[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 22, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-869 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Mike Rogers, Alabama
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Peter T. King, New York
Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey John Katko, New York
Kathleen M. Rice, New York John Ratcliffe, Texas
J. Luis Correa, California Mark Walker, North Carolina
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Max Rose, New York Debbie Lesko, Arizona
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Mark Green, Tennessee
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan Van Taylor, Texas
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri John Joyce, Pennsylvania
Al Green, Texas Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Michael Guest, Mississippi
Dina Titus, Nevada
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Val Butler Demings, Florida
Hope Goins, Staff Director
Chris Vieson, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
Witness
Hon. Kevin K. Mc Aleenan, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
For the Record
The Honorable James R. Langevin, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Rhode Island:
Email From Matthew Travis, Deputy Director, Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency............................... 46
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Statement of Anthony M. Reardon, National President, National
Treasury Employees Union..................................... 62
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Letter From Russell T. Vought to Honorable Michael R. Pence.... 66
Appendix
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Kevin K. McAleenan 69
Question From Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee for Kevin K. McAleenan 69
Question From Honorable Nanette Diaz Barragan for Kevin K.
McAleenan...................................................... 69
Questions From Honorable Kathleen M. Rice for Kevin K. McAleenan. 69
Questions From Honorable Clay Higgins for Kevin K. McAleenan..... 69
A REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
Wednesday, May 22, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., in
room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson
(Chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Thompson, Jackson Lee, Langevin,
Payne, Rice, Correa, Torres Small, Rose, Underwood, Slotkin,
Cleaver, Green of Texas, Clarke, Titus, Barragan, Rogers, King,
McCaul, Katko, Ratcliffe, Higgins, Lesko, Green of Tennessee,
Taylor, Joyce, Crenshaw, and Guest.
Chairman Thompson. The Committee on Homeland Security will
come to order.
The committee is meeting today to receive testimony on a
review of the fiscal year 2020 budget request for the
Department of Homeland Security.
Today, the committee is meeting to examine the President's
budget. This hearing was originally scheduled for earlier this
month with Secretary Nielsen who resigned before the hearing
was held.
I'd like to welcome our Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security, Secretary Kevin McAleenan. The Acting Secretary is
being asked to defend a budget before us, in my estimation, is
very difficult.
The President--the Secretary is wearing two hats, as you
know. He has been a career employee here in Federal service
and, in my mind, has done a good job. I have thanked him on a
number of occasions for his work, and I look forward to seeing
him and working with him even more in this role. So we welcome
you here today.
President Trump's budget prioritizes construction of a
border wall at the expense of critical Homeland Security
priorities, such as first responder and Homeland Security
grants, cybersecurity programs to defend against foreign
spying, and initiatives to secure our transportation systems
from terrorist attack.
The Acting Secretary's prepared testimony states doing more
with less is an acceptable method for achieving mission goals,
yet this is exactly what the President's budget request would
force key parts of the Department to do.
The President would squander $8.6 billion in taxpayers'
money on a wall that would do nothing to address the current
situation on the border. I suspect the Acting Secretary knows
that, even if he cannot say it, for fear of being the next
Department official to be dismissed by the White House. Make no
mistake, it will be the American people picking up the tab for
the wall, not Mexico, as the President promised.
Congress is preparing to provide additional funding to
address the humanitarian crisis on the border, but we cannot
allow the President to compromise the rest of the Department or
our Nation's homeland security in the mean time.
Unfortunately, rather than engaging with Congress to
address the humanitarian crisis and implement sound border
policy, the White House only continues to make matters worse.
The President fired Department officials who tried to offer a
voice of reason, cut off aid to Central America intended to
help address the root causes of migration, and is sending
essential DHS personnel to the border, potentially undermining
the Department's other critical missions. Frankly, between the
vacancies at the Department and the reports of infighting
coming out of the White House, it is difficult to know who is
calling the shots when it comes to the border: The President,
the Acting Secretary, or Stephen Miller.
Meanwhile, the number of people in CBP's custody continues
to rise. We also continue to see shocking photos of families
being held in inhumane conditions and children sleeping on the
bare ground covered by nothing more than 4 blankets.
Tragically, just this week, yet another child died in the
Department's custody.
But what can we expect from an administration that has
separated at least 5,000 children from their parents at the
border? To the extent this administration has a border policy,
it has been an abject failure. It is past time to implement a
strategy of commonsense solutions to address the humanitarian
crisis at the border while ensuring security and upholding our
values.
First, we need to ensure humanitarian conditions for people
in custody, and particularly, vulnerable populations like
children and pregnant women. The surge in families at our
borders does not excuse inhumane treatment or relieve us of an
obligation to treat people with basic decency. As I mentioned,
Congress is engaging with this administration to provide
supplemental funding.
Second, we need more immigration judges and asylum officers
to increase capacity to handle asylum claims and address the
long-standing immigration court backlog.
Third, we need to expand proven, cost-effective
alternatives to detention to ensure people show up for their
court dates as scheduled while their cases proceed.
Finally, we need to help address the root causes prompting
people to come north by restoring aid to Central American
countries acting as partners in addressing this crisis. We can
protect our borders and our homeland while also protecting our
American values.
The President and the White House have not proven up to
that task, but I hope the Acting Secretary will partner with
Congress in that effort.
In closing, I want to thank the over 240,000 men and women
in the Department of Homeland Security for the work they do to
secure our Nation every day. From the Coast Guard personnel
patrolling our coasts and waterways, to the Customs and Border
Protection Officers at our land borders, to the Transportation
Security Officers I see as I fly to and from Jackson,
Mississippi, every week and everywhere in between, we
appreciate the work you do.
I thank the Members for joining us, and I look forward to
our discussion.
[The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
May 22, 2019
Today, the committee is meeting to examine the President's fiscal
year 2020 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security. This
hearing was originally scheduled for earlier this month with then-
Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who resigned before the hearing was held.
We are joined this morning by Acting Secretary of Homeland Security
Kevin McAleenan. The Acting Secretary is being asked to defend a budget
request that is, in a word, indefensible. President Trump's budget
prioritizes construction of a border wall at the expense of critical
homeland security priorities, such as first responder and homeland
security grants, cybersecurity programs to defend against foreign
spying, and initiatives to secure our transportation systems from
terrorist attack.
The Acting Secretary's prepared testimony states ``doing more with
less is an unacceptable method for achieving mission goals.'' Yet that
is exactly what the President's budget request would force key parts of
the Department to do. The President would squander $8.6 billion in
taxpayer money on a wall that will do nothing to address the current
situation on the border. I suspect the Acting Secretary knows that,
even if he cannot say it for fear of being the next Department official
to be dismissed by the White House. And make no mistake, it will be the
American people picking up the tab for the wall, not Mexico as the
President promised. Congress is preparing to provide additional funding
to address the humanitarian crisis on the border, but we cannot allow
the President to compromise the rest of the Department, or our Nation's
homeland security, in the mean time. Unfortunately, rather than
engaging with Congress to address the humanitarian crisis and implement
sound border policy, the White House only continues to make matters
worse. The President fired Department officials who tried to offer a
voice of reason, cut off aid to Central America intended to help
address the root causes of migration, and is sending essential DHS
personnel to the border, potentially undermining the Department's other
critical missions.
Frankly, between the vacancies at the Department and the reports of
infighting coming out of the White House, it is difficult to know who
is calling the shots when it comes to the border. The President? The
Acting Secretary? Stephen Miller? Meanwhile, the number of people in
CBP's custody continues to rise. We also continue to see shocking
photos of families being held in inhumane conditions and children
sleeping on the bare ground covered by nothing more than foil blankets.
And, tragically, just this week yet another child died in the
Department's custody. But what can we expect from an administration
that separated at least 5,000 children from their parents at the
border? To the extent this administration has a border policy, it has
been an abject failure. It is past time to implement a strategy of
common-sense solutions to address the humanitarian crisis at the border
while ensuring security and upholding our values.
First, we need to ensure humanitarian conditions for people in
custody, and particularly vulnerable populations like children and
pregnant women. The surge in families at our borders does not excuse
inhumane treatment or relieve us of an obligation to treat people with
basic human decency. As I mentioned, Congress is engaging with the
administration to provide supplemental funding. Second, we need more
immigration judges and asylum officers to increase capacity to handle
asylum claims and address the long-standing immigration court backlog.
Third, we need to expand proven, cost-effective alternatives to
detention to ensure people show up for their court dates as scheduled
while their cases proceed. Finally, we need to help address the root
causes prompting people to come north by restoring aid to Central
American countries acting as partners in addressing this crisis.
We can protect our borders and our homeland while also protecting
our American values. The President and the White House have not proven
up to that task, but I hope the Acting Secretary will partner with
Congress in that effort. In closing, I want to thank the over 240,000
men and women of the Department of Homeland Security for the work they
do to secure our Nation every day. From the Coast Guard personnel
patrolling our coasts and waterways to the Customs and Border
Protection officers at our land borders to the Transportation Security
Officers I see as I fly to and from Jackson, Mississippi every week--
and everywhere in between--we appreciate the work you do.
Chairman Thompson. I will now recognize the Ranking Member
of the full committee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers,
for an opening statement.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary McAleenan, for being here with us
today. I look forward to your testimony and discussion that we
are going to have.
There is a National security and humanitarian crisis at the
border. That is why I supported the President's February
National emergency declaration. The facts on the border prove
it. CBP detained more than 109,000 immigrants along the
Southwest Border just last month. That is a 591 percent
increase over the same month 2 years ago. On May 4 of this
year, CBP apprehended 5,235 migrants on the Southwest Border.
That is the highest number ever recorded. In the first 6 months
of fiscal year 2019, over 150 groups of 100 or more migrants
reached the Southwest Border. That is a 7,400 percent increase
over the entirety of fiscal year 2017.
CBP apprehensions between the ports of entry are on track
to reach a 12-year high. CBP has already uncovered more than
3,000 fraudulent cases this year alone where adults posing as
biological parent or legal guardian of a minor child. If this
isn't a crisis, I am not sure what this committee deems to be
one.
Actually, we do. Yesterday, the Transportation Subcommittee
held a hearing entitled, ``The TSA Workforce Crisis: A Homeland
Security Risk.'' I appreciate the TSA work force has issues,
but I would say that thousands of migrants per day overrunning
and breaking our immigration system is the actual crisis and
the true homeland security risk.
This will be the committee's sixth hearing in 5 months
focused on the border. How many hearings before we see
solutions coming from this Majority? Six hearings, zero
solutions.
This committee has heard testimony that transnational
criminal organizations are exploiting our immigration laws for
financial gains. Worse, these TCOs abuse women and children
during their journey here, they dump them in the desert in poor
health without food or water. Men and women and children are
dying because of this dangerous journey human smugglers profit
from. I know that no one on this committee finds this
acceptable, so why won't this committee address it?
In April, DHS requested legislation to address this
abhorrent practice, yet there are--yet here we are in another
hearing, and I don't understand why this committee won't act.
Maybe it is because this committee is spending too much of its
time on Twitter. Since the Democrats were sworn into office in
January, they have tweeted 316 times about the border. Six
hearings, 316 tweets, zero solutions.
On May 1, the administration sent to Congress a request for
emergency humanitarian appropriations to address this crisis at
the Southwest Border. The request for $4.5 billion would feed
and shelter migrant families and unaccompanied children. It
would provide urgent medical care and transportation services
to sick migrants. It also would have supported the men and
women of DHS who are working overtime on the front lines of a
crisis. Yet the Majority of this committee sent out press
releases refusing to reconsider--refusing to consider the
request.
When I drafted this emergency humanitarian request as an
amendment to the supplemental, the Democrat Majority on the
Rules Committee voted it down 9 to 4 when Representative Lesko
offered it at markup. Six hearings, 316 tweets, 1 amendment
denied, zero results.
I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will
use this opportunity today to ask Secretary McAleenan what
resources his Department needs to fulfill its lawful mission at
the Southwest Border. The Republicans on this committee are
ready to work with anyone on the other side to solve the
growing humanitarian crisis.
Hearings, tweets, releases won't solve it. Hatred for the
President won't solve it either. We can't wait 2 more years to
address this Southwest Border crisis. We must act now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Rogers follows:]
May 22, 2019
Statement of Ranking Member Mike Rogers
There is a National security and humanitarian crisis at the border.
That is why I supported the President's February National emergency
declaration. The facts on the border prove it:
CBP detained more than 109,000 immigrants along the Southwest
Border last month.
That's a 591 percent increase compared to April 2017.
On May 4 of this year, CBP apprehended 5,235 migrants at the
Southwest Border. That's the highest number ever recorded.
In the first 6 months of fiscal year 2019, over 150 groups of 100
or more migrants reached the Southwest Border. That's a 7,400 percent
increase over the entirety of fiscal year 2017.
CBP apprehensions between ports of entry are on track to reach a
12-year high.
CBP has already uncovered more than 3,000 fraudulent cases this
year alone where adults posing as a biological parent or legal
guardian.
If this isn't a crisis, I'm not sure what this committee deems one.
Actually, we do. Just yesterday the Transportation Subcommittee
held a hearing entitled: ``The TSA Workforce Crisis: A Homeland
Security Risk.'' I appreciate the TSA workforce has issues, but I would
say that thousands of migrants per day overrunning and breaking our
immigration system is the actual crisis and the true homeland security
risk.
This will be the committee's sixth hearing in 5 months focused on
the border. How many hearings before we see solutions coming from this
majority? Six hearings. Zero solutions.
This committee has heard testimony that transnational criminal
organizations are exploiting our immigration laws for financial gain.
Worse, these TCOs abuse women and children during their journey here,
then dump them in the desert in poor health without food or water.
Men, women, and children are dying because of this dangerous
journey human smugglers profit of off. I know no one on this committee
finds that acceptable. So why won't this committee address it?
In April, DHS requested legislation to address this abhorrent
practice. Yet, here we are in another hearing and I don't understand
why this committee won't act.
Maybe it's because this committee is spending too much time on
Twitter. Since the Democrats were sworn into office in January, they
have tweeted 316 times about the border. Six hearings. 316 tweets. Zero
solutions.
On May 1, the administration sent to Congress a request for
emergency humanitarian appropriations to address the crisis at the
Southwest Border.
This request of $4.5 billion would feed and shelter migrant
families and unaccompanied children. It would provide urgent medical
care and transportation services to sick migrants. It also would have
supported the men and women of DHS who are working overtime on the
front lines of the crisis.
Yet, the Majority on this committee sent out a press release
refusing to consider the request.
When I drafted this emergency humanitarian request as an amendment
to the supplemental, the Democratic Majority on the Rules Committee
voted it down 9 to 4 when Rep. Lesko offered it at their markup.
Six hearings. 316 tweets. One amendment denied. Zero results.
I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will use this
opportunity today to ask Acting Secretary McAleenan what resources his
Department needs to fulfil its lawful mission on the Southwest Border.
The Republicans on this committee are ready to work with anyone on
the other side to solve this growing humanitarian crisis. Hearings,
tweets, press releases won't solve it. Hatred for the President won't
solve it, either.
We can't wait another 2 years to address our Southwest Border
crisis. We must act now.
Chairman Thompson. Other Members of the committee are
reminded that under the committee rules, opening statements may
be submitted for the record.
I welcome our witness today. Mr. McAleenan was sworn in as
the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security on April 10, 2019.
Prior to being named Acting Secretary, he served as
commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The
Acting Secretary previously held several leadership positions
at CBP and the former U.S. Customs Service.
Without objection, the witness's full statement will be
inserted in the record.
I now ask the Acting Secretary to summarize his statement
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN K. MC ALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
Ranking Member Rogers and the distinguished Members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today.
It is a sincere honor to serve as the Acting Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security. In my view, DHS has the
most compelling mission in Government: To safeguard the
American people, our homeland, and our values. As Acting
Secretary, I intend to work with this committee and serve as an
advocate for the Department to ensure our people have the
resources and the authorities they need to carry out their
critical missions on behalf of the American people.
Today, I have the privilege of sharing the President's
fiscal year 2020 budget request for the Department of Homeland
Security with this committee. The request would strengthen the
security of our Nation through enhanced border security,
immigration enforcement, cybersecurity, transportation
security, counterterrorism, and resilience to disasters.
DHS is a multi-mission department. Before I talk about the
urgent border security and humanitarian crisis that we are
facing, I want to ensure this committee that DHS will not lose
momentum across any of our numerous responsibilities.
The President's budget requests funding for critical
missions across the Department. For our Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency, the budget requests $1.3
billion to assess evolving cybersecurity risks, protect Federal
Government information systems and critical infrastructure.
The budget also supports the launch of Protect 2020, a new
initiative designed to get all States to a baseline level of
election infrastructure cybersecurity well before the National
elections of 2020. While DHS does not control State and local
election infrastructure and does not think we should, we can
provide much-needed technical assistance and support to willing
partners.
The budget supports additional Transportation Security
Officers to enhance security effectiveness and stay ahead of
increasing costs and growth in air travel within the United
States. The $3.3 billion for TSA also includes funding for an
additional 700 screeners and 350 computed tomography X-ray
units.
For FEMA, the budget provides a significant increase in the
Disaster Relief Fund, begins implementation of new requirements
in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, and funds critical
operational positions identified in the 2017 Hurricane Season
After-Action Report.
For the U.S. Coast Guard, the budget continues efforts to
fund the Offshore Patrol Cutter and advances the Polar Security
Cutter program.
A lot there for across the Department in all of our
missions. But for border security and immigration enforcement,
as you are all aware, we are in the midst of an on-going
security and humanitarian crisis at our Southwest Border. The
Department, at the request of our front-line officers and
agents, has repeatedly made clear that we need additional
resources and additional authorities to respond to this crisis.
To put the situation in context, in April, CBP apprehended
and encountered almost 110,000 migrants attempting to cross
without legal status, the most in a single month in over a
decade and over a third of the total crossings we saw in all of
fiscal year 2017. Over 65 percent of those crossing were
families, with over 40,000 children entering our immigration
system in a single month.
And the crisis continues. In 3 separate days in May, we
have encountered 5,500 people crossing our border without
authorization. Our immigration system is full, and we are well
beyond our capacity at every stage of the process. This means
that new waves of vulnerable populations arriving at our border
are exacerbating the already urgent humanitarian and security
crisis we are facing.
Through surging resources from DHS and Federal partners
with medical teams from the Coast Guard and HHS, military and
National Guard troops, over 1,000 CBP and HSI detailees, and
DHS volunteers, along with working with State and local
governments and nongovernmental organizations, we are working
to do everything we possibly can to address the immediate and
dire humanitarian crisis.
But it is not enough. We continue to face tragedies at the
border, particularly with regard to the safety of children.
This month, Border Patrol agents have rescued dozens of
children in the Rio Grande, but several have been known to have
drowned, including a 10-month-old baby 2 weeks ago. We have
lost 2 teenagers to illness in Federal custody, 1 with HHS and
1 in CBP custody just yesterday. A 2-year-old encountered in
April and taken to the hospital by Border Patrol agents and
released with her mother also passed away this month after
weeks of critical medical care. These tragedies are devastating
to us, and they are avoidable.
The problem we face is unprecedented and challenging. It
requires working together from a shared set of facts to solve
it. We need sustained investment, additional emergency support,
but also, changes to our immigration laws to overcome this
humanitarian and security crisis at the border.
On the resources front, the President's budget will help.
First, it requests $523 million to address the humanitarian
crisis. This will allow us to provide better care for those we
come into contact with through apprehension, custody,
detention, and eventually removal.
It requests $5 billion for border security, funding for the
construction of approximately 200 miles of a new border wall
system, a proven deterrent requested by our front-line agents.
It also calls for 750 additional Border Patrol Agents, 275
Customs and Border Protection Officers, and over 1,660 ICE
front-line and support personnel.
The budget requests will make much-needed upgrades to
sensors, command-and-control systems, and aircraft to help our
men and women combat criminals who are profiting from human
suffering.
While our 2020 budget will help address this crisis, we
will need additional funding sooner. Given the scale, we will
exhaust our resources well before the end of this fiscal year,
which is why the administration sent a supplemental funding
request to the Congress 3 weeks ago.
In addition to the $3 billion for Health and Human Services
to care for unaccompanied children, the request includes $1.1
billion for the Department of Homeland Security; $391 million
for humanitarian assistance, including for temporary processing
facilities; $530 million for border operations, to include our
surge personnel as well as increased detention capacity; and
$178 million for operations and support costs, including pay
retention incentives for our overworked men and women on the
front line.
This supplemental request is critical, but unless Congress
addresses the pull factors, namely our vulnerable legal
framework for immigration, children will continue to be put at
risk in this dangerous journey.
The administration has been working in a bipartisan fashion
to outline the important reforms that can get to the root of
the problem, providing language to multiple Congressional
committees that would end this humanitarian crisis. This
includes allowing DHS to detain families together during the
immigration hearings, allowing children to safely apply for
refugee protections in their home or neighboring countries,
while also providing authority for DHS to repatriate children
to Central America, as we do with Canada and Mexico today, and
reforming an asylum process that has become overwhelmed by
claims that do not meet the standard.
Without these resources and authorities, the situation will
remain untenable. While DHS will continue to do all it can to
manage the crisis in an operationally effective, humane, safe,
and secure manner, every day Congress does not act puts more
lives at risk and increases the burden on an overtasked system.
