that reduces the income tax rate to a flat 3.65% while allowing it to take effect this year. retroactive to january 1st. the following year in 2025, the rate will fall again to a flat 3.5%. this bill represents a total savings of almost $3.8 billion for taxpayers over the next five years. and it gets there by cutting taxes for every iowan who pays them. the average family of four with an income of about 78,000 will see a tax savings of over 25%. a single mother of two making 47,000 will see greater savings

of 42%. there will be no waiting. the cuts will show up in paychecks this year. let's not hesitate. let's stick to the approach we established in 2018 and allow iowans to keep more of their money. >> this is available on c- span.com. alejandro mayorkas testifying on the budget request. you are watching live coverage on c-span 3.

to be joined today by the subcommittee's distinguished ranking member, welcome secretary mayorcas and sincerely thank you for being here to discuss the departments 2025 fiscal year budget request. while it is very clear that we have profound differences of opinion on how the department should be run, on what policies should be in place, especially as it relates to border security and immigration enforcement, we ask both sides

today to remains civil and focus on the work we need to do. additionally, on behalf of the entire community, i like to convey my sense here initiation for the tireless, often thankless work done by the women and men at the hs on a daily basis. turning our attention to fiscal year 2025, this proposal is nearly identical to last year's request, and is unfortunately as disappointing as it is promising. not only full of gimmicks, it also fails to address the policy driven crisis that continues at the border. for over three years, we've seen skyrocketing illegal immigration at our borders, and every country can see and feel its impact. the american people know that the border is not sick here. it's a full-blown crisis that this administration has sought to downplay for years. more recently, the messaging

has changed. the budget shows these are just empty words. this request is not serious if the goal is to actually fix the problem and secure our border. enough resources to remove more than 1.3 million aliens whose cases have already been adjudicated and no longer have a legal basis to remain in this country. to detain aliens who pose a national city dirty risk or public safety risk. though this administration instead asks for less than congress just funded in the fy '24 budget. we request policy changes that would help deter the mass migration we see under this administration. does the barrier -- does it request additional funding for carriers? again, the answer is no. on environmental remediation effort to clean up the mess it made when it stopped the

contract building the wall. what does the administration ask for? $4.7 billion contingency fund that exceeds the caps established by the financial responsibility act. this slush fund proposed last year was rejected on a bipartisan basis because republicans and democrats alike recognize that giving this department billions of dollars with very little congressional oversight will likely the dusting situation. again, this administration's approach to the borders just to manage the chaos, a position that most fair-minded americans reject. increasing detention capacity has not worked. using a parole system has not worked. catch and release has not worked. executive orders that impede have not worked. border security operators have been clear how quick and decisive consequences, the flow will continue unabashed. the daily number of migrant

encounters is still about 5000 today, this every single policy this administration has tried. many of the policies that have contributed to this process at the stroke of a pen, which he could reverse if he chooses. it's our job as appropriators to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars and ensure that we are not wasting money doing more of the same and expecting a different result. i look forward to working with you to address the border security crisis at hand to combat the many threats that face our homeland. i never turn to my colleague for comments. >> thank you, members on both sides of the aisle. we put together a very good appropriation bill in '24. i think we will do the same in fy '25. i want to say thank you to the secretary, to the work that you do, and the men and women that do that work every single day. as you know, i don't visit the

border and live at the border, but i did go on a riverboat just last week, less than a week ago, with border patrol. we talked about the importance of getting rid of -- so they can deliver roads, which are referred to as technology. they are so important to us. i just want to say thank you for the work that you and your men and women do a cost the country. i do want to say, looking at the numbers for the last 21 days, in between ports, there are about 3800 a day. 3800 a day. you are the cbp, maybe out a little bit over 1000, so you're talking about 5000 a day. but 3800 a day coming in. very different. so we are doing something right. and we ask you to continue to continue looking into what we need to do to bring those numbers down. 3800 in between ports a day for the last three weeks.

let's continue doing that. i do agree with the chairman. we did fund 41,500 that. we don't want to speak for anyone else, but we do support the charter air from ice, and i certainly want to ask you about that. and somewhere down the line, certainly want to ask you about what the president is looking up. i've always felt that the president can do an executive order. my understanding is that there is talk about another executive order, because if you get 100 people that ask for a violent, at the end of the day, they go to a judge four, five, six years later, 87 to 90% of them will be rejected. so we got to do something at the very beginning. if they don't qualify for those five reasons, i think we need to look at -- if the president does end up sure, it will be a court case from some folks that

don't agree with him. so i say -- i want to say thank you. i hope that it -- i hope that you all look at the polygraph that has been a big problem. whoever that vendor is -- and hopefully they are listening to me a little this we got to do something. about that. and certainly because if we don't hire people -- even under the trump administration, we are losing more people to attrition then we are hiring and border patrol. so we got to do a better job on that. i want to say the technology that we are looking at is very, very wharton. i do want to say there is a court order. we can put a little bit of legislative intent here. a recent injunction by a federal judge in idaho state who i think is wrongly interpreted congressional funding provided barrier assist for fiscal years '21 and '22.

if you look at the language, congress purposely chose the broader system list system to fund the system and not just a vertical wall. so that means because of this injunction, we can't do river roads that are so key to border patrol lighting, border patrol technology, they are all on hold. and this funding is lapsed, then we've got to come back and rip create that while we have funding right now. i hope you all appeal that injunction. and again, i have questions, but i just want to say to all of you men and women at homeland security, i just want to say thank you. 3800 a day. you know, in between ports. and then you add with cbp

what's close to 5000, but in between ports is what we are focusing on. let us know what we need to do to make sure we do that. and certainly, to close up, mexico has been a partner in whatever you need to do to make sure they continue doing what they are doing. less numbers of people come to the northern order at the enforcement levels you are doing. i certainly encourage you to continue working with mexico. with that, mr. chairman and members, think for being here with us today. >> secretary mayorkas , without objection, a full written testimony will be entered into the record. we ask you to please summarize your opening statement for us in five minutes. >> distinguished members of this committee, every day, the 216 8000 men and women of the department of homeland security carry out our mission to protect the safety and security of the american people. they protect our shores,

harbors, cyberspace, borders, and leaders. they stop fentanyl and other illegal drugs from entering our country. they leave the response to maritime emergence. as we speak, they are engaged in the response to the tragic francis scott key bridge in baltimore. they have companies rebuild after natural disaster. they combat the scourges of human trafficking, forced labor, and on my checks will child exploitation. all this despite a perennially insufficient budget. the dedicated public servants of dhs deserve pulse of work and the american people deserve the full they can deliver. are critical to meeting both goals. i welcome the opportunity to discuss this proposed budget and highlight them of its key proposals with you here today. when our department was founded in the wake of 9/11, the threat

of war and terrorism against high visibility targets is our primary can turn. that foreign threat persists, and the u.s. continues to be in a heightened threat environment. we know also confront the terrorism related rat small groups already resident here in the united states. this budget provides for an $80 million increase toward departments, nonprofit security grant program and additional funds for targeted violence and protection grant so dhs can better help communities prevent tragedies from occurring. as loan actors in nationstates increasingly target our critical infrastructure and our data, the president budget provides needed funding to improve our cybersecurity and resiliency. fentanyl is reeking tragedy in communities across the country. dhs has interdicted more and arrested more individuals for fentanyl related crimes in the last two fiscal years than in the previous five combined.

