    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
                        APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026
    _______________________________________________________________________

                                     HEARINGS

                                     BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                  FIRST SESSION

                                  _______________

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

                         MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada, Chairman

      JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona,	LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois,
        Vice Chair			  Acting Ranking Member
      JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida	HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
      DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington	ED CASE, Hawaii
      ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa		VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
      MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
      TONY GONZALES, Texas

      NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Cole, as chairman 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, Anna Lanier Fischer, Fern Tolley Gibbons,
                       Emily Trapani, and Alessandra Ramirez
                                Subcommittee Staff
                                ___________________

                                      PART 1

                                                                 Page
      Member Day...............................................	1

      U.S. Department of Homeland Security.....................    31

      Oversight Hearing: The Federal Emergency
       Management Agency.......................................   117

      Oversight of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
        Security Agency........................................   151

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                               _______________________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                   __________

    �                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    62-152                  WASHINGTON : 2026
    =====================================================================�

                       HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                    ----------
                          TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman

      HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky,
        Chairman Emeritus
      ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
      MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
      JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
      KEN CALVERT, California
      MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
      STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
      CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
        Tennessee
      DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
      ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
      MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
      DAVID G. VALADAO, California
      DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
      JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
      JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
      BEN CLINE, Virginia
      GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
      ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
      TONY GONZALES, Texas
      JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
      MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
      MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
      RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
      ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia
      STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
      SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
      JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
      JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona
      CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina
      MARK ALFORD, Missouri
      NICK LaLOTA, New York
      DALE W. STRONG, Alabama
      CELESTE MALOY, Utah
      RILEY M. MOORE, West Virginia

      ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut,
        Ranking Member
      STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
      MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
      JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
      SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
      BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
      DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
      HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
      CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
      MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
      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
      LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
      SUSIE LEE, Nevada
      JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
      MIKE LEVIN, California
      MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
      VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
      FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
      MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ,
        Washington
      GLENN IVEY, Maryland

                    Susan Ross, Chief Clerk and Staff Director

                                       (II)

            DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026

                                  ----------

                                              Wednesday, April 9, 2025.

                                   MEMBER DAY

        Mr. Amodei. Let's convene the Member Day meeting of the
    Homeland Security Subcommittee. The committee will come to
    order.
        Good morning, and welcome to the Homeland Security
    Subcommittee's Member Day hearing. This morning, we will hear
    from Members about a variety of topics that fall within the
    subcommittee's jurisdiction.
        Thank you to each of our colleagues for taking time out of
    your schedules to discuss the projects and programs within the
    Homeland Security bill that are important to your districts.
    Your input is important.
        I look forward to working with Ranking Member Underwood and
    the members of this subcommittee to pass the fiscal year 2026
    Homeland Security appropriations bill.
        I will now recognize my colleague Ms. Underwood for her
    opening remarks.
        Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
    this hearing to kick off the fiscal year 2026 appropriations
    season. I am grateful that we are hearing testimony from our
    colleagues, as we have done in the past, so that they can
    highlight areas of importance for the constituents that they
    represent.
        Mr. Chairman, before we hear from our Members, I would be
    remiss if I didn't take a moment to raise my concerns with the
    unconstitutional decisions this administration has been making
    with the funds provided to the Department by this committee,
    including: the sudden and unexplained termination of DHS grants
    to States and nonprofit organizations; the cancellation of the
    Disaster Relief Fund's Building Resilient Infrastructure and
    Communities program; and reductions in force in parts of the
    Department, such as the Office of Civil Rights and Civil
    Liberties and the Offices of the Citizenship and Immigration
    Services Ombudsman as well as the Immigration Detention
    Ombudsman; not to mention serious questions about the
    shortcutting of due process in immigration reviews.
        These unconstitutional actions put DHS employees, American
    citizens, and our national security at incredible risk. Federal
    disaster relief funding is what makes it possible for
    communities across the country to recover, from flooding to
    wildfires. The Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
    protects the DHS workforce and upholds our values as Americans.
    These are non-negotiable priorities.
        As we focus today on our Members' funding priorities, we
    must also acknowledge that there are serious concerns with how
    DHS is executing the funding that we have provided. I hope that
    we can work together to address some of these issues in our
    oversight role.
        Now I look forward to discussing the Homeland Security
    priorities our colleagues are bringing to us today, and I thank
    them for taking the time to appear before us.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I
    yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you. And I share your concerns about
    several of those things, so we will look forward to working
    together on those to see----
        Ms. Underwood. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. What we can do.
        Mr. Moskowitz, the floor is yours.
                                  ----------

                                              Wednesday, April 9, 2025.
    HON. JARED MOSKOWITZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        FLORIDA
        Mr. Moskowitz. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you, Ranking Member. I appreciate the opportunity to come and
    talk to you.
        So I just want to quickly just give you a little bit of my
    background. So, before I got to Congress, in another life, I
    was the director of emergency management for the State of
    Florida for Governor Ron DeSantis--so a completely different
    party from mine--and did that job for 2\1/2\ years and was in
    charge of the Hurricane Michael cleanup in the panhandle, along
    with the entire COVID response for the State of Florida.
        Mr. Amodei. You look young for having done all that.
        Mr. Moskowitz. It aged me in ways, Mr. Chairman, I can't
    describe, which is why I left that job, okay? Yeah. Congress,
    much easier.
        Mr. Amodei. Smart guy.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Yeah, much easier than that job.
        But I want to talk about FEMA.
        So, obviously, since this is the appropriations committee,
    obviously I want to make sure that we fully fund FEMA.
        But I also want to raise the point that you can't fund
    something that may not be there. The FEMA situation is in way
    worse shape at the moment than the public knows, what is going
    on behind the scenes at Homeland Security.
        So, I mean, look, I have a bill out there that would remove
    FEMA from Homeland. It would basically restore it to the way it
    was before 9/11; it would give it back to the White House--
    which would shrink the Agency, because right now FEMA is doing
    all of the grants for the other 22-agencies-plus in Homeland.
    And if we want to know why is FEMA doing all this immigration
    stuff, it is because they are being directed by Homeland
    General Counsel to run all of those grants.
        And so, if it looks like FEMA is not as good as they used
    to be at response and recovery, it is because they have become
    a bloated grant agency because of Homeland's direction.
        So Byron Donalds and I have that bill to remove it from
    Homeland and give it back to the President. In the Senate, Thom
    Tillis and Senator Padilla have that bill. So we have a
    bipartisan, bicameral bill to try to do that with FEMA.
        And I know giving up an agency is always hard, but I am
    really worried about trying to save FEMA. What is going on in
    Homeland, there are discussions right now, Mr. Chairman, about
    breaking FEMA apart and giving pieces to other agencies. I
    don't know how that is going to make things more efficient or
    faster.
        FEMA needs to get better at response; there needs to be
    reform. Block grants is definitely something that we should
    look at. We can look at block grants. Some States will do
    better at block grants than others, but we can do block grants,
    where, you know, the Governor can request it; if approved by
    the President, we can block-grant money down.
        But if you think for a second that the Federal Government
    doesn't have to do any response, I can tell you that that is
    not the case.
        Yes, Florida and Texas, way more prepared than an Alabama
    or Mississippi, just based on capabilities, okay? The emergency
    management departments in Texas and Florida are gigantic. But
    if you look at where the majority of the disasters have been,
    from 2011 to 2021, California is number one at 25, but the next
    States are Mississippi at 22, Oklahoma at 22, Iowa at 21,
    Tennessee at 20, Louisiana at 18, Alabama at 17.
        Those States will go bankrupt if they don't have full
    reimbursement from the Federal Government. Not only bankrupt,
    they won't be able to respond.
        FEMA doesn't have assets. FEMA coordinates other assets
    from other agencies, a lot from DOD, and they move these pieces
    of equipment into the area. And so someone is going to have to
    do that. There is going to have to be an agency that does it.
    If we are not going to call it ``FEMA'' and we are going to
    call it the ``National Office of Emergency Management,'' I
    don't care, but there is going to have to be an agency that
    coordinates a Federal response when a disaster is such that it
    overwhelms State capacity.
        So we can't just push this down to the States. That is
    number one.
        Number two is, you may not be aware, but FEMA has paused
    all grants--all of them. Not just getting rid of BRIC, but they
    have paused all reimbursement that is currently going on to all
    States. They are calling it an additional review. It is a
    distinction without a difference. They have paused all of it.
        Not only have they paused it, there are discussions about
    getting rid of certain categories. Right now we have categories
    of reimbursement, A through G. A and B are, you know, immediate
    needs and debris removal, but the others are roads and bridges
    and parks and beach renourishment. They are talking about
    getting rid of those as categories of reimbursement.
        I can tell you that all along the Gulf of America and up
    and down the East Coast--like, I am on your page, Mr. Chairman,
    okay? I am on your page. But all around the Gulf of America and
    up and down the East Coast--South Carolina, North Carolina--if
    they can't get their beaches reimbursed under category G, okay,
    then there is a major tourism problem in all these States.
        And so this is something that we have to be talking about.
    I think, Mr. Chairman, there is a disconnect between the White
    House and Homeland. And there is a lot going on; we know there
    is a lot going on. I don't think this is getting the attention
    it deserves.
        But I came here to really implore you guys that this isn't
    just about funding FEMA in the Homeland budget; it is about
    engaging with the White House and Homeland on what the plan is
    here for FEMA.
        More money goes to red States than blue States. It is not
    even close. And so this should be a bipartisan issue.
        And so I wanted to bring some of those concerns, Mr.
    Chairman, to you today, and I appreciate the time to address
    you.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        Ms. Underwood, do you have any questions?
        Ms. Underwood. Well, I appreciate you raising the
    legislation that you have authored to do some FEMA reform, and
    I think that there is obviously a bipartisan appetite there.
        But you mentioned in your testimony the damage of Hurricane
    Ian to your home State of Florida, estimated to be about $10
    billion. Given your experience as an emergency management
    director in Florida, can you talk about what it would have
    meant to your State if FEMA hadn't been there?
        Mr. Moskowitz. So let me say this. So--I want to talk about
    the reimbursement piece.
        Ms. Underwood. Okay.
        Mr. Moskowitz. As we know, all of this is in the Stafford
    Act, right? It is in----
        Ms. Underwood. Yes.
        Mr. Moskowitz. It is in statute. Okay? You know, not to go
    off on a tangent here, but, you know, the administration is not
    necessarily following what is in statute, right? They are doing
    a little bit of what they want on their own.
        And that is the concern. If they do that here with FEMA,
    they could just end reimbursement. And then, you know, that
    will get litigated in the courts, but in the meantime there are
    grants that are in process, reimbursement, and we are getting
    into hurricane season right around the corner.
        If Florida--which is one of the wealthier States, right?
    Florida, Texas, California, New York. If you were to get rid of
    reimbursement, even for the wealthier States, they would have
    to raid their DOT funds, they would have to raid their
    healthcare funds, they would have to raid their education
    funds.
        And that is only for one event. If they got a back-to-back,
    if they got what just happened with, you know, Milton and
    Helene, if they got a Francis-Jeanne-and-Charley season where
    they got three hurricanes, you are talking the State would have
    to take $10 billion, $12 billion out of their budget. It would
    decimate the State budget.
        Now, take that example and run that on Mississippi or
    Alabama or Louisiana. That amount of money is almost the entire
    State budget. Or run it on an F5 tornado in Oklahoma or
    Tennessee. Run it on a major flood in Kentucky.
        And so, you know, FEMA needs reform. The President is right
    that FEMA needs reform. And I am--the whole industry is clear-
    eyed on that. But this idea that we have switched from reform
    to removal, okay, States are going to dramatically suffer.
        I will tell you this: Of all the things currently being
    discussed--getting rid of this department, getting rid of that
    department, or block-granting money down--in the emergency
    management space, it will do more damage to State budgets and
    State legislatures, on a bipartisan basis, if all of a sudden
    we start messing with the categories of reimbursement.
        And from a response standpoint, you know, we didn't need
    Federal help in Ian----
        Ms. Underwood. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Moskowitz [continuing]. But we would have needed it in
    Dorian. Dorian was a storm--you might remember, it was a
    Category 5 storm. I was the director at the time. It stopped 75
    miles off the coast of Florida, decimated the Bahamas, and went
    due north.
        Dorian's wind was beyond all of the building code in
    Florida. It was 180-mile sustained winds, with 210 gusts.
    Florida's building code is up to 160. All the hurricane glass
    is up to 160.
        DOD had moved tons of equipment into Florida, pre-staged,
    ready for the response, because we weren't sure what was really
    going to happen. FEMA is the one who coordinated all of that.
        If there is no one coordinating Federal assets from
    different agencies, States are dramatically in trouble. Katrina
    in Louisiana, without the Federal coordinating those assets,
    over their capacity.
        If you want to know why the response in North Carolina
    looked anemic, the truth is, the State response was a disaster,
    so FEMA had to come in and basically do the response for the
    State, and FEMA, because they need reform, wasn't prepared to
    do that.
        So they moved a ton of Federal assets in. Well, again, if
    there is no one doing that, who is moving these Federal assets?
        Ms. Underwood. Uh-huh. Thank you so much.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Can you tell me briefly where you are at in
    terms of your discussions with the policy committee, Mr.
    Green's committee?
        And, listen, I don't know what the answer is, so if you
    say, ``We haven't done much yet,'' or whatever, that is--I am
    just curious. And the reason I am curious will be obvious in a
    minute.
        But where are you at in talking with the policy folks on
    this?
        Mr. Moskowitz. So we have been talking to the committee,
    talking to staff. We have also talked to another subcommittee
    that I waived on to and talked about this. I literally just
    came from a Florida delegation meeting, where I addressed my
    colleagues to make them understand that the situation behind
    the scenes is much worse than we are talking about publicly.
    And so----
        Mr. Amodei. Are you going to get a hearing?
        Mr. Moskowitz. I am asking for one. I mean----
        Mr. Amodei. But they haven't responded yet.
        Mr. Moskowitz. They haven't responded yet. And so----
        Mr. Amodei. Okay.
        So we try to be conscious about not legislating, as an
    appropriations committee, but I have no problem----
        Mr. Moskowitz. Your Member Day, Mr. Chairman, was before
    the policy committee, so I started here.
        Mr. Amodei. Well, that is because we tend to be crisper
    than the other committees.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Fair.
        Mr. Amodei. You can tell them I said that.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Fair.
        Mr. Amodei. But, anyhow, I don't have a problem with
    hearing the bill from a, ``What are your recommendations, and
    what are the fiscal implications?'' So it is like, we won't
    step on the policy people's feet, but if you are saying, ``Hey,
    I have a better mouse trap, and I think I have a pretty good
    eye on what is''--you have a pretty good eye on what the
    problems are and what your recommendations are in terms of--
    because it is about money. I mean, unless I missed something,
    ultimately it is about money.
        And so, if it helps you in those discussions--and our staff
    will get a hold of the Homeland people and go, ``Hey, this
    Moskowitz guy apparently knows a little something about that,
    because he is out of the frying pan and into the fire in
    emergency this, that, and the other stuff''--I am okay with
    devoting some time to hearing more about it.
        Or, if we really want to have fun, when FEMA presents, we
    will have you at the same thing, going, you know, ``I love them
    and''--blah, blah, blah--``and here is my view of the world.''
    Because I think it is an important discussion to have.
        And, by the way, if you are under the impression that I--I
    am only going to speak for myself--that I am clued in on what
    the plan is for FEMA, you are mistaken.
        Do you want to have a hearing over here?
        Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, I would love to do that
    hearing. We can talk about, obviously, the bill and block
    grants, because those are dollars concerned.
        While the bill would have a cost, okay, the--it would
    shrink the Department, which then would have long-term savings.
    The way I look at the bill is, if we look at what, you know--
    and I am not going to go too into DOGE, but--this is the E
    part----
        Mr. Amodei. By the way, it is ``doggy.''
        Mr. Moskowitz. It is ``doggy.'' Fine.
        Mr. Amodei. Phonetically.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Fair enough.
        Mr. Amodei. It is not France.
        Mr. Moskowitz. This would be----
        Mr. Amodei. It is America. ``Doggy.'' There you go.
        Mr. Moskowitz. This bill is the efficiency piece. This is
    about making FEMA more efficient by getting it out of a big
    bureaucracy--it is a smaller agency within a big bureaucracy--
    and making it more efficient by returning it back to the White
    House, shrinking it, and then, obviously, figuring out how we
    can spend less dollars but still make sure that FEMA is
    effective to help the States that are going to need it.
        Mr. Amodei. To make it crystal-clear, if we say, ``We are
    going to do a hearing on Moskowitz's bill,'' if that encourages
    the people that need to to come together and solve the problem
    so we don't need to hear your bill, great.
        In case it is not clear, if that doesn't get somebody's
    attention to sit down and go, ``Hey, what do we want to be when
    we grow up?'' then we will have a hearing and just see what the
    testimony does.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Fair enough, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate that.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. Rep. Gillen, the floor is yours.
                                  ----------

                                              Wednesday, April 9, 2025.
    HON. LAURA GILLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
        YORK
        Ms. Gillen. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chairman, and
    thank you, Ranking Member Underwood.
        I just want to echo Congressman Moskowitz's remarks. It is
    not what I am here to testify about, but I represent Long
    Island in New York, and during Superstorm Sandy, my community
    was completely devastated. People saw their neighbors' houses
    washed out to sea, and it took us years and years to rebuild.
        And I can tell you, years later, when I served in local
    government, I was still working with FEMA to replenish our
    beaches and to harden our infrastructure. The work they do is
    so critical. So I appreciate you taking up this cause, and I
    echo his concerns about FEMA's process.
        But, today, I am appearing before you to urge you to
    continue to make much-needed investments in the upcoming fiscal
    year to help secure our southern border.
        Mr. Chairman, our immigration system is broken. For too
    long, the Federal Government has failed to do enough to secure
    our borders and to adequately enforce our immigration laws.
    Every day, my constituents deal with the effects of this
    failure, including an influx of immigrants into our State and
    our communities, putting a strain on our schools, putting a
    strain on our law enforcement, our local governments, and at
    times undermining our public safety.
        As a result, our communities on Long Island are
    overburdened and our taxpayers are left on the hook. Without
    Federal action, we will only continue to struggle to keep up,
    and this cannot continue.
        It is my priority in Congress to work across the aisle to
    secure our border, to fix our broken asylum system, to find a
    clear pathway to citizenship for people who want to come here,
    and to prevent gang members from entering our country and
    trafficking fentanyl into our communities.
        Members of both parties should agree that we must achieve
    situational awareness and operational control over our southern
    border. That is why I urge you to invest in proven and
    effective methods to strengthen and enhance our border
    security.
        That includes hiring more Border Patrol agents, deploying
    drones and smart technology at the border, building strategic
    barriers where appropriate, and supporting cooperation with
    State and local law enforcement to help prevent individuals
    from crossing illegally.
        First, I urge the committee to provide the necessary
    funding to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to hire an
    additional 10,000 Border Patrol agents.
        As you know, the fiscal year 2024 funding bill called for a
    staffing target of 22,000 Border Patrol agents, and CBP has
    fallen short of that goal. At the same time, GAO has reported
    that CBP is expecting a huge surge of upcoming retirements in
    the next few years.
        I agree with the President that we need to hire thousands
    of additional Border Patrol agents and provide incentives to
    help recruit and retain them, and I urge the committee to
    provide the resources necessary to get this done.
        Second, I strongly support deploying advanced technology,
    including unmanned aerial systems equipped with thermal imaging
    and AI-enabled facial recognition technology, to help stop
    violent criminals and gang members trafficking fentanyl across
    the border.
        That is why I urge the committee to provide the funding
    necessary to ensure that CBP Air and Marine Operations can
    achieve 110,000 annual flight hours in fiscal year 2026 and
    operate drones along the border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
        Increased aerial surveillance and other technologies should
    be supplemented by additional funding to help construct
    physical strategic barriers where necessary along the border.
        Third, I urge the committee to continue to invest in
    programs that strengthen cooperation between the Federal
    Government and local law enforcement to secure our border and
    to keep our communities safe.
        That includes programs like the Department of Homeland
    Security's Operation Stonegarden, which provides grants to
    state and local law enforcement to support border security
    operations. This program was funded at $90 million in fiscal
    year 2023 and fiscal year 2022 but was reduced by $9 million in
    fiscal year 2024. I respectfully request that $110 million in
    funding for Operation Stonegarden is appropriated in fiscal
    year 2026.
        Finally, I urge the committee to provide dedicated
    resources to help reimburse our local law enforcement for the
    costs they incur in dealing with the migrant crisis.
        Our local law enforcement officers know our communities
    best and can best work with federal authorities to ensure that
    enforcement is targeted and properly carried out. However,
    without additional funding, we are just asking our local law
    enforcement to do more with less.
        That is why I am eager to work with you and your colleagues
    to help provide the additional funding to alleviate the burden
    on Nassau County and other jurisdictions.
        Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you so much for your
    time today and for your work on this committee to protect our
    homeland and to keep our communities safe. I look forward to
    working with you and your colleagues on both sides of the aisle
    to secure our border, fix our asylum system, protect legal
    pathways to citizenship that will benefit our economy and our
    country.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Amodei. Ms. Underwood.
        Ms. Underwood. Representative Gillen, thank you so much for
    being here with us. I am so delighted to hear your strong
    commitment to advancing border security, and we really look
    forward to working with you throughout this appropriations
    cycle to make sure that we have the resources dedicated so that
    we can make sure that the grant dollars end up in communities
    like yours.
        You know, as we know right now, a lot of those funding
    programs have been put on pause or they are redirecting funds
    outside of the direction of the Congress. And so we look
    forward to working with you to make sure that this season we
    are able to have a strong, effective bill that gets signed into
    law. Thank you.
        Ms. Gillen. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Amodei. Whoever helped you get ready for this--I mean,
    she sounds like an appropriator. That may not be a compliment,
    but--anyhow.
        Ms. Gillen. I have wonderful staff----
        Mr. Amodei. Yeah.
        Ms. Gillen [continuing]. Including my staff here, Dan
    Marrow.
        Mr. Amodei. Nice work. Strong testimony.
        My commitment to you is this: We will keep you guys abreast
    of what we are doing.
        Is that you, Anna Lanier?
        Anna Lanier here will be in direct contact with you in
    terms of what we are doing, so that as we go through this
    process and get ready to start, you know, subcommittee mark and
    full committee stuff, that you know what we are doing in those
    areas specifically.
        Ms. Gillen. Great.
        Mr. Amodei. And so it sounds like we are in the same
    general neighborhood anyhow, but even if it comes to words
    like, ``I think you guys screwed up here,'' there, or whatever,
    you have asked for and deserve and you will have complete
    access to what the committee is doing in those areas so that
    our product hopefully is as strong as it can be in terms of
    those areas as well as others.
        So thank you for your preparation, your effort, and your
    time. Excellent testimony. And----
        Ms. Gillen. Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. We look forward to working with
    you.
        Ms. Gillen. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Amodei. Yep.
        Ms. Gillen. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        Mr. Amodei. Anything else, ma'am?
        Ms. Underwood. I think we did it. Look at this. Member Day,
    what a success. Mr. Chairman, congratulations.
        Mr. Amodei. Let's declare success and go over the hill.
        Ms. Gillen. All right. Thank you both.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you very much.
        We are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 9:24 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026

                                  ----------

                                                  Tuesday, May 6, 2025.

                      U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                                    WITNESS

    HON. KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Mr. Amodei. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security will come
    to order. I am pleased to be joined by the subcommittee's
    distinguished Ranking Member, the gentlelady from Illinois--
    when she gets here.
        Welcome, Secretary Noem.
        Last week, the Office of Management and Budget released the
    skinny Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request. While we await the
    details of the full request, the focus of the hearing, this
    hearing, will be a discussion of the Department's priorities
    for the upcoming fiscal year.
        First, I want to address a few housekeeping items. Members
    will have differences of opinions on how the Department should
    be run and what policies should be in place, especially as it
    relates to border security and immigration enforcement.
    However, I am asking members on both sides to keep today's
    discussion civil and focused on the work we need to do as
    appropriators to fund the Department of Homeland Security
    (DHS).
        By the way, I guess I would be remiss if I didn't welcome
    the Chair of the full subcommittee, who is here.
        But now I would like to turn to my colleague Ms. Underwood
    for her opening remarks.

                   Opening Remarks--Ranking Member Underwood

        Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing to conduct oversight of the Department of Homeland
    Security.
        And welcome, Secretary Noem, to your first hearing here.
        On this subcommittee, our job is to keep our country safe
    and to safeguard our values as Americans. Last year, working
    together, we secured consistent increases for border operations
    funding and helped bring encounters at the southern border down
    and seizures of narcotics, including fentanyl up through
    critical investments at our ports of entry, CBP officers, and
    increases to Homeland Security Investigations.
        Normally, I would focus my questions for the Secretary on
    the details of the President's budget, but I would be remiss if
    I did not mention that we are holding today's hearing without
    an actual budget for Fiscal Year 2026 to review. And the skinny
    budget released last Friday is filled more with politics than
    facts.
        So let me begin with some facts that I think are important
    for the American people to hear about what you are doing with
    their money. Because 3 months into this Administration,
    America's more vulnerable than it has ever been. Our Homeland
    is not secure.
        In the first 100 days of the Trump Administration, you have
    slashed our Nation's cyber defenses, letting Russia, China, and
    Iran steal our top secrets and Americans' personal data. You
    have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on illegal
    detention and deportation, including some people who are trying
    to come into this country, quote, ``the legal way'' within our
    broken immigration system, despite, by the Department's own
    admission, southern border encounters already at record lows;
    sent emails to U.S. citizens that read, ``Please leave the
    United States immediately''; removed U.S. citizens' children,
    including those with terminal illnesses; raised the price tag
    of future disasters by cutting billions from projects across
    the country to make our infrastructure more resilient,
    including a bipartisan program that was enacted into law by
    President Trump himself; and taken millions of dollars away
    from the DHS workforce and operations for what appears to be
    taxpayer-funded political advertisements.
        During our Member Day hearing last month, I also raised the
    unacceptable and unconstitutional decisions this Administration
    has been making with the funds provided to the Department by
    this committee, including the sudden and unexplained
    termination of DHS grants to States, universities, and
    nonprofit organizations.
        The cancellation of the Disaster Relief Fund's Building
    Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program,
    violations of the Fifth Amendment right to due process
    enshrined in the Constitution and reductions in force of parts
    of the Department's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,
    Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, as
    well as the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman.
        I also have serious concerns with the Administration's
    decision to revoke the bargaining rights for DHS personnel with
    an exception made for unions that have vocally supported the
    President in the name of efficiency and combating waste, fraud,
    and abuse, but without any evidence to back those claims.
        Mr. Chairman, these are programs that Congress debated and
    ultimately funded. Our role as appropriators is to write the
    law and responsibly fund the government, and the executive's
    role is to execute that funding pursuant to the law. It is no
    secret the administration has ramped up immigration detention
    beyond what Congress funded. Increases to U.S. Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the expense of other national
    security programs and initiatives that Members on both sides of
    the aisle voted for undermines our core work and congressional
    intent. DHS is cashing checks it simply doesn't have in hopes
    that reconciliation passes and will cover their shortfall. That
    is an incredibly risky strategy and only sets up essential
    national security agencies for failure or violations of
    Antideficiency Act.
        How does that secure the Homeland? There have been
    bipartisan discussions surrounding the organizational structure
    of the Department of Homeland Security. Whether it is making
    the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) an independent
    agency or transferring Components like the U.S. Coast Guard or
    the U.S. Secret Service to other Departments. We will never shy
    away from discussions about how we can improve the Department
    that, absent an inactive law from Congress making changes to
    the Department's organizational structure, this subcommittee
    will continue to conduct oversight over all existing DHS
    Components and provide for their continued funding in the
    Homeland Security bill.
        I know that there are many areas in this bill that share
    bipartisan support, and I am so proud of the relationship that
    Chairman Amodei and I have built. I know that, even in this
    highly partisan environment, he and I are committed to
    welcoming ideas for how to improve the Department and better
    manage the Department.
        But the Trump Administration's actions have pushed us to
    unprecedented and to a sobering moment.
        America is a democracy, not a dictatorship. In a democracy,
    we are organized around the rule of law. And those laws are
    based on a core set of constitutional rights. You may be
    familiar with the Bill of Rights. It includes the Fourth
    Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures;
    the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees the right to due process;
    and the Sixth Amendment, which protects the right to a fair
    trial and legal counsel.
        As we endeavor to secure the Homeland, we must continue to
    protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That
    is not a secondary mission.
        Let me conclude and take a moment to recognize the
    dedication and commitment of the women and men of the
    Department of Homeland Security, who carry out the Department's
    vital mission to help protect the American people from a wide
    range of threats.
        Again, I want to thank the Chairman for holding this
    hearing. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on a
    bill that reflects those shared priorities, keeps our country
    safe, and upholds our shared values as Americans. I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Madam Ranking Member.
        The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the full
    Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cole, for his opening comments.

                         Opening Remarks: Chairman Cole

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before I
    go to my prepared remarks, I just want to say what a pleasure
    it is to see our former colleague here and how proud we all are
    of you--your success as a Governor, your success in this
    Administration in its opening days. I don't know anybody that
    has been more effective in less time than you have and the men
    and women that you lead and clearly lead so effectively. So I
    just want to thank you so much, honestly, as a friend and a
    colleague but somebody that really appreciates the public
    service that you have already rendered this country in
    multiple, multiple ways. We are proud of you.
        Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
    Underwood, thank you.
        Madam Secretary, we really appreciate you being here today.
        Let me begin by commending the brave men and women of this
    Department who stand on the front lines each day to protect the
    homeland. Under new leadership, they have been empowered to
    fully carry out that fundamental duty.
        From day one, the Trump Administration has made clear that
    protecting America is not negotiable. And this White House has
    taken immediate action to strengthen the security of our
    Nation's borders and enforce existing immigration laws.
        The contrast from the Biden Administration could not be
    clearer. Policies that allowed an open and lawless border have
    ended, and the message is clear: illegal migrants, including
    violent offenders, will no longer have an open invitation.
    Criminal cartels and traffickers will no longer be enriched.
    And the safety of our citizens will no longer be put last.
        In less than a hundred days, we have watched our southern
    border go from chaos to closed. The decisive actions and
    commonsense measures of the Trump Administration have led to a
    historic turnaround driving illegal crossings to record lows
    and ensuring removal of dangerous criminals.
        President Trump and his Cabinet, particularly, you, Madam
    Secretary, have delivered on the promise to have the most
    secure border in modern American history, and our Nation is
    safer as a result. It is imperative that investments for
    effective border security enforcement are strong. And I am
    dedicated to working with the Members on this Committee and
    across the Capitol to ensure the Department is properly
    resourced.
        Secondly, I appreciate that the DHS mission doesn't end
    here. Living in Tornado Alley, Oklahomans are no strangers to
    devastation caused by natural disasters. Even now, a slow-
    moving storm and record-breaking rainfall is responsible for
    significant flooding in my state that has already resulted in
    the loss of life and a state of emergency declaration by our
    Governor.
        When state and local resources are exhausted, we do rely on
    FEMA to bring additional capabilities that save residents,
    remove debris, and help our fellow citizens rebuild. This isn't
    a partisan issue. It is one that concerns states regardless of
    politics.
        I look forward to a discussion on ways to reform FEMA and
    improve federal emergency response capability while eliminating
    inefficiencies and wasteful spending. Programs like the
    Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities or BRIC
    grants have provided many communities with the means to
    mitigate the next disaster before it strikes, potentially
    saving taxpayers even more money. I support efforts like these
    that give local communities, including those in rural Oklahoma,
    the resources to prevent further destruction.
        Madam Secretary, I know we are both committed to ensuring
    safer and stronger communities across our Nation. And thank you
    again for being here today. I look forward to your testimony.
    More importantly, just thank you for the job you are doing for
    the American people. The results have been spectacular and
    immediate, beyond I think what any of us could have expected.
    And that is in no small measure to the manner in which you have
    led. So we are grateful for your service.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chair wishes to put on the record that I have received
    no requests from anybody in the Administration--the minority or
    the majority--that I do an opening statement. Accordingly, I
    will not be doing one. Not unusual.
        Madam Secretary, without objection, your full written
    statement will be entered into the record. With that in mind,
    we would ask you to summarize your opening statement to within
    5 minutes.
        But the gentlelady from South Dakota, the floor is yours.

