[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
         DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                              SECOND SESSION

                                   _______

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

              LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California, Chairwoman

  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas                     CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois               STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina           JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland      ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
  PETE AGUILAR, California

  

  NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair 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, Kris Mallard, Bob Joachim,
            Mike Herman, Victoria Allred, and Takeena Strachan
                            Subcommittee Staff

                                 ________

                                  PART 2
                                  
                     DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                                                                   Page
  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services................................
                                                                      1
  U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 
Office of the Inspector General.........
                                                                     39
  U.S. Department of Homeland Security..
                                                                     77
  Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 
Security Agency.........................
                                                                    127
                                                    
                                                                    

         
          
          
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         
 
 
          
           Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
          

                              ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
50-078                WASHINGTON : 2023
  



                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair


  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                           KAY GRANGER, Texas
  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina               HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California            ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia              MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  BARBARA LEE, California                      JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota                    KEN CALVERT, California
  TIM RYAN, Ohio                               TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland          MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida            STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas                         CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine                       JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois                       DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  DEREK KILMER, Washington                     ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  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            DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  PETE AGUILAR, California                     DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida                        JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois                       JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey            BEN CLINE, Virginia
  BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan                 GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  NORMA J. TORRES, California                  MIKE GARCIA, California
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida                       ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona                     TONY GONZALES, Texas
  ED CASE, Hawaii                              JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada

  
  
  

                 Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023

                              ----------                              --
--------

                                          Wednesday, April 6, 2022.

