[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
______________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California, Chairwoman
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
GRACE MENG, New York
PETE AGUILAR, California
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Darek Newby, Michael S. Herman, Robert Joachim,
Kris Mallard, Karyn Richman, and Elizabeth Lapham
Subcommittee Staff
__________
PART 3
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Page
Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Hearing_
Federal Emergency Management Agency.....
1
Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Hearing_
Department of Homeland Security.........
73
Fiscal Year 2020 Hearing_Cybersurity
and Infrastructure Security Agency......
231
U.S. Customs and Border Protection_
Border Parol Appropriations for 2020....
277
Oversight Hearing_U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.....................
323
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
____________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
PART 3
FEMA
DHS
CISA
USCBP
USICE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
____________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California, Chairwoman
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
GRACE MENG, New York
PETE AGUILAR, California
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Darek Newby, Michael S. Herman, Robert Joachim,
Kris Mallard, Karyn Richman, and Elizabeth Lapham
Subcommittee Staff
___________
PART 3
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Page
Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Hearing_
Federal Emergency Management Agency.....
1
Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Hearing_
Department of Homeland Security.........
73
Fiscal Year 2020 Hearing_Cybersurity
and Infrastructure Security Agency......
231
U.S. Customs and Border Protection_
Border Parol Appropriations for 2020....
277
Oversight Hearing_U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.....................
323
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_______
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-921 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California KEN CALVERT, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia TOM COLE, Oklahoma
BARBARA LEE, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota TOM GRAVES, Georgia
TIM RYAN, Ohio STEVE WOMACK, Arakansa
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
DEREK KILMER, Washington MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
GRACE MENG, New York CHRIS STEWART, Utah
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississipi
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
PETE AGUILAR, California JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois WILL HURD, Texas
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
NORMA J. TORRES, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
ED CASE, Hawaii
Shalanda Young, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020
----------
Tuesday, April 30, 2019.
FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET HEARING--FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. PETER GAYNOR, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security
will come to order. I welcome everyone to today's hearing on
the fiscal year 2020 budget proposal for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Administrator Gaynor, welcome back.
I would like to begin by thanking FEMA for its work in
assisting Californians recovering from last year's devastating
wildfires in Butte, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties.
Last month, you testified on FEMA's continuing efforts to
support recovery from recent disasters. Since that hearing,
Chairman Price and I had the opportunity to visit Puerto Rico
and see some of those efforts firsthand. We also met with
officials from both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands as well
as disaster survivors, and I thank your staff for facilitating
and supporting those meetings. They helped to make them very,
very successful.
FEMA and its employees continue to lead our nation in
recovery from the unprecedented disasters of the last few
years. While it is true FEMA has taken positive steps towards
recovery in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, it is
clear there is still much more to be done to support the
islands' recoveries.
Your agency is doing this work while at the same time
implementing and developing guidance on dozens of new
provisions created by the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018.
Every FEMA program and activity is critical. That is why I
was disappointed that the administration proposes an overall
cut of 8.5 percent to FEMA's budget outside of the Disaster
Relief Fund. The proposed cuts are particularly glaring in the
Federal Assistance account, which has a proposed 20 percent
reduction to the current year budget.
With FEMA proposing a new National Priority Preparedness
Grant program, the proposed cuts to existing programs are even
larger. This includes, for example, a 37 percent cut to the
State Homeland Security Grant Program and a 33 percent cut to
the Urban Areas Security Initiative program. The budget also
proposes to eliminate programs that train state and local
homeland security officials, emergency managers, and first
responders, including those at the Center for Homeland Defense
and Security in my home state of California.
Because states and urban areas rely heavily on FEMA grants
to help improve and maintain their preparedness levels, the
proposed cuts leave a gaping hole in your budget that we will
need to find a way to fill.
We will discuss these and other aspects of your budget
proposal this afternoon. As you did in our hearing last month,
I hope you can provide us with an update on recovery efforts
from recent disasters.
Again, I thank you for appearing before the subcommittee
today.
And I now turn to the Ranking Member Mr. Fleischmann for
his opening remarks.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And, again, I
appreciate your working with the majority and the minority in
this subcommittee. It is always a privilege to work with you.
With votes coming, I am going to keep my remarks very brief.
But, Mr. Gaynor, I want to thank you, sir, for coming back
to our Subcommittee today. I thought our last hearing was
extremely productive and I know a lot of my oversight questions
were answered about the challenges FEMA is facing and the
ongoing efforts to help those affected by recent storms. I also
wish to thank not only you but your very attentive and
cooperative staff. It has been a pleasure working with you all.
Last time we met, my state, the great state of Tennessee,
was coming out of some terrible flooding. The affected counties
did receive some funds but we are still cleaning up and many
families are still working on resolving damages to homes and
businesses. I appreciate everything that FEMA is doing to help
our citizens and I respectfully urge you to keep working with
our state as we continue working with our localities to repair
these damages.
Today, we are here to discuss fiscal year 2020. I am sure
you have heard a lot about your proposals from your state and
local partners. We hear from them, too. And I think we are
probably going to have some of the same questions about your
budget request.
I look forward to your testimony today, sir.
And with that, Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Gaynor, we look forward to your
testimony and we will submit the full text of your testimony
for the record.
Mr. Gaynor. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Roybal-Allard,
Ranking Member Fleischmann and members of the subcommittee. My
name is Pete Gaynor and I am the acting administrator of FEMA.
On behalf of Acting Secretary McAleenan and the
Administration, I would like to thank you for the opportunity
to discuss FEMA's fiscal year 2020 budget and now it supports
the execution of the Agency's strategic plan.
Today, FEMA remains steadfast in its commitment to support
the needs of disaster survivors. We continue to work tirelessly
to support state, local, tribal and territorial partners
before, during and after disasters. We have overcome many
challenges, and we have gained invaluable knowledge which we
have incorporated into our strategy going forward.
Today, I would like to discuss FEMA's budget in terms of
the goals and objectives of the Agency's strategic plan. This
plan seeks to unify and further professionalize emergency
management across the Nation, and helps drive both short and
long-term funding decisions.
The plan establishes three strategic goals for FEMA. First,
build a culture of preparedness; second, ready the nation for
catastrophic disasters; and finally, reduce the complexity of
FEMA.
Every segment of society from individual to government,
industry to philanthropy, must be encouraged and empowered to
prepare for the inevitable impacts of future disasters.
Building a culture of preparedness within our communities will
allow the nation to significantly reduce the risk before the
next disaster. The budget requests $2.3 billion in preparedness
and mitigation grants to help achieve that goal.
In 2018, Congress took significant steps to support FEMA's
efforts with the passage of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act,
or ``DRRA''. This transformational legislation will assist the
nation in reducing risks and increasing preparedness in a more
meaningful and tangible way. The budget request funds to begin
implementing the key mitigation-related elements of DRRA.
While we will never be able to eliminate all risk, we must
reduce known risks as much as possible. FEMA continues to work
with the communities and insurers to close the insurance gap
and double insurance coverage across the nation.
Managing risk to insurance, including the National Flood
Insurance Program, or NFIP, helps communities to recover faster
from disasters and reduces overall costs for taxpayers. The
budget includes $5.1 billion to support operating the NFIP.
FEMA's second goal is to ready the nation for catastrophic
disasters. Catastrophic disasters include low and no-notice
incidents which can overwhelm the government at all levels and
threaten national security. They are life-altering incidents
for those impacted, causing a high number of fatalities and
widespread destruction.
Focusing Federal efforts and resources on preparing for
catastrophic events is critical to ensure that the response
recovery missions are successfully executed. The budget
includes $14.1 billion for the disaster relief fund to support
response and recovery operations. The budget request also
includes $1.7 million and 25 positions to support the expansion
of FEMA Integration Teams (FIT). These teams, which are
embedded full time into state emergency management agencies,
are critical to improve customer service and provide targeted
technical assistance to help build capacity and address
capability gaps before the next catastrophic disaster.
Currently, FEMA has FIT teams embedded in 18 states with more
to follow.
Communications and pre-positioned commodities are also
critical to readying the nation. We saw this in Puerto Rico
where FEMA deployed its Mobile Emergency Response Support
resources with mobile satellite, radio, and logistics support
services to provide command and control communications,
situational awareness, and program delivery to overcome
communications challenges. The budget includes $6 million for
six more Mobile Emergency Operations Vehicles.
Further building on lessons learned from 2017, the budget
requests $3 million to expand the distribution center in Hawaii
to increase stocks of pre-positioned life-saving and life-
sustaining commodities maintained outside the continental U.S.
The final goal of the Agency's Strategic Plan is to reduce
the complexity of FEMA. FEMA must be flexible and adaptable to
meet the needs of individuals and communities, and it must
deliver assistance as simply as possible. For example, FEMA is
consolidating and updating all FEMA Individual Assistance
policies and program guidance to streamline information about
the programs.
FEMA is also reducing complexity by modernizing its legacy
IT systems to better support grantees and survivors. The budget
includes $77.6 million for these investments.
The Fiscal Year 2020 President's Budget provides FEMA with
the resources to help people before, during and after disasters
while allowing us to strive for our vision of a prepared and
more resilient nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to any questions you may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Gaynor, since you last appeared
before the subcommittee, there have been several new disaster
declarations including for the catastrophic floods in the
Midwest and severe storms and tornadoes in the south.
Can you provide us with an update on those disasters and
the efforts being made to support the recovery of the affected
communities?
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, ma'am.
I had the honor to visit Iowa a couple of weeks ago with
the Vice President to see firsthand the devastation in both
Nebraska and Iowa. Water is still on the ground today. We
visited a farmer whose family has been living on the property
for over 110 years and it was the worst flooding the family had
seen since the 1950s.
Devastation from flooding is sobering. All the impacted
states, I think there are three or four so far, have applied
for disaster assistance. We are out there today registering
disaster survivors to make sure that we can get the maximum
resources to those impacted.
We continue to do this across the country not only with
flooding, but also in Alabama with tornadoes. We have 52 open
disasters today, delivering disaster response to survivors from
wild fires, floods, tornadoes, and earthquakes, quite a wide
expanse of our support to the survivors in those disasters that
need our help today.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. As I mentioned in my opening statement,
the president's budget calls for cuts of more than 20 percent
to FEMA's preparedness training and grant programs which helps
states and communities prepare for natural disasters, terrorist
attacks and other high consequence events.
It does not appear that the risks of such events have
waned. Has FEMA determined that the risk warrants a reduced
investment in preparedness and if not, can you explain the
basis for the proposed reductions?
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, ma'am.
We have had a historically constrained operations support
budget over the years and, frankly, there are only a few places
to cut. And when we look across all the potential programs or
resources that we provide--grants is one of those--and the way
we look at it is preparedness is a shared responsibility from
the Federal government to the state to the local.
Over the past 10 or 12 years, through DHS and FEMA, we have
funded at least $50 billion in Preparedness grants. We brought
down a significant amount of risk. Some of those grants have
turned over time to entitlement grants and really haven't kept
up with emerging threats.
So, we think it is fair and equitable to ask states and
locals to offload some of that responsibility for preparedness
on to their own budgets so we can deliver and keep up with new
emerging threats and keep up with innovation. So, again, when
it is a constrained budget, it is hard to find or it is hard to
reduce the impact on some of this.
And I know firsthand, I was a local and state emergency
manager. I know how much local and state directors depend on
grants. But, again, we believe that preparedness across the
country is a shared responsibility.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I will be asking another question a
little bit later on that highlights the fact that states and
local governments do contribute their own money towards these
programs.
But if you could provide the subcommittee a list of where
you think these entitlement grants exist and the fact that
there actually is necessarily not a need for them any longer.
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, ma'am. We will do that.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Ms. Roybal-Allard. Actually you
asked a question I was going to ask so thank you so much, I
appreciate that. That is for efficiency purposes.
I will just ask Mr. Gaynor some basic questions.
When you were the director of the Rhode Island Emergency
Management Agency, which Federal grants were most important to
you in maintaining and building capabilities, sir?
Mr. Gaynor. I think for a local emergency management, the
EMPG or the Emergency Management Performance Grant. We give
those out to the 50 states and territories each year.
Mr. Fleischmann. And what values in that capacity did you
find in the EMPG program, sir?
Mr. Gaynor. Basically, it supports operations. If you had
some difficulty sourcing or funding personnel through your
local or state appropriated budget, EMPG helps you with that.
It also helps you with preparedness initiatives. If there
is something that you didn't have in your budget from the
state, the EMPG gives you a little more bandwidth to deliver
those preparedness initiatives that are important to your local
or state program.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. The new Disaster Recovery Reform
Act provided authorization for pre-disaster mitigation program.
How is FEMA working with state emergency managers to shape this
program and reduce vulnerabilities in the nation?
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, sir.
First, I would like to thank Congress for helping us pass
the DRRA. It is really transformational legislation on how we
look at disasters. We know we are going to pay whatever amount
of money a disaster cost us after the disaster. It really turns
the tables on how we invest in pre-disaster mitigation before a
disaster happens.
Pre-disaster mitigation is not new to FEMA. It is not new
to local or state directors across the country. We have a
program today that has been in effect for many years called
Pre-Disaster Mitigation, roughly about $50 million a year
across the country.
We are in close coordination with our state directors. We
have briefed, most recently, to the National Emergency
Management Association (NEMA) meeting that was held in
Washington D.C. We are in a constant dialogue to make sure that
we understand the needs on the street and we want to make sure
that we incorporate those into our plan moving forward.
It is an ongoing dialogue. Many of us are former directors;
we understand there are certain issues that apply only to
certain states. We want to make sure that we are thoughtful
about building a plan that suits everyone's needs.
Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Gaynor then as a follow-up to that,
what feedback has FEMA gotten from states on those efforts
specifically?
Mr. Gaynor. I am not sure I can answer the specific
feedback.
I know that we are in dialogue with them. I would be happy
to get with the program managers and see what kind of best
practices that states have offered in the new program.
Mr. Fleischmann. Is the Disaster Recovery Reform Act a
comprehensive reform bill or do you see FEMA reaching out to
authorizers to further refine or expand the legislation?
Mr. Gaynor. Right now there are 49 different sections of
the DRRA that we are trying to understand. And I will go back
to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation section, section 1234 where we
can set aside 6 percent of disaster funds for pre-disaster
mitigation. That is the one that we are trying to work on first
and fastest to make sure we can get that out on the street. Our
goal is to have it available for application in October of
2020.
There are other sections of the DRRA that we are working
on, post fire mitigation. We have our plate full in
understanding the current legislation and until we get past all
the sections that we are required to implement by law, I think
we are good for right now.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir.
At your last hearing with this subcommittee, we talked a
little about FEMA integration teams. It was actually
interesting to learn that Tennessee is one of the 16 states
with an existing team in our state office.
Can you share how the FEMA integration team helped and
facilitated response in the recent Tennessee flooding?
Mr. Gaynor. I can't talk about Tennessee exactly but I can
tell in general we have numerous stories from disasters to
exercises to training. We had the integration teams bring a new
perspective, the Federal perspective, to close the gaps in
state or local plans and make exercises more robust. As a
matter of fact, I met with 15 managers last week and we think
it is really a great initiative. We have gotten great feedback.
And our goal is to have a FIT team in every state we support.
And, again, we look for funding to make that happen in this
fiscal year 2020 budget.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
And, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Administrator, the humanitarian crisis due to the
influx of unaccompanied kids and families have created a burn
on state and local jurisdictions including NGOS down there on
the border.
Back, I think, it was in 2014 I helped change the law here
in appropriations to address some of those issues and then I
think on July 13 of 2017, you all came out with an information
bulletin that provided guidance for homeland security grants
programs to be allowable for cause for reimbursements to those
local communities that provide humanitarian care and relief to
those unaccompanied kids and families--food, water, medicine,
medical supplies, et cetera, et cetera.
Earlier this year, DHS Secretary Nielsen reportedly said
that the administration would treat this surge, the new group
of people, like a category 5 hurricane. My question is what is
FEMA's response to address this humanitarian relief for
accompanied children and families just the fact that it has had
an impact on local communities?
I am from the border side, talking from personal knowledge
there and talking to the folks and basically will communities
be eligible for reimbursement via those homeland security grant
programs for expenses that communities whether it is McAllen or
Brownsville or NGOs, I mean, they are carrying the burden of
this. So, I just want to see if I can get your thoughts on what
you all can do taken in consideration that law that would
change back in 2014 when the surge started.
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, sir.
Right now this is not a Stafford Act emergency, so we are
not using any disaster relief dollars to fund our support to
CBP or ICE. So, it is not an emergency in that aspect.
The grant part of it is typically in homeland security
grants a majority of the money goes to backfill pay and
overtime. If it is an eligible expense under the rules of those
grants, they can use it. I would have to know the specifics
about how they use it to make sure it is actually eligible.
And I think the state directors or the State Administrative
Agents (SAAs) will make sure that they use that money
appropriately.
Mr. Cuellar. We should be surprised that in the state of
Texas where we have done the majority on it since 2014 only
$400,000 have been allocated to these local communities which
is literally a drop in the bucket.
It is not working. It is not really working the way we have
set this up. So, I know they are going to call votes and I
certainly want to give my other colleagues an opportunity.
I would like to know if there is somebody here in your
staff that we can follow-up on this because it is not working.
$400,000 since 2014 is literally a drop in the bucket.
Mr. Gaynor. Sure.
Mr. Cuellar. So we would love to sit down with you and give
you a little bit more time to digest this and then give us some
of your thoughts.
Mr. Gaynor. Typically, sir, we give that money to a state
and they run the program. Each state has different
requirements, different initiatives and different priorities.
And why the state has not been reimbursed, I would have to look
into it. We don't reimburse those things directly.
Mr. Cuellar. Right.
Mr. Gaynor. It is really the state who is responsible for
those grant programs.
Mr. Cuellar. Right. It goes to the state then.
Mr. Gaynor. But I would be happy to find out what some of
the roadblocks are down there.
Mr. Cuellar. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Gaynor. You are welcome, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And Acting Administrator Gaynor, thank you for being here
again.
Last time we met, I brought up the pending expiration of
NFIP on May 31. I think you said it has been about 40 plus
extensions and we know every time we come up against the
calendar deadline it makes a lot of communities that live on or
near the water very nervous.
It makes realtors, economic developers but most importantly
homeowners who depend on the insurance to be able to insure
their homes--64,000 NFIP policies, it is probably higher now
since the last time we have talked because I know they continue
to attract new policyholders.
Could you just comment on the importance of NFIP not
allowing the program to lapse but also maybe talk or either
share your thoughts on getting with the private sector and
coming up with maybe an all-hazards type solution so we can
address this. And what is if anything FEMA doing to kind of
work with the private sector to address NFIP.
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, sir. Thank you.
If I can just put it into context though--insurance. FEMA
has different disaster programs that we deliver to survivors.
One of them is Individual Assistance (IA). The cap for
Individual Assistance is about $34,500 for a number of
different programs.
If you look at Harvey in Texas, the average IA payout was
$4,000. Not many people maxed out the $34,000 for whatever
reason. If you look at the same disaster and how much we paid
out for NFIP insurance to those that had insurance, it is
$130,000. Would you rather have a check from FEMA for $4,000 or
a check from NFIP for $130,000? I would imagine that most
people are saying I want that check to make me as whole as
possible and get me back in my home.
Insurance is about protecting property, but it is also
about saving lives, maintaining your livelihood, maintaining
your neighborhoods and maintaining your communities and
businesses. That is how we look at insurance.
It needs to be overhauled. We really haven't had a
significant overhaul since the 1970s. It needs to be more
affordable. It needs to be more transparent. It needs to really
reflect risk.
I don't think the way we have policies right now reflect
the risk where you live. We are trying to adapt to a new way of
looking at insurance to make sure everyone understands how
valuable insurance is as opposed to other things.
Should we have a lapse? It will negatively impact home
closings. It will negatively impact renewals. We don't want
that. We would like a reauthorization, a year-long
reauthorization in an effort to work with Congress to really
relook at NFIP and make sure it is affordable and transparent
for everyone and reflects risk. It doesn't do that today,
therefore, we want to have a shot at reforming NFIP sooner
rather than later.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Acting Administrator Gaynor.
I concur with your thoughts and I think maybe a year or 24
months allow Congress to really look at this and come up with
some common sense reforms that protect the homeowner but also
protect the taxpayer.
With that, I will be sensitive with my time and I yield
back. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will just ask one question to be sensitive to my
colleagues' time as well. I wanted to also ask about Urban
Areas Security Initiative which assists as you know high-
threat, high-density urban areas for terrorism preparedness
which is very important to my home state of New York. There are
proposed cuts to both the Urban Areas Security Initiative, a
decrease of $22.4 million and the State Homeland Security Grant
Program decrease of $17.4 million.
I represent a district in New York City which as you may
know is a highly targeted city for terrorist attacks. In fiscal
year 2018, 10 houses of worship just in my district alone
received these much needed grants. How will FEMA ensure the
safety of Americans in not compromised as a result of this
decrease in funding?
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
In a tough budget for FEMA, it is hard to pick out savings
that have little impact on resources that we deliver or
preparedness or recovery and there are some hard choices to be
made.
Our O&S budget line has been flat for years. It doesn't
give us much flexibility in deciding what we can live with and
what we can't.
One of those is grants. When it comes to grants, we look at
it as a shared responsibility just like I am sure you have
heard before that Emergency Management is like a four-legged
stool where there is the Federal government, state and local,
the individual and private and NGOs. All those legs have to be
working together or have to be intact for the whole system to
work.
We believe that we have brought down a lot of risks, $50
billion over 12 years across the nation. The grants in some
cases have not kept up with threat so we want to make sure that
we are keeping up with emerging threats and redefining risk as
we move along. I am not sure they do that exactly today.
Again, we look at why we cut grants and the answer, from my
point of view, is that we share this responsibility at all
levels from the Federal government to the state and the local.
I hope that answers your question.
Ms. Meng. Yes. So, I mean, what are some of the higher
priorities? It is stated in the 2020 budget justification, what
are the higher priorities?
Mr. Gaynor. One of them is our legacy IT system, 40 years
old. We haven't really kept pace with modernizing that. And
that directly impacts how we deliver disaster resources to
survivors.
We have our Grants Management Modernization program which
is trying to put together 10 and 12 different grant platforms.
Again, it directly impacts how we deliver preparedness and
disaster grants across the country. Some of these things we
haven't paid attention to for the long haul and, frankly, we
are running out of time. We need to address it in a more
significant way.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Administrator Gaynor, for being here with us
this afternoon. I appreciate your time and commitment to FEMA
and protecting our citizens.
I represent one of our great national laboratories, the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory which as you know, DHS
along with DOE utilize for a lot of different things.
For example, I think there is a predictive modeling that
was developed at PNNL to understand flood risk for hurricane
landfalls and just more recently using that model to understand
drying time of affected areas so that that would allow first
responders to prioritize their recovery efforts so, a lot of
different things that have been beneficial to FEMA's efforts.
And my question in the interest of time--thank you, Madam
Chair--is just to hear from you your perspective on how you
plan to continue using and engaging in the labs to ensure that
DHS makes the best use of their unique expertise that is
available.
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, sir. We have used the lab in some really
cutting edge modeling to make sure that we understand risk and
threat. We have used some of that modeling to help us
understand the impact of inland flooding and hurricanes, and we
continue to delve into how we can better understand those risks
and threats through modeling. I think part of it is how we save
money doing that and how we can be smarter in the way we
deliver disaster resources. More importantly, how do we build a
better defense with Pre-Disaster Mitigation.
So, if you understand the threat--and now we have this
great program on the DRRA, how to deal with pre-disaster--that
modeling is very helpful to design a program that makes a more
significant impact than we have had the opportunity to do
before.
Again, really a great program. We support it, and we derive
a lot from it. It is important to us to keep that partnership
going.
Mr. Newhouse. So, it helps on both sides, the preemptive
efforts as well as coming to the rescue after an event.
Mr. Gaynor. Absolutely. Yes, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. I
look forward to working with you.
Mr. Gaynor. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues
allowing me to ask a question. Mr. Newhouse and Palazzo, that
is for you. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Acting Administrator, in regards to surge capacity, it
appears FEMA obviously had some issues responding to multiple
extreme events--Harvey, Irma and Maria--within weeks apart. Can
you tell me proactively what are some of the steps FEMA is
taking to enhance surge capacity in preparation efforts,
obviously, we have hurricane season months away. What are we
doing now to prepare for that?
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, sir.
Hurricane season is 31 days away--not that we are counting.
First of all, when you look back at the 2017-2018 hurricane and
wildfire seasons, FEMA was not designed for that end of the
spectrum. I think you have heard my predecessor say before that
a bigger FEMA is not the answer. We need to be a smarter FEMA
when we deal with disasters and how we source our staff.
We have just completed a disaster workforce review to make
sure we really understand what the skill sets are that we need
to apply to a disaster and if we have enough of those. In some
cases, we reduced the skill set because we have enough, in
other cases like Public Assistance delivery, we need a lot more
and we have a plan to try to close that gap.
Right now when you look at Puerto Rico, we are spending a
significant amount of money in disaster relief down there. We
have committed the entire agency; all of our disaster Public
Assistance experts from across FEMA, from Hawaii to the Virgin
Islands, to help understand and help maximize the delivery of
dollars.
We have learned a lot. We are trying to be smarter. There
are some challenges in trying to find and hire those skill sets
but it is on the top of our charts to again be ready to deliver
disaster assistance whether it is a small disaster or a
catastrophic disaster.
Mr. Aguilar. And whether there is one or whether there are
multiple.
Mr. Gaynor. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. That completes the first round of
questions, Mr. Gaynor. We do have votes and we honestly don't
know how long it is going to take. So, we have an agreement
among our Committee members here that we will submit the rest
of our questions so you are not kept here unnecessary for any
long length of time.
So, we appreciate your being here and we look forward to
your answers to the questions that we will be submitting and
others that we will have for you.
Mr. Gaynor. Thank you very much. Honored to be here today
and look forward to answering those questions. Thank you very
much.
[Questions and answers for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, April 30, 2019.
FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET HEARING--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
WITNESSES
HON. KEVIN MCALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
HON. CHIP FULGHUM, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The committee will now come to order.
Today, we welcome Kevin McAleenan, the acting Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security, along with Chip Fulghum,
the acting Undersecretary for Management.
Thank you both for being here this morning.
Mr. Secretary, the past several weeks have been eventful
for you and the department. You have had your hands full as the
CBP Commissioner, and now you are responsible for ensuring the
smooth functioning of the entire Department of Homeland
Security.
Your service as a career CBP employee brings an important
credibility to your new position. Right now, this credibility
is sorely needed, and it will be severely tested as you
navigate your way through extremely controversial waters.
Most of today's hearing will likely focus on immigration
enforcement and the challenges at the border. Therefore, let me
take a moment to recognize the dedication and the commitment of
the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security who
carry out the other vital missions that help protect the
American public and our country from a wide range of threats.
This includes DHS personnel who assist Americans following
natural disasters, defend against cyber attacks, secure our
airports, and investigate child exploitation and trafficking.
The subcommittee will continue to work with you to ensure they
have the resources that they need to carry out their important
missions.
This weekend's horrific terrorist attacks targeting
religious minorities were a reminder that we must remain
vigilant against the growing threat of domestic radicalization.
I note that you recently announced the establishment of an
Office of Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention. This
office will help states and local communities counter the broad
array of violent extremism in this country, including the
growing threat from white nationalist groups.
With regards to immigration enforcement and the challenges
that we face at the border, my hope is we can work together to
find a balance between protecting our borders and preserving
our American values, which so far have been lacking in this
administration.
As we ensure the integrity of our borders, we must also
treat immigrants with dignity and due process. And as we
enforce immigration law, we must also use the discretion
inherent in the law to prioritize enforcement efforts.
We must also help facilitate the ability to enter the
United States through legal means while understanding the
devastating circumstances that often compel desperate people to
seek safe haven any way they can. Above all, we must not
demonize those who, like so many of our ancestors, came to this
country to seek a better life.
A few weeks ago, I, along with several other members and
staff, travelled to El Paso and San Diego to see CBP and ICE
operations. What we witnessed, to say the least, was extremely
disturbing.
We saw families waiting to be processed who were kept for
hours in the hot sun or in crowded, makeshift shelters. We saw
dozens of single adults standing shoulder to shoulder in Border
Patrol holding cells designed for only 10 to 12 people.
I understand that the surge of migrant families is
unprecedented, but it is not an excuse for the conditions that
we saw. I am aware that you are working to improve those
conditions, but people are suffering and improvements are not
happening fast enough.
Addressing the humanitarian crisis in short term is in part
a resource challenge, but it is also a challenge that requires
a commitment by your department to respect the rights of
immigrants and to treat them humanely.
Unfortunately, that is not what I and other members of
Congress see during our many oversight visits. I hope we can
continue to work together to ensure this challenge is met.
For the long term, we will need to find solutions that
provide migrants with real alternatives to making the dangerous
journey north. In the meantime, while ensuring due process for
migrants, the timeline for adjudicating immigration cases must
be reduced.
Simply making it harder to claim asylum in the United
States is not the answer. Furthermore, the migrant protection
protocols do not achieve the balance that we need and they are
making it harder for migrants to seek asylum in the United
States.
And unfortunately, efforts to ensure the safety and civil
rights of migrants so far appear to be only an afterthought.
To make matters worse, just last night, the president
directed you and the attorney general to adjudicate all asylum
applications within 180 days, except in exceptional
circumstances; to require a fee for asylum applications and a
fee for asylum-seekers to receive work authorization; and to
deny work authorization to asylum-seekers who cross between the
ports of entry.
Mr. Secretary, as the head of the Department of Homeland
Security, you will set the tone and establish the rules that
will guide the department in meeting our shared goals of
protecting our homeland and protecting our American values.
I look forward to working with you and the members of the
subcommittee to fairly, justly, and humanely address the
challenges at our borders, and the other many challenges facing
the department across its many critical missions. The
president's memo is another tragic step in the wrong direction.
Now, before turning to the acting secretary for his summary
of his written statement, the full text of which will be put
into the hearing record, I would like to recognize our
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Fleischmann, for any remarks
he may have.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And for everyone involved, I do want to thank you for the
tremendous courtesies and civil and cordial way that we have
been able to work on these issues. There is a lot of common
ground, and there are some bona fide differences, but I thank
you for all these courtesies.
Thank you, Mr. McAleenan and Mr. Fulghum, for being with us
here today, for meeting with us on the Department of Homeland
Security's fiscal 2020 budget request.
I also want to specifically, Mr. Secretary, thank you for
stepping into this role and leading this department.
There is a lot to consider in the entirety of the
department's budget. I am grateful that the chairwoman has held
individual budget hearings with the individual agencies within
the department as best as our schedule would allow. There is a
lot of great work being done across the department.
We have heard from the Coast Guard and the TSA. FEMA is
later this afternoon, and CISA is tomorrow. We have had very
informative meetings with ICE and CBP. It is clear that the
people at the department are working every day to keep our
country safe.
Every leader from the department I have met with shares the
same message. The people and their agencies are the most
dedicated and committed to the mission of protecting our
country. Please pass along our thanks for the work they are
doing around the clock every day, sir.
However, the situation we are seeing at our southwest
border is really what is front and center these days. It is
affecting the entire nation. It is pulling resources within the
CBP, as we are seeing, with wait times at the various types of
ports within the department.
And I am sure that you are looking at reprogramming
options, and I am sure there aren't many, and across of all
government, from also high priorities, it is straining the
resources and abilities of the NGOs in our country and in
Mexico. It was the pin in the revolving negotiations around the
partial shutdown of our Federal government.
I am hopeful that together--both sides of the aisle and
both sides of the capital--we can come to an agreement and a
solution.
But this is a budget hearing. So focusing on the
department's budget request of almost $52 billion in net
discretionary funding, I think there is many places where we
can agree: resources for border security, technology,
humanitarian aid, increases for cybersecurity and research,
investment in the Coast Guard assets, and FTE investments to
improve trade, travel, investigations, and enforcement.
We all know the $5 billion requested for the physical
border barrier will remain a challenge. We are up to it. Mr.
Secretary, I think you have demonstrated a need for it.
I look forward to your testimony on the department's
proposed investments and initiatives, and I thank you for being
here.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Fleischmann.
And just a quick reminder to members that they will be
called for questioning based on the seniority in which the
hearing started.
And also, please try and keep within the 5 minutes. We have
a lot of questions. And I do appreciate the fact that the
secretary has agreed to stay longer than the 2 hours that we
originally had scheduled.
And now I would like to turn to the chair of the full
Appropriations Committee, Ms. Nita Lowey.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank Chairwoman Roybal-Allard and Ranking
Member Fleischmann for holding this hearing.
The Chairwoman. And I thank you, Mr. Secretary, and our
witnesses, for joining us today.
The Department of Homeland Security's mission to secure our
nation from consistent and pervasive threats is not an easy
one. And I understand that. We know this all too well in New
York.
To keep us safe, different components within DHS must
effectively coordinate and cooperate, all while working closely
with other Federal, State and, perhaps most importantly, local
and tribal agencies.
That is why the chaotic state of the Department of Homeland
Security is so troubling. It seems like the car is driving off
the cliff with no one to take the wheel, although, I guess, Mr.
Secretary, you are now the driver. Congratulations.
It has even been reported that your predecessor, Secretary
Nielsen, was so wary of angering President Trump that she
tiptoed around addressing Russian hacking and interference in
our elections so as not to ignite his no collusion, anti-
Mueller ire.
I must tell you, that issue keeps me awake at night, and I
truly worry about it, and I hope it is a major focus of your
work. I hope that when it comes to one of the biggest threats
our country and democracy faces, you will focus on this with a
laser beam.
Your predecessor also instituted cruel and inhumane
policies of ripping children from their families, which you
helped to implement.
I want to be very, very clear, and I think it is important
that we understand this on both sides of the aisle today:
Ensuring the integrity of our borders and enforcing immigration
is difficult but necessary jobs, and we understand that. This
administration's politicization of border security and
heartless obsession with aggressive immigration enforcement are
un-American and unacceptable.
And you have an opportunity to turn it around and work with
the Congress to humanely and ethically secure our borders. And
we understand that we have to work together in a bipartisan way
to secure our borders.
Turning to fiscal year 2020, the budget request asks for an
outrageous increase in ICE operations and support, including
more than 1,000 additional ICE agents in support positions and
a large increase in detention beds. These increases leave too
much flexibility for ICE to support this administration's
overly aggressive interior enforcement policies.
Democrats simply will not provide these dangerously high
levels of detention for an agency that has remained opaque and
whose enforcement tactics are unbalanced.
ICE should prioritize removal efforts on those with serious
criminal histories, not those who have lived and worked
peacefully in our communities for decades or those who are
fleeing unspeakable violence in hopes of safety and a better
future.
The budget also proposes a large cut to the preparedness
grants programs, including a $214 million decrease for the
Urban Areas Security Initiative, which assists high-threat,
high-density urban areas where the consequences of attacks
would be most catastrophic. That also includes a $193 million
cut to the state Homeland Security Grant Program, which
enhances local law enforcement's ability to prevent and respond
to acts of terrorism and other disasters.
State and local jurisdictions like those in my district
cannot effectively plan for the worst when support from their
Federal partner is inconsistent or insufficient. These programs
need adequate funding to keep our communities safe.
This committee, I want to assure you, is eager to support
the department's essential and complex missions. But we cannot
do that at the expense of state and local preparedness or our
American values.
So, Mr. Secretary, I look forward to a discussion today,
and I thank you for being here. We will have a lively
discussion, I am sure.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And now I would like to turn to the
distinguished ranking member of the full committee, Ms.
Granger.
Ms. Granger. Thank you, Madam Chair--today to present the
fiscal year 2020 budget for the Department of Homeland
Security.
You recently assumed the enormous responsibility as acting
secretary of the department, but you are also assisted by a
dedicated workforce working tirelessly to protect our nation.
And I commend their efforts and your commitment to the
department's mission.
In my home state of Texas, we have a very important
relationship with neighbors to our south. In many border towns
and cities, our history and our economy, our families and our
culture are very intertwined. And I have traveled to the
southern border many times during my lifetime.
Unfortunately, we have a humanitarian and security crisis
on our hands which I have been able to see for myself firsthand
on two very recent trips to the border. The facts are
undeniable and the strain on our system is unsustainable.
There are record-breaking numbers of people, coming mainly
from Central American countries, but also from places around
the world. I was told on the last trip, 51 countries coming--
people coming across our southern border, through Mexico to our
border.
Unauthorized border crossings are now at a 12-year high.
You know that. More than 100,000 people come to the border.
They came, 100,000 people in March alone, as compared to
approximately 400,000 in all of last year.
As more migrants claim asylum, the pressures on the system
will continue to rise. Homeland security agencies have a
staggering workload, and the immigration courts, which are
already facing a backlog of up to 5 years, will become even
more overwhelmed.
Unfortunately, members of this committee can't solve this
problem with funding alone. We need policy solutions, as well,
and we have to work together with our colleagues on the
authorizing committees to make changes to immigration laws. I
hope members can come together in a bipartisan way to address
these very difficult issues.
I know you have decades of experience with Customs and
Border Patrol, and we thank you for being willing to serve the
country in this new role. Your insights were extremely helpful
as we completed the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process,
and we look forward to continuing that partnership as we make
funding decisions for this year. I thank you.
And I thank Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay, Mr. Secretary, on our trip to the
border earlier this month, we witnessed migrants continuing to
be held in inhumane conditions.
Oh, I am sorry. I am so anxious to get to the questions
because we have so many.
Please, continue with your opening statement.
Opening Statement: Acting Secretary McAleenan
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member Fleischmann, full
committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, and Ranking Member Kay
Granger, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you
today. It is a true honor to serve as the acting secretary and
to represent the distinguished men and women 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 men and women of the
Department to ensure they have the resources they need to carry
out critical missions on half of the American people. And
today, I have the privilege of presenting to you the
President's fiscal year 2020 budget request for the Department
of Homeland Security.
The 2020 budget would strengthen the security of our nation
through enhanced border security, immigration enforcement,
cybersecurity, transportation security, counterterrorism, and
resilience to disasters.
With regard to border security, as you are all aware, we
are in the midst of an ongoing security and humanitarian crisis
at our southwest border. The Department, at the request of our
front-line officers and agents, has worked with this committee
to make clear that we need additional resources to respond to
the crisis.
In March alone, CBP apprehended and encountered more than
103,000 migrants crossing without legal status, the most in 1
month for more than a decade.
On April 16, we had almost 5,000 people cross the border
without authorization in a single day, almost 1,000 of them in
just three large groups. Remarkably, these three large groups
in one 24-hour period exceeded the total number of large groups
apprehended in all of fiscal year 2017.
Simply put, the system is full, and we are well beyond our
capacity. This means that new waves of vulnerable populations
are arriving here and exacerbating the already urgent
humanitarian security crisis at the border. We don't have room
to hold them, we don't have the authority to remove them fairly
and expeditiously, and they are not likely to be allowed to
remain in the country at the end of their immigration
proceedings. The status quo is not acceptable.
Through supplemental requests and emergency declarations,
we have worked to do everything that we can to address the
immediate and dire humanitarian crisis. We have deployed
medical teams from the U.S. Coast Guard. We have received help
from the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services.
We have redeployed CBP officers. And we have engaged with non-
profits across the country.
But we do need more authorities, as the ranking member
noted, and more resources to definitively address the crisis.
We need sustained investment in additional emergency support at
the southwest border to overcome the humanitarian and security
crisis that we face.
The President's budget requests $523 million to address the
humanitarian crisis. This money will allow us to provide better
care for those who we come in contact with through
apprehension, care and custody, detention, and, where
appropriate, removal.
Second, to address the border security crisis, it requests
$5 billion in funding for the construction of approximately 200
miles of a new border wall system. This is a proven deterrent
that will enhance our ability to apprehend those entering our
nation illegally.
It also calls for 750 additional Border Patrol agents, 273
Customs and Border Protection officers, and more than 1,660 ICE
front-line and support personnel.
We will also 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. I hear
weekly from our operators on the border that these upgrades are
badly needed in their fight against transnational criminal
organizations, smugglers, and gangs.
I would please ask for your support to our men and women
who are doing heroic work along the border.
Although our 2020 budget will help address this crisis, we
will need additional funding even sooner. Given the scale of
what we are facing, we will exhaust our resources before the
end of this fiscal year, which is why this week the
administration will be sending a supplemental funding request
to the Congress.
As I am sure you are only too aware, DHS is not the only
agency involved in the humanitarian crisis unfolding daily at
our southern border. Our partners at the Department of Health
and Human Services are also on the brink of running out of
resources.
The administration's supplemental request will address
critical humanitarian requirements and help to ensure the
crisis is managed in an operationally effective, humane, and
safe manner.
The administration's supplemental request will not only
provide critical humanitarian assistance, including temporary
and semi-permanent migrant processing facilities at the
southern border where families and children will receive timely
and appropriate medical attention, food, and temporary shelter
prior to being transferred to other residential locations, but
also funding for border operations, to include surge personnel,
expenses, and increased detention capacity, and, finally, for
mission-support activities, including upgrades to our overtaxed
information technology systems to manage and process migrants
accurately, efficiently, and quickly.
The supplemental request is part one. The second request
will be the administration's legislative proposal, which will
be sent to Congress shortly, to address the key drivers of the
humanitarian crisis.
But even as we face a challenging border security and
humanitarian crisis that is a central focus and my central task
as acting secretary, DHS is always a multi-mission department.
And we will not lose momentum across any of our key missions in
the numerous efforts that we are facing, including, critically,
cybersecurity, securing the 2020 elections, preparing for the
upcoming hurricane season, and everything else that we are
asked to do.
The President's budget also requests $1.3 billion to assess
evolving cybersecurity risks, [and to] protect Federal
government information systems and critical infrastructure. The
budget supports the launch of Protect 2020, the new initiative
designed to get all states to a baseline level of election
infrastructure cybersecurity well before the national elections
of 2020, building on the progress we made during the election
season in 2018.
Although DHS does not control or directly oversee state and
local election infrastructure, we can provide much-needed
technical assistance and support to our willing partners.
Our air travel system also needs to continue to evolve and
upgrade in our security posture. Additional transportation
security officers and technology will uphold our security
effectiveness and stay ahead of increasing cost and security
demands at airports nationwide. The $3.3 billion requested for
TSA includes funding for an initial 700 screeners and 350
computed tomography units.
I want to close by reiterating that the strength of DHS is
in its people. I would be remiss if I didn't mention the
tremendous dedication of our front-line officers and agents
confronting this crisis each day. And I appreciate the members
of the committee going down to see our personnel, whether it is
at the border, here, seeing TSA at our airports just as you did
yesterday, and really getting to know the challenges they face
and the way they are tackling those challenges.
Investment in our workforce is going to remain a very high
priority for me. It was at CBP. It will be during my tenure as
acting secretary.
I am very glad the President's budget provides the
necessary funding to accomplish our vital mission alongside
funding retention and morale programs for our personnel. The
resolve and devotion of the men and women of DHS is on display
daily, and the security of our nation depends on appropriate
resources to help them to meet the new and challenging
circumstances.
As the committee knows, I am 2\1/2\ weeks into this role,
so I am joined at the table today by Acting Undersecretary Chip
Fulghum, a tremendous professional whom I have known for almost
a decade, who has a multi-decade career of service both in the
United States Air Force as well as the Department of Homeland
Security.
He is doing this side by side with me in his last week at
the Department of Homeland Security, because he is committed to
providing this committee with the information they need to
understand our appropriations request and to effectively assess
our budget.
And so I just want to thank you, Chip, for sitting next to
me.
I will definitely be relying on his expertise on multiple
areas during our conversation today.
So thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I look forward to the
conversation this morning.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DETENTION: IMPROVING CONDITIONS AND PROCESSING
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Secretary, as I mentioned in my
opening statement, on our trip to the border earlier this
month, we witnessed migrants continuing to be held in inhumane
conditions.
While we did witness CBP personnel trying to manage the
flow and improve conditions where they could, we also saw many
inefficiencies among departmental components that are
continuing to provide delays in processing, transportation, and
in improving of conditions.
What steps can be taken to improve efficiencies and the
department's ability to quickly respond to changing conditions?
And what is the role of the Interagency Border Emergency Cell
that was established in April?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you for the question.
So, I know you visited El Paso, Madam Chairwoman. This is
our sector of the border that has had the most significant
increase of any across the entire border, more than a 400-
percent increase in the arrivals of family units over last
year. That has absolutely stretched our resources and our
processes, both at CBP and across our interagency partners in
the immigration system. And we are taking a number of steps to
address that.
First of all, we appreciate the committees support in
fiscal year 2019, to provide additional funding to address the
humanitarian challenges. That means facilities, transportation,
medical care, and also food and other care and custody support
for those in CBP custody.
We are applying that funding. We are in the process of
delivering the soft-sided temporary processing center that is
going to allow our El Paso sector to put families and children
who are arriving in a more appropriate setting during their
initial processing at the border. That is absolutely critical.
Our second step will be to upgrade that with a more modular
and hard-sided facility.
And then, of course, we would like to establish a permanent
central processing center in El Paso that would provide the
appropriate setting for families and children with a whole
range of services, from medical care to showers, to laundry,
and really allow us to have co-located partnerships with CIS
[U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] and with U.S.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement in one location.
That is the goal, but we are starting with an immediate
effort to provide a better setting in our soft-sided facility.
You asked how we can streamline these processes. I would
like to work on a unified immigration portal that will provide
a connection between the various systems of the agencies that
oversee immigration and make sure that an individual being
processed can be tracked throughout the system efficiently and
in an expedited manner, to both improve our processing and
improve the integrity of the system.
And then I mentioned the critical element of co-location.
And we are working closely, obviously, within the DHS family
across the three immigration bureaus, working with Health and
Human Services. And it has got to be a very streamline process,
so that unaccompanied children spend as little time as possible
at the border in a Border Patrol station or a related facility,
but also working closely with our immigration courts at the
Executive Office of Immigration Review. That we can do through
improved communication, better I.T. systems, and a unified
approach to this challenge.
