[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2021
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
___________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California, Chairwoman
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
GRACE MENG, New York
PETE AGUILAR, California
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Darek Newby, Michael S. Herman, Robert Joachim,
Kris Mallard, Karyn Richman, and Elizabeth Lapham
Subcommittee Staff
____________
PART 2
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Page
Department of Homeland Security.......
1
Members' Day..........................
217
U.S. Customs and Border Protection....
311
United States Coast Guard.............
361
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_____
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
43-031 WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, TEXAS
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana HAROLD ROGERS, KENTUCKY
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, ALABAMA
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, IDAHO
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN R. CARTER, TEXAS
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California KEN CALVERT, CALIFORNIA
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia TOM COLE, OKLAHOMA
BARBARA LEE, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, FLORIDA
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota TOM GRAVES, GEORGIA
TIM RYAN, Ohio STEVE WOMACK, ARKANSAS
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland JEFF FORTENBERRY, NEBRASKA
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, TENNESSEE
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, WASHINGTON
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine DAVID P. JOYCE, OHIO
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois ANDY HARRIS, MARYLAND
DEREK KILMER, Washington MARTHA ROBY, ALABAMA
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania MARK E. AMODEI, NEVADA
GRACE MENG, New York CHRIS STEWART, UTAH
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin STEVEN M. PALAZZO, MISSISSIPPI
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts DAN NEWHOUSE, WASHINGTON
PETE AGUILAR, California JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, MICHIGAN
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, FLORIDA
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois WILL HURD, TEXAS
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
NORMA J. TORRES, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
ED CASE, Hawaii
Shalanda Young, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Wolf, Hon. Chad, Acting Secretary................................ 9
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Answers to submitted questions............................... 59
Members' Day
Chu, Hon. Judy, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California..................................................... 267
Correa, Hon. J. Luis, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.................................................. 293
Cunningham, a Representative in Congress from the State of South
Carolina....................................................... 261
Escobar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas.... 239
Fulcher, Hon. Russell, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho................................................. 225
Garcia, Hon. Sylvia, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas....................................................... 298
Gonzalez-Colon, Hon. Jenniffer, a Delegate in Congress from the
Territory of Puerto Rico....................................... 230
Graves, Hon. Garrett, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana................................................... 247
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona............................................... 300
Hill, Hon. J. French, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arkansas.................................................... 271
Jackson Lee, Hon. Sheila, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas................................................. 277
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas............................................. 302
Perry, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 290
Plaskett, Hon. Stacey, a Delegate in Congress from the Territory
of the U.S. Virgin Islands..................................... 217
Ruiz, Hon. Raul, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California..................................................... 304
Scalise, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana................................................... 309
Suozzi, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York
Torres Small, Hon. Xochitl, Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico............................................ 254
Visclosky, Hon. Peter J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana............................................... 283
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Morgan, Mark A., Acting Commissioner............................. 314
Prepared statement........................................... 317
U.S. Coast Guard Budget Request
Schultz, Admiral Karl, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard.............. 361
Prepared statement........................................... 366
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency
Albence, Matthew T., Deputy Director............................. 398
Prepared statement........................................... 403
Answers to submitted questions................................... 452
HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2021
----------
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
WITNESS
HON. CHAD F. WOLF, ACTING SECRETARY
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today we welcome Chad Wolf, the Acting Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security.
Thank you for being with us this morning.
Mr. Secretary, the fiscal year 2021 budget proposes $49.7
billion in net discretionary funding for the Department of
Homeland Security. While this is a cut of $750 million below
the current-year level, the budget also proposes transferring
the United States Secret Service to the Treasury Department.
I want to be clear that, absent any enacted law to effect
such a transfer, this subcommittee will continue to include
funding for the Secret Service in its bill. When including
funding for the Secret Service in the total, the budget request
for fiscal year 2021 is actually $1.78 billion above the
current-year level.
There are some things in the proposed budget that I believe
will find strong bipartisan support, such as funding for the
Coast Guard's second Polar Security Cutter.
However, there are also proposals you should not expect to
see funded in the House bill. Among those are more funding for
border barriers and the expansion of detention bed capacity,
which I believe are unnecessary, particularly in light of high-
priority needs such as continuing to hire Customs officers to
speed the flow of trade and travel at the ports of entry.
Most of today's hearing will likely focus on immigration
enforcement and border security, including serious cases of the
abuse of authority by some DHS personnel and contractors.
While the mistreatment of migrants is inexcusable, I would
be remiss if I did not also recognize the dedication and
commitment of the vast majority of women and men of the
Department of Homeland Security, who carry out the Department's
vital missions that help protect the American public and our
country from a wide range of threats. This includes rescuing
and giving aid to Americans following natural disasters,
defending us against cyber attacks, securing our airports, and
investigating child exploitation and trafficking. The
subcommittee will continue to work with you to ensure they have
the resources needed to carry out the Department's many
critical missions.
The members of this subcommittee also have the
responsibility to make sure the Department and its personnel
carry out its missions responsibly, lawfully, efficiently and
humanely. We have always endeavored to work collaboratively
with you and your predecessors to fix problems where needed,
and we will continue to try and do so, hopefully with better
cooperation from the Department.
Unfortunately, that is getting harder and harder to do. I
have been a member of this subcommittee since its creation
shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I cannot remember a
time when there was less consensus about immigration and border
security and, from my point of view, a systemic disregard for
the rights of migrants, the detained population, and the asylum
laws of this country.
In its zeal to shut down the flow of migrants coming to the
United States across our southern border, the administration
has implemented multiple new programs to expedite the removal
process, each of which erodes the due-process rights of
migrants to seek asylum or other forms of relief from the
dangers that they fear.
At every turn, in response to the question of how to
balance the Department's dual missions of immigration
enforcement and protecting asylum seekers, the administration
has erred exclusively and determinedly on the side of
enforcement and removal, regardless of the circumstances.
The so-called Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP, is a
clear and heartbreaking example. MPP has been implemented with
only the most superficial effort to ensure migrants returned to
Mexico will, in fact, be protected, have food, shelter,
healthcare, security, and the ability to return for their
immigration hearings.
Only the most superficial efforts have been made to ensure
migrants have meaningful access to counsel--access which
should, at the very least, be equivalent to what they would
have if they had not been placed in MPP.
The devaluing of the rights of migrants goes beyond even
the design of these new programs. Under MPP guidelines,
vulnerable populations are not supposed to be placed in the
program. Yet there is a steady stream of reports of pregnant
women, individuals with serious health issues or disabilities,
including children, and LGBT migrants being placed into the
program and, in some cases, coming to harm as a result.
Mr. Secretary, I doubt that we will come to agreement on
whether this administration's immigration policies strike the
right balance. Changing these policies fall under the
jurisdiction of the authorizing committees. However, it is
squarely within this committee's jurisdiction to ensure that
the administration's policies and the use of funds to implement
them do not run afoul of the humane treatment of migrants,
their due-process rights, and asylum laws.
Carrying out our oversight responsibilities requires us to
have access to the full range of information about how the
programs we are funding are being implemented. Unfortunately,
the Department and its agencies are not always forthcoming with
all the requested information. While appropriations liaisons
and budget officials from CBP, ICE, and USCIS usually do their
best to get us the information we need to do our work, they are
often not sufficiently empowered to do so. As a result, we are
often stonewalled on getting the requested information.
Mr. Secretary, as the head of the Department of Homeland
Security, you set the tone and establish the rules that will
guide the Department in meeting our shared goals of protecting
our homeland and our American values. If we are to be
successful in achieving these goals, we need your support and
your cooperation in performing our oversight function, and I
truly hope that it will be forthcoming.
Before I turn to the Acting Secretary for a summary of his
written statement, the text of which will be included in the
hearing record, let me first recognize our distinguished
ranking member, Mr. Fleischmann, for any remarks he wishes to
make.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Roybal-Allard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Secretary, on a personal note, I wish to thank you for
the way that you have been so courteous, so accessible--you and
your staff have reached out to us on numerous occasions--and
for stepping up at a very difficult time in our country's
history to take on this Herculean task. So my personal note of
thanks to you and your staff, sir.
I also want to thank you for meeting with us today on the
Department of Homeland Security's fiscal year 2021 budget
request. And this is, again, an awesome responsibility that you
have undertaken, and I am ready to work with you as we move
forward.
As always, there is a lot to absorb with the Department's
request. There are a lot of new initiatives and a lot of
threats we are trying to cover. I look forward to hearing from
the individual components in the hearings planned over the next
2 months. I thank the chairwoman for putting together a
schedule that will allow us to get into more specifics with
each component.
And despite the fact that the distinguished chair and I
agree on some issues and disagree on other issues, we work very
well together, and there is a tremendous amount of mutual
respect.
And, Madam Chair, I truly thank you for that and those
courtesies.
There is a lot of great work being done across the
Department. It is clear that the people at the Department are
working hard every day to keep our country safe. And, again, I
have had the opportunity to visit many DHS sites and offices
with the chair and other members on both sides of this dais and
bases across this country to hear from your people and the
dedication and commitment shown by the people of DHS to the
mission of protecting our country. Please pass along our thanks
for the work they are doing around the clock every day, sir.
Last year, we saw an unprecedented crisis at our southwest
border. I am glad we could come to a four-corner agreement with
the supplemental last summer to provide humanitarian aid and
relieve some of the stress on Customs and Border Protection and
help move the unaccompanied minors to HHS care.
However, the crisis is still ongoing. We are still seeing
tens of thousands of migrants apprehended at the border every
month, and we are seeing operational challenges at ICE and
USCIS, as those components grapple with the overwhelming
caseloads of migrants who are already in the country.
But I am optimistic that we can again work together to
address these challenges. And I continue to impart to our
distinguished chair that there are so many places where we can
actually agree: border-security technology, humanitarian aid,
increases for cybersecurity research, increase in investments
in our great United States Coast Guard assets, and FTE
investments to improve trade, travel, investigations, and
enforcement. Even the requested continued construction on the
border wall system is within our ballpark at $2 billion.
I am going to continue to work with you and with the
President to support his initiatives and his request for border
security. And I am hopeful that, together, both sides of the
aisle and both sides of the Capitol, we can continue to come to
agreements and solutions.
I look forward to your testimony today and the Department's
proposed investments and initiatives. I thank you for being
here.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. OK. Thank you, Mr. Fleischmann.
And now I would like to recognize the chairwoman of the
full Appropriations Committee, Mrs. Lowey.
The Chairwoman. And I thank Chairwoman Roybal-Allard and
Ranking Member Fleischmann for holding this hearing today.
And thank you. I hope you have a good, long term in this
position. That has not been the case so far.
I want to thank all our witnesses for joining us.
The Department of Homeland Security's mission to secure our
Nation from persistent and pervasive threats is not an easy
task. In New York, we know that better than most. To ensure
safety, different parts of DHS must effectively coordinate and
cooperate while simultaneously working with other Federal,
State, and local agencies.
That is why the state of affairs at the Department of
Homeland Security is so troubling. As I told the last Acting
Secretary, who testified before our committee, it seems like
the car is driving off the cliff with no one to take the wheel.
In 3 short years, the Department of Homeland Security has been
through five Secretaries. Your four predecessors instituted
inhumane policies of ripping children from their families,
jailing decent people for nonviolent infractions.
Ensuring the integrity of our borders and enforcing
immigration laws are difficult and necessary jobs, but this
administration has taken it too far, with a heartless obsession
with immigration enforcement.
I have recently received calls from local officials in my
district with heartbreaking news that our young people are
being pulled over, roughed up by ICE enforcement officers for
no apparent reason. This creates a culture of fear and works
directly against the community policing work local law
enforcement does on a daily basis to build trust and keep us
safe.
In addition, the Department deployed CBP personnel from the
southern border, including personnel from law enforcement
tactical units, to augment ICE's interior enforcement
operations. This action was meant to punish localities like the
ones I represent that refuse to participate in the cruel and
unlawful immigration enforcement initiatives.
It also came on the heels of another decision meant to
target my constituents, suspension of CBP Trusted Traveler
Programs in New York, which will affect more than 200,000 New
Yorkers by the end of the year.
Turning to fiscal year 2021, the budget yet again calls for
the unnecessary hiring of an additional 2,844 ICE law
enforcement officers and proposes an outrageous increase to
60,000 detention beds.
The administration appears to have learned nothing, as
Democrats will not fund unnecessary whims of the President or
his campaign promises, particularly for an agency that lacks
transparency and whose enforcement tactics are out of control.
The request again misses the point by focusing on a
political agenda instead of securing our homeland. The budget
would cut $239 million from the Urban Area Security Initiative,
which assists high-threat, high-density urban areas where the
consequences of attacks would be most catastrophic, and $228
million from the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which
enhances law enforcement's ability to prevent and respond to
acts of terrorism or other disasters. These cuts could have
disastrous consequences.
Late last year, my district witnessed a horrific anti-
Semitic attack. The cuts that you propose are a slap in the
face to my constituents, who live in constant fear that they
won't have the security and funding needed given the sharp rise
of such attacks.
The committee remains eager to support the Department's
core mission, but we will not be a part of a political act that
distracts from the real threats facing our homeland.
I look forward to a productive discussion today. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And now I would like to recognize the
ranking member of the full committee, Ms. Granger.
Ms. Granger. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming before the subcommittee
today to present the fiscal year 2021 budget for the Department
of Homeland Security.
