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



 
 A REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                           HOMELAND SECURITY

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 19, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-8

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
                                     


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






                                     

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
        
                              ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 52-831          WASHINGTON : 2023       
        
        
        
        
        

                               __________

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

                 Mark E. Green, MD, Tennessee, Chairman
Michael T. McCaul, Texas             Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, 
Clay Higgins, Louisiana                  Ranking Member
Michael Guest, Mississippi           Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Dan Bishop, North Carolina           Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida           Eric Swalwell, California
August Pfluger, Texas                J. Luis Correa, California
Andrew R. Garbarino, New York        Troy A. Carter, Louisiana
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Shri Thanedar, Michigan
Tony Gonzales, Texas                 Seth Magaziner, Rhode Island
Nick LaLota, New York                Glenn Ivey, Maryland
Mike Ezell, Mississippi              Daniel S. Goldman, New York
Anthony D'Esposito, New York         Robert Garcia, California
Laurel M. Lee, Florida               Delia C. Ramirez, Illinois
Morgan Luttrell, Texas               Robert Menendez, New Jersey
Dale W. Strong, Alabama              Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Josh Brecheen, Oklahoma              Dina Titus, Nevada
Elijah Crane, Arizona
                      Stephen Siao, Staff Director
                  Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
                       Natalie Nixon, Chief Clerk
                     Sean Jones, Legislative Clerk
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               Statements

The Honorable Mark E. Green, a Representative in Congress From 
  the State of Tennessee, and Chairman, Committee of Homeland 
  Security:
  Oral Statement.................................................     1
  Prepared Statement.............................................     4
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
  Homeland Security:
  Oral Statement.................................................     6
  Prepared Statement.............................................     8

                                Witness

Honorable Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of 
  Homeland Security:
  Oral Statement.................................................     9
  Prepared Statement.............................................    11

                             For the Record

The Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Representative in Congress From 
  the State of California:
  Letter.........................................................    29
The Honorable Glenn Ivey, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of Maryland:
  Article........................................................    52
The Honorable Daniel S. Goldman, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of New York:
  Article........................................................    56

                                Appendix

Questions From Chairman Mark E. Green for Honorable Alejandro N. 
  Mayorkas.......................................................    83
Questions From Honorable Dina Titus for Honorable Alejandro N. 
  Mayorkas.......................................................    96
Question From Honorable Carlos A. Gimenez for Honorable Alejandro 
  N. Mayorkas....................................................    96
Questions From Honorable Andrew R. Garbarino for Honorable 
  Alejandro N. Mayorkas..........................................    96


 A REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                           HOMELAND SECURITY

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, April 19, 2023

             U.S. House of Representatives,
                    Committee on Homeland Security,
                                            Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mark Green 
[Chairman of the committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Green, McCaul, Higgins, Guest, 
Bishop, Gimenez, Pfluger, Garbarino, Greene, Gonzales, LaLota, 
Ezell, D'Esposito, Lee, Luttrell, Strong, Brecheen, Crane, 
Thompson, Jackson Lee, Payne, Swalwell, Correa, Carter, 
Thanedar, Magaziner, Ivey, Goldman, Garcia, Ramirez, Menendez, 
Clarke, and Titus.
    Chairman Green. The committee will come to order.
    Without objection, the committee may recess at any point.
    I would like to go ahead and welcome everyone back to the 
full committee, and I recognize myself for an opening 
statement.
    Good morning, Secretary Mayorkas. Thanks for joining the 
committee. We look forward to hearing from you as we discuss 
the Department's budget and the crisis this administration has 
created at our Southwest Border. This year we recognize the 
Department's 20th anniversary and thank the many public 
servants, past and present, who have worked tirelessly to keep 
our homeland safe. In the aftermath of 9/11 the Department was 
created to safeguard the American people. This mission includes 
securing the U.S. borders and approaches.
    Mr. Secretary, you took an oath where you swore to support 
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all 
enemies, foreign and domestic, and well and faithfully 
discharge the duties of the office. Your job is to protect the 
homeland, and one of those obvious duties is to secure the 
United States sovereign borders and to implement the laws duly 
passed by Congress. However, you have not secured our borders, 
Mr. Secretary, and I believe you have done so intentionally. 
There is no other explanation for the systematic dismantling 
and transformation of our border into a lawless and dangerous 
open border. You have stated in the past that it is an issue of 
resources, but the numbers show a very different story. In just 
the 2 years of your tenure, more people have crossed our 
Southern Border into the United States than the previous 12 
years of 2 administrations combined. Did the budget suddenly 
decrease and result in this massive surge? No. Did the number 
of Border Patrol agents suddenly get cut in January 2021? No. 
What got cut were 89 effective policies. As Chief Ortiz told us 
in our hearing in McAllen, Texas, we don't have a resource 
crisis, we have a policy crisis. We will fulfill our obligation 
to the American people and our oath to the Constitution.
    Secretary Mayorkas, need I remind you that Congress makes 
the law and the Executive branch is obligated to follow those 
laws? Apparently, the answer to that question is yes because 
since you have become Secretary, you have disregarded the laws 
written by this branch of Government, laws passed by both 
Republicans and Democrats. Behind me, you can see a list of the 
ways you have made our border and our country less secure. You 
intentionally ended all construction of and contracts to build 
the border wall system, you attempted to terminate the migrant 
protection protocols, Remain in Mexico policy, and when these 
efforts failed, you refused to fully enforce the policy. You 
illegally, and without Congressional approval, created mass 
parole programs for countries like Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and 
Venezuela, and expanded the use of the CBP One app to 
facilitate these programs. This is ultimately playing a shell 
game, Mr. Secretary, when those who would otherwise come 
illegally, with no justification for entry, now get to enter 
under the pretense of legality.
    You lowered the credible fear standards, so even illegal 
border crossers who have broken the laws of the United States 
can claim asylum, despite knowing that 9 out of 10 claims will 
be found illegitimate. You instructed ICE agents not to detain 
or deport the vast majority of individuals illegally in the 
country, while also stating that the crime of being in the 
country illegally is by itself, no longer grounds for removal. 
You just made that up. You refused to detain illegal aliens 
pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act and instead 
allowed them to be processed en masse into the United States. 
You moved Northern Border agents to the Southwestern Border, 
leaving our Northern Border vulnerable, which has led to an 
increase in encounters in some sectors as much as 900 percent. 
Finally, you ended Title 42 in May without any plan to deal 
with the surge.
    What has this gotten us? Well, here behind me, you can see 
the results. Unfortunately, the facts are overwhelming. More 
than 5 million encounters at the Southwest Border since 
President Biden took office, 1.4 million gotaways, known 
gotaways, who evaded U.S. Border Patrol agents since President 
Biden took office. These are only the ones we know about. We 
learned from U.S. Border Patrol Chief Ortiz that these numbers 
are likely 20 percent higher. Eighty individuals on the 
terrorist watch list have crossed the Southwest Border so far 
in fiscal year 2023, 14,148 pounds of fentanyl seized in 2023, 
enough to kill the entire U.S. population, the U.S. population 
you swore to defend and protect, over 9\1/2\ times. This is 
only the amount we know about. We have no idea how much of this 
poison is actually being brought into the country by drug 
smugglers taking advantage of our porous border and your law 
policies.
    Last month, this committee held a hearing in McAllen 
wherein Chief Ortiz stated under oath that DHS does not have 
the operational control of our borders, contradicting testimony 
that you previously gave before this committee. Chief Ortiz 
went on to say that 5 of our 9 sectors of our Southwest Border 
are under the control of the drug cartels. Unimaginable. 
Secretary Mayorkas, your reckless border policies are enriching 
the drug cartels, and these cartels are laughing in our face. 
They find it amusing that the most powerful nation on earth is 
not only unwilling to stop them, but is actively facilitating 
their business model.
    Unfortunately, your admission during the March 28, 2023 
Senate Judiciary hearing that you are unaware that cartels are 
using illegal aliens as decoys to detract Border Patrol agents 
while they smuggle illicit contraband and illegal aliens across 
the border only emboldens these cartels. Honestly, your 
admission reflects incompetence. Imagine a general officer in 
the Army who has no clue about the strategy of his enemy. We 
would fire that general on the spot.
    Mr. Secretary, every time you fail to acknowledge that this 
is a crisis, you lose even more credibility with the men and 
women of DHS, to say nothing to the American people. As you 
ignore the crisis at our border, thousands of Border Patrol 
agents and CBP officers are on the front lines, putting their 
lives at risk to keep our country safe. What kind of treatment 
do they receive from you? They are accused of whipping migrants 
crossing the border, and now we find out that your department 
knew the whole time that this report was bogus. You went on 
national television and vilified these agents of the Horse 
Patrol Unit. These men and women are proud to fulfill their 
duty to secure our border, and they do this with no thanks, no 
support, and quite honestly, dishonesty from this 
administration. It is a downright shame. I don't blame our 
Border Patrol agents for feeling the way they do about you.
    As former--as a former Marine officer, a doctor, and CEO, I 
know that when a leader loses the trust of those he is 
entrusted command and serve, it is over.
    Now let's turn our attention to budget proposal for DHS. 
Mr. Secretary, this budget proposal is an insult to every 
American. It fails to take seriously many of the most pressing 
national security threats, especially our wide open border. 
President Biden himself likes to quote, and I quote him, 
``Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll 
tell you what you value.'' Well, this budget clearly shows us 
what this administration values, and it is not the safety of 
the American people. Like your past budgets, like your policy 
decisions, and your actions, this proposed DHS budget has the 
singular purpose of continuing to encourage people to come into 
this country illegally. Here behind me, you can see this very 
clearly. Pet projects at the DHS, we are going to add $5 
billion, but for CBP, we are going to cut their budget by $1.2 
billion. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the folks 
that move people into the United States, we are going to give 
them another $1.1 billion--that is what you are going to do, 
ICE, you are going to decrease by $421 million. This is all 
about moving people into the country and not about border 
security. The objective of this budget is not to secure our 
border, but to force CBP personnel to process illegal aliens 
into the interior of the United States.
    The proposed $4.7 billion Southwest Border Contingency Fund 
is just another gimmick to spend American taxpayer dollars on a 
crisis you created with a goal of processing illegal aliens 
quicker out of DHS custody so that you can settle them into the 
interior of our country. The administration is saying the quiet 
part out loud. By requesting funding for border management 
instead of border security, you are signaling you have no 
intention of securing our borders. Instead of spending money, 
spending any money on wall construction that would actually 
waive both a practical and deterrent impact, the administration 
has proposed spending $3.9 billion--$3.9 billion of DHS money 
on a climate resilience program. Meanwhile, you propose 
spending a mere $30 million to combat fentanyl that is 
devastating our country. Do you think the parents and families 
who will continue to lose their children, their brothers, their 
sisters to fentanyl will take comfort in knowing that DHS has 
at least added more to the massive money already spent by this 
administration on climate change? I don't think so.
    Mr. Secretary, I could go on and on, but I will yield. I do 
hope you have come here today ready to be honest with the 
American people, because if you are bold enough to make these 
policy decisions, you should be brave enough to own up to them 
and their consequences.
    I will now yield to the Ranking Member for his opening 
statement.
    [The statement of Chairman Green follows:]
                  Statement of Chairman Mark E. Green
                             April 19, 2023
    I'd like to go ahead and get the committee going. First let me 
welcome everyone back to the full committee, especially our Democrat 
colleagues. We missed you down in McAllen, TX, your absence was noted.
    I recognize myself to make my opening statement.
    Good morning, Secretary Mayorkas. Thanks for joining the committee. 
We look forward to hearing from you as we discuss the Department's 
budget and the crisis this administration has created at our Southwest 
Border.
    This year we recognize the Department's 20th anniversary and thank 
the many public servants, past and present, who have worked tirelessly 
to keep our homeland safe.
    In the aftermath of 9/11, the Department was created to ``safeguard 
the American people.'' This mission includes ``securing the U.S. 
Borders and Approaches.''
    Mr. Secretary, you took an oath of office, where you swore to: 
``support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all 
enemies, foreign and domestic,'' and to ``well and faithfully discharge 
the duties of the office.''
    Your job IS to protect the homeland--and one of those obvious 
duties is to secure the United States' sovereign borders, and to 
implement the laws duly passed by Congress.
    However, you have not secured our borders--and Mr. Secretary, I 
believe you have done so intentionally. There is no other explanation 
for the systematic dismantling and transformation of our border into a 
lawless and dangerous open border. You've asserted in the past it is an 
issue of resources. But the numbers show a very different story. In 
just the 2 years of your tenure, more people have crossed our Southern 
Border into the United States than the previous 12 years of two 
administrations combined. Did the budget suddenly decrease and result 
in this massive surge? No.
    Did the number of border agents suddenly get cut in January 2021? 
No. What got cut were 89 effective policies. As Chief Ortiz told us in 
our hearing in McAllen, ``we don't have a resource crisis, we have a 
policy crisis.''
    We will fulfill our obligation to the American people and our oath 
to the Constitution. Secretary Mayorkas, need I remind you that 
Congress makes the laws, and the Executive branch is obligated to 
follow the laws?
    Apparently, the answer to that question is yes because since you 
became Secretary, you have disregarded the laws written by this branch 
of Government, laws passed by both Republicans and Democrats.
    Behind me, you can see a list of the ways you've made our border 
and our country less secure. You intentionally:
   Ended all construction of and contracts to build the border 
        wall system;
   Attempted to terminate the ``Migrant Protection Protocols--
        Remain in Mexico Policy,'' and when these efforts failed you 
        refused to fully enforce the policy;
   Illegally and without Congressional approval created mass-
        parole programs for countries such as Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, 
        and Venezuela, and expanded the use of the CBP One App to 
        facilitate these programs. This is ultimately playing a shell 
        game wherein those who would otherwise come illegally, with no 
        justification for entry, now get to enter under the pretense of 
        legality;
   Lowered credible fear standards, so even illegal border 
        crossers, who have broken the laws of the United States, can 
        claim asylum, despite knowing that 9 out of 10 claims will be 
        found illegitimate;
   Instructed ICE agents not to detain or deport the vast 
        majority of individuals illegally in the country, while also 
        stating that the crime of being in the country illegally is by 
        itself no longer grounds for removal;
   Refused to detain illegal aliens pursuant to the Immigration 
        and Nationality Act, and instead allowed them to be processed 
        en masse into the United States;
   Moved Northern Border agents to the Southwestern Border, 
        leaving our Northern Border vulnerable which has led to an 
        increase in encounters; and finally
   Ended Title 42 in May without a plan to deal with the surge.
    What has that gotten us? Here, behind me, you can see the results.
    Unfortunately, the facts are overwhelming:
   More than 5 million encounters at the Southwest Border since 
        President Biden took office;
   1.4 million known ``gotaways'' who evaded U.S. Border Patrol 
        agents since President Bident took office. And these are only 
        the ones we know about. We learned from U.S. Border Patrol 
        Chief Ortiz that these numbers are likely 20 percent higher;
   80 individuals on the terrorist watchlist across the 
        Southwest Border so far in fiscal year 2023;
   14,148 pounds of fentanyl seized in fiscal year 2023--enough 
        to kill the entire U.S. population--the population you swore to 
        protect--over nine-and-a-half times. And this is only the 
        amount we know about. We have no idea how much of this poison 
        is actually being brought into the country by drug smugglers, 
        taking advantage of our porous border.
    Last month, this committee held a hearing in McAllen, where Chief 
Ortiz stated under oath that DHS does not have operational control of 
our borders, contradicting testimony that you previously gave before 
this committee.
    Chief Ortiz went on to say that 5 of our 9 sectors are under the 
control of the drug cartels. Unbelievable.
    Secretary Mayorkas, your reckless border policies are enriching 
drug cartels, and these cartels are laughing in our face. They find it 
amusing that the most powerful nation on earth is not only unwilling to 
stop them but is actively facilitating their business model.
    Unfortunately, your admission during the March 28, 2023, Senate 
Judiciary hearing that you are unaware cartels are using illegal aliens 
as decoys to distract Border Patrol agents while they smuggle illicit 
contraband and illegal aliens across the border emboldens these 
cartels. Honestly, your admission reflects incompetence. Imagine a 
general who has no clue about the strategy of the enemy. We'd fire that 
general on the spot.
    Mr. Secretary, every time you fail to acknowledge this is a crisis, 
you lose even more credibility with the men and women of DHS--to say 
nothing of the American public.
    As you ignore the crisis at our border, thousands of Border Patrol 
agents and CBP officers are on the front lines putting their lives at 
risk to keep our country safe.
    And what kind of treatment do they receive from you? They are 
accused of whipping migrants crossing the border illegally.
    And now we find out your Department knew the whole time that these 
reports were bogus. You went on national television and vilified these 
agents of the Horse Patrol Unit.
    These men and women are proud to fulfill their duty to secure our 
border, and they do this with no thanks, no support, and no recognition 
from your administration. This is downright shameful.
    I don't blame our Border Patrol agents for feeling the way they do 
about you. As a former Army officer, doctor, and CEO, I know that when 
a leader loses the trust of those he is entrusted with to command and 
serve, it's over.
    Now, let's turn our attention to your budget proposal for DHS.
    Mr. Secretary, this budget proposal is an insult to every American. 
It fails to take seriously many of our most pressing national security 
threats, especially our wide-open border.
    President Biden himself likes to use the quote: ``Don't tell me 
what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you 
value.'' This budget clearly shows us what this administration values, 
and it is not the safety of the American people.
    Like your past budgets, policy decisions, and actions, this 
proposed DHS budget has the singular purpose of continuing to encourage 
people to come to this country illegally. Here behind me, you can see 
this clearly. DHS:
   Pet projects, $4 plus billion,
   CBP decreased, $1.2 billion.
   U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, $1.1 billion,
   ICE decreased, $421 million.
    The objective of this budget is not to secure the border, but to 
force CBP personnel to process illegal aliens quicker into the interior 
of the United States.
    The proposed $4.7 billion ``Southwest Border Contingency Fund'' is 
another gimmick to spend American taxpayer dollars on a crisis you and 
President Biden created, with a goal of processing illegal aliens 
quicker out of DHS custody so that they can settle into the interior of 
our country.
    The administration is saying the quiet part out loud: By requesting 
funding for ``border management'' instead of ``border security,'' you 
are signaling you have no intention of securing our borders.
    Instead of spending any money on wall construction that would 
actually have both a practical and deterrent impact, the administration 
has proposed spending $3.9 billion for a DHS ``climate resilience 
program.'' Meanwhile, you propose spending a mere additional $40 
million to combat the fentanyl crisis devastating this Nation.
    Do you think the parents and families who will continue to lose 
their children, their brothers and sisters, to fentanyl will take 
comfort in knowing DHS at least added more to the massive money already 
spent by this administration on climate change? Of course not.
    Mr. Secretary, I could go on and on, but I will yield. I do hope 
you have come here today, ready to be honest with the American people, 
because if you are bold enough to make these policy decisions, you 
should be brave enough to own up to them and their consequences. I will 
now yield to the Ranking Member for his opening statement.

    Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much. I want to thank 
Secretary Mayorkas for being here today to testify at the 
committee's annual budget hearing.
    The President's fiscal year 2024 budget requests $103.2 
billion for the Department of Homeland Security to carry out 
its mission of safeguarding the homeland and the American 
people, while preserving our values. The request reflects the 
needs of the Department given the current threat landscape, 
with mounting challenges at our borders, increased familial 
trafficking, primarily by U.S. citizens at ports of entry, 
persistent cyber threats, growing domestic terrorism, and more 
frequent and severe natural disasters. It also reflects the 
state of the Department 20 years after its establishment in the 
wake of 9/11 and just 2 years removed from the damage wrought 
by the Trump administration, the Biden administration inherited 
a Department of Homeland Security deleted by 4 years of 
politicization and mismanagement.
    Among Secretary Mayorkas' predecessors were so-called 
leaders often unqualified and sometimes unlawfully appointed, 
who did the former President's bidding, even if it meant 
separating small children from their parents, pandering to 
domestic extremists, and violating American civil rights by 
detaining peaceful protesters and spying on journalists. One of 
those predecessors was not only unlawfully appointed, but also 
refused to testify at the committee's annual hearing on world-
wide threats to the homeland, even defying a subpoena to 
appear. Under the Trump administration DHS regularly refused to 
comply with regular Congressional oversight, ignoring requests 
and subpoenas for documents.
    For the last 2 years, Secretary Mayorkas has had the 
difficult task of undoing the damage done by the last 
administration while leading the Department and its more than 
260,000 employees through challenging times. Unfortunately, 
Republicans seem intent on making a hard job even harder, maybe 
because they think berating the Secretary will get them their 5 
minutes on Fox. They spend time tweeting about their 
``accomplishments'' during the first 100 days of the 118th 
Congress and touting the number of television appearances they 
have made. Meanwhile, they haven't moved a single bill through 
this committee. Not one. I was dismayed to see that speaking to 
a group of campaign contributors last week about today's 
hearing, the Chairman said, and I quote, ``Get the popcorn. 
It's going to be fun.'' I think that tells Americans all they 
need to know about the Republican agenda here. They don't want 
solutions to homeland security challenges, they want to make a 
headline or a photo op, they want a political wedge issue and 
something to talk to their deep-pocketed donors about more than 
what they want to work together to get things done in 
Washington at its worst and a sad departure from the proud, 
bipartisan history of this committee.
    So today, Democrats want to talk to the Secretary about the 
issues facing the homeland and how the Department will use the 
President's budget request to address them. We want to learn 
about the proposed Border Contingency Fund and how it would be 
used to process migrants in an orderly and humane way. We want 
to understand how the budget would allow CBP to deploy more 
technology at ports of entry to identify and interdict fentanyl 
and other illicit drugs being smuggled across our borders. We 
want to discuss what the Department and its partners are doing 
to stop the southbound flow of American guns that are fueling 
cartel violence in Mexico. We also want to hear about the 
terrorism landscape and how the budget would support the fight 
against proliferating domestic terrorist threats and persistent 
foreign terrorist threats. We want to know how the budget would 
help strengthen our cyber defenses against adversaries like 
Russia and China and other malign actors. We want to know 
whether FEMA has the resources it needs to respond to the 
unrelenting pace and scale of disasters in recent years. We 
want to ask, how can we support the DHS work force, help 
improve morale, and provide better pay and rights for front-
line employees? That is the work of a functional Committee on 
Homeland Security at a budget hearing and that is what you will 
hear from the Democratic side of the aisle today.
    I also want to take the opportunity to thank Secretary 
Mayorkas for his responsiveness to Congress, not just today, 
but since taking the job over 2 years ago. The speed at which 
the Department, under his leadership, has responded to 
Congressional oversight by both Republicans and Democrats is 
unprecedented in the 20 years I have served on this committee.
    On a personal note, I appreciate the Secretary and FEMA 
Administrator Criswell being on the ground within hours of an 
EF-4 tornado striking Mississippi last month and the President 
and First Lady visiting shortly thereafter. The tornado 
devastated parts of my district and the Department has worked 
quickly to help provide resources. Communities like those I 
represent were often ignored in times of need by the last 
administration. It is good to see that the Biden administration 
not only talks the talk on equity and disaster response, but is 
also walking the walk when it matters most, while we are 
looking for your continued support, Mr. Secretary, as survivors 
work to get back on their feet as long as the recovery process 
continues.
    In closing, I want to note that today marks the 28th 
anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, and last week, we 
commemorated the 10th anniversary of the Boston Marathon 
bombing. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with those who 
were killed or injured in those tragic attacks and their 
families. We are grateful to the men and women of the 
Department of Homeland Security who work every day to help 
prevent future attacks and keep Americans safe.
    I look forward to today's discussion, and I yield back.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
             Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
                             April 18, 2023
    I want to thank Secretary Mayorkas for being here today to testify 
at the committee's annual budget hearing.
    The President's fiscal year 2024 budget requests $103.2 billion for 
the Department of Homeland Security to carry out its mission of 
safeguarding the homeland and the American people while preserving our 
values. The request reflects the needs of the Department given the 
current threat landscape, with mounting challenges at our borders, 
increased fentanyl trafficking, primarily by U.S. citizens at ports of 
entry, persistent cyber threats, growing domestic terrorism, and more 
frequent and severe natural disasters. It also reflects the state of 
the Department 20 years after its establishment in the wake of 9/11, 
and just 2 years removed from the damage wrought by the Trump 
administration.
    The Biden administration inherited a Department of Homeland 
Security beleaguered by 4 years of politicization and mismanagement. 
Among Secretary Mayorkas' predecessors were so-called leaders--often 
unqualified and sometimes unlawfully appointed--who did the former 
President's bidding, even if it meant separating small children from 
their parents, pandering to domestic extremists, and violating 
Americans' civil rights by detaining peaceful protesters and spying on 
journalists. One of those predecessors was not only unlawfully 
appointed, but also refused to testify at the committee's annual 
hearing on worldwide threats to the homeland, even defying a subpoena 
to appear.
    Under the Trump administration, DHS regularly refused to comply 
with regular Congressional oversight, ignoring requests and subpoenas 
for documents. For the last 2 years, Secretary Mayorkas has had the 
difficult task of undoing the damage done by the last administration, 
while leading the Department and its more than 260,000 employees 
through challenging times.
    Unfortunately, Republicans seem intent on making a hard job even 
harder, maybe because they think berating the Secretary will get them 
their 5 minutes on Fox. They spend time tweeting about their 
``accomplishments'' during the first 100 days of the 118th Congress and 
touting the number of television appearances they've made; meanwhile 
they haven't moved a single bill through this committee. Not one.
    I was dismayed to see that speaking to a group of campaign 
contributors last week about today's hearing, the Chairman said, ``get 
the popcorn . . . it's going to be fun.'' I think that tells Americans 
all they need to know about the Republican agenda here. They don't want 
solutions to homeland security challenges; they want a headline or a 
photo op. They want a political wedge issue and something to talk to 
their deep-pocketed donors about more than they want to work together 
to get things done. It's Washington at its worst, and a sad departure 
from the proud bipartisan history of this committee.
    So today, Democrats want to talk to the Secretary about the issues 
facing the homeland and how the Department would use the President's 
budget request to address them.
    We want to learn about the proposed border contingency fund and how 
it would be used to process migrants in an orderly and humane way.
    We want to understand how the budget would allow CBP to deploy more 
technology at ports of entry to identify and interdict fentanyl and 
other illicit drugs being smuggled across our borders.
    We want to discuss what the Department and its partners are doing 
to stop the southbound flow of American guns that are fueling cartel 
violence in Mexico.
    We also want to hear about the terrorism landscape and how the 
budget would support the fight against proliferating domestic terrorist 
threats and persistent foreign terrorist threats.
    We want to know how the budget would help strengthen our cyber 
defenses against adversaries like Russia and China and other malign 
actors.
    We want to know whether FEMA has the resources it needs to respond 
to the unrelenting pace and scale of disasters in recent years.
    And we want to ask how we can support the DHS workforce, help 
improve morale, and provide better pay and rights for front-line 
employees. That's the work of a functional Committee on Homeland 
Security at a budget hearing, and that's what you will hear from the 
Democratic side of the aisle today.
    I also want to take this opportunity to thank Secretary Mayorkas 
for his responsiveness to Congress not just today, but since taking the 
job over 2 years ago. The speed at which the Department, under his 
leadership, has responded to Congressional oversight by both 
Republicans and Democrats is unprecedented in the 20 years I have 
served on this committee.
    On a personal note, I appreciate the Secretary and FEMA 
Administrator Criswell being on the ground within hours of an EF-4 
tornado striking Mississippi last month, and the President and First 
Lady visiting shortly thereafter. The tornado devastated parts of my 
district, and the Department has worked quickly to help provide 
resources. Communities like those I represent were often ignored in 
times of need by the last administration. It's good to see that the 
Biden administration not only talks the talk on equity in disaster 
response but is also walking the walk when it matters most. We will be 
looking for your continued support, Mr. Secretary, as survivors work to 
get back on their feet as the long recovery process continues.
    In closing, I want to note that today marks the 28th anniversary of 
the Oklahoma City bombing, and last week we commemorated the 10th 
anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing. Our thoughts and prayers 
continue to be with those who were killed or injured in those tragic 
attacks and their families. We are grateful to the men and women of the 
Department of Homeland Security who work every day to help prevent 
future attacks and keep Americans safe.

    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields back.
    Other Members of the committee are reminded that opening 
statements may be submitted for the record.
    We are pleased to have Secretary Mayorkas here before us 
for this time. I would ask the Secretary if he would rise and 
raise his right hand.
    [Witness sworn.]
    Chairman Green. Let the record reflect that the Secretary 
has answered in the affirmative. Appreciate that. We will get 
started.
    I would like to formally introduce our witness. The 
Honorable Alejandro Mayorkas is the 7th Secretary of Homeland 
Security, a role in which he served since February 2, 2021. 
Prior to his appointment, he served as the deputy secretary of 
DHS and the director of USCIS. I thank you for being here 
today, Mr. Secretary.
    The witness' full statement will appear in the record.
    I now recognize Secretary Mayorkas for 5 minutes to 
summarize his opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, SECRETARY, 
              U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

    Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you very much, Chairman Green, 
Ranking Member Thompson, distinguished Members of this 
committee.
    Last month, we marked the 20th anniversary of the 
Department's creation, which brought together different 
agencies from across the Federal Government in a determined 
effort to safeguard the United States against foreign terrorism 
in the wake of the devastation wrought on September 11, 2001. 
Over the past 20 years, the challenges facing the homeland have 
grown increasingly dynamic and complex. The Department's 
260,000 public servants meet these challenges with unflinching 
dedication to mission.
    With acts of targeted violence occurring more and more 
frequently, we are sharing with local communities the best 
practice models of detection and intervention when an 
individual is exhibiting signs of moving toward violence. We 
are on the ground assisting communities impacted by 
increasingly severe and frequent extreme weather events. We are 
attacking cartels and smugglers through new campaigns and 
enforcement searchers, efforts that have resulted in the arrest 
of more than 9,100 smugglers, the disruption of over 9,000 
human smuggling operations, and record seizures of fentanyl at 
our ports of entry. We are rescuing victims of human 
trafficking and child exploitation and bringing perpetrators of 
these heinous crimes to justice. We made 3,655 human 
trafficking arrests last fiscal year alone. We are defending 
networks in our hospital, schools, and electric grids from 
wide-ranging cyber attacks. We are on patrol in the Arctic and 
in the Western Pacific to protect our interests. This is just a 
snapshot of the work our extraordinary personnel do every day 
to keep the homeland safe.
    The evolving set of challenges we face requires a 
modernized budget. The President's fiscal year 2024 budget for 
DHS provides the Department with the resources it needs to 
prevent, prepare for, and respond to the threats of today and 
tomorrow. The displacement of people across the region is 
greater than at any time since World War II. I have visited the 
Southwest Border approximately 16 times as Secretary to meet 
with our personnel and to see first-hand the challenges they 
face and the tools they need to do their jobs. The fiscal year 
2024 budget proposes the hiring of over 1,400 additional 
personnel to secure the Southwest Border, including 350 
additional Border Patrol agents and 310 additional Border 
Patrol processing coordinators to get more agents back into the 
field performing their critical law enforcement mission. The 
budget proposes $535 million in new funds for border 
technology, $305 million of which is to deploy new technologies 
and capabilities in our fight against the trafficking of 
fentanyl through our ports of entry.
    The environment across the Southwest Border is dynamic, and 
the annual appropriations process does not provide the 
flexibility to address challenges that often change sector to 
sector, month to month. We propose that Congress create a fund 
that can be spent for specific purposes when certain migrant 
encounter thresholds are met. This would equip our personnel 
with the tools they need to meet migration searches if and as 
they occur, like transportation resources, soft-sided of 
facilities for processing, and grants to support State and 
local community reception. The budget will also enable the 
Department to process the increasing number of asylum cases, 
address the backlog of applications for immigration benefits, 
support the Citizenship and Integration Grant Program, and 
improve refugee processing to meet the goal of admitting up to 
125,000 refugees.
    Our critical infrastructure is increasingly the target of 
cyber attacks launched by transnational criminal organizations 
and hostile nation-states, including the People's Republic of 
China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. This budget invests in 
personnel, infrastructure, and enhanced tools and services to 
increase our cybersecurity preparedness and resilience. We look 
forward to working with the committee this year to codify our 
Cyber Safety Review Board in law to ensure it has the 
authorities necessary to be effective.
    We must also continue to build a culture of preparedness so 
that communities that face increasing extreme weather events 
are ready and resilient. This budget provides $20.1 billion for 
FEMA to assist individuals and State, local, Tribal, and 
territorial partners impacted by major disasters and funds 
efforts to build climate resilience.
    The United States Coast Guard provides critical 
capabilities to defend our national interests in the Western 
Hemisphere, the Arctic, and the Indo-Pacific. This budget makes 
strategic investments in the Coast Guard's fleet of offshore 
patrol cutters and polar security cutters that will advance our 
security and economic prosperity.
    Finally, the men and women of DHS who serve our Nation are 
our most important and vital resource. We cannot expect to 
recruit and retain a world-class, diverse work force if they 
are not compensated fairly. We are asking for $1.4 billion to 
honor the promise of pay fairness for our TSA work force.
    This budget will enable the Department to respond to the 
threats of today and prepare for the threats of tomorrow.
    Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Mayorkas follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Alejandro N. Mayorkas
                             April 19, 2023
                              introduction
    Chairman Green, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished Members 
of the committee: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to 
discuss the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS or the Department) 
Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget.
    Last month marked the 20th anniversary of the Department's 
creation, which brought together 22 agencies and 180,000 public 
servants from across the Federal Government in a determined national 
effort to safeguard the United States against foreign terrorism in the 
wake of the devastation wrought on September 11, 2001. DHS remains the 
largest reorganization of the Federal Government's national security 
establishment since 1947 and a testament to the grave threat we faced 
as a Nation from terrorism brought to our shores by foreign actors and 
foreign terrorist organizations.
    Twenty years ago, Americans seeking a way to serve their country 
joined the Department of Homeland Security to make meaningful 
contributions to the safety and security of the homeland. These first 
employees assembled chairs and desks in front of elevators, drew up 
initial plans and organization charts, and fought for a seat at the 
table. Over 32,000 of those early employees, whom we admiringly refer 
to as ``plank holders,'' are still proudly serving with the Department. 
Their service built the Department into the fit-for-mission 
organization it is today.
    Over the past 20 years, the Department has responded to an 
increasingly dynamic threat landscape with leadership, new programs and 
capabilities, cross-component collaboration, and unflinching dedication 
to mission. Today we are the third-largest department in the Federal 
Government with a 260,000-member workforce. Every day, our personnel 
interact with the U.S. public more than any other Federal agency as we 
ensure the safety of Americans in the skies and on the seas, promote 
lawful trade and travel, ensure the protection of our critical 
infrastructure, provide relief when disaster strikes, advance the 
security of cyber space, combat human trafficking and on-line child 
sexual exploitation, protect communities from illicit drugs and 
weapons, stand watch at our borders, defend the United States' 
interests in the Arctic and the Indo-Pacific, guard our Federal 
buildings, and more.
    Through all of our work, the Department is guided by 12 priorities 
that I established to ensure we are ready to address the threats of 
today and prepare for the threats of tomorrow. With these priorities in 
mind, I will share how we are confronting these threats and challenges, 
and how the President's Budget will ensure the Department has the 
resources to do so effectively.
    The fiscal year 2024 President's Budget for the Department, 
totaling $103.2 billion, will ensure DHS has the resources to execute 
our mission to safeguard the American people and our homeland while 
also preserving our values. Of the $103.2 billion requested, $60.4 
billion is discretionary funding, $20.1 billion is for the Disaster 
Relief Fund (DRF) to support response, recovery, and resiliency during 
major disasters, and $22.7 billion is mandatory funding and fee 
collections. In addition to the $103.2 billion, this year the 
Department is proposing up to $4.7 billion in emergency designated 
funding for a Southwest Border Contingency Fund to provide additional 
resources to DHS in the event increased migration along the Southwest 
Border exceeds pre-identified encounter thresholds.
    Collectively, we may not have predicted today's diverse and complex 
threat environment when our Department was first created, but our 
mission has never been more vital, our agencies and officers have never 
collaborated more closely, and our Nation has never been more prepared. 
The Department of Homeland Security was born out of tragedy and 
necessity. But in that necessity, we evolved and grew and we attracted 
and retained the very best talent America has to offer to solve its 
greatest challenges. This fiscal year 2024 President's Budget will 
enable the Department to continue fulfilling our critical mission for 
the American people.
     securing the border and building a safe, orderly, and humane 
                           immigration system
    Violence, food insecurity, severe poverty, corruption, climate 
change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and dire economic conditions have all 
contributed to a significant increase in irregular migration around the 
world. In our hemisphere alone, failing authoritarian regimes in 
Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, along with an on-going humanitarian 
crisis in Haiti, have driven hundreds of thousands of people to migrate 
to the United States and other countries. These movements are often 
facilitated by numerous human smuggling organizations that exploit 
migrants as part of a billion-dollar criminal enterprise. The depth of 
suffering that these migrants are willing to endure speaks to the 
desperation they feel about their prospects in their home countries.
    Over the last several months, DHS has announced new processes for 
Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans and their immediate 
family members that combine an accessible, streamlined opportunity for 
eligible individuals to come to the United States via a lawful pathway 
with consequences for those who do not avail themselves of this pathway 
and instead cross the Southwest Border without authorization. Nationals 
of these countries who do not avail themselves of this process and 
attempt to enter the United States without authorization will generally 
be returned to Mexico.
    The coupling of these measures has led to a dramatic reduction in 
the numbers of Cubans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Venezuelans seeking 
to cross the Southwest Border without authorization. Encounters of 
nationals from these four countries between POEs at the Southwest 
Border declined from a 7-day average of 1,231 on the day this policy 
was announced on January 5, 2023, to a 7-day average of 46 on February 
28, 2023--a drop of 96 percent. This reduction represents a decline of 
99 percent from the early December 2022 high of 3,546 daily encounters, 
and occurred even as encounters of other non-citizens began to rebound 
from their typical seasonal drop.
    While encounters of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans 
between POEs at the Southwest Border have plummeted, thousands of 
nationals from these countries have successfully followed the process 
for lawful entry. As of March 1, more than 66,000 Cubans, Haitians, 
Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans have, after being thoroughly screened and 
vetted, received travel authorization. More than 45,000 individuals 
have lawfully arrived through commercial air travel at POEs to unite 
with supporters already in the United States, including more than 9,500 
Cubans, more than 8,000 Haitians, more than 2,700 Nicaraguans, and more 
than 25,000 Venezuelans. The successful use of these parole processes 
and the significant decrease in illegal crossing attempts clearly 
demonstrates that noncitizens prefer to utilize a safe, lawful, and 
orderly pathway to the United States if one is available, rather than 
putting their lives and livelihoods in the hands of ruthless smugglers. 
Combining accessible legal pathways with consequences for those who 
fail to use those pathways works.
A Fair, Orderly, and Humane Immigration System
    The Biden-Harris administration is committed to improving the 
Nation's immigration system and safeguarding its integrity by 
efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits. 
The fiscal year 2024 Budget includes $865 million for U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) to process increasing asylum 
caseloads, address processing times for immigration benefit requests, 
support the Citizenship and Integration Grant Program, and improve 
refugee processing to support the administration's goal of welcoming up 
to 125,000 refugees in fiscal year 2024.
    The Budget also includes $165 million for the Department's 
Management Directorate to support the design and construction of a 
third permanent Joint Processing Center along the Southwest Border. 
This facility, with dedicated operating space for multiple agencies and 
organizations, will make processing more efficient and enable co-
location operations, as appropriate. These projects will provide an 
integrated, whole-of-government solution for the processing of 
noncitizens encountered along the Southwest Border.
Enhancing Border Security
    DHS is leading the implementation of a whole-of-Government effort 
to secure our Nation's borders and enforce U.S. immigration laws. CBP 
is responsible for securing the Nation's borders to protect the United 
States against terrorist threats, combat and deter transnational crime, 
and facilitate lawful travel, trade, and immigration. ICE enforces more 
than 400 Federal statutes and stands at the forefront of our Nation's 
efforts to strengthen border security and prevent the illegal movement 
of people, goods, and funds into, within, and out of the United States. 
The fiscal year 2024 Budget provides almost $25 billion for CBP and 
ICE, demonstrating significant investments in personnel and technology. 
For example, the Budget funds an additional 350 Border Patrol agents, 
$535 million for border security technology at and between POEs, and an 
additional 460 processing coordinators and assistants at CBP and ICE to 
further ensure Border Patrol agents are in the field performing their 
critical law enforcement mission. The fiscal year 2024 Budget also 
supports CBP's efforts to reduce reliance on DOD support along the 
Southwest Border.
Southwest Border Contingency Fund
    The annual appropriations process makes it difficult to adjust 
operationally to changes at the Southwest Border throughout the year. 
In recent years, the Department has relied on supplemental funding and 
internal funding realignments to respond to fluctuating levels of 
migrant encounters that strain appropriated resources. The fiscal year 
2024 Budget includes a Southwest Border Contingency Fund of up to $4.7 
billion, an emergency funding source to respond to migration surges 
along the Southwest Border that only becomes available if migrant 
encounters reach predetermined thresholds. Each fiscal year, the fund 
will receive appropriations quarterly if the number of encounters 
exceeds the pre-identified thresholds. The contingency fund can only be 
used for certain border management costs incurred by CBP, ICE, and 
FEMA, to include requirements such as soft-sided facilities, 
transportation of migrants, medical support, surge staffing, 
immigration detention beds, Alternatives to Detention, and the Shelter 
and Services Grant Program. When the specified encounter rates have 
been met, the Department will notify this committee of its intent to 
use the resources made available through this Fund.
    The Contingency Fund will help to relieve pressure on CBP's Border 
Patrol stations, facilitate ICE's enforcement of our immigration laws, 
and provide humanitarian assistance. To avoid potential operational 
risks created by realigning funds from base budgets, CBP and ICE will 
use the Southwest Border Contingency Fund for emergent border 
management requirements associated with potential migrant surges. The 
Fund will also allow FEMA to provide critical humanitarian resources 
and relief to local governments and non-profit organizations to help 
better manage the costs of noncitizen arrivals in their communities.
   investing in cybersecurity and infrastructure security protection
    The Department continuously evolves to counter emerging threats and 
protect Americans in our modern world. DHS will implement the 
President's vision outlined in the National Cybersecurity Strategy, 
working with partners across sectors and around the globe to provide 
cybersecurity tools and resources, protect critical infrastructure, 
respond to and recover from cyber incidents, and pave the way for a 
more secure future.
    Our interconnectedness and the technology that enables it--the 
cyber ecosystem--exposes us to a dynamic and evolving threat 
environment, one not contained by borders or limited to centralized 
actors, and one that impacts governments, the private sector, civil 
society, and every citizen. As a result, cyber threats from foreign 
governments and transnational criminals remain among the most prominent 
threats facing our Nation. Hostile nations like Russia, China, Iran, 
and North Korea, as well as cyber criminals around the world, grow more 
sophisticated and create more adverse consequences. The Department 
continues to make significant strides to address these threats, 
including the work of the Cyber Safety Review Board, pursuing 
international partnerships such as expanding the Abraham Accords to 
defensive cybersecurity, promulgation of the cybersecurity performance 
goals, and creating more mature public-private partnerships to secure 
and defend civilian critical infrastructure, including those upon which 
the Department of Defense (DOD) may rely.
    In March 2022, the President signed into law the Cyber Incident 
Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA), which requires the 
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) to develop and implement 
regulations requiring ``covered entities'' to report ``covered cyber 
incidents'' to CISA no later than 72 hours after the covered entities 
reasonably believe that a covered cyber incident occurred, and to 
report ransom payments within 24 hours after a payment resulting from a 
ransom attack is made. The information derived from these reporting 
requirements will increase CISA's ability to rapidly deploy resources 
and render assistance to victims suffering cyber attacks, analyze 
incoming reporting to identify trends, and quickly share that 
information with network defenders to warn other potential victims. The 
fiscal year 2024 Budget includes $98 million to help ensure CISA has 
the staffing, processes, and technology in place to successfully 
implement and utilize the information gained through CIRCIA.
    The fiscal year 2024 Budget is the first to request the 
transitioning of portions of the National Cybersecurity Protection 
System to a new Cyber Analytic and Data System (CADS). Over the past 2 
years, Congress provided CISA with additional authorities and resources 
that in turn enabled unprecedented access to cybersecurity data across 
both Federal and non-Federal systems. This data will allow CISA to 
significantly decrease the time required to identify potential 
intrusions or vulnerabilities and take action to minimize potential 
harm; for example, by rapidly determining that threats identified 
across multiple agencies or companies are part of the same campaign or 
quickly assessing the breadth of a compromise to contain impacts more 
effectively. This data will only increase exponentially with the 
successful deployment of CIRCIA. Effectively leveraging this data 
requires new analytic capabilities and associated infrastructure, which 
CISA is implementing through CADS. CADS will provide a robust and 
scalable analytic environment capable of integrating mission visibility 
data sets and providing visualization tools and advanced analytic 
capabilities to CISA's cyber operators, allowing more rapid analyses to 
inform more rapid actions, and, in turn, reducing the prevalence of 
intrusions and exploitable conditions across Federal and critical 
infrastructure networks. This $425 million request will allow CADS to 
expand the cyber mission systems engineering, mission IT 
infrastructure, and cyber operation tools and services needed to enable 
CISA cyber operators to fully achieve their mission objectives.
                          countering fentanyl
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (ICE) work together to combat transnational 
criminal organizations (TCOs) and counter narcotics trafficking and 
other threats. For example, CBP's use of advanced analytics and 
targeting capabilities at the National Targeting Center allows CBP and 
partners to identify critical logistics, financial and communication 
nodes, and areas of weakness in illicit opioid trafficking networks. 
This information is shared with ICE's Homeland Security Investigations 
(HSI), which employs a suite of comprehensive criminal investigative 
techniques to combat drug trafficking into the United States, which 
primarily happens at ports of entry (POEs) rather than between POEs. 
Investigative techniques deployed by HSI include physical surveillance 
and authorized electronic surveillance, defendant and witness 
interviews, the use of confidential informants and sources of 
information, and special agents embedded with host country law 
enforcement. HSI investigates land border narcotics seizures and 
contraband smuggling events as part of its strategy to disrupt and 
dismantle the capabilities of TCOs and target sources of supply. 
Information resulting from these investigations is further shared with 
CBP to assist in locating and interdicting these smuggling attempts.
    The shift in the illicit drug market toward synthetic opioids, 
primarily fentanyl and its analogs, led CBP to develop and implement 
the CBP Strategy to Combat Opioids. With the support of Congress, CBP 
continues to make significant investments and improvements in drug 
detection and interdiction technology. CBP's extended border and 
foreign operations missions involve collaborating with U.S. and 
international partners to conduct joint maritime operations in the 
source, transit, and arrival zones of the Western Hemisphere. In 
collaboration with Joint Interagency Task Force South, CBP operates 
aircraft throughout North and Central America, conducting counter-
narcotics missions to detect and thereby facilitate the interdiction of 
bulk quantities of illicit narcotics by partner countries and agencies. 
CBP seized 11,200 pounds of fentanyl in fiscal year 2021 and 14,700 
pounds in fiscal year 2022. This compares to 2,804 pounds in fiscal 
year 2019.
    Analysts continue to assess that the vast majority of fentanyl that 
enters the United States moves through U.S. POEs. At our POEs, CBP's 
non-intrusive inspection (NII) program deploys technologies to inspect 
and screen cars, trucks, rail cars, sea containers, as well as personal 
luggage, packages, parcels, and flat mail through either X-ray or 
gamma-ray imaging systems. CBP Officers at our POEs use NII systems to 
help detect drugs, unreported currency, guns, ammunition, and other 
illegal goods, as well as human smuggling attempts, while having a 
minimal impact on the flow of legitimate travel and commerce. CBP 
officers and agents currently utilize over 370 large-scale systems and 
more than 3,500 small-scale NII systems to scan cargo and vehicles. In 
fiscal year 2021, CBP executed fiscal year 2019 funding to procure 123 
additional large-scale NII systems to reach the current goal of 493 
total systems. These additional units are expected to increase scanning 
to 40 percent of passenger vehicles and 70 percent of cargo vehicles 
along the Southwest Border land ports of entry. These increases will 
represent a 2,000 percent gain in scanning capacity and dramatically 
enhance our enforcement and deterrence efforts. CBP will continue to 
utilize risk-based analysis to screen the remaining 60 percent of 
passenger vehicles and 30 percent of commercial vehicles through our 
existing layered enforcement strategy. The Budget request of over $305 
million in fiscal year 2024 will allow CBP to identify, procure, and 
deploy enhanced inspection capabilities to interdict emerging threats 
in the land and mail environments, specifically within civil works 
activities for drive-through NII deployments, enhanced narcotic 
detection with a primary focus on fentanyl detection, inspection 
technology at mail and express consignment facilities, chemical 
analysis to enable interdiction of opioids, and systems integration.
    HSI is the principal investigative arm of DHS and plays a critical 
role in countering narcotics trafficking by exchanging information, 
coordinating investigations, and facilitating enforcement actions with 
law enforcement partners abroad to deter the ability of TCOs to smuggle 
drugs, people, and contraband into and out of the United States. HSI 
has matured into one of the premier criminal investigative agencies in 
the world. In fiscal year 2022, HSI conducted 11,535 narcotics-related 
criminal arrests and seized roughly 1.87 million pounds of narcotics, 
which included 20,981 pounds of fentanyl. Additionally, HSI agents 
seized more than $210 million in total currency and assets through 
their narcotics enforcement efforts.
    The fiscal year 2024 President's Budget includes $40 million to 
support the Monroe Project operations along the Southwest Border to 
combat illicit drug operations. The Monroe Project is a recent DHS-wide 
effort aimed at targeting criminal organizations responsible for 
distributing illicit fentanyl that killed more than 77,000 Americans 
last year. A key component of the Monroe Project is the consolidation 
of information to enable better data-driven decision making. This 
funding also supports capacity enhancement for HSI Mexico and their 
Transnational Criminal Investigative Unit, which is a critical 
component in the DHS strategy to disrupt and dismantle TCOs 
specializing in the production and distribution of fentanyl.
  combating human trafficking and preventing child sexual exploitation
    Combating the abhorrent crimes of human trafficking and child 
sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA) is a top priority for the 
Department. These crimes target the most vulnerable among us, offend 
our most basic values, and threaten our national security and public 
safety.
    Almost every office and agency in the Department plays a role in 
our counter-human trafficking mission. The DHS Center for Countering 
Human Trafficking (CCHT) coordinates the counter-trafficking efforts of 
16 offices and component agencies, reflecting our commitment to combat 
this heinous crime from every angle: Investigations and enforcement, 
intelligence, public education and prevention, policy innovation, 
victim protection and support, and more. HSI leads criminal 
investigations into sex trafficking and forced labor, making 3,655 
human trafficking-related arrests during fiscal year 2022, an increase 
of more than 50 percent over the previous fiscal year. Our human 
trafficking investigations led to 638 convictions, an increase of more 
than 80 percent over the previous year.
    The fiscal year 2024 Budget includes $24 million for HSI Child 
Exploitation Investigations Unit (CEIU), an increase of $17 million, to 
enhance HSI's capability to investigate international and domestic 
child exploitation. CEIU will utilize these resources to develop 
additional specialized sections within CEIU to focus on new and 
emerging threats, as well as the development of an on-line undercover 
program to ensure that HSI is utilizing all tools available to combat 
Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse around the globe. CEIU employs the 
latest technology to collect evidence and track the activities of 
individuals and organized groups who sexually exploit children using 
the open internet, DarkNet, chat rooms, peer-to-peer trading, and other 
app-based platforms. The Budget also includes $22 million for HSI's 
Center for Countering Human Trafficking, a $2 million increase. These 
additional resources will increase the number of investigators working 
to combat child exploitation and human trafficking.
  modernizing coast guard operational capability and presence in the 
                             arctic region
    As a maritime nation, the United States depends on a strong and 
agile Coast Guard to enhance the Nation's maritime safety, security, 
and economic prosperity. For 232 years, the Coast Guard has applied its 
broad authorities and capabilities to save lives, protect our waters, 
and defend our national interests. As challenges to our national 
security and global influence grow more complex, the need for a more 
adaptive and connected Coast Guard has never been greater. By 
confronting threats to the homeland wherever they emerge--from the 
Arctic to the Indo-Pacific--the Coast Guard secures our borders, saves 
lives, counters malign state behavior, prevents terrorism, and reduces 
physical and cybersecurity risks.
    The fiscal year 2024 Budget provides $12.1 billion in net 
discretionary funding to sustain readiness, resilience, and capability 
while building the Coast Guard of the future to ensure the Service has 
the assets, systems, infrastructure, and support needed to enhance the 
Nation's interests in an increasingly complex and connected world. The 
Budget continues efforts for the Coast Guard's two highest acquisition 
priorities, the Offshore Patrol Cutter and the Polar Security Cutter, 
and advances the Great Lakes Icebreaker acquisition--an asset ensuring 
America's continued economic prosperity on our domestic waterways.
    As climate change and strategic competition increasingly affect the 
geography, stability, and security of the Arctic region, Coast Guard 
presence and leadership have never been more critical. The fiscal year 
2024 President's Budget also requests $150 million to support the 
acquisition of a commercially-available polar icebreaker, including 
initial modifications, crewing, and integrated logistics support 
required to reach initial operating capability. The United States has 
vital national interests in the polar regions and the purchase of a 
commercially-available polar icebreaker is a viable strategy to 
accelerate U.S. presence in the polar regions in the near term.
   modernizing transportation security administration (tsa) pay and 
                           workforce policies
    TSA is an intelligence-driven national security organization that 
combines the skills of its workforce, evolving security procedures, and 
technology to optimize resource utilization and mission effectiveness. 
The Nation's economy depends on the implementation of transportation 
security measures that provide effective security against threats and 
ensure an efficient flow of people and commerce. TSA is committed to 
the highest level of security for the United States across all modes of 
transportation. Investment in enhanced security capabilities and 
technology will further strengthen TSA's ability to employ risk-based 
security measures to actively combat evolving threats to critical 
transportation infrastructure.
    The fiscal year 2024 Budget continues the fiscal year 2023 
initiative to increase TSA pay levels, making TSA pay comparable to 
private-sector and Federal Government employees in similar positions, 
which will greatly assist in recruitment and retention efforts. The TSA 
workforce deserves to be fairly compensated at rates comparable with 
their peers in the Federal workforce. The Budget includes $1.1 billion 
to ensure TSA employees are paid at a level that is no less than their 
counterparts on the General Schedule pay scale. An additional $53 
million covers the costs of pay systems conversion and establishes a 
labor relations support capability to manage expanded labor benefits 
and the right to appeal adverse personnel actions to the Merit Systems 
Protection Board. Enhancements to TSA pay supports the President's and 
my commitment to fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion in the 
Federal workforce.
    The Federal Government has repeatedly leveraged TSA's unique 
authorities--including the ability to issue Security Directives and 
Emergency Amendments within hours of receiving information about a 
threat--to address cyber threats. This threat has grown dramatically in 
the past decade and that growth shows no sign of slowing down. 
Accordingly, the fiscal year 2024 Budget includes an increase of $10 
million to conduct critical mission support functions to reduce the 
cyber threat to American critical infrastructure in both near- and mid-
terms, and in support of both surface and aviation sectors.
             supporting 2024 presidential campaign security
    The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) carries out the unique and 
integrated missions of protecting senior leadership and investigating 
threats to the Nation's financial system. Best known for protecting the 
President, the Vice President, their immediate families, visiting heads 
known for protecting the President, the Vice President, their immediate 
families, visiting heads.
          investing in climate and natural disaster resilience
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) strengthens the 
Nation's ability to prepare for and respond to disasters of all types 
and magnitudes via partnerships with State, local, Tribal, and 
territorial (SLTT) governments, in part through its grant programs. The 
Budget includes increased funding for programs and activities that 
support FEMA's goals to lead whole-of-community efforts in climate 
resilience and promote and sustain a ready FEMA and prepared Nation. As 
part of the administration's efforts to address climate change, the 
fiscal year 2024 Budget provides $4.0 billion for DHS's climate 
resilience programs, a more than $150 million increase from fiscal year 
2024 enacted. This is in addition to $1 billion provided by the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for fiscal year 2024. The Budget helps 
SLTT partners build climate resilience through various FEMA grant 
programs. The Budget also includes more than $500 million for flood 
hazard mapping, including the development of new data to support future 
flood conditions and their impacts.
    The fiscal year 2024 Budget provides a major disaster allocation 
totaling $20.1 billion for FEMA to assist SLTT partners and individuals 
affected by major disasters and provides a total of $3.2 billion to 
promote and sustain a prepared Nation through FEMA grants to improve 
the Nation's disaster resilience and implement preparedness strategies. 
This includes increasing the Nonprofit Security Grant Program by $55 
million to a total of $360 million for target hardening and other 
physical security enhancements and activities by nonprofit 
organizations that are at a high risk of terrorist attack. This also 
includes $50 million to establish a critical infrastructure 
cybersecurity grant program to support risk reduction strategies to 
protect critical infrastructure from cyber attacks. The Budget also 
provides $145 million to support Disaster Relief Fund base requirements 
associated with emergency declarations, pre-declaration surge 
activities, Fire Management Assistance Grants, and disaster readiness 
and support activities.
                    sustainability and conservation
    The administration remains committed to establishing the Federal 
Government as a leader in sustainability. The Budget includes $123 
million for DHS, as the third-largest department in the Federal 
Government and the Nation's largest law enforcement agency, to support 
integrated market-shaping investments into Zero-Emission Vehicles and 
charging infrastructure. The Budget also demonstrates the 
administration's continued support for the strategic investment in the 
National Capital Region (NCR) for Headquarters and facility 
requirements at St. Elizabeths. The Budget includes $264 million for 
the Department to consolidate its physical footprint across the NCR. In 
fiscal year 2024, funding will be used for the construction of new 
facilities, including the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, at the 
St. Elizabeths West Campus, consolidation of the remaining Management 
Directorate and FEMA Headquarters from dispersed locations to a 
consolidated space, and the continuation of utilization improvements at 
the Ronald Reagan Federal Office Building for CBP.
                               conclusion
    As DHS enters its third decade, the Department will continue to 
evolve and rise to the challenges posed by an ever-changing threat 
landscape. It is a great privilege to represent and serve alongside the 
DHS workforce that has time and again demonstrated exceptional skill 
and an unwavering commitment to keeping our country safe.
    The fiscal year 2024 President's Budget includes the necessary 
funding and authorities for DHS to carry out its wide-ranging mission. 
I am grateful to this committee for your continued support and the 
opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to working 
together and to answering your questions.

