[Senate Hearing 117-483]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
                                                    
    The subcommittee met at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-138, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Chris Murphy (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senators Murphy, Capito, Murkowski, Hoeven, and 
Hyde-Smith.

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

STATEMENT OF HON. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, SECRETARY

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRIS MURPHY

    Senator Murphy. Good afternoon. I'm going to call this 
hearing of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security to order.
    As a general reminder, this is going to be a virtual and 
hybrid hearing. Some of my colleagues are going to be here 
personally, some are going to be virtually. We're going to do 
our best to ensure that everybody has a chance to ask questions 
when it's their turn.
    We also are going to have votes at some point during this 
hearing and so our intent is going to be to keep this hearing 
running and keep coverage here while we also run down to the 
Floor and vote, and I'm glad to be assisted in that effort by 
the subcommittee's Ranking Member and prior Chairman, Senator 
Capito.
    Today, we welcome Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro 
Mayorkas, and we express to you our limitless gratitude for the 
work of the 240,000 employees across the department. We 
recognize the tremendous risks that they have taken and the 
sacrifices that they have made, especially during the past year 
and a half.
    You and I got to visit along with Senator Capito some of 
these heroes at the border earlier this year and I know how 
humbled you are to be able to lead this group.
    The purpose of today's hearing is to review the 
department's fiscal year 2022 Budget Request. We eagerly await 
the arrival of the full request later this week, but we've got 
the Administration's budget blueprint in front of us and we're 
going to use that to guide our discussions today.
    This blueprint shows us how the department's mission is 
changing and adapting. New investments in cybersecurity are 
needed in the wake of these unprecedented attacks on our 
networks, many of which have consumed the news.
    The Coast Guard, faced with critical antiterrorism and drug 
interdiction missions, is in need of long overdue 
capitalization. Natural disasters are becoming more fierce and 
more frequent, and I would like to applaud both you and the 
President in your announcement on Monday that a billion dollars 
is going to be invested through the Brick Program to help 
communities prepare in advance for hurricanes, wildfires, and 
other natural disasters.
    And as we heard at a hearing on domestic terrorism before 
the Full Committee, homegrown violence still presents the most 
serious threat to our nation today, and today, this afternoon, 
our heart breaks again as we read news of another mass 
shooting, this one in San Jose, eight are dead so far.
    We don't know the motive but once again we are reminded 
that the most serious threat of physical harm to Americans does 
not come right now from a foreign army or from immigrants, as 
some would have us believe, but from the increasing tendency 
towards deadly violence from a small often heavily armed subset 
of our fellow Americans.
    Now as for DHS's work at the border, which I trust is going 
to occupy the bulk of question and answer time here today, let 
me say a few things before turning it over to Senator Capito.
    So I understand how important the issue of immigration is 
to our politics today. I understand that it's a lot easier to 
use the issue of migration as a political cudgel than to see it 
as a problem that needs to get solved, and today Republicans 
often want to take the increased numbers of apprehensions and 
presentations at the border and blame it on President Biden. 
That scores a lot of political points, gets you booked on talk 
shows, but that's not the truth and the truth is still 
important.
    Migrants, as it turns out, don't really care who the 
President of the United States is. Why? Because they come here 
for a complex set of reasons, most of which are connected to 
life in their home country.
    Consider this. In 1986, in the middle of Ronald Reagan's 
presidency, we saw over 1.5 million apprehensions at the 
southwest border, some of the highest numbers we've ever seen. 
From 1997 to 2000, we hovered around the same number during the 
Clinton Administration.
    Then during the Obama years, despite his policies that 
allowed some undocumented children and families to stay, a 
policy excoriated by Republicans as an incentive for migration, 
the numbers of apprehensions at the border were far, far below 
these numbers of the 1980s and 1990s, averaging around 420,000 
each year of his term.
    Then, despite President Trump's supposedly tough 
immigration policies and the beginning of the construction of 
his border wall, we saw a surge in apprehensions, the highest 
in over a decade, resulting in a $4.6 billion emergency 
supplemental in 2019.
    The bottom line is that President Trump's rhetoric and the 
cruelty of family separation didn't stop people from coming to 
the United States because people are coming here in order to 
flee violence and economic desperation in their home country.
    The only thing that stopped that surge happening in 2018 
and 2019 was the pandemic when we shut down the border under 
public health authorities.
    So what's happened this year? Well, apprehensions have 
spiked but that's because some of those blocks I talked about 
on children and families entering the country ended and for 
good reason.
    President Trump was turning around little kids and throwing 
them back into the arms of traffickers and criminals. That was 
an inhumane un-American policy. We should all celebrate its 
end, but also in November of 2020, Mexico enacted a new law. 
That meant that they were unable to accept many returns from 
the United States of families with small children.
    The Trump Administration had ample notice that this law 
would come into effect, 2 months, and they seemingly made no 
plans. So as a compassionate nation, we chose to house these 
families. Yes, some of them have been released from custody 
with a promise to appear before ICE (U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement), but so far in this fiscal year, those 
that have received a notice to appear before ICE have complied 
95 percent of the time. So this claim that there's some new 
catch and release policy, it's just not backed up by the data.
    I have news for my colleagues. The public health 
restrictions on single adults that remain barring them from 
applying for asylum cannot by law remain in effect forever. So 
when that authority expires and it will, there's going to be a 
surge of single adults at the border created by a ban on asylum 
cases for a year and a half. That's not anybody's fault. That's 
the consequence of the pandemic.
    So I'm a new chairman of this committee. I took the job 
knowing about the politics that surround this issue, but this 
subcommittee does have a history of bipartisanship. Not every 
year can we find a way to a budget, but many years, even when 
the politics were really hot on this issue, thanks in large 
part to then Chairwoman Capito, this committee did find that 
path and so I hope that we get to have a meaningful discussion 
today about the border and the many other challenges that are 
facing the department, and I look forward to being able to work 
across the aisle to try to find bipartisan solutions, at least 
within our budget authority, to the challenges that you face.
    Thank you for appearing before us today, Secretary 
Mayorkas.
    I'll now turn it over to the Ranking Member, Senator Capito 
for opening remarks.

               STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
calling this hearing and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining 
us.
    While we don't have, as the Chairman mentioned, the full 
budget request, there's certainly no shortage of things to talk 
about today, and I know you've been on Capitol Hill since early 
this morning. So I appreciate that. You certainly do have a 
large job as head of a massive sprawling department.
    As I noted this time last year, the department's critical 
missions include counterterrorism, trade enforcement. You know, 
we only talk about certain aspects of Homeland Security 
sometimes, but when you see the massiveness of what you're 
dealing with, maritime security, opioid and drug interdiction, 
presidential protection, cybersecurity, infrastructure 
protection, emergency management, continuity of government, law 
enforcement training, countering weapons of mass destruction, 
state and local information-sharing, and more, as well as this 
past year responding to the pandemic.
    On top of that, Secretary Mayorkas, despite what my 
esteemed Chairman says, your first 100 days have been dominated 
by a border crisis of the Administration's own making.
    We are currently in the midst of a historic surge at the 
southern border. There were a 178,000 encounters in April and 
tens of thousands more entered undetected. Drugs continue to be 
a big issue for me. Drugs continue to pour across our border, 
including record amounts of fentanyl, which are devastating 
states like West Virginia and killing a lot of our people.
    Mr. Secretary, you and I traveled to the border a few 
months ago and I greatly appreciated your invitation and 
willingness to do so. I saw all of this firsthand and the 
crossings have only increased since our visit and yet the 
Administration continues to insist that the border is secure.
    The facts on the ground that I just described apparently 
are not viewed as a security or law enforcement challenge but a 
more logistical challenge in processing migrants who arrive 
with no legal claim to enter the United States. Additionally, 
ICE apprehensions and deportations have plummeted and more 
criminal aliens are on the streets as a result.
    In light of these challenges, the Administration's fiscal 
year 2022 discretionary request for the department is highly 
concerning. Despite every other agency receiving substantial 
increases in funding, the Department of Homeland Security 
stands alone as the only department held virtually flat from 
last year. This is highly conspicuous thrift from an 
Administration that has already enacted and proposed trillions 
in new spending.
    And even before we get to fiscal year 2022, we need to get 
through this current year, this current fiscal year. In fiscal 
year 2019, during a lesser surge at the border, the 
Administration, and that was the Trump Administration, made a 
supplemental request for funds and Congress responded by 
providing an additional $1.3 billion to DHS.
    This year, we have received no supplemental request from 
the Administration, despite the fact that we know the border 
surge like the one we're facing now is placing significant 
strains on agency resources.
    The department does have transfer and reprogramming 
authorities, authorities that have been under attack in recent 
years, but which I have defended when they are used 
appropriately.
    So we continue to await the department's plan for financing 
the current surge. However, if we are facing costs comparable 
to fiscal year 2019, I'm concerned that attempting to cover 
such costs from within the department would stretch the 
intended purpose of its transfer and reprogramming authorities 
and inevitably strain the shared priorities of Congress and the 
department.
    Finally, I must address the border wall construction pause 
which violates decades of budget law precedents put forward by 
the GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). Vice Chairman 
Shelby and I laid out in great detail the legal case against 
this pause and while budget law may be arcane, the impact of 
this impoundment on our Border Patrol agents and our country's 
security I believe is very real.
    Every Administration is certainly entitled to their new 
priorities. It is not entitled to thwart laws that were enacted 
in previous years on a bipartisan basis. It is not entitled to 
under-execute on congressionally-appropriated funds in the 
hopes it can eventually thwart them all together.
    Despite all the noise, this committee has a history of 
working in a bipartisan way to further the mission of the 
department. When Administrations include unrealistic or 
unjustifiable proposals, we work across the aisle to try to 
move forward in a reasonable way. That's what this committee 
does and I'm sure that's what we'll do again this year.
    Thank you again, Mr. Secretary, for not just being here but 
for serving.
    Thank you.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Capito.
    Following the Secretary's opening statement, each member is 
going to be recognized for up to five minutes. We're going to 
do it by seniority.
    I would now recognize Secretary Mayorkas for your opening 
statement.

              SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS

    Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 
Member Capito, Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee.
    Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to be here 
today.
    Thank you. Is that better? Quiet is one thing I've never 
been accused of being, but I do want to express our thoughts 
and prayers for the families and loved ones of the victims of 
the mass shooting, Mr. Chairman, to which you referred in your 
opening remarks, the tragedy that occurred in the Northern part 
of the California earlier today.
    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is confronting 
serious, complex, and dynamic threats to the security of our 
Nation on a daily basis.
    Under the Biden-Harris Administration, we aggressively are 
pursuing efforts to address our most pressing security 
concerns, from cybersecurity to domestic violent extremism 
(DVE) to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and 
more. This is hard work but that is what the 240,000 colleagues 
in the Department of Homeland Security do every day. Their 
dedicated efforts keep our communities safe and secure, and the 
resources afforded by this Congress help to ensure that we can 
meet our mission effectively and recruit and retain our 
Nation's most talented professionals.
    The President's proposed budget will invest in our broad 
mission set, including preventing terrorism, securing and 
managing our borders, repairing the broken immigration system, 
safeguarding cyber and critical infrastructure, and 
strengthening national preparedness and resilience. It will 
provide DHS with the resources that we need to keep our country 
safe, strong, and prosperous.
    While I am unable to address specific details of the 
President's budget until it is released officially later this 
week, I welcome this opportunity to discuss several key agency 
priorities for fiscal year 2022 laid out in the President's 
$52.2 billion discretionary budget for DHS.
    This request includes approximately $1.2 billion for border 
infrastructure improvements to fund modernization of our land 
ports of entry and border security technology and to ensure the 
safe and humane treatment of migrants in U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) custody.
    It also would support our enhanced efforts to combat the 
smuggling and trafficking of people, illicit drugs, and weapons 
while providing for more efficient travel, trade, and commerce.
    We are working tirelessly to rebuild our immigration system 
into one that upholds our nation's laws and is fair, equitable, 
and reflects our values. To achieve this, the fiscal year 2022 
President's Budget includes $345 million for U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) to address naturalization, 
asylum, and other program backlogs. The budget submission also 
supports up to 125,000 refugee admissions in fiscal year 2022.
    To meet the President's bold vision for combating climate 
change, the discretionary budget includes an additional 
investment of $540 million above the fiscal year 2021-enacted 
level to increase resilience efforts and to enhance pre-
disaster planning.
    It will support resiliency in infrastructure, particularly 
for vulnerable and historically underserved communities, and it 
would resource the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
with the ability to hire additional staff to prepare and 
respond to the increasing number of emergencies and disasters 
that our Nation has experienced.
    In recent months, DHS has made it a top priority to address 
violent extremism, which I believe to be the most lethal and 
persistent terrorism-related threat to the United States today.
    The fiscal year 2022 President's Budget includes $131 
million to support innovative methods to prevent DVE while 
respecting privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. It also 
supports critical research of the root causes of 
radicalization, enhanced community outreach, and funding for 
locally-driven efforts.
    Finally, in the face of increasing cyber threats, it is 
critical that we promote resilience not only within the Federal 
Government but across the public and private sectors and our 
critical infrastructure systems. The recent ransomware attack 
on Colonial Pipeline serves as a stark example of this ever-
present threat.
    Our discretionary budget submission includes $2.1 billion 
for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 
(CISA), which leads DHS and interagency efforts to defend 
against today's threats and build a more secure and resilient 
future.
    We will also further strengthen the cyber capabilities of 
the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Coast 
Guard, the U.S. Secret Service, and U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement's (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations.
    The budget also proposes $618 million for needed 
investments in research and development and innovation across 
DHS, laying a strong foundation not just to respond to the 
threats of today but to prepare for and defend against the 
threats of tomorrow.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I am 
grateful for your continued support for the dedicated public 
servants of the Department of Homeland Security and for the 
work they do each and every day. I look forward to discussing 
the President's fiscal year 2022 Budget in greater detail when 
officially released and I look forward to your questions. Thank 
you.
    [The statement follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Hon. Alejandro N. Mayorkas
    Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Capito, and distinguished Members 
of the Subcommittee: It is a privilege to appear before you today to 
discuss the Department of Homeland Security's fiscal year 2022 Budget.
    On a daily basis, the more than 240,000 men and women of DHS 
respond to our Nation's most serious threats. DHS employees rise to 
every challenge, and the challenges are many. DHS is aggressively 
pursuing the Administration's priorities and addressing some of the 
most critical and evolving threats to the United States. We are 
focusing on defeating the COVID-19 pandemic, advancing technology for 
border security while promoting a humane and efficient immigration 
system, combatting Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE), and detecting, 
deterring, and recovering from malicious cyber-attacks. While I am 
unable to address the details of the Budget until it is officially 
released, I would like to highlight the work we have undertaken so far 
at DHS under the Biden-Harris Administration, as well as the priorities 
included in the fiscal year 2022 President's Budget.
                  responding to the covid-19 pandemic
    COVID-19 has impacted every facet of the American way of life, and 
DHS has been integral to the effort to successfully and equitably 
distribute COVID-19 vaccinations across the country.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency helped vaccinate more than 
5 million people at our community vaccination sites and remains 
committed to assisting government and nonprofit partners to help defeat 
this deadly pandemic. FEMA helped stand up over 1,000 federally- 
supported community vaccination centers. FEMA has provided more than 
$4.6 billion in support of vaccinations across the country.
    As Secretary, I have no greater obligation than that of ensuring 
the health and safety of our workforce, 80 percent of whom are 
frontline or public-facing employees. Five days into the Biden-Harris 
Administration, DHS launched Operation Vaccinate Our Workforce (VOW) to 
accelerate the administration of COVID-19 vaccines on a voluntary basis 
to frontline and public- facing DHS employees. On the first day of the 
Biden-Harris Administration, less than 2 percent of our frontline 
workforce who elected to receive the vaccine had been vaccinated.
    Today, that share has grown to more than 77 percent. Prioritizing 
the health and safety needs of the DHS workforce has enabled us to 
fulfill our mission even in a constrained COVID-19 environment. 
Operation VOW partnered with the Veterans Health Administration, a 
world-class healthcare system, to get COVID-19 vaccines into the arms 
of our frontline personnel.
    Our public health and medical professionals from the Chief Medical 
Officer's staff participated in the whole of government approach to 
combat the pandemic by serving on the Federal Healthcare Resilience 
Task Force, the Medical Countermeasures (MCM) Task Force, and deploying 
as part of a tactical medical assistance team. These efforts resulted 
in life-saving Personal Protective Equipment preservation best 
practices, the accelerated development, manufacture, and availability 
of COVID-19 MCMs, and the implementation of novel clinical and 
operational interventions that saved lives in diverse communities 
across the Nation.
                addressing the challenges at the border
    Since April 2020, the number of encounters at the border has been 
rising due to ongoing violence, natural disasters, food insecurity, and 
poverty in the Northern Triangle countries of Central America. This 
resulted in a substantial strain on the processing, transportation, and 
holding capacity of the U.S. Border Patrol. In response to the COVID-19 
pandemic, the recommended temporary holding capacity within all Border 
Patrol facilities had also been reduced by 75 percent to allow for 
increased physical distancing and to reduce the further spread of the 
disease. Compounding this challenge is the fact that the previous 
administration dismantled our Nation's immigration system, terminated 
the Central American Minors program, and cut hundreds of millions of 
dollars in foreign aid to the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, 
El Salvador, and Honduras. As a result, the recent surge in 
unaccompanied children presented a serious challenge for DHS and our 
colleagues at the Department of Health and Human Services.
    On March 13, I directed FEMA to support a government-wide effort to 
safely receive, shelter, and transfer unaccompanied children to HHS 
care and custody and onward to a verified sponsor. FEMA immediately 
integrated and co-located with HHS to look at every available option to 
support a quick expansion of HHS's physical capacity for the care and 
custody of unaccompanied children, and to support HHS in managing 
overall operations. FEMA has deployed more than 100 employees to help 
HHS identify locations for emergency shelters, oversee construction, 
and manage operations.
    Additionally, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) has 
trained and deployed more than 350 of its personnel to virtually 
interview unaccompanied children and potential sponsors, in order to 
provide case management for unaccompanied children in HHS custody at 
Emergency Intake Sites (EIS). As of May 4, 2021, USCIS personnel have 
conducted nearly 4,000 interviews and recommended more than 2,200 
children for release to a sponsor. CBP also constructed additional 
soft-sided facilities and stood up the interagency Movement 
Coordination Cell (MCC) to bring together colleagues from FEMA, HHS, 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and CBP to share a 
common operating picture. More than 400 additional DHS volunteers 
stepped up to help through the DHS Volunteer Force.
    Between March 13 and May 1, FEMA assisted in the activation of 
fourteen HHS EIS facilities. EIS facilities are operating in Texas, 
California, and Michigan, increasing the potential temporary bed 
capacity when fully staffed by 19,987 beds, or 1,999 percent.
    This additional bed capacity, along with improvements in the 
process of safely releasing unaccompanied children to sponsors, has 
resulted in the reduction of the total number of unaccompanied children 
in CBP custody from 5,767 at its peak on March 29th to 455 on May 11th. 
During this same period, the number of unaccompanied children who have 
been in custody longer than 72 hours has decreased from 4,078 at its 
peak on March 29th to zero on the morning of May 11th, while average 
time in custody for unaccompanied children has fallen from 133 hours on 
March 29th to 22 hours on the morning of May 11th. This progress 
occurred while CBP encountered 18,000 unaccompanied children in the 
month of April. For the seven-day period ending May 10th, CBP 
transferred an average of 422 unaccompanied children per day to ORR, 
approximately two-thirds of CBP's total unaccompanied child population 
on a given day and more than keeping pace with daily apprehensions.
           stopping the threat of domestic violent extremism
    As threats against the Nation evolve, it is critical that the 
Department adapts quickly and efficiently when necessary to meet any 
threat against the people of the United States. Domestic violent 
extremism is typically fueled by false narratives, conspiracy theories, 
and extremist rhetoric usually spread through social media and other 
online platforms. The lethality of this threat is all too real, as 
witnessed during the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 and 
recent attacks across the United States, including against government 
buildings, personnel, and minority groups. DHS is prioritizing 
addressing this threat while improving the quality of our intelligence 
gathering and analysis, information sharing, and DVE detection, 
prevention, and response efforts.
    Combatting this violence requires a whole-of-government and whole-
of-society approach, which I have already initiated at DHS in 
collaboration with key partners, including the Department of Justice, 
to help ensure the violence and assault on democracy that occurred on 
January 6th does not occur again. DHS has established a new, dedicated 
domestic terrorism branch within the Department's Office of 
Intelligence and Analysis, and recently established a new Center for 
Prevention Programs and Partnerships, replacing the Office for Targeted 
Violence and Terrorism Prevention. Further, DHS is increasing training 
opportunities for law enforcement partners, including through threat 
assessment and management programs related to domestic violent 
extremism. DHS also announced an internal review of the potential 
threat of DVE within the Department.
    In February, I designated, for the first time, combatting domestic 
violent extremism as a ``National Priority Area'' for the fiscal year 
2021 State Homeland Security Program and Urban Area Security Initiative 
grant programs. As a result, state, local, tribal, and territorial 
governments are required to spend 7.5 percent of their DHS grant awards 
combating this threat. On March 24, the Department made $20 million 
available through the Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention Grant 
Program to help communities across our country develop innovative 
capabilities to combat terrorism and targeted violence.
          bolstering cybersecurity and critical infrastructure
    Our Nation faces constant cyber threats from nation states and 
criminal groups alike. Earlier this month, the United States suffered a 
significant ransomware attack against its critical infrastructure. Over 
the past months, we discovered several intrusion campaigns impacting 
the Federal government. As the Nation's lead agency for protecting the 
Federal civilian government network and critical infrastructure against 
cybersecurity threats, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security 
Agency (CISA) serves a central role by enabling greater visibility into 
cybersecurity threats, strengthening incident response capabilities, 
and driving improvements in security practices. Congress recently 
empowered and further strengthened CISA through several provisions in 
the National Defense Authorization Act that the Department is now 
focused on implementing.
    On May 12, President Biden issued an Executive Order to bolster our 
Nation's cybersecurity and protect Federal government networks. This 
Order will empower DHS and our interagency partners to modernize 
Federal cybersecurity, expand information sharing, and dramatically 
improve our ability to prevent, detect, assess, and remediate cyber 
incidents. We are actively working to implement the Executive Order to 
help agencies improve their security posture, develop a standard 
playbook for incident response, and establish a Cyber Safety Review 
Board comprised of public and private sector stakeholders.
    In addition to the NDAA and the Executive Order, I announced a 
series of 60-day ``sprints'' to mobilize action across the Department 
focusing on specific priority areas. The first sprint is dedicated to 
the fight against ransomware, a particularly egregious type of 
malicious cyber activity that usually does not discriminate whom it 
targets. The second is dedicated to building a more robust and diverse 
workforce at the Department and beyond. We are currently in the midst 
of advancing these sprints before we will turn to better protecting 
industrial control systems, cybersecurity in the context of our 
transportation systems, and our election infrastructure.
                funding priorities for fiscal year 2022
    As the Department supports the priorities of the new 
Administration, we recognize the opportunities to partner with Congress 
in a variety of efforts, both foreign and domestic, to take DHS into 
the future. Focusing on advanced technology for border security, 
promoting an orderly, safe, and humane immigration system, enhancing 
privacy and civil rights protections, and supporting Federal, State, 
local, and private entities' efforts to detect, deter, and recover from 
malicious cyber-attacks, these priorities directly impact the security 
and safety of Americans. The fiscal year 2022 President's Budget will 
ensure that we have the tools we need to meet our mission.
    While I am unable to address the specific DHS items for the fiscal 
year 2022 President's Budget, I would like to highlight the 
Administration's priorities that were included in the recent 
discretionary request. The President's fiscal year 2022 discretionary 
request provides $52.2 billion for DHS, approximately equal to the 
fiscal year 2021 enacted level.
    The discretionary request provides approximately $1.2 billion for 
border infrastructure that includes construction and modernization of 
land Ports of Entry; investments in modern border security technology 
and assets; and, efforts to ensure the safe, orderly, and humane 
treatment of migrants in CBP custody. These investments would 
facilitate security screening to combat human smuggling and 
trafficking, the movement of illicit drugs and weapons, as well as 
provide for the more efficient processing of legal trade, travel, and 
commerce through the Nation's Ports of Entry. In addition, the request 
includes no new funding for border wall construction and proposes the 
cancellation of prior-year wall construction balances that are 
unobligated when Congress takes action on the fiscal year 2022 request.
    The fiscal year 2022 request supports the promise of a fair and 
equitable immigration system that enforces our immigration laws and 
reflects the Nation's values. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
identified $345 million in the discretionary request to address 
naturalization, asylum, and other program backlogs, supporting up to 
125,000 refugee admissions in 2022, and addressing systems and 
operations modernization. In addition, U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement will expand access to the Alternatives to Detention program 
and provides enhanced case management services, particularly for 
families seeking asylum.
    Along with the ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 
discretionary request expands DHS's work with State and local 
communities to prepare for the impacts of climate change. The 
discretionary request invests an additional $540 million above the 2021 
enacted level to incorporate climate impacts into pre-disaster planning 
and resilience efforts. This funding level also supports a resilient 
infrastructure community grant program, which prioritizes climate 
resilience projects for vulnerable and historically underserved 
communities. In addition, the discretionary request continues 
investments in the incident response workforce to ensure sufficient 
personnel are trained and available for deployment to help communities 
respond to future disasters. The discretionary request would also 
increase the number of FEMA staff equipped to support communities in 
order to prepare and respond to disasters in an equitable manner.
    The discretionary request provides a total of $131 million to 
support diverse, innovative, and community-driven methods to prevent 
domestic terrorism while respecting privacy, civil rights, and civil 
liberties. This funding builds on the 2021 enacted level, while 
supporting critical research on the root causes of radicalization and 
enhanced community outreach. The request includes $20 million for 
grants to build local capacity to prevent targeted violence and all 
forms of terrorism, in addition to approximately $75 million available 
under the FEMA Homeland Security Grant Program.
    The discretionary request addresses, in a variety of ways, the 
challenges and potential threats identified by recent cybersecurity 
incidents. The discretionary request provides $2.1 billion for CISA, 
which builds on the $650 million provided for CISA in the American 
Rescue Plan Act of 2021. This funding would allow CISA to enhance its 
cybersecurity tools, hire highly qualified experts, and obtain support 
services to protect and defend Federal information technology systems. 
The discretionary request also proposes $618 million for investments in 
research, development, and innovation across the Department, to lay a 
strong and relevant foundation for securing the American public from 
future threats. These projects focus on climate resilience, 
cybersecurity data analytics, and transportation security technologies 
while building on existing infrastructure throughout the Department.
    I am honored to support and represent the dedicated DHS workforce. 
Their commitment to the dynamic homeland security mission is 
unwavering, and I vow to do everything in my authority as Secretary to 
ensure they are resourced, compensated, and recognized appropriately. 
Therefore, I ask for your continued support in providing the resources 
we need to meet our mission.
    I look forward to discussing the fiscal year 2022 President's 
Budget in greater detail when it is officially released, and I welcome 
any questions that you have at this time.