You recently assumed an enormous responsibility as Acting
Secretary of the Department. We recognize that. You are now
charged with leading more than 240,000 men and women who work
tirelessly to protect our Nation, often without the proper
credit. I commend them for their commitment to the Department's
mission.
In my home State of Texas, we share the longest stretch of
border of any State and have an important relationship with our
neighbors to the south. I appreciate your understanding of our
unique situation. I know that you remain committed to securing
our borders, keeping our communities safe, ensuring the legal
trade and travel so vital to our State and Nation.
Just 2 days ago, I was in McAllen, Texas, with Deputy
Secretary of Defense David Norquist to see firsthand where our
hard-fought investments in border security have produced
results. This is my sixth trip to the border during this
crisis.
Hundreds of miles of improved border fencing have been
built or are under construction. The partnership with the
Department of Defense is allowing Border Patrol agents to get
back to their mission of securing the border, and that is what
they deserve. I was amazingly aware of new technologies that
are being developed where they can spot persons coming across
our border in time to apprehend them safely.
I would encourage all the committee members to travel to
the border and see some of these improvements, particularly the
cooperation among sections and the technology being used.
Unfortunately, even with these improvements, we continue to
have a crisis on our hands, and the facts are undeniable. In
2018, 400,000 people were apprehended at the border, which is
an unbelievable number of unauthorized border crossings. Last
year, that number more than doubled to nearly 1 million,
marking a 12-year high.
As claims for asylum go up, the pressure on the immigration
courts grows, and, as we speak, the backlog of cases is already
now 5 years long.
The most important issue we have is the high amount of
illegal drugs being carried across our border and the criminals
who are bringing those drugs in and also children. This is
something we need to be very aware.
While I remain hopeful that our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle will work with us to address these very real
issues, I commend the President for using authorities under his
jurisdiction to address these issues head-on.
Mr. Wolf, I think your proposed budget for fiscal year 2021
demonstrates how the Department can and will take action if
given sufficient resources. As always, I will continue to work
with the administration to find solutions for these challenges.
I do want always to be aware is the criminal action at the
border and criminals coming across our border. These are not
people that are the people that are seeking asylum. It is
people that are carrying drugs and people.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Before we hear from the Secretary, I
would like to remind members that they will be called for
questioning based on the seniority of those present when the
hearing was called to order, alternating between majority and
minority members.
Also, to ensure everyone has ample opportunity to ask
questions, I would ask each member to try to stay within the
allotted 5 minutes per round.
Mr. Secretary, please begin your statement.
Mr. Wolf. Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member
Fleischmann, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it
is a privilege to appear before you today to discuss the
Department of Homeland Security's mission to keep this Nation
safe and to present the President's fiscal year 2021 budget for
the Department.
As Acting Secretary, my priorities are guided by a
determination to ensure that DHS is robust, resilient, and
forward-leaning, prepared to address the threats of today and
those of tomorrow. The fiscal year 2021 President's budget is
not only a reflection of those priorities but a path to
achieving them.
As this subcommittee knows, the Department of Homeland
Security's mission spans air, land, sea, and cyber domains. Our
workforce of 240,000-strong stands watch for the Nation 24
hours a day, 365 days a year. They safeguard the United States
from terrorists, adversaries, and others who seek to do us
harm.
They also facilitate our lawful trade and travel, balancing
security and freedom of movement with care and precision. As I
often say, economic security is homeland security, and the
Department plays a critical role in this mission.
The President's budget ensures that our workforce has the
resources it needs to execute these critical responsibilities.
This includes $49.8 billion in net discretionary funding and an
additional $5.1 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund to support
response to and recovery from disasters in the homeland.
Our budget priorities remain consistent with recent years.
They include securing our borders, enforcing our immigration
laws, securing cyberspace and critical infrastructure,
transportation security, and American preparedness.
Recognizing that threats to the homeland are more dynamic
than ever before, the budget positions us to respond to a
number of emerging threats, including those emanating from
nation-states.
The Department also remains focused on helping to manage
the U.S. Government's response to the coronavirus. To be clear,
the lead Federal agency in charge of this response remains the
Department of Health and Human Services. DHS remains focused on
assisting travelers arriving at our air ports of entry, land
ports of entry, and maritime ports of entry.
As you are aware, the Department took action early on to
prohibit Chinese nationals--I would say, the administration
took action early on to prohibit Chinese nationals and foreign
nationals who had recently traveled to China from entering the
United States. Additionally, flights with American citizens
arriving from China or American citizens with recent Chinese
travel have been funneled through 11 airports with enhanced
medical screening capabilities.
These measures have been effective at keeping the virus at
bay, but I would say that this is an evolving risk, and we are
assessing our resources and our measures on a day-by-day, week-
by-week progress. We will continue to closely monitor the
situation and adjust our measures as necessary.
I will highlight a few specific priorities included in the
fiscal year 2021 budget.
The Department must continue to grow our digital defense,
as cybersecurity threats grow in scope and severity.
The Department maintains an enhanced posture on the
election-security front to preserve our electoral process and
secure our system against interference of any kind.
The President's budget invests $1.7 billion in the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to strengthen
our cyber- and infrastructure security mission. This is an
increase of roughly $150 million above the President's fiscal
year 2020 budget request.
The security of our Nation's border also remains a primary
focus of the administration and for the Department. Most
notably, the budget includes $2 billion for the construction of
approximately 82 miles of new border wall system as well as
additional funding for technology and staffing.
While securing our borders is of utmost importance, the
integrity of our immigration system requires that we enforce
the law as written. It remains the priority of the Department
to protect our citizens by identifying, detaining, and removing
criminal aliens from the United States. The budget includes
over $3 billion to ensure that our law enforcement has the
resources it needs to faithfully execute the law.
As true today as it was in the wake of 9/11,
counterterrorism remains a top focus for the Department.
Importantly, the President has increased funding for targeted
violence and terrorism prevention programs in this budget by
500 percent. The $96 million in funding distributed across DHS
components is critical to identifying at-risk individuals and
preventing their radicalization to violence.
The budget also invests in modernizing the fleet of the
United States Coast Guard. It provides $550 million to fund the
construction of the second Polar Security Cutter, which
supports our national interest in the polar region. It also
includes $564 million for the Offshore Patrol Cutter, another
critical capital investment for the Coast Guard.
And while physical capabilities and technology are
important, the Department's greatest asset remains the men and
women of the Department. And as our threats evolve and
capabilities grow, new talent is needed to execute our mission.
And so, again, in the budget for the Department, we see 500
new cybersecurity employees across the Department being asked
for; for CBP, 750 new Border Patrol agents and 126 new support
staff, as well as funding to sustain the 300 Border Patrol
processing coordinators, again, that Congress provided
resources for in fiscal year 2020; for ICE, 2,800 new law
enforcement officers, as well as 420 new ICE attorneys and
1,400 new support staff; for TSA, it means sustaining the pace
in passenger growth by sustaining 47,000 transportation
security officers.
The budget also provides an overall pay increase for DHS
employees, including a 3-percent increase for uniformed Coast
Guard men and women.
These are only but a few of the priorities included in the
budget. The Department, as has been mentioned, has one of the
most diverse and complex mission sets in all of government, and
I continue to be amazed by the professionalism and dedication
of the men and women of DHS.
And I would encourage, instead of demonizing our workforce,
that we all need to thank them for what they do every day.
Their commitment to our mission is beyond reproach, and we
should all sleep better at night knowing that they are on duty.
Therefore, I ask you for your support in providing them the
resources needed to keep the American people and our homeland
secure through the President's fiscal year 2021 budget request.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I
look forward to the questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, the budget proposes funding for an average
daily population in detention of 60,000. This is a drastic
increase of 14,726 over the capacity funded in fiscal year
2020, and it would require an additional $710 million.
This is remarkable when considering that, after accounting
for the proposed transfer of the Secret Service to the
Department of Treasury, the budget request proposes an overall
increase of $1.78 billion above the fiscal year 2020 enacted
level, yet there is no funding for recapitalization programs
like the Fast Response Cutters and the HC-130J aircraft, which
are critical to search and rescue activities, counter-drug
operations, and disaster response.
Do you have any analysis that supports a detention bed
requirement of 60,000 in fiscal year 2021?
Mr. Wolf. Yes, Chairwoman. As you know, we do have a model
that drives the number of beds that we request every year. We
have shared that with the committee. We will continue to share
that. If we haven't, I am happy to share that. We have shared
it with a number of folks.
Obviously, that looks at past data. That looks at current
trends. It looks at seasonality. It looks at a number of
factors that ICE needs to continue to do its mission.
I will say that, as has been mentioned, we had a surge last
year in May, June, and July, a number over 100,000 in many of
those months coming across the border illegally that were
released into the U.S.
Again, there is a tail to that enforcement cycle, that ICE
will then have to go into communities and for those that are
here illegally, that are criminals and the like, that fall out
of status in some cases, will have to continue to remove those
individuals. And the only way to remove them is to detain them.
So, yes, I am happy to share additional information if you
don't already have it on what drove that number in the
President's budget.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Secretary, that is of concern, that
you have shared this information with a number of folks,
whoever they happen to be, but that information has not been
shared with this subcommittee. And being that we oversee how
funds are spent and the reasons for which the administration
has requested certain things, I think it is critical that,
number one, above all, that this subcommittee should be the
first to get that information.
My second question is: Over the last year, the Department
has rolled out several new programs that actually result in the
removal of migrants directly from CBP custody instead of being
transferred to ICE. These programs include the Migrant
Protection Protocols, Prompt Asylum Claim Review, the
Humanitarian Asylum Review Process, and the increased use of
Electronic Nationality Verification.
Moreover, this committee has provided increased funding for
alternatives to detention programs, which follows asylum
seekers to live in their communities.
Were these programs factored into the 60,000 ICE bed
requirement? And, again, if the answer is yes, we need to see
that analysis. And I will just add to that, why haven't we?
Mr. Wolf. Sure. It has been factored. Many of the programs
that you mentioned, Chairwoman, are new initiatives, so a lot
of them have not been fully implemented, whether we talk about
PACR or HARP or a few of the others. So we continue to
implement those measures.
The MPP, the ENV flights, these are all efforts to ensure
that those that are seeking meritorious claims can have their
day in immigration court heard in an effective manner. So we
are hoping to do that through a number of ways. We are hoping
to do that in months and not years that has been the case in
the past.
So, again, part of the effort on a number of these
programs--and I am happy to walk through these--is to ensure
that we root out fraud, but, again, those that have meritorious
claims, that we make sure that they get their day in court
quickly so that we know that they either have a legal right to
be here in the U.S. or they don't, and then we effectuate that
decision accordingly, instead of the years and years that it
has traditionally took.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. OK. We will be asking some further
questions about those programs and the impact it has on
immigrants. But I want to emphasize again the importance of
this subcommittee getting the analysis for the things that you
are asking for rather than whoever ``some folks'' are.
My time is almost up, so I am going to yield to the next
member.
Mr. Fleischmann?
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today.
Mr. Secretary, I want to talk with you about something that
is obviously affecting the world and of course is impacting the
United States, the coronavirus situation.
First and foremost, I want my colleagues and the people in
the room to know that you have been so proactive and
cooperative. You called me early, at the inception of this
crisis and have kept me abreast, and I thank you for that.
We are all keeping a watchful eye on this critically
important situation, and I have received updates from the
medical side and have been kept abreast by others involved in
this crisis. And we certainly want to be responsive to needs.
Can you kindly clarify what exactly your Department's
specific areas of responsibility are when it comes to the
coronavirus? Because, fortunately, there has been a strong
national response. The CDC is involved. But as it relates to
Homeland Security, what is within your purview, sir?
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. And it certainly is a whole-of-
government approach that the administration is pursuing
regarding this.
Specifically for the Department, we are there to support,
again, the Department of Health and Human Services as they
outline a medical strategy to deal with the coronavirus. We are
there to support them and to adjust our operations accordingly.
So, specifically, the Department was involved early on in
the funneling of all flights from China to 11 different
airports. We were involved in standing up medical contracts
through our CWMD office at those 11 airports so individuals
that come off of those aircraft first will see a CBP officer,
who is just a normal immigration officer. They will then go to
contract medical screening, again, that the Department has set
up in those 11 airports, and then, if necessary, will be
referred to CDC medical professionals to determine if a
quarantine is needed or not.
So we do that in the airports. We also do this at land
ports of entry. We also do this at maritime ports of entry. So
we have a number of cargo ships arriving every day from China
that are carrying goods but also have crew that have perhaps
visited affected areas as well.
So we have Coast Guard involved; we have CBP involved. It
is a whole-of-departmental effort to make sure that we are
instituting the measures that the President has put in place,
to include the travel restrictions to make sure, again, that
the American public is safe and secure.
Mr. Fleischmann. Well, thank you, sir. And count me in for
our full support of your endeavors and that of the other
departments as we combat this critically important situation
and crisis.
Mr. Secretary, during my time in Congress, I have come to
learn and appreciate the critical role that research and
development plays in securing our Nation and providing the seed
money for innovative goods and services. What is DHS doing to
prepare to meet the Nation's future homeland security needs?
And as a followup to that, how is the Science and
Technology Directorate leveraging the scientific expertise and
research and development resources of our national
laboratories, universities, and industries, sir?
Mr. Wolf. So we do that in a variety of different ways.
We certainly do that at our component level, with the
funding that they have. The operators know for the most part
what technology and what capabilities they need. So we use the
funding within those components to mostly acquire commercial
off-the-shelf products that are here, ready to go today.
