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