               U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

                                WITNESS

UR M. JADDOU, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security 
will come to order.
    As this hearing is being conducted virtually, we must 
address a few housekeeping matters.
    During today's virtual hearing, members are responsible for 
muting and unmuting themselves. When you are recognized to 
speak, if I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will 
ask you if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you 
indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute your 
microphone.
    To avoid inadvertent background noise, the Chair, or staff 
designated by the Chair, may mute participant microphones when 
they are not recognized to speak.
    If there is a technology issue during a member's speaking 
time, we will move to the next member until the issue is 
resolved, and you will retain the balance of your time.
    We will be following the 5-minute rule. With 1 minute 
remaining in your time, the clock will turn yellow. When your 
time has expired, the clock will turn red, and it will be time 
to recognize the next member.
    We will follow the speaking order set forth in the House 
rules, beginning with the Chair and ranking member, followed by 
members present at the time that the hearing is called to order 
in order of seniority and we will alternate by party. Next, we 
will go to the members who were not present when the hearing 
was called to order, until every member present has had a first 
round.
    Members can submit information in writing at any of our 
hearings or markups using the email address provided in advance 
to your staff.
    Now, let's begin.
    Today, I welcome Ms. Ur Jaddou, the Director of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, who is here to discuss 
the fiscal year 2023 budget request for USCIS, the management 
of its resources, and its operational priorities and 
challenges. Thank you for being here this morning.
    Director, coming into this job, you inherited massive 
challenges: eroding public confidence stemming from poor fiscal 
management, and growing backlogs of applications and petitions 
that caused significant harm to individuals, communities, and 
businesses who rely on fair and timely USCIS processing and 
adjudication of benefits.
    USCIS and State Department operations also have been 
significantly impacted by the pandemic, further exacerbating 
these backlogs.
    While it is easy to fixate on the challenges that still 
face the agency, it is important to acknowledge progress that 
has been made. You and the Biden/Harris administration have 
taken many important steps, beginning with the issuance of 
Executive Orders and proclamations aimed at restoring faith in 
our legal immigration system.
    In addition, you have removed unnecessary barriers to 
naturalization for eligible individuals; withdrawn the punitive 
public charge rule; restored and expanded the Central American 
Minors Program; made it easier for active military personnel 
and veterans, including those residing outside of the U.S., to 
become citizens; updated guidance on VAWA self-petitions to 
better align with the intent of the program; put a stop to the 
practice of returning applications with minor mistakes or 
omissions; and decrease the pending naturalization case queue 
by approximately 20 percent in 2021 and return to pre-pandemic 
processing levels for naturalization.
    Thank you for your leadership on each of these 
accomplishments, but we cannot rest on our laurels. As of the 
end of January of this year, USCIS had a backlog of more than 
5.26 million forms, representing nearly 62 percent of its total 
pending inventory. This is the most pressing challenge facing 
this agency right now.
    Congress provided $275 million in discretionary funding in 
the recently enacted funding bill for fiscal year 2022 to help 
you address this problem, and your fiscal year 2023 budget 
proposes additional appropriated resources to address for these 
purposes.
    For USCIS's humanitarian work, such as its asylum and 
refugee program, the request also reflects the beginning of an 
important and long-overdue transition away from fee funding to 
appropriated funding, along with new discretionary resources to 
support asylum officer adjudication of asylum claims made by 
newly-arriving migrants.
    Unfortunately, funding alone will not solve USCIS' 
challenges. The hiring freeze, in particular, has had a lasting 
detrimental impact on the agency. I look forward to hearing 
more from you today about the steps you are taking to address 
your staffing needs, the challenges you face, and where there 
are opportunities for improvement.
    I would now like to turn to the distinguished gentleman 
from Tennessee, Ranking Member Fleischmann, for his opening 
remarks.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, I really appreciate all of your 
efforts and hard work as the chair of this subcommittee, and I 
sincerely look forward to working with you and partnering with 
you as we begin our work on fiscal year 2023 and its process.
    Welcome, Director Jaddou. I thank you for joining us today. 
As we examine the USCIS budget request, I am deeply concerned 
about some of the most recent border security and immigration 
actions by this Administration, and what they portend for the 
future.
    USCIS Officers have a front-row seat to the border crisis 
that has been unfolding over the last 18 months. We have a 
record number of migrants crossing our borders illicitly, many 
of whom claim fear of persecution or torture should they return 
to their home countries. I do not doubt that there are many 
well-founded claims, but there are false ones too. It is well 
documented that migrants are coached on what to say by the 
cartels to maximize their chance of staying in the country. The 
job of the USCIS Officers is to make hard calls and separate 
legitimate from illegitimate claims, and that is no easy task.
    With the Title 42 public health authority being lifted next 
month, I fear that the surge that follows will completely 
overwhelm our border security and immigration capabilities. 
Managing the chaos from this unforced error will be a full-time 
job.
    As we turn to the USCIS budget request, once again we see 
the Administration proposes a nearly $500 million increase in 
appropriated dollars to address the growing number of 
applications waiting for a response. Backlogs are not a new 
development; rather, they have existed for quite some time and 
grow daily. The fundamental problem with supplementing the 
agency's budget with appropriated dollars is that USCIS is 
designed to be a fee-funded agency and was never intended to be 
reliant on taxpayer funds except for a few programs like E-
Verify. We should be very cautious about shifting the burden of 
these immigration services away from the individual fee payers.
    The remedy in the event of a deficit is simple: exercise 
the authority provided for in the law and set the fees at a 
level that will ensure recovery of the full costs for providing 
all such services.
    USCIS' budget proposal also calls for $375 million for 
roughly 2,000 more asylum officers in part to implement the 
Administration's ill-advised asylum officer rule.
    Under the guise of expediting asylum claims, the 
Administration proposes to have USCIS Officers do the work of 
immigration judges and adjudicate these claims. This non-
adversarial process is fundamentally flawed and will result in 
additional layers of appeals, lengthier adjudication time 
lines, and, ultimately, an increased backlog.
    In the middle of the border crisis, the President's budget 
proposes to hire nearly seven times more asylum officers to 
manage this policy-driven crisis than the Border Patrol agents 
who worked to prevent it in the first place.
    I look forward to hearing how you intend to address the 
current backlog and the potential surge stemming from the 
removal of Title 42 authority, and I thank you for coming 
before us today.
    Madam Chairwoman, I yield back. I thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
    Director Jaddou, we will submit the text of your official 
statement for the hearing record. Please begin your opening 
statement, which I would ask you keep to 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jaddou. Thank you.
    Good morning, Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member 
Fleischmann, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 
Thank you for taking the time to hear from me today. I am 
honored to have this opportunity to update you on our agency's 
budget, which is grounded in fulfilling our incredible mission 
of upholding America's promise as a nation of welcome and 
possibility for all those we serve.
    With your support, USCIS has received appropriations in the 
past and, most recently, we are very grateful for the $275 
million for USCIS to reduce the backlogs and support the 
President's refugee admissions ceiling, as well as the $193 
million to support Operation Allies Welcome.
    Each case represents a person, a family, an opportunity, 
and a dream. It also represents a chance for our communities 
and our country to more fully benefit from the talents and 
energy immigrants have to offer. And every single applicant or 
petitioner who makes a request to USCIS should get an answer, 
be it yes or no, in a reasonable amount of time.
    Before we delve into the specifics of the budget, I want to 
note the work USCIS has done over the past year. A series of 
executive orders provided us with guideposts and milestones to 
improve our immigration system by removing barriers that 
prevent it from operating smoothly, securely, and responsively.
    One of the biggest barriers we face are a legacy of 
backlogs and lengthening processing times, delays that really 
help no one. We currently have about 8.5 million pending cases 
and, of those cases, about 5.3 million have been pending beyond 
published processing times. There are many reasons for these 
delays: the devastating effects of the pandemic on our ability 
to conduct our work, a fiscal crisis USCIS had never 
experienced, and many vacancies.
    While I know there still is much work to do, I want to take 
a moment to appreciate the staff of USCIS who have shown 
incredible dedication, resilience, and innovation in fulfilling 
the mission of USCIS throughout an unprecedented pandemic and 
under threat of furlough. Together, we have made progress.
    We have been working diligently to bring on new staff to 
fill many existing vacancies resulting from the year-long 
hiring freeze we experienced through mid-2021. I have 
implemented a hiring plan to achieve a 95-percent onboard rate 
by the end of 2022. I recently announced new cycle time goals 
for many key forms; we hope to achieve these goals by the end 
of fiscal year 2023.
    It will take much work and ingenuity, but I am confident we 
can get there. We have a plan to implement end-to-end 
electronic filing, processing payment, and case management for 
USCIS. We have already made strides in implementing online 
filing options, including for our employment authorization 
documents.
    We continue to review and revise regulatory policy and 
operational decisions with an eye towards breaking down 
unnecessary barriers that have hindered those eligible from 
accessing immigration and naturalization in a timely manner.
    In fiscal year 2021, we held more than 2,000 virtual 
engagements with approximately 74,000 attendees, including over 
2,000 local engagements and 47 national engagements, covering 
more than 20 topics.
    The fiscal year 2023 budget supports the President's 
priorities by restoring faith in the immigration system, 
including implementation of a fair and efficient asylum 
process. A recently-finalized asylum processing rule will 
ensure that those who are eligible for asylum are granted 
relief quickly and, for those who are denied, they are promptly 
removed. When fully implemented, we expect our asylum-related 
efficiencies will shorten the process to several months for 
most asylum applicants covered by the rule.
    Consistent and dedicated funding through appropriations is 
necessary to address our growing humanitarian workloads. Our 
asylum and refugee programs do not require fees and, without 
appropriated resources, the costs associated with these 
programs must be borne by all other fee-paying applicants and 
petitioners. As those costs increase, so do the costs to our 
fee-paying applicants and petitioners.
    The President's fiscal year 2023 budget seeks to shift our 
humanitarian programs from fee funding to appropriations, 
aligning our agency with the appropriations received by other 
agencies doing similar work. Importantly, his request supports 
USCIS' multi-year plan to continue reducing the backlog, 
resource critical investments in cybersecurity, and sustain the 
E-Verify program.
    USCIS is also prioritizing additional staff and technology 
improvements to reduce our growing backlog and to prioritize 
key forms such as for work authorization and naturalization.
    Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member Fleischmann, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for your 
continued support of our incredible and unique mission at 
USCIS, and thank you again for affording me the opportunity to 
appear before you and discuss the agency's fiscal year 2023 
budget. I look forward to your questions.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Director Jaddou.
    One of the things I have significant concerns about are the 
overall capacity of USCIS to execute its mission, both in terms 
of the new, incoming workload, and addressing the backlog. I am 
also troubled that the agency hasn't been able to make 
significant strikes in increasing its staffing levels since the 
hiring freeze was lifted over a year ago. I believe these 
staffing shortages are currently the biggest challenge that you 
face at this time.
    Do you agree with that assessment? And what are the primary 
factors behind USCIS' hiring challenges, and what steps are you 
taking to address them?
    Ms. Jaddou. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    So our approach to the backlog and our increasing 
processing times is multifaceted. We are hiring, as you noted, 
and we are trying to fill the existing vacancies that are 
within our budget, but we are also planning for the future when 
we propose and finalize a fee rule that is equitable and also 
with the appropriations that you have provided in the past and 
as well as, hopefully, in the future to fill those vacancies.
    They are a lot of vacancies and certainly there is a lot of 
work for us to do. So what we have done is prioritized hiring 
as something we are working very, very closely with hiring 
officials across the agency. We are looking for efficiencies in 
our hiring process all over the place, including trying to lure 
back some of our former USCIS folks who left in recent years 
and trying to bring them back in a faster process; also, 
thinking about direct hiring authority; and we are working 
closely with the directors of each office and tracking every 
step of the process to ensure that no time is wasted with each 
step of the hiring process. It can be rather long, so we are 
trying to shorten it as much as possible.
    But it is not just about hiring. It is also about something 
I mentioned in my opening statement: it is about goals, setting 
goals for ourselves, which I just did, and that is something 
that is not just something we set and moved on, we are 
constantly trying to implement those goals, as well as 
efficiencies and technology.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Do you have a projected time line of 
when you believe you will be able to meet your hiring targets?
    Ms. Jaddou. So we have a plan to achieve 95-percent fill 
rate of existing positions by the end of 2022.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. So, given all the challenges that USCIS 
has faced in the past few years, I am worried about the 
workforce and, you know, the morale that you are facing right 
now. What actions are being taken to improve, you know, the 
working conditions and restore employee morale?
    Ms. Jaddou. So I am with you. If we don't improve employee 
morale, we will not get there. It is so important for us to 
stay focused on that. And this might sound a little bit not 
directly at employee morale, but in fact strengthening our 
fiscal position, our fiscal management throughout the agency, 
is critical. That rocked everybody's morale when that happened 
and even now. I walked in in August of last year, I feel the 
reverberating effects of that threatened furlough, something 
that USCIS never experienced in the past. It does make people 
question when they are thinking about maybe retiring earlier, 
or maybe there is another job in another agency with more 
security, or when we are trying to attract folks to the agency 
they are thinking, wait a minute, is that an agency where 
perhaps I could lose my job?
    So these are things that, if we are going to get there, if 
we are going to get to our processing goals, we need to secure 
the morale of the agency and the only way to do that is to say 
we are in this together, we are all going to protect each 
other, and that means fiscal management, careful fiscal 
management.
    So I consider my work with our CFO integral to every part 
of the agency in everything we do; otherwise, we are not going 
to get there. And so that is one part of it, I think that is 
the base, but I am spending a lot of time listening. I am going 
not only virtually in settings like these across the agency 
with town halls, big ones, small ones, but also, now that we 
are in a hopefully healthier place with regard to the pandemic, 
I am actually trying to travel to multiple offices all across 
the country, meet with our staff, hear from them, and then 
try--not just listen, but also take what they are telling us 
and try to implement change to ensure that people are being 
heard and also able to conduct their work in the most efficient 
way possible, but in an environment that protects them.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
    Mr. Fleischmann.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Again, welcome, Dr. Jaddou, and I thank you for being with 
us this morning.
    The Biden administration has decided to end the use of the 
Title 42 public health authority effective May the 23rd. A 
substantial surge of migrants is likely to follow in quick 
succession since about half of all encounters are currently 
amenable to removal under that authority. I have some 
questions.
    Is it likely that your asylum officers and perhaps others 
within USCIS will be diverted to address this surge?
    Ms. Jaddou. Thank you for the question.
    So my job at USCIS is to ensure that we have enough 
officers available to do credible fear interviews, reasonable 
fear interviews for individuals coming across the southern 
border and other ports of entry, but also we have a new rule 
that you had pointed to in your opening statement, the asylum 
officer rule, a new thing we are doing with regard to this 
population.
    And so those are my dual missions. And, as you know, we 
have been hiring for that new asylum officer rule.
    And then, over here, because we have had in the past 
increases in credible fear, reasonable fear interviews, related 
type of interviews, we have a staff--of course, if it grows 
tremendously, we are in the middle of hiring more and more 
people. So we are going to keep going. We have not--we don't 
see an end in sight in hiring.
    So, clearly, my job is to get us ready and that is exactly 
what we are doing.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. And, believe me, I understand your 
efforts in that regard, but this is going to happen May the 
23rd, do you think that you are going to see a diversion of 
officers, asylum officers and others to address this surge? I 
guess I am asking for right now what----
    Ms. Jaddou. Yes, if--so we have a lot of individuals that 
are capable of doing and have the authority to do that already 
and are doing it. We certainly do have other people who are 
available as well. So, whatever that surge, we will handle it. 
As other emergencies come up at any time, we are always capable 
and ready. We have an incredible workforce.
    Again, that gets to the point about morale is, if we are 
going to continue to ask people to take on new duties on top of 
existing duties, then we need to ensure that they feel secure 
and in their jobs. And so that is part of what this request is 
about, to set that insurance policy for them.
    Mr. Fleischmann. In the event that these diversions occur, 
what kind of impacts will such diversions of resources have the 
USCIS? And I understand you are going to try to hire up to deal 
with this situation, but what types of diversions, what would 
that effect or impact be?
    Ms. Jaddou. So it depends how large you are talking about. 
This happens every day at USCIS and I can give you the perfect 
example of Operation Allies Welcome, something none of us 
expected in the middle of the summer last year, we thought it 
would be a small program, and it grew rather quickly, but USCIS 
stepped up. We had 250 people from across our agency who 
volunteered to work at the military bases to assist with the 
population and ensure that they had work authorization in a 
rapid manner.
    So those types of situations are not uncommon for our 
agency. At the moment, of course, we are also thinking about 
Ukraine and some of the things that we need to do with regard 
to Ukraine.
    We are an agile workforce and we always step up where there 
is a mission that we are asked to do. Is it easy? No. We have 
to set, obviously, priorities, and we do have a limited set of 
resources and we always are constantly--it is a daily question, 
are those resources in the right places? And we ask ourselves, 
practically every day, how to move those resources around and 
ensure we are properly resourcing the proper priorities.
    Mr. Fleischmann. I understand. And I have got about a 
minute left.
    So, based on what you have been able to explain to me, 
right now, you are not currently staffed to handle this 
increased workload, although you are trying to hire to do that. 
One follow-up question then, would it be fair to say that your 
case backlog will grow as the crisis on the border would get 
worse with this influx due to the Title 42 situation? In other 
words, do you anticipate the case backlog growing then?
    Ms. Jaddou. So the important thing for me to answer here is 
we have a cadre of staff, not just in our Refugee and Asylum 
directorate, that are prepared and ready today to handle a lot 
of people. Will they have to put aside some other work? Yes, 
potentially, depending on how large or how small. So those are 
the questions. And sometimes it is just for a temporary period 
of time.
    So, certainly, we are always prepared for those 
possibilities. Does it take a toll on other work? It does 
sometimes. And the goal is to keep hiring enough so that when 
we have these new demands on our resources, that we do have a 
lot more capability to expand as needed without affecting 
things that are already on our plate in any way, that is the 
goal. The goal is to not have an effect on existing priorities, 
sometimes it has a little bit of effect. That is the goal, just 
a little bit of effect here and there; we don't want it to move 
people away, completely away from their other priorities.
    So that is the balance we have here and I think we are 
trying to get there by right-sizing our agency to our growing 
humanitarian mission.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Doctor.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Madam Chair, I will yield back and wait 
for round two. Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
    Mr. Cuellar.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, and 
certainly to our witness today.
    I just want to say, we want to be supportive, as the 
chairwoman said, on your hiring and I know you are trying to 
expedite the hiring, but let me just--I live on the border. 
Like I always say, I don't come visit for a few hours; I live 
here, my family lives here. I drink the water, I breathe the 
air down here. And just to give you an idea of what we are 
seeing here and you have--I represent the Laredo sector and I 
represent the Valley sectors, Rio Grande, which is the 
highlight of where most of the people are coming in. Just to 
give you an idea, just yesterday in the southern part of my 
area we had 2,000 individuals that were encountered in the 
Reynosa-Grande-McAllen area, that is only one part. It doesn't 
include, you know, the part where Congressman Vincente Gonzalez 
or Filemon Vela represent. But just to give you an idea, just 
2,000 individuals in one day in one part.
    The Border Patrol Sector Laredo, which is another sector, 
has 60 percent of the Border Patrol that are not in the field, 
but are in the processing center, which means that they are 
only dealing with 40 percent of their personnel, they are 
actually providing homeland security; the rest are changing 
diapers, you know, doing all the important things to help the 
migrants, which are very important.
    We have six checkpoints here, which means that, like it 
happened when the Del Rio situation happened, they closed the 
checkpoints because they had to send the personnel, because 
they are only dealing with 40 percent. That means that the 
checkpoints were open and people could pass drugs, whatever 
they have to do.
    So I am giving you just a snapshot of what is happening, 
just 2,000 individuals in one day in a very small part of my 
area.
    The hiring process that you are all doing--and we want to 
be helpful in any way, it is going to be very important--it 
took me 2 years to try to establish eight courts in Laredo, 
immigration judges. They still haven't hired all the 
immigration judges down here. So your asylum officers are going 
to be very important to address the credible fear.
    My question has to do with what the Appropriations 
Committee added and that was the Joint Migrant Processing 
Centers, where $200 million were sent in, and part of it has to 
do where CBP, ICE, and USCIS are supposed to work together to 
help us establish those joint centers, so we can hopefully be a 
little bit more efficient in addressing the situation in that 
one-stop center and hopefully get Border Patrol out on the 
fields.
    What can we do, Madam Director, to help you do your job? We 
want to be helpful to you?
    Ms. Jaddou. So, thank you. I appreciate all--and I have to 
say thank you for all the help that already has been provided 
to USCIS. And, you know, frankly, the cost of humanitarian 
programs at USCIS has skyrocketed since the beginning of our 
agency approximately, you know, a little less than 20 years 
ago.
    When we started as an agency under the Homeland Security 
Act in the early 2000s, the humanitarian mission was small, it 
was under five percent of our budget, and so it made complete 
sense at that moment. A small surcharge to our other fee-paying 
applicants and petitioners, no problem, it wasn't a big issue. 
We also didn't have multiple emergencies coming at us. For 
example, in less than a year, we had Operation Allies Welcome, 
now we have Ukraine. It is lots of things happening that we 
have to step up and help with, not only directly at USCIS, but 
also in assistance of a whole-of-government effort, as federal 
employees of DHS and also of the Federal Government.
    But now that small, little, insignificant part of our 
budget has grown, and it will go from less than five percent to 
almost 20 percent. So almost a fifth of our budget will be our 
humanitarian mission. That is becoming a lot more significant 
of a surcharge to our applicants and our petitioners. Now we 
are looking at some real money, charging our applicants and 
petitioners a lot more for this than what was originally 
envisioned. That is the issue here and that is the help we are 
looking for.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. I have got about 20 seconds.
    If a person goes, if a hundred people go in front of an 
immigration judge, about 10 to 12 percent are going to be 
accepted on the asylum claim. What is it for an asylum officer 
if they go before a credible fear? If they have a hundred 
people, how many people will be accepted?
    And my time is up, but if you can answer that?
    Ms. Jaddou. Yeah, very quickly. So, under our asylum 
officer rule, that is what we are trying to do in a faster, 
more efficient, but fair process, is have people work through 
our asylum officers first and, for those who are eligible, 
grant them more quickly, and for those who are not, deny them 
more quickly than the current process that you mentioned. You 
are unable to fill judge positions in your neighborhood and 
here, what we are trying to do, we can much more quickly fill 
people. We can find asylum officers and fill them and train 
them well, much more quickly than the process for an 
immigration judge.
    Mr. Cuellar. All right. Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
    Mrs. Hinson. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking 
Member Fleischmann.
    I just want to thank you for holding this hearing today, 
Director Jaddou. Nice to meet you virtually.
    I appreciate you appearing before our subcommittee today as 
well and I think we don't need to belabor the point today that 
we are all aware of the crisis at the southern border right 
now, a direct result of the Administration's policies right now 
that I see as misguided and I know you have a very heavy job to 
do in dealing with this strain that you are dealing with.
    I understand the impact on the morale, not only at all of 
DHS but USCIS as well.
    So I understand that in our office we are focused on 
customer service here; that means helping constituents with the 
case work needs that obviously interact with your office too.
    And there are some delays and it is very frustrating for my 
constituents for them to encounter those delays with USCIS, 
mostly because of the processing backlog.
    So when I look at the Administration's request for $375 
million and nearly 3,000 officers to deal with the new asylum 
cases, my biggest question is what measures are being taken 
there, other than just hiring up, what measures are being taken 
to improve customer service for those who have followed the 
rules. They are legally residing and working in Iowa and they 
need to access those casework services.
    Ms. Jaddou. Thank you for raising that question because 
that is a high priority of mine.
    It is not just the service of ensuring that we are timely 
responding. Again, it is not about getting to yes or no. It is 
about getting to the right answer in a reasonable amount of 
time.
    And that we are not able to do in a lot of cases, 60, over 
60 percent of our cases at this time.
    So that is a heavy focus of mine. In fact, it is--I have 
five priorities I have laid out for the year and that is one of 
them.
    But also another priority there is customer service. It is 
not just being able to make the decision on that case in a 
reasonable period of time but also when somebody has a problem, 
and needs to call us because something has happened in their 
case, and needs to reach a person, a human being, absolutely, 
the situation we have now is not serving our applicants and 
petitioners well. And so----
    Mrs. Hinson. Right. Do you know how long the wait time is 
right now when someone calls in?
    Ms. Jaddou. I have heard it can be upwards of an hour and 
that, to me, is concerning. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be 
necessarily that but we shouldn't keep people on hold.
    Is there a way, as many businesses in the private sector 
do, it is--we have a hold, a wait time, for ``X'' period of 
time. Would you like to be called back? Please leave your phone 
number.
    We are looking at technologies like that and trying to 
institute those technologies but the reality is that when you 
have to talk to a person that means we need a person who has 
knowledge and experience on casework and those people are, at 
the moment, up to here trying to process cases.
    So that is the trick. That is the balance. How do we ensure 
we keep enough people processing so that our delays go down. We 
don't have them anymore. At the same time servicing people, 
ensuring that they can talk to us when they need to.
    So we are trying to leverage technology, have people use 
online tools, at the same time growing our customer resources, 
our human beings in customer service.
    Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. Well, I want to be very clear. I will 
follow up on what one of my colleagues already addressed.
    But I just want to make sure we are not diverting people 
from their work there to handle that casework to handle 
increased surge because we have to first, and foremost, focus 
on the people who are doing it right.
    So that is number one. The other question I wanted to ask 
about the crisis in Europe obviously hitting home with what is 
happening in Ukraine. I have been meeting with families from my 
District who are trying to adopt children from Ukraine and 
obviously heartwrenching, very powerful stories. I am a mom of 
two boys myself and I think about what these children are 
facing and those families are facing as Putin and his thugs 
destroy their homelands.
    So, you know, American families are bonding with these 
kids. They are hopeful that they are going to be reunited so 
are you following these cases and the challenges that these 
families are facing in adopting these children and bringing 
them to the country. What, if anything, is USCIS doing to help 
support these families?
    Ms. Jaddou. Thank you for that really important question 
and I noted that one of the things, again, and when of the new 
humanitarian missions that has directly hit us is Ukraine. And 
even before the announcement by the President to resettle a 
number of people, we, at USCIS, immediately stepped back and 
said, as we did with Afghanistan, what is the current 
population of people seeking some kind of service of USCIS and 
how do we ensure that those folks are getting expedited so we 
can bring them here as quickly as possible?
    If they are already in our pipeline and they are going to 
get to a potential yes, well then we don't we try to hurry that 
up in a crisis like this.
    So that is the question we have asked of all of our 
programs and will continue to do that. And, of course, if there 
are any cases or any concern that you have, please do raise it 
with us.
    Mrs. Hinson. I appreciate that. Thanks for keeping us in 
the loop on that and I am working with the State Department to 
get that done.
    So thank you and I realize I am out of time, Madam Chair. I 
yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you for 
calling today's hearing.
    Director Jaddou, I was glad to see that USCIS took steps 
earlier this year to replace the Trump administration's harmful 
public charge rule.
    By discouraging immigrants and their families from using 
legal healthcare and other services during a pandemic, this 
rule made all of our communities less safe.
    But rescinding the Trump administration rule does not mean 
that the real fear it created in the lives of our neighbors has 
been rescinded with it.
    The very same week the Biden Administration proposed its 
new public charge rule, I heard from a constituent who was 
voluntarily cancelling her SNAP benefits. She is a citizen with 
a baby on the way and she is scared that receiving any 
government assistance will impact her husband's visa 
application.
    My staff has tried to connect her with other resources and 
to explain how the new rule will keep her family safe but the 
damage has been done and this is just one family out of many.
    It is clear that our federal government has a lot more work 
to do here.
    Can you describe what USCIS is doing to proactively 
communicate the removal of previous public charge rule and, 
specifically, please share any community outreach strategy that 
you are deploying, which languages that you published 
information and if you have worked with local groups that have 
community trust to disseminate information.
    Ms. Jaddou. Thank you for that question. It is something 
that has been raised in multiple stakeholder engagements that I 
have done in person across the country.
    So, first of all, some of the things that we have done, 
first of all, is to ensure that, on our website, it is very 
clear we are not applying the 2019 public charge rule.
    It is also very clear from social media that we try to do 
as much as possible, repeatedly reminding that it is not being 
applied.
    We are also working with our federal partners who have 
these programs, as you mentioned one of them, SNAP benefits, so 
that they have the same information and can disseminate the 
information that we have to the people they work with directly, 
multiple federal agencies.
    The one thing that I have gathered, as I think you have, is 
from our stakeholder engagements in the field is sometimes that 
information is still not getting through.
    So I have asked, in my multiple--in the last several months 
that I have been out, is how can we partner with you to go to 
your engagements? You are the spokesperson. You have the 
trusted voice in the community. How can I partner with you; 
whether it is in person; whether it is virtually, me directly, 
our folks who are working in the field, showing up to your 
events where you are communicating that this is a federal 
official, from USCIS, and so that is something that we are 
working very closely with the stakesholder community on.
    Ms. Underwood. Great. I would like to see that scaled up 
and perhaps you can communicate to the committee some specifics 
around that but also languages. It is very important that this 
information not be shared just in English and we have the 
expectation and I believe your agency has the resources to 
publish the public charge information in multiple languages. 
Okay.
    Ms. Jaddou. We do.
    Ms. Underwood. It is really important that we have a 
proactive plan to address, you know, this information in an 
accessible way and to counteract the lingering fear and 
misinformation that persists in our communities.
    How could USCIS expand and improve this outreach with more 
resources and what specific resources do you need from Congress 
to do this?
    Ms. Jaddou. So, of course, this budget--so our budget all 
along has primarily been fee funded, 97 percent.
    So whenever we are asked to do anything that increases the 
need to spend money, certainly it means we have to find it 
somewhere within that fee paying population.
    So what we are trying to do now is to say that our 
humanitarian mission has grown beyond an insignificant small 
portion of our budget. It is much larger and we are constantly 
having to shift our resources around.
    So we can't always have available money to do the things 
that you are talking about. And so we are trying to change that 
so that we are a little bit more confortable and not always 
robbing from Peter to pay Paul and then increasing our 
backlogs.
    Ms. Underwood. Okay.
    Ms. Jaddou. So that is the goal here.
    Ms. Underwood. Well, I am really glad to hear that we have 
the same goal of an immigration system that aligns with 
America's morals and values but can it lead to really counter 
the harms done by the previous public charge rule. We have a 
lot of work left to do.
    And I encourage USCIS to increase its efforts in this area 
and in the partnerships with trusted groups and I stand by the 
USCIS here in Congress.
    And I yield back.
    Ms. Jaddou. I appreciate it. Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member 
and thank you, Madam Secretary.
    You know, one of the things that I always talk to the folks 
back home about is, you know, being a member of Congress is 
really about helping our constituents back home.
    One of the pieces that is often overlooked, I think, by 
oddly enough by the folks back home, as the backlog at USCIS 
continues--has grown, back home I can tell you this is becoming 
a bigger and bigger portion of the casework that my district is 
working on.
    Everything from employment authorizations to travel 
documents, all of them are taking longer. Not only are 
processing times taking longer but just getting communications 
back which used to be done, you know, very, very quickly.
    And it is my understanding that the wait times to hear back 
on inquiries are long now, in some cases, actually taking over 
two months which seems almost impossible to me.
    But I also understand that there has been some difficulties 
in getting in contact with people at the service centers where 
the phones just ring and--or you get a voicemail.
    Can you give me an update on how--now I heard you say I 
think by the end of 2022 you expect what percentage to be 
filled?
    Ms. Jaddou. So we--by the end of 2022 would would like to 
be 95 percent filled and by the end of fiscal year 2023 reach 
our cycle time goals.
    Mr. Rutherford. But that so in your new fee structure, 
are--historically the agency was about 97 percent, I understand 
97 percent fee based.
    But, clearly, that is not going to be possible with all of 
the refugee issues and all the humanitarian issues that are 
being forced upon us particularly if Title 42 is done away 
with.
    Can you talk about the strain that that is going to put on 
your system as well and are you asking for more money from the 
taxpayer to cover USCIS now than fees?
    Ms. Jaddou. So in many of the humanitarian programs that we 
participate in, there are other agencies that do similar work. 
For example, the State Department has a major role in refugee 
processing, health and human services as well, in unaccompanied 
children as well as refugee processing.
    We have our part in refugee and aslyum. But, unlike, for 
example, the State Department and HHS, we are primarily fee 
funded. They are not.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Ms. Jaddou. And they have never been fee funded in that 
way.
    So what we are trying to do is align ourselves with that so 
we can be better prepared to handle the mission and it is not 
just things like that we can plan for, which, you know, we can 