And then we have a little bit longer-term idea when we talk
about our Science and Technology Directorate that is investing
in those technologies that are perhaps not ready today but will
be in the short timeframe, looking at that 1- to 2- to 3-year
period.
I think early on in the Department's mission or lifespan,
that Science and Technology Directorate had a little bit longer
tail, you know, what was 5 or 10 years out, and I think over
time we have seen that we need the capabilities a lot sooner
than that. So we will continue to invest in that.
S&T uses not only centers of excellence, again, that they
receive funding from Congress on, but also the National
Laboratory Network to do that, to invest in some of the high-
tech expertise that they don't have on-site but, obviously,
different national laboratories around the country do. So we
have agreements with them to continue to utilize their
expertise as well.
So, again, it spans the spectrum from technology that we
need today, relatively soon, for operational requirements to
those technologies that can either be improved on or we need to
invest in with other elements of the U.S. Government.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And since my
time is about up, I thank you for your responses.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Lowey.
The Chairwoman. Mr. Secretary, your predecessor established
a red team review of the Migrant Protection Protocols last
fall. Can you share with us what DHS has done in response to
the red team recommendations, particularly with regard to
ensuring migrants have meaningful access to legal counsel?
Mr. Wolf. So we have done a number of things. So the
previous Acting Secretary took that red team report and sent it
out to the Department to say, OK, you know, we would like to
see your responses. So, again, ICE, CBP, USCIS mainly, here are
the results of that Red Team, and then we would like to see the
responses.
Some initial responses came back--and he gave them two
different timeframes to do that. Some initial responses came
back. We have started to implement those. And then a more
fulsome response will be forthcoming as well.
We continue to do a number of things to try to improve the
program. I have heard from the chairwoman and from others about
access to counsel. We continue to look at that.
Again, everyone who comes into MPP receives a medical
screening each and every time they come into that program. So
if there are three or four times they are coming back across
the border to go to immigration court, every time, they are
looking at a medical screening. Every time, they are meeting
with USCIS officers----
The Chairwoman. May I interrupt for a minute? Because time
is so limited. You are saying you are continuing to look at
access to counsel.
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
The Chairwoman. What are you looking at, and what can you
do, and what are you doing?
Mr. Wolf. Well, of course they have access to counsel. And
so the question that we have been, you know, discussing with
committee staff and others is, how do we continue to improve on
that?
So one thing that we are doing is showing--we have a ``know
your rights'' video. So that is something that is very specific
to the MPP court process that does not occur in interior
immigration courts. So it is a continuous running video of
``know your rights.''
Committee staff and the chairwoman has asked if we could do
that in person. We are taking a look at that with our
operational components to have that be live--again, something
that is not done in domestic immigration courts today.
The Chairwoman. I want to interrupt for a minute, because I
was in Laredo last week, and I was concerned that the ``know
your rights'' video was shown on a small television in a room
with fans so loud that it was very difficult for migrants to
hear or understand. So this is obviously unacceptable and must
be addressed immediately.
I don't know if you are aware of that.
Mr. Wolf. I have not heard that specific concern about the
television and the fans. But I made a note of it, so we will
take a look at it.
The Chairwoman. Additionally, yesterday at your hearing
before the Senate Appropriations Committee, you stated that
many migrants in the MPP program are not showing up for
hearings, and you attributed that to a lack of valid asylum
claim.
Do you have an analysis to justify that claim, and can you
provide that to the committee?
Mr. Wolf. I think my comment was, again, we are seeing
roughly 50 percent of folks who don't show up to continue their
immigration proceedings in the program. That is roughly the
same that we see with interior courts or interior proceedings
as well.
So part of that is not having a claim. Some can simply just
choose not to be part of the program any longer. You know, if
they don't like how the program is going, they don't like the
wait, they don't like a number of things, they can simply
choose and leave. That is hard data to have.
So there are a number of reasons why an individual may not
continue to proceed with their immigration proceedings under
the MPP program. I think my comment yesterday was to draw the
parallels between, sort of, the no-show rate that we see in the
interior and specifically what we are seeing at MPP courts as
well.
The Chairwoman. I would like to see if there is a better
analysis to see why they are not showing up and if there is
something we can do to improve the system.
We ask because we have been made aware of several other
factors that impact MPP migrants' ability to appear for the
hearings: number one, migrants' lack of understanding of the
process; shelters are far from the border; the requirement to
be present by 4:00 a.m. at our ports is often both logistically
challenging and unsafe; migrants may not know how or have the
ability to communicate with the U.S. Government that they need
to postpone due to health reasons; or that the migrants have
been kidnapped.
So it seems there are many reasons that someone may not
appear for the hearing. In our system, it seems to me, you
should protect those who need it the most. So I would hope that
we could avoid jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions, and give
us a better understanding of where we go from here.
I see my time is almost up. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. And I would just say that we continue to work
with a number of NGOs regarding the program, making sure that
they have enough information, again, who--they are also
communicating with the migrants that are in the MPP program.
And so we will continue to do that.
One thing that I did shortly after becoming in the chair,
we heard a number of folks saying that they didn't have access
to our IHF facilities. These would be individuals that were
just curious about the program, so, again, NGOs, nonprofits,
Catholic Charities, and others that wanted to understand a
little bit better about these facilities.
So we have done that. They can now come into these areas,
and even though they may not be part of the proceedings, they
may not be part of that, they can see what is going on. We are,
again, not trying to hide anything. We want to make sure that
we do this in a safe environment.
So we will continue to work with the committee and staff to
see how we can improve this program, make sure that folks
understand what the program is about and what the procedures
are. And so I commit to doing that with you.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Granger.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
As I said, I was at the McAllen border station on Monday,
and I heard from your people on the ground. While the border
crossings are down from their peak of last year, the crisis
hasn't passed, and cartels and criminal organizations continue
to make a business out of trafficking people and drugs.
I have visited the Central American countries called the
Northern Triangle that we have referred to of people coming
across our border and also to Mexico. I know you were recently
in Honduras. Can you tell us, give an update on what those
countries are doing to address the human trafficking, the
smuggling, and the root causes of this problem of migration at
the border?
Mr. Wolf. Well, I was. I was in Honduras last week for our
12th security ministerial. I believe it was my third one in
this chair but probably my sixth one overall, being part of
that.
We have a number of agreements with the Northern Triangle
countries, all three of them, on border security, on
information-sharing, and on asylum capacity. So we are doing a
number of initiatives with them to build their capacity. It is
a regional solution; it is a regional problem. And they
understand that, and they are putting resources to those
agreements as well.
So we continue to see progress. We continue to see the
collaboration is certainly a lot stronger than it has been in
the past. And it is not only the Northern Triangle. The
Government of Mexico continues to step up, continues to do
additional, I would say, enhancement operations on making sure
that they address the illegal flow of migrants in their country
as well.
And so, again, part of the effort here at the Department,
in addition to some of the programs that we have talked about,
we also are looking at the source, in these areas, what do they
need, from a security and stability standpoint.
And part of that equation is about the prosperity in those
countries. I think everyone recognizes if those countries are
more prosperous, if the economic situation improves there,
individuals in those countries will stay there, and that
illegal flow lining the pockets of the cartels and the TCOs
will reduce or eliminate altogether.
So, through other elements of the U.S. Government--the DFC,
Department of Commerce, and others--we are also looking at
economic prosperity investments in those regions to, again,
build up those economies and the like.
So there are a number of things that we are doing with the
Northern Triangle in addition to, again, all the programs that
we are doing at the border as well.
Ms. Granger. We have helped them or tried to help them in
the past, and the leadership in those countries did not do what
we wanted them to do with our efforts. The difference I saw in
what is happening with Mexico in helping us, what is going
across our border, was really very evident and making a huge
difference. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Wolf. I do agree. It is almost night and day if you
look back 2 years ago on the cooperation that we have with
these governments, up and down, from the Northern Triangle.
We also included just recently into our ministerial Costa
Rica and Panama. So we are expanding those that are
participating, knowing that it is much larger than just the
Northern Triangle.
The Department continues to see a number of populations
crossing the southwest border that causes us concern--
Brazilians, Ecuadorians, and others. And there are only so many
ways that they get there. And so we need to involve all the
countries along the route and others to address this problem.
So we will continue to look at that, but I would agree that
we have seen quite a bit of improvement from all of the
countries involved.
Ms. Granger. And there is a number. When this was at its
height several years ago, we were counting immigrants coming
across our border from 51 countries. How many countries are we
tracking now?
Mr. Wolf. Oh, it is much higher than that. I wouldn't say
it is someone from every country, but it is much higher than
50.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, thank you again for the work that you do,
and your men and women, and we appreciate it. As you know, I
spend a lot of time--I live on the border, so I spend a lot of
time with your men and women, whether it is Border Patrol or
Air Marine, ICE. So I appreciate the work that they do.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. A quick question. You mentioned this on your
statement about the coronavirus. You mentioned, since February
2, CBP has refused entry to 14 travelers at the ports of entry,
97 preclearance, and it goes on, including 319 Chinese
nationals that were attempting to enter illegally. About 194 of
them were in my area, in the Rio Grande Valley. So, again, I
appreciate what you all are doing.
My question is, is there anything extra we need to do to
protect our men and women in doing their work? I know there are
already protocols. They have explained it to me already. But is
there anything else that the committee can help you to make
sure that we protect the men and women at the front lines?
Mr. Wolf. Well, that is certainly one of my primary
concerns when dealing with the coronavirus--not only what we
are doing to protect the American people but what specifically
we are doing to protect DHS employees, particularly CBP
officers, Border Patrol officers, as well as TSOs, TSA officers
at our airports.
As of right now, they have all the equipment that they
need, and that is PPEs, but also we are providing them a lot of
training and a lot of medical information from the CDC on what
we know about the virus to date, some best practices on what we
know about other coronaviruses that are similar. So we continue
to do that.
Again, as the medical strategy from CDC or HHS changes, we
may have to change what we are doing with our officers. But as
of today, we feel very confident in the measures that we have
put in place, again, from a variety of different perspectives,
including the protective wear--gloves and masks and things like
that.
So we will continue to do more if the virus and if our
strategy demands that we do more.
I will say that the Department continues to spend funding
that we didn't perhaps allocate for this virus and will do
that. Right now, we have the money that we need. We may be
moving money around within this fiscal year, and then we will
have to see, depending on how long this proceeds and where we
go----
Mr. Cuellar. Any dollars you want to take from the wall
over to that? I would be happy to go ahead and make that
transfer. I am just kidding.
No, but, Mr. Secretary--and, again, we were down there in
Laredo this weekend, and your men and women are doing a great
job. Sometimes we might disagree with the administration on
policy, but policy is one thing, but the men and women--we
support your men and women.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. I just want to make sure that you understand
that comes from our committee.
Second of all, let me talk to you about the border wall,
because that is coming down to my area in the Rio Grande
Valley. My understanding is that in the last 3 years there has
been only 1 mile of new fencing. Everything else has been
replacement or secondary miles. But now you are going into a
lot in Texas where it is owned by private property owners.
And one of the things that the committee, we added in the
appropriations was to make sure that we mitigate community and
environmental impact by getting the consultation.
Sometimes I think it is symbolic--and I say this with all
due respect--because none of the people I have talked to have
given me a pleasant conversation. It is basically, ``We have to
do this because Congress told us.'' But I haven't seen, except
for one area that I think, you know, you all are working with,
on the bulkhead in Laredo, but I just haven't seen, you know, a
pleasant experience with the landowners.
As you know, the GAO was in Laredo, in the valley, the last
couple days to make sure that, you know, we don't abuse the
eminent domain when it comes to private property rights.
I just want to make sure that there is a sincere intention
to really make adjustments to designs or to the placement of
the fence if it goes that far. That is the only thing I ask
you. The language has been there. I just don't want a symbolic,
OK, we checkmark, checkmark, checkmark.
Mr. Wolf. Well, you certainly have my commitment. I have
talked to Acting Commissioner Morgan about that as well----
Mr. Cuellar. And he has been very good.
Mr. Wolf. I will say that you have his commitment as well.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. And we have seen that, I believe, in downtown
Laredo, where we are working with the city on perhaps some
alternative designs that meet their needs as well as ours.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. So we will continue to do that.
You know, obviously, in the RGV Valley, RGV, that is where
the predominant private land is that the Department as well as
Army Corps of Engineers, who is doing the work on the ground,
is out trying to survey the land, trying to assess title,
trying to do a number of things as we look at conducting that
border wall system.
So, yes, I will say that you certainly have my commitment
to make sure that we bring in the landowners, we have that
discussion. I think at times there will be some that we just
disagree with, and we will have to continue that process. But
we want to be transparent about that.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. We want to let them know what our requirements
are and then what their concerns are and have that discussion.
So you have my commitment.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Mr. Wolf, for being here today.
We are all aware of the hard drugs that are coming across
our border, not just at the points of entry but between points
of entry. We spend a lot of time on this subcommittee and in
Congress as a whole talking about the southern border and what
solutions we can bring to bear to stem this dangerous tide.
One of the things that is often overlooked is our maritime
border. Intercepting drugs at our land borders is like a goal
line stand at our 1-yard line. It is great if we get the stop,
but where we need to be stopping drugs and smuggling is where
they begin, at their 1-yard line.
I continue to brag on the Coast Guard's National Security
Cutter but with good reason. The Coast Guard is seizing
millions of dollars of drugs routinely on patrols using the
National Security Cutter. To date, this committee has funded 11
of these multimission ships.