we must do more. the president's budget includes critical funding to advance our strategy, including funds for nonintrusive inspection technology and targeted operations. during a time when the world, including our hemisphere, is asked the greatest displacement of people since world war ii, dhs is maximizing our available resources and authority. in the last 11 months, we have removed or returned more than 630,000 individuals who did not have a legal basis to stay, more than in every full fiscal year since 2013. the president's budget will further expand these efforts. it provides $28.9 billion, including funds for hiring more enforcement personnel. a separate $265 million would be used by u.s. cis to bolster

refugee processing as we continue to expand lawful pathways and ensure that protection remains accessible for those who mollify under our laws. our immigration system, however, is fundamentally broken, including our asylum system that so significantly impact security of our borders and the processes we administer. only congress can fix our broken and outdated system, only congress can address our need for more border patrol agent, assigning judges, facilities, and technology. our administration worked closely with a bipartisan group of centers to reach agreement on a national security supplemental package, one that will make the system changes that are needed and give dhs the tools and resources needed to meet today's borders dirty challenges. we remain ready to work with you to pass this tough, fair bipartisan agreement. finally, extreme weather continues to devastate

communities. last year, fema responded to more than 100 disasters. our budget provides $22.7 billion to assist community leaders and help survivors in the aftermath of major disasters. with additional funds to resist and strategies that will save lives and taxpayer money and decades to come. central to our success is our department's ability to recruit and retain a world-class workforce. in addition to the frontline border work as i mentioned, the president's budget includes $1.5 billion to maintain our commitment to fairly compensate the tsa workforce, continuing the long overdue fiscal year 2023 initiative we worked together to implement. i look forward to working and further discussing with you these critical missions and our department's needs for the coming fiscal years. the recently passed 2024 budget

was enacted too late to implement in an appreciable search. reduced by 20%, much-needed support dealing with migrant related challenges and cut critical research and development funding, the compounding effects of which are department will feel for years. i am eager to work with you to address these and other shortfalls in the weeks ahead, as i am eager to deliver together sustained funding resources and support that the extraordinarily talented and dedicated public servant of dhs need and deserve. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i now recognize myself for russians. as i've already mentioned, the non-detained docket has grown at an unprecedented and unsustainable rate. because this administration refuses to use its executive authority to deter illegal migration, we know that the non- detained docket caseload will continue to rise.

again, for reference, more than 7 million cases on the non- detained docket have been adjudicated and ordered removed. who no longer have a legal basis to remain in this country, and how long will it take you to effectuate every single removal order? >> mr. chairman, this administration has removed more than 630,000 people, more than in any fiscal year since 2013. we take our enforcement responsibilities very seriously, and we have only increased the enforcement efforts. i will respectfully submit to you, mr. chairman, as i articulated in my opening statement, that my bipartisan bill that senators worked on, i have the privilege of being seated with them. it would've delivered a consequence like no other. it would've been the first time

since 1990 six that our broken system had delivered the much- needed fixes that we need and to deliver a consequence regime that will deter illegal migration. >> that's a great answer, but what you want to do about the people who are still here? you have a plan to remove those people in an orderly basis? >> it is through that effort that we are able to remove or returned 630,000 people over the past 11 months. we will continue to accelerate those efforts with the resources we have. our proposed budget is seeing some additional resources. not as many as a bipartisan legislation would have provided to us. >> how can you justify using ice detention space for border decompression efforts when the partner has such a large volume of enforcement needs? >> mr. chairman, we use our detention capabilities to ensure there are enforcement

priorities realized, and their greatest enforcement priorities are to ensure that individuals who pose a public safety or national security risk to the american people are detained. that is our highest detention priority. >> i can tell you that the two people were recently murdered in ohio by aliens, their families aren't going to accept that as an answer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, let's talk about the migrants who are released into the country after they have been processed and vetted by border patrol. what are the tools -- the legal tools that you have at your disposal to expedite a removal? and i do agree with you, if congress won't do it job and pass the senate bill, i think it's the first time since 1996 that we actually make some changes, especially looking at the pics asylum criteria.

five reasons. political, religion, et cetera, person vision by state. i was just in laredo, and we are talking to the folks there, and they said most of them were committed for economic reasons, even though they say asylum. but it's economic reasons. what are the tools that we can provide to you? what are the other ones that you have for expedited removal, which is a process that is an attempt to indemnify those of vigils that are truly seeking asylum and to quickly remove the rest? as you know, your men and women are unable to do that because we lack some of the resources, and that doesn't give you the options that i wish we had. so what i would ask you, if there's not enough base between the bp and ice to hold folks for the full duration of the

removal proceedings, if you had more officers and processing capacity, would you put more migrants into expedited removal proceedings? and would that help you manage challenges at the border? >> thank you. we issued the asylum officer regulation and greater power to our asylum officers, which enabled us to move more quickly through the asylum but you haitian process. one major provision of the senate bipartisan legislation that would have been so incredibly impactful was to allow us to apply expedited removal proceedings in much more accelerated removal process to individuals outside of immigration detention. right now, for single adults, we are restricted to applying expedited removal to those in detention. that bipartisan legislation would have provided us with extraordinary enforcement tools, and i remain uncertain

why it was not unanimously approved. >> i agree with you. so just to make sure -- you cannot use expedited removal under title eight unless they are detained? >> that is my understanding to the best of my recollection. >> yes, sir. and we just don't have that processing space to keep all those folks. is that correct? >> as you noted, the number of encounters has dropped significantly over the past several months. the number of encounters does not in any way equal the number of detention abets that we have. of the 2024 budget, i think 34,500 detention beds. and we are encountering approximately 3800 people in between the ports of entry over the past several weeks, as mr.

chairman noted. so detention is not the only delivery consequence that we can issue. what is needed is a swift and fast removal of individuals who do not qualify for relief. the bipartisan legislation would have taken is have in your asylum process, a several plus year asylum process and reduced it to as little as 90 days. that would have been a game changer. >> besides the senate language, which i support, besides that, what resources would you need to increase your expedited removal operations to meet the demands they anticipate? keep in mind that at least for the last three weeks, 21 days average, what resources would you need, and how would you use them? >> at every stage of the

apprehension, removal process and everything in between that we would need resources. more border patrol agents. more support personnel so we can ensure that those border patrol agents are out in the field doing the enforcement work that they signed up and for which they are so skilled. more asylum officers. more customs enforcement personnel. more detention capacity. more funds for alternatives. more transportation resources, including more resources to be able to execute more removal flights. more legislative authorities, so that we can actually fund other countries in enforcing their borders and removing people from their countries before they ever reach the southern border of the united states. >> my time is up, but i do want to emphasize what you said. expedited removal is only if

you have somebody with intention. if they are out, then we need some changes of the law. thank you so much. >> we now recognize chair rutherford. >> mr. secretary, thank you for being here. i want to go back to the menu made in response to the chairman's question about how many people we have the order. you said 630,000 have been returned. that is not accurate. the actual ice deportations is 142,580. all those other people that you are talking about were rejected at the order. these are not ice deportations, and you conflate those two numbers, and it is aggravating to me that you do that. and here we are, we got the same problem that we had a year ago. in fact, you last testified -- since you last testified before us, 2.5 million people have

crossed our southern border. that's more than four years of president trump's presidency combined. your immigration policy is in chaos. you don't need congress to do anything. the president has got the ability to do it. you just need to talk to him to get it done. now in fiscal year '23, there are 290 or illegal aliens on the terrorist watch list were arrested between ports of entry, and those are just the ones we clocked. how many more are there in the 1.7 million that we've had over the last three years? last year, as i mentioned earlier, we deported 142,080 people across the border. for the last 36 months, we have -- listen to this number, people.

