[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
____________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio, Chairman
JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington ED CASE, Hawaii
ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. Granger, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Paul Anstine, Laura Cylke, Anna Lanier Fischer, Fern Tolley Gibbons,
Emily Trapani and Brooklyn Tucker
Subcommittee Staff
_____________
PART 2
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Page
U.S. Immigration and Customs Agency
Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request.........
1
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request.........
61
U.S. Coast Guard Fiscal Year 2024
Budget Request..........................
109
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Fiscal
Year 2024 Budget Request................
149
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-031 WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
KAY GRANGER, Texas, Chairwoman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BEN CLINE, Virginia
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
MIKE GARCIA, California
ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
TONY GONZALES, Texas
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia
JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
BARBARA LEE, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
DEREK KILMER, Washington
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
GRACE MENG, New York
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
PETE AGUILAR, California
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
NORMA J. TORRES, California
ED CASE, Hawaii
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JOSH HARDER, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
Anne Marie Chotvacs, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2024
----------
Tuesday, April 18, 2023.
FISCAL YEAR 2024 REQUEST FOR THE U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
WITNESS
TAE JOHNSON, ACTING DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Joyce. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security will come
to order.
Today we welcome Acting Director Tae Johnson to discuss the
fiscal year 2024 budget request for U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.
Thank you for being here today to discuss your funding
needs and critical mission of enforcing our Nation's
immigration laws and investigating transnational criminal
activity.
Before we discuss your budget request for the upcoming
fiscal year, I would like to take a moment to thank the law
enforcement and civilian personnel who play an integral part in
carrying out ICE's mission.
Enforcement removal officers, homeland security
investigators, ICE attorneys, and mission support staff work
tirelessly for the American people, despite being told that
their agency should be abolished. And I want to express my
sincere gratitude for their efforts in upholding the laws of
the land and ensuring our national security. Thank you.
It should come as no surprise that I believe the
President's budget request falls far short of addressing the
immigration crisis facing this country. And while Secretary
Mayorkas and the administration won't call it that, it is
obvious to the American people that we have an absolute crisis
on our hands.
This request willfully underfunds the tools your agency
needs to carry out its authority and serve the American people.
Decreasing detention capacity in the budget by more than $550
million and reducing the average daily detained population by
9,000 is, frankly, irresponsible and shortsighted.
This administration may argue that such a reduction is
accounted for in the proposed $4.7 billion contingency slush
fund, but we both know that once you take detention beds
offline, it is incredibly difficult to regain those losses in a
timely manner when they are needed most.
We are starting to see an uptick in migrant encounters as
we approach the end of title 42 on May 11. And, unfortunately,
given the failed policies of this administration, we will
likely need that capacity.
Earlier this year, ICE admitted that it has a shortfall of
$485 million, nearly a half a billion dollars. The largest
shortfall is in custody operations, which provides funding for
detention capacity.
If you don't have enough money to manage the current
detained docket, why would this administration request a 26
percent reduction in detention capacity?
On top of proposing to reduce detention for migrants who
have been convicted of crimes or have removal orders, your
request also proposes to reduce the Alternatives to Detention
program by approximately 95,000 participants, nearly $100
million.
Such a reduction, coupled with limited funding for
transporting migrants, sends a signal that we are not serious
about effectively deterring and removing bad actors, including
those who have criminal records and are a public safety risk.
On a more positive note, I am pleased to see resources
requested for countering fentanyl, human smuggling, and child
exploitation within Homeland Security Investigations, although
I question whether such resources are enough to tackle those
challenges.
As one of the largest Federal investigative agencies with
broad transnational and cross-border authority, HSI proves
critical time and time again in disrupting and dismantling
criminal organizations and people who attempt to exploit our
customs and immigration laws.
Acting Director Johnson, I look forward to working with
you, your staff, and the department throughout the fiscal year
2024 process. ICE's mission is an important one, and I am
hopeful that we can come together to find the innovative
solutions to address the challenges that lie ahead.
Now, before I turn to our witness for his statement, I
would like to recognize our ranking member, Mr. Cuellar, for
his opening remarks.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
join you in welcoming Mr. Tae Johnson, the Acting Director of
ICE, who is no stranger to the subcommittee.
Welcome back, sir. And, again, we appreciate your many
years of public service and your continued willingness to lead
this multifaceted organization.
As the Federal agency charged with the enforcement of
violations of customs and immigration laws, the breadth of the
investigatory and operational work of ICE cast a wide net,
including combating Transnational Criminal Organizations,
illicit drug trafficking, human trafficking, smuggling
networks, and violations of trade and intellectual property.
I look forward to today's discussion of the President's
budget request and how this proposal will better enable ICE to
fulfill its critical national security mission.
One thing I would like to note is that in your budget
justification materials, you don't mention the word ``cartel,''
as my colleagues have pointed out in the previous meeting with
the Secretary, but you do reference Transnational Criminal
Organizations, which obviously includes cartels.
In fact, your budget materials use the phrase
``transnational criminal'' over two dozen times. And the budget
request includes investments in personnel and technology to
crack down on cartels, including $305 million for the non-
intrusive inspections systems in CBP, with a primary focus on
fentanyl detection at the ports of entry, and an increase of
$40 million in ICE for tools to assist in combating human
smuggling and illicit drug operations.
We certainly want to hear from you about the work that
Homeland Security Investigations, HSI, what they are doing to
increase the government-wide efforts to combat the opioid
epidemic. As you know, it is hitting all American communities,
large and small.
As we see from the deaths of these opioids, especially
fentanyl, we have had a 7,000-fold increase since 2015. And we
will talk about the numbers because, whether it is President
Trump, President Obama, President Biden right now, we have seen
an increase. It is not anything that just rose in the last 2
years. So, again, it is something that we need to address all
together as Americans.
Also, I would like to hear a little bit about the
administration's attempt to balance its request with the
detention capacity for high-risk populations to alternatives to
detention for low-risk populations.
I am concerned with the administration's proposal for a
border contingency fund that rests on the premise that the
Federal Government can immediately contract and execute over a
billion dollars to provide resources they need after--after--a
predefined level of encounters have been realized at the
border.
The reality is, under this new structure, the funding would
not be available until well in the execution of the fiscal
year. Specifically, for ICE, if enacted, it would reduce the
detention bed space by 9,000 spaces and reduce the current
number of ATD participants by 189,000.
And, again, reactive strategies that leave our workforce
without resources that they need in real time only ensures that
we continue to play defense on the one-yard line called the
U.S. border itself.
I certainly want to thank, as the chairman said, the men
and women of ICE. We certainly want to make sure that we
provide them the resources to look at the work that they do.
At the same time, one of the things that we want to do is
find that balance between law enforcement at the border, but at
the same time respect the rights of the asylum seekers.
In particular, I am sure you are familiar with the L.A.
Times reported last week that there are occasions where asylum
seekers are wrongfully removed from the U.S. despite having an
active appeal pending before an immigration judge or some other
status that would make a deportation premature.
So, Director, I know you and I have talked about it, and I
look forward to working with you and your interagency partners
to ensure that this doesn't happen. Again, if they are supposed
to be here, they are supposed to be here. If they are supposed
to be removed, they should be removed. So we need to find that
balance.
And, certainly, I want to make sure that at ICE we address
issues from meaningful access to counsel, improving contracting
at ICE, especially for custody operations, streamlining and
automating processes, and certainly want to make sure that you
all work with the Executive Office of Immigration Review to
make sure that we are working together to address that issue.
Those are some of the issues that we will be working at,
and I look forward to your testimony. And, again, I appreciate
your many years of work with us. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
Acting Director Johnson, without objection, your full
written testimony will be entered into the record. With that in
mind, we would ask you to please summarize your opening
statement in 5 minutes. The floor is yours.
Mr. Johnson. Chairman Joyce, Ranking Member Cuellar, and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with
you today.
STATEMENT OF TAE JOHNSON
My name is Tae Johnson. I am the Deputy Director and Senior
Official Performing the Duties of Director for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE.
The mission of ICE is to promote homeland security and
public safety through the broad enforcement of over 400 Federal
laws governing border, customs, trade, and immigration.
Before I go any further, I would like to thank you for
funding recently provided in the fiscal year 2023 omnibus to
support our people and our mission, particularly, additional
resources at the southwest border for processing, monitoring,
medical care, and transportation.
The fiscal year 2023 funding also supported our officers
and special agents by enabling ICE to focus on key initiatives,
such as executing our Counter Opioid Strategy to combat
fentanyl, providing enhancements to our Innovation Lab to
include Cross Cyber Technology, and continuing to build on
partnerships and task forces related to combating cross-border
financial crime.
Critical funding was also provided to expand our litigation
teams and continue ICE's information technology data
modernization, among others.
Our fiscal year 2024 budget embodies a consistent approach
in prioritizing for ICE custody those who posed a significant
risk, prioritizing low-risk noncitizens for Alternatives to
Detention, and establishing a two-year emergency Southwest
Border Contingency Fund to support border operations and
provide greater operational flexibility.
The fiscal year 2024 budget requests new positions and
funding for staffing enhancements to better manage the non-
detained docket, which has grown from 3 million cases in fiscal
year 2019 to just over 4.7 million cases at the end of fiscal
year 2022, without a commensurate increase in staff.
The fiscal year 2024 budget also requests funding to
provide technology investments for credible fear screenings and
enhanced access to counsel. It also provides funding for
facility costs necessary to accommodate the required staffing
growth of our Office of the Principal Legal Advisor litigation
teams.
In fiscal year 2022, Homeland Security Investigations, or
HSI, made nearly 37,000 criminal arrests, including 5,000
transnational gang arrests, and seized nearly 21,000 pounds of
fentanyl.
The fiscal year 2024 budget prioritizes additional
resources and personnel to support the DHS-led Monroe Project,
which focuses on illicit drug operations along the southwest
border, including fentanyl, which killed over 77,000 Americans
last year.
The requested funding would also continue development
efforts to achieve full operational capability in fiscal year
2028 for the Repository for Analytics in a Virtual Environment,
also known as RAVEN, enabling HSI to better identify and
address criminal networks involved in transnational organized
crime, terrorism, and other criminality, to include online
child sexual exploitation and fentanyl distribution.
Finally, the fiscal year 2024 budget would increase HSI's
cyber investigations support, continue to support the HSI-led
Center for Countering Human Trafficking, and continue HSI's
trend of increasing victim assistance for all victims of HSI
investigations.
The ICE mission support workforce serves a critical role in
ICE's ability to meet our national security, public safety, and
border security missions.
Despite the challenges presented by significant workloads
demands in supporting a 24/7 law enforcement agency, ICE's
mission support workforce continues to operate efficiently and
in many cases improve operations to meet the needs of the
agency.
The 2024 budget seeks new positions and funding to address
capability gaps in the areas of human resources, cybersecurity,
asset procurement, and body-worn camera implementation, as well
as management leadership and career development among other
support programs.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. Thank you for your continued support for the dedicated
and hardworking workforce of ICE. I am honored and humbled to
represent the more than 20,000 dedicated ICE workforce and
proud to serve beside them.
I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, sir.
We will now begin with the questions. I will recognize
myself to start.
Mr. Johnson, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I am
concerned with your fiscal 2024 request reduction of
approximately $560 million in ICE's base budget to decrease
detention bed capacity from an average daily population of
34,000 to 25,000. I firmly believe that an average daily
population of 34,000 is already insufficient, and this request
simply exacerbates the enforcement challenges that already
exist.
Yes or no, Mr. Johnson, do you believe that detention is a
deterrent to illegal immigration.
Mr. Johnson. I think it can be, yes.
Mr. Joyce. Then why is the administration requesting fewer
beds?
Mr. Johnson. So the 25,000, as I understand it, that is in
our base budget, and the additional 9,000 beds would be
immediately available as part of this contingency plan.
When I became aware that there was this possibility that we
might have to take beds offline come October 1 and then there
would be some expectation of like quickly bringing beds on, I
was assured that as long as we are hitting a certain threshold
on September 30, that that funding would be immediately made
available to ICE.
So unless something has changed, it is my understanding
that we will not have to take beds offline only to have to
bring them back on.
Mr. Joyce. How many beds are currently inaccessible due to
COVID protocols, litigation, cohorting, et cetera? How much
have we paid for beds since the beginning of fiscal year 2023
that we aren't able to use due to these aforementioned reasons?
Mr. Johnson. We are using about 73 percent of our capacity
right now, and this is largely, as you described, due to COVID
and some of the safeguards put in place by the CDC.
We are hopeful that on May 11, when the title 42 emergency
declaration is over, that there will be new CDC guidance that
gives us greater flexibility to use more of the beds that we
are paying for at our facilities.
Mr. Joyce. Will you commit then to no longer taking beds
offline due to COVID reasons after the public health emergency
ends on May 11?
Mr. Johnson. I will commit to following whatever the CDC
guidance is as it relates to detaining individuals in
congregate settings. If CDC completely lifts the requirement
and there are no restrictions, like pre-COVID, then I will
commit to getting back to up 34,000 beds. But it is really
dependent on where CDC lands with their new guidance, if there
is new guidance.
Mr. Joyce. Secretary Mayorkas said he cannot comply with
the Immigration and Nationality Act requirement to detain all
eligible migrants.
As head of the agency responsible for that, what is
required for this administration to comply with the law?
Mr. Johnson. More beds than probably exist in the public
sector and funding that we don't have. I mean, on any given
year, even before COVID, we can only detain about 200,000
people a year. Maybe in some of the better years up to 250,000
in a given year.
So you do have to make tough choices on how to use your
resources. And if you are going to dedicate some beds for the
southwest border, you are going to have to pick and choose
which folks in the interior you choose to focus on. So that is
not an entirely new phenomenon for ICE.
Mr. Joyce. Didn't you just say that you are only at 73
percent capacity.
Mr. Johnson. We are, and that is largely due to COVID
today, correct.
Mr. Joyce. What about Alternative to Detention?
Mr. Johnson. What about it? Is it what is our capacity?
Mr. Joyce. Are you making full use of that.
Mr. Johnson. We are. I mean, we are trying to get the
numbers down a little bit to get into compliance with our
fiscal year 2023 funding. I think the goal was to try to get
that down to about 170,000 participants by the end of the
fiscal year. But given May 11, we expect that number will
likely increase some.
Mr. Joyce. Can you measure or explain to us how you measure
the effectiveness of the Alternative to Detention system?
Mr. Johnson. Well, historically, it has been measured by
whether or not an individual actually complies with their terms
of release, whether they show up at all their ICE appointments
and check-ins, whether they allow for the home visits and the
like that are required by the ATD program or some participants
in the ATD program. And, most importantly, whether they show up
at court for their hearings as scheduled.
Mr. Joyce. Isn't it true that you stop monitoring them
within 30 days?
Mr. Johnson. Not within 30 days, but it is true that, just
based on current funding levels and the extensive amount of
time that it takes an individual to sort of have their case
adjudicated before EOIR, it is impossible to hold someone or
keep someone enrolled in the ATD program for the entire period
of their removal proceeding.
So right now I think the average length of stay on ATD is
somewhere around a year and a half, 18 months. And as you guys
are fully aware, it takes about 3 to 5 years to have an
individual's case conclude.
Mr. Joyce. I have exceeded my time, but I would like to
recognize Ranking Member Cuellar for any questions he may have.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, the administration's plan is to end the title
42 expulsion authority. And, again, I am a big believer in
title 8, instead of title 42, even though I support title 42.
And there are three things that the administration is doing.
They did an agreement with Panama and Colombia, number one.
Number two, they got the asylum officers that are going to
do some expedited work with Border Patrol facilities.
And number three, there is a rule that should come out
before May 11 that basically says that if people don't come
in--if they come in between ports of entry, they will be
returned, and they have to come in through a port and do it--
provide an incentive to do it the legal way and not in between
ports. And since I represent a lot of border area, that is
important to me, that people are not crossing our lands, number
one.
Now, I want to see what ICE is doing to do this because I
am concerned about a couple things. Big picture. According to
Secretary Fudge's statement that she provided just recently,
she says that there are a shortage of almost 7 million
affordable housing units. And for every 100 extremely low-
income renter, there are only 33 rentals available. So I want
to put that outline out there.
Now, looking at the top ten parole notice to report
appointments for backlog locations as of April 7, 2023, and as
you know there is the NTR, which is a notice to report to ICE.
And then, traditionally, we have used the NTA, notice to
appear, before an immigration judge. So the notice to report is
a step in between before they go to an immigration judge.
So if you can work with me on this time period. The top 10
backlog locations: New York, No. 1, mostly booked through March
2033. They have got about 32,000-plus there. San Antonio. I was
surprised about San Antonio, but it is number two, booked up
through March 2023. Miramar, Florida. Los Angeles. It goes then
Jacksonville, Milwaukee, Chicago, Washington, Denver. And then
Mount Laurel NJ rounds up the top. So it goes from 2033 to
March of 2027.
So they go to ICE and report. Let's take New York. They
will report up to March of 2033. Then they get a notice to
appear, an NTA, notice to appear, and then that is another 2, 3
years before they can go up to a judge.
So if we take 2023--2033, should I say, 2033--add another
2, 3 years, we are talking about 2035 or 2036.
So keep in mind, the affordable housing units--I mean, they
have got to live somewhere. And I am concerned about what is
happening here.
So my question is, what is ICE doing to expedite some of
the work? Are we looking at detention, as the chairman
mentioned? Are we looking at more additional removal flights
for the ones that should be removed? What are we looking at? Do
you have enough resources to fund to execute the strategies?
Because, again, it is a little concerning that some of them
have to wait to 2033 just to appear before you, and then they
have to get another 2, 3 years before they even go to an
immigration judge to get either a stay to--I mean, either they
stay or they get final deportation orders. And I think we have
over a million final deportation orders are still pending on
that.
So start off with my concern is for folks that live here in
the U.S., there is not enough housing, but then we are adding
all of these extra folks coming in.
Mr. Johnson. Good question.
I think there is a number of efforts that are underway that
is going to help us issue NTAs in places like New York much
sooner. There are some technology solutions that are in the
works that is going to allow us to issue NTAs virtually. There
is a request to the Hill to give us the authority that we could
actually serve it virtually and have people agree to accept
their documents electronically. So that is certainly something
that we will continue to work with the Congress to sort of get
the authority for.
But we are working on the technological piece of it so that
we can do these telephonic interviews or virtual interviews and
have individuals not have to wait 10 years to have their
charging documents issued.
There is also the online change of address form or
technology solution that we are working on which will allow
individuals to opt in to receiving mail-out NTAs, and we think
that that too will certainly help eliminate the backlog.
CBP is also, given the large number of peoples that--
individuals that we have released, they are also beefing up
their staff to help ICE tackle this backlog.
So with them joining the fight, and if we get the
additional resources in fiscal year 2024, that we are slated
for 145 ERAs, additional 45 ICE officers that are going to be
assigned to the non-detained docket, we believe this additional
staffing will go a long way and help more quickly eliminating
the NTA backlog.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
We will now recognize Sheriff Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for being here today to answer some
of these difficult questions about how we are dealing with
these populations.
When I look at the non-detained docket, and I see the 2022
annual report said there was a 29 percent increase, that number
has now grown from 2019 from 3 million to 5.3 million that we
are holding on that program now.
And what really confuses me is we have got 1.2 million that
Mr. Cuellar just referred to. They have had their adjudication,
but they are still here. We are not deporting these folks in
the numbers that we should be. In fact, in 2019 ERO was moving
out 247,000. Last year, we did 67,000. I don't quite understand
how these numbers can work.
And then, when I look at my Jacksonville area, several ICE
check-in offices have significant backlogs. For instance,
Jacksonville is booked through 2028--and this goes to the point
that Mr. Cuellar was making--Jacksonville is booked through
2028. And that is just for them to get into the court. And from
there, it can be several more years before their case is
decided.
And I think this is just a symptom of just how broken this
system is, and yet we don't seem to be responding to it. We are
cutting resources. We are not utilizing beds. We are just
letting people come across the border.
Because Mr. Cuellar brought up the same issue, I want to
ask, do you have an average number of times? I know what it is
in Jacksonville. It is 5 years just to get seen. What is the
average around the country? Because, as you mentioned, these
folks have got to have somewhere to stay, and technology is not
going to put them in a bed.
What is the average number?
Mr. Johnson. So the average varies pretty widely by
location. If I had to sort of guess, I would say it is probably
2 years throughout the country.
Mr. Rutherford. That is the shortest?
Mr. Johnson. No, that is probably the average. Because most
of the offices aren't nearly as inundated as----
Mr. Rutherford. So Jacksonville is two and a half times the
average.
Mr. Johnson. Florida. I mean, a lot of people are going to
Florida. If you are looking at some of our smaller offices, in
Baltimore, for instance, or St. Paul, Minnesota, the wait time
is significantly less.
So it is the major metropolitan areas that are going to
have the longest wait times. And we think with the additional
staffing, CBP actually joining the game and helping process
some of these folks that we released on the southern border,
and, obviously, the technological solutions----
Mr. Rutherford. OK. So let me stop you and ask this
question. Because Secretary Mayorkas was here and told this
committee that ICE was removing a higher percentage of criminal
aliens in 2021 than in the previous years and got into
statistical numbers and that sort of thing.
Now, you ran ERO. You know what those numbers used to be.
Can you as an assistant or acting director right now, can you
tell me how are those numbers down so significantly?
Mr. Johnson. I think it is a----
Mr. Rutherford. I mean, from 247,000 to 67,000.
Mr. Johnson. I think that the number----
Mr. Rutherford. How can that be?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think we do have to factor in the
expulsions, because a lot of ICE's and ERO's resources that
would typically be used for title 8 removals are now being
diverted to the southwest border to expel individuals. They are
using our planes, our seats on the planes. So you do have to
factor in the 70,000, 80,000 ICE removals----
Mr. Rutherford. Let me stop you. Those expulsions were
going on before, too. The Secretary, when he was here, answered
Mr. Cline's question, I think it was, about deportations. And
he tried to merge together the expulsions too. Because that is
a big number. It was like 1.2 million, I think. But it is all
expulsions. It is not deportations.
Why are the deportation numbers down so low?
Mr. Johnson. And, again, the expulsions only started when
the CDC emergency declaration order kicked in. There were
always quick removals, voluntary returns, and the like at the
border, but not using ICE airframes.
I would submit that when you look at the number of folks
that we have expelled on ICE Air, combined with our title 8
removals, you will see that those numbers--those two numbers
combined sort of get really close to what our removal numbers
were in fiscal year 2019.
I also think that there was fewer people that were being
introduced in the criminal justice system during the pandemic,
particularly the beginning of the pandemic, and that too
resulted in far fewer referrals to ERO then.
Mr. Rutherford. Well, I see my time has expired.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Sheriff.
I recognize Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson, thanks for being with us today.
In recent months, the heartbreaking stories of migrant
children illegally working long hours in dangerous jobs has
captured the attention of Congress and the public. These
children are some of the most vulnerable among us, and this
situation is unacceptable.
We need an all-of-government approach to protect these
children, stop and prevent their exploitation, and hold bad
actors accountable. And Homeland Security Investigations has an
important role to play through its duty to conduct criminal
investigations into forced child labor.
Can you describe how HSI is working in coordination with
other agencies, including the Department of Labor, Health and
Human Services, to combat illegal child labor?
Mr. Johnson. Very, very good question. And it is absolutely
heartbreaking to hear stories where kids are being exploited.
HSI, just because of their international and domestic
footprint, are strategically situated to lead the effort on
child exploitation, and they have done a good job.
But there is tons of work to do. It starts with
investigating these crimes, bringing the perpetrators to
justice, and rescuing the victims. And that is a priority for
HSI.
A lot of it is getting out to the communities and educating
folks on some of the signs to look for and how to sort of
convey that information back to HSI through our tip line if
they believe that there are individuals that are being subject
to sort of labor exploitation.
We have been working really closely with the Department of
Labor over the last year and a half to make sure that we are
getting information from them as well as working closely with
HHS, who are typically responsible for releasing these kids to
sponsors, to let ICE know, and work with our special agents if
they have any reason to believe that kids are being sent to
individuals that are making them work in these labor camps.
Ms. Underwood. More organized criminal operations may be
seeing opportunities here to exploit children as well,
something that HSI also investigates. For example, NBC News
reported earlier this year that DHS is investigating the
potential trafficking of children for work cleaning
slaughterhouses. And ICE's reports have indicated an increase
in forced child labor investigations and enforcement in recent
years.
Obviously understanding you can't comment on open forced
child labor investigations, what are the trends that you are
seeing here more broadly?
Mr. Johnson. So in fiscal year 2022, ICE rescued 1,900
victims from child exploitation. This is, in 2022, this is the
first time that ICE has actually captured that data, so we
don't have the ability to compare it to prior years.
But it is a priority for us, and it is the reason why we
started tracking it this year and will continue to do so in the
future.
We also----
Ms. Underwood. Excuse me, Mr. Johnson. Has that data been
publicly released?
Mr. Johnson. I am not sure if it has been released. I think
we have a congressional requirement to report it. But I will
have to circle back and let you know whether it has been
released.
Ms. Underwood. Well, given the attention that this issue
has been in the news and obviously how it is so contrary to our
American values, I think that level of transparency would be
warranted. And certainly we would look forward to receiving
that information and any details that you would be free to
share with this committee.
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
I want to turn now to ICE's reputational challenges, which
you and I discussed during your testimony before the
subcommittee last year. These challenges are so severe that at
the end of 2021, The Washington Post reported that HSI agents
proposed separating from ICE because of the degree which ICE's
negative reputation impedes their ability to conduct
investigations.
I asked then how you were working to address the behaviors
and actions that led to those reputational challenges at ICE.
It has been a year since we last discussed this. Since then,
can you share what you have done to improve ICE's relationship
with local communities? And what specific changes is ICE making
to increase accountability and build trust?
Mr. Johnson. Very, very good question. And like I had
mentioned last year, this has been an issue that we have been
grappling with within ICE for many, many years.
One of the things we did this year was to give HSI the
flexibility to use whatever branding they felt was necessary to
increase cooperation in the communities. So in other words, if
removing the ICE moniker completely and just using the HSI
brand was going to result in greater cooperation, they had the
flexibility to do so.
We have also removed or gave them the option of removing
the ICE part of their email exchange address, so that it is
just HSI.DHS.gov instead of the ICE piece of that. That too has
been extremely helpful in certain areas of the country.
So while I am not a supporter of sort of splitting the
agency into two, I am a huge supporter of providing all the
flexibilities I can to HSI so that they may successfully
complete their mission.
Ms. Underwood. Well, ICE has a responsibility to
proactively and intentionally build trust in the communities
that you serve. And so I think that this is an area where the
agency definitely needs to do more. And I would encourage you
to continue to focus on this in 2023.
Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
I now recognize Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Acting Director Johnson, for coming before our
committee again. It is great to see you. And thank you to the
men and women who serve in your agency. I know it is not easy
work, and I appreciate your service and theirs.
One of my top concerns with the crisis we are seeing at our
southern border is that we know that individuals on the terror
watch list, sex offenders, some of these transnational gang
members, drug traffickers, human traffickers, the list goes on
and on of the bad people with violent criminal histories that
we are seeing come into our country. They have exploited that
weakness at our southern border. And even the Chinese Communist
Party is taking advantage of it too.
So my question to you is, are there times of year when ICE
experiences increases in the number of investigations or
removals of these types of criminals specifically, or surges or
times where you see more criminals, that then you are having to
deploy agents into the homeland to focus on those removals?
Mr. Johnson. So at least from an HSI perspective, it is
always critically important that they focus on these
individuals that pose a national security threat. So we have a
cadre of seasoned agents who do nothing but work those types of
cases.
Oftentimes their focus is the criminal aspect of it. The
removal and sort of administrative piece is sort of secondary.
And once these individuals are finished their sentences, they
would be offered to ERO or put in removal proceedings for
removal.
With the flow along the southwest border we have been
focusing on some of the unusual populations, folks that
typically we don't typically see coming across, and just making
sure that we have a good response to them and designating some
number of detention beds for those individuals as well.
Mrs. Hinson. All right. And, obviously, we have seen that
number significantly increase.
How are you communicating with our State and local, Tribal,
territorial law enforcement on these issues, especially in
maybe rural communities like mine? Because, obviously, you
talked a lot about the flows into some of the more populated
areas, but it is an impact in States like mine as well. And the
last thing we want is to see criminals come into places like
this because maybe they are thinking it will be less enforced.
So what are you doing to communicate with those levels of
law enforcement?
Mr. Johnson. So in areas where we have great cooperation--I
mean, obviously, Iowa is one of them--we have really, really
great relationships with our State and local partners.
We do have challenges in other areas where folks aren't as
cooperative, and we will just have to continue to work with
them to find some middle ground.
But our relationships with our State and local partners are
the bread and butter of our success. And whether they are
participating in some of our task forces or on our BEST teams,
those relationships are critical, especially in smaller areas
where it is just a small law enforcement community. Generally,
everybody needs to just band together.
So it is certainly important. We are always out sort of
working with our State and locals and try to make sure we have
each other's back.
Mrs. Hinson. Well, if there are jurisdictions that are
creating challenges for you in executing your mission, please
let me know. I would love to work with you on making sure that
they are following through. Because, ultimately, this is a
safety and security issue, not only for Iowans, but for all
Americans. So I want to make sure that you have the cooperation
necessary to do your job.
I want to move quickly to the contingency fund
conversation. You got assurances, obviously, that even with the
reduction of $560 million to your budget that those detention
beds would be available from the contingency fund if you are at
certain levels. What levels were those exactly?
Mr. Johnson. I can't remember the thresholds. I just know
that they were really, really low and that we have been at that
threshold for the better part of the last 5 years.
Mrs. Hinson. So you would meet those levels----
Mr. Johnson. So, I mean, my biggest concern is on October
1, I was going to need those funds.
Mrs. Hinson. Right.
Mr. Johnson. And when we looked at the thresholds, we
weren't going to have to wait 90 days. The funds would be
available. So I am confident that we would not be required to
take beds offline before we brought them back on.
Mrs. Hinson. So let me pose this question to you. What
happens, though, if that fund has been depleted? Does that mean
that you would not have the necessary resources to expand the
beds you need?
Mr. Johnson. It would. It would be hard to deplete the
funds 2 weeks into the new fiscal year, as I understand it.
I mean, look, there is a lot of details that have to be
worked out with this contingency fund, the first time we have
ever done anything like this. I think it is a good concept
because we do need a way to get access to additional money when
the border is seeing unusually high levels.
In my personal view, I wish the 34,000 beds would have been
in my base, and then I would have been able to gain access to
5,000 or 10,000 beds as part of the contingency fund. But it
didn't shake out that way.
Mrs. Hinson. Well, I think that taking funding away from
your baseline budget and putting it into a contingency slush
fund that could be used for other services is reckless when you
need those funds to actually execute on your mission. So I see
this as a budget gimmick, and I think that we should be
prioritizing getting you those funds directly.
Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
The chair will now recognize Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Chairman Joyce.
Director Johnson, thank you for being with us. And I too
want to thank you and the men and women that are under you for
the hard work that you do.
I am going to return to one of the subjects that was
already brought up as reported last year. This administration
removed 72,000 and some immigrants. And that does not include
title 42 removals.
This past December, 250,000-plus people were encountered by
the Border Patrol. So removing less than a third of the number
of encounters in a single month took an entire year, and that
is on top of a record-breaking year of 2.76 million encounters.
So being in charge of removal orders and removing
immigrants, a couple of questions. How would you justify that
this posture benefits border and national security? And is this
a sustainable posture?
The administration repeatedly had said that those without
lawful asylum claims will be swiftly removed. So can you tell
me today that swift removals are happening?
And also, why aren't we doing more to at least remove the
known criminals and the repeat offenders?
Mr. Johnson. Good question.
In terms of swift removals, I would argue that we are doing
it for those that are detained in ICE custody. Folks that have
been following this work for a long time, you know that that is
typically where the bulk of our removal orders come from, and
it is extremely difficult to remove individuals from the non-
detained docket.
I do not think it is sustainable, but I also do not think
that there is enough detention capacity in the private sector
or that exists for us to detain our way out of this.
I think that there are a number of efforts that are
underway. The discussions with the Colombians and the
Panamanians should go a long way. We are certainly asking for
additional planes and resources so that we can fly more removal
flights more quickly, more often to some of the countries that
we are getting hammered the most on.
So we think that too will certainly help us get some of
these folks back to their home countries quickly.
And, in addition to Border Patrol creating some
efficiencies and doing some of the credible fear screenings in
their custody, ICE has also identified nine facilities where we
are going to try to get people through the credible fear
process much quicker than it is typically done in prior years.
And, hopefully, that will just help us be able to sort of cycle
through those beds much quicker at those nine facilities and
result in more removals
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate those suggestions.
The other thing I wanted to talk to you about, ask you
about, is fentanyl. My understanding is that a small number of
vehicles, cars, trucks, are inspected, but we are confiscating
a huge, huge amount of fentanyl.
And due to the severe damage we are seeing in our country,
I would like to know--realizing that CBP is primarily
responsible for those inspections and that you are called in, I
guess, after the fact--the question remains, how are we as a
country going to get a handle on this? Essentially, who is
going to take ownership of this problem? I think the American
people want to know what is it going to take.
So I am pleading with you. Tell me what we can do to stop
this scourge of drugs at the southern--coming in the southern
border.
Mr. Johnson. Well, as you mention, I mean, CBP is at the
ports of entry. They are conducting the inspections. We have
deployed a significant number of HSI agents to the border to
assist.
You may be familiar with Operation Blue Lotus----
Mr. Newhouse. Yeah.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Where we have sent a number of
folks to two ports of entry there, where in just over 30 days
we have seized 8,000 pounds of narcotics----
Mr. Newhouse. Some success there, yeah.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. 4,000 pounds of which was
fentanyl. Which just goes to show you, if you throw more
resources at this problem, you will get some big wins.
