[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
_______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California, Chairwoman
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
PETE AGUILAR, California
NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Darek Newby, Kris Mallard, Bob Joachim,
Mike Herman, Victoria Allred, and Takeena Strachan
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 2
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Page
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services................................
1
U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Office of the Inspector General.........
39
U.S. Department of Homeland Security..
77
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency.........................
127
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
50-078 WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
BARBARA LEE, California JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota KEN CALVERT, California
TIM RYAN, Ohio TOM COLE, Oklahoma
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
DEREK KILMER, Washington ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
GRACE MENG, New York CHRIS STEWART, Utah
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts DAVID G. VALADAO, California
PETE AGUILAR, California DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey BEN CLINE, Virginia
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
NORMA J. TORRES, California MIKE GARCIA, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona TONY GONZALES, Texas
ED CASE, Hawaii JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JOSH HARDER, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, April 6, 2022.
U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
WITNESS
UR M. JADDOU, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security
will come to order.
As this hearing is being conducted virtually, we must
address a few housekeeping matters.
During today's virtual hearing, members are responsible for
muting and unmuting themselves. When you are recognized to
speak, if I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will
ask you if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you
indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute your
microphone.
To avoid inadvertent background noise, the Chair, or staff
designated by the Chair, may mute participant microphones when
they are not recognized to speak.
If there is a technology issue during a member's speaking
time, we will move to the next member until the issue is
resolved, and you will retain the balance of your time.
We will be following the 5-minute rule. With 1 minute
remaining in your time, the clock will turn yellow. When your
time has expired, the clock will turn red, and it will be time
to recognize the next member.
We will follow the speaking order set forth in the House
rules, beginning with the Chair and ranking member, followed by
members present at the time that the hearing is called to order
in order of seniority and we will alternate by party. Next, we
will go to the members who were not present when the hearing
was called to order, until every member present has had a first
round.
Members can submit information in writing at any of our
hearings or markups using the email address provided in advance
to your staff.
Now, let's begin.
Today, I welcome Ms. Ur Jaddou, the Director of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, who is here to discuss
the fiscal year 2023 budget request for USCIS, the management
of its resources, and its operational priorities and
challenges. Thank you for being here this morning.
Director, coming into this job, you inherited massive
challenges: eroding public confidence stemming from poor fiscal
management, and growing backlogs of applications and petitions
that caused significant harm to individuals, communities, and
businesses who rely on fair and timely USCIS processing and
adjudication of benefits.
USCIS and State Department operations also have been
significantly impacted by the pandemic, further exacerbating
these backlogs.
While it is easy to fixate on the challenges that still
face the agency, it is important to acknowledge progress that
has been made. You and the Biden/Harris administration have
taken many important steps, beginning with the issuance of
Executive Orders and proclamations aimed at restoring faith in
our legal immigration system.
In addition, you have removed unnecessary barriers to
naturalization for eligible individuals; withdrawn the punitive
public charge rule; restored and expanded the Central American
Minors Program; made it easier for active military personnel
and veterans, including those residing outside of the U.S., to
become citizens; updated guidance on VAWA self-petitions to
better align with the intent of the program; put a stop to the
practice of returning applications with minor mistakes or
omissions; and decrease the pending naturalization case queue
by approximately 20 percent in 2021 and return to pre-pandemic
processing levels for naturalization.
Thank you for your leadership on each of these
accomplishments, but we cannot rest on our laurels. As of the
end of January of this year, USCIS had a backlog of more than
5.26 million forms, representing nearly 62 percent of its total
pending inventory. This is the most pressing challenge facing
this agency right now.
Congress provided $275 million in discretionary funding in
the recently enacted funding bill for fiscal year 2022 to help
you address this problem, and your fiscal year 2023 budget
proposes additional appropriated resources to address for these
purposes.
For USCIS's humanitarian work, such as its asylum and
refugee program, the request also reflects the beginning of an
important and long-overdue transition away from fee funding to
appropriated funding, along with new discretionary resources to
support asylum officer adjudication of asylum claims made by
newly-arriving migrants.
Unfortunately, funding alone will not solve USCIS'
challenges. The hiring freeze, in particular, has had a lasting
detrimental impact on the agency. I look forward to hearing
more from you today about the steps you are taking to address
your staffing needs, the challenges you face, and where there
are opportunities for improvement.
I would now like to turn to the distinguished gentleman
from Tennessee, Ranking Member Fleischmann, for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, I really appreciate all of your
efforts and hard work as the chair of this subcommittee, and I
sincerely look forward to working with you and partnering with
you as we begin our work on fiscal year 2023 and its process.
Welcome, Director Jaddou. I thank you for joining us today.
As we examine the USCIS budget request, I am deeply concerned
about some of the most recent border security and immigration
actions by this Administration, and what they portend for the
future.
USCIS Officers have a front-row seat to the border crisis
that has been unfolding over the last 18 months. We have a
record number of migrants crossing our borders illicitly, many
of whom claim fear of persecution or torture should they return
to their home countries. I do not doubt that there are many
well-founded claims, but there are false ones too. It is well
documented that migrants are coached on what to say by the
cartels to maximize their chance of staying in the country. The
job of the USCIS Officers is to make hard calls and separate
legitimate from illegitimate claims, and that is no easy task.
With the Title 42 public health authority being lifted next
month, I fear that the surge that follows will completely
overwhelm our border security and immigration capabilities.
Managing the chaos from this unforced error will be a full-time
job.
As we turn to the USCIS budget request, once again we see
the Administration proposes a nearly $500 million increase in
appropriated dollars to address the growing number of
applications waiting for a response. Backlogs are not a new
development; rather, they have existed for quite some time and
grow daily. The fundamental problem with supplementing the
agency's budget with appropriated dollars is that USCIS is
designed to be a fee-funded agency and was never intended to be
reliant on taxpayer funds except for a few programs like E-
Verify. We should be very cautious about shifting the burden of
these immigration services away from the individual fee payers.
The remedy in the event of a deficit is simple: exercise
the authority provided for in the law and set the fees at a
level that will ensure recovery of the full costs for providing
all such services.
USCIS' budget proposal also calls for $375 million for
roughly 2,000 more asylum officers in part to implement the
Administration's ill-advised asylum officer rule.
Under the guise of expediting asylum claims, the
Administration proposes to have USCIS Officers do the work of
immigration judges and adjudicate these claims. This non-
adversarial process is fundamentally flawed and will result in
additional layers of appeals, lengthier adjudication time
lines, and, ultimately, an increased backlog.
In the middle of the border crisis, the President's budget
proposes to hire nearly seven times more asylum officers to
manage this policy-driven crisis than the Border Patrol agents
who worked to prevent it in the first place.
I look forward to hearing how you intend to address the
current backlog and the potential surge stemming from the
removal of Title 42 authority, and I thank you for coming
before us today.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back. I thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
Director Jaddou, we will submit the text of your official
statement for the hearing record. Please begin your opening
statement, which I would ask you keep to 5 minutes.
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member
Fleischmann, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for taking the time to hear from me today. I am
honored to have this opportunity to update you on our agency's
budget, which is grounded in fulfilling our incredible mission
of upholding America's promise as a nation of welcome and
possibility for all those we serve.
With your support, USCIS has received appropriations in the
past and, most recently, we are very grateful for the $275
million for USCIS to reduce the backlogs and support the
President's refugee admissions ceiling, as well as the $193
million to support Operation Allies Welcome.
Each case represents a person, a family, an opportunity,
and a dream. It also represents a chance for our communities
and our country to more fully benefit from the talents and
energy immigrants have to offer. And every single applicant or
petitioner who makes a request to USCIS should get an answer,
be it yes or no, in a reasonable amount of time.
Before we delve into the specifics of the budget, I want to
note the work USCIS has done over the past year. A series of
executive orders provided us with guideposts and milestones to
improve our immigration system by removing barriers that
prevent it from operating smoothly, securely, and responsively.
One of the biggest barriers we face are a legacy of
backlogs and lengthening processing times, delays that really
help no one. We currently have about 8.5 million pending cases
and, of those cases, about 5.3 million have been pending beyond
published processing times. There are many reasons for these
delays: the devastating effects of the pandemic on our ability
to conduct our work, a fiscal crisis USCIS had never
experienced, and many vacancies.
While I know there still is much work to do, I want to take
a moment to appreciate the staff of USCIS who have shown
incredible dedication, resilience, and innovation in fulfilling
the mission of USCIS throughout an unprecedented pandemic and
under threat of furlough. Together, we have made progress.
We have been working diligently to bring on new staff to
fill many existing vacancies resulting from the year-long
hiring freeze we experienced through mid-2021. I have
implemented a hiring plan to achieve a 95-percent onboard rate
by the end of 2022. I recently announced new cycle time goals
for many key forms; we hope to achieve these goals by the end
of fiscal year 2023.
It will take much work and ingenuity, but I am confident we
can get there. We have a plan to implement end-to-end
electronic filing, processing payment, and case management for
USCIS. We have already made strides in implementing online
filing options, including for our employment authorization
documents.
We continue to review and revise regulatory policy and
operational decisions with an eye towards breaking down
unnecessary barriers that have hindered those eligible from
accessing immigration and naturalization in a timely manner.
In fiscal year 2021, we held more than 2,000 virtual
engagements with approximately 74,000 attendees, including over
2,000 local engagements and 47 national engagements, covering
more than 20 topics.
The fiscal year 2023 budget supports the President's
priorities by restoring faith in the immigration system,
including implementation of a fair and efficient asylum
process. A recently-finalized asylum processing rule will
ensure that those who are eligible for asylum are granted
relief quickly and, for those who are denied, they are promptly
removed. When fully implemented, we expect our asylum-related
efficiencies will shorten the process to several months for
most asylum applicants covered by the rule.
Consistent and dedicated funding through appropriations is
necessary to address our growing humanitarian workloads. Our
asylum and refugee programs do not require fees and, without
appropriated resources, the costs associated with these
programs must be borne by all other fee-paying applicants and
petitioners. As those costs increase, so do the costs to our
fee-paying applicants and petitioners.
The President's fiscal year 2023 budget seeks to shift our
humanitarian programs from fee funding to appropriations,
aligning our agency with the appropriations received by other
agencies doing similar work. Importantly, his request supports
USCIS' multi-year plan to continue reducing the backlog,
resource critical investments in cybersecurity, and sustain the
E-Verify program.
USCIS is also prioritizing additional staff and technology
improvements to reduce our growing backlog and to prioritize
key forms such as for work authorization and naturalization.
Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member Fleischmann, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for your
continued support of our incredible and unique mission at
USCIS, and thank you again for affording me the opportunity to
appear before you and discuss the agency's fiscal year 2023
budget. I look forward to your questions.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Director Jaddou.
One of the things I have significant concerns about are the
overall capacity of USCIS to execute its mission, both in terms
of the new, incoming workload, and addressing the backlog. I am
also troubled that the agency hasn't been able to make
significant strikes in increasing its staffing levels since the
hiring freeze was lifted over a year ago. I believe these
staffing shortages are currently the biggest challenge that you
face at this time.
Do you agree with that assessment? And what are the primary
factors behind USCIS' hiring challenges, and what steps are you
taking to address them?
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you, Chairwoman.
So our approach to the backlog and our increasing
processing times is multifaceted. We are hiring, as you noted,
and we are trying to fill the existing vacancies that are
within our budget, but we are also planning for the future when
we propose and finalize a fee rule that is equitable and also
with the appropriations that you have provided in the past and
as well as, hopefully, in the future to fill those vacancies.
They are a lot of vacancies and certainly there is a lot of
work for us to do. So what we have done is prioritized hiring
as something we are working very, very closely with hiring
officials across the agency. We are looking for efficiencies in
our hiring process all over the place, including trying to lure
back some of our former USCIS folks who left in recent years
and trying to bring them back in a faster process; also,
thinking about direct hiring authority; and we are working
closely with the directors of each office and tracking every
step of the process to ensure that no time is wasted with each
step of the hiring process. It can be rather long, so we are
trying to shorten it as much as possible.
But it is not just about hiring. It is also about something
I mentioned in my opening statement: it is about goals, setting
goals for ourselves, which I just did, and that is something
that is not just something we set and moved on, we are
constantly trying to implement those goals, as well as
efficiencies and technology.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Do you have a projected time line of
when you believe you will be able to meet your hiring targets?
Ms. Jaddou. So we have a plan to achieve 95-percent fill
rate of existing positions by the end of 2022.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. So, given all the challenges that USCIS
has faced in the past few years, I am worried about the
workforce and, you know, the morale that you are facing right
now. What actions are being taken to improve, you know, the
working conditions and restore employee morale?
Ms. Jaddou. So I am with you. If we don't improve employee
morale, we will not get there. It is so important for us to
stay focused on that. And this might sound a little bit not
directly at employee morale, but in fact strengthening our
fiscal position, our fiscal management throughout the agency,
is critical. That rocked everybody's morale when that happened
and even now. I walked in in August of last year, I feel the
reverberating effects of that threatened furlough, something
that USCIS never experienced in the past. It does make people
question when they are thinking about maybe retiring earlier,
or maybe there is another job in another agency with more
security, or when we are trying to attract folks to the agency
they are thinking, wait a minute, is that an agency where
perhaps I could lose my job?
So these are things that, if we are going to get there, if
we are going to get to our processing goals, we need to secure
the morale of the agency and the only way to do that is to say
we are in this together, we are all going to protect each
other, and that means fiscal management, careful fiscal
management.
So I consider my work with our CFO integral to every part
of the agency in everything we do; otherwise, we are not going
to get there. And so that is one part of it, I think that is
the base, but I am spending a lot of time listening. I am going
not only virtually in settings like these across the agency
with town halls, big ones, small ones, but also, now that we
are in a hopefully healthier place with regard to the pandemic,
I am actually trying to travel to multiple offices all across
the country, meet with our staff, hear from them, and then
try--not just listen, but also take what they are telling us
and try to implement change to ensure that people are being
heard and also able to conduct their work in the most efficient
way possible, but in an environment that protects them.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Again, welcome, Dr. Jaddou, and I thank you for being with
us this morning.
The Biden administration has decided to end the use of the
Title 42 public health authority effective May the 23rd. A
substantial surge of migrants is likely to follow in quick
succession since about half of all encounters are currently
amenable to removal under that authority. I have some
questions.
Is it likely that your asylum officers and perhaps others
within USCIS will be diverted to address this surge?
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you for the question.
So my job at USCIS is to ensure that we have enough
officers available to do credible fear interviews, reasonable
fear interviews for individuals coming across the southern
border and other ports of entry, but also we have a new rule
that you had pointed to in your opening statement, the asylum
officer rule, a new thing we are doing with regard to this
population.
And so those are my dual missions. And, as you know, we
have been hiring for that new asylum officer rule.
And then, over here, because we have had in the past
increases in credible fear, reasonable fear interviews, related
type of interviews, we have a staff--of course, if it grows
tremendously, we are in the middle of hiring more and more
people. So we are going to keep going. We have not--we don't
see an end in sight in hiring.
So, clearly, my job is to get us ready and that is exactly
what we are doing.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. And, believe me, I understand your
efforts in that regard, but this is going to happen May the
23rd, do you think that you are going to see a diversion of
officers, asylum officers and others to address this surge? I
guess I am asking for right now what----
Ms. Jaddou. Yes, if--so we have a lot of individuals that
are capable of doing and have the authority to do that already
and are doing it. We certainly do have other people who are
available as well. So, whatever that surge, we will handle it.
As other emergencies come up at any time, we are always capable
and ready. We have an incredible workforce.
Again, that gets to the point about morale is, if we are
going to continue to ask people to take on new duties on top of
existing duties, then we need to ensure that they feel secure
and in their jobs. And so that is part of what this request is
about, to set that insurance policy for them.
Mr. Fleischmann. In the event that these diversions occur,
what kind of impacts will such diversions of resources have the
USCIS? And I understand you are going to try to hire up to deal
with this situation, but what types of diversions, what would
that effect or impact be?
Ms. Jaddou. So it depends how large you are talking about.
This happens every day at USCIS and I can give you the perfect
example of Operation Allies Welcome, something none of us
expected in the middle of the summer last year, we thought it
would be a small program, and it grew rather quickly, but USCIS
stepped up. We had 250 people from across our agency who
volunteered to work at the military bases to assist with the
population and ensure that they had work authorization in a
rapid manner.
So those types of situations are not uncommon for our
agency. At the moment, of course, we are also thinking about
Ukraine and some of the things that we need to do with regard
to Ukraine.
We are an agile workforce and we always step up where there
is a mission that we are asked to do. Is it easy? No. We have
to set, obviously, priorities, and we do have a limited set of
resources and we always are constantly--it is a daily question,
are those resources in the right places? And we ask ourselves,
practically every day, how to move those resources around and
ensure we are properly resourcing the proper priorities.
Mr. Fleischmann. I understand. And I have got about a
minute left.
So, based on what you have been able to explain to me,
right now, you are not currently staffed to handle this
increased workload, although you are trying to hire to do that.
One follow-up question then, would it be fair to say that your
case backlog will grow as the crisis on the border would get
worse with this influx due to the Title 42 situation? In other
words, do you anticipate the case backlog growing then?
Ms. Jaddou. So the important thing for me to answer here is
we have a cadre of staff, not just in our Refugee and Asylum
directorate, that are prepared and ready today to handle a lot
of people. Will they have to put aside some other work? Yes,
potentially, depending on how large or how small. So those are
the questions. And sometimes it is just for a temporary period
of time.
So, certainly, we are always prepared for those
possibilities. Does it take a toll on other work? It does
sometimes. And the goal is to keep hiring enough so that when
we have these new demands on our resources, that we do have a
lot more capability to expand as needed without affecting
things that are already on our plate in any way, that is the
goal. The goal is to not have an effect on existing priorities,
sometimes it has a little bit of effect. That is the goal, just
a little bit of effect here and there; we don't want it to move
people away, completely away from their other priorities.
So that is the balance we have here and I think we are
trying to get there by right-sizing our agency to our growing
humanitarian mission.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Doctor.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Fleischmann. Madam Chair, I will yield back and wait
for round two. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, and
certainly to our witness today.
I just want to say, we want to be supportive, as the
chairwoman said, on your hiring and I know you are trying to
expedite the hiring, but let me just--I live on the border.
Like I always say, I don't come visit for a few hours; I live
here, my family lives here. I drink the water, I breathe the
air down here. And just to give you an idea of what we are
seeing here and you have--I represent the Laredo sector and I
represent the Valley sectors, Rio Grande, which is the
highlight of where most of the people are coming in. Just to
give you an idea, just yesterday in the southern part of my
area we had 2,000 individuals that were encountered in the
Reynosa-Grande-McAllen area, that is only one part. It doesn't
include, you know, the part where Congressman Vincente Gonzalez
or Filemon Vela represent. But just to give you an idea, just
2,000 individuals in one day in one part.
The Border Patrol Sector Laredo, which is another sector,
has 60 percent of the Border Patrol that are not in the field,
but are in the processing center, which means that they are
only dealing with 40 percent of their personnel, they are
actually providing homeland security; the rest are changing
diapers, you know, doing all the important things to help the
migrants, which are very important.
We have six checkpoints here, which means that, like it
happened when the Del Rio situation happened, they closed the
checkpoints because they had to send the personnel, because
they are only dealing with 40 percent. That means that the
checkpoints were open and people could pass drugs, whatever
they have to do.
So I am giving you just a snapshot of what is happening,
just 2,000 individuals in one day in a very small part of my
area.
The hiring process that you are all doing--and we want to
be helpful in any way, it is going to be very important--it
took me 2 years to try to establish eight courts in Laredo,
immigration judges. They still haven't hired all the
immigration judges down here. So your asylum officers are going
to be very important to address the credible fear.
My question has to do with what the Appropriations
Committee added and that was the Joint Migrant Processing
Centers, where $200 million were sent in, and part of it has to
do where CBP, ICE, and USCIS are supposed to work together to
help us establish those joint centers, so we can hopefully be a
little bit more efficient in addressing the situation in that
one-stop center and hopefully get Border Patrol out on the
fields.
What can we do, Madam Director, to help you do your job? We
want to be helpful to you?
Ms. Jaddou. So, thank you. I appreciate all--and I have to
say thank you for all the help that already has been provided
to USCIS. And, you know, frankly, the cost of humanitarian
programs at USCIS has skyrocketed since the beginning of our
agency approximately, you know, a little less than 20 years
ago.
When we started as an agency under the Homeland Security
Act in the early 2000s, the humanitarian mission was small, it
was under five percent of our budget, and so it made complete
sense at that moment. A small surcharge to our other fee-paying
applicants and petitioners, no problem, it wasn't a big issue.
We also didn't have multiple emergencies coming at us. For
example, in less than a year, we had Operation Allies Welcome,
now we have Ukraine. It is lots of things happening that we
have to step up and help with, not only directly at USCIS, but
also in assistance of a whole-of-government effort, as federal
employees of DHS and also of the Federal Government.
But now that small, little, insignificant part of our
budget has grown, and it will go from less than five percent to
almost 20 percent. So almost a fifth of our budget will be our
humanitarian mission. That is becoming a lot more significant
of a surcharge to our applicants and our petitioners. Now we
are looking at some real money, charging our applicants and
petitioners a lot more for this than what was originally
envisioned. That is the issue here and that is the help we are
looking for.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. I have got about 20 seconds.
If a person goes, if a hundred people go in front of an
immigration judge, about 10 to 12 percent are going to be
accepted on the asylum claim. What is it for an asylum officer
if they go before a credible fear? If they have a hundred
people, how many people will be accepted?
And my time is up, but if you can answer that?
Ms. Jaddou. Yeah, very quickly. So, under our asylum
officer rule, that is what we are trying to do in a faster,
more efficient, but fair process, is have people work through
our asylum officers first and, for those who are eligible,
grant them more quickly, and for those who are not, deny them
more quickly than the current process that you mentioned. You
are unable to fill judge positions in your neighborhood and
here, what we are trying to do, we can much more quickly fill
people. We can find asylum officers and fill them and train
them well, much more quickly than the process for an
immigration judge.
Mr. Cuellar. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking
Member Fleischmann.
I just want to thank you for holding this hearing today,
Director Jaddou. Nice to meet you virtually.
I appreciate you appearing before our subcommittee today as
well and I think we don't need to belabor the point today that
we are all aware of the crisis at the southern border right
now, a direct result of the Administration's policies right now
that I see as misguided and I know you have a very heavy job to
do in dealing with this strain that you are dealing with.
I understand the impact on the morale, not only at all of
DHS but USCIS as well.
So I understand that in our office we are focused on
customer service here; that means helping constituents with the
case work needs that obviously interact with your office too.
And there are some delays and it is very frustrating for my
constituents for them to encounter those delays with USCIS,
mostly because of the processing backlog.
So when I look at the Administration's request for $375
million and nearly 3,000 officers to deal with the new asylum
cases, my biggest question is what measures are being taken
there, other than just hiring up, what measures are being taken
to improve customer service for those who have followed the
rules. They are legally residing and working in Iowa and they
need to access those casework services.
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you for raising that question because
that is a high priority of mine.
It is not just the service of ensuring that we are timely
responding. Again, it is not about getting to yes or no. It is
about getting to the right answer in a reasonable amount of
time.
And that we are not able to do in a lot of cases, 60, over
60 percent of our cases at this time.
So that is a heavy focus of mine. In fact, it is--I have
five priorities I have laid out for the year and that is one of
them.
But also another priority there is customer service. It is
not just being able to make the decision on that case in a
reasonable period of time but also when somebody has a problem,
and needs to call us because something has happened in their
case, and needs to reach a person, a human being, absolutely,
the situation we have now is not serving our applicants and
petitioners well. And so----
Mrs. Hinson. Right. Do you know how long the wait time is
right now when someone calls in?
Ms. Jaddou. I have heard it can be upwards of an hour and
that, to me, is concerning. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be
necessarily that but we shouldn't keep people on hold.
Is there a way, as many businesses in the private sector
do, it is--we have a hold, a wait time, for ``X'' period of
time. Would you like to be called back? Please leave your phone
number.
We are looking at technologies like that and trying to
institute those technologies but the reality is that when you
have to talk to a person that means we need a person who has
knowledge and experience on casework and those people are, at
the moment, up to here trying to process cases.
So that is the trick. That is the balance. How do we ensure
we keep enough people processing so that our delays go down. We
don't have them anymore. At the same time servicing people,
ensuring that they can talk to us when they need to.
So we are trying to leverage technology, have people use
online tools, at the same time growing our customer resources,
our human beings in customer service.
Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. Well, I want to be very clear. I will
follow up on what one of my colleagues already addressed.
But I just want to make sure we are not diverting people
from their work there to handle that casework to handle
increased surge because we have to first, and foremost, focus
on the people who are doing it right.
So that is number one. The other question I wanted to ask
about the crisis in Europe obviously hitting home with what is
happening in Ukraine. I have been meeting with families from my
District who are trying to adopt children from Ukraine and
obviously heartwrenching, very powerful stories. I am a mom of
two boys myself and I think about what these children are
facing and those families are facing as Putin and his thugs
destroy their homelands.
So, you know, American families are bonding with these
kids. They are hopeful that they are going to be reunited so
are you following these cases and the challenges that these
families are facing in adopting these children and bringing
them to the country. What, if anything, is USCIS doing to help
support these families?
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you for that really important question
and I noted that one of the things, again, and when of the new
humanitarian missions that has directly hit us is Ukraine. And
even before the announcement by the President to resettle a
number of people, we, at USCIS, immediately stepped back and
said, as we did with Afghanistan, what is the current
population of people seeking some kind of service of USCIS and
how do we ensure that those folks are getting expedited so we
can bring them here as quickly as possible?
If they are already in our pipeline and they are going to
get to a potential yes, well then we don't we try to hurry that
up in a crisis like this.
So that is the question we have asked of all of our
programs and will continue to do that. And, of course, if there
are any cases or any concern that you have, please do raise it
with us.
Mrs. Hinson. I appreciate that. Thanks for keeping us in
the loop on that and I am working with the State Department to
get that done.
So thank you and I realize I am out of time, Madam Chair. I
yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you for
calling today's hearing.
Director Jaddou, I was glad to see that USCIS took steps
earlier this year to replace the Trump administration's harmful
public charge rule.
By discouraging immigrants and their families from using
legal healthcare and other services during a pandemic, this
rule made all of our communities less safe.
But rescinding the Trump administration rule does not mean
that the real fear it created in the lives of our neighbors has
been rescinded with it.
The very same week the Biden Administration proposed its
new public charge rule, I heard from a constituent who was
voluntarily cancelling her SNAP benefits. She is a citizen with
a baby on the way and she is scared that receiving any
government assistance will impact her husband's visa
application.
My staff has tried to connect her with other resources and
to explain how the new rule will keep her family safe but the
damage has been done and this is just one family out of many.
It is clear that our federal government has a lot more work
to do here.
Can you describe what USCIS is doing to proactively
communicate the removal of previous public charge rule and,
specifically, please share any community outreach strategy that
you are deploying, which languages that you published
information and if you have worked with local groups that have
community trust to disseminate information.
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you for that question. It is something
that has been raised in multiple stakeholder engagements that I
have done in person across the country.
So, first of all, some of the things that we have done,
first of all, is to ensure that, on our website, it is very
clear we are not applying the 2019 public charge rule.
It is also very clear from social media that we try to do
as much as possible, repeatedly reminding that it is not being
applied.
We are also working with our federal partners who have
these programs, as you mentioned one of them, SNAP benefits, so
that they have the same information and can disseminate the
information that we have to the people they work with directly,
multiple federal agencies.
The one thing that I have gathered, as I think you have, is
from our stakeholder engagements in the field is sometimes that
information is still not getting through.
So I have asked, in my multiple--in the last several months
that I have been out, is how can we partner with you to go to
your engagements? You are the spokesperson. You have the
trusted voice in the community. How can I partner with you;
whether it is in person; whether it is virtually, me directly,
our folks who are working in the field, showing up to your
events where you are communicating that this is a federal
official, from USCIS, and so that is something that we are
working very closely with the stakesholder community on.
Ms. Underwood. Great. I would like to see that scaled up
and perhaps you can communicate to the committee some specifics
around that but also languages. It is very important that this
information not be shared just in English and we have the
expectation and I believe your agency has the resources to
publish the public charge information in multiple languages.
Okay.
Ms. Jaddou. We do.
Ms. Underwood. It is really important that we have a
proactive plan to address, you know, this information in an
accessible way and to counteract the lingering fear and
misinformation that persists in our communities.
How could USCIS expand and improve this outreach with more
resources and what specific resources do you need from Congress
to do this?
Ms. Jaddou. So, of course, this budget--so our budget all
along has primarily been fee funded, 97 percent.
So whenever we are asked to do anything that increases the
need to spend money, certainly it means we have to find it
somewhere within that fee paying population.
So what we are trying to do now is to say that our
humanitarian mission has grown beyond an insignificant small
portion of our budget. It is much larger and we are constantly
having to shift our resources around.
So we can't always have available money to do the things
that you are talking about. And so we are trying to change that
so that we are a little bit more confortable and not always
robbing from Peter to pay Paul and then increasing our
backlogs.
Ms. Underwood. Okay.
Ms. Jaddou. So that is the goal here.
Ms. Underwood. Well, I am really glad to hear that we have
the same goal of an immigration system that aligns with
America's morals and values but can it lead to really counter
the harms done by the previous public charge rule. We have a
lot of work left to do.
And I encourage USCIS to increase its efforts in this area
and in the partnerships with trusted groups and I stand by the
USCIS here in Congress.
And I yield back.
Ms. Jaddou. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member
and thank you, Madam Secretary.
You know, one of the things that I always talk to the folks
back home about is, you know, being a member of Congress is
really about helping our constituents back home.
One of the pieces that is often overlooked, I think, by
oddly enough by the folks back home, as the backlog at USCIS
continues--has grown, back home I can tell you this is becoming
a bigger and bigger portion of the casework that my district is
working on.
Everything from employment authorizations to travel
documents, all of them are taking longer. Not only are
processing times taking longer but just getting communications
back which used to be done, you know, very, very quickly.
And it is my understanding that the wait times to hear back
on inquiries are long now, in some cases, actually taking over
two months which seems almost impossible to me.
But I also understand that there has been some difficulties
in getting in contact with people at the service centers where
the phones just ring and--or you get a voicemail.
Can you give me an update on how--now I heard you say I
think by the end of 2022 you expect what percentage to be
filled?
Ms. Jaddou. So we--by the end of 2022 would would like to
be 95 percent filled and by the end of fiscal year 2023 reach
our cycle time goals.
Mr. Rutherford. But that so in your new fee structure,
are--historically the agency was about 97 percent, I understand
97 percent fee based.
But, clearly, that is not going to be possible with all of
the refugee issues and all the humanitarian issues that are
being forced upon us particularly if Title 42 is done away
with.
Can you talk about the strain that that is going to put on
your system as well and are you asking for more money from the
taxpayer to cover USCIS now than fees?
Ms. Jaddou. So in many of the humanitarian programs that we
participate in, there are other agencies that do similar work.
For example, the State Department has a major role in refugee
processing, health and human services as well, in unaccompanied
children as well as refugee processing.
We have our part in refugee and aslyum. But, unlike, for
example, the State Department and HHS, we are primarily fee
funded. They are not.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Ms. Jaddou. And they have never been fee funded in that
way.