plan for a set number of refugees. We can plan for, you know, 
things like that that are--you can plan years in advance. 
Operation Allies Welcome showed up. We had to take care of that 
situation.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Ms. Jaddou. Same thing with Ukraine. Completely unexpected.
    Our process to obtain more funding is to go through an 
administrative procedures act rule-making process, which you 
can imagine is a very time-consuming process that is not agile 
enough to keep up with that type of humanitarian need.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Ms. Jaddou. So we are asking for some help from Congress so 
that we could be more agile and prepared while we are doing it. 
We are meeting the need but at the cost and expense then of the 
people who are paying into it because we cannot quickly fund 
raise the amount----
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Ms. Jaddou [continuing]. We need to cover.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Ms. Jaddou. So that is why I am so thankful for Operation 
Allies Welcome money.
    Mr. Rutherford. So looking at, you know, Title 42 is about 
the health of our country by excluding people that potentially 
had COVID-19.
    I would suggest to you also that the Fentanyl that is 
coming across the border, the opioids that is coming across the 
border, because we have this open border policy is also a 
health hazard to our country and we need to be looking at that 
in the context of people that are going into the USCIS process 
and the funds are not there to assist those people are trying 
to do things legally and properly.
    And, so, I would hope that, you know, you would be sharing 
that message as well as we try to fund you properly.
    So, with that, Madam Chair, I see my time has run out and I 
yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
    Mr. Price. I thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome Director 
Jaddou. Thank you for your testimony and for your good work.
    You know, I serve on three appropriations subcommittees 
and, I think it is fair to say, that of all the agencies 
covered across that spectrum, yours is the one that suffered 
most from the Trump administration.
    I don't think it is exaggeration to say the Trump 
administration tried to destroy your agency, to shut you down. 
Stripping funding. Stripping personnel. And closing a majority 
of the field offices overseas that deal with your cases. 
Closing, I believe, 16 international field offices. That leaves 
seven in operation right now. That is likely one of the reasons 
for the backlog that you have described.
    It is clear you are still fighting an uphill battle with 
staffing shortages and a fiscal crisis for the agency and the 
effects of COVID. I mean, your agency has really been through 
the ringer.
    Despite all this adversity, we do count on you, especially 
now, for important work and I want to address a couple of 
aspects of that, giving you a chance to elaborate on earlier 
answers.
    TPS, temporary protected status. The current issue of 
backlog clearly has that effect on your ability to deal with 
the TPS let alone new TPS populations which not are going to 
include tens of thousands of Ukrainians and people from 
Afghanistan. People who were recently added to the TPS list.
    So what resources are you going to need to see this 
through, this escalation in TPS cases from places that we know 
we have to extend this to people who have been displaced by 
cruel conflicts?
    And then what about those international field offices, 
those shuttered international field offices? It is not as easy, 
I know, as simply flipping a switch to get back this 
infrastructure that has been lost.
    But what resources here, too, do you need from Congress to 
make this happen? What are your plans with regard to the 
international offices and what kinds of resources do those 
require?
    Ms. Jaddou. So thank you. That is--you hit it right on the 
money.
    When a crisis like Ukraine or Afghanistan happens and TPS 
is provided to protect people, it means that USCIS, all of a 
sudden, has to step up and create a process for a whole new set 
of people, sometimes tens of thousands of people, to be 
processed and obtain TPS and then work authorization in as 
swift of a manner as possible.
    But we can't grow overnight to handle that. That is why we 
are trying our best now to fill our agency to the maximum 
extent possible so that when--with the ability to move and be 
agile to handle new emergencies that come in, like this, like 
the ones you mentioned.
    So our effort to be able to be ready for something like 
that can't just be hiring. It can't just be more people. It is 
also thinking about how to leverage technology. Every day it 
improves and we are getting better and better at it.
    Having online filing for TPS now, that is a big deal. From 
end to end, application to final decision, that is really, 
really important and helpful.
    It is also really important for us to take a look at each 
of our processes and ask ourselves questions about why are we 
doing things that way we have been doing them for decades now?
    So much has changed. Let us make sure that we are not 
unnecessarily creating bureaucracies and really thinking how 
most efficiently, but also securely, and ensuring that we are 
following the law all the way through, but most efficiently.
    So those are a lot of the question that we are asking 
ourselves now.
    With regard to international offices, our refugee and 
aslyum and international offices division at USCIS is engaged 
in a study to determine where is the best place to reopen 
offices; how much that will cost us.
    As you mentioned, we do have some offices that are 
currently open but we do believe there are more that need to be 
opened. We just need to make sure they are in the right places 
and ensure that we have the money to do so without, again, 
robbing from Peter to pay Paul.
    Mr. Price. Thank you. I, of course, will be interested, as 
soon as that analysis is completed, would be very interested in 
what you concluded and what it requires.
    Ms. Jaddou. Absolutely.
    Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Jaddou. Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Ranking Member 
and Director Jaddou.
    I wanted to talk a little bit about DACA applications and 
the backlog.
    In 2021, there was a significant backlog of DACA 
applications, in part, because of the reopening of the program.
    Unfortunately, many DACA recipients experienced a lapse in 
status causing them to lose their jobs in fear of deportation.
    In fiscal year 2023 requests, you are requesting a $255.9 
million for a backlog reduction. This builds on the investment 
Congress has made from fiscals years 2022 and additional 
authorities provided to USCIS through the fiscal year 2021 
omnibus.
    What is the current status of the DACA application backlogs 
and can you share how this increased backlog reduction funding 
will support DACA renewal in application and reduce application 
processing times?
    Ms. Jaddou. So thank you. And you are right, exactly right. 
2021 was not a good year for DACA given all the things you 
mentioned.
    The good news is that we took a look at the process, the 
renewal process to ensure that we are doing it as efficiently 
as possible.
    We were also taking a look at what were some of the reasons 
why people were getting to the end, their expiring period, and 
trying to determine what was slowing those types of cases down 
and how we can make improvements to ensure they don't get 
there.
    We have implemented a lot of those things now and the good 
news is that most people are being, across the median, is now 
under 30 days processing time.
    Now are some people still arriving and getting close to 
their expiring date? Yes. What we have found, however, is the 
very significant majority of those cases that do get to that 
place is because they are not fiing on time.
    And, so, we are asking people very, very publicly on our 
website, through social media, file between 120 and 150 days 
and you can be pretty safe that you will be processed in time 
today.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    But the continued--the backlog, the queue, that has been, 
you know, cleared or so individuals who have, you know, 
discussed that, you know, it is being, you know, ironed out and 
so I understand what you are saying on a prospective 
perspective.
    But, you know, folks who have been in the queue are being 
addressed in a timely way, you are convinced?
    Ms. Jaddou. So, at the moment, if people timely file, we 
believe we can get through their cases on time.
    But, of course, as you know, we have a large backlog in all 
of our areas. So you have probably seen that our employment 
authorization document backlog is quite large and it is 
actually our largest.
    And that is a person's ability to put food on their table, 
to have a house and, frankly, during a labor shortage, to 
contribute to the overall economy.
    So we have prioritized taking a look at how to improve 
through technology, through improvements in our operational 
processes, also taking a look at the length of time we provide 
employment authorization documents. In some cases, it was only 
for a year but the processing time is longer than that. So we 
said, well, let us extend it for two years.
    So that helps us because it eliminates how many times we 
have to keep looking at those documents and it also helps the 
individual because they don't have to keep applying and paying 
the fee as often as they do.
    We also, if you have seen, there is a regulation we are 
working on that was recently sent to the OMB for review which 
would take a look at auto extensions while we are in the phase 
of processing.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    I wanted to ask one more question about aslyum and I know 
that you touched on this briefly.
    As you know, Homeland Security and the Department of 
Justice recently announced a new rule that would expand the 
role of USCIS aslyum officers in adjudicating aslyum claims. 
The stated goal of the new rule is to reduce existing backlogs.
    Can you share the steps that USCIS intends to take to 
ensure that there is due process with access to an attorney in 
this process and to make sure that we have the proper controls 
in place?
    Ms. Jaddou. Absolutely. So there are many steps in the 
process that are laid out in the rule and currently, in the 60-
day implementation period, we are getting ready as quickly as 
possible to develop the final materials and train all of the 
individuals on those materials and the steps in the process to 
ensure due process and that people have access to counsel, the 
time they have to get access to counsel.
    I am happy to have our staff brief you on as we get closer 
and closer to the finalization of implementation, so that you 
can see how exactly we are going to ensure due process in that 
as well as, of course, efficiency so that we can ensure that 
people who are eligible are granted quickly and those who not 
are denied quickly.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thanks so much. I appreciate it. I yield back, 
Madam Chair.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. I believe that completes the first 
round. So I have enough time for a second round.
    Doctor, USCIS's financial crisis in 2020 was really a wake-
up call when it was projected that the deficit would be $602 
million.
    While the financial strains on that agency, at that time, 
could be partially attributed to the pandemic, there were also 
avoidable, detrimental policy and operational choices that were 
made by the prior administration as well as a pattern of year 
over year spending of that exceeded collections.
    We have touched a little bit on how financially you are 
doing today, if you would care to elaborate a little bit on 
that?
    But I am also interested in what actions you have taken to 
improve financial planning and discipline at USCIS.
    Ms. Jaddou. Thank you so much. I should start by saying a 
lot of credit goes to our CFO for the incredible work that she 
was able to do to restabilize the agency.
    We tightened our belts and we had a hiring freeze. We cut 
contracts. What did this all mean, though?
    In addition to the pandemic posture we were in, and trying 
to learn how to conduct our mission in a pandemic, which many 
of our services do require in-person work with the public and 
amongst ourselves, we needed to do all that at the same time.
    We have done pretty well but the result, of course, has 
been an increase in our processing times and our backlog.
    But now that we are returning to normal receipts, we have 
taken a look at unnecessary bureaucratic steps that we could 
remove from processes so that we could go a little bit faster, 
that doesn't cost us a lot.
    We are also relooking at some of those contracts that had 
to be cut. And, of course, we lifted the hiring freeze. But 
that hiring freeze meant that we got to a pretty high vacancy 
rate.
    So that is why we are so focused now because we spent about 
a year without replacing attrition and it is so important now 
that we are able to replace all of that attrition, continued 
attrition and as well as growing to where we need to be because 
we are not just below where we needed to be years ago. We are 
also below where we need to be now and in the future.
    So the good news is in the tightening of our belt, we were 
able to restore our carryover balance which is incredibly 
important. This is not an agency that can count on every year 
Congress paying the bills. We have to pay 97 percent of the 
bills, has been our history.
    And, so, we need to have--I mean, I look at it as my own 
budget. I can either live check to check and then hope I don't 
lose my job or I can have a savings and, if I lose my job, it 
is okay. I can tide myself over.
    And, so, that is as simple as it is and having a healthy 
savings account, a healthy carryover to tide us over when 
perhaps receipts are low or we have a big contract that has 
come due, that we have the money available and we don't have to 
potentially turn to furlough because that is detrimental and 
not just for the moment. But for years. As I stated earlier, we 
are feeling the effects of it.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director, in the recent past, USCIS 
policies, regulations and operational changes have been 
implemented without robust analysis of the impacts on USCIS 
funding and operations.
    This lack of analysis was a major contributing factor to 
USCIS's financial hardship in 2020. As you contemplated and 
implemented various reforms, how have you addressed the need 
for these kinds of analysis?
    Ms. Jaddou. So we have working groups that think about how 
to make changes at USCIS; whether it is operations, policy, 
regulatory. And we invite our office of the CFO to participate 
in those.
    But it is also something that I do regularly with the 
people who are developing policy in the agency to ask that 
question: how much is this going to cost us? And it is also my 
question to our CFO: can we afford this?
    And, in any recommendation that any part of USCIS is making 
as, did you talk to the CFO? Ask them. Can we afford this? And 
what are we going to have to cut in order to afford this?
    So always taking a step back and thinking about, just as 
you would with running your own household.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you again, Madam Chair, for this 
hearing.
    On March 24th, Doctor, USCIS issued a final asylum officer 
rule. The request asks for $375 million to hire an additional 
2,000 asylum officers to do work that immigration judges 
currently perform. The USCIS has caused existing funds to 
start--has used existing funds to start this work with about 
200 asylum officers, but then we will need to hire a 
significant number of additional personnel.
    My first question, please, is do you have concerns about 
replacing the current adjudication of asylum claims where ICE 
attorneys can offer evidence of a false claim with something 
that is non-adversarial in nature? Is it likely that more 
fraudulent claims could make it through the system?
    Ms. Jaddou. So while at the moment until this rule is 
finalized we review asylum claims only in the affirmative case, 
that is background and experience we have and we are trained, 
very well trained. The training that our officers go through 
before they are adjudicating, begin adjudicating, along with 
supervisory support and training throughout, they know how to 
look for those things. This is not a program that is easy to 
run and certainly we have experience and we know we can do it 
well.
    So what we are doing now is starting, phasing this program 
in, with existing money that we do have and we have identified 
for this purpose and so we are coming to you now to ask you for 
money so that we can grow that to a much greater extent because 
we do believe that this is the way forward where we have that 
experience, we know how to do affirmative asylum, we think we 
can do it well here too and we will do it for a smaller cost 
and faster than is currently done now.
    And if I could just say that the progress with the 
immigration court has not been eliminated in this asylum 
officer rule. We are just the first step. So what we are trying 
to do is look for those who are eligible and get them through 
the process faster and then for those who are not eligible, 
they would be denied.
    Now, for those who are denied, the court is still there 
too. They have a process they are going to be reviewing as 
well. So this is a change in that we are trying to make the 
process go faster. Ensuring fairness and due process, at the 
same time be more efficient.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Understood. Then let me ask you a follow-
up, if I may.
    Generally, what percentage of migrants are determined to 
have credible fear by asylum officers and when those cases get 
to an immigration judge, what normally happens? What 
percentage, if you know, does the judge find a credible fear?
    Ms. Jaddou. So are you talking--not under the asylum 
officer rule, the one that we are about to implement or the 
current?
    Mr. Fleischmann. Current process.
    Ms. Jaddou. Current process? So I would have to get back to 
you specifically by country. I don't have those numbers 
directly with me so I am happy to get back with you on those 
numbers.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Okay.
    Madam Chair, how much time do I have? I can't see the 
clock.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. You have a minute and 15 seconds.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. Thank you. I will continue to ask 
then. Thank you.
    Hiring has been a challenge at USCIS. How long do you 
estimate it will take to hire 2,000 asylum officers?
    Ms. Jaddou. So if I can use our example of what we are 
aiming towards now, we are aiming to get to 3,500 hires by the 
end of this year, 2022. So if I can use that as an example, 
that will help us understand how long it will take to hire 
about 2,000.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Got you. Hypothetical, but if Congress 
declines to fund these additional officers, will you be able to 
execute the asylum office rule?
    Ms. Jaddou. We would have to decide how much money is 
available at USCIS with our current funding through our fee 
paying population to determine what percentage we could afford 
to send over to the asylum officer rule.
    Mr. Fleischmann. I believe my time, Madam Chair, is about 
up.
    Dr. Jaddou, thank you so much for your testimony today.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Director, I would like to follow up on what I was talking 
about a few minutes ago and just give you a little bit more 
context. I gave you the number of agents, Border Patrol agents, 
in the Laredo sector that are out in the Processing Centers and 
not in the field.
    I just asked my friends down there in the Rio Grande Valley 
and it is about the same, 50 to 60 percent of the Border Patrol 
agents are in the processing centers and not out in the fields. 
So 40 to 50 percent are doing the Homeland Security job and the 
rest are dealing with that.
    They are also, just to give you an idea, this is all matter 
of context. I have not even touched Title 42. That is a totally 
different thing. This is just the current situation. Just in 
the lower Rio Grande area, my district, last week they dealt 
with 20 large groups just in one week and what they now 
classify as a large group is a group that has over 100 people 
in that group.
    So they had 20 large groups of 100 plus and that doesn't 
include the other individuals. So just to give you that 
contents, and that is why I wanted to follow-up on the question 
that I asked you and if you don't have the answer, you can 
follow-up. The joint migrant processing centers, we want to 
work with you.
    We are hoping, as the chairwoman, we feel that this, by 
doing a one-stop center, Doctor, you said working with CDPIs in 
your office, we can hopefully move that more efficiently and 
provide due process, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
    So I would like to see what your plans are. Do you have 
that, number one, and number two, I would like to follow-up 
with Representative Fleischmann said also. I had asked this. 
You know, for immigration judges, there are 1.6 million cases 
backlogged. The average time is about 875 days.
    Texas has the largest number of backlogs of any other state 
and if 100 people go before an immigration judge, usually, and 
every case is different, 90 to 88 percent are going to be 
rejected on the asylum cases. So I want to know the same type 
of figures on your asylum folks as to, number one, what is the 
backlog and I just gave you the contents of just my part of the 
area and my district.
    Number two, if some go before a asylum officer, if you have 
100 people, how many will be rejected? How many will be 
accepted?
    And I know every case is different. I understand that, but 
I would like to, you know, look--I like to look at numbers 
where immigration judges are at and where asylum officers are 
at to address due process and whoever is supposed to stay here, 
I say bienvenidos, or whatever the language might be. But are 
the ones that are not accepted or credible fear is not 
established, then we have to enforce the law and say goodbye to 
them.
    So if you don't have those figures, I would like to have 
those figures. Share with me and the rest of the committee if 
you don't mind, and your plans for the joint migrant processing 
centers too.
    Ms. Jaddou. Yeah, and we are happy to do that and share 
them with your staff and with you. Certainly on the joint 
migrant processing centers, we are working together with our 
partners are CBP and ICE on how we would create these programs.
    What our part would be, we all play a role, the three of 
us. We are in it together, and so what I can do is take back 
the request to get a briefing so that we can talk together. I 
wouldn't want to just talk about my part without them in the 
room as well. So let's plan for that.
    And then secondly with regard to the data, clearly this is 
part of phasing this in is to learn, you know, what are those 
numbers going to be. We have experience in the affirmative 
asylum, but that is different. It is a different population 
sometimes and so it is somewhat apples and oranges, but also 
some similarities.
    So we will see what the numbers will look like and that is 
the phased-in approach and we are going to study it along the 
way. It also depends, since we are going to phase it in. We are 
not going to be able to apply it immediately to everybody.
    So depending on where we apply it, the location, the groups 
of people that we are applying it to, it will have different 
results depending on who the population is that is coming to 
you. So more to come for sure and we are happy to share that 
with you.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Thank you, so much.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
    Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And again, thanks Director for sticking with us through 
this hearing for a second round. I appreciate it. And I want to 
kind of follow-up on some of the areas that my colleagues have 
already talked about in terms of the asylum officers with the 
plans to transition away from relying on the immigration judge 
to these asylum officers in the credible fear cases and giving 
them the authority, obviously, to make the decisions on who is 
eligible to remain in the country.
    So my question is kind of a follow-up on the training side. 
When we talk about an immigration judge and their training 
versus the asylum officers, what training do they have that can 
allow them to accurately determine the credible fear claim 
compared to what an immigration judge is currently doing?
    Ms. Jaddou. So that is something that we are training on. 
Actually, we are going to have a training in a few weeks to get 
all of the new folks who have come on for this rule very 
specifically now that it is been finalized, exactly what the 
rule's requirements are.
    We are leaning, of course, on the things we already do know 
about similar things that we do at USCIS as well as information 
that we have from the immigration courts. So it is a holistic 
approach. We are taking a look at the way things are done, but 
also recognizing this is a new process so there are going to be 
some new things that we are establishing.
    And I like to say we have hired the best of the best and we 
have put our best on this new program to make sure that we can 
do it as well as we possibly can from the get-go and then just 
continue to build on it, and continue to train. We are going 
to--nothing is perfect in the beginning, so we will work it out 
and of course we will be happy to share with you as this goes 
on and gets phased in more and more how this will work and I am 
hopeful that we are going to be successful in the beginning. We 
have a really great group of people, a lot of people focused on 
getting it right first round and being trained properly.
    Mrs. Hinson. Okay. I would just ask you, continue to 
follow-up with our office. If you could maybe even----
    Ms. Jaddou. Absolutely.
    Mrs. Hinson [continuing]. Come up with some examples of 
cases where these asylum officers with this new training, this 
new role, have been able to flag some of those not qualified 
credible fear claims just so we have an idea of what that 
threshold actually is in implementation that would be great.
    And then just a quick question to you about--obviously we 
have got a huge influence right now with cartels, human 
smugglers, bad actors, at our southern border and we know they 
are coaching people on what to say when they are coming across 
the border.
    So what are you doing to counter those efforts by, again, 
those bad actors, to coach illegals on what to say to try to 
get that credible fear claim?
    Ms. Jaddou. So our officers are trained to look for that 
and what we are doing with this asylum officer rule is the 
collection of information right in the beginning with the 
credible fear part of this and from there it includes a 
thorough interview. So it is not just a paper form that is not 
going to be questioning the veracity of the statements made.
    And also the individual; establishing a rapport and 
ensuring that the person is legitimately stating a story that 
can be verified and that is exactly how we are training our 
officers to ensure that they look for the right things in the 
individual, but as well as the evidence that needs to be 
provided to prove what it is the person is stating.
    This is not a 2-minute type of thing. This is something 
that will take some time to establish that rapport, ask all the 
right questions and document it. And our officers do that. They 
do that in the refugee context. They are very good at it. So we 
have ways to do this in different contexts that are quite 
similar.
    I am confident in our workforce and again, we did hire a 
lot of experienced people from the Refugee and Asylum 
International Offices Division here at USCIS to come onto these 
new roles specifically for that reason, because they have a 
background and they are launching into a new program. So it is 
those skills we need to be able to then craft and into this new 
program.
    Mrs. Hinson. And just a quick follow-up on what Congressman 
Cuellar just mentioned about the backlog and how long it is 
taking, 875 days. It is a significant amount of time obviously 
and I would be interested also, you know, when we hear about 
the number of cases that are denied at that point. Are people 
showing up to those hearings? I think that is the biggest 
concern I have too.
    If it is that long of a time frame, where are they going in 
that time frame while they are waiting for that hearing to 
happen and then is that follow-up actually happening on that 
side?
    So if you could follow-up with that information for us, I 
would certainly appreciate it. Okay.
    Ms. Jaddou. Will do.
    Mrs. Hinson. Okay.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, Madam Chair.
    Director, glad to see you. I think the first time, and you 
have a big challenge and we are here to help.
    First thing, I was recently made aware of your decision to 
prioritize new processing or what you called cycle time goals 
for key USCIS immigration forums. I do understand that COVID is 
causing delays and we have seen this across the entire 
bureaucracy.
    However, my district caseworkers have informed me about the 
unacceptable wait time my constituents are facing. For this 
reason, I am very pleased to hear that you are taking this 
matter seriously.
    My questions for you are how far along are you in 
establishing the guideline, how quickly can we expect to see 
these improvements, and what can Congress do to help?
    Ms. Jaddou. Thank you so much. Even when I was going 
through my confirmation hearing last summer, I saw this as the 
number one priority in terms of what USCIS was facing and I see 
this as the top priority for a director at this time. So I 
couldn't agree with you that we need to tackle this.
    So from the very beginning when I got here last August, I 
started with bringing someone directly into my office whose 
sole goal is to think about we can improve, make more 
efficient, our operations, consider policies that are outdated 
and really are just creating unnecessary barriers to think 
about regulations that perhaps we could propose to make things 
a little more smoothly and--go a little more smoothly and 
efficiently.
    So we have already done taken several of those steps, but 
boy those were the low-hanging fruit. There is a lot to go, but 
there is also, as I have mentioned, is hiring. We had a hiring 
freeze and we are very low staffed at this point. There just 
simply aren't enough people to do the work that is in front of 
us. So we need more people.
    We need to think very--work smarter not harder. That is 
really important. We need to institute even more technology 
which we are heavily focused on. So those are the multiple 
steps that we are taking now and that is why we are here, 
frankly.
    It is one of the reasons, not all of the reasons, but one 
of the reasons why we have a hard time staying focused on those 
goals, those cycle time goals, is in the middle of trying to 
run towards that very important goal, we have incoming 
emergencies.
    Operation Allies Welcome, Ukraine, oh, we need to assist 
with the latest crisis with regard to the whole of federal 
government. There could be an emergency in California. We are 
part of the Department of Homeland Security. We volunteer to 
help. We are all in this together.
    So there is just a lot that comes at us and we want to stay 
focused. And to the extent that we can have funding that 
supports our humanitarian mission, that underlying basis of our 
funding as well as the ability to be agile and shift funding 
around when new emergencies arise, that is going to be crucial 
and that is why this budget request is there.
    It recognizes that. It recognizes the growing humanitarian 
mission that I think the entire nation supports. So we don't 
think that it is sustainable to continue to go through fee 
rules, lengthy fee rule processes, and then charge our fee-
paying customers so much more now that it is growing so large.
    Mr. Ruppersberger How about the issue of time? How much 
longer do you think----
    Ms. Jaddou. Oh. So----
    Mr. Ruppersberger [continuing]. You----
    Ms. Jaddou [continuing]. The time? So our goal, our cycle 
time goals, are to be achieved, this is our ultimate goal, by 
the end of fiscal year 2023. Obviously, we will see improvement 
along the way, but the established goals of 6 months for some 
of our major forms and then 3 months, for example a work 
authorization, will be by the end of fiscal year 2023 and along 
the way you are going to see improvements until we get there.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. [Inaudible.] Another round.
    Ms. Jaddou. You are muted, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Sorry. Yes, I am going to open it up 
after Ms. Underwood for any additional questions that someone 
may have, so you will have an opportunity.
    So Ms. Underwood.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I wanted to follow-up on a topic that many of my colleagues 
have already mentioned. Director Jaddou, you inherited a work 
visa backlog of historic levels that was exacerbated by the 
pandemic, hiring freezes, and poor administration. We simply 
cannot sustain a backlog of 8.5 million cases that continues to 
grow nor can we ask people to wait over 10 months for their 
request to be adjudicated.
    I have heard from countless constituents whose lives have 
been put on hold because of these backlogs. One instance I am 
thinking about is a constituent who was applying for an 
employment authorization document. Because of the delays in 
processing his application, his drivers license expired so 
while he benefitted from the automatic 180-day extension for 
his employment authorization, he could not drive to the 
appointments necessary to keep his job.
    Director Jaddou, what is USCIS doing to help applicants 
deal with the unintended economic and personal consequences of 
a backlog exceeding the 180-day extension timeline and what 
recommendations do you have for my casework staff and I to 
better help our constituents work through these challenges?
    Ms. Jaddou. Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more on work 
authorization especially because it is the ability to work 
and----
    Ms. Underwood. Absolutely.
    Ms. Jaddou. Yeah, absolutely. And it is not just for the 
individual. It is for the community, it is for the larger 
economy. So I am saying there is a tremendous priority and 
focus on our backlog, but inside that backlog is particularly 
work authorization.
    So if I could just point out that in January of 2017 there 
were 1.5 million cases in the backlog, so those beyond our 
processing goals, our cycle time goals, in total across the 
agency. That alone is what is pending in the employment 
authorization queue now.
    Ms. Underwood. Right.
    Ms. Jaddou. So it is a huge issue. So a few things. One, we 
have been looking at how to extend periods of authorization so 
that people don't have to keep coming back to us so that 
lessens the number of cases coming in. It also gives people 
more time and saves them that additional fee they have to pay 
for that year.
    We have also extended in some cases. We have also looked at 
technological improvements that would allow people to file 
online and completely do the electronic processing which is a 
savings of time for the individual and for us as we process.
    We are also looking at are there processes in place in the 
employment authorization particularly in renewals which is a 
lot of cases in our backlog, how to take out some things that 
don't really need to be there that are just creating extra 
steps for no reason. So that is another space.
    We have also been working on a regulation with regard to an 
auto-extension when we are backlogged as we are. So those are 
some of the steps, but we are constantly thinking. Every 
possibility; policy, operational, regulatory. What can we do to 
not only get rid of the backlogs we have, but also ensure a 
future where we don't get there again.
    Ms. Underwood. Yes, ma'am. And also designing processes 
recognizing that this is just an initiation of a domino effect 
and so when USCIS gets it wrong, or its delayed, or there is 
some kind of impediment, there are real-life consequences for 
folks and then they call us and we are having a hard time, 
quite frankly, getting updates as well and so it is just 
extremely challenging.
    And so as you can emphasize with your teams the need for 
efficiency and recognizing the significance of this effort for 
the lives of our neighbors and colleagues, you know what I 
mean, and this is important for our economy that we get it 
right.
    Okay. My next question is in your testimony you mentioned 
your plan to implement end-to-end electronic filing, processing 
payment, and case management. Can you elaborate on the 
advancements that USCIS has made in the automation of these 
processes and how it affects the processing backlog?
    Ms. Jaddou. Yeah. So a few things. Few points here. Almost 
85 percent of what we process is processed online, and when I 
say that, it is we are processing it that way. So that helps us 
because you can move work around more efficiently and there are 
just so many efficiencies through that.
    Ms. Underwood. Uh-huh.
    Ms. Jaddou. Even if a paper application comes in, we are 
digitizing it, getting it online and processing it online 
because that is more efficient than a paper moving around our 
agency. We have also, it took us a long time, but we have 
gotten to credit card payments. So that is very good. We also 
have a lot of forms that are available for online filing. The 
821, the 821 visa. It is TPS, DACA, family-based petitions, the 
naturalization application, extensions of status, changes of 
status, things like that. So we are moving through that process 
to try to bring more and more forms online.
    That is going to be critical to this effort and in the 
meantime we are coming up with, like I just mentioned, when a 
paper comes in, it is an extra step, but digitizing it actually 
saves us even more even if it is having to take that extra step 
rather than being able to just online file because that is a 
process that takes a little bit more time to develop.
    Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you so much.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you.
    Okay. Can you hear me?
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Yeah.
    Director, your recent announcement to release 35,000 
supplemental visas exercising the authority Congress granted to 
you in the fiscal year 2022 omnibus was welcomed news to the 
many seasonal businesses across the country who are facing dire 
labor shortages, especially the seafood industry in Maryland. 
We all love our crabs and oysters by the way, and who pick the 
finest crabs in the world.
    Last year we were [indiscernible]. That 22,000 additional 
H2B visas were released to supplement the second half cap 
allocation for fiscal year 2021. Unfortunately, the rule wasn't 
published until late May due to the time it took to process the 
petitions, allocate the additional visas, and then bring the 
workers into the country. Many H2B workers were not on the 
employer's payroll until the end of the Fourth of July.
    Now, the recent filings with the DOL for the second half of 
fiscal year clearly show there will be significant workforce 
interruptions of additional relief if cap relief does not 
materialize soon and this coupled with a record low 
unemployment illustrated the urgent need for these workers.
    Now, my question. Can you please shed light on the timing 
of publishing a temporary final rule implementing your decision 
to release the additional 35,000 visas to ensure these 
employers currently in a labor crisis receive their workers as 
close to the date of the need as possible?
    And I do recognize that the TFR is in its drafting stage 
and you may not be able to offer specific details, but I do 
need assurances you are working on that and we are going to 
complete it.
    Ms. Jaddou. Absolutely working on it. The announcement that 
was made by the Department of Homeland Security, that was made 
with the thought that we were very clearly working on it and 
moving in that direction. We are working as quickly as 
possible.
    I will note it is a regulatory process despite the fact it 
is a temporary final rule, so a much faster process than the 
regulatory process.
    But as the former chief counsel to this agency, regulatory 
processes are very slow, even the most efficient of processes. 
So certainly I would welcome in the future changes in law that 
would allow us to move more swiftly, in a more agile way. I 
know we have offered technical assistance in the past to try to 
better streamline the process when these decisions are made to 
be able to get them out faster in a more streamlined way.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I am all for that for government 
and I am sure this committee would also be for it, so if you 
have any recommendations, let us know.
    Ms. Jaddou. Happy to. Thank you, so much.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. May you yield back, Mr. Ruppersberger?
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Say it again.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah, I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann, do you have any 
additional questions?
    Mr. Fleischmann. Madam Chair, no thank you.
    And Doctor, thank you for your testimony before us today. I 
yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. If there are no more questions, I will 
conclude today's hearing.
    Director Jaddou, thank you very much for your time and for 
helping us think through the many challenges that you have.
    The Subcommittee on Homeland Security stands adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    

                                          Wednesday, April 6, 2022.

