    [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 2

                                                                       Page
      Oversight of U.S. Immigration and Custom
        Enforcement...............................................	      1

      United States Coast Guard...................................	      39

      Oversight of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.............	      67

      Transportation and Security Administration..................	     109

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 ________________________

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
      62-153                    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, May 14, 2025.

             OVERSIGHT OF U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

                                    WITNESS

    TODD LYONS, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
        (ICE)
        Mr. Amodei. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security will come
    to order.
        And I am pleased to be joined by the subcommittee's
    distinguished ranking member, the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms.
    Underwood.
        Welcome, Acting Director Lyons. I thank you for being here.
        While we await the details of the full fiscal year 2026
    budget request, the focus of this hearing will be upon ICE's
    operational priorities and the resource requirements to execute
    such priorities. I want to make sure that your agency has what
    it needs to do the very important job at hand, and I welcome
    the discussion today.
        I will now turn to my colleague Ms. Underwood for her
    opening remarks.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Chairman Amodei.
        And I would like to welcome our witness, Todd Lyons, the
    Acting Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
        As the Federal agency charged with the enforcement of
    violations of customs and immigration laws, the scope of ICE's
    investigatory and operational work is broad. ICE has an
    incredibly important role in preserving public safety and
    national security by combating cartels and other transnational
    criminal organizations; investigating illicit drug trafficking,
    including deadly fentanyl, human trafficking, and smuggling
    networks; and going after violations of trade and intellectual
    property laws that seek to undermine our economic security.
        However, since January 20th, we have seen a shift in
    priorities by this Administration away from data-driven,
    security-focused approaches and towards impossible, politically
    driven goals--like a million removals in a year. Leadership at
    DHS, and ICE in particular, are operating with disrespect and
    disregard for the foundational constitutional principles that
    govern our country.
        As we endeavor to secure the homeland, we must continue to
    protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. As I
    told the Secretary last week, that is not a secondary mission.
    But under the Trump Administration, ICE's work appears to be
    dominated by egregious mistakes, misuse of taxpayer funds, and
    flagrant violations of constitutional rights like due process.
        Let's take last month in Oklahoma, where ICE sent 20 armed
    agents, with their rifles drawn, to storm the home of a mom who
    was home alone with her young daughters in the middle of the
    night. These American citizens, who did nothing wrong, were
    forced to wait outside their home in the rain during a midnight
    investigation that had nothing to do with them. Agents
    reportedly confiscated not just their phones and laptops but
    also their cash savings.
        Again, these are U.S. citizens who, based on publicly
    available information, were never implicated in any of the
    crimes being investigated. It is not even clear whether the
    family's devices and savings were ever returned to them.
        Your Department has issued no apology, taken no
    accountability, just doubled down. How can Americans trust an
    organization that operates like this, that treats them like
    this, with their national security?
        ICE is the second-largest law enforcement component within
    DHS, America's largest Federal law enforcement agency. You are
    charged with upholding our laws, which start with the
    Constitution and Bill of Rights, representing our values as
    Americans, and using taxpayer dollars responsibly. And the
    standard we expect from our Federal law enforcement is
    excellence. The American people deserve nothing less.
        But instead of prioritizing the actual greatest threats
    facing America--because we all know the data shows encounters
    at the southern border started declining in March of 2024 and
    keep hitting new lows--this administration is cashing checks it
    does not have to reach questionable goals it cannot meet. You
    are removing people so hastily and with so little care that you
    are defying court orders.
        Your Department is wasting millions flying the Secretary
    around the country for publicity stunts so that she can post
    photos on social media from operations that are still ongoing,
    putting actual agents at risk.
        Let me be clear: You are roughly 2 months away from running
    out of funding and a violation of the Antideficiency Act. As I
    said to Secretary Noem, the reliance on funding from a
    reconciliation bill that has not passed Congress is an
    incredibly risky strategy that sets you up for failure.
        Lastly, let me remind you of Article I of the Constitution,
    which gives Congress--and only Congress--the power of the
    purse. Increases to ICE at the expense of other national-
    security programs and initiatives that Members on both sides of
    the aisle voted for undermine our core work and congressional
    intent. And if this committee provides funding for your agency,
    we have every right to oversee how those taxpayer dollars are
    spent.
        Last week, ICE blocked Members of Congress from conducting
    an unannounced inspection at the Delaney Hall facility in New
    Jersey. That, too, appears to be in violation of Federal law,
    which clearly states that we have the right to enter ICE
    facilities even if we show up unannounced.
        Mr. Lyons, you cannot accept Federal funding and then shut
    the door on oversight from the people's elected
    representatives.
        ICE is already burning the money Congress appropriated,
    and, frankly, right now, ICE has much more work to do to
    justify being entrusted with even more taxpayer dollars. I am
    deeply concerned about the administration of funds by this
    Department, but ICE in particular, and I am glad we have the
    opportunity to discuss this further with you today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        We will now turn to committee members for questions, and we
    will start--oh.
        You know, I keep trying to cancel opening statements by
    agency heads, and I want you to know it is nothing personal.
        The floor is yours, Mr. Lyons, for your opening statement.