I think HSI is probably best situated to sort of tackle, to
combat and dismantle the TCOs that are responsible for
fentanyl, particularly our relationships and our vetting units
and TCIUs in Mexico, which is that is ground zero from where
China is sending the precursor chemicals.
In fiscal year 2022, HSI, in close coordination with our
Mexican partners, seized 3.3 million pounds of precursor
chemicals. We know those were all sort of headed to the U.S. We
seized 22,000 or 21,000 pounds of fentanyl in fiscal year 2022.
And this year, in fiscal year 2023, through February, we have
already seized 27 pounds--27,000 pounds of fentanyl.
So there is a lot of work to be done. HSI is--I mean, it is
a high priority for them. And we will continue to work with our
foreign partners to sort of increase our apprehension.
Mr. Newhouse. I know we are out of time, Mr. Chairman. I
just want to say that I believe that all those big numbers--and
that is great that we are confiscating that much. My feeling is
that that is probably the tip of the iceberg. There is so much
more that we have got to do.
So I look forward to working with you on this and getting a
handle on this huge, huge issue.
Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. I agree with you wholeheartedly. The chair now
recognizes Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Acting Director.
And, yes, I echo the thoughts with everyone on this committee.
We certainly appreciate the work of your agency and boots on
the ground for doing hard work. I am from south Texas, so we
know this all too well about what is going on in regards to the
need to secure our border.
I wanted to ask you about a couple of numbers. I was
looking at the numbers of you returning people to their home
country after they have entered illegally. In fiscal year 2022,
it was 67,055. Comparing that to 2019, preCOVID, it was
247,835. Even during 2020, during COVID, we had a dip of--we
were able to return 173,849. And so all that to say we have a
substantial decrease in what your agency is doing at a time we
are having a tremendous surge of illegal crossings at our
border. I am curious to have your thoughts on how and why that
is happening?
Mr. Johnson. So again, as I mentioned, I think when you are
looking at our removal numbers, you also have to look at the T-
42 expulsions. The 185,000 figure that you are--179,000 figure
that you provided in fiscal year 2020 that was, you know,
largely COVID free for the first 9 months, and maybe the last 3
months of 2020, there was some COVID removal impacts. But if
you look at what we did in fiscal year 2020, and you compare it
what our removals were in fiscal year 2022, including the
COVID--I mean, the title 42 expulsions of 117,000, those fiscal
year 2022 numbers are pretty closely aligned with the fiscal
year 2020 total removals of 179, or 180,000 that you
referenced.
I also think, as I mentioned, that a good number of our
removal cases, at least in the interior, are from referrals
from State and locals after they make arrests and charge
people, and they go through the process.
Mr. Cloud. And I understand that, but that part--that
wouldn't be part of the change. That is a constant in this. And
so, I mean, what we are seeing is that at an administration
shift we had 70 percent drop roughly with no change roughly in
funding and actually a slight bump-up in manpower. I mean, we
are the Appropriations Committee. We are supposed to be making
sure resources are used properly. And so I am trying to wonder,
dollar per activity here doesn't really seem to match up as to
what we would expect to see due to the effectiveness of the
resources we are sending your way.
Mr. Johnson. I think title 42 was lifted, and we are no
longer doing these T42 expulsions. And we just go back to our
title 8 removals, which is what ICE and ERO has done for, you
know, 30 years. I think you will see the removal numbers
starting to go up to where they have been historically. You
know, just transitionally from title 8 to title 42 is something
that was new to the agency, and I am sure there was lost
efficiencies as part of the----
Mr. Cloud. All of this part, of course, in proper context
that there is a right way to come to our country in an illegal
way, and every illegal entry is dollars to a cartel. You know,
that is also funneling drugs into stabilizing other countries.
I am out of time. I had another line of questioning, but----
Mr. Joyce. You have a little time.
Mr. Cloud. OK. Well, OK. I have a little time. Have you
heard of ICE Council.
Mr. Johnson. ICE Council?
Mr. Cloud. Yes. Are you familiar with the ICE Council.
Mr. Johnson. The union.
Mr. Cloud. Yes. Yes, sir. Recently, they had essentially
filed a whistleblower grievance with the DOJ, alleging that
AFGE had--and I mean--a number of news articles I can print out
to some nefarious actions that had happened there, misusing
funds that the union had used literally to go to strip clubs
and those kind of things.
And so shortly after that, the AFGE filed a separation of
interest, basically, to remove the ICE Council from the parents
organization, which also because of some arcane rules in the
union. Basically, they were able to seize $5 million of assets
from ICE Council.
Are you concerned at all about this? Did you have reach out
to ICE Council while this was happening last year?
Mr. Johnson. I was not aware of the sort of the background
that you just provided. I was only aware that the AFGE
requested that the council 118 no longer be part of AFGE but
wasn't tracking what led up to it. So, no.
Mr. Cloud. Do you think it would be important to find out
why? I mean, they were being kicked out of the union basically.
Mr. Johnson. Given what you have said, you know, I will
certainly look into it.
Mr. Cloud. I mean, just from the sniff test, it sure seems
like a union, you know, after somebody files a grievance
against them with the DOJ is suddenly kicked out and millions
of dollars of assets. That is it. So I would certainly
appreciate if you can look into that. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. OK. Mr. Cloud. The chair now recognizes Mr.
Guest.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Johnson, thank
you for being here today. Does what occurs on the southwest
border, does that impact your agency?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, it does.
Mr. Guest. And recently the Chief of Border Patrol
testified before Congress that five of the nine sectors along
the Southwest Border are not secure. Would you agree with his
assessment?
Mr. Johnson. I would defer to the Border Patrol.
Mr. Guest. So if the Chief of the Border Patrol said that,
then you would defer to him versus Secretary Mayorkas who
continues to maintain that the border is secure from sea to
shining sea. Is that correct?
Mr. Johnson. I would defer to them over me making any sort
of an assessment as to whether the border is secure or not.
Mr. Guest. In your budget, there is budget decrease for
detention beds. Last year, on average, according to your report
from December 30, 2022, in the ICE annual report, you stated
that the average of the report--and I am not saying you, I am
assuming that your agency stated that on average, there were
22,630 individuals in detention. Does that number sound
correct?
Mr. Johnson. That sounds about right.
Mr. Guest. And we know that looking at the report as far as
the docket that your agency maintains that there are over 4.7
million individuals, noncitizens that are in the United States,
in some shape, form, or fashion. Roughly, 1.2 million where
there are final orders of removal. And then 3\1/2\ million
according to this where there have been no final orders or
removal. Does that 4,750,000 figure, does that sound accurate?
Mr. Johnson. It does.
Mr. Guest. And we know last year your agency removed
roughly 72,000 individuals from the country, correct?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct.
Mr. Guest. And of those individuals that were removed, we
know that some of those individuals were individuals which were
individuals who had criminal histories?
Mr. Johnson. That is also correct.
Mr. Guest. Your report says that of the 72,000, that 44,096
if those individuals had criminal histories. That of those
44,000 people, there were 183,251 charges associated with them
for an average of 4.2 charges and convictions per person. That
there were 17,336 who were charged with assault; 7,370 charged
with sex offenses or sexual assault; 4,711 individuals charged
with weapon offenses; 1,315 charged with homicide-related
offenses; 953 were charged with convicted of kidnapping; that
your agency removed 2,667 known or suspected gang members; and
to me, the most troubling of all is 56 known or suspected
terrorists were removed from the country last year.
And so my question is, we have got this huge number, this
huge population where your agency is responsible for trying--
and I know that you don't have the manpower, and I am not
blaming you personally, I am blaming the system--but we have a
system where we have 4.7 million people who are loose in the
country that we, in many cases, don't know where those people
are. We only have bed space to detain 25,000. We are not using
all that bed space. We have what we know to be some of those
individuals are violent criminals because we deported them last
year, including known or suspected terrorists, but we are
asking for a decrease in the detention beds? And to me that is
worse thing we should do.
Clearly, we need detention beds because some of the people
we are allowing to come into the country, your report here,
your annual report talks about how bad these individuals are.
That they have killed people. They have assaulted people
sexually. That they are known terrorists, known or suspected
terrorists. And yet you are coming in and you are asking--your
agency is--and I am assuming that you approved the budget--you
are asking for a decrease in detention beds.
So I am asking you to please justify to me why we need to
be spending less money on detention beds when we are seeing a
huge rise in immigrant population. We know that some of that
population are committing violent offenses because you document
it in your report. And so, please, in the last 20 seconds that
I have remaining on my time, please justify to me why we should
be reducing detention beds and not adding detention beds?
Mr. Johnson. So very good question. I would say that we are
not reducing our detention beds. That 25,000 of the beds are in
our base budget, and the remaining 9,000 beds are in the
contingency fund that, as I have already explained, I believe I
will have access to----
Mr. Guest. Why are they not in the primary budget? Why are
they in the contingency beds? Detention beds are important.
Which I believe that they were. And I believe many people on
this committee, Republicans and Democrats would believe that
detention beds are important. For them not to be in the primary
to me is a colossal failure. And so----
Mr. Johnson. I know.
Mr. Guest. If you could explain why they are in the
contingency versus the primary, I would love to hear that. If
you can't explain it, then I understand, and I will move on
because I know my time has expired.
Mr. Johnson. I cannot explain exactly why it was structured
that way. But, you know, what was most important for me as an
operator was that I was going to have access to those 9,000
beds the first day of the fiscal year, and that was what I
wasn't sure of.
Mr. Guest. Are 34,000 beds enough?
Mr. Johnson. Enough for what? Is like a----
Mr. Guest. Enough to perform the mission that you are
tasked to do. I mean, when we have 4.7 million people that are
in the country, and we are only detaining somewhere between
25,000 and 34,000, I mean, that is, what, less than one half of
1 percent?
Mr. Johnson. I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere. I
mean, 70,000--in my view, 70,000 beds wouldn't put much more of
a dent in this problem than----
Mr. Guest. What is the number? As the Director of this
agency, what is the proper number of detention beds?
Mr. Johnson. It would depend on what you--and what folks
actually thought was an acceptable number of----
Mr. Guest. Well, I am asking you what your opinion--because
you clearly have been involved with this agency. You know, on
one hand, we are saying that we last year utilized 22,000, we
are budgeting 25,000, we think we might be up to 34,000.
Mr. Johnson. We have, historically, made due with 34,000.
Mr. Guest. But we have seen the immigrant surge within the
last 2 years. I mean we have had record immigrant surges the
last 2 years. We are on pace to break that record again. We
have 4.7 million in the country; 1.2 million which should be
removed because of removal orders that were not removed from
the country. And we know that there are some of those people
who were released in the interior are violent individuals, or
at least commit violent crimes once they are released into the
interior because that is documented in your report.
Mr. Johnson. You know, I certainly agree that the folks who
commit violent crimes have to be a priority for detention beds.
In 2019, there was a similar surge, probably not nearly as
much, but still fairly significant, and we brought on 20,000
additional beds, and we filled those beds up in no time as
well.
So I personally don't think there is a number of beds that
you could actually buy that is going to solve the problems that
we are--this problem that we are seeing.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am over time. I yield
back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Guest. We will now recognize Dr.
Harris.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. I see by your
biography, you began your Federal career in the First
Congressional District of Maryland in Salisbury.
Mr. Johnson. I did.
Dr. Harris. Let me follow up a little bit because we are
turning the number 4.7 million out, but that is end of fiscal
year 2022, which was 6 months ago. What is the latest figure?
Mr. Johnson. About just under 5.3 million.
Dr. Harris. OK. So we are now near 5.3 million. So we are--
and I assume our removals have stayed roughly in the ballpark
of 70,000 per year. I mean, roughly, that ballpark?
Mr. Johnson. No, I actually think removals are up a little
bit, but I don't have that number right----
Dr. Harris. Not about 600,000, right? So we are kind of in
a situation where we have an accelerated number. And I can see
why you would want the alternative to a detention program. But
let me ask you what percent of those people now in ATD have the
technology of, you know, an ankle bracelet, wrist bracelet, or
whatever? Is that what we are doing for most people now?
Mr. Johnson. It is a combination of ankle monitors,
smartphones. I would say that at least 50 percent are on some
kind of technology, and that could be an ankle monitor, it
could be a smartphone, or it could be a watch.
Dr. Harris. So 50 percent don't have that? They are just
released into the interior.
Mr. Johnson. No, 50 percent are on some sort of lower form
of----
Dr. Harris. Oh, a lower form. OK.
Mr. Johnson. Yeah. Telephonic reporting or something along
those lines.
Dr. Harris. And of that non-detained docket of now 5.3
million, what percent don't check in, or have cut off the ankle
bracelet, or whatever, you know, they are just not complying?
Mr. Johnson. So let me clarify, the 4.7 million, or 5.2
million, or 3 million, only about 200,000 of those--and I think
that number is around 200,000 are actually on ATD. So of the--
you know, so just a very small subset of the total number of
people on the non-detained docket are receiving enhanced
monitoring that is allowed on the ADT program.
Dr. Harris. So I guess I don't understand. If we have
600,000 more people on the docket in the last 6 months, but
only 200,000 total have this, like who doesn't get it? I mean,
the large percent of people don't get it, right? So they just
release it to the interior, promise to come back?
Mr. Johnson. Or they start off with it. They have ATD--if
they are enrolled in ATD for some period of time, and then they
take it off to make room for some of the new folks that are
coming across the southwest border. But there is a good number
of folks that do not get put on ATD. Obviously, the kids that
are part of family units wouldn't get on ATD as well.
Dr. Harris. Sure.
Mr. Johnson. And a good chunk of the 4.2 million are
representative of families.
Dr. Harris. That makes sense. So, you know, there are some
people who say, well, you know, if you cross the border
illegally, it is kind of a civil offense, not criminal offense.
But if you have a final order of removal, the 1.2 million final
orders, does that become a criminal offense not complying with
that final order?
Mr. Johnson. It is not a criminal offense today.
Dr. Harris. So it is only a civil offense.
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Dr. Harris. And the punishment being negligible, I guess,
because there are 1.2 million people doing it.
Mr. Johnson. Or removal. I mean, that is part of the issue
is just you have to figure out a way to incentivize people to
comply with their removal order until something like that is
done. Now, look, we get a good number of people, albeit small,
that do comply with their removal order on a non-detained
docket, but it is extremely staff-intensive. It takes a lot of
hand-holding, but we, you know--30, 40 a month, which is
certainly not as high as many would like, but it is better than
zero.
Dr. Harris. Sure. And you know, look, you have got to be
frustrated because, you know, the title of your agency has the
word ``enforcement'' in it. But you really don't have the
resource to enforce the law, do you, with regards to removals?
You clearly don't have the resources----
Mr. Johnson. No, we certainly are underresourced.
Dr. Harris [continuing]. With that. Just a ballpark, if you
said--and I was going to ask you, like, what is the average
cost of a removal? Like, I don't know if you know the figure.
What does it cost your agency, on average, to remove someone?
Because I can do the math and multiply by 1.2 to tell me what
your budget would have to be. But what is the average cost?
Mr. Johnson. From memory, it is--again, since we do the
bulk of our removals via charter airlines or ICE Air, which is
our, you know, flying people, 135 folks at a time, if I
remember correctly, that is $17,000 per hour. Each flight on
average is probably 5 hours. So I don't know what that----
Dr. Harris. But you have to find them also. I mean, part of
removal is you have to find them and remove them. So it is
labor-intensive.
Mr. Johnson. Most of the removals are--most of the Title 8
removals historically have come from our detained environment.
Dr. Harris. OK. I understand. Well, thank you very much. I
yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Dr. Harris. We will recognize Mr.
Trone for 5 minutes.
Mr. Trone. Thank you very much. I am sorry we were late. We
have too many overlapping hearings. Thank you, Director Johnson
for joining us, Chairman Joyce, Ranking Member Cuellar.
ICE has worked through Homeland Security Investigations on
the front line of the TCOs and the cartels. You are right there
on the front line. Your budget request in 2024 has asked for an
increase in the tools to assist in stopping these networks in
human smuggling, fentanyl killing 100,000 Americans every year.
Those budget cuts that have been proposed to go back to fiscal
year 2022. How is that going to affect your ability to stop the
fentanyl from these cartels that is come into the U.S. through
illegal ports of entry?
Mr. Johnson. So I am not tracking what cuts you are
referring to. I know we certainly received some additional
funding in fiscal year 2024. We are asking for funding to
increase----
Mr. Trone. Probably to go back to the 2022 budget, which
has been proposed. So you went up in 2023. You have asked for
more in 2024, which sounds like it is needed. But going back to
2022, what is that going to do to you?
Mr. Johnson. Well, it is certainly--I mean, I thought the
cuts had to do with the number of individuals that we just
weren't able to get through the hiring process in any given
fiscal year, and that is the cut that was provided. So if it is
something different than the----
Mr. Trone. No, half the employees would be cut.
Mr. Johnson. Well, right. But, no, I certainly agree. But
at least in terms of the fentanyl context, we were given 40
million, if my memory serves, to sort of increase sort of our
fight against the fentanyl crisis. There was also funding to
allow our Mexican vetted units, our TCIUs to have access to
RAVEN, which we think is going to go a long way in not only
dealing with this fentanyl crisis, but also child sexual
exploitation and some of the other heinous crimes.
Mr. Trone. But we need certainly to protect the budget
where it deals with fentanyl. We can't let it continue to come.
How about the--I have heard about the administration's
considering restarting the detention of families. While some
had posed a public safety risk, I get it. But certainly a
family can navigate their immigration case best from their
home, not behind bars or in detention.
So FEMA and ICE community-based alternative to detention
policies, particularly those utilized case management and
service by qualified nonprofits have shown to be cost-
effective, and have a high compliance rate with immigration
obligations. Can you talk about how the 2024 budget will expand
these community-based alternatives and the noise that we are
hearing about restarting family detention. Is that true or not?
Mr. Johnson. So there has certainly been some discussions
about just, like, options for dealing with the families coming
across the border. You know, family detention is something that
we have done historically. It was raised as a potential option,
and it was something that at least was not met with great
exception amongst the leaders. So there is--at this time, there
is certainly no plan to restart family detention in any way,
shape, or form. The current plan is to continue to use our
alternatives to detention where we would put the parents or the
adults. The heads of household on some sort of form of ATD. And
we are also looking at potentially developing a home curfew
program, which would be similar to, like, house arrest, and
piloting something like that. So that is also on the horizon,
but there has been no decision to restart family detention.
Mr. Trone. Right. Talk a little bit about the 2024 budget,
how is that going to expand community-based alternatives?
Mr. Johnson. So the 2024 budget--well, the 2023 budget
actually reduced our ATD program. I think our 2024 budget may
keep it steady at 170, if my memory serves. So I am not sure
that there is a lot of funding to significantly increase our
ATD, but I think some of what you are describing is the FEMA-
based grants, which I believe is funding that FEMA gets, not
necessarily ICE funding.
Mr. Trone. OK. Great. And, secondly, according to U.S.-
Mexico joint statement April 13, DHS committed expanding
service to disrupt gun smuggling to Mexico through ICE's
operation without a trace. Desert lightning. However, there is
a GAO recommendation for ICE to identify performance measures
for these. How do we plan to measure these efforts of
preventing firearms? What we like to see is some data and some
measurements on how we stop getting these firearms to the
cartels with these new efforts?
Mr. Johnson. Well, very good question and good point. I
mean, that is definitely been a priority over the last year.
More outbound inspections. It is certainly something that the
Mexican Government has been pushing us to do more of, and we
have certainly committed to do the same. So I think over the
last month, in the upcoming months, you will start to see more
outbound inspections that include both ICE and CBP.
Mr. Trone. Certainly, we have asked the Mexican Government
to help us on fentanyl, they have not been helpful. They have
asked us to help on the guns. So someone needs to take the
first step. So thank you for that. I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Trone. I recognize myself for a
second round of questioning.
Mr. Johnson, it is no secret that at the end of title 42
will have a significant impact on our immigration system. ICE
previously released tens of thousands of noncitizens in the
interior to ensure detention capacity for the projected surge
following the end of title 42. Is ICE planning to release
detainees into the interior in order to make room for high-
border crossing projections ahead of May 11, like you did
previously? And if so, how many, and what are the metrics that
you are basing that decision on?
Mr. Johnson. Very good question, sir. We were sitting at
around 25, 26,000 individuals in custody today. We are
certainly going to try to get that number down to close to
22,000 or 21,000 leading into May 11. We hope to do that,
primarily, through increased removals, but it may--you know, we
will continue to look at our detained docket. And if there are
individuals that are sitting in custody and where removal is
not likely foreseeable in the reasonable future, then we would
probably look to arrest--I mean, to release some individuals
just to free some space up. There will be some combination of
releases, but mostly removals to get our population down.
Mr. Joyce. Do you anticipate needing additional
supplemental resources to address the coming surge after the
end of title 42?
Mr. Johnson. I do anticipate the need for additional
resources. As someone pointed out early on, we were already
looking at a $485 million shortfall. We have asked for funding
to cure that hole. And we are certainly anticipating some
additional transportation and, you know, air frame requirements
as a result of the end of title 42.
Mr. Joyce. When you make this decision to release people of
the interior, what is the vetting process that you are putting
these individuals through before you let them run amuck in our
country?
Mr. Johnson. Well, obviously, we are focusing on those that
are either non-crims or very low-level criminals. mean, I don't
know that we have gotten to the point where we would have had
to consider releasing any low-level criminals. But if there are
certain border cases, we will run them through our regular
checks, which includes criminal history. But, you know, most of
the folks that we are releasing from custody would not have a
criminal history.
Mr. Joyce. Well, they may in the country of origin, but you
don't bother to look at those, correct?
Mr. Johnson. We don't have access to those--many we don't
have access to many of those countries' records.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I will yield to my distinguished
Ranking Member, Mr. Cuellar, if he has any second-round
questions.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of things,
just follow-up. From some of the info that you all provided,
you all have here that as of 4/16 of 2023, the total CBP
prosecutorial discretion releases add up to 802,000 people. As
you know, by that is when they are overwhelmed, Border Patrol
will put them on the notice to report with you all and not the
notice to appear before an immigration judge. This 802,000-
plus, is this fiscal year, or is it since when?
Mr. Johnson. This is since March 21, 2021. So since they
actually started----
Mr. Cuellar. Oh, OK.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Using the parole ATD or notice to
report. So basically, what, 20-, 25-month period?
Mr. Cuellar. OK. All right. The other thing on the top 10
parole--and you mentioned that some of their ICE offices don't
have that type of workload. Have you, besides asking for more
resources and technology and electronics and signatures, have
you all moved around some of your staff or to try to--I mean,
if somebody is handling a lot less than, let's say, New York
City, can you move people around? Because I know we did that in
some other areas. Can you look at that possibility? I mean, if
you got 10 people working here that are only handling 10 cases,
you got 10 people working here, but they are handling 50 cases,
as an example, then, whatever you can do to move that around,
that would be good.
Mr. Johnson. It is typically--the limiting factor is just
the infrastructure. I mean, it is still the individual--even if
we have somebody in Iowa, for instance, processing somebody in
New York, they actually have to come and sit in the office so
that we can actually talk to them and take their fingerprints
and the like. So, I mean, we are--like I said, we are working
on a technological solution to help with this, but it is just
not a matter of processing them virtually because they still
need to come to an ICE office to be fingerprinted.
Mr. Cuellar. Yeah. Well, let's try to think outside the box
as much as possible. Finally, my last question has to do with
the coordination that you have with the Executive Office of
Immigration Review, that is, the new judges. We have been
adding judges for many years. I think we started to post 2014,
I believe. And right now, as you know, if you look at the
current immigration judges, they are authorized at 734, but on-
boarded only 634. So there is still 76 currencies. They take a
long time to hire judges. The same thing with almost any
Federal agency, the streamlining process. But the Department's
asking for 150 new immigration judge teams in its budget. But I
notice that your Office of Principal Legal Advisor has
requested no new judges. Should we be working the same with the
immigration judges so we can have a backlog? Can you tell me
what efforts you all are--why not ask for any money to add new
attorneys?
Mr. Johnson. Over the last two fiscal years in 2023 and in
2022, we have been fortunate enough to get additional funding
to increase our OPLA attorneys. We currently have 341
enhancement positions on the books. And we have only hired
about 144. The thought is that it was probably going to take us
the rest of this fiscal year to just get through, and maybe
some of next to hire the balance of the 341 enhancement
positions that we have gotten over the last 2 years. And the
focus in fiscal year 2024 was going to be on just the
facilities piece, making sure the OPLA attorneys that we
actually have hired over the last 2 years actually have
adequate office space in close proximity to the judges that
they are going to be working pretty close with. So that is the
focus, at least in 2024, is the facilities piece and the like.
And I am sure in 2025 we will probably continue our request to
beef up our staff.
Mr. Cuellar. And, finally, the work on fentanyl with
Mexico. As you know, DEA is not in the best of standing with
Mexico, and they emphasized that when we were there just a few
weeks ago. So that means as they get the trust back in Mexico,
your department has to play a big role in making sure that
whether it is air cargos or containers coming into Mexico, that
we intercept that so we can stop the fentanyl from coming into
the United States and mainly through ports of entry. So I
appreciate your help. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. I recognize Mrs. Hinson
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going to
follow up on something that we have already had quite a bit of
discussion about, and that is fentanyl. As a mom to two school-
aged boys, I am particularly concerned about what the cartels
are doing to continue to market and employ new tactics to reach
children in this fight.
And obviously, we have talked about Blue Lotus, and we are
closely following the effectiveness of those operations. But my
questions are really about the cross-agency communication and
making sure that that is still robust. It is essential for
countering cartels. But I am just curious, are there areas
where you believe that communication could be strengthened
between ICE and other DHS agencies to make sure that we are
really exercising that cross-agency cooperation to our best
ability?
Mr. Johnson. I mean, I think we have done a really good
job, particularly working with our partners at CBP. Certainly,
the DHS components, I think, were lock-step with it in sort of
fighting this particular issue. Obviously, you know, some of
our DOJ partners we could probably improve some of the
cooperation and the like. But, you know, it is a lot of
territorial stuff going on, and you know we will work through
it and continue to work with our Federal partners.
But I do think that you know CBP is--as long as we are both
resourced appropriately--and Blue Lotus is a great example of
us just having the ability to focus and send more agents down
to just help with this problem, we will get the results. So we
are going to continue to ask for additional funding to deploy
to the border, to the southwest border, to our best teams that
are focused, heavily focused on this fentanyl crisis.
Mrs. Hinson. Well, I think everybody understands, and we
have seen plenty of turf battles in the work that we do here,
but we want to make sure that we are fulfilling that mission
and being able to stop this fentanyl coming into the hands of
our children.
Let's talk a little bit about the Monroe Project,
specifically, since that is in the request. It has been
successful in targeting cartels and connecting traffickers back
to cartels. Can you tell us a little bit more about the work in
that space? Because obviously, with the $41 million budget
request, I want to make sure that this tool is funded to the
level needed for counter trafficking from a comprehensive
perspective. So if you can just elaborate a little bit on the
successes that you have seen.
Mr. Johnson. It has been extremely successful. I mean, it
is focused right there on the southwest border. It is largely
successful because of the relationships we have with our
Mexican partners. You know, we have a sort of TCIU. It is
where--Mexico is where we have our largest his footprint, which
certainly results in some really, really good cases that are
coming out of there.
You know, again, the biggest thing that we have asked for
in fiscal year 2024 that is really going to help those
investigations, and not just fentanyl, but human trafficking
and drug smuggling, writ large, is just giving those folks
access to RAVEN just so that we can start dumping a lot of this
big data and analyzing it and being able to identify additional
TCOs and the like, so.
Mrs. Hinson. And I guess in my follow-up, there would be--
when you talk about access to all of that data, how are we
really working to loop in local law enforcement because we want
them to be able to see. Obviously, if they have detained
someone, we want to make sure that they have access to those
his networks as well. What are you doing to make sure that that
cooperation and that information is empowered to local law
enforcement as well?
Mr. Johnson. So there is about 4,000 State and local folks
that are part of our task forces all throughout the country.
And so we are pretty plugged in to the State and locals. I
mean, his is--I mean, there is a lot of folks that would prefer
to work with his than some of the other Federal partners. So
that benefits us tremendously. And we will continue to sort of
reach out to your State and locals where those relationships
don't exist to try to create those partnerships.
Mrs. Hinson. Absolutely. Well, I heard from a local sheriff
recently who said, you know, the cartels are so embedded even
in a community in Iowa, that it is like a Hydra, you cut off
one head, and then two more pop up. And it is terrifying to
think that is happening right along Interstate 35 in my
district.
So real quick question. Obviously, you are talking about
the need for additional full-time employees. My concerns are
with morale within the agency because it is a very challenging
space to work in. But are you concerned about being able to
fulfill the hires to meet those needs?
Mr. Johnson. I think we will have no issues filling the
positions. We get a number of our folks, at least 30 percent,
last I checked, coming from CBP. The other 60 percent or so are
from the outside. At least, we have not seen a reduction in
applicant interest in our positions when we--especially, you
know, his and ERO in particular, these--you usually get
hundreds of applicants for every one job. So, you know, despite
the abolished ICE sort of rhetoric in some of the targeted
acquisitions, we have still been fortunate enough to be able to
keep a steady stream of applicants.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mrs. Hinson. I now will recognize Mr.
Trone.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Chairman Joyce, as always, I
appreciate it.
Just if you could follow up on the distinguished member
from Iowa's questions on Blue Lotus, I mean, talk about its
success a little bit, but then talk about what we need to make
it more successful and get the top of the top of the kingpins,
which we never seem to quite get, or they operate with impunity
in a Mexican jail that they control and run. And that is not
really getting them. And then talk about why we couldn't have
done this type of an operation a year ago.
Mr. Johnson. No, it is really about resources. And, you
know, there is a lot of priorities. We have been spending a lot
of time on human trafficking and human smuggling, trying to,
you know, figure out a way to disrupt the flows along this
Southwest Border. So you have to just pick and choose where you
want to divert the resources. So we certainly don't want to
pull away from the good work that is being done on human
trafficking and human smuggling. But you do have to find the
resources to divert to fentanyl. And Operation Blue Lotus is
just one example of, you know, everybody sort of putting their
resources together to focus their law enforcement
investigative, sort of, focus at these two ports of entry that
we actually believe are a big part of how the fentanyl is
coming into the country.
So, no, we are asking for additional funding in 2024. We
are going to continue to make it a priority. We are going to
continue to try to bring on additional TCIUs and vetted units,
get them the training here in the U.S., and increase our
partnerships with countries, you know, our foreign partners so
that we can continue our great work here.
I think you were here when I mentioned that the successes
that, you know, the 36,700 criminal arrests that we made, the
27,000 pounds of fentanyl seizures, and then just you mentioned
Blue Lotus, nearly 8,000 pounds of narcotics seized in just
over 30 days which is truly remarkable.
So, you know, we see firsthand that if we send the staff to
the border to assist our CBP partners, there will be great
results. And I think you are going to see more of that in
coming months.
Mr. Trone. And where are we in trying to attack the heads
of the cartels? Which, you know, Obrador has been totally
hands-off and just had a peace, a truce, to not have an open
warfare.
Mr. Johnson. Look, that is the goal of every his
investigation is to pull on every thread until you can get as
high up in the organization as possible. It is not just as a
result of our work in Mexico and our Mexican partners. But even
when an individual overdoses here in the U.S. and our work with
the State and locals, we are right there on the scene, we are
looking at their phones, figuring out who they last made
contact with, and following that all the way back as far as we
can, as high up in the chain as we can to target the head of
the snake.
Mr. Trone. The head of the snake--I mean, we know who the
head of the cartels are. Let's go into some of the cartel. We
know roughly where they are. And why are you unable to get the
Mexican Government to help us target them?
Mr. Johnson. It is a delicate situation. I mean, it is some
things that Mexican Government is going to be willing to do and
some things they aren't so willing to do.
Mr. Trone. The government is willing to tolerate having the
heads of the cartels run the cartel. We know where they are, we
know who they are, and they are OK with that.
Mr. Johnson. We work with our foreign partners as best we
can. And for the things that they are willing to help us with,
we accept it, and we do try to push them in certain areas where
we can. But at the end of the day, we have very little legal
authority in Mexico to do anything ourselves.
Mr. Trone. Well, we thank you for your working with them
and doing that, but I don't call that partnership. That is a
different word. It is hardly partners when they don't partner
the whole way up to the top. And we just, you know, indicted
the head of the Mexican Government's--all their efforts on drug
trafficking for a decade. Their top guy, you know, we just
indicted him. And he is the one we shared all of our secrets
with for over a decade, and we trusted implicitly. And, of
course, now we know he was on the cartel's payroll the entire
time. So there hasn't been a partnership, so to speak. And I
think a lot of Americans are fed up with it. We are fed up with
100,000 deaths. So I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. I think you have unanimous agreement on that,
Mr. Trone. Mr. Cloud? Mr. Guest. I am sorry.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk about
the detention docket again. Fiscal year 2021, roughly, 3.7
million total on the detention docket. Fiscal year 2022, it
grew by a million to now, roughly, 4.7, slightly over 4.7,
based on what I have read and what I have heard. Also, it
appears that for the first, roughly, half of fiscal year 2023,
that has grown by another 600. And by the end of the year,
assuming that things continue, the total number of individuals
on the non-detention docket will reach close to 6 million,
which is a huge increase over the last 2 years.
And so, as we have seen a growing increase in the non-
detention docket, of that we know that 1.2 million on that
detention docket, at least at the end of fiscal year 2022 had
final orders of removal. And correct me if I am wrong, but a
final order of removal means that that case has been played out
through the judicial system. An immigration judge has
determined that that individual has no legal status to remain
in the country. And that at that point, once that individual is
encountered, that individual is to be removed from the country.
