Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2022 — Senate Hearing 117-483 (May 26, 2021)

Summary

Senate Hearing 117-483 records the May 26, 2021 hearing of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, with Senator Chris Murphy presiding, on the department's fiscal year 2022 budget request. The witness is Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. Senator Murphy thanks the department's 240,000 employees and says over 1.5 million apprehensions occurred at the southwest border in 1986. Secretary Mayorkas describes the President's $52.2 billion discretionary budget for DHS, including approximately $1.2 billion for border infrastructure improvements. Answers for the record describe TSA hiring events and TSA PreCheck enrollment, and the subcommittee recessed at 3:10 p.m.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

[Senate Hearing 117-483]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022

                              ----------

                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The subcommittee met at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Chris Murphy (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senators Murphy, Capito, Murkowski, Hoeven, and
Hyde-Smith.

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

STATEMENT OF HON. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, SECRETARY

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRIS MURPHY

    Senator Murphy. Good afternoon. I'm going to call this
hearing of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security to order.
    As a general reminder, this is going to be a virtual and
hybrid hearing. Some of my colleagues are going to be here
personally, some are going to be virtually. We're going to do
our best to ensure that everybody has a chance to ask questions
when it's their turn.
    We also are going to have votes at some point during this
hearing and so our intent is going to be to keep this hearing
running and keep coverage here while we also run down to the
Floor and vote, and I'm glad to be assisted in that effort by
the subcommittee's Ranking Member and prior Chairman, Senator
Capito.
    Today, we welcome Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro
Mayorkas, and we express to you our limitless gratitude for the
work of the 240,000 employees across the department. We
recognize the tremendous risks that they have taken and the
sacrifices that they have made, especially during the past year
and a half.
    You and I got to visit along with Senator Capito some of
these heroes at the border earlier this year and I know how
humbled you are to be able to lead this group.
    The purpose of today's hearing is to review the
department's fiscal year 2022 Budget Request. We eagerly await
the arrival of the full request later this week, but we've got
the Administration's budget blueprint in front of us and we're
going to use that to guide our discussions today.
    This blueprint shows us how the department's mission is
changing and adapting. New investments in cybersecurity are
needed in the wake of these unprecedented attacks on our
networks, many of which have consumed the news.
    The Coast Guard, faced with critical antiterrorism and drug
interdiction missions, is in need of long overdue
capitalization. Natural disasters are becoming more fierce and
more frequent, and I would like to applaud both you and the
President in your announcement on Monday that a billion dollars
is going to be invested through the Brick Program to help
communities prepare in advance for hurricanes, wildfires, and
other natural disasters.
    And as we heard at a hearing on domestic terrorism before
the Full Committee, homegrown violence still presents the most
serious threat to our nation today, and today, this afternoon,
our heart breaks again as we read news of another mass
shooting, this one in San Jose, eight are dead so far.
    We don't know the motive but once again we are reminded
that the most serious threat of physical harm to Americans does
not come right now from a foreign army or from immigrants, as
some would have us believe, but from the increasing tendency
towards deadly violence from a small often heavily armed subset
of our fellow Americans.
    Now as for DHS's work at the border, which I trust is going
to occupy the bulk of question and answer time here today, let
me say a few things before turning it over to Senator Capito.
    So I understand how important the issue of immigration is
to our politics today. I understand that it's a lot easier to
use the issue of migration as a political cudgel than to see it
as a problem that needs to get solved, and today Republicans
often want to take the increased numbers of apprehensions and
presentations at the border and blame it on President Biden.
That scores a lot of political points, gets you booked on talk
shows, but that's not the truth and the truth is still
important.
    Migrants, as it turns out, don't really care who the
President of the United States is. Why? Because they come here
for a complex set of reasons, most of which are connected to
life in their home country.
    Consider this. In 1986, in the middle of Ronald Reagan's
presidency, we saw over 1.5 million apprehensions at the
southwest border, some of the highest numbers we've ever seen.
From 1997 to 2000, we hovered around the same number during the
Clinton Administration.
    Then during the Obama years, despite his policies that
allowed some undocumented children and families to stay, a
policy excoriated by Republicans as an incentive for migration,
the numbers of apprehensions at the border were far, far below
these numbers of the 1980s and 1990s, averaging around 420,000
each year of his term.
    Then, despite President Trump's supposedly tough
immigration policies and the beginning of the construction of
his border wall, we saw a surge in apprehensions, the highest
in over a decade, resulting in a $4.6 billion emergency
supplemental in 2019.
    The bottom line is that President Trump's rhetoric and the
cruelty of family separation didn't stop people from coming to
the United States because people are coming here in order to
flee violence and economic desperation in their home country.
    The only thing that stopped that surge happening in 2018
and 2019 was the pandemic when we shut down the border under
public health authorities.
    So what's happened this year? Well, apprehensions have
spiked but that's because some of those blocks I talked about
on children and families entering the country ended and for
good reason.
    President Trump was turning around little kids and throwing
them back into the arms of traffickers and criminals. That was
an inhumane un-American policy. We should all celebrate its
end, but also in November of 2020, Mexico enacted a new law.
That meant that they were unable to accept many returns from
the United States of families with small children.
    The Trump Administration had ample notice that this law
would come into effect, 2 months, and they seemingly made no
plans. So as a compassionate nation, we chose to house these
families. Yes, some of them have been released from custody
with a promise to appear before ICE (U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement), but so far in this fiscal year, those
that have received a notice to appear before ICE have complied
95 percent of the time. So this claim that there's some new
catch and release policy, it's just not backed up by the data.
    I have news for my colleagues. The public health
restrictions on single adults that remain barring them from
applying for asylum cannot by law remain in effect forever. So
when that authority expires and it will, there's going to be a
surge of single adults at the border created by a ban on asylum
cases for a year and a half. That's not anybody's fault. That's
the consequence of the pandemic.
    So I'm a new chairman of this committee. I took the job
knowing about the politics that surround this issue, but this
subcommittee does have a history of bipartisanship. Not every
year can we find a way to a budget, but many years, even when
the politics were really hot on this issue, thanks in large
part to then Chairwoman Capito, this committee did find that
path and so I hope that we get to have a meaningful discussion
today about the border and the many other challenges that are
facing the department, and I look forward to being able to work
across the aisle to try to find bipartisan solutions, at least
within our budget authority, to the challenges that you face.
    Thank you for appearing before us today, Secretary
Mayorkas.
    I'll now turn it over to the Ranking Member, Senator Capito
for opening remarks.

               STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
calling this hearing and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining
us.
    While we don't have, as the Chairman mentioned, the full
budget request, there's certainly no shortage of things to talk
about today, and I know you've been on Capitol Hill since early
this morning. So I appreciate that. You certainly do have a
large job as head of a massive sprawling department.
    As I noted this time last year, the department's critical
missions include counterterrorism, trade enforcement. You know,
we only talk about certain aspects of Homeland Security
sometimes, but when you see the massiveness of what you're
dealing with, maritime security, opioid and drug interdiction,
presidential protection, cybersecurity, infrastructure
protection, emergency management, continuity of government, law
enforcement training, countering weapons of mass destruction,
state and local information-sharing, and more, as well as this
past year responding to the pandemic.
    On top of that, Secretary Mayorkas, despite what my
esteemed Chairman says, your first 100 days have been dominated
by a border crisis of the Administration's own making.
    We are currently in the midst of a historic surge at the
southern border. There were a 178,000 encounters in April and
tens of thousands more entered undetected. Drugs continue to be
a big issue for me. Drugs continue to pour across our border,
including record amounts of fentanyl, which are devastating
states like West Virginia and killing a lot of our people.
    Mr. Secretary, you and I traveled to the border a few
months ago and I greatly appreciated your invitation and
willingness to do so. I saw all of this firsthand and the
crossings have only increased since our visit and yet the
Administration continues to insist that the border is secure.
    The facts on the ground that I just described apparently
are not viewed as a security or law enforcement challenge but a
more logistical challenge in processing migrants who arrive
with no legal claim to enter the United States. Additionally,
ICE apprehensions and deportations have plummeted and more
criminal aliens are on the streets as a result.
    In light of these challenges, the Administration's fiscal
year 2022 discretionary request for the department is highly
concerning. Despite every other agency receiving substantial
increases in funding, the Department of Homeland Security
stands alone as the only department held virtually flat from
last year. This is highly conspicuous thrift from an
Administration that has already enacted and proposed trillions
in new spending.
    And even before we get to fiscal year 2022, we need to get
through this current year, this current fiscal year. In fiscal
year 2019, during a lesser surge at the border, the
Administration, and that was the Trump Administration, made a
supplemental request for funds and Congress responded by
providing an additional $1.3 billion to DHS.
    This year, we have received no supplemental request from
the Administration, despite the fact that we know the border
surge like the one we're facing now is placing significant
strains on agency resources.
    The department does have transfer and reprogramming
authorities, authorities that have been under attack in recent
years, but which I have defended when they are used
appropriately.
    So we continue to await the department's plan for financing
the current surge. However, if we are facing costs comparable
to fiscal year 2019, I'm concerned that attempting to cover
such costs from within the department would stretch the
intended purpose of its transfer and reprogramming authorities
and inevitably strain the shared priorities of Congress and the
department.
    Finally, I must address the border wall construction pause
which violates decades of budget law precedents put forward by
the GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). Vice Chairman
Shelby and I laid out in great detail the legal case against
this pause and while budget law may be arcane, the impact of
this impoundment on our Border Patrol agents and our country's
security I believe is very real.
    Every Administration is certainly entitled to their new
priorities. It is not entitled to thwart laws that were enacted
in previous years on a bipartisan basis. It is not entitled to
under-execute on congressionally-appropriated funds in the
hopes it can eventually thwart them all together.
    Despite all the noise, this committee has a history of
working in a bipartisan way to further the mission of the
department. When Administrations include unrealistic or
unjustifiable proposals, we work across the aisle to try to
move forward in a reasonable way. That's what this committee
does and I'm sure that's what we'll do again this year.
    Thank you again, Mr. Secretary, for not just being here but
for serving.
    Thank you.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Capito.
    Following the Secretary's opening statement, each member is
going to be recognized for up to five minutes. We're going to
do it by seniority.
    I would now recognize Secretary Mayorkas for your opening
statement.

              SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS

    Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Capito, Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee.
    Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to be here
today.
    Thank you. Is that better? Quiet is one thing I've never
been accused of being, but I do want to express our thoughts
and prayers for the families and loved ones of the victims of
the mass shooting, Mr. Chairman, to which you referred in your
opening remarks, the tragedy that occurred in the Northern part
of the California earlier today.
    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is confronting
serious, complex, and dynamic threats to the security of our
Nation on a daily basis.
    Under the Biden-Harris Administration, we aggressively are
pursuing efforts to address our most pressing security
concerns, from cybersecurity to domestic violent extremism
(DVE) to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and
more. This is hard work but that is what the 240,000 colleagues
in the Department of Homeland Security do every day. Their
dedicated efforts keep our communities safe and secure, and the
resources afforded by this Congress help to ensure that we can
meet our mission effectively and recruit and retain our
Nation's most talented professionals.
    The President's proposed budget will invest in our broad
mission set, including preventing terrorism, securing and
managing our borders, repairing the broken immigration system,
safeguarding cyber and critical infrastructure, and
strengthening national preparedness and resilience. It will
provide DHS with the resources that we need to keep our country
safe, strong, and prosperous.
    While I am unable to address specific details of the
President's budget until it is released officially later this
week, I welcome this opportunity to discuss several key agency
priorities for fiscal year 2022 laid out in the President's
$52.2 billion discretionary budget for DHS.
    This request includes approximately $1.2 billion for border
infrastructure improvements to fund modernization of our land
ports of entry and border security technology and to ensure the
safe and humane treatment of migrants in U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) custody.
    It also would support our enhanced efforts to combat the
smuggling and trafficking of people, illicit drugs, and weapons
while providing for more efficient travel, trade, and commerce.
    We are working tirelessly to rebuild our immigration system
into one that upholds our nation's laws and is fair, equitable,
and reflects our values. To achieve this, the fiscal year 2022
President's Budget includes $345 million for U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS) to address naturalization,
asylum, and other program backlogs. The budget submission also
supports up to 125,000 refugee admissions in fiscal year 2022.
    To meet the President's bold vision for combating climate
change, the discretionary budget includes an additional
investment of $540 million above the fiscal year 2021-enacted
level to increase resilience efforts and to enhance pre-
disaster planning.
    It will support resiliency in infrastructure, particularly
for vulnerable and historically underserved communities, and it
would resource the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
with the ability to hire additional staff to prepare and
respond to the increasing number of emergencies and disasters
that our Nation has experienced.
    In recent months, DHS has made it a top priority to address
violent extremism, which I believe to be the most lethal and
persistent terrorism-related threat to the United States today.
    The fiscal year 2022 President's Budget includes $131
million to support innovative methods to prevent DVE while
respecting privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. It also
supports critical research of the root causes of
radicalization, enhanced community outreach, and funding for
locally-driven efforts.
    Finally, in the face of increasing cyber threats, it is
critical that we promote resilience not only within the Federal
Government but across the public and private sectors and our
critical infrastructure systems. The recent ransomware attack
on Colonial Pipeline serves as a stark example of this ever-
present threat.
    Our discretionary budget submission includes $2.1 billion
for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
(CISA), which leads DHS and interagency efforts to defend
against today's threats and build a more secure and resilient
future.
    We will also further strengthen the cyber capabilities of
the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Coast
Guard, the U.S. Secret Service, and U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement's (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations.
    The budget also proposes $618 million for needed
investments in research and development and innovation across
DHS, laying a strong foundation not just to respond to the
threats of today but to prepare for and defend against the
threats of tomorrow.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I am
grateful for your continued support for the dedicated public
servants of the Department of Homeland Security and for the
work they do each and every day. I look forward to discussing
the President's fiscal year 2022 Budget in greater detail when
officially released and I look forward to your questions. Thank
you.
    [The statement follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Hon. Alejandro N. Mayorkas
    Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Capito, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee: It is a privilege to appear before you today to
discuss the Department of Homeland Security's fiscal year 2022 Budget.
    On a daily basis, the more than 240,000 men and women of DHS
respond to our Nation's most serious threats. DHS employees rise to
every challenge, and the challenges are many. DHS is aggressively
pursuing the Administration's priorities and addressing some of the
most critical and evolving threats to the United States. We are
focusing on defeating the COVID-19 pandemic, advancing technology for
border security while promoting a humane and efficient immigration
system, combatting Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE), and detecting,
deterring, and recovering from malicious cyber-attacks. While I am
unable to address the details of the Budget until it is officially
released, I would like to highlight the work we have undertaken so far
at DHS under the Biden-Harris Administration, as well as the priorities
included in the fiscal year 2022 President's Budget.
                  responding to the covid-19 pandemic
    COVID-19 has impacted every facet of the American way of life, and
DHS has been integral to the effort to successfully and equitably
distribute COVID-19 vaccinations across the country.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency helped vaccinate more than
5 million people at our community vaccination sites and remains
committed to assisting government and nonprofit partners to help defeat
this deadly pandemic. FEMA helped stand up over 1,000 federally-
supported community vaccination centers. FEMA has provided more than
$4.6 billion in support of vaccinations across the country.
    As Secretary, I have no greater obligation than that of ensuring
the health and safety of our workforce, 80 percent of whom are
frontline or public-facing employees. Five days into the Biden-Harris
Administration, DHS launched Operation Vaccinate Our Workforce (VOW) to
accelerate the administration of COVID-19 vaccines on a voluntary basis
to frontline and public- facing DHS employees. On the first day of the
Biden-Harris Administration, less than 2 percent of our frontline
workforce who elected to receive the vaccine had been vaccinated.
    Today, that share has grown to more than 77 percent. Prioritizing
the health and safety needs of the DHS workforce has enabled us to
fulfill our mission even in a constrained COVID-19 environment.
Operation VOW partnered with the Veterans Health Administration, a
world-class healthcare system, to get COVID-19 vaccines into the arms
of our frontline personnel.
    Our public health and medical professionals from the Chief Medical
Officer's staff participated in the whole of government approach to
combat the pandemic by serving on the Federal Healthcare Resilience
Task Force, the Medical Countermeasures (MCM) Task Force, and deploying
as part of a tactical medical assistance team. These efforts resulted
in life-saving Personal Protective Equipment preservation best
practices, the accelerated development, manufacture, and availability
of COVID-19 MCMs, and the implementation of novel clinical and
operational interventions that saved lives in diverse communities
across the Nation.
                addressing the challenges at the border
    Since April 2020, the number of encounters at the border has been
rising due to ongoing violence, natural disasters, food insecurity, and
poverty in the Northern Triangle countries of Central America. This
resulted in a substantial strain on the processing, transportation, and
holding capacity of the U.S. Border Patrol. In response to the COVID-19
pandemic, the recommended temporary holding capacity within all Border
Patrol facilities had also been reduced by 75 percent to allow for
increased physical distancing and to reduce the further spread of the
disease. Compounding this challenge is the fact that the previous
administration dismantled our Nation's immigration system, terminated
the Central American Minors program, and cut hundreds of millions of
dollars in foreign aid to the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala,
El Salvador, and Honduras. As a result, the recent surge in
unaccompanied children presented a serious challenge for DHS and our
colleagues at the Department of Health and Human Services.
    On March 13, I directed FEMA to support a government-wide effort to
safely receive, shelter, and transfer unaccompanied children to HHS
care and custody and onward to a verified sponsor. FEMA immediately
integrated and co-located with HHS to look at every available option to
support a quick expansion of HHS's physical capacity for the care and
custody of unaccompanied children, and to support HHS in managing
overall operations. FEMA has deployed more than 100 employees to help
HHS identify locations for emergency shelters, oversee construction,
and manage operations.
    Additionally, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) has
trained and deployed more than 350 of its personnel to virtually
interview unaccompanied children and potential sponsors, in order to
provide case management for unaccompanied children in HHS custody at
Emergency Intake Sites (EIS). As of May 4, 2021, USCIS personnel have
conducted nearly 4,000 interviews and recommended more than 2,200
children for release to a sponsor. CBP also constructed additional
soft-sided facilities and stood up the interagency Movement
Coordination Cell (MCC) to bring together colleagues from FEMA, HHS,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and CBP to share a
common operating picture. More than 400 additional DHS volunteers
stepped up to help through the DHS Volunteer Force.
    Between March 13 and May 1, FEMA assisted in the activation of
fourteen HHS EIS facilities. EIS facilities are operating in Texas,
California, and Michigan, increasing the potential temporary bed
capacity when fully staffed by 19,987 beds, or 1,999 percent.
    This additional bed capacity, along with improvements in the
process of safely releasing unaccompanied children to sponsors, has
resulted in the reduction of the total number of unaccompanied children
in CBP custody from 5,767 at its peak on March 29th to 455 on May 11th.
During this same period, the number of unaccompanied children who have
been in custody longer than 72 hours has decreased from 4,078 at its
peak on March 29th to zero on the morning of May 11th, while average
time in custody for unaccompanied children has fallen from 133 hours on
March 29th to 22 hours on the morning of May 11th. This progress
occurred while CBP encountered 18,000 unaccompanied children in the
month of April. For the seven-day period ending May 10th, CBP
transferred an average of 422 unaccompanied children per day to ORR,
approximately two-thirds of CBP's total unaccompanied child population
on a given day and more than keeping pace with daily apprehensions.
           stopping the threat of domestic violent extremism
    As threats against the Nation evolve, it is critical that the
Department adapts quickly and efficiently when necessary to meet any
threat against the people of the United States. Domestic violent
extremism is typically fueled by false narratives, conspiracy theories,
and extremist rhetoric usually spread through social media and other
online platforms. The lethality of this threat is all too real, as
witnessed during the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 and
recent attacks across the United States, including against government
buildings, personnel, and minority groups. DHS is prioritizing
addressing this threat while improving the quality of our intelligence
gathering and analysis, information sharing, and DVE detection,
prevention, and response efforts.
    Combatting this violence requires a whole-of-government and whole-
of-society approach, which I have already initiated at DHS in
collaboration with key partners, including the Department of Justice,
to help ensure the violence and assault on democracy that occurred on
January 6th does not occur again. DHS has established a new, dedicated
domestic terrorism branch within the Department's Office of
Intelligence and Analysis, and recently established a new Center for
Prevention Programs and Partnerships, replacing the Office for Targeted
Violence and Terrorism Prevention. Further, DHS is increasing training
opportunities for law enforcement partners, including through threat
assessment and management programs related to domestic violent
extremism. DHS also announced an internal review of the potential
threat of DVE within the Department.
    In February, I designated, for the first time, combatting domestic
violent extremism as a ``National Priority Area'' for the fiscal year
2021 State Homeland Security Program and Urban Area Security Initiative
grant programs. As a result, state, local, tribal, and territorial
governments are required to spend 7.5 percent of their DHS grant awards
combating this threat. On March 24, the Department made $20 million
available through the Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention Grant
Program to help communities across our country develop innovative
capabilities to combat terrorism and targeted violence.
          bolstering cybersecurity and critical infrastructure
    Our Nation faces constant cyber threats from nation states and
criminal groups alike. Earlier this month, the United States suffered a
significant ransomware attack against its critical infrastructure. Over
the past months, we discovered several intrusion campaigns impacting
the Federal government. As the Nation's lead agency for protecting the
Federal civilian government network and critical infrastructure against
cybersecurity threats, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security
Agency (CISA) serves a central role by enabling greater visibility into
cybersecurity threats, strengthening incident response capabilities,
and driving improvements in security practices. Congress recently
empowered and further strengthened CISA through several provisions in
the National Defense Authorization Act that the Department is now
focused on implementing.
    On May 12, President Biden issued an Executive Order to bolster our
Nation's cybersecurity and protect Federal government networks. This
Order will empower DHS and our interagency partners to modernize
Federal cybersecurity, expand information sharing, and dramatically
improve our ability to prevent, detect, assess, and remediate cyber
incidents. We are actively working to implement the Executive Order to
help agencies improve their security posture, develop a standard
playbook for incident response, and establish a Cyber Safety Review
Board comprised of public and private sector stakeholders.
    In addition to the NDAA and the Executive Order, I announced a
series of 60-day ``sprints'' to mobilize action across the Department
focusing on specific priority areas. The first sprint is dedicated to
the fight against ransomware, a particularly egregious type of
malicious cyber activity that usually does not discriminate whom it
targets. The second is dedicated to building a more robust and diverse
workforce at the Department and beyond. We are currently in the midst
of advancing these sprints before we will turn to better protecting
industrial control systems, cybersecurity in the context of our
transportation systems, and our election infrastructure.
                funding priorities for fiscal year 2022
    As the Department supports the priorities of the new
Administration, we recognize the opportunities to partner with Congress
in a variety of efforts, both foreign and domestic, to take DHS into
the future. Focusing on advanced technology for border security,
promoting an orderly, safe, and humane immigration system, enhancing
privacy and civil rights protections, and supporting Federal, State,
local, and private entities' efforts to detect, deter, and recover from
malicious cyber-attacks, these priorities directly impact the security
and safety of Americans. The fiscal year 2022 President's Budget will
ensure that we have the tools we need to meet our mission.
    While I am unable to address the specific DHS items for the fiscal
year 2022 President's Budget, I would like to highlight the
Administration's priorities that were included in the recent
discretionary request. The President's fiscal year 2022 discretionary
request provides $52.2 billion for DHS, approximately equal to the
fiscal year 2021 enacted level.
    The discretionary request provides approximately $1.2 billion for
border infrastructure that includes construction and modernization of
land Ports of Entry; investments in modern border security technology
and assets; and, efforts to ensure the safe, orderly, and humane
treatment of migrants in CBP custody. These investments would
facilitate security screening to combat human smuggling and
trafficking, the movement of illicit drugs and weapons, as well as
provide for the more efficient processing of legal trade, travel, and
commerce through the Nation's Ports of Entry. In addition, the request
includes no new funding for border wall construction and proposes the
cancellation of prior-year wall construction balances that are
unobligated when Congress takes action on the fiscal year 2022 request.
    The fiscal year 2022 request supports the promise of a fair and
equitable immigration system that enforces our immigration laws and
reflects the Nation's values. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
identified $345 million in the discretionary request to address
naturalization, asylum, and other program backlogs, supporting up to
125,000 refugee admissions in 2022, and addressing systems and
operations modernization. In addition, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement will expand access to the Alternatives to Detention program
and provides enhanced case management services, particularly for
families seeking asylum.
    Along with the ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
discretionary request expands DHS's work with State and local
communities to prepare for the impacts of climate change. The
discretionary request invests an additional $540 million above the 2021
enacted level to incorporate climate impacts into pre-disaster planning
and resilience efforts. This funding level also supports a resilient
infrastructure community grant program, which prioritizes climate
resilience projects for vulnerable and historically underserved
communities. In addition, the discretionary request continues
investments in the incident response workforce to ensure sufficient
personnel are trained and available for deployment to help communities
respond to future disasters. The discretionary request would also
increase the number of FEMA staff equipped to support communities in
order to prepare and respond to disasters in an equitable manner.
    The discretionary request provides a total of $131 million to
support diverse, innovative, and community-driven methods to prevent
domestic terrorism while respecting privacy, civil rights, and civil
liberties. This funding builds on the 2021 enacted level, while
supporting critical research on the root causes of radicalization and
enhanced community outreach. The request includes $20 million for
grants to build local capacity to prevent targeted violence and all
forms of terrorism, in addition to approximately $75 million available
under the FEMA Homeland Security Grant Program.
    The discretionary request addresses, in a variety of ways, the
challenges and potential threats identified by recent cybersecurity
incidents. The discretionary request provides $2.1 billion for CISA,
which builds on the $650 million provided for CISA in the American
Rescue Plan Act of 2021. This funding would allow CISA to enhance its
cybersecurity tools, hire highly qualified experts, and obtain support
services to protect and defend Federal information technology systems.
The discretionary request also proposes $618 million for investments in
research, development, and innovation across the Department, to lay a
strong and relevant foundation for securing the American public from
future threats. These projects focus on climate resilience,
cybersecurity data analytics, and transportation security technologies
while building on existing infrastructure throughout the Department.
    I am honored to support and represent the dedicated DHS workforce.
Their commitment to the dynamic homeland security mission is
unwavering, and I vow to do everything in my authority as Secretary to
ensure they are resourced, compensated, and recognized appropriately.
Therefore, I ask for your continued support in providing the resources
we need to meet our mission.
    I look forward to discussing the fiscal year 2022 President's
Budget in greater detail when it is officially released, and I welcome
any questions that you have at this time.