   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                                WITNESS

JOSEPH V. CUFFARI, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
    SECURITY
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security 
will come to order.
    As this hearing is being conducted virtually, we must 
address a few housekeeping matters. During today's virtual 
hearing, members are responsible for muting and unmuting 
themselves. When you are recognized to speak, if I notice that 
you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like 
the staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, 
staff will unmute your microphone.
    To avoid inadvertent background noise, the Chair, or staff 
designated by the Chair, may mute participant microphones when 
they are not recognized to speak.
    If there is a technology issue during a member's speaking 
time, we will move to the next member until the issue is 
resolved and you will retain the balance of your time.
    We will be following the 5-minute rule. With one minute in 
your time, the clock will turn to yellow. When your time has 
expired, the clock will turn to red, and it will be time to 
recognize the next member.
    We will follow the speaking order set forth in the House 
rules, beginning with the Chair and ranking member, followed by 
members present at the time the hearing is called to order in 
order of seniority, and we will alternate by party. Next, we 
will go to the members who were not present when the hearing 
was called to order, until every member present has had a first 
round.
    Members can submit information in writing at any of our 
hearings or markups using the email address provided in advance 
to your staff.
    Let's begin.
    Today, we welcome Joseph Cuffari, the Inspector General for 
the Department of Homeland Security, who is here to present the 
OIG's fiscal year 2023 budget request, and discuss the office's 
operational priorities. Thank you for being here this 
afternoon.
    As the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland 
Security, you have been entrusted with an incredible 
responsibility, requiring the utmost in integrity, 
independence, and impartiality. The American public relies upon 
you to conduct independent and objective audits, and 
investigations relating to D.H.S. programs and operations, 
prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse, and promote 
efficiency and effectiveness, and to keep the DHS secretary and 
Congress informed about problems and deficiencies, and the need 
for and progress of corrective action.
    Your task is not easy, especially given the complexities of 
DHS missions, the political controversies surrounding some of 
DHS operations, particularly in the immigration enforcement 
area, and the evolving threat landscape, requiring DHS 
preparedness and response from hurricanes and wildfires, to 
domestic terrorism and cybersecurity attacks.
    To complicate matters, the DHS Office of Inspector General 
has received a considerable amount of criticism and scrutiny 
over the past decade. A GAO report last year found that since--
and this is a quote. ``Since fiscal year 2015, the Department 
of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General has not 
adhered to a number of professional standards for federal OIGs 
and key practices for effective management.''
    In that report, GAO made 21 recommendations to address 
management and operational weaknesses related to performance 
management, quality assurance, reporting timeliness, and 
coordination with DHS, among others. Your office concurred with 
each of them.
    Earlier this year, we learned that a former IG pleaded 
guilty to theft of proprietary software and sensitive databases 
from the U.S. government. And another former IG has been 
accused of watering down reports related to FEMA disaster 
response.
    In your response to questions for the record from an April 
2021 hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security, you 
alerted Congress to an investigation being conducted by the 
Integrity Committee of the Council of Inspector Generals on 
integrity and efficiency.
    That investigation is not a focus of this hearing. Instead, 
this hearing's purpose is to discuss your office's current 
operations and priorities, how you use your resources and your 
progress in addressing long-standing challenges facing the OIG.
    I look forward to a good discussion between you and the 
members of this subcommittee. I know would like to turn to the 
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Ranking Member 
Fleischmann, for his opening remarks.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Chairwoman 
Roybal, I want to thank you for this hearing and the hearing 
earlier today. We are in appropriations season, and for all 
involved on the call, I sincerely look forward to working with 
you and yours as we move forward this year.
    Welcome, Inspector General Cuffari, and I thank you for 
joining us today as we examine the Office of Inspector 
General's initiatives and investments proposed for the coming 
fiscal year.
    First, I want to sincerely thank you and your team for the 
work the OIG does. It was good to visit with you last week. 
Please pass on our thanks to your workforce for their efforts.
    Independent oversight helps shine a bright light on areas 
for improvement and efficiency. However, recent dysfunction 
within the Office of Inspector General has been a worrisome 
distraction from the vital oversight work of your office. My 
fervent hope is that we can quickly resolve outstanding issues 
and allegations so that you and your team can put all of your 
energy into ensuring that all components at DHS follow their 
own policies and the law.
    During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, billions of 
dollars were appropriated for the grant programs administered 
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The goal was to 
ease the economic burden on people, who were struggling with 
lost wages and mitigate the worst impacts of job losses due to 
closures and lockdowns.
    Limited guardrails and safeguards in some of those programs 
enabled people with malicious intent to take advantage of 
massive sums spent to address the crisis. Sadly, several 
investigations are under way that involve stolen identity fraud 
schemes with the aim to steal money from taxpayers and those 
with legitimate needs, only to criminally enrich themselves.
    Those engaged in fraud must be held accountable for 
stealing from those who are in legitimate need of this 
assistance. I hope that your work continues to create powerful 
disincentives to those who wish to commit such fraud in the 
future. More broadly, OIG's office has been instrumental in 
investigating alleged fraud in the United States' refugee 
programs, and pointing out the weaknesses and susceptibility 
for fraud in other programs.
    But one of the most important jobs the OIG has is ensuring 
that the department adheres to its own policies, be that 
detention conditions, management and contracting conditions, or 
component financial controls.
    Record growth in the funding for the Department of Homeland 
Security means that there are more opportunities for a few bad 
actors to engage in fraud, and waste, and abuse. Every dollar 
wasted is a dollar that isn't being used to strengthen our 
borders, process trade shipments, empower our economy, or 
defend against the next cyber attack.
    We know that most DHS employees uphold the values and 
ideals of the department, so audits and investigations by the 
OIG are also opportunities to showcase what is working well. I 
look forward to your testimony, sir, on OIG's fiscal 2023 
requirements that will enable us to further work--further the 
work that you have begun.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Inspector General Cuffari, we will 
submit the full text of your official statement for the hearing 
record. Please begin your opening statement, which I would ask 
you keep to 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member Fleischmann, 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 
testify about the DHS IG's fiscal year 2023 budget. I am very 
proud to lead more than 750 professional career or civil 
servants, who provide independent oversight of the third 
largest cabinet agency. The successful performance of our 
mission requires employees with integrity, dedication, and a 
broad range of expertise.
    I am grateful for this subcommittee's support. Since my 
confirmation in July 2019, I have prioritized improving the 
efficiency and effectiveness of OIG operations. I reorganized 
our structure to better align our mission. I created dedicated 
offices for integrity and innovation, and expanded our use of 
data analytics. We followed GAO's model practices to implement 
these changes.
    In July of last year, we finalized the comprehensive 5-year 
strategic plan. I'm pleased to report that our federal employee 
viewpoint scores that correspond with my tenure have shown 
significant improvement in every category, especially employee 
engagement.
    My staff's improved morale is reflected in our work. Fiscal 
year 2021, we issued 73 audits and inspection reports. So far 
in 2022, we have issued 35 reports and have nearly 90 ongoing 
reviews. I also committed significant resources to our Office 
of Investigations, with an increased focus on high impact 
cases, we have about 900 ongoing criminal cases that amount to 
hundreds of millions of dollars in potential fraud loss.
    In early 2020, we developed and implemented an innovative 
virtual protocol, continued our unannounced inspections of ICE 
detention facilities despite the pandemic. We returned to in-
person inspections in 2021.
    These unannounced inspections provided the department with 
important information about how to improve detention 
conditions. Since fiscal year 2020, we have conducted nine 
unannounced inspection of ICE detention facilities. We have 
made 12 recommendations during that time to improve health 
care, medical care.
    Again, thank you for the continued bipartisan support from 
this subcommittee, which has enabled us to work with medical 
experts to further enhance our oversight work.
    We have also broadly addressed long-standing detention 
issues. We published for the first time ever at DHS IG, a 5-
year review of segregation and detention. And we launched an 
audit across all DHS detention facilities regarding the 
approval process for invasive surgical procedures.
    We have provided significant oversight at the Department's 
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department has been 
authorized to expend nearly $100 billion on the various 
pandemic-related authorities. Recognizing the magnitude of this 
pandemic response funding, in 2020, I created the dedicated 
COVID Fraud Unit.
    We have received more than 7,000 COVID fraud complaints. We 
have initiated nearly 270 COVID criminal investigations. These 
have resulted in 17 indictments, 11 convictions, and nearly $2 
million in fines and restitution. According to the Department, 
cybersecurity has become the most dramatic threat to the 
homeland.
    We are uniquely positioned to target oversight, ensure DHS 
systems are secure, and help detect and deter attacks like 
solar winds. I prioritized and enhanced our cybersecurity 
oversight. Fiscal year 2021, we issued nine reports with 37 
recommendations to improve the Department's cybersecurity 
posture. Currently, we have 11 ongoing cybersecurity audits.
    Thank you again for this subcommittee's continued support 
for our mission.
    I have been impressed by the expertise and support of your 
entire staff. In particular, I thank Bob Joachim and Paul 
Anstine for their coordination in advance of this hearing.
    Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I am happy 
to answer any questions you or the other members may have.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Inspector General.
    Let me begin by asking you what your main priorities are 
for the OIG for the rest of fiscal year 2022 and the next 
fiscal year.
    Mr. Cuffari. Certainly, Madam Chairwoman. So in fiscal year 
2021, we finalized our strategic plan. NAPA helped us do this. 
And so our strategic plan includes recommendations for key 
priorities. These are the organizational transformation, border 
security and immigration, COVID disaster relief, fraud 
detection, and cybersecurity.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. How do you decide which projects, 
reports, or investigations to take on? For example, do you have 
a risk matrix that you use?
    Mr. Cuffari. So we use a risk-based data-driven approach, 
implemented a work planning process that is consistent to 
evaluate factors for all of our future work. This relates to a 
GAO recommendation, which we submitted to GAO that we have 
implemented this. And we asked GAO to close that 
recommendation.
    We consider all mission risk that the Department has. We 
look at congressional requests, hotline information, and 
results from our interaction with stakeholders.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. How much of your budget request is 
dedicated to in-person, unannounced inspections of detention 
facilities?
    Mr. Cuffari. That is--I can't give you a certain 
percentage, ma'am, but I know since 2019 when I met with your 
staff initially, I heard loud and clear that you were 
interested in a project cost accounting system. We did not have 
that capability at the time, so I went outside. I hired MITRE, 
federal research development corporation, to assist us with 
gathering the requirements that would meet your needs, and 
ultimately instruct us on how to build this cost accounting 
tool.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Perhaps you could get me that 
information after this hearing.
    Mr. Cuffari. Certainly.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Following up on how you decide which 
cases you are going to take on, can you address your decision 
to not have OIG assert jurisdiction over the allegations 
stemming from the influx of migrants in Del Rio, and the use of 
horse patrols?
    Because it seems to me that the optics of CBP doing its own 
review of such a high profile case is--seems like a missed 
opportunity to strengthen oversight at DHS and avoid perceived 
conflicts of interest.
    Mr. Cuffari. We actually had a lot of ongoing oversight 
work involving immigration at CBP and the office of field 
operations along the southwest borders. But in the case of the 
horseback patrol at Del Rio sector, we didn't decline to open 
an investigation. CBP followed proper procedures. They notified 
our Office of Investigations that this matter came to their 
attention.
    The matter that they conveyed to us did not involve any 
criminal misconduct, and therefore, we didn't initiate a 
criminal investigation. CBP OPR, the Office of Professional 
Responsibility opened an administrative investigation, which I 
believe is still ongoing.
    So pursuant to IG policy and DHS, CBP OPR, if they discover 
any evidence regarding criminality, they are mandated to report 
that to us, and then we will consider whether to pursue 
criminal allegations. Thus far, we haven't received any 
information indicating that there were any criminal 
allegations.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. I know that you requested an addition 
$8.9 million that was not included in the President's budget 
request. If we were to fund that, how would the OIG spend that 
increase?
    Mr. Cuffari. Yes, ma'am. It is broken down primarily into 
five buckets. IT audits is at $2\1/2\ million, $1 million for 
pandemic-related investigations, $1.3 for border 
investigations, $2.9 for the--our Office of Innovation and our 
cyber data analytics unit, and 1.2 to help us reconfigure our 
current existing work spaces.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. I am going to move on to the ranking 
member, Mr. Fleischmann.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, again, Madam Chair.
    I want to talk with you today, sir, about a very important 
subject that has been brought to my attention. The OIG 
inspectors recently conducted a no notice visit to an ICE 
facility in Torrence County, New Mexico, and subsequently 
issued a management alert, calling for detainees to be removed 
from the facility.
    Instead of accepting the findings of the OIG, which is 
normally what happens, this is critically important, ICE 
disputed the findings of the report, saying, ``We have serious 
concerns about the accuracy and integrity of this report.''
    This is a very--pretty strident rebuke of OIG's work from a 
component. In the report, there is a photo of a detainee, 
filling a cup with water from a mop sink. The implication of 
which is that the facility did not provide ample potable water. 
The report labels the photos, and I quote, ``Broken sinks in 
facility housing units, as well as water fountains restricted 
from use due to COVID-19, resulted in detainees obtaining their 
drinking water from a communal area faucet intended for filling 
mop buckets.''
    Yes, video footage from the Torrence facility shows the OIG 
inspector urging a detainee to pose for that photo. Once the 
photo was taken, the detainee dumped out his water. The video 
shows that he did not use this sink for drinking, but that is 
not the impression the report gives us. This is troubling to 
me. I have got some questions.
    I will ask maybe the first three, and then there's two 
more. How do you respond to the allegation that the photo was 
clearly staged? Doesn't that call into question the validity of 
the management alert? Second, are you working with ICE to 
review additional video footage taken during the no notice 
inspection? Third, what responsibilities do OIG inspectors have 
to ensure their published reports are of the highest integrity? 
What is the mechanism to ensure the inspection teams are held 
to the highest standards?
    And then I will hold off on my other two while you respond, 
sir.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, Ranking Member, and it is great to 
see you again.
    We conducted the no notice inspection at the Torrance 
facility after the Nakamoto (ph), which is an independent 
company under contract with ICE, found significant shortfalls 
on sanitary conditions, and critical staffing shortages at that 
facility about a year ago, in the summer of 2021.
    We call balls and strikes. So I stand by our report. We 
gave the Department an opportunity to review a draft, and they 
submitted the comments as you suggested.
    We modified, to the extent that it was warranted on our 
management alert, and we ultimately issued a management alert. 
The management alert actually found that there were urgent 
issues that posed health and safety concerns for the migrants 
who were housed there. And there were critical understaffing 
of--across the board, prevented the facility from meeting its 
contractual requirements that ensured detainees reside in a 
safe and secure environment.
    Regarding the use of the mop bucket sink, the photo was not 
staged. I want to get that out of everyone's mind. It was a 
recreation of what our inspectors saw moments prior to our 
inspectors asking the detainee to recreate what our inspectors 
had just seen.
    We got footage, as you suggested, from the facility that 
lays out that it was not a staged event. That in fact, it was a 
recreation.
    Mr. Fleischmann. In all due respect, Mr. Inspector General, 
a recreation, your words, is--and in my words--a staging, a 
restaging. We can only, as lawyers, go by the real evidence 
that we see. If we were at trial, that certainly would not be 
admissible evidence if it were--even an expert recreation. 
That, in and of itself, is troubling to me.
    So at a time when we were being overrun by detainees, in 
all due respect, in my view due to the abject neglect of this 
administration. That is not your fault. You inherit that. But 
as we look at these facilities, we have got to ensure that any 
criticisms, and we don't want to overlook real problems, are 
truthful, sir. I mean, the truth to me is the most important 
thing.
    And I will just follow up with my final question. In your 
opinion, what could the OIG have done differently, if anything, 
and what have you learned from this experience?
    Mr. Cuffari. Sir, just if you would allow me to just 
comment.
    In addition to the photos and the videos that substantiate 
our findings, we also have testimonial information from the 
detainees to supplement that. The question regarding what we 
can do. We could--and we are going to implement taking from 
stop to start a video of our entire interactions when we go and 
do unannounced inspections. This way there is no doubt.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. While I respectfully disagree 
with your conclusions, I thank you for your honesty and 
candidacy about how you view the situation. We just have 
differing opinions on that.
    With that, Madam Chair, I will yield back. And thank you, 
sir, for your answers.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair, for having this 
meeting. And, Doctor, it is a pleasure having you before us.
    Let me ask you, back in 2010, I passed the legislation to 
modernize the performance results legislation that President 
Clinton and Al Gore had set up in the 1990s. And I see that 
back on July of 2021, you finalized the comprehensive strategic 
plan, and I appreciate talking to you at a later time, without 
taking too much time today, to talk about if you have any ideas 
on any changes or suggestions for specific strategies or 
performance indicators for the homeland, because sometimes I 
think agencies measure activity and don't measure results.
    So this would take a lot more longer, but I would love to 
spend time with you and your folks later on on this strategic 
plan, number one.
    Number two, my question has to do with the joint task 
force. Back in 2014 when we saw one of the first major surges 
under President Obama, then Secretary Jay Johnson did a good 
thing, where he said let's try to put all the agencies to work 
together on this surge. So he set up different joint task 
forces. And the whole purpose of that was to manage border 
migration influxes, and he wanted to get all the agencies 
working together under Homeland.
    Great idea under Secretary Jay Johnson. Then just recently, 
as you know back on September 30, 2020, your department did a 
report--OIG did a report that the Department was not 
maintaining oversight over this joint task force, and were not 
updating policies, et cetera, et cetera. And then without 
notifying Congress, and keep in mind that this joint task 
force, this unity of efforts set up by Secretary Johnson and 
authorized by public law, established by law, the Department on 
their own deactivated two of the three joint task forces, 
including the one in south Texas, or in the southern part of 
the country.
    Under this last appropriation, we asked the Department to 
one, respond to your findings, number one. And number two, to 
reactivate those joint task force again.
    So I would like to get your thoughts on this plan for 
restoring the joint task force, especially the west one that 
affects everything we are seeing on the southern part of the 
United States, and whether they have responded to your findings 
of September 30th of 2020.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, Member. It is great to visit with 
you again.
    As you know, I was down at the southwest border in Rio 
Grande Valley and Laredo last year. I just came back from 
visiting the southwest border, those two cities again, a few 
weeks ago.
    We have some ongoing work, looking at CBP's sectors along 
the southwest border to ensure--to determine whether there was 
consistency in operations and policies, if they are following 
those.
    Regarding the joint task force presentations, I am not able 
in my role as the Inspector General to actually comment on 
departmental operations. That would be for the secretary and 
for his senior staff to have some engagement with you on.
    Mr. Cuellar. Well, on the activation, but on your findings 
for the--that you all did?
    Mr. Cuffari. Sir, I am going to have to get back to you on 
the actual recommendations, and then where they are on 
implementing our recommendations and the findings.
    Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Well, my time is almost up, so I would 
like to follow up on the performance measures. And I appreciate 
your work on the strategic plan, number one. Number two, on the 
recommendations that you all found on the joint task force, and 
where they are, if you can follow up, not only with me, but 
with the whole committee, and the staff also.
    Mr. Cuellar. So, thank you for the work and we appreciate 
what you did in Arizona, also.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you, Inspector General, for being here this 
morning. Good to see you, again.
    The other day, we had some discussion about the COVID fraud 
that we have heard so much publicly about and I would like to 
ask, there were billions of dollars of COVID relief funding 
that was sent to several programs, including FEMA's 
Unemployment Insurance Program, and the COVID Funeral Benefit 
Program.
    I have seen reports, as I said, that billions of dollars 
have been defrauded from various other COVID relief programs 
across the government. Three quick questions. Number one, how 
many complaints or tips have you received about possible fraud, 
so how big is the scope? And, secondly, how many cases have you 
opened to look at for COVID fraud? And then, finally, how much 
have you recovered so far?
    Because I think it is important that the public knows that, 
you know, the Government is not just walking away from this 
fraud.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, sir.
    So, as you know, the Department received about $100 billion 
under various pandemic-related programs and we received about 
$3 billion to conduct oversight of those funds. In January of 
last, of 2020, since January 2020, we have received about 7,000 
COVID-fraud complaints that we have actually initiated 267 
criminal investigations.
    What we are finding is that many individuals, we have 
identified about hundreds of millions of dollars in potential 
loss. I created a dedicated COVID-fraud unit to investigate 
these matters starting in March of 2020. We are using data 
analytics and we are working with our partners and other IG 
offices and with the U.S. Attorney Offices and state 
prosecutors to target these individuals and bring them to 
justice.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. And with these complaints that 
are coming in from all across America, I imagine that if you 
are investigating 257,000, that is a pretty big universe. How 
do you prioritize which cases you will investigate? I think 
that is important.
    But then also, can you talk about how you are collaborating 
with state and local law enforcement. You mentioned the U.S. 
Attorneys. Can you talk about that a little bit.
    Mr. Cuffari. Yes, sir. So, as I mentioned, I established 
this core unit. They are looking at COVID-only related fraud. 
We are working with our Inspector General colleagues and the 
Department of Labor, Social Security, and other organizations. 
We are looking at threshold levels because of the volume of 
complaints and our limited amount of resources. We are looking 
at threshold levels of about $250,000 and above.
    I will give you an example. An individual was indicted in 
the Northern District of California a few weeks ago. This 
individual defrauded the Unemployment Insurance Fund to the 
tune of $2 million. He had compromised more than 70 
individuals' identities and was able to extract, illegally, 
obviously, from the State of California, about $2 million. That 
is just one example of the types of investigations that we are 
doing.
    Mr. Rutherford. Well, it is great to hear you are going 
after these guys, especially the former police officers.
    So, let me ask you this, Inspector, is there like a tip 
line or a phone number that people can call if they want to 
send in tips to the OIG?
    Mr. Cuffari. Yes, sir. They can call our fraud hotline here 
in Washington, D.C. We also have a national disaster fraud 
hotline in the State of Louisiana, co-located with LSU 
University. It is to--and I can give the website. If somebody 
could find it for me, we can give it out. We will get it to the 
Committee for you to have for your availability.
    Mr. Rutherford. Yeah, let me close this round with this 
question. You mentioned the limited funds that you have, so I 
am curious, what funding do you think you need going into the 
2023 budget to help continue the effort that you have out there 
so far?
    Mr. Cuffari. Just relating to COVID fraud, my COVID unit 
right now consists of about 17 to 18 rehired annuitants.
    I would like to----
    Mr. Rutherford. Is that enough?
    Mr. Cuffari. No, sir. I would like to expand that to 40. We 
are spread throughout the Continental United States in various 
cities that have the preponderance of the fraud occurring.
    My request would be if the Committee could support an 
increase to our appropriations of about $14 million, that would 
cover the increase and allow for, obviously, additional 
criminal investigations to occur.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. With that, my time is up.
    And, Madam Chair, I would suggest that we heed his request 
on this $14 million, because it will actually bring dollars 
back that have been stolen in fraud.
    So, thank you very much, Inspector General.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. First thing, I think the Inspector 
General position is very important to the checks-and-balances 
of our country, just like we are doing that as members of 
Congress and holding people accountable. And, you know, in 
order to have an effective Inspector General, you must have 
some investigative experience, but you must have a reputation 
for integrity and so far, I hear you have integrity and that is 
an important part.
    My question is, recently, we read about, or I read about 
nine immigrants at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility in 
California, who filed a civil rights complaint against the 
Department. They are alleging unsafe living conditions, 
specifically, hazardous air, dust, mold, and drinking water 
contamination. One detainee who has been in custody for over 3 
years stated, quote we, are breathing in sewage and manure 
fumes, constantly due to the non-functioning air ventilation 
systems.
    Now, I know in December 2020, your office released a 34-
page report identifying violations of ICE detention standards, 
highlighting the poor conditions that endangered the health and 
safety of detainees.
    My question is, first, I know the story I mentioned is 
still developing, but do you know if there is any veracity to 
the claims I listed?
    And the second question would be, in your opinion, have 
detention conditions generally improved since that report?
    Lastly, I am seeking to find out what the OIG's criteria is 
for choosing which ICE facilities to do unannounced 
inspections, how does your testimony address that?
    And, finally, do you have enough manpower to do the cases 
that you need to do and how do you decide the priority of which 
cases you are going to take?
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you for the questions.
    You may know, I spent actually 4 years as a Department of 
Justice Inspector General agent working in the Imperial Valley. 
This was during the period of time when the Immigration Service 
was still within the Department of Justice.
    I am very familiar with the new facility, which the report 
was based on in December of 2020. A year later, December of 
2021, my senior staff and I actually toured the new facility 
and we determined that the conditions at the time of our one-
day visit there were appropriate. I do know that in December of 
2020, we had six recommendations for ICE to improve their 
oversight and operations there. My understanding is that ICE 
concurred with all of those recommendations and all the 
recommendations have been closed.
    I am unaware of these new matters that you have addressed, 
but I would certainly want to take a look at them. I would have 
a member of my staff contact yours to get some additional 
information.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. I will take that.
    Mr. Cuffari. And, obviously, with more resources, we could 
do more oversight, but we can continue to do our unannounced 
inspections. As I mentioned, we are going to do five this year. 
We are looking at requests from members of Congress with 
information such as you just brought to our attention, the type 
of facility, IG hotline complaints, just to name a few of the 
indicators.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. What is your system? How do you choose 
which ones to visit unannounced or announced, either one? I 
mean, your volume must be overwhelming, so you can't do them 
all, so what system do you have to pick that?
    Mr. Cuffari. Yes, sir. We look at risk base. What is the 
biggest risk to the Department. So, we would look back at 
previous inspections both, that our office conducted, as well 
as ICE, and the Nakamoto Group, to see whether or not those 
individuals, those groups have found that the facilities were 
below standards. That would be one factor. We would look at 
congressional requests, such as the information you just 
provided. We are looking at healthcare and medical care that is 
being provided. Hotline complaints, as I mentioned.
    We are trying to disburse across the country, our--we are 
going to be doing some up in the Northern Region here this 
upcoming year. So, and I am also look at the COVID, reported 
COVID-19 infection rates in those facilities.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Do you have a group that does 
intelligence for you; in other words, how are you getting your 
data, not any of your leads, but do you have anybody who has 
experience in intelligence?
    Mr. Cuffari. We formed, sir, a division or an Office of 
Innovation. We cobbled and put together from various program 
offices, our data and analytics unit, which is looking in 
conjunction with our hotline and our Office of Investigation to 
provide us with that information. That is the data-driven 
portion.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
    Mrs. Hinson. Madam Chairwoman. I really appreciate you 
holding this hearing today.
    And Inspector General, good to see you again, and I 
appreciate our discussion earlier this week on the importance 
of oversight at DHS, especially considering the current 
situation at our southern border with the crisis there and the 
administration's failures to treat it as the crisis that it is.
    And we are about to pass a very important historical 
milestone, which is a million encounters at our southern border 
in just the first 6 months of the fiscal year. And this comes, 
of course, at the same time that the administration is planning 
to ended Title 42; the policy that our Border Patrol agents on 
the front lines have told me in person is absolutely essential 
for them to help stem that flow of illegal immigrants into our 
country.
    So, my first question, Dr. Cuffari, is, I see these actions 
by the administration as grossly irresponsible and dangerous, 
but you are the one who is inside the Department conducting 
these oversights on these sites every day. I would like to get 
your take a little bit on this situation.
    And on our call on Monday, you had a chance to talk about 
your recent trip to the southern border, your discussions with 
the Border Patrol agents. Again, I mentioned, I have also 
visited the border. I was really shocked with what I saw and 
what I heard.
    So, my question for you today is, in your expert opinion, 
based upon the oversight that you have conducted, are our 
Border Patrol agents properly equipped, manned, and empowered 
to be able to contend with the current crisis at our southern 
border?
    Mr. Cuffari. Well, very nice to see you again, ma'am.
    So, I did, I have conducted since I have been the IG, 
during my tenure, about 5 trips to the southwest border. The 
most recent one was in mid-March. I am heading back to the 
border in a few weeks to take a look at that.
    I have observed conditions. I spoke with front-line staff 
and senior managers. They appear to be equipped from the 
readings that they are given, to be, but they are certainly 
significantly understaffed.
    Mrs. Hinson. So, it is a manpower issue.
    And what is your take with this potential, secondary surge 
with Title 42 being revoked in a few weeks?
    Mr. Cuffari. The Border Patrol senior management informed 
me that there are approximately 100,000 individuals staging on 
the south side of the border and this is primarily in the Rio 
Grande Valley and Laredo. That is the most recent places that I 
visited.
    Mrs. Hinson. So, they are preparing for this staging of 
people to come across and you believe that they are severely 
undermanned?
    Mr. Cuffari. They are anticipating individuals coming 
across and their manning level, as they indicated to me, was 
low, lower than it has been. The senior patrol agents advised 
that about 60 percent of their manpower is actually being used 
on administrative work. They are in the offices processing 
individuals. That leaves only, obviously, 40 percent of line 
Border Patrol agents to work the field.
    Mrs. Hinson. All right. I would definitely call that a 
security issue for our country.
    And I want to follow-up on something else, too, that we 
have heard some concerning reports about, that there are some 
plans by the administration to move medical personnel from the 
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to the border to help 
provide medical services to illegal immigrants coming across 
our border. I think this is an outrageous idea because I mean, 
I am hearing from the veterans in my district and they are 
already waiting for backlogged care and I am appalled that this 
would be even considered by the administration.
    But have you heard of these reports? Are you aware of any 
plans from the administration to shuffle personnel from the VA 
to deal with our crisis at the southern border?
    Mr. Cuffari. I am not, but I am aware that DHS had 
previously used members of the Coast Guard and the Public 
Health Service to augment their medical staff along the borders 
and in the detention facilities.
    Mrs. Hinson. All right. I would ask if you do hear of any 
of these situations where we, in essence, have the care taken 
away from our veterans, those who have fought for our country, 
to go provide for those who are breaking the laws of our 
country, I find that unacceptable, so I would ask if you do 
hear of any of those situations, please follow-up with our 
office. And I would expect, obviously, we are here to do 