    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank 
you for appearing before us today. I know it's been a long day 
having testified before the House, as well. So we'll get right 
to it.

                      IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT

    I wanted to first ask you a question about enforcement of 
immigration laws, especially in light of a curiously timed 
article in the Washington Post from last evening. We handed you 
a mess and, frankly, we've handed every recent Secretary a mess 
by refusing to update our immigration laws, despite having 
opportunities to do so, and so you have to make choices when it 
comes to enforcement.
    During the Trump Administration, I just couldn't believe 
the choices that were being made. I couldn't believe the choice 
to, you know, round up mothers with medically-fragile children, 
separate them from their kids to send them back home. That 
didn't seem to make America any stronger.
    You and the President have announced some interim guidance 
around enforcement in order to make sure that we are in fact 
going after the individuals who are here without documentation 
that pose a real danger to the country.
    There was this article last night in the Washington Post 
that suggested something very different and I wanted to give 
you a chance to, you know, both characterize the way in which 
you are currently choosing to prioritize enforcement of 
immigration laws and let you respond to that article.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Our objective, in fact our commitment, is a safe, orderly, 
and humane immigration system, and when it comes specifically 
to the enforcement realm of the immigration system, we intend 
to be smart and effective.
    I worked for 12 years as a Federal prosecutor and what we 
did with limited resources was to assess the threat landscape, 
the criminal landscape, and decide what was the most efficient 
and effective way of using those resources to have the greatest 
public safety impact and that model is no different in the 
civil immigration enforcement arena.
    We are provided with resources. We assess the issue in the 
United States, and we decide how can we use these resources to 
have the greatest public safety impact, recognizing that we are 
working on a landscape of a completely broken immigration 
system that everyone agrees is broken and that is in dire need 
of a legislative solution. On that landscape and with those 
resources, we will be smart and effective and we also will be 
humane.
    Senator Murphy. The characterization in the Post that 
you're only doing a handful of actions a month, is that backed 
up by data you've seen?
    Mr. Mayorkas. That data item in the article is something 
with which I am completely unfamiliar.
    Senator Murphy. Okay.
    Mr. Mayorkas. I will say that smart and effective law 
enforcement is not to be measured quantitatively. It is to be 
measured qualitatively. Who poses the greatest public safety 
threat and are we dedicating appropriately our limited 
resources to apprehend and remove those individuals, and indeed 
this Administration is.

                      BORDER APPREHENSION NUMBERS

    Senator Murphy. I'm going to try to sneak in two other 
topics before my time is up.
    First, I want to talk about numbers of apprehensions at the 
border. These numbers are very high and as we discussed that's 
for a variety of reasons, but when you ban adult males from 
being--adult single individuals from being able to apply for 
asylum, those that have legitimate claims of asylum, meaning 
their life is in jeopardy if they go home, are going to do 
whatever is necessary to get into the United States, and so my 
sense is that one of the reasons that these numbers are high is 
that you have individuals who are making multiple presentations 
at the border, people who can't apply for asylum, who are 
desperate to get into the United States because of the risks to 
their body and to their physical safety back home.
    Recidivism is a consequence of a Title 42 authority that 
doesn't allow a lion's share of individuals presenting at the 
border to apply for asylum, is that right?
    Mr. Mayorkas. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Murphy. I just think that's an important thing for 
our committee to consider.

                         FEMA MITIGATION FUNDS

    Turning now to another topic, I wanted to give you a chance 
to talk a little bit about FEMA mitigation. I think it's so 
important to be able to shift our spending away from disaster 
response to prevention.
    My state has a laundry list of projects along our shoreline 
that not only houses a big portion of our population but 
Interstate 95, the Metro North, and Amtrak line, in which, if 
we spent a little bit of money upfront, we could prevent the 
next disaster from taking out critical infrastructure, from 
displacing many of our citizens.
    The last round of BRIC funding, there was $500 million 
available but $3.6 billion worth of projects. So you've made an 
announcement that $1 billion is going to be allocated. That's 
in your current authority.
    Do you envision adding on to that number in the budget 
request that you're going to make? How did you arrive at the 
number $1 billion? It seems like even that is probably not a 
big enough investment to be able to provide the return that we 
know is available if we put money upfront rather than at the 
back end.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, the underlying premise of the 
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) 
funding is the following that if we can spend a dollar on 
prevention, we will save much more on the costs of recovery, 
and what we decided in reaching that $1 billion amount was that 
it's a very significant increase. It's a doubling of the prior 
allocation of resources, is how much we can increase that 
amount while also achieving the operational efficiencies that 
an increase will require.
    Programmatically, what can we do, how much can we do at one 
point in time, and that is how we reached the doubling of that 
figure. It's an extraordinary program and I echo your belief 
that dollars spent on prevention is the most effective and 
efficient way to spend public resources in addressing the clear 
consequences of significant disaster weather events.
    Senator Murphy. I'll make one final request and then turn 
it over to others.
    One of the issues that gets raised in my state on that 
account is the belief that given the high level of competition, 
it's bigger jurisdictions with larger grant application 
authorities that get advantage, and so as we increase the 
amount of money, which I think is critical, I hope that you'll 
also work with those of us that represent a lot of small 
communities and most of our towns along the shoreline in 
Connecticut are small communities to make sure that they are 
competitive with some of the bigger cities and counties and 
state applications that come before the agency.
    Mr. Mayorkas. We most certainly will, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much.
    Senator Capito.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I agree with 
you on the smaller cities. Obviously a state like mine has all 
small cities and towns but have just as devastating effects 
sometimes.
    I will say this on the resilience issue as we're looking to 
negotiate a larger infrastructure package. The President has 
asked for resiliency in fairly large amounts. I think it's 
interesting to note that under FEMA, it's another $1 billion. 
So it'll cut across all different aspects of not just 
transportation sector but other aspects, as well. I'm just kind 
of making a note of that as I decide what direction to go with 
my next offer on that.

                      BORDER APPREHENSION NUMBERS

    Question. You said the facts in the newspaper article were 
not--the data was not--it was--you don't know what that data 
was. So the data that I just saw from the article was that 
there's fewer than 3,000 arrests and that means that of the 
6,000 officers, they're extrapolating that that would be one 
arrest every 2 months.
    What part of the data is incorrect there, that doesn't look 
familiar to you?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Ranking Member Capito, I am not familiar with 
the data that suggests that the ICE officer, the relevant ICE 
officer conducts one arrest every 2 months.
    Senator Capito. So you don't dispute that there are 3,000 
arrests and 6,000 officers?
    Mr. Mayorkas. I don't have the data at my fingertips, but I 
will provide it to this committee.
    [The information follows:]

    ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) is a large 
organization that performs a variety of missions spanning the 
immigration enforcement continuum--from identification and arrest, to 
detention and case management, to repatriation efforts. As a result, 
ICE's Deportation Officer (DO) workforce is responsible for much more 
than just executing arrests.
    The ICE ERO DO workforce currently has 6,500 funded positions, 
approximately 2,000 of which are primarily focused on conducting 
arrests. ICE ERO has more than 830 DOs assigned to 139 at-large teams 
who work as a group to identify, locate, and arrest priority 
noncitizens. In addition to the at-large teams, there are also 1,150 
officers assigned to interview noncitizens identified in Federal, 
state, or local criminal custody and to assess the case for immigration 
enforcement action when appropriate.

    Senator Capito. Okay.
    Mr. Mayorkas. I will say that the preliminary data that I 
have received does suggest that we are apprehending more 
serious criminals, more serious public safety threats than 
previously was the case.
    Senator Capito. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Mayorkas. That is what smart and effective enforcement 
is all about.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.

                           TITLE 42 AUTHORITY

    I want to go to the future of Title 42 because I think this 
is coming up on us quickly. I think the Chairman noticed this. 
You are now able to quickly expel 60 percent of all family 
units and single adults suing the CBP's Title 42 authority, and 
I support the use of that for right now, but we know there are 
test cases in the courts and others, and you and I've talked 
about this.
    When CBP loses that Title 42 authority, how are you going 
to manage what could be about 6,000--well, what is now 6,000 
migrants a day when you can no longer expel 60 percent of them?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Ranking Member Capito, the Title 42 
authority, the predicate for this exchange is that the Title 42 
authority is a public health authority, not an immigration 
policy authority.
    Senator Capito. Right, right.
    Mr. Mayorkas. And so, when the public health imperative no 
longer exists, we no longer can use that authority.
    Senator Capito. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorkas. In fact, our use of Title 42 authority is 
subject to litigation challenge as we speak.
    We have different resources and different authorities at 
our disposal. One of them, of course, is Title 8 of the United 
States Code, which is in fact an immigration enforcement 
authority, the authority to remove individuals who do not have 
legitimate claims for relief under United States law.
    I should say one important thing and that is that not only 
are we building back our asylum program but we are building it 
back better. In that regard, when I first joined the Department 
of Homeland Security back in 2009, the average length of time 
it took to adjudicate an asylum claim from the point of 
apprehension to the point of final resolution was about 6 years 
and that reflects a broken system.
    So one of the things that we are doing is looking at our 
regulatory authorities and what we can do to bring greater 
efficiency to the process and shrink that time considerably 
between apprehension and final adjudication so that, number 1, 
we have a system that works, and, number 2, quite frankly, we 
deliver results that both the applicants for asylum relief 
deserve and the American public deserves.
    Senator Capito. Well, and, I mean, certainly you're 
anticipating us--I mean, the Chairman even alluded to a surge 
when this Title 42 disappears, and I'm wondering along with the 
surge for the CBP, there's also going to be a surge for ICE, 
and I'm wondering, you know, are you planning ahead for these 
kinds of things that you know are going to happen, and what 
kind of strategic thought is going into that?
    Mr. Mayorkas. We are most certainly planning for it and, as 
a matter of fact, when my testimony concludes this afternoon, I 
have a meeting on this very subject with CBP, with ICE, and 
with the USCIS.
    It is our responsibility to plan ahead. That's what we do 
every single day and every single year that I have been 
privileged to serve in the Department.
    Senator Capito. Well, I'm not sure we're quite planned 
ahead for the number of children that came over when we saw 
those lengthy stays and more maxed facilities kind of maxed out 
beyond what their capacity was, but I'll let that one go.
    I have one last question in this round related to this. Do 
you have knowledge of tent cities that have been set up on the 
northern border of Mexico, and I'm assuming those are set up--I 
think those are set up for the adults that are awaiting for 
this Title 42 authority to go home to do that surge. Are you 
aware of that kind of scenario occurring in Mexico right now?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Ranking Member Capito, I am very well aware 
of Camp Matamoros. It was quite notorious for regrettable 
reasons, for the conditions in that camp. It was a product of 
the Remain in Mexico policy.
    We developed a platform for the safe, orderly, and humane 
adjudication of the claims of individuals who were in that camp 
and those individuals are no longer in that camp. The platform 
that we developed is actually a platform for the future, a 
really terrific innovative use of technology to provide a legal 
pathway for individuals who have claims for relief under United 
States law.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Murphy. Senator Murkowski.

