[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]