oversight and ask these important questions and I know that is 
your mission, as well.
    Just a final question. Do you believe that your office 
would be able to recommend a better option to help make sure 
our existing border personnel isn't overwhelmed, I mean, we 
need to be discouraging illegal immigration and encouraging 
legal immigration, but do you have any better recommendations 
that we can implement right now?
    Mr. Cuffari. I would say that from what the Border Patrol 
senior managers have described to me, the continued 
enhancement, perhaps, of DOD resources as been very helpful to 
them and, perhaps, if they were to remain in place, that might 
alleviate some of the shortfalls.
    Mrs. Hinson. All right. Thank you.
    I am out of time. Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. I just want to point out something that 
Mrs. Hinson mentioned, because the lack of the ability of 
Border Patrol to hire personnel has been a major concern of 
this subcommittee and is the reason why we put in $100 million 
for hiring and they just have the challenges in their ability 
to fill the positions that they need.
    Mr. Cuffari. You are absolutely right, Madam Chairwoman.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 
calling today's hearing.
    One of the OIG's core oversight mission areas is ensuring 
resilient response to disasters. We can't be truly resilient 
unless our approach to disaster response is equitable and this 
is something that is often missing from the emergency-
management conversation. That needs to change.
    Forty percent of Americans already live in counties hit by 
climate disasters in 2021 and that will only increase as the 
climate crisis accelerates. As we know that marginalized 
communities are disproportionately affected by climate change 
and natural disasters.
    In November 2020, FEMA National Advisory Council had 
produced a report detailing how the agency systematically fails 
to distribute resource equitably. The council stated, quote, 
FEMA does not meet the equity requirements of the Stafford Act. 
This report also provided recommendations that would make 
equity the foundation of FEMA's financial-assistance relief 
going forward.
    So, I am curious to know more about how the OIG approaches 
these issues. How does the OIG currently seek out, measure, and 
evaluate equity in the context of your work at FEMA?
    Mr. Cuffari. Nice to meet you, ma'am.
    Ms. Underwood. Nice to meet you, too.
    Mr. Cuffari. Just to start off, I have a very good working 
relationship with both, the FEMA administrator, as well as the 
new deputy administrator.
    Ms. Underwood. Great.
    Mr. Cuffari. We just had a conference call last week. We 
got a lot of audits and inspection work in the FEMA space. Our 
work shows that what happens is FEMA frequently is getting 
large sums of money to assist in these qualified individual 
assistance for disaster relief, but there doesn't seem to be 
any resources provided in that funding for FEMA to administer 
these additional programs. So, they are basically taking these 
oncoming new roles out of hide.
    So, our work in Puerto Rico is a good example. A few years 
ago, FEMA was unable to deliver just the basic necessity and 
emergency assistance for water----
    Ms. Underwood. So, Mr. Cuffari, that actually was not my 
question.
    My question was about equity and allocating the resources 
and doing FEMA's emergency response work.
    Mr. Cuffari. Certainly. So, I mentioned we have numerous 
reviews. One of those reviews is the ongoing equity audit that 
is being conducted in our Office of Audit. We have an ongoing 
project right now that is not completed, but I certainly would 
want to share that with you and the rest of the members of the 
committee once it is done.
    Ms. Underwood. And that equity audit, is that explicitly 
including FEMA?
    Mr. Cuffari. Yes.
    Ms. Underwood. Okay. Last September, FEMA announced its new 
agency-wide definition for equity to make programs more 
accessible to vulnerable populations, quote, the consistent and 
systematic, fair, just, and impartial treatment of all 
individuals.
    Now, I am encouraged by this effort, but certainly it will 
be a big undertaking. How does OIG plan to hold FEMA 
accountable for meeting that new definition of equity?
    Mr. Cuffari. Well, we would take a look, obviously, in this 
ongoing audit of equity to see what their definition is and see 
whether or not they are implementing it appropriately and 
consistently across the entire organization.
    Ms. Underwood. And when do you expect that audit to be 
complete?
    Mr. Cuffari. I actually don't know. I can't give you a 
certain date, but they are still in fieldwork, so it is 
normally about a 6-to-8 month project.
    Ms. Underwood. So, that would extend beyond the current 
fiscal year?
    Mr. Cuffari. It potentially could. I would be able to get 
back to you and to the subcommittee within the next day on 
where they are in their audit.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
    Mr. Cuffari. It is possible that we could be done by the 
end of this fiscal year.
    Ms. Underwood. Okay. The OIG has a critical role to play in 
promoting more equitable policies Department-wide. OIG's 
website states that its vision is to drive transformative 
change to improve DHS programs and operations and promote a 
safer homeland.
    How does OIG plan to use its work to focus more attention 
on equity and disaster recovery both, at FEMA and Department-
wide?
    Mr. Cuffari. Well, this is just one example of an ongoing 
audit. We can take a look at other offices within the 
Department. There are, as you know, 24 various components and 
we could certainly factor that into our ongoing work.
    Ms. Underwood. Well, I would certainly encourage you to do 
so, sir. You know, we have seen the President issue his 
executive order and, you know, everything from the budget 
coming down from the administration has certainly centered 
equity. So, we hope that in your work and under your leadership 
and the Inspector General's Office, you would, in turn, make 
this a priority.
    We look forward to hearing more about your findings. Thank 
you so much.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. That completes the first round, so we 
have time. We are going to do a second round.
    In June of 2004, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued 
Management Directive 810.1 outlining the roles and 
responsibilities of DHS OIG. This document requires DHS 
components to refer all allegations of serious and criminal 
misconduct to the OIG, which has the right to assert exclusive 
jurisdiction over any case it chooses. The directive also 
requires the OIG to respond to components within 5 business 
days regarding its decision whether or not to investigate 
referred allegations.
    However, we know that historically, many allegations sit 
with the OIG for weeks or months before a response is sent to 
components, potentially impacting the availability of evidence 
and witnesses as well as impacting the Department's ability to 
rapidly address issues of public or congressional concern.
    Can you describe the process for determining which cases 
the OIG will take versus those it refers to other entities.
    Mr. Cuffari. Certainly. Thank you.
    So, I am aware, obviously, that there is a mandate to 
update the management directive. It is important that that 
update, to preserve our independence, remove the requirement 
that we turn complaints back to the Department in 5 days. 
Allegations that are referred to us, we need to take a look at. 
We have to be timely in doing so. I think 5 days is a short 
time period.
    This requirement here of the 5 days, it is inconsistent 
with the IG Act, with perhaps, attorney general guidelines, and 
also with CIGIE investigative standards. We have been working 
hard to keep track of our referrals. In some cases, we are 
working jointly with investigative components in the----
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. I am sorry, could you just walk me 
through the process as to what takes place in order for you to 
make that decision and maybe point out some of the obstacles 
that you are talking about that prevents you from doing it 
within the 5-day time that is required.
    Mr. Cuffari. So, I have a 32 field offices spread 
throughout the country with investigations and some of those. 
As an example, if there was an allegation involving corruption 
by an employee of the Department, the impacted component, we 
will use as an example, CBP, is obligated to make a referral to 
our office. They could do that via the hotline, through the 
joint intake center, or directly to our investigative divisions 
out in the field offices.
    We then evaluate that. We may actually already have an 
ongoing investigation that they may be aware of. I am told that 
in fiscal year 2022, we had about 31,000 allegations so far 
that we received. So, we processed those, consistent with our 
policies, whether or not we have ongoing activities and whether 
or not it is criminal.
    If the underlying allegation is criminal, we more likely 
than not, will take them, and if they are not criminal, we more 
likely than not will return them back to the component. But we 
need, perhaps, the best way to think of it is we need to test 
the allegation to see if it warrants us expending limit 
resources.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. From your perspective, are there 
things that can be done to streamline the process to make it 
more efficient so you can get closer to that 5-day requirement?
    Mr. Cuffari. I am going to have to take a stronger look at 
that, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yeah, I don't expect you to answer it, 
but if you could think about it and especially to see if there 
is any way this subcommittee can be helpful in that regard.
    Mr. Cuffari. Yes.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. The first objective of your strategic 
plan is addressing the timeliness and quality of the OIG's 
product. What steps have you taken or do you plan to take to 
accomplish this goal and have you seen any measurable progress 
toward that objective so far?
    Mr. Cuffari. Since during my tenure, I have hired a career 
professional Deputy IG to run my Audit Division. I also hired a 
career professional to run my office of inspections. 
Collectively, they are looking at timeliness. They set it as a 
priority. We are processing through benchmarks. We are working 
to eliminate, actually, some old cases that I inherited.
    Our productivity rate, I am happy to report, has been up 
about 20 percent since fiscal year 2019 and even during the 
pandemic, as of last year, we issued 73 reports.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Do you have data that you could share 
with the subcommittee on that?
    Mr. Cuffari. Most certainly, yes.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. And just, finally, one follow-up. In 
recent years, some high-profile OIG investigations have taken 
months or years to complete, which can delay the Department's 
ability to fully address vulnerabilities, ranging from 
detention condition to public corruption.
    For those who may be victims of families of victims, 
delayed justice can often be denied justice. Have you been 
satisfied with the OIG's pace of completing these 
investigations and are there steps your office can take to 
improve the timeliness of these investigations?
    Mr. Cuffari. Certainly. To answer your question, I had not 
been satisfied at my initial tenure here, but in the last 
several years, I am dedicated additional time and resources to 
exploring this issue. Again, I want to say that our timeliness 
issue is on mark; in fact, we passed last year, three external 
peer reviews in our office of audit, inspections, and 
investigations, all of which take a look at the timeliness of 
our reports, in addition to quality and meeting standards.
    Mr. Fleischmann.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Inspector 
General Cuffari. I appreciate your attentiveness toward our 
questions.
    My first question is a little bit general. As a statutorily 
independent agency, the OIG can submit funding requests in 
addition to the President's budget request. If Congress cannot 
fund all your questions above the President's budget, what are 
your top priorities, sir?
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    So my top priorities are to continue to do the great work 
we have been doing. I obviously will have to shift, reallocate 
resources within my office to cover what I perceive to be 
perhaps a shortfall of areas that I've identified still pose a 
risk for the Department and we do want to ensure that those are 
covered.
    Like I have mentioned, if we do not have that additional 
funding, it significantly would impact my ability to do COVID 
fraud investigations. We would not be able to take a look 
perhaps as robustly at cybersecurity and other border and 
immigration matters.
    So any help your subcommittee can give to us, we would 
certainly appreciate it.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Understood, sir.
    Billions of dollars have been appropriated to FEMA to 
provide grant funding following major disasters. Like other 
programs, the OIG has conducted investigations into alleged 
fraud of FEMA disaster relief programs.
    Three part question, sir.
    What has your office found regarding potential disaster 
relief fraud? What recommendations have you made to safeguard 
these programs to protect against criminal actions to steal 
these funds through identity theft and grant claims. And 
thirdly, sir, are there specific grant programs that suffer 
disproportionately to fraud? What steps should FEMA take to 
ensure that grant funds remain available to qualified 
recipients?
    Thank you, and I will await your answer.
    Mr. Cuffari. Yes, sir.
    So I understand that in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 in FEMA-
related audits we identified over $7 billion in questioned 
costs and about $380 million in funds that we determined could 
be put to better use.
    Much of these questionable costs related to not following 
federal procurement regulations and sufficient supporting 
documentation, and reliance on self-certifications.
    We currently have right now 21 FEMA-related audits that are 
ongoing involving a wide variety of issues.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Very well.
    Well, thank you for your answers. And with that, Madam 
Chair, I will yield back.
    And, again, General, thank you so much for your answers to 
our questions, sir. Wish you well.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you.
    Well, the cybersecurity mission at the Department is 
rapidly growing, and of course we need to do that, especially 
for domestic cyberattacks.
    The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, 
has grown over $1 billion in annual appropriations since I have 
been back on this subcommittee, and that was 2015. At the same 
time, the cybersecurity threats to our nation continue to grow 
and CISA is our main domestic entity for coordination and 
collaboration with the private sector where most of the 
vulnerabilities lie.
    I have seen some of the past work you have done with CISA 
on approving information sharing, taking a look at the 
continuous diagnostics and mitigation that is called the CDM 
program, and on dam security.
    Can you talk about how your office approached oversight 
with CISA and how has that changed, if at all, since your 
confirmation in 2019 as CISA has continued to mature as an 
organization?
    Mr. Cuffari. Well, thank you, sir.
    You may know my undergraduate degree is actually in 
management information systems, so cybersecurity is near and 
dear to my heart.
    CISA, as you know, plays a vital role in securing policies, 
both in the public and private sector. However, CISA doesn't 
have the internal requirement to ensure that DHS follows these 
policies. So my office, as the independent office of the IG, 
performs that compliance function.
    We have a cybersecurity lab. We are attempting to penetrate 
systems to find weaknesses and vulnerabilities through these 
programs.
    I am trying to ensure that the smallest number of people 
possible have blanket access or keys to DHS systems. This 
certainly is a great vulnerability and I want to make sure that 
the DHS IT systems are patched.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Now [inaudible] continues to 
double down on supporting CISA and we need to do that. With 
large a year every year increases in their appropriations and 
emergency appropriations, when applicable. I commend the 
chairwoman and leadership on the full Committee and members of 
the Committee and, of course, their professional staff for 
their hard work on this.
    Now given your independence as the IG, besides increased 
resources how can congress ensure that CISA continues to be 
successful and how do you assess the Department's approach to 
the management of CISA?
    Mr. Cuffari. We would just ask that you allow us to be your 
oversight body as you do for the Department and for us to 
ensure that CISA performs the full scope of their authorities. 
This would include oversight of critical infrastructure, 
whether it is dams or the energy sector. And as I have 
mentioned, it is both an internal to the Department, across the 
government and also to the public.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. All right.
    Now I have spent most of my career, and it is up to 20 
years--didn't intend to stay that long, but here I am--
representing NSA. So I have done a lot of work and I was also 
ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. And so I have 
spent a lot of work with NSA, time with NSA.
    As you know, NSA has no jurisdiction in the United States. 
But notwithstanding that, do you call on NSA and their 
expertise as long as it is within the law to help you in some 
of the things that you are doing in your oversight capacity?
    Mr. Cuffari. Yes, sir.
    So I have a very good working relationship obviously with 
my colleague, Rob Storch, who is the NSA Inspector General. Our 
office, his Office of Audit and our office of audit currently 
has an ongoing audit looking at CISA and other cybersecurity 
related matters. It is ongoing. We would certainly be happy to 
share with the subcommittee at its conclusion.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, we just--you know, CISA has a ways 
to go, but they have done a good job with what they have and 
there is a lot of money being put into CISA. So as you know, 
for those of you who are really much involved in cyber at all, 
we have got some real threats ahead of us. So thank you for 
your work in that area.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Dr. Cuffari, I wanted to go back and talk about what I see 
as the self-inflicted nationwide public health disaster that is 
about to take place when we abandon Title 42. COVID-19 is not 
the only medical threat from this open border. Murder is a 
public safety threat; that I had an individual in my district 
murdered by an individual who came across the border illegally, 
claimed he was underage, and so he fell into the catch and 
release category, was sent to Jacksonville and he murdered one 
of my constituents.
    In addition to that, across this country we have seen over 
100,000 of our young people die from opioid overdose already 
last year, the first time ever. This is a self-inflicted 
national health disaster, and we have to look at Title 42.
    And now I see all of these federal agencies that are also 
being impacted, not just DHS. We mentioned DOD. They are being 
called to the border. Those military men and women are having 
to leave their homes and go to the border to get involved in 
this issue. My good friend, Mrs. Hinson, brought up earlier 
that the VA is sending doctors down to address these folks.
    In addition to that, I just was on a call with the USCIS. 
They are now going to be asked to handle the refugee situation. 
They already can't handle the legal immigration that they are 
being asked to deal with.
    And so this truly is beginning to effect not only every 
American in the country, but every federal agency in the 
country.
    And so I want to ask, do you have any open recommendations 
that have been made for how we should be processing these 
illegal immigrants at our southern border?
    Mr. Cuffari. Well, we completed an audit last year 
involving DHS's protocols, whether they were following 
protocols or had any established to conduct COVID testing of 
migrants at the southwest border. We made recommendations to 
CBP to enhance their ability to do that. We found that they 
were not consistently testing individuals before releasing them 
onto aircraft or into the custody of another agency or----
    Mr. Rutherford. Right.
    Mr. Cuffari [continuing]. Actually into the public.
    We also have a report back in February 2020 about the HSI 
criminal alien program that faced many challenges. We made 
recommendations. ISIS subsequently implemented those 
recommendations and the matter, to my knowledge, has been 
closed.
    Mr. Rutherford. So when Title 42 is lifted because they are 
okay with COVID-19 now, there is no concern about the number of 
murders that are being committed by these individuals. There is 
no concern about the opioid deaths and the drug trafficking and 
human trafficking.
    All of these, to me, should be considered public health 
issues all over the country because every city in America is 
now a border country because we are flying them all over the 
place. And I know they are flying into my district 
particularly.
    So do you have any recommendations on identifying these 
individuals, particularly these cartels, that are sending these 
people across? The man that was murdered in my district was 
murdered by an individual who was obviously working with a 
cartel because it was already set up that he was going to 
reference Mr. Cuellar as his uncle, not related to our member, 
Madam Chair. But that was--and two weeks later he is murdered 
by this individual. It was all prearranged before he crossed 
the border.
    And so my question is, what are we doing to stop these 
narco-terrorists from coming across our border?
    Mr. Cuffari. Well, what I can say, sir, is based on my 
extensive travels to the southwest border and having worked 
along the border for about, just over 20 years, it is incumbent 
upon the Department to take their screening and vetting process 
and do it robustly, consistently, taking fingerprints, biodata. 
We have had work in that area in the past. We have a number of 
reports related to that.
    So I think that is the first line of defense is to have 
those checks done consistently across the entire southwest 
border.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
    I see my time is expired. I yield back.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Dr. Cuffari, in your testimony you stated that you have 
identified numerous deficiencies in medical care at ICE 
detention centers, such as inadequate medical care and 
segregation, lack of documentation related to medical visits, 
and untimely response to medical grievances, critical medical 
understaffing, inadequate medical protocols and delayed medical 
treatment and medication refills for detainees.
    As a nurse I have been focused on this issue since 2019, my 
first year in Congress, when I traveled to the border with DHS 
and witnessed medical records being kept by hand, hindering 
patient care and provider safety. It is extremely concerning to 
hear how persistent this issue has been at ICE facilities.
    Can you please elaborate on the lack of documentation 
related to medical visits you have found and explain how that 
contributes to the larger picture of deficiencies in medical 
care?
    Mr. Cuffari. Certainly. Thank you, Madam Underwood.
    So with the subcommittee's actually enhancements to our 
budget back in 2020, we were given additional monies to hire an 
outside contracted medical care evaluation team. This consists 
of physicians as well as nurses. They have been accompanying us 
since then on our visits to the ICE detention facilities. We 
have made about 35 recommendations for ICE to improve 
conditions, many of which you have identified as inadequate 
staffing and matters like that.
    We also completed a report regarding the Irwin County 
Detention Facility in Georgia in 2021. They were housing 
immigration detainees. There was a lack of medical care that 
was being provided there. We then initiated another audit to 
take a look across the board of all ICE detention facilities 
regarding surgical procedures. This was as a result of the ICDC 
matter.
    Ms. Underwood. Yeah.
    So, Dr. Cuffari, in your report, you have read the report 
and you talked about the documentation piece. That is my 
question. Do you have any kind of additional detail or would 
you like to elaborate on the lack of documentation related to 
medical visits?
    Mr. Cuffari. I believe it is just a common practice and, 
you know, they are defaulting to the old pen and paper and 
putting information in a file and not using available 
electronic means to capture and store that information. I----
    Ms. Underwood. As this committee has continued to provide 
resources for that kind of electronic documentation, and we 
know that that is a critical best practice in all medical 
facilities across this country. And we are going to continue to 
provide oversight to make sure that in particular ICE improves 
their medical documentation and medical treatment.
    I am so pleased that this committee was able to secure the 
independent reorg of the CMO's office.
    Okay. The Trump administration's Family Separation Policy 
was a moral stain on our country's history. In May of 2021, OIG 
published a report confirming that under the last 
administration ICE removed at least 348 parents without the 
necessary documents for reunification, and in some cases 
removed parents without their children even after parents told 
ICE officers that they wanted their children to accompany them 
upon removal.
    In this report, OIG included recommendations to help ensure 
this never happens again.
    Can you provide an update on the status of those 
recommendations and whether they are being implemented?
    Mr. Cuffari. I don't have that available right at the 
moment. What I can say is we are doing an audit. It is a follow 
up to a report we did in November of 2019 that was taking a 
look at the interaction between ICE and the release of 
unaccompanied children to Health and Human Services.
    Ms. Underwood. Right. We appreciate that. But this was a 
newer report. This is from last year, May of 2021, under your 
tenure, sir.
    And so if you are not prepared to answer that question 
during this setting, please provide us for the record an update 
because your office did include a series of recommendations 
that we are very interested on the committee to understand if 
those are being implemented.
    Mr. Cuffari. Certainly.
    If I may, I understand we made two recommendations which 
DHS concurred with. What I don't know at this stage, and I will 
be happy to get back to you and the committee, I don't know 
whether they have been fully implemented. We have therefore 
closed them. That I will provide to you.
    Ms. Underwood. Wonderful.
    Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Mr. Cuffari. You're welcome.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
    Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks again, Dr. 
Cuffari, for sticking it out for another round of questions 
here.
    I want to turn now to an agency that Iowa is no stranger 
to. Unfortunately, we have a number of interactions with the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. I just want to 
highlight one natural disaster obviously that still is fresh in 
the minds of many of my constituents.
    In August of 2020 we had a massive derecho that tore across 
the state, very severe thunderstorm, $10 billion in damage, 
weeks' long blackouts, mass destruction of homes. People are 
still waiting to get some of these repairs done. And as you can 
tell, it really caused a lot of loss for lives and livelihoods 
in Iowa.
    So as we are having this discussion, you know, FEMA, they 
obviously were on the ground. They worked a lot to help with 
local recovery efforts, and they did help a lot of people. But 
there were several Iowans who have contacted our office who 
struggled to receive assistance in a timely manner, and my 
understanding is that in several cases that the bureaucratic 
red tape there was the real culprit. And that is obviously 
something that Iowans can't afford to wait on in many cases.
    So my question is, do you have any guidance based upon your 
interactions and oversight with FEMA to maybe give some 
recommendations on how FEMA could be more efficient in its 
mission and more responsive to my constituents who need that 
help?
    Mr. Cuffari. Well, I certainly commend the men and women of 
FEMA for their great work across the entire country. What I can 
say is FEMA frequently receives large sums of money to assist 
in disaster relief, but it appears as though the funding is 
lacking what I would call administrative overhead costs. This 
would be--so FEMA is taking out of hide the coverage of these 
additional ongoing matters and programs. They are not being 
given additional money, at least from our review is they are 
not being given additional money to cover what I would call 
administrative costs. They are taking on these additional 
burdens out of hide.
    So perhaps that might be a consideration to provide some 
degree or percentage of the disaster relief money. It could be 
dedicated to FEMA to augment their existing staff.
    Mrs. Hinson. Yeah, because obviously this part of their 
mission at the core is really critical. People need those 
assistance dollars coming in. And I know in our earlier 
conversation this week we talked about all of the different 
ways that FEMA is being stretched, much like many different 
departments under the Department of Homeland Security.
    So can you talk a little bit more about the oversight that 
you have done? Specifically, you talk about following the 
money, right, and seeing where the overhead is or where the 
waste is going, where there can be efficiencies.
    Can you just talk a little bit about what you have 
discovered in looking at FEMA?
    Mr. Cuffari. Right now we have got 21 ongoing FEMA audits. 
They are covering a wide variety of issues related to funeral 
assistance, lost wages, workforce management, property 
acquisition, et cetera, et cetera.
    Mrs. Hinson. Okay.
    Mr. Cuffari. Again, they are doing a great job, but each 
time we add an additional layer on, it begins to tax the 
existing structure.
    Mrs. Hinson. Yeah.
    And one of my biggest concerns going forward is making sure 
that they can provide what I think everybody deems as an 
important mission, which is that disaster assistance. And as we 
come into a very severe weather season, we lost 7 Iowans just a 
few weeks ago to tornados and many homes were damaged as well. 
So definitely top of mind for Iowans and many Americans as 
well.
    So I want to thank you for coming before us today.
    And I think I will have some questions for Round 3, Madam 
Chair. But for now I yield back.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. I believe that we are now ready to 
go into Round 3.
    And I believe, Mrs. Hinson, you are the one that has 
requested--you have additional questions. But before I turn it 
over to you, I did just want to make one comment.
    And that is that I agree with Mr. Rutherford 100 percent 
that we need to do everything we can to stop those at the 
border who want to do us harm.
    However, I do get a little bit concerned when we put 
everyone into that same basket. A large percentage of those who 
are coming to our border from countries where they are 
escaping, you know, rapes and murders and gangs and all the 
things that we have heard about, actually come to our borders 
and turn themselves in.
    And, also, when it comes to illicit drugs, drug 
trafficking, human trafficking, the majority of that actually 
takes place at our ports of entry. And that is why this 
subcommittee has done as much as it possibly can to address and 
support what is happening at our ports of entry and to provide 
border patrol and others with the resources they need to 
address these issues.
    So I just want to bring that point because I think it is 
concerning to throw every group of immigrant who wants to come 
into this country and to portray them as, unintentionally 
perhaps, but as murderers, drug traffickers, when, in fact, 
that is not the case. There are several different groups of 
people who want to come to this country for different reasons.
    And as I said, the majority coming from the Latin American 
are actually turning themselves in. And the majority of our 
drugs are coming through our ports of entry. So----
    Mr. Rutherford. I was not suggesting that everyone that 
wants to immigrate to this country or come across the southern 
border is a murderer or a drug dealer or a terrorist or a 
threat to this country.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. I under----
    Mr. Rutherford. The point that I am making is the vast 
numbers of illegal aliens that are crossing our border are 
impeding our ability to process people properly so that we know 
who is coming in. I simply want to know who is coming through 
our border. And right now we do not know.
    And we know now with the automated surveillance towers, we 
have a much better idea how many we are missing and how many of 
those are bringing drugs with them. And it is significant and 
that is why I brought that up.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. No. I understand that and I didn't mean 
to imply that you were doing that. I just wanted to make sure 
that those who are not familiar with the issues that this 
subcommittee deals with on a daily basis, that it was made 
clear to, you know, the general public that may be listening 
in.
    And that is one of the very reasons that because of the 
support and help of everyone on the subcommittee that we had 
our earlier hearing with USCIS, that we, you know, are meeting 
with, you know, Border Patrol and everyone to make sure that we 
understand clearly what they need to do exactly what you have 
said, Mr. Rutherford.
    And I thank you for your participation and the viewpoint 
that you bring to this committee as well.
    And now I will turn it over to Mrs. Hinson because I 
believe you have some questions for a third round.
    Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. I will be very quick.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you, again, Inspector General.
    I just wanted to follow up on something that we briefly 
talked about on Monday. You know, obviously we have talked a 
lot about the staffing issues, and I thank the Chair for her 
leadership on our budget process and our appropriations process 
where we were able to get them some more resources and 
hopefully they will be able to staff up and alleviate some of 
the burden and the strain that is existing on our men and women 
who are keeping our borders safe. But that has created maybe 
some unintentional consequences in the agency. And I know you 
are looking into some of those.
    And could you just elaborate a little bit on some of the 
investigations that you are conducting into some of the 
challenges that may have resulted unintentionally out--
unintended consequences out of some of the situation at the 
southern border?
    Mr. Cuffari. I guess I could talk about closed 
investigative work. We have a series of investigations that 
have closed involving public corruption of officials, either 
Border Patrol agents or inspectors at the ports. These sadly 
tarnish unnecessarily so the great work of the other CBP 
employees.
    In one particular case in Arizona there was a Border Patrol 
agent who while on duty was trafficking cocaine, heroin and 
fentanyl from a remote area along the border. And he was 
actually driving it up to the Phoenix airport and delivering it 
on duty to a drug trafficker. He is coming up for trial here in 
September or the summer of 2022.
    Again, these are issues that rise. The Department is a 
large organization. It is composed of humans, obviously. Some 
humans unfortunately do bad things and, again, unfortunately it 
tarnishes the reputation.
    In some cases Border Patrol agents come and approach our 
offices to talk about individuals who are drug traffickers or 
human smugglers who are trying to bribe them. So the agents 
self-report and work with us to target and then obviously 
investigate and ultimately indict the bad folks.
    Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. And absolutely we want to make sure that 
we are holding those people accountable while at the same time, 
you know, supporting the people who are doing the job and 
putting their lives on the line every single day.
    Can I ask, do you know how you were hearing about the--are 
they colleagues that are coming forward in a whistleblower 
fashion to report? Is the culture there where people feel 
comfortable to do that and come up the food chain and out those 
who may be breaking the law? You talked about self-reporting 
for people who obviously have been approached themselves. But 
what about the whistleblower aspect of the job?
    Mr. Cuffari. Well, the Department, we are actually the 
managers for the Department's Whistleblower Program. So we have 
a very robust team of highly skilled, dedicated career 
attorneys who are on that mission. We have a Whistleblower 
Coordinator whose role it is, is to provide training across the 
entire department. This individual is actually also going to 
embark on a pilot project to start an Alternative Dispute 
Resolution process within our Whistleblower Program.
    Mrs. Hinson. All right.
    In the interest of time I will go ahead and follow up 
offline. But thank you, again, Inspector General.
    And thank you, Madam Chair, for the extra time for 
questions. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, ma'am.
    Mrs. Hinson. Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann, did you or Mr. 
Rutherford have any additional questions?
    Mr. Fleischmann. No, Madam Chair. I believe they have 
called votes. I just want to thank the General for his 
testimony today and look forward to working with you as the 
chair and he in his capacity and with our wonderful 
subcommittee.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. If there are no more questions, that 
will conclude today's hearing.
    Inspector General Cuffari, thank you so very much for your 
time and for helping us think through the challenges that you 
are facing.
    The Subcommittee on Homeland Security stands adjourned.
    Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, Madam Chair. Have a good day.