                          H2B VISA ALLOCATIONS

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, good to see you, and I'm going to move from 
the southern border and head up north here for a couple 
questions for you.
    You and I have had an opportunity to talk about the 
significance of Alaska's fisheries, the fact that about 60 
percent of our nation's seafood landings come out of Alaska. We 
got a lot of fish, but we don't have a lot of workers, and so 
we have been challenged year over year as it relates to gaining 
adequate workers. We rely on the H2B visa allocations to help 
us meet that. Without adequate processing, the fishermen have 
no place to take their fish and not only does it impact the 
fishermen and their families but the market that is waiting.
    You kept your promise and delivered in advance of a 
significant date, which I appreciate, as it related to lifting 
the cap. I've had a conversation with you about some of the 
limitations of that cap and how it does not directly meet the 
immediacy of our issue right now, the need for some additional 
flexibility with regard to those visas.
    It's been very significant that there is a carve-out for 
Northern Triangle countries but again recognizing that we've 
got some limitations here in ability to get returning workers, 
I had asked if you could look further into whether or not we 
might be able to do something for the balance of this summer 
but also more to the long term.
    This is an issue that is certainly not unique to Alaska but 
knowing that we need to be working with one another to address 
the authorities under H2B or H2As to prioritize and address 
these visa issues as they relate to our seafood processors.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you very much, Senator.
    Since you and I last spoke, I have delved into the concerns 
that you expressed on behalf of employers in the Alaskan 
fisheries industry. It is my plan to engage with those 
employers next week to hear directly from them with respect to 
their concerns, particularly with respect to the obligation to 
use returning workers and I want to make sure that they 
understand the parameters of that and how broad they are and to 
assess whether once we discuss that, whether that really 
addresses their concerns and their needs. If not, we will 
confer internally and will take it step by step.
    With respect to the long-term issues with the H2B program, 
I am very well aware of those and I hope that we can design and 
implement next year a very different H2B program that addresses 
the majority of the concerns with respect to whatever 
legislative constraints we have.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, we'll work with you on that. With 
regard to this summer, though, I will actually be up in the 
region next week. I know there is a great deal of anxiety 
because the fish don't really care what we're doing back here 
in Washington and what our timeline is and so being able to 
process these very, very quickly, we were able to work through 
some issues with the Serbian Consulate and that has really been 
a bit of a relief, but we've got some issues that are urgent 
and immediate.
    So as soon as you can, put some folks to address this. It 
is appreciated.

                         POLAR SECURITY CUTTERS

    Let me ask for my second question for a little bit of an 
update here when it comes to Polar Security Cutters. This 
subcommittee has been very helpful over recent years with 
regards to the PSC Program to ensure that as an Arctic nation, 
we actually have vessels in the water that can go through ice, 
Polar Security Cutters.
    Last year there was some discussion about leasing 
icebreakers. We've had a conversation. I suppose leasing but 
only, only if it doesn't compromise the Coast Guard's ability 
to eventually build up and plus-up their fleet of Arctic-
capable icebreakers.
    So I know we're not talking about the not-yet-released 
budget, but can you tell me how the Administration plans to 
continue this positive momentum on the Polar Security Cutters 
and commit to prioritizing the PSC Program and that no funds 
will be reprogrammed from the PSC Program to fund a lease?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, we are 100 percent committed to 
augmenting the Coast Guard fleet. We recognize the importance 
of those cutters. We do not intend to compromise the funding of 
those cutters, and we will lease to the extent that we can and 
only as a bridge during that time that we do not have built and 
owned vessels. It will not be at the expense of that.
    Senator Murkowski. Good. I appreciate that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman.
    Senator Capito. Yes. Senator Hoeven.

                    BORDER APPREHENSIONS AND RETURNS

    Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, of the 170,622 persons that attempted to 
enter or did enter the United States on the southern border in 
April, how many are here and how many were returned to their 
home countries?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, I will have to get that data to you. 
I don't have the numbers at my disposal, but I certainly will 
provide the data to you.
    [The information follows:]

    During April and May of 2021, along the Southwest Border, more than 
39,000 individuals were processed with a Warrant/Notice to Appear 
(NTA)--Detained, and more than 33,000 individuals were processed with 
an NTA--Released. During the same time period, nearly 19,000 
individuals were processed with a Notice to Report. Along with those 
NTAs, during April 2021, along the Southwest Border, more than 12,000 
individuals were processed with a disposition for release that did not 
include an NTA. The remainder appear to have been expelled, removed, or 
returned, including approximately 61,000 Mexican nationals during April 
2021.
    ICE is able to report if individuals released by CBP at the border 
are abiding by the reporting requirements once those individuals report 
to ICE Field Offices located in the jurisdiction of their final 
destination.
    Depending on where a case may be within the removal process (pre- 
or post-final order), ICE will make reasonable attempts to make contact 
using many different methods, including contacting known relations or 
contacts provided by the individual during processing, tracking the 
noncitizen if being monitored via technology, making contact at the 
last known address, running database checks to locate, or when 
appropriate, referring to an at-large team to apprehend.

    I can assure you that individuals who are apprehended and 
processed and whom we are not able to expel under Title 42 
authority in this current environment are placed into 
immigration proceedings.
    Senator Hoeven. You mentioned Camp Matamoros and that you 
had a platform for addressing those individuals.
    Where are those individuals while they're awaiting 
adjudication? Where are they?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Individuals, Senator, who have made claims 
for humanitarian relief under the laws of the United States are 
awaiting the adjudication of those claims in the United States.
    Senator Hoeven. Right. But that adjudication, that court 
hearing date can be out as much as 3 years right now, correct?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, that has been the case for years and 
years--
    Senator Hoeven. You understand--
    Mr. Mayorkas [continuing]. and if I may, this 
Administration for the first time is actually tackling that 
infirmity of process and working to shorten that timeframe for 
the delivery of justice for the American public and the 
individuals who make claims for humanitarian relief.
    Senator Hoeven. Good to hear that you're shortening the 
timeframe. What is that timeframe right now because my 
indication, or what I have heard down at the border, is that it 
is still about a three-year time.
    Mr. Mayorkas. It varies considerably, but we are doing a 
number of different things to shorten that timeframe as quickly 
as possible.
    One, we are looking at our regulatory authority and how we 
can process asylum claims more effectively. Two, the Department 
of Justice is looking at the immigration courts and how we can 
use that resource to deliver final results more expeditiously 
and efficiently.
    Senator Hoeven. And where are the individuals while they're 
awaiting that adjudication?
    Mr. Mayorkas. They are in the United States of America.
    Senator Hoeven. Are they released into the public at large 
or how do you track and know where they are so that you can 
make sure they go through the adjudication process?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Those individuals are in immigration 
proceedings. They are subject to an NTA. They have a court date 
that identifies a location, a time, and a place, and there are 
individualized determinations whether those individuals should 
in fact be on alternatives to detention or whether by reason of 
what they present from a public safety perspective or risk of 
flight, whether they should be detained.
    Senator Hoeven. Do you have statistics on how many are 
appearing?
    Mr. Mayorkas. The appearance rate thus far in terms of 
appearing at an ICE facility to report has been very, very 
high, and I would be pleased to provide you with data.
    [The information follows:]

    Of the 45,390 CBP prosecutorial discretion releases in the third 
quarter of fiscal year 2021, 5,129 had been issued charging documents 
as of 07/09/2021. Given case processing times, the vast majority of 
individuals are still pending their first scheduled immigration 
hearing. ICE respectfully defers to the Executive Office for 
Immigration Review for information pertaining to immigration court 
appearance rates.
    Of the above, 39,718 have not established contact with ICE to 
receive a charging document, and 5,672 have made contact with ICE to 
further the charging document issuance process. Of those individuals 
who have not contacted ICE, 24,791 are within their 60-day reporting 
period while 14,927 are past the 60-day reporting period.

    Senator Hoeven. I'd appreciate that. If you could provide, 
in addition to what I asked initially is how many have been 
returned to their country of origin versus how many stay of the 
more than 178,000 came in April, but then also if you do have 
expedited procedures, if you could provide me metrics on how 
many of those people you actually have track of and appear, 
that would be helpful, too.
    I mean, this goes to the whole question of do we have 
control of our southern border, showing us those metrics is 
going to be very important.
    As you know, we see people coming across. I've been down 
there, and I think for the public to believe that you have 
control of that border they're going to have to see those 
metrics. Would you agree with that?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, metrics are very important. Data is 
very important, which is why I'm not exactly sure of the 
178,000 figure that you cite.

                      BORDER APPREHENSION METRICS

    Senator Hoeven. Well--
    Mr. Mayorkas. Is that 178,000 apprehensions?
    Senator Hoeven [continuing]. 178,622 persons attempted to 
enter the United States via the southwest border in April of 
2020.
    Mr. Mayorkas. I think are you speaking of apprehensions 
because apprehensions at the southern border also can include 
recidivism.
    Senator Hoeven. Should be 2021. I'm sorry.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Also could include the recidivism to which 
the Chairman referenced earlier. So those may not be unique 
individuals and that may actually--if we're speaking of 
apprehensions, may also include the individuals who are 
expelled under Title 42 of the United States Code, which is the 
public health authority.
    Senator Hoeven. Where I'm really going with this is showing 
that you have control of the southern border both in terms of 
your plan and your metrics so we can see if it is working. If 
it is not working, where are we making progress and where are 
we not.
    Mr. Mayorkas. We will share that data.
    Senator Hoeven. That's really what I'm looking for from 
you.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Most certainly, Senator, you have a right to 
that data and we will provide it to you.
    Senator Hoeven. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Appreciate 
it.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--Madam Chairman.

                        BORDER SECURITY FUNDING

    Senator Capito. Senator Hyde-Smith.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank 
you for being here and your willingness to participate in this 
hearing.
    Mr. Secretary, as you are well aware of in combination with 
good policy, funding is a critical pillar in providing agents 
at the southern border with the tools that they need to do 
their job, and I, too, have been there and talked to many of 
the Border Patrol agents.
    They're required to enforce our Federal immigration and 
border security laws and despite the predictable surge of 
dangerous illegal crossings likely resulting from maybe 
campaign rhetoric and softened immigration policies, we have 
also seen reports of a lot of cost increases which is 
consistent with many of the Biden Administration's priorities 
in its brief 5 months.
    Mr. Secretary, what commitments will you give us that any 
funding allocated to your department for border security and 
immigration enforcement will be used on proven and logical 
solutions to resecure our borders and discourage this dangerous 
influx of migrants?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, you have a hundred percent 
commitment from me that the funding we will receive and are 
privileged to receive will be used in the smartest and most 
effective way for securing our border and enforcing the 
immigration laws of this country.