                        STATEMENT OF TODD LYONS

        Mr. Lyons. Thank you, sir.
        Good morning. Chairman Amodei, Acting Ranking Member
    Underwood, and distinguished members of this committee, I want
    to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today.
        As I have said many times, I am honored to lead the most
    versatile and agile agency under the Department of Homeland
    Security. I am proud to stand along and represent more than
    20,000 ICE personnel, whose determination and resolve drive
    them to protect national security and promote public safety
    even in communities who fundamentally disagree with U.S.
    immigration law and attempt to undermine our investigations and
    enforcement actions at every turn.
        Our officers and agents are villainized for upholding and
    enforcing law, but the bottom line is, they put their lives on
    the line to serve this Nation and protect our families,
    friends, and neighbors.
        In light of their service and sacrifice, one of my main
    priorities is to keep ICE running smoothly. I can do that by
    working with you to ensure we have the resources we need to
    keep our workforce safe, keep promises made by President Trump
    and Secretary Noem, and meet our obligations to the American
    people. That is why these people are depending on me and you to
    secure those resources.
        In just over 3 months, the Trump administration has
    significantly increased our operational tempo. We have arrested
    more than 88,000 aliens so far during 2025, which is a 39-
    percent increase from the same time period in fiscal year 2024.
    Of those arrests, 65 percent took place after January 20th, the
    day President Trump took office and took action on his pledge
    to make America safe again.
        We have also arrested 95 percent more suspected gang
    members, 655 more known or suspected terrorists, and 46 percent
    more aliens with pending criminal charges or convictions over
    the same time period.
        After years of being told to stand down instead of
    investigating, arresting, and removing the most dangerous
    criminal aliens from our community, ICE's brave officers and
    agents are now allowed to do what they signed up for: enforce
    immigration law in the interior.
        But, it is not just about our enforcement personnel. During
    fiscal year 2024, ICE's Office of the Principal Legal Advisor
    represented the Department of Homeland Security in more than
    1.8 million removal hearings and obtained more than 280,000
    removal orders.
        With our increased operational tempo since President Trump
    took office, we have more criminal aliens in custody and more
    cases going before the Department of Justice immigration
    judges. Our attorneys are working around the clock to preserve
    the rule of law and protect our fellow Americans from the most
    dangerous threats to our republic.
        I would also ask for resources for our mission support
    staff who ensure we bring in talented, capable, and agile
    officers and special agents. These dedicated professionals
    maintain our information-technology structure, ensure our
    workforce has the support they need, and serve as stewards to
    all ICE resources.
        Our officers and agents arrest some of the most heinous
    criminals that are responsible for crimes against our
    community. They enforce immigration law in the interior,
    keeping dangerous criminal aliens out of our neighborhood and
    away from people we care about, and remove the illegal aliens
    who refuse to follow the legal immigration pathway to make
    their homes in the United States. They serve as protective
    shields between Americans and the people who pose the greatest
    threat to our values, our freedoms, and our way of life.
        We need adequate funding to fully execute the
    responsibilities Congress has given us and to uphold our
    obligations to the American people. That is why I am sitting
    here before you today asking for your agreement with the
    resources requested in the fiscal year 2026 Presidential
    budget.
        Again, I thank you for allowing me to speak with you today,
    and I look forward to answering your questions and giving you
    the information you need.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, sir.
        Mrs. Hinson, the floor is yours for 5 minutes.
        Staff. Ms. Underwood.
        Mr. Amodei. What if I don't want to go to Ms. Underwood?
    Okay.
        Madam Ranking Member, the floor is yours for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Lyons, in fiscal year 2024, ICE was provided
    funding to support 41,500 detention beds. This was agreed to by
    Congress and carried forward in the fiscal year 2025 continuing
    resolution.
        Whether the administration likes it or not, that is what
    the law provided. And with ICE's current bed count at over
    52,000 beds just last week, you are not abiding by the law.
        As I mentioned in my opening, you are maybe 1 or 2 months
    away from running out of funds to support this current level of
    operations. If reconciliation doesn't pass before the end of
    the fiscal year, what is your plan to avoid an Antideficiency
    Act violation?
        Mr. Lyons. Thank you for your question, ma'am. And I
    appreciate you recognizing the good work, earlier in your
    statement, that Immigration and Customs Enforcement does. The
    men and women really appreciate your support.
        Counting on reconciliation is not a plan, ma'am, and that
    is not what we are doing. ICE will not run out of money,
    because we are fiscally responsible to ensure that we meet what
    the Appropriations Committee has outlined for us and what
    Congress has given us, to work within the means, in order to
    keep our operations going smoothly and ensure that we are
    protecting the American people.
        Ms. Underwood. So what you characterize as ``fiscal
    responsibility''--we know that the Department is already trying
    to take funding from CBP and CISA, and that will only get you
    through June.
        It sounds like there is no plan to get ICE back to
    following the law and the direction of 41,500 beds, even with
    DHS encounter numbers, quote, ``at record lows.'' You are
    claiming success and demanding more, and the justifications we
    are seeing from this administration just aren't adding up.
        Mr. Lyons, with the power of the purse lying in the
    Congress, and if DHS continues to spend like this, we will have
    to look at how we can tighten those strings.
        Moving on. Like most Americans, I am alarmed that ICE is
    trying to build more detention facilities while reducing
    oversight of those facilities at the same time.
        Last week, DHS accused Members of Congress who were
    exercising their oversight responsibilities of, quote,
    ``illegally breaking in'' to an ICE facility in New Jersey. The
    Department's spokesperson said, quote, ``Had these Members
    requested a tour, we would have facilitated a tour of the
    facility.''
        Mr. Lyons, Members of Congress do not have to request a
    tour of ICE detention centers to be allowed in. Federal law
    explicitly requires you to admit us, even if we show up
    unannounced without previously requesting a tour.
        In light of this incident, what actions are you taking to
    ensure ICE employees know the law and are following it? And
    have you issued a memo or guidance to the workforce clarifying
    that Members of Congress must be admitted in these
    circumstances, or are you requiring additional training?
        Mr. Lyons. Thank you, ma'am, for that question. I
    appreciate it.
        Ma'am, I will go back to the Consolidated Appropriations
    Act from 2020. The staff knows that we are fully supportive to
    ensure that the oversight that is granted by law, by this
    Committee, is abided by so we have proper access and oversight
    from the men and women of your Committee and Congress to
    oversee what Immigration and Customs Enforcement are doing in
    our detention centers. We have nothing to hide. I am here with
    a promise that ICE will be fully transparent.
        We do acknowledge that any Member of Congress does have the
    right to show up for an inspection of one of our facilities in
    their oversight capacity. In these situations, we would ask
    that, while it is unannounced, that Congress, elected
    officials, do respect and are in accordance with the
    Appropriations Act in Section 532--presentation of ID, to go
    through screening, and don't bring any contraband, things like
    that.
        We do also--and I would like to just, you know, point out
    that congressional staff does require 24 hours. We did
    encounter that over this weekend, and we did address that, and
    it was handled properly, and, those tours have been scheduled.
        So, yes, ma'am, the staff is fully aware of the
    Appropriations Act of 2020, specifically 532, which grants that
    oversight.
        Ms. Underwood. Okay. Excellent. The law is unambiguous on
    this issue, and we expect ICE to follow the law.
        With my remaining time, I want to discuss the deaths in ICE
    custody. In just the last 4 months, we have seen at least seven
    deaths.
        Since 2018, ICE has had a congressional requirement to make
    this information publicly available on its website, but there
    is a 90-day delay, and it seems to be missing at least three
    more recent deaths in custody that we have received
    notifications about.
        To date, what is the total number of deaths in ICE custody
    since January 20, 2025?
        Mr. Lyons. Thank you, ma'am, for that question.
        Our total deaths in custody right now is up to nine.
        We do conduct a thorough investigation on all of those,
    between the Office of Professional Responsibility as well as
    the local jurisdiction as well.
        ICE is, as I said, dedicated to transparency, and I will
    assure, ma'am, as a get-back, that we get all that information
    back to you and staff.
        Ms. Underwood. And publicly available online, as pursuant
    to the congressional directive?
        Mr. Lyons. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Does anybody have any objection if I go to Mrs.
    Hinson next?
        Seeing none----
        Mr. Cuellar. What State?
        Mr. Amodei. Iowa, last I heard.
        Mrs. Hinson. The best State in the Nation. That is right,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Amodei. Mrs. Hinson, you are recognized for 5 minutes
    for your questions.
        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, Acting Director Lyons. Thank you so much for
    being here today.
        I want to commend the men and women at ICE for the work
    that you do and President Trump for issuing that directive to
    get back to real enforcement of our immigration laws. And I
    want to thank you for your unwavering commitment to doing that
    and for coming to testify here today.
        Our borders are more secure than ever because of that
    leadership. And ICE is, I know, working tirelessly, putting
    lives on the line every single day, to take, as you mentioned,
    the most dangerous criminals out of our communities every
    single day. And, these are people who have entered our country
    illegally, breaking our laws.
        That mission does become significantly harder when local
    jurisdictions are not cooperating and, instead, are willfully
    choosing to put the safety and security of their communities at
    risk and the lives of your agents at risk as well.
        Sanctuary city policies not only undermine Federal law
    enforcement but they also create safe havens for bad actors.
    They obstruct access to critical data and information and
    disrupt efforts to dismantle the transnational criminal
    networks and the gangs that are exploiting our immigration
    system, endangering public safety, and continue to funnel
    illicit activity--drugs, fentanyl, and human trafficking--into
    our communities.
        So, what challenges, Acting Director, do you face when
    local jurisdictions refuse those detainer requests for your
    agents or are barring access to databases that could give you
    that critical information that you need to link to those
    criminal networks? Are there legacy programs or maybe even
    holdover administrative burdens that you recommend eliminating
    as a result of that?
        Mr. Lyons. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate that. And I
    appreciate your respect for what the men and women of ICE do
    every day. They are true to the mission they swore to serve,
    and they do put their lives on the line every day. And, so I
    appreciate you recognizing that.
        One thing about sanctuary cities is, sanctuary city
    policies, while they are there to protect the migrant
    community, also puts communities at risk as well. It allows
    violent criminal aliens to go back into a setting that they
    were already removed from by a law enforcement agency. A law
    enforcement agency already deemed that individual as a public
    safety threat and arrested them and put them in custody.
        What ICE would look for to keep not only the community
    safe, but the officers and agents of ICE safe is to work with
    sanctuary cities to take those individuals into custody in a
    secure location--one that it is not outside in the community,
    one where it doesn't put officers at risk, and one where it
    doesn't put the actual criminal alien at risk.
        One other thing I would say about the lack of information-
    sharing is, under the previous administration, there were many
    individuals that were released into the United States without
    proper vetting. Without having access to systems like driver's
    license databases, registry of motor vehicles, or to have
    police reports to know what these bad actors did in the past,
    it really hampers our ability to track and find these
    individuals.
        One thing that ICE is dedicated to, especially with the
    Department of Homeland Security, is tracking illicit drugs and
    fentanyl. When these drug dealers are allowed to get back in
    our community and we can't find them because a sanctuary policy
    blocks our ability to have that information and track these
    individuals, it is not making the community any safer.
        Mrs. Hinson. Right.
        Mr. Lyons. These individuals are out there dealing illicit
    drugs, and it is hampering our ability.
        Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. And I have no doubt that people have
    died because of those sanctuary city policies. And we need to
    do everything we can to protect American citizens, so, again,
    thank you for that information.
        And please let us know if there are policies we need to be
    looking at changing to make sure that those folks are
    cooperating with you. I think Iowa is a good example of a State
    that I work with our local law enforcement and have those
    conversations, and there is good information-sharing. And, we
    want to make sure that is happening all over the country.
        I want to shift gears a little bit and highlight HSI's
    critical role in combating trade-based crimes. Many of those
    are driven by the Chinese Communist Party. Those include
    forced-labor violations, IP theft, transshipment schemes that
    are really posing a direct threat to our American workers and
    our small businesses, devastating our American manufacturers
    and our supply chains here in the United States.
        What additional tools, personnel, or legal authorities does
    HSI need to more effectively, number one, investigate but also
    to prosecute these trade-related violations that are, again,
    undermining our economy here in the United States?
        Mr. Lyons. Well, thank you, ma'am, for that question. And
    thank you for recognizing what HSI does. Homeland Security
    Investigations is a key part to Department of Homeland
    Security. It is instrumental to what ICE does in keeping this
    Nation safe.
        While we have increased Title 8 civil immigration
    enforcement, we are extremely focused on threats outside our
    borders, especially from the People's Republic of China. That
    is one thing that we would look for more support and
    technology, more innovation to help us with these tools for
    these databases overseas, as well as more officers and intel
    agents and analysts that could work with us to really identify
    these foreign-national threats that really are affecting our
    infrastructure.
        Because that is one key part that Homeland Security can do,
    is not only help protect outside the United States, but help
    key critical infrastructure and trade here in the United States
    and keep those secrets safe.
        Mrs. Hinson. Well, we are certainly trying to work on that.
    I have a piece of legislation, Protecting American Industry and
    Labor from International Trade Crimes Act, that would give your
    law enforcement partners a little bit more resources to be able
    to do that, so, hopefully we can get that passed.
        And thank you so much, sir, for appearing before us today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Lyons. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Amodei. The pride of the Gulf Coast, from the Lone Star
    State, Mr. Cuellar----
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman----
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. Is recognized for 5 minutes for
    your questions.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. Thank
    you so much.
        And thank you, Director, for being here with us. I
    appreciate the work that the men and women do for ICE. I have
    been working with them since I first got started here. In fact,
    I started off with one of your agents, Al Pena, who I think
    became Deputy Director of ICE some years ago.
        When we were in Laredo, we started the BEST program. That
    is the Border Enforcement Security Task Force. Since then, we
    put it into language; we have expanded it. I think you have got
    over 70, and it goes after the cartels for drugs, trade, et
    cetera, et cetera.
        How is that coming along, the BEST programs?
        Mr. Lyons. Thank you, sir, for bringing it up. And I
    appreciate the work of former Deputy Director Pena.
        The BEST program is an excellent program. It does protect
    our homeland, specifically through the work of what Homeland
    Security Investigations does, not only for the criminal cartels
    but illicit activity and long-term investigations on the
    border.
        Recently, the President signed the Executive Order with the
    establishment of the Homeland Security Task Forces. I think the
    Committee will be happy with the results of what these task
    forces will do. It will bring to bear all the Federal resources
    of Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to
    focus on these transnational gangs, these ones that are
    bringing in fentanyl, these illicit drugs that are coming into
    our communities.
        Not only that, but they will focus on these transnational
    cartel organizations, along with foreign terrorist
    organizations that do threaten our border, not only the
    Southern border but the Northern border, as well as our
    maritime interdiction, which has increased greatly.
        Just last night, Homeland Security Investigations had their
    first indictment for support of terrorism material in San
    Diego, which is one of the actions that you will see coming out
    of the Homeland Security Task Forces.
        Mr. Cuellar. Good. Well, I appreciate the good work that
    the program does.
        Are we still at about 1.3 million final deportation orders?
        I know your work is very hard. And then I remember Director
    Morgan many years ago. Some people want you to do more; some
    people think you are doing too much, so, trying to find that
    balance is always difficult.
        But, where are we on the 1.3 million final deportation
    orders? And I don't know if that is still the correct number.
        Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. It is approximately 1.1 million final
    deportation orders.
        We are actively still prioritizing those and attempting to
    effect those removals. As the President has said, under
    Secretary Noem, we did prioritize and we still are prioritizing
    the worst of the worst.
        However, during our investigations and when we are out in
    the communities, should we encounter someone that has a final
    order and has been lawfully ordered removed or deported from
    the United States, ICE is going to uphold their sworn duty and
    take that individual into custody and effect that removal
    order.
        But, to your question, sir, ICE is actively working on
    those final orders at this time.
        Mr. Cuellar. Good. Yeah, and I understand what happens if
    you run into somebody. You can't just close your eyes. But, as
    long as you focus on criminals and final deportation orders,
    national-security threats, that would be good.
        Let me go back to--it is actually Section 527. I am very
    familiar because myself and some other folks, we added that
    language. In fact, we added language on oversight of the
    detention, because ICE doesn't really have detention, so you
    have to go to the private sector to do that.
        But, we put specific language, one, where a Member of
    Congress does not--it says specifically--doesn't have to give
    notice. Staff might have to give notice, but Members can go in
    and act accordingly, number one.
        And, then, on the oversight, health, food, you know,
    whatever needs to be provided to the folks that are being
    detained, we have very specific language to make sure that
    those private contractors are following that and you all are
    following that oversight that Congress has set up.
        Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. Yes, we are.
        And that is one of--one of the things that I am proud of
    is, ICE does have some of the highest detention standards. But,
    unfortunately, that does hinder a lot of local partners
    partnering with us, because, due to the high standards that ICE
    has, it is cost-prohibitive for a local law enforcement agency,
    State, or a sheriff's department to actually enter into ICE,
    because they would not be able to afford.
        Mr. Cuellar. Okay.
        And just finally, years ago we started the border
    processing coordinators for Border Patrol, because we wanted
    Border Patrol to be out in the fields and not changing diapers,
    making sandwiches for migrants--very important, but not for the
    agents.
        We want more support staff for you all. So, make sure you
    keep asking for the support staff so you can have the agents
    doing their work instead of sitting down behind a desk.
        It worked very well for Border Patrol. We did a lot of
    things for Border Patrol--border processing support staff,
    mental health support staff because everybody goes through that
    situation.
        So just make sure you ask the Committee for that support.
        Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. Thank you. I appreciate you bringing
    that up. Thank you.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Amodei. The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes for his
    questions the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Ciscomani.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, sir. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Acting Director Lyons, for being here. Thank
    you for the work you have already done and you have been doing
    for our country, for leading the men and women in ICE--a very
    important task. It is something that the American public
    clearly had their focus on when we talked about this all last
    year and then what we saw here in the last 4 years specifically
    so, it is very important work and also a tall task.
        I visited the Eloy Detention Center just--the detention
    facility in my district--this Monday. So, I was just there this
    week, and I got to see, obviously, the operations of it, and it
    was quite eye-opening. I have known a lot about this issue for
    a long time, but visiting there helped me understand things
    even a little better, and also the challenges that we are
    facing.
        Obviously, this Administration has made a stated goal of
    removing a million people a year. That is the goal. That is to
    Mr. Cuellar's point as well. And, after my visit to Eloy, I
    think I better understand the complexity of what needs to
    happen for us to meet that goal, how expensive that can be as
    well.
        To be frank with you, it was very eye-opening to see what
    is happening now versus what was happening just a year ago, and
    not only disappointed in what was happening but pretty shocked.
    And it is scary to see what was happening, the releases that
    were going on, the lack of cooperation with other countries to
    be able to deport people there, how we have shifted from just
    deporting to some of the neighboring countries to now having to
    fly them all across the world now.
        So, the challenges are so different than any other
    Administration has ever faced. So, with that, can you speak to
    the resources that you are going to need to increase
    deportations to be able to reach that goal of a million a year?
        Mr. Lyons. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. I appreciate
    you going to visit the men and women down there. They
    appreciate your support and the opportunity to show you exactly
    the challenges they face.
        One of the challenges we have, sir, is, ICE doesn't detain
    in a punitive way; we detain to remove. So, one of the
    hindrances we have for us is the ability to actually--when
    people have gone through their due process and gone through the
    immigration proceedings--we have to effectively remove them in
    a safe and humane way. That would rely on more airplanes, more
    charter companies, things of that nature, to effectively remove
    them so they don't have to be in custody that long. You know,
    that is one of the--one of the price points with detention is,
    it is a high cost.
        But, again, we don't hold for punitive reasons; we hold to
    remove. So, the ability to remove people quickly and safely and
    humanely is something that we would need.
        We would also need assistance with the immigration backlog
    with the immigration courts. That is one that is extremely--a
    bottleneck for us, with all the legal proceedings and the due
    process and appeal process that illegal aliens have while they
    are in our detention facilities.
        The backlog at the immigration level, in regards to
    immigration court, it does hinder our abilities to remove
    people quickly. We hope, with the Committee and what we ask for
    in the budget, to get some more immigration attorneys, our OPLA
    attorneys, who do great work for the agency----
        Mr. Ciscomani. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Lyons [continuing]. To work with the Department of
    Justice to streamline that effort.
        Mr. Ciscomani. That is excellent. Those are good points. We
    will make sure that we give you the support that you need
    there.
        I learned a lot, as well, about the coordination needed for
    the travel documents from other nations and how some nations
    are a little more challenging than others--not only the access
    to those airports, but actually be able to get the documents
    and how long that takes. So, a lot of challenges that you are
    dealing with with that.
        With the time I have left, I also learned here during my
    visit--and I was pleased to hear--that most of the
    jurisdictions around the Eloy facility are cooperating with ICE
    in terms of communicating and giving ICE access to their jails
    as well.
        I understand that you all are focused on criminal removals.
    Obviously that is the main one. We have heard horror stories of
    those released by the previous Administration committing crimes
    against Americans. And it seems to me that, by coordinating
    with Federal authorities, our local governments can make our
    streets safer. You mentioned the risk of sanctuary cities and
    how that actually puts the community at risk more than anyone
    else.
        So, how many local jurisdictions have entered the 287(g)
    program, and can we at this Committee help raise that to an
    even higher number?
        Mr. Lyons. Well, thank you, sir, for that.
        I would say that ICE, we have increased the 287(g) program
    over 300 percent. There are, however, a lot of partners now
    that are signing up to assist with ICE, but those local
    agencies do need financial support and the legislative backing
    to continue to work with ICE.
        We welcome all partners, because one goal, especially for
    myself, representing the men and women of ICE, is to be that
    viable law enforcement partner and be that actual public
    safety, too, to help communities.
        So any cooperation, any support we could get along the
    lines of the 287(g) program or any legislative or congressional
    changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act, ICE would
    welcome that.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 minutes for
    your questions.
        Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Lyons, I am trying to just understand the fiscal year
    2026 budget and how it is coming out, especially as it affects
    ICE.
        So, as I understand it, the skinny budget that came out for
    the overall Department of Homeland Security proposed a
    substantial increase of about $43 billion, which was about 65
    percent, but all of that is in reconciliation, and I completely
    endorse the Ranking Member's comments on the complete
    inappropriateness of the use of reconciliation for base budget
    decisions.
        You also, apparently, are proposing in that skinny budget
    substantial reductions in the base budget for key Federal
    agencies such as FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
    the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA;
    Transportation Security Administration, key for air travel. So,
    these are all key agencies, and we obviously disagree with the
    proposed reductions in those key agencies.
        However, if you add that all up, it seems to me that if you
    are reducing your base budget by $2 billion that it is going to
    be increased somewhere else if your net is zero, which I think
    you have said.
        Are you anticipating that there will in fact be an increase
    in the President's budget in ICE? And where would that increase
    come from?
        Mr. Lyons. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that, appreciate
    the question.
        I will actually have to refer to Secretary Noem and her
    testimony and Department of Homeland Security, sir, as ICE
    doesn't have any input on CISA, FEMA, or TSA's budgets.
        What I would say and what I said to the Ranking Member is,
    it is fiscally irresponsible for us to rely on reconciliation.
    My goal is to work with this Committee, work with Members of
    Congress, to ensure that we are financially responsible and
    that we work within our means and what the committees legally
    and through the budget have set for us and we ensure that we
    spend the American taxpayers'----
        Mr. Case. Let me ask you in a different way then.
        Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Case. Maybe you can answer this question. Where do you
    think that the greatest financial stresses are in ICE where you
    would, in an analysis of ICE, want to increase your base
    budget?
        Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. Obviously, the one big key piece of
    the ICE budget is detention space, sir. Detention space in our
    removal contracts, that is one of the key parts to our budget
    right now. That is a large piece.
        But, also, sir, we are focusing on ensuring that the other
    programs, much like the one the Ranking Member brought up--
    Homeland Security Investigations, our Office of the Principal
    Legal Advisor--that we make sure they have the right tools and
    resources to focus on the public safety threat to the national-
    security mission.
        Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Case. Focusing within ICE on Homeland Security
    Investigations, HSI, I appreciate my colleague from Iowa's
    comments. I am very much in support of HSI, both domestically
    and from the foreign policy perspective, because, as you
    pointed out in your testimony, crime doesn't stop at our
    borders, and neither do we.
        And so you have, as part of your HSI team, a very extensive
    team around the world, including--I think it was 90 offices in
    50 countries, as I recall.
        Are you intending to preserve those offices?
        Obviously a rhetorical question, because I do believe that
    those offices are key to our foreign policy, especially as we
    are withdrawing in other aspects of our foreign policy. These
    are key not just for law enforcement but for networking and
    partnership with our partner and ally countries around the
    world.
        Is there any threat to those offices?
        Mr. Lyons. No, sir, there is not.
        And I can guarantee you here today that, especially in your
    region, Indo-Pacific region, that is a key national-security
    element to the safety and security of the United States. HSI is
    a key component to that. We are dedicated. Our resources are
    out there, like I said, in maritime operations, illicit drugs,
    human trafficking.
        And not only that, sir, but we are dedicated to the cyber
    intelligence and the counterintelligence of that region. When I
    first became the Acting Director of ICE, one of my first
    meetings was with the DOD criminal investigative services. I
    met with NCIS CID. And, specifically, we focused on the Indo-
    Pacific region in regards to our military bases, to work
    jointly to ensure that we had no incursion of those bases and
    to ensure that HSI is a key part of that counterintelligence
    piece in that region.
        Mr. Case. Okay.
        And I would commend to you your Pacific Islands Liaison
    initiative, which President Trump actually started in the first
    part of his Administration. That is a key ingredient to be
    preserved in that context.
        I yield the balance of my time to the Ranking Member.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from
    Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, dated today, May 14th, to the
    subcommittee regarding events last Friday, May 9th, be inserted
    for the record.
        Mr. Amodei. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Does the gentleman yield back?
        Mr. Case. Yes, I yield.
        Mr. Amodei. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gonzales for 5 minutes
    for his questions.
        Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman.
        And thank you, Director. You all have been doing a
    fantastic job getting back to law and order.
        I represent Fort Bliss, and Biggs Airfield has been at the
    epicenter of getting things back on track. I have visited there
    several times. These repatriation flights work.
        One of the issues or one of the concerns that I have is
    staffing. You know, when I visited a few weeks ago, I noticed
    that there was only a handful of civilian coordinators on the
    ground. You know, when you have three people kind of sharing a
    shift, that makes it difficult.
        My specific question is, what role does ICE have in
    ensuring that the bases that are actively assisting with
    repatriation flights, like Fort Bliss, are adequately staffed,
    especially with civilian personnel?
        Mr. Lyons. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that, and I thank
    you for the question.
        One of the things recently, under Secretary Noem's
    leadership and this Administration is the whole-of-government
    approach we have taken to addressing our current needs within
    ICE. DOD has been an excellent partner. Specifically, sir, Fort
    Bliss, Biggs Airfield is a key part to that.
        Through our contracting and budgeting, we want to ensure
    that we actually have men and women, officers and agents, who
    carry a gun and badge, out protecting the homeland, doing the
    job that they swore for. It is going to be key for us to
    recruit and maintain and really hire these key civilian
    contractors to help us achieve that mission.
        By having those contractors working at the facilities, as
    far as medical care, housing, food, processing, that will
    ensure that, as I said earlier in my comments, we are moving
    swiftly--because, since I said, ICE, we do not detain for
    punitive, we detain to remove--to move that, you know, process
    quickly, as well as get the men and women who are sworn law
    enforcement back on the street.
        Mr. Gonzales. Excellent. Thank you for that.
        Can you speak--how many ICE flights have we performed out
    of Fort Bliss? Do we know how many illegal aliens we have
    successfully removed? Details matter.
        Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir, and I will take that as a get-back and
    get that exactly for your office. But ICE daily is doing
    flights, every day. Just yesterday, we had over 55 missions
    going international all over the country.
        And that is one of the things that I am dedicated to, is
    ensuring that we do not have a bottleneck in our detention,
    that we are not clogging up detention space, and those that
    have actual final orders of removal or detention deportation
    orders, that we are swiftly and humanely returning those
    individuals back to their country.
        Mr. Gonzales. Excellent. I look forward to continuing to
    collaborate on this. I want to make sure that ICE and ERO, that
    you all the resources you need, you have all the personnel, you
    have all the policy you need to go out and perform your
    mission.
        And I appreciate you working alongside DOD. I think this
    has been very successful, once again highlighting the fact that
    Fort Bliss has been the epicenter. It is working. It is working
    in a very positive manner.
        My next question is on task forces. Task forces work,
    especially HSI-led task forces. ICE is certainly a big part of
    that as well.
        Can you just speak to the importance of it? You know, as we
    are working through the budget process, we are trying to figure
    out what works, what doesn't work, what are your thoughts on
    task forces?
        Mr. Lyons. Sir, my thoughts--100 percent, task forces are
    the key to securing the homeland.
        You know, under the Executive Order with the establishment
    of the Homeland Security Task Forces, there will be Homeland
    Security Task Forces in every State, addressing those issues at
    the border, north and south, as well as our maritime
    operations, but really hammering down on those public-safety
    threats that are in those communities specific to the States
    and regions.
        And I think the key is having the whole of government come
    together, between Department of Justice, all of the entities
    within DHS, bringing all those law enforcement entities
    together; and the intelligence network that that has will help
    us cripple or, you know, eradicate these transnational gangs,
    these transnational terrorist organizations that are actually
    operating within the border and on the border. I think task
    forces are the key to that.
        Mr. Gonzales. And my last comment is, you know, we had the
    Secretary, Secretary Noem, testify before us last week, and she
    highlighted there are over 600,000 confirmed convicted criminal
    aliens loose in our country. And, that is a huge number, and it
    is going to take everyone coming together to make sure that
    that gets taken care of. Once again--convicted in a court of
    law, criminal illegal aliens--and ICE is going to be key to
    that.
        Thank you for your testimony.
        And, Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Lyons. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar, is
    recognized.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
        Director Lyons, thank you so much for being here. I
    appreciate your service to our country.
        I represent the border community and the people of El Paso
    and the people of Fort Bliss. And no one values border security
    more than those of us who live there and folks like me who have
    raised our families there.
        And while I appreciate the important role Federal agencies
    like ICE play, especially when it comes to fighting
    transnational criminal organizations, cartels, fighting illegal
    drug trafficking, what we have seen under the Trump
    Administration should send chills down the spine of every
    American.
        The fact is that the Administration is not focusing on the
    worst of the worst, as it claims. According to public
    reporting, the focus has largely been on immigrants who are
    here both legally and those who are here illegally but who
    mostly pose absolutely no threat to the public.
        Students with green cards and visas being snatched by
    masked men from the streets and disappeared to detention
    facilities far from their homes. People with legal status, with
    no criminal history, no criminal record, being targeted for
    enforcement activities. Members of Congress being denied entry
    for oversight purposes, despite having the legislative
    authority to do so. And more. This is the kind of disturbing
    pattern we see in authoritarian police states, not in a
    democratic republic.
        Most Americans may not know that ICE is a relatively small
    agency and that the vast majority of Federal funding doesn't go
    for Federal operations per se; it goes to private prisons and
    their CEOs. We have also seen certain Members of Congress
    benefit from the stock trading associated with the growth and
    expansion of some of these corporations.
        Detention facilities should adhere to the strictest of
    standards that local jails have to, but the track record for
    some of these private operations is abysmal, and I would
    characterize what happens inside of them as tantamount to
    human-rights abuses.
        We have seen overcrowding at these facilities, medical
    negligence leading to a number of deaths, including that of a
    27-day-old baby. We have seen children in these facilities
    whose weight loss has been so severe it is life-threatening,
    lack of access to toilets and water, inadequate nutrition, and
    more. In fact, per your testimony this morning, there have been
    nine deaths so far in the last few months alone.
        At the same time, we have seen the costs per bed per day
    for these facilities increase. The increase in cost to
    taxpayers obviously hasn't translated into an increase in
    humane conditions, but I bet it has meant an increase in
    profits for these private companies. That is what American tax
    dollars have been funding.
        And through the Republican reconciliation bill, we are
    going to see explosive growth in immigration detention and,
    therefore, likely explosive growth in what we have seen so far.
        Eighty billion dollars of an increase in the reconciliation
    bill, that is--we are seeing a 365-percent increase for
    detention annually, a 500-percent increase for transportation
    annually.
        I am wondering, if you have this information, how many
    total detention beds does the reconciliation package create? In
    other words, what does that increase in funding via
    reconciliation translate into in terms of beds? And can you
    tell us the cost per bed per day that we will see through
    reconciliation in fiscal year 2025 and 2026?
        Mr. Lyons. Thank you, ma'am, for your question.
        In regards to reconciliation, ma'am, as I said earlier, ICE
    is--it is fiscally irresponsible for us to focus on
    reconciliation, on something that hasn't happened. What we are
    focused on is working with your Committee and working with
    Members of Congress to ensure that we do add to our bed-space
    capacity in the proper and fiscal way.
        The main question that you had earlier, ma'am, as far as
    detention bed space and the cost, that does fluctuate from
    region to region.
        What I would really like to ask this Committee to help on
    is, in a lot of these sanctuary jurisdictions, where we would
    not have to work with private corporations, there is a lot of
    State legislation which bars cooperation with ICE. We would
    much rather partner with a sheriff's department or a State
    corrections agency, someone that is in a State where an
    individual is arrested, that we don't have to transport all
    around the country due to lack of bed space. We would really
    appreciate the support on that.
        Ms. Escobar. So, Director Lyons, back to my question, have
    you looked at reconciliation and how much bed space that would
    create?
        Mr. Lyons. Yes, ma'am. We are currently--ICE is--right now,
    we are forecasting to move forward on 100,000 beds.
        But, however, we don't have that money now, and what we are
    working on is, within our means and the budget that we have
    been provided, to ensure that we work with this Committee to be
    financially responsible in the bed space and manage that the
    correct way.
        Ms. Escobar. My final question--and I have more which I
    will submit to you.
        Mr. Lyons. Okay.
        Ms. Escobar. But I also represent Fort Bliss. We know for a
    fact--I used to serve on the House Armed Services Committee. We
    know for a fact that, in the past when military bases have been
    used for immigration purposes, it has degraded our military
    readiness, which is one of the many reasons why I oppose using
    Fort Bliss for detention.
        But, do you know how many beds and the cost per bed that is
    slated for Fort Bliss?
        Mr. Lyons. Ma'am, I would defer to DOD on the cost, as DOD
    is providing that portion of the budgetary piece.
        Fort Bliss, right now we are looking at approximately 3,500
    beds at this time.
        Ms. Escobar. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        Mr. Acting Director, if you know--and if you don't, then
    you need to get back to me on this--how many beds is DOD
    supporting across military installations for detention purposes
    for you guys? GTMO, Fort Bliss, whatever. Can you give us a
    ballpark number?
        Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
        Right now at Fort Bliss, we do have 69 detainees at Fort
    Bliss right now.
        We have reached out to other facilities, such as Fort
    Leonard Wood, Fort Bliss. We are in the process of standing
    those up.
        Some of these are going to be new and existing, so the bed
    space, I don't have the exact count yet, but I will get you
    that exact count, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. Okay.
        Do you know, is DOD going to bill ICE for that? Is that
    going to be--how are the books going to be trued up between DOD
    and ICE for space in military facilities that are going to be
    used for detention activities?
        Mr. Lyons. Sir, ICE is providing the contracting vehicle,
    but the funding for that will come out of DOD budget, sir. So,
    I would have to refer you to DOD on that, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. Okay. So, you don't expect to get a bill from
    DOD for their facilities for detention?
        Mr. Lyons. No, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. How about military airlift? Do you expect to
    get a bill from DOD for that, or are they going to absorb that
    in their budget?
        Mr. Lyons. No, sir. I would refer you to DOD on that one,
    sir, for the proper answer. But, no, sir, I do not expect a
    bill from DOD.
        Mr. Amodei. Okay.
        How many additional beds do you anticipate bringing on line
    with the transferred funding of the $312.5 million that is the
    request that you have put in for reprogramming?
        Mr. Lyons. We are looking to come on line, sir, up to
    60,000 beds at this time.
        Mr. Amodei. And that is through--what is the timeframe for
    those coming on line?
        Mr. Lyons. Through the beginning of fourth quarter this
    year, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. Okay.
        Will you still have a shortfall after this potential
    transferred funding, do you know?
        Mr. Lyons. Sir, I can promise the Committee and I guarantee
    that we are going to financially work within our means to
    ensure that we do not have a shortfall, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. Okay.
        Finally, on information--this isn't on you, but, frankly,
    information in a fast-moving budgetary environment is a
    precious thing. I would appreciate it if you, for your part,
    would let folks know up your chain of command that this
    information, if it is not coming in real-time, is not useful,
    and so I will leave it at that for purposes of our discussion.
        And, I want to thank you for your service. I know it is not
    an easy time to do that. And, obviously, speaking only for
    myself, I support your goal, but we also at the same time have
    to keep in mind things like the Antideficiency Act and stuff
    like that, and I will just be honest with you. Speaking for me,
    I don't know that I have the information that I need to make
    sure that we are doing our job in the context of that, so we
    could really, really use that.
        Same thing I have told all other agency directors: we won't
    surprise you, please do not surprise us.
        And so, for members that have get-back questions, I would
    ask you to respond to those within 15 days of today. We ask
    also, for additional questions, that it is a 30-day timeline to
    get that back. Obviously we are moving quickly on trying to
    move these bills.
        Mr. Amodei. I thank you for your participation in today's
    hearing.
        And the subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 10:52 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026

                                  ----------
                                               Wednesday, May 14, 2025.