This asset, along with the men and women of our Coast
Guard, are taking these drugs off the ocean in bulk. This isn't
a couple kilos of cocaine hidden in a truck or carried on
someone's back; we are talking about billions of dollars of
hard drugs that are destined for our communities. The Coast
Guard seizes more drugs than all other Federal agencies
combined. Over the past 4 years, the Coast Guard has seized 2
million pounds of cocaine. That has an estimated street value
of $26 billion.
We need more focus on the maritime border and the assets
that patrol our oceans, so, Mr. Wolf, I would appreciate if you
could talk about your vision and how you plan to utilize
appropriated funds to focus operations on drug smuggling in
South and Central America.
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you. The Coast Guard certainly plays
a vital role there. So when we look at JIATF South out of Key
West and what they do patrolling from an intelligence
perspective on the drug flow, the drug traffic coming from
South America, in the Caribbean, in the eastern Pacific, I am
happy to report that it is the Coast Guard assets that are
making those interdictions almost exclusively, between the
Coast Guard ships, helicopters, as well as CBP helicopters and
assets as well.
While JIATF South is an interagency, interdepartmental
process, a number of intelligence comes into that, but the
folks on the ground, or in this case in the sea, that are
making those interdictions are Coast Guard men and women. And
so I am incredibly proud of what they do.
Of course, yeah, I would say that the U.S. Government
doesn't have enough resources to interdict all of the narcotics
coming from South America. So I thought what was interesting
one time is, if you put the outline of the U.S. on the eastern
Pacific and the Caribbean, that is what Coast Guard patrols,
with a handful of ships. And we will continue to do that, but
it is a very challenging task.
And I will also say, that is just one part of it.
Obviously, when they interdict, the drugs are critically
important, but it is also the investigators that are then
talking to those individuals, gleaning information, trying to
bring them on as sources and the like to, again, get at the
issue at the source.
So we will continue to put resources into the interdiction,
but I would also say the investigation part of that process,
again, that we do across the country is vitally important. And,
of course, DHS plays a role there with ICE, Homeland Security
investigators, but also with DEA and other elements of the U.S.
Government.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, I agree 100 percent with your remarks,
and it just once again reinforces why the National Security
Cutter is so important.
I know several of us are disappointed that we had funding--
this committee appropriated funds for a 12th National Security
Cutter only to see the President's budget remove those funds.
But they also, in addition, they froze the Fast Response
Cutters.
So, you know, removing these drugs before they make it into
Mexico is vitally important. Once it makes it into Mexico, it
is pretty much in America. And, you know, I think we could
afford to, you know, fund these Coast Guard assets more,
because these drugs are destroying our communities. They are
destabilizing the countries in South and Central America,
probably leading to the mass migration that we are seeing at
our southern border. And it is being driven by trans-
international criminal organizations.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I will continue to work with the
commandant, as I did during a little bit of the budget build of
this one. The commandant's priorities continue to be the Polar
Security Cutter--again, in the budget request is funding to
support a second one--as well as the Offshore Patrol Cutter. So
those are two capital investments that the Coast Guard is
focused on. Obviously, they still very much believe in the
National Security Cutter and the mission that they have.
So it is a budget, like any other budget, where there are
tradeoffs that have to be made. So we want to make sure that
they have capability in the polar region as well as the
Offshore Patrol Cutter capability as well. But we will continue
to work with Congress on what the right priorities are going
forward.
Mr. Palazzo. I agree the Polar Security Cutter and the
Offshore Patrol Cutter are important. I think we just need to
maybe look at the demands that we are putting on the Coast
Guard and what they are doing in protecting our homeland
security. Maybe we need to fund them more.
So thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member,
for today's hearing.
Thank you to all our committee staff for all the
preparation.
And, of course, thank you to Acting Secretary Wolf and your
team for being here today.
I wanted to ask about an incident that happened in my
hometown, in New York City, where ICE recently shot an unarmed
man who was not even a subject of a warrant.
And then, 2 weeks ago, news outlets reported that the
administration is deploying BORTAC, Border Patrol Tactical
Unit, essentially a SWAT team, to raid sanctuary cities.
You can understand that actions like this cause a lot of
alarm for our constituents, both undocumented and documented,
from children to seniors, who fear that these units will
further terrorize their and our communities.
The tactical and operational steps involved with
enforcement at the southern border are really different from
the steps that these officers would need to take in a heavy-
populated urban area, especially like New York City.
Has there been an update in policies and trainings for
these BORTAC teams to ensure that they are not engaged in
unnecessary and excessive force, especially in urban areas?
Mr. Wolf. Sure. The individuals, again, that CBP is lending
ICE in this case for about 90 days, not only comes from BORTAC,
but also from OFO, so those are the non-Border Patrol parts of
CBP, so it is about half and half. It is about 50 and 50. And
all of those individuals that are deploying in a number of
cities across the country have specialized training that will
support ICE ERO officers that are going into these communities.
It is not very--it is very similar to what other Federal
agencies provide ICE on a daily basis as well. Other Federal
law enforcement agencies provide that support as well.
Again, I think there has probably been some misconception.
These are not individuals that are going to show up in riot
gear, riding down the street in a tank which I've seen pictures
of as well. That is not the case. You probably will not be able
to distinguish them any different than ICE ERO agents or any
other Federal law enforcement agent that supports ICE. They
will be in plainclothes. Of course, they will have the
appropriate vest on that they need to do their job, but they
will be trained there to support ICE as needed.
Ms. Meng. Have there been previous deployments of teams
like BORTAC in recent years?
Mr. Wolf. There has been deployment of CBP forces to assist
ICE. I will get you the exact number on BORTAC-specific agents
over the last several years. I don't have that number with me
on what we have done in the past.
Ms. Meng. And then, we read from a New York Times article
that the deployment reportedly will be from about February to
May of this year. Just wondering why and how this timeframe was
chosen. One of our concerns is because it is around the same
timeframe as the Census, and that it is being carried all
throughout the country, as you know. There is a lot of fear in
our communities and in our districts.
And the timeframe just makes it a lot more challenging for
the Census Bureau to do their job. And people have
misconceptions, hopefully, that they are not coordinating with
law enforcement. I am wondering if you would--sorry I am so
rushed, and I don't have a lot of time, and I am wondering if
you would consider halting these raids so that the Census
Bureau will not be seen as coordinating with law enforcement.
Mr. Wolf. I can tell you in all the discussions that I have
had, and that I have had with Commissioner Morgan, I would say
the timeframe, or maybe the coincidence of the Census Bureau,
has never factored into that decision-making for us. So it was
never brought up, at least in any discussions that I have been,
in regarding this. I will certainly take that back to the team
to see what we can do to address any concerns about the Census,
and see what can be done in these specific locations. Again,
there is only about six to seven cities, I believe, that these
teams or his--I'm sorry--ICRR are being supplemented by CBP on.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. Sorry. I just want to get in one more
quick question, and this is a different topic, the Trusted
Travelers Program. A couple weeks ago, you announced that DHS
was suspending the program, which obviously includes global
entry for New York residents.
I wanted to ask. Was there any attempt by DHS to
communicate and to work with New York State officials on
carving out these exceptions to the ban?
Mr. Wolf. So as the law is currently written, it does not
allow any carve-out. So we continue to be in touch not only
with the Governor, but with other New York State officials to
reach a solution. I am hopeful that we can. I will say, in this
case----
Ms. Meng. Were there prior communications before the
suspension was announced?
Mr. Wolf. Yes. We communicated to New York State prior to,
including a letter prior to the suspension, and again, we did
not hear from them.
Ms. Meng. So the New York DMV has stated that there is no
criminal history information that is held exclusively in their
database, so I am just wondering what criminal history data is
only available through DMV. What is the reason for the
suspension?
Mr. Wolf. Again, the information that we need, not only for
the Trusted Traveler Program, but for, again, the wide range of
the law enforcement mission of the department goes beyond just
criminal information. And so, there is other data that is in
that DMV database that is absolutely critical, specifically on
Trusted Traveler to vet a Trusted Traveler applicant. So you
have a DUI that is perhaps not a felony conviction, but you
have an arrest. That factors into the decision-making process
at CBP on whether that Trusted Traveler warrants the benefit of
a global entry, for instance, or another program.
So there is information in the database that not only CBP
needs for Trusted Traveler, but I would say both CBP and ICE
needs from a law enforcement perspective. So if ICE, Homeland
Security investigations is pulling over a car of a suspected
human trafficker, they need to have access to that database to
understand who is in that car, who is it registered to, have
the picture of that individual, and right now, they cannot do
that, and so it is severely impeding the law enforcement
mission in protecting New York residents.
Ms. Meng. Sorry. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Acting Secretary Wolf, thank you for being here with us
today. I appreciate very much your presentation. Also want to
just take a moment to use this as an opportunity to thank the
men and women that work in DHS, and for the dedication to the
mission and protecting our country. We appreciate that very
much, and we look forward to continuing to be a partner with
you.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the role of the
national laboratories, and how they can be an integral part of
DHS' work. I heard your response to Mr. Fleischmann's question,
and I appreciate that. I don't have to tell you that we are
facing an evolving number of threats, both natural and manmade,
a lot of different things that are coming at you, so I am sure
sometimes you feel like the little Dutch boy with your fingers
in the dike. But a lot of things are happening, especially in
areas like biodefense and cybersecurity, which you mentioned.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Mr. Newhouse. One way that we have been able to stay ahead
of the game is through research and development, and that is
certainly something that the national laboratories, including
the national laboratory in my district, Pacific Northwest
National Lab, they have been very active and strong partners in
biodefense and cybersecurity for a long time. I have been there
many, many times, as my office has as well, and I just wanted
to take a moment to extend you an invitation to come and see
the laboratory and the work that they are doing and how we
could integrate more into the responsibilities of the
Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you for that. I will just say that we
continue, through our S&T directorate, but also our CWMD
office, utilizing a number of resources outside of the
Department to include the national labs. I will state
specifically, when we talk about corona, we have an NBACC
facility, which is outside of Frederick, Maryland, looking at
the virus, but they are doing that in conjunction with a number
of other Federal partners, as well as outside entities.
So from a departmental perspective, obviously we have a lot
of threats as you indicated, a lot of needs, and our resources
only go so far. So how we utilize other elements of the U.S.
Government, private industry, and the like is absolutely
critical to making sure that we do our job in securing the
homeland. So I know that we have agreements, and we have
relationships with a number of labs, and I am happy to dive
into that further.
Mr. Newhouse. That is a perfect segue to my more difficult
question. The budget request includes significant cuts to R&D,
both the Science and Technology Directorate, and the Countering
Weapons of Mass Destruction Office. And as we talked about,
there is continuing threats and challenges that we face daily.
The labs, in my opinion, seem very well-suited for this
mission, and you just talked about the integration of private
sector technologies. And that is all great. I agree with that,
but we also have world class facilities within our national lab
network, so could you address this issue and speak to the
rationale for these cuts?
Mr. Wolf. For the CWMD office, it is a relatively new
office. I believe we are going into our second fiscal year. So
there was a number of resources provided in fiscal year 2020
that they continue to utilize. So again, we think the budget
request for CWMD for fiscal year 2020 helps them sustain their
work and continues that. For S&T, I believe we fund, in the
budget request, five of 10 of DHS Centers of Excellence, again,
focused on some of the national priorities that we have on
detection, and a number of initiatives and missions for the
Department.
I will say it is a tough budget. There are tradeoffs that
we have to do. We have to make sure that we resource the men
and women, the operators on the front lines to do their mission
every day, and making sure that there is enough resources for
them to continue, our S&T directorate to continue to plan for,
invest in, and work with them on some of the longer solutions
and technology solutions.
So I don't disagree it is a tough budget. We have to make
tradeoffs. We continue to see value in obviously our Science &
Technology Directorate. It is also our CWMD office, which is
right in the middle of our response to the coronavirus, so we
believe that, again, the budget request, while difficult, does
make the needed investments in 2021.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that. And, certainly, we are
asking the people under you to accomplish an almost impossible
task, and I appreciate that, but as I said, we do have a lot of
assets at our disposal, and I just would encourage you to
utilize them as fully as possible. And again, thank you very
much for everything you do. And I appreciate you being here
today.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Chairwoman, and members of the
committee. Thank you, Acting Secretary, for being here.
Mr. Secretary, in January, I visited Matamoros, Mexico,
where asylum seekers have been forced to camp out as a result
of DHS' Remain in Mexico policy implemented by your agency.
This policy requires asylum seekers and migrants to stay in
Mexico as they wait for their court hearings with immigration
judges.
While I visited, I personally saw children and families who
lack access to medical care, and some were drinking out of
water sources that have been exposed to E. coli, truly, truly
awful conditions, and some of them living along the border
shared their stories that included kidnapping and extortion by
cartels. Are you aware of the extreme violence along the border
in regions where people are living because of the MPP policy?
Mr. Wolf. Yes. I am aware of a number of the statistics,
the violence, the Department of State warnings. I am aware of
all of the information.
Mr. Aguilar. Because Commissioner Morgan was on the record
stating he was unaware of kidnappings taking place along the
border. Do you acknowledge that the MPP policy has exposed
refugees and asylum seekers to serious risk of kidnapping and
other violent crimes?
Mr. Wolf. So I am aware of anecdotal information about
kidnappings and others. I don't have any specific information
regarding the MPP program and the violence that you described.
Mr. Aguilar. OK.