1.2 million of them have orders for removal, mr. secretary. why haven't you removed those 1.2 million? i mean, you said you deported 630,000. no, you didn't. they've exhausted their due process, they been told they have to get out. they've got orders to leave this country, and you let them stay. migrants in cities across america are waiting to get an appointment and a nice office. these are the ones on the non- detained list. they are waiting years. despite all the evidence of this crisis and every single turn this administration is undermined, our safety and our security, you halted the wall construction. united migration protection protocols. you created this mass program, and you are making a request for detention space.

this is making communities less safe. we have people across the border without indemnification. policy seems to be to just let them in. just a couple years ago in my hometown in jacksonville -- cbp encountered him and couldn't confirm who he was. he used a fake name. so your catch and release policy that you reinstituted after president trump had ended that, and then it was -- in

jacksonville. that we find out who he is. and he is now serving 60 years and florida state prison. just last month, we saw another horrible murder because we failed to properly vex an individual, and riley was murdered by him. i want state and local law enforcement to work with us. we did in my jurisdiction what we did in jacksonville. that's a fantastic program, and in fact, i'm not the only one that is that. last year, acting director of ice told this committee that the 280 7g program, and i quote, is the best thing since sliced bread, because it acts as a force multiplier. my question for you very quickly is, do you agree with the directors assessment of the

program? and if so, what are you doing to expand it? >> congressman, the public safety and sick surety of this country is our highest priority. >> it doesn't appear so. >> congressman, if you'll allow me, i believe when an individual poses a threat to public safety or national sick surety, and local or state jurisdiction should cooperate with customs enforcement for the swift detention and removal of that individual. >> you didn't answer my question. do you think the program was a good program? should you work with us to expand it? >> congressman, i continue to believe that 280 7g when executed property is a force multiplier for our enforcement efforts. >> is that a yes? >> as i said, when it is executed properly, it's a force multiplier for or cement. >> you can't get a straight answer out of this guy.

i see my time is up. esther chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, sherriff. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's good to see you again, especially during a busy week. my district stretches across seven counties in illinois outside of chicago. over a year now, anti-immigrant extremists have coordinated the inhumane busing of immigrants that our southern border to blue states new york and illinois, including our community. they are using vulnerable people, the vast majority of whom are legally seeking asylum as ponds and their shameless and shameful political stunt. in contrast, i am so proud to be from illinois, were under the leadership of our governor, governor pritzker and our community has come together to find resources and support for these new arrivals in alignment with our values as americans. i certainly recommend and

appreciate how you and your team have made this issue a priority. and at this point, to speak plainly, illinois desperately needs more federal's worth and we are getting. so today, i want to talk about our options for the coming month and the current political reality. that means without the senate supplemental. so just with current dhs authorities and the current fiscal year 2024 funding package. much of the federal funding for community supporting migrants comes to the shelter and services, or ssp. this funding is largely directed to southern border states. the states like texas continue with thousands of rivals further north. it's time to look at how to allocate that money. but just last year, the state of texas received 11 of the 34 grants awarded. illinois received two. in round two, texas received

and illinois received two. her grants awarded with reserved funding, texas received 28 of the 35 grant awarded. illinois received none. mr. secretary, what specific steps is dhs taking to see more funds directed to communities actually welcoming migrants? can you commit that illinois will see a greater share of ssp resources this year? >> congresswoman, regrettably, the 2024 budget includes a reduction in the amount of shelter services program funding. we are put in a difficult situation of allocating insufficient resources between cities in the interior of the united states that actually receive the individuals who are in immigration enforcement proceedings and in the border communities that initially encounter them. we are working through that allocation right now to distribute the 2024 funds, at

least in the first, and allow me to assure you, congresswoman, that we are working very closely with the jurisdictions to the carrier and at the border to increase and maximize the effectiveness of the allocations. >> yes, sir. southern border states will always need some dedicated support, but for a state receiving such a large version of the funding dedicated to sheltering and providing services for migrants, and then to bus those migrants to other states as soon as they arrive. the total ssp funding and the funding package fell short, as you mentioned. we need to get creative about more solutions. whatever tools are you thinking about utilizing in order to increase the support that the hs can provide to communities experiencing migrants busing this year, and personnel to improve processing times and work authorizations? or take any other steps to address those types of delays?

and can dhs access emergency funding or work with other agencies to unlock resources? >> congresswoman. if you points. the first and most fundamentally is our hope that public officials will actually coordinate, communicate, and collaborate with other public officials to ensure that the interests of the nation are properly served, and that chaos is not deliberately sold. number one. number two, we have deployed teams to some of the interiors cities to ensure that our expertise in the processing of individuals and understanding their eligibility for certain benefits is fully realized, and we have dispatched a team to chicago, illinois, for that purpose. we are working very closely across the administration and with the cities to address the challenges before us.

>> to those teams include, again, personnel across the inter-agents the enable to increase processing to access funds from other departments? if not, please consider taking those apps as we move forward, particularly in this moment where we have to use more creative strategies. hope is not a solution and it is certainly not a policy, and we know that some of these extremists in the southern states are not going to change their behavior, particularly as we approach the fall. esther chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing today. thank you for being appearing before us. you state in your testimony that the president's budget request wire ties is staying ahead of complex and diverse threats facing the homeland and highlights your unwavering dedication to protecting the security of the american people. the president's budget also states that strengthening

border security, providing safe and lawful pathways for immigration remain top priorities for the administration. i want to build on something one of my colleagues asked. how many got a ways have there been since president biden. you and the biden administration have reversed the secure policies that were working. you stop the border wall construction, allowed for millions of individuals, as we heard, including known and suspected terrorists, unforgivable levels of fentanyl and illicit drugs and substances into our country. these 1.7 million individuals came into our country and either a safe nor lawful, and ask for out of touch priorities again and refused to take accountability for the total failure that you have allowed for the southern border. i want to build on something one of my colleagues say. when we raise the detention capacity for ice to 41,500, you would request bringing that number down. >> my answers twofold.

number one, of course, the 2024 budget and the 41,000 500 allocated to us our post dated on our submission of the fiscal year 2025 budget, which will remain at 45,000. we will of course work with this committee and the senate appropriations committee to ensure that the 41,500 bid capacity is sustainable in the year ahead. >> this is about border deterrence. what we want to see happen is a proper accountability and oversight of the deterrence. which we know is a slush fund that you have access to, because you came before the committee last year asking for that seem out of touch priority. i think you really disrespected hard-working taxpayers through these processes, attempting to get this slush fund in place to circumvent congressional direction. i think that's appalling. the purpose of the slush fund is stated to be around the

uncertainty surrounding these functions, but you systematically wasted taxpayer dollars already. you've opened the door for the slush related activities, cartels, the human drug traffickers. there's no excuse to call for billions of dollars of additional slush fund dollars when it's clear that your leadership and decision-making is so off the mark here. i think it's very concerning an alarming for a secretary that has instilled our protection of our homeland to compromise on this. i'm here to work with congress to deliver for the american people and the men and women who protect our homeland. we are pointing the finger at congress to fix the very decisions that the administration has made to this crisis, correct? the mac that's incorrect. actually, pointing to congress to fix what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system. you mentioned the 41,500 detention bids that were funded in fiscal year 2024. that's less than the bipartisan tenant bill would have

provided. the bipartisan senate bill would've provided 50,000. >> it also allows the president way too much authority in terms of circumventing all of the legal processes we have in place. we seen emergency requests for the crisis that you and the biden administration have created purposely and systematically. you reversed countless policies that were in place that were working to keep our southwest border under control, opening flood walls for the security crisis at our southern border. again, unprecedented levels of drugs a deadly fentanyl. you speak of a consequence regime, mr. secretary. my constituents are feeling the consequence of this regime every single day. pounds of drugs instead of ounces in my district. increased crime. we are seeing a complete overwhelming number of illegal immigrant children in our district overwhelming iowa teachers and classrooms every single day. you can try to hide and point

fingers at congress for fixing systems, but we've seen gamesmanship out of the administration and gimmicks. i call for your resignation last year and i stand by my request and i yield back, mr. chair. >> thank you. we now recognize the congresswoman. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. secretary. it's been a little bit over a month see incredible tragic bonfires, some of the worst in our country's history. i want to start by thanking the department of homeland security and the federal emergency management agency, fema. you, personally, as well as administrator griswold and your entire team for your response on maui, which is been a tremendous rest bonds. we have certainly felt that you have been full partners in this recovery. he wanted me to express his personal appreciation to you as well. you been in touch with him

personally, you stayed in touch, and so thank you for your response. who visited personally himself to find out what was going on, and this committee and subcommittee responded in part by busing up a disaster relief fund, which needed to be done in the last supplemental as well as in the fy '24 bill. aside from many positive areas of progress, the one that is the missing piece is housing, as you well know. the history here is that the fires displaced about 12,000 people. for thousand of them went into some other form of housing, very unsatisfactory right away, and 8000 went into hotel rooms. of that 8000, we have, still today, about 2800 individuals, about 1100 families. they clearly don't want to be in those hotels anymore, and