                           UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

                                    WITNESS

    ADMIRAL KEVIN LUNDAY, ACTING COMMANDANT, THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
        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, Ms.
    Underwood.
        Welcome, Admiral Lunday. Thank you for being here.
        While we await the details of the full fiscal year 2026
    budget request, the focus of this hearing will be on the Coast
    Guard's priorities, a deeper dive into the current state of its
    acquisition programs, and the Coast Guard's strategies to
    expand its presence in the Arctic and counter China in the
    Indo-Pacific.
        We will begin with the ranking member's opening statement.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And welcome, Admiral Lunday. Thank you for joining us
    today.
        As I have said repeatedly over the last 2 weeks, it is
    challenging to have budget hearings without a budget request
    from this administration. It puts us in a difficult position,
    and, Admiral Lunday, it puts you in a difficult position as
    well.
        So let me start by saying that my frustration and the
    frustration from my side of the aisle is not with you, Admiral,
    nor is it with the brave men and women of the Coast Guard who
    serve every day as Armed Forces, first responders, law
    enforcement officers, healthcare providers, intelligence
    officers, environmental engineers, navigation equipment
    maintainers, cybersecurity specialists, and so much more. The
    Coast Guard does it all, and we are so thankful that they do.
        We see that every day in Illinois when nearly 200 Coasties
    promote trade and protect waterway safety in Lake Michigan and
    the Illinois River Watershed. And we see it in your creative
    approach to problem-solving, like the Coast Guard's
    groundbreaking 2022 decision to begin training medical
    providers, which, as a nurse, is something that I am excited to
    continue to support and help expand.
        Congress and this subcommittee are here to be your partners
    in these efforts. Our job is to ensure that the Coast Guard has
    the resources it needs to do all 11 of its statutory missions,
    including saving lives, stopping drug flow, and keeping our
    waterways open to commerce.
        But we cannot be good partners without good information,
    and we are not getting good information from this
    administration's Department of Homeland Security. At a time
    when the Coast Guard is in the middle of a massive fleet
    recapitalization--and you are staring down some very big
    acquisition decisions--that information flow is more important
    than ever.
        Unfortunately, there are several areas where the Coast
    Guard is falling short. The Coast Guard was the last of the DHS
    components to provide Congress with its legally required
    spending plan for fiscal year 2025, missing the deadline by 9
    days. When it showed up, it included plans for a new $50
    million corporate jet for the Department that had never been
    requested or even mentioned before. The administration has
    failed to send up a fiscal year 2026 budget, and we are hearing
    rumors that it may not do so until next month. The Coast
    Guard's rumored Force Design 2028 plan has yet to see the light
    of day, and we did not receive your testimony until 8 p.m. last
    night.
        That is an information flow problem, and it is not
    sustainable. Consistent, detailed communication is critical to
    achieving our shared goals this Congress, and that is what we
    need from the Coast Guard moving forward.
        Lastly, while we discuss your work to combat external
    threats, we cannot overlook threats within the Coast Guard
    itself. Operation Fouled Anchor exposed serious failures in
    addressing misconduct, and we have a responsibility to ensure
    that survivors receive the support that they deserve,
    perpetrators are held accountable, and the culture within the
    Coast Guard reflects the highest standards of integrity and
    professionalism.
        I very much appreciate your commitment in our meeting
    yesterday to providing a full briefing on the current status of
    this issue and the steps the Coast Guard has taken to improve
    its sexual assault prevention work and support survivors.
        Thank you again, Admiral, for your service, and I look
    forward to working closely with you and my colleagues to ensure
    the Coast Guard has the resources it needs to succeed.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Madam Ranking Member.
        As part of my respect for your time and the fact that I was
    late, and since I still haven't gotten a request for anybody on
    this committee for me to do an opening statement on anybody's
    budget, I am going to yield back my opening statement time.
        And I also want to thank you; for a fellow on this
    committee hooked me up with my phone cover which, by the way,
    if there is anybody else on the committee that has one of these
    for their phone cover----
        Ms. Underwood. No.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. Please go on the record now.
        Okay. We will move right along.
        Admiral, you are recognized for your opening statement.