    Chairman Green. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Members will be recognized by order of seniority for their 
5 minutes of questioning. The Secretary has a hard stop, I 
believe, at 1:30, and so we will only probably have time today 
for one single round.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
    I want to show a video, but first need to set the stage. 
Earlier in the year we had a hearing at the border with Border 
Patrol Chief Ortiz and I asked him if by the definition written 
into the law, we have operational control of our Southwest 
Border. He said resoundingly, we do not. Following that, Mr. 
Secretary, you were questioned before the Senate about 
operational control. This was March 28, just a few days ago. 
Let's watch your testimony.
    [Video shown.]
    Chairman Green. So here you admit that according to the 
definition that is in the code, no Secretary has ever had 
operational control. So you know that that definition written 
into the law has not been achieved.
    Now, let's go back a few months to the testimony you gave 
here in the House. This is before Chief Ortiz admitted and told 
the truth that there was no security at the Southwest Border.
    Next clip.
    [Video shown.]
    Chairman Green. Mr. Roy reads the very definition you just 
admitted last month in the Senate that has not been achieved. 
He said, according to this definition, do you have operational 
control according to the definition that you just said, no one 
has ever had operational control. He asks you under oath in the 
U.S. Congress if you had operational control according to that 
definition, and you said, I do. That is a false statement 
because you admitted in the Senate that no one has ever 
achieved that.
    You make it very clear, Mr. Secretary, that you have known 
all along, according to the definition that is written in the 
law passed by the Congress, that you do not have operational 
control. Yet, in testimony to this House under oath--the 
definition was read to you--you are asked, according to that 
definition, whether control exists, and you say, yes. That 
sounds like a lie under oath.
    Now I want to change the subject just a bit. I want to set 
the stage for another clip. Senator Cornyn just last month is 
asking you about the cartel strategy. He describes what Border 
Patrol officers and leaders have come before this committee, 
Congress told us on trips to the border, is the strategy of the 
drug cartels. They have been telling us this for 18 months. The 
cartels are overwhelming the crossing sites, tying up the 
Border Patrol and then they are slipping the drugs and the 
human trafficking and the nefarious folks that want to get in 
the United States around the CBP when they are tied up. It is a 
distraction. In the military we would call it a neutralizing 
attack. He even says that Merrick Garland, the Attorney General 
of this administration, came before their committee and said, 
yes, this is the cartel's strategy.
    Let's see clip No. 3.
    [Video shown.]
    Chairman Green. So the cartel's main strategy is something 
you are not even aware of? I guess there is no communications 
between you and the Attorney General? Inside this 
administration you guys don't talk to one another? That is 
insane, Mr. Secretary. You just admitted you have no clue about 
the central strategy of the cartels you have created by your 
open border. Again, what general officer would we allow to stay 
on the job in the Army if he didn't understand the strategy of 
the enemy?
    Not only have you lied under oath, you just admitted your 
own incompetence. It is really quite unacceptable.
    You knew very well the definition wasn't being fulfilled. 
You told Chip Roy, Congressman Roy, yes, I have operational 
control by that definition. Then later, under oath, you admit 
no one has ever had control by that definition. Then you tell 
the Senate, I don't even know what the cartel's main strategy 
is.
    I am out of time, Mr. Secretary, but that doesn't paint a 
very good picture of someone who is doing their job very well.
    I now yield to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
    Since we are talking about the Secure Fence Act definition, 
I was here when Congress voted on it. Under the Secure Fence 
Act, operational control is defined as preventing all unlawful 
entries into the United States. Is that the definition of 
operational control the Chief was asked about has never been 
achieved by any administration, Democrat or Republican, not by 
Trump, not by anyone? Republicans have acknowledged that in the 
past. The former Republican Chairman of the Committee, Peter 
King, the author of the Secure Fence Act, said during the 2013 
markup, you know, we had 100 percent in the Secure Fence Act 
and we have met with Secretary Chertoff and Secretary 
Napolitano, and the fact is I think a 100 percent is 
unreachable. At the same markup, Representative Michael McCaul, 
also a former Republican Chairman of this committee, said, but 
when you put this number as a matrix in the definition of 
operational control, you make it impossible to achieve 
operational control. Perfection shouldn't be the enemy of the 
good. Under this definition again, we will never ever get 
operational control because nothing in life is 100 percent.
    Yet, Mr. Secretary, Republicans are criticizing you for not 
achieving something that no Secretary has ever achieved. It 
seems like their standard changes dependent on the 
administration. That is a double standard. That is partisan 
politics and that is Washington for you.
    When I met recently with Chief Ortiz, he said that no 
Secretary has been more supportive of the Border Patrol than 
you and that you and he are in close regular contact. I was 
glad to hear that. I look forward to heading back to the border 
again to see, in my own view, what is happening.
    So can you for the committee, share the explanation of this 
100 percent target as the measurement for securing the border?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Ranking Member Thompson, Mr. Chairman, 
the Secure Fence Act provides that operational control means 
that not a single individual crosses the border illegally. It 
is for that reason that prior Secretaries and myself have said 
that under that definition, no administration has had 
operational control.
    That is why, if Congressman Roy had actually allowed me to 
answer the question fully and not cut me off at every time, I 
would have continued to say, as I did in response to Senator 
Lankford, as I have testified under oath multiple times, that 
we use--I use a lens of reasonableness in defining operational 
control. Are we maximizing the resources that we have to 
deliver the most effective results? Under that definition, we 
are doing so very much to gain operational control. So that is 
my response with respect to the Secure Fence Act of I believe 
it is 2007. A response that when given the opportunity to 
provide to Congress under oath, I actually have delivered 
multiple times.
    Mr. Thompson. So this budget that you are before this 
committee today, does that budget move you toward that goal?
    Secretary Mayorkas. We believe it does, Ranking Member 
Thompson. I should say, this year for the first time since 
2011, we have been budgeted to receive an increase in the 
number of Border Patrol agents. The first time since 2011--300, 
to be precise. Next year for our fiscal year 2024 budget, we 
request an additional 350 Border Patrol agents as just one 
example of how this advances the security of our Southern 
Border through the extraordinary work of our personnel in the 
Department.
    Mr. Thompson. Let me say for the record that in each time 
that the request for increasing the numbers in the Border 
Patrol, Democrats on this committee have always supported the 
increase, it has been my Republican colleagues who oppose the 
increase. So either you are going to support the Border Patrol 
in securing the border or you are not.
    I yield back, the gentleman yields.
    Chairman Green. Just point of clarification. My comments 
were not about the content of the definition. The fact that you 
said the definition was happening. You said it, I didn't. That 
definition, yes. So it was about integrity and not about 
success on that particular point.
    I now recognize Mr. Higgins from Louisiana.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, you are standing your testimony today 
regarding operational control of our Southern Border, which by 
any reasonable man's definition, certainly been lost. You are 
standing on a word in the legislation that gave birth to the 
specific laws and all illegal crossing and no one's ever--we 
will take a drip, America will be OK. What you and your 
execution of your inaugurated President's policy have given 
America is a flood.
    We have identified over 11 laws that you violated. Some of 
the most egregious, The Secure Fence Act 2006, concerning 
operational control, Immigration and Nationalization Act 236 
Section C(8), U.S. Code 1226 concerning detention, line 8, 241 
Section A(2), U.S. Code 81231 concerning detention, Immigration 
and Nationalization Act, Section D(5)(a), 8 U.S. Code 1182 
concerning parole.
    We have given you ample opportunity to seek some sort of 
honorable exit from your executive position, sir. We take no 
pleasure in witnessing you dismantle yourself as a fellow 
American before the whole country. Your legacy, millions of 
illegals enter our country, millions under your watch, loss of 
operational control of our border, aligning DHS policy as an 
asset to Mexican cartel drug and human trafficking, the 
disintegration of our national sovereignty, destruction of 
countless thousands of Texas family lives, overwhelming crime 
wave sweeping across our country. Over a million criminal 
runners you call gotaways flooding into America. many carrying 
backpacks loaded with deadly fentanyl and meth, or herding 
teenage girls into prostitution, sex slave networks across 
America, 225,000 Americans dead from Mexican cartel drug 
overdose since you took office 2 years ago. You and your 
inaugurated President, but mostly you, sir, because you have 
your whole mind about you and you have a highly decorated 
background in border operations, so you are supposed to be the 
expert. You, sir, are the Secretary of Homeland Security who 
has failed in your sworn oath to protect our Nation from 
invasion. You had an obligation to execute the President's 
policies or advise the President if his policies were bringing 
injury to America.
    Ultimately, your oath requires you to secure our Nation's 
sovereign border with Mexico and do anything necessary to stop 
the Mexican cartels from trafficking endless wave upon human 
wave of illegals into America, along with miserable death, 
unspeakable grief, graveyards filled from sea to shining sea 
with the bodies of American sons and daughters dead from 
fentanyl. You have brought generational trauma upon our 
country.
    I believe history will witness your era of service as a 
transitional time in our country. What is America like before 
Secretary Mayorkas and what was America like after him? It is 
stunning that you could sit there and smugly grin as if you 
have not miserably failed your country. We could give you money 
to hire a thousand new border agents. Nobody wants to work for 
you. They are coming forth. We can't keep up with the 
whistleblowers that are coming to testify against your command. 
We could give you money to deploy all sorts of new technology. 
I have evidence in my file that you have given command to not 
deploy technology that you currently have because it interfered 
with the cartel's business model.
    We are done, done, done with your lies to America. It is 
shameful what you brought upon our country.
    Mr. Chairman, I have no interest in asking the Secretary 
any questions as he obfuscates and lies.
    I yield.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Green. The Chair recognizes--the gentleman yields.
    The Chair recognizes Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Secretary, I will give you a moment, 
but my question is, before as I start my questioning and you 
know time is short, do you take an oath and on behalf of the 
men and women of the Department of Homeland Security, 
particularly those responsible for border security in the north 
and the south, to protect the American people? Are you doing it 
in the best manner, the securest manner, the honest manner, 
with integrity, to save the lives of the American people and to 
ensure that hamlets, cities, counties, and otherwise are safe 
and that our domestic security is safe?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, I am, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you want to have a sentence responding 
to the gentleman?
    Secretary Mayorkas. No, I've chosen not to. Thank you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, under oath, your answer is yes. That 
is on behalf of yourself and those men and women that are now 
serving as we speak at the border, both north and south?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, it is.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. My Republican colleagues have been 
painting quite the picture today. To hear them tell it, you 
inherited a secure, orderly situation at the border. I, for 
one, have been to the border many times in the midst of mass 
confusion, and everything would be fine--that, of course, was 
not under your tenure--if only you had kept things just as they 
were. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    Now, I know that many Members of Congress only pay 
attention to the latest news cycle and whether the clip of 
their 5 minutes at this hearing will go viral. But some of us 
remember the previous administration and its disastrous border 
policies. As a 20-year Member of this committee, I truly 
believe that comprehensive immigration reform and border 
security must not be partisan, it must be nonpartisan. In 
actuality, that is not what we are facing today. We are here 
for your budget presentation, the dollars you need to continue 
to safeguard our cities, counties, and States.
    So I would like to direct your attention to a couple of 
images. One that you will see shortly deals with the DHS 
office--was taken by the DHS Office of the Inspector General at 
a Border Patrol station in McAllen, Texas, in June 2019. 
Reports on the overcrowded conditions at this and other 
facilities found that migrants, including many children, had 
not been able to shower in weeks, were not fed adequate food, 
were getting sick from flu outbreaks, women and children were 
forced to drink from toilets when they had access to running 
water at all, hundreds of children were detained for more than 
72 hours in violation of the law. That was when our Border 
Patrol agents and others were overwhelmed. I was present during 
those times in the past administration. Tragically, many 
migrants died while being held in these kinds of conditions, 
including at least 5 children. I guess this is what 
Republicans' idea of operational control.
    Mr. Secretary, would you please remind me who was President 
in 2019 when this photo was taken?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, that was President 
Trump.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. That is right. Now, at least in this 
picture, children seem to be with their families.
    Let's move on to the next image. In May 2018, the prior 
administration announced a zero tolerance policy which resulted 
in children being torn away from their parents. I was there 
then, including U.S. citizen children, American kids. Worse 
yet, the administration had no plan to track family separation 
and allow for reunification. As of a couple of months ago, more 
than 1,000 children have still not been reunited with their 
families. Now, some might say that child separations and death 
in custody are just the cost of achieving border security and 
if we reinstate the previous administration's policy, we could 
keep the border. I find that despicable.
    However, the truth is that these policies weren't even 
effective in securing the border. In fact, Border Patrol 
recorded 41 percent more illegal entries in the fiscal year 
2019 under the then-President during the last year under 
President--than during the last year of the Obama 
administration.
    Again, Mr. Secretary, just in case people don't remember, 
the President was at the time of this picture that speaks to a 
child during that time frame.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, that was President 
Trump.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. You are right again.
    So let me in my final question ask, as a refugee yourself, 
do you believe the inhumane and ineffective border policies of 
the Trump administration really equal to operational control? 
Does your budget reflect your serious commitment to ensuring 
more personnel, morale boost, and to be able to do this job so 
we safeguard and secure the American people?
    Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, the policies of the past 
administration, those that were cruel and inhumane, not only 
did not achieve operational control under the definition of the 
Secure Fence Act, they also disobeyed our values as a country.
    Our budget, as we have proposed for fiscal year 2024, 
advances the position of this Department to gain operational 
control under a reasonable definition. As all Secretaries have 
said, it is unachievable to prevent any alien during a year 
from crossing the border. Not a single one.
    Chairman Green. The gentlelady's time is up. The gentlelady 
yields.
    We will have to get that New York Times article out that is 
about the migrants being enslaved.
    I recognize Mr. Guest from Mississippi.
    Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, we know that earlier this week DHS released 
its national encounters by month. March, the sixth-highest 
month on record ever, with a total of 257,910 immigrants that 
were encountered just last month alone. We know that fiscal 
year 2021, that we set a record for encounters of over 1.9 
million, fiscal year 2022, we shattered that record with more 
than 2.7 million encounters, and currently we are on pace in 
fiscal year 2023 to break that record once again. March marks 
the 12th straight month that we have had more than 200,000 
encounters and the 24th straight month that we have had more 
than 185,000 encounters.
    We see what is going on on the border just within the last 
2 weeks. We see that information there behind me. Chief Ortiz 
put information out on April 7. He called it his week in 
review, which he does every week. For the week of April 7, 4 
agents assaulted, 34,000 apprehensions, 10,800 gotaways, 
$80,000 seized, 580 pounds of marijuana, 202 pounds of 
fentanyl, 15 pounds of meth, 12 pounds of heroin, 2 pounds of 
cocaine, 10 firearms, 14 sex offenders, 9 gang members, and 4 
individuals arrested with outstanding warrants. All that in the 
week of the 7th of April.
    The week of April 14, the Chief's week in review had 
another 11 agents assaulted, 34,600 apprehensions, 10,100 
gotaways, $1.24 million seized, 146 pounds of methamphetamine, 
106 pounds of fentanyl, 39 pounds of ecstasy, 14 pounds of 
cocaine, 29 firearms, 11 sex offenders, 7 warrants, and 4 gang 
members.
    Just last month, at a field hearing down in McAllen, Chief 
Ortiz was asked about the borders being secure. He gave an 
answer that I thought was very truthful, very forthcoming, when 
he said that he could not testify before this committee that 
the border was secure. He actually testified that 5 of the 9 
sectors along the Southwest Border were not secure.
    So my question to you, Secretary Mayorkas, is it your 
testimony that all 9 of the Southwest sectors, from the Rio 
Grande Valley to San Diego, that under whatever definition you 
use, that you believe that all 9 sectors are secure?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, you and I have spoken 
about this issue before, both under oath and in your office. I 
do not understate the challenge that the border presents.
    Mr. Guest. I am not trying to cut you off. I am very 
limited on my time. It is yes or no. Do you believe that all 9 
sectors are secure? I will be happy to have a conversation with 
you outside of this hearing, but my time is very limited.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, as I have said before, we 
are devoting all of the resources available to securing the 
border.
    Mr. Guest. So currently, yes or no? As we sit here today, 
based on these figures here, based upon all the figures we have 
had for the last 2 years, are all 9 sectors of the Southwest 
Border secure?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, it is my testimony that 
sectors at different times, month to month, experience 
different levels of challenges, and challenges----
    Mr. Guest. I understand that, Mr. Secretary, and I am not 
trying to cut you off. I am asking you that today, as we sit 
here today, are all 9 sectors of the Southwest Border secure? I 
am just asking for a yes or no answer.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I know you are asking for 
a yes or no answer, and the fact of the matter is that the 
challenges at the border are very complex and dynamic.
    Mr. Guest. Well, I am going to take from that that if you 
can't answer yes, then the answer is no.
    Secretary Mayorkas. That is not true.
    Mr. Guest. All right. So then you are saying all 9 are 
secure?
    Secretary Mayorkas. It is my testimony that the border is 
secure, and we are working every day, day and night to increase 
its security. The challenges that we are experiencing at the 
border cannot be overstated.
    Mr. Guest. All right, let me ask you another question, 
Secretary Mayorkas, last year, fiscal year 2022, how many non-
citizens were removed from the country by ICE?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I have that.
    Mr. Guest. It is 72,177. That is what was in the annual ICE 
Report.
    Secretary Mayorkas. In which fiscal year, Congressman?
    Mr. Guest. That would be last year. The fiscal year 2022 
that was released in the report put out by your agency on 
December 30.
    Do you know the number of cases on the non-detained 
national docket? You know what that docket is, correct? That is 
the number of individuals who have entered the country. Do you 
know the number of cases that are on the non-detained national 
docket as of fiscal year 2022?
    Secretary Mayorkas. So, if I may, I believe your figure for 
2022 is incorrect. I have a different figure for that.
    Mr. Guest. All right. Well, what is in your report--and I 
am going to say what is in the report that your agency put out, 
and here is the report. On page 16 it says that the number of 
non-detained cases was 4.7 million. That was at the close of 
fiscal year 2022. At a hearing that I was in just yesterday, 
the director of ICE, Mr. Johnson, testified that that number is 
now 5.3 million and is expected to grow to over 6 million cases 
by the end of this year. So 6 million cases of individuals who 
are in the country, 1.2 million who have orders of removal, and 
yet your agency only removed 70,000 last year. I think that 
your agency is not enforcing the law, Mr. Mayorkas, and I think 
that you can do a better job.
    Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of time and I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Payne from New Jersey.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We have such short memories in this committee with respect 
to the situation at the Southern Border. I would just like to 
admonish or condemn the person who came up with the idea 
saying, hey, I know how to stop people from coming across the 
border, when they get here, we will take their children from 
them and lock them in a fence and forget about them and walk 
away. Let your children find theirselves in that position. Let 
you find yourself in that position. It is a shame. It is 
absolutely a shame to use children as props, as a way to get 
what you want.
    To also just ignore that the fentanyl problem is at ports 
of entry by American citizens. Whenever you hear that, you just 
close your ears, la la la la la la. Obviously, there is some 
fentanyl coming across the Southern Border, but the fact of the 
matter is, most of the fentanyl coming into the United States 
is coming through ports of entry by American citizens. Keep 
denying it. You don't want to hear it. You don't want to know 
about that. You want the narrative of the Southern Border as 
the problem. Everything wrong with this country is a Southern 
Border. You should look around, you should look around, because 
while you are looking only at the Southern Border, there are 
folks bringing fentanyl in from every port of entry in this 
country. They are doing it because, you know, they know you are 
looking at the Southern Border. Amazing.
    Mr. Secretary, I am going to give you an opportunity to 
talk about your budget, which is what we are supposed to be 
here for, but the buttered popcorn is being given out on the 
other side, so.
    Anyway, let's talk about climate change. It is a profound 
threat to our national security. We are seeing this threat in 
many of the natural disasters that are occurring more 
frequently and with more intensity, but my colleagues on the 
other side don't believe that either. In this--2021, this 
committee received expert testimony that stated America lost 
years of progress on addressing climate change due to the Trump 
administration's outright refusal to accept science and its 
work to dismantle climate science programs. The Biden 
administration, in contrast, has taken commendable steps on 
focusing on climate change. Mr. Secretary, could you please 
provide a few more examples of how under your tenure, DHS is 
focusing on climate change and the threat it poses to our 
national security?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, the gravity and frequency 
of extreme weather events is only increasing. We used to speak 
of hurricanes, tornadoes, fires in terms of seasons. We don't 
do so anymore. As the Ranking Member Thompson mentioned, I was 
in Mississippi but a few weeks ago to see what a tornado could 
do to an entire town in just 20 seconds with winds traveling at 
up to 200 miles per hour. I was in Kentucky last year to see 
another town ripped to shreds by a tornado. In light of that, 
what we have to do is build communities' readiness for extreme 
weather events, their ability to withstand them to the best of 
their abilities, their ability to recover from them when they 
strike and prove resilience.
    We have invested heavily in the Building Resilient 
Communities Fund. This past year, we doubled it. We are seeking 
in the fiscal year 2024 budget more funds to build communities 
and protect the American public from extreme weather events 
that are striking and destroying more than ever before.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I will yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Bishop from North Carolina for his 
testimony--or for his questions.
    Mr. Bishop. Secretary Mayorkas, I am very glad that the 
gamesmanship about operational control is finally out in the 
open. You said just a moment ago that if Congressman Roy hadn't 
cut you off in that hearing--I was in that hearing in the 
Judiciary Committee as well. You are one of the most assiduous 
bureaucrats I have witnessed at evading and filibustering in 
response when Members have 5 minutes to ask you questions 
instead of coming forward directly. Here is what you could have 
said to Congressman Roy. No, Congressman Roy, we do not have 
operational control, but no administration has achieved the 
standard of operational control set forth in law. That took 
about 2, 3 seconds. Then he could have followed up with this, 
and I would like to, Secretary Mayorkas, given that illegal 
immigration has been setting records for your entire tenure, 
the fact is that under your leadership, the Department of 
Homeland Security is farther away from the legally-mandated 
standard of operational control than ever. Much farther away, 
correct?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, our apprehension rates are 
consistent with the apprehension rates of prior administrations 
over the years. The fact is----
    Mr. Bishop. By the numbers--if the standard of operational 
control is no illegal immigration coming across our border, 
then you are farther away from that than ever.
    Secretary Mayorkas. The fact of the matter is the migration 
that we are experiencing at our Southern Border is not 
exclusive to our Southern Border. It is gripping the entire 
hemisphere and the entire world.
    Mr. Bishop. Your policies are causing it, Mr. Secretary. 
Congress set an objective in law. You haven't pursued it. You 
have pursued its opposite. Who are you--you just said a moment 
ago that by a reasonable definition of operational control, you 
have achieved it. Who are you to displace the legal definition 
of operational control by this Congress in favor of pursuing 
one of your own invention?
    Secretary Mayorkas. I'm not displacing the definition.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, you just said a reasonable one is a 
different one, right? What do you mean by that? How is the one 
defined by Congress not reasonable? You understand what law 
means? You are a lawyer, you are an excellent lawyer. You know 
that not to be tenable. You are a member of the administration 
charged with the duty to execute the laws that Congress has 
passed. Isn't that right?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Absolutely. We are doing so.
    Mr. Bishop. Not the operational control standard. You have 
abandoned it to adopt one that you say is reasonable, correct?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, that is a definition. 
You're asking me whether we enforce the laws that Congress has 
passed, and the answer is yes, we do.
    Mr. Bishop. No, you don't. Because Congress set forth an 
objective in law and you have seen fit to disregard it.
    Let me ask you this, Chief Ortiz, when he testified before 
us in March, didn't just admit that we didn't have--don't have 
operational control of the border, didn't just admit that the 
border, much of the border, is not secure. There is this. I 
said the cause is change in policy, is it not, sir? Will you be 
candid enough to be unequivocal and clear that that has driven 
the change? Here is his answer. I will tell you, sir, that when 
I was a deputy chief and acting chief down here in 2014, a lot 
of people described what was happening here in South Texas as a 
humanitarian crisis or border crisis. I was very candid, and I 
said, I think we have a bit of a policy crisis. I still hold 
true that we have some policies in place where we need to 
ensure that the men and women out there patrolling the border, 
investigating these criminal cartels, are actually allowed to 
do their job each and every day. I said, and their job is to 
detain and remove immigrants. He said, yes, sir.
    How about you, Mr. Secretary? Do you admit that your 
policies have led the country farther away from operational 
control of the border as defined by the Congress?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, no, I do not.
    Mr. Bishop. I am not surprised.
    Here is your admission. Here is one of your admissions. 
Look at page 7 of your own written testimony. Guess what you 
have there? You are asking for a 342 percent increase in the 
funding for combating child exploitation. You want to know why 
that is? Let me tell you, because you won't tell me candidly. 
The reason is that your policies have led to 345,000 
unaccompanied children entering this country, which now the New 
York Times, in multiple articles, has revealed what that has 
led to in the quality of their lives.
    You apparently believe this to be a game, Mr. Mayorkas. I 
think that is why all the acrimonious interchanges that happen 
over and over. Even the last time that I asked you whether you 
maintained that we have operational control back in November 
and you said yes, and we are trying to do more every day. They 
played that on 60 Minutes. Let me tell you this. It wasn't 
because 60 Minutes is a fan of mine, it is because everybody of 
any reasonable sensibility looks at what you have been saying 
and what you continue to say and recognize that it blinks at 
reality. You know it. You are not delusional, but you are 
prepared to be dishonest with this Congress repeatedly.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Correa from California.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome. Thank you for being here. If I take 
a minute let's talk about Congress' role in helping you do your 
job. Let's discuss achieving operational control. Fiscal year 
2023 Government funding package provided U.S. Customs and 
Border Patrol with over $7 billion in funding, including almost 
a 20 percent increase in Border Patrol. Not a single Republican 
in this committee voted for that package. Last year, 2023, this 
same funding package was the first to increase Border Patrol 
agents since 2011, as you said. Do you believe these extra 
Border Patrol officers help you do your job?
    Secretary Mayorkas. I most certainly do, Congressman. That 
is why our fiscal year 2024 budget seeks an additional 350 
Border Patrol agents as well as other personnel.
    Mr. Correa. Mr. Secretary, let's talk about fentanyl deaths 
in my district. I am very disturbed, very concerned. 
Republicans have advocated capping the fiscal year 2022 budget 
at 2022 levels. Republicans seeking to essentially cut the 
funding for your Department. That cap would essentially result 
in a reduction of 2,400 CBP agents and officers. Would that 
mean essentially that 155,000 pounds of cocaine would not be 
seized, over 1,000 pounds of fentanyl would not have been 
seized, over 2,000 pounds of heroin would not have been seized? 
How would reducing 2,400 agents at the border affect your job, 
sir?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, if our budget were 
reduced, as you identify, it would seriously, it would gravely 
harm our ability to apprehend individuals who are attempting to 
cross our border illegally, it would gravely harm our ability 
to interdict fentanyl and other narcotics coming through the 
ports of entry and elsewhere and cause other harm. I should 
say, with respect to fentanyl, the challenge that this drug, 
the death and destruction that this drug causes has been 
building year over year for a number of years. There were 
nearly 58,000 fentanyl overdose deaths in 2020 alone. This is a 
challenge that we all have to work together to address. 
Fundamentally, in the context of immigration----
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. We're dealing with a 
broken system, and we need reform.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Chairman, if I may, without any objection, I would like 
to submit a letter for the record from the Office of Leg 
Affairs to the Appropriations Committee that does a complete 
analysis of what capping fiscal year 2024 discretionary 
spending at 2022 levels would mean to the services of the 
Department of Homeland Security.
    Chairman Green. Without objection, so ordered.
              Letter Submitted by Honorable J. Luis Correa
                                    March 19, 2023.
The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro,
Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
    Dear Ranking Member DeLauro: Thank you for your January 19, 2023, 
letter to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Secretary Mayorkas 
asked that I respond on his behalf.
    On March 9, President Biden released his Budget for DHS that equips 
our Department to address the threats of today and prepare for the 
threats of tomorrow. The President's budget invests in programs that 
protect us against the threat of terrorism, strengthen the security of 
our borders, ensures the swift response to and recovery from natural 
disasters, and more.
    As requested, DHS conducted an analysis of what capping fiscal year 
2024 discretionary spending at the fiscal year 2022 enacted level would 
mean to the services the Department provides to the American people.
    The entire Department and the critical services we provide would be 
impacted, including but not limited to the following:
   A reduction in CBP frontline law enforcement staffing levels 
        of up to 2,400 agents and officers;
   A reduction in our Department's ability to prevent drugs 
        from entering the country;
   Cuts in Federal assistance to State, local, Tribal, 
        territorial, and private-sector partners for disaster 
        preparedness; and
   Reductions in TSA personnel that would result in wait times 
        in excess of 2 hours at large airports across the country.
    The analysis in the enclosure provides additional details on just 
some of the significant impacts that may occur.
    I appreciate your continued support for DHS. Should you wish to 
discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact the 
Office of Legislative Affairs [.].
            Sincerely,
                                          Zephranie Buetow,
                       Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs.
   Attachment.--Operational Impacts of Returning to Fiscal Year 2024 
                             Funding Levels
                    department of homeland security
                u.s. customs and border protection (cbp)
   Sea and Land Ports of Entry.--CBP's Office of Field 
        Operations (OFO) may need to reduce hours of service at all sea 
        and land ports of entry (220 ports in total) and would deny 
        landing rights at all 241 airports outside of core hours of 
        operation based on personnel availability. With reduced hours, 
        wait times would increase and some land ports of entry may 
        close with commercial and private traffic still in queues, 
        which would result in exacerbated supply chain issues 
        potentially impacting food stuffs and American manufacturing.
   Staffing.--CBP may be forced to implement a hiring freeze, 
        which would impact the agency's ability to hire the additional 
        300 Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) provided for in the fiscal year 
        2023 budget and the 150 CBP Officers (CBPOs) and BPAs requested 
        in the fiscal year 2024 Budget. A hiring freeze would also 
        result in attrition of front-line law enforcement officers by 
        perhaps as much as 1,000 CBPOs and 1,400 BPAs.
   Fentanyl Impacts.--
     Any impacts on CBPO staffing levels, described above, 
            would negatively impact fentanyl seizures as well as other 
            narcotics seizures.
     Impacts could also affect the operations at ports of entry 
            for lawful travel and goods presented for admission to the 
            United States. Approximately 90 percent of resources at 
            ports of entry go through these regular operations, which 
            impact the special operations teams responsible for 
            targeting, enforcement, and analysis. Reductions to these 
            special operations teams will result in a reduction in 
            targeting opioids for both inbound and outbound operations.
     With limited resources, OFO would only be able to perform 
            enhanced inspections upon primary or threshold-level 
            targets. Reducing or eliminating outbound operations will 
            result in more money not being interdicted leaving the 
            United States and enable more trafficking and deeper 
            concealments, likely increasing the amount of fentanyl 
            entering the country.
   Air and Marine Operations.--CBP's Office of Air and Marine 
        Operations would experience a 56 percent reduction in 
        operational capabilities equating to 45,833 unexecuted aircraft 
        hours and 11,448 boat hours. A reduction of this magnitude 
        would result in a reduction in our operations equivalent to the 
        following:
     154,657 lbs. of cocaine not seized
     859 lbs. of fentanyl and 1,948 lbs. of heroin not seized
     17,148 lbs. of methamphetamine not seized
     $9 million in currency not seized
     561 criminals not arrested, and 57,594 apprehensions not 
            made
     361 people not rescued.
   Trade.--CBP enforces trade laws and implements measures such 
        as penalties, suspensions, and debarment while enforcing anti-
        dumping and countervailing duties as well as forced labor laws. 
        Decreasing the capacity of the Office of Trade would result in 
        unprecedented gaps in defending America's economic security, 
        resulting in revenue loss to the U.S. Government and economy. 
        Additional impacts include degradation of trade enforcement 
        operations resulting in increased violations of Intellectual 
        Property Rights (IPR) such as the production of counterfeit 
        goods, duty evasion through transshipment, misclassification, 
        country of origin claims, and use of forced labor in the 
        production of goods in U.S. supply chains.
   Agriculture.--Due to decreased inspectional staff and 
        capacity, these cuts would result in increased risk of 
        introductions of foreign animal disease, including African 
        Swine Fever, and plant pests due to significant increases in 
        cargo and passenger wait times.
        cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency (cisa)
   Cyber Resiliency.--Budget cuts would stifle CISA's early 
        efforts to support cyber resiliency across State, local, 
        Tribal, and territorial governments. This critical support 
        ensures resource-poor jurisdictions (or their management 
        service providers) are cognizant of threats and prepared to 
        face them, and are hardening the defenses of the national 
        critical functions under their stewardship (e.g., water supply, 
        wastewater treatment, and emergency communications). 
        Specifically, cyber resiliency provides support to stakeholders 
        and mission partners in their efforts to predict, adapt, and 
        dynamically recover from threats in high-risk areas who are 
        significantly underserved with current resources. Without this 
        funding, CISA will not be able to:
     Design targeted assessments for highlighting cybersecurity 
            threats and vulnerabilities to emergency communications 
            systems nor identify mitigating actions;
     Identify requirements, develop, and deliver curriculum 
            that improves cybersecurity and interoperability in the 
            face of evolving IP-hosted communications technology used 
            during responses of varying size/complexity;
     Design specific assessments for urban areas to evaluate 
            and enhance cybersecurity; nor,
     Expand Emergency Communications Coordinators' support to 
            stakeholders via CISA's regional service delivery model.
    In addition, the reduction of funding would eliminate the Supply 
        Chain Risk Management (SCRM)/Federal Acquisition Security 
        Council (FASC) program. This would impact CISA's execution of 
        DHS's responsibility as the FASC's Information Sharing Agency 
        (ISA) and would terminate support on the development of a 
        doctrine required to respond to Federal Government-wide supply 
        chain risks and planning coordination.
   Cyber Protection.--CISA would not have the resources to 
        implement requirements of the Cyber Incident Reporting for 
        Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (CIRCIA). CIRCIA requires 
        CISA to develop and implement regulations requiring covered 
        entities to report cyber incidents and ransomware payments to 
        CISA. These reports enable CISA to rapidly deploy resources and 
        render assistance to victims suffering attacks, analyze cross-
        sector trends, and quickly share information with network 
        defenders to warn other potential victims. Implementation of 
        this new Congressional mandate will result in an exponential 
        increase in the number of incident reports coming from critical 
        infrastructure. If funding is held at fiscal year 2022 levels, 
        CISA would not have any dedicated funding to respond to this 
        new requirement and therefore would be unable to collect and 
        rapidly share information with critical infrastructure owners 
        and operators.
   Cyber Incident Response.--CISA's Operations Center would 
        lose the ability to ingest, triage, collate, record, and 
        visualize information from over 50,000 cyber incidents over a 
        1-year period. CISA would be unable to provide critical 
        infrastructure owners and operators with analyzed reports, 
        statistics, or trends, leading to a significant decrease in 
        their ability to proactively avoid known and emerging threats 
        and vulnerabilities to the Nation's critical infrastructure.
   State and Local Impacts.--Budget cuts would lead to a 13 
        percent reduction in CISA's regional field forces. The regional 
        workforce is a critical component of CISA's service delivery 
        model. With reduced funding, CISA would have to reduce 
        assistance provided in response to ransomware and other cyber 
        attacks. It would also have to reduce security assessments and 
        chemical inspections, thereby impacting businesses, health care 
        providers, K-12 institutions, State and local governments, 
        municipalities, and critical infrastructure entities. In 
        addition, CISA would have to reduce the number of engagements 
        and support of pre-election security assessments of polling 
        places in communities Nation-wide. This would result in 
        limiting interactions with local election officials where CISA 
        helps to assure the security of election offices, polling 
        places, and election infrastructure. The number of impacted 
        jurisdictions would vary by State, as some States have tens of 
        election jurisdictions, and some States have more than a 
        thousand.
               federal emergency management agency (fema)
   FEMA grant assistance to support and help State, local, 
        Tribal, and territorial governments (SLTT) and the private 
        sector could be reduced by half. This would negatively impact 
        SLTT capabilities to implement preparedness strategies 
        successfully and reduce or eliminate long-term risks to people 
        and property from hazards and their effects.
              transportation security administration (tsa)
   Passenger Security Wait Times and Aviation Security.--
   In fiscal year 2024, passenger volume is anticipated to 
        increase by 9.2 percent over fiscal year 2022 levels. Fewer 
        Transportation Security Officers would increase passenger wait 
        times from 10 minutes in fiscal year 2023 to upwards of 30 
        minutes in fiscal year 2024. At larger airports, passengers 
        would experience wait times in excess of 2 hours where a steady 
        influx of passengers makes it impossible to recover without the 
        necessary staffing. These high wait times would also result in 
        large crowds of unscreened people in the checkpoint queues, 
        increasing potential soft targets.
   Transportation security equipment maintenance would have to 
        be reduced, impacting equipment reliability and increasing 
        passenger wait times while resulting in costly actions to 
        modify contracts.
   Furloughed positions would impact transportation security 
        now and in the future as TSA would see fewer staff at 
        checkpoints. Additionally, TSA would have a greater gap between 
        experienced staff and staff with minimal experience.
                       u.s. secret service (usss)
   Cyber Fraud Task Forces.--Secret Service would eliminate or 
        severely reduce the capacity of the 42 Cyber Fraud Task Forces 
        across the country that partner with private industry, State, 
        local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies and 
        Federal and State prosecutors to prevent, detect, and mitigate 
        complex cyber-enabled financial crimes.
   Cyber Forensics Training.--Secret Service would shut down 
        the National Computer Forensics Institute (NCFI) and eliminate 
        training for State, local, Tribal, and territorial law 
        enforcement, prosecutors, and judges used to combat cyber 
        threats. NCFI graduates conduct cyber forensic exams across the 
        USSS, completing over 150,000 exams in fiscal year 2022 that 
        were for cases involving murder, rape, and child exploitation.
   COVID-19 Fraud.--Cuts would reduce the ability of Secret 
        Service to combat COVID-19-related crime by over 50 percent. 
        USSS is currently focused on four broad areas of COVID-19-
        related crime and to date has arrested over 500 criminals, 
        recovered $1 billion and responded to over 5,000 investigations 
        and inquiries.
                        u.s. coast guard (uscg)
   The United States Coast Guard would immediately cease the 
        advancement of acquisitions, procurement, and construction 
        resulting in a reduction to operational readiness along the 
        maritime borders. Specifically, the inability to progress the 
        Coast Guard's two highest acquisition priorities, the Offshore 
        Patrol Cutter and the Polar Security Cutter, would create an 
        operational gap and further delay of the U.S. presence in the 
        polar regions and reduce the ability detect, deter, prevent, 
        and disrupt terrorist attacks and other criminal acts in the 
        U.S. maritime domain as well as our National Defense Strategy.