neither does fema. we want to move them out of those hotels. and yet, the very unique circumstances of the malley housing market may be difficult to follow standard housing protocol. fema has made choices in the past between housing and rebuilding. we chosen rehousing on maui. i understand that, but it's not going to be all of the solution here. we actually do need some form of rebuilding to pull this off over time. it's not really going to do the job. the federal delegation, the state of hawaii, have all asked fema to come off of the rehousing and find a solution here and instead moved to the actual construction of at least some temporary transitional housing. on land the state of hawaii is making available for you to do that. the housing itself, which would be transitional, or at least

transitional to put in about 1000 units that are desperately needed to cover a gap in the housing availability, and that gap is caused not only by the shortage of housing on maui in general, but by the fact that there are many people that are being housed in hotels and other ways that are not eligible for fema housing right now. they've been disqualified for many reasons. and so there's two solutions here. the rehousing is not going to work. the rebuilding has to happen in some way, shape, or form. some form of rebuilding transitional housing, and or the exercise of your waiver authority to allow the people that are being disqualified from rehousing to actually get into that rehousing market. i think this would be good all around. you certainly are spending a heck of a lot of money that you don't need to be spending on some of these housing options that are being pursued in a very tight market. what can you tell us about your thoughts?

and again, i say this in the context of sincere appreciation for your efforts. >> thank you very much for recognizing the extraordinary work of fema in close partnership with state and local officials. you correctly describe the housing challenge filing tragic fires. it is extremely complex and difficult, and we are looking at all of our options, and also art eager to work with congress to assess what additional authorities fema might need in working across the administration, not just with the department of homeland security through fema, but also with housing and development, with economic experts to understand what is the right solution for the people of maui, whether it be housing, and therefore we have to rebuild, the challenges of rebuilding are difficult because of its ihlen status. it's unique situation as an

extraordinary tourist destination, the pricing of housing is different than many other -- >> i appreciate that, mr. secretary. i appreciate that, my time is almost up. i commend you on all those efforts, but we don't have time. the answers are pretty straightforward. you're never going to be able to satisfy the innate housing approach. there's not enough housing in the overall market. you can't leave people in hotel rooms for another six months to a year while you figure this out with economic experts. some decision needs to be made on some form of rebuilding, and the waiver authority that will relieve the pressure on that rebuilding. i commend you on that. thank you very much for your efforts and we will stay in touch. >> thank you. >> we don't recognize mr. cloud. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to start with a very simple question.

what is the name of your department that you are the secretary of? what is the name of the department? >> the department of homeland security. >> and your department was set up when 19 foreign nationals misrepresented who they were and used our infrastructure and our resources to bring a catastrophic attack, of course, on september 11th. now, your department is tasked with the detecting the homeland. and you have done more to turn it into and prioritize processing then you have protection. when you talk to the border patrol agents in texas who are doing a yeoman's work, doing everything they can but with what they are being faced with, they are very frustrated that they have been taken off the job of protecting our borders and instead have been put in the role of processing. could you speak to any authorities that congress has removed from you or the president since taking office?

has congress removed any authorities from you or the president since you taking office? that's a yes or no question. >> congressman, the point that you make with respect to border patrol agents is exactly -- >> you are filibustering. i asked you a yes or no question. has congress removed any authorities from you or the president to take an office? >> congressman, the -- >> the answer is no. i also make the point that you possibly 20% larger budget than trump had. the president has made the point that he can't secure the border, he can't get down to it, because he is waiting on congress to move, and i just point that out to allay that and to point out the truth that he has every single authority as president trump. he has more resources at his disposal, yet he has done everything he can to undermine the security of our border. have you read the pamphlet?

>> congressman, what is your -- >> it was a report written by two colonels in the chinese army. >> what is your substantive question of the department of homeland dirty? >> is a yes or no? no? in the pamphlet, or the brochure, it talks about the fact that a country would be -- to take up the united states, they will not try to use kinetic warfare. they would use things like abusing our legal system, tech center infrastructure, terrorism, drug warfare, economic aid warfare. in other words, getting us to overuse. the soviet union was giving them to overspend to economic collapse because he got in a arms race with them and couldn't keep up economically. right now, we are wasting and spending money because it's

leading to our demise. the number one threat against our country is our fiscal house. you have any concerns that china may be engaged within financial warfare in our country? >> congressman, addressing the challenges that the people's republic of china proposes is one of our highest 40s, and whether that's enforcement of the labor protection act -- >> how many across the border in the last few years? >> in the fight against forced labor, which is battling -- >> that is not homeland security. i appreciate that, but that is not homeland dirty. >> we are tasked with enforcement. >> i'm asking you about the border. how many chinese nationals across our borders? it's tens of thousands. >> secondly, the threat of cyber attacks --

>> right now, crossing our border, are tens of thousands of chinese nationals that are presently in our country. they are primarily single adult males, military aged, and they have crossed order. and you are not doing anything to counteract them. you mentioned expanding lawful pathways. who makes laws? >> congressman, if you must ask me questions, the answers to which you know, allow me to answer it. congress. >> thank you. you have an answer the other questions, so i will just went that out. the issue that we have when it comes to analyzing your budget -- this is been the difficult part -- is that we look at our budgets and we want to spend money to secure our border. and so we as congress write the check for security, and then you get it and you turn it into processing, and you turn it into basically human trafficking, aiding and abetting cartels and all the nefarious action that's happened. we've had 100,000 people killed

from fentanyl. the precursors coming from china, that's 300 people a day dying in our country. now we have cells within our country who, at any moment, could strike our infrastructure or other ways of unrestricted warfare that i mentioned. i would urge you to put the focus on homeland security, be focused on protection. stop the funding for the unnecessary processing and secure our border and put back in place the policies that have led to a secure or almost secure border. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, sir. we now recognize that ranking member of the entire committee. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. sorry to be running in and out. thank you very much. mr. secretary, thank you very much.

thank you for your years of service to this country. i sat in a prior meeting, the first african-american woman to sit on this body, said the public service is the rent we pay for space on this earth. as i said to secretary cardona, who has been paying the rent? we have been paying the rent over and over again. thank you so much for being here. i have a couple of fema questions. the fema initiative is a nonprofit security grant program. funding for not-for-profit organizations making fiscal security improvements with a high risk of terrorist attack. particularly for years in the aftermath of conflict in gaza, i and others have been concerns about threats to mosques and temples and other places of worship. glad to see the supplemental funding request received by your administration last fall. though i do regret the program received a cut as part of a

very difficult negotiation over the homeland will just a few weeks ago. a couple of questions here. has the department assessed an increase in threats against places of worship in the aftermath of october 7th? what other types of nonprofit facilities are facing acute threats of violence, and could be served by this program? can you speak briefly to the 2025 request level for the program, $110.5 million increase above deck in my 24 funding, and what that request would support? >> a heightened threat environment in which we currently live has only been exacerbated by the october 7th terrorist attacks against the state of israel. we have seen a dramatic increase in the rise in anti- semitism, as well as islamophobia. a nonprofit security grant program provides much-needed

dollars to places of worship and other nonprofit organizations, such as synagogues, mosques, and that is precisely why our fiscal year '25 budget request season obligation of that grant program funding. >> without allow additional grants -- these facilities in order for security and protection? >> it would. and tragically, what we see is increasingly target prevention resource poor institutions and the increase in funding would allow us to ensure enfranchisement in our grant programs and better inclusivity to build capacity where it does not currently exist, but we are working very closely with different communities, different faith communities, different nonprofit organizations, to share best practices and do what we can with the limited funds available to us.

