[House Hearing, 114 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2016 _______________________________________________________________________ HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION _______ SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY JOHN R. CARTER, Texas, Chairman JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee HENRY CUELLAR, Texas ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio CHRIS STEWART, Utah DAVID YOUNG, Iowa NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. Valerie Baldwin, Kris Mallard, Laura Cylke, and Anne Wake, Staff Assistants _______ PART 3 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Page Immigration and Customs Enforcement... 1 Customs and Border Protection......... 81 Federal Emergency Management Agency... 189 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 96-904 WASHINGTON : 2015 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS ---------- HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey NITA M. LOWEY, New York ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN R. CARTER, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California KEN CALVERT, California SAM FARR, California TOM COLE, Oklahoma CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BARBARA LEE, California TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas STEVE ISRAEL, New York JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska TIM RYAN, Ohio THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington HENRY CUELLAR, Texas DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine DAVID G. VALADAO, California MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois ANDY HARRIS, Maryland DEREK KILMER, Washington MARTHA ROBY, Alabama MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada CHRIS STEWART, Utah E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida DAVID YOUNG, Iowa EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director (ii) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2016 ________ Wednesday, April 15, 2015. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT WITNESS SARAH R. SALDANA, DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT Mr. Carter. Director Saldana, welcome to the subcommittee. We are happy to have you here. I believe this is the first time we have had a chance to visit with you and we are looking forward to having you. Today's hearing is your first as director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE. Director Saldana comes to this position from the great State of Texas. She is a fellow Texan. We will try to be nice to her. There she served as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. Prior to that, she served as the Assistant U.S. Attorney and prosecuted a variety of criminal cases including human trafficking, public corruption, and bank and mortgage fraud. Director, you have a challenging job. Enforcing immigration and customs laws and investigating and dismantling transnational criminal organizations is not easy, but it is essential. We look forward to working with you and the men and women at ICE and encourage you to keep us as well informed as you can of all operations. All in all, the President's budget request for ICE is pretty good. Overall, spending is at $6.3 billion which is $16 million below fiscal year 2015. As required by law, the request includes $2.4 billion for 34,040 detention beds of which 31,280 are for adult detention and 2,760 for families; $122 million is for alternatives to detention to monitor an estimated 53,000 aliens, and funds sufficient to cover the cost of 6,200 criminal investigators and 5,800 deportation officers and immigration enforcement agents. Though these recommendations are sound, I have a few concerns. First and foremost, the budget assumes funding for 100 percent staffing, yet, according to preliminary budget analysis, the number of onboard investigative staff is far lower than budgeted. Whether they can be hired before the end of the fiscal year is questionable. In fact, I wonder whether you can spend the funds appropriated in fiscal year 2015 appropriations package. Next, I am pleased that the request assumes funding for 34,040 detention beds as mandated by law. I am surprised, however, that the request for 2,760 family units is 972 units lower than last year. Last September, the Administration requested funds for 3,732 new family detention units and Congress provided appropriations to that level. Reduction indicates a portion of the funds provided in fiscal year 2015 are no longer necessary, and we need to get to the bottom of this. Before I turn to Ms. Saldana for her statement, the text of which will be included in the record, I would like to recognize the distinguished ranking member, Ms. Royal-Allard, for any remarks that she may wish to make. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, Director Saldana, and congratulations on your confirmation as director. And welcome to your first appearance before this subcommittee. Of the fiscal year 2016 discretionary budget request for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, $5.97 billion which is a slight increase of $6.3 million above the fiscal year 2015 level, the total includes $345 million for 2,760 family detention beds which is nearly 20 percent of the overall detention budget. And this extremely costly proposition is one of the issues which I will be asking you about this morning. Also when the secretary testified before the subcommittee a few weeks ago, I mentioned to him that the toughest mission for the department is the enforcement of our immigration laws because it exposes a tension among values we as Americans hold dear such as obeying the law, protecting children, and keep families together. While I realize we cannot open our borders to everyone who wants to come here for a better life, I do believe that it is important to keep those values in mind. And this will help to ensure that as we discuss your agency's immigration enforcement mission, we do so in the context of ensuring individuals are treated humanely and afforded due process under our laws. ICE has many areas of responsibility where it deserves credit for its performance. And I would just to like to highlight a few of those. Last year, ICE dismantled eight alien smuggling organizations involving the arrest of 37 smugglers. ICE also identified and provided assistance to 446 human trafficking victims and more than 1,000 child exploitation victims. And just last week, among other things, ICE announced the arrest of 19 individuals wanted for murder and 15 for rape. As I mentioned earlier, however, there are areas where I have significant concerns such as the exorbitant cost of family detention beds. Other areas I would like to discuss have to do with how ICE is making use of alternatives to detention and the status of implementing and adhering to the agency's revised enforcement priorities. I also hope we will have time this morning to focus on your important investigative missions, most of which are not directly related to immigration enforcement, including human trafficking and child exploitation. So thank you again for being here and I look forward to our discussion this morning. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Carter. All right, Director. We now will recognize you for a summation of what you have submitted to the committee in approximately five minutes, if you can. Ms. Saldana. Thank you, sir. And I do not seem to have a working thing, but that is not unusual, I guess. Somebody will hit me with a hammer or something if---- Mr. Carter. Are you pushing the button? It should light up green when you are ready to talk. Does it not work? Ms. Saldana. Can you hear me? I mean, I do not think it is going to be hard to hear me. Mr. Carter. I think your mike is on. Ms. Saldana. Okay. Thank you, sir. You are right. This is my first appearance before this committee. I was just with Judiciary Committee yesterday and we had some lively conversation. I think I am prepared for you all today. I will thank the Judiciary Committee later. From my early days as an Assistant United States Attorney just cutting my teeth on the immigration docket to the time that I have spent here, a little bit short of four months as the director of ICE, I have seen firsthand over these several years the commitment, dedication, and hard work shown by the agents, the international staff, the lawyers, mission support staff, all our folks at ICE and am very, very proud to be serving as the director. I get kidded a lot about that, but I will tell you that this is the place I should be right now in this critical moment in our history. As you all know, ICE has about 400 laws we have to enforce. As a U.S. Attorney, I had about 3,000 plus that I had to enforce in the North Texas area. I appreciate the importance of the mission of ICE, Homeland Security, National Security, enforcement of customs laws, smuggling activities, transnational crime, and I know that you all do as well. And I am really looking forward to a productive relationship because that is why I am here is because I would like to attempt in the short time I have to do the best I can for the country and for this agency which I am very proud to lead. I am pleased with our 2016 budget submission of $6.28 billion. It is very much in line with the 2015 enacted budget for which we are very, very grateful. Following years of sustained and painful budget cuts as well as the threat of sequestration and shutdowns, you all can imagine how difficult it has been to manage our finances. But now with this budget, I think it will strengthen our financial footing to enable ICE to expand efforts that are core to its mission including immigration, the transnational crime and investigations you spoke about, Ranking Member Roybal- Allard, and investment in information technology needed to meet the security challenges of this 21st century. These areas along with the improvement of morale at our agency actually parallel my own goals for the agency. And I am very much focused on cyber security and homeland investigations and counter-terrorism work and focusing our efforts on those people who are immigrants, undocumented immigrants in the country who pose a threat to our communities. So as the principal investigative arm of the department, the Office of Homeland Security Investigations, we refer to it as HSI, does criminal investigations to protect the United States against terrorism and other criminals and to bring to justice those seeking to exploit our customs and immigration laws worldwide. Notably in 2014, ICE investigations led to the disruption or dismantlement of 520 transnational criminal organizations. And I cannot tell you how impressed I am. I have now visited one, two, three, four, five, six countries in the less than four months that I have been onboard including going around the world. I did go around the world on one trip and lived to tell about it. And I am just so impressed with our international people, our attaches, our deputy attaches, and the tremendous support they bring to our investigations. It is critical to have those folks out there obviously as well as our domestic agents. In connection with those investigations, we made more than 32,000 criminal arrests and seized more than 2.3 million pounds of narcotics, 23,000 weapons, and $722 million in currency aligned with our financial investigations. The President's budget requests $1.99 billion for ICE to continue these investigative efforts. Specifically the budget increases domestic investigative capacity to hire special agents and investigative support staff, an area that is very critical. And I do understand your concerns, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hiring and that is an area that is of utmost importance to me. We are up and running and have interviews and other things already in effect and I will be happy to fill you in more detail. The budget also requests $26 million, additional dollars for human smuggling and human trafficking which is an area that I prosecuted substantially when I was an Assistant United States Attorney. To prioritize the removal of those living unlawfully in the United States, ICE devotes its resources to areas that hold the highest risk to our communities. In 2014, I think you have seen the numbers, we removed 316,000 individuals unlawfully present in the United States. More than 213,000 of these were apprehended while or shortly after attempting to cross our borders and 102,000 were apprehended in the interior of the United States. I should point out that 85 percent of those interior removals were of immigrants previously convicted of criminal offenses. That is an 18 percent increase over prior years, 2011 in particular, and it reflects the agency's renewed focus on aggressively targeting and removing the worst criminal immigrants, security threats, felons, gang members, and the like. This budget for 2016 requests $3.3 billion to deter illegal entry into the United States with full funding for the 34,040 beds you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, including family units, 129 fugitive operation teams, a very important part of what we do, and increased use of alternatives to detention that effectively manage risk while also reducing the detention costs the ranking member mentioned earlier. Of course, the other side of this coin is the work of our attorneys whose work is vital to moving cases along so that we can remove people, so we can get a final order and a disposition with respect to those people we want to see removed. And the attorneys are vital in that. With the new attorneys that we are requesting, we think we can address their very heavy workloads and decrease the average length of stay of detainees which, as you all know, can get very expensive very quickly. The 2016 President's budget also requests $73.5 million to improve ICE's information technology infrastructure and applications. It is old. In order to manage, I have to review data all the time. In order to oversee our operations, you all need to review data all the time. And this $73.5 million is critical. Due to reduced budgets and sequestration, ICE's capital investment budget has decreased by 71 percent from a high of $90 million in 2010 to $26 million this year. Some of the systems are reaching the end of their life while others need to be modernized to improve interoperability, data sharing, and reporting capabilities to you and to the American people. I cannot emphasize enough how critical investing in our information technology is for our investigative and enforcement capabilities. I just want to conclude by thanking you for your continued support and I am ready to answer any questions you may have. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, Ms. Saldana, for that summation. We appreciate it very much. And I am going to start out by jumping off into a subject that is weighing upon my heart pretty heavily and I would hope most of the members, if not all the members of this subcommittee. It has been reported in the press to this committee that 30,558 individuals with criminal convictions were released into the public arena in the United States of America. This is a 2014 release which follows a 2013 release which was a discussion of this subcommittee last year of 36,000 criminal aliens released, at which time we asked why did you not tell us about this and why do you not tell us now about the nature of these people. We got that some months later after we requested it. We wrote into our bill report language requiring the ICE to give us that information prior to release. And, by the way, this has been a policy, it is my understanding talking to prior staff people, that has been around and we have asked for for a long time. If you are going to release known criminal offenders into the public arena and into the neighborhoods of American citizens, we think that this committee, who pays the bills, should get that information prior to release. And we treat report language as a direction from this committee for the performance of the agency we direct. This is not hard stuff. You read law books. If it is there in print, you know what it says. I know you are new to the game, but let me just tell you a pet peeve I have about the entire Homeland Security Department. I no longer have any sympathy for the excuse that, the acting director was taking care of that before I got here. Half the people in DHS are acting. It is a fatal flaw of this department. I have addressed this with Jeh Johnson and he agrees it is fatal flaw. And I will have to give him some credit about putting it in the fast track to get people to be the actual people responsible for these agencies in place. I am no longer going to accept the excuse that the acting director should have taken care of this. No. You take all the faults of the guy that was running ICE before you got there. We expect to know this information. Now, you are a Texan. You know that the NAFTA corridor is the outlet for the entire eastern part of the United States, and it runs right through our back yard. You went to school in Kingsville. It runs right through your back yard. The Texas people can see that we just put 30,000 criminals that they know nothing about on that highway headed north. Now, in reality, they are not all on that highway, but there is a good number of them that are. They run right through my hometown of Round Rock. And that corridor affects every Texan in the whole State. When people hear criminals are released, they get fearful and they ask us to answer for that because we are their representatives. And if the subcommittee that provides the funding does not have the information, then none of the rest of the Members of Congress have any source to go to to get the information. This is a critical error and I have a whole series of questions I want to discuss with you about that. Let me start here. You just kind of make a little note of this and I will go by sections. Are there national security concerns or law enforcement sensitivities that prevent you or the department from giving us this information? Why does the press get it before Congress gets it? As directed in the fiscal year 2015 House report, do you intend to publish the information on your website as directed by Congress and when? Let's start with those three questions. Ms. Saldana. Okay. And, sir, when I took the oath for this office, it was never my intention and it will not be my pattern to blame others for the situation at ICE. I am here voluntarily of my own free will and I intend to answer for the agency. With respect to the information and the reporting, my boss, Jeh Johnson, as you well know, is very demanding with respect to our cooperation and providing of information to our committees and Members of Congress. He has a very clear directive to all of us that we should do that. I will tell you that right now we are working on the very report. I think maybe late last month, I issued a memorandum and directive that would give me greater comfort because I have the same concern. I do not want criminals who are threats to our communities out there either. But what I have asked for is I want more supervision of the decisions that are made with respect to criminal releases just so that we can rest assured that we are going about our process and following it faithfully and consistently across the country. And one of the things that I addressed in there was the communication with state and local government, obviously with the Congress, but with state and local governments in particular before we release a person with a serious criminal history into the community. We are working on that. I mentioned the technology money. So I know little about IT. I just do not have that kind of brain. I am a lawyer after all. But I do understand old and outdated information systems. And as you can well imagine, we are getting lots and lots of inquiries from, I do not know, the 92 or so committees that oversee our operations and many of them have different aspects. What we are trying to do is to create a system that can be more responsive and we are on the task of the local and state communications of releases. We are already in the test pilot stage trying to make sure that we can communicate with the state systems which in turn will provide information to the local jurisdictions. And I believe those early tests are coming back very successful. In terms of expanding it nationally, it is going to take a few more months in order for us to get that in a way that we can push a button, provide that information to the state, and bring it back so that people have an idea of who is going into their communities that have a record of criminal history. The estimate I have seen is at least through probably the end of this calendar year before we can get that up and going, but I know we are talking to particularly state information system which we have in Texas and obviously the other states have so that we can make our systems compatible so they can speak to each other. I am sorry. I do not know the technical jargon, but I do understand systems speaking to each other and that is what we are trying to accomplish. That is a big deal to me. That is a big deal to me. I know it is a big deal to you, sir, and to the other members of this committee. And I am going to be on it. I am going to be on it from here until we get to the end of actually making this a working system. With respect to reporting to this committee, the people behind me have very clear direction that this is a top priority is communicating with congressional staff and with Members of Congress and we have pedaled as fast as we can. I have seen it when there is a response and a request and I think we have made very good progress. I think we have cut down the numbers, the turnaround time on inquiries. And that is another thing I have my finger on the pulse of. So that is where we are and I commit to you that we will continue to do that. And I will stay on it until we get good---- Mr. Carter. Well, Ms. Saldana, when I heard what you were asked when you commented about--in fact, I made a little note at the top of my page that I expected to hear, and I did, about data. It is wonderful the new tools we have, but as far as we are concerned, you can sit down with a pencil and a big chief tablet and write us out a list of the people that are being released from prison, because you cannot release them without being able to inform somebody to turn them loose. Somebody knows this information that works for ICE and they have been directed by us, prior to the release and prior to anything going to the press, that we get that information. I do not care whether this comes on a computer. You can write it on a big chief tablet and send it over here, but I expect it to be here. I think it is only fair that those of us who have to take the major amount of heat that will come down, and it is coming down right now in our communities across the United States. I was a judge for 20 years. We did not have all these fancy things. We used IBM Selectric typewriters and carbon paper at one time in the courthouse. It is still available. There is no excuse to just ignore this because our computer does not work as fast as it needs to or does not accumulate the information. You have human beings that are accumulating that information, and they can send it to us. Ms. Saldana. Let me be clear, Chairman. We are not ignoring it. We are on this. Mr. Carter. We do not have it. Ms. Saldana. These are files. These are files with a bunch of paper in them. They are stored centrally in archives in a central location. We have to get them. Somebody, as you said, has to get with a pencil and a tablet and go through and respond to the different facts that you are asking for. So we are on that. Mr. Carter. Are you telling me that these people are released without them informing you or the top echelon? Is this field work that is done by individuals and they are just making these releases without any central authority at all? Ms. Saldana. That is part of that same directive I told you about earlier. They are making decisions locally, but I have asked for additional levels of review and that is the field office director. The person who runs the enforcement and removal operation locally has been told you need to sign off, you or an assistant needs to sign off on this, that extra level of supervision. I have created a five or six-person panel of senior managers who will look at the release and make sure we are exercising to the extent we are exercising our discretion, and this is not a court ordered release, that they review it as well. So, no, it is not happening in a vacuum, but we will get that information to you. Mr. Carter. Any people in that chain of command you just mentioned should be able to give us the information. If it comes in piecemeal that in the Rio Grande Valley we are turning loose 10,000 and in Laredo we are turning loose 20,000. I do not care how it comes down. Ms. Saldana. Okay. Mr. Carter. But we need to know it and know what the criminal activity they were convicted of. You know, I was a district judge. We tried felony DWIs and, one of the things that kept you up at night is that drunks kill people in cars. And you get a guy that has a felony DWI in Texas, he has had probably five misdemeanors before he ever gets to see you, even though he could have less to get there, but most of them have about five or more. When you put them out on some kind of release, you think you know who is going to get blamed when a little kid gets run over by this drunk? It is going to be the judge that turned him loose. Well, we get blamed on this situation because we are the guys that pay the bills. I just cannot impress upon you that I am furious about the fact that we ask politely, then we put it in writing and say you will do this, and it is not being done. That encourages us to not be very kind to the agency. I told Jeh Johnson and the former director that I think ICE is one of the best law enforcement agencies in the country, and they do not get any credit for it. But you are not going to get credit if this committee gets down on you, I can promise you. This subcommittee pays the bills, and we are responsible for it. What mechanisms does ICE use to ensure sexual predators released from ICE custody meet the legal requirements to register with local officials? If these releases are being made like you described, really my concern doubles. Has ICE determined whether sexual predators in ICE custody are properly registered before releasing them to the public? It is a requirement of the law of every State in the country, and there is a federal register for sexual predators that I happen to have written the legislation to put that in place. All that is required because it is the way we keep track of a lot of people who do a lot of harm to a lot of little kids. Does ICE have an official process to inform local officials that sexual predators are being released? If not, should a formal process be instituted immediately? Should the law be amended to require this formal process? If you will not do it with any other, we will do that. Ms. Saldana. That is the system I mentioned earlier that I believe we can get off and running with the state databases before the end of the year. I am very hopeful for that. Again, this takes tuning