[Senate Hearing 119-353]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-353
NOMINATION OF HON. MARKWAYNE MULLIN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOMINATION OF THE HON. MARKWAYNE MULLIN
TO BE SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
__________
MARCH 18, 2026
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-380 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RAND PAUL, Kentucky, Chairman
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MAGGIE WOOD HASSAN, New Hampshire
RICK SCOTT, Florida RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio ANDY KIM, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
ASHLEY MOODY, Florida ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
William E. Henderson III, Staff Director
Christina N. Salazar, Chief Counsel
Harry Kazenoff, Associate Counsel
Megan M. Krynen, Senior Professional Staff Member
David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
Christopher J. Mulkins, Minority Director of Homeland Security
Claudine J. Brenner, Minority Senior Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Ashley A. Gonzalez, Records Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Paul................................................. 1
Senator Peters............................................... 2
Senator Lankford............................................. 4
Senator Moreno............................................... 14
Senator Hassan............................................... 16
Senator Johnson.............................................. 19
Senator Blumenthal........................................... 22
Senator Kim.................................................. 27
Senator Scott................................................ 30
Senator Fetterman............................................ 32
Senator Ernst................................................ 34
Senator Slotkin.............................................. 36
Senator Moody................................................ 39
Senator Gallego.............................................. 42
Senator Hawley............................................... 44
Prepared statements:
Senator Peters............................................... 63
WITNESSES
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2026
Hon. Markwayne Mullin to be Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Biographical and professional information.................... 68
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 85
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 93
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 112
Letters of support........................................... 163
APPENDIX
Senator Hassan's QFR's for the Record............................ 122
Britt statement.................................................. 166
Senator Peters letter to Mr. Mullin.............................. 171
The chart submitted by Senator Moreno............................ 173
The chart submitted by Senator Blumenthal round 1................ 174
The chart submitted by Senator Hawley............................ 176
Statement from Iranian-American Defense Fund..................... 178
The chart submitted by Senator Blumenthal round 2................ 195
Bio Questionnaire Minority Addendum.............................. 197
NOMINATION OF HON. MARKWAYNE MULLIN
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2026
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rand Paul,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Paul [presiding], Johnson, Lankford,
Scott, Hawley, Moreno, Ernst, Moody, Peters, Hassan,
Blumenthal, Fetterman, Kim, Gallego, and Slotkin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL
Chairman Paul. The hearing to consider the nomination of
Markwayne Mullin to be Secretary of Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) will come to order, and I am assuming will
commence when he arrives.
[Pause.]
Good morning, everyone. I entered the Senate the same year
that Representative Gabby Giffords was shot. I knew then that
the State of political rhetoric was encouraging violence. I
think it is imperative now more than ever that the leaders in
our country disavow violence and lead by example.
Through the years, I have personally been exposed multiple
times to political violence. I was in the right field batting
cage when the crazed shooter unleashed nearly 200 shots at our
congressional baseball practice. I will never forget Steve
Scalise valiantly trying to drag his body away as the gunman
continued.
Later that year, a Trump-hating felon attacked me from
behind in my yard. I was just straightening up from picking up
a tree limb. I was wearing noise cancellation headphones. Never
saw him coming, running pell-mell down the hill. I was struck
in the back. The force of the blow sent us through the air
nearly 10 feet, down the hill, until his shoulder impaled me as
we hit the ground. Six of my ribs were broken. Three of the
ribs were completely separated such that for weeks the ends of
the ribs would grind upon each other. My lung was damaged. For
weeks I could inhale but not have the rib strength to exhale. I
developed two pneumonias. The pain was such that I could only
sit up in bed by tying a rope to the foot of the bed and
pulling myself up. But even then, the pain was that of a
thousand knives.
Over the year of recovery, I began to cough up blood. I
underwent removal of part of my lung. Complications led to an
infection in the space between my lung and chest wall. I spent
a week in the hospital having the infection lavaged every six
hours through a chest tube.
Recently, Senator Mullin, if you have time to listen, you
were confronted by constituents that were angry because you
voted against my amendment to stop all funding for refugee
welfare programs. Instead of explaining your vote to continue
these welfare programs for refugees, you decided to transfer
the blame. You told the media that I was a ``freaking snake''
and that you completely understood why I had been assaulted.
I was shocked that you would justify and celebrate this
violent assault that caused me so much pain and my family so
much pain. I just wonder if someone who applauds violence
against their political opponents is the right person to lead
an agency that has struggled to accept limits to the proper use
of force.
You might argue you were mad and upset about being
confronted by your constituents. But Senator Mullin, your
constituents are justifiably upset with you. By now, most of
America knows that the Somali welfare fraud in Minnesota stole
over $9 billion. But instead of defending your vote, you vote
to continue these refugee welfare programs, you chose to lash
out at me.
You went on to brag that you had already told me, to my
face, that you completely understood and approved of the
assault. That is a lie. You have a chance today. You can either
continue to lie or you can correct the record. You have never
had the courage to look me in the eye and tell me that the
assault was justified, so today you will have your chance.
Today, I will give you that chance to clear the record. Tell it
to my face. If that is what you believe, tell it to me today.
Tell the world why you believe I deserve to be assaulted from
behind, have six ribs broken and a damaged lung. Tell me to my
face why you think I deserved it.
While you are at it, explain to the American public why
they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper
example for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and
Border Patrol agents. Explain to the American public how a man
who has no regrets about brawling in a Senate committee can set
a proper example for over 250,000 men and women who work at the
Department of Homeland Security.
Senator Peters, you are recognized for your opening
comment.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\
Senator Peters. Thank you, Chair Paul, and thank you,
Senator Mullin, for being here today. Congratulations on your
nomination. I certainly appreciate your willingness to meet
with me as well as my staff as we consider your nomination to
serve as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
Appendix on page 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also like to welcome your family who is joining us
today, and to thank all of them for your commitment to public
service. We do it as a family, as you know.
The Department of Homeland Security is a complicated
organization with challenging operational dynamics. As everyone
is well aware, many components within DHS are currently
operating without funding.
Let's be clear. Democrats are committed to funding the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) while we negotiate much-needed ICE reforms. We tried to
pass those bills by unanimous consent (UC) multiple times over
the past two weeks. Unfortunately, Republicans have blocked
those bills each and every time. Yesterday, the White House
sent a letter laying out their latest offer, but the devil is
always in the details.
Administrative action is not enough. We need to pass real
reforms into law. If Republicans really do agree with us that
TSA and other personnel need to be paid, then they should join
us and pass the bills to pay them today--we can do that--while
we continue to negotiate needed ICE reforms.
And let me be clear. These are very straightforward reforms
that we are asking for. We just want ICE to follow the same
rules that our local police and our local communities follow
every day.
But DHS has faced management challenges since the start of
the Trump administration, and over the past year many of those
challenges have unfortunately only increased. As soon as
President Trump was sworn in, he made deep cuts to
counterterrorism offices and programs, forced out or reassigned
key personnel, and redirected the focus of limited remaining
counterterrorism resources away from the serious threats that
we face, and toward targeting the President's perceived
political enemies.
The Administration has also gutted our Nation's main
cybersecurity agency, once again forcing out or reassigning
highly talented personnel, slashing budgets, and limiting the
agency's work to help private companies address significant
cyberattacks, and protect Americans from criminal hackers, and
support secure elections.
The Administration has also taken an axe to FEMA, cutting
staff, and freezing or delaying critical grant funding for
everything from emergency food and shelter after a disaster, to
flood mitigation programs and security grants for nonprofits,
including houses of worship.
All these cuts and reassignments have been made at the
expense of vital missions, including the core terrorism
prevention and response mission the Department was created to
address. In doing so, the Trump administration has broken trust
between law enforcement and the communities they are intended
to protect, a break that will have a generational impact on
public safety and security.
And now, after President Trump's reckless war of choice
against Iran, the threats to our Nation have never been higher.
In my home State of Michigan, just last week, we saw both a
major medical device manufacturer get hacked by an Iranian-
backed group, and a horrific violent attack on Temple Israel, a
metro Detroit area synagogue.
President Trump's unilateral and unchecked executive
actions have put Americans at risk, and we need a steady,
qualified leader at the Department of Homeland Security to
address these serious threats. How the Homeland Security
Secretary responds to a crisis sends signals to everyone, from
the Department's own personnel, to the American people, and to
the entire world.
It is not the role of the Secretary to be a cable news
commentator in the wake of a crisis. The Secretary's role is to
lead the response and work to ensure the Department that they
are leading is not actually the cause of the crisis. A
Secretary who jumps to conclusions without the facts, as we saw
in the case of Renee Good and Alex Pretti's killings, only
worsens the situation and actually makes us less safe. This is
a role where temperament matters, where judgment matters, and
where experience matters.
We have seen under Secretary Noem's leadership how
shortcomings in these traits can compound the challenges that
already come with leading a large and complex department. And
now more than ever, we need a DHS Secretary who is a steady
hand, who will provide thoughtful leadership, follow the facts,
tell the truth, and hold agency officials accountable when they
need to be held accountable. We need a DHS Secretary who is
committed to the rule of law and who will protect and cooperate
with independent oversight, whether that is from the Inspector
General (IG) or from Members of Congress. We need a DHS
Secretary who is free from distractions and conflicts of
interest that only undercut the Department's work, and also
break trust with the American people.
Senator Mullin, I appreciate you being here today to answer
our questions about these concerns and your experience and
qualifications for the job. While I am interested in hearing
more about your vision for leading the Department, I do have
reservations about your readiness to take on such a significant
role at such a critical time.
I hope you will provide us with substantive answers today,
and candid recognition of where this Administration has fallen
short on safeguarding our homeland security as you seek to lead
the Department as our Nation faces ongoing security threats and
war with Iran.
Chairman Paul. Senator Mullin is to be introduced today by
Senator Lankford. Senator Lankford, you are recognized for your
introduction of our witness.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Chairman Paul, thank you.
Markwayne, I am proud that you are here. I get the honor of
getting a chance to be able to recognize and introduce my
friend, Markwayne Mullin, my fellow Senator from the State of
Oklahoma and somebody that I have seen work incredibly hard to
be ready for every single task you have ever taken on and to be
able to not only do it, but do it well.
There are a lot of folks that think they know you. I
actually get to know you, and I have had the opportunity to be
able to serve beside you for now over a decade and have seen
your tenacity in your work effort.
Folks may not know that the first time we really got to
know each other, ironically enough, was around a natural
disaster, a FEMA event. It was Briarwood Elementary in 2013,
when a tornado came right through the heart of Oklahoma. You
had literally just been elected a few weeks before that and had
just taken the oath of office. The Oklahoma delegation all
gathered together at the very tragic event there at Briarwood
Elementary. While we were meeting with the principal and
meeting with teachers and families and walking through the
debris field that was that elementary school, we turned around
to be able to look for Markwayne and for a minute we could not
find him because in one of the debris piles there was water
shooting out of the middle of it, and his plumber instinct
said, ``I got to go find that and figure out how to solve
that.''
While everyone else was shaking hands and meeting people,
he was digging through the debris field to find a way to be
able to shut off the water that was shooting through the middle
of that destroyed elementary school. I remember smiling and
thinking he is a guy that does not mind getting his hands dirty
to actually go solve the problem. Where there is a problem he
can solve, he is going to do whatever it takes to actually
solve it.
Markwayne grew up in a very small town in far eastern
Oklahoma, ironically named Westville, in the easternmost part
of Oklahoma. Just 1,300 people call Westville home. He grew up
in a family of modest means. I think that would be safe to be
able to say, the youngest of seven children in a family that
just didn't have much. His dad ran a very small plumbing
company that then Markwayne took on and grew into being one of
the largest plumbing companies in the entire State.
He married his high school sweetheart, one of the smartest
things he ever did, at just 20 years old, and he and Christie
have developed a family that is a beautiful family of three
children they had naturally and three children they chose, that
they adopted and took them in. It is a remarkable family and a
remarkable success that you have actually led through a lot of
hard work and a lot of love and tenacity. He is a person of
faith that is not afraid to be able to talk about his faith in
Jesus Christ, but he is also a person who has deep respect for
all people.
Markwayne has served in Congress for 14 years, 11 years in
the House of Representatives, three here in the Senate. He has
passed legislation that he will now be charged with actually
implementing it in the order that was actually passed. He
served on the Appropriations Committee here. He has served on
Armed Services (SASC). He has served on the Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee here, and he has done an
incredible job in the work that he has done with Indian
Affairs. He is somebody who has the rare gift of bringing
people together on both sides of the aisle.
The one thing I would say to every single person on this
dais, regardless if you are a Republican or Democrat, if you
want to sit down and talk about an issue, he is glad to be able
to talk about it and to be able to work it out, and has very
good relationships in the House and in the Senate, and he is
not afraid to ask questions when he does not know the answer,
and to be able to research things. He and I have often talked
about being up late, both of us working on researching through
an issue to try to be able to learn more about it, because the
crazy thing about being in Congress is you do not know
everything. You have to do the work, and Markwayne is not
afraid to do the work.
Over the past year and a few months, we have seen
incredible progress on our Southern Border. Our Southern
Border, 18 months ago, I think we forget what it looked like,
12,000 people a day illegally crossing our border, just being
waved in. No vetting, no background checks, 12,000 people a
day. That is not happening anymore. Our numbers are down on the
Southwest Border 96 percent.
So you walk into an agency that has finally restored some
order to our Southern Border, but there is a lot of work still
to do with FEMA, with other areas of Homeland Security, and a
very large agency with 250,000 people that are actually under
your leadership there. I am confident that you will be able to
take those things on.
Not only am I confident, the National Border Patrol Council
has already sent a letter in strong support here. Mr. Chair, I
would like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record
the National Border Patrol Council,\1\ their letter of support,
leadership of the Cherokee Nation, their strong support. Then
my fellow Senator, Katie Britt, has an opening statement who I
would like to also submit for the record, with unanimous
consent.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letter from the National Border Patrol Council appears in
the Appendix on page 163.
\2\ The opening statement of Senator Britt appears in the Appendix
on page 166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Paul. Without objection.
Senator Lankford. Thank you. This is a person that actually
lives what we affectionately call in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma
standard, that when hard things actually occur, you step up and
you serve your neighbor and you find ways to be able to help
people to do the hard things that have to be done. Markwayne, I
appreciate your leadership. I appreciate your willingness to be
able to step up in a season where DHS needs a leader to be able
to step into that role and to be able to help our Nation in so
many different complicated areas, especially at a time when
right now we cannot even get funding to DHS. We have to be able
to have good solid leadership there.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. It is the practice of the Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in
witnesses. Would the nominee please stand and raise your right
hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Senator Mullin. I do.
Chairman Paul. Senator Mullin, you are recognized for your
opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. MARKWAYNE MULLIN,\3\ TO BE SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Senator Mullin. I think before I can start my opening
statement I have to address the remarks that the Chair made,
calling me a liar. Sir, I think there is everybody in this room
knows that I am very blunt and direct, to the point, and if I
have something to say, I will say it directly to your face. If
you recall back in my House days, we actually did have this
conversation because of remarks that I have made. You were in a
room. I simply addressed that I said I could understand because
of the behavior you were having, that I could understand why
the neighbor did what he did.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The prepared statement of Senator Mullin appears in the
Appendix on page 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as my terms as the snake in the grass, sir, I work
around this room to try to fix problems. I have worked with
many people in this room. Seems like you fight Republicans more
than you work with us. I did address those remarks. I did
explain your gimmicks by the amendment you put forth. As far as
me saying that I invoke violence, I don't. I don't think
anybody should be hit by surprise. I don't like that. But if I
do have something to say, everybody in this room knows I will
come straight to you. I will say it publicly, and I will say it
privately, but I will never say it behind your back. So for you
to say I am a liar, sir, that is not accurate.
I got proof to say that because you have spent millions of
dollars in my campaigns against me because we just don't get
along. However, sir, that doesn't keep me at all from doing my
job. I can have difference of opinions with everybody in this
room, but as Secretary of Homeland, I will be protecting
everybody, including Kentucky, as much as I will my own
backyard in Oklahoma.
It is bigger than the partisan bickering that we have. It
is bigger than the political differences we have. The truth is,
I have a job to do, and I don't like to fail at anything, at
all. So I can set it aside if you are willing to set it aside.
Let me earn your respect. Let me earn the job. I won't fail
you. I won't back down from a challenge, and I will also admit
when I am wrong.
I am not perfect. I don't claim to be perfect. I make
mistakes just like anybody else. But mistakes, if you own them,
you can learn from them, and you can move ahead, and I will
make that commitment to you.
Ranking Member Peters, Chairman Paul, I do thank you for
this opportunity. It is a humbling experience, a kid from
Westville, Oklahoma, that grew up with a dad that worked hard.
He set the work example for all of us, and all my families and
my siblings, we all work hard, and I am proud of the family we
have. But to say that a kid with a bad speech impediment would
one day sit up here in front of you, and be nominated to be the
Secretary of Homeland, it was humbling enough to be selected by
Oklahoma to be their U.S. Representative when I didn't even
know how to tie a tie, and 10 years later to be able to be
called a United States Senator and serve with all you guys.
I respect every one of you guys. I do. Regardless of if I
have an opinion about you or not, you were elected by your
State, and I respect that. I may disagree with you but I
respect it, because we all make decisions based on two things:
the way we were raised, which never changes, and our life
experiences, which constantly change.
For me, to be able to have the love of my life behind me,
somebody I literally fell in love with in third grade, I knew I
was going to marry her in eighth grade. She didn't know that.
We had to work through that process. But at 18 years old--and I
was 19, she agreed to marry me--I didn't have anything. I was
on a wrestling scholarship, living in a dorm. She was cheering
at Northeastern State University. I think she fell in love with
my truck, because my truck was pretty cool.
But the truth is we didn't know what we didn't know, but we
did know we loved each other. I haven't been perfect. I
apologize to her quite often, send her flowers all the time.
But I still am humbled by the fact that we have to enjoy this
walk together. We have had God on our side and her right beside
me. To our six children who have been on this adventure with
me, what an adventure it has been.
We have a saying in our family, you are never going to
change anything you are willing to tolerate. That is how we
live our life and that is how we move forward. Regardless of
what is in front of us, we always take it on as a family.
Now, I am not scared of a challenge. I am scared of
failure. I will work hard, each day. I will work hard to make
the 280,000 employees at DHS, with the 22 agencies that is
underneath me, proud. I will show them somebody that no one
will outwork. I will work beside them every single day, to not
just secure our homeland, but to bring peace of mind and
confidence to the agency.