                                         Wednesday, April 27, 2022.

                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                                WITNESS

HON. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, SECRETARY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
    SECURITY
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security 
will come to order.
    Today's hearing on the Department of Homeland Security 
Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2023 will be conducted by a 
hybrid hearing, so we need to address a few housekeeping 
matters.
    For any members joining virtually, speaking into the 
microphone will activate your camera and display your image on 
the main screen. Once you start speaking, there will be a 
slight delay before your image appears on the main screen. Do 
not stop your remarks if you do not see the screen switch 
immediately. If the screen does not change after several 
seconds, please make sure you are not muted.
    To minimize background noise and ensure the correct speaker 
is being displayed, we ask that members participating virtually 
remain on mute, unless you have sought recognition.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
However, I or staff I designate may mute participants' 
microphones when they are not recognized to speak to eliminate 
inadvertent background noise. If I notice when you are not 
recognized that you have not un-muted yourself, I will ask the 
staff to send you a request to unmute. Please accept that 
request so you are no longer muted.
    Members can submit information in writing for any of our 
hearings using the email address provided in advance to your 
staff.
    We will follow the speaking order set forth in the House 
rules, beginning with the Chair and ranking member, and then 
alternate by party beginning by members in order of seniority 
present at the time the hearing is called to order.
    Now, let's begin.
    This morning we welcome the Honorable Alejandro Mayorkas, 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who is here 
to discuss the Department's operations and its fiscal year 2023 
budget request.
    Mr. Secretary, we look forward to a productive discussion 
this morning.
    The Department has a difficult set of missions, ranging 
from cybersecurity and the safety of air travel, to terrorism 
preparedness, and the protection of our coastal and inland 
waterways. However, none of those missions is more challenging 
or fraught than immigration enforcement. I suspect that much of 
our conversation in this hearing will focus on that topic.
    Immigration enforcement is complicated and controversial, 
with policy choices on which members of the subcommittee will 
strongly disagree. However, I hope there is no disagreement 
about how challenging your task is under any set of policy 
assumptions.
    There are no easy answers because there are competing legal 
and moral imperatives that are difficult to balance, and we are 
not and cannot be in full control of all the factors driving 
migration.
    We have seen migration surges during Republican and 
Democratic Administrations and Congresses with no long-term 
correlation to policy trends.
    Mr. Secretary, as we hold you accountable this morning for 
what happens at the border, I am cognizant that Congress is 
accountable for failing to give the Department a realistic 
legal framework for managing the border, one that ensures the 
rule of law while ensuring due process and providing better 
opportunities for legal migration and asylum claims.
    Immigration reform would not solve all of our problems at 
the border, but without reform we are knowingly accepting a 
status quo that has become increasingly untenable.
    Mr. Secretary, despite our policy differences on 
immigration or any other matter, I want you to know that this 
subcommittee does appreciate what you and the more than 240,000 
men and women who work for you do every day to help keep our 
country safe.
    I will now turn to the distinguished gentleman from 
Tennessee, Ranking Member Fleischmann, for his opening remarks.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I sincerely thank you for joining 
us today, sir.
    Continuing the dialogue that we had on a bipartisan basis 
before the Easter break, sir, I think will be important in the 
weeks to come, and I thank you for that. And, hopefully, you 
can provide some additional insight, sir, into the plan that 
you released yesterday afternoon that outlines six border 
security pillars to address the historic number of migrants 
encountered by our agents and officers.
    The crisis at the border continues to dominate the 
headlines in part because of the Administration's plans to 
repeal Title 42, which have now, fortunately, been blocked by 
court order, at least temporarily.
    Roughly half of all migrants your agents and officers 
encounter illegally crossing the border are subject to removal 
under Title 42 authority. If that tool goes away, it has the 
potential to profoundly impact border security operations. 
Current DHS projections range from 6,000 encounters to upwards 
of 18,000 encounters. Even at the low end, it would mean a new 
record number of migrants crossing the border.
    Border Patrol stations and Immigration infrastructure were 
designed for single, adult men, meaning additional overflow 
space will be required and, even then, will likely be stretched 
beyond capacity.
    Before the court order, the CDC determined it was no longer 
necessary to protect U.S. citizens from COVID transmission. 
However, at the same time, the CDC attempted to extend federal 
mask mandates for public transportation, including on aircraft, 
trains, and local taxis to May 3rd. Although the mask mandate 
was also correctly stricken, in my view, by a federal judge, it 
illustrates the disjointed nature of this Administration's 
COVID policy choices.
    Beyond the debate around Title 42, this Administration 
continues to send all the wrong messages on border security and 
immigration enforcement.
    Administration officials emphasize the push factors that 
drive people to migrate illegally such as natural disasters, 
economic conditions, and the corruption that is endemic to many 
of the sending countries; however, they rarely, if ever, 
acknowledge that their actions have a role to play.
    Policy also drives illegal immigration, perception drives 
illegal immigration, changing both has to be a part of the 
Department's strategy because the current messages being sent, 
in my view, are contributing factors to the recent surge of 
illicit immigration because, right now, our current immigration 
policies are not working. We cannot manage our way out of this 
crisis with more processing capability or increase the ability 
of non-governmental organizations to address the near-term 
humanitarian needs.
    Many migrants our agents encounter are given a notice to 
appear and sent on their way into the interior of the United 
States to await a court date, often years into the future. It 
only encourages more people to come. A better approach would be 
to ensure that not only those with a legitimate fear of--only 
those with a legitimate fear of prosecution or those who come 
to the country legally are successful. Everyone else must be 
swiftly removed and sent home.
    Commitment to enforcement of our immigration law needs to 
be consistent and right now there are too many loopholes.
    Mr. Secretary, I look forward to working with you and your 
Department as we endeavor to seek solutions to address the 
border security crisis at hand.
    Madam Chairwoman, thank you and I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. I now recognize the distinguished 
gentlelady, Ranking Member Granger.
    Ms. Granger. I want to thank the Chairwoman for holding 
this important hearing on the Department of Homeland Security's 
fiscal year 2023 budget.
    Thank you also, Secretary Mayorkas, for joining us. We look 
forward to your testimony today.
    First, I want to honor Texas National Guardsman Bishop 
Evans. Specialist Evans lost his life over the weekend saving 
two migrants from drowning. Our deepest condolences go out to 
the family and friends of Specialist Evans, as well as the 
Texas National Guard. Illegal crossings like ones Specialist 
Evans encountered have skyrocketed under this Administration. A 
record number of migrants attempted to cross the border 
illegally last year and we are on track for another record-
breaking year.
    On average, our Border Patrol agents encounter 7,000 
individuals every day. This is straining the capabilities of 
our processing and detention facilities. Our agents and 
officers on the ground do not have the resources to handle 
numbers this high. The situation will only get worse if the 
Administration is successful in lifting the Title 42 public 
health authority that has been successfully used to deny entry 
to illegal migrants during the pandemic.
    Current projections from the Department suggest that 
without Title 42 authority the number of migrant encounters 
could more than double. Tens of thousands of migrants are 
waiting to cross the border if this authority is lifted.
    It has been reported that some ICE and CBP accounts could 
run out of funds as soon as July if President Biden is 
successful in revoking Title 42. Members on both sides of the 
aisle agree that now is not the time to stop enforcement of 
this policy. Thankfully, the Administration's plan to suspend 
the authority have been blocked for now by a federal judge.
    This Administration needs to stop their failed policies and 
start securing our border. The current policies have allowed 
cartels and human traffickers to take advantage of gaps in the 
wall; drug trafficking to surge with fentanyl; seizures 
increasing 134 percent; the number of deportations to fall by 
68 percent; hundreds of thousands of migrants to be released 
into the United States.
    We need commonsense solutions that deter illegal 
immigration, not policies that encourage more of it. Our 
message must be consistent and clear: the border is not open 
and, if you try to cross illegally, you will quickly be sent 
home. I urge the Administration to return to the rule of law 
and get serious about addressing the crisis at the border.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to extend my sincere appreciation to 
the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security who 
dedicate their lives to protect the great Nation.
    And thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Secretary, we will submit the full 
text of your official statement for the hearing record. Please 
begin your oral summary, which I would ask you keep to 5 
minutes.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you very much.
    Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member Fleischmann, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to join you and testify before you this morning.
    Every day, the 250,000 extraordinary personnel of the 
Department of Homeland Security interact with the public on a 
daily basis more than any other federal agency. While created 
to respond to a single threat in the aftermath of 9/11, our 
Department has remained agile, adapting to new challenges as 
they arise, as responsibilities grow, and as its role increases 
in scale and scope.
    The Fiscal Year 2023 Budget is a $97.3 billion investment 
in our capacity to meet the shifting-threat landscape. The 
resources will give us the tools to protect our communities 
from terrorism; to enhance border security; to invest in a 
safe, orderly, and humane immigration system; to counter cyber 
attacks; to safeguard our transportation networks; to 
strengthen disaster preparedness and resilience; and much more.
    On terrorism and targeted violence, the threat has evolved 
over the last two decades, and we meet this challenge by 
equipping every level of government, the private sector, and 
local communities with the tools and resources that they need 
to stay safe.
    In 2021, for the first time, we designated domestic violent 
extremism a national priority area in our FEMA grant programs; 
enhanced training opportunities for law enforcement; and 
increased our intelligence and information-sharing efforts. We 
are asking for additional funds to expand these operations.
    In the wake of incidents like the hostage crisis in 
Colleyville, Texas, we have increased our request for the vital 
Nonprofit Security Grant Program to $360 million, to protect 
houses of worship and other nonprofits from terrorism and 
targeted violence.
    Under this Administration, our department has been 
executing a comprehensive strategy to secure our borders and to 
rebuild our immigration system.
    With the Title 42 public health order set to be lifted, we 
expect migration levels to increase as smugglers seek to take 
advantage of and to profit from vulnerable migrants. We will 
continue to enforce our immigration laws.
    After Title 42 is lifted, non-citizens will be processed 
pursuant to Title 8, which provides that individuals who cross 
the border without legal authorization are processed for 
removal and, if unable to establish a legal basis to remove in 
the United States, are removed promptly from the country.
    We started our planning last September, and we are leading 
the execution of a whole-of-government strategy that stands on 
six pillars to prepare for and manage the rise in non-citizen 
encounters: one, surge resources including personnel, 
transportation, medical support, and facilities; two, increase 
efficiency without compromising the integrity of our screening 
processes to reduce strain on the border; three, administer 
consequences for unlawful entry, including expedited removal 
and criminal prosecution; four, bolster the capacity of NGOs 
and coordinate with state, local, and community partners; five, 
target and disrupt transnational criminal organizations and 
human smugglers; six, deter irregular migration south of our 
border in partnership with other federal agencies and nations.
    We inherited a broken and dismantled system that is already 
under strain. It is not built to manage the current levels and 
types of migratory flows; only Congress can fix this. Yet, we 
have effectively managed an unprecedented number of non-
citizens seeking to enter the United States, and interdicted 
more drugs and disrupted more smuggling operations than ever 
before. A significant increase in migrant encounters will 
strain our system even further and we will address this 
challenge successfully, but it will take time and we need the 
partnership of Congress, state and local officials, NGOs, and 
communities to do so.
    To build on our ongoing work, in this budget we have 
requested funding to hire 300 new Border Patrol agents, the 
first increase since 2011; ensure the safe and humane treatment 
of migrants; and operationalize a new rule on asylum 
processing. We are requesting additional funds to counter human 
and drug-smuggling operations, combat the heinous crime of 
child exploitation and human trafficking, and stop goods 
produced by forced labor from entering our markets.
    Finally, our mission set includes a series of other 
essential priorities.
    DHS, through the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security 
Agency, protects our critical infrastructure from malicious 
cyber activity, a threat heightened due to Russia's unprovoked 
and brutal invasion of Ukraine. Our budget will expand our 
cybersecurity services, bolster our ability to respond to cyber 
intrusions, and grow our cyber operational planning activities.
    DHS, through the Transportation Security Administration, 
protects the traveling public. Our budget invests in paying 
TSA's dedicated personnel commensurate with their federal 
colleagues and ensuring they receive employment protections.
    DHS, through FEMA and other agencies, continues to answer 
the risks posed by climate change and natural disasters growing 
in ferocity and frequency.
    Our budget invests in adaptation, resilience, improved 
response and recovery, and more. We cannot do this alone. DHS 
is a department of partnerships.
    I look forward to working with this committee to carry out 
our wide-ranging mission on behalf of the American people.
    Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Secretary, I have been very 
concerned by calls for continuing the use of Title 42 expulsion 
authority at the border and I was alarmed by the recent court 
order that at least temporarily would prohibit the planned end 
of Title 42 next month. Even though this authority is legally 
premised on the mitigation of public health risk, there can be 
no denying that it also helps CBP manage the border by reducing 
the number of people that require processing, but that is not a 
legally sufficient reason to continue it and it would fly in 
the face of the legal due process rights of migrants.
    My question is, do you believe it is time for the use of 
Title 42 authority to end at the border? And can you discuss 
how DHS is estimating the impact of ending Title 42 on the flow 
of migrants, including the assumptions behind the estimates we 
have heard of up to 18,000 individuals per day?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, as you have correctly 
identified, Title 42 is a public health authority that rests in 
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention, an agency within the Department of Health and 
Human Services. It is based on their expert assessment of the 
public health needs of the American public and they decide 
whether the Title 42 authority remains necessary, remains a 
public health imperative, on the basis of public health data 
that they obtain and their expert decision based on it.
    Our responsibility in the Department of Homeland Security 
is to implement the Title 42 authority of the CDC at our 
border, and to implement it effectively and judiciously 
according to the law. We are mindful that there can be an 
increase in migratory flows encountered at our southern border 
should Title 42 come to an end, as the CDC has determined that 
it needs to do by May 23rd. Our responsibility, therefore, is 
to prepare and plan for that eventuality.
    We have been mindful of the fact that the Title 42 
authority would not be in place forever and, therefore, we 
began our extensive planning and preparation since September of 
last year. I outlined the six pillars of our plan that really 
have guided our day-to-day preparation since the fall of last 
year, and we are preparing for different scenarios. It is very 
difficult to predict the level of migration that we will 
encounter once Title 42 comes to an end and we are planning and 
preparing for different scenarios as a result. That is what we 
do; we plan, we prepare, and we execute in the service of our 
mission.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Now, the estimates of 18,000 
individuals, are those estimates based on a country-by-country 
projection? And what do the estimates mean in the short term as 
you consider the Department's funding and resource needs?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, we haven't estimated 
the level of increase that we might experience, but what we 
have done is develop different scenarios and plans for 
addressing each and every one of those scenarios.
    It is very important, I think, that everyone understands 
that an increase in migratory flows is not something unique to 
the United States; this is something that occurs in countries 
throughout the region, throughout the Western Hemisphere, and, 
as we have seen so powerfully and regrettably, throughout the 
world.
    We have seen more than five million Ukrainians flee their 
country, which has been so brutally attacked by Russia. We have 
Colombia in the southern part of our hemisphere experiencing 
more than 1.8 million Venezuelans crossing its borders. I 
recently traveled to Costa Rica and to Panama and heard from 
other countries with respect to the similar challenges that 
they are facing. These challenges are brought about and are 
made more acute by the COVID-19 pandemic, but some of the 
causes of irregular migration have only been heightened in the 
years of distress preceding this Administration. Economic 
downturn, an increase in violence, the significant impacts of 
climate change, these are the forces that drive people to leave 
their homes that they have established and in which they have 
grown up for years.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. And do you think that the extra $1.4 
billion that Congress already provided for this fiscal year 
will be enough?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, we appreciate the 
$1.4 billion that was provided to the Department of Homeland 
Security to address this situation. We have, of course, 
submitted to Congress a spending plan for that amount of money.
    We have an obligation to the American public to manage our 
funding in a fiscally responsible way and that is indeed what 
we are doing. We are planning to reprogram funds as necessary, 
and we will be open and forthcoming with Congress with respect 
to those plans.
    We also are preparing, should reprogramming not be 
sufficient, to request a supplemental. We have not reached that 
point; we are going to try to avoid that to the best of our 
abilities. We will be in constant communication with this 
committee, and we appreciate this committee's support.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Thank you again, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Secretary, the Biden administration, through the 
Centers for Disease Control, attempted to end the Title 42 
public health authority effective May the 23rd; however, a 
temporary restraining order now prevents the Administration 
from doing so. DHS's internal estimates provide several 
scenarios for the number of border crossers that may cross if 
we lift Title 42. Projections were as high as 18,000 encounters 
a day.
    My first question, sir. Would DHS have been prepared if not 
for the court order, sir?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Ranking Member Fleischmann, thank you 
very much for your question.
    It is our responsibility to plan and prepare for 
eventualities that might materialize. We started to plan and 
prepare for the end of Title 42 commencing in September of last 
year, in September of 2021. We have been preparing every single 
day since then.
    Yesterday, I published a memorandum that set forth the 
pillars, the six pillars that undergird our planning and 
preparation, so that everyone can understand the extent of the 
planning and preparation that we have undertaken.
    As I articulated in response to the chairwoman's question, 
it is our responsibility to plan and prepare, and to execute 
upon those plans, to address the challenges that are before us, 
and they are varied and continue to vary because our mission is 
expansive.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Secretary, even if we don't lift Title 42, we are going 
to see this year a record number of migrant encounters at the 
border. Do you believe, sir, that we need to implement 
additional consequences for illicit border crossers?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Ranking Member Fleischmann, what we 
fundamentally need is legislation to fix what everyone agrees 
is a broken immigration system. That is the one thing in the 
immigration sphere where there is unanimity.
    The six pillars of our plans that I outlined in a 
memorandum yesterday are six pillars that we are executing upon 
whether or not Title 42 comes to an end. One of those pillars 
is indeed the consequences for entering our country in between 
a port of entry without having a legal basis to remain in this 
country. Individuals who make a claim for relief under our laws 
and whose claims do not succeed in immigration court 
proceedings are removed from this country, and we are employing 
our authorities to effect those removals as swiftly as 
possible.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
    You have already alluded to this in your testimony, but 
yesterday DHS released a plan for southwest border security and 
preparedness, which outlines your plan to surge resources and 
address the anticipated increase in border crossings when and 
if Title 42 is lifted.
    The first pillar of the plan is to surge resources to the 
southwest border, including support and medical personnel. 
Presumably, these additional personnel come from other 
components throughout DHS.
    My question, sir, what is the impact to those agencies who 
rely on these individuals as they are deployed to help 
alleviate the preventable border surge?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, not all of those resources 
come from other parts of the Department and I want to identify 
one very important example that illustrates my point.
    I have been to the border approximately eight times. During 
my last visit, I heard loudly and clearly the concerns of our 
heroic, incredibly dedicated Border Patrol agents, about their 
need for additional support so that they can get out into the 
field and can interdict individuals seeking to evade law 
enforcement and cross our border illegally. In response to that 
need, we have hired contract case-processing personnel to 
process individuals who have sought to enter our border 
illegally, and this allows those Border Patrol agents out into 
the field. We have contracted for 300 case processors and we 
have the capacity to plus-up that force that does not come from 
within the Department. We are using our contracting authorities 
very effectively and efficiently to achieve that mission.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Secretary, thank you.
    Madam Chair, I'll yield back and wait for round two. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I think the job of 
this subcommittee is to provide the resources and hopefully 
some guidance to do your job because you are right, migration 
has been happening all over the world for war, economic, 
droughts, you name it, for many, many years. So it is not a 
matter of how do we control the border, but how do we manage 
the border.
    Your plan that you laid out, actually, I think it can work. 
Three of them are to deal with the border, how do you move 
people out of the border in a more humane, efficient way, but I 
am interested in the three other ones that address the issues 
of expedited removals and what we do with those other 
countries. Instead of playing defense on the 1-yard line, what 
are we doing to work with the other countries.
    The first thing is--and I am going to ask very specific 
questions--the Laredo sector and the Rio Grande sector are 
operating at 40 percent. That means that 60 percent of the men 
and women are in the processing centers and 40 percent actually 
doing Homeland Security. It is like having a school and only 40 
percent of the teachers are in the classroom and the other ones 
are doing something else.
    The border processing coordinators is something that we 
started many years ago, years ago, and we still haven't ramped 
up. I know I heard you say 300, but we should have done that a 
long time ago to put those folks in the processing centers and 
our men and women outside.
    I hope you all can move on that quicker because I think it 
will be key to get the other 60 percent of the Border Patrol 
folks out in the field to do Homeland.
    Number two, the asylum officers--this is the way I see this 
and I have brought this so many times--if somebody is coming 
from a country from another part of the world, it doesn't have 
to be only the Central American countries, they pass through 
country A. Country A can give them asylum, they can ask for 
asylum, they don't ask that. Then they pass through country B. 
They could do the same thing, ask for asylum, but they don't 
ask for them. They want to come to the United States, but they 
probably passed two, three, four countries where they could 
have asked for asylum.
    Do asylum officers take that in consideration where their 
fear could have been taken care of in country A, B, C, or D, 
depending on where they are coming from?
    And I know the immigration judges are not under your 
department, it is a different department, but is that something 
they take in consideration? Because I think a lot of those 
issues can be addressed very quickly because if the question is 
how do you take care of--how do you address the credible fear, 
I think that credible fear could have been taken here.
    And the reason I say that because I have been with Border 
Patrol where I find the 45-day permit, you know, some time ago 
from Mexico, and then the relief that they have been given in 
Chile or some other countries, but they drop them off and they 
are starting new.
    Is that something that the asylum officers look at?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, if I can answer the 
different questions----
    Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir.
    Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. That you have proposed to 
me, and I will do so as quickly as I can. I very much 
appreciate your recognition of the importance of the case 
processors. That is why from my last visit to the border, I 
equipped the case processors with additional tools to magnify 
their portfolios, and to allow more agents out in the field.
    We already brought on more case processors, and we will be 
bringing on 300-plus more. So I very much appreciate your 
recognition of their importance.
    The asylum officers, Congressman, you know, right now are 
working in a system where the average length of time between 
the time of encounter and the final adjudication of an asylum 
case is six to eight years. A stark example of how broken our 
immigration system is.
    For the first time, this administration has promulgated an 
asylum officer rule that will allow the asylum officers to make 
that ultimate asylum adjudication, and that will take that six 
to eight year period and reduce it to under a year without 
compromising due process. That is a game changer, Congressman.
    With respect to your point about the migratory flows from 
country to country and, ultimately potentially, to our southern 
border, because the promise of America is the greatest promise 
in the world, that is precisely why I was in Panama last week. 
I went to speak with my counterparts, along with U.S. Secretary 
of State Blinken, with the foreign secretaries and security 
secretaries of countries throughout the region, about their 
border management, the humanitarian relief that they could 
provide, the responsibilities that they have to provide that 
relief according to their laws, and to repatriate individuals 
who do not qualify for relief under their laws.
    This is a regional, hemispheric challenge, and it needs to 
be met with a regional hemispheric response. We continue to 
work with countries in the region, last week in Panama, in June 
at the Summit of the Americas, and every day in between.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Granger.
    Ms. Granger. Thank you. Since Congress blocked the 
administration proposal to rescind funding for wall 
construction, you have a balance of roughly $2.5 billion 
available. I understand that some of the funding will be used 
to fix problems created for the decision to cancel the wall 
contracts midstream, such as closing gaps and building gates. 
The remaining funds must be spent on wall construction.
    So please tell us exactly how you plan to spend the funds. 
If you can't provide an answer now, when will you be able to 
share this information.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, thank you very much for 
your question. Indeed, we are closing gaps and completing 
gates. I approved, I believe, approximately 68 projects in 
furtherance of that effort. We are well aware of our 
responsibility to spend the funds that have been appropriated 
to the wall, and we are undertaking an analysis of how most 
effectively to do so, while honoring the President's 
commitment.
    We are dedicated to spending those funds in a way that 
enhances safety and security, and we will provide you with a 
plan that gives you more details in that regard. We are very 
well aware of our obligations, and we will execute those 
obligations in adherence to your authority.
    Ms. Granger. Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us today. It is 
great to see you.
    I am a nurse, so today I want to focus on DHS's policies 
around medical care. These policies are incredibly important, 
and they help keep DHS personnel, migrants, and most especially 
our community safe. Since you have taken office, you have made 
significant improvements on this front, especially regarding 
the well being of unaccompanied children, where the last 
administration fell beyond short of reflecting our values and 
meeting our standards. That is thanks to changes made under 
your leadership, and I want to recognize your efforts and those 
of DHS staff.
    However, there is still a lot more work that needs to be 
done. Let's start with vaccinations. I have been advocating for 
DHS to offer the COVID-19 and influenza vaccines to people in 
its custody for years now, and finally on March 28th, the 
administration announced that CBP would begin offering the 
COVID-19 vaccine.
    We know that vaccines save lives, and this policy will 
protect migrants and the DHS personnel serving at our borders. 
When DHS began implementing this plan one month ago, DHS 
officials said that you would initially be able to provide up 
to 2,000 vaccines per day, at 11 locations along the border.
    Officials also stated that your plan was to increase 
capacity to 6,000 vaccines per day at 27 locations by the end 
of May. Are you on track to hit this goal?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, thank you very much for 
your concern with respect to the medical and health well-being 
of individuals whom we encounter at our southern border. I'm 
very well aware of your experience and your dedication to this 
issue.
    We are on track, thanks to the extraordinary leadership of 
our physicians and their support personnel, and we are gearing 
forward to meet the objective of vaccinating up to 6,000 
migrants per day in more than 20 facilities across the border.
    Ms. Underwood. Great. How many migrants have been 
vaccinated at the border since you began this policy in March? 
And can you share any additional details on implementation?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, I would have to provide, 
and will provide, you with that data subsequent to this 
hearing. I don't have that detail with me this morning.
    Ms. Underwood. Okay. Thank you. Like I mentioned, 
Chairwoman DeLauro and I have called on CBP to offer flu 
vaccines to people in its custody since 2019. Even before the 
COVID-19 pandemic, CDC urged Customs and Border Protection to 
administer the flu vaccine to people in its custody.
    With DHS now administering the COVID-19 vaccine, can we 
expect the Department to expand this program to include the flu 
vaccine in the future?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Forgive me--in an architecture that we 
established to test, isolate, and quarantine non-citizens whom 
we have encountered, for example.
    We have been working very closely with non-governmental 
organizations to advance the public health needs of the 
population.
    Ms. Underwood. Okay. Well, I am very supportive of all 
efforts to expand vaccination, and I look forward to your 
continued partnership on that.
    Now, I would like to discuss the Chief Medical Office 
reorganization, which has been one of my, and Chairwoman 
Roybal-Allard's top priorities over the past year. I am so 
proud that the fiscal year 2022 omnibus included our provision 
allowing for the establishment of a new executive management 
office, led by the CMO to better lead and coordinate the 
Department's medical and public health priorities and 
operations.
    The current structure where the CMO reports to the 
countering weapons of mass destruction office, instead of 
directly to you, sir, has led to disjointed and isolated 
medical efforts in the Department. I know it is early, but can 
you share with the committee any plans and timelines you have 
for developing this new office?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, thanks to you and thanks 
to the chairwoman for supporting this effort. It is reflective 
of our desire to bring greater integration to the entire 
Department, and in this mission set, it is so imperative.
    It is thanks to our Chief Medical Officer, other 
physicians, and other personnel that we have been actually able 
to provide medical care, and to meet the needs of our 
workforce, and the public whom we serve effectively, despite a 
sub-optimal organization.
    We are developing detailed plans. We look forward to 
working with you in this committee on the execution of those 
plans, and we are doing so as rapidly as possible. This is a 
really terrific opportunity for us, and we are grateful that 
you have created it.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, for 
holding this hearing. Secretary Mayorkas, thank you for taking 
the time to speak to us today.
    As you may know, my district lines the Mississippi Gulf 
coast and has two ports of entry where CBP agents are 
stationed. We have two U.S. Coast Guard, small boat stations. 
And we have got what I believe to be two of the greatest ship 
builders in America right in my backyard. One building the 
National Security Cutter and the other building the first polar 
security cutter in over 50 years.
    And so I would like to extend an open invitation for you to 
visit the Mississippi Gulf coast at any time. I would like to 
be a part of your trip.
    The last time you testified before this subcommittee, I had 
just returned from a trip to the southwest border with several 
members of the border security caucus. I am appalled by the 
fact that it has been a year since you sat before us last, and 
the only change regarding the situation at the southwest border 
is that the situation has gotten much worst.
    This administration's lax policies in opening the border is 
not just to allow immigration to occur. It has opened the flood 
gates for nefarious activity and burden to DS agencies that 
have the responsibility to respond. And this isn't just 
affecting the border, but it is also affecting local and state 
law enforcement all across America. Not just border states.
    The CBP agents I spoke with while visiting the border 
begged us to fight for the continuation of Title 42, because 
their facilities and their staffing levels cannot handle the 
massive influx that would occur if they were reversed. How can 
this administration literally file lawsuits to keep CDC COVID-
19 protocols inflicted on American people in planes and public 
transportation, but alternatively want to drop the COVID-19 
protocol for non-citizens/immigrants under Title 42 at the 
border?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, thank you, first of all 
for your kind invitation to visit your jurisdiction, and I will 
accept that invitation and look forward to joining you there, 
and I cannot overstate the importance of the National Security 
Cutters, and our appreciation for this committee's support for 
the polar security cutter, which is of such vital importance, 
especially as our arctic strategy becomes more important with 
other nations aggressions in that area.
    Congressman, as I said at the very outset, Title 42 is an 
authority that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
exercises. It is their authority exclusively and not ours. Our 
job is to implement plans according to whether or not that 
authority continues to be exercised in their decision making.
    Let me be clear that we are mandating vaccines for 
individuals whom we encounter at the southern border. We are 
building our vaccination capacity, and those individuals who 
are not vaccinated are subject to detention if they are not 
already subject to detention for independent law enforcement 
means.
    Individuals who cross our border are placed in immigration 
enforcement proceedings. They make claims for relief under our 
law. If they do so and those claims succeed, then they have 
established a legal basis to remain. If those claims do not 
succeed, then they are expeditiously removed from our country.
    Mr. Palazzo. The well-resourced cartels, gang members, 
human traffickers, and drug smugglers will exploit this crisis 
to further endanger American citizens. A group of 130 plus 
members of Congress wrote to you, calling on you to immediately 
take all legal and necessary actions at your disposal, which 
there are many, to secure the southern border, rectify the 
dangerous policies this administration has put in motion over 
the past year, and bring your agency into compliance with the 
laws passed by the United States Congress.
    How much has it cost the Department of Homeland Security to 
cancel, pause, or otherwise halt construction of physical 
barriers along the southern border, authorized and appropriated 
by law?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, let me say a few things in 
response to your question, because we are implementing the laws 
that Congress has passed, and we are doing so effectively, 
focusing on the greatest public safety, national security, and 
border security threats.
    We are exercising prosecutorial discretion, a long-
established and long held best practice. We are doing so 
effectively to have the greatest law enforcement impact, number 
one. Number two, you mentioned the cartels, the transnational 
criminal organizations.
    We have intensified our efforts to attack them and have 
done so in unprecedented ways. I welcome the chance to provide 
details with respect to how we are doing so. The Department of 
Homeland Security, is collaborating with other federal agencies 
and with state and local law enforcement agencies.
    The majority of the wall projects rest in the jurisdiction 
of the Army Corps of Engineers. I believe that the cost of 
discontinuing those that we control is approximately $72 
million. And I will follow up with you to ensure the accuracy 
of my statement this morning. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Palazzo. Yeah. Thank you. Please do. I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, you have a 
very difficult job. I think right now you are dealing with the 
issues the way you should, and we hope to support you as much 
as we can.
    To begin--at the request of the department, the FY-2022 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act provided funds for an 
incident management assistance team, called IMAT, primarily for 
incidents that are not declared emergencies or disasters under 
the Stafford Act, or paid from the Disaster Relief Fund. That 
is called DRF. Acronyms everywhere.
    I represent a coastal district which is prone to flooding. 
More than not, these events are not classified as major 
disaster declarations. However, it certainly doesn't feel that 
way to my constituents who live there. And as such, I am a big 
supporter of the IMAT model and would like to raise the 
program's profile in the committee.
    Now, one, can you explain what IMAT is and what they do, 
and the status of the new team?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, we are so appreciative of 
your support of IMAT. IMAT brings different planning, 
preparation, and execution capabilities to bear in response to 
an incident. It is all about preparation, planning, response, 
and resilience, and the IMAT structure provides an integrated 
approach to that mission set.
    Indeed, it is an authority that we have exercised in the 
context of natural disasters under the Stafford Act, but we are 
expanding it further, thanks to your championing that program.
    I also should expand further, because the IMAT structure is 
the optimal way to address challenges, whether they be Stafford 
Act, outside the Stafford Act, natural disasters, or challenges 
of a different nature. That is why we are in the midst of 
developing the IMAT capability throughout the Department to 
address whatever challenges that we might face.
    Of course, FEMA is most experienced in that, as is the 
United States Coast Guard. We are bringing that capability 
throughout the Department. That is one of our core initiatives 
in the 12 priorities that I outline for Fiscal Year 2022, six 
of which are built on organizational advancement, six of which 
are focused on mission advancement.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. And you mentioned FEMA. Why is it 
beneficial for FEMA to have an IMAT team that is not funded by 
DRF?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Because, Congressman, FEMA addresses so 
many different types of challenges. Some fall within the 
Stafford Act declaration construct, and some don't. To your 
point that you made at the very outset, to your constituents, 
the Stafford Act isn't necessarily the line that they draw when 
they are confronting a challenge that jeopardizes their well-
being.
    Therefore, that is not the best line to differentiate when 
the IMAT capability is brought to bear to address a challenge.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Can this team be used for disasters and 
emergencies declared under the Stafford Act, if needed?
    Secretary Mayorkas. It certainly can, Congressman.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. There is plenty of flexibility there?
    Secretary Mayorkas. There is and we are building that 
capability to address all sorts of challenges. In fact, the 
southern border coordination center that I directed to be 
created to address the challenge at the southern border is led 
by an IMAT expert from FEMA who brings that capability to bear.
    We are bringing together all of our capabilities across the 
Department to address that challenge and to address others.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
    Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ranking 
Member Fleischmann. Thank you, Secretary, for coming before us 
today to answer our questions.
    And I know the timing of this hearing is incredibly 
important, given the chaos that is happening at our southern 
border right now. We know those numbers from March were well 
over 200,000 encounters with illegal immigrants, a 500-percent 
increase over 2020, incredibly alarming to me and our 
communities.
    I just did a townhall last week, heard from our local law 
enforcement. They see the federal government as failing at its 
mission at the southern border, and they are having to deploy 
resources locally to counter for that. It is frustrating to me 
that I feel like here we are again after a year. We were given 
these warnings a year ago about the situations, not only at our 
border communities for our law enforcement officers, not only 
down in Texas, but in places like Iowa, who continue to raise 
the alarm that this crisis has worsened.
    And so I think this is a direct result, the compounding 
that we are seeing at our southern border of this problem, of 
this Administration's policies. I think it is ludicrous that 
you are saying comprehensive and deliberate strategies since 
January of 2021, and yet here we are, with a worsening and 
compounding crisis at our southern border.
    So I had a chance to visit the southern border last April. 
I had a chance to connect with Customs and Border Patrol agents 
in the Del Rio sector. We know Title 42 has been a very useful 
tool for border patrol to help process people at our southern 
border. I heard that directly from agents. They were asking for 
this to be permanent.
    I think if our President and our Vice President also had a 
chance to go down and see this in person, they would hear that 
directly from them as well. So I would ask you to convey that 
to the President and the Vice President that they need to go 
see it in person as well.
    Because of this policy, we are hearing from the DHS 
inspector general, General Cuffari, was before our committee a 
few weeks ago as well. He said there are 100,000 migrants 
waiting for this policy to end, just sitting there. We know 
that number is going to increase as well. And when we see 
Border Patrol because severely undermanned, and I know you are 
asking for more agents, but when 60 percent of them are not 
doing their job as intended, that is a huge hole.
    So have you talked to Border Patrol agents on the ground at 
our southern border? What are they telling you about the end of 
Title 42, and the anticipation of that policy changing? We 
would be interested in what you are hearing from the agents.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, thank you so very much. 
I have much to say in response to the statements that preceded 
your question but allow me to respectfully disagree with much 
of what you said, and to just answer your question.
    As I said earlier this morning before this committee, I 
visited the border eight times now in my role as Secretary, and 
I have visited it previously in my role as the Deputy Secretary 
and in other capacities throughout my more than 20 years in 
federal service.
    The Border Patrol agents are doing their job every single 
day. We need to get them out in the field to interdict 
individuals who are seeking to cross our border illegally. That 
is why, as I have said previously, we are ramping up the case 
processing capabilities to get those Border Patrol agents out 
into the field.
    Some certainly of the agents have said to me that Title 42 
has been of utility to them, despite the level of recidivism 
that Title 42 can prompt. Please remember that under Title 42, 
individuals are expelled, they are not formally removed in 
immigration proceedings, and therefore, they do not have a 
record of removal. What we are seeing is the number of 
encounters, not necessarily the number of unique individuals 
reflected in the numbers that you have cited.
    Some of the agents have requested Title 42 remain, and I 
have explained to them, as I have shared with this committee 
that the law provides that that is a public health authority, 
not an immigration policy, and the CDC controls the exercise of 
that authority according to its assessment of the public health 
need.
    Mrs. Hinson. So if CBP is understaffed, and agents are in 
many of these cases coming to you and saying, hey, we probably 
need this policy to be permanent, how does this work with ICE? 
We know ICE beds are underutilized right now. These agencies 
should be working together to handle this increased influx. 
What are we doing with the additional ICE beds and the 
detention beds for the people who are being brought into a 
country and who are not being expelled quickly?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are 
working hand in glove as part of the SBCC, the Southern Border 
Coordinating Center, and they worked hand-in-glove before I 
directed the creation of that center.
    The tension is being used in furtherance of our prosecution 
efforts. We focus our detention resources on the greatest 
public safety, national security, and border security threats. 
That is where we have the greatest law enforcement impact, and 
we continue to exercise our detention authority, our 
prosecution authorities in the service of those three primary 
goals.
    Mrs. Hinson. Thank you. I will yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Quigley.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 
Secretary.
    Mr. Secretary, I represent Chicago, Ukrainian Village, and 
one of the largest Ukrainian populations in the country. They 
want to know how to get Ukrainian refugees there. Let's start 
at the border in that regard.
    What is your understanding of the numbers of Ukrainian 
refugees that have come to the southern border here, and how 
many have been processed, and how many remain?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, thank you very much for 
your concern about the Ukrainians who have fled their country, 
which has been so brutally attacked.
    We have focused resources on the port of entry at San 
Ysidro, where the majority of Ukrainians who flew to Mexico 
with the hope of entering the United States assembled.
    We have drawn down that population of Ukrainians 
dramatically. We surged resources of U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection. I will provide you with the specific details and 
the numbers that you have requested. But let me, if I can, take 
a step back, because our efforts are extensive with respect to 
providing humanitarian relief for individuals who have fled war 
torn Ukraine.
    We deployed refugee affairs officers to the region 
immediately to be able to begin to administer refugee 
applications to Ukrainians. We just stood up Uniting For 
Ukraine, a very innovative humanitarian relief program that 
makes humanitarian parole available to Ukrainians who have a 
sponsor in the United States.
    We also assessed humanitarian parole requests on an 
individualized basis before we stood up the Uniting For Ukraine 
program. The Department of State recently issued guidance with 
respect to the issuance of visas for Ukrainians who want to 
come to the United States temporarily, understanding that their 
hope is to be able to return to their country and enjoy the 
sovereignty that is part of our international norms and our 
international architecture.
    I very much appreciate your concern for the people of 
Ukraine.
    Mr. Quigley. No, and I appreciate your mentioning all of 
those coming from war torn countries. It is my hope, indeed, 
that the millions who have left the Ukraine shines a light on 
the problem worldwide. And obviously, we should care just as 
much about those leaving Afghanistan, Africa, Yemen, and so 
forth. And I appreciate your efforts there.
    Again, we are curious, the number of Ukrainians who have 
come through the southern border, how many are still waiting. 
And there was concern among my constituents that Unite for 
Ukraine would say we are going to do this, but at some point, 
we are going to stop allowing this through the southern border.
    Could you explain what that situation is and how we are 
alerting people about that possibility?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you very much, Congressman. I 
should say that in addition to the efforts that I articulated 
in response to your first question, we of course also granted 
temporary protected status for those Ukrainian nationals who 