So we know that at least of that somewhere where we sit right
now, 5.3 million, 1.2 million have already completed their
legal proceedings. They have been ordered to be removed.
And so as we see these numbers grow, whether it be on the
non-detention docket, you know, we have seen that the number of
removals, particularly, going back from 2019, has decreased
dramatically. 2019 removals were, roughly, 247,000. We know
that the last 2 years, that number has hovered, I think, last
year was an increase from the year before. The year before, I
think, was roughly 60,000. Last year, roughly 72,000.
And so my question is as we seem to be doing a worse job of
removing people from the country at a time in which we have an
increase in cases--and I want to ask is that because you don't
have the resources, is that the policies that have been placed
down? You know, I have been told that there were policies
placed by this administration that unless an individual had
been convicted of a crime, that we weren't to actually go out
and enforce orders of removal. And if we have been asked not to
enforce orders of removal, which were orders by a judge to go
do something, I find that very problematic. And is the reason
those numbers have dropped is because you have had to put all
of your personnel in the southern border to address the surge,
which has not gotten better. And after 42 goes away, we will
probably get worse. And so, where is the disconnect?
As we have more people on the non-detention docket, as we
have more orders of removal, but the people that were we are
removing seems to not really be increasing and has decreased
dramatically from behind 2019, please explain to me, Director,
why we were not doing a better job of interior enforcement,
particularly of those individuals whose cases have played their
way out through the justice system?
Mr. Johnson. Really good questions. I think that the reason
for the drop in removals are three-fold. I think it does have
something to do with our focus on the southwest border and us
deploying a lot of staff to the southwest border to deal with
the flow. We have certainly used our planes and assets and
resources to expel a lot of those folks that were coming
across. And that certainly impacted our ability to put title 8
removals on those planes and in those seats as we have
historically done.
I also think that, as I have mentioned previously, that the
bulk of our removals come from our detention setting. So,
obviously, it is much easier to move someone when they are in
your physical custody as well.
Mr. Guest. Well, and that gets back to my whole argument of
why are we reducing detention beds if it is easier to remove
people in detention? And I know we talked about it, whether it
is in the primary budget or contingency budget. But it
shouldn't be in the contingency budget. If it is easier to
remove people, once they are in detention--and you have agreed
with that, and I agree with that, but yet, we have a budget
which is actually shrinking detention beds, I find that
counterproductive. And I am not trying to be argumentative.
This is something I am extremely passionate about. I know that
you are, and you are passionate about making sure that you are
representing the men and women that you serve with.
But to see this budget request by this administration, and
to see a decrease in detention beds at a time in which we see a
spike in every other number, I find that hard to justify. And I
am not--and I don't place this blame solely on you. I know that
you didn't get to write this budget without input of others,
but the detention beds are a key component of that. And at the
rate that we are going when we are removing 72,000 out of 1.2
million, that is less than 5 percent a year. And so, it is
going to take 20 years just to remove the people that we have
orders on. And as these additional cases work their way through
the system, we are going to see those numbers grow
exponentially. And it just doesn't seem to me that we either
don't have the resources or we don't have the policies in place
to enforce the law. And that is all we are asking. We are just
asking the law be enforced. If there is an order of removal,
that that person be removed. And we are not enforcing the law.
And, unfortunately, your agency has been tasked with enforcing
the law, and we are not doing that.
And so, I am very concerned about that. And I hope that you
can explain to us what you need in the form of resources, what
you need in the form of detention beds, what you need in the
form of technology. What can we provide you so that you and
your agents can do the job that you are tasked to do? Because
clearly, you don't have the resources that you need. Clearly,
you don't have the manpower. You don't have the detention
space. You don't have the technology.
I mean, we just talked about the fact that we are allowing
people in the country, and we have no access to their criminal
record from their country of origin. That is disturbing to me.
It should be disturbing to all Americans that we are allowing
people into the country, and we have no idea what crimes they
may have committed in their home country. And yet we are
deciding whether those people are sent into detention--and we
know there are very limited detention beds--and just released
into the interior. And so what do you need from Congress, what
do you need from us on the Appropriations side that is going to
allow you to enforce the law and do the job that you were
created to do, you and your agency?
Mr. Johnson. So as I mentioned, I think we definitely need
additional officers and support staff to work the significant
increase in the non-detained docket, which will probably double
at the end of this year, to close to $6 million if we were spit
balling. I certainly--I disagree. I don't think, as I have
mentioned already, I think I do have access to those 9,000
beds. So in my mind, I think we are going to be you know right
around the 32- to 34,000 funding that we have historically had
going into next fiscal year. And again, I am hopeful that we
will actually be able to use beds that we had before COVID
where, when we started off in the beginning of the pandemic, we
were only using 50 percent of our capacity because of social
distancing requirement, all of the mounds of litigation, and,
you know, some of the litigation and some of the social
distancing requirements.
Today, we are at like 73 percent of our bed capacity, our
bed use. Hopefully, on May 11, we can get to the norm, which is
typically around 88 to 93 percent of our capacity. So again, I
think if that happens, you will see more removals as a result
of us just being able to use more of our detention capacity,
and you won't see the title 8--the title 42 expulsions; there
will be all title 8 removals. And I think we will really be
able to do an apples-to-apples comparison of where we were in
2019 compared to where we are right now.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Guest. I now recognize Sheriff
Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to follow up
on Mr. Guest's line of questioning, you know, earlier when I
brought this issue up, you talked about we are flying all these
expulsions out, and we don't have room for the others who have
been adjudicated. That 1.2 million that have orders to be
deported, and we are not moving them. Yet, we seem to have the
ability to move everybody at the border to the interior of the
country. If we have got the means to move people to the
interior of the country, why can't we move them the other way
and move them south where most of them are coming from? I don't
quite understand that.
I want to ask you about an executive order that the
President signed sometime back on law enforcement reform that
is going to require agencies that partner with Federal agencies
to meet a whole lot of guidelines that actually came out of the
George Floyd Justice Act. This is under section 19 in the
President's executive order. I know how much you rely on
partnerships with State and local law enforcement. In fact, in
your own written testimony, you mentioned the 4,000 task force
officers that are helping you. I believe that this section 19
is going to create a problem, because many of these agencies
are not going to be able to meet those section 19 standards in
that executive order. And according to the order, if they don't
meet it, they are not going to be able to work with you. Are
you aware that this is coming down the line?
Mr. Johnson. I am sorry, Representative Rutherford, I am
not tracking that, but I appreciate you bringing that to my
attention.
Mr. Rutherford. Please look at that, because I know how
important these partnerships are. It is important to law
enforcement that we partner with you all, not just on the, you
know, the illegal immigrants, but all of the criminal efforts
that we have with his, and all of that. So I just want to be
sure you were aware of that.
The other thing is that ARROW, you ran that. You know that
program inside and out. You know, as a sheriff--one of the
things that I have really appreciated was the 287(g) program
that allowed--particularly, now when we get into the police
side of it, but the correction side of it, the jail-base
program.
You know, those folks have already been arrested. They are
clearly the folks that we want to get out of our country. And
so, can you tell me how is that program working now? Are we
encouraging agencies to become 287(g), at least on the
correction side? Can you talk a little bit about that? Are
those numbers going up or down because I heard that we were not
renewing contracts. Is that true?
Mr. Johnson. So we have not increased the 287(g) agreement,
but we----
Mr. Rutherford. Why not?
Mr. Johnson. Have not eliminated any existing agreements
either. So the program has sort of remained the status quo.
When there was a commitment to take a look and do a review of
the 287(g) program, and I think that is something that the
Department may continue to want to do at some point.
Mr. Rutherford. Director----
Mr. Johnson. From my perspective, I think a totally
functioning and an appropriately running 287(g) program is the
best thing since sliced bread. With our workforce, the size of
our workforce, they serve as a force multiplier.
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah.
Mr. Johnson. I would much rather our officers go into a
secure setting at a facility, assume custody of an individual
rather than have to do an at large arrest out in a community.
Mr. Rutherford. Exactly. And so let me ask, can you give me
the numbers on whether that program is going up or down over
the last several years, particularly since the Biden
administration? And why aren't we growing that program? I know
that there has got to be some agencies that want to participate
in that, and from a public safety standpoint, I mean, you just
said it. These are the folks who we have already taken off the
streets. These are the easiest deportations you could possibly
have. You don't have to go arrest them, they are already
incarcerated.
Mr. Johnson. So I will say, again, that the numbers have an
increase or a decrease over the last 3 years. We can get you
the exact numbers. I think just as there might be a few
jurisdictions out there that may want to enter into an
agreement; there is probably other jurisdictions out there that
would actually have absolutely nothing to do with us and nor
would they want to enter into a 287(g) agreement.
So I think it cuts both ways. I think we have just been on
pause with entering into any new agreements until we figure out
where folks might be headed on this thing.
Mr. Rutherford. And just very quickly, I know I am out of
time, but you think it is a great partnership?
Mr. Johnson. I think any time we can arrest someone in a
secure location without putting our officers in danger of
having to go out and arrest them, you know out on the streets
or in their homes or at work then it is obviously a benefit for
us.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. Thank you very much. I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Sheriff. And for any of those
questions that some of the members may have had that you are
going to get back to, if you wouldn't mind, I would like to try
to have you get back to them within 15 business days from
today. There may be additional questions that some of the
members may have and will provide to you in writing. And I
would ask you to respond to those actually in a timely manner.
Again, I would like to thank you for being here today and
for the work that you do. And this subcommittee is adjourned.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, April 18, 2023.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. DEANNE CRISWELL, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY
Mr. Joyce. Today's hearing will come to order. This
afternoon we welcome the Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Deanne Criswell to testify on FEMA's fiscal
year 2024 budget request.
Administrator Criswell, thank you for joining us today.
Thank you for your decades of service to our country in the
military, as a firefighter and first responder, and your years
in emergency management.
FEMA has a simple, yet critical, mission of helping
American people before, during, and after their disasters. The
fiscal year 2024 budget request for FEMA is $25.5 billion. The
majority of those funds, $20.1 billion, are requested for the
Disaster Relief Fund to support response and recovery efforts
for major disaster declarations, including the COVID-19
pandemic.
The requested funds are on top of the $170 billion that
Congress has appropriated for the Disaster Relief Fund since
2020, and in addition to the supplemental request that we
expect to receive in the coming days, to ensure that the
Disaster Relief Fund continues solvency in the current fiscal
year.
To date, FEMA has obligated approximately $112 billion in
response to the COVID disaster, and that only represents the
expenses for which the States have requested and received
reimbursement so far. States will continue to incur costs
through May 11, when both the disaster period and the public
health emergency will officially end.
I would like to hear from you today on the biggest
challenges FEMA faces to continue to manage the COVID disaster,
including FEMA's projections for the total of COVID disaster
spending and whether the continued focus on the COVID disaster
detracts from FEMA's ability to respond to past, current, and
future disasters.
Lastly, I am concerned to see a continued focus on FEMA's
so-called ``Road to Resilience,'' which represents a
significant reorganization to FEMA programs and functions in
the name of attaining an ill-defined nebulous goal. This
initiative is, at best, merely a talking point in this
Administration's ongoing resilience narrative. At worst, it has
the potential to severely hamper FEMA's ability to support its
core disciplines of preparedness, response, recovery, and
mitigation.
Administrator Criswell, I want to thank you and everyone at
FEMA for your hard work and dedication. I look forward to your
testimony today and working with you throughout the fiscal year
2024 appropriations process.
Now, before I turn to our witness for her statement, I
would like to recognize our outstanding ranking member, Mr.
Cuellar, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
First of all, good afternoon. It is a pleasure seeing you
again, Administrator Criswell. Thank you, again, for the work
that you do, and please thank all of your men and women that
work for FEMA.
In Texas, we have seen a variety of natural disasters,
including hurricanes, floods, wildlife, tornados, and droughts.
The frequency and the severity of these disasters are not just
in Texas, but they are all over the country, as you know. They
are on the rise and increasing with severity.
FEMA's work helps communities affected by these disasters.
The Disaster Relief Fund provides the funding necessary to
respond to disasters like in Texas and assist with the recovery
process, including providing critical resources and supplies.
And, of course, one of the things that we are interested in is,
how do we expedite, how do we become more efficient, how do we
provide that help when--at the moment of need at that time. So,
we appreciate the work that FEMA plays in helping in the
greatest time of needs before, during, and after the disaster,
but again looking at efficiency and effectiveness on that.
Today, you know, we certainly want to hear from you about
the fiscal year 2024 funding requirements for the agency and on
the challenges and the opportunities that lie ahead for FEMA. I
am interested in learning about what steps FEMA is taking to
ensure that it is adequately resourced as we head into wildlife
and hurricane season. I am particularly concerned about the
shortfall in the Disaster Relief Fund, and want to learn more
about what FEMA is doing to prepare for any difficulties that
may arise.
I, again, want to thank all your workforce that do a great
job for y'all. And certainly, I also want to hear a little bit
about the committee--I mean, about the work, the $90 million
that we put for Operation Stonegarden that goes to Border
Patrol and local law officials.
This program, I think we started it back in 2008, and it is
critical to ensure that border communities have the resources
to improve border security in their own backyard. So, I
certainly want to talk about how this funding is distributed
and if you are facing any challenges that we can help you with.
Finally, I do want to, you know, ask you later on if we can
talk about your performance strategic plan, your key
performance measures, and what we need to do. I have looked at
some of them. With all due respect, I think we need to do a
little bit of work on some of that.
And, with that, I say thank you, and I look forward to your
testimony and your answers to these questions.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
Administrator Criswell, without objection, your full
written testimony will be entered into the record. With that in
mind, we would ask you to please summarize your opening
statement in 5 minutes.
Ms. Criswell. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEANNE CRISWELL
Chairman Joyce, Ranking Member Cuellar, and other members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today regarding FEMA's $30.2 billion budget request
for fiscal year 2024.
Today, our Nation faces an unprecedented number of complex
disasters that require emergency managers to be more adaptable
and ready to act at any moment. Natural disasters are becoming
more intense, more frequent, and much more destructive, and I
believe this is a pattern that will continue into the
foreseeable future.
In just the last few weeks before this hearing, FEMA is
supporting five States with impacts from severe weather
outbreaks that took many lives and displaced thousands of
people. Our fiscal year 2024 funding request ensures that the
agency can continue to meet these challenges and be prepared
for the future as FEMA works to support our Nation before,
during, and after disasters.
FEMA has aligned our budget request to support the goals
outlined in our 2022-2026 strategic plan. These goals are
instill equity as a foundation of emergency management, lead
the whole of community in climate resilience, and promote and
sustain a ready FEMA and a prepared Nation.
To begin today, I would like to highlight the work that we
are doing to ensure that all disaster survivors receive the
assistance for which they are eligible for. Disasters can
impact anyone, but they can affect individuals and communities
differently. So, our budget request has equity considerations
woven into all of the work that we do.
We are also improving the customer experience to the
development of more user-friendly digital tools that will
reduce the time our customers spend accessing and submitting
grant applications and forms for public assistance. These tools
increase the capability of our customers while removing
unnecessary barriers during their preparedness, recovery, and
mitigation efforts.
FEMA is also requesting funding to continue building
climate resilience in our Nation's disadvantaged communities by
modernizing our suite of flood insurance products to make them
more accessible.
The second pillar of our strategic plan is leading a whole
of community in climate resilience. FEMA is not just a response
and recovery agency. We are working with our partners to
mitigate the impacts of future disasters. Thanks to strong
bipartisan congressional support, we have made available
historic levels of mitigation funding to communities over the
past 2 years.
Our budget request includes $41.7 million to support
strategies and products to address climate change through
community partnerships. This includes further investments in
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, or our BRIC
program, as well as our Hazard Mitigation Grant program, which
will help fund projects to mitigate the impacts of future
disasters. We are also implementing a building code strategy
that increases hazard resilient building code adoption across
our Nation.
In the fiscal year 2024 budget, we estimate setting aside
$1 billion of the Disaster Relief Fund to be used exclusively
for our BRIC program. This set-aside will help communities
build capacity by funding hazard mitigation projects, such as
seismic retrofits, storm water management plans, and the
construction of flood control and floodways.
The quicker we recognize and implement these proactive
measures to reduce the loss of life and property, the safer and
better off we are as a Nation.
Finally, as FEMA faces an increasing number of catastrophic
disasters, we must increase our workforce along with capacity
at the State and local level. Our budget request supports our
work to promote and sustain a ready FEMA and a prepared Nation.
The FEMA workforce is the agency's most valuable asset. Our
budget request also includes $20.1 billion for the Disaster
Relief Fund, which serves a vital function in addressing
current and future disasters.
To reach this number, FEMA worked closely with disaster-
impacted States and territories to better understand their
recovery needs from ongoing catastrophic disasters. This was in
addition to reviewing and evaluating the historical cost
average for non-catastrophic disasters, the previously
mentioned allocation for BRIC, and ensuring the reserve has
available funds for initial response operations for any
catastrophic event.
Just in this year alone, I have seen firsthand how tornados
and severe storms have devastated communities in Mississippi,
in Arkansas, and in California, and how our first responders at
all levels of government came together to provide the critical
resources to aid in these recovery efforts. It is imperative
that we work together to ensure the DRF is sufficiently funded
so that communities have the resources they need to quickly
rebound from these traumatic events.
And I would be remiss to not briefly mention the work that
we do through mitigation to prepare for other threats facing
our country. Terrorist attacks can happen at any time or any
moment, as we were reminded recently on the 10th anniversary of
the Boston Marathon bombing. Our budget request includes a $55
million increase for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program.
These vital grants will support our communities through
physical security enhancements and other activities for
nonprofit organizations that are at a high risk of terrorist
attacks.
In closing, the fiscal year 2024 appropriations request
will adequately position FEMA to face the critical challenges
ahead in emergency management, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much. And we will begin
questions, if you will, and I will begin.
We have spent $112 billion on eligible COVID expenses out
of the Disaster Relief Fund since fiscal year 2020, and we will
likely spend additional funds as reimbursement requests from
States continue to emerge. Under the latest projections, FEMA
anticipates a $11.7 billion deficit in the Disaster Relief Fund
this fiscal year, with funds running out sometime this summer.
As we continue to see Disaster Relief Fund balances
decrease by billions each month and as we move into hurricane
season, do you have a plan to curtail spending on COVID to
ensure FEMA has sufficient funds available to immediately
respond to a catastrophic disaster?
Ms. Criswell. Chairman, I would, you know, first like to
recognize that the COVID-19 incident period has been the
longest one in our agency's history, and it is the first ever
nationwide disaster for all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, our territories, and three Tribes simultaneously. And
I would like to personally thank all of our staff who have
worked tirelessly over the last 3 years supporting the response
efforts and helping these communities.
We have taken a lot of measures over the last 3 years that
we have been responding to COVID-19 to make sure that we are
understanding what the costs are that communities are
experiencing and that we are taking the appropriate measures to
look at where they are getting funding from, other sources, so
we don't have a duplication of effort.
We have, to date, already recovered over $3 billion in
costs that were obligated for COVID-19 for a variety of
reasons, and we will continue to do this effort to make sure
that only those costs that are eligible are reimbursed, just as
we do with all of our disasters.
Mr. Joyce. Will the funds requested in the forthcoming
supplemental in the fiscal year 2024 budget fully address all
COVID reimbursement requirements or do you anticipate that we
will need additional fiscal resources in fiscal year 2024 and
beyond to continue to address COVID expenses?
Ms. Criswell. The amount of the supplemental that you are
going to see will address all of the requirements that we
expect for the remainder of this fiscal year, and I do believe
that our budget request going into fiscal year 2024 will
incorporate the costs as we expect them right now from COVID-
19. But, I would say that this has been one of those more
unpredictable events, right? With a disaster, a natural
disaster, we have good data. We have an understanding of the
types of costs that communities are going to experience. We
have been working every day through our Regional Administrators
to better understand the costs that these communities have
experienced, and I do believe that we have a good understanding
going into fiscal year 2024. But, we have yet to receive all of
their bills. And so, as we continue to do that, we will
continue to work with them, looking at all of the available
funding sources that they have to cover the expenses that they
experienced responding to COVID-19.
Mr. Joyce. You mentioned in your last answer about the
oversight. What measures are in place to provide proper
oversight for the $112 billion obligated to date for COVID
expenses? And how are you minimizing waste, fraud, and abuse
for future funding requests?
Ms. Criswell. This has been one of our very focused areas,
right? Again, this is a disaster that we have not experienced.
We adapted our policies to meet the needs of communities, and
we wanted to make sure that we had all of the measures in place
to make sure that we were monitoring the funds--monitoring the
obligations--to make sure that they were used appropriately. We
have put measures in place to address things like in our Lost
Wages program, as well as our Funeral Assistance program, to
monitor for fraud and abuse. And I would be happy to have my
team get together with you and go over some of the details of
the actual items that we have put in place to monitor those.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I now recognize the ranking member,
Mr. Cuellar, for his questions.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The disaster assistance, as you know, it is very important
for different communities. And certainly, as you know, every
State is diverse and different. How--one of the issues that I
want to focus on is reducing the complexity in the Public
Assistance Program. As you know, this is implemented through
the process known as the Project Worksheet process, and even
though it has been an effective tool for providing disaster
assistance, there can be challenges associated with it. And one
of them is the complexity.
I assume, if you are in the middle of a disaster and you
are stressed out, and whether you are a public official or
homeowner, renter, especially for small communities, that can
be tough, and especially communities or organizations that have
limited resources. And this can, of course, lead to delays in
the delivery of the assistance and can be a problem when you
are trying to recover and you are trying to fill out the
paperwork.
Like I have always said, I wish I had the little red button
where I just press it and it turns it into a one-pager, get rid
of all the legalese and understand it in plain English.
So, what steps are you all taking to reduce the complexity
and streamline the process, just putting yourself in the shoes
of somebody who is in the middle of a disaster?
Ms. Criswell. It is a really great point, because one thing
that we are very focused on within our mission is to ensure
that all communities have access to the programs that are
available and that we are reducing any barriers that might make
them ineligible or have them not pursue the things that they
are eligible for in order to support their recovery efforts.
We have done a couple of things that I would like to
highlight. And I think first, as it relates to the Public
Assistance Program, with a recent rule change, we have changed
the small project threshold to a million dollars. That means
that the majority of the projects that many of these
communities experience will fall within this small project
threshold, which simplifies the process for them in order to
seek reimbursement. I mean, so we have been working with our
State and local partners to help them understand the benefits
of this new program and how we can streamline that, so they
don't have to go through all of the complicated processes.
We will still have that for our more complex projects and
those that are the more expensive projects, but making this
change, I think, is going to have a big difference in many of
these smaller communities that the majority of their projects
will fall within that threshold.
We also have FEMA integration team members and we also have
liaison officers that we embed in these small communities to
help them through the process, and we want to make sure that we
continue to do that, again, recognizing that every community
has their own unique circumstance--their own unique need.
And I started my career in emergency management with a
staff of two and a half, and I know how difficult it is
navigate the bureaucracy, and I have never forgotten that. And
so I continue to bring that experience with me to make sure
that we are working as a team to help support these
communities, bringing our services to them as much as we can,
instead of forcing them to figure out how to navigate our
processes. And you have my commitment to continue doing that.
Mr. Cuellar. Yeah. And I appreciate your perspective from
doing local work. That makes a big difference.
Do you have somebody that constantly--or a group of folks
that constantly look at processes, regulations that might need
to be amended, deleted, modified, might be obsolete? Do you
have somebody that looks on this on a systematic basis? Because
I think that would help us--or help you do the streamlining
process.
Ms. Criswell. Yes, we do. I mean, that is part of our
Public Assistance team, part of our Recovery team. We are
constantly looking at the way that we can maximize the
eligibility in the items that we can provide within the
authorities that we have, and they are continuously looking at
the ways that we can improve. The result of that is the recent
rule change that we had with the small project threshold. We
are continuing to do that right now with some changes in our
individual assistance program so we can improve it.
I would add one other piece too that we are adding here,
that we just posted our first ever small State and rural
advocate position. We want to bring somebody in that is their
voice--is their advocate. And that position is open right now,
and I am looking forward to having that person come on board
and assist in that process of really looking at our policies
and our procedures to see, you know, where they are creating
unintended barriers.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Well, my time is up. But I do want to
thank you for bringing that perspective from somebody who has
been on the other side and now doing this work. So, thank you
so much.
Ms. Criswell. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Cuellar.
Mr. Newhouse is recognized.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Chairman Joyce.
Administrator Criswell, thank for being with us. I
appreciate your taking the time to visit with us today. Just a
couple of questions about the--some of your efforts.
I come from the State of Washington, where we have seen
more than our fair share, I think, of catastrophic wildfires.
Multiple agencies have a shared responsibility regarding
wildfires and recovery efforts, including the awarding of
contracts and overall management during wildfire seasons. But I
believe FEMA is the principal agency and principal adviser
regarding emergency management.
Given what we have been through as a country, I mean, with
the pandemic and all different challenges we have had recently,
in your estimation, are we prepared for the next disaster? Is
the agency ready to respond, and do you have the resources
necessary?
Ms. Criswell. Thank you for the question. We are facing a
really unprecedented time, I believe, of the increase in the
number of disasters that we are seeing. In 2022 alone, we saw
multiple record-breaking events, weather/rain events over a 5-
week period that broke rainfall records or records that were
set over a hundred years ago. We have seen multiple events
already this year breaking the record number of tornadoes in
the first 3 months of this year already. And I fear that this
is going to be the way of the future.
And so we have to continue to work through what is the
right level of readiness, not just at the Federal level, but
also supporting the capacity building at the State and local
level, because that is where the disasters are going to stay.
They start and end with that local community, and we want to
continue to work with them to build that capacity, and we do
that through our grant programs and through our preparedness
programs.
But more importantly, we need to start to reduce the
impacts of these threats. And so, to get ahead of the need for
additional staff, we have to start to invest in reducing
impacts through our mitigation programs, and that is where
programs like our Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities or our Hazard Mitigation Grant Program are going to
make a big difference for the threats that we are going to face
in the future.
Mr. Newhouse. In regard to the Disaster Relief Fund--and
maybe this was brought up already--but I believe it is
expecting a shortfall. Do you have an idea--any kind of a
measurement of what that could be?
Ms. Criswell. Yes. So, we are expecting a shortfall in the
Disaster Relief Fund this year in the July timeframe. Current
estimates right now are around $12 billion that we will have a
shortfall for. And so we are putting planning measures in place
to make sure that we can continue to respond to catastrophic
events while we work with Congress and the administration on a
potential supplemental to make sure that we have enough funding
to support the ongoing recovery efforts that we are facing
right now.
Mr. Newhouse. Yeah, because there is a lot of calendar left
after that period of time.
Ms. Criswell. There is what? I am sorry.
Mr. Newhouse. A lot of calendar left after that period of
time.
Ms. Criswell. There is. There absolutely is, right? And
that is taking us--we want to make sure that we have enough
funding to respond to a catastrophic event as that is the
beginning of hurricane season and the peak of hurricane season,
which really starts in August and September.
Mr. Newhouse. I am assuming the answer is yes, but have you
communicated with State agencies so that they submit their
reimbursements timely, so that the agency has a good accounting
of what funds will be available?
Ms. Criswell. We work through our Regional Administrators
consistently to make sure that we have an understanding of what
their anticipated requests for reimbursement are going to be.
We have a really good idea of what the expected costs are going
to be for disaster obligations, for natural disaster
obligations.
Our area of a little bit more uncertainly has been through
the COVID-19 reimbursements, but we are working with them on a
day-by-day basis to get a better understanding of what they are
going to reimburse and where we can continue to recoup funding.
We are doing our part to make sure that, as we approach
this potential shortfall in our Disaster Relief Fund, that we
continue to recoup funding. And we have already recouped
several billion dollars over the last several months in
obligations and projects that were considered a hundred percent
but hadn't spent all the money to put it back into our Disaster
Relief Fund. And so we are making sure that we are doing our
part along the way as well.
Mr. Newhouse. Good. Good. I appreciate that. Thanks for
your response.
I may have more questions, but at this point, I will yield
back. Thank you very much.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much, Mr. Newhouse.
I now recognize Mr. Case for 5 minutes.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought that was assumed,
Chair. Thank you.
I just wanted to continue the line of questioning by my
colleague just now. Just so that I am clear, when--because you
referenced the reserve in your introductory comments--you said
that we wanted to make sure the reserve had available funds.
That is the same thing as the Disaster Relief Fund, right?
Or is it? Are we talking about the same thing? We are talking
about money stored up to fund disaster relief when it happens?
Ms. Criswell. Yes. Let me clarify. We don't have a separate
reserve. I want to have enough reserved in the Disaster Relief
Fund to support any potential events that might happen before
the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. Case. And I guess my real question is: Do you have
sufficient reserve in the fund right now, given the demands on
it from recent disasters, and to include COVID? I mean, how
comfortable are you of your projections?
Disasters themselves are hard to predict. But are there any
outstanding obligations that are uncertain at this point? I
mean, how certain are you of whether you have enough money
right now?
And you talked about a supplemental, by the way. So I
assume that you are already working on a set of assumptions
that contemplates that the reserve is not going to be
sufficient unless we do a supplemental in the middle of this
year. So what is your thinking on that?
Ms. Criswell. Yeah. Congressman, we project a shortfall in
July. So our current projections are we will not have enough
money in the Disaster Relief Fund past July to support the
ongoing obligations for current recovery efforts. And so what
we will do is we will put mechanisms in place to delay
reimbursements for some of the recovery operations, to ensure I
have enough funding to support immediate response actions for
life-saving, life-sustaining efforts if there is another
catastrophic event.
Mr. Case. Okay. And is that assumption based on no further
disasters between now and July or are you factoring a disaster
or two into that projection?
Ms. Criswell. We are factoring in the typical size of
disasters that we experience between now and the end of the
year, but it would not factor in some multiple catastrophic
events that might happen.
Mr. Case. Okay. All right. And so, the supplemental would
be really a stopgap, I suppose, right, of--to get the Fund back
up to some kind of solvency. But, there has to be a larger fix,
doesn't there, to the Fund that is more than just, you know,
putting another supplemental amount in there? Wouldn't it
require some kind of more systematic adjustment in the funding
mechanism for the Disaster Relief Fund?
Ms. Criswell. Yeah. The supplemental will make sure that we
can cover all of our bills to the end of this fiscal year. The
amount of funding that we have put forward in the fiscal year
2024 budget, based on our analysis of the types of events that
we have, would be sufficient to cover that. Again, pending
multiple major catastrophic events that might cause an increase
in the demand on it is not figured in, but it is based on an
average year of the type of disasters that we experience.
I think going into this year, our big unknown was COVID-19,
but we have better fidelity as we have been working over the
last 2 years with our States to understand what their
reimbursement requests are going to be. And I think we have
much better fidelity going into fiscal year 2024 and what those
requests will be.
Mr. Case. Okay. Great. Going back to the comments on small
States. So, I come from a small State, and I come from a rural
State also. So, I really welcomed that comment on the advocate.
And I want to put this in the context of one particular area
where this makes a difference, and that is your required
rollover and building code updates over time that I think you
roll them over something like every 3 years or something like
that, roughly. I think I have this right.
It takes us a long time, given the capacity in Hawaii, to
update building codes. In fact, it takes us probably 4 years
every time there is a required--not required, but it is a
condition of our funding, right? So of course it is designed to
incentivize updated building codes along the way. But we find,
you know, there is a problem in the capacity to keep up with
the schedule that FEMA proposes. And therefore, obviously, we
are left at a disadvantage as to grant applications along these
lines.
So the money you are requesting to build capacity, I
suppose that is what that is about, right, to help States
without capacity to get the capacity to update their building
codes to kind of stay current, right?
Ms. Criswell. So, FEMA does not have any authority to
enforce or mandate communities, States, small jurisdictions,
any jurisdiction, to adopt building codes. Our Building Code
Strategy is about encouraging and educating the value of
building codes, and in some of our grant programs we have put
incentives for States.
Mr. Case. Yeah, exactly. You don't have the authority----
Ms. Criswell. But, we don't have a mandate.
Mr. Case. That is correct, but as a practical matter, a
State that does not update their building codes is
disadvantaged from competitive FEMA grants, correct?
Ms. Criswell. It is. And one for our grant programs, which
is our BRIC program, which is our flagship program for reducing
the impacts of disasters, building codes is a piece to that.
We have recognized--this is going into our fourth year of
the program--the impact of having that building code
requirement in our Notice of Funding Opportunity has had. And
so, as we work through this year, learning the lessons over the
past 3 years of this program, we are working through solutions
and options that will help build capacity for State and local
communities to actually adopt building codes. And so, that is
one of our areas of focus.
Going into the next round, we don't know exactly what that
is going to look like yet, but we recognize that it takes a
while, right, to adopt building codes. And we can't expect it
to happen overnight, and we need to help incentivize and
support the ability for State and local jurisdictions to do
that as well.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much.
Apologies, Chair, that probably was a good caution at the
beginning on the 5 minutes.
Mr. Joyce. Well, this morning we had a good time keeping to
our 5 minutes, so I wanted to make sure you understood that,
Mr. Case. Mrs. Hinson is now recognized.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to follow up a little bit on what my colleague from
Hawaii was just asking about with the BRIC program because,
obviously, within the guidance, there is points awarded for
building codes in States that are mandatory. And Iowa code does
not have statewide building codes. So, that automatically puts
us, you know, at a disadvantage, I think, when it comes to
competitive applications. And to date, there has been no BRIC
application approved from the State of Iowa, only one of them
approved in our FEMA region.
So, would you agree that our State is automatically at a
disadvantage and underserved because we don't have statewide
building codes?