                   OPENING STATEMENT--SECRETARY NOEM

        Secretary Noem. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you, Ranking Member Underwood, and Members of this Committee,
    for giving me the honor of being before you today.
        As a former colleague of the House of Representatives, I
    recognize the important role that you play in oversight over
    the Federal Government and our agencies. And I am grateful for
    the chance to come here and talk about all of the good work
    that the Department of Homeland Security has done, the
    employees, and the people who walk along side us each and every
    day to follow through on what President Trump has committed to
    the American people. And that is to make America safe again.
        Today, I am very proud of the accomplishments that we have
    tackled. And we have delivered the most secure border in
    American history. At the southern border, we have obtained near
    total control with daily encounters now down over 93 percent
    since President Trump took office. March saw the lowest number
    of border encounters in recorded history in the history of the
    United States of America at just under 7,200. That means that
    there were days where we had less than 200 encounters, which,
    again, is the lowest in recorded history.
        Under the previous Administration, U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection was at times encountering over 15,000 people a day,
    which mean efforts were diverted into processing and
    facilitating an invasion of our country instead of doing their
    jobs. This astonishing turnaround is a testament to the resolve
    and to the leadership of President Trump to make America safe
    again. And it is accomplished by the incredible work of the
    people of the Department.
        The secure border has allowed the Border Patrol to zero in
    on cartels and their illicit activity. And President Trump has
    designated six different cartels and criminal gangs as foreign
    terrorist organizations. This has allowed us to use a whole-of-
    government approach to go after drug traffickers, human
    traffickers. And, in March, fentanyl traffic at the border fell
    by 54 percent compared to the previous year.
        We are enforcing immigration laws to identify, to arrest,
    detain, and to remove dangerous illegal criminals out of our
    country. And we are prioritizing individuals that have
    committed crimes in our communities. Aliens are a threat to our
    public safety and to our national security, and especially
    those that are affiliated with terrorist organizations, such as
    Tren de Aragua and MS-13. This includes those who have final
    orders of removal in place are a priority for this
    Administration. We have also worked with President Trump on his
    America First trade agenda through the U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection actions and enforcement.
        The Biden Administration hollowed out America's industrial
    base, and they shipped our jobs overseas. Well, President Trump
    is changing all of that. His actions are proving that tariffs
    are an effective negotiating tool to address trade imbalances.
    And, in fact, companies are reshoring jobs here in America
    every single day.
        The Department of Homeland Security is reforming and
    rethinking Federal improvement and our involvement in emergency
    response and management as well. President Trump recently
    announced new members to the FEMA Review Council, which I will
    co-chair with the Secretary of Defense. Now this council is
    charged with fixing a broken system. And it is a system that
    will, when fixed, return power to State emergency management
    directors to make America safe again. And we are also taking
    steps to defend the Nation's transportation systems, which are
    vulnerable to targets and attacks.
        The Transportation Security Administration TSA is
    responsible for ensuring the security of all of those that
    travel. In a single day, there are over 45,000 flights, and
    nearly 2.9 million people travel on our airlines and are
    passengers in the United States. We are fulfilling our
    obligation to enforce and to launch REAL ID in order to follow
    federal law that was enacted nearly 20 years ago. Validated IDs
    will secure travel, safeguard our elections, and make sure that
    we never experience and work to prevent a 9/11 attack again.
        As technology advances, so do the threats to our Nation.
    And that is why cybersecurity is so crucial to our future.
    Countries like Communist China have both the capability and the
    intent to infiltrate and to potentially disrupt our critical
    infrastructure systems.
        The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for 10
    of the 16 different critical infrastructures. And, despite
    these threats, the Biden Administration instead used the
    cybersecurity and infrasture security agency (CISA) to play
    politics and to police speech. Under President Trump, we have
    been working to get CISA back on mission and to make sure that
    they are focused on cybersecurity.
        Now, the Coast Guard is the only branch of our military and
    our U.S. Armed Forces that is under the umbrella of the
    Department of Homeland Security, and it has many different
    missions with specialized needs going forward.
        As we secure our southern border, the cartels have shifted
    their activities to our maritime borders. And the Coast Guard
    has already surpassed Fiscal Year 2024 in the amount of drug
    interdiction numbers that they have encountered. And they have
    also excelled at search and rescue and illegal interdiction.
        Since the Coast Guard is facing our greatest readiness
    crisis right now since World War II, we need to act to make
    sure they have the tools, training, and equipment that they
    need to be the tip of the spear in our national security
    response. We have a plan to reinvigorate the Coast Guard, and
    this is a critical component of our Homeland Security mission.
        Now, with Force Design 2028, which some of you may have
    heard about already, we will transform the Coast Guard into a
    more agile, capable, and a responsive force. And, since I took
    office, one of the responsibilities that I have is reforming
    the Secret Service in the wake of the July 13 assassination
    attempt on President Trump. We have reassessed the Secret
    Service's needs. We have refocused recruitment away from what
    the Biden administration was prioritizing with diversity,
    equalty, and inclusion (DEI) objectives and, instead, bring
    people in with experience and with training that align with the
    Agency's zero-fail mission.
        These accomplishments are just a portion, Mr. Chairman, of
    what the Department has achieved in just a hundred days. And,
    with the support of this committee, we will be able to make the
    Department more efficient and more effective into the future.
        I want to thank Chairman Cole for his kind words. It has
    truly been one of my greatest honors to have been able to serve
    with him in his advocacy for the people in his district--but
    not just for the people in his district but the history to
    which he has represented the people of the United States. He is
    a true statesman that works across the aisle to come up with
    solutions.
        I am so grateful for all of you, but I am grateful for the
    people that work every day in the Department of Homeland
    Security. They are examples of bravery and dedication,
    patriotism and perseverance. It is our responsibility to give
    them the resources that they need to meet the challenges of the
    day, to give them the training and equipment that they rely on
    to be successful for the American people. But we also have to
    remain accountable to the American taxpayer and make sure that
    we are spending money appropriately and where it should be
    spent to serve them the best.
        So thank you for the opportunity to be here today. And,
    with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your questions.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I am going to hold
    off on my questions until the members have got done to see if
    some of them are duplicative.
        And so, Ms. Underwood, the floor is yours for questions.

                            CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

        Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This weekend, the President made the remarkable statement
    that he, quote, doesn't know whether he has to uphold the
    Constitution.
        You, however, have taken a different position, both in your
    confirmation hearing and when you took the oath of office. You
    said that you were committed to complying with the
    Constitution. Do you still stand by that statement?
        Secretary Noem. Absolutely. I believe President Trump was--
    --
        Ms. Underwood. Excellent. Let's start with Article I, which
    gives Congress and only Congress the power of the purse. No
    money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of
    appropriations made by law. But this Administration is
    freezing, terminating, and even clawing back federal grants and
    awards that were already signed into law. These are taxpayer
    dollars that were appropriated by Congress for the specific
    purposes that we laid out.
        So, Secretary, let me ask you: Do you believe the
    Administration has the authority to subvert appropriations law
    to freeze and terminate congressional funding?
        Secretary Noem. The administration and the Department of
    Homeland Security used our authorities that we have to evaluate
    every grant that was in front of us and meet statutory
    requirements but also to make sure that they were being spent
    appropriately. So what we did----
        Ms. Underwood. So, of course, the President is within his
    authority----
        Secretary Noem. And to make sure----
        Ms. Underwood. Ma'am, this is my time. Thank you so much.
    Of course, the President is within his authorities to drive
    policy decisions within the bounds of federal law and the
    Constitution. But that is not what you have been doing.
        What I am asking is whether you believe that you have the
    authority to ignore appropriations law. Do you believe that the
    Constitution gives the executive branch unilateral authority to
    withhold funds appropriated by the legislative branch.
        Secretary Noem. We have evaluated grants to make sure if
    they are being spent appropriately, and work that is underway
    and was authorized has continued. Other grants that have not
    been started and have not been authorized or obligated, we have
    reevaluated. And I think you are talking specifically about
    grants, potentially within FEMA, that were non-disaster-related
    grants.
        Ms. Underwood. I am talking broadly, ma'am.
        Secretary Noem. Those grants are being----
        Ms. Underwood. And Article II does not give the executive
    the authority to withhold funds, period. And multiple courts
    have weighed in to agree. Multiple courts have ruled in
    agreement. Congress controls the power of the purse.
        Secretary Noem. We are not here----
        Ms. Underwood. That is fact. That is not a question. That
    is a fact.
        And so if the President disagrees with certain spending,
    Congress passed the Impoundment Act to create a legal process
    to seek rescissions. And we expect him to follow the law. This
    Administration is not just ignoring the constitutional power of
    the People's elected Representatives; it is also violating the
    fundamental right of individuals.
        Do you believe that the Constitution grants everyone in our
    country the right to due process, including noncitizens?
        Secretary Noem. The Administration has the authority to----
        Ms. Underwood. Ma'am, I am looking for a yes or no--
    question. Yes or no? Do you believe the Constitution----
        Secretary Noem. We have not conducted----
        Ms. Underwood. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Amodei. The time is yours.
        Ms. Underwood. Okay. Secretary Noem, I am just looking for
    a yes or no here. Do you believe the Constitution guarantees
    due process to everyone in America?
        Secretary Noem. Due process is exactly what this Congress
    lays out.
        Ms. Underwood. Yes or no?
        Secretary Noem. It is--due process----
        Ms. Underwood. Okay. Ma'am, I'll take that as a no. Excuse
    me, I am trying--ma'am, I am trying to ascertain your
    understanding of the law as it applies to your Department. And
    you as its leader should be able to give us a yes-or-no answer
    because judge after judge has ruled that the law is not being
    followed.
        Do you believe that the U.S. Government has the authority
    to deport American citizens?
        Secretary Noem. No, and we are not----
        Ms. Underwood. Okay great.
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Deporting U.S. citizens.
        Ms. Underwood. Okay. Great. I am happy to hear that you do
    not believe that the law gives you that authority because the
    Federal Government has no authority under U.S. laws to deport
    any American citizen, and, as I know everyone viewing this
    hearing today knows, that several American citizens have been
    deported to date.
        Secretary Noem. No, that is not true.
        Ms. Underwood. Secretary Noem, that is not a question.
        Secretary Noem, that oath that we both swore before taking
    office was to protect and defend the Constitution of the United
    States--not the President, not a political party, the
    Constitution. And that is what we are going to keep doing here
    at the Appropriations Committee. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Oklahoma, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for
    questions. Mr. Cole, the floor is yours.

                             DETENTION AND REMOVAL

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, again, great to have you here. In your
    service, you have prioritized detaining and removing literally
    the worst of the worst in our country that have arrived here
    illegally, including those who have committed violent crimes
    against our fellow Americans. I think we are all in support of
    that effort.
        Can you tell us--and you may not have this information--I
    am just curious how many illegal citizens have committed
    serious offenses against our own citizens?
        Secretary Noem. Yeah, there are tens of thousands of
    illegal aliens that have committed crimes against individuals
    in this country. And we have worked very hard to make sure that
    those are the individuals that we are going after and deporting
    as soon as possible.
        There have been over 160,000 repatriations targeting these
    individuals, returning them back to their home countries and
    facing consequences and legal action because of that. President
    Trump has told us to make these individuals a priority and to
    also make sure that we are identifying those with final removal
    orders to remove. And, overwhelmingly, the American people have
    supported this.
        One of the things that I would say that was unfortunate was
    the Biden Administration closed an office within ICE that
    helped us better track criminal activity by illegal aliens and
    to give resources to those families to let them be informed on,
    when cases were in court, if the perpetuator of their crime was
    going to be released, if they were in custody. The VOICE Office
    within ICE was opened under the first Trump Administration, and
    President Biden close that office, I believe, to cover up
    exactly how many crimes were committed against people in this
    country by illegal aliens.
        We have reopened that office. We believe that that data
    would be helpful. And they are continuing to work with people
    who have been victims of illegal crimes and illegal alien
    activity in this country. But those data and that information,
    I don't think we will ever truly know how much crime was
    committed and how many were committed against American citizens
    because the Biden Administration refused to track those victims
    and those crimes as they were perpetuated.
        The Chairman. Well, I commend you for reopening the office.
    Let me just, as a quick followup, ask you. Again, this may be
    information that is not readily available. And I am curious if
    we know how many illegal aliens have actually currently have
    final orders for removal from an immigration judge, and we just
    haven't had an opportunity to, you know, execute those orders?
        Secretary Noem. Well, that is the challenge that we have is
    that we have literally millions of illegal aliens that have
    overstayed or are here illegally that need to have a final
    order as issued. We have hundreds of thousands that are being--
    going out and targeted and being removed from this country
    today that ICE is working every day in coordination with all
    other areas of our government to get them removed from our
    country. But we do need--have a backlog because this was not a
    priority under the last Administration. So we have up to a
    million cases that are backlogged that need to be processed by
    an immigration judge in an immigration court in order to make
    sure that we are having those final removal orders, and that we
    can take action on them.

                                    REAL ID

        The Chairman. Now, I want to commend you. You mentioned in
    your statement about pushing on the REAL ID Act. I know that is
    not an easy thing to do. And I am sure, when the day comes, we
    are about 30 percent of the people, as I understand it, that
    travel still don't have that documentation. Amongst the things
    you have to consider are what kinds of ideas are acceptable. I
    would encourage you, as you do, that to look carefully at
    Tribal IDs. I know certainly, in South Dakota, but in Oklahoma,
    we have a lot of our citizens that use those as primary
    sources. And, clearly, they need to meet the standards you lay
    out. But whatever you could do in that regard to both keep
    those folks informed and work with them so they get into
    compliance would be very appreciated.
        Secretary Noem. We do--tomorrow is the day that REAL ID
    will finally be enforced. It has been a law that has been in
    place for over 20 years. Eighty-one percent of the travelers
    that travel by airline in the United States today are already
    compliant. So they have IDs that already--they will be able to
    use just like they normally always have been. We will be
    honoring passports, other federally recognized IDs. Tribal IDs
    will be recognized. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that.
        And what will happen tomorrow is folks will come through
    the line and will be issued their ID and show it. If it is not
    compliant, they may be diverted to a different line, have an
    extra step, but people will be allowed to fly.
        We recognize that this is a security issue. Congress has
    had many, many years to reevaluate it and decide if they wanted
    to change the law or to stop it. And the Biden Administration
    chose that it should go into place on May 7, and we intend to
    follow the law.
        So we will make sure that it is as seamless as possible and
    that travelers will get to stay on their intended itinerary.
    But we are telling people that this law will be enforced, and
    it will allow us to know individuals in this country, who they
    are and that they are authorized to travel.

                                  BRIC GRANT'S

        The Chairman. I am about out of time. So I am going to
    mention a quick thing and then probably submit it for the
    record so you have time to respond.
        I am very interested in the BRIC grants, which again we did
    pass when President Trump was there. I would love to be updated
    as you figure out how you are going to reform those. But they
    have been extraordinary valuable. I think the communities--and
    like all grants they can be used correctly or misused. I don't
    have any problem with evaluating things. Particularly, in the
    last frenzied days of any administration, sometimes a lot of
    stuff slips through that you wish hadn't in retrospect.
        But please know that there is strong bipartisan support for
    that program, as there was when President Trump, you know,
    introduced it and worked with--signed it into law back in 2018.
        So I would love to know more when you can about your plans
    to reform those grants but hopefully keep them operating.
        Secretary Noem. You bet. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I recognize the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Cuellar, the
    floor is yours.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                        LAREDO BORDER AND PORT SECURITY

        Madam Secretary, it is good to see you. I was going to show
    you, but I think the rules don't allow me to show you just
    something. Because I just want to talk about basics. But
    hopefully we can sit down later, and I can show you what I am
    referring to.
        I want to talk about some of the basics. I live at the
    border. I have lived all my life there. I want to talk to you
    about River Rotes. I want to talk to you about carrizo cane,
    technology that is needed, aerostats--and cameras are not
    working in some infrastructure. Basics that are needed for
    border security.
        My area, Laredo, it is the largest inland port, bigger than
    L.A., bigger than any other place in the country. We get 18,000
    trailers a day. We are about to expand from 8 lanes to 18, plus
    another bridge. We got two of them, two rail bridge. So trade
    is very important to us.
        But, when we talk about illegal crossings, we have been the
    second lowest crossing in the country, and we still are up
    there. I think right now the latest numbers, 30 people maybe,
    40 people a day coming through my area, which is almost
    nothing. So thank you for that.
        River Rotes. The River Rotes, that I wish I could show this
    just to show you, but the River Rotes go this way. Let's say
    the river is here. The River Rotes--I mean, the rotes go this
    way. So Border Patrol can go here, but they can't go across. So
    what we are asking is for River Rotes to follow the river
    itself. And I think that will be a big investment, a good
    investment that we need. So one is a River Rotes.
        The other thing is the carrizo cane. The carrizo cane--I
    know you got some folks from--people that are very familiar.
    But the carrizo cane will grow almost the size of this. And it
    is not good for Border Patrol. I think Tony Gonzales and folks
    that are from the border understand. You know, we ought to get
    rid of that carrizo cane on our river, but get the Mexicans to
    do that. I will show you the maps, and I know you have been out
    there. But it shows you the carrizo cane is on both sides. If
    we can clear that up, get the Mexicans to do that, that would
    be good for Border Patrol.
        So River Rotes, carrizo cane. Technology, in my area, only
    one-third of the cameras are working. And, if you ask some of
    the other Border Patrol, they are not working. Basically, they
    are using the RVS, which is an old model. They are trying to
    get the ASD towers, were more--better to use or whatever
    technology. But this old technology is like going to a car, and
    you fix it, and they keep coming. The same thing they are doing
    right now; they keep bringing folks that were coming in to fix
    it up. One-third of the cameras are working. Two-thirds are not
    working. That is not right. Procurement process needs to be
    better so they can move faster to buy that technology.
        And, finally, there are dead spots. Even now, with the
    modern technology, Border Patrol can be in certain areas and
    dangerous areas, and they don't have the technology and radio
    that is working.
        Aerostats, the military has a lot of them in surplus. The
    problem is, in the past, past, past administrations, they have
    hired contractors that, you know, Homeland was paying too much
    money. So we need to look at those aerostats that are available
    from the military surplus itself.
        Border Patrol, I think, right now, we got 19,327. We funded
    22,000. And we need to hire more. All told, the men and women
    in blue were at 26,334. We are still below the money, so we
    need to hire those officers.
        So those are some of the things that--and I know I gave you
    a whole bunch of things--but there are the basic things that
    are important to Border Patrol.
        Last point, as we try to hire new Border Patrol, I know the
    reconciliation has something that will affect them that has to
    do with Social Security supplement. I have talked to a lot of
    Border Patrol agents, and right now they are crunching the
    numbers: ``Do I retire at the age of 52 or go out 57? What is
    going to happen with that supplemental?'' So instead of
    focusing on the border, they are human beings, and they are
    focusing on that. I know that is another committee. But those
    are the basics that I know I don't have enough time, but I
    would love to follow up with you and your folks on.
        Secretary Noem. Absolutely. I will certainly do that,
    Congressman. And I want to thank you for talking about the
    technology needs and the investments that we need at the border
    in order for these agents to truly do their job and do it with
    excellence.
        I will tell you that recruitment of CBP is up over 50
    percent. So, as we have allowed them to go back and do their
    jobs, we have had more and more interest in people, more
    applications coming in, and I think that is a fantastic trend
    that, as people talk about how discouraging it was over the
    last several years, by them not having their hands tied, that
    now that they actually get to secure the border and work for
    the American people, that they are recruiting more and more
    help to be assisting along the way. Thank you. And we will
    follow up on the rest of these conversations.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. I yield.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
        The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford, the floor is
    yours for questions.

                                 287(G) PROGRAM

        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And,
        Secretary Noem, I have to say--it has already been
    mentioned a couple times--the amazing speed with which you all
    turned around the southern border. And I know that a big piece
    of that was your endorsement of the 287(g) program. You know, I
    fought with Secretary Mayorkas, your predecessor, to try expand
    that program. He refused to do it. Even though his Acting ICE
    Secretary said in a hearing before this committee that 287(g)
    was the best thing since sliced bread because it protected
    officers and the community. And so I want to thank you for
    that.
        You all came in, and overnight it seems added 300 agencies
    to the 287(g) program. That is an amazing accomplishment. And I
    think that is a reason for a lot of the success that you have
    seen there. In fact, my own agency, where I had started 287(g)
    back 15 years ago, we were part of Operation Tidal Wave and
    just great success in Florida with all the sheriffs and the
    chiefs coming together: 1,120 illegal aliens taken off the
    street, 63 percent of which, Madam Secretary, actually had
    criminal arrests and convictions prior to that.
        So two questions about 287(g): Number one, what can we do
    to help you get more agencies involved? And, number two, what
    do you need from the standpoint of technology? You just
    mentioned the technology. What can we do to help you get those
    agencies trained and the technology that they need to get into
    those databases so that we can actually run these 287(g)
    programs, which are better than sliced bread----
        Secretary Noem. Yeah.
        Mr. Rutherford [continuing]. At top efficiency?
        Secretary Noem. Yeah, well, thank you, Congressman, for
    talking about this program because it is incredibly important
    to our strategy of having the enforcement that we need to
    really address the criminal activities that we have seen out on
    the ground. 287(g) is a partnership between our officers, ICE,
    CBP, that brings everybody to the table. It is an agreement
    that is signed with local law enforcement or State law
    enforcement that allows us to operate in a task force model to
    go out and make sure that we are having more bodies, more
    people, a part and backup of these operations on the ground
    going after dangerous criminals.
        We have today, I believe, 598 agreements out there across
    the country, over 6,200 different officers that that has
    brought alongside of us to work alongside of us to protect our
    communities. And they have done incredible work.
        You referenced what was done in Florida in Operation Tidal
    Wave. Those 1,120 dangerous criminals are off the streets now
    today. And they are people that were here illegally, broke our
    laws, and now they are having the opportunity to face
    consequences and to go home to their home countries.
        I would say that we are looking for more agreements like
    that across the country and will continue to build on it. What
    Florida did by having a whole-of-state approach is what we want
    to build out and model in every other State as well. And we
    have had partnerships from the Drug Enforcement Administration
    (DEA), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
    (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ), the State highway patrols.
    We have had obviously ICE, U.S. Marshals, CBP, local law
    enforcement, cities, county sheriffs, people who have committed
    their whole life to upholding the law, and having the scales of
    justice apply equally to everybody are a part of this team. And
    it has been wonderful to see people jump in and be a part of it
    to make sure that we have not just the authorities that we need
    to go out there and to work but also to have the local
    knowledge and people in their community that really want to be
    a part of the solution and making them safe again.

                             RECALCITRANT COUNTRIES

        Mr. Rutherford. Well, we look forward to continuing that. I
    want to ask very quickly--I don't have much time left--but I
    want to ask about these recalcitrant countries that--you know,
    we have 1.2 million deportation orders out there that are
    waiting for these countries to take them back.
        I was shocked, under the Biden Administration, that
    Secretary Mayorkas claimed he couldn't send them home because
    they wouldn't take them. But now I understand that, now that
    you are in charge of DHS and the Trump Administration and the
    State Department working together, that there has been some
    change in that. And can you talk a little bit about how that is
    going?
        Secretary Noem. Yeah, so the Department of State is the
    entity that negotiates travel documents and the ability to
    repatriate people back to their home countries. And they have
    done phenomenal work in giving us the opportunity to do that.
        There are some countries that are still refusing to take
    their own citizens. And I would reiterate that every single
    country has a responsibility to take their citizens back. And
    that has always been something that has been an international
    commonsense agreement that has existed. Many of the countries
    today, even as they are working with us, aren't taking their
    citizens home very quickly. They may limit us to one or two
    planes a week. Mexico had a limitation on us for quite a period
    of time, even a limitation on what kind of aircraft we could
    use.
        And so working with those countries is a diplomatic job
    that consistently needs to be stayed on top of. So many times,
    while we have people that are brought into our facilities and
    ready to be returned home, getting those travel documents and
    the permission to return them to their countries is incredibly
    important.
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much for getting them out.
        I see my time has expired. I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Hawaii.
        Mr. Case, the floor is yours for questions.
        Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, I appreciate your rosy report on the
    Department of Homeland Security. I have a different view on
    where the Department is today and where you--and by ``you,'' I
    am going to refer to the President, the Administration, and you
    as Secretary--are taking it, as reflected into your actions and
    budgets, not just in your words. But I think it is important
    that we start by some points of agreement.
        First of all, I think you would agree--I hope you would
    agree that 270- or so thousand members of the DHS workforce--if
    that is where the figure is now, and we------
        Secretary Noem. Yeah, we just posted it.
        Mr. Rutherford [continuing]. We would like to find out what
    the figure is at some point spread across your 22 departments.
    They all deserve our praise for their dedication for serving
    our country every day. And they also deserve our professional
    respect.
        I think we would also agree that the efforts to legally
    reduce illegal immigration and illegal drugs over the past
    couple of years across our borders are paying off and should be
    continued. So I agree with you on those things.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET

        Overall, however, and focusing on the budget--because this
    is the Appropriations Committee--what little you have shown us
    thus far of your Fiscal Year 2026 budget. It looks like you are
    definitely overfunding some efforts, mainly for messaging
    purposes, at the expense of some other efforts that are really
    critical, such as cybersecurity, disaster prevention and
    mitigation, transportation security.
        And you are using budget gimmicks to misdirect and conceal
    your intent. On your budget gimmicks, you claim a 65 percent
    increase in DHS' overall budget, targeted at the border, drugs,
    and the Coast Guard. But all of that increase or more is loaded
    into your separate reconciliation bill. You have essentially,
    for purposes of this committee, level-funded DHS and loaded all
    of the extra money into reconciliation.
        First of all, aside from completely sidetracking this
    particular committee, which is supposed to be doing that
    funding, you should know, if you don't already, that this is
    not an appropriate use of reconciliation. It is intended to
    maintain the illusion of responsible budgeting. It certainly is
    holding needed DHS increases, which many of us would support in
    other situations, hostage to your overall reconciliation plan
    of continuing tax cuts for billionaires and slashes in critical
    programs like Medicaid.
        So the question I have--and it is a rhetorical question
    since I am making a statement here--is, why don't you just come
    into the committee and say it is straight, ``We need a 65
    percent or more increase in DHS to actually protect our
    national security''?
        Your increase is also heavily skewed to the border,
    generally, and CBP specifically--some 20 billion, all of it in
    reconciliation. And nobody disputes the CBP needs help. I have
    been to the border three times myself. I have spent time with
    the agents. And certainly personnel and equipment costs are
    necessary.
        But a question that I have from an oversight perspective
    is, if you are claiming success at the border without spending
    all of this extra money which you are there for, which you are
    now asking for, do we need to do that at the expense of other
    programs, and I mean the nonpersonnel stuff?
        You are also loading half of your reconciliation increase
    into the U.S. Coast Guard, $21 billion. And everybody agrees
    that the Coast Guard needs help. It is critical in the Indo-
    Pacific, where you have already actually withdrawn from the
    Indo-Pacific, which I think was a tremendous mistake. Why don't
    you just ask for that in your base budget rather than trying to
    hide and extort it in reconciliation?
        Your budget also ignores and even attacks other critical
    functions of DHS, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security
    Agency, or CISA, which I think we would all agree is critical
    to direct national defense but also civilian infrastructure,
    which is the most exposed right now, and the reliance of
    foreign countries on our expertise to help them with their
    cybersecurity, and yet you propose to reduce CISA by 20 percent
    in your base budget. And I don't think that you can claim that
    it is all somehow Biden misdirection.
        FEMA, another example of misbudgeting, in my view, you,
    first of all, collectively have directed very incorrect and
    outright mean criticism at FEMA, which is just undeserved by
    the FEMA. And it is time to put the political campaign behind
    us and acknowledge that FEMA is doing a good job.
        They did an outstanding job in Maui. And I sat with them in
    Maui when they were trying their very best and did their very
    best while their President was criticizing their work. We don't
    need this, and further we certainly need to fund them
    adequately.
        Transportation Security Administration, the same basic
    observation, a critical agency which you have not adequately
    funded.
        So, fundamentally--my time is running short. Obviously,
    this is a critical agency. It deserves to be led responsibly
    and transparently. It deserved to be budgeted transparently and
    responsibly. And, until we get there, I do not feel safer under
    your leadership at DHS.
        Secretary Noem. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can
    respond quickly. Thank you for your comments. And I would like
    to respond to you. If I don't have time today, I will in
    writing or in answers to other questions.
        But we have focused on making sure that we are going
    forward with a Department of Homeland Security that focuses on
    what our mission is, and that is to secure America's Homeland
    and to do that while being accountable to taxpayers.
        So every single component I have, 23 different departments,
    we have gone back to their mission statements on what they were
    intended to do and put them back on mission.
        So, in CISA, instead of doing censorship, misinformation,
    disinformation, they are back to securing our critical
    infrastructure. TSA, all we are doing there in the reductions
    is reducing empty full-time equivalents (FTE) that were never
    filled or don't have Transportation Security Officers (TSO) in
    them now and asking for TSA officials to do work that they were
    intended to do and not to do unskilled technical work by
    monitoring exit lanes.
        So I could go through all of them that you mentioned. FEMA
    as well, the President has indicated he wants to eliminate FEMA
    as it exists today and to have states have more control over
    their emergency management response. He wants to empower local
    governments and support them in how they respond to their
    people. So thank you for identifying what you are concerned
    about, and I look forward to having conversations with you so
    that I can answer the questions that you have and reassure you
    that this Department of Homeland Security is accountable, but
    it is also going to fulfill the mission for which it was
    created after the horrific events of 9/11. Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you. The floor belongs to the gentleman
    from Washington State, Mr. Newhouse, for your questions.

                    IMMIGRANT WORK VISAS AND PAROLE PROCESS

        Mr. Newhouse. Well, I thank the gentleman from Nevada and
    the lady from Illinois as well.
        Thank you, Secretary Noem, for being here to discuss. This
    is our agency, the Homeland Security.
        I want to focus on a couple of things. I have spent a lot
    of time working on--and, when you were in the House, you did
    too, and I want to thank you for that. That has to do with
    agricultural labor. I was very delighted to hear President
    Trump in early April make several, I thought, were very
    important comments about the agricultural labor force, as well
    as some of the, what you call, hotel, entertainment kind of
    workers, whose current workforce certainly lack a legal status.
    I am talking about H-2A and H-2B.
        He proposed a plan to allow undocumented agricultural
    workers an opportunity to touch back with the ability to come
    back to the United States with achieving a legal status. I
    can't overstate the importance, as you know, of agricultural
    labor force to produce food and fiber in our country.
        So I wondered, if you could, provide any kind of an update
    that you could share with us on the discussions there at the
    Cabinet level. But, also, in that same vein, a major cattle
    producer and processer in Washington and Idaho recently shared
    some of their concerns with the--I believe it is called the
    termination of parole process for Cubans, Haitians,
    Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans. Apparently, the workforce there--
    up to 15 percent of their workforce is made up of people from
    those countries.
        And so I wanted to give you an opportunity to either speak
    with us about that or follow up with my staff later.
        Secretary Noem. Thank you so much for talking about the
    important programs that we have to facilitate a workforce in
    this country that have contributed so much in certain
    industries and different areas going forward.
        President Trump has been very clear that he believes that
    people that are here illegally need to go home. He has backed
    that up with his policies that you don't get to come into this
    country and have the law applied to some people and not others,
    that the scales of justice should apply equally to everyone,
    and that individuals who are here illegally need to face
    consequences for that and go home.
        I think one of the reasons that you have heard us recently
    talk about sel-deportation is because our preference is that
    the individuals who are here illegally self-deport. We will
    facilitate purchasing their plane ticket and a stipend once
    they return to their home country. So they have the opportunity
    to do exactly what you talked about by a touchback. They have
    the opportunity to come back to America then and to do it the
    right way. They will face the consequences for breaking our
    laws originally. But we want everybody to have the opportunity
    to be a part of the American Dream. If individuals who are here
    illegally wait until we have to go out and find them, arrest
    them, deport them, spend up to $17,000 by getting them back
    home to their home countries, President Trump has been very
    clear: They will never get the chance to come back.
        So I would encourage everyone in this country that is in
    these industries to proactively tell the story. That is why you
    have seen us aggressively carrying the message to people that
    the United States is now following the law, that we are now
    securing our borders, and that we are getting people out of our
    country who have broken our laws. But, if you do work with us,
    that you will have the opportunity to come back.
        Those visa programs are ones that we continue to have
    discussions with the Administration with many of you on. There
    is some latitude given to the Secretary of the Department of
    Homeland Security. But I will remind you that Congress
    consistently maintains the authority to determine how many are
    issued in this country and if they are issued into the future.
    And so we always will follow that as that goes forward.
        And, as you talk about the importance of what the work we
    do at the Department of Homeland Security, I know that working
    with these folks that are in these different industries, that
    we will continue to have those conversations with all of you.
        When we talk about different policies that the Department
    is following, many of times it is Congress--it is the House of
    Representatives and Senate who sets the policy that we are
    following and gives us the authority to do and take the actions
    that we are.
        Mr. Newhouse. Very good. I look forward to working with you
    on that. And, just in the short amount of time I have left, the
    Harbor Maintenance Tax.
        Secretary Noem. Yes.