                   STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL KEVIN LUNDAY

        Admiral Lunday. Good afternoon, Chairman Amodei, Ranking
    Member Underwood, distinguished members of the subcommittee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.
        Chairman, I ask that my written testimony be entered into
    the record.
        Mr. Amodei. Without objection, so ordered.
        Admiral Lunday. Thank you for your enduring support of the
    Coast Guard and of our servicemen and -women and their
    families. Our people who volunteer to serve, who operate in a
    dangerous and unforgiving maritime environment to protect the
    American people, are extraordinary. They make the U.S. Coast
    Guard the best in the world.
        Today is a pivotal moment for our service, a time of both
    profound change and challenge and unprecedented opportunity.
    Our Nation faces increasingly complex and dangerous threats to
    the security and prosperity of Americans, and the American
    people need a strong and capable Coast Guard now more than
    ever. Under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary
    Noem, the Coast Guard is making America more secure.
        On January 21, I directed our operational commanders to
    immediately increase Coast Guard presence and operations along
    the U.S. border and maritime approaches, starting with the
    southern border where the President had declared a national
    emergency just the day before. We surged forces, tripling the
    number of forward-deployed aircraft, ships, boats, and teams to
    control, secure, and defend the southern border.
        The Coast Guard also increased efforts to secure and defend
    our ports and waterways, which are vital to U.S. economic
    prosperity and strategic mobility, and we did that both in the
    physical domain and in cyberspace.
        And the Coast Guard continues other operations to secure
    our northern border and the border and approaches around
    Alaska, Hawaii, our three U.S. territories in the Pacific, and
    our two U.S. territories in the Caribbean. Our highest priority
    is achieving full operational control of the border, and that
    includes our ports and waterways.
        As the Coast Guard has done throughout our history, we
    adjusted our operational posture to focus on the top needs and
    priorities while continuing to conduct our missions with
    excellence.
        Every day, our Coast Guard men and women, with our ships,
    aircraft, boats, and technology, are delivering results for the
    American people. We are deterring and interdicting illegal
    migration by sea. In the last 4 months alone, we have prevented
    over 860 aliens from illegally reaching the U.S. by sea and
    deterred thousands more. We continue to combat foreign
    terrorist organizations, including cartels and transnational
    criminal organizations, by interdicting smugglers and seizing
    bulk cocaine and other drugs at sea.
        We have already surpassed our entire fiscal year 2024
    cocaine interdiction numbers, and we seized, so far this year,
    133 metric tons of cocaine and marijuana. Principally, cocaine.
    And I have set as a top operational priority combatting illicit
    fentanyl shipments in commercial maritime shipping.
        However, despite the mission's success and great work of
    our people, the Coast Guard is in a severe readiness crisis
    that has been decades in the making. Today, our Coast Guard is
    less ready than at any other time since the end of World War II
    80 years ago. This is not sustainable. And now is the time for
    fundamental change, and we need your support now more than
    ever.
        With President Trump's direction to rebuild the military
    and secure our borders, and Secretary Noem, under her
    leadership, the Coast Guard will implement Force Design 2028, a
    bold blueprint to renew our service. As Secretary Noem
    testified here last week, with Force Design 2028, we will
    transform the Coast Guard into a more agile, capable, and
    responsive force.
        Together, we must act now through this blueprint, along
    with increased capital investments and reconciliation and in a
    sustained, top-line growth in our annual appropriation to
    restore Coast Guard readiness today and prepare us for the
    future.
        As we navigate through this time of transformation, I have
    certain hope for the future of our Coast Guard.
        No matter the challenges ahead, if there is one thing our
    distinguished service history in both peace and in war tell us,
    it is this: With a ready Coast Guard crew, and the strong
    support of the American people, there is nothing we can't
    accomplish.
        Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
        [The information follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Admiral.
        I am going to defer my questions until later in the
    hearing, so the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
    Illinois for her questions. The floor is yours.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
        Admiral, thank you for being here today. We know the Coast
    Guard does an incredible job with what you have but also
    remains chronically underresourced. The Coast Guard does
    lifesaving work to respond to maritime disasters, combat the
    flow of illegal drugs, counter China, and prevent cyber
    attacks. I strongly support large increases to your budget,
    probably even larger than you have requested in some areas. But
    I am concerned that this administration's political goals are
    shifting those limited resources away from strategic theaters
    where bad actors are aggressively testing American resolve.
        In your written testimony, you stated that the Coast Guard
    is, quote, surging operational forces to the U.S. Mexico border
    and the Gulf of Mexico. So my question for you is, where
    specifically are those forces and resources to support them
    coming from? What theaters and missions were they assigned to
    before this surge? How many deportation flights has the Coast
    Guard flown, and why is that the best use of the aviation
    assets?
        Admiral Lunday. Ranking Member Underwood, thanks for your
    questions and your support.
        So, to answer your question about the alien expulsion
    operation flights, to date, since 20 January, the Coast Guard
    has flown 157 of those flights in support of other Department
    of Homeland Security components for southern border security
    operations.
        As to the other operations where we have surged assets to
    the southern border--and for us, the southern border also
    includes the border approaching Florida and our territories in
    the Caribbean. That is part of the southern border for us as
    well.
        And so we took planned operations from some other areas,
    and in consultation--principally, supporting combatant
    commanders. I consulted with those combatant commanders and the
    Department of Defense and briefed the Secretary on my plans to
    temporarily change some of those planned deployments.
        This type of decision is not unprecedented, and we make
    those tough tradeoffs all the time because there is an
    increasing demand for Coast Guard resources and always a
    limited number of cutters, boats, aircraft, and crews to
    provide them.
        And so that is part of the risk decision that I make in
    consultation with our area commanders.
        Ms. Underwood. Have any personnel, vessels, air assets, or
    other resources been pulled from the Coast Guard's Arctic
    strategy to accommodate the southern border surge?
        Admiral Lunday. No, Ranking Member Underwood, they have
    not.
        Ms. Underwood. What about your Indo-Pacific mission? Did
    you reduce list capacity in the region in favor of more
    deportation flights here, and are we going to be slower in
    building our presence there as a result of this surge?
        Admiral Lunday. Ranking Member Underwood, there were two
    operational deployments that I directed to be changed through
    that process I described before. And I want to be specific
    about that. One was a planned patrol working for Indo-Pacific
    Command, one of our national security cutters. And I consulted
    with Admiral Paparo about that before making that change. But
    there has been no change in our permanent presence in the Indo-
    Pacific.
        The other change in the Atlantic--you asked about the
    Arctic. We had the Cutter Calhoun, another national security
    cutter that was scheduled to support a port visit for a senior
    leader meeting of the Arctic Coast Guard Forum in Iceland, and
    we canceled that planned meeting. It wasn't an operational
    meeting. And so that was related to the Arctic. But I wanted to
    be specific and clear in my answer.
        Ms. Underwood. And what about the Great Lakes, where the
    Coast Guard plays a critical role in commerce and safety for
    the community I represent? Has there been any change to the
    staffing plans for the Great Lakes region?
        Admiral Lunday. There have not been changes to that
    staffing plan. Our presence in the Great Lakes remain as
    important as always, which includes our domestic icebreaking
    presence there.
        Ms. Underwood. Excellent. In your testimony, you also wrote
    that you are tripling the number of forward-deployed air and
    surface assets at the southern border and simultaneously
    seeking total operational control of the region. It is clear
    strategic tradeoffs are being made, and I am concerned about
    the impact on your other missions.
        The Coast Guard desperately needs more funding to meet its
    mission, and the passage of a reconciliation bill is far from
    guaranteed at this time. And Coasties, like most Americans, are
    struggling with the rising costs of living. I speak frequently
    with young guardsmen and women who struggle to afford housing
    and access medical care, which is why I was horrified last
    Friday when we received a last-minute addition to your spend
    plan for fiscal 2025, a new $50 million Gulfstream V for
    Secretary Noem's personal travel, coming from the Coast Guard
    budget. She already has a Gulfstream V, by the way. This is a
    new one.
        And so, Admiral, I have just one question for you here.
    Have you received any outreach, requests, or any other
    communication from anyone above you at DHS or any political
    appointee in the Trump administration regarding a new plane for
    the Secretary?
        Admiral Lunday. Ranking Member Underwood, so first of all,
    thank you for the support of the committee and the continuing
    resolution for 2025, and as part of that spend plan, to address
    the needs of our servicemembers and their families. We are able
    to provide the pay raise for military and civilian personnel,
    including a targeted pay raise for our junior enlisted
    personnel, which was essential.
        You had asked about the military command and control
    aircraft. So, first of all, meeting the needs of our Coast
    Guard men and women that are doing frontline operations is my
    top operational priority, and it is a top operational priority
    of the Secretary. She has been clear about that to me, and I
    know she testified to that effect before the subcommittee last
    week.
        The Coast Guard, like the other military services, operates
    two military long-range command and control aircraft. This is
    part of our military operational fleet of aircraft. These are
    C-37 variants. The older one is a C-37 alpha variant. And like
    a lot of the rest of our operational aviation fleet and our
    cutters and our boats and our shore facilities, it is old and
    it is approaching obsolescence and the end of its service life.
    The avionics are increasingly obsolete. The communications are
    increasingly unreliable, and it is in need of recapitalization,
    like much of the rest of the fleet.
        But this aircraft is necessary to provide the Secretary,
    the deputy secretary, me as the acting commandant, the acting
    vice, and our two area commanders with secure, reliable, on-
    demand communications and movement to go forward as our
    operating forces conducting the missions, and then come back
    here to Washington to make sure we can work together to get
    them what they need.
        Ms. Underwood. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. I just
    want to note that I didn't hear the Admiral answer the question
    about whether he was directed to purchase this new Gulfstream
    V, and I just want to note that as I conclude my time.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. The chair recognizes Mr. Rutherford for 5
    minutes for his questions.
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
        And, Admiral, thank you for being here today. I want to
    talk about--a little bit about the future of the Coast Guard's
    aviation, because as your responsibility grows to support not
    only maritime security but defense missions continue to
    increase and become ever more critical to our national
    security, I am concerned about the mission readiness of our
    fixed wing and rotary wing aviation fleets. It seems like there
    has been, prior to you, somewhat of a disjointed response to
    the aviation planning and that a comprehensive strategy would
    help ensure that there are no gaps in readiness. And one of the
    things that we actually included in the fiscal year 2023 Coast
    Guard reauthorization bill was a request for a study like that.
        So three quick questions on the aviation issue, Admiral.
        Does the Coast Guard have the aviation assets required to
    fill its operational missions today?
        Number two, when should we or can we expect the aviation
    strategy called for in the 2023 Coast Guard reauthorization?
        And then finally, while I understand the want to move to a
    single platform because of the commonality of training and
    maintenance and all of that, one of the things I worry about
    is, if all of these assets are being kind of handed down, a lot
    of them, I understand, are reaching end of life, and so that
    could create some gaps in the not too distant future. Could you
    talk about your openness to a mixed fleet, if that were
    necessary to pull that off? And I would like you to tell me how
    we can help you achieve whatever your new plan turns out to be.
        Admiral Lunday. Thank you for the questions, Congressman,
    about the aviation fleet mix and where we are going.
        We had an opportunity to come up and brief the committee
    staff on an initial readout of our aviation strategy going
    forward, following on for the requirement in the authorization
    act. But we have more work to do. And part of that is an
    ongoing analysis of alternatives of what that fleet mix should
    be between--across our rotary wing, our helicopters, and also
    our fixed wing fleet.
        And so that will also include--I see an increase in our
    long-range uncrewed or unmanned aerial systems. That is work we
    have been doing for years in a joint program office approach
    with Customs and Border Protection. And I see that as a key
    component going forward. But that will be borne out on the
    analysis of alternatives as we work to refine that aviation
    strategy.
        So part of our challenge is that we have been operating
    airframes, particularly the helicopters, to the end of their
    service life. In some cases, like for our H-60 that is built by
    Sikorsky, well beyond what anyone else in the world operates,
    which is why we found ourselves in a difficult position late
    last year where, for those hulls that we had operated beyond
    19,000 hours, Sikorsky communicated concerns that they did not
    have data to support that operation beyond that point. And so
    we had to ground those aircraft with high-time hours until we
    can go through and replace the key components that take them
    over that limit.
        And that is just a symptom that, even though we can operate
    aircraft to that level, we should not be. We should be
    investing in new aircraft and recapitalizing those and then
    have an appropriate mix to meet not only the demands of today
    but the demands of the future.
        Part of the Force Design 2028 effort that Secretary Noem
    has directed and discussed will be to look at what the Coast
    Guard's operating concepts are in the future and also what our
    force structure and force design is, including our aviation
    mix, and how that fits within the broader mix of assets across
    our ships, boats, aircraft, and shore facilities. And we look
    forward to working with the committee on those needs and the
    level of investment required to modernize the future fleet and
    get to that point.
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Admiral. And I have got just 30
    seconds left. But you kind of segued into my next question
    which deals with the unmanned systems. And one of the things
    that I would like is--can you talk about the resources you need
    to get that long endurance aerial unmanned program off the
    ground for something like an MQ-9 or some other system, and the
    importance that that plays in offsetting your needs in the
    current aviation fleet?
        Admiral Lunday. Congressman, I look forward to working with
    you and the members of the subcommittee to provide greater
    detail on that information as we move forward on budget
    reconciliation, and we look forward to the release of the
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2026. But we have
    already done very strong work with CBP on the importance and
    the value of the long-range UAS. The MQ-9 is what we operate
    with CBP.
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. I see my time has expired. I
    yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. Mrs. Hinson, the floor is yours for 5 minutes
    for questions.
        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good afternoon, Admiral. Again, thank you for coming to
    testify before our subcommittee.
        The Coast Guard plays such an important role, as you have
    already touched on a number of topics, from interdiction and
    defense, just such a necessary line of helping to keep our
    country safe. And under President Trump's leadership, obviously
    we are seeing a renewed investment and renewed commitment to
    that promise to keep America safe.
        I hear you talk about investment in a modernized fleet,
    expanded maritime enforcement capabilities. All of those
    things, I think, make Iowans feel good. Even though we are
    between two rivers, we like to know that our coasts are safe.
    But also, obviously, Iowa has a very significant Coast Guard
    presence, with a fleet that needs upgrading.
        So that is going to be my line of questioning today because
    we are--Iowa, in Dubuque, is the homeport for the Cutter
    Wyaconda, which is 60 years old. So a nice, old ship
    celebrating its 60th anniversary at the end of this month.
    Absolutely vital in keeping the upper Mississippi navigable for
    us. But it comes down to supporting our farmers, our producers,
    being able to get things to market up and down the Mississippi
    River safely and efficiently.
        So these legacy cutters have served our country well, but
    they are showing their age. And so we must, I believe, move
    quickly to replace them with more modern vessels that can keep
    up with today's demands.
        So we know that Coast Guard has initial approval for this
    program. So do you agree that it is time to prioritize building
    these new cutters to make sure we can deploy them and get them
    into service without delay?
        Admiral Lunday. Representative Hinson, it certainly is
    important. Most people think of the Coast Guard, certainly,
    along the coast or at sea, but we are just as present in
    America's heartland and our Great Lakes and in the inland
    rivers and waterways, including in your district. So we have a
    recapitalization program for those construction tenders and
    those river tenders that are so vital to keeping lifesaving
    commerce going throughout the United States and to markets
    overseas.
        So the Waterways Commerce Cutter was just approved by the
    Department of Homeland Security to enter initial production for
    the first eight. That is being built by Birdon, is the
    shipbuilder, down in Bayou La Batre, Alabama. And so those
    cutters, state of the art, will replace the aging but still
    very viable cutters, like Wyaconda that operates and homeported
    out of Dubuque, and provide the critical services necessary to
    keep commerce moving, which is vital to our economic
    prosperity.
        Mrs. Hinson. Absolutely. Well, I am glad we share that
    priority. Do you have any insight into potential homeports for
    those cutters once they come off of the line and they are done
    being built in Louisiana?
        Admiral Lunday. Congresswoman, I don't have a homeport
    decision on all of the Waterways Commerce Cutters that will be
    built. Some of them will be larger than many of the existing
    ones, and so we will have to assess what the infrastructure
    needs are as we go forward. But we look forward to working with
    members of the committee as we make those decisions along with
    the administration.
        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you for that.
        My last question today. You know, I heard you talk about
    how important interdiction is. You mentioned Florida and the
    Caribbean being the other element of the southern border. We
    think about the Rio Grande and the States, but really, it is
    about what is happening at sea in preventing those bad actors,
    particularly many of those who are backed by international
    criminal gangs or adversarial governments, like the CCP, from
    being able to exploit our U.S. ports and waterways. And we know
    PRC is one of the leading sources of counterfeit goods coming
    into our country, illegal trans-shipments, trying to get around
    our trade laws, deceptive shipping practices, right. They use
    that transnational shipment constantly to get around sanctions
    enforcement.
        So can you speak a little to the Coast Guard's role in
    enforcing and identifying and then interdicting those types of
    shipments in coordination, maybe, with other agencies under
    Homeland Security?
        Admiral Lunday. Representative Hinson, we work very closely
    with other parts of Homeland Security and the intelligence
    community to enforce the U.S. requirements and restrictions on
    illegal or unauthorized shipments, particularly by those states
    that sponsor those shipments that we prevent from coming into
    the country.
        We are concerned about the activities of the CCP, whether
    it is illegal movement of goods that are prohibited for entry
    or whether it is presenting threats in cyberspace to our
    maritime critical infrastructure.
        And we have been busy, not only our operational commanders
    in Atlantic and Pacific area, but Coast Guard Cyber Command,
    working with the Department of Homeland Security and others, to
    make sure that we can improve the cybersecurity of our port
    critical infrastructure so that others that may seek to hold it
    at risk will be unable to do so. And we can--the American
    people can be sure that infrastructure is resilient and can
    withstand the threat of any attack or disruption.
        Mrs. Hinson. Are you utilizing AI at all in that
    technology? You mentioned the cyberspace specifically, but are
    you using any of those technologies to help track or even
    anticipate potential attacks or need for interdiction?
        Admiral Lunday. We are using AI technology with others in
    the cyber operation space with U.S. Cyber Command and CISA
    within the Department of Homeland Security. And I can follow up
    with more specifics about how we use that.
        Mrs. Hinson. That would be great. And if we need to go into
    SCIF to talk about that, happy to do that. Thank you very much,
    sir.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        The ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, you
    are recognized for 5 minutes for your questions.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. Thank you very much. And my
    apologies to you, Mr. Chairman, and ranking member and to
    Admiral Lunday. Between today and tomorrow, there are 11
    hearings, so just trying to do what I am supposed to do as
    ranking member of the committee. So I want to thank Chairman
    Amodei and also Ranking Member Underwood.
        And let me just say a thank you to you for your service. I
    look forward to getting your insights into several pressing
    issues.
        First, it will come as no surprise to you that I am a
    strong proponent of the MH-60 program. And the Coast Guard has
    utilized the MH-60 aircraft since the first one came into
    service in 1990. Throughout its over 30 years of service in the
    Coast Guard, it has undergone upgrades to components, engines,
    life support equipment, and, most of all, avionics.
        The latest acquisition directors have plans for the Coast
    Guard to use MH-60 aircraft well into the 2030s. Currently, no
    alternative helicopter or aircraft platform with the necessary
    capabilities to meet your mission objectives: search and
    rescue, routine patrol, and Homeland Security.
        First, let me ask you if you agree that the MH-60T, given
    its utility tactical transport, will be essential to the Coast
    Guard operations well into the future.
        Admiral Lunday. Ranking Member DeLauro, the H-60 will be
    essential. Regardless of the mix, it is the key component in a
    rotary wing fleet and the backbone of our aviation fleet. So
    whatever that mix ends up being, the 60 will be a mainstay, as
    it has been.
        Ms. DeLauro. Mm-hmm. Well, let me just--I am glad to hear
    you say that. And as you continue to retire the MH-65, you
    know, plans for procurement, will it include the new hulls as
    well as the current recapitalization strategy?
        Admiral Lunday. Ranking Member DeLauro, I--I am not able to
    discuss the specifics within the reconciliation or the
    President's budget request yet.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay.
        Admiral Lunday. But one of the things we learned out of the
    challenge we had with the 19,000-hour limitation on our
    operation of the 60s is we need to be moving to purchase new
    hulls rather than beginning with hulls that have high time on
    them when we acquire them. That is the direction we need to be
    moving.
        Ms. DeLauro. So we need to be watching what comes out in
    the budget.
        Admiral Lunday. Yes, Ranking Member DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Right. And we will certainly, then, be
    back to you about that. Okay.
        Admiral Lunday. Thank you.
        Ms. DeLauro. Let me follow up on an issue that I raised
    with the Commandant last year, the issue of sexual assault in
    the Coast Guard. Not going to recap the troubling history that
    predates this hearing, including years of unreported
    allegations of sexual assault at the Academy.
        Following the accountability and transportation review in
    November of 2023, the Commandant directed 33 initial actions to
    strengthen the climate and practices. On August 9, 2024, update
    noted that, at the time, 18 of those directed actions had been
    completed.
        My questions are, as of today, how many of the directed
    actions have been completed?
        Admiral Lunday. Ranking Member DeLauro, as of today, 21 of
    those 33 directed actions have been completed. We are hard at
    work to complete the remaining ones and identify----
        Ms. DeLauro. What is your timeline on the remaining?
        Admiral Lunday. Ranking Member DeLauro, I can get back to
    you with the specific timeline on those remaining actions. The
    three that were most recently completed since that August
    letter that you described were improvements to security in the
    Chase Hall cadet barracks at the Academy, the start of our
    sentinel resiliency training that includes bystander
    intervention training and additional sexual assault prevention
    response training for those coming out of boot camp. And then I
    will provide additional information for the record.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. I would appreciate that. And I
    think--maybe you can just assert--but we have your commitment
    to provide this committee with the regular updates as
    additional actions are completed. I think that that would be
    helpful to us to know what is going on and how we are trying to
    meet the needs of the Coast Guard--of the Coasties who are
    there.
        Admiral Lunday. I will, Ranking Member DeLauro, because
    combatting and eliminating sexual assault and sexual harassment
    in the Coast Guard is a top priority. These are not only
    serious crimes, but they are a cancer at readiness and they
    cause grievous harm to people. And so it is important that we
    continue this as a top priority to eliminate sexual assault and
    sexual harassment.
        Ms. DeLauro. I am pleased to hear that. It has been--you
    know, I have been around here long enough to be at these
    hearings to know that this has been a consistent problem. I do
    want to say that I thought the Commandant was working and
    working diligently at doing that, but now asking you if you
    will continue to follow that up. It is also my understanding
    that the Department of Homeland Security of the--the Inspector
    General may be conducting additional oversight on this matter.
        Admiral Lunday. Ranking Member DeLauro, the Coast Guard
    continues to fully cooperate----
        Ms. DeLauro. Great.
        Admiral Lunday [continuing]. With the investigation by the
    DHS Inspector General.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. That is what--again, making that
    assumption in your commitment to cooperating that effort.
        And what my hope is, is that this can be a start of a
    dialogue between you and I. I very much, as I said, respected
    and appreciated the Commandant's response. And we had an
    ongoing conversation about this effort. And I know of her
    commitment to wanting to address this issue and to do something
    about it because of the critical--critical role that the Coast
    Guard plays and the critical role that women play in this
    effort and want to realize their dreams or aspirations through
    the Coast Guard, and they want to feel that they are safe at
    that issue. So I look forward to having that same kind of a
    dialogue on a, you know, regular basis with you as well.
        Let me deal with what I call quality of life issues. And I
    believe, just as the service never wavers, our support of the
    U.S. Coast Guard and our Armed Forces must be resolute and
    unwavering, as all of you are. And that includes ensuring that
    we continue to focus on the quality of life issues for
    servicemembers.
        Cost of living. The cost of living crisis in this country
    is crushing families, and the members of the Coast Guard,
    unfortunately, are not exempt from the soaring costs of
    groceries, childcare, housing. The list goes on. Those who have
    already made great sacrifices, we should be doing everything
    that we can to ensure that they can raise a family and to make
    ends meet.
        I have been encouraged to see that the Coast Guard senior
    leadership embrace the notion in the past several years. I am
    told that these efforts have been really helpful in recruitment
    and retention efforts. But more needs to get done, and Congress
    needs to make sure that you have the investments to follow
    through.
        What, in your view, remain some of the biggest quality of
    life concerns for members of the Coast Guard? And do I have
    your commitment to continue to prioritize quality of life
    concerns, especially those associated with the rising costs of
    living?
        Admiral Lunday. Ranking Member DeLauro, the cornerstone of
    the Coast Guard's readiness or of unit readiness starts with
    the readiness of every single Coast Guard man or woman and
    their families. On that cornerstone, we build the readiness of
    the whole service.
        And so issues that impact that readiness, the most pressing
    are access to available housing, access to childcare, child
    development services, access to the basic pay that they need to
    be successful. And that is why the support from the committee
    and Congress to address the targeted pay increase for junior
    enlisted personnel was so important for the Coast Guard and the
    other armed services as well.
        And then access to quality healthcare, which can be a
    particular challenge for our Coast Guard families and personnel
    because we are often located in remote areas away from
    population centers. So we have to work harder to--either with
    organic capability or access through TRICARE--to make sure they
    have the best access to available medical care as well.
        Ms. DeLauro. I thank you for that answer. And I thank the
    chairman for letting me go over, as I have here.
        But I think it is critical--in my prior question about, you
    know, feeling safe, there is a morale problem that is quality
    of life. People need to feel safe. And we have to understand
    here that addressing the issues that ensure that folks have the
    necessary healthcare, the access to that healthcare wherever
    they are, whatever remote outpost they might be, and that
    childcare, housing, basic pay are critical in understanding it.
    That is the only way, to repeat what you have said, that we are
    going to have the robust readiness that we need to be able to
    address any--any eventuality.
        I thank you for your service. I thank you for your answers.
    I look forward to really--just this one last thing. I worked
    very, very hard to make sure that when we did shut the
    government down, and the Coast Guard folks were not included,
    that that turned--we got that turned around for the Coast Guard
    so that they were not--those families were not left out in the
    cold with regard to the wherewithal that they needed to be safe
    and secure with their families. So I thank you.
        And I yield back my time. And I thank you graciously, Mr.
    Chairman, for your time.
        Mr. Amodei. Yes, ma'am.
        Mr. Guest, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
    questions.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Admiral, I want to talk a little bit about the high north.
    I know you mentioned that in your testimony. You say on page 3
    of your testimony that the service's top surface acquisition
    priority remains the Polar Security Cutters and expanding the
    icebreaking fleet to meet the President's direction. And you
    said that we shall continue to invest in heavy polar
    icebreaking is vital to counter foreign malign influence and
    protect America's sovereign interests in the polar regions.
        I know that currently we are at a very strategic
    disadvantage when it comes to other nations. I think currently
    we have one heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, which is
    approximately 50 years in service. And then we have the Healy,
    which is a Polar-capable icebreaker. So two icebreakers
    compared to the 50-plus that Russia currently has.
        We know that the high north is very--become very strategic
    and will continue to be so. And I know that there is underway
    the process of building the first icebreaker I think in 50
    years here domestically, and proud that the Coast Guard is
    moving in that direction. But want to just see if you can talk
    a little bit about the importance of sustained funding for the
    Polar Security Cutter program.
        Admiral Lunday. Congressman, the Polar Security Cutter
    program is our top acquisition priority. We are excited about
    fulfilling the President's intent about building a fleet of
    icebreakers for the Nation because of the Coast Guard operates
    those icebreakers. They operate it to assure access to our
    polar regions, both the Arctic and Antarctica, and then also
    our domestic icebreaking fleet for the Great Lakes and inland
    waterways.
        The Polar Security Cutter is the first of the next
    generation of heavy icebreakers that we are building right now.
    And we are beginning to see substantial acceleration forward in
    momentum. The shipbuilder, Bollinger Mississippi, we just
    received approval for them to begin full production on Polar
    Security Cutter number 1 on the 30th of April, just a few weeks
    ago.
        They have got over 95 percent 2D and functional design
    maturity that enables them to move forward with confidence, and
    they already are constructing 10 of the prefabrication assembly
    units, which are the bottom center sections of that new
    icebreaker.
        These are complex vessels. They will provide the U.S. with
    the capability we need to assure and protect U.S. sovereignty
    in the polar regions.
        Mr. Guest. And I want to shift gears a little bit and talk
    about the interdiction mission of the Coast Guard, particularly
    as it relates to the mission in the Gulf and the Pacific. As
    you have referenced in your testimony, the President, when he
    was sworn in, immediately declared a state of emergency along
    the southwest border. He surged resources. We have seen the
    number of immigrants encounter drop dramatically along the
    southwest border, and we are seeing more and more individuals
    being pushed out from the land routes into sea routes. And we
    are also seeing more and more narcotics which are no longer
    being able to be brought in the country across what was an
    unsecured border. We are seeing more and more maritime
    operations.
        You mentioned in your testimony, in the first 4 months of
    fiscal year 2025, we seized more cocaine than we did all of
    fiscal year 2024. You talk about the 860 illegal aliens that
    have been interdicted trying to enter the country along our sea
    routes.
        So talk a little bit about the importance of that mission
    as, I believe, we are going to see particularly drug cartels
    become more and more desperate to get their product into the
    United States, they are going to see more and more individuals
    that they are going to try to use the sea routes as a way to
    bring those narcotics in. And so talk a little bit about the
    importance of that mission, and then also if you have the
    resources that you need to maintain this heightened operational
    tempo that we have seen over the last 3 to 4 months.
        Admiral Lunday. Congressman, the operations we are doing
    across the southern border--we view the southern border, along
    with the rest of DHS, as a system. And so much like when you
    squeeze or tighten down on one part--the land border, for
    example, and the Coast Guard is operating on the Rio Grande
    River as part of that effort--we see elements of that flow or
    that vector try to make their way across other areas of the
    border.
        And so we are seeing an increase in activity off southern
    California. As we see it, increased smuggling attempts, moving
    illegal migration and also drugs, trying to get those into not
    only San Diego but further up the coast up toward Los Angeles
    as well. And so the Coast Guard has increased our presence and
    operations, and along with the Customs and Border Protection,
    to make sure we can interdict and then deter those attempts.
        And so that requires not only an increased presence but
    sustaining that presence over time, and improving our
    capabilities, increase surveillance and sensors, so that we can
    queue our forces to be able to better interdict those smuggling
    attempts.
        You know, these attempts are dangerous, and we had a--one
    of these smuggling vessels flip over in the surf off of San
    Diego last week that resulted in the deaths of three people,
    including a minor. And so these efforts are critical to stop,
    not only to protect our border but save lives as well.
        And so we do need increased and sustained top-line funding
    to be able to generate and sustain the assets--ships, cutters,
    boats, and aircraft and sensors--necessary to enable us to
    protect that maritime approach to the U.S. border off of
    California, off of Texas and the Gulf of America, and then off
    of Florida and U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Guest. Admiral, thank you for being here today, and
    thank you for your service.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Ciscomani, you
    are recognized for 5 minutes for your questions.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Admiral, for being here. Thank you for answering
    our questions and helping shine the light on all the good work
    that men and women in the Coast Guard do. And thank you for
    your service.
        I represent a district in Arizona, Sixth Congressional
    District. It is a border district. It includes portions of the
    southwest border. So while I--you know, Coast Guard doesn't
    come up every day in my desert district. It is something that--
    I know that it is very linked to the issues that we deal with.
    And I will just piggyback off what Congressman Guest was
    talking about regarding the border.
        So if you can build a little more on the--both on the
    migrant apprehension side--and we know that the numbers have
    dipped at the land areas of the border. But if you can speak a
    little bit of the challenges that we are facing with migrants
    and how your mission set is increasing, and how will your
    budget request help with these efforts, especially since I
    understand that the Coast Guard has continued to direct
    relatively large numbers of migrants in the Florida straits and
    off the San Diego as well.
        So can you speak a little bit on that?
        Admiral Lunday. Thank you, Congressman, because we are not
    doing this mission alone. And I want to make sure I recognize
    we are getting great support from the Department of Defense.
    Two Navy destroyers have been assigned to this mission,
    including off of California, and they are providing critical
    capability to support our needs in areas where we have gaps.
        But the challenges we are getting after with the smuggling
    attempts, we are seeing a range of conveyances, whether it is
    personal watercraft that move quickly, under cover of darkness,
    these high-speed outboard engine equipped--what we call
    pangas--fast boats that move drugs or people quickly in
    attempts to cross the border. And so working together with the
    Navy, with other members of DHS, is critically important.
        But we are continually hampered by pressure for sustaining
    and operating our assets. Our boats and our ships are--we are
    not able to maintain them at the rate we need to. And so they
    are not always as available as we need them to be when a
    mission demand occurs or an operational case is detected.
        And so to be successful, persistent, and harden our
    operational posture over the long term on the southern border,
    we need increased investment and sustainment for more modern
    assets that we are able to repair and keep operating with a
    greater availability.
        Mr. Ciscomani. You know, you mentioned something on the
    partnerships and the work--the collaboration you are having
    with DOD and other departments. When it comes down to the
    technology, I guess, and with CBP, how is that--how are you
    able to communicate, and the intelligence maybe that is shared,
    or how do you coordinate specifically with CBP or Border
    Patrol?
        Admiral Lunday. Congressman, we are building on a very
    strong relationship with our brothers and sisters in Customs
    and Border Patrol already. We operate particularly--San Diego
    is just one example--under what we call a Regional Coordinating
    Mechanism, a ReCoM. That is a very strong team that works
    seamlessly together. Because it doesn't matter between us and
    CBP and other team members who gets the credit. It is all about
    the outcome and working together to achieve that.
        And so we start with those key ingredients. And then as we
    have seen the increased participation by the Department of
    Defense, under U.S. Northern Command, including the naval
    elements that I mentioned before, they have seamlessly
    integrated into that operation as well. And so we are seeing
    their advanced sensor capability.
        And then the work of the intelligence community provide
    additional insights and awareness for us so that we can be
    better postured and then conduct those interdictions and
    control, secure, and defend the border and the maritime
    approaches.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Excellent. Thank you. Thanks for what you
    do.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Admiral, I have got a couple areas I want to
    cover generally before we wrap up. And these are ones that can
    be--I would like you to kind of respond to us later, not at the
    hearing.
        I don't know what the mix should be for your mission in
    terms of manned versus unmanned aircraft. I think one of your
    big selling points is your personnel, folks sitting behind you,
    and you sitting there in front. I mean, there is nothing wrong
    with that.
        But as we talk about making less do more--and I am not
    suggesting what the answer is, but I think it is appropriate
    for us to have an idea of here is how that is being
    incorporated as we go forward, especially in this new time when
    we talk about reconciliation, fiscal year 2026, that sort of
    stuff, so that it is one of those things that we have checked
    on.
        So I am happy to talk with you folks offline about that,
    not that it will be a secret, but we want to know that--
    everybody else is talking about the wonders of this and that in
    terms of as a force multiplier and those sorts of things. So
    that is one of the boxes I think we need to check.
        Shore site infrastructure is always one of those things
    that is not sex and violence, but nonetheless, when we talk
    about doing the right thing in terms of cutters, in terms of
    regions, in terms of air operations, and all that other sort of
    stuff--and it is not a blame thing, it is just a reality, that
    shore site infrastructure has not been the tip of the spear, if
    you will, for a long time. And that is--like I said, you have
    got your mission to do, you got to take care of your people,
    you got to take care of your equipment. You have got all that
    stuff.
        But nonetheless, it probably is an appropriate time to go,
    okay, as we sit here to jump off in terms of potentially some
    historic funding in terms of reconciliation, as well as going
    forward into the next fiscal year, that is one of the areas I
    think we need to be able to say in our work product when
    somebody goes--it is like, well, we have talked about that and
    here is what our understanding is, and so that there has at
    least been a discussion and the consideration when the
    inevitable discussion comes on the floor for the Homeland bill,
    that we can say with some factual basis--I know that is kind of
    novel these days in some corridors--but some factual basis,
    well, we have talked about that and here is where we are at.
        The Indo-Pacific is--God bless you. And by the way, shout-
    out to your folks in District 11 who have basically had the
    unenviable task of picking me up in Minden, Nevada, in a C-27
    out of the Sacramento base and getting me down to San Diego to
    look at everything you are doing as well as some of the other
    folks down there. Absolutely impressive organization of time
    and whatever.
        So if anybody wants to go to San Diego for a break, don't
    have these guys do it for you because we hit the ground
    running. There were demonstrations in terms of Customs Border
    Patrol stuff on the aircraft on the way down, right off onto
    the boats.
        And listen, for a guy from a State without a coastline,
    that is kind of--it is a little scary, you know, when you are--
    but I was in good hands. And hats off to that command structure
    and those folks all the way through the organization.
        But as we look at that Indo-Pacific region and you are
    talking about people swimming around a fence, boats turning
    over in surf, people, you know--rolling them up on the beach
    and running--even some folks running through the yard of your
    Commander down there, it is--it is not a last post for
    retirement. I understand that. But as we talk about things a
    little farther offshore, obviously everybody focuses on the
    Customs Border Patrol mission.
        But we want to make sure that we have spent some time on,
    so what is going on on the mundane stuff like fishing, stuff
    like that, which is also part of the mission. Lucky you folks.
    So we need to--we need to make sure that we have kind of hit
    that.
        And then I think the questions regarding migrant
    interdiction have been pretty good. The one thing I want to put
    on your folks' radar screen, though, is--one of our sayings
    here is, is we won't surprise you, and we don't want you to
    surprise us. So if you have an idea right now, I would
    appreciate it.
        And maybe I shouldn't be nervous about it, but I am nervous
    about--that is great that everything, all these assets are
    integrated with DOD and all these other agencies, and blah,
    blah, blah. But when you talk about naval vessels, you know, in
    the Gulf or off the coast of San Diego--I am sure there is
    drone technology being whatever and all that--do you expect to
    get billed by DOD or the individual services--Navy, Marines--
    you know, when you see vehicles running around, air assets,
    rotary wing, drone, whatever it is--do you expect to have any
    bills back to you from the Navy or whatever saying, Hey, love
    supporting you; here's the bill?
        Admiral Lunday. Thank you, Chairman.
        With respect to the two Navy ships that have been
    supporting us, we do not expect any requests for reimbursement
    for the Navy for those operations. That has never been part of
    our discussion, specific to those assets that are supporting
    us.
        Mr. Amodei. So my ongoing request of you during this
    hearing is, as soon as the canary starts to cough in that mine
    and somebody goes, hey, by the way, I hope you folks are saving
    up because we are getting ready to send you a bill, we need to
    know about it soonest. Because based on the information we have
    got so far, we are not planning for any of that.
        And so you know the old saying; it works in your mission as
    well as anybody's: Forewarned is forearmed. So we are thinking
    there is no warning due at the moment. So if any of that starts
    to change, comms needs to kick into active gear.
        Admiral Lunday. Understand, Mr. Chairman. I will work with
    the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense
    to make sure we tell you if that has changed.
        Mr. Amodei. Okay. Last thing is--and every Federal
    organization that I am aware of struggles with this. And I like
    what I have heard so far. But obviously you have got the right
    concern regarding, hey, we got to take care of our folks with
    all their stuff. So the challenge will be--and as the Ranking
    Member of the full committee indicated and the Ranking Member
    of this committee indicated, it is like, we got to keep that
    balance in terms of how we are taking care of our peeps with--
    obviously, with equipment facilities but also with what is
    going on with recruiting, which I understand is--has ticked up
    a lot, and that is good. But obviously, along with all the
    other multitasking, I am glad to hear that that is part of the
    deal, we are trying to keep an eye on that and will continue
    to.
        With that, I think I have missed Mr. Gonzales. The floor is
    yours for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this
    hearing. And thank you, Admiral, for being here.
        I mean, just to piggyback off the chairman, this is the
    committee that wants to make sure you have all the tools to be
    successful. My team knows that--you know, they put the binder
    together, and oftentimes I don't even use any of the notes,
    right. I create my own questions. Not today, right. Today, for
    all the staffers out there, I am going to read word for word
    what I have been given.
        And the reason being is I just got back from a trip from
    Japan where I met with the Prime Minister, and he brought up
    Alaska, which I thought was interesting.
        So my question to you, Admiral, is this. As we work to
    ensure Coast Guard is on track to meet the President's
    objectives to expand our fleet and strengthen our maritime
    presence, we have a need to make sure that we have the
    infrastructure necessary to meet these goals, especially as we
    work to enhance our presence in the Arctic.
        It is my understanding that plans to develop United States'
    first deep-water Arctic port in Nome, Alaska, was further
    delayed last year due to the Army Corps' cancellation of
    solicitation due to costs overruns. In my view, it is critical
    that we stay diligent in ensuring we move to build the
    infrastructure we need to be able to dock our military assets
    and catch up with the increasing presence of Russia and Chinese
    in Arctic waters.
        Admiral, can you speak to how the Coast Guard would utilize
    a fully developed deep-water port in Alaska for operations in
    the Arctic?
        Admiral Lunday. Congressman, we are the principal surface
    operational fleet for the United States in the Arctic region,
    and we are permanently based in Alaska. As to a permanent deep-
    water port in Nome or on the north slope, north coast, we have
    been looking at that issue and working with the Corps of
    Engineers. I want to make sure I get you the most coordinated
    answer back, along with the Corps of Engineers, including that
    latest information which I did not have. So I would like to
    follow up with a briefing or with that for the record, sir.
        Mr. Gonzales. Okay. That would be great.
        Here is a little softer of a question. Can you further
    expand on the strategic importance of having the Arctic port in
    Alaska as it relates to the Arctic security?
        Admiral Lunday. Well, sir, Alaska is what makes us an
    Arctic Nation. And so our Coast Guard's strong presence,
    permanent presence that is based out of there, is very
    important for our operations there, and ensuring the control,
    secure, and defense of our border in and around Alaska as well.
        We are going to be adding a permanent new asset up there in
    the coming years. In fact, this is the new commercially
    available icebreaker, what will be the Storis. It will sail on
    the first of June through the canal and up into the Gulf of
    Alaska above the Arctic Circle. What it will do operations--it
    will eventually be homeported in Juneau, which will be part of
    its permanent homeport once that is complete.
        And so we are continuing to increase our footprint there.
    That is one of many assets that will be--as we do
    modernization--will be moving up to be permanently assigned in
    Alaska.
        Mr. Gonzales. Thank you for that.
        You know, we often talk about these in broad strokes but,
    you know, this is the Appropriations Committee. This is where
    we want to know the details, where we want to know what
    specific needs that you may have as you work with the DHS
    Secretary and the administration to work on that.
        My final question is this: Does the Coast Guard anticipate
    needing access to additional deep-water ports in the Arctic as
    it increases operations in the region?
        Admiral Lunday. Congressman, I don't have any specific
    needs identified at this point, but I will take your question
    back and will give you a more complete answer, because that is
    an important answer as we look at our future force structure
    and force posture in Alaska as part of the Arctic.
        Mr. Gonzales. Well, thank you for your testimony today.
    And, once again, I look forward to working together. Certainly
    our committee looks forward to working with you as well.
        Chairman, I yield back.
        Admiral Lunday. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        Admiral, it is our job as members of the committee to make
    sure the Department is appropriately spending money Congress
    provides, as well as to ensure the Department has the resources
    it needs to execute its missions on an annual basis. In my
    view, the Coast Guard has chronically underasked for resources.
    That is not an ignoble thing, but has chronically underasked
    for resources. I need you to tell me what you need.
        Additionally, the Coast Guard's strategy should be based on
    how the services would optimally act, not what it could do in a
    resource-constrained world.
        Now, I know that is easy to say, and there is a few moving
    parts in that, but it is on the record of me saying that to you
    folks so those folks who may be watching farther up the chain
    can hear the same thing that you heard.
        There may be some additional questions members provide in
    writing and we ask you to respond to those in a timely manner.
        I would like to thank you for being here today.
        Budget constraints have made the service risk adverse when
    it comes to adopting new technologies. Often an upfront
    investment can save an agency in the long term. For example,
    unmanned aircraft can be a cost-effective tool for the Coast
    Guard. I expect you will be a good partner in the upcoming
    fiscal year 2026 appropriations process, and I ask for your
    commitment to keep open lines of communication between this
    committee and the Coast Guard. That includes getting us your
    responses to questions in a timely fashion. For the get back
    questions that members of the committee have had today, we ask
    that you respond within 15 days. If there are other ones in
    writing, then we would like a 30-day timeframe.
        Now, that is not in a vacuum where it is like, oh, you guys
    don't have anything to do but answer these questions. But just
    so you understand what everybody's tempo looks like these days,
    I expect to be in full committee markup the second week in
    June. That is nothing that anybody can put out over whatever,
    but that is just my speculation. And I also expect to be on the
    floor with the Homeland bill in the second week in June.
        Mr. Amodei. So it is not like, hey, I know you guys, you
    got plenty to do, but so do we. And if we are going to be well-
    informed, then those questions that have been put out, we need
    those responses to it. And if that slips a little bit, I am a
    bad predictor and I will take that responsibility, but that is
    kind of what is driving our request for response in those ways.
        And that doesn't mean necessarily it needs to be, hey,
    somebody needs to write a term paper or whatever. If it can be
    handled with a phone call to the ranking member or to the
    ranking member of the committee or to one of us or to the
    committee staff, that is fine. If it turns out we need
    something more, then we will get back to you. But nobody is
    going to criticize you for trying to be efficient with your use
    of time and your resources.
        And so, with that, I would like to thank again the witness
    for being here today. I apologize for being here a little bit
    late. I hope I have made that up.
        And, with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026

