your two daughters are now going 

to become the queens of our gang.’’ She left that night. She was 

picked up in Mexico and returned and now has no safe place to go. 

An estimated 130,000 people in El Salvador have been internally 

displaced by this violence. My own son’s soccer teammate last October was stabbed on the bus on the way home from practice. The 

gangs are enforcing a ‘‘join or die’’ rule. The following month, he 

left with his father for the United States. He was one month away 

from graduating from high school. 

These children and their families feel that they are trapped in 

a blind alley with only a fire escape, a rickety fire escape, to safety. 

They know that the risks of traveling north are high, but they feel 

that they have no other choice. 

What we know is that while this is a complex problem and requires multi-faceted solutions, there are solutions and they are 

scalable. 

First of all, we need to focus on primary prevention, that is, targeting the communities who are most violent with services that include day care, community centers for after-school programs, like 

the Alcance Center supported by USAID in all three countries of 

the Northern Triangle, and school programs. Through the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program, CRS in Honduras is working 

with 54,000 students in over 1,000 schools of heavy out-migration, 

and we are having rates of attendance over 90 percent, which is 

well above the national average. In addition to that, in Mexico, we 

have started programs for listening centers and treatment of victims of violence, because what we have learned from Colombia and 

Mexico is that the quickest path to become a perpetrator of violence 

is to have been a victim. We need those kinds of services for primary attention. 

Secondary attention needs to be provided to adolescents 8 to 15 

years old who are at risk of joining gangs, and their families. We 

have started Strong Family programs to strengthen families’ ability 

to deal with dysfunction, to improve their household communications, and these are showing a great deal of promise. Young people 

ages 16 to 24 need opportunities. Between 2010 and 2014, CRS in 

El Salvador implemented a workforce development program with 

out-of-school and unemployed youth. We were able to reach 6,000 
297 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts appears in the Appendix on page 408. 

youth over 4 years, and 80 percent of them at the end of the program were able to get jobs, go back to school, or start their own 

business. These are very successful programs that are scalable and 

are being planned and the governments are very excited about it. 

Tertiary prevention schemes also need to be implemented. Working with kids in school or in prisons and those who are gang-involved to interrupt the violence is an absolute necessity. The gang 

members need to be part of the solution. 

Finally, in order to address the immediate crisis, the State Department should consider the implementation of an orderly departure program for children and their families who meet the requirements of refugee protection. We need to screen all the young people 

who are arriving at the border in order to find out, do they have 

a legitimate claim for protection and asylum. Those who do not and 

need to be deported, we need to support robust, safe, and secure 

repatriation programs like the ones that are run by the First Lady 

in Guatemala and the Government of El Salvador is planning one 

now to expand those programs. We need to be able to support 

those. 

We at CRS believe that youth, even in the most violent and poorest neighborhoods, have the power to change their lives and their 

neighborhoods. We need to support them to unleash that power. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Dr. Roberts. 

TESTIMONY OF BRYAN ROBERTS,1 SENIOR ECONOMIST, 

ECONOMETRICA, INC. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator Pryor, and I would like to 

thank Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, and the distinguished Members of the Committee for inviting me to testify today 

on this very important topic. 

The testimony that follows draws in part from research that I 

have been conducting over the past several years with two distinguished colleagues. Edward Alden, John Whitley, and I published 

a Council on Foreign Relations study last year entitled, ‘‘Managing 

Illegal Immigration to the United States: How Effective is Enforcement?’’ This study evaluates the impact of immigration enforcement and also longer-run trends in economic and demographic factors that are influencing illegal immigration to the United States. 

I would like to make three primary points today. First, good data 

and analysis are an essential element of any strategy to improve 

immigration policy and border management. They improve our understanding of key outcomes related to illegal immigration, decisions on resource allocation and policy design, and the quality of 

public debate. It will be difficult to make progress on reform of immigration policies if there continues to be deep disagreement over 

the most basic facts and questions related to illegal immigration 

and border security. Both the U.S. Government and the research 

community, as well as colleagues who are working in the region, 

have essential roles to play in achieving that progress. 

My second primary point is that available data and analysis already provide useful insights into important questions on immigra-
298 

tion and border issues. Some examples include, has U.S. border enforcement become more effective over time, and has it deterred people from migrating illegally to the United States? Is the fall in illegal migration from Mexico to the United States due to economic developments or to the border enforcement buildup after 2007? What 

are the key longer-run factors influencing illegal migration to the 

United States and how will they develop in the future? 

My third primary point is that it is essential that the Department of Homeland Security make data related to immigration enforcement available to researchers and permit them to publish 

their studies. This is a necessary step for achieving the progress 

that is possible with making use of data and analysis to inform decisionmaking. DHS should be commended for the remarkable 

progress that has been made with respect to the sharing of information on legal flows of people through ports of entry and immigration benefits processing. Similar progress could quickly be made 

on analysis of immigration enforcement issues if DHS adopted a 

similar approach with respect to enforcement data. 

I would now like to conclude my opening statement with a discussion of the surge in unaccompanied children to the United 

States. The number of unaccompanied children arriving at the U.S. 

Southwestern Border began growing rapidly in fiscal year (FY) 

2012. My written testimony reviews the available evidence on these 

surges and identifies four key characteristics. 

First, the surges from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras all 

began in fiscal year 2012. 

Second, there has been no sustained surge from Mexico. 

Third, the surge from Honduras has been much larger in percentage terms than those from El Salvador or Guatemala. 

And, finally, the surge in unaccompanied children has also been 

accompanied by a surge in apprehensions of other non-Mexican nationals. 

Two hypotheses to explain the surges have received much public 

discussion in recent weeks. The crime-push argument is that underlying conditions in these countries, and in particular high levels 

of crime and violence, caused the surges to happen. The policy-pull 

argument is that U.S. policies have caused them. 

After reviewing the data and conducting some statistical analysis, I offer the following tentative conclusions, and I would stress 

that they are tentative. Underlying conditions in Central American 

countries and U.S. policies have both played a role in creating the 

potential for the surges. Underlying conditions, including crime and 

violence and lack of economic opportunity, create incentives to migrate, and U.S. policies encourage using the unaccompanied child 

channel if that is possible. 

When one considers the evidence across the three countries, 

changes in crime rates and other underlying conditions are not 

compelling as an explanation for why all surges began in fiscal 

year 2012. There are no changes in murder rates in 2012 that suggest an upsurge in violence in that year that would have triggered 

the surges. In El Salvador, the murder rate fell significantly in 

2012 as the result of a truce between the two largest gangs, which 

held into 2013. Our colleague from El Salvador could speak more 
299 

deeply to that. In Guatemala, the murder rate fell slightly in 2010 

and has been very stable since then. 

In Honduras, there was a dramatic rise in the murder rate in 

2009, followed by smaller increases in 2010 and 2011, with stabilization in 2012 at the highest murder rate recorded in the world. 

Given that the dramatic rise in Honduras’ murder rate and other 

reported crime began in 2009, it is surprising that its surge did not 

start before 2012. 

I, thus, conclude that high levels of crime, violence, and lack of 

personal security thus likely play an important role for setting the 

stage for the surges, but they do not explain the triggering or timing of the surges in fiscal year 2012. I would also observe that 

there is no obvious economic development in 2012 that could have 

served as a trigger. 

The argument that the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals 

(DACA), administrative action that was implemented in June 2012, 

played a role in initiating the surges cannot yet be evaluated due 

to lack of needed data, in particular, monthly data on the number 

of unaccompanied children for the period 2008 to 2014. Subsequent 

research should also try to identify and evaluate other possible explanations in addition to those discussed here. 

I conclude by noting that challenges with understanding the 

causes of these surges and the potential effectiveness of various 

policy responses to them are a direct illustration of my opening 

points. There is disagreement about the causes of the surges and 

this is one cause of the disagreements over the best policy responses to them. Better data and analysis would help establish a 

more broadly accepted basis of facts upon which to have the policy 

debates. 

Thank you again for inviting me to participate in this hearing. 

Chairman CARPER [presiding]. Good. Dr. Roberts, thanks so 

much. 

I apologize for having to miss, Mr. Farnsworth, your testimony 

and that of Mr. Jones. I had a chance to look at it, so, hopefully, 

we will have a chance to draw you out in the question and answer. 

I want to thank Senator Pryor for presiding while the rest of us 

went off to vote. 

My last job before I came here to serve in the Senate was I was 

Governor of Delaware for 8 years, from 1993 to 2001. For 8 years, 

we focused on how do we strengthen the basic building block of our 

society, families. That was it. How do we strengthen the basic 

building block of our society, families? If we have problems with 

kids not doing well in school, high dropout rates, underachieving 

students in school, high rates of teen pregnancy, a lot of folks on 

welfare, all kinds of—we say, rather than just focus on the symptoms of those problems, why do we not figure out what is causing 

them. What are the underlying causes of those problems? And, that 

is what we focused on for 8 years, I thought to very, very good effect. 

One of the things we did, we had a statewide campaign on teenage pregnancy. It was actually helped developed by kids from every 

high school, I think, in our State who participated in the summit 

that focused on that. One of the billboards we had in our campaign 
300 

was, ‘‘The best contraceptive is a future.’’ That is what it said. ‘‘The 

best contraceptive is a future.’’ 

And I think that maybe the best antidote for what is going on 

in these three Central American countries—I have been down in El 

Salvador and Guatemala this year—we have been down to Colombia this year and Mexico, trying to understand how Colombia came 

back from the brink and how Mexico has gone on to surge economically. I understand they may graduate as many as 300,000 engineers this year. It is about as many as we will. And, that the net 

migration, as I said in my opening statement, of Mexicans heading 

back into Mexico may actually exceed the number of their folks 

that are trying to come here illegally. 

So, trying to understand what went right in Colombia, what has 

gone right in Mexico, what can we learn from them, and how can 

they help. They can help. They have a dog in this fight. They have 

an obligation, having been helped by us and others, they have an 

obligation to help these three Central American countries. 

I want to go back. A long time ago, I was a Congressman, and 

I remember going down to a summit—hosted by the former President of Costa Rica, a summit of all the Central American presidents. I remember meeting, I think it was the President of Honduras—I told this to the Honduran ambassador to the United 

States yesterday—I said, your President told me at a summit 

hosted by the President of Costa Rica, gosh, 25 years ago, that in 

our country, every 4 years we elect a President. We expect that 

person to serve for at least 4 years, maybe 8 years. Then, there is 

another election and somebody else becomes President and we turn 

over the chain of command and that is the way it works. He said, 

‘‘That has never happened in our country.’’ 

There were some hellacious days back then. You all know about 

them, especially in the 1980s. And, yet, we never saw during those 

years—we saw some people come to our country to try to get in, 

but not anything like we are seeing now with unaccompanied minors coming, trafficked by and moved by these coyotes. Why did we 

not see the kind of surge in the 1980s when there was such violence in some of these countries as we are seeing now? Why did 

they not—just, anybody. You guys decide who wants to answer. 