    Mr. Correa. Thank you, sir.
    Finally, in the last minute, I have left, let's talk of big 
picture here, Mr. Secretary. Refugees. After World War II, 
there were 60 million European refugees moving throughout the 
world. Wars, famine, COVID-19 have an interesting way of 
affecting the refugee movements. You stated a minute ago that 
this was not only a U.S. issue, but an issue for the continent. 
Is Colombia having issues with refugees? Are other nations in 
this continent having to address challenges with refugees? Is 
this a world-wide phenomena?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, it most certainly is. Our 
hemisphere is gripped by an unprecedented level of migration 
since World War II. You mentioned the the country of Colombia. 
Colombia now is a residence to approximately 2.5 million 
Venezuelans who have fled that authoritarian regime. The causes 
of people being on the move, of course, were spurred by COVID-
19 pandemic, but also because of authoritarian regimes, public 
corruption, extraordinary poverty, violence, and other elements 
that force people to leave their homes.
    Mr. Correa. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Gimenez from Florida.
    Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Mayorkas, Secretary Mayorkas, you were named to be the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, I believe, on November 23, 
2020, is that correct?
    Secretary Mayorkas. I don't remember the precise date, but 
I think, yes.
    Mr. Gimenez. I think that is probably true. OK.
    Did you and the President have discussions about how the 
policies that needed to be implemented in the Department during 
the transition period?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman----
    Mr. Gimenez. That is a simple yes or no answer. Did you 
have discussions or not?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, we did.
    Mr. Gimenez. OK, thank you.
    Did you advise the President on his first day to rescind 
and then issue Executive Orders in the Department of Homeland 
Security rescinding the migrant protection plan, stopping the 
construction of the wall, and then various other Executive 
Orders that he signed into effect, actually, on his first day 
in office?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I don't think it's 
appropriate for me to speak of the deliberative process.
    Mr. Gimenez. You mean, did he do that on his own, or did 
you have any say so in that?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I don't think it's 
appropriate for me to speak of the deliberative process.
    Mr. Gimenez. Interesting. Do you advise the President on 
the issue of Homeland Security?
    Secretary Mayorkas. I certainly do, in the course and scope 
of my service as Secretary.
    Mr. Gimenez. OK. All right.
    My colleagues on the other side say that you inherited a 
mess at the border. In fiscal year 2019, in March 2019 then-
President Trump issued the MPP, basically the Remain in Mexico 
policy. In that year there were 977,000 encounters, according 
to my numbers anyway. You could see that after he issued that 
Executive Order that it took a while for it to take effect, but 
then it started to take effect, and we had fewer and fewer 
encounters at the border, where in fiscal 2019, you had 977,000 
encounters. In fiscal year 2020, you had about 458,000. That is 
a 50 percent drop in the number of encounters. Then we get to 
the Biden administration and your time. Right after the Biden 
administration rescinded a lot of these orders and issued their 
new Executive Orders, we went from encounters in January of 
78,000 and jumped to 101,000, 173,000, 178,000, 180,000, 
189,000, 213,000, 209,000, 192,000, where we had 1.7 million 
encounters at the border. That is like a fourfold increase over 
what we had the previous year. Then the year after, it got even 
worse. So that we are at 2.3 million encounters in fiscal year 
2022.
    Now, in light of this, have you advised the President to 
change his policies at all?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I don't think it's 
appropriate for me to speak of the deliberative process. But 
let me say this, that the challenge at the border year to year 
is the function of many different factors. So, for example----
    Mr. Gimenez. No, sir. I am asking you--it is not about--I 
am asking you, have you advised him to change his policies. You 
refuse to answer that? I understand that. Fair enough. OK.
    So these numbers reflect abject failure at the border. So 
somebody has to take responsibility for it. Since I guess you 
and he don't talk, or maybe if you do, you haven't been very 
effective at changing policy, then maybe we need a new 
Secretary of Homeland Security.
    With that, I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. 
Secretary, thank you for being with us today.
    The Biden administration is to be commended for recognizing 
that disasters exasperate existing inequities and further 
entrench existing social and economic disparities. Under your 
leadership, in September 2021, several important actions were 
taken toward increasing equity in disasters. They include 
ending a policy that prevented many families, particularly 
rural families in the south, from getting help to rebuild their 
inherited homes after natural disasters.
    Secretary Mayorkas, can you explain the Biden 
administration's approach to supporting communities impacted by 
disasters?
    Voice. Is the border more secure under your leadership?
    Mr. Carter. I don't remember interrupting anyone when they 
had the floor.
    Chairman Green. I don't know who said that.
    Mr. Carter. Where did that come from?
    Chairman Green. Who said something? Video? A technical 
issue on the video. So we will give you an extra 20 seconds or 
so, Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. Can you reset my time?
    Chairman Green. Yes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, sir.
    Secretary Mayorkas, can you explain the Biden 
administration's approach to supporting communities impacted by 
disaster? How is FEMA ensuring that communities have more 
equitable outcomes? How will you measure whether these efforts 
are effective?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, the extreme weather events 
are impacting many communities across this country and it is 
our obligation, our responsibility to ensure that there is no 
community that is disenfranchised from receiving the relief to 
which it is entitled as a result of the damage it suffers by 
reason of an extreme weather event. So one of the policy 
changes that we made, recognizing that some poor rural 
communities do not necessarily have the documents that are 
traditionally evidence of home ownership, to reach them where 
they are and how they live. Perhaps, for example, if an 
individual does not have a deed of trust or mortgage documents 
because the home was passed from generation to generation, to 
accept utility bills, an affidavit regarding ownership, to not 
leave them disenfranchised because of the traditions in that 
community as well as the limited resources they have.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Secretary, I will note that that action has 
made an incredible difference for not just Democrats, but for 
people throughout Louisiana, throughout the country who find 
themselves in dire straits after natural disasters. So I 
commend you and the administration for recognizing that 
disasters don't identify party, they don't identify race, and 
neither has this administration. I appreciate that.
    While these policies should be commended, I am concerned 
about the National Flood Insurance Program's new Risk Rating 
2.0 system. The new Risk Rating 2.0 system may leave my 
constituents, especially in low- and moderate-income 
communities, priced out of their homes by premium increases, or 
they may have to choose to forego coverage entirely. As climate 
change worsens and brings about more frequent disasters, which 
may increase flooding risk, how are you ensuring communities 
like mine that are negatively impacted by flood insurance plans 
that are supposedly aimed to help, but in fact, sir, 
respectfully, are doing just the opposite?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, there are two efforts 
under way. No. 1, as you know, and as you and I have discussed 
in the past, we have significant grant programs that are 
intended to reach communities and help them rebuild, as well as 
to prevent harm from initially occurring. We are reviewing our 
grant programs to ensure that, again, they leave no community 
disenfranchised. We are reviewing and need to continue to 
review the Risk Rating 2.0 given the concerns that have been 
expressed with it, and I can assure you that we are doing so 
and we will report on our results.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Risk Rating 2.0, as we have said repeatedly, is a game-
changer for many people. Some people have to make the 
determination, can they live in the home that they have always 
enjoyed, can they live in the community that they have always 
enjoyed? So I am happy to hear you say, Secretary Mayorkas, 
that this is not a done deal, that there is an opportunity for 
revisiting with the recognition that it has caused harm, and we 
should modify.
    So with that, sir, I thank you very much, and I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman had a little extra time if 
you want to take? You are good? OK. The gentleman from 
Louisiana yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Pfluger from Texas.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This is a sad day. America's security has never been weaker 
than it is under the Biden administration in your reign as 
Secretary of Homeland Security.
    On March 13 of this year, a Texas DPS trooper attempted to 
stop Rassian Comer for speeding, and Comer refused to stop and 
a reckless high-speed chase ensued. At one point during this 
chase, the suspect began to nonchalantly live-stream himself, 
driving at 105, and evading the police officer behind him. At 
the same time, a 71-year-old grandmother and her 7-year-old 
granddaughter were on their way home after a play date. Their 
names were Maria and Emelia Tambunga. Maria is the mother of 
two of my constituents. As Maria passed through the 
intersection of State Highway 163 and I10 Service Road, Comer 
blew through a red light and struck Maria and Emelia's vehicle. 
They were pronounced dead at the scene along with 2 other 
people. After law enforcement secured that scene, it was 
revealed that Comer was a human trafficker smuggling 11 illegal 
aliens in his truck, evading the law.
    Over the last few weeks, I have heard countless stories of 
this beautiful 7-year-old girl, about Emelia and Maria, about 
how Amelia was an outgoing fashionista, she wanted to be an 
influencer, about how she loved to play with her friends and 
dance with her Aunt Jenny and cook with her grandmother, Maria. 
I am wearing a pink tie today, Mr. Secretary, in honor of that 
little girl.
    Most importantly, Mr. Secretary, the Tambunga family is 
here today. Emelio, Maria's husband and Emelia's grandfather, 
Elisa, Maria's daughter and Emelia's mother, and Virginia, 
Maria's daughter and Emelia's aunt. They are sitting right 
behind you. They came here today because they want answers. 
They came here today because of the failures of you and your 
leadership. They came here because they want closure. They 
deserve answers.
    Mr. Mayorkas, will you turn around and offer them your 
condolences and an apology for the failure of your 
administration that led to the death of their loved ones? They 
are right there. They are standing right there.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman----
    Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Secretary, they are standing there, and I 
think they deserve an apology from you.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman--Mr. Chairman, may I stand 
and turn my back----
    Chairman Green. Certainly.
    Secretary Mayorkas. My heart breaks for your loss. My heart 
breaks for the loss of all victims of criminal activity.
    Mr. Pfluger. It is a failure of the policies that have 
allowed hundreds of thousands of families to go through this 
grief. They want to meet with you today, Mr. Secretary. I will 
host it in my office. Will you commit to meeting with them?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I most certainly will.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you.
    Secretary Mayorkas. As long as you do not politicize the 
meeting.
    Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Secretary, the only person politicizing 
anything here is you. The security of this country is not a 
political matter. In fact, on September 21, 2021, you told me 
in this committee room that the border was secure. If we can 
play that video. Mr. Chairman, I think we have a video that is 
going to play. My time is continuing.
    Chairman Green. Yes, go ahead. If you want to ask or talk 
about something else while they tee that up. See what is going 
on here with our--here we go. We will give you a little extra 
time since that took some time.
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Mayorkas, are you going to tell the 
Tambunga family that the border is secure today?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, you are politicizing a 
tragedy.
    Mr. Pfluger. No, I am not politicizing a tragedy. They came 
here to Washington, DC of their own volition to get 
accountability for the loss of their family. Two beloved 
members of their family. This year we had a hearing at the 
border, which no Democrat came to. Not a single Democrat came 
to the hearing that we had in McAllen, Texas and Chief Ortiz 
said that the border is not secure. Do you disagree with Chief 
Ortiz?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, let me return to what you 
said. Accountability is brought in a court of law.
    Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Mayorkas----
    Secretary Mayorkas. I delivered accountability for 12 
years.
    Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Mayorkas, do you disagree with the head 
Border Patrol agent when he said that our border is not secure?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I have testified to that 
issue multiple times.
    Mr. Pfluger. So you do disagree with him? You disagree with 
your Chief of Border Patrol?
    Secretary Mayorkas. I respectfully do in that regard, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Pfluger. You do? Not a single Border Patrol agent that 
I have talked to in the past 3 years has said that they trust 
your leadership or have faith that you are keeping our country 
secure.
    I look forward to the meeting with the Tambunga family and 
coming up with real solutions. I hope that all of my Democrat 
colleagues will meet the Tambunga family and listen to their 
story and understand the things that are happening in my State 
and in others because of the failure of these policies. We have 
the answers right in front of us. I hope that every one of you 
will do that. You had the opportunity in McAllen, Texas, and it 
is time to meet with them.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Thanedar.
    Mr. Thanedar. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Secretary Mayorkas, my colleagues on the other side have 
spent a lot of time today talking about securing the border, 
almost to the exclusion of everything else. The fact is, our 
border security challenges are a symptom of the broader failure 
to overhaul our immigration system. We must expand legal 
pathways for immigration, including by raising the cap for H1B 
visas. In addition, DHS has a broad range of missions beyond 
the border that are critical to securing the homeland that 
deserve our attention.
    For example, we must make sure the Transportation Security 
Administration is able to carry out its mission to secure all 
modes of transportation. For far too long, TSA employees have 
labored under unfair working conditions, while front-line 
officers receiving 30 percent less pay, and inferior labor 
protection when compared to other Federal employees doing 
similar work. Republican proposals to address these issues have 
fallen far short and have only come in response to more 
sufficient proposals from Ranking Member Thompson and other 
Democrats. Thankfully, last year, Democrats voted to fund 
expanded labor rights and pay raises for TSA workers, which 
will take effect this July.
    Mr. Secretary, of the $1.4 billion proposed for TSA pay 
equity, what percent will go to the TSA's operational and 
front-line field positions?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, thank you.
    The $1.4 billion is sought for pay fairness. We have fought 
for this pay fairness for quite some time. I don't know the 
precise breakdown, but I would be very pleased to circle back 
with you and answer your question.
    Mr. Thanedar. Mr. Secretary, the data I have from TSA 
indicates that more than 98 percent of the funding will go to 
employees working in those positions. Additionally, 
administering two separate pay systems within one agency would 
carry its own cost. Refusing to fund the initiative because a 
tiny fraction of funding would go to headquarters employees 
would be nothing more than a sorry excuse.
    Mr. Secretary, would you please describe what impacts 
failing to fund the annualization of the pay initiatives and 
effectively cutting TSA workers pay would have on employee 
morale and the agency's ability to carry out its mission?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, the impact on morale would 
be quite negative. But it's not only an impact on morale, it 
would negatively impact our ability to recruit and retain 
talent at the very time that the United States' travel industry 
is once again prospering in a post COVID-19 pandemic 
environment.
    Mr. Thanedar. Additionally, Republicans have proposed 
limiting 2024 funding to the 2022 levels. However, I understand 
you wrote a letter to appropriators on March 19 describing some 
of the impacts that would have, including wait times of more 
than 2 hours to receive security screening at many large 
airports.
    Mr. Secretary, what kind of security vulnerabilities does 
it create if airline passengers must wait in large crowds for 
more than 2 hours to receive security screenings?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, your question goes to a 
fundamental point that we ensure that the public's travel is 
safe and secure. We also help promote economic prosperity 
through that lawful trade and travel. Not only would the 
security be impaired, but also the facility of travel, as well 
as trade would be impaired if our budget is cut. That budget 
cut would impact negatively our Department in so many different 
ways across so many different agencies and offices.
    Mr. Thanedar. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    The TSA workers must be paid a fair wage and ensure 
adequate staffing levels.
    Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Garbarino.
    Mr. Garbarino. Thank you, Chairman.
    Secretary, there has been a lot of focus on the Southern 
Border today, and as there should be. This is my third year on 
the committee, and I have been to the border several times and 
have really seen the travesty that is happening down there. 
There really needs to be a focus on fixing it. I hope we can 
somehow work together to get that way.
    But Homeland, the Department, oversees several other 
agencies, and I have some questions regarding CISA, the 
cybersecurity, because that is another border that we have to 
make sure is protected, and CISA is required to do that. So, 
the fiscal year 2024 CISA budget requests relatively few 
additional full-time employees despite a persistent work force 
shortage. In addition, 7 years after Congress gave Homeland DHS 
authority, it finally launched the Cyber Talent Management 
System in November 2021. But public reporting indicates that 
hiring has been slow, painfully slow. Both factors are very 
concerning considering the Nation's cyber work force gap. Are 
CISA's current staffing level sufficient to meet all of its 
current obligations?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I'm sorry, I didn't----
    Mr. Garbarino. Is CISA's current staffing levels sufficient 
to meet all of its existing obligations?
    Secretary Mayorkas. CISA, the Cybersecurity and 
Infrastructure Security Agency, is doing phenomenal work across 
its many different responsibilities. We do have vacancies. One 
of the things that we are seeking to overcome, because we are 
very focused on recruitment, is the pay disparity between 
Government service and the private sector. But we have indeed 
engaged in an intense, focused effort to recruit talent for the 
very reason, Congressman, that you identify.
    Mr. Garbarino. I have spoken with Director Easterly. She is 
coming from my subcommittee next week, and she has been trying 
to make an effort. But the Department, DHS has still not 
submitted CISA's force structure assessment, which is over a 
year late. That assessment is crucial to understand CISA's work 
force and resource needs. What is the delay? When can we expect 
that report?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I'll look into that, and 
we will get back to your office promptly.
    Mr. Garbarino. OK. So what concerns me is the delay in that 
report, plus the delay--I think there is over 8 reports that 
Congress is due from DHS and CISA. I don't know where the hold 
up is. CISA has said they are done I think--and it might not 
even be with you. But there is a delay in them getting to 
Congress. Some of them are over a year late. We are here 
talking about the budget and budget request and these reports 
are how we do our oversight. We pass these and we want to see 
what the information--we want to make sure the money is being 
spent properly, we want to make sure that plans are going. But 
we can't do that if these reports come to us late and to have 
these budget requests keep coming for more money, for other 
money to go to other projects, we can't just keep sending money 
without getting these reports. So I don't know where the hold-
up is. There are at least 8 by my accord that are late just 
from CISA and DHS. So if you could have your team figure out 
when we will see these reports, that would be great, because 
there are a lot of good reports that were passed on a 
bipartisan level that we really need to see what is going on.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, let me assure you that we 
work mightily to be responsive to Congress and to be responsive 
to Congress in a prompt manner.
    No. 1, I think the only recommendation of the 9/11 
Commission that has not been adopted is a restructuring of the 
oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. I believe 
that there are more than 90 committees with jurisdiction over 
the Department. So you can well imagine the number of reports 
that we are obligated to prepare. We understand the importance 
of those reports, which is why we work so diligently to prepare 
them for Congress. I am sorry for the delay. In sum, we're 
doing the best that we can.
    Mr. Garbarino. I understand that. Just with cybersecurity, 
it is another border that we have to protect. We have to make 
sure that not only you are acting with your proper authorities, 
but we have the proper oversight and putting money where it 
needs to be.
    I want to go back to the employment situation because of 
how slow--and I want to emphasize this, there is a request for 
some for some more money. But last year we actually rescinded 
over $50 million because of how slow hiring has been at CISA. I 
think it was $53 million. What is the plan to make sure that we 
are properly staffed up and that we can do our job and make 
sure that the Federal cyber space is protected?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, you correctly noted that 
in 2021 we undertook an effort, an intense effort to recruit 
cyber talent. Before that, we engaged in a cyber sprint that I 
announced earlier in that year. We are developing different 
models to reach talent. We understand the importance of 
recruitment and we're very, very focused on it.
    Mr. Garbarino. I am out of time, so I yield back.
    Thank you, Chairman.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Magaziner.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Secretary.
    One of the greatest threats to our Nation's homeland 
security is the rise of far right and racially motivated 
violent extremism. Over the past decade, more than 145 
Americans were killed in domestic extremist attacks. The most 
common motivations of the attackers have been racially 
motivated extremism and anti-government extremism, accounting 
for 67 percent of domestic extremist attacks. Easy access to 
weapons of war, and particularly assault weapons, have only 
emboldened the extremists.
    Hear me now, when it comes to racist and antisemitic and 
anti-government violence, there are not fine people on both 
sides. The extremist who ran over and killed Heather Heyer in 
Charlottesville was not a fine person, he was a terrorist. The 
white supremacist who killed 10 people in Buffalo and 23 in El 
Paso are terrorists. The antisemite who killed 11 at the Tree 
of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh was a terrorist. The far right 
militia group that attempted to kidnap the Governor of Michigan 
are terrorists. The January 6 rioters are not political 
prisoners, they are criminals who attacked police officers. 
Paramilitary groups, like the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and 
the Three Percenters, wrap themselves in the flag, but they are 
not patriots. They are bigots with guns, nothing more.
    But the victims of these extremist attacks are what we 
should focus on, because they were innocent Americans, all of 
whom deserve to be alive today. Victims like Roberta Drury, a 
woman in Buffalo who dedicated her time to helping her brother 
treat his leukemia and assisting her family in running their 
restaurant. Andre Mackneil, a father who was picking up a 
surprise birthday cake for his 3-year-old son. Jordan and Andre 
Anchondo, 2 parents in El Paso who died shielding their 2-
month-old baby from gunfire. Javier Rodriguez, a 15-year-old 
who loved playing video games and soccer. Angie Engelsby, a 
grandmother who raised 7 children by herself and worked 
multiple jobs to support them. Officer Brian Sicknick, a 
healthy 42-year-old former Air National Guardsman who served 
our country in the Middle East and succumbed to his injuries 
after he was beaten and maced by a violent mob of 
insurrectionists at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, among many 
others.
    Many of these attacks have been inspired by the racist 
Great Replacement Theory, which falsely claims that there is 
some grand conspiracy to replace white Americans with nonwhites 
in order to eliminate the so-called white race. This false 
conspiracy theory has seeped into the media, with some Members 
of Congress and Fox News personalities repeating it and 
inspiring domestic terrorists in their heinous attacks. I want 
to be clear, because it is important not to paint with a broad 
brush. I commend many of my colleagues, including some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, for condemning 
domestic violent extremism in all of its forms. However, it is 
infuriating that some of our Republican colleagues have taken 
to cheerleading extremism, and many others have stayed 
shamefully silent.
    The fact is this, more Americans have been killed by 
domestic extremism over the past 5 years than by international 
terrorism. Cracking down on domestic extremism is vital to 
protecting our American homeland and our citizens. I commend 
the Biden administration for launching a national strategy for 
countering domestic extremism, and I encourage you, Secretary 
Mayorkas and the administration to continue to prioritize this 
growing threat.
    I ask you, Secretary, can you describe the efforts of the 
Biden administration to combat domestic extremism?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, we have taken a number of 
different steps over the past 2 years to address this 
increasing threat. I created a domestic terrorism branch within 
the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. We have increased the 
level of our information sharing to State, local, Tribal, and 
territorial partners so that they understand the threat 
landscape in their respective communities. We have increased 
our grant funding to equip and empower communities to address 
the threat. We are sharing best practice models on how to 
detect and intervene when an individual is moving toward 
violence by reason of an ideology of hate, anti-government 
sentiment, personal grievance, whatever the motive. We are 
focused on the connectivity between an ideology and violence. 
It is violence that we are focused upon.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you.
    My time has expired, so I will yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    The Chair now recognizes the former Chairman of this 
committee and the current Chairman of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Mike 
McCaul from Texas.
    Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Just want to say in response, what about the 100,000 
Americans who have died due to fentanyl poisoning? More than 
Vietnam over 20 years in just 1 year.
    Now, Mr. Secretary, you and I are fellow prosecutors on 
border States. We have known each other for a long time. When 
you took office, we were securing the border. You said that you 
have operational control. The last month, your Border Patrol 
Chief, Mr. Ortiz, testified before this committee that DHS does 
not have operational control of the border. I agree with him.
    In my 20 years in Congress, as a former Chair of this 
committee, and as a Federal prosecutor tasked with securing the 
border in Texas, I have never seen this border more out of 
control. I believe it is because on Day 1 you rescinded the 
migrant protection protocols, otherwise known Remain in Mexico. 
At that time, 2 years ago, you said it was necessary to 
terminate this program that was working because, ``It was 
unjustifiable human cost associated with it.'' But I ask you, 
is it justifiable that migrant encounters have risen to 5 
million people since you took office? Is it justifiable that 
more than 100,000 Americans have died from fentanyl flowing 
across the border? Is it justifiable that 98 suspected 
terrorists attempted to enter the homeland last year alone, and 
who knows how many have made it in? When I was Chairman, I 
wanted that stat--every week I got briefed. Is it justifiable 
at least 12,000 criminals attempted to enter the homeland last 
year, 1,000 with assault-related charges and 62 with homicide-
related charges? Is it justifiable to human costs at least 853 
migrants died trying to make the dangerous journey across the 
border last year? The most on record in the history of this 
country. I don't always quote CNN, but they had a phenomenal 
documentary, the Journey, the Dangerous Journey from South 
America to the United States. Is it justifiable that in my 
State, first responders found stacks of bodies--that is a 
quote--abandoned by human smugglers in a trailer who suffocated 
to death. Are these human costs justifiable because they align 
with your political agenda? Because I don't think any of these 
things, none of this is justifiable. This is the biggest human 
trafficking crisis of my lifetime, and you, sir, are complicit 
with it.
    I have been down there so many times, but now it is 
completely out of control. What are we going to do with 5 
million people that have no legal status in this country? How 
do you deal with this problem? They are going to live in the 
shadows. Where are they going to go? The women, the girls are 
going to be sex trafficked, and the young men are going to go 
to MS13. That is going to be their family. You know it, and I 
know you know it, because you know better. You're a smart man. 
You were a U.S. attorney like me. That is why I am supporting 
our bill, that we are going to mark up, to try to get control 
of this thing once and for all.
    As Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I am 
going to compel this administration to renegotiate Remain in 
Mexico.
    In the final analysis, sir, your job is a solemn one. It is 
probably one of the most important Cabinet jobs because your 
job is to protect the American people from threats. Your job is 
to secure borders, air, land, and sea. In my judgment, and it 
is hard for me to say this--I have known you for quite some 
time--but you have failed in your job, and I think you know 
this.
    I agree with our Border Patrol agents. This is one of the 
most--to me, most profound things that I saw in your tenure 
when you went down to the border and the Border Patrol agents 
turned their backs on you because, ``You have turned your back 
on them.'' I think that speaks volumes about your tenure in 
office. For God sakes, work with us to get this done. It is out 
of control, and it is a great human cost. None of it is 
justifiable. One rescission, one stroke of the pen, rescinding 
migrant protection protocol, Remain in Mexico, was a direct 
cause and effect. Your agents on the border tell me this. What 
caused this crisis, I ask. It is because the President 
rescinded Remain in Mexico. Because they couldn't get in the 
United States before that and now they get in, and it is 
catching release all over again and now we have this crisis at 
the border.
    So I know my time is running out, but I would like to 
entertain any response you have.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, you invited me to work 
with you and work with this committee to address the challenges 
at the border, and I welcome that invitation, and I accept it.
    Our immigration system has been broken for decades. For 
decades. It is in dire need of legislative reform.
    You ask about what is justifiable and what is not. Evidence 
of a broken immigration system is compelling for years and 
years. Do you know that in the years 2006, 2007, 2008 there 
were more than 1 million gotaways per year?
    The challenge of fentanyl. You and I have both prosecuted 
narcotics trafficking cases. I have prosecuted cocaine 
trafficking, methamphetamine trafficking, black tar, heroin 
trafficking. We have seen nothing----
    Mr. McCaul. I know my time expired, but we are going to 
sanction China for the precursors coming in. My bill will 
sanction Mexican officials for being complicit with this drug 
trafficking that is killing 100,000 Americans, for God's sake. 
You, sir, I believe are complicit with this by your inaction at 
the border.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Oh, we are taking more action than----
    Chairman Green. The gentleman's time has expired and the 
gentlemen yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Swalwell from California for his 5 
minutes of questioning.
    Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. Congress.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Secretary, do you want to respond to 
that? Go ahead.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Can I take 20 seconds?
    Mr. Swalwell. Yup.
    Secretary Mayorkas. To say that we are doing nothing is an 
absolute falsehood. We are taking it to the cartels. Do I think 
that nearly 58,000 fentanyl overdose deaths in 2020 are 
``justifiable?'' This Department has worked to stop the 
trafficking of narcotics since its very inception. We both know 
very well that the drug problem in this country requires a two-
pronged approach to address the supply and to address the 
demand. This fight continues, and we are taking it to the 
cartels in an unprecedented way. In Operation Blue Lotus that 
we launched in the middle of March is one powerful example of 
what we are doing to only increase our effort to address this 
scourge that is killing so many Americans. But to say that we 
are doing nothing is unequivocally false.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Secretary, you oversee one of the largest 
law enforcement personnel in America. Is it the position of the 
Biden administration to fund or defund the police?
    Secretary Mayorkas. It is to fund the police.
    Mr. Swalwell. Does that include to also train them to catch 
the bad guys and also not to harm the good guys?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, that is the sworn oath of 
officers.
    Mr. Swalwell. You would agree that unlike any time before 
in our history, police officers are in danger today. They have 
a target on their back, violence committed against them.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I know that law 
enforcement officers are under tremendous attack.
    Mr. Swalwell. Do you think anti-police rhetoric hurts 
morale or helps morale, as you are trying to recruit people to 
be law enforcement officers?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, it hurts morale. That is 
why it is so important that law enforcement leaders continue to 
communicate the nobility--the nobility of the law enforcement 
profession. I'm very proud to say that.
    Mr. Swalwell. Does anti-police rhetoric put targets on the 
back of law enforcement for their safety?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman? It does.
    Mr. Swalwell. That is why I am disturbed about a recent 
tweet from the former President that says Republicans in 
Congress should defund the Department of Justice and the FBI. I 
am also concerned about people on this committee and their own 
anti-police rhetoric. This is a Defund the FBI campaign effort. 
Again, thousands of FBI agents who work hard every day to take 
bad guys off the streets. In fact, after the FBI raided Mar-a-
Lago, someone armed to the teeth went to an FBI field office to 
try and kill FBI agents.
    I am also concerned that the Chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee invited a witness, when you could have any person who 
walks this earth as the Chairman of a committee to come in and 
testify, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee invited the 
author of this tweet who said F cops.
    Ms. Greene. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman 
yield? Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman----
    Ms. Greene. Personal inquiry.
    Mr. Swalwell [continuing]. Control these interruptions.
    Chairman Green. He is not yielding.
    Mr. Swalwell. I am not yielding.
    Chairman Green. The gentlemen is recognized.
    Mr. Swalwell. So it concerns me that there is this anti-
police rhetoric that is happening among some in the MAGA 
Republican Party because they vote against police funding that 
was included in the COVID relief package, they vote against 
police reform efforts that would put millions of dollars in 
community police officers on our street, they vote and are 
against the union protections that allow them to collectively 
bargain. As we honor the hundreds of January 6 officers who 
were hurt that day, too many of them gave comfort and aid at 
the D.C. jail.
    I also want to ask, is antisemitism on the rise in America, 
Mr. Secretary?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman yes, it is.
    Mr. Swalwell. Are we seeing increases in violence toward 
Jewish Americans?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman yes, we are. We are seeing 
that for other minority groups as well.
    Mr. Swalwell. So when an influencer like Kanye West, who 
has millions of followers on social media, says that he is 
going to declare death con 3 on the Jews, do you think that 
increases threats to Jewish Americans or decreases threats?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Words like that increase the threat to 
minority groups, Congressman.
    Mr. Swalwell. That is why it surprises me that the Chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee tweeted out Kanye. Elon. Trump. 
Well, we know what Trump thinks about law enforcement and what 
is happening in law enforcement right now with targets on their 
back, but this tweet was kept up for months after Kanye West 
said that he was going to declare death con 3 on the Jews.
    Mr. Secretary, do you believe that all of us have a 
responsibility to elevate our rhetoric and to denounce 
antisemitism and anti-police rhetoric in this country so that 
Jewish Americans and police officers can be safer?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I do.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    Now I recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. Greene.
    Ms. Greene. That was quite entertaining from someone that 
had a sexual relationship with a Chinese spy, and everyone 
knows it. But thanks for entertaining us.
    Mr. Goldman. I move to take her words down. Completely 
inappropriate.
    Chairman Green. Yes. Stand by just a second while we 
research the rule. Give me just a second.
    Ms. Greene. I need to reclaim my--make sure I have my full 
5 minutes.
    Chairman Green. A motion has been made. The Committee will 
suspend and the gentleman will state the words that he wishes 
taken down.
    Mr. Goldman. Everything that the gentlelady from Georgia 
has said.
    Chairman Green. No, you need to be more specific, Mr. 
Goldman.
    Mr. Goldman. The accusations of an affair with a Chinese 
spy. Those are engaging in personalities and those words should 
be taken down. The gentlelady should not be able to speak 
anymore in this hearing.
    Chairman Green. The latter part of that is not an 
appropriate motion, but we will evaluate the striking of those 
words. Give me just a second.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Georgia and asks 
if she would like to retract those words.
    Ms. Greene. No, I will not.
    Chairman Green. For those Members who are wondering, we are 
looking into Clause 1 of Rule 17 in the Rules of the House.
    OK. The Chair rules that those words that were spoken are 
not going to be stricken from the record.
    Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman from Mississippi is 
recognized.
    Mr. Thompson. I don't think there is any question about 
what the gentlelady said. I have been on this Committee from 
Day 1. We have never had an accusation made of any Member like 
that, and I am appalled at it. We all ought to be embarrassed 
at it. We are better committed than what the gentlelady is 
trying to make of this Committee.
    So I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
    Chairman Green. The ruling of the Chair has been appealed. 
We will now--the gentlemen, moves.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman. A point of order right over 
here.
    Chairman Green. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman. Could you explain what part of those words are 
not engaging in personalities and what the basis of your ruling 
is?
    Chairman Green. No. We are going to let the Vice Chair take 
over for the committee at this point.
    Thank you.
    Mr. McCaul. Mr. Chairman, I move to table the motion.
    Chairman Green. There has been a motion to table.
    All in favor, say aye.
    Those opposed say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the 
motion to table is agreed to.
    Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Thompson. I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Green. A recorded vote has been requested. The 
Clerk will call the roll.
    Voice. Mr. Chairman. Would the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Goldman, yield?
    Chairman Green. The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul.
    Mr. McCaul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
    Mr. Higgins.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Guest.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bishop.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gimenez.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pfluger.
    Mr. Pfluger. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pfluger votes aye.
    Mr. Garbarino.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene.
    Ms. Greene. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes aye.
    Mr. Gonzales.
    Mr. Gonzales. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez votes aye.
    Mr. LaLota.
    Mr. LaLota. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaLota votes aye.
    Mr. Ezell.
    Mr. Ezell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ezell votes aye.
    Mr. D'Esposito.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Luttrell.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Strong.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Brecheen.
    Mr. Brecheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brecheen votes aye.
    Mr. Crane.
    Mr. Crane. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Crane votes aye.
    Mr. Thompson.
    Mr. Thompson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Thompson votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Payne.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Swalwell.
    Mr. Swalwell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Swalwell votes no.
    Mr. Correa.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter votes no.
    Mr. Thanedar.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Magaziner.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Ivey.
    Mr. Ivey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ivey votes no.
    Mr. Goldman.
    Mr. Goldman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
    Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes no.
    Mrs. Ramirez.
    Mrs. Ramirez. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Ramirez votes no.
    Mr. Menendez.
    Mr. Menendez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez votes no.
    Ms. Clarke.
    Ms. Clarke. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Clarke votes no.
    Ms. Titus.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Guest.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bishop.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gimenez.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Garbarino.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Luttrell.
    Mr. Lutrell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Luttrell votes aye.
    Mr. Strong.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Payne.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Correa.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Thanedar.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Magaziner.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Titus.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Green. Are there other Members in the room who 
wish to have their vote recorded?
    Clerk, how am I recorded?
    The Clerk. You are not recorded.
    Chairman Green. The Chair votes aye.
    The Clerk. Chairman Green votes aye.
    Chairman Green. The Clerk will report to tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on that vote there were 11 yeas 
and 9 noes.
    Chairman Green. The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed 
to. The previous motion is tabled.
    The gentlelady from Georgia is recognized, and we will give 
her the time the clock was stopped and we will give you an 
extra 10 or 15 seconds.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Mayorkas, since you have been in charge of the 
Department of Homeland Security, there have been zero miles of 
border wall added. There have been over 5.5 million illegal 
alien encounters at our border, 1.3 million known gotaways, an 
approximately 870 percent increase in apprehensions in just one 
sector of the Northern Border. American mothers and infants 
suffered a severe baby formula shortage all while this 
administration was happily stocking the shelves for illegal 
aliens at one of one of the largest processing centers in the 
country. American mothers were forced to delay inductions at 
the Yuma Regional Medical Center because of your policies. They 
have flooded their maternity unit with illegal aliens. Tens of 
thousands of migrant children have been forced into slave labor 
in our country because of your policies. At least 853 dead 
migrants, and counting, the most ever in a 12-month period, 
died trying to cross the Southern Border in 2022.
    Now there are over 300 Americans a day dying, every single 
day. Every single day, without fail. Every single day, because 
of fentanyl, deadly fentanyl, which is the No. 1 cause of death 
in young people between ages 18 and 45. Now we have rainbow 
fentanyl, which even NBC News was acknowledging that the 
cartels were bringing across our border. It comes from China. 
This rainbow fentanyl looks like Sweet Tarts or Skittles, 
clearly made to target America's schoolchildren. It is 50 times 
more potent than heroin, 100 times more potent than morphine. 
Now, under your tenure, Secretary Mayorkas, schools all over 
America have to have Narcan to save children that overdose on 
this deadly poison.
    Let me explain something to you. I am not from Texas, I am 
not from any border State. I represent a district in Georgia, 
which is in northwest Georgia. We are not anywhere near Mexico, 
we are not anywhere near the ocean. But in my district, in my 
district, people die nearly every single day from fentanyl. I 
want to know from you, how many more people do we have to watch 
die every single day in America? How many more young people do 
we have to see die? How many more teenagers? How many more 
parents cry themselves to sleep at night, if they can even 
sleep, because their child overdosed on fentanyl? How long are 
you going to continue this outrage, complete outrage, where 
China is poisoning America's children, poisoning our teenagers, 
poisoning our young people? How long are you going to let this 
go on?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, let me assure you that 
we're not letting it go on. We are fighting this.
    Ms. Greene. No, I reclaim my time. [Words stricken.] You 
are letting this go on and the numbers prove it. You can't lie 
about the facts, Secretary Mayorkas, while you live in denial 
and sit over there with this attitude that you are doing 
everything right. You are killing Americans with your policies. 
That is a fact. Your policies are killing people. Over 300 
Americans a day. Over 300. It is outrageous.
    Let me ask you another question. We talk about----
    Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McCaul [presiding.] The Ranking Member is recognized.
    Mr. Thompson. We can disagree, but just the fact that we 
have people watching, you don't have to call a witness a liar. 
I just----
    Mr. McCaul. Excuse me, does Ranking Member have a point of 
order?
    Mr. Thompson. Well, actually, I want you to take the words 
of the speaker down----
    Mr. McCaul. So----
    Mr. Thompson. I mean--but I need to explain why.
    Mr. McCaul. So the gentleman does have--is raising a point 
of order.
    Mr. Thompson. Yes. So the point is, in raising this point 
of order----
    Mr. McCaul. The gentlelady's time will be restored.
    Mr. Thompson. We have a history of being a bipartisan 
committee that work on solutions. Now, we can disagree, but we 
have gotten to the point of the language that we are using is 
not the kind of language that, historically, we as Members of 
this committee, we have used. Again, I just think in the 
interests of civility of this committee, I would implore all of 
the Members that--I understand the strength and concern, but 
there is a way that we ought to conduct ourselves. What I am 
hearing is not how a majority of this committee conducts 
business. We can do better.
    So I asked that the words be taken down.
    Mr. McCaul. Committee will suspend. The gentleman will 
state the words that he wishes to be taken down.
    Mr. Thompson. The gentlelady referenced the Secretary and 
called him a liar.
    Mr. McCaul. The Chair asked the gentlelady if she wishes to 
seek unanimous consent to modify or withdraw her remarks.
    Ms. Greene. I will not withdraw my remarks because the 
facts show the proof.
    Mr. McCaul. OK.
    Chairman Green. So in making a ruling on this, it is pretty 
clear that the rules state you can't impugn someone's 
character. Identifying or calling someone a liar is 
unacceptable in this committee. I make the ruling that we 
strike those words.
    Mr. Goldman. Sorry, just a point of order. Legitimate 
question.
    Chairman Green. You are recognized.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Did you move to take the words down or to strike them, Mr. 
Thompson?
    Chairman Green. Sorry, I just stepped in.
    Mr. Thompson. Yes, to take them down. Which is what we do.
    Mr. Goldman. My understanding is if words are taken down, 
that means that the Member can no longer speak in whatever the 
proceeding is that those words were said.
    Ms. Greene. Personal inquiry. Point of personal inquiry.
    Mr. Goldman. There is no such thing.
    Chairman Green. Stand by just a second.
    So in consulting the rules of the House, when we strike it 
does terminate the time of the individual who is speaking.
    So the gentlelady is no longer recognized.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ivey, I believe.
    Mr. Ivey. Can I make a point of inquiry, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Green. You can.
    Mr. Ivey. So the ruling was that because she used the word 
liar, that was taken down, which I agree with.
    Chairman Green. Yes.
    Mr. Ivey. But accusing----
    Chairman Green. A statement of fact is very similar to the 
posters that Mr.----
    Voice. There is no statement of fact.
    Mr. Ivey. There is no statement of fact.
    Voice. It is bullshit.
    Mr. Ivey. There is no actual basis for the statement.
    Chairman Green. We are not here to debate this. OK. The 
ruling was made by the Chair that these previous words were not 
against Clause 1 and Clause 4 of Rule 17. But to tell someone 
that they are a liar, is. It is pretty clear in the Rules.
    Mr. Ivey. Slander is clearly covered by the Rules. The 
impugnment--I can't imagine an allegation worse than the one 
that she just made. I mean that has got to be so in the 
category of taking the words down.
    Chairman Green. No, it does not fit the Rules by the ruling 
of the Chair, and we have already voted on that. It is past us. 
We have the Secretary until about 1:30.
    We are going to move on.
    Mr. Ivey, you are recognized for your 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    Mr. Ivey. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say this. I 
appreciated your opening statement where you admonished 
actually Mr. Secretary about the reason the committee was 
formed and the Department was formed, which is to protect the 
United States from enemies foreign and domestic. I certainly 
agree with that. You reminded the Secretary of his oath, and I 
appreciate that. I recognize also that all of us took similar 
oaths to that. So one of the reasons I was excited about being 
assigned to this committee was because I thought that was the 
work that we were going to be doing. I thought we were going to 
be focusing on issues like cybersecurity. Yes, we have issues 
at the border, but I sure thought there would be a good-faith 
effort to try and address it. For example, like putting up 
budget dollars to address the issues, expanding resources and 
the like. This committee's done nothing with any of those. The 
disinformation issues that are before this committee, not 
touched at all.
    So I am a little distressed. So I got really distressed 
when I read your comments in the New York Times. I couldn't 
believe--I first came to the Hill in 1987, so I understand 
Congressional politics. I know how the game is played. But to 
joke about trying to have the Secretary removed--let me read 
the quote, I know the Ranking Member did before. I said, on 
April 19, next week, get the popcorn. Alejandro Mayorkas comes 
before our committee, and it is going to be fun. That will 
really be just the beginning for him. That is totally off the 
mark for what we are supposed to be doing on this committee. We 
were sent here not to have fun, not to eat popcorn, not to try 
and take somebody down.
    I was also amazed to see the five-phase plan that you 
discussed at this donor meeting, too, on top of that. This is 
about raising money. This isn't even talking to a group, this 
is raising dollars. Just like the FBI t-shirt that Mr. Swalwell 
showed a few minutes ago. Just like Mr. Trump raising $12 
million after he makes a statement about we should defund the 
Department of Justice and the FBI. Now keep in mind, if you 
defund the Department of Justice and the FBI, who is going to 
deal with the types of issues, the international prosecutions 
that we need? By the way, we have got another colleague that 
has a bill actually to defund the ATF.
    I was very heartened to see, Mr. Mayorkas, that on Friday--
they didn't mention this, but there was a huge takedown of the 
Sinaloa cartel. The Department of Justice, working with DHS and 
DHA and other agencies, had a huge takedown of the cartel. That 
is one of the things I think we are supposed to be talking 
about. I think you should be commended for that. It is 
important to remember that if we don't have DOJ, FBI, ATF to do 
that kind of work, it won't get done. So all of the things we 
are talking about, especially the fentanyl issue, won't get 
addressed because we won't have the apparatus to do it.
    Just a quick reminder on the fentanyl piece, 92 percent of 
the fentanyl that comes into the United States is not coming 
across with these people walking across the border. It is 
coming through the ports. We learned from the takedown when 
they briefed us on Friday that they have planes and tunnels 
that they also use to bring these materials into the United 
States. So we can talk about people walking across the border, 
and I think that is important, we should deal with it, but if 
we really want to get at the fentanyl issue, building a wall 
doesn't address it because the planes fly over them, the 
tunnels go under them, and the cars drive by them. All of these 
are driven by Americans, by the way--or almost all of them are 
driven by Americans.
    So I hope--one last point, I got one last minute. On 
Monday, I went to New York City with Mr. Jordan and the 
Judiciary Committee, and that was ostensibly about crime in New 
York City. I said at the time, you know what, I am going to 
give you the benefit of the doubt. I am not going to try and 
look into your heart and attribute any kind of ill motives. 
Things line up. I kind-of wondered why we were actually there, 
but I am not going to do that. But when I see this kind of 
statement, it was kind-of an eye-opener for me. Unfortunately, 
it was the day after I had just made those statements in public 
about not attributing bad motives to the people who went up 
there for the committee hearing. Now I can see it is a five-
phase plan. It is an effort to remove Mr. Mayorkas and damage 
the Biden administration. Mr. Jordan had said that earlier 
anyway, but I try and give people the benefit of the doubt.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I am going to make a point of clarification about the New 
York Times article, they did misquote me. So you might want to 
get with me later and I will give you the exact details of what 
I said. But some of what you said was right, some of you, what 
you said was incorrect.
    Mr. Ivey. Well, perhaps----
    Chairman Green. But this is about Mr. Mayorkas' time here 
in front of the committee and not about what the Chairman said 
about us holding him accountable and any phases that we might 
have in holding him accountable. This is about him.
    So I now recognize Mr.----
    Mr. Ivey. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would move for unanimous 
consent to enter this article into the record.
    Chairman Green. Oh, absolutely.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
               Article Submitted by Honorable Glenn Ivey
   key republican tells donors he will pursue impeachment of mayorkas
            Speaking to donors, Mark Green, the House Homeland Security 
                    Committee Chairman, promised to produce charges of 
                    high crimes and misdemeanors against the Homeland 
                    Security Secretary.
By Karoun Demirjian, April 18, 2023
    WASHINGTON.--The Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security 
Committee promised donors this month that he would produce an 
impeachment case against the Biden administration's homeland security 
chief, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, saying that the secretary's appearance 
before the panel this week would be the beginning of his demise.
    Representative Mark E. Green told an enthusiastic crowd in his home 
State of Tennessee last week that his committee would expose Mr. 
Mayorkas's ``dereliction of duty and his intentional destruction of our 
country through the open southern border.'' He said the panel would 
deliver charges to the House Judiciary Committee, which handles 
impeachment proceedings, according to an audio recording of a House 
Freedom Caucus fund-raiser obtained by The New York Times.
    He said he had a ``five-phase plan'' for doing so and that the 
Homeland Security Committee would ``put together a packet, and we will 
hand it to Jim Jordan and let Jim do what Jim does best.''
    Mr. Green apparently was referring to Representative Jim Jordan, 
the Ohio Republican who leads the Judiciary panel. His comments made 
clear that G.O.P. leaders are serious about their threats to impeach 
Mr. Mayorkas. He said the plan would start with an appearance by the 
secretary before his committee on Wednesday.
    ``On April 19, next week, get the popcorn--Alejandro Mayorkas comes 
before our committee, and it's going to be fun,'' Mr. Green told the 
room, adding: ``That'll really be just the beginning for him.''
    A spokeswoman for Mr. Green did not respond to requests for 
comment.
    Mr. Green and other Republican leaders have made no secret of their 
desire to pursue impeachment charges against Mr. Mayorkas. Speaker 
Kevin McCarthy began threatening to impeach him months before Mr. 
McCarthy won his gavel. But their ambitions have been limited thus far 
by the political realities of the House; not every Republican wants to 
demonize Mr. Mayorkas as solely responsible for the country's 
immigration problems, and with a slim majority, party leaders do not 
yet have the votes to impeach him.
    ``On April 19, next week, get the popcorn,'' Representative Mark E. 
Green told donors in Tennessee. ``Alejandro Mayorkas comes before our 
committee, and it's going to be fun.''
    As a result, Mr. Green and other House Republicans in positions of 
authority have been careful to avoid promising publicly that they would 
find evidence against Mr. Mayorkas worthy of prosecution. Behind closed 
doors with core supporters, however, Mr. Green was less cautious, using 
the issue to whip up the crowd.
    During a public session on Capitol Hill on Tuesday before the 
Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Republicans 
hammered Mr. Mayorkas both for the border situation and for recent 
revelations, documented in an investigation by The New York Times, that 
unaccompanied migrant children have been exploited as laborers. Both 
Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Josh Hawley of Missouri demanded 
that the secretary resign.
    Mr. Mayorkas pushed back, saying his department was not responsible 
for the child labor crisis.
    ``You are incorrectly attributing it to our policies,'' he told Mr. 
Hawley. He also disputed the idea that he could be held personally 
responsible for the problems at the border, telling senators: ``Our 
asylum system is broken, our entire immigration system is broken, and 
in desperate need of reform--and it's been so for years and years.''
    The Department of Homeland Security has dismissed calls for Mr. 
Mayorkas to step down as ``baseless'' and ``reckless,'' and Mr. 
Mayorkas has suggested in past interviews that the efforts to impeach 
him were simply a way of turbocharging policy disputes with the 
administration.
    Mr. Green made his comments at an event billed as a ``V.I.P. 
Reception and Conversation with Conservative Heroes,'' where he 
appeared behind closed doors alongside Mr. Jordan and other hard-right 
Republicans. He pointed to recent testimony before his panel by Raul L. 
Ortiz, the Border Patrol chief, who detailed ``an increase in flow'' in 
five of the nine sectors along the U.S.-Mexico border and said it had 
``caused a considerable strain on our resources.''
    He also recalled Mr. Ortiz's testimony that the United States does 
not have ``operational control'' of the southern border, which 
Republicans seized on to accuse Mr. Mayorkas, who had testified that 
the border is secure, of dishonesty. Mr. Mayorkas addressed the 
apparent discrepancy during a separate hearing last month, telling 
senators that he was using a different definition of ``operational 
security,'' and that the two statements were not in conflict.
    Mr. Green nonetheless trumpeted Mr. Ortiz's words as a kill shot 
against Mr. Mayorkas, telling the donors that ``he'll see that video a 
couple of times'' during the upcoming hearing before the Homeland 
Security panel.
    The secretary's appearances on Capitol Hill this week come as the 
Republican House is barreling ahead with what Mr. Green told donors 
would be ``the most conservative border security bill that this 
Congress has ever seen, or any Congress has ever seen.'' The panel is 
expected to debate that bill next week.
    On Wednesday, while Mr. Mayorkas is testifying before the Homeland 
Security panel, the Judiciary Committee is scheduled to debate a second 
border security bill aimed at restricting migrant inflows, including by 
restricting access to asylum and requiring all employers to adopt an 
electronic system that screens prospective employees' eligibility to 
work.