are already resident in the United States because it is not 
safe, of course, to return to their country at this time.
    We believe that if Ukrainians fleeing Ukraine want to come 
to the United States and to seek humanitarian relief here in 
the United States, the most effective, efficient, and assured 
process is to proceed through our means that I have outlined 
directly, and not to go to the southern border to Mexico, and 
enter through a port of entry. That is not the way to do it, 
and----
    Mr. Quigley. But you--excuse me. You can appreciate the 
fact that they are in the middle of a war and they are making 
decisions in a hurry.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes. And----
    Mr. Quigley. So how are we messaging through Ukraine and 
places like Warsaw and other countries that they would leave 
from, to understand what the other options are?
    Secretary Mayorkas. We are messaging that not only to the 
Ukrainian diaspora already present in the United States, but we 
are messaging that through our public communications in the 
region through our international partners, through our consular 
officers. We are indeed getting that word out.
    Mr. Quigley. And the word about how to use Unite for 
Ukraine.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Correct. How to use Uniting for 
Ukraine, how to apply for a visa, what is the availability and 
means of accessing our refugee program and all of the different 
humanitarian channels that we have made available.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair and the ranking 
member. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here this 
morning.
    I want to follow-up on the Ukraine refugee issue. We have a 
large influx that have come across the Southern Border in my 
district now and I was really glad to hear, I think it was last 
Monday, when the Uniting for Ukraine was laid out because we 
had heard the commitment to bring 100,000, but there hadn't 
been any rulemaking for that, I suppose.
    So I my question is, in light of the fact that we still 
have Afghans, 6 months, who are trying to come through the same 
process, how long do we expect the Ukrainians to have to wait 
to be able to properly come through to America, as well? Do we 
have an idea on how long that is going to take?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, thanks so much for this 
important question.
    We are focused on meeting the urgency of the moment and we 
did exactly that through Operation Allies Welcome in which we 
were able to build a parole program where the parole 
determinations, according to law, were made on an 
individualized case-by-case basis. We paroled more than 73,000 
Afghan nationals within a matter of weeks.
    We intend to design and are designing our program and, are 
underway in its implementation to meet the urgency of the 
moment, with respect to the needs of Ukrainians who fled their 
war-torn country. We are prioritizing that.
    I cannot overstate the challenge, because, please remember, 
the agency that is on point for that, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, within the Department of Homeland 
Security, has not had adequate funding for more than 7 years. 
It was entirely dismantled and we are in the process of 
rebuilding it.
    What the workforce of that agency has done, characteristic 
of the workforce throughout the Department of Homeland Security 
is truly extraordinary.
    Mr. Rutherford. But those same USCIS employees are being 
surged to the Southern Border to now process those people. So, 
you are exacerbating the situation with USCIS.
    So, my question--two questions on Ukraine, still. Those 
that are under the parole situation in Uniting for Ukraine, 
what benefits are those individuals in my district, what--other 
than being able to work through, you know, a work 
authorization, are they going to receive other benefits, can 
you tell me that?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, let me, if I can, just 
address very briefly the statement that you made after my first 
response. We are not dealing only with a broken immigration 
system, we are dealing with a broken immigration system that 
was dismantled in its entirety in the prior administration, and 
we are rebuilding it.
    With respect to the Ukrainians, those individuals who are 
granted parole are able to apply for work authorization and are 
able to work lawfully in the United States. They gain lawful 
presence. They are not entitled to all of the benefits, of 
course, to which American citizens are entitled and I could----
    Mr. Rutherford. Not all. But are there--can you give me a 
list of those benefits that they do have a right to so that we 
can be sure that the--you know, I have a lot of Ukrainians in 
my district and I want to make sure that we are doing all we 
can for them.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I so very much appreciate 
that, and I will provide you with that list subsequent to this.
    And I should say that we are working very closely with the 
private sector to partner----
    Mr. Rutherford. NGOs.
    Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. Yes, NGOs, and not only 
that, but the business community, to match individuals with 
jobs for which they qualify, any to address any housing needs 
that they might have. We have exercised these capabilities very 
heavily through Operation Allies Welcome and what we did for 
the Afghan nationals we continue to do. We draw lessons from 
that capability and apply them to other urgencies, and I would 
be pleased to walk through that with you.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
    Madam Chair, I see my time is expired. I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
    Mr. Secretary, I wanted to return briefly to the discussion 
of ending Title 42. Like my colleagues, I believe that we need 
to manage our Southern Border in an orderly fashion; however, 
we must ensure that we treat migrants at our borders with 
compassion, dignity and respect, regardless of the country that 
they are traveling from.
    Yesterday, the Department released their plan for the 
Southwest Border Security and Preparedness, which demonstrates 
ways to process migrants safely and quickly. The plan details 
how DHS is coordinating with NGOs and local stakeholders.
    So, my question is, can you provide some additional clarity 
and detail about the engagement that DHS is making with NGOs 
and stakeholders on our Southern Border, what types of 
engagements have been made at the border, as well as in 
communities where migrants might be placed with case management 
and ATD alternatives to detention services.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, thanks so very much.
    One of the most powerful examples of how we have worked 
with the NGO community across the Southern Border is in the 
dispensation of medical care to the migrants in need. We built 
and entire architecture with--through the capabilities of our 
Chief Medical Officer and his team, to have NGOs and nonprofit 
organizations build the capacity to test, isolate, and 
quarantine migrants, and also be able to reimburse them for 
their expenses through our FEMA programs that are pass-throughs 
through the state when the states were cooperative with us.
    That is a shining example of how we leveraged civil 
society, non-governmental society to assist in addressing the 
needs of individuals. We are taking that example and are 
applying it in other respects, as well: other types of medical 
care, social service needs, and uniting with family members 
here during the pendency of immigration enforcement 
proceedings. We are working with the NGOs across the border, 
and we are also very focused on communicating more robustly 
with state and local communities and seeing how we can support 
them and how we can better coordinate with them across the 
enterprise.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
    The plan that you release also talks about a successful 
pilot program on en-route processing. As the name alludes to, 
this program allows CBP to process individuals in transit to 
NGO shelters or to the border.
    Can you elaborate on this program and the efficiencies that 
it will bring to processing migrants, what type of metrics you 
look at and utilized to determine whether this is successful 
and how we scale this up and the guardrails that are in place 
to make sure that individuals can still make a case for 
credible fear during the en-route processing, as well.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, this is one element of an 
overarching effort to bring greater efficiency to the 
processing of individuals who we encounter at the border. I 
have spoken my plan and it is in greater detail; of course, our 
digitizing A files to bring greater efficiency.
    En-route processing is a very practical solution to a 
compelling need to decompress Border Patrol stations. I have 
said time and time again, for example, that the Border Patrol 
station is no place for an unaccompanied child. It is also no 
place for overcrowding.
    For individuals who are going to be in transit from a 
Border Patrol station, perhaps for several hours, why not take 
some of the processing that we would perform in the Border 
Patrol station and actually equip our personnel, our case 
processors to perform some of that processing while those 
individuals are in transit, away from the Border Patrol station 
and to one of our other facilities, for example. That is just 
practical efficiency.
    We are piloting it with the hope of scaling it, not just to 
meet the Southern Border challenge, but to actually decompress 
Border Patrol stations on an enduring basis. That is the type 
of efficiency that we are creating as we meet the challenge at 
our Southern Border.
    Mr. Aguilar. What are the metrics that you are looking at? 
How will you define success and scale this pilot up?
    Secretary Mayorkas. The success is the impact that we will 
have in the decompression of the Border Patrol stations----
    Mr. Aguilar. Measured by hours of processing?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes. The speed with which--and I was 
able to say, Congressman, the speed with which we process. And 
one thing is very important to emphasize and I cannot overstate 
its importance: without compromising the accuracy and security 
of the processing that we undertake.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. That concludes the first round of 
questioning, so we are going to go into a second round.
    I would like to go back to the impact of Title 42. And my 
question has to do with how you will process 18,000 migrants 
per day while keeping a time in custody below the 72 hours and 
still be able to ensure due process without compromising a 
necessary vetting.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, the 18,000 is not 
projected. As I mentioned, we just built that scenario so that 
we can plan for different scenarios. We scale it at different 
levels and plan accordingly to be able to ensure that our 
preparations, our extensive presentations are comprehensive.
    There is no question that if we encounter 18,000 people in 
a single day, that we will seriously strain our capabilities. I 
just need to be clear in that regard.
    You mentioned the 72-hour legal time frame and that applies 
to unaccompanied children specifically. And we provided in 
March of 2021, the capability that we could have when we see a 
number of unaccompanied children encountered at our Southern 
Border.
    What we did is we deployed our expertise and our personnel. 
As Congressman Ruppersberger mentioned, the IMAT team, we 
brought that capability to bear to build greater capacity in 
Health and Human Services to shelter those individuals, and 
greater efficiencies in the Department of Health and Human 
Services to unite those unaccompanied children with a qualified 
parent, legal guardian, or family relative.
    From those lessons that we developed in March of 2021 and 
in the ensuing weeks, the capability that we brought to bear to 
the Department of Health and Human Services, we applied those 
in our operational planning now and we will implement them 
accordingly.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Is there a plan to ensure that all 
migrants not placed into expedited removal will be fully 
processed and given a confirmed court date on their notice to 
appear?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, I believe that there 
is a Supreme Court precedent that requires certain details to 
be included in a notice to appear, and we will comply with the 
law as we always do.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And will migrants who are released 
be enrolled in alternatives to detention and will they be 
provided with case management services?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, if I can, just take a 
step back and emphasize one point, that individuals who are 
encountered at the Southern Border are placed in immigration 
enforcement proceedings. Those who pose a public safety threat, 
a national security threat, a threat to border security, are 
placed in detention.
    We have increased our capacity to apply alternatives to 
detention and we continue to augment those resources, thanks to 
the support of this committee. We will apply alternatives to 
detention.
    We are seeing a responsiveness rate that is very high as we 
exercise our alternatives to detention in our supervisorial 
capabilities. We are doing everything that we can to ensure 
that individuals check in with ICE and appear for their 
proceedings.
    If individuals abscond, then we will deploy our enforcement 
resources to address that absconsion and that failure to comply 
with legal requirements.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. My next question has to do with the fact 
that over the last month and up until last week, CBP 
implemented the humanitarian parole process for Ukrainians, 
which was--recently, our colleagues just was talking about. And 
you worked extensively, as was said, with the NGOs to process 
up to 1,000 Ukrainians per day at the San Ysidro Port of Entry.
    Last week, the administration announced a new process for 
Ukrainians to apply for humanitarian parole prior to seeking 
admission to the United States, as was previously mentioned. It 
seems to me that the large number of Ukrainians processed 
through San Ysidro seems to demonstrate that there is a much 
larger capacity for processing, LPOEs that many have assumed in 
the past.
    Do you agree that we should be processing more migrants, 
especially asylum-seekers, through the land ports of entry, and 
if so, what are the Department's plans for doing that?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, the question goes to 
one of the elements of the six-pillar plan that I reflected in 
the memorandum issued yesterday. One of the elements of 
efficiency that we outlined in one of those six pillars is, in 
fact, enhancing and increasing port of entry capacity to 
process individuals encountered at the border, trying to drive 
individuals to a safer, more orderly means of applying for 
asylum, as our laws recognize.
    We used a virtual platform that we created to address an 
emergent situation created by the past administration and that 
was the Camp Matamoros, which had individuals living in squalid 
conditions and suffering untold horrors, criminal horrors. We 
developed a platform where they could register, they could be 
interviewed by international organizations, and assisted by 
non-governmental organizations in Mexico. And once they pass 
that screening, could actually be transported safely at a 
designated time at our port of entry for processing.
    We are taking that virtual platform, CBP1, is how we have 
termed it, and see how we can expand it to address the 
challenge at the Southern Border and maximize the efficiency of 
processing at the ports of entry.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Thank you, again, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Secretary, Border Patrol stations were designed for the 
short-term detention of single-adult males, not for the family 
units and unaccompanied children crossing the border. Those 
stations are strained to the point where we have to shuttle 
migrants to other parts of the border just to keep up with 
processing.
    Every Border Patrol agent stuck processing migrants, 
providing security in a soft-sided facility, or attending to 
the basic humanitarian needs of those detained is not out in 
the field performing the law enforcement role they are paid and 
trained for. There are impacts to our ability to interdict 
drugs and criminal organization as a result.
    Your plan released late yesterday speaks to the backfilling 
with civilian personnel, but that drains resources from other 
components or requires a lengthy hiring process.
    Mr. Secretary, what is your long-term plan to get more 
agents in the field? Thank you.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, thank you so much.
    As I outlined, the hiring of personnel, contract personnel 
does not drain other resources, other personnel resources in 
the Department of Homeland Security. And our Fiscal Year 2023 
budget is a powerful example of how we are seeking additional 
resources from Congress to establish a more enduring solution 
than mere reliance on contractual personnel.
    We have requested funding for 300 more Border Patrol agents 
and we have requested funding for full-time case-processing 
personnel. We look forward to, and hope for, this committee's 
support of our Fiscal Year 2023 budget request in that regard 
and in all regards.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Secretary, the administration tried to 
roll back the Migrant Protection Program, which requires 
migrants to wait in Mexico for their court hearing, but was 
required, by court order, to reinstate the program. The Migrant 
Protection Program was used extensively by the last 
administration, but on average, only a handful of migrants are 
enrolled each day currently in any given Border Patrol sector.
    Why is the administration enrolling such a small number of 
migrants in this program, sir?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I am familiar with the 
migrant protection protocols, the common language used to 
describe that is the ``Remain in Mexico'' Program.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Correct.
    Secretary Mayorkas. And I think it is very important to 
understand that our implementation of that program requires a 
bilateral relationship. We need the collaboration of Mexico in 
the administration of that program.
    I have articulated, quite clearly and quite strongly, our 
disagreement with that program and I think what resulted from 
the prior administration's execution of that program 
underscores the reasons why I so significantly and ardently 
oppose it. We received, for example, a report of more than 
1,500 incidents of murder, rape, torture, and other crimes 
committed against the individuals who were subject to Remain in 
Mexico program.
    We are working with Mexico to administer that program in 
good faith, as we are required to do under the Court's order, 
and to do so in a way that reflects and adheres to our values 
as a nation.
    Mr. Fleischmann. I think I am going close on my time, so 
Madam Chair, I think I will yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, I think there are three stakeholders that we 
need to listen to, besides Congress, about the border issues: 
as you know, the immigration activists, number one; and number 
two, our men and women at the border; and number three, our 
border communities.
    I appreciate when you visited us down there at the border 
in McAllen and you heard from mayors, county judges, county 
commissioners from Del Rio, all the way down to Brownsville, 
covering Tony Gonzalez, myself, Filemon Vela, and Vicente 
Gonzalez's district. And if you recall, my border folks, public 
officials were quite animated. I think now they are probably a 
little bit more animated because of what is happening on the 
border. And you recall, everything I say is pretty much--I 
repeat what they told you and sent from our men and women down 
there. So, I would ask you to continue to spending time, and I 
appreciate all the visits you have done, listening to our 
border communities, because there is a lot of concerns down 
there.
    Now, let me ask you a couple questions. And I have looked 
at your plan and, again, I think this plan can work if it is 
implemented right. By that, I mean is, you keep mentioning the 
broken system, I guess the Trump administration did, but there 
was not any legislative changes. It was whatever the 
administration did.
    You can fix whatever they did, I assume, number one. But if 
I take you back to the Secretary Jeh Johnson and Obama, they 
were able to treat the migrants with respect and dignity, but 
at the same time, when the law said you have got to send them 
back, they sent them back. In fact, I worked with Secretary 
Johnson on showing images of people being returned to Honduras 
and the first lady being there and taking them in.
    Now, it is like we are afraid to show images of people 
going back. You all deport hundreds and hundreds and hundreds 
of thousands of people, but all we see is images of people 
coming into the United States and no images of people going 
back when the law has to be enforced. And on top of that, there 
are over one million final deportation orders that have still 
not been executed, plus the 1.6 million people who are still 
waiting on immigration.
    The reason I say that is, looking at your plan, if you look 
at the expedited removal, if you use Title 42, it will take 
from 1 to 2 hours. If you use Title 8, it will take from 24 to 
48 hours.
    What is your vision of ``expedited removal'' once Title 42 
does go away?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, you will recall, of 
course, that I served as the Deputy Secretary----
    Mr. Cuellar. Correct.
    Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. When Jeh Johnson served as 
the Secretary. And prior to that, I was the director of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, and we have worked 
together for many years. And I appreciate your prior law 
enforcement service, as well as your service now.
    Let me say one thing, because I certainly want to make sure 
that if you have a misimpression with respect to the 
publication of removals and our communication plan around those 
removals, that I put that misimpression to rest, because we 
are, indeed, communicating robustly in--throughout the region 
in the countries of origin with respect to the removals that we 
have effected and the consequence regime that we have imposed 
upon individuals who have crossed into our country, who have 
been encountered at the border, who have no legal claim for 
relief here in the United States. So, we are very robustly 
communicating those removals and those consequences.
    Expedited removal is something that we are focused on very 
intensely, as I laid out in the plan, and, in fact, I raised in 
Panama, where I was last week, with other countries, our need 
to accelerate the receipt of travel documents and the other 
mechanics that allow us to remove individuals as quickly as 
possible. And we are receiving increasing cooperation from a 
number of countries in the region.
    The benefit of expedited removal is actually captured in 
its term; the speed with which we can return individuals who 
have no basis here in the United States. And so, we are drawing 
increased efficiencies as the plan demonstrates and we are also 
working with our partners so that they can assist us in that 
regard.
    Mr. Cuellar. I have about 4 seconds before my time. So I 
gave you the expedited, I mean the time for the Title 42 and 
time for Title 8.
    How much time would an expedited removal, and I will close 
with that.
    Secretary Mayorkas. I think, actually, the processing of a 
Title 42 matter takes more time than the processing of another 
encounter. I will get you that detail. I don't want to misspeak 
and I will need to confirm.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    This committee provided $200 million in fiscal year 2022 to 
DHS for joint processing centers on the border. These are 
supposed to be one-stop centers for processing illegal 
immigrants, and in my view, the faster we can do this, the 
better, because it looks like we are going to have, yet another 
year where our taxpayers are going to foot the bill for 
billions of dollars for temporary facilities, instead of having 
an actual solution.
    Where is the Department on the plans for permanent joint 
processing facilities and when will they be built and what 
additional funding is needed in fiscal year 2023 to get them 
done?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman I very much appreciate your 
support for the joint processing centers. We actually identify 
those as one element of our plan that is captured in my 
memorandum issued yesterday. We call them ``enhanced central 
processing centers'' in the plan because they it is a very able 
model. It drives efficiency to have different parts of the 
Department of Homeland Security in one place and actually to 
have the NGOs present there, as well, so we can administer the 
processing as quickly as possible.
    And I will provide you with greater detail with respect to 
the implementation of those plans and very much appreciate your 
support for the centers.
    Mr. Palazzo. Well, my support is tepid, but it is out of a 
necessary requirement to handle the great influx of illegals, 
which I wish we wouldn't have to have this permanent procedure, 
but it seems like we definitely need it now.
    Secretary Mayorkas. And that, Congressman, if I may?
    Because the migration challenge, as I said at the outset, 
is a regional phenomenon, that is exactly why we are engaged so 
robustly with our partners to the south, to address migratory 
flows that run throughout the Western Hemisphere and throughout 
the world.
    This is a very different situation than 10 years ago. We 
have more displaced individuals around the world than ever 
before. The extraordinarily powerful images, the desperation in 
Ukraine is, I think, the most poignant and heartbreaking 
example of that.
    Mr. Palazzo. Yes, sir, and I agree. And I wish we had more 
than 5 minutes to discuss this because I think you have a lot 
to add to the conversation, as well as members of this 
committee.
    When we combine Homeland Security, there is 22 different 
departments. I am going to switch over to FEMA real quick, the 
National Flood Insurance Program, Risk Rating 2.0. FEMA is 
moving forward with implementing Risk Rating 2.0 for existing 
policyholders despite serious transparency concerns that I and 
others have raised surrounding the new premium rate system and 
its methodology.
    I have reached out to FEMA multiple times seeking clarity 
for this new rating system, but our concerns have gone 
unanswered. Any failure to consider mitigation efforts and 
setting rates is especially concerning due to the estimates 
that thousands of Mississippi families will face NFIP rate 
increases for years to come, potentially making the cost of 
flood insurance unaffordable for some policyholders. 
Mississippi families, and families all across the nation to be 
accurate, should not be left holding the bill for FEMA's 
inability to be transparent about the significant changes it is 
implementing.
    There have been several letters sent to you and FEMA 
regarding concerns from members with districts across the 
United States. The transparency and premium increases to 
policyholders has been lacking. Was there ever any conversation 
within your agency to delay the implementation of Risk Rating 
2.0?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I am very disheartened to 
hear your concerns continue with respect to the transparency 
with which we are exercising the implementation of Risk Rating 
2.0.
    The goal of that program is actually to increase access to 
flood insurance and to recalibrate the premiums with that goal 
in mind.
    One of the top priorities that I have set out for this 
Department is to increase openness----
    Mr. Palazzo. Yeah.
    Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. And transparency and I am 
going to engage with you personally----
    Mr. Palazzo. Right.
    Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. With FEMA to make sure 
that your constituents have the information they need.
    Mr. Palazzo. Our, you know, our number one goal is to make 
sure floor insurance remains affordable and available and this 
is going to hurt low to moderate income communities more than 
it will the wealthy.
    I do have some bills and I do not know if you have had a 
chance to review H.R. 5793 and H.R. 5802.
    I will get you those numbers. It is a bipartisan effort not 
just to reform NFIP but also to, you know, get a short term 
delay so these rates are not going to affect the--if the 
Chairwoman would allow me, I just have one quick question to--
and I will end this. We do not have to go to round 3.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Senator, go ahead.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    In the time that AI have been in Congress, I have seen 
constant attacks against the Jones Act, my special interest 
group bent on allowing foreign ships and crews to push out 
American sailors and ship builders.
    Last year, President Joe Biden signed a Made in America 
executive order strengthening federal buy American 
requirements.
    The order explicitly emphasized the important of Jones Act 
shipping which stands as a rare presidential endorsement for 
the U.S. maritime sector in the days of the start of the new 
administration.
    My question, simple. Do you support the Jones Act and are 
you committed to rigorous enforcement of the Jones Act?
    Secretary Mayorkas. I do and I am, Congressman, and I 
wanted you to know that the President's Buy American initiative 
is something that he is holding the entire Administration to.
    We have strict protocols to which we must adhere and we do 
so quite proudly with respect to our contracting to make sure 
that we are, indeed, buying American. It is something we are 
very proud to be a part of.
    I do believe in the Jones Act. I do support it.
    I know I have waiver authority and we exercise that quite 
prudently in only cases of emergency as the Colonial Pipeline 
incident was one.
    Mr. Palazzo. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I 
yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, you previously stated that domestic violent 
extremism is the number one terrorist threat facing our 
country.
    In your testimony, you stated that the intelligence 
community assesses that racially or ethnically motivated 
violent extremists who advocate for the superiority of a white 
race, including white supremacists, present the most lethal 
domestic violent extremism movement in the homeland.
    Beyond designating domestic violent extremism as a national 
priority area for FEMA grant programs, what else is DHS doing 
to combat this terrorist threat?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman Underwood, we do, indeed, 
consider domestic violent extremism the most significant 
terrorism threat facing the homeland.
    Not only did I identify this area as a national priority 
area in the FEMA grant programs, but we have created a special 
section in the Office of Intelligence and Analysis to focus on 
this terrorism related threat.
    We also stood up the Center for Prevention Programs and 
Partnerships with CP3 to work with communities to empower and 
equip communities to address this growing threat within their 
respective jurisdictions, recognizing that the community 
personnel are best situated to do so. Our job is to resource 
and support them with training, with funding and the like.
    We very much appreciate this committee's support of the 
Non-Profit Security Grant Program and we have submitted in the 
President's Fiscal Year 2023 budget a further increase of that 
grant program to $360 million from its currently appropriated 
funds funding now of $250 million.
    I was in Detroit several weeks ago meeting faith-based 
organizations and talking to them about how we can increase 
access to this critically needed grant program.
    The quality of access was a core principle of ours where 
the under--the otherwise under resourced organizations might 
not have the wherewithal to access the grant programs and yet 
do not have any less of a need for them.
    Ms. Underwood. That is right.
    Secretary Mayorkas. We are very focused on this mission 
set.
    Ms. Underwood. Great. Another huge threat to our homeland 
is mis and disinformation.
    You noted that it is a concern of yours at the border with 
human smuggling organizations peddling disinformation to 
exploit vulnerable migrants for profit.
    One of my main concerns about disinformation is that 
foreign adversaries attempt to destabilize our elections by 
targeting people of color with disinformation campaigns.
    After it became clear that there was foreign meddling in 
our 2016 election, the senate select committee on intelligence 
authored a report on the disinformation tactic used by Russia's 
internet research agency, the IRA, to interfere in the 
election.
    The report found that ``no single group of Americans was 
targeted by the IRA information operatives more than African 
Americans.''
    A newer trend that we saw in the 2020 election, and already 
in the 2022 mid-term, is that disinformation is being heavily 
targeted at Spanish speaking voters sparking and fueling 
conspiracy theories.
    DHS, and its components, play a big role in addressing mis 
and disinformation in Spanish and other languages.
    Can you share what steps you have taken and what future 
plans you have to address Spanish language mis and 
disinformation through department-wide approaches?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, we have a number of 
different offices engaged in this critical effort.
    Of course, our cyber security infrastructure security 
agency has an entire effort focused on election security----
    Ms. Underwood. Right.
    Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. As part of its mission 
set.
    Our Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans also is a leading 
effort.
    Our Undersecretary for Policy, Rob Silvers, is co-chair 
with our Principal Deputy General Counsel, Jennifer Gaskill, in 
leading a just recently constituted misinformation and 
disinformation governance board.
    The goal is to bring the resources of the Department 
together to address this threat.
    I just read a very interesting study that underscores the 
importance of the point that you make, the spread of mis- and 
disinformation in minority communities, specifically. We are 
focused on that in the context of our CP3 and other efforts.
    Ms. Underwood. Sure.
    Secretary Mayorkas. I would be pleased to share more.
    Ms. Underwood. But, Mr. Secretary, what I have heard you 
describe are internal organizations.
    What we are looking for is to make sure that there is 
external communications with the American public, including 
those for whom Spanish is their predominant language, to make 
sure that the information that the department has around mis 
and disinformation campaigns is reaching those individuals.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, forgive me if I 
misspoke, but I have provided you the details of the internal 
structures that we are using to communicate externally to----
    Ms. Underwood. Okay.
    Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. The American public.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
    Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. 
Secretary again.
    I want to talk now a little bit about taxpayer money 
because I am hearing again from Iowans on a regular basis. They 
are appalled by the mishandling of what has happened at the 
border and the resources that they send, their hard-earned 
paychecks. They care about what is happening with those dollars 
as do I and I hope you do, too, and we share that.
    So, yesterday afternoon, you published this memo, right, 
this plan and I want to point specifically to page 11 and what 
you write there which is DHS is currently determining which 
federal agencies can provide support through an inter-agency 
agreement.
    And this is concerning to me. We heard that the 
administration is considering moving healthcare providers from 
the VA, for example, doctors and nurses whose taxpayer dollars 
and their intent is to help care for our veterans.
    So my question to you today is a yes or no answer. Is the 
department of homeland security planning to reallocate 
resources, doctors and nurses, from our VA system, intended to 
care for our veterans, to help care for illegal immigrants at 
our southern border?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, let me be clear because 
an inter-agency effort is precisely what the challenge of 
migration requires, and it is not specific to 2022 or 2021 nor 
to 2020 or the years preceding.
    Mrs. Hinson. Right. I am just asking you a yes or no 
question.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Well----
    Mrs. Hinson. Are you planning on taking resources away from 
our veterans to help deal with the surge at our southern 
border? That is a yes or no question.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Actually, Congresswoman, the resources 
that the medical personnel from the U.S. Department of Veterans 
Affairs would allocate to this effort is under the judgment of 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, who prioritizes the 
interests of veterans above all others for very noble and 
correct reasons.
    Mrs. Hinson. Do you know if you--have you had any 
conversations about reallocating those resources?
    Secretary Mayorkas. I have not personally. But, of course, 
our teams, our personnel, have and I would be very pleased to 
follow up with you.
    Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. Our veterans need to know that the care 
that they have earned is going to be provided to them and not 
to those at our southern border.
    Secretary Mayorkas. That is one----
    Mrs. Hinson. The other thing I would like to ask you about, 
Mr. Secretary----
    Secretary Mayorkas. If I may, that is what the entire 
Department of Veterans Affairs is dedicated to do, and we have 
worked with the Veterans Affairs not only in addressing this 
challenge but in actually addressing the care and needs of 
those veterans who also have been experiencing the immigrant 
experience in the United States.
    We have people who have served in our military before even 
being naturalized. We work very closely to care for the needs 
of veterans in our country.
    Mrs. Hinson. Okay. Well, I would expect an answer 
specifically as to whether or not you intend to take those 
resources from our veterans because they are asking us those 
questions and we deserve-- they deserve to have an answer from 
us specifically.
    The other thing I want to talk about is taxpayer money that 
Congress has appropriated.
    This is a picture from our southern border. Taxpayer money 
sitting and rusting. This is probably good American steel. It 
should have been used to fill the gaps in the wall that, in 
your memo, you mention are being exploited by the cartels right 
now.
    So do you have anything to say to the taxpayers about this 
right here? These pieces of steel sitting there rusting while 
we have this crisis at our southern border?
    How much has halting the wall construction cost American 
taxpayers because they are having to divert those resources to 
handle the surge?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, as I articulated earlier 
in this hearing, we have an obligation to spend the monies that 
Congress has appropriated for the wall. The way in which we are 
doing that is to achieve the safety and security of the 
American people and to do so in a responsible way.
    We are also spending money addressing infirmities in the 
wall that was built overseeing corrosion and other failings.
    It is a very complex picture. With respect to----
    Mrs. Hinson. This is corrosion right here and this has 
driven people between the point of entries to the hands of the 
cartels in your own words.
    So I think this is--to taxpayers, they see this as a huge 
slap in the face to see these pieces sitting there that could 
be used to actually deter people from coming into these-- into 
our country, not at the points of entry.
    The last question I had specifically is about the illegals 
that are coming into the interior and how they are being 
transported here.
    How much does transporting migrants into the homeland cost 
our taxpayers right now and are they still being flown into our 
country?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, individuals who are 
transported from the point of encounter to detention are 
transported in different ways.
    They are transported from the Border Patrol facility to an 
ICE detention facility.
    They are transported by----
    Mrs. Hinson. But they are also being flown into places like 
Iowa.
    Secretary Mayorkas. If I may, Congresswoman.
    They are also flown to their countries of origin when they 
have been removed and their claims for relief have failed.
    I would be pleased to provide you with the specific 
numbers, the expenses of the administration of our immigration 
system and the laws that we are obligated to honor, which we 
do.
    Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. I want to know how much you are spending 
coming into the country, not to return them to other countries.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
    Mr. Aguilar. A lot of places to potentially go but I feel 
compelled, Mr. Secretary, to also mention, I have heard some of 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who I have a lot 
of respect for, not everybody who presents themselves in a 
processing center in the southern border is doing so for 
nefarious purposes.
    And it is frustrating to hear time and time again the fact 
that they want to have conversations about how Ukranians are 
treated at the southern border but using terms like illegals 
rather than those who are presenting themselves for lawful 
asylum.
    It is frustrating. It is frustrating that the dual standard 
is in place.
    I would also note, Mr. Secretary, I have been part of a 
number of trips down to the southern border when the prior 
structure was being built. Members of our own military showed 
us how they can penetrate these barriers quickly.
    And we know that at the time they were constructed that 
they could be penetrated. This was done for show, that this--
folks down there know this, that there are many ways to help 
secure our borders and a physical structure is one component.
    But, as you and the Department have said time and time 
again, there are other factors that can be more helpful.
    And I wanted to ask you a question. You mentioned in 
country processing. One way to address the true issue of 
surging migration is to talk about root causes and expanding 
the ways individuals in countries could apply for legal 
pathways in their own countries so they will not have to make 
that dangerous journey to the southwest border.
    In country processing is not new to DHS. In fact, DHS has 
been setting up infrastructure for in country processing that 
would allow migrants to apply for different immigration 
pathways legally and fairly.
    Some might be supported in countries maybe in eastern 
Europe by all of our colleagues but this is done throughout 
other countries as well.
    Can you give us an overview of where this is done in 
country, you know, where in country processing broadly stands 
and what authorities and resources you are going to need from 
Congress in order to meet those needs?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you, Congressman.
    Let me, if I can, preface my response to your specific 
question by commenting on the extraordinary benefits of 
technology and the dedication of technological capabilities at 
the border and that is precisely why our Fiscal Year 2023 
budget invests significantly on technological assets.
    So there are really 2 parts to your question; 1 is an 
enduring solution to the reason why people out of desperation 
flee their homes that they have built in the countries of their 
origin, in which they have been raised and that is addressing 
the root causes and this President, the Biden/Harris 
administration, has been very dedicated to addressing those 
root causes and investing in addressing them and doing so with 
civil society.
    The other means is by developing safe, orderly and humane 
pathways so individuals do not have to risk their lives in the 
hands of smuggling organizations that exploit their 
vulnerabilities purely for profit.
    And I think that a shining example of 1 such pathway is the 
Central American Minors program which we are scaling up where 
minors would not have to place their well-being or have their 
parents, desperate parents, place their well-being in the hands 
of smugglers and they can access our system should they qualify 
for relief here in the states.
    We have developed a migrant processing center in the 
northern part of Guatemala for that very same purpose and we 
are expanding those programs as a pillar of a safe, orderly and 
humane system.
    There is one other element, of course, that can provide an 
enduring solution which everyone agrees upon and no one has 
reached and that is legislation.
    Mr. Aguilar. And there are legislative solutions that the 
House has sent, in a bipartisan way, over to the Senate. And I 
agree with you, passing legislation is always preferred in 
order to fix this issue.
    Secretary Mayorkas. If I may, Congressman, the President 
sent proposed legislation on the first day that he was in 
office.
    Mr. Aguilar. If we were to go down to the northern 
Guatemala processing center, what would that look like? What is 
staffing look like at the processing center?
    Secretary Mayorkas. I visited one of the processing 
centers, Congressman, and, at that time, what it was focused 
upon was actually the re-integration of Guatemalans whom we had 
removed under our authorities, a proof of a couple of very 
important points.
    One is that those who do not qualify for relief under our 
laws will be removed and we do remove them and, two, to avoid 
recidivism we have to work with the countries of origin to make 
sure that those individuals can achieve stability in their 
lives so they do not feel compelled, out of desperation, to try 
again.
    It is a very complex challenge and we have to address the 
root causes of it. Alternately, we have to build lawful or 
orderly humane pathways and then, once and for all, we have to 
fix our immigration system that has been broken for so very 
many years.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back, Madam 
Chair.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, in September of last year, under your 
direction, ICE implemented new enforcement guidelines and these 
guidelines focused on the use of prosecutorial discretion.
    And stated in there was it is estimated that there are more 
than 11 million undocumented or otherwise removable, non-
citizens in the United States. We do not have the resources to 
apprehend and see the removal of every one of these non-
citizens. Therefore, we need to exercise our discretion and 
determine whom to prioritize for immigration enforcement 
action.
    And I can tell you, as a former sheriff myself, I know the 
limitations that budgets can put on you but 1 of the questions 
that I have and would like an explanation for is in fiscal year 
2019, ICE deported 359,000 illegal aliens from the interior of 
our country. In 2020, 185,000 and that, and add about 4 years 
of Trump deportations in there, and then, the last year, last 
year, with the same resources, they only deported 59,000. What 
is going on?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I can answer this question 
very succinctly but I want to take a step back if I may.
    Mr. Rutherford. Certainly.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Because I served as a federal 
prosecutor for 12 years; first as an assistant United States 
Attorney for almost 9 and then for the United States Attorney 
in the central district of California for about 3 years.
    We had 186 criminal prosecutors when I served as the United 
States Attorney. We could have dedicated 186 of those 
prosecutors, every single one of them, to narcotics cases. We 
could have dedicated every single one of them to significant 
fraud cases.
    But what we did with the resources that we had was we 
allocated those resources to have the greatest public safety 
impact in the many different areas for which we were 
responsible.
    The concept of prosecutorial discretion, I know you are 
very familiar with it, as a former sheriff, is an underpinning 
of smart and effective law enforcement.
    And I do not believe, and many people in law enforcement do 
not believe, that public safety is a quantitative metric but 
rather a qualitative one.
    Mr. Rutherford. But let me ask----
    Secretary Mayorkas. If one--if I may, if one takes a look 
at the removals that we have effected, we have removed more 
serious criminals than the prior administration did. I have 
data and I can provide you with that specific data.
    Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Secretary, what I would like to know is 
what is the resource need to get back to where we are focusing 
and have the prosecutorial capacity to deport 359,000 who need 
and should be legally deported.
    Secretary Mayorkas. This is all about maximizing the public 
safety impact of the resources that we do have. 46 percent of 
ICE removals were for people convicted of felonies or 
aggravated felonies compared to 18 percent during the previous 
4 years and 17 percent the year before that.
    Mr. Rutherford. But here----
    Secretary Mayorkas. Forty-six percent.
    Mr. Rutherford. But, Mr. Secretary, if I can push back on 
that just a little bit.
    That percentage of--is of a 4 times the size number. So I 
think America was much safer when we deported 359,000, whether 
they were for serious felonies or serious misdemeanors.
    But 359 compared 59,000, that is not safer, I do not think. 
So-- and I will leave that there but I would love to help you 
out with resources if that is what you need to get back to 
where we can, you know, see ICE deporting 359,000 people a year 
who need it.
    Now--and let me move. My time is about out. Last question.
    So you have talked a lot today about, you know, the fact 
that you are focusing on the irregularities of immigration 
coming from the south, talking to Panama and all of that. You 
have talked about targeting, disrupting the transnational 
criminal organizations, utilizing the NGOs more and more, 
administering consequences for unlawful entry, speeding up the 
CDP processing efficiency by adding those case processors and 
addressing the issue by surging people of the border.
    And I think the answer to your question was yes on the VA.
    And so my question is if this was all done, starting in 
September of 2021 according to your written testimony, and we 
still have these problems today at our southern border, I think 
if you asked probably two-thirds of the country, they will tell 
you the border is not secure.
    And so my question is now we are about to lift Title 42 and 
I do not hear a plan to address that.
    These things you have already implemented. These things are 
there now. What is going to change in response to Title 42?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Well, Congressman, we are building 
further and are implementing consistent with the 6 pillars that 
I identified in the memo that I published to make clear that we 
do have a plan. We are preparing and have been preparing and we 
are implementing our plans.
    We are building further. We are intensifying our efforts. 
We are increasing our efforts and are enhancing them.
    We are not done.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Madam Chair, I see my time is up. I 
yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Secretary, I do not know if there is 
any other comments that you want to make in terms of clarifying 
any other statements or concerns that have been raised at this 
time.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, we are addressing 
very complex issues. I have a great deal to say. I look forward 
to engaging further with members of this committee, and I am 
deeply grateful to you and to Ranking Member Fleischmann and to 
the distinguished members of this committee for their support 
and your support of the Department of Homeland Security and the 
extraordinary 250,000 individuals who sacrifice so much each 
day to accomplish our mission.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. I understand there are I know other 
questions from members but I do want to ask one last question 
about an agency that is absolutely critical to our security and 
that is TSA.
    The President's budget request proposes nearly 1 billion in 
additional spending to implement changes to TSA's pay structure 
and to extend collective bargaining and merit system protection 
to TSA personnel.
    Can you explain what these changes are and why they are 
important?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    The TSA personnel help to secure our country every single 
day. They also help facilitate lawful trade every single day. 
That is a very difficult job. They deserve to be paid 
commensurate with their colleagues in the Federal Government. 
They deserve collective bargaining rights like so many of their 
colleagues in the government. This is about parity and about 
recognition and about gratitude for their extraordinary 
service.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. And, with that, if there are no further 
questions, we will conclude today's hearing. Thank you very 
much, Mr. Secretary, for being here and I am sure we have other 
questions that we will be submitting to you for directorate and 
the subcommittee and Homeland Security stands adjourned.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you.
    [Answers to submitted questions follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        