Several of you can. Mr. Farnsworth, why did we not see the kind 

of violence then? 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Well, thank you, sir. Both were multifaceted, 

but, I think, basically, the type of violence in the 1980s was political violence and the targets were political actors, whereas now the 

violence is widespread. It is extortive, or extortion. And, it is at the 

local and community level and everybody is subject to it. So, in the 

past, perhaps, if you had weapons, you might be subject to violence, 

but if you were just in the community, you may be able to escape 

it. Now, I know I am over-generalizing, but now, the sense is, at 

least from a lot of communities, that you are subject to it no matter 

what and there is nothing you can do to prevent that. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Fine. 

Another question. I mentioned I wanted to get to this before. Let 

us go back to Colombia, nearly a failed nation 20 years or so ago, 

not so today. I was there a couple of months ago. I was very impressed. And, Mexico, a similar kind of turnaround. Even though 
301 

the fact that you still have a lot of drug, narcotics, gang activity 

there, they are overcoming that with our help. What do we learn 

from Plan Colombia, if you will? What do we learn from our experience in Mexico? And, we will just take it from the top. Mr. Shifter, 

please. 

Mr. SHIFTER. Yes, thank you. Well, I think, Colombia, clearly, we 

had a very constructive partner in the Colombians. They said, the 

lights are going to turn out. The country is no longer viable because the violence—— 

Chairman CARPER. Yes. They were about to lose their country. 

Mr. SHIFTER. Absolutely. 

Chairman CARPER. They were about to lose it. 

Mr. SHIFTER. And, so, that came together. They came together at 

the same time that the United States was—remember, the Plan 

Colombia happened just a year before 9/11, so we were in a much 

better situation. We did not have the commitments to Afghanistan, 

Iraq, and elsewhere. That did not exist. It was July 2000 when—— 

Chairman CARPER. Camelot. It was Camelot. 

Mr. SHIFTER. Right. So, it was a—— 

Chairman CARPER. It was good days. 

Mr. SHIFTER. It was a different moment. And, so, the Colombians 

came together. The United States was willing to support—there 

was political will in the United States. It was bipartisan support 

to work with the Colombians together. And, they had a plan to how 

to tackle this problem, and we worked on strengthening the capacity of the State to assert the authority of the government. 

The police turned around. The security forces, the army, the military, were able to protect people. There were no police presence in 

Colombia at the end of the 1990s. There are 1,300 municipalities 

in Colombia and there was police presence just in 100 or two by 

the time of the United States support. Now, there were police presence in these communities. 

So, the violence has not disappeared, but, clearly, it is under control. The State has been key, and the key was the sustained support from the United States with a willing partner. 

Chairman CARPER. When we were in Guatemala and El Salvador 

a couple of months ago, one of the folks we met with said to us, 

what is the problem here? What is the problem in terms of lack of 

economic activity? And, he said, ‘‘People are afraid to be successful 

in business, because if you are, you will get extorted, and if you do 

not come across with the money, you will get killed.’’ And, he 

said—I will never forget this guy said, ‘‘We have policemen who do 

not police. We have too many policemen who do not police, too 

many prosecutors who do not prosecute, too many judges who do 

not sentence, too many prisons and they do not really provide punishment, if you will, or rehabilitation.’’ 

And we literally heard one story, I think it was in Guatemala, 

we were told that there was a prison where the inmates get cell 

phones from the guards and they conduct their nefarious business 

or criminal activity from inside the prison. I met with the Guatemalan President and I said, do you know this is going on in your 

prisons? And, I said, there is technology where you can actually 

shut off, put, like, a blanket over the prison so that calls cannot 
302 

get in, cannot go out, and you have that capability and you do not 

use it. I mean, it is just very disturbing. Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. Well, no. I was going to agree with you on several 

points. One is that on this issue of prisons, El Salvador has an 

over-populated prison rate of over 130 percent. And, the prisons are 

not only inhumane, which is bad enough, people in prison that the 

government does not even know who is there, but they have become a part of the criminal enterprise. As you suggest, people are 

actually in prison running their criminal enterprise from prison. 

So, it is a moral issue, it is a humanitarian issue, but it is also a 

crime fighting issue. We need to get at the bottom of that particular issue. 

The second issue you touched on has to do with a sense that even 

when I invest in an enterprise, even when I invest in a small business, I am going to face the kinds of extortion and threats that 

make it a disincentive. And, so, that is why I am saying that we 

need to focus not just on homicides and transnational drug trafficking—which are important, I am not saying they are not—but 

really at the community level, which is driving the kind of migration we see now. It is that extortion, that sense of you cannot do 

anything, you cannot even sell tortillas without people coming to 

extort you, and people give up, or they join, and that is the desperate choice they are trying to make. 

Chairman CARPER. Good. I am going to hold it right there. My 

time has expired. 

Senator Baldwin is next, then Senator McCain, Senator Johnson, 

Senator Pryor, and Senator Ayotte. And, Senator Baldwin, why do 

you not lead us off, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. I really appreciate this hearing 

and the one last week. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you for being a part of it. 

Senator BALDWIN. And, thank you to our witnesses today. 

I want to just touch on a couple of topics, if we have time during 

this Q and A, and the first is relating to the supplemental request 

that we will be considering over the days to come. As many of you 

discussed in the testimony that you provided, there are enormous 

problems of violence and instability and endemic poverty in Central 

America that are, in part, driving the dramatic increase in unaccompanied minors that we are seeing come to the United States, 

despite the fact that, overall, the number of undocumented individuals coming in is at an all-time low. But, of course, the unaccompanied minors are what we are here to talk about. 

According to data from the Migration Policy Institute and further 

analysis by the staff of this Committee, the United States has 

spent about $223 billion on immigration and customs enforcement 

since 2003, but only about $2 billion on foreign assistance to the 

three countries, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. And, a 

majority of this aid has focused on drug interdiction. 

Now, we are having a debate here about the funds that the Administration is requesting and some of my colleagues are indicating 

that the Administration is requesting too much funding and that 
303 

we should approve a slimmer package than the President has proposed. 

Mr. Shifter and Mr. Jones, I would like to start with you. Given 

your direct experience with the troubling state of affairs in these 

three Central American countries and the conditions that you have 

testified are driving, in part, the migration to the United States, 

do you believe that the Administration’s request adequately addresses the root causes that you have been discussing, and what 

impact would cutting the funding for direct engagement with Central American nations have on our ability to prevent future migrations to the United States? Why don’t I kick it off there? 

Mr. SHIFTER. Thank you, Senator, for the question. This, clearly 

is an emergency request, and it is focused principally on this side 

of the border. Three-hundred-million dollars is for the three countries that you mention. That is $100 million for each country, if you 

want to break it down that way. That is, given the magnitude of 

the problem that I think all of us are describing here, I think that 

falls short. I think it is inadequate. 

There is a question of how these countries can absorb and use 

the money well, but that is something that we need to focus on, as 

well. It is not just giving the money and more money. It is also accompanying that with support and assistance so that money is 

used well, there is transparency, as my colleague said, and there 

are other standards that are met. 

But, that means much more significant engagement than we 

have seen so far. We have good intentions. We have thrown some 

money at some programs. They have had some useful results. But, 

obviously, the problem is getting worse and there needs to be more 

assistance. 

Senator BALDWIN. Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you for the questions, Senator. I think the 

supplemental is just the beginning in the sense that some of the 

numbers that we are seeing—$35 million for workforce development for young people—we were able to reach, as I said in my testimony, about 6,000 young people over 4 years with $4.5 million. 

It is estimated in El Salvador alone that they need jobs for 50,000 

young people each year. That would be between $35 and $40 million a year. So, this is just the beginning if we do that. 

I think if we do not do this, what we are going to see is continued 

numbers of young people arriving at our Southern Border, and the 

only people who are benefiting from this right now are criminal 

groups and smuggling organizations. It costs anywhere from $7,000 

to $12,000 from El Salvador to get to the United States. 

Senator BALDWIN. I want to stop you there, because that is a 

point I would love to hear further comment on. We have had some 

testimony regarding human traffickers, the folks engaged in this 

villainous activity. What would an all-hands-on-deck crackdown 

look like and how effective might that be an intervention in this 

crisis that is going on right now? Some do unspeakable things. We 

have had partnerships with other nations in terms of going after 

drug smugglers. We have engaged in law enforcement cooperation. 

What would be a short-range but expeditious thing that we could 

do to up our approach against the real villains in all of this? Again, 
304 

I direct this both to Mr. Shifter and Mr. Jones, but would welcome 

other thoughts on this topic. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you for the question, Senator. I would say two 

things to that. One, focusing on violent reduction at the community 

level is absolutely essential, as Rick has pointed out. I think that 

is really the key driver here of what much of this exodus from 

these community levels, and trafficking, quite frankly, starts there, 

at the community level, where people are recruited, promised jobs 

in the United States, promised passage, and then find themselves 

caught up. So, I would have very much of a community-focused approach to lowering violence. Primary prevention programs are essential to that, and we can do more. 

But, I also am concerned that the United States has not engaged 

in direct intervention with gangs in those communities. We have 

been on the periphery of these issues, providing sports, providing 

community centers for those who would want to come in. But, we 

need to have a very targeted, focused effort with the criminal gangs 

themselves like we do in Los Angeles, like we do in Chicago, like 

we do in other big cities in this country, because they are the ones 

driving the violence and controlling the neighborhoods and causing 

this big problem. 

One last thing that there could be a very focused law enforcement approach to this problem of human trafficking, forced labor, 

sex trafficking, that runs through Central America into Mexico and 

on to the United States. There, we are not doing enough, as well. 

Mr. SHIFTER. If I could just add, Senator, I agree with what my 

colleague said, but I also think that whatever units that go after— 

that are engaged in this—have to be vetted very well. If they are 

not vetted, the chance of corruption is very high. And, even if they 

are arrested, if there are no judges or prosecutors, it is not doing 

the job. 

So, I think, going back to my other point about strengthening the 

justice system, the rule of law, has to be complementary to any effort to try to crack down on these smugglers. 

Mr. JONES. I would just add to that that we do know that repressive tactics alone do not work. They tried repressive tactics around 

2004, 2005, in all three Central American countries around gang 

violence and the homicide rates rose in each country as a result. 

The gangs just got more clandestine, more sophisticated, and sending them all to prison was like sending them to graduate school. 

I think in terms of human trafficking, we need to target especially girls in rural areas, and we know that educating girls in 

rural areas can stop them from deciding to leave. They need to 

work with prevention programs that work with their families and 

strengthening families in those areas so that they have the means 

to survive, because a lot of this is an economic opportunity decision 

for the family, why girls decide to go. And, they are trafficked within Central America. 

So, I think we need to look at that, and there are experiences of 

the governments in Central America coordinating efforts between 

police, judicial systems, and social workers to try and address victims of human trafficking, because once a victim, it is likely that 

they are going to be a victim again, and so we need to interrupt 

that process. 
305 

Mr. ROBERTS. If I could just add—— 

Chairman CARPER. Mr. Roberts, I am going to ask you to be brief 

as we wrap up and then turn to the next Senator. 

Mr. ROBERTS. U.S. assistance agencies have good capacities to 

run programs to strengthen court and justice systems. I have seen 

them in all countries where I have worked as an advisor. And, U.S. 

agencies, as well as international agencies, also have good capabilities in terms of working with police forces, and we have gained a 

lot of experience in that over the last 20 years. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator Baldwin, very good questions. 