                        U.S. COAST GUARD FUNDING

    Senator Hyde-Smith. And a follow-up to that. With the 
agencies under your purview stretched thin while combating the 
border security crisis, I am concerned the other areas of focus 
may not receive the attention or resources necessary to safely 
complete missions and day-to-day operations.
    I'm sure we can agree on the strategic value of the United 
States Coast Guard and the importance of funding for vessels, 
aircraft, and equipment required for these men and women to 
carry out their domestic missions, such as drug interdiction, 
migrant apprehension, and with all the additional contraband 
that we are seeing come across the border daily, do you agree 
that we should not draw resources away from the Coast Guard 
which is a vital partner in the homeland security mission to 
pay for the unplanned and rising cost of the crisis at the 
southern border?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, I respectfully disagree with the 
framing of the question, if I may.
    I have worked with the Coast Guard for many, many years, 
and I have addressed the challenges at the border for even more 
years, from 1989 through 2001 as a Federal prosecutor.
    The Coast Guard and other agencies within the Department of 
Homeland Security have a complex and varied and dynamic mission 
set, and we can accomplish different parts of that dynamic and 
complex mission set effectively.
    We can in fact interdict drugs, interdict migrants at sea 
as the Coast Guard so effectively and nobly does, and address 
other challenges, as well.
    The United States Border Patrol conducts the interdiction 
of contraband, the interdiction of illicit drugs, the 
interdiction of migrants through the use of innovation, through 
the use of, frankly, the men and women of the Border Patrol 
themselves.
    We do varied and multiple things simultaneously and we will 
continue to do so effectively and smartly and use our resources 
appropriately.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. I'm just very concerned with the Coast 
Guard and their funds being drawn away from that and it's very 
concerning to me because they do play such a vital role. So you 
can't commit to me that you would not pull away funding from 
the Coast Guard to accomplish this to address the rising cost?
    Mr. Mayorkas. I commit to you that the funding that the 
Coast Guard receives will be used by the United States Coast 
Guard to most effectively conduct and accomplish its varied 
missions.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. That's it. I'm just concerned that 
that's going to be drawn upon and it's too important to be 
taking that away.
    Mr. Mayorkas. If I may, I don't agree with the premise that 
we take resources from one mission set and deprive that mission 
set of its attention to address another mission set.
    What we have is a very dynamic and evolving landscape and 
we address the urgencies that we confront as our mission 
dictates, and I will not deprive the Coast Guard of addressing 
the greatest urgency and the greatest priority as the mission 
requires and that commitment I do make to you.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Okay. I'm out of time. I had one more 
question but I'll just submit it.
    Thank you.

                          SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith.
    Let me, before I turn it over to Senator Capito to ask a 
second round of questions so she can vote, let me just 
associate myself with the original remarks of the Ranking 
Member on this question of the increased expenses necessary to 
handle the numbers at the border.
    I mean, obviously this is going to have to either come from 
other parts of the budget or there's going to have to be a 
supplemental made and I share the concern that if it's a 
transfer request, there will have to be some difficult choices 
to be made and I think having a dialogue now, Mr. Secretary, 
between you and the committee about sort of what those 
transfers might look like and what impact they may have.
    I understand your commitment today that you're not going to 
harm the mission of other agencies is a really important one. I 
understand there may be some hesitancy to put a supplemental 
request before the body because of the debate that that may 
stir, but I think early dialogue on this will be really, really 
important.
    Senator Capito.

                   ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION SURGE FACTORS

    Senator Capito. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting 
me jump in front of you so I can go vote and if I don't see you 
again, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I'll see you again, but if I 
don't see you again today, thank you.
    I wanted to ask a question about the push factors in home 
countries as a cause for the current surge of illegal 
immigration. In your testimony, you laid the blame on ongoing 
violence, national disasters, food insecurity, and poverty in 
the Northern Triangle.
    However, I'm sure you're well aware that the spike in 
individuals is not from Mexico or the Northern Triangle, and 
according to CBP's monthly report, nearly 34,000 folks were 
encountered that were not in either the Mexico or Northern 
Triangle category.
    So I'm wondering what your account for that, and we already 
have sent $4 billion in foreign aid to the countries in Central 
America, but what are we doing to address the rise in illegal 
immigration from other countries? We met some of these young 
ladies when we were together 2 months ago down there from 
Ecuador, Brazil, Nicaragua, and other countries.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, Ranking Member Capito, it's a very 
important question and the strategy depends sometimes on the 
particular country of origin. Of course, we have seen illegal 
immigration or irregular immigration from countries other than 
the Northern Triangle, countries other than Mexico, 
periodically throughout the years and throughout the decades.
    Let me cite one example, and you reference it in your 
question is an increase in the amount of migration, irregular 
migration from Brazil, and the data that I have read suggests 
that that has been occasioned by the economic conditions in 
Brazil caused by the pandemic, the closing of businesses, and 
the loss of jobs.
    We have a particular strategy there that might be distinct 
from a strategy that we employ with respect to the Northern 
Triangle countries or, quite frankly, some of the European 
countries from which we are seeing an increase in migration.
    Regrettably, the COVID-19 pandemic has afflicted countries 
all around the world and the migratory challenges 
correspondingly, not just for the United States but for other 
countries of destination.

                          CYBERSECURITY HIRING

    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you.
    I want to ask a question on cybersecurity. This is 
something that I'm very concerned about and I'm certain that 
you are, as well. You unveiled Cybersecurity Talent Management 
System was unveiled in 2019 to not only better align cyber 
talent with the right operational needs but to also attract 
cyber professionals that are badly needed.
    I view these as critical to fill the gaps that are going to 
be required. You talked about the ransomware issue. That's just 
one small part of it. Believe it or not we have been talking 
about this critical need since 2014 when the Cybersecurity 
Talent Management System was first authorized.
    When will the Cybersecurity Talent Management System go 
live, and it's really taken--I know you haven't been there as 
long, but it has really taken a long time for the cyber 
professionals to be hired into Secret Service, ICE, CBP, CISA. 
Where do you see this initiative going?
    Mr. Mayorkas. We are going to have probably the greatest 
hiring surge in the cybersecurity talent domain that ever has 
occurred. Working with CISA within DHS, as well as our 
Management Directorate, we have launched two cybersecurity 
sprints.
    One, of course, was dedicated to ransomware well before the 
Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack, which galvanized public 
attention and correctly so. Our second sprint is precisely on 
this subject about which you inquire, which is cybersecurity 
security talent recruiting.
    I launched a partnership with the Girl Scouts of America. 
One is never too young to start on a path to success to meet a 
critical national need, and we have a whole plan that I welcome 
the opportunity to share with you, Ranking Member Capito, about 
our focus on recruitment and retention of cybersecurity talent, 
including reforms to the pay scales, so that we can compete 
better with the private sector.
    Senator Capito. Well, I know that that is a big issue 
because they're in great demand across all kinds of spectrum 
and sometimes the government has difficulty--maybe the 
government can train everybody so they can go out into the 
private sector and make a whole heck of a lot more money. I 
think that's an issue, as well.
    So I look forward to following up with you on that, and 
thank you again for being here today.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you.

                    REPROGRAMMING/TRANSFER OF FUNDS

    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It's been a long 
day for you. A couple more questions.
    I wanted to let Senator Capito fit in her questions before 
she left, but if you could just respond to the issue I raised. 
Again, I think it's a legitimate question as to how we're going 
to make sure you have the sufficient funds to pay the increased 
bills, as I mentioned in my opening statement, largely out of 
control of the Administration, regarding increased numbers of 
apprehensions and presentations at the border.
    What factors go into your decision as to whether to 
transfer money and make that request to this committee versus 
come and ask for a supplemental appropriation?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, I think it is our 
responsibility to look at the resources that we have to ensure 
that we are using them wisely, most efficiently, and see what 
we can do within the funding that we already have received 
before we come back to Congress and ask for more.
    We are assessing that now. I would anticipate that we will 
indeed seek a reprogramming within the timeframe that we are 
permitted, that we will be before you at the end of June. 
That's something that we are assessing right now, and we're 
very focused upon that, but I think we have an obligation to 
look inside before we go outside.

                        BORDER WALL CONSTRUCTION

    Senator Murphy. Let me ask you to talk a little bit about 
Senator Capito's letter to you regarding the decision to 
suspend construction of the border wall. It's no secret, I 
think the border wall is a terrible idea, a waste of taxpayer 
money, an invitation to continue to seed these illegitimate 
fears of immigrants. It was the foundation of the President's 
political endeavors.
    But the part of the letter I agree with is that when 
Congress does direct the Administration to spend money, the 
Administration has a responsibility to spend that money unless 
it goes through the processes necessary to apply for a 
rescission.
    What I've seen, though, is that the GAO in particular has 
made some findings about the process used to build the border 
wall that are pretty stunning. Most recently, GAO found that 10 
of 11 congressional requirements connected to the construction 
of the wall were not fully addressed, including, you know, 
basic things like the implementation schedule and analysis of 
alternatives or even identifying the things that might actually 
impact whether it would actually impact our border security 
goals.
    And so as you're in this review process, have you 
identified some of the failings that were noted in that GAO 
report, and you also, I think, acknowledge Congress's equity 
here, which is to, you know, make sure that notwithstanding our 
personal opinions on the wisdom of the funding decision that 
there is a responsibility for the Administration to either 
spend it or come back to Congress and explain why they aren't?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, number 1, we're very well aware 
of our legal responsibilities and we indeed are complying with 
those legal responsibilities.
    I'm also aware of the GAO report and its findings and we 
are studying the work that was done and what we have underway 
with respect to those findings and making sure that we do not 
perpetuate any infirmities of the past.
    Senator Murphy. Yeah. Again, pretty stunning list of 
infirmities found by GAO, in addition to the fact that the last 
Administration waived a whole host of Federal, state, and local 
laws that would have required a much more thorough vetting of 
construction activities. I would hope that the Administration 
is taking a look at the impact of those broad-based waivers, as 
well.