    Chairman Green. Let's see. We are now recognizing Mr. 
Gonzalez from Texas.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman, for 
your leadership. Thank you, Secretary Mayorkas, for coming 
before us.
    You have had a hell of a week. I would say in my district, 
we have had a hell of a 3 years. I represent 42 percent of the 
Southern Border, over 800 miles, places nobody knew of 3 years 
ago that are in the news every single day. Eagle Pass, El Paso, 
Del Rio, Uvalde, Knippa, Hondo, Ozona. You heard from the 
Tambungas earlier today. Ozona is 120 miles from the Southern 
Border, and yet we are having smugglers going 100 miles through 
an hour in my district killing Americans. What I have seen is 
this crisis continue to spiral. I have also seen the politics 
around it. It is very lucrative for a lot of people to just 
constantly go to the well, I do not have that option. You do 
not have that option. A lot of us who are trying to solve this 
problem don't have this option.
    This is what I am seeing. I am seeing--and to me, border 
security should bring this country together more than anything 
else. I want to talk about one thing in particular when I think 
of border security, because I think this is something we can 
all agree on. Certainly you and I can. Our children, the 
children. If we can't agree we need to protect American 
children and children that aren't Americans, we can't agree on 
anything else. Right now I have got a family that lost a 7-
year-old daughter a month ago. I sat with them in Ozona last 
week. The grandfather, Emilio, served in the Marine Corps. He 
is an honorable man. He served 20 years in law enforcement. 
While I am sitting with him there, his phone goes off. That is 
the alarm that he would go pick up his granddaughter. So this 
is affecting everybody.
    On the other side, I see children that aren't American 
citizens, that are abandoned in fields. One Border Patrol agent 
gave me a story when there was a baby that they came across 
that was covered in fire ants. Thankfully, they were able to 
save that baby. I mean there is just an endless amount.
    In Knippa a couple of weeks ago, there were some illegal 
aliens that were found cooked to death. In San Antonio, about a 
year ago, 53 migrants. Guess whose district that was in? Yes, 
my district--53 migrants found cooked to death.
    The last administration, Democrats came out and they said, 
the Trump administration, no more kids in cages. I am asking 
that the Biden administration have no more kids in graveyards. 
That is where this is at. We need help.
    I spent 20 years in the military, and what I am worried 
about is this round and round we go, pointing fingers, pointing 
blame. I know you have been in this process a long time. You 
understand what it takes. You know how to implement some 
policies that work. I am concerned that the Department has lost 
its way. I go back to my time in the Navy where the goal, and I 
hope the goal for you is the same, the goal was always make the 
place better than how you found it and turn it over to your 
predecessor so they could make the place better for how they 
found it. What I see right now is it might be time for a change 
in DHS. What I would like to look at is, what does that change 
look like? At some point, I don't know how, I don't know when, 
at some point you will no longer be the DHS Secretary and you 
will move on to something else. I want to see, what does the 
Department go from here? How do we strengthen it? How do we get 
back to making this committee a bipartisan committee that is 
focused on the DHS, the Department of Homeland Security being 
successful?
    I give a lot of credit to Chairman Green and his staff for 
working on this border package. I think there is going to be a 
lot of good things in there as we shake through this, as we go 
into markup next week. Some things that are very important to 
me, I think instead of demonizing children, I think we should 
demonize the cartels. They are the enemy. It is not each of us, 
it is not all of us. The cartels are the enemy. I have been 
pushing, I will continue to push to label cartels as terrorist 
organizations. I think it is important that we throw the book 
at smugglers. You can't just give them a slap on the wrist, we 
have to throw the book at the smugglers. The Tambunga family--
Emilio, he is a quiet man. He wasn't asking for an apology. The 
man doesn't need an apology. You know what the man needs? He 
needs action. He wants the people that killed his wife and his 
granddaughter to be held accountable.
    So I would just ask--I have no questions for you today. You 
have been very generous working with me on various different 
things. I would ask that you look internally and you go 
whenever your time is expired and it is time for you to move 
on, that the Department of Homeland Security have a plan to be 
successful for your predecessor.
    For that, I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Goldman from New York.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Mayorkas, is it the policy of the Biden 
administration to allow as much fentanyl in this country as 
possible?
    Secretary Mayorkas. No, it is not, Congressman. It is our 
plan to interdict and prevent as much fentanyl that is being 
sought to enter the country from preventing it from being so.
    Mr. Goldman. Is it the policy of the Biden administration 
to allow as many children to be smuggled into this country as 
possible?
    Secretary Mayorkas. No, it is not, Congressman.
    Mr. Goldman. No, of course it is not.
    We are sitting here with a shocking lack of decorum to have 
a Secretary, Cabinet Secretary, in front of us who has been 
subject to ad hominem insults and accusations that are 
completely baseless. I have now counted that 6 of my Republican 
colleagues have not asked you a single question. They have used 
their 5 minutes to speechify, to accuse you of lying, to accuse 
you of making false statements in what is a clear effort to try 
to set up, I suppose, the first step of the five-phase plan to 
impeach you.
    Well, I have a little experience with impeachment, and I 
can tell you, as well as everybody else, that there is no 
grounds for impeachment based on a policy dispute. There is 
absolutely nothing that I have seen here today that amounts to 
a false statement under oath. In fact, Mr. Bishop, my 
colleague, in referencing operational control and that 
standard, stated himself that it is an objective. It is the 
objective of the Department of Homeland Security to have 
operational control and, as you pointed out, that is to allow 
no unlawful entry into this country. That, of course, is an 
impossible standard. You are certainly to be applauded for 
recognizing the problem that we have at the border and 
providing more resources and asking for more resources to solve 
that.
    I have another question, Secretary Mayorkas. If there are 
more encounters at the border between Homeland Security 
officials and smugglers, migrants coming in, you name it, does 
that mean that the Department of Homeland Security is doing its 
job better or worse?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I'm not sure I understand 
your question, but let me just say this, that encounters are a 
function of a number of factors. What we are seeing is an 
increase in migration around the hemisphere. The factors 
involve why people leave their countries of origin, their home, 
for a better life because of authoritarian regimes, because of 
extreme poverty, violence, persecution by reason of their 
membership in a particular social group, because of the adverse 
impacts of COVID-19. Our country--our country has advanced in 
conquering the COVID-19 pandemic more than any country to the 
south. Our country has 10 to 11 million vacant jobs that are 
incredibly meaningful for people who are fleeing extreme 
poverty. The United States of America remains the greatest 
country in the world, the country in which so many people want 
to live for a better life. The number of encounters often 
reflect all of those factors.
    Mr. Goldman. Including, right, the fact that your officials 
are doing their job and encountering people who are trying to 
come across without a lawful visa?
    I had a whole line of questioning that I am not going to be 
able to get to, but I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
enter an editorial into the record that is entitled in today's 
Washington Post, ``How to Stop the Mexican Cartels? Stop 
supplying them with guns.''
    Chairman Green. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
            Article Submitted by Honorable Daniel S. Goldman
    how to stop the mexican cartels? stop supplying them with guns.
By Jonathan Lowy and Luis Moreno
            April 13, 2023 at 6 o'clock a.m. EDT
            Jonathan Lowy is the president of Global Action on Gun 
                    Violence. Luis Moreno is the former U.S. Ambassador 
                    to Jamaica and former consul general in Monterrey, 
                    Mexico.
    According to recent reports, former president Donald Trump is 
preparing battle plans to attack Mexico if he regains the White House. 
This is only the latest escalation of saber-rattling in the wake of the 
recent kidnapping and killing of Americans in Mexico. Former U.S. 
attorney general William P. Barr, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (Tex.) and Sen. 
Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) are among those calling for U.S. military 
action in Mexico to take on drug cartels.
    There is no debating the threat the cartels pose. The fentanyl they 
push is killing thousands on both sides of the border. In Mexico, they 
torture and kill journalists to silence them, battle law enforcement 
and the military, and terrorize civilians. Cartels are largely 
responsible for as many as 100,000 Mexicans who have been 
``disappeared''--kidnapped and probably killed--and the 20,000 
confirmed killed every year. The violence is spurring migration at the 
U.S. border. And these transnational criminal organizations are 
spreading to the United States.
    The cartels need to be stopped. But this is not a problem 
Washington can bomb its way out of. Sending in troops won't help stop 
the violence and drug trafficking. There is, however, something the 
United States can do that would: Cut off the gun pipeline that arms the 
cartels.
    It's shocking but not surprising that at least one of the guns used 
in the recent kidnapping was trafficked from the United States.
    Seventy to 90 percent of Mexican drug cartels' guns are trafficked 
from U.S. gun stores, supplied by U.S. manufacturers and distributors.
    Why do the cartels' traffickers risk border crossings to get guns? 
Because Mexico has strong laws regulating gun sales and only one gun 
store, which restricts criminals from obtaining weapons there. But in 
the United States, federally licensed firearms dealers can sell dozens 
of AR-15s and AK-47s and thousands of rounds of ammunition to 
purchasers without even asking why a buyer would want such an arsenal. 
Manufacturers continue to supply these dealers despite their dangerous 
practices, even though the U.S. Justice Department told them to self-
police their distribution chain more than 20 years ago.
    Money and guns from the United States drive the deadly violence and 
drug trafficking in Mexico. The money the cartels use to pay for the 
guns comes largely from their sale of illegal drugs to buyers in the 
United States. The cartels and the gun industry profit from this deadly 
trade, while hundreds of thousands suffer.
    What has Congress done about it? In 2004, it failed to renew the 
10-year ban on assault weapons, which made it possible to recklessly 
sell them to traffickers. A study found that for both of the 2 years 
that followed, there was a 60 percent spike in homicides in Mexico near 
the border. And mass shootings in the United States have tripled since 
the ban lapsed.
    In 2005, Congress passed a law to shield bad actors in the gun 
industry from accountability for the harm they cause. Gun manufacturers 
Barrett and Browning make and sell to civilians .50-caliber sniper 
rifles that can pierce armor and shoot down helicopters. U.S. law 
enforcement focuses on arresting traffickers, who are easily replaced. 
But it refuses to take on the U.S. gun industry, which is the source of 
the weapons used by criminals in Mexico and the United States.
    If those who call for military intervention in Mexico truly want to 
stop the cartels, they should support a ban on assault weapons and bulk 
sales, and greater accountability and enforcement against gun companies 
that supply cross-border traffickers. The Biden administration should 
also crack down on dangerous industry practices.
    Instead, the ``send in the troops'' politicians support policies 
that enable cartels to amass arsenals. After assault-style weapons were 
used to kill 19 children and two adults in Uvalde, 23 people in El Paso 
(including eight Mexicans) and 26 in Sutherland Springs--all in his 
home State of Texas--Crenshaw opposed requiring background checks for 
allgun sales, even though nearly 90 percent of Americans support them.
    There is serious policy, and then there's political bluster. When 
it comes to the fentanyl crisis and violence in Mexico, there has 
lately been too much of the latter and not enough of the former. 
Reforming the gun industry to stop the crime gun pipeline is a serious 
and necessary solution to this ongoing emergency.