Next is Senator McCain, when he returns. Senator Johnson is 

next, then followed by Senator Pryor, Senator Ayotte, and we welcome Senator Landrieu. Senator Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think we can all agree, this is a humanitarian crisis. America 

is a very compassionate society. We all want to treat these kids 

with true compassion. But, I want to ask each one of you, in just 

one sentence—if you cannot do it in a sentence, just say ‘‘pass’’— 

to state, based on this problem, which we agree on, what should 

be the goal of U.S. policy? I will start with you, Mr. Shifter. 

Mr. SHIFTER. The goal should be to strengthen the capacity of 

governments in these countries so that they can protect their citizens. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. I would say the same thing, that they are not 

wholly dependent on us, but that they can secure and provide safety for their own citizens. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Farnsworth. 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I would say economic and personal development in Central America. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Strengthen the capacity of the governments to provide youth employment programs. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Roberts. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not want to advocate for any particular policy. 

Senator JOHNSON. No, I am not talking about policy. I am talking about what should be the goal of policy. I mean, so, basically, 

we have four people saying the goal should be to improve the 

economies, reduce the violence in those countries. What do you 

think the goal ought to be? 

Mr. ROBERTS. To manage the surges and create orderly migration flows while also taking into account the impacts of doing that 

on the people going on those journeys. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. I will state I think the goal should be 

somewhat what Mr. Roberts said. We have to stop the flow. And, 

we have 57,000 human disasters on our border. We do not want 

more. And, with Secretary Johnson talking about the fact that by 

the end of this fiscal year—in other words, September 30—it could 

be 90,000. By 2015, 140,000. Should our goal not be to make sure 

that we do not have another 50,000, 60,000, to 100,000 additional 

unaccompanied minors here at our border? Should not that be the 

goal? 
306 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 424. 

And, let me also make the point, we have not done a particularly 

good job at providing economic security in America. I really believe 

if we are going to improve the economies of Central America, the 

best way we can do that—because it has been proven, we are the 

engine of global economic growth—if we get our own economy in 

order. If we take a look at the fact that we have an uncompetitive 

tax rate, an onerous regulatory environment, that we are artificially trying to drive up the price of energy, harming our own economy, that is doing far greater harm. 

So, I think, if we are really concerned about the economies of 

Central America, let us get our own economy moving forward. Let 

us actually engage in free but fair trade. Would that not make a 

whole lot more sense? 

Anyway, let me go on to the root cause analysis here, because I 

think we have to stop the flow. We have to deter parents in those 

countries from making that terrible decision to put their kids on 

the beast, subject them to potential sexual assault, maybe murder. 

We have to deter those people. And, I cannot think of a better deterrence than, literally, in a very humane and safe fashion, start 

returning those kids home to their parents and to those countries. 

We can spend millions of dollars on an ad campaign, pretty posters, but there is nothing going to be more effective than actually 

sending the kids home and having everybody realize, yes, I can 

spend $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, but in 2 weeks, you are going to be 

right back in your home country. I do not think there can be any 

stronger deterrence. 

Mr. Roberts, you have a graph in your testimony, Figure 1,1

showing a real spike in the year 2005 on apprehensions of otherthan-Mexican nationals. Do you have a theory on that one? We 

have a lot as time has gone by now, do you know what caused that 

spike, or do you have a theory on what caused it, because I do. 

Mr. ROBERTS. It was, in part, apparently driven by people realizing that they could come to the United States and be released 

into the interior, but—— 

Senator JOHNSON. What was happening during that time period? 

What were we discussing policy-wise in this country? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Umm—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Immigration reform. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not recall that being on the table that early. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. I think it might have been. But, that is 

the point I am trying to make is, how do you stop the flow? What 

is incentivizing people? I have always said that the way to secure 

the border is, yes, we need to probably beef up fencing, we maybe 

need to beef up personnel. But, the No. 1 thing we have to do is 

we have to reduce or eliminate, even better, all the incentives we 

have created for illegal crossings. 

So, Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, was one of those incentives, right? The Senate immigration bill that was passed that 

included in it $262 billion of welfare benefits to non-U.S. citizens, 

that is an incentive, is it not? Whenever we talk about comprehensive immigration reform without first securing the border, that creates those incentives. I mean, you are an economist. Is that not 
307 

what economics is all about, a study of what incentivizes certain 

human behavior? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. People respond to incentives, and in terms of 

DACA, it would really be a question, first, of the perceptions people 

had about DACA, because, of course, the children coming today do 

not qualify for DACA. But, again, I want to not make any real 

statements on that because we do not have the data necessary to 

understand when the surges started. 

Senator JOHNSON. Some of these things are just common sense, 

though, are they not? I mean, what else would have caused that 

spike? I mean, you are talking about murder rates that actually declined in some of these countries or actually leveled off. What else 

is inducing people to take that risk? Would you send your kid on 

a train up to America if you did not think they had a pretty good 

chance of staying here? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I hope I am never in the situation of having to 

make that decision, but I, personally, would assess my alternative 

opportunities and the costs and benefits that go with that. 

But, if I could just say, if the surges began well before DACA, 

that suggests that there may have been something else going on. 

If they did start after June, that is more indicative that maybe 

DACA had something to do with it. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, but understand, we have been talking 

about comprehensive immigration reform, and again, that does create incentives for people to get into this country before a law is 

passed with relatively loose controls in terms of eligibility for some 

of these deferred actions, that type of thing. 

And, by the way, we are hearing now, there was a published article that President Obama is talking behind closed doors about potentially deferred action on another six, seven, eight million immigrants in this country. Is that also going to produce an incentive 

or inducement for more people to get into this country? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not know. Going back to 2012, it is certainly 

possible. One thing I would also note, however, is that the Presidential election had not taken place, so it was not clear who was 

actually going to be in charge of the immigration policy at that 

point in the current term. So, I just want to caution, we do not 

really have strong answers I would feel comfortable saying at this 

point. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, there may not be strong correlative data, 

because you have not run the numbers yet, and maybe enough time 

has not—but, I think you can just use common sense. I think most 

Americans look at that and go, yes, we are incentivizing people to 

come here. So, what we need to do is we need to beef up our legal 

immigration system, make it easier for people to come to this country legally, but enforce our laws, and we have to actually change 

our laws to stop those incentives. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

Next is Senator Ayotte. Please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all 

the witnesses for being here. 
308 

I have been looking at a chart that shows the number—the spike 

in unaccompanied minors coming from El Salvador, Guatemala, 

and Honduras. And then I was looking at it in relationship to the 

murder rate in those countries. And, as you look at the murder 

rate in correlation to the increase that we see in unaccompanied 

minors in 2012, where it seems to be the biggest spike that is going 

on an upward trajectory quite dramatically in 2013 and 2014, here 

is no correlation between an increase in murder rates in those 

countries and what we are seeing as a fairly dramatic increase in 

unaccompanied minors. 

And, so, I guess what I am trying to understand is these countries have had economic and criminal difficulties for longer than we 

have seen this spike, is that not true? I mean, these are existing 

economic conditions that have not been good in these countries 

even before what we are seeing in this UAC, unaccompanied children, spike in 2012 coming to our country. Would you agree with 

that? 

Mr. JONES. We published a report on unaccompanied minors in 

2011. The numbers have doubled every year since then. So, this 

has been growing ever since 2011 and before that. So, the numbers 

of minors have been growing for a long—of unaccompanied children 

arriving at the Southern Border have been increasing over time. It 

is not just that it just happened in 2012—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, although, I will tell you, Mr. Jones, as I 

look at this chart, I have the numbers, as well, in front of me, and 

they did not double between 2008 and 2009. They did not double 

between 2009 and 2010. What we saw is really in 2011, if we had 

charted it out, it goes like this to like this. 

And, so, I guess my question I am trying to understand of all of 

you is we have no question in these Central American countries, 

difficult economic and criminal situations. But, they also existed 

before this dramatic spike, would you agree, or has there been 

some precipitating event in these countries that we can point to 

and say, wow, all of a sudden—I do not see it in the murder rate, 

because there is no correlation between the murder rate and these 

numbers, but I would like to hear from all of you, because you are 

experts in this. 

Mr. JONES. I would say that we have not seen any single event 

that is driving this number right now. What we have seen, even 

though my colleague, Dr. Roberts, mentioned that in 2012, El Salvador did have a decrease, the gang truce in that country has unraveled and those numbers have gone back up. The homicide rate 

is not the only factor that is influencing this. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, the gangs are now driving 

young people and children and recruiting more and more children 

into the gangs to become drug couriers. As the repression takes 

place against the gangs, they are using more children to be able 

to be couriers, and that is a change that I think we have seen in 

the last couple of years. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. They are finding a way. The criminal enterprises are finding a way to make money off this situation, basically. They are finding new ways to make more money that is causing the problem. 
309 

I wanted to get your comments at the end of the table on my first 

proposition. Is there something we should understand that has 

happened in these countries that is dramatic enough to see this 

sudden spike, because we have to understand this problem from all 

sides. 

Mr. SHIFTER. I would just say, Senator, that I think that there 

is not a precipitating event, but there is a deterioration overall, and 

it is not only reflected in homicide rates, it is reflect in just the 

level of the capacity of the government and the traffickers that 

have become much more sophisticated and extortion—— 

Senator AYOTTE. So, let me get to this question of the criminal 

enterprises that are trafficking these children up and down. It 

seems to me that they have figured out that in 2008, we changed 

our laws in terms of how we are going to treat minors from a contiguous country versus a non-contiguous country. And, almost like 

criminal lawyers, but without the law degree, they have figured out 

how to manipulate this situation with these children, knowing that 

if you come from a non-contiguous country, that there is a longer 

legal process and that that process can, I think the numbers show, 

benefit, because the minors are not showing back up for the legal 

proceedings. 

So, I guess I wanted to get your thoughts on the impact of that 

law change, and if we were to change the law to treat children 

from those countries in the same way we would, for example, treat 

children from Mexico, what would your positions be on that? What 

are your thoughts on that? And, so, if you could let me know what 

you think about that, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. OLSON. One of the main organizations involved in trafficking 

of children and women is the Zetas, a group in Mexico. And, I, 

frankly, do not think they care whether minors arriving in the 

United States are immediately deported or let into the country 

for—— 

Senator AYOTTE. No, but the parents are getting a different impression, if you are a parent in Mexico versus a parent in Central 

America. 

Mr. OLSON. But, again, I think the Zetas and other groups—it is 

not just the Zetas—have determined that there is another business 

model here. There is another revenue stream. Not only are you 

bringing up children and charging for that service, but you are extorting them along the way. You are calling their family members 

in the United States—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Sure. 

Mr. OLSON [continuing]. Or in Central America. ‘‘If you want to 

see Maria or Jose again, you are going to wire me $500.’’ That is 

one. 

Two, they force them to carry drugs, and I think somebody already mentioned that as an issue. 

So, I think, from their criminal enterprise perspective, not a humanitarian perspective, they see this as a new opportunity to make 

more money, and that is what is driving it from their perspective. 