So what we are trying to do is align ourselves with that so
we can be better prepared to handle the mission and it is not
just things like that we can plan for, which, you know, we can
plan for a set number of refugees. We can plan for, you know,
things like that that are--you can plan years in advance.
Operation Allies Welcome showed up. We had to take care of that
situation.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Ms. Jaddou. Same thing with Ukraine. Completely unexpected.
Our process to obtain more funding is to go through an
administrative procedures act rule-making process, which you
can imagine is a very time-consuming process that is not agile
enough to keep up with that type of humanitarian need.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Ms. Jaddou. So we are asking for some help from Congress so
that we could be more agile and prepared while we are doing it.
We are meeting the need but at the cost and expense then of the
people who are paying into it because we cannot quickly fund
raise the amount----
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Ms. Jaddou [continuing]. We need to cover.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Ms. Jaddou. So that is why I am so thankful for Operation
Allies Welcome money.
Mr. Rutherford. So looking at, you know, Title 42 is about
the health of our country by excluding people that potentially
had COVID-19.
I would suggest to you also that the Fentanyl that is
coming across the border, the opioids that is coming across the
border, because we have this open border policy is also a
health hazard to our country and we need to be looking at that
in the context of people that are going into the USCIS process
and the funds are not there to assist those people are trying
to do things legally and properly.
And, so, I would hope that, you know, you would be sharing
that message as well as we try to fund you properly.
So, with that, Madam Chair, I see my time has run out and I
yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. I thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome Director
Jaddou. Thank you for your testimony and for your good work.
You know, I serve on three appropriations subcommittees
and, I think it is fair to say, that of all the agencies
covered across that spectrum, yours is the one that suffered
most from the Trump administration.
I don't think it is exaggeration to say the Trump
administration tried to destroy your agency, to shut you down.
Stripping funding. Stripping personnel. And closing a majority
of the field offices overseas that deal with your cases.
Closing, I believe, 16 international field offices. That leaves
seven in operation right now. That is likely one of the reasons
for the backlog that you have described.
It is clear you are still fighting an uphill battle with
staffing shortages and a fiscal crisis for the agency and the
effects of COVID. I mean, your agency has really been through
the ringer.
Despite all this adversity, we do count on you, especially
now, for important work and I want to address a couple of
aspects of that, giving you a chance to elaborate on earlier
answers.
TPS, temporary protected status. The current issue of
backlog clearly has that effect on your ability to deal with
the TPS let alone new TPS populations which not are going to
include tens of thousands of Ukrainians and people from
Afghanistan. People who were recently added to the TPS list.
So what resources are you going to need to see this
through, this escalation in TPS cases from places that we know
we have to extend this to people who have been displaced by
cruel conflicts?
And then what about those international field offices,
those shuttered international field offices? It is not as easy,
I know, as simply flipping a switch to get back this
infrastructure that has been lost.
But what resources here, too, do you need from Congress to
make this happen? What are your plans with regard to the
international offices and what kinds of resources do those
require?
Ms. Jaddou. So thank you. That is--you hit it right on the
money.
When a crisis like Ukraine or Afghanistan happens and TPS
is provided to protect people, it means that USCIS, all of a
sudden, has to step up and create a process for a whole new set
of people, sometimes tens of thousands of people, to be
processed and obtain TPS and then work authorization in as
swift of a manner as possible.
But we can't grow overnight to handle that. That is why we
are trying our best now to fill our agency to the maximum
extent possible so that when--with the ability to move and be
agile to handle new emergencies that come in, like this, like
the ones you mentioned.
So our effort to be able to be ready for something like
that can't just be hiring. It can't just be more people. It is
also thinking about how to leverage technology. Every day it
improves and we are getting better and better at it.
Having online filing for TPS now, that is a big deal. From
end to end, application to final decision, that is really,
really important and helpful.
It is also really important for us to take a look at each
of our processes and ask ourselves questions about why are we
doing things that way we have been doing them for decades now?
So much has changed. Let us make sure that we are not
unnecessarily creating bureaucracies and really thinking how
most efficiently, but also securely, and ensuring that we are
following the law all the way through, but most efficiently.
So those are a lot of the question that we are asking
ourselves now.
With regard to international offices, our refugee and
aslyum and international offices division at USCIS is engaged
in a study to determine where is the best place to reopen
offices; how much that will cost us.
As you mentioned, we do have some offices that are
currently open but we do believe there are more that need to be
opened. We just need to make sure they are in the right places
and ensure that we have the money to do so without, again,
robbing from Peter to pay Paul.
Mr. Price. Thank you. I, of course, will be interested, as
soon as that analysis is completed, would be very interested in
what you concluded and what it requires.
Ms. Jaddou. Absolutely.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Ranking Member
and Director Jaddou.
I wanted to talk a little bit about DACA applications and
the backlog.
In 2021, there was a significant backlog of DACA
applications, in part, because of the reopening of the program.
Unfortunately, many DACA recipients experienced a lapse in
status causing them to lose their jobs in fear of deportation.
In fiscal year 2023 requests, you are requesting a $255.9
million for a backlog reduction. This builds on the investment
Congress has made from fiscals years 2022 and additional
authorities provided to USCIS through the fiscal year 2021
omnibus.
What is the current status of the DACA application backlogs
and can you share how this increased backlog reduction funding
will support DACA renewal in application and reduce application
processing times?
Ms. Jaddou. So thank you. And you are right, exactly right.
2021 was not a good year for DACA given all the things you
mentioned.
The good news is that we took a look at the process, the
renewal process to ensure that we are doing it as efficiently
as possible.
We were also taking a look at what were some of the reasons
why people were getting to the end, their expiring period, and
trying to determine what was slowing those types of cases down
and how we can make improvements to ensure they don't get
there.
We have implemented a lot of those things now and the good
news is that most people are being, across the median, is now
under 30 days processing time.
Now are some people still arriving and getting close to
their expiring date? Yes. What we have found, however, is the
very significant majority of those cases that do get to that
place is because they are not fiing on time.
And, so, we are asking people very, very publicly on our
website, through social media, file between 120 and 150 days
and you can be pretty safe that you will be processed in time
today.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. I appreciate that.
But the continued--the backlog, the queue, that has been,
you know, cleared or so individuals who have, you know,
discussed that, you know, it is being, you know, ironed out and
so I understand what you are saying on a prospective
perspective.
But, you know, folks who have been in the queue are being
addressed in a timely way, you are convinced?
Ms. Jaddou. So, at the moment, if people timely file, we
believe we can get through their cases on time.
But, of course, as you know, we have a large backlog in all
of our areas. So you have probably seen that our employment
authorization document backlog is quite large and it is
actually our largest.
And that is a person's ability to put food on their table,
to have a house and, frankly, during a labor shortage, to
contribute to the overall economy.
So we have prioritized taking a look at how to improve
through technology, through improvements in our operational
processes, also taking a look at the length of time we provide
employment authorization documents. In some cases, it was only
for a year but the processing time is longer than that. So we
said, well, let us extend it for two years.
So that helps us because it eliminates how many times we
have to keep looking at those documents and it also helps the
individual because they don't have to keep applying and paying
the fee as often as they do.
We also, if you have seen, there is a regulation we are
working on that was recently sent to the OMB for review which
would take a look at auto extensions while we are in the phase
of processing.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I wanted to ask one more question about aslyum and I know
that you touched on this briefly.
As you know, Homeland Security and the Department of
Justice recently announced a new rule that would expand the
role of USCIS aslyum officers in adjudicating aslyum claims.
The stated goal of the new rule is to reduce existing backlogs.
Can you share the steps that USCIS intends to take to
ensure that there is due process with access to an attorney in
this process and to make sure that we have the proper controls
in place?
Ms. Jaddou. Absolutely. So there are many steps in the
process that are laid out in the rule and currently, in the 60-
day implementation period, we are getting ready as quickly as
possible to develop the final materials and train all of the
individuals on those materials and the steps in the process to
ensure due process and that people have access to counsel, the
time they have to get access to counsel.
I am happy to have our staff brief you on as we get closer
and closer to the finalization of implementation, so that you
can see how exactly we are going to ensure due process in that
as well as, of course, efficiency so that we can ensure that
people who are eligible are granted quickly and those who not
are denied quickly.
Mr. Aguilar. Thanks so much. I appreciate it. I yield back,
Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I believe that completes the first
round. So I have enough time for a second round.
Doctor, USCIS's financial crisis in 2020 was really a wake-
up call when it was projected that the deficit would be $602
million.
While the financial strains on that agency, at that time,
could be partially attributed to the pandemic, there were also
avoidable, detrimental policy and operational choices that were
made by the prior administration as well as a pattern of year
over year spending of that exceeded collections.
We have touched a little bit on how financially you are
doing today, if you would care to elaborate a little bit on
that?
But I am also interested in what actions you have taken to
improve financial planning and discipline at USCIS.
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you so much. I should start by saying a
lot of credit goes to our CFO for the incredible work that she
was able to do to restabilize the agency.
We tightened our belts and we had a hiring freeze. We cut
contracts. What did this all mean, though?
In addition to the pandemic posture we were in, and trying
to learn how to conduct our mission in a pandemic, which many
of our services do require in-person work with the public and
amongst ourselves, we needed to do all that at the same time.
We have done pretty well but the result, of course, has
been an increase in our processing times and our backlog.
But now that we are returning to normal receipts, we have
taken a look at unnecessary bureaucratic steps that we could
remove from processes so that we could go a little bit faster,
that doesn't cost us a lot.
We are also relooking at some of those contracts that had
to be cut. And, of course, we lifted the hiring freeze. But
that hiring freeze meant that we got to a pretty high vacancy
rate.
So that is why we are so focused now because we spent about
a year without replacing attrition and it is so important now
that we are able to replace all of that attrition, continued
attrition and as well as growing to where we need to be because
we are not just below where we needed to be years ago. We are
also below where we need to be now and in the future.
So the good news is in the tightening of our belt, we were
able to restore our carryover balance which is incredibly
important. This is not an agency that can count on every year
Congress paying the bills. We have to pay 97 percent of the
bills, has been our history.
And, so, we need to have--I mean, I look at it as my own
budget. I can either live check to check and then hope I don't
lose my job or I can have a savings and, if I lose my job, it
is okay. I can tide myself over.
And, so, that is as simple as it is and having a healthy
savings account, a healthy carryover to tide us over when
perhaps receipts are low or we have a big contract that has
come due, that we have the money available and we don't have to
potentially turn to furlough because that is detrimental and
not just for the moment. But for years. As I stated earlier, we
are feeling the effects of it.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director, in the recent past, USCIS
policies, regulations and operational changes have been
implemented without robust analysis of the impacts on USCIS
funding and operations.
This lack of analysis was a major contributing factor to
USCIS's financial hardship in 2020. As you contemplated and
implemented various reforms, how have you addressed the need
for these kinds of analysis?
Ms. Jaddou. So we have working groups that think about how
to make changes at USCIS; whether it is operations, policy,
regulatory. And we invite our office of the CFO to participate
in those.
But it is also something that I do regularly with the
people who are developing policy in the agency to ask that
question: how much is this going to cost us? And it is also my
question to our CFO: can we afford this?
And, in any recommendation that any part of USCIS is making
as, did you talk to the CFO? Ask them. Can we afford this? And
what are we going to have to cut in order to afford this?
So always taking a step back and thinking about, just as
you would with running your own household.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you again, Madam Chair, for this
hearing.
On March 24th, Doctor, USCIS issued a final asylum officer
rule. The request asks for $375 million to hire an additional
2,000 asylum officers to do work that immigration judges
currently perform. The USCIS has caused existing funds to
start--has used existing funds to start this work with about
200 asylum officers, but then we will need to hire a
significant number of additional personnel.
My first question, please, is do you have concerns about
replacing the current adjudication of asylum claims where ICE
attorneys can offer evidence of a false claim with something
that is non-adversarial in nature? Is it likely that more
fraudulent claims could make it through the system?
Ms. Jaddou. So while at the moment until this rule is
finalized we review asylum claims only in the affirmative case,
that is background and experience we have and we are trained,
very well trained. The training that our officers go through
before they are adjudicating, begin adjudicating, along with
supervisory support and training throughout, they know how to
look for those things. This is not a program that is easy to
run and certainly we have experience and we know we can do it
well.
So what we are doing now is starting, phasing this program
in, with existing money that we do have and we have identified
for this purpose and so we are coming to you now to ask you for
money so that we can grow that to a much greater extent because
we do believe that this is the way forward where we have that
experience, we know how to do affirmative asylum, we think we
can do it well here too and we will do it for a smaller cost
and faster than is currently done now.
And if I could just say that the progress with the
immigration court has not been eliminated in this asylum
officer rule. We are just the first step. So what we are trying
to do is look for those who are eligible and get them through
the process faster and then for those who are not eligible,
they would be denied.
Now, for those who are denied, the court is still there
too. They have a process they are going to be reviewing as
well. So this is a change in that we are trying to make the
process go faster. Ensuring fairness and due process, at the
same time be more efficient.
Mr. Fleischmann. Understood. Then let me ask you a follow-
up, if I may.
Generally, what percentage of migrants are determined to
have credible fear by asylum officers and when those cases get
to an immigration judge, what normally happens? What
percentage, if you know, does the judge find a credible fear?
Ms. Jaddou. So are you talking--not under the asylum
officer rule, the one that we are about to implement or the
current?
Mr. Fleischmann. Current process.
Ms. Jaddou. Current process? So I would have to get back to
you specifically by country. I don't have those numbers
directly with me so I am happy to get back with you on those
numbers.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay.
Madam Chair, how much time do I have? I can't see the
clock.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. You have a minute and 15 seconds.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. Thank you. I will continue to ask
then. Thank you.
Hiring has been a challenge at USCIS. How long do you
estimate it will take to hire 2,000 asylum officers?
Ms. Jaddou. So if I can use our example of what we are
aiming towards now, we are aiming to get to 3,500 hires by the
end of this year, 2022. So if I can use that as an example,
that will help us understand how long it will take to hire
about 2,000.
Mr. Fleischmann. Got you. Hypothetical, but if Congress
declines to fund these additional officers, will you be able to
execute the asylum office rule?
Ms. Jaddou. We would have to decide how much money is
available at USCIS with our current funding through our fee
paying population to determine what percentage we could afford
to send over to the asylum officer rule.
Mr. Fleischmann. I believe my time, Madam Chair, is about
up.
Dr. Jaddou, thank you so much for your testimony today.
I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Director, I would like to follow up on what I was talking
about a few minutes ago and just give you a little bit more
context. I gave you the number of agents, Border Patrol agents,
in the Laredo sector that are out in the Processing Centers and
not in the field.
I just asked my friends down there in the Rio Grande Valley
and it is about the same, 50 to 60 percent of the Border Patrol
agents are in the processing centers and not out in the fields.
So 40 to 50 percent are doing the Homeland Security job and the
rest are dealing with that.
They are also, just to give you an idea, this is all matter
of context. I have not even touched Title 42. That is a totally
different thing. This is just the current situation. Just in
the lower Rio Grande area, my district, last week they dealt
with 20 large groups just in one week and what they now
classify as a large group is a group that has over 100 people
in that group.
So they had 20 large groups of 100 plus and that doesn't
include the other individuals. So just to give you that
contents, and that is why I wanted to follow-up on the question
that I asked you and if you don't have the answer, you can
follow-up. The joint migrant processing centers, we want to
work with you.
We are hoping, as the chairwoman, we feel that this, by
doing a one-stop center, Doctor, you said working with CDPIs in
your office, we can hopefully move that more efficiently and
provide due process, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So I would like to see what your plans are. Do you have
that, number one, and number two, I would like to follow-up
with Representative Fleischmann said also. I had asked this.
You know, for immigration judges, there are 1.6 million cases
backlogged. The average time is about 875 days.
Texas has the largest number of backlogs of any other state
and if 100 people go before an immigration judge, usually, and
every case is different, 90 to 88 percent are going to be
rejected on the asylum cases. So I want to know the same type
of figures on your asylum folks as to, number one, what is the
backlog and I just gave you the contents of just my part of the
area and my district.
Number two, if some go before a asylum officer, if you have
100 people, how many will be rejected? How many will be
accepted?
And I know every case is different. I understand that, but
I would like to, you know, look--I like to look at numbers
where immigration judges are at and where asylum officers are
at to address due process and whoever is supposed to stay here,
I say bienvenidos, or whatever the language might be. But are
the ones that are not accepted or credible fear is not
established, then we have to enforce the law and say goodbye to
them.
So if you don't have those figures, I would like to have
those figures. Share with me and the rest of the committee if
you don't mind, and your plans for the joint migrant processing
centers too.
Ms. Jaddou. Yeah, and we are happy to do that and share
them with your staff and with you. Certainly on the joint
migrant processing centers, we are working together with our
partners are CBP and ICE on how we would create these programs.
What our part would be, we all play a role, the three of
us. We are in it together, and so what I can do is take back
the request to get a briefing so that we can talk together. I
wouldn't want to just talk about my part without them in the
room as well. So let's plan for that.
And then secondly with regard to the data, clearly this is
part of phasing this in is to learn, you know, what are those
numbers going to be. We have experience in the affirmative
asylum, but that is different. It is a different population
sometimes and so it is somewhat apples and oranges, but also
some similarities.
So we will see what the numbers will look like and that is
the phased-in approach and we are going to study it along the
way. It also depends, since we are going to phase it in. We are
not going to be able to apply it immediately to everybody.
So depending on where we apply it, the location, the groups
of people that we are applying it to, it will have different
results depending on who the population is that is coming to
you. So more to come for sure and we are happy to share that
with you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Thank you, so much.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And again, thanks Director for sticking with us through
this hearing for a second round. I appreciate it. And I want to
kind of follow-up on some of the areas that my colleagues have
already talked about in terms of the asylum officers with the
plans to transition away from relying on the immigration judge
to these asylum officers in the credible fear cases and giving
them the authority, obviously, to make the decisions on who is
eligible to remain in the country.
So my question is kind of a follow-up on the training side.
When we talk about an immigration judge and their training
versus the asylum officers, what training do they have that can
allow them to accurately determine the credible fear claim
compared to what an immigration judge is currently doing?
Ms. Jaddou. So that is something that we are training on.
Actually, we are going to have a training in a few weeks to get
all of the new folks who have come on for this rule very
specifically now that it is been finalized, exactly what the
rule's requirements are.
We are leaning, of course, on the things we already do know
about similar things that we do at USCIS as well as information
that we have from the immigration courts. So it is a holistic
approach. We are taking a look at the way things are done, but
also recognizing this is a new process so there are going to be
some new things that we are establishing.
And I like to say we have hired the best of the best and we
have put our best on this new program to make sure that we can
do it as well as we possibly can from the get-go and then just
continue to build on it, and continue to train. We are going
to--nothing is perfect in the beginning, so we will work it out
and of course we will be happy to share with you as this goes
on and gets phased in more and more how this will work and I am
hopeful that we are going to be successful in the beginning. We
have a really great group of people, a lot of people focused on
getting it right first round and being trained properly.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay. I would just ask you, continue to
follow-up with our office. If you could maybe even----
Ms. Jaddou. Absolutely.
Mrs. Hinson [continuing]. Come up with some examples of
cases where these asylum officers with this new training, this
new role, have been able to flag some of those not qualified
credible fear claims just so we have an idea of what that
threshold actually is in implementation that would be great.
And then just a quick question to you about--obviously we
have got a huge influence right now with cartels, human
smugglers, bad actors, at our southern border and we know they
are coaching people on what to say when they are coming across
the border.
So what are you doing to counter those efforts by, again,
those bad actors, to coach illegals on what to say to try to
get that credible fear claim?
Ms. Jaddou. So our officers are trained to look for that
and what we are doing with this asylum officer rule is the
collection of information right in the beginning with the
credible fear part of this and from there it includes a
thorough interview. So it is not just a paper form that is not
going to be questioning the veracity of the statements made.
And also the individual; establishing a rapport and
ensuring that the person is legitimately stating a story that
can be verified and that is exactly how we are training our
officers to ensure that they look for the right things in the
individual, but as well as the evidence that needs to be
provided to prove what it is the person is stating.
This is not a 2-minute type of thing. This is something
that will take some time to establish that rapport, ask all the
right questions and document it. And our officers do that. They
do that in the refugee context. They are very good at it. So we
have ways to do this in different contexts that are quite
similar.
I am confident in our workforce and again, we did hire a
lot of experienced people from the Refugee and Asylum
International Offices Division here at USCIS to come onto these
new roles specifically for that reason, because they have a
background and they are launching into a new program. So it is
those skills we need to be able to then craft and into this new
program.
Mrs. Hinson. And just a quick follow-up on what Congressman
Cuellar just mentioned about the backlog and how long it is
taking, 875 days. It is a significant amount of time obviously
and I would be interested also, you know, when we hear about
the number of cases that are denied at that point. Are people
showing up to those hearings? I think that is the biggest
concern I have too.
If it is that long of a time frame, where are they going in
that time frame while they are waiting for that hearing to
happen and then is that follow-up actually happening on that
side?
So if you could follow-up with that information for us, I
would certainly appreciate it. Okay.
Ms. Jaddou. Will do.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, Madam Chair.
Director, glad to see you. I think the first time, and you
have a big challenge and we are here to help.
First thing, I was recently made aware of your decision to
prioritize new processing or what you called cycle time goals
for key USCIS immigration forums. I do understand that COVID is
causing delays and we have seen this across the entire
bureaucracy.
However, my district caseworkers have informed me about the
unacceptable wait time my constituents are facing. For this
reason, I am very pleased to hear that you are taking this
matter seriously.
My questions for you are how far along are you in
establishing the guideline, how quickly can we expect to see
these improvements, and what can Congress do to help?
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you so much. Even when I was going
through my confirmation hearing last summer, I saw this as the
number one priority in terms of what USCIS was facing and I see
this as the top priority for a director at this time. So I
couldn't agree with you that we need to tackle this.
So from the very beginning when I got here last August, I
started with bringing someone directly into my office whose
sole goal is to think about we can improve, make more
efficient, our operations, consider policies that are outdated
and really are just creating unnecessary barriers to think
about regulations that perhaps we could propose to make things
a little more smoothly and--go a little more smoothly and
efficiently.
So we have already done taken several of those steps, but
boy those were the low-hanging fruit. There is a lot to go, but
there is also, as I have mentioned, is hiring. We had a hiring
freeze and we are very low staffed at this point. There just
simply aren't enough people to do the work that is in front of
us. So we need more people.
We need to think very--work smarter not harder. That is
really important. We need to institute even more technology
which we are heavily focused on. So those are the multiple
steps that we are taking now and that is why we are here,
frankly.
It is one of the reasons, not all of the reasons, but one
of the reasons why we have a hard time staying focused on those
goals, those cycle time goals, is in the middle of trying to
run towards that very important goal, we have incoming
emergencies.
Operation Allies Welcome, Ukraine, oh, we need to assist
with the latest crisis with regard to the whole of federal
government. There could be an emergency in California. We are
part of the Department of Homeland Security. We volunteer to
help. We are all in this together.
So there is just a lot that comes at us and we want to stay
focused. And to the extent that we can have funding that
supports our humanitarian mission, that underlying basis of our
funding as well as the ability to be agile and shift funding
around when new emergencies arise, that is going to be crucial
and that is why this budget request is there.
It recognizes that. It recognizes the growing humanitarian
mission that I think the entire nation supports. So we don't
think that it is sustainable to continue to go through fee
rules, lengthy fee rule processes, and then charge our fee-
paying customers so much more now that it is growing so large.
Mr. Ruppersberger How about the issue of time? How much
longer do you think----
Ms. Jaddou. Oh. So----
Mr. Ruppersberger [continuing]. You----
Ms. Jaddou [continuing]. The time? So our goal, our cycle
time goals, are to be achieved, this is our ultimate goal, by
the end of fiscal year 2023. Obviously, we will see improvement
along the way, but the established goals of 6 months for some
of our major forms and then 3 months, for example a work
authorization, will be by the end of fiscal year 2023 and along
the way you are going to see improvements until we get there.
Mr. Ruppersberger. [Inaudible.] Another round.
Ms. Jaddou. You are muted, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Sorry. Yes, I am going to open it up
after Ms. Underwood for any additional questions that someone
may have, so you will have an opportunity.
So Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to follow-up on a topic that many of my colleagues
have already mentioned. Director Jaddou, you inherited a work
visa backlog of historic levels that was exacerbated by the
pandemic, hiring freezes, and poor administration. We simply
cannot sustain a backlog of 8.5 million cases that continues to
grow nor can we ask people to wait over 10 months for their
request to be adjudicated.
I have heard from countless constituents whose lives have
been put on hold because of these backlogs. One instance I am
thinking about is a constituent who was applying for an
employment authorization document. Because of the delays in
processing his application, his drivers license expired so
while he benefitted from the automatic 180-day extension for
his employment authorization, he could not drive to the
appointments necessary to keep his job.
Director Jaddou, what is USCIS doing to help applicants
deal with the unintended economic and personal consequences of
a backlog exceeding the 180-day extension timeline and what
recommendations do you have for my casework staff and I to
better help our constituents work through these challenges?
Ms. Jaddou. Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more on work
authorization especially because it is the ability to work
and----
Ms. Underwood. Absolutely.
Ms. Jaddou. Yeah, absolutely. And it is not just for the
individual. It is for the community, it is for the larger
economy. So I am saying there is a tremendous priority and
focus on our backlog, but inside that backlog is particularly
work authorization.
So if I could just point out that in January of 2017 there
were 1.5 million cases in the backlog, so those beyond our
processing goals, our cycle time goals, in total across the
agency. That alone is what is pending in the employment
authorization queue now.
Ms. Underwood. Right.
Ms. Jaddou. So it is a huge issue. So a few things. One, we
have been looking at how to extend periods of authorization so
that people don't have to keep coming back to us so that
lessens the number of cases coming in. It also gives people
more time and saves them that additional fee they have to pay
for that year.
We have also extended in some cases. We have also looked at
technological improvements that would allow people to file
online and completely do the electronic processing which is a
savings of time for the individual and for us as we process.
We are also looking at are there processes in place in the
employment authorization particularly in renewals which is a
lot of cases in our backlog, how to take out some things that
don't really need to be there that are just creating extra
steps for no reason. So that is another space.
We have also been working on a regulation with regard to an
auto-extension when we are backlogged as we are. So those are
some of the steps, but we are constantly thinking. Every
possibility; policy, operational, regulatory. What can we do to
not only get rid of the backlogs we have, but also ensure a
future where we don't get there again.
Ms. Underwood. Yes, ma'am. And also designing processes
recognizing that this is just an initiation of a domino effect
and so when USCIS gets it wrong, or its delayed, or there is
some kind of impediment, there are real-life consequences for
folks and then they call us and we are having a hard time,
quite frankly, getting updates as well and so it is just
extremely challenging.
And so as you can emphasize with your teams the need for
efficiency and recognizing the significance of this effort for
the lives of our neighbors and colleagues, you know what I
mean, and this is important for our economy that we get it
right.
Okay. My next question is in your testimony you mentioned
your plan to implement end-to-end electronic filing, processing
payment, and case management. Can you elaborate on the
advancements that USCIS has made in the automation of these
processes and how it affects the processing backlog?
Ms. Jaddou. Yeah. So a few things. Few points here. Almost
85 percent of what we process is processed online, and when I
say that, it is we are processing it that way. So that helps us
because you can move work around more efficiently and there are
just so many efficiencies through that.
Ms. Underwood. Uh-huh.
Ms. Jaddou. Even if a paper application comes in, we are
digitizing it, getting it online and processing it online
because that is more efficient than a paper moving around our
agency. We have also, it took us a long time, but we have
gotten to credit card payments. So that is very good. We also
have a lot of forms that are available for online filing. The
821, the 821 visa. It is TPS, DACA, family-based petitions, the
naturalization application, extensions of status, changes of
status, things like that. So we are moving through that process
to try to bring more and more forms online.
That is going to be critical to this effort and in the
meantime we are coming up with, like I just mentioned, when a
paper comes in, it is an extra step, but digitizing it actually
saves us even more even if it is having to take that extra step
rather than being able to just online file because that is a
process that takes a little bit more time to develop.
Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you so much.
I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Can you hear me?
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Yeah.
Director, your recent announcement to release 35,000
supplemental visas exercising the authority Congress granted to
you in the fiscal year 2022 omnibus was welcomed news to the
many seasonal businesses across the country who are facing dire
labor shortages, especially the seafood industry in Maryland.
We all love our crabs and oysters by the way, and who pick the
finest crabs in the world.
Last year we were [indiscernible]. That 22,000 additional
H2B visas were released to supplement the second half cap
allocation for fiscal year 2021. Unfortunately, the rule wasn't
published until late May due to the time it took to process the
petitions, allocate the additional visas, and then bring the
workers into the country. Many H2B workers were not on the
employer's payroll until the end of the Fourth of July.
Now, the recent filings with the DOL for the second half of
fiscal year clearly show there will be significant workforce
interruptions of additional relief if cap relief does not
materialize soon and this coupled with a record low
unemployment illustrated the urgent need for these workers.
Now, my question. Can you please shed light on the timing
of publishing a temporary final rule implementing your decision
to release the additional 35,000 visas to ensure these
employers currently in a labor crisis receive their workers as
close to the date of the need as possible?
And I do recognize that the TFR is in its drafting stage
and you may not be able to offer specific details, but I do
need assurances you are working on that and we are going to
complete it.
Ms. Jaddou. Absolutely working on it. The announcement that
was made by the Department of Homeland Security, that was made
with the thought that we were very clearly working on it and
moving in that direction. We are working as quickly as
possible.
I will note it is a regulatory process despite the fact it
is a temporary final rule, so a much faster process than the
regulatory process.
But as the former chief counsel to this agency, regulatory
processes are very slow, even the most efficient of processes.
So certainly I would welcome in the future changes in law that
would allow us to move more swiftly, in a more agile way. I
know we have offered technical assistance in the past to try to
better streamline the process when these decisions are made to
be able to get them out faster in a more streamlined way.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I am all for that for government
and I am sure this committee would also be for it, so if you
have any recommendations, let us know.
Ms. Jaddou. Happy to. Thank you, so much.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. May you yield back, Mr. Ruppersberger?
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Say it again.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann, do you have any
additional questions?
Mr. Fleischmann. Madam Chair, no thank you.
And Doctor, thank you for your testimony before us today. I
yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. If there are no more questions, I will
conclude today's hearing.
Director Jaddou, thank you very much for your time and for
helping us think through the many challenges that you have.
The Subcommittee on Homeland Security stands adjourned.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 6, 2022.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
WITNESS
JOSEPH V. CUFFARI, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security
will come to order.
As this hearing is being conducted virtually, we must
address a few housekeeping matters. During today's virtual
hearing, members are responsible for muting and unmuting
themselves. When you are recognized to speak, if I notice that
you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like
the staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding,
staff will unmute your microphone.
To avoid inadvertent background noise, the Chair, or staff
designated by the Chair, may mute participant microphones when
they are not recognized to speak.
If there is a technology issue during a member's speaking
time, we will move to the next member until the issue is
resolved and you will retain the balance of your time.
We will be following the 5-minute rule. With one minute in
your time, the clock will turn to yellow. When your time has
expired, the clock will turn to red, and it will be time to
recognize the next member.