I want to close by reiterating the strength of DHS is its
people. I am humbled and inspired by their selfless dedication
of the front-line agents, officers, and personnel confronting
this crisis. Despite the challenges they face, the men and
women of DHS continue to act to stop criminals exploiting our
border and to help those in need. They are remarkable people.
They deserve our support. I respectfully ask this committee to
continue to support them with the resources and authorities
they need.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
look toward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McAleenan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin K. McAleenan
May 22, 2019
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Rogers, and distinguished Members
of the committee: It is a privilege to appear before you today to
discuss the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) essential missions
and to present the President's fiscal year 2020 budget for the
Department.
DHS is comprised of 14 major components employing more than 240,000
men and women dedicated to the mission of ensuring the safety and
security of our great Nation. I want to start by thanking the men and
women of the Department of Homeland Security for their extraordinary
service to our Nation. The men and women of DHS are exceptional and
dedicated professionals who are on watch 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year. Their mission is to protect Americans from threats by land, sea,
air, and in cyber space, while also promoting our Nation's economic
prosperity. They work tirelessly to strengthen the safety and security
of our Nation from persistent and emerging dangers, including
terrorists, transnational criminal organizations, rogue nation-states,
and natural disasters.
Although our mission statement is simple, the mission itself is
extremely complex. The Department's reach is global; spanning more than
7,450 miles of U.S. border and 95,000 miles of coastline to 4.5 million
square miles of U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and regions of the
high seas known for smuggling operations. Our reach continues into the
cyber world where nefarious actors attack U.S. financial,
technological, and electoral interests. The Department is also
responsible for the security of our traveling public and movement of
goods through international trade. It is our dedicated personnel who
not only achieve DHS's global reach, they also create efficient and
effective operations 24 hours a day. I am proud to lead and represent
the dedicated men and women of DHS as they are America's front-line
defense.
The fiscal year 2020 President's budget for DHS requests $51.7
billion in net discretionary funding and an additional $19.4 billion
for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) supporting response to and recovery
from major disasters. The President's budget proposes to strengthen the
security of our Nation through enhanced border security, immigration
enforcement, cybersecurity, transportation security, resilience to
disasters, and senior leadership protection.
Highlighting some of the Department's accomplishments provides a
mere glimpse of the threats to our Nation's security. At the completion
of fiscal year 2018, Customs and Border Protection encountered more
than 683,000 illegal migrants and inadmissibles, Homeland Security
Investigations made more than 34,000 criminal arrests, of which 4,300
were gang-related; and law enforcement agents and the United States
Coast Guard (USCG) seized more than 1 million pounds of illegal drugs.
Keeping our traveling public safe is another vitally important job for
DHS. For example, in fiscal year 2018 the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) screened more than 800 million aviation passengers
while preventing almost 4,200 firearms from being carried onto
aircraft.
In 2018, the United States endured significant natural disasters
such as Hurricanes Michael and Florence and the deadliest wildfires in
California's modern history including the one that obliterated the town
of Paradise. Preserving life and reclamation efforts, FEMA obligated
more than $9.2 billion in Public Assistance, including funding to clear
debris, rebuild roads, schools, libraries, and other public facilities,
and provided more than $1 billion in Individual Assistance to
survivors. These are just a few examples of how our men and women
deliver on a daily basis for the American people.
Security of our Nation's borders remains a primary focus of the
administration and the Department, and doing more with less is an
unacceptable method for achieving mission goals. This situation on the
border with unprecedented numbers of families and children represents
an acute and worsening crisis. CBP encountered nearly 40,000 children
in the month of April alone. Our immigration system is not equipped to
accommodate the significant change in migration patterns from one
largely composed of single adults from Mexico to one comprised mainly
of families and unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries.
Previous patterns--somewhat predictable in composition and predicated
on seasonal variations--are no longer the norm. Unlawful migration
through the U.S. Southern Border has increased by over 60 percent from
the previous year. In addition, the speed with which illegal migrants
are transiting through Mexico to reach our Southern Border is
frustrating our best efforts to respond quickly and keep pace with the
overwhelming numbers of migrants arriving at the Southern Border.
The migration flow and the resulting humanitarian crisis is now
even more dire and is rapidly overwhelming the ability of the Federal
Government to respond. In March, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) encountered over 103,000 illegal border crossers and inadmissible
aliens, and in April that number exceeded 109,000--the highest monthly
levels in more than a decade.
Despite heroic efforts, the Nation's ability to humanely and
compassionately care for vulnerable populations and expeditiously
process and detain those who should not be admitted is being stressed
to the breaking point. Unaccompanied children and families are crowded
into U.S. Border Patrol stations that were never intended as long-term
shelters. U.S. Border Patrol personnel no longer have the ability to
identify, process, and transport all of those apprehended at the border
to safe and secure facilities designed to house them, but have instead
been increasingly pressed into service to provide critical
humanitarian, medical support, and transportation services for this
uniquely vulnerable population.
While our fiscal year 2020 budget will help address this crisis, we
will need additional funding sooner. Given the scale of the crisis, we
will exhaust our resources before the end of this fiscal year, which is
why the administration sent a fiscal year 2019 supplemental funding
request to Congress earlier this month. The $4.5 billion fiscal year
2019 supplemental request includes $1.1 billion for the Department of
Homeland Security to address the immediate humanitarian crisis.
The Southwest Border still lacks a permanent wall and persistent
domain awareness in vulnerable areas. The fiscal year 2020 budget
requests $8.6 billion in DHS and DOD funding for the construction of
approximately 300 miles of new border wall system. A border wall is a
proven deterrent that enhances U.S. Customs and Border Protection's
(CBP) ability to apprehend those entering our Nation illegally; it is
foundational to any strategy of achieving operational control of the
Southwest Border.
Domain awareness complements a permanent wall through actionable
intelligence. The current crisis at the border demands persistent
awareness to allow our agents to respond rapidly and effectively to any
incursion, and achieving this level of awareness requires a commitment
to the procurement and sustainment of technology. The President's
budget requests upgrades to sensors such as the Remote Video
Surveillance System (RVSS) and associated command and control (C2)
systems, continued procurement of the Multi-Role Enforcement Aircraft,
and UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter upgrades. Through continued domain
awareness and border wall construction, DHS increases its chances of
mission success of ensuring that our Nation's Southwest Border and our
citizens are secure.
Border security in itself is not enough. We must continue to
address those who already have entered our country illegally. We must
further immigration enforcement. The U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement's (ICE) average daily population (ADP) forecasting model
reinforces a budget increase to 54,000 beds. This increase allows ICE
to handle continued migration flows, enhance enforcement activity
within our borders, and remove those who have entered illegally and are
presenting a danger to our communities. The President's budget
maintains safe and secure facilities for 2,500 families.
For lower-risk apprehended aliens, funding is requested to expand
the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program to 120,000 daily
participants. The ATD program supervises certain individuals using a
combination of personal visits and monitoring technology, allowing
individuals to remain in their communities while their cases are
processed. Additionally, the Transportation and Removal Program
requires additional resources in fiscal year 2020 to ensure the safe
and secure transportation of aliens who are either subject to Final
Orders of Removal or require transfer within the United States.
Investment in our most critical resource, human capital, remains a
high priority for me. Funding is included in the request for 750
additional Border Patrol Agents, 273 CBP Officers, and more than 1,660
ICE front-line and support personnel. Retaining our personnel is a
priority, and the Department continues to look for affordable and
effective retention measures, especially for our Border Patrol Agents.
The fiscal year 2020 budget also requests increased resources for
international trade and travel requirements. In 2018, the President
signed the National Security Presidential Memorandum establishing the
National Vetting Center (NVC). The NVC utilizes law enforcement and
Classified data to better identify potential threats to the homeland.
It brings together different streams of information and intelligence
into a single process for adjudicating applications for travel to the
United States. Through this technology, CBP can now receive near-real
time responses from intelligence community partners for more than
35,000 ESTA applications each day.
Our Nation's defense continues beyond the physical borders and into
the high seas. It is the USCG that stands as our phalanx to those who
threaten our maritime interests. Since 1790, the USCG has performed its
vital mission of saving those in peril while promoting our National
security and economic prosperity in a complex and evolving maritime
environment. The fiscal year 2020 budget is committed to maintaining
USCG readiness levels and continued modernization with new and more
capable assets. The President's budget includes more than $1.1 billion
for recapitalization of Coast Guard resources including, but not
limited to, the genesis of the third Offshore Patrol Cutter,
procurement of two Fast Response Cutters, funding to continue efforts
toward constructing the Nation's first Polar Security Cutter, and
aircraft sensor modernization. Additionally, this budget includes
funding for a 3.1 percent pay raise for our military personnel.
Continuing efforts to improve public transportation resiliency, DHS
is steadfast in addressing areas of vulnerability. Although heavily
fortified, the public air-travel system must evolve with changing
threats. TSA is an intelligence-driven, National security organization
employing risk-based security principles to actively combat evolving
threats to our critical transportation infrastructure.
TSA continues to experience airline passenger volume growth at
airport checkpoints Nation-wide. Additional Transportation Security
Officers (TSO) are needed to uphold security effectiveness and
compliance, keep screening times on pace with volume growth, and stay
ahead of increasing costs and security demands at airports Nation-wide.
The $3.3 billion requested for the Screening Workforce adds 1,028
screener positions for a total of more than 46,600 TSOs, the highest
level in history. The request proposes a $1.00 increase in the 9/11
passenger security fee in order to cover a greater share of the costs
of aviation security. This is a minimal fee increase and should be
considered seriously by Congress. The budget also funds an additional
320 computed tomography (CT) units. The CT units are used in airport
screening lanes to effectively detect smaller and more artfully
concealed threats within carry-on bags.
DHS continues to improve its collective efforts in cybersecurity
with the recent creation of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency (CISA). In passing the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency Act of 2018, Congress recognized that the role played
by CISA has never been more important. Requiring collaboration between
both Government and private-sector organizations, CISA is charged with
protecting the Nation's critical infrastructure from physical and cyber
threats. Through this mission, DHS is focused on improving our digital
defense as cybersecurity threats continue to grow in scope and
severity.
To assess evolving cybersecurity risks and protect Federal
Government information systems and critical infrastructure, the fiscal
year 2020 President's Budget includes more than $1.3 billion for
Federal Network Protection (FNP) and Infrastructure Security. Included
in FNP are the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation, the National
Cybersecurity Protection System--known operationally as EINSTEIN--and
Federal Network Resilience. These systems in conjunction with the
National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC)
provide the technological foundation to secure and defend the Federal
Government's civilian information technology infrastructure against
advanced cyber threats.
The resiliency mission is carried even further through the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Its mission reduces loss of life
and property and protects the Nation from all hazards by leading and
supporting the Nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency
management system. Before, during, and after disasters, FEMA focuses on
supporting and empowering disaster survivors by increasing their
capacity to take effective and practical steps to help themselves,
their families, and their communities. The better prepared that
citizens are to assist themselves and others in times of need, the
stronger our Nation will be in the event of future emergencies.
Therefore, the fiscal year 2020 President's budget requests
increased funding for programs that support FEMA's 3 primary strategic
goals of: Building a culture of preparedness, increasing catastrophic
disaster readiness, and reducing FEMA complexity. Requested funds
support the implementation of FEMA Integration Teams (FIT) who develop
relationships with State emergency management offices, enhancing the
coordinated State and Federal response. The budget also includes
funding for the fiscal year 2020 Disaster Relief Fund in support of
disaster declarations for Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and for
the California wildfires. Communications between first responders is
vitally important for immediate real-time information sharing during
all threats, hazards, or incidents. Thus, I am committed to ensuring
that our first responders can communicate effectively and the request
for CISA includes $167.3 million for emergency communications toward
this effort.
I greatly appreciate the Congress authorizing the Countering
Weapons of Mass Destruction Office (CWMD) last year. CWMD leads
provides the subject-matter expertise and helps to equip the
Department's field operators so they may effectively defend against
weapons of mass destruction, including potential terrorist use of WMD.
The President's 2020 budget continues to enable our efforts to develop
a robust and technologically advanced analytic capability combating
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats to the homeland
and our interests. Additionally, funding is requested for the Radiation
Portal Monitor Replacement Program (RPMRP) supporting CBP's operational
effectiveness at the Nation's land, sea, and air ports of entry.
Ensuring the effective and safe movement of goods through our ports,
the RPM technology provides the cost-effective capability to scan cargo
for radiological and nuclear threats without an adverse impact to the
flow of commerce.
The U.S. Secret Service carries out the unique and integrated
missions of protecting senior leadership and investigating threats to
the Nation's financial system. Best known for protecting the President,
the Vice President, their immediate families, visiting heads of state,
and other designated individuals, the Secret Service also protects the
White House Complex, the Vice-President's Residence, foreign diplomatic
missions, and other designated buildings. Further, it coordinates
security at designated National Special Security Events such as the
State of the Union Address. Vitally important to our economic way of
life, the Secret Service protects our financial infrastructure by
investigating counterfeiting, crimes related to financial securities of
the United States, identity theft, and computer fraud. The President's
budget includes $33.4 million to hire additional Special Agents,
Uniform Division Officers, and administrative, professional, and
technical personnel to achieve an end strength of 7,777, the highest in
Secret Service history. The 2020 Presidential Election is only 18
months away, and the budget includes almost $151 million to ensure that
the 2020 Presidential Campaign is adequately resourced for the
protection of major candidates, nominees, their spouses, and nominating
conventions.
Finally, since our founding, DHS agencies have operated in
temporary spaces and in offices scattered throughout D.C. metropolitan
area. This has made it difficult for 240,000 employees to operate as
``one'' Department. But starting in April 2019, we have a new base of
operations. After many years, we have finally moved onto the St.
Elizabeths Campus in Southeast Washington, DC; the home of the new DHS
Headquarters. The fiscal year 2020 budget requests $224 million
ensuring momentum into this first class facility. St. Elizabeths will
become the primary hub of a more focused, more unified, more effective,
Department of Homeland Security. We have this committee to thank for
the historic move, and I look forward to welcoming all of you to visit.
I continue to be amazed by the professionalism, dedication, and
conviction that the DHS employees exhibit on a daily basis. Their
resolve and devotion to the homeland security mission is on display
daily, and the security of our Nation depends on Congress properly
resourcing the very people charged with safeguarding the American
people, our homeland, and our values.
The fiscal year 2020 President's budget requests the necessary
funding for the Department of Homeland Security to carry out its wide-
ranging, day-to-day mission. We are challenged everyday with crises
spanning Southwest Border security to daily cyber attacks, and I call
on Congress to assure the security of our Nation by providing the
proper funding required to do our jobs.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and discuss the
Department's fiscal year 2020 budget submission. I look forward to
taking your questions.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I will remind each Member that he or she will have 5
minutes to question the panel.
I now recognize myself for questions.
This is a hearing to talk about the overall budget for the
Department. One of the questions that comes to mind is the
relief that went to Puerto Rico, and I want to make sure the
record reflects that.
Now, the President says that Puerto Rico got $91 billion.
Is that true or false?
Mr. McAleenan. I am certain that is correct, Mr. Chairman.
I can get you the actual figures from FEMA, if that is helpful.
Chairman Thompson. How long would it take you to get that
number?
Mr. McAleenan. We can get back to you very shortly.
Chairman Thompson. Today?
Mr. McAleenan. I will check with the team at FEMA on that
calculation, but we will get it back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Well, right. I have been to Puerto Rico
a couple of times looking at it. I have talked to the Governor,
talked to a lot of mayors, and they are very concerned that the
number that has been put out is, in actuality, not the real
number. So I think we need to, as we look at this budget, to
make sure that the numbers we have before us reflect an
accurate amount. So that is the spirit in which it is given.
Mr. McAleenan. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, I have met
with the acting administrator for FEMA, who has briefed me that
we are spending more per week and per month in Puerto Rico than
we do for a usual disaster for the entire repayment and entire
assistance. So it is an extensive effort by FEMA and across the
Department.
Chairman Thompson. Well, is that because we have never had
a disaster like that before?
Mr. McAleenan. I think it is one of the most devastating
natural disasters in our history.
Chairman Thompson. Absolutely. So you would agree that we
need to spend more?
Mr. McAleenan. I think there is a lot of support going to
Puerto Rico, and we are actively preparing for the new season.
Chairman Thompson. I understand. But I think the amount of
money should go toward the disaster.
So in addition to that, Mr. Secretary, you have actual
volunteers to go to the border to address the crisis. Can you
tell me how many people are being deployed from the Northern
Border to go to the Southern Border?
Mr. McAleenan. So we have a mix of law enforcement
resources from both CBP and HSI over at ICE already deployed.
These are TDY'd law enforcement professionals. We do this
routinely to address situations on the border. We have got
about 200 of our agents from the Northern Border, Border Patrol
agents deployed down now. We have solicited, as you noted, Mr.
Chairman, for volunteers, just like we do in any crisis across
the Department, to come help deal with the situation as well.
Chairman Thompson. So your testimony is that the volunteers
that are being deployed does not compromise security in any
way?
Mr. McAleenan. So this is something we look at from a risk
management perspective. When we respond to a natural disaster,
like a Harvey or Maria, we had over 2,000 volunteers deployed.
So right now, our volunteer numbers are really in the 200
range, so that is a much smaller response than a normal natural
diaster already.
But this is something we ask our leaders and our management
to assess for risk and make sure we are not, you know, taking
people that are critical to other missions, but also responding
to an existing crisis at the same time.
Chairman Thompson. So we have had testimony before the
committee this week from the head of one of the larger
airports, who indicated that he was very concerned that with
the loss of personnel, that the potential to put the traveling
public at risk existed and that he was concerned about it.
Have you heard concerns like that from airports?
Mr. McAleenan. So we are not going to put the traveling
public at risk. We are not going to reduce our security posture
in any way.
Chairman Thompson. But you have--but you have heard that
concern coming from airport directors?
Mr. McAleenan. So that is a concern that the leaders at TSA
will manage as they identify volunteers to support us. We have
not sent TSOs to the border.
Chairman Thompson. I understand that. I just want to know,
have you heard from airport directors that they are concerned
about it?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes, I have seen the press reporting, and
certainly, that is something we will manage carefully.
Chairman Thompson. It is hoped that you will allay their
concerns. But you have heard them?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. So the question about
vacancies in the Department, we have had discussions about
that. How are you addressing the vacancies at senior management
level within the Department?
Mr. McAleenan. Well, we are very happy earlier this month
to submit a nomination for a permanent administrator at FEMA, I
think that is an important role to fill very quickly in this
hurricane season, with Jeff Byard.
But our top 8 operating components, 4 out of 8 have
confirmed or permanent heads. Two of them, TSA and CBP, were
serving as Acting Secretary and acting deputy, but were
confirmed heads as well, backfilled by very talented career
professionals. Then at ICE, we have a 25-year veteran of
service, Matt Albence, leading ICE effectively. This is
something that I think we are in very good position to maintain
our momentum at the Department.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. But based on the chart that
your staff provided me, your Management director is vacant,
your Science and Technology director is vacant, the Office of
Strategy, Policy, and Plans is vacant, the Office of Public
Affairs is vacant, the Office of Inspector General is vacant,
the Chief Financial Officer is vacant. We go on and on.
Now, this is--and I understand that. But at what point do
you plan to fill the vacancies with these senior positions?
Mr. McAleenan. Well, a number of those positions already
have nominees either on the Hill or identified and in process.
We have taken steps to make sure we are backfilling with
talented professionals.
Right now, Director Tex Alles from the Secret Service, who
just moved to a position as acting deputy under secretary for
management, he brings a wealth of experience having been the
deputy at CBP, the head of Secret Service. He is helping make
sure that we are maintaining a momentum with management.
We have a tremendous team in the CFO shop that hasn't lost
any momentum. So we are going to continue to get the job done
for the American people.
Chairman Thompson. I understand.
Mr. McAleenan. We have many more permanent folks in place
than you usually do at the transition of an administration, for
example.
Chairman Thompson. So is this the Secret Service director
that got fired by the President?
Mr. McAleenan. He has been moved to a key role for me as
the acting deputy under secretary.
Chairman Thompson. But he was fired by the President and
you brought him back?
Mr. McAleenan. There was a transition. He served admirably
for 2 years at Secret Service, and now we have a tremendous
Secret Service----
Chairman Thompson. I don't have a problem with it. But he
is the one that was fired. Am I correct?
Mr. McAleenan. He has been moved to a new role at DHS.
Chairman Thompson. OK. I yield to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the Chairman.
Before I get my questions, I just want to make the point I
think it is unconscionable that relief to deal with this
humanitarian crisis at the border is being held hostage for
Puerto Rico to get more money when already we are having
massive amounts of aid going to Puerto Rico, have been and
continue to have, and we will continue to take care of Puerto
Rico. But we have an enormous crisis at the border, families,
children that are in a desperate situation, and we are not
getting aid to them. It is just unconscionable.
But having said that, of the $4.5 billion that has been
requested, Mr. Secretary, I understand $3.3 of that would go to
humanitarian aid. What would you do with that money if it was
made available to you in a timely fashion?
Mr. McAleenan. So the $3 billion itself is going to Health
and Human Services to manage their statutorily-required
responsibility to care for unaccompanied children arriving at
the border, and they are arriving in record numbers right now.
That seems very straightforward. They need more money to
provide beds so that the kids can be kept in safe environments
and not left at the border in Border Patrol stations. So that
is very straightforward.