But we have a lot of work to do, as you have seen, and I am
personally committed to ensuring that the facility conditions
are appropriate for those crossing the border.
INTERAGENCY BORDER EMERGENCY CELL
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And the role of the Interagency
Border Emergency Cell is----
Mr. McAleenan. Sure. The main function of the IBEC was to--
the Interagency Border Emergency Cell was to identify those
interagency requirements to respond immediately to the
humanitarian challenge at the border.
So they have helped to refine those same categories and
needs--facilities, transportation, medical care, how do we get
volunteers down to the border from other DHS components that
have skill sets that we need, for instance, a driver's license,
a commercial driver's license.
When we have conveyances that we needed to move migrants
who are crossing, we don't always have the people to drive
them. So simple things like that. We have attorneys surging to
the border to help process expeditiously and fairly, as you
noted, which is critical.
And so they have developed those requirements, which we
have gone to our interagency partners, including the Department
of Defense, to help us meet in the near-term.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And let me just say that, the
administration has for some time called upon Congress to take
immediate action and we have not received any requests from you
in that regard. So I am happy that you have stated that we will
be receiving a request from you.
And my time is up. And so, I would like to turn it over to
Mr. Fleischmann.
BORDER SECURITY: BARRIER
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. McAleenan, much has been made about building a barrier
across the southwest border of the country, so I have some very
pointed questions. A barrier was not an invention of the
previous Congress or even this current administration. Is that
correct, sir?
Mr. McAleenan. That is correct.
Mr. Fleischmann. How many miles of fence or barrier were
constructed prior to January 2017, sir?
Mr. McAleenan. Approximately 654 miles.
BORDER SECURITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
The fiscal year 2018 Border Security Improvement Plan was
mandated in the fiscal 2018 appropriations bill. We have heard
from you, in your capacity as the commissioner of CBP, that
this plan was the result of the experiences and needs of agents
and officers on the ground at the border. How was the plan
created? And who had input to determine the priorities, sir?
Mr. McAleenan. That is correct, Congressman. Our Border
Security Improvement Plan is derived from the men and women in
the field identifying those technologies and capabilities that
they need to enhance the security of the border in their areas.
As you know from visiting us on the border, each area of
the border has different challenges, in terms of terrain, in
terms of existing technology, in terms of what barriers that we
have. And so our sector chiefs on the Border Patrol side, our
directors of field operations are putting their requirements
forward for what they need in their areas of responsibility.
We go through a rigorous process to access and analyze
those, to validate them and then combine them, before we submit
the report to Congress on the Border Security Improvement Plan.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. So just to be abundantly clear,
the input is coming from the men and women who are actually
doing the work there on the ground and that is what you are
acting upon, sir?
Mr. McAleenan. That is correct.
Mr. Fleischmann. Very good.
Is CBP following the published 2018 Border Security
Improvement Plan in determining where to invest construction
funds?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes.
Mr. Fleischmann. Any deviations?
Mr. McAleenan. I mean, that is our set of priorities that
we are asking for funding against. And so, that is going to be
our guidepost.
BORDER SECURITY: CONSTRUCTION RESTRICTIONS
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Is CBP following the restrictions in the fiscal 2019 bill
placed on various sections of the border when determining where
to invest construction funds?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes, very, very carefully. We will be
engaging in the consultation required; we will be, obviously,
mindful of those areas where we are not going to be able to
build barrier at this time. But of course, we will be following
those restrictions.
Mr. Fleischmann. So you have been following the fiscal 2018
and fiscal 2019 restrictions as laid out by the Congress?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
So, even though the president has transferred other funds,
you are still following the priorities and plans in the
published document and the restrictions of the fiscal 2019
bill?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes, that is our intent.
BORDER SECURITY: HIRING, BORDER PATROL AGENTS
Mr. Fleischmann. Excellent. Thank you.
I am going to move to hiring then, sir. Staffing and
retention initiatives are highlighted across many, if not
almost all, the department's components in the 2020 budget
request, with funds requested to back up increased numbers.
The Customs and Border Protection prior year budgets have
also proposed increasing the amount of agents just like this
year, but the department hasn't been able to provide
justification supporting the request. The committee directed
the department to complete the long overdue staffing report by
September of this year.
Further, the I.G. has recently published reports
highlighting other challenges CBP faces to onboarding a large
number of people in a short period of time, such as training
facility limitations and capacity issues in existing agency
offices.
I have a question, sir. Has the CBP made progress on a
border agent staffing methodology, sir?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes. We have. The personnel requirements
determination, as you noted, will be delivered to Congress by
the end of this fiscal year.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. Does the model you are developing
support the request of 750 additional border agents in 2020,
sir?
Mr. McAleenan. Yes, it will support probably more than
that, but that is the number that we believe we can hire within
a fiscal year.
Mr. Fleischmann. And one final question. How will the
department resolve other issues of training and facility
capacity to meet the influx of new hires?
Mr. McAleenan. It is a close partnership between U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Centers [FLETC]. And we have worked that out in our
officer context, where we are enjoying a very successful set of
hiring--2,000 net CBP officers, over the last 5 years, and we
are going to hire a net of 1,000 or more this fiscal year. So
we work to balance the classes at FLETC. And we will be doing
that for the Border Patrol academy as we seek to add additional
agents as well.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. And as I said in my
opening statement, I want to thank you, Mr. Fulghum, and also
the outstanding men and women who work in Homeland Security
every day to keep our great nation safe. And with that, I will
yield back.
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Lowey.
MIGRANT PROTECTION PROTOCOLS PROGRAM
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I want to welcome again the secretary who is taking on
a really important responsibility. Mr. Secretary, as you know,
the Migrant Protection Protocols Program was put in place to
return arriving migrants to Mexico while their immigration
claims are processed. It is not clear to me how this program
works. And DHS has only recently begun to provide limited
details to Congress. This is despite the fact that the program
has now expanded to other areas, and I understand El Paso is
one of those areas.
Given that the program is called Migrant Protection
Protocols, how does the Department of Homeland Security
coordinate with Mexico to ensure the safety and well-being of
returned migrants? And will the executive office for
immigration review prioritize these cases? Or will migrants be
forced to remain in Mexico for possibly years as they await
adjudication of their cases?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
So, the migrant protection protocols are an important effort to
provide greater access to court hearings, especially at our
ports of entry where we are working diligently to provide
access to asylum seekers lawfully presenting without documents,
but also to achieve an actual court resolution in a reasonable
amount of time.
This is something that I think is the fundamental challenge
we face with the system right now. It is actually getting
results from the immigration proceeding that can be effectuated
in a timely manner.
And what the migrant protection protocols allow us to do is
two things. One, it allows us to take more people in at ports
of entry who are presenting asylum claims because we can
process them without the limitations in our capacity from the
custody requirements or from the non-detained docket for the
Executive Office of Immigration Review.
As you asked, will judges be dedicated to the Migrant
Protection Protocol? Yes. That is our commitment from DOJ
[Department of Justice], that they will be able to dedicate
judges and dockets to the MPP to actually get through hearings
in months instead of years before even an initial hearing, as
we currently face today. The other thing it will do is it will
take away the incentive, which exists right now, to cross
illegally instead of presenting lawfully at a port of entry.
We have increased our asylum processing at ports of entry
120 percent from fiscal year 2017 to 2018, and we are up
another 100 percent in fiscal year 2019 over 2017. We are on
pace for more than 70,000 asylum applications at ports of entry
in this fiscal year. To keep up with that, we need to ensure
that we provide access to a process.
In terms of working with Mexico, we obviously had
conversations before implementing this program to receive
people back. Mexico is a sovereign nation. That is their
decision. They made the decision to accept them and put public
guarantees over protection from a humanitarian perspective, as
well as access to legal counsel and access to return to the
ports of entry to be brought to their court hearings.
The Chairwoman. So, just to clarify because I appreciate
your answer, you are saying that even though they are being
sent to Mexico, they will have, and are having, access to legal
counsel?
Mr. McAleenan. So, each migrant and each asylum applicant
is given a list of legal providers that are available. In many
of these areas, and the main implementation, as you noted, is
both in Baja, California, or Tijuana primarily, as well as
Juarez, Chihuahua. We have U.S. attorneys and nongovernment
organizations that have bi-national presence and collaboration.
And so we make sure they know who they can call if they
don't already have an attorney identified, and they have that
opportunity also to meet with their counsel when they come into
the United States before their hearing, as well.
DETENTION: SEPARATIONS, FAMILY
The Chairwoman. I would appreciate additional information
as to how that process is working and whether you think it is
effective, and whether most or all of the migrants do have
legal counsel. I would appreciate that.
The zero-tolerance policy instituted by the Trump
administration led to the separation of thousands of families.
And while this inhumane policy technically ended last June, as
I understand it, CBP continues to separate some children from
their families.
I know you described family separation as not worth it, but
can you explain the circumstances under which CBP will separate
a child from the parent, legal guardian, or someone claiming
that relationship?
Oh, I have--maybe just answer that, I see I've run out of
time.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. We will allow him to answer.
The Chairwoman. Please answer.
Mr. McAleenan. Yes, thank you.
So, the conditions where a child might be separated from a
lawful parent or guardian at this time are extraordinarily
rare. It is happening for fewer than two per day even though we
have 1,600-plus families arriving per day. These conditions are
prescribed both in the executive order from June 20th of last
year as well as the Ms. L case court order, and therefore, the
safety and welfare of the child--communicable disease, a
serious criminal history, a risk presented by that adult to the
child.
And so it is being done very carefully, extraordinarily
rare circumstances, and that is the only time the separation
occurs.
The other part of your question, though, is when a family
member crosses with a child. Under the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act, a family unit is defined as a
parent or guardian, not necessarily just another family member.
So, in those cases, we do have to treat the child as
unaccompanied, as well, under the law.
The Chairwoman. To be continued. I know I have run out of
time. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Granger.
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
Mr. Granger. Thank you.
Because of the sheer volume of people coming to the border
to claim asylum and the resulting strain on the immigration
system, record numbers of migrants are being released into the
United States with court dates and directions to check in with
their local ICE offices. Many of them completely ignore those
instructions. We heard on one trip to the border that
monitoring bracelets were removed as soon as the migrants left
law enforcement custody in many cases.
We have invested billions of dollars in alternatives to
detention. I would ask you, do these programs work, which ones
of them work, does ICE have the resources to deal with a number
of immigrants both in terms of those presenting at the border
and tracking people going through the asylum process?
While this issue is mainly in the jurisdiction of the
Department of Justice, do you have suggestions on how the
immigration courts could speed up the processing and reduce
their backlog?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Congresswoman. Several important
questions there.
First of all, that is going to be an area that I look at
very carefully along with the acting Director of ICE Matt
Albence.
How can we make our alternatives to detention effective for
ensuring that people are present for their court hearings and
that those results that immigration judges eventually find can
be appropriately effectuated?
We do not have that process working effectively right now
as you noted. We are very concerned about people cutting off
their bracelets and not showing up for court hearings. That is
not a process with integrity right now.
We do recognize the committee's provision of additional
resources in fiscal year 2019 to look at a case management
program in a renewed light for families that would maybe help
us ensure that people actually go through the process in an
expedited manner.
One of the things that I will be talking about with
Attorney General Barr and James McHenry who oversees the
Executive Office of Immigration Review is how we can move
people through a non-detained docket for those recent border
arrivals in an effective manner.
That is absolutely critical. But in terms of your broader
point, the way that we are actually achieving results is when
we are able to detain someone in custody through dependency of
their immigration proceedings.
That is what works with single adults right now, and that
is an essential aspect of what we are going to be asking for
from Congress for families, being able to keep them together in
an appropriate setting for a fair and expeditious process.
That is going to be how we establish integrity for that
group of border crossers, as well.
UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN
Mr. Granger. And I think all of us that are on this
subcommittee and all the members of Congress, we realize that
there were good processes put together at some time. The sheer
numbers today, we have new process and changes to laws that are
going to be very important.
I was on the border on one of the trips recently and the
person that was working so hard and said what we need is a
permanent structure of this, I said, no, we don't need a
permanent structure because we can't do this permanently, the
numbers are so overwhelming, I--Customs and Border Patrol, they
are like our military. They say we will do with whatever you
give us.
Well, they don't say that anymore because they can't do it.
And so we really--all of us need to work together with you and
all that are trying to figure this thing out and how we stop
those sheer numbers and how we deal with it as we go.
I have got a little bit more time. You have had such a long
experience with this issue. How are you seeing the changes
occur? And I go back to far before this started something that
we were watching so carefully, to back to 2014 when Speaker
Boehner asked me to go to the border and see these
unaccompanied children and what was happening there and make
recommendations.
That is when we made recommendations and I went to all
three countries they were coming from and asked questions of
the administration there and I said, you want your children
back, first of all, how much do you want your children back?
And then what can you do in these countries to make them
safer so that parents don't take their children to a country
that they have never been to or pay someone that they have
never met before.
So how are you seeing this increasing from that time and
also just in the last 6 to 8 months?
Mr. McAleenan. So there has been a number of changes, I
mean, from that first year of crisis with unaccompanied
children and family units. I was deputy commissioner of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection at the time.
And I think the main challenge we are facing is just a
growing awareness and the exploitation of that awareness by
smugglers of the weaknesses in our immigration laws and our
system.
We are seeing smugglers advertise differentiated offerings
for getting to our border in an expedited time, making very
clear that if people cross with a child, they are going to be
allowed a different process here in the United States.
And that has been an invitational posture for the system
that has been overwhelming as you note. I would recommend to
the committee the recent Homeland Security Advisory Council
report, just 2 weeks ago.
This is a bipartisan group of experts who wrote a non-
partisan report that outlined the crisis we are facing,
difficulty with facilities and just sheer volume and
processing, but also very clearly legislative solutions that
would address both the families and children crossing as well
as partnering with Central American countries to create greater
integrity from the beginning of that process forward.
So I think that is a very good set of external
recommendations that really in my view accord with what we are
seeing on the border.
Mr. Granger. Thank you for reminding us of that. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICERS
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, I
appreciate the work that you do. As you know, I go to my
hometown on the border, so I am at the border every week. I get
to get together with CBP officers and Border Patrol almost
every week.
So I know the men and women that work for you all down
there. Let me tell you, they are doing a heck of a job and I
want to commend them for the work that they do. This CBP
enforcement action process, and I asked my staff to put this
together as you can see, Mr. Secretary, it is a complicated
matter. It is a very complicated matter.
Same thing for the arrest and removal process, it is a
complicated matter and I hope we can sit down in a bipartisan
way and find some ways to address it, including if you are
supplemental--I wish you would talk to the Department of
Justice because we added 50 new judge teams, and I think it was
2 days after we did the conference report, they sent out a
letter and said we are out of money because of interpreter
costs.
So we haven't hired any of the judges that we added. So we
keep talking about adding judges, but there is a freeze on the
judges that we just added in February. So I wish you would talk
to them and make sure they make that as a supplemental.
One issue that I want to bring up is of course trade. Every
day there is more than $1.5 billion of trade between the U.S.
and Mexico. As you know, you all moved 545 CBP officers down to
the McAllen area.
Fifteen percent of that came from the Laredo district,
which is the largest port we handle, when you put everything, 7
out of every 10 trucks that come from Mexico, across Mexico,
our border is through our port of entry.
You and I spoke and I gave you five different ideas, and I
think out of the 545 you all have brought back 252 back out of
the 545. I asked you to spread the pain and go, with all due
respect, naming any cities here, but any of the cities that,
you know, instead of just taking them from the border, spread
the pain and bring CBP officers.
I asked you about overtime, I asked you about cap waivers,
I asked about volunteer forces, and the recently retired
officers also, Coast Guard also. And so I gave you different
ideas. Even the Public Private Partnership law that we passed
some years ago where there are--the private industries are
willing to pay to get some of this work processed, we still
need to do more and I really would appreciate your help so we
can get our CBP officers back. They should not be changing
diapers, they should not be making food.
I think that is--you know, there is another way to address
that and this is why we requested in this new budget, and
hopefully the committee will go with this, 1,200 new entry
positions for Border Patrol and CBP, where they can do
everything except arrest people, but I don't think trained
officers should be changing diapers or making some of those
changes.
I know that is important work, but the immigration issue
should not affect the trade issue, which is a very important
part. So, I would appreciate anything you can do to bring back
those officers.
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you Congressman. And obviously I share
your concerns about law enforcement professionals, highly
trained, working on care and custody issues and obviously very
concerned about CBP officers being diverted from their port of
entry responsibilities, processing that incredible volume of
lawful trade, as well as their counternarcotics missions and
other critical missions at the ports of entry.
That was an immediate term response to a crisis in terms of
the numbers in our custody and the time people were facing in
custody that we needed to provide some support to our Border
Patrol agents.
Obviously, we needed to start with folks who were nearby,
that is why Laredo and some of the other land border ports of
entry were most affected in that first tranche.
We have expanded, as you noted, two additional field
offices providing support, we have advised stakeholders in the
aviation industry for international air arrivals at the sea
ports that there are going to be impacts in other areas as
well.
But, we have done all of those recommendations, we have
increased overtime, we have put in cap waivers, we have
volunteer forces now deployed, and we are using rehired
annuitants, as well, it is a bit of a process, but we are
bringing on as many as we can, because we need all hands on
deck.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes. I hate to interrupt, because my time is
almost up and I want to speak to my 5 minutes.
Do you know when we can get our officers back?
Mr. McAleenan. So, that depends on the flow, and it depends
on how successful we are in providing the volunteer forces and
our contracting time for bringing in some of these contracted
resources.
Mr. Cuellar. So, you spread the pain to other places?
Because, it is not fair that the Laredo district has taken 15
percent of the cut or transfers and I really would appreciate
your help on that. And I will follow up. My time is up.
Mr. McAleenan. We are balancing across field offices,
understand.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Newhouse.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE, COUNTERING WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION OFFICE
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Ranking
Member, and for also our Chair of the Committee and Ranking
Member of the Committee to be here this morning.
Mr. Acting Secretary, as well as Mr. Acting Undersecretary,
welcome to the committee. Thank you for being here with us
today and, Mr. Secretary, want to thank you for your
outstanding service and long career of helping to protect our
nation. I also want to thank you for your stepping up into this
leadership role and I certainly look forward to working with
you.
I have been to the border myself, both north from the state
of Washington, it is as an important part of your
responsibility, but also to the southern border. And certainly
I have, as well as many others, have seen firsthand certainly
the dedication of the people that are protecting our border to
work in as humanely a way as possible to--as we work as hard as
we can to deal with the onslaught of people coming across our
border.
It truly is a crisis in many ways. It is an impossible task
almost that we are asking you to deal with, and if we want
improvements and changes, in my opinion, it is up to us as
Congress to provide you with those resources and policies
necessary for you to carry out this impossible job. So, thank
you for being here with us this morning to help explain what it
is you need.
As you probably know in your 2\1/2\ weeks you are learning
a lot of things, but there are a number of reorganizations
going on across the department. I am a representative of one of
the national laboratories, the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory in Washington State. It has been one of the largest
performers of research and development for DHS across the
National Lab System and I am interested in how things are going
with some of the R&D organizations within the department.
And so, as you grow into this new role at DHS, could I ask
you your perspective, at this point, on how the reorganizations
are going in the science and technology directorate and with
the merger of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and the
Office of Health Affairs that will be forming the Countering
Weapons of Mass Destruction Office? So, could you give us some
ideas about that?
Mr. McAleenan. Sure. And thank you, Congressman, and
appreciate your comments on the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratories [PNNL].
During my career at CBP, one of the first things we did
post-9/11 to increase our security was to develop the
capability to detect radiological and nuclear devices crossing
the border. That work would have not been possible without PNNL
and I have enjoyed a long-standing partnership in my career
with the experts at PNNL to help us establish that capability.
And from our perspective, R&D is absolutely essential,
given the types of threats we are facing, whether it is in the
cyberspace, whether it is in unaccompanied aerial systems that
are challenging us both at the border and in security areas
away from the border, making sure that we are doing that
effectively is going to be essential.
You mentioned both S&T and our Countering Weapons of Mass
Destruction Office. I am very excited to engage in this role
with both elements. S&T has helped CBP to develop access to
innovative technologies coming from startups out in the Silicon
Valley area, as well as around the country, and we are applying
that technology effectively in months instead of years because
of the shorter lead time that their contracting authorities
have allowed us to take advantage of. I know the benefits of
partnering with S&T to create better processes and better
technology at the border, so we are going to continue that.
On the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction, we can't do
this kind of work without a strong Office of Health Affairs and
a chief medical officer advising us, both in terms of the care
of custody of people who are crossing the border, but also
addressing things like the threat from Ebola, and we have done
that before and obviously we have a new outbreak in Africa that
we are monitoring closely.
So, I am looking forward to working with these components
in my new role. I have done it for years in prior positions at
CBP and look forward to getting your insights and talking with
the committee about how we can best manage those key resources
to support the broader DHS mission.
Mr. Newhouse. Good. I appreciate that and look forward to
working with you and I know other members of committee are
interested in this topic as well. But again, thank you for
being with us this morning and look forward to working with you
in your new role.
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
NON-INTRUSIVE INSPECTION EQUIPMENT: ROLLOUT
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, Acting Secretary, first, you have a
tremendous job and you have a very good reputation. You are a
professional, you are focused, and you stand for what is right
and you know there are a lot of issues.
I just came back from a codel that the Chairman put
together from the border and I am going to make a couple of
comments, because I want to--my question and some of my
observations.
First thing, you have very good people working, wherever
that is. I think the main issue at the border now is the
volume. That is a theme that is really causing a problem. And
then when we have volume and people that are coming in and we
can't take care of them, a Border Patrol leader said, you know,
when you arrest somebody in the United States, you book them
and then you don't see them until court.
We arrest them and we have to detain them, and that is not
really our business and that is where we are having a lot of
problems with this volume. So we have got to work on that.
The other issue is that I wish our president would stop
using this issue of the wall and the perception of everybody
coming in are criminals or causing problems. I think the
cartels really are the coordinated criminals, it is a serious
problem, they have a lot of control and a lot of money, and
they have the ability to get people in and drugs, as we know
that.
So it is a focus that we need to work on. And what you have
talked about here today, if we can only stop talking about the
wall, I go to my district and people say, hey, Dutch, build the
wall, support the wall. And it is really about border security.
All you have to do is talk about the things that you have
talked about here today. So I believe hopefully in the next
year we can start working with you, and we need a
reorganization of how we are dealing with immigration, not any
laws, but also how to deal with what we really need.
We need 1,000 more judges, we need more people focusing on
where we need to go, we need better equipment and you are
starting to do that at the border and ports of entry where a
lot of the drugs are coming in.
So I just want to say that, and my observation, we have got
a lot to talk about, Chairwoman, I really thank you for putting
us together. It is really you learn by going to the front line
and that is what we did.
I want to talk about the non-intrusive inspection
equipment. We provided CBP $182 million for this equipment in
fiscal year 2018 and $564 million in fiscal year 2019. My
understanding is that all of the funding is to be directed to
the southern border.
I support this technology and want to be sure we are
screening at sea ports, including the port of Baltimore which I
represent where a lot of fentanyl is coming into. Of the $746
million provided by the committee over the last 2 years, how
much has been spent thus far?
What is your plan to implement and roll out NII
technologies along the southern border and elsewhere? And given
the NII's multiple platforms and capabilities, is CBP able to
put additional capabilities at sea ports?
The reason I ask is if these investments are made, and
there is no question they should be, what impact do you believe
they will have on maritime ports and does that constitute
additional investment in NII at maritime ports?
There are so many other issues, cyber, that we don't have
time to get into, focus on this one now.
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Congressman. And I will try to
answer it quickly to make sure you have a chance for a second
question, but----
Mr. Ruppersberger. I won't.
Mr. McAleenan [continuing]. The support from this committee
for our NII technology is absolutely essential, and it is going
to be a tremendous opportunity that we have to change the way
we secure our ports of entry with the investments from both
2018 and 2019 and the request we have in 2020.
We spent about three quarters of the fiscal year 2018
funding already. These are long lead-time items; the new non-
intrusive inspection systems are tremendously capable, but they
take about 18 months from purchase to deployment. So we are
progressing on an aggressive timeline.
With the $562 million in the fiscal year 2019 budget, our
executive assistant commissioner Todd Owen, he is the guy who
bought our NII technology after 9/11 in two roles prior. So I
have tremendous confidence in him to develop an acquisition and
deployment plan that is going to increase our mission
effectiveness in a cost-effective and timely fashion.
We are looking at going from 2 percent of personally owned
vehicles to scanning 40 percent at our southern land border.
Those 2 percent of vehicles that we are scanning now cause 80
plus percent of our seizures. So we know we need to scan more
vehicles.
Mr. Ruppersberger. That is great.
Mr. McAleenan. And for the commercial cargo, we are going
from 16 percent to 70 percent in about a 2\1/2\ year timeline
for procurement and deployment at all of the different ports of
entry on the southern border.
For the fiscal year 2020 request, I just want to emphasize
that the request is to recapitalize existing systems at sea
ports and at northern border ports of entry and to ensure that
we are maintaining the highest capable technology across our
ports of entry.
So this is a multi-year effort to make sure that we are
able to do that not only at our land border where we have the
highest threat from counter narcotics, but also at sea ports
and northern border ports.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay, thank you, and I am going to--I
don't have time, I just want to talk about drones in my next
round. Drones on the border. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
BORDER SECURITY: HIRING, ACCENTURE
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Acting Secretary, I thank you, thank you both for being
here this morning. We have talked a lot this morning about the
effect and the impact of this humanitarian crisis. I want to
talk just a little bit about what I believe is some of the
cause of this issue that you are having to deal with now.
And that goes back to the Flores settlement agreement,
which initially Jenny Flores was an unaccompanied minor,
unaccompanied. And the Flores settlement agreement dealt with
unaccompanied minors only.
And they could be detained, the agreement was that they
could be detained as long as necessary, and that was the law up
until 2015 when the middle district judge from California
decided to expand the Flores agreement to include accompanied
children. Not just unaccompanied children, but accompanied
children.
And as you said earlier, Mr. Secretary, the traffickers
figured this out after 2015 and that is why we began to see
these caravans of families coming to our border and creating
this humanitarian crisis that we are now trying to deal with
the effect of.
But I think we can thank Judge G. from the middle district
for this and the lack of response to that decision from
Congress and the lack of response from the administration, not
this administration, but the previous administration.
And so I just wanted to kind of set the table for that
because when I look at your budget, I had a lifelong career in
law enforcement, I am very familiar with putting together
security plans, and when I look at your budget, I see a very
well thought out plan here.
It is a multi-layer plan. And the Border Security
Improvement Plan you have the impediment, which is the wall,
you have the surveillance, which is the remote video
surveillance system that you are asking for funding, you also
have plans to build the infrastructure so that when a breach of
that impediment is detected, you can respond quickly with those
boots on the ground to get there and apprehend those
individuals.
Now, my question though is, on the troops, the Accenture
program that was supposed to help you bring--I think we had
7,500 individuals authorized to be hired. From what I can see,
Mr. Secretary, this program is not working.
Now, if that is going to change because I heard you mention
some numbers earlier about up to 1,000 this year, can you talk
a little bit about how well we can bring these people on?
Because now we are asking for additional staff, and look, I
know you need them, and I want to get them to you. But I also
want to hold this contractor accountable. So, tell me where we
are at with that.
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Congressman. If I could just
respond quickly to your points on Flores, because I think that
history is really important to understand. Congresswoman
Granger mentioned the 2014 crisis. We had 68,000 families cross
that year. What the Obama administration did was create family
residential centers that allowed DHS to detain families pending
an immigration proceeding. And then, if they didn't have a
valid right to stay, to remove them.
As soon as those were established and repatriation started
happening, the numbers dropped immediately. That changed,
though, a year later in that reinterpretation of a 20-year-old
settlement to apply now to not only unaccompanied children but
accompanied children. And that is the central challenge we face
today with the families crossing.
Mr. Rutherford. Exactly. And I should have mentioned also--
I failed to mention earlier that that is where the 20 days
comes from, as well.
Mr. McAleenan. Correct. That is correct. That is where the
limitation on----
Mr. Rutherford. But onto the issue of hiring----
Mr. McAleenan [continuing]. Comes together. Yes.
So, hiring has been my top mission support priority at CBP.
It will remain that as acting secretary because it applies to
so many of our components. You mentioned what we have done at
CBP to change our hiring. We made 40 different process
improvements during the 3 years prior to my elevation to acting
secretary.
That had a significant impact. We hired more than 530
officers last year, and we hired 130 Border Patrol agents; it
was the first time that we ended the year with more agents than
we started in 3 years. Really kind of turned the corner on our
hiring, and we intend to continue to drive forward.
The Accenture effort was an effort to try to increase the
capacity to hire even more quickly. And it didn't work out the
way that we intended. We did, however, have significant
developments from that effort, both with digital marketing to
find new applicants and with applicant care to keep people in
the system, understanding where they were in the process, and
we are going to take those lessons and capitalize on them.
But we are not going to spend money that is not effective.
And so that is why that contract has been curtailed.
Mr. Rutherford. Good. Thank you very much. My time has
expired.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
287(G) PROGRAM, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT RAIDS
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I want
to add my word of welcome to that expressed by a number of
members this morning. We do appreciate your many years of
career service with the Department of Homeland Security.
And I will just speak for myself, I am very grateful that
you are available at this moment to steer the ship. It is a
critical time. It is a time of maximum chaos and political
turmoil, orchestrated by a vindictive president seeking
scapegoats, it would appear, and shadowy White House aides and
much more.
So my hope for you is that you cannot merely survive this
but that you can also work with us to steer this department
back to a sane and defensible and balanced immigration policy.
In that connection, I want to ask you about the 287(g)
program and ICE raids, particularly as they have affected my
district and my state in recent months. In February, ICE
carried out numerous enforcement actions in my district across
the state of North Carolina. Agents had arrested over 200
individuals in one week, many of whose only crime was to be
here without documentation.
These raids took place statewide in courthouses,
workplaces, outside of schools, during traffic stops. The
majority of these arrests were concentrated in areas that had
recently ended voluntary immigration enforcement agreements,
including several 287(g) agreements with the agency. Now, I
want to take just a minute here to quote fully your Atlanta ICE
field office director. I am going to quote him completely and
fully.
Here is what he said. I would say the new normal is you
will see more visible ICE presence out in the communities. The
increase in raids is a product of some of the policies that
have been enacted within the state with respect to Mecklenburg
County, Durham, Wake County, Orange County.
I think the uptick you have seen is a direct result of some
of the dangerous policies some of our county sheriffs have put
into place. It really forces my officers to go out on the
street and conduct more operations out in the community at
courthouses, at residences, doing traffic stops. This is a
direct correlation between the sheriffs' dangerous policies of
not cooperating with ICE and the fact that we have to continue
executing our important law enforcement mission, end of quote.
I was appalled to hear these arrests justified as the
direct result of several counties lawfully ending their
engagement in voluntary immigration enforcement agreement with
the agencies. And you know they are voluntary. Multiple courts
have ruled that these agreements are in fact voluntary, to be
entered or exited according to the best judgment, the
discretion, of local authorities.
So, that leads to my question. Can you tell me, is it
department policy to conduct more enforcement operations in
localities that have recently ended 287(g) programs? And is the
department predicating raids as retaliation against local law
enforcement agencies who are executing their own discretion and
their own judgment and who have reasonably decided that
maintaining community access and community trust is absolutely
critical to their law enforcement mission?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Congressman, for your kind words
as I assume this role. Let me go directly to address your
question. There is no policy of retaliation for jurisdictions,
first and foremost. And there won't be under my tenure as
acting secretary. I think what you are hearing from ICE is its
responsibility to protect communities from those who are here
without legal permission and have a criminal record.
Eighty-seven percent of those in ICE custody that ICE has
arrested in the interior have a criminal record and a reason
for that targeted arrest. ICE isn't ignoring other people it
encounters who don't have a criminal background but who are
here unlawfully, but it is apprehending primarily those who are
here unlawfully and have a criminal record. And I think that is
an important aspect of ICE's mission.
It is also true that it is more efficient, more effective,
and safer for communities if ICE can work with jurisdictions in
the jails, in the prisons, to ensure that it is taking into
custody those who need to be repatriated without going into the
communities. That is a better approach; that is what we would
prefer to do. But when we don't have that opportunity, ICE does
have a responsibility to protect those communities and it will
do targeted enforcement and apprehensions.
Mr. Price. My time is about to expire. I have been informed
this morning that we have received an answer to an earlier
communication that I and other members of our congressional
delegation sent seeking clarification. Your answer is pretty
generic and your Atlanta field director is pretty specific that
this is a matter of targeting jurisdictions that have ended
these agreements.
So, I hope it is not just a matter of straightening out the
Atlanta director's talking points. I hope it is a matter of
straightening out the policy and targeting enforcement actions
where they should be targeted, irrespective of the discretion
exercise by local law enforcement officials as to how best
carry out their own responsibilities.
Mr. McAleenan. Sir, I do think that voluntary collaboration
is always preferable as you outline. ICE does have a
responsibility to do targeted arrests of criminal aliens in our
communities and it needs to continue to carry that out.
I don't believe that, in this case, nor would it be
appropriate for retaliation against certain communities. That
said if ICE can't do pickups at jails, we do have to go into
the communities to do those arrests.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
BORDER SECURITY: NATIONAL GUARD
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Mr. McAleenan,
thank you for being here today and, Mr. Fulghum, I appreciate
your time. We know DHS is a huge Federal agency and you have a
lot of responsibilities under your care.
I had a breakfast this morning, the National Guard and
Reserve Components breakfast. It is one of the largest caucuses
that we have in the House. And something that since I was on
the Homeland Security Committee, now on the Homeland Security
Appropriations, that I have always felt was a huge asset to DHS
and huge asset to our nation was the use of the National Guard
and Reserve components, but in this case, more of the National
Guard.
When we were having--we have talked about the shortage of
officers and troops on the ground being DHS employees, how do
we feel those gaps? And I have always been a strong advocate of
using the National Guard, especially after their decades of
service abroad, surge into Iraq and Afghanistan, and getting
those countries under control.
And how could they be best utilized on the border? So I
think you kind of know where my question is going to go here
is, how are you utilizing the National Guard? Can you do more
with them? And is there anything that we can assist you, as the
Congress, in providing additional resources?
Because I do think they are a great plug and play and they
bring a--they can be a huge multiplying effect to you while you
continue to have a shortage of resources. And how are they
helping your agency and your employees do their jobs on a daily
basis?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Congressman.
I just have to say, our partnership with the Department of
Defense and the National Guard Bureau has been just tremendous.
It has been one of the key things we are relying on to increase
the security of the border as well as to manage the
humanitarian crisis that we are facing.
A week and a half ago I was in Rio Grande Valley at a
midnight muster, and I looked out at that group and we had,
obviously, a lot of green uniforms at Border Patrol stations,
but we had eight different colored uniforms, including a
tremendous contingent of National Guard and that is how we are
getting a handle on this crisis, both from a border security
perspective and a humanitarian perspective.
So, we have had them alongside us on the border for longer
than a year under this administration under Operation Guardian
Support. What they are doing is providing the ability for
Border Patrol agents to get back to interdicting and stopping
people from crossing unlawfully, by increasing our surveillance
capacity and by increasing our administrative capacity at the
stations, and really that partnership is essential for us right
now.
Right now we are looking at expanding that to help us with
some of the transportation and logistics missions that are
critical to, again, freeing up agents to do their law
enforcement functions effectively as well as just increase our
overall capacity given the number of challenges that we are
facing. That will continue to be a focus of mine at the DHS
level.
I already met with Secretary Shanahan on these issues, and
we are expanding our partnership in the coming weeks. So, I
just wanted to thank you for your support for the National
Guard Bureau and we can't--I talked to Governor Abbott about
it, as well, the Texas Guard is absolutely one of our best
partners border-wide, no question. So, thank you for that
continued support, and we will continue to rely on our
partners.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, that is good to hear. I think----
Mr. McAleenan. Hopefully recruit some of them.
BORDER SECURITY: DRUG TRAFFICKING
Mr. Palazzo [continuing]. That would be a great group of
individuals to recruit from. I know the mission of helping to
protect our homeland. After all, they are willing to go
overseas and serve and protect America.
So, just a quick pivot, and some--the increase of hardened
drugs and serious drugs that are coming across our border, and
not just through our points of entry but in between, I know we
have a southern border and a lot of times we forget about our
maritime border, but this committee hasn't forgotten about it.
Can you just tell me, I mean, with the money that we
appropriate, are you able to effectively stop the flow of the
heroin, the cocaine, the marijuana, the fentanyl, and all the
other varieties of drugs that are coming across our border?
And what do you need? I mean is there more technology, more
detection devices, whatever we can do to stop the flow of drugs
from coming into America and destroying our communities?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you for that question.
Quick summary response. In terms of the heroin, the
synthetic opioids like fentanyl and methamphetamine, which are
primarily coming across our border from Mexico, the investments
that this committee has helped us to make in nonintrusive
inspection technology, as well as border barrier and
surveillance capability, is going to be essential to addressing
those flows. And I think that applying the investments that we
have received effectively is going to make a major impact in
the next 2 years, and we intend to do that.
In terms of the cocaine flows, you are absolutely right,
the maritime border is the number one battleground on the
cocaine side, and that is something with our U.S. Coast Guard
assets on the surface as well as maritime patrol aircraft for
both Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, where
we are having a tremendous impact in the source and transit
zone.
I'm very concerned about increased production in the Andes
right now, both headed to the United States as well as to
Europe and Southeast Asia. Again, it takes a balance and
integrated set of investments, and the investment in the Coast
Guard fleet is going to be essential to maintaining our
capability in that area, as well.
Mr. Palazzo. Glad to hear you say that. My time is expired,
so I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Meng.
IMMIGRATION: ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, thank you, Mr.
Secretary, Mr. Undersecretary for being here today.
Congratulations to you on your new role. I wanted to ask about
ICE arrests at courthouses. Advocates have reported that these
arrests in New York State increased by about 1,700 percent in
2018 compared to 2016. This is an astounding figure.
In January 2018, ICE issued Guidance Directive Number
11072.1 on Civil Immigration Enforcement actions inside
courthouses. How many immigration enforcement actions that took
place in 2017 and 2018 violate this directive? And are any
actions taken against ICE officers who violate this directive?
Mr. McAleenan. That is something I am happy to take up with
Acting Director Albence at ICE and understand ICE's approaches
in terms of following up on any policy violations. I am not
aware of any in my first 2\1/2\ weeks as Acting Secretary.
I will note that, again, look for the ability to enforce
our immigration laws, and to take people into custody,
especially who have criminal violations, in a safe setting is a
responsibility of ICE and something we need to continue to do.
Ms. Meng. Yes, I am just going to what I know to be a
directive from ICE about not encountering people within
courthouses and in non-public spaces there. But there are
stories about, for example, in El Paso, Texas, there is a
courthouse where a woman was seeking a protective order for
domestic abuse. Last year officers arrested a Charlotte woman
and her 16-year-old son outside a court room set aside
specifically for domestic violence cases.
So what is the priority in enforcing and removal
operations? And how do you justify prioritizing the arrest of
vulnerable survivors of domestic violence like these folks over
more serious criminals?
Mr. McAleenan. I am not going to be able to comment on
specific cases here, but happy to take those back and look into
them.
But very clearly, ICE's priorities are to protect
communities. ICE goes after criminal violators who are also
here unlawfully, goes after fugitives who have been issued
final orders and remain in the United States, and ensures
effective immigration enforcement on recent border crossers so
that we maintain some integrity of the system at the border.
And that will remain the priority.
Ms. Meng. The directive is still in force, correct,
11072.1? And ICE should be following that directive, correct?
Mr. McAleenan. I will make sure we get you a briefing from
ICE on those policies.
DETENTION: CHILDREN
Ms. Meng. Okay. I wanted to ask about another news article
where CBP detained a 9-year-old U.S. citizen child who
presented her passport, she was detained for over 30 hours at a
port of entry. Why was this child detained?
Mr. McAleenan. So again, in terms of speaking about
specific cases, happy to do that in another setting with a
privacy waiver. I can assure you that CBP stopping a child is
for the child's own concern, for the child's safety and
welfare, for the concern about whether--what is being presented
to them is accurate, not for any other purpose.
But we will be happy to give you a briefing. If you have a
privacy waiver from the family, we can talk about the specific
case in depth.
Ms. Meng. I appreciate that. How frequently do cases like
this happen? I know you can't go into specifics, but just in
general how often are minors detained? And how long does it
take or what protocol happens to confirm their identity and
citizenship? Is it usually like 30 hours or is it less, is it
more?
Mr. McAleenan. So it is not common for children younger
than 10 to present without an adult crossing the border.
Determining who should have custody and care of that child and
working with a consulate can take a while, but it is often done
within a matter of hours. That is our strong preference.
What we are facing right now though, Congressman, that I
just want to highlight is a situation where children are being
used to cross the border as purported family units when they
don't have that relationship. We have had more than 3,500 cases
this year.
That is why ICE and homeland security investigations have
deployed teams to both El Paso and Rio Grande Valley to address
child smuggling and ensure that we are protecting children who
are being used as pawns to cross the border right now. It is a
very dangerous scenario.
Ms. Meng. Where would these children--I appreciate that
explanation. Where would children like this be held? Are they
in a cage? Are they behind bars? Or what type of space while
they are waiting to verify their identity?
Mr. McAleenan. At a port of entry, I am pretty sure they
probably stay with an officer in an office setting during that
time frame.
Ms. Meng. And that is the protocol?
Mr. McAleenan. That is a protocol to take care of children
in the best possible setting we can, given the other challenges
we are facing at the border.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Before I go to Mr. Aguilar, I would just
like to point out for one thing with regards to what Ms. Meng
was saying that would you give us the percentage of actually of
people who have fraudulent documentations. My understanding
that is very small compared to a majority of those who come
with their children, so I would appreciate that.
And then also, just for a point of clarification, with
regards to ICE and the arrests that it is making, nobody is
objecting to the fact that ICE will go after criminals who are
a danger to our public safety. That is not the issue.
The issue is that ICE has been going into communities,
arresting people who are dropping their children off at school,
who are coming out of church, who are not hardened criminals
who present a danger to public safety.
And then when they do go after someone who, perhaps, let's
say is a danger to public safety, that in that process they
also will go and arrest others who are not the target, who very
often are moms and dads and folks who have been living in the
community and contributing to that community.
That is where the concern is and that is where the
objection is, not that ICE goes after criminals who are a
danger to public safety. And with that, I will now call on Mr.
Aguilar.
DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS: FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
LOANS
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you both for
being here today.
Mr. McAleenan, earlier this month Secretary Carson
testified before Chairman Price and the Transportation, Housing
and Urban Development Subcommittee, but I asked him a question
about whether DACA recipients were eligible for FHA backed
loans. And he said he was sure that many DACA recipients have
FHA backed loans and that HUD's policy on allowing DACA
recipients to access this type of loan has not changed.
My question is, has USCIS provided any guidance or
directive to HUD staff without the knowledge of Secretary
Carson possibly about the FHA program specifically?
Mr. McAleenan. I will have to get back to you on that one,
Congressman, I am not aware.
QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN
Mr. Aguilar. Okay. My next question.
In January, the OIG published a report indicating that ICE
fails to consistently include its quality assurance
surveillance plan in facility contracts. QASP is critical to
ensuring the facilities meet performance based national
detention standards, which require that detention facilities
are safe for detainees and staff, however, QASP was only
included in 28 out of 106 detention contracts. ICE provided
waivers to facilities that exhibited deficient conditions and
did not include these in their contracts.
Between October 1st of 2015 and June 30th of 2018, ICE
imposed only two financial penalties for those not meeting the
condition standards. In what circumstances are waivers granted?
And what types of these standards are waived?
Mr. McAleenan. On this, as well, Congressman, I will have
to get back to you and get a briefing from ICE on the
standards.
I can tell you from sitting side-by-side with ICE
counterparts over the last several years, looking at bed space
issues, looking at expanding contracted bed space available,
the standards both at the very beginning of that contract and
repeatedly assessed are absolutely critical criteria that ICE
is facing as it establishes and increases capacity. And from my
perspective, it is addressed very assiduously in ICE's
management and oversight.
Mr. Aguilar. It is addressed in the sense that they are
trying to meet the bed space, I understand that. I guess what I
am trying to understand is, as you are going through that
contract phase, it seems that, based on these metrics, more
waivers are being granted toward standards. So, we are going to
continue to hear stories about individuals and facilities not
in current standards if your growth is going to require waivers
that waive standards for this care.
Mr. McAleenan. Actually, what I was emphasizing is that ICE
hasn't been able to take advantage of facilities that are
available because it is not going to meet the standards, and
seeing ICE make those decisions, from my perspective, it seems
like it is one of the main concerns in any sort of expansion.
But, we will get you the detailed briefing with ICE.
DETENTION: LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND
TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS
Mr. Aguilar. I understand. Okay. You are saying that there
would be more contracts if they relaxed those standards. Okay,
that doesn't quite mesh with 28 out of 106 detention contracts
having this waiver, it seems like they are doing quite their
fair share of waiving things in order to expedite the process,
but I am happy to gain more knowledge on that.
Mr. Acting Secretary, in February, ICE confirmed it was
jailing 100 transgender people in 20 different immigration
jails across the U.S. Immigration detention is notoriously
dangerous for transgender and LGBT individuals.
I sat with an individual in El Paso on our recent trip with
the Chairwoman, who was LGBT, and he expressed that he
willingly violated the work requirement. He was willing to work
a lot more hours in the day just so he could--because he worked
in the law library and he felt comfortable there, he was
willing to work more than 40 hours, more than 12 hours a day
just so he could have that better piece of mind.
In 2017, a congressional inquiry revealed that LGBT
individuals in ICE custody are 97 times more likely to be
sexually victimized than non-LGBT people in detention. What
steps is--in 2015, recognizing these vulnerabilities, ICE was
allowed, issued a memo that entitled further guidance regarding
the care of transgender individuals, which includes
recommendations.