Now, how the parents view it is quite different, and I want to 

point out one thing that, I think, that is lost here. Many of the parents sending their children on the way are actually in the United 

States already and they, themselves, have taken these trips. They 
310 

know full well what the risks are to their children. And that is why 

it is so deeply disturbing, because the situation on the ground has 

to be that much worse for a parent to run that kind of risk with 

their own child, and they know what they are getting into. 

Senator AYOTTE. My time has expired, but I certainly would like 

to hear the panel’s opinion on this legal issue, because this is going 

to be an issue, I think, that will come up for quite a bit of debate 

here. 

Mr. JONES. I think most of the—one researcher, Elizabeth Kennedy, talked to over 300 children who were repatriated to El Salvador. Sixty percent of them cited violence as their primary reason 

for leaving. Only one out of those 322 mentioned anything relevant 

to a U.S. law and could actually recognize what that was. So, what 

we are seeing is while we have heard that the coyotes are encouraging people to leave, they are listening to that because they are 

desperate from the levels of violence. 

I would also like to reinforce what Eric was saying in terms of 

the dates that you are citing, 2008, 2009, they coincide with when 

the Zetas come into Guatemala and Central America, around 2007, 

and we are definitely seeing changes in the drug patterns and in 

the forcible displacement starting in those dates. 

Mr. ROBERTS. If I could offer some analysis on this, I do think 

that changing the law would produce some deterrence because it is 

going to change the incentives that the children and their families 

face, because it would reduce the chance of a successful entry. Instead of coming to the border and turning oneself into Border Patrol, you would take the chance of going through the processing 

and potentially being sent into voluntary return or voluntary departure, or you might qualify for humanitarian entry. 

But, at the same time, there are going to be other impacts. There 

is going to be potential substitution to clandestine illegal entry 

channels, the more traditional channels that will still be open to 

the children, and there are going to be impacts on resource expenditures by the U.S. Government and the welfare of the children that, 

I think, should be taken into account in considering that policy. 

But, I do think that it would likely produce a smaller size in the 

flow. 

Senator COBURN. Senator, I have a note that the Border Patrol 

in May interviewed 230 total migrants. Two-hundred-and-nineteen 

cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was 

the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes, or 

permisios, to UAC and adult females, other-than-Mexicans, traveling with minors. That is what we are finding at the border when 

they are encountered. So, we have all these other studies, but when 

you ask the people that are coming here when they are intercepted 

by the Border Patrol, it is 90 percent, they think there is a free 

pass. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator Landrieu. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU 

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell you how important I think this hearing is, and this discussion back and forth just 

hit the nub at it. I think you and Senator Coburn, myself, and others on this Committee have a real obligation to try to really pin-
311 

point, to the best that we can, what is actually causing this spike, 

and there are a lot of very strong feelings on both sides. 

But, before we craft a solution, I think there needs to be a real 

clear-headed consensus of what that is, because if one side that 

says the law is creating all the problems and that side prevails, you 

will be creating not a one-way torture and exploitation trail, but a 

two-way, because it will be up and back. If those on the other side 

say it is not the law and it is other things, we also have to be careful how this money is allocated or we will just be putting good 

money after bad in some of these countries. 

And, I really appreciate, particularly Mr. Jones, you are the first 

person that is before any Committee I serve on that has mentioned 

the word ‘‘families.’’ So, my question to you is, try to help us understand the condition of many families in Honduras, Guatemala, and 

El Salvador. And, Americans of all stripes recognize the importance 

of family, that a strong family is the best protection against traffickers. It is hard to get a child out of the arms of two loving parents, really hard, by any trafficker. But, describe the situation with 

some of these families in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. 

And then also comment just really quickly on, in your opinion, 

the aid that is sent there. And, I just want to remind this Committee, we send $30 million to El Salvador every year, $74 million 

to Guatemala, and $545 million to Honduras, and that does not 

count the military funding in addition. 

So, one question, what is the general condition of families? No. 

2, how, in your opinion, is the money that the United States is currently sending—is it being well used, well allocated, what would 

you suggest? 

Mr. JONES. I think the general situation of the families right 

now, as one Honduran mother described to us, ‘‘Watching my son 

sit here and waiting to be killed, I need to find another solution.’’ 

And, so, the families there—they are generally in El Salvador—we 

have about 40 percent of the families that are now headed by single parents. There are similar conditions in Honduras—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. And the reason is because many of the males 

have left to find work. 

Mr. JONES. That is right. They have left to find work. They have 

left that family. They have started another one. Some of them have 

emigrated. And, so, strengthening those families as families, young 

families get started, that is a critical piece to this. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And, how would you describe the strength of 

the juvenile courts, the family courts, social workers, and judges? 

Do they exist? 

Mr. JONES. They exist and they are completely under-funded and 

under-served. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And, so, a woman looking for divorce papers 

that would allow her to have title of property is virtually nonexistent for her because the courts do not operate—— 

Mr. JONES. There are some, but often, people are not legally married and so that is an issue in terms of actually getting custody and 

looking for what—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. So, custody of children, title to property, any 

kind of way to stabilize a family is virtually nonexistent in these 

countries. 
312 

Mr. JONES. Less than 3 percent of property is owned by women 

throughout these countries. And, so, encouraging and empowering 

women is another piece to this, both economically, and there is an 

excellent program started in El Salvador to actually do that called 

Women’s City, where women can get one-stop shopping and they 

can get legal services, health services, assistance to start a job, to 

get job training, or to start a business, and what we are seeing is 

that that is being very effective. That is money well spent. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And, Mr. Farnsworth, would you like to add 

anything to that, and then, Mr. Olson, I am going to ask you. 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Well, thank you, Senator, and I would agree 

with what has already been said and simply add that a focus on 

the head of household, which is oftentimes a woman, is very effective and money that is well spent. And, we saw, for example, in Colombia, which has been mentioned several times, that even in the 

conflictive zones, when programs and activities were targeted at 

women head of households, in terms of anti-violence, in terms of 

economic empowerment, in terms of opportunities for the children, 

that that strengthened the family unit to such a degree that there 

was a real reluctance, then, to allow the children, frankly, to either 

be taken into the guerrillas or enter into other illegal activities. 

It did not always work. It is not perfect. But, what we are seeing 

in Central America in some ways is that breakdown that you speak 

of. So, I think that is a very critical point. And, frankly, it goes to 

what others on the panel have been saying in terms of the community-level engagement, which I personally think is so critical in 

these countries, and, frankly, throughout Central America. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Olson, as an expert in the region, can you 

add anything to help us really understand what is precipitating the 

spike, particularly at this time, and what are the most effective 

ways that if we wanted to allocate some dollars to this, how would 

we do it? 

Mr. OLSON. I wish there was some secret answer that would explain what has happened in the last couple years and explain this 

uptick. I agree with what my colleague, Michael Shifter, said. It is 

really a continued deterioration of the situation and people increasingly desperate, not any one particular event that, I think, has explained it. 

The criminal organizations have gained control of whole parts of 

government, whole neighborhoods, whole parts of this country, especially in Honduras, and people are seeing less and less opportunities. And, I think, the way we try to reverse that is by focusing 

on building the capacity of those governments to provide services 

at the community level, and it has to be very tailored to the needs 

of people in the community level. 

I would just add one other thing. We have good intentions, many 

times, with our money and our programs, and we have been doing 

some of these things for 20, 30 years. But, unless we get at the 

issue of corruption, lack of transparency, lack of accountability, I 

do not think we are going to get very far. We end up arresting people, throwing them in jail, and they are not held accountable. Government officials that are corrupt and taking advantage of our largess. 
313 

I think, at some fundamental level, we have to crack this problem and make that the primary focus of what we do to reduce violence—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. And, I would just add, my experience is that 

most of these governments are incapable of even the simplest processes when it comes to standing up courts, support of children, 

families, et cetera, that our money that we are considering allocating could better be spent going through reputable, strong nonprofit non-government organization (NGO’s) that are responsible 

and accountable. Now, there are lots of NGO’s. Some of them are, 

some of them are not. But, my experience with these countries and 

their ability to deliver anything are, I do not have a lot of confidence. 

Mr. OLSON. If I might, just while the overall picture is bleak, is 

difficult, I do want to point out that there have been a couple of 

examples of success. I would point to the former Attorney General 

of Guatemala, Claudia Paz y Paz—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes, who they just escorted out of office who 

was the shining light of the Guatemalan Government, and they 

just pushed her aside. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, I totally agree with you, but at least we have 

seen when we have a good partner that is committed to the same 

things, and we back her in this case, there are some tangible successes in the context of Guatemala. 

I would just add one other shining star in Honduras which would 

be the Rector of the National University, Julieta Castellanos, who 

has transformed the National University, made it into a center of 

real thinking about crime and violence and the social needs of the 

country. I think those are the kind of partners we have to find and 

work with and hold up. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Olson. 

If I could just have 30 more seconds to this Committee, because 

I am going to push this on Appropriations. My days of sending 

money to governments that cannot conduct the simplest measures 

of accountability are over. And, so, if I am going to support any dollars going to these countries, they have to be received by entities 

or individuals that have a proven record of transformation. Otherwise, our money is just wasted. And, the State Department does 

not seem to understand this, so I am going to help them understand it in the next couple of days. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Before I yield to Dr. Coburn, let me just say, 

first of all, thank you for your insight and your understanding of 

these issues, and those were really important questions. 

She mentioned a woman named Paz y Paz, which is Spanish for 

‘‘peace and peace,’’ who was nominated for, I think, a Nobel Peace 

Prize. She served as Attorney General for a term and was eligible 

for another term. She had to go through a vetting panel in order 

to be recommended to the president, and conveniently, she did not 

get through the vetting panel, if you can imagine all of that, and 

I talked to the President of the country himself about a week or 

two before this all took place and said, ‘‘You have somebody good 

here. I do not think you want to let her go.’’ And, boy, 2 or 3 weeks 

later, she was gone. Dr. Coburn. 
314 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. First of all, let me apologize for not being here 

during your testimony. I was meeting on a cyber bill with the FBI. 

And, I thank you for being willing to testify. This is, as everybody 

recognizes, not an easy problem. 

Mr. Shifter, it has come to my attention that there supposedly 

is a Mexican-Guatemalan agreement on a type of visitor visa for 

Central Americans, including unaccompanied minors, to enter the 

United States. According to a newspaper article, both countries 

have agreed on July 7 in a Presidential-level meeting in Mexico to 

make it legal and safe for Central American immigrants, including 

unaccompanied minors, to cross Mexico’s border with Guatemala 

and transit Mexico en route to the U.S. border at the Rio Grande. 

Are you aware of this agreement between the two governments to 

facilitate the travel? 

Mr. SHIFTER. I am not aware of it, no. 

Senator COBURN. All right. If there is such an agreement, does 

it do anything to stem the tide of illegal alien children flowing to 

the United States? 

Mr. SHIFTER. I would just say that I think Mexico has an absolutely critical role to play in this, and there needs to be—and the 

Mexicans, I think, understand the seriousness of the crisis, and I 

think the Pen ̃ a Nieto government is trying to respond and it is 

dealing a lot better with Central America than the previous government did. That is my sense. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

Let me get you to each comment. One of the things I see happening in this process right now is the utilization of the older children in the cartels in this country. Have you heard of anything or 

read of anything or seen the investigations on anything to that regard, so that when they come here, they are now part of the cartel 

and saying, your family member in El Salvador will receive such 

if you are not doing this here? Is anybody aware of that? 