The additional $1.1 billion for DHS is directly to address
this crisis. We are talking about humanitarian support for
processing centers for CBP. We are talking about additional
security for those centers. We are talking about consumables,
really just food, blankets, the basic supplies that you use to
care for people, and for border operations.
As we noted, we are sending people temporarily to the
border to help address this crisis. That costs a lot of money
to do that and to sustain that. We need support for the
volunteer surge. We need additional ICE detention for the
single adults that are arriving in record numbers as well.
So we have got a lot of work to do across the Department to
manage this crisis, both to take care of people in our custody
and to ensure that we are maintaining border security while we
do that.
Mr. Rogers. Now, the Chairman and I had a chance to meet
with you yesterday afternoon, and we talked a little bit about
the Flores decision and what its impact has been on you. Can
you describe that for the full committee and what a possible
solution would be?
Mr. McAleenan. I can. So what we are seeing now is about 65
percent of those crossings are either family units or
unaccompanied children. Family units have reached a record
level, 59 percent so far this month of our total crossings on
the border. That is a direct response to the vulnerability in
our legal framework caused by a decision in a district court in
late 2015, upheld in 2016, that prevented DHS from keeping
families together during their immigration proceedings.
That is what we did under President Obama and Secretary
Johnson. They built family residential centers where families
were kept together before their immigration proceedings. It
took on average about 45 days. At the end of that process--and
these are appropriate settings that have schoolhouses, they
have recreational facilities, they have medical centers, they
have courtrooms on-site. After those proceedings, families
would know whether they had a valid asylum claim and would be
allowed to stay in the United States or they would be
repatriated.
As soon as those repatriations started happening, the flow
dropped dramatically from our first border crisis in 2014 with
families and kids.
We no longer have that tool. We no longer have that
authority. Now we have twice the flow coming in a direct
response to that lack of our authority.
Mr. Rogers. What could we do to alleviate that problem for
you?
Mr. McAleenan. Simply return to the status that we had in
2014, 2015, allowing families to be kept together in
appropriate settings during their immigration proceedings.
Mr. Rogers. Well, my understanding from our meeting
yesterday is that you are going to provide us language that
would do that. It is my hope that the Chairman and I can bring
that before this committee for a vote as soon as possible so we
can get you some relief.
Now, in addition to that legislative remedy, what other
legislative remedies would you like to see us move?
Mr. McAleenan. So the second issue that is really
concerning is the unaccompanied children putting themselves in
the hands of smugglers. Generally, these are teenage boys and
girls that are being smuggled, $5,000 to $7,000 per person, all
the way from Central America to our border.
Right now, they are coming because they are certain they
will be allowed to stay. They are generally released to
sponsors here in the United States, generally parents who are
already here unlawfully. So it is a very challenging cycle that
we are facing.
What the administration is proposing, I think, is very
balanced and very appropriate to protect children, offering in-
country refugee processing so that they can access protections,
if they have a valid claim, at home, without making this
journey, without being in the hands of smugglers.
But to make that effective, we also need the ability to
repatriate children, just like we do for Canada and Mexico, who
arrive in the United States who do not avail themselves of this
opportunity or have not been found to have a valid refugee
claim. I think that is a balance proposal that we would like to
work with Congress on enacting.
Those two changes in law will make a dramatic impact in
this humanitarian crisis.
Mr. Rogers. Right. I appreciate you.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas for 5
minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I thank the
Ranking Member for this very important oversight hearing.
Mr. Secretary, I have a very short period of time, so
forgive me, but let me first of all say that you are a very
fine public servant. We have had the opportunity of working
over the years, and I would hesitate to say decade, because we
all are very young. So thank you for your service.
Let me ask you, in the President's budget is $5 billion for
the wall. Are you here today to defend the $5 billion request
for the wall?
Mr. McAleenan. I am defending the entire budget request,
and that is a request that comes from our front-line agents. It
is not something we need everywhere on the border, but we need
hundreds of miles to control critical areas where there is
infrastructure on both sides and high traffic.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The $5 billion, as you well know, was
represented to be coming from Mexico. Is it coming from Mexico?
Mr. McAleenan. No. It is requested for appropriations----
Ms. Jackson Lee. So the representation was untrue?
Mr. McAleenan. I am not characterizing the representation
as untrue. It is----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Did the numbers from the border persons
come at the exact number of $5 billion?
Mr. McAleenan. So that is the amount that we can
effectively apply in a given year with contracts----
Ms. Jackson Lee. This is the President's request?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes. We actually need about $18 billion for
the top----
Ms. Jackson Lee. In his request or in his budget as well,
let me indicate that he has cut $600 million from first
responder Homeland Security grants. I want my firefighters to
hear this very clearly, because I will oppose it extensively.
The U.S. Coast Guard is cut $864 million; surface
transportation programs, $57 million, or 44 percent; and
cybersecurity, which is known to have impacted the 2016, 2018
elections, have been cut by $40 million.
Are you here to defend those cuts, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. McAleenan. So on the side of the grants, Congresswoman,
what I have understood is that we have deployed $50 billion in
Homeland Security grants over the past decade to----
Ms. Jackson Lee. But here you are to defend the $600
million cuts to our firefighters and other first responders
across the Nation?
Mr. McAleenan. So I am defending the President's budget and
explaining that we have had a number of grants go to build up
capability across the country and that we have----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you. My time is short, Mr.
Secretary, and I appreciate it. I indicated I appreciate your
service.
We now have a list of the numbers of children that have
died in custody. We should all be outraged. A 16-year-old boy,
Mr. Hernandez Vasquez; Juan De Leon, 16; 7-year-old, 8-year-
old, 2-year-old, and there may be others.
These are the conditions that individuals, human beings,
are living in. I understand the crisis. Might I say, I have
been to the border many, many times and as well understand that
it is not tweets; it really is going and seeing it for
yourself. I have seen it. I have spoken to people. I have
spoken to a mother who gave birth 45 days and had not been to
the hospital, and your CBP staff agreed with me to take her to
the hospital.
But my question is--I believe there should be an internal
task force set up dealing with children, dealing with
children's death. My question to you is, will you set up an
internal in-house task force to deal with not--you know, the
individuals that are there now, and as you know, you have
nobody hardly there--to deal with these deaths, to find what
solutions should be put in place?
My second question would be what you are doing about added
medical staff there at the border. If you would do that quickly
because I have another question, please, sir.
Would you set up an internal task force to deal with this
crisis----
Mr. McAleenan. Very quickly----
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. Of children's deaths?
Mr. McAleenan. I agree, Congresswoman, those conditions are
not acceptable. That is why we have asked for additional
support from Congress to address it. In El Paso alone, we have
55 medical professionals on board----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would you agree to add more, please, sir?
Mr. McAleenan. It is a constant focus. That is the primary
focus----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would you agree for the internal task
force?
Mr. McAleenan. We already have internal task forces working
these issues.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Who are they? Would you give us
the names of those individuals, please.
Mr. McAleenan. I will absolutely provide those to the
committee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. That is called an internal task force
dealing with children's death? The American people are
outraged.
Mr. McAleenan. I share their outrage.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me finish my other question. First of
all, I hope you look into the case of Laura Elizabeth
Maradiaga-Alvarado, who was deported as an 11-year-old in my
Congressional district. We saved her. Her family is seeking
asylum, they have reason, from El Salvador, and we believe that
the DHS and your humanitarian status can help her with that.
My last thing is, aviation is important. TSA needs jobs,
needs personnel. They are the front line of aviation security,
not safety.
Mr. Secretary, your position on making sure that the
Transportation Security Agency has all the staff they need to
protect the aviation system in this Nation and internationally.
Mr. McAleenan. Absolutely required. That is why I support
the budget and the increase of TSOs that it contains.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At the outset, let me share the Chairman's thought of what
a privilege it has been to work with you, Mr. Secretary. In my
dealings with you, you have been extremely responsive and
courteous, and I thank you for that and also for your years of
service.
I am going to focus on two issues. One is, I keep trying to
remind everyone that this committee began after 9/11. It was
originated mainly for the purpose of counterterrorism.
Obviously, immigration is vital, and I support what you are
trying to do.
On the issue of counterterrorism, though, the fact is,
beginning under the Obama administration and the first 3
budgets of the Trump administration, there have been dramatic
cuts in the money going to police and fire. Like in New York
alone, there are over 1,000 police officers working full-time
on counterterrorism. To me, there is no way we can absorb those
cuts. In each of these years, the money has been restored, both
in the Obama administration and under the Trump administration.
Again, I am hopeful that that money will be restored again. But
I hope that that doesn't indicate any diminution of interest by
the Department as far as cooperating and working to stop a
terrorist attack.
My district lost over 150 people on 9/11. We still have
people dying from 9/11 illnesses. To see that kind of money
being cut out, which would really undercut the police
counterterrorism and intelligence units in New York--I am not
trying to make this parochial, but that was why the Department
was created.
So I just--again, I don't mean this in a pandering way, but
if you can just acknowledge that this is still a prime focus of
the Department; and if the money is restored, the money will be
spent properly by the Department?
Mr. McAleenan. I can confirm both of those things. I mean,
Congressman, we appreciate your long expertise and support on
the counterterrorism mission. My second trip as Acting
Secretary was to New York to highlight the CT issues. I visited
the 9/11 museum again just to get refreshed and focused on our
mission and requirements. It does not reflect any lack of
priority for the Department in this mission set. It remains why
we were created, our top priority for the American people, and
we are going to continue to stay focused on it and be effective
at it.
Mr. King. Thank you, Secretary.
On the issue of MS-13, this was particularly vital in my
district. From the fall of 2015 until April 2017, we had 25
murders carried out by MS-13. These are the most brutal type of
murders, people being hacked to death, beheaded. It was
absolutely horrible.
Since the administration got actively involved, there has
not been 1 murder in the last 2 years. It is a story that is
not really reported. But the increase in HSI, the increased
number of prosecutors by the administration, the new technology
going to the police has been extremely effective. Now, MS-13 is
down, but they are not out, and they are still a very potent
force.
On the issue of unaccompanied minors, it was the Suffolk
County Police Commissioner, who, by the way, was appointed by
an Democratic administration. This is not a partisan issue. He
was the one who first came to me to show the direct correlation
between unaccompanied minors and MS-13, that many of these
young people--maybe it is only 3, 4 percent, but it is 3, 4
percent of a big number--were either sent across by MS-13 or
the sponsoring families were either MS-13 families or families
who had relatives back in El Salvador who were being
threatened.
In a recent murder indictment, 7 of the 11 who were
indicted for the murder were unaccompanied minors. They had
come across the border in just the last 4 years as
unaccompanied minors.
Schools like in Brentwood and Central Islip, students were
put in there, and they were never told by DHS or by ORR or HHS
that these children were unaccompanied minors. They were not
given any background on the criminal history of them or their
families that were taking them in. I know there is a memorandum
of understanding with you and HHS, I guess, and ORR.
Can you say whether or not, as a result of the
investigations, the vetting that will be carried out of the
minors and their families, will the local police and school
districts be made--you know, will that info be made available
to them?
Mr. McAleenan. So thank you, first, for your comments on
the work of ICE and HSI to address public safety threats in our
country and specifically in communities affected by MS-13. That
is going to continue to be a priority and focus for the
Department.
We are very worried about gangs exploiting this crisis. To
send unaccompanied children, teenagers, who they have already
recruited into the United States, that can go through our
process and be released to a sponsor here in the United States
with an intent to join a gang, that is a serious concern. We
also see families bringing children who are not their own,
3,500 cases of fraud this year.
We have an HSI team that has been on the border for 2 weeks
working these issues in El Paso and RGV alone. They found--500
interviews, they found 165 cases of fraud. They are getting
prosecutions of these adults that are bringing families in, and
we are seeing, unfortunately, even child recycling, children
being brought across twice.
You mentioned the critical partnership with HHS. We did
have an MOA on information sharing that has been suspended by a
rider in the appropriations bill. That diminishes our ability
to provide security. It diminishes our ability to share
information on the sponsors who are picking up children on
their immigration status, on their potential criminal history,
and that is a barrier that should not be there because it is
critical.
Last point I will make is the attorney general just went to
Central America to focus on the anti-gang initiatives and the
collaboration between the Department of Justice and authorities
in El Salvador and elsewhere. That has been a very effective
tool because we are getting additional information on criminal
records and gang history in Central America that we can then
apply at the border and in concert with our DOJ counterparts.
We need to keep that up.
Mr. King. My time has expired. I would just emphasize that
a number of those murders, brutal, brutal murders were carried
out by accompanied minors.
Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
New Mexico, Ms. Torres Small.
Ms. Torres Small. Secretary McAleenan, thank you for your
service and for stepping up at a time that is challenging all
of us.
I only have 5 minutes, and we have a lot of work to do, so
I appreciate the efficiency in your responses so far and ask
that you continue.
Rio Grande Sector has the largest number of apprehensions
for families and unaccompanied minors, correct?
Mr. McAleenan. Correct.
Ms. Torres Small. El Paso Sector is second?
Mr. McAleenan. Correct.
Ms. Torres Small. Yuma is third?
Mr. McAleenan. Correct.
Ms. Torres Small. OK. So we have received notification that
CBP is working with ICE to provide aircraft flights and bus
transportation for unprocessed families--or migrants from Rio
Grande Valley and Yuma Sectors to other lower-level sectors,
right?
Mr. McAleenan. Right.
Ms. Torres Small. Why isn't El Paso receiving the same
service?
Mr. McAleenan. They are on the list. There is going to be a
flight from El Paso this week.
Ms. Torres Small. We received clarification this morning
that that flight was only a stopover for refueling. Is that
inaccurate?
Mr. McAleenan. I am told by CBP that they have a flight
going to San Diego Sector where we have some additional
capacity. I will follow up on that, Congresswoman.
Ms. Torres Small. That would be amazing. If there is any
way we can do that, I deeply appreciate that it is something
you note is important.
Mr. McAleenan. Yes.
Ms. Torres Small. Great.
Mr. McAleenan. El Paso has seen the starkest increase in
family units, as you know.
Ms. Torres Small. Absolutely. Thank you for recognizing
that and responding to it.
Pivoting quickly to Border Patrol OR releases. After Border
Patrol processes family units, what are the steps that CBP
takes to decide when and where large groups are released?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes. So this is something we have to work
closely with local communities, with nongovernmental
organizations. We want to make sure there is capacity in the
transportation system or in the NGO's to house people
effectively so that we are not leaving them in situations that
are--that are uncomfortable and unacceptable.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you so much for saying that. I
truly believe that you understand the challenges that the
communities I represent are experiencing.
Is there a requirement to do that consultation with NGO's
and local governments?
Mr. McAleenan. That is CBP policy. That is our expectation
of our field leadership.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you. Is it--is it a requirement or
just expectation?
Mr. McAleenan. It is a stated direction from the chief of
the Border Patrol and the executive assistant commissioner for
field operations.
Ms. Torres Small. Great. Is there a time--a time amount for
advanced notice that is provided in that direction?
Mr. McAleenan. As much as can be provided so that it can be
effectively coordinated. Sometimes a situation of the numbers
in custody mandate a quicker action. We are also sometimes not
having the right point of contact. I have got some feedback
from a New Mexico senator yesterday on these issues, and we are
going to be tightening that coordination.
Ms. Torres Small. Great. To any extent, if you could set a
minimum amount of time of notice, that would be very helpful.
Mr. McAleenan. I think we can set an expectation, but we
wouldn't want to direct from Washington all field situations
operationally.
Ms. Torres Small. So speaking to that, who ultimately makes
the decisions of when and where a release occurs?
Mr. McAleenan. Those would be the sector chief locally.
Ms. Torres Small. Are there directives that come from
Washington advising on when and where?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes. As I mentioned, we have given guidance
to the field on our expectations for coordination.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
So now to migrant processing. In conversations with both
ICE and then CBP, it is apparent that both agencies believe
that neither of them should be responsible for processing
asylum seekers. Border Patrol says that ICE has the better
resources for processing. CBP--or ICE believes that Border
Patrol has the responsibility because they are the first to
encounter migrants. This disconnect seems to exacerbate
scarcity in resources and it seems to stem from a lack of
leadership saying simply who is responsible.
So, Mr. McAleenan, what agency is responsible for
processing asylum seekers?
Mr. McAleenan. So, actually, the CIS, if you are talking
about doing an asylum officer interview.
But just to clarify, I think I want to get to the point of
your question. As I am Acting Secretary, we are going to handle
this as a team. This is a mission that has overtaxed CBP, ICE,
CIS, HHS, and the Department of Justice immigration courts. We
are--no element of that system is adequately resourced for the
flow that we are seeing. So we have to address it as a team. We
are seeing that with our transportation.
In El Paso Sector, which you are most familiar with because
it covers New Mexico, the transportation is done exclusively by
CBP. Originally, the intent was for ICRO to handle
transportation. We are filling gaps, working together, and that
is my expectation.
Ms. Torres Small. I appreciate that. But clarity is also
helpful for working as a team. So is there a clear directive of
who is responsible for putting together the paperwork and the
notice to appear?
Mr. McAleenan. So depending on the local area, the
available resources, we are going to try to apply the best
effort to that.
The Border Patrol is supposed to be on the border doing
interdictions. ICE is supposed to be doing processing and
removal or interior enforcement. Right now, they are both----
Ms. Torres Small. ICE supposed to be doing processing?
Mr. McAleenan. Well, generally, yes. But right now, they
are both handling the processing of family units, depending on
the station or sector.
Ms. Torres Small. So there is no directive right now about
who--even to specific areas, there is no specific directive?
Mr. McAleenan. The directive is to work together to get
this mission done as efficiently and as effectively as
possible.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Higgins, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service, sir, and thank
you for maintaining your professional bearing, despite some of
the tone you face today.
My colleagues across the aisle mentioned the word
``squander'' regarding the President's budget. While the
American Treasury is certainly subject to close scrutiny by the
American people that provide it, the American people certainly
do recognize the well-established fact that politicians and
bureaucrats in the District of Columbia squander the money
seized from the paychecks of working Americans. However, the
citizenry does not consider National security, homeland
security, to be a waste of money.
I can name scores of Federal expenditures that squander the
people's treasure. But securing our borders and maintaining our
very sovereignty is perhaps the single most important mission
the Federal Government should accomplish and is certainly not
squandering.
Decisions regarding the essential needs of law enforcement
to secure our homeland should be determined by the Department
of Homeland Security, law enforcement professionals, not by
career politicians in the District of Columbia and unknown,
unelected bureaucrats.
So thank you, sir, for representing those law enforcement
professionals and their needs today.
I ask you, is the Department of Homeland Security making
progress toward achieving operational control of our Southwest
Border?
Mr. McAleenan. We are. Through a combination of the
investments in 2018, the received funding in 2019, the border
barrier is going to make a big impact----
Mr. Higgins. Roger that. Would the President's budget, as
submitted, if approved by this Congress, would it help you to
accomplish a mission?
Mr. McAleenan. Absolutely. It would accelerate our efforts.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, sir. Since President Trump entered
office, how many replacement miles, secondary miles, or new
linear miles of enhanced physical barrier system have been
funded on the Southwest Border, and how many have been
completed or are currently being built? Give us an idea of
that, please.
Mr. McAleenan. Sure. So out of the $3.6 billion in fiscal
year 2017, 2018, 2019 funding and money from the Treasury
Forfeiture Fund, we are applying that currently to fund a total
of 336 miles of border wall.
Mr. Higgins. You are getting the job done, sir----
Mr. McAleenan. Yes.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. With the money that has been
provided?
Mr. McAleenan. We are going to get part of the job done.
Mr. Higgins. Roger that.
Mr. McAleenan. We have asked for more.
Mr. Higgins. And you need, as a law enforcement
professional, as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, in charge of securing our Southern Border and the
sovereignty of our Nation, do you concur with the budget
request as it has been submitted?
Mr. McAleenan. I absolutely do. This request comes from our
men and women on the ground that----
Mr. Higgins. As it should.
The approximately 300 miles for fiscal year 2020 budget to
be prioritized along the Southwest Border, that is my
understanding. Can you explain why?
Mr. McAleenan. Why it would be prioritized?
Mr. Higgins. Why that money would be prioritized for an
enhanced physical barrier along the Southwest Border
particularly. Explain to the American people why, please.
Mr. McAleenan. Yes. The Southwest Border has two dynamics
on the border security front. We have got 30,000 to 40,000
people a month trying to evade capture crossing that border,
and we have increasing amounts of drug smuggling. We are
talking about hard narcotics, potent opioids, like Fentanyl,
synthetic opioids, that are killing Americans in communities
all over the country.
Mr. Higgins. Many Americans are dying from this poison
pouring across our border. I would concur.
With enhanced physical barriers, as requested by the
Department of Homeland Security and evaluated as necessary by
the law enforcement professionals on the ground, do you concur
that enhanced physical barriers will help you accomplish your
mission?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you.
What technological advancements along the borders have been
implemented generally, and how will the fiscal year 2020 budget
further those investments?
Mr. McAleenan. I will make two--three key points on that.
One, every mile of border barrier comes with technology. It
comes with fiberoptic sensors, cameras, lighting. It is not
just a dumb wall. It is fully supported by technology that
tells our agents what is happening in those areas.
Second----
Mr. Higgins. You said something. It is indeed a, quote/
unquote, smart wall, is it not, good sir?
Mr. McAleenan. Indeed. No question. It is a smart barrier.
Second, the 2020 budget would continue to fund our
innovative tower effort to provide surveillance capability in
those areas where we don't have border barrier to extend our
view of the border and to cue agents on where to respond.