What steps can ICE take or should ICE be taking to ensure
that there is a minimum number of facilities that are modified
pursuant to care under that existing memorandum? And has ICE
provided any training or guidance to staff at these detention
facilities?
Mr. McAleenan. I apologize, Congressman, given 2\1/2\ weeks
in, I have not had the chance to go over all of these oversight
policies with my ICE counterparts here. What I can tell you
that for DHS at large, protecting all populations in our
custody is our commitment. Any type of sexual violence is
unacceptable, needs to be prevented, investigated, followed up
on under the Prison Rape Elimination Act and so forth.
I can tell you at CBP, the sensitivity with these
populations was taken very seriously, including having separate
detention cells at the San Ysidro port of entry, where we have
a large transgender population presenting, as well as
considering that status and parole decisions to ensure people
are safely held. So, I will look at that with ICE, as well, and
again, maybe we could add that to the briefing that follows up
on your first questions.
Mr. Aguilar. I am happy to, and I think that that is the
right answer. We have the right guidance here. What we need to
make sure is that it is implemented correctly and what we are
seeing is, is that these things sometimes, that my colleagues
have mentioned, the implementation is the lacking piece. Thank
you, Mr. Secretary.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
DEPORTATIONS: INDIVIDUALS COMPLYING WITH SUPERVISORY REVIEW
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr.
Secretary, I want to share with you a brief story about a
fellow south Floridian, Mr. Walter Gozzer. Walter moved to
Miami from Peru in 1989 and got a job at a construction company
where he worked hard to provide for his family. His employer
was so impressed with his work that they offered to sponsor his
visa. But the company, unfortunately, went bankrupt and Mr.
Gozzer's application was consequently denied.
In 2016, the company opened up under a new LLC, and Walter
asked his attorney to petition for his case to be reopened,
even though it meant having to meet with ICE agents who would
monitor him on a routine basis. He kept up his end of the
bargain, and he checked in with ICE regularly while his case
was being processed.
Then in mid-February, without any warning or cause, ICE
chose to arrest Walter during a routine check-in at the Miramar
ICE Facility in Miramar. ICE imprisoned Walter, a loving father
of a family of four and a 30-year resident of Miami, in the
for-profit Krome Detention Camp, earning the detention camp
money for more than a month. On March 21, ICE deported Walter
to Peru, breaking apart his family and traumatizing his
children.
Now, I tell you this story because it is not unique. At my
district office, we frequently hear from Floridians who had
loved ones under supervisory review torn away from them without
warning or cause.
So Mr. Secretary, why is the administration randomly
pulling the rug out from underneath immigrants and deporting
those who are following the rules of supervisory review? That
is my first question. How is ICE making decisions regarding who
and when it deports undocumented individuals who are complying
with supervisory review?
And can you look into this policy and ensure that the
Immigration Board of Appeals is amenable to appeals from cases
like this, where undocumented individuals are doing everything
they should, and are deported anyway? And I have a follow-up
question, so----
Mr. McAleenan. Well, I would just offer that due process is
essential in our immigration enforcement responsibilities, that
it occurs both with the Immigration Court system and in the
decision-making by both ICE and CBP. Again, I don't have the
specifics on that case that you are asking about.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But it happens every single day.
Mr. McAleenan. Well----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. At any given time in my community,
you have immigrants who show up for supervisory review
appointments and have no idea whether the rug is going to
suddenly be pulled out from under them. So there is no due
process. They are just arrested, following the rules.
Mr. McAleenan. So supervisory setting is a much safer
setting to make an immigration arrest than, again, being out in
the community, which we have heard several concerns from some
of your counterpart on the subcommittee today. It is
appropriate when there are no other forms of relief available
and, obviously, the court proceeding will occur before removal.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay, but my question is, how is ICE
making decisions--excuse me--how is ICE making decisions
regarding who and when it deports undocumented individuals who
are complying with supervisory review?
Mr. McAleenan. I will have to get back to you on that and
offer an ICE briefing on their policy for supervisory review.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. And when will you be able to
do that? How quickly?
Mr. McAleenan. We can do that in the next week or so.
DETENTION: FACILITY CONDITIONS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Week, not or so, please.
And Mr. Secretary, my office regularly hears about
community members being turned away--now, this is specific to
the Miramar ICE facility, which we have had very significant
problems with--after waiting hours in line outdoors for their
appointment. They--they get almost no access to bathrooms,
water or cover from the sun.
I have been there myself. Myself, Congresswoman Wilson,
Congressman Hastings met with senior ICE officials at the
Miramar facility and addressed these really horrendous
conditions that immigrants are expected to wait in line, to
maybe be seen, maybe not. They come from hundreds of miles
away. My staff has visited the facility several times to
monitor conditions.
The last time they were there, they tried helping a
gentleman from Guatemala who had an appointment letter, but who
was refused to be seen because he had to first register by
phone. An advocate--and this happens all the time--an advocate
who went with my staff tried to call, so he could get an
appointment, by phone for at least an hour--excuse me, at least
an hour and a half, but she couldn't get through to a live
person. Even more alarming, the telephone number that is
provided does not offer an option to speak to someone in
Spanish. Even if individuals get through to a live person, they
may not be able to communicate.
My staff has seen individuals come from Naples, West Palm
Beach, Fort Myers and Homestead. Miramar is in Broward County,
and not all of them have a phone or a car, which makes coming
to the Miramar facility a financial burden.
The system seems designed to frustrate immigrants and make
them waste time and money. Why is ICE making life as hard as
possible, and why have they not corrected the gross and
horrendous conditions that immigrants are expected to be able
to--to be subjected to?
And when is it going to be corrected? Because I have
already been promised that these conditions would be corrected,
and they have not been. There needs to be cover. This is a
parking lot, a very small parking lot that they stand in in the
broiling sun. There is no water. They are not allowed to use
the bathroom, except occasionally in the office building. We
were promised it would be fixed, and it has not been. When is
it going to be corrected?
Mr. McAleenan. I will be happy to look into your concerns
and get back to you forthwith.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. But I don't want to be looked
in the eye again and told that these problems are going to be
corrected, and they are not corrected. This is inhumane.
Besides the fear of having the rug pulled out from under
them for showing up and following the rules, on top of that, to
bake them and their children in the broiling sun, and not let
them use the bathroom, and treat them like animals, rather than
people is unacceptable, and it must be fixed.
Mr. McAleenan. We will get you a clear answer to your
concerns, Congresswoman.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
DETENTION: LENGTH OF STAY
Ms. Roybal-Allard. That completes the first round of
questioning.
Mr. Secretary, let me just say that, unfortunately, some of
what was described by Ms. Wasserman Schultz is also what we saw
when we were in El Paso--people standing outside in the heat.
And just so packed that they couldn't even sit down.
Earlier in response to one of the questions, you mentioned
the Homeland Security Advisory Council panel, which recently
issued a report making several recommendations related to the
migration of families and unaccompanied children.
The makeup of the panel was not as balanced as it needed to
be, since early last year, a number of the Advisory Council
members who could have contributed to such balance resigned in
protest against the administration's immigration policies. As a
result, the report and some of its recommendations also lacked
balance, and I have several questions with regards to those
recommendations.
One of the recommendations was to detain families for the
duration of their immigration court proceedings, while
modifying asylum procedures so that a hearing and decision
could be provided within 20 or 30 days. I understand now that
the president has now--recommending possibly 180 days, which
possibly would be possible if they had legal representation.
But based on the recommendations of the panel, in your
opinion, do you think 20 to 30 days is enough time for migrants
to find legal representation and prepare their asylum case,
which could require the collection of documents from their
country of origin?
Mr. McAleenan. So just on your first point, Madam
Chairwoman, I have full faith in this panel, a tremendous group
of experts from both sides of the aisle, immigration expertise
in multiple administrations who looked at this issue carefully
in hundreds of interviews, a pediatrician who is focused on the
care of children in DHS custody. They traveled border-wide.
They are looking at expanding their effort to go to Central
America, and I do think their recommendation should be taken
seriously by DHS and by Congress, because it is a really
important analysis.
This question is key. It is key both in terms of the
changes we are asking in authorizing law for managing this
system and restoring some integrity to the process, and it is
key to understanding the intent of the Department of Homeland
Security in this process.
Nobody wants to detain children, whether they are
accompanied or not, for a long period of time. The notion that
we want to detain them indefinitely or for 180 days couldn't be
further from the truth.
What has happened is that 21 days is not an adequate time
period for a full proceeding with due process, with access to
counsel, with getting documents from Central America to be
completed. That said, we can go back to 2014 and 2015 when we
did detain families through their proceedings and the average
was about 45 days.
We are going to look at re-doubling our efforts to make
sure that that can be as expeditious as possible, indeed even
taking a fresh look at what can be done in 21 days with
counsel, but the notion that we want to detain children for a
long period of time is just not accurate, nor would that be an
effective way to enforce the immigration laws.
GOVERNMENT-FUNDED IMMIGRATION COUNSEL
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Another recommendation of the panel was
to provide government-funded immigration counsel to migrants.
Would you support providing counsel to migrants to improve the
efficiency of the immigration courts and to ensure that asylum-
seekers have the full opportunity to make their claim?
Mr. McAleenan. That is something I would consider under
appropriate circumstances and we will be discussing with the
Department of Justice.
PORTS OF ENTRY: METERING
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And another recommendation was to
require asylum seekers to arrive at the ports of entry while
also ensuring the ports have the capacity and resources to end
the practice of metering. Do you think metering could be
eliminated with sufficient resources at the port, and if so,
will you work with us to determine what those resource
requirements would be?
Mr. McAleenan. I will absolutely work with you to determine
the resource requirements. We would like to increase capacity
to process people presenting lawfully, even if they don't have
documents, at ports of entry.
The challenge we have now is 90 percent choose to pay a
smuggler and cross unlawfully between ports of entry, which
overwhelms each component of the system that we actually need
to process those who present at ports of entry as well,
primarily ICE and primarily the immigration courts.
So if we could structure both authorizing language and
resources that would allow us to accept people at ports of
entry safely, that would be a much better approach and I would
be willing to work with the committee on that.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
NON-INTRUSIVE INSPECTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. McAleenan, following up on Mr. Ruppersberger's
questions, we scan very few passenger vehicles that come into
this country with non-intrusive inspection, NII, equipment in
order to keep traffic moving.
But we know that the majority of hard narcotics come into
this country through the official ports of entry, often deeply
concealed in false compartments. I understand that CBP is
exploring the deployment of a system that would enable the
scanning of 100 percent of passenger vehicles entering the
country.
In the past, this committee has maintained a strong
position of supporting 100 percent scanning, sir. When will
this system be operational?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Congressman, and this is the
application of the significant investment that this committee
made in fiscal year 2019 in supporting our non-intrusive
inspection capability at ports of entry.
You are absolutely right, we have a very small percentage
of personally owned vehicles that we are able to scan with
existing deployments of technology, less than 2 percent at the
border, but it is our most effective tool in identifying those
deep concealments of hard narcotics crossing at our ports of
entry.
So we want to expand that dramatically. That 2 percent is
targeted, so it is the highest risk, 2 percent, but we think we
need to get to a much higher number being scanned.
With the investments that this committee has provided, we
think that we can get there in about 2\1/2\ years to scan a 20-
fold increase in crossings, up to 40 percent of personally
owned vehicles. This would be a dramatic change in our
capability and allow us to target really all personally owned
vehicles that we think might present a risk crossing, as we
continue to work with our trusted population at the border
through this entry system and our other approaches to manage
risk.
We will also have our K9's working pre-primary, and we
appreciate the committee's investment in the K9 Academy and
providing different, additional K9 teams out to the border. The
partnership with our investigators is what we are going to need
to continue to emphasize.
All of these efforts at the border of our system, and CBP
is the biggest component in DHS and the largest contingent of
enforcement at the border. We need that backing, whether it is
from ERO [Enforcement and Regional Operations] for immigration
enforcement or from HSI [Homeland Security Investigations] for
investigations of our narcotics seizures.
So we will like to continue talking with the committee
about ensuring that we have adequate resources throughout the
system to prosecute effectively and resolve those seizures, as
well.
FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Mr. McAleenan, while
leading Customs and Border Protection, you oversaw the
innovative deployment of biometric technologies and
specifically facial recognition technology to meet
congressional mandates for biometric exit, as well as finding
opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
your operations through these capabilities.
These achievements have been important test beds for these
technologies that can be utilized in other applications both
within CBP and throughout DHS. How do you foresee the
development of facial recognition technology expanding in
fiscal year 2020, and beyond that, for entry and exit at air,
land and sea borders, sir?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you for that question, and and really,
this is an area I am very excited about, both in terms of
increasing our security and making sure that we can address
impostor threats, but very importantly facilitating lawful
travel into the country.
We have a longstanding mandate from Congress to conduct
biometric exit of those departing the country. For many years,
it was very challenging to see how we can make that work within
the existing airport infrastructure and within the existing
process for boarding an international flight.
What happened with partnership and S&T--and we had that
question about research and development and how we identify
potential innovations earlier--with S&T, we were able to test
every available biometric technology on the market in a test
bed site out here in Maryland and determined that facial
recognition was the easiest to use, and with the increased
accuracy of comparison, was going to be effective for our needs
on biometric exit.
And as we started to deploy that at airports and we saw
benefits, we have seen air carriers board an A380 in less than
half the time because passengers are able to use self-service
e-gates as they boarded that aircraft. We saw that we could
turn that around and use it on inbound, as well.
So we are deploying facial recognition now at our major
terminals on inbound. I just saw it in Miami last month. It is
just making the process so much more efficient. We are
identifying impostors, and we are going to be able to
facilitate that lawful travel in a greatly increased manner.
We are looking at 97 percent of outbound air travel for
biometric exit in a 4-year period, so that will be by 2022. And
then at the same time, as we partner with airports to put that
in place for outbound, we are also adding it as a simplified
entry option so that we can increase facilitation for those
inbound arriving international passengers, as well.
It is something I am very excited about, partnering with
TSA. CBP is also going to be able to help enable increased
procedures at checkpoints, both for security and facilitation
as well. And that is something that, with the acting deputy
secretary, Dave Pekoske, we are going to be working on to
increase the efficiency of the overall system.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
BORDER SECURITY: STARR COUNTY, PARTNERSHIP WITH MEXICO
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I forgot to mention this at the very
beginning. I really appreciated the trip that you did down to
the valley, where you found some balance going down there.
Because most secretaries just go and talk to law enforcement
and won't talk to the public, won't talk to anybody. So I
appreciate the balance that you brought there, especially the
humanitarian aspect of it where you met with Sister Norma and
other folks. I appreciate that balance.
And I was there a few days after you were there and I told
them I have a lot of faith in the work that you have done and
will be doing, also.
Couple things. I would ask you to follow up on the Starr
County. As you know, we added language that would ask for some
input. So it looks, by coincidence, that you all had the 8
miles that you all were looking at where we would get input
from the local communities and I believe the Starr County
people came up here and met with your office and even the
Laredo folks came up and they were saying Look, we are willing
to do this.
What did you all do in Starr County that said instead of 8
miles, we will get rid of 4 miles? And it happens to be that
those 4 miles are within the city limits where the language
applies.
So, it looks like somebody is trying to circumvent the
legislative language that we added that was very simple input.
Might be a coincidence but I would ask you to take a look at
that, number one. Because I mean, nothing wrong to get local
input as to the design or the alignment of the infrastructure.
And the other thing is, I was in Mexico City with folks
from Pelosi's office, Ways and Means, we were there on labor
reform with the Senate and they just passed it yesterday. And I
just happened to be with Tonatiuh Guillen, which I think you
know, he is the head of the Mexican Migration Institute. And it
just happened to be at that time, 1,300 roughly, mainly Cuban
prisoners had escaped.
He and I spoke. And to be very straightforward what I told
him, I said I think those folks that escape should be reported
to CBP as people that violated the law down there in Mexico and
that should be taken into consideration when they ask for
asylum. My personal opinion on that but I told him they should
contact Homeland on that.
The reason I am bringing all of this up is because I think
we need to give Mexico a little bit more credit to what they
are doing down there. And any work or any help that you can
give them--because they don't want to be seen as doing
America's dirty work, to be quite honest. But they are trying
to do their part in talking to him and talking to the chief of
staff or the president, Mr. Alfonso Romo and other folks.
They are hoping that they can detain and return 600 to 800
people a day. Let's say 800 people a day, those are 800 people
a day that would be coming to the U.S. That is about 24,000
individuals a month if they continue to do their work.
So, I do want to see how we can help them in the
humanitarian area, biometrics in the southern part with
Guatemala. Ask you to do everything you can because, again, we
have to give Mexico the credit that they are doing. And
unfortunately, some people don't do that.
But I think you understand the work that they are doing, so
I would ask you, one is the language that we added in Starr
County to make sure there is no circumvention. And number two
is, what can we do to help the Mexicans?
And by the way, I have invited Mr. Guillen and other folks
and they want to come here and I am sure you are going to meet
with them. And I asked them if they could meet with some of the
folks here at the capital. And again, thank you for bringing
that balance to the border, I am very appreciative of meeting
with Sister Norma.
Mr. McAleenan. I would very much enjoy meeting with the
mayors in Rio Grande Valley as well as Sister Norma Pimentel
and some of our NGO [nongovernmental organization] partners on
the humanitarian mission. That is essential. I absolutely will
follow the prudence of the law on the wall and the consultation
with local communities, especially in Starr County. We will get
back to you on any concerns on circumvention of that.
You mentioned our partnership with Mexico. We can't manage
a regional phenomenon without a close partnership with really
the main transit country now in Mexico. Historically, they were
a source country of migration. Now they are primarily a transit
country, and sometimes a destination country. So that is a big
change in terms of their policy approach.
I have met with Tonatiuh Guillen at NAMI [Mexico's National
Institute of Migration] several times already in his tenure, as
well as his boss, Secretary Sanchez. And we are going to
continue that partnership.
Six hundred to 800 interdictions and repatriations on the
Mexican southern border is an important step. I do give them
credit. That is about 25 percent to 33 percent of the crossings
that we are seeing daily from Central America.
And really, what we are encouraging is addressing the
smuggling organizations that are preying on families and
children. And that is something that I think we have: close
policy alignment between this administration and the Mexican
administration.
We do not want people to be paying smugglers; we do not
want people to be in dangerous situations trying to head to our
border. And I think that is an area where we are going to
continue to partner closely with Mexico.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
training facilities
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I want to go back to the hiring challenges
that the department faces because that is just part of it.
After you hire them, then you have to train them. And I read in
one of the inspector general's reports that a lack of funding
for training facilities has actually had some negative impact
on the ability to train particularly to the scenario-based
training that you are wanting to move to.
And I support that 100 percent. In fact, I have in my
district in St. Augustine, Florida, your Air and Marine
Training Center. And I believe that that is going to become
more and more important to the mission, particularly when the
southern border begins to tighten up, we are going to see more
and more folks moving--of these transnational drug
organizations moving to the maritime corridors.
And so this Marine and Air Training Center has some
challenges. I have been down there and seen it several times,
and I just want you to know, I would love to work with you to
be sure that those men and women have the tools that they need
to be the best, particularly in the air and marine arenas. So--
--
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you very much for that offer,
Congressman. And really, working with this committee and the
tremendous professional staff that you have, as well as frankly
in the acting undersecretary's career, I think we are doing
better and better at ensuring that we are not just investing in
one part of the cycle and actually hiring and paying a
professional, but ensuring that they have the training and
facilities for that training and the equipment they need to do
their jobs.
And I appreciate your comments on the air and marine
facility in your district. It is absolutely world-class
capability. We need to sustain it to support our men and women
coming into the workforce, going back for advanced training,
training on new vessels. We do international training there.
That is so our partners can be up at our standard. And I think
that is absolutely essential and look forward to working with
you to make sure that is sustained.
287(G) PROGRAM, U VISAS
Mr. Rutherford. Yes, I would like to remove some of those
workaround that they are, you know, faced with.
Let me go to 287(g). As the chief law enforcement officer
in Jacksonville for many years, I actually started a 287(g)
program within our corrections department. Now, I did not
implement the street aspect of it. But we did--and I did want
to remove those criminal--that criminal element, of those who
were also undocumented immigrants. It worked incredibly well.
Now, one of the things that I hear a lot of people talking
about--and this is a concern that I had as sheriff. And that
is, if you create this culture, this underground culture of
these individuals, these undocumented, not only do they prey on
each other, but they are preyed upon by others in the
community. And we have significant problems with this in
Florida.
And so one of the things that we worked hard on was
educating the public, particularly those illegals, about U visa
and the way that they could use that process to, if they were
the victim, were the witness of a crime and they were a witness
that had direct evidence that could help in the prosecution of
a case, they were eligible for a U visa that would allow them
to stay in the country.
That way, they could come forward with the information that
they had, with no worry of being deported. And so that is a
little-known and talked about program that I think is important
to this population, so that we don't create that subculture
where they are victimized, not only by others in the community,
but by their own community.
As we got into that culture, we found that rape and
domestic violence was just off the chain. And so I think it is
important that folks understand that they have that U visa
capability at their disposal.
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Congressman.
You have highlighted, I think, two important programs that
we maintain, both 287(g) partnerships, in the correctional
environment. Again, that is the most efficient, safest way to
ensure that those who could threaten the community, also here
unlawfully, are taken into custody. Thank you for your
partnership when you were in Jacksonville.
And then the second piece of your point, the concern that
the most vulnerable populations in our communities are going to
be victims. And really, the U visa is an appropriate tool for
that and we do encourage local law enforcement to work with us
and the Department of State to utilize that effectively.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much.
And I see my time is up. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
IMMIGRATION: PARTNERSHIP WITH CENTRAL AMERICA
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to raise an interdepartmental budget
issue for you. It is one on which you have expressed very
strong views in your previous position, but it has a new
relevance to you now at the secretarial level. And that has to
do with remedial actions with respect to the flow of migrants
from the triangle countries of Central America.
Border Patrol agents, as you well know, are overwhelmingly
encountering families and children who are seeking refuge from
instability and violence, and just a humanitarian disaster in
these home countries. They are proactively seeking out your
agents for help. This is a well-documented phenomenon.
We, earlier in 2016, when this flow first started, we were
able to increase support on a bipartisan basis, for home
country efforts to improve conditions and increase security.
As you well know, this isn't mainly a border security
issue, militarizing our border or erecting a wall. That is not
going to stem this tide of refugees or asylees. They are
turning themselves in. Our approach to border security needs to
start 1,500 miles south.
Now, you have previously briefed this subcommittee, and
specifically on March 12 of this year, on just that, on how
improving conditions in Central America is a key component in
solving our own humanitarian crisis at the southern border.
And I remember at the time, thinking this was encouraging.
The briefing addressed what you called push factors, and the
care for vulnerable populations. And number one, you placed the
matter of support for Central American security and prosperity.
Address the push factors--I am quoting here--address the push
factors by fostering economic opportunity and reduced poverty
and hunger.
Well, this administration hasn't gotten that message. In
fact, the budgets each year have cut aid to these Central
American countries and to the nonprofits and other
organizations providing these services, they have proposed cuts
year after year after year. In some cases, this committee and
the State and Foreign Ops Committee has put the money back.
But this has reached a new level. And as often happens, we
have learned about it by tweet. Here is what the president said
on October 22 of last year, I am quoting. Guatemala, Honduras
and El Salvador were not able to do the job of stopping people
from leaving their country and coming illegally to the U.S. We
will now begin cutting off or substantially reducing the
massive foreign aid routinely given to them.
In other words, the experiment is over, I suppose. And we
are now going to punish these countries for not solving their
problems and cut off aid completely. And as you well know, the
State Department is now looking to suspend the aid in the
pipeline from 2017 and 2018 to these Northern Triangle--not to
the governments necessarily, but to the organizations doing
this good work.
So you can imagine my questions about this. Does one
department talk to the other in this administration? Do these
cuts square with your previously stated goals of supporting
Central American security and prosperity? What are you doing at
this moment to make your views known? If your views remain the
same, what are you doing to make your views known to the White
House and OMB and the man at the top?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Congressman. As I have told this
committee before and expressed publicly at multiple points,
this regional phenomenon requires a multifaceted strategy that
addresses not only the border security investments that we have
talked about extensively this morning, but restoring integrity
to the immigration system and addressing those vulnerabilities
in our law. Those are the two things that we control on the
U.S. side, but it is also going to require our regional
partnerships to be enhanced, as with Mexico, as I just answered
with Congressman Cuellar, as well as with Central America.
And I don't intend to stop working with Central America,
and have not suggested that I should. During my first week as
Acting Secretary, I met with the Minister of Public Security
from Guatemala, talking about joint operations against human
smugglers and transnational criminal organizations that are
exploiting the Guatemalan populace. But I do respect the
secretary of State's views, as well as the president's, that if
we are going to provide aid to Central America, it needs to be
targeted, it needs to be effective, and it needs to advance
American interest and actually reduce the root causes of
migration.
Mr. Price. But it doesn't necessarily need to be zero.
Mr. McAleenan. And we need accountable partners to make
sure it is effective. So, I will be working within that process
to advise along the side of the Department of State on programs
that I think can make an impact for consideration at the White
House, and I will continue to give my best advice to my
leadership on the appropriate way to manage this regional
problem and phenomenon.
Mr. Price. Thank you. And as I don't need to underscore
probably, that this is, of course, newly relevant to you now in
your role as secretary and I hope you will use this opportunity
to push forward what your view in the past has been as to how
to approach this challenge.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
DETENTION: SEPARATIONS, CHILD
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Acting Secretary, I wanted to go back to child
separation and follow up on Ms. Lowey's question a little bit.
You talked a little bit through the dynamics of when a child is
still separated and you have talked with us in multiple venues
about that.
The subcommittee has asked for the guidance that the field
officers are using when that determination is made. Is there
written guidance and criteria that officers or agents use when
a child is separated and there is the specific criminality that
you talked about within that family unit?
Mr. McAleenan. Sure. I think the written guidance starts
with the President Trump's executive order from June 20th of
last year, as well as the court order in the Ms. L case,
interpreted and applied to our field elements through
operational direction at CBP, and I believe ICE, as well.
I do think, as Acting Secretary, I will have an opportunity
to look at how that process is working and ensure that we have
consistent and strong policies for what is obviously a very
sensitive matter that needs to be handled delicately and with
appropriate safeguards. So, we will make sure to look at that
across the organization.
Mr. Aguilar. The executive order doesn't talk about the
specific levels of criminality though, whether incarceration
time is used, whether length of time is a factor, violent
versus non-violent which it would be important.
I guess what I am trying to ask is, you have multiple
sectors underneath you in that respect that could be
implementing variations of the same policy. There is nothing
written that says what level of criminality, non-violent,
violent, when a child is separated?
Mr. McAleenan. So, there is operational guidance that goes
out into the field of both components, but I think you raise an
important point, because we are going to need officer and agent
discretion in some of these decisions, right?
An arrest for child abuse without a conviction might be
more probative into that risk for a parent than say a
conviction for wire fraud. It has to be evaluated in terms of
both a specific offense, the risk to the child, and the
severity in terms of a conviction or a sentence. So, I think,
again, taking an opportunity to look across the department in
this new role, to ensure we have consistent and effective
guidance is one I will undertake.
Mr. Aguilar. I just want to understand that your answer is,
as you understand right now, there is nothing written to that
level of specificity?
Mr. McAleenan. I don't know--I haven't read ICE's policies
on this matter yet, but I will. I know that CBP has given good
guidance, but also discretion to the frontline officers, and I
have seen effective implementation of that guidance.
WORKSITE INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Aguilar. Okay, thank you.
DHS--next question--has increased the number of worksite
investigations and in some high-profile cases businesses were
ordered to pay more than $10 million in judicial fines.
Homeland Security investigations, EAD, is quoted as saying,
employers who use an illegal workforce as part of their
business model puts business that do follow the law at a
competitive disadvantage. Do you agree with that?
Mr. McAleenan. I do.
Mr. Aguilar. It has been reported that there are multiple
individuals who have worked for the Trump Organization without
legal status. Can you ensure that the Department won't play
favorites on who HSI is deployed to in the business setting?
Mr. McAleenan. So, HSI's efforts will remain targeted at
the most significant violators. They had a worksite enforcement
operation that made 300 arrests just earlier this month. It is
a significant issue that they are going to follow up on to
ensure that we have integrity in the entire process.
Mr. Aguilar. Earlier this month, Chairman Thompson sent a
letter to you about this specifically. ICE hasn't provided an
answer. Can you let us know what the timeline for an answer
might be?
Mr. McAleenan. For Chairman Thompson's letter on which
issue?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, this would be on HSI investigations and
specifically the Trump Organization.
Mr. McAleenan. I will get you a response from HSI as soon
as we can.
IMMIGRATION: FRAUDULENT FAMILIES
Mr. Aguilar. You mentioned that there are 3,500 cases of
fraudulent families, and the Chairwoman asked for some
important follow up information and I also look forward to
seeing that. We understand that part of the issue is the
definition of families, you mentioned, within TVPRA, can you
give us some clarity on fraudulent families you are talking
about?
Does this apply to aunts and uncles, for example? Under
your number of 3,500, would it be considered fraudulent family
if an uncle brought a minor with them? Is that the largest part
of the fraudulent family, I guess, bucket that you have
described?
Mr. McAleenan. So, this is going to be an area of intense
focus for the department in the coming weeks and months. We are
going to learn a lot from these HSI teams that have deployed to
El Paso and Rio Grande Valley. They are bringing forensic
interviewers, and they are bringing biometric capability to try
to ensure that we establish those family relationships with
clarity.
What I am very concerned about right now, Congressman, is
that we don't have the time, given the volume and flow, to do
good interviews with each family that is crossing. And so, I am
very afraid that we are missing cases where there is not a
clear family relationship. But to your point, we need to
establish a clear definition.
We need to establish consistent metrics across CBP and ICE
for capturing when that family relationship has been presented
as a fraudulent relationship. That doesn't mean a grandmother
or an aunt necessarily with a child saying, we are a family,
and us determining that is not definitely within the TVPRA. I
wouldn't call that fraud.
I think we need to be very clear in what we are reporting
to Congress, clarifier metrics, but also, we need to have a
significant focus on this with both CBP and HSI working in
tandem to identify and address people that are presenting as
families when they are not, especially if they have brought a
child across more than once. We have seen that in a number of
cases that HSI is working right now.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
DETENTION: FACILITY POLICIES
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. That completes round two. And I do
have a few more questions that I would like to ask.
One of them has to do with following up on what Mr. Aguilar
mentioned in an earlier round of questioning, that has to do
with the reports of--the OIG and the GAO reports that were
quite damaging with regards to unacceptable standard conditions
at ICE detention facilities.
And if you read the reports, you can see that there is
reasonable concerns about the conditions at these facilities
and the fact that ICE continues to give waivers to them.
One of the things that was cited by the Office of the
Inspector General was that ICE has no formal policies and
procedures to govern waivers. And that I am hoping that under
your leadership that you will be able to make some progress in
making sure that they do create formal policies and procedures
to govern those waivers so that they are just not haphazard and
that we will have an ability to look at the waivers against
those policies and procedures.
In the fiscal year 2019 bill, we provided resources to the
Office of Professional Responsibility to hire new detention
facility inspectors with the goal of increasing inspections
from once every 3 years to twice per year. Can you tell us what
the status of that hiring is and when you think ICE will reach
that inspection frequency? And by when can we expect to see the
policies and procedures that will govern those issuing of
waivers?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Congresswoman, for those
questions. First of all, we are hiring the detention officers.
We hope to get about 30 percent of the goal in the remaining
time in this fiscal year, and then get to the full level that
was funded as quickly as possible.
I can tell you from a CBP perspective that there are few
areas that we worked more carefully to oversee than how we care
for people in our custody, and what our facilities look like,
both with the I.G., our Civil Rights and Civil Liberties office
at the department, with some of the court-ordered oversight, as
well as internally with CBP, the Office of Professional
Responsibility and the Management Inspection Division. We also
hired an independent outside auditor to inspect our facilities
and make sure that we are doing it in a variety of notice and
no-notice, so that we can manage those conditions effectively
across all of CBP facilities.
I will look at the ICE policies. I am not familiar with
ICE's waiver policy at this point, but I will dive into that in
my role. But I can tell you that we are hiring the audit
officers that have been supported by the committee, and we will
continue to prioritize that.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I do understand that ICE has been
working to update its national detention standards. Can you
tell the subcommittee the status of that effort? And can you
assure us that the new standards will improve conditions and
not lead to the worsening of conditions at detention
facilities?
Because that is a huge concern that many of us have.
Mr. McAleenan. I can assure you that ICE won't worsen
standards of care in facilities, but I will absolutely work
with ICE on any revision of its policy.
You know, I can tell you that the last 5 years have been a
period of increased standards across the board, for detention
and care of people in DHS custody. You know, that is something
that we will continue to work on from my perspective, in the
new role.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And my hope is that as those policies
are being determined, that we will have an opportunity to see
them before they actually are instituted.
Mr. McAleenan. We will make sure to brief your team and
you, Madam Chair, if you would like, as well as work with our
oversight within the Department of Homeland Security, the I.G.,
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, to make sure that our
standards are appropriate.
DETENTION: PREGNANT WOMEN
Ms. Roybal-Allard. As you know, this administration
reversed a policy that forbade ICE from detaining pregnant
women except in extraordinary circumstances. While in ICE
detention we have learned that the number of women who have
lost their pregnancies have nearly doubled in the first 2 years
of this administration, medical professionals have advised of
the dangers of placing any pregnant woman in detention.
Aside from the obvious answer that we should not detain
pregnant women absent extraordinary circumstances, what is ICE
doing to prevent this type of tragedy from occurring again?
Mr. McAleenan. It is another area where I will be working
with ICE. I can tell you that medical conditions of people in
custody are taken into consideration, including pregnancy,
including late-term pregnancy as a factor in whether to do a
parole release or to make a custody determination.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well, health professionals tell us that
inadequate health care services have been a major contributing
factor to these tragedies. And when we asked about a stillbirth
at a Port Isabel facility, ICE told reporters that it wasn't
aware of any concerns regarding medical care of pregnant
detainees, and that stillbirths are rare.
And it is responses like this that greatly concern me and
others because it appears that ICE is not taking these issues
seriously. So I guess my question to you would be, is, how do
you plan to address this and what can this committee do to
support your efforts in this regard?
Mr. McAleenan. My experience with ICE is that it does take
these issues very seriously. But with that said, as
commissioner, I focused on it. We got better at CBP. I will do
the same as acting secretary.
BORDER PATROL PROCESSING CENTERS
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And then finally, I want to go back to
the El Paso and McAllen facilities, where we provided $192
million for a new Border Patrol processing center.
Mr. McAleenan. Right.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And it was $30 million for improvements
to the existing processing center in McAllen. And it is my
understanding that you are revising the requirements that are
moving forward with these modular structures. So what is the
status of each of these projects?
And can you describe how conditions at the El Paso facility
will be different than those at the McAllen facility? And what
changes are you planning to improve the McAllen facility?
Mr. McAleenan. Sure. So these are the two major sectors
that are facing the significant arrivals of family and
children, as you know. And you have been to both, Madam
Chairwoman.
What we wanted to do with the Central Processing Center is
to create a central place where we can bring families and
children, to not have them in Border Patrol stations.
What we are going to be able to do with El Paso that is
different than what we have in McAllen right now, is a purpose-
built center from the beginning, designed based on our lessons
learned over the last 5 years with this new phenomenon of
children and families coming across, both in terms of how the
interior is designed, how it looks, but also for the
functionality, for the medical care, for the showers, laundry,
kitchen facilities that we need to care appropriately for
families in our custody. That is going to be different from the
beginning.
That said, we also want to renovate the McAllen facility.
We are going to take out the chain link. We are going to have
partitions that are more appropriate in terms of appearance, as
we protect families in our custody.
But we also are going to ensure that the transportation
flow, both the ability to move people securely in and out of
the facility, is improved, as well as the shower facilities
there.
In the meantime, though, we are not waiting. We are using
our appropriated funding to establish soft-sided facilities to
provide a better situation for families and children right now
in those two sectors, given the extensive flow that we are
facing.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Well, we really do want these new
processing centers to be successful, and we are hoping that
there will be some creative thinking in these facilities. For
instance, could you have child welfare professionals at the
center, and perhaps in the Border Patrol stations who could
speak Spanish and have expertise in conducting forensic
interviews with kids?
Mr. McAleenan. That is absolutely something that we are
looking at, and did establish with our own operational funding
last year in Rio Grande Valley. It is a limited application,
but we intend to look at all elements of care for those in our
custody to make sure that we are doing the best we can during
that, hopefully, very short time that they are in a Border
Patrol facility.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Another, I guess, idea is that
because of the large number of actually migrant families that
are currently crossing the border, CBP and ICE could have begun
to rely heavily on nonprofit organizations to provide temporary
shelter to migrants while they planned their next steps.
Would it make sense to have shelter representatives co-
located at the central processing centers to help migrants
start working earlier on their travel plans?
Mr. McAleenan. That is a potential option. From my
experience, both in El Paso and the Rio Grande Valley, the
coordination and communication is daily. It is constant to
ensure that the NGO community understands how many people are
coming through, what requirements we might have to manage that
safely, and to partner effectively.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT
Mr. Aguilar. Yes. I will be that individual, Madam Chair. I
don't want to stand in the way of everyone in the lunch hour.
Just a couple quick things, following up on TVPRA, as we
were discussing, Mr. Acting Secretary.
You had earlier mentioned that there would be some
legislative proposals as well that would be forthcoming from
the department. Will changes that you are proposing to TVPRA--I
know that has been a talking point that I have seen out of the
administration--will that include redefining a family unit to
be more expansive, to include aunts, uncles, grandparents?
Mr. McAleenan. I think that is something we could discuss
with Congress in the context of improving TVPRA to eliminate
the double standard that now applies for unaccompanied children
coming from contiguous countries, Mexico and Canada, versus
noncontiguous countries.
You know, we have heard from the governments of Central
America saying that we have an interest in our unaccompanied
children who have made their trek to the border. We would like
to be able to provide a safe return for them, but it is not
provided for right now under the TVPRA. That is something we
would like to work on with Congress.
But other changes recommended by members of Congress--that
is absolutely the dialogue that we want to start so that we can
talk about addressing this problem together, then making
effective changes to the law to respond to the flows that we
are seeing today.
Mr. Aguilar. You are talking about the continuous-
noncontiguous. That is what we can expect to see out of the
legislative proposal. Not putting words in your mouth, not that
you would be closed to those other changes, but you wouldn't be
proposing any of those in this legislative package?
Mr. McAleenan. Yeah, the focus is addressing the situation
where there is an incentive to cross as an unaccompanied child
with certainty that you will be allowed to stay.
Mr. Aguilar. Sure.
Mr. McAleenan. And that is what is causing children to get
into the hands of smugglers for thousands of dollars to be
spent with criminal organizations to come to our border. That
is what we are primarily trying to address with the proposal.
Mr. Aguilar. I wasn't here in Congress at the time, but
TVPRA was passed almost unanimously, I think, within the House
and Senate. So I look forward to seeing your legislative
recommendations.
Mr. McAleenan. And could I just add, Congressman, that the
protections in TVPRA against trafficking of children are
essential, and we would like to preserve those, and as well as
the conditions and timelines for custody of children. There is
no recommended change to any of those elements.
CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS
Mr. Aguilar. Look forward to seeing the language.
Mr. Secretary, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was in
contact with DHS about the secretary, the prior secretary
visiting for a discussion, and the date was set for May 23rd. I
don't want to bind you to your predecessor's calendar, but
would you be open to keeping this date, or to working to have a
meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus sometime in the
next 4 to 6 weeks?
Mr. McAleenan. Sir, one of my top priorities in this role
is to have dialogue with members of Congress who are worried
about these problems, and willing to come together to try to
come up with common solutions to them. So I will continue to be
open to engaging. I don't know about that particular date. I am
not in charge of my own calendar.
Mr. Aguilar. I understand the feeling.
Mr. McAleenan. But yes, I would like to engage with you and
other members of the CHC. No question.
NON-INTRUSIVE INSPECTION: SPEND PLAN
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely. I appreciate it.
My last question was just getting a little more clarity on
the NII that you have mentioned, 2 percent of passenger, you
said ramping up to 40 percent?
Mr. McAleenan. Correct.
Mr. Aguilar. By what year?
Mr. McAleenan. 2021.
Mr. Aguilar. And then the commercial you mentioned was 16
percent going to 70 percent?
Mr. McAleenan. Correct.
Mr. Aguilar. In the same----
Mr. McAleenan. Same timeframe.
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. Same timeframe.
Mr. McAleenan. We are going to present a full spend plan
and program to the committee in the coming months.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate the added questions, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Acting Secretary.
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Let me just say that--that the secretary
has actually been proactive in asking for meetings, not only
with the Hispanic Caucus, but other stakeholders, and we will
be making those arrangements.
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Also, I am sure you have noticed that we
have a lot of issues, a lot of concerns and questions about
what is happening at ICE, so I am hoping that once you are able
to be better briefed on ICE and the concerns that have been
raised, that we will be able to have another meeting.
So if there are no more questions, I want to take this
opportunity to thank Mr. Fulghum for his service to our country
over the last 34 years, as he prepares to move on to a new
challenge.
After serving 28 years in the Air Force, Chip joined DHS in
2012 as the budget director. He was later confirmed by the
Senate to serve as the department's chief financial officer,
and I note that he was the last confirmed CFO for DHS. He has
since served as the deputy undersecretary for management, the
acting secretary for management twice, and the acting deputy
secretary twice.
Chip, I thank you for the management acumen you have
brought to the department over the last 6 years. In these last
few years, we have seen a significant maturation of the
department's planning and resource utilization. Most of those
efforts have your fingerprints all over them, including a
complete restructuring of the department's appropriations
account.
The department simply would not be where it is today
without your 6 years of strong leadership. I truly wish you the
best as you head to Texas to start your new endeavor as the
chief operating officer for a nonprofit organization. Best of
luck.
And if there are no other comments, we will conclude
today's hearing. Thank you, Mr. McAleenan.
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And he is a
great guy, too.
[Questions and answers for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, May 1, 2019.
FY 2020 BUDGET HEARING--CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY
AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. CHRISTOPHER KREBS, DIRECTOR, CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SECURITY AGENCY
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Subcommittee will now come to order.
Today we welcome Mr. Krebs, the director of the Cybersecurity
and Infrastructure Security Agency, pronounced CISA?
Director Krebs. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Krebs, thank you for being here this
morning to discuss CISA's fiscal year 2020 budget plan.
I also thank the relatively small but mighty cadre of
professionals that you are leading. Many have high-demand
skillsets and could have higher compensation in the private
sector, yet they have chosen to serve the American people, and
I greatly appreciate what they do every day to fulfill their
mission on behalf of our nation.
In the fiscal year 2019 bill, I was pleased we were able to
provide a strong investment in protecting the Federal cyber
network. This included increases in continuous diagnostics and
mitigation programs, and improvements in securing our nation's
critical infrastructure, such as our election infrastructure
and soft targets, such as schools.
Even with these investments, I remain concerned about the
threat outlook.
Even at a time when then-Secretary Nielsen was focused on
managing a surge of migrants at the southern border, the
secretary cited cyber threats as her top priority, she said--
and I quote--the cyber domain is a target, a weapon, and a
threat vector all at the same time. I share her concerns not
only for Federal networks but also for the nation's critical
infrastructure because our adversaries are moving and adapting
at a pace that far exceeds our own.
That is why it is hard to understand why the fiscal year
2020 request once again proposes a reduction to these missions.
For operations and support, the request is a reduction of 5
percent compared to the current year. For procurement,
construction, and improvements, it is a reduction of 7.4
percent.
If we are to outpace our adversaries who seek to do us
harm, this reduction appears counter to what we need to do.
During this hearing, I hope that we will get some clarity on
this and other aspects of your fiscal year 2020 request and
whether it realistically provides the resources you need to
accomplish your missions in our ever-evolving threat landscape.
Now, before I turn to the director for a summary of his
written statement and the full text of which will be included
in the record, let me first recognize our distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Fleischmann for any remarks he wishes to make.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Appreciate
your holding this hearing as usual, and the great mutual
cooperation we have on both sides of this dais.
Director Krebs, good morning sir. Thank you for coming back
to discuss the fiscal year 2020 budget request for the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
I think we had a very good and informative oversight
hearing a few months ago when we discussed election security
and the cyber threats your agency is working to combat.
Every day we are confronted by news of new data breaches in
both the private sector and unfortunately occasionally a
Federal agency. I know your agency is committed to attacking
these threats and incidents from all angles and I thank you for
that, sir.
So often we focus on the cybersecurity aspect of your
mission. However, the recent tragic events in Sri Lanka are a
tragic reminder of the work we still must do and the important
work you do at CISA and across the department to protect our
cities and people going about their daily lives. I am hopeful
that the funds we provided in 2019 and the request of 2020 will
further your ability, sir, to protect our critical
infrastructure.
I look forward to your testimony this morning. I thank you
and I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director, would you please begin your
statement.
Director Krebs. Yes, ma'am. Good morning. Chairman Roybal-
Allard, Ranking Member Fleischmann, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
regarding the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
or CISA's 2020 budget request.
CISA leads the national effort to save guard and secure
Federal networks and critical infrastructure from cyber and
physical threats. In this sense, we serve as the nation's risk
advisor. To further our efforts in this mission, it is critical
that across government and industry, we have clarity and a
common sense of purpose on what it is we need to protect.
Yesterday, I announced that we reached a new milestone by
identifying a set of National Critical Functions. The NCFs are
functions of government and the private sector so vital to the
United States that their disruption, corruption, or dysfunction
would have a debilitating effect on security, economic
security, national public health or safety, or any combination
thereof.