                                          Thursday, April 28, 2022.

            CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY

                                WITNESS

HON. JEN EASTERLY, DIRECTOR, CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY 
    AGENCY
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. The subcommittee on Homeland Security 
will come to order.
    Today's hearing on the cybersecurity and infrastructure 
security agency budget request for fiscal year 2023 will be 
conducted as a hybrid hearing. For any members joining 
virtually, speaking into the microphone will activate your 
camera and display your image on the main screen.
    Once you start speaking, there will be a slight delay 
before your image appears on the main screen, but do not stop 
your remarks if you do not see the screen switch immediately. 
If the screen does not change after several seconds, please 
make sure you are not muted.
    To minimize background noise and ensure the correct speaker 
is being displayed, we ask that members participating virtually 
remain on mute unless you have sought recognition.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves, 
however, I or staff I designate may mute participants' 
microphones when they are not recognized to speak to eliminate 
inadvertent background noise. If I notice when you are 
recognized that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask the 
staff to send you a request to unmute. Please accept that 
request so you are no longer muted.
    Members can submit information in writing at any of our 
hearings using the email address provided in advance to your 
staff. We will follow the speaking order set forth in the House 
rules beginning with the Chair and ranking member and then 
alternating by party beginning with members in order of 
seniority present at the time the hearing is called to order. 
So let's begin.
    This afternoon we welcome the Honorable Jen Easterly, 
director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security 
Agency, or CISA. She is here to discuss CISA's operations and 
its fiscal year 2023 budget request.
    Director Easterly, we look forward to a productive 
discussion this afternoon.
    The threats facing our Nation's networks, including 
critical infrastructure, elections, emergency communications, 
schools, and public gatherings continue to evolve in 
complexity, sophistication, and scale that pose novel 
challenges and test our capacity to keep pace with our 
adversaries. We are in a moment in our Nation's history where 
our response must urgently rise to the occasion to address 
these growing risks.
    As the President stated in his executive order on improving 
the Nation's cybersecurity, incremental improvements will not 
give us the security we need, instead the Federal Government 
needs to make bold changes and significant investments in order 
to defend the vital institutions that underpin the American way 
of life.
    Since my time as chairwoman of this subcommittee, I have 
taken this responsibility to heart. Taking opportunities to 
strengthen CISA's capabilities by bolstering funding for each 
of its mission areas to transform the country's capacity to 
defend against our adversaries, but I know there are no easy 
answers, and that funding alone will not close the gaps in our 
capabilities.
    The problems we face are not just the Federal Government's 
responsibility to resolve. We need to work collectively with 
our State, local, Tribal, territorial, and private sector 
partners to study the threats, evaluate best practices, and 
develop and implement strategies to shore up our defenses.
    Director Easterly, I have seen you and your staff work 
tirelessly towards these objectives. We owe each of you a debt 
of gratitude, whether it is responding to the new crisis de 
jour or working proactively with communities to provide needed 
advice and guidance. CISA has become a trusted agency, and I 
appreciate the discipline and dedication it has taken to get us 
there.
    But there remains much work to do. As technologies change, 
our reliance on new technologies evolve and our adversaries 
seek to capitalize on any vulnerability they can find. We have 
witnessed that those who wish to do harm to the integrity of 
our elections have and will continue to deploy sophisticated, 
mis/dis and mal information campaigns, and we have seen the 
devastating need to prepare our communities for acts of 
domestic terrorism.
    We cannot afford to shy away from the complexity and 
urgency of these challenges, yet we must be thoughtful and 
strategic in our response. Director Easterly, I look forward to 
hearing from you today on these issues and how Congress can 
help you better accomplish your mission.
    I now turn to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, 
Ranking Member Fleischmann, for his opening remarks.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I really 
appreciate you having this very important hearing today.
    Good afternoon. Thank you, Director Easterly, for joining 
us today. Sincerely appreciate this. You are in a very 
important position with CISA and thank you for joining us at 
our subcommittee.
    Nefarious cyber actors and criminals are constantly acting 
government and private sector critical infrastructure systems 
and networks often for personal financial gain. Nation-states 
like Russia, China, North Korea, and others seek to harm our 
economy, steal intellectual property and defense industrial 
secrets, and degrade our ability to fight in conflict.
    CISA is charged with the protection of the dotgov internet 
domain and to work with the Federal civilian executive branch 
agencies to harden our cyber defenses and protect our critical 
infrastructure against such threats.
    As we have seen with the solar winds breach, perimeter 
security programs like Einstein, which was designed to detect 
external cyber attacks, have blind spots if the threat is 
already inside the network. Increased network visibility 
through continuous diagnostics and mitigation programs such as 
end point detection and response are key elements of our multi-
layered cybersecurity defenses, but as important as these 
programs are, simple cyber hygiene measures are a critical line 
of defense and work to make it harder for persistent threat 
actors to penetrate our digital infrastructure.
    Changing passwords on a regular basis, patching and 
updating software to account for known cyber vulnerabilities, 
and multi-factor authentication are simple but effective means 
of preventing cyber attacks. In fact, recent network breaches 
could have been thwarted or, at least, significantly mitigated 
simply with the use of complex and unique passwords combined 
with two-factor authentication.
    In my view, CISA has grown rapidly over the past few years 
and has been in the enviable position of having been provided 
significant resources by Congress. Over $1 billion in 
additional funding has been provided in just the past year. I 
look forward to better understanding CISA's plan for using 
those funds to protect our Nation's cyber and physical 
infrastructure in a smart and thoughtful way.
    Attracting, hiring, training, and retaining individuals who 
have the necessary cyber skills, skills that are in high demand 
across the public and private sectors is necessary to defend 
against advanced and persistent threats to our network.
    Even with ample resources, the latest cutting-edge cyber 
tools and personnel, CISA alone cannot mitigate every threat. 
Effective partnerships across the entire Federal Government, 
engagement with State and local entities, and robust 
communication with the private sector can reduce risk. 
Information sharing, especially of cyber threat indicators and 
vulnerabilities, is no longer optional because of how 
interconnected our digital world has become.
    Joint private and public planning and collaboration that 
happens at the joint cyber defense collaborative brings 
together industry expertise and government information to 
facilitate better execution and implementation of cyber defense 
plans.
    Maturing the JCDC will help identify and mitigate the risk 
faced by a growing number of sectors critical to the basic 
functioning of our country and safety of our citizens.
    Thank you, again, for coming before us today and I look 
forward to our conversation.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director Easterly, we will submit the 
full text of your official statement for the hearing record. 
Please begin your oral summary which, I ask that you keep to 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Easterly. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon, Chairwoman 
Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member Fleischmann, members of the 
subcommittee, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify 
regarding our fiscal year 2023 President's budget for CISA.
    I am really thrilled to be here as your partner in helping 
to safeguard and secure cyberspace in our Nation's critical 
infrastructure, and I want to start by just thanking you all 
for your steadfast support in ensuring that CISA has the 
resources necessary to carry out this critical mission on 
behalf of the Nation. I am truly honored to come before you to 
discuss our budget because the budget that you have been--you 
have received really recognizes the criticality of our mission 
and provides the resources that we need to be able to achieve 
it.
    Since being sworn in as Director about 9 months ago in 
July, I continue to be impressed with the talent, the 
creativity, the enthusiasm of my workforce. And as I share with 
them every day, this really is the best job in government. As 
the Nation's cyber defense agency, CISA serves as both the 
operational lead for Federal cybersecurity and as the national 
coordinator for critical infrastructure security and 
resilience, and we continue to work very closely with our 
partners across government, in the private sector, and with 
local communities to protect our country's networks and the 
critical infrastructure from malicious cyber activity and also 
to share timely and actionable information that will be 
relevant to help protect our networks.
    The $2.5 billion requested for CISA by the administration 
represents a marked increase. Nearly 18 percent more than last 
year's request, and it really recognizes our growing role in 
the security and resilience of our Nation, the confidence in 
our ability to execute, and the intent to ensure that we have 
the tools necessary to keep our communities safe and secure.
    To effectively execute our role as the operational lead for 
Federal civilian, cybersecurity, the protection of the dotgov, 
we have to advance our ability to actively detect threats 
targeting Federal networks and gain granular visibility into 
the cybersecurity of Federal infrastructure. The budget 
provides Federal cybersecurity funding, an increase--a total of 
$1.5 billion for CISA's cybersecurity programs and activities 
that enable CISA and our Federal partners to detect, analyze, 
mitigate, and respond to cybersecurity threats.
    Within this amount, the budget includes $71 million for the 
JCDC, as the ranking member just mentioned, to ensure that we 
can continue cyber operational planning and partner engagement 
that are so critical to our Nation's collective cyber defense. 
The budget also includes $407 million for NCPS, $425 million 
for continuous mitigation and diagnostics, very important for 
that Federal cybersecurity, to provide that technological 
foundation to really secure and defend Federal civilian 
executive branch networks.
    Importantly, $174 million to annualize what we got with the 
American Rescue Plan Act, incredibly important to continue 
again in protecting the dotgov. The budget also makes critical 
investments in mission enabling. As we grow as an agency and 
being the newest Federal agency in the U.S. Government, we have 
to grow commensurately in the engine that drives missions. So 
procurement, facilities, human capital, our budgeting, it is 
incredibly important to the success of everything we are trying 
to do to include the execution of our budget.
    To support our operational capabilities, we have also asked 
for $175 million in infrastructure protection, $187 million for 
our growing field force that I am incredibly excited about, 
working on the frontlines with many of your constituents, $170 
million for our emergency communications mission. It also fully 
funds our risk management activities to include $115 million 
for our national risk management center that deals with things 
like securing our supply chains, incredibly important.
    Finally, at the heart of our mission is partnership and 
collaboration, and that is why 72 million through our 
stakeholder engagement activities, fostering, collaboration, 
and coordination and really that culture of shared 
responsibility that is so important and foundational to our 
collective defense of the Nation.
    As you all know, our Nation faces unprecedented risk. As 
you said, Chairwoman, we are at a specific moment in time and 
CISA is at the center of our national call to action. 
Collaboration with our government partners, critical 
infrastructure entities, our international allies, and with the 
support of the Congress, we will continue to make progress in 
addressing this risk and maintaining the availability of 
critical services to the American people.
    In closing, I just want to take a moment, again, to 
recognize this committee's strong support for CISA. Your 
consistent efforts to fully resource and in many cases, enhance 
our operational capabilities in response to complex and 
evolving threats has made our Nation safer.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, 
and I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director Easterly, last week CISA, along 
with the FBI and NSA and international partners, issued a joint 
cybersecurity advisory on Russian-state sponsored threats to 
critical infrastructure within and beyond Ukraine. This 
advisory comes on the heels of a call I understand that you had 
with over 13,000 industry stakeholders to provide an update on 
the potential for Russian cyber attacks against the United 
States.
    The timing of these actions, of course, is critical. And 
last month, President Biden issued a statement warning about 
the potential for Russia to carry out malicious cyber attacks, 
and in a recent interview you emphasized the need for immediate 
action saying, we have to assume there is going to be a breach, 
there is going to be an incident, there is going to be an 
attack.
    For the benefit of the committee and the American public, 
what can you tell us about what an attack might look like and 
what you see as the immediacy of this threat?
    Ms. Easterly. Thank you for that very important question, 
Chairwoman.
    As we know, malicious cyber activity is part of the Russian 
playbook. And as we heard from the President, we know of 
evolving intelligence that the Russians are planning for 
potential attacks on our Nation, and so we have actually for 
the past 5 plus months been working with our partners across 
the Federal Government, across private industry, and with our 
State and local partners to enable us to share threat 
information at the classified and unclassified level with our 
intelligence community partners and all of the mitigation 
guidance that partners need to follow to ensure that they can 
drive down risk to their networks.
    And that is really what is behind the advisory you 
mentioned and our Shields Up Campaign, which is very focused on 
making sure that businesses large and small, critical 
infrastructure, owners and operators, and the American people 
understand the threat and understand all the steps that they 
need to take to ensure the security and resilience of their 
networks.
    So in terms of the threat, I think we could see three 
things. I think we could see the threat that we see going on 
pretty aggressively. Russian cyber attacks against Ukraine. 
They could cascade out of the region and have an impact on the 
U.S. We saw that in NotPetya in 2017, a destructive malware 
that cascaded out of Ukraine, affected multi-nationals.
    We could see Russian-aligned cyber criminals launch 
ransomware attacks as we saw last summer in the Colonial 
Pipeline and JBS Foods, or we could see a deliberate attack by 
Russian-State sponsored actors against our critical 
infrastructure and that is why we have been working to ensure 
that everybody has their shields up and working collaboratively 
with our joint cyber defense collaborative specifically with 
the technology companies, with the financial companies, with 
the energy companies to ensure they have all the guidance they 
need to protect themselves.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. What steps is CISA actually taking 
to increase the security and resilience of the Nation's 
networks and critical infrastructure in response to the threats 
that you have just highlighted?
    Ms. Easterly. As you know, ma'am, we don't own that 
infrastructure and so the vast majority is in private hands. 
And so we have been working since I came into this job to try 
and build those trusted partnerships with the private sector. I 
just spent the last 4 and a half years at Morgan Stanley and 
making sure that those are trusted and collaborative 
partnerships. That has really been our focus knowing that we 
don't own that infrastructure.
    So we have been using the joint cyber defense collaborative 
that Congress gave us the authorities to set up a planning 
office. We did that in August. And with respect to Ukraine, we 
actually work with some of the biggest technology companies in 
the country to develop a plan. It is the first time the Federal 
cyber ecosystem, the Federal Government, has worked with the 
private sector to develop a multi-phase plan about what we 
would do if there was a cyber attack and then we stood up a 
collaboration channel using a platform called Slack where we 
are sharing real-time information about what the private sector 
is seeing and what the government is seeing so we can put that 
picture together in a common operating environment.
    You recall that solar winds was not discovered by the U.S. 
Government; it was discovered by a cybersecurity vendor. So our 
partnership with those technology companies is critical. In 
addition, we have been pulling the financial services sector, 
22 of the biggest banks, 38 of the biggest energy companies 
into similar collaboration channels so we can share information 
and early warning on malicious activities so that we can be 
prepared to drive down risk to the Nation.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Are the resources and tools 
provided to organizations, especially critical infrastructure 
operators through CISA's Shield Up Campaign and other CISA 
efforts sufficient to defend our critical infrastructure 
against this threat? And if not, what additional support does 
CISA need?
    Ms. Easterly. I think what we ask for in our budget for 
this year is sufficient for our mission, however, I think as we 
grow as America's cyber defense agency as we see a very complex 
threat environment that continues to get more complex and 
threat actors that continue to get more sophisticated and are 
very well resourced, we look forward to working with this 
committee to make sure that we do have the capacity and the 
capability to be able to defend Federal networks and to work 
with our critical infrastructure partners, some of which that 
are very target rich, but resource poor.
    Think of the small hospitals, the small schools, the water 
utilities. We need to be able to continually provide them no 
cost services, tools, and assessments to ensure that they can 
raise that cybersecurity baseline. That is why the grant 
programs are so important, but we--we are very excited to work 
with you to make sure we can grow our capability to provide the 
defense that the Nation needs in cyber.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And again, 
Director Easterly, I want to thank you for being with us today 
and wish you every sincere success with this mission. And this 
is so critically important. We do a lot with the Federal 
Government, but this agency's mission, your mission is so, so 
important.
    If I may, Director Easterly, the fiscal year 2023 budget 
requests nearly $2.5 billion in funding for CISA. This 
represents an increase of over $300 million above fiscal 2022--
above the fiscal 2022 President's budget request and that is 
over a 10 percent increase. As I noted in my opening remarks, 
this is in addition to the nearly $1 billion provided in fiscal 
2022 through the omnibus, the American Rescue Plan, and the 
infrastructure bill.
    Madam Director, Congress has given CISA a substantial 
amount of funding in a short period of time. Can you please 
outline some of the key cybersecurity capabilities those funds 
will provide and how it mitigates the threat of a cyber attack?
    Thank you.
    Ms. Easterly. Thanks so much and, again, very grateful for 
the funding we have received to date and excited to be able to 
execute our budget if we get what we requested. As you 
mentioned, $377 million more that were requested in fiscal year 
2022, and in terms of the priorities and how we plan to put 
that into execution, I think of it in three major buckets--
people, process, and partnership.
    On the people side and I would love to talk more about what 
you mentioned in your opening statement, Ranking Member, on how 
we are going to recruit and retain our talent because that is 
incredibly important, but we are also using that to support the 
rest of the agency. So we need to be able to have money for 
building human capital and procurement and acquisition and 
funding our financial office and our facilities. So that engine 
that drives the ability to create mission is incredibly 
important.
    The $174 million that we asked for that will be able to 
annualize the American Rescue Plan Act to help on Federal 
cybersecurity to include capabilities like end point detection 
and response, more money for our cyber defense collaborative. 
So that is really about partnerships with the Federal Cyber 
Executive Branch departments and agencies, those 101 separate 
departments and agencies, and with the private sector and with 
our international partners. So that is incredibly important.
    And then the rest of the funding that we have focused on, 
things like our continuous diagnostic and mitigation 
capabilities to really allow us to have that very important 
visibility into Federal civilian executive branch network. That 
is absolutely critical to be able to manage the enterprise as 
an enterprise, not 101 separate tribal agencies. And that is 
something that is about modernization and transformation and to 
be frank, it is not turnkey.
    It is a journey that we are taking that we need to 
instantiate these capabilities to finally be able to truly 
defend the Federal Civilian Executive Branch, sir.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you so much for your answer. As my 
time is waning, I will be very brief. As you think about the 
growth of your agency, if we fully fund the President's request 
with some adjustments for what we provided in fiscal 2022, will 
CISA be right sized for the job, or put another way, does CISA 
need time to mature as an organization before continuing to 
grow at this pace?
    Ms. Easterly. I, frankly, think the threat environment 
demands that we continue to increase our capability and our 
capacity, but that, of course, demands that I am able to keep 
full confidence of this committee, that I can execute those 
funds. Incredibly important that as we get more money that we 
are able to responsibly execute it.
    So we, with the additional funds we got last year, we 
executed it 99 plus percent, which I am very proud of the team 
and can't take a lot of credit for that since I got here at the 
end of last fiscal year, but that is why creating those mission 
enablers are so important to support the maturity and the 
evolution.
    The threat environment isn't getting any less dynamic, less 
complex, less dangerous, and the threat actors are not getting 
any less sophisticated, sir. So I believe for us to achieve the 
Congress' vision to be America's cyber defense agency, that we 
are likely going to continue to need to grow in capacity and 
capability, but I would love to come back and have that 
conversation when the timing is right.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Director Easterly.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Votes have been called, so I am going to 
go to Mr. Ruppersberger and then Mr. Rutherford you will be 
next first when we get back.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Director, I have been going over your 
resume. I usually don't do this, but I think it is important 
that we discuss some of your experience. I believe very 
strongly in the area of defense and also where--what we are 
talking about today, cybersecurity. The government and the 
business sector must work together in a partnership. Business 
sector can have a lot more sophistication and money to do 
certain things, working together. Russia's and China's are very 
communist, and we have an advantage that we can have a better 
product at the end. I think you are seeing what is going on 
just in the Ukraine right now.
    I just want to point out, you know, you have a great 
career, you have a balanced career. You have talked about 
Morgan Stanley being in the business sector and dealing in this 
field, too, which is important. I think when you look at your 
education, you worked--well, first thing, you went to West 
Point. And then after that, you were a Rhodes Scholar. You 
attended Oxford.
    It seems that you have a tremendous amount of experience to 
do the job and you also know that you are only as good as your 
team, and I am sure you have the ability to pick a good time. I 
also like the fact that you were involved in an issue we keep 
debating over and over about the NSA versus Cyber Command. And 
right now I think we have made the right decision but we have 
to keep moving ahead. But when you talk to General Nakasone, 
his recommendation is to stay there now. So something I am 
going to be talking to you about also.
    My question, the fiscal year 2022 omnibus provided CISA 
with 65 million for Federal network. It is called Attack 
Surface Management and National Vulnerability Incident 
Response. Now, does CISA have plans to effectively execute 
these funds to provide a real-time common operating picture 
into dotgov assets that touch the public--the public facing 
internet?
    And also, this is a similar capability which was U.S. Cyber 
Command's top unfunded priority last year. Are best practices 
from other parts of the government, such as Department of 
Defense, being studied? You know, we have to work as a team. We 
know that this is probably one of the most important issues we 
are going to have to deal with in our lifetime, and I am glad 
you are in that position. We are going to try to do whatever we 
can, this committee, to stand behind you because you have got a 
lot of growing to do. You have got good people, but there is 
still a lot of growing.
    And I know that you had a role at NSA at one time and then 
working on some of these issues and, you know, I--I think we 
are ready to go as long as we can keep funding you and help you 
just as long as you can justify the request.
    Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir. Thank you so much, sir.
    On the requests for the attack surface management 
capabilities, I am very excited about that. Having spent two 
plus decades in the Army and tactical operation centers all 
over the world and three times in a combat zone, I really 
understand the importance of a common operating picture.
    And, frankly, it is one of the things that we don't have 
yet, and it goes to the point I made earlier about the 
importance of increased visibility. And that is why coming 
together across the Federal cyber ecosystem and why the JCDC 
with NSA, FBI, CISA, coming together with the private sector to 
help create that common operating picture is so absolutely 
critical.
    CYBERCOM is also part of the JCDC. And as you mentioned, 
sir, I spent a good bit of time at NSA and actually worked with 
Paul Nakasone and Chris Englis to help stand up U.S. Cyber 
Command. So my connections to Fort Mead are pretty strong, and 
we absolutely are in regular contact with them to learn those 
lessons about how they have gone through this process.
    And I think it is also important to say that their common 
operating picture can't be different from our common operating 
picture. They need to be connected because global networks are 
connected. And so those partnerships as you pointed out, sir, 
really that cybersecurity, cyber is a team sport is absolutely 
critical to the success as Chris Englis likes to say, you have 
to beat one of us to beat all of us.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. And, you know, you mentioned those 
gentleman. You have really, in my opinion, one of the better 
teams in place, not that the people before were doing the job 
and with you working with them to develop relationships. I 
think if we can continue to fund you, justified funding, I 
think we have got a good future ahead for our cybersecurity.
    Ms. Easterly. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director, we are now going to go into 
recess and we will be back as quickly as we can.
    Ms. Easterly. Wonderful. Thank you, ma'am.
    [Recess.]
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. The subcommittee will now come to order.
    Mr. Rutherford.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair and ranking member 
and I thank, Director Easterly, for being here today. You know, 
I have to kind of echo my colleague, Mr. Ruppersberger. I 
really am impressed with your past and I think we are going to 
be impressed with your future, and so I thank you for all that 
you are doing for our country.
    This is--I think just recent history has shown us how 
really important this department is going to be, you know, 
between SolarWinds, Colonial, JBS. Those attacks showed that it 
is not just government, it is private industry. It is 
everywhere, and you all are going to play a major part in that 
prevention, detection, and mitigation.
    So my first question kind of going back and looking at 
those agencies that were impacted by SolarWinds, particularly, 
can you tell me the damage that was done, how the mitigation on 
that is going? And then kind of a second piece to that, what is 
being done to detect and minimize, you know, zero day 
vulnerabilities that may be out there in all three sectors.
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Well, first of all, thank you for the 
kind words and appreciate it.
    SolarWinds, as you know, sir, was really a wake-up call. 
And it was a wake-up call that taught us a couple key things. 
One, it taught us that we do not have the requisite visibility 
into the Federal civilian executive branch networks to be able 
to effectively protect and defend them. So all of the 
improvements that we have looked to make over the past 9 months 
to increase that visibility, to improve our architecture, to 
modernize, to be able to put in place zero trust, to really 
build more than just a network perimeter security mechanism is 
so important to really getting after that visibility issue, and 
we have spent a lot of time doing that and some of our budget 
request speaks to those types of capabilities.
    So I think that is incredibly important. I think the second 
thing that we have learned is, we have to be able to work 
closely with our private sector partners, more closely because, 
as you saw with SolarWind, sir, that was not detected either 
within the Federal Civilian Executive Branch in the government 
or within the Intelligence Community; it was detected by a 
private sector company called Fire Eye.
    And so the partnerships that we are forging with the 
private sector, who often times are going to detect that 
malicious activity before we do, are so absolutely critical in 
forging that collective defense. And so, as we build more 
detected capabilities, as we continue to mature our continuous 
diagnostic, mitigation program, as we instantiate zero trust 
and secure cloud, and multi-factor authentication and end point 
detection and response, making sure that we are also bringing 
together the private sector and the public sector to really 
build that common picture of the threat environment, I think is 
going to be critical to solving this really challenging and 
complex problem.
    Mr. Rutherford. Yeah. And, listen, I want to congratulate 
you on those efforts of outreach. I know in my district I think 
within the next month or so, we have scheduled a CISA 
individual that is coming down to talk to our small business 
Hispanic owners who, you know--we want to help them prepare and 
then, I think, we are going to have a follow up with the 
chamber. So your folks are doing a great job on responding to 
those outreach efforts, and I really appreciate that.
    Beyond the grants that you mentioned before and these sort 
of one-on-one working together with local businesses, can you 
give me any other ideas about how we may help the small 
business community prepare for these types of attacks?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you for asking that, 
and I know my team down in the fourth district has had a lot of 
fun working with your constituents and really enjoy. I think 
that is the greatest thing that we have been building over the 
past couple years is the field force that allows us to engage 
on the front lines where the action really happens. So really 
grateful.
    Mr. Rutherford. It has been excellent.
    Ms. Easterly. So really grateful. You know, in addition to 
the grant programs, which I think are really important for 
State and local, we offer a whole slue of no cost services, 
whether that is tools, assessments, phishing assessments, 
vulnerability assessments, resilience assessments, no cost free 
training that we do with our cybersecurity advisers and our 
protective security advisers, and we provide that really all 
over the country.
    One of the things that I am proud of that our team did as 
part of our Shields Up effort is, we work with private sector. 
And so you can go on that website and look at pages and pages 
of free cybersecurity services and tools. Because probably like 
you, sir, I worry a lot about those target rich, but resource 
poor entities, small businesses that Americans rely on for 
commerce and everything else and really making sure that they 
have the knowledge and the capabilities to increase their 
cybersecurity baseline is so important.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much. I am sorry. My time 
has run out, but thank you, again, for everything.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, 
Director Easterly, for being with us today. Business leaders 
play an essential role in our national security. In March, I 
participated in a briefing for Illinois small businesses with 
the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, CISA, and FBI to help 
Illinois businesses prevent, identify, and respond to malicious 
cyber activity. The briefing informed business leaders about 
CISA's Shield Up guidance and all the services and tools CISA 
can offer the companies like theirs,
    One tool CISA mentioned during its briefing is its phishing 
email exercise where it will send a 6-week campaign of emails 
to a companies' employees and evaluate areas for improvement. 
The most consistent comment that we received during and after 
the briefing was that our constituents and businesses did not 
know about CISA's wide range of resources.
    Do regional CISA offices have the capacity to provide more 
workshops and briefings like these to help small and medium-
sized companies learn about their resources and how else can 
CISA reach out to share tools and resources with the public?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah. That is a fabulous question. Thank you 
so much for it. This is why I am so excited about the growth of 
our field force because I think it is incredibly important that 
we are able to raise awareness and it is something that I would 
ask for your help and the rest of the help from the committee, 
because, you know, as we know, we are the newest agency in the 
Federal Government.
    The Congress set us up to be America's cyber defense agency 
to help us support the resilience and security of our critical 
infrastructure that Americans rely on every hour of every day, 
and we are there to provide a whole range of no cost services, 
advisories, guidance.
    And so we are working to get out to all the constituencies, 
your districts, every region to be able to ensure that that 
information and that guidance is out there to include very 
important things like those phishing assessments, those 
resilience assessments, those vulnerability assessments.
    So I would be grateful to continue to work with you all, 
and I would ask for your help in amplifying who we are and what 
we do for the American people.
    Ms. Underwood. Okay. I think it is especially important 
that small and medium companies have the tools that they need 
to remain secure. In 2021, more than 40 percent of cyber 
attacks targeted small and medium-sized businesses, praying on 
companies that often lack the resources and personnel to 
implement cyber hygiene measures. What else is CISA doing to 
build strong partnerships between public and private sectors to 
defend against the evolving threats of today and tomorrow?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Thanks for the question. Our growth in 
cybersecurity advisers and cybersecurity State coordinators 
will, in fact, help because we can work directly on the front 
lines with all of your constituents to make sure that they have 
the tools and the resources that they need, but the other 
thing, just going back to my point about what we are building 
with the private sector, so the dots that we are connecting 
given the threats that are being illuminated with our work with 
the private sector, all of that then turns into advisories and 
guidance that we publish very widely that can be used by all 
manner of businesses.
    So if you go to the Shields Up website, we specifically 
say, here is guidance for businesses large and small. And I am 
keenly aware that it is those small businesses that often times 
are strong targets for malicious cyber actors, but also don't 
have the resources or the knowledge or the guidance to be able 
to protect themselves. And so we are on a widespread campaign 
across the country to ensure that all businesses have what they 
need to include the knowledge, guidance, tools, and 
capabilities to help protect themselves because that 
connectivity really is about making the Nation safer.
    Ms. Underwood. During our briefing, one participant 
submitted a question and asked what is the largest risk for 
local governments? Can you share your thoughts on that and how 
local governments can best prepare?
    Ms. Easterly. Absolutely. I think because of what we just 
talked about and the fact that many of these small businesses 
are not well resourced, don't have the security people, the 
technology, the assessments, as we have seen over the last year 
and a half, it is really the scourge of ransomware that has 
impacted these schools, these municipalities, these small 
businesses, these hospitals, and so it is why we developed this 
one-stop shop, stopransomware.gov website that pulled together 
all of the resources across the Federal Government to say, this 
is what we know about ransomware, this is how you protect 
yourself from being hacked, and this is how--this is what you 
do when you have been hacked. I think that is incredibly 
important.
    Ms. Underwood. Well, I was proud that the National Defense 
Authorization in 2021 contained a component of the RESILIENT 
Act, which is a bill of mine that protects communities from 
domestic terrorism. The provision required CISA to develop a 
stakeholder outreach and operational engagement strategy by 
January 1st of this year to ensure that critical infrastructure 
and nonprofit organizations are benefiting from DHS services. 
And then CISA was required to submit the plan to the House 
Committee on Homeland Security.
    Can you give an update on the development of this outreach 
strategy and implementation plan?
    Ms. Easterly. You bet. Thanks for asking. My very diligent 
team created the strategy. What I have asked them to do is to 
make sure that it is nested within the wider CISA strategy 
because I want to make sure we are holistically looking across 
our entire agency because stakeholders and partnerships are 
absolutely fundamental to everything we do, and so I am looking 
to get that full strategy to include the stakeholder engagement 
strategy in the next several months and I would love to come 
brief you on some of the specifics. Because I absolutely agree 
our engagement at all levels, State, local, private industry 
and then, in particular, the nonprofit community.
    When I was in the private sector, I served on several 
nonprofit boards and they are part of, in some ways, because 
they hold a lot of sensitive data, target rich, and resource 
poor. So helping them make sure that they can raise their 
cybersecurity baseline is absolutely critical.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
    Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome, Director 
Easterly. Thank you for coming before us today. I really 
appreciated in your opening remarks you talked about the 
threats from Russia, China, these countries that North Korea 
that they keep engaging against us in this way and I am pleased 
also about the State and local partnerships that you are 
working to develop.
    You know, when we look at critical infrastructure and its 
impact on the food supply, we are very sensitive to that, 
obviously, in Iowa. I also heard you mention JBS in your 
opening remarks, which that directly impacted my district with 
the plant there.
    So as we know, cyber attacks really can threaten our 
Nation's food supply, really disrupt our economy, so how are 
you as an agency at CISA engaging with targeted entities, 
similar entities to that? Is that the field force? Is that how 
you are trying to roll that out? And then what are you doing to 
learn from those past exposures like what JBS experienced?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Great question. You know, it was 
similar to how Colonial Pipeline was a wake-up call for that 
sector. JBS was really a wake-up call for the food and 
agriculture sector. And after that occurred, we actually got 
together with the cosector risk management agencies, Department 
of Agriculture, and HHS to actually do that after-action 
review. What did we learn from that and what can we do to 
better secure what is largely, as you know, ma'am, private.
    There is really no government aspect of that, and because 
many of these are part of those target rich, resource poor, we 
have to be able to ensure that they have the tools and the 
guidance so that they can help protect themselves.
    So as you mentioned the field force, two of my regions 
actually partnered in late 2021 and 2022 to ensure that we 
walked through an exercise on what do we need to do to ensure 
we are protected. And as you probably recall, the new 
cooperative ransomware attack that was also something that we 
looked at, we did an after-action review, and then we put out 
guidance on what these entities needed to do to protect 
themselves.
    So it is one of these places where we know we need 
additional resources and that is one of the reasons why we 
are--our budget requests invests a significant amount in what 
we are trying to do in our field force to provide these 
services to these target-rich, resource-poor entities.
    Mrs. Hinson. I think a lot of people learned a lot of 
lessons from what happened in those cases, but, you know, when 
you talk about your funding request, critical infrastructure 
specifically, enhanced protection there, how do you choose what 
is the priority there? How do you choose which critical 
infrastructure to prioritize?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Something I learned in the Army, if 
everything is a priority nothing is a priority. And it is hard 
because we know in today's complex technology world, everything 
is connected. So in some ways you have to be--you have to say, 
yes, I prioritize, but I also need to know that, even if I 
spend a billion dollars at Morgan Stanley in protecting my 
networks, I might have vendors that are connected to that 
network within my supply chain.
    Mrs. Hinson. A liability there, too.
    Ms. Easterly. Right. So what we are trying to do through 
our national risk management center is actually delineate what 
we are calling the primary, systemically important entities, 
which lay out those entities, major entities that are 
systemically critical to our national security, our economic 
prosperity, and our public health and safety.
    And so the list now which is thousands and thousands based 
on what is called Section 9 of an executive order in 2013, 
13636, is just too big. And so what we are trying to do is pair 
that down, but we want to work through it with our sector risk 
management agency partners who have that expertise and I, 
frankly, want to work through it with the private sector to 
make sure that we are all in agreement on this.
    Because at the end of the day, if there is a major attack 
on this country, we have to make sure that those most 
systemically critical entities have the resources, the 
intelligence, the capabilities to be able to defend our Nation.
    Mrs. Hinson. So I heard you ask us for our help in getting 
word out about these things.
    Ms. Easterly. Yes, ma'am.
    Mrs. Hinson. What do you think is the way we can--other 
than funding for the agency, what are the other ways where you 
think we can be helpful to you in getting that message out? I 
think about our rural communities and they need to know this 
information. A lot of those small risk averse--they want to be 
risk averse, but obviously they don't have necessarily the 
tools to do that. So what would you recommend there?
    Ms. Easterly. Well, I would just greatly appreciate, 
obviously, the budget piece, but continue to help us amplify 
our message. As America's cyber defense agency, the newest 
agency in the Federal Government, a lot of people don't know 
what CISA is. And so helping us get that message out so folks 
understand, we have a whole variety of no cost services and 
tools, which is incredible for some of these small entities 
that just don't have the resources.
    And so we have a field force that meets with constituents 
in every district in every State and I would be very glad to 
meet with your constituents and help them understand the kind 
of services that we can provide, to help keep them safe and 
secure in cyberspace.
    Mrs. Hinson. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
    Mr. Aguilar. Director, you should be careful about offering 
to visit districts because there is a lot of us who will take 
you up on it on those types of things.
    Ms. Easterly. I am up for it. I am in.
    Mr. Aguilar. Mrs. Hinson and I might be sending you 
letters.
    Director, I wanted to focus on the election security 
efforts that you highlighted in your written testimony. One 
issue that I have been tracking closely is misinformation and 
disinformation and election interference in the Spanish-
speaking community.
    In fact, I just came from the Committee on House 
Administration, Subcommittee on Elections where we focused on 
mis and disinformation, disenfranchise, and how it 
disenfranchises voters.
    In response to foreign influence in 2020 election, CISA 
developed the mis, dis, and mal information, MDM teams, as you 
mentioned. Just this year, the team created a variety of useful 
resources for the public and I appreciate what you all have 
done; however, those materials are only available in English.
    And as we saw in the 2020 elections, Spanish-speaking 
communities were significantly targeted with election 
misinformation. It is crucial that any misinformation efforts 
be given not just in Spanish but in other languages where we 
have seen this activity.
    Could you share your long-term strategy for the MDM teams? 
How do they plan to release materials? And how do you plan to 
reach into other communities where non-English speaking 
residents are of primary focus as well?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Thanks so much for that question. It is 
so important. We have been building the misinformation/
disinformation/mal information team for about a year and a half 
now. We have given additional resources. The focus is really on 
threats that could impact our critical infrastructure, like our 
election infrastructure. And as you pointed out, 
Representative, we actually have created a lot of great 
products and I am keenly aware that they need to be translated 
and the good news is, we are working on that.
    So hopefully soon you can go to our MDM website and see the 
translations in Spanish and we are also going to look at other 
languages as well. But very important to me that we make sure 
that those are available as widely as possible.
    Mr. Aguilar. Great. I appreciate that.
    The cyber workforce--I wanted to shift gears a bit--issues 
impact national security as we know and in the department's 
budget request, CISA also proposes to zero out funding to 
support the national initiative for cybersecurity education. As 
you know, funds were provided by Congress specifically to 
support that program.
    Can you share why CISA proposes to cut funding for this 
program?
    Ms. Easterly. I personally believe and this budget was 
created with I think some of our colleagues thought that 
perhaps, because we are a growing agency, that those 
capabilities were best put in places like the National Science 
Foundation. If that money comes to CISA, it is a passion of 
mine to ensure that we are educating K-12 and, frankly, K 
through gray.
    This is all about the American people keeping safe and 
secure online. So if that money ends up coming to us, I would 
be very happy to implement it. If that money ends up at the 
National Science Foundation, I will be thrilled to partner with 
them to ensure we can put resources in place to educate our 
kids so they can stay safe online.
    Mr. Aguilar. Over the last decade, CISA and the NSA have 
worked closely together to support and develop a cyber 
workforce pipeline as well. Local university in my district, 
Cal State San Bernardino, a public university and Hispanic 
serving institution, has been a key player in building that 
pipeline.
    Our country can absolutely benefit from a closer 
coordination between CISA and NSA, Centers For Academic 
Excellence, cybersecurity programs. And currently CISA's chief 
learning officer leads the DHS memorandum of understanding 
agreement with NSA, but we haven't seen DHS fully fund that 
partnership.
    What can CISA do to fully embrace this partnership, 
specifically with respect to Centers For Academic Excellence 
and what is preventing--what is the hesitation within CISA to 
move forward?
    Ms. Easterly. No hesitation. I think it is just a matter of 
we are a growing agency, we are a maturing agency, and we are 
looking to put programs in place that will be sustainable and 
scalable. We are doing some pilots, but I want to make sure 
something as important as building a diverse workforce and 
tapping into those schools of excellence, which having served 
at the National Security Agency, I absolutely appreciate how 
you tap into that talent, I want to make sure that this is 
something we can do on a scalable basis.
    So we are in the process of completely retooling our talent 
management ecosystem. How do we recruit people, train, mentor, 
coach, certify, set up retention opportunities, and how do we 
tap into these universities all over the country much more 
effectively?
    And so that is something that I am putting a lot of energy 
into, both trying to kill some of the bureaucracy about how 
hard it is to hire people into the Federal Government, but also 
putting into play some of the new authorities that Congress 
gave us, the cyber talent management system, so we can hire 
much more flexibly to include people coming out of these 
universities through the scholarship for service program, but 
also be able to pay them closer to market so we can stay 
competitive.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Director.
    Yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for 
holding this hearing today. Ms. Easterly, thank you for joining 
us today and especially thank you for your service, 20 years in 
the Army, three combat deployments. That means a lot. Thank you 
for what you are doing in your current capacity.
    My primary interest lies on cyber attacks on our critical 
infrastructure, particularly as it relates to Russia. In a 
recent alert, titled ``Russian-state sponsored criminal cyber 
threats to critical infrastructure,'' CISA warned that Russia's 
invasion of Ukraine could expose organizations to increased 
malicious cyber activity.
    Given that an evolving intelligence indicates that the 
Russian Government is exploring options for potential cyber 
attacks on the U.S. and our allies, could you tell me, in this 
unclassified setting, the number of engagements that your teams 
are responding to on a daily basis and are these state actors 
or non-state actors or a combination?
    Ms. Easterly. Thanks for the question. To date we have not 
seen specific attacks on the U.S. What we are concerned about 
is the fact that Russian malicious cyber activity is part of 
their playbook and, of course, as you just mentioned, we have 
seen evolving intelligence about potential plans. To date, 
thankfully, we have not seen attacks manifest here, but we are 
very concerned that as the war drags on that there may, in 
fact, be retaliatory attacks, given the very severe sanctions 
that we have imposed on the Kremlin, the U.S. and our allies. 
There may be ransomware attacks or there may be cascading 
attacks as we saw with the destructive malware NotPetya in 
2017. It is why, sir, we have focused so much on working with 
our partners, 150 engagements with tens of thousands Americans, 
the 13,000-person call we had the chairwoman mentioned to 
ensure people understand that threat and that is what was 
behind that advisory, but more importantly, what they need to 
do to put their shields up.
    Mr. Palazzo. So if I struck the word ``Russia'' inserted 
China or North Korea or Iran, would there be any engagements 
for you to discuss in this unclassified setting?
    Ms. Easterly. Not in this setting, sir.
    Mr. Palazzo. All right. I would like to take this 
opportunity to also thanks CISA for their partnership with the 
University of Mississippi Medical Center on the first responder 
emergency medical communications program.
    This program is helping to prepare first responders in 
Mississippi to be better equipped for their job, particularly 
in rural areas. This project has been a success so far and one 
that I believe should serve as a national model.
    Additionally, in your testimony, you mentioned reducing 
risk of attacks on soft targets in crowded places. My alma 
mater, the University of Southern Mississippi, has been a 
leader in this field through their national center for 
spectator sport safety and security, NSF4.
    For many years, continues to do cutting-edge research on 
this topic. To accelerate any effort that would reduce the risk 
of attacks on soft targets in crowded places, I want to ask, 
does CISA do any university partnerships with programs such as 
this?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah, absolutely. And both those partnerships 
that you mentioned, sir, as well as what we do with NCS4, I 
think are so important. I actually was mentioning that I was 
excited to get out there to be able to be on the frontlines and 
spend some time. I think we are doing something at NCS4 coming 
up in the coming months, but these are incredibly important, 
because as we know, universities, some of these colleges, in 
particular, if you look at the past several months, some of the 
HCBUs were really the victims of some of these scare campaigns 
and warnings.
    And so working with these entities to make sure they know 
how to put in place protections to protect their people and 
their students is so incredibly important.
    Mr. Palazzo. I think I may have one more question.
    As we all know, especially in the cyberspace, it is 
increasingly difficult to compete with private sector 
companies, especially the big names when it comes to 
recruiting, hiring, and retaining talent. And although the 
government was managed to pull you away from a Morgan Stanley, 
can you comment on your ability to hire talented individuals 
for jobs within CISA? And although the agency's still 
relatively new, are you having any difficulties in retaining 
that talent?
    Ms. Easterly. I have been really thrilled that we have had 
so many awesome people join the team just over the last year. 
You know, at the end of the day, nobody comes to government to 
make money, right? Everybody comes because they have a sense of 
mission and they feel that it is a calling to raise their hand 
and support the Constitution of the United States and defend 
the Nation. And I think there are a lot of people that are 
attracted to this new mission of defending the Nation in 
cyberspace. You know, I am not looking for somebody to 
necessarily make a career; what I am looking for is somebody to 
come in, join us maybe for 2 or 3 years, and then maybe they go 
out and they work at a university, maybe they go out and they 
work in a grain cooperative, maybe they go work in a hospital, 
but they are still helping with the collective cyber defense of 
the Nation.
    So I don't like to think of it as competitive; I like to 
think of it as, we are all part of that collective cyber 
defense and I love the idea of bringing people in, getting them 
trained, getting them excited about our mission, making them 
understand what CISA does, and then maybe sending them back out 
again to be part of the collective cyber defense of the Nation.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you for sharing.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. We are expecting another round of votes 
around 3:30, quarter to 4, but I would like to try and squeeze 
in a second round. And so to give everybody an opportunity, I 
just want everybody to be cognizant of the 5-minute rule.
    Director Easterly, I am sure you receive a lot of pressure 
to do more for critical infrastructure operators, especially as 
our adversaries increasingly seek to target those sectors and 
the gaps in our current capabilities become more apparent. The 
President's budget request for 2023 includes $80 million in 
FEMA's budget for a CISA-led competitive cyber grant program 
for private and public sector critical infrastructure 
providers.
    What is your vision for this grant program and do you see 
this as an enduring effort or something more short-term?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Great question. So as you know, we have 
that $1 billion grant program for State and local and we are 
looking to release the notice of funding opportunity for that 
for the first $200 million. So I see this $80 million program 
effectively as a complement to that, to go after those target-
rich, resource-poor critical infrastructure providers. I would 
draw your attention, in particular, to water.
    Water entities that, frankly, are very target rich as we 
saw with old in February of 2021, but resource poor. And so 
being able to provide grant money to help them raise their 
cybersecurity baseline I think is really important. You know, 
from an enduring capability, I don't know the answer to that, 
chairwoman. I want to make sure that we are developing this 
program with our FEMA colleagues, making sure that we are 
responsibly putting this in place so that it will make a 
difference, and then we will come back to you and let you know 
whether, in fact, we think it is right sized and directed at 
the right things.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. And what is the right role for the 
Federal Government and what should critical infrastructure 
owners and operators realistically be doing on their own?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah. I think some of the big entities have 
the capabilities, the investment. Certainly when I was at 
Morgan Stanley, we had a lot of resources to be able to protect 
the firm. Then there are other entities that are not as well 
resourced. And so it really is not a one size fits all. And so 
in the cases of the less well resourced, that is where we can 
step in, provide grant funding, we can work with the State and 
local level the MS-ISAC, we can work directly with our regional 
field force, but there are some things that I think it is 
important that we are able to help provide, but at the end of 
the day, what I want to do is less give a fish than teach a 
person to fish so that folks understand the investments that 
they need to make and the folks they need to hire and the 
technology they need to implement and so they can then do it 
sustainably and scalably going forward without necessarily 
having to depend on the Federal Government for support.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. The Multi-State Information 
Sharing and Analysis Center, or MS-ISAC, has been a great 
source for State and local entities seeking to increase their 
cybersecurity posture.
    When you think of how the Federal Government, particularly 
CISA and FEMA can provide cybersecurity support to State and 
local entities, what do you believe is the right model and 
should we continue to build upon the MS-ISAC and the technical 
support CISA already provides?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah. The MS-ISAC is a terrific partner. We, 
of course, fund them and the services they provide at the State 
and local level, both information sharing, what is called 
Albert sensors which help provide perimeter support, I think 
are incredibly important and I am excited about the continued 
partnership there.
    I also think that we need to make sure that the State and 
local folks can benefit effectively from this new grant 
program, so they can help build their own capabilities. And 
then finally, I am excited about being able to use our field 
force to ensure that at the State and local level they 
understand all of the no cost services that we can provide to 
them directly.
    So MS-ISAC, grant programs, field force, and CISA no cost 
services, I think is really a three-pronged program to help us 
support our State and local colleagues.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. I am going to set the example. I have a 
few seconds left, but I do want to give others opportunity. So 
Mr. Palazzo. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Rutherford. I apologize.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk a 
little bit about the future when--CISA's relatively new, 
obviously, 2018, and in watching this mature makes me want to 
ask the question about the near-term future, say, 5 years, 
particularly in light of what Mr. Palazzo was talking about 
earlier, this whole staffing and education piece.
    As a country, are we preparing for, you know, that 
generation of workers because you don't just--I am sure you 
don't just go out on the street and, you know, hire folks. They 
have very specific backgrounds that are necessary, and so I am 
wondering about our workforce and how that fits in to your 5-
year plan, 3-year plan, whatever it might be?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Thanks for the question.
    Certainly from a CISA workforce, that is where I am putting 
a huge amount of effort into making sure that we have the 
capability and capacity and, frankly, the very diverse 
workforce that will help us bring that diversity of experience 
to solving the toughest problems. One of the goals I have set 
for myself is helping our Nation get to 50 percent women in 
cybersecurity by the year 2030. So I am excited about that.
    But as you point out, sir, this really is a national issue. 
And that is why going back to the question around K-12, I do 
think it is incredibly important. You know, everybody in this 
room is basically a digital immigrant. Our kids are digital 
natives. They are on their laptops and iPads from the age of 2. 
And so ensuring that not only are they faster in terms of how 
to manipulate things on those iPads, but that they know how to 
protect themselves is so incredibly important.
    And as we are helping to make sure they protect themselves, 
I think we are also igniting that spark about how cool it is to 
be in cybersecurity and I think that is how we are going to get 
after some of these workforce issues, but we really need to 
create this fluency across all of the country and it is why I 
spent so much time on cyber hygiene.
    Really the basics of how to protect ourselves from the 
phishing training that Representative Underwood was talking 
about to updating your software, to complex differentiated 
passwords and a password keeper, to using multi-factor 
authentication.
    I think the ranking member mentioned this. When I say 
multi-factor authentication, when I am talking to the average 
person, they will say--their eyes will glaze over and it will 
sound too technical and it is multi-syllabic so what does it 
all mean? And so what we are trying to do--and I would love 
this committee's help with it--is make it real simple, right? 
More than a password, because that is what it is. Instead of 
just a login and password, use a second form of authentication 
so the more than a password. It also calls for the 1986 classic 
by Boston, More Than a Feeling, so if you kind of get that in 
your head, right?
    So we really are trying to make sure that we can get this 
message out to the American people in a way they can protect 
themselves because MSA study show keep you 99 percent from 
being hacked. What gets you 99 percent these days?
    Mr. Rutherford. That is huge, yeah. Thank you. So let me 
ask you something from more of a macro level. In the field of 
criminal law, individuals have a right to protect themselves 
and that right is there because we recognize that the 
government can't be everywhere to protect you. So you have a 
right to protect yourself.
    How do you see that conflating over to this cyber world 
where I am being attacked and I want to defend myself because 
what I hear a lot about is defense. I am wondering about 
offense. How can I, you know, sometimes the best defense is a 
good offense, but then also how do I, as an individual, do I 
have the legal right--and I know some of these questions are 
being debated now, and what is the right of someone to defend 
themselves and how do they do that in an offensive way? In 
other words, punching back, for example?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah, yeah. So the great thing about being at 
CISA is our north star is all about cyber defense. So 
everything we do is about creating resilience, making sure that 
we can detect, respond, and recover. And so unlike my days in 
uniform and at U.S. Cyber Command, I do not do offense, but, of 
course we work very closely with U.S. Cyber Command, with FBI, 
with the Intelligence Community because what those agencies may 
be doing on the offensive side has to inform what we are doing 
on the defensive side and it really goes back to my point about 
cyber has to be a team sport, but we all have roles and 
responsibilities that when we come together we can actually 
make the Nation safer.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Ms. Underwood. Thank you so much. I would like to discuss 
election security. You may know that this issue hits close to 
home for Illinois voters because in July of 2016, Russian 
hackers penetrated the State of Illinois Board of Elections 
voter registration database stealing the personal data of about 
76,000 Illinois voters, so ensuring the security and integrity 
of our election has always been a top priority. I would like to 
get an update on what CISA's doing to work with State and local 
election officials to defend our election infrastructure?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Thanks so much for the question.
    This is, obviously, one of our top priorities. Since 2020 
and my predecessor Chris Krebs, obviously, we are very focused 
on the 2022 midterms and beyond. One of the things that I am 
most excited about is we just recently to the question about 
talent, we just recently brought on board the former secretary 
of State of Washington State, actually Republican Kim Wyman, 
incredible election official with decades of experience and she 
is my senior election lead.
    She was actually just out in Arizona. She is out in 
California now working hand in hand with our former colleagues, 
the secretaries of State across the Nation and with State and 
local election directors to make sure that they can avail 
themselves of all the resources that are needed to ensure that 
State and local--because, of course, we are the Federal 
Government, so we don't get involved in State and local 
elections, but we are here to help to make sure that all State 
and local election directors have the resources that they need 
to ensure the integrity of their election security.
    And it is both cybersecurity, it is physical security, it 
is insider security, and it is security from misinformation and 
disinformation. So we are working very, very hard hand in hand 
with our partners to make sure they have what they need.
    Ms. Underwood. Great. In your testimony, you stated that 
CISA will remain transparent and agile in its vigorous efforts 
to secure America's election infrastructure from new and 
evolving threats. What are the major threats specific to the 
2022 midterm election and can you describe some of the new and 
evolving threats you mentioned in your testimony?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah, thanks for that. So, of course, we need 
to continue to worry about technology threats and cyber threats 
and I think the improvements that we have made working with 
State and local election officials over the past 4 years, 5 
years have actually made a material difference in raising that 
cybersecurity baseline. And we can't take a lot of credit for 
it. A lot of credit goes to my predecessor, but I think that 
work that was done was incredibly important. Now, I am also 
concerned about physical threats, both to election officials as 
well as facilities. I am concerned about potential insider 
threats, and, again, I am concerned about some of the 
misinformation and disinformation.
    So as you may know, we set up something called Rumor 
Control, which is really just a website that enables us to put 
out information that is really just about facts. Facts about 
absentee ballots, facts about paper ballots just so the 
American people have the information that they need to maintain 
confidence in the elections in the integrity of elections, 
really nothing more important, frankly, for the democracy we 
live in for Americans to have that sense of confidence.
    Ms. Underwood. Have you found that your staff have been 
able to connect with State officials across the country on 
these issues to share the information about these threats or 
has the openness from different States changed given the 
climate?
    Ms. Easterly. You know, to date, I have not sensed a 
material difference in that. It was one of the reasons why I 
was very interested in having a former Republican secretary of 
State join me, because at the end of the day, you know, I am an 
independent. I have been an independent my entire career. I 
have served in Republican administrations, I have served in 
Democratic administrations, and the one thing that CISA needs 
to be able to do is to remain nonpartisan, because we work with 
Republican secretaries of State, we work with Democratic 
secretaries of State, and we are all about ensuring that no 
matter what party you are, you have the tools, the resources, 
the capabilities to protect your elections.
    And so I continue to have very good relationships, the 
Republican secretary of State, the NAS President Kyle from 
Louisiana. I mean, all of my experiences to date have been 
incredibly positive.
    Ms. Underwood. I am glad to hear it. Thank you so much for 
your testimony today.
    Ms. Easterly. Thank you, ma'am.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
    Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks for 
sticking around for round two. I appreciate in your remarks you 
put in there about emergency communications and emergency 
resilience and our district in Iowa is very sensitive to that. 
In 2020, we had a major derecho come through, 140-mile-an-hour 
winds. It knocked out communication across the board.
    Our emergency responders were really struggling to 
communicate with not only each other, but with members of the 
community as well. So I would just like to ask in what ways are 
you supporting the mission of making sure that that emergency 
response critical infrastructure is not only protected but 
resilient should a major disaster like that happen? What are 
the plans in place that you are working with?
    Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Thanks for the question. You know, 
these are kind of the unsung heroes of CISA. I actually didn't 
know much about the emergency communications mission before I 
started going through my confirmation hearing and it is pretty 
incredible when you think about that. You call 9-1-1 and, you 
know, somebody answers at the end of the day. And as you just 
pointed out, if there is no answer on the end of that phone 
call, it could cause amazing significant impacts on human life.
    And so I am incredibly proud. We actually decided to name 
April emergency communications month so we could celebrate the 
great work of all of our emergency communicators across the 
country working with partners like Nick Swick and First Net and 
everybody to make sure that these communications are resilient.
    In terms of going forward, one of the most important things 
that we are doing is making sure that next generation 9-1-1 is 
cyber resilient because as we move to technology that may, in 
fact, be more vulnerable to the cyber threats that we are 
seeing increase in complexity and dynamism and danger, we need 
to ensure that we are standing up new capabilities that are 
just as resilient to our legacy capabilities. And so a lot of 
focus on that in the coming years.
    Mrs. Hinson. Awesome. Thank you.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Director, I wanted to follow up on my colleague Mr. 
Rutherford's question related to K-12 focus, cyber workforce 
pipeline that we talk about in CISA's Cybersecurity Education 
and Training Assistance Program, CETAP, has been an important 
tool in helping to build that pipeline and equip K-12 teachers 
with cyber curricula.
    This program was formerly authorized by Congress in 2021 as 
well and I was surprised to see CISA didn't request funding for 
this program in this fiscal year. My colleagues and I 
appreciate the creativity that you and your team bring to this 
whether it is funded or whether it is not, but from our 
perspective, we feel strongly about including, you know, 
specific categories to kind of sharpen the focus and especially 
given your comments about the workforce and your commitment to 
have 50 percent of the workforce by 2030 be women, I think this 
is something that we should look at.
    So can you share the department's long-term strategy for 
CETAP and the efforts to support cyber education?
    Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir. As you alluded to, it is not at all 
clear whether CETAP funding is going to end up within CISA or 
within the National Science Foundation. If those funds end up 
with us, we will do everything we can to be able to leverage 
them responsibly to really build those pipelines incredibly 
important.
    One of the uses for CETAP funding that you probably know is 
actually to build the cyber innovation center, which is in 
Louisiana. I was actually talking to the Governor there a 
couple days ago and he was saying how important that is, again, 
in terms of incubating the ability to create these diverse 
pipelines.
    So if that funding comes to us, I am very dedicated to 
making sure that we are looking at the cyber workforce, not 
just from a CISA perspective, but from a nationwide 
perspective. When we have to start with our youngest of ages to 
be able, again, both to keep them safe online but to ignite 
that spark because maybe they do want to join the cybersecurity 
workforce.
    So I look forward to working with you to make sure we get 
this right.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much.
    Yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Roybal-Allard. So with that, Director Easterly, I want 
to thank you very much for your time and for the excellent 
leadership that you are providing to CISA at this very, very 
challenging time.
    With that, the subcommittee on Homeland Security stands 
adjourned.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]