[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2025
_______________________________________________________________________

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION
_____________

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada, Chairman

JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington ED CASE, Hawaii
ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi

NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Cole, as chairman of the full
committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

Paul Anstine, Laura Cylke, Anna Lanier Fischer, Fern Tolley Gibbons,
Emily Trapani, and Brooklyn Tucker
Subcommittee Staff

_____________

PART 1

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Page
Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request for the Department of Homeland
Security................................................ 1 1

Members' Day.......................... ....................... 73

Federal Emergency Management Agency........................... 95

Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request for the Transportation Security
Administration.......................................... 131

Fiscal Year Budget Request for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement............................................. 175

Customs and Border Protection................................. 209

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.............. 245
245

United States Coast Guard..................................... 281

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-683 WASHINGTON : 2024

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

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky,
Chair Emeritus
KAY GRANGER, Texas,
Chair Emeritus
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BEN CLINE, Virginia
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
MIKE GARCIA, California
ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
TONY GONZALES, Texas
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia
JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona
CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina

ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
BARBARA LEE, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER,
Maryland
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
DEREK KILMER, Washington
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
GRACE MENG, New York
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
PETE AGUILAR, California
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
NORMA J. TORRES, California
ED CASE, Hawaii
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JOSH HARDER, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York

Susan Ross, Clerk and Staff Director

(ii)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2025

Wednesday, April 10, 2024.

FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

WITNESS

HON. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Joyce. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security will come
to order.
I am pleased to be joined today by the subcommittee's
distinguished ranking member, my good friend, the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Joyce. Welcome Secretary Mayorkas. I sincerely thank
you for being here to discuss your Department's 2025 fiscal
year budget request.
While it is very clear that we have profound differences of
opinion on how the Department should be running, on what
policies should be in place, especially as it relates to border
security and immigration enforcement, I would ask members on
both sides today to keep discussion civil and focused on the
work we need to do as appropriators to fund the Department of
Homeland Security.
Additionally, on behalf of the entire committee, I'd like
to convey my sincere appreciation for the tireless and often
thankless work done by the men and women of DHS on a daily
basis.
Turning our attention to fiscal year 2025 budget requests,
this proposal, nearly identical to last year's request, is
unfortunately more disappointing than it is promising.
This budget is not only full of gimmicks that mask the true
cost of protecting the homeland, but it also fails to address
the policy driven crisis that continues at the border.
For over 3 years, we have seen skyrocketing illegal
immigration at our borders and every corner of the country can
see and feel its impact. The American people know that the
border is not secure. It is a full-blown crisis that this
administration has sought to downplay for years.
While recently the messaging has changed as the 2024
election nears, the budget shows these are just empty words.
This request is not serious if the goal is to actually fix the
problem and secure our border.
Does the request ask for enough resources to remove more
than 1.3 million aliens on the non-detained docket whose cases
have already been adjudicated and no longer have a legal basis
to remain in this country?
Or does it ask for an appropriate level of detention beds
to detain aliens who pose a national security risk or public
safety risk? No. This administration instead asks for 7,500
less beds than the Congress just funded in FY 2024 budget.
Does this request ask for policy changes that would help
our agents officers deter the mass migration we have seen under
this administration? No, it does not. Does the request ask for
additional funding for barriers? Again, the answer is no.
Instead of building the wall, this administration has
wasted every dime it legally could spend on environmental
remediation efforts to clean up the mess it made when it
stopped the contracts that were in place building the wall.
What does the administration ask for? A $4.7 billion
southwest border contingency fund that exceeds the caps
established by the Financial Responsibility Act. This slush
fund, proposed last year, was rejected on a bipartisan basis
because Republicans and Democrats alike recognized that giving
this department billions of dollars with very little
congressional oversight and no incentive to change course,
would likely exacerbate the existing situation.
Again, this administration's approach to the border is just
to manage the chaos, a position that most fair-minded Americans
reject. Decreasing detention capacity has not worked. Abusing
the parole system has not worked. Catch and release has not
worked. Executive orders that impede immigration enforcement
have not worked.
Border security operators have been clear. Without quick
and decisive consequences, the illegal flow will continue
unabashed. The daily number of migrant encounters are still
above 5,000 a day. Despite every single policy this
administration has tried.
The President has implemented many of the policies that
have contributed to this crisis with a stroke of a pen and he
could reverse them if he chooses. It is our job, as
appropriators, to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars and
ensure that we are not wasting money doing more of the same and
expecting a different result.
I look forward to working with you and the Department to
seek actual solutions to address the border security crisis at
hand and to combat the many threats that face our homeland.
I now turn to my colleague, Mr. Cuellar for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. And I want to
thank you and the members on both sides of the aisles and the
staff for putting together a very good appropriation bill for
FY 2024. I think we'll do the same for FY 2025. But I certainly
want to say thank you to the Secretary.
I want to say thank you to the work that you do, your men
and women that do the work every single day. I was, as you
know, I always say I don't go visit the border, I live at the
border. But I did go on the riverboat just last week, less than
a week ago with border patrol.
We talked about the importance of getting rid of Carrizo
Cane so they can see river roads which are so important to us,
technology that are so important to us.
So I just want to say thank you for the work that you and
your men and women do across the country. I do want to say,
looking at the numbers for the last 21 days, in between ports,
there are about 3,800 a day. 3,800 a day.
You add the CBP, maybe add a little bit over 1,000. So
you're talking about 5,000 a day. But 3,800 a day coming in
very different. So we're doing something right.
And I ask you to continue to look at what we need to do to
bring those numbers down. 3,800 in between ports a day for the
last 3 weeks. So let's continue doing that. I do agree with the
Chairman. We did fund 41,500 beds. Don't want to speak for
anybody else, but I do support 41,500 beds.
I do support the Charter Air for ICE, and I certainly want
to ask you about that. And somewhere down the line, I certainly
want to ask you about what the President's looking at.
I've always felt that the President can do an executive
order. My understanding is that there is talk about another
executive order, because if you get 100 people that ask for
asylum, at the end of the day, they go to a judge 4, 5, 6 years
later, 87 percent to 90 percent are going to be rejected.
So we got to do something at the very beginning. If they
don't qualify for those five reasons, persecution by the state
on those five reasons, I think we need to look at that.
If we do, if the president does that, I'm sure there'll be
a court case by some folks that don't agree with him, but we
certainly have to look at that. So I certainly want to say
thank you.
I hope that on the 22,000 Border Patrol agents that we had,
I hope that you all look at the polygraph. That's been a big
problem. I talked to the Border Patrol, whoever that vendor is,
and hopefully they're listening to me. We got to do something
about that.
And certainly because we don't hire people, I know at one
time, even under the Trump administration, we were losing more
people to attrition than we were hiring Border Patrol.
So we got to do a better job on that. I certainly want to
say the technology that we are looking at is very, very
important. I do want to say there is a court order. And let me
see if we can put a little bit of more legislative intent here,
where a recent injunction by a federal judge in my home state,
who I think is wrongly interpreting the congressional intent of
funding, provided border barrier systems for fiscal years 2020
and 2021.
If you look at the language, Congress purposely chose the
broader system, the word system language, to intend that it was
to fund a system and not just a vertical wall.
So that means, because of this injunction, we can do river
roads that are so key to border patrol, lighting, border
technology, they're all on hold. And if this funding is lapsed,
then we got to come back and re-appropriate that while we have
funding right now.
So I hope you all appeal that injunction. And again, I have
questions, but I just want to say to all your men and women
that are under Homeland Security, I just want to say thank you
for the job. 3,800 a day in between ports, then you had what
comes to CBP, close to 5,000. But in between ports is what
we're focusing on.
Continue doing and let us know what we need to do to make
sure we do that and certainly to close up. Mexico has been a
partner and whatever you need to do to make sure they continue
doing what they are doing. Less numbers of people come to the
northern border than the numbers go down working with the
enforcement levels that you're doing.
So I certainly encourage you to continue working with
Mexico on that. With that Mr. Chairman and members, thank you
so much. And Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here with us
today.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
Secretary Mayorkas, without objection, your full written
testimony will be entered into the record.
With that in mind, we would ask for you to please summarize
your opening statement for us in 5 minutes.

Opening Statement: Secretary Mayorkas

Secretary Mayorkas. Chairman Joyce, Ranking Member Cuellar,
distinguished members of this Committee.
Every day, the 268,000 men and women of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) carry out our mission to protect the
safety and security of the American people.
They protect our shores, harbors, skies, cyberspace,
borders, and leaders. They stop fentanyl and other deadly drugs
from entering our country. They lead the response to maritime
emergencies.
As we speak, they are engaged in the response to the tragic
Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore.
They help communities recover and rebuild after a natural
disaster. They combat the scourges of human trafficking, forced
labor, and online child sexual exploitation, and so much more.
All this despite a perennially insufficient budget. The
dedicated public servants of DHS deserve full support, and the
American people deserve the results a fully resourced DHS can
deliver.
The funding opportunities outlined in the President's
fiscal year (FY) 2025 budget for DHS are critical to meeting
both goals.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this proposed budget
and highlight some of its key proposals with you today.
When the Department was founded in the wake of 9/11, the
threat of foreign terrorism against high visibility targets was
our primary concern. That foreign threat persists and the U.S.
continues to be in a heightened threat environment.
We now also confront the terrorism related threat of
radicalized lone offenders and small groups already resident
here in the United States. This budget provides for an $80
million increase to our Department's Nonprofit Security Grant
Program (NSGP) and additional funds for targeted violence and
terrorism prevention grants so that DHS can better help
communities prevent tragedies from occurring.
As lone actors and nation states increasingly target our
critical infrastructure and our data, the President's Budget
provides the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
(CISA) with needed funding to improve our cybersecurity and
resiliency.
Fentanyl is wreaking tragedy in communities across the
country. DHS has interdicted more illicit fentanyl and arrested
more individuals for fentanyl-related crimes in the last two
fiscal years than in the previous five combined. We must do
more.
The President's Budget includes critical funding to advance
our strategy, including funds for non-intrusive inspection,
technology, and targeted operations.
During a time when the world, including our hemisphere, is
experiencing the greatest displacement of people since World
War II, DHS has toughened our border enforcement and is
maximizing our available resources and authorities.
In the last 11 months, we have removed or returned more
than 630,000 individuals who did not have a legal basis to
stay, more than in every full fiscal year since 2013.
The President's budget would further expand these efforts.
It provides $25.9 billion for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) and U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement
(ICE), including funds for hiring more enforcement personnel. A
separate $265 million would be used by U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to bolster refugee processing as
we continue to expand lawful pathways and ensure that
protection remains accessible for those who qualify under our
laws.
Our immigration system, however, is fundamentally broken,
including our asylum system that so significantly impacts the
security of our borders and the processes we administer at it.
Only Congress can fix our broken and outdated system, and
only Congress can address our need for more U.S. Border Patrol
agents, asylum officers, and immigration judges, facilities,
and technology.
Our administration worked closely with a bipartisan group
of senators to reach agreement on a national security
supplemental package, one that would make the system changes
that are needed and give DHS the tools and resources needed to
meet today's border security challenges. We remain ready to
work with you to pass this tough, fair, bipartisan agreement.
Finally, extreme weather continues to devastate
communities. Last year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) responded to more than 100 disasters. Our budget
provides $22.7 billion to assist community leaders and help
survivors in the aftermath of major disasters and additional
funds to invest in resilience strategies that will save lives
and taxpayer money in the decades to come.
Essential to our success across all mission sets is the
Department's ability to recruit and retain a world-class
workforce.
In addition to the frontline border workforce I mentioned,
the President's Budget includes $1.5 billion to maintain our
commitment to fairly compensate the Transportation Security
Agency (TSA) workforce, continuing the long overdue FY 2023
initiative we worked together to implement.
I look forward to working and further discussing with you
these critical missions and the Department's needs for both the
coming and current fiscal years.
The recently passed 2024 budget, though welcome and helpful
to many of our operations, was enacted too late to implement an
appreciable hiring surge. It reduced by 20 percent much needed
support for cities dealing with migrant related challenges. And
it cut critical research and development funding, the
compounding effects of which the Department will feel for
years.
I am eager to work with you to address these and other
shortfalls in the weeks ahead, as I am eager to deliver
together the sustained funding, resources, and support that the
extraordinarily talented and dedicated public servants of DHS
need and deserve. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

ILLEGAL MIGRATION

Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I now recognize myself for questions.
Secretary Mayorkas, as I've already mentioned, the non-
detained docket has grown at an unprecedented and unsustainable
rate because this administration refuses to use its executive
authority to deter illegal migration and mitigate this chaos,
we know that the non-detained docket caseload will only
continue to rise.
Again, for reference, only 1.3 million of the more 7
million cases on the non-detained docket have been adjudicated
and ordered removed. What's your plan to remove the more than
1.3 million migrants who no longer have a legal basis to remain
in this country? And how long will it take you to effectuate
every single removal order?
Secretary Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, this administration, in
the last 11 months, has removed or returned more than 630,000
people, more than in any fiscal year since 2013.
We take our enforcement responsibilities very seriously,
and we have only increased enforcement efforts over past years.
I will respectfully submit to you, Mr. Chairman, as I
articulated in my opening statement, that the bipartisan bill
that a group of senators worked on, I had the privilege of
being seated with them, would have delivered a consequence
regime like no other.
It would have been the first time, since 1996, that our
broken system would have delivered the much-needed fixes that
we need to fully enforce the law and to deliver a consequence
regime that will indeed deter illegal migration.
Mr. Joyce. That's a great answer, but what are you going to
do about the people who are still here? Do you have a plan in
place to remove those people on an orderly basis?
Secretary Mayorkas. We certainly do. And we continue to
execute that plan. It is through that effort that we were able
to remove or return 630,000 people over the past 11 months.
We will continue to accelerate those efforts with the
resources we have. Our proposed budget seeks additional
resources, not as many as the bipartisan legislation would have
provided to us.
Mr. Joyce. But you don't have that legislation, sir. So how
can you justify using ICE detention space for border
decompression efforts when the Department has such a large
volume of interior enforcement needs?
Secretary Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, we use our detention
capabilities to ensure that our enforcement priorities are
realized. And our greatest enforcement priorities are to ensure
that individuals who pose a public safety or national security
risk to the American people are detained. That is our highest
detention priority.
Mr. Joyce. Well, I can tell you that the two people who
were recently murdered in Ohio by aliens, their families aren't
going to accept that as an answer.
I recognize Mr. Cuellar for any questions he may have.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary. Let's talk about the migrants who are
released into the country after they have been processed and
vetted by Border Patrol.
One of the tools, legal tools, that you have at your
disposal is the use of expedited removal. And I do agree with
you, if Congress would do its job and pass the Senate bill,
that I think is the first time since 1996 that we actually make
some changes, especially looking at the asylum criteria.
And again, as I've said, five reasons, political, religion,
et cetera, et cetera, persecution by the state. You know, I was
just at a holding institute in Laredo and we're talking,
talking to the folks there, and they said that most of them are
coming in for economic reasons, even though they say asylum,
but it's economic reasons.
So one of the tools that we could provide to you if we pass
the Senate deal, I mean, that I agree with you, but one of the
other ones that you have is expedited removal, which is a
process that is intended to identify those individuals and
families who are truly seeking asylum and to quickly remove the
rest.
However, as you know, your men and women are unable to do
that because we lack some of the resources, and that doesn't
give you the options that I wish we had.
So what I would ask you, if there's not enough space
between CBP and ICE to hold folks through the full duration of
the removal proceedings, if you had more asylum officers and
processing capacity, would you put more migrants into expedited
removal proceedings and would that help you manage challenges
at the border?
Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you, Member Cuellar.
We issued a regulation, the Asylum Officer Regulation, that
gave greater power to our asylum officers, which enabled us to
move more quickly through the asylum adjudication process.
One major provision of the Senate bipartisan legislation,
that would have been so incredibly impactful, was to allow us
to apply expedited removal proceedings, a much more accelerated
removal process, to individuals outside of immigration
detention.
Right now, for single adults, we are restricted to applying
expedited removal to those in detention. That bipartisan
legislation would have provided us with extraordinary
enforcement tools, and I remain uncertain why it was not
unanimously approved.
Mr. Cuellar. I agree with you.
So just to make sure. So you cannot use expedited removal
under title VIII unless if they're detained?
Secretary Mayorkas. That is my understanding of the law. To
the best of my recollection, Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir. And we just don't have that
processing space to keep all those folks; is that correct?
Secretary Mayorkas. Well, as Ranking Member Cuellar noted,
the number of encounters has dropped significantly over the
past several months. The number of encounters does not, in any
way, equal the number of detention beds that we have.
The 2024 budget, I think, funded 41,500 detention beds, and
we are encountering approximately 3,800 people in between the
ports of entry (POE) over the past several weeks, as Mr.
Chairman noted.
So, detention is not the only consequence delivery that we
can issue. What is needed is the swift and fast removal of
individuals who do not qualify for relief.
The bipartisan legislation would have taken a seven-year
asylum process, a seven plus year asylum process, and reduced
it to as little as 90 days. That would have been a game
changer.
Mr. Cuellar. So what, besides the Senate language, which I
support, besides that, what resources would you need to
increase your expedited removal operations to meet the demands
that we anticipate?
And keep in mind that in between ports, it's 3,800, at
least for the last 3 weeks, 21-days average. What resources
would you need and how would you use that?
Secretary Mayorkas. Ranking Member Cuellar, it is at every
stage of the removal process and everything in between that we
would need resources.
More U.S. Border Patrol agents and more support personnel,
so we can ensure that those U.S. Border Patrol agents are out
in the field doing the enforcement work that they signed up and
for which they are so skilled to perform.
More asylum officers, more ICE personnel, more detention
capacity, more funds for alternatives to detention, more
transportation resources, including more resources to be able
to execute more removal flights, and more legislative
authorities so that we can actually fund other countries in
enforcing their borders and removing people from their
countries before they ever reach the southern border of the
United States.
Mr. Cuellar. And my time's up. But I do want to emphasize
what you said. Expedite removal is only if you have somebody in
detention. And if they are out, then we need some changes of
the law, like the Senate deal does. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Joyce. You are welcome, Mr. Cuellar.
We now recognize Sheriff Rutherford.

ILLEGAL MIGRATION

Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I want to go back
to a statement that you made in response to the Chairman's
question about how many people we have deported.
You said 630,000 have been returned. That is not accurate.
The actual ICE deportations is 142,580. All those other people
that you're talking about were rejected at the border.
These are not ICE deportations. And you conflate those two
numbers, and it's aggravating to me that you do that. And here
we are, we've got the same problem that we had a year ago when
you were here.
In fact, since you last testified before us, 2.4 million
people have crossed our southern border. That's more than 4
years of President Trump's presidency combined.
Your immigration policy is in chaos. You don't need
Congress to do anything. The President's got the ability to do
it. You just need to talk to him to get it done.
Now, in fiscal year 2023, there were 294 illegal aliens on
the terrorist watch list that were arrested between ports of
entry. And those are just the ones we caught.
How many more are there in the 1.7 million gotaways that we
have had over the last three years? Last year, as I mentioned
earlier, we deported 142,580 people, but more than that have
crossed the border every month for the last 36 months.
We have 6.1 million, listen to this number, people, 6.1
million people in the interior of this country on the non-
detained docket, almost double what it was in 2020. Of those
roughly 13 percent, 1.2 million of them have orders for
removal.
Mr. Secretary, why haven't you removed those 1.2 million? I
mean, you said you deported 630,000. No, you didn't. They have
exhausted their due process. They have been told they have to
get out. They have got orders to leave this country, and you
let them stay.
Migrants in cities across America are waiting to get an
appointment in an ICE office. These are the ones that are on
the non-detained list. They're waiting years.
And despite all the evidence of this crisis, that every
single term this administration is undermined our safety and
our security.
You halted the wall construction. You ended migration
protection protocols. You have created this mass parole
program, and you are making an adequate request for detention
space.
This administration's failure is making our communities
less safe. We have people crossing the border without
identification. We don't know who they are. I have talked to
you about this before, about the improper vetting that is going
on, and your default policy seems to be to just let them in.
We can't figure out who they are. We don't know who they
are for sure because they are not in any database. Come on in.
Just a couple years ago in my hometown in Jacksonville, we
had a 28-year-old illegal immigrant, I'm sorry, he was 23,
murdered one of my constituents.
CBP encountered him and couldn't confirm who he was or how
old he was because he had no identification investigation, but
he said he was a juvenile, used a fake name.
So under your catch and release policy, that you re-
instituted after President Trump had ended that, handed him off
to HHS. And then it wasn't until after he killed Mr. Cuellar,
not this Mr. Cuellar, but Cuellar in Jacksonville, that we find
out who he is.
It's Mr. Ulloa, and he's now serving 60 years in Florida
state prison. Just last month, we saw another one, horrible
murder because we failed to properly vet an individual and Lake
and Riley was murdered by him.
Look, I want states to work with--I want state and local
law enforcement to work with ICE. We did in my jurisdiction
when I was sheriff in Jacksonville, we had a great 287(g)
program, and that's a fantastic program.

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: 287(G) PROGRAM

And in fact, I am not the only one that thinks that. Last
year, acting director of ICE, Tae Johnson, told this Committee
that the 287(g) Program, and I will quote, ``is the best thing
since sliced bread, because it acts as a force multiplier.''
So my question for you very quickly is, do you agree with
the director's assessment of the 287(g) Program, and if so,
what are you doing to expand it?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, the public safety and
security of this country is our highest priority.
Mr. Rutherford. Doesn't appear so.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, if you'll allow me. I
believe that when an individual poses a threat to public safety
or national security, a local or state jurisdiction should
cooperate with ICE for the swift detention and removal of that
individual.
Mr. Rutherford. So you didn't answer my question. Do you
think 287(g) Program is a good program, and should--will you
work with us to expand it?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I continue to believe that
287(g), when executed properly, is a force multiplier for our
enforcement efforts.
Mr. Rutherford. Is that a, yes?
Secretary Mayorkas. As I said, when it is executed
properly, it is a force multiplier for our enforcement efforts.
Mr. Rutherford. You can't get a straight answer out of this
guy.
Look, I see my time is up. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, sheriff.
Miss Underwood.

SHELTER AND SERVICES PROGRAM

Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, it's good to see you again, especially
during a busy week.
My district stretches across seven counties in northern
Illinois outside of Chicago. And as you know, for over a year
now, anti-immigrant extremists in southern states have
coordinated the deceptive and inhumane busing of migrants
arriving at our southern border to blue states like New York or
Illinois, including my community. They are using vulnerable
people the vast majority of whom are legally seeking asylum as
pawns in their shameless and shameful political stunt. In
contrast, I am so proud to be from Illinois where under the
leadership of our governor, Governor Pritzker, and Mayor
Johnson in Chicago our community has come together to provide
resources and support to these new arrivals in alignment with
our values as Americans.
I certainly recognize and appreciate how you and your team
have made this issue a priority. But at this point, to speak
plainly, Illinois desperately needs more federal support than
we are getting. So today I want to talk about our options for
the coming months and the current political reality. That means
without the Senate supplemental so just with current DHS
authorities and the fiscal year 2024 funding package.
Much of the federal funding for communities supporting
migrants comes through FEMA's Shelter and Services Protection
Program, or SSP, and this funding is largely directed to
Southern border states, but as these states like Texas continue
to bus thousands of new arrivals north it is time to take a
look at how we allocate that money. Almost 900 buses with
migrants have been sent to Chicagoland in the last 18 months,
but just last year in round one of SSP funding the state of
Texas received 11 of the 34 grants awarded. Illinois received
two. In round 2, Texas received 33 of the 54 grants awarded,
and Illinois received two. For grants awarded with reserve
funding, Texas received 28 of the 35 grants awarded. Illinois
received none.
Mr. Secretary, what specific steps is DHS taking to ensure
that more fiscal year 2024 funds are directed to communities
actually welcoming migrants? Can you commit that Illinois will
see a greater share of SSP resources this year?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, regrettably the 2024
budget includes a reduction in the amount of Shelter and
Services Program funding. We are put in a difficult position of
allocating insufficient resources between cities in the
interior of the United States that actually receive the
individuals who are in immigration enforcement proceedings and
the border communities that initially encounter them. We are
working through that allocation right now to distribute the
2024 funds at least in the first tranche, and allow me to
assure you, Congresswoman, that we are working very closely
with the jurisdictions both in the interior and at the border
to increase and maximize the effectiveness of the allocations.

EMERGENCY FUNDING CHICAGO

Ms. Underwood. Yes, sir. Southern border states will likely
always need some dedicated support, but it seems contradictory
for a State receiving such a large portion of the funding
dedicated to sheltering and providing services for migrants and
then to bus those migrants to other states as soon as they
arrive. Furthermore, the total SSP funding in the bipartisan
2024 funding package fell short, as you mentioned, so we need
to get creative about more solutions. So what other tools are
you thinking about utilizing in order to increase the support
that DHS can provide to Illinois communities experiencing
migrant bussing this year, and then can USCIS surge personnel
to improve processing times for work authorizations, for
example, or take any other steps to address those types of
delays, and can DHS access any emergency funding or work with
other agencies like HHS or DoD to unlock resources?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, a few points. First and
most fundamentally it is our hope that public officials will
actually coordinate, communicate and collaborate with other
public officials to ensure that the interests of the Nation are
properly served and that chaos is not deliberately sowed,
number one.
Number 2, we have deployed teams to some of the interior
cities to ensure that our expertise in the processing of
individuals and understanding their eligibility for certain
benefits is fully realized, and we have dispatched a team to
Chicago, IL for that purpose. So we are working very closely
across the administration and with the cities to address the
challenges before us.
Ms. Underwood. And with those teams do they include again
personnel across the interagency including USCIS to be able to
increase processing, to access funds from other departments, et
cetera? If not, please consider taking those steps as we move
forward particularly in this moment where we have to use more
creative strategies because, as you know, sir, hope is not a
solution, and it is certainly not a policy, and we know that
some of these extremists in the southern states are not going
to change their behavior particularly as we approach the fall.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Hinson.

BORDER SECURITY: GOT-AWAYS

Ms. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ranking
Member Cuellar for holding this hearing today. Mr. Secretary,
thank you for appearing before us. You state in your testimony
that the president's budget request prioritizing staying ahead
of diverse and complex threats facing the homeland and
highlights your unwavering dedication protecting the security
of the American people.
And the president's budget also states that strengthening
border security and providing safe and lawful pathways for
migration remain top priorities for the administration. I want
to build on something one of my colleagues asked, Mr.
Secretary. How many got-aways have there been since President
Biden took office?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, I will provide that data
to you. I don't have the number----
Ms. Hinson. He said 1.7 million got away. So you and the
Biden administration over the past few years have reversed the
secure policies that were working. You stopped the border wall
construction, expanded parole, allowed for millions of
individuals, as we have heard, including known and suspected
terrorists, cartel members, unforgivable levels of Fentanyl and
illicit drugs and substances into our country. These 1.7
million individuals came into our country in neither a safe nor
lawful way. Yet again you sit before this committee and ask for
out of touch priorities again and refuse to take accountability
for the total failure that you have allowed for the Southern
border.

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: DETENTION BEDS

So again I want to build on something one of my colleagues
said. Why would you raise--when we raised the detention bed
capacity for ICE to 41,500 would you request bringing that
number down to 34,000?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, my answer is twofold.
Number 1, of course the 2024 budget and the 41,500 beds
allocated to us postdated our submission of the FY 2025 budget
where we remained at 34,000 beds. We will, of course, work with
this committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee to
ensure that the 41,500 bed capacity is sustained in the year
ahead, and----
Ms. Hinson. This is about deterrence. This is about border
deterrence, and what we want to see happen is a proper
accountability and oversight of that deterrence. $4.7 billion
you got for the Southwest Border Contingency Fund which we know
is a slush fund that you have access to because you came before
the committee last year asking for that same out of touch
priority.
So I think you have really disrespected hardworking
taxpayers again through these processes attempting to get this
slush fund in place to circumvent congressional direction. I
think that is appalling. That is what I hear from Iowans. The
purpose of the slush fund is stated to be around the
uncertainty surrounding border conditions in any given year for
surge related functions, but you have systematically wasted
taxpayer dollars already. You have opened the door for these
surge related activities waving the green light for all these
migrants to come, cartels, the human drug traffickers.
There is no excuse to call for billions of dollars of
additional slush fund dollars when it is clear that your
leadership and decision-making is so off the mark here. And I
think it is very concerning and alarming for a secretary that
instilled to protect our homeland to compromise on this.
In your testimony, you did state, I am eager to work with
Congress to deliver for the American people and the men and
women who protect our homeland, but you are pointing the finger
at Congress to fix the very decisions that the administration
has made that have led to this crisis. Correct?
Secretary Mayorkas. No. That is incorrect.
Ms. Hinson. Why do you think that is incorrect.
Secretary Mayorkas. Actually pointing to Congress to fix
what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system.
Congresswoman, you mentioned the 41,500 detention beds that are
funded in FY 2024. That is less than the bipartisan Senate bill
would have provided. The bipartisan Senate bill would have
provided 50,000 detention beds.
Ms. Hinson. The Senate bill also allows the President way
too much authority in terms of circumventing all of the legal
processes that we do have in place, and we have seen emergency
requests for, obviously, the crisis that you and the Biden
administration have created purposefully and systematically. I
don't think that is a good argument. You have reversed again
countless policies that were in place that were working to keep
our Southwest border under control, opening floodwalls for this
security crisis at our Southern border again unprecedented
levels of illicit drugs and deadly Fentanyl.
You speak of a consequence regime, Mr. Secretary. My
constituents are feeling the consequence of this regime every
single day, pounds of drugs instead of ounces in my district,
increased crime. We are seeing a complete overwhelming number
of illegal immigrant children in our district overwhelming Iowa
classrooms and teachers every single day. You can try to hide
from the American public at how we got to this point. You can
point fingers at Congress for fixing systems, but Mr. Secretary
we've seen gamesmanship out of the administration and gimmicks.
I called for your resignation last year, and I stand by my
request, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. We now recognize Congressman Case.

NATIONAL DISASTER: MAUI WILDFIRES

Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it has
been a little over 8 months since the incredibly tragic Maui
wildfires, some of the worst in our country's history, and I
want to start by thanking the Department of Homeland Security,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, you personally
as well as Administrator Criswell, Mr. Fenton and your entire
team for the response on Maui which has been a tremendous
response. We have certainly felt that you have been full
partners in this recovery.
I have Mayor Bissen actually from Maui in the room here,
and he wanted me to express his personal appreciation to you as
well. You have been in touch with him personally. You have met
with him. You have stayed in touch. And so thank you for your
response, also to this subcommittee including Mr. Joyce here
who visited personally himself to find out what was going on.
And this committee and subcommittee responded in part by
plussing up our disaster relief fund, which needed to be done
in our last supplement all as well as the actions in the fiscal
year 2024 bill.
Aside from I think many positive areas of progress the one
that is the missing piece is housing as you well know. The
history here is that the fires displaced about 12,000 people.
Four thousand of them went into some other form of housing very
unsatisfactory right away, and 8,000 went into hotel rooms
themselves. Of that 8,000 we have still today about 2,800
individuals, about 1,100 families. They clearly don't want to
be in those hotels anymore, and neither does FEMA. You want to
move them out of those hotels.
And yet the very unique circumstances of the Maui housing
market make it very difficult for you to follow your kind of
standard approach. FEMA has made choices in the past between
rehousing and rebuilding. You have chosen rehousing on Maui,
and I understand that, but that is not going to be all of the
solution here. You actually do need some form of rebuilding to
pull this off over time. It is not going to really do the job.
The Hawaii delegation, the State of Hawaii, Mr. Bissen and
the county involved asked FEMA to come off of the rehousing
exclusively solution here and instead move to the actual
construction of at least some temporary transitional housing on
land that the State of Hawaii is making available to you to do
that, either the actual housing itself, which would be
transitional, or at least the infrastructure for that housing
so that other people can take care of it and put in about 1,000
units that are desperately needed to cover a gap in the housing
availability.
And that gap is caused not only by the shortage of housing
on Maui in general but by the fact that there are many people
that are being housed in hotels and otherwise that are not
eligible for FEMA housing right now. They have been
disqualified for many reasons. And so there is two solutions
here. The rehousing exclusively is not going to work. The
rebuilding has to happen in some way, shape or form. Some
combination of rebuilding, transitional housing and/or the
exercise of your waiver authority to allow the people that are
being disqualified from rehousing to actually get into that
rehousing market.
I think this would be good all around. You certainly are
spending a heck of a lot of money that you don't need to be
spending on some of these housing options that you have pursued
in a very tight market. So what can you tell us about your
thoughts in terms of the Maui wildfire overall? And again I say
this in the context of sincere appreciation for your efforts.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, thank you very much for
recognizing the extraordinary work of FEMA in close partnership
with state and local officials. You correctly described the
housing challenge following the tragic fires as extremely
complex and difficult, and we are looking at all our options
and also are eager to work with Congress to assist what
additional authorities FEMA might need.
We are working across the administration not just DHS
through FEMA but also with Housing and Urban Development, with
economic experts to understand what is the right solution for
the people of Maui, whether rehousing is inadequate, and
therefore we have to rebuild. The challenges of rebuilding are
difficult. Because of its island status and its unique
situation as an extraordinary tourist destination the pricing
of housing is different than many other----
Mr. Case. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. I'm sorry. My
time is almost up, so apologies for interrupting you. I commend
you on all those efforts, but we don't have time. The answers
are pretty straightforward. You are never going to be able to
satisfy this on a strict rehousing approach. There is not
enough housing in the overall market. You can't leave people in
hotel rooms for another 6 months to a year while you figure
this out with the economic experts.
Some decision needs to be made on some form of rebuilding
and/or the waiver authority that will relieve the pressure on
that rebuilding. So I commend that to you, will follow up with
you personally. But again thank you very much for your efforts,
and we will stay in touch.
Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you. I look forward to it.
Mr. Case. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, sir. We now recognize the gentleman
Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to start
with a very simple question. What is the name of your
department that you are the secretary of?
Secretary Mayorkas. The name of the department?
Mr. Cloud. The department, yes.
Secretary Mayorkas. The Department of Homeland Security.

U.S. BORDER PATROL AGENTS

Mr. Cloud. Department of Homeland Security. And your
department was stood up when 19 foreign nationals
misrepresented who they were and used our infrastructure and
our resources to bring a catastrophic attack of course on
September 11. Now, your department is tasked with protecting
the homeland, and you have done more to turn it into
prioritized processing than you have protection.
When you talk to the Border Patrol agents in Texas who are
doing a yeoman's work and doing everything they can with what
they are being faced with, they are very frustrated that they
have been taken off their job of protecting our borders and
have instead been put in the role of processing. Could you
speak to any authorities that Congress has removed from you or
the president since taking office?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman----
Mr. Cloud. Has Congress removed any authorities from you or
the president since you have taken office?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, the----
Mr. Cloud. It is a yes or no question.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, the point that you make
with respect to U.S. Border Patrol agents is exactly why----
Mr. Cloud. You are filibustering. I asked you a yes or no
question.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman----
Mr. Cloud. Has Congress removed any authorities from you or
the president since you have taken office?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, the point that you make
with respect to U.S. Border Patrol agents----
Mr. Cloud. The answer is no. I would also make the point
that you have approximately 20 percent larger budget than Trump
had. The president has made the point that he can't secure the
border. He can't get down to--because he is waiting on Congress
to move, and I just point that out to belay that and to point
out the truth of the fact that he has every single authority as
President Trump. He has more resources at his disposal than
President Trump yet he has done everything he can to undermine
the security of our border.
Have you read the book Unrestricted Warfare or the
pamphlet?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, what is your----
Mr. Cloud. It was a report that was written by two colonels
in the Chinese army.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, what is your substantive
question about the work of the Department of Homeland Security?

BORDER SECURITY: CHINA

Mr. Cloud. The question is--so is that a yes or no? No? In
the pamphlet or the brochure, it is a couple hundred pages
long, it talks about the fact that a country would be--to take
out the United States you would not try to use kinetic warfare.
You would use things like abusing our legal system, attacks on
our infrastructure, terrorism, smuggling warfare, drug warfare,
economic aid warfare, in other words, getting us to overuse and
to--the way we beat the Soviet Union was getting them to
overspend. It was economic collapse because we got in an arms
race with them, and they couldn't keep up economically.
Right now we are wasting and spending money, and it is
leading to our demise. Right now the number one threat against
our country is our fiscal house. Do you have any concerns that
China may be engaged with unrestricted warfare in our country?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, addressing the challenges
that the People's Republic of China (PRC) poses is one of our
highest priorities, and we have a number of lines of effort to
address that whether that is enforcement of the Uyghur Forced
Labor Protection Act (UFLPA)----
Mr. Cloud. How many Chinese nationals have crossed our
border in the last couple years?
Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. In the fight against
forced labor. Whether that is battling----
Mr. Cloud. That is not Homeland Security. I appreciate
that, but that is not Homeland Security.
Secretary Mayorkas. We are tasked with enforcement of the
UFLPA, Congressman. Secondly----
Mr. Cloud. I am asking you about the border. How many
Chinese nationals have crossed our border?
Secretary Mayorkas. I would be pleased to provide that
data----
Mr. Cloud. It is tens of thousands.
Secretary Mayorkas. Secondly----
Mr. Cloud. Tens of thousands.
Secretary Mayorkas. Secondly, the threat of cyberattacks--
--
Mr. Cloud. Right now crossing our border are tens of
thousands of Chinese nationals who are presently in our
country. They are primarily single adult male military aged,
and they have crossed our border, and you are not doing
anything to counteract that. You mentioned expanding lawful
pathways. Who makes laws?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, if you must ask me
questions the answers to which you know, allow me to answer it.
Congress.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. You haven't answered the other
questions, so I will just point that out. The issue that we
have when it comes to analyzing your budget, and this has been
the difficult part, is we look at our budgets, and we want to
spend money to secure our border. And so we as Congress write
the check for security, and then you get it and you turn it
into processing, and you turn it into basically, human
trafficking and aiding and abetting cartels and all the
nefarious action that has happened.
So we have had 100,000 people killed from Fentanyl. The
precursor is coming from China. That would be like a plane with
300 people a day dying in our country. Now we have cells within
our country who at any moment could strike our infrastructure
or the other ways of unrestricted warfare that I have
mentioned. I would urge you to get a focus on Homeland
Security, be focused on protection. Let us stop the funding for
the unnecessary processing. Let us secure our border and put
back in place the policies that had led to a secure or almost
secure border. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, sir. We now recognize the Ranking
Member of the entire committee, Ms. DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
sorry to be running in and out, but it is the nature of the
beast. So thank you. Thank you very much. And Mr. Secretary,
thank you very, very much.
Secretary Mayorkas. Good morning.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you for your years of service to this
country. I said in a prior meeting to Secretary Cardona it was
Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman to sit in
this body, that said that public service is the rent we pay for
space on this earth. And as I said to Secretary Cardona who has
been paying the rent, you have been paying that rent over and
over again. So thank you so much for being here.

SECURITY AND PROTECTION: GRANTS

I have a couple of FEMA questions if I can. FEMA Initiative
is the nonprofit security grant program funding not for profit
organizations making physical security, improvements to
facilities at the high risk of terrorist attack. Particularly
for years in the aftermath of conflict in Gaza I have been
concerned, others are concerned about threats to temples,
mosques, churches, other places of worship. Glad to see the
program prioritized and supplemental funding requests received
administration last fall though I do regret the program
received a cut as part of very difficult negotiations over the
Homeland bill just a few weeks ago.
A couple of questions here. Has the Department assessed an
increase in threats against places of worship in the aftermath
of October 7th? What other types of nonprofit facilities are
facing acute threats of violence and could be served by this
program? Can you speak briefly to the 2025 request level for
the program, $110.5 million increase above 2024 funding and
what that request would support in terms of meeting that need?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, the heightened threat
environment in which we currently live has only been
exacerbated by the October 7th terrorist attacks against the
state of Israel. We have seen a dramatic increase in the rise
in antisemitism as well as Islamophobia. The NSGP provides much
needed dollars to places of worship and other nonprofit
organizations such as synagogues, religious day schools, and
mosques, and that is precisely why our FY 2025 budget request
sees an augmentation of that grant program funding.
Ms. DeLauro. Would that allow additional grants to these
facilities in order for security and protection?
Secretary Mayorkas. It would. Tragically, what we see are
increasingly target rich and resource poor institutions, and
the increase in funding would allow us to ensure
enfranchisement in our grant programs and better inclusivity to
build capacity where it does not currently exist. But we are
working very closely with different communities, different
faith communities, and different nonprofit organizations to
share best practices and do what we can with the limited funds
available to us.
Ms. DeLauro. It is critically important in my community. I
hear from these organizations all of the time, many small
organizations but nevertheless under serious threat
continuously.

NATURAL DISASTER: PREPAREDNESS

Let me move on to another FEMA question if I can, and I
will try to be quick, Mr. Chairman. FEMA, by the way, is the
single largest part of the Homeland budget as I understand it.
It plays an expansive role in keeping our community safe. It is
firefighters, next generation warning system, preventing
violence and terrorism talk about protecting our homeland,
Homeland Security, and responding to disasters, helping
communities recover, build back stronger.
We have got extreme weather events, wildfires, hurricanes,
winter storms threaten the infrastructure that we rely on every
day. Let me talk about Connecticut, across New England.
Historic flooding. These events put people livelihoods and
their lives really at risk and create public health and public
safety crisis. I would like to focus on prevention and pre-
disaster mitigation.
The sad reality is disasters are going to happen, so can we
speak to the 2025 request for FEMA how you envision it should
be focused on preparedness, protection, and mitigation? Where
are increased investments needed in order for you to support
this work? What kind of policy changes should the Congress be
considering? Because yes indeed it is about homeland security.
These are homeland security issues.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, I look forward to
working with you on assessing what legislative changes are
needed to better address the increasing impacts of climate
change, and the increasing frequency and gravity of extreme
weather events. I have spoken with mayors around the country
about the need to update building codes, something as basic as
that. The building codes are addressing the weather of
yesterday and not the weather of today or tomorrow.
I believe it is Colorado State University that just issued
a report about its prediction for hurricane season, and it is
really looking very, very troubling. An ounce of prevention
today is absolutely vital to preventing calamities in local
communities across this country. The situation is getting worse
from an extreme weather perspective, and we have to work with
every community to ensure it understands what it needs to do
with the funds that we distribute to it and the funds that they
themselves have in terms of understanding how houses and
residences of all types need to be prepared, need to be
safeguarded and what people need to do should an extreme
weather event actually occur.
Ms. DeLauro. I thank you, and I thank the Chair. I will
just make this final comment. I would very, very much like to
work with you on this because I think the whole issue of FEMA
and its role in homeland security gets lost. It gets lost in a
whole lot of, yes, serious issues but a whole lot of political
rhetoric as well. But this is I think an area where Congress
may have the opportunity to do something and to do something in
a bipartisan basis because these kinds of conditions affect all
of our communities. And I thank you. I thank you for your
indulgence, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. You are welcome, Ms. DeLauro. We now recognize
Congressman Newhouse.

BORDER SECURITY: FENTANYL

Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. Secretary, thanks for being with us this morning.
Appreciate that very much. I want to discuss the Fentanyl
crisis that we all know is raging throughout our country.
Fentanyl floods across the Southwest border. It doesn't stay in
border communities, however. It spreads throughout the country
and is destroying lives. It is destroying families. It is
destroying communities throughout the United States.
In your testimony, you note that the department has stopped
more elicit Fentanyl and arrested more individuals for Fentanyl
related crimes in the last two fiscal years than in the
previous five years combined. While this is admirable it is
equally disturbing. The men and women of the CBP and ICE do
extraordinary work on the frontline and beyond to execute their
mission of protecting the homeland, and we all appreciate that.
However, as Border Patrol agents are pulled off the
frontline to process and then release the majority of illegal
migrants into the United States the cartels being very clever,
they have shifted their tactics to exploit the vulnerabilities
that those personnel shifts and shortfalls have created. In
your testimony you also note that in fiscal year 2025 the
budget request includes critical investments in the fight
against fentanyl specifically the nonintrusive inspection
technology, and you mentioned that in your verbal testimony.
Yet when I reviewed the budget justifications for that
program it says that the fiscal year 2025 budget does not
provide procurement funding for this investment although it
does request level funding for operations in support. I didn't
see the roughly $300 million that purportedly is necessary to
install the scanners used to detect drugs and other contraband
that have been purchased and are sitting in a warehouse that
are literally collecting dust as you and I are sitting here in
this hearing room.
This is something that just totally frustrates and concerns
me. When I visited the border in Arizona just this last
February, one of your, our own border patrol agents, in answer
to my question, told me this directly. We do not control the
border. The cartels control the border.
The cartels determine who, when, and where people cross our
border. Even more concerning, a local resident told me that him
and his neighbors don't even lock their doors anymore because
smugglers, illegal migrants, they come through the area, break
into homes, take whatever they want, they steal clothing, they
steal food.
People have resorted to just leaving stuff out on their
patios and leaving their doors unlocked to try to prevent the
damage of people breaking in. I think that's just--to have
fellow citizens going through that on a daily basis to me is
unconscionable.
This fentanyl epidemic, it's fueled through the southwest
border. Over 50 percent comes through Arizona alone. How can,
better yet, why can the Department justify this?
Tell me, are you working with Mexican authorities? To do,
what I see are the two important things, stop Fentanyl
precursors from coming from Mexico. And number two, prevent
waves of migrants from physically rushing the border. What are
some of the specific intangible actions?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I will answer very briefly
in the limited time we have, but I would welcome the
opportunity to speak with you, outside of this hearing, to talk
about the work that we are doing with Mexico, both in the fight
against fentanyl and to ensure that individuals who seek to
arrive at our border are interdicted before they reach our
border.
But we are working very closely with Mexico, and not only
with Mexico, to interdict the flow of precursor chemicals, as
well as the pill presses and other equipment used to
manufacture fentanyl into this hemisphere.
And I will share with you. I share your concern,
Congressman Newhouse, because for 12 years I was a Federal
prosecutor battling the trafficking of substances as serious as
cocaine and black tar heroin.
And we have seen nothing like the toxicity and fatality of
fentanyl. And we have to battle it together. And this is a
scourge that has been growing for years. I believe it was in
2020, that there were 57,000 overdose deaths.
This is not a new phenomenon. It is a years long
phenomenon. And we need to work together to address it.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
We now recognize Mr. Guest.

BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, the discretionary budget this year is $62.2
billion, is that correct?
Secretary Mayorkas. I believe that's correct.
Mr. Guest. And the request last year was $60.4 billion as
it relates to discretionary spending; is that correct?
Secretary Mayorkas. I believe so, Congressman.
Mr. Guest. You stated in your opening statement that there
was an insufficient budget, that we were not giving you the
funds necessary for you to be able to carry out your job and
the men and women who serve under you.
Last year you requested $60.4 billion and Congress
appropriated $61.8 billion. So we actually appropriated more
money than you asked for.
When you look at what you are asking for this year versus
what we appropriated last year, those numbers are very similar.
There is not a huge discrepancy between $62.2 and $61.8
billion.
And as I looked through the individual items that you
requested, one of the things that Ms. Hinson brought up were
detention beds. Congress, this year, funded 41,500 detention
beds, but yet you are only requesting 34,000 detention beds.
And you also referenced the Senate bill. In the Senate
bill, you said the Senate bill, which never passed out of the
Senate, but was a bill in which they were debating as part of
the overall funding package you said would have funded 50,000
detention bets.
And I am assuming you supported the Senate bill, did you
not?
Secretary Mayorkas. I hope you would have as well,
Congressman.
Mr. Guest. Well, if it would have come over here, I would
have been happy to have looked at it, but unfortunately, it
never made it out of the Senate, so the House did not have a
chance to review the legislation.

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: DETENTION BEDS

So do you support then the 50,000 detention beds that would
have been in the Senate bill?
Secretary Mayorkas. In the context of the bipartisan Senate
bill, yes.
Mr. Guest. All right. But yet, you are asking for some
16,000 less detention beds and, actually, 7,500 less detention
beds than we currently fund.
And you talk about expedited removal, and you say that
people who are in detention often have expedited removal. And
so if the intent is to, those individuals who don't need to be
here, to remove them from the country sooner rather than later,
and we know about the immigration courts and the backlog and
all the problems that we face, putting people in detention
expedites their removal from the country generally, does it
not?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, a few things. Number 1,
remember that when we fund detention beds, we also have to fund
personnel. It is part of a----
Mr. Guest. Do you need more money for personnel? I want to
know what you need to fund more detention beds, because to me
it seems asinine, Mr. Secretary, that we are going to ask for
less detention beds when we see a record surge in immigration,
when we see a record number of orders of removal that have been
issued by the court. But yet, we are saying that we don't need
detention beds if we are going to, one, prevent people from
coming into the country or if we are not going to prevent them
once they are here and once there is a final disposition of
their case, if we are going to seek to remove them.
And I am very concerned about that fact. I am very
concerned that you are asking not only for less than we funded
this year, but you are asking for substantially less than the
Senate bill which you said that you agreed with.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, a few points. Number 1, as
I articulated earlier, our FY 2025 budget request was submitted
before Congress passed the FY 2024 budget.
Mr. Guest. What number do you need? Is 34,000, is that the
number that you need right now?
Secretary Mayorkas. We are committed to working with
Congress to sustain the 41,500 beds that were funded.
Mr. Guest. If that is the number, why didn't you put that
in your budget? Why are you substantially underselling the
number of detention beds and then making Congress come in and
bump those numbers up?
If those are the numbers you need? If those are the
appropriate numbers, Mr. Secretary, I would ask that you put
those numbers actually in your budget and that you ask Congress
to fund that and that you don't expect us, that we are just
going to plus up those numbers and so you leave those numbers
artificially low.

BORDER SECURITY: IMMIGRATION

Now, one last thing, and I know my time is running short.
So in an effort to make sure that I save time for other
members, Fox News is reporting that there is going to be a
possible executive order issued by the President.
This says to shut down the border by the end of the month.
Are you aware, are you in any discussions with the President
about executive orders that would relate to border security
and/or immigration?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, we are consistently
evaluating what options are available to us. We do that on a
regular basis. I will share with you that executive action,
which is inevitably challenged in the courts, is no substitute
for an enduring solution, if I may, for the enduring solution
of legislation that will fix what everyone agrees is a broken
immigration system.
Mr. Guest. And as a Secretary, do you believe that the
President has the power to issue executive orders that would
deal with border security and/or immigration?
Secretary Mayorkas. We have actually implemented executive
orders by way of very critical and effective regulations, and I
would be pleased to speak with you about those.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, sir.
We now recognize Dr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. And first at the top, I
want to make sure that you convey my thanks to the Coast Guard
for what they are doing in the port of Baltimore.
Their response was tremendous. I mean, getting that port
reopened is important. Obviously, it's a multi-agency effort.
Coast Guard is playing a very important role, as well as the
Army Corps of Engineers. I want to convey my thanks.
Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you, Congressman. I will do so.

JANUARY 6: UNDERCOVER OPERATIVES

Mr. Harris. Now, I am going to ask you a question that has
come up, because, you know, the FBI director has testified
before Congress that he wasn't certain whether or not there
were undercover operatives, FBI operatives working on January
6th in the crowd.
But an undercover journalist with Sound Investigations
released a video you may be aware of in the last 2 days of a
CIA official, former FBI member, actually saying, yes, there
were.
So I am going to ask you a simple question. Were there
undercover officers or agents from the Department of Homeland
Security or paid informants in the crowd on January 6?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I don't know the answer to
that question. I will follow up with you.
Mr. Harris. Wow, is all I can say. Was Ray Epps a paid
informant?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I'm not familiar with
those facts. I'd be very pleased to get them to you.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. And is it the policy of
the Department of Homeland Security, because I understand it is
the policy of the FBI, to actually have undercover individuals
at these events, to kind of keep them in control, to allow
people to peacefully exert their first amendment rights while
kind of, you know, calling attention to people who might
interfere with that.
So is it the policy of the Department of Homeland Security
to have undercover agents or officers or paid informants at
events like that?
Secretary Mayorkas. Events like?
Mr. Harris. Like a large protest somewhere where people
attempt to exert their first amendment rights?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, that is not where we focus
our----
Mr. Harris. OK, but if you get the answers to me on the
other one, I'd appreciate that. About January 6, whether or not
you had agents there.

INFORMATION SHARING: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

OK, let me talk a little bit about the OIG. The OIG has
complained that they attempt to get things from the Department
of Homeland Security. I am going to ask this letter to Chairman
Green from January 17, from the OIG, to be entered into the
record, where she points out that the Department, over the past
few years, has used the excuse of the Privacy Act and the
Presidential Records Act to withhold information from the OIG.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Harris. Now, the purpose of the OIG, as you know, is
Congress, we think the OIGs are important to keep an eye on the
individual departments, and we would hope that the departments
would always cooperate with their OIGs because otherwise looks
a little suspicious.
So do you agree that the Privacy Act and the Presidential
Records Act, in fact, do not affect the ability of the
department to transfer information to the OIG?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, let me assure you that we
cooperate fully with the Office of Inspector General, and we
also appreciate the importance of the Inspector Generals in
making sure the Department is as efficient and effective as it
can be.
Mr. Harris. Is your inspector General Joseph Cuffari?
Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, he is.
Mr. Harris. But in this letter, he says you are not
cooperating.
I will enter into, Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would
like that entered into the record.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I respectfully disagree
with the Inspector General.
Mr. Harris. Well, that is why we have Inspector Generals,
to actually keep an eye on the departments. And we expect when
the department is doing something that they want to cover up
that they are not going to cooperate with the Inspector
General, and then they are going to claim that they cooperate
with the Inspector General.
That is our cop on the beat. That is our cop on the beat
watching the cops on the beat. OK?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, assuredly, you are
speaking of a Department different than ours when you
characterize that type of behavior.
Mr. Harris. That is not what the letter kind of indicates.
Anyway, the last thing I want to talk about in the last
remaining minute is the effect of offshore wind on search and
rescue missions for the Coast Guard, because this is an issue.
We have an active port in Ocean City. We have a lot of
commercial fishermen and private people who are worried that
when they construct these huge offshore windmills off the coast
of Maryland, that, in fact, Coast Guard search and rescue
operations will be harmed.
So I am going to ask to enter into the record a U.S. Naval
Institute's study on offshore wind energy, a rising challenge
to Coast Guard operations that indicates the potential effects
of these on search and rescue missions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Harris. Clearly, an important part of what the Coast
Guard does, and clearly, preserving life and limb in the
maritime environment should be one of the first things the
Government does before it expends huge amounts of money on
offshore wind, a very expensive source of energy, but that is a
discussion for a different agency.
I also want to ask if you could follow up with the Coast
Guard. There is a November 25, 2019, letter which, again, I
will ask to be entered into the record, signed by the Director,
Jennifer William, Captain Jennifer William, Director of Marine
Transportation System, acting, U.S. Coast Guard, where she
suggested that ongoing studies are done, are being done, this
is now 5 years ago, 4\1/2\ years ago, with regards to the
safety of offshore wind vis-a-vis search and rescue missions of
the Coast Guard.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Harris. Are you aware whether or not that determination
has been made? Whether it has been safe?
Secretary Mayorkas. I would be pleased to follow up with
you, Congressman.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. And again, I ask that
would be entered into the record, and I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. The objection, and all exhibits are admitted
without objection.
Should the members desire, proceed with the second round.
Three minutes. OK.

BORDER WALL: FUNDING

Recognizing myself. Congress provided more than $5.8
billion for the border wall, but your agency continues to waste
money appropriated in FY 2020 and 2021, explicitly for barrier
construction, on everything but the actual construction of the
wall.
This administration finally admitted that the FY 2019 funds
were not spent on the wall, as Congress intended, they would be
breaking the law.
As a result of the lawsuit, you can no longer waste
additional money on make safe projects and other non-wall
constructions. Why won't this administration follow the clear
and unambiguous intent of Congress and build additional miles
of wall with the roughly $600 million left in the wall account?
Secretary Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, I won't speak to the
Texas court decision because that is a matter of ongoing
litigation. But let me assure you that we do comply with the
law.
As a matter of fact, because of our understanding of the
legal imperative, we approved the construction of 17 miles of
wall. We did that last year. In addition, I have approved, I
believe it is 129, I may have the exact number inaccurate, but
I believe I am right, 129 gates, gap closures, and reforms.
And so, we are complying with the law. But we continue to
believe that technology is a far more advanced capability that
we need to invest in to ensure the security of our border.
Mr. Joyce. On my trips to the border, sir, I have seen wall
parts stacked, not being constructed. So I am wondering just
how much money it costs the department to cancel those
contracts midstream when taking into account additional work
that needs to be done, such as stabilizing roads, drainage, and
other mitigation efforts?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, Mr. Chairman. Forgive me,
Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Joyce. Fair enough.
Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. I am pleased to provide
you with the figures you've requested.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr.
Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

IMMIGRATION: ASYLUM

You have been to Texas. You have seen the border wall, the
levee walls that we have up there. When somebody is asking for
asylum, don't they all have to do is just touch the riverbank?
Secretary Mayorkas. Once they step on U.S. soil, Ranking
Member Cuellar, they have a lawful right to claim asylum.
Mr. Cuellar. And since we have a 1,200 mile river, the
fences that we have are not in the middle of the river, which
is really the international boundary. They are not at the
riverbanks, but they are actually a quarter mile or even longer
away, correct?
Secretary Mayorkas. In certain places, that is indeed
correct.
Mr. Cuellar. OK, thank you. Let me ask you, according to
the numbers that I have seen from you, all, most of the drugs
that we have coming in are coming through ports of entry.
Meth, cocaine, fentanyl. Up to 94 percent are coming
through ports of entry; is that correct?
Secretary Mayorkas. With respect to the southern border?
Yes, that is correct. I believe it is--our data, our
intelligence and analysis demonstrate that approximately 90
percent, if not more, of the drugs arriving in the country
through the border, are smuggled in through the POEs.
Mr. Cuellar. So I certainly ask you that whatever monies
that we added for technology, the non-intrusive, move on that
as much as possible so we can have them not only at the ports
of entry, but also in the border patrol checkpoints also. I
would ask you to move those as soon as possible.
And according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 86 percent
to 87 percent of the people are smuggling drugs at the ports of
entry or at the checkpoints or U.S. citizens, correct?
Secretary Mayorkas. I'm not certain about the precise
percentage, but I do understand that the data evidences that
the majority are U.S. citizens.

EXPEDITED REMOVAL

Mr. Cuellar. The last numbers I saw were about 86, 87
percent U.S. citizens.
Now, let me go back to, I am a big believer in expedited,
title 8 expedited. What resources, I will ask you again, like
more asylum officers, space do you need so we can do expedited
removals under title 8?
Secretary Mayorkas. Ranking Member Cuellar, in addition to
additional legal authority, which we would have been provided
under the bipartisan legislation, many more asylum officers,
I'm sorry, enforcement and removal officers in ICE, additional
personnel, additional CBP personnel, and additional facilities.
And those are some of the highlights, with respect to what
we need, but underlying it is the additional legal authority
that the bipartisan legislation would have delivered.
Mr. Cuellar. And we certainly want to provide you the
funding. Again, I just have to say this, Mr. Chairman.
The two last appropriation bills where we added $1.4
billion to CBP, every single person on the other side of the
aisle, except for two that are still in Congress, voted no for
that extra money.
This last appropriations bill, where we added the largest
amount to CBP, I think less than half of the majority voted for
funding. So we got to make sure that we all work together to do
bipartisan funding to give you this.
Now, the last question on expedited removal. Again, I
believe in expedited removal. title 8, it was used very
effectively when you were with the Obama administration under
Secretary Jay Johnson.
You said that the only way we can use CBP removal or title
8 is if they are under CBP custody. Would a monitoring system
still be under CBP? And I guess you can't answer that, but I
want you to think about it, then go back to your attorneys to
see if you can use title 8 Expedited Removal because custody
means probably under, you know, ICE or CBP facility.
But we do use monitoring, and I would ask you to see if you
can look at that, whether that would be custody, which in my
opinion I would say yes and see if you can use title 8
Expedited Removal.
And again, anything that we can change the law. And I don't
know what you all looking at the executive order, but we do
know that at the very beginning a lot of those people don't
qualify.
They do not qualify without due respect. If they are
hungry, they want a job, they want to come to the U.S. or the
Chinese city on top of the hill. I understand that. But they
don't qualify under the five persecutions under asylum law.
So we want to work with you and we want to support them.
And again, you have a very difficult job. There are so many
opinions here. You know, you get attacked because you do too
much or you get attacked for not doing enough.
But I do want to say, I want to thank you for your service
and I want to thank the men and women that work on your
department. Thank you.
Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cuellar. God bless.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
We now recognize Ms. Hinson.
Ms. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

IMMIGRATION: CHINA

Mr. Secretary, last year when you came before this
Subcommittee, I did ask you about concerning reports of Chinese
nationals crossing our open border. I brought this concern to
you directly Mr. Secretary, because President Biden did not do
anything to prevent this issue. It has become worse.
And now Chinese nationals, as you may be aware, are the
largest and fastest growing group attempting to cross into our
country. But I am concerned that your testimony in your budget
does not acknowledge that fact or directly do anything to
address it; is that correct?
Secretary Mayorkas. Oh, Congresswoman, let me be clear.
Number 1, any individual who poses a threat to public safety or
national security is a priority for detention. Number 1. Number
2, for the first time I had an engagement with my counterpart
from the PRC to ensure that China would begin to accept removal
flights so that we can deliver a consequence regime for
individuals from the PRC who do not have a legal basis to be--
--
Ms. Hinson. What was the outcome of that conversation?
Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. Who do not have a legal
basis to remain in the United States. And those discussions are
ongoing. And we actually did effect one flight, most recently,
for the first time in a number of years.
Ms. Hinson. Unfortunately, we have to judge the Chinese
Communist Party based upon their actions and not their words.
We know just recently, two Chinese nationals were arrested in
Iowa on a nationwide fraud case they were involved in.
One of them was believed to have crossed the southwest
border and was released into the country. And they made their
way to Iowa and joined in this national fraud activity.
And I know Iowans and Americans do deserve transparency and
accountability for all of your Department's actions which have
essentially alerted our adversaries that our borders are wide
open, allowing criminals to enter our country and make their
way into Iowa.
I don't think there is an excuse for having the same
conversation 2 years in a row. And I would like to see more
stringent action from the administration concerning Chinese
Communist Party nationals coming across our border.

BORDER SECURITY

Another action I find distressing is that the
administration is diverting a record number of Federal Air
Marshals to the southwest border to perform administrative
duties.
This leaves Americans unguarded on commercial flights. I
spoke directly with the Air Marshals about the safety concerns
posed by diverting them to the southern border, allowing for a
shortage of Air Marshals on flights, denying them their sworn
duty to protect Americans in the air.
So Mr. Secretary, you dance around calling the crisis at
our southern border not only a humanitarian crisis, but a
crisis. So if you do not see it as that, why are you deploying
our Federal Air Marshals, our FAMs to the border, and other law
enforcement agencies to the border?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, I do understand the
challenges at the border, and I certainly don't dance around
them. As a matter of fact----
Ms. Hinson. Would you call it a crisis at the southern
border?
Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, I would. And as a matter of fact,
I work every single day with the men and women in the
Department to only strengthen the security of our southern
border as well as the northern border.
And we deploy personnel from different parts of the
Department whenever the situation so warrants. And the
situation at the border so warrants.
Ms. Hinson. When I look at my visits to the southern
border, I have been twice I had a chance to meet with the brave
men and women at the CBP as well as some ICE agents. But I was
increasingly disturbed by how many you are pulling from other
agencies, not just our FAMs, but also from TSA and FEMA.
So again, I think that--I am pleased to hear you call it a
crisis. I think it is the first time I have heard you publicly
acknowledge it. But I think that we continue to put Americans
lives at risk by pulling these Federal Air Marshals off of
these flights, again, leaving them uncovered.
I think that the Federal Air Marshals certainly
communicated to me that they have had enough of this. They see
it as deception and harmful action. So I will continue working
to prohibit the ability to deploy those necessary air marshals
down to the border.
They need to be back on flights, Mr. Secretary, until you
again certify that the border is in a crisis state. So thank
you so much for appearing before our committee today. I yield
back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Ms. Hinson.
At this point, Mr. Guest, do you have any further
questions?

ILLEGAL MIGRATION: RATE OF RELEASE

Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayorkas, it was reported, or excuse me, Secretary
Mayorkas, I apologize. It was reported in January of this year
that at a meeting with Border Patrol agents that you said that
the current rate of release for illegal immigrants apprehended
at the southwest border is above 85 percent.
One, did that conversation take place? And two, is that
number accurate?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I'm not familiar with that
number, and I'm not certain to which conversation you refer. I
have visited the border so very many times. Perhaps some
additional details would guide me in responding to your
question accurately.
Mr. Guest. Yes, sir. And I will read from the article. It
was a Fox News article, headlines Mayorkas tells Border Patrol
agents that above 85 percent of illegal immigrants released in
the United States.
And it says that was published on January 8, 2024. Homeland
Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Monday admitted to
Border Patrol agents at the current rate of release for illegal
immigrants apprehended at the southwest border is above 85
percent, sources told Fox News.
Mayorkas made the remarks when meeting privately with
agents in Eagle Pass, TX, according to three border patrol
sources who were in the room and heard the remarks marks
themselves.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I'll be pleased to provide
you with the data point, and certainly I don't view that
article as a transcript.
Mr. Guest. Yeah, I guess my question is, is that figure of
85 percent, is it accurate?
Secretary Mayorkas. I'll have to follow up with you,
Congressman, and provide you with the data you request. I don't
have at my fingertips that data point.
Mr. Guest. So you are not disputing this article? You are
not saying that that number is artificially high? You're just
saying at this point that you don't have that number here to
either admit or deny the 85 percent that it was alleged there
in the article?
Secretary Mayorkas. I cannot confirm and I will do so.

BORDER SECURITY: TITLE 42

Mr. Guest. Mr. Secretary, we have, in previous
conversations, discussed title 42, title 8. As we know, title
42 expired in May of last year.
We saw a brief dip in apprehensions late May, early June,
and we saw the numbers rise significantly after that. We saw,
in December, the number of apprehensions, on both the northern
and southern border were, if my numbers are correct, roughly
370,000 immigrants who would have entered the country just in
the month of December alone.
And so if this number is accurate, if 85 percent of those
individuals who attempt to enter are actually released into
custody, that would put the number at roughly 315,000 just in
December alone.
And so these numbers, to me, are very troubling in that we
seem to have a large number of immigrants continue to come in
the country after 42 expired. There were some conversations
that you had testifying that you believe that once we began
prosecuting immigrants under title 8 versus title 42, that we
would see those numbers drop, because part of the argument
under title 42 was we were deporting immigrants back to their
country of origin or back into Mexico, and they were then
immediately returning back across the border with no
consequences.
And so now that 42 has expired and we are operating only
under title 8, I have not seen a decrease in the numbers
whatsoever. If anything, we have seen those numbers increase.
And so can you explain to me, now that 42 has expired and
we don't have that revolving door of immigrants being
apprehended, returned to Mexico, and then coming right back in
the country, why we can't seem to get any relief?
Why we continue to see, is what you have referred to the
first time I ever heard you refer to it as a crisis. I have
heard you repeatedly say this is not a crisis and that the
border is secure. I think this is the first time that you have
said that.
I know that the President said that, I believe, in January.
Not only did he say the border was not secure, he said that it
had not been secured in a decade, which would have been the
entire time in which has been President and including time in
which he was Vice President in the Obama administration.
And so now that 42 has expired, now that we are cooperating
under title 8, now that we are continuing to fund the
Department of Homeland Security in amounts in excess that you
asked for, what more do we need to do to be able to secure our
border?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, first of all, it is not
the first time I have used that terminology. I would be
pleased, we do not have the time right now, but I would be
pleased to explain to you why the numbers were as high as they
were in December and why they are significantly lower since
then. There are clear reasons for that.
And what we need to strengthen the security of the border
is to pass the bipartisan legislation that would provide us
with the legal tools and the resources to address what everyone
agrees is a broken immigration system.
There has not been, in my time in DHS, which is more than
10 years now, nor in my time in the Federal Government, which
is approximately 22 years now, 12 of which were spent as a
Federal prosecutor, have I seen a proposal that is as tough on
the border and to strengthen the security as this bipartisan
piece of legislation.
Mr. Guest. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Guest. I remind everyone on the
panel here the second round is supposed to be three minutes,
although our clock is showing up 5 minutes. So in order we can
take care of everybody--and my sincere apologies, Ms.
Underwood----
Ms. Underwood. Yes, sir.
Mr. Joyce [continuing]. For skipping over her in trying to
be unbiased here and making sure we have equal representation
on both sides. Please, your next question.

JANUARY 6

Ms. Underwood. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, who was the Secretary of Homeland Security
on January 6, 2021?
Secretary Mayorkas. January 6, 2021 was that Acting
Secretary Wolf, I believe?
Ms. Underwood. Yes, sir. But you were not Homeland Security
Secretary on that date?
Secretary Mayorkas. No, I assumed office on February 2nd of
2021.
Ms. Underwood. Yes, sir.
Secretary Mayorkas, your tenure at the Department of
Homeland Security has been historic in so many ways. You faced
so many challenges and a really complicated threat environment.
And at the same time during your tenure, DHS has seized over
43,000 pounds of fentanyl last year alone, ensured the safety
and security of nearly 850 million travelers in 2023, which was
a record-setting year in air travel. You have exceeded your
goal of new hires for women in law enforcement. You have worked
to keep our kids safe by identifying or rescuing over 11,000
child victims on online sexual exploitation and abuse.
And yet, you have faced an unprecedented, vicious, and
personal campaign against you and your staff at the Department
of Homeland Security from my colleagues on the right, and even
a baseless impeachment effort.
DHS is charged with work that is both difficult and
essential, keeping Americans safe. And I want to thank you for
your commitment to doing that important job and doing it with
the focus and care and attention that we expect of our leaders
in this country.
Thank you very much for your service, sir.

IMMIGRATION PROCESSING TIMES

I also just want to make a comment about the delayed
processing times for immigration applications at the
Department, which has been a repeated concern for my
constituents in northern Illinois. Every day, our office hears
more news about the delay in DACA renewals, work authorization
for eligible migrants, and concerns about the naturalization
process for those who are eligible.
And, you know, we encourage people to pursue a legal means
of immigration. But we must also ensure that our processes are
timely and responsive throughout that process. So last year,
DHS introduced an update to the Equity Action Plan. And in the
update, there was a significant gap between the annual
naturalization rate and the annual size of the population
eligible to naturalize. And so in that report, there are some
barriers that were mentioned. So lack of understanding of the
naturalization process, real or perceived inability to meet the
English language requirement, as well as the lack of ability to
pay application fees.
And I am concerned that this means that migrants from non-
English speaking countries, particularly migrants of color, are
especially vulnerable to pitfalls in our process, in our
naturalization process. And so I would just ask that you direct
USCIS to take a look at that naturalization gap for English and
non-English speakers, and also take a look at what is going on
with the DACA recipients. And we will submit something really
specific for the record. But if you can direct them to follow
up with us, that would be really helpful.
I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
I now recognize Dr. Harris.

JANUARY 6

Mr. Harris. OK, thank you very much, and thank you Mr.
Secretary.
First of all, just to follow up on the January 6 thing, you
were the secretary while the investigation, congressional
investigation went on, when the whole question of paid
informants and embedded federal agents was brought up, is that
right?
Secretary Mayorkas. Are you referring to the Special
Committee and----
Mr. Harris. Yeah, the special, quote, bipartisan committee.
Secretary Mayorkas. Yes.
Mr. Harris. That is what I thought. So you are well aware
of the controversies involved with the idea of federal agents
embedded, or paid informants, and the whole Ray Epps thing.

EXECUTIVE ORDER: IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT SECTION 212(F)

All right, let me just clear up the 212(f) issue right now,
because the President is the one who raised it now, because
apparently he is going to issue some kind of executive order.
And I am assuming he had the same authority to issue that
executive order three years ago before nine million people
entered the country. I settlement right?
I mean, he is going to issue it tomorrow. And the gentleman
raised a perfectly valid question. Like, our laws did not
change in the past three years. Because Congress did not do
anything. God knows Congress did not do anything on
immigration. So I am assuming we are operating under the same
set of laws.
So I just find it a little coincidental that, you know,
seven months before an election where the President is down in
the polls and immigration is the top issue, that the President
gets religion on this.
So has the feeling in the administration changed on 212(f)?
Because we always asserted on our side of the aisle that the
President had authority on 212(f). We know, because President
Trump exerted the authority. And has the President sought your
opinion on this, on his announcement last night? Has the
President sought the opinion of his secretary on this?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, let me share with you one
fact, and that is----
Mr. Harris. Sir, I only have 1 minute, 10 seconds left. Did
the President seek your opinion on his announcement last night
that there is going to be executive order regarding his
authorities under 212(f)?
Secretary Mayorkas. That was not the President's
announcement last night, No. 1.
Mr. Harris. OK----
Secretary Mayorkas. Number 2, the--the prior----
Mr. Harris. OK, on to the next question. Because I am not
going to let you filibuster that. That was his announcement
last night. It is reported in Axios, widely reported today.
My question was just, did he consult you? I think it is a
simple question. I think you are being very evasive about it.
And I am going to leave it at that.
Now, with regards to ICE detentions, in Montgomery County,
Maryland, Montgomery County officials twice had a person who
was issued detainers under ICE twice released from prison, now
charged in the murder of a 2-year-old. Twice.
What is this administration does to go to local
jurisdictions and convince them to comply with detainers?
Because, as the gentleman from Texas indicated, the title of
your department is Homeland Security. I would assume protecting
Americans from illegal immigrants with detainer orders,
scheduled for deportation, is something--who go on to kill
someone, is something the administration might be interested in
having. So what are you doing to convince local jurisdictions
like Montgomery County to actually cooperate, not be a
sanctuary jurisdiction, and cooperate with detainer orders to
get these dangerous individuals off our streets?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, we continue to work with
local jurisdictions to persuade them that when an individual
poses a threat to public safety and the individual has a
detainer placed on him or her, that they honor the detainer and
not release the individual onto the streets, but rather turn
the individual over to ICE for continued detention.
Mr. Chairman, may I have a 30-second privilege to answer--
to respond to----
Mr. Harris. I will ask for the same 30-second privilege.
Secretary Mayorkas. The prior administration executed what
it believed to be its authority under 212(f) and the courts
enjoined it.

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: 287(G) PROGRAM

Mr. Harris. Claiming my 30 seconds, has the number of
jurisdictions in the United States cooperating with the 287(g)
program increased or decreased under this administration?
Secretary Mayorkas. I am not aware of an increase, any
increase, Congressman.
Mr. Harris. So you think it might have decreased, actually?
Secretary Mayorkas. No, I will stand by my statement.
Mr. Harris. Wow. If you can get me the details, I would
appreciate it. Because for all the bluster about actually
convincing local authorities to cooperate, the most obvious
sign would be that the number of 287(g) local authorities
increased, if the administration was doing anything about it.
I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Dr. Harris. Mr. Newhouse.

AGRICULTURAL GUEST WORKER PROGRAM

Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, by statute, your agency as well as the
Department of Labor administer the H-2A agricultural guest
worker program. Based on recent DOL rulemakings that farmers
across the country are burdened with, DOL appears to at least
not understand or not fully appreciate the importance of the
agricultural industry.
I for one, however, would like to believe that you do, that
you understand the importance of growing healthy foods in the
United States, which aligns with your agency's guiding
principles and responsibility to preserve and uphold the
nation's prosperity and economic security.
So just real simply, do you believe that the ability of a
nation to feed itself is inherently more secure than a nation
that relies on imports to feed its citizens.
Secretary Mayorkas. I do.
Mr. Newhouse. Good. Thank you.
Secretary Mayorkas. I am not an expert in that area, but I
believe in the H-2A visa process. And in fact, we are expanding
it throughout the hemisphere as a critical, lawful pathway.
Mr. Newhouse. Let me ask you a little bit about that.
Earlier this year, the USCIS finalized a new rule that would
increase the cost to employers utilizing H-2A, among other
programs. While I understand the purpose and the utility of a
fee-based program, the need to update based on increased costs,
the rule as finalized is overly burdensome and costly to our
nation's producers. Not only did the general filing fee
increase, but a $600 asylum program fee was added, requiring ag
employers to pay for a program that they really don't receive
any benefit from.
Additionally, instead of filling only one form for all of
their workers, the final rule caps the number of employees that
can be listed on each form at 25. There is no added benefit
that I can see for this policy, and it only increases paperwork
burdens and costs to ag employers.
So now that the rule has gone into effect, as of last week,
we have some actual costs associated with this rule. And they
far exceed the predicted, indicated 20 percent--26 percent
increase that was anticipated.
So a couple questions here. Do you expect producers to
absorb this cost, or are they to pass them on to consumers?
If producers are expected to absorb these costs, how do you
expect them to stay in business?
And if they are no longer in business, how do you and the
administration plan to protect our food security at the time
that the majority of our foods served on our tables becomes
imported from other countries.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, two points. Number 1, I
will allow experts to speak to the downstream economic
implications of the fee rule that we were compelled to issue. I
am very sensitive to the fact that additional costs were
imposed on applicants, and I understand the burden that that
poses. But USCIS was really with its back against the wall,
having been driven almost to bankruptcy by the prior
administration.
The legislation provides that the agency charges are to be
recalibrated according to costs. I believe it is every 2 years.
And a fee rule had not been promulgated successfully for over
7. I believe my time frames are correct. And so we had to make
some very difficult decisions with respect to how to bring the
agency to a point of financial stability, which it had been
suffering financial instability for too long, which created
backlogs in the administration of our legal immigration system.
I will follow up with experts to address your more
economic-centered questions.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
My understanding is our ranking member, Henry Cuellar,
would like to ask you one more question.

EXPEDITED REMOVAL

Mr. Cuellar. I just want to add, when I said CBP, I meant
DHS custody, would mean CBP and, of course, ICE. And I would
ask you to please look at title 8, expedited removal, when they
are under custody under DHS, whether that includes being
detained, whether that includes monitoring, or even a system
that allows them to check in. That is still custody.
I am just trying to see if we can do something where we can
add funding for asylum officers, et cetera, et cetera, to have
you do more title 8 expedited--for the ones that don't qualify
for asylum. So I would ask you to look into that.
Secretary Mayorkas. And we most certainly will and have,
Ranking Member Cuellar. And I know that this is an area of
extensive litigation. But we will follow up so I can be more
responsive to you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

EMPLOYEE INVESTIGATION

Mr. Joyce. You are welcome, Mr. Cuellar.
And I would be remiss, since we are talking about finances
here, since I thought this question come up but without
addressing it directly with you, Mr. Secretary.
After the horrific terrorist attack on Israel on October 7,
the deadliest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust,
one of your employees was exposed celebrating the attack
online. It was later revealed that she previously worked for
the Palestine Liberation Organization, or what is commonly
known as the PLO, which has a very troublesome reputation, you
will agree. According to a public comment she made on LinkedIn
as of 2 months ago, she was still getting paid by the
Department.
Could you please set the record straight? Is this person
still being paid by the Department of Homeland Security? And is
the status of the investigation--what is the status of the
investigation into her behavior?
Secretary Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, the individual is on
administrative leave, not performing the duties and
responsibilities for which she was hired. The investigation is
ongoing. And I cannot speak any further about it because it is
an ongoing personnel matter.
Mr. Joyce. Can you give us a specific date on when this
verdict is going to be reached as to her employment?
Secretary Mayorkas. I am not in control of the
investigation. But certainly I will provide you with whatever
details I am permitted to do.
Mr. Joyce. So as I understand you correctly, she is still
on administrative leave and still being paid. Tell me, how many
total employees at the Department are under investigation for
similar purposes after the terrorist attack on Israel after
October 7?
Secretary Mayorkas. I personally am not aware of any other
investigations. But to provide you with accurate information, I
will follow up.
Mr. Joyce. And have any changes been made to make sure that
people of such character are not to be employed in your agency
from here on out?
Secretary Mayorkas. Individuals who are hired go through a
clearance process in DHS, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Joyce. I take it you will be tidying up those clearance
processes?
Secretary Mayorkas. We review our hiring and retention
processes on an ongoing basis. As a matter of fact, I am
meeting with leadership this Friday to address one aspect of
them.
Mr. Joyce. Well, for the--first off, thank you to the
members who are here today.
I would like to get back to the members who have submitted
questions of which you said you would go back and scrutinize
your records and report back to them. And if you could do so
within the next 15 business days, we would be most
appreciative. There may be some additional questions that
members may come up with or provide in writing. We ask you to
again provide those answers on a timely basis.
I would like to thank you for being here today, sir.
And the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Thursday, April 11, 2024.

MEMBERS' DAY

Mr. Joyce. Open our Member hearing today.
Thank you very much for being here today. Now that we have
come to order for this hearing, we will hear from the Members
about a variety of topics that fall within our jurisdiction.
Thank you to each of our colleagues for taking time out of
your busy schedules to come here and discuss the projects and
programs in the Homeland Security bill that are important to
your districts and your communities.
Your input is very important, I look forward to working
with you and my fantastic Ranking Member Cuellar, and the
members of the subcommittee to pass a bill.
Now, I turn to my colleague Mr. Cuellar, for any opening
statement he may have.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and for holding this
meeting.
I am grateful that we are hearing testimony from our fellow
Members of Congress, as we have done in the past, so our
colleagues can highlight their areas of importance for the
American people.
As we had that opportunity yesterday to hear from the
Secretary about his priorities for the Department, I look
forward to hearing more from our colleagues and discussing
their priorities within Homeland Security.
I am from the border, but I think we all know that Homeland
touches every single congressional district from the border. So
the chairman and I are looking forward to hearing from all of
you. And thank you for being here with us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you Mr. Cuellar.
And with that, we will start with Representative Moylan.
----------

Thursday, April 11, 2024.

WITNESS

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. MOYLAN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. Moylan. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing and for all the work that you do. And I have come
here today because I am concerned about the state of Guam's
homeland security.
This isn't because of the lack of determination in
personnel or lack of leadership, but rather the lack of will,
from the administration, to properly fund Guam's security
assets.
As rogue actors continue to threaten the peace in the Indo-
Pacific, Guam's defense capabilities have been catapulted into
the national limelight.
Despite the attention, money has exclusively flowed toward
the Department of Defense and has disregarded security agencies
in Guam. Local agencies like Guam's Homeland Security Agency--
--
Mr. Joyce. Sir, could you hold up for a moment?
The gentleman outside who is recording wants to make sure
you get all of your remarks.
Mr. Moylan. OK. It is always red, so we are going to switch
to the green. All right. OK. What would you like me to do?
Start from this beginning or what's better?
Mr. Joyce. It is probably best.
Mr. Moylan. OK. So I thank you for holding the hearing, Mr.
Chairman, and for all the work that you do. I come here today
because I am concerned about the state of Guam's homeland
security.
This isn't because of the lack of determination and
personnel or lack of leadership, but rather, a lack of will,
from the administration, to properly fund Guam's security
assets.
As rogue actors continue to threaten the peace in the Indo-
Pacific, Guam's defense capabilities have been catapulted into
the national limelight, and despite this attention, money has
exclusively flowed toward the Department of Defense and has
disregarded the security agencies in Guam.
Our local agencies, like the Guam Homeland Security Agency,
Guam Customs and Quarantine, and the Guam Police Department,
among others, while filled with dedicated and hardworking
individuals, have been seriously limited in their capabilities
due to underfunding.
Guam's funding problems are multifaceted, extending across
maritime, homeland, and cyber fields. It is time they receive
the funding they need and deserve.
We have Captain Simmons, the Commander of the U.S. Coast
Guard Forces Micronesia Sector Guam. He stated that the Guam
maritime search and rescue region is, I quote, ``two thirds the
size of the continental United States that we patrol with three
ships and 300 people.''
So, to be clear, three fast response cutters are just not
enough. The size and the location of Guam's area of
responsibilities demand more of than just any three vessels can
provide.
Fast response cutters missions range from search and rescue
to coastal defense and the growing threat of illegal fishing.
While three fast response cutters will be enough for Guam's
coast, the addition of freely associated states greatly expands
the area of responsibility and pushes the limits of what these
fast response cutters can accomplish.
As we discussed homeland security and the growing threat of
transnational criminals and the state actors in the region, I
respectfully request expanded funding for more Coast Guard
vessels in sector Guam.
On transnational threats, a common misconception is that
illegal immigration does not exist on Guam because it only has
water borders. That simply is not true. Guam's borders are
consistently abused and underfunded and is felt throughout the
entire region.
This abuse can take many forms, whether marriage fraud,
outright sneaking onto the island, or the rare Visa overstays.
The only way to solve this blatant security risk is to
drastically increase appropriations for Guam's Customs and
Border Patrol capabilities.
Guam's Customs and Quarantine agencies, the CBP equivalent
in Guam, desperately needs funding. For the sake of Guam and
the CONUS's security, an increase in funding directly towards
our customs and quarantine agencies is critical.
They need the additional training, the resources, and the
support as they are not just protecting Guam's waters, but the
Nations.
On their behalf, I ask for the Committee's support. As Guam
continues to rebuild from Typhoon Mayar, FEMA assistance is
still needed. As the insurer of all Department of Homeland
Security grants, FEMA has a critical role in rebuilding Guam
and securing a more resilient future.
Our island agencies rely heavily on the grants from
capability upgrades but are hindered due to their competitive
nature. If we look at the current structure of the Homeland
Security Grant Program, the emphasis is on traditional
counterterrorism risk has been detrimental.
Simultaneously, this grant program disregards the growing
need for threats coming from transnational organized crime and
cyberattacks. So while HSGP and other FEMA grants are outdated,
increasing funding for these programs would fill capabilities
on Guam that they otherwise cannot afford.
For all the discussion about Guam's defense readiness and
what the U.S. needs to prepare for the Pacific, it is
disheartening that Guam gets the bare minimum of the FEMA grant
money pool. This doesn't just impact my district, but also our
Nation.
It is known that the People's Republic of China is always
looking for ways to infiltrate and disrupt U.S. cyber
components. While interagency cyber efforts have been created,
Guam's cyber capabilities are still ignored.
The most disturbing part of Guam's cyber gap is the
underfunded staff. For all the cyberattacks Guam faces, it is
insanity that the Cyber Infrastructure Security Agency has
designated only two employees for the entire island.
If CISA cannot afford to distribute cybersecurity personnel
to a high valued area like Guam, they need greater funding from
the Subcommittee.
I understand that many states need cyber improvements, but
if the PRC is confident enough to attack Guam's infrastructure
during an extreme weather event, they will only continue to
batter us.
Guam has been called the tip of the spear for defense
purposes, and for good reason. While the DoD and National
Defense Authorization Act have excelled in fortifying Guam's
outer security ring, the homeland security inner ring still has
a long way to go.
Despite being essential to the U.S. nationalist strategy,
Guam's homeland security needs have largely been ignored. Mr.
Chairman, I beg you to consider an increase in funding for DHS
and its constituent agencies in Guam.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield back.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Joyce. Thank you for your message, and at this point,
we will recognize Representative Manning for her statement.
----------

Thursday, April 11, 2024.

WITNESS

STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY E. MANNING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Ms. Manning. Thank you so much, Chairman Joyce, Ranking
Member Cuellar, and members of the subcommittee, I am deeply
grateful for your leadership on this committee, and I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.
I am here as the proud co-chair of the House Bipartisan
Task Force for Combating Antisemitism, which I chair together
with Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey and six other co-
chairs on both sides of the aisle, including House
Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Kay Granger and Vice
Ranking Member Grace Meng.
I would like to urge the members of the subcommittee to
continue your strong record of bonds bipartisan support by
increasing funding for the Department of Homeland Security's
Nonprofit Security Grant Program in fiscal year 2025.
As you know, in the wake of the October 7 Hamas terrorist
attack against Israel, we have seen a dramatic increase of
antisemitic hatred, a heightened threat environment for the
Jewish institutions and places of worship in the United States.
The Anti-Defamation League has recorded a 360 percent
increase in antisemitic incidents in the United States in the
three months since October 7th. The Department of Homeland
Security's Nonprofit Security Grant Program, the NSGP, is the
single most effective resource for the Jewish community to
protect its institutions and our communities from harm.
Synagogues, Jewish community centers, Jewish schools, and
many other faith based and nonprofit institutions rely on this
critical funding to keep them safe.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, the NSGP
enables DHS to support facility hardening and other operational
and physical security enhancements for nonprofit organizations
that may be at risk of attack.
DHS also continues to refine the grant processes to
streamline the NSGP application process through enhanced
training, new methods of technical assistance, and engagements
with rural and underserved communities to ensure they are aware
of the purpose and requirements of this grant program.
This critical program has directly benefited communities in
our congressional districts across the country.
Given the dramatic rise in antisemitism in recent months,
it was deeply disappointing that the vital funding in this
program was cut by $30.5 million in the final FY 2024
negotiated bill for Congress passed last month.
Instead of being increased, this 10 percent cut from the
previous year's enacted level comes as the security needs of
our communities outstrip demands.
As Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas testified to
Congress in November, the Nonprofit Security Grant Program is
tremendously oversubscribed. The demand for these funds from
large and small institutions of all faiths far exceeds the
amount of funding that we have.
I believe we should pair increasing funding for the NSGP
with other enhancements to improve efficiency. That is why the
Countering Antisemitism Act, a new bipartisan bicameral
legislation I introduced this week, would require the FEMA
Administrator to ensure that the agency has sufficient
resources and personnel needed to carry out the Nonprofit
Security Grant Program.
I also want to reject a recent despicable effort, by some
extreme far left groups, that falsely claim to speak for the
Jewish community to undermine the longstanding bipartisan
support for this critical programming, claiming that it
provides an insidious cover for the systemic violence caused by
the Department of Homeland Security.
Nothing could be further from the truth. This security
focused, competitive grant program helps protect Americans of
every religion and background from threats.
We must not let fringe, far left groups like these endanger
the safety and security of our Jewish day schools, synagogues,
and other institutions. That is why we desperately need your
help.
I respectfully request that in the upcoming fiscal year,
the Subcommittee approved funding of $500 million for the
Nonprofit Security Grant Program. We must urgently pass the
bipartisan Senate-passed National Security Supplemental, which
included $400 million in emergency funding for the NSGP.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for your work on
this committee throughout your time in Congress and your help
to fight the scourge of antisemitism.
I am grateful for your time today. I look forward to
working together with you and members of both parties to better
protect the Jewish community and counter antisemitism and hate.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And I know
how important those are and certainly used them in our
community as well.
Representative Van Drew is next. You might want to check by
pushing that farther in into the back.
Mr. Van Drew. Yeah, you know, right. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. The cord in the back of that looks like it might
be out a little, too.
Mr. Van Drew. I appreciate you. She is smart. I know you
are smart because you are the only microphone that works so
far.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Thursday, April 11, 2024.