NCFs represent an evolution in the nation's risk management
efforts by focusing on how entities enable functions or
services across the economy, allowing for a better
understanding of crosscutting risk factors in the increasingly
interdependent nature of connected infrastructure.
The National Critical Functions effort is just one example
of how CISA is leading the nation's risk management efforts and
will serve as a roadmap to guide CISA activities and
investments in the coming years.
Today, I would like to briefly touch on five of those
activities: protection of Federal networks, election security,
operational technology, supply chain risk management, and soft
target security.
Starting with Federal cybersecurity, across the Federal
government, we have better IT capabilities, government wide, we
are on a path to standardization and leadership awareness is at
an all-time high. By issuing guidance or directives to Federal
agencies, providing tools and services, and implementing
cybersecurity initiatives, we are protecting government and
critical infrastructure networks from malicious actors. Binding
Operational Directives have yielded significant results for
Federal cybersecurity.
For instance, we have reduced the time agencies were taking
to patch critical vulnerabilities from an average of 219 days
to an average of around 20 days today. In many cases, this is
better than industry. But we can do better. On Monday, I issued
an updated directive requiring even shorter mitigation
timeframes and for a broader category of vulnerabilities.
Also in January, we issued an emergency directive to
protect Federal networks from a global campaign tampering with
the internet's phonebook known as DNS. This year's budget will
develop efforts to centralize DNS resolution for the Federal
government. If implemented, we could generate a rich set of
analytics that sit on top of traditional DNS services, further
securing Federal networks.
Next, election security. Perhaps the highest profile threat
today is attempts by nation state actors to interfere with our
elections. Over the last two years, we have become close
partners with the election community. Our efforts to protect
2020 and I did bring party favors, you should all have a bumper
sticker, are already underway.
We will focus on broadening the reach and depth of
assistance emphasizing the criticality of election
auditability, prioritizing the need to patch vulnerabilities,
and developing locality-specific cybersecurity profiles that
officials can use to manage risk.
Operational technologies such as industrial control systems
are also important. These components that operate our critical
infrastructure such as manufacturing, the grid, pipelines, and
dams. The increasing integration and connecting of these
technologies has vastly increased the potential impact of cyber
threats. Included in this year's budget is a voluntary pilot
known as CyberSentry that will deploy network centers to detect
malicious activity on critical infrastructure networks
including ICS.
Supply chain is also a priority. CISA shares DHS' seat on
the Federal Acquisition Security Council. This council
established by law last December will provide a coordinated
approach to supply chain security. Our success depends on
collaboration with industry experts as well. Our supply chain
risk management taskforce has brought together 20 Federal
partners and 40 of the largest companies in the IT and
communication sectors to reach consensus on how to best manage
this risk.
Of course, CISA also remains focused on physical threats.
On Saturday, we were once again deeply saddened to learn of the
tragic shooting at a synagogue in Poway, California. Far too
often our nation is confronted with another violent attack on
places such as entertainment venues, places of worship, or
schools.
Earlier this month, CISA updated and released a resource
guide on securing such soft targets in crowded places and also
takes a leadership role in ensuring school safety going
forward.
In closing, I would like to thank the committee for its
continued support of CISA and mission. The authorities and
resources provided over the years have helped raised the
baseline of cybersecurity and mitigate countless threats to
Federal networks and critical infrastructures.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear today,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Director Krebs, I would like to
begin by having you give us your overall vision for Federal
cybersecurity, how it is different from the model that is being
employed today and the challenges that you see standing in the
way of that vision.
Director Krebs. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question.
I like to talk about Federal cybersecurity in three primary
buckets in terms of establishing context.
One, where we were, where we are, and where we need to go.
So, when you think back to the OPM breach and the status of
Federal networks then, in the intervening couple of years using
authorities Congress has granted us under FISMA including
binding operational directives, there is no question we have
made progress.
I cited the patch mitigation plan, the vulnerability
management that we put in place going from 219 days for
patching critical vulnerabilities to less than 20 now into the
15-day range is a significant improvement. Also on email
security and web security, we issued a binding operational
directive for DMARC, that has also put us at the top of the
heap.
So, there is no question that we are better than we were
several years ago. The challenge we have right now, though, is
that across the civilian agencies there are 99 different
agencies that we work with to help improve cybersecurity. We do
provide tools such as the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation
program and the National Cyber Protection System, and those are
certainly providing the appropriate protections in place now.
But we have got to get to a more common synchronized baseline
approach.
And so, later this year we will issue a cybersecurity
baseline that will establish a common understanding and
framework of where these 99 Federal agencies need to go.
Earlier this week also it was announced by OMB that we will
be serving as the quality service management offering for
cybersecurity services, so that we will be able to offer a more
standardized security operations centers as a service for
example.
But to continue going forward in the next several years,
what I would like to see is once again, standardized approaches
to cybersecurity across the agencies, a better harmonization
across services that are provided whether by me or other
agencies. We have to continue to push awareness of threat
information out there. We have to understand and increase
visibility across networks and we have to be able to act
quickly across those networks.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. We continue to hear about new cyber
attacks on Federal networks and critical infrastructure. In
addition to national security concerns, these attacks often
lead to the loss of Americans' private information, significant
economic losses.
As the general matter, do you believe the Federal
government is doing enough on cybersecurity and what cyber
threats are you most focused on in CISA?
Director Krebs. So I think, again, we have made significant
progress over the last couple years. But it almost sounds like
a GAO report, but more work to be done.
We have to continue engaging the critical infrastructure
community, we have to continue sharing information on the level
of the threat. When I think about the threat landscape right
now, for the Federal networks we are principally continuing to
focus on advanced persistent threat actors, and that is nation-
state actors. So that would be Russia, China, Iran, and North
Korea.
But we are seeing an increase in hybrid threat actors, and
so what you are seeing is some nation states are using cutouts
or proxies to further their agenda rather than directly
engaging the military or intelligence services of those
countries. So the landscape is becoming increasingly complex
and diffuse.
Back to the critical infrastructure space, again, we have
to engage more critical infrastructure owners and operators. We
have to get out there and continue to share our understanding
and provide them a baseline understanding of the things that
need to be done to protect their networks. And in part, to
those like in the election infrastructure community where they
may not have their own resources, their internal resources, we
need to be able to provide resources to those folks.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And if you had access to additional
resources, what areas would you prioritize for investment?
Director Krebs. I would scale the existing capabilities we
have, the technical support capabilities we offer to our
critical infrastructure partners. I would also significantly
expand my ability to engage, my stakeholder engagement
mechanisms.
It starts by building trust and you can only build trust by
having relationships and engagement and touch points. We have
to do more to get out there and engage but once we do, we have
to be able to follow through in addition to building these
technical capabilities.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you Madam Chair. Director Krebs, at
our last hearing we spoke about the department's partnership
with our great national labs and specifically the top notch
work being done at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in my
district in Tennessee.
Does CISA have any ongoing projects at Oak Ridge National
Lab? And if so, how are those projects furthering the missions
and goals of CISA?
Director Krebs. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. Oak
Ridge has been a long-term partner of CISA and the NPPD
predecessor particularly in our chemical security efforts. In
fact, Oak Ridge, I probably call them a plank holder in the
chemical security program. So we have been doing work with them
for a dozen years or so.
We have at least two ongoing contracts right now that one
provides assistance and back end analytic support to the
chemical security assessment tool. And this is a critical part
of our chemical security efforts and that is an important tool
going forward.
Mr. Fleischmann. I want to thank you for that and I think
for the record, any time we can leverage the investments of
other agencies like at the Oak Ridge National Lab and at the
Pacific Northwest labs and bring all of our RRDs together, we
are doing great things for our country.
In regard to Federal agencies the request includes $694
million for Federal network protection, a vital and necessary
investment for the operations of our government. I don't think
there is much disagreement that these are all well-spent
dollars.
My first question is more to do with compliance, how do you
ensure the agencies comply with the directives and
recommendations for good cybersecurity practices?
Director Krebs. We work very closely in terms of compliance
with the Office of Management and Budget, but also with the
leadership of the respective departments and agencies. As I
mentioned, 99 agencies--23 or so of those are large agencies.
And then you have small or medium, small, micro, and minis.
We prefer to engage at kind of left of boom. And what I
mean by that our sense of things is that we can constructively
engage the CIOs and the network defenders to help them
implement things like Binding Operational Directives so we
don't have to get to a position where we are penalizing or
otherwise having to use some sort of hammer.
And we have been successful in that. We have not actually
been in a position to date where we have to go any sort of name
and shame campaign or anything.
Again, I sense that the cybersecurity community across the
Federal interagency is willing and able and positively
contributing to the mission. But we need to expect more, not
just of us at CISA but also of our departments and agencies,
there is more work to be done. We are doing a much better job
in terms of protecting Federal networks, but there is more that
we can do.
Mr. Fleischmann. As an analogous question to that, sir, can
more be done to encourage compliance or if need be direct
compliance for good cybersecurity practices at the agencies?
Director Krebs. So, my sense of things right now is where I
would like to go and this also points back to the chairwoman's
question. What we are increasingly finding is that in terms of
cybersecurity at Federal agencies, it is less about deploying
tools across the networks.
What we are finding is we are doing a lot of work just on
the basic architecture advisory services, basic deployment and
updating and upgrading, and modernization of the environment so
that they are deploying more secure by design and by deployment
rather than bolting on security tools. So I think going
forward, one of the things we always need to keep in mind is if
you deploy and configure in a secure manner, then you are not
spending a lot of money on tools on the backend.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Director, do agencies incur
a cost to their own budgets to do this monitoring or applying
software patches?
Director Krebs. Yes, sir. There are always going to be cost
associated with IT security spend. I think if you look at
industry for example, about four percent of IT budget is
cybersecurity expenditures.
So there are cost associated, the people costs, tool costs,
licensing costs, time costs in terms of security
implementation. But, again, if we can include security advisory
services in just baseline IT planning and IT expenditures, then
I think we will be getting some economies of scale and
efficiencies down the road.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. One final question.
Do you have any suggestions on how we could help educate
our colleagues and subcommittees that these investments are
just as necessary as grants or other programs with organized
constituencies?
Director Krebs. Yes, sir. I think just like anything else
in the cybersecurity space, conversation, awareness building, I
go out and brief boards of directors and C-suites of critical
infrastructure across the country, I see Congress as a board of
directors.
And so, I think anything we can do to help share our
understanding of the threat environment, share our
understanding of the things we need to be doing in the various
agencies whether that is briefing the subcommittees, happy to
contribute to that effort.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. This will work. Yes.
But first thing, Director Krebs, I think you are doing a
good job. You have got a big job, a lot of issues not only
educating the public but educating us in Congress. There a lot
of people in Congress that really need to know a lot more. So,
keep doing what you are doing.
First, Chairwoman, I want to thank you for having this
hearing. It is the second time we have had you here. That is in
my opinion very positive, because I think we need to make
cybersecurity a high priority and we have a long way to go, as
you know, our entire .gov system and what we are doing in the
whole country. And the more that we can focus with you and you
can work with us so we could help you with your resources, the
better we are going to be, because it's serious threat, an
example of that and then that is going to be question.
But I think Commerce in 2017 said that we had over $600
billion stolen. And that is in academia, that is in medical,
that is in space, that is where we go. And a lot of it is
China, but there are other countries too that they are stealing
a lot. So I just want to acknowledge that and thank you for
making this issue a priority.
My question, last week I think you spoke at the Atlantic
Council's International Conference. We were following you
around so we would know what you are doing. We are your board
of directors, on cyber engagement. And you highlighted among
other items, the continued intellectual property theft, assault
on our country by foreign adversaries.
The U.S. Trade Representative as I said estimated in 2017
there was over $600 billion that was stolen. We need to deter
bad actors while simultaneously providing support and security
to those who need help.
Now, in your opinion, how important the Department of
Homeland Security Emergency Directive Authority--can you give
us any studies for example of how the use of emergency
directive has helped improve security? And highlight any items
in your fiscal year 20 budget that incorporate lessons learned
from previous emergency directives? Did you get it?
Director Krebs. Yes, sir. Thank you. The Emergency
Directive Authority and thank you for the Atlantic Council
reference, that was a good event and I had some interesting Q&A
and I think your staff was there for that.
The Emergency Directive Authority is an important tool in
the toolkit that we use sparingly and we use it in a pragmatic
fashion. We used our first emergency directive earlier this
year in January during the government shutdown, I think I spoke
about that in the last time I was with you.
But we working with the industry had detected in global
scale a DNS tampering campaign effectively, as I mentioned at
my opening, messing around with the internet's phonebook. We
have included in the 2020 request a line that would allow us to
put us on a path to implement a more holistic approach to DNS
management across the Federal government, rather than agencies
doing their own DNS records management, this will put us on a
path of more centralized services, that would allow us the
ability to lock down DNS as well as understand how the
adversary may be exploiting DNS.
As it so happens, malware tends to communicate with its C2,
its command and control infrastructure oftentimes using DNS. So
it would put us on top of that, be able to see it and stop it.
We actually modeled this in part after an approach the
United Kingdom has taken with their public DNS service, the
National Cybersecurity Center, my counterpart in the U.K., they
have taken, they are implementing this service. And so we are
looking at their success and this is a bit of an example of how
I look at my international partners as a bit of a test lab. So
if I see good things that other countries are doing, I try to
bring it back here. And so this is just one example. But is
also informed by our January experience with emergency
directives.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Also, as you know 80 percent of the
network is controlled by the private sector. Do you work
closely with the key players and the people who know what they
are doing in the commercial side?
Director Krebs. Yes, sir. Between the ISPs, the registrars,
the registries, we have a network of partners, and we work with
them in a couple different ways but we have some of them within
the National Communications Center at our NCCIC facility in
Virginia. We actually have telco representatives----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Could you explain what do you think is
sort of----
Director Krebs [continuing]. The National Cybersecurity and
Communications Integration Center, you are all welcome to come
over and visit and I invite you to come, we can do a tour. Show
you what our capabilities are and who the partners across both
the Federal government and the industry that sit with us.
But, yes, we have those strong partnerships and really,
those are key. I said it before that I see CISA, we sit at the
intersection of Department of Defense, the intelligence
community, law enforcement and the industry. In many respects,
particularly the government conversations, we are the advocate
for industry within the Federal government. So it is important
that we have close relationships and co-location with our
industry partners.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you Madam Chair.
Director Krebs, welcome. Thanks for being back with us,
sharing with us your priorities of carrying out your mission
and protecting our cyber infrastructure as well as our physical
infrastructure in the country is increasingly important.
As you mentioned, you said something like you have to
engage more with our partners in infrastructure and if there is
anything that we can do to help you with that, I would
certainly be interested in whether it is law changes,
resources, whatever it is that we need to provide for you to
help you do your job, let us know.
Something that has come to my attention recently and I have
actually seen examples of this is something called, I believe,
it is deep fakes and as that technology seems to be improving
and growing, people can falsely disseminate information with a
use of a smartphone and I guess I am not saying we need to
monitor U.S. citizens by the Federal government.
However, how do we combat the use of this of getting false
information out that could have truly negative impact on a lot
of different things? Are we prepared to combat these kinds of
technologies that are emerging, and I would just like to hear
what your perspective is and where we are on this kind of
emerging technology?
Director Krebs. Yes, sir. Deep fakes are certainly a
concern and essentially what we are talking about here is
whether a video that has been doctored or otherwise manipulated
to appear as if someone is saying something they didn't say,
same thing can go for audio.
I think if you look back to the way some of our
adversaries, particularly the Russians, but also potentially
the Chinese have, how they are engaging and influence
campaigns. If you think about the way the Russians in the 2016
election manipulated social media, there are certainly
opportunities for them to use things like deep fakes to confuse
the public to continue to divide.
It is an area of focus for the Federal research community
and the intelligence community, law enforcement to understand
what the, kind of emerging trend lines are and what the
capabilities are, who has these capabilities. But ultimately,
my sense of things and this is one of those things we are
working towards as we build up towards 2020, but is educating
the American public on what the trusted sources of information
are, how to think more critically about information that is
anonymously posted online, whether it is a video or on social
media or whatever.
But that is probably the greatest challenge ahead of us. So
when I think about election security piece, yes, protecting
state and local governments' networks is hard but it is
manageable. Working with campaigns to help protect their
infrastructure, that is hard but it is manageable.
The social media thing and really increasing the resilience
of the American people to withstand or be able to identify
issues like this, that is going to be the big challenge ahead
of us.
Mr. Newhouse. That is what I have seen so far that the
examples, I don't know if you have seen this Madam Chair, but
the videos of people that you would recognize and their mouths
are making the words but it is kind of rudimentary at this
point but as with everything it will get more sophisticated.
Director Krebs. And how much more sophisticated does it
actually need to be before it is good enough?
Mr. Newhouse. Yes, yes.
Director Krebs. So, again, we think back to--there are a
couple of examples of things that we saw in 2016. In the state
of Ohio, there was a video posted on social media of--that a
user had claimed that a voting machine was malfunctioning and
the vote was being changed.
The secretary of state contacted us. We were able to pass
that over to the social media company, working with them they
were able to determine that it was a doctored video. So, maybe
in some sense it is like a deep fake.
They were able to debunk that, get the information back to
the secretary of state who was then able to put out a statement
and say, You know what? This is not true. It was doctored. It
has been removed. That will happen within a very quick
timeframe, less than a couple of hours, really.
So, there are ways to combat it if you can connect the
players who can debunk and then the people that are hosting, so
what we are doing is working through on our side some of the
frameworks and mechanisms for identifying debunking and
removing content.
Mr. Newhouse. Good, good. All right. Well, I appreciate
that. Thank you very much.
Director Krebs. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. Again, thanks for being here and we look
forward to working with you.
Director Krebs. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I would actually like to give you a
little bit more time to respond to Mr. Newhouse's opening
statement in terms of what it is that we can do more to be
helpful.
Director Krebs. So, I thank you for that because I actually
took note. I was thinking specifically, look, I have really
good tools but I could have the best tools in the world, but if
I don't have the ability to engage my stakeholders, then they
are worthless.
So, I need to get more ability, more people more
mechanisms, more tools to get out there, engage the critical
infrastructure community. We are talking thousands and
thousands and tens of thousands.
Elections is just one example. So, in 2018, we worked with
all 50 states in 1,400 local jurisdictions. The challenge here
is that there are 8,800 local election jurisdictions. So, I
have got a delta that I have got to match.
How do I do that? I need people engaging. I need to work
with stakeholder groups. That----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Do you need more authorities--
Director Krebs. It is not so much authorities. I need time.
That is one thing you can't buy.
Mr. Newhouse. Resources----
Director Krebs. But I need more time and I need more
resources. Congress has given us $59.4 million in the past two
years, 2018 and 2019 for election security work. We are
requesting this year's president's budget about $22.3 million
per election security work.
When you think about that, that is over $80 million in
terms of dedicated election money. That is going to help us
continue to push out but again, I need time. I need people and
I need the resources to get out there.
Once I do get--make that positive contact and the requests
come in for support, I do have good tools. But the bandwidth I
have for tool delivery right now is not going to match what I
suspect the requirement base is going to be.
State and local governments is just one example of we could
really solve a lot of the nation's problems if we had the
ability to engage on a daily basis and provide them tools. And
if you think about the National Critical Functions list that we
issued yesterday, 55 National Critical Functions.
One of those is election security. Congress has invested to
date $60 million in one critical function, potentially another
$22.3. So that gives us as I mentioned in my opening a roadmap
as we prioritize which of those functions are the most
important. How do we think about the investments that need to
be dedicated or put against each of those functions going
forward.
Mr. Newhouse. So if I may, Madam Chair, thank you for
expounding on that. It is not a reluctance on the part of the
8,800 jurisdictions around the country or the managers of dams
and pipelines and grid throughout the country. It is more an
issue of our ability as the Federal government to respond to
those requests and it needs----
Director Krebs. It is, first, it is going and finding the
stakeholders. It is engaging with the stakeholders. Not
everybody, particularly across the small and medium business
cohort don't have the resources to engage, particularly in
Washington, D.C. through an advocacy or a trade association. So
we have got to get out there in the field. That is one part of
it.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
Director Krebs. The other part of is just basic awareness.
For too long, I think we have kind of glossed over the fact
that there are nation states out there that are trying to do us
harm. We have got to continue to push to the message that, yes,
there are risks, particularly as we continue to connect to
cyberspace.
In 2016, one of the biggest challenges as we engaged state
and local election officials is the initial disbelief that they
were on the frontlines of a nation state attack that a state in
the Midwest may be a target of the Russian GRU.
We have to get past this. As you plug into the internet,
you are in the game. You are in the global game in the
cybersecurity space.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Meng, thank you for your patience.
Ms. Meng. No problem. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, ranking
member. And thank you, Director Krebs for being here again. I
appreciate your work in updating us and as a new member of the
subcommittee, I am learning a lot as well.
As you know, Federal investments in scientific research and
higher education are critical to our national security,
maintaining American leadership and innovation and fostering
economic growth and jobs.
We know current and future threats to our country's
cybersecurity are varied and constantly evolving. Given CISA's
mission along with efforts in DHS Science and Technology on
cybersecurity, what is CISA's academic outreach strategy for
cyber research and development?
How can we maybe be helpful even in our local districts
with our academic and/or business partners and allies? I am
concerned also about the fiscal year 2020 budget request, which
includes a reduction of over $17 million from R&D for cyber.
What R&D activities or programs will be affected or cut
with this decrease in funding? And forgive the long question.
Director Krebs. Thank you for the question. I actually had
the opportunity yesterday to testify in front of the House
Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cyber and Infrastructure and
Innovation alongside Bill Bryan, the senior official
responsible over at the Science and Technology Directorate.
And one of the things that--I have known Bill for years and
one of the things that we committed to when we both came into
our leadership positions here at the Department was that we
were going to work together. That we were going to harmonize
our efforts. That we were not going to work at cross purposes
and we were not going to work independent of each other. And
what Bill has done over in S&T through his vitalization program
is turned S&T into a very customer service-focused
organization.
And I have embeds from S&T that sit with my team that work
regularly with my chief technology officer and are able to
identify R&D requirements across CISA and then feed those into
the S&T pipeline.
Now, Bill does have other cybersecurity stakeholders across
the department--Coast Guard, ISHSI, Secret Service. So, I am
not the only customer but I am able to push over requirements
and he has an understanding of where I want to go.
And the best part about this is there really no surprises,
so he is not doing something that may ultimately undermine one
of the efforts that I am doing. That is not always been the
case. There have not been strong relationships between S&T and
previously NPPD.
So, that was one of those things, we are all in this
together. And it is important that we work it together. So,
understanding that there have been some puts and takes in the
budgets, regardless of where the R&D money lands, whether in my
budget or Bill's budget, we will get the job done. The
cybersecurity research and development across the Department of
Homeland Security will be done in a professional, coordinated
and ultimately impactful manner.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I have another question about the
EINSTEIN system which looks for known threats. What is in place
to protect our Federal networks from unknown threats? EINSTEIN
provides physical protections of information going in and out
of government premises, also wanted to know what steps are
being taken to protect this information through cloud
computing, mobile type networks, and how does EINSTEIN address
those?
Director Krebs. So, thank you and I think I spoke about
this a little bit the last time I was with you. The way that we
think about EINSTEIN, it is actually wrapped up in a bigger
program called the National Cyber Protection System.
And there are a couple of different line items within, or
work streams within the NCPS. One of them is just basic net
flow monitoring. And it is looking really at what is happening
across the networks for forensic purposes.
And then we have an intrusion detection system, and then
finally the E3, EINSTEIN 3 Accelerated, which is taking
classified signatures. And it is important to note that it is
the only classified signature capability available within the
civilian space--commercial or government. It is the only game
in town. And we find significant value out of it in terms of
targeting nation state campaigns against Federal networks.
But based on the information that we have been able to
collect over the last 10 years or so, whether it is from the
net flow, the detection system or the prevention system, we are
in the pilot phase of predictive analytics.
So, we have the ability to understand just in terms of
looking for anomalous behavior. So it is not about it is a
signature, it is communicating with a certain DNS. We actually
have the ability to say that user usually isn't online at that
time or that user usually doesn't log in from that address or
location.
And that is, again, part of the predictive analytics bucket
that we are able to--and we will be rolling that out in the
future. But, again, what we need is the people and the
resources to scale that over Federal government.
We are still in the early days. We have some request in the
2020 budget but my hope is that in the future years that as we
really build this capability, we are going to be able to invest
in that, really roll it and I think it will be a significant
game changer.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, director, for being here this
afternoon and I don't know how you sleep at night with some of
the issues that you face.
Director Krebs. I didn't last night. But that is because I
have five kids and two of them were sick all night, so----
Mr. Rutherford. Oh, that is----
Director Krebs [continuing]. Different story.
Mr. Rutherford. So cyber is nothing for you then. And so
let me ask you just a sidebar question real quick. The KSAs,
the knowledge, skills and abilities that are needed within
cyber, the cyber world and the ability to create innovation,
how does America compare to some of our peer adversaries? Are
we in good shape?
Or, are our universities turning out individuals that are
capable of defending us in creating that innovation that we
need to stay one step ahead of adversaries?
Director Krebs. That is a really interesting question. And
I have thought about this in a couple different lights, and it
has been something that has been top of mind for me over the
last several months, particularly as we think about the
continued online aggression by in part looking at China, for
instance.
They continue to come in and steal our intellectual
property. They are setting up a system of laws whether it's the
intelligence law, the cybersecurity law that compel U.S.
companies to turn over information as they come in to that
market.
They are using Chinese students to come into our
universities and steal intellectual property and research and
take it back. But ultimately, what I have hope about and
optimism about is that, any way you cut it, I still think the
United States of America is the best place in the world to
live, to work, to innovate.
If you have an idea, you could bring it forward here, look
at the companies at Silicon Valley alone but increasingly other
technology and innovation hubs across the country, in all parts
of the country, fly-over country or not.
It is still the best, most innovative place to work. So, I
have hope that today and in the long-term, we are still turning
out the capabilities we need. But at the same time, the threat
landscape is--it is not that the threat landscape is evolving
so quickly, it is that our understanding of the threat
landscape is what is evolving.
And there is a technology deficit and there is a workforce
deficit. Just yesterday on the Senate side, a bill of cyber
workforce rotational program came out. Senator Peters, Ranking
Member Peters is the original sponsor, I think.
And so when that comes over to the House that would be a
useful tool across, I think, the Federal government to start
moving people around, so that we get standardization of
experiences and we start, can upskill some folks.
The administration is looking at a number of different
workforce innovations and I expect imminent action out of the
White House on that. So, we are making progress there, but we
have got to think about the existing talent pool and getting
them in the right spot, whether it is through cross training,
upscaling.
We have to think about the education pipeline or K through
12 as I already talked about, two of my kids, I have got three
more. I want to make sure that when they hit the workforce that
they have the tools and talents needed.
So, it is STEM and STEM investments. We have got to do a
better job at the education. That is not just the Federal
government. That is an all of the nation effort. So that is, if
industry really wants to be, the technology industry in
particular wants to be setting the global pace, they need to
invest in their local communities as well.
And then also it is the educators. Without the educators,
the K through 12 system and my kids aren't going to have the
tools they need.
Mr. Rutherford. You mentioned that one thing that we could
help you with is, one of the challenges that you face is more
engagement of the 55 identified critical infrastructure areas
out there.
Of those 55, are they in some rank order, you have----
Director Krebs. So, that is the precise next question. So
historically, we have been looking to the critical
infrastructure community at 16 sectors, which is useful in
terms of organizing across the economy in a kind of artificial
way.
But what we were doing with the National Critical Functions
was looking more systemically. What are the things that the
sectors deliver and how do they interrelate. So, you can't have
energy without telecommunications and water and finance.
You can't have finance without telecommunications and
energy. So, we are trying to map these interconnections. As we
look at the 55, the 55 National Critical Functions, we also
have to keep in mind that if everything is a priority nothing
is a priority.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Director Krebs. So, we will have to do some analysis and
that is what we are going to do next. We will be kicking off a
prioritization process and that will allow us to figure out
where we need to dedicate resources, how to align initiatives
at, various departments and private sector initiatives.
So, I am very excited. This is an evolution in the way we
think about risk management. And it will I think really help
inform both your efforts as well as mine.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. I see my time has expired.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Krebs, it is good to see you again. When you were here
in March, if you recall, I asked you how we could have
confidence that the administration is taking the threat to our
election system seriously given President Trump's insistence
that Russia did not interfere with the 2016 election.
And at the time, you told me and I will just remind you of
what you said, I quote, I have been in meetings with the
President when he said he believes the intelligence community
report, I take him at his word.
Now, I was reminded of our exchange last week when the New
York Times published an article stating that in the months
before she was forced to resign, former DHS Secretary Nielsen
tried to focus the White House on preparing for new and
different Russian forms of interference in the 2020 election.
I guess trying to actually live with the hash tag, but was
told by Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney not to bring the issue
up in front of the President since he still equates the
discussion of malignant Russian election activity with
questions about his legitimacy.
According to the article, Secretary Nielsen eventually gave
up on her effort to organize a White House meeting of cabinet
secretaries to coordinate a strategy to protect next year's
elections.
So, Director Krebs, has the President received a briefing
from DHS on potential Russian interference in our elections in
2020?
Director Krebs. So, generally speaking, as I mentioned in
the last hearing, I have been in some meetings with the
president--haven't been in all meetings with the president, but
he did agree with the intelligence community assessment, in
fact, he is on the record in front of the camera last----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Has he had a briefing----
Director Krebs. From me personally? No, ma'am. He has not.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Has he had a briefing from anyone in
your department, in your agency? Are you aware of the president
receiving a briefing from DHS on potential Russian interference
in our elections in 2020?
Director Krebs. In the 2020 efforts? Not that I am aware of
in 2020. I know I have had to talk to Acting Secretary
McAleenan several times over the last couple weeks. And I
worked very closely with Secretary Nielsen on this issue.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. Okay. But if this is going
to--if we are really taking this seriously and having it be
more than hash tag protect 2020 then one would hope that the
president of the United States would be briefed and be fully
aware of the risk and be a part of directing what it is that
should happen in order to actually protect our elections in
2020.
So has an interagency strategy to protect next year's
elections been developed despite Secretary Nielsen's inability
to organize a White House meeting of cabinet secretaries? And
when can we expect a briefing on that strategy?
Director Krebs. So, we are working--the various departments
and agencies are working on their elements right now in
coordination with the National Security Council. Director Coats
was pretty clear about that in his statement last week, that we
are working together.
We have a plan. We are pulling the pieces together. In
terms of an overarching briefing on a strategy, my hope is that
just like last summer, when we did an all House classified
briefing and we did an all Senate classified briefing, we can
pull that together again soon.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That would be incredibly helpful.
Did the former secretary ever express frustration to you that
she was unable to organize a cabinet level meeting on election
security with the president?
Director Krebs. I was surprised by a number of things in
the New York Times article. I have no evidence or indication
that any of those anonymous sources that anything they said was
true. Secretary Nielsen and I worked very closely on election
security efforts and she never mentioned anything.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So she wasn't trying to organize a
cabinet level meeting?
Director Krebs. No, ma'am. What I am saying is that she
never mentioned to me that she was told not to bring it up with
the president.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But there wasn't--she was trying to
organize a meeting and that meeting didn't happen.
Director Krebs. Ma'am. I don't know specifically whether--
what her specific conversations with Mulvaney were, with the
chief of staff.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Again, trying to assess the
seriousness of the administration's commitment to protect in
2020, last week, President Trump's son-in-law and Senior
Advisor Jared Kushner characterized Russian interference in the
2016 election as a couple of Facebook ads.
Is that a fair characterization? And how would you
characterize the depth of Russia's interference in the 2016
election?
Director Krebs. So, I think the intelligence community--and
I didn't see this specific interview but the intelligence
community was very clear. The intelligence community assessment
of January 17, the DOJ indictments were very clear on the
Russian efforts, the Mueller report very clear on Russian
efforts.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, it was far deeper than a couple
of Facebook ads, the Russian interference with the 2016
elections?
Director Krebs. There were three distinct lines of effort,
attempting to interfere and intervene with state and local
election officials. There were hacking campaigns against the
DNC. And there were the social media discord campaign, which
continues to this day. It is not just election-focused.
They generally speaking, the Russians are attempting to
divide Americans along any issue that is potentially
exploitable.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Lastly, before my time expires.
Kushner also claimed that investigations into election
interference by Russia have been way more harmful than the
interference itself. Do you agree with Jared Kushner that
investigations into election interference have been more
harmful than the interference itself?
Director Krebs. Yes. The Mueller investigation was a duly
authorized investigation by the Department of Justice. I think
the Volume one builds on the intelligence community assessment
and prior indictments.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We are going to need more than a
hash tag. I trust your commitment to it but making sure that
this commitment goes to the highest levels all the way up to
the president and the White House.
Perhaps, you need to make sure that the folks in the White
House understand the depth of what we experienced in 2016 and
really commit to making sure that we can never allow it to
happen again.
Director Krebs. Yes, ma'am. We are all in.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I hope all means really means all.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. That concludes round one. So we are
going to have a second round.
Mr. Krebs, you stated that addressing a supply chain risk
is one of your top priorities for CISA. Could you help us
better understand the threat and its scope and what activity
CISA is engaged in to mitigate that threat?
Director Krebs. Yes, ma'am. So, supply chain is one of
those areas that as I have talked about, our better
understanding of risk. The more we understand the risk
landscape, I think the more refining that, the more work we
have to do.
Supply chain is probably the area where that is most
apparent. We have two kind of central lines of effort within
the Department right now, within CISA. One is on the Federal
network side, so thanks to Congress's action last year, we have
just since stood up the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain
Council. The first meeting was held yesterday, in fact. And
Assistant Director Manfra of the Cybersecurity Division within
my agency is the DHS chair, the DHS representative to the
Council.
That will focus on how to enable better Federal acquisition
processes, including building on some of the learnings we have
from the Kaspersky anti-virus Binding Operational Directive. We
will be able to issue exclusion orders to take action on
certain procurements or actions, products, services that may be
across the Federal enterprise.
So very hopeful that this will help evolve the way that we
manage risk. And the idea ultimately is to get us into a better
kind of left of boom or left of procurement, pre-procurement
position where we are making better decisions and we are
getting contracting officers and people to actually write the
RFPs to have the appropriate understanding of how to get best
outcome, so we don't have to tell people to pull stuff out down
the road.
So Federal side, and the on the industry side as I
mentioned in my opening, we have an ICT supply chain
taskforce--20 Federal government agencies, 20 IT sector
companies, 20 communications companies.
And that was stood up last summer after the National Risk
Management Center was opened. And the concept here with the
taskforce is to bring folks together and first and foremost get
an understanding of what everyone is doing across the Federal
space and the industry space.
So have an inventory of what all the supply chain tools,
capabilities, resources are. And then beneath that, there are
four other work streams. First, is what is the right
bidirectional threat sharing framework?
So, if I have information on something like Kaspersky in
the future, how do I get that out into industry? How does the
industry share something that they may find that would be
concerning in their supply chains?
Number two, it is an actual risk assessment framework for
making sure that we are talking about risk in the supply chain,
not just the threat but the actual impact and the potential
consequences of a vulnerable or an exploitable piece of
hardware or software. How do we talk about that consistently?
And so, it is not tower of Babel conversations, we are using
the same language.
Third is figuring out what the elements of a qualified
bidders list and qualified manufacturers list would look like,
so we can have--white list isn't the right way to put it but we
know where to go for trusted procurement. We know where to go
for trusted products and services. And lastly, kind of
similarly, what are the incentives structures that we need to
put in place for both Federal procurement and private sector
procurement to encourage buying from original equipment
equipment manufacturers and authorized resellers to eliminate
the counterfeit threat and white labeling.
We still see even in the Federal government shadow IT,
where people can use P cards to go buy things off eBay and
others that may not be what they claim to be, that could be
some--there could be a case where a product brought--offered
by, for instance one of the companies restricted by Section 889
from the last year's NDAA. It could be something from one of
those companies that has been white labeled, meaning they take
the label off of it and then they give it to somebody else and
they put their label on it, and then that enters into the
supply chain.
So we need to be thinking not just one hop, but two, three,
four hops out in terms of eliminating risk.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And what more could be done if
additional resources were provided? And does the 2020 budget
help you to get there?
Director Krebs. So the 2019 budget gives us, I think, a
preliminary jumping off point for $2 million to $3 million for
our supply chain efforts to put staff against our supply chain
risk management efforts within the National Risk Management
Center, but my sense of things is this will be the
conversation, this will be what really drives the risk
management conversation in 2 to 3 years, is the supply chain
piece.
So we have got to continue bringing supply chain risk
management experts into the department. We have to continue to
build the mechanisms for conversation in the frameworks for the
Federal government, but ultimately, in terms of actually
managing the Federal government space, I am going to need
tools.
I am going to need to bring in tools, for instance, to
improve our--we do supply chain risk management assessments of
the CDM Approved Products List, but I think we could probably
do more. I think we can go deeper. I think we can continue to
expand our understanding of relationships across vendor
supplier relationships.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. After this hearing I would like to
talk to you a little bit more about some of those ideas.
Director Krebs. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Director Krebs, yesterday afternoon, we met with Acting
Administrator Gaynor in a hearing on FEMA's 2020 budget
request. This year, FEMA is requesting $9.6 million to
modernize five more sites of the Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System, IPAWS, and $18.3 million to fund, among other
IT investments, improved resilient communications for immediate
cybersecurity vulnerabilities. CISA's request includes $167
million for emergency communications as well.
How does your mission to protect communication as a
critical infrastructure sector intersect with FEMA's mission of
first responder and recovery agent?
Director Krebs. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
This is an area of the agency that I actually don't get to
talk about as much as it really deserves. So the Emergency
Communications Division within CISA is responsible for ensuring
the interoperable communications of public safety first
responders and law enforcement across the country.
And it is less about providing technical capabilities,
actually deploying the communications devices and the networks,
but it is more about establishing a framework and including the
National Security Emergency Communications Plan, but the
framework within which our state, local, Federal responders all
interoperate, meaning regardless of where you sit, what
jurisdiction, what level of government, in the event of a
crisis or response event, you can interact. You can talk.
That was one of the key learnings coming out of the 9/11
Commission. We are continuing to push into this effort. So a
lot of this for us is capacity building. It is getting out
there doing training on safe comm, for instance. We do a
significant amount of engagement. This is kind of my earlier
point about the more I can engage, the more successful we will
be. ECD, its bread and butter for the last 15 years or so, when
it was previously the Office of Emergency Communications, has
been just a steady diet of getting out there, working with
first responders, they have an incredibly cooperative and
positive relationship with their stakeholders.
And it is really truly driving results, including as we
think about the deployment FirstNet right now, which Mr. Gaynor
may have spoken about, but there is more to do here as well. So
it is not just about being able to interoperate, being to able
speak seamlessly, but they are now increasingly--particularly
as we go to next-gen 911 and things like that, there will be
cybersecurity risks that we are introducing to operations.
And emergency responders have been traditionally physical
responders, but we need to make sure that they are aware of
some of the cybersecurity risks that are within the
technologies that they are using.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. And how were the two funding
initiatives different and could do without the other, sir?
Director Krebs. Oh, I haven't thought about it from that
perspective. But I think they all serve their own purposes and
I think they are important. And we work very closely with FEMA.
We work very closely with the IPAWS team and I think going
forward, they absolutely serve very important independent
purposes.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. The attacks in Sri Lanka on
Easter Sunday were a somber reminder of why we need security
agencies.
The budget includes a $1 million increase for the Bomb-
Making Materials Awareness Program and transitions the
initiative to a program of record. In this unclassified
setting, sir, how this additional $1 million will be used in
2020 and what metrics will be used to achieve these funds?
Director Krebs. So BMAP, the Bomb-Making Awareness Program,
Materials Awareness Program is a hugely successful effort for
us. What the additional $1 million will do in addition to
making it a program of record will allow additional modules to
be added. I have talked a lot today about stakeholder
engagement. It will also allow us to continue to expand our
ability to engage across the stakeholder community.
One thing to think about is the, I was saying in the
unclassified space is where the threat streams are changing a
little bit, we have historically been, whether it is the CFATS
program or chemical security voluntary programs, what we are
seeing is a bit of a shift in how the adversary is chemicals in
commerce and bomb-making awareness is one of those things, how
we can--whether it is in the private sector or state and
locals, give them the right cues so that they can look for
things that might be included in a bomb so that they can see
something, say something.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Director Krebs. I have
appreciated your testimony. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I just wanted to briefly follow up on
one of my questions about more we can do back home or locally.
You have talked about the importance of investment in STEM
technology and obviously R&D. What more can the academia world
or our corporate allies, what more should they be doing? In New
York, for example, have you been able to have conversations,
discussions with corporate allies in what more they can be
doing whether it is STEM, STEAM education or just R&D
investments in general.
Director Krebs. Absolutely. This is one of those questions
that I could spend the rest of the day talking about I think
the things we need to do.
Ultimately, any way you cut it particularly on a
cybersecurity side, success is going to depend on collective
effort. It is a shared responsibility.
I need to be putting people in a position where they can
make the right decisions or the appropriate decisions to manage
their risk in the right way, but that is not just about
deploying a patch. That is also about engaging locally in the
community. That is about investing in future technologies, but
doing it in a way that ensures that it is done in a secure
manner.
I think there are a number of things I could put to
recently that are good examples of how industry is engaging.
Just a couple weeks ago, a few companies, MasterCard, Workday,
Microsoft and a couple others launched something known as the
Cyber Talent Initiative, where they will help pay for college
for a couple--for students, either graduate or undergraduate
programs and then working with the Federal government, will be
provided jobs and then it is sort of a scholarship program.
They come in, they work for us, and then they can go back out
into industry.
That is just one example of how we are seeing investments
in the education pipeline. I think those are important to keep
up. R&D, of course, the Federal government does invest whether
it is In-Q-Tel, DARPA, HSR, whatever it is, they will continue
to invest in research based on the requirements that we have
developed or identified, but any way you cut it, the industry
whether it is the high-tech community or whatever, will
continue to be really pushing the innovation in the United
States.
Now, what I think they could do more of is as you look at
the global marketplace, as you think about countries like
China, it is an opportunity, for sure, for revenue. It is an
opportunity for potential advanced partners, but there are
significant risks and threats that go along with it. There is a
very clear agenda on part of the Chinese government to outpace,
outstrip, and John Demers from DOJ says rob, replicate, and
replace.
So we are at-risk long-term of losing our competitive
advantage in the world. There are a couple battle lines being
drawn right now and I think 5G is probably one of those, but we
have got to continue to invest. We have to have our companies
and our organizations as they engage in the marketplace need to
be thinking beyond the next quarter or two and think about the
next 5 years or so, think on behalf of the shareholders long-
term, don't just hand over your source code when you go engage
in certain markets, protect your intellectual property.
The same thing, as I have already mentioned, goes for the
academic community here. When you think about students that are
coming in, it is not about limiting the students.
It is about understanding what is valuable, what research
you are doing is valuable, whether it is a Federally-funded
grant, whether it is an industry-funded grant, understand what
is valuable in your networks, protect it, limit the access as
appropriate, but understand that we have is valuable, but at
the same time, we need to ensure that particularly in the
academic community that that open--that the ethos of open
engagement and academic exploration continues, again, to drive
that innovative and competitive edge.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, again, Director
Krebs, thank you for being here with us today.
You have talked a little bit about the efforts along the
lines of ensuring our elections process is safe and secure. In
your written testimony, you discussed a lot of the things
leading up to the 2018 election that the agency engaged in,
table top exercises and different things.
Could you talk a little bit about what is planned for 2020,
some--maybe taking what you learned in 2018 and also, how you
are addressing some of the deficits that you have identified in
state and local governments?
Director Krebs. Yes, sir. So I always, like kind of telling
the story of where we were, where we are now, and where we need
to go. So in 2016 when the Federal government began to,
understood what was going on and realized that there this
important election infrastructure out there that may be
susceptible to exploitation or attack, we didn't necessarily
know who the stakeholders were. We didn't know who secretaries
of state were. We didn't know who the local officials were. So
there was a lot of catch-up and it wasn't even about building
trust then, it was just trying to figure out who they are and
get stuff into their hands, and there was any trust.
You know, there was a lot of concern that what is
historically by statute and tradition managed by the state and
local governments was going to be overtaken by the Federal
government and that is obviously something that we are not
interested in doing, but there was a lot of just discovery.
Mr. Newhouse. Suspicion.
Director Krebs. There was suspicion. But yes, definitely
discovery. So in terms of the run up to 2018, what we were
doing was building trust and sharing information on what the
threat was and then basic tools and capabilities, so it was
kind of that upward climb.
Now, we have, as I mentioned earlier, relationships and
engagement with all 50 states. And that level of engagement
grows every single day. We have states that are looking to do
new things with us on every single day. In addition, there is
those 6300 or so additional jurisdictions, 7500 jurisdictions
that we have got to engage.
That is, again, going to take time and just steady diet of
engagement, and it is not just going direct to the election
officials, but it is also working with their supply chain. So
there are vendors out there that provide election management
services to thousands of stakeholders. So we need to work with
that group of folks and then they can, we can ride in on them
to engage the election officials.
But in terms of specifics for 2020, again, it is reaching
as many of those officials as possible. It is really improving
our understanding of where the risk lies in the system. What
are those things that are vulnerable? What are those things
that have the highest consequence? What are the things that
have the highest likelihood, and conversely what are the things
that where there is the lowest likelihood of exploitation?
So we can inform the conversation the right way so not
every little vulnerability that pops up is the end of the
world, because ultimately what we are trying to do is yes,
protect the system so it can't be exploited, but we have to
restore confidence in the electoral process because what is at
stake here is fundamentally is democracy.
Through that process, we will also be pushing just like we
are doing on the Federal government side, but patch management,
really getting folks in a position to patch, patch, patch. We
are still seeing some cases where it has taken too long to
patch critical vulnerabilities.
We will do that, but ultimately, getting to auditability.