My goal, in six months, is that we are not in the lead
story every single day. My goal is for people to understand we
are out there, we are protecting them, and we are working with
them. My goal is to make every one of you guys proud. My goal,
for those that don't support me, will regret not supporting me.
But we have to get DHS funded. We have to. My friends, we
have to set the partisan side down, and we have to realize that
we are putting our homeland and the peace of mind at risk for
the American people. Sometimes it is political theater.
Sometimes it is true differences. But what we do know is that
we are playing with fire.
We have 280,000 DHS employees right now that are on day 30
without pay, and they are still showing up every single day to
do their job. That is a dedicated group of people. We should
all be proud of them. We should all be working together, and we
should all be trying to fund them.
I pray, that we can get past this, that once this hearing
is over and once we go through this process--I get it. I guess
some of it has to be political theater. I understand it. I have
to really pray about my attitude. But I will say, once it is
over, I hope we can work together and get them funded, so when
I walk in, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, if I walk
in as Secretary, that these guys are ready to go to work day
one.
God bless you. Thank you so much for this opportunity, and
I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Paul. It is the standard practice of this
Committee for the Chair to ask nominees the following question.
Do you agree, without reservation, to comply with any
request or summons to appear or testify before any duly
constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed?
Senator Mullin. I do.
Chairman Paul. We will now proceed to seven minutes of
questioning.
The record should show, and I think will show, a lack of
contrition, no apology, and no regrets for your support. You
completely understand the violence that was perpetrated on me.
You are unrepentant. The only thing you quibble about is
whether I met you somehow when you were in the House. I don't
think we ever met when you were in the House. This idea that
the only thing you are upset about is not that you were for
violence, what you are upset about is that I called you a liar,
because you said it to my face, which is really more about this
machismo that you have.
When in Oklahoma the media asked you about the refugee
welfare programs, the programs you voted to continue funding,
it was this whole idea that you were going to transfer it
because you were uncomfortable. Your anger, low impulse
control, causes you to then go after and decide that you are
going to go after me as well. You say you completely understood
that I was assaulted from behind, had six ribs broken, and part
of my lung removed, and that was just fine. That is something
that you, I guess, approve of as far as resolution of political
problems.
When I talked to you privately on the phone, there was no
apology. You just said, ``We can let our political difference
go by.'' And you said a few minutes ago, ``We can just set it
aside.'' Well, political differences we can, but when you say
that you agree with a felon, a Trump-hating felon who attacked
me, somehow you think I am just going to set that aside. Oh, it
is no big deal. I lay in pain for two months, had six ribs
broken, three of them separated, grinding upon bone-on-bone for
months, had part of my lung removed, and you think that is
great and to be extolled. I mean, the sheer lack of any kind of
self-awareness that you are going to be leading thousands of
men and women who will have the use of force, and there have
been great questions in our country about how that will be
used, and you think a violent attack is just fine.
I guess my first question is, do you think that justifying
that kind of violence sets a good example for the men and women
of ICE and Border Patrol?
Senator Mullin. Mr. Chair, first of all, I did not know the
extent of your damage. When the phone call was made, I made it
to you and I tried to talk to you. You did not engage at all.
In fact, you said, ``Get your paperwork in. It has to be three
days in between me and you.''
Chairman Paul. You offered no apology.
And you offer no apology today and no regrets. Haven't
heard the word apologize, haven't heard the word regret,
haven't heard I misspoke and it was heated and I made a
mistake. I haven't heard any of those words.
Senator Mullin. Sir, actually it wasn't heated and I am not
apologizing for pointing out your character.
Chairman Paul. Good. So you are jolly well fine, and you
want the American public and the people up here to vote, that
may or may not vote for you, to know that you supported the
felonious, violent attack on me from behind.
Senator Mullin. I did not say I supported it. I said I
understood it. There is a difference.
Chairman Paul. So that means you really did not approve of
it. Just completely understand it. What do you think most
people would interpret, completely understand to be? Support
for or a condemnation of the violence?
Senator Mullin. Sir, as I said, we can have our
differences. It is not going to keep me from doing my job as
Secretary of Homeland Security. I am going to secure Kentucky
and take care of Kentucky as much as I am Oklahoma.
Chairman Paul. If this were a one-off, it would be one
thing. If you just disliked me so much that you approved of
violence against me, people could just write it off, ``well,
maybe they hate each other.'' But really there is a pattern of
this. Let's go ahead and roll the tape.
[Video plays.]
So no regrets. In fact, even after your anger had cooled,
you were still bragging that if he had only been brave enough
to stand up, you would have jumped over the dais and taught him
a lesson because that is how men should settle their
differences. Do you think fighting as a resolution for
political differences is a good example for the men and women
of ICE and Border Patrol?
Senator Mullin. As you can notice over my shoulder here is
my good friend, Sean O'Brien. Both of us have had
conversations, both of us have shaken hands, and both of us
agreed we could have done things different. Sean is someone
that has become a close friend. We talk all the time. I have
been on his podcast. We have talked through this. That is how
you handle your differences. Not like this, Chairman.
Chairman Paul. I am glad you guys are friends now and that
you have reconciled, but really it does not get to the real
point whether or not you think violence is the way we settle
things. In the days after the fight, you said, and I quote,
``Sometimes people just need to be punched in the face.'' Is
that still your opinion that political disputes can sometimes
and often only be resolved by violence?
Senator Mullin. No, I do not always agree with that. I do
not believe in political violence. I have made that very clear.
But sometimes people do need----
Chairman Paul. Unless perpetrated on me.
Senator Mullin. Theoretically speaking, sir, I get it. It
is about character assassination for you. That is the way this
game is played. I understand it. You are making this about you,
which is fine, but that does not keep me, as Secretary of
Homeland Security, from making----
Chairman Paul. It is character assassination when you were
the one lauding the assault. Who do you think started that
character assassination? I am just repeating what you have done
in character assassination. I am repeating your support for the
assault. So that is somehow something I started?
Senator Mullin. No, sir. What I am saying is you are adding
a lot to it.
Chairman Paul. In the days after the fight, you did many
interviews in which you justified the violence as historically
justified by precedents, such as caning and dueling. Is it
today your opinion that the caning of Charles Sumner was not
only justified, but argues still for resolving our political
differences with violence?
Senator Mullin. What I was simply pointing out is some of
the rules that still apply to this body. For instance, dueling
with two consenting adults is still there. I was pointing out
what is still----
Chairman Paul. It has been illegal for 170 years. There is
no precedent for legal dueling. Even then they fled the
country. Do you realize that the man that beat Charles Sumner
with a cane, he beat him till he was unconscious. You know why
no Senators intervened? Because his friend held a gun on the
other Senators, and he kept beating him and beating him until
he crushed his skull. That is what you are is the precedent of
the Senate, and that is what you live by. That is a very
dangerous sentiment.
After a half a dozen victory lap interviews where you
pointed out that the union guy was just lucky that fear kept
him from standing up, Dana Bash asked you if you have any
regrets about bringing violence to a Senate committee, and you
replied that you have no regrets. Today you have said you have
no regrets about being happy, being completely understanding
why I was attacked from behind. You had no regrets about
instigating a brawl in a Senate committee hearing. Are those
still your opinions?
Senator Mullin. Mr. Chair, you are going to have your
opinion. I am going to have mine. As the Secretary of Homeland
Security, I am going to bring peace of mind and security to
this country, and I am going to stay laser-focused on that.
Chairman Paul. Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Senator Mullin, you have made several
public statements suggesting that you were involved in Special
Security Forces or combat operations overseas. In 2023, you
said in a Senate Republican Conference podcast, and I say, I
will quote, ``There's another side of my bio that I don't ever
talk about, nor will I. I had to go do something overseas.''
On March 2nd of this year, you told Fox News interview,
``War is ugly. It smells bad. If anybody has ever been there
and been able to smell the war that is happening around you and
taste it and feel it in your nostrils and hear it, it is
something you will never forget.''
On March 3rd, in a podcast interview, you stated, ``I did
special assignments outside of the Department of Defense (DOD),
now Department of War (DOW). I never wore the uniform or the
flag on my shoulder, but I might have been in the same area.''
Your statements in public interviews and your responses to
the Committee, are quite frankly, are confusing and they are
inconsistent. I would like you to clear this up. You are under
oath. We can clear it all up right now. First, I would like to
ask unanimous consent to enter into the record my letter to you
on March 11th,\1\ and your addendum to the Committee of March
12th,\2\ regarding any overseas special assignments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letter from Senator Peters appears in the Appendix on page
171.
\2\ The Bio Questionnaire addendum appears in the Appendix on page
197.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Paul. Without objection.
Senator Peters. My question for you, sir, is before your
time in Congress, other than on vacations with your family,
have you ever traveled to a foreign country?
Senator Mullin. No.
Senator Peters. You have never traveled to a foreign
country?
Senator Mullin. Outside of vacation or mission work, no.
Senator Peters. OK. Your Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) report does show some travel. I think it was to Georgia
and Azerbaijan. You marked that that was not for tourist?
Senator Mullin. Are you referring to August 2021, when we
went to go get the Americans out of Afghanistan?
That is what that travel was for, which we did clarify
that.
Senator Peters. OK. So you have traveled. You have traveled
to Azerbaijan and Georgia. That was in your FBI report,
although you just said you have never traveled.
Senator Mullin. Sir, I thought you were referring to a
different time, but in 2021, it was well documented. In fact,
it was all over the news, and I actually did say that, and we
put that down on the report. But that was us, which was all
over the news, trying to go with an extremely experienced team.
Senator Peters. OK. I have other questions. Thank you. You
have traveled overseas, despite your previous comment. Were you
ever an employee, volunteer, or otherwise involved with the
Department of Defense, State Department, or other U.S. agency
or contractor for any of those departments?
Senator Mullin. No. Senator, I think there is a
misunderstanding here that I could clear up if you want me to
clear up for you.
Senator Peters. Please.
Senator Mullin. OK. So, which this is official trip and it
is classified, but in 2015, I was asked to train with a very
small contingency, and go to a certain area, which was
scheduled for 2016. During that time, I had to meet certain
training qualifications, and had to go through Survival,
Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training. The training
and stuff was kind of fun. The SERE training was absolutely
awful.
I have spoken generally about my experiences, but I have
never spoken specifically on details, dates, or the mission.
That was official, and there was nothing in the report to the
Committee. Actually, it said, ``You do not have to claim any
official trips.'' Like I said, that was an official trip that
is classified.
Senator Peters. This is an official trip while you were a
Member of Congress?
Senator Mullin. Yes. In 2015, 2016, I was a Member of
Congress.
Some of it may be public, but it would be very small. Most
of it, because of my recollection, which we are going back 10
years, I think there was only four people read in on it.
Senator Peters. So, where was that trip?
Senator Mullin. I just said, it is classified, sir.
Senator Peters. It is classified. The letter that we sent
to you said that we need to have information of any of these
activities.
Senator Mullin. It said not official trips. Your paperwork
was very clear, excluding any official trips. This was an
official trip as a Member.
Senator Peters. We have more questions we are going to have
to ask. In the FBI report, I asked, ``Is there anything in that
report that is classified, that you were involved in any kind
of classified operation at all?'' And there is none.
Senator Mullin. It was also said, ``excluding official
duties.'' It says that, and you guys have the paperwork in
front of you and it always says, ``excluding official duties.''
We had this Committee come to us and ask the same questions. We
talked about doing mission work. We talked about doing
mentorship, but they said, ``Official duties that was in your
official capacity does not have to be talked about.''
Senator Peters. So, where did you smell war?
Senator Mullin. Sir, I just said that this was classified,
and that the dates, locations, and mission, I have never spoke
specifically details about.
Senator Peters. We can get that information. Mr. Chair.
Senator Mullin. That is fine. You are welcome to get it.
Senator Peters. We will want to find out more information
about that.
Senator Mullin. That is perfectly OK, Senator.
Senator Peters. It is important to have the truth here and
that you are portraying yourself in a truthful way.
Senator Mullin. Sir, I am not portraying myself in any way
other than you are asking the question, and I said I would try
clearing it up for you.
Senator Peters. Well, we will continue to work on that.
Senator Mullin. Thank you.
Senator Peters. After DHS officers shot and killed two
American citizens this past January, you joined top
administrative officials in publicly blaming and disparaging
the victims. Following the killing of Renee Good, Secretary
Noem called her a domestic terrorist. You, sir, you called Alex
Pretti, ``A deranged individual that came in to cause max
damage.'' Could we expect those kinds of quick responses if you
are confirmed as Secretary? Would you be basically--well, you
did, you responded as Secretary Noem. Are we going to just
expect that same behavior all over again?
Senator Mullin. No, Senator. I have a deep amount of
respect for you. We have had our differences, but I do respect
you. I think I said this privately when we had a conversation.
Those words probably should have been retracted. I should not
have said that, and as Secretary, I would not. The
investigation is ongoing. Like I said, there is sometimes I am
going to make a mistake, and I will own it. That one, I went
out there too fast. I was responding immediately without the
facts. That is my fault. That won't happen as Secretary.
Senator Peters. So, you regret that statement?
Senator Mullin. I already said that. Yes, sir.
Senator Peters. Would you want to apologize to the family
of Alex Pretti?
Senator Mullin. Sir, I just said I regret those statements.
Senator Peters. Is that the same as an apology?
Senator Mullin. I have not seen the investigation. We will
let the investigation go through, and if I am proven wrong,
then I will absolutely.
Senator Peters. How would you characterize your
relationship with President Trump?
Senator Mullin. He is a friend.
Senator Peters. How frequently have you spoken with him in
the past year?
Senator Mullin. Often. Most of the time about my family. If
you want to explain the friendship, I will tell you. My wife
will tell you the same thing. When someone loves your kids when
they are going through a difficult time like we have, the
amount of outpouring of support from the President and the
friendship we saw going back to 2000, or 2020, was quite
remarkable. And so I speak to the President from a friend level
more than I do a policy level.
Senator Peters. OK. I have more questions, but my time is
up.
Senator Mullin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Peters. But we will be doing it in a second round.
Thank you.
Senator Mullin. OK. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Senator Moreno.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORENO
Senator Moreno. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator
Johnson, Senator Lankford for letting me skip the line. I have
to unfortunately go to Dover for the dignified transfer, so I
appreciate taking the time.
It is not often that I get to ask questions of somebody who
I have known for a long time; in politics, 2\1/2\ years is a
long time. I have gotten to know you as a friend, as a
colleague. I have seen you interact as a dad. I have seen you
interact as a husband. I just want the American people to know
you are a good man.
Senator Mullin. Thank you.
Senator Moreno. That does not always get through all the
political shenanigans. Maybe you are not going to replace
Shakespeare as the next greatest orator on Earth. You talk from
the heart, and that is OK. You are who you are. I think that is
what you do not apologize for is just being yourself.
Sometimes we are imperfect. You don't do the 20-person
focus group every time you say a word, and I think that is what
people like about you, Markwayne. I appreciate you being here.
I honestly just have one question for you. Do you pledge to
support and defend the United States of America (USA) nearly as
much as you would protect and defend your family?
Senator Mullin. Without doubt, sir, yes.
Senator Moreno. I am going to ruin everything for the
audience. You will be confirmed. You will have the job, and you
are going to make this country safer and better. For that, I
thank you and thank your family for supporting you.
I will use the rest of my time now to make a little case to
the American people. We have 260,000 families that have not
received a paycheck in over a month, 260,000 American citizen
families who have not received a paycheck in over a month. None
of those people are in charge of policy. There is not one of
those families that makes policy decisions, for the most part.
That is on the people here. There is not a single human being
on this dais that has missed a paycheck. Every single one of us
has gotten a paycheck the last 30 days and before that, and yet
we sit here and we do political theater.
I said to my colleague, Senator Britt, the other day, that
in my 14 months here I have only felt ashamed of this chamber
once, and that was last Thursday, when you saw the ultimate
political theater, colleagues going, ``Let's fund TSA.'' ``How
about the Coast Guard?'' ``Oh, that's a different person that's
going to talk about that.'' ``How about FEMA?'' ``It's a
different person that's going to talk about that.''
You cannot have it both ways, by the way. You cannot have
Democrats saying, ``I can't believe the Trump administration is
cutting government employee numbers''--by the way, over
300,000, we haven't missed a beat--and yet at the same time,
not pay people who are actually showing up for it. That seems
decently incongruous. We cannot say President Trump is not
defending the homeland. He is absolutely doing that every
single day, and yet we are allowing these agencies to not be
funded.
I have tried really hard to learn how this place works.
This is all very new to me. I remember many Democrats saying to
me, ``We have the constitutional duty to fund agencies through
appropriations.'' Then we have a separate piece where we argue
policy differences. But we should never marry both together,
because when you marry both together, you don't hurt us, you
don't hurt the people here in D.C., you hurt the men and women
who are going to work every day to defend this country, and
that is a disgrace.
I actually do not know how you would sleep at night knowing
that you are hurting families like that. People cannot make
their rent payments, cannot make their mortgage payments. Their
cars are being repossessed. They are having to tell their kids
they cannot send them to dance recitals because they did
everything right in life except got a job with the Department
of Homeland Security, so that a politician can make a 30-second
video online and then use it to fundraise for the next
election. That is disgusting.
Let me just say this. What are we not talking about? The
Ranking Member said, ``Oh look, we said we fund--.'' He is not
paying attention right now, which is fine. We said we are going
to fund FEMA. When you guys are done talking, I will continue,
if you like. Are you done? OK, thank you. It is extraordinarily
disrespectful.
All right, so moving on. You have said you are going to
fund all these agencies. Here are ones that you have not
funded--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), near
and dear to my heart. That is how I became a U.S. citizen. We
have defunded the agency that allows legal immigrants into this
country? That is insane. Never hear the Democrats talk about
that--3,300 employees go to work every day, trying to process
legal immigrants. They don't need the paycheck.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart submitted by Senator Moreno appears in the Appendix
on page 173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am going to skip the second one, go to the third one--
Biological Nuclear Threat Prevention. That seems important.
That seems like an agency we should fund. Two hundred employees
not getting a paycheck. That is OK with the Democrats. The next
one, 60,000 employees for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP).
People who are inspecting packages, they work with your
teamsters, work with Customs, they are not getting paid. How do
you look at those people in the face and know that you are
doing that?
Now let's talk about Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
7,000 special agents that are stopping transnational criminal
organizations (TCO), drug smugglers, and human traffickers. Are
you, on the Democrat side, asking not to fund that? Because
ultimately what this is about is defunding ICE and law
enforcement. Are you suggesting that we not fund an
organization that attacks transnational organizations?
Be specific. Be specific when you say you do not want to
fund ICE. I want you to say the words, ``We do not want to fund
7,000 special agents that are in charge of stopping
transnational criminal organization, drug smugglers, and human
traffickers.''