We will follow the speaking order set forth in the House
rules, beginning with the Chair and ranking member, followed by
members present at the time the hearing is called to order in
order of seniority, and we will alternate by party. Next, we
will go to the members who were not present when the hearing
was called to order, until every member present has had a first
round.
Members can submit information in writing at any of our
hearings or markups using the email address provided in advance
to your staff.
Let's begin.
Today, we welcome Joseph Cuffari, the Inspector General for
the Department of Homeland Security, who is here to present the
OIG's fiscal year 2023 budget request, and discuss the office's
operational priorities. Thank you for being here this
afternoon.
As the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland
Security, you have been entrusted with an incredible
responsibility, requiring the utmost in integrity,
independence, and impartiality. The American public relies upon
you to conduct independent and objective audits, and
investigations relating to D.H.S. programs and operations,
prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse, and promote
efficiency and effectiveness, and to keep the DHS secretary and
Congress informed about problems and deficiencies, and the need
for and progress of corrective action.
Your task is not easy, especially given the complexities of
DHS missions, the political controversies surrounding some of
DHS operations, particularly in the immigration enforcement
area, and the evolving threat landscape, requiring DHS
preparedness and response from hurricanes and wildfires, to
domestic terrorism and cybersecurity attacks.
To complicate matters, the DHS Office of Inspector General
has received a considerable amount of criticism and scrutiny
over the past decade. A GAO report last year found that since--
and this is a quote. ``Since fiscal year 2015, the Department
of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General has not
adhered to a number of professional standards for federal OIGs
and key practices for effective management.''
In that report, GAO made 21 recommendations to address
management and operational weaknesses related to performance
management, quality assurance, reporting timeliness, and
coordination with DHS, among others. Your office concurred with
each of them.
Earlier this year, we learned that a former IG pleaded
guilty to theft of proprietary software and sensitive databases
from the U.S. government. And another former IG has been
accused of watering down reports related to FEMA disaster
response.
In your response to questions for the record from an April
2021 hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security, you
alerted Congress to an investigation being conducted by the
Integrity Committee of the Council of Inspector Generals on
integrity and efficiency.
That investigation is not a focus of this hearing. Instead,
this hearing's purpose is to discuss your office's current
operations and priorities, how you use your resources and your
progress in addressing long-standing challenges facing the OIG.
I look forward to a good discussion between you and the
members of this subcommittee. I know would like to turn to the
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Ranking Member
Fleischmann, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Chairwoman
Roybal, I want to thank you for this hearing and the hearing
earlier today. We are in appropriations season, and for all
involved on the call, I sincerely look forward to working with
you and yours as we move forward this year.
Welcome, Inspector General Cuffari, and I thank you for
joining us today as we examine the Office of Inspector
General's initiatives and investments proposed for the coming
fiscal year.
First, I want to sincerely thank you and your team for the
work the OIG does. It was good to visit with you last week.
Please pass on our thanks to your workforce for their efforts.
Independent oversight helps shine a bright light on areas
for improvement and efficiency. However, recent dysfunction
within the Office of Inspector General has been a worrisome
distraction from the vital oversight work of your office. My
fervent hope is that we can quickly resolve outstanding issues
and allegations so that you and your team can put all of your
energy into ensuring that all components at DHS follow their
own policies and the law.
During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, billions of
dollars were appropriated for the grant programs administered
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The goal was to
ease the economic burden on people, who were struggling with
lost wages and mitigate the worst impacts of job losses due to
closures and lockdowns.
Limited guardrails and safeguards in some of those programs
enabled people with malicious intent to take advantage of
massive sums spent to address the crisis. Sadly, several
investigations are under way that involve stolen identity fraud
schemes with the aim to steal money from taxpayers and those
with legitimate needs, only to criminally enrich themselves.
Those engaged in fraud must be held accountable for
stealing from those who are in legitimate need of this
assistance. I hope that your work continues to create powerful
disincentives to those who wish to commit such fraud in the
future. More broadly, OIG's office has been instrumental in
investigating alleged fraud in the United States' refugee
programs, and pointing out the weaknesses and susceptibility
for fraud in other programs.
But one of the most important jobs the OIG has is ensuring
that the department adheres to its own policies, be that
detention conditions, management and contracting conditions, or
component financial controls.
Record growth in the funding for the Department of Homeland
Security means that there are more opportunities for a few bad
actors to engage in fraud, and waste, and abuse. Every dollar
wasted is a dollar that isn't being used to strengthen our
borders, process trade shipments, empower our economy, or
defend against the next cyber attack.
We know that most DHS employees uphold the values and
ideals of the department, so audits and investigations by the
OIG are also opportunities to showcase what is working well. I
look forward to your testimony, sir, on OIG's fiscal 2023
requirements that will enable us to further work--further the
work that you have begun.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Inspector General Cuffari, we will
submit the full text of your official statement for the hearing
record. Please begin your opening statement, which I would ask
you keep to 5 minutes.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member Fleischmann,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify about the DHS IG's fiscal year 2023 budget. I am very
proud to lead more than 750 professional career or civil
servants, who provide independent oversight of the third
largest cabinet agency. The successful performance of our
mission requires employees with integrity, dedication, and a
broad range of expertise.
I am grateful for this subcommittee's support. Since my
confirmation in July 2019, I have prioritized improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of OIG operations. I reorganized
our structure to better align our mission. I created dedicated
offices for integrity and innovation, and expanded our use of
data analytics. We followed GAO's model practices to implement
these changes.
In July of last year, we finalized the comprehensive 5-year
strategic plan. I'm pleased to report that our federal employee
viewpoint scores that correspond with my tenure have shown
significant improvement in every category, especially employee
engagement.
My staff's improved morale is reflected in our work. Fiscal
year 2021, we issued 73 audits and inspection reports. So far
in 2022, we have issued 35 reports and have nearly 90 ongoing
reviews. I also committed significant resources to our Office
of Investigations, with an increased focus on high impact
cases, we have about 900 ongoing criminal cases that amount to
hundreds of millions of dollars in potential fraud loss.
In early 2020, we developed and implemented an innovative
virtual protocol, continued our unannounced inspections of ICE
detention facilities despite the pandemic. We returned to in-
person inspections in 2021.
These unannounced inspections provided the department with
important information about how to improve detention
conditions. Since fiscal year 2020, we have conducted nine
unannounced inspection of ICE detention facilities. We have
made 12 recommendations during that time to improve health
care, medical care.
Again, thank you for the continued bipartisan support from
this subcommittee, which has enabled us to work with medical
experts to further enhance our oversight work.
We have also broadly addressed long-standing detention
issues. We published for the first time ever at DHS IG, a 5-
year review of segregation and detention. And we launched an
audit across all DHS detention facilities regarding the
approval process for invasive surgical procedures.
We have provided significant oversight at the Department's
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department has been
authorized to expend nearly $100 billion on the various
pandemic-related authorities. Recognizing the magnitude of this
pandemic response funding, in 2020, I created the dedicated
COVID Fraud Unit.
We have received more than 7,000 COVID fraud complaints. We
have initiated nearly 270 COVID criminal investigations. These
have resulted in 17 indictments, 11 convictions, and nearly $2
million in fines and restitution. According to the Department,
cybersecurity has become the most dramatic threat to the
homeland.
We are uniquely positioned to target oversight, ensure DHS
systems are secure, and help detect and deter attacks like
solar winds. I prioritized and enhanced our cybersecurity
oversight. Fiscal year 2021, we issued nine reports with 37
recommendations to improve the Department's cybersecurity
posture. Currently, we have 11 ongoing cybersecurity audits.
Thank you again for this subcommittee's continued support
for our mission.
I have been impressed by the expertise and support of your
entire staff. In particular, I thank Bob Joachim and Paul
Anstine for their coordination in advance of this hearing.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I am happy
to answer any questions you or the other members may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Inspector General.
Let me begin by asking you what your main priorities are
for the OIG for the rest of fiscal year 2022 and the next
fiscal year.
Mr. Cuffari. Certainly, Madam Chairwoman. So in fiscal year
2021, we finalized our strategic plan. NAPA helped us do this.
And so our strategic plan includes recommendations for key
priorities. These are the organizational transformation, border
security and immigration, COVID disaster relief, fraud
detection, and cybersecurity.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. How do you decide which projects,
reports, or investigations to take on? For example, do you have
a risk matrix that you use?
Mr. Cuffari. So we use a risk-based data-driven approach,
implemented a work planning process that is consistent to
evaluate factors for all of our future work. This relates to a
GAO recommendation, which we submitted to GAO that we have
implemented this. And we asked GAO to close that
recommendation.
We consider all mission risk that the Department has. We
look at congressional requests, hotline information, and
results from our interaction with stakeholders.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. How much of your budget request is
dedicated to in-person, unannounced inspections of detention
facilities?
Mr. Cuffari. That is--I can't give you a certain
percentage, ma'am, but I know since 2019 when I met with your
staff initially, I heard loud and clear that you were
interested in a project cost accounting system. We did not have
that capability at the time, so I went outside. I hired MITRE,
federal research development corporation, to assist us with
gathering the requirements that would meet your needs, and
ultimately instruct us on how to build this cost accounting
tool.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Perhaps you could get me that
information after this hearing.
Mr. Cuffari. Certainly.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Following up on how you decide which
cases you are going to take on, can you address your decision
to not have OIG assert jurisdiction over the allegations
stemming from the influx of migrants in Del Rio, and the use of
horse patrols?
Because it seems to me that the optics of CBP doing its own
review of such a high profile case is--seems like a missed
opportunity to strengthen oversight at DHS and avoid perceived
conflicts of interest.
Mr. Cuffari. We actually had a lot of ongoing oversight
work involving immigration at CBP and the office of field
operations along the southwest borders. But in the case of the
horseback patrol at Del Rio sector, we didn't decline to open
an investigation. CBP followed proper procedures. They notified
our Office of Investigations that this matter came to their
attention.
The matter that they conveyed to us did not involve any
criminal misconduct, and therefore, we didn't initiate a
criminal investigation. CBP OPR, the Office of Professional
Responsibility opened an administrative investigation, which I
believe is still ongoing.
So pursuant to IG policy and DHS, CBP OPR, if they discover
any evidence regarding criminality, they are mandated to report
that to us, and then we will consider whether to pursue
criminal allegations. Thus far, we haven't received any
information indicating that there were any criminal
allegations.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I know that you requested an addition
$8.9 million that was not included in the President's budget
request. If we were to fund that, how would the OIG spend that
increase?
Mr. Cuffari. Yes, ma'am. It is broken down primarily into
five buckets. IT audits is at $2\1/2\ million, $1 million for
pandemic-related investigations, $1.3 for border
investigations, $2.9 for the--our Office of Innovation and our
cyber data analytics unit, and 1.2 to help us reconfigure our
current existing work spaces.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I am going to move on to the ranking
member, Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, again, Madam Chair.
I want to talk with you today, sir, about a very important
subject that has been brought to my attention. The OIG
inspectors recently conducted a no notice visit to an ICE
facility in Torrence County, New Mexico, and subsequently
issued a management alert, calling for detainees to be removed
from the facility.
Instead of accepting the findings of the OIG, which is
normally what happens, this is critically important, ICE
disputed the findings of the report, saying, ``We have serious
concerns about the accuracy and integrity of this report.''
This is a very--pretty strident rebuke of OIG's work from a
component. In the report, there is a photo of a detainee,
filling a cup with water from a mop sink. The implication of
which is that the facility did not provide ample potable water.
The report labels the photos, and I quote, ``Broken sinks in
facility housing units, as well as water fountains restricted
from use due to COVID-19, resulted in detainees obtaining their
drinking water from a communal area faucet intended for filling
mop buckets.''
Yes, video footage from the Torrence facility shows the OIG
inspector urging a detainee to pose for that photo. Once the
photo was taken, the detainee dumped out his water. The video
shows that he did not use this sink for drinking, but that is
not the impression the report gives us. This is troubling to
me. I have got some questions.
I will ask maybe the first three, and then there's two
more. How do you respond to the allegation that the photo was
clearly staged? Doesn't that call into question the validity of
the management alert? Second, are you working with ICE to
review additional video footage taken during the no notice
inspection? Third, what responsibilities do OIG inspectors have
to ensure their published reports are of the highest integrity?
What is the mechanism to ensure the inspection teams are held
to the highest standards?
And then I will hold off on my other two while you respond,
sir.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, Ranking Member, and it is great to
see you again.
We conducted the no notice inspection at the Torrance
facility after the Nakamoto (ph), which is an independent
company under contract with ICE, found significant shortfalls
on sanitary conditions, and critical staffing shortages at that
facility about a year ago, in the summer of 2021.
We call balls and strikes. So I stand by our report. We
gave the Department an opportunity to review a draft, and they
submitted the comments as you suggested.
We modified, to the extent that it was warranted on our
management alert, and we ultimately issued a management alert.
The management alert actually found that there were urgent
issues that posed health and safety concerns for the migrants
who were housed there. And there were critical understaffing
of--across the board, prevented the facility from meeting its
contractual requirements that ensured detainees reside in a
safe and secure environment.
Regarding the use of the mop bucket sink, the photo was not
staged. I want to get that out of everyone's mind. It was a
recreation of what our inspectors saw moments prior to our
inspectors asking the detainee to recreate what our inspectors
had just seen.
We got footage, as you suggested, from the facility that
lays out that it was not a staged event. That in fact, it was a
recreation.
Mr. Fleischmann. In all due respect, Mr. Inspector General,
a recreation, your words, is--and in my words--a staging, a
restaging. We can only, as lawyers, go by the real evidence
that we see. If we were at trial, that certainly would not be
admissible evidence if it were--even an expert recreation.
That, in and of itself, is troubling to me.
So at a time when we were being overrun by detainees, in
all due respect, in my view due to the abject neglect of this
administration. That is not your fault. You inherit that. But
as we look at these facilities, we have got to ensure that any
criticisms, and we don't want to overlook real problems, are
truthful, sir. I mean, the truth to me is the most important
thing.
And I will just follow up with my final question. In your
opinion, what could the OIG have done differently, if anything,
and what have you learned from this experience?
Mr. Cuffari. Sir, just if you would allow me to just
comment.
In addition to the photos and the videos that substantiate
our findings, we also have testimonial information from the
detainees to supplement that. The question regarding what we
can do. We could--and we are going to implement taking from
stop to start a video of our entire interactions when we go and
do unannounced inspections. This way there is no doubt.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. While I respectfully disagree
with your conclusions, I thank you for your honesty and
candidacy about how you view the situation. We just have
differing opinions on that.
With that, Madam Chair, I will yield back. And thank you,
sir, for your answers.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair, for having this
meeting. And, Doctor, it is a pleasure having you before us.
Let me ask you, back in 2010, I passed the legislation to
modernize the performance results legislation that President
Clinton and Al Gore had set up in the 1990s. And I see that
back on July of 2021, you finalized the comprehensive strategic
plan, and I appreciate talking to you at a later time, without
taking too much time today, to talk about if you have any ideas
on any changes or suggestions for specific strategies or
performance indicators for the homeland, because sometimes I
think agencies measure activity and don't measure results.
So this would take a lot more longer, but I would love to
spend time with you and your folks later on on this strategic
plan, number one.
Number two, my question has to do with the joint task
force. Back in 2014 when we saw one of the first major surges
under President Obama, then Secretary Jay Johnson did a good
thing, where he said let's try to put all the agencies to work
together on this surge. So he set up different joint task
forces. And the whole purpose of that was to manage border
migration influxes, and he wanted to get all the agencies
working together under Homeland.
Great idea under Secretary Jay Johnson. Then just recently,
as you know back on September 30, 2020, your department did a
report--OIG did a report that the Department was not
maintaining oversight over this joint task force, and were not
updating policies, et cetera, et cetera. And then without
notifying Congress, and keep in mind that this joint task
force, this unity of efforts set up by Secretary Johnson and
authorized by public law, established by law, the Department on
their own deactivated two of the three joint task forces,
including the one in south Texas, or in the southern part of
the country.
Under this last appropriation, we asked the Department to
one, respond to your findings, number one. And number two, to
reactivate those joint task force again.
So I would like to get your thoughts on this plan for
restoring the joint task force, especially the west one that
affects everything we are seeing on the southern part of the
United States, and whether they have responded to your findings
of September 30th of 2020.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, Member. It is great to visit with
you again.
As you know, I was down at the southwest border in Rio
Grande Valley and Laredo last year. I just came back from
visiting the southwest border, those two cities again, a few
weeks ago.
We have some ongoing work, looking at CBP's sectors along
the southwest border to ensure--to determine whether there was
consistency in operations and policies, if they are following
those.
Regarding the joint task force presentations, I am not able
in my role as the Inspector General to actually comment on
departmental operations. That would be for the secretary and
for his senior staff to have some engagement with you on.
Mr. Cuellar. Well, on the activation, but on your findings
for the--that you all did?
Mr. Cuffari. Sir, I am going to have to get back to you on
the actual recommendations, and then where they are on
implementing our recommendations and the findings.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Well, my time is almost up, so I would
like to follow up on the performance measures. And I appreciate
your work on the strategic plan, number one. Number two, on the
recommendations that you all found on the joint task force, and
where they are, if you can follow up, not only with me, but
with the whole committee, and the staff also.
Mr. Cuellar. So, thank you for the work and we appreciate
what you did in Arizona, also.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Inspector General, for being here this
morning. Good to see you, again.
The other day, we had some discussion about the COVID fraud
that we have heard so much publicly about and I would like to
ask, there were billions of dollars of COVID relief funding
that was sent to several programs, including FEMA's
Unemployment Insurance Program, and the COVID Funeral Benefit
Program.
I have seen reports, as I said, that billions of dollars
have been defrauded from various other COVID relief programs
across the government. Three quick questions. Number one, how
many complaints or tips have you received about possible fraud,
so how big is the scope? And, secondly, how many cases have you
opened to look at for COVID fraud? And then, finally, how much
have you recovered so far?
Because I think it is important that the public knows that,
you know, the Government is not just walking away from this
fraud.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, sir.
So, as you know, the Department received about $100 billion
under various pandemic-related programs and we received about
$3 billion to conduct oversight of those funds. In January of
last, of 2020, since January 2020, we have received about 7,000
COVID-fraud complaints that we have actually initiated 267
criminal investigations.
What we are finding is that many individuals, we have
identified about hundreds of millions of dollars in potential
loss. I created a dedicated COVID-fraud unit to investigate
these matters starting in March of 2020. We are using data
analytics and we are working with our partners and other IG
offices and with the U.S. Attorney Offices and state
prosecutors to target these individuals and bring them to
justice.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. And with these complaints that
are coming in from all across America, I imagine that if you
are investigating 257,000, that is a pretty big universe. How
do you prioritize which cases you will investigate? I think
that is important.
But then also, can you talk about how you are collaborating
with state and local law enforcement. You mentioned the U.S.
Attorneys. Can you talk about that a little bit.
Mr. Cuffari. Yes, sir. So, as I mentioned, I established
this core unit. They are looking at COVID-only related fraud.
We are working with our Inspector General colleagues and the
Department of Labor, Social Security, and other organizations.
We are looking at threshold levels because of the volume of
complaints and our limited amount of resources. We are looking
at threshold levels of about $250,000 and above.
I will give you an example. An individual was indicted in
the Northern District of California a few weeks ago. This
individual defrauded the Unemployment Insurance Fund to the
tune of $2 million. He had compromised more than 70
individuals' identities and was able to extract, illegally,
obviously, from the State of California, about $2 million. That
is just one example of the types of investigations that we are
doing.
Mr. Rutherford. Well, it is great to hear you are going
after these guys, especially the former police officers.
So, let me ask you this, Inspector, is there like a tip
line or a phone number that people can call if they want to
send in tips to the OIG?
Mr. Cuffari. Yes, sir. They can call our fraud hotline here
in Washington, D.C. We also have a national disaster fraud
hotline in the State of Louisiana, co-located with LSU
University. It is to--and I can give the website. If somebody
could find it for me, we can give it out. We will get it to the
Committee for you to have for your availability.
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah, let me close this round with this
question. You mentioned the limited funds that you have, so I
am curious, what funding do you think you need going into the
2023 budget to help continue the effort that you have out there
so far?
Mr. Cuffari. Just relating to COVID fraud, my COVID unit
right now consists of about 17 to 18 rehired annuitants.
I would like to----
Mr. Rutherford. Is that enough?
Mr. Cuffari. No, sir. I would like to expand that to 40. We
are spread throughout the Continental United States in various
cities that have the preponderance of the fraud occurring.
My request would be if the Committee could support an
increase to our appropriations of about $14 million, that would
cover the increase and allow for, obviously, additional
criminal investigations to occur.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. With that, my time is up.
And, Madam Chair, I would suggest that we heed his request
on this $14 million, because it will actually bring dollars
back that have been stolen in fraud.
So, thank you very much, Inspector General.
I yield back.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. First thing, I think the Inspector
General position is very important to the checks-and-balances
of our country, just like we are doing that as members of
Congress and holding people accountable. And, you know, in
order to have an effective Inspector General, you must have
some investigative experience, but you must have a reputation
for integrity and so far, I hear you have integrity and that is
an important part.
My question is, recently, we read about, or I read about
nine immigrants at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility in
California, who filed a civil rights complaint against the
Department. They are alleging unsafe living conditions,
specifically, hazardous air, dust, mold, and drinking water
contamination. One detainee who has been in custody for over 3
years stated, quote we, are breathing in sewage and manure
fumes, constantly due to the non-functioning air ventilation
systems.
Now, I know in December 2020, your office released a 34-
page report identifying violations of ICE detention standards,
highlighting the poor conditions that endangered the health and
safety of detainees.
My question is, first, I know the story I mentioned is
still developing, but do you know if there is any veracity to
the claims I listed?
And the second question would be, in your opinion, have
detention conditions generally improved since that report?
Lastly, I am seeking to find out what the OIG's criteria is
for choosing which ICE facilities to do unannounced
inspections, how does your testimony address that?
And, finally, do you have enough manpower to do the cases
that you need to do and how do you decide the priority of which
cases you are going to take?
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you for the questions.
You may know, I spent actually 4 years as a Department of
Justice Inspector General agent working in the Imperial Valley.
This was during the period of time when the Immigration Service
was still within the Department of Justice.
I am very familiar with the new facility, which the report
was based on in December of 2020. A year later, December of
2021, my senior staff and I actually toured the new facility
and we determined that the conditions at the time of our one-
day visit there were appropriate. I do know that in December of
2020, we had six recommendations for ICE to improve their
oversight and operations there. My understanding is that ICE
concurred with all of those recommendations and all the
recommendations have been closed.
I am unaware of these new matters that you have addressed,
but I would certainly want to take a look at them. I would have
a member of my staff contact yours to get some additional
information.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I will take that.
Mr. Cuffari. And, obviously, with more resources, we could
do more oversight, but we can continue to do our unannounced
inspections. As I mentioned, we are going to do five this year.
We are looking at requests from members of Congress with
information such as you just brought to our attention, the type
of facility, IG hotline complaints, just to name a few of the
indicators.
Mr. Ruppersberger. What is your system? How do you choose
which ones to visit unannounced or announced, either one? I
mean, your volume must be overwhelming, so you can't do them
all, so what system do you have to pick that?
Mr. Cuffari. Yes, sir. We look at risk base. What is the
biggest risk to the Department. So, we would look back at
previous inspections both, that our office conducted, as well
as ICE, and the Nakamoto Group, to see whether or not those
individuals, those groups have found that the facilities were
below standards. That would be one factor. We would look at
congressional requests, such as the information you just
provided. We are looking at healthcare and medical care that is
being provided. Hotline complaints, as I mentioned.
We are trying to disburse across the country, our--we are
going to be doing some up in the Northern Region here this
upcoming year. So, and I am also look at the COVID, reported
COVID-19 infection rates in those facilities.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Do you have a group that does
intelligence for you; in other words, how are you getting your
data, not any of your leads, but do you have anybody who has
experience in intelligence?
Mr. Cuffari. We formed, sir, a division or an Office of
Innovation. We cobbled and put together from various program
offices, our data and analytics unit, which is looking in
conjunction with our hotline and our Office of Investigation to
provide us with that information. That is the data-driven
portion.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
Mrs. Hinson. Madam Chairwoman. I really appreciate you
holding this hearing today.
And Inspector General, good to see you again, and I
appreciate our discussion earlier this week on the importance
of oversight at DHS, especially considering the current
situation at our southern border with the crisis there and the
administration's failures to treat it as the crisis that it is.
And we are about to pass a very important historical
milestone, which is a million encounters at our southern border
in just the first 6 months of the fiscal year. And this comes,
of course, at the same time that the administration is planning
to ended Title 42; the policy that our Border Patrol agents on
the front lines have told me in person is absolutely essential
for them to help stem that flow of illegal immigrants into our
country.
So, my first question, Dr. Cuffari, is, I see these actions
by the administration as grossly irresponsible and dangerous,
but you are the one who is inside the Department conducting
these oversights on these sites every day. I would like to get
your take a little bit on this situation.
And on our call on Monday, you had a chance to talk about
your recent trip to the southern border, your discussions with
the Border Patrol agents. Again, I mentioned, I have also
visited the border. I was really shocked with what I saw and
what I heard.
So, my question for you today is, in your expert opinion,
based upon the oversight that you have conducted, are our
Border Patrol agents properly equipped, manned, and empowered
to be able to contend with the current crisis at our southern
border?
Mr. Cuffari. Well, very nice to see you again, ma'am.
So, I did, I have conducted since I have been the IG,
during my tenure, about 5 trips to the southwest border. The
most recent one was in mid-March. I am heading back to the
border in a few weeks to take a look at that.
I have observed conditions. I spoke with front-line staff
and senior managers. They appear to be equipped from the
readings that they are given, to be, but they are certainly
significantly understaffed.
Mrs. Hinson. So, it is a manpower issue.
And what is your take with this potential, secondary surge
with Title 42 being revoked in a few weeks?
Mr. Cuffari. The Border Patrol senior management informed
me that there are approximately 100,000 individuals staging on
the south side of the border and this is primarily in the Rio
Grande Valley and Laredo. That is the most recent places that I
visited.
Mrs. Hinson. So, they are preparing for this staging of
people to come across and you believe that they are severely
undermanned?
Mr. Cuffari. They are anticipating individuals coming
across and their manning level, as they indicated to me, was
low, lower than it has been. The senior patrol agents advised
that about 60 percent of their manpower is actually being used
on administrative work. They are in the offices processing
individuals. That leaves only, obviously, 40 percent of line
Border Patrol agents to work the field.
Mrs. Hinson. All right. I would definitely call that a
security issue for our country.
And I want to follow-up on something else, too, that we
have heard some concerning reports about, that there are some
plans by the administration to move medical personnel from the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to the border to help
provide medical services to illegal immigrants coming across
our border. I think this is an outrageous idea because I mean,
I am hearing from the veterans in my district and they are
already waiting for backlogged care and I am appalled that this
would be even considered by the administration.
But have you heard of these reports? Are you aware of any
plans from the administration to shuffle personnel from the VA
to deal with our crisis at the southern border?
Mr. Cuffari. I am not, but I am aware that DHS had
previously used members of the Coast Guard and the Public
Health Service to augment their medical staff along the borders
and in the detention facilities.
Mrs. Hinson. All right. I would ask if you do hear of any
of these situations where we, in essence, have the care taken
away from our veterans, those who have fought for our country,
to go provide for those who are breaking the laws of our
country, I find that unacceptable, so I would ask if you do
hear of any of those situations, please follow-up with our
office. And I would expect, obviously, we are here to do
oversight and ask these important questions and I know that is
your mission, as well.
Just a final question. Do you believe that your office
would be able to recommend a better option to help make sure
our existing border personnel isn't overwhelmed, I mean, we
need to be discouraging illegal immigration and encouraging
legal immigration, but do you have any better recommendations
that we can implement right now?
Mr. Cuffari. I would say that from what the Border Patrol
senior managers have described to me, the continued
enhancement, perhaps, of DOD resources as been very helpful to
them and, perhaps, if they were to remain in place, that might
alleviate some of the shortfalls.
Mrs. Hinson. All right. Thank you.
I am out of time. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I just want to point out something that
Mrs. Hinson mentioned, because the lack of the ability of
Border Patrol to hire personnel has been a major concern of
this subcommittee and is the reason why we put in $100 million
for hiring and they just have the challenges in their ability
to fill the positions that they need.
Mr. Cuffari. You are absolutely right, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
calling today's hearing.
One of the OIG's core oversight mission areas is ensuring
resilient response to disasters. We can't be truly resilient
unless our approach to disaster response is equitable and this
is something that is often missing from the emergency-
management conversation. That needs to change.
Forty percent of Americans already live in counties hit by
climate disasters in 2021 and that will only increase as the
climate crisis accelerates. As we know that marginalized
communities are disproportionately affected by climate change
and natural disasters.
In November 2020, FEMA National Advisory Council had
produced a report detailing how the agency systematically fails
to distribute resource equitably. The council stated, quote,
FEMA does not meet the equity requirements of the Stafford Act.
This report also provided recommendations that would make
equity the foundation of FEMA's financial-assistance relief
going forward.
So, I am curious to know more about how the OIG approaches
these issues. How does the OIG currently seek out, measure, and
evaluate equity in the context of your work at FEMA?
Mr. Cuffari. Nice to meet you, ma'am.
Ms. Underwood. Nice to meet you, too.
Mr. Cuffari. Just to start off, I have a very good working
relationship with both, the FEMA administrator, as well as the
new deputy administrator.
Ms. Underwood. Great.
Mr. Cuffari. We just had a conference call last week. We
got a lot of audits and inspection work in the FEMA space. Our
work shows that what happens is FEMA frequently is getting
large sums of money to assist in these qualified individual
assistance for disaster relief, but there doesn't seem to be
any resources provided in that funding for FEMA to administer
these additional programs. So, they are basically taking these
oncoming new roles out of hide.
So, our work in Puerto Rico is a good example. A few years
ago, FEMA was unable to deliver just the basic necessity and
emergency assistance for water----
Ms. Underwood. So, Mr. Cuffari, that actually was not my
question.
My question was about equity and allocating the resources
and doing FEMA's emergency response work.
Mr. Cuffari. Certainly. So, I mentioned we have numerous
reviews. One of those reviews is the ongoing equity audit that
is being conducted in our Office of Audit. We have an ongoing
project right now that is not completed, but I certainly would
want to share that with you and the rest of the members of the
committee once it is done.
Ms. Underwood. And that equity audit, is that explicitly
including FEMA?
Mr. Cuffari. Yes.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. Last September, FEMA announced its new
agency-wide definition for equity to make programs more
accessible to vulnerable populations, quote, the consistent and
systematic, fair, just, and impartial treatment of all
individuals.
Now, I am encouraged by this effort, but certainly it will
be a big undertaking. How does OIG plan to hold FEMA
accountable for meeting that new definition of equity?
Mr. Cuffari. Well, we would take a look, obviously, in this
ongoing audit of equity to see what their definition is and see
whether or not they are implementing it appropriately and
consistently across the entire organization.
Ms. Underwood. And when do you expect that audit to be
complete?
Mr. Cuffari. I actually don't know. I can't give you a
certain date, but they are still in fieldwork, so it is
normally about a 6-to-8 month project.