up not only our machines but having them link and work with the state machines as well. We are very much on that and that includes all these criminals that are released, not just the sexual predators. Mr. Carter. But the sexual predators, in all 50 states, we have specific requirements for registration of sexual predators. And we have a national register. Ms. Saldana. Right. Mr. Carter. And if we are releasing people that should be on those registers, then do not. You know, a lot of people in this modern day and age, when they get ready to buy a house, they check that list to see who their neighbors are. This is important. You have stated that you are concerned that releasing criminal aliens could cause public safety concerns. I believe the law enforcement officials should be notified when criminal aliens convicted of violent offenses are released in local communities. Does ICE inform local law enforcement about violent criminal aliens released in their communities? Are there effective methods for getting this information to local law enforcement? And you are telling me there are none? Is what you are saying? Ms. Saldana. No. Well, there is not a system---- Mr. Carter. You are trying to put it in place? Ms. Saldana. We are trying to institutionalize it, but let me not fail to mention that obviously we are in the field. Our people are talking to state and locals all the time, sheriffs to local officials. There is an informal communication with respect to that. I want to see it institutionalized and that is what we are trying to do is actually set up a system where it happens every time we release somebody. Mr. Carter. Well, you are a lawyer. There should at least be something in writing to notify local law enforcement. If the informal is running into a sheriff's deputy at the cafe and say, oh, by the way, we turned loose a violent criminal, a sexual predator over in your neighborhood, that is not the kind of notice that should be available. You should be at least giving them something in writing informing them, as we do between counties and states these days, every day. Finally, one of the reasons for the release we hear is the Zadvydas Davis decision. How many serious criminal offenders were released under a ruling of Zadvydas v. Davis decision which prohibits ICE from detaining criminal aliens longer than six months unless there is a reasonable assurance the individuals will be expatriated to his or her country of origin in the foreseeable future? How many of the criminal aliens released in 2013 to 2014 were released under Zadvydas? What countries are they from and why would the countries not take them back? That is very important, because if we have countries that are not honoring bringing their people back, then as we deal with the State Department budget and we deal with Foreign Affairs' budgets, we have methods whereby we can get their attention that, you know, if you think that we are going to continue to provide foreign aid to your country when you will not take back these people that are a burden upon our society and they are and have been. By being incarcerated, they are a burden on our society. Ms. Saldana. And we provided that information for 2013. We are in the process of gathering that for 2014, the breakdown by countries. I can tell you that China is pretty much at the top of the list. Mr. Carter. We know China is at the top of the list, but we have other questions. You know, Honduras and Guatemala and San Salvador, that has been a big issue. We do not know whether they are taking them back or not. Ms. Saldana. They are, sir. Mr. Carter. Well, that is good. But that is exactly the kind of information that should be a current event for this committee, not a after-the-fact report. The current event is important to the communities that we represent. Are there steps DHS and the State Department can take with any of the nations to get them to encourage repatriation? You got ideas, we are willing to do them. We are in this together, but you have to share information with us. Ms. Saldana. It is gratifying to hear that. I mean, that is what I want. Mr. Carter. Jeh Johnson knows that and I want you to know it. But you have no idea how mad people get when they hear about these releases. The reality is most of these releases are totally appropriate. They would fit into any criminal justice system that we operate under in the country, but that is not what it sounds like. It sounds like ICE turned them loose. That is what it sounds like. Ms. Saldana. And I appreciate the fact that you are, I presume, out there telling them that information and that is why this information obviously is important. Mr. Carter. You have dealt with locals. The local chief of police gets a call. Hey, ICE turned people loose. How many of them are coming our way? How many are coming to our town? The sheriff gets that call. Local law enforcement, immediately as it hits the paper, they want to know where these people are. I will tell you, Texans think 95 percent of them are in our State, and it could be that a lot of them are. Ms. Saldana. It will be a good number. I do not know about 95 percent. Mr. Carter. Yeah. Ms. Saldana. Between California and Texas. Mr. Carter. This is a crisis as far as this committee is concerned in my opinion. I will recognize Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Saldana, in addition to last year's influx of unaccompanied children, there was a rapid growth in the number of families crossing the border, usually mothers with one or more children. And ICE responded by establishing a significant number of new family detention beds. In fact, the number of family beds will have gone from around 85 at this time last year to what is expected to be more than 3,100 by June. For fiscal year 2016, the budget proposes $345 million for 2,760 family detention beds and that is $125,000 per bed including care. In addition to the high cost, many of us are concerned about the prospect of so many families, especially children, living in detention settings. Since there are less expensive and more humane options such as alternatives to detention which have proven to be successful in having people show up for their court hearings, it seems that the real issue to be addressed is the speed at which someone is able to have their case adjudicated before an immigration judge. So given that the $345 million proposed for family detention next year is almost three-fourths of the entire budget proposed for the immigration courts at DOJ, would it not make more sense to use that money to address the immigration backlog at DOJ? Ms. Saldana. Well, you noticed, I am sure, Representative, that we also asked for an increase in alternative detention programming because we have found some success in that. I think we have had a request before, but this is about the highest we have asked for. So we are definitely looking at that and think that is particularly appropriate for families. As you know, there is a District Court decision that talks about the fact that we should not use deterrents as a factor in making decisions with respect to the families. And so we have gone back and scrubbed prior cases and every person, adult or family member, the decisions are being made on the basis of the due process you talked about earlier. Is a bond more appropriate for this individual? Do we need to detain them? If there is a bond that is appropriate, what is the appropriate amount to make sure that they appear in future court proceedings? So we are very sensitive to that. I agree with you. I made it a point in month two to go to the Dilly family facility and see for myself, because I am one of these trust but verify people, that that facility--I do not know if you have had an opportunity to visit it, but that is one of the three and the largest of the three family facilities--is in my opinion top notch. It provides child care, infant care, child care, education, medical facilities. I think the response time is within 12 hours someone has had a medical examination to see what their needs are and the like. And I am very much satisfied that that is appropriate. I plan to go to Karnes because I have heard a lot about Karnes. And I want again to see for myself. I think I have planned a trip for that actually tomorrow or the day after. I am going somewhere. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Director Saldana, I think that my question has to do more with the issue of if we need these family detention beds and one of the primary reasons is that the length of time it takes for a case to be adjudicated and we are spending $125,000 per bed, you know, plus care, if it would make more sense then given that the cost of the detention is three-fourths that of the entire budget proposed for DOJ, would it not make more sense then to use that money to help expedite the adjudication of these cases? That is my---- Ms. Saldana. I cannot urge you more that we need both in my view. We need more judges because that is actually the underlying problem. I think the chairman mentioned that earlier. We have got to move the process faster. We do not detain because we get a kick out of it or it is something that is good to do. We detain based on any decision that a federal judge makes, for example, with respect to releasing someone pending proceedings. And that is flight risk and safety issues. So, yes, it could be a simplistic answer, but my view is that we need those additional attorneys that I talked about. DOJ, I do not know why I am speaking for DOJ other than it was my prior department. DOJ needs those additional judges that they are going to be requesting, I am sure, for 2016 so that we can get those decisions that the families are asserting, their request for relief made sooner rather than later. That will save us on costs. Right now we do not know how many families are going to be coming or whether we will have anything close to what happened last time. We have got the beds ready. That was our promise is to have those beds ready if that happens again this year. We will see. I think we are just coming upon that part of the season that there tends to be more migration towards this area. So I would strongly suggest that both things need to be done. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Let me go back. You mentioned the bonds and I understand that the District Court has imposed a preliminary injunction on the ICE policy of detaining families seeking asylum without consideration of releasing them on bond. Can you explain what the rationale was behind this policy given that the bond is an incentive for ensuring that families appear at immigration hearings? Ms. Saldana. If we are talking about the District Court, Washington, D.C. Court, that is not the ruling of the court. The ruling of the court, as I understand it, it has been a little while since I have looked at it, is that we cannot take deterrents which is the reason we specified for detaining families as one of the factors we were looking at is deterring other families from coming through was not appropriate and we are prohibited from doing that. Ms. Roybal-Allard. This was the U.S. District Court? Ms. Saldana. Right, in D.C. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Right. Ms. Saldana. And so, no. Bonds are afforded to families just like any other adult that we look at. If we make the decision that we do not need to detain them, we give them that opportunity for a bond, again, to ensure their presence in the future. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Currently that is true based on the decision. But prior to that, it is my understanding that families that were seeking asylum were not given the consideration of bond. And that leads me to the next part of my question that there has been some complaints that, well, ICE has begun to offer bond to some families, that the amount is often set too high for families to afford. So what is ICE's process in setting bond amounts and is the affordability of the bond taken into account on a case-by-case basis? Ms. Saldana. It is definitely a case-by-case analysis of the factors. The minimum bond that can be set is $1,500. I would think even $1,500 for some families would be impossible to meet, but that is a bottom-line figure. My understanding is that we look at, again, it is a decision that is made on a case-by-case basis, what bond amount will ensure this person actually shows up. You know, I do not have an example right now I can give you and I would not talk about individual cases anyway, but generally that is the approach. It is not let's set the bond so they cannot make bond. It is let's set the bond based on a number that will ensure they will appear in the future. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Is there an appeal process? Ms. Saldana. Absolutely. Ms. Roybal-Allard. There is. Ms. Saldana. It is on our Web site lower right-hand corner. And also everybody has the right to appeal to an immigration judge on the amount of bond that is imposed on an individual. And many, many do, one of the reasons we have a half a million person backlog in the immigration courts. Ms. Roybal-Allard. You mentioned Karnes and some detainees at the Karnes family residential center engaged in a hunger strike to protest their detention while seeking asylum. Do you know if the participants have been offered release on bond and, if so, has the bond amount been set at a level that they could afford and they are using it? Ms. Saldana. All of the persons who come into our custody are given a bond determination very quickly. And, yes, all of them are. One thing I strongly suggest, Congresswoman, is if you are relying on the New York Times story that came out this weekend, it is chock full of errors, not the least of which is that we have barbed wires in our family detention center. And there are about 16 or 18 other facts that are wrong there. I have asked when I meet with nongovernmental organizations, I have asked if you have a complaint, there is a process on our Web site, but more importantly please get the facts, information that we can look at, the names of people, the dates events apparently occurred or are alleged to occur, because facts are more important to me than assertions that are just thrown out there willy-nilly. We will look at anything that looks wrong and, as I say, I personally am going to Karnes tomorrow apparently or the next day and we will look into that. But, no, every person has an opportunity for a bond determination if we believe there is not obviously a recommendation of detention. Even our detention decisions are often taken on a look by the immigration courts are overturned. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Just one final thing. It is my understanding that there have been allegations of mistreatment of hunger strikers at Karnes in retaliation for their protest and the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has begun an investigation. Is that correct and can you provide any information on the status of that investigation? Ms. Saldana. I can do that in another setting for you. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Ms. Saldana. And we can talk about that. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been very generous with the time. Mr. Carter. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Madam Secretary, good morning. I have read that tens of thousands of people have been killed in Mexico which borders Texas. And some of those people who have been killed are U.S. law enforcement and other citizens. You have been a prosecutor, so you have worked for the Department of Justice. You have this new role which we congratulate you on. I am told, and tell me if I am wrong, that some of those who perpetuated these crimes, heads of cartels actually have domiciles in the United States, property in the United States. As a resident of Texas, I would assume you would know that. And what are we doing about it if that is the case? Ms. Saldana. Well, I do not know when you refer to these crimes and tens of thousands of law enforcement---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Crimes involving the killing of tens of thousands of people in Mexico to include some Americans. Ms. Saldana. There are awful and large and well-established drug cartels who have connections not only with homes---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. What I am asking is I understand that some of the people who are involved in leadership positions are domiciled in the United States. What are you doing in your agency to prosecute or bring some of these people's behaviors to public account? Ms. Saldana. That is a big part of what Homeland Security Investigations---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. So what are you doing? What is the role of your agency relative to such people? Ms. Saldana. That is gather---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. They come here, do they not, so they must pass through your portals; is that right? Ms. Saldana. Through our portals? Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes, your agency. Ms. Saldana. Yes. Well, Customs and Border Protection. You know, we have two sister agencies---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yeah. Okay. Ms. Saldana [continuing]. Who worries about the borders and is apprehending the people. In fact, the people they apprehend constitute about 60 percent of the people ICE deals with. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So what is your role relative to your agency relative to these people? Ms. Saldana. It is investigations and that is gathering intelligence, interviewing witnesses, finding evidence. In fact, that is the heart of what we do. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So could you assure the committee that you are actually doing it and what would be the likely consequence of some of the investigations that have already occurred? Ms. Saldana. Well, I think some statistics---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Where do we stand? Is it accurate that there are people here in our country that have perpetuated these crimes that are domiciled here that own great ranches and properties here and transit back and forth on a regular basis? Ms. Saldana. That is the case. Mr. Frelinghuysen. What are we doing about it? Ms. Saldana. Many of them are the subjects of investigations not only by HSI, Homeland Security Investigations, our folks because that is the heart of what we do is transnational criminal activity, but also by other agencies including the FBI and DEA. All of us are out there. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So what product has come from those investigations? Ms. Saldana. I think I mentioned some statistics earlier. Mr. Frelinghuysen. But have some of these people, and there are not that many of them who have cached their behavior in Mexico through, you know, their cartel activities making a lot of money which the----Chairman, thank you for yielding. What are you doing about it? Ms. Saldana. Well---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. I know there are some shared responsibilities, but what specifically? Would you acknowledge that this exists---- Ms. Saldana. Oh, yes. I know that---- Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. A situation, a domicile like this? Ms. Saldana. Not from my three months at ICE---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yeah. Ms. Saldana [continuing]. But as a United States Attorney. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So what has been done? What has been done on it? Ms. Saldana. For those who we have not captured--and we have captured quite a few, and I am talking about the United States, HSI cannot take credit for all of them. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yeah. Ms. Saldana. But we captured quite a few. They are way up there on the list of people to---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yeah. But, I mean, they are right here. They transit back and forth. Ms. Saldana. They go back and forth, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So we---- Ms. Saldana. They go back and forth. Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. We have captured, you know, a dozen or---- Ms. Saldana. The United States, I cannot speak for the United States. I think I mentioned earlier that we have actually secured 2.3 million pounds of narcotics. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Which is like, you know, in the overall trade, you know, that is maybe a significant sum, but in reality, this trade involves a lot more than just that amount. Ms. Saldana. A lot. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And the dollars involved are huge. Ms. Saldana. A lot more. And as I said, that is part of our request for increasing our Homeland Security Investigations folks is because we want to be out there looking at these cases and finding these people and gathering the evidence. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Respectfully, these people and their domiciles and locations generally I am told by people I hang out with here, you know, people on the panel, sometimes these people are well-known and we do not do anything to prosecute them. Ms. Saldana. Well, we get one shot at the prosecution, sir, and we need to have the evidence in order to prosecute. We cannot just assume or come to a federal jury with information that they are suspicions, beliefs. We got to line up the evidence and those cases tend to take quite a bit of investigation. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, with the chairman's permission, I would like to see what your win-loss record is either through your operation or the Department of Justice as to whether we have actually been successful in apprehending any of these people who bought substantial land holdings here and who educate their children here and do all sorts of things that---- Ms. Saldana. Right. Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. They undeservedly get, you know. Ms. Saldana. I no longer have any control over the Department of Justice information, but I can certainly provide you the number of drug cartels. I think someone mentioned it earlier---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yeah. Ms. Saldana [continuing]. That we have actually broken---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yeah. Ms. Saldana. If your specific question is, how many of the drug cartel investigations we have had that we have found people who have domiciles in the United States, I think we can probably dig down and do some findings. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yeah. Well, it is sort of disturbing, I think, considering the number of people that have been killed across the border. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. First of all, I want to associate myself to the comments that the chairman made at the beginning about notice. I think we should not be working in silos. I think we ought to be working together and certainly that type of information to the local communities is going to be important. If somebody is going to be released in my neighborhood, I would like to know about it. So I do want to associate myself to the comments that the chairman made. Also, I guess Rodney left already, but I think he has a point and we can talk about it at another setting. To the point that the chairman of Defense was talking about a few minutes ago, that is at another setting. I would like to follow up on those points about some of those folks living in the U.S. because they know that the violence is not in the U.S., but they do their work and they come over. And we can talk about that. Ms. Saldana. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Cuellar. I do want to also mention my brother who is a border sheriff, and I think John knows him very well, has done some work with your folks on those online predators. Ms. Saldana. Yes. Mr. Cuellar. And they have done a great job working together, so I just want to say Janet Ziella and the other folks here have just done a great job on the online predators. So I do want to say that to start off with. I do want to point out something that I have been talking to Chairman John Culberson, in fact just yesterday, the numbers that we got at the end of 2014, the Executive Office of Immigration Review that overviews the Nation's immigration courts, they said they had about 429,520 cases pending. I think a lot of the issues that we are talking about, I know it is not--usually we talk about adding more officers on the border, but if we add some of those judges, I think it can move the backlog and it would really save the taxpayers a lot of money. And I have talked to the chairman there that has the power on the Commerce and Justice and hopefully he would look at this very carefully on that because we do need to have more judges. And hopefully they can be placed at the border also on that because I give you the numbers. Ms. Saldana. Strategically? Mr. Cuellar. Yes, strategically is the key, strategically. I do want to say I am familiar with the Karnes facility, familiar with the Dilley. I have not gone to Dilley. All I ask you and I know my office has been working with you all about having some nuns that wanted to go. I know the bishops were there, Sister Mary Welch. I know there is some media from the Valley that deal with a lot of this issue last summer and were working with you that they want to go in and work with you. We would appreciate it so there can be some sort of transparency on it. I know it is private contractors, but you all do the oversight. Ms. Saldana. Oh, yes. And I met with religious leaders and I believe she was there at the Executive Office Building last week. And they had already been there and their view is that we should not detain any families. That is what they would prefer to see and that is clear. They have made that clear to the secretary and to me and we will---- Mr. Cuellar. And we---- Ms. Saldana. We are aware of that. Mr. Cuellar [continuing]. Respectfully disagree. I think we need to have detentions. Otherwise, you have open borders and I think there has to be detention, but you need to have the judges also and other factors and make sure there is no abuse and, you know, the issues, you know, that people are treated with respect and you all need to look at. But as you go and open up more of those, assume there is more of those detentions, the only thing I would ask you is to keep the taxpayers' dollars in mind. This happened before you came in. I think I called you before on this issue. And I think it is the intergovernmental service agreement. It went to one company. The amount of dollars, I do not know if the committee is familiar with it, it was a lot of money. I will put it that way. And if you look at cost, it just went too much without some sort of competition. I talked to your folks beforehand. I respectfully disagree, but there has to be at least some sort of competition so the taxpayer gets the best dollars if you are going to build a huge facility like that. But now that it has been done, I just ask you to save the taxpayer some dollars as you are going through this process. Finally, you know, the only thing I do want to mentioned, I guess it is more of a statement than a question, but the communication with people that provide you funding is important. And as the chairman, I do want to finish on this. If we ask you for something, I would ask you to respond to that as soon as you can. You are new and you got a wonderful background and very proud of you as one of the---- Ms. Saldana. Javelinas. Mr. Cuellar [continuing]. Javelinas, yeah, from Texas A&I. But I just ask that you all just keep us informed because the worst thing that we want to see is we see this in newspaper and especially we do your budget, your appropriations, a little courtesy would go a long way for having a good working relationship. So no questions, but any thoughts on what I have just---- Ms. Saldana. Of course, no. As I mentioned earlier, that is very important to me and I have made very clear to all our staff here at headquarters that that is very much at the top of the list, if not--towards the top of the list, not at the very top of the list, is our communication and our responsiveness, get the information as quickly as possible, balanced, though, Congressman, against getting accurate information. We want to report accurately and that is why sometimes it takes a little time. We check and double check. Mr. Cuellar. I just want to say thank you. I think you are going to be a good director and we look forward to working with you. Ms. Saldana. Thank you, sir. Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. We are going in the order that people appeared here, so Mr. Harris? Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Madam Assistant Secretary for coming and appearing for us. You know, ICE is kind of in the middle of a lot of the discussion about the President's new policies. And I had the opportunity to look over your biography and I take it you were the U.S. Attorney in Texas. And I guess your role at that time really was to help enforce law, is that right? Not policy? Is that---- Ms. Saldana. To enforce the law. Mr. Harris. Law, not policy, but law. And this, and you know there is a critical distinction that is playing out in, you know, Judge Hammond's opinion about what is going on because, you know, the distinction is whether or not the President's policy as implemented effectively has replaced the law, which the President cannot do. I mean, I hope we all should agree the President cannot replace the law. And you know, your testimony on page three says, and correctly, that ICE is charged with enforcing and/or administering the nation's immigration laws. Now I am going to read you a very disturbing transcript of the President's immigration town hall meeting from February 25th, where he addresses the role of ICE. He says, ``We are now implementing a new prioritization,'' and he is obviously referring to the prioritization that is actually laid out on the ICE website with regards to I guess Mr. Johnson's memoranda. He says there are going to be some jurisdictions and there may be individual ICE officials or border patrol who are not paying attention to our new directives. He does not say the law, he says the new directives. But they are going to be answerable to the head of the Department of Homeland Security because he has been very clear about what our priorities should be. A few moments later, and I have been in the military so I understand what he is talking about, the President says, look, the bottom line is that if somebody is working for ICE and there is a policy and they do not follow the policy, there are going to consequences to it. He goes on to say in the U.S. military when you get an order you are expected to follow it. I understand. I was in the military, and I understand what getting an order is. It does not mean that everybody follows the order. If they do not, they have got a problem. And the same thing is going to be true with respect to the policies that we are putting forward. Now I read this to be that the President has directed ICE to follow policy instead of law. Now I have got to ask you, is your interpretation different? I mean, the President, I understood, I was in the military. I knew what the consequence was if I did not follow an order. It was not pleasant. I cannot even imagine a person working for ICE reading this, thinking I have to follow the policy. I do not have discretion. There is no prioritization going to go on within these priorities. My discretion is removed. I have to follow that policy under the threat of the Commander in Chief in the case of the military, or the head of the executive branch in the case of DHS, of saying if they do not they have got a problem. Now Madam Secretary, I have got to ask you, is this the way ICE runs? Is ICE's purpose is to enforce policy, not law? Ms. Saldana. It is to enforce the law. And I will tell you that in the Secretary's November 20th memo, he made it very clear that these are priorities. That these, but that every individual who comes before Immigration and Custom Enforcement officials for whom we are making a decision, whether to apprehend, arrest, set bonds, whatever, is to be determined on a case by case basis. And even, and there is a sentence here that I, you know, I, people miss this all the time and I am not exactly sure why. There is a sentence very clearly, these are the cards that our officers carry with them so they have a handy dandy little reference to keep in mind what the priorities are. Sir? Mr. Culberson. They are carrying those today? Ms. Saldana. Yes. Yes. They have been since, you know, we started, completed the training in early January on these new priorities, which is when the executive actions went into effect. But it says here if you encounter a priority alien who you believe is not a threat to national security, or to security, or public safety, or believe that a non-priority alien's removal would serve as an important federal interest, you should discuss this matter with your supervisor. I personally met with every chief, we call them our lawyers out there, chief counsels in all of the districts by video, along with the directors, the field office directors, and I said these are priorities. I made very clear, this exercise of judgment on a case by case analysis, even if this person does not meet a priority, and you believe or have reason to believe that you, that that person is still, presents a public safety threat, it is your responsibility. And this is what we are here for, is to ensure that that person is taken into account and then you meet with your supervisor to discuss it. It also says the opposite, and that is if they, if they are on here but you do not consider them a public safety threat, it is a 72-year-old man who committed a crime in his teens and is now before you and has never had another criminal record before that but the felony falls within the priorities, you have the ability to exercise your discretion on it. You know there is a case in the Fifth Circuit that I followed closely myself, which is the Crane case, that challenged the ability of this kind of discretion, and the court at least at the Fifth Circuit level has gone with us. I am sure, that is still in litigation, we will see how it turns out. But again, the reason that this becomes, is not replacing the law is because this essentially memorializes what I did every day as an Assistant United States Attorney and as the U.S. Attorney. And that is exercise my discretion because I could not enforce with our skimpy little budget 3,000-plus laws that---- Mr. Harris. Sure. No, and I appreciate it. I appreciate that. And I think that would be the right thing. The Crane case, I take it, is the one that was ruled on just a week ago, dismissed the lawsuit? Ms. Saldana. Yes. Mr. Harris. That was over standing, though. That was not over an issue of, that was not over an issue of whether or not, am I correct? I mean---- Ms. Saldana. I think you are, precisely, I think you---- Mr. Harris. Right, so---- Ms. Saldana [continuing]. Are more precise than I was. But---- Mr. Harris. Correct. So legal standing really, I mean, we know that has nothing to do with the basis of whether or not the President's action was legal. Ms. Saldana. But---- Mr. Harris. These plaintiffs did not have the ability to have their case heard in court because of legal standing. So let us just dispense with this supporting the President's policy. So did the President get it wrong? Because I am going to read it again. I am going to read it again. This is the President of the United States. This is the person in charge of the executive branch said if an individual ICE official is not paying, and I am going to say, is not paying attention to our new directives they are going to be answerable to the head of DHS because he has been very clear about what our priorities should be. Ms. Saldana. The November 20th memo, and he was. Mr. Harris. Right, a memo. So the President was not saying that we are going to ask ICE to enforce the law. It is to enforce the November 24th memo, is that right? Basically---- Ms. Saldana. Well, Congressman, you know, the law can be, some of them can be very lengthy. I mean, I know this personally. Reading them can give you a headache. But the law is just that. It is not intended to cover how you go about your business. I had as the United States Attorney, I served on the Attorney General's advisory committee. We had to help United States Attorneys flesh out what the law was through policies from the Attorney General. You flesh out what the law is and you try to abide by congressional---- Mr. Harris. Sure. Madam Assistant Secretary, and I am just going to, because I have overspent my time here. But I am just going to ask you about, I mean, that point. The fact of the matter is the level three priority and, and this is from your, I mean, I am, this is from your testimony. The third level of priority are people who have actually had a final order of removal against them. So someone made a legal finding that these individuals are not here legally. Am I correct? That they have violated the law and they are not here legally? Ms. Saldana. That is initial, but all of these things can be appealed. But yes. That is the initial finding. Mr. Harris. Okay. So let us be honest. What the President has said, we have individuals with legal findings against them, have clearly been found to violate the law, and the new directive says we are going to, instead of enforcing that law which would result in their deportation we are going to follow a directive or a policy? That, I mean look, I am a doctor, I am not a lawyer. But to someone observing this says we have already made a legal finding, and the new memorandum says we are not going to follow the law, we are going to follow a policy or a directive. And I have to tell you, as a member of the legislative branch, I take that very seriously when the executive branch says we have let the system run, we have made a legal finding, and now we are going to disregard the law. We are going to follow an executive branch policy or directive. And I will tell you, that was a rhetorical question. You do not have to answer that. Thank you very much, Assistant Secretary. And I yield back. Mr. Carter. Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I had another hearing. I could not be here earlier. Secretary Saldana, thank you so very much for being with us today. You have a very hard job. I come from the northern border with Canada in Northern Ohio. And I wanted to ask your help in this issue of human smuggling, particularly labor smuggling. I have spent a lot of my career engaged in this issue, largely from countries, labor from countries south of our, the southwestern part of our country. And I am appalled. As I read your testimony and some of the notes I have been given, your offices are dedicated to identifying and apprehending priority aliens. My concern are the contractors who bring them here. Ms. Saldana. The smugglers. Ms. Kaptur. The smugglers, on both sides of the border. And I would cordially invite you to my home community of Toledo, Ohio where we have an organization called the Farm Labor Organizing Committee that was training a young man, 27 years old, named Santiago Cruz, to go to the fields in Mexico and to tell the farm workers that they did not have to come under bondage. That they could come with a labor contract. That we would receive them, even their families, we would educate their children through Head Start while they were here. He was murdered. He was murdered in Monterey. There has not been prosecution at a level that there should be in that case, and some of his murderers have never been found. I went down to Monterrey. I have been in Congress a long time. I went down to Monterrey, met with our counsel down there. And I said, look, just in the area of agriculture, Ohio receives at least 20,000 people a year who pick pickles and they pick tomatoes, they do very hard work, pick strawberries. I would not want to do that job. They should be coming, we should have the same people every year if they want to come. We should know who they are. And I want you to make Ohio a pilot. We want to treat people like human beings, we respect their work, and we respect them. Our government would not do it. And this was not under the Obama administration, by the way. But I have been looking for someone, someplace, in our government who really cares about people, and people who work hard. And they are being exploited. I was down in the tobacco fields of North Carolina last year. I met a man from Guatemala who had his finger cut off, no health insurance. He owes $8,000 to one of these corrupt coyotes who brought him across the border. And I just cannot believe our country allows this to go on. So I would like to cordially invite you or someone you send to my district to meet with people who are trying to help, and including me, and we have been thwarted at every turn. And I just think that those that exploit this labor have more power than we imagine, and I want to go after them. And I want a work force that is treated fairly. We do not want to bring people in as unidentifiable aliens and all the rest of this. We want to know who they are, we want to treat them right, we want them to have a contract. And we want the same people every year if we can get them. Most of our farmers would like to have the same people. They do not want this churning that is going on in the labor force. I do not know if you can help me but I am making a plea to you. I would really appreciate the opportunity to have people from our region explain what has been going on at our border with people who travel very far and have rather grim prospects because of the manner in which they have been treated. Do you have any ability to deal with that labor smuggling issue? Ms. Saldana. Of course. Of course. That is, and again, our expertise is international. And when you cross the border, either the northern border or the southern border, that is where we come in and where we are pretty much the experts on that transnational criminal activity. You may have read about, or if not I will certainly provide you more information, on Operation Coyote, which is our effort to bring to justice the smugglers and this is where our international team comes in so essentially. And that is they give us information from the local countries where the smugglers are and are inducing and seducing people to come up to this, to the country-- Ms. Kaptur. They have to be among the cruelest people alive. Ms. Saldana [continuing]. On false pretenses. And you remind me of a case I prosecuted involving a Korean smuggling ring. Can you imagine thousands of miles, of carrying these women to the United States, and actually telling them they could get a job and an education here? And they brought them in through Canada, actually. And had them, ended up working in a bar to serve the pleasure of Korean businessmen when they were in the city of Dallas on business. And one woman, the one who actually revealed the scheme, jumped out of the second story home of the smuggler, of the, and this is a large operation. Obviously there is a person here but there is a person in Korea also. And again, as I say, this is part of the reason we are requesting this additional money with respect to the smuggling activity, the twenty, I think it is $26 million. Because we have had good success on breaking the backs of some of these smuggling organizations. And that is where our attaches are really helpful in making our connections with intelligence and other information in these countries. So yes. I would actually personally, I do not want to send anybody, I would actually like to go to Toledo and have some further conversation. Ms. Kaptur. We would warmly invite you. This has bothered me for so many years. And I was so angry with our government under former administrations. And we have a region that tries to treat workers well. And we need your help. So I appreciate that. I do not want to run you all over the world. But, you know, when you are flying over the Great Lakes region, we will welcome you. Ms. Saldana. We will make a stop. Ms. Kaptur. And thank you. Thank you very, very, very, very much. And I will give you the name of a group your staff can look through. It is called the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, FLOC. I think its director is in the heritage of Cesar Chavez. He is a great man. He has given his whole life to this issue. And it should not be so hard. It just should not be so hard. And these criminals that traffic in human beings in the 21st Century, it is beyond belief. Ms. Saldana. This Korean person who was the local smuggler was an LPR, a legal permanent resident. And not only did we get him ten years in prison, but we denaturalized him and sent him back to Korea because of his involvement in this international smuggling activity---- Ms. Kaptur. Well that---- Ms. Saldana [continuing]. With these young Korean women. Ms. Kaptur. You will have the support from this member on a coyote program. Ms. Saldana. Thank you. Ms. Kaptur. With the finest investigators and the finest security people you can put to work. And again, we invite you to, I would like you to hear directly from those that have been involved in this. And that young man, his mother, I had to go down to Mexico and be a part of a group to help her endure his loss. It was, and to think that, you know, he was trying to treat people fairly and well, and he was so young. And the manner in which he was murdered and so forth was so brutal. I just, I just also want to say that on the ICE front, and I am sure my time is up. But in my region we are not like Mr. Cuellar's district. You know, we are up north, we are on the Great Lakes. And some of the ICE personnel that come up there are rather inappropriate in the way that they follow people around in our region in cities like Lorain, West Cleveland. I do not know exactly what can be done about that. But it seems to me that you have to be community sensitive also and we have local attorneys willing to work with ICE at the local level to try to support in the DACA and DAPA programs individuals who many times are stopped and they, they did not do anything wrong. They have green cards, they are here legally, and yet they are followed. I do not know why all that happens. I think it is just because it is such a difficult job. But it seems to me that there could be a more appropriate community approach in some of these places. And we will probably, if you are kind enough to come to our region we will want to discuss that a little bit with some of the victims of rather ham-handed approaches to following individuals who should not be followed. Ms. Saldana. Well I will tell you that it would be helpful to get more information from you with respect to that. And I am happy to meet with nongovernmental organizations, too, to talk to them about---- Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Ms. Saldana [continuing]. Our new approach. Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, you have been generous with the gavel. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Young is next but he is willing to, because Mr. Stewart has a real crisis, yield to Mr. Stewart. Mr. Stewart. Mr. Stewart. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman. And I would not call it a crisis but I do have another appointment. So thank you, Mr. Young. Thank you for ceding your time. And I will be brief. Madam Director, welcome. You have got kind of a tough job. It is not one that I envy. I want to tell you a little bit about my background because it brings me to the topic, which I have a real emotional attachment to, and that is before I came to Congress I was a writer. One of the books I wrote was with Elizabeth Smart telling her story of being captured and held. And that got me involved with another community in the West who, and primarily in Utah, but that is not the only place. But these guys will, they are former Special Forces soldiers and other law enforcement officials that pose as businessmen. They go to foreign lands and involve, pretend to be involved in the trafficking of children and they rescue these children. Dozens at a time, last month something like 50 of them, young, young girls, and in some cases boys, who are being sold into sex trafficking. The crisis that we faced last summer, to use a word that we use often but I think it certainly applies here, are these unaccompanied children that were crossing the border in numbers we had just simply never seen before. And I would ask you, I think I know the answer but I am going to say this and you can say yes, that is about right. In 2012 the number of unaccompanied children was 27,000 or something like that; 2013, 44,000; last summer, 68,000. Now I am not a mathematician, but just doing it off the back of my head that is about a 60 percent increase every year. And I have two concerns and then I will get to my question. The first concern is I believe the administration's policies fairly or unfairly create the impression that if these young children can get to the border, not even cross the border, in some cases surrender at the border, that they are going to be allowed to stay here. And because we have not done a great job of communicating and also having policies that I think actually foster that misconception we are endangering the lives of tens of thousands of young children. But the primary thing I want to ask you is this. With this human trafficking, do you know what percentage of these unaccompanied children were involved in say drug cartels, were involved or associated in some way, were being exploited, or were sold or traded or given into some of these human trafficking or these individuals who deal with the sex trade of unaccompanied children? Ms. Saldana. As you know, Congressman, the children from Central America who comprise a large part of that group from last year are treated differently than the typical undocumented worker or illegal immigrant. Mr. Stewart. You mean the OTMs? Is that what you are talking about? Ms. Saldana. Yes. Mr. Stewart. Okay. Ms. Saldana. And that was a large part of that. And that is, again, a more expensive proposition when you are dealing with someone from countries that are not on the border. They, we, obviously we get as much information as we can. They are treated completely different. We cannot expedite their removal. We have to, we turn them over---- Mr. Stewart. Madam Director, for, because both of us have just a little time, I really have a fairly simple question. Do you know what percentage of them were involved with this trade or forced into this trade? Ms. Saldana. I cannot tell you the percentage or an exact number right now, but I do know we glean that kind of information. Mr. Stewart. Do you have an idea? Could you give us your best estimate? Ms. Saldana. I do not want to speculate, sir. I really, I really would rather try to find that information for you than to just give you a number off the top of my head. Mr. Stewart. Okay, do you think it is a large percentage? Ms. Saldana. It will be a, I think it will be significant. Mr. Stewart. Yes. Ms. Saldana. I cannot say that, I do not want to quibble on words. But---- Mr. Stewart. Okay. But it is not a meaningless, I mean, heavens, if it is a few it is a lot. Ms. Saldana. Yes, of course. Mr. Stewart. And this is more than that. This is a, and I am wondering what steps you are taking to try and, to try and, A, you know, educate the American people what is happening there, and B, what can we do to protect these children? Because either way we are putting them in harm's way. Ms. Saldana. Well one of the things I have personally done in my three-plus months is I have been to Central America. I did a round there and to Mexico City to meet with my counterparts, the immigration officials there to make very clear the President's view, the Secretary's view, and my own view that this is, this is not a good thing. And that we would like to work with them to come up with some programs to help those governments deal with their children and keep them there. The First Lady of Guatemala, for example, is the person who deals mostly with the children, the child problem, of those people that are coming to the north and she has programs in place. And we met with the directors of those programs to educate parents there in their countries, because this is what you want first. You do not want them making that trek. Mr. Stewart. Yes. Ms. Saldana. And to, and to let them know it is, not only is it dangerous but that we can provide you some fundamental services. Mr. Stewart. Yes. Ms. Saldana. So we are working with all three governments, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and trying our best to---- Mr. Stewart. Well let me conclude with this. We are having a nearly 60 percent increase going on three years, and probably four years now. And I know this was not under your watch but it is under this administration's watch, and we have to do better than that. We cannot be in July and August, like we were last year, completely unprepared and I think encouraging an activity that is very destructive for these younger people. Having said that, thank you for what you do. I hope you understand why this is such a concern to the Americans. Mr. Young, again, thank you for giving me your time. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Carter. Mr. Young. Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Saldana, I want to reread that quote from the President on February 25th at Florida International University, when he said there may be individual ICE officials or border patrol who are not paying attention to our new directives. But they are going to be answerable to the head of the Department of Homeland Security because he has been very clear about what our priorities should be. If somebody is working for ICE and there is a policy and they do not follow the policy, there are going to be consequences for it. What did you think about when he, the President said that, when you learned about it? Did that concern you at all? Did you have any, any red flags go up at all? Ms. Saldana. I am trying to be honest with you, sir. No. I imagine you have staff that you expect to comply with your directives and your policies. I imagine the typical employer in the United States has employees who they expect to follow their directives, their policies. I have got an employee manual this big that says if you violate one of our employment policies, here is the range of punishment you can have. So no, it did not strike me as unusual. Mr. Young. Well if I had policies or directives that were contrary to the law, I would understand if they did not want to follow them. And so I would expect them to follow the law first. Don't you---- Ms. Saldana. And that is where you and I probably have a fundamental disagreement. Mr. Young. Oh, okay. Don't you see how some may in the DHS personnel see, perceive that as perhaps a threat? Including you, maybe, who simply want to obey the law? Ms. Saldana. You know, a threat, I am here of my own volition and will. I am just trying to help the United States of America and our country on issues that are so divisive. It does not worry me if somebody wants to fire me because I am not doing what they want to do. I have a great state to return to and a home there. So no, I am not threatened by it and I trust our employees are not. They, I have spoken to many of them. I plan to visit as many of our offices as I can to explain that to them. Mr. Young. Well, I mean, I think that the public record contradicts that with some of your employees are feeling like they are being retaliated against or threatened, lawsuits perhaps. I want to just, I want to quote the President of the National ICE Council Chris Crane, saying that the agency leadership is, ``punishing law enforcement officers who are just trying to uphold the U.S. law and willing to take away their retirement, their job, their ability to support their families in favor of someone who is here illegally and violating our laws, either taking a disciplinary action or threatening disciplinary action.'' Ms. Saldana. And I have met with Mr. Crane---- Mr. Young. That is serious. Ms. Saldana. Yes, and I have met with Mr. Crane. We actually have had positive meetings because we are both working together to try to get our ERO people on a parity level with respect to their employment, immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers. And we accomplished, we hope we have accomplished that. But I am not going to get in the middle of pending litigation. I cannot comment further on that. But I want to work with Mr. Crane and with our labor partners to try to make things better for employees. In the end, in the end the most important thing in accomplishing our mission is our employees, and that they feel like they have an ability to do their jobs and for me to provide the tools they need for that. And I am working very hard to do that. Mr. Young. Well you mentioned the labor leaders as well. And as you know, Chris Cabrera also has concerns as well with Local 3307. And I am not going to get into his, what he has been saying. But there are concerns out there, as you know. But, you know, this also gets, this is serious stuff. And this also gets down to I think the morale of the whole department. And we have had these discussions with Secretary Johnson as well. There seems to be just a real low, lowest in the administration, I think, is the, at the Department of Homeland Security. What are you doing to try to increase that? And what are you doing to try to stand up and protect your personnel who may feel intimidated here at times with policies and directives when they believe they themselves are just trying to uphold the Constitution and obey the law? How do you support them? How do you help increase the morale there in this very, very important agency? And you have a very important job and I respect you immensely. I want what is best for this country as well and for your employees. Ms. Saldana. Thank you, sir. I have actually done a lot in the three months that I have been there. I started with, as I think I told you, the chiefs, but I also am trying to get to as many offices as I can to meet with people and listen, just listen, make notes, and come back and see what I can do about concerns and complaints there are. I have launched a professional development program where I want to make sure that our people, as I said earlier, are given the tools they need, the resources that you all have a lot to do with in order to do their jobs. And so importantly that information technology that they need to communicate with each other and with local law enforcement. We have a group, and I am exploring further the possibility of having a group of field office directors, supervisors, and other folks to come in regularly to visit with me so I can stay in touch with the field and not get surrounded by this, what do you call it? What do you call Washington, D.C.? How can I be nice about this? Mr. Young. The island surrounded by reality? Ms. Saldana. Exactly. I need a touch of reality because you, you can get knee deep in things that are not as important as serving the American public. And so I am doing all of those things, not for my own personal glory but because I think this, this agency needs a lot of institutional practices, best practices, that will stay even after I am long gone. Mr. Young. Well I appreciate you being here today. And I also appreciate your leadership. And I would just ask that those folks within your agency, when they believe that they are doing the right thing under the law and under the Constitution, and they feel intimidated, that you stand up for them. And I appreciate you being here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Thank you. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Sir, if I could just have---- Mr. Carter. She would like to be recognized for just a moment. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you. Director, I just want to clarify a point on your earlier response, on the relationship between the law and the President's policies. The fundamental disagreement to which you referred was whether the policies are consistent with the law. And your position is that the President's policies are entirely consistent with the law? Is that correct? Ms. Saldana. Oh, yes. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes? Okay. Ms. Saldana. Oh, yes. Of course. And again, I am not saying this because I am a constitutional expert or anything like that. But I do know that our, the Department of Justice scoured the requests of, and the information submitted to them for a General Counsel opinion on whether or not things they were doing or proposing to do were within the confines of the law. And they got a yay on some and they got a nay on others. And that the President proceeded along with the Secretary to proceed with the ones that were within the confines of the law. I, that is all I know, is enforcing law. That is all I know. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Culberson, thank you. Mr. Carter. Mr. Culberson. Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Madam Secretary, thank you very much for being here today. Your budget request this year is for $6.282 billion in discretionary funding and mandatory fee authority that, as you say in your testimony, is in line with the fiscal year 2015 enacted budget. How do you use for example the discretionary portion of the funding that you receive from the Congress? Ms. Saldana. How? Mr. Culberson. Yes, ma'am. For what different purposes within the agency's operations do you use the discretionary funding versus fees? Starting with the discretionary? Ms. Saldana. Our---- Mr. Culberson. What type--ma'am? Ms. Saldana. I am sorry, go ahead. Our core mission, and that is, and I think I mentioned them a little earlier, the enforcement part, the investigations, the international folks that we have, the management and administration people who keep us all in proper facilities, keep the phones working, and keep us supplied with things. Mr. Culberson. Right. What I was driving at is you use the discretionary portion of the funding that you receive then primarily for administrative functions in the---- Ms. Saldana. No, to accomplish our core mission. Mr. Culberson. To accomplish your core mission. Are they distributed---- Ms. Saldana. Supported by our administrative function. Mr. Culberson. And what, what amount of the $6.282 billion is discretionary versus mandatory fee? Ms. Saldana. From what I see here it is six-point, 5.959637. Mr. Culberson. Wait, wait, wait---- Ms. Saldana. $5,000,959,637. Mr. Culberson. $5.959 billion is, where is that money coming from? Ms. Saldana. This is for 2016. This is the discretionary. Mr. Culberson. Oh, $5.959 billion is discretionary money that does not come from fees? Ms. Saldana. Right. The fees part of it is included in the $322,000 which comprises $6.28 billion together. Mr. Culberson. Okay. So the fees are---- Ms. Saldana. Are very small. Mr. Culberson. What, so the fees are only a very small part. So your discretionary funding from, that of course comes from Congress---- Ms. Saldana. It is how we run the agency. Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Is the, is the overwhelming majority of your funding? Ms. Saldana. Right. Our sister agency, Citizenship and Immigration Services, has a large part of its funding from fees. Mr. Culberson. Right. Ms. Saldana. But we do not. Mr. Culberson. Right. So what, what of your, so your portion of discretionary funding you said is $5.959 billion, and then the remainder is from fees. And the, and the, your sister agency draws what portion of their funding from fees? Ms. Saldana. Sir, I am sorry. I am having a hard enough time with my own budget. Mr. Culberson. Sure. Ms. Saldana. I have not kept up with CIS. Mr. Culberson. Now the funding, the card that you all have there, that is, I would be very interested to see that. Ms. Saldana. Would you like it? Mr. Culberson. May I? Yes. Would you get that for me? Now that is, your officers are using that today in the field to help give them guidance on the---- Ms. Saldana. Yes, sir. It is essentially the November 20th memorandum of the Secretary but reduced to a simple card. Mr. Culberson. I see. So their, I have seen these before and, you know, coming from Texas we work very closely together with all our colleagues that have, live up and down the, and represent folks up and down the river, and we have seen something like this before. So this is to help your agents enforce the November 20th directives? Ms. Saldana. Right. In addition to all the training that we have done and continue to do that was accomplished back in January before we kicked off the program. Mr. Culberson. Right. So they are, you are using this today? Your officers in the field are using this today? Ms. Saldana. Yes. Mr. Culberson. And, and putting it into effect today? Ms. Saldana. Right. And I have charged the field office directors and all of the supervisors, you know, to be available for questions. Obviously our legal, our OPLA people, our Office of the Legal Advisors, are also available for questions. Mr. Culberson. Right, proceeding to enforce, to continue to enforce the November 20th---- Ms. Saldana. Right, that is just a shorthand way to carry it in your pocket. Mr. Culberson. Yes, no, I understand. What concerns me, though, is that you are under an injunction. You cannot enforce or follow through on the November 20th memorandum because the district judge in South Texas, Judge Hanen, and it is before the Fifth Circuit on Friday, you are under a temporary injunction not to enforce the November 20th memorandum. But you just told me your agents are in the field using this card to enforce the November 20th memorandum. Ms. Saldana. I think there may be some confusion. That decision, Judge Hanen's decision? Is that what you are referring to? Is, relates to extended DACA, the children, the admissibility of children, and extended DAPA. That is a program administered by Citizenship and Immigration Services, our sister agency. We are very, our enforcement priorities were not one bit affected by that decision. It was simply whether or not the administration could proceed with extending DACA and initiating the parents part of the it, the DAPA program. Mr. Culberson. Mm-hmm. Ms. Saldana. And that is CIS. Mr. Culberson. Right. The only---- Ms. Saldana. Now we had---- Mr. Culberson. The home, your home, the homepage for Homeland Security says, it says it does not affect the December, excuse me, the 2012 DACA initiative, but it is, it enjoins the November 20th memorandum. Ms. Saldana. There were like eight or nine memorandums that day. Mr. Culberson. They were enjoined, right. Ms. Saldana. No. No, no, sir. No. Just the one that dealt with establishing a DAPA program with respect to the lawful presence of parents---- Mr. Culberson. Mm-hmm. Ms. Saldana [continuing]. Of undocumented immigrants, and the extension of the DACA program which initially was just limited to a certain number of people and it was proposed to be expanded. Mr. Culberson. Mm-hmm. Ms. Saldana. That specifically is what was enjoined. The way ICE, my agency, was affected was very, was very little with respect to that. Because I think we had posters in our field offices that said you may be able to qualify for this-- Mr. Culberson. Mm-hmm. Ms. Saldana. [continuing]. You, here is information on where to go at CIS. But we are enforcement. Mr. Culberson. Yes, so you---- Ms. Saldana. We do not do administration of benefits like CIS does. Mr. Culberson. Mm-hmm. Ms. Saldana. Which is what is at the heart of the, Judge Hanen's decision. Mr. Culberson. So you are not bound in any way by Judge Hanen's decision in your opinion? Ms. Saldana. We are with respect to those two or three areas where we had posters up. We took them down, because we did not want to be seen to be promoting the program with respect, while the injunction is still being litigated. And it is CIS that carries the brunt of that decision. And the Secretary has clearly, has made very clear, and it is on the website, that the enforcement aspect and the priorities, and if you read the opinion you will find, are not affected. We proceed with those. Mr. Culberson. Mm-hmm. What, in the budget request you have submitted to us is necessary obviously for you to fulfill your mission to enforce the law. Have you, but you were saying earlier that you felt you did not have enough funds to, to enforce the law. You have to use your discretion, obviously, as a prosecutor. Is the request then insufficient? I mean, I just want, trying to get a handle on if you are prioritizing your resources because you do not have enough, does the fiscal year 2016 budget request not---- Ms. Saldana. I am very, very pleased with it, sir. I would not, it has some increases but it also reflects some efficiencies that we have been able to accomplish with some hard work. And I cannot take credit for that. It is the people behind me who should. Mr. Culberson. So your request would enable you to enforce the law fully? Ms. Saldana. Absolutely, sir. Mr. Culberson. Okay. One final question. What is ambiguous, if I do not see that it is ambiguous, the requirement that you use not less than 34,000 detention beds? That is statutory in the Homeland Security bill, mandatory-- Ms. Saldana. Yes, I have the language right here. Mr. Culberson. Right. Ms. Saldana. It says provided further that funding made available under this heading shall maintain a level of not less than-- Mr. Culberson. Is there anything about that that is discretionary or optional? Ms. Saldana. No. We have maintained that capacity. Mr. Culberson. Right. But you are not using it. Right now you are at about 26,000. Ms. Saldana. Well that is dictated, sir, by the flow of immigrants. As you know, Customs and Border---- Mr. Culberson. There is no shortage of folks coming over the border illegally. Ms. Saldana. Right. And we need to apprehend them and find them. But what I am saying is, as you know at the border apprehensions are down, the first line of defense is CBP, is down about 24 percent. So that is going to obviously affect, since we get about 60 percent of our beds from, or our apprehensions from CBP, that is going to affect that. Plus we are, it is seasonal. This is a seasonal flow. And we are just getting to the warmer months where there is, the migration patterns in the past have shown us there might be an increase in migration. Mr. Culberson. So is it not, is it optional for you to use those 34,000 beds in your opinion? Ms. Saldana. Optional? It is not optional to have them available. Mr. Culberson. But it is optional whether or not you use them? Ms. Saldana. It is not optional, sir. We have those, and we will use them to the extent we make decisions that someone needs to be detained. If you are asking me whether it is more important to fill a bed than it is to do it right, I have to go with doing it right. And that is---- Mr. Culberson. Right, I---- Ms. Saldana [continuing]. Make our decisions on the basis of, just like the federal courts do---- Mr. Culberson. Yes. I will close with this, and I thank you for the extra time, Mr. Chairman. But if it is not clear, I mean, we as policy makers and statute drafters wrote this so it is not ambiguous, it is not discretionary, it is not optional. We want you to use 34,000 beds. Ms. Saldana. That is absolutely---- Mr. Culberson. You have got plenty of demand. Ms. Saldana. That is absolutely---- Mr. Culberson. You have plenty of demand. You---- Ms. Saldana. That is absolutely clear to me. But sir, we do not detain people just for the heck of it. Mr. Culberson. I know that. But you could---- Ms. Saldana. We detain people based on what the law tells us, and that is is this person a flight risk? And is this person a threat to public safety? And those are the decisions that our very seasoned officers are out there making everyday. Mr. Culberson. Mm-hmm. Ms. Saldana. And from what I have seen and observed, they are making the right decisions. Mr. Culberson. Well I feel very confident you could find an extra 9,000 criminal aliens that needed to be detained to fill those beds in a heartbeat. Ms. Saldana. We are working on that. That was part of what Operation Cross Check was, is---- Mr. Culberson. But you feel like this is, does not require to use the beds so I think perhaps the language might need a little tweaking. Thank you. Ms. Saldana. Well, that is not what I intended. I said it is capacity. In my view it is there---- Mr. Culberson. Well, the President thinks statutes are option and subject to his discretion, and he is obligated by the Constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is clearly in violation of that. You have told us you do not think this policy that the President has issued is contrary to the law. We as policymakers and legislators are here to-- the law enacted by Congress is what the President and the agencies are to follow, not a policy directive or a memorandum sent out by the head of an agency. It is the law enacted by Congress that you and the President are obligated to follow and there is just a fundamental disagreement here. And I think it is at the root of what has outraged the country, quite frankly, from coast to coast is that the President systematically and repeatedly refuses to enforce the law as written, and you have just confirmed that for us today. It is upsetting and concerning, because we in Texas feel the brunt of this with the number of criminal aliens coming across the border. The drug runners, the killers, the sex traffickers. It is appalling and outrageous and no one is more worried about it than the communities that, for example, our good friend Henry Cuellar represents along the Rio Grande River. Ms. Saldana. And that I have a home in. Mr. Culberson. Nuevo Laredo is a ghost town, as you know. It is a terrible situation. So we expect you to follow the law as written and when something says, ``shall,'' it is not optional. Ms. Saldana. We---- Mr. Culberson. Thank you for your time. Ms. Saldana. And I didn't say that, sir. I really said, in my view---- Mr. Culberson. You feel like you do not need to use them? Ms. Saldana. No, sir. We are working to use them. Every day people are out there trying to find--particularly with respect to persons with criminal records and those that meet our priorities, we are trying to find those folks, if we are not handed them to us by CBP. To me, the important thing is to make the right decisions as required by law as to whether we can detain someone or not. The sole purpose and goal is not to fill a bed, it is to fill it in the right way. That is my view. Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. I have a lot of things I would like to talk about, but this is very disconcerting. In the world that I grew up in, one of the things we prided ourselves in was an independent executive department, we have an independent legislative department, and we have an independent judiciary. As part of the judicial system, you have prosecutors. Their job is to prosecute those people charged with a crime by indictment or by information, depending on what level of the court system you are in. These are very simple. I think it would be--and I will just bear it down to the state level for just a moment, which mirrors the United States Government supposedly-- I think it would be shocking for the governor of the State of Texas to tell police officers and sheriffs to make a decision as to whether or not to release people based upon his directive. You shall release the following people because these are people I do not think should be arrested. Now, follow me on this. You were a prosecutor, part of a supposedly independent judiciary, but in reality what we are saying here is it is not really independent. It is dependent upon what the President directs how you should prosecute and directs. I believe that there is discretion in a prosecutor's office. It is the prosecutor's discretion; not the governor's discretion, it is the prosecutor's discretion. Their decisions are made upon and available to the court the seriousness of the offense, the threat to public safety, and all of these things which are commonsense things that we expect our law enforcement and our prosecutors to have. Yes, cops make certain decisions as who to arrest and who not to arrest under certain circumstances, but not because somebody directed them to ignore the law. Because we trust our police officers to determine the exigent circumstances of the arrest and what they are dealing with and to make those decisions, not because the governor of the State of Texas tells Officer Jones in Hosanna, Texas, I do not want you arresting anybody for drug cases because I like to smoke marijuana. I am making that up. But at some point in time varying the way the system is supposed to work, the variations can be carried to the ridiculous. And the trust that the American people have in the government, especially the Federal Government, is diminishing more in the last six years than it has diminished in the history of the republic. Because what do a bunch of people in the White House get to say about following the law? The law, as far as the immigration law is concerned, recent border crossings shall be detained. Mr. Culberson. Absolutely. Mr. Carter. Now, there is a reason for that. You know why we detain people, you are a prosecutor. I bet you have made speeches to your juries when you are talking to them. Putting these people in prison, it deters others from doing it, it punishes them for doing it, and it protects society. You made those arguments every time you walked into the courtroom almost, I almost guarantee it. Now, that is what we expect. If we follow the logic of directives from the White House into the judicial system of the United States, telling you what laws you should and should not enforce, not use your discretion to do it, no, that is different. No, you shall do this because I told you to and there will be consequences if you do not. That is different than prosecutorial discretion or officer discretion. That is being ordered at the risk of losing your job, losing your pension, and losing other things. We are going to hurt you if you do not do what I say. We had a guy named King George we had some problems with on those issues. I want someone to explain why that is different than what it is supposed to be. This is not about the Department right now, it is about the philosophical difference in the view of the government. I run into people literally every day that say, what are you going to do about the lawlessness? You are an old judge, you stood for the law in our county for 20 years, why are you not doing something about the lawlessness in Washington? Now, this is just prosecutor to a retired member of the judiciary. What do you think about that? Because you see this is the executive branch telling the judicial officers how to do their job. Ms. Saldana. I see this as--this is what is so profoundly confusing to me, why we are ships passing in the night here on this subject--I see this as an extension of what I did as the United States Attorney. I knew I had so many millions of dollars to protect almost 10 million people in North Texas in a hundred counties, and that I had so many employees and that I had 3,000-plus laws to enforce. In order to make sense out of who has the possibility to hurt my community more, there were people I would have loved for our folks to prosecute who we just could not reach, I had to make decisions on prosecutorial guidelines. Mr. Carter. I agree with everything you are saying. You are a prosecutor, but that ICE agent sitting out there, he is not a prosecutor, he is a cop. Are we expanding now to the discretion of enforcing the laws of the United States down to our law enforcement officers? Does the constable in my local county have the ability to make the decision that he is not going to enforce the law and call it prosecutorial discretion? At what point do we stop taking this from our created constitutional system and putting it in the hands of the individual? Because quite honestly, I do not think we want the king making that decision, and I do not think we want cops making that decision. Ms. Saldana. This is not much different from what they have done every day, Mr. Chairman. They have even before executive action, we train them to use their best judgments with respect to the people they find. And law enforcement, in the end, their primary interest is protect the community. And the question is, if you have only got so much money, how are you going to--where are you going to focus your resources? It makes eminent sense to me. Mr. Carter. Then let them make those decisions, but do not let the President of United States threaten their jobs, their pensions, and their lives if they do not do it the way he wants to do it. That is the problem we have got with this system. It is none of his business how an ICE agent operates unless he is operating outside the law, if you are saying the ICE agent gets discretion. If a sheriff's deputy gets discretion, that is between him and the sheriff, but it is not between him and the county judge or the district judge telling him, ``sorry, Cop, here is how I want you to make your arrest''. That is not the way our system is supposed to work. That is my concern. I want to get off that, but that is why people at home are so upset and that is why a lot of us are upset. Let's talk about your hiring challenges, because quite honestly that money from this budget does not look like it is going to get used and we are asking for more for the next budget. We need to know how you expect that to work. If you are not going to use that money for that purpose, are you going to ask for us to move that money someplace else? Ms. Saldana. Something that has gotten my attention and that is exactly what you are talking about. The hiring, you know, up until two months ago we were under the specter of shutdown and sequestration, and it is not as if you can go out and hire people under those circumstances. I am not sure who would be interested in taking a job where they do not even know if they are going to have one. But what we did, though--and we are peddling as fast as we can--what we did do is we started people in the pipeline. Started interviewing, getting information, applications, geared up our classes, geared up our classes in order to train people before they hit the job, and we are working very hard at it. We have got the balance of this year and then obviously we are asking for these additional people the next year. I believe very sincerely that with Oversight--and that is on me--that we can get through that process, which is cumbersome in the United States of America with federal employment. It just is, especially with law enforcement officers who have special security requirements, as it should be, and training that they are required to have. So the minute we knew we were going to have an appropriation, we geared back up and I think we are going to be prepared to meet our 2015 hiring. At least it may spill over a little bit into 2016, but I believe we will get that all done before the end of 2016. I think we will use that money and that is why we are asking for it. Mr. Carter. For hiring? Ms. Saldana. Yes, sir. Those---- Mr. Carter. Just that what you are requesting is to make a change. Because you have that ability to ask us to shift funds to other programs. Ms. Saldana. Okay. Mr. Carter. If you are going to, we would like to know what those are. Ms. Saldana. Okay, sir. We will keep that in mind and we will keep you apprised as quickly as we can as we see that pattern developing. Mr. Carter. I can understand the argument on the fiasco we had a while back, and it wasn't my doing. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Well, not to belabor the previous discussion, I just want again to have some clarification. I would agree with the chairman and other members of the committee, if the decisions that we are talking about were decisions that were just made in isolation and, you know, the executive branch came up with an idea and then tried to enforce it on ICE or any of the other agencies. But it is my understanding that before these decisions are made, either through executive order or whatever, is that they are fully vetted through constitutional lawyers, through the Justice Department, to make sure whether or not they fall within the law of what the President can and cannot do. So if that is not the case, then I would like some information on why that has not happened. And I do not want it necessarily right now. But my understanding that these executive actions have been fully vetted, gone through Justice, gone through constitutional lawyers, and in many cases the decision has been said, no, you cannot do this and it has not been done. Is---- Ms. Saldana. Yes, that is a 33-page opinion from the Office of General Counsel and it is very thorough and complete. It certainly satisfies me that those actions are within the law. Ms. Roybal-Allard. And then I have another point of clarification. When I asked the questions about did the hunger strikers at Karnes and whether or not the participants had been offered release on bond and I believe your response was that they were given bond determination. And my understanding is that bond determination can be, you know, no bond. And we have staff that has met with several of the families that were involved on these hunger strikes, about four families, and they were not given a bond amount. Ms. Saldana. Let's not put the cart before the horse. The first decision is whether to detain or not. And if a decision is made not to detain, then the opportunity for bond comes up. Families are no different from adults, they have to satisfy the person making the decision that they are not a flight risk or a threat to the community. I do not know the four specific families you are talking about, but they might not have been given a bond opportunity if the decision was made with respect to those two elements. But they all know and many, many, many take advantage of our detention decisions or our specific bond decisions they can appeal to the court, the immigration courts, to lower the bond, change the bond, remove the bond, and reverse the detention decision for that matter. So as I said, I am happy to visit with you about that. They either fall into that category--I do not know the four in particular you are talking about, but they either fall into that category where a decision was made that they should be detained and they did not appeal. But if the decision was made, yes, you can be released, you are not a flight risk, but we want you to appear in the future, we are going to set this bond, that should have happened and that is-- Ms. Roybal-Allard. So some could be--like, for example, these four were not offered bond. And maybe, I don't want to take up the committee time now, but I would like to follow up-- -- Ms. Saldana. Absolutely. Ms. Roybal-Allard [continuing]. On that as to what the reasons were. Because, as I mentioned earlier, there were also allegations of mistreatment and other things that I would like to follow up with you on. Ms. Saldana. Okay. Thank you, Congresswoman. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Last November, the secretary issued a memo directing the implementation of the Priority Enforcement Program, which is intended to take the place of secure communities, and the PEP program relies on the voluntary cooperation of local law enforcement agencies. My question is that, based on ICE efforts so far, have you found that state and local jurisdictions are willing to provide the advance notifications and, if not, what are the stumbling blocks to their participation? And then, finally, what is the current status of implementing the program and when will it be fully implemented? Ms. Saldana. I am very anxious. People have been working around the clock, the forms, the requests for notification. This is essentially a new form, as opposed to a detainer request, I am told finalized. I mean, everyone, including NGO, has had an opportunity to review them and make comments, and we have been tweaking and changing. I think that will be imminent. And our hope is that we can do a form--and we need those forms before we go to the jurisdiction and say here is the form. I mean, that has not stopped us from visiting with them. And the secretary and I actually have made joint visits, at least one joint visit, and we are spreading out across the country to visit with folks. I think I made the offer with you to come to your jurisdiction too. They are listening. There is a long history, as you well know, with respect to the secure communities program and the trust. And so we are doing our best to try to work on that and build--rebuild trust. So we are hopeful, we are hopeful of the jurisdictions, because we all have the same interest in mind, bottom line, and that is public safety. I am hopeful that the program will be kicked off the ground formally before the end of the month. Ms. Roybal-Allard. But is your experience that they are more receptive to this than---- Ms. Saldana. We just started our campaign of going across the country, but nobody has slammed the door on us. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. To ensure that under the PEP there is going to be transparency with regards to ICE's request for notification, will ICE include the immigration enforcement priority that is the basis for the request? Ms. Saldana. You know, as I was saying, people have been reviewing that form and I know that was a subject of some debate, and I cannot remember finally what it was. As soon as we finalize that, we can certainly make it available to you. I just cannot remember if we ended up with that in there or not. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And, finally, last November's memo from the secretary establishing the PEP indicated that detainers would only be used in special circumstances, such as when there is sufficient probable cause to find that the person is a removable alien. Is ICE still issuing detainers and who makes the determination as to whether sufficient probable cause exists to justify the use of the detainer? Ms. Saldana. It is the officer. Some jurisdictions are requesting that a federal judge get involved in these decisions. I cannot even imagine with the way the courts are overloaded as it is that a federal judge is going to want to review an administrative civil enforcement decision to detain. So that is a big stumbling block with some jurisdictions. You might have asked another question that I have failed to answer. Were there two or three questions there? I cannot remember. Ms. Roybal-Allard. There were several, but I think you may have answered. I have already turned the page, so---- Ms. Saldana. Okay. Ms. Roybal-Allard. During last year's hearing, I asked about the status of expanding compliance with the 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards to more facilities housing ICE detainees. And the deputy director stated that he had asked ERO and the ICE CFO to develop an execution plan that would take into account any increased per diem costs associated with requiring detention facilities to meet those standards. What is the status of requiring detention facilities used by ICE to adhere to the 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards and do you expect to eventually get to 100- percent compliance for all facilities housing ICE detainees, including ICE facilities, contract facilities, and facilities housing detainees under an inter-governmental agreement? Ms. Saldana. Of course, with respect to our facilities that we run ourselves, we are there and we are complying with those. It is the contract, as you mentioned earlier, that is the issue, because they have a contract that may run a period of time that does not have that provision. We are obviously on top of that. We are expecting them to generally comply, but we will be sure to put that in the contract in the next go-around. The last time I checked, Congresswoman, we were about at 60 percent or something of compliance among them and part of that will be the people who we are going to have to renew their contracts and put it in there. But it is something that is very much reviewed. The standards that are applied, that is part of our monitoring, review and auditing process. We are checking all the time and making corrective action where there are issues. That is the status. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Do you have a schedule as to when you hope to have full compliance? Ms. Saldana. I do not have one written now, but you know what I can do is check into that executive action, that execution plan you mentioned earlier, and see where we are and provide that to you. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And as contracts---- Ms. Saldana. Included. Ms. Roybal-Allard [continuing]. Come up, that would have to be included, they would not get a contract unless they were compliant? Ms. Saldana. Well, they would have to agree to come into compliance, yes. We would not say to someone we refuse to---- Ms. Roybal-Allard. No, I know, but would there be then a time line? In other words, you know, they can say, yes, we will comply, give us the contract, and then just drag it out until the end of that contract. So what would be the conditions under which someone who was currently in violation of not meeting the standards, what would be the time line in which they had to until that contract would be revoked? Ms. Saldana. We would probably have to make that decision on a contract-by-contract basis, but it stands to reason that we are going to be approaching that with this needs to be done within a certain period of time. Negotiations are negotiations, I cannot represent to you that it will be done within a month of signing the contract, but it is certainly at the very highest level of attention when it comes to our new contracts. Ms. Roybal-Allard. So would those that are compliant, would they have priority over those that were not yet compliant? Ms. Saldana. Are you thinking there is a highly competitive situation out there for people to run detention centers? Because that really---- Ms. Roybal-Allard. They make a lot of money. Ms. Saldana. Yeah, they do, but it does not--it is not palatable to--we do not have people knocking down the doors to come and run our facilities, unfortunately. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. That is fine. Mr. Carter. All right. Well, I think that concludes this hearing. Thank you for being here. We enjoyed visiting with you, and we will be visiting with you again soon. Ms. Saldana. Oh, I am sure. Thank you, sir. Mr. Carter. Come see us. We are adjourned. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Thursday, April 23, 2015. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION WITNESS HON. R. GIL KERLIKOWSKE, COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION Mr. Carter. This hearing is called to order. Good morning, everybody. I want to thank you for coming out early this morning. Today, we welcome Gil Kerlikowske in his second appearance before the subcommittee. Commissioner Kerlikowske, welcome. We appreciate you being here, and thank you for your willingness to serve DHS and our country. The fiscal year 2016 budget for Customs and Border Protection is $13.4 billion, an increase of $803 million above fiscal year 2015. This is the most substantial component increase in the DHS budget, which funds vital national security missions. It is a good budget. However, we are under very tight budget constraints and must discuss prioritizing CBP's request. Your budget request also assumes the addition of 2,000 additional CBP officers from fiscal year 2014. However, CBP is having a fairly difficult time bringing on board the majority of these officers. Currently, only 700 have been hired, leaving over 1,200 to be brought on this fiscal year. You understand the important national security role that CBP officers will fill. We can't afford to delay their hiring, nor can we afford to let funds expire. Similarly, the Border Patrol has 852 agents below the mandated 21,370 agents. This leaves the subcommittee concerned that CBP isn't able to sustain the existing workforce, let alone the mandated floor levels of agents. These are urgent problems that we have to fix. The request also includes a contingency of $79 million for a potential surge of unaccompanied children. While we understand the numbers are lower than last year--and we thank God for that--we look forward to hearing your update on the current estimate of UACs. The request also includes numerous other increases, including $85 million for nonintrusive detection equipment, $44 million for new fencing in Arizona, $79 million for facilities sustainment, and $29 million of electronic visa information system updates. As many of you are aware, our top line numbers were announced yesterday, which will make funding these and many other requested increases very difficult. I look forward to working with you over the next several weeks to prioritize funding to the most needed programs. Lastly, Commissioner, sovereign nations control and manage their borders and sustain the integrity of their immigration systems. These objectives are your duty, and I expect nothing less from you and from the men and women that work with you in CBP. Now let's turn to Ms. Roybal-Allard, our distinguished ranking member, for any remarks she may wish to make. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Commissioner, to our subcommittee. The discretionary budget request for U.S. Customs and Border Protection in fiscal year 2016 is $11.5 billion, an increase of $685.5 million above the fiscal year 2015 level. That is approximately 40 percent of the total discretionary increase proposed for the Department as a whole, and the lion's share of CBP's proposed increase is for the rising costs of personnel. Salaries and benefits, in fact, make up 70 percent of CBP's total budget request compared to just over half the budget just 7 years ago. This trend is concerning because it makes it more difficult for you to invest in the kinds of technologies on which border security increasingly depends. On the other hand, CBP has, for a variety of reasons, struggled in hiring new agents and officers, including the 2,000 new CBP officers funded in the fiscal year 2014 bill. As a result, the numbers of Border Patrol agents and CBP officers are significantly below the required levels. It is also worth noting that a significant portion of CBP operations rely on user fees that have not been adjusted in many cases for more than a decade. Without fee level adjustments to account for rising costs, there is a growing gap between fee collections and the operations they support, which puts an even greater burden on discretionary funding. I would also like to highlight that in recent years, the Department has embraced the concept of risk management. While we can't eliminate risk, we can be strategic about identifying risk and targeting resources accordingly. That approach is certainly inherent in the impressive work of CBP's National Targeting Center, which I visited a few weeks ago. I hope we can help CBP continue to improve on the good work already being done there. CBP also continues to make progress in improving situational awareness at the border and in targeting better the use of technology, personnel, and other resources based on risk. In addition, the Secretary's Southern Border and Approaches Campaign is taking the Department's border security effort to a new strategic level, and CBP is, of course, a big factor in that equation. But I think CBP and the Department still have a major challenge in communicating to Congress and the public what a secure border looks like, what your plan is for achieving it, and how long it will take. I feel certain that comprehensive immigration reform is in our future, hopefully our near future. But whenever it comes, it will be important to have a better consensus definition of what constitutes border security. I also have some ongoing concerns about the use of force along the border, the treatment and care of unaccompanied children, and ethics and integrity oversight that I will want to discuss with you this morning. So once again, I appreciate you joining us, and I look forward to a productive discussion. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Carter. Thank you, Ms. Roybal-Allard. All right. Mr. Kerlikowske, we will recognize you for 5 minutes to summarize the information that you have submitted to the committee, and then we will have a few questions. OPENING STATEMENT: COMMISSIONER KERLIKOWSKE Mr. Kerlikowske. Thank you, Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Roybal-Allard and the members of the subcommittee. I want to thank the members of the committee for the passage of the spending bill for the remainder of this fiscal year. It enables us to do a better job to execute the full scope of the very broad mission we have, from providing the means to invest in needed border technology to the flexibility to care for unaccompanied children. When I appeared last year, I had been Commissioner for about 2 weeks. I am thankful to be here a year later and to share some of the accomplishments that CBP has made and to highlight how the administration budget will help us move ahead. I have been privileged in this last year to visit dozens of our land, air, and sea ports of entry, our Border Patrol stations, our forward-operating bases, and our air and marine units. I have listened carefully to frontline personnel. I have seen the challenges they face and how the resources that the committee has provided have really translated into a more efficient and effective workforce. And I have seen firsthand, most importantly, how committed our employees are to our mission, and I am proud to represent them at this table. My first year was a combination of profound challenges. Within the first week of being sworn in, I was down in McAllen, Texas, to view firsthand the unprecedented number of unaccompanied children and families crossing the Southwest border, I think, as all of you have also. And I think since then I have made about 10 more trips to McAllen. In addition to the response at the border, the CBP officers and the Border Patrol agents I saw demonstrated humanity and compassion to those kids. CBP and our partners then launched an awareness campaign in the three Central American countries about not only the dangers, but the fact that if you do arrive here that you will not be allowed to stay. In the event of another surge, we are much better prepared now than we were then, and this budget provides additional resources for the safety of the children and the families in our care. And then we responded not long after that to the Ebola crisis in West Africa. Working closely with the CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we set up processes to funnel travelers from the affected countries to five airports where they get enhanced public health screening. During events such as these, we also have the everyday activities that the American people place their trust in us to keep them safe. We are, as I often remind our people, we are the guardians of the Nation's borders. As I stated a year ago, to ensure that trust we must instill the highest levels of transparency and accountability. We have made progress in this by publishing a Use of Force Policy handbook, establishing a formal incident review process, and transitioning our Internal Affairs special agents into criminal investigators. That increases our ability to investigate misconduct. The President's budget builds on these accomplishments and provides $13.4 billion to enhance CBP's efforts in the three areas. First, the budget enables us to advance our comprehensive border security operations, deploying technology, mobile video systems that many of you have seen, Department of Defense repurposed equipment, such as aerostats and thermal imaging. And the budget allows us to complete the infrastructure tactical investments that are needed on the Arizona border. It enhances our capabilities for counterterror and transnational crime by assisting CBP in building that counternetwork capability, and it supports the Secretary's Southern Border and Approaches Campaign, which I know all of you are familiar with. Lastly, the budget continued our efforts to enable lawful trade and travel, and we are grateful for that appropriation. As trade and travel increase and benefit the economy, we know we have to get the right people in, and we have to get them in safely. We have to get the right cargo in, and we have to move it expeditiously. The budget provides funding for these critical investments in nonintrusive inspection devices and also to help improve travelers' experiences through these innovative business transformation initiative and the public-private partnership. So thank you for having me today. I look forward to answering your questions, Mr. Chairman. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICERS: HIRING Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, Commissioner. We are happy to have you here. I want to remind everybody that even though we are in a closed room, for the young lady who is taking the record, we need to be sure and have our microphones on when we talk. Let me start off by talking about our hiring challenges. In 2014, Congress appropriated for 2,000 additional CBP officers. Everybody that had asked for that was pretty happy. A lot of the ports of entry had concerns. This brings our total to 23,775. However, CBP currently is 1,302 agents below the funded levels. I have about three questions here that you can answer. How many officers will be on board by the end of this fiscal year? Accounting for the increased attrition, will CBP be able to have all 23,775 officers on by fiscal year 2016? And what is CBP doing to address the slow rate of hiring of funded positions? Mr. Kerlikowske. We will fall short by the end of this fiscal year, but I assure you that we have made great progress. And even though only 700 have been hired now, we are really moving much more rapidly to get those people on board. And we appreciate and understand the fact that these are appropriated dollars, that to the American public, when these folks get on board, they get people through more quickly. And it actually, as the research shows, makes money for this country by getting them on board. But two things occurred that were particularly problematic. And you well know, Chairman, from our past history, when we lowered our standards of hiring and did not properly vet people, we made mistakes in who got hired. And we paid a price for that, and we are continuing to pay a price for that. So the company that did background screening through their systems had a breach of security, and so everything was shut down for actually a number of months. So that slowed everything down. The second part is that we don't hire anyone without being polygraphed before they get on board. Finding the requisite number of certified Federal polygraph examiners has been particularly difficult. We have hired a number of people. We have made sure that we are doing our very best to deploy them and to have people. We have lots of applicants, and we are screening them well through our hiring center. But both of those things. But I would tell you that there is a lot of light at the end of the tunnel. We have moved much more rapidly. And even though we have only hired 700, the deficit for both Border Patrol agents and for our CBPOs [CBP officers] will certainly be much less by the end of this fiscal year and certainly by the end of the calendar year. POLYGRAPH OPERATORS Mr. Carter. Well, that is interesting, the polygraph operators especially, because we have heard that story from you and others in other hearings and places. And the question that I never have been able to understand, is if there are not enough polygraph people available to hire, and there are people, for instance in Texas, the Texas Department of Public Safety has a lot of polygraph operators, it might be you could subcontract with them somehow. I know from personal experience that there is a large number of polygraph officers, Spanish-speaking polygraph officers in the Rio Grande Valley, because they come up in large numbers and train in Austin. As a young defense lawyer, I learned an important lesson: If you have a client that, although he speaks perfect English, he was raised in a Spanish- speaking family, to get the best results you need a Spanish- speaking polygraph operator. Because amazingly enough, even though they would tell you they were not translating in their brain, they are, and you will get an inconclusive. I had a client that swore up and down he wasn't a thief. He said: ``I might be a murderer, but I am not a thief.'' I thought that was an interesting defense to take to a jury. So I talked to the district attorney to let me go and have him polygraphed and he came up inconclusive, which was not good for me. And then the operator said: ``Well, we have a bunch of Spanish-speakers