This job is not complicated. The American people send us
here to get things done, and yet for the third time in six
months we have shut down this government with total impunity.
They will go home, and just make social media videos, and try
to blame Republicans. It is a disgrace. It is even more of a
disgrace, honestly, that you talked about the respect that
Senator Mullin shares.
You guys have side conversations, don't listen, and that is
fine. You do not have to. But what I am going to do now is I am
going to leave. I am going to go pay respects to three soldiers
who died so that we can have the liberties that we enjoy here,
and you guys continue with political theater, personal attacks,
whatever you can do.
I know that is a good man. I will vote for you. Our
Republican colleagues will vote for you. You will get
confirmed. You will do a great job, and you will make this
country proud, Markwayne. Thank you. And thank you for standing
by a great American.
Chairman Paul. Senator Hassan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I start with
my remarks and my questions, just with regard to Senator
Moreno, who has left the dais, the American people should know
this. ICE is right now funded with more money than it is had in
past budgets. The partial limited shutdown that we have right
now has nothing to do with ICE. Meanwhile, Democrats have
consistently over the last week moved to fund the rest of the
Department of Homeland Security, and the Republicans have
blocked that funding. Let's just be clear about what is
happening here.
Now, I want to congratulate Senator Mullin and Christie for
the nomination. I know your family is very proud, and I know
how much you love them. I also want to thank Chair Paul for
speaking so openly about a really difficult thing, which is the
actual physical impact of violence, and in this case, political
violence. It is a hard thing to do, but it is a really
important thing to do at this time in our country's history, so
thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Department of Homeland Security was created in the wake
of the September 11th terrorist attacks with a clear mission:
to keep our country safe, secure, and free. The Department's
work includes counterterrorism operations, disaster recovery,
physical and cyber protection of critical infrastructure, and
immigration enforcement. The stakes for the success of the
Department of Homeland Security could not be higher, and that
is also why Granite Staters and Americans of all stripes have
been deeply concerned about what they have seen from the
Department of Homeland Security under this Administration.
People have been rightfully outraged about the lawlessness from
the Department's leadership, which has not only resulted in the
death of two American citizens, but has also led to the
hollowing out of agencies like FEMA.
To Senator Mullin and my colleagues, what happens here in
this room today is not nearly as important as what happens at
our border, on our streets, in our communities, and in our
businesses tomorrow and every day thereafter.
Senator Mullin, I am going to start with a question I have
asked every one of the President's nominees. If directed by the
President to take an action that would break the law, would you
follow the law or follow the President's direction?
Senator Mullin. Senator, thank you for the questions and
thank you for the concerns. First of all, I have enjoyed
working with you on several different issues. We have had very
blunt conversations. To answer your question, the President
would never ask me to do that.
Senator Hassan. Certainly everyday Americans who have
served on juries would disagree with you about that, and the
example he has set calls into question that answer.
Senator Mullin. Senator----
Senator Hassan. Sir, I have limited time, as you well know.
Senator Mullin. OK. Go ahead.
Senator Hassan. In the past 14 months, Secretary Noem has
fundamentally broken the American people's trust in the
Department of Homeland Security. The top priority of whoever
leads this Department next must be to rebuild this trust. If
confirmed to lead the Department, how will you be different
from Secretary Noem?
Senator Mullin. Senator, I think I have said this in a
private conversation too. I love Secretary Noem's family and I
consider them friends, but everybody has different leadership
styles. Throughout my businesses, when I would have to transfer
one manager to the next or one executive to another area, and
now you bring in a different one, they all have different
management styles. My management style is empowering people. As
I said in my opening statement, I want to protect the homeland,
I want to bring peace of mind, and I want to bring confidence
back to the agency.
I am not going to be the smartest guy in any room I walk
into, but I know how to get talent and I know how to bring
those people together----
Senator Hassan. Let me interrupt you again. I am sorry,
sir----
Senator Mullin. That is OK.
Senator Hassan [continuing]. Because our time is limited.
But let's be really clear. What Secretary Noem did was give the
green light to lawless behavior. Are you going to give the
green light to lawless behavior?
Senator Mullin. I will operate within the parameters and
the policies and the laws that you guys set for me.
Senator Hassan. And the Constitution of the United States?
Senator Mullin. Of course the Constitution.
Senator Hassan. The Fourth Amendment, among other things?
Senator Mullin. Of course, the Constitution of the United
States. I will swear to uphold that when I get sworn in. But be
very clear, I do not get to choose the laws that I enforce. You
guys pass the laws. I enforce those laws. The reason why we
have not----
Senator Hassan. Right, but shooting a protestor who was
exercising his First Amendment speech and carrying a lawfully
licensed gun is not a lawful behavior.
Now, let's move on to another issue. Granite Staters pushed
back hard against ICE's plan to build a detention center in
Merrimack, New Hampshire, and despite poor communication from
the Department, eventually Secretary Noem canceled the plans
for this facility. Senator, will you ensure that the Merrimack
plan remains off the table, or will you consider restarting it?
Senator Mullin. Ma'am, I have not seen the facts behind it.
As I stated when we spoke in your office, I will work with you
on this. We want to be good partners in your State and in your
community. I do not know the strategic purpose of it. I do not
know what has happened, so it is hard for me to state something
that I have not got briefed on. But I have made this very clear
to you in private and here too, I will work with the community
leaders and make sure that we are delivering for the American
people what the President set out.
Senator Hassan. I appreciate that. In followup
conversations with my office, ICE refused to comment on opening
new facilities elsewhere in New Hampshire. They have said they
will not do it in Merrimack, New Hampshire. But will you commit
to me that ICE will not open any new facilities in New
Hampshire or elsewhere in the country without the support of
the local community?
Senator Mullin. Ma'am, I will work with the local
community, and I will work with you and your office. I will not
be able to speak to that until I understand the risk and the
reason behind delivering the mission that is set in front of
us. We got to protect the homeland and we are going to do that,
but obviously we want to work with community leaders. We want
to go be good partners. We are going to work in your State as
hard to make sure we build relationships and work in that
manner.
Senator Hassan. Look, I will be here for a second round of
questions because I have a lot more, but let me just point this
out. Americans want to secure their country.
Senator Mullin. I agree.
Senator Hassan. We all love this country. We all know we
need to be safe, secure, and we all want to be free together.
The people of New Hampshire will take into consideration a
request by ICE and the Federal Government to do its part, but
transparency and local control and respect of local people
throughout New Hampshire and throughout the country is an
essential piece of our democracy. What I have been hearing from
ICE and from other DHS folks is, ``The pushback's too hard.''
You either can make the case for these facilities and explain
how you are going to support the local community and deal with
the fact that they will lose property tax dollars, for
instance, or if you cannot make the case, it should not be
built.
I really would encourage the Department and all of us to
remember that this is a government of, by, and for the people,
and if you cannot make the case to the people, you should not
be doing it. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Senator Johnson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Markwayne, I am
going to use my time completely different than how I was going
to when I walked into this hearing. I cannot top what Senator
Moreno, the comments he made about how unconscionable it is
that we are not funding and we are not providing paychecks to
those 260,000 men and women that you will be soon leading.
Other than working with no labels, we do not serve on the same
committees, have never gone on a Congressional Delegation
(CODEL) together, and that is oftentimes how you get to know
our colleagues. I do not know you as well as some of the other
people on the dais here.
Certainly within conference we have seen each other
interact. We share a couple of things in common. I think we are
both pretty passionate about our love for this country, about
trying to fix the enormous messes left behind by President
Biden and Democrats. We wear our emotions on our sleeves.
But I will say that I have been here 15 years, and I have
been through a lot of confirmation hearings, I have listened to
a lot of nominees, I have heard a lot of introductions. If one
of your first decisions as a nominee was to pick the person to
introduce you, you could not have done a better job. The
introduction from Senator Lankford was probably one of the most
genuine and heartfelt I have ever heard. I will say your
opening statement was probably one of the more genuine and
heartfelt testimonies I have ever heard, if not the most.
I am looking behind you at the people who have come here to
support you, your former colleagues in the House, Chairman
Smith, a former Speaker of the House, Senator Britt. But I see
Josh Gottheimer there. He is not a Republican member of the
House. He is a Democrat. I have seen you interact with him,
trying to get some permitting reform.
Please briefly, because I want you to tell another story
here yet, but just talk a little bit about your relationship
with Josh and other members of the House.
Senator Mullin. Josh and I, we may not always agree on
every issues, but he is a friend. Our relationship started back
in 2017, when he thought I was a staff member running a workout
group because I have been running a bipartisan workout group
that started actually with Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Jason
Smith 13 years ago. I still do that to this day.
When he came in in 2017, Joe Kennedy, who is also a friend
of mine, he approached me when I was on the House floor and
asked me, ``Why is a trainer in the gym on the House voting?''
And to which Joe Kennedy laughed and said, ``He's a member from
Oklahoma.'' After that, we became friends. In fact, our
daughters are writing a book together about bipartisanship.
But when Josh asked me to join a bipartisan group called No
Labels, that is when we really started seeing that there is a
lot of common ground that we can work together.
Yes, as I said in my opening statement that we all make
decisions based on how we are raised and our life experiences.
Josh and I was raised different, just like everybody on this
dais is raised different than me, and we have had different
life experiences. But we all believe in that flag right there
behind you.
What I say is, as long as you love that flag as much as I
do and you are willing to die for that flag like I am, we can
work together. We can set the differences aside, and we can
work together. Josh represents that too. Just for him being
here, you guys know, he has a primary in New Jersey. He is not
a Senator who has six years. He is up every two years, and he
is here. That is a friend, that says, ``Hey, my political
differences are beside, I still like you.''
I cannot tell you how many members on the Democrat Party,
which I love and respect and I understand the politics, have
came up to me since this nomination say, ``Hey, I love you, but
I am running for this office, but I am running for this office,
but I am up for reelection, I would be killed in my State. In
most cases, I would support you, but--'' And it drives me
crazy. But when you see a real friend like that, run through
fire for the guy.
Senator Johnson. Again, this is a nomination hearing. From
my standpoint, when you are trying to select somebody to run an
operation, you want somebody with integrity, somebody with that
passion toward the mission, keeping this Nation safe, having
this love for this country. It is also, I think, incredibly
important that when you are serving the Administration, you
have a good relationship with the President. It does not work
so well. I know you have a good relationship with the
President.
You told me a story, and I want you to repeat that story,
of your son who was grievously injured, and a visit that the
President of the United States made to that hospital. I want
you to tell the story, because I think it is important that
people understand why you are loyal to President Trump. I would
like them to hear a different side of President Trump as well.
But I think also that will serve you well as his Secretary of
Homeland Security. But just tell that story.
Senator Mullin. Ron, I am going to try getting through
without crying. It is not about President Trump. It is about my
son. My son was a really world-class athlete, and January 17,
2020, which mind you was an election year, he had a really
serious brain injury. Woke up 26 hours later and he was a
different kid. We almost lost him. For 26 hours, he had
extremely low pulse. There was a time that they thought that
they lost his pulse altogether.
When he woke up, he was just different. Here you had a
world-class athlete that wrestled all over the world since he
was 12 years old and he could not touch his nose. He could not
walk without shuffling his feet. He had short-term memory loss.
He could not control his muscles. Could not add five plus
three. He was in high school at that time. Had to learn how to
read, walk, everything.
The President found out about it and he gave me a call
immediately, and one thing that the President joked about was,
he said, ``Let me get this straight. He doesn't know who you
and Christie are, but he knew I was?'' Because the only
question he got right is who the President was, and he said,
``Trump,'' with his cocky grin on his face.
The President didn't understand the severity of it, but he
heard it in my voice and immediately he went to work. I told
him we had to get to Bakersfield, California to the Center for
Neural Skills, which was one of the best neural rehabilitation
places in the world. The President offered to take us in his
personal plane. This is the President of the United States. I
said, ``Sir, we can't fly. We got to drive.''
We get there and he called almost every day for two weeks
checking on Jim. Then he says, ``I am going to come see him.''
Now, this is the middle of the election. This is Bakersfield,
California, really not an area he has got to go campaign. He
took the time to come up there and see Jim. The center told us
that the short-term memory loss, something would trigger it.
Some big event would eventually trigger where he would start
retaining stuff. Until then, he was still having issues.
The President arrived. Of course, there was cameras and
everybody around. Of course, no one in media ever talked about
it, which was funny, because the President called him on stage
and talked to him.
Then we went to the back, and the President did not talk to
me. He did not know I was in there. I mean, he did not even
care if I was in the room. Here is a guy that is bent over, and
his ties about as long as my son, because my son, it stunted
his growth, and so he is 5'3'' the rest of his life. His team
came to him twice and said, ``Sir, we got to go. We got to
go.'' On the third time they came over to him, he looked at
them and he says, ``Hey, I guarantee you that plane won't leave
without me.'' For the next 15 minutes, he did nothing but love
on my son.
That one incident jogged his memory. From then on, he
started retaining things. Jim's attitude went from this, ``We
are going to get through it,'' to this, ``I am going to get
through it.'' Every week, if not most days, the President would
call and ask how he could help, ask is his buddy doing, how is
Jim doing. He didn't do it for publicity. He didn't do it for
any show. He was running one of the toughest elections he had
been in, and the guy was still that concerned about my son.
When we got released for a little bit--we had to go back--
the President said, ``Come to Mar-a-Lago and see me.'' We go
down there and it was amazing. When we are leaving--dang it. I
hate getting emotional. See, if I talk about my kids, I get
emotional. Other than that, you cannot make me cry. But my kids
can make me emotional.
Senator Johnson. That is actually a good thing.
Senator Mullin. Yes. So anyways, he grabbed my son and he
said, ``Do you know why I love your dad? Do you know why I love
your dad?'' Christie tells the story better than I do. He goes,
``No, sir.'' He goes, ``Because he loves you. Because of you.
Because of you.'' Man, he didn't do it for any other reason. I
mean, here is the President of the United States, and he did it
just because he cared. When you want to say why he is a friend,
yes. We were acquaintances before that. We have been friends
ever since.
Senator Johnson. The American people needed to hear that.
Thank you.
Senator Mullin. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Senator Blumenthal.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUMENTHAL
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Senator
Mullin. Thank you for being here today. Thank you to your
family for your service and theirs. I hope that you will be as
emotional about the children who are presently detained at
Dilley and other camps in the United States of America, where
they have been subjected to conditions that would outrage and
have angered many Americans.
We are here because of a lawless and reckless agency, that
has broken into homes without judicial approval, shot United
States citizens, detained them without any cause, and sometimes
killed them. I am looking for real substantive reform in that
agency, as you and I have discussed when you came to talk to
me, a break with the past, with former Secretary Noem and with
the White House, Steve Miller, and others who have used Kristi
Noem, in effect, as a puppet to implement lawless policy.
I welcome that you have stated you regret your statement
after the killing of Alex Pretti. You said on Fox News,
``Unfortunately, an individual, a deranged individual that came
to cause max damage with a loaded pistol, with an extra mag
that was completely loaded, and shot and killed.'' And you
regret that statement, do you not?
Senator Mullin. I have already said that, sir, yes.
Senator Blumenthal. What about what you said about Renee
Good after she was shot and killed? You appeared on Cable News
Network (CNN), and you were asked whether you believed the
shooting was justified. And you replied, ``Absolutely.'' Do you
regret that statement as well?
Senator Mullin. Senator, it is very clear that an officer
had to make a split decision in that case as a car was running
toward him and did strike him. At that point, that car becomes
a lethal weapon. There was another officer obviously giving her
verbal commands to stop the vehicle.
Senator Blumenthal. So you are saying, and I apologize for
interrupting you, but you do not regret that statement?
Senator Mullin. I am saying that the investigation is going
on, but what we have seen--my understanding, Senator----
Senator Blumenthal. There is no investigation, Senator. In
fact, that was my next question to you. Don't you think there
should be an investigation?
Senator Mullin. My understanding is that there is. I will
find out if I am able to get confirmed. But those are two
different instances.
Senator Blumenthal. In fact, the Department of Homeland
Security and the Trump administration has blocked State and
local investigation of the killing of Renee Good. I hope that
you will permit that investigation to go forward.
Senator Mullin. Senator, State and local investigation does
not investigate Federal. FBI does that through the Department
of Justice (DOJ). I believe the FBI is looking at this case.
I do want to say something to you. What you said about the
terrible conditions that this Administration is putting in
kids, but what you left out is that they have actually
recovered over 160,000 kids that were trafficked or lost during
the Biden administration. What is inhumane is the 12,000 to
13,000 individuals coming across the border every single day
and we are not having tracked the kids. At one time the number
was up to 385,000. And that is sad.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me move on, Senator Mullin, because
you said that you were going to be, and I am quoting you,
``blunt and direct and to the point.'' So I regret that you do
not retract that statement about Renee Good.
But I want to ask you about a statement that was made
regarding the Pretti killing by Steve Miller in the White
House. He said, that ``Pretti was a domestic terrorist'' who,
``tried to assassinate Federal law enforcement.'' Don't you
think it was irresponsible and reckless for Stephen Miller to
post that claim on X without any evidence, just as you have
retracted your statement?
Senator Mullin. Senator, I believe that question is better
asked to Stephen Miller, not myself. I cannot speak for him.
Senator Blumenthal. Stephen Miller also said, again on Fox
News, ``Under President Trump's leadership, we are looking to
set a goal of a minimum of 3,000 arrests for ICE every day.''
If you are confirmed, are you going to be directing ICE to
arrest 3,000 people a day?\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The picture submitted by Senator Blumenthal appears in the
Appendix on page 174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Mullin. Sir, once again, I cannot speak for Steven
Miller, but I can say the President has tapped me to be the
Secretary of Homeland. I will lead that Department, and I will
lead it----
Senator Blumenthal. So will you continue that arrest quota
of 3,000 people a day?
Senator Mullin. No quota has been set for me, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. In effect, it is a quota if the White
House directs the DHS Secretary to arrest 3,000 people a day.
Senator Mullin. The President of the United States sets the
policies, and I will be working with the President. If you have
a question for Stephen Miller, please ask him.
Senator Blumenthal. I really regret that you are going to
stick to those same policies and practices and condone the
statements of the White House that are so demeaning to someone
who was a victim of lawlessness and recklessness by an ICE
officer.
Senator Mullin. Senator, I did not say that. You are
putting words in my mouth.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you then a different
question. ICE has been breaking into people's homes without any
judicial warrant. The sanctity of our homes is absolutely
critical. I think you would agree with that point. It is the
law that a judicial warrant is required to forcibly enter
someone's home.