Ms. Criswell. Congresswoman, I would say that after 3 years
of the program, we have seen some of the unintentional impacts
of the incentives that we thought we were putting into our
program have had. And as we move forward into this next round
of our BRIC applications, we are going to be making some
changes that will take away a lot of the disadvantages that
have happened and help actually build and support the capacity
at State and/or local jurisdictions' level to either adopt
building codes or have a way to be more competitive in the
program.
Mrs. Hinson. Because, I mean, I heard in your opening
statement that you are looking at equity considerations, and
that automatically disadvantages a State like mine. So, would
you be able to commit to me that you will work with our office
to make sure that we are trying to prioritize going forward in
a way that makes these applications more competitive no matter
if you have those building codes in place?
Ms. Criswell. Absolutely. We want to incentivize, not
penalize communities for this. So, yes, you have my commitment.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay, great. Awesome. Thank you. And then I
think I want to go back to something we talked about last year.
But, I think you know Iowa is no stranger to flooding, which is
the biggest issue to my district, ensuring that flood maps are
accurate to protect families, homes, businesses, you name it.
We just celebrated a major milestone in flood mitigation and
protection in Cedar Rapids last week. But, relying on the flood
insurance rate maps and making sure those are up to date is
critical so that people can make informed decisions.
So, I would just ask you: What are some of the concerns
that you might have with some of those outdated firms that
exist?
Ms. Criswell. Yeah. One of the things that our FIRMs do,
right, is they are a regulatory map, and they really identify
those special flood hazard areas, and they look historically at
the risk that is out there. But we do recognize that our
landscape is changing, and the type of flooding that a FIRM
really reflects is not comprehensive to other types of
flooding. And so, we are working on the future of flood risk
data and how we can better inform communities on the types of
flood risk that are out there.
You know, I want to make sure that we also look at the
difference, right--that we want to have a flood mapping program
that helps communities understand the total impact of the types
of flooding events that they can experience in a different
sense than just our pure regulatory map, which is our FIRMs
that really identify that special flood hazard area.
Our goal is to eventually get those two to come together,
but right now a big focus on using our Risk MAP and our future
of flood risk data to help communities understand future risk
to flooding, instead of just being in a different zone, and so
making sure that we help communities understand the difference
between those two efforts that we have underway.
Mrs. Hinson. Well, I certainly understand there is a delta
there. In my district, six counties have FIRMs that have not
been updated in over 5 years. So, I think that is one thing
that we have to try to jive those two things, given the amount
of not only potential flooding, but flooding that has already
happened and the thousands of taxpayer dollars that have flowed
in to help Iowans recover.
Do you think the request, the $37 million requested, will
be enough to ensure that the maps are updated and that process
can efficiently move forward?
Ms. Criswell. I think the amount of funding that we have
requested is realistic for what we can accomplish in the fiscal
year to begin the process of updating those maps.
Mrs. Hinson. Would you agree that making sure that the maps
reflect the best available science and data on future
conditions is really crucial to making sure they can be
effective?
Ms. Criswell. Absolutely. I have spoken many times on we
can't base everything on historical risk because our landscape
is changing every day. And we have to be able to use modeling
and future risk data to help inform communities, so they can
take the right steps to protect themselves.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay. My biggest concern is, in Iowa, during
an independent report, about 300,000 properties were identified
as substantial risk for flooding, but FEMA is only identifying
about 150,000 properties. So, when you look at that gap there,
that is half, right?
Ms. Criswell. Yes.
Mrs. Hinson. And those people may not be calculating their
risks correctly. So, I think--I would just ask you to make sure
that you are incorporating that best data into reconciling
these two things, because clearly that is a lot of people that
may find themselves in a really bad situation.
Ms. Criswell. Yeah. Absolutely, ma'am.
Mrs. Hinson. All right. Thank you, Administrator. I
appreciate it.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much, Mrs. Hinson.
I recognize Mr. Trone.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Chairman Joyce and Ranking Member
Cuellar, Administrator, for being here today. Appreciate it.
You guys are best known and we want to commend you and
thank you for all the great work you have done on the floods we
have had in California, the tornados in the Midwest, and the
horrible train accidents in Ohio. So thank you for that.
I mean, the cost of these natural disasters, $171 billion.
That is what NOAA estimated in 2022. It is pretty mind-
boggling. And we look at it getting worse and worse with
climate change. So let's talk about budgeting a second and
prioritizing.
You came back in 2023, this year, and you are going to ask
for a supplemental of how much, $12 billion?
Ms. Criswell. $12 billion. Yes.
Mr. Trone. $12 billion. Great. And we are really three-
quarters of the way through in July. So, that meant 75 percent
of your year and we are $12 billion short.
And in 2022, what was the supplemental that was asked for?
Ms. Criswell. I don't believe we asked for--maybe we did. I
would have to get back to you on the exact numbers.
Mr. Trone. We thought there was one in 2022.
And in 2021, was there a supplemental in 2021?
Ms. Criswell. I don't know. I would have to get back to
you.
Mr. Trone. Yeah. I think my point was simple. You know, I
run a business, and we have a budget. You know, ask for what
you think you need. You know, don't be shy. And, you know, you
need it. These people are really in a world of hurt. You are
there to help them and, you know, we want to make sure you have
the funds that you need to be successful. And that is a whole--
everyone feels the same way. So, you know, feel free to try and
ask originally versus having to come back and come back, and
death by a thousand cuts.
I noticed on Procurement Construction Improvements, that
number got almost cut by--you know, almost in half. Explain
that one to me. I just missed it. Wasn't aware why that was.
Ms. Criswell. I don't have the specifics on why that was
cut in half. I would be happy to have my team get back with you
and go through that specific request, but I don't have the
specifics here in front of me.
Mr. Trone. Yeah, if you could do that. I mean, it seems
like we got to think long-term, and, you know, working on your
infrastructure, that is what sounds like construction
improvements is part of. And to cut that from 207 down to 119
is a pretty drastic percentage cut.
Other question would be: Your folks are on the road and
looking at tremendous emergencies and human devastation, and
that has got to take a severe penalty on the mental health of
your team at FEMA. And I want to talk about, if you could, how
you prioritize, you know, the mental health of your team, your
staff at FEMA, and what resources you are putting forward to
that, and anything we can do to help you there be successful,
because your team is the key for everything.
Ms. Criswell. Congressman, that is such an incredibly
important question and topic, and I really appreciate you
raising it. One of the things that I have been very focused on
is making sure that we are prioritizing the mental health--not
just the physical health, but the mental health--and the well-
being of our workforce, especially as we continue to respond to
an increase in the number of disasters. It is not just the
amount of disasters, but also they are talking to people at
their worst time, and that takes a toll on people.
We have done a number of things, from pushing out our
Headspace app, a Headspace app out to everybody that they can
have a resource to go to for individual help, to we have a
mental health nurse on standby that is there for people to go
to and talk to, and she is always available.
We have brought on our first chief medical officer, that we
haven't had in the past, that helps to develop a program for us
to prioritize the physical and the mental well-being of our
employees.
And we do stand-down days. Our Regions do stand-down days.
Our program offices within headquarters do stand-down days to
help make sure that our employees have the resources and the
tools they need to support themselves, but also their
families--make sure that they know their families will be taken
care of if they have to work long hours in response to a
disaster.
And so, it has been a priority for me and all of my senior
leadership across the agency at all of my Regions to make sure
that that is a key in everything that we are doing.
Mr. Trone. That is great. We have a saying at my company
that says, put your people work first. If you take care of your
people, all the other stuff is going to work much better. So
please continue to focus on that.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
The chair now recognizes Dr. Harris.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much.
And thank you for your job helping, you know, protect the
Nation from its emergencies and recover from its emergencies.
I just have a question for you. A news article that I saw
just puzzled me a little bit, but you are going to explain it,
is how the--New York City on March 29 filed a $650 million
request to FEMA to reimburse the city for costs incurred from
sheltering and providing services for tens of thousands of
migrants between last July and February 28, came 4 days before
the April 2 deadline to apply for the funds, which are coming
from FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Humanitarian Program.
Now, I thought we kind of--the whole purpose of FEMA is
kind of to respond to, like, emergencies that aren't caused by
people.
Now, when we say migrants, exactly what do they mean in
that news story when they say migrants? Do they mean people who
cross into this country illegally perhaps, ended up in New
York, and somehow New York is now going to the Federal
Government and saying, wait a minute, this is not our fault,
you didn't enforce the law, they are here, so now this is an
emergency?
Ms. Criswell. Congressman, we have one program at FEMA that
supports mostly nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations,
but also some jurisdictions with their efforts to respond to
the support that they are giving to migrants, and that is our
Emergency Food and Shelter Program-Humanitarian. This is a
program that Congress put forth a few years ago to provide that
additional funding to support these nonprofits. It is managed
through a board, a National Board, that is led by the United
Way, and they make all of the decisions on where the funding is
going to go. We do sit on the Board. FEMA is a member of that
Board, but it is purely a reimbursement mechanism for costs
that are reviewed by the Board to determine eligibility on what
is going to be reimbursed.
Dr. Harris. But this is all Federal dollars. I mean, these
are FEMA dollars, right?
Ms. Criswell. These are dollars that were appropriated to
FEMA and given to a Board to distribute.
Dr. Harris. Okay. So there--so what is the total budget for
this in a year, fiscal year?
Ms. Criswell. The budget for this has gone up over the
years. The budget request in fiscal year 2022 was $150 million,
and in fiscal year 2023, that has gone up to $800 million.
Dr. Harris. And New York City is requesting $650 million of
that $800 million?
Ms. Criswell. They are requesting that, but that does not
mean that they are going to get all of that. This is going to
many different jurisdictions across the country, border
communities, as well as some of the interior cities that are
also incurring costs.
Dr. Harris. So, there is going to be--so did you say $800
million, $900 million? What was it?
Ms. Criswell. $800 million.
Dr. Harris. $800 million. So, I am going to have to explain
to my people, who just paid their taxes a couple days ago--
well, actually, it is today--writing a check to the government
today when we are told that, you know, the people who cross the
border illegally, don't worry, they don't qualify for Federal
programs, the whole thing, don't worry, you are not supporting
them. We are actually supporting them to the tune of $800
million out of FEMA?
I mean, again, look, I live in a district that is on the
ocean. I get it. We get flooding, we get hurricanes, the whole
thing. I think most people don't view FEMA as that as one of
the functions--I mean, I get it, Congress did it. You know, we
do a lot of crazy things up here that have led to a, you know,
$31.5 trillion Federal debt, over a trillion Federal deficit,
which the President's budget never, ever, ever balances.
I got to tell you, I got heartburn when FEMA is spending
$800 million and New York City has the nerve to ask for $600
million to reimburse the city for costs incurred from
sheltering and providing services for tens of thousands of
migrants. I just don't think that is fair to ask my taxpayers
to pay for that.
This is a manmade emergency. It is made by the man sitting
up at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, who decided he was
not going to enforce the law. I think that wanders way far off
the FEMA reservation. I think it wanders way off what people
expect FEMA to do. And, again, I would hope that we would
remove all the funding from that program in this year's budget.
And, of course, cries will go up that somehow we are, you
know--I don't know, we are pushing granny off a cliff or
something. But I don't foresee FEMA as being there to mitigate
manmade emergencies.
And, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Dr. Harris.
I now recognize Ms. Underwood for 5 minutes.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Criswell, thank you for being with us. It is
nice to see you again.
Last year when you testified before our committee, you and
I discussed how FEMA's guidance materials lacked information on
financial assistance for breastfeeding equipment. Without this
guidance, nursing families were asked to figure out eligibility
for supplies to keep their babies alive, all in the middle of a
disaster. That is why I introduced my DEMAND Act, to ensure
breast pumps and other lactation supplies are eligible for
FEMA's financial assistance.
And I asked you during last year's hearing to update FEMA's
website with user-friendly information on breastfeeding and
explicitly include those supports in FEMA's Individual
Assistance Program and Policy Guide, or IAPPG, update in 2023.
It is clear that we share goals in this area, and I want to
thank you for the strong commitments you made in that hearing
which, when completed, will make the changes included in my
DEMAND Act.
FEMA's website is now updated to include information on
breastfeeding supplies and support eligibility, so today I want
to follow up on the second part of the DEMAND Act.
Can you please share a progress update on the inclusion of
breastfeeding supplies and support as an eligible entity for
critical needs assistance in the IAPPG update in 2023?
Ms. Criswell. Yes. Congresswoman, I appreciate the
conversation that we had last year, and we have made changes.
We have updated our website, and it has always been an eligible
expense under our Critical Needs Assistance, but our ability to
communicate that needed to also improve. And so, we have done a
couple of things there as well.
We have updated our correspondence to survivors to make
sure that, when we give out information, they can see that. We
are updating our website where individuals register for
assistance, and that will be clearly articulated in there as
one of the items that they can be eligible for. We provided
training to our staff so they can communicate this and ask the
right questions, right, that somebody might not think to ask,
so we can ask them whether or not they need this assistance.
And so, we are continuing to work on the way we interact
with survivors as well. And then, as we update our IAPPG this
year, it will be included in there. And I will be happy to send
you a copy once it is released.
Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you so much for that. When the
IAPPG is released, the DEMAND Act will be fully enacted. That
is fantastic news.
Now, FEMA still has more work to do to make sure that
families can reliably access this support in the wake of a
disaster. So, I would like to hear about the progress FEMA has
made on your remaining commitments from last year's hearing.
First, has FEMA put together additional fact sheets to give
State and local governments awareness that breastfeeding
supplies and services are eligible?
Ms. Criswell. Yes, ma'am. That is one of the pieces of
correspondence that we have put together to help make sure that
people do understand that this is an eligible expense.
Ms. Underwood. Excellent. And is information on
breastfeeding support eligibility available in the Disaster
Recovery Centers where survivors can see and access it?
Ms. Criswell. And that is part of the training to even our
own staff, to make sure that they understand that as they are
interacting one-on-one with survivors when they come in and ask
for assistance.
Ms. Underwood. And when you mention your staff, does that
include the disaster survivor assistance teams?
Ms. Criswell. Yes. So disaster survivor assistance teams
that go door to door, I will go back and make sure it is part
of their training curriculum when we leave here, but also our
applicant services that staff the DRC and help individuals
register there as well.
Ms. Underwood. Excellent. Well, thank you, Administrator.
You and your team have been great partners on this issue, and I
am certainly looking forward to continuing to work together.
These changes will make a big difference for families with
young children going through some of their hardest days.
I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
Second round? Sure. I will take the opportunity to kick it
off.
FEMA has proposed a significant reorganization dubbed the
``Road to Resilience,'' intended to help the agency better
address, quote, all hazards resilience.
Administrator Criswell, how do you define ``resilience''?
Ms. Criswell. You know, that is a very interesting question
on resilience. And I think, you know, it really differs
depending on the lens that a person is approaching resilience
from, right? It can mean economic resilience. It can mean
financial resilience.
For me and where I am sitting, I define ``resilience'' as
the ability to make sure that communities have the ability to
rebound after a disaster, that they have the ability to reduce
the impacts that they are potentially going to experience from
a disaster through our mitigation programs, and also that we
have the ability to educate individuals across the country as
to what their risks are, so they can be prepared to protect
their families if an event does happen to hit them where they
live.
Mr. Joyce. What metrics is FEMA using to gauge success for
this potential reorganization?
Ms. Criswell. We are still in the very early stages of this
reorganization. And the Resilience organization was put
together over the last 4 years, and it combined two different
parts of our organization. And what I wanted to be able to do
is try to streamline the efforts that they were putting forth
to help communities build their resilience.
Again, coming from my experience as a local emergency
manager, from both small and large cities, I found that I had
several different touch points within the Resilience part of
the organization in order to get different things to help me
help my communities better. And what the goal is for this
realignment is to make sure that the customer, the State and
local emergency manager, have a single point of entry to help
them build the resilience--whether that is a grant program,
whether that is technical assistance, whether that is
mitigation support--that they only have one place that they
need to go to enter into the system, and we make it easier on
them to start to build their own programs to increase
resiliency for their communities.
Mr. Joyce. Well, how are you ensuring that FEMA maintains
its focus on its primary mission and does not get distracted by
buzzwords like ``resilience''?
Ms. Criswell. You know, the fundamentals of emergency
management are response and recovery, which everybody knows.
But the other part of our mission is preparedness and
mitigation. And the preparedness and mitigation efforts were
very siloed within our agency, and by combining them under an
organization under Resilience, it helps to streamline those two
parts, those two fundamental efforts, pillars of the emergency
management spectrum, into an area that we can build that
resilience so we don't have to respond and recover as much.
Mr. Joyce. Local fire and EMS departments provide critical
lifesaving services to the communities in which they operate.
When I talk with firefighters and emergency responders across
northeast Ohio, I often hear about staffing and other resource
challenges facing their department. The Assistance to
Firefighter Grants and SAFER grants program provide resources
to recruit, train, and equip our first responders.
What is FEMA doing to ensure rural communities that are
traditionally supported by volunteer fire departments are able
to successfully compete for this grant funding?
Ms. Criswell. The AFG, the Assistance to Firefighters
Grant, and our SAFER grant programs are two of our most
remarkable programs to help our firefighters and our emergency
medical technicians, our EMS, and our first responders really
build the capability that they have.
And I am really proud when I get to go out into
communities, especially our more rural communities, even some
of our Tribal nations, and they tell me how impactful that
program has been to help them build their ability to respond to
the people within their communities.
Through our U.S. Fire Administrator, Dr. Lori Moore-
Merrell, she is very focused on making sure that we are
reaching all communities, and that we, again, reduce the
barriers and the hassle that it takes to apply for these types
of programs, by trying to simplify some of the smaller requests
to help these types of jurisdictions have that capability to
respond to the people in their community and help save their
lives.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
I now recognize Ranking Member Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to just give a little bit of context to one of the
questions or statements that one of my colleagues made on the
humanitarian relief. Actually, we started that in 2014. That
model didn't work very well. And then in 2018-2019, the model
got changed, where it now goes with FEMA, but it was to address
the issues of what we face at the border communities. It was a
border--southwest border community, because you had cities and
counties that were overwhelmed.
The current system that we have actually got put under
statute by the appropriations--even though we don't legislate--
July 1, 2019, under President Trump, he was the President, and
we originally started with $30 million. And then the $30
million, as even I have said, even I feel that that has grown
too much, in my opinion.
The first tranche of moneys that you all put out, 88
percent of that money went to the southwestern border, which I
am glad that it still--the focus is still on the southwest
border. And then the other 12 percent includes D.C., Illinois,
Maine. Maine gets--it is interesting there. And then New York,
they get the other 12 percent.
Originally, like I said, we had started this to focus on
the southwest border because this is in, and I guess Members
see pot of moneys, and they start including in it, which leads
me to the next one that started off also, John Culberson and
myself, I think we started this in 2008, which is the
Stonegarden. That Operation Stonegarden was to help border
sheriffs, law enforcement at the southwest border.
We added money. I think we started out with $55, and I
think now it is about $90 million. And then once we added the
money there, then the northern--which I am okay--the northern
sheriffs said, hey, we want a piece of the pie. And I think
most of the money is still going to the southwest border.
Then when we raised it from $55 to $90, the prior
Administration said, oh, we got to help those sheriffs in
Florida for reasons. And now it is distributed, when originally
both of these programs started off with the southwest program,
because I have been involved with both of these programs from
the very beginning.
So, I guess my question for Operation Stonegarden, which is
a big one. And I know I have been talking to Congressman Tony
Gonzales. We are hoping we can increase it because it really
helps. My question is: How is this money distributed? Do you
think there is enough flexibility where the sheriffs can work
with Border Patrol to make sure that they stop the bad things
coming in, especially fentanyl?
Ms. Criswell. Congressman Cuellar, I appreciate the
question, and I appreciate the conversation we had about this
recently when we met.
Operation Stonegarden, I mean, it is an incredibly
important program that really helps enhance the coordination
and the cooperation amongst all of the different agencies at
the State, local, and Federal level to support the efforts that
are going on at the border.
We work very closely with CBP, right? We are administering
this program on their behalf, and they use a formula to help
determine what the sector-level risk is going to be to help
determine what those allocations are going to be and where the
greatest need is. And we will continue to work and support CBP
in those efforts to make sure that we are providing the funding
to the areas that have the greatest need.
Mr. Cuellar. The only thing I ask is that you all--you
know, it is a good program. We are hoping we can put a little
bit more money, but I notice here in Congress, when somebody
sees a pot of money and then people start going after it--and I
am okay with the northern border, Florida too, to an extent,
but still the focus on the southern border itself.
What I would ask you is to make sure that we have this
coordination with Border Patrol. Because sometimes there are
governors that take part of that money, and I want to make sure
it doesn't stay with the governor and they send it off other
places, but it stays with the border sheriffs, whether it is in
the northern border or the southern border. But it is a good
program that works, and it certainly supplements Border Patrol
as they do their work down there. So, thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
And now, Sheriff Rutherford, are you ready, do you want 5
minutes?
Are you ready?
Mr. Rutherford. Sure, I am ready.
Mr. Joyce. Sheriff Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I am sorry, you know, we have hearings stacked on top
of each other, so bear with me.
During----
Mr. Joyce. You were here first, before you left----
Mr. Rutherford. Well--last year, Florida was hit with not
one but two massive hurricanes, Ian and Nicole. And they did
significant damage across the entire State. And I appreciate
the men and women of FEMA. They are always some of the first on
the ground. You guys, you know, as a former sheriff, I know the
job that you all do.
However, after the new cycles has moved, debris has been
cleaned up, and power is turned back on, these communities are
saddled with a slow and cumbersome reimbursement process, many
of which they have to pay the interest on. And just last month,
an entity in my district was notified that FEMA was reimbursing
costs from Hurricane Matthew, which hit in 2016. The long
reimbursement process can leave communities, as I mentioned
just a moment ago, fronting millions of dollars in paid
interest on that.
Are there some things that we can do to speed up that
reimbursement process or can FEMA begin to help pay some of
those costs?
Ms. Criswell. Congressman, Hurricane Ian followed by
Hurricane Nicole, just devastating events that impacted
Florida. In fact, Hurricane Ian right now is the third
costliest cyclone in U.S. history.
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah, it is amazing.
Ms. Criswell. I mean, so there is--I understand that there
is definitely a large amount of reimbursement needs, but there
are a number of things that we can do there. You know, in the
first months after a disaster, we really focus on expediting
the reimbursements for their overtime and the emergency
protective measures in getting that cash flow going back,
especially into some of these small communities that don't have
a large cushion in their budget to do that. And so, we will
work with them to reimburse part of those projects as they
continue to gather all of the data.
I think as we get into some of the larger permanent repair
projects and those repair projects that can take years to
finish, that is where we need to really understand all of the
different impacts that a community is having. And we can find
ways to work with them throughout the process, if it is purely
a financial issue that is slowing them down from even starting
a project, right? And so those are things that we have learned
throughout the years, unfortunately, from so many of these
different catastrophic events.
I would be happy, if there is a community specifically that
you know is having a hard time, I will make sure my team works
with them specifically and follows up with them to see where
their struggles are and what we can do to help them.
Mr. Rutherford. Is there any idea how it could take 7
years?
Ms. Criswell. I think a lot of the 7 years from Hurricane
Matthew are, again, some of these more complicated projects.
They need to go through environmental reviews, right? And going
through all of those different reviews are, a lot of the time,
the things that slow this reimbursement process down.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Thank you. And I might reach out to
you on some of that. Thank you.
Ms. Criswell. Absolutely.
Mr. Rutherford. Last year when you were in front of this
committee, we discussed the supply chain concerns that the
power companies were facing when it comes to equipment. And I
am going to bring it up again, these transformers, because I am
telling you, this is a vital piece of equipment. It used to
take months to get them delivered. Now we are looking at years.
And as you know, power companies usually stockpile, you know,
what they can to respond to these disasters, but these
transformers are just not there.
Can you tell me what actions did FEMA take last year to
help bolster these supply chains for this type of equipment,
particularly those transformers?
Ms. Criswell. Yeah, I remember the conversation we had last
year. And we talked about the fact--what we do, right--is we
provide temporary support through generators. We don't
stockpile transformers.
But following our hearing last year, I asked my team to get
with our consultant that does supply chain analysis, and we did
a supply chain analysis going into hurricane season last year,
with one of the areas of focus being on transformers and what
the impact would be. As we went through hurricane season last
year, the impacts to the current stock of transformers didn't
have a huge impact. But, we are now going through another
supply chain analysis going into this hurricane season, so we
can see if there has been any change based on the events that
have happened across the country, so we can work with our
private sector partners to better understand how we can utilize
mutual aid amongst them or is there some other mechanism that
we need to do today to make sure that we are prepared to
support the initial restoration of these critical energy
infrastructure pieces.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much, Ms. Criswell, because
I tell you, that has the potential to be a really horrific
situation. I lived through Hurricane Dora in 1964, when we had,
you know, no power for over 3 weeks. So that is very important
to our State and to our country actually, not just Florida. We
have a lot of problems everywhere.
I see my time is up. With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Sheriff.
Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Administrator, I would like to talk about
equity at FEMA. Bold and deliberate policies are the only way
that we will be able to combat the systemic inequality that we
know is built into our Federal disaster preparation, response,
and recovery efforts. So, I am glad to see that, under your
leadership, equity is being instilled as a foundation of
emergency management. It is literally the first goal in FEMA's
2022 to 2026 strategic plan.
One way that FEMA has unfortunately contributed to wealth
inequality is through its hazard mitigation grants, which help
communities prepare for disasters in advance. FEMA requires
applicants for these grants to use a cost-effectiveness ratio
to show the value of hazard mitigation activities, but because
lower income communities have less wealth to lose, it was
challenging to show the real value of their projects compared
to communities with high-dollar properties and infrastructure.
Researchers have found this disproportionately benefits wealthy
communities seeking the grants while leaving the rest behind.
To address these challenges, in October, FEMA rolled out an
alternative cost-effectiveness methodology for the BRIC and
Flood Mitigation Assistance programs. By modifying the
thresholds for projects to be considered cost effective, FEMA
is giving communities who have been locked out from these
Federal grants a more equitable shot at funds that will keep
them safe in the face of a disaster. This is a powerful step
forward.
After the fiscal year 2022 funding cycle, will FEMA analyze
how this change impacted equity for the grants both in the
applicant pool and the selected grant recipients? And how will
FEMA determine if this alternative equation will be used for
future funding cycles?
Ms. Criswell. Thank you so much for that question, because
it is one of those efforts that we have put forward to try to
make sure that we are removing the barriers that communities
have to accessing the programs that can help them.
Every community has a different experience, every community
has a different need. And unfortunately, sometimes the policies
that we put in place have inadvertently eliminated those who
probably need our help the most. And so, I am really excited
about the changes that we were able to make as it relates to
benefit-cost analysis. And we are going to definitely look at
what impact that has had, as well as is there anything else
that we can do.
I would also say to your comment about being able to do the
BCA was limiting their ability to apply for these programs. One
of the other changes that we have is under-resourced
communities can now also apply for BRIC without competing or
completing the BCA ahead of time. And if their project has
merit, then we will work with them to complete that BCA
afterwards. So, they are not eliminated up front just because
of the hassle and the work that it takes in order to complete
that BCA to submit a project application.
Ms. Underwood. So, it will be used in future funding
cycles, do you anticipate?
Ms. Criswell. Yes.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. What proactive steps is FEMA taking to
ensure communities who haven't been eligible before are aware
of a new cost-benefit method?
Ms. Criswell. Our community engagement strategy that we are
working with our Regional Administrators on is to make sure
that we are getting out to communities so they have an
understanding of these changes is really going to go a long
way, right? Our Regional Administrators work with our States
every day, and they know which communities need to apply for
these programs. And they are helping us communicate that
message down to the State, but more importantly the local
communities.
We are also offering technical assistance--direct technical
assistance--to go into some of our more under-resourced
communities to help them think about the types of programs, the
types of projects that are within the realm of possibility, and
help them understand and bring the right technical experts in
to help them develop and scope out the types of mitigation
projects that are going to have a big communitywide impact for
them.
Ms. Underwood. Right. In working on these issues, I was
surprised to learn that FEMA hasn't collected voluntary
demographic data on who applies for and received Federal
assistance. Data like this is incredibly important for
evaluating existing policies, identifying gaps, and looking
towards the future.
I was glad to hear from your team last August that FEMA has
finally begun asking voluntary demographic questions for
survivors when applying for individual assistance. Can you
share any trends or insights you have noticed since beginning
to collect this information, and how can it inform our work to
make FEMA more equitable?
Ms. Criswell. I think by having a voluntary collection of
this information, it really helps us better understand the
communities that are receiving our assistance and where we
might still have gaps, right, where those islands are and where
those deserts are.
I don't have the data right in front of me, but I would be
happy to have my team follow up with you----
Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
Ms. Criswell [continuing]. Specifically on what we are
seeing, what trends we are seeing, and then more importantly
what steps we are going to take as a result of that
information.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
Republicans in Congress have proposed reverting to a fiscal
year 2022 spending level, meaning DHS would see a $3.4 billion
cut. Secretary Mayorkas has reported that this would mean that
FEMA's grants to help State and local governments implement
preparedness strategies would be cut in half. As appropriators
our job is to make hard choices about funding and committing to
put people over politics when we are making those difficult
decisions.
Administrator Criswell, thank you so much for all the work
that you and your team does or do to center equity in disaster
recovery, and I look forward to continuing to work with you.
I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Hinson is recognized.
Mrs. Hinson. All right. Thank you for round two, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Administrator, for sticking around.
One of my top concerns when it comes to severe weather is
ensuring that our emergency communications networks are
resilient, secure, reliable in the event of that severe
weather. And we talked about tornados. We obviously had several
outbreaks of severe weather in Iowa. And we, last year, had a
major issue when disaster struck; the communications did not
work and the warning system failed. Public broadcasting in
comms infrastructure also needs to be resilient to protect from
issues and delays in the future as well.
So, your budget includes a $14 million request for the
public warning system. Can you elaborate a little bit on the
request for me, and anything else that the agency is doing to
ensure that our emergency communications are secure and ready
to go?
Ms. Criswell. Yeah. Our public alert and warning system is
one of the critical tools that we have that really help
communities get those messages out there. Many of you have seen
the alerts that come over your cell phone, whether it is an
amber alert or a National Weather Service alert, and State and
local jurisdictions have the ability to use that system as well
to put out alerts for their specific communities.
And so the funding in this request, I can have my team get
back with you on the specifics on what it is going to cover,
but it will just continue to expand that ability to use the
system to get that type of alert and warning out there in a
very timely manner when seconds really do make a difference.
But, I think to follow up on some of the other types of
communications systems and perhaps early warning systems,
sirens that communities have, those are things that we can work
with communities as part of our mitigation programs. Those
types of projects are things that we would love to be able--
safe rooms too, right, to be able to help protect communities
through our other funding sources, our other preparedness
grants, to help communities make sure that they can communicate
in a timely manner.
Mrs. Hinson. And I am talking with our emergency managers
on the ground, obviously, before and sometimes immediately
after these disasters, and so I think that is good news to
hear. And I will make sure I communicate that to them as well
that you are ready to partner with them there.
I am concerned a little bit. There is a cut in funding for
the Next Generation Warning System as well in the request. And
I see those, again, as being critical for our public media
stations to ensure that they can get out those enhanced alerts
and warning capabilities. So, I am just curious why that area
specifically with the NextGen Warning System saw a reduction in
funding in this request.
Ms. Criswell. Yeah, I don't have those specifics in front
of me. I am sure at this point it is for sustaining capability
instead of building new capability, but I would be happy again
to have my team get back to you on the specifics on those cuts
and what the impact would be.
Mrs. Hinson. I will just look for the context there, why
that decision was made.
And then I wanted to highlight again something one of my
colleagues a little bit earlier brought up, but the request for
the Shelter and Services Program, $83.5 million, and that also
assumes at least $800 million in total funding for the
Southwest Border Contingency Fund proposal. I see that as a
slush fund. $800 million is meant to be available for--in this
case, it is specifically a migrant surge in 2024, correct? Is
that what that is designed for?
Ms. Criswell. I would have to defer you to the Secretary on
the Border Contingency Fund.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay. Well, my understanding, when we are
looking at $800 million as part of a larger Contingency Fund, I
think it is a misdirection of priorities to send that much
future taxpayer funding, again, to what we consider a manmade
crisis at the southern border. There are tornados wreaking
havoc in my district, taking lives in Iowa; along the region,
disastrous flooding, hurricanes. So many natural disasters and
severe weather, and I think the focus should be on resilience
and mitigation to protect lives of Americans versus $800
million to go to a border slush fund. So I see that request,
combining those two, really as not aligned with anyone's
priorities, so I would push back on that and say those dollars
would be better used in disaster mitigation or disaster relief,
programs like BRIC and the NextGen Warning System as well, to
ensure that we have resilient infrastructure for Iowans.
So, with that, Mr. Chair, I am done asking questions, and I
will yield back. Thank you.
Thank you, Administrator.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Administrator. Appreciate you being
here. And let me just first off say Harvey went through my
district, went over my city, twice actually. Came in and went
up, and so we spent the last few years, and FEMA has been very
helpful by and large. There have been obviously some learning
lessons along the way. And so it has been good to work with
FEMA.
But just wanted to first of all say thanks to you and your
agency and the people on the ground, specifically in Region 6
for all the help in helping our community recover. It has been
much appreciated. And so, thank you.
One issue I did want to bring up on that, and we were
learning, I always would tell people, we are working this on
two tracks; we are working to get your particular case through
and then we are working to learn what we can about FEMA to kind
of look at the overall processes and what could change.
And one of the issues that was concerning--because most of
my district is rural. And many of the larger cities, you know,
they have complete staffs. All they do is grant write all day
and they look into this sort of thing. And then you have some
of these communities and--Taft, for example, 4,000 people and
part-time mayor, you know. And it is just they don't have the
staff to kind of look into these sort of things. Yet they have
to go through the same administrative burden sometimes for a
much smaller project as they would a multimillion dollar
project, you know, and then you would have FEMA staff change
out during the process and they would have to start the whole--
anyway, it could be quite a burden on rural communities.