WITNESS

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERSON VAN DREW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Van Drew. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for your
good work. Thank you for allowing me to speak today.
I am here to request your Subcommittee to fund investments
at the United States Coast Guard Training Center in Cape May
for the fiscal year 2025. It is in the Homeland Security
Appropriations Act.
The Training Center Cape May is the beating heart of the
Coast Guard community. Every year, thousands of Coast Guard
recruits come to Cape May and prepare to serve our country.
It is the Coast Guard Training Center for the United States
of America. It trains well over 80 percent of all enlisted
recruits from around the country. The Training Center was
established 70 years ago, and it really, truly needs to be
modernized.
Deficiencies range from insufficient housing space that
limits the number of potential recruits to hazardous outdoor
training conditions. You know, New Jersey is not always kind in
the wintertime, and they have to train outside, and it is
actually not appropriate at the times that they have to. In
sleet, snow, driving rain, Nor'easter coming off the ocean
because they are right on the ocean.
It is time for the Coast Guard to develop a world-class
training facility that promotes recruitment and retention. It
is impossible to accomplish this mission without financial
resources from this Congress.
The Coast Guard has identified two projects for Cape May in
its fiscal year 2025 budget request. Both are included on the
unfunded priorities lists, housing, family support, safety, and
training facilities category in addendum one.
The first request is for $15 million to survey and design a
state-of-the-art indoor training facility. It is about time.
This facility will enable year-round physical training, improve
recruit readiness, and enhance retention, which is an issue.
The second request is for $60 million to recapitalize the
second stage of three recruit training barracks. It is
important. This project will increase the number of potential
recruits and, importantly, very importantly, allow for more
appropriate accommodations for our female recruits.
This committee funded the first barracks project three
years ago, which is well into its design phase and is being
prepared for construction. The House Transportation Committee
supports all of these projects, and it has informed me of the
need for $15 million upward revision for the first barracks.
And it is due to cost increases due to inflation.
This means that, all in all, I am requesting approximately
$90 million to be appropriated throughout the fiscal year 2025
Homeland Security bill for improvements at the Training Center,
Cape May.
It is a huge priority for me, but most importantly, it is a
huge priority for the United States Coast Guard and for the
United States of America.
I welcome any questions, and I hope that we may, together,
fund these items in 2025 fiscal year. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you so much for your comments.
And like the wedding feast of Canaan, will we save the best
for last, maybe?
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Thursday, April 11, 2024.

WITNESS

STATEMENT OF HON. GREG STANTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Chairman Joyce and
Ranking Member Cuellar. It is an honor to be here for one of
your last meetings as chair of this subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on issues
critically important to my home State of Arizona. Arizona is on
the front lines of the border crisis like Texas.
In just the first 4 months of this fiscal year, Border
Patrol in the Tucson sector apprehended more than 250,000
migrants, the highest number on record.
Earlier this year, I was at the border in Nogales, AZ, to
speak with Customs and Border Patrol leadership, staff from
migrant service providers and business and trade leaders from
Arizona and Sonora, Mexico.
I spoke with the Customs and Border Protection agents at
the Mariposa Port of Entry and with Border Patrol in the field.
To quote the CBP's Director of Field Operations for the Tucson
sector, their number one ask is for more resources, more
manpower, and of course, better technology.
So I appear before you today to lift up that request, and I
know you support it as well. More resources, more manpower, and
better technology for our border.
We took important steps in FY 2024 funding with your
leadership funding for 22,000 border patrol agents, almost $76
million to acquire additional non-intrusive inspection
detection systems, $20 million for an additional 150 CBP
officers to support counter fentanyl efforts and $650 million
for the Shelter and Services Program.
This subcommittee understands that we do need more staff at
the border. It is why FY 2024 funding included the funds to
raise the number of Border Patrol agents to 22,000. But we must
also be ensure that we can recruit and retain qualified
officers.
On average, it takes 400 days for CBP to hire personnel.
That's why I introduced bipartisan legislation with my
colleague from Arizona, Representative Juan Ciscomani, to
improve CBP's flexibility in hiring, recruiting, and retaining
agents, officers, and employees, specifically in rural and
remote areas.
When we don't have sufficient personnel, it is communities
like mine that suffer. In December of last year, the Lukeville
Port of Entry was closed for a month as DHS redirected all CBP
staff to assist in processing an unprecedented surge of migrant
arrivals.
The closure of the port negatively impacted economies of
both Arizona and Mexico during one of the busiest months for
cross border commerce and tourism.
The economic impact of keeping our ports of entry open is
undeniable. Last year alone, CBP processed $32 trillion in
trade and collected $90 billion for the U.S. government. And in
Arizona, Mexican visitors spend over $11 million per day. We
must also continue to deploy cutting edge technology at our
border to disrupt the flow of fentanyl. Deaths related to the
use of illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids have risen
by nearly 200 percent in the past decade, and much of the
fentanyl is being made by cartels just across the border.
We should continue to purchase more non-intrusive
inspection detection systems, provide the funding needed to
install the systems, and hire additional personnel to support
counter fentanyl efforts.
And Arizona is a national model for responding to the
migrant surges. But the allocation of Shelter and Service
Program dollars to Arizona has been disproportionate. Last
year, the Southern Arizona Coalition, group of cities,
counties, and NGOs was only eligible to apply for $12 million
in assistance through the SSP, while New York received nearly
nine times that amount.
Without SSP dollars, local governments and NGOs simply
cannot continue to fund their response, leaving no other option
than chaotic street releases in cities and towns along the US-
Mexico border.
Not only does SSP funding to border communities limit the
chaos in communities along the southern border, but it also
reduces the impact to interior cities and states. Organizations
like Tucson's Casa Alitas provide essential services that help
asylum seekers find sponsors so that migrants arrive in the
interior cities with a travel plan and a place to stay as they
await adjudication of the cases, relieving the burden on city
services.
I urge the subcommittee to provide a robust SSP funding in
FY 2025 that prioritizes border communities. I can't underscore
enough how critical funding is to border states, and I urge the
subcommittee to invest the resources, manpower, and technology
that border communities rely on.
Arizonans face the realities of a broken immigration system
every day. As do all states across the country. We must ensure
that the federal government provides the funding needed to ease
this burden and keep our community safe.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify in front of
this important committee, and I look forward to partnering with
you to keep our border safe and secure. Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Joyce. Thank you. And I had the opportunity last year
to go down with Representative Ciscomani, do a full tour of the
area and I understand completely where you are coming from. We
just wish we had more money----
Mr. Stanton. All right.
Mr. Joyce [continuing]. In order to accommodate those type
of things. Anything from Mr. Cuellar?
Mr. Cuellar. A lot of good ideas. Appreciate it.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
Thank you all for being here today. It is certainly
appreciating for your colleagues on how best to do this. I
think it is part of the system that gets--people give the idea
of what they call member directive resources or earmarks of bad
name.
Who better than your local representative working in
concert with your State and local officials to discern where
this money could best be spent? So I appreciate the input on
it, and good luck.
Mr. Stanton. Voice of reason.
Mr. Moylan. Yeah.
Ms. Manning. Thank you.
Mr. Van Drew. By the way, you are all welcome to come down
to Cape May in the summer. It is spectacular.
Mr. Joyce. The subcommittee is adjourned.

Tuesday, April 16, 2024.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

WITNESS

DEANNE CRISWELL, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Amodei. The subcommittee will come to order.
The subject of today's hearing is the fiscal year 2025
budget request for FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
I know for those of you committee veterans, which is
everybody but me, it is traditional to give an opening
statement at this point in time and as the newest member of the
committee, I am sure that nobody is looking forward to what I
might make up for an opening statement.
So we are going to skip that.
And with that, I would recognize our ranking member, Mr.
Cuellar, for your opening statement.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate you on
the new role as chairman of this subcommittee and welcome and
look forward to working with you in a bipartisan way.
I do, I am of tradition. So I will have my opening
statement.
Again, Administrator Criswell, it is nice to have you here.
And I think this year we celebrate 45 years of FEMA working
with folks and of course helping them with their disasters
before, during, and after.
We want to thank you and the thousands of the FEMA staff
for their dedication, the commitment for serving our country
when we need it. We were just talking about hurricane season.
And again, your job doesn't get any easier every year, but
again, you all have been working in a tremendous way.
This year we know that there is a lot of work to be done.
Funding has become tighter, fewer resources. But again, we want
to work with you. And we certainly are happy that we are able
to include the new authority in the recently enacted 2024
funding that allows the entire department to access an Employee
Emergency Backup Care Program.
And again, working with the Office of Health Security, we
certainly want to make sure we work on workforce wellness and
telemedicine Health and Employee Assistance Pilot Program.
We also want to talk about learning a little bit more about
staffing challenges. I think Homeland is one of those agencies
that were heavy on personnel, not on capital, but on employees.
So we certainly want to work with you on that. We also want
to make sure that we talk a little bit about the $650 million
that went off to the Food and Shelter Service Program.
As you know, this is a program that I started some years
ago. It was a border-based type of funding. But over the years,
we know what has happened in New York and other places, but
certainly I have a few questions on that. Certainly want to
talk to you about Stonegarden operations. Stonegarden, that is
so important for our law enforcement folks to work with
Homeland. But with that, I will try to say thank you
Administrator, and look forward to hearing from your testimony
and asking questions. Thank you so much.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you to the gentleman from the Lone Star
state. I would like to thank you for being here, Madam
Criswell, and we will recognize you now for a summary of your
written testimony which will be included in our record.
Ms. Criswell. Thank you chairman Amodei and Ranking Member
Cuellar and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the President's $33.1 billion budget
request for FEMA for fiscal year 2025.
Emergency management has changed in recent years, and
emergency managers across the country are being asked to do
more. FEMA is no exception, and to support communities across
the nation, FEMA must have commensurate funding.
Whether it is a wildfire, a flood, a derecho storm, or
other disaster, it is vital that FEMA be able to tap into an
adequately funded disaster relief fund.
FEMA's total request includes $22.7 billion for the DRF to
respond to new and ongoing disasters. This is a $2 billion
increase over fiscal year 2024 funding levels to support
continued recovery efforts such as those in Maui after the most
devastating wildfires in the island's history.
At the DRF's present funding levels, FEMA may need to
resort to immediate needs funding before the end of this
current fiscal year so as to preserve remaining DRF balances
for life and safety, response operations, and other critical
survivor needs.
To mitigate INF risks, I urge the committee to act on the
disaster supplemental request for fiscal year 2024, which
requested an additional $9 billion for the DRF.
FEMA requires not only a fully funded DRF, but also a well-
trained workforce ready to deploy at a moment's notice. The
fiscal year 2025 budget provides $2.4 billion in personnel pay,
compensation, and benefits. Because workforce well-being,
recruitment, and retention are critical.
One of my priorities for this year is continuing to boost
the capacity of state, local, tribal, and territorial partners
to respond to extreme weather events. There is no longer a
disaster season.
Natural disasters occur throughout the entire year, often
concurrently and in places that are not accustomed to them. I
talk to state directors regularly and in nearly every
conversation they ask for help improving their capacity to
address this year-round disaster response tempo.
And as FEMA continues to adapt to the rapidly intensifying
disaster cadence, one thing is clear, FEMA is more than just a
response and a recovery agency. FEMA helps communities become
more resilient and better prepared before a disaster strikes.
One way FEMA achieves this goal is through grant programs.
Grants aid our SLTT governments and the private sector to help
build operational capabilities needed to implement preparedness
strategies and reduce or eliminate long term risks to people
and property.
FEMA's fiscal year 2025 budget request includes $3.2
billion for grants to help safeguard our communities, our
citizens, and support our nation's first responders.
For example, FEMA's budget request includes an increase of
$25 million each for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant and
the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response programs,
better known as the AFG and SAFER programs.
An increase to these programs will enable FEMA to provide
additional financial assistance directly to eligible fire
departments, non-affiliated medical service organizations, and
state fire training academies.
Another critical tool is the Nonprofit Security Grant
Program, which provides funds for physical security
enhancements and other security related activities for
nonprofit organizations at a high risk of terrorist attack.
FEMA's fiscal year 2025 budget requests $385 million, an
increase of $110 million above the enacted level for fiscal
year 2024 for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to expand
the program to more nonprofit organizations in both high-risk
urban and rural areas.
The budget request also includes $1 billion for the
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Grant
Program. These grants support SLTT mitigation projects, which
reduce risks posed by disasters and natural hazards.
We also recognize that, on average, disaster related floods
lead to more deaths every year than any other natural event.
FEMA is requesting $364 million for flood hazard mapping and
risk analysis, an increase of $51 million.
This will help modernize FEMA mapping and assist
communities as they prepare for future flooding conditions.
Constituents in your districts and neighborhoods across the
nation rely on FEMA more than ever before, and our fiscal year
2025 budget request provides the necessary resources to meet
our mission of helping people before, during, and after
disasters.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Madam Administrator.
Now, we will go to our ranking member.
Mr. Cuellar, the floor is yours for questions.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Can I ask you about the Food and Shelter Program? As I
mentioned, this is a program that, when our former chair, Kay
Granger and myself were in Laredo, we saw the needs for this so
we established this, I think 2013 or 2014, but it was supposed
to go with funding from the State government.
Our governors didn't want to do this soft type of work
using these Federal dollars. So I think it was in 2017, we
changed the delivery mechanism, put the original $30 million,
and of course, it went to 100, 800, now, we are at 650.
One of the things that I always look at is where does money
go? Because it was originally for a border, because that is
where most of the--that is where the migrants come in.
You all made an initial $275 million this last week to a 55
recipients. You know, I have a series of questions. One is, how
do you make sure that, with the top line numbers, how do we
make sure that they go to the right places?
Because everybody is saying they ought to go to Chicago,
they ought to go to New York. And of course, us at the border
were saying, hey, this should be at the border. So that is one.
I'd like to find out. What is the percentage that go to
border communities as opposed to the interior? And then one of
the things I noticed on the policy changes was when we started
this program, my intent was it was supposed to be food,
shelter, medicine, not for transportation.
Recently there has been transportation costs in my area. We
don't do that in Laredo, but they do it in San Antonio, as you
know. And I saw that you all lifted the limits on available
funding for travel, I guess for hotels or should I say shelter.
And then you lifted the 45-day limitation, which means that
if somebody is supposed to be there for 45 days now, they can
be there 60 days. It doesn't affect the top numbers. But this
is not, quite honestly, it is not the way I envisioned this
program at the very beginning.
So I would like to see your thoughts on this program.
Ms. Criswell. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
The SSP program, I think, as you clearly articulated,
started out as our Emergency Food and Shelter program for
humanitarian.
We took an existing program and as directed by Congress,
created a new program to support the humanitarian needs and
started out with a small amount of money as that money has
increased, but also as entities have asked for additional
support to help cover some of the costs that they are
incurring.
I think it was last year we enacted the first ever SSP
program, which is now designed to better address the impacts
that communities are experiencing.
As directed by Congress, transportation is one of those
costs that is an acceptable reimbursable expense that
jurisdictions are receiving. However, we do require----
Mr. Cuellar. Sorry. I----
Ms. Criswell. Yes, no, absolutely.
Mr. Cuellar. I apologize. I don't mean to interrupt.
Ms. Criswell. That's OK.
Mr. Cuellar. Transportation within a locality or
transportation from one locality to another locality? In other
words, San Antonio to New York City.
At the beginning, I had looked at local transportation
inside a city. But you are referring to one location to another
location?
Ms. Criswell. That is an expense that we are reimbursing. I
don't believe the way the legislation reads it limits it to
just within the jurisdiction. But what we do require is that
there is coordination between the sending jurisdiction and the
receiving community.
And so in order for transportation to be reimbursable, that
has to be that level of coordination that happens.
I also wanted to address, you know, the lifting of the cap.
It was a cap that we put in place. It wasn't directed by
Congress. And what we heard, as we continue to try to improve
the delivery of this program, is that some entities, many of
our nonprofits, wanted greater flexibility in the types of
expenses that they could submit for reimbursement.
And so we adapted the program to meet their needs. But I
want to be clear, and I think, as you clearly stated,
Congressman, is that there is no additional funding coming to
this.
There is still the limit of the amount of money we have.
And what I would say is that all of these jurisdictions are
oversubscribed with how much they are incurring and how much we
are able to reimburse.
What we attempted to do with this lifting of the cap is to
create greater flexibility for them in how they want to submit
their expenses for reimbursement.
Mr. Cuellar. My time is up. So you are saying that if
somebody is in a New York hotel, instead of being there 45
days, they can be paid for 60 days? One.
And then if you don't have the answer now, if you all can
submit it, how much money on this first tranche, including last
year's money, went to border communities and then interior
committees?
And my time is up, but if you all want to submit that.
Ms. Criswell. Yeah, I don't have the exact percentages,
Congressman, but we'll be happy to get that to you and, you
know, just to add, we're also moving into a competitive program
for SSP, because we do understand that there is changing needs
and the intent has always been to create the SSP program as a
competitive program instead of a direct allocation so we can
get the most current impact that communities or nonprofit
organizations are experiencing.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. Mr. Newhouse, the floor is yours.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Cuellar, and Administrator Criswell. Thanks for being here with
us. And let me say, welcome to the committee, Mr. Chairman.
Look forward to your leadership.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you for helping me find which room it was
in today. I appreciate that.
Mr. Newhouse. I want to focus at first on emergency
communications. In the strategic plan that dated 2022 to 2026,
notes that FEMA must transform how the agency delivers support
so that partners can increase their capacity and their ability
to manage future events.
A noble goal. A vital part of a community's ability to
manage future events is the ability for the state, and the
local, and the tribal public safety agencies to have reliable
and secure communications so they can coordinate during a
response effort.
So while emergency communication technologies have advanced
first responders in many of the small and rural communities
like I represent in central Washington state, for instance,
Benton County in the city of Richland, they are left on the
wrong channel because they can't afford to upgrade their
communication systems.
Congress has previously provided funding to improve
interoperability between public safety agencies at all levels,
which included support for the purchase of fire and police and
radios, construction of towers, training, that kind of thing.
One of these programs was the Public Safety Interoperable
Communications Grant Program, which was led by FEMA, in
collaboration with the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration.
My understanding that that program is no longer funded,
although the FY 2025 budget proposes creating a new full-time
dedicated policy and coordination office for FEMA to focus on
climate adaptation and its impacts.
So I would argue that ensuring public safety agencies,
especially those in small and rural communities, which you are
familiar with in Colorado, their ability to reliably
communicate aligns with FEMA's mission as well as the strategic
plan that I mentioned.
So you mentioned that $3.2 billion requested for grant
funding. How does this proposal specifically support emergency
managers and first responders in these small and rural
communities?
Is there any support for public safety agencies to enhance
their communications interoperability?
Ms. Criswell. Thank you, Congressman Newhouse. You know, we
have a suite of grant programs that are designed to assist
communities build their capacity and communications.
Having been a firefighter myself, I understand the
importance of being able to have the interoperable
communications to be able to respond regionally to different
events.
The grant programs that we have through the Homeland
Security Grant program suite, whether it's our UASI program or
the Homeland Security Program, those are all eligible expenses
for communities to utilize that funding to help increase the
level of capacity needed.
I am not familiar with the grant program that you
mentioned. I would assume, as we were consolidating grants in
the past in our Homeland Security suite, that it was included
as part of that as an eligible expense.
I'm certainly happy to get back to you with more
information on that, but I think the key towards the end of
your question is really how do we build this capacity for state
and local public safety workers to include our emergency
managers?
And it is one of the things that I continue to see as the
greatest challenge that we face as we continue to respond,
recover, but also build resilience in these communities, is the
lack of capacity that we have.
And so funding these grant programs, whether it's the
Homeland Security Suite or our Emergency Management Performance
Grant Program, which is the only grant program designed just to
support our emergency managers.
They're really critical to make sure that they are funded
to continue to build that capacity and communications in all of
those programs are acceptable items to submit for reimbursement
through those grant programs.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Thank you. I just have a short
amount of time left, but I wanted to ask about the DRF, the
Disaster Relief Fund, in which multiple agencies share a
responsibility regarding wildfire response, recovery efforts,
including awarding of contracts and overall management during
wildfire season, which looks like it is going to be another bad
one.
This may sound familiar because I think I asked something
similar last year. The Disaster Relief Fund is at risk of
experiencing a shortfall in less than 6 months.
So as we look forward to a long, hot, dry summer, how is
your agency preparing to respond to these disasters? And what
is your communication like with state agencies so they can as
well be prepared?
Ms. Criswell. As it relates to the Disaster Relief Fund, I
think as I stated in my opening statement, we are anticipating
a shortfall this year, somewhere perhaps in the August
timeframe.
As we continue to recoup and see what that looks like, we
will implement what we did last year, which is Immediate Needs
Funding to make sure we always have enough funding available to
support lifesaving and life sustaining activities.
The Immediate Needs Funding just delays recovery projects.
It doesn't halt them, it just delays them until, until the DRF
is replenished. But that then just contributes to a greater
deficit going forward.
We have these communications openly. I personally speak
with all of our state directors so they understand the status
of our Disaster Relief Fund and what the impact might be on
them and their recovery projects.
But as it relates to being ready for this disaster season,
outside of the funding, we continue to work with our state and
locals to understand where their gaps are and what we can
continue to do to help build their own readiness.
As stated in my strategic plan, a ready FEMA in a prepared
nation. And that's about building that capacity. As I talked
about with the last question, building that capacity at the
state and local level so they have the resources they need to
respond to their jurisdictions if one of these severe weather
events impacts them.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. The gentlemen from Maryland, Dr. Harris, the
floor is yours.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much. And thank you
Administrator Criswell, for being here. And thanks for your
service in the past.
I am going to ask about the Shelter and Services Program,
which is administered by FEMA in partnership with CBP.
So my first question is, is it funded through FEMA or
through CBP or through both or what?
Ms. Criswell. The funding is appropriated to CBP, and then
they pass it through to FEMA.
Dr. Harris. So the entire amount is passed through?
Ms. Criswell. Yes.
Dr. Harris. OK. So a little Federal shell game here. OK.
Because it says in your statement that FEMA's mission is to
help people before, during, and after disasters. So do you
consider the southern border a disaster?
Ms. Criswell. I am not an immigration expert, Congressman.
My role in this is to administer the SSP Program as directed by
Congress to support jurisdictions that are experiencing costs
to support this.
Dr. Harris. Right. So you didn't answer my question. Do you
consider the southern border to be a disaster? Because
otherwise it would be inconsistent with FEMA's mission. Because
your mission says you are supposed to deal with disasters.
Ms. Criswell. FEMA's mission is to help people before,
during, and after disasters. But we also have a great level of
technical capability to provide assistance and technical
assistance to solve many different problems.
Dr. Harris. Sure, but that exists in the entire government.
I mean, every, believe me, grants are administered in the
entire government. Your agency is the only one that administers
local grants.
So I am just curious to who, you know, what rocket
scientists made the decision to actually put a border issue
into FEMA? Because my people, you know, I represent the low-
lying eastern shore of Maryland.
I want to thank you, by the way, for the work you're doing
with Crisfield on resiliency. They think of disasters as
something that is not man made.
I think most people would agree that the southern border
disaster is a man-made disaster made by the person in the White
House, you know, a mile down Pennsylvania avenue here.
And I think it dilutes FEMA, because when I go and my
people tell me, well, you know, I want to get, you know, you
should get money to FEMA. I go, why? So they can help people
cross the border illegally?
This is a sizable chunk of money, because if I am reading
it correctly, it not only announces $300 million in direct
funding to communities. Now, which is the largest recipient of
that $300 million, which community?
Ms. Criswell. I will have to get that data for you.
Dr. Harris. You don't know about $300 million that was
released last week by your administrator, by your
administration.
Ms. Criswell. I just don't have the breakdown----
Dr. Harris. Well, which of the three largest communities,
which were the ones that were the big guys in this?
Ms. Criswell. Certainly there are----
Dr. Harris. Was it New York? Was New York one of them?
Ms. Criswell. New York perhaps was one of them, and again,
I don't have the breakdown.
Dr. Harris. Did you come from New York?
Ms. Criswell. I spent 2 years in New York.
Dr. Harris. You did? So you actually were employed by New
York City. And New York is now one of the largest recipients of
a grant that I would suggest some members think makes our
borders less secure than more secure.
OK. Might be a coincidence, but if you can get that
information to me, I would appreciate that because I would like
to know where those--my constituents would like to know where
those $300 million are going.
Now, there is also $340 million in what is called $340
million to the Shelter and Services Program, competitive grant
programs to be allocated for the end of this fiscal year. So is
that going to NGO's?
Ms. Criswell. So the SSP program FEMA administers, as
directed by Congress, to provide funding to support communities
and nonprofit organizations that are experiencing costs to
support migration.
It has always been intended that when the--when Congress
directed it to be changed to SSP----
Dr. Harris. I only have a limited amount of time. We are
talking about the grant program, because I am assuming that the
$300 million that goes to communities is different from the
$340 million. That's what your press release.
Ms. Criswell. Right.
Dr. Harris. I mean, this is, this is your press release.
Ms. Criswell. No, yes.
Dr. Harris. So I am asking specifically about the grant
program.
Ms. Criswell. The grant program was always intended to be a
competitive grant program. When it turned from EFSP-H to the
SSP program, however, with the late appropriation, we had
determined we needed to do a direct allocation to get money
into the hands of organizations that were experiencing costs
while we stood up the competitive program.
It will be a competitive program going forward. Any
jurisdiction would be eligible that has costs there----
Dr. Harris. When you mean jurisdiction--when you mean
organizations, you mean jurisdictions?
Ms. Criswell. It can be a city. It can be a nonprofit
organization.
Dr. Harris. OK. So if you get the information on who are
the largest recipients, I would appreciate that.
Now, my real concern is in the last line of this press
release, because this is characteristic across the
administration.
You are aware that we have limitation amendments in all the
appropriations bills that prohibit lobbying Congress; is that
right?
So your line that says DHS continues to call on Congress to
pass this, the Bipartisan Border Security Agreement. You don't
consider that lobbying? Putting that in a press release?
I mean, this is a press release from your agency, right?
You are aware of the limitation amendment?
Ms. Criswell. I am.
Dr. Harris. It says you are not to lobby Congress to spend
taxpayer dollars to lobby Congress. And it says DHS continues
to call on Congress.
Now, I don't know. Call on sounds like a synonym for
lobbying. I don't know, maybe not, to pass the Bipartisan
Border Security Agreement. Is it your opinion that is not
lobbying?
Ms. Criswell. It is my opinion that is not lobbying.
Dr. Harris. And why is it your opinion that calling on
Congress to do something is not lobbying? I am a member of
Congress and I am reading this. How is that not lobbying me?
Ms. Criswell. Sir, we call on you to pass the budget at the
same time right? These are acts that we know will make a
difference in supporting these communities, your jurisdictions.
Dr. Harris. We, believe me, on this side of the dais we
fully understand what lobbying is. We fully understand what
this administration is attempting to do. We fully understand
that the border is a disaster, but it is a manmade disaster.
And honestly, I think this administration is skirting the
lobbying restriction. And I hope that the next administration
takes people, like yourself who are lobbying Congress actively
through their communications office and actually prosecutes
them under the Deficiency Act.
I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Any follow ups?
Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. A couple of things. Talking about missions
that FEMA does, FEMA also has a significant counterterrorism
mission also, is that correct?
Ms. Criswell. We have some counterterrorism grants that we
provide and support that.
Mr. Cuellar. OK, good. So in other words, FEMA's mission
has long been beyond natural disasters also?
Ms. Criswell. FEMA's mission has always been to help solve
some of our nation's toughest problems, regardless of the cause
of those problems.
Mr. Cuellar. And the different locations where the money
went to, the $300 million, 275 is already published online; is
that correct?
Ms. Criswell. For the SSP program?
Mr. Cuellar. That is correct.
Ms. Criswell. Yes.
Mr. Cuellar. OK. Let me ask you, Stonegarden, again, this
is another program, I think it was in 2008 that Congressman
John Congleton from Houston and myself, helped set up back in
2008, that just want to make sure we are still with the intent,
just like the Food and Shelter Program, I think it was called
at that time, not the Food and Shelter Program. It was the
Border Humanitarian Relief Fund. I think that was----
Ms. Criswell. It was ESFP, the Emergency Food and Shelter
Program for Humanitarian Efforts. That was the precursor to the
Shelter and Services Program.
Mr. Cuellar. Correct. Can you tell me, let's talk about
Stonegarden a little bit. That is another program that I have
been involved in from the very beginning.
How is that money used and how is that determined? FEMA
then gives it to the state, and then the Border Patrol chief
gets together with the local sheriff and then they decide? Can
you go through that process? Because there have been times
where you will have a county judge say, oh, no, I am in charge
of this, not the sheriff.
Again, our intent was Border Patrol chief sits down with
the sheriff and then they decide how to go with that, even
though the county gets the money.
Ms. Criswell. Yeah, absolutely, Ranking Member Cuellar.
The Operation Stonegarden Program that we have is
incredibly important tool that we have to help primarily our
border communities enhance their capability and the cooperation
amongst the agencies that are there. As we get appropriated the
funding CBP works to provide us data as to the algorithm they
use with threat and risk to identify which jurisdictions need
which amount of money, and we have an algorithmic formula that
goes into that. I would say historically approximately 70
percent of the Operation Stonegarden funding goes to border
communities.
Mr. Cuellar. Can you get us the percentage also on that?
Originally, again, just like the humanitarian relief, there was
a Southwest border, but I guess once people see a pot of money
they start looking at it. Same thing happened here. It was
Southwest border, and then after that--nothing against the
Northern border, but then the Northern border shouts, ``Hey, we
are border also,'' so we went.
Then under the prior administration there was a contestant
state called Florida, and also money started going to Florida.
Where there was originally a Southwest border went to the
Northern border, which I can support, but then into Florida.
How much money goes into Florida? Nothing against Florida, but
again it is--you understand where I am coming from. A lot of
this--those two programs were Southwest border, and then once
people see a pot of money they start saying, well, we want a
piece of that pot of money. Do you have the breakdown on that?
Ms. Criswell. The only breakdown I have, Ranking Member
Cuellar, is about 70 percent goes to Southwest border
communities. I don't have the breakdown for Florida
specifically. I do have a breakdown for Texas which received
about $37 million this past year.
Mr. Cuellar. So my question was when Border Patrol sets up
this plan with the sheriff, it is something that the sheriff
and the Border Patrol decide what the plan is, is that correct,
not the county judge but the sheriff? Do you have that much
detail, or can you follow up on that?
Ms. Criswell. I can certainly follow up to make sure I am
clear on what you are asking. I know CBP works with the
communities to understand what the sector level risk is to
determine what the allocations are, but I think what you are
asking is how they administer the funding and who puts that
plan together for administering. Am I understanding correctly?
Mr. Cuellar. Yes. If you don't have that it is fine. We can
follow up.
Ms. Criswell. We are happy to set up a briefing to give you
more detail about from appropriation to spending the money and
what that all looks like.
Mr. Cuellar. If you don't mind, a little flowchart on that.
Can they also use that money--can local sheriffs or police use
some of that money to buy drones?
Ms. Criswell. I'm not sure if drones are an authorized
expense. We can certainly get that for you.
Mr. Cuellar. OK. And for areas like in the Southwest border
drones would be good where local sheriffs can use that in
coordination with Border Patrol.
Ms. Criswell. I just don't know off the top of my head if
that is one of the allowable expenses. There are a number of
resources that are certainly eligible expenses that enhance the
security, and so we will certainly get you that information.
Mr. Cuellar. OK. And then finally my time is up, but can
you also let me know out of Stonegarden how much go to the
states? Because I don't like when states they were the part of
the money. I want it to go to directly to the local sheriffs,
local police sheriffs. If you can get that.
Ms. Criswell. Absolutely.
Mr. Cuellar. And with that my time is up. I just want to
say thank you so much for the work that you all do. Thank you.
Ms. Criswell. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei. Mr. Newhouse, follow-up.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand, Madam
Criswell, that the agency is forming an Office of Climate
Adaptation. My reports that I am hearing that we are seeing
multiple individuals earning over $100,000 a year which
certainly is competitive, but in my district that is a lot of
money. And I would just like to ask some questions about the
necessity of a new office to respond to climate. While I
certainly have a lot of good things to say about FEMA but also
some complaints I have heard about time and coming up with
meaningful response.
Sometimes some of the issues are not resolved for over a
year many of the things that people are waiting for to help
rebuild communities, and so forth. So I just would like some
clarification as to the direction that you are taking the
agency.
Ms. Criswell. So we recently did a reorganization of the
resilience side of FEMA, and that is the side of our agency
that focuses on the before, helping people build more resilient
communities through our mitigation projects or through
individual preparedness or educating communities on what is in
the realm of possibility.
I think as we see the increase in the number of severe
weather events and the cost of these events that these
communities are experiencing we want to make sure that we are
lifting up all of the work that FEMA does before to help
communities become stronger because every dollar that we invest
in mitigation saves six dollars in the response and the
recovery cost.
And so as we form an Office of Climate Adaptation it is
really focused on helping communities understand what they can
do to become more resilient and withstand the impacts that
these severe weather events are causing.
Mr. Newhouse. And that work is just getting off the ground?
Ms. Criswell. This is work that we have always been doing
as part of our agency. It has always been part of our mission
set. We have just organized it in a way that our state and
local jurisdictions now have a central point that they know
they can reach out to to get information, technical assistance
to help them better understand the steps that they can take to
make their communities more resilient.
Mr. Newhouse. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No further
questions.
Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, the floor
is yours. OK. Time is up.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you for your generous----
Mr. Amodei. Mr. Cuellar said enough from the Lone Star
State, so thank you for your good sportsmanship.
Mr. Cloud. And he did a good job, and I would echo the
sentiments. I was looking through a number of different
programs as well, and it seems like communities like New York
City and other communities are getting a lion's share of some
of the funding on a number of these grants when we have been
dealing with this for several years and certainly have a much
higher influx. So I would ask you to look at how that is being
done in the grant-writing process.
I wanted to first of all just thank you on behalf of FEMA
for the great work being done. I am in a coastal district which
just a week ago cut the ribbon on the Packery Channel which was
a Hurricane Harvey project that has taken some years to get
done. I know there is still arbitration, over a couple million
that is left to be done, and I would ask you all to work on
that. I think there is a strong case for that being settled.
But FEMA has made some progress over the years. I can
assure you there is still some work to be done, obviously, but
from where we were right after Harvey and the things that we
are having to deal with there has been some efforts to
streamline processes and such. We are still working on this. I
have another city manager in a town of about 20,000 who has
applied for a hazard mitigation grant for their generator for
their city, 20,000 people, small town.
A lot of these small towns do not have the army of lawyers
and grant writers and researchers and those kind of things, and
I have long advocated for maybe we need a streamlined process
for rural communities that are asking for these small dollar
grants that they don't have to go through the same process that
a larger community asking for million dollar grants might need
to go. I asked more details on this.
Apparently their application was submitted November 5,
2021, and they are wondering if they are going to be able to
get it in time for hurricane season this year. So that is still
outstanding, and I would ask that we just continue to look at
that and make sure that rural communities aren't overlooked.
They are having a hard time competing for these dollars because
of their staffing situation, but thank you very much for the
work that is being done.
I wanted to of course touch on the Southwest border. When
we go and talk to the Border Patrol agents about what is going
on and we try to figure out the dollar about what is happening,
a lot of the dollars are being compartmentalized. So migrants
come to the border. They are processed. I am not going to get
into all of that because that is a different hearing for a
different time. But we get to a certain point where it is like
we handoff the migrants to NGOs, and they are getting funded by
FEMA, but we have no idea how that is working.
This is one of the several, a handful at least of extra
Stafford Act missions I guess that FEMA has been on in the last
few years. I was wondering if you could list the extra Stafford
Act missions that FEMA has been involved with over the last
five years or so.
Ms. Criswell. So non-Stafford Act missions that we have
been involved with?
Mr. Cloud. Right.
Ms. Criswell. Yes. Again FEMA's expertise that we bring to
the table is certainly our ability to respond and recover to
disasters and those that reach the level of a presidential
disaster declaration, but we are also as emergency managers I
always like to say is chief problem solvers, and our regional
administrators provide a number of different forms of technical
assistance to our states and our local jurisdictions, the
emergency managers in those communities, on a wide variety of
problems, situations that they are facing even if they don't
rise to the level of a Stafford Act declaration.
Specifically I can tell you one of the areas one thing that
we did do last year was send what we call a federal disaster
recovery coordinator to East Palestine, OH, an executive order
that the president issued, and we were able to appoint one of
our individuals that is trained in this ability to collaborate.
And again one of FEMA's greatest strengths is the ability
to provide that technical assistance but also to convene the
right people to come to the table and to ensure that everybody
that has a role to play whether it is our federal partners or
in this case a private sector partner is doing what they can to
support that community being done outside of our Stafford Act
authorities.
Mr. Cloud. And there has not been a presidential
declaration, emergency declaration related to the border?
Ms. Criswell. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Cloud. Not that I am aware of either. Do you understand
why? If FEMA is involved, we must think it is a disaster of
some sort of some sort of emergency.
Ms. Criswell. FEMA's role in the border is specifically to
administer the grant as directed by Congress, which is the
Shelter and Services Program grant, and our Grant Preparedness
Directorate that administers all of our grants who are experts
at administering grants are doing that, and that is our role in
supporting the border.
Mr. Cloud. I want to speak to one other thing. During a
March--oh, I am over time. My apologies, Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei. You are welcome.
Mr. Cloud. Sorry to wake you up.
Mr. Amodei. Well, actually, I woke up quicker than you did.
Thank you for that observation. The gentleman from Florida is
recognized.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Criswell, I
want to talk to you about your role as chief problem solver.
You mentioned that a second ago. I can tell you I have worked
with FEMA as a sheriff for many, many years in Northeast
Florida through a lot of our hurricane challenges and all of
that. I will tell you, and I think we spoke about this last
year, one of the real challenges that we have in mitigation and
recovery is dealing with the supply chains on these
transformers. It is getting critical I think.
What I am hearing back home this year the smaller ones not
so much of a problem. Maybe a few months. But the large
transformers they are talking about a year, more than a year.
Are you all working with anyone to try and address the supply
chain issue on these big transformers?
Ms. Criswell. Congressman Rutherford, I know we have had
this conversation before, and I appreciate your continued
concern. After you first raised this, we had conducted a supply
chain analysis specifically to look at transformers as well as
other supply chain shortfalls that we might experience going
into that hurricane season. I believe this was two years ago
that we first had this conversation.
I think as we talked about at the time there wasn't an
issue going into the year, but if there were a large number
that were used we potentially would see an impact going
forward. As we continue to go into this hurricane season we are
not seeing an impact to our ability to respond to this
hurricane season although we do continue to work with our
private sector partners to monitor this because we want to make
sure----
Mr. Rutherford. Can I interrupt and ask what are the
stockpiles looking like?
Ms. Criswell. So we do not have stockpiles. FEMA does not
maintain stockpiles for transformers. We work with our----
Mr. Rutherford. I mean private industry.
Ms. Criswell [continuing]. Private sector industries.
Mr. Rutherford. Private industry. Do you know what they
have? Has anybody assessed that?
Ms. Criswell. That would probably fall more within the
Department of Energy that would need to understand that. Our
goal during a disaster response is to stabilize the energy
infrastructure, and we do that a number of ways, through
generators as we had talked about, helping the private sector
repair and giving them access to the damaged power line----
Mr. Rutherford. So am I hearing you say then that FEMA is
kind of reliant on Energy to take care of the supply issue on
these transformers?
Ms. Criswell. FEMA does not have a role in ensuring that
the private industry has a supply of them, but we do want to
understand what they think their impacts are going to be.
Mr. Rutherford. OK.
Ms. Criswell. And we have done the supply chain analysis
which has shown that we don't foresee a particular risk this
year, but we do have a private sector office that continues to
stay engaged so we can better understand all impacts from the
supply chain that might affect our ability to properly respond
and support a community that has been impacted by a severe
weather event.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. Well, thank you, and we will follow up
with them on some of that, too. Another issue that I know we
have talked about before is oftentimes there is quick
assessment, quick recovery, but then the reimbursement drags on
sometimes for years. A lot of these smaller communities the
interest that they are paying is debilitating for them. Is FEMA
looking at a way to maybe computerize some of this information
so that we can get billing done more quickly so those folks can
get their money faster than a year or two?
Ms. Criswell. Absolutely. I mean, we have a number of
things that we have done. One, with Congress passing our
streamlined procedures, it actually takes the majority of our
projects that are under a million dollars and puts them into
our simplified procedures language, in essence helping these
smaller communities. The majority of the recoveries that they
are doing, the repairs they are doing would fall into that. And
so this is a new process for us that is enabling us to help
reimburse jurisdictions faster requiring less complexity. But
we do have----
Mr. Rutherford. That is new?
Ms. Criswell. That was in the last year and a half-ish,
yes.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. So some of the older ones are still
working their way through under the old system?
Ms. Criswell. Right. And what we have been doing is we send
teams. When a jurisdiction is really having a challenge, I can
send a team right to them and work with them to gather the
paperwork. We have mechanisms to be able to advance funding if
it is a cashflow issue. We have a lot of tools within our
toolbox, and if there is a specific jurisdiction that you know
of that is having difficulties, please let us know, and I will
make sure we send the right people there.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. I assume my time is up, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you. The gentlelady from the state with
the first round draft pick in the WNBA, Ms. Hanson, you are
recognized. The floor is yours.
Ms. Hinson. That is right. We are very proud of Ms. Caitlyn
Clarke from Iowa. She has upped the game so to speak around
women sports. We love Caitlyn and the entire team. They have
done an amazing job. And Lisa Bluder, our great coach, too. We
want to flag all those great women.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today and
to Mr. Cuellar as well for your comments. Administrator
Criswell, it is great to see you again. Thank you so much for
being before us today. Last year I believe I flagged for you
the challenges surrounding building codes for the competitive
BRIC grant process and kind of how that put states like Iowa
kind of on the back burner in terms of being competitive for
those grants.
So I just wanted to tell you straight off the bat I
appreciate you working with my office and my team on that to
help make that process better in terms of eligibility, and
removing those building code requirements will enable Iowa to
be more competitive for those grants. So I certainly appreciate
you working with our team on that.
And I know FEMA recently migrated to a new payment system
for states and localities, FEMA GO, and while commonality
within grant management system I think is a good step forward
for the agency to better streamline I just want to make sure
that we are prioritizing working through some of the bugs in
the system. And there is one specifically from Iowa that I
wanted to highlight from 2022. Iowa Homeland Security Emergency
Management mistakenly overdrew 40 cents on a grant, so very,
very small amount. And normally they would do an offset on a
future draw, for example, to balance out that 40-cent
difference, but FEMA GO does not allow for that.
Ms. Criswell. OK.
Ms. Hinson. And so Iowa had to write a 40-cent check and
send it back to FEMA. FEMA cashed the check, but the credit was
not made to their account within FEMA GO. So then every quarter
since then they have received an RFI asking about the open
project and the payment needed for that 40-cent difference.
Ms. Criswell. Common sense would say that doesn't seem
right.
Ms. Hinson. Absolutely. What is your plan to address that?
I mean, obviously, you think about the administrative overhead
to go after 40 cents here on an agency level. Are these new
bugs? Have you heard about this from any other state or
municipality?
Ms. Criswell. I have not heard about that at all. A number
of our state directors certainly are not afraid to share with
us some of the frustrations that they have, and we continue to
work with them as we were rolling this out and now that it is
fully enabled. But this is a new one at that level, and so I
will certainly take a look at that one.
Ms. Hinson. I offered to bring 40 cents from my tax check--
--
Ms. Criswell. I understand.
Ms. Hinson [continuing]. To pay it off, but they said they
were handling it. So I appreciate you getting to work with our
team on that to alleviate user concerns going forward. Another
area we talked about, I mean, Iowa was going to experience
severe weather today, already is right now. Last year we talked
about the Next Generation Warning System Grant Program and what
it provides for resilience and security of public broadcasting
systems when severe weather strikes. Obviously, that is
essential that communication for saving lives and helps make
sure that we can get those alerts out.
One concern that I have had with that program is delays in
deploying grant funding for the Corporation of Public
Broadcasting to administer those grants to local stations. I
think when you talk about process, if FEMA awarded the grant
funding in the first place to establish the program, why should
CBP have to--or CPB, rather, now have to run every grant
through FEMA granting authorities? Could there be a better
solution there in terms of streamlining that process to make
sure that----
Ms. Criswell. I think absolutely. I did get an update on
this situation here recently, and there are some challenges
with how this program is being administered. And so we are
working hard right now to figure out the best way to streamline
that because being able to have the appropriate funding to
enable the Next Generation Warning System is really critical to
protecting our citizens. We are aware of the challenges, and we
are working on them. We are happy to provide you an update on
where we are at.
Ms. Hinson. I certainly appreciate that. Obviously, they
know what they are doing in getting those resources out the
door, and I think just streamlining it will help to make sure
we can keep people safe as quickly as possible. It is critical
to their role in civil defense and public safety. I think that
is all the questions I had for this first round, so Mr.
Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for
follow-ups.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. I wanted to ask you about the--FEMA's
program paid for the EFSP-H awards made under the
Consolidations Appropriation Act of 2023. There are a number of
payments that were made, millions and millions of dollars, but
we are unable to find the details about what programs or
projects or funds they went toward. I would love to see an
accounting on who is receiving these grants. Can you provide
that to us?
Ms. Criswell. I believe we should be able to provide you
whatever level of detail you need on that first program, the
EFSP Humanitarian program which is now the SSP program.
Mr. Cloud. We have looked through the websites and can't
find anything.
Ms. Criswell. I don't think we would have it on our public-
facing website, but I will be happy to have the team get with
your staff and provide you a briefing on where the money has
gone.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. That would be very, very helpful. I
also wanted to ask you about a DHS OIG audit of FEMA. During
the March 2024 testimony before the T&I Subcommittee on
Economic Development Public Buildings Emergency Management, the
deputy inspector general for audits testified that FEMA's use
of resources for non-natural disasters has revealed that FEMA
does not have sufficient controls in place to prevent fraud,
waste and abuse.
DHS conducted 18 audits over the past four years that
identified overpayments, ineligible payments, unsupported and
unallowable costs totally approximately $3.9 billion in
improper payments. That is a lot of money at least to some of
us. DHS audited and also identified an additional $45.4 million
in funds that could be put to better use. What are you doing to
work on controls that could keep us from taxpayer dollars going
to waste, fraud and abuse?
Ms. Criswell. Absolutely. I mean, we take any concerns
about fraud, fraudulent use of our programs, very seriously,
and we appreciate the partnership that we have with the
Inspector General's Office. Specifically one of the items that
was raised in there was regarding our lost wages program, and
that is a program that was directed under the previous
administration to support individuals that were impacted by
COVID-19.
In that program, it was directed that a self-certification
be done at the state level, and that is where the I think
majority of the issues that the IG found within that report.
This is a program that was not necessarily designed to be part
of FEMA's programs. It is not something that we have done in
the past and certainly ever want to do again, but we do have
for our traditional programs the appropriate level of controls
in place to ensure that the funding is going to where it needs
to be.
Mr. Cloud. OK. Perhaps we can meet with your staff to get a
better insight on that as well.
Ms. Criswell. Sure.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. Appreciate it. I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you for that courtesy. The gentlelady
from Iowa is recognized for follow-up.
Ms. Hinson. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I
mentioned, Administrator Criswell, we are in the bullseye again
for severe weather today in Iowa, and we need urgent responses
obviously to deal with those natural disasters. A key stressor
that I continue to hear about back home is the need for a
universal application for disaster survivors.
It is extremely difficult, as you know, for them to locate
paperwork in an emergency, and it can be burdensome for those
who are experiencing that devastation, lots of delays,
confusion and not knowing how to coordinate all the information
between I call it the alphabet soups, the FEMA, HUD, all the
other federal agencies that someone may need to interface if
the time of a natural disaster. The last thing they need when
they are dealing with derecho wind damage, tornados, flooding
is burdensome paperwork, and having to submit dozens of
applications across several agencies not to mention they might
have lost all those documents that they need.
So could you describe how FEMA can maybe work better with
other agencies going forward to become more unified in response
to these disasters while also working to ease that paperwork
burden on our survivors?
Ms. Criswell. Absolutely. One thing that I will start with
is we recently released an interim final rule to how we
administer our individual assistance program, and one of the
things that we continue to have heard is the frustration with
having to apply for an SBA loan, get denied and then come to
FEMA to get assistance. And so part of this new release is we
have decoupled that so we make it easier and have eased the
burden on the individual.
Now they can either apply for both simultaneously or just
go through the FEMA program, and we think that is also a step
in the right direction to really help understand what the
customer experience is and making sure that we are making it
easy as possible for them. But we continue to work with our
partners also at SBA to create a unified universal application,
and we have been ongoing discussions at the staff level on the
best way to do that.
Working through login.gov is one of the primary tools and
platforms that we would be able to use, and so this is
definitely something that we continue to work towards. We are
not there yet, but we were continuing to drive and figure out
the best way to get there because we do know how difficult it
is to try to navigate, as you said, the alphabet soup, which is
true. There are so many different programs that are out there,
and we want to make it as simple as possible for them.
Ms. Hinson. And simplicity--obviously if you are entering
the same information, and it is a redundant process over and
over and over again, I mean, that is the element of frustration
that Iowans and Americans certainly face. So I look forward to
working with you as you keep those concerns in mind going
forward to better strengthen that federal interagency
coordination. I think that is going to be critical, and it will
save taxpayer money, too, in the process, and I think that is a
win/win.
Other grant programs like NGWS, BRIC, Pre-Disaster
Mitigation, Nonprofit Security or Firefighter grants where
you're seeing an increased level of applications and you are
maybe unable to fund projects because of any budget
restrictions that you might face?
Ms. Criswell. I would say across all of our grant programs
that are competitive they are certainly oversubscribed. I
believe our BRIC program this year is oversubscribed like five
to one for what we are going to be able to give. So that is our
number one tool that we have to be able to go out and build
resilience in communities. The Non-Competitive Grant programs
like UASI and our state Homeland Security program or our EMPG
program they are limited at the amount of funding that is
appropriated, but we know that there is greater need because we
know that the capacity at our state and local level is not
where it needs to be.
And so that is the one tool that they have to help increase
their capacity to be able to respond and recover as well as
mitigate against these types of severe weather events. So those
are the programs that we would hope that we can continue to
fund to support these communities.
Ms. Hinson. Well, Administrator, I find it incredibly
frustrating to see a $4.7 billion slush fund request from
Secretary Mayorkas to direct those funds to deal specifically
with misguided priorities at the Southern border for surge
conditions when these billions of dollars could be used to go
help those programs that are clearly oversubscribed and have a
direct and immediate need and impact on our constituents. So I
would urge the administration to prioritize here.
Secretary Mayorkas just admitted last week in this
committee that there is in fact a crisis at our Southern
border. They are redirecting your employees in many cases to
help deal with that, and I would urge the administration to
come to center on this, make sure that the dollars can actually
go where they need to go, declare the crisis at our Southern
border and address this in a meaningful way. With that, Mr.
Chair, I will yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you. Madam Administrator, thank you for
being the first victim participant, whatever, under the new--I
don't know what we call this, under the new whoever lost the
coin flip for chairing this. And if there are folks outside the
room listening, just to give an idea I have got a couple issue
areas that I would like to not talk with you about now because
quite frankly I don't think a five-minute discussion is going
to be meaningful.
But I do want to know--it has come up in the course of some
of the questioning--kind of the lessons learned when you talk
about disaster relief funds and what you have learned from
immediate needs, and that sort of stuff. And it is in the
context of so we know what we think we didn't like. Here is how
we lab to change that, or here is the help you need from this
committee or somebody else in terms of making you folks more
nimble, transparent, whatever the heck.
Nobody leave the room and say that is a criticism. I am
just saying we ought to learn from our experiences, and that is
an area that we probably should. Another area that I am going
to want to talk about a little bit with you folks is on FMAGs,
and not that FMAGs are a Western thing, but not everybody is
like California that has a multimillion-dollar agency that is
very easy to work with and crosses all the Ts and dots all the
Is.
I get the potential for abuse and all that other sort of
stuff, but I just kind of want to understand how those rural
areas, not just Western but rural in other parts of the country
that may not have the luxury of an emergency management office
at the state level that is hand in glove with you folks what do
we do to make sure that when they submit they are doing so well
informed instead of somebody through the windshield of a fire
engine while they are looking at the flames which isn't the
strongest submission for you folks to carry out your mission.
And then the last thing I think that is of interest is the
formula used to calculate allowable adjustment for disaster
relief. Do you like it? Why do you like it? In the context of
some of the testimony today once again what can we do going
forward, if anything?
And then the last thing I want to talk to you about is the
timing of responses which kind of ties into the calendar of the
committee. So we are going to have our last hearing on May 1,
and as we talk about try to do 12 appropriations bills, and
somebody mentioned September 30, and I won't even go there, but
when members have questions, or whatever, we will stand ready
to help you in terms of making sure that we get that
information exchanged so that we can proceed from the beginning
of May--I don't know when the committee markup will be, but it
is like, hey, we would kind of like to--and nobody should leave
the room and use the word haste, but you can use the word
crisp.
We want to get our work done in a way that allows the
committee to go to markup in a timely fashion, transparent
manner, no surprises to anybody so that then we did get in the
queue for big appropriations into that stuff and then go have
whatever the rodeo demands on the floor. So we will be
tracking. If there is committee members that want to deal with
you directly on things, obviously that is fine. We just want to
track it so it is not one of those things where we are waiting
to get a response, and it slows the committee stuff down.
That doesn't mean that we expect you to here is your new
mission in addition to everything else you do hoping that the
hurricanes don't hit, and all the other sort of stuff. But
obviously, we are all in the multitasking business. So just
kind of forewarned is forearmed. So with that we will let you
go. Thank you for your patience. Members may submit additional
questions for the record, and we ask that you respond to those
in a timely manner. I am not going to define timely, but if I
was going to it is a few weeks, not a few months.
And if there is a problem with responding, then let us
know. It's like, well, we need a question clarified, or
whatever. But anyhow we want to keep proceeding towards the
goal line wherever that is. So with that thank you very much,
Madam Administrator, and we are adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Tuesday, April 16, 2024.

FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION

WITNESS

DAVID PEKOSKE, ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Amodei. The Committee will come to order. This is the
time and place set for the subcommittee on Appropriations to
hear from the Administrator on the TSA budget. I will, as I did
this morning, skip the opening statement from the new guy on
the committee, since Mr. Cloud did not express any particular
interest and want to hear it. And so we will go with his lead.
Mr. Ranking Member--I will pay for it up to 20 bucks.
Mr. Ranking Member, we recognize you for your opening
statement.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Cloud wanted
to hear my full statement, so I will try not to read all of it
on that. And, Mr. Administrator--and, first of all, Mr.
Chairman, thank you again, and members.
Mr. Administrator, thank you so much for being here so we
can hear about the President's budget request for TSA for
fiscal year 2025. Again, we appreciate the work that you and
your men and women do at the airports. So, we are here to talk
about the budget but also glad that we are able to fully fund
TSA's new pay structure for fiscal year 2024, demonstrating
Congress's commitment to making sure that the TSA workforce is
bringing their salary schedule in alignment with their peers in
the rest of the federal government.
I also certainly want to talk to you about TSA's mission,
which is very focused. And simply, it is to prevent large scale
acts of terrorism in the American transportation system. When
it comes to the flying public, TSA screens individuals and
scans baggage and cargo for that particular purpose. We look
forward to hearing from you, Mr. Administrator, what we can do
to modernize and streamline those processes, and what we can do
to assist you in your particular vision.
Certainly, TSA is being called to do more in its role in
the co-sector risk management agency for transportation systems
sector. And in the wake of the Colonial Pipeline attack, we
certainly want to make sure that we all work together and
increase in the cybersecurity posture and improving our risk
management protocol.
I also want to learn more--we also want to learn more about
the current threat vector facing our transportation systems and
what investments should be included in fiscal year 2025 budget
request to shore up any gaps in this security posture.
And again, as I mentioned, one of the things I am very
interested in is customer service, customer experience. I think
we all can say in the Loredo TSA, no problem at all. I think we
know, most of them, they do good work there. But once in a
while, we run into an individual that does not show that
customer experience and certainly wants to see what you all are
doing to do that on that.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you. And, Mr.
Administrator, thank you so much.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. We are going to
continue on with you for your first round of questions.
Mr. Cuellar. Well, I want to hear the statement first.
Mr. Amodei. Oh, well, I was trying to help him out.
[Laughter.]
We know you worked very hard on that. So please proceed.
Mr. Pekoske. Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member Cuellar,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you this afternoon on the
President's fiscal year 2025 budget request for TSA. Mr.
Chairman, thank you for our meeting yesterday. I look forward
to working with you, Ranking Member Cuellar, and all
subcommittee members in resourcing TSA in fiscal year 2025.
I enjoyed working with former Chairman Joyce on our fiscal
year 2024 appropriation and wish Chairman Joyce well as he
assumes leadership of the Financial Services and General
Government Subcommittee.
As I begin my testimony this afternoon, I start with the
sincere thanks to the subcommittee for the resources provided
in the recently enacted fiscal year 2024 appropriations. Thanks
to you and your staff's work, my top priority for TSA, fully
annualizing our compensation plan, which allows us to pay all
of our employees at the same pay rate as the rest of the
federal government, was achieved. Since this new compensation
plan was first implemented in the fourth quarter of fiscal year
2023, this had enormous positive impacts on TSA. Our retention
is up, we have many more candidates for open positions, and
morale has noticeably improved, as reflected in the highest
ever FEVS results--FEVS, Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey--
results in TSA's history.
The President's fiscal year 2025 request seeks to build on
what was provided in fiscal year 2024 and recognizes that
difficult choices need to be made, considering the funding
constraints we face. I think it strikes the right balance and
will position TSA to remain the agile security agency
envisioned when we were established nearly 23 years ago. It
keeps people first and continues smart investments in
technology.
As an agency, we do our important work alongside
transportation sector partners who are so critical to the
transportation security of the sector. As threats to
transportation have increased, we have worked with our partners
as they join us to improve security.
Two areas that have been areas of particular focus
recently, the first is combatting insider threats, and the
second is building cybersecurity, ranking member, as you
mentioned. We have worked hard together to strengthen security
plans in these two areas.
Of particular note, pipeline, rail, and aviation owners and
operators have done a tremendous amount of work to improve
protection of critical cyber systems and build resiliency to
ensure those critical functions that Americans depend on can
quickly recover from a cyberattack.
The transportation sector has seen a remarkable recovery
from the pandemic. Today, the aviation system averages 23,000
domestic flights per day and 2,600 daily outbound international
flights. Passenger volumes were up by almost 13 percent in
calendar year 2023, as compared to calendar year 2022, and
seven of the 10 busiest days ever in TSA history have occurred
within the last 12 months. We expect to see some days this
coming summer that will be particularly busy, exceeding 3.1
million passengers per day, which would set another record.
These examples reinforce the importance of partnerships within
the transportation sector, and how performance based, and
outcome-focused solutions provide effective and efficient
improvements to transportation security.
An important priority in the President's fiscal year 2025
request is continued investment in technology at our security
checkpoints across the country. Two ongoing technology projects
in particular are included in the fiscal year 2025 request.
They both improve security effectiveness, efficiency, and the
customer experience.
The first is our upgrade of checkpoint X-ray technology to
computed tomography or CT systems. At the rate of investment in
the fiscal year 2025 request, which is $90 million, our Capital
Investment Plan shows that this project will be complete in
2042, 18 years from now.
Similarly, our upgrade of checkpoint identity verification
technology to include facial recognition increases performance
in this critical first element of checkpoint screening. At the
rate of investment in the fiscal year 2025 request, which is $9
million, our Capital Investment Plan shows this project will be
complete in 2049, 25 years from now. We have the opportunity to
accelerate both projects with additional investment.
For the past three years, the President's budget has been
accompanied by a legislative proposal that would end the
diversion to deficit reduction of $1.6 billion per year in 9/11
security fee revenue. The legislative proposal would instead
restore all 9/11 fee revenue to aviation security as originally
intended. This diversion of security fee revenue began with the
Balanced Budget Act of 2013 and is due to expire at the end of
fiscal year 2027.
Ending the fee diversion early in fiscal year 2025 would
provide the flexibility to include more funding in the Aviation
Security Capital Fund and in our operating accounts. This will
allow us to complete the capital projects I mentioned just a
moment ago and staff for passenger volume growth, amongst other
requirements.
Thank you for taking the first steps toward eliminating the
diversion of a significant portion of this fee revenue in
fiscal year 2024. I look forward to continuing to work with you
to fully enact the President's legislative proposal, end the
fee diversion completely, and direct all fee revenue to its
intended purpose of aviation security.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cuellar, thank you for your
support of TSA. I look forward to your questions and to working
with all of you to ensure TSA has the resources needed to meet
its mission in protecting our nation's vital transportation
system. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Newhouse [presiding]. Thank you, Administrator Pekoske.
Mr. Amodei had to leave the room for a minute, so this is not a
mutiny that we are staging. Although it could be. [Laughter.]
But thank you for your testimony.
I would first like to turn to the ranking member, Mr.
Cuellar, for his questions.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
I know you focus on innovation at TSA, specifically as it
relates to technology. I think in your opening statement, there
is a reference to $18 million for the fiscal year 2025 request
for TSA-specific research and development efforts.
Looking at the future, can you tell us are you, is TSA in a
particular position right now where we can have more of that
innovation for transportation systems, or are we looking at
just simply hiring more personnel to build out the airports?
Tell us a little bit how you can leverage technology. And, by
the way, once you get rid of some technology, is there a way
that you all can maybe provide that to local jails or local
facilities that might be able to use some of your technology?
And I don't know what your process is to deal with that.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. I will take the last part of the
question first. The process for dealing with excess equipment
for any federal agency is to excess it to the GSA. And then the
GSA advertises it across to state and local governments and for
the public, and then goes through a process to determine what
the best use of that equipment is for.
We have been doing that now for the past couple of years as
we replace the X-ray technology with the newer X-rays, is
excessing that through GSA.
Mr. Cuellar. So we have to deal with GSA instead of you
all? Yeah, because I know a lot of the local sheriffs would be
very, very interested in their jails. OK.
Mr. Pekoske. And also, you know, it would be of interest to
us to more target where that technology is placed, because
there are certain needs we have within the aviation sector and
the surface transportation sector where some of that technology
may be of use, in addition to schools like you mentioned.
Mr. Cuellar. There is a proposed amendment to the FAA
administration reauthorization that would require TSA to
provide secure escorts for individuals, Members of Congress. I
am not pushing this legislation. But commercial airports and
other requirements, and I think it includes family members and
all that. Again, I'm not doing that. But what sort of
operational impact would this legislation have, and what would
be the cost to TSA to comply with this text of the draft
language?
Mr. Pekoske. We have, sir, had the opportunity to provide
some technical drafting assistance in the draft language. And,
you know, I would note that in this very budget that we are
considering now, the fiscal year 2025 budget, we are just
coming off some actions in fiscal year 2024 that actually
removed reimbursement funding for law enforcement officers that
work in airports that are not federal law enforcement officers.
So whenever I look at a piece of legislation, how it is
paid for is critically important. We have provided some cost
estimates for what it would cost. The challenge in developing
cost estimates though is, because of the way the requirements
are provided in the amendment, it can range from a very small
amount of money to a very, very large amount of money,
depending on how you interpret those requirements.
And like you mentioned, it includes all Cabinet members,
all federal judges, and all Members of Congress, and their
families and their staffs. And so you can imagine that is a lot
of people to ensure are protected along the way.
So we are reviewing the legislation. I have no particular
position on the legislation. We do not take those positions----
Mr. Cuellar. And I do not want to get into the merits of
that, but I just want to look at the costs. So what are the
ranges on the costs?
Mr. Pekoske. Well, it would range from a very low figure of
about $20 million up to about a half a billion, depending on
which element of TSA provides the service. I would submit that
if it's for a credible individualized security threat, that
protection needs to be provided by a law enforcement officer.
If so, that takes it up to about $500 million.
Mr. Cuellar. And I will close with this, Mr. Chairman.
Yeah, I don't want to get into the merits of it. But just as
appropriators, we have to look at the money. So from $20
million to $500 million.
Mr. Pekoske. Right.
Mr. Cuellar. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
Administrator Pekoske, thanks for being here with us. And
first, before I ask you any questions, just let me say I want
to, through you, express my appreciation to all the TSA
employees and the hard work that they do in a very sometimes
challenging, requiring-a-high-degree-of-patience job. So thank
you.
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
Mr. Newhouse. I want to talk first about the Federal Air
Marshal Service, which is a principal law enforcement
organization within the nation's transportation system. The
roadmap that you released last year acknowledges that over the
past 20 years, the threat environment, I guess you could say,
has evolved, requiring air marshals to expand their abilities
beyond core in-flight law enforcement missions, and proactively
optimize law enforcement resources, which makes sense.
So it was a little surprising to see in the fiscal year
2025 request actually, I think, a reduction in the Air Marshals
category, and it is described as strategically reviewed
attrition, so less funding is needed to support current
staffing levels. And you talked about in your opening statement
the importance of ensuring that the work force compensation
levels are commensurate with that of other federal government
counterparts, as well as for improved retention, all those
reasons. And yet that category I reduced. So I wanted to ask
you about that.
Then also, shortly after 9/11, Congress recognized the
importance of establishing certain security standards for
identification documents to fly commercially. Simply, you have
to have some kind of valid ID to present at the airport
checkpoint. That, in coordination with DHS counterparts, TSA
has identified acceptable alternative identifications for use
in special circumstances at the checkpoint. And that could be
seen as blatantly facilitating the illegal immigration crisis
by taking that action. This administration's policy of allowing
illegal immigrants to use documents with unverifiable and
unvetted information to board commercial aircraft, on the face
of it, just defies common sense.
So both those things, could you share the logic behind the
funding reduction for the Air Marshals program while numbers of
illegal immigrants flying on commercial airlines, likely using
funds provided by taxpayers, are increasing? And then also how
often can illegal immigrants use alternative identification
such as a warrant or a notice to appear, or the One app from
the CBP to fly commercially?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. Thank you for your comments, first
off, on the TSA workforce. I greatly appreciate that. And I am
very proud to have the opportunity to serve with them and
provide transportation security across the entire United States
and indeed influence transportation security globally. So thank
you for those comments.
With respect to the strategic adjustments in the Federal
Air Marshals Service's funding, what that basically stands for
is that TSA is now 23 years old, and we are reaching a point
where we are seeing more and more Federal Air Marshals eligible
to retire. And then when they retire, their replacements will
often be of lower band or lower steps in the band. And so this
is just an adjustment to account for that, a flow which we
anticipated several years ago. I mean, we knew we were going to
hit a point where we had a lot of people becoming retirement
eligible, and they have a year limitation of 57 as well.
But there is a reduction that affects the Federal Air
Marshal Service just to highlight for you, and that's the VIPR
Program, the Visible Intermodal Protection and Response
Program. We have 31 teams comprised of seven Federal Air
Marshals that are stationed around the United States that
provide a visible law enforcement presence to augment state and
local efforts, and we primarily operate, of course, in
transportation hubs, both surface and airport.
Our challenge before us is, hey, that reduction was put in
there only because we have affordability issues, and what can
we afford going into 2025. And the challenge will be if that
reduction is in fact appropriated, then we might have to stop
hiring for a couple of years, which we really do not want to
do. Because what that does 20 years later is it means you have
a gap in certain cohorts with respect to experience. And we had
a period of time where we had a number of years where we were
not hiring Federal Air Marshals and so we finally got back to
the hiring process, and we would like to continue that.
With respect to IDs by individuals that cross the southwest
border, we have always endeavored to apply the same process to
every passenger. So we have a process if any passenger shows up
without what we consider to be an acceptable form of ID, and
those IDs are listed on our webpage, and we constantly revise
that, we will find certain IDs no longer should be acceptable
to us, particularly as we are making more progress with Real ID
implementation.
And so if a passenger presents him or herself without a
form of acceptable ID, which would be anybody with a CBP One
app identification, that is not what we consider an acceptable
form of ID, we go through a process that does the best we can
to assign an identity and make sure we vet that identity. And
so that is what the One app is particularly good for. What that
allows us to do is when a passenger presents themself at the
checkpoint with the One app, we can literally take their photo
with a smartphone and then biometrically match the image that
the photo captures with the person that was admitted by either
the Office of Field Operations in CBP or the Border Patrol as
they crossed the border.
But for everybody that does not have an acceptable form of
ID, U.S. citizens, non-U.S. citizens, everybody gets additional
screening. And that is the part that is oftentimes lost in the
conversation. And so that additional screening is additional
on-person screening and additional carry-on bag screening, and
we do that to mitigate the risk of not being certain that
somebody is who they indicate they are.
And in a case for a U.S. citizen, what oftentimes is a
common occurrence is somebody might have their wallet or their
identity documents stolen or they forgot them somewhere. And so
we have a process to get to about the same point where we can
establish an identity, but we are not sometimes as sure as it
would if they had a credential, and we could run that
credential. And so the same process, additional screening for
all those passengers.
Mr. Newhouse. So how good is that? You can tell that, yes,
that is the person that was apprehended at the border.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, right.
Mr. Newhouse. But beyond that, there is no background.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. What it has is, when CBP, both the
Border Patrol and the Office of Field Operations go through a
process to look at the documentation that the person had
presented at the border crossing, and to look at all the
holdings that we have to be able to attach an identity to that
individual. So there is a lot of process that CBP performs in
that regard. And then all of the documentation for that is
included in the CBP One app.
From our perspective, we do require that the passenger
submit to facial recognition technology. So if you opt out of
the facial recognition technology, we do not allow you to
continue with the screening process. But if we can match you as
being admitted by CBP, then we proceed with the additional
screening.
Mr. Newhouse. I still have some questions about that, but
my time has expired. Thank you.
Mr. Pekoske. OK, thank you. Yes, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Administrator Pekoske. Thank you
for joining us today.
TSA plays a critical role in protecting our nation's
transportation systems and ensuring freedom of movement for
people and commerce. While carrying out this mission, the
agency must balance safety and civil liberties. Using advanced
imaging technology is one way that TSA is ensuring the safety
of passengers. And with this technology, TSA agents are able to
safely screen passengers for threats, such as weapons and
explosives, without physical contact.
There is no doubt that this technology has made our
airports safer. And yet even with the most advanced imaging
technology, diverse travelers are experiencing additional
screening mechanisms, despite not posing any additional threat.
Last year, the GAO, the Government Accountability Office,
released a report on TSA screening practices. In that report,
stakeholders weighed in on their observations. Some
stakeholders shared that, ``The use of advanced imaging
technology can result in certain passengers being referred for
additional screening more frequently than others. These include
transgendered passengers and those who wear religious headwear
like Sikhs and Muslims, or those with disabilities.''
I understand that TSA has a disability and multicultural
coalition that collaborates with the agency to identify
promising practices for TSA's nondiscriminatory delivery of
security. Yet even coalition stakeholders share that, ``While
TSA has taken some positive steps that may help prevent
discrimination, it has not made meaningful changes to address
the longstanding concerns that have been raised.''
At the time of GAO's report, which was October 2023, TSA
still had not collected data on referrals for additional
screening or assessed the potential for its practices to result
in discrimination.
Administrator, what specific steps does is the agency
taking to better balance its use of advanced imaging technology
with the civil rights and dignity of diverse passengers?
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you for the question. And I think we
have taken a number of steps. We still have more to take. With
the advanced imaging technology, we have recently installed a
software update to that technology. So what that software
update does is it is better at detecting any anomalies that a
person may have in areas that are sensitive parts of the body.
And so we knew we needed to focus there because we were seeing
in our testing results that that was where people were
secreting things. And what the software update also did was,
importantly to your question, it reduced the false alarm rate
by about 50 percent.
And so when you alarm on any system, particularly on person
screening, what we require to do is do a patdown, which is very
uncomfortable for passengers, very uncomfortable for our
officers. That 50 percent reduction is real. We have seen it in
operation.
We do have another software update in the works that should
be out in the next couple of years that further halves that
false alarm rate and further improves the ability to detect.
And that will be coupled with an improvement in the antenna
systems that are within that technology. It will basically go
from standard definition to a high-definition antenna system.
So we think that with technology, we will make significant
improvements.
But to your point and to the GAO's point, collecting data.
So we are looking at data-based decisions, is something we are
working very hard on, and we do agree with them on that point.
Ms. Underwood. And I just want to make sure I understood
you correctly. Did you say sensitive areas where people are
secreting things?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, in the saddle area of the body,
oftentimes people will attempt to hide things and to bring it
through the screening process.
Ms. Underwood. OK. I am still concerned that the agency is
not doing its best work to prevent discriminatory screening
practices. And even more concerning is that passengers who have
been wronged must jump through significant hoops to find a
remedy.
For example, in the online forum to file a complaint for
civil rights and civil liberties with TSA does not appear to be
hosted online in any language other than English. And in
addition, it is not clear that accessible options for those
with disabilities are available. As your agency is working to
prioritize the civil rights and liberties of diverse groups,
what concrete steps are you taking to make the process for
filing a complaint more accessible to non-English speakers and
those with a disability?
Mr. Pekoske. To your point, ma'am, is to put them in
multiple different languages and to make them accessible for
people that need to have other assists to be able to provide a
claim. And important in that process is to make sure we update
the individual as to the progress of that issue, because
sometimes it might seem to people that, hey, I submitted this
and I have seen no action in several weeks, I think it got
lost. And we do need to do more work to follow up with them to
make sure that they understand that we are still reviewing it
and we will get an answer to them as soon as we can.
Ms. Underwood. Is there a timeline for an online form to be
made available in multiple languages?
Mr. Pekoske. I do not have that today, but I can get that
back to you.
Ms. Underwood. I think it is just really important to make
sure that that is part of the work plan, to be accessible to
the American flying public. TSA must ensure that it is working
diligently toward its mission, and that includes respecting the
civil rights and civil liberties of all passengers. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Hinson from Iowa.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Ranking Member.
And thank you, Administrator Pekoske, for appearing before us
today.
I want to start off by kind of building on something my
colleague, Mr. Newhouse, talked about with the CBP One app. And
last year, some of my Senate colleagues sent a letter to DHS
and TSA pointing out some of these challenges. And I mean, you
mentioned today that even maybe they do not necessarily meet
the muster as acceptable ID. And so they pointed that out in
the letter, and they have not received a response yet. And so I
was going to ask you to respond to that letter.
But I am going to ask you today to respond to me as well on
this, clarify your processes in writing. You detailed some of
those today for comparing IDs. Because I do want to make sure
that the American people are not subjected to a substantially
more rigorous screening process than some of these illegal
aliens are as they are coming through our southern border. So I
would like to make sure you follow up on that and I will follow
up with questions there, too.
I also want to know how you are dealing with, and specific
to the Federal Air Marshals, we know that there is a huge
ushering of illegal aliens on these flights in the United
States. So how are you protecting the American flying public
when you are diverting these Federal Air Marshals to the
southern border to assist CBP in administering aid to illegal
immigrants?
Mr. Pekoske. Congresswoman Hinson, thanks for the question.
And to your first request for process clarity, absolutely, we
would be happy to do that.
And with respect to your second question on Federal Air
Marshal deployments to the Southwest border, that is a very
small number, not a number I can give you in this setting. But
we would be happy to brief you on that number and how it has
changed over time.
Mrs. Hinson. I have been briefed by the Federal Air
Marshals Council, and they say it is too many, right? And I
think that is the biggest concern----
Mr. Pekoske. Sure.
Mrs. Hinson [continuing]. Is that these Air Marshals are
designed to be keeping the flying public safe with the 40,000-
some flights we have every day. That is their mission and that
is their duty. And so any instance where they are being pulled
away from their mission, I think, is a morale problem. You talk
about recruiting and hiring and how much of a challenge you are
having there, having to rehire people who have been retired, I
mean, I think this is a long-term, huge recruitment problem if
people are coming into this thinking they are keeping the skies
safe and they are being diverted to the southern border. Do you
not?
Mr. Pekoske. I do not. First off, the diversion to the
southern border is a very small percentage, like I said. That
is a temporary mission, not a permanent mission of TSA's. It is
something we started back in 2019, and we have made significant
improvements to it over time. We have a memorandum of
understanding with CBP, which is the requesting agency. I would
be happy to share that with you if you have not seen it.
I will tell you from my chair, I am responsible for
transportation security. I have Federal Air Marshals on every
flight I desire to have Federal Air Marshals on. Pure and
simple.
Mrs. Hinson. What risk algorithms are you using to
determine what flights you are pulling them off of?
Mr. Pekoske. We determine the flights that we need to put
Air Marshals on based on risk. And I would be happy to give you
a brief--again, not appropriate for this setting--as to how we
make those decisions. And it is quite sophisticated.
Mrs. Hinson. Do you see a time in the in the future where
you will not need to divert people to the southern border? Is
it dependent upon the surge slowing down, numbers slowing down
in terms of the number of illegal immigrants we are
encountering at the southern border?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. Good point. That number has
changed over time, and so it is lower now than it was five
months ago. And we will constantly adjust it based on CBP's
needs, which are predicated on the number of people coming
across the border. And again, that is a temporary mission.
I would also note that a mission of the Federal Air Marshal
Service is to provide security at National Special Security
Events, NSSEs, and we do that on a regular basis. So there are
a lot of different things that Federal Air Marshals do, not
just in flight security, but in flight security to your point
is the most important thing that we do.
But to give you a sense for overall levels of effort, if
you look at the FAM deployments to the Southwest border so far
this year, they are less than 2 percent of the deployments of
FAMs to in flight security. So it is very small.
Ms. Hinson. Well, I want to make sure that that number--I
would like to see that number get to zero, and I would like to
see that number for sure not grow. I think based on my
conversations with the Federal Air Marshals they are very
concerned about their duties being deferred to something else.
So I just think that is a misuse of the workforce there, and
they need to be doing what they do best, which is protecting
Americans in the air.
Mr. Pekoske. I would point out, though, that I don't
necessarily think that view reflects the view of the Air
Marshal Service. In the deployments we have had already this
year, all of the FAMs are all volunteers, so if they felt that
it was not a good use of their expertise they wouldn't
volunteer. The only people that we have had to direct are some
supervisors but a very small number of the total.
Ms. Hinson. OK. Well, I anticipate follow up on my
questions from the first round, and with that I will yield
back. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Ms. Hinson. Going against the
directive of the Chairman, I will turn to Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Did he say I could have a mic? Thank you for
being here, and I, too, want to touch on a lot of what has been
had. I am from Texas, obviously, so I am concerned about what
is going on at the border. First of all, on your website there
is 15 identifications listed, and then as we have discussed, of
course, illegal aliens who come across our border are not
presenting those. They are presenting it may be right now an
app, and it is very concerning to a number of American
citizens, including myself that it would seem that people who
are in our country illegally are under less scrutiny to use our
air services than American citizens.
And keep in mind that your whole agency was stood up
following September 11 when 19 foreign nationals
misrepresenting their purpose for being in the United States
boarded our airplanes. So this is very concerning, obviously,
and especially when--the term you used I think was
``documentation'' that CBP looks at when people are entering,
which is a very generous assumption in the best case scenario
of somebody coming across our border because usually if they
have ID they are dropping it at the border.
They are coming across, and they get into our database just
by saying whatever they want to say. ``What is your name?'' It
could be your real name, could not be. ``What is your age?''
Could be your real age. Your nationality could be a made up
nationality, and that is by and large how a lot of our database
is being presented. And then you are saying that when they get
onto airplanes all you are doing is checking to make sure that
they are the person they pretended to be before.
So I think for most Americans they are going to say that is
kind of unsatisfactory. Could you speak to anything that you
are doing to firm that process up?
Mr. Pekoske. Well, I think, sir, the most important thing
we are doing is they are all receiving additional screening at
the checkpoint, all of them without exception. And that would
be just like any other passenger who didn't have an acceptable
form of ID. They all get additional screening. So we mitigate
risk significantly in that process. That is an important thing
to keep front and center. Our acceptable forms of ID are
constantly being adjusted, and you will see us come out over
the next several months and further reduce the numbers of
acceptable forms of ID just to further strengthen that process.
Mr. Cloud. We were just talking about air marshals, and so
in the context that we have more people on our planes who are
not here legally we also have less air marshals on our planes.
You didn't have the number available, but I think it is close
to 200 air marshals last fiscal year which is just under 10
percent. So that is not substantial that were at the border.
Senator Cruz sent you a letter recently. I don't believe
there has been a response to it yet. But the letter states that
air marshals are not even performing tasks related to the
safety and security like they would be if they were still in
the air. Instead they are performing administrative functions,
conducting welfare checks and escorting aliens to processing
centers. Obviously, when we are funding an Air Marshal Service,
we think we are funding the security of our country and our
homeland specifically. So when we find out that no, they are
just being diverted to be more processing at the border, not
even protection at the border that is pretty concerning.
You mentioned that that is only a handful this year. Is
that new policy that has been put in place, or what are we
doing to make sure that air marshals continue in what we
understand their stated mission to be?
Mr. Pekoske. We put the number of air marshals down on the
border based part on what CBP's needs are but based mostly on
what our capacity to provide without impacting aviation
security. So that has been the guiding post for us all along.
The numbers will vary a little bit, but we have adjusted them
downward this year already.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the Air Marshal
Service has many, many missions under its portfolio. One of
them is to support other federal law enforcement agencies in
the work they do. You mentioned that they were doing mostly
administrative tasks. That is not the data that I have. We have
an MOU with CBP that requires that they primarily perform law
enforcement tasks when they deploy to the Southwest border
otherwise we would deploy a different person to perform that
function.
Mr. Cloud. Well, I can say just generally speaking probably
75 percent of the people on the mission down there to secure
our border are doing processing. Maybe you are saying they are
replacing them, but we do need to get back to protection over
processing. That is a little bit outside of your jurisdiction I
realize.
Mr. Pekoske. Right. But that is absolutely not the data
that I have. It shows that they on occasion will do some
processing, but that by far is not the majority of what they
are doing.
Mr. Cloud. Are you telling me I am out of time? I am up,
apparently.
Mr. Amodei [presiding]. We will turn from the gentleman
from Texas to Mr. Rutherford. The floor is yours.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pekoske, with
the work that you have and following up on Mr. Cloud's
discussion about the personnel issues and the number of FAMs
air marshals that are in the air versus the number that we
probably need, when you and I spoke last cycle concerning the
VIPR program, you mentioned that that was kind of a way to give
them something to do besides fly every day which I can
understand it could get tough. So my question is what impact
does that have on the availability of people in the air
protecting the flying public? What numbers are being pulled off
of that job to do VIPR?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, the VIPR program has a little over 200
members to it. So when you're considering----
Mr. Rutherford. They are rolling in and out?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, they are. But a very important point to
raise here is that--and you and I talked about this last time.
I appreciate your time, and I enjoyed that conversation with
you. One of the things I look at is particularly with the Air
Marshal Service do I have the capability to surge if the threat
indicates that I need to put more air marshals in play because
it is risk based. And sir, to your point we do try to balance.
Having somebody flying for an entire career is not what air
marshals need. They need to have balance in the whole process.
So we are trying to find a way to build meaningful work
across the entire transportation sector service and aviation
whole but always have the surge capacity to bring air marshals
to in flight operations should the need arise.
Another thing that is a big factor here is it takes a while
to develop somebody into a fully certified air marshal. That is
not something that occurs in six months or even a year, so
having that capacity is really important to us. And the VIPR
program has been important to work alongside state and local
law enforcement officials to protect transportation
infrastructure overall.
Mr. Rutherford. And the budget for that last year of
funding was about $60 million?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. I am sure you don't have it, but can you
give me a report on VIPR results, how many operations have they
run across the country, how many arrests did they make,
whatever you are grading the success of the program on?
Mr. Pekoske. OK. Yes, sir. OK.
Mr. Rutherford. Let me have that information.
Mr. Pekoske. Just one thing, sir. On the arrest data, when
VIPRs are working alongside state and local sheriff, you
understand this better than almost anybody, is that when an
arrest is made our desire is to have that arrest be made
locally because the processing through all of the judicial
process is much faster when you do it that way. So arrest
numbers are not something that we particularly drive. We are
trying to work with partners to support them in that effort.
Mr. Rutherford. So you are not capturing it at all?
Mr. Pekoske. Oh, we capture it. When you see the number
just know that you are going to look at them and go those are
low numbers, but that is why is that oftentimes----
Mr. Rutherford. I just want the overall numbers.
Mr. Pekoske. Sure. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. What is the total number of arrests, how
many were FAMs, and how many were state and local.
Mr. Pekoske. OK. Sure. We will do our best.
Mr. Rugherford. Thank you. And I want to get back to this--
--
Mr. Amodei. We gave you all of Mr. Cloud's time, so you are
in good shape.
Mr. Rutherford. The Federal Flight Deck Officer program,
the facility that we were talking about in Atlanta, can you
tell me where we are at on that?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. We have the facility. We just
haven't had the funding to outfit it, and we are looking to do
that in fiscal year 2025. The idea is that that would operate
at the same capacity that our two other facilities. One is in
Atlantic City, and the other one is in Dallas.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. So I think it said $16 to $26 million
in the president's budget. Will that give you enough to
actually start running fulltime at that training center?
Mr. Pekoske. It will give us enough to ramp up to fulltime,
sir. We are right now at about 25 percent, so we will gradually
ramp up to a higher number, but we really do want that Atlanta
training facility in place because a lot of pilots come out of
that.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. Beyond that cache of money do you need
anything else to get that program fully equipped?
Mr. Pekoske. No, sir. That program first and foremost that
is a fabulous program. I mean, it is incredibly cost effective.
Having people that are trained to be able to protect the
cockpit in the cockpit is hugely valuable for us overall.
Particularly with all of the in-flight disturbances that we are
seeing it is very nice to have that insurance policy, and that
relates to in flight security which is something that didn't
exist. When the Federal Air Marshal Service was first formed,
there was not a Federal Flight Deck Officer program. That
program took a dip during the pandemic. We are trying to get
our way back up to full strength because we think it is
available.
Mr. Rutherford. All right. I assume my time is up. I yield
back.
Mr. Amodei. Mr. Cuellar, the floor it yours for a second
round.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator,
the Federal Air Marshals go down there, I think there is a call
for a surge--I mean, you know, when there is a need for a
surge, they are sent there voluntarily?
Mr. Pekoske. The vast majority are volunteers. So all of
the Federal Air Marshals this calendar year to date have all
been volunteers. Some of the supervisors have been directed to
fill some gaps that we didn't have volunteers for, but the
straight Federal Air Marshals are volunteers.
Mr. Cuellar. My understanding is there are about 75 air
marshals down there at the border?
Mr. Pekoske. Number we can't specify on but----
Mr. Cuellar. Roughly.
Mr. Pekoske. Roughly.
Mr. Cuellar. And now that the numbers have gone down from
10 to 12,000 a day, I think the last three weeks it has been
about 3,800 between border, so hopefully you can bring them
back sometime soon on that. Let me ask you about TSA leveraging
artificial intelligence. Machine learning and security
screening, they all use that?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes.
Mr. Cuellar. And how are you all using that?
Mr. Pekoske. One of the ways we are using it, and this has
not yet rolled out, but if you put a carry-on bag through the
X-ray machine at a checkpoint, if you looked at the image that
comes up, the image that the officers are looking at will have
any explosives have a red box around them. So the machine, the
technology, automatically detects explosives and the type of
explosives that we specify for it. What it doesn't do is it
doesn't automatically detect all the other things that we don't
allow through the screening process like firearms, parts of
firearms, ammunition, all kinds of knives, throwing stars, cat
eyes, et cetera. So we are using artificial intelligence to
train the technology to detect all the prohibited items, so all
the explosives and all of the other knives and firearms, et
cetera, that are there.
The next step beyond that is that when we get that
technology deployed then images that would now come up for
every single passenger--so I said in my opening statement that
we are going to see some days this summer that might have 3.1
million passengers, and you have to give 3.1 million is well
over 6 million images that these officers are reviewing on a
given day, that is a lot. And what we find in our testing is
that constant review of images can be very fatiguing, and so
can we put a machine assist there so that if a bag goes through
the X-ray and doesn't alarm, so the artificial intelligence is,
you know, we would not deploy it if we didn't fully test it to
make sure it worked, then officers won't view quite so many
images, but when they do see one, they know, hey, this alarmed
by the technology, and they will be more focused on that as a
result, because they're as far fewer.
Mr. Cuellar. And you are using that now? I mean, it is
being used right now?
Mr. Pekoske. We are developing it now.
Mr. Cuellar. Developed?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, the other area where we are----
Mr. Cuellar. Is that in house? Vendor?
Mr. Pekoske. Vendor.
Mr. Cuellar. Vendor? OK.
Mr. Pekoske. Vendor and with Science and Technology in the
Department----
Mr. Cuellar. Yeah.
Mr. Pekoske [continuing]. To make sure that we're doing it
in a proper way. And as you know, there's now an executive
order that governs artificial intelligence development that
we've been fully compliant with all along.
So there's a lot of good oversight there.
Mr. Cuellar. OK. I got a whole bunch of bridges in my area,
so trade is very important to me. There are times where we have
peak hours, like Laredo handles 17, 18,000 traders a day. And
I've asked OFO there, hey, why don't you have more folks here
at this particular peak time?
And they are--sometimes they say the union. There are
certain union negotiations, and I am saying, well, look,
without respect to the unions, we got to take care of the
customers first.
You all have unions now, correct? Now, for TSA? Is it too
early to say that if sometimes the union demands, and again, I
support unions, but I just want to make sure that customers
come first.
Do your peak times sometimes collide with some of the
union? What's the right word to use? I'm trying to be
diplomatic, Union demands.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. A couple comments. One is that we've
always had limited collective bargaining since I've been the
administrator.
This year, we entered into a full collective bargaining
negotiation with our union for our Transportation Security
Officers, reached an agreement. We should sign that next month.
And so it's kind of too early to tell the impacts of that
Collective Bargaining Agreement, but we have had the ability to
develop a cadre of individuals, about 675 officers, that are
screening officers, that are part of what we call the National
Deployment Force.
And if we have a particularly busy time, let's say after
the Superbowl in Las Vegas, we would deploy those National
Deployment Force Officers from airports around the country,
down to help out the Las Vegas team during a period of surge
operations.
The other thing that when we ask for additional TSOs, I
would really like to get to the point where we have a little
bit more flexibility in our TSO numbers, because right now it's
a very sharp pencil that we figure out exactly how many people
we need.
Life doesn't work that way. People get sick. They have
other things going on. And then with any workforce, if you have
a workforce and you never provide them any free time, they
can't take vacations like they would normally take. That
impacts their availability anyway.
And so what I'd like to do is just build up the size of the
workforce a little bit more to provide that flexibility. So
there's a lot we have to do on our end to make sure that we
resource it well.
Mr. Cuellar. Right. And again, understand, and, you know,
my time is pretty much up. So I just want to make sure that
this collective bargaining, that I support unions, but I want
to make sure that we put customers first, especially at peak
times, because I have seen that in Laredo where I am like, you
know, and they say that it is part of the collective bargain on
that.
But I appreciate what you all do, and please follow up on
the customer service, customer experience. It is very
important. Like I said, most of my personal experience has been
good, but there are times where some of those folks should
understand what customer service is.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. And we're building that into our
entry level training now as well. We added a week to our
training and that week is focused on de-escalating situations
in checkpoint operations and interactions between officers and
passengers.
Mr. Cuellar. Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei. The gentlelady from Ohio is recognized for a
second.
Ms. Hinson. Iowa.
Mr. Amodei. Ohio. You just got the No. 1----
Ms. Hinson. Draft pick, that is right. Get your state
correct, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
Mr. Amodei. No more.
Ms. Hinson. We are hazing the Chair.
Mr. Amodei. No more second round questions. We are
adjourned until the Committee Members do some customer service
training.
Ms. Hinson. I am----
Mr. Amodei. To the friendly--to the friendly representative
from Iowa. The floor is yours for a second round.
Ms. Hinson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
I am so grateful that you yield that time to me.
And again, thank you, Administrator Pekoske, for putting up
with our antics today. I want to also express, I love our Cedar
Rapids CID/TSA, frontline workers are awesome.
I see them every single week when I fly twice a week,
sometimes more and they are great to work with. So I just would
be remiss if I didn't mention that.
And in that note last year, obviously in this hearing, I
brought up the story of Sergeant Dirks. And we have already
talked about this, but the issues, of course, brought to the
attention of you and your team about the challenges that
veterans might be facing when they are going through airport
security.
And I want to thank you for working with us, setting up
that walkthrough with Trent and Tracer. They were great sports.
And Doug and Yolanda, our Cedar Rapids folks who helped us
really showcase and especially to local media, so that our
constituents could know as well firsthand the issues that
veterans with service animals might be facing.
So can you speak a little bit to kind of the follow up
there? What has happened since that walkthrough? What are you
doing to interface with veterans to make sure they have a
better experience on the customer service side going through a
checkpoint?
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you. And thank you for facilitating that
conversation with Sergeant Dirks and getting to meet him and
his team, bringing them down to the airport, getting their
feedback on things overall.
Good news is that he has joined our Multicultural
Coalition. So that is a great voice to have in that coalition.
We've already put out additional guidance on our webpages.
Hey, if you're traveling with a service dog, here are the
things you can expect going through the screening process. And
we have a lot of social media capability within TSA, too.
So if somebody tweets that, it will give them that answer
back, literally within a couple of seconds. We also have put in
place passenger support specialists throughout our system.
So if any passenger thinks they need additional assistance
in the screening process, they can call ahead and we will meet
them and then help them get through the screening process,
which is really good for them.
It makes them feel valued and makes them not feel
deprioritized in the entire system. It's also good for us
because it makes it more efficient overall. So really
appreciate the connect that you made there. Thank you.
Ms. Hinson. Yeah. No, absolutely. No and I think that
obviously there may be more work to do to make sure that is
consistent across every airport experience, but I really
appreciate you being willing to work with us on that.
Mr. Pekoske. Yeah. Thanks.
Ms. Hinson. Another area that I wanted to just highlight, I
know there is a lot of pressure on your technology budget at
TSA. It is a concern, obviously, for the entire transportation
ecosystem system.
We all need the latest technology, and we want to make sure
that is deployed in a timely manner to handle these historic
travel volumes, as you talk about 3.1 million passengers
potentially a day.
We know TSA has a donation program for airports and
airlines, the Capability Acceptance Process Program, is that
sufficient, would you say, to really address these challenges
with all the stakeholders in the industry?
Mr. Pekoske. Well, the Capability Acceptance Process is a
really good process, but it's not the full solution. And I
really appreciate the airports and the air carriers that have
donated technology to us.
We've had one airport recently that donated $30 million
worth of technology and a brand-new checkpoint. And it's
spectacular when you visit the checkpoint. I mean, you have a
brand-new checkpoint. You don't want to have the older machines
that are there. You want the newest technology that's in place.
The key thing, from my perspective, is we have two key
acquisitions going on right now. It's the X-ray acquisition or
the CT acquisition and the identity verification technology
acquisition. Those are both not going to get completed at
current investment rates until the 2040s. One is 2042 for the
X-ray----
Ms. Hinson. And 2049----
Mr. Pekoske. Yeah, and 2049 for the identity verification.
That's a very, very long time.
I think part of the solution here would be to end that fee
diversion and get that $1.6 billion back into aviation
security, and that will give us a lot of flexibility.
The other thing I think about a lot is we should get
ourselves away from doing block replacements of technology. We
should just replace them in a routine----
Ms. Hinson. On a rolling basis?
Mr. Pekoske. Exactly. Because that way you'd have steady
stream. Vendors would see that addressable market out there.
They'd invest more R&D, get more competition, a better product
at the end of the day.
Ms. Hinson. One other thing I want to follow up in the time
I have left. How much time does it say over there?
Mr. Pekoske. I've got as much time as you want.
Ms. Hinson. Oh, thank you.
Mr. Pekoske. 48 seconds.
Ms. Hinson. You may change that tone after hearing my
question. No. The Washington Post recently reported we had
about 300 passengers who snuck past airport security in 2023.
They entered through exit lane areas, sneaking past ID
check areas at TSA checkpoints. So what are you doing to
address those breaches in airport security? Is it an exit lane
staff issue? What do you think the issue is, and what are you
doing to address it?
Mr. Pekoske. Sure. First and foremost, zero of those
passengers, none got on board an aircraft without screening. So
you know, that might alarm you when you first look at it, but
when you look at our, you know, we have a layered process and
none got onboard aircraft. So that's an important thing to keep
in mind.
The vast majority of people that did get back into the
sterile area of an airport from the public area without being
screened on their way back in were people who were outbound,
coming off a flight as they were going through, turned around
and went back to get something that they thought they had lost.
And so we see that we track those individuals to make sure
we can locate them and then help them resolve whatever the
issue is they had and escort them back out.
Ms. Hinson. Did you have any that were malicious intent
that you could identify?
Mr. Pekoske. Not that we identified, no.
You know, we have, in the checkpoint, evading the
checkpoint operations. Sometimes people game that, and we do
have some people that have tried to do it at multiple airports
just to see how far they can get.
That's a bit malicious.
Ms. Hinson. Yeah.
Mr. Pekoske. But part of the solution to the exit lane
issue is putting technology in place so you can't go backwards
into.
Ms. Hinson. Yeah, we have those doors in Cedar Rapids.
Mr. Pekoske. Exactly, right.
Ms. Hinson. Right, you are trapped basically.
Mr. Pekoske. Right. And those pay for themselves in about
three or four years, rather than having people sit there and
then just kind of watch folks to make sure they're flowing in
the right direction.
The other is, you know, eventually, once we get our
identity verification technology in place, is to then put e-
gates in place across, so that will prevent people from going
around.
Ms. Hinson. OK. Thank you, Administrator.
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you.
Ms. Hinson. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you for that acknowledgement from
somebody in the midwest.
Mr. Cloud, I believe the last time I checked, you are one
of the two people from Texas, so I don't want any confusion,
the floor is yours.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, magnanimous Chair. And are you going
to hang around for this line of questioning or no?
Mr. Amodei. So I am thinking the way things are going, I am
out of here lickety split, but thank you for putting that on
the record for me.
Mr. Cloud. No, thank you. Where were we at?
Mr. Amodei. We are at your time has expired. So now we will
go to Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Cloud. Yes, thank you.
I wanted to ask you about the Law Enforcement Officer
Reimbursement Program, and you mentioned that you were making
some cuts to it? I think, by my calculations, it is like 90
percent, so that is pretty substantial.
I am from a rural town and a rural community with a rural
airport, and so that is concerning to me. I am curious about
the thinking there. And then also, I mean, what is the 10
percent left for, if, you know? So I would be curious to get
your thoughts on that.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. In the budget, we have proposed, for
a good number of years, to reduce the funding for both the
Canine Reimbursement Program, which reimburses canine handlers
that are operated by law enforcement agencies, and then law
enforcement officers that serve in airports, in and around
checkpoints.
The first year it was accepted by Congress was last year,
and so those are FY 2024 cuts. The hard part for us is that
this is only because of budget limitations. No other reason. We
just don't have the money.
Mr. Cloud. We plussed up your budget pretty substantially.
Mr. Pekoske. Right. But we had very high priority things
that we needed to fund with that plussed up money. So it's a
whole matrix of hey, what's most important? And then how much
funds do you have available?
I would go back to the $1.6 billion that we're leaving off
the table every single year from the Aviation Security
Passenger Fee. I mean, when you look at your ticket and your
tickets tab, it says 9/11 security fee, $5.60 one way, $11.20
round trip, in 2013 in the BBA, the Balance Budget Agreement,
$1.6 billion in $24 and $25 goes straight to the Treasury
Department for deficit reduction.
That's what we've been trying to stop overall, and those
funds will kind of lift us up substantially across the board. I
really appreciate all the work that law enforcement officers
do. The last thing I want to do is cut law enforcement support.
Trust me.
Mr. Cloud. All right. OK. Well, I appreciate that. On the
ID issue, I had an interesting, you know, you were speaking to
some of the most traveled people, obviously, in the country,
where I presented a valid boarding pass and an ID, and for some
reason it didn't match in what was in the TSA system.
I went back to the desk, printed it out again instead of
using my digital one. It was the same case, and they were going
to not let me board the plane. And again, in the context of who
we are letting board planes, I was curious as to how in the
world that was even legally possible.
And of course, the bigger concern wasn't my one flight. I
can get a different flight or whatever; is this happening to
other people?
Mr. Pekoske. Sure. And I would just go back and for those
that don't have acceptable ID, all get additional screenings so
they're not getting PreCheck privileges.
Mr. Cloud. What is the legal--like for somebody who is
presenting legal documents how is the TSA like, saying you
can't go on this flight?
Mr. Pekoske. Sure. Well, what happens there, sir, is that
when you make a flight reservation, we get the reservation data
from the carriers beginning about 72 hours out, and we start to
vet the information the carriers provide.
And essentially what we're doing is we're taking your name
and your date of birth, and we're matching it against our
holdings to make sure that, hey, if you are a PreCheck
passenger, we know you're a PreCheck passenger.
If you're importantly a passenger that requires additional
screening, that we identify you there as well. Sometimes that
match doesn't work as well. You might have--there might have
been an issue where you had a middle initial once and didn't
have it a second time or yeah, some very small changes will--
yeah, very small changes will cause a mismatch there, and we
need to be sure that the match is correct.
Mr. Cloud. The flight number was just different in this
particular case. But anyway, I don't want to spend a lot of
time on that.
Mr. Pekoske. OK. Sure.
Mr. Cloud. One other question, in whatever little time I
might have, could you speak to ports? I am concerned about
ports and our ability to understand what is coming into our
ports.
And we know, like China, for example, I think they control
80 percent of the cranes, which no doubt probably have some
sort of technology on them. I feel like they could probably
make the argument that they might know more of what is going on
than we do.
I don't know if that is exactly the case, but certainly a
concern still. What are we doing, or what are the plans, or
even at a research phase to ramp up security at our ports?
Mr. Pekoske. So that question is really better addressed to
Coast Guard, because they have primary authority over maritime
operations. But I will share that, you know, Coast Guard has
issued cybersecurity regulations, just like we have, within our
parts of the transportation sector.
So we've issued requirements that are performance based to
pipelines, to rail systems, to airports, and to air carriers.
Coast Guard has done the same thing to ports, and it's a very
similar framework. So I know that they are working on this.
Mr. Cloud. Thanks, Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. You are welcome, Member.
Mr. Cloud. Illustrious Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. Mr. Pekoske, if you have the ability to, in
your vetting of these sorts of things, pick some folks out who
are TSA PreCheck to deny boarding a plane, who happen to be
Members of this Committee, we'd like to work with you to figure
out who we want this week in that.
Because there are some weeks, and I won't speak for anybody
else on the Committee, it's like, really, I can't get on the
plane. Okey doke.
And with that softball lead in, Mr. Rutherford, the floor
is yours.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pikoski, I want to ask about the Explosive Detection
Systems that we put in several years ago in the airports, and
we were going to do that reimbursement.
I think we are just about down to--can you tell me what it
would take to knock that out this year so we can quit worrying
about it?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. $13.9 million.
Mr. Rutherford. $13.9?
Mr. Pekoske. That closes it out.
Mr. Rutherford. That's all of them?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. OK.
Mr. Pekoske. And I believe Jackson is about $1.1, $1.046.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. Thank you.
Let me ask you this. In the President's budget request for
TSA, you mentioned your relief factor. Not having the relief
factor worked in, you needed more people, I think was the
conversation?
When you submit your budget to the President, does it have
your relief factor built in? Because that's a big number. I
mean, you are talking about the average for an eight-hour shift
is like 1.35.
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, the biggest factor in what we submit is,
and one for us is the formula, how we work the formula to
figure out what kind of contingency we want to build in there.
It would be a very small percentage, but it does factor out
in a larger airport, it could factor out to a good number of
people. The biggest issue we face oftentimes is volume growth.
I mentioned in my opening statement that we saw 12.9
percent volume growth, 2023 over 2022. Really, the projections
when the budget was submitted was 4.5 percent.
And so you're constantly behind in volume growth. The
challenge always becomes being able to bring somebody on board,
get them certified, which is at least a six-month process, so
that they can be fully utilized in the checkpoint operation,
particularly during the summer months, because that's, you
know, we're busy from 4th of July all the way to the second
week in August, busiest except for Thanksgiving, which the day,
you know, the Sunday after is generally the most busy day we
ever have.
Mr. Rutherford. And last thing, when we were talking about
VIPR and getting those numbers, BOD deployments, you're going
to roll that up in there too, right?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. I mean segregate them, but----
Mr. Pekoske. Yep.
Mr. Rutherford. You don't have any----
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. We'll give you every piece of data
we have. Thanks.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
So we are going to adjourn the meeting. Obviously, Mr.
Administrator, for the questions that Members have had or may
be able to submit within the next 5 days or something like
that, we are going to go over the calendar a little bit here.
It is my intention to try to work session the bills that
are under our jurisdiction by the end of May. Now, that is
subject to Mr. Cole saying, no, you are not. You are going to
do it whenever.
But short of that, that's when we are going to try to do it
so that we can hopefully be in front of the committee as a
whole in June. And the reason that I tell you that, one is full
disclosure, and the second one is to the extent that there
needs to be any exchange in terms of, hey, we are not sure what
your question is, or here is whatever we will be watching that
not for, because we need something to do, but it is like we
want the Members as fully informed as possible when we say,
hey, what are you going to do? And what are your ideas and that
sort of stuff.
So I just want to make sure that that is kind of on
everybody's radar screen, if you will. That goes both ways. If
when you and your staff go back after this and go, what in the
heck was whatever, please reach out so that we can clear that
up and you are not guessing or just going, I don't know. I
don't know what that guy said, which is why I tried to say very
little, Mr. Cuellar.
Not be the source of those problems. So with that, I want
to thank you for your professionalism. I enjoyed our ability to
visit yesterday and look forward to working with you as we get
to the end of the process, as far as this.
And if there is no further questions and we know about
submitted additional questions, the questions by Members, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Wednesday, April 17, 2024.

FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET REQUEST FOR IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

WITNESS

PATRICK LECHLEITNER, ACTING DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Amodei. The subcommittee will come to order. This is
the place and time for the meeting to come to order for the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
Today's hearing is the fiscal year 2025 budget for the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement budget.
I don't have an opening statement, which I am sure nobody
will miss today either.
And, with that, I will recognize our ranking member, Mr.
Cuellar, for his opening statement.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I also want to, of course, say welcome to our acting
director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, commonly
known as ICE, and thank you for all the years of service that
you have provided. And I want to thank your men and women that
work for ICE for the many years of public service and your
willingness to lead this multifaceted organization.
As you know, this Federal agency is charged with the
enforcement of violation of customs and immigration laws and,
again--but it does a lot more. A lot of people think it is just
immigration, but it is a lot more. You also combat cartels and
other transnational criminal organizations, illicit drug
trafficking, including fentanyl, human trafficking, smuggling
networks, and, of course, violation of trade and intellectual
property laws that seek to undermine our economic security.
I look forward to discussing with you the present fiscal
year 2025 budget request and how this proposal will better
enable ICE to fulfill its critical national security mission
and keep our community safe.
In particular, I am interested in how the investments in
homeland security investigations we secured in this fiscal year
2024 and what some of the proposed investments for fiscal year
2025 will increase the government-wide efforts to combat the
opioid epidemic. And, of course, that is impacting our
communities--small and large communities.
We know what has happened with the deaths, especially the
ones from fentanyl, and we want to make sure that we continue
fighting the criminal organizations and whatever you all can do
at the southern border and other places also.
Also, as I mentioned to the Secretary last week, we are
pleased that we are able to get your resources to increase your
detention capacity and maintain important facility oversight to
maintain--to better align with what you are seeing along the
border.
You know, hopefully, if we have a border supplemental--you
know, there are some parts out there--but I certainly want to
talk to you about that and also talk about expedited removal
and what legal authorities you may need for those and the
Alternatives to Detention to ensure the maximum use to get our
nondetained docket to more manageable levels.
Again, there is no shortage of issues that face ICE. We
certainly know that, even working with the immigration judges,
we need more of your personnel there. But we will save that for
the questions.
But I want to say thank you. And to the men and women for
ICE, thank you so much for their service.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. And keeping with that
theme, you are recognized for the first question.
Mr. Cuellar. What about the 5-minute----
You know, I try--I must apologize to you, Mr. Acting
Director. I tried to get rid of the opening statement from--who
was it yesterday?
Mr. Cuellar. Was it Ohio?
Mrs. Hinson. Pekoske.
Mr. Amodei. Pekoske, yeah. And I keep trying, and it
doesn't work. I don't know who these people on this dais with
me are.
But, hey, listen, if you would like to do an opening
statement, you are by all means welcome to do so now. The floor
is yours.
Mr. Lechleitner. Well, thank you, Chair. I appreciate it.
So I don't know if I would like to, but I will.
So good afternoon. I appreciate you having me, and it is my
honor to serve the people of ICE and Homeland Security.
So, Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member Cuellar, and
distinguished Members of the committee, thank you for giving me
the opportunity.
I am proud to lead the most versatile and agile agency in
the Department of Homeland Security, although I may be biased.
Our operations evolve as new threats arise and, at every turn,
our workforce adapts to meet those challenges.
More than 20,000 ICE personnel work tirelessly to protect
national security and promote public safety, including
thousands of officers and special agents who put their lives on
the line every single day to keep us all safe. And I know that
because I was one of them. My highest priority is ensuring the
ICE workforce has the resources they need to fulfill their
obligations to the American people.
I want to thank you for your work on fiscal year 2024
Consolidated Appropriations Act--truly thank you--and provide
the ICE workforce critical resources, and I am proud to present
the fiscal year 2025 budget proposal.
The mission of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations or
ERO, as it is known, is to protect the homeland through the
arrest, detention, and removal of noncitizens who undermine the
safety of U.S. communities and the integrity of the U.S.
immigration system. While ERO's immigration enforcement
authorities focus in the interior of the United States,
encounters at the southwest border drive our operations and our
resource needs, as you are acutely aware.
While a noncitizen encountered at the border may be in CBP
custody for 72 hours approximately, they may remain on ERO's
dockets for years until provided immigration relief or removal.
In addition, ERO continues to provide personnel, logistical
support, and Alternatives to Detention technology to help
manage irregular migration at the southwest border.
To enforce immigration laws in the interior, ERO officers
identify and arrest criminal noncitizens, often with the help
from partner law enforcement agencies, and that is vital. ERO
officers also plan and execute small- and large-scale
operations to arrest at-large criminal noncitizens who threaten
the safety of our families, friends, and neighbors.
In February-March, ERO officers arrested 491 noncitizens
convicted of serious crimes during two nationwide operations. I
did some press conferences for these. These individuals were
convicted of an array of offenses, including drug trafficking,
sexual assault, and crimes exploiting children. These
operations were a tremendous success but are only a small part
of the work ERO officers do every day to keep our community
safe.
The bottom line is we have to keep dangerous noncitizens,
including known or suspected terrorists and gang members, off
our streets.
The agency's ability to remove individuals to their home
countries and detain those who require detention or pose public
safety threats is directly dependent on ERO resources, but we
have other obligations, too.
Homeland Security Investigations or HSI, because of its
unique authorities and footprint, is the Federal law
enforcement agency best positioned to investigate and dismantle
transnational criminal organizations.
HSI has the unique legal authority to conduct Federal
criminal investigations into illegal cross-border movement of
people, goods, money, technology, and other contraband. HSI is
one of the largest--has one of the largest international
footprints in U.S. law enforcement, operating in 55 countries
around the world. HSI is on the front lines of the war against
fentanyl and works closely with Federal, State, local, and
Tribal law enforcement partners at home and abroad to fight
this horrible opioid epidemic.
HSI also combats child exploitation all over the world,
takes down poly-crime transnational criminal organizations, as
well as bringing down cyber criminals, human traffickers, and
people who commit customs or financial fraud.
HSI has a huge and transnationally focused mission set, but
it also has a tremendously talented workforce that includes
some of the world's best criminal analysts, special agents, and
subject matter experts.
The funding request in fiscal year 2025 budget supports
this tremendous workforce and ensures we are continuing to take
the fight to those who profit from exploiting our trade and
financial systems.
As global leaders in the fight against transnational
criminal organizations, the opioid crisis, and child
exploitation, we just can't afford to fail. Failure would let
down the American people who depend on us to keep them safe and
preserve the integrity of our Nation's laws.
Ensuring we can fully execute the responsibilities Congress
has given us requires appropriate resources, so I respectfully
submit ICE's fiscal year 2025 budget request for your
consideration.
Again, I would like to thank you for allowing me this time
to speak with you today. I am truly humbled and honored to
represent the men and women of ICE and look forward to
answering your questions and providing you the information you
need. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Director.
Mr. Cuellar, would it be OK if I called on you now for your
questions, or have I disrespected anybody else that was set to
testify in the hearing?
Mr. Cuellar. I will ask the gentlewoman from Ohio if she is
OK. No, no. That is an inside joke.
Mr. Amodei. Now that we are off to this friendly start, I
would like to recognize the ranking member from the Lone Star
State. Mr. Cuellar, the floor is yours.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you, again, so much.
Mr. Director, as you know, the nondetained docket is upward
to 7 million individuals and projected to grow to 8 million by
the end of the fiscal year.
Last week, when we talked to the Secretary, he said that
one of the major provisions of the Senate bipartisan
legislation would have been incredibly impactful. If we were to
apply expedited removal proceedings to individuals outside of
immigration detention, we would have been able to reduce a 7-
plus-year asylum process to maybe 90 days.
So my question is, is it possible that ICE could consider
detain--you know, detain Alternatives to Detention be
considered for expedited removal? Let's say, for example,
programs like FERM or something like that that could be applied
broadly. We are just trying to think outside the box within the
legal authorities.
And if that is an option, what would the cost be?
Mr. Lechleitner. Thank you, sir.
Yes. We are looking outside the box within ICE and the
Department of Homeland Security to try to figure out how we can
push down this number and deal with the nondetained numbers.
Obviously, we have several population groups within our
detained/nondetained population. So we have our detained
population, which are obviously those that are, you know, being
detained in a facility, and then we have the nondetained, and
that, you know, has the people who are just, you know--have to
report at some point. And, also, we have an ATD population in
there. So the ATD population is part of that nondetained.
We have been working, and FERM is one part of that. It is
the Family Expedited Removal process. But it is a very small
subset. And what that does is it has been helpful in helping
remove families.
So we are, you know, getting some help in removing the
family units, which are notoriously difficult to do. It is very
complex. We want to make sure we do it properly and judiciously
in the right way to make sure we protect all those individuals'
rights.
But moving that into a larger subset of individuals becomes
not just more expensive--which it would be--however, it will
delay the immigration processes for the rest of the
individuals. So the quickest way to expedite--to expeditiously
remove someone is through the detained docket because,
obviously, they are there. They are very easy to get to. You
can do all the processes and procedures.
Mr. Cuellar. Can I interrupt? I am sorry to interrupt you.
But the Senate provisions would apply that to nondetained
dockets, and they said they could probably reduce it from a 7-
year wait to a 90-day wait. So you are saying that you need
resources to do that? I mean, if the Senate deal would have
passed, then you would have been applying that, correct?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes, absolutely. If the Senate deal would
have passed, it would give us some additional resources. In
addition to resources, it would give us flexibility in some of
the rules and procedures and policies.
Mr. Cuellar. So my question again, sir, is--so can you
consider somebody on a monitoring system or a check-in to be
part of the detained population, or do they have to be
physically inside of a four-wall place?
Mr. Lechleitner. To be part of the detained population, you
must be detained. The ATD are considered the nondetained
population. So we could use some efforts such as FERM to apply
some expedited removal, but they wouldn't be considered part of
the detained population.
Mr. Cuellar. OK. I thought the Secretary was going another
direction, but we can follow up.
What about the Notice to Appear appointment backlog? The
last year's prior acting director indicated some locations like
New York were backed up to 2033. Where are we today, and what
are the changes to expedite caseload?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes. So, currently, New York--there are
two offices in New York that are backed up. And, actually, I
believe it is 2034. My most recent date on that.
The top 10 offices are two in New York. We have Florida,
Illinois--Chicago, Illinois; Dallas, Texas; New Jersey, then
San Antonio, Texas; Louisville, Kentucky; Baltimore, Maryland;
and Florida in that order for the longest wait times.
Mr. Cuellar. Could you provide us a copy of that?
Mr. Lechleitner. Absolutely.
Mr. Cuellar. Yeah. Because I know I got that from last
year. I know New York was No. 1. Then it was Miami. And it was,
like, 10 years and 9 years. It was just a crazy amount of time.
So what do we do to move the needle?
Mr. Lechleitner. So we are working several things to move
the needle. So we are trying to work some technological
solutions so we can allow these individuals--so the noncitizen
portal, which has recently been rolled out, where noncitizens
can check in more easily to take the load off some of the field
offices. We are trying to allow some other technical
capabilities to come into play, and it just takes some time to
do so. We are also doing--you know, surging some resources
there.
But, at the end of the day, sir, you know, we have--give or
take--7 million--just over 7 million in the nondetained, and
the numbers are continuing. So we only have about 1,100
officers that handle that nondetained and about 4,500 officers
in total. And if we move officers off of other, like, Fugitive
Operations or detained, then other things will suffer as well
in addition to that nondetained process.
Mr. Cuellar. So it sounds like the backlog is going to
remain?
Mr. Lechleitner. It is going to remain for the time being,
yes.
Mr. Cuellar. To finish this, we added in the fiscal year
2024 $10 million for additional expedited removal assistance.
Hopefully, that can help you process, and hopefully, you can
hire those people quickly.
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes, absolutely. And we are in the process
of hiring those individuals and working as quickly as possible
to get those hired. And some of that money, if we cannot get
those people hired by the end of the year--which is a process.
They have to get cleared--that money will be used to--as a
backfill for some other monies within that program that we
cannot do.
Mr. Cuellar. OK.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
Thank you.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
Next, I would like to recognize the ranking member of the
House Committee on Appropriations. The gentlelady from
Connecticut, the floor is yours.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. And let me offer my congratulations
to you, Mr. Chairman, for taking up the reins of this
subcommittee. Delightful to work with you.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, I think.
Ms. DeLauro. Yes. Right. Well, that is right. And remind
me. I have an invitation to you from the Sons and Daughters of
Italy in May. They want to honor you. So I can't forget. I just
reminded myself. Thank you.
Thank you so much for being here.
Yesterday, at the CJS hearing--Commerce, Justice, Science
hearing--I asked Attorney General Garland about what I believe
is a serious blind spot and a lack of resources for the
investigation and prosecution of violations of U.S. trade law,
and he agreed that fraudulent trade goods pose a serious risk
to our economy.
When fraudulent goods enter the country, it hurts
consumers, our trading partners, our domestic manufacturers,
and it hurts, above all, U.S. workers.
He mentioned the Trade Fraud Task Force, and that--if I may
paraphrase. The difficulty in identifying the fraudulent goods
as they come in--which, of course, is a homeland security
issue. And I don't think many people know this, but HSI plays a
huge role in this space.
Can you elaborate on what is in your 2025 request that
includes resources to increase your customs and trade
investigations and referrals to DOJ for prosecution, and are
you working with the DOJ on their Trade Fraud Task Force?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon, and pleasure
to meet you.
Ms. DeLauro. You, too.
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes, we are. The simple answer is, yes, we
are.
Ms. DeLauro. You are working with DOJ?
Mr. Lechleitner. We are. We are on those task forces, and
we work with them collaboratively to attack this.
And as you rightly say, HSI is involved with this effort
very robustly. We trace our investigative authorities back
through U.S. customs, which started in 1789, and trade
enforcement is one of our primary efforts.
In addition to the task force that is a DOJ task force, we
also have an internal DHS task force between ICE and CBP but
primarily HSI and Office of Field Operations and some others
within CBP. That is the Trade Enforcement Coordination Center.
And we also attack it internally through DHS.
So we are robustly working with DOJ to work on any kind of
criminality and investigations there. We are also working
within DHS. And those two entities and those two efforts are
aligned as well.
Ms. DeLauro. What is the process? How do you move to, you
know, identify fraud and fraudulent goods coming in?
Mr. Lechleitner. Well, how much time do you have, ma'am?
Ms. DeLauro. Well, not a lot. Not a lot, and I have another
question. But I will just----
Mr. Lechleitner. Well, it is good police work and good
gumshoe investigation. So our partners at CBP are highly
trained in identifying where there is fraudulent merchandise,
counterfeit, you name it. And then where they see an anomaly,
they will try and identify what it is, and if they identify
something that truly looks like it is an anomaly and requires
further investigation, then they call in HSI. And we will help
them and we will take that investigation further, and it will
go either criminal or administrative, depending on the nature
of the violation.
But, as you rightly say, it is not an easy thing. These
things are secreted, and these criminal organizations or
individuals are doing everything they can to smuggle them in.
And it could be any number of things that they are doing, and
it is in their best interest to make it as hard as possible for
our abilities to detect.
Ms. DeLauro. Have you put in a substantial amount for
resources in the budget for this area?
Mr. Lechleitner. We have put some--there is some money in
the budget for this, and we have resources going to support
domestic operations, which is where this would fall--a
substantial amount in the 2025 budget--and we also work, you
know, collaboratively with CBP on all of this.
Ms. DeLauro. I am going to try for another question before
they cut me off here.
Mr. Lechleitner. OK. Gotcha.
Ms. DeLauro. Since 2019, a substantial increase in child
labor violations. Many of these kids come from vulnerable
backgrounds. They work long hours for little to no pay,
frequently abused, and deprived of any chance to play or go to
school.
I am a proud sponsor of the Children Harmed in Life-
Threatening Or Dangerous (CHILD) Labor Act, which would
strengthen our Federal child labor laws and hold companies that
exploit the labor of children accountable. HSI also plays a key
role here by combating the illegal importation of goods
purchased through illegal labor practices, including forced
labor or child labor.
How does your budget request propose to continue or bolster
efforts to look to our borders and beyond to investigate and
rescue victims of child labor practices? Amidst investigating
many times of illegal labor practices, can you speak to how HSI
is addressing the issue of illegal child labor specifically?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes. Certainly, ma'am.
So HSI has been doing this and concentrates heavily here.
We have asked for just over 10 million and almost $11 million
for the Center to Counter Human Trafficking, which supports all
of these efforts from a DHS-wide center, and we are the
executive agent and lead that effort there.
Also, there are additional budget monies in there to pull
over from monies from the Blue Campaign--which is related to
this--to combat it. We also have the Uyghur Force Labor
Prevention Act that provides--that is providing positions and
monies to attack these efforts.
In addition to those efforts, we also have--in addition to
the CCHT, we have, within HSI, our Transnational Criminal
Investigative Division, and we go after these--this criminality
in conjunction with Department of Labor and Department of
Justice and Health and Human Services.
So we have to do this--we have to do this together because
none of us have all of the pieces, and we also have to work
with our State and local counterparts because, very often,
where these children are employed and working, it is not
necessarily transparent that there is a victimization going on,
and sometimes they are hidden in plain sight. So we have to
work very proactively and jointly with our State, local,
Federal partners.
Ms. DeLauro. I would love to follow up with you because I
think some of these bad actors who are doing this--we have to
figure out how they can be stopped. What are the kinds of
action that we can take against these businesses that are doing
this? And, obviously, that includes yourself and DOJ and
Department of Labor.
So I would love to continue this conversation offline. So
thank you very much.
Thank you for your gracious indulgence. I appreciate it.
Thanks.
Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford, the
floor is yours.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Director, thank you very much for your service. Thank
you to your staff as well. I really appreciate that you guys
are so forthcoming with answers and information, even in
preparation for this meeting. So thank you very much for that.
I want to go back a minute to talk about the nondetained
docket and the detained docket, actually, because when people
look at the EROs and who is being deported, you know, we had--
last year, ICE deported 142,580.
Now, I know from having spoken with you that there are some
issues that stop us from--and make those deportations
difficult. That is why when Mr. Cuellar was talking earlier
about some of these deportations and how we can expedite that.
Can you talk just for a minute and can you give us a list
of the countries that give you a hard time or just completely
resist taking these folks back?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes, absolutely. Thank you, sir. I
appreciate the question.
It is a complex procedure. So not only are these
individuals encountered in--you know, primarily by CBP, and
then they are turned over to ICE, and we have them through the
lifecycle of the civil immigration procedures, but if they are
a threat to national security or public safety, they are going
to be detained.
Mr. Rutherford. Sure.
Mr. Lechleitner. Otherwise, they would move on to the
nondetained status. And depending on where we are at with our
threat vector, they will potentially have some Alternatives to
Detention. So they won't be detained, but they will be there as
a subset of the nondetained.
But it is not easy sometimes to remove these individuals,
as you might imagine. You just can't turn them over. You are
going to have to work.
Mr. Rutherford. So how much help do you get, Director, in
pressuring through the State Department or the President to get
these people to take their own people back? How much help do we
get there?
And, while you are thinking about it, can you actually give
me a list of those countries that are most difficult to deal
with?
Mr. Lechleitner. Oh, certainly. Yes. So I will start with
the second part first.
We have got Bhutan, top of the list there. Cambodia, they
have been challenging. The People's Republic of China, although
we have had some recent cautiously optimistic progress with the
Chinese. So I want to say that it is moving in the right
direction there.
Mr. Rutherford. Can you just provide us that list?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes. I would be happy to.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. And the other part.
Mr. Lechleitner. And the other part is we are working
collaboratively with the Department of Homeland Security writ
large and the State Department. And I must say that, throughout
the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department,
they are very forward-leaning in trying to rectify any of these
recalcitrant countries, but there are a lot of geopolitical
issues that do not revolve around the immigration and removal,
and it is not an easy issue for them either.
Mr. Rutherford. All right. And kind of following up on
that, knowing that we have 1.2 million who already have their
removal orders issued and they are in every community in
America--I know many law enforcement agencies like mine have a
287(g) program which allows them to work through ICE to
identify these folks when they are incarcerated, and then we
expedite getting them out--again, going back to Mr. Cuellar's
point about expediting--we can expedite that, and ICE simply
needs to come and pick them up. We put detainers on them, and
they come and pick them up, and then they deport them.
So Tae Johnson said, you know, it is the best thing since
sliced bread, this program. I tried to ask Secretary Mayorkas
if he would make a commitment to expanding this program that is
better than sliced bread. I couldn't get an answer.
Can you tell me what you think about the 287(g) program,
and should we be looking at expansion?
Mr. Lechleitner. Well, sir, I must say, I am not as
articulate or as funny as Mr. Johnson. So I do miss him.
However, in my experience, a well-run and properly overseen
287(g) program is useful. It helps us partner with State and
local law enforcement. It is one tool in a large tool bag that
we have, but I must say, I like every opportunity to partner
with State and local law enforcement, and any chance I can do
it, I will.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
And I see, Mr. Chairman, my time has burned up, so I yield
back.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, sir.
The floor now goes to the representative from Illinois, Ms.
Underwood. You may proceed.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Acting Director Lechleitner. It is so good
to see you today.
Mr. Lechleitner. Good to see you.
Ms. Underwood. ICE plays a critical role in enforcing our
Nation's immigration laws, and the work done at ICE is
important and should align with American values as well as our
security priorities.
ICE's Health Service Corps is tasked with providing direct
and indirect healthcare services to detained noncitizens in ICE
custody. This may include anything from the simple, like
administration of a flu shot, to the complex, like pregnancy
and delivery.
As you know, ICE has a legal and moral responsibility to
ensure any health services it provides to those in custody meet
some baseline standards, and when receiving those services, the
patient's national identity, race, gender, socioeconomic
status, or ability to communicate in English should never
determine whether they receive quality care. So I was concerned
to see earlier this year ICE has failed to meet basic standards
when delivering health services.
According to a report issued this year by the Department of
Homeland Security's inspector general, ICE failed to follow
some of its own policies between 2019 and 2021 when authorizing
medical surgeries for detained noncitizens. This failure
resulted in nearly one-third of medical procedures performed on
immigrants in ICE custody being improperly authorized.
According to the OIG's report, there were at least two
women given hysterectomies when there was no documentation to
support that this surgery was medically necessary.
Director Lechleitner--OK.
Mr. Lechleitner. Absolutely.
Ms. Underwood. Hysterectomies are irreversible. Once it is
done, a woman cannot have children. It is a surgery that shapes
her life, and it should not be performed without her consent
and proof of medical necessity.
I do understand that ICE has accepted the findings of the
OIG report, and that is an important start. However, today, I
would like to hear more about the specific changes that are
being implemented now in order to improve the administration of
health services to migrants in ICE custody in response to this
report.
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes. Thank you, ma'am.
Yes. When I became aware of that, it is unacceptable. It is
unacceptable that we are not providing the utmost healthcare
for those that are in our charge and we are responsible for. As
ICE, we are not happy to see that at all from the standpoint of
the leadership, and we concurred with those responses, and we
are working diligently to address them.
So it is of our, you know, primary effort to make sure
those in our charge are treated humanely and we are
efficiently, you know, taking care of their medical situation
as appropriately as possible.
I must say, our Health Corps is very good, and we are going
to ensure that we are in compliance with all the policies and
procedures, and moving forward, we are going to ensure this
never happens again.
Ms. Underwood. Yes, sir. I don't need to tell you the long
and troubled history of forced sterilization in this country,
especially on women of color, and hysterectomies should never
be performed without fully informed consent.
What is ICE doing to explicitly ensure that no woman in
custody undergoes a hysterectomy without consent and medical
need again, and does the agency have a plan to revisit gaps in
its policy specifically concerning reproductive healthcare?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes. We are revisiting all of those, and
we are working with the Department of Homeland Security Chief
Medical Officer's office to look at it all and make sure we do
not repeat any of these problems.
Ms. Underwood. OK. Excellent.
Well, the CMO is--it is in partnership, or do you--because
ICE Health Corps does not report to the CMO's office.
Mr. Lechleitner. No, it is in partnership.
Ms. Underwood. OK. What about maternal healthcare? Can you
share an update on the work ICE is doing to keep pregnant women
in custody and their babies safe and healthy?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes. It is similar. We are making sure
that we ensure that mothers and--you know, either pregnant or
with recent children--are provided the utmost healthcare and
that they are properly taken care of in the conditions that are
appropriate for them in the facilities.
Ms. Underwood. In policies and in practice?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes.
Ms. Underwood. OK. Thank you. I hope that we can continue
to stay engaged on this issue and ensure that ICE is treating
it as a priority.
Many of us who are lucky enough to be born in the United
States may never fully understand the journey that some new
Americans have taken to get here, and the encounters that
immigrants have with ICE shape America's global image and
communities across the world in immeasurable ways. We have a
responsibility to uphold our values as Americans in every
single way.
Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Lechleitner. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Newhouse,
the floor is yours.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Acting Director, thanks for being with us, sir, and I would
also like to, through you, extend my thanks to the agents and
officers and analysts, attorneys, everybody that works under
you for the hard work that they do to mitigate transnational
threats and keep our community safe, and I appreciate the hard
work, sir.
Mr. Lechleitner. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. On the subject of detention beds, the fiscal
year 2025 budget request includes 34,000 detention beds. That
is a level to the detention capacity provided in fiscal years
2021 through 2023 but a drop from last year's enacted level of
41,500.
So I see that you are an experienced law enforcement
officer. You have a long career in that. What, in your opinion,
is the appropriate level of detention beds?
Mr. Lechleitner. Thank you. Good question.
The appropriate level does fluctuate. We are kind of driven
by demand at the border, and then that intake will drive our
numbers.
You are correct. For fiscal year 2024, which we are
currently in, we have 41,500, but that was recently enacted.
When we were building the budget request for fiscal year 2025,
we were operating under a continuing resolution from 2023,
which is at 2025. So we actually went up 9--I know this is a
little convoluted. And I didn't like the way this was done, but
we don't get to make the rules. It went up 9,000 from 2023 to
2025, but luckily, we were taken care of in a meaningful way
for the fiscal year 2024 that hit in March at 41,500.
However, saying that, we have a contingency fund for the
Department of Homeland Security that allows me instant access.
I have been assured that. It is not the design I would want. I
have been assured, though, that I have access to monies if
needed to plus-up those bed numbers to a level where it is
required.
Currently, we are right around--35,000 is where we are
sitting right now, but that has been higher. It only recently
was reduced. And we are, you know, trying to get ready for some
spring/summer flows, and, you know, we have to be flexible to
be able to do that. But I am assured that that 34-number plus
the contingency fund will allow us the ability to operate in
2025.
Mr. Newhouse. So somewhere in the 40,000 range probably?
Mr. Lechleitner. Currently, although given some of the
flows that were occurring last year, honestly, I would like to
see the number closer to 50-, as the Secretary mentioned.
But, you know, we have a top line within the Department of
Homeland Security, and we have to, you know, work within our
budget. And he said it better than I, but, you know, I believe
that we will have the resources required to use detention as
necessary.
Mr. Newhouse. So the nondetained docket has more than
doubled under this administration to include 7.1 million
migrants. This not only includes the 1.3 million that have
final orders of removal, but at least 617,000 illegal
immigrants with criminal convictions or pending criminal
charges who essentially are out on American streets right now
free, if they would like, to reoffend.
How does ICE prioritize migrants from the detained docket
versus the nondetained docket, especially considering some of
the recent news stories that we have heard of heinous crimes
being committed by those who are here illegally?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes. So we prioritize both--we have to--
but we are driven by flows that come off the border.
So over the last some quite bit of time, we have had
support going down to CBP on the southern border. So we have
had ERO and HSI personnel--but, in this instance, it is
important to focus on ERO--that are assisting because of the
border management and making sure that we decompress areas and
we are being pulled. So it is pulling us away from our interior
core of line business.
So where we would normally have Fugitive Ops teams going
out to try and pick up some of these individuals who were on
the nondetained docket and amenable, we have to make decisions
and move people around where it is the biggest pain point at a
given period of time. So although we are not purely at the
border, we are driven by some of those flows at the border, and
we have to help CBP. So that is part of this.
The other part of this----
Mr. Newhouse. So you are saying, as the flow increases, the
bar essentially lowers?
Mr. Lechleitner. Not the bar lowers, but as the flow
increases, our personnel get pulled. So we are getting pulled
to assist, and we just don't have as many personnel to go out
to pick up at-large individuals.
Also, in noncooperative jurisdictions, very often, we do
not have the necessary support from State and locals where it
makes it even more difficult for us to locate and apprehend
these individuals. So it takes a lot longer.
It is much easier to remove someone who is in detention
where you know where they are at and you have all that
information and it is much more orderly. Where you have someone
in the community, depending on the circumstances, it is very
complex, it is much more dangerous, and it takes much, much
longer.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that. Thank you for your
responses.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
The gentleman from Maryland, despite our discussion off the
record where I said I wasn't going to call on you, and you
said, well, that is OK because I am going to talk anyhow, we
would like your comments on the record. You are recognized. The
floor is yours.
Mr. Harris. Well, I want to thank the chair very much for
that consideration.
Hi. Thank you very much for appearing before the
subcommittee and for doing an important job.
The first question I am going to ask you is about the
287(g) program because the Secretary somehow didn't know
whether or not there were more or less, you know, local
jurisdictions who are part of the 287. He didn't know whether
there was a trend in decreasing or increasing. Maybe you know.
I mean, I thought the Secretary should know that, but maybe you
know.
What is the trend in 287(g) cooperation?
Mr. Lechleitner. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me.
It has been under review and on hold since early 2021. So
there has been no new agreements since the end of 2020.
Mr. Harris. Right. How many have been ended since then?
Mr. Lechleitner. The most recent--I take that--I have to
take that as a get-back to see how many have ended in those 3
years, but the latest ending was at the end of 2023, I believe.
Mr. Harris. Right. So when the Secretary came in----
Mr. Lechleitner. 2022.
Mr. Harris [continuing]. And said he is doing everything he
can to keep our communities safe, I take it that it was this
administration that basically ended the program.
Mr. Lechleitner. It has been on hold since the beginning
of----
Mr. Harris. It has been on hold.
So I don't understand. Can you explain to me how that
protects communities by extending new agreements under the
287(g)?
Mr. Lechleitner. No, sir.
Mr. Harris. OK. I didn't think you could because it is
intuitive and obvious to anyone who thinks about it. That,
obviously, if you care about protecting communities, 287(g) is
a valuable tool, and this administration doesn't want to use a
valuable tool. OK. I get it. I think the Secretary should have
known that, but----
Mr. Rutherford. It is better than sliced bread.
Mr. Harris. Right. Look, I don't get it.
Anyway, in the ERO part of the--I had a question because it
said in your testimony here that commercial and charter flight
services continue to increase. Now, why is that? My impression
was that we are not deporting as many people. Well, we deport--
it is about the same number, I guess.
So are these the flights that transport people into the
interior from the border?
Mr. Lechleitner. No, sir. No. These are decompression
flights moving people from one part of the border to another.
These are not interior flights. We haven't ever removed anyone
to the interior.
Mr. Harris. OK. So that is another agency that does--
another branch of the agency does the interior flights.
Mr. Lechleitner. No. I am not aware----
Mr. Harris. Who is chartering the midnight nights? That is
all I want to know.
Mr. Lechleitner. It is not us.
Mr. Harris. OK. Good. Good. Because we can't even get
answers about, you know, when these midnight flights arrive,
you know, notification that they are sending them into your
district, things like this that a Member of Congress probably
ought to know.
So you are decompressing to other detention facilities, to
other processing facilities. You know, when we were down at Del
Rio, I mean, we were there a couple weeks after that 8,000
people in one day.
So what is the decompression? Is it for people who have
already gone through the CBP process? What is the
decompression?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yeah. It could be a little bit of the
above. So, like, if Arizona is seeing surges, as an example,
and they are getting overrun and they just don't have the
capacity there to deal with that, we may help with CBP and move
those individuals through decompression maybe into Texas or,
you know, other parts of the border. So back and forth and move
individuals around the different detention centers or areas
where we can have more capacity to deal with the numbers.
Mr. Harris. OK. And I imagine, as these numbers increased
in the last fiscal year of people who are--you know, need to be
processed, that is the reason why these flights, I guess, have
gone up, I imagine. Is that right?
Mr. Lechleitner. That is correct.
Mr. Harris. The decompression? OK.
Mr. Lechleitner. That is right.
Mr. Harris. OK. In the last brief period of time I have, I
am going to discuss a problem in Maryland because there are
counties in Maryland--like Montgomery County just to the north
of here--where the county executive strangely claims that they
are not a sanctuary county, but according to a story on
February 28, ICE has issued 119 detainers in fiscal year 2024
in the county, and ICE says none of those have been honored.
Is that true, to the best of your knowledge? In Montgomery
County, MD, ICE has correctly issued 119 detainers and none
have been honored as of February?
Mr. Lechleitner. That specifically, I don't know. I will
have to get--take that back.
Mr. Harris. If you can get back to me and confirm whether
that is true or not because I am reading it in a press report,
and goodness knows you can't always trust a press report.
But, that being said, there were two fairly high-profile
cases in Montgomery County where detainers were issued where,
in one case, the detainee was subsequently arrested for being
part of a murder of a 2-year old, as I recall, and then another
one with another violent crime.
And, fortunately, because I just looked at the ICE
website--I think it might even be today or yesterday--there was
a press release about how ICE has, in fact, despite the best
efforts of Montgomery County to let this person prey upon
Marylanders, ICE has arrested that Salvadorian and detained
them.
So congratulations for doing it despite the best efforts of
some of our--and I put in air quotes--leaders in Maryland who
continue to make these jurisdictions--who brag about these
jurisdictions as sanctuary jurisdictions and turn a blind eye
to the crime problem that you and your agency are trying to
solve.
So thank you very much for your service.
I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from ``Ohiowa'' for
5 minutes. The floor is yours.
Mrs. Hinson. We will call ourself Iowegians today. That
sounds great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Acting Director Lechleitner, for appearing
before us today.
I wanted to start off by kind of echoing some of my
colleagues' comments. I think it is disappointing to see
President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas asking, again, for the
contingency--we call it slush fund--again this year. I thought
we made it pretty clear in our fiscal year 2024 appropriations
process that we do not see this as a feasible solution to
addressing surges at the border.
I mean, you talked about the beds and your assurances
there, but does it take some time to prop up these beds? I
mean, you can't just snap your fingers and have beds ready to
go to handle a surge of migrants at the southern border. I
mean, you are talking about flying them from State to State at
a huge taxpayer expense.
How quickly can you turn these beds around when you have a
surge situation?
Mr. Lechleitner. Well, we have a certain number of, you
know, government, you know, minimum beds. We call them GM beds
where we all--we are paying for a certain amount we have all
the time, and right now, our utilization of those beds is about
85 percent. But it is the extra beds where we get--that is
where we are talking about the surge beds, if you will.
And I am less--I would like to have more money dedicated
and appropriated for the beds personally, but I----
Mrs. Hinson. So you would rather have the beds in your
bottom line rather than have to rely on this surge funding?
Mr. Lechleitner. Personally, yes.
Mrs. Hinson. OK. That is important to know. And I heard you
mention that 50,000 number. Is that where you would like that
number to really be?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes. We think that that is more
appropriate.
Mrs. Hinson. OK. I want to follow up on something my
colleague, Mr. Harris, just mentioned. He brought up
specifically the challenges in enforcement at the local level
in Maryland, and I know that is something you face around the
country.
Many of the jurisdictions that you mentioned earlier--
Florida, Illinois, New York--I am sure New York, Illinois, I
can see here probably New Jersey, Baltimore--are some of the
places that you face many of the challenges in enforcement.
So how do sanctuary cities impact your enforcement efforts?
When they are refusing to cooperate at the local level of those
jurisdictions, how are you working to ensure the safety and
security of those communities while still working to apprehend
these violent criminals?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes. Good question. Thank you, ma'am.
Listen, as you know, I am a career police officer. This is
what I have done for my whole career. And I will always work
and engage and have dialogue with State and local partners.
That is where I started. We want to work together, and we want
to protect public safety and national security.
And in those jurisdictions where they are prohibited from
dealing with us, we are going to have to do it ourselves and
have to do a more--a lot of at-large or, in the communities,
Fugitive Operations, if you will. And those are much more time-
consuming, resource-draining, and dangerous. But we do them
because we have to uphold the law and public safety and
national security.
We would much prefer to have a good dialogue and have
assistance from our State and local partners, but regardless,
we are going to execute our mission and uphold the law.
Mrs. Hinson. Do you know how many detainers you have issued
that you have not had cooperation or response with nationwide?
Mr. Lechleitner. Not off the top of my head, but I will get
you that.
Mrs. Hinson. OK. I would appreciate the breakdown there.
And then you mentioned the ability to work with local law
enforcement, and I certainly appreciate that. Thank you for the
work you have done to keep your communities--and I work
directly with our local law enforcement all the time. They are
great out on the front lines, but we know they are facing
uphill battles in our communities, too.
So is there strong coordination in those instances? How do
you develop those relationships and work around some of these
sanctuary cities?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes. So we do generally--we can work--on
civil immigration, it can be very problematic depending on the
jurisdiction we are dealing with, and we do the best we can to
work with them. And my guidance to our personnel is do not let
the perfect be the enemy of good, and find a way to work with
State and local counterparts wherever we can.
And as it relates to, you know, criminality and
investigations that are beyond the scope of the civil
immigration, we have had much more success in these
jurisdictions. And, you know, quite frankly, I am very pleased
with the amount of cooperation and relationships we have in
that venue, specifically for HSI.
Mrs. Hinson. OK. Yeah. And if you would follow up--I would
appreciate you following up with that information on the
detainers nationwide.
How are you working to use HSI agents to better keep track
of individuals that have committed crimes in communities and
make sure that they are being apprehended? I think there is a
growing frustration from people watching people who are here
illegally commit crimes, even assaulting law enforcement
officers, and being released into our communities. I think
crime of all levels should be considered a removable offense.
So is that a barrier, you know, in terms of sanctuary
cities placing the protections on those individuals? Is it
prosecutors not prosecuting? What, in your mind, is the problem
here that we need to be addressing?
Mr. Lechleitner. Well, that would fall under our ERO side
of the house and the Fugitive Operations going after criminal
aliens, as we know.
So we have gotten some more money in the 2025 budget as a
request. So that will help a little bit. We have some Fugitive
Operations money in there and some criminal apprehension
programs. So that is going out and getting these criminals. And
that is where we are trying to partner more and more if we can
with State and locals and do what we can to pull as many of
these individuals into custody.
Mrs. Hinson. All right. Well, I see my time has expired.
Thank you, Acting Director.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lechleitner. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for questions. The
floor is yours.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairman.
And thank you for being here, and thank you for the work
that you are doing to protect our country.
How many migrants are you monitoring--is ICE monitoring at
the time being?
Mr. Lechleitner. The whole population?
Mr. Cloud. Yeah.
Mr. Lechleitner. So, you know, we have about 35,000--today,
we have about 35,000 approximately in custody. We have about,
give or take, 190,000 on Alternatives to Detention, and that is
a subset of the nondetained which is over 7 million.
Mr. Cloud. OK. And how many migrants have a criminal record
that are in our country at the moment?
Mr. Lechleitner. I will take that as a get-back. I don't
know exactly how many off the top of my head.
Mr. Cloud. We have a number that is over 300,000.
Mr. Lechleitner. That comports correctly of the
nondetained.
Mr. Cloud. What steps does ICE take to verify whether
migrants have a criminal record or not?
Mr. Lechleitner. There are a couple steps. So if these
individuals are encountered at the border or at the port of
entry, CBP would do a check on them and run the check and see
if there is any record there.
Within about 72 hours, they are going to be turned over to
ICE custody for determination on detention or nondetained
status or Alternatives to Detention, and then we run a second
check at that point to make sure that--we just double-check to
make sure whatever criminality exists.
In many cases, you know, there is going to be nothing. And
in some cases, the criminality would actually pop up later on
where we weren't aware of it at a given time.
Mr. Cloud. Well, first of all, by criminal activity, we are
excluding actually crossing the border illegally.
Mr. Lechleitner. That's correct, yes.
Mr. Cloud. So when they come to the border, they are in CBP
custody. Many of them are not presenting identification. We are
kind of just taking their word for it. Obviously, someone who
has a criminal history is not likely to show documentation.
How is ICE dealing with this? Does ICE have the capability
to deal with this?
Mr. Lechleitner. So we use any and all information we have
at the time. I can't speak for CBP's method of vetting and
screening.
Mr. Cloud. Right. But you are basically confirming CBP's
data?
Mr. Lechleitner. We are doing our own double--we are just
double-checking on everything. And we do our own. It is
separate.
Mr. Cloud. OK.
Mr. Lechleitner. And then we are doing biometrics. We are
doing everything we can to determine, you know, what we can.
Mr. Cloud. So if we know there are 300,000 criminal aliens,
it is likely substantially higher. I mean, I have been down to
the border. A lot of them drop their IDs at the border and
don't bring them across. You know, if you look at them when
they are vetting the process--you know, they ask them their
name, they ask them how old they are, they ask--right? But they
are just taking their word for it.
Mr. Lechleitner. A lot of the criminal aliens that are
referenced in that number in the nondetained--a lot of those
individuals--you know, they have committed some kind of
criminal act while they are here as well that it was after the
fact that they were encountered.
Mr. Cloud. OK. I wanted to bring up 287(g). A lot has been
said about that today already, but 10 of my 14 counties are a
part of the program. Others would like to join, but we have
seen that the Biden administration has put a pause in new
applications. I am just curious as to why.
You admit that it is a valuable tool. A number of the law
enforcement organizations throughout certainly south Texas
would love to be a part. Any reason why this is a
congressionally mandated program and why that policy is
ignored?
Mr. Lechleitner. I can't answer for the Biden
administration, honestly. I can say that a well-run, properly
overseen program is effective and a good tool that we have to
work with our State and local partners. It is not the only
tool, but it is a good tool, and I found it to be effective.
Mr. Cloud. When looking at the budget--and so in fiscal
year 2018, the agency budget was about $7.4 billion. The agency
removed 256,805 illegal aliens. If we look at fiscal year 2022,
the budget was over a billion higher. 72,177 illegal aliens
were removed.
I realize that is not the only thing that you are doing,
but there is not necessarily a direct correlation but certainly
a correlation between increased budget and less illegal alien
removal. Can you square that for us and tell us what is going
on there?
Mr. Lechleitner. Yes. Well, for quite a while from COVID up
until May 2023, we were also conducting title 42 operations
where those people were being expelled. So the actual removal
numbers don't count all of the expulsions that were in there as
well. So when you combine those numbers, it is higher than just
the removal numbers.
Mr. Cloud. OK. But the last years are not--certainly not
what they were 5 years ago?
Mr. Lechleitner. No. Yes, they are lower.
Mr. Cloud. OK. One more question, and this has to do with
Endeavors contracting. I believe you know Endeavors.
Mr. Lechleitner. I do, sir.
Mr. Cloud. A no-bid contract, $80 million made by--
basically, an Obama transition team official left, went to be
on the board for Endeavors. Not only was it a no-bid contract,
it was an unsolicited contract, and then that basically was
repeated with HHS.
Can you talk to us about what you are doing? And then, you
know, we can get into what happened with that contract. You
know, there has been reports about how that money was spent. It
was very wasteful. Hotel rooms that were never used and the
like. A lot of mismanagement going on here and certainly a lot
of circumspect on how these contracts are being awarded.
Could you speak to what you are doing to clean up the no-
bid contract processing?
Mr. Lechleitner. So, regarding that, we did a review, and
all appropriate career folks that were in acquisition and in
the process had eyes on that. We----
Mr. Cloud. That is not sufficient for me to say that there
was no impropriety.
Mr. Lechleitner. No, no. No, sir. I am saying that we are
looking at everything to make sure there is no--there is
nothing that could be even perceived to be improper.
The individual--you know, there was a memo that was written
about who was going to have oversight and what kind of policy
and procedure we were going to have within the agency. That was
corrected and changed.
And we have full oversight on how we are doing this
internally. I would be happy to follow up offline and get you
our policies and procedures as it relates to that.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Guest, is
recognized. The floor is yours.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director, thank you for coming in earlier this week and
visiting with me and my staff in preparation for the hearing. I
am going to ask you some of the questions that we spoke of when
you were in the office.
First--and I know that Mrs. Hinson mentioned it earlier--
detention beds. We know that, currently under the fiscal year
2024 budget, the Congress has appropriated funding for 41,500
detention beds. The Secretary was testifying last week before
this very committee. He testified before us that he felt like
the Senate request of 50,000 beds that was in the negotiations
in the Senate--that he supported a 50,000-bed request.
In our conversation that we had--and I am not trying to
mischaracterize that--I believe that you said you would also
support a 50,000-bed request. But the request that we received
from Congress is not a 50,000-bed request, which would have
been an increase from fiscal year 2024, but it is actually a
substantial decrease of 7,500 beds down to 34,000.
And so is it safe to say that a 34,000-bed request would be
insufficient to meet the needs of your agency?
Mr. Guest. And I want to look at that in relation to
something else we have talked about, which is the nondetention
docket.
In your annual report, ICE annual report that you and I
went over a little bit, we talked about the fact that at the
end of fiscal year 2023 that the nondetained docket had
approached roughly 6.2 million individuals who were in the
country.
During our conversation, you said you believe now that that
number has grown to more than 7 million. And I have read media
reports that by the end of fiscal year 2024, so in roughly 6
months from now, that number will top 8 million.
And so at a time in which we have a record flow of
immigrants coming across the border, where we now have a record
number of individuals who are on the nondetention docket who
are going to now very quickly reach over 8 million, and also at
a time in which we have seen media reports involving
individuals who are not in the country legally committing a
violent crime, is a 34,000 bed number, is that sufficient to
meet the needs of your agency?
Mr. Lechleitner. Thank you, sir. Yes. And thank you for
meeting earlier in the week as well. I too would support the
50,000, as the Secretary stated. And we are comfortable with
the 34 because of the contingency fund that they have promised
me have availability----
Mr. Guest. If Congress refuses to support the contingency
fund, which is what I believe that this body will not do again,
looking at the powers of the Constitution and power of the
purse being related to the Constitution, we as a body, many of
us, at least, are very reluctant to give any administrative
agency, regardless of who is in charge, access to billions of
dollars in contingency funds.
And so if we are not going to fund the contingency fund and
we are only--and you are going to be limited to the number of
beds that have been requested, 34,000 beds, is that sufficient?
Mr. Lechleitner. No. If there is no contingency fund and
there is no room for a surge in case of capacity need, no, I
would not be comfortable with it without that.
Mr. Guest. OK. And then one of the other things we have
talked about a little bit and it is also in your report is
detainers. And in your report it says detainers--and I say
``your report.'' The report issued by your agency.
It says, ``Detainers are critical public safety tools
because they allow ICE to focus enforcement resources on
removable noncitizens who have been arrested for criminal
activity as part of the agency's discretionary authority.''
Mr. Lechleitner. Correct.
Mr. Guest. And we talked about the fact there are certain
jurisdictions, both local and State jurisdictions, which refuse
to cooperate with ICE. They refuse to honor detainers.
So we have individuals who are first in the country
legally. They are in the country legally, and then they commit
crimes and in many cases they are ultimately convicted of those
crimes, but then we have agencies that refuse to cooperate.
So talk about the impediment that that creates for your
agency to remove those individuals. Talk about the additional
manpower and expenses, because once those individuals are
released and the detainer is not honored, then agents working
under your direction are having to put themselves in harm's way
to go locate those individuals, arrest those individuals, and
put them into deportation.
And so talk a little bit about the frustration you have
with agencies that don't honor those detainers and what, if
anything, should Congress do? Should Congress refuse just to
ignore that and to allow these agencies to suffer no penalties,
or should Congress seek to maybe withhold Federal funding to
try to require these agencies to comply with lawful Federal
detainers?
And so, with that, Mr. Director, I will give you the floor.
Mr. Lechleitner. All right. Thank you. Yes. As I stated
before, we need to collaborate with our State and local
partners as much as possible. And you said, how does it affect
our operations. Well, it makes it much more difficult when they
do not cooperate and collaborate with us.
Any time we have to do an at-large arrest, which is sending
our fugitive operations teams out into the general public and
communities to grab these individuals, it is inherently more
unsafe.
I said that at a press conference a few months ago for one
of our operations. It costs a lot more money. It puts our
people and, you know, the local citizenry in harm's way
potentially when we are out there and doing that.
So I hope to collaborate with State and locals wherever
possible. In some places it is great, other places it is OK,
and some places it is bad. But I would like to do it as much as
possible wherever we can. And I would like everyone to
cooperate on law enforcement, public safety, and national
security matters.
Mr. Guest. And do you feel that Congress should weigh in
for those agencies that refuse to cooperate?
Mr. Lechleitner. I would like anyone to weigh in that could
help.
Mr. Guest. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you. Mr. Lechleitner, thank you for
coming today. I appreciate the candor of your testimony.
Members are reminded that they can submit any additional
questions for the record, and we ask that you respond in a
timely manner. I will give you the thumbnail sketch, which may
fall under incredibly naive or well-informed, allows us to
schedule all of our actions accordingly.
Our last hearing is May 1, and so we plan on working in the
month of May towards a committee markup. So we will be drafting
legislation in May as a result of these hearings, that sort of
thing. I tell you that, one, so you know generally; and two, so
that if there are Member questions submitted as followup that
you endeavor to be timely in that, as well as if you need
clarification for anything in that timeframe, we will endeavor
to make sure you have the information you need.
And so, with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank
you, sir.
Mr. Lechleitner. Thank you.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Tuesday, April 30, 2024.