                                  ----------

                                                Thursday, May 15, 2025.

                OVERSIGHT OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

                                    WITNESS

    PETE FLORES, ACTING COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
        Mr. Amodei. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security will come
    to order.
        Welcome, Acting Commissioner Flores. Thank you for being
    here.
        Two weeks ago, the Office of Management and Budget released
    its skinny fiscal year 2026 budget request. While we await the
    details of the full request, the focus of this hearing will be
    on U.S. Customs and Border Protection's priorities for the
    upcoming fiscal year.
        I will now turn to my colleague, the distinguished
    gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Underwood, for your opening
    remarks.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, Acting Commissioner Flores. It is nice to see
    you again. I would like to note that you have taken this
    position as a career official. You are not serving in a
    political capacity. So we appreciate your service, and thank
    you for being here today.
        You are currently the head of one of the Nation's oldest
    and most versatile Federal agencies, responsible for addressing
    changing and increasingly challenging issues--the enforcement
    of complex trade and agricultural laws and policies; securing
    our borders from illicit activities, including narcotics and
    human trafficking; facilitating lawful trade and travel through
    our ports of entry; and representing American values to
    visitors and around the world.
        CBP's work is made harder by our broken immigration system
    and Congress's failure to fix it. Since January 20th, you have
    also been at the mercy of fast-paced and chaotic directives
    from the administration to meet unfeasible goals that are
    putting enormous strain on CBP's resources and operational
    abilities.
        The constant whiplash on tariffs and new policies that are
    deterring international tourism are already impacting CBP,
    threatening our economic security and the financial stability
    of your agency. On top of that, the Secretary is commandeering
    resources for politicized security theater that has already put
    DHS investigations and officers at risk.
        The President is dangerously downgrading our relationship
    with Canada, one of our most important allies and a critical
    partner on trade and northern-border security. And our Vice
    President is joking about detaining tourists who come here to
    enjoy the 2026 World Cup.
        The Department of Commerce's International Trade
    Administration reports that international visitors to the
    United States already fell 12 percent compared to this same
    time last year, and airlines are reporting that bookings for
    the summer are also looking lower.
        In addition to hurting the American economy, threats to
    tourism and trade impact CBP's daily operations because, as
    international air passengers decline, so do your fee
    collections associated with that travel. The U.S. is now on
    track to lose over $12 billion in international travel spending
    this year, which would likely increase CBP's budget needs for
    fiscal year 2026, putting pressure on this subcommittee to find
    savings from other parts of DHS.
        I know your agency is already monitoring this decline in
    previously projected growth, but I ask you to keep us informed
    about how this may change in this fiscal year and the next to
    ensure CBP has the resources it needs.
        One of the resources we have invested in over the years has
    been the deployment of non-intrusive inspection technologies
    that are vital in the detection of deadly narcotics and cross-
    border traffic. There is much more to be done to stem the flow
    of these deadly narcotics across our borders, and continued
    investment in both personnel and technology at the ports is
    critical to keeping our communities safe.
        I am committed to improving our security at and between the
    ports of entry and facilitating trade and travel, but I am also
    committed to doing so in a way that is consistent with our
    values as Americans, our founding constitutional principles,
    and our responsibility to those in our care, including the most
    vulnerable individuals that CBP encounters, as well as the
    physical and emotional wellness of the CBP workforce.
        In 2023, CBP launched a pilot in El Paso, Texas, focused on
    addressing the concerning rise in deaths by suicide of CBP
    personnel and providing services to improve the wellness of the
    CBP workforce. This program is saving lives. Reinvesting in CBP
    personnel and their families pays off. I was glad to see that
    the pilot has since expanded, and encourage you to grow and
    expand the program.
        This type of investment only improves operational
    readiness, performance, retention, and recruitment. That is
    important, because hiring at CBP continues to be a challenge,
    especially for Border Patrol agents. While the Secretary touts
    a surge in recruitment, that does not translate into actual
    positions onboarded.
        CBP is also facing a major issue with its CBP officer
    workforce due to the anticipated wave of retirements that will
    leave a major gap in our capacity if we don't continue to plan
    and invest in hiring them now.
        I hope to hear more from you about your plans for
    addressing these issues and how Congress and specifically this
    committee can help on that front.
        Thank you again 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.
        Mr. Commissioner, when your staff has briefed you--by the
    way, is there any reason they are all frowning right now? It is
    kind of early for that.
        Anyhow, if they briefed you, I traditionally do not do an
    opening statement. That is because, frankly, nobody has really
    asked me to do one. And so I am not going to do one today,
    which means we are going to go right to you and your opening
    statement.
        Without objection, your full written testimony will be
    entered into the record. And with that in mind, we would ask
    you to summarize, to the extent you can, your opening statement
    to 5 minutes.
        Mr. Acting Commissioner, the floor is yours.