    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank
you for appearing before us today. I know it's been a long day
having testified before the House, as well. So we'll get right
to it.

                      IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT

    I wanted to first ask you a question about enforcement of
immigration laws, especially in light of a curiously timed
article in the Washington Post from last evening. We handed you
a mess and, frankly, we've handed every recent Secretary a mess
by refusing to update our immigration laws, despite having
opportunities to do so, and so you have to make choices when it
comes to enforcement.
    During the Trump Administration, I just couldn't believe
the choices that were being made. I couldn't believe the choice
to, you know, round up mothers with medically-fragile children,
separate them from their kids to send them back home. That
didn't seem to make America any stronger.
    You and the President have announced some interim guidance
around enforcement in order to make sure that we are in fact
going after the individuals who are here without documentation
that pose a real danger to the country.
    There was this article last night in the Washington Post
that suggested something very different and I wanted to give
you a chance to, you know, both characterize the way in which
you are currently choosing to prioritize enforcement of
immigration laws and let you respond to that article.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Our objective, in fact our commitment, is a safe, orderly,
and humane immigration system, and when it comes specifically
to the enforcement realm of the immigration system, we intend
to be smart and effective.
    I worked for 12 years as a Federal prosecutor and what we
did with limited resources was to assess the threat landscape,
the criminal landscape, and decide what was the most efficient
and effective way of using those resources to have the greatest
public safety impact and that model is no different in the
civil immigration enforcement arena.
    We are provided with resources. We assess the issue in the
United States, and we decide how can we use these resources to
have the greatest public safety impact, recognizing that we are
working on a landscape of a completely broken immigration
system that everyone agrees is broken and that is in dire need
of a legislative solution. On that landscape and with those
resources, we will be smart and effective and we also will be
humane.
    Senator Murphy. The characterization in the Post that
you're only doing a handful of actions a month, is that backed
up by data you've seen?
    Mr. Mayorkas. That data item in the article is something
with which I am completely unfamiliar.
    Senator Murphy. Okay.
    Mr. Mayorkas. I will say that smart and effective law
enforcement is not to be measured quantitatively. It is to be
measured qualitatively. Who poses the greatest public safety
threat and are we dedicating appropriately our limited
resources to apprehend and remove those individuals, and indeed
this Administration is.

                      BORDER APPREHENSION NUMBERS

    Senator Murphy. I'm going to try to sneak in two other
topics before my time is up.
    First, I want to talk about numbers of apprehensions at the
border. These numbers are very high and as we discussed that's
for a variety of reasons, but when you ban adult males from
being--adult single individuals from being able to apply for
asylum, those that have legitimate claims of asylum, meaning
their life is in jeopardy if they go home, are going to do
whatever is necessary to get into the United States, and so my
sense is that one of the reasons that these numbers are high is
that you have individuals who are making multiple presentations
at the border, people who can't apply for asylum, who are
desperate to get into the United States because of the risks to
their body and to their physical safety back home.
    Recidivism is a consequence of a Title 42 authority that
doesn't allow a lion's share of individuals presenting at the
border to apply for asylum, is that right?
    Mr. Mayorkas. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Murphy. I just think that's an important thing for
our committee to consider.

                         FEMA MITIGATION FUNDS

    Turning now to another topic, I wanted to give you a chance
to talk a little bit about FEMA mitigation. I think it's so
important to be able to shift our spending away from disaster
response to prevention.
    My state has a laundry list of projects along our shoreline
that not only houses a big portion of our population but
Interstate 95, the Metro North, and Amtrak line, in which, if
we spent a little bit of money upfront, we could prevent the
next disaster from taking out critical infrastructure, from
displacing many of our citizens.
    The last round of BRIC funding, there was $500 million
available but $3.6 billion worth of projects. So you've made an
announcement that $1 billion is going to be allocated. That's
in your current authority.
    Do you envision adding on to that number in the budget
request that you're going to make? How did you arrive at the
number $1 billion? It seems like even that is probably not a
big enough investment to be able to provide the return that we
know is available if we put money upfront rather than at the
back end.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, the underlying premise of the
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC)
funding is the following that if we can spend a dollar on
prevention, we will save much more on the costs of recovery,
and what we decided in reaching that $1 billion amount was that
it's a very significant increase. It's a doubling of the prior
allocation of resources, is how much we can increase that
amount while also achieving the operational efficiencies that
an increase will require.
    Programmatically, what can we do, how much can we do at one
point in time, and that is how we reached the doubling of that
figure. It's an extraordinary program and I echo your belief
that dollars spent on prevention is the most effective and
efficient way to spend public resources in addressing the clear
consequences of significant disaster weather events.
    Senator Murphy. I'll make one final request and then turn
it over to others.
    One of the issues that gets raised in my state on that
account is the belief that given the high level of competition,
it's bigger jurisdictions with larger grant application
authorities that get advantage, and so as we increase the
amount of money, which I think is critical, I hope that you'll
also work with those of us that represent a lot of small
communities and most of our towns along the shoreline in
Connecticut are small communities to make sure that they are
competitive with some of the bigger cities and counties and
state applications that come before the agency.
    Mr. Mayorkas. We most certainly will, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much.
    Senator Capito.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I agree with
you on the smaller cities. Obviously a state like mine has all
small cities and towns but have just as devastating effects
sometimes.
    I will say this on the resilience issue as we're looking to
negotiate a larger infrastructure package. The President has
asked for resiliency in fairly large amounts. I think it's
interesting to note that under FEMA, it's another $1 billion.
So it'll cut across all different aspects of not just
transportation sector but other aspects, as well. I'm just kind
of making a note of that as I decide what direction to go with
my next offer on that.

                      BORDER APPREHENSION NUMBERS

    Question. You said the facts in the newspaper article were
not--the data was not--it was--you don't know what that data
was. So the data that I just saw from the article was that
there's fewer than 3,000 arrests and that means that of the
6,000 officers, they're extrapolating that that would be one
arrest every 2 months.
    What part of the data is incorrect there, that doesn't look
familiar to you?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Ranking Member Capito, I am not familiar with
the data that suggests that the ICE officer, the relevant ICE
officer conducts one arrest every 2 months.
    Senator Capito. So you don't dispute that there are 3,000
arrests and 6,000 officers?
    Mr. Mayorkas. I don't have the data at my fingertips, but I
will provide it to this committee.
    [The information follows:]

    ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) is a large
organization that performs a variety of missions spanning the
immigration enforcement continuum--from identification and arrest, to
detention and case management, to repatriation efforts. As a result,
ICE's Deportation Officer (DO) workforce is responsible for much more
than just executing arrests.
    The ICE ERO DO workforce currently has 6,500 funded positions,
approximately 2,000 of which are primarily focused on conducting
arrests. ICE ERO has more than 830 DOs assigned to 139 at-large teams
who work as a group to identify, locate, and arrest priority
noncitizens. In addition to the at-large teams, there are also 1,150
officers assigned to interview noncitizens identified in Federal,
state, or local criminal custody and to assess the case for immigration
enforcement action when appropriate.

    Senator Capito. Okay.
    Mr. Mayorkas. I will say that the preliminary data that I
have received does suggest that we are apprehending more
serious criminals, more serious public safety threats than
previously was the case.
    Senator Capito. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Mayorkas. That is what smart and effective enforcement
is all about.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.

                           TITLE 42 AUTHORITY

    I want to go to the future of Title 42 because I think this
is coming up on us quickly. I think the Chairman noticed this.
You are now able to quickly expel 60 percent of all family
units and single adults suing the CBP's Title 42 authority, and
I support the use of that for right now, but we know there are
test cases in the courts and others, and you and I've talked
about this.
    When CBP loses that Title 42 authority, how are you going
to manage what could be about 6,000--well, what is now 6,000
migrants a day when you can no longer expel 60 percent of them?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Ranking Member Capito, the Title 42
authority, the predicate for this exchange is that the Title 42
authority is a public health authority, not an immigration
policy authority.
    Senator Capito. Right, right.
    Mr. Mayorkas. And so, when the public health imperative no
longer exists, we no longer can use that authority.
    Senator Capito. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorkas. In fact, our use of Title 42 authority is
subject to litigation challenge as we speak.
    We have different resources and different authorities at
our disposal. One of them, of course, is Title 8 of the United
States Code, which is in fact an immigration enforcement
authority, the authority to remove individuals who do not have
legitimate claims for relief under United States law.
    I should say one important thing and that is that not only
are we building back our asylum program but we are building it
back better. In that regard, when I first joined the Department
of Homeland Security back in 2009, the average length of time
it took to adjudicate an asylum claim from the point of
apprehension to the point of final resolution was about 6 years
and that reflects a broken system.
    So one of the things that we are doing is looking at our
regulatory authorities and what we can do to bring greater
efficiency to the process and shrink that time considerably
between apprehension and final adjudication so that, number 1,
we have a system that works, and, number 2, quite frankly, we
deliver results that both the applicants for asylum relief
deserve and the American public deserves.
    Senator Capito. Well, and, I mean, certainly you're
anticipating us--I mean, the Chairman even alluded to a surge
when this Title 42 disappears, and I'm wondering along with the
surge for the CBP, there's also going to be a surge for ICE,
and I'm wondering, you know, are you planning ahead for these
kinds of things that you know are going to happen, and what
kind of strategic thought is going into that?
    Mr. Mayorkas. We are most certainly planning for it and, as
a matter of fact, when my testimony concludes this afternoon, I
have a meeting on this very subject with CBP, with ICE, and
with the USCIS.
    It is our responsibility to plan ahead. That's what we do
every single day and every single year that I have been
privileged to serve in the Department.
    Senator Capito. Well, I'm not sure we're quite planned
ahead for the number of children that came over when we saw
those lengthy stays and more maxed facilities kind of maxed out
beyond what their capacity was, but I'll let that one go.
    I have one last question in this round related to this. Do
you have knowledge of tent cities that have been set up on the
northern border of Mexico, and I'm assuming those are set up--I
think those are set up for the adults that are awaiting for
this Title 42 authority to go home to do that surge. Are you
aware of that kind of scenario occurring in Mexico right now?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Ranking Member Capito, I am very well aware
of Camp Matamoros. It was quite notorious for regrettable
reasons, for the conditions in that camp. It was a product of
the Remain in Mexico policy.
    We developed a platform for the safe, orderly, and humane
adjudication of the claims of individuals who were in that camp
and those individuals are no longer in that camp. The platform
that we developed is actually a platform for the future, a
really terrific innovative use of technology to provide a legal
pathway for individuals who have claims for relief under United
States law.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Murphy. Senator Murkowski.