[Witnesses nodding.] 

So, what do we do about that? It is not just that they are here, 

it is now they are being forced through threat of violence at home 

to perform acts against our law, otherwise, family members are 

placed in jeopardy in their home country. 

Mr. OLSON. There is evidence of it, particularly in the heroin 

trade, where people are forced to become distributors of heroin in 

the United States coming from Mexico. I would not say it is a vast 

majority of them. It is some, a segment of the population. But, it 

is a serious problem and I think it is absolutely something that our 

law enforcement and Mexican law enforcement have to be careful 

about. It is a reality. 

Senator COBURN. In your testimony, you state the agenda going 

forward should be to reduce violence, build community resilience, 

fight corruption, demand more from Central America’s political and 

economic elite, empower civil society, and make economic opportunity part of the security strategy. Can we implement that policy 

in these countries at a cost that is affordable to the American taxpayer? 

Mr. OLSON. I actually think we can, Dr. Coburn. I do not believe 

that more money always makes sense. Obviously, some resources 
315 

are needed, probably more than are there now. But, with clear and 

decisive leadership, good partnerships, and a focused approach, not 

trying to do everything at once but focused on some of these key 

elements, I do think we can do a reasonably good job of beginning 

to change course and reverse what has been a pretty negative 

trend. 

It is not going to be simple, as Senator Carper said. It is not 

going to be a short-term thing. It is a long-term thing. But, I do 

think there is—I am not pessimistic. I would like to be optimistic. 

Senator COBURN. Do you happen to agree with what Senator 

Landrieu said, to make sure that if we are going to send money, 

it actually goes where it works instead of goes down the drain, like 

it has? 

Mr. OLSON. Absolutely. I think there is no question and, in my 

written statement, I think I said clearly that more money is useful, 

but it has to be spent with a clear strategy in mind, with clear 

evaluation points. 

Let me give you an example. We have agreed for a long time that 

we want to strengthen the police, but what does that mean in practice? Mostly, what we have done to strengthen police in Central 

America is train more people. We are not dealing with the issues 

of transparency and accountability and building a professional 

force. And, so, I am suggesting training is good, but it is one of five 

or six things you would need to do to create a professional police 

force. 

So, I am saying, let us not just continue to do what we have been 

doing, which has not worked very well, and refocus our efforts on 

some of these more specific and underlying issues. 

Senator COBURN. Well, I think that is great. You would not be 

opposed to very tight parameters on the money that we would send 

down there, if, in fact, we do? 

Mr. OLSON. I mean, it obviously depends on the details—— 

Senator COBURN. Outlined in the way Senator Landrieu outlined 

it. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. I think one thing we have done well is this program Partnership for Growth in El Salvador that sets out a framework that both Salvador and the United States agree on, and there 

are very clear measures of progress on that—in that way. And, I 

would recommend a similar approach, not necessarily the same 

program, but a similar approach. 

Mr. JONES. I would like to comment on that last. 

Senator COBURN. Sure. 

Mr. JONES. The U.S. Government provided, through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, provided over $400 million to El Salvador for road construction and economic growth, and that is contributing. That money was well spent. There is not evidence of corruption to a large extent and the money is contributing positively 

to business development in that country. So, I think there are examples of using the money well with governments as well as with 

other organizations. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Dr. Coburn, might I also make a comment? 

Senator COBURN. Sure. Please. 
316 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. The word ‘‘partnership’’ has been used several 

times, and I think that is a fundamental issue that needs to get 

more attention in terms of who are our partners in these three 

countries as well as the national level themselves. What we saw, 

and again, Colombia has come up, so let me refer to that example, 

and is Plan Colombia, for example, a good example for Central 

America? In some ways, yes, but in some ways, no. 

In Colombia, we were dealing with one country. In Central 

America, by definition, there are seven, or if you define them differently, five, and the countries we are talking about are three. 

But, anyway, there are more than one, so just by definition, you 

are dealing with more than one government. 

No. 2, in Colombia, at times there was a government that was 

not necessarily open and receptive to some of the things that the 

United States wanted to do. So, we found people within the government, for example, the head of the national police, who were receptive, who we could work with, and even if we could not work with 

the military in Colombia at a certain point, we did work with the 

police and this was a very effective approach until there was a 

much broader national agenda. So, we have to find the right partners in these countries, people who are committed, who are not corrupt, people who have the vision that, frankly, is good for their own 

people and also willing to work with us in a very transparent and 

open way. 

But, I think the other thing—and we have not talked about it at 

all today, but I think it is a critical point—is the countries themselves really have to work better together, and this is—in some 

ways, this is a dream for drug traffickers or people traffickers or 

whatever, and it is simple arbitrage. If somebody is doing a good 

job preventing illegal activities in one country, the drug traffickers 

will go to another country. And if that country clamps down, they 

will go to a third country, and that is precisely what we have seen. 

So, that when the political conditions or the security conditions in 

Honduras have deteriorated, people go there. Or, if they have deteriorated in Guatemala, people go there and the Zetas come down 

from Mexico. 

One of the countries we have not talked about at all, and there 

are some democratic issues and institutional issues, et cetera, but 

the country of Nicaragua is not faced in many ways with some of 

these issues because the government is very effective in terms of 

working at the community level and keeping the drug traffickers 

out of the country. And so the drug traffickers do not need that 

hassle and they go further north to where the government really 

does not exist in the northern part of Honduras. It is a very permissive environment. 

And, until we get a more collaborative approach among the countries themselves working together, then I think a lot of this is you 

are going to be having hearings like this again later on and I think 

it is going to be a real frustration. 

It is not to say, though, that this is easy. Traditionally, that is 

the hardest thing to do in Central America, is for these countries 

to work together. I talked a little bit about it in my testimony in 

the context of economic development and economic coordination. 

But, in the security front, it is exactly the same thing, and you 
317 

have countries like Costa Rica and Nicaragua which have border 

disputes and they do not want to talk to each other and they have 

problems working together. And, so, you have some real problems 

like that, but that, as a practical matter, impacts the ability to address some of these very serious issues that we are dealing with. 

So, as we are talking about supplemental assistance, which I 

think is essential, it really matters, and I completely agree with 

you and other Senators who have raised the issue, how that is 

spent, but also with whom we are spending it. Who are our partners in this context, and can we encourage those partners by the 

way we disperse the funds, by the way we talk about the programs, 

by the way we structure the programs, for these countries to work 

together themselves. 

And, the last point I would make, again, in the context of Plan 

Colombia, is Plan Colombia was not a program that was imposed 

or given to Colombia by the United States. It was a program that 

was developed by the Colombia Government and people itself, presented to the United States and Europe and other countries and 

said, ‘‘Here is our plan. Would you be willing to fund it?’’ And, the 

United States came alongside, the American taxpayers came alongside and were willing to fund a portion of it, and that contributed 

to the success. 

We have not really done that to the same extent in Central 

America, where we have worked together with the countries and 

said, now, what is your plan and how can we come alongside that 

and support your priorities? There have been efforts along those 

lines. There have been attempts, but they have not really been effective, and I think that is a really good place where we can start 

at a national level and say, what are your priorities? How can we 

work together, so that they are invested in the success of their own 

program? I think that is key. 

Senator COBURN. Yes. I quoted earlier from a recently released 

intelligence assessment from the El Paso Intelligence Center that 

was leaked. It is called, ‘‘Misperceptions of U.S. Policy Key Driver 

in Central American Migrant Surge,’’ and I quoted in there the 

Border Patrol’s interview. Regardless of all our testimony, regardless of all the theories, when you ask people why they are coming. 

They are telling you why they came. 

So, the past is past. The fact is, how do we change those perceptions to slow down this very risky venture by thousands of people 

putting their lives and health at risk? Any solutions for that? Any 

recommendations for that? Regardless of what caused it, the perception by those coming across as interviewed by the Border Patrol 

would say, free ride, and I am not talking economically, I am talking about status. Any suggestions for us as legislators? Go ahead, 

Dr. Roberts. 

Mr. ROBERTS. If I could just make some observations on that. It 

seems that, there are three approaches that have been discussed 

today: Policies with respect to processing of unaccompanied children and others coming to the border; and then programs to develop rule of law, better court systems, better police forces, so we 

could say that that is strengthening security; and then programs 

to foster economic development. 
318 

And, I think that policies related to processing could have impacts in the short-run. Now, there have been various policy proposals made along that line. One has been mentioned today, which 

is adjusting the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2008. There 

have been some other policy proposals, including faster adjudication of unaccompanied children after arrival in the United States, 

which could require DHS to hold the child until a final decision is 

reached. That is an alternative. Or, it could be done together. Another is measures to facilitate making asylum claims in the home 

country of the child. And, a third is measures to facilitate legal 

family reunification. But, I think those policies would have shortrun impacts. 

Senator COBURN. That goes back to the economic—— 

Mr. ROBERTS. And, in terms of building security, I am no expert 

in this, but my brief understanding is that it is more of a mediumrun strategy. Plan Colombia, for example, as reflected in the murder rate, the murder rate fell from 65 to 35 from 2002 to 2007. So, 

if the program was really playing a role in that, it played out over 

several years. 

Economic development is another issue, and I do have to say that 

the evidence on convergence between the Mexican economy and the 

U.S. economy and the economies of El Salvador, Guatemala, and 

Honduras and the United State is not encouraging. There really 

has been no sign of economic convergence since the data were first 

collected. And, so, although I think we really would like to see that 

happen, that is really a long-run strategy. We talk about that in 

our Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) study of last year in more 

depth. 

Senator COBURN. I would quote an article which was published— 

I do not see where it was published—by Stephen Dinan. ‘‘Little evidence suggests that the illegal immigrant children currently arriving at the U.S. border are victims of trafficking.’’ I think that is 

true, trafficking in the sense of what the 2008 law was meant to 

diminish. And, since few can be described as unaccompanied alien 

children under Federal law—most are not unaccompanied alien 

children, most are mothers with young children and the rest are 

older teenagers, the trafficking law has limited applicability to the 

current border surge because of what we are seeing in terms of the 

mix. 

So, I take your point. There are three approaches. One is a shortterm. The other two are long-term. And, we probably will have to 

do all three to address the ultimate problem. Otherwise, we are 

going to regardless of what we do in the short-term, we are going 

to be back here again, and I think that was what Mr. Olson implied. 

I have no other questions. 

Chairman CARPER. We had some just really wonderful testimony 

today, and I just want you to know you are not finished yet. I have 

some more questions, and we may have another colleague or two 

that will drift in and ask some questions, as well. 

I want to talk a little bit about NAFTA and CAFTA. A lot of people look at NAFTA and they say, Mexico has done quite well, in 

part because of NAFTA. The United States, it is kind of a mixed 
319 

bag. Canada, it may be a little better. But, most observers say 

NAFTA really did help the situation down in Mexico. 