>> is critically important in my community. i hear from organizations -- many small organizations, but continuously. i will try to be quick, mr. chairman. on the serious threat, continuously. let me move on to another fema question, if i can. i'll try to be quick, mr. chairman. fema, by the way, is the single largest part of the homeland budget, as i understand it. it plays an expansive role in keeping our communities safe. it's firefighters, next- generation warning system, preventing violence and terrorism, talking about protecting our homeland, homeland security, responding to disasters, helping communities recover, build back stronger. we've got a few weather events, wildfires, hurricanes, winter storms, threatens the infrastructure that we rely on every day. let me talk about connecticut, across new england, historic flooding point of these affect people's livelihood and their lives really at risk and create

public health and public safety crises. i'd like to focus on prevention and predisaster mitigation point the sad reality is disasters are going to happen so can we speak to the 2025 request for fema, how you envision it should be focused on preparedness, protection and mitigation. where are increasing methods needed in order for you to support this work? what kind of policy changes should be congress be considering? because yes indeed it's about homeland security. these are homeland security issues. >> congresswoman, i look forward to working with you on assessing what legislative changes are needed to better address the increasing impact of climate change, the increasing frequency and gravity of extreme weather events. i have spoken with mayors around the country about the need to meet building codes. something as basic as that, because the building codes are addressing the weather of

yesterday and not the weather of today or tomorrow. i believe it is colorado state university that just issued a report about its prediction for hurricane season and it is really looking very, very troubling. an ounce of prevention today, absolutely vital to preventing calamities in local communities across this country, and the situation is getting worse from an extreme weather perspective, and we have to work with every community to ensure it understands what it needs to do, how the funds that we distribute to it and funds they themselves have in terms of understanding how houses and residences of all type need to be prepared, need to be safeguarded, and what people need to do should an extreme weather events actually occur. >> i think the chair. just to make this final comments, i would very, very

much like to work with you on this because i think the whole issue of fema and its role in homeland security gets lost. it gets lost in a whole lot of yes, serious issues, but a whole lot of political rhetoric as well. but this is i think an area where congress may have the opportunity to do something and to do something in a bipartisan basis because these conditions affect all of our communities and i thank you, mr. chair. >> you're welcome, ms. delauro. we now welcome -- >> thank you mr. secretary, thanks for being with us this morning. appreciate that very much. i want to discuss the fentanyl crisis that we all know is raging throughout our country. fentanyl floods across the southwest border. doesn't stay in border communities, however. it spreads throughout the country and is destroying lives, destroying families, destroying communities throughout the united states. in your testimony notes that

the department has stopped more illicit fentanyl and arrested more individuals for fentanyl related crimes in the last fiscal years than in the previous five years combined. while this is admirable, it's equally disturbing. the men and women of seed vp and ice do extraordinary work on the front line and beyond to execute their mission of protecting the homeland. we all appreciate that. however, as border patrol agents are pulled off of the front line to process and then release the majority of illegal migrants into the united states, the cartels, being very clever, they've shifted their tactics to exploit the vulnerabilities that those personnel shifts and shortfalls have created. in your testimony you also note that in fiscal year 25, a

budget request includes critical investments in the fight against fentanyl, specifically the nonintrusive inspection technology. you mentioned that in your verbal testimony. yet when i reviewed the budget justifications for that program, it says that the fy 25 budget does not provide procurement funding for these investments, although it does request level funding for operations and support. i didn't see the roughly $300 million that reportedly is necessary to install the scanners used to detect drugs and other contraband that have been purchased and are sitting in a warehouse that are literally collecting dust as you and i are sitting here in this hearing. this is something that just totally frustrates and concerns me. when i visited the border in arizona just this last february, one of your, our own border patrol agents, in answer to my question, told me this directly -- we do not control the border.

the cartels control the border. the cartels determine who, when and where people cross our border. even more concerning, a local resident told me that him and his neighbors don't even lock their doors anymore because smugglers, illegal migrants can come through the area, break into homes, take whatever they want. they steal clothing, they steal food. people have resorted to just leaving stuff out on their patios and leaving their doors unlocked to try to prevent damage of people breaking in. i think that to have fellow citizens going through that on a daily basis, to me is unconscionable. this fentanyl epidemic, it's fueled through the southwest border. 5050% comes through arizona alone. how can -- better yet, why can the department justify this?

tell me, are you working with mexican authorities to do what i see, two important things? stop fentanyl precursors from coming from mexico and number two, present waves of migrants from visit the rushing the border. what are some of the specific and tangible actions? >> congressman, i'll answer very briefly in the limited time we have but i would welcome the opportunity to speak with you outside of this hearing, to talk about the work that we are doing with mexico, both in the fight against fentanyl and to ensure that individuals who seek to arrive at our border are interdicted before they reach our border. we are working very closely with mexico and not only with mexico to interdict the flow of precursor chemicals as well as the pill presses and other equipment used to manufacture fentanyl, into this hemisphere.

and i will share with you, i share your concern, congressman newhouse, because for 12 years i was a federal prussic tutor and into trafficking of substances as serious as cocaine and black tar heroin, and we've seen nothing like the consistent vitality of fentanyl, and we have to battle it together. and this is a scourge that has been growing for years. i believe it was in 2020 that there were 50,000 overdose deaths. this is not a new phenomenon. it is a years long phenomenon and we need to work together to address it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you mr. neuhaus. we now recognize mr. dent. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, the discretionary budget this year

is $62.2 billion. is that correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> and the request last year was $60.4 billion as it relates to discretionary spending, is that correct? >> i believe so, congressman. >> you said in your opening statement that there was an insufficient budget, that we were not giving you the funds necessary for you to be able to carry out your job and the men and women who serve under you. last year you were left with $60.4 billion and congress appropriated $61.8 billion, so we actually appropriated more money than you asked for. when you look at what you are asking for this year versus what we appropriated last year, those numbers are very similar. there is not a huge discrepancy between 62.2 and $61.8 billion, and as i look through the individual items that you requested, i want -- congress this year funded 41,500 tension badges but yet you are only requesting 34,000 detention beds and you also referenced the senate bill. in the senate bill which never

passed out of the senate but was a bill which they were debating as part of the overall funding package, you said it would have funded 50,000 detention bed and i'm assuming you supported the senate bill, did you not? >> i hope you would have as well. >> if it would have come over here i would have been happy to have looked at it but unfortunately it never made it out of the senate so the house didn't have the chance to review the legislation. do you support the 50,000 detention beds that would've been in the senate? >> in the context of the bipartisan senate bill, yes. >> what you are asking for some 16,000 less detention beds and actually 7500 west detention beds then we currently find and you talk about removal and you say the people who are in detention often have expedited removal. so if the intent is those individuals who don't need to be here, to remove them from the country sooner rather than later, we know about the immigration courts and the backlog and all those problems

that we face. the only people in detention expedites their removal from the country generally, does it not 2 >> congressman, a few things. number one, remember that when we fund detention beds we also have two fund personnel. it is -- >> do you need more money for personnel? i want to know what you need to find more detention beds because to me it seems asinine, mr. secretary, if we are going to ask for less detention beds when we see a record surge in immigration, a record number of orders of removal that have been issued by the court, but yet we are saying that we don't need detention beds. if we're going to, one, prevent people from coming into the country or if we are not going to prevent them, once they are here and once there is a final disposition of their case, if we're going to seek to remove them and i'm very concerned about that. in fact i'm very concerned you're asking not only for less than we funded this year but

you're asking for substantially less than the senate bill, which you said you agreed with. >> congressman, a few points. number one is i articulated earlier our fiscal year 25 budget request was submitted before congress passed the fiscal year 2024 budget. >> what number do you need to make is 34,000 -- is that the number that you need right now? >> we are committed to working with congress to sustain the 41,500 beds that congress funded. >> if that's the number, why are you substantially underselling the number of detention beds and then making congress come in and bump those numbers up to if those are the numbers you need, if those are the appropriate numbers, mr. secretary, i would ask that you would put those numbers actually in your budget and that you ask congress to fund that and if you don't expect us and we are just going to plus up those numbers so you leave those numbers artificially low. one more thing, i know my time is running short so in an