And I was wondering your thoughts on that. And what, if
anything, has been done to kind of make that easier on rural
communities.
Ms. Criswell. It definitely is an issue, right? It is one
of those things where some of our policies and programs take
this one size fits all you approach. I am not, recognizing that
every community has unique needs, and we know that there are
some communities that have part-time emergency managers and
they wear four different hats, especially in our rural
communities.
And so, something that I am very cognizant of and want to
make sure that we are doing everything we can to reduce the
barriers that these communities have into accessing our
programs just because it is too hard, even though that they are
eligible. And what we find is that oftentimes those again that
need our help the most have the hardest time getting that help.
So, a couple of the things that we have done is, one,
through a rural change have changed the small project
threshold. So to your point of they have to go through the same
level of bureaucracy for a small project as they do these
multi-million dollar ones, we have raised that to a million
dollars, which the mass majority, the majority of the projects
that communities experience will fall within that small project
threshold, which means that it will reduce the burden that they
have into submitting the documentation in order to seek
reimbursement for those projects. That was a rule that was just
passed recently late last year, and so we will continue to work
with our communities so they understand how to implement that
role.
One of the other things that we have done to make sure that
our rural communities have a voice is we have just posted and
we are hiring our first ever small State and rural advocate,
and so that person can be a voice for these communities, help
look at our policies, and help us understand other barriers
that are in there, not intentionally, but had these
unintentional impacts on communities to receiving the
assistance or accessing the type of services that we have.
And so, I am really looking forward to having that advocate
come onboard to be able to really start to look at our policies
from the rural lens. Because when we look at it from
Washington, DC, we only see one thing, and I need somebody that
is looking at it from that lens.
Mr. Cloud. I appreciate that.
Maybe one little tidbit to consider is, I know when, you
know, the community leaves to evacuate, they come back, it is
destroyed. And then what they would find often is FEMA and the
recovery effort was taking up all the hotel rooms, and then
they would try to get in line for a trailer and then it would
be many months and weeks. And just for consideration, maybe
have--rethinking about deploying the staff with the trailers so
that there is room for people to come back and get close to
their home and property. It might be one of the many things you
can consider along that.
I wanted to touch on one more thing. I am from south Texas
and so, of course, the border is there. Most I think Americans
and Texans for sure would be surprised to find that FEMA
actually has a border mission. I was wondering if you could
speak to that. My understanding is it lies outside of the
Stafford Act, and so I am curious about the extra Stafford Act
roles that FEMA has taken on.
And then, you know, I am obviously concerned too about
FEMA's spending money to house migrants who come here illegally
versus in that taking the shift off of helping Americans
recover who, of course, are helping fund FEMA, and us looking
at that from a budgetary standpoint is all. If you could speak
to that.
Ms. Criswell. Yeah, absolutely. FEMA is not a border
security agency. The role that we have is strictly through our
Emergency Food and Shelter Program-Humanitarian assistance,
which is a program that was administered by Congress to FEMA to
manage a few years ago. And it provides funding that we give to
a National Board that helps support and reimburse costs that
nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations, and local
jurisdictions are experiencing, and it is a reimbursement
program. And so our----
Mr. Cloud. Could we get a list of the grants that you have
given out in the last 2 years? It is really hard to find out
grant information, as far as which NGOs are receiving this with
communities and cities and counties.
Ms. Criswell. We will work with your staff on the data that
we have and try to answer all the questions that we can based
on the data that we get back from the National Board. But,
absolutely, we will work with you on that.
And so that is our main effort that we have to support any
of the border activities. I think there is no Stafford Act
impact because our Stafford Act is not supporting any of the
activities at the border. And the only other effort that we
have done is provide our collaboration and our coordination
capabilities that we bring to a variety of different types of
events to make sure that we are bringing all of the appropriate
stakeholders together and support them to set up a unified
coordination group--a logistics operation planning cells and so
forth. And we have provided a few individuals that helped stand
up the southwest border coordination cell, but we have
currently nobody that is supporting that effort.
Mr. Joyce. We managed to get through two rounds, and if you
had another question or so, we have time.
Mr. Cloud. Let me see. I could submit some for the record.
I will do that.
Mr. Joyce. Great. And so additional questions may come from
members, and for those things that the members have asked you,
I ask that you respond to them in 15 business days, if you
would, starting today.
Ms. Criswell. Okay. We talked about that earlier, yes.
Mr. Joyce. I would like to thank the witness for being
here, for all the hard work she does.
And, with that, this meeting is adjourned.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 19, 2023.
U.S. COAST GUARD
WITNESS
ADMIRAL LINDA FAGAN, COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD
Mr. Joyce. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security will come
to order.
I would like to welcome everybody to the hearing on the
U.S. Coast Guard's fiscal year 2024 budget request from U.S.
Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Linda Fagan.
Welcome, Admiral Fagan. It is a pleasure to see you again,
and I look forward--those mikes.
I thank you for your testimony today as we discuss the
Coast Guard's fiscal year 2024 budget request.
Whether it is enabling the flow of commerce through our
maritime transportation system, interdicting migrants on the
open ocean, or combating illicit narcotic trafficking, our
Nation relies on the men and women of the Coast Guard.
Demands on the Coast Guard have never been greater. The
Arctic, Indo-Pacific, and maritime border have all presented
challenges to the agency over the last year.
I look forward to hearing about your plan to confront the
growing economic and foreign military activity in the Arctic,
particularly as the polar security cutter construction falls
further behind schedule.
Foreign interests, primarily China, are increasingly using
illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing activities to
steal resources and undermine a maritime rules-based order.
Admiral Fagan, you have characterized IUU fishing as a top
maritime security threat.
With a mix of both law enforcement and military
authorities, the Coast Guard is uniquely poised to address IUU
fishing and prevent these illegal incursions into our Exclusive
Economic Zone and those of our allies. This is proven by the
increase request by the Defense Department for Coast Guard
expeditionary support. The Coast Guard's presence in the Indo-
Pacific allows the United States to project power far from our
shores and is a vital tool of national security and diplomacy.
Moving closer to home, President Biden's failed policies
have created a crisis at our borders. All the DHS components
have been stretched thin, and the Coast Guard is no exception.
The Coast Guard is interdicting near record numbers of migrants
in the Caribbean transit zone and, over the past years, its
vessels have been at capacity. Just in the past few weeks,
Coast Guard Cutter Campbell apprehended and repatriated nearly
500 migrants who were traveling in overcrowded and unseaworthy
vessels.
This mission is difficult and dangerous for our Coast Guard
men and women, and I thank them for their service, especially
when you consider the Coast Guard Cutter Campbell was launched
back in 1986.
Admiral Fagan, I want to hear how this budget supports
addressing the crisis at our border and how you look to grow
capacity to ensure that our maritime border is secure.
Unfortunately the Coast Guard continues to struggle with
major acquisition programs. As I mentioned already, the polar
security cutter, which has been originally set to be delivered
in 2025, hasn't even begun construction. The 11th national
security cutter is significantly behind schedule, and the newly
awarded Waterways Commerce Cutter Program is marred in legal
challenges.
We need to work together to ensure that the Coast Guard
appropriately manages acquisition programs and delivers the
assets required to protect our shores.
Admiral, I look forward to working with you as we develop
this year's appropriations bill. Before I turn to you for your
statement, I would like to recognize our distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Cuellar, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
And, members, it is always a pleasure being here with you.
Again, Chairman, thank you so much for your leadership.
And good morning, Admiral Fagan. It is nice to see you
again.
The Coast Guard plays a very critical role in many facets
of our lives, from saving those that are in peril to securing
our borders and ensuring our national security. The Coast Guard
fiscal year 2024 budget request of $12.1 billion makes key
investments in personnel, vessels, aircraft, and other programs
that will assist in its search-and-rescue missions along with
its critical activities in our maritime borders, including the
interdiction of drugs and addressing the increasingly flow of
migrants.
To add to its growing set of responsibilities, the Coast
Guard now is playing a critical role in the Indo-Pacific and
the Arctic region. We know what China is doing in both of those
areas. As you know, China now continues to call itself a near
Arctic nation, even procuring at least two icebreakers, despite
being thousands of miles away from the Arctic itself.
China also works with Russia, a country that has at least
40 icebreakers--and some of them are armed--to increase its
presence in the Arctic. We certainly are interested about the
work that you all are doing in the Indo-Pacific, part of the
strategic plan over there, and of course what you are doing to
counter the threats of--posed by China and making sure that we
have the resources to address that.
I also certainly--being from the border, I am certainly
very interested in the work that you all do with the flow of
drugs and how that is coming into our maritime borders, and
certainly, of course, the recruiting challenges that you are
looking at.
According to a recent GAO study, many cite a lack of access
to childcare, education as a reason to avoid services, and,
additionally, the mission demands on outpaced staffing levels.
So we certainly want to work with you. As you know, later on
today, we have Commissioner Troy Miller. And I know the
committee has talked about what we have done for CBP. And I
would ask you to spend time with them and the Department of
Defense as to some of the ideas so we don't re-invent the wheel
together.
Finally, interested in your strategic plan performance
measures to make sure that we measure Federal dollars, how they
are being used. And, in particular, want to talk to you about
how we can jam those two ports--and I mean this in a nice way--
the Mexican ports, where the legal precursors--and that is what
makes it hard--that information sharing is important--are
coming into those two ports from China and of course ending up
up here.
So we look forward working with you.
And, again, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Well, thank you, the distinguished Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Joyce. Admiral Fagan, without objection, your full
written testimony will be entered into the record. With that in
mind, we ask that you please summarize your opening statement
in 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF ADMIRAL LINDA L. FAGAN
Admiral Fagan. Thank you. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Joyce, Ranking Member Cuellar,
distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today, and thank you for entering my
written testimony into the record.
On behalf of the entire service, thank you for your
continued support of the Nation's Coast Guard.
With the funding provided in the 2023 appropriation, we are
continuing our largest fleet recapitalization in decades,
building vital shore infrastructure and supporting our
workforce and their families. The world is changing, and that
pace of change is accelerating. Our commitments to protect,
defend, and save grow every day, and demand for the service
around the globe has never been higher.
In these challenges, there is opportunity, and we must
invest in 2024 and beyond to generate sustained readiness,
resilience, and capability to build the Coast Guard of the
future.
The Coast Guard workforce is my highest priority. But, like
other branches of the Armed Forces, the Coast Guard is
experiencing a workforce shortage. We are struggling to recruit
the people we need to hire into our ranks every year. Our
recruiting shortfall threatens our readiness and ability to
serve the American people. We must invest, not just in
workforce recruiting capacity, but in support initiatives to
meet mission, healthcare, childcare, and housing are important.
We are a global Coast Guard. And, as we continue to invest
in the homeland, we counter strategic competition around the
world.
And the Coast Guard operates the Nation's surface presence
in the Arctic and Antarctica. Our fleet of only two polar
icebreakers does not deliver the high-latitude presence we
require as an Arctic Nation.
The fiscal year 2024 budget request funding to grow the
Coast Guard's icebreaker capacity to enable the shift from
episodic presence to year-round presence in the high latitudes.
Every Coast Guard mission begins and ends at a shore
facility. To generate readiness, retain our workforce, and
support our families, we must maintain and modernize our
buildings, piers, housing, and other infrastructure.
The Coast Guard requires stable, predictable shore
infrastructure funding to ensure facilities are ready when new
assets arrive and personnel have the space they need to support
the recapitalized fleet.
Consistent funding is vital to us to recapitalize our many
antiquated stations, sectors, training centers, air stations,
and housing, some of which were built in the late 1800s. The
fiscal year 2024 budget includes funding to build out Base
Charleston and to complete construction of future cutter home
ports in Washington and Alaska.
My vision of the $20 billion Coast Guard of 2033 includes
$400 million to $500 million a year to accomplish this
infrastructure work. I am certain you will not find a better
return on investment for the American people than the United
States Coast Guard.
I thank you for your continued support to ensure that the
Nation's Coast Guard, like every U.S. armed force, has the
resources necessary to safeguard the Nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you for
your enduring support. I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much.
Recognized for questions, I will start with myself.
President Biden's failed immigration policies have created
a crisis on our border. The maritime border is no exception.
Over the last year, near record numbers of migrants have
attempted to cross the Caribbean transit zone. At times, Coast
Guard assets were at capacity for holding migrants.
Admiral, how does the budget support the increased number
of migrants interdicted against the--along maritime routes?
Admiral Fagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Coast Guard is integral to the lifesaving work that is
encountering migrants at sea. We have been actively involved in
the current maritime migration routes.
The budget support for new assets, the offshore patrol
cutter, are critical to the Coast Guard's ability to meet that
challenge of maritime migration. Assets that we are using right
now, some of them are--you mentioned the Campbell, built in
1986. So it is those unit types, age, unplanned maintenance,
our ability to be on vector reliably is sometimes challenging.
So fielding the new--the new cutters--offshore patrol cutter
that will replace those medium-endurance cutters is critical.
I appreciate the budget support that we do have for
offshore patrol cutter.
Mr. Joyce. When you were developing this budget, did the
Coast Guard assume there were a particular number of migrants
that you were going to be dealing with in fiscal year 2024?
Admiral Fagan. You know, the fiscal year 2024 budget and
all of our budgets reflect realities around our work at sea,
whether it is countering maritime migration, our work in the
counternarcotics realm, particularly in both eastern Pacific
and the Caribbean.
I have recently signed out a fleet mix analysis that looks
at what is the fleet the Coast Guard needs to actively counter
maritime threats and that those--that fleet mix is informed and
supported by the 2024 budget.
Mr. Joyce. It is my understanding Coast Guard assets has
been at capacity for interdicting and holding migrants. What is
the agency's plan for the number of migrants continue to
increase? And, put another way, what missions suffer when faced
with this increased maritime program?
Admiral Fagan. We have moved assets into the Florida
straits because of increases in migration numbers that started
last fall. It peaked into the new year, and then we have
experienced a decrease in numbers over the recent weeks and
months.
To ensure that we have got adequate holding capacity, that
means a Coast Guard cutter with a flight deck on vector, and we
have moved to ensure that we have that.
The Homeland Security Task Force Southeast, which is led by
a Coast Guard officer, then brings an integrated approach.
Should the Coast Guard assets and other assets on scene be
overwhelmed by numbers, we move to activate a--you know, plans
to ensure that people are able to be safely held, that we don't
then have a significant loss of life. And then, for us, key is
the ability to repatriate once we have encountered a migrant at
sea.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you again so much.
I want to talk about drug smuggling routes and threats.
As you know, from one of your reports, if you look at
cocaine, marijuana, and other things that come into the United
States, they are coming in from Central America, so you have
got the routes.
I would appreciate if you all--and I know this is a little
difficult, because the opiates or the precursors coming in from
China into those two Pacific Coast, Mexican coast, as you know.
I believe, when you look at your drug seizures, you have zero--
for the last couple of years, you have zero for fentanyl, which
means that they are probably, either by--coming in by plane,
according to CBP, and then you have got the precursors that are
coming in through those two ports in Mexico, and then probably
mail.
So we can see that there is no fentanyl, which means that
there is certain routes that we are looking at. So, therefore,
focusing on the Pacific side, especially those two ports in
Mexico, they come in, and it makes it hard because they are
legal, you know, as you know, but there has got to be
information sharing with the Mexicans.
I hope that--I think you are hopefully meeting with them.
You met with them over here. That is going to be key, because,
if we are looking for fentanyl in areas coming in from South
America, you are going to find cocaine and other things.
So appreciate if you can talk about what can we do--and I
keep using the word ``jamming'' because, if they are coming in
to a particular area in Mexico, we have got to work there
because, once they go into the border, they have got ports of
entry. They can--passengers, cars, trucks, trains, and it makes
it a lot harder.
Admiral Fagan. Thank you.
We obviously are actively engaged in interdicting narcotics
at sea. The most effective way is to interdict at sea while
narcotics are still in bulk form. And we have not encountered
fentanyl. It is still primarily cocaine, some marijuana, and
occasionally some methamphetamines.
I did meet with the Mexicans last week along with a number
of other senior officials, CBP and DHS, to talk about the
fentanyl problems and what might--what additional actions might
help with the problem as you have identified.
Encountering, you know, before those substances leave the
port, where they are still in bulk form, is the most effective
strategy. And we have talked about information sharing, also
talked with my Mexican counterpart, the head of the Mexican
Navy, around how they are implementing their captain of the
port authorities, very similar to the captain of the port
authorities that the United States Coast Guard executes in the
U.S.
And I am traveling to Mexico next week to continue that
conversation, will meet with my counterpart in the Port of
Manzanillo, and this--just as a network is moving these illicit
narcotics, fentanyl, it will take a network of will to counter
those activities, and we are engaged in those conversations.
Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Yeah. Well, we--you know, members, this makes
it hard, because, I mean, it is legal precursors coming in, and
so that information sharing is going to be important, because,
you know, we don't find the same type of routes like you have
here. It is just very, very different.
But, anyway, appreciate it.
I yield back the balance of my time to--oh, where is Mr.
Case? I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much, Mr. Cuellar.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Newhouse for his questions.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Chairman Joyce.
My assistant is getting the microphone. There we go. Does
that work?
Mr. Rutherford. Use this one.
Mr. Newhouse. Well, good thing we have a small room here.
Admiral Fagan, a pleasure to have you here. Appreciate all
the work that you and the men and women under you are doing for
our country.
And I also appreciate our Washington State connection, so--
--
Admiral Fagan. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. So, as you pointed out in your testimony in
the written part, some of the software and IT solutions that
you have are vital tools for your mission for the military. And
certainly the Coast Guard, I believe, is wise to look for ways
to invest in tech modernization, particularly to support the
maritime domain awareness activities and respond to national
security threats, to cover everything that you have been
talking about so far--the illegal fishing, the human
terrorism--the human and drug trafficking, particularly the
Caribbean, but also in the Pacific Northwest, which we are
seeing quite a bit of it there as well.
So I just wanted to ask you a little bit about that effort.
What are the goals of the new maritime domain awareness system?
I know you have successfully utilized data integration before
to combine data from various sources across the service to
create a common operating picture.
Does the Coast Guard have a strategy to identify and
procure cost-effective commercial solutions that could be used
just as effectively for maritime awareness?
Admiral Fagan. Thank you.
We have embarked on a number of initiatives, one with
regard to data. And we have stood up an Office of Data
Governance and Analytics. Data is a competitive advantage, and
so ensuring we have got the right framework around the data we
already have and continue to create so that we can analyze it
for decision space, use it for predictive analytics across
mission sets, whether it is counternarcotics, IUU fishing, and
we are embarked on that.
With regard to unmanned systems and technology, we have
recently published the Coast Guard's Unmanned Systems Strategy
so that we can continue to field unmanned technology into the
suite of capabilities that we operate.
The--you know, we are working with CBP to jointly operate
an MQ-9 and with the Joint Program Office; ScanEagle, as I am
sure the committee is familiar with ScanEagle and its role with
our National Security Cutters, key enabler to increase
effectiveness in our mission operations; contracts with
Saildrone to improve maritime domain awareness. And so we are
engaged and embarked on incorporating unmanned technology into
the suite of capabilities that we are fielding. As I said, we
have got some now, and we will continue to look for that
opportunity in the future.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that.
Could you--you have mentioned some of the challenges you
are facing with attracting the number of individuals to come to
the Coast Guard. Certainly not the quality. I am not
questioning the quality of the individuals, but just the number
that you need.
Could you talk a little bit about some of the creative
things maybe you are looking at to try to crack that nut?
Admiral Fagan. Yeah. So the recruiting challenge is here
and now for the Coast Guard. It is not unique to the Coast
Guard. We are competing for talent, as are the other services
and industry. There has been a shrinking pool of individuals
who have a propensity to serve and, frankly, who are qualified
to serve.
I appreciate the support to allow us to increase
investments in recruiting capacity. We are opening recruiting
offices. We have stood up JROTC programs. But we are also--as
we gain support with advertising dollars, recruiting dollars,
we are going to where the young people are. So this means
things like Twitch. It is an online gaming site. And we are
actively seeking young people, going to where they are instead
of a big, national, you know, billboard or ad campaign.
And so it is an all-hands-on-deck effort for us, and we are
using multiple avenues to create awareness and highlight what
the opportunity is that service in the U.S. Coast Guard
presents.
Mr. Newhouse. Very good. Thank you very much. Again, thanks
for being here.
Admiral Fagan. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Admiral Fagan, congratulations on your appointment as
Commandant, and thanks for being with us today.
I want to turn right to the spending cuts that Republicans
in Congress are discussing and what they would mean for the
work of the U.S. Coast Guard. Slashing Federal spending this
severely back to fiscal year 2022 enacted levels would have
unspeakably harmful consequences for each of our communities
and for national readiness. For DHS, this would mean a cut of
$3.4 billion.
DHS reports this means the Coast Guard would, quote,
immediately cease the advancement of acquisitions, procurement,
and construction, resulting in a reduction to operational
readiness along the maritime borders. Further, these cuts
would--and I am quoting here--reduce the ability to detect,
deter, prevent, and disrupt terrorist attacks and other
criminal acts in the U.S. maritime domain, as well as our
national defense strategy. There is no other way to say it.
Republicans' proposed cuts would endanger our national
security.
Admiral Fagan, can you share more about the effects that
these drastic cuts would have on our defense readiness and the
Coast Guard's ability to protect against terrorist attacks?
Admiral Fagan. If the Coast Guard were held to the fiscal
year 2022 enacted level, that would create an immediate $500
million shortfall in the budget. That is compounded by
inflation, increased fuel costs----
Ms. Underwood. Uh-huh.
Admiral Fagan [continuing]. increased costs of spare parts
and what it makes to operate the organization.
As we build our budgets, the priority goes to operating and
maintaining the organization, ensuring that our workforce is
paid and has the support they need, that we have got fuel and
ability to create frontline operations.
Being held to a 2022 budget level would have an immediate
impact on readiness and capacity and would be particularly
impactful to our acquisitions projects. It is--you can't scale
on an acquisition. You have--there are step functions there
that would create immediate impacts.
We would prioritize providing services to the American
public, but it would come at the expense, again, major
acquisitions, infrastructure investments, and otherwise.
Ms. Underwood. In the Great Lakes region, we have more than
a hundred ports that fuel the economic engine for our region
and the country. Since the Coast Guard is responsible for
maintaining the safety and vitality of our ports, can you share
how such cuts would impact global competitiveness, shipping,
and overall safety at our ports?
Admiral Fagan. So we have the role. In our captain of the
port role, we have a role in ensuring the maritime security and
economic prosperity of the Nation. $5.4 trillion of economic
benefit flow through our ports and through our inland rivers.
Again, cuts impact capacity. We will work to preserve
frontline capacity to the greatest extent possible. But, at
some point, if we don't have funding support for fuel--and
particularly where it becomes impactful is in maintenance,
spare parts, the maintenance account to ensure that we can
reliably field those aspects--any and all assets, whether they
are small boats in the ports; it would impact the waterway
commerce cutter acquisition, which is critical to ensuring the
resiliency of our inland waterways and systems, and it would
touch all aspects of Coast Guard operations.
Ms. Underwood. And which would have an economic impact?
Admiral Fagan. It would have an economic impact.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. Now, another one of the Coast Guard's
missions is environmental compliance and restoration. This
includes identifying and cleaning up contamination from
hazardous substances and pollutants, as well as correcting
environmental damage that poses an imminent danger to public
health.
In the Great Lakes, we know this work is critical. Thirty
million people rely on the Great Lakes as their primary water
source, so ensuring that the water is clean and safe couldn't
be more important for public health.
Can you provide an update on the environmental compliance
and restoration activities that the Coast Guard is focusing on,
specifically in the Great Lakes, and how would your fiscal year
2024 budget request help advance Great Lakes' priorities?
Admiral Fagan. So I don't have specifics on Great Lakes,
but I affirm that we are committed to our role in
environmental--protecting the environment and environmental
response, our role as a pollution response organization.
Ms. Underwood. Uh-huh.
Admiral Fagan. We continue to make investments in the
resources and the people and the expertise that are needed to
ensure that, you know, if--prevent pollution from occurring in
the first place. Our role with regulated facilities, with the
maritime industry and shipping, to inspect and ensure that both
the facilities and ships are operating in compliance with
State, Federal, international regulations in some cases, to
prevent impacts to the environment. And we continue to make
those investments to fulfill our role as an environmental
protection and maritime response organization.
Ms. Underwood. Well, if you can get back to us about how
your fiscal year 2024 proposal would support the Great Lakes in
this area, and then how the proposed cuts would have an impact,
that would be really helpful.
Admiral Fagan. We will.
Ms. Underwood. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. The chair appreciates the gentlelady's captivity
with the Great Lakes. Very fond of it myself.
Ms. Underwood. I represent. I represent. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. Mrs. Hinson
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Admiral. Thank you so much for coming before
our committee today. And I look forward to this opportunity to
speak with you.
And I want to talk about an area that is very important for
my district. We sit right along the Upper Mississippi River.
The city of Dubuque obviously hosts the Coast Guard Cutter
Wyaconda, a priority for me to ensure that the Mississippi
River is protected and maintained also. So I think it is a
stability issue for our regional economy and really for your
global supply chain as well, which is why it is a priority for
me. So I want to say thank you for the work that you do to make
sure that the Coast Guard is supported there.
And can you just describe to me how the requested funding
would aid in making sure that that installation is still
supported and that we can continue to prioritize critical
infrastructure along the Upper Mississippi and the Lower
Mississippi River?
Admiral Fagan. Yep. So thank you. And I appreciate the
support of the committee for our waterway commerce cutter
acquisition, the WCC. The 2024 budget includes $98 million to
begin constructing the first two of the waterway commerce
cutters and also includes money for long lead time material for
an additional two.
We are excited about the design for--there is two variants
for those ships. They will be replacing cutters. If you have
visited, these are very, very old cutters in need of updated,
new--new hulls, and we are excited to be on budget for that.
The fiscal year 2024 UPL includes $48 million to build out
home ports in Sault Saint Marie and Memphis, and we are working
through prioritizing the investments that are needed to ensure
that we meet and are able to ensure reliable, safe commerce
flows on our inland rivers, Mississippi and others.
Mrs. Hinson. Right. Well, and especially as we have
conversations about other parts of the world that are facing
those challenges, it is absolutely a priority to make sure we
can protect this region at home. So I am glad to hear that you
share that priority and look forward to working with you to
make sure we can execute on that mission.
Speaking of areas around the world, obviously the Coast
Guard's mission in INDOPACOM is critical, especially with what
is happening with the Chinese Communist Party's aggression,
making sure we are focused on securing our allies in the region
and protecting maritime security.
Can you describe a little bit the efforts that the Coast
Guard maintains to stabilize INDOPACOM region, but also what
the current relationships are with our strategic partners in
the region?
Admiral Fagan. Yeah. We have--we are committed to the Indo-
Pacific region. The capabilities, the expertise, the
professionalism that the U.S. Coast Guard brings to difficult
particularly maritime problem set is valued around the world
and is eagerly sought around the world. And our allies and
partners around the Pacific are actively seeking engagement
with the United States Coast Guard.
The 2023 budget had $41 million to provide increased
presence and engagement in the Indo-Pacific. We are fielding an
Indo-Pacific support cutter. We have identified it as the
Harriet Lane. And that cutter will arrive into Honolulu before
the end of the year and will work out of there for a couple
years as we work through where the final home port will be.
On the UPL, we have signaled $400 million, which would buy
an additional four fast response cutters. That would increase
our ability to create a presence in the Pacific. The fast
response cutters have been incredibly capable assets for us. We
have them fielded in Guam, in Honolulu now, and they are doing
great work engaging the kinds of partnership and engagement
that our allies value.
And then mobile training teams, just bringing our expertise
to nations where they are, whether it is how to do an illegal
fisheries boarding, small engine repair, small boat maintenance
and operations. And we will continue to lean into that as well.
Mrs. Hinson. And if you could follow up with our office
with some of the countries that you have been doing that work
with, that would be helpful.
Admiral Fagan. We will.
Mrs. Hinson. Because we are working obviously--I had the
opportunity to meet with the President of Taiwan just a few
weeks ago, and I think continuing to show force of strength in
that region is going to be critical to countering China's
influence in the region. Obviously we know they are continuing
to spread propaganda, misinformation throughout that region.
Are you actively countering those efforts as well?
Obviously you are talking about some of the on-the-ground
training and tools that you are using. Are you doing anything
to counter the misinformation and the propaganda?
Admiral Fagan. Yeah. I mean, we--our value proposition is
in that competitive space, short of conflict. And so where we
have got expertise, skill, are a partner of choice, we are
bringing that to the region and welcome the opportunity to
highlight, you know, the--it is many double--you know, it is a
double-digit number of countries that we have engaged in.
You know, I have spent time in Fiji meeting with 20 of our
partners throughout the Pacific to talk about maritime
security, maritime governance, and look forward to getting back
to you with that.
Mrs. Hinson. Wonderful. Do you think that this budget
request allows you the bandwidth necessary to complete those
critical missions?
Admiral Fagan. So the budget request is supportive of that.
As I have indicated, our UPL signals opportunity for additional
investment, particularly in fast response cutters, to allow us
to become sort of less episodic and more persistent with regard
to some of the threats in the region.
Mrs. Hinson. All right. Thank you, Admiral.
And I will yield back. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much, Mrs. Hinson.
And the chair now recognizes Sheriff Rutherford for his
questions.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commandant, great to see you again. And, you know, I am
really appreciative of all that the Coast Guard does,
particularly around the State of Florida, all those
interdictions.
You know, in knowing how important the water operations
are, but the aviation side, I want to talk about that for a
moment, because I am hearing that the U.S. Coast Guard has
stated that they plan to transition to all MH-60 helicopters in
the fleet by acquiring used helicopters from the Navy. And I
know there has been quite a bit of funding, I think, set aside
for that transition.
But here is--here is what I wonder, if we are being a
little penny wise and pound foolish, I will say. For the
airframes that you are going to acquire from the Navy, do we
have an idea what the average time is on these airframes?
Admiral Fagan. I don't have a number with regard to time.
Obviously we are committed to moving towards a single fleet of
60s, tail fold, blade folds, that they will also be flight--
flight deck accessible.
As we go on budget--and the 2024 UPL asks for $113 million
to outfit and assemble four of--four 60s, and that will enable
us to transition another air station in 2026. I don't have the
time phasing on that, but we will be happy to get back to you
on it.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. So are we also going to have to make
hangar changes for these MH-60s, particularly on the cutters,
because--
Admiral Fagan. To the criticality--so the National Security
Cutters and the offshore patrol cutters, with a tail fold/blade
fold capability, the 60s will be able to be accessible to those
two cutter classes.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. So there won't be any need to modify
the hangars on those cutters?
Admiral Fagan. Not that I am aware of. The shore
infrastructure pieces around aviation, for example, as we
fielded the C-130Js, there were modifications to shoreside
hangars that were needed to make that asset--
Mr. Rutherford. Well, that--yeah, that is another issue,
too.
Admiral Fagan [continuing]. larger, but I will confirm with
the staff. I am not aware that we have got modifications,
certainly with the new cutter classes.
The 60 is larger than some of the older. Legacy fleet would
be able to accommodate the, you know, two 270s and otherwise.
Mr. Rutherford. Right. And that is why I wanted to ask
about, you know, the hangaring capability, both shore and
fleet, the maintainers. What are we looking at as far--you
know, I understand that the MH-60 has got--requires many more
maintainers than some other options that might be out there.
So my question is: Can we get some information on those--
just those issues? I would appreciate that.
Admiral Fagan. OK.
Mr. Rutherford. And the unmanned program. You talked about
that a little bit earlier, and you mentioned the Saildrone for
the water. But what about airborne unmanned?
Admiral Fagan. Yep. So be happy to provide you more details
around what the phasing of a--moving to a single fleet of 60s
is as it pertains to infrastructure, people, maintainers, and
happy--to provide that.
Mr. Rutherford. OK.
Admiral Fagan. The unmanned system strategy that we just
published acknowledges that unmanned--you know, unmanned
technology is here now. We as an organization need to look for
where the opportunity is to continue to field that.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Admiral Fagan. ScanEagle is the program of record. The
system that we have got fielded on the National Security
Cutters are contractor owned, contractor operated, shipboard
launched and retrieved, fixed-wing UAS. And we continue--we are
getting great benefit from that, and we continue to explore
other opportunities for unmanned systems in our Coast Guard
operations.
Mr. Rutherford. We look forward to helping you with that.
This is from right field, or left field. Last year, NOAA
proposed a rule that will require all boats longer than 35 feet
to go 10 knots all up and down the coast--the Atlantic Coast.
And, Commandant, I have to tell you, the economic impact of
that is going to be huge, particularly on our commercial
fisheries and sport fishing if they could only go 10 knots.
Now, because there is a safety issue there, the Coast
Guard's--and this is in response to the right whale issue,
which I have got legislation to save the right whale, and--but
my concern is--and I am hearing this from the bar pilots and
others that, you know, this ten knots is really going to put
ship safety in question. And you all are going to have to pick
up the enforcement of that.
Can you talk a little bit about that? Was the Coast Guard
even included in this decisionmaking process, or did NOAA just
do this on their own?
Admiral Fagan. So I am aware of the NOAA legislation. We
obviously have a role in advising on maritime safety. What
level of advisement went on prior, I don't know. We can get
back to you on that.
The primary enforcement method for a 10-knot limitation is
AIS, and we continue to work with NOAA. Not all--there is a
disparity between AIS carriage requirements and then the speed
restrictions. So we continue to be engaged in that
conversation.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. But--so you think they did confer with
the Coast Guard before they made this decision?