Ms. Underwood. So, that would extend beyond the current
fiscal year?
Mr. Cuffari. It potentially could. I would be able to get
back to you and to the subcommittee within the next day on
where they are in their audit.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
Mr. Cuffari. It is possible that we could be done by the
end of this fiscal year.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. The OIG has a critical role to play in
promoting more equitable policies Department-wide. OIG's
website states that its vision is to drive transformative
change to improve DHS programs and operations and promote a
safer homeland.
How does OIG plan to use its work to focus more attention
on equity and disaster recovery both, at FEMA and Department-
wide?
Mr. Cuffari. Well, this is just one example of an ongoing
audit. We can take a look at other offices within the
Department. There are, as you know, 24 various components and
we could certainly factor that into our ongoing work.
Ms. Underwood. Well, I would certainly encourage you to do
so, sir. You know, we have seen the President issue his
executive order and, you know, everything from the budget
coming down from the administration has certainly centered
equity. So, we hope that in your work and under your leadership
and the Inspector General's Office, you would, in turn, make
this a priority.
We look forward to hearing more about your findings. Thank
you so much.
And I yield back.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. That completes the first round, so we
have time. We are going to do a second round.
In June of 2004, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued
Management Directive 810.1 outlining the roles and
responsibilities of DHS OIG. This document requires DHS
components to refer all allegations of serious and criminal
misconduct to the OIG, which has the right to assert exclusive
jurisdiction over any case it chooses. The directive also
requires the OIG to respond to components within 5 business
days regarding its decision whether or not to investigate
referred allegations.
However, we know that historically, many allegations sit
with the OIG for weeks or months before a response is sent to
components, potentially impacting the availability of evidence
and witnesses as well as impacting the Department's ability to
rapidly address issues of public or congressional concern.
Can you describe the process for determining which cases
the OIG will take versus those it refers to other entities.
Mr. Cuffari. Certainly. Thank you.
So, I am aware, obviously, that there is a mandate to
update the management directive. It is important that that
update, to preserve our independence, remove the requirement
that we turn complaints back to the Department in 5 days.
Allegations that are referred to us, we need to take a look at.
We have to be timely in doing so. I think 5 days is a short
time period.
This requirement here of the 5 days, it is inconsistent
with the IG Act, with perhaps, attorney general guidelines, and
also with CIGIE investigative standards. We have been working
hard to keep track of our referrals. In some cases, we are
working jointly with investigative components in the----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I am sorry, could you just walk me
through the process as to what takes place in order for you to
make that decision and maybe point out some of the obstacles
that you are talking about that prevents you from doing it
within the 5-day time that is required.
Mr. Cuffari. So, I have a 32 field offices spread
throughout the country with investigations and some of those.
As an example, if there was an allegation involving corruption
by an employee of the Department, the impacted component, we
will use as an example, CBP, is obligated to make a referral to
our office. They could do that via the hotline, through the
joint intake center, or directly to our investigative divisions
out in the field offices.
We then evaluate that. We may actually already have an
ongoing investigation that they may be aware of. I am told that
in fiscal year 2022, we had about 31,000 allegations so far
that we received. So, we processed those, consistent with our
policies, whether or not we have ongoing activities and whether
or not it is criminal.
If the underlying allegation is criminal, we more likely
than not, will take them, and if they are not criminal, we more
likely than not will return them back to the component. But we
need, perhaps, the best way to think of it is we need to test
the allegation to see if it warrants us expending limit
resources.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. From your perspective, are there
things that can be done to streamline the process to make it
more efficient so you can get closer to that 5-day requirement?
Mr. Cuffari. I am going to have to take a stronger look at
that, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yeah, I don't expect you to answer it,
but if you could think about it and especially to see if there
is any way this subcommittee can be helpful in that regard.
Mr. Cuffari. Yes.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The first objective of your strategic
plan is addressing the timeliness and quality of the OIG's
product. What steps have you taken or do you plan to take to
accomplish this goal and have you seen any measurable progress
toward that objective so far?
Mr. Cuffari. Since during my tenure, I have hired a career
professional Deputy IG to run my Audit Division. I also hired a
career professional to run my office of inspections.
Collectively, they are looking at timeliness. They set it as a
priority. We are processing through benchmarks. We are working
to eliminate, actually, some old cases that I inherited.
Our productivity rate, I am happy to report, has been up
about 20 percent since fiscal year 2019 and even during the
pandemic, as of last year, we issued 73 reports.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Do you have data that you could share
with the subcommittee on that?
Mr. Cuffari. Most certainly, yes.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And just, finally, one follow-up. In
recent years, some high-profile OIG investigations have taken
months or years to complete, which can delay the Department's
ability to fully address vulnerabilities, ranging from
detention condition to public corruption.
For those who may be victims of families of victims,
delayed justice can often be denied justice. Have you been
satisfied with the OIG's pace of completing these
investigations and are there steps your office can take to
improve the timeliness of these investigations?
Mr. Cuffari. Certainly. To answer your question, I had not
been satisfied at my initial tenure here, but in the last
several years, I am dedicated additional time and resources to
exploring this issue. Again, I want to say that our timeliness
issue is on mark; in fact, we passed last year, three external
peer reviews in our office of audit, inspections, and
investigations, all of which take a look at the timeliness of
our reports, in addition to quality and meeting standards.
Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Inspector
General Cuffari. I appreciate your attentiveness toward our
questions.
My first question is a little bit general. As a statutorily
independent agency, the OIG can submit funding requests in
addition to the President's budget request. If Congress cannot
fund all your questions above the President's budget, what are
your top priorities, sir?
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, Ranking Member.
So my top priorities are to continue to do the great work
we have been doing. I obviously will have to shift, reallocate
resources within my office to cover what I perceive to be
perhaps a shortfall of areas that I've identified still pose a
risk for the Department and we do want to ensure that those are
covered.
Like I have mentioned, if we do not have that additional
funding, it significantly would impact my ability to do COVID
fraud investigations. We would not be able to take a look
perhaps as robustly at cybersecurity and other border and
immigration matters.
So any help your subcommittee can give to us, we would
certainly appreciate it.
Mr. Fleischmann. Understood, sir.
Billions of dollars have been appropriated to FEMA to
provide grant funding following major disasters. Like other
programs, the OIG has conducted investigations into alleged
fraud of FEMA disaster relief programs.
Three part question, sir.
What has your office found regarding potential disaster
relief fraud? What recommendations have you made to safeguard
these programs to protect against criminal actions to steal
these funds through identity theft and grant claims. And
thirdly, sir, are there specific grant programs that suffer
disproportionately to fraud? What steps should FEMA take to
ensure that grant funds remain available to qualified
recipients?
Thank you, and I will await your answer.
Mr. Cuffari. Yes, sir.
So I understand that in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 in FEMA-
related audits we identified over $7 billion in questioned
costs and about $380 million in funds that we determined could
be put to better use.
Much of these questionable costs related to not following
federal procurement regulations and sufficient supporting
documentation, and reliance on self-certifications.
We currently have right now 21 FEMA-related audits that are
ongoing involving a wide variety of issues.
Mr. Fleischmann. Very well.
Well, thank you for your answers. And with that, Madam
Chair, I will yield back.
And, again, General, thank you so much for your answers to
our questions, sir. Wish you well.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you.
Well, the cybersecurity mission at the Department is
rapidly growing, and of course we need to do that, especially
for domestic cyberattacks.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA,
has grown over $1 billion in annual appropriations since I have
been back on this subcommittee, and that was 2015. At the same
time, the cybersecurity threats to our nation continue to grow
and CISA is our main domestic entity for coordination and
collaboration with the private sector where most of the
vulnerabilities lie.
I have seen some of the past work you have done with CISA
on approving information sharing, taking a look at the
continuous diagnostics and mitigation that is called the CDM
program, and on dam security.
Can you talk about how your office approached oversight
with CISA and how has that changed, if at all, since your
confirmation in 2019 as CISA has continued to mature as an
organization?
Mr. Cuffari. Well, thank you, sir.
You may know my undergraduate degree is actually in
management information systems, so cybersecurity is near and
dear to my heart.
CISA, as you know, plays a vital role in securing policies,
both in the public and private sector. However, CISA doesn't
have the internal requirement to ensure that DHS follows these
policies. So my office, as the independent office of the IG,
performs that compliance function.
We have a cybersecurity lab. We are attempting to penetrate
systems to find weaknesses and vulnerabilities through these
programs.
I am trying to ensure that the smallest number of people
possible have blanket access or keys to DHS systems. This
certainly is a great vulnerability and I want to make sure that
the DHS IT systems are patched.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Now [inaudible] continues to
double down on supporting CISA and we need to do that. With
large a year every year increases in their appropriations and
emergency appropriations, when applicable. I commend the
chairwoman and leadership on the full Committee and members of
the Committee and, of course, their professional staff for
their hard work on this.
Now given your independence as the IG, besides increased
resources how can congress ensure that CISA continues to be
successful and how do you assess the Department's approach to
the management of CISA?
Mr. Cuffari. We would just ask that you allow us to be your
oversight body as you do for the Department and for us to
ensure that CISA performs the full scope of their authorities.
This would include oversight of critical infrastructure,
whether it is dams or the energy sector. And as I have
mentioned, it is both an internal to the Department, across the
government and also to the public.
Mr. Ruppersberger. All right.
Now I have spent most of my career, and it is up to 20
years--didn't intend to stay that long, but here I am--
representing NSA. So I have done a lot of work and I was also
ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. And so I have
spent a lot of work with NSA, time with NSA.
As you know, NSA has no jurisdiction in the United States.
But notwithstanding that, do you call on NSA and their
expertise as long as it is within the law to help you in some
of the things that you are doing in your oversight capacity?
Mr. Cuffari. Yes, sir.
So I have a very good working relationship obviously with
my colleague, Rob Storch, who is the NSA Inspector General. Our
office, his Office of Audit and our office of audit currently
has an ongoing audit looking at CISA and other cybersecurity
related matters. It is ongoing. We would certainly be happy to
share with the subcommittee at its conclusion.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, we just--you know, CISA has a ways
to go, but they have done a good job with what they have and
there is a lot of money being put into CISA. So as you know,
for those of you who are really much involved in cyber at all,
we have got some real threats ahead of us. So thank you for
your work in that area.
I yield back.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Cuffari, I wanted to go back and talk about what I see
as the self-inflicted nationwide public health disaster that is
about to take place when we abandon Title 42. COVID-19 is not
the only medical threat from this open border. Murder is a
public safety threat; that I had an individual in my district
murdered by an individual who came across the border illegally,
claimed he was underage, and so he fell into the catch and
release category, was sent to Jacksonville and he murdered one
of my constituents.
In addition to that, across this country we have seen over
100,000 of our young people die from opioid overdose already
last year, the first time ever. This is a self-inflicted
national health disaster, and we have to look at Title 42.
And now I see all of these federal agencies that are also
being impacted, not just DHS. We mentioned DOD. They are being
called to the border. Those military men and women are having
to leave their homes and go to the border to get involved in
this issue. My good friend, Mrs. Hinson, brought up earlier
that the VA is sending doctors down to address these folks.
In addition to that, I just was on a call with the USCIS.
They are now going to be asked to handle the refugee situation.
They already can't handle the legal immigration that they are
being asked to deal with.
And so this truly is beginning to effect not only every
American in the country, but every federal agency in the
country.
And so I want to ask, do you have any open recommendations
that have been made for how we should be processing these
illegal immigrants at our southern border?
Mr. Cuffari. Well, we completed an audit last year
involving DHS's protocols, whether they were following
protocols or had any established to conduct COVID testing of
migrants at the southwest border. We made recommendations to
CBP to enhance their ability to do that. We found that they
were not consistently testing individuals before releasing them
onto aircraft or into the custody of another agency or----
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Mr. Cuffari [continuing]. Actually into the public.
We also have a report back in February 2020 about the HSI
criminal alien program that faced many challenges. We made
recommendations. ISIS subsequently implemented those
recommendations and the matter, to my knowledge, has been
closed.
Mr. Rutherford. So when Title 42 is lifted because they are
okay with COVID-19 now, there is no concern about the number of
murders that are being committed by these individuals. There is
no concern about the opioid deaths and the drug trafficking and
human trafficking.
All of these, to me, should be considered public health
issues all over the country because every city in America is
now a border country because we are flying them all over the
place. And I know they are flying into my district
particularly.
So do you have any recommendations on identifying these
individuals, particularly these cartels, that are sending these
people across? The man that was murdered in my district was
murdered by an individual who was obviously working with a
cartel because it was already set up that he was going to
reference Mr. Cuellar as his uncle, not related to our member,
Madam Chair. But that was--and two weeks later he is murdered
by this individual. It was all prearranged before he crossed
the border.
And so my question is, what are we doing to stop these
narco-terrorists from coming across our border?
Mr. Cuffari. Well, what I can say, sir, is based on my
extensive travels to the southwest border and having worked
along the border for about, just over 20 years, it is incumbent
upon the Department to take their screening and vetting process
and do it robustly, consistently, taking fingerprints, biodata.
We have had work in that area in the past. We have a number of
reports related to that.
So I think that is the first line of defense is to have
those checks done consistently across the entire southwest
border.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
I see my time is expired. I yield back.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Cuffari, in your testimony you stated that you have
identified numerous deficiencies in medical care at ICE
detention centers, such as inadequate medical care and
segregation, lack of documentation related to medical visits,
and untimely response to medical grievances, critical medical
understaffing, inadequate medical protocols and delayed medical
treatment and medication refills for detainees.
As a nurse I have been focused on this issue since 2019, my
first year in Congress, when I traveled to the border with DHS
and witnessed medical records being kept by hand, hindering
patient care and provider safety. It is extremely concerning to
hear how persistent this issue has been at ICE facilities.
Can you please elaborate on the lack of documentation
related to medical visits you have found and explain how that
contributes to the larger picture of deficiencies in medical
care?
Mr. Cuffari. Certainly. Thank you, Madam Underwood.
So with the subcommittee's actually enhancements to our
budget back in 2020, we were given additional monies to hire an
outside contracted medical care evaluation team. This consists
of physicians as well as nurses. They have been accompanying us
since then on our visits to the ICE detention facilities. We
have made about 35 recommendations for ICE to improve
conditions, many of which you have identified as inadequate
staffing and matters like that.
We also completed a report regarding the Irwin County
Detention Facility in Georgia in 2021. They were housing
immigration detainees. There was a lack of medical care that
was being provided there. We then initiated another audit to
take a look across the board of all ICE detention facilities
regarding surgical procedures. This was as a result of the ICDC
matter.
Ms. Underwood. Yeah.
So, Dr. Cuffari, in your report, you have read the report
and you talked about the documentation piece. That is my
question. Do you have any kind of additional detail or would
you like to elaborate on the lack of documentation related to
medical visits?
Mr. Cuffari. I believe it is just a common practice and,
you know, they are defaulting to the old pen and paper and
putting information in a file and not using available
electronic means to capture and store that information. I----
Ms. Underwood. As this committee has continued to provide
resources for that kind of electronic documentation, and we
know that that is a critical best practice in all medical
facilities across this country. And we are going to continue to
provide oversight to make sure that in particular ICE improves
their medical documentation and medical treatment.
I am so pleased that this committee was able to secure the
independent reorg of the CMO's office.
Okay. The Trump administration's Family Separation Policy
was a moral stain on our country's history. In May of 2021, OIG
published a report confirming that under the last
administration ICE removed at least 348 parents without the
necessary documents for reunification, and in some cases
removed parents without their children even after parents told
ICE officers that they wanted their children to accompany them
upon removal.
In this report, OIG included recommendations to help ensure
this never happens again.
Can you provide an update on the status of those
recommendations and whether they are being implemented?
Mr. Cuffari. I don't have that available right at the
moment. What I can say is we are doing an audit. It is a follow
up to a report we did in November of 2019 that was taking a
look at the interaction between ICE and the release of
unaccompanied children to Health and Human Services.
Ms. Underwood. Right. We appreciate that. But this was a
newer report. This is from last year, May of 2021, under your
tenure, sir.
And so if you are not prepared to answer that question
during this setting, please provide us for the record an update
because your office did include a series of recommendations
that we are very interested on the committee to understand if
those are being implemented.
Mr. Cuffari. Certainly.
If I may, I understand we made two recommendations which
DHS concurred with. What I don't know at this stage, and I will
be happy to get back to you and the committee, I don't know
whether they have been fully implemented. We have therefore
closed them. That I will provide to you.
Ms. Underwood. Wonderful.
Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Cuffari. You're welcome.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks again, Dr.
Cuffari, for sticking it out for another round of questions
here.
I want to turn now to an agency that Iowa is no stranger
to. Unfortunately, we have a number of interactions with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. I just want to
highlight one natural disaster obviously that still is fresh in
the minds of many of my constituents.
In August of 2020 we had a massive derecho that tore across
the state, very severe thunderstorm, $10 billion in damage,
weeks' long blackouts, mass destruction of homes. People are
still waiting to get some of these repairs done. And as you can
tell, it really caused a lot of loss for lives and livelihoods
in Iowa.
So as we are having this discussion, you know, FEMA, they
obviously were on the ground. They worked a lot to help with
local recovery efforts, and they did help a lot of people. But
there were several Iowans who have contacted our office who
struggled to receive assistance in a timely manner, and my
understanding is that in several cases that the bureaucratic
red tape there was the real culprit. And that is obviously
something that Iowans can't afford to wait on in many cases.
So my question is, do you have any guidance based upon your
interactions and oversight with FEMA to maybe give some
recommendations on how FEMA could be more efficient in its
mission and more responsive to my constituents who need that
help?
Mr. Cuffari. Well, I certainly commend the men and women of
FEMA for their great work across the entire country. What I can
say is FEMA frequently receives large sums of money to assist
in disaster relief, but it appears as though the funding is
lacking what I would call administrative overhead costs. This
would be--so FEMA is taking out of hide the coverage of these
additional ongoing matters and programs. They are not being
given additional money, at least from our review is they are
not being given additional money to cover what I would call
administrative costs. They are taking on these additional
burdens out of hide.
So perhaps that might be a consideration to provide some
degree or percentage of the disaster relief money. It could be
dedicated to FEMA to augment their existing staff.
Mrs. Hinson. Yeah, because obviously this part of their
mission at the core is really critical. People need those
assistance dollars coming in. And I know in our earlier
conversation this week we talked about all of the different
ways that FEMA is being stretched, much like many different
departments under the Department of Homeland Security.
So can you talk a little bit more about the oversight that
you have done? Specifically, you talk about following the
money, right, and seeing where the overhead is or where the
waste is going, where there can be efficiencies.
Can you just talk a little bit about what you have
discovered in looking at FEMA?
Mr. Cuffari. Right now we have got 21 ongoing FEMA audits.
They are covering a wide variety of issues related to funeral
assistance, lost wages, workforce management, property
acquisition, et cetera, et cetera.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay.
Mr. Cuffari. Again, they are doing a great job, but each
time we add an additional layer on, it begins to tax the
existing structure.
Mrs. Hinson. Yeah.
And one of my biggest concerns going forward is making sure
that they can provide what I think everybody deems as an
important mission, which is that disaster assistance. And as we
come into a very severe weather season, we lost 7 Iowans just a
few weeks ago to tornados and many homes were damaged as well.
So definitely top of mind for Iowans and many Americans as
well.
So I want to thank you for coming before us today.
And I think I will have some questions for Round 3, Madam
Chair. But for now I yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. I believe that we are now ready to
go into Round 3.
And I believe, Mrs. Hinson, you are the one that has
requested--you have additional questions. But before I turn it
over to you, I did just want to make one comment.
And that is that I agree with Mr. Rutherford 100 percent
that we need to do everything we can to stop those at the
border who want to do us harm.
However, I do get a little bit concerned when we put
everyone into that same basket. A large percentage of those who
are coming to our border from countries where they are
escaping, you know, rapes and murders and gangs and all the
things that we have heard about, actually come to our borders
and turn themselves in.
And, also, when it comes to illicit drugs, drug
trafficking, human trafficking, the majority of that actually
takes place at our ports of entry. And that is why this
subcommittee has done as much as it possibly can to address and
support what is happening at our ports of entry and to provide
border patrol and others with the resources they need to
address these issues.
So I just want to bring that point because I think it is
concerning to throw every group of immigrant who wants to come
into this country and to portray them as, unintentionally
perhaps, but as murderers, drug traffickers, when, in fact,
that is not the case. There are several different groups of
people who want to come to this country for different reasons.
And as I said, the majority coming from the Latin American
are actually turning themselves in. And the majority of our
drugs are coming through our ports of entry. So----
Mr. Rutherford. I was not suggesting that everyone that
wants to immigrate to this country or come across the southern
border is a murderer or a drug dealer or a terrorist or a
threat to this country.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I under----
Mr. Rutherford. The point that I am making is the vast
numbers of illegal aliens that are crossing our border are
impeding our ability to process people properly so that we know
who is coming in. I simply want to know who is coming through
our border. And right now we do not know.
And we know now with the automated surveillance towers, we
have a much better idea how many we are missing and how many of
those are bringing drugs with them. And it is significant and
that is why I brought that up.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. No. I understand that and I didn't mean
to imply that you were doing that. I just wanted to make sure
that those who are not familiar with the issues that this
subcommittee deals with on a daily basis, that it was made
clear to, you know, the general public that may be listening
in.
And that is one of the very reasons that because of the
support and help of everyone on the subcommittee that we had
our earlier hearing with USCIS, that we, you know, are meeting
with, you know, Border Patrol and everyone to make sure that we
understand clearly what they need to do exactly what you have
said, Mr. Rutherford.
And I thank you for your participation and the viewpoint
that you bring to this committee as well.
And now I will turn it over to Mrs. Hinson because I
believe you have some questions for a third round.
Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. I will be very quick.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, again, Inspector General.
I just wanted to follow up on something that we briefly
talked about on Monday. You know, obviously we have talked a
lot about the staffing issues, and I thank the Chair for her
leadership on our budget process and our appropriations process
where we were able to get them some more resources and
hopefully they will be able to staff up and alleviate some of
the burden and the strain that is existing on our men and women
who are keeping our borders safe. But that has created maybe
some unintentional consequences in the agency. And I know you
are looking into some of those.
And could you just elaborate a little bit on some of the
investigations that you are conducting into some of the
challenges that may have resulted unintentionally out--
unintended consequences out of some of the situation at the
southern border?
Mr. Cuffari. I guess I could talk about closed
investigative work. We have a series of investigations that
have closed involving public corruption of officials, either
Border Patrol agents or inspectors at the ports. These sadly
tarnish unnecessarily so the great work of the other CBP
employees.
In one particular case in Arizona there was a Border Patrol
agent who while on duty was trafficking cocaine, heroin and
fentanyl from a remote area along the border. And he was
actually driving it up to the Phoenix airport and delivering it
on duty to a drug trafficker. He is coming up for trial here in
September or the summer of 2022.
Again, these are issues that rise. The Department is a
large organization. It is composed of humans, obviously. Some
humans unfortunately do bad things and, again, unfortunately it
tarnishes the reputation.
In some cases Border Patrol agents come and approach our
offices to talk about individuals who are drug traffickers or
human smugglers who are trying to bribe them. So the agents
self-report and work with us to target and then obviously
investigate and ultimately indict the bad folks.
Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. And absolutely we want to make sure that
we are holding those people accountable while at the same time,
you know, supporting the people who are doing the job and
putting their lives on the line every single day.
Can I ask, do you know how you were hearing about the--are
they colleagues that are coming forward in a whistleblower
fashion to report? Is the culture there where people feel
comfortable to do that and come up the food chain and out those
who may be breaking the law? You talked about self-reporting
for people who obviously have been approached themselves. But
what about the whistleblower aspect of the job?
Mr. Cuffari. Well, the Department, we are actually the
managers for the Department's Whistleblower Program. So we have
a very robust team of highly skilled, dedicated career
attorneys who are on that mission. We have a Whistleblower
Coordinator whose role it is, is to provide training across the
entire department. This individual is actually also going to
embark on a pilot project to start an Alternative Dispute
Resolution process within our Whistleblower Program.
Mrs. Hinson. All right.
In the interest of time I will go ahead and follow up
offline. But thank you, again, Inspector General.
And thank you, Madam Chair, for the extra time for
questions. I appreciate it.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann, did you or Mr.
Rutherford have any additional questions?
Mr. Fleischmann. No, Madam Chair. I believe they have
called votes. I just want to thank the General for his
testimony today and look forward to working with you as the
chair and he in his capacity and with our wonderful
subcommittee.
Thank you.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. If there are no more questions, that
will conclude today's hearing.
Inspector General Cuffari, thank you so very much for your
time and for helping us think through the challenges that you
are facing.
The Subcommittee on Homeland Security stands adjourned.
Mr. Cuffari. Thank you, Madam Chair. Have a good day.
Wednesday, April 27, 2022.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
WITNESS
HON. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, SECRETARY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security
will come to order.
Today's hearing on the Department of Homeland Security
Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2023 will be conducted by a
hybrid hearing, so we need to address a few housekeeping
matters.
For any members joining virtually, speaking into the
microphone will activate your camera and display your image on
the main screen. Once you start speaking, there will be a
slight delay before your image appears on the main screen. Do
not stop your remarks if you do not see the screen switch
immediately. If the screen does not change after several
seconds, please make sure you are not muted.
To minimize background noise and ensure the correct speaker
is being displayed, we ask that members participating virtually
remain on mute, unless you have sought recognition.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
However, I or staff I designate may mute participants'
microphones when they are not recognized to speak to eliminate
inadvertent background noise. If I notice when you are not
recognized that you have not un-muted yourself, I will ask the
staff to send you a request to unmute. Please accept that
request so you are no longer muted.
Members can submit information in writing for any of our
hearings using the email address provided in advance to your
staff.
We will follow the speaking order set forth in the House
rules, beginning with the Chair and ranking member, and then
alternate by party beginning by members in order of seniority
present at the time the hearing is called to order.
Now, let's begin.
This morning we welcome the Honorable Alejandro Mayorkas,
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who is here
to discuss the Department's operations and its fiscal year 2023
budget request.
Mr. Secretary, we look forward to a productive discussion
this morning.
The Department has a difficult set of missions, ranging
from cybersecurity and the safety of air travel, to terrorism
preparedness, and the protection of our coastal and inland
waterways. However, none of those missions is more challenging
or fraught than immigration enforcement. I suspect that much of
our conversation in this hearing will focus on that topic.
Immigration enforcement is complicated and controversial,
with policy choices on which members of the subcommittee will
strongly disagree. However, I hope there is no disagreement
about how challenging your task is under any set of policy
assumptions.
There are no easy answers because there are competing legal
and moral imperatives that are difficult to balance, and we are
not and cannot be in full control of all the factors driving
migration.
We have seen migration surges during Republican and
Democratic Administrations and Congresses with no long-term
correlation to policy trends.
Mr. Secretary, as we hold you accountable this morning for
what happens at the border, I am cognizant that Congress is
accountable for failing to give the Department a realistic
legal framework for managing the border, one that ensures the
rule of law while ensuring due process and providing better
opportunities for legal migration and asylum claims.
Immigration reform would not solve all of our problems at
the border, but without reform we are knowingly accepting a
status quo that has become increasingly untenable.
Mr. Secretary, despite our policy differences on
immigration or any other matter, I want you to know that this
subcommittee does appreciate what you and the more than 240,000
men and women who work for you do every day to help keep our
country safe.
I will now turn to the distinguished gentleman from
Tennessee, Ranking Member Fleischmann, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I sincerely thank you for joining
us today, sir.
Continuing the dialogue that we had on a bipartisan basis
before the Easter break, sir, I think will be important in the
weeks to come, and I thank you for that. And, hopefully, you
can provide some additional insight, sir, into the plan that
you released yesterday afternoon that outlines six border
security pillars to address the historic number of migrants
encountered by our agents and officers.
The crisis at the border continues to dominate the
headlines in part because of the Administration's plans to
repeal Title 42, which have now, fortunately, been blocked by
court order, at least temporarily.
Roughly half of all migrants your agents and officers
encounter illegally crossing the border are subject to removal
under Title 42 authority. If that tool goes away, it has the
potential to profoundly impact border security operations.
Current DHS projections range from 6,000 encounters to upwards
of 18,000 encounters. Even at the low end, it would mean a new
record number of migrants crossing the border.
Border Patrol stations and Immigration infrastructure were
designed for single, adult men, meaning additional overflow
space will be required and, even then, will likely be stretched
beyond capacity.
Before the court order, the CDC determined it was no longer
necessary to protect U.S. citizens from COVID transmission.
However, at the same time, the CDC attempted to extend federal
mask mandates for public transportation, including on aircraft,
trains, and local taxis to May 3rd. Although the mask mandate
was also correctly stricken, in my view, by a federal judge, it
illustrates the disjointed nature of this Administration's
COVID policy choices.
Beyond the debate around Title 42, this Administration
continues to send all the wrong messages on border security and
immigration enforcement.
Administration officials emphasize the push factors that
drive people to migrate illegally such as natural disasters,
economic conditions, and the corruption that is endemic to many
of the sending countries; however, they rarely, if ever,
acknowledge that their actions have a role to play.
Policy also drives illegal immigration, perception drives
illegal immigration, changing both has to be a part of the
Department's strategy because the current messages being sent,
in my view, are contributing factors to the recent surge of
illicit immigration because, right now, our current immigration
policies are not working. We cannot manage our way out of this
crisis with more processing capability or increase the ability
of non-governmental organizations to address the near-term
humanitarian needs.
Many migrants our agents encounter are given a notice to
appear and sent on their way into the interior of the United
States to await a court date, often years into the future. It
only encourages more people to come. A better approach would be
to ensure that not only those with a legitimate fear of--only
those with a legitimate fear of prosecution or those who come
to the country legally are successful. Everyone else must be
swiftly removed and sent home.
Commitment to enforcement of our immigration law needs to
be consistent and right now there are too many loopholes.
Mr. Secretary, I look forward to working with you and your
Department as we endeavor to seek solutions to address the
border security crisis at hand.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you and I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I now recognize the distinguished
gentlelady, Ranking Member Granger.
Ms. Granger. I want to thank the Chairwoman for holding
this important hearing on the Department of Homeland Security's
fiscal year 2023 budget.
Thank you also, Secretary Mayorkas, for joining us. We look
forward to your testimony today.
First, I want to honor Texas National Guardsman Bishop
Evans. Specialist Evans lost his life over the weekend saving
two migrants from drowning. Our deepest condolences go out to
the family and friends of Specialist Evans, as well as the
Texas National Guard. Illegal crossings like ones Specialist
Evans encountered have skyrocketed under this Administration. A
record number of migrants attempted to cross the border
illegally last year and we are on track for another record-
breaking year.
On average, our Border Patrol agents encounter 7,000
individuals every day. This is straining the capabilities of
our processing and detention facilities. Our agents and
officers on the ground do not have the resources to handle
numbers this high. The situation will only get worse if the
Administration is successful in lifting the Title 42 public
health authority that has been successfully used to deny entry
to illegal migrants during the pandemic.
Current projections from the Department suggest that
without Title 42 authority the number of migrant encounters
could more than double. Tens of thousands of migrants are
waiting to cross the border if this authority is lifted.