                          H2B VISA ALLOCATIONS

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, good to see you, and I'm going to move from
the southern border and head up north here for a couple
questions for you.
    You and I have had an opportunity to talk about the
significance of Alaska's fisheries, the fact that about 60
percent of our nation's seafood landings come out of Alaska. We
got a lot of fish, but we don't have a lot of workers, and so
we have been challenged year over year as it relates to gaining
adequate workers. We rely on the H2B visa allocations to help
us meet that. Without adequate processing, the fishermen have
no place to take their fish and not only does it impact the
fishermen and their families but the market that is waiting.
    You kept your promise and delivered in advance of a
significant date, which I appreciate, as it related to lifting
the cap. I've had a conversation with you about some of the
limitations of that cap and how it does not directly meet the
immediacy of our issue right now, the need for some additional
flexibility with regard to those visas.
    It's been very significant that there is a carve-out for
Northern Triangle countries but again recognizing that we've
got some limitations here in ability to get returning workers,
I had asked if you could look further into whether or not we
might be able to do something for the balance of this summer
but also more to the long term.
    This is an issue that is certainly not unique to Alaska but
knowing that we need to be working with one another to address
the authorities under H2B or H2As to prioritize and address
these visa issues as they relate to our seafood processors.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you very much, Senator.
    Since you and I last spoke, I have delved into the concerns
that you expressed on behalf of employers in the Alaskan
fisheries industry. It is my plan to engage with those
employers next week to hear directly from them with respect to
their concerns, particularly with respect to the obligation to
use returning workers and I want to make sure that they
understand the parameters of that and how broad they are and to
assess whether once we discuss that, whether that really
addresses their concerns and their needs. If not, we will
confer internally and will take it step by step.
    With respect to the long-term issues with the H2B program,
I am very well aware of those and I hope that we can design and
implement next year a very different H2B program that addresses
the majority of the concerns with respect to whatever
legislative constraints we have.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, we'll work with you on that. With
regard to this summer, though, I will actually be up in the
region next week. I know there is a great deal of anxiety
because the fish don't really care what we're doing back here
in Washington and what our timeline is and so being able to
process these very, very quickly, we were able to work through
some issues with the Serbian Consulate and that has really been
a bit of a relief, but we've got some issues that are urgent
and immediate.
    So as soon as you can, put some folks to address this. It
is appreciated.

                         POLAR SECURITY CUTTERS

    Let me ask for my second question for a little bit of an
update here when it comes to Polar Security Cutters. This
subcommittee has been very helpful over recent years with
regards to the PSC Program to ensure that as an Arctic nation,
we actually have vessels in the water that can go through ice,
Polar Security Cutters.
    Last year there was some discussion about leasing
icebreakers. We've had a conversation. I suppose leasing but
only, only if it doesn't compromise the Coast Guard's ability
to eventually build up and plus-up their fleet of Arctic-
capable icebreakers.
    So I know we're not talking about the not-yet-released
budget, but can you tell me how the Administration plans to
continue this positive momentum on the Polar Security Cutters
and commit to prioritizing the PSC Program and that no funds
will be reprogrammed from the PSC Program to fund a lease?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, we are 100 percent committed to
augmenting the Coast Guard fleet. We recognize the importance
of those cutters. We do not intend to compromise the funding of
those cutters, and we will lease to the extent that we can and
only as a bridge during that time that we do not have built and
owned vessels. It will not be at the expense of that.
    Senator Murkowski. Good. I appreciate that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman.
    Senator Capito. Yes. Senator Hoeven.

                    BORDER APPREHENSIONS AND RETURNS

    Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, of the 170,622 persons that attempted to
enter or did enter the United States on the southern border in
April, how many are here and how many were returned to their
home countries?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, I will have to get that data to you.
I don't have the numbers at my disposal, but I certainly will
provide the data to you.
    [The information follows:]

    During April and May of 2021, along the Southwest Border, more than
39,000 individuals were processed with a Warrant/Notice to Appear
(NTA)--Detained, and more than 33,000 individuals were processed with
an NTA--Released. During the same time period, nearly 19,000
individuals were processed with a Notice to Report. Along with those
NTAs, during April 2021, along the Southwest Border, more than 12,000
individuals were processed with a disposition for release that did not
include an NTA. The remainder appear to have been expelled, removed, or
returned, including approximately 61,000 Mexican nationals during April
2021.
    ICE is able to report if individuals released by CBP at the border
are abiding by the reporting requirements once those individuals report
to ICE Field Offices located in the jurisdiction of their final
destination.
    Depending on where a case may be within the removal process (pre-
or post-final order), ICE will make reasonable attempts to make contact
using many different methods, including contacting known relations or
contacts provided by the individual during processing, tracking the
noncitizen if being monitored via technology, making contact at the
last known address, running database checks to locate, or when
appropriate, referring to an at-large team to apprehend.

    I can assure you that individuals who are apprehended and
processed and whom we are not able to expel under Title 42
authority in this current environment are placed into
immigration proceedings.
    Senator Hoeven. You mentioned Camp Matamoros and that you
had a platform for addressing those individuals.
    Where are those individuals while they're awaiting
adjudication? Where are they?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Individuals, Senator, who have made claims
for humanitarian relief under the laws of the United States are
awaiting the adjudication of those claims in the United States.
    Senator Hoeven. Right. But that adjudication, that court
hearing date can be out as much as 3 years right now, correct?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, that has been the case for years and
years--
    Senator Hoeven. You understand--
    Mr. Mayorkas [continuing]. and if I may, this
Administration for the first time is actually tackling that
infirmity of process and working to shorten that timeframe for
the delivery of justice for the American public and the
individuals who make claims for humanitarian relief.
    Senator Hoeven. Good to hear that you're shortening the
timeframe. What is that timeframe right now because my
indication, or what I have heard down at the border, is that it
is still about a three-year time.
    Mr. Mayorkas. It varies considerably, but we are doing a
number of different things to shorten that timeframe as quickly
as possible.
    One, we are looking at our regulatory authority and how we
can process asylum claims more effectively. Two, the Department
of Justice is looking at the immigration courts and how we can
use that resource to deliver final results more expeditiously
and efficiently.
    Senator Hoeven. And where are the individuals while they're
awaiting that adjudication?
    Mr. Mayorkas. They are in the United States of America.
    Senator Hoeven. Are they released into the public at large
or how do you track and know where they are so that you can
make sure they go through the adjudication process?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Those individuals are in immigration
proceedings. They are subject to an NTA. They have a court date
that identifies a location, a time, and a place, and there are
individualized determinations whether those individuals should
in fact be on alternatives to detention or whether by reason of
what they present from a public safety perspective or risk of
flight, whether they should be detained.
    Senator Hoeven. Do you have statistics on how many are
appearing?
    Mr. Mayorkas. The appearance rate thus far in terms of
appearing at an ICE facility to report has been very, very
high, and I would be pleased to provide you with data.
    [The information follows:]

    Of the 45,390 CBP prosecutorial discretion releases in the third
quarter of fiscal year 2021, 5,129 had been issued charging documents
as of 07/09/2021. Given case processing times, the vast majority of
individuals are still pending their first scheduled immigration
hearing. ICE respectfully defers to the Executive Office for
Immigration Review for information pertaining to immigration court
appearance rates.
    Of the above, 39,718 have not established contact with ICE to
receive a charging document, and 5,672 have made contact with ICE to
further the charging document issuance process. Of those individuals
who have not contacted ICE, 24,791 are within their 60-day reporting
period while 14,927 are past the 60-day reporting period.

    Senator Hoeven. I'd appreciate that. If you could provide,
in addition to what I asked initially is how many have been
returned to their country of origin versus how many stay of the
more than 178,000 came in April, but then also if you do have
expedited procedures, if you could provide me metrics on how
many of those people you actually have track of and appear,
that would be helpful, too.
    I mean, this goes to the whole question of do we have
control of our southern border, showing us those metrics is
going to be very important.
    As you know, we see people coming across. I've been down
there, and I think for the public to believe that you have
control of that border they're going to have to see those
metrics. Would you agree with that?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, metrics are very important. Data is
very important, which is why I'm not exactly sure of the
178,000 figure that you cite.

                      BORDER APPREHENSION METRICS

    Senator Hoeven. Well--
    Mr. Mayorkas. Is that 178,000 apprehensions?
    Senator Hoeven [continuing]. 178,622 persons attempted to
enter the United States via the southwest border in April of
2020.
    Mr. Mayorkas. I think are you speaking of apprehensions
because apprehensions at the southern border also can include
recidivism.
    Senator Hoeven. Should be 2021. I'm sorry.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Also could include the recidivism to which
the Chairman referenced earlier. So those may not be unique
individuals and that may actually--if we're speaking of
apprehensions, may also include the individuals who are
expelled under Title 42 of the United States Code, which is the
public health authority.
    Senator Hoeven. Where I'm really going with this is showing
that you have control of the southern border both in terms of
your plan and your metrics so we can see if it is working. If
it is not working, where are we making progress and where are
we not.
    Mr. Mayorkas. We will share that data.
    Senator Hoeven. That's really what I'm looking for from
you.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Most certainly, Senator, you have a right to
that data and we will provide it to you.
    Senator Hoeven. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Appreciate
it.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--Madam Chairman.

                        BORDER SECURITY FUNDING

    Senator Capito. Senator Hyde-Smith.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank
you for being here and your willingness to participate in this
hearing.
    Mr. Secretary, as you are well aware of in combination with
good policy, funding is a critical pillar in providing agents
at the southern border with the tools that they need to do
their job, and I, too, have been there and talked to many of
the Border Patrol agents.
    They're required to enforce our Federal immigration and
border security laws and despite the predictable surge of
dangerous illegal crossings likely resulting from maybe
campaign rhetoric and softened immigration policies, we have
also seen reports of a lot of cost increases which is
consistent with many of the Biden Administration's priorities
in its brief 5 months.
    Mr. Secretary, what commitments will you give us that any
funding allocated to your department for border security and
immigration enforcement will be used on proven and logical
solutions to resecure our borders and discourage this dangerous
influx of migrants?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, you have a hundred percent
commitment from me that the funding we will receive and are
privileged to receive will be used in the smartest and most
effective way for securing our border and enforcing the
immigration laws of this country.