                       DOMESTIC VIOLENT EXTREMISM

    My very last question is one regarding the future role of 
DHS in domestic violent extremism and we covered this in the 
Full Committee hearing, but I was struck by an article that I 
hadn't read in anticipation of that hearing but did in readying 
for this hearing. It was from back in February and it included 
some cautions from the first DHS Secretary Tom Ridge and his 
essential sort of warning was that DHS's mission is so big that 
to sort of take on a new focus on domestic terrorism may 
compromise other mission sets, noting that there are lots of 
other parts of the Federal Government, the FBI at the top of 
the list, that are already doing work in the space of domestic 
terrorism.
    This feels to me like an all hands on deck moment, given 
that it is the primary threat posed to the nation's security 
today, but in answering critics who may say DHS has so many 
other things to do, so much existing focus on foreign threats, 
does it compromise the mission or contradict or make redundant 
other agencies' existing missions on domestic violent extremism 
for DHS to get more involved in this space.
    I'd love to hear your answer. I'm convinced that everybody 
should be a part of this conversation. You've got capabilities 
that are unique, but for those that worry that it'll detract 
from other missions, what's the answer, and how is the 
appropriation from Congress going to help make sure that it 
doesn't compromise the other things you're doing?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, a few thoughts, if I may.
    First of all, I think that in the homeland security arena, 
the threats that we face are and have been and assuredly will 
be dynamic and evolving and ever-changing, and my answer is as 
follows.
    One, we should never underestimate the commitment, 
dedication, talent, and capabilities of the men and women of 
DHS.
    Two, what we need to do is to ensure that those talented 
personnel have the tools that they need to address the threat 
landscape and to address it with all its dynamism and changes 
and evolution.
    For example, to give a real-life example with budget 
implications, I sat down with the Office of Intelligence and 
Analysis and we looked at the fact that when I started in DHS, 
the greatest threat, or I should say the most urgent threat, 
was from foreign terrorist organizations. Then it evolved to 
homegrown violent extremism and now it has evolved to where the 
most urgent threat to the homeland in the terrorism environment 
is DVE.
    Do we have the tools that are capable to address that 
dynamism? Do we have the infrastructure, and are we resourcing 
it appropriately? One of the conclusions was that we actually 
have to increase the technological capabilities at the disposal 
of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis so that 
infrastructure can address whatever the most urgent threat is, 
and specific to DVE obtaining, collecting, and disseminating to 
state, local, tribal, and territorial partners real-time 
actionable information, while respecting privacy, civil rights, 
and civil liberties.
    We're actually dedicating the resources and we will be 
requesting of this subcommittee resources to build that 
infrastructure to deal most effectively with the dynamism and 
evolving threat landscape.
    Senator Murphy. I appreciate that answer. I think it's well 
thought out. I look forward to working with you on that 
appropriations request to make sure that there aren't 
redundancies created with other agencies who have been in this 
space.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for appearing. We've had a busy 
afternoon of votes on the Floor. I think it meant that a bunch 
of our members haven't been able to appear.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Given the fact that the committee's not going to get the 
actual detailed budget until later this week, I'm going to keep 
the record open for questions for two weeks from today's date, 
ask you and your staff to respond to specific questions that 
may be brought to you once we have the full budget in front of 
us.
            Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
    Question. The O and P visa process for artists visiting the United 
States is critical to international cultural activity. What steps is 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services taking to make the O and P 
artist visa process more reliable, and to comply with the 14-day 
standard processing time required under statute?
    Answer. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is 
actively working to promote efficient and fair adjudication of 
immigration benefits, in part through updating guidance in the USCIS 
Policy Manual.\1\ Notably, USCIS recently issued policy guidance 
instructing officers to give deference to prior determinations when 
adjudicating extension requests involving the same parties and facts 
(including those for O and P petitions, among others) unless there was 
a material error, material change, or new material facts that adversely 
impact eligibility. USCIS will continue to update and clarify the O- 
and P-specific policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual, as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USCIS recognizes the 14-day processing goal set forth in INA 
214(c)(6)(D) and strives to quickly adjudicate all O and P petitions 
while ensuring that the petitioner and beneficiary are eligible for the 
benefit sought.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ INA 214(c)(6)(D) states: ``Any person or organization receiving 
a copy of a petition described in subparagraph (A) and supporting 
documents shall have no more than 15 days following the date of receipt 
of such documents within which to submit a written advisory opinion or 
comment or to provide a letter of no objection. Once the 15-day period 
has expired and the petitioner has had an opportunity, where 
appropriate, to supply rebuttal evidence, the Attorney General shall 
adjudicate such petition in no more than 14 days. The Attorney General 
may shorten any specified time period for emergency reasons if no 
unreasonable burden would be thus imposed on any participant in the 
process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question. The shared border between the United States and Canada 
remains closed to nonessential travel. This closure has had a 
significant impact on families, businesses, tourism and homeowners on 
both sides of the border. Are there discussions underway to reopen the 
border between the U.S. and Canada or to modify the current travel 
restrictions, to meet both economic and public health needs? If so, 
when does the Department plan on releasing the details for reopening or 
modifying the travel restrictions?
    Answer. The United States is maintaining current travel 
restrictions due to the uncertainties around the Delta variant and the 
rise in domestic cases, particularly among the unvaccinated. The United 
States continues to consult with the Government of Canada on the 
evolving public health situation. U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) provides up-to-date information via the CBP Information Center 
website (https://help.cbp.gov) to keep the public informed of current 
travel restrictions for entering the United States.
    CBP is coordinating with the Canada Border Services Agency on land 
border and preclearance operations related to Canada's decision to 
allow fully vaccinated U.S. citizens and permanent residents to enter 
Canada for discretionary purposes, as of August 9, 2021. Targeted 
restrictions on non-essential travel at our shared land border have 
helped the United States in its efforts to mitigate the spread of 
COVID-19 while maintaining essential flows of critical supply chains, 
cross-border trade, and travel.
    Question. I am glad that President Biden recently lifted the 
historically low refugee admissions cap set by the Trump administration 
and raised the fiscal year 21 admissions cap to 62,500. However, much 
work remains to be done in order for the United States to rebuild our 
decimated U.S. refugee admissions program and resettle increased 
numbers of refugees every year. The Department of Homeland Security 
will play an instrumental role in that process. Please describe in 
detail the steps that DHS is taking to work toward the Biden 
administration's stated goal of resettling 62,500 refugees this year 
and rebuilding the capacity of the U.S. refugee admissions program.
    Answer. DHS, along with other U.S. Refugee Admissions Program 
(USRAP) partners, is committed to rebuilding our refugee adjudication 
capacity in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 14012, Restoring Faith 
in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and 
Inclusion Efforts for New Americans, and EO 14013, Rebuilding and 
Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of 
Climate Change on Migration. DHS is acutely aware of the work that is 
necessary to rebuild the program and meet the revised refugee ceiling 
of 62,500. USCIS, a component within DHS, is diligently working with 
other partners to reinvigorate our refugee program and increase refugee 
admissions.
    In particular, USCIS has already taken several immediate actions to 
rebuild the refugee program and increase refugee admissions in fiscal 
year (FY) 2021. First, after the 11-month long agency-wide hiring 
freeze ended this spring, USCIS began actively recruiting to fill all 
currently vacant positions that support refugee processing.
    Second, USCIS has implemented operational and policy changes to 
support remote case processing during COVID-19. Since last summer, 
USCIS has been conducting refugee applicant re-interviews via video-
teleconference (VTEL) and recently started conducting initial refugee 
applicant interviews via VTEL, where possible. By May 26, 2021, USCIS 
conducted 212 re-interviews and 53 initial interviews by VTEL. USCIS is 
looking into expansion of this process efficiency to additional 
interview locations to the extent feasible.
    COVID-19 continues to challenge in-person processing. However, 
USCIS has also resumed in-person international refugee processing 
circuit rides on a smaller scale. Deployments are based on identified 
USRAP processing priorities and are dependent on movement restrictions 
issued by local governments due to COVID-19; post-by-post restrictions 
issued by DOS; and the ability to safely conduct in-person interviews 
while protecting the health of USCIS officers, Resettlement Support 
Center staff, refugee applicants, and interpreters.
    USCIS has conducted a detailed review of the cases of applicants 
who have already had their USCIS refugee interview. USCIS is 
prioritizing resources for cases that can be approved for resettlement 
in the near term.
    In addition to the process improvements outlined above, USCIS is 
investing in a case management system that will allow for more 
effective tracking of workloads and cases and will provide officers 
with additional adjudicative tools. This system is expected to fully 
deploy in fiscal year 2022 and will track data on production rates, 
details on case outcomes, and other key metrics that will provide 
leadership with the information they need to effectively manage future 
resources.
    Question. I strongly criticized the Trump administration's decision 
to utilize Title 42 of the Public Health Safety Act to rapidly expel 
large numbers of migrants in direct contravention of existing laws 
protecting the right to apply for asylum. The Biden administration has 
largely kept in place the Trump administration's Title 42 policy, 
despite the fact that the public health rationale for it wanes as 
COVID-19 cases hit record lows, nearly a third of Americans are 
vaccinated, and millions more get vaccinated each day. What steps, if 
any, is DHS taking to wind down expulsions pursuant to the Title 42 CDC 
``Order Suspending Introduction of Certain Persons From Countries Where 
a Communicable Disease Exists?'' If no steps are being taken to depart 
from this Title 42 CDC order and policy, why not?
    Answer. The Order Suspending Introduction of Certain Persons From 
Countries Where a Communicable Disease Exists was issued by the Centers 
for Disease Control (CDC). DHS's role is to assist the CDC with 
implementation of its Order. As such, in consultation with the CDC, DHS 
may make case-by-case determinations to except certain individuals. CBP 
officers/agents may except individuals, with approval from a 
supervisor, from the Order based on the totality of the circumstances, 
including consideration of significant law enforcement, officer and 
public safety, humanitarian, and public health interests. The CDC 
recently issued an order confirming the exception of Unaccompanied 
Children (UC) from its order.
    To address the challenges along our southwest border, DHS has 
leveraged the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) coordination 
capabilities, activated our volunteer force of employees from across 
DHS, and expanded processing capacity.

                                 ______
                                 

             Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
                               h-2b visas
    Question. The H-2B visa program is a critical tool for seasonal 
employers that need foreign workers to fill temporary jobs when no 
Americans are available. I hear frequently from small businesses in New 
Hampshire that struggle to find workers during their busy season and 
who rely on this program. I have been hearing from small businesses 
across my state who are desperate for the release of additional H-2B 
visas this year, and I appreciate the decision to provide 22,000 
additional visas for fiscal year 2021. I am glad that those visas have 
finally been made available and employers can now apply. But I'm 
concerned that this number was too low to meet the need, and I am 
further concerned that employers may not be able to receive these visas 
in time to meet the demands of their busy season.
    How did the Administration determine that 22,000 additional visas 
was the appropriate number for this fiscal year?
    Answer. The Secretary of Homeland Security acted in accordance with 
section 105 of Division O of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, 
Public Law 116-260 (fiscal year 2021 Omnibus). Before authorizing the 
additional visa numbers, the Secretary of DHS, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Labor, considered the needs of businesses and other 
factors, including the impact on the U.S. job market and potential 
implications for U.S. workers, as well as the integrity of the H-2B 
program. The determination to allow up to 22,000 additional H-2B visas 
reflected a balancing of these factors.
    Question. Given that the demand appears to exceed the allotted 
visas, what steps does the Administration plan to take to remedy the 
discrepancy?
    Answer. The H-2B visa program is one among several employment-based 
visa programs that are oversubscribed (i.e., the number of petitions 
exceeds the number of available visas set by statute). For example, the 
H-1B program is also oversubscribed, receiving far more petitions 
annually than cap numbers available, resulting in the need to conduct a 
registration and selection process to determine who can file a cap-
subject petition.\3\ DHS supports efforts by Congress to set annual 
visa caps that adequately meet demands while addressing the impact on 
the U.S. job market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Congress set the current annual regular H-1B cap at 65,000 
visas, plus 20,000 under the advanced degree exemption. For fiscal year 
2021, USCIS received 274,237 H-1B registrations and selected a total of 
124,415 registrations projected as needed to reach the fiscal year cap. 
For fiscal year 2022, USCIS received 308,613 H-1B registrations and 
selected a total of 115,217 registrations projected as needed to reach 
the fiscal year 2022 cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To the extent that Congress vests DHS with this authority, DHS will 
consult with DOL to determine the number and parameters of any 
additional H-2B visas to supplement the statutory annual cap.
    Question. Given the time-sensitive nature of seasonal labor, how is 
your agency working to ensure employers have the workers they need in 
time for their busy season?
    Answer. USCIS provides information about premium processing on its 
website. For those who choose to use this service, USCIS will provide 
an initial adjudicative action within 15 days. This service is widely 
utilized by H-2B petitioners. Additionally, DHS is working closely with 
interagency partners at the Department of Labor and Department of State 
to facilitate processing for H-2B workers.
                           drug interdiction
    Question. New Hampshire has been hit particularly hard by the 
devastating opioid epidemic that has swept the nation. We must ensure 
that the Federal government is doing everything possible to get 
resources to those fighting the opioid epidemic and to stem the flow of 
heroin, fentanyl and other deadly opioids into the country. In recent 
years, Congress has provided significant increases in funding for 
technologies to improve drug interdiction efforts at the border.
    Please provide an overview on the Department's progress in 
procuring and deploying new technologies at our Ports of Entry and 
along the border capable of detecting and identifying illicit drugs 
such as opioids and fentanyl?
    Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has procured and 
deployed advanced small-scale Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment 
that efficiently and effectively identifies dangerous narcotics, 
including fentanyl and other opioids. The ThermoFisher Gemini, with a 
library of over 14,600 chemicals, enables CBP personnel to quickly, 
confidently, and presumptively identify harmful substances with at 
least a 10 percent concentration. The Gemini is deployed at CBP 
locations worldwide.
    To augment the bulk identification technology of the Gemini, CBP 
rapidly deployed BTNX Inc. Rapid ResponseTM Fentanyl 
Forensic Test Strips (``BTNX Test Strips''), which use the lateral flow 
immunoassay test principle to identify fentanyl and fentanyl analogues 
in liquid and powder substances. When used properly, BTNX Test Strips 
can identify trace levels of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues at 
concentrations as low as 20 ng/ml or .000002 percent. CBP's NII and 
Laboratories and Scientific Services (LSS) directorates have deployed 
BTNX Test Strips and training nationwide, with additional test strips 
available upon request through LSS.
    Additionally, CBP has worked with procurement, field locations, and 
LSS to test and procure enhanced chemical identification capable of 
identifying a wide range of chemicals at purity levels less than 1 
percent. The MX908 is a high-pressure mass spectrometry (HPMS) device 
that identifies a wide variety of chemicals at trace concentrations and 
concentrations less than 1 percent.
    CBP Operations Support/LSS also stood up Forward Operating 
Laboratories (FOLs) at ports of entry to address smuggling of unknown 
substances. LSS forensic scientists are permanently assigned to the 
FOLs to work side-by-side with CBP frontline officers, providing on-
site, rapid scientific and technical services. Each FOL is resourced 
with laboratory equipment for the analysis of unknown substances and 
suspected controlled substances. At the height of the opioid crisis in 
2018, when fentanyl and fentanyl analogues were smuggled into the 
country through international mail, LSS stood up FOLs at the John F. 
Kennedy International Mail Facility and Memphis Express Consignment 
Courier Facility. As of June 2021, LSS operates 13 FOLs across the 
nation, four of which are located along the Southwest land border. Over 
the last 18 months, FOLs have analyzed over 23,000 suspected controlled 
substances.
    To support CBP's deployment of handheld detection technology, LSS 
established the 24/7 Narcotics Reachback Center at the CBP National 
Targeting Center. The Narcotics Reachback Center provides rapid 
adjudication of data collected by CBP frontline offices and agents 
using handheld analyzers to presumptively screen suspect substances. 
Trained LSS scientists evaluate spectral information in real-time and 
provide a presumptive identification of the unknown or suspect 
substance to the submitting officer/agent within 30 minutes of 
receiving a call. The Narcotics Reachback Center services CBP 
nationwide and supports CBP operations where and when LSS is not on-
site.
    In addition, CBP leverages license plate reader (LPR) data to 
support frontline operations and investigations. LPR data has enabled 
CBP to successfully link narcotics trafficking routes and identified 
stash house locations as well as other law enforcement functions, such 
as apprehending a child rape suspect and identify links as part of a 
sex-trafficking investigation.
    Question. Does the Department need any additional authorities from 
Congress to improve illicit drug interdiction?
    Answer. Improvements in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's 
(CBP) capacity to interdict illicit drugs at the border is not a matter 
of only authority but one of authority, capacity, and logistics. While 
the Department can readily identify improvements in interdiction, the 
Department must consider first whether CBP may implement such 
improvements under its current authorities, whether CBP is able to 
absorb the cost of such improvements within its current baseline, and 
how such improvements could affect commerce. When the Department is 
satisfied that improvements can be introduced within these constraints, 
the Department will promote the improvements through the regular-order 
budget and the legislative processes.
                            dhs procurement
    Question. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated just how important it 
is to ensure that our nation has a domestic supply chain for materials 
and items that we may need during a national emergency. We shouldn't 
rely on foreign sources to produce these critical items when we need 
them the most. What is the Department doing to bolster the domestic 
supply chain for items that we may need in the event of a national 
emergency?
    Answer. The Department of Homeland Security, working with its 
Components, is executing the requirements of Executive Orders 14001 ``A 
Sustainable Public Health Supply Chain'' and 14017 ``America's Supply 
Chains,'' which focus on strategies to bolster the domestic supply 
chain for national emergencies. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) is working within its delegated Defense Production Act role, and 
the Agency continues to engage with interagency partners that receive 
funding for industrial expansion efforts, such as with the active 
Department of Defense and the future Department of Health and Human 
Services Title III programs. FEMA's statutory responsibilities do not 
include bolstering the domestic supply chain for national emergencies, 
and FEMA has no appropriation for such a purpose.
                             cybersecurity
    Question. The President's budget includes $20 million for a new 
Cyber Response and Recovery Fund.
    Please provide an overview on how the Department would utilize this 
fund to address cyber-attacks.
    Answer. The concept of the Cyber Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF) 
comes from the Cyberspace Solarium Commission's 2020 recommendations. 
As proposed in the President's budget, the CRRF would allow 
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) to support critical 
infrastructure, including private entities and State, local, tribal, 
and territorial governments, in responding to, and recovering from, a 
``significant cyber incident,'' as defined in Presidential Policy 
Directive (PPD 41): United States Cyber Incident Coordination.
    The proposed ``no year'' funding (i.e., available until expended) 
would allow CISA to support non-Federal critical infrastructure cyber 
response and recovery from a significant cyber incident through the 
provision of services, technology, or capabilities. This set up would 
provide CISA with greater flexibility for responding to cyber events 
that are often unpredictable.
    Should a significant cyber incident be declared in the first year 
of the CRRF, CISA will emphasize using the Fund, if activated, to surge 
cyber incident response capabilities or help victims evict adversaries 
from their environments to support the immediate needs of critical 
infrastructure entities. The CRRF could be used to support response to 
a significant cyber incident and, in some cases, funds for recovery and 
reconstitution. Eligible activities could include:

  --Technical Incident Response--Services aimed at finding the root 
        cause of an incident

  --Analytic Support--A range of analytical services provided in 
        response to receiving a request or reported vulnerability, to 
        include examining the technical issue, code, computer system, 
        storage medium, and/or physical memory

  --Threat Detection--Deployment of threat detection platforms to 
        identify potential malicious activity using network sensor 
        systems for detection

    Eviction and Mitigation--Support to reasonably assure that an 
intruder has been removed from a victim network and known weaknesses 
that allowed the initial intrusion have been remediated.
    Question. How can DHS increase its cooperation with industry to 
ensure that threat information is appropriately disseminated between 
public and private entities?
    Answer. CISA is continuously evaluating existing information 
sharing programs to improve their timeliness, efficiency, and 
effectiveness, while also evaluating the potential for new 
opportunities to increase threat information sharing with our partners 
in government and in the private sector. CISA is currently undertaking 
a wide range of efforts, outlined below, to increase cooperation with 
industry to ensure that threat information is appropriately 
disseminated to our private sector partners.
    Pursuant to fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act 
(NDAA), CISA will establish a Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative (JCDC) 
to coordinate joint cyber planning with interagency and industry 
partners. Today, CISA builds and maintains close operational 
relationships with key industry partners who provide unique and 
valuable insights on current cyber vulnerability and threat 
information. These information sharing relationships increase CISA's 
visibility and understanding of the domestic cyber landscape and 
provide vital support to our cyber defense mission. With the 
implementation of the office for joint cyber planning, CISA will 
formalize and expand operational coordination with industry partners 
through collaborative development of cyber defense operations plans to 
protect domestic critical infrastructure. The JCDC will also include 
key interagency partners who will bring their own cyber capabilities 
and authorities, and will consult with State, local, territorial, and 
tribal (SLTT) and international partners. Through integration of these 
key partner communities, the JCDC will become the one-stop-shop for 
public-private partnership in planning cyber defense operations.
    The Secretary of DHS established the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory 
Committee, pursuant to fiscal year 2021 NDAA, Section 1718, to bring 
together experts from SLTT government, industry, and other relevant 
entities to provide advice and recommendations to the CISA Director on 
matters related to the development, refinement, and implementation of 
policies, programs, planning, and training pertaining to the 
cybersecurity mission of the Agency. Per the NDAA, the Director may 
task the Committee to examine a variety of cybersecurity topics 
including, but not limited to, information exchange; critical 
infrastructure; risk management; and public and private partnerships. 
This advice could include options to improve timely information sharing 
regarding cybersecurity threats. A public version of the Committee's 
recommendations will be made available.
    In coordination with interagency partners, CISA is defining the 
expanded set of the roles and responsibilities established in the 
fiscal year 2021 NDAA, Section 9002, Sector Risk Management Agencies 
(SRMA). In particular, each SRMA shall facilitate ``in coordination 
with the Director, the sharing with the Department and other 
appropriate Federal department of information regarding physical 
security and cybersecurity threats within the designated sector or 
subsector of such sector,'' including--

    A. ``[F]acilitating, in coordination with the Director, access to, 
and exchange of, information and intelligence necessary to strengthen 
the security of critical infrastructure'';

    B. ``[F]acilitating the identification of intelligence needs and 
priorities of critical infrastructure owners and operators in the 
designated sector or subsector of such sector, in coordination with the 
Director of National Intelligence and the heads of other Federal 
departments and agencies, as appropriate;

    C. ``[P]roviding the Director, and facilitating awareness within 
the designated sector or subsector of such sector, of ongoing, and 
where possible, real-time awareness of identified threats, 
vulnerabilities, mitigations, and other actions related to the security 
of such sector or subsector of such sector''; and

    D. ``[S]upporting the reporting requirements of the Department 
under applicable law by providing, on an annual basis, sector-specific 
critical infrastructure information.''

    CISA is spearheading the NDAA-required report, in consultation with 
the heads of the designated SRMAs, which reviews the current framework 
for securing critical infrastructure, develops recommendations, and 
suggests necessary revisions to the partnership structure. This process 
is currently underway, and as the SRMA for eight of the nation's 16 
critical infrastructure sectors, CISA will directly apply this expanded 
guidance to enhance information sharing between CISA and private sector 
partners in these eight sectors.
    DHS will stand up a Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB), pursuant to 
Section 5 of the Executive Order on Improving the Nation's 
Cybersecurity, to review and assess threat activity, vulnerabilities, 
mitigation activities, and agency responses to significant cyber 
incidents. Through the CSRB, relevant information will be compiled from 
CSRB incident reviews, including incident-related decisionmaking 
processes, actions, and outcomes; Requests for Information; stakeholder 
communications; and incident activity and recovery actions and 
outcomes. In addition to administering the CSRB's operation, DHS will 
use the results of these reviews to determine necessary and appropriate 
enhancements to threat information sharing between public and provide 
sector entities.
    The Private Sector Clearance Program was established to ensure that 
select critical infrastructure private sector owners, operators, and 
industry representatives--specifically those who have a demonstrated 
and foreseeable need to access classified information--are in 
leadership, managerial, or executive level positions and are in a 
position to capitalize on the value of the classified information 
shared are processed for clearances. Security clearances enable 
selected owners, operators, and representatives to access classified 
information and more fully participate in the protection of critical 
infrastructure and the security of the homeland.
    CISA operates the Cyber Information Sharing and Collaboration 
Program, which serves as a bi-directional forum for CISA and private 
industry to collaborate on significant risks, develop sector and threat 
focused products, and provide briefings on new trends, threats, and 
capabilities across sectors. This trusted sharing between CISA and a 
network of high impact companies, Information Sharing and Analysis 
Centers, and service providers allows CISA to better understand the 
nature of vulnerabilities pre- and post-disclosure and in turn provided 
timely and thorough mitigation guidance.
    CISA continues to enhance the Automated Indicator Sharing (AIS) 
capability, which provides a machine-to-machine platform for CISA and 
the private sector to share threat information and benefit from the 
collective knowledge of participant organizations. AIS enables the 
real-time exchange of machine-readable cyber threat indicators and 
defensive measures, such as information about adversary techniques, to 
help the AIS community monitor and defend networks against known 
threats and ultimately limit the use of an attack method.
    CISA's Stakeholder Engagement Division has requested funding in 
fiscal year 2022 to execute a stakeholder mapping initiative as a 
foundational component of the agency's broader stakeholder engagement 
capability. The stakeholder mapping initiative builds upon CISA's 
growing stakeholder data and knowledge base to map individual 
stakeholders and stakeholder groups to operational planning scenarios--
in advance of the need--in order to streamline response efforts to 
crisis and enable more targeted, efficient strategic planning with 
external parties. By leveraging established relationships with these 
entities, CISA will maximize its impact on key stakeholder communities 
and amplify our value through collaborative partners. Examples of using 
these relationships includes bi-directional sharing of sensitive threat 
information, targeted promotion of available products and services, and 
quick-turn opportunities to collaborate with CISA.
    CISA collaborates with the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis 
to provide Classified Intelligence Forums. The Classified Intelligence 
Forum consists of engagements that provide cleared members of the 
private sector as appropriate, with access to draft and finished 
analytic products to solicit feedback and gain overall customer 
insights that can inform the development of future products or 
briefings that those members and their sector counterparts can use in 
their decisionmaking processes.
    CISA Cybersecurity Advisors (CSAs) offer cybersecurity assistance 
to critical infrastructure owners and operators and SLTT governments. 
CSAs introduce organizations to various CISA cybersecurity products and 
services, along with other public and private resources, and act as 
liaisons to CISA cyber programs. CSAs can provide cyber preparedness, 
assessments and protective resources, strategic messaging, working 
group support and leadership, partnership in public-private 
development, and incident coordination and support in times of cyber 
threat, disruption, and attack. CISA continues to work quickly and 
diligently to hire against existing CSA vacancies and increase the CSA 
footprint in the field in order to expand engagement with the private 
sector, including in threat information sharing and dissemination.
    CISA collaborates with government and industry partners to 
strengthen information sharing and incident response coordination 
through exercises, such as the biennial Cyber Storm series. Each 
iteration of the exercise engages more than a thousand participants in 
the simulated discovery of and response to a large-scale, coordinated 
significant cyber incident impacting critical infrastructure. The 
findings of each exercise are shared with participants and the broader 
cyber response community to support continual improvement.
    CISA is currently in the planning stages for Cyber Storm VIII, 
slated for the spring of 2022. Two of the proposed objectives of this 
exercise are to:

    - Strengthen information sharing and coordination mechanisms used 
during a cyber incident; and