Admiral Fagan. I will get back to you with certainty who
and when or if not. I don't have that information.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Commandant.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Joyce. That is a negative amount of time, Sheriff.
Mr. Rutherford. Sorry.
Mrs. Hinson. Demerits.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Cloud?
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairman.
And thank you, Admiral, for being here. I certainly want to
thank you and all the people who work with you and what you do.
I am on the Texas coast, so we certainly appreciate the Coast
Guard and have visited the bases in our district a number of
times. And it is always good to get with them to see the work
that they are doing firsthand. It is really great.
Because of that, I could also speak to the--certainly the
need to make sure that they are well acquisitioned as well and
that they have the parts they need. Last time I visited, I
think there were some choppers that were down, and they
couldn't deploy, but they would working on it. So we want to
make sure that they are well supplied.
I wanted to ask you on a couple of things that are
particularly sensitive to the Texas coast, and one of them is
the migrant population that the Coast Guard is encountering
now. I think a March 23 article highlighted the Coast Guard
sector San Diego witnessed a 700-percent increase in the number
of migrant maritime crossings since 2017.
Do you have the assets you need to deal with this
situation? I know I have been a fan of the area's stats that
were being used and deployed and would certainly advocate for
those to continue to have their use along our southern border.
Anyway, if you could speak to having what you need to deal
with the situation and what kind of tax that is putting on your
ability to do your other missions in the area.
Admiral Fagan. Yeah. As you have identified, maritime
migration flows are up across all of the vectors, including the
vector into San Diego. The fast response cutters have been a
key, significant capability for us. And so, as we look at
budget and support for the Coast Guard continuing to field, the
new assets and capabilities that we are stepping into now will
be critical to ensuring that we have got the capability that we
need to counter those migration flows.
You know, the ReCoM and the other interagency effort down
there, there is a great team of professionals. It is not just
the Coast Guard. We are primary on-the-water presence, but we
continue to, engage with our other law enforcement partners in
that realm and look to--for opportunities for, you know,
unmanned systems to increase maritime domain awareness so that,
you know, when a migrant attempt is made, we are able to put an
asset on vector and ensure that we, one, prevent the loss of
life, and then, two, have a positive interdiction.
Mr. Cloud. And of course that is drug trafficking as well
that is coming in, and we have, you know, had drugs wash up on
our shore, you know, in our district a number of times, but--
and kind of connected and unconnected at the same time, the
illegal fishing that goes on along the coast, a lot of it
coming out of Mexico, some of it seemingly to be a cover for
cartel operations even at times.
Could you speak to what you need to be even more effective
at what you are doing there?
Admiral Fagan. Yeah. IUU fishing--illegal, unregulated,
unreported fishing--is a global issue, and----
Mr. Cloud. Right.
Admiral Fagan [continuing]. We experience it in the United
States, certainly in the Gulf of Mexico. We have published an
IUU strategy a few years ago to help bring alignment and
leadership to the problem set.
In the--specific to the Gulf Coast of the United States,
again, the fast response cutters and our small boats are our
primary capability that we work to counter that activity. And
so, again, as we continue to field those new acquisitions, it
just increases our effectiveness in those vectors as it as it
pertains to IUU fishing, migration, counternarcotics, and so,
you know, sort of staying--staying the course with the major
acquisitions and the programs that we are on record for will be
critical to ensuring that we are able to meet those missions.
Mr. Cloud. I noticed there wasn't a budget increase request
for that, so I am guessing you believe you have what you need
to handle that mission?
Admiral Fagan. Yes. All of the assets are multimission so
we don't, you know, say this cutter just for this mission, so--
--
Mr. Cloud. For fishing versus--yeah. Right.
Admiral Fagan. Right. But, as--when you look at the fleet
mix, we are working to field new state-of-the-art capacity. It
will allow us to meet mission across those number of
portfolios.
Mr. Cloud. Yeah. One other line I wanted to ask you on,
Russia and China recently conducted routine patrols in the
Arctic. And obviously we--that is going to be a threat we have
to continue to stay aware of.
I know that there is a request for $125 million for a
commercially available icebreaker. That was taken out of--the
Senate basically took it out of the last cycle, I guess because
there was some concerns about retrofitting it once it was
purchased, or is that figure--the 125 million, does that cover
the whole getting it where you need it to be, or is there a
cost beyond that after you purchase it? What is that figure
detail?
Admiral Fagan. So, if appropriated, the $125 million would
allow the purchase of a commercially available icebreaker.
There is an additional 25 million to help bring that to IOC. We
are working----
Mr. Cloud. So you really need $150 million--to put it to
use?
Admiral Fagan. In the 2024 President's budget, the number
is reflective of what it will need to acquire and get to an
initial operating capacity, that particular vessel.
We are working to monetize what the outyear--so we--what
the lifecycle cost is, is still something we are working
working to definitize.
Mr. Cloud. Oh, I see what you are saying. And I also wanted
to speak to the--get your take on the polar security cutters
that are yet to be delivered in the time--I am out of time.
Mr. Joyce. There is a second round.
Mr. Cloud. I will ask again. I will ask you more later.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Trone.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Welcome, Commandant.
The Coast Guard has been underfunded for years. You said
your priority is promoting, diversifying, providing for your
workforce what it needs to meet demands of the modern Coast
Guard. But, without increased funding, it is clear you won't
come close to achieving that goal.
Can you highlight the aspects in the fiscal year 2024
budget that talk about recruiting, sustained readiness, and of
course retention of your best people?
Admiral Fagan. Thank you.
We have got a number of line items in the 2024 budget that
will help across that fold. The funding support in recruiting
is allowing us to field additional recruiters, open new
recruiting offices, allows us to increase just advertising and
engagement. We are fielding additional JROTC programs, all
designed to address the recruiting challenge.
The budget also supports investments in, you know, pay;
housing allowances to ensure that our personnel are able to
find housing as they transfer around the country; investments
in our medical capacity and medical personnel to increase, you
know, access to mental health and behavioral health and other
medical needs; and subsidies as well as investments in child--
you know, so improving access to childcare, whether it be
subsidies or access to a Coast Guard-operated child development
center, the 2024 budget provides great support.
And, while we recruit an individual, we retain their
families, and so ensuring we have got that support appropriate
to and--for our Coast Guard members is critical.
Mr. Trone. That is really important, the whole wraparound.
If you don't take care of the family, the member--the guard is
not going to be successful, no question about it. It is about
everybody.
Drug interdiction, international drug interdiction, you
have done quite a bit of that, I read. You know, that requires
flexibility in your budget to move resources where you need to
move them.
What needs to be done--how can we help you be better off
and be stronger on interdiction work, especially the fentanyl
precursors shipped in from China to Mexican ports?
Admiral Fagan. So, with regard to the maritime
interdictions, continuing to support the portfolio of
acquisitions that the Coast Guard has embarked on are critical
to ensuring we are able to meet that mission. It is a force
package of ships, helicopters, pursuit boats that allow us to
interdict illegal narcotics at sea.
The fentanyl challenges, we are not encountering fentanyl
to a large extent at sea, and so that becomes a partner in
capacity conversations that I am engaged with my Mexican
counterparts within the law enforcement agencies within DHS are
working to identify ways to better counter the fentanyl threat,
particularly it is the chemicals moved through ports other than
the United States.
Mr. Trone. Talk a little bit how you are using--exploring
the use of long-endurance, autonomous, uncrewed surface
vehicles to augment your crewed platforms and interdiction
efforts.
Admiral Fagan. So the unmanned system strategy that we have
just published is designed to help us move forward
strategically around what unmanned systems can provide key
enabling information and capacity to us as an organization and
whether it is increased maritime domain awareness or, you know,
just opportunities so that, when we put a person on a ship, in
an aircraft, that you know exactly where you are going and you
are going to be on time, on target. And unmanned technology has
a role there, and we are working to increase how we internalize
that into our operating capacity.
Mr. Trone. OK. I thank you very much.
I yield back.
Thank you, Commandant.
Mr. Joyce. Recognizing myself for a second round of
questions.
I want to follow up on something my colleague, Ms.
Underwood, brought up; that is your budget request including 55
million for a Great Lakes icebreaker, the Mackinaw and your
fleet of multipurpose 140-foot icebreaking tugs are essential
for keeping commerce moving. These vessels are approximately 40
years old. Modern vessels could be made more capable and have
improved crew accommodations.
If Congress funds the $55 million request for a Great Lakes
icebreaker, would the service be available to spend the funds
in fiscal year 2024?
Admiral Fagan. Thank you.
We are excited about the opportunity for a Great Lakes
icebreaker. We have completed pre-acquisition work, and the $55
million would support an ability to go out with a request for
proposals for a--an icebreaker that is as capable as the
Mackinaw.
I am excited about what that opportunity is for the
organization. We are working through design requirements and
technical requirements, but we have made progress on the Great
Lakes icebreaker in the last year.
Mr. Joyce. Are you going to be able to spend the money in
fiscal year 2024?
Admiral Fagan. We will be able to spend the money in fiscal
year 2024, and we will work toward requests for proposals.
Mr. Joyce. I understand 140-foot tugs, two which are home-
ported in Ohio, recently completed a service life extension.
But how long did that extend their service life, and what is
the ultimate replacement plan?
Admiral Fagan. I don't have the exact number. Typically a
service life extension will be 10 to 15-plus years. The
waterways commerce cutter then becomes, you know, key new
assets as we field them along our internal waterways to ensure
that we are able to reliably provide for the safety, security
of the inland river system.
Mr. Joyce. If Congress provides funds for a Great Lakes
icebreaker, how would the vessel complement the icebreaking
assets that already exist in the Great Lakes?
Admiral Fagan. So we operate a system of icebreakers in the
Great Lakes, the Mackinaw being the largest of that system, and
there are other smaller inland fleet of vessels. The Great
Lakes icebreaker will then become an additional capacity that
will help ensure year-round, you know, access on the Great
Lakes.
How it then contributes to the fleet mix and what the
smaller icebreaking capacity is and needs are is part of the
work that is ongoing in the organization.
Mr. Joyce. Could it replace some of the work done by the
140s?
Admiral Fagan. We are working through all analysis. I am
happy to come back to you with more detail on how Mackinaw,
Great Lakes icebreaker, 140s, and kind of what the way ahead
looks like with regard to those investments.
Mr. Joyce. Look forward to that.
I recognize Mr. Cuellar for a second round.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
I want to go back to your visit with the Mexicans and ask
you to continue, focus on a couple things. I want to bring up a
couple things.
One, the Mexicans, for the first time, are spending almost
$900 million on technology for their land ports and for their
seaports. And they are pretty much using the same American
companies that CBP uses on the U.S. side.
The Mexican Navy awarded about--about $330 million, and the
Mexican Army, another 613. So I say this because a lot of the
ports are now going to have the same type of technology--the
same type of technology that we have.
So I would ask you to work with them. And I know that, when
it comes to fentanyl--we have been talking about fentanyl--it
is a little harder. You know, the pill pressers and the--what
is legal. And the Mexicans are--actually are looking at certain
chemical watchlists. They are going from 14 to 72. So make sure
you focus on that.
But I would ask you to look at those ports and push them to
try to get that technology and make sure that technology can be
shared with us. I mean, the information.
Second thing is--let me go back to fentanyl again. You all
have had, for the last few years, zero interdiction on
fentanyl. And, again, we already talked about it, but, again, I
would ask you to look at those two ports and put an emphasis on
those two ports, because they come in, they are manipulated,
and then they go up through--not in between ports, but at the
ports of entry.
And, again, it is hard, because the--even the technology
that we have now to try to find something this size compared to
marijuana, it is very different. So I would ask you to work
with them on that information sharing, especially when you look
at the flows and where they are going in.
Third thing, I would ask you to think ahead. Mexico is
doing their Isthmus corridor, and they are moving fast. It is
incredible what they are doing. And I would ask you to look at
this, because the Chinese already on the Gulf of Mexico, they
are looking at investments there and on the Pacific side.
So I would ask you to look at that, because, you know, that
is--members, that is a coast--you know, they are going from one
to the other one. It is not a Panama Canal, but it is rail, and
it is also highways. And they are moving very fast on it. I
call it the new Mexican-Panama--not canal, but route also.
And, again, interesting, the Chinese are at the very
beginning and at the very end, depending what side you are
looking at. So I would ask you to look at that also.
Finally, talking about the Chinese, when you look at where
the Chinese are at--I know we look at the Indo-Pacific. We look
at other places. They are on--they are in our backyard,
members, and I would be happy to share with you, but they are
doing a lot of things.
And, if you look at those two ports of entry where--I mean,
seaports, Chinese have investments. In fact, their cranes and
all that, Chinese. So you can understand why the legal
precursors are coming in easily itself. But I would ask you to
look at it. I know the land ports are a little different from
what--but I would ask you and ask them questions about the
Chinese presence there, because they are--can't talk about it
here, but I would say they are very, very close to a lot of
things that we are doing here in the U.S. side.
So I would ask you to look at the Isthmus, number one. The
new technology that they are buying, it is American companies
that Myvina (ph) is using, and the Chinese involvement there
because they are--name it, and they are there. There is
industrial parks. They are there. And seaports are definitely--
those two Pacific.
So, again, it is more of not a--not of a question, more of
a statement, but I would ask you, when you meet with the
Mexicans, focus on that if you don't mind, and then get back to
us--I would appreciate it--to the committee.
Admiral Fagan. I will. And, as I said, I will be in the
Port of Manzanilla on Tuesday meeting with my Mexican
counterparts, and look forward to sharing those conversations
when I return.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Thank you, Admiral.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you on behalf of all of us for doing that.
Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you.
Just a couple of questions. And I would actually like to
follow up on something Mr. Cuellar pointed out about kind of
the Chinese strategy around the world. And obviously INDOPACOM
is the most visible, I think, area where we have seen recent
aggression.
But can you just comment briefly about have you seen any
other places in the world where they are showing that
aggression directly, places that we might need to be aware of?
And--yeah, if you could just elaborate on that to start, that
would be great if.
Admiral Fagan. So certainly to--you know, the Chinese are
very, very active around the Indo-Pacific, but they are active
in South and Central America, Africa, looking for opportunities
to invest and gain access.
With regard to, you know, maritime--maritime operations,
obviously as we send ships into the Western Pacific, we do that
in conjunction with the U.S. Navy and continue to ensure that
our ships are--you know, have the correct readiness level
should--you know, should we encounter unfriendly behavior on
the part of the Chinese Coast Guard.
Mrs. Hinson. What keeps you up at night about that
challenge?
Admiral Fagan. The world continues to change at a
quickening pace, and as we operate in maritime areas that are
competitive and, you know, challenging, ensuring that my
workforce has the readiness level that they need to meet
whatever the challenge is they might find in the mission that
we have asked them to do.
Mrs. Hinson. Right. And you mentioned that obviously in
your opening statements that you were having challenges with
readiness because of recruitment. Can you elaborate a little
bit on what those challenges have been and if there are any
barriers or those things that this committee can be helpful
with or other ways we might look at assistance there?
Admiral Fagan. Yeah. So I appreciate the support--the
funding support that we have got to build, increase recruiting
capacity. You know, recruiting is a highly individualized
effort. It takes--it is, you know, one on one, human being to
human being. It takes a fair amount of interaction. Also
appreciate the supports of the personnel--the technology
systems that help make it easier once we have found the person
who is coming. It is easier to onboard them, and, you know, I
am committed to making sure that we have got the right
resourcing in place to recruit people.
And then just telling our story. There are so many
Americans that have no idea what the U.S. Coast Guard is, what
we do. And then the opportunity and the value proposition that
we offer as an employer.
And so I would appreciate the support, and we will continue
to get out there and tell our story.
Mrs. Hinson. Did you lose any of your workforce due to the
COVID vaccine challenges? I know that obviously that was
something we heard a lot about, that some people may have
chosen to leave as a result of that or retire.
Is anyone offering to come back? I guess I would just be
curious what that did to your----
Admiral Fagan. So we did--we had a number of individuals
who we did remove from service for failure to be vaccinated. We
have contacted 100 percent of those individuals, both Active
Duty members and cadets, and some are choosing to come back. In
fact, we had our first one come back onto the Active Duty rolls
just this past Friday.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay. Can you get me some numbers on what that
looks like in terms of how many actually you had to ask to
leave, and then how many have been contacted, what that looks
like, and just provide it to us.
Admiral Fagan. Yeah. So it was 275 that were asked to
leave. We have contacted 100 percent of them, and the first one
has come back on.
We are using the same process to re-onboard people, you
know, for who have left for other reasons. And I don't know
what the total--we don't--it is too early to tell how many will
actually come back, but 100 percent have been contacted.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay. Thank you, Admiral.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mrs. Hinson.
Mr. Trone is recognized.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just one quick question. Your unfunded priority list
includes a need for a facility in Baltimore. Can you discuss
the importance of this facility and your plans on any funding
for future appropriations?
This would be a ship-handling facility capable of working
on maintenance, extending service life of vehicles in the Port
of Baltimore?
Admiral Fagan. So we operate the Coast Guard Yard in
Baltimore. This investment would be directed at our organic
yard capacity. That capacity is critical to us maintaining our
major cutter fleet.
The UPL asks for $60 million. It will include shore
preparations, dredging, facility upgrades that would enable us
to integrate a larger floating dry dock so that, as--it would
be large enough to allow us to service the offshore patrol
cutters when they come online.
So this is a future investment to ensure that we are able
to maintain the fleet that we are acquiring now.
Mr. Trone. Good. I appreciate that. I would be happy to
support that as you move forward and you put that to the top of
your list. Thank you.
Admiral Fagan. Thank you.
Mr. Trone. I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
So my questions that I had have been answered, but I did
want to continue kind of the dialogue about China, because one
of my major concerns is just our shipbuilding capacity here in
the United States and our ability to keep pace, and obviously
that would affect a lot of the Coast Guard's acquisition. But
also, just maybe speaking to that aspect of it, but also
anything else that you were concerned with in our ability to
keep pace with what you see China doing.
Admiral Fagan. Yeah. So continuing to move forward with the
portfolio of major asset investments and infrastructure
investments are critical to fielding a capable, ready Coast
Guard. So, you know, this includes polar security cutter, the
waterway commerce cutter, the offshore patrol cutter, potential
additional investments in fast response cutters--this is--the
UPL signals $400 million for an additional four.
And that would create additional presence, particularly in
the Indo-Pacific, to allow us to partner engage with ally and
partner nations with, you know, our value proposition and the
expertise in governance that the United States Coast Guard
brings to maritime governance challenges.
And that also extends to the infrastructure investment so
that we can have a safe place to tie those ships up and our
people have buildings and offices to--that they can operate
from safely.
Mr. Cloud. How about, how would you say we compare in
regards to requiring the speed of--speed and ease--how quickly
we can----
Admiral Fagan. Yeah. So we--you know, we acquire--major
assets consistent with Federal acquisition law.
It is not a fast process. We are committed to, you know,
following the process and way forward. Working through
understanding requirements so that you can get the design and
then begin to build takes time, but using that process is
important so that you actually get the ship capability that you
need, not something that does not meet your requirements.
Mr. Cloud. Part of that obviously is the ability to staff
our acquisitions, and so, to the point of recruiting, I was
curious about that as well. And for those coming back, what
incentive are there for them to come back? Is their rank
restored, their pay restored. How does that--how does that
work?
Admiral Fagan. So we have had a process in place to bring
people back who have left the service for whatever reason. We
are using that same process. And, you know, there was a--I can
certainly get you all the specifics on length of time, how we
step back through it. But they come back into position--not
necessarily a position, but pay grade and skill set that they
left, and then we work to assign them and get them employed--
employed by the organization.
Mr. Cloud. And what efforts are being made--because most
who leave and come back, I don't think were asked to leave in
the first place, and so what is there in place to make sure
that they understand that there is no reprisal or any sort of
action to be taken against them for haven't being asked to
leave in the first place?
Admiral Fagan. Yeah. As I said, we contacted 100 percent of
them and said we would welcome you back.
There is no--we have already gone through--as required by
law, there is no evidence in anyone's records with regard to
vaccination, nonvaccinated.
And so we truly are welcoming back people who are
interested in coming back.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. And I do appreciate you reaching out
to each of them. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Rutherford. Sheriff Rutherford.
Technically you are next.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up on the China involvement and threat as
well. The IRI, the International Republican Institute, did a
great report on malign Chinese influence in the corrosion of
democracy. And one of the countries that they looked at was
Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands specifically.
Can you talk a little bit about what the Coast Guard is
doing down there to stop the IUU fishing that, you know,
Ecuador is suffering right now?
Admiral Fagan. So we have a global leadership role in IUU
fishing. It truly is a worldwide problem. Recently, 18 months
ago, Ecuador was experiencing a Chinese squid fleet incursion
into their exclusive economic zone off of the Galapagos, and
Ecuador asked for assistance.
What the U.S. Coast Guard was able to do was take one of
the large cutters that was, you know, conducting
counternarcotics work and shift their attention towards the
Chinese squid fleet.
Mr. Rutherford. Uh-huh.
Admiral Fagan. We moved the cutter over. The squid fleet
moved off 200 miles away from where they were. And so it
certainly speaks to the criticality of presence.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Admiral Fagan. Being visible there with a ship changed the
pattern of behavior of the Chinese fishing fleet in that case.
And it just speaks to the network and coalition that helped
counter some of these difficult maritime challenges.
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah.
Admiral Fagan. We also, in the IUU fishing realm, engage in
a lot of bilateral agreements and ship rider agreements that
bring a nation's expertise and authority in fisheries
enforcement and onto one of our vessels and allows us to
conduct joint boardings in a way that is helpful in the mission
set.
Mr. Rutherford. Great. Good. Yeah. That was--that was some
great work down there.
Let me ask on the--we were talking earlier about the number
of migrants who, you know, how that number is up, the
interdictions, particularly around Florida. I am hearing that
there is some countries that are resistant to repatriation,
some outright blocking it, others just making it difficult, as
difficult as they can.
I would ask, do we have some information on countries that
are specifically rejecting repatriation?
Admiral Fagan. When we interdict a migrant at sea, we
process them, you know, provide, you know, food and shelter.
And then we repatriate them to the country of origin. The
primary migrant flows are Haiti and Cuba and we are able to
directly repatriate to both those countries.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. They are not giving us a hard time
getting those folks back?
Admiral Fagan. There are a number of pieces--again, I will
have the staff give you all of the pieces that it takes to
process and then repatriate, but we are continuing to
repatriate to both of those countries.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. So are you aware of any countries
that are refusing repatriation?
Admiral Fagan. I am not, but I will have the staff affirm
whether----
Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
Admiral Fagan. Whether that is true or not.
Mr. Rutherford. If you can let me know about that. Thank
you. I do appreciate that.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back and make up for the
first round.
Mr. Joyce. You are just about caught up.
Dr. Harris.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much.
And thank you very much, Admiral, for being here today.
I represent the First Congressional District of Maryland,
bounded by the ocean on one side and the bay on the other side
in the most part. And I have been very concerned about the
industrialization of the offshore Mid-Atlantic--and that is
basically what these wind farms are going to be. They are just
industrialization of a place that has never been industrialized
before--and a place over which the Coast Guard has some
jurisdiction and some interest.
Of interest to me, Monday, the Bloomberg published a story:
``Pentagon Sounds Alarm Over Biden Plan for Offshore Wind
Sites.'' But the line that I am going to refer to is on page 2
of the article: The Defense Department's concerns, which come
on top of other conflicts identified by the U.S. Coast Guard.
So does Bloomberg have it right? Are there other conflicts
with regards to offshore wind in the Mid-Atlantic that have
been identified by the U.S. Coast Guard?
Admiral Fagan. Our role in the wind farm conversation is
around ensuring safety of navigation and, you know, advising
the process to ensure that fishing vessels, other waterway
users, are not negatively impacted by wind farm installations.
The Atlantic Coast Route Study is part of that. We have had an
active role.
I will have the team look at what that might be referring
to.
Dr. Harris. Okay.
Admiral Fagan. There is obviously, you know, ensuring the
safety of movement of maritime traffic, and advising on that is
the role of the Coast Guard plays.
Dr. Harris. So, in April 2013, the Coast Guard sent a
letter to BOEM advising that their then-current proposed wind
energy area location posed, quote, an unacceptable--posed
unacceptable increases in risk to navigation safety. And BOEM
went ahead anyway.
So--and that is in the first phase. Now they are--now the
administration wants a second phase further offshore. The
Defense Department has concerns. I don't know if the Coast
Guard still has concerns.
But I am going to ask you a question: Has the Coast Guard
analyzed the effect on search-and-rescue missions that these
windmills might pose if they--off the coast, because I have a
lot--you know, I have a lot of both private and commercial
vessels who traffic in that area. God forbid something happens.
You know, conditions aren't great.
Has the Coast Guard studied the effect on search and rescue
of these windmills?
Admiral Fagan. Impact on search and rescue is part of the
consideration that we have looked at. I would be happy to have
the team come over and sort of walk you through where exactly
we are at this point in time with regard to the advise--you
know, advice we have been providing to BOEM across--you know,
again, ensuring safety of navigation, safety of life as the
wind farms proceed.
Dr. Harris. Sure. And I would imagine, since--since some of
the interferences with radar, I would imagine, the--you know,
the newest proposed Vestas 15-megawatt windmill, 919 feet tall,
much taller than ones that have been looked at in the past, I
would imagine they could have deferential effects on radar. I
am sure they haven't been studied because this is a relatively
new windmill and it is what is going to happen in the future.
I do have concern that you only advise BOEM on this because
you all are the experts in maritime navigational safety, not
BOEM. BOEM, it appears, has an agenda here, and I worry about
it because their agenda, I think, conflicts with maritime
safety. And I think that was in a letter--again, the April 2013
letter advising BOEM.
BOEM completely disregarded it, and here we are. You know,
we are back--we are back again, because now that BOEM wants to
re-expand, wants to lease new areas, I am afraid they are going
to take the same attitude with that.
Anyway, if you would get back to me on that, I would
appreciate it.
The second thing I have is an issue of navigational buoys.
Again, these are mostly in the bay. So what has happened is
that we have a couple of Federal channels--Slaughter Creek, Tar
Bay Gap--where the navigational buoys were removed by the Coast
Guard because, you know, the channel silted in, Coast Guard
says: This is not a--you know, there is no channel here
anymore. It is too shallow a depth. We are taking the markers
out.
So I have two questions. One is, when that happens, do you
communicate the importance of that to the Army Corps so that
they take that into account when they do their dredge plans?
And the second one is, could you allow and expedite private
aids to navigation being placed in those channels because,
without markers, as you can imagine, you are left on local
knowledge, which sometimes isn't that much? And other entities
have wanted to place markers and run up to the--into the Coast
Guard, I will say bureaucracy, or maybe policy, of not being
allowed to put a private aid to navigation there.
So is this something that we can work with together to make
sure that, look, something is in that channel? And I get it. If
it is not deep enough to be a, you know, a Coast Guard marked
channel, but our watermen and our private boaters do need some
markers.
Admiral Fagan. I will look forward to working with you on
that and will take back that specific issue to the team and see
where we are with regard to private aids to navigation.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much, Admiral.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Since we have had a second round of questions,
if you had any more, you feel free to take this opportunity.
Dr. Harris. You know, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, but
I think, again, we will work with the admiral on the offshore
wind issues, safety issues. It is just very concerning to me as
my watermen, my commercial fishermen, my private fleet, charter
boat captains, et cetera, are--express a lot of concern about
shortcuts being taken over at BOEM that don't take into
consideration the input of interested parties and experts--not
only just interested parties--and, again, I can't emphasize
this. There is nobody at BOEM who knows navigational safety as
well as the Coast Guard does.
Mr. Joyce. Certainly.
Dr. Harris. And for them to disregard that letter back in
2013, I think, is highly problematic--highly problematic.
But no. I appreciate the offer. I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Dr. Harris.
There may be additional questions from members, and I would
ask that you get back to them in a timely fashion. For those
that are asked today, if you could get back to us within 15
business days from today, it would be most appreciative so we
can work on fashioning your budget for going into the
Department's budget going into next year.
Again like to thank you for being here today.
And, with that, unless there is anything further from any
members, this committee is now adjourned.
Thank you.
Admiral Fagan. Thank you.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 19, 2023.
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
WITNESS
TROY MILLER, ACTING COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Mr. Rutherford [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Homeland
Security will come to order.
We welcome Acting Commissioner Miller. Thank you for
joining us today as we discuss the Customs and Border
Protection fiscal year 2024 budget submission. I will give an
opening statement here very quickly.
The work agents and officers of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection do every day has immense importance to both our
national and economic security. But simply, their collective
job is to keep bad things and bad people from entering the
country illegally. However, our agents and officers jobs are
made harder by the President's fundamentally unserious budget
request for CBP.
Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2024 request is full of
inexplicable gimmicks, and I will explain those later, but, for
example, the President proposes $174 million for additional
surveillance towers, but fails to adequately provide adequate
funding to maintain the ones we already have in the field.
The budget request calls for an additional 350 Border
Patrol agents, and at the same time cuts funding for Border
Patrol pay by $63 million. We talked about this yesterday.
There is not a single dollar in the CBP request to counter the
small drones that the cartels are flying across the border to
conduct surveillance on our agents and deliver drug loads. In
fact, the holes that Congress would have to fill just to
maintain the level of capability we have today totals nearly
$400 million due to these gimmicks. If we funded CBP at the
requested level, the border would be less secure. And I know
you don't want to that, and neither do we.
The fiscal year 2024 request for CBP is disappointing,
because the men and women in the field need more funding to do
the very difficult job that we have given them. They need more
agents, more officers, and more processing coordinators. We
have fewer than 19,000 agents in the field, the lowest level in
years, and we continue to lose seasoned agents at an
unsustainable rate.
They need more advanced technology to detect illicit
activity and prevent fentanyl from devastating the lives of our
fellow Americans throughout the country, and they need more
physical infrastructure. But instead, this budget asks that we
spend existing barrier money on environmental remediation
instead of a new fencing barrier. The President's budget
request is a mere $4.2 million above last year's level, despite
the record number of crossings we have had over the last 2
years.
If you factor in the high inflation we have seen over the
last few months, the administration is essentially cutting the
CBP budget at a time of border crisis. Budgets communicate
priorities, and it is clear by this request that the
President's priority is not securing our border, not providing
the men and women in the field the means to hold the line.
With title 42 about to end, the situation on the border
could easily go from bad to much, much worse. Make no mistake,
our adversaries, the transnational criminal organizations who
control every inch of the Mexican side of the border, want to
do everything in their power to continue to traffic narcotics
and people, fueling violence and human suffering.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to properly fund CBP and our border security
efforts.
I will now turn to my colleague, Mr. Cuellar, for any
opening remarks he may have.
Mr. Cuellar. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, it is a pleasure seeing you again, Acting
Commissioner, Mr. Miller.
Again, you are the head of one of the most dynamic agencies
in the Federal Government. And each day, you and your workforce
are called upon to address new and increasingly complex issues.
I think all the folks need to look at is the day in the CBP
life, and it is incredible the number of trucks and cars and
passengers, and arrests that you all make, and it is so many
laws that you have to enforce. So I appreciate that.
I also appreciate that you started your career back in
1993, with the U.S. Customs Service as a customs inspector, to
now heading the agency. And you bring years of experience,
trust, and integrity to this role. And I would say, despite all
the pressures that you face every day, you have demonstrated
exceptional professionalism and leadership, and we appreciate
the work that you do.
And again, I note--I say that you are a career official,
not in a political capacity. And I think for some jobs, with
all due respect to Democrats and Republicans, we should have
more career folks like yourself. So we appreciate what you do.
And as you know, homeland is certainly a priority to me as
the rest of the members. As I always say, I don't just visit
the border, I live there. My family is there. I breathe the
air, I drink the water, and it is a place I call home.
And I appreciate the work that y'all do because, in fact,
my hometown, Laredo, if you look at the crime statistics, they
are about three, four times safer than Washington, D.C., is. So
I appreciate all the work that law enforcement does there.
Again, the border is important. Security is important. But
at the same time, we have got to make sure that we also rely a
lot on trade and tourism. In fact, with Mexico, there is over
$863 million of trade every--billion dollars every year. That
is $1.8 billion every single day. So trying to find that
balance between security and trade and tourism is important.
Laredo, as you know, we are the largest inland port. I
think in February we surpassed L.A., which means we are the
largest port in the whole country. So we appreciate all the
good work Albert Flores and everybody that does the work down
there in the area.
Also, I do want to talk about a couple things. Operational
control--and I will be asking a question about that--was
defined by the Secure Fence Act in 2006. No administration has
been able to achieve it, not President Bush, it passed under
him; not President Obama; not President Trump; and certainly
not President Biden also. So I certainly want to talk to you
about the work that--what we need to do, not political, but how
do we work in a practical way, Democrats and Republicans, to
get this work done. So I certainly want to work with my
colleagues to address this.
Also, the same thing, talking about budgets. I do want to
emphasize that the last 2 fiscal years we actually have added
over $2.4 billion to the CBP budget authority. That is an over
15 percent increase, more than the prior administration. So I
want to emphasize that we have added over $2.4 billion from the
prior administration.
With that, we have been able to leverage funding, more
Border Patrol agents, more CBP officers, intel specialists,
trade enforcement staff, and other personnel, along with the
technology in ports of entry and, of course, making sure that
we have technology between ports of entry also. I know
sometimes, you know, some folks believe in the 14th century
solution called the wall, but I think we got to look at the
21st century technology.
And again, it is important to understand that in south
Texas, the border, we believe in private property rights.
Private property rights. So if you have been a landowner for
generations, you don't want the big bad government to come over
and take your property that certainly takes away the water
access to cattle and wildlife and other things that we have. So
I appreciate that.