                        U.S. COAST GUARD FUNDING

    Senator Hyde-Smith. And a follow-up to that. With the
agencies under your purview stretched thin while combating the
border security crisis, I am concerned the other areas of focus
may not receive the attention or resources necessary to safely
complete missions and day-to-day operations.
    I'm sure we can agree on the strategic value of the United
States Coast Guard and the importance of funding for vessels,
aircraft, and equipment required for these men and women to
carry out their domestic missions, such as drug interdiction,
migrant apprehension, and with all the additional contraband
that we are seeing come across the border daily, do you agree
that we should not draw resources away from the Coast Guard
which is a vital partner in the homeland security mission to
pay for the unplanned and rising cost of the crisis at the
southern border?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, I respectfully disagree with the
framing of the question, if I may.
    I have worked with the Coast Guard for many, many years,
and I have addressed the challenges at the border for even more
years, from 1989 through 2001 as a Federal prosecutor.
    The Coast Guard and other agencies within the Department of
Homeland Security have a complex and varied and dynamic mission
set, and we can accomplish different parts of that dynamic and
complex mission set effectively.
    We can in fact interdict drugs, interdict migrants at sea
as the Coast Guard so effectively and nobly does, and address
other challenges, as well.
    The United States Border Patrol conducts the interdiction
of contraband, the interdiction of illicit drugs, the
interdiction of migrants through the use of innovation, through
the use of, frankly, the men and women of the Border Patrol
themselves.
    We do varied and multiple things simultaneously and we will
continue to do so effectively and smartly and use our resources
appropriately.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. I'm just very concerned with the Coast
Guard and their funds being drawn away from that and it's very
concerning to me because they do play such a vital role. So you
can't commit to me that you would not pull away funding from
the Coast Guard to accomplish this to address the rising cost?
    Mr. Mayorkas. I commit to you that the funding that the
Coast Guard receives will be used by the United States Coast
Guard to most effectively conduct and accomplish its varied
missions.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. That's it. I'm just concerned that
that's going to be drawn upon and it's too important to be
taking that away.
    Mr. Mayorkas. If I may, I don't agree with the premise that
we take resources from one mission set and deprive that mission
set of its attention to address another mission set.
    What we have is a very dynamic and evolving landscape and
we address the urgencies that we confront as our mission
dictates, and I will not deprive the Coast Guard of addressing
the greatest urgency and the greatest priority as the mission
requires and that commitment I do make to you.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Okay. I'm out of time. I had one more
question but I'll just submit it.
    Thank you.

                          SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith.
    Let me, before I turn it over to Senator Capito to ask a
second round of questions so she can vote, let me just
associate myself with the original remarks of the Ranking
Member on this question of the increased expenses necessary to
handle the numbers at the border.
    I mean, obviously this is going to have to either come from
other parts of the budget or there's going to have to be a
supplemental made and I share the concern that if it's a
transfer request, there will have to be some difficult choices
to be made and I think having a dialogue now, Mr. Secretary,
between you and the committee about sort of what those
transfers might look like and what impact they may have.
    I understand your commitment today that you're not going to
harm the mission of other agencies is a really important one. I
understand there may be some hesitancy to put a supplemental
request before the body because of the debate that that may
stir, but I think early dialogue on this will be really, really
important.
    Senator Capito.

                   ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION SURGE FACTORS

    Senator Capito. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting
me jump in front of you so I can go vote and if I don't see you
again, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I'll see you again, but if I
don't see you again today, thank you.
    I wanted to ask a question about the push factors in home
countries as a cause for the current surge of illegal
immigration. In your testimony, you laid the blame on ongoing
violence, national disasters, food insecurity, and poverty in
the Northern Triangle.
    However, I'm sure you're well aware that the spike in
individuals is not from Mexico or the Northern Triangle, and
according to CBP's monthly report, nearly 34,000 folks were
encountered that were not in either the Mexico or Northern
Triangle category.
    So I'm wondering what your account for that, and we already
have sent $4 billion in foreign aid to the countries in Central
America, but what are we doing to address the rise in illegal
immigration from other countries? We met some of these young
ladies when we were together 2 months ago down there from
Ecuador, Brazil, Nicaragua, and other countries.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, Ranking Member Capito, it's a very
important question and the strategy depends sometimes on the
particular country of origin. Of course, we have seen illegal
immigration or irregular immigration from countries other than
the Northern Triangle, countries other than Mexico,
periodically throughout the years and throughout the decades.
    Let me cite one example, and you reference it in your
question is an increase in the amount of migration, irregular
migration from Brazil, and the data that I have read suggests
that that has been occasioned by the economic conditions in
Brazil caused by the pandemic, the closing of businesses, and
the loss of jobs.
    We have a particular strategy there that might be distinct
from a strategy that we employ with respect to the Northern
Triangle countries or, quite frankly, some of the European
countries from which we are seeing an increase in migration.
    Regrettably, the COVID-19 pandemic has afflicted countries
all around the world and the migratory challenges
correspondingly, not just for the United States but for other
countries of destination.

                          CYBERSECURITY HIRING

    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you.
    I want to ask a question on cybersecurity. This is
something that I'm very concerned about and I'm certain that
you are, as well. You unveiled Cybersecurity Talent Management
System was unveiled in 2019 to not only better align cyber
talent with the right operational needs but to also attract
cyber professionals that are badly needed.
    I view these as critical to fill the gaps that are going to
be required. You talked about the ransomware issue. That's just
one small part of it. Believe it or not we have been talking
about this critical need since 2014 when the Cybersecurity
Talent Management System was first authorized.
    When will the Cybersecurity Talent Management System go
live, and it's really taken--I know you haven't been there as
long, but it has really taken a long time for the cyber
professionals to be hired into Secret Service, ICE, CBP, CISA.
Where do you see this initiative going?
    Mr. Mayorkas. We are going to have probably the greatest
hiring surge in the cybersecurity talent domain that ever has
occurred. Working with CISA within DHS, as well as our
Management Directorate, we have launched two cybersecurity
sprints.
    One, of course, was dedicated to ransomware well before the
Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack, which galvanized public
attention and correctly so. Our second sprint is precisely on
this subject about which you inquire, which is cybersecurity
security talent recruiting.
    I launched a partnership with the Girl Scouts of America.
One is never too young to start on a path to success to meet a
critical national need, and we have a whole plan that I welcome
the opportunity to share with you, Ranking Member Capito, about
our focus on recruitment and retention of cybersecurity talent,
including reforms to the pay scales, so that we can compete
better with the private sector.
    Senator Capito. Well, I know that that is a big issue
because they're in great demand across all kinds of spectrum
and sometimes the government has difficulty--maybe the
government can train everybody so they can go out into the
private sector and make a whole heck of a lot more money. I
think that's an issue, as well.
    So I look forward to following up with you on that, and
thank you again for being here today.
    Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you.

                    REPROGRAMMING/TRANSFER OF FUNDS

    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It's been a long
day for you. A couple more questions.
    I wanted to let Senator Capito fit in her questions before
she left, but if you could just respond to the issue I raised.
Again, I think it's a legitimate question as to how we're going
to make sure you have the sufficient funds to pay the increased
bills, as I mentioned in my opening statement, largely out of
control of the Administration, regarding increased numbers of
apprehensions and presentations at the border.
    What factors go into your decision as to whether to
transfer money and make that request to this committee versus
come and ask for a supplemental appropriation?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, I think it is our
responsibility to look at the resources that we have to ensure
that we are using them wisely, most efficiently, and see what
we can do within the funding that we already have received
before we come back to Congress and ask for more.
    We are assessing that now. I would anticipate that we will
indeed seek a reprogramming within the timeframe that we are
permitted, that we will be before you at the end of June.
That's something that we are assessing right now, and we're
very focused upon that, but I think we have an obligation to
look inside before we go outside.

                        BORDER WALL CONSTRUCTION

    Senator Murphy. Let me ask you to talk a little bit about
Senator Capito's letter to you regarding the decision to
suspend construction of the border wall. It's no secret, I
think the border wall is a terrible idea, a waste of taxpayer
money, an invitation to continue to seed these illegitimate
fears of immigrants. It was the foundation of the President's
political endeavors.
    But the part of the letter I agree with is that when
Congress does direct the Administration to spend money, the
Administration has a responsibility to spend that money unless
it goes through the processes necessary to apply for a
rescission.
    What I've seen, though, is that the GAO in particular has
made some findings about the process used to build the border
wall that are pretty stunning. Most recently, GAO found that 10
of 11 congressional requirements connected to the construction
of the wall were not fully addressed, including, you know,
basic things like the implementation schedule and analysis of
alternatives or even identifying the things that might actually
impact whether it would actually impact our border security
goals.
    And so as you're in this review process, have you
identified some of the failings that were noted in that GAO
report, and you also, I think, acknowledge Congress's equity
here, which is to, you know, make sure that notwithstanding our
personal opinions on the wisdom of the funding decision that
there is a responsibility for the Administration to either
spend it or come back to Congress and explain why they aren't?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, number 1, we're very well aware
of our legal responsibilities and we indeed are complying with
those legal responsibilities.
    I'm also aware of the GAO report and its findings and we
are studying the work that was done and what we have underway
with respect to those findings and making sure that we do not
perpetuate any infirmities of the past.
    Senator Murphy. Yeah. Again, pretty stunning list of
infirmities found by GAO, in addition to the fact that the last
Administration waived a whole host of Federal, state, and local
laws that would have required a much more thorough vetting of
construction activities. I would hope that the Administration
is taking a look at the impact of those broad-based waivers, as
well.