It has been reported that some ICE and CBP accounts could
run out of funds as soon as July if President Biden is
successful in revoking Title 42. Members on both sides of the
aisle agree that now is not the time to stop enforcement of
this policy. Thankfully, the Administration's plan to suspend
the authority have been blocked for now by a federal judge.
This Administration needs to stop their failed policies and
start securing our border. The current policies have allowed
cartels and human traffickers to take advantage of gaps in the
wall; drug trafficking to surge with fentanyl; seizures
increasing 134 percent; the number of deportations to fall by
68 percent; hundreds of thousands of migrants to be released
into the United States.
We need commonsense solutions that deter illegal
immigration, not policies that encourage more of it. Our
message must be consistent and clear: the border is not open
and, if you try to cross illegally, you will quickly be sent
home. I urge the Administration to return to the rule of law
and get serious about addressing the crisis at the border.
Mr. Secretary, I want to extend my sincere appreciation to
the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security who
dedicate their lives to protect the great Nation.
And thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Secretary, we will submit the full
text of your official statement for the hearing record. Please
begin your oral summary, which I would ask you keep to 5
minutes.
Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member Fleischmann, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to join you and testify before you this morning.
Every day, the 250,000 extraordinary personnel of the
Department of Homeland Security interact with the public on a
daily basis more than any other federal agency. While created
to respond to a single threat in the aftermath of 9/11, our
Department has remained agile, adapting to new challenges as
they arise, as responsibilities grow, and as its role increases
in scale and scope.
The Fiscal Year 2023 Budget is a $97.3 billion investment
in our capacity to meet the shifting-threat landscape. The
resources will give us the tools to protect our communities
from terrorism; to enhance border security; to invest in a
safe, orderly, and humane immigration system; to counter cyber
attacks; to safeguard our transportation networks; to
strengthen disaster preparedness and resilience; and much more.
On terrorism and targeted violence, the threat has evolved
over the last two decades, and we meet this challenge by
equipping every level of government, the private sector, and
local communities with the tools and resources that they need
to stay safe.
In 2021, for the first time, we designated domestic violent
extremism a national priority area in our FEMA grant programs;
enhanced training opportunities for law enforcement; and
increased our intelligence and information-sharing efforts. We
are asking for additional funds to expand these operations.
In the wake of incidents like the hostage crisis in
Colleyville, Texas, we have increased our request for the vital
Nonprofit Security Grant Program to $360 million, to protect
houses of worship and other nonprofits from terrorism and
targeted violence.
Under this Administration, our department has been
executing a comprehensive strategy to secure our borders and to
rebuild our immigration system.
With the Title 42 public health order set to be lifted, we
expect migration levels to increase as smugglers seek to take
advantage of and to profit from vulnerable migrants. We will
continue to enforce our immigration laws.
After Title 42 is lifted, non-citizens will be processed
pursuant to Title 8, which provides that individuals who cross
the border without legal authorization are processed for
removal and, if unable to establish a legal basis to remove in
the United States, are removed promptly from the country.
We started our planning last September, and we are leading
the execution of a whole-of-government strategy that stands on
six pillars to prepare for and manage the rise in non-citizen
encounters: one, surge resources including personnel,
transportation, medical support, and facilities; two, increase
efficiency without compromising the integrity of our screening
processes to reduce strain on the border; three, administer
consequences for unlawful entry, including expedited removal
and criminal prosecution; four, bolster the capacity of NGOs
and coordinate with state, local, and community partners; five,
target and disrupt transnational criminal organizations and
human smugglers; six, deter irregular migration south of our
border in partnership with other federal agencies and nations.
We inherited a broken and dismantled system that is already
under strain. It is not built to manage the current levels and
types of migratory flows; only Congress can fix this. Yet, we
have effectively managed an unprecedented number of non-
citizens seeking to enter the United States, and interdicted
more drugs and disrupted more smuggling operations than ever
before. A significant increase in migrant encounters will
strain our system even further and we will address this
challenge successfully, but it will take time and we need the
partnership of Congress, state and local officials, NGOs, and
communities to do so.
To build on our ongoing work, in this budget we have
requested funding to hire 300 new Border Patrol agents, the
first increase since 2011; ensure the safe and humane treatment
of migrants; and operationalize a new rule on asylum
processing. We are requesting additional funds to counter human
and drug-smuggling operations, combat the heinous crime of
child exploitation and human trafficking, and stop goods
produced by forced labor from entering our markets.
Finally, our mission set includes a series of other
essential priorities.
DHS, through the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security
Agency, protects our critical infrastructure from malicious
cyber activity, a threat heightened due to Russia's unprovoked
and brutal invasion of Ukraine. Our budget will expand our
cybersecurity services, bolster our ability to respond to cyber
intrusions, and grow our cyber operational planning activities.
DHS, through the Transportation Security Administration,
protects the traveling public. Our budget invests in paying
TSA's dedicated personnel commensurate with their federal
colleagues and ensuring they receive employment protections.
DHS, through FEMA and other agencies, continues to answer
the risks posed by climate change and natural disasters growing
in ferocity and frequency.
Our budget invests in adaptation, resilience, improved
response and recovery, and more. We cannot do this alone. DHS
is a department of partnerships.
I look forward to working with this committee to carry out
our wide-ranging mission on behalf of the American people.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Secretary, I have been very
concerned by calls for continuing the use of Title 42 expulsion
authority at the border and I was alarmed by the recent court
order that at least temporarily would prohibit the planned end
of Title 42 next month. Even though this authority is legally
premised on the mitigation of public health risk, there can be
no denying that it also helps CBP manage the border by reducing
the number of people that require processing, but that is not a
legally sufficient reason to continue it and it would fly in
the face of the legal due process rights of migrants.
My question is, do you believe it is time for the use of
Title 42 authority to end at the border? And can you discuss
how DHS is estimating the impact of ending Title 42 on the flow
of migrants, including the assumptions behind the estimates we
have heard of up to 18,000 individuals per day?
Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, as you have correctly
identified, Title 42 is a public health authority that rests in
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, an agency within the Department of Health and
Human Services. It is based on their expert assessment of the
public health needs of the American public and they decide
whether the Title 42 authority remains necessary, remains a
public health imperative, on the basis of public health data
that they obtain and their expert decision based on it.
Our responsibility in the Department of Homeland Security
is to implement the Title 42 authority of the CDC at our
border, and to implement it effectively and judiciously
according to the law. We are mindful that there can be an
increase in migratory flows encountered at our southern border
should Title 42 come to an end, as the CDC has determined that
it needs to do by May 23rd. Our responsibility, therefore, is
to prepare and plan for that eventuality.
We have been mindful of the fact that the Title 42
authority would not be in place forever and, therefore, we
began our extensive planning and preparation since September of
last year. I outlined the six pillars of our plan that really
have guided our day-to-day preparation since the fall of last
year, and we are preparing for different scenarios. It is very
difficult to predict the level of migration that we will
encounter once Title 42 comes to an end and we are planning and
preparing for different scenarios as a result. That is what we
do; we plan, we prepare, and we execute in the service of our
mission.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Now, the estimates of 18,000
individuals, are those estimates based on a country-by-country
projection? And what do the estimates mean in the short term as
you consider the Department's funding and resource needs?
Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, we haven't estimated
the level of increase that we might experience, but what we
have done is develop different scenarios and plans for
addressing each and every one of those scenarios.
It is very important, I think, that everyone understands
that an increase in migratory flows is not something unique to
the United States; this is something that occurs in countries
throughout the region, throughout the Western Hemisphere, and,
as we have seen so powerfully and regrettably, throughout the
world.
We have seen more than five million Ukrainians flee their
country, which has been so brutally attacked by Russia. We have
Colombia in the southern part of our hemisphere experiencing
more than 1.8 million Venezuelans crossing its borders. I
recently traveled to Costa Rica and to Panama and heard from
other countries with respect to the similar challenges that
they are facing. These challenges are brought about and are
made more acute by the COVID-19 pandemic, but some of the
causes of irregular migration have only been heightened in the
years of distress preceding this Administration. Economic
downturn, an increase in violence, the significant impacts of
climate change, these are the forces that drive people to leave
their homes that they have established and in which they have
grown up for years.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And do you think that the extra $1.4
billion that Congress already provided for this fiscal year
will be enough?
Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, we appreciate the
$1.4 billion that was provided to the Department of Homeland
Security to address this situation. We have, of course,
submitted to Congress a spending plan for that amount of money.
We have an obligation to the American public to manage our
funding in a fiscally responsible way and that is indeed what
we are doing. We are planning to reprogram funds as necessary,
and we will be open and forthcoming with Congress with respect
to those plans.
We also are preparing, should reprogramming not be
sufficient, to request a supplemental. We have not reached that
point; we are going to try to avoid that to the best of our
abilities. We will be in constant communication with this
committee, and we appreciate this committee's support.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you again, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, the Biden administration, through the
Centers for Disease Control, attempted to end the Title 42
public health authority effective May the 23rd; however, a
temporary restraining order now prevents the Administration
from doing so. DHS's internal estimates provide several
scenarios for the number of border crossers that may cross if
we lift Title 42. Projections were as high as 18,000 encounters
a day.
My first question, sir. Would DHS have been prepared if not
for the court order, sir?
Secretary Mayorkas. Ranking Member Fleischmann, thank you
very much for your question.
It is our responsibility to plan and prepare for
eventualities that might materialize. We started to plan and
prepare for the end of Title 42 commencing in September of last
year, in September of 2021. We have been preparing every single
day since then.
Yesterday, I published a memorandum that set forth the
pillars, the six pillars that undergird our planning and
preparation, so that everyone can understand the extent of the
planning and preparation that we have undertaken.
As I articulated in response to the chairwoman's question,
it is our responsibility to plan and prepare, and to execute
upon those plans, to address the challenges that are before us,
and they are varied and continue to vary because our mission is
expansive.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Secretary, even if we don't lift Title 42, we are going
to see this year a record number of migrant encounters at the
border. Do you believe, sir, that we need to implement
additional consequences for illicit border crossers?
Secretary Mayorkas. Ranking Member Fleischmann, what we
fundamentally need is legislation to fix what everyone agrees
is a broken immigration system. That is the one thing in the
immigration sphere where there is unanimity.
The six pillars of our plans that I outlined in a
memorandum yesterday are six pillars that we are executing upon
whether or not Title 42 comes to an end. One of those pillars
is indeed the consequences for entering our country in between
a port of entry without having a legal basis to remain in this
country. Individuals who make a claim for relief under our laws
and whose claims do not succeed in immigration court
proceedings are removed from this country, and we are employing
our authorities to effect those removals as swiftly as
possible.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
You have already alluded to this in your testimony, but
yesterday DHS released a plan for southwest border security and
preparedness, which outlines your plan to surge resources and
address the anticipated increase in border crossings when and
if Title 42 is lifted.
The first pillar of the plan is to surge resources to the
southwest border, including support and medical personnel.
Presumably, these additional personnel come from other
components throughout DHS.
My question, sir, what is the impact to those agencies who
rely on these individuals as they are deployed to help
alleviate the preventable border surge?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, not all of those resources
come from other parts of the Department and I want to identify
one very important example that illustrates my point.
I have been to the border approximately eight times. During
my last visit, I heard loudly and clearly the concerns of our
heroic, incredibly dedicated Border Patrol agents, about their
need for additional support so that they can get out into the
field and can interdict individuals seeking to evade law
enforcement and cross our border illegally. In response to that
need, we have hired contract case-processing personnel to
process individuals who have sought to enter our border
illegally, and this allows those Border Patrol agents out into
the field. We have contracted for 300 case processors and we
have the capacity to plus-up that force that does not come from
within the Department. We are using our contracting authorities
very effectively and efficiently to achieve that mission.
Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Secretary, thank you.
Madam Chair, I'll yield back and wait for round two. Thank
you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I think the job of
this subcommittee is to provide the resources and hopefully
some guidance to do your job because you are right, migration
has been happening all over the world for war, economic,
droughts, you name it, for many, many years. So it is not a
matter of how do we control the border, but how do we manage
the border.
Your plan that you laid out, actually, I think it can work.
Three of them are to deal with the border, how do you move
people out of the border in a more humane, efficient way, but I
am interested in the three other ones that address the issues
of expedited removals and what we do with those other
countries. Instead of playing defense on the 1-yard line, what
are we doing to work with the other countries.
The first thing is--and I am going to ask very specific
questions--the Laredo sector and the Rio Grande sector are
operating at 40 percent. That means that 60 percent of the men
and women are in the processing centers and 40 percent actually
doing Homeland Security. It is like having a school and only 40
percent of the teachers are in the classroom and the other ones
are doing something else.
The border processing coordinators is something that we
started many years ago, years ago, and we still haven't ramped
up. I know I heard you say 300, but we should have done that a
long time ago to put those folks in the processing centers and
our men and women outside.
I hope you all can move on that quicker because I think it
will be key to get the other 60 percent of the Border Patrol
folks out in the field to do Homeland.
Number two, the asylum officers--this is the way I see this
and I have brought this so many times--if somebody is coming
from a country from another part of the world, it doesn't have
to be only the Central American countries, they pass through
country A. Country A can give them asylum, they can ask for
asylum, they don't ask that. Then they pass through country B.
They could do the same thing, ask for asylum, but they don't
ask for them. They want to come to the United States, but they
probably passed two, three, four countries where they could
have asked for asylum.
Do asylum officers take that in consideration where their
fear could have been taken care of in country A, B, C, or D,
depending on where they are coming from?
And I know the immigration judges are not under your
department, it is a different department, but is that something
they take in consideration? Because I think a lot of those
issues can be addressed very quickly because if the question is
how do you take care of--how do you address the credible fear,
I think that credible fear could have been taken here.
And the reason I say that because I have been with Border
Patrol where I find the 45-day permit, you know, some time ago
from Mexico, and then the relief that they have been given in
Chile or some other countries, but they drop them off and they
are starting new.
Is that something that the asylum officers look at?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, if I can answer the
different questions----
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir.
Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. That you have proposed to
me, and I will do so as quickly as I can. I very much
appreciate your recognition of the importance of the case
processors. That is why from my last visit to the border, I
equipped the case processors with additional tools to magnify
their portfolios, and to allow more agents out in the field.
We already brought on more case processors, and we will be
bringing on 300-plus more. So I very much appreciate your
recognition of their importance.
The asylum officers, Congressman, you know, right now are
working in a system where the average length of time between
the time of encounter and the final adjudication of an asylum
case is six to eight years. A stark example of how broken our
immigration system is.
For the first time, this administration has promulgated an
asylum officer rule that will allow the asylum officers to make
that ultimate asylum adjudication, and that will take that six
to eight year period and reduce it to under a year without
compromising due process. That is a game changer, Congressman.
With respect to your point about the migratory flows from
country to country and, ultimately potentially, to our southern
border, because the promise of America is the greatest promise
in the world, that is precisely why I was in Panama last week.
I went to speak with my counterparts, along with U.S. Secretary
of State Blinken, with the foreign secretaries and security
secretaries of countries throughout the region, about their
border management, the humanitarian relief that they could
provide, the responsibilities that they have to provide that
relief according to their laws, and to repatriate individuals
who do not qualify for relief under their laws.
This is a regional, hemispheric challenge, and it needs to
be met with a regional hemispheric response. We continue to
work with countries in the region, last week in Panama, in June
at the Summit of the Americas, and every day in between.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Granger.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Since Congress blocked the
administration proposal to rescind funding for wall
construction, you have a balance of roughly $2.5 billion
available. I understand that some of the funding will be used
to fix problems created for the decision to cancel the wall
contracts midstream, such as closing gaps and building gates.
The remaining funds must be spent on wall construction.
So please tell us exactly how you plan to spend the funds.
If you can't provide an answer now, when will you be able to
share this information.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, thank you very much for
your question. Indeed, we are closing gaps and completing
gates. I approved, I believe, approximately 68 projects in
furtherance of that effort. We are well aware of our
responsibility to spend the funds that have been appropriated
to the wall, and we are undertaking an analysis of how most
effectively to do so, while honoring the President's
commitment.
We are dedicated to spending those funds in a way that
enhances safety and security, and we will provide you with a
plan that gives you more details in that regard. We are very
well aware of our obligations, and we will execute those
obligations in adherence to your authority.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us today. It is
great to see you.
I am a nurse, so today I want to focus on DHS's policies
around medical care. These policies are incredibly important,
and they help keep DHS personnel, migrants, and most especially
our community safe. Since you have taken office, you have made
significant improvements on this front, especially regarding
the well being of unaccompanied children, where the last
administration fell beyond short of reflecting our values and
meeting our standards. That is thanks to changes made under
your leadership, and I want to recognize your efforts and those
of DHS staff.
However, there is still a lot more work that needs to be
done. Let's start with vaccinations. I have been advocating for
DHS to offer the COVID-19 and influenza vaccines to people in
its custody for years now, and finally on March 28th, the
administration announced that CBP would begin offering the
COVID-19 vaccine.
We know that vaccines save lives, and this policy will
protect migrants and the DHS personnel serving at our borders.
When DHS began implementing this plan one month ago, DHS
officials said that you would initially be able to provide up
to 2,000 vaccines per day, at 11 locations along the border.
Officials also stated that your plan was to increase
capacity to 6,000 vaccines per day at 27 locations by the end
of May. Are you on track to hit this goal?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, thank you very much for
your concern with respect to the medical and health well-being
of individuals whom we encounter at our southern border. I'm
very well aware of your experience and your dedication to this
issue.
We are on track, thanks to the extraordinary leadership of
our physicians and their support personnel, and we are gearing
forward to meet the objective of vaccinating up to 6,000
migrants per day in more than 20 facilities across the border.
Ms. Underwood. Great. How many migrants have been
vaccinated at the border since you began this policy in March?
And can you share any additional details on implementation?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, I would have to provide,
and will provide, you with that data subsequent to this
hearing. I don't have that detail with me this morning.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. Thank you. Like I mentioned,
Chairwoman DeLauro and I have called on CBP to offer flu
vaccines to people in its custody since 2019. Even before the
COVID-19 pandemic, CDC urged Customs and Border Protection to
administer the flu vaccine to people in its custody.
With DHS now administering the COVID-19 vaccine, can we
expect the Department to expand this program to include the flu
vaccine in the future?
Secretary Mayorkas. Forgive me--in an architecture that we
established to test, isolate, and quarantine non-citizens whom
we have encountered, for example.
We have been working very closely with non-governmental
organizations to advance the public health needs of the
population.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. Well, I am very supportive of all
efforts to expand vaccination, and I look forward to your
continued partnership on that.
Now, I would like to discuss the Chief Medical Office
reorganization, which has been one of my, and Chairwoman
Roybal-Allard's top priorities over the past year. I am so
proud that the fiscal year 2022 omnibus included our provision
allowing for the establishment of a new executive management
office, led by the CMO to better lead and coordinate the
Department's medical and public health priorities and
operations.
The current structure where the CMO reports to the
countering weapons of mass destruction office, instead of
directly to you, sir, has led to disjointed and isolated
medical efforts in the Department. I know it is early, but can
you share with the committee any plans and timelines you have
for developing this new office?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, thanks to you and thanks
to the chairwoman for supporting this effort. It is reflective
of our desire to bring greater integration to the entire
Department, and in this mission set, it is so imperative.
It is thanks to our Chief Medical Officer, other
physicians, and other personnel that we have been actually able
to provide medical care, and to meet the needs of our
workforce, and the public whom we serve effectively, despite a
sub-optimal organization.
We are developing detailed plans. We look forward to
working with you in this committee on the execution of those
plans, and we are doing so as rapidly as possible. This is a
really terrific opportunity for us, and we are grateful that
you have created it.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, for
holding this hearing. Secretary Mayorkas, thank you for taking
the time to speak to us today.
As you may know, my district lines the Mississippi Gulf
coast and has two ports of entry where CBP agents are
stationed. We have two U.S. Coast Guard, small boat stations.
And we have got what I believe to be two of the greatest ship
builders in America right in my backyard. One building the
National Security Cutter and the other building the first polar
security cutter in over 50 years.
And so I would like to extend an open invitation for you to
visit the Mississippi Gulf coast at any time. I would like to
be a part of your trip.
The last time you testified before this subcommittee, I had
just returned from a trip to the southwest border with several
members of the border security caucus. I am appalled by the
fact that it has been a year since you sat before us last, and
the only change regarding the situation at the southwest border
is that the situation has gotten much worst.
This administration's lax policies in opening the border is
not just to allow immigration to occur. It has opened the flood
gates for nefarious activity and burden to DS agencies that
have the responsibility to respond. And this isn't just
affecting the border, but it is also affecting local and state
law enforcement all across America. Not just border states.
The CBP agents I spoke with while visiting the border
begged us to fight for the continuation of Title 42, because
their facilities and their staffing levels cannot handle the
massive influx that would occur if they were reversed. How can
this administration literally file lawsuits to keep CDC COVID-
19 protocols inflicted on American people in planes and public
transportation, but alternatively want to drop the COVID-19
protocol for non-citizens/immigrants under Title 42 at the
border?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, thank you, first of all
for your kind invitation to visit your jurisdiction, and I will
accept that invitation and look forward to joining you there,
and I cannot overstate the importance of the National Security
Cutters, and our appreciation for this committee's support for
the polar security cutter, which is of such vital importance,
especially as our arctic strategy becomes more important with
other nations aggressions in that area.
Congressman, as I said at the very outset, Title 42 is an
authority that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
exercises. It is their authority exclusively and not ours. Our
job is to implement plans according to whether or not that
authority continues to be exercised in their decision making.
Let me be clear that we are mandating vaccines for
individuals whom we encounter at the southern border. We are
building our vaccination capacity, and those individuals who
are not vaccinated are subject to detention if they are not
already subject to detention for independent law enforcement
means.
Individuals who cross our border are placed in immigration
enforcement proceedings. They make claims for relief under our
law. If they do so and those claims succeed, then they have
established a legal basis to remain. If those claims do not
succeed, then they are expeditiously removed from our country.
Mr. Palazzo. The well-resourced cartels, gang members,
human traffickers, and drug smugglers will exploit this crisis
to further endanger American citizens. A group of 130 plus
members of Congress wrote to you, calling on you to immediately
take all legal and necessary actions at your disposal, which
there are many, to secure the southern border, rectify the
dangerous policies this administration has put in motion over
the past year, and bring your agency into compliance with the
laws passed by the United States Congress.
How much has it cost the Department of Homeland Security to
cancel, pause, or otherwise halt construction of physical
barriers along the southern border, authorized and appropriated
by law?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, let me say a few things in
response to your question, because we are implementing the laws
that Congress has passed, and we are doing so effectively,
focusing on the greatest public safety, national security, and
border security threats.
We are exercising prosecutorial discretion, a long-
established and long held best practice. We are doing so
effectively to have the greatest law enforcement impact, number
one. Number two, you mentioned the cartels, the transnational
criminal organizations.
We have intensified our efforts to attack them and have
done so in unprecedented ways. I welcome the chance to provide
details with respect to how we are doing so. The Department of
Homeland Security, is collaborating with other federal agencies
and with state and local law enforcement agencies.
The majority of the wall projects rest in the jurisdiction
of the Army Corps of Engineers. I believe that the cost of
discontinuing those that we control is approximately $72
million. And I will follow up with you to ensure the accuracy
of my statement this morning. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Palazzo. Yeah. Thank you. Please do. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, you have a
very difficult job. I think right now you are dealing with the
issues the way you should, and we hope to support you as much
as we can.
To begin--at the request of the department, the FY-2022
Homeland Security Appropriations Act provided funds for an
incident management assistance team, called IMAT, primarily for
incidents that are not declared emergencies or disasters under
the Stafford Act, or paid from the Disaster Relief Fund. That
is called DRF. Acronyms everywhere.
I represent a coastal district which is prone to flooding.
More than not, these events are not classified as major
disaster declarations. However, it certainly doesn't feel that
way to my constituents who live there. And as such, I am a big
supporter of the IMAT model and would like to raise the
program's profile in the committee.
Now, one, can you explain what IMAT is and what they do,
and the status of the new team?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, we are so appreciative of
your support of IMAT. IMAT brings different planning,
preparation, and execution capabilities to bear in response to
an incident. It is all about preparation, planning, response,
and resilience, and the IMAT structure provides an integrated
approach to that mission set.
Indeed, it is an authority that we have exercised in the
context of natural disasters under the Stafford Act, but we are
expanding it further, thanks to your championing that program.
I also should expand further, because the IMAT structure is
the optimal way to address challenges, whether they be Stafford
Act, outside the Stafford Act, natural disasters, or challenges
of a different nature. That is why we are in the midst of
developing the IMAT capability throughout the Department to
address whatever challenges that we might face.
Of course, FEMA is most experienced in that, as is the
United States Coast Guard. We are bringing that capability
throughout the Department. That is one of our core initiatives
in the 12 priorities that I outline for Fiscal Year 2022, six
of which are built on organizational advancement, six of which
are focused on mission advancement.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And you mentioned FEMA. Why is it
beneficial for FEMA to have an IMAT team that is not funded by
DRF?
Secretary Mayorkas. Because, Congressman, FEMA addresses so
many different types of challenges. Some fall within the
Stafford Act declaration construct, and some don't. To your
point that you made at the very outset, to your constituents,
the Stafford Act isn't necessarily the line that they draw when
they are confronting a challenge that jeopardizes their well-
being.
Therefore, that is not the best line to differentiate when
the IMAT capability is brought to bear to address a challenge.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Can this team be used for disasters and
emergencies declared under the Stafford Act, if needed?
Secretary Mayorkas. It certainly can, Congressman.
Mr. Ruppersberger. There is plenty of flexibility there?
Secretary Mayorkas. There is and we are building that
capability to address all sorts of challenges. In fact, the
southern border coordination center that I directed to be
created to address the challenge at the southern border is led
by an IMAT expert from FEMA who brings that capability to bear.
We are bringing together all of our capabilities across the
Department to address that challenge and to address others.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ranking
Member Fleischmann. Thank you, Secretary, for coming before us
today to answer our questions.
And I know the timing of this hearing is incredibly
important, given the chaos that is happening at our southern
border right now. We know those numbers from March were well
over 200,000 encounters with illegal immigrants, a 500-percent
increase over 2020, incredibly alarming to me and our
communities.
I just did a townhall last week, heard from our local law
enforcement. They see the federal government as failing at its
mission at the southern border, and they are having to deploy
resources locally to counter for that. It is frustrating to me
that I feel like here we are again after a year. We were given
these warnings a year ago about the situations, not only at our
border communities for our law enforcement officers, not only
down in Texas, but in places like Iowa, who continue to raise
the alarm that this crisis has worsened.
And so I think this is a direct result, the compounding
that we are seeing at our southern border of this problem, of
this Administration's policies. I think it is ludicrous that
you are saying comprehensive and deliberate strategies since
January of 2021, and yet here we are, with a worsening and
compounding crisis at our southern border.
So I had a chance to visit the southern border last April.
I had a chance to connect with Customs and Border Patrol agents
in the Del Rio sector. We know Title 42 has been a very useful
tool for border patrol to help process people at our southern
border. I heard that directly from agents. They were asking for
this to be permanent.
I think if our President and our Vice President also had a
chance to go down and see this in person, they would hear that
directly from them as well. So I would ask you to convey that
to the President and the Vice President that they need to go
see it in person as well.
Because of this policy, we are hearing from the DHS
inspector general, General Cuffari, was before our committee a
few weeks ago as well. He said there are 100,000 migrants
waiting for this policy to end, just sitting there. We know
that number is going to increase as well. And when we see
Border Patrol because severely undermanned, and I know you are
asking for more agents, but when 60 percent of them are not
doing their job as intended, that is a huge hole.
So have you talked to Border Patrol agents on the ground at
our southern border? What are they telling you about the end of
Title 42, and the anticipation of that policy changing? We
would be interested in what you are hearing from the agents.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, thank you so very much.
I have much to say in response to the statements that preceded
your question but allow me to respectfully disagree with much
of what you said, and to just answer your question.
As I said earlier this morning before this committee, I
visited the border eight times now in my role as Secretary, and
I have visited it previously in my role as the Deputy Secretary
and in other capacities throughout my more than 20 years in
federal service.
The Border Patrol agents are doing their job every single
day. We need to get them out in the field to interdict
individuals who are seeking to cross our border illegally. That
is why, as I have said previously, we are ramping up the case
processing capabilities to get those Border Patrol agents out
into the field.
Some certainly of the agents have said to me that Title 42
has been of utility to them, despite the level of recidivism
that Title 42 can prompt. Please remember that under Title 42,
individuals are expelled, they are not formally removed in
immigration proceedings, and therefore, they do not have a
record of removal. What we are seeing is the number of
encounters, not necessarily the number of unique individuals
reflected in the numbers that you have cited.
Some of the agents have requested Title 42 remain, and I
have explained to them, as I have shared with this committee
that the law provides that that is a public health authority,
not an immigration policy, and the CDC controls the exercise of
that authority according to its assessment of the public health
need.
Mrs. Hinson. So if CBP is understaffed, and agents are in
many of these cases coming to you and saying, hey, we probably
need this policy to be permanent, how does this work with ICE?
We know ICE beds are underutilized right now. These agencies
should be working together to handle this increased influx.
What are we doing with the additional ICE beds and the
detention beds for the people who are being brought into a
country and who are not being expelled quickly?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are
working hand in glove as part of the SBCC, the Southern Border
Coordinating Center, and they worked hand-in-glove before I
directed the creation of that center.
The tension is being used in furtherance of our prosecution
efforts. We focus our detention resources on the greatest
public safety, national security, and border security threats.
That is where we have the greatest law enforcement impact, and
we continue to exercise our detention authority, our
prosecution authorities in the service of those three primary
goals.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you. I will yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, I represent Chicago, Ukrainian Village, and
one of the largest Ukrainian populations in the country. They
want to know how to get Ukrainian refugees there. Let's start
at the border in that regard.
What is your understanding of the numbers of Ukrainian
refugees that have come to the southern border here, and how
many have been processed, and how many remain?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, thank you very much for
your concern about the Ukrainians who have fled their country,
which has been so brutally attacked.
We have focused resources on the port of entry at San
Ysidro, where the majority of Ukrainians who flew to Mexico
with the hope of entering the United States assembled.
We have drawn down that population of Ukrainians
dramatically. We surged resources of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection. I will provide you with the specific details and
the numbers that you have requested. But let me, if I can, take
a step back, because our efforts are extensive with respect to
providing humanitarian relief for individuals who have fled war
torn Ukraine.
We deployed refugee affairs officers to the region
immediately to be able to begin to administer refugee
applications to Ukrainians. We just stood up Uniting For
Ukraine, a very innovative humanitarian relief program that
makes humanitarian parole available to Ukrainians who have a
sponsor in the United States.
We also assessed humanitarian parole requests on an
individualized basis before we stood up the Uniting For Ukraine
program. The Department of State recently issued guidance with
respect to the issuance of visas for Ukrainians who want to
come to the United States temporarily, understanding that their
hope is to be able to return to their country and enjoy the
sovereignty that is part of our international norms and our
international architecture.
I very much appreciate your concern for the people of
Ukraine.
Mr. Quigley. No, and I appreciate your mentioning all of
those coming from war torn countries. It is my hope, indeed,
that the millions who have left the Ukraine shines a light on
the problem worldwide. And obviously, we should care just as
much about those leaving Afghanistan, Africa, Yemen, and so
forth. And I appreciate your efforts there.