                        STATEMENT OF PETE FLORES

        Mr. Flores. Thank you.
        Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member Underwood, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today to discuss U.S. Customs
    and Border Protection's operational priorities and share recent
    accomplishments.
        As the Nation's unified border agency, CBP has a clear and
    critical mission: protect the American people by securing our
    borders from threats, enforcing our immigration and trade laws,
    and facilitating lawful trade and travel.
        As you are aware, CBP's mission is complex, challenging,
    and, all too often, dangerous. Tomorrow, at our Valor Memorial,
    we will honor 11 heroes and all the men and women of CBP and
    its legacy agencies who died in the line of duty.
        Every day, many of our employees endure intense physical
    and mental pressures. I am grateful this subcommittee continues
    to fund CBP's critical workforce care programs and support our
    exceptional people.
        I could not be more proud to have spent my 37-year law
    enforcement career serving alongside such dedicated and
    talented employees.
        I am also grateful to the members and staff of this
    subcommittee for their unwavering support of CBP's mission by
    ensuring we have the vital technology, equipment,
    infrastructure, and personnel resources to accomplish our broad
    security and facilitation responsibilities.
        Today, I would like to share with you just some of CBP's
    recent accomplishments.
        First, border security is national security.
        Immediately following the President's declaration of a
    national emergency at the southern border, CBP took
    comprehensive action to expand our enforcement efforts, prevent
    illegal immigration and drug smuggling, and safeguard the
    American people.
        At our ports of entry, with the termination of the CBP One
    app's scheduling function, CBP's Office of Field Operations
    began redirecting its critical and limited resources from
    processing illegal aliens to border security operations. Since
    January 21st, immigration processing actions at ports of entry
    decreased by 99 percent compared to the same time in 2024.
        Between the ports of entry, the Border Patrol expanded its
    use of expedited removal and increased enforcement against
    cartels and other criminal organizations. We continue to
    experience a dramatic and historic decline in illegal
    crossings. In March, the Border Patrol encountered just under
    7,200 illegal aliens along the southwest border, a nearly 95-
    percent decrease from March of 2024.
        Complementing these enforcement efforts, CBP initiated
    border barrier construction for areas along our southwest
    border. More than 85 miles of new border barriers are already
    in various stages of planning and construction, including a
    recent contract awarded for approximately 7 miles in the Rio
    Grande Valley Sector. CBP is also working with DOD and the
    Texas National Guard to deploy temporary barriers.
        Along our maritime borders, CBP's Air and Marine Operations
    realigned aircraft to increase patrols, resulting in a 71-
    percent increase in maritime apprehensions in southern
    California.
        We remain vigilant across all our border environments and
    continuously adjust our operations as cartels seek to shift
    their activities to alternate routes.
        It is clear that, during the first 4 months, the
    administration's policies, coupled with increased enforcement
    by CBP, DOD, and our Mexican counterparts, have significantly
    disrupted criminal activity along the southwest border. CBP's
    drug seizures have recently decreased. However, the amount of
    illegal drugs approaching our border remains alarmingly high,
    and we are intensifying our efforts.
        And, finally, CBP was ready to immediately enforce the
    President's new tariffs by updating the Automated Commercial
    Environment, performing targeted inspections, and using clear
    guidance to operational personnel. As of May 2nd, CBP has
    successfully implemented 21 tariff-related Presidential
    actions, collecting more than $37.9 billion in tariff-related
    revenue.
        With your support, CBP will remain resilient and responsive
    to any new threats or challenges. We will continue to
    prioritize investments that strengthen our enforcement of
    immigration laws, degrade the threat of transnational criminal
    organizations and terrorists, and protect the Nation's economic
    security.
        I look forward to your questions.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Amodei. Thank you for your opening statement.
        I am going to defer my questions until later on in the
    hearing.
        So we will now go to the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms.
    Underwood, for your questions.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
        Mr. Flores, I want to talk about the northern border and
    Alaska. I am concerned this administration is leaving us
    vulnerable in these regions to focus on their preferred
    narrative of a crisis at the southern border, despite the facts
    showing otherwise. Just one of many examples: CBP data showed
    twice as many terrorism-related encounters just at ports of
    entry on the northern border than the entire southern border.
        Beyond a joint narcotics operation, your testimony doesn't
    discuss the northern border. So can you please share more
    specifics about how the skinny budget we have seen can possibly
    support what CBP needs to face evolving threats at the northern
    border, especially given the recent diversion of resources to
    the southern one?
        Mr. Flores. Thank you for the question.
        So, although our current resources and enforcement posture
    on the southern border is where we are today and ensuring that
    we secure that from getting to 100-percent situational
    awareness and ultimately operational control, we know that we
    are responsible for all the border in the United States,
    including land border, our northern border----
        Ms. Underwood. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Flores [continuing]. And our waters, the maritime
    environment.
        So, as we continue to outline resources needed and the
    support--with the support of this committee, resources that we
    need in regards to technology, personnel on the northern border
    as well as our maritime borders to ensure that we have 100-
    percent situational awareness of what is coming across our
    borders.
        We have technology that we have implemented on the northern
    border, and we continue to look at new technology that will
    work on the northern border for us in regards to potential for
    communications by way of cabling, northern-border cameras that
    we have there, and enhancing our personnel that is along the
    northern border to ensure that we are gaining that additional
    100-percent situational awareness.
        Ms. Underwood. Uh-huh. Okay. Well, given the known
    challenges of staffing the northern border, I look forward to
    working with you on the ways that we in Congress can help staff
    those hard-to-fill locations.
        Moving on, I am deeply concerned about a memo that you
    issued on May 5th that revoked four CBP policies protecting
    vulnerable people in your custody, including seniors, pregnant
    women, and kids.
        One of the four policies that you revoked was on the
    processing of pregnant and postpartum non-citizens and infants.
    That policy is what keeps moms in custody healthy. It doesn't
    require anything fancy. In fact, I am a nurse, and I can tell
    you, it is really barely the basics--things like a place to sit
    or lie down or an extra juice or snack for pregnant and
    breastfeeding moms.
        The only justification in your memo for revoking this
    policy was that it was, quote, ``either obsolete or misaligned
    with current agency guidance and immigration enforcement
    priorities.''
        Now, of course, CBP is fundamentally not built for
    detention, but there are many situations where detention
    occurs, sometimes long-term, and it is critical that CBP have
    high standards in place to protect detainees and personnel.
        So tell me, what specifically about juice and seating for
    detained pregnant and breastfeeding moms is obsolete or
    misaligned with your current guidance and priorities?
        Mr. Flores. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
        So I would say that, when we have 20,000 people in custody
    every single day and we have 15,000 people sitting underneath a
    bridge and we have a couple of hundred large groups sitting in
    the desert, creating additional mechanisms to sort through
    those masses to ensure that we are taking care of the
    vulnerable became absolutely necessary as we sort through that
    population to make sure that we are expediting care and
    processing for those individuals that we have either in a
    facility or out on the border at some location.
        Today's numbers, when you look at our custody numbers
    today, we have anywhere from 500 to 700, 800 individuals in
    custody.
        Ms. Underwood. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Flores. We are seeing less than 300 a day come across
    our borders. So, with those numbers, we can operationalize and
    ensure that we are not minimizing the care, that we are taking
    care of those individuals in our custody. Because in that memo,
    as well, I emphasized that the priority of taking care of
    individuals in our custody remains a priority for us.
        Ms. Underwood. Right.
        Mr. Flores. So our ability to be able to get through, care
    for, and meet all the requirements of those in our custody,
    based on 500 or 800 individuals being in our custody, right, we
    are able to meet those needs and be able to meet----
        Ms. Underwood. Right. But, Mr. Commissioner, you know, if
    you remove the standards of care that offer baseline, basic
    criteria for how to care for a vulnerable population like a
    pregnant person and that would direct your agents and officers
    to offer that individual juice or a snack or a place to sit, if
    we are not issuing that as basic policy, then it might not
    happen.
        And so I appreciate that encounters are down. And that is a
    fantastic thing. That is something that this committee
    celebrates, in fact. But, as you have reaffirmed, you do have a
    baseline standard for caring for people in your custody.
        And so what I am going to ask is that you commit to
    immediately reinstating this policy or a new one--or a new
    one--that reflects the current dynamic with lower levels of
    encounters that would have higher standards for pregnant and
    postpartum moms.
        Will you commit to that?
        Mr. Flores. So I can definitely take that back,
    Congresswoman, as we look through this.
        So what I would tell you is that, when we do have 20,000
    people in custody, it was difficult to find space to allow that
    to occur. So we had to prioritize that in order to allow that
    to occur, to find a place to sit, to get juice or snacks.
        And we are still doing the same thing; it is just, we do
    not have the space limitations today in our facilities to find
    a place to allow someone to sit or to have juice or to have
    those snacks.
        Ms. Underwood. Mr. Chairman, you know, I think that this
    committee would be willing to find the resources to properly
    care for pregnant moms, postpartum moms, kids, elders that are
    in CBP's care. And I am going to continue to impress upon the
    agency the urgency of reinstating this type of policy. It is
    not optional.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        We now go to the gentlelady from Iowa, which represents the
    home of the river buoy tender Wyacond----
        Mrs. Hinson. That is right, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. For your questions for the Acting
    Commissioner. The floor is yours.
        Mrs. Hinson. Yes. And thank you for hearing me out during
    our Coast Guard hearing yesterday about our need for a new
    cutter on the Mississippi River.
        I understand that you do a lot of great work with U.S.
    Coast Guard, and you talked about some of the introductions
    already. So I just want to extend my sincere gratitude to you
    and the men and women at CBP for all of the work you do to not
    only care for those individuals, as was just discussed in the
    last line of questioning, but to really keep our country safe,
    to stand up to those terrorists, those transnational crime
    organizations, the traffickers who are taking advantage of
    those very people every single day.
        So thank you for what you are doing to help keep them and
    all of us safe.
        We know, under the Biden administration, every State became
    a border State, even States like Iowa. We saw those
    consequences firsthand through fentanyl. We saw those
    consequences through illegal drugs flooding into our
    communities, putting American lives, Iowa lives at risk.
        So I am grateful to the President for taking that action on
    day one. I mean, you talked about a 95-percent decrease year
    over year. That is incredible, to see those numbers shift in
    the other way. And we know you need the necessary tools, the
    authorities to be able to execute and do that job.
        We didn't need new policy; we needed a new President. And
    we consistently heard from Border Patrol under the previous
    administration, you felt your hands were tied. Agents were
    telling me they didn't feel that they could do their jobs
    effectively, specifically the jobs that they were trained to
    do. So I am excited to see a return to core mission here, so
    thank you for helping to lead that.
        President Trump's policies--reinstating Remain in Mexico,
    changing over the CBP One app to make it the CBP Home app,
    resuming border wall construction, as you talked about, the
    barrier construction as well--those are all established and
    proven tools to really help us to deter illegal immigration
    and, again, empower our frontline agents to be able to do their
    jobs.
        So which of the Biden-era policy reversals would you say
    have been most effective in having the greatest impact on
    enforcement, deterrence, and the safety and morale of your
    agents and officers?
        Mr. Flores. So I would say, actually enforcing our
    immigration laws and providing consequences to those that break
    that law.
        So our ability to get out of the processing, caretaking,
    transportation, a lot of those administrative or non-LEO-type
    enforcements that we had agents and officers doing on a regular
    and reoccurring basis. We are able now to get them to do law-
    enforcement-type work, to patrol the border, to create
    deterrence, to make those arrests, have time to interview
    aliens that we are encountering and develop further information
    and intelligence in order to continue prosecutions and to
    continue down the road in regards to closing off aspects of the
    border that were open.
        Another piece, I think, that significantly helped us is the
    inject of equipment, personnel from DOD, being able to have
    more line of sight, being able to have more technology, to have
    more coverage on the border, allowing our agents to be able to
    respond and intercept and actually arrest those individuals
    crossing our border. So we have seen----
        Mrs. Hinson. You are talking, like, automated surveillance
    in----
        Mr. Flores. Right.
        Mrs. Hinson [continuing]. Towers and cameras?
        Mr. Flores. Absolutely. So our automated, autonomous
    surveillance towers and that type of technology that we are
    using across the board today; the increase of what we are doing
    from aircraft and unmanned aircraft patrols on the border
    provide additional visibility and reaction time for our agents.
        So those have significantly helped in what we are seeing
    today in those numbers.
        The other piece is the consistent messaging for us, not
    only within what has happening at the border and within the
    U.S., but to countries that we had seen aliens arrive at our
    border from. So that messaging, and the messaging, obviously,
    matches the consequences that are being provided.
        Mrs. Hinson. Yeah.
        Well, it is very clear, with that reduction in numbers
    coming across the border and to my colleague's earlier point
    about making sure people are cared for, you are clearly able to
    do that, because you have fewer people that you are having in
    custody. And I think that that is really important, that you
    can redirect those resources where they need to go. And, again,
    I think that probably is a good morale booster for the
    workforce as well.
        Can you speak to, a little bit, the broader cost savings
    from the changes that have been made under the Trump
    administration? You talk about interdiction, deterrence, being
    able to use some of these automated technologies like the CBP
    Home app. How are those efforts helping you to carry out your
    mission more effectively?
        I mean, I remember coming down to my colleague Tony
    Gonzales's district and seeing those soft-sided facilities that
    now we don't have to pay for anymore.
        Mr. Flores. Right.
        Mrs. Hinson. So how have you been able to really maximize
    those savings?
        Mr. Flores. So I think the first thing I will start with is
    being able to get our law enforcement officers back to doing
    law enforcement work. So we have cut man-hours there in regards
    to non-law-enforcement work and being able to patrol the
    border, which makes us more effective and efficient, based on
    using law enforcement hours for law enforcement work. That
    would be the first thing I would mention.
        The other thing I would say, on the soft-sided facilities--
    so soft-sided facilities were costing us about $83 million a
    month, is what that was costing us. So, with the numbers being
    significantly lowered, with our in-custody numbers, again, down
    from 20,000 people every day that we had, individuals in
    custody, down to 500 to 800 a day, we were able to shut down
    all of those soft-sided facilities, so saving the American
    taxpayers $83 million each month on the cost of that. So being
    able to do that internally with the resources was a significant
    savings for the American taxpayer.
        I would say that, in regards to the CBP Home app and what
    we are doing, it is a cost-effective way to allow individuals
    that are here illegally or undocumented to be able to get back
    to their home countries on their own. It is cheaper than
    providing for custody and providing for transportation flights
    with ICE, who typically does that transportation. So it is a
    cost-savings mechanism that allows for those in the country to
    depart on their own terms.
        Mrs. Hinson. Well, thank you for the great work you are
    doing, Acting Commissioner, and appreciate you coming to
    testify today. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. The floor now for 5 minutes for questioning
    belongs to the gentleman from the namesake of the Uniroyal
    Laredo all-terrain tire.
        Mr. Cuellar. Hey. That is very good.
        Mr. Amodei. It is a little----
        Mr. Cuellar. I am impressed.
        Mr. Amodei. Don't anybody think I am giving them an ad.
        The floor is yours.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
    impressed by that detail.
        And, Ranking Member, thank you so much.
        I was texting Rodney Scott. He told me to be kind. So, for
    the record, I will be very kind, Commissioner Flores.
        A couple of things. First of all, thank your men and
    women--blue, green, tan, Air Marine, and all the folks that
    work for you all. Thank you so much.
        I am going to have--my questions are going to be very
    specified to Laredo, if you don't mind, this time.
        Number one, we have the largest checkpoint that needs to be
    upgraded. I think we already added $15 million. They are
    working on the design. But I would like to make sure that you
    all keep that on budget and on time. And that is one thing we
    need to work on, everything else that you all work on, on
    budget and on time. And hopefully we can follow the law on that
    aspect.
        And I am worried about that checkpoint, because it would be
    the fourth-largest port of entry if it would be a port of
    entry, that checkpoint. And it is not only that checkpoint, but
    we have another one in Freer that has been on hold for a while,
    and we need that one too. And then I think Congressman Gonzales
    has another one in Eagle Pass, I believe, also.
        So, if we are going to add money, if you all are going to
    be adding money on reconciliation, just look at the basic needs
    for our men and women down there, and I will talk about those
    checkpoints.
        The other thing is the efficiencies. I know we just
    established a CTPAT in Laredo, an office there. You know, the
    more of those trucking lines we can get in, the better it is,
    because, as you know, most of the drugs come in through ports
    of entry, not in between ports. According to the U.S.
    Sentencing Commission, 86 percent of the people that are caught
    at checkpoints and ports of entry are U.S. citizens, not
    illegal; they are U.S. citizens or residents. So we have to
    make sure we get your technology working.
        So we have to get that non-intrusive technology working.
    And I know sometimes the footprint is not there for some of the
    older bridges, but there are some new expansions coming in--the
    World Trade Bridge in Laredo, which is the largest port in the
    whole country, bigger than L.A. And--et cetera, et cetera. We
    only have 8 lanes, but we got the Presidential permit where we
    go from 8 to 18 lanes. So, from 18,000 trailers a day--you can
    imagine what is going to happen. That gives a lot of
    opportunities for the bad guys to use those trailers.
        We have the third-largest crossing, the Colombia Bridge,
    which we are waiting for a Presidential permit. It is the
    second-largest in Texas. So Laredo has, basically, number one
    and number three in the whole southern border. So I am very
    interested in the men and women in blue and the technology that
    you all are looking at.
        And, finally, the last thing--I want to make a comment, and
    you can respond--is the cameras. As you know, FAA--somebody
    came up with a bright idea to put it all together, and the FAA
    was handling the maintenance. That is like asking Border Patrol
    to go on air traffics. And I think hopefully that was changed
    now.
        But, in my area, one-third of the cameras are working, two-
    thirds are not working, unless those numbers have changed. But
    to say one-third of the cameras are working--I know we are
    waiting for upgrades--that is not good for border security.
        The last point has to do with contracting. You mentioned,
    you know, the tents. And those tents, I know some were coming
    from Rome, New York, and other places. But a lot of it--when
    the numbers went down--I don't know what the right term is--you
    all had this ``warm'' status--you all should have gotten rid of
    that. Because we are paying millions and millions and millions
    of taxpayers' dollars. And you all just have to do a better job
    at contracting and getting a better deal and then just letting
    those--whatever it is--``warm'' status--going into that.
        And talking about ``worm,'' let me go to ``worm'' farm.
    There is a big detention center in Laredo, $280 million--I call
    it a ``woke''-type project--where, for the sewage, you all
    wanted to use ``worm.'' Apparently you all used it in
    California. That is fine in California, but the city of Laredo
    is willing to put in sewage lines and work with you.
        This, I will call it a ``woke'' project--I mean, just that
    ``worm'' thing--the rest is good; the detention center is
    good--but I would like to have a followup on all that.
        Mr. Flores. Sure.
        Mr. Cuellar. And I know we don't have enough time, but I
    would be happy to sit down with you.
        And, for the record, tell Mr. Scott that I was very kind to
    you, I was very kind.
        Mr. Flores. Congressman, thank you for the question. We
    will definitely get back to you.
        We recognize all those projects. They are on our priority.
    And, obviously, as we get through ability to fund any of that--
    and some are already funded, in regards to the Laredo
    checkpoint. So we are on track with that going forward.
        Mr. Cuellar. And the detention center? What about that
    ``warm''----
        Mr. Flores. So the ``worm'' status that we put them in is
    because of the unpredictability that we had during the surges
    that we were seeing from illegal crossings. So we wanted to
    make sure that we were not going to be out of capacity.
        With the new administration and the numbers that we saw
    consistently being down, we went through the process as soon as
    we could in order to scale down, and every one of those soft-
    sided facilities we no longer operate.
        Mr. Cuellar. Yeah. Well, this is a hard facility. They
    closed the tents, and there we are talking about a hard
    facility.
        Mr. Flores. Right.
        Mr. Cuellar. Your congressional affairs person is very
    familiar with that.
        I just--I don't have a problem, and I support that
    detention center. I just have a problem with the ``worm'' farm
    when the city is willing to connect sewage lines to you all.
        Mr. Flores. Okay.
        Mr. Cuellar. But, anyway, thank you so much, and I
    appreciate your service and the men and women that work for you
    all.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Amodei. Yes, sir.
        The chair now recognizes the vice chair of the
    subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona, home of the five C's:
    copper, cattle, cotton, citrus, and climate.
        Mr. Ciscomani, the floor is yours for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Ciscomani. You are really doing a great job today,
    Chairman. All the personalized----
        Mr. Amodei. I am exhausted. But go right ahead.
        Mr. Ciscomani. It is great. It is great. Thank you.
        Acting Commissioner, thank you for being here with us
    today, and thank you for your leadership in this very important
    issue to the entire Nation.
        I represent Arizona's Sixth Congressional District. It is
    in the southeastern part of the State, so--and the border with
    Mexico. I have had the opportunity to visit countless times
    with your OFO officers, with the CBP agents, and the AML agents
    as well, and I am always very impressed with their great--even
    through the hardest times in the last few years, just how they
    were able to show up and keep doing the job in spite of
    everything else going on. So I have a lot of pride in
    representing them in Congress. I have a large number of them in
    my district, living in my district.
        So I want to ask a question here on an issue, on the FERS
    issue that we are seeing. It is my understanding that Federal
    law enforcement officers face mandatory retirement at age 57,
    which we know, but can retire earlier if they have 20 years in
    service and are over 50, or even younger if they have 25 years
    of service.
        This applies for law enforcement under CBP, correct?
        Mr. Flores. Correct.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Okay. And how many CBP personnel do you have
    who are eligible for retirement today? And how many will be
    eligible in the next couple of years?
        Mr. Flores. So, just on the retirement issue, I will just
    start with, you are correct in regards to--so we have officers,
    agents, any of the CBP law enforcement personnel. So at the age
    of 50 with 20 years' worth of service can retire and at any age
    with 25 years of service----
        Mr. Ciscomani. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Flores [continuing]. Can retire in regards to if they
    are a LEO.
        In regards to our numbers of retirement, so we look at--CBP
    has currently a little over 67,000 employees in CBP right now.
    If we look at our current number of those eligible to retire,
    we are somewhere right about 5,900 employees that are eligible
    to retire. Within that 5,900 that are eligible to retire, we
    have another 3,300 of those that are LEOs, or law enforcement,
    that are eligible for retirement.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Great. Thank you for that.
        And under the Federal Employee Retirement System that I
    mentioned, Federal law enforcement officers receive a
    supplement to their annuity when they retire to bridge them
    until they become eligible for Social Security at age 62.
        Our colleagues on the House Oversight Committee recently
    reported out legislation as part of the reconciliation process
    that would have required a Federal law enforcement officer to
    work until they are 57 to receive this supplement.
        I have a huge Border Patrol presence in my district, as I
    mentioned earlier, and I personally know agents who, because of
    injuries, really struggle to make it to retirement eligibility,
    let alone the mandatory retirement age of 57.
        Specifically, when I have gone over on the far remote areas
    of the border and I realize the terrain that these agents are
    going up and down--and I have heard stories of how their knees
    give out, you know, in their 40s sometimes, and even earlier,
    and the injuries that they have.
        The Arizona border is a very unique border, as you know, in
    the southern part there, because of, again, the terrain. In
    some areas, you can't even build a barrier because of that. It
    is very different than some of the other neighboring States.
        So, anecdotally, I have heard from these agents and their
    retirement papers right now that they are putting in because
    they fear that they will not be able to physically make it to
    the age of 57, which is because of what I just described as
    well.
        So is this something that you are tracking with the men and
    women working in your department? And how might this provision
    removing supplemental pay impact your agency and also your
    recruitment efforts and retainment efforts?
        Mr. Flores. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        So we track retirements on a regular basis on what we are
    seeing in regards to employees putting in for retirement. In
    regards to anything that is added or taken away, obviously,
    Congress will have that input on what happens next, on whether
    or not any of the language--or what that language looks like,
    in reconciliation or anywhere else.
        I can tell you from my personal experience, anytime we have
    or there is discussion about potential impacts to employees'
    pay or benefits, there is some impact to that, in regards to--
    at least our current employees, right? When we start talking
    about impacts to current employees' benefits and pay, there is
    some impact and concern from our existing employees.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Well, I go back to my district every
    weekend, spend a lot of time out and about, from on the field
    at football games or at the grocery store or church. And every
    time I, right now, am talking to someone in Federal law
    enforcement, this is the number-one issue on their mind, what
    we are working on here.
        So it is something that we are addressing, and I wanted to
    make sure what your thoughts were on that in terms, again, of
    the recruiting part but also in the retention right now, given
    the numbers that you have and the ones that are eligible for
    retirement. This is a time that we need our workforce, and our
    experienced workforce, to be on this. And that is why I think
    it is important to fix that, and we will.
        So thank you, sir, for being here, and thank you for your
    testimony today.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you.
        Mr. Ciscomani. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    ``aloha'' country, since we are talking about new States these
    days, not that it is exactly new, but the 50th State. At least
    some people believe that.
        The floor is yours for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Case. I don't know how to respond to that, actually. I
    have got some witty comments having to do with the 51st State,
    but I think I will just pass.
        Mr. Amodei. I figured you would, which is why I tried to
    defer to you.
        Mr. Case. Thanks for beating me.
        Mr. Flores, first of all, thanks for your service. I think
    I counted 37 years or so?
        Mr. Flores. Correct.
        Mr. Case. So you have been on the front line for a long
    time. Appreciate your stepping into this role.
        What I want to do is follow up on a line of questioning
    that I had with the Secretary when she testified about the
    cost-benefit of a border wall.
        And let me give you some context. First of all, I have been
    to the border three times myself. I have talked with many, many
    of your officers on the ground. I believe, and I believe it may
    be the consensus of some of the officers on the ground, that we
    definitely need to rehabilitate, expand, and extend the border
    wall in some parts but not all 1,954 miles. I am not going to
    speak for them, but that is my conclusion.
        So what I am interested in is understanding where the
    administration is trying to go and what are the consequences of
    doing that.
        So my understanding is that, in fiscal year 2024, continued
    to 2025, Customs and Border Protection was funded at about
    $19.6 billion. The skinny budget doesn't specifically call out
    CBP, but it is a level-funded budget, and I don't think that
    there is an assumption of an increase for CBP in the skinny
    budget.
        But reconciliation clearly front-loads CBP to the tune of
    about $64.9 billion, which is three times more than the annual
    funding, of which $46.5 billion is to build the border wall. So
    that means that, of the entire reconciliation budget, 71.6
    percent is allocated to a border wall in the CBP, which is
    twice the annual budget of all of CBP, as contrasted with $2.8
    billion to border surveillance, which I think we would all
    agree is also an important part of actually securing our
    border.
        So my question to Secretary Noem was this: That is a heck
    of a lot of money to put into a border wall, and if we have
    seen such a drastic decrease in entries into this country--
    which is good news, by the way. Congratulations to everybody
    that pulled that off. But if we have got this under control
    from a non-1,954-mile border wall, then why are we investing
    that much in a border wall?
        So the subsidiary part of the question is, does that $46.5
    billion assume--what is the assumption under that? How much
    wall does that buy, $46.5 billion?
        Mr. Flores. So, Congressman, thank you for the question.
        So, within CBP, in our evaluation, we have recognized needs
    in regards to expanding border walls--and not just the border
    wall; the border wall system.
        So infrastructure is one thing. When you talk about
    infrastructure, an actual physical infrastructure, a wall. When
    you talk about border roads and access roads, it would become
    equally as important.
        But the border wall system also includes technology. So
    that means we are talking about fiberoptic cable, we are
    talking about sensors, we are talking about cameras, autonomous
    cameras and that, all combining together to systemize just a
    border wall system in what we are doing.
        So what we have planned for in regards to needs that we
    have, so based on support from the committee, operationalizing
    what some of those needs are in regards to border wall, border
    barrier, both the primary wall and secondary wall----
        Mr. Case. Okay.
        Mr. Flores [continuing]. But it includes the technology as
    well.
        Mr. Case. All right. Cool. And I am fine with all your
    technology, and I am fine with all of that, you know, border
    roads, and I am fine with everything else in terms of, you
    know, taking care of our agents.
        But I guess my specific question is, what is the assumption
    as to a physical barrier, an extension of that barrier? Because
    $46.5 billion is a lot of money to spend when, you know, the
    administration says that it has solved the problem already.
        So my question is, from a cost-benefit perspective, what
    assumption are we making with the border wall in that $46.5
    billion? The wall itself.
        Mr. Flores. So the wall itself, we recognize the
    operational need and the funding in order to build the--we
    don't have the funding for that. We have used our current
    funding in order to build the current wall that we have, either
    in some type of planning or construction phase----
        Mr. Case. I don't mean to--I am really trying to get to,
    how much wall did you put into your projections of $46.5
    billion? What is the assumption there? Is that the entire
    border? Is it half the border?
        Mr. Flores. So it will not include the entirety of the
    border. So we have a little less than 2,000 miles along the
    border. So we recognize that there are areas, geographic areas,
    and terrain out there where a border wall does not make sense
    for us.
        Mr. Case. Do you know how many of those miles you are
    assuming in that 46.5 billion number?
        Mr. Flores. So, in regards to primary border barrier, I can
    tell you that our operational need of what we have identified
    from a primary border barrier, we are at about 700 miles of
    primary border.
        Mr. Case. Okay. So that is the assumption in the 46.5----
        Mr. Flores. That is what we have in our planning so far,
    operational need.
        Mr. Case. And, just quickly, what timeframe does that
    assume?
        Because what you are doing is you are committing this
    Appropriations Committee to funding of that over time, which
    takes out of the other goals, which is why reconciliation in
    budgeting is a bad idea.
        What is the timeframe? Ten years?
        Mr. Flores. So what we have right now is just the planning
    stage of what our operational needs are. Based on whether or
    not funding is provided, when we get the funding, we will
    determine what the timeframe is there. But we are working to
    shorten that timeframe as much as possible.
        Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. The gentleman yield backs.
        I now recognize the gentleman from the State whose name, I
    guess, means ``friendly'' in one of the Native languages and,
    obviously, the Lone Star State.
        Mr. Gonzales, the floor is yours for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman.
        And, Pete, great to see you here. You have done a great job
    as Commissioner. Thank you and the men and women that work
    underneath you, or alongside you, for everything that you are
    doing.
        I want to start with, you know, my district. I have four
    sectors in it. I have a small piece of Laredo, Del Rio Sector,
    Big Bend Sector, and El Paso Sector. And each one is completely
    different than the next.
        Let's start with the El Paso Sector. I want to bring your
    attention that at Fort Hancock, the port of entry at Fort
    Hancock, the hours have been reduced due to COVID-19 and they
    never got returned. I mean, COVID was 5 years ago, and the
    hours are still limited because of that.
        So my question is, are there any plans--and I understand
    staffing and you are trying to navigate it all, but it is
    seriously a safety issue for the residents in Hudspeth County
    that rely on that port of entry to make their way to Mexico,
    back and forth.
        Do you have any plans to reevaluate our land ports of entry
    that currently operate under reduced hours, specifically pre-
    COVID hours?
        Mr. Flores. Congressman, thank you for the question. Good
    to see you again.
        Absolutely. So we do a continuous evaluation of what our
    operational tempo is and what our hours are at all the
    locations that we do, the 328 ports of entry that we have. So
    we want to make sure, from an operation tempo, that we are
    meeting the demand of what is happening at our ports of entry.
    So we do that evaluation, and we consistently reevaluate
    whether or not the hours meet the demand and needs of what we
    have.
        What we do recognize is that, based on limited staffing and
    resources, we have to put our staffing to where the need is and
    then scale down operations as best as possible in order to
    ensure that we are taking care of needs across the board but
    ensuring that staff is dedicated to primary locations where we
    are seeing the need for increased traffic.
        But we do reevaluate consistently on what port hours should
    be.
        Mr. Gonzales. Sure. I would ask you to take a look at the
    Fort Hancock port of entry. Hudspeth County often gets
    forgotten for a lot of different reasons, and that is an
    important issue for me.
        I want to talk about Stonegarden. Stonegarden, I think, is
    a program that has been very successful. You know, for those of
    us who voted for the CR last year, we were able to get a
    variety of different amounts in. I know El Paso County was able
    to get $3.7 million. But there is a disparity in some of the
    grant awardees, right? Other parts of my district--Frio County
    got 165k, La Salle County got 186k.
        All grateful. All good stuff. But as you are going through
    this--as we were working through the reconciliation process on
    the homeland authorization side, we put 450--hopefully it
    stays, but we put $450 million in there over a 5-year period. I
    would just ask that you kind of evaluate, make sure that it is
    going to some of these areas. Because, in many cases, it is
    these smaller counties that are still getting hit.
        And that leads me--actually, before I go into that part, I
    would also like to hear your thoughts on, a lot of times, that
    is used for overtime, but equipment is one of the basic
    necessities of communicating. And in many parts of my district,
    you just cannot communicate with others.
        What are your thoughts on trying to expand the Stonegarden
    program to maybe just radios or having some things like that?
    Just would love to get your thoughts on the communication piece
    to just the problem set along the border.
        Mr. Flores. Congressman, thanks for the question.
        Agree, from a Stonegarden--I will start with Stonegarden--
    perspective there, that it is an important aspect of what we
    do, with being able to work law enforcement issues with our
    State and locals in the county.
        As we know, I, like some of you, born and raised in a small
    border town, in Calexico, California, so I understand the need
    of how small some of the law enforcement is and the support
    needed. And the ability to communicate becomes essential, like
    in most situations--regular/routine and emergency situations.
        So what we can do, in regards to the request, in regards to
    Stonegarden, we will look into what that looks like in regards
    to equipment and communication and what that is.
        A lot of those requests that come in are based on the
    agency themselves, right, the State and local agencies
    themselves, putting in their operational order on the needs
    and, kind of, what the cooperation will be on that, on how we
    meet those needs under Stonegarden.
        Mr. Gonzales. Well, I would love to continue to work
    together with you on modernizing the program. We just can't
    write blank checks and think it is going to solve itself. Like,
    how do we make sure that those funds, our taxpayer dollars, are
    going down to meet the need? And sometimes it is not personnel;
    sometimes it is equipment, like communications.
        My last question is on the Big Bend Sector. I mean, we talk
    about--these other sectors get a lot of attention, but the Big
    Bend Sector, in my eyes, is an area that hasn't slowed down,
    that continues to have a lot of foot traffic on a daily basis.
    You know, a lot of people are traveling through the desert on
    that area.
        In that area in particular--once again, it is not an easy
    place to get to, and I understand the population is low. But
    from a Big Bend Sector, is there anything that we can do to
    help, you know, some of the local communities?
        What I am hearing from my ranchers is just--like, for
    everyone else, they have gotten relief. That area continues to
    be a hotbed.
        Just in the Big Bend Sector in particular, is there
    anything that we can do to maybe alleviate some of their high
    foot traffic?
        Mr. Flores. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        We continue to look at our high-traffic areas and
    reevaluate that. With the support that we are getting, being
    able to put agents back to do law enforcement work, the
    ingestion of technology that we have and refocusing some of
    that technology, with the help of DOD in the technology, the
    help of DOD personnel on the border to help close off some of
    those areas, are all areas that we are focusing on.
        So we continue to plan for where we see problem spots or
    hot areas along the border, and we continue to reevaluate how
    we are deploying our agents, how we are working with DOD to
    deploy their personnel, and then what our coverage is in the
    air in regards to bringing visibility to those problem areas.
    We continue to work towards 100-percent situational awareness.
    And that is our plan right now, to get to that 100-percent
    situational awareness so we can ensure that we know what is
    coming across the border.
        And then, ultimately, in ensuring that we know what is
    coming across the border, being able to effect an enforcement
    action on that. The enforcement and deterrence piece and the
    consequences seems to have a good deterrence and alleviating
    some of those hot spots.
        Mr. Gonzales. Right.
        Well, thank you, Commissioner, for your testimony today. I
    look forward to continuing to work together.
        And, Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        The gentlelady from high-altitude Texas, which--we may be
    the two highest-altitude residents of districts in Congress. I
    don't know about Mr. Newhouse, but he is not here, so he
    doesn't count today.
        The floor is yours for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Madam
    Ranking Member.
        Commissioner Flores, thank you for being here, and thank
    you for your service to our country.
        I am blessed to represent the beautiful community of El
    Paso, Texas. And I am a native, born and raised there. I raised
    my children there. And my constituents recognize the importance
    of our land ports of entry.
        I think, frequently, Congress does not. You know, we get a
    lot of visitors from across the country who parachute in. They
    visit the border, take their selfies, leave. When I have folks
    visit the border, I always include our land ports of entry,
    because they are key to our commerce, to our national economy.
        But what I have heard, long before I was in Congress, from
    my neighbors, friends, et cetera, who work for CBP is how
    understaffed our OFO personnel are. And it has been a chronic
    issue. It precedes my time in Congress, as I mentioned.
        And the staffing model, I think, needs to be reconfigured.
    And we need to think about different things in a new staffing
    model, including, for example, the El Paso Sector, where one
    land port of entry is probably about 45 minutes away from
    another land port of entry. And when you are shifting
    personnel, we have to take that timing into consideration.
        I was so proud to have supported the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law, which had funding for a port modernization,
    the Bridge of the Americas, in the central part of my
    community. And as we increase POV traffic there, I again come
    back to thinking about staffing.
        And, again, Congress frequently focuses on Border Patrol
    and the border when it comes to CBP. I would like to hear from
    you, how do we address our chronic understaffing with OFO?
        Mr. Flores. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
        So our Workload Staffing Model is something we have
    developed now over several years, and it has been validated. I
    think, to your point, in regards to taking into consideration
    the time and distance of some of our locations, it is an
    important aspect and something that we are trying to ensure
    that is--it is incorporated into the Workload Staffing Model.
        The current Workload Staffing Model for OFO, at least the
    last numbers I saw, I believe, had them 5,000 people short
    based on current workload the last time we did the assessment.
    So it is a validation tool for us on what the workload is.
        So I agree that, operationally, like the Border Patrol,
    Office of Field Operations is also short of the men and women
    performing the job at the ports of entry.
        And as you are well aware, in regards to the economics of
    what happens at ports of entry in regards to daily travel,
    commuter travel, commercial trucks coming across the border,
    right, there is high value in what that is coming across the
    border.
        We continue to make process improvements. With your support
    and the committee support, in regards to what additional
    staffing looks like, we continue to make operational
    improvements to help alleviate some of the stress of points of
    entry.
        In regards to technology as a way forward, Simplified Entry
    was a great example of what we did in regards to being able to
    expedite traffic. As we look at Trusted Traveler and Trusted
    Trader programs, we have FAST, and we have Global Entry, right,
    we have SENTRI and those type of programs that, today, account
    for about 16 million people registered into those type of
    programs.
        So I am trying to expedite crossings across the border as
    we wait for additional staffing, hopefully, and funding for
    that to be able to fulfill some of those spots that we have
    both in the passenger environment and in the cargo environment
    along all of our ports of entry in the U.S.
        Ms. Escobar. Commissioner, would you commit to working with
    me on assuring that we have enough OFO personnel at our land
    ports of entry?
        Mr. Flores. Will do. Yes. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Escobar. Okay. Perfect.
        I would also like to work with you on Trusted Traveler,
    because that is a high source of complaints from members of my
    community, including very well-respected members of the
    business community, to, you know, all sorts of folks from all
    walks of life. That program, when that privilege is revoked, it
    is like a black box; people can't get answers. So I would like
    to work with you on that as well.
        I am running out of time. I have one final question that is
    really important to me.
        We have seen the administration use members of our Active-
    Duty military on the U.S.-Mexico border. How much training and
    how long is the training for Border Patrol, just very quickly,
    before they engage in border operations?
        Mr. Flores. So the academy itself, I believe it is about 6
    months.
        Ms. Escobar. And they get all sorts of really in-depth
    training.
        How much training do our Active-Duty military get before
    they are put on border enforcement? Do you know?
        Mr. Flores. So I would have to leave that up to DOD. But I
    know, based on my experience over my career, we have had DOD at
    the border ever since I can remember in regards to----
        Ms. Escobar. Well, aside from the joint task force, I am
    talking about the recent operations----
        Mr. Flores. Right.
        Ms. Escobar [continuing]. Where we are literally putting
    military personnel on the border to act as enforcement
    personnel. Do you know how much training they get?
        Mr. Flores. So we do some cross-training with DOD personnel
    when they come on board in regards to relationship of what we
    are doing. And then they obviously--DOD does their own training
    before that. But I don't----
        Ms. Escobar. And do you know how----
        Mr. Flores [continuing]. I don't know how much training DOD
    does.
        Ms. Escobar. It is literally only hours, a few hours.
        And so I need to publicly express again my profound concern
    and alarm at the administration's decision to use military
    assets, military installations, and now Active-Duty military
    for border enforcement.
        So thank you so much. Again, look forward to working with
    you on Trusted Traveler and on ensuring that we have an
    adequate number of OFO personnel at our land ports.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from the Great River State, which
    I guess is translated out of the Algonquian language for
    ``Mississippi,'' and also known as the Magnolia State, the
    floor is yours for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner, thank you for joining us. Thank you for your
    hard work. Thank you for your leadership. Please tell the men
    and women who serve under you how much we, as Congress,
    appreciate what they do for us each and every day.
        I want to tell you that the work that CBP has been able to
    do in the last few months has been amazing. We have seen a
    dramatic change along the border. We have seen numbers drop to
    historic lows, decreases of 90-plus percent along the southwest
    border.
        And I think that goes to show the hard work of the men and
    women that serve under you and the change that we have seen in
    the administration of actually allowing them to do their job
    and to enforce the laws that exist.
        There was a question by one of my colleagues earlier about
    walls and borders, and why do we need walls, why do we need
    borders if the--physical borders along our southwest border if,
    in fact, we have reached the point that we have today where
    things are fairly secure?
        But I want to ask you: In your experience, do walls work?
    Are they a necessary part of the border component that Congress
    should be investing in?
        And in those areas where we have walls or borders, do we
    see that we are able to redirect manpower to other areas of the
    border that have not been secured by those structures?
        Mr. Flores. Congressman, thank you for the question.
        So I started my career about 37 years ago in a small border
    town of Calexico, California. So, for 30-plus years, we have
    been using some type of border barrier along the border. And
    so, in my experience, infrastructure, border barriers, walls,
    technology--it works.
        It provides us a couple things. One, it provides us
    situational awareness in regards to, when you talk about
    barriers and technology, it provides us with greater
    situational awareness, which creates the ability for our agents
    and officers to respond to any event or event that may be
    occurring.
        The wall also provides us--more hours back in regards to it
    provides agents the capability to patrol and enforce more
    mileage along the border in regards to access roads and the
    wall doing--to prevent and denial of individuals crossing at
    various locations along the southwest border.
        The other thing, it provides us space, it provides us some
    time, in regards to our agents to be able to respond to an area
    before somebody who crossed illegally disappears into an urban
    area, into a vehicle, or other locations before we are able to
    get them. So it provides that ability.
        So it is a cost-saving measure not only for us. It
    increases our enforcement and our ability to respond and react
    and actually encounter individuals that are illegally crossing.
        The other thing that I have personally seen, again, most of
    my career being on the southwest border: When you create a
    safer environment based on infrastructure and technology, that
    allows for border communities to grow and infrastructure to
    grow. Business and developments, housing developments, and all
    those things seem to flourish in those areas where you have a
    more secure border.
        Mr. Guest. And let me ask you a little bit about the Air
    and Marine Operations, the AMO. I know that, in some instances,
    our AMO pilots are operating light enforcement platforms,
    helicopters that in some cases are decades old. They are well-
    maintained, but they are coming to the end of that lifecycle.
        And so I want to ask you how important it is for Congress
    to begin planning and to begin funding the replacement for
    these aging airframes.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you for the question.
        That is a critical component of our strategy on how we, in
    fact, get 100-percent situational awareness along the border.
    Having light enforcement aircraft in that strategy is an
    important aspect.
        We appreciate the funding provided to CBP so far in regards
    to being able to maintain our current fleet. The fiscal year
    2025 budget had the inclusion of two additional of the light
    enforcement aircraft, so we appreciate that. And we look
    forward to the additional funding to be able to grow and
    recapitalize some of the aging fleet there.
        Mr. Guest. And, just very briefly, as it relates to the
    non-intrusive inspection systems that we have installed along
    the border there, particularly at the ports of entry, we have
    seen that the roll--out of this technology, I think, has been,
    let's just say, less than ideal. The screening percentage
    particularly of passenger vehicles remains disappointing.
        And I know Congress will continue to invest in that
    technology, but I just want to implore you, as you are serving
    in this acting position, to do everything that we can to see
    that these systems are installed, that they are brought on
    line, that the men and women who are operating the systems are
    trained, so that we can continue to screen more traffic that is
    coming across the border.
        We know that that technology serves as a force multiplier
    and will help us be able to better secure the border and
    particularly stop the flow of narcotics from coming into the
    country.
        And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Acting Director, I have a few questions before we wrap
    up.
        How is the Home application to leave--the State Department
    gives somebody 1,000 bucks--do we have any preliminary data on
    how that is working? Are people signing up for that? What?
        Mr. Flores. So we do have some preliminary data that we do
    have individuals signing up for that in order to take that.
        That very specific piece, although we built that
    application, it is being run by ICE in regards to getting that
    through, and the Department, in regards to applicants and that
    process.
        Mr. Amodei. Okay. So if you could have your folks just kind
    of get back to us. And it is not a trick question. I am just
    kind of curious----
        Mr. Flores. Right.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. How is that working?
        So some of the members have talked to you about funding for
    the wall. And I know that people tend to--``Well, it is the
    wall.'' And it is like, ``Well, there is more than that.''
        But do you have any ideas on--so are we kicked off on that?
    All aspects? Fiber-optic? The actual wall itself? Roads? Blah,
    blah, blah. Is that all kicked off as we speak? And if it is
    not, when do we expect to be fully underway on multiple assets
    of what people colloquially refer to as ``the wall''?
        Mr. Flores. Yeah. So the wall system, in regards to not
    only infrastructure but the technology that applies to that,
    so, based on our current funding, yes, we are making sure that,
    as we implement new wall, it is a wall system in regards to
    fiber-optic and sensors. So that is in our current planning
    that we have.
        In regards to additional funding that we may receive, we
    are planning to ensure that it is a wall system in regards to
    not only infrastructure but technology that goes along with
    that, along with border roads, access points, where we may have
    the opportunity to build more wall based on appropriations.
        Mr. Amodei. Are we building as we speak?
        Mr. Flores. We are building as we speak.
        Mr. Amodei. Generally, what are we building? The whole nine
    yards?
        Mr. Flores. No. So----
        Mr. Amodei. Cameras? Wiring? Roads? Actual wall?
        Mr. Flores. So the wall, cameras, roads, yes. We are
    incorporating the technology into the 85-plus miles that we
    have. As we get into physical border-barrier-type bollard
    construction, that will be incorporated into every piece of
    bollard fencing that we build.
        Mr. Amodei. How about buoys in, for instance, the Rio
    Grande? Are we deploying those, or is that in the planning
    stage? Or where are we at with buoys?
        Mr. Flores. So we have that in the planning stage right
    now. We have--I think our latest contract is 17 miles of border
    barrier buoy that we have contracted for.
        Mr. Amodei. Okay.
        The cameras and the FAA thing. We are not doing that again,
    right?
        Mr. Flores. Right. So we are moving--so we talk about
    maintenance of older technology. Based on the technology that
    we have, it is older-type technology. A lot of times, it
    becomes very difficult to maintain parts, to get parts, in
    order to make that type of technology operational.
        So we do plan to completely update that technology and use
    new technology to ensure that our cameras are operational and
    integrated with everything that we are planning for.
        Mr. Amodei. Well, some of the questioning here today has
    gone to that. And I will just tell you, it is like, I haven't
    had anybody approach me--if somebody else has been approached--
    and said, ``Hey, what we are doing now with those cameras and
    having somebody else maintain them is okey-dokey.''
        And so I guess my question is: We have learned the lessons
    we need to from that, not that anybody was a bad person or
    whatever, but that dog ain't huntin'.
        Mr. Flores. Right.
        Mr. Amodei. So, as we go forward with new recapitalization
    of that particular part of your mission, we are going a
    different direction?
        Mr. Flores. Right.
        Mr. Amodei. Okay.
        The last thing I have is: I have a concern, and I know
    there are some moving parts to it, but when you keep getting
    reprogramming requests to move money out of hiring people and
    moving it into other areas, at some point in time I hope that
    one of the things we are working on is, we have to change the
    way we assess and bring people on board, that hiring process.
        So I know that--and I am not saying it is yours, but it is
    other Federal ones, so maybe it is yours. By the time we get
    done advertising, identifying somebody, putting them through
    the test, going through all the drill or whatever, it is not
    unusual to have people say, ``Hey, thanks, but I went someplace
    where I can start working 6 months ago.''
        Mr. Flores. Right.
        Mr. Amodei. And so my question is, where are we at in
    basically rethinking how we assess Border Patrol agents,
    employees, whatever, so that we quit getting reprogramming
    requests which basically cannibalize money that--we are like,
    ``Hey, I know you need more people. Here is the money.'' And it
    is like, ``Well, we can't get them on board fast enough.''
        At some point in time, you know, it is a credibility thing,
    where you are like, ``Well, we keep putting this money in, but
    it hasn't been used for that.'' So it is like, when we give you
    the money, we want you to bring new people on.
        Anybody working on a plan for, this is how we revamp our
    whole hiring process?
        And, by the way, I know some of it is, ``Well, you know, we
    have to go through OMB and their program,'' or whatever. It is
    like, ``Well, let's triage that, and if we can help you, then
    good.''
        Are we doing any of that, hopefully, on----
        Mr. Flores. Congressman----
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. New cameras, new technology, and,
    oh, by the way, a new program to actually bring these folks on?
        Mr. Flores. Thank you for the question.
        And we are.
        So we have taken a hard look at what our hiring process is.
    We have taken a look at where the longest poles in the tents
    are during that hiring process. And we have taken steps to
    increase what that is in regards to, from a human-resource
    side, on what we are doing and how we are doing things and when
    we are doing certain things, such as physicals and testing and
    those type of things and how we combine different things in
    order to shorten up that timeframe.
        We are also, in regards to--recognize that when we have
    applicants and they start through the process, that assigning
    somebody a recruiter or somebody to help them through the
    process, we have a higher percentage of yielding onboard rates
    and shortening that timeframe from application to on board.
        So we are increasing what our ability is for recruitment,
    as we continue to look at what the funding looks like, ensuring
    that we are having a recruiter attached to applicants that are
    getting through the process.
        We are looking at what the background investigators--the
    need for background investigators, the need for polygraphs, and
    what that number looks like and what our bandwidth is there.
        So we continue to look at the entirety of that process,
    down to locations and hard-to-fill locations and what we can do
    about getting applicants into hard-to-fill locations.
        Mr. Amodei. So the message is clear from the question. It
    is like, I think you guys have plenty of credibility when you
    say, ``We need 20,000 more people to operate, and retirements,
    and we expect a surge,'' and all that stuff. I get all that.
        Now that everybody recognizes that, it is whatever needs to
    be done, to do that in real-time. Because with each
    reprogramming request that cannibalizes those funds, it just--
    it doesn't look----
        Mr. Flores. Right.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. Good in terms of, ``Yeah, we heard
    you, and we are trying to help you,'' but the money never ends
    up getting there because of fundamental flaws in that process.
        So thank you for your input, and we will look forward to
    working on that.
        CBP has historically been an excellent partner as we work
    through the annual appropriations process, and I ask that that
    continue for fiscal year 2026. We won't surprise you. Don't
    surprise us. It is that simple.
        For the get-back questions that members of the subcommittee
    had today, we ask that you respond in 15 business days. I know
    you are busy, but this process is moving quickly, and so what I
    don't want to do is have the train leave the station and us
    make assumptions which are not based on factual information.
        There may be additional questions members provide in
    writing, and we ask you to respond to those in a timely manner.
        Mr. Amodei. I would like to thank you again for coming. You
    have been an excellent witness.
        And the subcommittee stands adjourned.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026