                       DOMESTIC VIOLENT EXTREMISM

    My very last question is one regarding the future role of
DHS in domestic violent extremism and we covered this in the
Full Committee hearing, but I was struck by an article that I
hadn't read in anticipation of that hearing but did in readying
for this hearing. It was from back in February and it included
some cautions from the first DHS Secretary Tom Ridge and his
essential sort of warning was that DHS's mission is so big that
to sort of take on a new focus on domestic terrorism may
compromise other mission sets, noting that there are lots of
other parts of the Federal Government, the FBI at the top of
the list, that are already doing work in the space of domestic
terrorism.
    This feels to me like an all hands on deck moment, given
that it is the primary threat posed to the nation's security
today, but in answering critics who may say DHS has so many
other things to do, so much existing focus on foreign threats,
does it compromise the mission or contradict or make redundant
other agencies' existing missions on domestic violent extremism
for DHS to get more involved in this space.
    I'd love to hear your answer. I'm convinced that everybody
should be a part of this conversation. You've got capabilities
that are unique, but for those that worry that it'll detract
from other missions, what's the answer, and how is the
appropriation from Congress going to help make sure that it
doesn't compromise the other things you're doing?
    Mr. Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, a few thoughts, if I may.
    First of all, I think that in the homeland security arena,
the threats that we face are and have been and assuredly will
be dynamic and evolving and ever-changing, and my answer is as
follows.
    One, we should never underestimate the commitment,
dedication, talent, and capabilities of the men and women of
DHS.
    Two, what we need to do is to ensure that those talented
personnel have the tools that they need to address the threat
landscape and to address it with all its dynamism and changes
and evolution.
    For example, to give a real-life example with budget
implications, I sat down with the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis and we looked at the fact that when I started in DHS,
the greatest threat, or I should say the most urgent threat,
was from foreign terrorist organizations. Then it evolved to
homegrown violent extremism and now it has evolved to where the
most urgent threat to the homeland in the terrorism environment
is DVE.
    Do we have the tools that are capable to address that
dynamism? Do we have the infrastructure, and are we resourcing
it appropriately? One of the conclusions was that we actually
have to increase the technological capabilities at the disposal
of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis so that
infrastructure can address whatever the most urgent threat is,
and specific to DVE obtaining, collecting, and disseminating to
state, local, tribal, and territorial partners real-time
actionable information, while respecting privacy, civil rights,
and civil liberties.
    We're actually dedicating the resources and we will be
requesting of this subcommittee resources to build that
infrastructure to deal most effectively with the dynamism and
evolving threat landscape.
    Senator Murphy. I appreciate that answer. I think it's well
thought out. I look forward to working with you on that
appropriations request to make sure that there aren't
redundancies created with other agencies who have been in this
space.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for appearing. We've had a busy
afternoon of votes on the Floor. I think it meant that a bunch
of our members haven't been able to appear.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Given the fact that the committee's not going to get the
actual detailed budget until later this week, I'm going to keep
the record open for questions for two weeks from today's date,
ask you and your staff to respond to specific questions that
may be brought to you once we have the full budget in front of
us.
            Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
    Question. The O and P visa process for artists visiting the United
States is critical to international cultural activity. What steps is
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services taking to make the O and P
artist visa process more reliable, and to comply with the 14-day
standard processing time required under statute?
    Answer. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is
actively working to promote efficient and fair adjudication of
immigration benefits, in part through updating guidance in the USCIS
Policy Manual.\1\ Notably, USCIS recently issued policy guidance
instructing officers to give deference to prior determinations when
adjudicating extension requests involving the same parties and facts
(including those for O and P petitions, among others) unless there was
a material error, material change, or new material facts that adversely
impact eligibility. USCIS will continue to update and clarify the O-
and P-specific policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual, as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USCIS recognizes the 14-day processing goal set forth in INA
214(c)(6)(D) and strives to quickly adjudicate all O and P petitions
while ensuring that the petitioner and beneficiary are eligible for the
benefit sought.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ INA 214(c)(6)(D) states: ``Any person or organization receiving
a copy of a petition described in subparagraph (A) and supporting
documents shall have no more than 15 days following the date of receipt
of such documents within which to submit a written advisory opinion or
comment or to provide a letter of no objection. Once the 15-day period
has expired and the petitioner has had an opportunity, where
appropriate, to supply rebuttal evidence, the Attorney General shall
adjudicate such petition in no more than 14 days. The Attorney General
may shorten any specified time period for emergency reasons if no
unreasonable burden would be thus imposed on any participant in the
process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question. The shared border between the United States and Canada
remains closed to nonessential travel. This closure has had a
significant impact on families, businesses, tourism and homeowners on
both sides of the border. Are there discussions underway to reopen the
border between the U.S. and Canada or to modify the current travel
restrictions, to meet both economic and public health needs? If so,
when does the Department plan on releasing the details for reopening or
modifying the travel restrictions?
    Answer. The United States is maintaining current travel
restrictions due to the uncertainties around the Delta variant and the
rise in domestic cases, particularly among the unvaccinated. The United
States continues to consult with the Government of Canada on the
evolving public health situation. U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) provides up-to-date information via the CBP Information Center
website (https://help.cbp.gov) to keep the public informed of current
travel restrictions for entering the United States.
    CBP is coordinating with the Canada Border Services Agency on land
border and preclearance operations related to Canada's decision to
allow fully vaccinated U.S. citizens and permanent residents to enter
Canada for discretionary purposes, as of August 9, 2021. Targeted
restrictions on non-essential travel at our shared land border have
helped the United States in its efforts to mitigate the spread of
COVID-19 while maintaining essential flows of critical supply chains,
cross-border trade, and travel.
    Question. I am glad that President Biden recently lifted the
historically low refugee admissions cap set by the Trump administration
and raised the fiscal year 21 admissions cap to 62,500. However, much
work remains to be done in order for the United States to rebuild our
decimated U.S. refugee admissions program and resettle increased
numbers of refugees every year. The Department of Homeland Security
will play an instrumental role in that process. Please describe in
detail the steps that DHS is taking to work toward the Biden
administration's stated goal of resettling 62,500 refugees this year
and rebuilding the capacity of the U.S. refugee admissions program.
    Answer. DHS, along with other U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
(USRAP) partners, is committed to rebuilding our refugee adjudication
capacity in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 14012, Restoring Faith
in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and
Inclusion Efforts for New Americans, and EO 14013, Rebuilding and
Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of
Climate Change on Migration. DHS is acutely aware of the work that is
necessary to rebuild the program and meet the revised refugee ceiling
of 62,500. USCIS, a component within DHS, is diligently working with
other partners to reinvigorate our refugee program and increase refugee
admissions.
    In particular, USCIS has already taken several immediate actions to
rebuild the refugee program and increase refugee admissions in fiscal
year (FY) 2021. First, after the 11-month long agency-wide hiring
freeze ended this spring, USCIS began actively recruiting to fill all
currently vacant positions that support refugee processing.
    Second, USCIS has implemented operational and policy changes to
support remote case processing during COVID-19. Since last summer,
USCIS has been conducting refugee applicant re-interviews via video-
teleconference (VTEL) and recently started conducting initial refugee
applicant interviews via VTEL, where possible. By May 26, 2021, USCIS
conducted 212 re-interviews and 53 initial interviews by VTEL. USCIS is
looking into expansion of this process efficiency to additional
interview locations to the extent feasible.
    COVID-19 continues to challenge in-person processing. However,
USCIS has also resumed in-person international refugee processing
circuit rides on a smaller scale. Deployments are based on identified
USRAP processing priorities and are dependent on movement restrictions
issued by local governments due to COVID-19; post-by-post restrictions
issued by DOS; and the ability to safely conduct in-person interviews
while protecting the health of USCIS officers, Resettlement Support
Center staff, refugee applicants, and interpreters.
    USCIS has conducted a detailed review of the cases of applicants
who have already had their USCIS refugee interview. USCIS is
prioritizing resources for cases that can be approved for resettlement
in the near term.
    In addition to the process improvements outlined above, USCIS is
investing in a case management system that will allow for more
effective tracking of workloads and cases and will provide officers
with additional adjudicative tools. This system is expected to fully
deploy in fiscal year 2022 and will track data on production rates,
details on case outcomes, and other key metrics that will provide
leadership with the information they need to effectively manage future
resources.
    Question. I strongly criticized the Trump administration's decision
to utilize Title 42 of the Public Health Safety Act to rapidly expel
large numbers of migrants in direct contravention of existing laws
protecting the right to apply for asylum. The Biden administration has
largely kept in place the Trump administration's Title 42 policy,
despite the fact that the public health rationale for it wanes as
COVID-19 cases hit record lows, nearly a third of Americans are
vaccinated, and millions more get vaccinated each day. What steps, if
any, is DHS taking to wind down expulsions pursuant to the Title 42 CDC
``Order Suspending Introduction of Certain Persons From Countries Where
a Communicable Disease Exists?'' If no steps are being taken to depart
from this Title 42 CDC order and policy, why not?
    Answer. The Order Suspending Introduction of Certain Persons From
Countries Where a Communicable Disease Exists was issued by the Centers
for Disease Control (CDC). DHS's role is to assist the CDC with
implementation of its Order. As such, in consultation with the CDC, DHS
may make case-by-case determinations to except certain individuals. CBP
officers/agents may except individuals, with approval from a
supervisor, from the Order based on the totality of the circumstances,
including consideration of significant law enforcement, officer and
public safety, humanitarian, and public health interests. The CDC
recently issued an order confirming the exception of Unaccompanied
Children (UC) from its order.
    To address the challenges along our southwest border, DHS has
leveraged the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) coordination
capabilities, activated our volunteer force of employees from across
DHS, and expanded processing capacity.

                                 ______

             Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
                               h-2b visas
    Question. The H-2B visa program is a critical tool for seasonal
employers that need foreign workers to fill temporary jobs when no
Americans are available. I hear frequently from small businesses in New
Hampshire that struggle to find workers during their busy season and
who rely on this program. I have been hearing from small businesses
across my state who are desperate for the release of additional H-2B
visas this year, and I appreciate the decision to provide 22,000
additional visas for fiscal year 2021. I am glad that those visas have
finally been made available and employers can now apply. But I'm
concerned that this number was too low to meet the need, and I am
further concerned that employers may not be able to receive these visas
in time to meet the demands of their busy season.
    How did the Administration determine that 22,000 additional visas
was the appropriate number for this fiscal year?
    Answer. The Secretary of Homeland Security acted in accordance with
section 105 of Division O of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021,
Public Law 116-260 (fiscal year 2021 Omnibus). Before authorizing the
additional visa numbers, the Secretary of DHS, in consultation with the
Secretary of Labor, considered the needs of businesses and other
factors, including the impact on the U.S. job market and potential
implications for U.S. workers, as well as the integrity of the H-2B
program. The determination to allow up to 22,000 additional H-2B visas
reflected a balancing of these factors.
    Question. Given that the demand appears to exceed the allotted
visas, what steps does the Administration plan to take to remedy the
discrepancy?
    Answer. The H-2B visa program is one among several employment-based
visa programs that are oversubscribed (i.e., the number of petitions
exceeds the number of available visas set by statute). For example, the
H-1B program is also oversubscribed, receiving far more petitions
annually than cap numbers available, resulting in the need to conduct a
registration and selection process to determine who can file a cap-
subject petition.\3\ DHS supports efforts by Congress to set annual
visa caps that adequately meet demands while addressing the impact on
the U.S. job market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Congress set the current annual regular H-1B cap at 65,000
visas, plus 20,000 under the advanced degree exemption. For fiscal year
2021, USCIS received 274,237 H-1B registrations and selected a total of
124,415 registrations projected as needed to reach the fiscal year cap.
For fiscal year 2022, USCIS received 308,613 H-1B registrations and
selected a total of 115,217 registrations projected as needed to reach
the fiscal year 2022 cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To the extent that Congress vests DHS with this authority, DHS will
consult with DOL to determine the number and parameters of any
additional H-2B visas to supplement the statutory annual cap.
    Question. Given the time-sensitive nature of seasonal labor, how is
your agency working to ensure employers have the workers they need in
time for their busy season?
    Answer. USCIS provides information about premium processing on its
website. For those who choose to use this service, USCIS will provide
an initial adjudicative action within 15 days. This service is widely
utilized by H-2B petitioners. Additionally, DHS is working closely with
interagency partners at the Department of Labor and Department of State
to facilitate processing for H-2B workers.
                           drug interdiction
    Question. New Hampshire has been hit particularly hard by the
devastating opioid epidemic that has swept the nation. We must ensure
that the Federal government is doing everything possible to get
resources to those fighting the opioid epidemic and to stem the flow of
heroin, fentanyl and other deadly opioids into the country. In recent
years, Congress has provided significant increases in funding for
technologies to improve drug interdiction efforts at the border.
    Please provide an overview on the Department's progress in
procuring and deploying new technologies at our Ports of Entry and
along the border capable of detecting and identifying illicit drugs
such as opioids and fentanyl?
    Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has procured and
deployed advanced small-scale Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment
that efficiently and effectively identifies dangerous narcotics,
including fentanyl and other opioids. The ThermoFisher Gemini, with a
library of over 14,600 chemicals, enables CBP personnel to quickly,
confidently, and presumptively identify harmful substances with at
least a 10 percent concentration. The Gemini is deployed at CBP
locations worldwide.
    To augment the bulk identification technology of the Gemini, CBP
rapidly deployed BTNX Inc. Rapid ResponseTM Fentanyl
Forensic Test Strips (``BTNX Test Strips''), which use the lateral flow
immunoassay test principle to identify fentanyl and fentanyl analogues
in liquid and powder substances. When used properly, BTNX Test Strips
can identify trace levels of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues at
concentrations as low as 20 ng/ml or .000002 percent. CBP's NII and
Laboratories and Scientific Services (LSS) directorates have deployed
BTNX Test Strips and training nationwide, with additional test strips
available upon request through LSS.
    Additionally, CBP has worked with procurement, field locations, and
LSS to test and procure enhanced chemical identification capable of
identifying a wide range of chemicals at purity levels less than 1
percent. The MX908 is a high-pressure mass spectrometry (HPMS) device
that identifies a wide variety of chemicals at trace concentrations and
concentrations less than 1 percent.
    CBP Operations Support/LSS also stood up Forward Operating
Laboratories (FOLs) at ports of entry to address smuggling of unknown
substances. LSS forensic scientists are permanently assigned to the
FOLs to work side-by-side with CBP frontline officers, providing on-
site, rapid scientific and technical services. Each FOL is resourced
with laboratory equipment for the analysis of unknown substances and
suspected controlled substances. At the height of the opioid crisis in
2018, when fentanyl and fentanyl analogues were smuggled into the
country through international mail, LSS stood up FOLs at the John F.
Kennedy International Mail Facility and Memphis Express Consignment
Courier Facility. As of June 2021, LSS operates 13 FOLs across the
nation, four of which are located along the Southwest land border. Over
the last 18 months, FOLs have analyzed over 23,000 suspected controlled
substances.
    To support CBP's deployment of handheld detection technology, LSS
established the 24/7 Narcotics Reachback Center at the CBP National
Targeting Center. The Narcotics Reachback Center provides rapid
adjudication of data collected by CBP frontline offices and agents
using handheld analyzers to presumptively screen suspect substances.
Trained LSS scientists evaluate spectral information in real-time and
provide a presumptive identification of the unknown or suspect
substance to the submitting officer/agent within 30 minutes of
receiving a call. The Narcotics Reachback Center services CBP
nationwide and supports CBP operations where and when LSS is not on-
site.
    In addition, CBP leverages license plate reader (LPR) data to
support frontline operations and investigations. LPR data has enabled
CBP to successfully link narcotics trafficking routes and identified
stash house locations as well as other law enforcement functions, such
as apprehending a child rape suspect and identify links as part of a
sex-trafficking investigation.
    Question. Does the Department need any additional authorities from
Congress to improve illicit drug interdiction?
    Answer. Improvements in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's
(CBP) capacity to interdict illicit drugs at the border is not a matter
of only authority but one of authority, capacity, and logistics. While
the Department can readily identify improvements in interdiction, the
Department must consider first whether CBP may implement such
improvements under its current authorities, whether CBP is able to
absorb the cost of such improvements within its current baseline, and
how such improvements could affect commerce. When the Department is
satisfied that improvements can be introduced within these constraints,
the Department will promote the improvements through the regular-order
budget and the legislative processes.
                            dhs procurement
    Question. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated just how important it
is to ensure that our nation has a domestic supply chain for materials
and items that we may need during a national emergency. We shouldn't
rely on foreign sources to produce these critical items when we need
them the most. What is the Department doing to bolster the domestic
supply chain for items that we may need in the event of a national
emergency?
    Answer. The Department of Homeland Security, working with its
Components, is executing the requirements of Executive Orders 14001 ``A
Sustainable Public Health Supply Chain'' and 14017 ``America's Supply
Chains,'' which focus on strategies to bolster the domestic supply
chain for national emergencies. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) is working within its delegated Defense Production Act role, and
the Agency continues to engage with interagency partners that receive
funding for industrial expansion efforts, such as with the active
Department of Defense and the future Department of Health and Human
Services Title III programs. FEMA's statutory responsibilities do not
include bolstering the domestic supply chain for national emergencies,
and FEMA has no appropriation for such a purpose.
                             cybersecurity
    Question. The President's budget includes $20 million for a new
Cyber Response and Recovery Fund.
    Please provide an overview on how the Department would utilize this
fund to address cyber-attacks.
    Answer. The concept of the Cyber Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF)
comes from the Cyberspace Solarium Commission's 2020 recommendations.
As proposed in the President's budget, the CRRF would allow
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) to support critical
infrastructure, including private entities and State, local, tribal,
and territorial governments, in responding to, and recovering from, a
``significant cyber incident,'' as defined in Presidential Policy
Directive (PPD 41): United States Cyber Incident Coordination.
    The proposed ``no year'' funding (i.e., available until expended)
would allow CISA to support non-Federal critical infrastructure cyber
response and recovery from a significant cyber incident through the
provision of services, technology, or capabilities. This set up would
provide CISA with greater flexibility for responding to cyber events
that are often unpredictable.
    Should a significant cyber incident be declared in the first year
of the CRRF, CISA will emphasize using the Fund, if activated, to surge
cyber incident response capabilities or help victims evict adversaries
from their environments to support the immediate needs of critical
infrastructure entities. The CRRF could be used to support response to
a significant cyber incident and, in some cases, funds for recovery and
reconstitution. Eligible activities could include:

  --Technical Incident Response--Services aimed at finding the root
        cause of an incident

  --Analytic Support--A range of analytical services provided in
        response to receiving a request or reported vulnerability, to
        include examining the technical issue, code, computer system,
        storage medium, and/or physical memory

  --Threat Detection--Deployment of threat detection platforms to
        identify potential malicious activity using network sensor
        systems for detection

    Eviction and Mitigation--Support to reasonably assure that an
intruder has been removed from a victim network and known weaknesses
that allowed the initial intrusion have been remediated.
    Question. How can DHS increase its cooperation with industry to
ensure that threat information is appropriately disseminated between
public and private entities?
    Answer. CISA is continuously evaluating existing information
sharing programs to improve their timeliness, efficiency, and
effectiveness, while also evaluating the potential for new
opportunities to increase threat information sharing with our partners
in government and in the private sector. CISA is currently undertaking
a wide range of efforts, outlined below, to increase cooperation with
industry to ensure that threat information is appropriately
disseminated to our private sector partners.
    Pursuant to fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA), CISA will establish a Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative (JCDC)
to coordinate joint cyber planning with interagency and industry
partners. Today, CISA builds and maintains close operational
relationships with key industry partners who provide unique and
valuable insights on current cyber vulnerability and threat
information. These information sharing relationships increase CISA's
visibility and understanding of the domestic cyber landscape and
provide vital support to our cyber defense mission. With the
implementation of the office for joint cyber planning, CISA will
formalize and expand operational coordination with industry partners
through collaborative development of cyber defense operations plans to
protect domestic critical infrastructure. The JCDC will also include
key interagency partners who will bring their own cyber capabilities
and authorities, and will consult with State, local, territorial, and
tribal (SLTT) and international partners. Through integration of these
key partner communities, the JCDC will become the one-stop-shop for
public-private partnership in planning cyber defense operations.
    The Secretary of DHS established the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory
Committee, pursuant to fiscal year 2021 NDAA, Section 1718, to bring
together experts from SLTT government, industry, and other relevant
entities to provide advice and recommendations to the CISA Director on
matters related to the development, refinement, and implementation of
policies, programs, planning, and training pertaining to the
cybersecurity mission of the Agency. Per the NDAA, the Director may
task the Committee to examine a variety of cybersecurity topics
including, but not limited to, information exchange; critical
infrastructure; risk management; and public and private partnerships.
This advice could include options to improve timely information sharing
regarding cybersecurity threats. A public version of the Committee's
recommendations will be made available.
    In coordination with interagency partners, CISA is defining the
expanded set of the roles and responsibilities established in the
fiscal year 2021 NDAA, Section 9002, Sector Risk Management Agencies
(SRMA). In particular, each SRMA shall facilitate ``in coordination
with the Director, the sharing with the Department and other
appropriate Federal department of information regarding physical
security and cybersecurity threats within the designated sector or
subsector of such sector,'' including--

    A. ``[F]acilitating, in coordination with the Director, access to,
and exchange of, information and intelligence necessary to strengthen
the security of critical infrastructure'';

    B. ``[F]acilitating the identification of intelligence needs and
priorities of critical infrastructure owners and operators in the
designated sector or subsector of such sector, in coordination with the
Director of National Intelligence and the heads of other Federal
departments and agencies, as appropriate;

    C. ``[P]roviding the Director, and facilitating awareness within
the designated sector or subsector of such sector, of ongoing, and
where possible, real-time awareness of identified threats,
vulnerabilities, mitigations, and other actions related to the security
of such sector or subsector of such sector''; and

    D. ``[S]upporting the reporting requirements of the Department
under applicable law by providing, on an annual basis, sector-specific
critical infrastructure information.''

    CISA is spearheading the NDAA-required report, in consultation with
the heads of the designated SRMAs, which reviews the current framework
for securing critical infrastructure, develops recommendations, and
suggests necessary revisions to the partnership structure. This process
is currently underway, and as the SRMA for eight of the nation's 16
critical infrastructure sectors, CISA will directly apply this expanded
guidance to enhance information sharing between CISA and private sector
partners in these eight sectors.
    DHS will stand up a Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB), pursuant to
Section 5 of the Executive Order on Improving the Nation's
Cybersecurity, to review and assess threat activity, vulnerabilities,
mitigation activities, and agency responses to significant cyber
incidents. Through the CSRB, relevant information will be compiled from
CSRB incident reviews, including incident-related decisionmaking
processes, actions, and outcomes; Requests for Information; stakeholder
communications; and incident activity and recovery actions and
outcomes. In addition to administering the CSRB's operation, DHS will
use the results of these reviews to determine necessary and appropriate
enhancements to threat information sharing between public and provide
sector entities.
    The Private Sector Clearance Program was established to ensure that
select critical infrastructure private sector owners, operators, and
industry representatives--specifically those who have a demonstrated
and foreseeable need to access classified information--are in
leadership, managerial, or executive level positions and are in a
position to capitalize on the value of the classified information
shared are processed for clearances. Security clearances enable
selected owners, operators, and representatives to access classified
information and more fully participate in the protection of critical
infrastructure and the security of the homeland.
    CISA operates the Cyber Information Sharing and Collaboration
Program, which serves as a bi-directional forum for CISA and private
industry to collaborate on significant risks, develop sector and threat
focused products, and provide briefings on new trends, threats, and
capabilities across sectors. This trusted sharing between CISA and a
network of high impact companies, Information Sharing and Analysis
Centers, and service providers allows CISA to better understand the
nature of vulnerabilities pre- and post-disclosure and in turn provided
timely and thorough mitigation guidance.
    CISA continues to enhance the Automated Indicator Sharing (AIS)
capability, which provides a machine-to-machine platform for CISA and
the private sector to share threat information and benefit from the
collective knowledge of participant organizations. AIS enables the
real-time exchange of machine-readable cyber threat indicators and
defensive measures, such as information about adversary techniques, to
help the AIS community monitor and defend networks against known
threats and ultimately limit the use of an attack method.
    CISA's Stakeholder Engagement Division has requested funding in
fiscal year 2022 to execute a stakeholder mapping initiative as a
foundational component of the agency's broader stakeholder engagement
capability. The stakeholder mapping initiative builds upon CISA's
growing stakeholder data and knowledge base to map individual
stakeholders and stakeholder groups to operational planning scenarios--
in advance of the need--in order to streamline response efforts to
crisis and enable more targeted, efficient strategic planning with
external parties. By leveraging established relationships with these
entities, CISA will maximize its impact on key stakeholder communities
and amplify our value through collaborative partners. Examples of using
these relationships includes bi-directional sharing of sensitive threat
information, targeted promotion of available products and services, and
quick-turn opportunities to collaborate with CISA.
    CISA collaborates with the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis
to provide Classified Intelligence Forums. The Classified Intelligence
Forum consists of engagements that provide cleared members of the
private sector as appropriate, with access to draft and finished
analytic products to solicit feedback and gain overall customer
insights that can inform the development of future products or
briefings that those members and their sector counterparts can use in
their decisionmaking processes.
    CISA Cybersecurity Advisors (CSAs) offer cybersecurity assistance
to critical infrastructure owners and operators and SLTT governments.
CSAs introduce organizations to various CISA cybersecurity products and
services, along with other public and private resources, and act as
liaisons to CISA cyber programs. CSAs can provide cyber preparedness,
assessments and protective resources, strategic messaging, working
group support and leadership, partnership in public-private
development, and incident coordination and support in times of cyber
threat, disruption, and attack. CISA continues to work quickly and
diligently to hire against existing CSA vacancies and increase the CSA
footprint in the field in order to expand engagement with the private
sector, including in threat information sharing and dissemination.
    CISA collaborates with government and industry partners to
strengthen information sharing and incident response coordination
through exercises, such as the biennial Cyber Storm series. Each
iteration of the exercise engages more than a thousand participants in
the simulated discovery of and response to a large-scale, coordinated
significant cyber incident impacting critical infrastructure. The
findings of each exercise are shared with participants and the broader
cyber response community to support continual improvement.
    CISA is currently in the planning stages for Cyber Storm VIII,
slated for the spring of 2022. Two of the proposed objectives of this
exercise are to:

    - Strengthen information sharing and coordination mechanisms used
during a cyber incident; and