I do not hear that kind of thing said about the Central American 

Free Trade Agreement and I would like to know if you agree with 

that and why that might be the case. I am interested in finding out 

what works, do more of that, and NAFTA seemed to work pretty 

well to lifting and stabilizing Mexico. CAFTA does not seem to 

have done the same thing for Central American countries. Does 

anybody have some ideas on that, please. 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could start, and 

thank you for raising the question because I think it is a really important one and, obviously, timely. And, I would agree with your 

assessment in terms of NAFTA. It has been a success for all three 

parties to the agreement. All three countries, I think, in the 20 

years that NAFTA has been in existence, have used it to contribute 

to their own economic well-being. 

Of course, it has not been the only aspect of economic well-being 

in any of the countries, and a country the size of Mexico compared 

to the size of the United States is much smaller. Therefore, the impact of NAFTA is actually larger in Mexico than it would be, for 

example, in the United States. But, I agree it is a very important 

aspect and provided a baseline, frankly, for cooperation and the 

ability for Mexico’s own government and institutions to then use 

that as a link to the global economy and to take important reforms 

and steps that have now positioned Mexico, I think, very well for 

long-term success. 

And, that is exactly what Central America, in some ways, has 

not done. Now, if you look at the trade statistics, CAFTA—along 

with the Dominican Republic, which is a party to it, too, so 

CAFTA–DR—has been a success based on increasing trade and investment, and that is what trade agreements are designed to do, 

increase trade and investment. And, so, based on that, in both directions, CAFTA has been a success. 

But, where it has fallen down in my personal opinion is that it 

has not generated the type of economic growth within Central 

America itself, not because the agreement was poorly designed or 

because it was the wrong countries as parties to it necessarily, but 

because the countries in some way said, OK, now we have our 

agreement, so our future is bright, rather than doing what other 

countries in Latin America have done, to say, now that we have the 

agreement, that is—we are at the starting blocks. We are now able 

to compete if we now go forward and do many other things that 

will improve our economy. 

And here, we see countries like Peru, Chile, and Colombia, which 

also have Free Trade Agreements with the United States, which, 

by the way, have not been in, at least with Peru and Colombia, 

have not been in place as long as the agreement with Central 

America. But, they explicitly and transparently said, we are using 

the trade agreement with the United States as a baseline to help 

us reform our own laws, transparency, improve the rule of law, 

give us access to global markets and global market chains, and 

using that to build out their own economies, and I think they have 

done that very effectively. 
320 

One of the ways that I think Central America can take better 

benefit of the CAFTA agreement with the United States is, frankly, 

they trade with the United States, yes, but they should do a better 

job in terms of integrating among themselves, and their own economies are relatively small, so that means that you are not going to 

get the same bump-up if you would have a Free Trade Agreement, 

for example, with the United States and China or Europe, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), or what have 

you. These are mega-agreements. We are talking about relatively 

small economies in Central America. 

But, it matters in terms of the relative size of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), for example of Costa Rica, if they can do a better job, just to take one country, trading with their neighbors, and 

how can they do that? How can they be a bigger marketplace generally? How can they be a more effective marketplace? Well, they 

can start by doing things like harmonizing certain regulations that 

will allow the Central American region to be more of an economic 

unit that outsiders look at. Instead of seven relatively small countries, it is one relatively large unit that they can invest in. 

Or, they can reduce the time and delay and deficient infrastructure at borders. I mean, if you take a truck and you go from Panama to Mexico, you have to cross a number of borders and each one 

has its own delays and its own, sometimes, corrupt activities and 

things that you have to do to get your truck across the border. I 

have seen studies which is to say the average speed, for example, 

is 30 miles per hour or whatever of a truck going from one end of 

the Central American isthmus to another. That is important, because in terms of a time to market type of scenario, anything that 

delays your product is going to be really problematic. 

Now, obviously, we are talking about people moving here. We are 

talking about drug trafficking, too. So, you do not want to dismantle borders and the protections, perhaps, that they provide. 

But, you want to do a better job facilitating legal transit as well 

as keeping the bad stuff out, just like we need to do better at the 

U.S.-Mexico border. 

There are other things we could do. I could go on, perhaps. But, 

I think the bottom line, I would say, is the opportunity is there. 

But, I think, what I would encourage the Central American countries to do who are parties to the agreement is, frankly, work together, unify their markets more, and create more of a broader economic space that, I think, would really pay positive dividends. 

Chairman CARPER. Anyone disagree significantly with what Mr. 

Farnsworth has said? 

[Witnesses shaking heads.] 

Chairman CARPER. OK. 

Mr. JONES. I would just like to add that I think we need to remember that initially under NAFTA there were losers, and a lot of 

those people who lost their farms ended up immigrating to the 

United States, and that the economies of Central America, we are 

only talking about 35 million people with poverty levels that are 

at rates of 50 and 60 percent of the population. So, their capacity 

to engage CAFTA is much more limited, and I think we need to 

think about and consider investments into education and business 

development that were not as necessary in Mexico. 
321 

Chairman CARPER. Let me just think out loud here for a moment, and someone who wants to react just very briefly. If we are 

interested in encouraging collaboration, should we condition, at 

least in part, some of the assistance that we provide to these nations on their willingness to collaborate in certain ways? That 

would seem to be common sense. Does anybody disagree with that? 

[Witnesses shaking heads.] 

All right. In my last job as Governor, one of the things I did a 

lot was visit schools, from little kids, elementary, K all the way up 

to 12 and post-secondary, as well. A lot of times, when I go to elementary schools and do these assemblies with the kids, we have a 

lot of fun. I still do them. But, some of the kids, those little kids 

would say, like, ‘‘What do you do?’’ And I would say, ‘‘I am a U.S. 

Senator.’’ And they would say, ‘‘What do you do?’’ [Laughter.] 

And, I say, ‘‘Well, a couple of things. I help make the rules for 

our country.’’ And I ask them, ‘‘Do you have rules in your school?’’ 

‘‘Yes.’’ ‘‘Do you have rules at home?’’ ‘‘Yes.’’ ‘‘Do you have rules on 

your school bus?’’ ‘‘Yes.’’ ‘‘Well, we have rules for our country. We 

call them laws and I get to, along with 99 other Senators, 435 Representatives, the President and the Vice President, I get to help 

make the rules for the country.’’ And they say, ‘‘Hmm.’’ And, sometimes they will say, ‘‘Well, what else do you do?’’ [Laughter.] 

And I say, ‘‘Well, my colleagues and I, we try to help people.’’ 

And they say, ‘‘Well, how?’’ Well, I think the best way you can help 

somebody is make sure they have a job and make sure that they 

can support themselves and their family and have a future. 

And, as Governor, we created a lot of jobs in the 8 years I was 

Governor, from 1993 to 2001, a lot of jobs. But, I did not create 

them. Governors do not create jobs. Mayors, county executives, 

Presidents, we do not create jobs. What we do, though, in partner 

with others, is to create a nurturing environment for job creation. 

That is what we do. And, first and foremost among those is the 

rule of law. 

And, it is all well and good. We have vetted police units, as you 

know. We saw some of them down in Guatemala, I think, and El 

Salvador, too, where we actually try to make sure that the police 

that we are working with, that we are training and working with, 

are not corrupt. And, we do polygraph tests, multiple polygraph 

tests, all kinds of stuff to make sure that they are not corrupt and 

they are staying clean. 

But, if you have really honest police and they are trying to enforce the law and turn them over to prosecutors who do not prosecute and judges who do not sentence and prisons that do not do 

their job, it becomes rather dispiriting for the police, as we know. 

There has been a lot of conversation here today about the rule 

of law and what we can do to help foster a return to the rule of 

law. I think maybe when I was out of the room voting earlier, one 

of you, I do not know if it was Mr. Farnsworth or Mr. Jones, one 

of you may have talked about energy prices. 

When I think about elements that are part of the nurturing environment, I think rule of law, safety. People want to start businesses, grow businesses, where they feel safe, they are not going 

to be kidnapped, not going to be extorted. People want to be in a 

place where the workforce is reasonably well trained and brings 
322 

something to the workforce. People want to make sure there is a 

reasonable tax burden, common sense regulation, access to capital, 

all of the above and more. They are also interested in affordable 

energy, and one of the reasons why we are seeing a rebirth of manufacturing in this country is because of the lowering of energy costs 

because of the abundance of natural gas. 

One of the things we heard when we were down in Guatemala 

and Salvador earlier this year was a lot of their electricity is generated from petroleum, maybe some from hydro, but a lot from petroleum, and it is not cheap. Meanwhile, you have Mexico sitting 

on a lot of natural gas and they are not all that far away, and we 

explored some ideas of public-private partnerships where Mexico, 

maybe some of the Inter-Development Banks, nonprofits, us, could 

help partner and make sure that the energy costs in those three 

Central American countries, maybe others, could be reduced by as 

much as half. 

Mr. Farnsworth, would you just comment briefly on that, please. 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for raising that topic, and might I just say, you have just given a tutorial 

on economic development in terms of job creation and the things 

that people look for in terms of creating jobs. 

Absolutely, energy has to be part of that, and what we have seen 

from folks who are looking at Central America as an investment 

location is when they get to the energy question, two questions that 

they have to answer. One is the availability, the energy security 

question, for example, on electricity, No. 1. And, No. 2 is the cost. 

And, just as you have identified, both of those questions are sometimes not able to be answered in the affirmative. 

And, so, to the extent that the United States could assist through 

the export of natural gas or working with Mexico or doing things 

within the region itself to develop hydro resources or alternative resources, I absolutely agree. It would also improve the regional 

clean energy profile, because as you have indicated, a lot of what 

they are burning is actually dirtier fuel. And, so, to the extent that 

we can help substitute for their power generation cleaner fuel, I 

think that would be to the good. 

But, it is not just the manufacturing sector or the productive sector, if you want to put it that way, in terms of energy cost. Everybody, by definition, uses energy. And, so, to the extent that the 

availability of energy is available to everybody, including underserved populations, that, then, gives them access to a global marketplace in a way that many of them have not had before. But, that 

energy has to be provided in a cost-effective way or else people are, 

just by definition, priced out of the market. 

And, so, if your daily, or your monthly income is in the matter 

of, maybe, $200, if the cost of your electricity goes down by some 

percentage of that, perhaps to some observers, that does not seem 

like a lot. But, that percentage gain in disposable income is actually quite high, and that provides the ability, then, to begin—obviously, it is not the only answer—but, to begin to engage more effectively in building the economy. And, I think, if you take that equation from individuals and build it out to the macro economy, it does 

begin to have a real and positive impact. 
323 

I know the U.S. Government, the Inter-American Development 

Bank (IDB), some of the countries in question, have been working 

on those issues, but, as I mentioned in my testimony, I would encourage that the prioritization of that be raised much higher. I 

think there is more that can be done, and it can be done probably 

with a little bit more urgency. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. JONES. I would just like to comment on that, if I could. 

Chairman CARPER. Please. 

Mr. JONES. Just two comments. First there are barriers to entry 

in Central America. I had a friend who set up a company here in 

the United States. It took him 2 days and $20. It took him 6 

months and $12,000 to get the same company set up—— 

Chairman CARPER. How long in the United States? 

Mr. JONES. Two days. 

Chairman CARPER. To start a business? To incorporate? 

Mr. JONES. To start a business, to incorporate, and to be legally 

incorporated. 