                             HARBOR MAINTENANCE TAX

        Mr. Newhouse. A lot of countries are essentially bypassing
    that, bringing goods, importing them to the United States
    through either Canada or Mexico and foregoing to pay any kind
    of tax that way. And, you know, certainly we have a lot of
    illicit drugs coming through. We need to get a handle on that
    as well. In your testimony, you highlighted the importance of
    the CBP enforcing tariffs on imports. This seems to me to be an
    appropriate place to put a lot of time and energy. I am going
    to--just so you know, I will have some legislation here shortly
    addressing this kind of stuff. But I wanted to draw your
    attention to a lot of work, the efforts that other countries
    are going through to avoid paying that tax.
        Secretary Noem. Yeah, thank you for pointing that out and
    for talking about it in this Committee Hearing because I think
    a lot of people don't realize that that is one of the factors
    that we are dealing with, too, at the Federal level is having
    other countries unfairly manipulate their processes to avoid
    paying what is due to the American people.
        Since President Trump has been in office, CBP has made 21
    different enforcement actions on tariffs. So they have put in
    place that many adjustments and changes to other countries as
    goods and services come into this country and have done it with
    excellence. I will remind everybody that CBP is the oldest law
    enforcement agency in the country and has collected tariffs for
    many, many, many years. And so they have adjusted and done well
    with President Trump negotiating with these countries to
    finally treat our consumers and our country fairly when we have
    been so mistreated in trade agreements in the past.
        Mr. Newhouse. Well, thank you.
        Secretary Noem. But that is a part of the discussion that
    the President continues to have with these other entities that
    have manipulated that.
        Mr. Newhouse. I very much appreciate it. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Amodei. The gentlelady from Texas. The floor is yours
    for questions.

                                  DEPORTATIONS

        Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Ranking
    Member.
        Secretary Noem, thanks for being here. I appreciate it.
        I represent--I am proud to represent my border community of
    El Paso, Texas. Born and raised there. Third generation. Border
    resident. My kids are fourth generation. I have a lot of
    questions, and I have structured them in a way that they should
    be a simple yes or no. So I am going to ask that you please
    respond as simply as possible so I can get through as many of
    my questions as possible.
        My first question is, when the Department of Homeland
    Security makes a mistake, will you assure this committee and
    Congress that DHS, that you will acknowledge that mistake, take
    accountability for it, and rectify it, most importantly?
        Secretary Noem. Yes.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you. And I will follow back up with that
    question. I want to first--one of the first topics I want to
    talk about is what Donald Trump, President Trump said recently:
    Homegrowns are next.
        And I would like to enter into the record an NPR story, ``
    `Homegrowns are next': Trump hopes to deport and jail U.S.
    citizens abroad.''
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Escobar. I was happy to hear your acknowledgement that
    that is not legal. But I am curious about the reconciliation
    bill and the appropriations requests that you will make. Will
    any of the funding, either through appropriations or through
    reconciliation, be used to execute this policy idea of Donald
    Trump's, which is deporting U.S. citizens abroad?
        Secretary Noem. We have not deported any U.S. citizens. And
    so that false media narrative that you have heard out there
    just simply isn't true. What I would say----
        Ms. Escobar. Well, so my question, yes or no. Will the
    reconciliation for appropriations be used for that?
        Secretary Noem. The reconciliation dollars that we have
    asked for is $175 billion that will be focused and is reflected
    in----
        Ms. Escobar. But, yes or no, will it be used for those
    purposes which Donald Trump acknowledged--a policy----
        Secretary Noem. We are going to continue to use the
    authorities and follow the Constitution to implement policies
    to make sure----
        Ms. Escobar. All right. Reclaiming my time.
        I would like to now focus on U.S. citizens who were
    deported. In fact, three children so far, likely more children,
    one of those children with cancer who was deported without the
    medication necessary to address that child's cancer. Again, a
    U.S. citizen. The lawyers have said that they were not given--
    the family was not given an opportunity to make plans for the
    kids, and so they were deported--essentially, again, U.S.
    citizens.
        I have a question about the forms that ICE is supposed to
    utilize when engaging with parents who have children who--the
    parents who are being deported and the U.S. citizen children.
    One of those forms is ICE form 71-078 or the caregiver
    designation at arrest form.
        Were any of the individuals who were deported who had U.S.
    citizen children deported with them, were they given an
    opportunity to sign that form?
        Secretary Noem. The specific cases that you are referencing
    with these children, it was the parents' choice to take the
    children with them.
        Ms. Escobar. And did ICE----
        Secretary Noem. Which it is followed through with the
    Administration to keep families together.
        Ms. Escobar [continuing]. Follow through on the policy?
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. That is why we have----
        Ms. Escobar. Ma'am, ma'am, reclaiming my time. I told you
    at the top of this--ma'am, reclaiming my time. I said that the
    questions are really simple. Yes or no, was that form used in
    any each those cases?
        Secretary Noem. I will get back to you on that specific
    form. I don't know the number. But I do know these mothers went
    on the record asking for them and in the----
        Ms. Escobar. Reclaiming my time----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Reiterated they wanted to keep
    their children with them.
        Ms. Escobar. Ma'am, the second form--reclaiming my time. I
    would like you to avoid the filibuster so I can get to all of
    my questions.
        Secretary Noem. I am answering your questions----
        Ms. Escobar. So the second ICE form that I would like to
    ask you about is ICE form 71-76, which is also--it is pre-
    removal parental interest election form. Can you get back to me
    on that.
        Secretary Noem. Sure.
        Ms. Escobar. Were all of the parents allowed to sign that?
    Are the parents allowed to speak to lawyers before they are
    deported or to speak to their U.S. citizen spouses before they
    are deported.
        Secretary Noem. They are given the opportunity to----
        Ms. Escobar. So you can guarantee that every one of those
    parents----
        Secretary Noem. We followed all the normal policies and
    procedures of----
        Ms. Escobar. So they were allowed to talk to a lawyer, that
    is a yes?
        Secretary Noem. Every case was handled exactly as it is
    authorized----
        Ms. Escobar. That is a yes.
        Secretary Noem. Everything was handled appropriately and
    correctly in every single case----
        Ms. Escobar. But did they all get to talk to a lawyer?
    Okay. Reclaiming my time.
        Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I am out of time. I have a
    number of other questions we will get to in the next round.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Ciscomani, the
    floor is yours.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Secretary Noem, for being here with us today
    and for your testimony and your leadership--your leadership and
    that of all the men and women that you serve with as well in
    the Department of Homeland Security.
        Like you, I come from a border state. And, though the
    northern and southern borders are vastly different, I know you
    understand firsthand the challenges that our communities at the
    border face as well as the value that they bring also to our
    States and our region.
        The security that this Administration has been able to
    deliver to our southern border in such a short period of time
    is astounding and so well-appreciated by those who live and
    work in these communities. I know I hear it all the time. This
    is the number one feedback I get from my constituents regarding
    the results that we have seen from this Administration. And
    your leadership has played a key role in that. So thank you.

                            GOTAWAYS AND TECHNOLOGY

        In the district that I represent, which is much of the
    Tucson sector of Border Patrol, we have historically seen high
    numbers of gotaways. I understand there have been about 65,000
    gotaways this fiscal year. What resources--or what resource
    investment for both technology and infrastructure are you
    planning to make in how those will be reduced and numbers for
    the future? The gotaways, of course, are troubling. We have
    seen a lot of the reported numbers come down. But these
    gotaways, that is--I know it is a key issue for you as well and
    a focus.
        So, on that--and then particularly can you speak to the
    technology that we will be using in these rough terrain areas,
    like southern Arizona, which is so different from other border
    areas, including my friends in Texas. When you go to Arizona,
    it is just broad terrain, rough, some areas hard to even build
    any kind of barrier wall. So technology plays a big role there.
    Can you speak to that?
        Secretary Noem. Yes. Thank you so much for talking about
    the fact that, as we have secured our border and as we have
    addressed the challenges and in the areas of the southern
    border and northern border where we saw a lot of folks crossing
    illegally and we have put more resources in those areas or what
    was necessary to really follow our federal law and keep the
    American people safe, we have seen that some of the traffic has
    pushed to other areas, maybe areas that weren't well-traveled
    before, and now got-aways are trying to take advantage of that.
        They also have pushed heavily towards the maritime borders
    and out into the waters. The Coast Guard is seeing much more
    traffic. They are also seeing the cartel activity out there of
    trafficking of drugs and human beings and technologies that
    they are having a difficult time keeping up with.
        The Coast Guard has been neglected for many, many years,
    and they don't have the airframe and they don't have the
    cutters to keep up and even to manage and maintain the
    horsepower needs that they have to catch and interdict some of
    the smuggling activities that are going on.
        You referenced some of the rough terrain and what we need
    to do as far as CBP and investment on this border. Frankly, we
    are going to use the latest and greatest technology that would
    be available to us as far as surveillance equipment, cameras,
    satellite images when possible, and also the Aerostar, like
    Congressman Cuellar was talking about, some of those
    technologies in areas to help those vulnerable areas have more
    eyesight to truly know what is crossing there so that we can
    interdict it before it comes into our country.
        I would talk exclusively, too, about, you know, how we have
    been able to diplomatically work with the country of Mexico.
    President Trump's strong leadership has helped Mexico be more
    proactive than they ever were before too. And so, in my
    conversations with government officials, they have indicated to
    me there could be as many as 500,000 to 600,000 illegals that
    never reached our border because, when they got to Mexico and
    heard that our border was closed, they turned around and went
    back.
        So a combination of solutions is needed. You absolutely
    have to have a President that cares about keeping us safe--we
    now have that in President Trump--but also making sure that we
    have the people and the equipment necessary for CBP and for ICE
    to do their job, but then the technology, which you referenced,
    which is needed. We have scanners that we need at ports of
    entry so that we can scan our shipments, our rail, and even our
    airfreight. Much of that, we don't necessarily know what is
    coming in in containers and small packages.
        Those technologies are critically important and why you see
    a request in increase in funding to address those challenges
    that simply were neglected for too long under the Biden
    administration.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Excellent. Thank you so much for that.
        You know, you mentioned the diplomatic conversations as
    well. I think that is something that doesn't get enough
    attention----
        Secretary Noem. Right.
        Mr. Ciscomani [continuing]. Of the power of strong
    leadership in the White House now and the reaction of not only
    Mexico but the rest of Latin America on this. I think that is
    key. And we want to partner with Mexico and other countries on
    this.

                          AGENT MORALE AND RECRUITMENT

        With the little time that I have left, do you mind just
    speaking of the morale of the agents and your efforts on
    recruiting and retention? I think that goes hand-in-hand with
    the technology piece as well.
        Secretary Noem. Yeah, the morale of the Department of
    Homeland Security agencies and departments and the employees
    that work there is fantastic. We have incredible numbers in
    recruitment, people who want to be a part of the Agency that
    are signing up and submitting applications.
        I referenced earlier that CBP has over 50 percent--I
    believe it is a 54 percent--increase in recruitment. ICE, as
    well, is maintaining and excelling at its recruitment efforts
    and getting officers and people who want to be a part of the
    team or coming out of retirement.
        The Coast Guard is at a 108-percent increase of its
    recruitment--people that understand the mission. And they want
    to be a part of the many different skill sets that the Coast
    Guard can bring to partnering with our military departments but
    also going out there and helping at the border and continuing
    on with their search-and-rescue mission.
        And then you look at the Secret Service. Because of the
    recruitment efforts that we have had and putting those agents
    back on focusing hiring expertise and hiring experience,
    instead of DEI programs, the Secret Service recruitment is up
    almost 200 percent. The applications we have gotten have been
    fantastic. By telling our story and that they can be a part of
    an agency that protects the most powerful in the world, it
    truly has been inspirational.
        So I believe that some of the narrative that the Democrats
    have used to attack the Department of Homeland Security just
    simply isn't true. The people that are wanting to come and work
    for us are inspirational, and they are true Americans.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you for that.
        Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzales, the
    floor is yours for questions.
        Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman.
        And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here. I hope you
    know how committed this Committee is to working alongside you
    and the President to get this done. I mean, here we have the
    chairman of the full committee sitting throughout the entire
    duration. So this is just the first of many things.
        And I want to thank you for making your first official trip
    as Secretary--you went to the border, right? You went to Del
    Rio, in my district, and you saw it firsthand.

                    STATE REIMBURSEMENT FOR BORDER SECURITY

        You are not new to this. As Governor, you were very active
    along that. So, on that note, I want to get your opinion on
    States being reimbursed for some of the funding, particularly
    Texas.
        What are your thoughts on Texas getting reimbursed for some
    of the funding that we have had to pay for this?
        Secretary Noem. Yeah. It has been incredible, the
    partnership that Texas has put together with the Federal
    Government and how they stepped up so many times. When the
    Biden Administration did not secure our border, Texas filled
    the gap.
        And when I was Governor, I deployed my National Guard there
    to facilitate and help as well, as did other Governors in the
    country, and did what we could to get by until we had a new
    President that truly cared about keeping America safe.
        There have not been any decided decisions on reimbursing
    states, but I know many of the Governors have asked for it. And
    we have appreciated their help. And so that is an ongoing
    conversation with every, you know, new agreement or new ask we
    have of states. If we are asking them to commit to the 287(g)
    program, seeing what we can do to help meet their financial
    needs is incredibly important.
        If it is asking the National Guard to step up or even past
    spending that they have incurred, I know that President Trump
    is appreciative of the efforts and the partnerships and wants
    to continue those conversations.
        Mr. Gonzales. Yeah. You know, representing nearly half of
    the southern border, we have been ground zero for it.
        Secretary Noem. Yeah.
        Mr. Gonzales. And Texas--and it is not just Texas. I mean,
    you mentioned your home state. Everyone has really pitched in
    in a big way. And it is not fair; for the last 4 years, a lot
    of our states have been on our own and had to pay out of
    pocket. I think it is a great opportunity for the Federal
    Government to reimburse some of these states. I am certainly
    committed to making sure Texas gets reimbursed for some of the
    funding we have done along the border.

                       CONVICTED-CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS

        I will tell you what. It was very difficult to get anything
    out of your predecessor every time he came before this
    committee, other than lying to us and saying the border was
    secure when we know it wasn't.
        One thing that we did get out--last year, I submitted a
    letter to the ICE Director asking him how many convicted-
    criminal illegal aliens were in our country. And this is what I
    got back. This is literally part of his response: ``Your letter
    requested the number of non-citizens on ICE's docket convicted
    or charged with a crime. As of July 21, 2024, there were
    662,566 non-citizens with criminal histories on ICE's national
    docket.''
        That was nearly a year ago. Do you, by chance, have any
    updated numbers on how many convicted criminal aliens we still
    have loose in the country?
        Secretary Noem. We believe we have more than that and are
    continuing to do an assessment. And, of course, every day, we
    continue to see crimes in this country that are perpetuated by
    individuals that we didn't necessarily know were here.
        What I will tell you is that the President, under his
    leadership, has already arrested and is prosecuting and held
    accountable over 250 known terrorists, people who are on the
    known terrorist watch list. We have over 65,000 individuals
    that just ICE alone has arrested that are criminal aliens that
    are being held accountable for their crimes in our communities.
        We also talk extensively about different Governors that we
    have been able to work with. Many of them have people within
    their facilities that have committed crimes that--they have
    been arrested, and they are holding and detaining them. If they
    are illegals, many times they are facing their consequences in
    their jail and prison time before they can be returned to their
    country.
        So, you know, by virtue of being in this country illegally,
    you are breaking the law and you are a criminal. And we have
    seen the previous Administration pervert and manipulate their
    data and information to give us numbers that don't necessarily
    square with what the facts are on the ground. So there are
    many, many more criminals in this country, and we are going to
    continue to target and go after them to make sure that we are
    protecting families.
        Mr. Gonzales. Yeah.
        I will tell you what. The last Administration was terrible
    at transparency.
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Gonzales. And I think this is a great opportunity for
    President Trump, along with yourself and other Secretaries, to
    just be transparent to the American public, show them what we
    are dealing with. Once again, when we got that number back, you
    know, it was jaw-dropping to see there.
        My last point. I only have 26--or, limited time left. You
    know, myself and Michael Guest, my good colleague from
    Mississippi, both sit on the homeland authorizing side. We have
    been working very hard through reconciliation.
        One of the things that I would highlight for you--we talked
    about many things--is infrastructure, particularly checkpoints.
    Checkpoints not necessarily along the border but in our
    interior, both at the southern and the northern border, I think
    are very, very important. Please don't lose sight of that. In
    Eagle Pass, in particular, that checkpoint is way outdated for
    the amount of traffic that has been in there.
        I would flag that for you. I look forward to working
    together and chatting more on how we build this out.
        Secretary Noem. Absolutely.
        Mr. Gonzales. Great. Thank you.
        With that, Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair recognizes Mr. Guest from Mississippi.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, first, I want to thank you, the men and
    women that you serve with, for the incredible success that you
    have been able to accomplish in just a short period of time.

                          SOUTHWEST BORDER STATISTICS

        Just looking, statistics--and I believe that that is the
    greatest measure when we are looking at whether or not agencies
    are successful or not, comparing statistics from one agency to
    the other, one year to the other.
        We know that, last month, CBP reported 11,017 encounters
    across the southwest border. Looking back a year, so March of
    2024, under the Biden-Harris administration, 189,000; March of
    2023, 193,000; March of 2022, 222,000.
        So, looking at just the metrics of what you and your men
    and women who serve with you have been able to accomplish,
    again, I believe it is incredible.
        So, when you leave here, please return to those men and
    women and thank them on behalf of all, not only the Members of
    Congress, but all the people from across this great Nation who
    are in gratitude for their continued service.

                          SOUTHWEST BORDER INVESTMENTS

        As Representative Gonzales said, he and I both serve also
    on the authorizing committee. And, last week, we were able to
    mark up legislation that included roughly $46 billion for
    additional walls, barriers along the southwest border. And I
    know that that is something that, particularly between
    Republicans and Democrats, we have had a fundamental
    disagreement.
        And I would ask if you would just kind of take a moment to
    talk about the importance of the investment in walls and
    borders, barriers, along the southwest border, and how not only
    does that make our Nation safer but the importance that it is
    providing to the men and women who serve at CBP to make sure
    that they can better perform the duties that we have tasked
    them with.
        Secretary Noem. Well, thank you for talking about the
    importance of having not just enforcing of our laws in this
    country but also infrastructure and security procedures that
    give us a wall. And that wall may look different based on what
    the topography is or the geographical location in this country
    on our southern border but also on our northern border.
        And then when you talk about our maritime borders as well,
    we can't neglect the fact that we have needs there and
    infrastructure that would help us make sure we know what is
    coming into this country, who is coming into this country, and
    if it is appropriate and if they should be.
        Since President Trump has been in office, we have installed
    77.8 miles of new border. That includes steel bollard fencing,
    but it also includes temporary border and some waterborne as
    well.
        We have 11 contracts that have been awarded to put in over
    40 miles of new border as well, and we still have 5 contracts
    that are pending. And I want to thank you for focusing
    resources to continue to make sure that we are building
    infrastructure and building in wall and making sure that we are
    having what we need for each area to address the concerns that
    are there.
        That border wall will be built--that is steel--in areas
    that it is appropriate for, but the other areas may require us
    to do buoys if we do have, you know, waterborne areas such as
    the Rio Grande and places like that that it is required; and
    then having technology and cameras and the ability to see
    distances where we may not have the ability to put in fencing
    and even concertina wire and panels that would be used and are
    putting in temporarily right now as well.
        So the diversity of what happens is incredibly important.
    We are addressing the needs as they see fit. But we are going
    to continue to move forward with putting up that
    infrastructure, because it does slow down traffic, it sends a
    message, and it gives our CBP officers more opportunities to
    truly address the security concerns that we have had in the
    past.

                       EMERGENCY RECOVERY IN MISSISSIPPI

        Mr. Guest. And, Madam Secretary, in the last roughly minute
    that I have, I want to address an issue that is near and dear
    to my State.
        March the 15th, we had a series of tornadoes that came
    through Mississippi. Half a dozen individuals lost their lives
    that day. It impacted roughly 20 counties, so roughly a quarter
    of our State was impacted.
        Shortly after the storms, I, along with many of the other
    elected officials, we went and we visited those areas that were
    impacted, and I will tell you that some of the damage has been
    extreme.
        Our Governor and MEMA quickly requested disaster
    assistance, but at this point the review of that process is
    still pending. And I understand that that takes time, and I
    don't want to rush anything, but I would ask you if you could
    make sure that you could do everything to expedite that
    request. It is impacting my local jurisdictions with debris
    cleanup. It is impacting people as they seek to recover. So I
    would just ask that you would personally see if anything could
    be done to expedite that request.
        And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
        Secretary Noem. Yes. I----
        Mr. Rutherford [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
        Secretary Noem. Yes. I will certainly get back to you and
    follow up with that. I am not sure if that decision is still
    with us or at the White House, but I will follow up with you.
        And I want to thank you for talking about the fact that you
    are sitting there waiting for the Federal Government to
    respond. President Trump's heart is with the American people
    and recognizes they don't deserve that. If we had the ability
    to give resources to a State so they could respond in a more
    timely manner and do a better job than where the Federal
    Government has failed, it would be entirely appropriate.
        So thank you for that, and I will follow up with you.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you.
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Iowa, Mrs.
    Hinson.
        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, Madam Secretary. Thank you so much for
    joining us.

              BORDER AND SECURITY CHARGES BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIONS

        I really appreciate your commitment to getting Homeland
    Security back to mission. You know, we saw such a straying from
    that in the previous Administration. And President Trump's
    border-security promises were really delivered on day one and
    continue to be executed on, so I just want to say thank you for
    that.
        Under your leadership, those illegal encounters at our
    southern border are dropping to historic lows, our immigration
    laws are finally being enforced, the border wall is back under
    construction. DHS is finally working again on protecting the
    Homeland. No new laws, but we have a new President and a new
    Secretary. So I want to say thank you.
        Last year, before this Committee, Secretary Mayorkas, at
    the time, came before us pushing the Biden administration's
    $4.7 billion Southwest Border Contingency Fund. All that really
    was was a slush fund, we know, designed to bypass Congress and
    bankroll those failed policies and sanctuary cities doing their
    bidding.
        He claimed it was to manage surges, but those surges were
    of their own doing, sending a clear signal to the illegal
    immigrants, the traffickers, and the cartels that our border
    was open for business for them. That wasn't enforcement; that
    was actual chaos at our southern border by the taxpayers' dime.
        So I see that as just one of the many blatant attempts for
    Secretary Mayorkas, at the time, and President Biden to misuse
    those taxpayer dollars intentionally without accountability.
        But, again, under President Trump and your leadership, we
    have reversed course there. Programs like the Shelter and
    Services Program that enabled that abuse have been gutted, and
    their funding is now going to real border enforcement.
        So I would like to drill down a little bit, Madam
    Secretary, on the misuse of those dollars under the last
    Administration. Can you walk us through some of the specific
    programs or activities under the Biden Administration that
    enabled this crisis and how you have worked to unwind those
    programs?
        Secretary Noem. Well, it was--the Shelter and Services
    Program, which you referenced specifically, those dollars were
    taken and manipulated to facilitate illegal activity and
    housing for illegal aliens and criminals that were in this
    country and gave them a place to set up shop and to conduct
    their trafficking, their drug dealing, and also their crimes
    against their communities that they live in.
        The prime example is the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City,
    filled with hundreds and hundreds of illegal aliens, many of
    them criminals, part of foreign terrorist organizations such as
    TDA. And, in fact, Laken Riley's killer stayed there. And paid
    for by the American taxpayer, courtesy of Joe Biden and those
    who supported him and his leadership in this country.
        That is what we are working to address, is to make sure
    that those dollars no longer continue to be used in a such a
    manner and that programs like that that have been misused are
    used for ways that secure this country, and really follow
    through on what the mission of the Department of Homeland
    Security is, and that is to keep the American homeland safe and
    secure, and to protect our communities.
        We have many of the grants and different dollars that we
    have out there being reevaluated. We are also utilizing several
    different programs and working with other different Cabinet
    Secretaries to make sure that our housing programs, our food
    assistance programs, our shelter services programs, even
    programs within other agencies--that if people are illegals and
    that it wasn't the authority of Congress and never the
    determining decision by Congress to make them be people who
    took advantage of those programs or to have access to them,
    that that was ended, that no longer was this President going to
    allow money to be diverted different than what was authorized,
    to be utilized to facilitate people who are in this country
    illegally and breaking our laws.
        Mrs. Hinson. Yeah.
        And you mentioned the number on the terror watch list
    already held accountable, 250. And we know there are more. And
    I think that Americans need to understand you are doing that
    work to help keep us safe, apprehend these dangerous people
    that were just let to roam free in our country.
        I certainly, as a Midwest mom, you know, like you,
    understand that we need to prioritize that and make sure you
    have the resources necessary for detention beds as well as the
    enforcement side.

                     AUTHORITIES AND CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS

        So, as we work through Fiscal Year 2026, the considerations
    that we need to be taking a look at, and reconciliation as
    well, what additional authorities or potential congressional
    actions do you see as necessary to making sure you can execute
    on your mission?
        Secretary Noem. You know, I would say, the Department of
    Homeland Security is one of the largest agencies in the Federal
    Government but has one of the smallest budgets. And it really
    is about, when you look at what you are doing for Fiscal Year
    2026 and when you are looking at the reconciliation package, is
    to really determine where your priorities are, where Congress's
    priorities are. What is the responsibility of the Federal
    Government? What did our Founders task us with, as far as
    ensuring for the American people, and what rights remain with
    the people and with the State? And every decision that gets
    made here should be facilitated through that lens to make sure
    we are spending money appropriately.
        I always say and have said for many, many years, no matter
    what topic comes up, what program, what agency, there are
    always going to be lobbyists who show up. There are very few
    people who show up in the room to lobby for the American
    taxpayer. And the job that you do in oversight is incredibly
    important.
        And I come to this role today not only as a wife and a mom
    and a grandma but also as a business owner, someone who has
    been an employee for many different people, served in Congress,
    served in our legislature, but also as Governor. And people
    need leadership that recognizes what the priorities are.
        And so every different Component that I have under my
    responsibility we are putting back on mission and making sure
    that they are fulfilling the duties to which they were created.
        So thank you for considering the reconciliation package.
    Considering the amount of people that are in this country
    illegally, many of them perpetuating crimes, we need the
    resources to continue doing what President Trump has promised
    the American people, to get these individuals out of our
    country and make sure that they come into our country--if they
    self-deport, when they come back, that they do so the right way
    and that they can be a part of the American Dream in the
    future.
        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you again to you and President Trump for
    redirecting those resources where they are intended to go. I
    really appreciate that.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei [presiding]. The Chair now recognizes for a
    second round the ranking member from Illinois, Ms. Underwood.

                  NATIONAL SPECIAL SECURITY EVENT ON JUNE 14TH

        Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Noem, you have designated the Army's 250th
    birthday parade in Washington, D.C., on June 14th as a National
    Special Security Event, meaning DHS will use taxpayer funding
    to help with enhanced security and support.
        June 14th is also President Trump's 79th birthday.
        At the same time that this Administration is canceling
    critical cybersecurity and disaster recovery funding under the
    guise of so-called waste and abuse, it is being publicly
    reported that this event will involve a full military presence
    crossing the Potomac from the Pentagon to Constitution Avenue.
        We recently received your fiscal year 2025 spend plans for
    the Secret Service, but the costs for this event were not
    included. What do you estimate you will be spending on this,
    and how do you plan to pay for it?
        Secretary Noem. I can get those details and get back to
    you. I don't have them with me today, but I will certainly take
    that as a follow-up to your question.
        Ms. Underwood. Okay.
        Do you plan to designate NSSEs for the birthdays of other
    branches of our armed services that do not share their birthday
    with the President but also happen to be celebrating their
    250th anniversaries in 2025?
        Secretary Noem. I will look and work with the
    Administration and with the different departments and agencies
    to identify what would be appropriate for all of those and will
    continue to keep you updated on that as well.

                                 CYBERSECURITY

        Ms. Underwood. Now I want to focus on CISA for a moment.
        America is under constant and growing threats from cyber
    criminals and foreign adversaries, as we are still seeing with
    Salt Typhoon.
        Last week, you said we should, quote, ``just wait'' for the
    President's ``grand cyber plan.'' But you have not waited to
    erode the Department's cyber defense capabilities by removing
    resources and personnel from CISA and other components.
    Meanwhile, bad actors are burrowing further into the critical
    infrastructure of this country.
        On what date can we expect to receive the President's cyber
    plan? And why are you moving forward now with workforce
    reductions and other changes to relevant DHS components without
    it?
        Secretary Noem. Yeah, CISA's mission is to hunt and harden
    and to work with our State and local entities on critical
    infrastructure, so to support cybersecurity infiltrations that
    would happen from enemies and bad actors when it comes to
    electrical grids, water systems, support those states, those
    small and medium-size businesses that can't afford that kind of
    defense system themselves and to go and walk alongside of them.
        I think one of the most alarming things that I heard when I
    was first nominated for this position but before I was sworn
    in--I got briefings from CISA and from the leadership team and
    the people that were there. And one of the things that they
    shared with me was that they were aware of Salt Typhoon and
    Volt Typhoon but they didn't know necessarily how they had
    happened yet or how to stop them into the future.
        That was alarming to me. It was alarming to me that we had
    the Nation's top, leading cybersecurity agency that didn't know
    how to stop the People's Republic of China (PRC) and our
    enemies from coming in and hacking into our systems.
        Ms. Underwood. Ma'am----
        Secretary Noem. And if we think a pandemic was scary, wait
    until the PRC and China comes in and shuts down our
    electricity----
        Ms. Underwood. Obviously.
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. And our water. So that is
    what----
        Ms. Underwood. So when are we getting the President's cyber
    plan?
        Secretary Noem. That is what CISA is focusing on, is making
    sure that we are approaching cybersecurity----
        Ms. Underwood. Ma'am----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. From the importance that it
    is, and it is always----
        Ms. Underwood [continuing]. I had a direct question.
        Secretary Noem. Yes?
        Ms. Underwood. Do you know when the President's cyber plan
    will be released?
        Secretary Noem. It will be coming out shortly, and that is
    the President's prerogative.
        Ms. Underwood. Okay.
        Secretary Noem. I have been advising----
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Him on what that----
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Will look like----
        Ms. Underwood. Despite the growing cyber threats, your
    budget cuts nearly half a billion dollars--half a billion
    dollars--from the main agency charged with protecting our
    Federal networks and so much more.
        So, if you are so outraged by the threat of the PRC in our
    Federal networks, why are you cutting half a billion dollars?
        When you recently spoke at the RSA Conference, you said
    that we needed to put CISA, quote, ``back on mission.''
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Underwood. But let's be clear: That mission is
    designated for you. We in the Congress told you in the
    Department and CISA how to execute on that mission. And you all
    have been moving money away from CISA. And that does not help
    achieve that mission.

                        MENTAL HEALTH FOR DHS PERSONNEL

        Lastly, Secretary, as a nurse, I have always prioritized
    taking care of the health of our DHS workforce and giving them
    the tools that they need to do their jobs, not just physically
    but mentally.
        DHS has made great strides in recent years here with
    popular programs that provide personnel and their families with
    the resources that they need and the support for the mental
    health of our agents and officers.
        I hope that these programs can continue for Fiscal Year
    2026. And I am curious if you agree that this is a priority for
    the Department, and will we see continued funding for it in the
    budget request?
        Secretary Noem. Absolutely we will continue to focus on the
    priorities of the healthcare needs of all of our employees.
        Ms. Underwood. Great.
        Well, although we disagree on many other issues, I hope
    that taking care of the hardworking men and women at DHS can be
    an area of shared values and bipartisan success, and I am
    looking forward to working on them together.
        I yield back.
        Secretary Noem. Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Madam Ranking Member.
        The floor now belongs to the gentlelady from Connecticut,
    the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, who got
    here as quick as she could.
        Thank you, and the floor is yours.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. My God, this
    is twice in one day here. So it is great to see you. We are
    just--we are hearing-hopping here.
        So thank you so much and I want to thank Ranking Member
    Underwood for holding the hearing today.
        And welcome to you, Madam Secretary, and thank you for
    appearing before the subcommittee today.
        I just wanted to begin with a message to your workforce, if
    I might. And that is, I am grateful, very grateful, for the
    work that they do, from search-and-rescue efforts of the Coast
    Guard, to our first responders who are on the ground after
    natural disasters, to those keeping us safe in the air and on
    the ground and at sea.
        I want to start with some big-picture questions, because I
    think we know very little of the details about where the $646
    million cuts within FEMA's grant programs will come from.
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.