Third, it would put sensors in aircraft that are higher
resolution and that are modernized that help surveil the border
from the air.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Yes or no, if Congress passed a law correcting the flaws
and loopholes in the Flores settlement, would that help us
control this flow?
Mr. McAleenan. That would help dramatically.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, sir.
I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady form Illinois, Ms.
Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Acting Secretary McAleenan, you told MSNBC that families at
the border are being separated in a humane and civilized way.
Let me tell you, sir, that the people of Illinois' 14th
District do not think that this policy is civilized. As a
nurse, I can tell you that it is definitely not humane. We know
that there are alternatives like family case management that
keep our country safe and secure without traumatizing innocent
kids.
Yes or no, can you commit that DHS will not restart family
separations under your leadership?
Mr. McAleenan. So the President of the United States has
said that we are not looking at doing that again.
Ms. Underwood. So under your leadership----
Mr. McAleenan. There is an Executive Order in place that
says we are not going to--take zero tolerance prosecutions--not
family separations, but prosecuting adults that are violating
the law and resulted in separations, we are not going to
restart that right now.
Ms. Underwood. OK. So you have made a commitment that you
will not restart family separations under your leadership?
Mr. McAleenan. So I think the President's statement
suffices as a commitment for the administration.
Ms. Underwood. OK. Now, I want to know whether you are
aware of what family separation does to children's mental and
physical health. I only have 5 minutes. So for these questions,
I am looking for a yes-or-no answer, sir.
Are you aware of research showing that family separations
causes trauma that can do both immediate and long-term damage
to children's health? Yes or no.
Mr. McAleenan. So what--you are asking questions about
something that is not happening, Congresswoman. So the
separations that are occurring now are only in result for
family--of the prosecution of the adult for a serious criminal
offense----
Ms. Underwood. I am not asking about that, sir.
Mr. McAleenan [continuing]. Welfare of the child,
communicable disease----
Ms. Underwood. Excuse me. Reclaiming my time. That was not
the line of questioning.
My questioning was, are you aware of the impact of family
separation and the trauma on children's long-term physical and
mental health?
Mr. McAleenan. OK. Again, you are asking about something
that we are not doing. So I am not sure this line of
questioning is going to be effective.
Ms. Underwood. I am not asking are you doing it, sir. The
question is, are you aware--are you, sir, as the Acting
Secretary of DHS, aware of research that shows that family
separation causes trauma?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes. I have talked to Dr. Colleen Kraft of
the American Association of Pediatricians. I am aware of the
research and----
Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
Mr. McAleenan [continuing]. And we solicit support and
input from pediatricians in managing our responsibilities at
the border.
Ms. Underwood. Right. Are you aware that the trauma of
family separation is connected to something called toxic
stress?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes. Again, you are asking about something
we are not doing.
Ms. Underwood. Right. But you are aware?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes, I am aware of the research, as I noted.
Ms. Underwood. And then are you aware that toxic stress can
actually change a child's brain because it is still developing?
Yes or no.
Mr. McAleenan. I read the study.
Ms. Underwood. OK. Great. Are you aware that the effects of
these traumas are cumulative, that they get worse the longer
the trauma goes on?
Mr. McAleenan. I think I have answered this line of
questioning.
Ms. Underwood. Yes.
Mr. McAleenan. I have already said I am familiar.
Ms. Underwood. OK. Are you aware that the traumatic effects
don't go away even if a child is reunited with their family?
Mr. McAleenan. Again, you are asking about something we are
not doing. So, yes, I am aware, and it is not being done.
Ms. Underwood. Are you aware that family separation can
lead to behavioral changes and learning delays for children?
Mr. McAleenan. I think I have answered this line of
questioning. I have already answered. You are talking about the
same research.
Chairman Thompson. Mr. Secretary, just answer the question
yes or no. I am probably the most reasonable Chairman. Just
answer the question. Just say yes or no.
Mr. McAleenan. I have already answered yes, Mr. Chairman.
It is the same study that she is citing, different parts of it.
So if I have acknowledged that I am familiar with it, that is
probably sufficient.
Chairman Thompson. It is not.
Mr. McAleenan. OK.
Ms. Underwood. Yes, you are aware?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes.
Ms. Underwood. OK. Are you aware that family separation can
lead to behavioral changes and learning delays for children?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes. I have read the study.
Ms. Underwood. OK. Are you aware that increases a child's
risk of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes. I have read the study.
Ms. Underwood. OK. Are you aware that increases a child's
risk of anxiety, depression, and substance abuse?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes. I have read the study.
Ms. Underwood. Great. In fact, the American Psychological
Association reports that, ``family separation is on par with
beating and torture in terms of its relationship to mental
health.''
Are you aware of that?
Mr. McAleenan. I am familiar with this information. Thank
you.
Ms. Underwood. OK. The truth is, sir, that family
separation does irreparable damage to children while doing
nothing for our National security. It is immoral, it is un-
American, and it is just plain wrong.
I am glad to hear you say that it is not happening, sir.
But I went to the border last month, and I was truly shocked by
the conditions that I saw there. Medical--medical care was
inconsistent, at best, and the accommodations were inadequate.
Just last week, we saw new photos of detained children sleeping
outside on the dirt at a Border Patrol station in McAllen,
Texas. And on Monday, we learned that a fifth migrant child
died in custody since family separation began. These stories
are appalling, and yet they keep happening.
Now, Congress just provided half a billion dollars in
February to address the humanitarian crisis at the border and
will soon provide more. Why do these tragedies keep happening?
Mr. McAleenan. So they are happening because the crisis is
exceeding the resources provided. That is why we have asked for
more, and we have asked for more authority to deal with it to
prevent this crisis from happening in the first place and from
the children being put at risk.
We have deployed the funding from fiscal year 2019 that
Congress has authorized. We have increased our temporary
facilities by 500 beds in Donna, by 500 in El Paso. We have got
3 additional soft-sided facilities coming on-line in June. We
have deployed medical practitioners. We now have over 100
certified medical practitioners in our two busiest sectors.
We have asked----
Ms. Underwood. Right, but people keep dying, sir.
Mr. McAleenan [continuing]. For more money to extend that.
Ms. Underwood. People keep dying. So this is obviously more
than a question of resources. Congress has been more than
willing to provide the resources and work with you to address
the security and humanitarian concerns.
* * * * * * *
[Remarks removed.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. McAleenan. That is an appalling accusation. Our men and
women fight hard to protect people in our custody every single
day.
We have asked for these resources 3 weeks ago. It hasn't
been responded to by Congress. We have asked for changes in
authorities for the last 3 years that would have prevented this
from happening.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I ask to be recognized.
Chairman Thompson. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentleman asked to be recognized.
Mr. Rogers. I ask--I make a motion that the lady's words be
taken down.
Chairman Thompson. The motion dies for lack of a second.
Already died.
The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes,
Mr. Katko.
Well, counsel asked me to ask Ms. Underwood to clarify her
statement for the record.
Ms. Underwood. I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman.
I said that this is more than a question of resources.
Congress has been more than willing to provide resources and to
work with you, Mr. Secretary, to address these security and
humanitarian concerns.
I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, you cannot impugn the character
of the witness by stating that he intentionally murders
children. That is completely inappropriate, and her words
should be taken down. She was very explicit.
Chairman Thompson. I asked her to rephrase it. She just
did.
Mr. Rogers. She did not, she restated it.
Ms. Underwood. I restated. I restated. I did not say
murder. I said that 5 children have died as a result of a
policy choice that he----
Mr. Rogers. You said it was intentional. That is murder.
Ms. Underwood. Excuse me, sir. I am still talking.
He has said that he stands by the policy decisions of this
administration. That is what he said at the beginning of his
testimony.
Mr. McAleenan. I did not say that at all.
Ms. Underwood. And he says he stands by the budget request.
This is a policy choice----
Mr. Rogers. He said the policy is they stopped those
detentions. They don't do any of those separations. He has made
that clear repeatedly. You refuse to listen to him. That is not
the point. You said he intentionally supported policies that
caused the death of children. That is wrong. Your words need to
be taken down.
Mr. Chairman----
Ms. Underwood. No. Mr. Ranking Member, this happened this
week. Yesterday another child died under his leadership.
Mr. Rogers. Because we can't get the resources to help
them. That is what he is here trying to get is the money to
stop this.
Chairman Thompson. Well, the Chair will call for a vote. I
will not take the vote to take down the words. We will ask----
[Discussion off the record.]
Chairman Thompson. Well, thank you very much. The Chair
rules that the language is appropriate and that it should not
be taken down.
Mr. Rogers. I would like a recorded vote.
Chairman Thompson. Request for a recorded vote has been
called. We will ask the clerk to call the roll.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Jackson Lee.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Langevin votes no.
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Richmond.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Payne. Mr. Payne.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Miss Rice.
Miss Rice. No.
The Clerk. Miss Rice votes no.
Mr. Correa. Mr. Correa.
Chairman Thompson. Hold on. We need to make sure that
people understand the vote.
The vote is sustaining Ms. Underwood's--let me read the
language.
[Discussion off the record.]
Chairman Thompson. According to the Chair, the committee
stands in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.
In the interest of--for what purpose does the gentleman
seek recognition?
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman from Alabama moves to
appeal the ruling of the Chair. The question now appears, shall
the ruling of the Chair stand and the ruling of the committee?
Those in favor of opposing the Chair's opinion, vote aye.
Those opposed, vote nay.
The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Jackson Lee.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Langevin votes no.
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Richmond.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Payne. Mr. Payne.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Miss Rice.
Miss Rice. No.
The Clerk. Miss Rice votes no.
Mr. Correa. Mr. Correa.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Torres Small. Ms. Torres Small.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Rose.
Mr. Rose. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rose votes no.
Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Underwood votes no.
Ms. Slotkin. Ms. Slotkin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Cleaver. Mr. Cleaver.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Green of Texas. Mr. Green of Texas.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Clarke. Ms. Clarke.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Titus votes no.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Barragan.
Ms. Barragan. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Barragan votes no.
Mrs. Demings. Mrs. Demings.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Rogers votes yes.
Mr. King. Mr. King.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. McCaul. Mr. McCaul.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Katko.
Mr. Katko. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Katko votes yes.
Mr. Ratcliffe.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Ratcliffe votes yes.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins. Mr. Higgins.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko. Mrs. Lesko.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Green of Tennessee.
Mr. Green of Tennessee. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Green of Tennessee votes yes.
Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Taylor votes yes.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Crenshaw votes yes.
Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Guest votes yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Richmond.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Payne.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Correa.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Torres Small.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Slotkin.
Ms. Slotkin. Yes.
The Clerk. Ms. Slotkin votes yes.
Mr. Cleaver.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Green of Texas.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Clarke.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Watson Coleman.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Demings.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. King.
Mr. King. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. King votes yes.
Mr. McCaul.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Joyce.
[No response.]
Chairman Thompson. How am I recorded?
The Clerk. The Chairman is not recorded.
Chairman Thompson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Thompson votes no.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, over here.
Parliamentary inquiry. So rule XXVII, section 4 of the House
rules, a Member cannot vote on something that they have a
direct--that directly impacts them. With great respect to my
colleague from Illinois, I believe this vote is directly about
her, so I think respectfully she should withdraw her vote to be
compliant with rule XXVI, section 4 of the House rules. XXVII,
excuse me.
Chairman Thompson. Not a valid point.
The clerk will announce the vote.
The Clerk. This vote, there are 9 yeas and 7 noes.
Chairman Thompson. The words will be taken down.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Katko.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my
question, I just want to note a personal observation. I was a
Federal prosecutor down in the El Paso border for years. I
interacted with agents on a regular basis. These agents were
shot at, these agents were assaulted. These agents dedicate and
risk their lives every moment of every day to try and keep this
country safe. I don't think anyone is intentionally trying to
commit harm to anyone down there.
I just hope that moving forward, this committee is reminded
of the long and storied history of bipartisanship and trying to
get the job done and trying to keep our country safe, instead
of making personal things that are unfortunate.
So with that, I just want to refocus our attention, Mr.
McAleenan, on a different part of the budget, a part of the
budget I think is critically important, it is often overlooked.
I don't know if overlook is the right word but not as
prioritized as some of the other issues of today, and that is
cybersecurity.
As Ranking Member of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee, I see
every day the vulnerabilities that our country faces in the
cyber realm. Just yesterday or the day before, I visited the
CISA section in general, and the CERT teams, and the National
cybersecurity and technical services area. I was overwhelmingly
impressed by their ability to get the things done they get done
with the little resources that they have.
So if you could, Mr. McAleenan, could you tell us what
priority the cybersecurity is within the budget and whether
those, the resources requested are adequate to getting a job
done? I also--when we finish with that, if you don't touch on
it yourself, I do want to talk about the cyber work force issue
and whether or not we are sufficiently addressing the needs of
the cyber work force.
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to
talk about both of those. I would, if appropriate, also
appreciate the opportunity to outline all the steps we have
taken to provide increased medical care for children in our
custody. But focusing on cyber first.
Mr. Katko. Please do. OK.
Mr. McAleenan. The $1.3 billion request for the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is a
significant request. For the first time it includes $20 million
directed to election security, the Protect 2020 initiative. We
appreciate your visit in support of our men and women in this
area.
I have tremendous confidence in the leadership of CISA with
Chris Krebs, their strategy, both vote for election 2020, but
also securing the dot-gov infrastructure, and for bringing on
additional cybersecurity professionals. The additional
authority, the ability to provide salaries that are more
competitive, not quite what they can make in the private
sector, but commensurate with the mission, plus some additional
funding will allow us to compete for cybersecurity talent. We
have a good strategy to go out and find and bring those people
on board swiftly.
In engaging with private-sector entities that are critical
partners on the financial infrastructure, for instance, I am
hearing a lot of very good things about what CISA is doing,
about our strategy, and I intend to amplify that and support it
as Acting Secretary. It is an area that I am learning a lot
about.
Mr. Katko. I commend the Chairman and my colleagues for
highlighting this issue in a hearing yesterday. We are going to
continue to do that.
Now, if there is something you want to clarify from your
last round of questioning, please do so.
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you. I would just note that as we
started to see more children come into our custody both with
families and children, last July, we began to divert
operational resources to address medical care of children. I
directed that through Border Patrol funding.
In July, I requested a Homeland Security advisory council
subcommittee highlight these issues and advise us on family and
child care in our custody. They have completed an emergency
report on April 19 that I commended this committee with a
number of recommendations for both resources and support and
care requests.
In December, when we had the first and second deaths of a
child in our process, for the first time in over a decade, we
aggressively ramped up our medical care, without the funding. I
went ahead and authorized additional contracting, additional
facilities without the funding even there.
In January, we requested $800 million in humanitarian aid
as part of the budget package. We got a little bit over half of
that. I requested $1.1 billion 3 weeks ago. We have requested
Coast Guard medical teams who have responded and are on-site
with us at the border. We have the Public Health Service
Commission Corps providing medical care at the border. We have
hundreds of medical care professionals that were never in
Border Patrol stations there now because of actions we have
taken to try to protect children in our custody.
I am proud of that record. We are working hard to address
it. But this crisis exists because of our legal framework,
because we are inviting the kids to make----
Mr. Katko. Yes. I don't mean to interrupt. I have a few
more and just a little time. I just want to make sure I get
this point clear. Is it fair to say that if we increase budget
resources for the border area, we can increase even more your
effort to try and keep these children safe and healthy? But it
is overwhelming how many people are coming in. Is it fair to
say more money would definitely help the issue?
Mr. McAleenan. More money would definitely help, but a
change in the authorities would help even more.
Mr. Katko. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Las Vegas, Ms. Titus, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I just would like to follow up with a
question about Puerto Rico because my numbers aren't exactly
the same as the President's. It is my understanding that
roughly $11 million has been spent and $41 billion has been
allocated for recovery in Puerto Rico. That is a lot different
from the $91 billion that has been tweeted by the President. So
I don't know if you can confirm those numbers or dispute them
or can get back to us?
Mr. McAleenan. We can get back to you on the numbers.
Ms. Titus. All right. I hope so, because there is a big
difference in our numbers and the $91 billion.
I also share the concerns of Mr. King about the
antiterrorism component of DHS. You want $5 billion to build a
wall to kind-of keep out sick children, I guess. Yet at the
same time, you are cutting $213 million from the UASI grants.
Las Vegas welcomes over 40 million tourists a year. We had the
worst shooting in modern history there. We need those UASI
grants to complement what we do at the local level to fight
terrorism.
I wonder how you justify that you can keep up with that
component of your mission while cutting the funding.
Mr. McAleenan. So, obviously, the grants in our partnership
with State and locals are critical to the Homeland Security
enterprise writ large. In talking with our team that oversees
the grants at FEMA, my understanding is the $50 billion we have
deployed over that last decade plus has dramatically increased
capacity across the board for State and locals and that we are
looking for shared responsibility. Shared investments with
communities around the country to maintain their capability,
while we still have significant funding dedicated through UASI
grants.
If there are specific areas of concern, I am happy to look
at that, to talk it through with the FEMA team and understand
the levels that we are applying. But this is my understanding
from looking at the budget with them in hearing their
recommendations.
Ms. Titus. Well, I hope you will talk with our sheriff from
Las Vegas because they are concerned that the fusion center
that brings in all the first responders that, not only are you
cutting their funds, but you are now requiring a local match.
That will put a serious burden, I think, on our capabilities in
Las Vegas.
Mr. McAleenan. I understand the concern. I am happy to
continue that conversation.
Ms. Titus. Another question that is kind-of not in keeping
with what has been going on here, but I think it is important
because of the State I represent is a recent directive that
y'all issued from your Department that would block legal
residents from working in the legal cannabis industry. Now, a
number of States have legalized marijuana in one form or
another, it is over half the States, and they are moving in
this direction. You have said that an applicant who is involved
in certain marijuana-related activities may lack good moral
character.
Well, if we use that term, there may be some people
involved in legal political activities that lack good moral
character based on some of our judgment. But I just wonder why
you would come to that conclusion. It is a legal business at
the State level. It is a highly-regulated business, and because
it is so security-concerned, I think there is much more
scrutiny of people who work in this industry than in any other,
besides gaming, that I can think of in Nevada. How did y'all
come to that decision?
Mr. McAleenan. I am actually not familiar with that
decision process, but I can certainly look into it and get back
to you. Obviously, there is a difference of viewpoint in the
enforcement of marijuana laws between the Federal and some of
the emerging State jurisdictions. But it is something that I
will look at.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
I am going to ask you one other question. There is a
tremendous backlog that we hear about with access to
citizenship, visas, work visas, family visas, humanitarian
visas, all kind of relief. I think you had a backlog of 2.3
million cases last year. We have not seen this kind of backlog
since right after 9/11 when the new security measures were put
in place, yet you want to transfer $207 million.
Again, you have an obligation to do something, and you are
cutting your request for funding while telling this committee
you need more resources to deal with the crisis. Clearly,
citizenship and visas are part of that crisis.
Can you tell us how you justify that and what your plans
are for getting rid of this backlog?
Mr. McAleenan. So I am not familiar with the specific cut
you are referencing, Congresswoman, but I can tell you that CIS
does have a backlog but is working very hard on this
processing. They naturalized more people last year than any
year prior as a record level of efforts in the naturalization.
We are working on immigrant visas across the board on H-1B, H-
2A programs. So I know we have a growing backlog in asylum
cases which is driven by this flow at the border, but I think
they are working very hard as a fee-funded agency to keep up
with the rest of the naturalization process, et cetera.
Ms. Titus. It is fee-funded. In fact, $700, which is very
expensive. Many people can't afford that fee who would like to
move into different channels, get different visas, perhaps get
citizenship. So with that kind of fee and this kind of cut, I
am not sure that you are kind of balancing priorities there or
have the resources that will work best.
Mr. McAleenan. I know the fees are assigned based on the
cost for administering each program and each application. I
will take a look at the cut issue that you are referencing.
Ms. Titus. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Ratcliffe.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Acting Secretary, thank you for being here and
testifying on the President's fiscal year 2020 budget request
for DHS.
As you know, President Trump has set an agenda that I
believe does prioritize the safety and security of the American
people, an agenda that includes a robust border security
operation, strong cybersecurity protections, both for our
networks and for our critical infrastructure, and a
comprehensive strategy to prevent potential terrorists from
ever setting foot on American soil. But as you have already
talked about today, unfortunately we are facing a dire
humanitarian and security crisis at our Southern Border.
Border agents in my home State of Texas have provided
statistics that I just saw yesterday indicating that they are
averaging 229 migrant apprehensions per hour, or 5,500 per day,
more than 38,000 per week, and on pace this month to eclipse
more than 150,000 illegal migrant apprehensions.
Obviously, one of the main reasons, as you have talked
about, for this incredible surge in terms of numbers are our
asylum laws, our asylum laws that have put your Department in a
bind because your folks can't deliver legal consequences to
many of the illegal migrants that are apprehended at the border
because they are either minors or they are with family units
that have arrived with minors. Because of the legal precedent
set forth under the Flores settlement, because that precedent
under Flores says that unaccompanied minors and members of a
family unit from noncontiguous countries have to be released in
the United States after 20 days to await immigration
proceedings.
We talked about that problem, and I realize that one
solution to that problem is for Congress to address it.