Chairman CARPER. Do you think they probably incorporated in 

Delaware? [Laughter.] 

Mr. JONES. And in El Salvador, it took them over 6 months. We 

are providing young people—— 

Chairman CARPER. This is the paid political part of the hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

Or unpaid. 

Mr. JONES. We are providing services to young people to start up 

their own businesses as part of the programs that we run, and several of them have been able to start up small companies to install 

solar panels, to change municipal lighting to LED lights. And, so, 

we are encouraging young people to start businesses, because, like 

you said at the beginning as your job as Governor, one of the most 

important things is job creation. And, so, we need to continue to 

fund those kinds of programs so that young people have opportunities where they live. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. 

I mentioned earlier, and some of you have, as well, the responsibility for helping these countries straighten themselves out and go 

forward with a brighter future is a shared effort. It is almost a 

team effort, and there are many members of the team. We are one 

of them. I do not know that we are the quarterback on this team, 

but we are certainly a key player on the team. 

But, there are others that need to play their role, including folks 

in these countries, including some of the elite, some of the folks 

that have a lot of money, and they are not paying much in the way 

of taxes and they have their own security forces, but they do not 

contribute much to make sure that we have a strengthened and 

well-qualified judiciary, a department of justice, police forces, and 

so forth. 

But, in terms of putting together a strategy and the idea—I do 

not know if it was you, Mr. Farnsworth, but somebody said it is 

really important for us not to come in and say to these Central 

American countries, this is what is going to work for you. You have 

to ask your customer. What do you think is going to work for you? 

If they are not involved, forget it. They have to be involved from 
324 

the ground up. They have to have a big role in making sure this 

is going to be successful, whatever we do. 

But, whose job is it to collaborate, to make sure that there is a 

collaboration here and a sense of cooperation? Whose job is that? 

Is it our job? Is it their individual jobs? Is it the jobs of, I do not 

know, development banks? Whose job is that? Mr. Shifter. 

Mr. SHIFTER. Ideally, it would be a regional organization that 

could perform that function. Unfortunately, realistically, that does 

not exist, and, I think, realistically, it is the U.S.’s role to facilitate, 

to be a catalyst, to consult, to engage in this process, not to dictate, 

to impose. But, I do think, without an active, constructive consultative U.S. role, it is not going to happen, frankly. So, I think the 

United States has to play a central role. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Anyone else? Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. I would just add to that something that Michael said 

earlier, which is in addition to the United States working with 

Central Americans in partnership, Mexico has to play a key role. 

They are really the ones that have historically, traditionally viewed 

their relationship primarily with the United States and north, for 

good reason. They have benefited from that. There have been some 

downsides for them. 

But, they have not put the emphasis on Central America. Occasionally, there have been exceptions. During the Central American 

conflict years of the 1980s, they played more of a direct role in facilitating conversation and resolving conflicts. But, they need to do 

more of that. President Pen ̃ a Nieto has said he will do more of 

that. He went there soon after his inauguration. But, it has to go 

beyond sort of good intentions and good words and they need to 

step up to the plate, as well, because they have an important role 

to play in that region. 

Chairman CARPER. Anyone else? I have several more questions 

here. Anybody who is dying to say something, feel free. 

Mr. JONES. I would just like to add that I think the private sector is going to be critical in this. We are looking at agricultural 

value chains, and with our youth work, for example, in Nicaragua, 

we were able to provide 7,000 people with jobs in production because they were tied into value chains, some of which included producing for Walmart. And we, right now in El Salvador, work with 

over 400 companies who hire the young people from our program. 

So, they need to be a part of this conversation. 

Chairman CARPER. Good. You raise a good point, and that is if 

a nurturing environment is created in one or more of these countries, there will be economic enterprises around the world that will 

want to invest there. They will want to invest there. And, they can 

be a big part of the solution. 

My wife is retired from the DuPont Company. She had a great 

career there in textiles, in the fibers business, and she now teaches 

at the University of Delaware in, of course, work that is related to 

that part of the business world. She was down in Guatemala about 

a year or so ago and told about being in a blue jean factory where, 

I forget how many blue jeans they made a day. I thought she said 

30,000 a day. That is a lot of pairs of blue jeans. But, somebody 

found a way to make money there and avoid the extortion and the 

kidnapping. 
325 

One of the questions that came to mind is one of my colleagues, 

I think it was maybe Senator Ayotte was asking a question, talking 

about all the surge of folks from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador 

north, and that sort of begs the question, well, how about going 

south? Are any of them voting with their feet and going south? 

And, as it turns out, they are. In fact, in terms of, like, actual numbers compared to the number that are coming north, it is not as 

large. But, in terms of the increase, the dramatic rise in—I am 

told, it was a half-dozen years or so, we have seen an increase as 

much as 700 percent in the surge heading south. That suggests to 

me it is not just, like, the pull to come to the United States and 

find a better life, but there is an effort to get out of there, to get 

out of those places and to hopefully find a better life maybe closer 

to home. 

Anybody, in terms of energy costs, just very briefly, we talked 

about the prospect of some partnerships with Mexico, maybe the 

United States, in terms of helping to lower the energy costs in 

these countries. To what extent do they use hydro? Do they use any 

solar, any wind? Does anybody know? 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. They do use a combination. Their matrix is 

relatively clean in terms of utilization of hydro and wind. Utilization of geothermal actually is quite active in parts of Central America. I am not aware that there is a lot of solar utilization. There 

are imports of oil and natural gas, as well. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. What role could a development bank, one 

of these Inter-American Development Banks, to what extent can 

they play a role in helping to fund something like that or help 

bring down the costs? Can they? Is that something that they are 

likely to be willing to do? 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Well, they are. They are working in conjunction with, again, with the U.S. Government as well as other entities to try to provide technical assistance to increase and develop 

the energy grid across Central America. Ultimately, hopefully, it 

will go from Mexico to Colombia. 

But, here is a perfect example of where the countries themselves 

have to work together, because if you talk to anybody about energy 

in Central America, they say, well, we need to get the grid integrated and it needs to be done at low cost and there is real money 

there and there is private sector interest and there is public sector 

interest. 

What has happened is, what we have found is in certain countries in the region, the vested interests who continue to make a lot 

of money in terms of the current regime, economic regime, are not 

necessarily willing to open up the energy grid to the type of freeflowing dispersal of energy that most people would like or would 

need for broader development. 

So, again, going back to what I was saying in terms of the countries themselves, if they do not start working together as a more 

economic unit, as a more integrated economic unit, several of these 

basic building blocks of development and prosperity continue to go 

by the wayside, and energy is clearly one of them. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

In one of our visits in Central America, we learned that a significant part of their GDP, it turns out to be remittances from this 
326 

country, where family members work and return money to their 

families in these Central American countries. I do not know that 

they turn money over to their government. I do not know that they 

send money down to charities. I do not know that they invest in 

microloan programs or bootstrap programs to help foster economic 

growth. I do not know. Maybe they do, maybe they do not. Maybe 

you could help us with that. 

But, the question is, these remittances, is there some way to leverage that to help foster economic activity, and are there some examples where that is being done, what is working that maybe we 

can learn from and spread the word? Mr. Shifter. 

Mr. SHIFTER. Absolutely. I mean, I think the whole question of 

financial inclusion and mobilization of assets is—there has not 

been enough work done on how to take advantage of these remittances. They are a very significant part of the GDPs of all these 

economies. 

Fortunately, we are getting—there are a lot of reports now that 

a lot of these remittances are being used for—precisely for to pay 

extortion and all the criminal activities, so all of the remittances 

are very much linked to this. But, I think there have been programs in El Salvador and elsewhere to try to really leverage these 

resources for development purposes, to promote the community 

strengthening and other institutions. So, I think we could do more 

of that. 

And, the other part that we could help do is try to lower the costs 

of remittances, as well, so there is not the extra cost that the immigrants have to bear. But, I do think there is a lot of potential in 

that. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Anybody else? Please. 

Mr. JONES. Yes. Most of the remittances come to Central America, about $100 to $150 a month, which are basically used for 

household consumption and keeping the families above the poverty 

line. There have been few examples, honestly, about successful investment. Some of the best ways to get those remittances into the 

economy is through savings plans that then lower the cost of capital and reduce interest rates so that people can provide loans. 

Those are some of the most successful programs and the easiest to 

actually implement. 

There is, however, an increase in—the Calvert Fund here in the 

United States is looking to reach out to diaspora communities here 

in the United States to find ways that they can do community investment with as low as $20, that they can pool those funds, and 

I think we need to support that kind of activity, where those funds 

can be pooled to then support businesses inside Central America. 

Chairman CARPER. Anyone else? Please. 

Mr. ROBERTS. If I could just add, there is a big debate in the economics profession about whether remittances promote economic 

growth and development in the countries receiving them in large 

volume or actually hurt it, because remittances have a variety of 

impacts. And, I have seen with my own eyes in countries where I 

have lived and worked that are big remittance receivers how it 

causes what economists would call a reduction in the labor supply. 

So, the only other thing I would add is that in the early 2000s, 

there was considerable enthusiasm about an approach to 
327 

leveraging them called the Home Town Association, which, I think, 

was pioneered in Mexico, and I am not sure how that has worked 

out in Central America, but—— 

Mr. OLSON. Mexico probably has the most structured program to 

deal with this. It was called the Three For One Program, where the 

government—if you gave one dollar, the municipal government 

gave a dollar, the State government and the Federal Government, 

to leverage that for projects. The evaluation—— 

Chairman CARPER. Any idea what kind of projects we are talking 

about? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, that was the thing, I mean, the evaluation of 

some of these projects and how much they contributed to economic 

development was mixed, and I have seen some of them myself. 

Some of them went back to helping people grow more tomatoes, 

process tomatoes, that kind of thing that you could assume would 

be helpful. But, in other cases, they went back to improving the 

local church and improving other kinds of things that might be valuable to the community, but not necessarily contributing to economic development. 

So, that program has been, I would not say phased out, but has 

not been seen as a panacea in Mexico. The Hometown Associations 

that we are talking about continue to send money back in a more 

organized fashion instead of as individuals to communities, and the 

idea there is that that would then help a municipality, a town, to 

invest in a school or something. 

Some of them are great humanitarian projects and a good thing. 

But, again, I think the jury is out as to whether it actually contributed to economic vibrancy in so many cases. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. I like to say sometimes in trying to figure out how to solve a problem, there are no silver bullets, but 

there are a lot of silver BBs and some are bigger than others, and 

I think helping to establish the rule of law on the police beat, in 

the courts, in prisons and so forth, that is certainly a big BB. 

But, another BB that is worth mentioning here, and there has 

been some mention of it in our hearing, but the actual passage and 

implementation of immigration reform legislation, a kind of a bill, 

law, that has passed the Senate but not the House. And, just talk 

to us how that might be helpful in dealing with these challenges. 

And, I am going to ask you to be fairly brief, if you would. 

Mr. Shifter, do you want to go first. 

Mr. SHIFTER. Sure. Well, I would say the first, the most fundamental way it would be helpful is that it would create much better 

good will among the Central American governments to the United 

States. And, if you want to talk about collaboration and partnership, the best way to do that is to get a comprehensive immigration 

bill. That would help the most, because that is what is lacking and 

that is what is creating some distrust, that you cannot count on the 

United States because the system is broken, and that would be the 

fundamental thing. There are other things, but I would stress that. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. 