                              FEMA'S BRIC PROGRAM

        Ms. DeLauro. It is no secret that there are numerous
    reports of you--and if we need to correct the record--stating
    that you want to, quote, ``eliminate FEMA'' within the
    Department of Homeland Security.
        I am concerned about the direction that the Administration
    is taking with regard to FEMA, canceling programs like BRIC, a
    program enacted into law by President Trump in his first term,
    without any evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse, alongside the
    freezing of grants, and now a 2026 budget request targeting
    even more of FEMA's resources.
        And just right now, in terms of looking at the
    cancellations, the Science and Technology Directorate, Centers
    of Excellence, and Office of University Programs. As I
    mentioned, the FEMA administered grant programs frozen,
    virtually all grant obligations pending a review, as it
    determines whether it will try to choke off funding for
    unacceptable political reasons. Resources for states and
    communities to respond to disaster, secure firefighting
    equipment, protect against terrorism, secure our ports, and
    much more is being held up.
        And, as I mentioned, the cancellation of the BRIC program--
    funding to support hazard mitigation, reduce the toll of future
    disasters, save lives--that money is not going out. Research
    has shown mitigation efforts like BRIC save a minimum of $6 for
    every dollar invested and save more than double when including
    mitigation of economic impacts.
        So federal disaster relief should be readily available
    across the United States regardless of where you live. Natural
    disasters happen everywhere. They should not be concerned about
    the Federal Government turning their back on them when they
    need the help the most. We need to give constituents what they
    need when they are facing tragedy, that they will not be
    stranded due to political discord.
        My ask of you is: What is your plan with regard to FEMA?
    Are you planning to eliminate FEMA?
        Your testimony references that you want to, quote,
    ``eliminate dysfunction of the current agency.'' I am unclear,
    I don't know if my colleagues are clear, on what you mean by
    ``dysfunction.'' And I am concerned that you are causing more
    dysfunction within the workforce that should be preparing
    itself for the pending hurricane season.
        Secretary Noem. Well, thank you for your question and the
    discussion on this topic today.
        President Trump has been very clear since the beginning
    that he believes that FEMA and its response in many, many
    circumstances has failed the American people and that FEMA as
    it exists today should be eliminated and empowering states to
    respond----
        Ms. DeLauro. What----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. To disasters with----
        Ms. DeLauro. What----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Federal Government support.
        Ms. DeLauro. If you will just--with all due respect, where
    is the evidence of the failure of FEMA?
        I don't know about everybody else on this; my state,
    Connecticut, was hit very, very hard with Superstorm Sandy.
    Every community in some way or another has been hit by that.
    And FEMA, on the ground. People come in, work with the
    families, deal with getting the funding out.
        Where is the evidence----
        Secretary Noem. Ma'am----
        Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. Of the failure of FEMA?
        Secretary Noem. Congresswoman, we still have claims open
    from Hurricane Katrina. We have fire claims that are still
    unpaid to people who said they were due them 7 to 8 to 10 years
    old that have never been paid by FEMA.
        So one of the worst things that the Federal Government can
    do is to stand up in front of the American public and say, ``We
    will be there, we will walk alongside you in the most horrible
    time of your life,'' and then never follow through on it.
        Ms. DeLauro. Well, then----
        Secretary Noem. What the President has said is he is sick
    and tired of federal agencies that pick and choose who wins and
    who loses. He wants to make sure that the Federal Government's
    commitment, when it makes a commitment, that it follows
    through. So he is going to empower states and local----
        Ms. DeLauro. Well, the Federal Government is abdicating its
    commitment to the American people who find themselves----
        Secretary Noem. It did, certainly, under Joe Biden's
    Administration. But now----
        Ms. DeLauro. Let--let----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. President Trump is going to
    make sure----
        Ms. DeLauro. Let me just say this to you. The Office of
    Professional Responsibility----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. That communities are ready for
    disasters.
        Ms. DeLauro. The Office of Professional Responsibility--
    because I knew you were going to go there. As you know, FEMA's
    Office of Professional Responsibility--under the Biden
    Administration, there was no evidence, no direction by agency
    or field leadership to discriminate against disaster victims
    based on political affiliation----
        Secretary Noem. I will give you all the evidence you need.
        Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. Which was a charge.
        Secretary Noem. I will follow up with you----
        Ms. DeLauro. Well, and I will follow up. I will follow up.
    And I will follow up with my colleagues, quite frankly, and to
    really listen to people whose states and communities have been
    devastated and what role FEMA has played.
        I don't know how many millions and millions of dollars went
    out in Louisiana. Actually, I have asked my staff to calculate
    that, when Katrina hit. And the response was overwhelming.
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Ms. DeLauro. And the response has been overwhelming. If you
    want to make corrections, that is fine. We all agree with that.
        Secretary Noem. Yeah, we can point to thousands and
    thousands of----
        Ms. DeLauro. Well, let's just----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Instances where FEMA----
        Ms. DeLauro. If you wouldn't mind getting this Committee--
    --
        [Crosstalk.]
        Ms. DeLauro. If you wouldn't mind getting this Committee
    the information and the evidence, where you talk about the
    dysfunction of the agency, and where it has really failed. That
    would be important to those of us, you know, who are
    appropriating dollars.
        And it would appear that the Administration, overall, has a
    way in which they are looking at dismantling the Federal
    Government. The states will never have the amount of money--
    because the Federal Government isn't going to pass that money
    to the states to be able to deal with what happens. It is when
    the Federal Government comes in and is able to give a hand to
    do that.
        And I think it is very clear from what you said that both
    yourself and the President really want to dismantle the Federal
    Government and the agencies that have provided service to the
    American people for decades.
        I thank the chair for your time and yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Madam Ranking Member.
        Mr. Rutherford, the floor is yours for round two.
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, as a sheriff and a first responder in the
    State of Florida, we have had many hurricanes, and FEMA has
    come in and assisted, but I can tell you, in the State of
    Florida, we pretty much handle those events through our
    regional domestic security task forces.
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Rutherford. One of the problems that we have with
    FEMA--and we have even talked about it up here--is, how do we
    get FEMA to pay the bills that are due instead of cities and
    the states having to pay the interest on all of that money for
    years?
        So those are some of the areas where I know the frustration
    levels are off the chart. And so that is one of the things I
    would love to work with the folks across the aisle on, is,
    let's address these things. Because it is not that FEMA shows
    up and everything is okay. It is quite the contrary, actually.

                        FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS

        But I do want to ask about this. In your written statement,
    you mention the designation, the Administration's designation,
    of the six cartels and two transnationals as terrorist
    organizations. And, you know, these FTOs, foreign terrorist
    organizations, that designation is critically important.
        And I know a lot of discussion has been had about CISA, but
    can you talk just a little bit about--to put some minds at
    ease, I think--how is it that this designation--I am sorry--
    that this designation--so sorry about that----
        Secretary Noem. You are good.
        Mr. Rutherford [continuing]. But how this designation
    actually helps with the Administration being able to work,
    sharing information between the civilian and the military, to
    actually go after these folks who are killing our citizens with
    their drugs.
        I think it was 2023 we had over 107,000 Americans die of
    poisoning coming across the southern border. They are also
    looking to weaponize drones to be used against our law
    enforcement officers at the southern border. They are the ones
    helping to finance all of this--or were--financing all of this
    mass migration.
        That designation, I think, is critically important, and I
    don't think people appreciate it enough. Can you talk about
    that?
        Secretary Noem. Yeah, certainly, Congressman. And thank you
    for the question, because it is critically important to what
    President Trump has done by defining exactly who these people
    are and what these organizations do and what they are trying to
    do to the United States of America.
        By designating these gangs and cartel members as foreign
    terrorist organizations, it allows us in a new way to partner
    law enforcement activities and consequences in partnership with
    other Cabinet areas within the Federal Government, including
    the Department of Defense, all military branches underneath
    that, as well as coordination and sharing of information and a
    whole of government approach to how we conduct enforcement
    operations.
        It also gives us an opportunity to access background
    information, criminal records, that we need and that we can
    share internationally as well.
        And, clearly, when you look at the cartels and their
    activity, their partnership and their facilitation of other
    countries and their software, their technology to launder money
    for the Chinese, the PRC businesses that are out there that are
    seeking to destroy the United States of America, that
    partnership that they have built over the years and the
    sophistication to which they operate we have to be prepared
    for.
        We have to recognize what they are, what level they are at,
    how they are continuing to recruit members and affiliates, and
    how more and more dangerous they get to be the longer that they
    operate in the United States without consequences.
        So that partnership that we have with the Department of
    Defense, our military, and all branches, but then also bringing
    all of the authorities of the President of the United States to
    the table to go after these criminal organizations really
    recognizes them for what they are. They are terrorists. They
    are perpetuating terror and fear in our communities. And we
    have to make sure that we take them out now.
        Mr. Rutherford. Yeah. They are not just drug organizations
    anymore.
        Secretary Noem. Correct. Correct. They are laundering----
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much, Madam----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Money, trafficking
    individuals, killing our children.
        And, you know, I have said this for many years about China.
    China doesn't just steal our IP, manipulate their currency,
    build up their military to someday have a conflict with the
    United States of America. They are systemically killing our
    next generation of Americans. They are using a poison----
        Mr. Rutherford. Killed over 60,000 just with fentanyl.
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Yes--to infiltrate our country
    and to kill off our----
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Young Americans, knowing it
    weakens us far into the future.
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.
        Mr. Cuellar, the floor is yours for 5 minutes for a second
    round.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, let me go back to the basics, what I think
    are needed.

                              LAND BORDER SECURITY

        We talked about carrizo cane, river roads. But there is
    also--in the middle of the river, there are islands. And I have
    them in the Laredo area; I have them in the Starr County. I
    don't know if my colleagues have. The bad guys will come in and
    use those islands and then jump over.
        We have talked to the International Boundary and Water
    Commission and our Border Patrol folks. That is one area that
    we ought to focus on, to get rid of those islands. And it would
    be better for the flows of the river.
        Secretary Noem. Right.
        Mr. Cuellar. Water can go down there to other places. So
    islands in the middle of the areas.
        The other thing is buoys. Actually, years ago I brought it
    up to Border Patrol, but I said, as long as you talk to the
    International Boundary and Water Commission so it can be okay.
    I know the State of Texas had one, but it was, like, a quarter
    of a mile, and the river is 1,200 miles, so it is like a stamp
    in the middle of a football field.
        So we have to look at areas that they will be necessary, if
    we use that, but as long as the International Boundary and
    Water Commission is involved.

                         CBP RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT

        Retirement--I will go back to the retirement. There are
    other committees that are looking at this retirement. But there
    will be, to be exact, 2,325 Border Patrol agents that will be
    eligible to retire this year. They are looking at that change.
    Depending on what they do, the other committee, we could lose a
    lot of folks by the end of the year. So we have to make sure
    that the other committees are working with you.
        I would say also that--you said that recruitment is up 50
    percent, but we have to close the deal--that is, actually hire
    the Border Patrol agents. And one of the big problems is the
    polygraph. The polygraph exam is the biggest problem to hiring
    Border Patrol agents on that end. We can follow up on that
    particular issue.

                                 POA TECHNOLOGY

        Port technology not only in between but at the ports.
    Eighty-six percent of the people that are caught at checkpoints
    and at the ports of entry are not illegals; they are actually
    U.S. citizens, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. So
    we have to put the technology also at the ports of entry so we
    can move legitimate trade and commerce.
        Playing defense on the 20-yard line, I have been talking
    about this, and I think you all are doing some of that. I would
    rather play defense on the 20-yard line with Mexico, Guatemala,
    and the other places than our 1-yard line.
        There is language that we have proposed, but, with all due
    respect, the prior Administration was not interested in this,
    but there is language that can give you certain authorities
    where you can play more on the 20-yard line, which is, again--
    because the more people we stop over there, the less people
    will come to our border itself.
        Technology. I know that we have talked about technology,
    but the drone threat is very real. In fact, just to let you
    know, a couple weeks ago, a Border Patrol drone in the Laredo
    Sector was taken down by the cartel operators, which means that
    cartels now have technology that can take down law enforcement
    drones. And they do the surveillance; they know what we are
    doing.
        And by the time we get through our procurement process to
    get our drones, you know, years are gone. They don't have any
    procurement rules. They just go to Best Buy and buy all the
    best buys, and they just use off-the-shelf things. So, you
    know, I hope we can look at that technology also.
        The other thing is, again--and I am sorry----
        Secretary Noem. No.
        Mr. Cuellar [continuing]. I have been communicating with
    the Border Patrol unions on this, that the dead zones that we
    talked about, it is a real problem. It is a real problem. There
    are areas where they can't even talk and communicate. So those
    dead zones are very important.
        Finally, I think it was brought up, the infrastructure.
    Let's not forget about the basic infrastructure. And I am
    talking about checkpoints--Eagle Pass, Freer, Laredo. And I
    know we have already put $15 million and are doing a design in
    the Laredo one. That checkpoint--because Laredo is the largest
    inland port. But if that checkpoint was a port of entry, it
    would be the fourth-largest port in the whole country.
        The reason we had a problem where some migrants died on
    those trailers is because Border Patrol will look and, if the
    lines are a mile long, they will just wave them, and the bad
    guys know--have an idea of where to put them. So they waved
    that trailer with the migrants that died in San Antonio.
        So checkpoints, like Mr. Gonzales has mentioned----
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Cuellar [continuing]. The basic stuff is very, very
    important.
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Cuellar. Finally, I will just close up with the border
    wall. On the border wall, again, I think you said ``where
    appropriate,'' which is important.
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Cuellar. The State of Texas--I have always said, don't
    condemn--but maybe if you would look at the possibility of
    leasing. The State of Texas put it in the law, don't condemn
    land, but you go ahead and you ease them. And now there are
    landowners that preempted the Federal Government, because the
    state will lease out and not condemn itself on that.
        So I can go on on the border wall for a long time, but keep
    in mind that the largest--and I will close with this point--the
    largest amount of people that got here before this last flow
    were visa overstays. And, by the way, the biggest violator was
    Canada. I am not asking for a wall with Canada, but it was visa
    overstays, especially from Canada.
        So we just have to look at data-driven solutions, and I
    look forward to working with you.
        Secretary Noem. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Washington State, Mr.
    Newhouse, the floor is yours.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Before I get cut off by the gentleman from Nevada if I talk
    too long, I just wanted to extend an invitation to you, Madam
    Secretary, to come out to my district to visit the Spokane
    Border Sector as well as the Oroville Station.
        Secretary Noem. Absolutely.
        Mr. Newhouse. And, also, it is inland Washington, but we
    have a Coast Guard navigation team at Kennewick.
        Secretary Noem. Fantastic.
        Mr. Newhouse. So, as sharing border states, it would be a
    good thing for you to see.
        I just wanted to say one thing. The recent skinny budget
    proposed notable cuts to CISA, as you have heard many of my
    colleagues mention several times. I just wanted to mention
    that, last summer and in March, I believe, CISA provided some
    farmers and ranchers in my district a briefing and training on
    protecting food from farm to table with cybersecurity, a
    protective emphasis workshop. And I just wanted to encourage
    you to look at that. I think it was very well-received, and I
    think it would be a good program to continue using.

                            SANCTUARY JURISDICTIONS

        Let me ask about sanctuary jurisdictions. I believe state
    and local partnerships truly are important for the agents and
    the officers at DHS to execute their mission. How have
    sanctuary jurisdictions or state or municipal governments
    hindered the agency's mission to protect the Homeland?
        Secretary Noem. Well, I would say, every day, it is
    thwarting our efforts to be able to go out and help make our
    communities safe and secure.
        There have been times where we have gone out and targeted
    bad actors and criminals in communities that are guilty of
    rape, murder, violence, domestic abuse, drug trafficking, human
    trafficking, and when we have gone in to do those operations,
    we have not had the backup of local law enforcement.
        We are not able to have leaders that have walked alongside
    of us in support of securing their communities and been there
    for ICE agents that are out there putting their lives on the
    line----
        Mr. Newhouse. Yeah.
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. To help secure and get these
    bad criminals off their streets.
        And those individuals are protecting them with, you know,
    their decisions, their political rhetoric. They are also filing
    lawsuits against us and the authorities that we are exercising
    to try to jam us up in court, rather than giving us the
    opportunity to go out there and really follow through on what
    our commitment has been to this country.
        So the sanctuary jurisdictions have been fighting this
    Administration in trying to do what the American people asked
    President Trump to do in November, and that was to make their
    communities safe again.
        I will tell you that, when I have been out on the front
    lines with many of these agents when they have been doing
    operations in the early morning sweeping up criminals, they are
    doing the hard work and many times in partnership with local--
    --
        Mr. Newhouse. Sure.
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Law enforcement and cities. So
    we appreciate that partnership where we can get it.
        In sanctuary cities, it becomes much more of an operation
    that has to have more people. We have to commit more ICE
    agents, more federal officers there, because the local
    community has not and the leadership there has not been
    supportive.
        And then, also, I would say, it makes it more dangerous. We
    have seen violence against our ICE officers go up over 300
    percent. And I think that is because of the rhetoric out there
    by local mayors and Governors who have, you know, put out
    misinformation and perpetuated lies about law enforcement and
    what they are trying to do to help communities.
        I remember, the morning I was in New York City, we were
    conducting ICE operations on known criminals that were guilty
    of violent abuses and breaking the law. We had community
    members that were walking by on the street that were taking
    their kids to school, and when they would walk by, they would
    say, ``Thank you. Thank you for being here.''
        Mr. Newhouse. That says a lot.
        Secretary Noem. Yet their leadership----
        Mr. Newhouse. That says a lot.
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Was not there to support and
    back up our operations.
        So I would ask people in these communities to challenge
    their mayors, challenge their Governors to come to the table
    and to help us. Because I don't know of anybody who wanted to
    raise their kids in a community that was filled with criminals,
    where it wasn't safe to go out at night, and where they
    couldn't walk their kids to school and not have to worry about
    if they were going to get there safely.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you.

                                    TARIFFS

        I am going to switch topics really quick in the short
    amount of time I have left: tariffs.
        Secretary Noem. Yes.
        Mr. Newhouse. We both come from agricultural states. I
    fully recognize the importance of tariffs to help level the
    playing field and provide a fair opportunity for our producers
    to compete in the world market. But I also remember, in 2018,
    retaliatory tariffs on agricultural products which felt the
    brunt of those efforts.
        Could you talk just a little bit, if I could, without
    putting you--it is not a ``gotcha'' question, but I just wanted
    to express the concern that agriculture doesn't need any more
    challenges right now.
        Could you talk a little bit about some of the conversations
    maybe that you are having at the executive level about
    retaliation?
        Secretary Noem. Yeah. Thank you for that.
        I have worked on food policy for 30 years. So I not only am
    a farmer and a rancher, but I immediately started working on
    state and federal programs, and I recognize that our food
    policy in this country is a national-security issue. And
    keeping farmers out on the land producing our food is
    imperative to making sure that we can feed ourselves and
    another country doesn't control us by controlling our food
    supply.
        So President Trump recognizes this, and we have spoken for
    hours about the importance of having farmers here in this
    country growing our food and having many farmers, not allowing
    just one or two big companies or conglomerates to control that
    supply, because it makes food affordable and available to every
    single American.
        President Trump, if you remember, back during that period
    of time, was there for farmers. He helped them with assistance
    when those retaliatory tariffs came into place. And he
    recognizes that this negotiation that we are having now with
    these countries has to happen to level the playing field.
        We have been treated unfairly in trade agreements for many,
    many years. When I was in Congress, I served on the Ways and
    Means Committee, which many people referred to as ``the
    committee that has the most ways it can be mean,'' because it
    has taxes and trade and tariffs and all the different
    jurisdictions as far as what can happen.
        But I would say, specifically, working on trade agreements
    while I was there, I recognized how we could come to a trade
    agreement and facilitate that, but then we also would--as soon
    as our shipments of soybeans hit the shores of China, they
    would reject it for different sanctions or regulations such as
    sanitary or phytosanitary reasons and would manipulate how they
    interpreted those agreements and didn't adhere to them anyway.
        So President Trump is all-in to make sure that we rectify
    the wrongs of the past and make sure that we are treated fairly
    and get our jobs back home here in America.
        So, so far, CBP has collected over $32 billion worth of
    tariffs since April 2nd has gone into place. And they have
    adjusted and done that, and these countries are feeling the
    pain enough that they are coming to the table and having
    negotiations with this administration to make sure that we are
    treated fairly and our farmers and ranchers are treated fairly
    in the future.
        Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. You don't have any time to yield back.
        Secretary Noem. I know. I am sorry.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        The gentlelady from Hawaii, the floor is yours for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Escobar. Texas.
        Mr. Amodei. Texas.
        Mr. Newhouse. Hawaii?
        Mr. Amodei. Well, you know, it went so long, you might want
    to double-check that.
        Ms. Escobar. Not even close, Chairman.
        Mr. Amodei. There might be an ocean coming there from a
    different direction.
        Ms. Escobar. There might be.
        Mr. Amodei. The floor is yours for 5 minutes for followup
    questions as long as they are not like Mr. Newhouse's. Thank
    you very much.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

                 WORKING CONDITIONS OF DHS EMPLOYEES IN EL PASO

        Madam Secretary, I have a question related to something
    more close to home for me in the community in El Paso with DHS
    employees.
        For decades, CBP employees who work at our land ports of
    entry have been contractually allowed by CBP to have an off-
    site location for their union. And this off-site location is
    completely funded by union dues, not by taxpayer money. And,
    again, this was something agreed to in their contract.
        I was shocked and alarmed to learn that they were told by
    DHS they could no longer be off-site and they were forced to
    come into a DHS facility in El Paso. It is a conference room,
    media training room.
        So that part of their contract, that longstanding
    agreement, was violated, in my eyes.
        Are you aware of this at all?
        Secretary Noem. I have heard about it, but I have not--I
    don't know the details of that agreement. So I can follow up
    with you and get that back to you. And if you would lay out the
    concerns for being co-located, I think that would be fantastic
    for me to know.
        Ms. Escobar. We will. We will make sure to communicate with
    your team. Would love to work with you on this.
        The same has not been true for the Border Patrol union. So
    there is a--there is disparate treatment.
        And, additionally, just to very quickly lay out why: It is
    important for union members to be able to speak to their union
    leaders in private. And being located in a small conference
    room, media training room, offers no privacy.
        There are other issues, but I look forward to working with
    you on that.
        Secretary Noem. I do know that, you know, the difference in
    the two unions is important, and there is--I will look at how
    these were interpreted.
        And I also know that the one union is located under the
    Treasury union as well, and that defines some requirements for
    how it is regulated and set out going forward. So I will see if
    that is the determining factor on why there was a difference in
    how the locations were determined.
        Ms. Escobar. And I would ask, Madam Secretary, that you
    please allow the El Paso union to continue to be housed off-
    site. It is their preference. It doesn't impact the budget or
    appropriations. They pay for it. So I don't see a reason why
    this longstanding, decades-long situation should be changed. So
    I would ask for your support for that, please.
        Secretary Noem. I will look into it.
        Ms. Escobar. Okay. Perfect.

                         ICE RAID ON U.S. CITIZEN HOME

        I also wanted to ask you about this NBC News story, and I
    will enter into the record this article as well, ``U.S.-citizen
    family `traumatized' after ICE raided their Oklahoma home in
    search of someone else.''
        And according to the local affiliate, KFOR, which was
    reporting on this story, immigration agents raided the home
    last week. They had a search warrant for the home, but the
    suspects listed on the warrant were no longer living in the
    home. The family was forced to wait outside in the rain during
    the search. A mother and her girls, all U.S. citizens, their
    money was taken, their laptop, their cell phone.
        I asked you at the top of our first round if you believed
    it was important for DHS and if you would attest to the fact
    that DHS needs to rectify any mistakes.
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Escobar. If this were a mistake, will you ensure that
    this family, this U.S.-citizen family, gets its property back
    in a timely manner?
        Secretary Noem. Well, in that particular situation, the
    warrant for that situation was on the house and the facility,
    not on the individuals that were there. And so that house was
    being used for human smuggling. And so those operations----
        Ms. Escobar. By a prior----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Were conducted against the
    facility. And, even in that situation, there were some
    individuals there with the same last names and some other
    similarities.
        And so we are----
        Ms. Escobar. But if it were a mistake, Madam Secretary----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. We are continuing----
        Ms. Escobar [continuing]. If it were a mistake----
        Secretary Noem. We believe everything was done
    appropriately----
        Ms. Escobar. Okay.
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. And we will continue to make
    sure that it is done and handled appropriately.
        Ms. Escobar. All right. Well, I appreciate you looking into
    it. Not my constituents, but----
        You had mentioned in your testimony and you have said
    previously that the focus of your agency is to go after the
    worst of the worst, people who are here illegally. But we have
    seen reporting and spoken to individuals--``we'' meaning
    Congress--that, in fact, there have been abuses on that front.
    People with legal protections have been deported.
        I laid out in the first round, U.S.-citizen children. I
    don't know, and I asked, and you said you would get back to me,
    about whether parents actually filled out the ICE forms that
    are normally used for those processes.
        U.S.-citizen families with nothing to do with human
    trafficking and now DHS employees as well, in my view, have
    been subjected to an abuse of power.
        And we all swore an oath to the Constitution. This is a
    democratic republic. Rule of law is important. Due process is
    important. And, ultimately, that will be my North Star, not
    just in this hearing but throughout everything that I work on
    as a Member of Congress.
        I thank you, Madam Secretary.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. I want to thank the member. And I want you to
    know that, during the course of your questioning, we have moved
    your district back into Texas----
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. And everything is good.
        Ms. Escobar. My flight is shorter now as a result. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Amodei. I was just hoping you weren't paying attention.
    I thought the folks out on the islands could use some help.
        But we will go on from there.
        Mr. Ciscomani, the floor is yours for a second round of
    questioning.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Noem, so the first set of questions that I had
    were more on the security side. I want to shift gears a little
    bit.
        As a matter of fact, I just guided a group of freshmen
    Members on the Republican side to the border in Arizona with
    the intention that they see the full picture of the border. We
    have, obviously, the security aspect that has been key and
    central to the conversation. Then we have trade and commerce at
    the border. And we have immigration, as well, going on.
        So it is important that, I think, my colleagues and
    everyone that is maybe not from a border district can
    understand that there is a lot more that happens at the border
    than just one aspect of it. I call it the three buckets of the
    conversation around the border.

                            LEGAL IMMIGRATION SYSTEM

        So, with that in mind, as an immigrant myself, I know how
    complex the immigration system is. I became a citizen in 2006,
    and then 16 years later I became a Member of Congress. No other
    country in the world will give you that opportunity. I believe
    in the American Dream and fighting for that American Dream that
    so many people still seek.
        There has been much media attention, again, on the increase
    in deportations and removal of aliens, which I remain fully
    supportive of.
        That being said, I think we should also be highlighting and
    incentivizing those who are going through the process legally
    and those that are seeking to come to the country through the
    legal channels and make that process less burdensome in order
    to disincentivize the use of cartels and bad actors.
        In my family's experience, it took us 13 years from the
    moment we came into the U.S. to the moment we became U.S.
    citizens. There have to be some improvements----
        Secretary Noem. Yeah.
        Mr. Ciscomani [continuing]. Around these guidelines.
        So can you speak on how your budget request will facilitate
    easier legal pathways for potential immigrants?
        Secretary Noem. Yeah, absolutely. And you have correctly
    identified part of the problem that we have had in this country
    for many, many years, is that it takes far too long for a
    person to legally come through our immigration process and to
    become a U.S. citizen. And that needs to be fixed.
        And that was broken when I was here on the Hill, and it was
    broken when I was Governor, and I still see as a Department of
    Homeland Security Secretary that that is an issue that needs to
    be solved.
        We need to make sure that we are getting more immigration
    judges. I have been having conversations with our Attorney
    General, Pam Bondi, and with the Department of Justice on what
    we can do to get more judges to the table so that we can
    process not just backlogged claims but illegal applications to
    come to this country, as well, and then more immigration
    courts.
        So, when you look at not just the Fiscal Year 2026 request
    but also reconciliation dollars, it is to address the needs
    that we have to address the invasion, secure the border, to
    make sure that our ICE officers have enough backup, help,
    equipment, and tools going forward to make sure that we are
    addressing what has happened here criminally, illegally, but
    also addressing within our other agencies what we can do to
    make that we are processing those legal applications and
    getting that taken care of.
        President Trump is determined to do that. And we have that
    addressed in the budget request from the different Cabinet
    Secretaries and agencies to make sure we have the resources to
    start getting after that backlog.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Excellent. Excellent.

                                WORKFORCE NEEDS

        You know, on the same topic, when we look at immigration
    and we look at workforce as well, those are very much attached.
    And I just had Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer----
        Secretary Noem. Yeah.
        Mr. Ciscomani [continuing]. In Tucson yesterday. We visited
    different sites that work on this. We spoke at length about the
    need for more robust workforce programs and ways to ensure that
    workforce needs to meet our communities' needs. Still, the
    utmost constant thing I hear from industry of what they need is
    workforce.
        Can you speak to any plans the administration has to create
    additional avenues to meet these through immigration,
    potentially?
        Secretary Noem. So you are talking about meeting workforce
    needs----
        Mr. Ciscomani. Yeah, workforce needs.
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. As far as through visas and
    green cards?
        Mr. Ciscomani. Yeah.
        Secretary Noem. You know, I would say that the President
    recognizes the value in what we have had in programs in the
    past but also recognizes how they have been misused and how
    Congress, many times, lays their prerogative on how many are
    authorized, how many are directed through law that the
    Secretary has the latitude to issue, and will continue to work
    with you to find solutions that really meet the needs that we
    have in this country.
        You know, the President believes that we have a workforce
    here that deserves jobs that pay very well, with benefits and a
    future here in the United States of America, but also that we
    need to continue to keep the American Dream open for immigrants
    who want to come here legally.
        So having the opportunity to make sure we are doing
    thorough vetting of people and partnering with other countries
    and having access to their background checks to make sure they
    can participate in our visa programs is very important.
        And as long as we have the ability to do that and continue
    to know who is coming here, why they are here, and if they have
    the opportunity to become citizens, then it is something that
    would be a benefit to this country if the President recognizes
    that the need is there.
        Mr. Ciscomani. I think that is very well-put. I think
    having that balance always of making sure our border is secure,
    we know who is coming in, that opens a door and allows us to
    focus on an immigration system that works for the people coming
    in but primarily for our citizens and what the country needs,
    and that has to do with workforce as well.
        So, with that, thank you so much for partnering with us on
    that. And finding multiple solutions to this problem in
    different areas at the same time is not easy, but you are doing
    a masterful job, so thank you so much.
        Secretary Noem. Thank you.
        Mr. Ciscomani. And, with that, I yield back, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Vice Chairman, for not challenging
    the Dan Newhouse award.
        And now I would like to recognize the gentleman from--oh,
    she is gone--from Texas, Mr. Gonzales.
        The floor is yours for a second round.
        Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman.
        And thank you, Madam Secretary. Some could argue you have
    one of the toughest jobs in Washington, right? We had Elon show
    up with two hats. Maybe you should have shown up with three
    hats, right?
        Secretary Noem. Yeah.
        Mr. Gonzales. Part of DHS that I worry about is, it is the
    Swiss Army knife of the Federal Government. It seems like
    everything is in there.
        And we alluded to this earlier. How did DHS start? It
    started after 9/11, when Islamic extremists murdered Americans.
    And so I worry--and we covered a lot of topics today.
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Gonzales. And I know the border gets a lot of
    attention, and I know there is a lot going on in the cyber
    space. But I think back to some of the fundamentals, and I
    think back to 9/11, and I worry.
        I look ahead, and I see, you know, the World Cup coming our
    way, and I see the Olympics coming our way. I want us to make
    sure that we are not only focused on today but we are also
    focused on tomorrow. Please, keep that at the forefront of it.
        At the end of day--you know, right now, we are feeding
    Tomahawks to Houthis every day in Yemen, and it reminds me a
    whole lot of pre-9/11, right? I spent 5 years in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. No one knew about al-Qaida. No one knew where
    Afghanistan was on a map. It is very eerily similar. And the
    American people are really counting on you to make sure we are
    safe.

                   OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION DETENTION OMBUDSMAN

        On that note, I mean, DHS has lost its way over the course
    of the last several years and the last Administration, and I
    want to flag for you an office in particular: the Office of the
    Immigration Detention Ombudsman.
        I mean, this was literally an office funded by taxpayer
    dollars that had billboards up throughout Texas that said, and
    I quote, ``Your brother in immigration custody has rights. We
    are here to help.'' I mean, it is complete nonsense. And, once
    again, where are our taxpayer dollars going?
        So, as you are--once again, you are off to a very fast
    start. Much appreciated. But as you are going through these and
    you are tackling these different--please look at that program.
        Secretary Noem. Yeah.
        Mr. Gonzales. You know, I know in our Fiscal Year 2025
    budget, we zeroed that out, but unfortunately we couldn't get
    that over the finish line. So I would ask for you to really
    take a look at that.
        Secretary Noem. Congressman, we have looked at that
    already. We have recognized the abuses that happened. And, many
    times, that office was perpetuated on suing themselves and
    coming up with ways to cost the taxpayer more and more money.
        So we have put them back to the size that they should be
    and addressed how it was misused and abused, and we will
    continue to do so into the future to make sure that that isn't
    weaponized against the American people in the future.
        Mr. Gonzales. Thank you for that.

                              HSI-LED TASK FORCES

        And I also want to thank you for something that is working.
    These HSI-led task forces work. You have seen it all throughout
    the country. It is, how do we pool our resources? This isn't a
    federal issue, it isn't a state issue, it isn't a local issue.
    It is all of us. We are all in on this together.
        And, in my experience, those task forces really work. So,
    when it comes to funding, when it comes to legislation, once
    again, please, if you would--they are working. I am hearing it
    from constituents all over the country, my good friend Juan
    Ciscomani. I know it is working in Arizona. It is certainly
    working in Texas.