Congress absolutely can do that, absolutely should do that. I
am here to tell that I don't think Congress will do that. I say
that because some, not all, of my colleagues on the other side
like the problem better than they like the solution. They like
to stand up before the American people and say that this
President and this administration are separating children from
their families because of inhumane reasons, rather than
honestly telling them that they are doing so because, under the
Flores settlement, the law requires that you either separate
the children or release the entire family in total disregard
for immigration laws as Congress passed them. So I am not
waiting on a solution from Congress any time soon.
My question for you, Mr. Secretary, is the other
possibility is for DHS to address it administratively. Last
fall, DHS and HHS proposed new regulations that would
effectively terminate the Flores settlement agreement and
replace it with formal regulations governing the apprehension,
processing, care, custody, and release of minor children. What
is the status of those regulations?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you for asking about that aspect, and
we are aggressively working on finalizing the Flores rule. What
it would do is codify the key elements of that settlement for
over 20 years ago in terms of the care of children in Federal
custody, but it would also allow us to maintain custody of
families together pending their immigration proceedings.
We got over 100,000 comments in that rule that have to be
responded to to issue a final rule. That is going to be coming
up in the coming weeks and months. It is going to be released
and will hopefully allow us to address that part of this issue.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So what you are telling me, Mr. Secretary,
is that notwithstanding Congress not willing to act on this
issue, the Department of Homeland Security is attempting to
address this crisis at the border through these proposed
regulations?
Mr. McAleenan. That is one of the many dynamic actions we
are taking to try to address this crisis, yes.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you.
Another problem that we need to address or part of what
relates to this issue is the low threshold screening standards
for migrants to claim asylum. If a migrant successfully asserts
credible fear, there is a good chance they are likely going to
remain in the United States. So accordingly, what your folks
are seeing, I know, are asylum applicants who are very well-
coached, well-coached by coyotes and by immigration advocates
and others.
My question to you is: Does this budget provide appropriate
funding to ensure that DHS is conducting regular fraud risk
assessments as it relates to affirmative asylum application
process? Generally, can you address what DHS is trying to do to
combat asylum fraud and abuse?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you for those two questions,
Congressman. You have highlighted one of the key drivers of
this crisis. It is the gap between the initial credible fear
standard in the asylum proceeding and the ultimate asylum
standard adjudicated by an immigration judge.
What we are seeing is 85 to 90 percent of people meeting
that initial bar, a possibility of proving an asylum case, and
only 10 to 15 percent of Central Americans meeting the actual
asylum standard at the end of an immigration proceeding. That
allows people to remain in the United States indefinitely,
pending an immigration proceeding, and creates a significant
hold factor that we are grappling with.
You asked how we are addressing that with fraud prevention.
First of all, since I became Acting Secretary, we have deployed
over 100 his agents to the border with forensic interview
skills to talk to families crossing the border, to identify
whether there is a family relationship first and foremost. So
these are targeted based on concerns of fraud to begin with.
Then to look at whether what they are presenting to border
agents is accurate. So that is first and foremost.
Second, we have a fraud detection and National security
unit at CIS that we now have directed them to really engage on
the asylum piece of this and to make sure we are following
through effectively. Ideally, we need to get proceedings
completed. That is the central problem we have right now is we
are not getting results from immigration courts that can be
effectuated because people are not in custody, and that means
that ICE is left to go out into communities to pick people up
when it could be much more efficiently done as they arrive at
the border.
Thank you for asking that question and allowing us to talk
more about the problem.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I appreciate you response, Mr. Secretary.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Barragan.
Ms. Barragan. First, let me start by correcting the record.
The separation of children and families didn't happen because
it was required. That is not why the President did it. This
administration is on record in saying they did this to deter
people from coming. So to knowingly separate children and
families by prosecuting parents that was going to result in a
separation and then mentally harm children, that is despicable.
That is why people believe that what this administration is
doing is intentional. It is a belief based on all the lies that
Members of Congress have been told, all the lies that have been
out in the public and from what has been going out into the
public.
Let me start. Mr. Secretary, is there a written policy on
the Remain in Mexico policy?
Mr. McAleenan. There is a statutory provision. There is----
Ms. Barragan. Is that policy in writing?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes.
Ms. Barragan. Can you provide us that copy?
Mr. McAleenan. I believe we already have provided to
Congress, but----
Ms. Barragan. If you could give it to me, that would be
fantastic.
Chairman Thompson. Mr. Chairman, just provide the copy of
the policy. That is all she is asking you for.
Mr. McAleenan. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Barragan. So, Mr. Secretary, you are familiar with that
policy, correct?
Mr. McAleenan. I am.
Ms. Barragan. Under that policy, there are certain groups
of people that are not eligible to be returned to Mexico. Is
that correct?
Mr. McAleenan. That is correct.
Ms. Barragan. OK. Under that group, unaccompanied minors
one of them?
Mr. McAleenan. Correct.
Ms. Barragan. Cubans?
Mr. McAleenan. Correct.
Ms. Barragan. Mexicans?
Mr. McAleenan. Correct.
Ms. Barragan. Vulnerable people?
Mr. McAleenan. Correct.
Ms. Barragan. Sick, elderly?
Mr. McAleenan. That is discretionary, but those are
categories to be considered.
Ms. Barragan. LGBT?
Mr. McAleenan. Discretionary, but categories to be
considered.
Ms. Barragan. Pregnant women?
Mr. McAleenan. Same.
Ms. Barragan. OK. Let me tell you, Mr. Secretary, I either
was lied to at the border or something has changed. When I was
at the border in April, I specifically spoke to Officer
Blanchard with Border Patrol. He told me he was from the
District of Columbia and he told me he wrote this policy. He
told me that pregnant women were excluded and not to be sent at
the border.
You come in and you talk about how you want to help protect
children and they are going through this dangerous journey and
keeping them safe. Well, guess what? This administration is
putting pregnant women in danger. Do you know how dangerous it
is to be sent to Juarez, Mexico? Do you?
Mr. McAleenan. I am familiar with Juarez, Mexico. And what
the government----
Ms. Barragan. Let me tell you, Mr. Secretary, as a Member
of Congress, this is how dangerous it is. I can't go there
without getting permission. That is how dangerous it is. Then
if you go to the State Department's website, and we have got a
little copy of it here for you, it says, Mexico, violent crime
such as homicide, kidnapping, carjacking. Oh, but then if you
go to the State Department's specific website on Juarez, it
asks you to reconsider your travel.
So it is so dangerous to travel to Juarez that the State
Department is telling people to reconsider travel because of
violent crime and gang activities are wide-spread. U.S.
Government employees, and I quote, ``are required to retain
prior approval to even go into the downtown area.''
But this is where you are sending pregnant women, back into
Mexico while they await their asylum. Do you realize that this
is happening?
Mr. McAleenan. So the migrant protection protocol----
Ms. Barragan. Do you realize that pregnant women are being
sent back to dangerous parts of countries that our own country
tells people not to go to, to reconsider their travel? Do you
realize that is happening?
Mr. McAleenan. So----
Ms. Barragan. That is a yes or no.
Mr. McAleenan. So under the migrant protection protocols,
we are asking people to wait in Mexico for their immigration
hearing.
Ms. Barragan. OK. I am going to reclaim my time. Because
this is what the American people need to know: A, I was lied to
at the border, and this is why there is no credibility with
this administration. That is why there is no credibility.
All right. Let me move on for a moment. The 72-hour rule.
Are you familiar with the 72-hour rule?
Mr. McAleenan. Which one?
Ms. Barragan. Well, the one that basically says that within
72 hours, children need to be--they need to be processed and
turned over.
Mr. McAleenan. You are talking about the Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act rule for unaccompanied
children?
Ms. Barragan. Yes. The 72-hour rule, sir. Do you know how
disturbing it is when the largest law enforcement agency in
this country is not even following the law?
Mr. McAleenan. Well----
Ms. Barragan. It is disturbing. You are not following the
72-hour rule, as we know, because you just had a 16-year-old
child die that was being held for a week. People are being
turned away at the border when they present themselves at the
ports of entry. How do I know? I have been there. You have
agents who are treating people like animals and in person
telling them how terrible they are. How do I know? I have been
there first-hand. We just saw the text messages, and an agent
then hits a migrant. Is this how to be treating people who are
escaping violence? Of course not.
So why do people think this administration is intentionally
harming children? Well, let's just look at the facts. Look at
all the lies. Look at the harm done to children and their
mental health. Look at the children that are dying under your
watch. You just said, Mr. Secretary, you are proud of your
record. That is despicable to say. You should not be proud of a
record of having 5 children die under your watch.
I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. The Chair----
Mr. McAleenan. Mr. Chairman, could I respond to any of that
last segment?
Chairman Thompson. I think the lady made her own statement.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Arizona, Mrs.
Lesko.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I have 5 minutes,
but I will yield you some time to answer, respond to what Ms.
Barragan said.
Mr. McAleenan. The one important part of what that last
segment was that the 72-hour rule, where we try to transfer
children to HHS custody within 3 days of their arrival, that is
a critical protection for children. That is why this
administration has asked for $3 billion additional for HHS to
provide additional bed space so that we can transfer
unaccompanied children in a timely fashion. That is a critical
part of our supplemental request, and we would appreciate if
Congress would consider it.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
Members, you know, I--as you know, I am from a border
State, from Arizona. I have been to the border. I have also
been to a facility where they shelter unaccompanied children. I
know that there is a crisis. Everybody in Arizona, everybody in
the Nation, it seems, knows there is a crisis at the border. It
is not only to our security, but it is a humanitarian crisis.
When I had the previous Secretary here, she said girls as
young as 11 years old were getting pregnancy tests because of
what the cartels do and what happens on this long journey.
Instead of blaming the United States--when I have seen these
Border Patrol Agents help these children, they go out of their
way to help children, help families. They are good people.
Wouldn't you say that it is actually the cartels that are
encouraging these people to travel thousands of miles to
exploit our loose immigration laws and asylum laws and are
charging them, what, $6,000 a child, wouldn't you say we should
place the blame on them instead?
Mr. McAleenan. I absolutely agree, Congresswoman. It is a
$3 billion industry now for the most violent criminal
organizations in our hemisphere. They are exploiting vulnerable
people from Central America to our border, and it is
unacceptable.
Mrs. Lesko. I agree, Mr. Chairman and Members, it is
totally unacceptable. That is why I am so supportive and
appreciate everything the President has done to try to mitigate
this crisis, not only a security crisis to our Nation, but also
a humanitarian crisis for the migrants themselves. I mean, he
has tried every which way to do what he can, and I appreciate
that so much. That is why I will support this extra funding,
because it is very obvious to me that it is needed. It is
needed to help these migrants, to help with the security. We
also need to pass good immigration laws.
So last year I supported, I co-sponsored and voted for,
what I thought was a compromise that we could actually get
something done. That was we not only, you know, had a bill that
would have helped secure the border, it would have changed some
of our asylum laws, but it also would have given DACA
recipients legal status. I just came from Judiciary Committee.
They are trying to push through a bill, the Dreamer Act bill.
But unfortunately, in that bill, it has no age limits, it
allows people that have crimes, it allows people that
fraudulently fill out their application to be here. So to me
that is a big concern.
I want to switch, because I only have 1 minute 24 seconds
left, and that is on a committee hearing we had yesterday, it
is a subcommittee hearing, and there was concern by a number of
Members that DHS employees were being diverted to the border,
on a voluntary basis, to help with the crisis at our border. So
I was told by staff today, just so that we correct what
happened yesterday with some of the words, is that no TSO
officers, no Transportation Security Officers that are on the
front line of our airports are actually being diverted or
deployed to the border right now.
So I guess my question is would this money that you are
asking for actually help so that we don't have to divert people
from other security details to the border?
Mr. McAleenan. It would. It would help us with our
partnership with DOD. It would help us with our law enforcement
surge assets that are going to the border, including TSA
Federal air marshals that are part of our VIPR teams that are
mobile in the first place and that have deployed to the border
to help us. But it will also support volunteers from across the
Department. Just like we respond to a natural disaster or
storm, we have asked for volunteers to come help, help us care
for people in our custody. Let our agents get back to our
border security mission, help them process more efficiently.
One thing I didn't get to explain on the medical side is
that every day, we are taking 65 people to the hospital. That
means we have agents and officers on hospital watch duty 24/7
all across that border. About 10 of those a day are admitted to
the hospital and receive tremendous medical care from border
communities that are stressed by this situation as well.
So any additional support from volunteers will help. Being
able to fund that support, will help us manage the crisis. I
would still like to focus on addressing it and preventing it,
starting in Central America, but, yes, we need help to manage
it, and that is the funding request we have made.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. I just want to add that I do greatly
appreciate the Border Patrol officers, all of our law
enforcement officers in DHS. The ones that I have met are
really working hard to protect our Nation and to help these
migrants. So thank you.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, in your meeting with the Ranking Member and
myself yesterday, you told us that TSOs were being deployed to
the border.
Mr. McAleenan. That is why I added that while they haven't
yet been deployed, we have requested volunteers that could
include TSOs to help deploy and support the mission on the
border.
Chairman Thompson. So they will be?
Mr. McAleenan. That is a potential, Mr. Chairman, yes.
Chairman Thompson. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Rose.
Mr. Rose. Mr. Secretary, thank you to being here today.
Thank you for your service to this country across multiple
administrations. I do believe in your heart you want to put the
country first.
So I want to, first of all, talk about Fentanyl. It is
coming from China, and it is killing kids in virtually all of
our districts. China is the largest producer of illicit
Fentanyl. Recently, there has been a bipartisan bill, bicameral
as well, that--called the Fentanyl Sanctions Act proposed to
hold China's feet to the fire. Part and parcel of this is the
establishment of a Federal commission which will focus on
developing a consensus and a strategic approach to address
illicit Fentanyl.
A very basic question. Would you be a supporter of Homeland
Security participating on the commission and in this whole-of-
Government approach to address Fentanyl?
Mr. McAleenan. So addressing the scourge of Fentanyl is one
of the Department's top priorities on the counter-narcotics
side. So I would certainly like to talk with you about that and
see how we could be a participant in that effort.
Mr. Rose. Do you have any other updates you would like to
give on your perception of the Fentanyl issue right now?
Mr. McAleenan. I have got maybe 3 or 4. I will try to do it
quickly because I know you have limited time. First of all, the
investments in 2019 that will allow us to transform how we do
scanning of trucks and vehicles crossing our Southern Border
will make a huge impact in our ability to detect synthetic
opioids like Fentanyl and all narcotics. Also, deploying this
equipment in mail facilities in express consignment out at the
JFK mail facility, for instance, where most of the Fentanyl
that is in mail packages and hiding in that huge mass of
consumer goods that is coming across from China, we are able to
detect that better with that equipment.
We are also working with U.S. Postal Inspection Service and
HSI to take targeted shipments that we find with 25 grams of
Fentanyl and follow that into where the pill pressers are and
the distributors. We have had a lot of successes in this last
year, more than doubled our Fentanyl seizures at our mail
facility. So it is a tremendous operational priority for us
both in interdiction and investigation. The technology
investments we received in 2019 are going to make a huge
impact.
Mr. Rose. Thank you. So moving on to counterterrorism. I
represent a district in New York City, No. 1 terrorist threat,
the country definitely, potentially the world at large. It has
been raised already here that you and the administration, the
administration with your support, has proposed pretty
significant cuts to whether it is UASI, transportation
security, so on and so forth--$587 million in cuts in total for
Homeland Security grants to places that need them for
counterterror spending, New York City particularly.
You used a term that I found interesting earlier, shared
responsibility. Your belief, correct me if I am wrong, is that
municipalities and States need to start doing more. Is that
correct?
Mr. McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Rose. So are you of the opinion that the NYPD is not
doing enough right now, is not shouldering the burden enough
right now? Because these cuts are significant. I believe these
cuts--it is not a scalpel, this is a hatchet. I have to figure
out what to say to them.
Mr. McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Rose. Being from a bipartisan country-first
perspective, what do I tell them?
Mr. McAleenan. Well, first of all, you can tell
Commissioner O'Neill that he is among our top partners in law
enforcement all over the country, and that NYPD is the most
effective counterterrorism force in the State and local police
level that I am aware of. So please don't suggest that they are
not doing enough.
In terms of grant investments at a municipal level,
especially our major cities that could be targets, that does
have to be a shared Federal, State, and local responsibility.
Mr. Rose. But monetarily, you are saying that they need to
do more, New York City, New York State, other major urban areas
that are the primary threats to counterterror. You are saying
that they are not doing enough right now.
Mr. McAleenan. No. I am saying that to sustain funding at
the prior grant levels--and remember, we are working within a
top-line budget. Nobody wants to make cuts to security programs
ever. You are trying to balance across all of your requirements
as a Department and as an administration when you submit the
budget. So I just want to emphasize that.
Mr. Rose. Is it a correct reading, then, of the budget to
say that you have deemed the border of greater priority than
counterterror right now?
Mr. McAleenan. So I think there are multiple priorities.
The border is a significant priority----
Mr. Rose. You are increasing funding for one.
Mr. McAleenan. Correct.
Mr. Rose. And decreasing funding for the other.
Mr. McAleenan. Correct.
Mr. Rose. The logical conclusion from that is that the
border is a greater threat to this country right now than
terrorism.
Mr. McAleenan. So--not necessarily, but you just noted the
Fentanyl risk, right? That is coming across the Southern
Border. That is the primary----
Mr. Rose. The ports of entry, yes.
Mr. McAleenan [continuing]. That is having impact on our
communities every single day. So it is a balance between all of
those efforts.
I think the idea on the grants is that the accumulated
investments have gotten us to a place of significant security,
especially in major cities. We need to continue to work on it,
continue to partner, and hopefully, we can manage through the
cuts.
Mr. Rose. OK. Thank you for your time, Mr. Secretary,
again. Thank you for your service.
Chairman Thompson. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Tennessee, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green of Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member.
Secretary McAleenan, I have got to start off first by
telling you thank you for your honorable service to this
country. You have been a staunch defender of our freedoms and
the rule of law, defending the Constitution as you swore on
oath to do so almost 18 years ago.
It is my understanding that you left what promised to be a
high-paying civilian-sector job after you felt inspired by the
attacks at 9/11 to help CBP set up the office of antiterrorism.
Your faithful service is very appreciated. I hope we in
Congress can do our job and provide you the funding you need
and as requested by your people on the ground to continue your
now broader mission.
The Democrats got it flat wrong. While the President
sounded the alarm on the crisis at the Southern Border, the
left refused, in fact, shut the Government down, stating, and I
quote the Speaker, ``a manufactured crisis''. Now, even the
liberal New York Times is saying it is a crisis.
Further, the deception of the left seems to know no bounds.
The images of children in cages were actually from the Obama
administration. Yet multiple activists, legislators today have
decried the separation of children when, in fact, this
President stopped it.
I am highly concerned about my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle using politics to block DHS from doing its job and
then securing our Southern Border. From demanding a limit on
detention space for illegal aliens to the new supposedly cool
thing to do, chanting ``abolish ICE, abolish ICE,'' the
Democrat Party has hit a new low on the rule of law.
This country welcomes immigrants who come here legally with
open arms, but a country without borders is not a country. The
notion that we should not be allowed to preserve our borders'
very existence or even remove current barriers, as others have
proposed, is ridiculous.
My colleagues claim to be a party that defends Federal
workers, but where are they now defending our brave ICE agents?
Where are they in helping those who serve us?
Mr. Secretary, one quick question, can you elaborate on the
need for more beds for ICE and what the lack of such funding
will do in disrupting ICE's mission?
Mr. McAleenan. So what we are seeing with the flows at the
border, the one demographic that we can actually finish the
enforcement and immigration law on and determine if someone has
a right to stay in the United States, a valid asylum claim
where it should repatriated is for single adults.
We do this border surge. We are exceeding ICE capacity for
single adult beds, and we have requested more funding for it.
Without that funding, we have an impossible choice. We either
lose control over our border entirely, because we won't be able
to enforce the law, even against single adults, or we are going
to have to release people that were picked up in the interior
with criminal records, which is also unacceptable.
So we need that funding from Congress to maintain our
border security and to support the men and women of ICE. Just
to clarify, 75 percent of ICE's intake comes from the border.
They are focused on supporting the border security mission
first and foremost. But to take away their ability to also pick
up criminals in the interior and to keep threats out of our
communities would be very unfortunate for our security as a
country.
Mr. Green of Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Is there anything else that, based on the testimony that
has been given so far, that you would like to take the
remaining minute of my time and just share with the committee,
your thoughts?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you for that opportunity, Congressman.
You know, I thought I would have on this--you raise this
challenge of single adults, and I just want to also put it in
the context of families. In my first two hearings testifying as
Acting Secretary, being responsible for oversight of ICE, what
I heard from Members is a lot of concern about ICE officers in
communities making arrests. What struck me there is what we are
asking to do with families is actually keep them safely
together in custody to finish a proceeding but not release them
to communities until they have proven a right to stay in the
United States.
So what the Members are asking me is saying you can't keep
them in custody and you can't come into our communities, even
if they have a final order of removal from a judge. Now, that
doesn't make sense. In what area of law would we tell our men
and women who enforce the law that you can't follow through on
a judge's final order of removal? That is our responsibility.
So we either have to fix it on the front end or we have to
recognize that ICE is going to need to be in communities to
maintain the integrity of the system.
Mr. Green of Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McAleenan, thank you very much for your testimony and
your service.