Anyone else, just briefly? Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. We have discussed this issue of why people are coming, and there are so many different complexities to it. Dr. Coburn 
328 

referred to a survey of some 200 people at the border. I have no 

basis to dispute that at all. 

I do know that the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has 

also conducted interviews, and family and family reunification is 

one—is the biggest single reason given by a lot of the children coming up. This is in the CRS report that came out this week. My 

apologies. It is the Congressional Research Service report, not 

Catholic Relief Services. 

But, nevertheless, I do think that one of the drivers—I am not 

saying the most important one, but one of the drivers here is the 

desire for family reunification. And, the fact that, there was no 

progress on comprehensive immigration reform became a factor for 

some of the parents here that had hoped their children might be 

able to resettle legally or be brought up legally, even if there was 

maybe no realistic basis for that. But, the failure of this process, 

I think, became another element, another nail in the coffin, if you 

will, that motivated people to take this desperate gamble with their 

children. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Anyone else, just very briefly. 

Mr. JONES. I just think it would send a message that there is a 

legal, orderly way to get to the United States, and I think that is 

an important message to send. And, it would also send a message 

that it is taking away resources from organized criminal groups 

who are now filling that role. 

Chairman CARPER. Good. Sometimes when we have—let me just 

say, this has been a great hearing. I am delighted with the participation of my colleagues, but really impressed by each of you and 

your thoughtfulness and, frankly, the way a lot of things you have 

done with your lives. I have read a little bit about your backgrounds, and there is much to commend you in what you have done 

with your lives. 

Sometimes, I get to the end of the hearing and we do opening 

statements, and we ask you all to do an opening statement. You 

had very good ones. And, then, sometimes I ask people to give a 

closing statement to help us come together. Thank you, John 

Lennon. [Laughter.] 

But, come together here at the end, and I will tell you why. This 

afternoon at 5:30, there will be a meeting of most of the Senators. 

We are meeting with folks from the Administration, including Jeh 

Johnson, our Secretary of Homeland Security, and Sylvia Mathews 

Burwell, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, several 

other folks, as well, and we are going to be talking about the administration’s proposal, $3.7 billion supplemental proposal, that 

seeks to address some of these concerns that we are talking about, 

largely the resources that we have at the border, the way we deal 

with families, families with children and unaccompanied children, 

house them, detain them, send them home. 

But, there is one element, about $300 million in the proposal 

that is of special interest to me. I have an interest in all of it, but 

of special interest to me because it seeks to address the underlying 

cause. It seeks to address the underlying cause, and including some 

of the ways we have talked about here today. 

One of the ways we have not talked much about is what I call 

truth campaign. My last year as Governor, I was encouraged and 
329 

became the founding, the Vice Chairman of something called the 

American Legacy Foundation. The American Legacy Foundation 

was created out of the tobacco settlement between the tobacco industry and the 50 States, and out of that comes a stream of money 

to the States to use for, among other things, health care purposes, 

and also a couple billion dollars came to the American Legacy 

Foundation to mount a truth campaign to encourage young people 

who are smoking to stop and to discourage young people who are 

not smoking from ever starting. Hugely successful. 

I met with the first founding Vice Chairman of the American 

Legacy Foundation. I have admired their work for more than a decade now. The head of the American Legacy Foundation came by my 

office this week and reported that we are seeing the use of tobacco 

by young people, teenagers to age 20, we have seen it drop from 

over 20 percent to under 10 percent. The use of tobacco by children 

in middle school and below, under 5 percent. So, it generally believed to be very successful. 

One of the ways it works, and this is what we did, the idea of 

ask your custom. Basically, we involved young people in developing 

the truth campaign, hard hitting, frank, the kind of stuff that really grabbed the attention of kids. And, the ideas were developed 

largely by kids working with ad agencies, and we used all different 

kinds of media and used the TV shows, the films, the magazines, 

social media that actually get to kids. Boy, it worked. 

And, there is $5 million in this $300 million portion of the President’s request that focuses on creating a truth campaign. Do you 

think this is of value? Any points you would have in your recommendation to make sure we get the most bang for our buck? 

Please, anyone. Mr. Farnsworth. 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I do think it is valuable, and 

as you and other Members of the Committee have said, perceptions 

matter, and whatever the reality may or may not be, the perception 

may be pulling some folks to the United States or to attempt to 

come into the United States. So, I think that type of an idea is a 

very valuable one that you are putting forward. 

I would take it a bit further, actually, and there are resources 

from within Central America itself that could be used, for example, 

if this $5 million were a downpayment or a leveraging of resources 

from in the region itself. And, there are entities—businesses, private sector, others—who, I suspect, would be willing to contribute 

to that type of a campaign, because it is tangible, you can measure 

its results, and it is having an important public policy impact. And, 

I think that that is the type of partnership—that is one example 

of things that can be done in partnership—— 

Chairman CARPER. That is a great idea. Use it to kind of leverage other resources. 

Anybody else on this, react to this idea? OK. Mr. Roberts, please. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I think its effectiveness is going to depend on the 

networks of people not really understanding fully the U.S. policies, 

the potential benefits and the potential risks and costs of making 

certain choices related to coming to the United States, and I, myself, would be somewhat skeptical that there is a lot of rationality 

there, because the stakes are very high for the people who are 
330 

making these decisions. And, so, I would look very carefully at that 

in terms of its potential effectiveness. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. I think I will mention one point, and 

then I am going to ask each of you to give me, maybe, a one-minute 

closing statement. 

But, sticking with the truth campaign for just a moment, it cannot just be a message to parents and to kids in Central America 

that says, this is what you face trying to get through Mexico to the 

United States. This is what you may face when you get to the 

United States. It is not what you are told it is going to be necessarily. That is part of the message that be conveyed in a truth 

campaign. 

But the other part that is really important, too, is a message of 

hope. There has to be a message of hope and to encourage people 

to stay in their countries and to make a life there and to be productive citizens. You have to do both. 

Let me just ask you, maybe pick one or two pieces out of the 

President’s supplemental appropriation proposal that you think 

makes the most sense, and that you say, for God’s sake, if you only 

do one thing, one part of it, this is what you should do. And, let 

me hear that, and then I will ask you to give me a little closing 

statement, if you would. 

Dr. Roberts—OK, we have a roll call vote underway, so I will just 

take a minute on this. What is really good there that we absolutely 

should do, one or two things, please. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I am afraid I am not familiar with the details 

of—— 

Chairman CARPER. Fair enough. Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. I think the youth workforce development is essential 

in this as part of the supplemental, as well as the improved income 

opportunities for families. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. Mr. Farnsworth. 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I very much like the emphasis on job creation 

and creating the conditions within which jobs can be created. You 

have spoken to that yourself, Mr. Chairman. I think that is a critical part of the legislation. 

Chairman CARPER. Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. I completely agree with my colleagues, so I will add 

to that a continued focus on prevention programs at the community 

level, and also a need to tackle the problems of prisons in Central 

America. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thank you. Mr. Shifter. 

Mr. SHIFTER. The justice system and police forces, as well. It is 

in there. It should be strengthened. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thanks. 

I am going to ask each of you to give just a short, maybe no more 

than a minute closing statement, just kind of reflecting on what we 

have talked about here, just some parting advice for us, please. Dr. 

Roberts, please. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not really have a closing statement. I would 

just encourage, as we move forward in evaluating the alternative 

policies and programs that could address the situation, to look at 

them with clear eyes and a determination to understand what does 

objective analysis of the facts tell us about potential impacts. 
331 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Jones, just very briefly. 

Mr. JONES. Yes. I think youth workforce development programs 

and rural development programs are going to be essential to combatting this. And, I also think that it is essential that the focus include civil society, governments, and the private sector. All of them 

need to be encouraged to come together. It is a very complex issue, 

and without all of them, we will be sitting on a two-legged stool. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. I have sat on those. It is not 

much fun. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Farnsworth. 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank you for 

putting the hearing together. 

Chairman CARPER. I want to thank our staffs, both Democrat 

and Republican. 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. They did an outstanding job. 

Chairman CARPER. This has been a wonderful hearing. 

Mr. FARNSWORTH. So, thank you and congratulations. 

Two very quick points. The first is, I do not think, if you ask 

most people who are making this treacherous trip from Central 

America to the United States, that they would say that is their 

first choice. There might be some, but most of them would prefer 

to stay in their local communities with their families, with their 

faith communities, with their schools, with their athletic teams, 

perhaps, and not be forced into, as they see it, this option. So, I 

think that is point No. 1. To the extent that the issues can be improved at the home, I think that can be a real service. 

No. 2, and we have talked a lot about perceptions. I think perceptions matter, and I would just highlight that. 

I said two, but there are actually three points—No. 3, the role 

of the United States in Central America cannot be overstated. We 

have a longstanding historical role in the region. We can debate the 

success of it, et cetera. I personally think it has been more positive 

than not. But, the fact of the matter is, we have a history there. 

There is a lot at stake here, and my personal view is the United 

States, in addition to helping the people of the region, have a real 

foreign policy and strategic policy imperative to remain engaged, 

and not just, as you said in your statement, which I completely 

concur with, is a one-and-done, but a long-term engagement. So, I 

would continue to encourage that. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. Sorry to have to cut you off. 

Mr. Olson—— 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. Along the same lines, I just want to thank you 

for organizing this and keeping the focus on the root causes, the 

long-term issues in the region. And, the fact that you have traveled 

there is really significant, because I am sure you have opportunities to travel elsewhere and these are difficult places to be. So, I 

would encourage a continued focus on these root causes, these 

issues in Central America that are drivers. 

I am convinced that these are non-partisan issues, that Republicans and Democrats can come together around strengthening the 

rule of law, strengthening the capacity of State, and focus on prevention issues. I think that is absolutely essential, and I congratu-
332 

late you and the other Members of the Committee for being interested in that. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks so much. 

Mr. Shifter, just very briefly. 

Mr. SHIFTER. Thank you very much, and I also want to thank 

you and commend you for holding this hearing. 

I think all of us sitting here would probably want to increase resources and attention to these three countries. I am reflecting on 

15 years ago when Plan Colombia was considered. I think one of 

the objections which has been voiced by some of the Senators is, 

are we throwing money down a rat hole? Is it going to be used effectively? And I just want to underscore that those same concerns 

were expressed 15 years ago. So, I think there are ways to do it. 

There are grounds for concern, but I think, also, if we do it right, 

and we are capable of doing it right, we have demonstrated that 

in the case of Colombia this could work, and I think the commitment is very important. 

Chairman CARPER. You all have been terrific. Thank you very 

much for—this is a great collaboration and a shared undertaking. 

Thank you so much. You have given us a lot to think about and, 

I think, a lot to do. Timely, insightful, and we are grateful. 

And, again, I want to say thank you for all the good you do with 

your lives. I do not know all the good you do, but I am aware of 

some of it and we are grateful for that. 

The hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until July 31, 

5 p.m., for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. Again, thank you. Go in 

peace. 

[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(333) 

A P P E N D I X 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 

Æ