Kristi Noem acknowledged in her testimony, in response to
my questions, that at least 28 break-ins have occurred. My
Ranking Member leadership on the Permanent Subcommittee of
Investigation (PSI) has produced a report that shows probably
many more such break-ins have occurred, the result of a memo
last May from the acting director, Todd Lyons,\2\ and it is
behind me now, that instructed ICE agents to break into homes.
I understand that during your staff interview last week you
said that there would be no more such break-ins into people's
homes without a judicial warrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ICE memo submitted by Senator Blumenthal appears in the
Appendix on page 175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If confirmed, will you commit to me, the Chair and Ranking
Member of this Committee and the American people that ICE will
no longer instruct agents to break into people's homes without
a judicial warrant?
Senator Mullin. Sir, you are using the word, ``break into
people's houses,'' very loosely. However, I have made it very
clear to the staff, and I think when you and I spoke, that a
judicial warrant will be used to go into houses and a place of
businesses, unless we are pursuing someone that enters in that
place. I have not mixed words with that and I have not changed
my opinion about that.
Senator Blumenthal. A whistleblower testified to our
hearing that, in fact, ICE agents have been instructed as part
of their training, to forcibly enter, I know you do not like
the word break-in, but forcibly enter is breaking into
somebody's home, bashing down the door, terrorizing children,
instructed them to adopt this policy.
Will you commit that no longer will ICE agents or CBP
agents be instructed to forcibly enter people's homes without a
judicial warrant?
Senator Mullin. Sir, I have already answered this question
for you. I said we will not enter a home or a place of business
without a judicial warrant, unless we are pursuing the
individual that runs into a place of business or a house.
Chairman Paul. Senator Lankford.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Thank you.
Senator Lankford. Markwayne, right now, is FEMA currently
funded?
Senator Mullin. No, sir.
Senator Lankford. Is CISA currently funded dealing with
cybersecurity?
Senator Mullin. No, sir.
Senator Lankford. How about TSA?
Senator Mullin. No, sir.
Senator Lankford. U.S. Secret Service (USSS)?
Senator Mullin. No, sir.
Senator Lankford. Coast Guard?
Senator Mullin. No, sir.
Senator Lankford. Customs and Border Protection?
Senator Mullin. No, sir.
Senator Lankford. The Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
Office?
Senator Mullin. No, sir.
Senator Lankford. Customs Professionals?
Senator Mullin. No, sir.
Senator Lankford. This is something we got to get resolved.
We can complain all we want to about where things are, but we
have an argument and a disagreement on policy areas, and a
quarter million Federal employees and their families are the
ones that are suffering because of our argument.
There is a way to solve this. We have talked about it a
lot. We should just stay here until we are done. Just keep
arguing it out until we have actually solved the problem. But
instead, we broke last weekend. Everybody flew home right past
the TSA agents that are not getting paid while we flew home.
Why didn't we stay to be able to try to get things resolved?
That is my encouragement, and it has been my encouragement all
along. We should not walk away from a disagreement when there
are families all over the country that are the ones suffering
for it.
Unfortunately, the State of Oklahoma is pretty familiar
with natural disasters, as you know well. You and I have been
in multiple different natural disaster scenes. There is a lot
of work that has happened at the border so far. The border has
moved from 12,000 people a day illegally crossing the border
and being released into the country, unvetted, unchecked, to
now a handful of people even attempt to cross our Southern
border. Those that are arrested and detained, as is the law.
FEMA is still an undone project, and I am not blaming that
on Kristi. There is a lot to get done on it. But you are going
to walk in with a project going on with FEMA right now. Love to
get your ideas and your thoughts. You are very familiar with
this area and have great experience on it. What are your
thoughts on how to be able to get FEMA into a better place so
that people are not waiting forever for a response?
Senator Mullin. FEMA was never designed to be the first
responder. That is the states. FEMA was designed to be the
assistance to the states when the disaster reaches certain
levels. Which we need to discuss those too, because I think
some of the levels are unrealistic, especially Senator Hassan
and I have talked about this, that sometimes in rural areas,
they are not able to meet those thresholds.
But working with the State, allowing the State to have
their emergency response, FEMA is simply helping write checks
and assuring that they have the capability and the manpower if
need be. But for the FEMA to walk in, like FBI walking in on a
crime scene and taking over, no one is going to care more about
their backyard than the people that live there in that State. I
think there are a lot of good ideas. In meeting with so many of
you all, there were so many great ideas on how to make FEMA
work better.
It has a great mission. I think people at FEMA want to do
their job, but we can be more effective and be more direct and
speed it up. Taking years to get reimbursed is not acceptable.
Taking honestly months to get reimbursed is not acceptable.
See, small municipalities, they cannot afford it. They do not
have that tax base to do it. They are already going through a
struggling time, which means they are probably losing tax
revenue, especially if it hits their town.
We have a lot of work there. I do believe that the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting different results. That means we are going
to look at each one of the 22 agencies that fall underneath DHS
and say, ``How can we deliver the mission better for the
American people?''
Senator Lankford. That is great. That would be a huge help
to everybody. Talking about the length of time it takes to get
a response, you have been a part of, as I have, on the
nonprofit security grants that are out there. We have some
locations that are higher risk than others. Synagogues and
temples have been one of those very high-risk locations that
are out there. Last week in Michigan, we had another situation
where an absolute terrorist drove a vehicle packed with
explosives into a Jewish daycare, intending to kill as many
Jewish children as he possibly could. That was his intent, was
to be able to do that. That location happened to be one of the
locations where there has also been this nonprofit security
grant to help harden that facility.
We have multiple challenges here. One of them is when the
decision is made, they make a request, go through the
paperwork, get approval to be one of those locations that we
say, ``Hey, we need to harden this location.'' Once the
approval is done, it may take months to over a year just for
the dollars to actually come on it because there are more
bureaucratic hoops to go through.
As you are dealing with things like contracts that are out
there and the way decisions are made, or FEMA, that is one of
the areas I would encourage you to take a look at, and I know
you are very passionate about. How do you fix the issue where
approval has been done and everyone is saying, ``Great, can we
get to work?'' and the Federal Government says, ``No. No, you
cannot actually get to work. You got to wait some more before
the actual work can actually begun to be do that?'' How does
that get fixed?
Senator Mullin. We got to streamline the process and cut
out the redundancies. The Senator from Michigan and I had a
long conversation about the amount of paperwork, once you are
approved, to get the funding flowing and then the paperwork
that is followed up on it is way too cumbersome.
There is a better way to do this. Some of these policies I
have to work with you guys on. Some of these grants were
written with checks and balances, which we all got to be very
cautious on how we spend the taxpayer dollars. Things that I
can change, things that I can cut out on the redundancy part of
it, I will work with. Things that, as the Senator and I talked
about, things that it may take you to make changes on, we will
bring it to your attention. I will work with you and we will
see how we can make it better.
Senator Lankford. Great. As you know, Oklahoma has been one
of the leaders in counter-drone. This is a big issue, of
course, as a country. Every high school football game, every
college football game, every gathering of people for every
festival and gathering across the country has now become a risk
location for drones and drone mitigation.
FBI cannot be everywhere. We do not want them to be
everywhere. We do have to figure out some process. As you begin
to think about this issue--it is a tough one to be able to deal
with, but it is a basic national security issue as well that is
going to land on your desk pretty quickly, especially with the
Olympics coming, with Federation Internationale de Football
Association (FIFA) coming, all those things that are happening.
We got to be able to figure out how to do counter-drone and to
be able to not just identify, ``There it is,'' but to also
mitigate the risk. What are your initial thoughts?
Senator Mullin. Yes, and I would love to speak about that.
With funding, talking to some of our agency heads, with a lack
of funding right now we have people quitting because they got
to go to work. Meeting these demands are even going to be
tougher. We just talk about FIFA, for instance. Then you talk
about 2028, which is going to be the busiest year of DHS in
history because we have the Olympics and we have the
Presidential election going on.
It will take four months once funding comes in to start
replacing those that we have lost for training before we can
get them out in the field. We do not have four months with
FIFA. How do we expect these people to stay on the job and
work? We are losing institutional knowledge. We are losing
people we have already trained. It is going to be difficult to
deliver this mission.
The way that I understand is we are behind in EOA
Specialist (EOAS) and we are behind in FIFA right now on
actually delivering the mission that we have to. We are also
behind in reimbursing local communities that is also working
with us. That is going to have to take a tremendous amount of
focus and partnership.
Like I said in my opening statement, failure is not an
option, so we have to deliver. But sometimes when you have to
rush like this, especially trying to get people on the job
because we just quit funding them for the third time in less
than a year, and we expect these people to keep working, it
puts the mission at risk. We have a lot of work to do here.
Senator Lankford. Yes. Thanks for stepping up. Christie,
thank you. This is a strain on the family, and everything else
right now. So thank you all for stepping into this role. I look
forward to supporting your nomination.
Senator Mullin. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Senator Kim.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KIM
Senator Kim. Thank you, Chairman. Senator Mullin, thanks
for coming out here. Secretary Noem said in a Cabinet meeting
about almost exactly a year ago today that we should be
eliminating FEMA. Can you commit to us here that you do not
support that approach and you would not attempt to eliminate
FEMA?
Senator Mullin. As I said, I think it needs to be
restructured, not eliminated.
Senator Kim. I think there is going to be bipartisan
support for reforms. I think we all understand that. We
certainly saw a lot of problems when it came to Superstorm
Sandy. I asked Secretary Noem to work with us, especially as
they were going about their FEMA Review Council. I will be
honest with you, that never materialized. We did not see the
kind of engagement here that we are ready to have. We have a
bipartisan group of Senators that want to come up with reforms.
Is that something you can commit to working with us on?
Senator Mullin. Senator, I think all of us that has been
either in the House or in the Senate always complain about the
outreach of agencies. I will make a commitment to you that I am
going to have the best. It is going to take a couple months to
stand it up, but we are going to have the Leg Affairs shop that
you are going to know who the person is. We are going to work
with you. Most importantly, I think everybody on this dais has
my personal cell phone. That cell phone is not going to change.
If you call me, you are going to get a response. If you text
me, you are going to get a response.
Senator Kim. When we have this FEMA Review Council report
finally come out, is that something you will come to us first
and engage with us on, rather than just implementing it
straight out from the Executive Branch on your own?
Senator Mullin. Senator, I am pretty sure that you guys set
the policies and the mission for FEMA. For any serious changes,
it may take actually policy changes, and I will be in your
office talking to you about it.
Senator Kim. Yes, I appreciate that. But we have seen a lot
of significant problems happen. For instance, we saw about
2,400 staff cuts at FEMA. Again, we are not talking about the
reforms, but we are talking about those that are trying to
respond to these disasters every single day. I wanted to ask if
you are confirmed if you will stop these dangerous staff cuts
that have reduced FEMA's disaster readiness?
Senator Mullin. Senator, I am not trying to play politics,
but what has been the biggest disaster is not funding them
three times in a year. However, some of these agencies
underneath the current Administration, not some, all of them
got very bloated with having too many employees in place.
Senator Kim. Do you think there is still too many staff at
FEMA?
Senator Mullin. Senator, I cannot answer that. When I get
there, we will be adequately staffed to respond to our Nation's
disasters.
But it is going to take some time to get there, because
like I said, people are quitting today because they are not
getting paid for the third time in a year. We cannot allow that
to take place.
Senator Kim. I agree, and I hope that we can move forward
on that. But one thing that has demonstrated a lack of priority
by this Administration is the fact that we never actually had a
full nominee for FEMA. I just wanted to ask, do you agree that
we need an actual nominee to be a full FEMA Administrator that
has real experience in emergency management?
Senator Mullin. Absolutely. We are already looking at some,
in the case that we do get confirmed, which I am hopeful we do.
We are making that a priority in each one of our agencies. But,
the confirmation also has to go through you and we know how
partisan that can be.
Senator Kim. I get it, but at least we can get a nominee
before us. I think that that is something I hope to take away,
that that is a commitment you will make.
Senator Mullin. Honestly, by the experience that I have
had, which has been an interesting experience, it is a lot to
ask someone, and they got to be fully committed. If they go
through this process, it is tough. So I would ask you, if I do
do this, give them a fair shake. For me, a lot of you guys are
not giving me a fair shake to even earn your support. if I
bring somebody else in to you, maybe you will give them a fair
shake and you will actually work with them. Because I am going
to find somebody that is capable of doing the job, that is
smarter at me at doing the job, that has experience doing the
job. But when they come to your office and ask for your
support, do not tell them it is politics. Do not say, ``I
can't.'' Do not say that, ``Hey, I supported the previous one,
but I got burned on that one so I can't support you. Just give
them a fair opportunity and you might actually like the person
we choose.
Senator Kim. Look, it is not just about the person. It is
about the policies writ large. And what we saw before, for
instance Secretary Noem had this policy that required her
approval for anything that was going out the door, grants,
funding over $100,000. I will be honest with you, it was
disastrous. It held up so much of the funding to FEMA and other
parts of DHS.
Senator Peters and I did a review of this. Over 1,000 FEMA
contracts, grants, and disaster assistance awards were delayed.
I wanted to ask you if you can commit to revoking this $100,000
policy by Secretary Noem?
Senator Mullin. Sir, we talked in your office about that.
Absolutely. That is called micromanaging. I do not know if the
Secretary put that in or someone else did. I am not a
micromanager. We put people in. We empower them to make
decisions. What is required to come up to my level, we will
make decisions. We will have a very clear line of communication
with every one of our agency's heads on their authority that
you gave to them within their parameters, and we will discuss.
But we are also going to be very responsible for the taxpayer
dollars.
Senator Kim. It is just adding so much red tape though.
Senator Mullin. Yes. I agree.
Senator Kim [continuing]. I mean, especially when it came
to disaster response with the Texas floods.
Senator Mullin. I agree.
Senator Kim. I want to switch gears here. This is something
that you remember we talked about, but we have this effort
right now, ICE has purchased a warehouse in Roxbury, New
Jersey. It is a facility the size of eight football fields to
house over 1,500 detainees. Never once did an ICE official go
and talk to the local mayor, talk to the local law enforcement,
assess the situation alongside the locals. I just wanted to ask
you, is that fair that DHS is imposing these types of large-
scale detention facilities without local engagement and input?
Senator Mullin. Sir, being from small rural Oklahoma, it is
a big impact, and the community should be visited with.
Especially when you start taking a warehouse off, it takes it
off the tax roll which can make a huge impact, and you got to
deal with impact aid if they are eligible for it. Then you got
to talk about infrastructure. One thing I do know is
construction. When you start talking about infrastructure on
these places, a warehouse sprinkler system is much smaller than
when you are housing individuals there. If you say, I think you
said the town was 60,000 people, and I believe you said this
was----
Senator Kim. Smaller than that.
Senator Mullin. Is it smaller than that?
Senator Kim. About 22,000 people, of which the detainees
and the staff there would constitute about 10 percent of the
population of that town.
Senator Mullin. Yes. And realistically, most municipalities
do not have the capacity in their infrastructure for waste and
water. It is important that we are talking to the communities.
If we are having additional needs, we can work with the cities,
we can work the municipalities. But we should always
communicate with them.
Senator Kim. I agree with that, and this town has only 42
full-time police officers and a volunteer fire department. Does
that sound like the kind of town that has the resources to take
on a warehouse of this magnitude?
Senator Mullin. Sir, I do not know the circumstances behind
this, other than what you and I talked about. I committed to
you when I visited with you in your office, we will talk. I
even said let's you and I get on the phone with the mayor. If I
am confirmed, I will make a trip out there and see it for
myself, because it is a big concern of yours and we want to
address those concerns. Listen, if it is not practical, there
may be a specific reason why it is there. If I cannot explain
that to you, then that is a different story. But if there is a
specific reason and I can explain it to you to make it make
sense, let's talk about it. But if not, then maybe we can be
better partners moving forward.
Senator Kim. I am glad that you commit to talking about it.
There are some documents I asked ICE to send us about their
evaluations of the warehouse. We have still yet to get it. Will
you commit that that is something that we can get?
Senator Mullin. If the documents are available, yes. But I
have also offered something much better. I will go with you
personally and look at it.
Senator Kim. That is something that the local community
will appreciate. I hope that you will reassess this warehouse.
Senator Mullin. As I said in my opening statements, we want
to protect the homeland, but we also want peace of mind and
bring back confidence to Department of Homeland Security. All
this means that we got to work on that. I will work on that.
Chairman Paul. Senator Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT
Senator Scott. Senator Mullin, congratulations on your
nomination. This is a great honor that you have. And you have a
great background, so I know you will work your butt off in the
job like you do everything else.
President Trump was elected to secure our border, crack
down on sanctuary cities, and keep our country safe. I want to
thank the President for his leadership and Secretary Noem's
help. Incredible progress has been made. Our streets are safer,
our borders are respected, and the jobs we have created are
going to people in this country legally.
Now, as a result of Democrats' partial shutdown, in the
fourth week TSA agents are not getting paid. Everybody in the
Senate's getting paid. I have had a bill since I got up here,
if we we do not pass budgets, we should not get paid. I have
had one of my Democrat colleagues say, ``I have a mortgage. I
have to get paid.''
Think about all these people. TSA agents are not getting
paid, airport lines are in gridlock, we got FEMA grants
stalling, Coast Guard counterterrorism operations are shrinking
amid rising Iranian threats to our homeland. My understanding
is ICE agents are getting paid, but not ICE leadership is
necessarily getting paid.
Last week, two terrorists boldly and hatefully attacked our
citizens right here on our home soil, killing at least one
person. The President's decision to stop the nuclear weapons
and the ballistic missiles was a reason. What he is doing is
making sure we do not get these attacks on our soil. It was
only as a result of brave actions of a class of future military
officers, citizens, and law enforcement that stopped these
tragedies. They could have been massacres.
Still, even as Americans are losing their lives, my
Democratic colleagues are refusing to fund DHS and give them
what they need to uncover and stop plots like these and protect
the lives of our families and neighbors. It seems like that is
our job up here.
Senator Mullin, how do you view Senate Democrats recklessly
holding DHS funds hostage at the expense of our national
security interests amid threats from Iran and its proxies?
Senator Mullin. Senator, it is unconscionable. How can you
sit there with a straight face and say that, ``We're trying to
take care of the American worker,'' when you are choosing to
not pay 260,000 people and you are affecting their families. We
have heard the stories of families having to stand in terrible
lines for basic needs or getting a loan. Like I said, this is
not the first time. We are a month into this. They just came
out of a 43-day shutdown that they were probably just
recovering from. Yet, we are still going to sit there with a
straight face and say it is not about politics?