Getting to end-to-end auditability across the systems whether
that is through hand-marked paper ballots or whatever, we have
got to get to a position where we have confidence that we can
work back through the system and understand how that vote was
cast and that it was counted correctly.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Thank you. Again, thank you for your
testimony.
Director Krebs. And on the resource front--didn't address
that--there is a technology deficit. There is equipment out
there that is in some cases 15 years old. I have talked before
about five states that still have these DREs, the no paper
trail machines. They are all pretty much on a path by 2020 to
remove those machines and put other machines that have some
kind of paper auditability within those systems, but in some
cases, we are still seeing lack of investment at the state
legislature side.
There are a couple states that are trying to sort it out.
They either don't have it in their general fund available or
for whatever reason. So there is--the money is going to have to
come from somewhere. I personally don't care where it comes
from. But we need to get those machines in place or the paper
process in place so that we can have auditability across the
system.
Mr. Newhouse. All right. I agree. I agree. Thank you.
Director Krebs. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair. Director, two quick
things and I will wrap up. You know, as America's energy
production continues to rise particularly in natural gas, and
we are moving it all around the country from where it is being
produced to where it needs to be used. And my district has a
lot of natural gas storage and transportation issues. Can you
talk a little bit about the cybersecurity, I am sure that is
one of the 55 infrastructure----
Director Krebs. In fact, the pipelines are, yes, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. Yes. So how can you in an unclassified way
I guess, can you talk a little bit about how well we are
protecting that?
Director Krebs. Absolutely. So in fact, Director Coats in
the Worldwide Threat Assessment mentioned the security and
cybersecurity pipeline specifically in an classified manner.
Last year, we kicked off with TSA and FERC and DOE and our
industry partners our pipeline security initiative. And so it
was working across the country, tiering pipelines based on
significance, priority, and relevance to the generation and
movement of product. And we have been out there, we have
conducted some boots on the ground assessments to get an
understanding what the security posture is.
TSA has worked on this issue for a decade or more. They
have issued guidance that has been generally well-received, but
what we are trying to do is get out there and get a better
understanding of really what the security posture is. And so we
will do that through boots on the ground. We will do that by
releasing self-assessment tools, but this is a priority area
for us.
Mr. Rutherford. Have we seen evidence of attacks on, cyber
attacks on this infrastructure system?
Director Krebs. So at the unclassified level, there, a
couple years ago, 2012, 2013, there was some targeting of
pipelines. And so we have enough information to understand that
there are people out there interested in understanding what our
pipeline infrastructure looks like, how the industrial control
systems and operational technology works, but more importantly
what we have now and in part what we can achieve through the
National Critical Functions List is it is not just about the
grid, because if you don't have baseload generation to feed the
grid, then it doesn't matter if you have a grid or not.
So what we are getting to is that interconnected nature of
our infrastructure and that, developing that understanding,
evolving our understanding, ensuring that we are aligning our
resources, and aligning our investment, and aligning our
initiatives and so that we can look for those gaps. And so next
year when we come back, we will say, All right, you know what,
in the course of this pipeline security initiative, we found
some gaps here perhaps, and so we can roll that into the 2021
budget, 2022, 2023, so on and so forth.
But, again, we are building awareness, we are improving our
understanding but we have a massive infrastructure here in the
United States. And sometimes I am a little jealous of my
partners in maybe smaller geographies. We have massive
infrastructure here and we have a whole lot of work to do.
And I appreciate the fact that I have had the chance to get
up here and talk to you now twice this year, so we can share
what our vision is, share what our plan is, because I am not
going to be able to do this alone, industry is not going to be
able to do this alone, you are not going to be able to do this
alone. We have got to be able to do this together.
Mr. Rutherford. And so let me close with this. And I think
something that you said earlier about the students from China
and how much a university allows them into research and those
kind of things. I think that is an immigration issue that we
need to look at.
Why are we educating these individuals and then forcing
them to go back? Now, some may be coming here as bad actors
just trying to get that intellectual property to go back, but
many come here and want to stay here. And we are sending
engineers back when we need engineers.
So the immigration issue is one thing I think that really
ties into this actually.
And then the other is on that innovation side again is our
patent laws. We are stifling innovation by not allowing some
of--you know, by allowing people to, in these disruptive
innovations be dragged out through the courts for years, and
finally these small inventors give up. And I think in this
world of cyber particularly, we want to encourage all the
innovation we can. And so I just throw that out to you as
something that you may be able to help with as well.
Director Krebs. And I will try to do this as quickly as
possible recognizing I am over time here. The DNI released or
declassified last year a slide what is known as the Wheel of
Doom or the Wheel of Death and it basically shows the various
tactics and techniques that the Chinese government is using to
advance their economic interests. That includes traditional
espionage, it includes cybersecurity, intellectual property
theft, but also appropriation of R&D, mergers and acquisitions,
non-traditional collection.
There is this whole suite of approaches they are using. It
is very strategic, but it is actually manifesting tactically
here today and over the past couple years. And this was one of
the things that Secretary Nielsen, previous Secretary Nielsen
was focused on, but figuring out what are the department's
levers that they pull in response to the Wheel of Doom. Working
with the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the
full suite of inter-agency and USG capabilities, but your
immigration point is one of them.
But this goes back to my earlier point of, I think we have
inherent advantages in the United States of America, where we
will always drive innovation and it is a mighty attractive
place to live, whether you are on the West Coast here or
somewhere in between, this is a great place to be and this is a
great place to live. This is a great place to work. It is a
great place to raise a family. We need to take advantage of
that. We can operationalize that, too.
Mr. Rutherford. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Are there any other questions?
If----
Mr. Fleischmann. Just----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Go ahead.
Mr. Fleischmann. I wanted you to mention and I wanted to
get on record. What is your focus and where on the list of your
critical function set is the agricultural food production? And
what are you doing, if you could just briefly talk----
Director Krebs. So food production delivery is a critical
function, as is water. You know, these are the basic, as FEMA
would say, part of the lifeline sectors in terms of you tell me
three or four days after a hurricane runs through whether it is
the panhandle of Florida or whatever and you don't have food if
you don't have water, how happy you are going to be.
Mr. Fleischmann. Basic needs.
Director Krebs. Yes. So it is on the list of National
Critical Functions. We have identified that, and so now just
generally on the critical functions piece, we are going into a
prioritization cycle. We will be working with both industry and
the agencies that have sector-specific agency authority, in
this case, Department of Agriculture. We will be working with
them to understand what their understanding of the risk is,
what their initiatives are, what we can do together to help
better align efforts.
And ultimately, the concept here is we need to act, we need
to prioritize--or we need to manage risk.
Mr. Fleischmann. And more than just emergency situations
from disasters, but from--I was director of agriculture for our
state and one of the things that we were concerned with was
people coming in intentionally doing something to impair our
ability to produce food. Contaminations or spreading--rendering
whole feed lots inoperable, different things like that.
So I just wanted to make sure that that was part of the
thinking.
Director Krebs. Yes, sir. So, again, it is aligning the
threat streams what we may understand a bad actor may do,
costing it against the potential consequences and in your case
and there are certainly a number of states that would have a
really bad year if they were lose their livestock.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. If there are no further questions,
then the hearing will conclude. Thank you very much, Director,
for being here and I look forward to following up with you on
some things.
[Questions and answers for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, July 24, 2019.
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION--BORDER PATROL APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2020
WITNESS
CARLA L. PROVOST, CHIEF U.S. BORDER PATROL
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today we welcome the chief of the Border Patrol, Carla
Provost--and I would note that Chief Provost is the first woman
to hold this important position. Chief, thank you for being
here today.
First I want to acknowledge that the men and women of the
Border Patrol have faced a multitude of challenges this year
with the high numbers of migrants who have been seen coming
across the border. I know they have worked long hours and have
been asked to do work they have never imagined would be part of
their job.
While I continue to believe the majority of your personnel
carry out their mission in a professional manner and treat
those in their custody with humanity, I have significant
concerns about the reports of mistreatment by some Border
Patrol agents.
I am also concerned that the Border Patrol culture may be
too tolerant of a minority of bad actors. Understanding the
many challenges facing the Border Patrol, I hope we can work
together to effectively address those challenges. That, is part
of why we are holding this hearing today.
Considering recent events and disclosures, I look forward
to knowing what you are doing to address reports collected by
government case managers of the abuse and mistreatment of
children in Border Patrol custody, specifically in Yuma,
Arizona.
I am also interested in learning what you are doing to
improve the conditions in your holding facilities, which the
inspector general in El Paso described as horrific.
Specifically, I remain concerned about conditions under which
families and children are being held by the Border Patrol.
Last month, Congress allocated additional funding to
improve living conditions in the Border Patrol's temporary
holding facilities. This included providing adequate space,
comfort items, and access to medical care. And I look forward
to hearing what you are doing with the additional resources.
Also of great concern and interest is what are you doing in
response to the disclosure of disgraceful comments made by what
is hopefully a small, but loud and troublesome, subset of your
workforce. We have been disturbed and disappointed by these
reports of inappropriate discussions on Facebook, and
humiliating treatment and cruelty towards migrants.
Chief Provost, every member of this subcommittee is
committed to improving our security at the border, but you must
do it in a way that is consistent with our national values
including a commitment to those in need. Unfortunately, that is
not happening throughout your agency. We need to talk about
what appears to be a dangerous subculture at the agency that
cannot be tolerated and must be addressed. This mission
requires leadership that will enforce and emphasize treating
migrants humanely and respecting their rights. I want to work
with you to ensure that happens.
On a separate issue, in response to the recent challenges
at the border, the administration directed the implementation
of the Migrant Protection Protocols, as well as the cross-
training of border agents to perform the duties of USCIS asylum
officers.
I have significant concerns about both initiatives, and
will be interested in hearing your perspective on these
assignments which are outside of your scope of work and are
impacting your stated mission and duties to protect our
borders.
Finally, it is concerning how this administration has
implemented policy after policy that seems singularly focused
on reducing the flow of migrants without regard to our
country's asylum laws or the impact they will have on migrants'
rights, particularly their right to claim asylum.
This is just one example of how many of the President's
actions are contrary to what we mean when we say our border
security policies must be consistent with our laws and our
American values. Together we must find that balance which,
sadly, up to now, has been lacking in many areas.
Before I turn to the chief for a summary of her written
statement, the text of which will be included in the hearing
record, let me first recognize our distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Fleischmann, for any remarks he wishes to make.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chief Provost, thank you for being here today to testify on
the challenges you and your agents are facing at our Southwest
border. This is an important hearing, and I hope my colleagues
welcome the chance to hear directly from the Border Patrol
about the numbers of people arriving at the United States and
why there are so many people at the border stations.
This fiscal year alone, your agents have processed more
people than reside in the State of Wyoming or the State of
Vermont. Perhaps by the end of July it will be more than the
District of Columbia, the State of Alaska, or North Dakota.
Those numbers are staggering.
I was able to go to the border this year and see firsthand
some of what your outstanding people are facing every day. I
know the situation has become challenging every week as the
numbers have increased. And I know that the officers I met are
dedicated people doing their best to rise to meet this crisis.
I was very impressed with their honesty and deduction to the
mission of the CBP.
I think we all agree that camping out in an overcrowded
border station office is not the best place for children. That
is why HHS is supposed to take those children in as soon as
they have a place available. But when HHS ran out of money,
they could not take the kids.
Adults should not be camping out in an overcrowded border
station, either. I think we all agree with the IG's findings.
It is not a safe situation for either the migrants or the
Border Patrol agents. That is why ICE is in charge of migrant
detention in this country. But when ICE does not have enough
money or bed space, they cannot take the adults. That is why
you are left with these overcrowded border stations, because
the law does not give you much choice.
The answer is not more tents or more meals. We need to take
a comprehensive approach to this problem to address the
patchwork of laws, practices, rules, and rulings that make up
today's immigration and asylum structures. Until we are willing
to do that, I fear we will never really solve the humanitarian
crisis that we have today.
Chief Provost, again I want to thank you for meeting with
me yesterday. I learned a tremendous amount from our
conversation. Please pass along my personal gratitude to the
men and women of the Border Patrol for their work.
I am very much looking forward to your testimony. Thank
you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I would now like to yield to the
chairwoman of the full Appropriations Committee, Mrs. Lowey.
The Chairwoman. I would like to thank Chairwoman Roybal-
Allard and Ranking Member Fleischmann for holding this
important hearing today.
Chief Provost, the Border Patrol has an essential role in
securing our border. That role comes with incredible
responsibility. You and many of your colleagues have failed to
properly fulfill those responsibilities.
It has been reported that you were a participant in a
secret Facebook group used by CBP employees to share racist and
xenophobic tropes, among other highly offensive imagery,
including reprehensible jokes about the violent sexual assault
of a Member of Congress. I look forward to your explanation for
why you participated in this group and why you failed to report
its existence or take any action to shut it down.
I am deeply concerned that this conduct shows that you and
your agency are supporting a dehumanizing culture, or at least
a subculture, whose bias extends to how you treat vulnerable
populations on a daily basis. You have seen that bias effect
the way CBP interacts with migrants.
For example, last week NPR reported that Border Patrol
officers asked a 3-year-old Honduran girl to choose which of
her parents she would remain with in custody and which would be
separated from the family and sent to Mexico. I think that
warrants repeating. Your officers asked a 3-year-old to choose
between her parents. The family was fleeing MS-13 gang
violence, and the little girl, Sophie, suffers from a serious
heart condition. This trauma could stay with Sophie forever,
and asking her to pick a parent is simply shameful.
The Trump administration has also continued attempts to
implement regulations that run contrary to established law. The
asylum rule announced earlier this month would prohibit
migrants who have gone through a third country from seeking
asylum in the United States. This would essentially ban all
asylum claims for those traveling through Mexico.
But of course that callousness is the very point of the
regulation. From recent interviews Acting Director Morgan has
given, it sounds like even if this unlawful regulation is not
immediately enjoined, it will only be piloted at one location
along the Southwest border. Still, the fact that this
regulation is even something that has been contemplated by the
administration is horrendous.
While we confront a serious humanitarian crisis at our
Southern border, a culture of dehumanization festers in the
very agency charged with keeping us safe and serving as the
face of American values to those seeking refuge. You have a
great deal to explain to this committee today. Thank you for
appearing before us.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I would now like to recognize the
ranking member of the full committee, Ms. Granger.
Ms. Granger. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Chief
Provost, for taking the time to testify before us today. I know
the huge challenges you are under, and to take this time, I
greatly appreciate it.
I want to begin by recognizing the enormous workload that
the employees and agents you represent are now facing at the
border. It is a job that has to be done 24 hours a day every of
the week. Would you tell the men and women at the border that
we know that they are keeping us safe and that they are doing
the best under the most, most trying times.
It is important that members of the committee understand
the reality of the ground as we conduct oversight of the Border
Patrol in this hearing. I have had the opportunity to visit the
border many, many times. I live in Texas. We have done it for
pleasure, and now we are doing it to see how serious it is.
I have spoken with so many agents and observed firsthand
the challenges they face. The challenges your people are
facing, I do not know how long they can do it. To ask people to
do what they are doing and then face misunderstandings of what
they are trying to do makes me very sad.
It is unsustainable. I went to the border on one trip and
someone was saying, ``Well, what we need is we need a permanent
structure here that is''--and I said, ``Stop right there. We
cannot do this permanently.'' Your people cannot do this
permanently. So we have got to have the best solution we can to
stop this.
These men and women on the front line are in a growing
crisis, and when I would go, I would think it could not get
worse the next time I went, and it was worse. And so we owe all
the thanks and all the support. During the trip I made where
the migrants are--it was increasing so fast.
In January, the numbers were going with 58,000 migrants a
month--a month--coming across the border. The problem became
worse, with more than 100,000 migrants a month in March and
April, and it exploded to 144,000. It seems unbelievable, and
if you see those lines, you can stand at the front of the line
and you cannot even see the end of the line as they come over.
Unfortunately, the funds provided in the fiscal year 2019
bill were not enough to meet the processing and detention
requirements of the hundreds of thousands of people who have
come to the border this year. The migrant influx has caused 40
to 60 percent of the Border Patrol to be dedicated to the care
and the feeding and the processing of migrants.
And when I sit there and talk to them and they would
explain, the people that were coming up, mothers with children
with no diapers or a diaper they have had on for three days,
and no baby food, and terrible conditions, people who have
never been to a doctor in their entire life, and the Border
Patrol is leaning over and asking them questions and risking
their own lives. I think we need to be very aware of that.
CBP has shifted more than 700 officers from other points of
entry, resulting in longer wait times at the border for legal
crossings. That is all they could do. The agency has canceled
training and mandated overtime hours and shut down checkpoints,
and still Border Patrol facilities, as you know, are over 100
percent capacity every single day.
This is not sustainable. These people are making a
dangerous journey, but the people doing our border patrol are
also in danger every day. We have to do better. We have to be
more supportive. We have to listen very carefully.
I hope the Congress will take a first step this week by
passing the budget deal that the President and the
congressional leaders struck on Monday night. With the
additional funding available in the agreement, we will avoid
arbitrary cuts to our Nation's security and can invest in
meeting this challenge that you are facing every day.
Chief Provost, I look forward to hearing from you today
about the conditions on the ground and what Border Patrol needs
to truly address this crisis. And please send our thanks, and
my thanks to you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Ms. Granger.
Before we begin, I would like to remind members that they
will be called for questioning based on the seniority of those
present when the hearing was called to order, alternating
between majority and minority members. Also, to ensure that
everyone has ample time to ask questions, I would ask each
member to try and stay within the allotted five minutes per
round.
So Chief Provost, if you would please begin your statement.
Chief Provost. Thank you, and good afternoon, Chairwoman
Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member Fleischmann, and members of the
subcommittee, as well as full committee Chairwoman Lowey and
Ranking Member Granger.
You have asked me to testify today regarding the
supplemental funding provided by Congress on June 27. By the
time this funding was received, Border Patrol had been dealing
with this crisis on our border for more than eight months.
Border Patrol waited 58 days for the supplemental funding to
arrive, but we began addressing the crisis long before.
Our agents started working overtime to manage the influx
back in January, and they have been working tirelessly ever
since. In the fiscal year 2019 appropriation, this subcommittee
supported our request for over $415 million to help us make
investments in medical care, transportation, and facilities,
and to purchase additional food, clothing, and hygiene
products.
For months we have been using our own operational funds to
construct soft-sided facilities, surge agents and officers to
the border, and add air and ground transportation to transfer
families to less crowded facilities for processing. The $1.1
billion CBP received in the supplemental has allowed us to
replenish our operational funds while continuing our ongoing
humanitarian support efforts.
A week after the supplemental request was sent to Congress,
I testified that the funding requested by our partners was just
as critical as our own. HHS and ICE were in dire need of
additional bed space to keep up with Border Patrol processing
and apprehensions.
We have already seen results from the $2.9 billion that HHS
received for UACs. The numbers of UACs in our custody has
decreased from a peak of 2700 in early June to approximately
300 today, and they spend significantly less time in our
custody awaiting placement. Unfortunately, Congress denied
ICE's request for adult bed space and we are seeing results
there as well. Adults continue to spend far too long in Border
Patrol custody.
We had more than 19,500 people in our custody in late May,
which we have now decreased to less than 10,000 due to the
decline in apprehensions and our close coordination with our
partners. 10,000 was the level then-Commissioner McAleenan
called ``a breaking point'' when we first surpassed it in
March, and it is unsettling that we are now considering it a
reprieve.
To be clear, the crisis is not over. While this is crisis
is unlike anything that we have seen before, this is not the
first time Border Patrol has served in a humanitarian role. The
advanced specialized training of the Border Patrol search,
trauma, and rescue units has been saving lives for more than 20
years.
We have over 1200 agents who voluntarily maintain EMT and/
or paramedic certifications. We established the Missing Migrant
Program to help families locate loved ones and to identify
those who tragically perish on the border. And we continue
placing rescue beacons and location markers to help migrants
who become lost. No one directed the Border Patrol to take
these steps to save lives. This is who we are.
Today Border Patrol agents are being asked to be everywhere
all at once--on the border stopping dangerous criminals and
deadly drugs, in the river and across the desert saving the
lives of migrants put at risk by smugglers, and at our
processing facilities providing humanitarian care. But despite
these impossible expectations, it has become popular to blame
my agents for the humanitarian crisis rather than help them
address it.
It is not just my agents who are overwhelmed, but my
facilities as well. I cannot stress enough that these
facilities simply were not built to house people long-term.
They are basically police stations. They are not equipped with
dormitories, kitchens, cafeterias, recreational spaces, or
visitor areas like ICE and HHS facilities are.
Although we continue to invest in portable sinks, toilets,
showers, and laundry services, especially at locations where we
house UACs and families, these investments are only a Band-Aid.
When our partners cannot transfer individuals out of our
custody as quickly as we apprehend and process them, our
facilities become overwhelmed and conditions deteriorate.
In February I told Congress that Border Patrol is the only
part of our immigration system with no ability to control who
comes our way and when or where they do it. I implore Congress
to look at the entire system because while we are the only
agency represented here today, Border Patrol cannot do this
alone.
I thank you for the funding that you have provided in the
near term. But to make a lasting impact, Congress must make the
changes to the legal framework that we have outlined time and
time again. I am aware these changes must take place outside of
an appropriation bill, but I am asking you to lead your
colleagues in a productive, holistic effort to address the root
causes of this crisis rather than just the symptoms. A Band-Aid
is simply not enough.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Chief Provost follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Chief Provost, let me begin with an
issue that was raised that I think is on everybody's mind.
Your initial press release to the story about the Facebook
group for Border Patrol agents implied that you were surprised
by the racist, vulgar content that it exposed, and subsequent
reports, however, indicated you were a member of that group as
recently as last November.
Can you please explain why you initially joined the group,
and why and when you chose to leave the group?
Chief Provost. Certainly. And thank you, Chairwoman, for
the opportunity to speak about my personal Facebook account.
I joined Facebook in 2016 mainly to reach out to friends
and colleagues, friends from back home where I was raised in
Kansas as well as friends that I have made over the years in
the Border Patrol as I have moved along the entire Southwest
border throughout my career.
Sometime in 2017--I believe it was right about 2 years ago
from now--a colleague invited me to some groups. They had
mentioned to me that in my acting role as the chief at that
time, that some of the agents were discussing how I was doing,
and it was something that I was certainly interested in
knowing, how I am representing my workforce. I did not think
anything of it at the time.
I am an extremely--I am on Facebook very, very rarely. I
use it occasionally, as I said, to speak with friends back
home, to answer instant messages, and now and again to try to
see how my workforce feels I am doing.
Let me be clear. On July 1st was the first time that I saw
those highly offensive and absolutely unacceptable posts when I
saw them in the ProPublica report. As soon as I saw them, I
made sure that I put an announcement out to the workforce
condemning the actions of those individuals. It is completely
unacceptable and not representative of the Border Patrol as a
whole.
I also self-reported to the Office of Professional
Responsibility once I realized that this was a group that I was
a member of. Not only did I self-report, I turned my entire
Facebook account over to the Office of Professional
Responsibility, and when I say that, I gave them my login and
my password so they had full access to my account. And they
were able to go in and look at all of my activity over the
three years that I have been a member of Facebook.
When I mentioned earlier that I am an infrequent user of
Facebook, in their assessment, for example, from June of 2018
through June of 2019, I logged onto Facebook on nine different
days. Nine days in a year, less than once a month. Sometimes I
would go for months without logging on, and then other times
maybe once or twice within a month time frame.
I am as outraged as everyone else when it comes to the
statements that were made on that page. As an agency, CBP, we
are working diligently--the Office of Professional
Responsibility immediately opened up investigations into the
posts that have come out from that one site, and I believe
there have been some others since then. They are investigating
all of these.
The Border Patrol has issued--we have issued cease and
desist letters to individuals that employed by us that have
made--either made those posts or made comments to those posts.
We also have placed some individuals on administrative duties
while the investigations are being completed by the Office of
Professional Responsibility.
As I stated before, this is not indicative of the Border
Patrol that I know. I have given half of my life, literally
half of my life, to this organization. I was born and raised in
Kansas, about as far away from the border as one could possibly
be, and was a police officer when I joined. I expected that I
would use the Border Patrol to move on to something that, when
I was 25 years old, I considered to be bigger and better.
One year in this organization, and I swore I would never
leave, and it is because of what I just mentioned to you in my
opening statement. The men and women that I have had the
experience with over my career are those who are out there
saving lives, who are volunteering to be EMTs, who are signing
up for BORSTAR, who are being proactive. And they are true
civil servants and want to protect this Nation.
We take allegations like this extremely seriously, and a
few bad apples are not representative of the organization.
There are bad doctors. There are bad nurses. There are bad
teachers. But we do not vilify the entire group of those
individuals. We need to take action on those who have violated
our standards of conduct, and we need to hold them accountable,
and we will do that.
I really appreciate the opportunity to explain this today,
and thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I do have a follow-up question.
Chief Provost. Certainly.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Based on your testimony, you are saying
that the first time that you were aware of these inappropriate
comments was when it was broken in the news?
Chief Provost. On July 1st. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And also that you are committed to
taking appropriate disciplinary action against personnel who
violated the CBP standards of conduct?
Chief Provost. Yes.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. As a follow-up, I understand the CBP
Office of Professional Responsibility, which is looking into
specific allegations against individual employees, has in fact
in the past reprimanded employees from this very group because
of similar posts. Yet these posts continued, and it appears
that there is a subculture among agents that has been allowed
to propagate because the agency has been too tolerant of this
small but pervasive subculture.
Would you agree that such a subculture exists and that the
Border Patrol has been maybe a little too tolerant of it? And
what steps are you taking to ensure that this does not happen
again? For example, are you considering to change that
subculture by making changes to the Border Patrol social media
policy, diversity, bystander, and workforce resiliency
training, and better educating employees on reporting
mechanisms and consequences?
Chief Provost. Thank you for the question. I personally
disagree when it comes to a subculture in the Border Patrol. As
I stated before, there are many things that we are doing. The
AC of the Office--the assistant commissioner, I apologize--of
the Office of Professional Responsibility in 2018 put out a
memo addressing social media when we started seeing some issues
when it came to social media. These were not necessarily
specific to this site. I do not know what sites they were
specific to, but there were some social media issues.
We have created training. And I should have mentioned this
earlier, but all of the workforce, the CBP workforce, will
complete this training by the end of the fiscal year. It has
just become available. The Office of Professional
Responsibility has been sending out reminders. I have send out,
and will continue to.
I will tell you, as I said before, the few bad apples that
we have in our organization we do not want as well because they
do not represent my men and women, my workforce of 20,000 who
are out there risking their lives to protect this country. We
take all allegations extremely seriously. And I can tell you
that everything will be investigated completely.
When it comes----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Let me just as you, are you looking, for
example, at your recruitment efforts and the application
process to find a better way to filter out cultural bias by
people you may hire?
Chief Provost. We have a very extensive background
investigation for everyone who is hired on. And as you all
know, ever since the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010, our
men and women all take a polygraph as well when they come on.
This is something that to me is extremely important.
In my career, I helped draft the 2014 new Use of Force
policy. In fact, I oversaw that. And the one time that I have
stepped outside of my role as a Border Patrol agent was in 2015
when I became the deputy assistant commissioner of the Office
of Professional Responsibility.
``Honor First'' is the motto of the Border Patrol, and I
hold that near and dear to my heart. And it is extremely
important to me that we deal with this issue. But I still would
not call it a subculture. The vast, vast majority, 99 point
whatever percent, of our men and women are good, hardworking
American citizens who are doing the best they can in a very,
very difficult crisis.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ranking Member Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Chief Provost, it is
unfortunate that some are leaving the impression that Border
Patrol refuses to do the kind of humanitarian work needed on
the border today. But I have been to the border and some of
these facilities, and from what I have seen, not only are the
agents having to abandon the mission they were hired for, but
they are doing their very best to care for these migrants under
overwhelming circumstances. So I have some questions in that
regard.
Is humanitarian assistance new to the Border Patrol?
Chief Provost. No, sir. As I stated earlier, we have been
doing this for decades.
Mr. Fleischmann. And what humanitarian duties are your
agents performing on a daily basis that is taking them away
from their primary mission of safeguarding our border?
Chief Provost. Right now, as you stated, 40 to 60 percent
of my workforce, because of the sheer numbers of individuals
coming across and particularly the large number of family units
and unaccompanied children, they are spending a large part of
their time doing transportation, medical watch. We are still
currently sending--doing 80 hospital runs a day. That means 80
individuals that are coming into our custody and our care that
we have to take for additional medical.
They are feeding, providing hygiene, meals, all of that
throughout the processing process, as well as, because we are
having to hold people in our custody longer than we should or
had been when it came to unaccompanied children and are still
having that issue with single adults, that is extensive and
long-term care that we are just not set up to do.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. How many hours do you estimate
your agents are spending performing these humanitarian duties?
Chief Provost. It is an extremely large number. As I said,
we were doing, I think, 80 hospital runs a day. And I think it
is something like 240,000 hours that we have--when it comes to
medical alone.
Mr. Fleischmann. What kind of humanitarian efforts has the
Border Patrol performed over the years that are similar or
different to those being performed currently?
Chief Provost. As I stated earlier, when it comes to saving
lives, we have rescued over 4,000 people already this year. And
that is every year, tragically, that we deal with that. And we
also, unfortunately, find many individuals who do not make it
through the dangerous journey of crossing our border.
But we have EMTs, and as I stated, that is a voluntary
program, over 1200 emergency medical technicians. That is the
next largest after the Department of Defense in this country
when it comes to--or in the Federal Government when it comes to
emergency medical personnel. That is voluntary. We created that
on our own.
We have done all of these different things--the migrant
protection protocols, the rescue beacons--throughout the years
to ensure the safety of those individuals, to the best that we
can, that are coming into our custody.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. HHS received their full request
from the supplemental to increase their resources for
facilities and beds for unaccompanied minors. It sounds like
this funding was greatly helped by the efficiency by which CBP
was able to transfer these children out of DHS custody and into
the care of HHS. Is that correct, ma'am?
Chief Provost. That is correct. And not only has it helped
cut down on how many we have had in custody, but also the time
in custody. And I just want to really be clear here. I do not
want children in my facilities. I do not want families in my
facilities. They are not meant to house that population. I want
to get those unaccompanied children into the hands of HHS as
quickly as I possibly can.
Mr. Fleischmann. Unfortunately, the supplemental request
included similar funding for ICE to house adults but those
funds were not included in the final legislation. If the
additional funding was given to ICE specifically for single
adult beds for those who transferred from CBP custody, do you
believe you would see the same kind of impact that you have
already seen from the funding of HHS, that would have far fewer
single adults sitting in CBP custody for days and weeks on end.
Is that correct?
Chief Provost. I do. I would not have an overcrowding issue
at all right now if it were not for single adults that I am
having to hold because ICE cannot pick them up from me.
Mr. Fleischmann. Very good. Madam Chair, I believe my time
is about expired. I will wait for round 2, and I yield back.
And I thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Lowey.
The Chairwoman. Chief Provost, even though the
administration's zero tolerance policy that led to the
separation of thousands of children from their parents ended
last June, the Border Patrol continues to separate some
children from adults who claim to be their parents or
guardians.
Can you explain the circumstances under which CBP will
separate a child from a parent or legal guardian or someone
claiming that relationship? And when you separate based on the
lack of a parent or legal guardian relationship, do you
classify that separation as a fraudulent family?
Chief Provost. Thank you for the question, ma'am. Yes,
there are certain circumstances where we do still have to
separate families. And I want to be very clear, and you stated
this, too, that we have to--a family unit is defined by law for
us as a parent or a legal guardian.
We do have many children that are coming either with other
siblings, some are coming with other siblings that are minors,
aunts, uncles. By law, I cannot keep those individuals
together. But that is not what is considered a fraudulent
family.
We have identified over 5600, I think, in the Border Patrol
what we would call fraudulent families. When we are talking
about someone like an aunt or uncle, it is only a fraudulent
family if they initially claimed to be a parent and then we
determined that they were, let's say, for instance, an uncle or
an aunt.
We have numerous families that are coming, or family
groups, not family units but family groups, that are coming
where an aunt or an uncle may be with a niece or nephew. Those
are not considered fraudulent. However, by law, I have to
separate them because they do not meet, by law, a family unit.
I can only keep children with a parent or a legal guardian by
law.
The Chairwoman. Just to clarify because this does not make
sense to me at all, and in fact have you reported to the people
or person for whom you are, shall we say, complying with the
law? This does not make any sense.
Chief Provost. So the TVPRA and the Homeland Security Act
have a definition of an unaccompanied child. And that defines a
UAC as a child who has no lawful immigration status in the
United States, has not attained 18 years of age, and with
respect to whom there is no parent or legal guardian in the
United States or no parent or legal guardian in the United
States is available to provide care and physical study. That is
the Homeland Security Act.
And in the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act, it clearly states that the U.S. Border Patrol is required
to transfer custody of a UAC to the care and custody of HHS.
That is the only people that we can turn them over to.
The Chairwoman. Let me clarify because this is puzzling.
Chief Provost. Sure.
The Chairwoman. The law dictates what is considered a
family.
Chief Provost. Yes.
The Chairwoman. It would concern me greatly if families
were classified as fraudulent when the adult in question is an
aunt, grandparent, or some other adult who is not a parent. Are
these treated the same as other cases of fraud when there is
truly no familial relationship? You have been in this position
how long?
Chief Provost. I have been doing it permanently for
approximately a year, but I have been in an acting capacity for
another 18 months beyond that. So 2\1/2\ years.
The Chairwoman. Now, you are saying that if a child is with
an aunt or uncle, by law you cannot keep them together and you
call it a fraudulent relationship?
Chief Provost. By law----
The Chairwoman. Did you ever complain or try to reform
that? That makes absolutely no sense.
Chief Provost. So if I may clarify, by law I cannot keep
them together, but that does not mean that we call them a
fraudulent family. They are only a fraudulent family if the
adult falsely claims that they are a parent and it is
determined that they are not then a parent.
So those are not a fraudulent family. However, by law I
have to treat then--let's say the adult is a single adult and
the child is an unaccompanied child. And I have to transfer
them over to Health and Human Services if they are not with a
parent or a legal guardian.
The Chairwoman. Okay. Now, I want to get back to that
because this really does not make sense.
When you separate based on criminal background, do you
consider the severity of the crime or length of time since the
criminal act occurred? What does a criminal background mean?
Chief Provost. Well, it can mean various things. So that is
one of----
The Chairwoman. I mean, they crossed a red light?
Chief Provost. No. Not something like that. But if they
have something that does not allow us to release them into the
United States when it comes to their criminal honest, that is
going to impact our ability. And in those cases, we do have a
separate a parent from a child.
If we have to turn the parent over to--as well as serious
medical conditions. We have done that. When something like that
happens, we do our best to get the parent and the child back
together, or we work with HHS, depending upon how long someone
has been in the hospital.
But if they have a serious criminal record that leads to
where we need to turn them over to ICE because of their
criminal history, then we do separate those individuals. We----
The Chairwoman. Whether the child is 2 years old? Three
years old? Four years old?
Chief Provost. We put them into the hands of Health and
Human Services, and then they do vetting on who is an
appropriate sponsor or if there is another family member in the
United States to take them.
The Chairwoman. Now, I would just think, in conclusion
because I have used my time, shouldn't the standard for
separation always be whether the parent or the person is a
threat to the child? If there is no threat, shouldn't there be
no separation? Because you are talking to a 2-year-old, a 3-
year-old, a 5-year-old, a 4-year-old. Is that not correct?
Chief Provost. Ma'am----
The Chairwoman. If you believe that there is no threat to
the child, shouldn't there be no separation?
Chief Provost. The threat to the child is one of the things
that we consider. But if you violate the law--and we have U.S.
citizens who violate the law every day that are taken away from
their children. I am just explaining to you what the law
states, and we----
The Chairwoman. Have you ever tried to get that law
changed, or report to a superior that you are taking a 2- or a
3-year-old away from an aunt or an uncle?
Chief Provost. We have educated Congress in briefings in
relation to what standards we have to go by based on the law.
As you know, it is my job to enforce the laws that are on the
books.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. I think we have work to do
together.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Ranking Member.
Chief Provost, thank you very much for being with us this
afternoon. And also I would like to thank you for your service,
and also the men and women you have under you, for the
important work you do to keep our Nation and our borders safe
and secure.
I would just like to continue the same ideas, or the same
subject, anyway, that Chairman Lowey is talking about. In your
testimony we have in front of us, you say that, and I quote
you, ``To be clear, these families and those posing as families
are generally not concerned with being caught by the Border
Patrol.'' And then further on, you go on to continue,
``Smugglers are exploiting this dynamic.''
So I would concur with what I have seen at the border. I
have been to the Southern border and toured some of your
facilities. and was, in talking with some of your folks,
enlightened to the fact that there is a lot of incidence--at
least suspected incidence--of non-biological children being
used to help people cross the border illegally, due to the
Flores settlement that is in effect.
In fact, I have witnessed myself several kids being brought
in that some of your people suggested that they thought they
recognized those kids from being used in previous crossings
with different people. And so I just want to confirm you are
aware this is going on at the border.
Chief Provost. Yes, sir. That is. Border Patrol alone has
identified over 5600 fraudulent families. Homeland Security
Investigations has also come in and, based on cases that we
refer now in many locations, are investigating fraudulent
families.
There have been cases where children have been, tragically,
recycled. Smugglers are taking advantage of these children.
They are taking advantage of the families that are coming
across. And they are making money off of these people and
putting their lives at risk.
Mr. Newhouse. Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record--I have a story from the Washington
Examiner that is titled, ``DNA Tests Reveal 30 Percent of
Suspected Fraudulent Migrant Families Were Unrelated.'' I would
just like to have that entered into the record.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. In the article that I have here in
front of me, it states that in a pilot program, approximately
30 percent of rapid DNA tests of immigrant adults who were
suspected of arriving at the Southern border with children who
were not theirs revealed the adults were not related to the
children.
Chief Provost, in your view, and I would ask you for a
little criticism or constructive criticism, do you believe it
is the failure of Congress to reform the Flores decision that
enables coyotes and smugglers to traffic children for the
purpose of gaining illegal entry into the U.S.?
Chief Provost. I certainly believe that we have to address
the Flores settlement agreement. That is probably the main
factor that is leading to families being put at risk and
children being put at risk. The smugglers make money off of
them. They entice them to come.
They do tell them that if you come with a child that you
will be released into the country, which is currently the case
because we cannot hold any families longer than 20 days due to
all children not being able to be held that long. We need to be
able to hold families together--not in a Border Patrol
facility, let me be very clear--in a family residential center
throughout an expedited immigration process if we are truly
going to address this issue and not just put a Band-Aid on it.
That is a huge pull factor.
These families are not aware of the dangers of crossing our
border that they are going to be put into. They are not aware
of how the smugglers are going to treat them. So the smugglers
are utilizing that to their benefit to make money and to treat
these individuals as a commodity, basically.
Mr. Newhouse. Commodities, yes, not humans. Well, in my
humble opinion, I do not believe that--in fact, I would agree
with Mrs. Lowey that we do need to make some changes through
Congress. We should not be enabling the trafficking of
children. Our policies are allowing that to happen.
I do not think there is any place else in the U.S. where we
would release a child to an adult without confirming a familial
or legal guardianship, and we should not be doing that in this
instance as well. But we do. And we hope, I think we all hope
and pray, that the children we release are going to be safe
with those people that they are being left with. But we should
not be taking that chance at their expense, allow these
criminal acts to be happening.
So I would hope that we could make some changes in Federal
law to make sure that you can do your job to the best of your
ability, and that we can all be assured as much as possible
that these kids are being taken care of. So thank you for your
testimony today. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Before I go to Mr. Cuellar, I just want
some clarification because we are concerned about any
fraudulent families whatsoever. But it is my understanding that
the report that was just mentioned, where there was 30 percent
fraudulent, that that was 30 percent of a subset of a test, of
a test group. It is not 30 percent of the total number of
children coming across the border with families. Could you
clarify exactly what that----
Chief Provost. It is difficult for me, ma'am, and I
apologize. But that is from what HSI is doing in relation to
the DNA testing. They are not--I can tell you that that is not
something that is being done on every family unit that we have
coming through.
So when the Border Patrol suspects a possible fraudulent
family, we are referring them to HSI, and they do have some
teams out in the field that are doing investigations. I believe
that is a number that is provided by them. So I do not want to
be wrong in what I am telling you, but I can say that not every
family unit is being referred, if that helps. I am not sure.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. So it may be a test group. But
nevertheless, it is still a concern.
Mr. Newhouse. Madam Chair, you are absolutely right. This
was a pilot that lasted for a few days in McAllen and El Paso.
Chief Provost. I apologize, sir. That is the HSI program
that they have been doing.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you. And we will submit it
for the record.
[The newspaper article follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chief, I want to thank
you for the service that you and your men and women do. I do
agree with my colleagues that if there is a problem, there is a
bad apple, we need to go after those bad apples.
But I still think the majority of your people are good
people. I go to church with them. I see them at the stores. And
I do not think your men and women wake up in the morning trying
to see how they are going to hurt some of the immigrants. So I
do want to say that.
And I have done this in the past, where I have recognized
your offers in McAllen and Laredo for the lives that they save
because there are a lot of times that they put their lives to
jump in the river or whatever the case might be to go save the
lives that they have. So actually, I will be having some of
those ceremonies in August.
Two things I want to focus on. One is the Border Patrol
processing centers, and the other one is what do we need to do
to do a better job to keep men and women. We added money for
retention, but I do not think that should be a one-year thing.
I think we need to make sure we keep giving retentions or some
sort of--I do not know if it is hardship, locality, pay
compensation in the proposed language.
I do not know what the chairwoman of the committee is going
to do, but I have some suggestions there So we can try to
retain our men and women at the border because, as you know,
Border Patrol was losing more men than women that they were
hiring at one time, and I am glad you got rid of that contract
because you were spending money, and I would rather give that
money to the Border Patrol folks. So I would like to hear a
little bit about what we can do to retain men and women a
little better for Border Patrol.
But the other thing on the border processing centers, in
2006--and correct me if I am wrong in this--in 2006, 90 percent
of the people coming into our Southern border were Mexicanos;
within hours, 95 percent of the people would be returned. And
we know why.
And now, 73 percent of the people coming in are from the
Northern Triangle, and 97 percent of the people coming in stay
in. We actually have less than 2 percent in detention beds, and
I am not talking about the border processing center. In 2006,
we also had 10 percent of the people coming in were
unaccompanied kids or family units. Now over 61 percent of
those people are now family units and unaccompanied kids.
So in the old days, the border processing centers were set
up to deal with male adults mainly to come look for a job, and
for smaller amounts. And now you have a larger amount of people
in family units. I think what some folks call ``cages'' are
basically, the way I understand this, they are dividers, chain
links, because you do not want to keep a kid overnight with an
adult that might have a criminal record.
So basically, you separate them in three areas:
unaccompanied kids, family units, and adults. And adults will
go to ICE, and if there is no space in ICE, they get
bottlenecked there and stay there a little longer than 72
hours. Unaccompanied kids go straight in to Health and Human
Services. That is a different process. And as you know, kids
from Mexico are treated very differently from any other kid
from across the world, or young folks, should I say.
And then of course you have the family units that are
dropped off at the bus stations. And as you know, we added $30
million for reimbursements. And I think it should be more than
$30 million, but that is a good start there.
So my question is, what do we need to do to make sure we
hire the right people, we screen them, as the chairwoman said,
and retain them? And then the other thing is, can we do a
better job on the Border Patrol processing centers? Like you
said, they are basically police stations. They do not have
dorms. They do not have clinics. They do not have kitchens.
They were set up for a different purpose. And we need to put
money there on that.
But I do ask you to use your money wisely because I think
we added about $30 million for the McAllen, and I do not know
how much of a bang you are going to get, from what I understand
you are going to get for that. So if we provide any money, we
have got to make sure we get a better bang so we can treat
people with respect and dignity while they are in the border
processing centers.
Chief Provost. Certainly. And thank you for the questions.
When it comes to hiring and retention, as I stated earlier,
we do have many factors--on hiring, a very extensive background
investigation. We have the polygraph. We also have revamped our
training at the academy. And I would offer to any of you here,
please go visit our academy and see the great training that our
new hires are receiving. A 117-day academy that is--I am
extremely happy with what we are seeing coming out of that.
On the retention issue, that is an issue for us. I have n
working diligently on retention, whether through our
Operational Mobility Program, where we afford agents the
opportunity to move to different locations, or through
retention incentives. And that is something that I certainly
will continue to ask Congress for support on, and I am open to
ideas to help keep these men and women that I have. I want to
retain them as long as I can, our great working men and women.
When it comes to our processing facilities, as I stated
earlier, thank you for the funding to help us deal with the
things that we need. We are adding shower trailers, laundry,
more portable toilets, handwashing stations, more hygiene
products, meals, and such.
But long term, I would tell you that this is not what the
Border Patrol should be doing. I want folks out of our custody
and care as soon as possible. I want to get them processed, and
then I want them out of our facilities. I have so many
facilities that are already in need of work, and I am getting
funding for one to two facilities a year. It would take an
extensive period of time to permanently do something there. And
it is taking my men and women away from their primary mission
of border security.
So just as we are thinking about how to deal with this, I
would just ask the members here to consider, once again, I want
these families and kids in either family residential centers or
in Health and Human Services.
Mr. Cuellar. My time is up. But we did add money, or we are
proposing to add money, for entry-level positions.
Chief Provost. Yes.
Mr. Cuellar. So your men and women can do what they need to
do and then we get those folks to do the changing of diapers
and all of that. Thank you.
Chief Provost. Yes.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chief, I almost want to apologize for the position that
this Congress and previous Congresses have put you in. As a law
enforcement officer myself, I know how frustrating it was for
me back in the 1970s when I was dealing with domestic violence
cases and the law precluded me from putting people in jail that
I knew had broken the law, that had abused women, and I could
not do anything about it because of the law.
So I can only imagine the frustration that you all have at
the border that your men and women who care about folks are
going through in their effort to carry out their job when this
body fails to act on an arcane immigration system that, because
of our lack of action, the Flores settlement in the 1980s comes
into being, and that was not all that bad. But we did not act;
the courts did.