    Mr. Goldman. There are over 200,000 guns that are exported 
from gun manufacturers and gun dealers in the United States to 
Mexican cartels that allow them to control the border and send 
fentanyl back into this country. The laws in Mexico are 
incredibly strict. There is one gun store in the entire 
country. So if we are going to stop the fentanyl crisis and if 
we are going to stop the cartels, then we need to stop the 
exportation of assault weapons to Mexico from this country.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. LaLota from New York.
    Mr. LaLota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Mayorkas, month after month, Members of this 
committee receive reports regarding fentanyl seizures, fentanyl 
deaths, gotaways, and other important data that paints a clear 
picture of an unsettling image of what is going on at our 
Southwest Border. Mr. Secretary, I want to make sure that we 
are all on the same page with respect to that data. So please 
direct your attention to the board behind me. I am going to ask 
you what should be some very straightforward multiple-choice 
questions using data from CBP, Homeland Security, DEA, and the 
Census Bureau. Sir, I know that we are limited on time, so I 
would appreciate if when you responded, you just say A, B, C, 
or D in these multiple choice questions, sir.
    Sir, my first question is, according to CBP, how much 
fentanyl has CBP seized along the Southwest Border in fiscal 
year 2023? You see the answers behind me, sir.
    Secretary Mayorkas. So, Congressman, two quick things. No. 
1, my distance vision isn't what it used to be, so I can't 
actually see that. No. 2, I'm not taking a multiple choice test 
that you administer. Let me assure you of that.
    Mr. LaLota. On point No. 1, sir, the Clerk has a physical 
copy of the questions, so you can see them in front of you. So 
I will narrate the question, sir, with respect to the amount of 
drugs, specifically fentanyl, seized at the border, the answer 
is 13,800 pounds seized in the first 6 months of fiscal year 
2023. That is enough to kill 2.5 billion people, every American 
8 times over, sir.
    The next question, sir, according to the U.S. Drug 
Enforcement Administration, how many Americans died from 
synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, between January 2021 and 
January 2022, your first year, sir?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, from approximately 2021 
to--the the data in 2022 is not yet available--approximately--
let me give you some stats. In 2020, close to 58,000 people 
died from fentanyl overdose deaths. In 2018, almost 47,000 
people died from fentanyl overdose deaths. The challenge of 
fentanyl, the scourge of fentanyl has been----
    Mr. LaLota. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. Years-long.
    Mr. LaLota. I am going to reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman. 
The answer is D, 71,941. That is almost 200 per day, sir. That 
exceeds the population of Portland, Maine. In essence, we lost 
a small city because of fentanyl in 2021.
    Next slide, please.
    Sir, the next question is how many known gotaways was DHS 
aware of in fiscal year 2021?
    Secretary Mayorkas. In 2021, I believe the number was 
almost 390,000.
    Mr. LaLota. Yes, the answer is D, 389,000 gotaways.
    Finally, the last slide.
    Sir, which of the following cities have populations less 
than 389,000, the same number of the known gotaways that we 
just mentioned earlier?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I think you know the 
answer to the question. Perhaps you could provide it to us.
    Mr. LaLota. Well, it is actually a trick question, Mr. 
Secretary. Each of the four cities behind me are well-known 
American cities have populations less than the total number of 
known gotaways last year. Let that sink in. America could have 
a whole new city based solely on how ineffective you have been 
at securing the border, sir.
    Mr. Secretary, it is clear to me by your inability to 
swiftly answer these seemingly easy questions, that you and 
this committee are not on the same page. I know, sir, that you 
are well aware of this data, and it is unfortunate you cannot 
be proud of it. In your testimony, you only mentioned the word 
crisis once, and it wasn't even in relation to America's border 
crisis. In fact, it had nothing even to do with our homeland.
    Sir, as the leader of the Homeland Security Department, you 
have a duty to secure the border and to keep Americans safe. 
Sir, with all due respect, there is a crisis at our Southwest 
Border, and you are failing in your very important duty. The 
only question remaining is whether you are doing so out of 
negligence, recklessness, or if it is intentional.
    So let this data serve as a stark reminder of the severity 
of the crisis at our Southwest Border. Mr. Secretary, time is 
of the essence. American lives are being lost every day, and I 
beg of you to please act immediately. The American people 
deserve nothing less.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Garcia from California.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 
Secretary, for your service and for being here with us today.
    I know that you are working under very difficult 
circumstances and you are trying your best with a team across 
many departments. We also know the challenges that we face at 
the border are not challenges that you can take on your own and 
not just the responsibility of your Department.
    Now, we all know we are battling a fentanyl crisis with 
also inadequate mental health and drug treatment programs. We 
are also acknowledging the fact that drugs can be easily 
transported by Americans through illegal ports of entry. We 
have heard this numerous times today. Also just want to remind 
us that we also don't have legal, orderly pathways to 
citizenship, which forces people to come in other ways to our 
country.
    But, Mr. Secretary, I would like to get your thoughts on 
some proposed potential border policies that many of us have 
heard and that I have heard here in this Congress. If you don't 
mind, I would like to ask you a few questions about these 
proposed policies. Mr. Secretary, do you think it would be a 
good idea to fill and build a trench with alligators along the 
border? Like actually building a moat full of alligators across 
the border? Would that be a good idea?
    Secretary Mayorkas. No, it would not, Congressman.
    Mr. Garcia. Mr. Secretary, do you think it would be a good 
idea to shoot migrants in the legs as they are crossing the 
border? Would that be a good idea?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, no, it would not.
    Mr. Garcia. Mr. Secretary, do you think it would be a good 
idea if the United States launched military attacks along the 
Northern Border of Mexico? Would that be a good idea?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, no, it would not.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I, of course, agree with you, sir. I 
just want to note that these insane ideas have been proposed by 
former President Trump and Members of our very body here in the 
Congress. So I thank you for your answers.
    I think it is important to note that by seeing what has 
happened today and the rhetoric around this really important 
conversation, that the Majority is not really serious about any 
solutions, but they are serious about a radical anti-immigrant 
agenda and gutting any protections for the rights to legal 
asylum and immigration. I, like many others, remember when 
Donald Trump's Attorney General, said that we need to take away 
children. Clearly a cruel statement that continues to be 
repeated over and over by many Members of this Majority.
    Now, House Democrats want an orderly system at the border 
where people have legal pathways to come to build better lives 
and wherein we can work together to actually solve the issues 
that exist along our border. I want to thank you for your work 
as we continue to do that.
    Mr. Secretary, finally, can you describe the importance of 
safeguarding the legal right to asylum so that vulnerable 
people can get the opportunity to build safe lives, like you 
and I both as immigrants have been able to do?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, our asylum system is one 
of the crown jewels of our country. We have taken great pride 
since our founding to be a country of refuge for those people 
fleeing persecution. I came to this country with my parents and 
my sister as political refugees from Cuba, fleeing the 
Communist takeover there. We understand the meaning of this 
country is a place of refuge. It is why I have sought to give 
back to this great country by more than 20 years of public 
service.
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely, sir. I came to this country as a 
young child also. I became a U.S. citizen in my early twenties. 
Like you, I am a proud immigrant of this country. It is 
unfortunate that so many choose to forget that immigrants make 
contributions to this country and can become secretaries of 
departments and Members of Congress.
    With that, I yield back the rest of my time. Thank you.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Ezell from Mississippi.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 
Secretary Mayorkas, for being here today. It has been a tough 
day.
    But I would like to address since the Biden administration 
took office, CBP reports that nearly 1,200 Border Patrol agents 
have been assaulted on the job. Morale is pretty low and these 
agents are being overwhelmed emotionally and physically. This 
increase in agent assaults should alarm all of us. Mr. 
Secretary, can you please tell me how you are supporting your 
front-line agents and your officers that are going through this 
ordeal?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, thank you very much for 
your question.
    We are supporting the members of U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection every single day. Let me share with you, you 
mentioned assaults against our Border Patrol agents. Such an 
assault is a violation of Title 18 of the United States Code, 
Section 111. As Chief Ortiz and I and other sector chiefs have 
addressed, we are seeking the prosecution of individuals who 
assault our Border Patrol agents. They are doing heroic work, 
our Border Patrol agents under significant challenges and they 
deserve and are receiving our support.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
    I am also concerned about how the Biden administration is 
making it more difficult for our ICE agents to do their job, 
adding some bureaucratic red tape. In an example from our home 
State of Mississippi, your Department required an agent to call 
and ask permission from the District of Columbia to remove an 
illegal alien who had been convicted of possession with intent 
to distribute 10 kilos of methamphetamine. Mr. Secretary, I 
know if I didn't enforce the law while I was a sheriff, I would 
have been removed from office. Will you help remove some of 
these obstacles, like having to call the District of Columbia 
to get rid of a guy that has been convicted of 10 kilos of 
methamphetamine? Will you help remove some of this red tape so 
these guys can do their job?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I look forward to learning 
more about the particular case that came to your attention, 
because I will tell you that the field office director in 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the authority to 
approve a removal. In fact, in this administration more 
aggravated felons have been removed per month than in the prior 
administration. Our focus is indeed on individuals who pose a 
threat to public safety and national security.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
    It has been more than two decades since the Department of 
Homeland Security was established as a stand-alone Cabinet-
level department. The Department has significantly grown. It 
now consists of nearly 30 components and offices with more than 
240,000 employees. I am concerned about the Homeland Security 
as being weaponized in ways that distract from its originally 
intended mission. Specifically, experts have suggested that it 
is time to overhaul the Department's Office of Intelligence and 
Analysis, citing the Office's inconsistent struggle to provide 
timely and accurate intelligence. As the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, can you give me three concrete ways in which you 
could recommend Congress reform the Office of Intelligence and 
Analysis to improve the efficient flow of information?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, let me share with you that 
we have an under secretary, Ken Wainstein, who leads the Office 
of Intelligence and Analysis, who served as a United States 
Attorney, has served as the Homeland Security advisor to former 
President Bush, has served as the assistant attorney general 
for the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of 
Justice. An extraordinary leader. I'm very proud that he agreed 
to join our Department. He is very focused on growing the 
strength of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. One of the 
ways in which Congress can do so is to properly fund that 
office, which is so critical to equipping not only the Federal 
Government, but also our State, local, Tribal, territorial, and 
campus partners in securing communities across this country. 
The men and women, the personnel of the Office of Intelligence 
and Analysis are extraordinary public servants, and I'm 
incredibly proud to work alongside them.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman from Mississippi yields. I 
now recognize Mrs. Ramirez of Illinois.
    Mrs. Ramirez. Thank you, Chairman Green, and Ranking Member 
Thompson, for convening us in today's hearing.
    I got to move a little so I can see you here, but I want to 
start with thanking the Secretary and acknowledging that your 
work is constantly politicized. While the border is in your 
portfolio, it is not the only Department's responsibility, as 
you are also responsible in addressing issues when disasters 
strike, you are responsible in protecting our economy, securing 
cyber space, and critical infrastructure. Why are we not 
talking about those issues who we know continue to expand the 
threats to our country every single day? My colleagues to the 
right only care about the border because they want to care the 
narrative that asylum seekers and refugees are illegals, they 
are an invasion, when we know this is really about a denial of 
human rights and our commitment to being a country that 
welcomes immigrants the way we have done in generations before.
    What we should be discussing today is when is Congress 
going to pass a law to increase access to legal representation 
for individuals, making sure families are kept together, and 
providing a pathway to citizenship for dreamers and TPS 
holders. What we should be talking about today is cybersecurity 
attacks. What we should be talking today about is funding that 
addresses natural disasters. What we should be talking today 
about is supporting infrastructure protections, the capacity 
for our TSA workers to do their job. But that is not what we 
are talking about today.
    It is nice to see my Republican colleagues suddenly care 
about migrant children, like my little sister who crossed the 
border at 60 pounds 20 years ago. But where were they when the 
Trump administration was separating families? Where were they 
to protect kids in our schools from gun violence? Thoughts and 
prayers? I grew up in church, and I know that prayer also 
requires action.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to be clear. The administration can 
do a better job of protecting migrant children. I agree with 
that. I also look forward to working with you and all of you to 
make that happen.
    I also have to say that I am concerned that the Department 
of Homeland Security is considering reviving family detention. 
Very simply, any duration of detention is harmful. It is 
inhumane and it is unacceptable. It undermines the fundamental 
right to seek asylum. We want to argue that children are at 
risk? We alternatively have to argue that shutting off avenues 
to claim asylum will keep kids safe by keeping them in their 
home countries. But we have heard it. If any of you have ever 
been to Guatemala, to Chiquimula, to San Isidro, you will know 
what poverty actually feels like, what it is like to have to 
live every single day in danger, why you would walk 1,811 miles 
to get to this country. These people are fleeing their 
countries with unimaginable poverty. From my own experience, 
you have heard me talk about in Central America, they are 
forced to leave their homes all the time.
    We must take this problem of child exploitation seriously, 
but we cannot do it at the expense of our children. This is why 
I want to talk a little bit more about family detention. I am 
aware that there has been conversations around reinstating 
that. But as you know, people are leaving everything and 
everyone they know behind. Mr. Secretary, I am aware that it is 
not a final decision on this policy, but I hope to see your 
Department and the administration lead with humanity, as you 
have done, and urge not to reinstate any policy that results in 
families being placed in detention centers.
    Mr. Secretary, can you provide a full written update on the 
status of the consideration of family detention to this 
committee?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, no decision has been 
made. I encourage an environment, a work environment, where 
people feel free to present their ideas, and we discuss those 
ideas in a thoughtful and deliberate manner.
    Mrs. Ramirez. Thank you, Secretary.
    So if there is an update at any time, I would like to be 
able to receive that.
    Mr. Secretary, I just want to wrap up here, and I know that 
we talked about TSA, and I have a few seconds left, but I do 
want to come back to ask you a quick question about TSA. Would 
you please explain how expanded bargaining rights combined with 
increased pay are critical to improving working conditions for 
TSA officers?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, we have had challenges 
over the years, given the unequal pay, the unfair pay of our 
TSA personnel, and the lack of bargaining rights that they have 
suffered. We have had a very difficult time recruiting and 
retaining personnel. We believe in fair pay for our 
extraordinary front-line personnel, for all of the people in 
the Department of Homeland Security, which is why we are 
seeking the funding to support that fair pay and the bargaining 
rights they richly deserve.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Thank you, Secretary.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentlelady yields.
    I now recognize Mr. D'Esposito from New York.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
start by thanking you for your leadership, because I think one 
of the most important things that we are addressing today is 
leadership.
    There is so much to talk about. It seems like over the last 
few hours, we have spent time going back and forth about 
funding for Border Patrol agents. What we have failed to 
recognize is that we could provide all the funding that we want 
for Border Patrol agents. They don't want to work for you, Mr. 
Secretary. I have spoken to them. I visited the border. In 
fact, I visited the border before even having the honor to 
serve as a Member of Congress.
    I proudly served the New York City Police Department as a 
detective for over a decade. So I got to speak to these 
individuals cop on cop. They don't like how you are operating. 
They don't like how they are being treated. There are many 
people in this room that have served this Nation in our 
military, have served in law enforcement, and I will tell you, 
there is nothing worse, there is no more terrible feeling than 
going out each and every day and having that understanding that 
your so-called leader doesn't have your back. That is exactly 
how they feel.
    Someone from the other side of the aisle mentioned the fact 
that the border is just part of the news cycle. Well, I would 
have to argue that. I am pretty confident that the victims that 
we have seen of fentanyl overdoses, those that we have seen as 
victims of crime, of those individuals coming over our border 
illegally, those that have been captured and now completely at 
the hand of the cartel, they don't think it is just a news 
cycle. What it is, it has become a disaster. You mentioned that 
you believe we have operational control, and you see that 
operational control in, ``a lens of reasonableness.'' Well, I 
will speak as a New Yorker and tell you that lens stinks 
because none of us see it as reasonable.
    You also mentioned the extraordinary personnel. Again, as 
many Members of this committee have had the opportunity to 
visit the border, and we have spoken to those brave Customs and 
Border Patrol agents, and when they are able to speak freely 
and talk about what they do on a day-to-day basis, when they 
don't have one of your henchmen standing around making sure 
they don't say anything terrible about you or about Homeland 
Security, they tell the truth. They are doing the best work 
that they possibly can under a terrible act of leadership.
    I will say that we are here today--your failures, your 
dereliction of duty, your failure to uphold the oath that you 
took to protect this homeland, it is not a Democrat issue, it 
is not a Republican issue, it is an American issue. When we go 
back to our home States and we talk to individuals, they don't 
care what party we are from. You know what they care about? 
They care about crime increasing in their community. They want 
people to have the American dream. I think that is what we are 
missing here today. We want people to have the American dream. 
You know what we want? We want them to come through the front 
door. That is what we are asking, and that is what you are 
failing to do.
    So I am going to bring it back home. Your lack of 
leadership has created not just the States along the border to 
be border States, every State in this great Nation has become a 
border State. In New York City alone, there are projections 
that the city could spend up to $1 billion--with a B--to 
support more than 50,000 migrants that have arrived over the 
past year. Now, there is talk that they actually want to take 
these migrants from New York City and bring them to the Nassau 
Coliseum right in the middle of my district. So I have to ask, 
have you or any member of your administration been in talks 
with New York City to move these migrants from New York City to 
the Nassau Coliseum?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, not to my knowledge, but 
the----
    Mr. D'Esposito. I have to say, in what world--because if 
there is no discussion, it is a yes-or-no question--in what 
world do you think that housing migrants in a sports facility 
is a good idea?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, the issues that you speak 
of very strongly reflect the dire and decades-long need for 
immigration reform. We are working within a broken immigration 
system----
    Mr. D'Esposito. We are also working with a broken--Mr. 
Secretary, with all due respect, we are also working with a 
broken border. When you took the oath to be the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, it is your job. When you wake up in the 
morning, every waking hour, you should be dedicating it to 
protecting our border and to make sure that this homeland, the 
homeland that we all represent, is secure. You are not. You are 
failing it. You are failing Americans and you are failing your 
oath.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Green. Thank you.
    The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Menendez.
    Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 
Secretary. Thank you for your service to this country. Thank 
you for being a man of integrity, because that somehow got lost 
today. You wake up every day and you serve this great country. 
So thank you. Thank you for doing that. Thank you to you, your 
Department, and the public servants you serve with to protect 
the American people.
    I also want to apologize to not just you, but to anyone 
watching, to the staff, this committee of all of us for what 
you have had to experience here today. We are so much better 
than this. Our country needs us to be so much better than this. 
To think about the origin of this committee, as a select 
committee put together after 
9/11, to find ourselves here today engaging the way that we are 
is unacceptable, and we shouldn't accept it.
    So many challenges this country faces this committee has 
jurisdiction over that we need to address together. Together. 
So let's go through some of those things, Mr. Secretary.
    Your Department defends our Nation against cyber threats to 
a wide range of critical infrastructure, is that correct?
    Secretary Mayorkas. We do, Congressman.
    Mr. Menendez. That critical infrastructure ranges from 
commercial facilities to emergency services to transportation 
systems and beyond. Is that correct?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, it is, Congressman.
    Mr. Menendez. These cyber threats often come from certain 
hostile nations like Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea. Is 
that correct?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, it is, Congressman.
    Mr. Menendez. Are those states the origin of some of the 
most frequent and severe cyber attacks on our Nation?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, it is. Yes, they are.
    Mr. Menendez. Would you agree that their targets and 
methods are wide-ranging and ever-changing and developing?
    Secretary Mayorkas. It's a very dynamic and complex threat 
landscape, Congressman.
    Mr. Menendez. This would include ransomware, malware, and 
phishing attacks, is that correct?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes. They come from adverse nation-
states, as well as criminal organizations resident in them.
    Mr. Menendez. You are here to talk about the budget, is 
that correct?
    Secretary Mayorkas. I am, Congressman.
    Mr. Menendez. Will President Biden's budget proposal allow 
DHS to combat the cyber threat posed by these countries?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, it does, Congressman. It calls for 
an increase of almost $150 million for the budget of the 
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
    Mr. Menendez. On that point, with this increase, which 
includes, I believe, almost $100 million for implementing the 
Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act, allow 
the agency to better understand, manage, and reduce the risk to 
our critical infrastructure?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, it will, Congressman. We are very 
grateful for that legislation.
    Mr. Menendez. Mr. Secretary, would you agree that domestic 
terrorism has emerged as one of the greatest threats to our 
homeland, a threat that has the potential to cause devastation 
to our places of worship, to our schools?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, it has, Congressman.
    Mr. Menendez. Is that why your Department designated 
domestic violent extremism as a national priority area, 
reconstituted the Faith-Based Security Advisory Council and 
provided over $250 million through the nonprofit Security Grant 
Program to support physical security enhancements to nonprofits 
at high risk of terrorist attacks?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, it is, Congressman.
    Mr. Menendez. I am so glad that DHS is focused on this 
critical issue, because here in this committee, as you might be 
aware, Republicans refuse to include any reference to domestic 
terrorism in their partisan committee oversight plan for this 
Congress, which is just completely unacceptable.
    Mr. Secretary, has your Department had to respond to 
increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, we have, Congressman.
    Mr. Menendez. Correct me if I am wrong, but emergencies 
like those aren't unique to red or blue States. Is that 
correct?
    Secretary Mayorkas. That is correct.
    Mr. Menendez. Mr. Secretary, when providing support after a 
natural disaster, does FEMA discriminate based on the political 
affiliation of the elected officials from those States or 
localities?
    Secretary Mayorkas. No, it does not, Congressman.
    Mr. Menendez. No, it doesn't. So the $20.1 billion for the 
Disaster Relief Fund in your budget would help American 
families recover from devastating events regardless of where 
they are from. Is that correct?
    Secretary Mayorkas. That is correct, Congressman.
    Mr. Menendez. Thank you.
    My first official trip as a Member of Congress was to El 
Paso to visit the border, because we do care about the 
situation at the border. But I want to be very clear about 
something. Congress is responsible for passing comprehensive 
immigration and border solutions to mitigate some of the 
challenges your Department is facing. Is that correct?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes.
    Mr. Menendez. So let's talk about the border. Your budget 
provides actual solutions to border challenges, including $865 
million for CIS to process asylum cases, applications for 
immigration benefits, and improve refugee processing. Is that 
correct?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, it is, Congressman.
    Mr. Menendez. So far this year, your Department has 
encountered more than 1 million migrants at the Southern 
Border. Is that correct?
    Secretary Mayorkas. I'm sorry, Congressman. The time frame 
about which you're asking?
    Mr. Menendez. So far this year?
    Secretary Mayorkas. So far this year we have--yes, that is 
correct.
    Mr. Menendez. The point is that you are preventing people 
from entering the country. So when we talk about the number of 
incidents we are preventing, the DHS is doing its job. I would 
just say thank you for doing your job. Thank you to all the 
members of your Department for doing what you do.
    I am so sorry, again, that you had to deal with what you 
encountered here today. Thank you for your service to this 
country.
    I yield back the remainder of my time.
    Chairman Green. The gentlemen yields.
    I now recognize Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding 
this important hearing.
    In my home State of Florida human trafficking is a problem 
that we are working very hard to combat. To stop the 
exploitation and trafficking of children, it is very important. 
We need the Federal Government to partner with us and eliminate 
policies that are making children more vulnerable. I have here 
today a Florida State-wide grand jury report dated March 29, 
2023, containing alarming details about Federal agencies' roles 
in the placement of minors, unaccompanied alien children, or 
UACs, into unsafe and exploitative environments.
    Mr. Chairman, I request that this report be entered into 
the record.
    Chairman Green. Without objection, so ordered.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The document has been retained in committee files. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Among other things, the report shows that the number of 
UACs at the Southern Border increased from 27,000 to 127,000 
between fiscal years 2015 and 2022. In fiscal year 2022, over 
13,000 of these minors were housed in Florida. According to the 
report, the children interviewed knew very little about the 
individuals that transported them during their journey to the 
border and disclosed that the individuals who transported them 
were coyotes. One child disclosed that during her journey 
several members of her group were robbed, attacked by gang 
members, decapitated and raped, and she disclosed that she 
herself was one of the victims of rape. The Florida Grand Jury 
report also found that roughly 40 percent of those initially 
categorized as UACs were age 17 or above, and included 
reference to the case of a 24-year-old murderer who made his 
way through the UAC system in order to ultimately murder his 
Florida sponsor. The killer's mother reported that he had 
entered the United States fraudulently because right there at 
the shelter, they helped me. This was a reference to financial 
aid and other assistance given by charitable organizations on 
both sides of the border. He presented fraudulent documents 
which were not spotted.
    As we work to protect children from being exploited, 
trafficked, and left vulnerable to deadly drugs, we need to 
have a clear picture of the role that our Federal Government, 
including the policies of the Department of Homeland Security, 
what they are and how they are affecting these children, and 
where we need to continue to improve them.
    So, Secretary Mayorkas, I would like to start there. When 
Border Patrol agents encounter an unaccompanied child, does DHS 
cross reference the UC portal to determine any simple details, 
such as has this child been through our system and been 
processed before?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, I very much appreciate 
your concern for the well-being of children and your concern in 
the fight against human trafficking. It is precisely why, for 
the first time in the Department's history, we have created a 
sixth mission set in our Quadrennial Homeland Security review, 
and that is the fight against human trafficking. It is 
precisely why we are devoting increased funds to the Center for 
Combating Human Trafficking, the CCHT.
    Just so that you understand, if I may, our role when we 
receive an unaccompanied child at the border, when we encounter 
an unaccompanied child. It is our legal responsibility under 
the law to transfer that unaccompanied child to the Department 
of Health and Human Services within 72 hours.
    Ms. Lee. After 72 hours, correct? Now, when you have that 
child for 72 hours, are you in fact verifying that that child 
is a minor?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Of course, we seek to verify the age of 
that child, the identity of that child, before we transfer that 
child to the Department of Health and Human Services.
    Ms. Lee. Do you cross-reference the portal to make a 
determination of whether or not that child has actually been 
put into our system, whether that child has been processed 
through your system before?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, I would be pleased to 
provide you after this hearing with the details of what exactly 
our Border Patrol agents do when they encounter an 
unaccompanied child and how they verify the identity and age of 
that child. I'd be very pleased to provide you with that 
information. I must say that our Border Patrol agents do 
extraordinary work in the most difficult of circumstances for 
caring for those children.
    Ms. Lee. Do those agents who are on that front line as 
their first point of contact for those children have any 
specialized training in trauma, informed care, or verification 
of legal documents such that there is any quality control on 
ensuring that they know what they are seeing and they 
understand how to speak to these children?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, the Border Patrol agents 
are trained in a number of different areas, given the dynamism 
and complexity of the challenges that they confront. I'd also 
be very pleased to provide you with details about that.
    Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentlelady yields.
    I now recognize Ms. Clarke from New York.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Good afternoon.
    Let me first start by thanking you, Secretary Mayorkas, for 
joining us today, as well as thank our Chairman Green and 
Ranking Member Thompson for convening this afternoon's 
hearing--or this morning's hearing.
    Let me also say how disgraceful the display of rhetoric 
here today targeting our Secretary was for this committee. As a 
Member of the committee for my entire tenure here in the House 
of Representatives, this committee has always been bipartisan. 
It has always been focused on the preservation, protection of 
the homeland. But today's display of just downright disgusting 
behavior is not indicative of who we should be and who we are 
as a committee.
    So I would like to, first of all, lift up and thank and 
commend the Biden administration and you, Secretary Mayorkas, 
for rebuilding the Department and your critical efforts to 
support DHS's overall mission. Your job is not an easy one. 
Since 9/11, it has never been easy. It is easier when you have 
cooperation from a bipartisan panel of Members of Congress that 
want to seek out solutions to the myriad of challenges that we 
face.
    So today, I would like to focus on cybersecurity, Mr. 
Secretary. My first question is about the Cyber Incident 
Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act, or CIRCIA, a 
landmark piece of legislation that I authored in the last 
Congress, which directs CISA to stand up mandatory cyber 
incident reporting requirements for critical infrastructure. It 
has been a little over a year since Congress passed CIRCIA, and 
I would like to know what progress has been made in that 1 year 
and how quickly might we expect to see a final rule.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, one of the key elements 
of our Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's work 
is to partner, really to be an agency of partnership because we 
so much rely on the private sector. The majority of our 
country's critical infrastructure rests in the private sector. 
So CISA, as it is known by its acronym, has engaged with the 
public in preparation for the issuance of a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to implement the regulations bringing that important 
legislation to life. I believe, if I recall correctly, that the 
agency was given 18 months to promulgate those regulations, and 
it is well under way in its work in that regard.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well.
    How is DHS working with the other regulators, like FCC and 
SEC, to streamline and harmonize incident reporting 
requirements?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, one of the critical 
needs for our country is to harmonize the different regulations 
that we have with respect to cybersecurity. We actually have a 
council that we chair in the Department of Homeland Security to 
bring the different agencies together to achieve to the best of 
our abilities, to the best of the authorities that each 
respective agency holds, to bring that harmonization to life. 
We are well under way in that regard. I know that council has 
met, if I'm not mistaken, several times already.
    Ms. Clarke. Last Congress I offered legislation to 
authorize a critical CISA OT security program called Cyber 
Century, which allows CISA to enter into enhanced strategic 