                             OPERATION STONEGARDEN

        And then the other thing I want to mention is Stonegarden
    funding.
        Secretary Noem. Yeah.
        Mr. Gonzales. Once again, this is an area that I believe is
    a force multiplier. It gives funding to our local law
    enforcement that are acting in the immigration space. This
    works.
        One of the issues that I see is, sometimes it is a little
    too stringent. It is a little too--it almost--like, the Federal
    Government is discouraging local law enforcement from being
    involved.
        Maybe that is something we can tackle together, or I would
    love to hear your ideas--not now, but as you work through
    things--on how we can, once again, make sure that our programs
    are working for the American people, not against us.
        Secretary Noem. I agree. Yeah, I think that would be
    fantastic. I have heard it is a highly effective program, and
    if there are ways to get more participants and streamline it, I
    would love to hear your ideas.
        Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Secretary.
        And, Chairman, I yield back my minute of time.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you for being a leader.
        The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the entire
    committee with an excellent sense of patience. The gentlelady
    from Connecticut, the floor is yours.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member.

                                DHS AD CAMPAIGN

        Madam Secretary, earlier this year, the administration
    unveiled a thinly veiled propaganda ad about border security.
    It was about $200 million, paid for by American taxpayers, I
    might add. And the ads are supposedly about border security,
    but, honestly, if you see the ad, it is like a political ad.
    And all of us know what political ads look like. Even the
    conservative Cato Institute says the ads are a perfect example
    of wasteful government spending that The Department of
    Government Efficiency (DOGE) should cut.
        I also might add that--and this is a direct quote. And,
    Madam Secretary, it says that, earlier this year, President
    Trump had instructed you on how to fashion the campaign.
        ``He said''--and, again, I quote--`` `I want you in the
    ads, and I want your face in the ads,' Noem recalled at the
    Conservative Political Action Conference, adding that Trump
    told her for the first ad: `I want you to thank me for closing
    the border.' ''
        Now, that is politics, quite frankly, at its worst.
        I understand that, on April 30th, your Department awarded
    an additional $6.7 million to a political consulting company
    called People Who Think, bringing their total award for this ad
    to $11.6 million. Your Department has also awarded $35.5
    million for this ad to a company called Safe America Media. And
    my understanding is that you used funding originally
    appropriated for CBP and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
    Services (USCIS) for these awards.
        This sounds like a payout to Republican political
    consultants to fund ads that do more to tout the President than
    to secure the border. You know, how were the contracts awarded?
    A competitive process? If so, why does USA spending say that
    the contracts were given an exclusion from the DOGE group's
    limitation on spending awards?
        This is $200 million. Somebody just talked about
    billboards. This is a $200 million ad campaign, taking the
    money from CBP and USCIS, to promote a political advantage. It
    is really kind of the height of arrogance.
        You are looking for more money from us to do that, but you
    are going to take a portion of the money that we have given you
    and you are going to spend it on political advertising. I mean,
    that really is--in Yiddish, the word is ``chutzpah''--it really
    is--that you, you know, engaged in here.
        So I know you are going to try to----
        Secretary Noem. Would you like me to answer?
        Ms. DeLauro. Yeah, I would. And I foresee that you are
    going to tell me that these were all competitively bid----
        Secretary Noem. They were.
        Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. Et cetera. You know----
        Secretary Noem. They went through the exact same process as
    any other ad campaign would be done. Absolutely.
        And I would tell you that it is not $200 million and that
    President Trump was very clear from the very beginning that he
    recognized that the fake news in this country was not going to
    tell the truth of what work had been done at the border to
    secure this country.
        And these ads aren't only playing in the United States.
    They are playing in other countries----
        Ms. DeLauro. Sure. No, I understand.
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Where we have the largest
    invasion----
        Ms. DeLauro. That is not the point. You can agree----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Coming into the country from.
        Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. Or disagree on the policy, but--
    --
        Secretary Noem. And, overwhelmingly, if you look at the
    data on the ground in these countries where these ads have been
    playing----
        Ms. DeLauro. With all due respect----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. The flow has stopped.
        Ms. DeLauro. With all due respect----
        Secretary Noem. Even when I was in Mexico and having
    conversations----
        Ms. DeLauro. Excuse me, Madam Secretary----
        Secretary Noem. Yes.
        Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. The time is mine.
        With all due respect, this is a political ad campaign, and
    it really--let's just not try to sugarcoat it. I just heard
    somebody talk about billboards and you talking about use of
    taxpayers' dollars. These are taxpayers' dollars as well.

                               FEMA BRIC PROGRAM

        Let me move to the program I mentioned earlier. This is the
    BRIC program.
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Ms. DeLauro. In early April, FEMA cut the Building
    Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program, claiming, and
    I quote, ``Under Secretary Noem, DHS is eliminating waste,
    fraud, and abuse,'' end quote.
        When the Committee staff asked for evidence of waste,
    fraud, or abuse in this program or the authority used to end
    the program, FEMA said that ``the due diligence for these
    projects can take a long time'' and failed to give examples
    that met U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO)
    definition of waste, fraud, or abuse.
        The legal authority you used to cancel most of these
    projects was also not provided. And I am just going to make
    this flat-out statement: You do not have, nor does the
    President have, the legal authority to abrogate what the
    Appropriations----
        Secretary Noem. Correct.
        Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. Committee appropriates. The power
    of the purse--it is in the Constitution.
        And I think, if I heard right, in the last couple of days,
    the President wasn't sure that we should abide by the
    Constitution. But we try to abide by the Constitution, those of
    us who raised our right hand and said we will abide by the
    Constitution.
        There is no legal authority, there is no inherent authority
    to claim the appropriations funds can be used for other than
    what they were appropriated for.
        I don't know that you--can you--we asked basic questions
    from your agency on a central program that the communities rely
    on. You all can't--you just say, ``Waste, fraud, abuse,'' and
    you think that that covers it. Well, Madam Secretary, I will
    tell you, it doesn't.
        Secretary Noem. Congresswoman, I will get you all the----
        Ms. DeLauro. We are going to challenge that. And you have
    no authority.
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Statute references that we are
    operating under the authority that the Department of Homeland
    Security has----
        Ms. DeLauro. You have no authority----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. And that these----
        Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. To abrogate these funds.
        [Crosstalk.]
        Ms. DeLauro. It is the prerogative of the Appropriations
    Committee.
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Are being reevaluated to make
    sure that they----
        Ms. DeLauro. The power of the purse resides----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. Are being spent
    appropriately----
        Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. Here----
        Secretary Noem [continuing]. The way you all directed they
    be spent.
        Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. And not there. Keep it in mind,
    because it is the Constitution of the United States.
        Thank you.
        Secretary Noem. I am very familiar with it.
        Mr. Amodei. I am happy to have this conversation take place
    off the clock, but now we are going to move to the gentleman
    from the Magnolia State for your second round of questioning.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Noem, I want to let you know what a refreshing hearing
    this has been, to have someone who comes before this committee
    who is plainspoken, who has a desire to secure the border, a
    desire to enforce the law, to have someone in your position who
    is willing to get out from behind a desk, to leave Washington,
    to go there and be there on the front lines with the men and
    women who serve.
        I just want to thank you for not being the typical
    bureaucrat who routinely would come before this committee time
    and time again under the Biden-Harris Administration who really
    had no idea because they had not been down there serving and
    alongside the men and women who were serving.
        So thank you for your leadership, and thank you for being
    plainspoken, and thank you for what you stand for.

                    INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT AND DETENTION BEDS

        As we continue to secure the border and as we see those
    numbers continue to hold, I believe at some point that DHS will
    be able to reallocate resources to the interior----
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Guest [continuing]. That once those resources have been
    reallocated, that we will see those numbers of interior
    enforcement--we will see those numbers increase.
        And one of the things that we have to do, as we are
    contemplating this appropriations package for next year, is we
    have to figure out the number of detention beds. And I know
    that the detention beds have been something of a contention
    with the previous Administration. They always came in with an
    extremely low number of detention beds, knowing that
    Republicans then would always plus-up that number to make sure
    that we had the number necessary.
        And so I guess my question is, as we are looking at putting
    next year's budget together and as we are looking at funding
    detention beds, what is the number of detention beds that you
    feel, Madam Secretary, that you are going to need going
    forward?
        Secretary Noem. The President has been clear from the
    beginning with his advisors in the White House on homeland
    security that we need much more capacity in detention beds in
    the country.
        We have upwards to 50,000 people that are in detention
    centers today that are moving out of the country, moving to go
    home to their countries, that we are negotiating and working on
    travel documents and repatriation with, but we have the ability
    to go out and act quicker in this country, but need the space
    in which to hold them until those processes can take place.
        So we need upwards to an additional 50,000 beds, 60,000
    beds, in order to make sure that we have the ability to not
    slow down enforcement operations and bring bad actors and
    criminals and those with final removal orders into our
    authority so that we can move them out faster.
        So, you know, the whole----
        Mr. Guest. And, Madam Secretary, if----
        Secretary Noem. Yes?
        Mr. Guest. I am not trying to cut you off, but a lack of
    detention beds could be a real deterrent to your men and women
    being able to perform the mission----
        Secretary Noem. Absolutely.
        Mr. Guest [continuing]. That they need to do.
        Secretary Noem. Absolutely.
        Mr. Guest. And so, if Congress wants to get serious about
    protecting the American people, then we are going to have to
    fund not only the manpower that you need, but we are going to
    have to fund the detention beds so those individuals can be
    detained----
        Secretary Noem. Yeah.
        Mr. Guest [continuing]. They can be brought before a judge,
    and then they can be ordered to be removed. Is that correct?
        Secretary Noem. That is correct.
        And I would also just clarify and make a point that the
    request from reconciliation, $175 billion, is for this term of
    this President, for the 4 years. And you see in the numbers
    that were released by OMB this last week that the $43 billion
    that would be the increase into this budget is from the
    reconciliation, one-quarter percent of what that total would
    be.

                             CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

        Mr. Guest. And I want to switch gears in my last minute and
    a half and talk about DHS Centers of Excellence.
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Guest. I know that those are where DHS partners with
    academic institutions really across the Nation. Some of those
    institutions include Texas A&M; my alma mater, Mississippi
    State University; the University of Nebraska; Arizona State.
        And I know, as DHS is seeking to kind of realign mission
    areas, I have seen that there is consideration of either
    reducing funding or in some cases cutting the Centers of
    Excellence.
        I want you to know that, while I am very--want to make sure
    that I am a great steward of taxpayer money--particularly at
    the center at Mississippi State. I have been there firsthand. I
    have seen the great work that they have done on unmanned aerial
    systems. I believe that they are an incredible return on our
    investment.
        But I would like to just ask you very quickly if you could
    share a little bit about how the Department plans to invest in
    these critical research functions that I think are important to
    the mission of DHS.
        Secretary Noem. Yes. And that is the evaluation that is
    happening. And two of those have already been reevaluated, in
    Nebraska and Alaska, and we will continue to do that with the
    rest of the allocations that go to Centers of Excellence
    throughout the country.
        But we have to look at how these dollars are being spent to
    align with the mission that is the Department of Homeland
    Security--cybersecurity, terrorism defense, building out and
    hardening our systems to protect our national security.
        So that is what is undergoing now in your state, and we
    will continue to evaluate that and stay in communication with
    you.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. You know, for a guy from the Magnolia State,
    you had a hard time getting into schools in Mississippi, I
    guess, huh? You named every school in the Nation except
    Mississippi State or something like that.
        But that is not the purpose of this hearing.
        The gentlelady from Iowa is recognized for your second
    round of questions.
        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you again for your patience, Madam Secretary.
        And we know, obviously, states like mine, Iowa, and South
    Dakota are not necessarily border states, but certainly every
    State did become a border state under the previous
    Administration, with that chaos we saw. And the consequences of
    that porous border really reached far beyond the Rio Grande
    River there--the deadly fentanyl coming into our communities,
    the adversaries taking advantage and exploiting our immigration
    system.
        And so that is what I kind of want to touch on, is the
    adversaries and what they were able to do, specifically China.
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.

                     BORDER ENCOUNTERS OF CHINESE NATIONALS

        Mrs. Hinson. To put it in perspective, in the first 7
    months of Fiscal Year 2024, more than 27,000 Chinese nationals
    were encountered at the southern border. Under President Trump,
    we have seen that number drop significantly, reflecting that
    clear shift in deterrence and enforcement.
        So can you walk us through what specific mechanisms have
    been put in place to ensure that these individuals from
    adversarial nations are now being thoroughly vetted and how
    that process has changed since the previous Administration?
        Secretary Noem. Yes.
        And, you know, every country is being treated the same as
    far as how we are treating the folks that are there and here
    illegally. People that came into this country from China and
    from other countries are all being vetted and their background
    checks being gone through.
        And I would say, some of the reasons that we have had to
    reevalute some of the programs that were abused under the Biden
    Administration is because countries weren't participating with
    us, they weren't sharing their information.
        One of the things I have challenged Canada with in a lot of
    the discussions that we have had over recent months was they
    weren't taking their own citizens back home that were here in
    this country illegally and they weren't sharing all of the
    criminal background checks of individuals who were in our
    country illegally. They weren't telling us who they were or
    what they had done, if they had human smuggling in their
    background or crimes. And so that was some of the access that
    we were asking them for. We were grateful that they addressed,
    for instance, designating a fentanyl czar.
        But that information-sharing is critically important. And
    we do not have that kind of partnership with China.
        We didn't just see Chinese nationals infiltrate our country
    over the southern border; they are coming over the northern
    border as well. And we see needs in the Great Lakes region and
    people coming in. It is easy to access Canada, and, once they
    do, then they drop down into our vulnerable areas. So we have
    continued to maintain resources and strengthen them at the
    northern border as well.
        But we work closely with INTERPOL that has an agreement
    with many different countries to do vetting and background
    checks and criminal background information-sharing on folks
    across the world. But many of the times when the State
    Department is negotiating on repatriation and travel documents,
    they are having discussions on what we can do to share
    information.
        When I made trips to El Salvador, to Colombia, and to
    Mexico, those trips were made so that I could get those
    governments to share more information with us. In fact, one of
    the things that we did while we were there was sign new
    agreements with those countries to share more data and
    information, to have them give us biometric information that
    they collected, to give us more thorough travel documents of
    individuals that were of concern here and had been breaking our
    laws.
        And so having those discussions gives us more information
    to make sure that this country is safer into the future.
        Mrs. Hinson. Do you feel like those conversations have
    helped to inform broader national-security efforts----
        Secretary Noem. Absolutely.
        Mrs. Hinson [continuing]. Cross-departmentally?
        And, you know, when we think about the real risk here, it
    is these international, transnational criminal gangs, the
    cartels----
        Secretary Noem. Absolutely.
        Mrs. Hinson [continuing]. State-sponsored networks. You
    know, obviously, we talk about the Chinese nationals, and the
    reason the PRC is not cooperating and the Chinese Communist
    Party (CCP) is not cooperating is because they are intent on
    infiltrating our country.
        Secretary Noem. That is correct.
        Mrs. Hinson. So do you feel like all those relationships
    are really helping us to strengthen the intel that we are able
    to gather.
        Secretary Noem. Absolutely. We have seen many, many times
    where information that we got on somebody who was here that may
    have been on our terrorist watch list, suspected terrorist
    watch list, or someone who was a very dangerous part of a
    foreign terrorist organization, that information may have been
    shared with us from other country because of those security
    agreements that we have in place.
        And when countries do not adhere to sharing that type of
    information, they don't get the privileges necessary that have
    been granted to them in the past. And we have seen that with
    visa overstays, we have seen that with lack of information-
    sharing, that perhaps they don't get to continue in programs
    that are under the purview of the Department of Homeland
    Security because they haven't been willing partners to help us
    secure our country.
        Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. Certainly, accountability is back----
        Secretary Noem. Yeah.
        Mrs. Hinson [continuing]. And I appreciate that. So thank
    you so much, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Noem. Thank you.
        Mrs. Hinson. I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        Madam Secretary, you have been kind of a marathon runner.
    It is 12:30. And I have endured all these questions along with
    you.
        Secretary Noem. Good.
        Mr. Amodei. And so, now, I am not going to be a hypocrite
    and ask a bunch, but I am going to highlight a couple things,
    since you have a bunch of your staff here.
        Secretary Noem. Yeah.

                        INFORMATION SHARING TO COMMITTEE

        Mr. Amodei. Because we are kind of at the going-forward
    place, and so information, as you have just alluded to, in
    terms of international stuff is important here as well.
        Several people have talked about the BRIC program in FEMA.
    And what I think is missing in the evaluation is--you know,
    your initial reaction is, ``Okay, so a bunch of stuff got
    canceled,'' and so it is like, ``Okay, why?''
        And it is like, listen, if there was an analysis done and
    it was like, ``Hey, this flunked it; it was''--whatever,
    whatever. The answer that we don't want is, ``Well''--and I am
    not saying you guys did it.
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Amodei. But it is like, ``Hey, we ran an algorithm, or
    OMB did something or whatever, and it got canceled.'' So it is
    like, well, then tell us who at OMB so we can go to them and
    say, ``We would like to know why you did that,'' which I think
    is a legitimate thing.
        So what I think I am going to do is, instead of saying, you
    know, the hard question, ``Will you commit to do a case-by-case
    review''--it is like, you guys have other stuff to do than a
    case-by-case.
        What I am thinking about doing--and the Committee Members
    that are still here, thank you for--is to say, ``Listen, each
    member, you got three things you want an answer, a specific
    answer, for? Give them to us to transmit on, and they will do
    that analysis.''
        Secretary Noem. Right.

                      CYBERSECURITY EFFORTS AGAINST CHINA

        Mr. Amodei. So that is my thought on that.
        I am not a CISA guy; you know that. I mean, I can barely
    use one of these all--God knows who is listening right now.
        But, anyhow, having said that, when I see--when I see--and
    I get elections and redirection and all that other sort of
    stuff. But when I see, here we go--and we have got Chairman
    Green and other folks going, ``My God, China is kicking our
    butt'' and blah, blah, blah. And it is like, well, we did this
    many through--not that you didn't--but, anyhow--this many
    retired, this many got this, this many got that. And then I
    look at the skinny budget, and it is like, by the way, we are
    taking more.
        And I think somebody got into it. It is like, what is the
    plan so when--and you have been there long enough; you know
    this--when somebody goes, ``Hey, you guys presided over cutting
    a half a billion dollars in CISA to do other stuff. What was
    that based on?''
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Amodei. Clearly, we don't want to be in the position
    and won't be in the position of, ``Well, I don't know. That is
    what they said they needed.''
        Not that there is a trust factor there. There is not. But
    it is like, we need some building blocks for whoever the CISA
    people are, whatever. It is like, what is the plan for us to be
    kicking China's butt or whatever you want to--however you want
    to describe it, and how we are still okay on that civilian-
    sector stuff?
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Amodei. And, by the way, that is stuff we need because,
    when it comes to markup for this Committee to transmit it on to
    the bigger Committee, I mean, we need solid ground for that
    sort of stuff.

                             TSA SCREENING ACTIVITY

        TSA, same thing. I will tell you, what I have heard so far
    is that the state of the equipment that they are using, whether
    they are screening your purse or your checked baggage or
    whatever--I am familiar with one situation where it is like,
    hey, the equipment is 15 years old. Nobody services it in that
    neighborhood. They have to have somebody come over the hill
    from California. And, by the way, that takes a while. And, in
    the meantime, they are not screening the bags before they go on
    the plane, or it takes forever.
        So I am going to be focusing on, what are you doing to
    upgrade--just the same as you are on the border. It is like,
    what are you doing to upgrade that technology?

                             ICE OPERATIONAL TEMPO

        And the last thing I have before we get to--thank you,
    Jesus--closing statements, the last thing is--and we have
    gotten around the edge of it. When we talk about ICE
    operational tempo----
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. I can't tell you how quick it is
    going to take me to get Amodei from apprehended through
    whatever the process is and on a plane going back to where he
    belongs. But we need some structure for, ``Hey, we are just
    blowing and going, and we will just let you know.''
        It is like, somebody--I would think that there would be an
    idea to say, ``Listen, this may change, but right now, from
    what we know from running the outfit for 4 months, this is kind
    of our average from `stack them and rack them' and `three hots
    and a cot' to `we are going to the airport,' '' some basis that
    when you are asked that question--not you, but us--``What are
    you doing with detention beds,'' it is like, ``Well, listen,
    they have got 51,000 now, but here is what we think the
    operational tempo is going to be.'' And, by the way, if it
    changes, then all it takes is, whoop, we got an uptick, we got
    a downtick, but we don't expect it to.
        But some sort of thing to say, ``Listen, the average cost
    of shipping somebody out, it takes us--we need a detention bed
    for 6 days on the average,'' or whatever it is. I don't--and
    that is the problem, Madam Secretary. I don't know what it is.
        Secretary Noem. Yeah.
        Mr. Amodei. So when we say--and, you know, if somebody
    says, ``Hey, well, how many more beds do you need,'' it is
    like, I get you are trying to responsive, but there is no
    ability to go say, ``Here is what the number is based on. It
    may change, but here is what it is based on right now.'' And so
    that would be necessary on this stuff.
        So, listen, they wrote this stuff, and they did a great
    job--thank you. ``Before we wrap up,'' ``reconciliation,''
    ``significant investments''--yeah, okay, that is all good.
    Somebody said that.
        I know the Department hopes to be made whole with
    reconciliation, but, in the meantime, you need to live within
    your means.
        It is our job, as Members, to make sure the Department is
    appropriately spending the money Congress provides as well as
    to ensure the Department has the resources that it needs to
    execute its mission on an annual basis.
        That work begins in earnest today as we begin the 2026
    process. We will move quickly but not hastily, working with
    every Member, to produce a bill that will pass the House and
    floor, as we have done in the last few years.
        I expect the Department to be a good partner in the
    process, and I ask you for your commitment that communication
    between this Committee and your Department will be
    significantly better moving forward. That is not a, ``What does
    he mean by that?'' It is like, we need better communication.
        Secretary Noem. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Amodei. I am interested in going forward.
        We expect to receive routine briefings and reports from DHS
    on time, and any changes in programs and policy--it is your
    absolute prerogative to make changes; please tell us--to be
    proactively communicated so that we can work collaboratively
    and to secure the Homeland.
        Here is my promise to you: We won't surprise you. Please
    don't surprise us. While everybody else is good with that,
    sometimes--you know, I am a lot older than you are, so
    sometimes I react poorly.
        For the get-back questions that Members of the subcommittee
    had today, we ask that you respond in 15 business days. There
    will be some additional questions members provide in writing.
    We ask you to respond to those in 30 days.
        Mr. Amodei. And here is the part that you have been waiting
    for.
        I would like to thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here
    today.
        The subcommittee stands adjourned.
        Secretary Noem. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026

                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 7, 2025.

           OVERSIGHT HEARING: THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

                                    WITNESS

    CAMERON HAMILTON, SENIOR OFFICIAL PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE
        ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
        Mr. Amodei. Good afternoon. This is the time and place
    posted for the meeting of the House Homeland Security--
    Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee. I am pleased to
    be joined by the subcommittee's distinguished ranking member,
    the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Underwood.
        Welcome, Mr. Acting Administrator Hamilton. I thank you for
    being here. While we await the details of the full fiscal year
    2026 budget request, the focus of the hearing will be on FEMA's
    priorities, a deeper dive into the $646 million in cuts to
    grants, and the $26.5 billion request for the disaster relief
    fund mentioned in the skinny budget.
        I guess it will be no secret to anybody who has been to a
    couple of these meetings that I am still waiting for anybody on
    the committee to ask that I do an opening statement. And since
    we haven't had that request, I am going to now defer to my
    distinguished ranking member, Ms. Underwood, for your opening
    statement.
        Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
    this hearing to conduct oversight and discuss the fiscal year
    2026 budget priorities of the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency. I would also like to welcome Mr. Hamilton, the senior
    official performing the duties of the FEMA administrator to his
    first hearing before our subcommittee. Thank you for meeting
    with me yesterday ahead of today's hearing.
        First and foremost, I would like to thank the dedicated
    FEMA workforce as well as emergency managers across the country
    who help our communities and constituents before, during, and
    after disasters. Last year, there was a major disaster
    declaration every 4 days affecting over 40 percent of
    Americans. The data is clear: disasters and extreme weather are
    getting worse and will continue to do so driven by climate
    change.
        From Hurricanes Beryl, Debby, Francine, Helene, and Milton
    in the 2024 season, to the 2025 Eaton and Palisades fires in
    Los Angeles that my colleagues and I visited in January.
    Disasters are getting bigger, more frequent, and more
    expensive. But the bare bones budget for fiscal year 2026
    released last week proposes a $646 million cut from fiscal year
    2025 levels to FEMA's initiatives that support State and local
    governments. I am concerned that this will cut critical grant
    programs that firefighters, first responders, and hospitals in
    rural communities like mine rely on.
        I am also concerned that this will cut resources for houses
    of worship and faith-based organizations, including nonprofit
    security grants and the national domestic preparedness
    consortium. Your budget suggests that it provides duplicative
    efforts of existing Federal and State programs without
    evidence.
        Similarly, your termination of the Building Resilient
    Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC program, in early April
    rips away desperately needed and life-saving resources that
    communities need to protect themselves from future disasters.
    This short-sighted approach would raise recovery costs for
    taxpayers and local communities while leaving our constituents
    less protected.
        On the topic of disaster recovery costs, the disaster
    relief fund, or DRF, is on the brink of depletion, and is
    expected to run a deficit of about $9 billion in fiscal year
    2025. That is before assuming any costs associated with future
    disasters that may occur this year.
        Hurricane season begins in 25 days. The growing demand on
    the DRF creates uncertainty and reliance on implementing
    immediate needs funding measures to remain solvent ultimately
    limiting when and how the public receives help from FEMA. More
    broadly, we have bipartisan concerns after the comments from
    Secretary Noem and President Trump regarding the future
    handling of FEMA as an agency.
        Without a budget request with enough detail to review,
    public reporting and statements by the Trump administration are
    our main window into what may be on the horizon for the
    Department. And when it comes to FEMA, Secretary Noem said that
    she wants to eliminate it, and President Trump said that it
    could, quote, ``go away.''
        Let me be clear. Eliminating FEMA would cause catastrophic
    and needless suffering to the American public. State emergency
    management leaders have gone on the record since those
    comments. They are not equipped to handle the roles FEMA
    currently plays martialing emergency resources from multiple
    Federal agencies, providing flood insurance, conducting damage
    assessments, and distributing billions of dollars in recovery
    funds. Pushing disaster response and recovery fully back to the
    States is dangerous and unrealistic. I hope to hear today about
    your plans to improve the agency with fiscal year 2025 dollars
    as well as what your highest priorities are for fiscal year
    2026 and the funding needed to realize those priorities.
        Thank you, Mr. Hamilton, for being here today, and I look
    forward to your testimony and answers to our questions.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Madam Ranking Member. I am going to
    defer my questions, Mr. Hamilton, until the end, so with that,
    we will go ahead and return to Ms. Underwood while she is
    warmed up.
        Ms. Underwood. Opening statement.
        Mr. Amodei. We are going to skip his and skip mine. I don't
    know what--it turns out they are right, so why don't you go
    ahead. This room is such a great one.
        So let's try this again from the top, Mr. Hamilton. First
    of all, I would like to request FEMA assistance in getting me
    on track for this meeting, and then after that, while we will
    make your full statement available as part of the record, you
    have the floor for the next 5 minutes for your opening
    statement. Please proceed.