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

WITNESS

TROY MILLER, ACTING COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Mr. Amodei. Subcommittee will come to order.
Since I still haven't had anybody contact me about really
missing me providing opening remarks at one of these, we are
not going to fix it if it is not broke.
I will yield back from opening remarks. The subject of
today's hearing is the fiscal year 2025 budget request for U.S.
Customs and Border Protection.
I would like to thank our witness, Mr. Commissioner, for
being here. I now recognize the ranking member from Texas' 28th
District for his opening remarks, Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Commissioner Miller, it is nice seeing you
here again. You are the head of one of the most dynamic
agencies in the federal government. I am sure that most of
those days are almost thankless days. But we really appreciate
what your workforce does in between ports, at ports of entry,
and so many other places that you all serve. So, we want to
thank you and your folks for the work that you do. Many a times
you have to do your work with outdated laws and sometimes not
enough funding. So we are here to say thank you, and we want to
make sure that we provide you the funding that you need.
You have been around, I think, since 1993, a Federal career
with U.S. Customs as a customs inspector, I haven't used that
for a while, but we appreciate all the work that you have done.
I also want to say that Homeland Security is a priority for
all of us, and especially myself. I live in Laredo, small
little town, but it is now, out of the 450 airports, seaports,
border crossings, we are No. 1. Bigger than LA, bigger than so
many places.
And in fact, if you look at the Chairman, I got to get you
and some of the Members down in Laredo, if you look at the
trucks that pass through Laredo on a yearly basis and just line
them up, they will go around the world 3.2 times.
And I checked with your port director in Laredo to make
sure I had those numbers, 3.2 times around the world, just to
show you. And that is only trucks. It doesn't include trains
and doesn't include other commerce.
So what you do in between ports is very important. But, at
the ports of entry, the men and women in blue are very key. We
want to work with you. There is a lot of work that we want to
cover with you. But again, in the interest of time for the
questions, we will go ahead and cut my statement short.
But just to say thank you. And please thank all your men
and women, whether they are in blue or in green or tan color or
the other uniform folks, we want to say thank you.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you. And I want to let the ranking member
know, because he is probably too young, but I was watching the
television show Laredo.
Mr. Cuellar. Oh, the Streets of Laredo.
Mr. Amodei [continuing]. A long time ago. And not only
that, but it was one of my proudest moments, as a young SUV
owner a million years ago, to have bought a set of four
Uniroyal Laredo 31 ten and a half 15 tires for my two-door
blazer at the time.
So I am a fan from way back. If anybody is wondering, that
it is not an advertisement for that company or those tires. I
am not even sure that they still make the tires.
But, that was just to kind of see if I could get you off
guard. Mr. Commissioner, the floor is yours for your opening
statement.

Opening Statement: Commissioner Miller

Mr. Miller. Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member Cuellar, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today and discuss the fiscal year 2025 President's
budget for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to
acknowledge the four law enforcement officers who were killed
in the line of duty yesterday and those gravely wounded.
A senseless tragedy and a stark reminder of the dangers our
nation's law enforcement officers face every day. Our thoughts
are with their families and colleagues and we hope for a swift
recovery for the injured. CBP is standing shoulder to shoulder
with you all.
It is my distinct honor to represent the men and women of
the CBP here today. As a career law enforcement official, I can
speak firsthand to the changes I have seen over the last 30
years when I first started with U.S. Customs service.
I can honestly tell you I have never been more proud of the
accomplishments of the CBP workforce than this past year. Just
last week, I had the great privilege to recognize some of their
incredible achievements during our annual commissioner's award
ceremony.
These awards celebrate the extraordinary works of CBP's
dedicated and talented people that they do every day and their
everyday heroism, all while facing serious challenges, from
unprecedented migration flows to increased risk in the trade
environment, to the persistent threats and sophisticated
tactics of transnational criminal organizations facilitating
drugs and human smuggling.
I can assure you that the men and women of CBP are up to
the challenge. I could not be more grateful to the Members and
staff of this Subcommittee for your continued support of CBP's
mission and our workforce.
You have ensured that we have the personnel, technology,
and equipment, and infrastructure to fulfill our broad
responsibilities and to take care of our incredible workforce.
The fiscal year 2025 President's budget builds on CBP's
ongoing efforts to expand our situational and domain awareness,
respond to emerging threats, and detect and intercept dangerous
drugs and contraband.
The budget funds critical enhancements to border security
technology, modernizes our facilities and processes to increase
personal safety and operational efficiency, and provides for
additional agents, officers, and support staff.
First and foremost, we are the Nation's largest federal law
enforcement agency at our borders and beyond. CBP continues to
counter the threat of sophisticated criminal organizations
engaged in drug smuggling, as you know, synthetic drugs like
fentanyl are devastating our communities.
In fiscal year 2023, CBP seized 27,000 pounds of fentanyl,
the equivalent of approximately 1.2 billion doses. That's
nearly double the amount we seized in fiscal year 2022.
Our borders must be the last line of defense, not the
first. So our enforcement efforts are multilayered and begin
beyond the borders. That's how we are attacking the fentanyl
problem.
Using intelligence and advanced targeting, we are going
after the whole supply chain, from precursor chemicals to
production equipment. We are also enhancing information sharing
and collaboration with our federal, state, and local
enforcement partners, foreign governments, and the private
sector.
We are bolstering our enforcement capabilities in the trade
environment, and pursuing key proposals to strengthen our
ability to combat de minimis shipment exploitation. We continue
to experience serious challenges with increased migration
between the ports of entry.
Most of this is being driven by criminal organizations
engaged in lucrative and cruel human smuggling business. We are
prioritizing national security and disrupting criminal networks
while maximizing consequences for unlawful entry, including
detention, prosecution, and removal.
At the end of the day, our goal continues to be getting our
agents and officers back to the law enforcement mission they
were hired to do.
The funding you have provided is critical to maximizing our
immigration consequence delivery system. Like I said at the
start, the men and women of CBP are the driving force of our
agency.
In the coming years, we are expecting a retirement surge
due to a large number of personnel reaching eligibility. We are
planning now with a human capital strategy to ensure the
necessary staffing levels to perform our critical missions.
I appreciate your support to confront this challenge by
increasing hiring well in advance. As I know you are all well
aware, CBP employees have a difficult and dangerous job. I see
it as one of my top priorities to take care of our folks.
With critical funding and guidance provided by Congress,
CBP has expanded the availability of key programs like on-site
clinicians, enhanced our suicide prevention, and chaplaincy and
peer support programs that are improving employee wellbeing and
performance.
With your partnership, CBP will continue to build on these
investments and prioritize employee support and resilience.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for your
unwavering support of CBP's mission and our people. I look
forward to the questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
The gentleman from Texas, the ranking member, the floor is
yours for questions.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This last appropriation bill, the current one, we have
enacted funding for 2024 an additional $570 million. That is a
7 percent increase for CBP's border security operations and
border technologies over fiscal year 2023.
It also provided an additional $561 million. That is a 12.4
percent increase to ICE enforcement and removal operations
budget over 2023 enacted levels.
And that includes an increase from 34,000 beds to 41,500
beds, providing a 14.8 percent increase to ICE transportation
and operational removal operations.
Again, these increases were supported bipartisan, including
by the administration. We have seen the numbers, and I think
the last numbers in between ports, that is border patrol, an
average of 3,900 plus individuals, is a lot lower than what we
were seeing in December, isn't it?
So one of the things that we are seeing, and I know
traditionally we have had the seasonal up and down, that has
been a little different the last couple of years.
But what I want to focus on is when the numbers started
going down, with all respect to all of us, Members of Congress,
we didn't add any new border wall, we didn't add any border
patrol, we didn't add any technology.
There was something that happened and part of the reason
for this is what Mexico has been doing in other countries. And
that is very important because we just can't play defense on
the one-yard line called the U.S.-Mexico border.
So the numbers went down, regardless of what we were doing
over here. When you look at what Mexico is doing, and there's
different things, as you know, Mexican security, migration,
folks, I think at one time, last time I was there with
Congressman McCaul, I think they had about 34,000 people.
That is more than the number of Border Patrol that we have
and other. And they started, they stepped up the operations to
interdict migrants, taking people from the trains, taking them
off, people that would come to their northern border, our
southern border, they would get them, return them to the
southern border.
And that includes migrant removals, deportations. Mexico,
from January, has deported over, just as an example, 7,500
Guatemalans back to their country since January. So I say this
because we need to do whatever we need to do at the one-yard
line called the Mexico border, U.S.-Mexico border.
But I think it is key that we continue and I know you've
been involved in some of those conversations, so if you can
talk about that and then talk about, Mr. Chairman, Members,
maybe some authority that could help you work with the
Mexicans? We will work with the State Department, but if you
can talk about some authorities that would help you work with
Mexico better to continue this work.
Mr. Miller. Thank you for the question and what you
outlined from fiscal year 2024. It's very much appreciated.
The committee, the subcommittee, the funding especially for
taking care of the base pay and some of those issues that you
just outlined. So it's very important for 2024.
You're 100 percent right. We work very closely with our
colleagues not only in Mexico but South America, Central
America. We've been working real hard with the Department of
State, with the eastern hemisphere as well, looking at transit
visa, visa requirements to enter this hemisphere, No. 1.
Number 2, working very closely with our partners in
Guatemala, Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua or not Nicaragua,
excuse me, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, up into Mexico.
And I have an individual, a senior advisor assigned to me
that is solely dedicated to working with Mexico. So we're in
constant communication, daily communication with Mexico,
talking about what we're seeing, sharing intelligence, talking
about what we're seeing in between the ports, what the trends
are, what sectors are busy, what nationalities we're seeing.
And Mexico is taking that back and in action in that
through checkpoint operations, as you pointed out, removing
people south to their southern border and repatriating more
people than they have in the past.
You know, as far as the authorities that we would need,
that's something I'd have to get back to you and talk to you at
a later stage, but certainly, you know, there's a couple things
that we could work with you on.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
I yield back Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
The gentleman from Maryland, the floor is yours for
questions, Dr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Acting Commissioner for coming before us.
I just have one question and it is pretty brief. It is
from, you know, the visit to the southern border with the
Speaker in January. And it was my understanding at that time
that if an individual comes into the country with no form of
identification and they just give a name and they give a birth
date, that unless you can disprove that that is who they are,
that they are admitted into the country with, with a piece of
paper that has that name and that birth date, is that still the
way things--I mean, was my understanding correct in January? Is
that still the way business is conducted?
Mr. Miller. First and foremost we work very closely, as I
stated to the ranking member, with our foreign partners in
South and Central America, and information sharing agreements
to share information back and forth on who's coming into the
hemisphere.
We work very closely also with our foreign partners on
biometrics as they move throughout the hemisphere and when they
enter in between the ports of entry, we, of course, will run
biometrics. We will run biographics. We will do our complete
suite of checks against law enforcement databases, intelligence
databases, our databases.
And ultimately, it is our goal to remove individuals
quickly that don't have an asylum claim.
Mr. Harris. Well, let's just say that this person
originated in Iran, or I am assuming we don't have access to
their databases. We don't have access to their biometrics. So
let's say this individual's, you know, male, in his 20's, from
Iran, comes into the United States, says, you know, my name is
John Doe. I was born January 1, 2000. Do you have the ability
to disprove that?
Mr. Miller. If in that particular instance, we would work
with the ERO and turn that individual----
Mr. Harris. Excuse me, with who?
Mr. Miller. Enforcement and Removal Operations, ICE.
Mr. Harris. So you would remove that individual?
Mr. Miller. We would turn that individual over to ICE, and
they would and that person would go through the proceedings.
Mr. Harris. So what individual, and I guess I don't
understand this because I am told that you can come into the
country without an ID and be released into the interior. So how
would that individual be any different?
I mean, they are not going to tell you they came from Iran.
They are going to tell you they came from some other country,
but they originate in Iran. So all their biometric data, their
ID data, law enforcement data, it is all in Iran.
So why would that person be removed? Why would that person
be removed and not someone else coming in with a, who doesn't
have a form of ID?
Mr. Miller. So again, as I explained, we have information
sharing agreements with countries throughout the hemisphere.
That individual had to get in the hemisphere using some sort of
travel document on an airline with some sort of manifest
information.
So that's where the process starts. And the process starts
throughout the hemisphere or goes throughout the hemisphere.
And as the individual is encountered, we will do a risk
assessment on every single individual. As I stated, our goal
is, given the capability, to turn that individual over to ICE
for removal proceedings.
Mr. Harris. So let's say that person comes into Venezuela,
where I assume we don't have a whole lot of agreements with
them. How would we, I just don't understand.
How is that person different from anyone else? I mean, they
come in they don't tell you they are from Iran. They come
through Venezuela, which is not a friendly nation to us.
I am assuming we don't have extensive information data
sharing with Venezuela. So you can confidently say that Iran is
not smuggling people into this country through a system where
if somebody has no identification, they won't be allowed
entrance into this country? You can confidently say that?
Mr. Miller. I can confidently say we're doing our best to
identify every single individual coming into this country and
vet them through appropriate systems.
Mr. Harris. But if no red flags come up on that individual
somewhere, that person will be admitted into the interior. Is
that, that was my understanding again, from what I was told at
the border in January.
Mr. Miller. He or she will not be admitted into the
interior----
Mr. Harris. With no red flags. I mean, no red flags come up
anywhere. No red flags come from all this information sharing.
So we are not admitting people into the interior who don't have
identification?
Mr. Miller. Admit would be the wrong terminology. We could
release somebody with a notice to appear.
Mr. Harris. Oh, a notice to appear. OK, so that--so we
would be counting on this young Iranian to basically show up
somewhere at an office in the interior after they released the
interior? That sounds like a plan that is pretty dangerous.
I yield back.
Mr. Miller. No, actually, we would be counting on our
vetting and information sharing agreements to identify that
information and put them in the appropriate pathway.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Underwood, the floor is
yours for questions.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Commissioner Miller. CBP is tasked with a
vital role in our nation's immigration system. And your agency
is one of the world's largest law enforcement agencies.
Your agency has custody of many migrants and provides
critical services necessary to safeguard our country, including
the administration of basic health services. And many of us
mourn the loss of eight-year-old Anadith Danay Reyes Alvarez,
who passed away after being held in CBP custody for over a
week.
And in light of her death, it is clear that changes must be
made and further oversight is warranted to ensure that all
migrants who encounter CBP are treated with basic human dignity
and consideration.
It is clear we have more work to do to ensure that CBP
contractors are held accountable for their failures and to
guarantee that the process for awarding contracts is
competitive enough to drive excellence.
In the wake of Anadith's death, what changes has CBP made
to improve oversight of its existing medical services
contracts?
Mr. Miller. Thank you for the question. So I'd like to
start with number one, after that tragic event, we worked very,
very closely, or I worked very closely with the U.S. Border
Patrol to ensure that, number one, individuals that had
preexisting medical conditions and family units got out of our
custody as quickly as possible, right?
So first and foremost, as you know, we don't have long-term
detention capabilities. Second of all, we looked at the entire
process to determine where the gaps are and what we needed to
fix.
So as far as the contract with the medical service, which
is in the competitive stage right now, we turn that contract,
for the integrity of the contract, to the Department of
Homeland Security, who is now doing that process.
But we also looked at the entirety of the process and how
we care for individuals. Number 1, we defined a seminal event.
Number 2, we hired government personnel for contract oversight
so that we had more contract oversight.
Number 3, we defined medical at-risk individuals and we
ensured that they were identified and that information was
being passed from shift to shift, watch commander to watch
commander, from the U.S. Border patrol.
Number 4, we made changes to our system to ensure that it
was appropriately flagging those individuals that were at risk.
And five, we made changes to ensure that we were appropriately
passing that information to the healthcare system and the folks
that were passing those or those people were getting sent to
for that medical care.
Ms. Underwood. I am so happy to hear about these changes
that CBP has made, because kids shouldn't be dying while in our
custody. And when it comes to future contracts for medical
services, what changes are you making to improve the vetting of
vendors?
I know that this particular one is in review, but I think
that system wide, we can speak to changes that might be made to
vet vendors and ensure that CBP awards these contracts to high
quality providers.
Mr. Miller. Yeah, and that's what I discussed up front. So
the contract is currently out for bid, a new contract, and that
is with Department of Homeland Security, who is going through
that process right now.
Ms. Underwood. So they are the ones making changes to
review the vetting?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Ms. Underwood. OK. Well, I certainly understand the large
scale needs that CBP has and the realities that you're facing
absent comprehensive immigration reform legislation moving
through Congress.
However, the American message has always been clear. We are
a nation that provides liberty and justice for all, and as we
live out these values, we must ensure that those in our care
are not neglected or overlooked.
Moving forward, can your team commit to providing this
Committee with more detailed, regular updates on CBP's
oversight of its medical services providers? And this includes
evaluations of the work being done by current and future CBP
contractors to ensure that everything is being done to prevent
another death in custody?
Mr. Miller. Absolutely.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Commissioner Miller.
My hope is that the services provided by CBP will do more
to keep people safe than to cause harm, which I think, by and
large, the agency has certainly been doing.
I was proud to have worked with your agency on securing
funding in previous appropriations legislation that improved
CBP's electronic health record system. That was a vital step in
the right direction, and I hope that my colleagues will join me
in prioritizing this work as we move forward in fiscal year
2025. I yield back.
Mr. Miller. Yeah, I would like to, if I could in closing,
thank you for the Committee for their continued support of the
funding for the medical service contract.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
The gentleman from Washington state, Mr. Newhouse, the
floor is yours for questions.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member.
Thank you, Acting Commissioner, for being here with us to
talk about your budget proposal for 2025. I also want to convey
my thanks to the men and women that work in the CBP for all
their service and express my appreciation.
It has been clear for several years now that under this
administration, we've seen an increase, an exponential increase
in encounters and illegal crossings at the southwest border.
But at the same time, the northern border, which has a
fraction of the resources available, is also on pace to have
another record year of encounters.
While the budget proposal does not request or does request
additional agents to address administration created crisis at
the southern border, I don't think it is serious enough to
address the real issues that we have on both borders.
For instance, in fiscal year 2021, there were just over
27,000 encounters along the longest international border on the
globe. By the end of fiscal year 2025, this number was over
100, excuse me, fiscal year 2023, this number was over 189,000.
There are a lot of differences between the northern border
and the southern border. Certainly a different approach is
required.
Last week, I was extremely frustrated that the National
Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced
that they will be airdropping grizzly bears, that have a
migration range of up to 1,000 miles, into the North Cascades
ecosystem, which is completely disregarding local public
opinion.
Recognizing there is substantial National Park Service
managed land along both our land borders, are you aware if
there's any data to show that illegal entries are higher or
lower on lands that have a threat of apex predators?
Mr. Miller. I am not aware of any data. I would like to, if
I could, we have, for the first time, back to your first point.
For the first time in a long time, we've started hiring
directly into the northern border sectors.
Number two, I think an area you're talking about in the
Cascade region, is that correct?
Mr. Newhouse. North Cascade.
Mr. Miller. North Cascade, very, very few border patrol
agents out in that area. As you know, we do have what's
called--we have sensors, and we do train the sensors on threats
to agents and some of those things with artificial
intelligence, machine learning, which obviously, in this case,
we would do that.
And as far as the crossings, up in that particular area,
I'd have to get back to.
Mr. Newhouse. Well, I am wondering if the Park Service aim
to support a whole of government approach, maybe to secure the
border and disincentivize illegal immigration on the northern
border with the threat of predators like wolves and grizzly
bears.
Maybe that is what they meant by catering to visitors who
seek to experience grizzly bears in their native habitat. Just
guessing.
Did the Park Service or Fish and Wildlife Service consult
with or notify CBP before deciding to airdrop these predators
into the backyard of agents at the Colville, Curlew or Oroville
stations?
Mr. Miller. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Newhouse. I didn't think so. In remote locations, I
don't think it is uncommon for agents to respond to illegal
activity by themselves. And as you said, there are not that
many agents up there to begin with.
They may be the only agent for dozens of miles. Among other
concerns, I believe a legitimate one is agent safety because of
this decision. Do CBP training protocols include how to address
a threat to life and safety posed by a large, potentially
aggressive wild animal like a bear?
And how does CBP equip agents with the resources necessary
to defend themselves just in case they are attacked by an
aggressive grizzly bear?
Mr. Miller. We do. We do have training in those remote
locations for things like mountain lions and grizzly bears,
believe it or not, we do get to training from the Park Service.
And, you know, the spray, the firearms and the like. You know
that they will defend themselves. The agents will.
Mr. Newhouse. Well, I would suggest that you step up that
training and make it available to the folks up in Washington.
Mr. Miller. We will.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Iowa, Ms. Hinson, the floor is yours
for questions.
Ms. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Cuellar. And thank you, Acting Commissioner, for coming before
us today.
I appreciate your openness to having good conversations
with our committee about your needs. I want to talk today about
something that's very important to me. Just a few weeks ago, in
our Select Committee on China, we had a hearing on fentanyl
about how communist China is working directly with the cartels
to funnel fentanyl precursors into our country by any means
necessary.
And their goal, plain and simple, is to take out as many
Americans as possible. Can you speak to what you are observing,
in terms of high volumes of small packages containing these
fentanyl precursors coming in from China, originating from
China, and maybe some other concerning trends that you might be
seeing?
Mr. Miller. Thank you for the question. And yes, last
fiscal year 2023, as everybody in this committee knows,
subcommittee knows, we made a concerted effort on our southwest
border to start with and increase operations going after
fentanyl, and we nearly doubled our seizures.
But along with our increased operations on the southwest
border, we were collecting information, intelligence, to
determine where we would go next.
And through those operations, we determined that precursors
were coming through in transit, through our airports of entry,
in small packages, and going to the southwest border and
ultimately into Mexico, where the fentanyl is being produced.
So through those efforts, we surged resources to our
airports of entry to look at de minimis packages, small
packages, those mostly under $800, manifested as under $800.
Ms. Hinson. Were there specific airports that were----
Mr. Miller. Los Angeles and JFK.
Ms. Hinson. OK, so it is coming into the United States,
going back to Mexico, and then coming back into the United
States?
Mr. Miller. It was. And so what we, as we were looking at
this, what we figured out was that was coming through the small
package environment. And just to your first question.
So we went from 600 million packages in 2022 to a billion
packages, small packages, in 2023, to 4 million packages a day
as we sit here right now. And so as we were looking, as we were
doing the increased examinations to cut to the chase, we were
seeing precursors in transit through Southeast Asia, coming in,
originating in China, coming through mostly JFK and Los
Angeles, and going down to the southwest border and into
Mexico.
Along with that, we were searching resources to our express
consignment, our mail facilities, and we're finding pill
presses, dies, and molds coming from China into our express
environments through small packages.
Ms. Hinson. This is completely intentional by them, you
know, pounds, not ounces, of fentanyl, all of these
manufacturing equipment, the pieces of equipment that they need
to execute this.
I think this is not only a safety issue, but it seems like
it is a blatant and systematic attack on our communities. Do
you agree?
Mr. Miller. What I will say is we need help in the de
minimis environment, and there are several packages out there
that will allow us to have the appropriate data, number one, to
determine where the shipment is coming from, what's in the
package, where it's going, and the appropriate funds to be able
to fund our CBP officers to open the packages, and the
appropriate penalties to assess those that are carrying those
packages when they don't know what's actually in the package.
And then there are additional legislative packages out
there that would allow us to actually bring that level down to
a manageable level for us.
Ms. Hinson. We look forward to working with you on that
because it is very clear and it is appalling the lengths that
China is willing to go to to funnel these precursors into our
country.
And, I mean, they are already subsidizing it for export
only, right? Not for domestic production, but for export to
directly poison Americans and others around the world.
One thing, in the time I have left, I see your budget has a
lack of funding for new autonomous systems at ports of entry.
Can you speak to why, when we know that technology is critical?
We've helped to deploy much of that over the past few
years, that you are prioritizing traditional manpower over some
of these force multiplier systems?
Mr. Miller. So we need both. We all know that the
sequencing of this budget year was a little bit difficult. So
we certainly need additional technology, artificial
intelligence, machine learning, in particular, at our ports of
entry as we go after the fentanyl problem.
Ms. Hinson. Well, we will continue to make that a priority
in our office to make those investments. We understand how
important they are to you. Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Hinson. I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Guest, you are
recognized for questions.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Miller, thank you for being here today. Thank
you for visiting with me and my staff earlier in the week. I
want to let you know that you and I have had many
conversations. I find you to be extremely honest and
trustworthy.
I know you have 30 years of experience with your agency and
want to thank you and the men and women that you serve with for
the job that you do. And looking at the budget, it appears like
that the President has requested a $3 million decrease in the
CBP budget; is that correct?
Mr. Miller. Actually, the numbers are, I believe there's a
tad bit of an increase in the overall budget.
So if you----
Mr. Guest. As far as the discretionary, though, for CBP and
taking out these contingency funds, slush fund, whatever you
want to call it, just the baseline funding for CBP is roughly a
$3 billion decrease from what CBP received in fiscal year 2024,
is that accurate or close to accurate, Commissioner?
Mr. Miller. The delta is accounted for in the contingency
fund.
Mr. Guest. All right. And again, taking out contingency
fund.
Mr. Miller. So it's essentially the same.
Mr. Guest. So the same funding? So there is not--again, if
there is no contingency fund, there is level funding, then
there is not a $3 billion decrease for CBP?
Mr. Miller. No, I would still need the fund, the border
funds.
Mr. Guest. Yes, and I am not saying you don't need it. I am
just saying it is not in the request. Look I understand, you
need it and I want to give it to you, but I want to put it in
your base budget.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Guest. But I just want to be clear that the numbers we
are working on, that have been submitted, not necessarily by
you, but by the administration. So a $3 billion baseline
decrease for CBP versus any increase.
And I know that you were vocal that you supported the
Senate legislation that was being proposed, and in that
legislation, as I recall, there was actually going to be $6.8
billion in additional funding for CBP.
Would have hired 1,500 new agents, would have been an
increase to the number of ICE, 1,500 new CBP agents would have
increased the number of ICE agents and there would have been
increases in technology, in your budget for technology.
But that money that you supported then is not contained in
this budget, right? There is no $6.8 billion increase for CBP.
There is no, I think there is 300 or 350 new agents, but there
is not 1,500 additional agents.
And so the additional funding, that you supported in the
Senate, the President chose not to include that in his budget,
is that correct?
Mr. Miller. So I misunderstood your first question. So yes,
essentially, there's $2.7 billion in the contingency fund that
we feel we need that money. So wherever it is placed, we need
it.
Mr. Guest. Yeah. And I want to put it in your baseline
budget. I want you to have that money. And I am not advocating,
and I don't want you to believe that I am up here--matter of
fact, I want you to have more money than that.
You know, I think that you need to have not only the money
that we put in the baseline budget last year, but based upon
the additional responsibilities, I think CBP budget needs to be
increased.
But I don't want it to be in a contingency fund where
somebody else can decide that. I want that to be in the
baseline budget. So you can budget for the number of agents
that you need and that you can know that you can meet the
demand for CBP without having to, every quarter, hope that the
Secretary gives you additional funding. Because I think that is
a terrible way to run a government agency.
And so I want you to have that money. And I wish that the
money that you supported in the Senate bill, I wish the
President would have put it in this baseline bill. I wish he
would have asked for more money for CBP because again, I want
to give you that money, but we are being hamstrung by a budget
from the administration that is not asking us to do that.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Commissioner, are detention beds,
are they crucial to the mission of securing the border and what
CBP tries to do?
Mr. Miller. Yes, it's essential that the entire immigration
continuum is funded.
Mr. Guest. All right. And so fiscal year 2024, Congress
appropriated funding for 41,500 beds. The President's budget
this year only asked for 34,000. The Senate bill, which UN
Secretary Mayorkas supported, had 50,000 in there.
And so I continue to be concerned in that we are seeing the
administration request numbers significantly lower for CBP and
for detention beds, things that are important when they are,
when they are requesting that their budget.
And I am not, I hope my frustration does not come that it
is addressed to you. Unfortunately, you are the one that the
administration sent over here to defend the budget. And so that
is why I started the conversation with how much I trust you and
think you are doing a great job.
But again, please express my frustrations to the
administration that when they submit a budget that is wholly
inadequate and expect us to start there, that we don't
appreciate that.
But thank you again for your service. Thank you for being
here.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford, the
floor is yours for questions.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Commissioner,
great to see you here, thank you. And I want to get back to a
conversation that's--I think is being had just about
everywhere, and that is concerning migrant--illegal immigrant,
actually, vetting that goes on at the border.
I bring this topic up at every meeting, because in my
district I had a constituent killed by an individual who came
across and was not identified, yet he was released in the
interior of the country.
And so, my question is--so, I keep trying to get a better
handle on how CBP and ICE are actually handling the vetting
process, and what--so, when agents encounter someone, they
process--they take them to a processing center, but let's say
this individual is not in any system that you have, there's no
biometrics on them, no ID, no documents. How does CBP handle
that person? You don't know who they are. How do you handle
that?
Mr. Miller. Well, thank you for the question, and it's good
to see you again likewise. So, in--we had this conversation a
second ago. But, so number one, we would like to take
everything we do away from the border. So, I think it's vitally
important that we continue, and understanding that we don't
have information sharing agreements with all countries.
We would like to share information with our colleagues
throughout this hemisphere, South America, Central America, and
we do. We would like to share biographic data, biometric data,
encountered----
Mr. Rutherford. But the question is, sir, what do you do
when they don't, and you can't? You have no idea who this
individual is. What are you going to do with them?
Mr. Miller. Well, again, that's what I'm trying to explain.
So, as we--as they come through the hemisphere and that
information is collected, we have those information sharing
agreements. Our goal is to run that individual against all
databases we have.
Mr. Rutherford. OK, and there's nothing there.
Mr. Miller. Any----
Mr. Rutherford. I'm jumping ahead for you. There's nothing
there. You can look at all your systems, you can process them
all you want. There's nothing there. This--you don't know who
this individual is. What are you going to do with him?
Mr. Miller. So, I would go back to the conversation we just
had. My preference is----
Mr. Rutherford. And I'm sorry I wasn't here.
Mr. Miller. No, with Mr. Guest. My preference is the
migration continuum. All the agencies within--whether it's
Customs and Border Protection, ICE, our citizenship and
immigration services are funded appropriately with the
appropriate authorities, and that we're able to detain
individuals that don't have a legitimate asylum claim, and
remove them.
We do not have long term detention capabilities in Customs
and Border Protection, nor should we. We need to get our agents
back in between the ports of entry where they belong doing the
law enforcement mission, and give them all the available
information as quickly as possible to make the appropriate
decision with that individual that's----
Mr. Rutherford. OK, so you're telling me----
Mr. Miller [continuing]. In front of them.
Mr. Rutherford [continuing]. That these individuals are
going to be detained?
Mr. Miller. I said that's my preference.
Mr. Rutherford. OK.
Mr. Miller. My preference is that they are detained. If we
do not have the capacity to detain them, we cannot.
Mr. Rutherford. Then why in the world would they ask to cut
detention bids?
Mr. Miller. I'm here representing Customs and Border
Protection, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. Yes, I know. OK. So, what--can you--so, you
want to detain them, but you're unable. Then you put them on
ATD?
Mr. Miller. Yes. So, we would work with our colleagues in
ICE who would put the individuals on ATD.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. Well, I see my time is up, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Go ahead and finish up if you want. I'm your
original time.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much. Last time we were here
talking about hiring, the fiscal year 2024 bill included hiring
for 22,000 agents. So, I think this conversation is even more
important now.
You mentioned that you were trying to increase the number
of applications you had coming in, and increased the attrition
rate at the academy. Can you share an update on those efforts,
and have you been able to keep the number of applicants up, and
the academy attrition down?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. And thank you for that question,
because it's so vitally important, especially now. And if I
could, I know our time is up, but to give a little context to
the question, we doubled--border patrol doubled their staffing
between 2002 and 2011, right? So, they doubled it.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Mr. Miller. It went from 10,000 to 20,000, which means we
have a large amount of folks retiring. Our attrition rate
remains at about 6 percent, and it has for the last several
years. So, our attrition is not going down, but to your point,
or start going up----
Mr. Rutherford. The overall attrition----
Mr. Miller. The overall----
Mr. Rutherford. The overall attrition is not going up?
Mr. Miller. The overall attrition is remaining steady right
now, but with that hiring surge doubling our border patrol
agents in that 10 years, you know, we expect in the next five
years we're going to start to see more and more folks retire.
Number one, we have decreased our academy from 30 percent
attrition rate to nine to ten percent, so we've done just that.
Mr. Rutherford. That's good.
Mr. Miller. Our applications are up 37 percent. So, we've
increased----
Mr. Rutherford. Really?
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Our applications, but if I--if I
may take a second, we also have a problem at our ports of
entry. Our ports of entry, the folks in blue.
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah.
Mr. Miller. We're going to have what we think is a 400
percent increase in retirements in 2028. Why is that? In 2008,
they got--the folks in blue got law enforcement coverage. So,
in 2028--that's 20 years, so that they can begin retiring. So,
we have a lot of individuals waiting for 2028. We need to focus
on hiring. We have acute human capital strategy that this
Committee asked for. We appreciate it. We need to execute on
that strategy now. We need to have a plan where we start hiring
in advance of 2028--in fact, over hire in 2026 and 2027, so we
don't have that 400 percent attrition rate when 2028 hits us.
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah.
Mr. Miller. We need to fund the academy, because the
academy is going to need additional spending.
Mr. Rutherford. My time is way over, and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, but I will tell you, I think if we got operational
control of the southern border, those things will take care of
themselves, too. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Commissioner Miller for coming
today. I appreciate that. Questions that members may have left
with you, I would ask that you go ahead and turn those around
as soon as possible.
If members have additional questions that they want to
submit to Mr. Miller's organization, then please do so. I want
to remind everybody that we are on a target pace for trying to
go to subcommittee markup in about 30 days.
I say that to say we are not going to be hasty, but we are
going to attempt to be crisp. And so, that exchange of
information--if any members are having a problem with getting
questions processed or whatever, please let the committee know,
because we want to help make sure that the information that
needs to flow flows in an expeditious manner. And so, with
that, I want to thank the members for being here today, and
committee stands adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Tuesday, April 30, 2024.

CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SECURITY AGENCY

WITNESS

JEN EASTERLY, DIRECTOR, CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY
AGENCY
Mr. Amodei. The subcommittee will come to order.
The subject of today's hearing is the fiscal year 2025
budget for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, or
phonetically, CISA.
Thank you for doing that phonetically for me, staff. I
would like to thank you, Director Easterly, for being here. And
I now recognize our ranking member from Texas for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
Director. As you know, our adversary continues to leverage
cyber tactics to threaten our national security, our economy,
and our way of life.
It is hard to find a day where we are not learning of a new
attack on the school system, critical infrastructure, our
healthcare data, or a federal agency, which is, again,
something that is very important to the work that you do.
These threats are posed by individual bad actors,
transnational criminal organizations, foreign adversaries like
state sponsored groups and nations. While their capabilities
are increasingly more advanced, we also continue to learn basic
cyber hygiene issues, such as improper password management
protocols, challenges while securing outdated systems and
equipment.
The fiscal year 2025 budget proposal for CISA is just over
3 billion, which is about $136 million above the fiscal year
2024 enacted. While it includes several important investments,
such as the $470 million for Continuous Diagnosis and
Mitigation Program and $394 million for the JCE, Joint
Cooperative Environment.
I am concerned about whether we are doing enough, given the
resources advantages of those that are wishing to cause
problems to our cybersecurity systems and our critical
infrastructure.
As you know, our adversaries are not limited by what
Congress is willing to fund them. They find the money one way
or the other, and they aren't required to play by the same
rules as our agencies are.
I am disappointed by the cuts that we had to make to CISA's
budget in the 2024 bill, but again, many people don't know, but
CISA's budget is primarily funded by the so-called defense
dollars.
For us, on this committee, that means we can't simply
reduce funding elsewhere while our bill increases funding for
CISA. So again, we need to work on the funding part of it.
We know that the PRC is not our only threat. Our nation's
cyber frontier and critical infrastructure are far too
vulnerable to attack, and we must do more to make sure that we
outpace our adversaries.
So again, you all play a very unique and vital role in
partnering with our federal agency, state and local
governments, the private sector, and the critical
infrastructure owners and operators to make sure that we
protect them against emerging and evolving threats.
So again, we want to hear about the challenges and the
opportunities that their agency is looking at to ensure our
security and operational vitality of our federal networks and
our nation's critical infrastructure.
Again, I want to say thank you so much for the work that
you and your men and women are doing. We hope we can also hear
one more thing before I close, about the State and local
Cybersecurity Grant Program and what you expect to come from
that funding.
So again, thank you for all the work that you do and look
forward to asking you a few questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. Yes, sir.
Director Easterly, you are recognized for your opening
statement.
Ms. Easterly. Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member Cuellar,
members of the subcommittee, thank you so much for the
opportunity to testify on CISA's budget.
As America's cyber defense agency and the national
coordinator for critical infrastructure, security, and
resilience, CISA leads the national effort to understand,
manage, and reduce risk to our cyber and physical
infrastructure.
And I'm particularly excited to be talking to you today
given this morning's release of National Security Memorandum
22, which reinforces CISA's role of managing cross sector risk
to the cyber infrastructure that Americans rely on every hour
of every day.
The fiscal year 2025 President's budget requests 3 billion
for CISA, $136 million more than what you appropriated in
fiscal year 2024. It's critically important to continue the
strong and steady investment Congress has made in CISA's
mission to protect the nation from increasingly complex
threats.
While our mission is broad and diverse, I'm going to
briefly highlight just three areas that encompass the increases
that we're requesting. And in response to your specific
direction from last year, I'm going to point out how we've
linked outcomes to appropriations. Specifically, how we're
using the budget to materially drive down risk in communities
across the nation. First key area, federal cybersecurity.
As the operational lead for the .gov, we leveraged some
$600 million to defend these .gov networks as a single
enterprise protecting America's sensitive data and federal
agencies. And through Congress' support, we've been able to
detect and respond faster than ever before.
One, using the CDM Program, that the ranking member
mentioned, we've been able to remediate over 25 million
unpatched vulnerabilities and reduce the number of
vulnerabilities that have been exposed for 45 days or more by
72 percent.
Two, we've deployed Endpoint Detection and Response tools
to over 50 agencies covering 900,000 devices, deployed
detections that allowed us to find over 1,900 threats so that
we could mitigate risk to .gov networks.
And three, our shared services deployed to 100 federal
agencies are saving taxpayer dollars. Our Protective Domain
Name Solution Service, for example, has blocked more than 692
million malicious connections since the start of this fiscal
year.
The second key area of investment as we look at the threats
to our nation, none is more serious than Chinese cyber actors
that are burrowing deep into our critical infrastructure to
prepare to launch disruptive and destructive attacks in the
event of a major conflict.
Now, we're doing a lot on this. To your point, we can do
more. But let me tell you what we're doing now with our budget.
First, we deployed threat hunting teams across multiple
sectors, water, power, energy, and transportation to find and
eradicate these Chinese cyber actors. And we've shared insights
with others before they become victims. Now, these PRC hunting
missions are just part of our larger hunting missions. In just
fiscal year 2023, we conducted 97 hunt engagements to eradicate
threat actors from U.S. critical infrastructure. And we shared
over 1,100 cyber advisories to enable risk reduction at scale.
Two, we use our Cyber Sentry platform that is best in class
detection to enable us to drive down risk to the most important
critical infrastructure. We are talking pipelines, energy
generation, large airports, critical manufacturing. We have 30
companies, with 15 more joining.
Three, our Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative, or JCDC, now
with 320 private sector companies, has an active planning
effort with key industry partners to mitigate risk from Chinese
targeting as part of a broader risk reduction effort, which has
produced 93 joint cyber alerts and 14 cyber defense plans.
Finally, the third key area of investment. While nearly all
critical infrastructure sectors are priority targets for nation
state actors and cybercriminals, many do not have the resources
to protect themselves. So, based on the budget you've given us,
we've stood in to support them. Specifically, we've grown our
field presence across the nation by 35 percent, quadrupling the
engagements that we have across the country fourfold from 22 to
23.
We've leveraged our pre-ransomware notification initiative
to do 1,900 such notifications to schools, water facilities,
and hospitals to prevent organizations from suffering from
ransomware. We've also used our vulnerability warning pilot to
provide 2,000 notifications to organizations driving mitigation
of over 3 million vulnerabilities across 7,600 organizations
since 2021. And of note, our ability to proactively warn
businesses will only increase when we implement cyber incident
reporting. And in fiscal year 2025, that will be the year that
we need to ensure we have the infrastructure in place to
analyze and report in accordance with the law.
Finally, I want to sincerely thank this committee for all
of your support and for helping to strengthen CISA and by
extension, the security and resilience of the nation's critical
infrastructure. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA THREATS

Mr. Amodei. Thank you, ma'am. Ranking Member, Mr. Cuellar,
the floor is yours for questions.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let's talk about the PRC threats again. Director Wray's
recent testimony and public comments about the PRC capabilities
and intentions, as you mentioned, are quite alarming.
We are also aware of the Chinese Communist Party interest
in Taiwan, and, of course, importantly, to make sure that we
look at how they want to prevent us from getting involved.
From CISA's perspective and recognize some of this might be
classified. So let's talk about only what you can talk about.
Can you talk about those threats and capabilities you see
coming from China and how those intentions threaten us here,
specifically in the United States?
You mentioned some of those things, but could you add any
further examples?
Ms. Easterly. Absolutely, Ranking Member.
You know, we've long been focused on cyber threats.
Typically, it's been about data theft, intellectual property
theft, and espionage. And over the past year, we have seen this
evolution for pre-positioning into critical infrastructure
specifically for disruption and destruction.
That is the real difference here. And this is not an intel
assessment. This is a threat that we have actually found
through our hunting teams. We have eradicated and evicted these
Chinese cyber actors in multiple sectors, as I mentioned;
water, power, energy, transportation.
But we believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
And so we are working with critical infrastructure owners and
operators, across the country, to make sure that they
understand this threat, that they can identify and detect this
threat in their network, and that they can put in place
mitigations that can allow them to reduce the risk of potential
mass disruption.
A couple things, if I can take the time. It's really
important for any constituents of yours. We need to make sure
that if there is a cyber incident, that they are reporting it
into CISA. We actually just launched an easy to remember 1-844-
SAY-CISA for anybody who wants to report an incident. Also, we
think it's very important that anybody across America
establishes a relationship with their CISA field force.
We're very proud of how we've grown that capability and to
ensure that they are taking advantage of our vulnerability
scanning, our cyber performance goals, and improving their
resilience.
This is the most serious threat to our Nation that I have
seen in more than 30 years in the U.S. Government. And it's
absolutely critical that our critical infrastructure owners and
operators, businesses small and large, take it seriously, and
CISA is ready to stand in and help.

RESOURCE LIMITATIONS

Mr. Cuellar. With the current resource limitations, I am
very concerned about your agency's capacity to defend against
the threats that you just mentioned, especially when you said,
it is only the tip of an iceberg.
What additional resources do you need to be successful in
these efforts beyond what is in the budget request?
Ms. Easterly. Well, we, of course, support the President's
budget, Ranking Member.
Mr. Cuellar. That is the standard line.
Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. But?
Ms. Easterly. Of course, we can do more with more. As you
recall, we talked about this earlier, and very helpfully, there
was a layout of about $150 million more dollars that would
allow us to do three things.
The first one would be to continue to build on that Cyber
Sentry capability, which is really best in class and can be
deployed at the most important critical infrastructure owners
so that we can detect and prevent significant damage to the
infrastructure that we believe Chinese cyber actors are going
after. So that's one category.
Two, to increase our capacity to be able to hunt. So our
hunt teams, as I mentioned, 97 engagements on domestic
infrastructure in fiscal year 2023. But we can do more with
more.
And then finally, to continue to grow our field force. I'm
very proud that since 2021, we've grown by almost 1,700 people,
and a lot of that is in the field. But we need to continue to
grow our cybersecurity advisors, our physical security
advisors, to enable us to help the small and medium businesses,
the critical infrastructure owners and operators that are under
duress from these very serious nation state threats.
Mr. Cuellar. As a sportsman, I appreciate you using the
word hunters, hunters to find those threats, because, again,
some of them, like you mentioned, are deep somewhere else.
Finally, my last question. How big of a role do you see mis
and disinformation campaigns playing in the PRC's overall
strategy?

ELECTION INTERFERENCE

Ms. Easterly. So we know, based on the intelligence
community's annual threat assessment, that foreign actors are
increasingly interested in going after the U.S. in a variety of
ways, in particular in our elections for interference, for
influence, for manipulation. It's China, it's Russia, it's
Iran. And this is a real concern of the state and local
election officials that we work with.
What we are doing to be helpful, is we are providing
information about tactics that our foreign adversaries use to
try and influence elections so that election officials
understand these tactics and what they can do. We're updating
our rumor versus reality website to provide accurate
information about election infrastructure security. Most
importantly, though, we are amplifying the voices of trusted
election officials across the country to ensure that citizens
know who to go to if they have any questions about election
security or about voting matters, so they can go to those
election officials. And so that's how we're supporting them. To
deal with foreign malign influence operations from China and
other adversaries.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Well, we certainly want to be
supportive.
Ms. Easterly. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Director.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford, you are
recognized for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
Director, for being here. It is great to see you again.
Ms. Easterly. You too, Sheriff.
Mr. Rutherford. And I want to talk a little bit about what
you do locally for folks, because I think that is important to
get out understanding that everyone is familiar with the hacks
at government facilities and those kind of things.
But fact of the matter is, a lot of the infrastructure
that's being attacked, as everyone knows, is really more
privately held pipelines like Colonial and JBS Meads and some
of these other facilities, but our hospitals and all of these
other locations.
And now one that I had never thought about is our vehicles.
Our vehicles are actually collecting data as they are driving
down the street. In fact, China now becoming the largest
vehicle exporter, including into the United States.
Are we working with those importers of cars to make sure
that we are not bringing in a Trojan horse, so to speak, that
could endanger some of our infrastructure?
Ms. Easterly. So in the National Security Memorandum that
was published this morning, it really reinforces CISA's role in
cross-sector risk management, because as you point out,
Sheriff, this infrastructure, everything we rely upon is
digitized, and everything has these very complicated supply
chains.
So we need to work across all sectors, including technology
sectors, to ensure we can drive down that risk, particularly
the risk of foreign intrusions into our networks.

AUTO INDUSTRY

With respect to the auto industry in particular, we're
doing three things. We're working with a variety of auto
manufacturers to ensure that they know how to leverage CISA's
capabilities to do vulnerability disclosure. That's very
important. We're also working on potential risks from electric
vehicles, like malware being in certain parts of that supply
chain, just as you pointed out. And then, we're of course
working with the Auto-ISAC, and they put out a lot of good
information. We're sharing information from them, and we're
part of their conferences on best practices. And so we're
continuing to evolve that capability, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. You know, the Chinese are now requiring, in
China, that all of the information collected by their vehicles,
whether they are from America or internally, that all of that
data has to be locally stored, captured and locally stored. Do
we have anything like that in America?
Ms. Easterly. No, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. OK.
Do you think we should?
Ms. Easterly. Well, it's part of the challenge.
Mr. Rutherford. I asked Secretary Buttigieg about this this
morning.
And I know we have reached out to DoD and Department of
Commerce about these issues as well. But I was just curious if
your agency has any intent to look at that as a requirement,
possibly by some of these people?
Maybe that's better for the Department of Commerce. I don't
know.
Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir, I'm happy to follow up on that. You
know, everything that we do, we focus very much on preserving
privacy of data. That's certainly not the way our adversaries
look at it, unfortunately.
And it's why we're concerned about capabilities like
TikTok, as you're well aware.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr. Rutherford. Well, OK. Well, I'll tell you, another area
that I think you guys are doing just incredible work is in
school safety.
And I know you all have come down to my district, actually,
and helped in this regard, which I really appreciate. And I
think the public needs to know that CISA is taking that kind of
a hands-on approach at a very local level to work with small
businesses, work with our schools.
And in fact, the schoolsafety.gov site that you have up,
which is really a kind of a repository for all these great
ideas, what is some of the feedback that you are getting?
I know some schools, the more rural schools, they have
difficulty with implementation. They may have a great plan,
they may get a great plan from you, but they don't know what to
do about it.
Ms. Easterly. Yeah, Sheriff, thank you for raising that.
It's one of the things that people don't realize that CISA
does, but it's so important. And I was down at, when we set up
schoolsafety.gov, it was after the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman
Douglas, and I was just down there to visit the school.
So it's been around for 6 years, but we have
schoolsafety.gov, which is basically a clearinghouse for so
much information, physical security, cybersecurity, to help
protect both teachers and students.
And we have been engaging with hundreds of communities
across the country to ensure that they're aware of all of these
no-cost resources, which include, really helpfully, a grant
finder tool, so they know how they can take advantage of these
grants that are sometimes difficult to navigate if you're a
less resourced entity across the country.
We just had our second annual school safety summit, 8,000
people sharing ideas. We're using the funding that we have for
school safety to enable us to build the clearinghouse, add on
additional guidance, and make sure that we can keep our kids
and our educators safe across the nation.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much. I see my time is up. I
will tell you, though, I have a bill coming forward. It is Plan
for School Safety Act, which will actually help set up School
Safety Development Centers where give you kind of a common
point of contact with some localities.
Ms. Easterly. Fantastic.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much for all you are doing.
Ms. Easterly. Thanks, Sheriff.
Mr. Rutherford. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. The gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Underwood,
you are recognized, for your questions.

PSA EXPANSION

Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hi, Director Easterly. It is good to see you. Over the last
few years, I have been grateful for your partnership, as we
have worked to improve and expand the role of the protective
security advisers or PSAs at CISA. In addition to serving as
local experts on critical infrastructure protection and helping
our communities respond to threats, the PSAs can help expand
access to federal resources by conducting security assessments
that are required to apply for the nonprofit security grant
funding from DHS. And since this funding is one of the best
ways for schools and places of worship and other community
centers to get federal funding for their physical security at a
time when Islamophobic and antisemitic threats are on the rise,
PSAs are more important than ever.
Director Easterly, can you share an update on CISA's work
to expand and improve the availability of PSAs to communities
like mine? And how would this year's budget request be used to
support this work?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah, thanks so much, Congresswoman. And I
know my team in your district loves working with you and your
team.
So it is one of those things that people do not necessarily
think about when you think about CISA, but we have an amazing
cadre of Protective Security Advisers who have been around for
a long time, who comes from the community, who work with the
community. And so we are excited to be able to continue to grow
and strengthen. As I mentioned, we have grown our field force
by 35 percent. We have been able to quadruple the number of
engagements. And so working in districts to be able to reduce
risk, and this is across the board, physical security, for
example you mentioned some of the Islamophobia, we worked very
closely with faith-based institutions. We gave them checklists
around physical security. We created specifically physical
security protective guidelines for faith-based institutions and
our folks went around the country so we could actually work in
districts with constituents to help them drive down risks, so I
really appreciate you highlighting that capability.

CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY

Ms. Underwood. Thank you. Shout out to Region Five's PSAs.
They do a great job. Please let us know if you need additional
resources to support their great work.
Now I want to turn to the growing digital threats posed by
foreign governments like the People's Republic of China. It is
no secret that TikTok, whose parent company ByteDance is
controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, poses unique risk to
Americans, and the President signed legislation this week to
take action. This legislation passed the Congress with
overwhelming bipartisan support, but it is clear that the
public wants and needs to hear more.
What more can you tell us in this setting about the types
of data on American consumers that TikTok collects, and how
that information can be used and manipulated? And how do
ByteDance's activities here differ from other major social
media and technology companies?
Ms. Easterly. So I think it is really important just to
fundamentally recognize that the way that China looks at data
is fundamentally different than the way we look at data. So
when you talk about U.S.-based social media companies, that
data that is collected through apps like TikTok is available to
the Chinese Government to be able to use it for whatever
purposes that they want. And that is the real worry, given the
amount of data that is being collected on users here within the
U.S., and in particular children. So how that data can be used,
there are no restrictions from the point of view of the Chinese
Government.
And as we talked about earlier, this is a government that
is already burrowing deep into our U.S. domestic, civilian
critical infrastructure with the intent to launch disruption
and destruction to incite societal panic and chaos and deter
our ability to marshal military might and citizen will in the
event of a crisis in Taiwan. So we cannot just separate the
TikTok and ByteDance of China from the China that we know is
going after civilian infrastructure. We have to look at this
threat as very connected.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. I encourage you and your partners
in the administration to do more to publicize these unique and
real threats, including declassification where appropriate.
Our constituents work, learn, and build community online.
And when major digital platforms can be coopted by a foreign
adversary, they should know what that looks like.
Ms. Easterly. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Underwood. Our country's critical infrastructure is at
risk from the PRC, as you have raised, and countering that
threat has been a major focus of this committee's work over the
last year. In December, I wrote to you, urging additional
investment from CISA to help identify, to prevent, and respond
to devastating cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure. Can you
expand on how this budget request will help you increase the
cybersecurity defense capabilities to counter PRC threats?
Ms. Easterly. Yes, ma'am. As I mentioned, we asked for $136
million more. It is largely into the cybersecurity areas, so
areas where we know that Chinese actors go after federal.gov,
we saw major intrusions into cloud last summer. We just issued
the Cybersafety Review Board about the security of the cloud.
So that is one key area. The area around Volt Typhoon critical
infrastructure, that is where we need cyber-sentry
capabilities, hunting capabilities.
And then, additionally, the other big area is the ability
to deploy more advisers who are doing those notifications in
every district around the U.S. about intrusions into critical
infrastructure. So with more, we can do more. And I am very
grateful for the letter you sent to OMB Director Young. And it
is hugely important that we have the resources we need to
defend the nation.
Ms. Underwood. Yes, ma'am, thanks for all you do.
Ms. Easterly. Thank you.
Ms. Underwood. I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you. The gentlelady from Iowa, Mrs.
Hinson, is recognized for your questions.

CYBER THREATS

Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Cuellar. Thank you, Director Easterly, for coming before us. It
is great to work with you and great to see you again.
And I want to actually follow up on some things my
colleague, Ms. Underwood, was just talking about. You know,
when you came before the China Select Committee recently, you
detailed some of the very, very heightened threats that we are
facing. And I know we had a chance to talk about this. You said
new threats are being uncovered every single day. We know that
China and our other adversaries are continually trying to
infiltrate our critical infrastructure, and really it is about
sowing that chaos, right, and creating that dysfunction. So we
need to be proactive in our efforts to counter those malicious
attacks from China and our other bad actors.
So I appreciate your efforts to specifically take on Volt
Typhoon. We know what a devastating attack that has been. You
mentioned in your opening statement some of the capabilities,
specifically the three that you are leveraging, to really go
after these threats, attack surface managerial service, the
cyber sentry platform, and critical infrastructure services
pilot. So can you maybe detail a little bit more specifically
on the attack surface management service, how that is really
helping enhance security and resilience across the board for
critical infrastructure?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah, thanks so much for asking. It is one of
the most important new services that we have put into play over
the last couple of years. And just to break it down, when we
talk about Attack Surface Management, so at the end of the day,
the critical infrastructure that we rely upon is inherently
vulnerable. So you have glitches in code, you have openings and
flaws and defects in the technology base that allows threat
actors to go in there and deploy malware, or to get in and
steal credentials so they can take over a network.
So what our capabilities do is they scan for these defects,
these vulnerabilities that are exposed. In particular, if we
know those vulnerabilities are being used by nation-state
actors or cybercriminals, and when we can see those open
vulnerabilities, we then notify that organization; you have an
exposed or unpatched vulnerability, and this is what you need
to do immediately to get it patched. As I mentioned----
Mrs. Hinson. Does it usually take someone having an
experience that is bad for you to realize that there is a
vulnerability there? Or do you have AI--I mean, what are you
using to determine the results?
Ms. Easterly. We use various commercial capabilities to
scan for those open vulnerabilities. Typically, we try to get
to them before harm occurs. That is how we are using our pre-
ransomware notification initiative. We have done that 2,054
times since we launched that program. And we are preventing
organizations from getting attacked by ransomware. And I have
seen a lot of those feedback notes that say, thanks so much for
notifying us so that we did not get attacked. And so it is all
about managing that vulnerability surface to drive down the
propensity for attacks.
Mrs. Hinson. How do you work across these platforms, and
these three specific, to coordinate your hunting operations and
teams? How does that kind of play into that?
Ms. Easterly. Yes, thanks for asking. We have not talked a
lot about the hunt teams, but it is one of the truly world
class capabilities that CISA has. And we have been able to
build that based on the budget that you have given us and the
new authorities that we have gotten since 2021. And
essentially, these are experts that can go on working with
critical infrastructure, and they go on a network, and they can
look for and find evidence of intrusions. And that is where we
found these Chinese Vault Typhoon actors. And so we have been
hunting with our critical infrastructure owners and operators
pretty deliberately since the Vault Typhoon threat was
discovered. Frankly, as I said, you know, it is the tip of the
iceberg. But just in 2023, 97 hunting engagements that have
allowed us to drive down risk. And what we do is we use those
hunting engagements, then we share what we know with our
partners, both in industry, but across the federal government.
And then we do advisories which can be used by the IT and
security teams so they can get ahead of the threat.
Mrs. Hinson. Are you doing that proactively? Or you have
partners who are coming to you saying, I am opening up my
systems, take a look? I mean, how does that relationship
develop?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah, it is a little bit of both. Typically,
we will see that there is some sort of a vulnerability, and we
will reach out to that critical infrastructure owner or
operator, tell them that we believe there may be intrusions,
and we will work with them to help remediate, to find and
remediate. So we try and be as proactive as possible. Because
frankly, I think that is the only way we can get ahead of this
very complex and dynamic threat environment.
Mrs. Hinson. Well, and I know my colleague mentioned the
hack that happened, or I think maybe you mentioned it, with the
Commerce secretary being intruded upon. And I think another
agency as well. So obviously, that is a huge concern, and being
proactive to go after those threats.
And then I have very little time left. But could you
elaborate a little bit on what you are doing? You mentioned,
you know, a 35 percent increase in your field force. What are
you doing to really work with schools, those water facilities,
hospitals, like you mentioned?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah, so one of the great things about being
the national coordinator is we are really at the center of
working with Sector Risk Management Agencies. And at the
beginning of 2023, I really wanted to focus on developing that
connective tissue with other agencies, so in particular focus
on water facilities with EPA, focus on hospitals with HHS,
focus on schools with Ed. And so we worked together to do
probably over a thousand engagements now across the country,
working with these target-rich, cyber-poor entities, frankly,
the ones who have been the victim of the scourge of ransomware.
And we have really been able to help them improve their
security and resilience by putting very basic things in place,
these no-cost services that we provide, whether that is
vulnerability scanning, whether we are doing assessments for
cyber resilience, whether it is advising them on implementing
some of the cybersecurity performance goals that we published.
And so we have been able to drive down that risk. Ransomware is
still in a pretty bad place. But I will tell you, it would be
much, much worse if we did not use the budget to be able to
help shore up some of these target-rich, cyber-poor entities
across the country.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Director.
Ms. Easterly. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Hinson. I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Newhouse,
the floor is yours.
Mr. Newhouse. Welcome, Director. Good to see you. Thank you
for coming and visiting me in my office week before last.
Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. And I appreciate your offer, too, of coming
to all of our districts to help with businesses, institutions,
learn about their vulnerabilities in cyber. So thank you for
that.
Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. So the issue of Lidar has come up today,
particularly with cars. My understanding is that Chinese cars
are not allowed to be sold in the United States yet, but they
are working on that.
Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. But there are lots of other kinds of
vulnerabilities. And with the fact that Chinese law requires
all of their PRC Lidar companies, regardless of where they are
operating, to provide any available data collected by their
products to the CCP. So I am extremely concerned that we are
potentially giving CCP unprecedented access, not only to data
on our U.S. citizens, but also sensitive data in areas of
military installations or U.S. infrastructure.
Besides cars, there are a lot of uses of this technology.
And I believe that almost half of the market is supplied by
Chinese companies. So I guess my question surrounds what do we
need to do in order to protect our transportation hubs, our
rail yards, our airports, our highways, our city streets, not
to mention our utilities, important pieces of, you know,
infrastructure, power generation facilities, all that kind of
thing. Plus our military. And how does CISA leverage its attack
surface management platform to reduce risk to all of this
critical infrastructure?
Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. Any ideas on what we should be proactively
doing? Or explain to us what we already are doing and what more
we should allow you to do.
Ms. Easterly. Thank you so much. It was great to meet with
you as well. And my team looks forward to spending time in your
district.
Mr. Newhouse. Good.
Ms. Easterly. On the Attack Surface Management, you know,
it is all about reducing exposed vulnerabilities. But to your
really good question about how do we deal with all this massive
critical infrastructure? It is all underpinned by a technology
backbone, frankly. And part of the problem is we have never
demanded of major technology providers that they ensure that
they are prioritizing security. The history of technology has
been about cool features and speed to market. And what it
really needs to be is about putting security first.
So one of our major, major priorities at CISA is to shift
the burden from end users and individuals and small businesses
across the country to the major technology providers who can
really bear it, so that they are building and testing and
deploying and delivering technology that is secure by design. I
think that is the best thing we can do to catalyze----
Mr. Newhouse. Require that? Require it?
Ms. Easterly. Yes, require it. Yes, sir.
And right now, it is not. So CISA is not a regulator. We
are not a law enforcement agency, of course. But what we are
doing is building those best practices. We use the
cybersecurity performance goals to articulate the right
standards for cybersecurity for both information technology and
operational technology. But at the end of the day, we need some
sort of minimum standards, and that is one of the points that
was articulated in the NSM this morning.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that.
This is not tongue in cheek, but have you discovered any
Chinese-produced technology that is not a cyber risk?
Ms. Easterly. I would have to say no to that. But I could
go back and get you a more comprehensive answer.
I think just broadly, we have to assume from everything
that we are seeing, that there is a very serious risk from
Chinese cyber actors, and we need to be very mindful of that
when we are building and deploying and using technology
infrastructure.
Mr. Newhouse. Good. Well, again, Director, thank you for
being with us. Appreciate it, ma'am.
Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Harris, the
floor is yours for questions.

CENSORSHIP CONCERNS

Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. And I want to thank the
director for being here again this year.
Now last year, I think when I spoke with you last year, I
was a little worried about censorship, especially with regard
to elections. And it has been kind of a busy year for CISA with
regards to the federal courts, I guess. Because last October in
this Washington Post story, it says that the U.S. Circuit Court
for the Fifth Circuit--Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
ruled that the key cybersecurity defense agency, which I think
they were talking about your agency, probably violated the
first amendment.
Do you agree with the court's decision? Or do you stand by
that you think the courts got it wrong on this?
Ms. Easterly. Thanks for the question, Dr. Harris. I
believe the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on this. But let
me just be very clear, and I appreciate you asking, CISA does
not censor, has never censored, does not facilitate censorship,
and any claims of that are patently false.
Mr. Harris. So you think the court got it wrong. All right.
Well, we will see. I guess the Supreme Court will have to rule
on that. But a three-judge panel, I think it was unanimous,
decided that you in fact were violating the first amendment.
Now, CISA, my understanding is that--and this is from a
June 26 press release--that CISA--not from you--that CISA moved
its censorship operation to a CISA-funded nonprofit after CISA
and the Biden administration were sued in federal court,
implicitly admitting that its censorship activities are
unconstitutional.
What are some of these CISA-funded nonprofits?
Ms. Easterly. I have no idea what you are asking about. The
allegations against the agency are riddled with factual
inaccuracies and do not reflect CISA's nonpolitical mission of
protecting our nation's infrastructure.
And, you know, frankly at a time when the U.S. faces
unrelenting threats to America, I would hope that CISA's
mission would not be undermined by political, partisan
purposes, sir.
Mr. Harris. Well, look, I could not agree with you more. We
are actually under some pretty significant cyber threats. So I
do not know why CISA spends its time collaborating with private
companies to basically censor Americans.
I mean, look, that is what the Fifth Circuit Court said. I
know you disagree.
Ms. Easterly. We do not. We do not. Just to be clear.
Mr. Harris. Well, the Fifth Circuit was pretty clear that--
--
Ms. Easterly. The Supreme Court put a stay on the
injunctions.
Mr. Harris. Now, Director, the Supreme Court has not ruled.
The highest Federal court opinion, will you agree, was that
your agency probably violated the first amendment. Am I
misrepresenting the highest court that has ruled on this?
Ms. Easterly. I would agree that the highest court put a
stay on the injunction until they rule on it.
Mr. Harris. And you understand, of course, that stays--and
your background is not as a lawyer. Mine is not, either. But
your understanding is that a stay is not the same as a ruling;
is that right?
Ms. Easterly. That is my understanding.
Mr. Harris. OK. That is what I thought.
Ms. Easterly. To be clear, CISA does not censor, has never
censored, does not facilitate censorship. I just want to be
very, very clear about that.
Mr. Harris. Now, CISA defines mal-information as anything,
quote, based on fact but used out of context to mislead, harm,
or manipulate. Is that correct? I take it that must be from
your website or something you published. Or you can define mal-
information. Is that a correct definition of mal-information?
Ms. Easterly. Sure.
Mr. Harris. So you think that mal-information, so something
that is based on fact, should somehow be--and I will use the
term censored. You think that something based on fact, a
government agency should be allowed to comment on whether or
not it is used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate?
Because context is actually kind of a subjective decision,
would you not agree? I mean, fact is not subjective. Facts are
facts. But context is kind of subjective, is it not?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah, because I know you mean, you know, to
protect the nation, sir. So to be very clear of CISA's role,
because I know you would want us to be doing this. There are
foreign adversaries who want to influence, who want to
manipulate, who want to interfere with elections. Election----
Mr. Harris. Excuse me, and I am just going to interrupt. So
you only deal with foreign adversaries when you are talking
about election mal-information?
Ms. Easterly. We do not even deal with them. Election
officials have asked us to help them with this issue. We do
three things: we work with the intelligence community to
articulate foreign tactics of manipulation and disinformation,
we talk about accurate information on election infrastructure,
and we amplify the voices of election officials who are the
trusted subject matter experts.
Mr. Harris. So with regards to the elections, my
understanding is that CISA in fact in the past has pointed out
some potential problems with mail-in voting, but then suggested
that posts about problems with mail-in voting might be
disinformation or misinformation. Is that true?
Ms. Easterly. I am not familiar with that. I am happy to
follow up on that.
Mr. Harris. I will get you the details.
And finally, I see my time has run out, but I do, following
up on the China threats, you know, in agriculture, obviously
DJI is a maker of most of the drones. They fly over some pretty
sensitive areas that are adjacent to Defense facilities, for
instance. And I would hope that we are looking carefully as to
whether or not we are losing critical information. And I would
rather you spent your time on that than election integrity.
I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Do you have a response to that?
Ms. Easterly. I do. Thank you.
We are working in your district, by the way, and really
enjoying it. We do notifications to prevent businesses from
being attacked by ransomware. We are working with one of the
largest health providers in your district. So it might be
useful to talk to some of them. And I would love to come to
your district and do a community roundtable with respect to
support state and local election officials who are on the front
lines of defending democracy.
At the end of the day, that is $48 million in our $3
billion budget. So you can rest assured that our focus is on
the most serious threats to the United States of America.
Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is
recognized for questions.
Mr. Cloud. Hello, Director. And good to see you again.
Thanks for stopping by the office.
Ms. Easterly. Yeah, my pleasure. Thanks for the great
convo.