Again, we are curious, the number of Ukrainians who have
come through the southern border, how many are still waiting.
And there was concern among my constituents that Unite for
Ukraine would say we are going to do this, but at some point,
we are going to stop allowing this through the southern border.
Could you explain what that situation is and how we are
alerting people about that possibility?
Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you very much, Congressman. I
should say that in addition to the efforts that I articulated
in response to your first question, we of course also granted
temporary protected status for those Ukrainian nationals who
are already resident in the United States because it is not
safe, of course, to return to their country at this time.
We believe that if Ukrainians fleeing Ukraine want to come
to the United States and to seek humanitarian relief here in
the United States, the most effective, efficient, and assured
process is to proceed through our means that I have outlined
directly, and not to go to the southern border to Mexico, and
enter through a port of entry. That is not the way to do it,
and----
Mr. Quigley. But you--excuse me. You can appreciate the
fact that they are in the middle of a war and they are making
decisions in a hurry.
Secretary Mayorkas. Yes. And----
Mr. Quigley. So how are we messaging through Ukraine and
places like Warsaw and other countries that they would leave
from, to understand what the other options are?
Secretary Mayorkas. We are messaging that not only to the
Ukrainian diaspora already present in the United States, but we
are messaging that through our public communications in the
region through our international partners, through our consular
officers. We are indeed getting that word out.
Mr. Quigley. And the word about how to use Unite for
Ukraine.
Secretary Mayorkas. Correct. How to use Uniting for
Ukraine, how to apply for a visa, what is the availability and
means of accessing our refugee program and all of the different
humanitarian channels that we have made available.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair and the ranking
member. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here this
morning.
I want to follow-up on the Ukraine refugee issue. We have a
large influx that have come across the Southern Border in my
district now and I was really glad to hear, I think it was last
Monday, when the Uniting for Ukraine was laid out because we
had heard the commitment to bring 100,000, but there hadn't
been any rulemaking for that, I suppose.
So I my question is, in light of the fact that we still
have Afghans, 6 months, who are trying to come through the same
process, how long do we expect the Ukrainians to have to wait
to be able to properly come through to America, as well? Do we
have an idea on how long that is going to take?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, thanks so much for this
important question.
We are focused on meeting the urgency of the moment and we
did exactly that through Operation Allies Welcome in which we
were able to build a parole program where the parole
determinations, according to law, were made on an
individualized case-by-case basis. We paroled more than 73,000
Afghan nationals within a matter of weeks.
We intend to design and are designing our program and, are
underway in its implementation to meet the urgency of the
moment, with respect to the needs of Ukrainians who fled their
war-torn country. We are prioritizing that.
I cannot overstate the challenge, because, please remember,
the agency that is on point for that, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, within the Department of Homeland
Security, has not had adequate funding for more than 7 years.
It was entirely dismantled and we are in the process of
rebuilding it.
What the workforce of that agency has done, characteristic
of the workforce throughout the Department of Homeland Security
is truly extraordinary.
Mr. Rutherford. But those same USCIS employees are being
surged to the Southern Border to now process those people. So,
you are exacerbating the situation with USCIS.
So, my question--two questions on Ukraine, still. Those
that are under the parole situation in Uniting for Ukraine,
what benefits are those individuals in my district, what--other
than being able to work through, you know, a work
authorization, are they going to receive other benefits, can
you tell me that?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, let me, if I can, just
address very briefly the statement that you made after my first
response. We are not dealing only with a broken immigration
system, we are dealing with a broken immigration system that
was dismantled in its entirety in the prior administration, and
we are rebuilding it.
With respect to the Ukrainians, those individuals who are
granted parole are able to apply for work authorization and are
able to work lawfully in the United States. They gain lawful
presence. They are not entitled to all of the benefits, of
course, to which American citizens are entitled and I could----
Mr. Rutherford. Not all. But are there--can you give me a
list of those benefits that they do have a right to so that we
can be sure that the--you know, I have a lot of Ukrainians in
my district and I want to make sure that we are doing all we
can for them.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I so very much appreciate
that, and I will provide you with that list subsequent to this.
And I should say that we are working very closely with the
private sector to partner----
Mr. Rutherford. NGOs.
Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. Yes, NGOs, and not only
that, but the business community, to match individuals with
jobs for which they qualify, any to address any housing needs
that they might have. We have exercised these capabilities very
heavily through Operation Allies Welcome and what we did for
the Afghan nationals we continue to do. We draw lessons from
that capability and apply them to other urgencies, and I would
be pleased to walk through that with you.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I see my time is expired. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
Mr. Secretary, I wanted to return briefly to the discussion
of ending Title 42. Like my colleagues, I believe that we need
to manage our Southern Border in an orderly fashion; however,
we must ensure that we treat migrants at our borders with
compassion, dignity and respect, regardless of the country that
they are traveling from.
Yesterday, the Department released their plan for the
Southwest Border Security and Preparedness, which demonstrates
ways to process migrants safely and quickly. The plan details
how DHS is coordinating with NGOs and local stakeholders.
So, my question is, can you provide some additional clarity
and detail about the engagement that DHS is making with NGOs
and stakeholders on our Southern Border, what types of
engagements have been made at the border, as well as in
communities where migrants might be placed with case management
and ATD alternatives to detention services.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, thanks so very much.
One of the most powerful examples of how we have worked
with the NGO community across the Southern Border is in the
dispensation of medical care to the migrants in need. We built
and entire architecture with--through the capabilities of our
Chief Medical Officer and his team, to have NGOs and nonprofit
organizations build the capacity to test, isolate, and
quarantine migrants, and also be able to reimburse them for
their expenses through our FEMA programs that are pass-throughs
through the state when the states were cooperative with us.
That is a shining example of how we leveraged civil
society, non-governmental society to assist in addressing the
needs of individuals. We are taking that example and are
applying it in other respects, as well: other types of medical
care, social service needs, and uniting with family members
here during the pendency of immigration enforcement
proceedings. We are working with the NGOs across the border,
and we are also very focused on communicating more robustly
with state and local communities and seeing how we can support
them and how we can better coordinate with them across the
enterprise.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
The plan that you release also talks about a successful
pilot program on en-route processing. As the name alludes to,
this program allows CBP to process individuals in transit to
NGO shelters or to the border.
Can you elaborate on this program and the efficiencies that
it will bring to processing migrants, what type of metrics you
look at and utilized to determine whether this is successful
and how we scale this up and the guardrails that are in place
to make sure that individuals can still make a case for
credible fear during the en-route processing, as well.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, this is one element of an
overarching effort to bring greater efficiency to the
processing of individuals who we encounter at the border. I
have spoken my plan and it is in greater detail; of course, our
digitizing A files to bring greater efficiency.
En-route processing is a very practical solution to a
compelling need to decompress Border Patrol stations. I have
said time and time again, for example, that the Border Patrol
station is no place for an unaccompanied child. It is also no
place for overcrowding.
For individuals who are going to be in transit from a
Border Patrol station, perhaps for several hours, why not take
some of the processing that we would perform in the Border
Patrol station and actually equip our personnel, our case
processors to perform some of that processing while those
individuals are in transit, away from the Border Patrol station
and to one of our other facilities, for example. That is just
practical efficiency.
We are piloting it with the hope of scaling it, not just to
meet the Southern Border challenge, but to actually decompress
Border Patrol stations on an enduring basis. That is the type
of efficiency that we are creating as we meet the challenge at
our Southern Border.
Mr. Aguilar. What are the metrics that you are looking at?
How will you define success and scale this pilot up?
Secretary Mayorkas. The success is the impact that we will
have in the decompression of the Border Patrol stations----
Mr. Aguilar. Measured by hours of processing?
Secretary Mayorkas. Yes. The speed with which--and I was
able to say, Congressman, the speed with which we process. And
one thing is very important to emphasize and I cannot overstate
its importance: without compromising the accuracy and security
of the processing that we undertake.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. That concludes the first round of
questioning, so we are going to go into a second round.
I would like to go back to the impact of Title 42. And my
question has to do with how you will process 18,000 migrants
per day while keeping a time in custody below the 72 hours and
still be able to ensure due process without compromising a
necessary vetting.
Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, the 18,000 is not
projected. As I mentioned, we just built that scenario so that
we can plan for different scenarios. We scale it at different
levels and plan accordingly to be able to ensure that our
preparations, our extensive presentations are comprehensive.
There is no question that if we encounter 18,000 people in
a single day, that we will seriously strain our capabilities. I
just need to be clear in that regard.
You mentioned the 72-hour legal time frame and that applies
to unaccompanied children specifically. And we provided in
March of 2021, the capability that we could have when we see a
number of unaccompanied children encountered at our Southern
Border.
What we did is we deployed our expertise and our personnel.
As Congressman Ruppersberger mentioned, the IMAT team, we
brought that capability to bear to build greater capacity in
Health and Human Services to shelter those individuals, and
greater efficiencies in the Department of Health and Human
Services to unite those unaccompanied children with a qualified
parent, legal guardian, or family relative.
From those lessons that we developed in March of 2021 and
in the ensuing weeks, the capability that we brought to bear to
the Department of Health and Human Services, we applied those
in our operational planning now and we will implement them
accordingly.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Is there a plan to ensure that all
migrants not placed into expedited removal will be fully
processed and given a confirmed court date on their notice to
appear?
Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, I believe that there
is a Supreme Court precedent that requires certain details to
be included in a notice to appear, and we will comply with the
law as we always do.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And will migrants who are released
be enrolled in alternatives to detention and will they be
provided with case management services?
Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, if I can, just take a
step back and emphasize one point, that individuals who are
encountered at the Southern Border are placed in immigration
enforcement proceedings. Those who pose a public safety threat,
a national security threat, a threat to border security, are
placed in detention.
We have increased our capacity to apply alternatives to
detention and we continue to augment those resources, thanks to
the support of this committee. We will apply alternatives to
detention.
We are seeing a responsiveness rate that is very high as we
exercise our alternatives to detention in our supervisorial
capabilities. We are doing everything that we can to ensure
that individuals check in with ICE and appear for their
proceedings.
If individuals abscond, then we will deploy our enforcement
resources to address that absconsion and that failure to comply
with legal requirements.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. My next question has to do with the fact
that over the last month and up until last week, CBP
implemented the humanitarian parole process for Ukrainians,
which was--recently, our colleagues just was talking about. And
you worked extensively, as was said, with the NGOs to process
up to 1,000 Ukrainians per day at the San Ysidro Port of Entry.
Last week, the administration announced a new process for
Ukrainians to apply for humanitarian parole prior to seeking
admission to the United States, as was previously mentioned. It
seems to me that the large number of Ukrainians processed
through San Ysidro seems to demonstrate that there is a much
larger capacity for processing, LPOEs that many have assumed in
the past.
Do you agree that we should be processing more migrants,
especially asylum-seekers, through the land ports of entry, and
if so, what are the Department's plans for doing that?
Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, the question goes to
one of the elements of the six-pillar plan that I reflected in
the memorandum issued yesterday. One of the elements of
efficiency that we outlined in one of those six pillars is, in
fact, enhancing and increasing port of entry capacity to
process individuals encountered at the border, trying to drive
individuals to a safer, more orderly means of applying for
asylum, as our laws recognize.
We used a virtual platform that we created to address an
emergent situation created by the past administration and that
was the Camp Matamoros, which had individuals living in squalid
conditions and suffering untold horrors, criminal horrors. We
developed a platform where they could register, they could be
interviewed by international organizations, and assisted by
non-governmental organizations in Mexico. And once they pass
that screening, could actually be transported safely at a
designated time at our port of entry for processing.
We are taking that virtual platform, CBP1, is how we have
termed it, and see how we can expand it to address the
challenge at the Southern Border and maximize the efficiency of
processing at the ports of entry.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you, again, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, Border Patrol stations were designed for the
short-term detention of single-adult males, not for the family
units and unaccompanied children crossing the border. Those
stations are strained to the point where we have to shuttle
migrants to other parts of the border just to keep up with
processing.
Every Border Patrol agent stuck processing migrants,
providing security in a soft-sided facility, or attending to
the basic humanitarian needs of those detained is not out in
the field performing the law enforcement role they are paid and
trained for. There are impacts to our ability to interdict
drugs and criminal organization as a result.
Your plan released late yesterday speaks to the backfilling
with civilian personnel, but that drains resources from other
components or requires a lengthy hiring process.
Mr. Secretary, what is your long-term plan to get more
agents in the field? Thank you.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, thank you so much.
As I outlined, the hiring of personnel, contract personnel
does not drain other resources, other personnel resources in
the Department of Homeland Security. And our Fiscal Year 2023
budget is a powerful example of how we are seeking additional
resources from Congress to establish a more enduring solution
than mere reliance on contractual personnel.
We have requested funding for 300 more Border Patrol agents
and we have requested funding for full-time case-processing
personnel. We look forward to, and hope for, this committee's
support of our Fiscal Year 2023 budget request in that regard
and in all regards.
Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Secretary, the administration tried to
roll back the Migrant Protection Program, which requires
migrants to wait in Mexico for their court hearing, but was
required, by court order, to reinstate the program. The Migrant
Protection Program was used extensively by the last
administration, but on average, only a handful of migrants are
enrolled each day currently in any given Border Patrol sector.
Why is the administration enrolling such a small number of
migrants in this program, sir?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I am familiar with the
migrant protection protocols, the common language used to
describe that is the ``Remain in Mexico'' Program.
Mr. Fleischmann. Correct.
Secretary Mayorkas. And I think it is very important to
understand that our implementation of that program requires a
bilateral relationship. We need the collaboration of Mexico in
the administration of that program.
I have articulated, quite clearly and quite strongly, our
disagreement with that program and I think what resulted from
the prior administration's execution of that program
underscores the reasons why I so significantly and ardently
oppose it. We received, for example, a report of more than
1,500 incidents of murder, rape, torture, and other crimes
committed against the individuals who were subject to Remain in
Mexico program.
We are working with Mexico to administer that program in
good faith, as we are required to do under the Court's order,
and to do so in a way that reflects and adheres to our values
as a nation.
Mr. Fleischmann. I think I am going close on my time, so
Madam Chair, I think I will yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I think there are three stakeholders that we
need to listen to, besides Congress, about the border issues:
as you know, the immigration activists, number one; and number
two, our men and women at the border; and number three, our
border communities.
I appreciate when you visited us down there at the border
in McAllen and you heard from mayors, county judges, county
commissioners from Del Rio, all the way down to Brownsville,
covering Tony Gonzalez, myself, Filemon Vela, and Vicente
Gonzalez's district. And if you recall, my border folks, public
officials were quite animated. I think now they are probably a
little bit more animated because of what is happening on the
border. And you recall, everything I say is pretty much--I
repeat what they told you and sent from our men and women down
there. So, I would ask you to continue to spending time, and I
appreciate all the visits you have done, listening to our
border communities, because there is a lot of concerns down
there.
Now, let me ask you a couple questions. And I have looked
at your plan and, again, I think this plan can work if it is
implemented right. By that, I mean is, you keep mentioning the
broken system, I guess the Trump administration did, but there
was not any legislative changes. It was whatever the
administration did.
You can fix whatever they did, I assume, number one. But if
I take you back to the Secretary Jeh Johnson and Obama, they
were able to treat the migrants with respect and dignity, but
at the same time, when the law said you have got to send them
back, they sent them back. In fact, I worked with Secretary
Johnson on showing images of people being returned to Honduras
and the first lady being there and taking them in.
Now, it is like we are afraid to show images of people
going back. You all deport hundreds and hundreds and hundreds
of thousands of people, but all we see is images of people
coming into the United States and no images of people going
back when the law has to be enforced. And on top of that, there
are over one million final deportation orders that have still
not been executed, plus the 1.6 million people who are still
waiting on immigration.
The reason I say that is, looking at your plan, if you look
at the expedited removal, if you use Title 42, it will take
from 1 to 2 hours. If you use Title 8, it will take from 24 to
48 hours.
What is your vision of ``expedited removal'' once Title 42
does go away?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, you will recall, of
course, that I served as the Deputy Secretary----
Mr. Cuellar. Correct.
Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. When Jeh Johnson served as
the Secretary. And prior to that, I was the director of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, and we have worked
together for many years. And I appreciate your prior law
enforcement service, as well as your service now.
Let me say one thing, because I certainly want to make sure
that if you have a misimpression with respect to the
publication of removals and our communication plan around those
removals, that I put that misimpression to rest, because we
are, indeed, communicating robustly in--throughout the region
in the countries of origin with respect to the removals that we
have effected and the consequence regime that we have imposed
upon individuals who have crossed into our country, who have
been encountered at the border, who have no legal claim for
relief here in the United States. So, we are very robustly
communicating those removals and those consequences.
Expedited removal is something that we are focused on very
intensely, as I laid out in the plan, and, in fact, I raised in
Panama, where I was last week, with other countries, our need
to accelerate the receipt of travel documents and the other
mechanics that allow us to remove individuals as quickly as
possible. And we are receiving increasing cooperation from a
number of countries in the region.
The benefit of expedited removal is actually captured in
its term; the speed with which we can return individuals who
have no basis here in the United States. And so, we are drawing
increased efficiencies as the plan demonstrates and we are also
working with our partners so that they can assist us in that
regard.
Mr. Cuellar. I have about 4 seconds before my time. So I
gave you the expedited, I mean the time for the Title 42 and
time for Title 8.
How much time would an expedited removal, and I will close
with that.
Secretary Mayorkas. I think, actually, the processing of a
Title 42 matter takes more time than the processing of another
encounter. I will get you that detail. I don't want to misspeak
and I will need to confirm.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This committee provided $200 million in fiscal year 2022 to
DHS for joint processing centers on the border. These are
supposed to be one-stop centers for processing illegal
immigrants, and in my view, the faster we can do this, the
better, because it looks like we are going to have, yet another
year where our taxpayers are going to foot the bill for
billions of dollars for temporary facilities, instead of having
an actual solution.
Where is the Department on the plans for permanent joint
processing facilities and when will they be built and what
additional funding is needed in fiscal year 2023 to get them
done?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman I very much appreciate your
support for the joint processing centers. We actually identify
those as one element of our plan that is captured in my
memorandum issued yesterday. We call them ``enhanced central
processing centers'' in the plan because they it is a very able
model. It drives efficiency to have different parts of the
Department of Homeland Security in one place and actually to
have the NGOs present there, as well, so we can administer the
processing as quickly as possible.
And I will provide you with greater detail with respect to
the implementation of those plans and very much appreciate your
support for the centers.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, my support is tepid, but it is out of a
necessary requirement to handle the great influx of illegals,
which I wish we wouldn't have to have this permanent procedure,
but it seems like we definitely need it now.
Secretary Mayorkas. And that, Congressman, if I may?
Because the migration challenge, as I said at the outset,
is a regional phenomenon, that is exactly why we are engaged so
robustly with our partners to the south, to address migratory
flows that run throughout the Western Hemisphere and throughout
the world.
This is a very different situation than 10 years ago. We
have more displaced individuals around the world than ever
before. The extraordinarily powerful images, the desperation in
Ukraine is, I think, the most poignant and heartbreaking
example of that.
Mr. Palazzo. Yes, sir, and I agree. And I wish we had more
than 5 minutes to discuss this because I think you have a lot
to add to the conversation, as well as members of this
committee.
When we combine Homeland Security, there is 22 different
departments. I am going to switch over to FEMA real quick, the
National Flood Insurance Program, Risk Rating 2.0. FEMA is
moving forward with implementing Risk Rating 2.0 for existing
policyholders despite serious transparency concerns that I and
others have raised surrounding the new premium rate system and
its methodology.
I have reached out to FEMA multiple times seeking clarity
for this new rating system, but our concerns have gone
unanswered. Any failure to consider mitigation efforts and
setting rates is especially concerning due to the estimates
that thousands of Mississippi families will face NFIP rate
increases for years to come, potentially making the cost of
flood insurance unaffordable for some policyholders.
Mississippi families, and families all across the nation to be
accurate, should not be left holding the bill for FEMA's
inability to be transparent about the significant changes it is
implementing.
There have been several letters sent to you and FEMA
regarding concerns from members with districts across the
United States. The transparency and premium increases to
policyholders has been lacking. Was there ever any conversation
within your agency to delay the implementation of Risk Rating
2.0?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I am very disheartened to
hear your concerns continue with respect to the transparency
with which we are exercising the implementation of Risk Rating
2.0.
The goal of that program is actually to increase access to
flood insurance and to recalibrate the premiums with that goal
in mind.
One of the top priorities that I have set out for this
Department is to increase openness----
Mr. Palazzo. Yeah.
Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. And transparency and I am
going to engage with you personally----
Mr. Palazzo. Right.
Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. With FEMA to make sure
that your constituents have the information they need.
Mr. Palazzo. Our, you know, our number one goal is to make
sure floor insurance remains affordable and available and this
is going to hurt low to moderate income communities more than
it will the wealthy.
I do have some bills and I do not know if you have had a
chance to review H.R. 5793 and H.R. 5802.
I will get you those numbers. It is a bipartisan effort not
just to reform NFIP but also to, you know, get a short term
delay so these rates are not going to affect the--if the
Chairwoman would allow me, I just have one quick question to--
and I will end this. We do not have to go to round 3.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Senator, go ahead.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
In the time that AI have been in Congress, I have seen
constant attacks against the Jones Act, my special interest
group bent on allowing foreign ships and crews to push out
American sailors and ship builders.
Last year, President Joe Biden signed a Made in America
executive order strengthening federal buy American
requirements.
The order explicitly emphasized the important of Jones Act
shipping which stands as a rare presidential endorsement for
the U.S. maritime sector in the days of the start of the new
administration.
My question, simple. Do you support the Jones Act and are
you committed to rigorous enforcement of the Jones Act?
Secretary Mayorkas. I do and I am, Congressman, and I
wanted you to know that the President's Buy American initiative
is something that he is holding the entire Administration to.
We have strict protocols to which we must adhere and we do
so quite proudly with respect to our contracting to make sure
that we are, indeed, buying American. It is something we are
very proud to be a part of.
I do believe in the Jones Act. I do support it.
I know I have waiver authority and we exercise that quite
prudently in only cases of emergency as the Colonial Pipeline
incident was one.
Mr. Palazzo. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I
yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, you previously stated that domestic violent
extremism is the number one terrorist threat facing our
country.
In your testimony, you stated that the intelligence
community assesses that racially or ethnically motivated
violent extremists who advocate for the superiority of a white
race, including white supremacists, present the most lethal
domestic violent extremism movement in the homeland.
Beyond designating domestic violent extremism as a national
priority area for FEMA grant programs, what else is DHS doing
to combat this terrorist threat?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman Underwood, we do, indeed,
consider domestic violent extremism the most significant
terrorism threat facing the homeland.
Not only did I identify this area as a national priority
area in the FEMA grant programs, but we have created a special
section in the Office of Intelligence and Analysis to focus on
this terrorism related threat.
We also stood up the Center for Prevention Programs and
Partnerships with CP3 to work with communities to empower and
equip communities to address this growing threat within their
respective jurisdictions, recognizing that the community
personnel are best situated to do so. Our job is to resource
and support them with training, with funding and the like.
We very much appreciate this committee's support of the
Non-Profit Security Grant Program and we have submitted in the
President's Fiscal Year 2023 budget a further increase of that
grant program to $360 million from its currently appropriated
funds funding now of $250 million.
I was in Detroit several weeks ago meeting faith-based
organizations and talking to them about how we can increase
access to this critically needed grant program.
The quality of access was a core principle of ours where
the under--the otherwise under resourced organizations might
not have the wherewithal to access the grant programs and yet
do not have any less of a need for them.
Ms. Underwood. That is right.
Secretary Mayorkas. We are very focused on this mission
set.
Ms. Underwood. Great. Another huge threat to our homeland
is mis and disinformation.
You noted that it is a concern of yours at the border with
human smuggling organizations peddling disinformation to
exploit vulnerable migrants for profit.
One of my main concerns about disinformation is that
foreign adversaries attempt to destabilize our elections by
targeting people of color with disinformation campaigns.
After it became clear that there was foreign meddling in
our 2016 election, the senate select committee on intelligence
authored a report on the disinformation tactic used by Russia's
internet research agency, the IRA, to interfere in the
election.
The report found that ``no single group of Americans was
targeted by the IRA information operatives more than African
Americans.''
A newer trend that we saw in the 2020 election, and already
in the 2022 mid-term, is that disinformation is being heavily
targeted at Spanish speaking voters sparking and fueling
conspiracy theories.
DHS, and its components, play a big role in addressing mis
and disinformation in Spanish and other languages.
Can you share what steps you have taken and what future
plans you have to address Spanish language mis and
disinformation through department-wide approaches?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, we have a number of
different offices engaged in this critical effort.
Of course, our cyber security infrastructure security
agency has an entire effort focused on election security----
Ms. Underwood. Right.
Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. As part of its mission
set.
Our Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans also is a leading
effort.
Our Undersecretary for Policy, Rob Silvers, is co-chair
with our Principal Deputy General Counsel, Jennifer Gaskill, in
leading a just recently constituted misinformation and
disinformation governance board.
The goal is to bring the resources of the Department
together to address this threat.
I just read a very interesting study that underscores the
importance of the point that you make, the spread of mis- and
disinformation in minority communities, specifically. We are
focused on that in the context of our CP3 and other efforts.
Ms. Underwood. Sure.
Secretary Mayorkas. I would be pleased to share more.
Ms. Underwood. But, Mr. Secretary, what I have heard you
describe are internal organizations.
What we are looking for is to make sure that there is
external communications with the American public, including
those for whom Spanish is their predominant language, to make
sure that the information that the department has around mis
and disinformation campaigns is reaching those individuals.
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, forgive me if I
misspoke, but I have provided you the details of the internal
structures that we are using to communicate externally to----
Ms. Underwood. Okay.
Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. The American public.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary again.
I want to talk now a little bit about taxpayer money
because I am hearing again from Iowans on a regular basis. They
are appalled by the mishandling of what has happened at the
border and the resources that they send, their hard-earned
paychecks. They care about what is happening with those dollars
as do I and I hope you do, too, and we share that.
So, yesterday afternoon, you published this memo, right,
this plan and I want to point specifically to page 11 and what
you write there which is DHS is currently determining which
federal agencies can provide support through an inter-agency
agreement.
And this is concerning to me. We heard that the
administration is considering moving healthcare providers from
the VA, for example, doctors and nurses whose taxpayer dollars
and their intent is to help care for our veterans.
So my question to you today is a yes or no answer. Is the
department of homeland security planning to reallocate
resources, doctors and nurses, from our VA system, intended to
care for our veterans, to help care for illegal immigrants at
our southern border?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, let me be clear because
an inter-agency effort is precisely what the challenge of
migration requires, and it is not specific to 2022 or 2021 nor
to 2020 or the years preceding.
Mrs. Hinson. Right. I am just asking you a yes or no
question.
Secretary Mayorkas. Well----
Mrs. Hinson. Are you planning on taking resources away from
our veterans to help deal with the surge at our southern
border? That is a yes or no question.
Secretary Mayorkas. Actually, Congresswoman, the resources
that the medical personnel from the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs would allocate to this effort is under the judgment of
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, who prioritizes the
interests of veterans above all others for very noble and
correct reasons.
Mrs. Hinson. Do you know if you--have you had any
conversations about reallocating those resources?
Secretary Mayorkas. I have not personally. But, of course,
our teams, our personnel, have and I would be very pleased to
follow up with you.
Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. Our veterans need to know that the care
that they have earned is going to be provided to them and not
to those at our southern border.
Secretary Mayorkas. That is one----
Mrs. Hinson. The other thing I would like to ask you about,
Mr. Secretary----
Secretary Mayorkas. If I may, that is what the entire
Department of Veterans Affairs is dedicated to do, and we have
worked with the Veterans Affairs not only in addressing this
challenge but in actually addressing the care and needs of
those veterans who also have been experiencing the immigrant
experience in the United States.
We have people who have served in our military before even
being naturalized. We work very closely to care for the needs
of veterans in our country.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay. Well, I would expect an answer
specifically as to whether or not you intend to take those
resources from our veterans because they are asking us those
questions and we deserve-- they deserve to have an answer from
us specifically.
The other thing I want to talk about is taxpayer money that
Congress has appropriated.
This is a picture from our southern border. Taxpayer money
sitting and rusting. This is probably good American steel. It
should have been used to fill the gaps in the wall that, in
your memo, you mention are being exploited by the cartels right
now.
So do you have anything to say to the taxpayers about this
right here? These pieces of steel sitting there rusting while
we have this crisis at our southern border?
How much has halting the wall construction cost American
taxpayers because they are having to divert those resources to
handle the surge?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, as I articulated earlier
in this hearing, we have an obligation to spend the monies that
Congress has appropriated for the wall. The way in which we are
doing that is to achieve the safety and security of the
American people and to do so in a responsible way.
We are also spending money addressing infirmities in the
wall that was built overseeing corrosion and other failings.
It is a very complex picture. With respect to----
Mrs. Hinson. This is corrosion right here and this has
driven people between the point of entries to the hands of the
cartels in your own words.
So I think this is--to taxpayers, they see this as a huge
slap in the face to see these pieces sitting there that could
be used to actually deter people from coming into these-- into
our country, not at the points of entry.
The last question I had specifically is about the illegals
that are coming into the interior and how they are being
transported here.
How much does transporting migrants into the homeland cost
our taxpayers right now and are they still being flown into our
country?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, individuals who are
transported from the point of encounter to detention are
transported in different ways.
They are transported from the Border Patrol facility to an
ICE detention facility.
They are transported by----
Mrs. Hinson. But they are also being flown into places like
Iowa.
Secretary Mayorkas. If I may, Congresswoman.
They are also flown to their countries of origin when they
have been removed and their claims for relief have failed.
I would be pleased to provide you with the specific
numbers, the expenses of the administration of our immigration
system and the laws that we are obligated to honor, which we
do.
Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. I want to know how much you are spending
coming into the country, not to return them to other countries.
Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. A lot of places to potentially go but I feel
compelled, Mr. Secretary, to also mention, I have heard some of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who I have a lot
of respect for, not everybody who presents themselves in a
processing center in the southern border is doing so for
nefarious purposes.
And it is frustrating to hear time and time again the fact
that they want to have conversations about how Ukranians are
treated at the southern border but using terms like illegals
rather than those who are presenting themselves for lawful
asylum.
It is frustrating. It is frustrating that the dual standard
is in place.
I would also note, Mr. Secretary, I have been part of a
number of trips down to the southern border when the prior
structure was being built. Members of our own military showed
us how they can penetrate these barriers quickly.
And we know that at the time they were constructed that
they could be penetrated. This was done for show, that this--
folks down there know this, that there are many ways to help
secure our borders and a physical structure is one component.
But, as you and the Department have said time and time
again, there are other factors that can be more helpful.
And I wanted to ask you a question. You mentioned in
country processing. One way to address the true issue of
surging migration is to talk about root causes and expanding
the ways individuals in countries could apply for legal
pathways in their own countries so they will not have to make
that dangerous journey to the southwest border.
In country processing is not new to DHS. In fact, DHS has
been setting up infrastructure for in country processing that
would allow migrants to apply for different immigration
pathways legally and fairly.
Some might be supported in countries maybe in eastern
Europe by all of our colleagues but this is done throughout
other countries as well.