Senator Scott. So in sanctuary cities, local authorities
can decline ICE detainers, which means that criminals are
released back into the community rather than transferred safely
into ICE custody. First off, I cannot imagine anybody elected
that wants criminals back in their community, but that is
happening. This creates opportunities for illegal fugitives to
relocate or re-offend, like in the tragic murder of Kate
Steinle. It also forces DHS officers to go into neighborhoods
to root out violent criminals, which is way more dangerous for
everybody. Not only does this cost the taxpayer more, but also
increases the risk for everybody involved, including
bystanders, DHS officers, and potential future victims.
We are seeing this play out right now just a few miles
away, where local officials in Fairfax, Virginia, are refusing
to turn over an illegal immigrant who was arrested for groping
12 underage students. The local elective wants to put that
person back out in the community, that is not even here
legally. Instead of turning him over to ICE, Fairfax County
prosecutors are trying to get him released. This is just one
example of how sanctuary city policies choose to put illegal
aliens over American citizens. How do you plan to deal with
sanctuary cities like Los Angeles and Chicago to remove
criminal illegal aliens?
Senator Mullin. Sir, it has been a difficult conversation
that has been had with these sanctuary cities. As I said going
on, we do not get to choose which laws we enforce. As elected
officials, you should not choose which laws you enforce. We are
not asking them to go out there and enforce immigration. We are
just saying be good partners with us. If we have to serve
judicial warrants, let us go serve the judicial warrants. If
you pull over somebody that is wanted, that is in the country
illegally and it is a municipality, we are saying just hold
them. At least let us do a background check on them and see who
they are.
And working with the municipalities are going to be vitally
important, but also you got to take a look at if they are not
willing to enforce Federal law and work with us, then where is
the taxpayer dollars going to? Ideally, I would like to go in
there and talk to the mayors. I would like to go in there and
talk to the sheriffs, talk to the police chiefs, say, ``What is
your concerns? How can we get past this?''
Because the President has made it very clear. He wants to
protect the streets for every American. He wants to restore law
and order to every city. I do not think that should be
controversial, but some people have, for political purposes, or
maybe they didn't like the tactics.
Either way, I find it really hard to believe that law
enforcement in those communities do not want to do their job.
So maybe we sit down and we just work it out. It is like I tell
my wife all the time, sometimes when she gets mad at me--and I
am right, she is wrong, by the way--but sometimes when she gets
mad at me, I have to apologize because I simply say--that was a
joke by the way, for everybody that is married. But I have to
apologize. Sometimes I tell her, I said, ``Honey, it is a
misunderstanding. We still love each other. We still want the
best for our family.'' And these law enforcement, and I would
even say these mayors, they still love their community. They
still love their cities. They still love this country. So maybe
it is a misunderstanding we can work by.
I am going to start with that. That is what I am going to
start with. If we have to do something different, then we will,
but that is where I am going to start at. It is a
misunderstanding, but we are going to force the Nation laws and
make sure we protect everybody in their city and hopefully work
with them and never work against them.
Senator Scott. Senator Mullin, as Secretary of Homeland
Security, do you have any ability to ban funding to sanctuary
cities that ignore the Federal laws meant to make citizens'
lives safer, but then turn around and ask for Federal money for
added protection?
Senator Mullin. Sir, that would be a last option, but at
the end of the day, taxpayer dollars have to be used for the
right purposes. If people are refusing to enforce the Nation's
laws, then I think it is really hard to justify why we are
sending them taxpayer dollars that are coming out of Oklahoma,
or coming out of Florida, or coming out of Kansas or Arkansas
when they are making that decision. But I will say that is not
going to be my first, or second, or even third approach, but
that would be my last resort.
Senator Scott. Congratulations to the nomination. Good
luck.
Senator Mullin. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Senator Fetterman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FETTERMAN
Senator Fetterman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hello, Senator
Mullin. Thank you for coming in today. Americans don't like
chaos, you know. America definitely didn't like the kinds of
chaos during the Biden administration at the border. As a
Democrat, I was alarmed that there were up to 300,000
encounters at our border once a month. That puts that in
perspective. That is the size of Pittsburgh showing up at our
border. That is not sustainable, and that is not manageable,
and it is making it possible for us assimilate. Now if you care
about immigration, as I deeply do, you cannot possibly provide
the American dream for people when the size of Pittsburgh
showing up at our border once a month. That needs to be brought
under control. And that happened. I signed up that as a
Democrat.
The second part is rounding up all of the criminals and
deport them. I cannot imagine why we cannot agree with that as
well, too. That is another thing that I signed up.
One name that often doesn't come from my side is Laken
Riley. I grieve for Renee Good and I grieve for Alex Pretti,
but I also deeply grieve for Laken Riley and their family. Now
all three were failures of our government there in that
circumstance. As I was proud to be the co-sponsor of the Laken
Riley Bill, because we have to address that.
Two things must be true here. We need to have a secure
border and we have to round up and deport every single criminal
in our Nation. I cannot imagine why that is critical or
controversial for anybody. So that is what I am trying to find
a way forward. Now you and I have had conversations on this and
that is your commitment to focus on those things. I believe
that is effective, accurate, correct?
Senator Mullin. Yes, sir.
Senator Fetterman. Yes. Now, another thing. I know there's
a lot of hard, personal feelings here and absolutely, it is
terrible what's happened. Political violence, it is rampant
now. But also President O'Brien's here not for round two. He's
here because he fully supports your commitment, correct? Yes.
Round three. OK. Yes. So it is about letting it go and moving
on. I have done that too.
When I was in the hospital and things were touch and go, I
know there were unkind things said about me, but I can just say
that it is better to just let it all go and to find a way
forward. That is the time that we are in right now, in our
country on that.
Now, people might describe you in those kinds of moments,
but I am going to describe you. We got a chance to get to know
better when we joined a CODEL to Turks and Caicos. Correct?
Senator Mullin. Yes, sir.
Senator Fetterman. Yes. We did that. We did that because
Americans were looking at over a decade in prison because they
had a couple random bullets in their luggage. Those Americans
ran the gamut of a Black grandmother from Florida, I believe,
Florida, and Pennsylvania that live in Western Pennsylvania,
that I did, and I was able to welcome him at the airport when
he returned there. That was about a commitment to working
together. Imagine just because a couple random bullets,
accidentally, they were looking at over a decade in prison. Now
we worked together and now not one single American really faced
that kind of thing. So that is about committed to working
together, so now.
Also as a Democrat, I made me the only Democrat that
refused to shutting our DHS down. Some people might say that
that does not mean I have any less commitment to reform ICE.
That is just categorically not true. But it is a strange
devotion. I don't understand why you would shut the entire
agency down just because you want those kind of reforms on ICE
that has absolutely no impact on ICE and does not force any of
those things. I refuse to do that and I refuse to punish those
union members that are working. Now especially parts of that,
it is true, it is like the cybersecurity agency is part of DHS?
Senator Mullin. Yes, sir.
Senator Fetterman. Yes. That is currently that is on the
shutdown. Now two of the top agents of cyberattacks come from
Iran and China. They must be elated to know that that part is
all shut down, because that is part of this shutdown that does
not bring any reform to ICE, that I want any less than other
Democrats here. The difference is I refuse to punish and make
our Nation less secure part of that.
For me, I came in here and I committed to come here with an
open mind and I am going to continue to do that. It is not
going to be about gotcha moments for me. It is about just
saying my experience with you has been consistent kindness and
professionalism. The first time I met, it was you and your wife
behind you when I was here at the orientation here in the
Senate. Even before you got the call for the big job, we were
even discussing about getting together and having dinner as
family. That is an ongoing relationship because that is also
part of the fact here in this town. You got to get along and
find a way to work together, and now we have to come at it and
just let things go in the past for that.
Finding a way forward, that is my responsibility to
represent Pennsylvania. Now for you, I just want to thank you
for showing up. Now I am going to engage and I am going to
remain with an open mind throughout all this as I made to my
friend here, and I am going to do that. Thank you for bringing
your family here too, and I look forward to hearing for the
rest of my colleagues' views on you.
Senator Mullin. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Paul. Senator Ernst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Christie,
for being here as well.
Senator Mullin, I have to say, I am just going to be blunt,
very honest with you. I hope that the President is watching. I
am going to say to the President, I am really upset that he has
made your nomination. Why? Because I will be losing you from
the Senate one of the best friends that I have here, truly. But
in that same accord, I am so grateful to the President for
making your nomination to Department of Homeland Security.
We have had a lot of discussion here. I know just as
Senator Fetterman said, there are a lot of differences and
opinions on the politics surrounding DHS. Senator Fetterman
mentioned that he grieves for all of those that we have lost.
Those protestors, we grieve the loss of young women, young men
that we have seen at the hands of those that have migrated
illegally into the United States of America. We grieve them
all, and I think we can acknowledge that, and it is important
that we do that.
We are in really trying times right now. One of the things
that I want to focus on right now is the bipartisanship that
you have had with so many members in the House, in the Senate,
the relationships that you have outside of this body, because I
think it is really important, because we get into political
fights all the time, and we are all trying to score points back
and forth. Bipartisanship is not very sexy, but I think we need
a lot more of it.
Josh Gottheimer was here today. I respect him so much. The
fact that you remain friends today is incredibly important. I
noticed you also gave Joe Kennedy a shout-out. I sent him a
picture I took of you from the dais because I know Joe really
well, as well.
There are so many relationships that we have in this body,
and I wish more people would see that we have those
relationships, we carry them in our hearts. It means we are
better people because we open our minds to listen. To that
point, I want to thank you, Mr. O'Brien, for being here as
well, because what started out as a very big difference between
you and Mr. O'Brien, you found a way to both of you come
together to share thoughts and ideas and turn something really
good out of that discourse. I think more people need to learn
how to do that.
To all my friends sitting here in the dais and those that
are watching, is that this is how America works, where we are
able to take differences and come together and not just shout
at one another, but come together and figure out a way forward.
That is what makes this country such an incredibly brilliant
country, is that we can recognize those differences.
I want to talk a little bit about a trip that we took last
year. So many folks know that you serve on Armed Services. I
serve on Armed Services. We do congressional delegation visits.
A little over a year ago or about a year ago, Senator Mullin
led a congressional delegation visit into a country that had
not been visited by an official delegation trip in 15 years.
Along on that trip, I was also there. Chairman Smith was on
this trip as well, as well as Democrat Jimmy Panetta of
California. We went to Syria. We sat down with the President
there, al-Sharaa, for his first official visit from the United
States of America.
Now, a lot of people will say, ``He was a member of al-
Qaeda. What are you doing sitting down with somebody that was a
member of al-Qaeda?'' It is the same reason we sit down with
people that we have differences with, is to find a way forward.
Senator Mullin, I would like you to talk a little bit about
that trip and why you believed it was important that we do
that.
Senator Mullin. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. You are
right. The President of Syria was not really somebody we should
have a lot of common ground with, and we actually talked about
that. Him and I talked about that. I had a very blunt
relationship about it. But the fact is our world is different
and there's different leaders for different countries and
different places, and you have to understand the region and the
area they are in.
We are not in the business of necessarily picking the
leaders, but when we do, hopefully there is a way that we can
work it out. If you remember the President at the time, he
said, ``When I was younger, I was fed a lot of propaganda.'' I
am paraphrasing this. He says, ``But when I was in American
prison in Iraq,'' he started looking at things different. Then
he also went on to say, ``Yes, I was affiliated with al-Qaeda,
but it is much like you guys being affiliated with Russia.'' It
was interesting to me how he went through the history.
He said, ``It's much like you guys being affiliated with
Russia and China in World War II and look where you are at
today. Sometimes in war, when we are fighting for our country,
I left Iraq and came back and fought for Syria because that is
my home. We had the most diverse population in the history of
the world in Damascus, and I don't want the foreign influence.
After I got out, I realized my fight is for my country, not for
this necessarily organization, but for me to get resources, for
me to get fighters, for me to be able to fight for my
country.'' Hopefully, even though he said, openly, ``I never
planned on being President of the country. I was just wanting
to get my home back. I find myself here.'' He was very open. He
says, ``I have made mistakes.'' I said, ``I have made mistakes
too.'' I said, ``We're not perfect, but if we can work together
to be a trust but verified,'' he says, ``I want a relationship
with the United States. I want to have that relationship.''
That is not common for somebody with al-Qaeda ties. That is
somebody that says, ``Yes, my past is my past, but I am looking
to the future.'' I think we all have past. In past, we can
learn from. We learn from successes and failures in our past.
But if we can grab the past that we made a mistake on and say,
``Yes, that's a mistake. I am not going to make it again,''
that is a lesson. That is where wisdom comes from. If you can
also learn from your successes, then that is also where wisdom
comes from, and that is considered someone that has the
potential to be a leader. I would rather work with those
leaders like that than to continue to see the civil war that
was going on, and in some cases still going on in Syria.
Senator Ernst. Yes, and thank you. I just use this because
my time has expired, just to demonstrate how we all have such
significant differences. We can come from different
backgrounds. But I have been on a lot of congressional
delegation visits, folks, a lot in the 12 years that I have
been here. But to watch Senator Mullin lead this delegation and
to be able to speak to someone that is far different than we
are and bring our countries that closer together, I know that
he will do that with every one of us serving in Congress. I
know you will represent us very well. You will represent the
Administration very well. You will make our country safer.
Thank you, Senator Mullin. Thank you, Christie, very much
for your friendship as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. Senator Slotkin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLOTKIN
Senator Slotkin. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Thanks
for our conversation yesterday. I want to just actually add on
to what Senator Lankford was saying and just focus on the
attack we had at a temple that is very close to my heart in
Michigan, a place I know well. Last week, we had an antisemitic
attack meant to terrorize not just that synagogue, but the
entire Jewish community. I think the light is really blinking
red, and that is the feeling for the Jewish community. Just as
an objective statement, the Jewish community is 10 times more
likely to be the victim of a hate crime than all other
religious groups combined. That is not a political statement.
That is a factual statement from FBI data.
We talked about the need to work together. The Jewish
community is spending about a billion dollars a year privately
securing their own institutions. No religious group should have
to spend that amount of money that could be going to lots of
other things on their own security in the United States of
America.
I would just ask your help in reforming the Nonprofit
Security Grant Program (NSGP) so it is agile, so you do not
have to win the grant and then still do 100 pieces of paper,
maybe even looking at a rapid reaction fund, but certainly
asking for some sort of task force. I am thinking about the
community in Australia that went to the Australian government,
the Jewish community, and said, ``We are seeing just a real
uptick in threats. We are terrified.'' Then we have Bondi Beach
and a very horrible thing.
Can we just agree in public again in a bipartisan basis to
sit together to reform this program and figure out how we
manage to the threat, because we are not hitting it right now?
Senator Mullin. Senator, you have a wealth of knowledge
from your service in the intel community, and you will know
this issue probably better than me. I would welcome the
opportunity to sit down and talk to you, figure out what we
need to do. I know this is very personal to you, and that is
great. We may have some differences on some political views,
but this is not one. You and I will be laser-focused and get
this resolved if it is possible. But yes, I would absolutely
welcome an opportunity to work with you on this.
Senator Slotkin. Great. I appreciate that. I think, in
general, your position or your future position as Secretary of
Homeland Security sits at the fulcrum of these big issues we
are having as a country, just big cultural issues. The use of
law enforcement in our streets and where our rights begin and
end, and then our elections, our democracy. Given the
importance of that, I think it is important that we state
really clearly where you are on those two issues.
I think first and foremost on the use of ICE, my State
voted for Donald Trump in 2024. A lot of people supported the
President's immigration agenda, but then they watched with
their own eyes, not filtered through a news source. They
watched with their own eyes, American citizens killed in their
streets for protesting. They saw children caught in the
crossfire and being teargassed. They saw people randomly being
pulled out of their cars and walking down the streets because
they happened to look like they could be an immigrant and
checked for their papers, which for many of us has a real
history. They have seen law enforcement go into people's homes
without a judicial warrant, for a country that was invented
because we were being oppressed by a foreign force that
demanded entry into our homes.
So you say you don't want ICE in the news, you say you want
to rebuild trust. Your predecessor was fired because she could
not manage that, and people had to go in and bring the
temperature down. Can you, without other words, just state
clearly what you would be willing to do to fundamentally reform
ICE and put into law to do so since that trust is gone?
Senator Mullin. Ma'am, as you know, I cannot make the law.
You guys make that for me.
Senator Slotkin. But you are going to be the Secretary.
Senator Mullin. Yes, I agree, but I cannot make the law. I
can work within the parameters----
Senator Slotkin. No, but tell us what you would be willing
to put into law.
Senator Mullin. Right now, the law that I will work into is
your guys' decision. We will work through that. But I do
believe there is a better approach. I think working with
municipalities, I would love to see ICE become a transport more
than the frontline. If we can get back into just simply working
with law enforcement, we are going to them and we are picking
up these criminals from their jail. One, we are going to
reimburse them for having the person there. A partnership is
vitally important. I don't think there needs to be a law to
change that. I think I can work within what is there, but there
is an approach that can happen, but we got to have partners.
Senator Slotkin. Yes, I understand. We are not going to
agree to this here, but I would just say the trust is gone and
not just with Democrats. That is why we are here. That is why
your predecessor was fired. There needs to be fundamental
reform of this law enforcement agency. I think that the public
writ large is crying out for that. Let me turn to elections.
Senator Mullin. Senator,
Senator Slotkin. No.
Senator Mullin. OK.
Senator Slotkin. Let me turn to elections. The Department
of Homeland Security has the mandate since the Obama era for
securing our election infrastructure. That is an important job,
and you will be Secretary. The President has continued to say
that he won the 2020 election, even though there have been 60
court cases saying the opposite. He has said he wants to
Federalize the elections. He has said name check cities,
including Detroit. He has said voting machines are inaccurate.
He has said in the State of the Union, I was on the Senate
floor, paraphrase that if his side does not win in November,
then the elections were rigged, which is exactly what he said
eight months before the 2020 election.
You have your own history. You did not certify the 2020
election. There are people at the Department of Homeland
Security, three people specifically who are well-known election
deniers now running election security functions. Who won the
2020 election?
Senator Mullin. Ma'am, we know that President Joe Biden was
sworn into office.
Senator Slotkin. Who do you believe won the election?
Senator Mullin. I believe my job as Department of Homeland
Security Secretary will be to make sure that we assure that the
elections are fair and people can trust them.
Senator Slotkin. Does the Federal Government run the
elections process or do states?