And let me just say in conclusion, Commissioner Miller, I
know there is a lot of work. There are some funding gaps that
we have to look at. And certainly, I am hoping that we can work
together to address some of the funding gaps that y'all have
and address those issues.
So, with that, I say welcome. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you
so much for your time.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. And I would be
remiss if I didn't mention that I am not Chairman Joyce.
Mr. Cuellar. Well, you got the gavel, so you are a
chairman.
Mr. Rutherford. He is delayed at another hearing, but he
will be here as soon as he can, Commissioner.
And, with that, Commissioner Miller, without objection,
your full written testimony will be entered into the record.
And with that in mind, we would ask for you to please summarize
your opening statement in 5 minutes. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF TROY A. MILLER
Mr. Miller. Chairman Rutherford, Ranking Member Cuellar,
and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to testify today
on behalf of the nearly 65,000 dedicated employees of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection who protect our Nation day and
night from every evolving criminal and terrorist threats, while
also enforcing trade compliance and facilitating the safe and
efficient flow of lawful travelers and commercial goods across
our borders.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Department of
Homeland Security and the creation of CBP. We will not forget
how the events of 9/11 changed our Nation and led to the
creation of the world's first comprehensive border security
agency. This year also represents a personal anniversary. I
began my Federal career nearly 30 years ago with the U.S.
Customs Service.
Over the course of my career, I have overseen many of CBP's
complex responsibilities related to trade, travel, and national
security. I know firsthand that CBP has an immensely difficult
job, and I am constantly amazed at the perseverance of the men
and women of CBP and the commitment to our mission.
I am grateful for this subcommittee's recognition of the
physical and mental pressures that affect CBP employees and
their families. Tragically, CBP lost 11 employees to suicide in
2021 and another 15 in 2022. These distressing figures are
further compounded by a record number of line of duty deaths.
The well-being of all CBP employees remains my top priority,
and I am thankful for the critical resources Congress has
provided towards our shared commitment to the welfare of the
CBP workforce.
As you know, CBP considers considerable operational
challenges on the southwest border, and the men and women of
CBP continue to be up to the task. Specifically, CBP continues
to counter the dynamic of threat of sophisticated transnational
criminal organizations engaged in human and drug smuggling,
including the production and trafficking of illicit fentanyl,
an extremely lethal synthetic opioid.
We also continue to respond to the historic flow of
migration in the Western Hemisphere. The United Nations
recently estimated that there are approximately 660,000
migrants currently in Mexico, including over 200,000 Haitian
and Venezuelan nationals, in addition to 287,000 internally
displaced Mexican nationals. Many of these individuals could
attempt to enter the United States in the near term.
Taking actions to address another near-term challenge, CBP
continues to prepare for the transition from title 42 to full
Title 8 immigration processing, in coordination with the
Department of Homeland Security and other Federal partners. Our
preparations align with CBP's overall strategy to prioritize
national security, strengthen our border operations, protect
the American people, provide for the safe and humane processing
of migrants, and administer consequences for unlawful entry,
including removal and prosecution.
And this approach continues to produce results. In fiscal
year 2022, Border Patrol agents intercepted more than 12,000
individuals with prior criminal convictions, and CBP officers
arrested more than 15,000 individuals wanted for criminal
activities at our ports of entry. And nationwide, CBP seized
nearly 656,000 pounds of illicit drugs, including 15,000 pounds
of fentanyl.
Every seizure matters. And I cannot give enough credit to
the valuable efforts of our frontline personnel. Just 2 days
ago, CBP officers in Otay Mesa seized 776 pounds of fentanyl in
one single event.
Our partnerships are also invaluable to our enforcement
efforts. For example, through Operation Blue Lotus, CBP and our
Homeland Security Investigations partners are surging our
intelligence analysis and enforcement capabilities to not only
target and seize illicit fentanyl, but also pursue
investigations and take down criminal networks.
Since the operation's implementation just 1 month ago, we
have made 80 arrests and more than 66 seizures of fentanyl,
totaling nearly 3,700 pounds. Through a concurrent operation
between the ports of entry, the Border Patrol has seized an
additional 825 pounds of fentanyl.
We have also enhanced our enforcement operations in the
trade environment, including those to combat global forced
labor by applying new authorities Congress provided through the
Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. Since its implementation 9
months ago, CBP has intercepted more than 3,500 shipments for
forced labor concerns.
The President's fiscal year 2024 budget for CBP builds on
these accomplishments by supporting continued investments in
border security technology and personnel, ensuring we continue
to expand our situational and domain awareness, respond to
emerging threats, detect and intercept dangerous drugs and
contraband, and provide efficient processing and safe humane
conditions for migrants while in CBP custody.
Additionally, the budget supports our commitment to
workforce care, such as expanding onsite clinician availability
and enhancing suicide prevention, chaplain, and peer support
programs.
In closing, I want to thank the members of this
subcommittee who have traveled to the border to observe CBP's
critical operations and dedicated frontline workforce.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look
forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Commissioner.
And I will now recognize myself, for Mr. Joyce, and ask my
questions.
As I mentioned in the opening statement, the President's
budget significantly underfunds, I believe, the current level
of border security capabilities that we have in the field
today. So my first question: How do the cuts to border security
technology programs like the ASTS, the surveillance towers, how
does that impact the agency? And if Congress decided to accept
the President's budget as is, what kind of consequences would
there be for border security operations?
Mr. Miller. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your question.
Certainly, I recognize the structural deficiencies in the 2024
budget due to timing and some other administrative concerns.
That being said, I would look forward to working with Congress
to ensure that those structural deficiencies are corrected.
Mr. Rutherford. Absolutely. And we look forward to working
with you on that as well.
And kind of following up along that same vein of
questioning, among the cuts, this budget proposes a $63 million
dollar reduction to Border Patrol pay, even while we are trying
to bring new officers on.
How harmful would that be if Congress doesn't fix the hole
that is created by this request?
Mr. Miller. Yeah. So for the pay, as you know, we continue
to work--and I can talk more about this at length--but we
continue to work on our hiring to actually bring our staffing
up to the appropriated levels that Congress is funding us for,
as you know. We haven't be able to hire Border Patrol agents,
additional Border Patrol agents, above the 19,555 since 2011.
We were appropriated an additional 300 agents last year, an
additional 350 agents this year.
So we are making strides and really looking at our hiring
pipeline to ensure that we are increasing recruiting, that we
are fixing our academy and our attrition rates, and a number of
other issues. So, you know, we are confident that we have the
funds right now going into next year to hire the additional
agents.
Mr. Rutherford. Do you have a percentage of authorized
positions that were filled that--you know, with your throughput
at the academy?
Mr. Miller. So right now, we are sitting at about 19,000
agents. And again, we are authorized 19,855.
Mr. Rutherford. But how many agents are you putting through
the academy in a year when those positions are authorized, like
the 350?
Mr. Miller. So we are continuing--I don't have the exact
number. I can get back to you on that. But we are continuing
to--so if I could, I will take just a second.
Mr. Rutherford. Sure.
Mr. Miller. Number 1, we looked at our academy, and our
attrition rate at the academy was over 30 percent. So we worked
with the chief of the academy to look at why the attrition rate
was what it was. And without changing the requirements of the
academy, we resequenced some of the testing, got additional
mentors for the chief counsel, the legal training. In addition,
we took the physical fitness aspect, and we used the entire 117
days to get from A to Z, instead of right about the 6-month or
the halfway mark.
So that has allowed us to get the attrition rate down to 9
percent.
Now, on the front end, we have ramped up our hiring. So we
need to really get to about 6,000 applications a month, and we
were around 4,000. So for the last 2 months, our applications
have really driven and we are getting close to that level. So
that is at the front end. That is on the back end.
In between, we are looking at our HRM process, through our
expertise, we have learned with the Office of Field Operations
when we had a similar hiring surge. So we are confident. And we
thank Congress, for the flexibility you gave us in the 2023
budget, which allowed us to hire Border Patrol processing
coordinators while we fix our hiring pipeline.
So that is not a direct answer, but we are working on it.
Mr. Rutherford. No. Listen, as a training center director
myself for a very large law enforcement agency, what you did
was great management. So thank you for that.
Last question I think for this round: Commissioner, is CBP
ready for a migrant surge? You know, we talk about the numbers
of people currently waiting in Mexico. When title 42 goes away,
can you talk about the impact that that is going to have going
from 6,000 encounters a day to up to 18,000 maybe? Can you--and
can you also tell me, in the--well, let's just leave it there
because I don't think you will have time to answer the second
part of that.
Mr. Miller. So, if I may, to start with, what we are doing
to surge resources to the southwest border, obviously, May 11,
title 42 is going away. We do know that there is a large amount
of folks on the north of Mexico. So, really, in the last 12
months or so, we have brought on 1,100 Border Patrol processing
coordinators. We have let the contract to bring in contract
processing coordinators. So we have brought on 590 processing
coordinators. We have doubled our transportation contract.
We have the first ever air transport contract in the
history of Customs and Border Protection. On top of that, we
have increased our capacity across the southwest border to over
6,000 for holding capacity, and we will have an additional
2,500 added to that in the near future. I just took a trip down
to Panama and Colombia last week to work with the Panamanians
and the Colombians on an agreement to slow down the flow
through the Darien. I have a Border Patrol team onsite working
with the Panamanians this week.
So we are doing a whole host of things to prepare for the
ending of title 42. Obviously, we are working with our other
government partners through the volunteer force, through law
enforcement personnel, to get those folks to the southwest
border. I can tell you our efforts over the last year have
allowed us to get a significant amount of badges back to the
border, Border Patrol agents in between the ports of entry, and
we have actually seen the results of that through the results
of our operations against fentanyl.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Commissioner. And thanks for the
efforts to stop them from getting to our border to begin with.
That is where the real answer is at, not processing them faster
when they get there.
With that, I will yield to the ranking member, Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner, again, I want to talk a little bit about
operational control measures. As you know, that trend was
defined in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 as, quote, the
prevention of all--and the key is ``all''--unlawful entries
into the United States, including entries by terrorists and
other unlawful aliens, and instruments of terrorism, narcotics,
and other contraband.
Keep in mind, as I said during my opening statement, that
the last 2 fiscal years, more than the prior administration, we
have added over $2.4 billion to the CBP budget authority. That
is over a 15 percent increase.
Now, can you tell me how many of the 1,954 miles that we
have with Mexico are under, quote, operational control? And I
want you to go by the Bush administration, the Obama
administration, the Trump administration, and the current
administration.
Mr. Miller. Well, thank you, Ranking Member. You know, I
don't believe that we have ever had operational control by that
definition.
Mr. Cuellar. Under Bush?
Mr. Miller. Under any, since the definition was published
in 2006.
Mr. Cuellar. Yeah. Bush, Obama, Trump, or even all that.
And again, you know, I know that metric can be hard to achieve,
but I think we all want to work with you to try to reach that
goal. I think it is a goal that we need to reach, and whatever
way we can help you with the right resources, please let us
know.
Now, I want to follow up on what the chairman said right
now. I believe that we--you know, using football as an example.
I hate playing defense on the 1 yard line called the U.S-Mexico
border. A lot of times, people want to emphasize everything on
the 1 yard line, but I rather play defense on their 20 yard
line.
So I think there is three things, in my opinion, if you all
implement it correctly, if you implement it correctly, I think
it should work to address what is going to happen on May 11.
One, the agreement with Colombia, Panama, and the U.S., if
you all work on that, you should be able to stop a lot of folks
from coming in there. It is a 60-day, but hopefully you all can
keep it longer than 60-day. I assume it is a pilot program.
Number one.
The asylum officers that will be now--is the right word
``embedded'' in CBP Border Patrol facilities, where they can do
the expedited decisions. And as you know, that is important,
because if you have a hundred people asking for asylum, 88 to
90 percent are going to be rejected. So I don't think we ought
to be letting a hundred percent in. So those asylum officers,
if we do it correctly, should work.
And then finally, the new rule, which I am hoping will come
out before May 11. And I know that there are some folks--more
progressive folks might not like it, but I like two parts of
it.
One, if somebody is asking for asylum, they should not come
in between ports of entry, because I have got a lot of
landowners that don't like that one bit at all. And they should
go through the port of entry without disrupting trade and
tourism, which are so important to us. And then, the other
thing is the third party, third country, it is something that I
have been advocating for many years, even before the Trump
administration; tried to add that in the appropriations, but I
wasn't successful. But that basically means that if somebody
has a fear and they pass through another country where they
could have asked asylum, then that fear is gone. The U.S., we
welcome people, but the U.S. is not the only place where you
take the fear away.
So the rule hopefully will be coming out, but if you can
talk about those three things. And again, I believe in law and
order at the border, but at the same time respect the rights of
the legitimate asylum--folks that are asking for asylum, should
I say.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Ranking Member. So a couple things.
Couldn't agree more on the collaboration with our foreign
partners, whether, you know, the regional strategy, whether it
is visa policies that are the same throughout the region,
whether it is working with our Panamanians and Colombian
partners, to ensure that they are stopping the transnational
criminal organizations from trafficking these vulnerable people
through the Darien. So we continue to work with a number of
foreign countries, including Panama, Colombia, Mexico, and
South America.
As you pointed out, we have made some modifications to our
facilities so that we can do enhanced removal--and this is
important--enhanced expedited removal from CBP facilities of
single adults from easy-to-remove countries. As you know, we
are not a long-term detention facility for families and the
like. We have deployed 600-plus interview booths with video/
audio capability to our facilities, and we are working with CIS
and EOIR on the video and audio capabilities. We have been
testing out this process in RGV last week and across the
southwest border last week--last week in RGV and across the
southwest border this week. So we continue to work out the
kinks.
And lastly and most importantly, you know, I truly believe
in what you said is that we need both a pathway and a
consequence.
Mr. Cuellar. Without consequences, as you know, Mr.
Chairman, they will see--folks will see the border as a speed
bump, and we need to have consequences.
Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Rutherford. Absolutely. Good point, Mr. Cuellar.
And now we will turn to my good friend, Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Acting Chair Rutherford.
And, Acting Commissioner Miller, thank for being here. Very
much appreciate it. And just let me say, if you could convey
the committee's thanks to all the men and women that you work
with to secure our border. Difficult job, and we stand as a
partner with you to help accomplish that.
As has been mentioned, over the last couple of years, this
committee has provided, and I might say with strong bipartisan
support, significant resources for force multiplying border
technology that is used between the ports of entry. We heard--
we have heard directly from Border Patrol sector chiefs as well
as agents about the value of an autonomous surveillance tower,
innovative technology that leverages autonomy to serve as that
force multiplier for those agents that are stretched so thinly.
In fact, we even had, just recently, the Secretary, Mr.
Mayorkas, testify, and I think I can almost quote him saying,
harnessing these innovations including exploring how we can use
AI to be a force multiplier for our brave, heroic personnel.
So just, first of all, a question. Could you share with us
how the increased deployments of autonomous technology has
actually supported agents in the field? Are we getting--what
are we getting for our investment there?
Mr. Miller. Well, first of all, I will relay your thank you
to the men and women of CBP, and we do appreciate it.
And second of all, the technology that we have deployed
along the southwest border has been extremely valuable to the
men and women of CBP, when you are talking about autonomous
surveillance towers, when you are talking about ISTs, the
remote towers, the mobile towers; the UGS, the underground
sensors; the cameras with autonomous technology on them that
will identify events. And when you are talking about the
autonomous, that means we don't have to have a person
evaluating every single image, obviously every single radar
signature and the like. And what we have been able to do
through the funding is take that autonomous capability and
bring it in--and again, thank you for the funding--to a COP, a
common operating picture, with less people.
So in the past, we used to have nine screens looking at
nine different feeds from nine different towers, and a person
trying to figure out which each one of these--which each one of
these events were. Now, with the autonomous technology, it
brings it all together, very few people, one screen, and it
gets it to people, agents, out in the field on their handheld,
and tells them where they have to go. And it directs them to
where they are, so we don't have to have--so, number one, our
command and control center isn't filled with people and
screens. And number two, we are getting that information to our
agents real time so they can respond to that threat.
So the technology that has been provided to the men and
women of CBP has been extremely valuable in allowing us to get
out there and look at those events that we need to.
Mr. Newhouse. Awesome. Good. Thank you.
So similar to my colleague, Mr. Cuellar, I live on the
northern border. And CBP's figures tell us that in 2021, just
over 27,000 aliens were encountered. By 2022 that figure had
gone up to, I believe, 109,000. And just through the end of
January of this year, the encounters have been at 56,000 on the
Canadian line. So I would guess, following that trend, we are
going to be over 200,000 by end of the fiscal year, at a double
of where we were last fiscal year.
So my understanding in Blaine in the State of Washington,
there is only one mobile surveillance capability, which is
basically a truck-mounted surveillance system. I know you can't
easily move fixed assets, but given the increase that we have
seen and that which we are anticipating, wouldn't it make sense
to reallocate and acquire more assets to focus on the over
5,000-mile long border that we have with Canada? So I didn't
see any request for resources to do that in this document. So
could you talk about that?
Mr. Miller. Yeah. I mean, most certainly along the northern
border, technology is a force multiplier across the northern
border, and we need to continue to look at what assets we have
up there and get the appropriate assets. I will have to get
back to you on exactly what our plan is to get the right
technology on the northern border. But a hundred percent with
you, we have to get that technology up there as a force
multiplier for the men and women.
Mr. Newhouse. Yeah. I agree. We are not nearly the numbers
that we are seeing in the southern border, but certainly the
trend is not good, and we need to get ahead of it. So thank you
very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
And we will now turn to the gentlelady, Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller, as a nurse, one of my focuses on this
subcommittee has been healthcare and safety of CBP agents and
migrants in your care. Over the last 4 years, I have been able
to visit CBP facilities at the U.S.-Mexico border, and I have
seen the health operations, from intake assessments to the
medical supplies and teams onsite.
I was proud to secure funding for CBP to switch to
electronic medical records, and I am very glad to see that your
most recent budget overview reports that this has, quote,
markedly improved medical documentation, resulting in
significant enhancements to patient care and safety as well as
operational efficiency.
It is critical that no matter what the migration levels are
or whether our immigration system is operating under title 42
or title 8, health and safety remains a top priority at CBP.
So, Mr. Miller, with the anticipated end of title 42, what
actions has CBP taken, and what plans do you have in place to
ensure the health and medical needs of both migrants and CBP
personnel are fully met?
Mr. Miller. Well, thank you. Number one, I appreciate your
continued support for the medical support of the men and women
and the migrants alike. I will start with the current situation
where we are at with medical support and what we are doing to
ensure that we have appropriate medical support.
So as you know, we have approximately 1,400 medical
professionals along the southwest border today. So we are at
the numbers that we were looking to be at. We are looking at
adding additional child caregivers in order to do that. We are
looking at a contract modification so that we can up the pay
that we are paying the child caregivers, as we found a little
bit of a tough time recruiting, but we still have 109 per shift
across the southwest border which, as you know, is a
significant improvement.
We continue to work with the chief medical officer from the
Department of Homeland Security to have those RFAs available,
should we need additional support, whether it is from HHS,
continuing to work with our U.S. Coast Guard partners as well.
So, you know, I think we are well suited, number one, with
the people we have at the border and, number two, with the
partnerships we have developed over the last 2 years to ensure
that we have the appropriate medical support for the migrants
in our custody.
On the CBP front, the money that has been allocated to the
Customs and Border Protection over the last really 3 years--2
years, and with the request for $34 million in fiscal year
2024, you know, we have really made huge strides in what we are
doing to take care of our workforce. We have got behavioral
clinicians, 30-some onsite. We will have 50 onsite by the end
of this year.
Ms. Underwood. Great.
Mr. Miller. The psychologist. We have 13 psychologists on
board across the southwest border this year. We have increased
our training for all of our supervisors, called live works, I
believe, which ensures that they know what the science looks
like. As my colleague, the deputy commissioner, always states,
we want to get to the left of it, we want to be able to
identify those indicators before they get to that point.
Ms. Underwood. Yup.
Mr. Miller. So we are working also with Veterans Affairs,
who has been really a force multiplier along the southwest
border. We are working with an NGO that is providing a specific
service in El Paso right now. I think that is going to be
hugely beneficial as well.
And then really, going forward, we continue to have a trust
deficit with our employees. We want our employees to use the
services that we are putting out there. And what do I mean by
that? As we are looking at the voluntary alcohol treatment
program, we want individuals to know that they can sign up for
that, and they can come back and they have a job after they are
finished. While the same----
Ms. Underwood. Great.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. If there is a mental health issue.
So we are working with the union to update our policies and
our procedures to ensure that the men and women are using the
services that this committee has been so kind to put forth to
us the last 2 years and now 3.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. Well, as we know, in the news,
there is a series of budget cuts that have been proposed by
Republican leadership, and the plan would revert spending
levels to fiscal 2022, which means DHS would see a $3.4 billion
cut.
Can you explain how the funding cuts--the proposed funding
cuts to DHS would impact the health and safety of CBP
personnel, migrants in U.S. custody, and our entire border
management system?
Mr. Miller. Thank you for the question. Certainly, at
Customs and Border Protection, we could not sustain that cut
for operations or for the health, safety, welfare of the
migrants. I think from the American public standpoint, we would
not be able to surge resources to the southwest border to
attack the fentanyl problem. We would most likely have to cut
back on our medical contract. We would probably have to take
down some of the soft-side facilities where we are providing
the wraparound care.
Certainly, our Border Patrol processing coordinators--
contract processing coordinators, we would no longer be able to
employ, which means we would have less agents in between the
ports of entry doing their border security work. On the trade
side, you know, the trade and travel at our ports of entry
would be decimated. We would have long lines and cargo
containers would be sitting in ports of entry for a longer
amount of time. Our Uyghur Forced Labor Act, we would probably
not be able to enforce it the way we are enforcing it today. So
there is a whole host of issues that would happen if we would
go backwards with the budget.
Ms. Underwood. I yield back.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
And now we call on Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Acting Commissioner, for coming before us today.
I appreciate, again, the hard work of the men and women at the
CBP.
I just want to follow up on something really quick. When
did the soft-sided facilities pop up? When did we start
enacting those at the border to handle the surge?
Mr. Miller. It would--I believe fiscal year 2021. I can't
remember the exact day we put the first one up.
Mrs. Hinson. Right. So I visited the border in late spring,
early summer at Eagle Pass and had a chance to see that. How
much is that costing every quarter?
Mr. Miller. So the soft-side facilities right now are about
$991 million year.
Mrs. Hinson. A year. So nearly a billion dollars a year
going to these soft-sided facilities that could be eliminated
if we would control the southern surge at our border.
And I know CBP is stretched thin. I would rather see those
resources go toward stopping forced labor materials from coming
into our country, interdicting those drugs. And this could all
be eliminated with a different posture toward immigration at
our southern border.
I think that is a goal of mine at this committee is we want
you to be able to strengthen CBP's efforts at our southern
border. You have been stretched thin. The challenges you are
facing surge at a historic level we haven't seen that has been
under this administration since 2021. Exponentially worse than
we have ever seen.
And I am extremely concerned about the number of known
terrorists and criminals who have come across our southern
border as a result of the weakness, not as a weakness at CBP,
but as a weakness of policy at our southern border.
And nearly a year ago, I actually wrote to you and ICE
Acting Director Johnson, asking for answers about how a
suspected member of the terror watch list was able to not only
get into our country but be released by CBP into the homeland,
and ICE as well. So I never got an answer from either agency.
Very disappointed in that. And I would ask you to respond to
how this disastrous situation could have occurred in the first
place, and what are we doing with the funding that we are
giving you to make sure that this does not happen again?
Mr. Miller. So, ma'am, thank you for the question. I am not
aware of the particular instance, but I can tell you, you know,
how the process does work.
Mrs. Hinson. This was a person who was apprehended in
Arizona, released into the interior, and then apprehended again
in Florida. But this is a person who was on our terror watch
list. So we can't let this happen, right? I mean, this is a
vulnerability for the safety and security of our country, is it
not?
Mr. Miller. Well, so I concur that we cannot allow it to
happen, but I can tell you how the process works.
Mrs. Hinson. Please explain.
Mr. Miller. Yeah. So when an individual--well, number one,
we have developed a number of--so I am not aware of this
individual's citizenship, but we have established a number of
partnerships throughout the Western Hemisphere, whether it is
biometric-sharing partnerships or sharing of information of
folks entering the hemisphere. So we are continually monitoring
that information and working with our foreign partners. But
when the person crosses the southwest border and is
apprehended, we will take the biometrics and we will run the
biometrics in----
Mrs. Hinson. And I have seen that in person, the intake.
How are you communicating, then, with these other agencies
under Department of Homeland Security?
Mr. Miller. So I used to run the National Targeting Center,
which does all the coordination for CBP. So what will happen is
the Border Patrol agent will apprehend the individual. And if
the person is on the terrorist watch list, they are mandated to
call the National Targeting Center, and they will coordinate
with the Terrorist Screening Center, the Threat Screening
Center to determine if that person is a possible match or not a
match.
Mrs. Hinson. So where did this weakness come, then, where
this person was not caught in that----
Mr. Miller. So again, I am not aware of the particular
instance. I am more than willing to walk through that
particular case. But I can tell you, if the person is a match,
then we would turn that person to ICE ERO, and they would put
them into removal proceedings. It could have been an instance
where that person was determined not to be a match and later on
additional information came into the system where it was
identified to be a match. And we are continually vetting those
individuals. So we would have identified that and coordinated
with ICE ERO to apprehend that person, pick them up, and put
them into removal proceedings at that point.
So we do have a layered approach. If somebody is released,
we will identify them and we will go apprehend them. And I am
more than happy to look at this particular case and determine
exactly what happened. But like you----
Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. I think that is my goal is to make sure
this does not happen again. And obviously, this IC is just a
massive hole in our security, and anything we can do to make
sure that we are not releasing these kinds of people into our
country, I mean, it makes us all less safe, and that is what
keeps me up at night. I have got 10- and 12-year-old boys. The
last thing I want in my community is to be less safe and
secure, and we know that people are literally going all over
the country. So a huge concern.
And I am almost out of time, but real quick wanted to ask a
question about the CCP, because we have seen an increased
influx in Chinese nationals obviously coming across our
southern border as well. Can you touch on what the CBP is doing
to counter kind of that initiative from the CCP in exploiting
the weaknesses or vulnerabilities, whatever they are doing, to
obviously take advantage of that to get more people into our
country?
Mr. Miller. Yes, ma'am. So we work very closely with the
Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Counterintelligence Task
Force led by the FBI, number one. Number two, with the Chinese
migrants specifically coming across the southwest border, it is
the third largest migrant population in the United States. And
historically, we have seen a number of, you know, surges up and
down with Chinese nationals, both at our ports of entry, in
between our ports of entry. And I can tell you with--as you
pointed out, the oppressive regime, the religious persecution,
and the fact that these folks couldn't travel for the last 3
years because of the COVID lockdown, it is not a--we expected
that we would see more Chinese migrants coming into this
hemisphere.
So what I can tell you is we will identify how they enter
the hemisphere. We will work with Department of Justice Joint
Task Force Alpha and HSI to identify the networks that are
smuggling these individuals into the hemisphere. We will work
with the Colombians and the Panamanians, because we know that
they are coming through the Darien. And we will try to disrupt
these transnational criminal organizations.
When they do get to our southwest border, we will ensure
that we are running them with our partners, LE and IC partners,
against the databases, and then we will do the--we will take
appropriate action based on those results.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you. And I am out of time. I will yield
back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mrs. Hinson.
Next up is Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest. Mr. Miller, thank you for being here today. I
know we had the opportunity to speak by phone a week or so ago.
Just earlier this week, we saw DHS released encounter
numbers for the month of March, national encounters, 257,000.
That marks the 12th straight month of 200-plus encounters along
the border. The 24th straight month of 185,000-plus encounters.
We know that fiscal year 2021, we set a record with 1.9
million. That record was broken in fiscal year 2022 with 2.7.
And we are on pace in fiscal year 2023 to break that record
once again.
I think clearly that we are seeing a humanitarian crisis
along the southwest border. That is one not caused by CBP. You
and your agents are doing the best job that you can to manage a
very difficult situation. And I applaud you for your budget
request asking for additional agents. I think those agents and
more are much needed. And I think the agents that work along
the southwest border are underpaid and that we need to
recognize the incredible work that they do each and every day
under a very difficult situation.
But as we see the border at historic levels--matter of
fact, Chief Ortiz in March testified before the Homeland
Security Authorizing Committee that five of the nine sectors
along the southwest border, in his opinion, were not secure.
And we see the budget that has been presented. And if I am
reading the figures correctly, it appears to me that Customs
and Border Patrol, that we are--that the President's budget is
asking for a 7.5 percent decrease from the funds that were
received last Congress.
And so as we talk about all of the issues that we are
facing, how--should this not be one of the agencies that
Congress should invest and invest robustly in because we know,
and you mentioned it very briefly, title 42 goes away in less
than a month, that we expect a surge along the southwest
border--I think you told me, and correct me if I am wrong, that
there are individuals that you have intelligence on or groups
of individuals who are in Mexico waiting for title 42 to expire
before they attempt to enter the country.
Is that correct, or did I misconstrue something that you
said?
Mr. Miller. No, sir. That is correct.
Mr. Guest. And you also spoke about the Darien Gap and the
number of individuals that come across the Darien Gap. CNN did
a recent article on that--I don't know if you saw it. I think
it came out maybe earlier this week--about individuals that
were making that trek through the Darien Gap.
They said last year--and again, these are CNN numbers, so
they are not CBP numbers--but said that roughly 250,000--so a
quarter million people--came through the Darien Gap last year,
that that was twice the number the year before, that that was
10 times the average of 2010 through 2020, and that so far
year-to-date, based on their figures, we were six times higher
in the first few months of the year, first quarter of the year,
I guess, than what we saw last year.
And so it seems to me that the numbers of encounters along
the southwest border are--they don't seem to be going down. If
anything, based on the information I received--and correct me
if I am wrong--we are expecting that 250,000, which was what we
saw last month with title 42 going away--do you expect that
number to increase at least through the next several months?
Mr. Miller. The number of encounters between the ports of
entry last month on the southwest border was about 163,000.
Still, you know, historic numbers.
Mr. Guest. And you are right. I think it was 191 last year
on the southern--or last month, in March, for the southern
border, and the total for the northern and southern was 257.
So, yeah, just looking at the southern border, this month,
191,000, which was up from 153,000 the month before, but down
from the all-time high of a quarter of a million in December.
So the numbers along the southwest border, particularly as
we get into the warmer months--because we know traditionally
that January and February, the number of encounters along the
southern border are generally, just because of the temperature,
that those numbers are generally down, and they begin
increasing in March continuing through the end of the year.
With title 42 going away, do you see that trend continuing
again?
Mr. Miller. Yes, I do. I do expect the numbers will go up
after May 11.
Mr. Guest. And you talked a little bit, and you said
something about you recognized some sort of structural
deficiencies in the budget request. Explain to me what you were
meaning when you talk about structural deficiencies within the
budget request.
Mr. Miller. Sir, thank you for the question. And really
mostly the deficiencies I am seeing is the O&S, the operation--
the O&S funds to continue operating some of the technology that
we have requested and received the last 2 years. So some of the
very same towers I think it was alluded to, some of the very
same towers we are talking about.
So, obviously, our goal is to work with this committee to
ensure that we sustain what we have already been given before
we purchase new.
Mr. Guest. And last question--I don't have a clock, Mr.
Chairman, so I apologize if I am over.
Mr. Rutherford. You are way over.
Mr. Guest. Okay. With that time, I will yield back and wait
for the second round.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Guest.
And Mr. Trone has joined us. We will go to you next, sir.
Mr. Trone. Sorry I am late. Got too many things going on.
You are always over, though. He is consistently over.
Hey, thanks for joining us, Commissioner Miller. Appreciate
it.
The challenges facing CBP are substantial, complex,
requiring more effective technologies to maximize your
resources. Your innovation team has been successful in
identifying and demonstrating some new promising technologies,
but we need to increase our return on the investment by
transitioning successful stress-tested technologies into the
base budget as soon as possible.
So for your experience at the National Targeting Center,
you understand the long-term value of leveraging precision
targeting capabilities over casting a wider net. So this let's
us use our resources much more effectively, both on this
northbound, but also on the southbound flow of guns and cash.
So expanding these preprimary scanning would close the
scanning capacity gap and could be a game changer on contraband
interdiction. So as of now, those scanned images at the port of
entry are sent to an officer in a common center, and CBP is not
adequately deploying the AI and machine learning to maximize
interdiction capabilities of the NII systems.
Can you discuss your role on the rollout and how you are
going to use artifical intelligence and ML technology more
effectively?
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. And,
again, thanks to the committee for the funds that we have
received on the southwest border, in particular to the
nonintrusive technology, as we deployed across the southwest
border so we can screen more vehicles, both passenger vehicles
and commercial vehicles, at our ports of entry.
So, sir, directly to your point, in January, we--and thank
you for your support of our INVNT team, by the way. So in
January, our Office of Information Technology and our
Innovation Team had a conference with 68 companies to discuss
just that, our requirements for artifical intelligence, machine
learning, so that we can process these images before primary
and get that information to our officers and agents to make an
informed decision.
We discussed our requirements, our challenges, what we were
looking for with those companies. We put out an RFP. That RFP
is due back to us at the end of this month. And through some of
the procurement vehicles we have, when we get that written
response at the end of April, we will be able to act on some of
that new emerging technology that is out there. And we will
continue to work with this committee for funds to fund
additional technology as it becomes available. But thank you
for your question.
Mr. Trone. Now, when you look at the total number of multi-
energy and low-energy portals ordered, how many of them have
been paid for fully or partially?
Mr. Miller. 138 have been paid for fully.
Mr. Trone. Would you describe the agency as being on track
with respect to deployments of these systems?