effort to make sure that i save time for other members, fox news is reporting that there is going to be a possible executive order issued by the president that says to shut down the border by the end of the month. are you aware? are you in any discussions with the president about executive orders that relate to border security and/or immigration? >> congressman, we are consistently evaluating what options are available to us. we do that on a regular basis. i will share with you that executive action, which is inevitably challenged in the courts, is no substitute for enduring -- if i may, for the enduring solution of legislation that will fix what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system. >> and as a secretary, do you believe that the president has the power to issue executive orders that would deal with border security and/or immigration? >> we have actually implemented executive orders by way of very

critical and effective regulations and i would be pleased to speak with you about those. >> thank you mr. chairman, i yield back to >> thank you sir. we now recognize dr. harris. >> thank you very much, and first at the top, i want to make sure you convey my thanks to the coast guard for what they are doing in the port of baltimore. their response was tremendous. getting that torts reopened is important. obviously it's a multi agency effort. coast guard is playing a very important role as well as the army corps of engineers and i want to convey my thanks. >> i will do so. >> i'm going to ask you a question that's come up because the fbi director has testified before congress that he wasn't certain whether or not there were undercover operatives, fbi operatives working on january 6 in the crowd but an undercover journalist released a video you may be aware of in the last two days of a cia official, former

fbi number actually saying yes there were. so i'm going to ask you a simple question. were there undercover officers or agents from the department of homeland security, or paid informants in the crowd on january 6 she'll >> congressman, i don't know the answer to that question. i will follow-up with you. >> wow is all i can say. was ray epps a paid informant? >> congressman, i'm not aware of those facts. i will be very pleased to get them to you. >> thank you very much. is at the policy of the department of homeland security because i understand it is the policy of the fbi to have undercover?

explicitly for barrier construction on everything but the actual construction on the wall. this administration admitted

that the fy 2016 funds were not spent on the wall, as congress intended, they would be breaking the law. as a result of the lawsuit, you can no longer waste additional money on make safe projects and other non-wall construction. how about this administration follow the clear and unambiguous intent of congress and build additional miles of wall with the roughly $600 million left in the wall account? >> mr. chairman, i won't speak to the texas court decision because that is a matter of ongoing litigation, but let me assure you that we do comply with the law. as a matter of fact, because of our understanding of the legal imperative, we approved the construction of 17 miles of wall. we did that last year. in addition, i have approved, i believe it is 129, i may have the exact number inaccurately but i believe i'm right, 129 gates and gaps closures and reforms so we are complying with the law but we continue to

believe that technology is a far more advanced capability that we need to invest in to ensure the security of our border. >> at the border, sir, i've seen wall parts that not been constructed, just how much money it cost the department to cancel those projects midstream when taking into account additional work that needs to be done, just stabilizing roads, drainage and other mitigation efforts? >> mr. chairman, i'm pleased to provide you with the figures you request. >> thank you. now recognize the distinguished ranking member, mr. lr. >> you've been to texas. using the border wall, the levee walls we have out there. when somebody is asking for asylum, don't they all have two just touch the riverbank? >> once they step on united states soil, ranking member lr, they have a lawful right to

claim asylum. >> since we have a 1200 mile river, the fences that we have are not in the middle of the river, which is really the international boundary. they are not at the riverbank that they are actually a quarter-mile even longer away. >> in certain places that is indeed correct. >> thank you. let me ask you, according to the numbers that i've seen from y'all, most of the drugs that we have coming in are coming through ports of entry. meth, cocaine, fentanyl up to 94% are coming through the point of entry. is that correct? >> with respect to the southern border, yes that is correct. i believe it is. our data, our intelligence analysis illustrate that approximately 90% if not more of the drugs entering the country through the border arrived through -- smuggled in

the ports of entry. >> somebody asked you, whatever money we added for technology, nonintrusive, move on that as much as possible so we can have them not only at the ports of entry but also the border patrol checkpoints also. i would ask you to move those and according to the u.s. sentencing commission, 86% to 87% of the people are smuggling drugs at the ports of entry or at the check points. >> i'm not certain about the precise percentage but i do understand that the data evidence, that the majority are united states citizens. >> the last numbers i saw were about 86%, 87%. now let me go back to -- i'm a big believer in expedited. what resources -- i'll ask you again, do you need so we can do expedited removals? >> under title eight? >> ranking member cuellar, in

addition to additional legal authority, which we would have been provided under the bipartisan legislation, many more asylum officers, enforcement and removal officers in immigration and customs enforcement, additional personnel, additional customs and border protection personnel, additional facilities and those are some of the highlights with respect to what we need. but underlining it is the additional legal authority that the bipartisan legislation would've delivered. >> we surely would've provided the funding. again, i just have to say this, mr. chairman marco the two last appropriations bills where we had a $1.4 billion in cbp, every single person on the other side of the aisle except for two in congress voted no for that extra money.

this last appropriations bill, we added the largest amount to cbp. i think less than half of the majority voted for funding, so we've got to make sure we all work together and do bipartisan funding to give you this. the last question on expedited removal, again, i believe in expedited removal, title eight, it was used very effectively when you were with the obama administration undersecretary jeh johnson. you said that the only way we could use cbp removal or title eight if they are under cbp custody, would a monitoring system still be under cbp? and i guess you can't answer that but i want you to think about it and go back to the attorneys to see if you can use title eight expedited removal because custody means probably under i.c.e. or cbp facility, but we do use

monitoring and i would ask you to see if you can look at that, whether that would be custody, which in my opinion, i would say yes, and see if you can use title eight expedited removal. and again, anything that we can change the law, and i don't know what y'all are looking at, the executive order, but we do know that at the very beginning a lot of those people don't qualify. they do not qualify, with all due respect. if they are hungry, they want a job, they want to come to the u.s. the shining city on top of a hill, i understand that but they don't qualify under the five persecution under asylum law. we want to work with you. we want to be supportive and again, you had a very difficult job there are so many opinions here. you get attacked because you do too much or you get attacked for not doing enough but i do want to say i want to thank you for your service and i want to thank the men and women that

work under your department. >> thank you very much. >> thank you mr. cuellar. now recognize mrs. simpson. >> thank you mr. chairman. last year when you came before the sub mediated ask you about concerning reports of chinese nationals crossing our open border. i brought this concern to you directly, mr. secretary, because president biden did not do anything to prevent this issue. it has become worse and now chinese nationals, as you may be aware of, are the largest and fastest group attempting to cross into our country. but i am concerned that your testimony in your budget does not acknowledge that fact or directly do anything to address it. is that correct? >> congresswoman, let me be clear. number one, any individual who poses a threat to public safety or national security is a priority for protection, number one. number two, for the first time i had an engagement with my counterpart from the people's republic of china to ensure that china would begin to

accept removal flights so we can deliver a consequence for individuals from the people's republic of china who do not have a legal basis to remain in the united states and those discussions are ongoing, and we actually did in fact one flight most recently, the first time in a number of years. >> unfortunately we have to judge the chinese communist party based upon their actions and not their words. we know just recently two chinese nationals were arrested in iowa on a nationwide fraud case they were involved in. one of them was believed to have crossed the southwest border and was released into the country, and they made their way to i what and joined in this national productivity. americans do transparency and accountability for all of your actions which essentially adversaries our borders are wide open, allowing criminals to enter the country and make their way into iowa. i don't think there's an excuse for having the same conversation to years in a row

and i'd like to see more stringent action from the administration concerning chinese communist party nationals coming across our border. another action i find distressing is that the ministration is diverting a record number of federal air marshals to the southwest border to perform administrative duties. this leaves americans unguarded on commercial flights. i spoke directly with the air marshals about the safety concerns posed by diverting them to the southern border, allowing for a shortage of air marshals on flights, dying them their sworn duty to protect americans in the air. mr. secretary, dance around calling the crisis at our southern border not only a humanitarian crisis but a crisis so if you do not see it as that, why are you deploying our federal air marshals to the border and other agencies to the border? >> congers woman, i do understand the challenges at the border and i certainly don't dance around them, as a matter of fact. >> would you call it a crisis on the southern border? >> yes i would and as a matter of fact, i work every day with