Mr. Wolf. I guess my statement was more general. I am aware
of the general violence.
Mr. Aguilar. Sure. Sure. OK. Well, let's get beyond
anecdotal, then. Human Rights First identified at least 816
incidences of torture, rape, and murder among asylum seekers
sent back to Mexico under the current policy. One woman from
Honduras detailed how she was abducted by Mexican police and
raped. Another man from Cuba was sent back to Mexico after
spending 40 days in detention, only to be assaulted and robbed
at a local store. An asylum seeker from Guatemala was sexually
assaulted in front of her 4-year-old son. These are just a few
of the cases documented by Human Rights First, so this is
beyond anecdotal.
This is not the only organization that has documented these
instances. Doctors Without Borders, I am sure you are familiar
with that organization, earlier this month, issued a report
that included the following findings: Eight out of 10 patients
treated in Nuevo Laredo by Doctors Without Borders were victims
of violence, eight in ten; 43 percent of all patients treated
experienced violence in 7 days before consultation with Doctors
Without Borders; in 2019, 43 percent of patients treated were
returned to Mexico through the MPP program had been kidnapped;
and in October of 2019, a percentage of kidnappings among those
returned had increased by 75 percent.
Considering this data, can we move beyond saying that this
is anecdotal? This is happening. This is real. Organized crime
is playing a role along the southern border, and this is a
direct consequence. This is a direct correlation to MPP. Would
you not agree with that?
Mr. Wolf. I would agree that the journey, and we have
talked about it for a number of years, is very dangerous for
these asylum seekers, or for any other economic migrants, or
for a variety of different reasons that they are choosing to
come to U.S., it is a very, very dangerous journey. Any time
you pay a smuggler, a cartel, or a TCO to make this journey,
they are in it for the bottom dollar, and so, yes----
Mr. Aguilar. But not all of them are paying smugglers. I
mean, we can move beyond that. But you don't acknowledge that
the proposals, that the policy----
Mr. Wolf. And so, what I would say is we continue to
encourage those individuals that are seeking protections,
whether it is in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, seek those
protections as close to home as possible, so you that don't
have to make this dangerous journey as you are describing,
Congressman, you know, through parts of Mexico that are coming
to the border.
Now, when we talk about specifically MPP, I will certainly
address that. We are working with our Department of State
colleagues and other elements of the U.S. Government to provide
resources. To date, we have provided about $20 million through
the Department of State to the government of Mexico for MPP
shelters that includes security for access to transportation.
If they choose not to stay in the MPP program, we do provide
some assistance to have them returned home and the like.
Mr. Aguilar. Sure.
Mr. Wolf. So the U.S. Government is going above and beyond
on trying to help the government of Mexico provide these
shelters along the MPP locations.
Mr. Aguilar. Well, I think that there is plenty more we can
do. The administration has requested $126 million for MPP. How
much of this, as you mentioned, some of the--I would call that
kind of humanitarian work that has been done. How much of the
$126 million will be directed towards these humanitarian
concerns at the border that would generally address the well-
being of asylum seekers?
Mr. Wolf. That funding comes from the State Department. So
again, we work with our State Department colleagues who have
different sets of funding, different sets of buckets that they
provide mainly to UNHCR and IOM to provide that--
Mr. Aguilar. I think everyone on the dais is aware of the
funding, the different agencies that are responsible for this
funding. So out of the $126 million, none of that is going
toward the well-being. It would be through State or through
other agencies that would provide the funding related to well-
being.
Mr. Wolf. Right. Again, they have the mechanisms to apply
that funding. Obviously, our funding comes with certain
restrictions, making sure we that apply that to our operations.
We are working with State Department. We continue to work with
State Department to fund additional services at those MPP
sites, again, through UNHCR, through a number of NGOs that will
go in there, and we will continue to build that capacity and
talk to the government of Mexico about that.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I thank you for being here this morning, and
I first want to also say thank you to all the men and women of
DHS for all that you do. And particularly, I want to thank you
for the 287(g) program that you continue to push. I can tell
you as a lifelong law enforcement officer, that enhanced the
safety and security of my community. We removed thousands of
violent criminals as a result of that program within our jail,
and these were bad, bad people. And when I see the numbers that
you have talked about here today, 40,000 arrests, 4,300 gang
members, 450 just from MS-13, that is amazing. And so, as
appreciative as I am of that, I am also appalled at the
sanctuary city concept that endangers citizens back home by not
working with ICE to remove these kind of criminals from our
streets, so I just want to start with that.
One thing that does concern me, though, JAXPORT in
Jacksonville, Florida, is a very large container port, and in
fact, we moved over 10 million tons of goods just last year.
And one of the questions that I have is, can you tell me what
percentage of our cargo is actually being inspected through the
non-intrusive inspection process countrywide?
Mr. Wolf. Oh. Countrywide?
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah.
Mr. Wolf. I have some of that data for the southwest
border. I would probably need to get back to you countrywide on
NII detection. It is relatively low on the southwest border. We
have funding that Congress provided in fiscal year 2019 and
2020 that we are deploying over 400, or actually higher NII
systems that will go mainly at the southwest border to
interdict those drugs and other illegal contraband. So I have
much more clarity on those numbers. I can get back to you on
nationwide at every port, what NII, how much it screens.
Mr. Rutherford. Well, I'd like to see that, because I think
the numbers are pretty low is what I am hearing. And, really,
if you think about it, these ports, particularly where we have
these containers coming in, it is almost like the Trojan horse
going in, you know, the city of Troy. We are inviting these
things in.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Mr. Rutherford. We have no idea what is inside a lot of
them. And so, I would like to follow up with you on that if you
don't mind.
And last year, we appropriated almost $60 million for this
equipment as you mentioned. What is in this year's budget for
that? Do you know right offhand?
Mr. Wolf. The money in the fiscal year 2020 budget is for
maintenance and support of that. So, again, we had $60 million
in fiscal year 2020 as you indicated, Congressman.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Mr. Wolf. $570 million that Congress provided in fiscal
year 2019, so that is a total of over $660, both large-,
medium-, and small-scale NII. That is a lot of money. That is a
lot of equipment that is going to be rolled out over a period
of time. We hope to have the majority, if not all of that,
fully deployed by 2022.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. And the PBR this year, what----
Mr. Wolf. This year, it is a little over $140 million,
again, for support of that equipment.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. Thank you.
Over the last 3 years, under President Trump's
administration, how many miles of border wall have we actually
built? You know, you hear these numbers back and forth. I don't
care if it is replacement or new, but how many miles total?
Mr. Wolf. Today we have been 126 miles completed, and that
is of new border wall system. And I always say that that is new
wall because it provides our agents new capabilities that they
have not had before.
Mr. Rutherford. Right. OK. And how much have we actually
invested in the technologies to help with that, because it is--
you know, after--you still need to detect these folks once they
may come across.
Mr. Wolf. Correct. I talk about the border wall system. So
within that system is not only the physical infrastructure of
the wall itself, but it is cameras, it is roads, it is
lighting, it is fiber optic cables. It is the whole package
that CBP and the Army Corps puts in along that southwest
border.
So again, we have 126 miles completed. We have 213 miles
under construction, and another 414 in a preconstruction phase,
so we are getting at it as quickly as possible.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. And you have talked today about the--I
am sorry. Am I that far over on my time? Yeah. That threw me
off.
But if I could ask one last question. The President, in his
PBR this year, has asked for $2 billion for a border wall. We
know it is having an impact along with the technology because
we see those numbers going down that you addressed earlier. Is
that adequate for you?
Mr. Wolf. It is. With the fiscal year 2021 budget requests,
and again, monies that we have in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, we
will have over 570 miles of what that funds. We will continue
to look at what we need, along with Congress, going forward. We
have a border security improvement plan that CBP is working on
to update. I believe the last one--Congress has the last one.
Mr. Rutherford. I think some saw this as kind of a pullback
from wall commitment, and it is absolutely not.
Mr. Wolf. No.
Mr. Rutherford. It is still----
Mr. Wolf. I think you have to look at the totality of
funding that we have gotten over the last several fiscal years.
It is not just looking at the President's budget request for
one year. You have to look at it in totality.
Mr. Rutherford. Right. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Let me ask you another question
that has multi-department aspects, but, nonetheless, one that I
hope you can answer because Homeland Security's role is a key
one. It has to do with refugees.
In fiscal 2020, the Trump administration set a refugee
admission ceiling of only 18,000 individuals. That is the
lowest refugee admission ceiling by any administration in the
program's 40-year history. And it comes on the heels of two
previous historically low ceilings of 45,000 and 30,000
refugees in fiscal 2018 and 2019, as well as the 2017 executive
order that halted our entire refugee program for 120 days.
Not only is an 18,000 refugee ceiling shockingly low, but
currently, almost halfway through the fiscal year, the United
States has admitted only about 5,000 refugees. That is less
than 30 percent of an already low ceiling. That puts our Nation
on track to admit a total of only about 10,000 refugees in
fiscal 2020, which would be a complete dereliction of our duty
to the world's most vulnerable, as deadly wars and political
and religious persecution are increasing around the world,
producing 70.8 million forcibly displaced people worldwide
currently, and 25.9 million refugees.
Now, we have all heard the reports of bureaucratic slow
walking, administrative barriers, a lack of adequate staffing,
bureaucratic rerouting of paperwork, drastic reductions in
circuit rides, the closure of USCIS international offices, so-
called security measures, enhanced security measures. Together,
all of this seems intentionally designed to prevent our Nation
from accepting any more than a trickle of refugees. I hear
about this at home because I have wonderful organizations that
participate in refugee resettlement. They want to fulfill their
promise to help integrate refugees in North Carolina, but they
go weeks without seeing a single refugee. This is totally,
totally unprecedented.
So how can you explain the fact that we are almost halfway
through the fiscal year, and have admitted less than half or a
third of the refugees we pledged to take in? Is my projection
of 10,000 unrealistic as to what this is going to look like at
the end of the year? And this is taking place during one of the
worst refugee crises in world history.
And what about these various bans, administrative obstacles
and duplicative waiting requirements? Do they really reflect
some increasing danger? As you know, refugees have committed no
terrorist acts, none, zero in recent years. What leads you to
conclude that the security measures have been inadequate, or
what is going on? How has that changed?
And if it has changed, why does our country seem unable to
determine the danger without just stopping the flow entirely?
Why don't we have an appropriate vetting system to deal with
this, and to, yet, due our duty to fulfill our obligations as a
member of the international community to deal with this
international crisis?
Mr. Wolf. Well, Congressman, I would say that we are one of
the only countries that distinguish between refugees and asylum
seekers, so I think you have to look at the protections that we
provide and the totality of, not only the refugees that the
Department is vetting, but also the asylum seekers that we
process each and every year. So looking in that totality, we do
allow historic numbers and provide protections to historic
numbers. Regarding the 5,000----
Mr. Price. Historic numbers, like what? How does that--you
are telling me that really invalidates the importance, or the
significance, of these historically low numbers I have cited.
If that is the case, please correct the numbers.
Mr. Wolf. Again, I am happy to get you the numbers where we
look at both the refugees and asylums--asylum seekers and
asylum cases that we adjudicate each year. Again, I go back to
my statement earlier. We are one of the only countries, there
may be one or two others, that distinguish between those two
populations, and they are seeking----
Mr. Price. And you are suggesting that our treatment of----
Mr. Wolf. They are seeking protections that are very
similar granted to----
Mr. Price. Well, a lot of this hearing this morning has had
to do with the treatment of asylum seekers.
Mr. Wolf. I understand.
Mr. Price. It is astounding that you would be claiming that
our treatment of asylum seekers somehow compensates for our
shutting the doors to refugees. I really would like to see
those numbers, and I just don't understand the argument that
somehow we are doing so much to open the door to asylum seekers
that these disgraceful refugee numbers are meaningless, or need
to be corrected.
Mr. Wolf. I am happy to, again, get with the Department of
State on your 5,000 versus the 10,000 projection. We obviously
play a role in vetting the refugees, but that is a Department
of State program that I am happy to touch base and provide some
more information on where they see those numbers going, and I
have no information that says we will not reach the 18,000
number.
Mr. Price. On what increased danger is this based? I mean,
am I wrong about the failure of the administration or anybody
else because the facts aren't there to associate refugees with
acts of terrorism?
Mr. Wolf. I will say----
Mr. Price. So what is the reasoning here for slowing this
flow to a trickle? Is it a matter of security, or is it
something else?
Mr. Wolf. It is. I will say that a number of the security
measures that we put in place in 2017 and 2018 were real. There
were vulnerabilities in the system. There continue to be
vulnerabilities in the system. I am not going to go into it in
this setting, but there continues to be vulnerabilities that we
see in that program that we want to address. We want to make
sure that it continues, but we need to make sure that the
individuals that are coming here are fully vetted and that we
understand who they are. So we will continue to get at it. We
will continue to increase not only the processing and the
security vetting that we do, but making sure that we have
resources dedicated to that.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, Mr. Wolf. By way of reference, you may not be
aware that my role on Appropriations is that I chair the
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations
Subcommittee, so it is primarily my job to make sure that our
servicemembers and our veterans have everything they need, both
during their active duty service, and once they leave active
service.
I am not sure you understand the burden on our
appropriators in terms of the quality of life of our
servicemembers, and also making sure that we protect the
billions of dollars in equipment that the United States funds
every year to keep us safe, because otherwise, why would your
department steal $3.6 billion in military construction funding
that was approved, asked for, and signed by the President into
law, and $2.5 billion in defense money last year for the
President's racist border wall?