I would like to start out on a cyber-related question. Last
September, then Secretary Nielsen testified before the Senate
that, ``cyber attacks now exceed the risk of physical
attacks.'' Then in March, she testified before our committee
that cybersecurity is one of, if not the highest threats that
we face in the homeland.
Do you agree with that assessment, yes or no?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes.
Mr. Langevin. So are you aware of how many cybersecurity-
related vacancies there are within Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency?
Mr. McAleenan. Not as I sit here today, but I know that
hiring effort is a top priority for CISA.
Mr. Langevin. OK. For the record, Mr. Chairman, there are
361 cybersecurity vacancies at CISA as of April 30. That
concerns me, obviously.
So, Mr. McAleenan, I have an email here from the deputy
director of CISA, Matthew Travis, from Friday, May 17, with the
subject line, Call for DHS Volunteer Force Participation,
requesting the CISA employees to, ``give serious thought to
volunteering at the Southern Border.''
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that the email be
included in the record.
Chairman Thompson. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Email From Matthew Travis, Deputy Director, Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency
May 17, 2019.
Call for DHS Volunteer Force Participation
Fellow CISAzens: As you well know, the Nation has been facing a
protracted security and humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border. The
Department's leadership continues to take necessary steps to secure the
border and provide humanitarian aid to those who are attempting to
enter the country illegally.
Because of the on-going surge of migrants, our colleagues in
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) are in need of support and assistance from across the
Department. I am asking you to consider a short-term deployment to the
Southern Border to help out the DHS team down there. If it is within
your capacity to deploy, please give serious thought to volunteering.
In the past, we have seen similar actions in surging DHS employees to
support FEMA's response and recovery efforts following major
hurricanes, and this endeavor to support our co-workers across the
Department is no different.
Deployments may range from 30 to 45 days, depending on the job type
and location, and there are some steps required before you can deploy.
I encourage you to check out the DHS Volunteer Force for additional
details ranging from the type of assistance needed, registration
information, and FAQs.
It is never easy to ask colleagues to take on extra challenges, but
as DHS employees, serving the needs of the homeland is the cornerstone
of what we do. If you are interested, please discuss this decision with
your family and your supervisor. If you remain interested, please
contact Andre Davis at [.]
Thanks for your consideration of this important mission. Have a
nice weekend and stay hydrated.
Sincerely,
Matthew Travis,
Deputy Director, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Mr. Langevin. So are you aware of this email, and did you
discuss this call for volunteers with anyone at CISA?
Mr. McAleenan. So I am not aware of that email in
particular, but I am aware of the call for volunteers to help
address the border crisis, just as we would do in a natural
disaster. Our expectation, though, is that CISA would make
risk-based decisions on the types of professionals that they
would free up for this kind of mission and balance against
their day jobs and their current focus.
Mr. Langevin. So are you aware of anyone on your staff or
within your Office of Secretary who discussed this with CISA
first?
Mr. McAleenan. I would have to ask. I know the acting
deputy secretary has personally helped me with this volunteer
call to make sure that we are supporting the men and women at
the border as much as we can.
Mr. Langevin. So my question is if cybersecurity is such a
high threat to the homeland, and if CISA already faces such a
staunch shortage of workers, do you think it is appropriate
then for them to leave the jobs protecting our Federal networks
and critical infrastructure, including our elections, to go to
the border?
Mr. McAleenan. I would not expect, nor want, the CISA
leadership to deploy critical cybersecurity professionals in
this role. If they have mission support professionals,
attorneys or others who could be spared to support this effort,
we would welcome that. But that is for their management and
leadership to handle.
Mr. Langevin. I think it is important to have that on the
record, because again, given the importance of the mission, the
size of the threat, the challenges that we face, the large
number of vacancies within CISA, it is not, it seems to me, a
Department that can spare critical talent to go anywhere other
than doing the job they are doing protecting our Federal
networks.
So, Mr. McAleenan, if I could, last week, the President
issued an Executive Order entitled ``Securing the Information
and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain,''
which found that potential supply chain risks constitute an
unusual extraordinary threat to the National security, foreign
policy, and economy of the United States.
The New York Times first reported on a leaked draft of this
Executive Order in June 2018. Can you tell us, why did it take
nearly a year for the President to sign the Executive Order?
Mr. McAleenan. So I am not familiar with the process of
developing that, but I know that this has been something that
has been focused on by Department of Homeland Security experts,
a risk to our supply chain of equipment that could be
vulnerable to counterintelligence exploitation.
Mr. Langevin. Do you believe that the National security of
the United States should be subsumed to concerns over trade
talks?
Mr. McAleenan. I think there is always a balance, but
National security is essential, and I think very clearly the
focus of this administration.
Mr. Langevin. So portions of the Executive Order have
already been put on hold due to unintended consequences of the
bans put in place after issuance. Do you anticipate further
challenges implementing the Executive Order which requires
coordinating efforts across several agencies in the absence of
a White House cybersecurity coordinator?
Mr. McAleenan. So I will look at that to see if there are
any coordination issues. I have not been apprised of any by my
team. I think it is been ruled out effectively, and we will
continue to monitor it.
Mr. Langevin. I still am very concerned about the fact that
the subsequent coordinator's position, the cybersecurity
coordinator was fired and the position was eliminated at a time
when this is one of our biggest challenges and we need a
coordinator to be fulfilling that role to bring our strategy
together. But my time has expired. Thank you for your
testimony.
Mr. McAleenan. If I could very briefly just note, I have
already met with the director of national intelligence, the FBI
director, the attorney general on cyber issues that are going
to be a critical priority for DHS to be aligned and coordinated
across the interagency.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Taylor,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
Mr. Secretary, I just wanted to focus in, if we could for a
second, on the humanitarian crisis on the border. I know that
there has been a lot of discussion about that. You have
mentioned, I think briefly in your testimony, you talk about
the role of smugglers and coyotes in sort-of driving that.
Would you like to--would you mind expanding on what is driving
it in terms of not the migrants themselves but the actors
outside of them that are operating, obviously in Mexico, that
are creating this problem?
Because clearly, something is happening, something is
accelerating the kind of increase, the influx, and that is in
turn creating the kind of crisis, I think, that you see a lot
of concern for.
Mr. McAleenan. What is happening primarily and what we saw
really starting early last year was increased awareness that
there is a vulnerability in our legal system due to the
reinterpretation of the Flores settlement, that if an adult
arrives with a child, they have a likelihood of staying in the
United States. Smugglers have capitalized on that, and they are
directly advertising that fact. You don't have to take it from
me, even though we have done thousands of interviews of
migrants coming across the border with their parents. Why did
you come now? Why did you bring your child? Because the
smugglers told me now is the time to come. If I have a child
with me, they have to release me. That is what we hear
repeatedly.
But you can read that in The Washington Post, The Wall
Street Journal, The New York Times, all who have gone to the
western highlands of Guatemala, The New Yorker who have studied
this issue, who have seen how smugglers are advertising almost
at a retail level in communities.
We have one department in Guatemala that has over 3 percent
of their population has come to the United States in 7 months.
The effort there to recruit and to fund the smuggling network
is just absolutely dramatic. So that is the kind of challenge
we are facing. Social media has made that communication easier
and faster and even more challenging for law enforcement to
deal with.
Mr. Taylor. So, I mean, it seems to me that you are saying
you need two things, you need some statutory fixes and you need
some resources. So you have been asking for the statutory fixes
for about 3 years now?
Mr. McAleenan. Well, ever since we lost the authority to
detain families together, our law enforcement professionals at
DHS have recommended that we get a statutory change, yes.
Mr. Taylor. OK. Then one thing I didn't do, is there
anything you want to respond to that you didn't have a chance
to? I mean, is there a thought on your mind? I know I started
to ask you questions, but----
Mr. McAleenan. Sure. You know, I think this committee and
the American people should be aware of the extent of the effort
that law enforcement professionals who are not trained for this
set of missions are undertaking to try to protect vulnerable
people in this cycle. It is an immense effort every single day.
You know, I was just down in the border in El Paso a few
weeks ago, and we had a supervisor on detail from Washington
State, big hulking guy, looked like an NFL linebacker. There he
was on his knee, making baby formula in a bottle to hand to a
migrant mother with a child. That is not what he signed up for.
He volunteered to come to the Southwest Border, and he is there
trying to keep people safe, to care for them in their custody.
I think the extent of that effort, how hard our agents are
working, how pressed they are, and how much help they need is
incredible. They have been dealing with this months on end
without relief. I think that has to be recognized.
Mr. Taylor. Sure. One statistic that has stuck with me in
my short time here in Congress is, you know, that we admit 1
million people with permanent visas every year, 1 million new
visas ever year, and we admit another 10 million people on
temporary visas every year. I think we are the most generous
Nation on Earth in terms of immigration. No other country lets
that many people in every year. So I think it--it is a point of
pride for me that our country is so welcoming to immigrants.
The extent of the people that--so you arrested--you
arrested 100,000 last month on the border. How many of those
have been released into the United States?
Mr. McAleenan. So due to the restrictions on retaining
families together, about 60 percent of those crossings are now
family units. So almost all of those people have been released
in the United States. If they are not from Mexico, if they
didn't go through a credible fear-finding and get a negative
determination, they are likely to still be in the United States
awaiting a court proceeding.
Mr. Taylor. So when you are doing your numbers, they are
going into the temporary visa--so they are being apprehended
and then being released on a temporary visa in the United
States. Is that right?
Mr. McAleenan. It is not a visa. They are essentially
paroled, released on their own recognizance pending a court
hearing.
Mr. Taylor. OK. So they are not in the 10 million bucket;
they are another bucket altogether of people----
Mr. McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Taylor [continuing]. That are coming into this country
illegally.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Miss
Rice, for 5 minutes.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Acting
Secretary, for being here today.
We saw an unprecedented attack on our democracy from a
foreign adversary in 2016. DHS is responsible for securing our
critical infrastructure, including our elections. Do you agree
with the intelligence community's 2017 assessment that Russia
interfered in our Presidential election to help then-candidate
Donald Trump?
Mr. McAleenan. I accept the conclusions of our experts in
the intelligence community.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
Has President Trump ever discussed the possibility of
blocking entry into the U.S. Southern Border with you?
Mr. McAleenan. So, first of all, I am not going to comment
on conversations I have had or not had with the President of
the United States. I think he is pretty clear on record about
his priority for securing the Southern Border and the
initiatives he has undertaken to do that, very publicly stating
them, Oval Office addresses and so forth.
Miss Rice. Mr. McAleenan, the President said it to the
American people that he is thinking about shutting down the
Southern Border. Did he ever directly speak with you about
that? He spoke directly to the American people. I am sure you
can answer that question.
Mr. McAleenan. He did speak to the American people about
it, and he also updated the American people that he was not
looking at that as an immediate option, that he was trying to--
--
Miss Rice. Did he speak with you about----
Mr. McAleenan [continuing]. Collaborate with Mexico to
address a shared challenge from transnational criminal
organizations----
Miss Rice. Did he speak to you about it?
Mr. McAleenan. I am not going to talk about conversations
with the President.
Miss Rice. Did he ever mention the possibility of a pardon
if you violated the law and were arrested for closing the
Southern Border? Yes or no.
Mr. McAleenan. As I have noted, I am not going to talk
about my conversations with the President. But I have never
been asked to do anything illegal. I am on record in the media
and elsewhere with that answer.
Miss Rice. Well, have any people who work for you addressed
concerns about being asked to do things that they felt were not
legal and the personal ramifications they might suffer as a
result of that? Have any--has that ever bubbled up to your
level?
Mr. McAleenan. We would not ask our law enforcement
professionals to violate the law. That is not acceptable for my
level or for any of our leaders.
Miss Rice. So Mr. Langevin asked you about CISA and your
Department's request for volunteers from different agencies
throughout the Federal Government. CISA actually was not the
only agency at DHS--that DHS or at DHS that you directed to ask
for volunteers.
Do you know the number of employees from TSA that have
volunteered to go to the Southern Border?
Mr. McAleenan. I don't have that in front of me. I know
that TSA has been one of our most responsive agencies in
helping with crises or natural disasters for years.
Miss Rice. There are some TSA employees who have
volunteered?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes, certainly.
Miss Rice. OK. How many of them--or have they been trained
to work with migrant children and families?
Mr. McAleenan. So there will be training for anyone who is
engaging directly with migrants on arrival.
Miss Rice. Has there been for volunteers who are already
there?
Mr. McAleenan. So any volunteer who has been deployed and
is already on the border supporting CBP will have received an
orientation and training upon arrival.
Miss Rice. So the training is going on?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes.
Miss Rice. How many employees from the U.S. Secret Service
have volunteered to go to the Southern Border?
Mr. McAleenan. I don't have that information as I sit here,
but I can get it back to you.
Miss Rice. Have any of them been trained to work with
migrant children and families?
Mr. McAleenan. Again, that process would happen on arrival
with the specific assignment in a sector, depending on the
skills and expertise of the person going. Could be an attorney.
We are not going to necessarily need to train them for migrant
interaction. It could be a commercial driver's license holder
that simply will be driving----
Miss Rice. So former Secretary Nielsen declared that cyber
attacks now exceed the risk of physical attacks, and the
Mueller report made clear the length the Russian Government
will go to meddle in our elections.
So CISA, obviously being the agency responsible for the
cybersecurity of 99 Federal agencies, I am sure you would agree
with me that this is not an ideal use of their time, even if it
is on a voluntary basis.
Mr. McAleenan. So, again, for critical personnel that are
directly involved in protecting the election infrastructure, I
do not expect them to be deployed as volunteers in----
Miss Rice. But you don't control who volunteers. If the
general call is put out for volunteers, anyone can volunteer,
right?
Mr. McAleenan. Respectfully, at the Cabinet level, we don't
do individual selections of whether volunteers can go. That is
my expectation that our----
Miss Rice. But you should be aware of what----
Mr. McAleenan [continuing]. Managers are going to handle
that----
Miss Rice. You should be aware of what----
Mr. McAleenan [continuing]. Appropriate assessment of the
risk----
Miss Rice. You should be aware of what your agency is
asking people to do. Because they have critical functions that
they have to do in their own job description, and you have been
given a lot of money from Congress to increase hiring and get
people on board so you don't--we don't have to deplete critical
agencies at a critical time.
Mr. McAleenan. We will not deplete----
Miss Rice. Do you agree with President Trump's decision----
Mr. McAleenan [continuing]. Critical mission sets.
Miss Rice. Do you agree with President Trump's decision to
cutoff aid to Central America at this critical juncture?
Mr. McAleenan. So I am on record in multiple venues talking
about the fact that to address this crisis effectively we are
going to need to increase security, governance, and address the
push factors in Central America. So what my responsibility is,
and I think what the President is looking for, are accountable
partners in Central America and targeted aid programs that can
make a difference, that have a return on investment.
So working with Department of State, when we see those
opportunities, I will be presenting those through my chain of
command.
Miss Rice. So you mentioned that over the--you are
traveling over the weekend?
Mr. McAleenan. I am going on Monday, yes.
Miss Rice. OK. I think the purpose of your trip is to
discuss border security efforts.
Mr. McAleenan. I am meeting with ministers from Guatemala,
Honduras, and El Salvador in Guatemala City to talk about
collaborations on addressing human trafficking and smuggling,
yes.
Miss Rice. Right. How has that become more challenging with
the President's directive to have--leave $500 million in aid
cut off?
Mr. McAleenan. Well, it is frozen. It is not cut off. It is
frozen. There are existing programs already on-going. There are
capabilities that these governments have, and there are
partnerships on the ground that are on-going.
Again, the Attorney General was just there last week
focusing on the anti-gang partnership that we have with these
governments. So I will be talking about ways that we can
continue that momentum and the support we need, both from our
capacity building, our professionals doing training, and any
programs that are critical in that effort.
Miss Rice. It is not just anti-gang. I mean, obviously, if
there are very difficult situations in these countries, that
is----
Mr. McAleenan. Sure.
Miss Rice [continuing]. The No. 1 reason people why people
are coming here. So----
Mr. McAleenan. This is an economic migration. It is an
opportunity gap in large part.
Miss Rice. OK. So I would just encourage you continue to be
vocal about how important it is that we continue our foreign
aid to these countries so that we can begin to, you know,
address this crisis that we all agree is happening at the
border. I thank you for your service.
I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you, Secretary McAleenan, for appearing here today
in front of us.
Currently, there is a massive crisis at our Southern
Border. Just last month's data of attempted illegal crossings
represented the staggering 591 percent increase from just 2
years ago. Also driving this crisis is the makeup of the
individuals who are crossing the border. Rather than adult
males, who we saw in years past, family units and unaccompanied
children are spiking, and our laws have not yet caught up.
There is a surge of people who seek--and I emphasize to
you, sir, the word ``seek''--to be apprehended at the border,
brought into custody, claim asylum, and be allowed to gain
access to American jobs, health care, and education. This new
group of families and unaccompanied minors arriving from
Central America present significant new challenges and must be
addressed by this committee and the House.
In the past, Democrats and Republicans would work together
to address these issues which are critical to the security of
our country. Sadly, this has not been the case at all since
January when I was sworn in. The complete breakdown of
bipartisan work in the face of the overwhelming scope and
severity of this crisis has almost crippled DHS in carrying out
your work.
I am further concerned to hear you testify today that you
expect the agency to exhaust funding before the end of the
fiscal year if Congress does not act on your latest
supplemental funding request.
Now, let me discuss my first--my first-hand experience on
this issue and how they relate to the question I am about to
ask you regarding an immediate measure to address this crisis
while Congress works to get its act together.
A few weeks ago at the Southern Border, I witnessed
personally the lack of security in areas along the Colorado
River that allows the cartels to smuggle drugs into our
country, to smuggle drugs into south central and southwestern
Pennsylvania where I represent.
During that visit, I also spoke with some CBP agents on the
ground, and I was shocked by what was discussed. Currently, CBP
is consistently being tasked with providing additional
services, such as medical support, transportation services,
leaving them unable to carry out their core missions of
protecting and patrolling our Southern Border. The shortage of
personnel is glaring. One of the suggestions that the members
of law enforcements made to me at this visit was that
additional National Guard troops could be deployed to the
border to help alleviate staffing issues.
Do you believe that the presence of additional National
Guard troops would be beneficial in curbing the crisis on the
Southern Border? Is it time to address the immediate crisis and
send additional National Guard troops to our Southern Border?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Congressman, for, first of all,
your going to the border and meeting with our men and women,
but also for just accurately laying out the scope of the
challenge we face.
You know, 6 times last year, in terms of the crossings, the
change in demographics, the fact that 40 percent of our Border
Patrol agents in top sectors of traffic are now dealing with
care, custody, transportation, hospital watch for migrants.
They are not on the border. They are not securing it against
drugs coming across or against people that are trying to evade
capture. That is a huge risk. It is a huge problem and a
challenge that we are facing.
So how can we address it? Well, first of all, I went to the
border a week-and-a-half ago with the Acting Secretary of
Defense to look at this problem together, to talk about
expanding our partnership in this area. I can tell you that our
National Guard partners have been absolutely essential in
helping us maintain our border security mission over the last
year and a half.
Under Operation Guardian Support, we have got over 2,000
National Guard troops supporting us every day on that border.
Opportunities to expand that footprint, working, for instance,
with Governor Abbott in Texas, who has been a tremendous
supporter of everything we are doing to help secure that
border, is absolutely an option that we are considering, and we
have stark needs in that regard.
So I thank you for raising it and highlighting the key role
our National Guard partners play in supporting our border
security efforts.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Secretary McAleenan. Thank you for
what you do for our country.
I yield my remaining time.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witness for appearing. I thank the Ranking
Member as well for being a part of the hearing.
Mr. Secretary, you have a plan to deal with the area
immediately between the United States and Mexico that we call
the border, and you have said that there is a humanitarian
crisis that we have to address.
My question to you is this: If we do not properly address
the humanitarian crisis--assume that we do all of the things at
the border that you would like to see done in terms of keeping
people out--what will happen to the people who are denied
entry?
Mr. McAleenan. So----
Mr. Green of Texas. What will happen to the people that we
deny entry into the United States?
Mr. McAleenan. I think this is an important question,
Congressman. To make sure we have clarity on what we are
talking about, the border security versus the humanitarian
aspects, the border security----
Mr. Green of Texas. The border security, you have been very
clear about how you would like to see that occur. I want to
know about the people now who are not able to get into the
United States because we have secured the border properly. What
will happen to them?
Mr. McAleenan. Well, on the humanitarian side, even though
we have an effective barrier, we do see people crossing and
waiting----
Mr. Green of Texas. OK. Let's assume for just a moment
now--you are a lawyer. You have a J.D.
Mr. McAleenan. I do.
Mr. Green of Texas. So let's you and I as lawyers
communicate appropriately. Let's now talk about the people--
let's not talk about those who get in. Let's talk about those
who do not.
Mr. McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Green of Texas. What will happen to them?
Mr. McAleenan. So they have an opportunity to present
lawfully at ports of entry. We are doing that in record numbers
right now. We are headed toward almost 80,000 asylum seekers
presenting at ports of entry this year. So that is first and
foremost. We want to create opportunities to seek protections--
--
Mr. Green of Texas. OK. Excuse me. I don't mean to be rude,
crude, and unrefined, but I am interested in the people who do
not get in.
Here is my contention. You say we have a humanitarian
crisis. Let us assume that the crisis is not resolved by virtue
of persons having ingress into the country. Let's assume that
it is not. If it is not resolved, what is going to happen in
Central America? What is going to happen in Mexico? This is our
hemisphere. These are our neighbors. Let's focus for just 1
minute, if you would, on what is going to happen to them.