                     STATEMENT OF CAMERON HAMILTON

        Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time. If
    you would prefer, that I don't make an opening statement for
    the sake of everyone, I am more than happy to accommodate, but
    Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member Underwood, members of the
    subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak
    before you today specifically on FEMA and our priorities.
        I am a combat veteran, a former Navy SEAL, a husband, a
    father, an experienced public servant, and also a man of deep
    faith. I have served under five different administrations for
    two decades in various capacities in counterterrorism
    operations, response and recovery, emergency management, and
    executive leadership, yet the highest honor of my career is
    serving right now in the Trump administration keeping the
    American people first.
        I am now currently serving as a senior official performing
    the duties of the administrator, which is the longest acronym
    ever, SOPDO, of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA
    was established to provide focused support in truly
    catastrophic disasters, yet at times, we have strayed far from
    that core mission and evolved into an overextended Federal
    bureaucracy attempting to manage every type of emergency no
    matter how minor. Instead of being the last resort, FEMA is all
    too often used by States and public officials as a financial
    backstop for routine issues that frankly should be handled
    locally. This misalignment has fostered a culture of
    dependency, waste, inefficiency while also delaying crucial aid
    to Americans who are in genuine need.
        Red tape, bureaucratic inertia, and top-down
    micromanagement have turned this disaster recovery into slow,
    costly, and frustrating processes. It was for this very reason
    I was hired, to refocus this organization in order to better
    serve the American people under President Trump's mandate.
        Thanks to President Trump and Secretary Noem, we are now in
    power to restore accountability and federalism to disaster
    relief. FEMA must return to its core foundational role:
    supporting States only when disasters truly exceed their
    capacity. Simplifying recovery processes and safeguarding
    taxpayer dollars through commonsense reforms.
        Under the previous administration, FEMA's top goal was to
    make equity the foundation of emergency management, which I
    believe personally is an abhorrent distraction from helping
    those in need. Politics have no place in emergency management,
    which is why I directed the termination of additional personnel
    who fell short of that standard in the wake of the Florida
    Trump sign scandal my first week on the job.
        I have also directed FEMA to focus on three operational
    priorities and have led to a savings of nearly $3 billion for
    the American taxpayer. Building SLTT capacity, focusing on
    survivors, and maintaining operational readiness are the goals
    that we now currently hold of which you can find on FEMA's
    website.
        First, FEMA must return to its roots where response to
    disasters are locally led, State-managed, and federally
    supported. More than 60 percent of Americans have less than
    $1,000 in their bank account, and are incapable of recovering
    from disasters without assistance. State, local, Tribal, and
    territorial partners need mentorship to build their disaster
    preparedness, response recovery capacity, as well as resources
    when they are overrun by disasters. Delaying this timely and
    effective and life-saving assistance should never be impacted
    by the bureaucracy of Washington, D.C.
        Secondly, we must focus on survivors using innovative
    tools, creative methods, and as the President has said, FEMA
    needs to cut red tape and must communicate with greater speed
    and clarity. I recall stories of a woman who lost her home and
    her husband in the same incident and event only to then call me
    crying struggling about how she is navigating her application
    for assistance.
        When you hold someone in your arms, as I have before, who
    is bloodied, covered in dirt, and there--and has seen quite
    literally their worst day, there is little else you think about
    other than giving them your best in those challenging moments.
    The American people deserve better. They deserve to be treated
    with the highest priority, which is why I have directed my
    workforce to review and improve all methods of our customer
    service through technology and any means necessary.
        Third, we must enhance our operational readiness to build a
    national resilience plan using risk-informed decision making.
    Communities look to FEMA in their greatest times of need and it
    is imperative that we remain ready to respond to those
    challenges. I am a prudent steward of taxpayer resources. My
    workforce will prioritize efforts to identify and recover
    excess funds from contracts, grants, and mission assignments.
    We will also closely monitor the DRF to ensure that we have
    firm communication with Congress on a timely basis.
        In my current role, I have been intentional in my meeting
    with the FEMA workforce at headquarters, at each of our
    regions, and it has been an honor to serve alongside them. I
    have also met with countless disaster survivors hearing their
    stories and concerns. I joined Secretary Noem in her travel and
    visit to North Carolina as well as Kentucky, and we have
    instituted critical reforms, but we still have much more work
    to do as we enter hurricane season.
        FEMA needs a top down reform, and I encourage that
    President Trump has directed the creation of a FEMA review
    council to conduct deeply needed comprehensive review of this
    agency. The President has also issued many executive orders to
    streamline government, and Secretary Noem and I are committed
    to ensuring those executive orders are carried out in both
    letter and spirit.
        Emergency management is at a critical crossroads in our
    Nation as we seek to improve the methods of serving Americans
    first. This committee has a vitally important voice in that
    process with oversight and provides us with the resources
    necessary to achieve and implement efficiencies. I look forward
    to answering each of your questions. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, sir. Now if it is okay with all of
    my critics on the committee, I would like to go to Ms.
    Underwood for her questions. Is there any objection? Ms.
    Underwood, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your questions.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hamilton, I would like to discuss the achieving
    efficiency for through state and local preparedness executive
    order. This executive order may sound efficient in theory, but
    in practice, it reads as though the Federal Government is
    turning its back on the communities that need it the most.
        I am concerned that the goal of this executive order isn't
    to decentralize disaster response, but to offload Federal
    responsibility. It effectively tells small towns, rural
    communities, Tribal nations, and underfunded municipalities you
    are on your own. I represent a rural and suburban area in
    northern Illinois, and many of these communities lack emergency
    management infrastructure, sufficient mitigation planning, and
    access to Federal support. There is no way that the small towns
    that I represent are equipped to handle leading coordination
    and response with multiple Federal agencies in the wake of a
    major disaster. Shifting the burden to them is not only
    irresponsible and wasteful, it is dangerous. Can you update
    this committee on the status of the executive order's
    implementation and what specific actions has FEMA taken or is
    FEMA preparing to take under this new directive?
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, ma'am. Sorry. I was trying to hit the
    mute button. So we stand by the President in his efforts to
    ensure that we maintain higher efficiency when it comes to this
    particular executive order. We are at a bit of an imbalance. We
    want to partner with States. That partnership requires State
    investment, and so what we are looking at is policies and
    initiatives that encourage greater State participation.
        This will not be a radical transition in an instant. This
    has to occur as a phased approach where we mentor States and
    locals on building capacity and capability. An example of that
    is Florida and Texas, really two shining beacons of success
    with emergency management. It took many years to build and
    implement some of those resources and infrastructure there, and
    they have done some unbelievable work. In fact, they are some
    of only States that have actual individual assistance programs
    whereas many other States do not.
        So what we are looking at specifically is finding ways to
    more closely target risk reduction outcomes for States with
    future grants and to ensure that States are able and empowered
    to assume a greater role mostly in what we consider long-term
    exorbitant recovery costs.
        Ms. Underwood. So then how does that--how is that
    consistent with the intent of the Stafford Act, which is built
    around the principle of Federal support when State and local
    capabilities are exceeded?
        Mr. Hamilton. You are right, and the Stafford Act there is
    very clear on the role in which the Federal Government plays a
    resource in assisting those who are overwhelmed. The problem is
    we have created financial incentives for the continuation of
    that, and even expanded levels. We have kind of lowered
    disaster thresholds. We have used other criteria that, to be
    honest, are a little bit too soft for my opinion that have
    incentivized financially a lack of carrying insurance policies
    as well as lower disaster thresholds, which are probably not
    the best use of my staff.
        This isn't to say that States aren't in need. We know they
    are. But we have to raise the threshold so that FEMA can truly
    prioritize efforts where the State is, in fact, overwhelmed. We
    have a variety of disaster declarations that we have seen that
    have come to FEMA where the State has also been required to
    state publicly they have enough insurance to take out a plan
    and actually execute payments for the costs that they have
    incurred. This is an imbalance where States have used FEMA as a
    financial backstop where we believe it is more applicable and
    appropriate for FEMA to be a utilized resource in the event the
    State is actually overwhelmed with resources.
        Ms. Underwood. Okay. Thank you. I want to raise a recent
    memo from your office to FEMA's regional leadership where you
    state that, quote, ``FEMA will discontinue unaccompanied FEMA
    door-to-door canvassing.'' For years, FEMA staff have gone door
    to door in disaster areas meeting survivors where they are,
    walking them through aid applications, and registering them for
    support. Unaccompanied canvassing is used when time, staffing,
    or operational priorities demand rapid outreach. These boots on
    the ground are not symbolic. For many survivors, FEMA staff are
    the first people who show up to help. They are often the only
    meaningful point of contact for people who are unable to
    travel, or navigate complex systems on their own, and
    alternative virtual or telephone options are not sufficient.
    This change will disproportionately hurt disabled Americans,
    seniors, rural residents and caregivers, people who, through no
    fault of their own, don't have a car. They don't have broadband
    access. They don't have the ability to leave a vulnerable
    family member after a disaster to travel hundreds of miles to
    disaster recovery centers or FEMA sights in some instances.
        Frankly, this policy decision reflects a broader and
    troubling trend from this administration reducing in-person
    access to essential Federal services. From Social Security
    field offices to IRS walk-in centers to now FEMA, we are
    watching critical points of service become increasingly out of
    reach for the very people who need them the most.
        When I think about who gets hurt, we are talking about
    people with disabilities. We are talking--you know, we have
    seen thing, like, Oh, you can go to a kiosk or just go online
    or call a 1-800 number. After a disaster comes through, the
    internet doesn't work. Right? The telephone lines and the cell
    towers may be down. And for rural Americans, people with
    disabilities, for our seniors, they need help, and it is the
    responsibility, particularly in the crisis, for our Federal
    Government to be there for our fellow Americans.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Chair now recognizes Mr. Rutherford to give me
    a different microphone--I mean, now recognizes Mr. Rutherford.
    The floor is yours for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I have
    to say, Director, I believe in the federalist concept of
    subsidiarity. I think you do, too, based on your opening
    comments. This idea that the Federal Government has to run
    everything, you recognize that they don't by pointing out the
    reasonable domestic security task forces that are operating in
    Florida, the system in Texas. We need to take responsibility
    for our own disasters. We have done that in the State of
    Florida and the State of Texas. We have put together these
    systems. Our people aren't left--our people aren't left to
    their own device. The State is there.
        And this President is not turning his back on assisting
    people when the disaster relief fund is being plussed up by $4
    billion. They are not cutting assistance to people in real
    need. And the difference is, and I think you touched on it as
    well, is what is the real need? How much of these incidents is
    the Federal Government responsible for and should be called on
    to handle?
        The idea that somehow FEMA shows up and handles everything
    for the States, that is not true. It is certainly not true in
    the State of Florida. And one of the problems that we are
    having, and I would like to ask a question about this, is the
    issue surrounding some of the payments, and I think this gets
    into the issue of subsidiarity, because when you try to drive
    everything to the top, things slow down. And so if you really
    want the individual members of your community to be able to get
    the assistance they need in a timely manner, let's do it at the
    ground level. Not rely on FEMA to come in and somehow rescue
    us. That is not what we need.
        I see this move, too, in the law enforcement field. This
    idea that we need to nationalize State and local law
    enforcement, absolutely not. The depth and the breadth of the
    security, domestic security in America is based on that
    diffused responsibility among over 3,000 law enforcement
    agencies in the country. We don't need somebody to come in and
    hand-hold us and walk us through everything in our lives. We
    have a responsibility back home.
        I can tell you our government does a fantastic job. This is
    just a--this is a fight between those who want to be taken care
    of and those who want to take care of themselves. I want to
    take care of ourselves. And now we may need some assistance,
    funding, for example, but beyond that, get it to us quickly so
    that we don't have to pay all the interest. But beyond that, I
    think that is the role that FEMA should be playing. And for
    anybody to indicate that President Trump is turning his back on
    disaster relief when he has plussed up the budget $4 billion
    from 22 to like 26.5. It is quite the contrary.
        So my question is, are there things that we can do within
    the FEMA system to get the money out, get it out more on time?
    Can you talk to that a little bit, Director.
        Mr. Hamilton. Of course. That is a fantastic question. And
    you are right, federalism is not always clean. It comes with a
    give and take and it comes with a partnership. There is a
    mantra that I believe very firmly in, strong States lead
    towards a strong nation, and it has to be stratified in that
    way. Strong States are built from counties and localities and
    adjacent to that.
        So from my perspective, we have created an environment
    where FEMA has been pushed to amalgamate more responsibilities
    in a way that has created an unhealthy imbalance in the proper
    role. So as a result, it has created a lot of bureaucratic
    inefficiencies that are not the most prudent.
        We do have some--I completely sympathize with your
    statements about receiving payments. There are some challenges
    that we have there and we are looking at some new technology to
    make that more rapid and faster. I also want to say that we
    have reinitiated payments very quickly because of the court
    order that has been going on, so we are making payments
    currently, and we are also looking at EHP requirements and many
    other regulatory controls that allow us to pay out recipients
    and get grants to move to completion faster. That is what
    States deserve.
        Mr. Rutherford. Exactly. Thank you. I assume my time is
    used up. I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford. We now recognize the
    gentleman from the Lone Star State, Mr. Cuellar. The floor is
    yours for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again
    for your service, the military service and the work that you
    are doing, and certainly thank all the men and women.
        I am from the State of Texas. I think you mentioned both
    Texas and Florida. Look, I can understand where Texas has been
    doing well. I can understand the role of the State, but when
    there is a national disaster, I think the Federal Government
    plays a role to coordinate and put resources.
        When Harvey hit Texas, and you might correct me on the
    numbers, Texas, which does pretty well, asked FEMA for about
    $15 billion, so even the models that we have out there, the
    States do well, but there is a role for FEMA, especially for
    natural disasters.
        Now, I understand what I think the President is trying to
    do, find efficiencies, and I can say this for the record.
    Before we had doggy or DOGE, Texas was doing--Texas, Alabama
    says that, or maybe Mississippi, but we were doing that in the
    State of Texas. We actually did performance based budgets and I
    was involved with John Sharp, and we actually saved the State
    of Texas billions of dollars without cutting employees, without
    cutting services. We just found the efficiencies, the
    duplications. That we did that in the '90s. And talking about
    billions of dollars in the '90s, that is a lot of money using
    those dollars, so I am for this.
        And I want to give you a couple of ideas that you all might
    want to consider. The current law right now, which is the
    Government Performance Results Modernization Act of 2010 was
    passed by bipartisan coalition here in Congress. It calls for
    certain things. It calls for--and I will talk about four
    different things: Operational regulatory efficiency reviews,
    and I will go--I can sit down, but let me just go. It calls for
    conducting annual operation reviews, evaluating component
    department performance against strategic performance goals
    according to the law. It conducts--should conduct comprehensive
    review of departmental regulations, policy, and guidance that
    they identify it as updated. Duplicate, obsolete, inefficient
    requirements. And of course, should submit that to the
    appropriations. And it goes on, you know, looking for operation
    efficiency costs and ways of doing this.
        Number one, operational regulatory efficiency. It is the
    law right now. Number two, contracting and procurement stat.
    There is a law that comes into play, chapter 13 of title 31,
    and basically what we are doing is contracts. What happened to
    the on budget and on time? Almost every single project I have
    seen as a member of Congress is not on budget, is not on time.
    And basically, you know, you start off with open competition on
    just highlighting. You look at provisions requiring performance
    on the budget, but you put provisions on budget and on time on
    it.
        And then you incorporate, and the law said--but I don't
    know how good we are in incorporating financial penalties for
    unjustified cost overruns, and we see this when an agency runs
    over time, what is the first they thing they do? I don't care
    if it is military or homeland, I have seen this everywhere.
    They come and ask Congress for more money. We need more money,
    otherwise we are not going to be able to finish this project.
        But in other places, and I am sure the States do, we do
    this in Texas, on time, the Texas Department of Transportation
    is probably the best example, highways and all that. It is on
    time and on budget is the emphasis, and we need to do that. I
    will be happy to share some of this other language. Performance
    measures, development of updated performance measures, if we
    put in one dollar or we get one dollar back, what is one back?
    Bang for the dollar that we get.
        If you look at all--and I think you all have performance
    measures, but the problem is you all do them by yourselves, and
    I am not talking about you, but any agency, they pack
    themselves, they get the best performance measures, they don't
    share it with Congress, and we have no idea how they are
    performing on that.
        And then finally, the last part is we, you know, we not
    only develop and submit the updated performance measures but
    quarterly performance review. Department operation reviews and
    efficiency initiatives show progress to a regulatory
    modernization itself. And I know we do a lot of CRs, and some
    people agree, some people don't agree, but there are some
    regulations that are really outdated and are duplicate and are
    inefficient, and we have done that in States, and I think we
    need to do that, so there is highlights of things that we can
    look at.
        And again, I am with you. I want to find the efficiency. I
    want to find this. But can we do it without cutting services
    and can we do it without cutting employees? And again, it can
    be done, because we did this in the '90s before we had doggy,
    DOGE, and it worked. It really works. I mean, the efficiency
    and effectiveness, what you are all doing, if you can include
    the Members of Congress, I think we can find some efficiencies,
    so I will be happy to share with you. I am going to ask the
    chairman if he would be willing to add this as bill language in
    the appropriations.
        Thank you, and I appreciate--sorry about speechifying, but
    we are on the same page. We have just got to find a different
    way of getting to the end. Thank you for your service.
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. First of all, for your request----
        Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir?
        Mr. Amodei. Because you were mindful during the phonics
    lesson a while back on, it is not ``nujay,'' it is nugget; and
    it is not DOGE, it is dogy. That is phonics. I am open-minded
    to your proposal regarding billing.
        Mr. Cuellar. Doggy.
        Mr. Amodei. Now I would like to go to the beacon of
    questioning on the committee, the gentleman from Washington,
    Mr. Newhouse, the floor is yours for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Newhouse. I go over time once.
        Mr. Amodei. One time.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking
    Member, and also Acting Administrator. I can't go through your
    whole title.
        Mr. Hamilton. It is pretty long.
        Mr. Newhouse. Appreciate you being here with us, too, Mr.
    Hamilton. Also appreciate your former military service to our
    country.
        Mr. Hamilton. It was my honor.
        Mr. Newhouse. I would agree modernizing FEMA's some would
    say antiquated system and their assets will allow you to
    execute more efficiently. In fact, in the 2022/26 strategic
    plan, it is noted that FEMA must transform how the agency
    delivers support so that partners can increase their capacity.
    I think you are living proof that that is the goal to be able
    to manage future events.
        In the written testimony, you also State that FEMA requires
    funding resources and the expertise to improve and replace
    dated information, technology, and security services, as well
    as additional support for the integrated public alert warning
    service, all good stuff.
        I wanted to ask you a couple questions surrounding that. If
    you don't mind, I will put them all together and you can take
    with it what you could. Could you speak to the tangible actions
    and technologies that you are evaluating to deliver on this
    first. And also, how might FEMA use advanced technologies to
    better coordinate with other Federal agencies to ensure that
    taxpayer funds are able to recover faster and are used more
    efficiently so that communities are better served? Do you have
    a clear idea of the level of funding or resources? Because
    given what we have seen in the skinny budget, there is only
    noted reductions in certain areas of grant programing. And is
    the agency currently working to update the strategic plan?
        Mr. Hamilton. So all great questions. I would say that to
    start on your first point, the tech solutions that we are
    looking to innovate, one of the first things that I saw by
    coming at FEMA given my past emergency management background,
    but also my background in response and recovery operations was
    that we didn't have an information portal that was fast
    embedding programmatic information, but also giving us a
    snapshot for a whole portfolio.
        It is very challenging to show a cost benefit analysis. It
    is very challenging to have aggregated data that can give you
    informed decision making with metrics, statistics, and real-
    time information so that you can see clear trending lines
    early. Our goal--again, my role here as the administrator of
    FEMA, even in an acting capacity, is to be the principal
    advisor to the President and secretary on disasters and
    emergency management. They need as much decision making space
    as possible so that they can make informed decisions and give
    us initiatives and agendas to execute when it comes to mission
    success, so the better we innovate our technology, the more
    improvement we will have in that space as well.
        One of the key proposals we had was a disaster information
    portal. The idea of when you order a pizza from Domino's, you
    know when it was ordered, when it goes in the oven, when it
    comes out of the oven, when it is ready for pick-up and sliced
    and in a box. Yet we don't have that same level of approach
    towards guiding and mentoring applicants through the process of
    applying for public assistance or individual assistance. That
    is complex. That is unacceptable. We have individual survivors
    who wait weeks to get responses, sometimes months before they
    get payouts who are in significant financial desire straits.
        You have municipalities that extend significant leverage,
    like you mentioned before, Mr. Rutherford, carrying these
    balances. We are overhauling the manner in which we engaged
    with our State, local, Tribal territorial partners as well as
    individual survivors to be faster and more compelling. That is
    one of the specific solutions to create a system of systems,
    truly an information environment. I have helped orchestrate and
    build some of those before at DHS. This will be much larger and
    more comprehensive, and we are very excited about the solutions
    that it would entail.
        And with that comes coordination with partners. Looking at
    three principle user bases where we allow our external partners
    to include Members of Congress to have cleared staff who can
    have access to survivor information if self-selected so that
    you can track on cases. If you have a constituent that calls
    you and they say, Hey, I am not getting a response from FEMA,
    we want to create a system where your staff can log in, see it
    clearly, giving you chats, features. You are not waiting on a
    phone call for 3 or 4 days. You are getting real-time feedback
    that is dynamic, and we mentor them through those application
    processes to get them to success. And to be very clear and
    transparent, if they don't qualify, we want them to know why.
        Mr. Newhouse. Absolutely.
        Mr. Hamilton. We want there to be transparency. So those
    are some of the several solutions that we are hoping to
    implement that I think will really overhaul and change how we
    interact with both localities and jurisdictions as well as
    individual survivors.
        Mr. Newhouse. Awesome. Appreciate that response. Look
    forward to working with you on that. To prevent further
    reprimands, I am going to yield my time back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. Touche to my colleague from Washington State.
        Mr. Cuellar. Hawaii.
        Mr. Amodei. Yeah. That will be the next one. I am not from
    there. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the high
    altitude portion of Texas. Ms. Escobar, the floor is yours for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
    Hamilton, thank you for your service and thanks for being here.
        Mr. Hamilton. It was my honor.
        Ms. Escobar. I share the concerns that our ranking member
    laid out. I have never seen FEMA as an organization that the
    American people are dependent on or that States are dependent
    on. I have seen FEMA as a partner to States and to localities,
    and I am really concerned about what I have heard from
    Secretary Noem and from the President about eliminating FEMA. I
    certainly hope that doesn't happen.
        I am all in on commonsense reforms, and frankly, I think
    there is plenty of room in FEMA for some commonsense reforms. I
    am not a champion of the status quo at FEMA, and so I look
    forward to working together on those reforms. But I think the
    context for my concern about FEMA and some of these obligations
    being pushed down to the State is because even in Texas, I have
    seen deficiencies that have impacted my community.
        I also think the greater context is cuts that are coming to
    State and local governments at the Federal level. I have heard
    from my local governments, Tribal communities, very concerned
    about potential cuts to Medicaid and nutrition programs, so
    layering this added responsibility on to localities at such a
    challenging time for local governments and State governments,
    that is another area of concern for me.
        But I will tell you, I have some very specific local
    questions that I--and I hope to be able to work with you on
    these issues. The first question is around the UASI funding,
    and El Paso was relegated to an unfunded status some time ago
    and had previously enjoyed being able to receive UASI funding.
        My local government, the local municipality, the City of El
    Paso has tried working with FEMA to try to access funds, and
    they have been unsuccessful, and I would really love your help
    in thinking through what needs to happen so that the city of El
    Paso can once again have access to those funds.
        We have major land ports of entry. We have major military
    installation. There is a number of reasons why those--why that
    UASI funding could and should be helpful to the community. So I
    am wondering if you can commit to working with us on gaining
    access once again?
        Mr. Hamilton. I can't promise an outcome, but I absolutely
    commit myself, my staff to working with you and to better
    understanding your challenges and to help find solutions that
    would make sense and to ensure that you are informed on exactly
    how rationales are determined, because if States and cities and
    jurisdictions are eligible and qualified, we certainly want to
    ensure that they get the resources necessary.
        Ms. Escobar. Great. That would be super helpful. We have
    seen other communities who were relegated to this status gain
    access, so we would like to be one of those success stories.
        The other pot of funding I would like to talk to you is
    about the SAFER grants. We have emergency services districts
    which are the special districts, firefighters, volunteer
    firefighters. There are tax amenities as well, but would love
    your thoughts on how we can help our emergency services
    districts access some of those SAFER grants?
        Mr. Hamilton. So I am a big advocate for the SAFER grants.
    We have a decision memo that we are hoping to be able to fund
    many of those programs. Again, it is pending department
    approval. I will tell you I was formerly the director of
    emergency medical services at DHS headquarters. I am also a
    first responder, former combat medic, and paramedic currently.
    So the care and funding for our first responders is crucial. It
    is very near and dear to me because I have spent two decades as
    a first responder in some capacity. So I look forward to
    working with you more. Look forward to ensuring that our first
    responder communities get the appropriate funding they deserve.
        Ms. Escobar. Great. Thank you. Look forward to that as
    well. Like my colleagues, I am concerned about FEMA's recent
    decision to cancel BRIC funding for previous recipients. Not
    only is it illegal, because this is funding that Congress
    appropriated, it is also devastating for the communities that
    applied for this funding and were allocated it for critical
    projects. It is unfortunate that we are holding this hearing
    without a full budget, but President Trump has made it clear
    that he can violate the orders of Congress, which makes me
    nervous about a number of other programs and grants that our
    communities rely on. I am wondering if there are any plans at
    FEMA to cancel any other programs or funds that have been
    allocated by Congress?
        Mr. Hamilton. Excuse me, I thought I was running out of
    time. So to answer your question on BRIC particularly, we found
    a lot of inefficiencies with the design of the program itself
    which caused us to have serious concern over whether it was the
    appropriate use of taxpayer funds through many projects that
    were funded that we believe were very wasteful. But there are
    also projects that were fully funded that we intend to move
    forward to completion. We are unpacking and analyzing that
    every grant recipient under BRIC should receive some form of
    notification and--I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, would like me to
    continue? I am going over my time. I want to be respectful of
    you, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. I will tell you what, Mr. Acting Administrator,
    thank you for being much more concerned about it than any of my
    members on this committee. Please continue and finish your
    answer to Ms. Escobar's question and feel free to hold a FEMA
    instruction class out in the hall at the conclusion of this
    hearing for other members on the committee.
        Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, sir. I will say that as it
    pertains to its current rent recipients, we are kind of
    unpacking them in several different buckets. Those that have
    obligations that were made. If the projects were ongoing, we
    intend to continue funding for many of those projects in a
    systematic review, and again, recipients should be receiving
    this information here very soon if not already. That is through
    our regional offices.
        Also a major problem that we found with the BRIC program
    itself is a really high unliquidated balances in which work was
    not moving towards completion or work was stagnating for years
    going back to 2020. It was tying up a lot of money within the
    DRF and projects were not moving forward in a succinct manner.
    That was an exceptional problem that we identified. So there is
    a variety of different elements of what we are trying to look
    at to make sure that the future of mitigation investment is
    reasonable and we create financial incentives for States to
    move faster, but we are also looking at our own regulatory
    requirements and things we can simplify so that we don't put
    impediments and barriers in State and localities way of
    executing fully on these projects, and I would love to
    specifically speak with you about some of the projects in your
    district, your concerns and evaluations so that we can ensure
    that you fully understand from our context things that the
    administration are going to prioritize for investment.
        Generally, you are going to be looking at the profile of
    risk reduction as well as preparedness and/or, you know,
    capability building, and so the future of grants at FEMA are
    going to kind of be profiled that way. We are working with OMB
    on some ideas. Before any decisions are made on that, I promise
    you that we will be coming to you all to solicit some input and
    insight so that you can share and collaborate with us, because
    we do want to create a mechanism that makes the most sense.
        Ms. Escobar. I am out of time, but we will definitely
    circle back with you on these issues.
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, ma'am.
        The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the State
    whose State flower is the wild prairie rose. Ms. Hinson, the
    floor is yours for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is the wild rose.
    We also have the gold finch and we have a lot of FEMA disasters
    in Iowa, so thank you very much for the time. Thank you,
    Ranking Member Underwood, for holding this, and thank you,
    Acting Administrator Hamilton, for joining us today. Really
    appreciate you answering our questions.
        It is nice to see under President Trump's leadership really
    having--and Secretary Nome who we had a chance to question
    yesterday, things return to core mission, and that is really--I
    really appreciate what you said in your opening comments about
    that, because we have seen FEMA go from being the response
    agency for hurricanes disasters like derechos and tornadoes in
    Iowa to funeral directors. In essence, the mission has just
    strayed so far from what you should be doing, so I am really,
    really excited to see how you are addressing these operational
    priorities and really focus on protecting taxpayers.
        I do want to make sure that the services that you are
    providing to States like mine that our constituents are not
    caught up in the bureaucratic red tape. You know, when we look
    at the slow complex processes, you talked a lot about some of
    those efficiencies that you are looking to find for folks. The
    woman who you held at her most vulnerable moment, right? I
    mean, I think we have all been there and experienced those
    stories in our districts. And I don't want to see funding
    funneled to larger communities leaving rural States at a
    disadvantage just because they are competing for resources for
    political purposes.
        Under Secretary Mayorkas and President Biden, the shelter-
    in-services program, we saw that directing those resources
    towards sanctuary cities. I want to see resources going to
    Iowans and Meskwaki Tribal folks in my district who are
    fighting for those resources.
        So how are you addressing concerns on that bureaucracy and
    inefficiency at FEMA while ensuring that those needs are
    still--those needs are really still met at the community level?
        Mr. Hamilton. Thank you for the question. I can tell you
    particularly on the SSP matter, when I actually interviewed and
    I was selected, that was the first thing that I had addressed
    is my concern over this forcing of nonemergency management
    responsibilities within an agency to dispense reimbursement
    funds for housing migrants and housing illegal aliens. It is
    completely disconnected from the core mission of what this
    agency is meant to manage. That is part of the inherent
    bureaucracy of how we sort of got here from being perfectly
    transparent.
        FEMA has been a catch-all for a lot of things. Why? Because
    we move money very fast and we have lots of people. We have
    resources and infrastructure in a way that many States don't
    have the ability to manage. We manage 97 percent of all DHS
    grants. That is inherently a problem to itself in my personal
    opinion, because we have responsibilities that are not FEMA
    centric being paid out by FEMA in a way that I don't think was
    the original intent of the Stafford Act. When you look at what
    the terms of emergency management was meant to entail, the
    continuation of emergency operations in the event of
    catastrophe. That is really what that definition means.
        So we are looking at a variety of ways to cut bureaucracy,
    make programs easier to understand. We are also trying to ask
    that agencies which are having grant programs step up more to
    actually manage the program. We don't have actual disbursement
    authorities to where we can pay individual survivors. We have
    to go through HHS or others. There is some of those kind of
    bureaucratic inefficiencies, which I know was designed because
    of the Economy Act. I recognize the efficiencies there. That
    does make sense. But it has created additional layers we have
    to go through and gateways which are complicated.
        We did a manual review process. There is four different
    systems through which data is spilled down to then ultimately
    dispense payment. That is insufficient. We are looking to
    overhaul everything so that we can be faster. I want survivors
    to get paid in hours or days, not weeks, months, or God forbid,
    years.
        Mrs. Hinson. Right.
        Mr. Hamilton. And so we are implementing a lot of things to
    make that faster.
        Mrs. Hinson. Well, in certainly many of the cities that I
    know are probably watching us today, Cedar Rapids, Marion, like
    I mentioned, the Meskwaki Tribe, these folks have been
    waiting--they waited a long time. They paid the interest on
    that, and that is a huge cost to our communities.
        I want to talk a little bit about public alerts. I
    appreciate what you said in your testimony about the NextGen
    warning system is something I am very, very passionate about,
    so I want to thank you for highlighting the importance of those
    critical systems, and so in my remaining time, which I know we
    are running on short on, how are you working with these systems
    to effectively enhance alerting capabilities in rural
    communities? These are a lot of grants again that you talk
    about that process, simplifying that. Let's make sure they get
    where they are going to go faster, but how are you working on
    making sure that is efficient?
        Mr. Hamilton. One of the first things we have entertained
    is partnering with CISA, because it is part of that is within
    the core responsibilities on emergency communications, looking
    at how exactly to unpack it, what unique Federal authorities we
    have, and how to target infrastructure in such a way that will
    be reliant in the event of catastrophe for loss of power, loss
    of other resources.
        So we have a couple different action working groups that we
    are trying to start up here that will look at more complex
    situations of how we can solve those problems faster. At the
    end of the day, the technology age is innovating in a whole and
    unique way, and so ironically, antiquated technology is coming
    back as very, very resilient, and so, we are looking at some of
    those methods, even AM radio, to really make sure that
    Americans have more options. What we want is redundancy.
        Mrs. Hinson. Redundancy, resiliency. That is what we both
    open up. Thank you so much. I appreciate your testimony and
    answering your questions.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you. Now to the gentleman from the Aloha
    State, Mr. Case, the floor is yours for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Hamilton, Aloha. In September 2024, then-candidate
    Trump, on a visit to Ashville, North Carolina, in the wake of
    Hurricane Helene stated, quote, ``I think frankly FEMA's not
    good. FEMA has turned out to be a disaster. I think we are
    going to recommend that FEMA go away,'' unquote. On January
    22nd, President Trump stated, quote, all FEMA does is
    complicate everything. FEMA has not done its job for the last 4
    years.
        In August of 2023, a once and forever wildfire ripped
    through Maui, in particular Lahaina. The town of Lahaina was
    destroyed. 102 people died. There were roughly 12,000--2,200
    structures destroyed, 12,000 people displaced, 7,000 people
    directly benefiting from FEMA on the ground. FEMA's
    expenditures to date have been north of $700 million direct and
    other Federal agencies north of $1 billion in response.
    Economic damage was in the range of 4 to $6 billion, as high as
    $10 billion plus.
        We do not, on Maui, based on our own experience, believe
    that FEMA should go away. We do not believe that it complicates
    everything. We do not believe that it didn't do its job. In
    fact, FEMA helped us to save the day after a devastating
    disaster. FEMA has done an excellent job on Maui, and the
    people in FEMA who did that job for us do not deserve this
    rhetoric. Do not deserve that rhetoric. And as I said to the
    Secretary yesterday, the campaign is over. It is time for us to
    put this stuff away so that we can have a productive discussion
    about what federalism means in emergency management. I am all
    in on that discussion. But this is not the way to do that.
        Now, in the subject of trying to understand what your
    budget means for the appropriations committee here, if I
    understand correctly what your skinny budget indicates is that
    you are intending to fundamentally continue, if not increase,
    direct FEMA disaster relief, so direct relief. In other words,
    to a disaster. I am breaking this down into really prevention
    mitigation which is pre-disaster, at least in my mind, and then
    emergency response and recovery on the back end.
        My understanding is you are not particularly going after
    the back end, but you are going after the front end for sure.
    And I believe that I understand that somewhere around $3
    billion in the FEMA non-disaster category, you are proposing to
    reduce that FEMA non-disaster category by $646 million, which
    is 20 percent of that slice.
        You have directly called out the violence and terrorism
    prevention grant of $18 million. You have also directly called
    out the national domestic preparedness consortium of $91
    million. That leaves me with a math missing in the non-disaster
    of $537 million. Is your view then that that $537 million is
    subject to a federalism debate and that State and county
    governments or somebody else should take that over?
        Primarily, I think in the prevention and mitigation side of
    this, so try to keep disasters from occurring to start with,
    and consider that if we had prevented Maui from occurring to
    start with, or anybody else, whether it be Hurricane Helene or
    California or Florida or Louisiana, we may not have had a
    multibillion dollar Federal obligation on the back end. So what
    is going on with your proposed cuts on the nondisaster
    side? What else are you proposing to cut?
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir that is a great question. I will
    tell you that we stand again consistent with the President's
    agenda on his recommendations for our budget, and there are
    some--we are looking to overhaul the grant process entirely;
    again as I mentioned earlier, preparedness versus risk
    reduction, and so there is several different grants that you
    will likely see in the future of proposed where they are sort
    of consolidated, made simpler, less grant programs, greater
    options and availability, there is discussions ongoing about
    what block grants would look like, how they are executed giving
    subprograms for them on the preparedness side. And so we are
    unpacking each of that as it currently sits.
        On each of these subgrant discussions on what makes up that
    total number, I would be happy to follow up with you on more
    specifics and show you specifically where we are looking at
    additional cuts so that we can----
        Mr. Case. Well, we can do that in the process. I am just
    interested in what you are trying to cut other than the things
    you have called out, because it is a pretty big cut in that
    category. 20 percent. Thank you.
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from the Magnolia State, Mr.
    Guest, is recognized for questions for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Acting Administrator Hamilton, thank you for first for
    your service, your military service. Thank you for your service
    to the Department of Homeland Security and thank you for
    agreeing to take on this new role.
        I want to speak briefly. There was some discussions about
    the fact that the former--that the President, when he was
    running for reelection, was talking about defunding FEMA, but
    it would seem to me that your budget represents something
    completely opposite. Looking at the math, it looks like that
    you are requesting a 17\1/2\ percent increase in disaster
    relief funding. But there is a desire, I believe, to make FEMA
    more streamlined, more agile, more responsive, because just
    looking at an article from PBS, not necessarily what would be
    considered a beacon of conservativism, in January of last year,
    they said recovering from national--natural disasters is slow
    and bureaucratic.
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Guest. And I think that is what we have with FEMA now.
    FEMA has become a bureaucracy.
        Mr. Hamilton. Right.
        Mr. Guest. And FEMA needs to be streamlined. FEMA needs to
    be agile. FEMA needs to be able to respond at a moment's
    notice, which I believe was the intent of FEMA when it was
    created.
        I want to talk just briefly about I know that the President
    has established a FEMA review council. One of the members on
    that review council is former governor of great State of
    Mississippi, Phil Bryant, and I have had a chance to have some
    conversations with him, and he is excited to serve, but can you
    talk a little bit about the FEMA review council, kind of what
    their mission is and what recommendations that you hope that
    they will return to FEMA, that then you can act upon at that
    point.
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir. That is an excellent question. And
    I will tell you that the EO--most of us have read the executive
    order from the President on what the council is and some of the
    responsibilities. We look at this as really an all-star roster
    of individuals with various experiences and background to give
    the President their perspective on ways to enhance bureaucratic
    inefficiencies to make this agency better.
        Reform is absolutely something that is necessary for this
    agency. As we have seen before, I agree the workforce is
    tremendous and amazing and they do a lot of great work, but
    there is also systems and processes that are completely
    antiquated and have to be improved. We are using financial
    systems using COBOL, which is designed from the 1970s. Cold
    war-resilient capabilities with our financial tracking, which
    my CFO over here will probably be laughing about in the
    background, because it is not exactly the easiest to use. The
    review council is an opportunity for us to really grab anything
    and everything in the area of emergency management about how we
    can simply get better.
        The private industry has a lot of insight and concern. The
    insurance industry is a key--there is a representative from the
    insurance industry that is going to be on the review council as
    well so that the President can have a whole-of-community
    approach on all the different equities that touch emergency
    management and disasters, and inform him on what the outcomes
    are really should be achieved for ideal scenarios.
        I think the review council specifically will be focused on
    outcomes of key incidents so that they can inform the Secretary
    of Defense and Secretary of DHS to then speak with the
    President on elements that we can really manage and address
    within the organization to make us faster and better.
        Mr. Guest. First, thank you for establishing this all-star
    group, and thank you for thinking outside the box, because I do
    think that we need to do everything within our power for FEMA
    not to be viewed as a bureaucracy by our local governments,
    State governments, as they are seeking help in their time of
    need.
        We often, as Members of Congress, we get called by our
    counties, by our municipalities, and they become extremely
    frustrated. They become frustrated with the process. They
    become frustrated with the time it takes for the process to be
    carried out. And so, anything that we can do to streamline the
    process, to cut the bureaucracy will be well-received.
        And speaking of that, before I surrender the rest of my
    time, I would be remiss if I did not talk about a Mississippi
    specific incident. In March 15th, we had a series of tornadoes
    that touched through Mississippi and impacted 20 counties for
    roughly a quarter of our States, six fatalities. On April the
    1st, our Governor submitted a request for disaster relief. On
    the 2nd there was a letter sent by the delegation in support of
    that. Since that time we are--my office has been in touch with
    members of FEMA, with our White House liaison, and actually
    spoke with Secretary Noem about this just yesterday when she
    testified, but I would ask if you can please review that
    request.
        Again, this is one of the frustrations that we see. This is
    a reason that I believe that FEMA has become a bureaucracy is
    because it takes weeks, and in some cases, months, to get these
    disaster requests either approved or denied.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you. The gentleman from the Grand Canyon
    State, Mr. Ciscomani is recognized for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hamilton, nice to meet you. Thank you so much for being
    here. Thank you, again, as my colleagues have thanked you for
    your service and your continued service as a first responder
    and now in this role. Very much appreciate it.
        I want to talk to you about SSP and the history of that.
    That is one of the grant programs that I am glad to see is no
    longer needed under this administration, under the leadership
    here, the service and shelter program. I was very frustrated
    with the program for several reasons. One of them is that it
    provided a lot of the funding to States that were not border
    States, States that were actually not being as impacted as my
    State was on this.
        The Federal dollars to the jurisdictions nowhere near the
    border to deal with the border crisis, and also that many of
    these jurisdictions accepting and applying for SSP dollars were
    actually not complying with other parts of the Department. So
    we saw that go on and on for a number of years. Many of us were
    voicing our strong opposition to that, and so, I am glad to see
    where it is at now.
        One of the questions that I always had and never was
    answered, and maybe you have it now or you can find it for us
    is, do you have any breakdown of how many of these dollars went
    to southern border communities and non-border communities or
    States, a breakdown of that?
        Mr. Hamilton. I don't have that here currently on me, but
    we do have that information, and we would be happy to provide
    that to you in followup.
        Mr. Ciscomani. I am very interested in that.
        Secondly to that, if you can provide or can you work to
    follow up on how many dollars went to sanctuary, or non-ICE-
    complying jurisdictions. I would also like to know the
    information for that.
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir. We would be able to follow up with
    that information, again, to both you as well as the entire
    subcommittee with all that information.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Yeah, yeah. Very important to know the
    distinction of how these dollars were used.
        Now, on to something else here. It has been previously
    brought up by Ms. Escobar, previously mentioned here today, the
    initial budget request regarding the SAFER and AFG grant there
    as well.
        On that program in my district, the SAFER and AFG grant
    programs in particular, have been critical to providing State
    and local agencies with the resources they need to hire more
    firefighters and emergency responders and much needed equipment
    and overtime pay for first responders who are already in the
    front lines, particularly in the rural communities. That is an
    area that--that is the majority of my district in terms of
    geography in my district, and access to these Federal dollars
    is critical.
        Can you just break down for me the value that you see in
    these programs and what--what in them do you see restructuring
    or a potential cut in that, or what is going to happen there?
        Mr. Hamilton. So first, as a first responder, I cannot tell
    you how important they are for our society and for our people.
    They are truly the first line of defense, and I will tell you
    that the Assistance to Firefighter Grant, the SAFER grant,
    those are crucially important.
        It is our hope to be able to move those forward here soon.
    We have some decision-making conversations with the Department
    on how to ensure that our grants are accountable and
    transparent for the taxpayer, but it is my hope that we will be
    able to move these forward and we will be able to support these
    amazing men and women of our fire communities and the work that
    they do.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Yeah. I am all--and I am very supportive of
    the accountability, the transparency required in these dollars.
    I think you are right, part of the challenge with FEMA is so
    much flows through there and moves quickly, and sometimes--you
    know, and maybe sometimes intentionally, with little oversight.
    And that has been the problem. So I am glad you are looking
    into it.
        I think the whole effort overall of the government
    accountability piece of this is to find what is not working and
    do away what is not. But also, I think in that process you find
    what is working and where not only should we protect some of
    these programs and the funding for it, in some cases increase
    it, if it merits it, and if there are metrics that show how it
    is working.
        So hopefully you can find that along the way, and you can
    spot some of the programs like this one that work.
        With the minute that I have left on the oversight, speaking
    of that, we heard yesterday from Secretary Noem about the need
    to restructure FEMA. And I understand that there is an ongoing
    review happening to advise the President on capabilities and
    needs to address disaster moving forward.
        While the Federal Government may not be needed to address
    every disaster, I do believe that the Federal Government should
    continue to focus on reducing the loss of life and property for
    major disasters and terrorism.
        What metrics do you believe are needed to ensure that every
    grant dollar is being used effectively within the Department?
        Mr. Hamilton. As far as the individual metrics, that is
    probably a lengthier conversation we have than in the 20
    seconds here.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Seventeen.
        Mr. Hamilton. Exactly. But I can tell you that I would be
    happy to discuss that with you, specifically some of the way in
    which we rate those. But as it pertains towards disasters, we
    want to ensure that investments that are made allow communities
    to recover quickly. In addition to that, we want to be able to
    analyze overall risk reduction of communities. Have we actually
    made them more resilient so that when future incidents occur,
    you have a less likelihood--excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I have
    gone over my time, my apologies.
        Mr. Amodei. Please continue.
        Mr. Hamilton. Thank you--you have a less of a likelihood of
    incurring future costs down the road with repeat--kind of
    repeat offenders, if you will, or repeat incidents that happen
    routinely and back to back. It is our goal to ensure that we
    bring about resources in a way that doesn't do that----
        Mr. Ciscomani. Yeah.
        Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. Because that is not serving the
    American people first.
        Mr. Ciscomani. That is great. I want to continue that
    conversation also on the bureaucratic side of things, so a lot
    more on that are very interested.
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ciscomani. And, again, thank you for being here, for
    your service, and I look forward to working with you in the
    future.
        Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. Mr. Administrator, because of the generosity of
    Mr. Newhouse, we had a couple extra minutes that I could
    transfer over to the Ciscomani account, but I appreciate you
    being mindful of that.
        The chair now recognizes the distinguished ranking member
    for the full committee from the Constitution State, Ms.
    DeLauro. The floor is yours for 5 minutes of questions.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
    thank you and the ranking member for the hearing, and thank you
    for pointing out that Connecticut is the Constitution State.
        Let me just say, Mr. Hamilton, welcome to the committee,
    thank you.
        Let me address an elephant in the room that chairman of the
    full committee, Mr. Cole, recently addressed in the media: The
    status of the Disaster Relief Fund.
        We understand the Disaster Relief Fund is expected to end
    the year with a deficit of $9 billion, which is before the cost
    of any further disasters this year.
        I am concerned that FEMA is telling States and local
    governments that they are on their own. We all know that Elon
    Musk is proposing disastrous cuts to NOAA and the National
    Weather Service, which will limit our ability to forecast
    deadly storms, provide good information to communities before
    disaster strikes. That means communities will make fewer
    preparations and the resulting cost to them will be higher.
        Is there a request coming for emergency supplemental money
    based on the dire situation the Disaster Relief Fund faces?
        Mr. Hamilton. We are not submitting a supplementary at this
    time, ma'am. We are going to allow the appropriation process to
    move forward, and we stand by some decisions that we have made
    that help insulate the DRF to ensure that we don't hit those
    INF thresholds as quickly as we have before.
        Ms. DeLauro. Well, we would like to know what those
    specifics are in that effort.
        Is FEMA prepared for the upcoming hurricane season, year-
    round fire season with the dangerously low Disaster Relief Fund
    balance?
        Mr. Hamilton. Again, a fantastic question. There are always
    challenges that we have to work through, and I do think that I
    have one of the greatest workforces in the entire Federal
    Government who are committed to ensuring that we meet the
    mission.
        So we are focusing on ways to make us operationally more
    capable and also finding ways to be more fiscally practical
    with our means so that we don't buttress up against those kind
    of thresholds nearly as quickly as before.
        Ms. DeLauro. So you are not going to address the $9 billion
    deficit. What you are going to tell us is how you are going to
    address that $9 billion deficit that we anticipate for the
    Disaster Relief Fund. So you are going to get us that
    information?
        Mr. Hamilton. We will. We would be more than happy----
        Ms. DeLauro. How?
        Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. To provide you specifics on
    exactly the decisions that have been made to plus-up----
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay.
        Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. The DRF using other existing
    funds.
        Ms. DeLauro. Because if I recall, there was an estimate
    that we were about $22 billion, with current disaster efforts
    that already have occurred around the country. So that seems--I
    would be interested to see how you square that circle of the 9-
    plus--20-plus in meeting the needs of the constituencies that
    have been hit by disaster.
        Kentucky Governor Beshear pointed out that, and I quote,
    replicating FEMA's administrative functions in each State would
    be far more costly than a single national agency, end quote.
        How does the individual State recovery result in an overall
    savings for the people of America where there have been 1,400
    disasters over the past decade?
        Mr. Hamilton. That is a--again, thank you for the question.
    I would say that we want to find thresholds whereby the States
    can manage reasonable outcomes in lower-level disasters that
    may not incur and push FEMA and Federal resources into some of
    those kind of thresholds unless they meet a very, very high
    standard and burden.
        So that is what we are kind of looking at. We are not
    looking at a future without Federal assistance----
        Ms. DeLauro. So you are going to categorize disasters--low,
    medium, high--and then make a determination of, you know,
    States, whatever else, Federal dollars, et cetera. So you are
    going to just categorize every one of these disasters that
    occur so that they fit in a bucket of where they are going to
    get--where the money is going to come from?
        Mr. Hamilton. It is a little more complex than that. I will
    say what we are looking at is the ideas of when investments are
    made, what is the overall impact, what is the State's actual
    capability. We are looking at proposals that even require
    States to demonstrate what their insurance levels are, things
    to that nature, so that we can analyze each State and territory
    on an individual basis and assess their needs.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. If that--it would be very helpful, I
    think, to this committee for us to know what the criteria is
    going to be with regard to that.
        Let me just--yesterday the Secretary testified, Secretary
    Noem testified. Quite honestly, I found her responses confusing
    and inadequate.
        In response to my question asking her about whether or not
    this administration seeks to eliminate FEMA, this was her
    response, and I quote, President Trump has been very clear
    since the beginning that he believes that FEMA and its response
    in many, many circumstances has failed the American people and
    that FEMA, as it exists today, should be eliminated and
    empowering States to respond to disasters with Federal
    Government support.
        A clear answer. Does this administration seek to eliminate
    FEMA, and do you support eliminating FEMA?
        Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Chairman, would you like me to answer the
    question?
        Ms. DeLauro. Please.
        Mr. Amodei. I am not going to let you off that easy.
    Nothing personal.
        Mr. Hamilton. No, I completely understand.
        As the senior advisor to the President----
        Ms. DeLauro. Yeah.
        Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. On disasters and emergency
    management, and to the Secretary of Homeland Security----
        Ms. DeLauro. Yeah.
        Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. I do not believe it is in the
    best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay
        Mr. Hamilton. Having said that, I am not in the position to
    make decisions and impact outcomes on whether or not a
    determination such as consequential as that should be made.
    That is a conversation that should be had between the President
    of the United States and this governing body on identifying the
    exact ways and methodologies in which what is prudent for
    Federal investment and what is not, if that answers your
    question.
        Ms. DeLauro. Well, that is why I say it was a confusing
    answer, because I can only determine from that answer that
    FEMA, as it exists today, should be eliminated. Those are not
    my words--``eliminated.''
        And so I hear your answer, and it should be, you know,
    between the executive and the governing body, because we are
    the United States Congress that makes those decisions.
        The Secretary--also in the Secretary's testimony, she said
    there was dysfunction at FEMA. I asked about dysfunction and
    examples of dysfunction. There were unable to provide me with
    any of that yesterday.
        I would hope, in conversation with her, that you might let
    us know, but what is dysfunctional with FEMA so that we can
    address those issues.
        Now, absent any examples, what I do have is a list of State
    by State Federal disaster relief funding that has been provided
    over the past 20 years, including $2 billion to my home State
    of Connecticut. Just this past August, FEMA was instrumental in
    helping the residents of my State respond to, build back, from
    the damage caused by historic flooding. The total for all
    States, D.C., and territories, is over $424 billion.
        And for information for my colleagues on the subcommittee,
    Arizona, over this period of time, $2.1 billion; California,
    $34.8 billion; I mentioned Connecticut; Florida, $35.3 billion;
    Hawaii, $3.9 billion; Illinois, $5.9 billion; Iowa, $4.1
    billion; Louisiana, $56 billion; Mississippi, $12.2; Nevada,
    $813 billion; Texas, $38.6 billion; Washington State, $4.7
    billion.
        I ask anyone here on this committee, you tell me whether
    your State government has the ability to be able to provide the
    kinds of dollars we are talking about to help States recover
    from a disaster, a natural disaster which they had nothing to
    do with.
        And I think, Acting Director, that this is really playing
    fast and loose with an agency that has provided the opportunity
    for recovery and rebuilding, whether it is for families and
    businesses. And to be so cavalier--and I am not suggesting you
    are--to say that as FEMA exists now we should eliminate it, I
    suggest that there be some hard and fast conversations.
        I appreciate your answer on what your recommendation will
    be. You know, you are not going to make the final
    recommendation, but that final recommendation I believe resides
    here.
        This is the law of the land. This is the power of the
    purse. This is what we do. And what is being done is unlawful
    and illegal, and we are going to continue to push that point
    and make it obvious to the people of this country what in fact
    is about to hit them when all of a sudden the rains come down,
    the fires blossom, and then there is--Federal Government says,
    well, let's see what category you are in, you know, low-hanging
    fruit, maybe okay, maybe this is minimum, maybe Federal
    Government should say something--no, no, that is not what the
    Federal Government ought to be doing and participating in the
    lives of our States and our citizens who are really--they had
    nothing to do with a disaster--natural disaster in their
    communities.
        Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you for accommodating
    me, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Chairman, would you mind if I responded
    to that, sir?
        Mr. Amodei. Well, we are nowhere near on time, so please
    proceed.
        Mr. Hamilton. Very good.
        I appreciate your comments about empathizing with
    survivors. I can tell you that I bring my own and personal
    family experiences of survivors as well. My parents' home
    burned down when I was a child. Again, I know what it is like
    to have friends, family, and loved ones who have lost their
    homes in the fires of Northern California in 2017 where I
    actually grew up in Sonoma County.
        Ms. DeLauro. Yeah.
        Mr. Hamilton. I can also tell you what it is like to have
    family in western North Carolina personally impacted by recent
    events. And my parents moved to Florida. They were personally
    impacted, again, from the hurricanes that are down there.
        My concern and my principal focus with this agency is there
    is meaningful reform which must take place because we have to
    make it better, efficient, more solvent, and ensure that we get
    survivors the assistance they need in a timely manner.
        I just want--I want you to understand, that is my singular
    focus, making this----
        Ms. DeLauro. I appreciate your--I do----
        Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. Faster and better at meeting the
    needs----
        Ms. DeLauro. And all of us on this committee look to see
    where one can bolster, make--you know, make stronger programs,
    look at what works, look at what doesn't work, but that is not
    in the jurisdiction of an individual or even in the inherent--
    there is no inherent authority for the President to do this.
        It is what the Constitution--and I am glad I am from the
    Constitution State, because, in fact, the Constitution says in
    Article I the power of the purse resides here.
        You want to make changes? Let's make changes together. This
    is not a unilateral decision, and that is all that we have
    seen, not only here, but across the board, with what is
    happening. It is unacceptable.
        Thank you. Thank you for your, you know, your comments. I
    appreciate that a lot.
        Mr. Hamilton. Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. No offense to either of the last two speakers,
    but we are putting this fire out right now.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Here is the water.
        Mr. Amodei. Yeah, thank you.
        Even though all of my time has been taken up by others for
    questioning----
        Mr. Ciscomani. Mainly Newhouse.
        Mr. Amodei. Yeah, it is all Newhouse's fault.
        Just a couple of quick things. And first of all, I am
    pleased to hear that when you are talking about as you are
    going through this process and you are going to evaluate
    States, that that is not a one size fits all. Because I think
    the point has been made, it is like, I mean, next door to me is
    California which has a phenomenal, millions of dollars disaster
    relief agency or office of emergency--whatever they call it,
    and just a little bit to the east, to those of us from the
    wrong side of the tracks, it is quite a bit less. So one size
    doesn't fit all.
        I want to talk a little bit with you about the BRIC
    projects. And I want to start, first of all, with--it would be
    nice to know, however the program goes forward--and I assume it
    will in some way, shape, or form--that when FEMA is saying,
    hey, we are evaluating a request for a BRIC grant in Illinois
    or in Texas or whatever, not that you check in with us and say,
    hey, what do you think about this, but that you say, hey, by
    the way, we just awarded one in Podunk, wherever, just so you
    know.
        And I will tell you why. Because in the last 6 months where
    you folks were like, you know--and I am not--I am just saying,
    it was news to me to find out that there were three awarded
    BRIC projects within 5 miles of my front porch.
        And so how I found out about it is, somebody goes, oh, my
    God, they are cut. And I am like, what are you talking about?
        And so when you talk about creating a system--I don't want
    to create a bunch of work, but I don't think when you got--when
    you have got an application from somewhere in Connecticut, and
    you guys, in whatever your processes are, grant it, that just a
    courtesy notice goes out, that goes, hey, DeLauro, guess what,
    we just awarded a BRIC project in Wherever, Connecticut, or
    Wherever, Texas, or Wherever, Hawaii.
        And I will tell you the reason why that becomes important
    is because, first of all, it gives you a little--you will
    appreciate the phrase--situational awareness.
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. But second of all, when you go to 6 months ago
    and all of a sudden the phone starts ringing, and it is like,
    my funding for whatever is now held up, cut off, whatever, and
    you got to go back and start from what?
        And so the next part of that is, if you decide that you are
    going to do that, then you have got the database to go, hey,
    Tom Cole, we are not doing the project in Oklahoma that we had
    told you about. So that we have an opportunity to at least
    interact with you, to say, can you tell me why.
        And I will tell you why that is important. I am not trying
    to horn in on your guys' discretion or running your program,
    but what I am definitely trying to horn in on is not being
    faced with a situation where it is like the bell has already
    been rung. Now I got to unring a bell.
        And the reason that it bothers me is because when we were
    playing whack-a-mole with some of these things, like what are
    they, who is funding them, what is the deal, and you get an
    answer back from the highest levels--not FEMA--well, there was
    an algorithm and blah, blah, blah, and that is what was handed
    down to us.
        And so now--it won't shock you to hear--it is like, well,
    we will see about that.
        And so now we got to backtrack, you got to backtrack, what
    kind of shape is it in, so that it is like--I appreciate what
    you said about communications about disaster relief and all
    that, but normal operational stuff, it is my thought, unless
    you say you are missing the boat here, that we can create a
    deal where we are not playing catch-up.
        The last people in the whole process that know about it are
    the people in whose districts it is happening.
        So we will check back with you on that, but--because it is
    going to happen anyhow. I can guarantee you, when we are going
    through your stuff, one of the things that is going to be
    looking, and somebody is going to go, hey, I got BRIC'd, or
    whatever, and it had nothing to do with DEI or--you know, it is
    really sexy stuff like backup generators or a dam
    reconstruction that isn't the Oroville Dam or something like
    that.
        So to make it meaningful for everybody, I would appreciate
    it if you could get us your thoughts on how that--and listen,
    if it is like, hey, we are going to need a couple more people
    or whatever, by all means, say that----
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. So that we can make that value
    judgment.
        The last thing I am going to say is that I had asked the
    Secretary, basically along the same lines yesterday, to say,
    hey, listen, we are not going to sick, you know, zillions of
    things on you, but every member of this committee was asked to
    submit three projects that were BRIC, that were canceled in
    their district. And the Secretary supported that.
        I think you were in attendance, so I don't think I am
    making that up. So I am going to put a little more teeth to
    that, which is, we are going to ask that members on the
    committee, if you have BRIC projects that you want basically
    you guys to say, algorithm, here is the evaluation, whatever it
    is--I am not suggesting the answer, but--and we are trying not
    to overwhelm you----
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. I am going to ask members to
    submit those to the FEMA Administrator by 5 o'clock D.C. time
    tomorrow. I am guessing you are already aware of some that you
    want to submit, so it is not like--and, hey, listen, if you
    don't want to submit any, that is fine too. But that is our
    deadline.
        And then we will--and submit them through the
    Appropriations majority office so that we can give them
    directly to you. So we will need to know who to give those to,
    but we will just kind of streamline that process a little.
        And then depending on how many we get from these folks
    sitting around here, then we will talk with you and say, here
    is when we would like to kind of know. I don't think it
    requires like, here is what I did with my summer vacation, here
    is how they got cut----
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. So what we know that when it comes
    time to discuss about what we think about the program, and that
    that has got some guardrails on it, so we can get that feedback
    in a timely manner.
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I commit to working
    with you and your team and, again, this committee, to give them
    the appropriate insight into all the different projects that
    were unpacked.
        Would you like me to go into some of the rationale with how
    we came to the determinations or would you rather save some of
    that for a later date?
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you for offering, but no.
        Mr. Hamilton. Understood.
        Mr. Amodei. Nothing personal.
        So, anyhow, I think we are at the point where I will say we
    know that you will be a good partner in the upcoming fiscal
    year 2026 appropriations process, and I accept your commitment
    that communication between this committee and FEMA will be
    significantly better moving forward.
        I know there has been a lot of transition, and God knows
    there probably haven't been many boring weeks, but as we are
    getting ready to craft the 2026 bill from this committee, you
    know, the garbage in, garbage out, we are not doing garbage in,
    garbage out.
        If we don't have the information, it is going to be a
    problem. And I am not threatening you. You don't need
    threatening. We don't work that way. It is just, we need the
    information, and I don't think that is a surprise to anybody.
        We won't surprise you. Don't you surprise us.
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. Just that simple, even stephen, both ways.
        For get-back questions that members of the subcommittee had
    today, we ask that you respond within 15 business days. If
    members submit written questions to you other than the ones we
    talked about for BRIC, we are going to ask that those questions
    in writing be submitted within a week and that you respond to
    those within 25 days.
        And I would like to thank you for being here today and
    enduring the inefficient wielding of the gavel in this process,
    but you did a good job. We look forward to working with you.
        And the subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

           DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026

                                  ----------

                                                 Thursday, May 8, 2025.

       OVERSIGHT OF THE CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY

                                    WITNESS

    BRIDGET BEAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
        SECURITY AGENCY
        Mr. Amodei. Good morning. I will call this subcommittee
    meeting of the House Appropriations Committee Homeland
    Subcommittee to order.
        I thank everybody for being on time--Madam Director, Madam
    Ranking Member. It is no surprise to anybody that we have votes
    scheduled in about an hour, so we are going to endeavor to be
    crisp. I am not going to waste a bunch of time telling you how
    we are going to do that; just to say that we are reducing the
    amount of time for questioning for members to 4 minutes. I was
    going to do it for 3, but Ms. Underwood basically bullied me
    into 4, and so I got bullied, and so it is 4.
        When we get through the hearing, I am not going to adjourn
    and come back after votes; we are going to adjourn. If members
    have questions that they wanted to ask of the cybersecurity
    folks that they didn't get to ask and they don't feel good
    about submitting them in writing, then let us know and we will
    talk about maybe trying to convene another hearing before
    marking up the cybersecurity part of things.
        And so, with that, I have some nice stuff I could say here,
    but I am not going to, because I got bullied into giving
    members 4 minutes instead of 3. And so, with that, I would
    recognize the distinguished ranking member, Ms. Underwood, for
    her opening comments.
        Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
    this hearing to conduct oversight of the Cybersecurity and
    Infrastructure Security Agency.
        I would also like to welcome Ms. Bridget Bean, the Senior
    Official Performing the Duties of Director of CISA, to her
    first hearing before us.
        CISA is not a large organization, but Congress fought over
    the years to properly fund the critical responsibilities of
    your agency, growing its funding by 75 percent from fiscal year
    2019 to fiscal year 2024.
        Remarkably, these increases have consistently been with
    bipartisan support. I don't need to tell you how rare that is
    these days, and I believe it reflects the scale of the
    catastrophic cyber threats facing our country as well as the
    quality of resources and support that CISA provides.
        But instead of investing in this popular, nimble, and cost-
    efficient agency that protects nearly every aspect of
    Americans' lives, you are proposing an almost 20-percent cut to
    CISA, $491 million, and driving out the workforce through
    early-retirement buyouts and questionable terminations. That is
    not cutting fat; that is a death blow.
        This reduction in force is not based on performance but on
    things in CISA's congressionally mandated mission that the
    President is offended by, like securing America's elections
    from foreign adversaries like Russia.
        These are real threats. I represent Illinois, and during
    the 2016 elections Russian hackers penetrated the State Board
    of Elections' voter registration database, stealing the
    personal data of about 76,000 Illinois voters.
        CISA was created to protect the Nation's critical
    infrastructure from physical and cyber threats, which includes
    election infrastructure. Therefore, you cannot claim to be
    refocusing on core missions like enhancing the security or
    resilience of critical infrastructure while also eliminating
    election-security support and staff.
        Unfortunately, CISA is not the only area suffering as this
    administration weakens our Nation's cybersecurity
    vulnerabilities. Cabinet Secretaries are putting American lives
    at risk by avoiding secure communications. The FBI's Foreign
    Influence Task Force has been disbanded. The head of U.S. Cyber
    Command has been fired, with no replacement.
        This is all happening at a time when national-security and
    cybersecurity experts have urged greater investments in cyber
    defense and offense, particularly as cyber crime proliferates
    and China and Russia have sought to interfere with our economy,
    our elections, our healthcare systems, and our security. Our
    adversaries are upping their game every day, growing
    significantly, while this budget would take us backwards.
        These aren't hypothetical threats. China is ramping up
    attacks on our telecommunications and energy sectors. Schools
    and hospitals in my district have had to close after ransomware
    attacks.
        So my question is, why? Why is this administration so
    determined to degrade the core cyber defenses that keep America
    safe?
        Is it to privatize CISA functions so that the tech CEOs who
    sat front-row at President Trump's inauguration can profit off
    of them and lock small competitors out?
        Is it to let Putin and his cronies around the world who
    support the President interfere in our elections?
        Is it to make government services more difficult and
    frustrating to access so Americans will support your efforts to
    dismantle them?
        Is it being driven by some ask from anonymous investors in
    the President's crypto scheme?
        I don't know the answer. But what I do know is that this
    committee will continue to fulfill our Article I
    responsibilities under the Constitution regardless of the chaos
    and corruption of this administration.
        We will have questions for you today on your plans to
    improve the core functions of CISA, fulfill the mission that
    Congress designated, and expand much-needed capabilities with
    the reduction in staff and resources you are requesting in this
    budget.
        Lastly, I would like to thank the women and men of CISA
    working 24/7 to combat threats facing our Nation's networks,
    critical infrastructure, elections, emergency communications,
    schools, hospitals, and public gatherings while a new
    administration creates job uncertainty and the fear of
    politically motivated reprisal.
        Thank you again, Ms. Bean, for being here today, and I look
    forward to your testimony and answers to our questions.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, ma'am. So, between the two of us,
    with your statement, our average is pretty good. We are ahead
    of schedule.
        Ms. Underwood. I think we are doing great.
        Mr. Amodei. Madam Director, the floor is yours.