                                  ----------

                                                 Tuesday, May 20, 2025.

                     TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                                    WITNESS

    HA NGUYEN McNEILL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, THE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
        ADMINISTRATION
        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, Ms.
    Underwood.
        Welcome Acting Administrator McNeill. I sincerely thank you
    for being here, even though you have been here longer than me.
        I am going to skip all that.
        I will now turn to my colleague, Ms. Underwood, for her
    opening remarks.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. McNeill, welcome to our subcommittee, and
    congratulations on your appointment. It was good to meet with
    you last week.
        As we all know, TSA has no freedom to fail. Whether it is
    at the train station or at the airport, our transportation
    security officers must get it right, screening well over 2
    million people per day, 24/7, 365 days a year.
        This is a high-stakes, high-pressure job where
    transportation security officers, or TSOs, welcome travelers
    from all walks of life, while screening millions of passengers
    and bags each day.
        TSOs need less stress at work, not more, so that they can
    focus on keeping our skies secure.
        But under this administration, DHS has abandoned its
    collective bargaining agreement with nearly 50,000 TSOs,
    including about 2,500 in Illinois.
        Stripping away those protections makes it harder for
    officers to do their jobs effectively.
        This decision was made with no data on savings or benefits
    to show the taxpayer, other than vague comments from DHS about
    how the union representatives for TSOs will have to go back to
    work.
        The truth is, there is significant uncertainty about
    whether the traveling public will benefit from this action in a
    meaningful way. So far, the best that TSA can do is show us
    $35,000 in savings.
        Beginning in 2024, and prior to the cancellation of
    collective bargaining, TSA had reduced attrition rates by
    nearly half, and in an agency that has historically struggled
    with staffing, actions like this only threaten morale and make
    it harder for TSOs to stay focused on their core mission.
        That kind of consistency in the workforce is what helps to
    improve TSA's ability to find contraband and keep dangerous
    people off planes.
        Deputy Administrator McNeill, while I understand that this
    action was taken before your most recent tenure, this
    subcommittee needs a more substantive justification than TSA
    has provided so far.
        As far as today's hearing is concerned, we are here to get
    more information on the skinny budget which proposes a cut of
    $247 million, or about 3 percent, of TSA's overall budget.
        Last week, Secretary Noem said in her hearing that these
    cuts were meant to demonstrate reduced TSA screening presence
    for activities such as exit lane monitoring.
        However, just a couple months ago, the Trump administration
    agreed to an anomaly in the full-year funding bill, to increase
    TSA funding by $450 million provided by Congress.
        And while we have no insight into the reasoning behind
    these cuts when the only justification provided in the skinny
    budget is angry rhetoric about the prior administration, I am
    also concerned that this budget fails to meet TSA's security
    needs.
        For example, we know that TSA's screening equipment
    requires upgrades, but it appears that funding is being
    deprioritized in this administration, to fund political
    priorities.
        If screening operations are underresourced, it puts our
    ability to detect dangerous weapons, drugs, and trafficking
    activity at serious risk. And the consequences could be
    catastrophic.
        Ms. McNeill, while I understand this proposal was written
    by your predecessors, you are TSA's leader, and during today's
    hearing, we are looking for more accurate and relevant
    information than we have seen thus far from the Department
    under this administration, so that we can do the incredibly
    important work of resourcing TSA to keep Americans safe.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Madam Acting Administrator, without objection,
    your full written testimony will be entered into the record,
    and with that in mind, we would ask you to summarize, to the
    extent possible, your opening statement. The floor is yours for
    5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF HA NGUYEN McNEILL