Senator Mullin. It is very clear in the Constitution that
the states control State elections, and then there is some
Federal oversight that is on it, but the Federal Government can
set some standards. If you are talking about the Save American
Act, requiring you, which is within the Constitution, by the
way, to requiring individuals to be citizens of the United
States, I do not think it is too much to ask somebody to prove
they are a citizen of the United States if we are going to talk
elections.
Senator Slotkin. That is not what we are talking about. I
am talking about administering the elections. If you are
Secretary of Homeland Security, do you feel you have the
authority to put uniformed officers at polling locations in
2026?
Senator Mullin. Ma'am, we said this in your office. The
only reason why my officers would be in there if there was a
specific threat for them to be there, not for intimidation, and
I said we would be able to share that.
Senator Slotkin. Even though we did not need it during
World War II. We did not need it during Vietnam or the war on
terror. We never had to put uniformed military there. Now, you
feel that there is going to be a reason that there is going to
be an armed threat to the United States that you need to
potentially be there?
Senator Mullin. No, ma'am. I cannot sit there and guarantee
hypothetically of what threat would be and not. That is not
within my purview.
Senator Slotkin. Sorry, uniformed officers.
Senator Mullin. Yes. But if there is a threat, a specific
threat, say it is in a Jewish community and there is a threat
that is specific to that polling area, then we will work with
local law enforcement. There will be a reason for us to be
there, and it will be known why we are there.
Senator Slotkin. I think the reason you are here and not
Kristi Noem is because Americans trust their local law
enforcement now way more than they trust ICE. I would just say
if we ever get to the point where you are being asked to put
armed ICE officers at polling locations, we have lost the plot
as a country. We have fundamentally lost it. Until I hear
someone tell me that this man, President Trump, will actually
allow us to have a free and fair election, there is zero trust
here and I cannot trust that he will not try and steal it,
again. I yield back.
Chairman Paul. Senator Moody.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MOODY
Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and congratulations on
your nomination. Congratulations to your family. I cannot think
of a better person at this moment in time to lead such an
important agency.
Talking about Americans trusting their local law
enforcement, I think that is true. I think that is one of the
reasons as the Attorney General (AG) in Florida, I worked so
closely with our law enforcement, our local law enforcement, to
make sure we were triaging our resources and going after really
bad people that wanted to harm our community in a way to make
our State safer. Part of doing that is we supported them. We
made sure that they had resources, they had the support behind
them, they knew that we had their backs.
I am proud that Florida was the first State to have every
single county sign up to work with the Federal Government,
because we were dealing with an unprecedented situation
following the last administration where you had people working
with radicals in that administration to destroy the border,
roll out a welcome map to everyone, and has left our Nation
reeling from an unprecedented surge of people we do not know
who are here, many of which before they even got here had
committed crimes and have committed crimes since.
The way to recover and shore up our communities is to work
with, in partnership, local law enforcement who have an
expertise in their communities. It is disheartening to me, not
just as a former Attorney General or as a former prosecutor,
but as the wife of a law enforcement officer and someone that
worked very closely with them, it wrecks me to hear them refer
to law enforcement, in general, especially some of the men and
women that serve currently in the Department of Homeland
Security, as breaking into people's homes and shooting
Americans.
I think we can all acknowledge that we want law enforcement
to meet professional standards, to act with the public safety
in mind, to comply with the law. But we do not have to
disparage an entire profession of men and women who put their
lives on the line for you and for everyone in this room and
said that they were going to dedicate their professional
careers to stand on that line and put their safety behind
yours.
When President Trump got in office, so many of these states
on the Democratic side said, ``I will never work with that man
to come in and correct and rid the communities of people that
are going to do it harm. We won't.'' In Minnesota, the first
thing they said, ``I will never help that person. I won't lift
a finger,'' the Attorney General said. In Florida where you
have 67 out of 67 counties signing up, tell me what I can do to
help you. In Minnesota, they had like 7 of 87. Does that
surprise anyone? No, because their State leader said, ``We will
not help you. We will not go after the most dangerous in our
communities. Have at it. See how it goes. We won't lift a
finger.''
When the Administration says we are dealing with an
unprecedented situation, 11 to 20 million people that's never
happened in the history of our country, how do we do this? We
need to make sure we are focusing on triaging and getting
people out that we know may do harm to our communities. They
are like, ``What are you talking about? You can't have
quotas.'' They won't talk about the quotas where they said to
Border Patrol, push more and more and more and more in, however
you need to do it. Don't tell us how we can stop this influx or
this surge. Tell us how we can push more in. They will not talk
about that. They want to tell you about focusing on children
that are here, that are now here. Yes, you need to do that. As
somebody that has pushed to protecting children and fought
against trafficking with law enforcement's help, yes, you need
to do that.
But I loved how you said, let's talk about the tens of
thousands of children that the Federal Government helped
traffic under the Biden administration, that we lost. When they
were made aware of it, they ignored it.
You will now have to take over an agency that is charged
with cleaning up a disaster, a danger. The Biden administration
did that. I cannot think of a better person, someone who acts
passionately and fiercely fights for the people he loves, and
someone who loves this country and thinks of other people
before himself.
I am telling you, in Congress, there are all kinds of
personality types, but this man came up to me, time and time
again, as the newest United States Senator, and said, ``What
can I do to help you? How can we make this place work? How can
we get this done? ''
I look over the course of your life, you left school when
your father got sick, to go help your family business. That is
the kind of person you are. The kind of person that stands up
for every person in this office. That is the kind of person--
passionate, fierce, a fighter, loyal--that is who I want now
protecting this country at the head of the Department of
Homeland Security.
You said in your testimony, ``I'll fight for your family
just as I fight for mine.'' Tell me about that personality
trait and how you think that will help the Department of
Homeland Security in this unprecedented time, where the last
administration, the last President of the United States
abandoned his role to secure this country. Tell me how you
bring your personality and your character traits to this role.
Senator Mullin. That is the way I was raised. It is the way
my dad raised us, the way my mom raised us, the way they were
raised. We love this country. I mean, think about it, I am
getting to live the American Dream. You are telling me a kid
from West Oklahoma with a speech impediment would ever be able
to be here? That only happens in America. Only in America. We
all probably have the same type of dreams, because none of us
have royal blood. Maybe some of your parents might have served
in public office or not. Mine most certainly did not. The fact
that I am here, my goodness, that is why people want to come to
our country, because they want the American Dream.
I want everybody to have the same opportunity that I have,
but we have to secure the homeland. We have to make sure that
they feel safe stepping out and being in the public eye. We got
to make sure that people can have a peace of mind and trust our
government, and right now there is a mistrust in our
government. I think we have an opportunity to maybe work on
that.
I meant it when I say that I hope in six months we are not.
I cannot guarantee it, because the news chooses what they are
going to run, but I hope that I am not on the news every six
months, or six months from now, every day. I hope DHS is just
able to be laser-focused on doing their job and it is not
controversial about taking care of the homeland. I hope people
have confidence in our agency again. I am going to work every
day to restore that.
Senator Moody. You will bring that same passion and zeal
and protective instinct to protect every family and every
community, working with local law enforcement because they know
how to approach in a safe manner their communities.
Senator Mullin. Nobody will take care of their backyard
better than the individual.
Chairman Paul. Senator Gallego.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GALLEGO
Senator Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hello, neighbor. How
you doing? Easy day.
Senator Mullin. Hey, brother. Good to see you.
Senator Gallego. Some very specific questions. What is the
primary mission of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)?
Senator Mullin. From the IG or from us?
Senator Gallego. I am sorry, from Homeland Security
Department. There's HSI within Homeland Security. What is their
primary mission? It is not a trick question either.
Senator Mullin. No, I understand that. Every agency, sir,
we have specific missions that we are targeted to look at our
aspect of protecting the homeland. Different directions have
different paths, and in different agencies, reason why there
are 22 of them there, we all need to be in the same boat,
rowing the same direction, working for one common goal. As I
said, that is protect the homeland, bring peace of mind, and
secure the confidence of the American people.
Senator Gallego. OK. HSI, and being from Arizona, we are
very familiar with CP, ICE, and HSI. HSI specifically is very
important because they specialize in dealing with human
trafficking, human smuggling, counterfeit, bank fraud, things
of that nature. Actually, I have a lot of friends that have
worked for them forever.
The reason I bring this up is because there is confirmed
reports that the Secretary of Homeland Security has ordered HSI
agents, pulled them off what I just told you were very
important missions, to go to Arizona and investigate the 2020
election results. Right? That is a very big concern of mine
because these agents should be doing the work they are doing. A
lot of them already are field ICE agents instead of actually
doing these long-term investigations. But now, they are not
even doing the ICE enforcement. They are literally going back
and looking into conspiracy theories.
From my experience and seeing you both on the House and the
Senate, do you believe that Joe Biden won Arizona in the 2020
Presidential election? The reason I ask is because, again, you
are potentially deploying HSI agents to Arizona to check a
result using our taxpayer dollars to followup on a conspiracy
theory.
Senator Mullin. Sir, I am not familiar with what the former
Secretary did here, and nor am I here to debate what happened
in 2020. I do know that there is an opportunity to look at
2020, and make sure that anything that went wrong we can fix
moving forward, because what we want to make sure is that in
the next election, be it the midterms or in 2028, the American
people trust our election system. Trust is vitally, vitally
important.
I want to always look at past mistakes and past successes,
because I have addressed this multiple times, and I know
everybody's busy here and I know you did not get to hear me
earlier. But Senator, I think we can always do better and I
want to do that. Just like you and I, we have worked on
immigration issues before, because we both know we can do it
better.
Senator Gallego. But you are talking about perspective. I
am talking about going back. The fact that we are using
Homeland Security funds, investigators that should be using
their time and value more to check into something that, by the
way, had multiple independent audits, even one run by the
Senate Republican and Senate State House representatives, that
passed accuracy tests, hand counts, 14 court cases that were
confirmed that Biden won in my State.
When I have personal friends that are HSI agents, friends
that I know are telling me they are now being diverted from
their duties and what they are doing is they are, instead of
investigating child sex trafficking, child abusers, drug
traffickers, which I don't disagree, we have not been doing the
best at and certainly I think a lot of that was under the Biden
administration did not do that sufficiently. But now, instead
of it not being done, now we have the opposite, where some of
these best-trained people are being ordered by somebody,
somebody within the chain of command in the White House, which
I will get to in a question later, to go investigate this false
conspiracy theory. Right?
As much as, for me, a concern of mine, because I do know
you very personally and we have gotten to work together. I
think you are an upstanding guy and I reject this idea that you
are not qualified for this job, 100 percent. But when it comes
to something as existential as this, that is when I have to
start questioning, are you going to be in charge of a
department that is going to say, ``You know what? HSI should
not be used for this. As a matter of fact, no one in the
Department of Homeland Security should be used to do and
investigate an election conspiracy.''
That is what I want to communicate on this is, I really
urge you just to end the investigation. There is no reason why
we need to be really getting back to 2020. There certainly is
not any reason why we should be using these highly trained
professionals that should be going after some horrible people
to be investigating conspiracy theories that have been
litigated multiple times, and put them back where they were.
Moving on from there, my other concern is something that I
saw with the previous Secretary, and something that I have seen
in myself in my time in the Marines, is that a chain of command
is very important. I do not believe there was a real chain of
command that was in the Secretary of Homeland Security. When I
say that, it is because I think Stephen Miller personally was
actually calling the shots there, and you could see the results
of what occurred. You had men and women in ICE and CBP that
felt that they were unaccountable, talking to actual ICE and
CBP agents from Arizona that got deployed to Minnesota. They do
not know who really was in their chain of command. They did not
have operational orders. A lot of them did not understand how
to actually engage with the public at all.
When there was a point of who is responsible for making
decisions, they could not figure out if it was Miller or if it
was Secretary Noem and her deputies. They could not figure out
if there were quotas versus there are quotas. Now we know that
there are quotas. This is the problem, is I want to make sure
that if you are there, you are in charge, and not Stephen
Miller.
Senator Mullin. Sir, the President has nominated me to be
Secretary of Homeland, and I will take full responsibility for
that. Chain of command is important. I believe in empowering
people to make decisions, but I will still be talking to the
President on a regular basis. Any policy that is within my
realm of authority that you guys give us, if the President
wants us to look at it, we will look at it, because I serve at
his discretion.
Senator Gallego. Yes. One thing, I don't know if it has
been mentioned here, would probably be, what, the only second
Native American in the history of the country to be a Cabinet
member, which I appreciate. And you know that I also do a lot
of work with our Native American communities, the 22 federally
recognized Tribes in Arizona.
The one concern I also have is that when it comes to
building some of these installations on the border, there has
been very little to no Tribal consultation, especially with
some of our border tribes, the Tohono O'odham Nation, where we
are building walls in areas that just does not have much, much
like you, english as a second language (ESL), so I have
problems with English once in a while too.
There is a border wall that is going through Tribal land
that is in very sacred land, that is not crossed and used
significantly by human smugglers. It is important that DHS
actually speak to these communities. They actually have
programs that they do where they actually are working with DHS
and local law enforcement to stop illegal smuggling, called
Shadow Wolf Program, that DHS supports.
But this last administration and DHS did not talk to them
whatsoever, did not talk about, did not even give the vague
idea of Tribal consultation, and now they are just building
into some areas that has unfortunately some burials of some of
the people from their Tribe. I think it is important that we
reestablish Tribal sovereignty, and I hope because of your
background, you will understand and appreciate that.
Senator Mullin. I respect Tribal sovereignty and there is a
lot of technology. Now, we do have a job to secure the border,
but we will work with Tribal nations because there are other
ways to have a physical barrier where you can have technology
there too, and I do not think anybody would complain about
that.
But yes, you know my background. We have worked on Tribal
issues a lot and I appreciate your passion. I have a lot of
good friends in Arizona with Tribes that we have been able to
have good relationships with.
Senator Gallego. These Tribal nations would absolutely work
with you as long as they felt that there was the respect and
also respect for the land, because we have a history of that.
Senator Mullin. Absolutely.
Senator Gallego Mr. Chair, am I up?
Chairman Paul. We are going to come back around if you have
another question.
Senator Gallego. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Senator Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Mullin,
welcome to the Committee. I see you have some supporters with
you today. Chairman Smith, good to see you. My friend Sean
O'Brien is here. I want the record to reflect that my money was
always on O'Brien.[Laughter.]
I just want that noted for the record.
Senator Mullin, let me ask you this. In your own words,
could you tell us, just in capsule form, what is DHS, what is
the mission of DHS, as you understand it, as you would put it,
as you would explain it?
Senator Mullin. Quite simply, it is simple, to protect the
homeland.
Senator Hawley. Very good, to protect the homeland. OK, let
me ask you this. Ten days ago, there was a shooting at Old
Dominion University (ODU) that left one person dead, two people
critically injured, the gunman had potential terrorist ties. Is
this a good time for the Department of Homeland Security to be
shut down and unfunded?
Senator Mullin. It is the worst time. Keep in mind, we just
came off a 43-day shutdown, as this is the third time in a
year. It is devastating to the morale of the men and women we
have tasked to take care of all of us, all the homeland.
Regardless if it is a blue State or it is a red State, we have
to look at it all the same and they have that mission mindset,
but they do not have the pay to follow it up.
Senator Hawley. A few days before that, two individuals
attempted to detonate bombs in New York City (NYC) in a way
that would cause mass civilian casualties. Both of those
individuals have potential terrorist connections. In light of
that, is it a good time for DHS to be shut down?
Senator Mullin. Sir, I think with the current conditions,
this is the worst time we could possibly do it.
Senator Hawley. A few days before that in Austin, Texas,
three people were fatally shot outside of a bar there when a
gunman opened fire in the early hours of a Sunday morning. That
gunman also had potential terrorist ties, and yet DHS is shut
down.
Just a week ago, a gunman loaded his truck with incendiary
devices and rammed it into the Temple Israel synagogue outside
Detroit, Michigan. As I am sure you know, 40 law enforcement
officers, 40, had to get emergency medical attention. It is a
miracle by the grace of God nobody was killed, except for the
gunman. But 40 individuals had to get medical attention, and
yet DHS is still shut down.
Let me just ask you this. Law enforcement dangers, I think
I have a poster that will go up behind me here. In the last
year alone, we have seen an 8,000 percent increase in death
threats to law enforcement, a 1,300 percent increase in
assaults, a 124 percent increase in vehicular attacks, attacks
using a vehicle, against CBP law enforcement. Now in light of
this, is it a good time for DHS to be shut down?
Senator Mullin. Sir, it is a horrible time.
Senator Hawley. Let's talk about children. Let's talk about
the dangers to children. The National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children (NCMEC) estimates that there are 20.5
million reports of suspected online and child exploitation.
That includes almost 20 million reports of child pornography,
546,300 reports of online enticement of children for sexual
acts, and 27,000 reports of child sex trafficking. Is it a good
time for DHS to be shut down?
Senator Mullin. No, sir.
Senator Hawley. Let me ask you if you have seen this
poster\1\ that I am about to put behind me. Have you ever seen
this before, Senator?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The poster submitted by Senator Hawley appears in the Appendix
on page 176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Mullin. I don't believe so.
Senator Hawley. There is no reason you should have. I was
introduced to this material by Tim Tebow, the Heisman Trophy
winner, who now spends a lot of his time trying to work with
child victims of sex abuse. This poster reflects every
individual Internet Protocol (IP) address in the United States
in about a one-month period that was sharing, distributing,
posting, or trading child sex abuse material or child
pornography of some form. You want to guess how many points
there are on that map?
Senator Mullin. It makes me sick. I have no idea.
Senator Hawley. There are 338,000. That is just a one-month
period. Now, can you see any blue dots on that map, Senator
Mullin?
Senator Mullin. Yes, sir.
Senator Hawley. Yes, there are. You got better eyes than I
do. I mean, there are like very few of them. I would be
surprised if anybody in the audience could see them. The blue
dots are the number of investigations that are open. Look at
the red dots--338,000. Look at the blue dots--you can hardly
see them. Why would that be? Because in the best of times, the
Department of Homeland Security has only 10 HSI agents who are
fully dedicated to doing this. This is all Congress has given
you, 10. Right now, none of those are funded. Is this a good
time for the Department of Homeland Security to be shut down?
Senator Mullin. I think any parent can look at that and it
makes you sick, especially with teenage daughters like myself.
That is scary. We have to focus on this.
Senator Hawley. It is very scary. That is exactly right. I
am glad to hear you say that.
The Biden administration and your predecessor in this role,
Alejandro Mayorkas, lost track of 450,000 children who were
trafficked across our border over a four-year period--450,000
children. It is the biggest child trafficking ring that was set
up under the last administration in the history of this
country. The President has been doing a tremendous job. They
found in the last year over 145,000 of them, but that leaves
almost 300,000 who are still missing, and yet the Department of
Homeland Security is unfunded and shut down. Let me just ask
you again, does it seem like a good time for that?