And why would you steal a whopping $3.8 billion in defense
funds again this year? That money was for F-35 fighter jets, V-
22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft, and National Guard and Reserve
equipment, just to name a few. What that tells me is that the
Trump administration fears poor, persecuted families coming
across the border more than they fear Russia, China, or any
other foreign adversary.
So after the administration's outright theft of funding
from our troops once before, how can you possibly justify
requesting another $2 billion in congressionally appropriated
funding for fiscal year 2021, and why would you bother
requesting more funding through the regular order of the
appropriations process when we both know that you are just
going to break into the Pentagon and steal it again, which you
already have started to do during this fiscal year?
Mr. Wolf. What I would say, and I think the administration
has been very clear on this, is that border security is
national security, so the President----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is not my question. How is it
more important than the money that is already appropriated?
Mr. Wolf. I have talked with Secretary Esper on multiple
occasions, and he is supportive of using this funding for the
border wall system. We continue to have great partners at DoD,
not only active duty, but National Guard, providing a number of
capabilities on the southern border. It goes back to my initial
comment where border security is national security. I think the
President recognizes this, and, again, it is a whole government
effort.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I think the overwhelming majority of
the American people, Members of Congress, and military
leadership, despite what you say about Secretary Esper,
understand that protecting our troops, making sure that they
are ready, protecting our overall national security, and not
just trying to unsuccessfully block poor people who are fleeing
persecution from other countries is a much more dire and more
significant national security issue than putting up a lame wall
that isn't going to keep dangerous people out anyway.
And despite that being--it is important to note for the
record, despite this being the President's flagship political
issue, nearly all the barriers that Mr. Trump has built are
replacement barriers. When he leaves office in January, Trump
will be nowhere close to building a wall that covers the
southern border, so you have already failed. And I know you may
not care, he may not care, but I want people to know where this
money is being stolen from to pay for this absurd border wall.
Keeping our troops' children in run-down crowded schools in
Fort Bragg and Fort Campbell, preventing a replacement for a
moldy, rat-infested childcare center at Joint Base Andrews, the
wall has already taken money from a wildfire flight simulator
in southern California, and a drone pilot training facility
that has sinkholes and bats.
I personally have traveled with many members of this
subcommittee around the world and looked at rusted hangars that
literally have to have their doors bound together with wire in
order to make sure that they don't damage the billions of
dollars that they are designed to protect. This is a tiny
sample of the sacrificed projects from the money you stole for
this boondoggle of a border wall.
Now, Mr. Wolf, I know that the President doesn't care about
our military enough to actually protect them and their
families, but don't you agree that canceling necessary and
overdue projects for our men and women in uniform is
detrimental to their quality of life and readiness? And don't
you worry about the terrible precedent that this sets?
Mr. Wolf. Again, I have had numerous conversations with the
Secretary of Defense regarding this.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am asking what you think, not what
Secretary Esper thinks.
Mr. Wolf. What I would say is that the violence that we
see, and I talk to the law enforcement community across the
southwest border. I think some of those comments trivialize the
violence that they see that they have to deal with on the
southwest.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Including a border wall to block
that is more important than any of the money that----
Mr. Wolf. I would say we have competing priorities, and we
will continue to balance those. The President has made a
decision, and we continue to operate and continue to build the
border wall system to reduce that--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Reclaiming my time.
What is evident is that Mr. Trump's fake professed love of
the military has been absent. It was all a scam. And this is
what happens when you elect someone and allow someone who is as
inept as he is run the government of the most powerful Nation
on earth that is supposed to be protecting our men and women in
uniform, who are working every day to protect us. It is called
a kakistocracy. Look it up if you need to. And I yield my time.
Mr. Wolf. I would say that there is no bigger supporter----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I yield my time. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Chairwoman, may I respond?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No. I have yielded back. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. You will have an opportunity to respond
when we go to the second round. This completes the first round.
Mr. Secretary, despite guidance that vulnerable populations
are not amenable to placement in the MPP program, CBP is still
sending pregnant women, persons with disabilities, including
children and LGBT migrants back to Mexico, an unfamiliar place
where a vast majority of the migrants to wait months for the
immigration court proceedings.
Just a few weeks ago, CBP placed a family into the program,
that under any reasonable definition, should have been
considered vulnerable based on the medical condition of one of
the family members, a 7-year-old girl who has lissencephaly, a
seizure disorder, and is severely developmentally delayed. She
needs daily medications, but still has seizures every 10 days
and has a life expectancy of only a few more years.
Nevertheless, you refuse to reverse the decision to place
the family into MPP, and so they will be in Mexico for months
in squalid conditions awaiting their immigration hearings. Your
reasoning for not helping this child was reportedly that you
did not want to contradict CBP's field personnel, but this is
not an operational issue. It is a policy decision, and you are
the political appointee who makes policy decisions.
Under current CBP guidance, is a family like this really
amenable to placement into MPP, a family with a child who has
life-threatening medical conditions? And if not, who is
considered medically vulnerable enough under CBP guidance to
not be amenable to placement in the program?
Mr. Wolf. We certainly do allow our CBP officers guided by
policy to make those decisions, and, so, part of that
characterization is accurate. What I would also say is that we
look at populations that need emergent care, life-threatening
care, and we provide that, and we parole--CPB paroles, ICE
paroles individuals into the country every single day.
What we have to make the decision on, lots of times, is
chronic illnesses, chronic disease versus life-threatening and
emergent response that they absolutely need. And, so, our CBP
officers, the port director at those MPP facilities, make those
decisions every day guided by policy.
Again, we have talked about this. I know I have talked
about it. Our staffs have talked about this. Happy to clarify
if you believe further clarification is needed. But again, we
want to make sure that we provide that latitude to our CBP, to
our port directors, to make that call on what is emergent,
life-threatening versus what is just a chronic illness that can
be provided for in other locations as well.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well, this is a chronic illness that the
child has where she has seizures every 10 days and needs this
medication. And unfortunately, in choosing to send this
chronically ill, severely disabled child to Mexico, the
Department made no effort to ensure that she will get the
treatment and the care that she needs. So do you really think
that it is OK for the Department to wash its hands of the
welfare of these returned migrants?
Mr. Wolf. Again----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Because, you know, we talk about this
country, that country, they are going to help, OK, so we send
them there. But we just wash our hands. And you heard from Mr.
Aguilar the conditions under which they are living and what is
happening to them.
Mr. Wolf. You know, I would not----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. How would you----
Mr. Wolf. I would not agree that we wash our hands of any
matter. Any time they are in MPP, as we indicated, I indicated
earlier, they come back into the U.S. for those proceedings.
They get medically screened each and every time they come back
into the U.S. And, so, each and every time, they get assessed
again by medical, mostly contract professionals and CBP
officers, about their condition, if it has changed, if it has
worsened, every time they come back in. So I would disagree
that we wash our hands of the matter. We are allowing CBP
officers----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. They could be there for weeks or months,
and we do nothing to address the conditions under which they
are living, which have been already described by Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Wolf. Again, I would say that, again, we are working
with our Department of State colleagues, we provided over $20
million for those facilities to help, again, some of the NGOs,
UNHCR and IOM, to go in there to construct those facilities, to
improve those facilities, provide security for those
facilities.
So, again, there is a number of things the Department is
doing, not only ourselves, but again, with some of our other
agency colleagues to address MPP, to continue to improve the
MPP program.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well, something is clearly not working,
given what is actually happening. And do you have any metrics
or other data to show that the CBP personnel understand and are
following the guidance related to vulnerable populations?
Mr. Wolf. Data that shows that they understand? I am not
sure I understand the question.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well, I mean, isn't----
Mr. Wolf. Are you asking for data, how many folks they let
in or----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. No. That they understand how to evaluate
whether or not someone should, or can be sent to MPP. I mean,
do you have that--do they understand--do they have the
guidance?
Mr. Wolf. I am happy to go back and look at both the
guidance and the training they are provided, and we are happy
to provide that to the committee. I don't have that here with
me today.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. OK. I would appreciate that, thank you,
because it appears that they do not.
OK. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you again, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, again, I want to thank you for being here
today, and for your well-reasoned responses to our questions.
Really, you have got an arduous task, carrying out the
administration's requests, largely which I agree with, so I
wanted to thank you and the men and women who are dedicated to
doing that.
As you know, Congress passed the REAL ID Act more than 14
years ago, and the deadline for compliance is about to come up
in October. From my understanding, a majority of Americans
still don't have a compliant ID, and many don't even know they
need one. My first question, sir, is what the Department doing
to get out the message to the American people and make sure
folks get a REAL ID? And I will ask--I have got a series of
questions, but we will start with that one, sir.
Mr. Wolf. So thank you. We are doing a robust
communications plan both at headquarters and at TSA. We have
individuals engaged on that, reaching out to a number of
stakeholders, particularly focused on the transportation
industry and the aviation industry.
As you indicated, individuals that are wanting to fly
commercially in October 2020 need to have a REAL ID, so they
need to see that star on their driver's license to do that.
Unfortunately, right now, we are about at 35 percent of IDs
that we see out there in circulation are REAL IDs, so that is a
relatively low number.
As we look towards October 2020, we believe that, you know,
the States have had 14 years, as you indicated, Ranking Member,
to roll this out. We believe that is enough time. This is a
security issue. We encourage them to continue to issue cards.
All 50 States and territories are compliant, but not everyone
is issuing cards. We still have some States that have not
issued REAL ID cards. So the prospect of them being able to
issue all of their constituents in that particular State, a
REAL ID by October 2020 is probably fairly small.
So the Department is trying to do a number of initiatives.
One action that I took, I think it was about a week and a half
to 2 weeks ago, is to allow individuals coming into DMV to
submit their documents electronically to DMV before they
arrive, so DMV can take a look at that and say, yes, these are
the documents you need, or these are not the documents you
need, and we can cut out some of the back and forth that we
hear.
We would like to do more. We are taking a look at more
things that we can do, and we may be back to Congress at some
point asking for some legislative relief to that 2006 law which
is very prescriptive. There were no smartphones at the time, so
the idea of being able to transfer information electronically
at the time was not contemplated.
So we will continue to look at that. We will continue to
assess the compliance rates. We are asking for information from
all States on a monthly basis to determine as we move closer
and closer to that October 2020 date, what will be the state of
compliance.
Mr. Fleischmann. Well, thank you. So as a follow-up, then,
Mr. Secretary, there is a recognition that there may need some
type of request for additional time for compliance by the
States on your part, or on the part of the Department. Does the
Department intend to develop any alternative screening
procedures for airline passengers arriving into airport without
a REAL ID or acceptable alternatives beginning October 1st?
Mr. Wolf. So we talk about that issue quite often with TSA.
TSA, as you know, they don't struggle. They do a very good job
adjudicating the passengers that they have in line today. They
are not set up, they are not resourced to adjudicate IDs of
thousands of thousands, perhaps, millions of passengers come
October 2020, so yes. They are continuing to look at
operational solutions. I will say, none of those solutions are
good.
What we are focused on at the Department is making sure we
get enough of the REAL IDs out there into individuals' hands to
continue to push that. What we are doing today at TSA
checkpoints is there is signage up. There is videos up. Each
TSA officer, when they get presented an ID that is not REAL ID,
they remind that passenger if you don't have a REAL ID, you
should go in and get it.
We are also trying to push messaging that come October
2020, you need a REAL ID, but there are other alternative
forms. There is a passport. There is a military ID. There are
other alternative forms that you can show up at the airport and
utilize as well, so we are trying to blanket our
constituencies.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. My time is waning, so I
will be very quick.
Customs and Border Protection has pursued a successful
public/private partnership with airlines and airports to meet
Congressional mandate for biometric exit and entry. These
deployments also create opportunities to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of your operations. These achievements have
been important test beds for these technologies that can be
utilized in other applications within CBP and throughout DHS.
Very quickly, sir, how do you foresee the development of
facial recognition technology expanding in fiscal year 2021,
and beyond entry for exit air and sea borders?
Mr. Wolf. CBP continues to work on the exit part of the
entry/exit program using a variety of biometrics. TSA, I would
say, is also very interested in learning what CBP is doing from
their pilot phases. It is also looking at some of that
biometric technology on how they can apply that at the
checkpoint as well to utilize, again, some of the experience,
some of the backbone of that.
So my job at the Department is seeing what Centers of
Excellence that we may have at CBP that are doing biometrics
and facial recognition, particularly on that air exit side, and
how we can scale that across the Department at TSA and some of
our other travel programs that we use.
Again, I think any time you talk about biometrics and
facial recognition, we have got to talk about privacy, and so
that is something that the Department keeps, you know, very
focused on, making sure as we roll out these programs, that we
are keeping U.S. citizens' privacy protected, civil liberties
protected, and that is something that we hear about at the
Department as well with these programs.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you again, Mr. Secretary.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, Mr.
Secretary, appreciate the work that you and your men and women
do. We support them. Sometimes we disagree on the policy, but
that is nothing on our support to the men and women.
Let me go back to the wall issue in our area. One of the
things I would ask you: When you look at a map from Washington,
D.C., and look at the border, it is so easy to say I want new
miles here, new miles over here. It is very easy to do that.
But once you drill in and you see what is there and the people
that live there, and some of them have lived there for
generations, you see some historic areas.
For example, one of the areas that y'all are looking at is
the Trevino-Uribe Rancho which is a national historic site.