But then what happened in 2015 was the expansion of the
Flores settlement agreement by a judge, Judge Dolly Gee in
California. She created the greatest danger for these folks who
are traveling to our Southern border from these Northern
Triangle countries by saying that as long as you had a child
with you, you had a free pass to get into this country. We were
not going to hold you more than 20 days. Change the structure
from a reasonable time to 20 days. She created this situation.
That is why we see all these caravans, this increase in
families coming to our border. We have created the pull. We
have created the incentive. We have created the desire through
the court system for these people to find children that they
can then use as a key to unlock entry into the United States,
and go on a very dangerous journey with drug traffickers and
human traffickers who are making tons of money off of this
process, tons of money off not only the--the death of some of
these kids. It is horrific.
So when I look at the picture that was recently very well-
distributed of the gentleman with the baby in the water,
everybody looked at that and assumed that they drowned. I did
not. I am a law enforcement officer. The first thing I thought?
A trafficker probably killed them. Probably drowned them. Most
of the Rio Grande you can walk across. Now I do not know about
that particular section. But it is more likely to me that some
human trafficker killed those individuals, not that they
drowned.
So my question is this. In this year's budget, there is no
money for Border Patrol officers between points of entry. But
in this year's budget--and I think my colleague, Mr. Cuellar,
touched on this--what are the numbers that you are actually
going to be able to hire now, that you have currently
authorized?
Chief Provost. Well, I have approximately 19,500 agents
right now. I do have, thankfully, 442 trainees at the academy,
and my classes are full at this point in time. This looks to be
the second year in a row because last year we actually did hire
more people than we lost, by 118, I think. I am projecting that
we will be somewhere around 150 to 200 more this year, assuming
graduates through the trainees in the academy right now.
Mr. Rutherford. So when we talked to field operations, who
manage the ports of entry, they talked about having moved
officers around. And in your written testimony, at least, you
mentioned 700 officers that you have moved. Now, has that had
an impact on other areas, a negative impact on other areas that
you had to move them from?
Chief Provost. So we currently have 731 from Office of
Field Operations, my brothers and sisters in blue that work at
the ports of entry that are supporting my men and women in our
efforts. I also have 325 Border Patrol agents from the Northern
and Coastal Regions that I have pulled down on TDY. And we also
have a volunteer force of 342 that are helping us with this
crisis right now.
And it is certainly pulling them away from their other
duties, but it is a necessity at this point. I desperately need
their help to handle this crisis.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. And my time is expired. But I
want you to know that I am committed to not just dealing with
the symptoms of this thing, but we have to address the pull
that we have all created--not you, not your officers, but this
body.
Chief Provost. Thank you.
Mr. Rutherford. Our inaction. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chief Provost, I want to return to the line of questioning
that Chairwoman Lowey was on, and also, which is the similar
line of questioning, on an issue I raised with Acting Secretary
McAleenan.
Lawyers in South Florida have represented at least 20
undocumented children at the Homestead facility that were
apprehended far from the border, in the interior of the
country, and who had biological parents living in the country,
yet they were separated and detained as unaccompanied minors
anyway.
Now, I will tell you, I am a mother. I have twin 20-year-
olds and a 16-year-old. If my 16-year-old were 2 hours from me,
as the young man was apprehended with his uncle, documented by
the Miami Herald and eventually released after being detailed
for 5 days without the ability to make a phone call by your
officers--if my child was apprehended and they were 2 hours
from me and I was not contacted and given an opportunity to
come get her, when this young man had been in the country since
he was 9 months old and his mother was 2 hours away in the
United States, that to me--I would be flipping out, to say the
least. But that is a direct violation of the statute and of the
definition of unaccompanied minor.
You cited the definition earlier to Chairwoman Lowey. But
as you said, it is, A, no lawful immigration status in the
United States, B, has not attained 18 years of age, and C, with
respect to whom there is no parent or legal guardian in the
United States--not the case with these 20 children who were
apprehended in the interior, including this young man--and
there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States
available to provide care and physical custody.
Now, I will tell you that if I am 2 hours away, I am
available to provide care and physical custody. So are you
interpreting this statute to mean immediate local physical
custody? Because that is not the letter of the law, and it is
not how it reads.
Chief Provost. Congresswoman, I would say in this effort
that this is something that HHS is equipped to do when it comes
more so than we are. The Border Patrol----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No. But I am talking about the
actual apprehension----
Chief Provost. When we----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. Where a child, instead
of being returned to their parent in the United States, is
instead treated as an unaccompanied minor. Again, I have
documentation of at least 20 children who have been apprehended
in this way with parents in the United States, apprehended in
the interior, not returned to their parents, not able to make a
phone call.
Chief Provost. When we apprehend them, if they are
unaccompanied, I need to transfer them over to HHS. And if I
may, they are better equipped--this is not something that the
Border Patrol--just like as a police officer. When I was a
police officer, we would bring in child protective services to
deal with that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am sorry, but your policy, your
policy, Chief, and CBP's, states that unaccompanied kids ``must
be offered use of a telephone.'' I have been informed of
instances where children were not permitted to call their
parents until they reached ORR custody days after apprehension
by CBP.
This young man, who was finally returned to his mother last
Sunday, had been in the United States since he was 9 months
old. His mother, again, was 2 hours away from him. And he was
left in your facility for 5 days with no ability to make a
phone call.
Chief Provost. If they have not had the ability to make a
phone call, Congresswoman, I would definitely say that is
something that we need to investigate.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That policy has not changed? That is
still the policy, that they are to be able to make a phone
call----
Chief Provost. No. We allow them to make phone calls.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. While in your custody?
So how are you going to ensure that this policy is followed?
And will you look into, comprehensively, whether or not there
are children in your custody being defined as unaccompanied
minors who are not being granted the ability to make a call?
Chief Provost. I will certainly take back your allegations
and speak with the Office of Professional Responsibility, who
does those investigations. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. And I would like to ask
you a question about the culture of cruelty that exists,
appears to exist, in your agency.
In an email to a supervisor, there was a widely reported
incident that occurred at the El Paso processing center in
which an agent recounted seeing a colleague forcing a Honduran
migrant to hold a sign that had the words, ``Me gustan los
hombres,'' or ``I like men.'' An agent instructed the man to
walk with the sign in front of a group of other migrants to
humiliate him.
The agent who reported the incident recounted that several
colleagues laughed while this was occurring. This is a
disgusting account on so many levels. It is cruel,
dehumanizing, and homophobic. There are countless other
examples of cruel and inhumane treatment that I asked the
Secretary about.
I asked him if he would do a comprehensive investigation as
to these allegations into how CBP officers are treating
migrants, the accusations of kicking children awake in the
middle of the night while they are asleep. He would not make
that commitment except on individual cases.
Will you make the commitment here and now, to do a
comprehensive investigation about the cruel acts that many of
your CBP officers, as well as they might be taking care of
others--I am not saying they are all bad, but there are
widespread reports that demand a comprehensive investigation.
Will you commit to that?
Chief Provost. I can tell you that is not the job of my
Border Patrol officers. That is the job of the Office of
Professional Responsibility. I can tell you that that
instance----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Is it being investigated by the
Office--
Chief Provost [continuing]. Is definitely being
investigated.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Comprehensively or individually?
Chief Provost. I cannot speak for all of the investigations
that the Office of Professional Responsibility currently has
going. But I can tell you that I do know that that case is
under investigation.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So the only--and then I will
conclude, Madam Chair; thank you for your indulgence--so you,
like the Secretary, are only aware of and only willing to
commit to individual investigations of specific allegations
rather than the--because if it were me and I had widespread
accusations of my officers, people under my supervision, being
accused of cruelty, I would want to get to the bottom of it,
not case by case, but where the breakdown is and how that is
being allowed on the border.
Chief Provost. Ma'am, this is something that we work close
with the DHS Office of the Inspector General, which that is
their job, as well as the Office of Professional
Responsibility.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Madam Chair, unfortunately there
appears to be a culture of cruelty that goes all the way to the
top in the Department of Homeland Security. Thank you. I yield
back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Chief, for being here, and I wanted to just go a
little further than my colleague about the subculture
discussions because I think this speaks not only to leadership,
but this speaks to how we treat folks and the standards that we
employ.
Are you familiar with the term ``tonk''?
Chief Provost. I have heard that term before.
Mr. Aguilar. And in what context have you heard that term?
Chief Provost. It is a highly inappropriate term that we do
not tolerate in the Border Patrol that was a term from--my
experience, from many, many years ago.
Mr. Aguilar. Have you heard that term from officers in the
field?
Chief Provost. That is not a term that I have heard as of
late. When I was a young agent, yes.
Mr. Aguilar. Have you seen it recently in emails or texts,
or heard it outside of your term as an agent?
Chief Provost. I was just made aware of and an
investigation is ongoing into, I believe, a t-shirt that was
made with something like that. I have not seen it.
Mr. Aguilar. A t-shirt that was made by an agent?
Chief Provost. I do not know whether or not it was made by
an agent.
Mr. Aguilar. Last week Secretary McAleenan testified before
the House Committee on Judiciary that he does not think that
the CBP has a culture of dehumanizing migrants. Don't you feel
that at least that term, tonk, is dehumanizing?
Chief Provost. I do agree that that term is dehumanizing.
Mr. Aguilar. Do you think it is appropriate for CBP
officers or any agents to share personal and identifiable
information of migrants?
Chief Provost. No. It is not. We have to protect the
privacy of those in our custody and in our care.
Mr. Aguilar. And I assume you have answered this in the
context that Office of Professional Responsibility is going to
be looking at and continues to look at those. Would they also
look at individuals who may have, online, mocked the death of
child migrants as well?
Chief Provost. Most definitely. And there is a case that I
am aware of based on the Facebook information that is being
investigated right now.
Mr. Aguilar. Back to the Facebook. You said you joined--I
might have heard you wrong. When you were giving the statistics
at the beginning, you said June of 2018 to June of 2019 you
visited the group, or as it was told to you by OPR, four times
you opened up Facebook or four times you visited the group?
Chief Provost. Facebook. And it----
Mr. Aguilar. Four times you visited Facebook.
Chief Provost. Four different days that I was on Facebook
in 2019. It was nine times in a year from June through June
of--nine days, I should be specific, nine days that I logged
on.
Mr. Aguilar. Nine days that you logged on----
Chief Provost. That was just to Facebook.
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. In the 12 months on Facebook?
Chief Provost. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aguilar. In the 12 months. And logging on can be done
through your mobile device or through a desktop, or did OPR----
Chief Provost. I use an iPad, a personal iPad.
Mr. Aguilar. Okay. And so four times this calendar year,
nine times the prior 12 years (sic) to----
Chief Provost. Twelve months.
Mr. Aguilar. Twelve months.
Chief Provost. Nine days and 4 days. And the reason I say
``days,'' I think, in the 4 days I was on twice in one day, for
instance.
Mr. Aguilar. Right. Which would be common for a user on
that platform.
You said you joined this group in 2017 at the request of a
colleague. So from that time in 2017 to June of 2018, was there
any data that OPR had given for your Facebook use and/or your
visiting? Because I understand you commented on a post within
that group as well.
Chief Provost. I commented on a post within, I believe,
what was the 10-15 Times 2 group. But if I may explain, when I
log on, the reason I commented on that is because my agents
were talking about me. And I will go in and I search posts. I
did not even know at the time what group I was on or whether I
was on a group.
I did a search for myself, and because people were talking
about the fact that I had been on a Jeopardy! question. So I
searched myself, and that came up. I did not know at the time
what group that was on until the posting came out.
I do not go into Facebook and go into groups. I go into
Facebook, and I either talk to my friends in my group or I do,
quite often, and that was revealed in the information that the
Office of Professional Responsibility looked at, I do search
myself quite often.
Mr. Aguilar. So you would go into Facebook. You would hit
the little icon to search. You would type in your name----
Chief Provost. Yes.
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. On that search piece. And then it
would then populate within----
Chief Provost. Posts that I would search through, posts
that would potentially have my name in it.
Mr. Aguilar. The way those sites work, it would generally
put to the top of the list those that had connections to you.
Chief Provost. Yes.
Mr. Aguilar. Either individuals who were friends or groups
that you had joined.
Chief Provost. Correct.
Mr. Aguilar. Those would then show up at the top.
Chief Provost. Correct.
Mr. Aguilar. And so that is when you noticed that. That is
when you saw that. And then you replied to that post because
you had searched yourself and they were talking about you.
Chief Provost. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aguilar. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Like many Members of Congress, I have felt some obligation
to travel to the border to see these conditions myself. And I
must say your agents were accommodating in helping us do that
in McAllen and Brownsville two weeks ago. I went to Laredo a
year ago.
The striking thing this year is how much worse things are,
how much worse things are. And it is partly the influx of so
many people, but it is also a failure to provide for these very
basic accommodations, and a failure of policy to get people
through the process in a fair and orderly way.
Forty men packed in a cell for six people. Vice President
Pence tried to put a positive face on that, but the press was
right there. They saw for themselves. And then in the Ursula
Center for the families and unaccompanied children, people who
had not had a change of clothes or a shower for days, and so
on. We spoke to a lot of people who have been stranded in
processing centers for days, even weeks, when the standard is
supposed to be 72 hours.
One thing we need to get at is to what extent is this, all
this, these conditions and the situation we find, to what
extent is this a failure in policy? I must say the most
irrational policy of all has to be President Trump cutting off
the very aid to the Triangle countries that has been directed
to stemming this flow by improving conditions and dealing with
conditions in those home countries. How in the world can that
even be contemplated?
But then, closer to home, what about the accommodations
that we provide? What about the process for processing and
dealing with cases? And then, of course, there is a specific
set of problems dealing with medical care and the kind of
medical needs that these people who are being held have.
I want to ask you one question about the 72-hour standard,
and then I want to move to the medical issue. But I know 72
hours is not an absolute requirement, but it is a goal that I
am sure you embrace.
How long, on average, are tender age children being kept in
Border Patrol facilities in particular and in general? Can you
address the 72-hour standard, which I think, given the state of
these facilities, we can all agree is highly desirable to move
people through as quickly as possible, and what it is going to
take to come anywhere near to meeting that standard. And if you
want to comment on different subsets of populations as to the
situation you are facing.
Chief Provost. Certainly, Congressman. First and foremost,
when it comes to processing, we do prioritize the processing of
unaccompanied children first and then of family units and then
single adults. When we were at our height, when I mentioned
earlier that we had a time with 19,000 people in our custody,
HHS was unable at that time to take people out of our custody
within the 72 hours.
I can tell you since you all have funded HHS, that number,
as I stated earlier, has dropped dramatically. Along with that,
our time in custody has dropped. And when it comes to
unaccompanied children in our custody and care, currently--
obviously it changes at different times--but somewhere in the
1- to 2-day time frame, and are being turned over to Health and
Human Services right now.
That is the current state we are in. That was not the state
we were in when we had 2700 children in our custody. But I
needed HHS to be able to take them out of my custody. And I do
agree: I want all of these individuals out of my custody as
quickly as possible.
Family units, as soon as we can process them and release
them. We are doing that. We are working with local
nongovernmental organizations and doing our best to release
them to those individuals. And that is more like a 2- to 3-day
time frame.
The problem I have right now is single adults because I
have to wait for ICE to have the bed space. Those individuals,
I do not have the exact time, but they are being held in our
custody far too long.
Mr. Price. Those are the people in the cages, shouting out,
``I have been here 40 days''?
Chief Provost. Well, and once again, I believe Mr. Cuellar
stated earlier, the reason that we have to be able to separate
different groups and we need to be able to see those
individuals. Thus the use in some of our facilities like in Rio
Grande Valley with the Central Processing Center. We want to be
able to have eyes on to ensure nothing is happening to these
individuals.
But yes, it is mostly single adults now that we are having
issues with when it comes to going beyond the 72-hour realm.
Mr. Price. Well, I know my time is expired, so I will wait
until the next round on the medical issue. But coming into that
Ursula facility, put on masks. Duly warned that there is a lot
of contagion here. And so I do have some questions that stem
from that experience and those observations. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you, Chief
Provost for being here.
I wanted to ask about an issue, interior enforcement. You
stated in your testimony that your workforce is extremely
strained due to the crisis at the Southern border. However
strained your workforce is, Border Patrol is still--they are
still conducting interior enforcement. New York farmers,
specifically, have had issues with workers being picked up and
detailed by agents, and there have been numerous interior
enforcement actions across the State of New York that have
impacted farmers and farmworkers.
According to the New York State Department of Labor, there
are between 40,000 to 80,000 individuals employed on farms in a
given year, including domestic, guest workers, migrant, and
seasonal labor. A high proportion of the New York agriculture
workforce are vulnerable to immigration enforcement, which
leaves farms in New York State vulnerable to losing their
workforce.
Given its close proximity to an international border, New
York State has a significant Border Patrol presence, which
enables CBP agents to question, detain, and search individuals.
What type of criteria does Border Patrol use when it decides to
question these individuals?
Chief Provost. If I may, and I am just wanting to clarify
for my own, you are talking about--because when you are
speaking about interior enforcement, that is generally ICE ERO
or Homeland Security Investigations. That is not something that
the Border Patrol generally does.
Now, we do have traffic checkpoints that come in as a
secondary support system that we are doing. And I am just
trying to clarify for my own edification. I apologize. But are
you potentially speaking to enforcement efforts by ICE and HSI?
Ms. Meng. So there is no enforcement by CBP agents in or
near farms in New York State?
Chief Provost. We do some roving patrol. This may be
something that I need to follow up with you on so that I can
understand better. And I apologize, but we do some roving
patrol and we do have checkpoints. But generally, when we are
talking about interior enforcement actions, that is the job of
ICE. And I am not sure. Maybe that is something that I need to
come sit down and speak with you about more in depth.
Ms. Meng. Sure. We have just had a lot of stories from our
farms and farmers about workers being picked up. And so if you
could get back to us.
Chief Provost. I will take that--yes. I will take that back
and see whether or not that is something that we are doing. And
I will get back with you.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. And we would love to----
Chief Provost. I apologize. It may be ICE that we are
talking about here. And in that case, I do not have that
information.
Ms. Meng. Okay. Well, specifically I want to know what role
CBP plays and what criteria is used when----
Chief Provost. Okay. If it is all right, I would like to
take that back. And I will get you an answer on that.
Ms. Meng. Of course. Thank you.
Another question I have, a story about a colleague of ours
at the Ursula Detention Center who encountered a 13-year-old
U.S. citizen, at the Ursula Detention Center where children are
also held in cages. And I wanted to get more background about
this incident. Why was this U.S. citizen child held in a cage?
Is this standard practice? How often does it happen? What is
the protocol?
Chief Provost. Not knowing the exact case that you are
talking to, and if you send me that information I am more than
happy to follow up on that exact case, there are instances,
though, where in particular children, U.S. citizen children, do
come in to our care and custody, for instance, if they are
traveling and have maybe crossed the border with a parent who
is an illegal alien.
So that does happen at times, and we try to keep them
together, and the parent can make a call on what happens. I am
not sure of the specific case that you are speaking to. If you
have a time frame, that would help me. But I am certainly more
than happy to look into any specific instances.
Ms. Meng. Sure. This specific incident was reported in an
article in the national paper, USA Today. It was our colleague,
Congresswoman Annette Barragan, who had been on a congressional
tour at the Southern border, specifically at Ursula Detention
Center.
Do you know how many U.S. citizen children are in Border
Patrol custody? And how long are they detained for?
Chief Provost. Those are few and far between. And I do
believe in that instance that this was a child with an illegal
alien mother, who the mother and the child were released on
their own recognizance. I will confirm that that is the case.
Those instances are few and far between. I do not have an exact
number for you, but it does happen from time to time.
Ms. Meng. If you could get back to us as well, I would like
to know how many U.S. citizens at any given time, including
currently, are in Border Patrol custody and the average time
that they are detained, and the process that they must go
through to get released.
Chief Provost. And once again, if they are in with a
parent, we are going to work through processing the parent
accordingly and then work to--if it is a family unit in
particular, to release them as soon as possible. But I am more
than happy to follow up on that with you.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. I have two areas I want to
talk to you about.
First, I recently, within a month or so, I visited the
border. And quite frankly, I was really surprised and shocked
on what I saw. I know one of the Border Patrol agents made a
comment to me, though. If you are a police officer in the
United States and you arrest somebody, you see them in court.
We have these issues now, we have detail these people, and we
really are not in the detaining business. And that has caused a
lot of issues with the volume that we have had in.
Now, again, you are dealing, what I have seen, with an
unprecedented volume of immigrants, and you need more
resources. There is no question. We just passed a bill which
provides $4.5 billion to alleviate the humanitarian crisis on
the border. We did not get everything we wanted in it, but we
got a lot, and that is a good start. But it is not the end.
Now, we need to fix the overcrowding. We need to hire
hundreds more judges--that is a major issue--so we can move the
people in the United States or out, and they have a status. We
have to provide more aid to the Northern Triangle countries.
Not a lot that you have to deal with, but we need to make sure
that we deal with the problems. These are why people are
leaving. And as long as they feel threatened and there is
corruption in these areas, we are going to keep having a lot of
the problem.
We need to bring in more doctors to screen detainees--very
important issue, especially with the young children and kids,
but everybody who needs a doctor. We need to abide by
international law and allow people to seek asylum. That is a
big issue, and we have to do that. And these people are running
for their lives. And overall, we need to restructure our whole
immigration system.
Now, short-term, there are third party organizations, such
as the Red Cross, who are willing to roll up their sleeves and
help out at no expense to the American taxpayer. I keep hearing
about the flu and lice outbreaks. This is both concerning and
preventable. I am fully aware that these volunteers will need
to be toughly screened before providing assistance.
Now, to that end, are you willing to open up your doors to
these humanitarian organizations? And if so, how can Congress
help? This could help some of the issues we are dealing with,
especially with a group like the Red Cross.
Chief Provost. Sir, I do not want to speak out of line. I
will tell you that----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Speak what comes up.
Chief Provost [continuing]. We are working very, very
closely with medical professionals--and by the way, thank you
for the funding because that is supporting having more medical
professionals in our facility. We have expanded to over 200
medical professionals in our facilities across the board.
I cannot speak to the legalities on the Red Cross. I do
know that we are working with FEMA within the department as
well, and looking at all different kinds of possibilities. I
agree that we need the medical assistance in our facilities. I
just cannot speak to what we can or cannot do. It is certainly
something that I will take back and see whether or not that is
something that is feasible.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, we need to make it a priority.
Another thing I learned, too, we talk about the immigration
issue as very political. That is unfortunate because a lot of
countries take in immigrants. If you look at our history, we
all somehow, other than probably the American Indians, came
from some other country.
What I see--and I have spent years in law enforcement as a
prosecutor--and what I see right now, the cartels are in
control of a lot of the things that are going on, not only from
a drug point of view, but also from shaking down these
immigrants, these people that are coming, trying to find a way
that is better for their families.
And that is a priority that we do not talk about any more
in this country. Our media does not talk about it. That is a
big problem, about what is happening and the volume that we
need to deal with.
The other thing I want to talk about--our chairwoman and
other people have brought it up--and that is about the 10-15
private Facebook book. There are a lot of good agents out
there. A lot of bad people--a few bad people make it look bad
for an entire agency. And it happens in Congress. It happens in
a lot of organizations.
Now, this group has about 9500 members strong. They are
posting racist, misogynistic comments and cracking jokes about
detainees dying in their custody. There are reports of alleged
misconduct such as agents telling detainees to drink from
toilets. As a former prosecutor and county executive, I worked
with law enforcement for decades. And never in my life have I
ever seen such a lack of professionalism and disregard for
human suffering. This is human suffering.
So I do not believe that most of your share those views,
and I will tell you this. I served on the Intelligence
Committee for 12 years, and I served with Silvestre Reyes, who
was a member of the Border Patrol. He told stories, and I
learned to respect your agency because of what he told me about
the Border Patrol, and how tough it is between the borders. And
there is a certain camaraderie that is there.
But a few people are really hurting your agency right now,
and a lot of people--just like ICE, a lot of good people in
ICE--the same way. A few bad people, and certain policies by
our administration, unfortunately, are really causing problems
with your agencies and the respect. So we have got to turn it
around.
So my question is: What are you doing to restore the
credibility and reputation of your agency as it relates--you
talked a little bit about the 10-15 group--but generally, you
have got a long way to go now to rebuild your reputation to the
average person in this country.
Chief Provost. So thank you for the question. And as I
stated earlier, you are exactly right. Those individuals are
not representative of my men and women as a whole. That is why
we have taken steps. OPR, the Office of Professional
Responsibility, is all-in on this investigation, meaning
putting a large sum of resources into it. And as I stated
before, we will hold those accountable who have done that.
In my statement to the workforce, I made mention of, and I
will continue to make mention of as I am reaching out to the
workforce as we are spreading training, that all this does is
harm our reputation. That being said, I would love to see more
from the media and others reporting on the amazing things that
my men and women are doing because I do spend--every week I am
making calls to the field on rescues, agents who are putting
their lives on the line, as you have stated.
That is not making it into the public eye. That is not
making it into the media. And we are putting that information
out. And I would love to see that be out so that the public can
see--when we are talking about over 4,000 rescues this year,
when we are talking about agents who have pulled children out
of a river in the Del Rio area, where actually the river is
extremely dangerous, and the smugglers do put children in inner
tubes that are made for a swimming pool and push them out into
the river, and put women in those situations.
I agree that we have to deal with those few bad apples.
This is a priority for us as an organization. It is a priority
not only for me, also for the Secretary, as I know he has
spoken to as well.
Mr. Ruppersberger. My time is up. But I think the stories
that you hear, the bad stories which have to be put out there,
you need to tell the good stories about saving peoples' lives
also.
Chief Provost. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Just a very quick follow-up with regards
to Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz's question regarding the
incidence in the Yuma Sector about abuse of unaccompanied
children while in your custody.
The information was gotten by caseworkers from ORR, when
the children went to ORR. When there are those kinds of
allegations by these children, does ORR then give Border Patrol
that information?
Chief Provost. We did not receive that information until
the investigation came out. It went to OIG, and I do know that
the Office of Inspector General is investigating that. But that
is certainly information that I would love to have so that we
can address any of these concerns up front.
Now, whether they are giving it directly to OIG and/or to
the Office of Professional Responsibility, that is something
they should be doing as well. And I----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Nothing prevents them at this point from
doing that?
Chief Provost. Not that I am aware of. Those are generally
the entities that they are going to give it to. But we
certainly want them giving those types of allegations to either
DHS OIG or CBP Office of Professional Responsibility.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well, we will make sure that that
happens.
Chief Provost. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. One of the things that I find very
concerning is that despite the guidance exempting vulnerable
populations from placement in the Migrant Protection Protocols
Program, we have been made aware that pregnant women and LGBT
migrants have indeed been sent back to wait in Mexico.
Since your agents apparently are not consistently following
the criteria that you have given, what is being done to ensure
that the agents do not return vulnerable individuals? And what
oversight mechanisms do you have in place to ensure that
outcome? My understanding is that they are given general
guidance and that there is nothing in writing.
Chief Provost. They are given guidance, and of course there
is supervisory oversight when it comes to individuals that we
are returning through the Migrant Protection Protocol Program.
I want to be clear, we also work very closely with the
Government of Mexico, and we are not just turning people back
across the border. We are turning them over to them. They are
working with nongovernmental organizations and shelters in
their areas for placement for them.
The standards when it comes to the MPP program speak to,
obviously. Anybody that we have over 96 hours in our custody or
has entered more than 96 hours prior is not eligible for it, as
well as individuals who are, of course, Mexican nationals and
those who express a fear of Mexico are going to be sent to
USCIS for a creditable fear. They----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I guess--excuse me for--but I guess what
I am trying to find out is what is the weakness in the system
that has made it--that has allowed, in these cases, for
vulnerable populations to in fact be returned to Mexico?
Chief Provost. We follow the standards of the MPP. No
unaccompanied alien children are sent back. Citizens and
nationals of Mexico, aliens processed for expedited removal----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. But Chief, we have examples that it in
fact is happening. So what I am trying to get at is to ask you:
Can you look into what is happening and where are those
weaknesses that are actually resulting in these vulnerable
populations being returned?
Chief Provost. So if they have circumstances where they
have medical or mental health issues, like current medical
issues, if they have been cleared, then they can go back. But
it is something that I am more than happy to talk to you about
further and to work with you on, on what your actual concerns
are in it.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I think--because I want my other
colleagues to have a chance to ask questions--but I would like
to follow up with you on this.
Chief Provost. I will definitely follow up. I would like to
understand a little bit better your specific concerns when it
comes to cases of individuals that we are sending back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. We will follow up.
Chief Provost. Okay.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to
thank my friends on both sides of the dais for a very
productive hearing. And Chief Provost, thank you. Thank you for
your thorough answers, and again, the tremendous job that you
and the men and women in CBP are doing.
Something that resounds, I think, on both sides is that our
leaders, the House and the Senate and the administration, we
need to come up with policies. I think the sheriff said it
best. Law enforcement is put in a very difficult position. You
have got to follow the law, and you do. And if the laws are not
put in place so that you can do your jobs, then we have some
work to do. And I sincerely hope that our colleagues do that in
the very near future to deal with this crisis.
Following up on my earlier line of questioning, how long
does it take, on average, for a border station staff to process
a ``large group''?
Chief Provost. Well, a large group, just to be clear, has
varied. We count a large group as anybody over a hundred, a
group of a hundred. But just this year we broke records that I
certainly do not want us to be breaking, with one large group
of over a thousand in one group. So obviously it is going to
depend upon the size of the group.
But when I have days where I have got over 5,000 illegal
aliens coming across the border, it is extremely time-consuming
to get those individuals just transported logistically,
especially if they are coming across in remote locations,
medically screened, processed through the system.
It can take, with an extremely large group, days to get
them handled. It just depends. It depends upon the size of the
station where they cross. It depends upon the staffing that we
have on. And it depends upon the size of the group. We have had
over 200, 203 large groups, that have crossed our border this
year. That is over a hundred people in each group. Last year we
had 13 total. The year before, I think it was just a handful.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, ma'am. Does processing already
include a medical screening and medical treatment, if
warranted?
Chief Provost. Definitely if warranted, and all children
are screened now medically.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Perhaps the metrics should be
adjusted so we are counting how many hours to be processed and
medically screened, and then to start a new clock on how long
it takes for ICE and HHS to respond to notification for pickup.
Is that possible? What story do you think would be told if we
start looking at these various steps at the border as separate
activities versus just ``in custody''?
Chief Provost. Well, I can certainly tell you, Congressman,
that as I have stated numerous times, Border Patrol is the only
ones that cannot say no. If migrants come across the border
illegally and then present themselves to my men and women, we
have a responsibility, a legal responsibility, to take them
into custody. And then they are in our care and custody.
And we do not have the ability to say, ``I am sorry, I do
not have any more space,'' whereas, I think, that as I
mentioned earlier, it is critical that my partners at HHS and
ICE have the funding that they need to be able to take these
folks out of our care and custody.
And once again I will recognize, certainly, the efforts of
this committee when it comes to the funding that was provided
to HHS. That has been a tremendous help. I certainly do not
want 2700 unaccompanied children in my custody. I never want to
see that again. And it has made a big difference. But because
of ICE not having the beds, that does have an impact.
There are obviously numerous factors that impact the
processing and getting individuals done. As soon as we have
them processed, though, I can tell you, we notify either HHS or
ICE that they are ready for them to go. And we do work hand in
hand with them on moving those that have been in our custody
the longest.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, ma'am. Again, Chief Provost, thank
you for your testimony.
Madam Chair, I believe they have called votes, so I am
going to yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes. In fact, they have called votes. We
have the option. We can do one real quick round, or we can come
back. So I do not know what the committee would prefer.
Mr. Cuellar. One quick one.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. One quick round?
Mr. Cuellar. Yes.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Then the next, Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes. Thank you. One quick question.
Again, I appreciate what your men and women do, but there
are some issues. I think you were down in Laredo when we had
this Border Patrol agent that murdered multiple individuals. I
think it was a veteran. I think we had another Border Patrol
agent within the same time that killed his girlfriend and baby.
My question is, even though you do a polygraph exam, do you
do any sort of--I do not know what your position is on
psychological testing for those folks, number one? And then
number two is, in talking to the men and women at the border,
they are afraid sometimes to talk when they have an issue
because if they go in to their supervisor and say, ``I got a
problem,'' what is the first thing they do? They take the gun
away.
So they basically are told, union members told, ``Go talk
to a priest.'' And there has to be some sort of support
services because you can understand law enforcement. If you
tell them you got an issue they are going to take your gun
away.
So my question is on polygraph--I mean, on psychological
and any sort of support. Thank you very much.
Chief Provost. Thank you, Congressman. We currently do not
have a psychological evaluation. We do a very extensive
background check. We do polygraph. And we also do
reinvestigations every 5 years. That is something, I would say,
that we should speak with the Office of Professional
Responsibility in relation to, on psychological exams. I can
tell you that I did take one for my police department when I
hired on.
When it comes to things for the agents, concerns that they
have, we have created a peer support program and our own
chaplain program to help support our men and women when they do
need to talk about issues as well. But I would certainly want
my men and women to be willing to go talk to their supervisors
when they have an issue.
And of course, if they have an allegation, they can go
directly to the Office of Inspector General or to the Office of
Special Counsel or to the Office of Professional Responsibility
without any of their chain of command knowing, particularly if
they have a concern with their chain of command.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair. Very quickly, I
think it incredibly important that we not only help you with
the symptoms of this issue that you have to deal with, but we
also have to address the causes. And I think that is evidenced
by the fact that when I see videotape of these large groups,
203, a hundred plus--I think I actually saw the video of the
thousand group coming across----
Chief Provost. We did release that, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. But they do not run from your officers.
They run to your officers. And the reason for that is, they
understand the draw that we have created, the pull, as you all
call it, that continues to bring them here. This body, this
Congress, has got to address that and this issue in that way.
One quick question also. Can you tell me, you move 731
officers. You also had some military assistance down there. How
did that go? Was it worthwhile or----
Chief Provost. The DOD assistance has certainly helped up,
particularly when it comes to, for instance, running our mobile
surveillance cameras for us. That has allowed me to free up
agents. They are helping us with our situational awareness so
that the agent can respond. They have provided air support.
They are now providing some support when it comes to meal
preparation for the individuals in our custody and care, and
other things. So they have been a huge support as well.
Mr. Rutherford. Very good. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chief Provost, immigration lawyers who work with detained
migrants have told my office that they have heard reports of
CBP pressuring teenage girls into signing documents stating
that they are adults, and of accusing girls of lying when they
have asserted that they are minors. By signing such a waiver, a
child would lose legal protections and become subject to
expedited removal, criminal charges, and transfer to ICE
custody.
Chief Provost, yes or no: Is this a legal practice?
Chief Provost. No.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And will you commit to investigating
these accusations and, if substantiated, hold CBP officers
committing these actions accountable?
Chief Provost. Definitely.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you very much, and I
have one additional question. Abusive behavior, as I indicated
in my prior questioning, seems to be tolerated at CBP, although
I know you are disagreeing with that or certainly following up
on individual cases of abuse. But this is widespread abuse, and
it apparently frequently goes unpunished.
Out of a total of 7,239 agency disciplinary academies in
fiscal year 2017, only 70 were removal actions. That represents
less than 1 percent. What kind of misconduct would prompt a
removal of an employee in your agency? And why is this number
so low when reports of CBP abuse and misconduct are so
commonplace?
Chief Provost. Lack of candor would be an issue. Conduct
unbecoming can lead to a removal as well. But there are various
levels along the disciplinary----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Lack of candor meaning lying?
Chief Provost. Yes. Yes. There are numerous things that
could bring to light discipline. I would state, though, also
during 2017 that we did have hundreds of individuals that
received suspensions. We did have demotions. We did have
everything from the lower level of a counseling or a written
reprimand up to removal. This is something that, as I stated,
we take very seriously. There were several allegations that
were unsubstantiated, though, as well in that number that you
provided.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And I am sure that there were some.
But it is 7,239 agency disciplinary academies, and less than 1
percent resulted in removal. I would think that things like
kicking a child awake while they are trying to sleep on the
floor, covered by tinfoil, is something that would indicate a
culture of abuse and abusive practice by an individual who
certainly does not belong employed as a Customs and Border
Patrol officer, and would not be exemplary of the 4,000 rescues
that you have you have conducted.
Chief Provost. It would definitely not be, ma'am. But once
again, those are allegations that have to be investigated. And
whether or not those allegations are true, once it becomes----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So why is the number so low when the
reports of CBP abuse and misconduct are so commonplace?
Chief Provost. Well, once again, reports are allegations.
It does have to do with--of that, I believe 3800 of that number
that you give were unsubstantiated allegations. And once again,
those are not investigated by me. Those are investigated either
by the Office of Inspector General or the Office of
Professional Responsibility. That is their job to deal with.
So when you are saying the number of 7,239, 3,806 were
unsubstantiated claims----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Still leaves over 4,000 that were
not.
Chief Provost [continuing]. And there were various forms--
there were various forms of discipline that were handed out.
And it will depend on every type of situation.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I would like a comprehensive
overview of what the forms of discipline were, by number, of
those remaining 4,000 cases that were----
Chief Provost. I will get with our labor/employee
relationships group on that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chief, the family separation policy was in effect from at
least April to June of 2018, and reports indicate that children
were separated before then. We know that families were
separated before the President implemented this policy, also
known as Zero Tolerance.
You were appointed acting chief in April of 2017. Did you
play any role in advising agents in how to carry out family
separation policy?
Chief Provost. Well, first, as I have stated, we never had
a specific family separation policy in my 25 years.
Mr. Aguilar. Zero Tolerance policy?
Chief Provost. In my 25 years, I have had to separate
families. This is not something that is new to the Border
Patrol. One, we have a responsibility under the TVPRA to ensure
the safety of children. So there are always going to be cases,
as there still are today, where we have to separate families.
We do not take that lightly. That is something that is very
difficult for any of my men and women to do. That is something
that--the care of the children is of utmost concern. But this
is something that has been done. I have worked under four
administrations. It has been done in each of those
administrations. And it is, of course, being done in compliance
with the Executive Order and with Ms. L right now. But it is
something that we have done throughout my career.
Mr. Aguilar. So you are saying it was just business as
usual. Nothing was different between April and----
Chief Provost. I am saying Zero Tolerance was different. It
was prosecution initiative, though not focused on family units.
Mr. Aguilar. Sure. What role did you have in helping guide
your agents on what the new prosecutorial standard was?
Chief Provost. I gave direction out to the field, once Zero
Tolerance came down the chain of command, on Zero Tolerance as
a whole when it came to prosecutions.
Mr. Aguilar. And everyone knew that that was a change in
process; that was a new process coming down from the top?
Chief Provost. It was a Zero Tolerance program and a
program that was focused on prosecution initiatives that we
have done numerous different prosecution initiatives over the
years.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Chief.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. I know we are running out of time as the clock
ticks on this vote. But I do want to return to the issue of the
medical care situation.
At Ursula was where I observed this, but I hope you could
provide an answer more generally, and perhaps some of this for
the record. I would appreciate your immediate response, though,
to how much attention you are paying to this, how critically
you are regarding this situation.
It looked pretty bad, frankly. I mention that we had to put
on masks, and there was a warning of contagious diseases in the
air. But just seeing the line of migrants waiting to be seen by
medical staff, looking at those who had been seen. We spoke
with a father who was lying on supposedly a quarantine mat
outside with a daughter. Looked very sick to us. She was
clearly ill.
And that did not look like much of an isolation situation.
It was not clear when they were going to actually be taken to a
medical facility. There are people who had been seen who were
waiting to go to a local healthcare facility or to Weslaco, the
CBP's isolation border facility, and so on. It was not a good
scene. It appeared to be overwhelmed.
Now, you realize there is money in this emergency
humanitarian supplemental, $112 million specifically for
consumables and medical care in CBP facilities. I wonder what
your assessment of the need is, the priority that you give
this, and in particular, we are going to want to know how
quickly and in what ways you can utilize these funds.
Chief Provost. Certainly. And this is of course of serious
concern to me, to my men and women as well. There are numerous
individuals coming into our custody that are sick when they
arrive. We are expanding, and thank you for the funding that
has helped us to expand our medical contracts, where we have
over 200 medical professionals now working in our facilities.
We are also able to buy more medical bags, cardiac monitors,
and other medical supplies to assist in this issue.
As I have stated, we are doing--right now, on average,
Border Patrol agents are taking 80 people to the hospital a day
across the Southwest border. Obviously, when the medical
professionals advise that anyone in our custody needs further
medical attention outside of what they can provide there, we
will take them to a hospital and we will stay with them
throughout that time until they can be medically cleared.
This is of great concern, specifically with the demographic
that we have coming across. We have nearly 300,000 children who
have come across our border illegally between the ports of
entry this year. And as we all know, I think, that is a very
vulnerable population when it comes to the health risks.
So it is of great concern to us. Thank you for the funding.
We will continue to expand. And I am more than happy to come
back at any time and speak with you on how those funds are
being utilized.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I just wanted to go back to the MPP
conversation before. What are Border Patrol's procedures when
processing some of these individuals, specifically
unaccompanied minors? And has Border Patrol returned asylum-
seeking minors to Mexico?
Chief Provost. One of the exclusions is unaccompanied minor
children cannot be a part of the MPP program. So we are not
returning unaccompanied children.
Ms. Meng. When you are returning other asylum seekers to
Mexico, do Border Patrol agents ask if they face danger or
persecution in their home country?
Chief Provost. So when it comes to them waiting in Mexico
for their asylum case, if they show a fear of Mexico, then they
go back to USCIS to express that fear. Otherwise they are
waiting, then, in Mexico for their hearing here in the U.S. and
then are brought back across for that hearing.
Ms. Meng. So if anyone expresses that they fear danger or
fear of persecution in their home country, they are brought to
USCIS facilities?
Chief Provost. Are you asking specific to the MPP program?
Ms. Meng. Yes.
Chief Provost. Specific to that, they would need to show a
fear of Mexico. And if they show a fear of Mexico, then they
are referred to--because they are being returned and waiting in
Mexico for their hearing up here. So if they show a fear of
Mexico, then they are referred back to USCIS on whether or not
they have a credible fear of persecution or torture. But when
it comes to whether or not they have a fear of their home
country, then they are going to get their day in court to
express that in front of a judge.
Ms. Meng. So where do they go if they do not specifically
mention Mexico?
Chief Provost. If they are part of the MPP program, the
22,000, I think, that we have done so far, then they are going
to wait in Mexico for their court date.
Ms. Meng. Okay. And if they specifically say Mexico, then
they are put in USCIS custody?
Chief Provost. Then they will go to USCIS to see whether--
for a determination of fear of going to Mexico.
Ms. Meng. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Unfortunately, we have run out of time.
We will submit other questions for the record.
And I just want to say thank you for your time, for being
here, and I look forward to a lot of follow-up on many of the
issues that were raised today.
Chief Provost. Certainly. And thank you for inviting me
today.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. We are off the record.
[Clerk's note.--The Border Patrol did not answer questions
submitted for the record in time for the printing of this
hearing.]
Thursday, July 25, 2019.
OVERSIGHT HEARING--U.S IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
WITNESS
MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Acting Director Albence, thank you for
your patience and your willingness to stay until 4 o'clock
given the votes that we had. We appreciate it.
Today we welcome Matthew Albence, the Acting Director of
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Thank you for being here this afternoon. As we continue to
monitor the challenging situation on the southern border, we
look forward to hearing your perspective on ICE's operational
and funding priorities and requirements.
As chair of this subcommittee, I am committed to ensuring
the integrity of our borders and strengthening our immigration
system. But I am equally committed to making sure we do so
according to all our laws and in a way that exemplifies our
American values.
In particular, we must ensure that, in accordance with our
laws and values, those fleeing violence and persecution have
meaningful opportunities to seek asylum. We must get this
balance right, and I believe that we can if we work together.
It is a false choice to believe that more migrants need to
be unnecessarily detained and that cruel and exclusionary
immigration laws need to be enacted in order to increase
security in our country.
Our own Constitution, Federal law, and several
international agreements serve as the foundation for the rights
and protections I believe need to be embodied in our efforts to
address the humanitarian crisis we are currently experiencing.
Unfortunately, the rhetoric and the policies of this
administration have made achieving that balance more difficult
and, by all indications, have exacerbated our challenges at the
border.
We must also be mindful of the resource limitations that we
face. There is likely no area of our bill where we have
sufficient resources to fully address known requirements.
For instance, we have barely cracked the surface of what
the Coast Guard truly needs to address the flow of illegal
drugs in the transit zone or to protect our sovereign interests
in the Arctic.
Detention is a very expensive option that should be
reserved for cases where public safety or flight risk is a
valid concern. When public safety is not a concern, ICE should
use alternatives to detention.
When used as intended, with appropriate case management,
alternatives to detention have proven to be effective in
mitigating flight risk and improving compliance with
immigration court requirements.
For those whose detention is appropriate, I remain
seriously concerned about substandard conditions at ICE
detention facilities. In addition to what I have personally
witnessed, we continue to get alerts from the media, the Office
of the Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office,
and advocacy organizations about detention facilities that do
not meet ICE's minimum standards but are nevertheless allowed
to continue operating.
Preventing these inhumane conditions can only be achieved
if ICE leadership makes clear that anything less is
unacceptable and will have consequences. I will continue to
work with ICE to ensure that this happens.
On a more positive note, I want to highlight the good work
ICE does in areas such as combating human trafficking, human
smuggling, child exploitation, and the smuggling of fentanyl
and other opioids.
In the fiscal year 2019 appropriation, the subcommittee
provided additional resources to Homeland Security
Investigation for these efforts. This is a great example of a
mission where we have worked together to accomplish shared
goals, and we have sustained these efforts in our fiscal year
2020 bill.