        Ms. McNeill. Good afternoon, Chairman Amodei, Ranking
    Member Underwood, and distinguished members of this
    subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify before
    you today on behalf of the Transportation Security
    Administration.
        I am honored to be here and grateful for the long-standing
    and productive partnership TSA shares with this distinguished
    subcommittee.
        I would like to start by thanking TSA's employees for their
    unrelenting efforts day in and day out to secure the Nation's
    transportation systems.
        TSA is an agile security agency, embodied by a dedicated
    and professional workforce that works tirelessly to outmatch an
    increasingly sophisticated and dynamic threat.
        Today TSA stands at an important strategic crossroads. The
    upcoming 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics present an
    enormous opportunity for the Nation to boldly transform and
    modernize travel.
        The President, Secretary Noem, and this administration are
    committed to delivering a golden age of U.S. travel, one that
    Americans will be proud of and deserve.
        The importance of a seamless and secure U.S. transportation
    system cannot be overstated economically, logistically, and
    strategically.
        Yes, travel, is a $2.9 trillion industry, employing more
    than 15 million workers nationwide. Metrics are expected to
    continue growing larger.
        While the previous administration prioritized DEI in a
    collective bargaining agreement that undermined our vital
    mission, under Secretary Noem's leadership, we are recommitting
    TSA to its core mission--leaning into innovation,
    organizational accountability, and a renewed focus on security
    and the passenger experience.
        TSA's fortified aviation security will be coupled with an
    improved, streamlined, and consistent experience at airports
    nationwide.
        I also want to acknowledge our traveling families and the
    efforts currently under way at TSA to lighten the burden of air
    travel for them. In the near future, we will begin implementing
    plans to ease some of the stress families face moving in and
    out of airports.
        As American families plan trips in the coming years, they
    can rest assured that at TSA, we will implement processes that
    put them first, strengthening and empowering family values
    through commercial aviation.
        I am excited to share more about these initiatives with
    this subcommittee and the American people in the coming weeks.
        With TSA screening over 3 million passengers on peak days,
    commercial aviation remains a top target for nefarious actors.
    The future of aviation security will be a balance of human
    talent and leveraging emerging technology.
        With the continued support of Congress, TSA is deploying
    state-of-the-art screening technology to airports nationwide,
    equipping the screening workforce with the tools they need to
    combat evolving threats.
        Two examples are Credential Authentication, or CAT,
    machines, and Computed Tomography, or CT, machines.
        CAT is an aviation security game-changer, improving
    identity verification at checkpoints, verifying reservations,
    and performing realtime, secure flight checks to ensure
    passengers receive the appropriate level of screening.
        CT is a state-of-the-art X-ray scanner, applying
    sophisticated algorithms for the detection of explosives and
    threat items by creating a 3D image, which can be viewed and
    rotated 360 degrees for a thorough analysis by a TSA officer.
        Underpinning all of this is the necessity that all
    passengers seeking to board an airplane carry identification
    that meets critical security standards. These standards are in
    place to combat fraudulent IDs and prevent bad actors from
    inflicting harm on the American people.
        Under the leadership of Secretary Noem, as of May 7th, TSA
    is fully enforcing REAL ID requirements at all airports without
    impeding the flow of passengers through the checkpoint.
        We are happy to report that thus far 93 percent of IDs
    presented at TSA checkpoints were either REAL ID-compliant or
    another acceptable form of ID. This initial success is a
    testament of the hard work of the men and women serving at TSA.
        In conclusion, the future of TSA will be marked by a laser
    focus on delivering for the American people. What that means is
    a fortification of travel security, a renewed commitment to the
    passenger experience, and serving as a responsible steward of
    the American tax dollar.
        TSA looks forward to continuing to work with Congress,
    industry, and other stakeholders to strengthen transportation
    security and improve the passenger experience.
        Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member Underwood, and members of
    the subcommittee, it is a privilege to testify before you
    today. I thank you for your support and look forward to your
    questions.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, ma'am.
        Ms. Underwood, the floor is yours for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Ms. Underwood. Ms. McNeill, thanks for being here today.
    TSA plays a vital role in safeguarding our Nation's
    transportation systems while ensuring the free movement of
    people and commerce.
        However, this administration's fiscal year 2026 budget
    proposes large cuts to TSA's workforce and operations,
    particularly affecting small commercial and general aviation
    airports, including those serving rural and suburban
    communities like mine in Illinois's 14th District.
        General aviation airports, often with limited or no onsite
    security, remain vulnerable entry points in our transportation
    system.
        As security at commercial airports has strengthened, these
    gaps continue to pose real risks to communities like mine.
        With these cuts in fiscal year 2026, how will you ensure
    continued compliance with TSA's national security mandates at
    airports that cannot afford to subsidize Federal security
    operations on their own?
        Ms. McNeill. Thank you, Ranking Member, for that question.
    With regard to smaller airports and general aviation airports,
    we are working closely with stakeholders and have recently
    issued a set of security guidelines for them to meet in the
    July timeframe.
        We have been in constant communication with them over the
    weeks and months leading into this deadline and working closely
    to make sure that they institute the security standards to
    combat the evolving threat.
        You know, as it pertains to our staffing model, the
    reduction in the TSO workforce in the skinny budget represents
    between 3 and 4 percent of the workforce. Half of that is
    designated for exit lanes.
        We have always been of the opinion that having a highly
    trained TSO man an exit lane, sit at an exit lane, is not the
    best use of their skills. They would be better to be redeployed
    to the security checkpoint, and as such, we would look to
    working with this committee to find alternative ways of
    addressing the requirements of exit lanes.
        The remainder of the cut represents about 2 percent of the
    TSO workforce, spread across 435 airports. That is a number
    that we feel we can manage, and we are very well prepared for
    the upcoming summer travel season.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
        Airport security is only as good as your weakest link. As
    we all know too well from 9/11, bad actors do not have to get
    through screening at JFK or O'Hare to attack New York or
    Chicago. They can enter through a poorly secured airport in a
    rural area or U.S. Territory and then fly to a major population
    center with little to no additional screening.
        Your testimony notes that you do not plan to deploy baggage
    screening CT machines at all commercial airports until 2043.
        What actions is TSA currently taking, with fiscal year 2025
    funding and in the 2026 budget request, to ensure airports in
    these regions are not left exposed to ongoing national security
    vulnerabilities?
        Ms. McNeill. So for the 2025 reconciliation, that is with
    Congress right now. I am not aware of----
        Ms. Underwood. No, no, no, 2025 funding, we did a CR, so
    you all have 2025 funding.
        Ms. McNeill. Yes. So we are deploying what was funded in
    the 2025 budget. For 2026, I look forward to the President's
    full budget coming out, and we can work with this committee to
    ensure and see how we can accelerate the deployment of CT
    technology.
        As you note, the current forecast is full operating
    capability by 2043. Again, we would love to work with this
    committee to see if we can shift that to the left.
        Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
        Now turning to the workforce itself, TSA's frontline
    workforce, transportation security officers, are still excluded
    from the full rights and protections afforded under Title 5 of
    the U.S. Code.
        And yet the President's recent executive order on labor
    management relations conveniently excludes TSA's workforce
    while protecting other Federal unions that endorsed his
    candidacy.
        Can you explain to the subcommittee why this administration
    believes that TSOs should be excluded from basic Federal labor
    protections while other politically aligned unions are not?
        Ms. McNeill. The TSO--the Collective Bargaining Agreement,
    or CBA, for the TSO falls outside of the scope of Title 5, as
    you noted.
        You know, what the rescission of the CBA did was really
    return our focus to the mission of the agency, which is
    aviation security, return the man hours of over 200 TSOs to
    delivering security for the traveling public, and it also has
    allowed the frontline management more flexibility to ensure
    that they are delivering security for the American people.
        Ms. Underwood. Okay. Thank you.
        As I said in my opening, TSA's press release announcing
    this decision provided no details, and TSA has only said that
    time is needed to figure out if this was a good idea, and that
    TSA is exploring what datasets are available that may help
    inform this issue.
        These should have been clearly defined well ahead of making
    such a big decision.
        The safety of the American people demands that our
    transportation security infrastructure, including our
    workforce, be robust, resilient, and uniform across all
    facilities large and small.
        I appreciate you coming to testify today, but the fact
    remains that we need more information and consistent, detailed
    communication with you and your team to write a bill that meets
    the growing needs of your agency. I look forward to working
    with you to do so, and I yield back.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. Mr. Newhouse, the floor is yours.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Acting
    Administrator, for being here with us today. Excuse me.
        Looking at the recently released skinny budget, if I could
    get you to comment a little bit on that, it reduces the
    transportation security officer levels consistent with the
    President's goal to reduce wasteful government spending and
    abuse of government programs.
        So I don't want to put you in a position of contradicting
    the entire budget. However, could you elaborate on how reducing
    the budget line for screening officers aligns with the traveler
    security experience that is less intrusive, while at the same
    time maintaining the high standard of security at American--
    that Americans expect?
        Ms. McNeill. Certainly. So thank you for that question,
    Congressman. I look forward to discussing the details of the
    President's budget when the details of the--the full budget is
    released, but my understanding is that it is striking a balance
    between a labor workforce and investment in technology which
    will yield a more seamless passenger experience once the
    balance is struck.
        We need to, you know, continually evolve to meet the
    emerging threats to aviation and transportation security, and
    that is not something that is going to be solved by labor alone
    and human talent alone. It is going to be the right combination
    of talent and technology.
        Mr. Newhouse. Good. Fair enough.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for the opportunity
    to bring this next thing up. My district is home to the
    Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
    and where you probably know this already, researchers pioneered
    the use of the millimeter wave technology for passenger
    screening, thus creating what we like to refer to as the PNNL
    salute, which everybody knows--it is this. We are all familiar
    with that, that we use at screening checkpoints around the
    country.
        In your testimony, Madam Acting Administrator, you note
    that the investments in technology will pay multiple dividends
    in the out years as TSA works to reposition the Nation as the
    number 1 global travel destination. And I agree with that. So
    two questions about that.
        Does TSA have sufficient resources and authorities needed
    to develop or collaborate on the development of technologies so
    that TSA can leverage technological advances at the pace of
    innovation?
        And if not, could you elaborate on the resources and/or the
    authorities that may be needed for TSA to fulfill its mission
    now and in the future?
        Ms. McNeill. Thank you. This is an area where we would look
    forward to working with this committee to see what can be done
    in terms of capital investment for technology, to ensure that
    TSA has the tools and the frontline workforce has the tools
    that they need to enhance transportation security.
        I mentioned the CAT and the CT programs earlier. In
    addition to that, we would look to develop an IT infrastructure
    that connects the equipment at our airports to really yield
    efficiencies and heighten security and allow us to do things
    like field kind of cutting-edge innovations around algorithms
    and threat detection, as well as remote screening whereby we
    can connect all the equipment and really make the best use of
    our TSO workforce.
        Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Thank you very much again for being
    here with us, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Laredo, the floor is yours.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
    and, Acting Administrator, thank you for what you do and what
    your men and women do. A couple questions.
        In light of the pay adjustment that we did, how is that
    working with TSA in recruitment and retaining personnel to make
    sure that we ensure safety and security at our airports?
    Question number 1.
        Question number 2, what is TSA doing to ensure that smaller
    airports, like my hometown of Laredo, Texas, are also being
    prioritized in the modernization and new technology?
        Because, again, I get to talk to them every week, coming
    and going, and sometimes they feel that the smaller communities
    are left behind on that.
        And then finally, the last question has to do with
    something that I brought up to you when we met, was, in the
    past, I have asked prior administrators, if you have any
    technology equipment you are not going to use, maybe use that
    surplus to small, rural, county jails, sheriffs that might use
    that technology.
        And they did look at that, but the problem is those long-
    term contracts, that they said, we will take the technology,
    but we don't want to take this contract that is just--a small
    community couldn't handle.
        So those three questions, and, again, thank you, and good
    seeing you again.
        Ms. McNeill. Thank you, Congressman. So the first question
    about pay and retention, as compared to 2 years ago, we have
    seen significant improvements in the retention rate of our
    frontline workforce. And that is ascribed to the pay increase
    that you all were able to provide and that I know the TSOs are
    thankful for every day. We do hear such positive feedback, and
    so we thank you for that.
        On small airports and technology, I think there is a few
    things that we are doing there. I mean, when we look at the
    deployment of CTs and CAT machines, for example, they are not
    all at, you know, our largest airports. We do try to take a
    look at the full landscape.
        But some of the things that we are doing, working closely
    with our stakeholders, is to find creative ways where public-
    private partnerships can drive the quicker deployment of
    technology across our airport system.
        And then thirdly on that, you know, we would look forward
    to working closely with you to see if we can reach full
    operating capability for those programs faster than, you know,
    in the next two decades, so.
        And then lastly on surplus, I appreciate your question on
    that. Obviously, we do have technology that, you know, is
    getting replaced, and in conversations with State and
    localities that might need it, what we have been doing is
    trying to assess what the full scope of responsibility is for
    taking over such equipment, what the maintenance and support
    might look like, and really provide them as much information as
    possible so that they can plan it into their budget cycles.
        But, again, I think it is something that we are refreshing
    all the time, looking at the list of potential surplus, and
    happy to continue to work with the communities on that.
        Mr. Cuellar. Yeah, if you can work on that, because, again,
    that surplus equipment is good, but it is that maintenance
    contract that just gets it out of hand.
        But I know that, you know, my friend, Tony Gonzales, over
    there, west Texas sheriffs, south Texas sheriffs, El Paso, and
    other areas, they could use some of that equipment.
        But it is that long-term maintenance that just puts it out
    of hand, so if you can come up with a solution, that would be
    good. With that, I say thank you so much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Amodei. Mrs. Hinson, the floor is yours.
        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    Acting Administrator McNeill for coming before our committee
    today. I am excited about the new golden age of U.S. travel
    that we are experiencing, especially as someone who flies
    literally every week, like everybody up here on the dais, so.
        Under the Biden administration and Secretary Mayorkas,
    though, we did see the Federal Air Marshals whose mission is to
    be up there in the skies, pulled from many of those flights and
    then pulled to process paperwork at the Southern Border.
        I think it was a reckless decision. It got rid of a
    critical layer of aviation security, but it also left American
    travelers more vulnerable at heightened times.
        So can you speak to how the Trump administration is
    reversing course on those policies and how vital the Federal
    Air Marshal Service is to preventing those threats and keeping
    our skies secure?
        Ms. McNeill. Thank you. So the Federal Air Marshals are a
    critical enforcement--law enforcement component of TSA. They
    keep our skies safe every day through their critical mission
    flights and also their surface operations.
        This is going to be even more and more important as we
    embark on big undertakings like welcoming the world in for the
    World Cup in 2026 and the Olympics in 2028.
        It is one team, one fight. So we do collaborate very
    closely with our law enforcement partners across the Department
    of Homeland Security, and ensure that we are there to surge if,
    you know, if needed.
        But at this moment in time, you know, that is not a need
    that we have seen. We stand ready and without kind of, you
    know, impacting our ability to conduct our aviation security
    mission.
        Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. Well, I am certainly glad to see them
    returned to the mission they are supposed to be doing.
        I also want to discuss how your agency's skinny budget
    request notes its intention to reduce the total number of TSA
    officers in line with the President's directive to cut wasteful
    government spending.
        Following up on my colleague's question, are there some
    specific technologies that in particular, once this is in
    motion and once those technologies--they could be deployed to
    help make a better customer experience?
        Ms. McNeill. So the Computed Tomography and CAT machines
    are kind of the baseline technology that really will enable us
    to deploy more innovative ways of driving efficiencies.
        So for example, the Credential Authentication Technology
    and identity verification technology at the checkpoint, and if
    you combine that, for example, with e-gates, which is something
    that our stakeholders have expressed a lot of interest in
    working together on, then that might help alleviate some of the
    TSO head count at the checkpoint and drive efficiencies that
    way.
        With the Computed Tomography machine, you could envision a
    day where we are driving algorithms that help with threat
    detection more effectively, more accurately, and where the TSOs
    are looking at images that alarm only, and not, you know, need
    to look at every image that comes through.
        That would significantly help with through-put and capacity
    at the checkpoints.
        Mrs. Hinson. Awesome. Well, again, thank you to your
    amazing team at the airport where I fly out of every week, and
    I appreciate all the work you are doing. Thanks for coming
    before the committee.
        Ms. McNeill. Thank you.
        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Amodei. They have called votes on the floor. I am going
    to call on Ms. Escobar for her questions, and then if the two
    Republican members want to stay to ask questions, then I will
    remain to preside over it until then.
        If you don't, then we will submit your questions as written
    ones, but--and by the way, I don't plan to come back. I plan to
    adjourn the hearing when I leave.
        So the floor is yours, Ms. Escobar.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Ranking
    Member.
        Acting Administrator McNeill, thank you for being here, and
    thank you for your service to our Nation.
        I think I am not overstating the concern that millions of
    Americans are really frightened of flying right now with all of
    the news and with some of the recent events.
        And I understand where they are coming from, and I will
    tell you the deep cuts in the skinny budget and the impact that
    DOGE has made on our Federal agencies and Federal workforce,
    certainly none of that helps.
        And so I am hoping that you will help us understand a
    little bit more about some of these decisions.
        One of the things that constituents of mine and TSA
    employees have mentioned is the concern about the potential
    privatization of TSA.
        It was mentioned in Project 2025. We have seen this
    administration essentially use Project 2025 as a roadmap for
    many of the their decisions.
        And the TSA workforce is really important to our safety and
    security, and the idea that they could be privatized,
    obviously, is an area of concern for them.
        Do you believe that TSA should be privatized?
        Ms. McNeill. So privatization has always been a part of the
    TSA construct since its inception under the Screening
    Partnership Program.
        As a regulator, though, TSA is responsible for ensuring the
    highest level of delivery at our transportation checkpoints,
    whether that screening is being performed by Federal employees
    or by a privatized screening workforce. So that is part of our
    remit and our responsibility that we carry out day in and day
    out.
        As we look to modernize TSA, I would say, you know, the
    stakeholders have a word in this--this committee and this
    Congress--and we look forward to working with them. Nothing is
    off the table.
        I think, again, the north star for us at TSA is making sure
    that we are driving the highest level of security, the best
    passenger experience in the most efficient way possible, and so
    if new privatization schemes make sense, then we are happy to
    have that discussion, to see, you know, what we can come up
    with.
        It is not an all-or-nothing game. There could be airports
    that choose to privatize and others that do not. I think that
    airport choice is really important as part of this as well.
        Ms. Escobar. I definitely would call it a scheme as well. I
    hope that privatization is not a part of the administration's
    efforts. Our very loyal, hardworking TSA agents are really--or
    officers, rather, are really concerned about this. I hear about
    it all the time.
        The other thing that I hear about from them is the illegal
    ending of their collective bargaining agreement and the Ranking
    Member asked you a question. You didn't really quite answer
    it--but I want to follow up on this issue of the termination of
    the labor protections that they negotiated.
        In TSA's press release--and the ranking member mentioned
    this in her opening--TSA's press release announced this
    decision and provided no details.
        TSA has only said that time is needed to figure out if this
    was a good idea and that TSA is exploring what datasets are
    available that may help inform this issue.
        These should have been clearly defined well ahead of making
    such a big decision.
        So can you tell us now, what are the specific metrics that
    TSA used in making this decision?
        Ms. McNeill. So the rescission of the CBA was made with
    security in mind in terms of returning hours to the security
    checkpoint and not union work. So that was over 200 FTE hours
    returned to the security checkpoint.
        It allows for flexibility in management to ensure that the
    workforce is delivering the highest level of security to the
    American traveling public.
        We have seen an improvement in call-out numbers, so that
    means that our, you know, employees are there carrying out
    their mission day in and day out. Yeah.
        Ms. Escobar. I have heard from TSOs that they consider the
    rescinding of the agreement to be a real betrayal, and so I am
    very concerned about what is ahead for them, but with that, I
    yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Mr. Gonzales?
        Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman. I am going to submit my
    questions for the record, but I want to note something.
        You know, under the last administration, it was pure
    madness. If you were a U.S. citizen, you would have to go
    through the line. You would have to show your ID to get on a
    commercial plane.
        But if you were an illegal alien and you were using the CBP
    One app, you could just board on a plane no problem.
        Now, I am grateful that Secretary Noem has rescinded that
    policy. One of the questions I have, and then I will yield
    back, is, has TSA conducted a formal review of how many
    individuals, who boarded domestic flights under the CBP One
    process, were later flagged as potential national security
    threats?
        Once again, I look forward to working with you. I think
    there is a lot of topics at hand, but one of those is the
    amount of legal travel that is occurring and not having that
    separated from those that are flying illegally.
        With that, Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        Mr. Guest
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Administrator McNeill. Thank you for coming by the office last
    week. I enjoyed getting the chance to visit with you, and so I
    will make my questions brief.
        We are aware that the budget request for fiscal year 2026
    is a reduction from fiscal year 2025. You and I had
    conversations about the way in which the agency could better
    utilize manpower.
        One of the things that you and I talked about was the
    elimination of exit lane staffing, that currently that is a
    requirement that falls under TSA, and it is estimated that as
    upwards of $100 million could potentially be saved if we could
    either automate that or if we could turn that responsibility
    over to other agencies, airport police, things of that nature.
        So I want to thank you for looking at ways in which you can
    make the current manpower, make them more efficient, and to
    carry out their core mission, which is to protect the safety of
    the traveling public.
        I also know that many years ago, Congress decided that we
    were going to take a portion of the aviation passenger security
    fee that is collected by TSA, that Congress originally intended
    to help stand up TSA, to help fund your agency, to help
    purchase the technology that you need.
        We know that there is a minimal amount that is attached to
    each trip. I think it is $5.60 per passenger, per trip, and
    that money was originally designed to go back into TSA's
    budget.
        I also know that there has been some delays, if you will,
    in rolling out some of the checkpoint screening technology, and
    many of those delays have been attributed to funding, that TSA
    has asked for funding for that technology and that that funding
    has either been denied or that funding has then been used in
    other areas.
        And so my question briefly is, if we were to give TSA the
    entirety of that security fee, which I believe, if I am not
    mistaken, was $4.5 billion last year. It says here that in
    fiscal year 2026, we expected diversion to be roughly 1.6.
        With that additional $1.6 billion, if it was not diverted
    into the Federal Treasury, could that money be used for
    security screening, could it be used for additional personnel,
    pay raise, things of that nature, which would then lessen the
    burden on what you have to ask from Congress every year?
        Ms. McNeill. Certainly. So, you know, I think if we had the
    appropriate resources, we could field some of the technology
    programs that we are currently fielding at a much quicker pace,
    and probably with them, have full operating capability within
    this administration.
        And then beyond that, there are other technological
    improvements that we would be looking to make to really enhance
    efficiencies.
        And then obviously, you know, combining that with the
    workforce is what I think really provides the golden age of
    travel for the American public.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, and thank you for your service, and
    with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Amodei. Madam Acting Administrator, thank you for your
    testimony and your appearance today.
        The subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              W I T N E S S E S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Lyons, Todd......................................................     3
        Prepared Statement...........................................     5
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    29
    Lunday, Admiral Kevin............................................    41
        Prepared Statement...........................................    43
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    64
    Flores, Pete.....................................................    69
        Prepared Statement...........................................    71
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    97
    McNeill, Ha Nguyen...............................................   110
        Prepared Statement...........................................   113
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   127

                                      [all]