Mr. Miller. So as you know, sir, there have been some
delays, a number of different things. As you know--you have
been to the southwest border--each port is not equal. It is not
the same. Some, we have challenges with the distance. So
remember, we are fundamentally changing the way we do business
on the southwest border in that we are trying to do the scans
prior to primary. Some of these locations don't have the space
before primary. Some of these locations have other technology
that interferes with the NII and it doesn't make it useful.
So we have done a study across the southwest border. We
have procured the equipment. We are working with GSA and the
bridge owners on construction. Mexico itself has also purchased
additional scanning technology for their side of the border
that we will be working with them on. So by 2024, we believe
that we are going to at least have started to put all of that
technology in the ground at the same time, to your previous
question, developing that artifical and machine learning to get
it on top of it.
Now, I am with you, I want to do it quicker, and we are
going to do it as quick as possible. But this is a once in, you
know, my lifetime chance to change the way we are doing
business and really getting all that information to our
officers and agents real time so they can make the best
decision.
Mr. Trone. Seventy-three million cars coming across the
border at legal ports of entry, 200,000 a day, you know, we
have really got to use technology, or we have got no shot.
And I want to just stress--I know my time has run out, but
follow my Republicans' lead--stress the importance of the
southbound. I mean, the Mexican Government is obsessed with the
southbound flow of guns going into the cartels, which has made
the country so unstable and leading to immigration issues, et
cetera.
You know, we have got to make sure we work on that 30
million CBP got in 2023, and make sure that happens again in
2024, and we work on the southbound gun issue.
I yield back.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Joyce [presiding]. The chair will recognize Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairman.
And thank you, Acting Commissioner, for being here. And
just want to echo the sentiments that we certainly appreciate
what the boots on the ground are doing and what your
Department's tasked with.
You know, I live in south Texas, and so, I got the
opportunity, of course, to tour, as many people have, and shake
hands a know many of the people who work in the communities and
what have you. And it is a yeoman's effort in very difficult
circumstances, and so, certainly appreciate that.
A lot has been said about what operational control is, and
I will read the definition again. It has been read already, but
in this section, the term operational control means the
prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States,
including entries by terrorists and other unlawful aliens,
instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.
And you have said, you know, by that definition, we do not
have operational control, neither has anyone since this
definition was meant.
It seems to me that the hang-up is on the word ``all,'' in
the sense, like, until we get that number to zero, we will
never have--you know, and I would just like to ask you: Why do
you think that word ``all'' is there, and what is the purpose
of that?
Mr. Miller. I can guess. I mean, it is certainly an
aspirational goal that we would all like to attend.
Mr. Cloud. Yeah. It would seem to me like that is meant to
make very clear what the goal is, as opposed to being some sort
of get-out-of-accountability-free card when members come before
us in the sense of, you know, we shouldn't be creating
exclusions or exceptions or creating--redefine parole and all
these different kind of things, that we need to do what the law
says and not make exceptions to what the law says.
I wanted to ask you about the budget. You are advocating
for the hiring of 100 more Border Patrol agents, yes?
Mr. Miller. I believe it is 350, yes.
Mr. Cloud. Oh, 350? Okay. Oh. That is--I am sorry. Border
Patrol--that is Border Patrol agents and processing, or--and
support, or that is just the agents?
Mr. Miller. I believe it is 350 agents, 300 Border Patrol
processing coordinators, and 150 OFO officers.
Mr. Cloud. Okay.
Mr. Miller. And I have got a lot of numbers in my head,
so----
Mr. Cloud. Okay. 350 agents, 350 border processing?
Mr. Miller. 350 agents, 300 Border Patrol processing
coordinators, and 150 CBP officers for our ports of entry, I
believe.
Mr. Cloud. Okay. That is great.
There has been a good number of--a good amount of attrition
lately. Could you speak to what you are seeing and why?
Mr. Miller. So there is a number of issues that affect
attrition, frankly. With our Office of Field Operations, the
folks at the ports of entry, they got a law enforcement status
in 2008, which means, in 2028, we are going to have a large
retirement surge. And Congress tasked us with a study to do
what we needed to do.
The southwest border, very much the same. We have had
hiring surges in the last 20 years, so a lot of these folks are
now available for retirement, when we are talking about Border
Patrol agents, so certainly that is part of the attrition
rates.
Mr. Cloud. I know a number of people that I talked to--a
number of agents I talked to were very concerned that, at the
same time the administration was talking about getting rid of
title 42, it was placing a new COVID testing regime on the
agents, using, ironically, tests that were imported from China
that had agents on--on the testing.
Basically, they had to put a carcinogen in their nose to
test. I asked about this before. The director at the time
didn't know that was even happening.
Is that testing regime still in place?
Mr. Miller. No.
Mr. Cloud. Okay. Thank you. I am happy--happy to know that.
Have the agents that were falsely accused of being whipped
been--been apologized to?
Mr. Miller. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Cloud. Okay. Have they been reinstated to their former
role?
Mr. Miller. So the process is still ongoing.
Mr. Cloud. It is still ongoing? And how long has it been?
Mr. Miller. Let's see. About 18 months or so. Is that
right?
Mr. Cloud. Do you think actions like being falsely accused
of doing something that you are not doing, when you are doing
your stated mission, leads to low morale?
Mr. Miller. So the--the investigation is ongoing, and most
certainly, you know, we are concerned about the morale of the
Customs and Border Patrol folks.
Mr. Cloud. Okay. My time is up. I just saw that. Finally
figured out where the clock was, and so, I will save the rest
of my time----
Mr. Joyce. It is not as fancy down here as it is upstairs.
We have a clock.
Mr. Cloud. Maybe buzzers and bells are--would help.
Mr. Joyce. No worries.
Dr. Harris.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much.
I am just going to ask one question. I will yield the
balance of my time.
Global entry--CBP is in charge of global entry. Is that
right? Global entry program?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Dr. Harris. Yeah. So I have got a lot of complaints in my
office, my district office, that it takes literally years to
book an appointment for global entry. Is that true, to book an
interview?
Mr. Miller. No, that is not true.
Dr. Harris. So--so is there--and I will follow up--now that
you say it, I will follow up with my person in the district.
But what is the maximum acceptable time in your mind that you
should have to wait for an interview?
Mr. Miller. So, if I may, we have established a number of
additional venues to be able to complete your interview, and
one of, I think, the best ways to do it is enrollment on
arrival, so you can actually complete your interview when you
arrive from international travel.
Dr. Harris. Right. But if you are planning to do it--I
mean, again, I live in a rural area. I mean, my people don't
take a lot of international flights, but what is the maximum
time you think someone should wait for--to have to wait for an
interview?
Mr. Miller. Well, again, if they are--I mean, I am not
trying to be difficult, but if you are not traveling
internationally, global entry----
Dr. Harris. Well, they are traveling internationally, but,
you know, I--they have to go to Dulles or BWI from the Eastern
Shore of Maryland. You know this little bridge over there
sometimes has a lot of traffic. You know, so it is--when they
call to set up their appointment for an interview in the
future--not on arrival--what is the allowable amount of time
that you think they should be having to wait for that
interview?
Mr. Miller. So right now, it is approximately 6 months. You
know, we would like to get that process down to maybe 30 to 60
days.
Dr. Harris. Okay. So you think it shouldn't be more than 6
months. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield the balance of my
time to Mr. Guest, because I know he has got a lot of
questions, but they are good questions.
Mr. Guest. Thank you.
Walk me through this and tell me if my figures are correct.
I show that the CBP fiscal year 2024 request to be $16.87
billion. Is that number accurate?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Guest. And this would be a $1.37 billion decrease from
fiscal year 2023 levels?
Mr. Miller. No. The----
Mr. Guest. Because I have fiscal year 2023 being 18.374
billion.
Mr. Miller. So I think what you are referencing is that
also includes the Border Management Fund that we received last
year. This year, that is covered by the Contingency Fund.
Mr. Guest. Okay. And so the Contingency Fund is money that
is really not going to hire agents, invest in technology, build
walls. I mean, that money is going to transport migrants,
medical care, alternative to detention, processing, kind of
what we have seen over the last 2 years where we are investing
money not really in anything of any substantial nature, but
really just investing money to process people through the
system quicker. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller. So the contingency funding will cover things
like Border Patrol processing coordinators, as we talked about,
doubling our transport, the medical support, the soft-side
facilities, and the capacity to hold individuals as we are
doing enhanced expedited removal.
We have also put in some of the booths that we talked
about. So there is a number of different things that we will
continue to do with those funds.
Mr. Guest. Is any of that money going--from the Contingency
Fund--and this is separate. I know you are talking about trying
to hire 350 new agents and 300-plus new processors. But, from
the Contingency Fund, none of the money from the Contingency
Fund is going to hire new agents, correct?
Mr. Miller. Correct.
Mr. Guest. And none of the money is going into technology
as far as ports of entry, screening processes, as far as things
of that nature?
Mr. Miller. Correct.
Mr. Guest. All right. And so, overall, is it your testimony
that you are asking for an increase from last year's budget, or
a decrease, because, again, the numbers I am getting were the
numbers that I relayed to you, which were a budget decrease?
But the total numbers, are you saying, is an increase from
last budget year?
Mr. Miller. The total number is almost exactly the same.
Mr. Guest. Okay. So you are asking for basically level
funding?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Guest. Okay. And, based on what you are asking for, on
the historic nature of what we have seen and the fact that we
expect another surge to be coming when title 42 ends, are you
saying that that money is adequate for Customs and Border
Patrol to do the job that they are tasked with doing?
Mr. Miller. Well, sir, to start, I mean, I think I relayed
that we do have some structural shortfalls that we are going to
have to fix in our budget to ensure that we sustain the
technology that we received in the last--last several years.
And, secondly, you know, given the flow of migrants across
the southwest border, we are certainly going to hit the
triggers for the Contingency Fund.
Mr. Guest. I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Guest.
I apologize for being late, Acting Commissioner Miller, but
I would like to ask you: Do you believe that physical barriers
are an important border security tool?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. I believe personnel, technology, and
infrastructure is very important for CBP.
Mr. Joyce. The President abruptly canceled contracts to
build physical barriers. And, while the Secretary has
authorized closing some gates and gaps, no substantial amount
of physical barriers have been built since January of 2021.
Does the agency need additional physical barriers to help
secure the border and buy time for agents to apprehend migrants
who cross the border illegally?
Mr. Miller. Sir, you know, I believe, as I stated, we need
additional infrastructure, technology, and personnel to ensure
that our agents have the tools that they need to respond.
Mr. Joyce. Okay. Well, last Congress, my bill, the PREVENT
Act, was signed into law to require CBP to provide the
frontline personnel with containment devices to prevent
secondary exposure to illicit narcotics in the line of duty,
including fentanyl and other potentially dangerous substances.
Has CBP moved to procure or provide these containment devices?
Where is the CBP in the process of ensuring our officers and
agents on the front lines of the opioid epidemic have access to
these containment devices?
Mr. Miller. Sir, first of all, thank you for the Act. I am
aware of the Act. And, you know, secondly, obviously, the
physical well-being of our agents and officers, hugely
important to us. So obviously you know that we have--we have
given them PPE. We have given them the appropriate training. We
have given them the Naloxone and, you know, provided them with
containment training and the like.
And we are working very closely, you may or may not know,
but with our Office of Science and Technology to look at the
containment technology, and we will procure it in conjunction
with S&T if determined to be viable technology.
Mr. Joyce. Sir, it exists, and it is not having to look at
it. It exists. And, if one of these--if powder form had
exploded in one of your offices, it would kill everybody in
your office.
Mr. Miller. No. Again, sir, we are working very closely
with S&T, and as you know, we have our forward operating labs
to ensure we are containing appropriately, and we look for
additional technology as it becomes available to ensure our
officers and agents are safe.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Border wall, 14th century solution. If you look at the 11,
12 million undocumented aliens, whatever the number is in the
U.S., the last figure I saw--and I was just double-checking
this again--maybe you have better figures--two-thirds of them
were visa overstays. And at that time, the number one violator
was Canada.
Now, I don't know if my friends are talking about putting a
fence at the northern border, which I hope they are not. And so
I--I just want to make sure that we secure the border and
believe in a 21st century technology, AI, other things that are
important. I think it is the way to look at.
And, also, I would like to remind my friends that, in the
last 2 years, from the prior administration, $2.4 billion have
been added to the CBP budget authority. That is a 15 percent
increase of dollars.
So we want to find a way, working together, to secure the
border, including the northern border.
And I remind that 9/11 terrorists didn't come through the
southern border, but they actually came through the northern
border.
One of the things that I also want to look at also is the
fact on the south-sided facilities, let's keep in mind that
Border Patrol facilities were set up to handle small amounts,
mainly male adults--in the old days, they were coming from
Mexico to come and do a little bit of work, and then they would
go back.
So the border facilities--Border Patrol facilities were not
set up to handle a lot of folks. So the south side, which I
think the first one--I think it was year 2019. President Trump
was the President. The Senate, I think at that time, was Senate
controlled by Republicans, and of course the House by
Democrats.
So it was set up to handle--because Border Patrol
facilities don't have that.
Now, having something different--and, again, I don't want
to--if you have heard me say--I don't want to--I don't want to
have the border just be a processing center. I want to make
sure that we keep whoever is supposed to stay here and go back.
Usually the numbers are 88 to 90 percent of the people that ask
for asylum are going to be rejected.
And, by the way, looking at some of the latest numbers,
China was the one that was getting the biggest asylum granted,
16.2; then Venezuela was 14.5; and then you have other folks.
By the way, who are the largest folks who have been--the
number sector folks who have been staying here lately? It is
India and China, right? Isn't it?
Mr. Miller. Excuse me. Repeat the question.
Mr. Cuellar. Where is China and India in number of folks
who are being--coming into the U.S. or staying here in the
U.S.?
Mr. Miller. Oh, I think the migrant population, India is
number two, and China is number three.
Mr. Cuellar. Number 3. And No. 1 are Mexicans.
Now, one of the things that I want to look at is--and, by
the way, I want to thank--you remember David Higgerson? He was
the one that gave me the idea about border processing centers.
We need to use agents to do their job, but there are certain
jobs that I think the support staff or border processing or
whatever you want to call them, are important. So, you know, we
want to get agents, but we also want to get the support staff.
And that includes ICE also to make sure.
Now, one of the things that concerns me is--and I agree
with my friends--the attrition. We have been losing folks. You
know Border Patrol sometimes--at one time, we were losing more
folks than we were actually hiring. So anything you can do to
speed up the hiring process, and I would appreciate that. But
one of your former Border Patrol chiefs gave me some numbers
that are alarming.
He said that, besides the regular attrition, the mandatory
retirements coming up, for fiscal year 2024, 800 Border Patrol
folks that would be hit by mandatory retirements; fiscal year
2025, 1,500; and then fiscal year 2026, 2,200 mandatory
retirements.
Now, that worries me, because, besides regular attrition
and the time it takes, we have got to do a better job. So let
us know what we can do to help you in that aspect.
Mr. Miller. Yeah. No. Thank you so much. I mean, I think a
lot of the things that--the flexibility that this committee has
given us to spend our money, certainly on retention bonuses;
hiring bonuses; you know, what we are doing to, as we already
discussed, shorten the timeframe, but, you know, we have to
continually look at that and continue and also look at
potentially some waivers for folks as they hit those caps.
So there is a number of different things we have to do to
ensure that we continue to not only hire--fix the hiring
process, but keep the folks that we have to the point of your
colleagues.
Mr. Cuellar. And, Mr. Chairman, I know this was at--when
you were out, but Mr. Miller is a career individual.
Mr. Joyce. Okay.
Mr. Cuellar. And 30 years, right, this year?
Mr. Miller. [Nonverbal response.]
Mr. Cuellar. And I know sometimes there is political
appointees by Democrats and Republicans, but we really should
look a lot to these career folks that know and know the trends
and have seen it before. Something new might be something that
has been tried. So I really appreciate the career folks like
Mr. Miller.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Joyce. I think we all agree, Mr. Cuellar.
Sheriff Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, sir.
Commissioner, I presume that CBP has either general orders
or SOPs or training manuals for how to vet individuals that
they run across. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. I would like to request through the
chair, if we could--I would like to see those documents, the
training that they get, the processes that they are supposed to
go through.
And I am going to tell you why. And it goes back to the
questioning that Ms. Hinson had earlier as well, and I keep--I
keep bringing this case up.
My question is: So we have an individual who crosses the
border, no ID. We go to vet them. They are not in the
biometrics system. They have no documents. We have no way of
knowing who they are.
What is the default policy of CBP with an individual like
that?
Mr. Miller. So there would be a number of questions I would
have to ask, number one. You know, certainly, just like you
said, we would do the biometric, biographic checks. And
certainly, if it is a minor or----
Mr. Rutherford. They go to HHS.
Mr. Miller. They go to HHS.
Mr. Rutherford. And they go through the same vetting
process.
Mr. Miller. Right.
Mr. Rutherford. Now, here is my question, because the
individual that Ms. Hinson spoke of was later determined
somehow, through vetting, to be on the terrorist watch list.
Mr. Ulloa, who went to Jacksonville, Florida, and killed
one of my citizens, one of my constituents, he actually came
across and used a fake name and fake ID--I am sorry. Not a fake
ID. Just a fake name and fake date of birth that made him a
juvenile.
CBP couldn't tell who he was, so they--but, since he used a
date of birth that made him a juvenile, they turned him over to
HHS. HHS couldn't tell who he was, so they sent him to
Jacksonville because he has got a relative there allegedly, who
turns out not to be a relative, because they didn't vet him
either.
He gets--he murders my constituent. Then we find out who he
is. How did we not--so here is my question: If he can go into
a--if he can go into the Duval County jail and eventually we
could identify who he is, how did we not identify who he was
before we shipped him to Jacksonville?
So my question is: Is the default policy of CBP, if you
can't tell who they are, let them in, because that is what it
appears to be.
Mr. Miller. No, sir. That is not the default policy. Again,
I have spent my career trying to increase information sharing,
vet individuals against all available databases, whether they
are IC-held databases, LD-held databases.
Mr. Rutherford. And we are doing all we can in that regard.
But, when you can't tell who they are, what do we do with them?
Mr. Miller. So, in the case of a minor, we are mandated by
the TV----
Mr. Rutherford. You don't know that he is a minor.
Mr. Miller. Well, they claim to be, so I am just telling
you, we follow--we have to follow the law, too, which is the
TVPRA, and we have to turn a minor over to Health and Human
Services. And, as discussed at length----
Mr. Rutherford. But there is my question. How do you know
he is a minor?
Mr. Miller. We have to use all available information that
we have, and we have to make that determination.
Mr. Rutherford. So we take whatever they tell us, and we
are making--we are making decisions about the security of this
country based on what somebody that just illegally crossed the
border is telling us.
I have serious problems with the way we vet--we are vetting
people. And the fact that we can't tell who they are at the
border, yet when he gets sent--when he gets arrested in Duval
County, we find out who he is--he is doing 60 years now. Why
couldn't we determine that before they sent him to
Jacksonville? Why couldn't we determine that--what--what
changed? How did they determine who he was later?
Mr. Miller. You know, again, sir, you know, first of all,
my condolences to the family in your community.
Mr. Rutherford. Look, I--I understand completely. And I am
not blaming you. I am just saying it looks like the default
policy is to let them in.
Why wouldn't we say, No, I can't prove who you are, so you
are not coming in. Why wouldn't--should that not be our policy,
or is that our policy?
Mr. Miller. Well, again, when somebody comes in, we are
going to use all the available information that we have, so the
biometrics, to the facial comparison.
Mr. Rutherford. You can't tell who they are, because they
are not in any system. What do we do with them?
Mr. Miller. And so we are going to coordinate----
Mr. Rutherford. We are letting them in.
Mr. Miller. Or we are going to coordinate as appropriate.
Mr. Rutherford. We are letting them in.
We need to look at that policy, because we are letting
killers into this country. That has got to stop.
I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, sir.
Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you.
And thank you, Sheriff, for bringing that up, because that
is a true concern in my district. And I am pretty sure I--let's
see if it stays on. Can you hear me?
Okay. This is the finicky one from earlier, I want to echo
my colleague's concerns about the attrition at CBP. And you
talk about the 25 suicides in the last 2 years.
And that is truly heartbreaking, that people are facing
these challenges and they feel like there is no other way out.
And we want to do everything we can to make sure your workforce
feels supported.
But can you talk a little bit more about the morale? And,
you know, I think that it is very clear something has got to
change with policy, because people feel like they have no other
option but to either quit, or take their own life. And we don't
want to put people in that position.
Can you talk about what policies should change at DHS to
make sure that we don't face these major problems with our CBP
agents?
Mr. Miller. Well, first of all, thank you, you know, for
the support for the men and women of Customs and Border
Protection. It is much appreciated.
Second of all, thank you for the funding we have received
the last couple of years. Number one, we have to take care of
our folks.
But, you know, No. 2 you know, I think one of the things we
have done over the last 6 months, specifically for the Border
Patrol agents, well, the last year or so, is really making a
concerted effort to get the men and women of CBP, or Border
Patrol in particular, back in between the ports of entry.
Mrs. Hinson. Back to actually fulfilling their mission, not
processing people, but back in the field?
Mr. Miller. Back to, yeah, in between the ports of entry.
And we have made significant strides with the Border Patrol
processing coordinators, that we have got over a thousand. We
have additional classes. And, in fact, those folks are being--
becoming our biggest recruiting pipeline that folks who want to
do that same job that the Border Patrol agents are----
Mrs. Hinson. And then you might feed them into those
positions more quickly?
Mr. Miller. Exactly.
Mrs. Hinson. We are happy to hear that, obviously, but, I
mean, you still have a pretty good delta to get to your full
force. So can you speak a little bit--you know, obviously you
are asking for these new agents.
And I asked Acting Director Johnson the same question with
ICE, right? You have got this need, and you have got a gap
here, over 800 open slots that you currently have, and you are
asking for more.
Can you tell me more about how you are going to get these
people into these slots so we can actually keep our border
under control?
Mr. Miller. Yes. So thank you, ma'am.
So, again, I think the flexibility has helped us. Certainly
getting the hiring engine back up and running was extremely
important. So our application numbers are going up. So we are
getting more people into the pipeline.
The Border Patrol processing coordinators are actually one
of our top recruits. We have looked at the back end, and we
spoke at this at length, and Sheriff Rutherford actually
mentioned as well at the Academy, and fixing our attrition
rate, or our----
Mrs. Hinson. Changing the testing, yes.
Mr. Miller. Changing the testing. So, in between, we are
looking at our HRM processes to try to--really for me, it is
yield rate, the number of folks coming into the pipeline,
making it to Border Patrol agent and the time to hire, so we
have to fix those two things. It is about 260 days right now
from the time somebody applies for the job to the time that
they get hired. So we need to shrink that, and my challenge to
the team is in half. And we are doing that by looking at the
processes and procedures of our HRM staff.
Mrs. Hinson. Well, because I think--when I was down there--
I have been down there twice to hear directly from folks. And
it was shocking to me to see how many people were being pulled
from other areas of DHS, including FEMA, to help with these
positions. And that is just unacceptable. These should be CBP
agents, not FEMA agents. FEMA should be dealing with hurricanes
in Florida and flooding in Iowa, not our southern border.
So another thing that the agents pointed out to me is that
technology is helpful, you know, and I have been a big
supporter of automated surveillance technologies, technical
kits, mobile surveillance capabilities. All of those are force
multipliers, and I believe that cross-border tunnel
detections--you know, I have learned a lot about that
technology and how effective that is, especially when we are
talking about stopping fentanyl and these transnational gangs
and cartels.
Can you talk about the number of encounters with--that CBP
is experiencing at the border, the growing number of people
that the cartels are bringing across to distract you from doing
your mission, right? And I think it is very clear they are
doing that.
How valuable are those technologies to your Border Patrol
agents?
Mr. Miller. The technology is--we need the technology. We
have to have the technology now. It really--especially with the
new automation, machine learning, artificial intelligence that
shrinks the number of folks that we need in these command
centers to actually look at the screens and try to determine
what is happening.
And, to your point, with the tac devices and getting that
information directly to our officers and agents so they can
respond to those events, it is vitally important. We need the
technology. We need the continuing funding. And, you know, I
think our Office of Information Technology and Border Patrol is
doing a good job to really get that actionable information to
the hands of the frontline agents so they can respond
appropriately.
Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. And I know I am out of time, but I will
submit some follow-up questions for the record, specifically
about countering things like new threats, like xylazine that we
are seeing as an amplifier for our fentanyl problems that are
already a huge challenge. So thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs. Hinson. Appreciate it.
I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mrs. Hinson.
Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest. Commissioner, again, I don't want anything that
I say to make you believe that we don't fully support Border
Patrol. I support personally--as a new member on this
committee, I can tell you that I will fight as hard as I can as
a member of this committee to make sure that we are hiring new
agents, a number in addition to the ones that you have
requested; that we are getting agents pay increases; that we
are investing in technology; that we are investing in what we
need to vet the individuals coming into the country.
My frustration, and I believe the frustration of many
people on this committee, is the amount of tax dollars that we
are having to spend every year on processing. The $4.7 billion
Contingency Fund that has been requested, that is roughly 28
percent of the entire budget of CBP. And so, one out of every
$4 would then be going to doing nothing but processing.
And so we are incredibly frustrated. And I don't want you
to feel when you leave here that we are intentionally taking
our frustration out on you. We know you don't make those
decisions, that those decisions are made--you are career law
enforcement officer, and we want to thank you for that.
Now, one of the things that the chairman mentioned that I
want to talk about as well is physical barriers, wall
construction. And we know it is not feasible to build a wall
from sea to shining sea, that we are not going to build a wall
from RGV to San Diego. But under Secretary Mayorkas, we have
had zero wall construction.
If I am not mistaken, there is $7 million in this budget
for wall construction. Is that correct? Or how much is in it?
Maybe I should just ask you. It is my understanding that it was
seven, but how much money is in the budget request for this
physical year for wall construction?
Mr. Miller. I would have to look. I didn't know that there
was money in this budget for wall construction.
Mr. Guest. Are physical barriers an important component to
securing the border?
Mr. Miller. I will say time and time again, we need
infrastructure, we need personnel, and we need technology.
Mr. Guest. All right. But there is no money in this budget
for wall construction?
Mr. Miller. I don't believe so.
Mr. Guest. All right. And so do you agree or disagree with
that?
Do you think it should be in there? Do you think we should
put money in there? If we are going to be writing the budget,
should we write money in the budget for wall construction?
Mr. Miller. I would have to work with, you know, the Border
Patrol and their requirements and get back to you on technical
assistance on exactly what we need in our budget.
Mr. Guest. All right. Chief Ortiz--do you know Chief Ortiz?
Mr. Miller. Of course.
Mr. Guest. All right. Chief Ortiz testified--
Mr. Miller. Twenty-plus years.
Mr. Guest. Chief Ortiz testified before Congress just last
month. He testified that five of the nine sectors along the
southwest border are not secure.
Do you agree with the assessment of Chief Ortiz?
Mr. Miller. Well, thank you for the question.
You know, certainly--and I think we discussed this a little
bit the other day. In my 29, almost 30 years of experience, I
have seen, you know--it is an evolving situation. It is an
evolving situation every single day.
Today, we might have a situation in El Paso where we need
to surge additional resources because of a surge that we are
experiencing. Like I am doing in the southwest, I may surge
resources so I can attack the fentanyl that is coming across
the southwest border which that surge is certainly having.
So I guess my answer is, you know, I defer to Chief Ortiz
on his expertise. He runs the Border Patrol. It could be three
sectors today. It could be five sectors tomorrow. And it has
been that way ever since we have had a border.
Mr. Guest. And final question: title 42 ends May 11. I know
we have talked just very briefly about it. The most recent
figures that you have seen as far as expected number of
immigrants--we saw some numbers that came out in December. It
seemed to me that they were somewhere in the--potentially up to
15,000-a-day range, and I could be wrong. And I apologize. I
don't have those figures in front of me.
But do you have any recent information as to what we can
expect when title 42 ends?
Mr. Miller. So we are certainly going to see a surge higher
than the numbers, you know, and I am doing my best to answer
the questions directly. We are going to certainly see numbers
higher than we are seeing today. We are going to see a surge in
migrants.
We are also going to immediately, when title 42--and, as
you know, there are certain court rulings that really are
hindering what we can and can't do at the particular moment.
So, when title 42 goes down, we will immediately start doing
enhanced expedited removal across the southwest border, but it
is going to take some time for that consequence to take effect
in my opinion.
We are certainly going to see a surge. What that exact
number, I don't know what that exact number is. I know I am
preparing for, you know, certainly 10,000 or so a day. But
again, we will--we can continue to surge resources and look at
the intelligence every single day, the--each sector--individual
sector every single day, work with the chief of the Border
Patrol, Chief Ortiz, the Office of Field Operations, to ensure
that we are getting resources down there to respond to the best
of our ability.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Guest.
Mr. Cloud is recognized.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
And I do want to echo what Mr. Guest said about we have
nothing but appreciation for the members of CBP and
appreciation for the understanding and--that we need to get you
the resources that you need to do your job, and you are in a
very difficult situation.
A lot of the issues we have is with the policy that you are
being asked to implement, and certainly recognize that.
I wanted to ask you about visa overstays. By my
understanding, there was, in 2020, about 684,499 visa
overstays. Does that sound about right?
Mr. Miller. I am sorry, sir. I would have to get back to
you on the particular numbers.
Mr. Cloud. Okay. Do you know how many gotaways there were
last year?
Mr. Miller. I just looked at the numbers this morning. I
can tell you if you give me 2 seconds. I just looked up the
numbers this morning, but I don't want to not give you the
right number.
Mr. Cloud. I think it is also 600,000.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Cloud. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller. Yep. That is correct. I just wanted to make
sure I had them in front of me.
Mr. Cloud. And that is what we actually call known
gotaways, right?
Mr. Miller. It is.
Mr. Cloud. Yeah. So do you know how many unknown gotaways
we had?
Mr. Miller. No.
Mr. Cloud. No, because it is unknown, right? So--and those
are not coming through the port of entry, by and large? Is that
correct? They are not running the port of entry? That is--the
gotaways are coming in between ports of entry?
Mr. Miller. Yeah, the gotaways are coming in between the
ports of entry.
Mr. Cloud. And so the infrastructure would be helpful in
stopping gotaways. Infrastructure, everything you were saying--
infrastructure, manpower, technology.
Mr. Miller. And let's not forget access. Access is one of
the--and having--roads access to make sure our agents can get
to respond to that technology alert that you are talking about.
Mr. Cloud. Exactly. And removal of the Caruso gang and
everything else, right?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Cloud. I wanted to also talk to you about the
apprehensions, because, if we are looking at last year
encounters, we are 200 or 2,300,000-plus. If we go back to
2020, or if we go back to 2020, COVID was certainly allowance
for 450,000, but even going back a year before that, we are
talking a million, so half of where we are at right now.
Going back to the definition of operational control, I
mean, the idea is to be moving toward it, not away from it. It
would seem that we are moving away from it.
Now, you gave a pretty bleak picture when someone on the
committee mentioned the fact that we are looking at going back
to discretionary spending levels back to pre-COVID. So pre-
COVID traffic would have us at about half of what we have right
now with the budget that they had then.
And I am not suggesting that we need to cut the budget for
it. I am for raises for our men and women. But like it has been
said, I am not for paying for processing.
And so, you gave a pretty bleak picture, almost a Chicken
Little list of all the things that could not happen, yet I am
looking at this saying, Well, at the pre-COVID budget, they
were able to have a more secure border.
So there seems to be a disconnect there. Could you address
that? To me anyway.
Mr. Miller. Certainly, sir. As we know, agents' salary--
let's start with the budget. Seventy-five percent of our budget
is salary, and salaries continue to go up. Obviously, inflation
continues to go up. Construction costs continue to go up. And I
am not only talking when--you know, the Chicken Little
scenario.
In between the ports of entry, it is also at the ports of
entry as well. So, you know, certainly our CBP officers, the
technology that they are using, the technology we are talking
at the southwest border, really the civil works projects that
we are trying to do along the southwest border, all those costs
are going up.
So, if we were to go back to our budget 2 years ago, most
certainly, that would affect us across our organization. But to
your point, most certainly at the southwest border.
Mr. Cloud. But we are seeing a lot of the funding go to not
protection, but go to processing. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller. It is correct, but, if I may on the processing,
we have made significant advancements in automating our A-file,
significant advancements in being able to process people in
between the ports of entry through the facial recognition,
biometrics. We are testing out where you can actually take a
picture of the prints and enroll the individuals, again, making
us safe and secure and run against that information, things
that we have been talking about. So there is a number of
different things that we are talking about when we are talking
about processing, sir.
Mr. Cloud. Okay. But it still seems like we could find some
efficient--it is the ROI, if that makes sense, that we are
looking for? We are looking for protection, which is actually
the P, not processing--CBP, Customs and Border Protection, not
Customs and Border Processing. So we are looking for dollars
for protection. And the concern here is that we are seeing the
border get less secure, and we are spending more money doing
it.
And some of that, I know, is no big contracting. The grants
processing is very opaque. I would like to see that--and I know
we are talking more agency secretary-level on some of this
stuff, but we will be working on that.
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for your being here today,
and, again, appreciate your work.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Cloud.
Acting Commissioner Miller, all good things must come to an
end, and I know you have been having a great time here.
Mr. Cuellar. We can keep going. Round three.
Mr. Joyce. Appreciate your tour of duty in the agency and
your hard work.
There has been some questions asked that you are going to
give answers to or some other things you would get back to us.
We would ask that you do that within 15 business days from
today. That gives you roughly 3 weeks or so to get those things
accomplished.
Any other questions or concerns? With that----
Mr. Rutherford. It was general orders, SOPs, and training
documents.
Mr. Joyce. All the documents you requested.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. Okay. This meeting is now adjourned.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]