Senator Mullin. No, sir.
Senator Hawley. Let's talk a little bit about the
challenges that are being faced by people across the country
who are facing natural disasters as we have in my home State of
Missouri. We had major tornadoes rip through Missouri last
spring, all across the State, particularly concentrated in the
eastern part of the State, the St. Louis area, Southeast
Missouri. We have thousands of thousands of people who were
without power, who lost their homes, many who were injured. We
have had much disaster aid approved by FEMA, but we are still
waiting for some of that aid to get to us.
Now, FEMA is shut down. I have thousands of people in
Missouri who are awaiting the aid that the President has
approved, by the way, and that FEMA has approved, but that is
in the process of coming to the State. I have probably hundreds
of people who are not able to go back to their homes and who
are applying for individual assistance that has not yet been
processed by FEMA. Now they are being told, ``Sorry, there's
nothing we can do because FEMA's shut down.'' Does this seem
like a good time for DHS and FEMA to be shut down?
Senator Mullin. No, sir.
Senator Hawley. In any airport in the country right now, if
you go and look, you will find hours, backups of four and five
hours. You will find TSA agents--you alluded to this earlier,
Senator, over 10 percent of TSA agents now are not able to come
to the job. Why? Because they make on average $45,000 a year.
They cannot afford their rent, they cannot afford to buy
groceries for their kids. They have missed now two paychecks.
This is endangering the security of our flyers. It is
endangering the security of our airports. This is a terrible
time for DHS to be shut down.
Here is my point. Whether we are talking about children who
are missing, whether we are talking about the situation against
our law enforcement officers, whether we are talking about the
dangers to the homeland, we are involved in a major conflict
overseas. This nation's homeland needs to be secured, and yet
my friends across the aisle have shut down the Department of
Homeland Security. They have defunded every agency we just
talked about. I just want to ask them, how long is it going to
take? How long are these children going to have to wait in
exploitation? How many more are going to have to go missing?
How many TSA agents are going to be able to afford to put food
on the table for their children? How long are the people of St.
Louis and Southeast Missouri going to have to wait to get back
into their homes before we can finally have a vote to reopen
the Department of Homeland Security?
It is long past time. I welcome your nomination. You are
going to be a terrific leader of Homeland Security. I cannot
wait to see you there. But it is time for this Congress to do
its job and fund DHS and protect the homeland of the United
States of America. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. All right. Thanks, everybody. We are going
to do another round of questions. I want to let anybody ask a
question that wants to ask a question, but I really do not want
to give everybody seven more minutes. I want to keep it to
pressing questions. We will start on the Republican side. Does
somebody have a pressing question they did not get to ask or
would like to ask?
Senator Hawley. I will yield back.
Chairman Paul. Anybody else? Senator Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Yes, thank you. Again, Senator Mullin, I
truly appreciate you being here. I do want to ask some
questions. I do want to followup. So many people have pointed
out the various departments that exist and are not being funded
under DHS.
We have a really significant anniversary coming up this
year. Most people will think it is our Nation's 250th, which is
extraordinary, but the other significant anniversary that has
impacted so many of us, especially those of us that have served
in uniform, significant anniversary, the 25th year of September
11, 2001.
Right now, we are currently in our 32nd day of the
Department of Homeland Security being shut down. We have men
and women serving in TSA, in FEMA, in the Coast Guard, Secret
Service, in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security
Agency, all of them under DHS, not being funded.
Now, I just heard in the first round of questions, one of
my colleagues on the left say, ``This has nothing to do with
ICE. They are funded.'' If it has nothing to do with ICE, why
are we not funding these agencies that protect Americans?
Especially as we are coming up on the 25th anniversary of
September 11th, this fall. It is a significant anniversary. I
hope never to repeat it. But the fact of the matter is that
there is a greater possibility of September 11th happening all
over again because we are not properly funding the men and
women that protect our homeland.
I do not want to hear folks say it has nothing to do with
ICE, because I do believe when we get into the politics of
this, it is about ICE. It is about ICE. I would love for my
friends on the left to acknowledge it is about ICE, but
acknowledge that protecting our homeland is much more important
than the politics of this.
Senator Mullin, do you think it is time to set aside the
partisan politics and partisan games and fund DHS as a whole so
that the Department can be fully functioning to protect
Americans, especially as we are approaching this fall, the 25th
anniversary on one of the greatest attacks that we have ever
seen on our homeland?
Senator Mullin. Yes, Senator. I look at this as a political
theater that we are playing games with and we are risking
people's lives and we are disturbing people's lives. As I
stated earlier, we have 260-, 280,000 employees in DHS that are
still on the job, still working, still keeping us safe, without
pay. I do not know how in good conscience you could sit there
and think that is OK.
Senator Ernst. It is not OK, and I look forward to your
leadership at Department of Homeland Security. Thank you,
Senator Mullin. I yield back.
Chairman Paul. Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Yes. I have a couple questions for you.
Senator Mullin. Yes, sir.
Senator Peters Senator Mullin, but before that, I just want
to clarify what we are hearing about funding for Homeland
Security. I think the political theater has been on the
Republican side, because there is really no debate with any of
my Democratic colleagues that we need to fully fund FEMA, that
we need to fully fund the Coast Guard, we need a fully fund
CISA, to fund all of those other areas, the TSA folks all
should be fully funded. But unfortunately, my Republican
colleagues who control the floor, you are in the majority, you
determine which bills go on the floor and which ones are up for
a vote. The way we can do that so we do not have a floor vote
is we can go and move by unanimous consent and move a bill and
say, ``Is there anybody that objects to this bill?'' If they do
not object, it immediately is passed. That is the procedure. So
folks at home watching this, we have bills that will
immediately pass and could pass today. We have put on the floor
bills to fully fund TSA, and my Republican colleagues have
objected.
I heard all this support for TSA today, so I hope you tell
your colleagues, do not object to the TSA funding bill. Please
don't do not that. We could pass it today. God, that would be
great. But we heard a lot of theater, all this stuff. FEMA,
pass it today. Coast Guard, pass it today. CISA, cybersecurity,
pass it today.
So, as the nominee for Homeland Security, I would hope you
would tell your colleagues, ``Boy, this is really important.
Don't object to the bill that allows us to pay for this.''
Now, granted, the CBP and ICE are not in there because we
are around negotiating about making sure that there are
guardrails in place so that Federal agents have to abide by the
same rules as local police. When I go home and I say that,
everybody says, ``Really? They don't have to do that now?'' I
am like, no, but Republicans are going to hold TSA hostage.
They are going to hold Coast Guard hostage. They are going to
hold FEMA, CISA, they are going to hold it all hostage because
they do not want to give any ground on making sure we just have
commonsense guidelines.
We have a solution for that. Pass the bills for all of
these other agencies, pass them, it can happen today. We have
tried for the last two weeks and my Republican colleagues
object. Do not object anymore. Then let's focus on trying to
come together, and I appreciate your comments about how we come
together, let's come together and figure out how we put
commonsense guidelines in place for Federal agents that are
operating in our communities. You have expressed an interest in
doing that today, and I take you at your word for that. So
let's do that. But let's not make TSA a hostage in this whole
thing. Let's pass the bills. We can do it.
I have heard it. I heard HSI funding from one of my
colleagues here. I want to be clear, HSI is funded because both
CBP and ICE are fully funded because of the Big Bill that
passed last year. That funding is not even in jeopardy. What is
in jeopardy we can fix today. All the things that are not being
funded, we can fund today, and every single Democrat is for it.
There is only one Republican--it only takes one Republican to
object, and apparently that keeps happening. I would talk to
that one Republican and say, ``Stop objecting to this.'' If you
truly all believe in that, stop objecting to it.
HSI is getting money now because of the Big Bill, but what
is the problem with HSI? I agree with my colleague with child
exploitation. I am going to be at the top of the list when it
comes to making sure we are doing as much as we can to stop
that. But unfortunately, this Administration has actually
transferred all those HSI people to immigration enforcement.
They are not even doing what they were supposed to be doing.
I would hope if you are confirmed, you will bring those
folks back to their role that my colleague says is so
important, which I agree with. But why did the Administration
send them off to immigration work then? Apparently the
Administration does not think this is as important as my
colleague.
I just want to wrap up here, questions that we had related
to your bio. The biography is important, and it is important
that we fully understand how you are presenting yourself, and
if there are any ambiguities, we want to work that out.
On March 11th, I sent you a letter asking for information
about any activity related to any special assignment, which you
talked about here today, that you have been involved in. There
was no exception for official travel or any of that. We just
asked any of these special assignments that you have talked
about.
You responded to the Committee in that letter by saying,
``My voluntary work included special assignments outside of
DOD, was that I offered support and mentorship from a Christian
perspective to both Afghans that supported our efforts and
other personnel that served in war zones.'' You stated your
special assignments occurred intermittently between 2006 and
2011. My letter did not exclude official travel, and it also
gave you explicit instructions in that letter for providing
classified information, how we could do that, and do it in a
way that protects that classified information. You did not
provide any of that. Today is the first time that I am hearing
about your classified activities from 2015 to 2016.
Quite frankly, as we have had these conversations, you have
not been forthcoming with me or this Committee. The story
always seems to kind of change. As you know, candor, honesty,
transparency are absolutely critical, particularly at this time
to try to build trust as the Secretary of Homeland Security.
We have to clear this up. We feel pretty strongly we have
to understand exactly what this is, especially with all your
public comments that have raised a lot of questions. We have
checked. The Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility
(SCIF) is available. We would love to have you come to the SCIF
and tell us exactly what you are talking about. I think that
will put my colleagues' mind at peace. Would you be willing to
go to the SCIF this afternoon and tell us the classified
activities you are talking about?
Senator Mullin. Sir, I think this Committee made it very
clear with the paperwork they gave me that I do not have to
disclose my official travel. That was part of the documents. I
went over two or three times, I complied with exactly what the
Committee said. There is no statement or no area for mission
work and mentorship that was a volunteer basis that I did on my
own time. It was very specific over and over again that you do
not have to claim official travel.
Senator Peters. We want to know what this supposed
classified work was. We have real questions about it. I asked
the FBI yesterday. I said, ``if someone had appeared in any
classified document, any document, would that be in this
report?'' They said, ``Yes.'' I said, ``I don't see anything
for Senator Mullin. Why is that?'' They said, ``Nothing showed
up. We queried the Department of State, the Department of
Defense, other intel folks.'' So you are in no classified
document that the Federal Government has according to the FBI,
and yet you are telling me you did all this classified work. I
do not understand how that----
Senator Mullin. Sir, I did not say all. I was very clear
with what I said. I get what you are trying to get to here and
that is fine, but I complied with everything the document said,
and it was official travel and it was a classified trip.
Chairman Paul. Let me just chime in on this. I have agreed
this is the fastest hearing anyone's ever had. This will be the
fastest vote anyone's ever had, and that is despite my qualms
and problems with your nomination. I am willing to do that. But
when the FBI came to my office, I asked them if you had done
any kind of work for the CIA, the DOD or any other----
Senator Mullin. I have not.
Chairman Paul [continuing]. Let me finish--any of these
kind of agencies or any kind of classified work. They said the
way it works is you would have a separate folder if you had
been involved in classified missions somewhere, and we would
get to see the folder and then we wouldn't talk about it. We
would look at it privately and we would know what you are
referring to.
It is confusing to us because there may have been some
papers that said, ``Your official trips were excluded.'' I do
not know which ones were and were not, but you have now
mentioned today that you have activities you have done. I think
it would be easy and I am still willing to have the vote
tomorrow, but I can cancel the vote tomorrow. I am still
willing to have the vote, get this done and get it over with.
But I think that just to make it clear, and it does not sound
like it is a secret you are too concerned about divulging, if
you would just spend an hour and go to this SCIF, or 30
minutes, and just tell both the Ranking Member and the other,
it would be private and it will not be revealed. I think we
would get this over with and we would not have a complaint
about going ahead with the vote tomorrow.
Senator Mullin. I have no issue with that, if you guys get
cleared on it. Because my understanding was there was only four
people read in it and it was a special program inside the
House. Just like I was not on Intel at the time, I am not
saying I was, but I have no issue with that at all. I would
welcome being brought up. It is very unique and it was fun.
Chairman Paul. That would be on you. We are not going to
try to figure out who the four people are and whether we can
have approval to it.
Senator Mullin. I do not choose----
Chairman Paul. If you are doing something that important,
really it probably ought to be revealed and discussed in a
classified manner.
Senator Mullin. Mr. Chair, it is not on me to--I do not
have the authority to do that. This is why I said I was very
clear, sorry, that I never talked specific dates or locations
on this. And so I have zero issue with talking about it.
Senator Peters. Do it this afternoon.
Senator Mullin. I don't have clearance to talk about this
this afternoon. I do not. It is not me to release it.
Chairman Paul. This is a legislative program. This is a
program that Congress assigned you to?
Senator Mullin. Yes. This was within my official duties.
Senator Peters. Who assigned it to you?
Senator Mullin. Sir, that is not for me to talk to you
about on this. I am sorry. This is not a classified--I am
sorry. I am not trying to be ugly. You know how classified
situations work in classified information.
Chairman Paul. Which agency classified it?
Senator Mullin. It was not an agency. It was done here,
well, in the House on the time.
Senator Peters. But the House classified it.
Senator Mullin. I am assuming. I wasn't on Intel.
Chairman Paul. We are just not really aware of how the
House classifies them.
Senator Mullin. I have no idea. I know every time we spoke
about this, we had to go to the SCIF and visit about it. I know
there was a paper that I had to sign before it even started. I
may be wrong and there may be more than four, but I know it was
only me and three other people that ever discussed it.
Chairman Paul. If it is so secret that we cannot know about
it, I would think that there would be some paperwork in the
SCIF that they should show us saying, ``This is so top secret
and this was made classified.''
Senator Mullin. I have no problem. You are welcome to go to
the House. This started in 2015. It ended in a little late in
2016. I have nothing to hide on this. This is too easy. I would
really enjoy sitting there and have a conversation with you
because I do not want you to question or question my character
on this. So that is very simple for me. But I cannot make that
authorization. You guys know that.
Chairman Paul. It is a little difficult for us to go ask
about a program that has no name and we have nobody that we
know to talk to about it. I do not know how we would begin
doing this without your cooperation.
Senator Mullin. I am willing to cooperate.
Chairman Paul. We are willing to hold the vote tomorrow,
but you brought this up that you were on a super-secret mission
that you cannot tell us about it.
Senator Mullin. No, I did not say super-secret, sir. I said
it was classified.
Chairman Peters. That only four people know?
Senator Mullin. I only know that there was four people.
There was maybe more people that understood it, but I know
there was only three people plus me that was ever in the
meeting. And so as far as I am concerned, only four people was
read in on this.
Chairman Paul. You were on the Intel Committee?
Senator Mullin. No, not at the time. No, sir. I was on the
Intel Committee after that.
Senator Peters. What committee were you on at the time?
Senator Mullin. You got to think about 10 years ago. Energy
and Commerce.
Senator Peters. So it was an Energy and Commerce top secret
effort? I am just asking.
Senator Mullin. Senator. What I am getting upset about a
little bit here is that your tone that you are saying that in a
condescending way. I did what I was asking you.
Senator Peters. I am trying to find out who we would talk
to.
Senator Mullin. Sir, I told you exactly what happened here.
I was not required to disclose this on any official travel.
Your documents were very clear on that. I do not know what else
you want me to say. You said you can go find out. Go find out.
Then when you guys say it is good for me to talk to you, I will
be happy to talk to you about it. I cannot talk specifics. If
you want to talk about in general ideas, let's go down and talk
in the SCIF. I am OK with that. But I cannot get into the
necessary specifics or who made the decision to do it, but I
can talk in general, and I will be very glad to do that with
you. Even Senator Lankford, who I know is on Intel, he can come
down with us and visit with us about it.
No issues with that at all. Perfectly clear and OK with it,
but it is not for me to release this. So if you guys want to do
that, we can leave here, go down there and talk about it.
Chairman Paul. Did this mission involve exchange of fire?
Senator Mullin. It was not a mission. It was an official
travel with specific deals or for specific fact finding, just
like any official travel is, that they wanted clarification on.
Like I said, I would be happy to talk to you about it if you
guys want to.
Senator Peters. It was in a conflict zone?
Senator Mullin. Sir, once again, I am not talking about
specific details or dates because we have revealed that this
was a classified situation. Now I am not going to talk about
any, because anything I have talked about in the past was not
referencing any of this, but I am definitely not going to get
into it now, talking about specific dates or details.
Chairman Paul. We would have no way of exploring this
unless you were willing to cooperate on who did this.
Senator Mullin. I don't know. Mr. Chair, I do not know what
else you said, or what else you want me to do. I said I will go
down there and talk about this with you in a SCIF, but I cannot
give all this specifics.
Chairman Paul. There is no reason to think that somehow we
are not qualified to look at classified information.
Senator Mullin. There is a lot of programs out there, Mr.
Chair, that you know, is based on a need to know.
Chairman Paul. Right.
Senator Mullin. Maybe you can talk to Senator Lankford
about this too. Senator Lankford, would you like to talk
about----
Senator Lankford. I am glad to jump on. This feels, as my
mom used to say, a mountain out of a molehill, where he has
offered over and over and over again to say, ``Let's get into a
classified setting.'' I just left the Worldwide Threats hearing
where I had to run over to be able to run back there. And
meeting with all the folks there, there were several questions
that I asked there that they gave me a partial answer and said,
``I will give you the rest of this answer in a SCIF.''
Everybody goes, ``Oh, OK. I get that,'' because there are some
things that are sources, methods, or actions that we are all
keenly aware of on this. I do not know what else he could say
at this point other than let's get into SCIF and let's actually
talk about this.
Chairman Paul. Why don't we start with that initial meeting
and see how that goes?
Senator Peters. Yes. We will have initial meetings. That is
what we ask for, Senator. He said he couldn't do that because
he wasn't authorized----
Senator Mullin. No, I did say that. I said, I cannot give
you all the details to it because it is not for me to release
it, but I can talk to you in general about it, but not in this
setting.
Senator Lankford. Yes. Let's get the information out and be
able to talk it through and be able to find out what this is.
All of us have been in classified settings before.
Chairman Paul. Let's try to get it done this afternoon so
we can proceed with that.
Senator Mullin. I am available right after this. Mr. Chair,
if you want to, we can go leave from here and go straight
there.
Chairman Paul. Yes, and let's try to get the hearing
finished. So let's try no more speeches back and forth on all
the ICE stuff if we can. You kind of just concluded that one.