Lastly, I want to follow up on the letter I sent you on
July 12 about increased interior enforcement operations. I
requested that you submit for the record today some of ICE's
written policies and procedures which I described in that
letter.
This kind of transparency is very important for us to
better understand how ICE's leadership expects its frontline
officers and agents to operate. I understand that you have
submitted documents in response, so I thank you for that, and I
look forward to reviewing them and will follow up accordingly.
Before I turn to the Director for a summary of his written
statement, the text of which will be included in the hearing
record, let me first recognize our distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Fleischmann, for any remarks he wishes to make.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to keep
my remarks very brief, as I know we have been delayed by votes.
Welcome, Director Albence. Thank you for your time and your
testimony before the subcommittee today.
There has been a lot of change in leadership positions at
the Department in recent months, and it is reassuring to me to
have an Acting Director with your years, really decades of
experience at the helm. Thank you for assuming the awesome
responsibility of leading this law enforcement and homeland
security agency.
I very much appreciated the other day with you and your
most able staff the visit and the update. It helped me to
understand exactly where we are and where we are going.
Again, I thank you for your hard work. I look forward to
working with you, and I look forward to your testimony today,
sir.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The order in which members will be
called for questioning will be based on the seniority of those
present when the hearing was called to order, alternating
between majority and minority members. Also, to ensure everyone
has ample opportunity to ask questions, I ask that each member
stay within the allotted 5 minutes per round.
Director, please begin your statement.
Mr. Albence. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Roybal-Allard,
Ranking Member Fleischmann, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee.
As you are aware, the United States is currently facing an
unprecedented national security and humanitarian crisis at our
southwest border. Over the past year, the number of aliens
apprehended at or near the southwest border has increased
significantly.
Today, however, I am here to address other parts of the
immigration system that remain in desperate need of resources
and funding as well as to highlight the need for legislation
that would help put an end to the current border crisis once
and for all.
ICE: INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT
The fact is, the majority of the aliens encountered at or
near the border are released into the interior of the United
States for removal proceedings, and the immigration courts
currently have a backlog of more than 900,000 cases and
growing. The dedicated officers and agents of ICE are
responsible for managing these cases as well as those of the
more than 3 million aliens currently on ICE's docket.
Many aliens do not appear for removal proceedings,
violating the terms of their release, including the terms of
the Alternatives to Detention program, and fail to appear for
their hearings or comply with removal orders.
The result is that the border crisis has become a national
crisis, which requires a strong interior enforcement component
that lends certainty to lawfully issued orders by immigration
judges.
The reality is if our immigration laws are only enforced at
the border and you fail to provide adequate resources to ensure
that those who have entered illegally proceed through the
immigration process and, if ordered removed, are actually
removed, the entire system will break down. This failure will
continue to serve as a magnet for additional aliens to
illegally enter the country, and you will never have a secure
border.
With this in mind, I come to ask for your assistance in
providing ICE the funding it desperately needs to address not
only the ongoing humanitarian crisis, but also the concurrent
national security and public safety crises.
While ICE's immigration enforcement is focused on the
interior, the current situation at our border directly impacts
this agency and its resource requirements.
BORDER SECURITY: CBP
CBP's 780,633 encounters include more than 390,000 members
of family units and 63,000 unaccompanied alien children. This
represents 63 percent of all southwest border encounters in
fiscal year 2019 year to date.
Notably, in the last few months ICE alone has been forced
to release more than 215,000 members of family units into the
interior of the United States due to the Flores settlement
agreement.
ICE's resources have been overburdened by the record
numbers of CBP apprehensions at the southwest border and
Congress' repeated failure to fund ICE detention and
transportation requirements at ICE-requested levels. ICE is
currently detaining over 53,000 single adults, and there are
approximately 8,000 single adults in CBP custody awaiting
processing or transfer to ICE.
Due to its very limited detention capacity, ICE must
generally reserve its detention space for those who require
congressionally mandated detention, along with those who pose a
national security, public safety, or flight risk.
However, based on increased enforcement activity on the
border, additional ICE detention capacity and transportation
funding is urgently needed.
ICE: ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
To ensure the national security and public safety of the
United States and the faithful execution of the immigration
laws passed by Congress, ICE officers may conduct targeted
enforcement actions against any removable alien who is present
in violation of immigration law.
Despite what is often sensationally misreported, these are
not indiscriminate raids or sweeps. Instead, ICE's operations
are carefully planned based on person-specific, intelligence-
driven leads, focusing on those who represent a public safety
threat as well as those who have received a lawfully issued
order of removal from an immigration judge.
Approximately 90 percent of ERO's administrative arrests in
the interior of this country are of aliens that have prior
criminal convictions, face pending criminal charges, are
immigration fugitives, or who have been previously been removed
from the country and have illegally reentered, the latter of
which is a Federal felony that ICE prosecutes extensively.
However, the crisis on the border has negatively impacted
ICE's interior enforcement mission and thus the public safety
of our communities. Resources dedicated to removing dangerous
criminals from the streets have been redeployed to manage the
increased workload stemming from the border surge, resulting in
an over 14 percent decrease in criminal alien arrests this
fiscal year.
ICE: FUGITIVE OPERATIONS
Additionally, ICE has reassigned members of Fugitive
Operations teams to manage detained dockets or help respond to
the border crisis.
The failure of Congress to increase funding for Fugitive
Operations over the course of the last decade has created a
tremendous strain on ICE's ability to effectuate arrests of
specific aliens who have failed to comply with removal orders
or with release conditions, including those who have absconded
while on ATD.
While Congress has sought to increase funding for ATD, it
has failed to fund the necessary resources that make the
program effective.
Without sufficient numbers of Fugitive Operations officers
to search for and arrest aliens who fail to comply with ATD, as
well as sufficient detention space for those aliens to be
detained once they are located and arrested, ATD will continue
to offer very little benefit for its cost.
ICE: IMMIGRATION LAWYERS
Additional resources are also requested in fiscal year 2020
to ensure that ICE's Office of the Principal Legal Advisor is
able to carry out statutory responsibility to prosecute
administrative immigration cases before the immigration courts.
While Congress has increased the number of funded DOJ
immigration judges and support positions during recent budget
cycles, OPLA funding has not kept pace, thereby exacerbating
the backlog.
More critically, and most critically, I would like to
highlight legislative changes that are urgently needed. To be
clear, the fiscal year 2020 budget request only provides the
necessary funding and resources for ICE to address the symptoms
of the crisis. It does not, nor can any amount of resources
solve the problem.
ICE: LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
Legislative changes are the only viable option to swiftly
put an end to the current crisis, reducing the victimization of
migrants looking for a better life, and starving the cartels
and transnational criminal organizations of a major segment of
their illicit enterprises.
Absent these changes, current laws will continue to be
exploited and the pull factors they create will only result in
more illegal immigration and worsen the humanitarian crisis.
We ask you to terminate the Flores settlement agreement and
clarify the government's detention authority with respect to
alien minors; amend the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act to provide for the prompt repatriation of
all UAC who are not victims of human trafficking and do not
express fear of return to their home country; and address the
credible fear standard.
The current standard has proved to be ineffective in
screening out those with fraudulent, frivolous, or legally
insufficient claims and has further strained our overwhelmed
immigration system.
HUMAN SMUGGLING
By requiring the release of family units before the
conclusion of immigration proceedings, seemingly well-
intentioned court rulings and legislation are being exploited
by transnational criminal organizations and human smugglers.
These despicable smugglers have created an entire illicit
industry with untold millions of dollars being made through the
sale, rental, and recycling of children utilized by
unscrupulous adults to pose as family units.
To fight this activity, Homeland Security Investigations
has reassigned hundreds of special agents and intel analysts to
Border Patrol facilities to ferret out fraudulent family units
and UAC. These same loopholes also encourage further illegal
immigration as the record numbers indicate.
These are not talking points. These are facts based on my
over 25 years of law enforcement experience, and they represent
the major challenges currently faced by ICE.
Every day the dedicated, courageous, professional men and
women of ICE work to promote homeland security and public
safety by faithfully executing the laws established by Congress
to protect the integrity and credibility of our country's
borders, as well as our national security and the safety of our
communities nationwide.
The increase in the flow of illegal migrants and the change
in those arriving at our border are putting the migrants,
particularly young children, at risk of harm from smugglers,
traffickers, criminals, and the dangers of the difficult
journey, and are placing unsustainable pressure on our entire
immigration system.
Ultimately, to solve the border crisis we must work
collectively to ensure the integrity of our immigration system
as a whole.
ICE: RESOURCE RESTRAINTS
Failing to adequately resource interior enforcement
efforts, such as Fugitive Operations, detention beds, and ICE
attorneys, creates nothing more than the appearance of border
enforcement, creating a pull factor that ultimately drives more
people to make the dangerous journey to the United States,
incentivizes more illegal activity, and delays justice for
those with meritorious claims for asylum.
As a nation of laws, we owe it to the citizens of our
country to maintain the integrity of our immigration system,
especially when faced with a serious and ongoing national
crisis.
Day in and day out the women and men of ICE have worked
tirelessly, with limited resources and an outdated legal
framework, to ensure the safety and security of our country.
They have done this despite villainization, personal attacks,
and the toll it takes on their families and personal lives.
They pay this price every day for simply doing their jobs under
the laws passed by Congress.
A crisis is at hand, a change is needed, and it is your
responsibility as Members of Congress to act.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. I am
honored and humbled to represent the more than 20,000 American
patriots with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I ask that
you provide the funding sought in the President's fiscal year
2020 budget, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CONTINUING RESOLUTION: SUSTAINING OPERATIONS
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director Albence, as you know, we have
serious concerns about ICE's ability to manage its budget
within the means provided by Congress. The lack of transparency
into how ICE executes its budget also exacerbates our concerns.
Under a continuing resolution operations should continue at
the level funded in the prior year appropriation. For the
current year that means ICE should have maintained an average
daily population of 40,520 during the CR period. And yet, for
the first quarter ICE's use of detention beds surged from
44,000 to over 46,000, and this was before the significant
migrant surge at the border.
During the period of the CR, did ICE make any attempt to
operate within the funding levels identified by Congress for
custody operations, and if so, what specific actions did it
take?
Mr. Albence. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
We continually look to utilize our detention resources in
the most efficient manner as possible. Our standing
instructions to our field offices, our 24 ERO field offices,
continually look at their populations to ensure that those
individuals that are detained are the most appropriate for
detention.
Again, many of those individuals that are currently
detained are individuals that Congress has mandated must be
detained by law. Seventy-four percent of the individuals that
are currently in ICE custody are subject to mandatory detention
under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The vast majority of those other individuals are
individuals who are public safety threats, who are gang
members, or individuals who may not reach the mandatory
detention threshold but we have felt that they are appropriate
for detention and not appropriate for any sort of release back
to the community.
With regard to your question, during the CR the numbers
began an uptick in the middle part of last summer and continue
to rise through the fall and not to the level that we have
seen, unfortunately, during the calendar year fiscal year 2019.
However, in order to prevent a wholesale catch-and-release
system, which we knew would create further incentives for
individuals to come to the country illegally, we made the
conscious decision to try to detain as many people as we
possibly could to help prevent a rush on the border.
Unfortunately, the numbers continued to come as a result of the
fact that many of those people we can't detain because they are
UAC or family units.
ICE OPERATING PLANS
Ms. Roybal-Allard. To better understand how ICE budgets for
its operations, the report that accompanied the fiscal year
2019 appropriation directed ICE to brief the committee on a
detailed plan for operating within its budget. This was due 60
days after the date of enactment and was to be provided monthly
thereafter.
The first briefing was due by April 16. To date, we have
not received even one, and by now we should have received four.
Why has ICE failed to comply with this briefing directive?
Mr. Albence. I will have to look into that specific
directive. I do know that we are holding weekly migration calls
with the four corners staff, during which time both CBP and ICE
provide detailed information with regard to their ongoing
operations, to include detention and funding execution.
We have posted a lot of our material on the website. I do
have the list of requirements after our discussion earlier, and
we will go through them and certainly have to get back to you
with a detailed response on each one of those.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Just as a follow-up, you know, the
Department's funding transfer authority exists to address
unforeseeable and unavoidable circumstances. But it seems clear
to me that ICE routinely operates with full expectation that it
will be bailed out by this transfer authority that it has or
some other means.
As the Acting ICE Director for the coming fiscal year, I
hope that you can commit to operating within the funding level
that is appropriated by Congress.
Mr. Albence. I certainly will do my best to do so. I can
tell you that we have numerous budget meetings with very hard
decisions made all the time with regard to what operations we
are going to have to curtail or what funding we were going to--
or, excuse me, initiatives we might not have to be able to do
as result of the limited funding.
Our detention modeling has been accurate for the past 3 or
4 years, the model that we utilize, and we asked for 52,000
beds in the fiscal year 2019 budget. Had we received that money
as requested, we would not be in any circumstance where we need
to do any sort of reprogramming or shortfall.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Just as a reminder as we move forward,
appropriation bills are also law, and including continuing
resolutions, with no less authority than the Immigration and
the Nationality Act. In fact, the authority of appropriation
bills is derived directly from Article I, section 9, clause 7
of the U.S. Constitution. And I quote: ``No Money shall be
drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations
made by Law.''
So when Congress enacts appropriation bills it does so
based on informed analysis provided by the Appropriations
Committee on how best to target--to use--the use of limited
resources.
So I just want to emphasize that transfer authority is
provided by Congress to allow executive branch agencies to
respond to unforeseen events and circumstances and not to
routinely augment appropriations for a particular activity.
And I will pause on my questioning and I will now turn to
the chair of the full committee, Mrs. Lowey.
The Chairwoman. Sorry I was delayed, but it looks like we
are passing our final bill this session. But I am pleased to be
here with my colleagues to welcome you.
Director Albence, I am very concerned that this
administration's policies negatively impact the well-being out
of our immigrant populations. I am especially concerned about
the effects on vulnerable populations like unaccompanied
children.
UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN: SPONSORS
In April 2018, your predecessor, Director Homan, signed an
agreement with HHS that provides for information sharing
between your agencies regarding the vetting of potential
sponsors for unaccompanied children. The mere existence of this
agreement has had a chilling effect on the number of potential
sponsors who would otherwise have been willing to come forward
to take these children out of Federal Government custody and
care for them.
Not only does this make the mental and emotional stress
these children already face even worse, it has led to
significant additional Federal costs as children remain in HHS
custody for far longer than necessary. It is clear to me that
this agreement is misguided at best.
So if I can ask you a few questions.
First, how many arrests have been made of sponsors,
potential sponsors, or their household members since this
agreement was signed?
Mr. Albence. I don't have the exact number, and we haven't
made any arrests since the appropriations bill that was passed
prevented us from utilizing that information. So section 224 of
the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill prevents us from using
that HHS information to make arrests. So prior to that date, I
can get you the exact number, but it is going to be around 330.
The Chairwoman. However, you have the information from the
households to which the youngster is going. Isn't that correct?
So if the youngster goes to an uncle and in that household
there may be three undocumented, four undocumented family
members, you have that information. Is that correct?
Mr. Albence. We wouldn't necessarily have the information
with regard to individuals that are in the household. HHS has
limited some of the sharing of information in various
iterations during the course of this MOA. But, again, we are
prohibited from using that information to take enforcement
action against that sponsor.
The Chairwoman. Given that children may already be present
in a sponsor's household, how does ICE ensure the safety and
well-being of children during enforcement actions, and what
arrangements are made for these children?
Mr. Albence. So, certainly we take the safety of children
at the utmost important as we plan any operation. In fact, the
entire MOA exists as a result of some tragic circumstances in
which UAC were placed with traffickers.
This was an attempt to try to prevent traffickers and other
individuals who may do harm to these children from being
sponsors and getting children into their custody.
Our research, showed as we were going through these cases
when we were able to use that information, nearly 40 percent of
the people that were sponsors actually had criminal records. So
there are certainly calls for concern with regard to the
individuals that were sponsoring the children.
With regard to your exact question, we have extensive
training that we provide to all of our field offices. We have
field office juvenile coordinators. We have a juvenile
residential management unit up in headquarters and a national
headquarters program manager that oversees how our field office
juvenile coordinators conduct their operations. We do extensive
training with that. Our officers are trained professional law
enforcement officers.
We are no different than any other law enforcement agency.
Once you go into a residence, as much planning as you could do
beforehand, you don't quite know what is inside that door. And
there are a lot--every law enforcement agency is faced with
challenges when they go into these houses and they find that
there are children there that were either unanticipated or that
need a caregiver to take care of them.
So we work very closely with the--generally, we are able to
find, if the parent has another parent in the country that they
can have the child stay with, a family member or other relative
that the parent consents to letting that child stay with, we
will let the child stay with them. And most times that is
generally what happens.
The Chairwoman. Well, as you know, the fiscal year 2019 DHS
bill included a provision that constrained ICE's ability to use
information resulting from this agreement with HHS to deport a
sponsor, potential sponsor, or a member of their household with
some limited exceptions like a felony conviction for child
abuse or an aggravated felony.
Nevertheless, the agreement still stands, and potential
sponsors are still concerned about what would happen to them if
they were to offer to become a sponsor.
Given that these protections are in place, why has ICE not
rescinded the agreement or at least amended it to reflect the
protections provided in law?
And with these restrictions in place, I would be interested
to know, as I conclude, because my time is--well, I will just
ask the first question.
Why haven't you rescinded this agreement or at least
amended it to reflect the protections provided in law?
Mr. Albence. There have been some discussions with regard
to how we could tailor the MOA in a manner that would be more
effective and in compliance with the law. Those have not
reached to fruition.
But, again, I will reiterate, based on the fact that the
appropriations language forbids us from utilizing that
information, large portions of that MOA have been rendered
largely moot.
The Chairwoman. Well, let me conclude. And I thank you,
Madam Chair, for giving me the opportunity as I was on the
floor introducing the bill.
But I do want to say, in my discussions with many people in
our community, and we were at Homestead, there is a real
concern about providing enough sponsors, because they are
afraid that they will be picked up or Grandma will be picked up
and someone in the household. So I look forward to continuing
this discussion.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair.
DETENTION FUNDING
Director Albence, yesterday we heard from Chief Provost in
our Border Patrol oversight hearing. As you can imagine, we
spent a lot of time pursuing questions about the overcrowding
and detention facilities at the southwest border.
As you would surmise, because HHS received more funds in
the supplemental to care for unaccompanied minors, Border
Patrol was able to quickly move minors out of CBP sites and
into ORR facilities.
Conversely, because ICE did not receive funds in the
supplemental and didn't receive an increase in the regular
fiscal year 2019 bill, CBP is still sitting on a lot of single
adults at the border with no relief in sight.
Because of this backup, and because the numbers of
apprehensions at the border are still astronomically high, CBP
facilities, both OFO and Border Patrol, are beyond capacity
every single day.
The inspector general has published reports in just the
last weeks on the dangers to both the migrants and your
colleagues at CBP.
What are you doing to ensure that the southwest border
apprehensions are a priority for beds and transport within the
ICE system, sir?
Mr. Albence. Thank you. Let me be first to commend Chief
Provost and her CBP team for doing a tremendous job under the
most incredibly difficult circumstances that there are out
there.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Mr. Albence. We are in the process of ramping up our
detention. Unfortunately, we made a conscious decision during
the continuing resolution period to not acquire additional
detention space because we didn't know where the appropriations
bill would end up and we did not want to end up further in the
hole than we were.
So as a result of not getting the appropriations until
February and then starting the process to identify additional
beds, it takes a longer time to turn them on. When HHS gets
additional money, they have Homestead or they have a facility
such as that where they can turn on beds quickly.
When we want to turn on a facility we have to go to--
generally have to go to a contractor, and they need to recruit,
train, hire, vet their personnel, plus get the facility up to
speed to meet our standards prior to placing individuals into
that.
So we have turned on about 6,000 or 7,000 beds during the
course of the year thus far. We have got about another 4,000 or
5,000 that will be turned on by the end of August. And that is
the culmination of the process that began once we received the
budgets and started moving forward.
So our modeling indicated to us that we were going to need
to have those beds, but we just simply didn't have the funds to
turn them on in a timely fashion.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. And I am clearly empathetic and
sympathetic with your plight.
In that that regard, in moving towards solutions, is money
the only challenge? And does this problem extend beyond just
dollars, sir?
Mr. Albence. Well, it certainly does. Again, money helps us
better deal with the symptoms of the crisis, and that includes
being able to relieve the--getting additional detention funding
to relieve the overcrowding in the Border Patrol stations. They
are sitting on, I believe, probably about 8,000 single adult
males that are waiting to either be processed or placed in ICE
custody.
We can't place them into custody unless we have a bed to
put them in, and we can't have the beds to put them in unless
we have the money to buy those beds.
We have done many things internally to improve our
efficiency, and, in fact, our average length of stay in
detention has gone down even while our detention beds have gone
up. So we are better utilizing the resources that we have been
given. But, again, a crisis means a crisis, and there is more
bodies that are there than we have the capability to do so.
But, again, we are just dealing with the symptoms at that
point.
Unless the law changes that allows us to detain families
during the course of a truncated immigration proceeding where
they are entitled to due process but keep them in custody, in a
safe, secure environment, just like we did in 2015 when we
built family detention under the prior administration and we
saw the numbers drop precipitously, that will be a certainly--
and as I mentioned in my opening statement, fixing the Flores
settlement agreement will be a huge help to that.
The credible fear threshold, again, is part of the problem.
A lot of the reason these individuals are holding--these single
adults are holding down these beds is because they are getting
credible fear because the threshold for that credible fear is
so low. But when they actually go through court and get in
front of a judge, only less than 10 percent of the Northern
Triangle individuals are actually getting asylum.
So there is this different standard which creates a
situation where we are holding these individuals in custody for
60, 70 days as they go through that process, and at the end of
that process they are going to be removed anyway. So it
certainly makes sense to have the initial screening be more on
line with what the ultimate decision factors would be by--from
an immigration judge.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir.
DETAINEE STATISTICS
One quick two-part question. How quickly are single adults
being repatriated back to their home countries? And do you know
the average lengths of stay in an ICE facility after being
turned over from one of the CBP facilities? And I am beyond my
time, so I will ask for a quick response, sir.
Mr. Albence. So it depends on the circumstances. A lot of
it depends on where the individual is from. Some countries,
especially Northern Triangle countries where we have great
relations, we have scheduled charters, you know, almost every
day if we need them. We can return those individuals, if we get
the removal order, if they take the expedited removal and don't
claim asylum, or once the judge orders them removed, we can
turn them quickly.
I would say--and I can get you the exact number--I think
average length of stay right now for a single adult is going to
be in the 40- to 41-day range.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Ranking Member.
Acting Director Albence, thank you for being here with us
today. And I also want to express my thanks for your service as
well as all the men and women that work with you in helping to
keep our Nation safe. So thank you very much.
Mr. Albence. Thank you.
DETENTION FACILITY ATTACK
Mr. Newhouse. I wanted to talk today a little bit about a
couple things, but first of all, some thoughts surrounding a
disturbing, violent attack by an avowed Antifa assailant that
was conducted just over 2 weeks ago at one of your facilities
in my home State of Washington. In fact, it is a facility that
I had the pleasure of visiting a short time ago.
And by the way, Madam Chair, the conditions I observed, I
believe that all of the needs of the detainees there were being
met very well. And so I just wanted to make sure that you
understood that, that things that I observed were, in fact,
above standards, I would think.
But this man armed with a rifle and an incendiary device,
if you recall, attacked the detention center in Takoma on July
13. He tried to ignite a propane tank. He tossed lit objects at
vehicles as well as buildings. He lit a car on fire.
Authorities found, as I mentioned, a rifle, incendiary devices
on him, as well as a knife, and also collapsible batons.
I am very concerned by this. I have got to tell you that I
think everybody would agree with me that this is pretty
frightening to have happen. I am certainly thankful that no
officers, no detainees were injured or killed in this attack.
But what is even just as concerning, but maybe more so, is
to hear and read about the things that members of the radical
Antifa groups are saying about this man. They are calling him a
martyr and calling for more direct action just like this.
Unfortunately, this wasn't the first time that this man had
attacked one of your facilities. I believe last year the same
individual had wrapped his arms around a police officer's
throat during a protest.
You know, I have been thinking about this. I think a lot of
us have probably been reflecting about what is going on in our
country, our national discourse, both here in Washington, D.C.,
and around the country, and how perhaps this vehemence against
our law enforcement and against men and women who are, as you
said, doing the jobs we asked you to do to protect our Nation
and uphold our laws, how is that affecting these people's
ability to do their jobs. And I just wondered if you had any
thoughts about that, Mr. Director.
Mr. Albence. Thank you, Congressman.
Yeah, I wish that was an isolated incident. As you
mentioned, there are significantly increasing numbers of
violent protests against our officers who are doing an
incredibly professional, difficult job under the most complex
and difficult of circumstances incredibly well.
You know, assaults, unfortunately, against our officers are
up significantly. They have been on the rise continually over
the past couple years, both on our officers that are out there
in the field conducting law enforcement efforts as well as
officers--and even our contractors--in our detention facilities
where they are being attacked and assaulted.
We had a nurse that was punched in the face last year, and
the trauma that she suffered as a result of that is
unmentionable.
And I have said it publicly and I have done some media
appearances, and I mean no disrespect, but they are picketing
the wrong people. Congress is responsible for the laws that we
are enforcing.
If there is a desire to change the laws and these people
wanted to have the laws changed, they know where Capitol Hill
is. They can come over here and picket and do it.
But to come after the men and women who are American
patriots doing the job, again, they put their life on the line
every day when they go out there.
And it is not just the law enforcement officers. You know,
when we had people trying to storm our office in Portland,
right, we had non-law enforcement officers being threatened,
having their cars vandalized, didn't think they were going to
be able to get out of the parking lot, by protesters. That is
not right and it shouldn't be that way.
So I would hope that everybody involved in this process and
this issue would take a step back and a deep breath and realize
that the law enforcement officers are the ones that are
comporting themselves in the proper manner in this entire
process. And it is those that are wishing that they didn't
exist that are the ones that are behaving in an unprofessional
and unsafe manner.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that, Mr. Albence. And, again,
thank you for your service and for being here with us today.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling on me.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
First thing, I would like to respond to this, what you
said. Our country is a democracy. I think we have the best
country in the world. Those of us who have traveled to other
parts of the world appreciate it. I think a lot of it is the
check and balances.
I have worked in law enforcement in the past for over 10
years. And I agree that you have dedicated men and women who
work in law enforcement and they are good people. There are
also some bad people in law enforcement, and that few amount of
small people give a bad reputation.
I think right now this country is split. I think a lot of
it has to do with national media on both sides of the aisle
where people get their information. I think our President--and
I don't want you to respond, he is your boss--has infuriated
this issue of immigration, that all people coming in this
country are bad and wrong and murderers and rapists and
whatever.
But your job is to enforce the law, and I agree, and we
want to change the law, we need to do that. But when the
average person in this country sees abuses of children and
families, that is where a lot of this comes from, and we are
concerned about it. We are saying, this is not who we are. And
then there are certain agencies that are being blamed, and you
are probably one of the top.
So how do we deal with this? I feel strongly that where you
are and ICE is you need to make sure that you focus on the
immigration laws. But there are also ways to do this.
Now, we just passed a supplemental, and you are going to
have money coming to you now to deal with issues. Now, because
of the debate back and forth, you are not going to be allowed
to use this money for enforcement. You are going to be allowed
to use this money for issues such as detention facilities that
are better, to be able to put people out that you can't hold,
to keep families together in a more humane area.
CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT
I would personally--and I am going to get to my question--I
would personally like to see ICE focus--and you are known, just
like the FBI is known for something, DEA is known for
something, you are known for focusing on the felons. That is
what you do best. That is what you can do. You need to focus on
the felons.
And when it looks like you are going after immigrant
families with children, and when our President puts out we are
going to go out there and arrest 25,000 people, or whatever he
said that number was, that doesn't help you, it doesn't help
our system of justice, and it scares the dickens out of these
families who are here because they want a better life.
And we know it might be legal, but we are not going to fix
this issue until we deal with the issue of volume generally,
until we deal with right now the Honduras and Guatemala and El
Salvador countries so that people won't want to come here. And
that is out of your mission really. Your mission is to, when
people break the law, you need to enforce it.
So first thing, what is your priority as far as the bad
guys, so to speak, the felons? And why does it seem, the
perception that you are out there going after people who have
been here for years and pick them up and they have families and
that type of thing? I think that is where the problem is with
ICE and where you have your bad reputation for a lot of people
in this country.
Mr. Albence. Thank you. And, unfortunately, I think there
is a lot of misinformation out there, which doesn't help.
Mr. Ruppersberger. That is why I am asking you the
question.
Mr. Albence. Yeah. Sure.
So our priorities and our enforcement numbers are largely
consistent over the past decade, if maybe 7, 8 years. Ninety
percent of the people that we arrest are convicted criminals,
which is the largest--and I am just solely talking about the
civil enforcement stuff, not the great stuff that HSI is doing.
But ninety percent of the individuals that we arrest are
convicted criminals, charged with a criminal violation, are an
immigration fugitive, meaning they have had their day in
immigration court----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, let me stop you right here. Felony
type or automobile, speeding tickets? What?
Mr. Albence. Well, again, speeding ticket, if it is not--
the way we find out most of the individuals that are here in
the country illegally is through the criminal justice system.
So three out of every four people that we arrest--in fact, it
is higher than that, but three out of four that we arrest come
out of our Criminal Alien Program.
Those are individuals that are sitting in the custody of
another law enforcement agency after having been arrested by
that law enforcement agency for some criminal violation. That
is how we are aware of their presence, is once their
fingerprints are run through the FBI database they bounce off
ours.
So, again, 90 percent criminals, pending criminal charges,
immigration fugitives, and individuals that have illegally
reentered the country after being deported, which, again, as I
mentioned, is a felony.
But to your larger point and with regard to restoring
integrity of the immigration system, if we do nothing else
besides working the criminal aliens, what we have in effect
said that we are no longer going to--there is no longer going
to be a consequence for anybody coming to this country
illegally, even if you go through the entire immigration court
process, which Congress spends hundreds of millions of dollars
on every year between ICE and DOJ, that that order issued by an
immigration judge is not worth the paper it is written on, why
do we even have the process?
No other law enforcement agency in this country is being
asked to ignore a lawfully issued judge's order. And when you
say we can only go after felons or only go after criminals,
that is what that in effect means.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I say that because that is the
priority. There is 11 million people here. You can't go after
11 million people. So you have got to pick your priorities.
My time is up. I just want to ask one question. Why do you
feel that you are being criticized, that there are so many
people in this country that want to ban ICE? From your
perspective, why do you think that is the case? And what do you
think needs to be done to change that?
Mr. Albence. Again, I think it is largely a part of
misconception and misunderstanding as to what we do.
Look, if you want to talk about abolishing ICE then that
means that----
Mr. Ruppersberger. I am not saying that.
Mr. Albence. No. No. But I am saying, but those that say
they want to abolish ICE, what that means is that they don't
want 140,000 criminals removed from the country every year.
That means they don't want HSI removing 10,000 gang members,
arresting 10,000 gang members every year. That means they don't
want HSI removing 10,000 pounds of opioids from the street,
including 3,000 pounds of fentanyl.
That means we don't want the second largest agency on the
Joint Terrorism Task Force to exist, for which 54 percent of
the cases are made out of HSI. That means we no longer want to
have counterproliferation investigations and we want sensitive
military equipment to go overseas to our enemies.
You know, that means----
Mr. Ruppersberger. That is a good answer, and that is what
you have to get out to the public.
My time is up. I will get you in the next round.
Mr. Albence. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CRIMINAL ALIEN PROGRAM: 287(G)
Director Albence, first, I want to say thank you for the
job that you and your men and women are doing out there and
really apologize for the Congress and the courts and the
position that we have put you in. And I know it is a very, very
difficult situation, because not only have we created bad law,
but there is also this sentiment in the country that
disrespects all authority.
The folks that are talking about banning ICE, you know,
there was another group that was marching down the streets of
New York chanting, what do we want? Dead cops. When do we want
it? Now.
We just saw on television the other night two New York City
Police Department officers having water dumped on them.
You are absolutely right, people need to take a step back,
take a breath, and start respecting law enforcement.
I have got some bad news for you. The President asked for
$9.3 billion so that you could do your job. We are only going
to give you $8 billion, it looks like. So somewhere in there
you are going to have to transfer probably another $1.3 billion
around so that you can complete your mission. That is not on
you, that is on us.
And so let me ask you this. When we talk about your budget
and ways that you can do your job more efficiently, you
mentioned the Criminal Alien Program. I was a lifelong law
enforcement officer, 12 years as a sheriff. I ran a 287(g)
program in my jail. I know how efficient and safe that was for
your officers, for my officers, and for every citizen in my
city.
And I have to tell you, my blood boils when I see these
cities say that they are not going to work and coordinate with
ICE. Because let me ask, do you think it is safer for you to go
into a jail and arrest these criminal aliens--and these are the
criminals that my good friend is talking about down there.
These are the ones--90 percent of your arrests are out of these
jails. So is that safer?
Mr. Albence. It is absolutely safer, safer for our
officers, it is safer for the individual you are trying to
arrest, and it is safer for the general public at large.
Mr. Rutherford. And can you comment, is it cheaper?
Mr. Albence. It is certainly cheaper, I mean. And to give
you perspective, we used to get, before this issue came up with
sanctuary cities and people not wanting to honor detainers, and
talking to the field office director from Los Angeles at the
time, he said they used to get 200 criminals a day out of L.A.
County. That has dwindled down to a handful now based on State
laws that are there.
I mean, that is something that we have asked Congress for.
And, look, everybody is safer. Every community is safer when
law enforcement works together.
Mr. Rutherford. Absolutely.
Mr. Albence. We all take the same oath to uphold the
Constitution and to keep our communities safe. So we are all
better when we work together.
That said, there are many law enforcement agencies that
would like to work with us but due to some court decisions or
due to some executive orders or State laws or just the fear of
litigation and liability, they are reticent to do so or their
county board of supervisors or legal department won't let them.
We have been asking Congress for years to codify the
detainer and indemnify sheriffs or local law enforcement
agencies that honor those detainers.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Mr. Albence. Most sheriffs, if they know that they are
indemnified from tort actions or that a habeas claim that is
made from an individual being held on detainer, they will
gladly take them up.
Mr. Rutherford. Right. And look, the detainer issue, I
understand some people throw that up as a red herring in
argument, but, look, I am going to tell you, all I have to do
is call ICE, and before that individual has changed into their
street clothes ICE can be there to pick them up. It is just the
coordination effort. So I think that is a red herring that
folks throw out there that just don't want to help ICE get
these people out of our country.
Now, I saw a CBS report in Miami saying that 37 Florida
agencies have agreed or show an interest in being part of the
287(g) program, but that there were delays in getting these
agencies into the program.
Now, I think you touched on a little bit of it. Can you
talk about what some of the other delays might be getting into
that? Is it budgetary for them or for you?
Mr. Albence. No. Part of it is budgetary for us. The 287(g)
budget has remained static for the past 4 or 5 years since I
directly oversaw it. That has part to do with it. Part of it
has to do--look, if we are going to give somebody--delegate
immigration authority, and you know as a 287(g) partner, we
don't take that lightly.
We vet all those individuals. Even though they have been
vetted and have a background check by the local agency they
work for, we vet them ourselves to make sure that we are
comfortable with who we are delegating that authority to.
Sometimes there is facility infrastructure with regard to T1
lines so that we can install our computers and the like.
So there are some logistics. We are trying to move as
quickly as possible. We do have a new program called the
Warrant Service Officer program which is a subset--a very
limited delegated authority to just execute warrants on our
behalf at the direction of an ICE supervisor or officer. And
Florida actually was the first place we rolled that out. We
rolled out in nine counties and we will continue to expand.
Mr. Rutherford. And we appreciate the partnership that we
have had with ICE for a long time.
And, Madam Chair, I see my time has run out.
But thank you for your service.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
MIRAMAR UPDATES
Director Albence, I don't want to pursue this line of
questioning if you are not specifically familiar with the
ongoing issues at ERO Miami in Miramar. Are you familiar?
Mr. Albence. I am fairly familiar. I have been there and I
know that my staff back briefed me after they briefed you a
couple months ago, so----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. So after that meeting with
them and we got the detailed answers to questions, there were a
number of questions that they really didn't give us an answer
for. And these issues of poor infrastructure, people standing
out in the blazing sun, security that is working with ERO Miami
treating people--treating undocumented immigrants rudely, still
prohibiting them from being able to have volunteers distribute
food and water, those issues are all continuing, and we have
gotten insufficient answers related to canopies, bathroom
expansion, and other issues.
I would like you to take this document that I can get you a
copy of, I want to share with you the concerns that I have on
the answers not being adequate.
I still need an answer about what is being done to follow
up to make sure that security officers at the facility are not
treating the people who are presenting at the office with an
appointment rudely, speaking rudely to them, refusing to speak
to them in Spanish, and really giving them a general hard time.
It is a very small parking lot. There is no coverage
whatsoever, and I realize this parking is going to be expanded,
but that won't happen until next year.
Additionally----
Mr. Albence. Ma'am, can I answer? I do have some updated
information if you would like.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah. Just let me get this all out,
because I have another question I want to ask you.
Mr. Albence. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The other issue that was not
answered adequately was a letter is sent to an immigrant who is
told to come for a specific appointment. When they get there
they are told that they have to call the phone line and not
only that the letter is not--is insufficient. When they call
the phone line they are not connected with a person who speaks
their language. The only option is in English.
The answer that I got in writing was insufficient and
didn't provide me with an answer other than the policy about
what is supposed to happen rather than trying to get to the
bottom of what is actually happening.
And then the other insufficient answer related to the
distribution of food and water by volunteers. I understand that
in the letter that you sent to me--in the memo you sent to me
you detailed that they are instructed in their letter to bring
adequate food and water while they wait and that it is your
liability that is an issue allowing volunteers to distribute
food and water.
That makes no sense to me. If you look at the configuration
of that parking lot, there is no obstacle or damage or harm
that could come if people are simply allowed to bring food and
water to help make sure we can relieve the difficulty of the
people there.
So if you could answer those questions and give me more
substantive, specific answers to those concerns, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Albence. Sure. So I did ask for an update beforehand.
So I know the outdoor water fountains will be ready for public
use on August 9 of this year.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Good.
Mr. Albence. And the new parking lot will be available to
visitors on August 22.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The new parking lot in August, not
next January?
Mr. Albence. August 22, right here.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Good.
Mr. Albence. I know that there is a permanent canopy
project being looked--again, GSA obviously is involved. I know
they were in the briefing with you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
Mr. Albence. And I have been in that facility about a year,
year and a half ago. And I expressed concerns with regard to
the conditions in which the employees were working in too
because they are very cramped in there.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is really cramped.
Mr. Albence. It is. So, I mean, across the board, so I know
it is being reviewed by GSA and our Office of Facilities and
Management within ICE to try to--for pricing and getting a
contract vehicle to put that in, so we are moving forward on
that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I appreciate it. And I just--
--
Mr. Albence. We can give you just----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah. I just need to talk to you
more in detail about the concerns.
Mr. Albence. Okay. Happy to come talk to you anytime.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
REMOVAL OF VETERANS
The other question I want to get out, ask you real quick, I
chair the Military Construction Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee,
and what we are concerned about is that there are conclusions
in a report written by GAO that looked into ICE's failures to
consistently follow your own policies when moving forward with
removal proceedings for noncitizen veterans.
According to GAO, some veterans who were removed may not
have received the level of review and approval that ICE has
determined is appropriate for cases involving veterans. The
report also concluded ICE does not know exactly how many
veterans have been placed in removal proceedings or removed or
if their cases have been handled according to ICE's policies
due to a lack of consistent recordkeeping.
So these are really disturbing deficiencies. Are you and
your agency currently working to ensure consistent
implementation of ICE policy for handling noncitizen veterans?
Are you working to develop a policy that makes sure you know
how many veterans are in your system and that they are being
interviewed properly?
And finally, the report recommends that ICE maintain
complete electronic records on veterans and removal proceedings
or who have been deported. You don't have a system like that.
Have you established one yet?
Mr. Albence. So the military veterans is something,
obviously, that we are very sensitive to. They do require and
do get a much higher level of scrutiny than an ordinary removal
case. Oftentimes they are kicked up to----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. GAO report says that they are not
getting----
Mr. Albence. Again, oftentimes they are kicked up to
headquarters. We don't have--and I know it has been discussed.
I don't know where we stand, but I am certainly happy to get
back to you about trying to find a code in our system that we
can put in there so that we can readily identify which cases
are military. So then, when we are asked questions about them
or need to produce reports, it will be easily done.
But with regard to having a complete electronic record, we
simply don't have the system to allow that. We have made
requests in the budget for many years to have upgrades to our
system that haven't been funded. So absent a significant amount
of funding that would allow us to have an electronic system of
record that would have the whole A-File, I know CIS is working
on something to the effect, but we don't have anything like
that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Madam Chair, I know my time is
expired, but these are people who have served our country, and
they are supposed to be given a heightened level of review as a
result of serving our country even though they are undocumented
immigrants.
If you don't know how many of them are in your system then
it is nearly impossible for you to be able to treat them with
the dignity and respect that they deserve and thank them for
their service. So, I mean, you can't just say we don't have
enough money or the capacity to do that. You have to be able to
keep track of them so you can follow your policy.
Mr. Albence. I was speaking to your last question with
regard to an electronic A-File system, basically is what you
sounded like you were looking for.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right, it is, so you know how many
are in your system.
Mr. Albence. Again, the funding for that is not available.
We have ways within our existing system that I think can be
tweaked that would allow us to do that.
But, again, most of these individuals are--a lot of them
actually aren't undocumented. They were lawful permanent
residents that actually were convicted of aggravated felonies,
which is how they ended up being removed.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is a different situation. I am
talking about the people who aren't.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your indulgence. Yield
back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chair.
FAMILY CASE MANAGEMENT
Thank you, Mr. Director, for being here.
I wanted to ask about the Family Case Management Program
ATDs, alternative to detention. In June 2017, ICE terminated
the Family Case Management Program. The daily cost of family
detention per individual is approximately $300. However, case
management programs cost around $36 a day for one family.
I just wanted to ask why ICE decided to terminate the
Family Case Management Program.
Mr. Albence. Thank you.
The Family Case Management Program was a program that was
incredibly expensive for what the ultimate result was. So, for
example, in the 18 or so months that the program existed there
were only 56 cases that were concluded. Forty-one were actually
terminated for noncompliance, meaning the individuals didn't
show up to their hearings; eight individuals self-removed;
seven were issued a removal order or voluntary departure from
an immigration judge; and nine received relief.
So for the $17 billion or so that was invested in that
program at the time we received 15 removals, which was about
$1.16 million per removal, as opposed to--and with regard to
compliance, the rates under FCMP were actually a little bit
lower than under our standard ATD program, our ISAP, Intensive
Security--Intensive Supervision Program, excuse me.
And, in fact, this shows some of the challenges with
dealing with cases in a nondetained environment. Three quarters
of those cases more than 3\1/2\ years later still haven't been
decided by the immigration courts. So that shows some of the
backlog.
So if we had kept this program at the cost that we were
doing, we would probably be up to $26 million, $30 million
right now, with maybe another $20 million or $30 million more
to go, for less than 1,000 cases. It is just not good fiscal
sense to try to keep that.
Now, there were some things in this program that we found
useful, that we have incorporated into our current ECMS, our
Existing Case Management System, that is outside of FCMP, and
those that we have implemented in there where we found might
have some use, we have implemented that and put that in there.
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTIONS
Ms. Meng. So, I mean, the OIG reports that the alternative
to detention program had compliance rates of 99 percent for ICE
check-ins and appointments and 100 percent attendance at
immigration court hearings.
When you are measuring success of the program does ICE
include immigrants that it removed from the program who then
later failed to comply with the requirement? And shouldn't the
program only measure compliance of those who are consistently
and actively within the program?
Mr. Albence. Well, the ultimate purpose of the immigration
court system is for an individual to be availed all due process
and make their case in front of an immigration judge as to
whether or not they have the lawful right to remain in the
United States. So the ultimate measure should be whether or not
the order issued by the judge is actually adhered to.
What we have seen is that the number of individuals that
are actually removed, which most of the individuals at the end
of this process receive a removal order. That is just the way
it is. Most of the individuals that make an asylum claim or
apply for some sort of withholding or other form of relief
generally don't get that. So most of the cases that go through
the immigration court end up with a removal order.
ATD, over the past several years, has been fairly level at
removing about 2,700 people that are on ATD. In fact, between
2014 and 2017, the ATD budget more than doubled. It went from
$91 million to $183 million. And as a result of that $92
million investment, we have removed 273 more people. That is
it. If those same dollars had been put into detention, we could
have removed 10 times the number of people as we did that were
on ATD.
Ms. Meng. You mentioned that there are parts of the program
that have been useful. You know, these programs, as you know,
are more humane, helping vulnerable families with young kids,
pregnant women, people with health concerns, victims of
domestic violence.
And would there ever be potential to improve programs like
this, such as working with nonprofit organizations? A lot of
them are more equipped to provide case management assistance to
immigrants within the communities that they serve. And I just
wanted to know what the status of incorporating nonprofit
organizations into these sorts of programs to provide gap
services that GAO care might not be providing.
NONPROFITS
Mr. Albence. Right. So we work very closely with the
nonprofits. We were given some additional funds in 2019 as well
as in the supplemental for the ATD program, which we are
utilizing to help try to make that program more effective.
But one thing, and it was asked previously and it is asked
frequently both here and in the media, is you hear these cases
of individuals that have been here 6, 7, 8 years, have been
complying with all their check-ins, and then why does ICE
arrest them.
That is what the back-end of ATD enforcement looks like.
Those individuals who have been here for 6 or 7 or 8 years have
most times been appealing their case to the Board of
Immigration Appeals, to the Circuit Court, they may have filed
a petition for review, a motion to reopen. Those cases drag
out. When we talk about a crisis, having 3 million cases that
are unadjudicated in the immigration court system is a crisis
as well.