                       STATEMENT OF BRIDGET BEAN

        Ms. Bean. Good morning. Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member
    Underwood, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
    Security Agency's priorities and our efforts to protect our
    Nation.
        I am honored to serve as the Senior Official Performing the
    Duties of the Director and the Executive Director of CISA. My
    decades of civil service have well-prepared me for this role,
    having previously served at the Small Business Administration
    and at the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
        I joined CISA in 2022 as our first Chief Integration
    Officer, leading CISA's operations integrations across the
    Nation to deliver mission-critical services more rapidly and in
    support of our critical infrastructure. This work made clear
    that cybersecurity and infrastructure security is national
    security.
        As the Nation's cyber defense agency and the national
    coordinator for critical infrastructure and security and
    resilience, CISA leads the national effort to understand,
    manage, and reduce risk to the cyber and physical
    infrastructure that Americans rely on every day.
        CISA is committed to executing our core mission as
    authorized by Congress. Our agency has swiftly and responsibly
    implemented this administration's executive orders and
    supporting guidance. Aligned with administration priorities, we
    are laser-focused on our statutorily authorized cybersecurity,
    infrastructure security, and emergency communications missions.
        The threats facing our Nation, they are not hypothetical;
    they are real. And our adversaries are directly targeting our
    critical infrastructure in unprecedented ways. We know this
    because the talented workforce at CISA has detected these
    adversaries.
        CISA's workforce, operating on the front line of national
    security, is our greatest asset. I want to thank them
    personally, each and every one of them, for their unwavering
    dedication, professionalism, and service to our Nation.
        Since January 2025, we have continued to drive
    vulnerability risk reduction in Federal departments and
    critical infrastructure. We have increased visibility across
    networks and strengthened cybersecurity. We have released
    operational products with partners, including the FBI and NSA,
    warning infrastructure of pressing threats and urging specific
    mitigations.
        We have delivered 269 terrorism-mitigation courses for more
    than 5,000 folks across the country, with 94 percent of those
    who participated responding that that training has enhanced
    their preparedness. We conducted 68 exercises, most recently
    the one in Philadelphia convening hundreds of emergency
    managers in support of the 2026 World Cup.
        We have completed 9,400 cyber and physical assessments and
    trainings for State and locals as well as critical-
    infrastructure owners and operators. We have conducted more
    than 4,000 notifications to warn entities of early-stage
    ransomware activity before malicious actors could take action.
    This results in uninterrupted service and billions of dollars
    in estimated savings because the ransomware could not be
    deployed.
        We have expanded CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerability
    Catalog to over 1,300 vulnerabilities. As a result of this, the
    private sector has remediated vulnerabilities identified by
    CISA an average of 15 months earlier. This is critical when we
    are defending against nation-state actors and persistent threat
    of ransomware.
        State, local, and Tribal and territorial governments and
    those who have signed up for CISA'S vulnerability scanning
    services saw a 31-percent reduction in exploitable
    vulnerabilities. We have deployed endpoint detection and
    response technologies across Federal agencies to more than
    415,000 endpoints, enabling rapid detection and response.
        We have blocked 700 million malicious connections across
    the Federal Government and more than 60 million across critical
    infrastructure. This is just in the first quarter of 2025
    alone.
        These examples illustrate that CISA is operating with a
    clear vision to defend and secure the Federal civilian
    enterprise, to strength the physical and cybersecurity of the
    United States critical infrastructure, to incentivize the
    development and procurement of trustworthy technology, to lead
    the United States Government's coordinated cyber defense
    operations, and to unify our national response to significant
    cyber incidents by coordinating between government, industry,
    and our international partners.
        With the support of Congress, we have strengthened our
    ability to detect, analyze, and respond to cyber and physical
    threats faster and more effectively than ever before.
        There is no shortage of work ahead, and we are committed to
    operating with transparency, accountability, and efficiency as
    we confront the threats of today and prepare for those of
    tomorrow. I look forward to working with all of you to
    strengthen CISA's capabilities to enhance the security and
    resilience of our Nation's infrastructure.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to be here, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Madam Director.
        The chair now recognizes the ranking member. The floor is
    yours for 4 minutes for your questions.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Jumping right into it, my first one should be easy, a
    simple ``yes''' or ``no.'' Is Russia still a cybersecurity
    threat and priority for this administration and CISA?
        Ms. Bean. Yes.
        Ms. Underwood. Excellent. I am glad to hear that.
        And I want to discuss with you CISA'S response to a recent
    incident at the National Labor Relations Board, which protects
    the legal rights of American workers.
        Public reporting indicates that, in March, a whistleblower
    complaint was filed against a DOGE team at NLRB for removing
    massive amounts of sensitive data from the agency with no
    legitimate justification. The whistleblower reported a, quote,
    ``spike in data leaving the agency'' after DOGE was granted
    access to it. Among other things, it is possible this data
    included corporate secrets and private information on union
    members.
        At the same time, DOGE employees turned off monitoring
    tools, manually deleted records of what they accessed, and
    sought to ensure their activities weren't logged in the system.
        As soon as DOGE got there, the agency started detecting
    suspicious login attempts from an IP address in Russia. So
    NLRB's IT department launched a formal review of what it deemed
    a serious, ongoing security breach or potentially illegal
    removal of personally identifiable information.
        Normally, at this point, a CISA Computer Emergency
    Readiness Team would be created to respond. But public
    reporting indicates this never happened because instructions,
    quote, ``had come down'' to drop the US-CERT reporting and
    investigation.
        And the whistleblower who made the complaint found a
    threatening note taped to his door with sensitive personal info
    and a drone shot of him walking his dog.
        Who decided not to create a Computer Emergency Readiness
    Team in this instance? And was it someone at CISA or elsewhere
    in the administration?
        Ms. Bean. So what I can tell you is that CISA supports all
    of our Federal civilian agencies----
        Ms. Underwood. Right.
        Ms. Bean [continuing]. Through the protection of sensitive
    data and sensitive systems, through targeting capabilities,
    products, hands-on technical assistance, and collaboration,
    providing resources.
        And we would be happy to work with the NLRB when asked, but
    we have not, you know, and we are happy to do that.
        Ms. Underwood. So you did not receive a request?
        Ms. Bean. Not to my knowledge.
        Ms. Underwood. Okay.
        So what is the standard procedure at CISA now for
    investigations involving the misuse of sensitive data and
    incursions by bad actors like Russia?
        Ms. Bean. So I think that there is--what I would like to
    point out is that we are on the cybersecurity side of the
    house, right? So we are helping agencies to protect their
    systems and their sensitive information. So, you know, we are
    happy to help with some forensics with NLRB.
        The other thing is, you know, I think the DOGE employees
    are Federal employees, and, you know, they are held to the same
    rules of behavior and engagement, and I have every reason to
    believe that they are doing that.
        Ms. Underwood. Can you commit to providing us regular and
    timely updates into the investigation into what happened with
    NLRB as you do your forensics and the other----
        Ms. Bean. If we are asked----
        Ms. Underwood [continuing]. Investigations?
        Ms. Bean. Yes, ma'am. If we are asked to do so, we will
    provide updates.
        Ms. Underwood. Okay.
        I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, ma'am.
        Ms. Underwood. Three minutes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you very much. That is what they call a
    leader in my State.
        Ms. Underwood. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Amodei. Good for you.
        If at any point in time during the questioning the answer
    is appropriately, ``I would love to talk to you guys in a SCIF
    about it,'' let us know, and we will arrange that.
        Mrs. Hinson, you are recognized for 4 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
    ranking member for holding this hearing.
        Acting Director, thank you so much for being here today.
        As a member of the China Select Committee, I have seen
    firsthand, obviously, many of the threats that face our
    country--the work there, the adversaries, the tools that they
    are using to come after the United States and target our
    citizens. So agencies like yours are very, very important.
        The CCP is actively exploiting gaps in infrastructure to
    sow that chaos and instability, embedding within our critical
    systems, and positioning to strike when it suits them. As we
    know, we saw with the recent Volt and Salt Typhoon campaigns,
    obviously, operations that were carefully planned, well-
    resourced, and executed with precision. They make (ph) the
    strategic intent and long-term capabilities of CCP state-
    sponsored actors to carry out covert attacks on us.
        And this is a threat not only to our national security but
    to every American's life, so I think it is a threat we cannot
    ignore. And I know you are taking it very seriously.
        So I want to talk about a program that I think is
    absolutely essential in this, and it is the Attack Surface
    Management program. Obviously, this is about not only
    identifying and going in forensically, like you said, auditing
    this and catching it, but patching the vulnerabilities before
    our adversaries can exploit them.
        So do you consider this program to be one of CISA's core
    cybersecurity capabilities? How are you leveraging this program
    to really help our partners defend against these sophisticated
    nation-state actors?
        Ms. Bean. Very important question. You are absolutely
    right. So this Attack Surface Management, it is one of our core
    capabilities. It is a pivotal--it is a critical pillar of our
    cyber defense program at CISA.
        And it is unique inasmuch as it is one of the most scalable
    programs we have, and it takes an attacker's approach, so it is
    looking from the outside in. Most CISOs and CIOs are looking at
    their environment from the inside. This is a way to scan across
    the horizon, across the network, across the internet, and see
    what are those vulnerabilities, where are they. And with that
    information, we actually are able to go to critical
    infrastructure and private sector and say, ``Hey, you have this
    vulnerability, but the good news is you can patch it and you
    can protect yourself.''
        So the Attack Surface Management, not only is it one of our
    most scalable, cost-effective tools we have, it is the most
    effective in identifying vulnerabilities and providing an
    entity to fix that, to mitigate that challenge. It reduces
    risks. It enables proactive measures.
        And as entities continue to build their attack surface--you
    know, you add a device, you add a software, you have cloud, you
    have got mobile devices. All of that expands the attack surface
    that an adversary can capitalize on. This tool really allows,
    through partnership between the government, CISA, and private
    entity, to identify those vulnerabilities and to fix them.
        Mrs. Hinson. Well, certainly, I think the partnerships that
    you have at the State and local level, too, all the way down to
    the business community, it is critical. And I think that the
    strike teams, as they were called, and, you know, getting out
    and actually communicating that is critically important.
        One followup, last question. You know, your predecessor was
    really outspoken about the national-security risks associated
    with TikTok, as well, regarding that access to personal
    devices, data harvesting that comes from that.
        Do you share that assessment? And how are you at CISA
    evaluating or responding to those risks?
        Ms. Bean. Absolutely. I think, as you know, TikTok is not
    authorized on any Federal network.
        And what we are also trying to do is make sure that we are
    raising the awareness that cybersecurity is everyone's concern.
    And you mentioned it earlier, right? It is a team sport. It is
    the Federal, State, and local, but also individuals. And so
    making sure that our small businesses, our K-12s, our students
    understand the risk and how it really plays into their everyday
    life, that is an important role we play to help educate the
    community on the threats and the risks.
        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mrs. Hinson.
        Mr. Cuellar, you have the floor for 4 minutes.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, first of all, Director Bean, I want to wish you a
    happy Mother's Day.
        Ms. Bean. Thank you.
        Mr. Cuellar. All of you all also, happy Mother's Day.
        And, guys, please don't forget, buy your cards, your
    flowers, and whatever you need to do for Sunday.
        So, with that, I would just say, happy Mother's Day on
    Sunday.
        But let me talk a little bit about efficiency,
    effectiveness, and accountability. Look, I think we are all on
    the same page. We want to get rid of inefficiencies and waste
    and all that. It is how we get there, is where, you know, we
    have seen it.
        I know, in Texas, working with the comptroller, John Sharp,
    and the legislature in the 1990s, we did this--``Doggy'' I
    think is what they call it, but DOGE--without cutting people
    and without cutting services. But we found billions and
    billions of dollars of savings without cutting services and
    personnel. So there is a way of doing this.
        From there, years later, Congress, in a bipartisan way,
    passed a law back in 2010, the Government Performance and
    Results Modernization Act. And there is another law that is
    there. And, you know, it calls for annual operational reviews
    to make sure that, you know, we get this efficiency. It calls
    for regulatory modernization--that is, anything that--rules
    that are obsolete or costly, it calls for that. That is the law
    already.
        It calls for development of performance measures. You know,
    the problem is, you all develop the performance measures in a
    vacuum--and I am talking about just the executive branch--
    without sending anything over to us. They are put on a web
    page, and I am sure yours is on a web page.
        And then the other thing tied up is calling for competitive
    contracting. That is a different law.
        You know, budgets--and I think every agency that has any
    contract has a problem with on budget and on time. And there
    are penalties that you can enforce under the law where, if
    somebody doesn't do the contract, after you get a competitive
    contract, if they are not on time or they are not on budget,
    there are penalties. But the Federal Government, I still
    haven't found one where we are on time and on budget. I am sure
    there is an example somewhere out there, but we need to enforce
    that a lot more.
        And, finally, just the quarterly oversight reporting, which
    is, for us, Article I. You know, you do that, report to us
    under Article I. And under the law that we passed in 2010, a
    lot of that is supposed to be done.
        The only thing that wasn't added was reporting back to
    Congress. The compromise, unfortunately, was to put it on the
    website. But we are hoping that committees and Appropriations
    will start--just add that little thing to the Government
    Modernization Act that I talked about.
        But I think we are all on the same page. We want to find
    efficiencies, effectiveness, and we want to work with you,
    without cutting personnel and services. So we look forward to
    working with you.
        And, with that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
    Chairman. And don't forget Mother's Day, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. Oh, I knew about that. Thank you for the
    reminder. That is kind of redundant, but that is good. We are
    good.
        Mr. Gonzalez, the floor is yours for 4 minutes.
        Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Director, for your service to our
    country. And thank you to all the men and women at CISA for
    everything that you all do.
        I want to first start--we always talk about ecosystem and,
    you know, all these threats and how we grow this out. I want to
    talk about universities. And, you know, I am blessed to be in
    Texas. We have some amazing universities. I was just speaking
    with Heather Wilson--doing a great job--president of UTEP.
        What can we do more to work with some of the universities?
    Is CISA doing anything in particular with UTEP, one? And then
    are you doing anything with any other universities?
        Ms. Bean. So CISA is all about partnerships, understanding
    that cybersecurity is a team sport. We can't do it by
    ourselves. And universities and institutions of higher learning
    play a critical role.
        And we do--we work with them at multiple levels. At the
    national level, we have engagement with universities, but also
    at the local level. Our whole regional force is on the ground
    in those communities working with universities to do three
    things, right?
        One is to make sure that we are highlighting the importance
    of cybersecurity in the curriculum and getting folks to go to
    school to learn that, to build the next generation of cyber
    defenders.
        Secondly, to make sure that we are learning from them. Some
    of the best and brightest ideas about how to defend our
    critical infrastructure is coming out of those institutions. So
    our regional staff is working with them to make sure that we
    are getting that information, feeding it back up, you know,
    really trying to be efficient and cost-effective and leveraging
    that which is being done there.
        And, lastly, the third one is just to make sure that we
    have academia, international partners, the Federal Government,
    and State and local governments communicating so that we are
    leveraging resources and not duplicating them.
        Mr. Gonzales. I will tell you what. As we go through this
    budget process, that could be a sweet spot. All the members in
    here, we have, in some form or fashion, colleges and
    universities. You know, my good friend Juan Ciscomani has
    University of Arizona there. There are all these opportunities.
    And if CISA is just partnering with all these places, it is
    going to be very hard for us to say, ``We want less of that,''
    and it is going to be very easy for us to say, ``More of
    that.''
        I am going to switch gears a little bit on international,
    kind of, discussion. A lot of us saw what happened in Spain and
    Portugal about a week ago, and that concerns me. You know,
    anytime the power goes out, I think we are still trying to
    figure that out.
        But I am going to ask two questions. One, do you have any
    details on that situation?
        Ms. Bean. Absolutely. As soon as we became aware of it, we
    reached out to our partners to find out what was going on and
    could we render assistance. We were soon told that it was not a
    cyber nexus, cyber-related.
        But we remain extremely committed to our international
    partner. As the US-CERT, you know, we have hundreds of
    international CERT partners, and it is, you know, government to
    government, really. And our team works around the clock. I
    mean, just recently, someone was telling me that they were
    getting up at 4 o'clock in the morning to have an international
    call. So we are extremely committed to that continued sharing
    of information across what we call the CERTs.
        But your question is very timely and very important,
    because, regardless of whether or not it was a cyber event, it
    really demonstrates the importance of critical infrastructure.
    And critical infrastructure is the backbone of our national
    security and our economic security.
        So we want to make sure, at CISA, that we are working with
    the critical infrastructure in our country, whether it is the
    electrical grid, whether it is clean drinking water, whether it
    is our healthcare, right, it is our communications, making sure
    that they are both secure and resilient, so that, you know, our
    American citizens can depend on having that operational
    infrastructure.
        Mr. Gonzales. You know, thank you for that answer, and
    thank you for working with our partners. You know, we have
    military bases in Spain. They are a close ally. Today it is
    Spain; tomorrow it is somewhere else. But when I think of CISA,
    I always think it is the expert in that area, not only for the
    United States but for the world. So it is great that you are
    working on that.
        My last question is going to critical infrastructure. Oil
    and gas industry is very important not only in my district, not
    only to Texas, but the United States. The Colonial Pipeline is
    something very much on our mind.
        Can you briefly talk a little bit about what you are doing
    to harden and make sure that our energy industry is ready for
    that next attack that is coming?
        Ms. Bean. First, we are working with the Department of
    Energy, we are working with all of the sector risk management
    agencies, but we are working with the oil and gas companies
    specifically to make sure that they are understanding what is
    the threat to them, who is targeting them, and what can they do
    to help better secure themselves.
        What we are finding is that our nation-state actors are not
    using any novel techniques; they are exploiting known
    vulnerabilities. They are searching the internet looking for
    misconfigurations, and they are getting in. And they are going
    undetected because these living-off-the-land kind of techniques
    don't leave a footprint.
        And so what we are trying to work with, you know, the oil
    and gas companies, as well as all the rest, is to understand we
    need to make the adversary work harder to get in and that there
    are things they can do to significantly--and I mean
    drastically--reduce their risk.
        We are also providing intelligence briefings so that they
    better understand what exactly are we seeing, so that if we are
    able to give them a bit more information, we are doing that.
    And, again, our folks on the ground who are working with those
    companies to understand the interconnectivity.
        And, lastly, making sure that those who rely on the oil and
    natural gas understand that, if something should happen, what
    are their contingency plans, what are those cascading impacts.
        So we are trying to take a holistic approach to make sure
    that they are hardened and have a really good resiliency plan
    so that they can restart operations as soon as possible.
        Mr. Gonzales. Great. Thank you, Director.
        I yield back, Chairman.
        Mr. Amodei. Ms. Escobar, the floor is yours for 4 minutes,
    not an Arizona 4 minutes--or, I mean----
        Mr. Cuellar. Whoa.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. A Texas 4 minutes, but----
        Ms. Escobar. First Hawaii, now Arizona.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. With the high altitude, with the
    high altitude----
        Mr. Cuellar. Hawaii, Arizona. I am going to call you on
    Mother's Day for sure.
        Mr. Amodei. Well, I am a little rattled because when I hear
    the Director talk about getting up at 4:00 in the morning for
    an international call and know that she is thinking about
    calling Nevada, it kind of, you know, has a negative impact on
    me.
        But I am wasting the committee's time. Please proceed.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Ranking Member.
        Thank you so much, Ms. Bean, for your work and for being
    here.
        I have been so profoundly concerned about the reports of
    what DOGE--or, Chairman----
        Mr. Amodei. ``Doggy.''
        Ms. Escobar [continuing]. ``Doggy''--apologies, Chairman--
    has been doing.
        You are not going to find anyone who disagrees with rooting
    out waste, fraud and abuse. We all want that. But the unlawful
    ways that DOGE has been engaging with sensitive data has been
    alarming. And it is alarming to my constituents as well. I have
    gotten innumerable questions about it.
        And we have read reports about the staffers at DOGE sharing
    sensitive information via unsecured email accounts. There was
    just a Washington Post article yesterday about their desire to
    create a centralized account for all of Americans' sensitive
    data.
        So I am--and, obviously, we are all concerned about the
    access to this data by adversaries. We don't want adversaries
    getting their hands on this data.
        So I am wondering if CISA was consulted as DOGE staffers
    accessed this data.
        Ms. Bean. So I don't have any knowledge that CISA was
    consulted. What I can say is two things that I think are worth
    highlighting.
        One is CISA has worked, through Congress's both direction
    and support, to build tools that better protect the security on
    every Federal agency network, and we continue to do that. And
    it is a top, top priority for us, as directed by Congress and
    funded by Congress.
        Secondly, we are--as you mentioned, you know, we are
    looking for efficiencies, but, you know, we are doing it as we
    do with every transition, right? You look at organizations, you
    look at spending. I have been in government a number of years,
    hardly worth quantifying, but I have seen this again and again.
    And, you know, at every transition, you are looking at your
    staffing, you are looking at your budget, you are looking at
    your contracts, you are looking at your organizational
    structure.
        And that is what we are doing at CISA to try and find
    efficiencies and make sure that we are still delivering on our
    core missions while eliminating duplication and increasing
    efficiency, which will really enhance the security of our
    citizens.
        Ms. Escobar. I am all for efficiencies, but my concern is
    in the data that was accessed by these employees and
    potentially shared on unsecured networks. I have read that they
    have shared information via personal Gmail accounts.
        Have you all had a chance to go in and provide any
    oversight over what data was accessed, where it went, how it
    was shared?
        Ms. Bean. I don't have that here today, but I am happy to
    go back and get some information----
        Ms. Escobar. Okay.
        Ms. Bean [continuing]. And try and provide you a more
    fulsome answer.
        Ms. Escobar. I am very, very interested in that, and I
    think there are other members of the committee who would be
    interested in that. And, as the chairman mentioned, if we have
    to do that in a SCIF, we are at the ready.
        Ms. Bean. Thank you.
        Ms. Escobar. Mr. Chairman, I yield back a little over 3
    minutes.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you for being an all-star member of the
    committee.
        Mr. Ciscomani, the floor is yours for 4 minutes.
        Mr. Ciscomani. I will represent Arizona well and stick to
    the time, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Ms. Bean, for being here with us today. I really
    appreciate your feedback.
        You know, we all know quite well that, in our increasingly
    interconnected world where there is so much information that
    lives on the cloud and communications are done electronically,
    the cyber threat environment is dynamic and changing on a daily
    basis.
        Adversarial nations and criminals take advantage of any
    weakness and perceived weakness and will continue to do so.
    That is how they operate. This happens not only at the Federal
    level but also at a State and the local level.
        Can you speak to the resources that you have available for
    State and local governments and how you anticipate the budget
    request changing, if at all, the availability of these
    resources for State and local entities?
        Ms. Bean. So, at CISA, we have what we call our regional
    delivery model. And that means having security advisors in
    every State, territory. And those are discipline-specific
    experts on security, cybersecurity, physical security,
    emergency communications.
        And it is that team on the ground that is working with
    local governments, local critical infrastructure in those
    communities. And they work and they live in those communities.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Bean. So this is the way we deliver many of our
    scalable products and services, is down through our regional
    security advisors.
        And, you know, this administration is committed to making
    sure that we are as close to the American people, delivering
    those services, as possible. So I can promise you that will
    continue.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Great.
        You know, on that same topic of closeness to the community,
    kind of like ``boots on the ground'' kind of thing, small
    businesses are a perfect representation of that. And they
    depend a lot on the resources also that you can provide for
    their security, both cyber mainly but also in other aspects.
        Can you speak a little bit to that, to the small-business
    resources?
        Ms. Bean. Absolutely. You know, you are making my heart
    sing, having worked at the SBA for many, many years.
        We know that small business is, you know, the engine of our
    economy. And so making sure that they are doing everything they
    can in this highly competitive, highly connected environment is
    really important.
        And there are things that they can do immediately----
        Mr. Ciscomani. Yeah.
        Ms. Bean [continuing]. That will help better secure them.
    One is to get to know their CISA security advisor. Two is to
    sign up for our cyber hygiene program, which is a continuous
    monitoring of what is happening on their--what vulnerabilities
    they are exposed to. Thirdly is to patch those vulnerabilities,
    right?
        Another thing that they can do is make sure that their
    employees understand the threat that--you know, phishing
    attempts and those kinds of things.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Yeah.
        Ms. Bean. So internal education.
        The other thing that I really think bears special attention
    is, small businesses are critical to the supply chain of our
    national security. And, as such, whether--they may not be prime
    contractors; they may be. They may be subcontractors, or they
    may be just supplying to those people.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Bean. It is important that the products that they
    purchase are secure. And so they have the power of both their
    voice and their purse. And what we are really trying to do is
    drive ``secure by design'' so that the products that a small
    business buys are secure by design.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Yeah.
        Ms. Bean. There should not be known vulnerabilities. They
    shouldn't have to turn on security features. They shouldn't
    have to go and figure out, how do I do this?
        Those products that they are buying and they are installing
    to drive their business, which creates jobs and economic
    revenue, they should be secure by design. They can have their
    voices heard, talking through membership, through their
    congressional Members, to have industry develop and deploy
    secure technology.
        So there are things they can do immediately, and then there
    are things that they can do that will have a longer-term
    impact, but they are very powerful.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Great. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Bean. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you for that.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Guest, the floor is yours for 4 minutes.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Director Bean, thank you for joining us this morning.
        I want to talk a little bit about public-private
    partnerships, something I know that CISA has done extremely
    well, particularly with things such as the JCDC.
        And we know that these public-private partnerships, they
    promote shared situational awareness, faster response, a more
    unified front against cyber attacks.
        And so just, with the agency going forward, can you talk a
    little bit about, one, the importance of these public-private
    partnerships, how we can grow and expand those, and maybe a
    little more particularly about some of the great work that the
    JCDC has been doing?
        Ms. Bean. Well, hotty toddy, I just love that question.
        CISA is built on public-private partnerships. I mean, we
    are not regulatory; everything we do is through trusted,
    established relationships. And that is truly, you know, the
    mandate that you have given us, is to build public-private
    partnerships, and that is what we are doing.
        But it is critically important. We just talked about the
    Spain incident. Without those existing relationships and
    partnerships, we would not have been able to reach out
    immediately to get the information. Had it been a cyber
    incident, we would have been able to get indicators of
    compromise, all kinds of things that we could have then brought
    home and worked on our own networks.
        We are uniquely positioned--the authorities that you have
    given us uniquely position us between the private sector, the
    public sector, our international partners. And through that
    place where we sit, we are able to share and get information
    that is critically important that we can then share with all 16
    critical infrastructures.
        The JCDC is--you know, it is, by nature, a partnership-
    building organization. And it is through that trusted
    relationship that people share information with us. You know,
    those who are competitors on the P&L sheet are collaborators in
    the CISA world, because they know and there is trust and they
    know that this information is going to be used to secure our
    homeland. So they are sharing information that they would not
    share with competitors otherwise.
        And so we build it at the national level, at the
    international, but also at the local level. And so our field
    forces are in constant communication with JCDC. JCDC asks our
    regional folks to get with the people they know and trust on
    the ground.
        It is quintessential to our success to make sure that these
    public partnerships continue and that we grow them.
        Mr. Guest. Yes, ma'am.
        And then let me ask you--you talked a little bit about
    cyber criminals, cyber attacks, exploiting known
    vulnerabilities. You know, I think one of the ways that we can
    harden our systems is patching vulnerabilities within
    operational systems. And we have had public-service efforts,
    and we always try to encourage people, you know, ``Get the
    newest and latest security update.'' And it seems like that so
    many of us don't. And I am probably one of those that probably
    doesn't update my phone as often as I need to, so some of this
    may be talking to me.
        But without government heavy-handedness and mandating these
    sorts of things, what can we do, either through policies or
    incentives or standards, to encourage more people to stay ahead
    of these cyber attacks by timely patching of operational
    systems within their business community and their business
    model?
        Ms. Bean. Yeah. You know, the ``Patch Tuesdays'' just don't
    work anymore. And, you know, as we look across the whole
    ecosystem of cybersecurity--companies, businesses, small
    businesses--the burden shouldn't be on them. And, again, I am
    going to go back and foot-stomp ``secure by design.'' But these
    patches need to be done and, you know, forcing those
    installations.
        I am really encouraged, though, that, as I look at my
    children, my grandchildren, and the workforce we have, this
    digital interconnectivity is just a way of life. And so I think
    that they will be the driving force just to have it in our DNA,
    that it is just going to be a standard operating procedure.
        Also, to raise the awareness that, if you don't, you are
    not just opening yourself up to a cyber attack but, because you
    are so connected to everybody else, you are then the weakest
    link in the chain. And I think most Americans don't want to be
    that. And so, to the extent that we can help people understand
    how connected they are and that your family, your friends, your
    business partners, and the Nation, our security depends on you
    doing this.
        But we also have to make it simple and easy. And I think
    that our technology companies need to do their fair share: one,
    that they don't exist when the product is released, and then
    making sure that those patches are done timely and make it easy
    for folks to install them.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. The grand master of questioning on the
    committee, Mr. Newhouse, the floor is yours for 4 minutes.
        Mr. Newhouse. Fourteen? What?
        Mr. Amodei. I want to thank all the other committee members
    for saving time so that Mr. Newhouse can be himself.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are too
    generous. You really are.
        Ms. Bean, thank you for being with us today.
        I was going to bring this up anyway, but for sure after Mr.
    Guest's point, his question. In your testimony, you talked
    about the number of trainings offered to support the private
    sector as well as local governments. And they truly are a
    critical function of what the agency does.
        I just wanted to say that, last summer--this is a plug for
    you, I guess--CISA provided some of my constituents with a
    briefing during an agricultural threats roundtable and, also,
    just in March, protecting food from farm to table with a
    cybersecurity and protective emphasis workshop. And I just want
    to say, it was highly regarded, very well-received.
        Chad Hutson----
        Ms. Bean. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Newhouse [continuing]. Just to give him a call-out, the
    regional affairs officer, was very helpful.
        So I would encourage you to keep that up.
        Ms. Bean. Thank you.
        Mr. Newhouse. It helps all of us be stronger.
        But I wanted to, real quickly, in the time I have left,
    just--you know, the threats from China are huge. I just came
    from the Select Committee on China, and now I won't be able to
    sleep tonight because of some of the things I learned there.
    But they are moving from economic and intelligence espionage to
    threatening our infrastructure, things that--you know, keeping
    the lights on, all that kind of stuff. At least that is my
    understanding.
        So, in your gut, do you feel that--do you believe that you
    have the structure that is adequate for defending the U.S.
    against these kinds of thing? And, if not, what can do we do to
    help?
        Ms. Bean. You are right. I mean, China is the most
    prolific, dominant threat we have.
        Mr. Newhouse. Yeah.
        Ms. Bean. And they are doing it for three reasons, right?
    They are doing it for espionage. They are doing it to steal our
    intellectual property. And they are getting into our critical
    infrastructure and they are waiting. They are patient, they are
    persistent, they have decades of experience----
        Mr. Newhouse. Yeah.
        Ms. Bean [continuing]. And they are waiting to disrupt or
    destroy our critical infrastructure at the time and place of
    their choosing.
        Mr. Newhouse. That is right.
        Ms. Bean. And they want to do it to either discourage us
    should there be a conflict with China over Taiwan and--two
    things.
        We are not making them work hard enough.
        Mr. Newhouse. Make it harder for them.
        Ms. Bean. We need to make it harder for them. And so the
    work that we are doing--and this is all part of the answer--our
    Known Vulnerabilities Catalog and helping making sure that
    there are mitigating strategies, that is a huge way. The more
    we can make it hard for them to get into our critical
    infrastructure, the better it is.
        Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
        Ms. Bean. We have the tools to do what we need to do. We
    need to make sure that we are leveraging every partnership we
    have, that we are making sure that people understand the
    threat, that everybody is doing what they need to do.
        I don't know if you saw, but 2 weeks ago Secretary Noem
    went out to the RSA Conference, which is one of the leading
    cybersecurity conferences----
        Mr. Newhouse. I don't think so.
        Ms. Bean [continuing]. Out in San Francisco. And I think
    she went for two reasons. One, I think she wanted to let the
    world know that cybersecurity is part of our national-security
    plan----
        Mr. Newhouse. Good.
        Ms. Bean [continuing]. Right? We are going to defend our
    homeland on land, air, border, sea, and cyber.
        Mr. Newhouse. Yeah.
        Ms. Bean. So she was putting that call out there.
        Mr. Newhouse. Yep.
        Ms. Bean. And I think, to the CISA family, she was saying,
    I support you----
        Mr. Newhouse. Good.
        Ms. Bean [continuing]. That you are part of this national
    security, and that you--that we play a critical role in that
    plan, and that she supports us.
        So we have the tools. What we need to be able to do is be
    more streamlined, more efficient, make sure that we are looking
    at the highest threats and the most vulnerable entities and
    taking our precious resources and driving them to buy down that
    risk and that area that we know the adversaries are targeting.
        Mr. Newhouse. Good. Yeah.
        Ms. Bean. So it is working with the IC community to
    understand who are the targets, understanding the tools that
    will best address it, and then deploying it and working in
    partnership with those to make sure that they take those
    actions needed to drive down the risk.
        Mr. Newhouse. Good. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Bean. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Newhouse. And I yield back to the best subcommittee
    chairman on the entire committee.
        Mr. Amodei. Well, is there any more time you would like,
    Mr. Newhouse? We can call you ``Mr. Rutherford'' and use his.
        Well, first of all, I want to thank the committee for being
    true leaders in every stretch of the word, in terms of trying
    to be efficient with our use of time today, with other
    schedules, and stuff like that.
        Madam Director, thank you very much for appearing here
    today with your folks.
        I am going to ask a couple of questions, but go ahead and
    start this for me too. You know, I mean, I am not a hypocrite,
    most of the time. So a couple of things.
        First of all, some people have talked with you about
    outreach. So, when we work up the bill, I think it is not news
    that outreach is phenomenally important to everybody on the
    committee. We think it is a very good thing that you do. And so
    we are going to be looking specifically at--I mean, let's face
    it, the context that we will be marking up the bill for your
    budget is one that, frankly, has some challenges for us in
    terms of what may be asked for.
        Nobody leave the room saying that I am challenging you on
    it, but please leave the room and if you think there is a
    message there, here it is: You guys have been asked to transfer
    $119 million in a reprogramming request, and you have also been
    cut a half a billion dollars, or whatever it is, round numbers.
    We would like to know--so before the markup, in a timely manner
    before the markup--it's like, so how does this affect things?
        You say, what the heck did he just ask? I am not a guy that
    believes more money is the answer to everything, but I am very
    definitely--I don't speak for anybody but me, but I think there
    is a theme here, which is, I want to know where the $119
    million is coming from in the reprogramming before we act on
    that. And the second thing is, I want to know how the half a
    billion basically comes out of that in the context of your
    mission.
        And I get that, in the past, there was like, ``Well, they
    were doing stuff they shouldn't have been doing.'' I am not
    concerned with any of that right now. I am concerned in what we
    are doing now in ``Doggy,'' and I am concerned with what we are
    doing in fiscal year 2026.
        And when I hear people like the subcommittee chairman from
    New York on the Policy Committee and the chairman of the Policy
    Committee talking about ``China is eating our lunch''--my
    words, not theirs--but, in other words--and I know you can
    never say ``mission accomplished,'' but we want to know
    specifically--it is like, I know you are being reorganized and
    all that other sort of stuff, but at the end of the day, if
    there is a big meltdown and somebody is going to go, ``Well,
    how come you folks approved cutting a bunch of stuff?'' And it
    is like, I at least want to be in the position of, ``We asked
    the questions. We looked at the data. We thought we had done
    the right thing.'' I mean, perfection is the standard, and we
    are all human, so that is not going to be achieved.
        But what I don't want to be in the position at the end of
    this is, ``Oh, yeah, go ahead'' and all that, when it might be
    kind of obvious that it is like, well, you get what you pay
    for. More money is not automatically the answer, but I am not
    talking about more money; I am talking about approaching three-
    quarters of a billion dollars between reprogramming and the
    cuts based on the skinny budget.
        And you say, well, what the heck is the question? The
    question is this: Why shouldn't I be worried about where we are
    sitting, in terms of all the issues that you have talked about,
    as a result of those cuts?
        And if the only thing that is going to come back is a
    general, ``Well, we are reorganizing and refocusing,'' please
    pass up the chain, ma'am, that that dog won't hunt.
        And it ought to scare the heck out of everybody in this
    room to think that these people sitting around this table are
    going to do your budget for you if we don't get something. You
    know, I mean, I would be scared if I was doing my own budget,
    even. So we would like that feedback from you folks in a pretty
    timely manner.
        And we also look forward to hearing, as it goes forward,
    what is going on in the reorganization. Because I am guessing
    we are going to have to do this budget before the
    reorganization is done. And so, if that is a big unknown out
    there, that is going to be a problem for these people being
    able to say that they had a pretty good snapshot of what the
    facts were and what we did.
        I am being bullied up here about stuff that I guess I am
    supposed to read.
        Not your fault, Madam Ranking Member.
        So I am going to start about--well, I already said that.
        I look forward to continuing the discussion on how we
    refocus CISA but still maintain our core cyber defenses. I
    think I said that.
        Here is a part: We won't surprise you. Don't you surprise
    us.
        For the get-back questions the members had today, we ask
    that you respond within 15 days. There may be some additional
    questions members provide in writing. We ask you to respond to
    those in a timely manner.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, ma'am. You and your agency, your
    professionalism and whatever, are noted. I want to make that
    specifically part of the record today. We look forward to
    working with you.
        And, with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 9:49 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               W I T N E S S E S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Moskowitz, Hon. Jared............................................     2
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Gillen, Hon. Laura...............................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Noem, Hon. Kristi................................................    35
        Prepared statement...........................................    38
    Answers to submitted questions...................................   106
    Hamilton, Cameron................................................   119
        Prepared statement...........................................   121
    Bean, Bridget....................................................   153
        Prepared statement...........................................   155
    Answers to submitted questions...................................   174

                                      [all]