They are in San Ygnacio, Texas. San Ygnacio, in 1972, was
listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. And I am
looking at your preserving cultural resources web page on that,
and just ask you to make sure that we really follow the rule
and the spirit on that. You know, I have added language--we
have added language to say no funds will be used on historical
cemeteries, a chapel, and I think there is six different
exceptions that we have been able to add there.
So I would ask you all just to not look at this from
Washington. It is so easy, you know, for Members of Congress or
administrators just to look at it and just see a border. It is
a lot more. There are real people there, real historic areas. I
would ask you to just please take a look at--I mean, including
the Laredo Community College. I mean, I have been emailing with
my president there, and there is an old historic fort there,
where the Army used to have this fort, and they are already
asking the right-of-way request to have access, and it is right
there by this historic fort. So I would ask your folks to just
be a little bit more sensitive to look at that, number one.
And then if I can ask you a second question and ask you to
answer that when I finish. But the other thing is, the two
things that Mexico wanted from the United States was the USMCA,
which we have done. We passed that. But the other thing was to
help them stop the illegal arms from going into Mexico. And I
know there has been different attempts, and I had the
chairwoman down there. We were talking to Mexican officials.
They said that is our number one issue.
I don't know if you can come up with an idea, because I
know there has been different thoughts that we have looked at,
you know, do we put some sort of technology, do we put
personnel? I know because most of it is going north, of course,
but if there is something else we can do, I really would
appreciate your thoughts on that.
Finally, the last question is MPP. The city of Laredo--I
would like to meet the person who made this decision for you.
You were not here, but the city of Laredo offered them for $1,
18 months of a facility that is right there. We met with them
on a Thursday. By Monday morning, they just disregarded
everything we said. When I asked them how much money they were
going to spend, they couldn't tell me. They knew, but they
didn't want to tell me. And actually, it was--literally, it
would be a $70 million contract, $35 million in Laredo where
they put this in an area that is has flooded in the past. They
did it before the International Boundary Water Commission gave
them the OK. They started doing that. I called the
commissioner. She had no idea. A little bit after that, they
got given the OK.
So I mean, I can understand, you know, we are moving fast.
It was before you were there, but $1 for 18 months, a facility
that would have been a better place for y'all, a better place
for the people that are coming in through the MPP program, but
they decided to spend $35 million to put tents there.
Now, they said, Well, we don't know how many people are
going to come in. You know the numbers. 50 percent of them are
not going to show up. I can tell you why. Some of them thought
they were just going to walk in and say, Hey, I go in, right
into the United States, and you know, except for Cubans,
Venezuelans, people from other places, Africa, that traveled a
long way, the rest are saying I thought I was just going to go
into the U.S. I mean, that is one of the successes of the MPP.
But I just cannot understand when the city of Laredo was
able to say we will get this done as fast as you want it for
$1, and I really would like to meet your person to say why were
you willing to spend $35 million in Laredo when it could have
been done for $1. I would like to meet that person. Nobody
seems to tell me--nobody wants to take the responsibility, but
$35 million is wasted taxpayers' dollars. And again, I am not
blaming you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah.
Mr. Cuellar. I look forward to working with you, but it is
just a little frustrating.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I appreciate you raising that. That is the
first time I have heard that, particularly the Laredo facility,
the MPP--or the facility and that contract. So I will take a
look, I will certainly inquire and see if there were valid
reasons or not into that.
On the southbound weapons, yes. That is a topic of
discussion that we have often with the Government of Mexico. I
have talked to AG Barr about it as well. I think there is
obviously a lot that the Department can do from a CBP
perspective as well as an ICE his perspective on the
investigation front, but we also need ATF, DEA. We need other
elements. And that is what we are pulling together, both with
DHS and with the Department of Justice. And Commissioner Morgan
has thought this through, and is outlining a program to
enforce--or, sorry--increase southbound--it is inspections, but
it is also just investigations as well. The inspections are
good, but they are easily defeated, as I am sure you know. You
set up a checkpoint, and the word gets out, and they just go
around.
So they are trying to get it at the source. They are trying
to get, you know, if they are buying weapons in bulk in, you
know, other places in the country, in Oklahoma, Kansas, and
elsewhere, trying to work with the ATF to determine those types
of purchases to see and then tracking those and trying to get
it at the source that way. So there is a number of things that
we are doing both on the detection side, but also trying on
that investigative side.
Mr. Cuellar. Give us a plan, and we will work with you.
Thank you. We will talk about the wall at a later time. Thank
you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know, something that I like to bring up in these
hearings, whether it is DoD or Homeland Security, is a
conversation about the Jones Act. Are you familiar with the
Jones Act?
Mr. Wolf. I am. I am familiar with it.
Mr. Palazzo. I think I have been one of the most outspoken
advocates in my 10 years of serving in Congress, because I
believe it to be truly important to our national security, but
I would like to briefly hear in your own words why you think
the Jones Act is important and to protect the Jones Act and not
to weaken it with waivers.
Mr. Wolf. Right. So obviously, the Jones Act is there to
make sure that we protect U.S. businesses, U.S. interests there
that provide those capabilities along the coast to offshore
facilities. And so, we have the Jones Act there to protect
that. I am a supporter of that, a strong supporter of that.
Obviously, CBP has a role when we talk about waivers to that. I
think historically CBP has offered very, very few waivers, if
at all, and a couple of those are in extraordinary
circumstances. I know it was during some hurricanes back in
2017. I believe it was Harvey that we issued one regarding when
the pipeline went down to make sure that we could continue to
move, refine fuel and elsewhere.
So what you will find as far as my approach as a believer
in the Jones Act, CBP has to adjudicate each request for a
potential waiver coming in. I know CBP did make some
definitional changes back in October 2019, I believe, working
with industry, and I think that was a 2-year process. So happy
to continue to have those discussions to see if there is other
tweaks that need to be made. I know they engaged a number of
constituents before they rolled that out.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, and I appreciate your
comments. I know your predecessors were pretty much on the same
note that the Jones Act is vitally important to protect
America's maritime industry, and it is extremely important to
our national security. Commandants, admirals, generals have all
agreed with your assessment as well.
Real quick, we hear border security is national security.
That is so true. I have had the pleasure of serving under five
different Presidents in uniform as a member of the Reserve or
the National Guard. And I have to tell you, that this
President, in his 3 short years, he made a commitment to
rebuild our military, strengthen our Nation, and put America
first, and he has fulfilled--and he is fulfilling those
commitments. And I think the majority of the American people
see that.
And I think it is kind of a shame that, you know, if some
of the people on the other side of the aisle would put national
security and the American people ahead of partisan politics,
then he wouldn't have to be, in the terms of my colleague from
Florida using terms like stealing or robbing from DoD. He is
putting the American people first, he is choosing our national
security, and he is doing what he thinks is right, and I agree
with him. But I do believe if the others would fund the border
security, the barriers, the technology, the boots on the
ground, as well as our needs for our Department of Defense,
then we really wouldn't be having this conversation. But I do
know you were somewhat rudely cut off, and if you would like to
make any comments to my colleague's, her remarks or to mine.
Mr. Wolf. I would say, as you indicated, President Trump,
you will find no bigger supporter of both the military and the
men and women at the Department of Homeland Security, so that
is first and foremost. We certainly thank the President for
everything that he does for the Department.
I will say, again, that border security is national
security. And whether it is building a border wall system,
understanding and knowing and vetting who is coming into this
country, the goods that are coming into this country is job
number one for the Department. And so, whether, again, we are
talking about a border wall system or we are talking about
potential travel restrictions that have to reduce the threat or
the vulnerability of not understanding who is coming in, we
talked about the refugee program, making sure that we have the
right security protocols in place, that is job number one for
the Department and for the administration.
So again, the Department is doing all that it can to
increase the security, understanding who is coming into this
country. There are vulnerabilities out there that we are
addressing through a variety of programs, but as I said
earlier, and it is not a tag line, border security is national
security. I am not sure that, you know, before this
administration, that was made abundantly clear. But again, I
think under President Trump, he has made that abundantly clear
time and again.
Mr. Palazzo. I agree. Border security is national security.
It is a no-brainer. And I would like to also say that the
morale in our Nation's military is the highest that I've ever
seen it under this President because he is focused on the men
and women in uniform, their families as well as fulfilling the
commitments to our veterans to make sure that they have the
healthcare that they deserve and that they have earned.
And so I would like to also just say, you know, you have a
huge mission securing and protecting our homeland, so thank you
for your work, and thank you to the tens of thousands of
dedicated employees under your watch. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Just picking up on this last discussion, you would agree,
wouldn't you, Mr. Secretary, that the considered judgment of
the Congress in writing the Military Construction
appropriations bill is also about national security?
Mr. Wolf. I would.
Mr. Price. And that there is a burden of proof on the
President or anyone else who would come in and divert that
funding, the prerogatives of the Congress notwithstanding, for
a preferred project down on the border, presuming--presuming--
to judge that that vision of national security trumps the best
judgment of the Congress with respect to the Military
Construction appropriations bill.
You are OK with that?
Mr. Wolf. I would certainly agree that it is not only the
President's decision. Obviously, it is informed by what you do
here in Congress, the funding that you pass and the President's
budget, as well as authorizing bills. So, yes, it is a shared
responsibility.
Mr. Price. A shared responsibility that we need to figure
out how to assert sooner rather than later.
Let me ask you a quick question to which I hope you can
give me a reassuring answer, and then I want to turn to a
somewhat more complicated matter--that is, this renewed travel
ban.
But, first, the question of earthquake recovery assistance
in Puerto Rico. As you well know, there was a devastating
series of earthquakes in December that caused further damage to
an island already damaged by previous disasters.
The President quickly declared a major disaster based on
the earthquakes on January 16, but he did limit Puerto Rico's
eligibility for assistance to debris removal and emergency
protective measures.
In briefings since then, FEMA has acknowledged that damage
from the earthquakes more than meets the criteria to make
Puerto Rico eligible for assistance to repair or replace
damaged facilities. So I am asking you, why hasn't the disaster
declaration been extended to include the repair or replacement
of damaged facilities? And when can we anticipate that it will
be amended in that respect?
Mr. Wolf. I can certainly follow up with FEMA Administrator
Gaynor on that front. I am aware of----
Mr. Price. I am sorry, you say you will follow up?
Mr. Wolf. I will follow up. Obviously, those requests,
those declarations come through FEMA from--this case, from the
Governor of Puerto Rico. So I will look into that.
I don't have specific information on why certain categories
of that funding--I understand what the President approved. I
think you are talking about additional categories----
Mr. Price. Well, I am talking about what would normally be
included in such a declaration.
Mr. Wolf. Of course, FEMA looks at any declaration, any
request for funding under the Stafford Act. Obviously, that is
not just a check. They go through a series----
Mr. Price. Yeah. The Governor requested this over a month
ago, January 11, as I understand.
But the point is, why wouldn't this be routinely done? We
are talking about FEMA assistance that applies to a disaster of
this sort. Your own FEMA officials readily acknowledge that the
damage meets the criteria. So why not amend that declaration?
Mr. Wolf. So, again, I am happy to work with the FEMA
Administrator to get a little bit more information on that.
Again, FEMA assesses each request that comes in from the
Governor, in this case, looking at an analysis--you know, doing
the analysis and determining whether it meets the thresholds
and, if it does, making a recommendation to the President.
So we will continue to do that. That is a process that has
been long in place. And, again, happy to follow up with FEMA to
see where they are at in that process.
Mr. Price. Yeah. Normally, this is not a point of delay.
There are other points of delay. But we would appreciate a
quick response on that and, hopefully, a favorable amending of
the declaration.
Well, my time is moving right along here, so I do want to
at least pose the question about the expanded travel ban and
then maybe be able to complete it in the next round.
As you know, DHS has announced new travel restrictions on
an interesting list of countries. I can't make much of the
coherence of the list. It includes the only parliamentary
democracy in Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan. It includes large and
strategic countries in Africa--Nigeria, Tanzania, and so on.
And, meanwhile, the original restrictions are maintained on
Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, North Korea, and Venezuela.
That is a huge number of countries. The Muslim ban, as revised,
you might say, and expanded.
And we all know the hardships these pose, these bans pose.
They deny people the opportunity to reunite with their
families. They deny opportunities for educational and
professional development. They deny lifesaving medical care and
so on. There should be a heavy, heavy burden of proof on
imposing or maintaining this sort of ban.
So I have three interrelated questions, and maybe we will
have to wait until the next round.
One, why are these countries singled out? What is the
thread connecting this seemingly incoherent list?
Two, even if there are legitimate security concerns--and
there may well be--why a travel ban? What happened to normal
diplomatic interactions and other avenues of dealing with this?
Is the draconian remedy of a travel ban really the best remedy?
And I will have some other questions as a followup, but we
can wait because I know my time has expired.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes.
Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. I am waiting on the clock.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I want to go back just one moment to the
ports and container units coming in and being screened. I want
to make sure that we get that information on what percentage is
actually being screened at this time.
There are some new and emerging technologies out there that
I think have the capability to really get us to where--I think
Congress set the goal at 100 percent a few years ago. And we
are nowhere near that, is my understanding. So I look forward
to working with your folks on that.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah. Again, one of the reasons I took that back
is I want to make sure that we get you right information.
Obviously, we do a number of screenings overseas at various
ports.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Mr. Wolf. We also do targeting information to identify
those high-risk cargos. So, again, when we talk about
targeting, sometimes we talk about screened cargo.