    - Foster public and private partnerships and improve their ability
to share relevant and timely information across sectors.
                    u.s. refugee admissions program
    Question. We are in the midst of the largest worldwide refugee
crisis ever recorded. I am pleased that the President has finally
announced his intention to resettle 62,500 refugees in the second half
of this fiscal year. However, the enormous cuts to refugee resettlement
over the past 4 years under the previous Administration have severely
decimated the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program's capacity. What specific
measures are you taking to increase the rate of refugee arrivals in the
second half of the fiscal year to ensure we can meet the Presidential
Determination for this year and to restore the long-term capacity of
our resettlement program?
    Answer. DHS, along with other U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
(USRAP) partners, is committed to rebuilding our refugee adjudication
and resettlement capacity in accordance with Executive Order (EO)
14012, Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and
Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans, and
EO 14013, Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and
Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration. USCIS worked to
increase admissions in fiscal year 2021 by developing additional
efficiencies to complete post-USCIS interviewed applications remotely,
resume in-person interviews of refugee applicants overseas, begin
hiring additional staff, and engage with USRAP partners to reinvigorate
our refugee program and increase refugee admissions.
    USCIS has taken several actions to rebuild the refugee program and
increase refugee admissions. First, USCIS conducted a detailed review
of the cases of applicants who have already had their USCIS refugee
interview and prioritized resources for cases that could be approved
for resettlement in the near term.
    Second, after an 11-month long agency-wide hiring freeze ended this
spring, USCIS began actively recruiting to fill all currently vacant
positions that support refugee processing.
    Third, USCIS implemented operational and policy changes to support
remote case processing during COVID-19. Since last summer, USCIS has
been conducting refugee applicant re-interviews via video-
teleconference (VTEL) and recently started conducting initial refugee
applicant interviews via VTEL where possible. By May 26, 2021, USCIS
conducted 212 re-interviews and 53 initial interviews by VTEL.
    Finally, while COVID-related restrictions continue to impact
USCIS's ability to increase in-person interviews of refugee applicants,
beginning in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2021, USCIS resumed in-
person international refugee processing circuit rides on a small scale.
Deployments are based on identified USRAP processing priorities and are
dependent on movement restrictions issued by local governments due to
COVID-19; post-by-post restrictions issued by DOS; and the ability to
safely conduct in-person interviews while protecting the health of
USCIS officers, Resettlement Support Center staff, refugee applicants,
and interpreters.
    In addition to the process improvements outlined above, USCIS is
investing in a case management system that will allow for more
effective tracking of workloads and cases and will provide officers
with additional adjudicative tools. This system is expected to fully
deploy in fiscal year 2022 and will track data on production rates,
details on case outcomes, and other key metrics that will provide
leadership with the information they need to effectively manage future
resources.
                         unaccompanied children
    Question. I was deeply disturbed by the treatment of children at
our Southern border under the previous Administration, and I have been
very concerned about previous reports of unaccompanied children
remaining in Border Patrol custody for extended periods of time.
    What steps has your agency taken to address these problems and
ensure that children are treated safely and humanely when they arrive
at our border?
    Answer. CBP makes every effort to process those in our custody as
quickly as possible--especially children. In accordance with the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), CBP must
transfer unaccompanied children into the custody of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)
within 72 hours of unaccompanied children determination, determining
that they are unaccompanied children, absent exceptional circumstances.
To expedite processing of migrants, including unaccompanied children,
CBP has augmented its Southwest border personnel and facilities, and
leveraged available support across the U.S. Government.
    U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) prioritizes unaccompanied children
referrals and transfers to HHS ORR, but the ability to do so is
directly tied to ORR's capacity. By March 2021, the number of
unaccompanied children entering USBP custody far exceeded ORR's
capacity to provide placement. In response, and in conjunction with
FEMA, HHS began rapid expansion of ORR's housing/placement capacity
through Emergency Influx Shelters (EISs). USBP continues to work
closely with HHS to expedite the transfer of unaccompanied children
into HHS custody.
    DHS successfully established the interagency Movement Coordination
Cell (MCC) to bring together personnel from FEMA, ORR, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and CBP to ensure the rapid transfer of
UCs from CBP custody to ORR custody--whether to licensed bed facilities
or EISs. This interagency approach has been remarkably successful in
reducing the average time in custody that UCs spend in CBP facilities.
    Thanks to interagency cooperation and focus on building ORR
capacity, in April 2021, the average number of children in CBP custody
decreased to 2,895 from 4,109 in March 2021--with the number of
children in CBP custody below 460 in mid-May 2021. In March, UCs spent
an average of 115 hours in CBP custody compared to just 26 hours in
May.
    CBP has significantly expanded the scope of its trauma-informed
medical support capabilities to ensure children are treated safely and
humanely. For example, CBP now has more than 800 contract medical
personnel providing 24/7 medical support at over 70 facilities along
the Southwest border. CBP continues to enhance its trauma-informed care
practices for children in custody through awareness and training;
trauma-informed medical support; and trauma-informed holding practices.
    CBP's trauma-informed medical support includes health interviews
and medical assessments by trained professionals. This includes
behavioral health considerations and emphasizes psychological triage,
psychological first aid, behavioral health referrals, and appropriate
prioritization for transfer. CBP's trauma-informed holding practices
ensure a safe and secure environment that minimizes time in custody,
improves the child's ability to maintain family connection via phone
calls, provides recreation opportunities as feasible, and includes
caregivers who can provide a reassuring adult presence. The role of
caregivers in our facilities now includes providing opportunities for
recreational time for children as operationally feasible. CBP has
always been, and continues to be, committed to the safe and humane
treatment of all individuals in our custody, especially those most
vulnerable.
    Question. How is your agency working with the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services to facilitate unaccompanied children's
expeditious release from Border Patrol custody?
    Answer. Unaccompanied Children (UC) are typically processed by CBP
at the Southwest Border and then ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations
(ERO) transfers unaccompanied children from CBP to the custody of HHS
ORR. Pursuant to the Flores Settlement Agreement, the Homeland Security
Act of 2002, and the TVPRA of 2008, DHS must transfer unaccompanied
children to HHS ORR custody within 72 hours of determining that a UC is
an unaccompanied child except in exceptional circumstances.
    ICE continues to partner with CBP and HHS to improve transfers into
the care and custody of ORR. These partnerships have proven to be
extremely effective in reducing the average length of time in DHS
custody, to include decreasing the amount of time that a child is in
transit to an ORR shelter. ICE's effort to partner with CBP and HHS has
resulted in the transfer of thousands of unaccompanied children into
the care and custody of ORR in under 72 hours as required by statute.
    CBP implemented a Movement Coordination Cell (MCC) to work with HHS
ORR and other appropriate agencies to coordinate the placement and
expedited transfer of UCs out of CBP custody and into appropriate HHS
facilities and care. The MCC is an interagency effort among CBP, ICE,
HHS ORR, and FEMA. The goal of the MCC is to rapidly transfer custody
of UCs from CBP to ORR. The MCC effort began on March 29, 2021, and
since its inception, the MCC has assisted in reducing the number of UCs
in CBP custody as well as their average length of time in custody. CBP
is also working with HHS/ORR on enhanced data transfer to assist in the
expeditious placement of UCs in appropriate facilities, which would
further reduce time in custody.
    In April 2021, the average number of children in CBP custody
decreased to 2,895 from 4,109 the previous month, with the number of
children in CBP custody below 460 in mid-May 2021. In March, UCs spent
an average of 115 hours in CBP custody compared to just 26 hours in
May.

                                 ______

            Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
    Question. Mr. Secretary, the Science & Technology Directorate (S&T)
fiscal year 2022 Budget Request highlights prior year research efforts
and milestones, including Project JUSTICE and the fully operational
sUAS test facilities. The budget overview also lists future objectives
to ``publish JUSTICE demonstration, test and evaluation results, and
associated analyses to DHS Components, first responder and emergency
management service organizations.'' Additionally, the budget overview
states, ``DHS lacks installed technologies to maintain persistent air
domain awareness of all manned and unmanned aircraft in the national
airspace . . . evolving technologies and critically strained resources
make it imperative for S&T to advance technologies that produce
efficient force-multiplying aerospace for operational elements of DHS
and the Nation's law enforcers and first responders.''
    In prior year appropriations, including fiscal year 2021, the
committee/Congress acknowledged the critical value in the establishment
of the S&T common test site for demonstration and research of UAS,
provided additional funding for the Demonstration Site to conduct on-
site testing and evaluation of Enabling UAS technologies, and
encouraged the close collaboration with the FAA UAS Center of
Excellence. The DHS UAS Demonstration Site provides an effective and
efficient operational testing and evaluation capacity for S&T and the
operational partners that it supports, including CBP, Coast Guard,
Secret Service, and Nation's law enforcers and first responders.
Numerous exercises are necessary for technology evaluation across a
range of scenarios and environments at the Demonstration Site.
    Please provide a spend plan for the fiscal year 21 funds
appropriated for the Enabling UAS Demonstration Site. How will S&T
continue to prioritize previously appropriated funds for the
Demonstration Site to conduct on-site testing and evaluation of
Enabling UAS technologies for DHS components and law enforcement
partners?
    Answer. Efforts towards Enabling UAS, including the Enabling UAS
Demonstration Site, are executed as part of S&T's Air Security project,
within S&T's Air, Land, and POE Security program. S&T's fiscal year
2021 Spend Plan includes $2 million for the Enabling UAS demonstration
site

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       fiscal year 2021                        Planned in fiscal
            Activity                  Description         Spend Plan           Obligated         year 2022 Q2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enabling UAS Demonstration Site.  Joint Unmanned              $2,000,000            $250,000          $1,750,000
                                   Systems Testing
                                   in Collaborative
                                   Environments
                                   (JUSTICE)--Testin
                                   g and evaluation
                                   of UASs.
    Total Enabling UAS            $2,000,000........            $250,000          $1,750,000
     Demonstration Site.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S&T will continue to support the Enabling UAS Demonstration Site
through S&T's agreement with the U.S. Army Development Command
(DEVCOM), Ground Vehicle Systems Center and through strategic IAA
partnerships with other U.S. Government entities that enable S&T to
offer value to the Homeland Security Enterprise. With continuing COVID
restrictions the potential for testing & evaluation to resume pre-
pandemic conditions soon remains low. S&T will continue engaging with
the Army and the vendor to administer the residual funding in early
fiscal year 2022.
    Question. Mr. Secretary, with the expected surge in flight travel
over the next few months, both business and personal, how is the
Department of Homeland Security making sure TSA is adequately staffed
at airports across the country in order to accommodate this expected
increase? What opportunities are there that would allow TSA to
significantly grow its TSA PreCheck program and can these opportunities
be deployed in time to help with the travel surge that is expected this
year?
    Answer. As of November 1, 2021, TSA has hired 7,630 Transportation
Security Officers (TSO) thus far in the calendar year, amidst
unprecedented hiring competition in nearly all industries.
    TSA is continuing to innovate on solutions to attract more TSO
applicants and hire more quickly in competitive locations. To increase
hiring volumes, TSA is expanding advertising campaigns to amplify the
``now hiring'' message. In an effort to maintain parity with private
industry pay rates, TSA has also instituted recruitment $1,000 to
$2,000 sign-on bonuses to all TSO new hires through fiscal year 22.
Further, retention incentives are being strategically leveraged to
align TSO pay rates with local wage growth in hard-to-hire markets--
both to retain current staff and attract new candidates. Finally, TSA
is hosting ``expedited'' hiring events in 12 or more competitive
markets per month, including locations such as Denver, Seattle,
Minneapolis, Boston, St. Louis, Maui, and many others. These events
enable prospective TSO applicants to consolidate hiring steps into one-
day and significantly reduce Federal hiring time; which is essential in
this competitive recruitment market.
    TSA's Universal Enrollment Services provider, IDEMIA, offers a
nationwide network of over 440 enrollment centers in support of the TSA
PreCheck Application Program, and there is currently plenty of
enrollment center capacity and appointment availability. TSA provides
individuals with a simple enrollment process, including the ability to
start TSA PreCheck enrollment online, which shortens the in-person
enrollment time. On average, an individual can complete the in-person
enrollment process in five to ten minutes for new applicants to the
program. For renewing members, TSA offers the ability to renew a TSA
PreCheck membership fully online, with no in-person visit required.
    TSA is also working to expand the number of enrollment providers,
as required by the TSA Modernization Act of 2018. In January 2020, TSA
awarded Other Transaction Agreements (OTA) to Alclear, LLC (CLEAR),
Telos Identity Management Solutions, LLC, and Idemia Identity &
Security USA, LLC (TSA's current enrollment provider). TSA estimates
the new enrollment providers under the OTAs will begin operations by
the end of 2022, but timelines are tentative and dependent on each
vendor's ability to meet TSA's requirements.

                           SUBCOMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Murphy. And so with that, this committee will stand
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., Wednesday, May 26 the subcommitte
was recessed, to reconvene at a time subject to call of the
Chair.]

File and source

File

CHRG_chrg-117shrg39104970_chrg-117shrg39104970.htm

Size

131,039 bytes

SHA-256

3c45a72c611e6c8e1df071348483be2d349852fa12b85c5e4a0b9aac19a5ace7

Our copy

CHRG_chrg-117shrg39104970_chrg-117shrg39104970.htm

Original

No public link identified.