    - Foster public and private partnerships and improve their ability 
to share relevant and timely information across sectors.
                    u.s. refugee admissions program
    Question. We are in the midst of the largest worldwide refugee 
crisis ever recorded. I am pleased that the President has finally 
announced his intention to resettle 62,500 refugees in the second half 
of this fiscal year. However, the enormous cuts to refugee resettlement 
over the past 4 years under the previous Administration have severely 
decimated the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program's capacity. What specific 
measures are you taking to increase the rate of refugee arrivals in the 
second half of the fiscal year to ensure we can meet the Presidential 
Determination for this year and to restore the long-term capacity of 
our resettlement program?
    Answer. DHS, along with other U.S. Refugee Admissions Program 
(USRAP) partners, is committed to rebuilding our refugee adjudication 
and resettlement capacity in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 
14012, Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and 
Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans, and 
EO 14013, Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and 
Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration. USCIS worked to 
increase admissions in fiscal year 2021 by developing additional 
efficiencies to complete post-USCIS interviewed applications remotely, 
resume in-person interviews of refugee applicants overseas, begin 
hiring additional staff, and engage with USRAP partners to reinvigorate 
our refugee program and increase refugee admissions.
    USCIS has taken several actions to rebuild the refugee program and 
increase refugee admissions. First, USCIS conducted a detailed review 
of the cases of applicants who have already had their USCIS refugee 
interview and prioritized resources for cases that could be approved 
for resettlement in the near term.
    Second, after an 11-month long agency-wide hiring freeze ended this 
spring, USCIS began actively recruiting to fill all currently vacant 
positions that support refugee processing.
    Third, USCIS implemented operational and policy changes to support 
remote case processing during COVID-19. Since last summer, USCIS has 
been conducting refugee applicant re-interviews via video-
teleconference (VTEL) and recently started conducting initial refugee 
applicant interviews via VTEL where possible. By May 26, 2021, USCIS 
conducted 212 re-interviews and 53 initial interviews by VTEL.
    Finally, while COVID-related restrictions continue to impact 
USCIS's ability to increase in-person interviews of refugee applicants, 
beginning in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2021, USCIS resumed in-
person international refugee processing circuit rides on a small scale. 
Deployments are based on identified USRAP processing priorities and are 
dependent on movement restrictions issued by local governments due to 
COVID-19; post-by-post restrictions issued by DOS; and the ability to 
safely conduct in-person interviews while protecting the health of 
USCIS officers, Resettlement Support Center staff, refugee applicants, 
and interpreters.
    In addition to the process improvements outlined above, USCIS is 
investing in a case management system that will allow for more 
effective tracking of workloads and cases and will provide officers 
with additional adjudicative tools. This system is expected to fully 
deploy in fiscal year 2022 and will track data on production rates, 
details on case outcomes, and other key metrics that will provide 
leadership with the information they need to effectively manage future 
resources.
                         unaccompanied children
    Question. I was deeply disturbed by the treatment of children at 
our Southern border under the previous Administration, and I have been 
very concerned about previous reports of unaccompanied children 
remaining in Border Patrol custody for extended periods of time.
    What steps has your agency taken to address these problems and 
ensure that children are treated safely and humanely when they arrive 
at our border?
    Answer. CBP makes every effort to process those in our custody as 
quickly as possible--especially children. In accordance with the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), CBP must 
transfer unaccompanied children into the custody of the U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) 
within 72 hours of unaccompanied children determination, determining 
that they are unaccompanied children, absent exceptional circumstances. 
To expedite processing of migrants, including unaccompanied children, 
CBP has augmented its Southwest border personnel and facilities, and 
leveraged available support across the U.S. Government.
    U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) prioritizes unaccompanied children 
referrals and transfers to HHS ORR, but the ability to do so is 
directly tied to ORR's capacity. By March 2021, the number of 
unaccompanied children entering USBP custody far exceeded ORR's 
capacity to provide placement. In response, and in conjunction with 
FEMA, HHS began rapid expansion of ORR's housing/placement capacity 
through Emergency Influx Shelters (EISs). USBP continues to work 
closely with HHS to expedite the transfer of unaccompanied children 
into HHS custody.
    DHS successfully established the interagency Movement Coordination 
Cell (MCC) to bring together personnel from FEMA, ORR, U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and CBP to ensure the rapid transfer of 
UCs from CBP custody to ORR custody--whether to licensed bed facilities 
or EISs. This interagency approach has been remarkably successful in 
reducing the average time in custody that UCs spend in CBP facilities.
    Thanks to interagency cooperation and focus on building ORR 
capacity, in April 2021, the average number of children in CBP custody 
decreased to 2,895 from 4,109 in March 2021--with the number of 
children in CBP custody below 460 in mid-May 2021. In March, UCs spent 
an average of 115 hours in CBP custody compared to just 26 hours in 
May.
    CBP has significantly expanded the scope of its trauma-informed 
medical support capabilities to ensure children are treated safely and 
humanely. For example, CBP now has more than 800 contract medical 
personnel providing 24/7 medical support at over 70 facilities along 
the Southwest border. CBP continues to enhance its trauma-informed care 
practices for children in custody through awareness and training; 
trauma-informed medical support; and trauma-informed holding practices.
    CBP's trauma-informed medical support includes health interviews 
and medical assessments by trained professionals. This includes 
behavioral health considerations and emphasizes psychological triage, 
psychological first aid, behavioral health referrals, and appropriate 
prioritization for transfer. CBP's trauma-informed holding practices 
ensure a safe and secure environment that minimizes time in custody, 
improves the child's ability to maintain family connection via phone 
calls, provides recreation opportunities as feasible, and includes 
caregivers who can provide a reassuring adult presence. The role of 
caregivers in our facilities now includes providing opportunities for 
recreational time for children as operationally feasible. CBP has 
always been, and continues to be, committed to the safe and humane 
treatment of all individuals in our custody, especially those most 
vulnerable.
    Question. How is your agency working with the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services to facilitate unaccompanied children's 
expeditious release from Border Patrol custody?
    Answer. Unaccompanied Children (UC) are typically processed by CBP 
at the Southwest Border and then ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations 
(ERO) transfers unaccompanied children from CBP to the custody of HHS 
ORR. Pursuant to the Flores Settlement Agreement, the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002, and the TVPRA of 2008, DHS must transfer unaccompanied 
children to HHS ORR custody within 72 hours of determining that a UC is 
an unaccompanied child except in exceptional circumstances.
    ICE continues to partner with CBP and HHS to improve transfers into 
the care and custody of ORR. These partnerships have proven to be 
extremely effective in reducing the average length of time in DHS 
custody, to include decreasing the amount of time that a child is in 
transit to an ORR shelter. ICE's effort to partner with CBP and HHS has 
resulted in the transfer of thousands of unaccompanied children into 
the care and custody of ORR in under 72 hours as required by statute.
    CBP implemented a Movement Coordination Cell (MCC) to work with HHS 
ORR and other appropriate agencies to coordinate the placement and 
expedited transfer of UCs out of CBP custody and into appropriate HHS 
facilities and care. The MCC is an interagency effort among CBP, ICE, 
HHS ORR, and FEMA. The goal of the MCC is to rapidly transfer custody 
of UCs from CBP to ORR. The MCC effort began on March 29, 2021, and 
since its inception, the MCC has assisted in reducing the number of UCs 
in CBP custody as well as their average length of time in custody. CBP 
is also working with HHS/ORR on enhanced data transfer to assist in the 
expeditious placement of UCs in appropriate facilities, which would 
further reduce time in custody.
    In April 2021, the average number of children in CBP custody 
decreased to 2,895 from 4,109 the previous month, with the number of 
children in CBP custody below 460 in mid-May 2021. In March, UCs spent 
an average of 115 hours in CBP custody compared to just 26 hours in 
May.

                                 ______
                                 

            Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
    Question. Mr. Secretary, the Science & Technology Directorate (S&T) 
fiscal year 2022 Budget Request highlights prior year research efforts 
and milestones, including Project JUSTICE and the fully operational 
sUAS test facilities. The budget overview also lists future objectives 
to ``publish JUSTICE demonstration, test and evaluation results, and 
associated analyses to DHS Components, first responder and emergency 
management service organizations.'' Additionally, the budget overview 
states, ``DHS lacks installed technologies to maintain persistent air 
domain awareness of all manned and unmanned aircraft in the national 
airspace . . . evolving technologies and critically strained resources 
make it imperative for S&T to advance technologies that produce 
efficient force-multiplying aerospace for operational elements of DHS 
and the Nation's law enforcers and first responders.''
    In prior year appropriations, including fiscal year 2021, the 
committee/Congress acknowledged the critical value in the establishment 
of the S&T common test site for demonstration and research of UAS, 
provided additional funding for the Demonstration Site to conduct on-
site testing and evaluation of Enabling UAS technologies, and 
encouraged the close collaboration with the FAA UAS Center of 
Excellence. The DHS UAS Demonstration Site provides an effective and 
efficient operational testing and evaluation capacity for S&T and the 
operational partners that it supports, including CBP, Coast Guard, 
Secret Service, and Nation's law enforcers and first responders. 
Numerous exercises are necessary for technology evaluation across a 
range of scenarios and environments at the Demonstration Site.
    Please provide a spend plan for the fiscal year 21 funds 
appropriated for the Enabling UAS Demonstration Site. How will S&T 
continue to prioritize previously appropriated funds for the 
Demonstration Site to conduct on-site testing and evaluation of 
Enabling UAS technologies for DHS components and law enforcement 
partners?
    Answer. Efforts towards Enabling UAS, including the Enabling UAS 
Demonstration Site, are executed as part of S&T's Air Security project, 
within S&T's Air, Land, and POE Security program. S&T's fiscal year 
2021 Spend Plan includes $2 million for the Enabling UAS demonstration 
site

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       fiscal year 2021                        Planned in fiscal
            Activity                  Description         Spend Plan           Obligated         year 2022 Q2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enabling UAS Demonstration Site.  Joint Unmanned              $2,000,000            $250,000          $1,750,000
                                   Systems Testing
                                   in Collaborative
                                   Environments
                                   (JUSTICE)--Testin
                                   g and evaluation
                                   of UASs.
    Total Enabling UAS            $2,000,000........            $250,000          $1,750,000
     Demonstration Site.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S&T will continue to support the Enabling UAS Demonstration Site 
through S&T's agreement with the U.S. Army Development Command 
(DEVCOM), Ground Vehicle Systems Center and through strategic IAA 
partnerships with other U.S. Government entities that enable S&T to 
offer value to the Homeland Security Enterprise. With continuing COVID 
restrictions the potential for testing & evaluation to resume pre-
pandemic conditions soon remains low. S&T will continue engaging with 
the Army and the vendor to administer the residual funding in early 
fiscal year 2022.
    Question. Mr. Secretary, with the expected surge in flight travel 
over the next few months, both business and personal, how is the 
Department of Homeland Security making sure TSA is adequately staffed 
at airports across the country in order to accommodate this expected 
increase? What opportunities are there that would allow TSA to 
significantly grow its TSA PreCheck program and can these opportunities 
be deployed in time to help with the travel surge that is expected this 
year?
    Answer. As of November 1, 2021, TSA has hired 7,630 Transportation 
Security Officers (TSO) thus far in the calendar year, amidst 
unprecedented hiring competition in nearly all industries.
    TSA is continuing to innovate on solutions to attract more TSO 
applicants and hire more quickly in competitive locations. To increase 
hiring volumes, TSA is expanding advertising campaigns to amplify the 
``now hiring'' message. In an effort to maintain parity with private 
industry pay rates, TSA has also instituted recruitment $1,000 to 
$2,000 sign-on bonuses to all TSO new hires through fiscal year 22. 
Further, retention incentives are being strategically leveraged to 
align TSO pay rates with local wage growth in hard-to-hire markets--
both to retain current staff and attract new candidates. Finally, TSA 
is hosting ``expedited'' hiring events in 12 or more competitive 
markets per month, including locations such as Denver, Seattle, 
Minneapolis, Boston, St. Louis, Maui, and many others. These events 
enable prospective TSO applicants to consolidate hiring steps into one-
day and significantly reduce Federal hiring time; which is essential in 
this competitive recruitment market.
    TSA's Universal Enrollment Services provider, IDEMIA, offers a 
nationwide network of over 440 enrollment centers in support of the TSA 
PreCheck Application Program, and there is currently plenty of 
enrollment center capacity and appointment availability. TSA provides 
individuals with a simple enrollment process, including the ability to 
start TSA PreCheck enrollment online, which shortens the in-person 
enrollment time. On average, an individual can complete the in-person 
enrollment process in five to ten minutes for new applicants to the 
program. For renewing members, TSA offers the ability to renew a TSA 
PreCheck membership fully online, with no in-person visit required.
    TSA is also working to expand the number of enrollment providers, 
as required by the TSA Modernization Act of 2018. In January 2020, TSA 
awarded Other Transaction Agreements (OTA) to Alclear, LLC (CLEAR), 
Telos Identity Management Solutions, LLC, and Idemia Identity & 
Security USA, LLC (TSA's current enrollment provider). TSA estimates 
the new enrollment providers under the OTAs will begin operations by 
the end of 2022, but timelines are tentative and dependent on each 
vendor's ability to meet TSA's requirements.

                           SUBCOMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Murphy. And so with that, this committee will stand 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., Wednesday, May 26 the subcommitte 
was recessed, to reconvene at a time subject to call of the 
Chair.]