SOCIAL MEDIA

Mr. Cloud. I was going to ask a number of the questions
that Dr. Harris has asked. But I will just point out that last
year, when you were before this committee, you said to me, just
to be totally crystal clear, as I think you want me to be, we
do not censor anything, we do not flag anything to social media
organizations at all.
It seemed to me with much--there has been much ado about
this--that maybe we were arguing over maybe the definition of
what is is. But it seems like your testimony today is that CISA
has never worked with, coordinated with third party
institutions or groups to have any sort of influence at all in
social media companies. Is that your testimony?
Ms. Easterly. Thank you for asking, because it is good for
us to be able to talk publicly about this. So on the substance
of the issue, just to be very clear, in 2018 and 2020, so
before I was the director, actually under the oversight of the
last administration, based on asks from state and local
election officials, CISA took information from election
officials who were worried about foreign activity, saying
things like this election, the election polling place is here
not there, or it is closed. They would take that information
and forward it to social media companies, not telling them what
to do, not saying to take it down, not encouraging them to do
anything, other than this is information from a state and
local--by the way, of both parties across the country. We
passed it to those social media companies, again, before I got
here, 2020. And we said, do with it what you will.
Now, that happened 200 times. And when I came in, I said,
this is really not worth resources to be passing information.
And so we stopped the program. But again, that occurred under
the oversight, in the last administration, and we are not doing
it under my leadership.
Mr. Cloud. Why would the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals say
this? It said, CISA was the primary facilitator of the FBI's
interactions with social media platforms and worked in close
connection with the FBI to push the platforms to change their
moderation policies over hack and leak content. Now, hack and
leak content was referring specifically to the Hunter Biden
laptop from hell, which some have labeled foreign information.
So I am not sure, when you are sitting here saying, oh, well,
we are dealing with foreign information, that you are not
talking about--about this.
It seems like the court had done a lot of due diligence----
Ms. Easterly. CISA played no role, had nothing to do with
the Hunter Biden laptop. And the allegations of CISA censoring
anything are patently false. The allegations are riddled with
factual inaccuracies.
Mr. Cloud. We have your testimony. It is on record, it is
under oath. We will move on.
Ms. Easterly. Wonderful. Thank you.
Mr. Cloud. You are familiar with Executive order 14019
dealing with elections?
Ms. Easterly. I think that is on voting access, correct?
Mr. Cloud. Yes. Have you presented your report as required
by the--it says, within 200 days of the date of this order, the
head of each agency shall submit to the assistant president for
domestic policy a strategic plan. Have you submitted your
strategic plan?
Ms. Easterly. No. And we would be very--I will go back and
get the specifics but----
Mr. Cloud. Do you think the executive order is not valid?
Is that why?
Ms. Easterly. We do infrastructure, election infrastructure
security. So we would not have a role in that specifically. So
I am pretty sure we did not submit anything on that. But I am
happy to go back and verify that. Because election
infrastructure security is what we do. We do not do things like
voting access, and we do not have expertise in that area,
either.
Mr. Cloud. And yet there was a FOIA request, there was a
FOIA request after this deadline that was not replied to, is my
understanding. So that would be good news to hear. We will
double check on that and make sure that is happening.
I do want to touch on one topic we talked about, and of
course that is China. The question I had asked you in the
office was whether this was coming from people hacking in
overseas or whether it was domestic. And what was your answer?
Ms. Easterly. So what the Chinese cyber actors are using is
a series of obfuscated infrastructure to be able to jump into
our domestic civilian infrastructure. So it is coming overseas
but going through a series of layered infrastructure and taking
advantage of the defects and the flaws and the inherent
insecurities in that civilian critical infrastructure.
Mr. Cloud. OK. Yesterday when I asked you about this, you
said that they were--I said, are they here or are they overseas
hacking in? And you said that they are here, they are taking
advantage of like home networks, home routers and the like.
Ms. Easterly. Absolutely.
Mr. Cloud. So are they here or are they----
Ms. Easterly. They are hacking from China into U.S.
critical infrastructure. When I was talking about the small
office, home office routers, essentially they are open access
points because there is very insecure technology. And so they
are jumping from one layer of infrastructure onto these small
office, home office routers that are very insecure, and then
using them as a launch point into our civilian critical
infrastructure. So of course they are coming from China because
they are Chinese cyber actors----
Mr. Cloud. That is specifically the question I asked you
yesterday and I got a different answer----
Ms. Easterly [continuing]. Onto our--yes, you asked me
whether they are here, and as I said----
Mr. Cloud. So are the people here or are they overseas? I
said, are they overseas hacking into it, or are they here
within our institutions----
Ms. Easterly. Hackers--hackers are coming from China. They
are on our civilian critical infrastructure. And it is not like
people are on it. It is----
Mr. Cloud. I understand that.
Ms. Easterly. Right.
Mr. Cloud. But the question is, were they domestic here
inside the institutions working to hack? Are they neighbors?
Specifically, the example we talked about was like being close
to one of these routers and being able to hack in and----
Ms. Easterly. Hackers are overseas, coming into our
civilian infrastructure, which does not make it any better, I
think.
Mr. Cloud. OK, thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you. I am going to do something very
unusual now. I am going to recognize myself for a couple of
questions.
Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Amodei. I want to follow up a little bit, and I just
want to plant the question, I do not expect you to--but when
you talk about election infrastructure, and some of us are
familiar with the plan from the United States Postal Service to
do their new plan, whatever they call it, blah, blah, blah,
which in many instances involves the transportation of those
States that have mail-in ballots across State lines in the
traditional fashion. I do not know whether that falls into your
bailiwick. But I would like you to see what, if any,
precautions are being taken to treat mail-in ballots
differently than mail in that plan, if there is any provision.
Or if that falls outside of your jurisdiction, if you could
advise who you think's jurisdiction it falls inside? And so
that is for another day. But I would appreciate you guys kind
of leaning into that.
This morning, the administration released the National
Security Memorandum on Critical Infrastructure, Security and
Resilience. You have mentioned it in your comments. What new
action does this require of CISA on top of what you are already
doing, as you have kind of described here today. What does that
change as a result of that being released here today, in your
view?
Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir. And to your first point, I will get
back to you on that. We do work with the U.S. Postal Service.
In particular, we just put out a product about safety of mail
handling of ballots, because there have been some fentanyl that
has been found in local election offices, unfortunately. And we
want to make sure that these mail handlers who are dealing with
ballots are safe and secure. But I will get back to you with
your specific question.
Mr. Amodei. That would be great. And thank you for that.
But to refine that a little bit, it is--is what you have been
working on with them reflected in this new plan?
Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Amodei. Fentanyl or otherwise. Since I do not think
ballots are just, hey, regular, yee-haw, vanilla mail.
Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir, I will get back to you on that,
Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
Ms. Easterly. On the NSM in particular, so what I think is
really notable about this is the last time a presidential
policy directive on critical infrastructure was published was
in 2013, before CISA was even thought of. And the threat
environment was very different. It was about terrorism. Now we
are looking at physical threats, but also cyber threats, and
the threat landscape is very different.
So what this National Security Memorandum does most
importantly is to recognize now we are in a world of high
dependencies, high digitization, high vulnerabilities, and you
cannot just manage by sector. And this was very glaringly
obvious to me in my last job, where I was at Morgan Stanley as
the head of resilience. We could spend billions of dollars to
shore up our infrastructure, but we were dependent on power and
water and communications. And so really, it is all about how
you manage cross-sector risk.
And so CISA's role is the national coordinator for critical
infrastructure security and resilience, working with industry,
working with Sector Risk Management Agencies to drive down risk
through the delivery of no-cost voluntary services, training,
assessment, exercises. And information and technical data is
really important to being able to protect the United States of
America from the myriad of threat actors, China preeminently,
but also Russia and Iran and North Korea, and the
cybercriminals who are wreaking havoc on our hospitals and our
schools and our water facilities.
So I welcome the opportunity to put this into place in the
coming year. And it is one of the reasons why we have asked for
an increase in our budget so we can effectively manage this
cross-sector risk from a variety of very serious threats, sir.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you. And just one more follow-up. A
couple of weeks ago or whatever it was, there was a hack into a
health care clearing network or, you know, do not laugh at me--
--
Ms. Easterly. Change Healthcare.
Mr. Amodei. When you are basically--when we are looking at
the budget, if you could identify, just a follow-up, here is
the stuff, since it is obviously infrastructure, the health
care, what we learned from that, blah, blah, blah, and without
telling any secrets, but basically kind of say, this is part of
the increase, if it is in fact the case, in terms of trying to
check that health care box to make sure that we are paying
appropriate attention as a result of what happened there. Which
I think was illegal, but your information is probably better.
Ms. Easterly. Yes, we would be happy to get back to you. It
was a ransomware attack on Change Healthcare, significant
cascading impacts across the nation. And we have been working
very closely with HHS to ensure that we can help a lot of these
infrastructure providers in the health care world, to include
the lesser resourced ones, like rural hospitals, that they have
the resources they need to be able to drive down risk. And we
need to do more of that, as you said. So thank you for the
opportunity to drill down in that with the committee.
Mr. Amodei. Yes, ma'am. And members, if you have further
questions, please get them submitted expeditiously to the
director so that we can ask her to expeditiously respond to
those in the timeline.
Thank you, Madam Director, for your appearance today and
your preparedness. And we are going to go ahead and adjourn the
subcommittee.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Wednesday, May 1, 2024.

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

WITNESS

ADMIRAL LINDA L. FAGAN, COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD
Mr. Amodei. We will call this meeting of the House
Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee to order.
I am going to, as usual, skip my opening remarks. And also,
in a phenomenal display of wild, rampant bipartisanship, my
ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, has decided to see
how that works for him. He is going to skip his opening
statement.
So, Madam Commandant, the floor is yours for your opening
statement.
Admiral Fagan. Thank you. Good morning. Chair Amodei,
Ranking Member Cuellar, distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today,
and I ask that my written testimony be entered into the record.
Mr. Amodei. So ordered.
Admiral Fagan. Thank you.
On behalf of the service, I'd like to thank you for your
continued support of the Coast Guard, our workforce, and our
families. With the funding provided in 2024 appropriation, we
can make progress on recapitalization of critical assets,
continue key sustainment and mission readiness efforts, and
support and grow our total workforce.
The Coast Guard continues to deliver world class, multi-
mission safety, security, and stewardship across many missions,
from protecting the safety of life at sea to securing the
marine transportation system.
However, to meet rising mission demands, we must invest in
2025 and beyond to generate sustained workforce and mission
readiness and resilience while building the Coast Guard of the
future.
Our workforce remains my highest priority. We're
transforming our talent management system so we can recruit and
retain the best people and empower them to be ready for
tomorrow's challenges.
In the last year, our workforce has adopted to growing
mission demand and responded to my focus on service culture. We
will continue to work together to strengthen a workplace
climate aligned with our core values, and that is what every
member of the Coast Guard deserves.
Funding requested in FY 2025 will build on our current
efforts to foster new initiatives and policy changes that
strengthen protective factors and improve the workplace
experience our people have in the Coast Guard, and your support
is crucial.
I ask for your help to ensure our workforce is ready to
meet mission requirements. Demand for Coast Guard missions has
never been higher, and we must continue to adapt to an evolving
global security environment and a rapidly changing U.S. marine
transportation system.
To respond to mounting demands and remain mission ready the
Coast Guard needs your support. Our maintenance budget does not
cover our planned asset maintenance projects next year. As we
field the more complicated and technologically advanced assets
required to meet mission demands facing future fleet, we are
focused on properly identifying maintenance needs in our
budget.
The $30 million request in service system sustainment is an
important first step towards those maintenance goals. The
service needs increased and reliable funding for our many high
priority acquisition programs to ensure the service can sustain
our ships, aircraft, and shore infrastructure.
I look forward to working with you to ensure we remain
ready for the future challenges we face as a service and the
nation faces. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Admiral.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes for
your questions.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much
for being here, Admiral.
I am supportive of the administration's increasing focus on
China and glad the Coast Guard is going to play a key role. I
believe the Coast Guard's presence, for example, in the Taiwan
Strait and the South China Sea, and your work with the
Philippine Coast Guard, are important steps to make sure that
we send out the strong message that the U.S. is committed to a
free and open Indo-Pacific.
Can you talk further about what you are doing in that
region? In particular, what drives the need for the Coast
Guard's presence versus some other military assets in the area
that you are at and what the $263 million in the budget request
will be used for?
Admiral Fagan. Thank you. Our role in the Pacific is
critical. We are a Pacific nation and the Coast Guard has
operated in the Pacific for as long as we've been a coast
guard.
The budget support and the budget ask is for additional
fast response cutters that will increase presence and capacity
to partner with small island nations throughout the Pacific.
It adds capacity for training teams, liaison officers,
attaches, and mobile support, again, to partner with small
island nations, we do a particularly good job coming to them as
they are, to help them enforce their own sovereignty.
Harriet Lane was on budget in a former budget year, moved
from the east coast of the United States to Honolulu, which is
her new home port. And she has just completed a trip through
the Pacific that involved twelve nations.
We leveraged eight of our bilateral agreements with those
nations, conducted boardings in those nations' exclusive
economic zones with personnel from those nations.
So we provided the support. The nation brings their
authority and expertise and we reinforce those nations
sovereignty in a way that increases their capability encounters
those that look to erode that rule of law in the region.
Mr. Cuellar. Now, I understand that through our maritime
borders, you are not seeing fentanyl as much as you see
marijuana and cocaine. This substance is still dangerous and
harmful to our communities.
Can you tell the committee a little bit about what trends
you are seeing? Because during the southern border we are
seeing Fontenot. But it is interesting that there is a
different trend during the maritime area.
Admiral Fagan. Yeah, so we're very engaged in the maritime
flows, which is primarily cocaine and marijuana. Occasionally,
we encounter fentanyl at sea, but it is not the primary illegal
narcotic that we encounter.
It's important to note that whether it's fentanyl at the
southwest border or cocaine and marijuana at sea, it's the same
cartels that are moving those illicit goods through their
illegal networks.
And so countering the cartel broadly is important and
critical work. We have assets in the eastern Pacific 24/7
working in support of JIATF South and Key West, which is a
SOUTHCOM unit.
They do the targeting and allowing us to put that Coast
Guard cutter onto a target of interest and conduct that at-sea
interdiction, where we then interdict the drugs, pull them onto
our vessels.
Those are narcotics that don't reach our shores, don't
reach our communities, and don't result in overdoses. And it is
critical and ongoing work. I lead the Threat Interdiction
Committee and that brings a broader federal government look
into some of our counternarcotics efforts.
And the Threat Interdiction Committee is focused on
fentanyl as well as cocaine and marijuana. And we're engaged
broadly across the government in those counter narcotics
efforts.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
Last question, dealing with introduction of migrants.
Admiral, as you know, we are seeing migrants cross our borders
not only through land but through sea. Also, in some parts of
the maritime border, we continue to see upward trends in your
number of apprehensions.
Can you discuss with us the current trends and the
challenges that you are seeing and what sort of resources would
be needed to help you in your mission?
Admiral Fagan. We're involved in the irregular maritime
migration. This is lifesaving work. When people take to sea in
unseaworthy conveyances, the risk of loss of life is
substantial.
About 18 months ago, the flows through the Caribbean and
the Florida Straits and Windward Pass were significant. That is
not true today. We have moved assets. We're very visibly
present. We've got unmanned systems, sail drone under contract.
That and policy clarity has helped decrease the numbers
that we are encountering at sea. But we remain engaged and in
position to counter anyone that may attempt those illegal and
perilous attempts to reach our shores.
Mr. Cuellar. My time is up, but can you just, I am familiar
with sail drones, but can you explain what that is?
Admiral Fagan. Yes. So a said drone it is an unmanned
system that we have under contract. They're built on the west
coast of the United States. They're fully autonomous, operated
by a command center out of the west coast.
They have sensors, so they provide a maritime domain
awareness and create a presence. Those attempting to depart
illegally know they're out there and work to, you know, it
helps to prevent those departures.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you to you and your men and women.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. He meant to ask one more question. Is a sail
drone waterborne or airborne?
Admiral Fagan. So it's waterborne. It's like a small
catamaran, but there's no people on them. They generate quite a
bit of interest if you see them at sea because they're fairly
large, but no one's on them.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar, for that follow-up
question.
Now, in accordance with his demand to be recognized,
because he was present first at the meeting, Dr. Harris, the
gentleman from Maryland, the floor is yours for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Not that I agree with that characterization, but thank you
very much.
Admiral, I thank you again for appearing before us. You
know, in your introduction, you mentioned that safety of life
at sea is obviously a critical mission of the Coast Guard. And
your written testimony, you said, you know, you are responsible
for the safety, security, and stewardship of the Nation's
waters.
My particular question is about offshore wind projects off
the coast of Maryland and other mid-Atlantic areas, because I
am worried that the Coast Guard will not be able to protect the
safety of life at sea.
And let me ask you a couple of questions about that. So
obviously, the Navy, actually, the DoD, DOE, FAA, NOAA, and
BOEM all had a wind turbine interference litigation working
group since 2014.
Their stated mission was by 2025 to have the solution to
the multiple kinds of radar interference caused by offshore
wind turbines. They haven't issued a report, it is now nine
years into it.
So what they did is they just, you know, I guess, reissued
their MOU last year, but with no solutions yet. In the UK, they
have also been working on the issues for many years. And they
have wind farms, but they don't have solutions either about
mitigation.
Once they thought they had one, but after they built the
wind farm, it didn't work. But of course, by then it is too
late. I mean, once these wind farms are up, I mean, the Coast
Guard can't go in and say, well, you got to stop operating them
because they are not safe.
So has the Coast Guard or the Department of Homeland
Security conducted a radar interference modeling study on the
size and number of offshore wind farms being planned for off
our Maryland coast?
Admiral Fagan. So we are engaged in that work group across
the broader agency. Our role in wind farms is advising on the
safety of navigation and safety of life at sea.
So there are impacts to wind farms. We need to ensure that
we are actually able to rescue people should they encounter an
issue in a wind farm. We're closely working with the entities
involved with regard to the radar interference, and I'm
committed to continuing that work.
I understand that the timeframes have been long, but our
role in advising, with regard to safety of navigation, we take
that role seriously and are involved and committed to that
advisory role as that work moves forward.
Mr. Harris. So what have you advised? Because, you know,
the Maryland, if it weren't for certain circumstances that
Maryland wind farm would be built already without, I guess,
without Coast Guard comment on the safety, especially with
regards to search and rescue, is that a reasonable
characterization that the Coast Guard, in fact, has not
commented on the safety of search and rescue based on modeling
studies or actual studies?
Admiral Fagan. We continue to engage the process, and that
advisory does include search and rescue and safety standoff
distances. There's a broad role across the North Atlantic as
wind farms are being envisioned and working through the federal
work group to ensure that all interests are aligned and we're
engaged in that process.
Mr. Harris. Well, I appreciate engagement in the process,
but what we need is we need a determination because they plan
to actually plant some of these in the Atlantic.
And people in my district are a little worried that search
and rescue would be impaired because in a letter November 25,
2019, from Captain Jennifer Williams to one of the Rhode Island
Senators basically says, and I will quote from the letter, the
studies has--the question of the Senator, has a radar
interference analysis been conducted? The answer includes the
studies evaluated models or existing turbines.
These studies indicate that radar interference can be
caused by a number of factors, including the size, spacing and
orientation of the turbines, the type and location of the
radar, radar settings, the radar operator, and atmospheric
conditions.
So based on that, what is the Coast Guard's opinion on the
safety of these wind farms, with regards to interference of
radar, including high frequency radar, on search and rescue
missions off the Maryland coast?
Admiral Fagan. Yeah, I don't know that we've provided
written full reply. I do know that we're 100 percent engaged in
the process to be responsive to that particular concern, and
I'll ask the staff to come back with the exact status of where
that particular work group and effort is. And I understand the
concern with regard to the windfarm development.
Mr. Harris. Sure. So there is no written reply? Is that
what you are----
Admiral Fagan. If there is, I am not aware of it.
Mr. Harris. OK. If you could get that, I would appreciate
it.
Admiral Fagan. I will clarify that with you.
Mr. Harris. Mr. Chair, I would ask unanimous consent to
enter that letter into the record and an article in the U.S.
Naval Institute called, offshore wind, from last year,
``Offshore Wind Energy: A Rising Challenge to Coast Guard
Operations.''
It outlines some of the problems that I do not think have
been addressed. Finally, in my last few----
Mr. Amodei. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
And without, and again, just very briefly. I know I have
this little area in my district called Slaughter Creek, it is a
beautiful little area, but they have problems because the Coast
Guard puts in buoys in the summer, takes them out in the winter
and unfortunately, it's a year-round channel.
It will be dredged deeper because we may headquarter some
of the dredging operations so that we can keep the channel
open. It is a very, it could be a very important port, but I
would ask that the Coast Guard reevaluate just leaving those
buoys in Slaughter Creed there all year-round.
I mean, it would be a great help to my local mariners. And
with that, I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. We don't have any of those problems in Nevada.
We don't allow that stuff to pop up.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Iowa for
questioning. The floor is yours.
Ms. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Admiral. Thank you so much for coming before
our committee again. I want to talk to you about a familiar
issue right in my district. Dubuque, Iowa, obviously is home to
the Coast Guard Wyaconda cutter. The Wyaconda and its crew
really maintain the critical operations to protect the
operations and the vitality of the upper Mississippi.
And those cutters, like the Wyaconda, really help stabilize
the transit shipping through our channels. Getting those
products to market is what we hear about all the time from our
producers back home.
And I mean, that really accounts for trillions of dollars
of economic activity every year and greatly benefits the state
of Iowa.
So ensuring that the cutter and the Waterways Commerce
Cutter Program is a priority going forward for the region. It
is an absolute priority for me. I hope it is a priority for
you.
So can you confirm that it is a top priority for you to
maintain the Waterways Commerce Cutter Program?
Admiral Fagan. The Waterways Commerce Cutter are absolutely
a priority for the Coast Guard. Some of the cutters that the
Waterway Commerce Cutter will replace are 75 plus years old.
It's $5.4 trillion of commerce through the inland waterways and
all of our port system. This is absolutely one of the
acquisition priorities.
Ms. Hinson. That is great, because I think we did the math
on it, and the Wyaconda is almost 60 years old. So my staff had
a chance to go out on it. I am hopeful I get a chance to go
very soon to see it as well.
While it is, let's just say it this way, it is maintaining
its operational capacity, but it is very clear that it is an
aged vessel and we need to do something there.
So I appreciate your budget request, trying to fund two
additional cutters, prioritizing that quick build, and of
course, the turnaround as well for those vessels.
So is there a prioritization for which of those cutters
would be subject to the replacement with additional funding?
And I would certainly hope the Wyaconda would be on the list.
Admiral Fagan. Yeah. So the Wyaconda is on the list. There
is a prioritization. The Wyaconda is not necessarily in that
first tranche of cutters, but it is on the list as a priority
to be replaced.
And, you know, we work through the decisions on how the
replacement based on age and need. As you said, the fleet is
quite old. And so, you know, the budget request in the 2025
Budget helps continue to build out that program of records,
program of record of 30, to ensure that we're able to replace
all of those aging assets, including the Wyaconda.
Ms. Hinson. All right. Are you working with the program's
prime contractor to keep the program moving forward? Any
intention of canceling or recompeting the contract for
Waterways Commerce Cutter?
Admiral Fagan. We are working closely with the prime
contractor, Birdon, to recompete what would cause both cost and
time delays. This is a critical asset and we're committed to
the prime contractor and moving it forward. And you see the
budget request that reflects that.
Ms. Hinson. Well, I look forward to working with you, and
again, I hope I can get out and see it in person very soon so
we can just check in to make sure that it is in tip top shape,
at least can get through until we can band aid it, until we can
make it a replacement.
Just want to get another kind of follow up to what our
ranking member talked about when it comes to fentanyl and
illicit drug trafficking.
You know, I think China is certainly trying to bypass any
legal channels and go around ports of entry and they are trying
to strengthen their supply chains and manufacturing here.
We had the acting commissioner from CBP yesterday. He was
talking a little bit about China kind of working to circumvent
these, getting around the de minimis and trying to get across
our maritime and our physical borders as well.
So how are you really, and you mentioned, obviously, some
of the other drugs that you are trying to counter, but what are
some of the tactics that you are taking to, to really counter
these measures from getting into our country? And do you need
any other tools and resources to be able to maximize those
efforts?
Admiral Fagan. Yeah, so as I discussed, our efforts at sea,
primarily marijuana and cocaine being interdicted, but they are
being moved by the same illegal cartels and organizations.
And so countering them broadly, both at the land border,
which is not the Coast Guard role, but at sea, becomes
critical.
The Interdiction Committee, which is a broad federal
government committee, works to integrate some of those both
land border focused agencies in the Coast Guard Joint
Interagency Task Force and others to ensure that we're looking
at the problem set holistically and including fentanyl, so that
we can work to avoid seams in our own structure, federal
structure, with regard to counter narcotics.
I'm looking forward to hosting that committee in Puerto
Rico here shortly, where we will talk about fentanyl and other
drug challenges that are facing the United States with regard
to illegal flows.
Ms. Hinson. Are you seeing increased aggression from, I
mean, obviously, the cartel traffic is one thing. Are you
seeing any increases in other adversarial encounters? Is there
any incidence of that that your crews are seeing?
Admiral Fagan. Yeah, I mean, we are at sea 365, 24/7 we
pretty much weekly have a narcotic--weekly or daily narcotics
interdiction at sea. Go fast, semi-submersible, slow, fast, and
the best strategy for that is a Coast Guard cutter with a
helicopter that has airborne use of force and an over-the-
horizon pursuit boat.
And then where we have MPA, that gives us competitive
advantage. That gives us advantage over the bad guys in the
cartel. And we continue to put that force package together to
counter those flows at sea.
Ms. Hinson. Well, look forward to continuing to work with
you on that. I think this is certainly a national security
issue, and it is escalating by the day with many of our
adversaries. So thank you. Thank you, Admiral.
I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. The gentlelady from Connecticut, the ranking
member of the House Committee on Appropriations, Ms. DeLauro,
is recognized for your questions.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
it. We are hearing hopping here today, so I appreciate your
indulgence and good to be with you, Admiral Fagan, it is great
to see you again.
Let me thank you first for your service, and I look forward
to your, you know, your insights on several issues that are
pressing. Let me start with this one. I want to address this.
It is a difficult topic. It is the issue of sexual assault at
the Coast Guard.
I understand that under Operation Fouled Anchor, your team
has conducted extensive work uncovering the abuses and that the
Coast Guard is making internal changes to address them. Can you
provide us with any updates you might have on Operation Fouled
Anchor?
Admiral Fagan. Thank you for the question. Fouled Anchor
reflects a failure of the organization to properly investigate
and support victims of assault who were at the Coast Guard
Academy 20-plus years ago.
This comes to light last July, and I want to assure the
committee that last July we were not the organization that we
were at the time that the Fouled Anchor assaults occurred. And
we today are not the organization that we were in July.
After that all came to light, I directed a 90-day
accountability and transparency review. About a third of the
actions that I directed as a result of that review have been
completed.
We continue to work on those action items. I get asked,
what's different? What's different today? Why is this different
from other times that we've been held accountable as an
organization for failing, with regard to sexual assault,
harassment, bullying, retaliation, retribution?
What's different this time is an acknowledgement that these
behaviors are not appropriate in our service and we're going to
move to eradicate them. And it's not a checklist approach. This
is how we're going to operate the organization.
We've brought in professionals to help advise. In fact, I
have my senior leadership team in this week. We will continue
these discussions tomorrow. We will attain the service culture
that we strive for as an organization.
We're making investments in the Coast Guard Academy,
investments in our personnel system. I need support with an HR
IT system and look forward to working with the Committee on
what exactly we need to create accountability and transparency
in our HR system.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, thank you very, very much. And I want to
thank you for your leadership on this effort, and I am hoping
that we can continue to receive timely updates on what's
happening.
I think that that is important and it is good
communication. That way you can let us know what it is that you
need from the Committee to be able to get the job done.
We want men and women serving in an environment which is
conducive to letting them do the job and the mission that is
entrusted to them.
While not directly in my district, one of the prides of
Connecticut is the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Just wonderful. I
know from talking to students at the Academy, in addition to
providing a challenging and a rewarding academic experience, it
also instills important values like discipline, service, and
teamwork. Lessons that pay dividends, as we know over a
lifetime.
I want to ask specifically about facilities and
infrastructure at the Academy. While I understand that you are
making many such needed improvements, there is currently a
focus on reducing energy consumption, being more energy
efficient, making the Academy more resilient during times of
extreme weather.
Can you talk more about the facilities at the Academy? What
more would you hope to do if you were provided with additional
resources and how we can be helpful in that regard?
Admiral Fagan. The Coast Guard Academy is obviously
critical to building our leadership core. Our Officer Candidate
School operates out of the same footprint. So really the Coast
Guard officer leaders come through that footprint in New
London.
We've made a number of key investments. We're making
investments in the barracks. Right now, we're focused on cadet
safety, installing cameras, key locks, ensuring that cadets
have a safe experience while in the barracks and continue to
work with our facilities engineers and the committee on what
those incremental next investments are to ensure that we've got
a safe barracks for the students and that we've got academic
space that meets our needs to educate the leaders of the
future, nautical science labs, shipboard simulators, and look
forward to working with you with details as we phase into those
investments needs.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much. And again, we are anxious
to make sure that the Coast Guard has what it needs and the
cadets have what they need, both in terms of, I said that
academic experience, but also their quality-of-life experience,
you know, efforts and their safety. So thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. Yes, ma'am.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford, the floor is
yours for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commandant, great to see you again. I want to bring up a
quick issue about this Right Whale enforcement that NOAA is
proposing a speed rule. You know, any vessel over 35 feet would
be required to go no more than 10 knots for about half the year
all along the eastern seaboard.
I have heard from vessel captains, from commercial and
recreational fishermen, from our own St. John's River bar
pilots, the dangers that this rule could create for safety of
vessels. Has the Coast Guard been involved in this, this
rulemaking?
Admiral Fagan. We are involved in the rulemaking in an
advisory role with NOAA, and we are heavily engaged with NOAA
on the rulemaking. We've advised on the AIS carriage
requirements, currently set for 65 feet and greater.
And so a reduction to 35 feet creates a number of issues
and challenges. We advise, with regard to the safety of
navigation, the need for commerce to flow. That dialogue and
engagement is going on today, and we'll continue to. To advise
NOAA as they work through their rulemaking process.
Mr. Rutherford. OK, so if I understand what you just said,
Admiral, you are opposed to the drop to 35 feet?
Admiral Fagan. I am not making a comment on the drop. I'm
just acknowledging that AIS carriage requirements are currently
set at 65 feet and above. And so there's additional work that
would need to be done should the length carriage be reduced.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. I will just tell you that rule will
have devastating consequences, I think, and just want to point
that out.
Can we talk about your helicopter fleet for a moment? You
all have begun to transition to an all M-860 helicopter fleet,
working with the Navy to acquire those frames.
You guys do a great job at extending the life of these
things. It is amazing, but there are limitations. And so I know
that a GAO study recently came out talking about the need to
look at a mixed fleet analysis and analysis of alternatives to
determine the needs for future rotary wing fleets.
Now that this GAO study is done, it is my understanding you
all are supposed to report back to Congress an aviation
strategy. And how long do you think it will be before that
strategy is laid out?
Admiral Fagan. We're aware of the requirement to do the
aviation fleet mix, as you know, the 65 or the dolphin
helicopter, we've extended that service life beyond service
life that any other agency has operated the helicopter, which
is why the transition to 60's is imperative.
And we're well along transitioning air stations to 60's.
The 2025 budget includes $168 million to continue slept on 60's
and an additional four. We need to continue the analysis to
then figure out what that full transition looks like and also
what unmanned aviation might contribute into some of that mix.
Well, the C-27 is not a helicopter. Obviously, that was
zeroed out in the budget. A clear signal that the C-27 needs to
be transitioned out of the fleet, opening the door and
opportunity for what is the right long-range fixed-wing, mid-
range fixed-wing, unmanned system, and rotary wing asset
portfolio for the organization.
Mr. Rutherford. And, Admiral, have you put pen to paper on
that or pencil or paper to figure out what the cost of that is
going to be going forward?
Admiral Fagan. We're working those details now. And
specifically, in fact, we've just talked recently with regard
to what is the transition away from 27's create from an
opportunity standpoint. And I know we owe a brief over here
within the next 30 to 45 days, and we're planning on meeting
that deadline.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. And those costs, are they going to
include, is there going to be cost to re-outfit some of the
vessel fleets to accommodate the M-860?
Admiral Fagan. The new vessels are being built--the vessels
that are being built with flight deck capability will
accommodate a tail-fold, blade-fold 60. Some of the legacy
fleet, that is not true, but the new fleet will accommodate the
larger helicopters.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. And will the plan be then to retrofit
the smaller vessels that don't have that capacity?
Admiral Fagan. The smaller vessels that don't have the
capacity we're also looking at land-based helicopter
contributions so that, say you have a ship operating off of the
west coast of the United States, you might need helicopter
support for the 60's, have a lot more range and capability, and
so you might be able to base them ashore.
We're getting ready to ribbon cut on Air Station Ventura
would be a great example of increased capability off of the
west coast in a way that might, you know, increase that
capacity.
We're looking at all that as far as how we're operating and
how we're doing, how we're working with those 60's as we make
that transition.
Mr. Rutherford. OK, thank you, Commandant.
I see my time is up. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized.
The floor is yours for questions of the Admiral.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, thank you for being with us this morning. I want
to start off and talk about the Polar Security Cutter Program.
As I understand, our Coast Guard currently has two
icebreakers. One, the heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, which
is 48-years old, and the medium icebreaker Healy, which is 25-
years old.
We see that in a time of international uncertainty, of
great powers competition, if I am not mistaken, our adversary,
Russia, has approximately three dozen icebreakers and China has
increased their fleet to four.
First, if you can just talk generally about the importance
of increasing our icebreaker fleet. And then I want to talk a
little bit about the re-baselining of the current program.
And then I have also been reading media reports about the
Coast Guard is considering purchasing an existing ship and
possibly retrofitting that as somewhat of a stopgap message or
measure until we can domestically once again begin producing
icebreakers here.
So if you can just again, talk generally about the
importance of increasing the icebreaker fleet and then get into
a little bit after that about the rebase lining that's
currently ongoing.
Admiral Fagan. Yes. Thank you. Polar security cutter was my
first unit over 40-years ago, and it was not a new ship then.
Was built in the mid-seventies. And so fielding new heavy
icebreaker capacity for the Nation is critical.
And we are on contract with Bollinger, Mississippi. I've
met recently with the CEO of Bollinger to talk about how
critical the polar security cutter is, the criticality of
getting to detailed design, and the criticality of begin
cutting steel on that ship this calendar year.
It will be a complicated ship to build. I'm confident in
the design, confident in the workforce, and confident that that
shipyard will deliver that ship for the nation.
Until we get to detailed design, we will not update the
delivery date. That is still in the works. And it is our top
priority along with the offshore patrol cutter to ensure we
feel that nation capacity.
You referenced the existing icebreaker, the commercially
available icebreaker. It's $125 million in the FY 2024
appropriation to purchase that as a sole source icebreaker.
And in the 2025 UPL, there's an additional $25 million ask
to outfit that icebreaker and bring it into initial operating
capacity. It's critical, as you said, this is--China's declared
themselves as a near arctic nation.
The Russians obviously have their own sovereign interest on
their side of the Arctic. I've recently been at the Arctic
Coast Guard Forum and our allies and partners are also engaged
and interested in a partner.
Actual presence is required to ensure our own national
security and sovereignty in the Arctic. And that's why the
Polar security cutter and that program becomes so critical to
us as a nation.
Mr. Guest. Let's talk a little bit about the possible
retrofitting. You mentioned or referenced 25 million. Some of
the things that I have read have put the cost much higher than
that. And also the timeframe. It is somewhere between 2 to 3
years to actually come in and retrofit that ship.
Which means, if that timeline is correct again, continues
to put us behind the 8 ball. Do you believe that the $25
million that you referenced is an adequate amount to retrofit
that vessel?
Is that just a down payment and what the retrofitting cost
will ultimately be? Can you talk a little bit about that?
Admiral Fagan. Yeah. The $25 million gets us to an initial
operating capacity. It'll upgrade some of the systems, get the
ship painted looking like a Coast Guard ship and an ability to
begin to operate.
But there will be additional needs to bring it to full
operating capacity. The timeline and the cost on that is still
uncertain. We don't have possession of the ship. And once the
ship is actually purchased, it will allow greater clarity and
we'll come back to the Committee with those timelines and what
those additional costs may be associated with full operating
capacity.
Mr. Guest. Is there money within the budget this FY 2025
for that retrofitting?
Admiral Fagan. Not for the commercially available
icebreaker, no, just the initial operating capacity, a UPL ask.
Mr. Guest. And then the last question is last year, Admiral
Gaucher testified before Homeland Security Authorizing
Committee, and when asked about this, he talked about the need
for an additional eight to nine icebreakers over the next
decade to keep us competitive.
Do you agree that that is an accurate number? Do we need to
be looking long term at budgeting out for an additional, in
addition to the ones that we already have budgeted, an
additional multi-ship to build out our ice breaking capacity?
Admiral Fagan. Yeah. We have a high latitude analysis that
speaks to the need for eight to nine. We do absolutely need to
be looking long term at greater icebreaking capacity.
We're focused right now on a fleet of three polar security
cutters. An arctic security cutter would be a less capable
icebreaker, but all that are investments and opportunities that
the Nation needs to consider with regard to our national
security in the Arctic. And happy to share that analysis with
the committee.
Mr. Guest. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Washington State, Mr.
Newhouse, the floor is yours for your questions.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
ranking member of the committee as well.
Admiral, good morning. Thanks for being with us to talk
about the fiscal year 2025 budget proposal.
In looking through the documents, the FY 2025 unfunded
priorities list, a couple things stood out to me. Specifically,
in the major acquisition systems infrastructure.
First of all, the polar security cutter homeport Seattle,
money was requested for waterfront improvements and to prepare
the site for three additional PSEs. And then secondly,
something in my district, the Waterways Commerce Cutter
homeports money was requested to improve waterfront and
shoreside infrastructure in Kennewick, Washington.
So a couple questions around those. What could you tell us
your infrastructure priorities, number one? Also, why you think
infrastructure is so critical to the health of the workforce,
particularly in the area of retention?
And then could you elaborate on the importance of these
particular projects and what missions this investment will
enable? I am guessing some of the similar responses you had to
Mr. Guest, but I would be interested in what you have to say.
Admiral Fagan. The infrastructure investment, shoreside
infrastructure, peers, shore ties, maintenance buildings,
galleys, the types of things that support ships when they're at
sea are critical. So all the new ships we've talked about,
Polar security cutter, Waterway commerce cutter, Offshore
patrol cutter, all come ashore.
They come back and need to be maintained and worked on. And
so the shore infrastructure investments are critical. As we
continue to field new assets as a Coast Guard, the needle for
more space, and Seattle is a perfect example, the ships, the
polar security cutters will be larger and deeper. And so
there's a need to invest.
But it's not just Seattle. It's Seattle, it's Charleston,
it's Newport. There are needs, around the country, and in
places like Guam as we consider how we posture the force for
Indo-Pacific operations.
The ships and reliable funding to bring the ships online
are important. But equally as important is the infrastructure
money to ensure that those shore facilities are ready when the
ships are built and ready to return to the port.
And so we've stepped into the Seattle work, but more money
is needed and you see that signaled in $180 in the UPL for
Seattle.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. I know significant attention and
investment has been made in the Indo-Pacific region. It is
something you personally have witnessed yourself. Could you
tell us what assets are most needed to counter adversarial
actions such as foreign fleets encroaching on the United States
or even our partners exclusive economic zone, as well as
illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing?
And then also I am really curious as to what your thoughts
are on the status of the Scan Eagle Program? And if you could
tell us a little bit about what the impact has been on the
Coast Guard operations countering narcotics bound for the
United States with that platform?
Admiral Fagan. Yes. In the Indo-Pacific, in that
competitive space as we partner to build capacity and
capability and help nations enforce their own sovereignty. I
spoke to Harriet Lane. With additional funding support, there
could be a second Pacific support tender, that type of ship
that would create a presence and capacity to partner with
nations.
The FY 2024 budget includes two additional fast response
cutters that we will look to focus into the region and homeport
in the region to create that on-water presence and capacity to
partner with nations, whether it's bilaterally or
multilaterally.
And so the ships, people, training teams all are on the
table, with regard to things the Coast Guard can bring to
ensure our national sovereignty and interest in the region. We
look forward to budget support for that.
Specifically to Scan Eagle. Scan Eagle has been game
changing for us, right? Contractor owned, contractor operated,
ship based, ship launched, ship retrieved, unmanned system.
I spoke to some of our counter narcotics efforts. It is
game changing. It just changes the dynamic, with regard to risk
and capacity and ability to do those interdictions. When we
have ships operating in the western Pacific, they operate the
UAS as they are, you know, sailing, operating, navigating
consistent with international law.
Again, just create awareness and a tool and a capability
that has really, really been helpful to the Coast Guard.
Mr. Newhouse. I think it is important that people
understand the game changer that has been. Thank you very much
for being with us today.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. I would like to, again, thank you, Admiral for
coming. Appreciate your testimony.
For those questions that members have posed, if we could
try to get those squared away in about 15 calendar days,
because, as we are all aware, we are trying to move
expeditiously here, in terms of subcommittee work to committee
and on the floor.
Members may submit additional questions for the record and
we would ask that you respond to those in a timely manner. And
if there is any confusion or anything, that we can do, as the
committee, to help flesh that stuff out to make everybody's
work the most efficient, that would be great.
And with that, I want to thank all the members here and the
subcommittee is adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT][

I N D E X

Page
Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request for the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS)................................................. 1
Agricutural Guest Worker Program................................. 58
Border Security:
China........................................................ 26 51
Fentanyl..................................................... 29
Got-Aways.................................................... 22
Immigration.................................................. 32
Title 42..................................................... 53
Border Wall:
Funding...................................................... 49
Budget Request................................................... 31
Emergency Funding:
Chicago...................................................... 21
Employee Investigation........................................... 59
Executive Order:
Immigration and Nationality Act Section 212(f)............... 56
Expedited Removal................................................50, 59
ICE:
287(g) Program...............................................19, 57
Detention Beds...............................................22, 31
Illegal Migration:
Rate of Release.............................................. 53
Immigration:
Asylum....................................................... 49
China........................................................ 51
Processing Times............................................. 55
Information Sharing:
OIG.......................................................... 33
January 6:
Undercover Operatives........................................ 33
Natural Disaster:
Maui Wildfire................................................ 23
Preparedness................................................. 28
Opening Statement: Secretary Mayorkas............................ 4
Security and Protection:
Grants....................................................... 27
Shelter and Services Program..................................... 20
U.S. Border Patrol:
Agents....................................................... 25

[all]