Can I come back to you in a minute?
Senator Peters. Sure.
Chairman Paul. All right. Senator Hassan. Let's try to get
off of funding ICE and stuff and let's just try to stick to the
nomination for now.
Senator Hassan. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I do have to
take a moment because during my first round of questions, I
discussed the current impasse we find ourselves in over ICE
reforms and DHS funding, and I did not speak clearly, so I just
do need to clarify my comments now.
ICE already has significant funding right now for the
President's budget bill, from the President's budget bill last
summer, which provided the agency with several times more money
than its annual budget and gave ICE broad discretion about how
to use that money. That means that the partial shutdown that we
have right now has nothing to do with whether ICE has the usual
levels of funding it needs to operate since the agency already
has many times its annual budget. It is about, instead, the
need for policy reforms to help ensure that ICE operates using
the same kind of standards that State and local law enforcement
in New Hampshire and around the country uphold every single
day.
Now, Senator Fetterman was right earlier when he pointed
out that this shutdown is impacting other parts of DHS that
handle cybersecurity and transportation security and other
critical functions. We need to resolve it right now. As Senator
Peters just described, we have been pushing to do that in the
ways that the minority can. We need to reach agreement on ICE
policy reforms or by funding the rest of the Department while
we continue to negotiate on those reform, something I strongly
support, but unfortunately Republicans have blocked.
The reforms to ICE are critical. DHS is supposed to be
prioritizing the removal of dangerous and violent criminals.
Instead, we have seen DHS agents assault and even kill American
citizens while wearing masks seeming without accountability.
So now this is the question. Senator, if a masked ICE or
other DHS agent kills an American citizen, should local law
enforcement be allowed to investigate and hold that agent
accountable?
Senator Mullin. Unfortunately, local law enforcement is not
supposed to be investigating Federal. That is what DOJ and FBI
is for. Now, we will communicate with local law enforcement,
but that is not their job. FBI, just same thing if in most
municipalities, if there is a fatality shooting, there is
another agency that oversees them. In this case, it would be
the FBI who is set up inside the DOJ to investigate those.
Senator Hassan. So you have answered no, and your answer
would make ICE unaccountable, and that endangers not just the
rule of law, but also the security of all Americans.
I wanted to get to one other question. During the past
year, DHS leadership cut CISA's expert workforce by nearly a
third. Meanwhile, adversaries and criminal syndicates are
accelerating their cyberattacks against the United States. How
do you plan to restore DHS's cybersecurity force and better
secure our critical infrastructure from cyberattacks?
Senator Mullin. Ma'am, we have to recruit the right people,
but the best and brightest individuals in those areas. I know
the University of Tulsa has a great program. But recruiting
individuals that want to be there, that want to deliver the
mission is vitally important. And so we will work to make sure
that happens.
Senator Hassan. So you agree we need to add people back
into CISA and pursue this critical function and they need to be
nonpartisan experts with experience and commitment to the
safety and security of our country wherever that leads them.
Senator Mullin. Ma'am, no one in Homeland should be looking
at this from a bipartisan perspective. Now, if you want me to
talk about staffing numbers, I do not know what the mission
requires, but we will be staffed adequately if we can find the
right people to staff and to make sure that we are mission
capable.
Senator Hassan. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chair, out of respect
for your desire to move things along, I will submit for the
record a question on non-intrusive imaging at the border.\1\ It
is supposed to be ready to do for every vehicle entering the
United States, especially to detect fentanyl. I would like your
answer on that and a couple of other questions as well, but I
will submit those for the record. Thank you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The questions submitted by Senator Hassan appears in the
Appendix on page 122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Paul. Without objection.
Senator Lankford.
Senator Lankford. Thank you. We talked before about just
trying to get information on time and such. In the transition
that happened between the Biden administration and the Trump
administration, data fell behind, and it fell really behind. It
was one of my complaints that I had with Mayorkas that was
sometimes two or three weeks late on releasing normal data
information, just how many encounters were happening at the
border, how many arrests, some of those things on it. Last
year, it wasn't weeks late. It was months and months and months
late on getting data out.
DHS has a really good story to tell. There are a lot of
good things that are happening there. But my concern is that
social media and some of the examples are coming out just to
tell the story and DHS is not able to actually tell the story.
Quite frankly, we have asked DHS several times, ``Hey, give us
more information, more data on this.''
One of the things I would love to know is just, you have
been one of us for a long time in this. You know the importance
of oversight and what that means on this, to be able to get
data to Members of Congress and to the American people, and so,
quite frankly, we can see the story as well. I am not asking
for a pledge because I already know your heart on that, but
want to just be able to open that up on how we can actually get
more data and information.
Senator Mullin. Our Leg Affairs Department, I am going to
have to stand up and make sure that we are communicating and
getting the information you need. It is not going to be fixed
overnight, but it does frustrate me as a former member of the
House and definitely a current member in the Senate that when
we make a request, it is not seen. Now, there is a difference
between making actual requests because you are wanting to get
to a solution versus harassment.
Senator Lankford. Badgering people.
Senator Mullin. Yes. There is a tremendous amount that
happens. Both sides play the game and I am just not going to
play that game. I will work with any Senator. I will work with
any committee to make sure that we are getting the information
you need to do your job. But just for harassment purposes,
please, I ask you if you want me to do my job and do it right
and be transparent with you, do not play games with me either.
If you have real concerns, like I said, everybody on this
Committee, and really for our colleagues for that matter, have
my personal cell phone, and that number, I have no intentions
of changing it unless somebody leaks it.
Senator Lankford. Yes, hopefully that would not occur on
it. One of the quick question on this. Ali Mayorkas, when he
sat at that desk before, he and I had a lot of conversations
about what was labeled the special interest aliens. These are
folks that come from known areas of terrorism, but we did not
have any information on them specifically, and so the Biden
administration just let them in. They may say, ``Well, we know
somebody in your family as acts of terrorism, but it is not
you.'' So they just labeled them special interest aliens and
released them into the country, that we know of about 70,000 of
those individuals.
The Trump administration in the last year and a couple of
months has picked up 50,000 of those. That is part of this
enforcement that is out there to be able to identify folks that
I have been ringing the bell on over and over and over again
saying, ``Why are we letting people in?'' That we literally
say, ``Yes, they could be a terrorist. They could not be a
terrorist. We don't know. Somebody in their family is, but we
don't know them if they are on it.'' So they were just released
into the country on that and given that label.
In fact, I was told, ``We will keep watching them.'' But
when I went to the FBI and asked them directly, they were like,
``There's no way we can track 70,000 people.'' So there has
been a lot of good work to be able to try to identify where
those people went, who they are associating with here in the
United States on it, and then removing them from the United
States.
There are still about 20,000 left. I would love to be able
to get your promise to say we are not going to quit. We are
going to continue to be able to find folks that were just
allowed to come in the country that may be a terrorist and may
not be a terrorist we don't know, but to be able to go identify
those folks and make sure that American people are protected.
Senator Mullin. Absolutely.
Senator Lankford. Yes. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. We are almost done. We have two people left
who have not responded this round. We have had a lot of debate
over ICE funding. I hope we can ask just some specific
questions to the nominee. I cannot control what you ask, but
that is my hope. Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Senator Mullin, just
months before the war with Iran began, the Trump administration
negotiated a back channel agreement, a deal with the Islamic
Republic to deport Iranian nationals, including asylum seekers,
dissidents. There have been public reports about it, CNN, on
January 26, 2026. New York Times reported it in a couple of
articles in September and December that flights around that
time deported tens of those kinds of Iranian nationals back to
Iran as part of this secret agreement.
I want to tell you about one husband and wife, Christian
converts from Islam who were sentenced in absentia to 9-and 11-
year sentences by the Islamic Republic. They fled to the United
States seeking asylum, but they were detained by ICE on
arrival. The wife was deported. She managed to take refuge in
Turkey. The husband, I will call him Mr. H, is still here, but
he is facing deportation despite showing scars from the beating
he received by a government gang. I have both of their
declarations. I would like them to be entered in the record.\1\
There are Iranian American organizations like the Iranian
American Legal Defense Fund that have further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The statement submitted from Iranian-American Defense Fund
appears in the Appendix on page 178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no doubt that you share my outrage about the
treatment of this couple and other Iranian nationals who were
deported possibly to torture and death in Iran. Will you agree
with me and commit that we should stop deporting such people?
Senator Mullin. Sir, I do not know the specifics behind
this. I think before I can talk about it in hypotheticals, I
would need to know what the reasons behind it. But I do not
want to deport anybody that is here illegally, or here legally,
I mean, and most definitely not individuals that have done
everything possible to be a contributor to society. But in
these specific cases, I do not know. I am not familiar with
them. I do not know if there is something else in the
background that would cause the Administration to----
Senator Blumenthal. I am talking in general about tens of
people, as many as 55 on one flight, 15 or so on another, not
just this couple. But in principle, we should not be sending
Iranian dissidents and asylum seekers back to Iran. Wouldn't
you agree?
Senator Mullin. Sir, we do know that our enemies want to
infiltrate us and use our rules and our generosity against us.
I do not know the specifics of these. I do not know their
background. I do not know what the reasons was, but I will be
happy to look into it.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you about another topic. I
am glad that you committed that there will not be the kind of
review that Secretary Noem imposed on contracts above a certain
amount uniformly by your office, but I would like your
commitment that you will help us investigate another abuse of
authority.
Corey Lewandowski apparently was in charge of approving all
contracts. One of them was a $220 million contract that was
related directly to Kristi Noem being fired. They bypassed
procurement rules to award that contract to a shell company
that was created days before to benefit a Republican consulting
firm with close ties to Secretary Noem and Mr. Lewandowski.
Will you commit to cooperating with our investigation, the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation, making documents and
personnel available to congressional and other investigations
into those contracts awarded by Secretary Noem and Mr.
Lewandowski?
Senator Mullin. Senator, I have heard these same reports. I
know the IG, Joseph. I do not know him personally. That is why
I say Joseph. Some people call him Joe. His open
investigations, we will cooperate with him and----
Senator Blumenthal. And provide all the documents and
records that are requested to this Committee to do its work.
That is what I am asking.
Senator Mullin. I will leave that to the Inspector General.
I will do everything that is required of me by law, but the
IG will be doing the investigation, and we will let the IG
decide what documents he is going to share and maybe you can
bring that up with him.
Senator Blumenthal. In fact, Secretary Noem obstructed the
investigations underway by the IG. In fact, in at least 10
investigations, they were the subject of a letter from the IG.
Are you committing to immediately begin restoring the
Department's working relationship with the IG?
Senator Mullin. If confirmed, absolutely. I will do
everything required of me by law and in the policies that you
guys give me. There will not be any gray area with me. We want
to have a good relationship with the IG. He has got a job to
do, and every other agency that is underneath DHS and----
Senator Blumenthal. And you will cooperate with the
Committee in providing those.
Senator Mullin. Sir, everything that is required of me to
report and anything that you want the IG to do, that is between
you and the IG.
Senator Blumenthal. Senator Mullin, I do not think I need
to tell you that the American people have been appalled and
angered by what they have seen in the excessive use of force.
We have had hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigation that have shown Aliya Rahman, a woman suffering
from traumatic brain injury, yanked from her car in
Minneapolis, dragged by her arms, leaving both of her shoulders
to be torn.\1\ Javier Ramirez, a father of four from
California, detained for four days and refused medical
treatment for his diabetes. We documented these abuses in a
report that we issued and in hearings that we conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The picture submitted by Senator Blumenthal appears in the
Appendix on page 196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of them was Marimar Martinez, who was on her way to
donate clothing at a local church when she came across agents
in an unmarked car. Agents sideswiped her car. Three masked
agents in camouflage stormed out and one of them pulled out his
gun and fired at her moving vehicle, hitting her five times.
The agent then bragged about it. He bragged about it in the
text.\2\ He said, ``I have an MOF--'' I won't detail it. ``I
fired five rounds and she had seven holes. Put that in your
book, boys.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The picture submitted by Senator Blumenthal appears in the
Appendix on page 195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shouldn't we be disgusted by an agent that fires at a U.S.
citizen, no criminal record? She was charged.
Chairman Paul. Senator Blumenthal----
Senator Blumenthal. The charges were dismissed. Would you
not agree with me that that an agent should not be carrying a
firearm?
Senator Mullin. I am not familiar with the investigation,
sir. I do not know if the investigation is completed. As
Secretary, I am sure I will be briefed on this.
Chairman Paul. All right. Time has expired. I know these
are important issues, but we just have to move on. We are going
to finish up with Senator Kim, then we are going to make a
statement that hopefully can be agreeable for a meeting later.
Senator Kim.
Senator Kim. I will be concise here, Mr. Chair. Senator,
There are just a couple last things here. A couple weeks ago we
had a hearing here and I was engaged with the head of USCIS and
I raised an issue that happened in San Diego of spouses of
military members and veterans. They were going in to get
interviewed for a green card and were arrested upon their
arrival. I just wanted to get your reaction to that. Is that
the kind of behavior you think is acceptable?
Senator Mullin. Excuse me. Repeat that again.
Senator Kim. It was spouses of military servicemembers as
well as veterans. Their spouses were going for the purposes of
a green card interview, but were at that point detained and
arrested on arrival.
Senator Mullin. I have not heard about this. I have heard
of different reports, Senator. If people are going through the
process and trying to obtain it legally, because we do have
naturalizations ceremonies Monday through Friday in this
country everywhere, we are going to continue working with those
individuals. I do not know the circumstances.
Senator Kim. I will pass you the details, but it is
something that we can talk through. But just in general here, I
guess what I am just trying to get a sense from you is what do
you think is appropriate in terms of ICE agents being able to
operate? For instance, do you think it is OK for them to
operate and arrest people at hospitals?
Senator Mullin. Sir, I will always support my law
enforcement doing their job. I do not know the circumstances.
If it is a felony warrant that the person is at a hospital,
then they will go pick up the felony warrant. Just like local
law enforcement does the same thing. And so in general, I think
you need to be more specific on what you are talking about, but
if you are talking about just doing everyday law enforcement, I
think there is a better approach.
Senator Kim. Senator, I just want to raise, I just hear a
lot of this from my own community about concerns of these types
of efforts in and around hospitals, schools, churches. These
are things that I hope we can engage on. I know you talked
about it with one of my colleagues about polling sites, but
these are important discussions and we do not have clarity on
what we are expected to see, and it is causing just enormous
amount of concern and challenge within our communities.
Senator Mullin. Senator, I do not understand what the
concern about enforcing immigration at polling places is
anyways, because honestly, if you are not a citizen, you should
not be voting anyway. So technically there should not be any
illegals at the polling spot. As I have said before, if we are
at a polling area, it is because of a specific threat, not for
immigration enforcement.
Senator Kim. Yes. Look, what I will just convey here, it is
not just about people who are undocumented. I am hearing from
American citizens that are now feeling like they need to carry
their passports around for fear of being stopped on the street.
There is a chilling effect that is happening that is wider. I
had to give my father-in-law specific instructions in case he
was stopped upon reentry back into the United States. There is
real concern out there, and I just wanted to express that to
you.
Just a couple last quick things here. At the detention
facility in New Jersey, a different one called Delaney Hall, I
was there right after a gentleman died there, and there was
really no documentation, really minimal explanation of his
cause of death. There were 32 deaths at detention facilities
under ICE control last year, yet the oversight offices at DHS
who do this, offices like the Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties, the Office of Immigration Detention Oversights, they
have been gutted. I just wanted to ask, do you commit to being
able to ensure that there is the proper oversight there
internally within DHS, working alongside us in Congress to
ensure that people are being kept at the dignified levels that
they should according to a law?
Senator Mullin. Each facility falls underneath different
standards of operation that are in statutes. We will operate
within those statutes. Everybody deserves to be treated with a
dignified hand, and we will follow those procedures that are
set for those facilities particularly.
Senator Kim. I hope to work with you on that if you are
confirmed, because we need to make sure we have that oversight
as we have not been able to see it. In fact, some of our
efforts have been impeded because we have not been able to have
visitation at some of these sites, and I hope that that is
something you will support us to be able to have.
One last thing I just wanted to raise, with FEMA there was
a number of employees that sent an open letter titled the
Katrina Declaration. This is something that warned about some
of the reversals that are being made when it comes to disaster
response and recovery. Your predecessor, Secretary Noem, she
suspended a number of these FEMA employees. I just wanted to
ask, can you commit that if confirmed you will adhere to
whistleblower laws and ensure that these whistleblowers do not
face retaliation for their protected disclosure?
Senator Mullin. So there are already laws in place to
protect whistleblowers. I have said multiple times, I will work
within the law and the requirements of me as Secretary.
Senator Kim. I hope that means that you will ensure that
these whistleblowers do not face unlawful retaliation for what
they have done.
Senator Mullin. It is against the law, as you said,
unlawful, sir. I said I am going to work within the law and
that is unlawful.
Senator Kim. OK. With that, I will yield back.
Chairman Paul. Thank you. As I said previously, we have
scheduled a vote for tomorrow. I am committed to that. There
are several Members on both sides of the aisle that would like
a briefing in the SCIF. They have it from 1 to 2. If you are
willing to do that, several Members would like just to walk
over and do it. I think that makes it much more likely that we
have the vote tomorrow.
Senator Mullin. Sir, I would prefer to have the Ranking
Member, yourself, James, and if you want to bring another
Democrat member that is on----
Chairman Paul. No, it is all or none. All the Members need
to be able to hear it directly. The problem up here is too many
things are siloed and it just looks like resistance that you do
not want everything to come out.
Senator Mullin. No, sir.
Chairman Paul. If you would be much more forthcoming, if
you let any Member of the Committee and classified staff into
it, I think we can get this done in this afternoon.
Senator Mullin. I think that is fine as long as it is in a
classified setting.
Chairman Paul. As long as what?
Senator Lankford. Classified.
Chairman Paul. Yes, that is fine. People classified,
security, honor staff, and staff.
Senator Lankford. Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented
Information (TS/SCI) compliance.
Chairman Paul. TS/SCI.
Senator Mullin. TS/SCI, yes.
Chairman Paul. All right. Thanks everybody for coming
today. The nominee has filed responses to biographical and
financial questionnaires answered prehearing questions
submitted by the Committee and had their financial statements
reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE). Without
objection, this information will be made part of the hearing
record with the exception of the nominee's financial data,
which are on file with the Committee.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information for Mr. Mullin appears in the Appendix on page
68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the quick turnaround between this hearing and the
markup tomorrow, the hearing will remain open until 4 p.m.
today, March 18th.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]