the men and women in the department of homeland security to fully strengthen security of our southern border as well as the northern border and we deploy personnel from other parts of our department whenever the situation so warrants and the situation at the so warrants. >> when i look at my visit to the southern border, i've been twice. i had a chance to meet with the brave men and women of the cbp as well as some i.c.e. agents but i was increasingly disturbed by how many you are pulling from other agencies, not just our fams but also tsa and fema so again i think that i'm pleased to hear you called it a crisis, i think for the first time i've heard you publicly acknowledge it, but i think we continue to put americans lives at risk by pulling the federal air marshals off of these flights, again leaving them uncovered. i think that the federal air marshals certainly communicated to me that they've had enough of this. they see it as deception and harmful action so i'll continue working to prohibit the ability to deploy those necessary air marshals down into the border. they need to be back on flights, esther secretary until

you indeed certify that the border is in a crisis. thank you very much for appearing before our committee today. i yield back. >> thank you ms. simpson. at this point, mr. guest, do you have any further questions? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mayorkas, sorry, secretary mayorkas, it was reported in january of this year that at a meeting with border patrol agents that you said that the current rate of release for illegal immigrants apprehended at the southwest border is above 85% go one, did that cover station take place and two, is that number accurate? >> congressman, i'm not familiar with that number and i'm not certain to which conversation you refer. i have visited the border so very many times. perhaps some additional details

would guide me in responding to your question accurately. >> yes sir. and i'll read from the article that was a fox news article, headlines, may orchis tells border patrol agents that above 80% of illegal immigrants in the united states and it says that was published on january 8, 2024. home. callahan drove mayorkas on monday admitted to border patrol agents that the current rate of release for illegal immigrants apprehended at the southwest border is above 85% are co-sources told foxnews mayorkas made remarks when meeting privately with agents in eagle pass, texas, according to the briefed border patrol sources who were in the room and heard the remarks themselves. >> congressman, i'll be pleased to provide you with the data point. certainly i don't do that when it goes to transcript. >> i guess my question is, is that figure of 85%, is it accurate? >> i'll have to follow-up with you, congressman, and provide the data you request. i don't have it at my

fingertips, that data point. >> you're not disputing this article. you are not saying that number is artificially high. you are just saying at this point you don't have that number here to either admit or deny the 85% that it was alleged there in the article? >> i cannot confirm and i will do so. >> mr. secretary, previous conversations discussed title 42, title eight. as we know, title 42 expired in may of last year. we saw a brief dip in apprehensions late may, early june, and we saw the numbers rise significantly after that. we saw in december the number of apprehensions on both the northern and southern border were, if my numbers are correct, roughly 370,000 immigrants who would have entered the country just in the month of december alone. so if this number is accurate,

if 85% of those individuals who are -- you attempt to enter are actually released into custody. that would put the number at roughly 315,000 just in december alone, so these numbers to me are very troubling in that we seem to have a large number of immigrants continue to come into country. after 42 expired there were some conversations that you had, testifying that you believe once we began prosecuting immigrants under title eight versus title 42 that we would see those numbers drop because part of the argument under title 42 is we were deporting immigrants back to their country of origin or back into mexico where they were then immediately returning back across the border with no consequences. so now that 42 has reached expired and we are operating only under title eight, i'm not seeing a decrease in the numbers whatsoever. if anything, we've seen those numbers increase. so can you explain to me now that 42 has expired and we don't have that revolving door

of immigrants being apprehended, returned to mexico and then coming right back into country, why we can't seem to get any relief, why we continue to see, what you've referred to, the first time i've ever heard you refer to it as a crisis. i've heard you repeatedly say this is not a crisis and that the border is secure. i think this is the first time you've said that. i know the president said, i believe in january, that not only did you say the border wasn't secure, he said it hadn't been security in a decade, which would've been the entire time which he has been president and including time in which he was vice president in the obama administration. so now that 42 has expired, now that we are cooperating under title eight, now that we are continuing to find the department of homeland security an amount in excess that you asked for, what more do we need to to be able to secure our border? >> congressman, first of all,

it's not the first time i've used that terminology. i'd be pleased but we don't have the time right now but i'd be pleased to explain to you why the numbers were as high as they were in december and why they are significantly lower since then there are clear reasons for that and what we need to strengthen the security of the border is to pass the bipartisan legislation that would provide us with a legal to and the resources to address what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system. there has not been, in my time in the department of homeland security, more than 10 years now, nor in my time in the federal government, which is approximately 22 years now, 12 of which were spent as a federal prosecutor, have i seen a proposal that is as tough on the border and to strengthen the security as this bipartisan

piece of legislation. >> i yield back, mr. chair. >> thank you mr. guest, that reminds us on the panel here that the second round is supposed to be three minutes, although lower clock showing five minutes, so in order we can take care of everybody, and my sincere apologies to ms. underwood for skipping over her and trying to be unbiased here, making sure we had legal representation on both sides. please, your next question. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, was the homeland of secretary of homeland security on january 6, 2001? >> january 6 of 2021, was that acting secretary wolf? i believe. >> yes sir. you were not homeland security secretary on that date. >> no, i assumed office on february 2 of 2021 point >> yes there. secretary mayorkas, your tenure at the department of homeland 30 has been historic in so many ways. you faced so many challenges in

a really complicated threat environment and at the same time, during your tenure dhs had over 34,000 pounds of fentanyl last year alone, ensuring safety and security of 350 million travelers in 2023, which is a record-setting year in air travel. you've exceeded your goal of new hires for women in law enforcement. you've worked to keep our kids safe, identifying or rescuing over 11,000 child victims of online sexual exploitation and abuse and yet you face unprecedented, vicious and personal campaign against you and your staff at the department of homeland security from my colleagues on the right, and even a baseless impeachment effort. dhs is charged with work that is both difficult and essential, keeping americans safe, and i want to thank you for your commitment to doing that important job and doing it with the focus and care and attention that we expect of our leaders in this country.

thank you very much for your service, sir. i also just want to make a comment about the delay the processing time for immigration applications at the department, which has been a repeated concern from my constituency northern illinois. everyday our office here's more news about the delay of daca renewals, work eligibility for migrants and concerns about the nationalization process for those who are eligible, and we encourage people to pursue legal means of immigration but we must also ensure that our processes are timely and responsive throughout that process. so last year dhs introduced an update to the equity action plan and in the update there was a significant gap between the annual naturalization and the annual size of the population eligible to naturalize. so in that report there are some barriers that were mentioned. last time understanding of the naturalization process, ability to meet the english language requirement as well as the lack

of ability to pay application fees and i'm concerned this means migrants from non-english- speaking countries, particularly migrants of color are especially vulnerable to pitfalls in our naturalization process so we just ask that you direct to take a look at that naturalization gap for english and non-english speakers and also take a look at what's going on with the daca recipients so we'll submit something really specific for the record. but if you could direct them to follow-up that would be really helpful. i yield back >> ms. underwood, i now recognize dr. harris. >> thank you very much and thank you, mr. secretary. first of all, just to follow up on the january 6 thing, you were the secretary while the congressional investigation went on when the whole question of paid informants and embedded federal agents was brought up, is that right? >> are you referring to the special committee