partnerships to monitor cyber threats to OT systems. Since that 
program was authorized, how has DHS worked to grow and 
stabilize Cyber Century? What do you see is next for the 
program?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, I will have to follow up 
with you in response to your question to provide you with the 
information you have asked of me.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well.
    Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about political theatre within 
our committee. Well, there are multiple ways that we can 
address the issues that have been raised with respect to our 
Southwest Border. The only one that we have not discussed in 
this committee, which is part of our jurisdiction, is 
comprehensive immigration reform. I hope that you will work 
with the Judiciary Committee. As the daughter of immigrants, 
this I find the discussion here abhorrent. This is a Nation 
built by immigrants, for immigrants. Not anyone sitting here 
today is native to this land. For us to have this type of 
rhetoric in the 21st Century, grown adults who espouse 
Christian values, I think we need to rethink and re-calibrate 
who we are as human beings. Because the discussion that was 
held here today was disgraceful. Despicable.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentlelady yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Luttrell from Texas.
    Mr. Lutrell. Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. How are you 
today?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Good afternoon, Congressman.
    Mr. Lutrell. I had a lot of a line of questioning I was 
going to ask you, and I have got to tell you, just to mimic Ms. 
Clarke's statements, I think this committee needs to do a 
better job. If we spend as much time solving problems instead 
of wire brushing ourselves--there was a point in time I forgot 
you were in here.
    I want to ask you face-to-face, man-to-man, will you meet 
me in the next few weeks so we can hash this out? Because what 
I hear, what I seem to think that I am hearing is there is a 
breakdown of communication and the understanding of either 
vernacular or language that either makes you responsible of our 
expectation. I think there is a breakdown there. So I am asking 
you, would you meet with me so I could tell you what I am 
seeing from my district in Texas?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I would gladly----
    Mr. Lutrell. Yes or no? Thank you.
    Secretary Mayorkas. I would gladly meet with you.
    Mr. Lutrell. Thank you.
    So I represent Texas 8. We are basically a landing zone for 
the border, OK? I want to bring two names to your attention. 
Mr. Ethan Griffin, age 22, and Mr. Joshua Gillahan, age 14. 
Both perished from fentanyl, OK. I don't care what 
administration you are talking about now, right? I am past red 
and blue, OK? Joshua died 18--8 months ago. OK, here here are 
my numbers, sir, in my district. In 2020, 325 deaths, in 2021, 
538 deaths, 2022, 600-plus. The number is growing this year. 
Now, sir, you are the commander of the ship. I have to point my 
finger at you. I wanted you to address me and say what would 
you say to the mothers of these two young men, those babies? 
Because they are in the room.
    I am not going to politicize you, sir, but I would ask you, 
when you go to Mr. Pfluger's office, I am going to have those 
mothers there. Would you please address it? Because here is my 
issue, sir. Every day--every day, I run into those moms. Every 
day. I have to tell them, I am working on it. Every day in my 
district, they ask me, why isn't the border secure? What can we 
do to enhance border security so we are not overwhelmed? Every 
day your name comes up. I can't imagine, after seeing what I 
have seen today, how challenging it is to you to lead this 
Department. We will do better. I give you my word, as a Texan 
and as a Congressman, that with this committee, we will do 
better to provide you guidance as a united body so you can 
secure our border. That is what we need. Do you agree to that?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman--Congressman----
    Mr. Lutrell. Whoa. All righty. Hey, back that up, buddy. I 
identify as a man, and I don't have any pronouns.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I apologize. Congressman, 
we need to work together to address the challenges that have 
been the subject of this hearing, and fentanyl, and the scourge 
of fentanyl is one of them. Let me share with you that the 
scourge of fentanyl is not new to 2023. It is not----
    Mr. Lutrell. I am not saying it is, I am not saying it is. 
I am not saying that at all, sir. What I am saying is these 
numbers--and again, you heard me say I don't care what 
administration you are talking about, these numbers are 
progressively getting worse.
    So you and I and this committee and this body politic need 
to put aside our differences because it is the American public 
that are suffering. No wonder they are pissed at us. Yes?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Agreed, Congressman.
    Let me share with you one thing that we could do, just one 
example of what we can do together. Fund the Department of 
Homeland Security for $305 million so we have a greater level 
of non-intrusive inspection technology to detect and 
interdict----
    Mr. Lutrell. I agree that we need to fund, however, sir, if 
we are going to spend, what, $3 million on a private law firm 
to help you prep for hearings--from what I understand, the 
documentation that I saw today, $1.5 million already gone out 
the door. As a fiscally conservative man, if we want to fund a 
department, let's fund it. Let's just not go spending things 
that we don't need to spend taxpayer dollars on. How about 
that?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I respectfully must say 
that you are conflating very serious issues with other issues 
that do not relate. Challenges----
    Mr. Lutrell. Which serious issue am I conflating? The 
border problem?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Let me----
    Mr. Lutrell. Be careful, because I am kind-of on your side 
right now, but that can switch, especially after you call me a 
woman.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I apologize. It has been a 
number of hours.
    Mr. Lutrell. I have been here with you the whole time. I 
get it.
    Secretary Mayorkas. Yes. Well, let me share with you. Your 
seat over these last few hours has been very, very different 
than my seat. So my level--so I apologize for the error. And 
in----
    Mr. Lutrell. That is fair enough. You think so?
    Secretary Mayorkas. I----
    Mr. Lutrell. You just think because you are taking darts 
from this committee and oh, didn't you just hear me say that I 
got to stand in front of those two mothers back there and 
explain to them what I am doing to make sure their babies and 
other babies--what--the reason that they died? I didn't think 
so.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Ms. Titus of Nevada.
    Mr. Lutrell. Bullshit, man.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 
Secretary, for so patiently and honorably responding to the 
slings and arrows that have been thrown at you today.
    I am sorry that Ms. Lee left since she has such a concern 
for human trafficking. I was going to invite her to join me on 
a bill that I have introduced with Representative David Joyce 
called the IMPACT ACT Human Trafficking Act. It would enhance 
your ability to combat human trafficking by establishing a 
Homeland Security Investigation Victim Assistance Program to 
train investigators and specialists, which is what she seemed 
to think we needed more of.
    I am glad that there is $66 million in the President's 
budget for this very purpose and I would just ask you if you 
will be able to leverage some of that for training and for 
helping your own employees who have to deal with the trauma of 
these cases themselves and the impact it has on their mental 
health?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, yes, we would. I'm very 
appreciative of the fact that you recognize how difficult this 
work is on the personnel who do it.
    Ms. Titus. Yes. Thank you.
    Now, go back to another point that was made about TSA, and 
I certainly agreed with it. Las Vegas has the seventh-busiest 
airport. It is in my district. We have just millions of 
tourists who come through there. I have just lost the figure 
right here. But anyway, we would need to have this funding for 
TSA, and we have seen that it is already working. You mentioned 
that you have got longer retention, better recruiting, better 
benefits, maybe the labor union issue, but I hear from my 
colleagues across the aisle that they want to cut non-defense 
spending. I am concerned that the pay raises for TSA might be 
on their list of things to do away with.
    Can you just one more time talk about how we need to do 
that for the safety of the traveling public and how much that 
impacts the economy of every district of people who can fly in 
and out safely, knowing TSA is there for them?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, there are three elements 
to this. No. 1, the pay fairness that we are hoping to achieve 
for our TSA personnel will better ensure their well-being. It 
will improve our recruiting and retention. No. 1. No. 2, our 
extraordinary TSA personnel who work on the front lines ensure 
the safety and security of the traveling public. Third, they 
facilitate that travel by streamlining the process and making 
sure that the experience at the airport is as positive as 
possible.
    Ms. Titus. Well, we know that our travelers to Las Vegas, 
we want them to have the best experience from the time they 
leave home to the time they get back, and that includes the 
whole airport experience. So we appreciate what TSA folks do. 
They put themselves in harm's way on those check lines. When 
you have seen angry travelers, you have seen them confiscate 
weapons. It is not just easy job.
    Secretary Mayorkas. It is certainly not. None of our front-
line jobs are easy. But the individuals who perform them are 
extraordinary public servants. I'm incredibly proud to work 
alongside them and to support them.
    Ms. Titus. I would like to see more people thank them when 
they search their bags, as opposed to be angry and be in a 
hurry and get aggravated because they have had to have another 
search is for the safety of all our travelers.
    Now, I can't let you leave without asking you about the 
SEAR rating for Las Vegas. We are going to have the Formula One 
race. It is going to go right down the Strip. It is going to go 
right through the heart of my district. You have got hotel 
rooms looking down on it. You have got people in those hotels. 
We know that can be a problem from the October 1 shooting. I 
know you have been working with our local agencies. I want to 
ask you to look very carefully at that, see if there is a way 
we can get a three rating, because there are a lot of special 
circumstances there. As you review that, I think you told the 
Senate Committee that you are looking at that process 
generally. Is it going to be a fluid process? Can you change 
from one category to another depending on what you may find out 
or what kind of resources are brought to bear?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congresswoman, the SEAR rating, the 
Special Event Assessment Rating, process is indeed a fluent 
one. Our experts, and they are indeed experts, evaluate the 
information and if there is additional information that would 
inform their decision with respect to the rating an event 
receives, then they certainly will consider it and alter their 
rating according to their determinations.
    Ms. Titus. We want that to be successful. So thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green. Thank you, Ms. Titus.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Strong from Alabama.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
    Mr. Secretary, over the last 2 years, Americans have 
watched as this administration has rolled back successful 
border policies, instead choosing chaos at the Southern Border. 
It is no wonder when under your direction we no longer handcuff 
those hearing the law, but instead handcuff our Border Patrol 
agents from being able to do their job.
    I have been able to visit the Southern Border twice this 
year already. What I witness concerns every American and from 
both sides of the aisle. Cartels are taking advantage of our 
open borders to smuggle humans and drugs into our country at an 
alarming rate. These cartels have gained complete control of 
the Southwest Border and a significant portion of the U.S. drug 
market by establishing diverse transportation routes and 
advanced communications capabilities. Drones are one such tool 
cartels are using to conduct counter-surveillance, pinpoint the 
location of law enforcement at the border, and increase the 
success of smuggling operations.
    In a February 7 house oversight hearing, U.S. Border Patrol 
testified that in the last year, one sector of the Southern 
Border alone had more than 10,000 illegal drone incursions and 
25,000 detections. Not only is this a grave concern for the 
safety of our law enforcement officers at the border, but it is 
a serious threat to our national security. During that same 
hearing, USBP shared that our adversaries had 17 times the 
number of drones to continue to grow their operations. We have 
mentioned this already today, but I believe it worth noting 
again. Cartels have learned to use illegal immigrants to 
smuggle illicit contraband across the border. According to 
Homeland Security Investigation, revenues from migrant 
smuggling have increased from roughly $500 million in 2018 to 
$13 billion in 2022. Again, it has been reported that cartel 
rush waves of aliens to the border to overwhelm Border Patrol 
as a decoy to allow for smuggling to go relatively unnoticed.
    As we have already established today, during your testimony 
at the Senate Judiciary hearing on March 28, you claimed that 
you were unaware this was happening. Mr. Secretary, I want to 
ask you specifically, in the 3 weeks that have followed, have 
you personally examined these tactics yourself?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I have in fact, focused on 
these tactics for some time. Let me share with you that I am so 
appreciative of the fact that you brought up the issue of 
drones, because our counter drone, our counter UAS authority 
expires at the end of this year, and it is absolutely critical 
that that authority not only be extended, that we be 
reauthorized, but that it be expanded. We need to be able to 
work with local law enforcement. Drones are being used in a 
myriad of ways, in a number of different ways, to create a 
public safety risk.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you.
    Secretary Mayorkas. We have to have the authority to 
counter them.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. The U.S. military needs to be 
notified also.
    Secretary Mayorkas, the facts speak volumes, and let's get 
the facts straight. Under the previous administration, 
President Trump, it is a fact our borders were much more 
secure. Our country was safer. Under this administration, those 
that crossed the border were apprehended, processed, and 
President Trump immediately returned them by ICE air. Under 
your leadership, it appears, our Border Patrol agents are the 
ones that are being handcuffed, while illegal aliens from 
Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, Haiti, Cuba, Iran, and 
yes, China, too, are pouring into America.
    This budget is baffling, to say the least. It proves that 
returning illegal aliens immediately, rather than turning them 
loose in America, is telling. The big thing in this budget that 
I am concerned about, there was not increases in air 
transportation or for fuel. That is one of the things that we 
can do that I believe will reduce costs, is to return these 
illegals back. It is proven that it worked.
    The other thing, Mr. Secretary, can you provide details 
about how the Department intends to spend $91 million for 
electric vehicles charging stations and $32 million for 
electric vehicles? How many stations and vehicles will $120 
million be used for? Who created this initiative?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, two points. I'll be very 
pleased to provide you with the requested details after this 
hearing with respect to the electric feet that our Office of 
Management is working on.
    I want you to know that in 2021 our apprehension rate at 
the Southern Border was 81 percent, in 2020, it was 75 percent.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Brecheen from Oklahoma.
    Mr. Brecheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Mayorkas, thanks for being here.
    Today, earlier in this committee, you said I use a lens of 
reasonableness in defining operational control when you were 
talking about if we have operational control at the border. So 
I want to kind-of go through a series of comments, and I want 
to discuss the concept of being reasonable.
    Under your watch, the Biden administration, we have had 
over 4\1/2\ million people encountered entrance illegally into 
the United States, the highest ever in the history of our 
Nation. That is more than the population of Oklahoma, the State 
of which I am in service of. I would contend that is not 
reasonable. I have got in front of me here 11 different places 
where your office is in violation of Federal law or regulation. 
I am happy to supply this. The will of Congress, the will of 
the people. My office just sent you a letter about one of those 
in regards to this expansion of parole instead of on a case-by-
case basis. It is designed to give 30,000 illegals entrance in 
the United States to lower numbers, to make the numbers look 
better. I would contend this is not reasonable.
    I want to talk about tax dollars and the way our tax 
dollars are being spent. El Paso, this sector is overwhelmed. 
DHS right now--at 1 of 9 sectors, El Paso is spending $90,000 
per flight, sending 4 of them per week to another sector of the 
wall area border, and just to process them. I would contend 
this is not reasonable. It is just a reshuffling of the deck 
chairs to make sure El Paso is not overrun.
    Because of climate ideology, as my colleague just talked 
about, you all request to spend $91 million for electric 
vehicle charging stations, $32 million for electric vehicles, 
which is not going to secure the border. There is a chance 
those vehicles could run out of energy and it is adherence to 
the church of nature. I would contend it is not reasonable.
    Last month your Border and Customs Patrol leader, the chief 
of the Border Patrol, oversees 19,000 of our Patrol agents, 
testified to this committee that he disagreed with President 
Biden's decision to shut down construction of the border wall. 
What is reasonable--and I have heard it talked about a couple 
of times that you are in constant communication with him--I 
would contend would be to listen to your expert. The guy who is 
in constant communication with 19,000, who disagrees with that 
decision.
    So let me kind-of give the context of this. In 2021, the 
CBP report said that there was $15 billion that was allocated 
to build or rehab a wall, the wall in the Southern Border, 738 
miles of that with $15 billion. Around 450 miles was completed 
in the prior administration, the Trump administration. Then 
President Biden within his 1st 30 days said not another foot 
and shut down what was appropriated by Congress, 250 miles of 
border wall construction. He made the statement, not another 
foot. Because of this, the Department of Defense then had to 
spend $2 billion to terminate the contracts. That was for 
something that Congress had needed to happen. I would contend 
that is not reasonable. It is not a good expenditure of the 
taxpayer monies. It is usurping Article 1, Section 1 that says 
that all legislative powers be vested to the Congress, not by 
Executive Order, letting the President undermine Congress.
    Now we continue to spend $130,000 a day to store and 
maintain those sections of wall, rusting and wasting on the 
ground. It is not reasonable.
    You were--in looking at your history, you were under 
President Obama. You served as a deputy secretary of Homeland 
Security from 2013 to 2016 when Obama built 150 miles of wall 
in tandem with The Secure Fence Act of 2006. The Biden budget, 
that now proposes--you all proposing to spend $4.7 billion at 
this for a Southwest Border Contingency Fund that is set up to 
deal with the surge. We look at it as a slush fund instead of 
building physical barriers. I say physical barriers because I 
think it is important to note you served in an administration 
where you at some time adhered to the belief in physical 
barriers. There was a time where both Democrats and Republicans 
believed in it. Don't forget that President Biden, when he was 
Senator Biden voted for The Secure Fence Act, which included 
physical barriers. It is not reasonable where we are at when 
the experts, even serving directly under you, are saying they 
disagree with that decision.
    Do you agree with your expert Custom and Patrol Border 
Chief Raul Ortiz, who said before this committee last month 
that he disagreed with Biden's decision to shut down 
construction of that 250 miles of border wall that Congress 
appropriated funds for?
    Secretary Mayorkas. Congressman, I stand by the decision of 
this administration to cease construction of the wall. I should 
say----
    Mr. Strong. Just return my time, if it is OK.
    Secretary Mayorkas [continuing]. That I have approved the 
closing of approximately 129 gaps in completion of gates.
    Mr. Strong. Mr. Chairman, just a little diligence here--10 
seconds.
    Chairman Green. Ten seconds.
    Mr. Strong. OK.
    You were Secretary under Obama when 150 miles of border 
wall was built. You were Secretary of Department of Homeland 
Security. Do you disagree with what Obama directed your office 
to do in during your time there? When Democrats agreed with 
Republicans about physical barriers?
    Secretary Mayorkas. There is a three-part solution with 
respect to security, personnel, technology, and barriers. The 
wall is a particular discrete aspect of barriers with which we 
respectfully disagree.
    Chairman Green. Thank you.
    The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Crane.
    Ms. Titus. Mr. Chairman? I am sorry. Before he speaks, 
could I just please correct the record? I said to Mr. Mayorkas 
we were looking for a level 3 rating. I should have said level 
2. If I can correct that. Thank you.
    Chairman Green. Taken care of. Thank you, Ms. Titus. The 
gentleman from Texas is now recognized.
    Mr. Crane. Texas? Arizona, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Green. Arizona. My apologies.
    Mr. Crane. Come on.
    Chairman Green. Mr. Crane. I will do push-ups for you.
    Mr. Crane. Push them out, sir.
    Chairman Green. We will give you 7 seconds back.
    Mr. Crane. All right.
    Thank you, Secretary Mayorkas, for appearing before our 
committee. I know it has been a tough day for you and I think 
that is for good reason.
    I want to start my comments with looking at the causation 
of this crisis at our Southern Border. It wasn't more than a 
couple of years ago during the Democratic primary that your 
boss now, President Biden, said during a debate, we are a 
Nation that says you want to flee, you are fleeing oppression, 
you should come. Everybody with a brain saw this coming, sir. 
We all saw this coming. We saw this President during his race 
roll out the red carpet. We knew what it was going to cause. 
Everybody shouted it from the rooftops, and now it is here. You 
all want to act like it is something else. You all want to act 
like you didn't invite this, and you most certainly did.
    Sir, you said in your opening statements that you are 
attacking cartels and smugglers in an unequivocal way. You most 
certainly are not, sir. As a matter of fact, if they were in 
this room right now, the heads of these cartels, you know what 
they tell us? They would say, hey, re-elect these guys again, 
and by all means, keep that guy right in his seat because he is 
our MVP. He is making it so easy for us to smuggle drugs, 
smuggle people, get gangs into this country, distract our 
Border Patrol agents, and at the same time, destroy the U.S. 
economy. So you are not doing a good job, sir. That is why 
right here--you see that, sir? You see that one on your left, 
that resolution? Those are articles of impeachment that Andy 
Biggs, Congressman Andy Biggs and several of us supported. Now, 
I have never met you before in my life. You and I have no 
personal beef. There is no animosity personally. The reason 
that I agreed to sign on to these articles of impeachment with 
my colleague and others is because of the dereliction of duty. 
I have got graphs up here, too. You can see these graphs 
showing what it was like at the border before you got into 
office and what it is like now. Here is the sad thing, sir. 
These aren't just graphs, they are not just numbers that have 
been thrown at you today. They are American families. I am so 
glad that my colleague made you--or asked you to get up, turn 
around, and face one of them. I am glad that you had to look at 
something that wasn't just a data point or a graph, but you 
actually had to look at a family, because there are tens of 
thousands of them, tens of thousands, 70,000 because of 
Fentanyl alone. That doesn't count all the families that have 
been destroyed by gangsters that have come up through South 
America or the families that have been destroyed because of sex 
trafficking. I am glad you had to face them.
    You know what, sir? I actually had to face one of them in 
my district last week. I had to face one of them in my district 
last week. It was hard. This woman was choking back tears, 
asking me, Congressman Crane, what are you going to do? My 
daughter was killed. My beautiful daughter was killed because 
of fentanyl. I said, you know what? We have drafted articles of 
impeachment to remove Secretary Mayorkas for his dereliction of 
duty.
    You know, it is interesting, sir, because Mr. Higgins, one 
of my colleagues up here, noticed your smugness. I noticed it 
too. You know, for somebody that has a history of working in 
border security like yourself and knowing--and my colleague 
right here, Mr. Brecheen, he just pointed out that you worked 
for administrations where they were actually building walls. 
But you know what? Me and this gentleman right here went on a 
helicopter tour down in Texas where we flew around the border, 
and guess what we saw? Piles of steel just stacked up on the 
ground, like he said, of a wall that the American taxpayers 
have already paid for. Because of your dereliction of duty and 
because of this President and this administration, we continue 
to have drugs, gang members, sex trafficking pouring into this 
country. You sit there with a smug look on your face.
    But I noticed for a second, because I was watching your 
face, I was watching your face when the family behind you stood 
up, Mr. Pfluger, asked you if you would address them. I noticed 
that just for a second, the smugness left your face, sir. I am 
glad that you had to feel uncomfortable today. That is not 
because I don't have any humanity at all. I look at your story, 
I looked at you immigrated here from Cuba. You know what? I 
think that is great. I really do, sir. You might not think that 
in this exchange right here. I think that it is a great thing 
that America has so many amazing immigrants here. In this side 
of the aisle we are not hung up about immigration. We are not 
hung up about legal immigration. What we are hung up about is 
how you all Day 1 in office came in and changed policies and 
started getting rid of infrastructure that was keeping our 
States, our counties, and our cities safe.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Members of the committee may have some additional 
questions for you, Mr. Secretary, and we would ask that you 
respond to those in writing. I know you have made some 
commitments today to do that, and I thank you for that.
    Pursuant Committee rule VII(D), the hearing record will be 
held open for 10 days for those written statements.
    I now recognize and yield to the Ranking Member for his 
closing statement if he would like to make one.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    You and I have had some sidebar conversations during this 
hearing. I think what has been displayed by the committee is 
not who we are as a committee. You and I pledge that going 
forward, we will make every effort to get back to the civility 
that this committee has been known for ever since we have been 
in existence.
    All of us represent districts. All of us have opinions, but 
there is a manner in which we can present the opinion and still 
disagree. We talk about our families. I am a grandfather. Some 
of the language and things that have gone on today as a 
grandparent, I am embarrassed. I know we are better as a 
committee than what we saw today. I hope the public, if they 
watched, don't judge the work of this committee by this one 
hearing. We are better than that.
    We have a budget. We are the third-largest agency in 
Government. We do a lot. No system is perfect. We have to work 
toward perfection. So I work at that.
    Whatever our challenge along the Southern Border, it didn't 
start 2 years ago, it has been here. So I have seen the surges, 
I have seen the low points, but we continue to work on it. So 
it is in that spirit that I say that we need to continue to 
work on all the problems.
    We have 22 agencies that make up the Department of Homeland 
Security. An awful lot of work, awful lot of good people. I am 
happy, as the gentlelady from Nevada mentioned, our TSOs, they 
absolutely have worked under difficult situations, treated less 
than other Government employees, and in this budget is money to 
pay them. That increase that gets them up to where other 
Federal employees are. We absolutely need to take care of them.
    Apart from that we have a lot of missions, cybersecurity. 
It is a constant challenge to us in making sure that CISA 
maintains its integrity and ability to protect our cyber 
systems.
    As I indicated, I am in the midst of a tornado in my 
district. The response has been phenomenal. The fact that we 
have been able to marshal the resources of DHS to address the 
needs in my district, I appreciate it. But as I look at all our 
other districts that are represented, sooner or later you will 
have those similar kind of situations and I want the Department 
to be just as nimble in that.
    So this was supposed to be a budget hearing. It has lasted 
over 3\1/2\ hours. Mr. Secretary, you have labored long and 
hard. I wish we could have talked about some other issues that 
are equally as important as the border, but unfortunately we 
got focused on a single point. Your budget is very large and 
that request is how we keep America safe. The border is only 
one. We did not talk about maritime border, we did not talk 
about our Northern Border. I just want us to get back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    As I said, we have talked about it and there is nothing 
wrong with disagreeing. I mean it is in those disagreements 
that we have some meeting of the minds and we will set an 
example for not just this country but the rest of the world. 
Our adversaries look at us. When I look at our population 
makeup, my ancestors came to this country in the belly of a 
ship as slaves. I don't think any of us can claim the purity of 
being just Americans. But we have to understand our America is 
a global America and we all have stories to tell. I don't think 
we need to impugn anybody who is trying to come to this great 
country. For a long time Ellis Island and other places we 
worshipped and encouraged people to come and celebrate this 
greatness. A comprehensive immigration policy will get us to 
where we need to be.
    So I look for a budget that moves us in that direction, I 
look for a budget that we all can support. But if this budget 
that ultimately is presented to the House allows us not to work 
at securing our borders and not giving our TSOs raises that 
they so desperately need, compromise some of our cybersecurity 
missions and other missions, it will be impossible for a lot of 
us to support because the numbers that this budget, if cut, 
will make us more vulnerable as a Nation rather than more 
secure.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The Ranking Member yields. Thank you for 
your comments.
    I will now recognize myself for a closing statement.
    Mr. Secretary, I have to thank you for sitting there for as 
long as you have. I know we are close to the same age, and I 
have had to leave twice, so I deeply appreciate your staying 
there and staying in the seat. And for your time today.
    You know, I agree with the former Chairman, now Ranking 
Member, that we disagree on a lot of policies. We really do. We 
don't have to despise someone because they disagree with us. We 
don't have to disparage someone because they disagree with us. 
We do need to dial the rhetoric down in the country and 
apparently in the committee.
    But today I wanted to focus on the differences of opinion. 
I look at 1.4 million gotaways and I wonder who is in that 
group? I know, since you don't know who they are, you can't 
tell me. The Border Patrol guys can't tell me. Because I know 
right now, under your policies, that if they just turn 
themselves in, they are going to get processed and released 
into the country. So who would not want to go turn themselves 
into Border Patrol? Well, it is probably people that have some 
ill intent.
    You mentioned the increase in the detention and capture of 
felons and things like that under your watch. How many felons 
are in that 1.4 million gotaways? How many murderers, how many 
rapists, how many drug traffickers? You can't tell me. I was 
really heartbroken to hear that you didn't understand the 
strategy of the cartel. It is almost intuitively obvious that 
they are sending mass waves of coyote-paid people to tie up the 
Border Patrol so they can send those gotaways, whether it is 
contraband or whatever, into our country. That really 
disappoints me. I think it is a failure.
    What has caused it is the incentives--you have taken 
migrant protection protocols, all these policies--we go back to 
the resources, right, as I made in my opening statement, we 
hadn't cut Border Patrol, we hadn't cut--yet this massive 
increase in people. Again, more than 12 years of 2 previous 
Presidents, one of which you served under.
    It is interesting, too, when I talked to your boss from the 
first administration you served, some of the things he 
suggested we do, were undoing essentially, the policies that 
you often done. Returning to some things like Remain in Mexico. 
This is a policy issue. It is decisions made by you and your 
boss that have caused this spike. It has incentivized people. 
When I talked to the chief of the Border Patrol and to some of 
your sector chiefs as we prepare to do our transcribed 
interviews with them, they are saying that the return 
agreements have all been allowed to expire. So ICE can't even 
send people back to certain countries because those returns--
this is willful decisions to undo policies that were bringing 
the numbers down. You can't argue with that. Now suddenly we 
did away with those policies and the numbers are going right--I 
mean, it is astronomical. It is that surge of people. It can be 
well-intentioned. You can say, man, I want to help. I ran a 
medical mission, we went to Honduras, we went to Haiti. I want 
to help people who are hurting. But the drug cartels are taking 
advantage of this. With that open border, the mass waves of 
people coming and they are taking advantage of us and they are 
making billions of dollars and we are empowering evil people 
with these policies.
    You talk about resources and wanting more resources. I want 
to tell you, we are going to drop a bill Friday and that bill 
is going to have a lot more resources in some areas than you 
have even asked for. I think you will be very happy with many 
of the things in it. Now, we do undo what we believe are some 
of these policies that have resulted in this mass wave and the 
cartels being able to manipulate the situation and control 5 of 
our 9 sectors, as the Border Chief has said. But you are going 
to like a lot of the resource piece, if you really believe that 
it is resources.
    I also want to talk a little bit about some of my 
colleagues. A lot of my colleagues talk about immigration 
reform and nobody--I am a small business guy, I run a health 
care company and employ--we need employees in this country. 
There are 10 million empty jobs in America right now. I want to 
fix our immigration system. But if we fix that first before we 
secure the border, we are just doing more of what you have 
done, which is to incentivize people to come without the 
security being present. That is just going to make it worse. So 
if we can secure our border, I am ready to sit down and do 
immigration reform, but not make the incentives even greater so 
that even more come through the illegal mechanisms.
    So I just wanted to share that.
    Very quickly about the budget, I think the budget that you 
presented today increases a lot of money for processing people 
into the country and takes away money from stopping the illegal 
crossings and deporting people who have come here illegally. I 
mean, I think that is obvious if you look at the budget and add 
it all up. Again, your budget is just going to incentivize more 
people to come. The cartels are just going to take more 
advantage of it and more Americans are going to die because of 
the fentanyl that will come into this country. So that is why 
we are opposed to this.
    As I said, I believe in the testimony that you gave Chip 
Roy, I think you gave some false testimony and I elaborated on 
that with video. You and I can have a dialog about that, but 
that is genuinely what I believe.
    I will say that you requested this hearing to bring your 
budget to our committee. I appreciate that and it has been 
alluded to or actually stated out, we have plans to bring you 
back, so we will see you again.
    I will tell you this, Mark Green has never--I have resisted 
any temptations to say impeachment because I don't have the 
authority, this committee doesn't have the authority to do 
that. So when someone says Mark Green said impeach, that is 
just not true. But what I have said is that we have got a five-
phase plan of oversight and we are going to look at five 
specific areas and do oversight. That is my job. That is our 
job on both sides of this aisle up here. So that is going to 
happen and we will look forward talking to you again.
    Thank you again for being here.
    With that, the committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              