What will happen when they return home?
Mr. McAleenan. So, first of all, I agree these are our
neighbors. This is our hemisphere, and we need to support and
work with partners in Mexico and Central America to address
the----
Mr. Green of Texas. What do we do? What is going to happen
to them, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Green of Texas. What is going to happen to them? This
is our hemisphere.
Mr. McAleenan. It is.
Mr. Green of Texas. We give Jordan money to deal with
Syrian refugees. We, through USAID, spend hundreds of millions
of dollars in aid to help persons who are refugees, and we want
to make sure those refugees are taken care of.
What will happen in Central America? What is going to
happen? This is our neighbor, our neighborhood, if you will.
Mr. McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Green of Texas. What will happen?
Mr. McAleenan. There has been a lot of progress in the last
5 years.
Mr. Green of Texas. Thank you for the progress. But let's
talk about the lack of progress, and we are sending people back
to harm's way. These are people, but for the grace of God,
could be you, could be me. We were just lucky to be born in the
United States of America, just lucky. So what is going to
happen to the people? What is going to happen when they go back
to harm's way?
You talk about the children coming here and the fact that
they are impregnated and how they are abused along the way. Why
are we going to send them back? It is not as though they are
going to somehow now become immune to all of the atrocities
that they have to suffer and endure as they migrate in this
direction. So what will happen to them?
Mr. McAleenan. What we want to do is give them a safe
opportunity to apply for protections in the United States or--
--
Mr. Green of Texas. Let's assume they don't make it to the
United States. This is our hemisphere.
Mr. McAleenan. Right. We would like to do that in country.
Especially----
Mr. Green of Texas. Yes, this is our hemisphere.
Mr. McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Green of Texas. We have to do more to help people in
our hemisphere. I am not saying that we cease and desist with
our actions around the world. I am not saying that. But I am
saying that we have to have enough heart to understand--and I
believe you have said that this is a humanitarian crisis--that
if it is a humanitarian crisis, a wall doesn't solve the
humanitarian aspect of this crisis. It doesn't. More drones
won't solve it. More Border Patrol agents won't solve it.
People are still suffering in these countries that are in
our neighborhood, our neighbors, Mr. Secretary. The question
becomes, what do we do? This is your watch.
Mr. McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Green of Texas. Now, you may not have the answer today.
You are new on the job. But we will visit again, and we will
revisit the question.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair yields 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi, Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, first, I would like to thank you, thank the
men and women that you serve with, for your professionalism,
for your dedication, and your hard work under extremely
difficult circumstances.
I would like to apologize to you today for the inaction of
the U.S. Congress. The administration, your predecessor, for
the last year, has been warning us of the looming crisis that
exists along our Southwest Border.
You testified earlier today that we had a security crisis,
that we had a humanitarian crisis. It has previously been
testified that we have a drug trafficking crisis, a human
trafficking crisis, and an immigration crisis. I believe you
used the words such as ``dire'' and ``unprecedented'' in
explaining what we are seeing along the border.
In March, I believe there was 103 illegal immigrants which
were apprehended along our border, and then in April, that
number rose to 109.
So instead of Congress helping you deal with the crisis,
what we have seen today in this very hearing is members--a
Member of Congress make allegations that you and the men and
women that you serve with have intentionally allowed children
to die in your custody. I want to apologize to you and the men
and women that you serve with for these untrue remarks.
My question to you, Mr. Secretary, is, do you--as we sit
today, do you currently have the personnel that you need to
deal with this crisis?
Mr. McAleenan. No, we don't.
Mr. Guest. As we sit today, do you currently have the
facilities that are needed to deal with the crisis along our
Southwest Border?
Mr. McAleenan. No.
Mr. Guest. Mr. Secretary, do we currently have the number
of immigration judges and court officials to manage the crisis
along our border?
Mr. McAleenan. No. We have asked for support in all of
those areas, Congressman.
Mr. Guest. Mr. Secretary, let me ask you, have we as a
Congress, have we approved a supplemental funding request to
address the crisis along our border?
Mr. McAleenan. Not yet. We are eager to have that come
forward.
Mr. Guest. Let me ask you another question, Mr. Secretary.
Are our current immigration and asylum laws, are they making
the crisis along our border better or worse?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes. The fundamental driver is the pull
factor. It is our immigration laws and the vulnerabilities for
families, children, and for exploitation of our asylum process.
Mr. Guest. So I would assume that your answer is that our
current asylum laws are making the crisis worse. Is that
correct?
Mr. McAleenan. Correct.
Mr. Guest. So we as Congress, we have not provided you the
resources you need for personnel, we have not provided you the
facilities that we need, we have not provided you the court
officials that you need, and our current--we have not approved
a supplemental funding request that you have asked for, and the
laws that Congress has in place today are currently making the
situation along our Southwest Border worse instead of better.
Is that correct?
Mr. McAleenan. That is all correct.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms.
Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you, Mr. Secretary, for appearing before us today.
We know that the Department of Homeland Security has a very
critical mission, protecting our Nation. It seems, though,
however, that we have not quite figured out the right blend and
mix with respect to our mission and really focusing and honing
in on it.
The Department of Homeland Security is one of the youngest
Federal agencies in our Nation, and that there is this level of
contention about the mission of this agency is really, really
distressing, particularly for a New Yorker who has lived
through two terrorist attacks.
We don't just need to defend ourselves against the all-too-
real threats of cyber attacks, terrorism, and election
interference; we also need to defend our values. I think that
part of the struggle here today is a struggle of values.
Before her departure, our committee held a hearing with
Secretary Nielsen. She denied the very fact that children were
being held in cages, when everyone could see it with their own
eyes. These inhumane policies, which are simply the mandate
given to an agency by an administration, and the family
separation is just one of many that I believe have no place in
our society. It is as though we are suffering with amnesia
about the fact that so many of--so much of who we are is rooted
in immigration, no matter who you are in this country, outside
of Native Americans and, of course, those who were brought
through chattel slavery.
So I just find it really interesting some of the
conversation that we have been having today. When there weren't
immigration laws, a whole heap of people came to the United
States of America seeking freedom and liberty. They may have
come from Europe, they may have come from other parts of the
world, but they came and they were embraced--well, you know,
some of them struggled, but they became Americans.
Under this administration, unfortunately the mandate for
DHS has focused on the attack on immigrants, has been focused
on the attack on refugees. While diverting resources and
personnel away from what I believe are real threats, the wall
we should be building is a firewall to defend our networks
against cyber attacks. While we spend a fortune on so-called
border surge, we are failing to take basic precautions against
another round of Russian interference in our elections, schools
and places of worship are under siege, and foreign and domestic
terrorist groups are on the rise. But instead, Donald Trump is
focused on what many believe--and I certainly do--is a fake
threat of hardworking individuals seeking refugee status here
in the United States of America. That is not Homeland Security.
That is demagoguery.
So let me just ask a couple of questions. As Acting
Secretary, you are now charged with the critical task of
defending our elections from foreign interference. You answer
to Donald Trump, who denies that Russians interfered in the
2016 election. In an interview on Air Force One in 2017, the
President said that Putin said he didn't meddle, and that
Donald Trump said, ``I really believe when he tells me that, he
means it.''
Let me ask, does the Donald Trump statement conflict with
the findings of DHS and all of our intelligence agencies that
Russia did, in fact, interfere in the 2016 election?
Mr. McAleenan. I think the intelligence community's
findings speak for themselves.
But can I respond to some of your points you raised in your
opening?
Ms. Clarke. I just wanted to get through my line of
questioning. I don't have a whole lot of time, but I will yield
to you once I get through those questions.
Because my question is, how are we protecting ourselves?
How does your budget reflect the need to protect ourselves,
particularly from cyber intrusions by nation-states?
Mr. McAleenan. So first of all, our 2020 budget request
has--for the first time, has a specific line item for
protecting elections. That said, we are not waiting for the
2020 budget. We have already launched the Protect 2020
initiative, trying to reach all 8,800 jurisdictions that
oversee elections in this country. Maintaining our election
integrity from a cyber perspective is a fundamental obligation
of this Department. I have had meetings multiple times a week
since I have gotten this Chair focused on that issue, and I
have a great team that is----
Ms. Clarke. Well, that is interesting, because there is a--
--
Mr. McAleenan [continuing]. To accomplish it.
Ms. Clarke. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary. There is a $40
million cut in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security
Agency's budget, and there is a $238 million cut to the Science
and Technology Directorate.
So are you telling me you are going to do more with less?
Is that essentially how that works?
Mr. McAleenan. Not precisely. The cut that you referenced
is because we have completed development of one of the
protective systems of the dot-gov network that we don't need
additional money to start the development. We are now just in
an operations and maintenance phase with that. We do have new
funding for personnel and for protecting the election
infrastructure.
Ms. Clarke. OK. You said you had some comments?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes. I just don't believe we are failing in
our counterterrorism mission or failing in our focus on
cybersecurity. We are a multi-mission department. We have to do
multiple things at the same time--240,000 strong. With leaders
across the Department, there are 8 operating components all
focused on different aspects of these mission sets.
I can tell you there is no attack on immigrants, there is
no attack on refugees. There is a desire to secure our border,
and we are processing more asylum seekers than ever before as a
Nation, leading the world in the processing of asylum seekers.
So I just didn't agree with your characterization.
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your comments. I
am going to have to yield back. But I am glad you can sit there
and say that with a straight face, because there are a whole
bunch of folk in America that just don't see it that way.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas for 5 minutes, Mr. McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Acting Secretary, thank you for your service, with CBP as
well.
I can tell you, when I was Chairman, like the height of the
terror threat and the caliphate in 2015-2016, the Department,
FBI, intelligence community did a phenomenal job stopping that
terror threat, many of which no one will ever know about.
But I actually have a question about the budget, since this
is a budget hearing. It has to deal with sort-of creative ways
to pay for infrastructure and security at the United States
border. Unfortunately, the bill I had with Chairman Goodlatte
failed on the floor. It had $25 billion in advanced
appropriations. Now we are looking at what I consider to be a
crisis.
Can you tell me how much the budget is for both
infrastructure and technology at the border? You may not know
that off-hand. If you don't, that is fine.
Mr. McAleenan. I referenced a number of those investments
in my opening and in my written statement.
Good to see you again. I appreciate your expertise and
long-time support of DHS and our missions for security.
We did request $5 billion for a wall, about $500 million
for additional investments in border security sensors and
technology, surveillance capability, for instance, as well as
our Air and Marine platforms to have better surveillance
capability as well.
Mr. McCaul. One of the ideas that we had--and I think it
was also discussed by, I think, Mr. Kushner, was we were going
to put in that bill something called a border security trust
fund.
Mr. McAleenan. Right.
Mr. McCaul. But instead, we opted for the advanced
appropriation. But the idea is--it is pretty simple and to me
kind-of makes a lot of sense. A border security trust fund, all
the fees that CBP collects at the border, most of those, as I
understand it, go to the general treasury and not back to the
border. Is that correct?
Mr. McAleenan. That is correct.
Mr. McCaul. Do you know how much is collected, say, on an
annual basis with these fees?
Mr. McAleenan. Well, if you combine our trade mission with
our merchandise processing mission with our travel mission, we
are talking well over $50 billion, well over the total funding
requested for the entire Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. McCaul. It seems to me you are collecting this at the
border, it should go, not just for the border security, but we
have a lot of infrastructure issues. You know, when I go to
Laredo, you see the long line of 18-wheelers and processing,
and we can have better technology down there and have better
infrastructure in place.
Currently, how much of that goes back to the border and how
much of it goes to the general treasury?
Mr. McAleenan. A very small percentage goes back to the
border.
If I could just offer that I think the notion of a
sustained fee-based investment in infrastructure, both to catch
up with the deficit that we have for ports of entry, for
instance, for border security technology, would be a tremendous
idea. It was offered last week by the President in rolling out
the immigration reform recommendations to Members of Congress.
But that kind of thing should be nonpartisan, to continue
our investments without waiting on the vagaries of a budget
cycle, to make sure that we can enhance lawful trade and
travel, as well as secure against narcotics, provide increased
protections all along the border is a very good concept and
idea that I would support.
Mr. McCaul. I was going to ask if you did support that
idea.
I think this, Mr. Chairman, is a bipartisan issue. It is
not political. It is just a--using a fee that is captured at
the border to go to protect the border and build
infrastructure.
It is self-sustaining, as you said.
I get really--you know, we all work--you know, we all don't
look forward to the appropriations cycle and the shutdowns of
the Government and the cliffhangers and all of the drama
holding your Department hostage with this kind of funding. This
will happen again, unfortunately, I think in September, if we
don't do something creative like this, to solve that problem in
a responsible way, without scoring political points or having
the shutdown of the Government--which I don't think anyone here
supports that idea. I don't think it is ever productive to shut
down the Government. Then it just turns into, you know, finger-
pointing for political purposes.
So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, I would very much like to
work with you and the Ranking Member on this idea, if you would
be amenable to that.
I, sir, want to thank you for, again, your service and your
support for this idea as well.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri for 5
minutes, Mr. Cleaver.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, congratulations, and I wish you the best. I
don't think anybody on this committee and probably no rational
American would want less. So I wish you the very best.
I am concerned about the--the budget request, the cut, $270
million. The reason I am concerned about it is that I have
become almost obsessed with TSOs and the fact that they are
woefully, and in my estimation, dangerously underpaid, as I
mentioned yesterday here at a hearing. They are the only thing
that stands between most of us who fly airplanes every week and
terror, and we treat them like they are insignificant.
So I would--one of the requests that I have of you is that
you would become the liberator, the agent of change for the TSA
program. We have got to do something about the pay. I hope
that, you know, when your--when the sun sets on your time in
this position, that you can look back, I hope--I really hope,
and say, I was able to do something with the TSO pay.
Is that possible? Can you accept that?
Mr. McAleenan. So, first of all, thank you for your
comments on how important our Transportation Security Officers
are to our Nation's aviation security and infrastructure. They
are valued professionals. I do believe that as a Department,
across the board, we need to do more to take care of the men
and women who protect us every day, with retention incentives,
with support for veterans programs, for suicide prevention, for
child care, really across the board.
I am going to be looking at best practices at DHS from each
agency and seeing what I can do to make them the highest common
denominator. If there are pay issues that are not commensurate
with the challenge our people face, I will be happy to assess
that and come back and work with this committee and others to
see what we can do.
Mr. Cleaver. I think you are going to find that it is awful
and it is ugly and makes us look bad.
The other issue is there are reports that suggest white
nationalism is a rising threat around--around the world,
actually, and also here at home. I hate trying to get into
politics, but I have to on this one because I can't see another
way around it. But the President said that he did not see that
as an issue. When asked the question, said, ``I don't really,''
asking if he thought this was a threat.
Three years ago, my Congressional office in Kansas City was
firebombed twice. The gentleman has been apprehended. He is now
serving 10 years in Leavenworth. My father keeps asking, What
is going to happen when he gets out?
This is a personal issue, and I don't like to bring my
personal business out here. But the point is--and I have to
give--the FBI were amazing in catching the guy.
But if the President doesn't see this as a threat, and I
personally know what happened to me, and I have seen and read
about on the news what has happened around the country, and I
am not sure that--I am absolutely certain that there are not
good people on both sides.
So I would like to know your assessment as the Homeland
Security Secretary.
Mr. McAleenan. So our responsibility, Congressman, is to
address targeted violence, regardless of the motivation or
ideology. I am concerned about white supremacists/extremists
and the growing attacks, especially that we have seen on houses
of worship. That is why I responded right away to the Chairman
and Ranking Member's challenge to ask the Homeland Security
Advisory Council to set up a subcommittee to protect faith-
based organizations and houses of worship, and they are going
to bring a report back that tells us how we can improve our
prevention efforts in this regard.
I absolutely agree it is a problem, and we need to work to
address it, not only at DHS but with our investigative partners
at the FBI and with State and local.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. I thank the gentleman from Missouri.
I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony
and the Members for their questions.
I would like unanimous consent to enter into the record a
statement from the National Treasury Employees Union.
Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Statement of Anthony M. Reardon, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union
May 22, 2019
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Rogers, and distinguished Members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this
statement for the record. As president of the National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU), I have the honor of leading a union that
represents over 27,000 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers,
Agriculture Specialists, and Trade Enforcement Personnel stationed at
328 land, sea, and air ports of entry across the United States and 16
PreClearance stations currently in Ireland, the Caribbean, Canada, and
United Arab Emirates airports. CBP's Office of Field Operations (OFO)
pursues a dual mission of safeguarding American ports, by protecting
the public from dangerous people and materials, while enhancing the
Nation's global and economic competitiveness by enabling legitimate
trade and travel. CBP OFO employees are responsible for border
security, including anti-terrorism, immigration, anti-smuggling, trade
compliance, and agriculture protection at U.S. ports of entry.
In addition to CBP's trade and travel security, processing and
facilitation mission, CBP OFO employees at the ports of entry are the
second-largest source of revenue collection for the U.S. Government. In
2018, CBP processed more than $2.8 trillion in imports and collected
approximately $44 billion in duties, taxes, and other fees. According
to CBP on-board staffing data, there is a shortage of approximately
3,700 CBP Officers at the ports of entry. Yet the administration has
not included sufficient funding in its fiscal year 2020 budget request
to address this vast CBP Officer staffing gap.
OFO is the largest component of CBP responsible for border
security--including anti-terrorism, immigration, anti-smuggling, trade
compliance, and agriculture protection--while simultaneously
facilitating lawful trade and travel at U.S. ports of entry that are
critical to our Nation's economy. Yet, the President's fiscal year 2020
budget requests only $28 million to fund the hiring of 171 new Customs
and Border Protection Officers, 91 Mission and Operational Support
positions, and 5 Agriculture Specialists. These 267 new OFO employees
in the President's fiscal year 2020 budget request are designated to go
to San Luis, AZ, Blaine, Cincinnati, and Boston. CBP's limited OFO
personnel request is to test a ``Proof of Concept'' that if the OFO
allocations as determined by its own Workload Staffing Model (WSM) at
these 4 port of entry are fully met, then these ports should function
without excessive wait times, overtime or other economic consequences
of short staffing.
While I am pleased that the administration included some new
funding for the hiring of critically-needed CBP Officers, Agriculture
Specialists, and support staff, the fiscal year 2020 budget request for
this ``Proof of Concept'' experiment does not by any means meet this
need. In the post shut-down negotiations earlier this year, the House
Majority opened with a proposal to fund 1,000 CBP Officer new hires.
The final fiscal year 2019 agreement provided $58.7 million in funding
to hire 600 new CBP Officers.
According to CBP's most recent analytic workload staffing models--
fiscal year 2018 CBP Officer WSM, the fiscal year 2018 Agriculture
Resource Allocation Model (AgRAM), and the fiscal year 2017 Resource
Optimization Model (ROM) for Trade Positions--an additional 2,516 CBP
Officers, 721 Agriculture Specialists, and at least 150 trade
operations specialists need to be funded and hired in order to meet
current staffing needs at the U.S. ports of entry.
CBP employees at the ports of entry are not only the first line of
defense for illegal trade and travel enforcement, but their role of
facilitating legal trade and travel is a significant economic driver
for private-sector jobs and economic growth. According to CBP, for
every 1,000 CBP Officers hired there is an increase in the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) of $2 billion; $642 million in opportunity costs
are saved (the amount of time that a traveler could be using for
purposes other than waiting in line, such as working or enjoying
leisure activities); and 33,148 annual jobs are added. If CBP filled
the 3,700 needed new positions, the impact could be as high as a $7.4
billion increase in GDP; a $2.38 billion savings in opportunity costs;
and the creation of 122,650 new private-sector jobs.
In addition, according to the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), the
volume of commerce crossing our borders has more than tripled in the
past 25 years. Long wait times lead to delays and travel time
uncertainty, which can increase supply chain and transportation costs.
According to the Department of Commerce, border delays result in losses
to output, wages, jobs, and tax revenue due to decreases in spending by
companies, suppliers, and consumers. JEC research finds border delays
cost the U.S. economy between $90 million and $5.8 billion each year.
For these reasons, NTEU asks committee Members to request from the
House Appropriations Committee up to $120 million in fiscal year 2020
direct appropriations for the hiring of 600 CBP Officers, 100 CBP
Agriculture Specialists, and additional needed non-uniformed Trade
Operations and support staff.
cbp officer overtime
Due to the on-going current staffing shortage of 3,700 CBP
Officers, CBP Officers Nation-wide are working excessive overtime to
maintain basic port staffing. Currently, CBP Officer overtime pay is
funded 100 percent through user fees and is statutorily capped at
$45,000 per year. All CBP Officers are aware that overtime assignments
are an aspect of their jobs.
However, long periods of overtime hours can severely disrupt an
officer's family life, morale, and ultimately their job performance
protecting our Nation.
Because of the on-going staffing shortages, CBP Officers can be
required to regularly work overtime which results in individual
Officers hitting the overtime cap very early in the fiscal year. This
leaves no overtime funding available for peak season travel, resulting
in critical staffing shortages in the third and fourth quarter of the
fiscal year that usually coincide with holiday travel at the ports.