>> the special, quote, bipartisan committee. that's what i thought. you are well aware of the controversies involved with the idea of federal agents embedded or paid informants and the whole ray 's thing. let me clear up the 212 issue right now because the president is the one who raised it now because apparently he's going to issue some kind of executive order and i'm assuming he has the same authority to issue that executive order 3 million -- three years ago before 9 million people entered the country, is that right? he's going to issue it tomorrow and the gentleman raised a perfectly valid question. our laws didn't change in the past three years because congress didn't do anything. god knows congress didn't do anything on immigration so i'm assuming we are operating under the same set of laws. i just find it a little coincidental that seven months before an election, where the president is downing the polls and immigration is the top

issue, that the president gets religion on this. so has the feeling in the administration changed on 212 f? because we always asserted on our side of the aisle that the president had authority under 212 f. we know because president trump assorted the authority. has the president sought your opinion on this him on his announcement last night? has the president sought the opinion of his secretary on this he'll >> congressman, let me share with you one fact, and that is -- >> i only have 1:10 left. did the presidency your opinion on his announcement last night that there is going to be executive order regarding his authorities under 212 f? >> that was not the president's announcement tonight >> onto the next question because i'm not going to let you filibuster that. that was his announcement last night, it's reported in axios, widely reported today. my question was just did he consult you? i think it's a simple question. i think you are being very

evasive about it and i'm going to leave it at that. now with regards to i.c.e. detention, montgomery county, maryland, montgomery county officials twice had a person who was issued detainers under i.c.e., twice released from prison, now charged with -- in the murder of a two year old, twice. what this administration does to go to lyrical jurisdictions and convince them to comply with detainers because as the gentle man from texas indicated, the title of your department is homeland security. i would assume protecting americans from illegal immigrants with detainer orders, scheduled for deportation, who will go on to kill someone, is something the administration might be interested in having. so what are you doing to convince local jurisdictions like montgomery county to

actually cooperate, not be a sanctuary jurisdiction, and cooperate with detainer orders to get these dangerous individuals off our streets? >> congressman, we continue to work with local jurisdictions to persuade them and when an individual poses a threat to public safety and the individual has a detainer placed on him or her, that they honor the detainer and not release the individual onto the streets but rather turned the individual over to the immigration and customs enforcement for continued detention. mr. chairman, may i have a 30 second privilege to answer? >> i'll ask you for the same 30 second privilege. >> the prior administration executed what it leaves to be its authority under 212 f and the courts enjoined it. >> claiming my 30 seconds, the

number of jurisdictions in the united states who operate under this increase or decrease in this administration? >> i'm not aware of any increase, mr. congressman. >> so you think it might've decreased actually? >> i stand by my statement. >> wow, if you can get me the details i would appreciate it because for all the bluster of actually convincing local authorities to cooperate, the most obvious sign would be the number two 8070 local authority increased, if the administration is doing anything about it. i yield back. >> thank you dr. harris. mr. newhouse? >> thank you mr. chairman. secretary, by statute your agency as well is the department of labor administered the agricultural guestworker program. based on recent dol rule makings that farmers across the country are burdened with, dol appears to at least not

understand or not fully appreciate the importance of the agricultural industry. i for one, however, would like to believe that you do, that you understand the importance of growing healthy foods in the united states, which aligns with your agency's guiding principles and responsibility to preserve and uphold the nation's prosperity and economic security. so just real simply, do you believe that the ability of a nation to feed itself is inherently more secure than a nation that relies on imports to feed its citizens? >> i do. i am not an expert in that area but i believe in the h2 a visa process and in fact we are expanding it throughout the hemisphere through a lawful halfway. >> let me ask you a little bit about that. earlier this year the u.s. gis finalized a new rule that would increase cost to employers utilizing h2 a, among other programs. while i understand the purpose and utility of a fee-based program, the need to up date based on increased cost, the

rule as finalize these overly burdensome and costly to our nation's producers. not only did the general filing fee increase but a $600 asylum program seeing was added requiring ag employers to pay for a program that they really don't receive any benefit from. additionally, instead of just filling one form for all their workers, the final rule caps the number of employees that can be listed on each form at 25. there is no added benefit that i can see for this policy and it only increases paperwork burdens and costs to ag employers so now that the rule has gone into effect as of last week, we have some actual costs associated with this rule and they far exceed the predicted and indicated 26% increase that was anticipated. so a couple questions here. do

you expect producers to absorb this cost or are they to pass them on to consumers? if producers are expected to absorb these costs, how do you expect them to stay in business? and if they are no longer in business, how do you and the administration plan to protect our food security when -- at the time the majority of our foods served on our tables becomes imported from other countries. >> congressman, two points. number one, i will allow experts to speak to the downstream economic implications of the fee rule that we were compelled to issue. i am very sensitive to the fact that additional costs were imposed on applicants and i understand the burden that poses. but u.s. citizenship and immigration services was really with its back against the wall, having been driven almost to bankruptcy by the prior administration. the legislation provides that the fees the agency charges are

to be recalibrated according to cost. i believe it is every two years and a fee rule hadn't been promulgated successfully for over seven if i believe my time frames are correct, so we had to make some very difficult decisions with respect to how to bring the agency to a point of financial stability, which it had been suffering financial instability for too long, which created backlogs in the administration of our legal immigration system. i will follow-up with experts to address your economic centered questions. >> i appreciate that. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. newhouse. my understanding is our ranking member henry cuellar would like to ask you one more question. >> i just want to add, when i said to cbp i meant dhs custody, which is cbp and of

course i.c.e. and i would ask you to please look at title eight expedited removal when they are under custody under dhs, whether that includes being detained, whether that includes monitoring or even a system that allows them to check in. i'm just trying to see if we can do something where we can add funding for officers and et cetera, et cetera, to have you do more title eight expedited removal for the ones that don't qualify for asylum. so i would ask you to look into that. >> we most certainly will and have, ranking member cuellar, and i know this is an area of extensive litigation but we will follow up so i can be more responsive to you. >> thank you. >> you're welcome, mr. cuellar, and i would approve this if we are talking about finances here, i thought this question would come up but without addressing it directly with you, mr. secretary, after the horrific terrorist attack on israel on october 7, the deadliest day for the jewish

people since the holocaust, one of your employees was exposed celebrating the attack online. it was later revealed she previously worked for the palestine liberation organization or what's commonly known as the plo. she has a very troublesome repetition, you agree. according to a public comment she made on linkedin two months ago, she was still getting paid by the department. could you please set the record straight? is this person still being paid by the department of homeland security and what is the status of the investigation into her behavior? >> mr. chairman, the individual is on administrative leave, not performing the duties and responsibilities for which she was hired. the investigation is ongoing and i cannot speak any further about it because it is an ongoing personnel matter. >> and you give us a specific date as to when this is going to be reached as to her employment? >> i am not in control of the investigation but certainly i'll provide you with whatever

details i'm permitted to do. >> i understand you correctly, she's still on administrative leave and still being paid? tell me how many total employees at the department are under investigation for similar purposes after the terrorist attack on israel, after october 7? >> i personally am not aware of any other investigations but to provide you with accurate information i will follow-up. >> have any changes been made to make sure that people of such character are not to be employed in your agency from here on out? >> individuals who are hired go through a clearance process in the department of homeland security, mr. chairman. >> i take it you will be tightening up those clearance processes? >> we review our hiring and retention processes on an ongoing basis. as a matter of fact, i'm meeting with leadership this friday to address one aspect of it. >> well, first off, thank you to the members who are here today. i'd like to get back to the

members who have submitted questions, of which you said you would go back and scrutinize your record and report back to them, and if you could do so in the next 15 business days we would be most appreciative. there may be some additional questions that come up with for providing right. we ask you again to provide his answers on a timely basis. i'd like to thank you for being here today, sir, and this subcommittee stands adjourned. thank you. >> i got it.

>> day, homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas will ma a second appearance on capitol hill to testify on the president's 2025 budget request and immigration policy. watch the senate appropriations subcommittee hearing live at 2:30 p.m. eastern on cpanel three, c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. >> we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast.

>> comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> friday night watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of c-span campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover what the candidates across the country are saying to voters along with firsthand accounts from political reporters, updated phone numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, friday night at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c- span.org or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> celebrating the 20th anniversary of our annual

student documentary competition, this week c-span asked middle and high school students across the country to look forward while considering the past. participants were given the option to look 20 years into the future or 20 years into the past and in response we received inspiring and thought revoking documentaries from over 3200 students across 42 states with a top award of $5000 for grand prize goes to nate coleman and jonah rough line, 10th-graders at weston high school in connecticut. their compelling documentary navigating past and future conflict with iran. >> >> united states must make more policy that puts heavy restrictions on all americans traveling to iran because not only do we see less hostagetaking but the united states will no longer have to participate in such considerable negotiations with iran. >> congratulations to the wrong winners and watch the 2021 documentary on c-span every day this month starting at 6:50