So it takes these cases so long to get through the process
that these individuals are here for 6 or 7 years. But
ultimately the judge orders that individual removed, and we are
sworn to execute that removal order. The Immigration and
Nationality Act says: You shall take into custody.
So to me, I think, if you are looking at the entire
enforcement continuum, and, obviously--you know, if we have a
system whereby we can detain individuals for a short period of
time and they can avail themselves of all due process, make
whatever claims they want in front of an immigration judge, and
have them adjudicated in a short timeframe while they are in
custody, in a safe and secure environment that is sanitary and
well run and meets all of our standards, and you can have a
decision on that case in 40, 50, 60 days, to me that is a lot
more humane than having some individual out on the street for 5
or 6 or 7 years where they get a family, have children, develop
roots, all the while knowing that they had no lawful right to
be in the country.
And then when we go to effectuate that removal order we are
tearing families apart, or it is just the poor noncriminal
nonimmigrant.
I think it is more humane to do it on the front end and let
them have their day in court. If they are entitled to stay, the
judge will let them stay. If they are not, then we execute the
removal order.
And I think, frankly, that will reduce the pressure you are
seeing on the border. The reason you are seeing all these
people coming to the border is because they know we can't hold
them.
Ms. Meng. Well, I just want to end by thanking you for
acknowledging the importance of humane and swift treatment for
these families, keeping them together. And you talked about all
the legal options that they pursue. That is their legal right
to do so.
Mr. Albence. Absolutely.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
DETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENS
Mr. Aguilar. One item that concerns me, you have talked
about U.S. citizens, in response to a question, U.S. citizens
that have been detained. ICE has a history of incorrectly
detaining U.S. citizens. Two citizens in my district were
detained by ICE and were later awarded settlements to
compensate them for the arrest.
In the fiscal year 2019 DHS bill we required ICE to issue
statistics on the detention of U.S. citizens. The bill gave ICE
6 months to complete the report which was due in May. We
haven't received any of that available information.
If a person can prove their citizenship with a passport or
birth certificate, why are they being held further by ICE? What
circumstances would that happen?
Mr. Albence. So I will check on the report, just first off,
so I apologize, and I will look into that to see where we stand
on that.
We have a specific policy with regard to how we handle
individuals who are making claims to United States citizenship
that are in our custody. ICE does not have the lawful authority
to say anybody is or is not a citizen. What we do is when we
are provided with probative evidence that an individual in our
custody is--looks to be a citizen, we will release that
individual from custody and then instruct the individual how to
go to CIS and do whatever paperwork they may need to do to
actually get a naturalization certificate or a documentation of
citizenship, whatever the case may be.
So that is the process we utilize. A lot of the people that
end up being citizens in our custody didn't even know they were
citizens. They actually don't find out--the Immigration and
Nationality Act is very complex. The naturalization charts, we
used to have to memorize them in the academy, and that was a
long time ago, and I can't tell you I memorized them anymore.
But it is very complex, and some of the individuals don't
even know that they are a citizen until we actually start to
investigate their background and we realize that, oh, they are,
in fact, a citizen, at which point we obviously----
Mr. Aguilar. Yeah, I am not, Director, I am not talking
about cases where an individual finds out that they are a U.S.
citizen. I am talking about cases where individuals have
clearly said that they are citizens. What troubled me with your
answer is that when someone looks to be a citizen.
You know, I have got a list here of nine: Guadalupe
Plascencia from San Bernardino, from my community; Sergio
Carrillo from Rialto, but from Austin, Texas, 5 days detained,
2 days detained. These are U.S. citizens or individuals who
were born in the United States and U.S. citizens or have been
naturalized.
These aren't individuals who found out that they were U.S.
citizens, Director. These are individuals who told your
officers that they were U.S. citizens. And you are talking
within the process of this that that you advance it when they
look to be a citizen. It just strikes me that all of these
individuals are Latinos and that you are talking about how
someone looks.
So can you talk to me a little bit about this?
Mr. Albence. I was not referring to anybody's appearance,
and that was clear if anybody listened to the context of what I
was saying. I am saying when we review the individual, make an
interview, look at their documentation, if the documentation
shows--I will use the term ``shows''--shows that they have
evidence, probative evidence of being a citizen, then that is
when we release them from custody.
I can tell you from my experience that I had it happen to
me personally. Many individuals who are citizens in a border
environment, especially if they are involved--primarily when
they are involved in criminal activity--will claim to be a
noncitizen because--especially when they are Mexicans.
I was working smuggling cases as an agent in San Antonio.
They would claim to be a Mexican national because they knew
that they would get turned around 5 hours later, they weren't
going to get prosecuted, and they could come back in at will.
So, again, we look at all the information that is in front
of us to make that determination. Look, we have no lawful
authority to hold U.S. citizens. We don't want to hold U.S.
citizens. That is not our business or our job. But we have to
look at the evidence that is available to us.
Mr. Aguilar. But it is also difficult--in prior discussions
we have had in this committee, we also found out that within
the drop-down box that you had for where an individual is from,
there isn't--United States isn't in that drop-down box. So it
is even difficult for you to track how many U.S. citizens you
detain, even for a small portion of time.
What type of racial profiling education, what type of
training do your officers receive, specifically applying to
U.S. citizens, so we can be certain that this doesn't happen as
much? Three days, 2 days, 5 days, 3 weeks. There has been cases
recently in the press, U.S. citizens--Members of Congress
finding U.S. citizens who were detained not in ICE custody. I
just want to make sure that we are learning through this. So
can you talk a little bit about the training that you receive
specific to racial profiling?
Mr. Albence. Sure. And there is no tolerance for racial
profiling in ICE. It starts at the basic training level, where
our officers and agents receive training on racial profiling at
the very beginning of their law enforcement career.
We abide by DHS policy. We abide by DOJ policy with regard
to racial profiling or cases that are being prosecuted. It is
continually something that is stressed in our in-service
trainings. We have supervisory schools. We have law enforcement
training. There is no tolerance for racial profiling.
Mr. Aguilar. Yeah. I guess I would still like to follow up
a little bit more on the documentation piece. If someone
presenting--I don't carry my birth certificate. But if someone,
you know, has these documents and is claiming to be U.S.
citizen, what is the disconnect? Why are they continuing to be
detained? Appreciate it.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I represent a lot of Border Patrol agents, a lot of CBP
officers, men and women in blue, field operations, a lot of ICE
officers also from San Antonio down to Laredo and down to the
McAllen area. And I have to say, I do appreciate the work that
the men and women do. I don't think you all should be
demonized.
If there is an issue with a policy, we go after the policy.
We don't go after the men and women. If the current law--and
some of the immigration laws that we have have been around for
years, and it usually says laws passed by Congress, you shall
do certain things. So I just want to just make sure that if
there is a bad apple, we go after that bad apple. And I think
you agree with me.
But I just want to say that your men and women are probably
the same people that were working under the Obama
administration, now under the Trump administration. Again, not
the men and women, but the policies, or if somebody wants to
change the ``shall'' do certain things to the law, then
Congress should go ahead and do that.
DETENTION STANDARDS
You also have certain protocols that you follow and--you
know, because there are folks that say that there are no
protocols. I mean, for example, you have the performance-based
national detention standards of 2011, which I think was revised
in December 2016. And that one, again, took the input from
nongovernmental organizations and other groups to make sure
that we improve medical, mental health services, access to
legal services, religious opportunities, improve communication
with detainees that have limited proficiencies, et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera.
On top of that, we also have in the appropriations--and I
started, I guess, in 2014, so I am looking at from 2014 on,
there are riders that we have added, both myself and other
members, that talk about detention standards, that talk about
transparency and ICE detention centers, that talk about ICE
detention facility contracts, for example.
One of the sections prohibits ICE operation and support
funds for being used to continue any contract for the provision
of detention services if two of the most recent overall
performance evaluations received by the facility are less than
adequate, or something equivalent to that. So there are--you
know, there is other provisions dealing with ICE on this.
So one is to make sure that we understand there is a
particular protocol and language that we have there. Also on
top of that, I think the ICE non-detained docket is 2.4 million
individuals roughly. We are adding about 10,000 cases to the
immigration courts every week. There is over 1 million subject
to final orders for removal that we have.
And then out of the detained docket, I think it is less
than 2 percent of the undocumented individuals are actually in
ICE custody across the 200-plus facilities that you have. So
now that I have laid that out, tell me your response on the
protocols, the laws, the workload that you have and the
environment.
And, again, I want to make sure that we treat people with
respect and dignity. I am talking about the folks that are
under your, you know, facilities on that. So give me your quick
perspective on what I have just laid out on the structure that
we have there.
Mr. Albence. Thank you, Congressman.
I wholeheartedly agree that it is imperative that those
individuals that are within our custody are kept in a safe and
secure environment, and are treated humanely and professionally
with dignity the entire time they are in our custody. And that
is what we endeavor to do. And that is what our standards do.
Our PBNDS 2011, I think, is probably thicker than this. And
we are actually in the process of revising some of our
detention standards, and we have actually worked closely--and I
know the staff here has worked very closely with our custody
management division with regard to updating some of those
standards. So----
Mr. Cuellar. I am sorry to interrupt. So you are working
with the Appropriations Committee, and are you working with----
Mr. Albence. We have NGOs. We have a lot of NGOs that work
in the immigration space. We actually invited law enforcement
in as well, because they are the ones, ultimately, when we
contract with these county facilities that have to implement
and use some of these standards. So we want to make sure that
what we do is meaningful.
And some of the standards that we have are, you know, 20
years old that aren't relevant anymore. For example, when you
talk about they need to have a locksmith on their staff that is
a certified locksmith, some of these jails don't have key locks
anymore. So, you know, we would have to ding them or give them
a waiver when we do those inspections. So we are trying to make
them more relevant to today's technology.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CRIMINALITY BREAKOUT
Mr. Director, let me return to--I think it was Mr.
Ruppersberger's line of questioning about the targeting of
detention and deportation, the, I would say, very baffling
claims and counterclaims that have often been made in this
area. You didn't give us a breakdown, and I want to ask you to
do that. It was--the ERO arrest was the category. And you said
90 percent of those arrests either have prior criminal
convictions or pending criminal charges, or they are
immigration fugitives, or they were previously removed from the
country and illegally reentered. What is the breakdown of that
90 percent in terms of those four categories?
Mr. Albence. About 66 percent are convicted criminals,
about 21 percent are pending criminal charges, about 2 percent
are the fugitives, and 1 percent would be the illegal
reentrants.
Mr. Price. When you say prior criminal convictions, what is
the range of criminal convictions?
Mr. Albence. Well, the range of criminal convictions and
the vernacular we utilize is the same as utilized throughout
the law enforcement community, anybody who has been convicted
of a criminal violation. In fact, we only get fingerprints from
local law enforcement agencies when they submit them for a
criminal violation.
Mr. Price. So is entering the country illegally being
apprehended, coming back in, is that a criminal--I just want to
get clear. How many of these people are violent criminals, you
know, as we often say, a threat to the community?
Mr. Albence. So our 2018 report is online. Off the top of
my head, two of the top five charge--I think the top charge is
DUI, then I know within that top five is drugs and assaults.
And I don't have those numbers directly in front of me, but
they are on the website. We could certainly get them to your
office this afternoon easily enough.
Mr. Price. Well, it would help to, I would say, break down
these categories a little more straightforwardly, knowing that
as we discuss the prioritization, the exercise of prosecutorial
discretion. You know, the point of that discussion is to
prioritize dangerous people in terms of whatever else we do in
the area of detention and deportation to prioritize people who
are a threat to the community, knowing that that is the purpose
of the discussion.
It strikes me that there would be a much more helpful way
to present these statistics than--you know, 90 percent sounds
great, of course. I mean, I know why you would frame it this
way. But even 66 percent prior criminal convictions, I mean,
that begs for a further breakdown.
Knowing--just being very straightforward here about the
purpose of the policy, the purpose of the discussion, the
purpose of the targeting, which, on this subcommittee, we have
worked on for many, many years.
And by the way, nobody is saying everybody else gets a free
ride, but we have said for years that given limited resources,
given the fact that we are going to deport maybe 400,000 people
a year out of 11 million people who are here, there is going to
be discretion exercised. And that discretion needs to be
intelligently and appropriately exercised to remove dangerous
people. So it would help at least to have statistics that are
responsive to that concern.
Mr. Albence. I fully agree, and I wholeheartedly support
being transparent. We have quarterly calls with the media with
regard to all of our statistics when it comes to immigration
enforcement. Our end-of-year report is about 20 pages long. It
breaks down by nationality, by country, by crime, all sorts of
things. I mean, thankfully, there are not 40,000, 50,000
criminals--or, excuse me, murderers that we need to arrest
every year.
Mr. Price. Thankfully they are not. But it would be helpful
to know how many actually there are----
Mr. Albence. About 800 last year.
Mr. Price [continuing]. And whether we are prioritizing
those people. Anyway, I am going to ask you to break down that
prior criminal convictions category more precisely----
Mr. Albence. Happy to do so, sir. Thanks for the time
yesterday. Appreciate it.
Mr. Price [continuing]. So that we know to what extent we
are dealing with violent criminals.
AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION
My time is fast running out, but let me just quickly give
you an example of another way to frame this. This has to do
with the daily count of detainees, a slightly different
universe. But from September 16 to December 18, there was a 22
percent increase in the daily count of detainees. That is from
39,000 to 47,000.
But the number of individuals who had committed serious
crimes dropped by over 1,200 despite that overall increase. And
the number of immigrant detainees who had never been convicted
of even a minor violation grew by 8,300 people. Now, that is a
different framing of statistics that puts a very different
light on the situation.
I just think, in a way, the beginning of an intelligent
discussion here, especially a discussion of appropriate
targeting and prioritization and the exercise of discretion,
needs to be a more straightforward presentation of the facts.
And I think what I just gave does indicate that we have had
some slippage, considerable slippage in the degree to which we
are targeting dangerous people.
Mr. Albence. So exactly what happened there is exactly what
is going on on the border now. That is a result of all border
cases. That is when the border surge began. So all those
noncriminal border cases that are in our custody are mandatory
detention cases because they are under the expedited removal
process, as dictated by Congress under section 241 of the INA.
And the reason that the criminals dropped is because I had
to redeploy officers from working the criminals to deal with
the border surge cases. That is a direct result. And when we
say it is a crisis, it affects the entire immigration
enforcement continuum. And it does make everybody less safe,
because we are able to arrest fewer criminals.
I mentioned in my opening statement, we are down 14
percent. We are going to arrest 15-, 18,000 less criminals this
year directly because of what is going on on the border. This
crisis is not limited to the border. These individuals are not
staying in the border communities and just--and there--they are
dispersing into the country, and we have to manage those cases.
Some of those individuals are getting involved in criminal
activity, and we have fewer and fewer resources to actually
deal with that, unfortunately.
Mr. Price. We will return to this.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
TRANSPARENCY INTO ICE OPERATIONS
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director, before I ask my question, I
just want to respond to something that you mentioned in your
response to Ms. Wasserman Schultz, a question about the ability
to provide reporting about ICE's detention and removal of
military veterans.
You mentioned that part of the problem is due to a lack of
funding to modernize your systems. In 2018, Congress provided
an additional $6 million for this purpose, and in 2020, I
recommended an additional $2.5 million. Both additions are
above the administration's budget request.
I am also recommending an additional $2 million for your
law enforcement systems and analysis division who do the
analysis and the reporting. I am trying to help by adding
funding above what you are asking for. If this isn't enough, I
think it is important that you tell us exactly what it is you
need so that you can be more transparent about your operations.
DETENTION FACILITIES
I would like to just follow up a little bit more on some of
what Mr. Cuellar was talking about with regards to detention
facilities and the conditions that are there. And I have
several questions, so I am going to try and ask as many as I
can in the time that I have.
First of all, it is really unacceptable, the substandard
conditions at ICE facilities that have been reported, and also
which I have, myself, seen in my visits. And I am hoping that
we will be able to make some progress on that together.
So one of my questions is, have you carried out a full
review, and taken the necessary corrective actions to ensure
that the recommendations from the OIG and the GAO and ICE's own
standards and oversight recommendations, are being implemented
at every detention facility that ICE operates?
Mr. Albence. Thank you.
Yes, we have. We have a comprehensive oversight framework
that we utilize. I would say that our detention facilities
receive more scrutiny and appropriately so, and we have no
reason to have any reason not to have that scrutiny, and we
welcome transparency.
I mean, we have detention service monitors that work for
headquarters that oversee facilities out there in the field. We
have--in many of these larger facilities, we have assistant
field office directors that are on the ground that deal with
issues on a day-to-day basis. Some of these detention service
monitors are on site. And thanks to you and the committee for
the additional funding in 2019 for OPR, Office of Professional
Responsibility, the Office of Detention Oversight we received--
were able to fund 14 more positions. And----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And what is the status of that hire?
Mr. Albence. The 14 positions will be on board by the end
of this fiscal year, and we expect to be able to do, I
believe--and I can get you the exact number--I thought we were
about 15--we plan to do about 15 more inspections this year
than we were able to do last year, based on the additional
funding. And obviously, once we get those new inspectors on,
that will only increase going forward.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay.
Mr. Albence. I am sorry.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. I am just trying to get all my
questions in time.
Mr. Albence. Go ahead.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. You know, we continue to hear disturbing
reports that ICE is contracting for additional detention
capacity where basic standards are not being met. One example
is a relatively new facility in Texas that does not allow
contact visitation unless there is a significant advance
planning.
ICE standards state that contact visitation should be
provided, especially when minor children are involved.
Remember, we are talking about civil detention, not criminal
detention. And my question is, do you believe it is acceptable
for ICE to enter into these agreements to provide civil
detention services where reasonable opportunities for contact
visitation with families and attorneys can't or won't be
required, which is contrary to your agency's own standards?
Mr. Albence. I am not familiar with that facility, but I
will certainly look into it.
On the larger question, as you well know, all of our
contracts that we are required to enter into without--any
contract that we enter into is supposed to be at the PBNDS 2011
standards. And, then, if we don't meet those standards then we
are supposed to notify Congress 30 days prior to actually
entering into that contract, which we have done.
And those notifications have actually probably been fairly
few. Since I am not in the ERO day-to-day anymore, I can't tell
you how many there are, but I only remember one or two that we
sent when I was the EAD. But I know all the new contracts that
we are doing in order to get this additional capacity to deal
with the border cases, we are contracting at the PBNDS 2011
level.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. The note that I have here that
this is in Montgomery County, and that it was--you started
using it October of 2018, so if I could get some additional
information.
Mr. Albence. I am happy to look into it. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you again, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Director Albence. This testimony is very
informational and helps us all do our job.
DETENTION CAPACITY
Mr. Director, the DHS Secretary sent a letter dated March
28 that states, and I quote, "Without additional assistance, we
will be forced to increase the releases of the single-adult
population from ICE, the only population for which we can
currently effectively enforce U.S. immigration laws."
When meeting with Border Patrol agents, the point is made
time after time that if we can't keep up with detaining and
returning single adults, we have lost the border. Question: Do
you agree, does the sentiment of the March 28 letter still
hold?
Mr. Albence. Without a doubt.
Mr. Fleischmann. How can we make sure that we don't lose
ground on this population, sir?
DETAINEE HEALTHCARE
Mr. Albence. Again, dealing with the symptoms now, absent
additional capacity, I don't know how you would do it. There is
not a way to move these cases through the system really much
quicker than they currently do. And we certainly need to make
sure that the individuals have all ability to access their due
process rights, and so if they want to have appeals of their
cases and the like, they are certainly free to do so, and we
want them to have all due process.
So absent additional capacity, there is only so many beds
that we have and only so quickly we can turn them around.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. From your testimony earlier, and
from what I have seen, it is evident that resources alone won't
fix this crisis. This is a very complicated set of issues that
would have been solved by now. Again, going back to the March
28 letter, the Secretary referenced a legislative proposal to
Congress in the coming days to address the immigration and
asylum policies.
My question, sir, do you know the status of an immigration
proposal from the Department or the administration, and will we
see an official proposal, sir?
Mr. Albence. Congressman, I don't know the exact status. I
can tell you that I know what the proposal contained, and it
would have contained the items that--among others, but the
three main items that I mentioned in my testimony with regard
to Flores, the TVPRA, and the credible fear threshold. We can
certainly check and get back with you.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir.
Mr. Director, recent outbreaks of measles, mumps, and
chickenpox have closed thousands of beds as you try to limit
the exposure to just the affected cohort. How are you managing
to contain the outbreak, and how many detainees are ill, and
how many beds are affected?
Mr. Albence. So it changes. I am not sure how many we have.
For the past 6 to 8 months, it has generally been around 4,000
to 5,000 beds that are cohorted as a result of diseases. And,
frankly, that makes a point, which I should have made, so I
appreciate you for bringing it up. Even with the expanded
capacity, when we have to quarantine a whole wing, we could
lose--so at any one time we may have 1,500, 2,000 beds that are
actually vacant, but those beds are within the quarantine pod
such that we can't utilize them.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir.
What efforts are you making to ensure detainees at the
affected sites specifically, and across ICE facilities, have
unfettered access to medical care? And what efforts are
underway to make sure the population isn't introduced to new
outbreaks, sir?
Mr. Albence. Again, with regard to not introducing the
population, we utilize all standard practices within the
detention environment, you know, to ensure those individuals
are quarantined and kept separate from the general population,
and are not released from custody until we are certain that
they are past incubation period and are clear.
With regard to medical--and, again, thank you to the
committee for the additional medical funding that was in the
supplemental that we put directly to use--we have been
leveraging some additional resources from public health.
As I am sure you are aware, the officer--we have sworn
commissioned public health officers that do a lot of our
medical and oversee our medical program, and that includes
doctors, nurse practitioners, you know, social workers, the
whole plethora of medical services that are provided. And they
do a tremendous job, and their sole existence, and they take it
to heart, is to ensure the safety and care and health of the
individuals that are in detention.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir.
One final question. When do you anticipate the outbreak
will pass, and what actions will you need to make the
facilities safe to use again?
Mr. Albence. If I knew that one, I would be in Vegas. I
mean, new people come in every day, right. The Border Patrol
has no idea what they are going to catch, and we have no idea
what diseases individuals are catching may have. So my guess
is--it is not a new phenomenon, it has just expanded because
the numbers have expanded so greatly. But we have had to do
this in the detention realm for as long as we have held aliens.
Mr. Fleischmann. Very well.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTIONS
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah. I want to talk a little bit about
alternatives to detention. About maybe a month, month and a
half ago when I visited the border, witnessed significant
overcrowding. We know--again, I think the biggest issue we have
now is volume, and whether it is judges, whether it is dealing
with this problem, and we are having a serious problem.
I said yesterday in the hearing that the Border Patrol
agent said, you know, when we make arrests, it used to be we
would see them in court or whatever, and that is what we do
here. Well, now you have a whole other dynamic to your mission,
and that is holding these individuals.
I want to talk about discretion with respect to your
agency. You have the discretion to release many of the non-
violent, non-flight risk detainees on parole or bond. Home
visits, check-ins, telephone monitoring, GPS monitoring, ankle
bracelets are options at your disposal.
Again, looking to what your mission is and what I think--
and Congressman Price and I both have tried to focus on the bad
people, the individuals that are really--that we need the
expertise of ICE officers to go after. That is where I would
like to see your mission, and I would like this country to
understand that. And what a lot of people are seeing is that we
are going to come out and get you, and the families that have
been here, and they are afraid and local governments aren't
working with you. I mean, it is just not where it needs to be.
Now, my question is that--you know, I think we provided $20
million for alternatives to detention, and these programs are
less costly to American taxpayers, more humane in standard
detention. And they come with court compliance rates, you know,
up to about 90 percent when you do put people in these types of
situations.
How fast can you expand alternative to detention programs
to reduce this overcrowding? Which I believe helps you, it
helps our country, it helps the image of what a lot of people
are seeing is abuse of people and families and children.
Mr. Albence. So most of the--in fact, every--unless the
small percentage that claimed negative credible fear within the
family residential center environment and are found not to have
it are released into the community. We have, at this point,
based on funding, we have about 101,000 individuals on ATD. We
could put, based on existing funding, about 64,000 people on
the GPS bracelet annually, and keep them on there.
At our current volume, that is about half the number of
people that came in in the month of May, at which point, we
would not be able to put anybody else on a bracelet until those
individuals came off. And as you well know, on the non-detained
docket, those cases may go 3, 5, 7 years, such that we would be
able to put very few individuals on a bracelet from that point
forward, meaning everybody else would just be released.
And frankly, what we have seen, and which goes to why we
have surged so many resources from his to the border to deal
with these fraudulent family units is that the absconder rate
for these family units is far higher than it ever was for the
single adults that we used to use it on.
So it is about 26 percent right now of the absconder rate
for family units on these GPS. And we have got criminal
investigations at his is ongoing, in which we have individuals
that are under surveillance and watching them cut off the
bracelets.
And, again, I think a lot of it comes from the fact that
these aren't real families. It is individuals that are single-
adult males that are renting a child in Mexico, paying a
smuggler, or the cartel for that child, bringing them into the
country, and as soon as they are processed and released, they
can care less what happens to the child, and they go on about
their way and cut their bracelet off.
So, again, there is some success with regard to showing up
at hearings and meetings. That success drops precipitously once
the individual nears the end of their process because the
chances of them getting removal order are going to be higher.
If they are going for a status hearing or, you know, a marriage
hearing, they may not get an order. So----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Let me stop you there because I have
only got a minute.
In policing, your job is to protect our society and arrests
when people break the law. In some area where you have--and I
am from the Baltimore region. I represent Baltimore City, and
they have got a bad rep right now. We have got to work on
trying to turn that around.
Part of that is you have a system with somebody focusing on
community type policing. So, instead of everyone who is here
waiting whatever needs to be done that they are not going to
fear ICE other than if they get arrested, they are going to be
treated that way, because you have got an image issue.
ICE IMAGE
And as a Member of Congress, I don't want you to have an
image issue, because you have a mission, and that mission is
based on the laws that we have passed. But you have got to work
on this. Do you have any type of--and this is my last question,
because my time is up now. Do you have any type of program
trying to work on your image now, whether you believe it or
not, is not good for 50 percent of this country?
Mr. Albence. I would love the media to publish all the
tremendous things that we do, and we try diligently to get our
story out there. Unfortunately, it is not sensational to say
ICE did a good job and removed this aggravated felon, or ICE
removed this murderer back to El Salvador while it faced
charges, or ICE seized, you know, 1,000 pounds of fentanyl, or
ICE rescued this child from active sexual exploitation.
Those stories don't get picked up. And I can do as many TV
shows as I want, and a lot of it just falls on deaf years,
unfortunately. And I think that is where we were going to
earlier was just the rhetoric is so high on this issue----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Can I just have 30 seconds and give it
to Mr. Price? It is just two numbers.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Two numbers?
Mr. Ruppersberger. Two numbers. I want to point out one
concern: The amount of arrests for traffic is 26,000; traffic
offense 30,000. That seems like it would be the highest
numbers. That is part of our issue. Mr. Price is going to deal
with that. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Sir, Director, do you or your officers get to decide who
will actually be deported out of custody?
REMOVALS AND DEPORTATIONS
Mr. Albence. Again, unless the individual already has had
their day in immigration court, and has received a final order
of removal from an immigration judge, we are the front end of
that process just as a local beat cop or a detective is in the
criminal justice system. We are making the arrest based on
probable cause and are following our charging document, which
in our case is called a notice to appear, as opposed to, you
know, a criminal complaint filed by a local jurisdiction.
Mr. Rutherford. But your men and women make no deportation
decision, correct?
Mr. Albence. Correct. We make the arrest. The judge makes
the determination with regard to--in limited circumstances,
there are some cases in which individuals under the law are not
entitled to a hearing with regard to the removability issues,
but they are entitled to a hearing with regard to asylum or
other form of relief from removal.
Mr. Rutherford. Right. And the reason I ask, and I think
you said it earlier, you know, you don't get to pick and choose
what laws you are going to enforce. And so, one of the things
that I think people need to understand--and it really kind of
came up on the military issue--your officers, when they go to a
287(g) facility and pick up an individual on a detainer, that
individual has been charged, you don't have a choice, you pick
them up. Whether they have military service in their background
or not, and how that will impact on their individual case is
really up to the judge, not you or your officers. Is that
correct?
Mr. Albence. That is correct. The judge makes the decision
on removability.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. So let me change gears here. While
there was a decrease in the number of migrants that were
crossing the border in June relative to May, we still have over
100,000 people that crossed the border. We are still hearing
about the metering going on at the ports. CBP detention
facilities are still over capacity. You just received $208.9
million in the supplemental bill.
So my question today is, do you anticipate that that will
get you through the end of the year, and that is going to be
enough, or what is the burn rate on that?
Mr. Albence. So the money that we were given, and we are
appreciative of it, is, you know, for the areas in
transportation, medical services, the money that we were able
to give to his to go down and do additional family fraud
investigations and DNA testing, which has proven very
successful, that money is greatly appreciative and went right
to work.
Unfortunately, from a detention perspective, we are still
short and we are also still short a little bit in the
transportation area. So, I mean, our request in the
supplemental was around $110 million, and that need still
remains.
Mr. Rutherford. Right. I tried to move $600 million over to
you guys from forfeiture and seizures to address the detention
beds and that failed.
RAPID DNA TESTING
But let me ask this also: After a successful pilot in May--
you mentioned the rapid DNA processing--ICE, you all were
awarded a $5.2 million contract for additional DNA testing and
supplies. Can you give me an idea how that program is going,
the rollout? How is it looking?
Mr. Albence. It is looking--when I say it is looking good,
I mean that from an operational perspective. From a criminal
justice and victimization perspective, it is looking bad
because we ran the first week of it last week. We have opened
up in seven different Border Patrol facilities. We have got two
machines in each facility with more machines to come.
And within the first week, there were 102 referrals to us.
We found 17 instances of fraud based on the DNA test. And, in
fact--this is an experience we saw when were in the pod as
well--14 of the individuals broke to the fact that they weren't
really family units to begin with----
Mr. Rutherford. At all.
Mr. Albence [continuing]. At all, before they even took the
DNA test, because they saw that that was a potential for them.
So we are continuing to pursue that as that rolls out, and
we add additional machines and capability, I am sure that the
results will go up significantly. And I am hopeful that there
is some deterrent effect with that as well because word
spreads.
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah. Yeah.
And how many family groups have you discovered through
that, where it is not a parent, but it is an aunt, an uncle,
that sort of thing?
Mr. Albence. So we have got a couple things going on at one
time. If you look at just the family fraud investigations that
have been going on in the surge that we have got down there
that is going on for several months, we are only getting the
cases that Border Patrol refers to us. So we have had about
3,000 cases referred to us. Through the investigative process,
we have found about 400 of those to be fraudulent.
Most of them--there are some that are family members. But
when we are saying that they are fraudulent, they are
presenting themselves as if they actually are father and son,
or mother and son, whatever the case may be, or what we are
finding a lot of them is that they are actually adults.
So you have got an uncle that is 32 years old, and you have
got a kid that is 19 years old, and he comes in and says, this
is my 17-year-old kid, release us as family unit. So we have
actually presented 790 prosecutions during this time, and 682
have been accepted for prosecution.
What we are also seeing, which is very troubling to us, and
we are doing our best to combat it, is a lot of the individuals
claiming to be UACs aren't UACs. We are finding individuals
that are 23, 24 years old coming up with 16-year-old or 17-
year-old birth certificates.
We are extremely concerned about that, because those
individuals are going to go into HHS custody. And the last
thing we want is a 24-year-old male being in custody with a
bunch of 10-year-old boys. That is an untenable situation for
all concerned.
You know, our overarching goal, as we have said all along,
is to keep the safety of these children, and so we have
identified 59 of those. Fifty-eight of those have been
prosecuted. The U.S. Attorney's offices down on the southwest
border have been a tremendous partner for us.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you for your service.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Director.
ICE RAIDS
On Tuesday this week, you told reporters that the reason
ICE raids were successful is because the agency had the element
of surprise. You also said that when media attention is drawn
to potential ICE raids, it inhibits the ability of ICE agents
to do their job. Is that a fair summary?
Mr. Albence. I am not sure I said we had the element of
surprise with all the media attention that that got. But, you
know, I am not sure the exact quote, but----
Mr. Aguilar. Typically, when congressional offices ask for
additional information about rumored raids, ICE frequently
tells us that that information can't be shared because of
pending operations. You know that that is generally the
response that we receive, correct?
Mr. Albence. The only thing--that is correct, except to the
fact that I think it is a disservice to classify them as raids.
We were going after targeted individuals who had been through
the immigration court process who we know who they were and had
been issued a removal order from an immigration judge.
So I think doing a raid--again, I think calling them that
heightens the temperature with all these issues as opposed to
just when the sheriffs go out, or a police department goes out
and executes a warrant on somebody that has a warrant, they
don't call it a raid. They say, We are going to go arrest this
guy. That is what we are doing.
Mr. Aguilar. Sure. And in some cases, there is quite a bit
of collateral arrests that are made as well, and I think that
is where, in my interpretation and that is my feeling--and we
can get into a whole conversation about trust within the
agency. And I think that, you know, you have talked a lot, and
I know that that is a point of frustration at times for folks
about that relationship with the community, but I think that
that comes with trust.
And when the collateral numbers, you know, increase and
varies pretty significantly by field offices even, you know,
that is a concern for us. That is a concern as a policymaker,
and that is, I think, when you get into a classification, and
what I would call a raid is when there are significant
collateral arrests that are made.
If you want to go in and target someone and you can
highlight the criminality, you know, that is fine. But when you
get into the collateral pieces and you start, you know,
grabbing other folks who were in proximity and breaking
windows, pulling people out of cars like, I mean, those are
things that heighten the level, and I just want to make sure
that you understand that that is what we are talking about.
Mr. Albence. I certainly do. And collateral arrests have
occurred throughout the time of immigration enforcement, and
they occur in law enforcement. Our law enforcement practices
are the same as State and local law enforcement agencies. When
they go into a residence and they have a warrant and they are
going to identify for their safety, as well as the safety of
the participant--or, excuse me, the residents of that house,
they are going to identify those individuals.
And they are also going to try to determine if those
individuals have wants or warrants, or if that individual,
maybe they have a gun on them, is committing a crime in their
presence, they are going to arrest them.
When I was with DEA; almost every time we went into a house
and arrested the target of our warrant, there was somebody
else, or many somebody elses, that also ended up being
arrested. It is the same thing when we go into a residence. We
go in for officer safety and ensure that we know who is in that
house. The last thing we want is a tragedy, to have somebody
jump out of a closet and scare one of our officers or----
Mr. Aguilar. Someone with orders of removal is not the same
as a drug dealer that you are getting at the DEA. I mean, I
would just reject that comparison.
But let me move on, because I just wanted to have that
conversation about the announcements of targeted enforcement, I
will call them. You don't want to call them raids. So do
announcements of ICE enforcement actions impact officers'
safety and effectiveness?
Mr. Albence. What we try to do is ensure that when we go
out and do our operations, we have as much operational security
as possible. When we go out to knock on the door or take an
enforcement action, we generally notify local law enforcement
to make sure we don't have a blue-on-blue situation. So we make
sure that there is information that the people in the community
that would be in a position to need to know do know.
Mr. Aguilar. But the fewer people that know, generally the
more effective and probably the better for officer safety. Is
that fair to say?
Mr. Albence. Again, it depends if you are talking specifics
or talking in generalities. If there is specifics, like when
our operational plan was leaked to the media and there was
specifics, that is disconcerting, yes.
Mr. Aguilar. So the President announced on multiple
occasions that large-scale operations were going to detain
undocumented immigrants as part of operation Border Resolve.
Did the Department or you know that the President was going to
announce those pending operations?
Mr. Albence. No. I don't believe they reached out to us for
our input. But I mean----
Mr. Aguilar. Do you think it put officers' safety in
danger?
Mr. Albence. I don't. Again, I mean, The Washington Post
was reporting on this back in the fall. Again, when you talk
about high level that we are going to be doing X, Y, and Z
without specifics, I mean, I think everybody knows we are going
to be doing immigration enforcement. We generally take, in the
civil immigration context, 300 to 400 arrests a day. So our
teams are out there every single day, so it is no secret that
we are out there.
Mr. Aguilar. Yeah. It is no secret you out there. I mean, I
think the President putting millions behind it and, you know,
amps it up, you know, quite significantly. So I would just, you
know, caution if--and I hear you talk about the rhetoric of
this conversation. Well, you know, I don't think that that is
limited to Members of Congress is all I would offer. Thank you,
sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Director, I know we have been talking a lot about
immigration, but I also want to thank your men and women that
do work on the other cross-border criminal activity, which
includes financial crimes, money laundering, bulk cash
smuggling, commercial fraud, intellectual property theft, cyber
crimes, human rights violation, human smuggling, human
trafficking, and other work that you all do. So I do want to
thank them for the other work that they do, even though we do
spend a lot of time on immigration.
IMMIGRATION COURTS
The other thing is, I feel that if you go to some of the
countries they have their immigration courts at the border.
Your folks have been a little resistant trying to put the
courts at the border, I can tell you. They will give me all
these different excuses why. But, you know, I think we ought to
hold people at the border, give them their day in court, give
them their due process.
And as you know, according to the immigration court office,
if you have 100 people, 88 percent of them are going to be
rejected from asylum claims, and then twelve of them are going
to be accepted. But unfortunately, if we let people into the
country, they are here for 2, 3, 4, 5 years, whatever it is.
Immigration courts also tell us that 44 percent of them
don't show up after they are given the permiso, the notice to
appear. So I think we are doing it backwards. I think the Trump
administration, the Obama administration have been doing it
backwards, and we should have them there. So I would ask you to
have your folks reconsider the positions that they have taken
in the past where we have those immigration courts as much as
possible.
When we talk about immigration courts, that we have added,
I think, about 315 since we started working on it, I guess
since 2014, you know, the first thing they do is say, Well, we
want to do video conference. Well, as you know, the reason they
send judges to Houston, to New York, San Francisco, and all
that is because they release people, then they want to put
judges where the people have been released. So I think we are
doing it backwards. But I would appreciate that and like to
follow up.
The other thing is we have been adding judges, and I think
that your Office of Principal Legal Advisors needs to do a
little--needs a little bit of help. I believe your information
is, you probably need another 128 additional attorneys, and 41
additional support staff so the immigration judges can do the
work.
I think what we are missing right now are court space. We
actually have more judges than court, and we are hoping that
during this appropriation process, working through another
subcommittee, that we add court space, number one; number two,
that we add those attorneys, because if you don't have those
attorneys, it is hard for the judges to do the work.
I would ask you also, because I do know a lot of
immigration judges, that you all look at the old movie called
the--the old show called ``Night Court.'' I do understand that
your attorneys leave at 5:00 or so, from what I hear from
judges, or somewhere 5:00, 6:00. And, you know, in many ways we
ought to look at that show, and if we need to do a little bit
of extra work, we should have some sort of nightshift to
address the backlog.
So anyway, we want to be supportive on adding more moneys
on that, and I would like to get your thoughts on what I have
just mentioned.
Mr. Albence. Well, certainly. And I agree that trying to--
look, we have got to be inventive, and we can't keep doing the
same thing the way we have been doing and expect something to
change, right?
I agree, as you are seeing in the MPP context, we are
setting up these courts at the POEs and holding the hearings
there. Again, I think we can leverage VTC for that, both for
EOIR. And, again, obviously they are the biggest player on
this, right. They own the courts. They own the management of
the courts. So, I mean, a lot of this falls on their shoulder,
and we work closely with them, of course.
You know, but I think it holds promise. Again, the
challenge comes into--especially now with so many of the family
units being the largest number of cases coming in, right, that
we can't hold them, we can't detain them under Flores long
enough to get through that immigration court process. So that
is one of the bigger challenges.
I will tell you that--and when I testified when I was the
EAD for ERO, and I will say it again, I will take 200 attorneys
before I take 200 officers at this point, because the
bottleneck is just there. The massive amount is there. I will
get more productivity from those attorneys than I will from
those officers, just because the work is there. And so we are
working closely with EOIR to try to find some ways to do some
of these things, if we can leverage technology.
We have opened up courtrooms in some of our new facilities
so that we can move those cases through more rapidly. But this
is one of the ones where, again, it is resource dependent. And
you are right, it is not just attorneys; it is courtrooms and
facilities and support staff and the like, and we will take
whatever we can get, plus some.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
Mr. Albence. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Director, let me just briefly revisit the statistics on
whom you are detaining and deporting, mainly just to underscore
my request, because I want to move onto another question.
CRIMINALITY BREAKDOWN
But I have been looking at some figures about the
breakdowns we were discussing. It appears that three of the top
four categories in terms of people who are categorized as
criminals, criminal convictions, three of those four categories
are drug offenses DUI--I mean, traffic offenses DUI, traffic
offenses more generally, and immigration offenses.
Now, other crimes here are very serious, many of them
violent. But as far as the numbers are concerned, I would just
return to my prior assertion that, you know, our overall 90
percent figure really is not helpful. The appearance is, that
it is obscuring the discussion more than it is helping with it,
given the fact that the discussion has been and needs to be on
prioritizing dangerous people, people who are a threat to the
community.
I appreciate your comments about the way the diversion of
personnel from the interior to the border surge has compromised
your abilities. On the face of it though, it doesn't seem to me
that would affect the ratio of it--yes, it affects the overall
number who you detain and deport. It shouldn't affect the
overall ratio of dangerous criminals to others. So if there is
any figures on that that would clarify the situation further, I
would appreciate it. But we certainly need a breakdown of that
90 percent.
SANCTUARY PLACES
Now, let me turn to something that has been in the
headlines in my own district, but that--it just puzzles me
nationwide, and I want you to comment on it. There, of course,
is a very often very difficult situation involving people who
are taking sanctuary in places of worship. But how are you
putting pressure on those immigrants and those who are
supporting them? That is the question.
And there is a recent case, a 38-year-old mother of four
taking sanctuary in the Church of Reconciliation in Chapel
Hill, in my district, one of five individuals taking sanctuary
in a church in North Carolina, one of at least 50 across the
country.
Now, just out of the blue, July 1, she received notice that
ICE intends to fine her $314,007 for, quote, willfully failing
or refusing to leave the United States and for having, quote,
connived or conspired to avoid deportation. That amounts to
$799 a day for each day that she has been in sanctuary.
Now, apparently, she is one of fewer than ten undocumented
immigrants living in sanctuary who received this notion of a
fine for this just impossibly high sum they can't possibly pay.
It is my understanding the financial penalties for violating
immigration laws, of course, do exist. They have existed since
the mid-1990s. But it is very rare that they have gone above
about $1,000.
So what is this all about? Why is ICE now using these
extremely severe financial penalties to target this group of
individuals? How did you determine that it should be $799 a
day? Actually, the law states that civil penalties for
immigrants should be something like $500, it states, not more
than $500 a day. What is going on with these fines, and how are
you choosing whom to impose them on?
Mr. Albence. Thank you.
So we have been looking at this. And, again, what we are
trying to do is hold individuals accountable and try to restore
some integrity to the rule of law and the immigration system.
If you have individuals--again, and we are applying the laws
that Congress has passed and authorized us to do. They have
authorized that civil fines be levied on certain offenses or
certain behavior.
One includes a fine for an individual to ignore a voluntary
departure ordered by an immigration judge. There is a fine that
comes with that. There is a fine for failure to depart for
individuals with final orders of removal. And there is very
strict criteria that must be met in order for that to happen,
and one of those is the order was issued in person. So it
wasn't even that--the individual can't say they didn't know
they had the order. It has to be an in-person order, which is
essential.
The $799--and we did a Federal Register on this last year
when we began the process, is accounting for inflation, and
that is how it came to that amount. But if we are going to have
any integrity with the immigration system, I don't think we can
have a system whereby somebody can avail themselves of all due
process, work for--you know, work the system for 5, 6, 7, 8
years, and then when they get a result that they don't agree
with, go take sanctuary in a church where they know our
sensitive locations policy prevents them from having the law
enforced against them.
So we are going to use all the tools available to try to
gain compliance with the lawfully issued judge's order. And
part of this, too, is, if we want to have a secure border,
there has to be consequences for illegal entry, and that means
that you have to leave the country if you are ordered removed
by an immigration judge. And if you fail to leave the country
and there is a way that we can fine you civilly, then we are
going to do that, too.
Mr. Price. You think there is any doubt these people have
that you are on their case?
Mr. Albence. Not now.
Mr. Price. I mean, why are you doing this now? Why are you
doing this now? How did you pick the 10 people around the
country that you were going to slap these fines on?
Mr. Albence. So we have been doing it--I will be off a
month or two--maybe October of last year we started this
process. We have been going through each of the field offices.
And, again, there is very defined criteria which an individual
has to meet in order to be eligible for a fine.
So it actually takes quite a while to review the case to
determine if they meet all the factors required by law and
statute to be amenable to being fined. So we have been going
through various field offices. They are going through their
cases of fugitives and individuals who have avoided orders of
voluntary departure, trying to find individuals that are there.
And some of the individuals, when we located them, we
arrested them and removed them rather than fining them, because
we knew where they were and able to locate them. But
individuals that we can't locate or aren't able to find or that
take sanctuary--I mean, put it this way, there is more
sanctuary cases out there than those that were fined. It is the
other ones that we reviewed didn't meet the legal criteria for
a fine.
Mr. Price. Well, if you could, for the record, furnish what
those legal criteria amount to.
Mr. Albence. Certainly. We have it all written down.
Mr. Price. It is certainly a mystery to me and to my
community.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. We are past the time, and appreciate
your agreeing to stay here beyond the 3:00 schedule that we had
originally given you.
I do have some other questions that I will submit,
particularly with regards to the treatment of pregnant women in
detention that I will be following up. But thank you very much
for your time, and look forward to continuing to work with you
on some of the issues that have been raised.
Mr. Albence. As I do. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
The committee stands adjourned.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]