At many ports, CBP has granted overtime exemptions to over one-half
of the workforce to allow managers to assign overtime to Officers that
have already reached the statutory overtime cap, but cap waivers only
force CBP Officers already working long daily shifts to continue
working these shifts for more days. Officers are required to come in
hours before their regular shifts, to stay an indeterminate number of
hours after their shifts (on the same day) and are compelled to come in
for more overtime hours on their regular days off as well. Both
involuntary overtime--resulting in 12- to 16-hour shifts, day after
day, for months on end--and involuntary work assignments far from home,
significantly disrupt CBP Officers' family life and erode morale. As
NTEU has repeatedly stated, this is not a long-term solution for
staffing shortages at the ports and has gone on for far too long.
temporary duty assignments at southwest land ports of entry
Due to CBP's on-going staffing shortage, since 2015, CBP has been
diverting hundreds of CBP Officers from other air, sea, and land ports
to severely short-staffed Southwest land ports for 90-day Temporary
Duty Assignments (TDYs).
CBP recently announced a new round of CBP Officer TDYs to be
voluntarily reassigned to Border Patrol sectors across the Southwest
Border. NTEU has learned that in June and July CBP will be deploying a
total of 731 CBP Officers to designated Border Patrol Sectors to
replace CBP Officers deployed in April and have reached the end of
their 60-day TDY deployment. In this latest deployment, 245 Officers
will be sent from the SW Border Field Offices with the remaining 486
Officers coming from the other Field Offices.
This redeployment is making the existing problems at the ports even
worse and resulting in hours-long delays, since most of the CBP
Officers being redeployed are from the Nation's most short-staffed land
ports on our Southern Border.
If these reassignments continue, they could lead to even more
extensive staffing shortages at other critical land ports of entry on
the Southern and Northern Borders, and at international air and
seaports. Reduced personnel numbers at other ports threatens CBP's
capacity to carry out critical immigration, trade, and health-related
inspections and to interdict illegal drug shipments.
According to a newly-released study, ``The Economic Costs of the
U.S.-Mexico Slowdown,'' this most recent TDY has resulted in a
significant slowdown at the U.S.-Mexico border resulting in substantial
economic harms. Millions of trucks cross the border every year, and
delays at the border cause logistical problems. The current slowing on
the U.S.-Mexico border is reducing efficiency and costing the U.S.
economy billions in output and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
If the diversion of CBP Officers from the Southwest Border
international land ports continues, the State of Texas alone could lose
more than $32 billion in gross domestic product in just over 3 months.
If there is a one-third reduction in trade between the United States
and Mexico over a 3-month period, the cost to the U.S. economy would be
over ``$69 billion in gross product and 620,236 job-years (when
multiplier effects are considered). Almost half of these losses occur
in Texas.''
NTEU urges Congress to require CBP to allocate personnel and
resources appropriately to ensure timely processing of people at ports
of entry and better manage the changing demographic flows at our
Southern Border. To end all of these TDYs, CBP must fill existing CBP
Officer vacancies and fund the hiring of the additional CBP Officers
called for in CBP's own WSM. Without addressing the 3,700 CBP Officer
shortfall, allocating adequate staffing at all ports will remain a
challenge.
opioid interdiction
CBP OFO is the premier component at the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) tasked with stemming the Nation's opioid epidemic--a
crisis that is getting worse. According to a May 2018 report released
by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Minority titled Combatting the Opioid Epidemic: Intercepting lllicit
Opioids at Ports of Entry, ``between 2013 and 2017, approximately
25,405 pounds, or 88 percent of all opioids seized by CBP, were seized
at ports of entry. The amount of fentanyl seized at the ports of entry
increased by 159 percent from 459 pounds in 2016 to 1,189 pounds in
2017.''
On January 26, 2019, CBP OFO made their biggest fentanyl seizure
ever, capturing nearly 254 pounds of the deadly synthetic opioid at the
Nogales port of entry. According to the Drug Enforcement
Administration, just 2 milligrams of fentanyl is considered a lethal
dose. From the January 26 seizure alone, it is estimated that CBP
Officers seized enough fentanyl to kill 57 million people. That's more
than the combined population of the States of Illinois, New York, and
Pennsylvania. The street value for the fentanyl was over $102 million.
CBP Officers also seized an additional 2.2 pounds of fentanyl pills and
a large cache of methamphetamine.
The majority of fentanyl is manufactured in other countries such as
China, and is smuggled primarily through the ports of entry along the
Southwest Border and through international mail and Private Express
Carrier Facilities, e.g. FedEx and UPS. Over the past 5 years, CBP has
seen a nearly 50 percent increase in express consignment shipments from
76 million to 110 million express bills and a 200 percent increase in
international mail shipments from approximately 150 million to more
than 500 million. Yet, according to CBP, over the last 3 years, there
were only 181 CBP employees assigned to the 5 Postal Service
International Service Centers and 208 CBP employees assigned to the
Private Express Carrier Facilities. NTEU's funding request would allow
for increases in CBP OFO staffing at these facilities.
Noting the positive impact of hiring additional CBP Officers, it is
troubling that the President's 2017 Border Security Executive Order and
his subsequent budget requests did not ask for one additional CBP
officer new hire. In 2017, CBP Officers at the ports of entry recorded
over 216,370 apprehensions and seized over 444,000 pounds of illegal
drugs, and over $96 million in illicit currency, while processing over
390 million travelers and $2.2 trillion in imports through the ports.
Imagine what they could do with adequate staffing and resources.
agriculture specialist staffing
CBP employees also perform critically important agriculture
inspections to prevent the entry of animal and plant pests or diseases
at ports of entry. Agricultural Specialists provide a critical role in
both trade and travel safety and prevent the introduction of harmful
exotic plant pests and foreign animal diseases, and potential ag/bio-
terrorism into the United States. All ports of entry are currently
understaffed relative to mission goals and workload requirements of
agricultural specialists. For years, NTEU has championed the CBP
Agriculture Specialists' Agriculture Quality Inspection (AQI) mission
within the agency and fought for increased staffing to fulfill that
mission. The U.S. agriculture sector is a crucial component of the
American economy, generating over $1 trillion in annual economic
activity. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, foreign
pests and diseases cost the American economy tens of billions of
dollars annually.
Because of CBP's key mission to protect the Nation's agriculture
from pests and disease, NTEU urges the committee to authorize the
hiring of these 721 CBP Agriculture Specialists identified as
determined by CBP's AgRAM to address this critical staffing shortage
that threatens the U.S. agriculture sector.
cbp trade operations staffing
CBP has a dual mission of safeguarding our Nation's borders and
ports and regulating and facilitating international trade. CBP
employees at the ports of entry are critical in protecting our Nation's
economic growth and security. For every dollar invested in CBP trade
personnel, we return $87 to the U.S. economy, either through lowering
the costs of trade, ensuring a level playing field for domestic
industry or by protecting innovative intellectual property. Since CBP
was established in March 2003, however, there has been no increase in
non-uniformed CBP trade enforcement and compliance personnel.
Additionally, CBP trade operations staffing has fallen below the
statutory floor set forth in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and
stipulated in the fiscal year 2017 CBP Resource Optimization Model for
Trade Positions. NTEU strongly supports CBP funding 140 new hires at
the CBP Office of Trade through direct appropriations to support TFTEA
implementation.
cbp funding sources
CBP collects Customs User Fees (CUFs), including those under the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), to
recover certain costs incurred for processing air and sea passengers
and various private and commercial land, sea, air, and rail carriers
and shipments. The source of these user fees are commercial vessels,
commercial vehicles, rail cars, private aircraft, private vessels, air
passengers, sea passengers, cruise vessel passengers, dutiable mail,
customs brokers, and barge/bulk carriers.
COBRA fees are deposited into the Customs User Fee Account and are
designated by statute to pay for services provided to the user, such as
100 percent of inspectional overtime for passenger and commercial
vehicle inspection during overtime shift hours. Of the 24,576 CBP
Officers currently funded, Customs User Fees (CUFs) fund 3,825 full-
time equivalent (FTEs) CBP Officers. Further, Immigration Inspection
User Fees (IUF) fund 4,179 CBPO FTEs. CUF and IUF user fees fund 8,004
CBPO FTEs or one-third of the entire CBP workforce at the ports of
entry.
NTEU strongly opposes the diversion of CUFs. Any increases to the
CUF Account should be properly used for much-needed CBP staffing and
not diverted to unrelated projects. Unfortunately, while section 52202
of the FAST ACT indexed CUFs to inflation, it diverted this funding
from CBP to pay for unrelated infrastructure projects. Indexing COBRA
CUFs to inflation would have raised $1.4 billion over 10 years--a
potential $140 million per year funding stream to help pay for the
hiring of additional CBP Officers to perform CBP's border security, law
enforcement, and trade and travel facilitation missions. Diverting
these funds has cost CBP funding to hire over 900 new CBP Officers per
year since the FAST Act went into effect. These new hires would have
significantly alleviated the current CBP Officer staffing shortage.
In order to find alternative sources of funding to address serious
staffing shortages, CBP received authorization for and has entered into
Reimbursable Service Agreements (RSAs) with the private sector, as well
as with State and local governmental entities. These stakeholders, who
are already paying CUFs and IUFs for CBP OFO employee positions and
overtime, reimburse CBP for additional inspection services, including
overtime pay and the hiring of new CBP Officer and Agriculture
Specialist personnel that in the past have been paid for entirely by
user fees or appropriated funding. According to CBP, since the program
began in 2013, CBP has entered into agreements with over 149
stakeholders covering 111 U.S. ports of entry, providing more than
467,000 additional processing hours for incoming commercial and cargo
traffic.
NTEU believes that the RSA program is a Band-Aid approach and
cannot replace the need for Congress to either appropriate new funding
or authorize an increase in customs and immigration user fees to
adequately address CBP staffing needs at the ports.
RSAs simply cannot replace the need for an increase in CBP
appropriated or user fee funding--and make CBP a ``pay to play''
agency. NTEU also remains concerned with CBP's new PreClearance
expansion program that also relies heavily on ``pay to play.'' Further,
NTEU believes that the use of RSAs to fund CBP staffing shortages
raises significant equity issues between larger and/or wealthier ports
and smaller ports.
nteu recommendations
To address CBP's workforce challenges, it is clearly in the
Nation's economic and security interest for Congress to authorize and
fund an increase in the number of CBP Officers, CBP Agriculture
Specialists, and other CBP employees.
In order to achieve the long-term goal of securing the proper
staffing at CBP and end disruptive TDYs and excessive involuntary
overtime shifts, NTEU recommends that Congress take the following
actions:
Support funding for 600 new CBP Officers in fiscal year 2020
DHS Appropriations;
Support funding for 721 new CBP Agriculture Specialists
hires; and
Fully fund and utilize recruitment, relocation, and
retention incentives.
Congress should also redirect the increase in customs user fees in
the FAST Act from offsetting transportation spending to its original
purpose of providing funding for CBP Officer staffing and overtime, and
oppose any legislation to divert additional fees collected to other
uses or projects.
Shutdowns, pay freezes, and proposed cuts to benefits, rights, and
protections do nothing to help with recruitment and retention of CBP
Officers. The employees I represent are frustrated and their morale is
indeed low. These employees work hard and care deeply about their jobs
and their country. These men and women are deserving of more staffing
and resources to perform their jobs better and more efficiently.
NTEU is not alone in seeking increased funding to hire new CBP
Officers at the ports. A diverse group of business, industry, and union
leaders have joined forces in support of legislation and funding to
hire more Customs and Border Protection personnel and alleviate
staffing shortages at the Nation's ports of entry. The coalition--which
includes leading voices from various shipping, tourism, travel, trade,
law enforcement, and employee groups--sent the attached letter urging
House appropriators to provide the funding necessary to hire at least
600 new CBP officers annually (see Exhibit A.)
Thank you for the opportunity to submit NTEU's statement for the
record.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Thompson. Ranking Member.
Mr. Rogers. I mentioned earlier trying to get an amendment
on the President's budget adopted, and it was denied. I would
like to put a copy of that in the record, without objection.
Chairman Thompson. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Russell T. Vought to Honorable Michael R. Pence
May 1, 2019.
The Honorable Michael R. Pence,
President of the Senate, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Mr. President: We are continuing to experience a humanitarian
and security crisis at the southern border of the United States.
Apprehensions are expected to surpass one million by the end of the
year, more than doubling those compared to last year. The number of
large-scale groups of family units and unaccompanied alien children
(UAC), primarily from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, seeking to
enter the country and claim asylum has increased dramatically.
The situation becomes more dire each day. The migration flow and
the resulting humanitarian crisis is rapidly overwhelming the ability
of the Federal Government to respond. Only halfway through this fiscal
year (FY), the U.S. Border Patrol has apprehended more than 360,000
migrants. This is over 187,000 more than during the same period in
fiscal year 2018, and just 35,500 below the number apprehended for all
of fiscal year 2018.
The demographics of migrants arriving at our border has changed
dramatically, from single adult males to family units and UAC. This
year, over 52 percent of apprehensions have been migrant families. The
number of UAC referred to the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) has increased by almost 50 percent over last year. This shift in
demographics has stressed a system mainly designed for single adults.
These increased flows are exacerbated by Mexico's inability and
unwillingness to curb the illegal migration flow through its own
Southern Border. In addition, the speed with which illegal migrants
transited through Mexico to reach the United States continues to
challenge America's best efforts to keep pace with the overwhelming
numbers of migrants arriving at the Southern Border. The historic
influx of families and UAC is challenging the capacity of the Federal
Government to shelter, care for and protect those we encounter, and
presents child welfare concerns beyond the treacherous journey that
these vulnerable migrants undertake to reach our Southern Border.
In February, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encountered
more than 76,000 illegal border crossers and inadmissible aliens, and
in March that number exceeded 100,000--the highest monthly level in
more than a decade. Despite heroic efforts, the United States
Government's ability to humanely and compassionately care for
vulnerable populations and to expeditiously process and detain those
who should not be admitted is stressed to the breaking point. Alarming
numbers of UAC and families are crowded into U.S. Border Patrol
stations that were never intended to be long-term shelters. U.S. Border
Patrol personnel no longer have the ability to identify, process, and
transport all of those apprehended at the border to safe and secure
facilities designed to house them, but have instead been increasingly
pressed into providing critical humanitarian, medical, and
transportation services for this population.
Additionally, immediate emergency action is required to ensure that
the Federal Government can provide the infrastructure and personnel
required to safely, securely, and humanely process and care for this
at-risk migrant population. At the direction of the President, and
under available authorities, numerous Federal agencies are coordinating
and contributing resources and personnel in response to the
overwhelming humanitarian crisis at the United States Southern Border.
As the situation continues to unfold and escalate, the administration
believes additional Federal resources are necessary to sustain critical
and life-safety missions.
At this time, the administration requests an appropriation of $4.5.
billion in emergency funding to respond to the humanitarian and
security crisis at the Southern Border of the United States. This
amount includes $3.3 billion for humanitarian assistance, $1.1 billion
for border operations, and $178 million for mission support.
The humanitarian assistance request includes $2.8 billion for HHS
to ensure that its Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is able to
provide all UAC with critical child welfare services and high-quality
shelter care, in accordance with programmatic and legal requirements.
The funding will enable ORR to increase shelter capacity to
approximately 23,600 total beds in order to accommodate the high number
of UAC anticipated to be referred to ORR through the remainder of the
fiscal year. Given that current referral trends are likely to continue
into next fiscal year, this amount also provides ORR the ability to
maintain a high bed capacity through December.
There is a significant likelihood that the UAC program will exhaust
all of its resources in June. If Congress fails to provide HHS this
additional funding, the expected continuation of current trends may
require HHS to divert significant resources from other programs that
serve vulnerable populations--such as refugees and victims of
trafficking and torture. In addition, UAC services that are not
necessary for protection of human life, such as education and legal
services, as well as recreational activities, would likely need to be
canceled or scaled back. Should reallocated funds be exhausted, it is
highly unlikely that HHS would be able to acquire the additional
shelter capacity it would likely need to continue to accept UAC
referrals from DHS in a timely manner, meaning that children would
likely stay in DHS facilities for longer than 72 hours following a
determination that the child is a UAC. In the worst-case scenario,
thousands of children might remain for lengthy periods of time in
facilities that were never intended to be long-term shelters, rather
than being expeditiously transferred to HHS custody, where they would
receive case management and other services that address their unique
needs.
The request also includes $1.1 billion for the Department of
Homeland Security. It would provide $391 million for humanitarian
assistance, including for temporary, semi-permanent, and permanent
migrant processing facilities at the Southern Border where families and
UAC will receive timely and appropriate medical attention, food, and
temporary shelter before being transferred to other residential
locations; $530 million for border operations, including surged
personnel expenses, as well as increased transportation and detainee
housing and processing capacity; and $178 million for operations and
support costs, including pay and retention incentives for critical
operational personnel, and for information technology (IT) support and
upgrades to improve the performance of and help alleviate stress on
overtaxed IT systems.
The request also includes $377 million for the Department of
Defense, National Guard for Operation Guardian Support and for active
components to provide logistical and administrative, aerial
surveillance and other border-related intelligence support to CBP.
Finally, the amount includes $155 million for Federal Prisoner
Detention at the Department of Justice to accommodate significant
increases in detained populations, including criminal aliens.
The additional resources hereby requested will enable Federal
agencies to address the immediate humanitarian and security crisis at
the Southern Border of the United States. Because the need for this
funding arises from an unprecedented rise in the numbers and
composition of the migrant population, consisting largely of families
and UAC, these resources should be provided as emergency funding.
Further, during his April visit to the our Southern Border, the
President emphasized that he is anxious to work with the Congress to
close loopholes in the United States immigration system and secure
meaningful asylum reform, without which border security will
deteriorate and immigration enforcement costs will soar. Overall,
President Trump is committed to working with the Congress to enact
legislation that will give our Nation a secure, coherent, rational, and
merit-based immigration system.
Thank you for your consideration of these funding needs. I urge the
Congress to take swift action to provide the additional funding
requested to address the humanitarian and border security crisis at the
United States Southern Border; I also urge the Congress to complete its
work to provide supplemental funding for disaster recovery to get those
affected regions and military installations the support they need to
rebuild. I stand ready to work with you to achieve these goals.
Sincerely,
Russell T. Vought,
Acting Director.
Identical Letter Sent to: The Honorable Michael R. Pence, The Honorable
Nancy Pelosi, The Honorable Mitch McConnell, The Honorable Charles E.
Schumer, The Honorable Kevin McCarthy, The Honorable Richard C. Shelby,
The Honorable Nita Lowey, The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, The Honorable
Kay Granger.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. The other thing I would like to indicate
is, on the Flores decision, it was about prolonged detention of
children had proven to be harmful to their health. The judge
looked at that as the overriding factor as to why they shorten
the time for detention. So I think the court looked at it from
that perspective rather than a punitive decision on the
Department, because we are concerned about the care of children
who are in detention.
The Members of the committee may have additional questions
for the witness, and we ask that you respond expeditiously in
writing to those questions.
Without objection, the committee record shall be kept open
for 10 days.
Hearing no further business, the committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Kevin K. McAleenan
Question 1a. Last month, President Trump tweeted that Congress has
given Puerto Rico $91 billion for its recovery from Hurricane Maria. Is
that figure concrete?
Question 1b. If not, what efforts, if any, have you made to correct
the President's understanding?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question From Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee for Kevin K. McAleenan
Question. You testified that DHS has internal task forces in place
to review the deaths of children in CBP custody.
What are the names and titles of the individuals who serve on these
task forces? Please provide a copy of any recommendations made by these
tasks forces and the status of their implementation.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question From Honorable Nanette Diaz Barragan for Kevin K. McAleenan
Question. Please provide the committee with a copy of any written
policies regarding the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP).
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Kathleen M. Rice for Kevin K. McAleenan
Question 1a. To date, how many DHS employees have voluntarily
deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border in support of CBP? Please provide a
breakdown by component.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1b. How many of these employees have been trained to work
with migrant children and families? Please provide a copy of the lesson
plan and any training documents issued to the employees.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Clay Higgins for Kevin K. McAleenan
Question 1a. Secretary McAleenan, you testified that DHS has
uncovered 3,500 cases of adults posing as parents or legal guardians of
children who were in fact, not. We have been briefed in the past that
these discoveries are usually a result of interviews conducted by
trained CBP Agents. Others have been the result of investigations into
fraudulent documents such as birth certificates. It is clear that CBP
has only a limited ability to determine if people are legitimately
parents or legal guardians of the children they are bringing to the
Southwest Border.
Can you speak to the challenges CBP Agents experience when
attempting to determine whether those presenting as families are in
fact families and that the children are not victims of human smuggling
or trafficking? How will the use of DNA testing help CBP protect these
children from harm at the hands of traffickers and smugglers?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1b. Would the deployment of such DNA testing technology at
all Border Patrol facilities act as a deterrent and be a distinguishing
factor in the determination of whether an adult attempting unauthorized
entry into the United States is in fact the parent of a child or
children they are claiming to be?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1c. Are there any additional authorities needed to help
DHS address this issue?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1d. What other tools or resources does DHS need to address
the fraudulent family concern at our Southwest Border?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. Secretary McAleenan, border security interagency task
forces are a crucial part of ensuring that the homeland is secure.
Can you explain to the committee the importance of the Integrated
Border Enforcement Teams, the Border Tunnel Task Forces, and the Best
Enforcement Security Teams in working with State, local, Tribal,
foreign, and other agency partners to secure the homeland? Please
provide any related enforcement statistics available.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
[all]