So, happy to work with you and your staff to understand the
specific datasets that you are looking for, and happy to get
back to you with that.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. Thank you.
On another issue, the State of Florida right now is looking
at some legislation to possibly require E-Verify across the
State. And one of the concerns that I have heard is that the E-
Verify system has some drawbacks--the time, I think, to get
responses and that sort of thing.
Can you talk a little bit about any improvements or
enhancements that may be coming for the E-Verify system?
Mr. Wolf. Well, that is a system that--I think your
comments are spot on on that. We have heard from a number of
business communities that talk about the difficult nature of
that program, not only using it but getting results back. So we
have a number of initiatives underway at USCIS, which runs that
program.
I will say that we look at the voluntary nature and use of
that program versus the mandatory use of that and how do we do
that. And the imposition that that would place on companies, we
balance that with making sure that workers are protected as
well. So it is a balance that we continue to look at and
continue to review on a number of our different programs.
We provide a lot of, I would say, technical assistance on a
lot of different pieces of legislation that target E-Verify.
But, again, happy to maybe provide you a fuller briefing. We
have an office at USCIS that that is all they do, is E-Verify.
And I can run you through----
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah, I would love to hear about that,
particularly as we are moving forward with that. So thank you.
Thank you for that.
And this kind of blends into that, I think, maybe. Can you
talk a little bit about CISA and, you know, the--I mean,
obviously, we have the 2020 elections coming up. I see $1.1
billion dedicated here for CISA and addressing not just the
election issues but, obviously, the cybersecurity for our
communications and a lot of other situations as well.
Can you talk about, is that going to be sufficient for
those innovations that we need to move forward with through
CISA?
Mr. Wolf. It is. The President's 2021 budget request fully
supports the missions of CISA. And the priorities that they
have include Federal cybersecurity, so that is protecting the
Federal networks; of course, election security as we are in the
2020 cycle; soft-target security; supply-chain security; 5G
security; and the like. So there are a number of priorities
that CISA has.
When we talk about election security, obviously, that is
sort of front and center as we continue throughout this year.
So CISA is going above and beyond. We saw improvements made
over 2016 as we went into the 2018 elections--one of the most
safe, secure elections that we have had. We will continue that
progress in 2020.
And they are doing that in a variety of different ways.
They are providing no-cost services to secretaries of States,
who control the election systems in individual States. They are
providing those same services to political parties, to
campaigns, to every campaign. Some choose to take them up; some
choose not.
We are trying to educate voters. Voters have a play and a
responsibility here when we talk about our elections, trying to
make sure that they can identify perhaps disinformation or
information that is not from a trusted source. So we are
continuing to try to educate them on there.
And then there are some other operational things that we
are doing, such as Hunt testing and the like. So trying to
cover the wide variety of services that States and locals need.
But I will say that CISA's primary role and responsibility
in election security is to push those resources and those tools
to the local State and election officials. And they are doing
that better today than they have ever before. In 2016, very few
relationships between the Department of Homeland Security and
secretaries of State. Today, all 50 States, we are talking to
all 50 States, over 2,300 jurisdictions. And so we feel very,
very good at where we are at at this point.
Mr. Rutherford. I know the supervisors of elections that I
have talked to are very appreciative of the cooperation and the
assistance that they have gotten.
And I will close with this. I want to thank you all also
for paying great attention to the emergency communications
program for public safety and that whole repackaging. As a law
enforcement officer, a first responder, like our fire and
rescue and others, obviously, our lives rely on that
communication. And I think you all are doing a great job in
addressing that issue, and I thank you for that.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Rutherford. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. We will have a third round.
Before I ask my question, I just want to go back to the
whole issue of that 7-year-old little girl. As a mother, I just
can't accept that we would send a 7-year-old child who is
extremely ill, has uncontrollable seizures, back to Mexico and
the deplorable conditions that have been described there.
So what I am hoping, that I can get a commitment from you
to work with me and to work with my office to see about the
possibility of having a qualified medical personnel outside of
the operational agency review such medical records, and also to
work with us to define what is medically vulnerable, perhaps
working with your policy office and the Department's Chief
Medical Office on a definition.
Mr. Wolf. So, again, I certainly understand the issue. As a
father of two young boys, this is personal to me as well. And I
would say, for our CBP officers that have to make these
decisions every day, they are not easy decisions.
So I understand the concerns. Happy to work with yourself
and the committee staff to address any, you know, daylight
between the policy guidance out there and the decisions that
they make every day. So, happy to continue to have a dialogue
about that.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. See if we can address that. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, we continue to receive damaging reports
about unacceptable, substandard conditions at ICE and CBP
detention facilities. For example, at ICE's Cibola Detention
Center, the conditions for several months were so bad they
transferred out all ICE detainees with chronic medical
conditions.
And this is not a new problem. There are well-documented
deficiencies over many years that range from nutrition to
medical care, to due-process issues and even basic humane
treatment. And we have seen some of these deficiencies during
our visits to facilities across the country. But the problems
persist, and as the size of the detained population increases,
they appear to be getting worse.
As we have discussed, improving the quality of care for
migrants in DHS custody is an area in which we can and should
be able to make progress together. In our fiscal year 2020
bill, we provided resources to ICE's Office of Professional
Responsibility to hire additional detention facility
inspectors, with a goal of increasing inspections from once
every 3 years to twice per year.
We also significantly increased funding for the inspector
general and for the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,
with direction to use those resources for immigration
enforcement and detention oversight.
To help ensure that this enhanced oversight actually
results in changes to the quality of care that is provided to
the people in DHS custody, we also established and funded a new
ombudsman for immigration detention.
My question is, what is the status of establishing this new
ombudsman office? And because it is critical that the ombudsman
and the new office be widely perceived as fair and objective
and for the ombudsman to meet the professional criteria
established in the fiscal year 2020 bill, what guarantee can
you give us that you will do everything possible to ensure that
the first ombudsman will, in fact, meet these criteria?
Mr. Wolf. Absolutely, you have my commitment that they
will.
So we are in the process of standing that up. As you know,
we have a working group that is going to come back 90 days from
when that bill was passed, which I believe is the middle of
March, March 14, to come back with a plan for the office, not
only a strategic plan but more of an operational plan. How is
it going to be staffed? What is its focus? What are the
priorities? So I look forward to getting that, and we will
certainly come and talk to the committee about that and
yourself about that plan.
The idea after that 90 days is to make sure that that
office is up and running within 6 months. I am going to see
what we can do, once I get that plan, to try to shorten that
timeframe. I think that we can.
And, of course, after that 90 days, we will start to look
at--we are already starting to--trying to identify who might
run this office in the long term. So we want to make sure that
we get professional folks in there that have a background not
only in detention but detention standards, that come from this
community, to be the most successful in the job.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. OK. So the ombudsman will be reporting
directly to you so that you will have an unfiltered window on
detention conditions.
Mr. Wolf. Correct.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And just based on your comments, I take
it that you are committed to ensuring that this new ombudsman
will be used to improve the conditions at DHS detention
facilities. Is that correct?
Mr. Wolf. That is correct, as the committee and the
Congress directed.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann. I have no further questions. I just want
to thank the Secretary for his testimony today.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price?
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, let me return to the question I was
articulating when my time ran out, because it is an important
question. And I will just repeat it very briefly.
I am asking about the expanded travel ban, which now has
reached large proportions, affecting, by our calculation, about
300 million people. And I was asking you about the newly
targeted countries. Are they unique? Are they being singled out
as examples, or are there unique problems here? What is the
nature of this seemingly incoherent list?
Secondly, if there are legitimate security concerns--and I
am aware there may well be--if there are legitimate security
concerns with these countries and the way they handle security,
is a travel ban the way to disagree with them, to express
disagreement, and, above all, to secure improvement? Is a
travel ban--should we see it just as a punitive measure
designed to single out these countries and somehow punish them?
Or is a travel ban somehow designed to fix the problem? It
looks like a blunt instrument.
I am assuming that the reason for each of these countries
being included is not the same. And so the question is, does
one size fit all in terms of a remedy? Or are we just singling
them out and doing that in a punitive way, or is this actually
a remedy?
And then, thirdly, assuming it is a remedy, just giving the
benefit of the doubt to the policy, it seems strange on the
face of it. How are you addressing a national security concern
if the travel ban doesn't even apply to nonimmigrant visas?
Individuals who receive immigrant visas are already highly
scrutinized, and they presumably are very, very--if this is
about security, there are very stringent vetting procedures in
place. But you are not applying this to nonimmigrant visas. So,
as a practical matter, how is this supposed to work?
So those are three questions that I hope you can help us
understand.
Mr. Wolf. I would start by saying that understanding who
comes into the country is first and foremost.
Let me answer it in a long way, to say that, starting in
2017 and then of course in 2018 with the original travel
restrictions, as you mentioned, Congressman, of the seven
countries, the Supreme Court upheld that, upheld the process
that we went through during that. And over the next several
years, we have only increased and enhanced that process.
So, every 6 months, we adjudicate whether certain countries
are meeting certain baseline security requirements, such as: Do
they have an electronic passport? Do they share lost and stolen
passports with Interpol? Do they share known and suspected
terrorist information with the U.S.? Do they share examples of
their passport to U.S. so CBP and Customs officers can know
what a fraudulent is or is not?
So what we did back in March 2019 is we demarched all 200
countries. We gave them the survey, we gave them all the
questions and started to work with them, State Department did,
in all of those locations to say, ``Here is the information
that we need from you.'' We went through 6, 7, 8 months of
that.
These countries knew where they stood, knew that they were
deficient, knew that they could not answer, they could not
address. We worked with them. We tried to put a number of them
on improvement plans--that is my term; that is not the official
term--tried to put them on a number of plans.
We saw a number of countries during that process who were
not going to meet these minimum baseline security requirements
step up and put measures in place so that they did meet them.
What you see with these 6 countries, out of all 200
countries, is a very few, a very small set that were not able
to meet minimum basic security requirements that then get put
on travel restrictions to reduce that vulnerability.
Going forward, to answer your last question, I believe is,
if you look at the original seven, obviously, we not only
looked at immigrant visa restrictions and nonimmigrant visa
restrictions--the six countries that are more targeted today,
obviously, the U.S. has a relationship with them. Many of them
want to work with the U.S. Government and certainly want to
address their vulnerabilities for a variety of different
reasons. And they are all very different. They were simply
unable to meet the minimum requirements.
And, again, the President's Executive order and the like
tells us to look at that vulnerability and then make
recommendations to him to address those vulnerabilities.
So, again, the targeted restrictions, travel restrictions,
that we have on these six countries are very targeted. And what
we have already seen is that a number of these countries, even
though we have been in discussions with them for 6 or 7 or 8
months, it is only when we put a travel restriction that they
then say, OK, let us really now talk to you about how we get
off of this.
And we saw that back in 2017 and 2018 with the Republic of
Chad, who was originally on the list. They did a number of
improvements shortly after those travel restrictions came out,
and we provided them an off-ramp, and then the President took
them off of those travel restrictions.
So I would say that it is a very transparent process to
these countries on how both to meet the minimum requirements
but then how to increase their measures to provide that off-
ramp and to be removed from those travel restrictions.
Mr. Price. All right. So there are not more where these
came from, necessarily. These are unique cases. In all of
Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan is the only country that there is a
problem with.
Mr. Wolf. I would say we had deficiencies across the board.
We had to draw a line, using a variety of assessments, to say,
there are minimum baseline requirements that everyone should
meet. Even countries that meet that baseline requirement that
may perhaps not be on the travel restrictions, we are still
working with them, we still want them to do more, we need them
to do more. And we continue to have that dialogue with them.
These are, again, six countries that for a variety of
different reasons were not able to meet the minimum basic
security standards that we require.
Mr. Price. Well, Madam Chairman, I know my time has once
again expired.
Let me just express the strong hope that we will work with
these countries constructively.
Mr. Wolf. We will.
Mr. Price. It is important not just to call them out, not
just to impose punitive measures, but to work--whatever the
problems are, to work them out and to work them out
cooperatively. Because on this list are countries that we have
had good relationships with, important relationships with. And
those relationships are very, very important and, I would say,
transcend the minor differences we might have.
Mr. Wolf. Yes. And I will say that, you know, as part of
the process, DHS does this assessment, and we provide
recommendations to the interagency. So we have departments and
agencies, like DoD and others, that provide input to the final
recommendations presented to the President. So a lot of the
other considerations and national security considerations and
others are factored into those recommendations to the
President.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Secretary, before adjourning, I was
going to ask if you had any closing comments or clarifications.
I believe Mr. Palazzo gave you that opportunity, but if there
is anything else that you would like to say before we adjourn.
Mr. Wolf. No. And I appreciate the opportunity to do that.
I would just say, again, I always like to talk about the
men and women of DHS in every opportunity. I think in many
instances they are unfairly criticized. And I think we all can
agree that--again, I keep saying, not only border security but,
I would just say, homeland security is national security.
And so, you know, my message would be to the men and women
of the Department of Homeland Security that continue to do
their job every day. You know, considering the noise and the
environment that we are in, their job is very difficult. It is
very dangerous, whether it is on the border, whether it is in
the interior, whether it is on Coast Guard ships, anywhere and
everywhere that they serve, very dangerous job. And I need them
focused on their mission every day and not worrying about the
noise that they hear in the background.
And so, again, I thank the men and women for what they do
every day. I thank the committee for the resources that you
provide the Department to do our mission, and look forward to
the continued dialogue.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
And if there are no more questions, we are adjourned.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]