   Questions From Chairman Mark E. Green for Honorable Alejandro N. 
                                Mayorkas
    Question 1. Since 2021, DHS has designated Domestic Violent 
Extremism (DVE) as a national priority area within the Department's 
Homeland Security Grant Program. Please describe the types of State and 
local DVE activities that have been funded under the grant program 
since the national priority designation. Please highlight any specific 
activities that DHS deemed effective that could potentially be 
replicated. What changes, if any, does DHS plan for the 2023 program?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 2. In June 2021, the White House released the National 
Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. Please describe specific 
actions taken by DHS to implement the four broad strategic goals 
contained in the strategy, including any resource reallocations planned 
or needed.
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 3. Has the Under Secretary for DHS Intelligence and 
Analysis (I&A), in his role as chief intelligence officer of the DHS 
Intelligence Enterprise, undertaken an assessment of customer views of 
intelligence products across the enterprise? If so, what were the 
results of this assessment, and what steps did DHS take in response?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 4. What has I&A learned about customer satisfaction 
through this feedback mechanism, and how has it responded? Does I&A 
engage in, or have plans to develop, any other method to obtain 
feedback on its products?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 5. DHS Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) undertook a 
reorganization starting in fiscal year 2021. What is the status of that 
reorganization? Please describe I&A's new organizational structure and 
any additional resource needs, if any, that will allow I&A to better 
meet its mission?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 6. In 2023, GAO recommended that DHS I&A and FBI 
coordinate to better report domestic terrorism incident data; evaluate 
the effectiveness of their collaborative efforts to counter domestic 
terrorism threats; and assess formal agreements for working together 
and sharing relevant domestic terrorism information and data. Please 
describe DHS plans to implement these recommendations.
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 7. DHS plays a central role in the multi-Department effort 
to share terrorism-related information both within the Federal 
Government as well as with State, local, Tribal, private-sector, and 
even international partners. As such, are there sufficient resources 
assigned to the Fusion Centers or a need for more resources? How do you 
envision DHS working with its partners in the U.S. intelligence 
community to ensure that terrorist-related information is both 
appropriately shared and protected from unwarranted disclosure?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 8. What trends has DHS observed over the last 10 years 
regarding home-grown violent extremist activity or incidents, and what 
are the underlying causes of any trends, if known? Please describe the 
types and amounts of resources that DHS should allocate to counter 
home-grown violent extremism.
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 9. In December 2021, GAO found that the reporting of less-
lethal force incidents across DHS components is inconsistent. GAO also 
found that some of the use of force reports from DHS components for the 
2020 protests in Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon, were missing 
basic information. What actions is DHS taking to dedicate resources to 
improve its collection and reporting of use of force incidents for its 
components?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 10. GAO issued a report in September 2020 identifying 25 
tactical teams across the Federal Government, such as SWAT teams and 
special operations teams. These teams have special training and 
military-style equipment to deal with critical incidents, such as 
hostage rescues and active-shooter situations. According to GAO, 11 of 
the 25 tactical teams were housed within DHS components, including CBP, 
ICE, FPS, the Coast Guard, and Secret Service, and several of these 
teams were deployed in response to civil unrest and protests in May and 
June 2020.
    Why does DHS need so many tactical teams? Could DHS create some 
efficiencies by combining some of these teams or standing up a tactical 
force unit?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 11. Recent high-profile deaths of Americans during 
encounters with law enforcement have generated interest in Federal 
efforts to reduce the use of excessive force and racial profiling by 
law enforcement personnel. What actions will you take to prevent the 
use of excessive force and racial profiling by DHS law enforcement 
personnel and what technical assistance and training, if any, is the 
Department engaged in with other law enforcement partners?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 12. In 2021, GAO found that CBP and Secret Service used 
facial recognition systems to assist criminal investigations. However, 
these components had not assessed the risks of using such systems, 
including risks that affect the privacy and civil liberties of 
individuals across the United States. What are CBP and Secret Service 
plans to address privacy and civil liberty issues in this area?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 13. In August 2021, GAO reported that DHS did not 
designate the counting of electoral votes on January 6, 2021 as a 
National Special Security Event because it considered it routine 
business. GAO noted that this designation would have included enhanced 
security measures and coordination and made a recommendation addressing 
this matter that DHS did not concur with. Given what ultimately 
transpired that day and that other events such as inaugurations and 
State of the Union addresses are predesignated as National Special 
Security Events, do you foresee reconsidering the significance of the 
counting of electoral votes and similar events for predesignation of 
National Special Security Event status?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 14a. The President's budget request noted continued growth 
in Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program enrollment, with the average 
daily population of participants reaching over 344,000 in fiscal year 
2024 (as of February 24, 2023).
    In June 2022, GAO reported that ICE has an incomplete picture of 
the ATD program's performance because it does not assess all core 
program activities and outcomes. For example, GAO found that ICE 
unenrolled most participants from ATD before their immigration 
proceedings concluded, but did not track whether unenrolled 
participants continue to comply with the requirements of their release, 
or, for example, become fugitives. What steps is DHS taking to improve 
its assessment of the program?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 14b. GAO also found that ICE awarded a $2.2 billion 
contract to help implement the program. However, ICE does not fully 
assess the contractor against the standards for performance established 
in the contract or follow up and document whether the contractor 
resolved issues it identified. What steps is DHS taking to improve 
oversight of the contractor and better ensure the contractor is 
providing services as paid for by the Government?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 15a. What are DHS's plans to resume processing of foreign 
nationals arriving at the Southwest Border upon any suspension of Title 
42 expulsions?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 15b. What controls and resources does DHS intend to put in 
place to oversee the implementation of the proposed Border Security 
Contingency fund?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 16a. GAO and the DHS Office of Inspector General have 
identified concerns with ICE's management and oversight of immigration 
detention facilities, including how ICE acquires detention space and 
oversees facilities' implementation of detention standards.
    Does DHS have sufficient resources in this area and also what steps 
can the Department take to better ensure that facilities fully 
implement detention standards?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 16b. What steps can the Department take to improve its 
acquisition and utilization of detention facility space?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 17. In August 2021, GAO reported on USCIS's pending 
caseload. GAO reported that the agency's total pending caseload--the 
number of cases awaiting a benefit decision--grew an estimated 85 
percent from fiscal years 2015 through 2020. What steps, including 
resource investments, is DHS taking to reduce USCIS's case backlog and 
ensure USCIS carries out its mission to efficiently and fairly 
adjudicate requests for immigration benefits?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 18. GAO and others have reported on the need for better 
data and metrics to assess the effectiveness of various border security 
investments, including border barriers and technology. What goals and 
measures does DHS use to assess its efforts and investments to secure 
U.S. borders? What do you believe to be the proper mix of personnel, 
technology, and physical infrastructure for securing our borders?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 19. How does USCIS manage and oversee the Citizenship and 
Integration Grant Program? For what purposes have grant funds been 
used?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 20. Morale among U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
personnel has remained low for many years. What factors affect morale 
among CBP personnel? What efforts or initiatives does CBP have in place 
to try to improve morale and what has been the effect of those efforts 
and initiatives?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 21. In June 2019, GAO reported on Northern Border security 
issues. In that report, GAO recommended that CBP develop and implement 
performance measures to assess its effectiveness at securing the 
Northern Border between ports of entry and its effectiveness at 
securing the Northern Border between ports of entry in the air and 
maritime environments. What is the status of CBP's efforts to develop 
and implement such measures, and what do the agency's measures indicate 
about the effectiveness of its efforts to secure the Northern Border?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 22. With COVID-19 and hundreds of active disasters since 
2017, there are a number of demands on the Disaster Relief Fund and 
there are questions about whether the DRF will have sufficient funds to 
cover prior disaster projects like Hurricane Maria. What do you think 
DHS and Congress need to do to help ensure the fund is sufficient to 
help communities respond to and recover from past and future disasters?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 23a. The rising number of natural disasters and increasing 
reliance on Federal assistance is a key source of Federal fiscal 
exposure. Disaster costs are projected to increase as extreme weather 
events become more frequent and intense due to climate change--as 
observed and projected by the U.S. Global Change Research Program and 
the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. What 
steps should DHS take to help States, local governments, and citizens 
prepare for more frequent and intense weather? What actions has DHS 
taken over the past year to address this?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 23b. What steps would you take to decrease the Federal 
Government's future fiscal exposure?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 23c. What actions do you think are needed to help State 
and local governments and private-sector infrastructure owners increase 
resilience to extreme weather events?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 24. According to The National Institute of Building 
Sciences, for every grant dollar the Federal Government spends on 
mitigation it could save from $3 to $7, depending on the circumstances 
and type of hazard mitigation. With the increasing frequency and 
intensity of disasters, it is clear that disaster damage prevention and 
mitigation is an excellent investment. Communities can apply for 
Federal assistance through FEMA's hazard mitigation grant programs but 
the Federal Government still spends many times more on disaster 
response and recovery than we do on hazard mitigation investments. What 
keeps communities from investing more in hazard mitigation? What is DHS 
doing to encourage greater investment in hazard mitigation?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 25. State and local officials as well as individual 
disaster survivors have long expressed concern about challenges 
obtaining disaster assistance from FEMA. The process can be long, 
complex, confusing, and require a level of tenacity difficult for 
communities and individuals recovering from disasters to sustain. This 
can be particularly challenging for lower-income and historically 
marginalized communities and individuals. FEMA has had the stated 
intent of reducing the complexity of FEMA grant programs and becoming 
more attentive to the customer experience. What concrete steps is FEMA 
taking to address this complex issue and make significant changes to 
the disaster assistance application process?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 26. Since September 11, 2001, DHS has provided over $50 
billion in preparedness grants to State, local, and Tribal governments 
to strengthen their preparedness to terrorism and other hazards. What 
is your position on the effectiveness of these grant programs and what 
are the administration's plans for their future, both in terms of 
funding levels and use?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 27a. Given FEMA has one of the oldest financial management 
systems in DHS, is currently undergoing a grants management 
modernization effort to better integrate numerous systems, and in the 
planning stages of its financial systems modernization effort, how do 
you plan to ensure these efforts are coordinated and successful? What 
challenges, if any, do you anticipate and are current time tables and 
estimates reasonable?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 27b. Some programs outside of FEMA's emergency management 
expertise--such as the Emergency Food and Shelter Program's 
humanitarian aid--leverage FEMA's grants expertise and infrastructure. 
Given FEMA's older financial management system, is FEMA adequately 
positioned to manage these additional programs?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 27c. The DHS OIG reported in its 2021 DATA Act audit 
report that FEMA's systems lacked the automated capability to report 
cumulative, year-to-date outlay totals at the award transaction level 
on a monthly basis, and that FEMA's core financial system and award 
management system for public assistance grants do not have the 
automated capability to record or report the emergency funding 
identifier at the award transaction level. How do the financial and 
grant management systems modernization efforts address this non-
compliance with the DATA Act and when will FEMA be able to report all 
Federal spending at the transaction level to USAspending.gov for full 
transparency?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 28. What steps are you planning to address the long-term 
solvency issues and other challenges with the National Flood Insurance 
Program?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 29. In recent years, California and the Southwest have 
experienced major catastrophic wildfires, requiring billions of dollars 
in Federal assistance. According to the U.S. Global Change Research 
Program, warmer and drier conditions have led to a greater incidence of 
large forest fires, a trend that is expected to continue, while human 
settlement and expansion into wildland and forest areas continues. What 
role do you see for DHS going forward in responding to fires and 
promoting hazard mitigation against wildfire damage in the coming 
years?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 30. As you know, recent major disasters have resulted in 
the loss of a great many homes. This is obviously a very challenging 
situation for survivors, communities, and Federal agencies. What steps 
has DHS taken to help ensure that disaster survivor housing needs 
continue to be met?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 31. Federally-recognized Tribes have struggled to build 
and maintain emergency management capacity to manage grants and other 
assistance in the wake of a disaster. What is DHS doing to help Tribes 
with this capacity?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 32. Recent studies have pointed to issues with low-income 
and other vulnerable populations' access to and outcomes from 
participation in Federal disaster programs. What is DHS doing to help 
ensure equity and inclusion during disaster recovery?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 33. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic GAO and other experts 
had long warned that more needed to be done to ensure effective, whole-
of-nation preparedness for nationally significant biological events. 
Response to the pandemic has confirmed these warnings. Before the 
pandemic began, but not in time to drive real change to response 
capabilities across the biodefense enterprise, the Federal Government 
published the National Biodefense Strategy. DHS was one of four 
departments charged with responsibility for the strategy in statute, 
along with HHS, DOD, and USDA to create such a strategy. In the coming 
years, as the pandemic wanes, what can DHS do to help support the goals 
of the strategy and to ensure whole-of-national preparedness of the 
next nationally significant biological event whether it is caused by 
emerging infectious disease or intentional actors?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 34. DHS's National Biosurveillance Integration Center, 
which was created to integrate data across the Federal Government with 
the aim of enhancing detection and situational awareness of biological 
incidents, has suffered long-standing issues related to carrying out 
and clarifying its mission. Should money be set aside to establish and 
fund a single entity who can carry out this mission to help ensure the 
U.S. ability to detect, respond to, and prevent a biological incident?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 35. Surveys, conducted under FEMA contract, have estimated 
that almost one-third of FEMA employees experience discrimination or 
harassment. GAO made a number of recommendations to DHS and FEMA to 
improve anti-harassment and anti-discrimination efforts. What is the 
Department doing to ensure that its policies, which apply to all 
components, adhere to promising practices for preventing harassment? 
What is the Department doing to change the culture at FEMA and other 
components to further prevent harassment and discrimination? And how 
are employees within the Department held accountable for such serious 
misconduct?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 36. What progress has FEMA made to hire and retain the 
necessary personnel to respond to increasing disasters and new 
responsibilities, such as COVID-19? What steps is FEMA taking to 
address staffing gaps in critical cadres, such as Public Assistance and 
Individual Assistance, to ensure that the agency is ready to respond to 
the next disaster?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 37a. In December 2017, the Secret Service developed a plan 
to align its investigative resources to combat what it identified as 
priority criminal threats (e.g., criminal activity with significant 
economic and financial impacts). However, GAO reported in January 2020 
that the Secret Service had not consistently demonstrated synchronized 
efforts across the agency to counter the priority criminal threats (See 
GAO-20-239). Moreover, the Secret Service did not have a systematic 
approach for identifying cases that address priority criminal threats. 
As of January 2023, GAO's recommendations on the topic remain open. If 
Secret Service cannot identify the investigative resources used and 
needed to address priority criminal threats:
   On what basis is Congress to approve this budget and know 
        the Secret Service is being judicious with its resources?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 37b. How can Congress know that the Secret Service isn't 
just using the funding to unnecessarily expand its investigative 
operations and ultimately duplicate efforts that other law enforcement 
entities already execute?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 38. In 2014, the Protective Mission Panel recommended that 
Secret Service special agents and Uniformed Division officers train in 
conditions that replicate the physical environment in which they will 
operate. GAO reported in 2022 (See GAO-22-105100) that the Secret 
Service received approval in 2017 to build a White House Mockup 
Training Facility, but funding has yet to be allotted for the project, 
including the President's current request. Why has DHS not provided 
funding to the Secret Service for constructing the White House Mockup 
Training Facility?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 39a. GAO reported in January 2022 (See GAO-22-105100) that 
the Secret Service had drafted its Fiscal Years 2021-2026 Strategic 
Implementation Plan for Protective Technologies, but not issued it. 
Agency officials had told GAO in 2019 that they planned to finalize and 
execute this plan as one of the actions to implement the Protective 
Mission Panel's sixth recommendation. However, GAO reported in 2022 
that the Secret Service had not finalized the strategy and related 
directives because the plan is in a pilot phase. Secret Service 
officials provided GAO no estimate for when the pilot will end.
    Has the Secret Service finalized its Strategic Implementation Plan 
for Protective Technologies? If not, why not?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 39b. How can Congress be assured that the Secret Service 
identifies its technological needs in a systematic and strategic manner 
if its strategic prioritization framework remains in pilot for 
approximately 5 years?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 40. TSA has faced long-standing challenges balancing 
effective and efficient screening of passengers and baggage. What is 
TSA doing to ensure that checkpoint screening continues to be both 
effective and efficient? What new technologies or process innovations 
is TSA pursuing to this end? How is this reflected in TSA's fiscal year 
2023 budget proposal?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 41. Third-party vendors, such as CLEAR, conduct passenger 
identification verification for aviation passengers and may also 
provide enrollment for TSA's PreCheck program. How does TSA monitor 
third-party vendors for these activities and what has TSA's experience 
been with these vendors to date? Are there any challenges TSA faces 
with these vendors and if so, what steps is it taking to address them?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 42. With the One-Stop Pilot passed in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, what actions have already been 
understand and how does TSA plan to implement this pilot? What are the 
key considerations for TSA in doing so?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 43. The operational assignments of TSA's Federal Air 
Marshals (FAMS) has evolved over the past several years. What have been 
the goals of those changing operational assignments, what has been the 
impact in terms of employee morale, effectiveness, and how does TSA 
plan to evolve those assignments in the future?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 44. The Brooklyn subway attack last month was a tragic 
reminder of the security risks to our Nation's public transportation 
systems. Surface transportation systems are inherently vulnerable to 
attack, given their very design. Within TSA, aviation security receives 
the most funding and attention, while surface security--including 
passenger rail and mass transit--has historically accounted for about 3 
percent of TSA's budget. How does DHS's proposed budget for fiscal year 
2023 divide resources between aviation and surface security and how 
were these resource levels determined?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 45. The morale of TSA's nearly 50,000 Transportation 
Security Officers has consistently been among the lowest within DHS and 
across the Federal Government. This year, TSA is planning to increase 
Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) pay to bring it more in line 
with the pay of other Federal employees.
    When will TSOs see this pay raise hit their pay checks? How do you 
expect this pay increase to affect TSO morale in the near and long 
terms? What steps is TSA taking to implement this pay increase in an 
equitable manner, given that some existing incentives will no longer be 
available to TSOs?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 46. In 2021, GAO reported that the top 5 drivers of TSA 
employee morale were: Constructive performance conversations, inclusive 
work environment, career development and training, work-life balance, 
and communication from management.
    What efforts is TSA undertaking to address these important areas, 
both at headquarters and in the field?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 47. The Coast Guard has reported challenges in meeting 
mission demands--including a lack of sufficient personnel to meet its 
mission demands and a $1.77 shore infrastructure backlog. What steps is 
the Coast Guard taking to address each of these challenges?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 48a. In its 2018 Manpower Requirements Plan to Congress, 
the Coast Guard set goal to complete manpower requirements 
determinations--its preferred tool for assessing needed workforce 
levels--for all of its units. However, the Coast Guard has made limited 
progress in completing these determinations. Specifically, February 
2020, GAO found that the Coast Guard had completed manpower 
requirements determinations for 6 percent of its workforce.
    Why?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 48b. How can Congress be confident that the Coast Guard's 
budget request for its personnel reflects its workforce needs when it 
hasn't conducted these assessments and determinations?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 48c. What progress has the Coast Guard taken since then to 
identify and determine its workforce needs?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 48d. Among GAO's recommendations in the February 2020 
report was that the Coast Guard updated its 2018 Manpower Requirements 
Plan with milestones and time frames for conducting manpower 
requirements determinations for all of its units. However, the updated 
plan the Coast Guard submitted to Congress in March 2023 did not 
include such time frames and milestones. Why?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 49. The fiscal year 2024 Budget proposal includes an 
increase of 80 positions, 42 FTE and $15.5 million to enhance retention 
and support of the workforce. Please provide additional details on 
these positions and why they are needed.
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 50. The Coast Guard relies on its aircraft and cutters to 
conduct its 11 statutory missions, including Search and Rescue and Drug 
Interdiction. However, Coast Guard metrics show the Coast Guard's 
aircraft have largely not met its operational availability targets in 
recent years. What has this meant for the Coast Guard's ability to meet 
its growing mission demands? What actions is the Coast Guard taking to 
address this--and how can Congress support the effort?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 51. What other Coast Guard capability and resource gaps 
most concern you, and what steps do you plan for DHS to address them?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 52a. The Coast Guard plans to spend over $12 billion over 
a period of 20 years to acquire a fleet of 25 Offshore Patrol Cutters 
as their highest investment priority. The Offshore Patrol Cutters will 
replace the aging fleet of Medium Endurance Cutters--which are either 
approaching or have exceeded their design service lives--and enable the 
Coast Guard to conduct patrols for homeland security, law enforcement, 
and search-and-rescue operations.
    What key challenges does the Coast Guard face in the continued 
acquisition of the OPC and how is it addressing these challenges?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 52b. To what extent does the Coast Guard envision there 
being difference in design and equipment between the stage 1 and the 
stage 2 OPCs since they will be designed and built by separate 
shipyards, and what impact might this have on O&S?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 52c. What key challenges does the Coast Guard face in 
maintaining the readiness of the MEC fleet until it is replaced?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 53. What are you doing to ensure that the Coast Guard is 
managing its highest-priority acquisitions to deliver these critical 
assets in a timely and cost-effective manner?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 54. The Coast Guard and Navy are planning to invest up to 
$11.8 billion to build and maintain three Polar Security Cutter heavy 
polar icebreakers to conduct missions in the Antarctic and Arctic. The 
first ship is scheduled for delivery in 2025-2026.
    What is being done to address the continued delays in completing 
the design of the PSC in support starting construction?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 55. What are your views of the need to expand the Coast 
Guard's icebreaker fleet beyond these 3 new icebreakers? What, if any, 
opportunities are there to leverage PSC or Great Lakes Icebreaker 
replacement designs?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 56. To what extent is the Coast Guard adequately 
considering scientific research needs on the Polar Security Cutter and 
any potential future icebreaker?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 57. What risks are inherent in the Coast Guard's proposal 
for procuring a commercial icebreaker and how is the Coast Guard 
mitigating these risks?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 58. The Coast Guard is increasingly dealing with hostile 
foreign forces as it carries out its national security functions. For 
example, in the past few years, the service's Bahrain-based cutters 
fired warning shots at Iranian vessels that were making aggressive 
maneuvers. In the pacific, Russian and Chinese forces have been 
increasingly aggressive in their interactions with U.S. Navy and Air 
Force aviation and surface assets. What are your greatest concerns with 
respect to the Coast Guard's role and capacity in countering near peer 
competitors and regional powers, such as Iran?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 59. GAO has reported that about 45 percent of the Coast 
Guard's shore infrastructure is beyond its service life, and its 
current shore infrastructure recapitalization and new construction 
project backlog will cost at least $1.77 billion. How would you address 
this?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 60a. GAO reported that the Coast Guard has consistently 
requested significantly less funding for its shore infrastructure 
repairs and maintenance than it actually needed. GAO also reported that 
in all but 1 year of budgets it reviewed, the Coast Guard did not 
identify funding to address any backlogs of deferred maintenance or 
recapitalization.
    What is DHS's plan to address the Coast Guard's shore 
infrastructure needs if it is not transparent in its budget regarding 
those needs?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 60b. Will you ensure that DHS requests what the Coast 
Guard's analysis and budget projections show the Coast Guard needs?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 61a. GAO reported that in 2013 the Coast Guard identified 
18 unnecessarily duplicative boat stations with overlapping coverage 
that it could permanently close without negatively affecting its 
ability to meet its 2-hour search-and-rescue response standard and 
other mission requirements. The Coast Guard estimated it could also 
achieve up to $290 million in cost savings over 20 years, if stations 
were permanently closed. As of March 2023, the Coast Guard has closed 4 
and removed several from consideration.
    What factors are preventing the Coast Guard from following its 
process and closing unnecessarily duplicative boat stations?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 61b. What is the estimated value of cost savings the Coast 
Guard will achieve from closing unnecessarily duplicative boat 
stations, given the removal of several stations from consideration?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 62. GAO reported that some Coast Guard stations that are 
unnecessarily duplicative have fallen into physical disrepair and will 
require funding for repairs if the stations remain open, even if they 
are only operated seasonally. How much of the Coast Guard budget needs 
will be allocated to rebuilding or repairing boat stations that are 
unnecessarily duplicative?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 63. Elections were designated as a critical infrastructure 
subsector in January 2017. With limited Federal funding for State and 
local election administration, including for replacement and upgrading 
of voting technology, what challenges does the Department face in 
helping State and local election officials ensure secure elections?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 64. DHS's Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD) 
office was established to streamline efforts across DHS. Since the 
reorganization, morale at CWMD plummeted. Although morale improved in 
2021, CWMD scores remain relatively low. This is of grave concern given 
the tremendous importance of protecting the homeland against a 
devastating WMD attack. What steps do you plan to or additional 
resources, if any, do you need to help ensure CWMD can effectively 
execute its mission?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 65. How does CWMD prioritize its missions' programs, 
activities, and R&D investments?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 66. What are the most notable results of Dr. Kusnezov's 
first 180 days following his September 2022 appointment as the Under 
Secretary for the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate? What are 
his key priorities for the S&T Directorate for fiscal year 2024?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 67. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 
(CISA) was authorized by Congress to align various infrastructure 
protection efforts and improve outreach to critical infrastructure 
stakeholders. There are indications that the reorganization 
implementation remains significantly behind schedule. What will you do 
to expedite the reorganization effort, particularly given CISA's role 
in cybersecurity, and what additional resources are needed to help 
support CISA's efforts to protect the Nation's critical infrastructure?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 68. As demonstrated by the recent ransomware attacks on a 
major East Coast pipeline operator, schools and hospitals, ransomware 
is one of the most significant threats to our Federal, State, local, 
Tribal, and territorial government; critical infrastructure; and 
economy. What resources or efforts are DHS investing to curb the threat 
of ransomware? What additional resources and authorities, if any, does 
DHS need and how would the Department use them to address this threat 
that only seems to be surging each day?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 69. What challenges are DHS major acquisition programs 
facing as they implement cybersecurity planning and test requirements 
and how is DHS mitigating these challenges?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 70. As the ``Nation's Cyber Defense Agency'', CISA is 
leading an increasing number of cybersecurity-related efforts since its 
inception in 2018. How has the agency kept pace with its increasing 
responsibilities and appropriations despite challenges from the growing 
number of threats and in hiring its workforce?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 71. How does the agency prioritize its activities between 
cybersecurity and infrastructure security given its current 
organizational structure, workforce, and available resources to ensure 
resiliency of both and of the national critical infrastructure?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 72. What is the status of CISA's efforts to implement a 
National Critical Functions framework as well as identify and support 
Systemically Important Entities in Critical Infrastructure? To what 
extent has CISA implemented GAO's recommendations to document goals and 
strategies for, and fully engagement stakeholders (including State and 
local entities) in the development and implementation of the National 
Critical Functions framework?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 73. With the reauthorization of the Chemical Facilities 
Anti-Terrorism Standards what resources has DHS invested to monitor 
compliance and inspections for facilities under the program?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 74. What are planned next steps and associated time lines 
for developing an implementation plan in support of the National 
Cybersecurity Strategy issued in March 2023? What role will CISA play 
in supporting the National Cyber Director in doing so? What role will 
CISA play in collaborating with industry to define sector-by-sector 
needs, assessing gaps in current Sector Risk Management Agencies' 
(SRMAs') capabilities, and helping SRMAs in making investments to 
address them?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 75a. GAO's work provides a guide for areas that require 
Congressional oversight and Departmental focus. How does DHS's proposed 
budget for fiscal year 2024 take into account key findings from the GAO 
regarding its priority recommendations, high-risk areas, and 
identification of duplication, overlap, and fragmentation?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 75b. How does the proposed budget help ensure progress on 
addressing the DHS management high-risk area, including financial 
systems modernization and IT Security management? What additional costs 
will be incurred to address serious issues identified with the 
implementation of Coast Guard's new financial system and how does DHS 
plan to avoid similar issues in subsequent financial system 
modernization efforts at FEMA and ICE?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 75c. The Department currently has over 450 open GAO 
recommendations awaiting action, including 40 priority recommendations 
related to emergency preparedness, border and transportation security, 
infrastructure, cybersecurity, and chemical and nuclear security. What 
aspects of the Department's fiscal year 2024 proposed budget are 
intended to ensure the implementation of these critical 
recommendations?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 75d. What priority do you place on strengthening and 
overseeing DHS's management of its programs, agencies, offices, and 
initiatives in order minimize duplicative goals or activities and 
achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness? What steps does the 
Department plan to take in fiscal year 2024 to address and implement 
the actions previously identified by GAO for DHS to reduce, eliminate, 
or better manage fragmentation, overlap, or duplication; achieve cost 
savings; or enhance revenues? Are there any areas of the Department 
where you have explored or developed plans for cost savings?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 76a. GAO has identified certain aspects related to DHS 
management of its IT and financial management functions as a high-risk 
issue. While DHS has made important management improvements over the 
years, GAO continues to report that considerable work remains in key 
areas, including financial system modernization.
    In the DHS Office of Inspector General's (OIG) Independent 
Auditors' Report on DHS's Fiscal Year 2022 Financial Statements and 
Internal Control over Financial Reporting, the OIG reported that the 
Department continued to improve financial management in fiscal year 
2022 and achieved an unmodified (clean) audit opinion on its financial 
statements. However, the auditor issued an adverse opinion on DHS's 
internal control over financial reporting (ICOFR) because of four 
material weaknesses in internal control--information technology 
controls and information systems; financial reporting; valuation of 
flood insurance liabilities; and recording obligations and related 
expenditures in the Coast Guard's new financial system.
    What needed resources has DHS identified and how are they 
incorporated into the budget to address these material weaknesses? 
Please describe how DHS has identified the required resources for the 
modernization efforts at FEMA and ICE to prevent similar material 
weaknesses, and how they are incorporated into the budget?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 77. Are there particular legislative changes or 
initiatives that are needed to better ensure the Department is 
operating effectively and that may enable you to better accomplish the 
Department's objectives? If so, please explain to us what those are.
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 78. DHS has not published a Quadrennial Homeland Security 
Review (QHSR) since 2014, as required by The Implementing 
Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007. What are the plans for completing the 
QHSR, and what resources are needed to accomplish this as soon as 
possible?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 79. In March 2022, DHS reported to Congress about the 
Department's space needs (a combination of Government-owned and -leased 
buildings) throughout the National Capital Region. DHS developed this 
report during the COVID-19 pandemic--a time when most Federal employees 
were working remotely. Does DHS's assessment of space needs account for 
the number of staff who will continue working remotely? Did this cause 
DHS to reduce its estimate of the amount of office space needed to 
house them? If so, by how much did DHS reduce its estimate of space 
needs?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 80. What progress has DHS and its components made in 
streamlining hiring processes--including reducing time-to-hire--and 
meeting its staffing needs, particularly in Mission Critical 
Occupations? What obstacles, if any, affect the Department's ability to 
meet its staffing needs?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 81. GAO previously monitored DHS's establishment of the 
Joint Requirements Council (JRC) as one of the acquisition program 
management outcomes supporting the Strengthening DHS Management 
Functions area. DHS has taken positive steps to establish policies and 
processes to ensure the JRC can help the Department use its finite 
resources wisely by assessing potential duplication of effort across 
the Department and identify opportunities to develop joint initiatives 
among components with similar capability needs for acquisition 
consideration. DHS has shared with GAO that they are planning to move 
the JRC from the Office of the Secretary to the under secretary for 
management. What steps is the Department taking to ensure the JRC has 
the resources--both funding and staff--to continue to meet its mission 
as a result of this move?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 82. Mexican cartels are using their delivery of smuggled 
illegal aliens to distract the Border Patrol and other Federal law 
enforcement from their importation of unknown quantities of fentanyl 
into the United States. The cartels know, for example, that when the 
Border Patrol picks up dozens of illegal aliens on someone's property 
on a given morning and takes them back to a Border Patrol facility for 
processing, that they have a period of hours during which they can 
essentially import large quantities of saleable fentanyl across the 
border unimpeded by Federal officials. How is the Department tracking 
this tactic and what policy changes, if any, have been made to respond 
to it?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 83. The Department's fiscal year 2024 budget includes 
almost $25 billion in gross discretionary funding for United States 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE). According to DHS's budget request, the average daily 
population (ADP) will be capped at 25,000 alien adults. However, so far 
this fiscal year the ICE ADP has been over 26,000, and with Title 42 
set to expire in May, that number could likely increase. If ICE reports 
an average daily detention rate of over 25,000 alien adults, why is DHS 
capping alien adult detentions at this number?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 84. The crisis at the Southwest Border has turned into a 
large-scale humanitarian disaster. Many aliens are often indebted to 
the cartels who bring them here or they are physically threatened. In 
fiscal year 2020, Border Patrol rescued 1,196 aliens attempting to 
cross the Southwest Border. In fiscal year 2021, that number more than 
doubled to 3,423 rescued aliens. How have these humanitarian efforts 
affected CBP's other work and resources?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 85. Why did DHS issue a recent rulemaking for border 
authorities to scale back vehicular pursuits when most alien rescues 
occur during a motor vehicle incident? How does prohibiting vehicular 
pursuits not enable aliens to attempt to evade Border Patrol?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 86. What is the number of gotaways, or people who evaded 
Federal law enforcement last fiscal year? Does the Department know how 
many of those gotaways were carrying fentanyl? What approaches to 
combatting the cartel's fentanyl distribution has DHS considered?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 87. In January 2021, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 
Protection Agency (CISA) renamed its Countering Foreign Influence Task 
Force, focused on foreign threats, to a more general Mis-, Dis-, and 
Malinformation (MDM) Team, looking at ``foreign and domestic actors.'' 
This February, CISA, without explanation, apparently scrubbed its 
website of all references to domestic MDM activities. What is the 
current status of CISA's MDM Team?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 88. Following an incident involving Horse Patrol agents in 
2021 the Department recommended several changes to the Border Patrol 
Horse Patrol standard operating procedures, even though a review showed 
no illegal immigrant was struck, intentionally or accidentally, with 
reins during this incident. Has the Department assessed the negative 
impact these actions have had on morale and the ability to recruit and 
retain vitally-needed Border Patrol agents?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 89. The Department proposes to spend money on electric 
vehicles. Please provide details about how the Department intends to 
spend $91 million for electric vehicle charging stations and $32 
million for electric vehicles? How many stations and vehicles will the 
$120 million be used for and who created this initiative?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 90. There are approximately 15,000 Federal Protective 
Service contractors. How many different companies does the FPS contract 
with? Approximately, how many contractors are paid for as security 
guards under these contracts?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 91. On May 29, 2020, the city of Portland, Oregon 
experienced riots, destruction, and attacks against officers around 
Federal property. Based on these events, in Portland, the Department IG 
found that FPS was unprepared to ``execute cross-component activities 
to protect Federal facilities,'' which is a fundamental part of their 
mission set. How is the Department ensuring that FPS contracts are 
adequately protecting Federal facilities?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 92. Coast Guard personnel serving in the Caribbean are 
being overwhelmed by the volume of migrants being interdicted. 
According to a February 23, 2023, article in the U.S. Naval Institute's 
Proceedings ``Coast Guard migrant interdiction operations are in a 
state of emergency.'' The article details that Coast Guard personnel on 
board are outnumbered more than 5 to 1 by interdicted migrants, and 
that the situation is, ``often on the verge of devolving into riots.'' 
Are returning crews requiring more health care or leave time as a 
result of these conditions? Has this broader situation impacted Coast 
Guard's recruiting efforts? Has this increased strain on the Coast 
Guard for migrant interdiction operations negatively impacted the Coast 
Guard's capabilities and capacities to interdict drugs at sea?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 93. The article concludes by stating that the Coast Guard 
should, ``strongly consider utilizing naval surface combatants for 
underway holding platforms, medical personnel augmentations, and 
Guantanamo Bay's temporary housing facilities,'' lest the Coast Guard 
arrive at a, ``breaking point.'' Has the Coast Guard consulted with the 
Navy about this option?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 94. The fiscal year 2024 funding request for TSA 
represents an increase of $1.47 billion above the fiscal year 2023 
enacted level. The key driver for this funding increase is a proposal 
by the administration to bring TSA pay in line with other parts of the 
Federal workforce on the GS pay scale. This pay increase would be 
across the board and benefit executives at TSA headquarters, as opposed 
to specifically targeting Transportation Security Officers (TSOs), who 
are the front-line workers needing this pay increase the most. Why is 
TSA not specifically targeting a pay increase for TSA's front-line 
workforce, such as TSOs, but rather the entire TSA workforce?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 95. In March, Admiral Linda Fagan delivered the State of 
the Coast Guard Address, where she expressed concern about the Coast 
Guard's recruiting shortfall. Last year, with this issue in mind, 
Congress provided $6.5 million above the original budget request to 
address recruiting shortfalls. The Coast Guard has made an effort to 
open several new recruiting offices. What more can the Coast Guard be 
doing to address this recruiting issue? What is the Coast Guard's 
recruitment quota for new service members in 2024, and how many 
recruiters does the Coast Guard currently have?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 96. Are the Sector Risk Management Agency (SRMA) functions 
taking place within different parts of CISA duplicative? If not, please 
explain how they are complimentary. Is the funding for these lines of 
efforts duplicative? If not, please explain how these pots of money 
complement each other.
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 97. The committee is aware of CISA's desire to modernize 
the National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS). CISA failed to 
provide detailed information to Congress about the new Cyber Analytics 
and Data System (CADS) before submitting their $425 million request for 
this new system. How will this investment in the CADS system modernize 
and improve on what NCPS provided? What is the budget expectations in 
the outyears for NCPS versus CADS? Will legacy EINSTEIN capabilities be 
a part of CADS?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 98. Politico recently reported that the Office of 
Intelligence and Analysis has been operating an Overt Human 
Intelligence Collection Program. There are legitimate concerns that 
this program violates American citizens' Constitutional rights. While a 
small portion of this program is paused due to these concerns, the 
majority of this program appears to continue to conduct surveillance 
within the United States. Does this Human Intelligence Collection 
Program continue in any form? How does this budget request ensure that 
the Department of Homeland Security does not violate the Constitutional 
rights of American citizens in any fashion? Why has Congress never been 
briefed on the Overt Human Intelligence Collection Program prior to the 
Politico publication?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 99. The fiscal year 2024 budget request would provide $25 
million to establish the Intelligence Data Environments for Analytics 
(IDEA) unclassified platform that would integrate and automate DHS's 
analytic capabilities. Given I&A's historical challenges to meet its 
mission objectives, how will an automated platform like IDEA enhance 
the office's functions?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 100. Over the past several decades, the People's Republic 
of China has taken an increasingly aggressive posture on the world 
stage. The PRC has committed humanitarian violations, supported the 
traffic of illicit fentanyl, and established predatory economic 
practices to edge ahead in its peer competition with the United States. 
In response to this aggression, the United States has drastically 
scaled back any funding it provides to the PRC. At this time, does the 
Department provide any funding to the People's Republic of China? If 
so, how much funding is provided and for what reason?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 101. In February, the CCP flew a surveillance balloon 
across the majority of the United States, with a clear purpose of 
collecting information on sensitive sites in the U.S. homeland. It was 
recently reported that the surveillance balloon was able to gather 
intelligence from sensitive military sites in America, despite this 
administration's attempts to stop it from doing so, thus making the 
incident that much worse. How is DHS coordinating with other national 
security stakeholders to ensure the Nation is secured from these malign 
threats?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 102. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's unprecedented, 
leaked draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization 
in May 2022, pro-life facilities and churches across America saw a 
spike in attacks. Moreover, the leak of the Dobbs draft decision and 
issuance of the final opinion resulted in an intimidation and outrage 
campaign against conservative Supreme Court justices at their homes and 
at pro-life facilities. How is I&A allocating resources and engaging 
with its State and local law enforcement partners to prevent more of 
these terrible attacks?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 103. In the months that followed the withdrawal from 
Afghanistan, the U.S. Government resettled approximately 85,500 Afghan 
nationals in the United States. On September 6, 2022, DHS's Office of 
Inspector General published a report stating that DHS encountered 
obstacles to screen, vet, and inspect all evacuees during the crisis 
following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. The DHS OIG reported 
that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) lacked critical data to 
properly vet evacuees, but CBP still admitted or paroled evacuees who 
were not fully vetted into the United States. What actions has the 
Department taken to address this shortfall in DHS's screening and 
vetting capabilities? The DHS OIG recommended that the Department 
should create a ``contingency plan to support similar emergency 
situations.'' Does the Department intend to do this and if so, when?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 104. On March 5, in Atlanta, Georgia, 35 people were 
arrested following a violent attack against law enforcement officers 
and destruction of property at the Atlanta Public Safety Training 
Center site. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation announced that 23 of 
these individuals were charged with domestic terrorism. One of the 
individuals charged with domestic terrorist under Georgia State law 
worked for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a far-left 
organization. Following the violent attack, the SPLC released a 
statement denouncing the employee's arrest and blaming police 
``escalation'' for the violence. This is concerning as both DHS and FBI 
have cited and relied upon SPLC's opinions for official products, 
raising serious questions about those products' objectivity and 
impartiality. To what extant do DHS's official products rely on inputs 
or products from SPLC? Does DHS intend to continue to use SPLC's 
opinions for official products?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 105. The President's fiscal year 2024 budget request 
includes $4.7 billion for the Southwest Border Contingency Fund to 
respond to migration surges along the Southwest Border. What will 
FEMA's role be in the Southwest Border Contingency Fund?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 106. The President's fiscal year 2024 budget request 
includes $4 billion for climate resilience programs at FEMA. If 
enacted, how would DHS and FEMA conduct oversight and ensure fiscal 
transparency over this extremely large amount of funding?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 107. In response to the 2001 anthrax attacks, the newly-
established DHS deployed the BioWatch Program in 2003. Since the 
program's inception, DHS has pursued enhancements and replacements to 
the existing BioWatch system without success. DHS's current 
biodetection acquisition program, Biological Detection for the 21st 
Century (BD21) Program, has been on-going since 2018. Why is the United 
States still relying on biological detection technology created in 
2003? What is DHS doing to ensure the expedited acquisition of the BD21 
Program?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 108. DHS is using programs like CBP One to facilitate the 
entry of people from failed states or countries that have poor 
relations with the United States, such as Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, 
and Haiti. Is DHS able to conduct a background check on a national who 
has never entered the United States in their country of origins and 
transit if you do not have access to those country's criminal records? 
Does the Department have access to criminal databases of countries, 
which we do not have relations with? For countries that do not maintain 
digitized records, how does the Department search those records in real 
time? Please provide a list of countries that DHS has real-time access 
to in order to search during processing and how comparable those 
databases are to U.S. criminal database.
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 109. Why, in the proposed ICE budget, is the Department 
calling for a record-low deportation of criminal illegal aliens? In 
fiscal 2020, the Trump administration sought to deport 151,000 
convicted criminal illegal immigrants and deported just over 100,000. 
In fiscal 2021, the target was 97,440 and just 39,149 were removed. In 
fiscal year 2022, the target had dropped to 91,500 and just over 38,000 
had been deported. Last fiscal year and this year and 2024 DHS is only 
seeking to deport 29,393 for each year. Currently, there are over 
400,000 convicted criminal aliens in the non-detained docket. Why does 
DHS want to only remove 30,000 criminal aliens?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 110. In 2021, President Biden halted border wall 
construction along the Southwest Border, leaving millions of dollars of 
materials already paid for, to rust. This halt left gaps in the border 
wall that were on track to be closed. Now, starting construction at any 
location along the border has turned into a bureaucratic drawn-out 
process, with Yuma, AZ being a prime example. How long after the Sector 
Chief requested sections of the barrier be completed did it take to 
start construction? And when is it expected to be completed?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
questions from honorable dina titus for honorable alejandro n. mayorkas
    Question 1a. FEMA is in the process of updating several policies 
that provide guidance on building codes. These documents include FEMA's 
Interim Policy on Consensus-Based Codes, Specifications and Standards 
for Public Assistance, as well as its Public Assistance Program and 
Policy Guide (PAPPG). I recognize the value of these policies and 
believe that all major, model construction codes should be included in 
them. However, FEMA has neglected to include major plumbing, 
mechanical, and electrical codes, including those approved as American 
National Standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
in its recent guidance. While FEMA released a memorandum clarifying 
that its funding is not contingent on State, Tribal, territorial, or 
local jurisdictions adopting a particular set of codes, it repeatedly 
continues to highlight the products of just one standards developing 
organization.
    Does FEMA plan to include all consensus-based codes, including 
those approved as American National Standards which contain important 
hazard-resistant design criteria, in its policies currently under 
review as well as in future related marketing materials?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 1b. When does FEMA plan to release its upcoming Interim 
Policy on Consensus-Based Codes, Specifications, and Standards and 
PAPPG?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
 question from honorable carlos a. gimenez for honorable alejandro n. 
                                mayorkas
    Question. Since your Department awarded a multibillion-dollar 
contract in June 2022 to a foreign-owned company with several members 
of leadership under current SEC and DOJ indictment for defrauding the 
Government, illegal accounting practices, and bidding manipulation--and 
the fact that this same company had direct partnerships with the PRC, 
what is the justification for this type of decision, and what is being 
done to protect the taxpayer from programmatic overrun or failure--and 
most importantly, since the leadership was under investigation during 
the time of proposal and award, was your Department aware (was it 
disclosed) and if so, do you believe this was a legal and prudent 
decision with one of the highest-value contracts in the history of your 
Department?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
questions from honorable andrew r. garbarino for honorable alejandro n. 
                                mayorkas
    Question 1a. National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS) 
Reauthorization: You mentioned in your statement that CISA has plans to 
revamp one of their flagship Federal cybersecurity programs, the 
National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS). It's an outdated 
program that has struggled to fully implement its requirements. The 
NCPS authority is up for reauthorization at the end of this fiscal year 
so the time is right for a reevaluation. In this budget request, CISA 
is proposing a new program to eventually replace NCPS, called the Cyber 
Analytics and Data System, or CADS. I am encouraged that CISA is taking 
action to overhaul the program but I am disappointed that this 
committee hasn't received many details about this new proposal, 
including the authorities you are using to implement it.
    Can you describe how you anticipate the fiscal year 2025 request, 
and future outyears, will account for the sunset of NCPS and the onset 
of CADS?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 1b. How does CISA plan to overcome the issues that have 
plagued previous iterations of NCPS?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 1c. As you build this program, how do you envision it 
fitting into a very dynamic environment as agencies implement 
requirements from the May 2021 Cyber Executive Order, including the 
Zero Trust Strategy, and other specific capability requirements? How 
are you ensuring this isn't duplicating those efforts?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 2a. Cyber Safety Review Board: Secretary Mayorkas, in your 
April 18th testimony to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee you urged Congress to pass legislation authorizing 
the Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB). We have heard from numerous 
companies that there is no process in place describing how a company 
may to join the CSRB, there is no transparency in how Members of the 
Board are selected, nor is there information indicating if members are 
selected in their individual capacity or as representative of their 
company. The DHS website that lists the CSRB members also contains no 
information or criteria on the selection process.
    Can you explain how a company may apply to become a Board Member 
and what the selection criteria is?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 2b. Can you commit to making this process more 
transparent?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.