Can you give us an overview of where this is done in
country, you know, where in country processing broadly stands
and what authorities and resources you are going to need from
Congress in order to meet those needs?
Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you, Congressman.
Let me, if I can, preface my response to your specific
question by commenting on the extraordinary benefits of
technology and the dedication of technological capabilities at
the border and that is precisely why our Fiscal Year 2023
budget invests significantly on technological assets.
So there are really 2 parts to your question; 1 is an
enduring solution to the reason why people out of desperation
flee their homes that they have built in the countries of their
origin, in which they have been raised and that is addressing
the root causes and this President, the Biden/Harris
administration, has been very dedicated to addressing those
root causes and investing in addressing them and doing so with
civil society.
The other means is by developing safe, orderly and humane
pathways so individuals do not have to risk their lives in the
hands of smuggling organizations that exploit their
vulnerabilities purely for profit.
And I think that a shining example of 1 such pathway is the
Central American Minors program which we are scaling up where
minors would not have to place their well-being or have their
parents, desperate parents, place their well-being in the hands
of smugglers and they can access our system should they qualify
for relief here in the states.
We have developed a migrant processing center in the
northern part of Guatemala for that very same purpose and we
are expanding those programs as a pillar of a safe, orderly and
humane system.
There is one other element, of course, that can provide an
enduring solution which everyone agrees upon and no one has
reached and that is legislation.
Mr. Aguilar. And there are legislative solutions that the
House has sent, in a bipartisan way, over to the Senate. And I
agree with you, passing legislation is always preferred in
order to fix this issue.
Secretary Mayorkas. If I may, Congressman, the President
sent proposed legislation on the first day that he was in
office.
Mr. Aguilar. If we were to go down to the northern
Guatemala processing center, what would that look like? What is
staffing look like at the processing center?
Secretary Mayorkas. I visited one of the processing
centers, Congressman, and, at that time, what it was focused
upon was actually the re-integration of Guatemalans whom we had
removed under our authorities, a proof of a couple of very
important points.
One is that those who do not qualify for relief under our
laws will be removed and we do remove them and, two, to avoid
recidivism we have to work with the countries of origin to make
sure that those individuals can achieve stability in their
lives so they do not feel compelled, out of desperation, to try
again.
It is a very complex challenge and we have to address the
root causes of it. Alternately, we have to build lawful or
orderly humane pathways and then, once and for all, we have to
fix our immigration system that has been broken for so very
many years.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back, Madam
Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, in September of last year, under your
direction, ICE implemented new enforcement guidelines and these
guidelines focused on the use of prosecutorial discretion.
And stated in there was it is estimated that there are more
than 11 million undocumented or otherwise removable, non-
citizens in the United States. We do not have the resources to
apprehend and see the removal of every one of these non-
citizens. Therefore, we need to exercise our discretion and
determine whom to prioritize for immigration enforcement
action.
And I can tell you, as a former sheriff myself, I know the
limitations that budgets can put on you but 1 of the questions
that I have and would like an explanation for is in fiscal year
2019, ICE deported 359,000 illegal aliens from the interior of
our country. In 2020, 185,000 and that, and add about 4 years
of Trump deportations in there, and then, the last year, last
year, with the same resources, they only deported 59,000. What
is going on?
Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I can answer this question
very succinctly but I want to take a step back if I may.
Mr. Rutherford. Certainly.
Secretary Mayorkas. Because I served as a federal
prosecutor for 12 years; first as an assistant United States
Attorney for almost 9 and then for the United States Attorney
in the central district of California for about 3 years.
We had 186 criminal prosecutors when I served as the United
States Attorney. We could have dedicated 186 of those
prosecutors, every single one of them, to narcotics cases. We
could have dedicated every single one of them to significant
fraud cases.
But what we did with the resources that we had was we
allocated those resources to have the greatest public safety
impact in the many different areas for which we were
responsible.
The concept of prosecutorial discretion, I know you are
very familiar with it, as a former sheriff, is an underpinning
of smart and effective law enforcement.
And I do not believe, and many people in law enforcement do
not believe, that public safety is a quantitative metric but
rather a qualitative one.
Mr. Rutherford. But let me ask----
Secretary Mayorkas. If one--if I may, if one takes a look
at the removals that we have effected, we have removed more
serious criminals than the prior administration did. I have
data and I can provide you with that specific data.
Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Secretary, what I would like to know is
what is the resource need to get back to where we are focusing
and have the prosecutorial capacity to deport 359,000 who need
and should be legally deported.
Secretary Mayorkas. This is all about maximizing the public
safety impact of the resources that we do have. 46 percent of
ICE removals were for people convicted of felonies or
aggravated felonies compared to 18 percent during the previous
4 years and 17 percent the year before that.
Mr. Rutherford. But here----
Secretary Mayorkas. Forty-six percent.
Mr. Rutherford. But, Mr. Secretary, if I can push back on
that just a little bit.
That percentage of--is of a 4 times the size number. So I
think America was much safer when we deported 359,000, whether
they were for serious felonies or serious misdemeanors.
But 359 compared 59,000, that is not safer, I do not think.
So-- and I will leave that there but I would love to help you
out with resources if that is what you need to get back to
where we can, you know, see ICE deporting 359,000 people a year
who need it.
Now--and let me move. My time is about out. Last question.
So you have talked a lot today about, you know, the fact
that you are focusing on the irregularities of immigration
coming from the south, talking to Panama and all of that. You
have talked about targeting, disrupting the transnational
criminal organizations, utilizing the NGOs more and more,
administering consequences for unlawful entry, speeding up the
CDP processing efficiency by adding those case processors and
addressing the issue by surging people of the border.
And I think the answer to your question was yes on the VA.
And so my question is if this was all done, starting in
September of 2021 according to your written testimony, and we
still have these problems today at our southern border, I think
if you asked probably two-thirds of the country, they will tell
you the border is not secure.
And so my question is now we are about to lift Title 42 and
I do not hear a plan to address that.
These things you have already implemented. These things are
there now. What is going to change in response to Title 42?
Secretary Mayorkas. Well, Congressman, we are building
further and are implementing consistent with the 6 pillars that
I identified in the memo that I published to make clear that we
do have a plan. We are preparing and have been preparing and we
are implementing our plans.
We are building further. We are intensifying our efforts.
We are increasing our efforts and are enhancing them.
We are not done.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Madam Chair, I see my time is up. I
yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Secretary, I do not know if there is
any other comments that you want to make in terms of clarifying
any other statements or concerns that have been raised at this
time.
Secretary Mayorkas. Madam Chairwoman, we are addressing
very complex issues. I have a great deal to say. I look forward
to engaging further with members of this committee, and I am
deeply grateful to you and to Ranking Member Fleischmann and to
the distinguished members of this committee for their support
and your support of the Department of Homeland Security and the
extraordinary 250,000 individuals who sacrifice so much each
day to accomplish our mission.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I understand there are I know other
questions from members but I do want to ask one last question
about an agency that is absolutely critical to our security and
that is TSA.
The President's budget request proposes nearly 1 billion in
additional spending to implement changes to TSA's pay structure
and to extend collective bargaining and merit system protection
to TSA personnel.
Can you explain what these changes are and why they are
important?
Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The TSA personnel help to secure our country every single
day. They also help facilitate lawful trade every single day.
That is a very difficult job. They deserve to be paid
commensurate with their colleagues in the Federal Government.
They deserve collective bargaining rights like so many of their
colleagues in the government. This is about parity and about
recognition and about gratitude for their extraordinary
service.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And, with that, if there are no further
questions, we will conclude today's hearing. Thank you very
much, Mr. Secretary, for being here and I am sure we have other
questions that we will be submitting to you for directorate and
the subcommittee and Homeland Security stands adjourned.
Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 28, 2022.
CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. JEN EASTERLY, DIRECTOR, CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY
AGENCY
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The subcommittee on Homeland Security
will come to order.
Today's hearing on the cybersecurity and infrastructure
security agency budget request for fiscal year 2023 will be
conducted as a hybrid hearing. For any members joining
virtually, speaking into the microphone will activate your
camera and display your image on the main screen.
Once you start speaking, there will be a slight delay
before your image appears on the main screen, but do not stop
your remarks if you do not see the screen switch immediately.
If the screen does not change after several seconds, please
make sure you are not muted.
To minimize background noise and ensure the correct speaker
is being displayed, we ask that members participating virtually
remain on mute unless you have sought recognition.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves,
however, I or staff I designate may mute participants'
microphones when they are not recognized to speak to eliminate
inadvertent background noise. If I notice when you are
recognized that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask the
staff to send you a request to unmute. Please accept that
request so you are no longer muted.
Members can submit information in writing at any of our
hearings using the email address provided in advance to your
staff. We will follow the speaking order set forth in the House
rules beginning with the Chair and ranking member and then
alternating by party beginning with members in order of
seniority present at the time the hearing is called to order.
So let's begin.
This afternoon we welcome the Honorable Jen Easterly,
director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security
Agency, or CISA. She is here to discuss CISA's operations and
its fiscal year 2023 budget request.
Director Easterly, we look forward to a productive
discussion this afternoon.
The threats facing our Nation's networks, including
critical infrastructure, elections, emergency communications,
schools, and public gatherings continue to evolve in
complexity, sophistication, and scale that pose novel
challenges and test our capacity to keep pace with our
adversaries. We are in a moment in our Nation's history where
our response must urgently rise to the occasion to address
these growing risks.
As the President stated in his executive order on improving
the Nation's cybersecurity, incremental improvements will not
give us the security we need, instead the Federal Government
needs to make bold changes and significant investments in order
to defend the vital institutions that underpin the American way
of life.
Since my time as chairwoman of this subcommittee, I have
taken this responsibility to heart. Taking opportunities to
strengthen CISA's capabilities by bolstering funding for each
of its mission areas to transform the country's capacity to
defend against our adversaries, but I know there are no easy
answers, and that funding alone will not close the gaps in our
capabilities.
The problems we face are not just the Federal Government's
responsibility to resolve. We need to work collectively with
our State, local, Tribal, territorial, and private sector
partners to study the threats, evaluate best practices, and
develop and implement strategies to shore up our defenses.
Director Easterly, I have seen you and your staff work
tirelessly towards these objectives. We owe each of you a debt
of gratitude, whether it is responding to the new crisis de
jour or working proactively with communities to provide needed
advice and guidance. CISA has become a trusted agency, and I
appreciate the discipline and dedication it has taken to get us
there.
But there remains much work to do. As technologies change,
our reliance on new technologies evolve and our adversaries
seek to capitalize on any vulnerability they can find. We have
witnessed that those who wish to do harm to the integrity of
our elections have and will continue to deploy sophisticated,
mis/dis and mal information campaigns, and we have seen the
devastating need to prepare our communities for acts of
domestic terrorism.
We cannot afford to shy away from the complexity and
urgency of these challenges, yet we must be thoughtful and
strategic in our response. Director Easterly, I look forward to
hearing from you today on these issues and how Congress can
help you better accomplish your mission.
I now turn to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee,
Ranking Member Fleischmann, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I really
appreciate you having this very important hearing today.
Good afternoon. Thank you, Director Easterly, for joining
us today. Sincerely appreciate this. You are in a very
important position with CISA and thank you for joining us at
our subcommittee.
Nefarious cyber actors and criminals are constantly acting
government and private sector critical infrastructure systems
and networks often for personal financial gain. Nation-states
like Russia, China, North Korea, and others seek to harm our
economy, steal intellectual property and defense industrial
secrets, and degrade our ability to fight in conflict.
CISA is charged with the protection of the dotgov internet
domain and to work with the Federal civilian executive branch
agencies to harden our cyber defenses and protect our critical
infrastructure against such threats.
As we have seen with the solar winds breach, perimeter
security programs like Einstein, which was designed to detect
external cyber attacks, have blind spots if the threat is
already inside the network. Increased network visibility
through continuous diagnostics and mitigation programs such as
end point detection and response are key elements of our multi-
layered cybersecurity defenses, but as important as these
programs are, simple cyber hygiene measures are a critical line
of defense and work to make it harder for persistent threat
actors to penetrate our digital infrastructure.
Changing passwords on a regular basis, patching and
updating software to account for known cyber vulnerabilities,
and multi-factor authentication are simple but effective means
of preventing cyber attacks. In fact, recent network breaches
could have been thwarted or, at least, significantly mitigated
simply with the use of complex and unique passwords combined
with two-factor authentication.
In my view, CISA has grown rapidly over the past few years
and has been in the enviable position of having been provided
significant resources by Congress. Over $1 billion in
additional funding has been provided in just the past year. I
look forward to better understanding CISA's plan for using
those funds to protect our Nation's cyber and physical
infrastructure in a smart and thoughtful way.
Attracting, hiring, training, and retaining individuals who
have the necessary cyber skills, skills that are in high demand
across the public and private sectors is necessary to defend
against advanced and persistent threats to our network.
Even with ample resources, the latest cutting-edge cyber
tools and personnel, CISA alone cannot mitigate every threat.
Effective partnerships across the entire Federal Government,
engagement with State and local entities, and robust
communication with the private sector can reduce risk.
Information sharing, especially of cyber threat indicators and
vulnerabilities, is no longer optional because of how
interconnected our digital world has become.
Joint private and public planning and collaboration that
happens at the joint cyber defense collaborative brings
together industry expertise and government information to
facilitate better execution and implementation of cyber defense
plans.
Maturing the JCDC will help identify and mitigate the risk
faced by a growing number of sectors critical to the basic
functioning of our country and safety of our citizens.
Thank you, again, for coming before us today and I look
forward to our conversation.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director Easterly, we will submit the
full text of your official statement for the hearing record.
Please begin your oral summary which, I ask that you keep to 5
minutes.
Ms. Easterly. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon, Chairwoman
Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member Fleischmann, members of the
subcommittee, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify
regarding our fiscal year 2023 President's budget for CISA.
I am really thrilled to be here as your partner in helping
to safeguard and secure cyberspace in our Nation's critical
infrastructure, and I want to start by just thanking you all
for your steadfast support in ensuring that CISA has the
resources necessary to carry out this critical mission on
behalf of the Nation. I am truly honored to come before you to
discuss our budget because the budget that you have been--you
have received really recognizes the criticality of our mission
and provides the resources that we need to be able to achieve
it.
Since being sworn in as Director about 9 months ago in
July, I continue to be impressed with the talent, the
creativity, the enthusiasm of my workforce. And as I share with
them every day, this really is the best job in government. As
the Nation's cyber defense agency, CISA serves as both the
operational lead for Federal cybersecurity and as the national
coordinator for critical infrastructure security and
resilience, and we continue to work very closely with our
partners across government, in the private sector, and with
local communities to protect our country's networks and the
critical infrastructure from malicious cyber activity and also
to share timely and actionable information that will be
relevant to help protect our networks.
The $2.5 billion requested for CISA by the administration
represents a marked increase. Nearly 18 percent more than last
year's request, and it really recognizes our growing role in
the security and resilience of our Nation, the confidence in
our ability to execute, and the intent to ensure that we have
the tools necessary to keep our communities safe and secure.
To effectively execute our role as the operational lead for
Federal civilian, cybersecurity, the protection of the dotgov,
we have to advance our ability to actively detect threats
targeting Federal networks and gain granular visibility into
the cybersecurity of Federal infrastructure. The budget
provides Federal cybersecurity funding, an increase--a total of
$1.5 billion for CISA's cybersecurity programs and activities
that enable CISA and our Federal partners to detect, analyze,
mitigate, and respond to cybersecurity threats.
Within this amount, the budget includes $71 million for the
JCDC, as the ranking member just mentioned, to ensure that we
can continue cyber operational planning and partner engagement
that are so critical to our Nation's collective cyber defense.
The budget also includes $407 million for NCPS, $425 million
for continuous mitigation and diagnostics, very important for
that Federal cybersecurity, to provide that technological
foundation to really secure and defend Federal civilian
executive branch networks.
Importantly, $174 million to annualize what we got with the
American Rescue Plan Act, incredibly important to continue
again in protecting the dotgov. The budget also makes critical
investments in mission enabling. As we grow as an agency and
being the newest Federal agency in the U.S. Government, we have
to grow commensurately in the engine that drives missions. So
procurement, facilities, human capital, our budgeting, it is
incredibly important to the success of everything we are trying
to do to include the execution of our budget.
To support our operational capabilities, we have also asked
for $175 million in infrastructure protection, $187 million for
our growing field force that I am incredibly excited about,
working on the frontlines with many of your constituents, $170
million for our emergency communications mission. It also fully
funds our risk management activities to include $115 million
for our national risk management center that deals with things
like securing our supply chains, incredibly important.
Finally, at the heart of our mission is partnership and
collaboration, and that is why 72 million through our
stakeholder engagement activities, fostering, collaboration,
and coordination and really that culture of shared
responsibility that is so important and foundational to our
collective defense of the Nation.
As you all know, our Nation faces unprecedented risk. As
you said, Chairwoman, we are at a specific moment in time and
CISA is at the center of our national call to action.
Collaboration with our government partners, critical
infrastructure entities, our international allies, and with the
support of the Congress, we will continue to make progress in
addressing this risk and maintaining the availability of
critical services to the American people.
In closing, I just want to take a moment, again, to
recognize this committee's strong support for CISA. Your
consistent efforts to fully resource and in many cases, enhance
our operational capabilities in response to complex and
evolving threats has made our Nation safer.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director Easterly, last week CISA, along
with the FBI and NSA and international partners, issued a joint
cybersecurity advisory on Russian-state sponsored threats to
critical infrastructure within and beyond Ukraine. This
advisory comes on the heels of a call I understand that you had
with over 13,000 industry stakeholders to provide an update on
the potential for Russian cyber attacks against the United
States.
The timing of these actions, of course, is critical. And
last month, President Biden issued a statement warning about
the potential for Russia to carry out malicious cyber attacks,
and in a recent interview you emphasized the need for immediate
action saying, we have to assume there is going to be a breach,
there is going to be an incident, there is going to be an
attack.
For the benefit of the committee and the American public,
what can you tell us about what an attack might look like and
what you see as the immediacy of this threat?
Ms. Easterly. Thank you for that very important question,
Chairwoman.
As we know, malicious cyber activity is part of the Russian
playbook. And as we heard from the President, we know of
evolving intelligence that the Russians are planning for
potential attacks on our Nation, and so we have actually for
the past 5 plus months been working with our partners across
the Federal Government, across private industry, and with our
State and local partners to enable us to share threat
information at the classified and unclassified level with our
intelligence community partners and all of the mitigation
guidance that partners need to follow to ensure that they can
drive down risk to their networks.
And that is really what is behind the advisory you
mentioned and our Shields Up Campaign, which is very focused on
making sure that businesses large and small, critical
infrastructure, owners and operators, and the American people
understand the threat and understand all the steps that they
need to take to ensure the security and resilience of their
networks.
So in terms of the threat, I think we could see three
things. I think we could see the threat that we see going on
pretty aggressively. Russian cyber attacks against Ukraine.
They could cascade out of the region and have an impact on the
U.S. We saw that in NotPetya in 2017, a destructive malware
that cascaded out of Ukraine, affected multi-nationals.
We could see Russian-aligned cyber criminals launch
ransomware attacks as we saw last summer in the Colonial
Pipeline and JBS Foods, or we could see a deliberate attack by
Russian-State sponsored actors against our critical
infrastructure and that is why we have been working to ensure
that everybody has their shields up and working collaboratively
with our joint cyber defense collaborative specifically with
the technology companies, with the financial companies, with
the energy companies to ensure they have all the guidance they
need to protect themselves.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. What steps is CISA actually taking
to increase the security and resilience of the Nation's
networks and critical infrastructure in response to the threats
that you have just highlighted?
Ms. Easterly. As you know, ma'am, we don't own that
infrastructure and so the vast majority is in private hands.
And so we have been working since I came into this job to try
and build those trusted partnerships with the private sector. I
just spent the last 4 and a half years at Morgan Stanley and
making sure that those are trusted and collaborative
partnerships. That has really been our focus knowing that we
don't own that infrastructure.
So we have been using the joint cyber defense collaborative
that Congress gave us the authorities to set up a planning
office. We did that in August. And with respect to Ukraine, we
actually work with some of the biggest technology companies in
the country to develop a plan. It is the first time the Federal
cyber ecosystem, the Federal Government, has worked with the
private sector to develop a multi-phase plan about what we
would do if there was a cyber attack and then we stood up a
collaboration channel using a platform called Slack where we
are sharing real-time information about what the private sector
is seeing and what the government is seeing so we can put that
picture together in a common operating environment.
You recall that solar winds was not discovered by the U.S.
Government; it was discovered by a cybersecurity vendor. So our
partnership with those technology companies is critical. In
addition, we have been pulling the financial services sector,
22 of the biggest banks, 38 of the biggest energy companies
into similar collaboration channels so we can share information
and early warning on malicious activities so that we can be
prepared to drive down risk to the Nation.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Are the resources and tools
provided to organizations, especially critical infrastructure
operators through CISA's Shield Up Campaign and other CISA
efforts sufficient to defend our critical infrastructure
against this threat? And if not, what additional support does
CISA need?
Ms. Easterly. I think what we ask for in our budget for
this year is sufficient for our mission, however, I think as we
grow as America's cyber defense agency as we see a very complex
threat environment that continues to get more complex and
threat actors that continue to get more sophisticated and are
very well resourced, we look forward to working with this
committee to make sure that we do have the capacity and the
capability to be able to defend Federal networks and to work
with our critical infrastructure partners, some of which that
are very target rich, but resource poor.
Think of the small hospitals, the small schools, the water
utilities. We need to be able to continually provide them no
cost services, tools, and assessments to ensure that they can
raise that cybersecurity baseline. That is why the grant
programs are so important, but we--we are very excited to work
with you to make sure we can grow our capability to provide the
defense that the Nation needs in cyber.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And again,
Director Easterly, I want to thank you for being with us today
and wish you every sincere success with this mission. And this
is so critically important. We do a lot with the Federal
Government, but this agency's mission, your mission is so, so
important.
If I may, Director Easterly, the fiscal year 2023 budget
requests nearly $2.5 billion in funding for CISA. This
represents an increase of over $300 million above fiscal 2022--
above the fiscal 2022 President's budget request and that is
over a 10 percent increase. As I noted in my opening remarks,
this is in addition to the nearly $1 billion provided in fiscal
2022 through the omnibus, the American Rescue Plan, and the
infrastructure bill.
Madam Director, Congress has given CISA a substantial
amount of funding in a short period of time. Can you please
outline some of the key cybersecurity capabilities those funds
will provide and how it mitigates the threat of a cyber attack?
Thank you.
Ms. Easterly. Thanks so much and, again, very grateful for
the funding we have received to date and excited to be able to
execute our budget if we get what we requested. As you
mentioned, $377 million more that were requested in fiscal year
2022, and in terms of the priorities and how we plan to put
that into execution, I think of it in three major buckets--
people, process, and partnership.
On the people side and I would love to talk more about what
you mentioned in your opening statement, Ranking Member, on how
we are going to recruit and retain our talent because that is
incredibly important, but we are also using that to support the
rest of the agency. So we need to be able to have money for
building human capital and procurement and acquisition and
funding our financial office and our facilities. So that engine
that drives the ability to create mission is incredibly
important.
The $174 million that we asked for that will be able to
annualize the American Rescue Plan Act to help on Federal
cybersecurity to include capabilities like end point detection
and response, more money for our cyber defense collaborative.
So that is really about partnerships with the Federal Cyber
Executive Branch departments and agencies, those 101 separate
departments and agencies, and with the private sector and with
our international partners. So that is incredibly important.
And then the rest of the funding that we have focused on,
things like our continuous diagnostic and mitigation
capabilities to really allow us to have that very important
visibility into Federal civilian executive branch network. That
is absolutely critical to be able to manage the enterprise as
an enterprise, not 101 separate tribal agencies. And that is
something that is about modernization and transformation and to
be frank, it is not turnkey.
It is a journey that we are taking that we need to
instantiate these capabilities to finally be able to truly
defend the Federal Civilian Executive Branch, sir.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you so much for your answer. As my
time is waning, I will be very brief. As you think about the
growth of your agency, if we fully fund the President's request
with some adjustments for what we provided in fiscal 2022, will
CISA be right sized for the job, or put another way, does CISA
need time to mature as an organization before continuing to
grow at this pace?
Ms. Easterly. I, frankly, think the threat environment
demands that we continue to increase our capability and our
capacity, but that, of course, demands that I am able to keep
full confidence of this committee, that I can execute those
funds. Incredibly important that as we get more money that we
are able to responsibly execute it.
So we, with the additional funds we got last year, we
executed it 99 plus percent, which I am very proud of the team
and can't take a lot of credit for that since I got here at the
end of last fiscal year, but that is why creating those mission
enablers are so important to support the maturity and the
evolution.
The threat environment isn't getting any less dynamic, less
complex, less dangerous, and the threat actors are not getting
any less sophisticated, sir. So I believe for us to achieve the
Congress' vision to be America's cyber defense agency, that we
are likely going to continue to need to grow in capacity and
capability, but I would love to come back and have that
conversation when the timing is right.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Director Easterly.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Votes have been called, so I am going to
go to Mr. Ruppersberger and then Mr. Rutherford you will be
next first when we get back.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Director, I have been going over your
resume. I usually don't do this, but I think it is important
that we discuss some of your experience. I believe very
strongly in the area of defense and also where--what we are
talking about today, cybersecurity. The government and the
business sector must work together in a partnership. Business
sector can have a lot more sophistication and money to do
certain things, working together. Russia's and China's are very
communist, and we have an advantage that we can have a better
product at the end. I think you are seeing what is going on
just in the Ukraine right now.
I just want to point out, you know, you have a great
career, you have a balanced career. You have talked about
Morgan Stanley being in the business sector and dealing in this
field, too, which is important. I think when you look at your
education, you worked--well, first thing, you went to West
Point. And then after that, you were a Rhodes Scholar. You
attended Oxford.
It seems that you have a tremendous amount of experience to
do the job and you also know that you are only as good as your
team, and I am sure you have the ability to pick a good time. I
also like the fact that you were involved in an issue we keep
debating over and over about the NSA versus Cyber Command. And
right now I think we have made the right decision but we have
to keep moving ahead. But when you talk to General Nakasone,
his recommendation is to stay there now. So something I am
going to be talking to you about also.
My question, the fiscal year 2022 omnibus provided CISA
with 65 million for Federal network. It is called Attack
Surface Management and National Vulnerability Incident
Response. Now, does CISA have plans to effectively execute
these funds to provide a real-time common operating picture
into dotgov assets that touch the public--the public facing
internet?
And also, this is a similar capability which was U.S. Cyber
Command's top unfunded priority last year. Are best practices
from other parts of the government, such as Department of
Defense, being studied? You know, we have to work as a team. We
know that this is probably one of the most important issues we
are going to have to deal with in our lifetime, and I am glad
you are in that position. We are going to try to do whatever we
can, this committee, to stand behind you because you have got a
lot of growing to do. You have got good people, but there is
still a lot of growing.
And I know that you had a role at NSA at one time and then
working on some of these issues and, you know, I--I think we
are ready to go as long as we can keep funding you and help you
just as long as you can justify the request.
Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir. Thank you so much, sir.
On the requests for the attack surface management
capabilities, I am very excited about that. Having spent two
plus decades in the Army and tactical operation centers all
over the world and three times in a combat zone, I really
understand the importance of a common operating picture.
And, frankly, it is one of the things that we don't have
yet, and it goes to the point I made earlier about the
importance of increased visibility. And that is why coming
together across the Federal cyber ecosystem and why the JCDC
with NSA, FBI, CISA, coming together with the private sector to
help create that common operating picture is so absolutely
critical.
CYBERCOM is also part of the JCDC. And as you mentioned,
sir, I spent a good bit of time at NSA and actually worked with
Paul Nakasone and Chris Englis to help stand up U.S. Cyber
Command. So my connections to Fort Mead are pretty strong, and
we absolutely are in regular contact with them to learn those
lessons about how they have gone through this process.
And I think it is also important to say that their common
operating picture can't be different from our common operating
picture. They need to be connected because global networks are
connected. And so those partnerships as you pointed out, sir,
really that cybersecurity, cyber is a team sport is absolutely
critical to the success as Chris Englis likes to say, you have
to beat one of us to beat all of us.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And, you know, you mentioned those
gentleman. You have really, in my opinion, one of the better
teams in place, not that the people before were doing the job
and with you working with them to develop relationships. I
think if we can continue to fund you, justified funding, I
think we have got a good future ahead for our cybersecurity.
Ms. Easterly. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director, we are now going to go into
recess and we will be back as quickly as we can.
Ms. Easterly. Wonderful. Thank you, ma'am.
[Recess.]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The subcommittee will now come to order.
Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair and ranking member
and I thank, Director Easterly, for being here today. You know,
I have to kind of echo my colleague, Mr. Ruppersberger. I
really am impressed with your past and I think we are going to
be impressed with your future, and so I thank you for all that
you are doing for our country.
This is--I think just recent history has shown us how
really important this department is going to be, you know,
between SolarWinds, Colonial, JBS. Those attacks showed that it
is not just government, it is private industry. It is
everywhere, and you all are going to play a major part in that
prevention, detection, and mitigation.
So my first question kind of going back and looking at
those agencies that were impacted by SolarWinds, particularly,
can you tell me the damage that was done, how the mitigation on
that is going? And then kind of a second piece to that, what is
being done to detect and minimize, you know, zero day
vulnerabilities that may be out there in all three sectors.
Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Well, first of all, thank you for the
kind words and appreciate it.
SolarWinds, as you know, sir, was really a wake-up call.
And it was a wake-up call that taught us a couple key things.
One, it taught us that we do not have the requisite visibility
into the Federal civilian executive branch networks to be able
to effectively protect and defend them. So all of the
improvements that we have looked to make over the past 9 months
to increase that visibility, to improve our architecture, to
modernize, to be able to put in place zero trust, to really
build more than just a network perimeter security mechanism is
so important to really getting after that visibility issue, and
we have spent a lot of time doing that and some of our budget
request speaks to those types of capabilities.
So I think that is incredibly important. I think the second
thing that we have learned is, we have to be able to work
closely with our private sector partners, more closely because,
as you saw with SolarWind, sir, that was not detected either
within the Federal Civilian Executive Branch in the government
or within the Intelligence Community; it was detected by a
private sector company called Fire Eye.
And so the partnerships that we are forging with the
private sector, who often times are going to detect that
malicious activity before we do, are so absolutely critical in
forging that collective defense. And so, as we build more
detected capabilities, as we continue to mature our continuous
diagnostic, mitigation program, as we instantiate zero trust
and secure cloud, and multi-factor authentication and end point
detection and response, making sure that we are also bringing
together the private sector and the public sector to really
build that common picture of the threat environment, I think is
going to be critical to solving this really challenging and
complex problem.
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah. And, listen, I want to congratulate
you on those efforts of outreach. I know in my district I think
within the next month or so, we have scheduled a CISA
individual that is coming down to talk to our small business
Hispanic owners who, you know--we want to help them prepare and
then, I think, we are going to have a follow up with the
chamber. So your folks are doing a great job on responding to
those outreach efforts, and I really appreciate that.
Beyond the grants that you mentioned before and these sort
of one-on-one working together with local businesses, can you
give me any other ideas about how we may help the small
business community prepare for these types of attacks?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you for asking that,
and I know my team down in the fourth district has had a lot of
fun working with your constituents and really enjoy. I think
that is the greatest thing that we have been building over the
past couple years is the field force that allows us to engage
on the front lines where the action really happens. So really
grateful.
Mr. Rutherford. It has been excellent.
Ms. Easterly. So really grateful. You know, in addition to
the grant programs, which I think are really important for
State and local, we offer a whole slue of no cost services,
whether that is tools, assessments, phishing assessments,
vulnerability assessments, resilience assessments, no cost free
training that we do with our cybersecurity advisers and our
protective security advisers, and we provide that really all
over the country.
One of the things that I am proud of that our team did as
part of our Shields Up effort is, we work with private sector.
And so you can go on that website and look at pages and pages
of free cybersecurity services and tools. Because probably like
you, sir, I worry a lot about those target rich, but resource
poor entities, small businesses that Americans rely on for
commerce and everything else and really making sure that they
have the knowledge and the capabilities to increase their
cybersecurity baseline is so important.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much. I am sorry. My time
has run out, but thank you, again, for everything.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you,
Director Easterly, for being with us today. Business leaders
play an essential role in our national security. In March, I
participated in a briefing for Illinois small businesses with
the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, CISA, and FBI to help
Illinois businesses prevent, identify, and respond to malicious
cyber activity. The briefing informed business leaders about
CISA's Shield Up guidance and all the services and tools CISA
can offer the companies like theirs,
One tool CISA mentioned during its briefing is its phishing
email exercise where it will send a 6-week campaign of emails
to a companies' employees and evaluate areas for improvement.
The most consistent comment that we received during and after
the briefing was that our constituents and businesses did not
know about CISA's wide range of resources.
Do regional CISA offices have the capacity to provide more
workshops and briefings like these to help small and medium-
sized companies learn about their resources and how else can
CISA reach out to share tools and resources with the public?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah. That is a fabulous question. Thank you
so much for it. This is why I am so excited about the growth of
our field force because I think it is incredibly important that
we are able to raise awareness and it is something that I would
ask for your help and the rest of the help from the committee,
because, you know, as we know, we are the newest agency in the
Federal Government.
The Congress set us up to be America's cyber defense agency
to help us support the resilience and security of our critical
infrastructure that Americans rely on every hour of every day,
and we are there to provide a whole range of no cost services,
advisories, guidance.
And so we are working to get out to all the constituencies,
your districts, every region to be able to ensure that that
information and that guidance is out there to include very
important things like those phishing assessments, those
resilience assessments, those vulnerability assessments.
So I would be grateful to continue to work with you all,
and I would ask for your help in amplifying who we are and what
we do for the American people.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. I think it is especially important
that small and medium companies have the tools that they need
to remain secure. In 2021, more than 40 percent of cyber
attacks targeted small and medium-sized businesses, praying on
companies that often lack the resources and personnel to
implement cyber hygiene measures. What else is CISA doing to
build strong partnerships between public and private sectors to
defend against the evolving threats of today and tomorrow?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Thanks for the question. Our growth in
cybersecurity advisers and cybersecurity State coordinators
will, in fact, help because we can work directly on the front
lines with all of your constituents to make sure that they have
the tools and the resources that they need, but the other
thing, just going back to my point about what we are building
with the private sector, so the dots that we are connecting
given the threats that are being illuminated with our work with
the private sector, all of that then turns into advisories and
guidance that we publish very widely that can be used by all
manner of businesses.
So if you go to the Shields Up website, we specifically
say, here is guidance for businesses large and small. And I am
keenly aware that it is those small businesses that often times
are strong targets for malicious cyber actors, but also don't
have the resources or the knowledge or the guidance to be able
to protect themselves. And so we are on a widespread campaign
across the country to ensure that all businesses have what they
need to include the knowledge, guidance, tools, and
capabilities to help protect themselves because that
connectivity really is about making the Nation safer.
Ms. Underwood. During our briefing, one participant
submitted a question and asked what is the largest risk for
local governments? Can you share your thoughts on that and how
local governments can best prepare?
Ms. Easterly. Absolutely. I think because of what we just
talked about and the fact that many of these small businesses
are not well resourced, don't have the security people, the
technology, the assessments, as we have seen over the last year
and a half, it is really the scourge of ransomware that has
impacted these schools, these municipalities, these small
businesses, these hospitals, and so it is why we developed this
one-stop shop, stopransomware.gov website that pulled together
all of the resources across the Federal Government to say, this
is what we know about ransomware, this is how you protect
yourself from being hacked, and this is how--this is what you
do when you have been hacked. I think that is incredibly
important.
Ms. Underwood. Well, I was proud that the National Defense
Authorization in 2021 contained a component of the RESILIENT
Act, which is a bill of mine that protects communities from
domestic terrorism. The provision required CISA to develop a
stakeholder outreach and operational engagement strategy by
January 1st of this year to ensure that critical infrastructure
and nonprofit organizations are benefiting from DHS services.
And then CISA was required to submit the plan to the House
Committee on Homeland Security.
Can you give an update on the development of this outreach
strategy and implementation plan?
Ms. Easterly. You bet. Thanks for asking. My very diligent
team created the strategy. What I have asked them to do is to
make sure that it is nested within the wider CISA strategy
because I want to make sure we are holistically looking across
our entire agency because stakeholders and partnerships are
absolutely fundamental to everything we do, and so I am looking
to get that full strategy to include the stakeholder engagement
strategy in the next several months and I would love to come
brief you on some of the specifics. Because I absolutely agree
our engagement at all levels, State, local, private industry
and then, in particular, the nonprofit community.
When I was in the private sector, I served on several
nonprofit boards and they are part of, in some ways, because
they hold a lot of sensitive data, target rich, and resource
poor. So helping them make sure that they can raise their
cybersecurity baseline is absolutely critical.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome, Director
Easterly. Thank you for coming before us today. I really
appreciated in your opening remarks you talked about the
threats from Russia, China, these countries that North Korea
that they keep engaging against us in this way and I am pleased
also about the State and local partnerships that you are
working to develop.
You know, when we look at critical infrastructure and its
impact on the food supply, we are very sensitive to that,
obviously, in Iowa. I also heard you mention JBS in your
opening remarks, which that directly impacted my district with
the plant there.
So as we know, cyber attacks really can threaten our
Nation's food supply, really disrupt our economy, so how are
you as an agency at CISA engaging with targeted entities,
similar entities to that? Is that the field force? Is that how
you are trying to roll that out? And then what are you doing to
learn from those past exposures like what JBS experienced?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Great question. You know, it was
similar to how Colonial Pipeline was a wake-up call for that
sector. JBS was really a wake-up call for the food and
agriculture sector. And after that occurred, we actually got
together with the cosector risk management agencies, Department
of Agriculture, and HHS to actually do that after-action
review. What did we learn from that and what can we do to
better secure what is largely, as you know, ma'am, private.
There is really no government aspect of that, and because
many of these are part of those target rich, resource poor, we
have to be able to ensure that they have the tools and the
guidance so that they can help protect themselves.
So as you mentioned the field force, two of my regions
actually partnered in late 2021 and 2022 to ensure that we
walked through an exercise on what do we need to do to ensure
we are protected. And as you probably recall, the new
cooperative ransomware attack that was also something that we
looked at, we did an after-action review, and then we put out
guidance on what these entities needed to do to protect
themselves.
So it is one of these places where we know we need
additional resources and that is one of the reasons why we
are--our budget requests invests a significant amount in what
we are trying to do in our field force to provide these
services to these target-rich, resource-poor entities.
Mrs. Hinson. I think a lot of people learned a lot of
lessons from what happened in those cases, but, you know, when
you talk about your funding request, critical infrastructure
specifically, enhanced protection there, how do you choose what
is the priority there? How do you choose which critical
infrastructure to prioritize?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Something I learned in the Army, if
everything is a priority nothing is a priority. And it is hard
because we know in today's complex technology world, everything
is connected. So in some ways you have to be--you have to say,
yes, I prioritize, but I also need to know that, even if I
spend a billion dollars at Morgan Stanley in protecting my
networks, I might have vendors that are connected to that
network within my supply chain.
Mrs. Hinson. A liability there, too.
Ms. Easterly. Right. So what we are trying to do through
our national risk management center is actually delineate what
we are calling the primary, systemically important entities,
which lay out those entities, major entities that are
systemically critical to our national security, our economic
prosperity, and our public health and safety.
And so the list now which is thousands and thousands based
on what is called Section 9 of an executive order in 2013,
13636, is just too big. And so what we are trying to do is pair
that down, but we want to work through it with our sector risk
management agency partners who have that expertise and I,
frankly, want to work through it with the private sector to
make sure that we are all in agreement on this.
Because at the end of the day, if there is a major attack
on this country, we have to make sure that those most
systemically critical entities have the resources, the
intelligence, the capabilities to be able to defend our Nation.
Mrs. Hinson. So I heard you ask us for our help in getting
word out about these things.
Ms. Easterly. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Hinson. What do you think is the way we can--other
than funding for the agency, what are the other ways where you
think we can be helpful to you in getting that message out? I
think about our rural communities and they need to know this
information. A lot of those small risk averse--they want to be
risk averse, but obviously they don't have necessarily the
tools to do that. So what would you recommend there?
Ms. Easterly. Well, I would just greatly appreciate,
obviously, the budget piece, but continue to help us amplify
our message. As America's cyber defense agency, the newest
agency in the Federal Government, a lot of people don't know
what CISA is. And so helping us get that message out so folks
understand, we have a whole variety of no cost services and
tools, which is incredible for some of these small entities
that just don't have the resources.
And so we have a field force that meets with constituents
in every district in every State and I would be very glad to
meet with your constituents and help them understand the kind
of services that we can provide, to help keep them safe and
secure in cyberspace.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Director, you should be careful about offering
to visit districts because there is a lot of us who will take
you up on it on those types of things.
Ms. Easterly. I am up for it. I am in.
Mr. Aguilar. Mrs. Hinson and I might be sending you
letters.
Director, I wanted to focus on the election security
efforts that you highlighted in your written testimony. One
issue that I have been tracking closely is misinformation and
disinformation and election interference in the Spanish-
speaking community.
In fact, I just came from the Committee on House
Administration, Subcommittee on Elections where we focused on
mis and disinformation, disenfranchise, and how it
disenfranchises voters.
In response to foreign influence in 2020 election, CISA
developed the mis, dis, and mal information, MDM teams, as you
mentioned. Just this year, the team created a variety of useful
resources for the public and I appreciate what you all have
done; however, those materials are only available in English.
And as we saw in the 2020 elections, Spanish-speaking
communities were significantly targeted with election
misinformation. It is crucial that any misinformation efforts
be given not just in Spanish but in other languages where we
have seen this activity.
Could you share your long-term strategy for the MDM teams?
How do they plan to release materials? And how do you plan to
reach into other communities where non-English speaking
residents are of primary focus as well?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Thanks so much for that question. It is
so important. We have been building the misinformation/
disinformation/mal information team for about a year and a half
now. We have given additional resources. The focus is really on
threats that could impact our critical infrastructure, like our
election infrastructure. And as you pointed out,
Representative, we actually have created a lot of great
products and I am keenly aware that they need to be translated
and the good news is, we are working on that.
So hopefully soon you can go to our MDM website and see the
translations in Spanish and we are also going to look at other
languages as well. But very important to me that we make sure
that those are available as widely as possible.
Mr. Aguilar. Great. I appreciate that.
The cyber workforce--I wanted to shift gears a bit--issues
impact national security as we know and in the department's
budget request, CISA also proposes to zero out funding to
support the national initiative for cybersecurity education. As
you know, funds were provided by Congress specifically to
support that program.
Can you share why CISA proposes to cut funding for this
program?
Ms. Easterly. I personally believe and this budget was
created with I think some of our colleagues thought that
perhaps, because we are a growing agency, that those
capabilities were best put in places like the National Science
Foundation. If that money comes to CISA, it is a passion of
mine to ensure that we are educating K-12 and, frankly, K
through gray.
This is all about the American people keeping safe and
secure online. So if that money ends up coming to us, I would
be very happy to implement it. If that money ends up at the
National Science Foundation, I will be thrilled to partner with
them to ensure we can put resources in place to educate our
kids so they can stay safe online.
Mr. Aguilar. Over the last decade, CISA and the NSA have
worked closely together to support and develop a cyber
workforce pipeline as well. Local university in my district,
Cal State San Bernardino, a public university and Hispanic
serving institution, has been a key player in building that
pipeline.
Our country can absolutely benefit from a closer
coordination between CISA and NSA, Centers For Academic
Excellence, cybersecurity programs. And currently CISA's chief
learning officer leads the DHS memorandum of understanding
agreement with NSA, but we haven't seen DHS fully fund that
partnership.
What can CISA do to fully embrace this partnership,
specifically with respect to Centers For Academic Excellence
and what is preventing--what is the hesitation within CISA to
move forward?
Ms. Easterly. No hesitation. I think it is just a matter of
we are a growing agency, we are a maturing agency, and we are
looking to put programs in place that will be sustainable and
scalable. We are doing some pilots, but I want to make sure
something as important as building a diverse workforce and
tapping into those schools of excellence, which having served
at the National Security Agency, I absolutely appreciate how
you tap into that talent, I want to make sure that this is
something we can do on a scalable basis.
So we are in the process of completely retooling our talent
management ecosystem. How do we recruit people, train, mentor,
coach, certify, set up retention opportunities, and how do we
tap into these universities all over the country much more
effectively?
And so that is something that I am putting a lot of energy
into, both trying to kill some of the bureaucracy about how
hard it is to hire people into the Federal Government, but also
putting into play some of the new authorities that Congress
gave us, the cyber talent management system, so we can hire
much more flexibly to include people coming out of these
universities through the scholarship for service program, but
also be able to pay them closer to market so we can stay
competitive.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Director.
Yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for
holding this hearing today. Ms. Easterly, thank you for joining
us today and especially thank you for your service, 20 years in
the Army, three combat deployments. That means a lot. Thank you
for what you are doing in your current capacity.
My primary interest lies on cyber attacks on our critical
infrastructure, particularly as it relates to Russia. In a
recent alert, titled ``Russian-state sponsored criminal cyber
threats to critical infrastructure,'' CISA warned that Russia's
invasion of Ukraine could expose organizations to increased
malicious cyber activity.
Given that an evolving intelligence indicates that the
Russian Government is exploring options for potential cyber
attacks on the U.S. and our allies, could you tell me, in this
unclassified setting, the number of engagements that your teams
are responding to on a daily basis and are these state actors
or non-state actors or a combination?
Ms. Easterly. Thanks for the question. To date we have not
seen specific attacks on the U.S. What we are concerned about
is the fact that Russian malicious cyber activity is part of
their playbook and, of course, as you just mentioned, we have
seen evolving intelligence about potential plans. To date,
thankfully, we have not seen attacks manifest here, but we are
very concerned that as the war drags on that there may, in
fact, be retaliatory attacks, given the very severe sanctions
that we have imposed on the Kremlin, the U.S. and our allies.
There may be ransomware attacks or there may be cascading
attacks as we saw with the destructive malware NotPetya in
2017. It is why, sir, we have focused so much on working with
our partners, 150 engagements with tens of thousands Americans,
the 13,000-person call we had the chairwoman mentioned to
ensure people understand that threat and that is what was
behind that advisory, but more importantly, what they need to
do to put their shields up.
Mr. Palazzo. So if I struck the word ``Russia'' inserted
China or North Korea or Iran, would there be any engagements
for you to discuss in this unclassified setting?
Ms. Easterly. Not in this setting, sir.
Mr. Palazzo. All right. I would like to take this
opportunity to also thanks CISA for their partnership with the
University of Mississippi Medical Center on the first responder
emergency medical communications program.
This program is helping to prepare first responders in
Mississippi to be better equipped for their job, particularly
in rural areas. This project has been a success so far and one
that I believe should serve as a national model.
Additionally, in your testimony, you mentioned reducing
risk of attacks on soft targets in crowded places. My alma
mater, the University of Southern Mississippi, has been a
leader in this field through their national center for
spectator sport safety and security, NSF4.
For many years, continues to do cutting-edge research on
this topic. To accelerate any effort that would reduce the risk
of attacks on soft targets in crowded places, I want to ask,
does CISA do any university partnerships with programs such as
this?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah, absolutely. And both those partnerships
that you mentioned, sir, as well as what we do with NCS4, I
think are so important. I actually was mentioning that I was
excited to get out there to be able to be on the frontlines and
spend some time. I think we are doing something at NCS4 coming
up in the coming months, but these are incredibly important,
because as we know, universities, some of these colleges, in
particular, if you look at the past several months, some of the
HCBUs were really the victims of some of these scare campaigns
and warnings.
And so working with these entities to make sure they know
how to put in place protections to protect their people and
their students is so incredibly important.
Mr. Palazzo. I think I may have one more question.
As we all know, especially in the cyberspace, it is
increasingly difficult to compete with private sector
companies, especially the big names when it comes to
recruiting, hiring, and retaining talent. And although the
government was managed to pull you away from a Morgan Stanley,
can you comment on your ability to hire talented individuals
for jobs within CISA? And although the agency's still
relatively new, are you having any difficulties in retaining
that talent?
Ms. Easterly. I have been really thrilled that we have had
so many awesome people join the team just over the last year.
You know, at the end of the day, nobody comes to government to
make money, right? Everybody comes because they have a sense of
mission and they feel that it is a calling to raise their hand
and support the Constitution of the United States and defend
the Nation. And I think there are a lot of people that are
attracted to this new mission of defending the Nation in
cyberspace. You know, I am not looking for somebody to
necessarily make a career; what I am looking for is somebody to
come in, join us maybe for 2 or 3 years, and then maybe they go
out and they work at a university, maybe they go out and they
work in a grain cooperative, maybe they go work in a hospital,
but they are still helping with the collective cyber defense of
the Nation.
So I don't like to think of it as competitive; I like to
think of it as, we are all part of that collective cyber
defense and I love the idea of bringing people in, getting them
trained, getting them excited about our mission, making them
understand what CISA does, and then maybe sending them back out
again to be part of the collective cyber defense of the Nation.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you for sharing.
I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. We are expecting another round of votes
around 3:30, quarter to 4, but I would like to try and squeeze
in a second round. And so to give everybody an opportunity, I
just want everybody to be cognizant of the 5-minute rule.
Director Easterly, I am sure you receive a lot of pressure
to do more for critical infrastructure operators, especially as
our adversaries increasingly seek to target those sectors and
the gaps in our current capabilities become more apparent. The
President's budget request for 2023 includes $80 million in
FEMA's budget for a CISA-led competitive cyber grant program
for private and public sector critical infrastructure
providers.
What is your vision for this grant program and do you see
this as an enduring effort or something more short-term?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Great question. So as you know, we have
that $1 billion grant program for State and local and we are
looking to release the notice of funding opportunity for that
for the first $200 million. So I see this $80 million program
effectively as a complement to that, to go after those target-
rich, resource-poor critical infrastructure providers. I would
draw your attention, in particular, to water.
Water entities that, frankly, are very target rich as we
saw with old in February of 2021, but resource poor. And so
being able to provide grant money to help them raise their
cybersecurity baseline I think is really important. You know,
from an enduring capability, I don't know the answer to that,
chairwoman. I want to make sure that we are developing this
program with our FEMA colleagues, making sure that we are
responsibly putting this in place so that it will make a
difference, and then we will come back to you and let you know
whether, in fact, we think it is right sized and directed at
the right things.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And what is the right role for the
Federal Government and what should critical infrastructure
owners and operators realistically be doing on their own?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah. I think some of the big entities have
the capabilities, the investment. Certainly when I was at
Morgan Stanley, we had a lot of resources to be able to protect
the firm. Then there are other entities that are not as well
resourced. And so it really is not a one size fits all. And so
in the cases of the less well resourced, that is where we can
step in, provide grant funding, we can work with the State and
local level the MS-ISAC, we can work directly with our regional
field force, but there are some things that I think it is
important that we are able to help provide, but at the end of
the day, what I want to do is less give a fish than teach a
person to fish so that folks understand the investments that
they need to make and the folks they need to hire and the
technology they need to implement and so they can then do it
sustainably and scalably going forward without necessarily
having to depend on the Federal Government for support.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. The Multi-State Information
Sharing and Analysis Center, or MS-ISAC, has been a great
source for State and local entities seeking to increase their
cybersecurity posture.
When you think of how the Federal Government, particularly
CISA and FEMA can provide cybersecurity support to State and
local entities, what do you believe is the right model and
should we continue to build upon the MS-ISAC and the technical
support CISA already provides?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah. The MS-ISAC is a terrific partner. We,
of course, fund them and the services they provide at the State
and local level, both information sharing, what is called
Albert sensors which help provide perimeter support, I think
are incredibly important and I am excited about the continued
partnership there.
I also think that we need to make sure that the State and
local folks can benefit effectively from this new grant
program, so they can help build their own capabilities. And
then finally, I am excited about being able to use our field
force to ensure that at the State and local level they
understand all of the no cost services that we can provide to
them directly.
So MS-ISAC, grant programs, field force, and CISA no cost
services, I think is really a three-pronged program to help us
support our State and local colleagues.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I am going to set the example. I have a
few seconds left, but I do want to give others opportunity. So
Mr. Palazzo. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Rutherford. I apologize.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk a
little bit about the future when--CISA's relatively new,
obviously, 2018, and in watching this mature makes me want to
ask the question about the near-term future, say, 5 years,
particularly in light of what Mr. Palazzo was talking about
earlier, this whole staffing and education piece.
As a country, are we preparing for, you know, that
generation of workers because you don't just--I am sure you
don't just go out on the street and, you know, hire folks. They
have very specific backgrounds that are necessary, and so I am
wondering about our workforce and how that fits in to your 5-
year plan, 3-year plan, whatever it might be?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Thanks for the question.
Certainly from a CISA workforce, that is where I am putting
a huge amount of effort into making sure that we have the
capability and capacity and, frankly, the very diverse
workforce that will help us bring that diversity of experience
to solving the toughest problems. One of the goals I have set
for myself is helping our Nation get to 50 percent women in
cybersecurity by the year 2030. So I am excited about that.
But as you point out, sir, this really is a national issue.
And that is why going back to the question around K-12, I do
think it is incredibly important. You know, everybody in this
room is basically a digital immigrant. Our kids are digital
natives. They are on their laptops and iPads from the age of 2.
And so ensuring that not only are they faster in terms of how
to manipulate things on those iPads, but that they know how to
protect themselves is so incredibly important.
And as we are helping to make sure they protect themselves,
I think we are also igniting that spark about how cool it is to
be in cybersecurity and I think that is how we are going to get
after some of these workforce issues, but we really need to
create this fluency across all of the country and it is why I
spent so much time on cyber hygiene.
Really the basics of how to protect ourselves from the
phishing training that Representative Underwood was talking
about to updating your software, to complex differentiated
passwords and a password keeper, to using multi-factor
authentication.
I think the ranking member mentioned this. When I say
multi-factor authentication, when I am talking to the average
person, they will say--their eyes will glaze over and it will
sound too technical and it is multi-syllabic so what does it
all mean? And so what we are trying to do--and I would love
this committee's help with it--is make it real simple, right?
More than a password, because that is what it is. Instead of
just a login and password, use a second form of authentication
so the more than a password. It also calls for the 1986 classic
by Boston, More Than a Feeling, so if you kind of get that in
your head, right?
So we really are trying to make sure that we can get this
message out to the American people in a way they can protect
themselves because MSA study show keep you 99 percent from
being hacked. What gets you 99 percent these days?
Mr. Rutherford. That is huge, yeah. Thank you. So let me
ask you something from more of a macro level. In the field of
criminal law, individuals have a right to protect themselves
and that right is there because we recognize that the
government can't be everywhere to protect you. So you have a
right to protect yourself.
How do you see that conflating over to this cyber world
where I am being attacked and I want to defend myself because
what I hear a lot about is defense. I am wondering about
offense. How can I, you know, sometimes the best defense is a
good offense, but then also how do I, as an individual, do I
have the legal right--and I know some of these questions are
being debated now, and what is the right of someone to defend
themselves and how do they do that in an offensive way? In
other words, punching back, for example?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah, yeah. So the great thing about being at
CISA is our north star is all about cyber defense. So
everything we do is about creating resilience, making sure that
we can detect, respond, and recover. And so unlike my days in
uniform and at U.S. Cyber Command, I do not do offense, but, of
course we work very closely with U.S. Cyber Command, with FBI,
with the Intelligence Community because what those agencies may
be doing on the offensive side has to inform what we are doing
on the defensive side and it really goes back to my point about
cyber has to be a team sport, but we all have roles and
responsibilities that when we come together we can actually
make the Nation safer.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you so much. I would like to discuss
election security. You may know that this issue hits close to
home for Illinois voters because in July of 2016, Russian
hackers penetrated the State of Illinois Board of Elections
voter registration database stealing the personal data of about
76,000 Illinois voters, so ensuring the security and integrity
of our election has always been a top priority. I would like to
get an update on what CISA's doing to work with State and local
election officials to defend our election infrastructure?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Thanks so much for the question.
This is, obviously, one of our top priorities. Since 2020
and my predecessor Chris Krebs, obviously, we are very focused
on the 2022 midterms and beyond. One of the things that I am
most excited about is we just recently to the question about
talent, we just recently brought on board the former secretary
of State of Washington State, actually Republican Kim Wyman,
incredible election official with decades of experience and she
is my senior election lead.
She was actually just out in Arizona. She is out in
California now working hand in hand with our former colleagues,
the secretaries of State across the Nation and with State and
local election directors to make sure that they can avail
themselves of all the resources that are needed to ensure that
State and local--because, of course, we are the Federal
Government, so we don't get involved in State and local
elections, but we are here to help to make sure that all State
and local election directors have the resources that they need
to ensure the integrity of their election security.
And it is both cybersecurity, it is physical security, it
is insider security, and it is security from misinformation and
disinformation. So we are working very, very hard hand in hand
with our partners to make sure they have what they need.
Ms. Underwood. Great. In your testimony, you stated that
CISA will remain transparent and agile in its vigorous efforts
to secure America's election infrastructure from new and
evolving threats. What are the major threats specific to the
2022 midterm election and can you describe some of the new and
evolving threats you mentioned in your testimony?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah, thanks for that. So, of course, we need
to continue to worry about technology threats and cyber threats
and I think the improvements that we have made working with
State and local election officials over the past 4 years, 5
years have actually made a material difference in raising that
cybersecurity baseline. And we can't take a lot of credit for
it. A lot of credit goes to my predecessor, but I think that
work that was done was incredibly important. Now, I am also
concerned about physical threats, both to election officials as
well as facilities. I am concerned about potential insider
threats, and, again, I am concerned about some of the
misinformation and disinformation.
So as you may know, we set up something called Rumor
Control, which is really just a website that enables us to put
out information that is really just about facts. Facts about
absentee ballots, facts about paper ballots just so the
American people have the information that they need to maintain
confidence in the elections in the integrity of elections,
really nothing more important, frankly, for the democracy we
live in for Americans to have that sense of confidence.
Ms. Underwood. Have you found that your staff have been
able to connect with State officials across the country on
these issues to share the information about these threats or
has the openness from different States changed given the
climate?
Ms. Easterly. You know, to date, I have not sensed a
material difference in that. It was one of the reasons why I
was very interested in having a former Republican secretary of
State join me, because at the end of the day, you know, I am an
independent. I have been an independent my entire career. I
have served in Republican administrations, I have served in
Democratic administrations, and the one thing that CISA needs
to be able to do is to remain nonpartisan, because we work with
Republican secretaries of State, we work with Democratic
secretaries of State, and we are all about ensuring that no
matter what party you are, you have the tools, the resources,
the capabilities to protect your elections.
And so I continue to have very good relationships, the
Republican secretary of State, the NAS President Kyle from
Louisiana. I mean, all of my experiences to date have been
incredibly positive.
Ms. Underwood. I am glad to hear it. Thank you so much for
your testimony today.
Ms. Easterly. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks for
sticking around for round two. I appreciate in your remarks you
put in there about emergency communications and emergency
resilience and our district in Iowa is very sensitive to that.
In 2020, we had a major derecho come through, 140-mile-an-hour
winds. It knocked out communication across the board.
Our emergency responders were really struggling to
communicate with not only each other, but with members of the
community as well. So I would just like to ask in what ways are
you supporting the mission of making sure that that emergency
response critical infrastructure is not only protected but
resilient should a major disaster like that happen? What are
the plans in place that you are working with?
Ms. Easterly. Yeah. Thanks for the question. You know,
these are kind of the unsung heroes of CISA. I actually didn't
know much about the emergency communications mission before I
started going through my confirmation hearing and it is pretty
incredible when you think about that. You call 9-1-1 and, you
know, somebody answers at the end of the day. And as you just
pointed out, if there is no answer on the end of that phone
call, it could cause amazing significant impacts on human life.
And so I am incredibly proud. We actually decided to name
April emergency communications month so we could celebrate the
great work of all of our emergency communicators across the
country working with partners like Nick Swick and First Net and
everybody to make sure that these communications are resilient.
In terms of going forward, one of the most important things
that we are doing is making sure that next generation 9-1-1 is
cyber resilient because as we move to technology that may, in
fact, be more vulnerable to the cyber threats that we are
seeing increase in complexity and dynamism and danger, we need
to ensure that we are standing up new capabilities that are
just as resilient to our legacy capabilities. And so a lot of
focus on that in the coming years.
Mrs. Hinson. Awesome. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Director, I wanted to follow up on my colleague Mr.
Rutherford's question related to K-12 focus, cyber workforce
pipeline that we talk about in CISA's Cybersecurity Education
and Training Assistance Program, CETAP, has been an important
tool in helping to build that pipeline and equip K-12 teachers
with cyber curricula.
This program was formerly authorized by Congress in 2021 as
well and I was surprised to see CISA didn't request funding for
this program in this fiscal year. My colleagues and I
appreciate the creativity that you and your team bring to this
whether it is funded or whether it is not, but from our
perspective, we feel strongly about including, you know,
specific categories to kind of sharpen the focus and especially
given your comments about the workforce and your commitment to
have 50 percent of the workforce by 2030 be women, I think this
is something that we should look at.
So can you share the department's long-term strategy for
CETAP and the efforts to support cyber education?
Ms. Easterly. Yes, sir. As you alluded to, it is not at all
clear whether CETAP funding is going to end up within CISA or
within the National Science Foundation. If those funds end up
with us, we will do everything we can to be able to leverage
them responsibly to really build those pipelines incredibly
important.
One of the uses for CETAP funding that you probably know is
actually to build the cyber innovation center, which is in
Louisiana. I was actually talking to the Governor there a
couple days ago and he was saying how important that is, again,
in terms of incubating the ability to create these diverse
pipelines.
So if that funding comes to us, I am very dedicated to
making sure that we are looking at the cyber workforce, not
just from a CISA perspective, but from a nationwide
perspective. When we have to start with our youngest of ages to
be able, again, both to keep them safe online but to ignite
that spark because maybe they do want to join the cybersecurity
workforce.
So I look forward to working with you to make sure we get
this right.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much.
Yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. So with that, Director Easterly, I want
to thank you very much for your time and for the excellent
leadership that you are providing to CISA at this very, very
challenging time.
With that, the subcommittee on Homeland Security stands
adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]