that are up here from the valley, let them run him in Spanish.'' And he came out like gangbusters in Spanish, which I got him a much better deal that way. Mr. Kerlikowske. Your suggestions are ones that I certainly explored because I had polygraph operators certainly when I was the police chief in Seattle. Texas Department of Public Safety has one of the best polygraph programs. And so I explored with the Federal certified polygraph examiners why we couldn't contract with or use them, and I thought that it would make a great deal of sense. I have run into a real stonewall with that organization that keeps a very close hold. And I know that there are some reasons why we can't do that, because DPS [Department of Public Safety] in Texas is not certified in the Federal system. But I am continuing to push that issue very strongly because I think there are other ways to skin this cat. BORDER PATROL AGENTS: ATTRITION Mr. Carter. Well, maybe that is something we ought to look into. Mr. Cuellar and I are both very familiar with what you are talking about. So I will take a look at that issue. Another concern, the Border Patrol is over 850 agents below the mandated 21,370 floor. It is not news. It has been around for a while. So the underexecution of agents is not due to hiring up at a new level but sustaining the existing workforce. What are we doing to address the hemorrhaging of agents from the Border Patrol? And this isn't a new issue. This issue has been around since I have been on this committee. Which brings up a question that came up in the conversation in the last 2 days in my office. My deputy chief of staff is a former command sergeant major in the Army, and some people, not including myself, have been discussing with Border Patrol people who said that they wish they had better training. The initial training is good, but there is not the continuing training that we have in our professional Army, where literally, every time you come off a mission you are retrained for your next mission. It is a new training cycle every time you transition. I am not sure we can get to that level of training proficiency, but there is basically, from what I understand, very little continued training after the initial Border Patrol training. And that might be something that builds that esprit de corps which would hold our officers in. I don't know. But I want you to think about that, and then whatever thoughts you may have about what we can do for the hemorrhaging of the Border Patrol. And finally, that is over $180 million of appropriated personnel funding. What has been happening to those funds? Mr. Kerlikowske. So in the Border Patrol, attrition jumped, it doubled. It is about 4.7 percent. There are a lot of reasons for that. I think that one is that about a year ago, when agents could retire, they could transfer their unused sick leave toward their retirement. And that is no longer in place, so people took advantage of that. They also had the continuing issue of this, as you well know, this Border Patrol Pay Reform Act and the use of additional funds. We are quite pleased, of course, that Congress passed the Border Patrol Pay Reform Act. We are in the process of implementing it. At the same time, Fair Labor Standards moneys and AUO [administratively uncontrollable overtime] money is also having to be changed. So we are in that process. A number of Border Patrol agents who were looking for transfers have moved over to Customs and Border Protection. That is a benefit to us. But it also makes it particularly difficult with the Border Patrol because we need to fill those slots. And of course our focus was on the appropriated funds, the $180 million, the amount of money that is not being used for salaries because it is available. So the Border Patrol has used a lot of that money for technology. We will certainly provide you with the figures. But because we will also be in the process of advertising, hiring, screening, selecting people, some of that money is being carried forward so that we can continue that hiring process to make sure we get up to speed. We have a lot of good applicants. We have a good system in place now, provided there are no more security breaches. We have a lot more polygraph operators on board. But I don't want to come back to you a year later and say: Well, we have gotten everybody hired, but perhaps we hired some people that shouldn't have gotten on board. I would rather tell you that we are not as far advanced in hiring as we should be, but I don't want to get the wrong people into place. Mr. Carter. I can't disagree with that. I agree with that. But in turn, we can't sit on pots of money in a time when we are scratching literally every penny out of these budgets to make sure that we are giving you everything that you need. I am a frontline troops guy, okay. I want to make sure the people that are in harm's way have everything they need, because, quite honestly, those of us that sit in the offices have to rely upon them to be out there in the bush. And having had a one-night experience with the Border Patrol, that is not a very fun job. Everybody ought to go sit out in the cane for a while and get a good impression of what these guys and gals go through. Well, that is something we need to be looking at very closely, because if we are not going to use the money, then we have to use it for something else. Mr. Kerlikowske. Yeah. Mr. Carter. All right. I guess my time is up. Ms. Roybal-Allard. UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN: PREPAREDNESS Ms. Roybal-Allard. Commissioner, CBP was challenged last summer in managing the influx of unaccompanied children across the Southwest border. Are you satisfied that CBP is fully prepared to deal with a repeat of last summer's influx were it to occur, including being able to address the full range of needs of these children? And perhaps even more importantly, are you confident that the Office of Refugee Resettlement is prepared to accept custody of the children within 72 hours of their apprehension by CBP? Mr. Kerlikowske. Congresswoman, and certainly I appreciated very much accompanying you on your visit to see that and to go through that. So, first, yes, I am fully confident that the Border Patrol has much greater resources, is much more fully prepared to address this issue with contracts in place for health care, for food service, and for transportation that can be used, and an additional processing center that was purchased and equipped. I am also very grateful and will knock on wood that we are down about 48 percent, about 17,500 apprehensions this year--or ``encounters'' is probably the better term--with unaccompanied children. So that is down significantly from last year. We watch it very carefully, we have good intelligence through other means, and we are better prepared. The Office of Refugee Resettlement through the Health and Human Services [HHS] has taken this issue on. We work much more closely with them. Their footprint was certainly not as large as ours, and a lot of what is done through HHS is also done through contracts. So my visibility on all of their preparations is not as clear as for my own. But I am much more confident that they are in a better position now, having experienced what we all did last year, than today. Ms. Roybal-Allard. And to what do you attribute those lower numbers? Mr. Kerlikowske. Well, one, it would be a mistake to pat ourselves on the back for those lower numbers because we don't know what the future will bring. I think the aggressive campaign that we did with the Department of State, from bus placards to overhead signs to social media, saying that, one, it is dangerous, and two, if you do arrive here illegally, you will be detained and you will not be allowed to stay, has been a powerful message. And I think that the fact that the President has met with those three Presidents, and the Vice President has been down there. Secretary Johnson has been full-throated in his discussions with the heads of those countries also. And quite frankly, the Government of Mexico is doing a remarkable job on their border with Guatemala to reduce the problem of people coming on the train. UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN: MEXICAN Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Speaking of Mexico, I would like to ask a question about the unaccompanied Mexican children who cross the border. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act requires CBP to make three determinations with regards to the unaccompanied Mexican children. First, the child has not been a victim of trafficking; the child does not fear returning to his or her country of origin; and third, the child is able to make an independent decision to return home. If CBP cannot affirmatively make all three of these determinations, the law requires CBP to treat them like unaccompanied children from noncontiguous countries. In other words, they must be transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. And in any case, the child can only return home if they voluntarily withdraw their application for admission. I have been concerned that CBP may have a practice of simply repatriating Mexican kids without the full evaluation and allowing them to make an independent decision as the law requires. What kind of assurance can you give that CBP is fully following the requirements of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act with respect to Mexican children? Mr. Kerlikowske. The training that the Border Patrol agents receive in the academy includes the training and the requirement that they ask questions, whether or not the child is afraid to return back to their home country, and so there is a minimum of those three questions. The follow-up question is, is there anything else that you want to tell me? In addition, we have online training that the Border Patrol agents must take so that they understand the settlement in the Flores v. Reno case, and also understand the act on protection. And I guess I have two feelings, and I know you have expressed some issues about whether they are the best people to do that, to ask that question. They are the first people that these children encounter. Those questions are asked, and it is a minimal number of children from Mexico who then say: No, I don't want to return or I am afraid. We know from the experience of last summer that lots of children went to the Border Patrol agents in uniform and approached them. So there wasn't a fear; there wasn't a concern on their part. In fact, they felt that they would be protected. But would we be willing also to look at other means of further clarifying and asking those questions perhaps with other individuals? I would be happy to explore that. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Like with the Office of Refugee Resettlement, would that be a consideration, of having them look into this, talk to these children? Mr. Kerlikowske. It would, and I would be happy to do that. I think we just have to keep in mind two things: one, the size of those Border Patrol stations, which are pretty busy; and then also, the capacity of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. But if you would like, I would be happy to explore that further. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Are there any records or any evidence that you could point to, to substantiate the fact that Border Patrol is, in fact, doing--I understand they get the training and everything--but to actually show that these things are taking place? Mr. Kerlikowske. I will be happy to provide that. And I think from the unannounced inspections that the inspector general's office did last year to the Border Patrol stations, those were things that were addressed and how are these kids being treated. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Mr. Carter. We are going to go in the order that people got here. Mr. Young. DIRECTIVES Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, welcome. I want to just bring up an issue that came up in our subcommittee last week when Director Saldana was here. A quote was given from the President that he gave on February 25 at Florida International University. He was talking about the Border Patrol, ICE agents, and their new directives, and for those who aren't paying attention to the new directives and they don't follow the policy, that there are going to be consequences to that. I brought that up to Director Saldana, and her response regarding whether or not it is important to follow the law over the directives. I said the law should be first, and she said that she fundamentally disagreed with that. That was very concerning to me and many members on the committee. What is the priority, in your mind, directives or the rule of law? Mr. Kerlikowske. Well, I mean, for us, it is much more complicated than that. We have a number of attorneys and a number of people whom I have to work with on the President's directives. And the advice and the decisions, given those directives, were that they were within the law. As you know, this is certainly on hold as the Court of Appeals looks at this issue. But for all of the laws that the Border Patrol agents enforce and for the 500 laws that our Customs and Border Protection officers enforce, for many Federal agencies, there are a number of directives that go along with them about how to interpret and to utilize those laws. And so I would tell you that it is always our duty to follow the law, but certainly the directives, as they have been explained to me by legal staff, were within the law. UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES Mr. Young. My office is hearing from whistleblowers and folks concerned who work for the Department of Homeland Security, for ICE, for the Border Patrol about what the President said and it sounding like a veiled threat in a way, and that they are fearing retribution. Some believe that they have received retribution. And I just want to make sure that you stand up for them, and those that see the rule of law as number one, that you look out for them. So thank you for commenting on that. I was down on the border. It was eye opening. It was a very good education for not only myself, but I think anybody who is going to make decisions up here regarding the border and homeland security. The aerostats that I saw, I thought were a great addition for helping. Can you talk about how the aerostats have helped out, and what other UAVs you are using? My understanding is that Chairman McCaul went over to Afghanistan and saw those aerostats up in the sky and said maybe we could use those on the border. I hope you are working interagency-wise to find what other agencies are using to help with the border. Can you comment on that, the aerostats, how they are doing, do you plan to have more, and how you are working with other agencies to find new technologies? Mr. Kerlikowske. Well, I think the aerostats have been well received and have been in use, and they are repurposed from the Department of Defense. They are expensive, as almost all the technology is, but we have seen success, whether it is in the Rio Grande Valley or certainly in other locations, by using them. The Department of Defense has been a great partner, along with NORTHCOM, the Joint Task Force, and others in helping us with night vision equipment, thermal imaging, and the aerostats. The feedback from the Border Patrol is that the aerostats do two things. One, they really expand situational awareness. We just saw that in McAllen a few months ago with a series of arrests of people smuggling drugs who then decided to engage in a shootout with the Border Patrol. But that was detected through an aerostat. And I would love to be able to expand that. It is expensive, and we have lots of technology needs because the technology is a game-changer. The UAS, I believe, is particularly helpful and important because they provide that situational awareness, the VADER [Vehicle Dismount and Exploitation Radar], the radar systems. And, again, the imaging, the fact that they can be up to 12 hours at a time is helpful. TUNNEL DETECTION TECHNOLOGY Mr. Young. And, of course, while we are watching from the eye in the sky, there are things going on underground. Can you talk about the technologies there that you are using? There are some pretty sophisticated networks underground that they are using to come into the homeland underground. Mr. Kerlikowske. Yeah. And I think the weakest area of technology that we have, is the ability to detect tunnels. We have worked with DARPA [United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], and we have worked with other organizations to find some level of tunnel detection. Now, the vast majority of the tunnels are in Arizona and California and mostly are used for smuggling drugs. But we continue to struggle with what are the electronic systems that could help us identify where the tunnels are. Right now it is either human intelligence or a truck falls through a hole in the ground by driving over. And there is probably something more sophisticated out there in that area. I think the motion detectors, the remote video surveillance systems, such as the Scope trucks, using both infrared and video, are all helpful. And a lot of those have been repurposed from DOD. SUGAR CANE Mr. Young. And then just finally, underground, eye in the sky, on the ground, we were in McAllen, Texas, and we went up and down the Rio Grande River. On the American side, we saw sugar cane, a lot of weeds, what are seen as an invasive species of sugar cane that doesn't have much use. It seems to me like there are some efforts to get rid of that so that we can better watch our homeland. Can you comment on that? Mr. Kerlikowske. You know, as you have and I have been on the river a number of times and looked at the difficult terrain, particularly when somebody crosses and then enters into those high cane fields, how difficult it is. I was actually unaware that that cane wasn't a commercial or marketable sugar cane, but I would be happy to explore that and learn more about that. Mr. Young. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony and being here. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar. PROFESSIONALISM CAMPAIGN AND FENCES Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To start off, I want to associate myself again with the chairman's comments on the officers. I think we appropriated this back in 2013, fiscal year 2014, and we are still holding. And you seem to equate that if we move faster, then you lower the standards. I don't necessarily equate that if we move faster you are going to lower the standards. So, again, I would ask you, because, Laredo has the largest inland port, 12,000 trailers a day, and we really would like to have those move a lot quicker also. Second of all, I want to say that your folks in Laredo have been doing a great job, that I am hoping we can expand this to other ports of entry, and that is PRIDE Initiative. It is a rider that we put in about professionalism. I will be in San Diego. Those folks over there want it, I think they want it everywhere, balance between security, but at the same time, without having your men and women treat most of the people as criminals, because they are not criminals. And we are talking about the ports of entry, not outside the ports on that. So I would ask you to just continue expanding that initiative. Your folks in Laredo have done a great job. The second thing is what the ranking member said. I just want to mention that there is an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico, before Border Patrol returns one of those unaccompanied kids, they go to the Mexican consulate. The consulate will go through the same questions that Border Patrol asked and then they return it. So just keep in mind there is an agreement. We will be happy to provide that to you if you don't have that. The other question, and I have a series of questions, is the fence. And I don't know what your latest numbers are, but when I was on the Oversight of Homeland, to put 1 mile of technology would cost about $1 million. To put 1 mile of fencing, it would cost about $7.5 million per mile. So I would ask you if you can update that. I am not a big supporter of a fence. If anybody wants a fence, I would be happy to support a fence around your hometown if you want that. But update those numbers if you can, sir. And the reason I am asking about that is because I know one of our colleagues in Arizona was complaining, questioning how you spent $730,000 for 60 feet of fencing, which works out to about $12,166.66 per foot to fix a fence, and I think that is just a little bit. And I saw the response that you all provided. But I think over $12,000 to fix 1 foot of fencing is just a little bit on that. So I would ask you to look at that. And then does your Department--I know this has been a question in Texas--does your Department also provide breakdowns as to what Border Patrol catches, drugs, et cetera? I know that the locals provide that. I assume the State of Texas has their own numbers, because there has been a question that the State of Texas doesn't break down. They put everything together on this. I will be happy to provide that information. But if you can follow up on whether you break down, what you all catch, whatever the State does in the State of Texas and whatever the local folks. I know that my brother, who is a border sheriff, knows what he catches, and he knows what DPS does, and he knows what the other folks do, because everybody keeps their own records. Finally, the last thing, Mr. Chairman, I was talking to Chairman Culberson on this, but also Mr. Carter, and I don't want to put this out, but the details of the thresholds that every sector has, what the U.S. attorneys. Members, if you don't have a copy of that, I think it was provided to the committee, but if you look at the thresholds, every area has a different threshold throughout the Southern border, which means if I was a bad guy and I know that the Feds are not going to prosecute, I will go to certain areas and keep it under those thresholds, whether it is cocaine, marijuana, whatever it is. We sometime, Mr. Chairman, we know need to go over this particular situation because then the burden is put on the local prosecutors on that. So I know I gave you a series of questions. You can follow up with some of them. Overall, I appreciate the good work that you are all doing. I am glad that some of you all are starting to look at some of the things. But quite honestly, some of us are here longer than some of you all in your position. So on issues like cane, we live in the cane. We don't just go in and go out. We see that every day. Your response, and I say the Department, was to put Spanish wasps, to release them, that that would take care of it. It was millions of dollars. There are folks on the border, like the Texas Soil and Water Conservation, that can do that a lot cheaper, they have been doing this for a long time, that can get rid of that cane. But your folks said: No, they wanted to work with USDA and put a Spanish wasp there. That Spanish wasp has not been very successful because the cane that I have seen and other members have seen, it hasn't worked. And those bad guys are still using that for coverage. So I know I gave you a couple of statements, and if you can follow up on some of them with our office as soon as possible. Mr. Kerlikowske. Can I respond to a couple things? Mr. Carter. Yeah, you bet. Mr. Kerlikowske. Thanks. So one, I first very much appreciate the invitation, and it was a great honor to be a part of the bridge ceremony in Laredo. It was a wonderful opportunity to see people coming together in the middle of the bridge. I want to thank you particularly for your personal involvement in the professionalism campaign. So this is a campaign that exists in all of our ports to have our Customs and Border Protection officers, those people in blue uniforms who are, one, the frontline of making sure that people who try to get into the country through the ports, through fraudulent documents, who are wanted on warrants, et cetera, that they are apprehended, that they don't get in. But they are also the first ambassador that somebody sees when they enter the country. And I am always impressed when I hear someone tell me that when I went to customs, they said welcome home or welcome back. And this professionalism campaign is very good, and I attended the one in Baltimore. But you going and actually speaking to the CBPOs, I think is particularly heartening. The fence issue in Arizona was actually a little over 200 feet of fence, and this was washed out through a microburst. And the repair of the fence, 700-plus thousand dollars was expensive, but there was also the removal of about 150,000 pounds of concrete and other things that actually caused that disruption. So it was both things. And I agree with you, sometimes the Federal Government isn't the best place to enlist when you are looking to save money on a particular project. But I didn't find this particularly over the top when I was also informed about how much debris, concrete debris had to be trucked and hauled out of there. And I will be happy to give you more information on fencing costs. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Carter. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. APPREHENSIONS: COUNTERTERRORISM CAPABILITIES Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioner. Thank you for 40 years of service in law enforcement. Also for having a good sense of humor. I note the hour, and I am sure we appreciate your being here on time. I was barely here on time. Sort of following along with Mr. Young a little bit, his line of questioning. First of all, Mr. Carter, and I serve on the Defense Appropriations Committee, and actually I think I know more about the Middle East border than at times I do my own border. As you look at our Southern border, and you look at things happening in South America and Central America, we hear some incredible figures about the death rate of killings in Mexico, some figure of 45,000 people who have been killed, the power of the cartels, a lot of activity. We only need a few bad people to get through the process here. And I know part of your statement relates to capabilities on counterterrorism. What is your take on that part of your responsibility? I know you have a working relationship, thank goodness. We are pleased to hear positive comments about your working relationship with the Department of Defense. What is your take on that aspect of apprehending the people who would do us the most harm? Mr. Kerlikowske. And I think that we are at about 169,000 apprehensions so far this year, and although that is down from the total numbers last year. That represents around 150 different countries. People often think it is going to be the three Central American countries that were most problematic last year, and Mexico, but the numbers of apprehensions of people are from all over. I think that one of the huge benefits that this Congress has done with the United States Border Patrol is to increase its numbers. It wasn't that many years ago that it was 7,000, 8,000, 9,000 people; today it is 20,000. When someone is apprehended, it gives us the ability to debrief them, to ask questions. So rather than leading 20 people into some level of detention after apprehension, we could actually sit down and question and debrief them. And I think that that is very helpful when it comes to people who would do us harm greater than just entering the country illegally. So I think that that is important. The other key factor, I think, and the ranking member mentioned it, having gone out to the National Targeting Center--I would certainly welcome, and I think she has expressed that to members of the committee, welcoming you to visit--Our interaction, not just with the Department of Defense through information technology, but with the National Counterterrorism Center and other Federal agencies, is helpful. And then the boots-on-the-ground issue, as I have spoken with the chairman--The boots-on-the-ground issue is that our Border Patrol agents are a part of those communities. They work with local sheriff's departments. Texas Department of Public Safety, Steve McCraw is held in high esteem by me personally, and that relationship is very good. TERRORIST ACTIVITIES, FUELING Mr. Frelinghuysen. Do you subscribe to the notion that a lot of what is happening in South America and Central America-- and I know you have certain responsibilities--that a lot of the shakedowns and the activities of cartels--and this is sort of in, I think, certainly open sources--that a lot of that might be fueling some terrorist activities? Mr. Kerlikowske. I think that there has been a lot of research, and certainly during the time that I served as the President's drug policy adviser and spent a lot of time on some of these issues also-- We know that transnational organized crime looks for lines of business just like any other business and where they can make a profit. We also know that terrorists need money and they need financing, and the information that terrorist organizations have engaged in illegal activity, everything from smuggling cigarettes to used cars, those types of things are important. And I think that the more emphasis we place on going after the money, the more harm we can do to those organizations. So I think you are right. TUNNEL DETECTION TECHNOLOGY Mr. Frelinghuysen. And lastly, getting sort of back to Mr. Young's comments, I was surprised, and I know Chairman Carter heard this in terms of the continent of Africa, the limited ISR. And then I hear that it is also true for your area. I just wondered what assets you are missing. I know you have a relationship with the Department of Defense, DARPA, you are using all sorts of technologies. But if you are impoverished, I think it is important for all our committees to sort of know what you need. Mr. Kerlikowske. Well, I think, when I spoke with Mr. Young, I think the tunnel detection technology could be improved because that is a difficult area. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, the technology actually exists. It does exist. You just haven't had it. It hasn't been given to you. Is that correct? Mr. Kerlikowske. Well, actually, the tunnels that we have been encountering that are much deeper, things like ground- sensing radar and things like that, actually haven't been all that successful. So working with our science and technology counterpart at DHS, that would be one area that I would like to do. And, of course, the other is that a lot of the technology needs to be updated and refreshed. The aerostats that you mentioned, some had been sitting in a warehouse postwar for 5 or 6 years. That means when it comes out that the technology is old, they need to be updated, et cetera. There is a cost there. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You have brought it to our attention. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Mr. Price. CARGO SCREENING Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, welcome to the subcommittee. Thank you for your good work. I would like to focus today on some of your overseas operations, both with respect to passenger preclearance and cargo screening. Let me start with cargo screening. As you well know, there is 100 percent requirement in the law for the scanning of 100 percent of maritime cargo originating in foreign ports prior to landing. For a variety of reasons, good reasons, I think, from cost to technology to the infrastructure at many harbors and ports, this requirement seems like a distant reality. So recognizing that, last year, the Secretary extended a waiver on this requirement by 2 years. Now, I understood and supported this waiver, but I have again been disappointed by the Department's failure to take the longer view and to propose a legitimate alternative to the 100 percent screening requirement. Last year's committee past report included language making it clear that the subcommittee did expect CBP and the Department to lead on this issue and to propose alternative requirements that could realistically be achieved within the next 2 years. We also required the Department to propose medium- and long-term goals for increasing our scanning capabilities at high-risk foreign ports. So therefore, these questions. What is the status of meeting these goals? Should we expect the Secretary to again request a waiver to delay implementation of the requirement? What are the technological hurdles that still need to be overcome to ramp up the amount of cargo we screen overseas, just setting aside the 100 percent figure? To the extent we can and should be ramping overseas screening up, what are the technological hurdles that need to be cleared? And are there diplomatic or other hurdles that we may have underestimated? Mr. Kerlikowske. So I know that the Secretary has made this a high priority, and I know that his statements have been that it is the law and that he should do everything possible to move to the 100 percent scanning. And it certainly involves, as you know, not only a complex set of diplomatic issues. I visited Singapore, where we have three people in our advance screening center over there to work with Singaporean officials. Many of these ports, when I was at the port in Cartagena--Many of these ports are also, of course, privately owned. Unlike many ports here in the United States that are operated by some level of government, these are private ports, and so we have to work carefully and closely with those organizations. We are in now 40 countries. We have about 800 people overseas. And that level of working with these counterparts in the large ports in Germany and other places, Amsterdam, is particularly helpful. Right now the screening is risk based, who is the operator, where is this coming from. I think you are familiar with the fact that we have Trusted Traders that we have vetted carefully, and we have vetted their personnel. Many other countries that have asked for our assistance in developing those same kinds of programs where the traders themselves, these shippers, I mean, they want safety and security. They don't want a blemish on their organization either. And they are working very hard to develop some programs. I certainly can't speak for the Secretary on whether or not he will ask for the waiver, but I can also certainly say that many of the barriers and the difficulties of 100 percent scanning that have been testified to by previous Secretaries still exist today, but progress is being made. Mr. Price. Well, what I am implying in the way I asked the question, I believe, is that this may well be a goal that is not attainable and that there is going to need to be a thorough reconsideration of the way we do this kind of screening. And you described, and maybe I am going to ask you now to flesh out just a little bit what you mean by a risk-based approach, which has been the operative approach for these intervening years. What we are looking for, I think, is some indication, some plan of the future development of that approach or any other approaches that, together with whatever overseas screening we are able to do and choose to do, that comprehensively we have a reliable plan going forward. And that is what we have repeatedly asked for. It is not that we are quibbling with these waivers, or at least I am not. It is a matter of understanding the reason for the waivers, but at the same time asking, short term and long term, what kind of larger plan do we have and what might we expect in the future? Mr. Kerlikowske. So I couldn't agree with you more that the 100 percent scanning would be incredibly difficult. And if somebody had already come up with the plan and the proposal to move forward, I think it would have been well presented to Members of Congress. I think the system that is in place now is a very good system, and our National Targeting Center for Cargo is incredibly helpful. When I think of the risk-based approach, I think, first of all, who is the shipper. If shippers have subjected themselves to incredible levels of vetting and scrutiny by the United States Government about their employees and their processes and their security, they can be trusted, and they can be trusted more. There is still verification. The second part is, when we look at the cargo coming in through the National Targeting Center, what is the country of origin, what other countries has the cargo been to or was passing through, what is the manifest, who is the intended receiver, and et cetera? And that gives us a huge ability. These new freighters with 15,000, 16,000, 17,000 20-foot equivalent containers are pretty amazing. We need to be able to drill down into that information, and I think we are doing a better job. I think America's leadership with other countries on this has been helpful. I will be with the World Customs Organization. Next week, I will be in Africa on border security issues in Kenya and several other countries. They really look to the United States for policies, programs, training, and equipment that not only make us safer, it makes their countries safer. Mr. Price. I expect my time has expired. Let me just say, though, that I understand that this is quite far along and it has been developed in a way that does greatly increase the security. We have not, though, ever on this subcommittee gotten the kind of response that we expected and needed to these requests for you to flesh out the plans going forward. And to get past this year-to-year waiver business, there may well have to be waivers into the indefinite future, but there also needs to be some assurance that we are operating in a rational and comprehensive fashion so that we have a plan. And maybe your practice is better than the kind of reports we have received indicate. I suspect it is in some instances. But I do urge you to take those requests seriously. I expect they will be repeated in this year's bill. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Price. And a good point. Mr. Stewart. AUTOMATED EXPORT SYSTEM: WEAPONS Mr. Stewart. Commissioner, thank you. I appreciate your many years of service. One of my favorite things to do is go back to my district and to ride with some of the law enforcement and police officers and see what they do. It is very interesting work, but it is difficult work as well. So thank you for that. You should know that I am from the West. I represent Utah. I grew up ranching. Still have the ranch in my family. I was a military member. The Second Amendment is something that is really quite important to me, as it is for millions of Americans. I am distressed at times by what I believe is an attempt by this administration to suppress or to make more difficult Second Amendment rights for Americans. And I have a question regarding this, and I would like to begin with this premise: That you and I would agree that there are sometimes lawful and practical reasons why an American would want to travel overseas, travel internationally with a weapon. Could we agree on that? Mr. Kerlikowske. Yes. Mr. Stewart. For example, going on a safari, going to Canada to hunt, whatever that might be. In the past, this is relatively simple, and I have done this. You fill out a form that you are familiar with, a 4457, I guess, as I recall, and you had to enter the serial number, and it was relatively easy to do. But now there is a new protocol which, frankly, makes it almost impossible for many Americans, without being deceitful, without being dishonest, because now under the new CBP and ICE, under the Automated Export System, you have to enter an EIN, Employer Identification Number, which maybe you have one. I would be surprised if you do. Some people do, but most don't. And if you go to the IRS to get an EIN, you have to have a reason, and one of them isn't because I want to travel to Africa on a safari. They are all dealing with, ``I am creating a business, I am hiring an employee,'' something in a business structure. Tell me why. This makes no sense at all, why we would have this new protocol, and it requires people to be dishonest in order to do something that is legal and lawful. Mr. Kerlikowske. So the chairman brought this up to me when I visited with him last Thursday, and then Senator Hoeven asked me if I would visit with him yesterday on this. Until the chairman brought this up with me, I actually was unaware of the new protocol. I was well aware that if you wanted to travel into Canada and go hunting, you filled out the form, the Customs and Border Protection officer looked at your identification, looked at the firearm to see that it matched, and then you continued on your way. Mr. Stewart. Could I comment on that quickly? Mr. Kerlikowske. Sure. Mr. Stewart. And that is if you are unaware, you need to go back to your folks and say: Why wasn't I? Because there have been a lot of people who have been working with your agency for a long time now trying to raise this issue. Mr. Kerlikowske. So I think that the part of this about, one, we have a lot of protocols. We enforce laws for 47 different Federal agencies. Well over 500 laws, including the Department of State. So I would tell you that I am not aware of every FDA [Food and Drug Administration] regulation and every Consumer Product Safety Commission regulation that our people enforce. I will tell you that when the chairman brought this up and I met with Senator Hoeven yesterday, it made no sense to me to continue down this path. By this afternoon we would be changing our Web site and our information, and for this interim process through the State Department, we would be continuing to take the Form 4457 that you mentioned. FIREARMS REGISTRY Mr. Stewart. Great. So glad to hear that. And we will follow up with you, if we could, to make sure that we have had relief on this. It is really important to a lot of folks. The second question I have and I think is ancillary to this, and that this essentially collects firearm information and creates, although through a backdoor, a registry of firearms with their identifying numbers on those. Do you keep that information, or is that information destroyed? Mr. Kerlikowske. I actually don't know about that Form 4457. I think the history had always been that people, whether they were taking an expensive camera overseas from the United States or a firearm or something else--The purpose of having that information is that when you returned Customs would not say: Well, you must have purchased that gun or that camera or that something else overseas and now you should be declaring it or you should be paying a duty on it. So I understand some of the reasoning behind expensive pieces of equipment. But I will certainly follow up with your office on the records and how long they are kept. Mr. Stewart. Okay. Thank you. Could we agree that if we as American people wanted to create a national gun registry, that would be appropriately done through Congress in conjunction with the Executive? That is a meaningful decision and that that is a congressional prerogative? Mr. Kerlikowske. I would agree that some type of national gun registry, which I think would be probably incredibly difficult to ever have, having spent a long time on gun issues, is something that would go through Congress. Mr. Stewart. Okay. And thank you for that. And that being the case, then, you can understand why we would be concerned that if this information is collected and if it is kept and stored and available, again, it is essentially a backdoor way to a gun registry--at least a partial gun registry--and why we would be concerned about that. So thank you, Commissioner. Once again, we will follow up with you on that, and look forward to working with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. By the way, the Commissioner's response was very quick when we raised this issue with him last week. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate your quick response. Mr. Kerlikowske. Thank you. Mr. Carter. Who is next? Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, Commissioner. I want to thank you for your outstanding service. I was reading your resume, especially in the National Drug Control Policy. I appreciate that very much. And I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Stewart, for raising the issue about the gun registry issue. So just so that I can be abundantly clear with my constituents, as of today we are getting rid of the EIN and all that other stuff and we are going back to the way that it was used to be. Mr. Kerlikowske. So what I would make clear is that by this afternoon--And some of this of course is on our Web site that talks about the EIN. And this provision apparently has been in existence for quite some time. We did not enforce that particular section. So, one, we will post the information that we will continue with the process of using the form that the Congressman described. But I will be involved in discussions with the Department of State and others on that provision that requires this because it needs to be reviewed. BORDER SECURITY: ILLEGAL ENTRANTS WHO GOT AWAY Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioner, I also would like to thank you for the state of the border briefings your agency has begun providing to this subcommittee. This has been an effort to keep us updated on your efforts to secure our border. One of issues that has come up in these briefings is the problem of, quote, unquote, got-aways, or persons crossing the border illegally who are not apprehended or turned back into Mexico. When we last spoke about this problem, we were not given any kind of estimate as to the number of people who have gotten away from the Border Patrol personnel. Can you please provide us with that information now, as well as an update on your efforts to reduce that number, sir? Mr. Kerlikowske. I would certainly tell you that the number of people who are apprehended is a pretty easy number to calculate, whether it is at the border or at a checkpoint or something else. The number of people who actually enter the country that we could see and we were not able to apprehend is certainly a bit more difficult when you are looking at that formula. And then the number of people whom a Border Patrol agent spots and then sees them turn back. And then there is always the question of did they turn back and then reenter the country of Mexico, or did they turn back and then use some other route to try and get into the country? The one, I think, particularly helpful part of all of that is that those numbers and those observations come from the Border Patrol agents, kind of the boots on the ground. So I would tell you that we look at a variety of systems to try and figure out and tell people if a border more secure, which I think certainly it is more secure than in times past. But it is a difficult dynamic. And I would be happy to follow up with some more detail. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Kerlikowske. But when I was a police chief, people would ask: Is Seattle a safe city? And I would say: Well, gee, how do you you know? Is it a safe city because we have a lot of police officers, because the crime is lower, because we have made more arrests? What is your definition of a safe city? I think I run into the same problem when somebody says: What is a secure border? BIOMETRIC ENTRY/EXIT PROGRAM Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. I have got one last question. I would like to inquire about the status of your work to establish a biometric entry/exit program to track foreign nationals entering and leaving the United States, and more importantly, identify individuals who have overstayed their visas and remain in the country illegally. This capability is critical to ensuring our Nation's security. What progress specifically is being made to develop an implementation plan for the establishment of this system, and when can this subcommittee expect to see a report on that progress, sir? Mr. Kerlikowske. And I would certainly invite you to visit. We, along with our Science and Technology part of the Department of Homeland Security, have a mock airport entryway that has been built out in Maryland to try and identify what would be the best biometric. Now, there are lots of ways to leave this country. You can walk out of the country, you can drive out, et cetera. So if you are a foreign national and you are leaving the country through Canada, Canada provides us that information as that person enters. So that is helpful. But the other part is that none of our airports were built with an infrastructure in mind to have the same type of exit that we have when you come into the country and go through customs. So we have to look at what would be a biometric system. Airlines say that they would like to have 10 seconds per passenger in order to board a plane. Finding a technology that also can operate within that 10-second timeframe is darn hard. And the last thing we want to do is stack up airlines any more with people waiting to get on a plane, as I think you have all experienced. So we are working closely. The airlines are great partners. There is a lot of new technology (passive iris scanning, facial recognition types of things), and I would be happy to show you some of that technology and try and figure out how we can do that. Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Chairman, I yield back, sir. Mr. Carter. Mr. Culberson. BORDER SECURITY: SOUTHERN BORDER CROSSINGS Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, thank you for your service to the country all these many years. You have been a dedicated law enforcement officer, and appreciate all the good work you have done. In just ballpark estimates, how about people do you estimate cross the southern border, for example, between San Diego and Brownsville in a month? Just ballpark. Mr. Kerlikowske. I couldn't even--I mean, I know our numbers of apprehensions on the southern border and the number of people, but the number of people entering the country, we have about a million people enter in through our ports of entry per day in this country. We have lots of data and statistics. Mr. Culberson. Right. But just a kind of ballpark estimate based on your long experience, what would you estimate, every 30 days, how many people cross? Mr. Kerlikowske. A lot. Mr. Culberson. Of those that cross, thinking of them as, say, out of every 100 that cross, for example, how many, out of every 100, again, just ballpark estimate based on your long experience--I have been on this wonderful subcommittee for years, we have worked together for years on this, I know how dedicated you are to this, but, again, just to try to get a handle on it--every 100 that cross, how many do you think that are actually detected, either visually or in some other way, by the Border Patrol? Mr. Kerlikowske. So, I mean, I think that when it comes to illegal crossings, Pew and others have really worked pretty hard to determine or to come up with a number of about 11 million people in the country that are here illegally, and that is over a period of years. I think that the Border Patrol works pretty hard to measure what it calls its effectiveness rate in apprehensions. So rather than try and provide you a number, I would tell you that that long experience tells me, and having done the Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy and been the author of three of those during the time that I was at ONDCP [the Office of National Drug Control Policy], that the technological resources and the boots on the ground and the eyes in the air along the southwest border today are far greater than ever before. And my old friends and colleagues who are sheriffs and police chiefs in El Paso and San Diego and others, many inland cities would be quite happy to have the low crime rate that those cities happen to have. Mr. Culberson. So out of every 10 that cross, you think the Border Patrol is detecting 3, 4, 5? Mr. Kerlikowske. I am really hesitant to give you that number, but I am also more than willing to have a further discussion and to bring some of the Border Patrol experts with me to sit down with you or your staff. APPREHENSIONS: NUMBERS Mr. Culberson. Of those that are detected, how many actually have an encounter with a Border Patrol official? Mr. Kerlikowske. The illegal apprehensions that a Border Patrol agent sees and can actually apprehend, they all have a direct encounter with that agent. Mr. Culberson. Three out of 10, do you think, have an interaction of some kind? Mr. Kerlikowske. If it is any person who is being detained or been apprehended, unless they escape, and we do have some of that--unless they escape, they do have a direct encounter with a Border Patrol agent. Mr. Culberson. Right. Mr. Kerlikowske. The numbers of those whom they actually would see who then disappear back into Mexico, we see those reports. I see those reports every single day in which there has been an incursion, which we have apprehended somebody---- Mr. Culberson. Sure. Mr. Kerlikowske [continuing]. And three others got away. Mr. Culberson. Yeah. What I am driving at is, if your agents encounter somebody at the border, they have an opportunity to either speak to them, touch them, be able to interact with them, is what I am talking about, 3, 4 out of 10 that cross? Mr. Kerlikowske. Again, I am hesitant---- Mr. Culberson. Hard to say. Mr. Kerlikowske [continuing]. Hesitant to give you that. Mr. Culberson. How many do you think are actually taken into custody out of every 10 that cross, 3 out of 10? Mr. Kerlikowske. Again, I would probably defer back to that first answer of dodging your question. Mr. Culberson. Okay. Of those that are apprehended, how many of those that you apprehend are actually taken into custody? Mr. Kerlikowske. Every one. If an agent can put his or her hands on them or take them into custody, they are detained. They are brought to a Border Patrol station, which actually has lockup facilities, and then they are eventually transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. So they do have hands on. Mr. Culberson. A hundred percent of the individuals that cross illegally who are actually touched by an agent, apprehended, are processed and taken down to a facility? Mr. Kerlikowske. Yes, sir. BED SPACE Mr. Culberson. Have you ever had an agent request for bed space been denied by ICE? Mr. Kerlikowske. Not that I know of. The working relationship with Director Saldana and Immigration and Customs Enforcement is very good. They run the detention facilities, either themselves or with other personnel. The new detention facility in Dilley, Texas, I think has bed space for over 2,000 people. And I would know, especially on the unaccompanied children, in a report that I get twice per week--I would know if they ran out of bed space and we didn't have some place to put them. And I haven't heard any complaint at all this year. Mr. Culberson. So they have been able to handle everybody you have asked them to take? Mr. Kerlikowske. They take. Everybody whom we have asked them to take they take. NOTICES TO APPEAR Mr. Culberson. How many individuals that are apprehended by the officers at the border are given a--what is that form you sign says: I agree to appear later. Mr. Kerlikowske. Notice to appear. Mr. Culberson. Yeah, NOTAMs. Mr. Kerlikowske. Right. So we have notices to appear for people. We actually work through Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, to do the notice to appear. But we work with them because there are protocols. If somebody has a location that they are going to be and they can appear, they can be given that notice to appear. And I don't have that number. Mr. Culberson. Sure. But, I mean, at the time of the initial apprehension when the officer picks them up-- Mr. Kerlikowske. They get processed first. Mr. Culberson. They get processed first. Mr. Kerlikowske. So you would get brought to the Border Patrol station. We want all of those biometrics. So we want those fingerprints, we want that photograph, and we want that information before a notice to appear would ever be issued. Mr. Culberson. Okay. And then the individuals that are given a notice to appear then, you have got folks that are given a notice to appear, and others, for example, are taken to be returned to Mexico and other sectors of the border? Mr. Kerlikowske. They can be returned to another or to be-- -- Mr. Culberson. In other sectors or in that sector? Mr. Kerlikowske. I think one of the goals has been, particularly if it is individuals who have been--and we look at recidivism. Has this person entered the country before and been apprehended? We want to return them to some part of Mexico that wasn't the place that they entered into the United States from so that it is further away, and we believe that that disruption is helpful. Mr. Culberson. Okay. I just want to confirm, then, so what you are saying is that if I go talk to any of the sectors up and down the border between Brownsville and San Diego, 100 percent of the individuals actually touched by an officer on the border are taken into custody. Mr. Kerlikowske. I would tell you---- Mr. Culberson. Processed. Mr. Kerlikowske [continuing]. That they are processed because---- Mr. Culberson. Hundred percent. Mr. Kerlikowske [continuing]. We need and want those biometrics. Mr. Culberson. Okay. Mr. Kerlikowske. Right. Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mr. Kerlikowske. Okay. Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. FUNDING REQUESTS, PRIORITIZING Mr. Carter. It is back to me. We are going to try a quick second round. Well, we are back to the money, Commissioner. We talked about this earlier. The 2016 budget request is over $850 million higher than the enacted level, given the limits of the nondefense discretionary spending imposed by the Budget Control Act. It is likely that the request will have to be cut and proposed increases will have to be prioritized. You understand that. We talked about it earlier. What part of the $850 million are must-fund items and which can be delayed? And can you prioritize your funding requests? Mr. Kerlikowske. So I would tell you that our people, our personnel. Even though the technology is incredibly important, funding the personnel whom we have and continuing on, because it is a labor-intensive business, that is particularly helpful. The second part is the technology that needs to be improved upon, particularly at ports of entry, is very important to us. And I would assure you and certainly assure the committee staff that as you work through this budget process, we will be happy to prioritize and give you the information. But people and technology. Mr. Carter. That brings up a question we talked about earlier, the fact that we probably are not going to spend the money from last year, we are not going to reach that 2,000 number that we estimated. A lot of people tell me they are. And we talked about how we don't want to build up slush funds. I asked you how leftover appropriated money might be spent and you said on technology and the people first, and I agree with that 100 percent. People are the priority of law enforcement, period, and technology is important. When you make a budget request to use that money for other things, is this committee informed that you are making requests to spend that money in other ways than people when we bump up against September? Mr. Kerlikowske. If the money is within, for instance, the Border Patrol, and the Border Patrol is going to spend it on technology that will help in securing the border, I believe that the committee is provided information. I don't think there is a permission system because it is within the Border Patrol's budget. If we wanted to use any of that money to spend on UAS [unmanned aerial system] or air and marine, that would require a reprogramming, and the committee would not only be informed, but the permission would have to be granted. But, I mean, last year the Border Patrol spent on those kids about $16 million or $17 million on contracts for food and transportation and healthcare stuff. In turn, they purchased, the Border Patrol purchased better technology. And then we know that the money going forward to hire and screen and pay those polygraph examiners, because we are going to get to the goal of having all of these people onboard. We have got great applicants. We have got a lot of young people. We have got a lot of veterans. I can assure you that I will get them onboard. Mr. Carter. As you can see, in the good times we don't have to pinch pennies. But right now with the system we are operating under, we have intelligent discussions about this. They go on forever. But the reality is, you have to play under the rules you are given. That is the way the game has to be played. A concern that I have more and more is we don't want to wake up and find that we are double paying for things. You need technology, you have a technology column and you have a people column. I don't see any objection to when you are bumping up against deadlines you fund the technology needs. But if we are trying to fund both, as an intelligent committee getting an idea of our resources, then information provided to us as to how that money would be spent seems to be a good thing. Mr. Kerlikowske. Yes, sir. PRECLEARANCE: NEW LOCATIONS Mr. Carter. Maybe that is asking too much, but I would hope it is not. I would like to know, as you make those changes, where our money is going so we can better plan for the next year, when we have to do this kind of prioritizing. Hopefully, life will get better sometime. Second question, something we have some new information on. We have some preclearance operations, the one we put in initially at Abu Dhabi, and we signed an upgraded agreement, recently, with Canada. Can you discuss the Department's current negotiations with interested foreign airports and the timeframe for new preclearance operation locations? How does the Department plan to pay for construction and staffing of new locations? Will there be cost-sharing agreements with foreign entities? And do you expect the U.S. airports to lose CBP officers, staffing, to new preclearance locations? And, finally, how is the newly signed agreement with Canada different from the previous? Mr. Kerlikowske. So Secretary Johnson has made the preclearance issue, because we work in conjunction also with TSA [Transportation Security Administration], an important issue. Certainly from a security standpoint, I think already in Abu Dhabi with a year into this, there have been literally hundreds of people whom we have recommended to the airline that they be denied boarding, because if they did arrive in the United States, they would not be considered admissible. From a security standpoint, having people never get on that airplane who shouldn't come here is a good thing. From the airline standpoint, they see it as a good thing too because they don't have to turn around and fill that seat with somebody going back that they are required to do. We have had letters of interest from over 25 airports around the world that believe that preclearance would be something that they would like to discuss further. That number is being prioritized downward to those that have the infrastructure, those that are most interested, and where it could be most helpful to the United States. So the preclearance issue I think is really a great step forward on security. It is also a great step forward that when people land at Dulles or JFK, they don't get in line. They don't clog up the Customs line. They just pick up their bag and go. The last thing, and you are aware of this too from the public-private partnerships and the work we are doing with Southwest Airlines and others. Those countries in which we have preclearance agreements pay 85 percent of the salary and benefits of our people who are there. So whether it is in Abu Dhabi or Ireland or Aruba, et cetera--not bad places, I guess, to work--they are being paid. So we don't supplant anybody. This is over and above. Mr. Carter. Out of curiosity, I would be interested in that list of people that have applied. Because, one of the questions that came up from the carriers were when we made an agreement with Abu Dhabi there weren't a lot of U.S. Carriers flying to Abu Dhabi. My guess was that we would quickly hear from European ports and others that would say: Put us on that list, we are interested. Mr. Kerlikowske. And you will also quickly hear, and I am sure many staff have, from the airlines, the large United States airlines, that the places we are discussing with all have American flag carriers. Mr. Carter. And that was the big issue. Thank you. Ms. Roybal-Allard. BORDER SECURITY: DEFINITION Ms. Roybal-Allard. Before I ask my question, I want to make two points. One is that the cost of purchasing technology, it doesn't end there. We also have to factor in the maintenance cost for that technology that is purchased, which I understand, particularly if it is older technology that we get from DOD, is often very, very costly. The other point I would like to clarify is with regards to the unaccompanied Mexican children. My question had to do with whether or not CBP is following the requirements of U.S. law to determine when these children should be returned. My colleague Henry Cuellar mentioned the fact that we often work with the Mexican consulate in returning these children, and I just want to point out that I think that is wonderful, but it is not a requirement of the law. It is something that is voluntary. The question I have goes back to something that I mentioned during my opening statement, and it has to do with the definition of border security. In the simplest possible terms, and with the understanding that the border can be dynamic, can you describe the realistic end state capability that you envisioned for border security and how long you expect that it will take to achieve it? Mr. Kerlikowske. One, I would tell you that going down to the border and spending a lot of time there, it is very helpful to get the feedback from trusted friends and colleagues whom I have worked with in law enforcement across that entire southwest border. So whether it was the former chief in Brownsville or whether it is the sheriff in El Paso or others, they give me a very realistic viewpoint of border security. On top of that, we have lots and lots of technology and lots of metrics that the Border Patrol uses to look at what would be a secure border. A border that has lower risk? A border in which we use that technology, for instance, to take a look at where people are crossing? I mean, as you well know, there are some very rugged parts of that border. And, actually, when we look to see if there are footprints or some attempt at tire tracks or discarded clothing or any of those kinds of things, and you realize that if you look at it day after day after day after day and you don't see any attempt or any information about somebody crossing, that gives the Border Patrol the opportunity to put their resources where it is more useful. I think the general feeling from ranchers and others is that places like San Diego, El Paso, et cetera, that the resources that are there from the Border Patrol have made a significant difference. The concern is in some of the more rural parts, and that is where the technology is, and the fencing, the fencing being put only in certain locations. All of those things. I would be hesitant to tell you what I see. I see a much more secure and safe border now as a result of all of these things, including the support of Congress. But I would be hesitant to tell you what is going to happen. I mean, when we saw those kids last summer, people said: You have got a real border security issue. I didn't see it as a border security issue. I saw it as a border management issue. I mean, as you know, they came across and looked for someone in a green uniform. It wasn't somebody we were chasing through the cane fields. CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS Ms. Roybal-Allard. Last September, Secretary Johnson delegated to CBP the authority to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct by CBP personnel because, as you know, there have been frustrations in the past that such allegations have not resulted in serious investigations or consequences. Can you tell us what the status is of transitioning to this new authority, and how do you think the new authority will change the way allegations of criminal misconduct are treated? Mr. Kerlikowske. Well, I think the criminal misconduct issue has been, as we go back a number of Commissioners, and at the time that Customs and Border Protection was actually created--existing investigators, even though they were experienced and knowledgeable, were transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And therefore at first there was absolutely no or very limited internal affairs. Commissioner Basham later was able to get more people. But it had been turned down by other Secretaries. So when I went to Secretary Johnson and said when I ran a police department I had internal affairs and I could be held very directly accountable for the levels of misconduct and corruption within the Seattle Police Department. Not having that authority and not having those resources was a significant concern to me. He agreed with me and authorized, and we have just now issued certification to, well over 100 internal affairs investigators to have criminal law enforcement authority. And we are continuing. And we are very fortunate to have an advisory panel headed by Commissioner Bratton at the NYPD [New York City Police Department] and the former DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] Administrator, Karen Tandy, and a number of others to give us advice on what else we should be doing. I think we will be moving forward. Certainly the 100-plus that we have now is not going to be adequate for a workforce of 60,000. And as we work through this budget issue--and I know that the corruption issue is important to you--as we work through this budget issue, I would very much like to have some flexibility to be able the use some of our existing personnel in Customs and Border Protection and some of our Border Patrol agents who are knowledgeable, experienced investigators, to be able to move them into those anticorruption, misconduct investigating positions. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Also the fiscal year 2015 House report directed CBP to provide regular updates on its transition under this new authority. When can we expect the first of those updates? Mr. Kerlikowske. I know that we had committed to, I think, quarterly updates on how this is progressing, the number of people whom we are bringing forward, I think. And I have seen a number of reports that are as close to being ready to release and to discuss with your staff as possible. So I would love to give you the particular date that those things are due. But as I think and I hope that all of you and your staffs know, that any particular request, particularly when it comes to--I just can't think of a time in which law enforcement is under more scrutiny in this country at every level. It is important that we keep you informed. BODY-WORN CAMERAS Ms. Roybal-Allard. Let me just ask one more question, and that has to do with the findings of the evaluation of body-worn cameras by the Border Patrol. Could you just tell us what the current status is of CBP's evaluation of the body-worn cameras and how the evaluation is going? And when do you anticipate it to be completed? Mr. Kerlikowske. So we purchased a number of body-worn cameras and then took them to New Mexico to the training center and let the people going through Border Patrol training try them out and experience them, and then to actually see what works and what doesn't work. The second phase that we are in now is to move them to the field. Unlike a city police department, the environment that the Border Patrol agents work in is pretty rugged. So whether it is International Falls in Minnesota or Blaine in Washington State or Arizona or the Rio Grande Valley, these cameras have to have a level of technology that can be used in those really difficult environments. They are being tested in the field right now in these different locations. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Ms. Roybal-Allard. Just a quick aside comment on these body cameras, which I understand why the public is wanting them and looking at them. But from a standpoint of criminal justice system, it is going to create a chain of evidence situation that is going to be extremely expensive, because once that camera turns on, that is evidence that is available to the defense and the prosecution as to what happened at the scene of an incident. The denying of that information to a defense attorney could probably end up in a reversal of a case. Therefore, that is going to have to be kept in the same chain of evidence which all evidence that is accumulated by any officer. If you put a camera on every police officer, every border patrolman, everybody that enforces the law in the United States, there is going to be a gigantic volume film library. Even digitalized, it is going to be extremely expensive. We are talking trillions of potential dollars in the United States every year. I don't think anybody is talking about that, but some of us that have to sit through that chain of evidence testimony in the courtroom know that that is going to come down the line. I think as we think about all this, and I know the good we are trying to do, under our particular set of criminal laws and how we operate is going to be a big accumulation of information that is going to have to be stored someplace. Nobody has been talking about that, but I meant to mention that to lots of people because it is going to be very costly to store. Mr. Culberson. APPREHENSIONS: PROCESS Mr. Culberson. You are bringing it up at the right time, Mr. Chairman. The CJS Subcommittee that I got the privilege of chairing, the White House has already asked about body cameras. And we getting requests from, of course, all over the country for body cameras. And I asked the White House, if they would, to make the request in the form of--let state law control, when, where, how it is used and how the data is stored, and that the Federal Government will only be responsible for paying for the equipment itself and not the storage, for the exact problem you just mentioned, because of the cost. I can't even imagine how much data and how many servers and how much that cost is going to be. Just incalculable. And they agreed to do so, which I appreciate. So you will shortly be seeing, I imagine, a press release from the White House saying that they have asked to create a body camera program that will follow those guidelines that I asked them to do, and I appreciate that very much, that the Department of Justice would follow our recommendation. And that is that, again, the state law controls. So it will be when you are in a state, district judge or state authorities. The State legislature, in fact, in Texas right now is designing standards for when, where, and how those body cameras are to be used and how the datais going to be handled. But the Federal money will only go to actually buy the camera and not the data storage, not the service itself, because otherwise it would just eat us up. And it will be in the form of a pilot program. But state law will control when it comes to those state officers. Now, of course, Federal agents, obviously, that will be under Federal, that will be our responsibility at the Federal level. But as tight as money is, that is going to eat us up, the cost of those servers and the data storage and who gets access. But if I could very quickly, Commissioner, to follow up on the questions I asked earlier--and I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman--in my experience, I know in the judge's experience, I am not aware that 100 percent of the people intercepted by Border Patrol agents are processed. I am looking forward to going down to the border and confirming that now you have changed that. So 100 percent of the people stopped by the Border Patrol, touched by an officer, are taken down to be processed. If that is the case, then, those 100 percent that are taken down to be processed, when they are processed, what happens to them, out of every 10? Mr. Kerlikowske. So they are processed as far as the biometrics. So fingerprints, photographs---- Mr. Culberson. Hundred percent of them are fingerprinted. Ten-printed. Mr. Kerlikowske. Yeah. They are ten-printed. When they get apprehended and placed into custody and brought to that Border Patrol station---- Mr. Culberson. Okay. Mr. Kerlikowske [continuing]. All of those biometrics. So that history, any identification, debriefing. We want to know who was the smuggler involved. I mean, sometimes they are more than willing to tell us. How did you get into the country? Those kinds of questions are asked, along with that biometric, facial, et cetera. Then the decision is made as to whether or not they will be given that notice to appear, working in conjunction with ICE, or whether they will be detained or whether they will be sent back home. Mr. Culberson. And out of every 10, what percentage, 3 out of 10 sent back, 4 out of 10 returned? Mr. Kerlikowske. They go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement after that. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would be the party that would provide that information. Mr. Culberson. No, I mean, just out of curiosity, at a ballpark figure. Mr. Kerlikowske. Right. Mr. Culberson. I am not asking you for hard and fast, but just based on your own experience and interaction with the officers and the sector chiefs, as you were just discussing, 3 out of 10, 4 out of 10 are sent back in another sector? Mr. Kerlikowske. When we return them back to Mexico, as we have discussed--When we return them back to Mexico, we attempt to turn them back at some place other than the place where they crossed. Mr. Culberson. Right. What percentage are returned? Mr. Kerlikowske. And I don't know that percentage. Mr. Culberson. Okay. Mr. Kerlikowske. I don't. Mr. Culberson. What percentage are sent to ICE? Mr. Kerlikowske. We work with ICE, whether it is through a notice to appear or whether it is to be remanded to custody at an ICE detention facility. So ICE is the keeper of the detention facility after we have process them. So that is what happens. Mr. Culberson. I appreciate your dilemma. You are a professional. You have served this country very, very well for many, many years. I understand your dilemma. It is just something we have each got to personally bird dog, Mr. Chairman, down on the border. Mr. Kerlikowske. Thanks. Mr. Carter. You through? Mr. Culberson. Yeah. Very frustrating. Mr. Carter. Mr. Price. PRECLEARANCE: SECURITY ASPECTS Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, the chairman raised a number of questions I intended to raise about the preclearance operations for passengers at overseas airports. Let me just ask you, though, to the extent you can in an unclassified session, reflect on the security aspects of this. The most obvious measurement is the one you hinted at, the number of people apprehended who wouldn't be admissible. Is that a factor at other airports besides Abu Dhabi? To what extent has that been an experience more widely? Of course, the other preclearance points are in very diverse areas. And what else would you say about the security aspect of this? Mr. Kerlikowske. We have had preclearance in Canada for many, many years, and in other places. Those countries--I need to make sure, because I received this note--I need to make sure, they don't pay 85 percent of the salary and benefits. It is only the new ones coming online, for example, Abu Dhabi. And any new preclearance agreement they would continue to pay. So I think that the dual security issue that is most helpful about preclearance is, one, there is a TSA representative also at that location. And so that person getting ready to board that flight goes through a TSA-like screening or analogous screening to what they would do if they were boarding a flight in the United States. The second thing is, then they go through the customs system in the United States even though they are overseas. That information is run against a variety of databases that would lead to us making a determination as to whether or not we should tell that airline that if that person was to arrive in the United States, they would not be deemed admissible. The airline then has to make a decision, of course, as to whether or not to board them. I think that that is an incredibly effective screening. It is pushing the borders out. Mr. Price. And it also relieves the enforcement and probably the congestion burden at the U.S. end to the extent these problems are caught early and don't become a problem then at our border. Mr. Kerlikowske. And when the person arrives, of course, they pick up their luggage and go, just as if they were on a domestic airline. You know, the biggest complaint lately is when the people are waiting. They have already cleared customs, but they are waiting too long to get their baggage. But that is an airline issue. SEQUESTRATION CONTINGENCY PLANNING Mr. Price. Let me ask you to reflect on the sequestration experience and the ways we might avoid repeating that. We are dealing in Appropriations subcommittees, all of them, with a degree of uncertainty this year as to what our ultimate allocation levels are going to be. We are initially, unfortunately, constrained to mark up to sequestration levels. That affects this subcommittee less than some others, given the allocations approved by the committee yesterday. But, nonetheless, it is constraining. And then we can hope for a budget agreement that prevents sequestration coming into effect. So it is uncertain at what level you might have to deal with this, at what point and to what degree you might have to deal with this. But I know it was a problem before for CBP with planning for more than $700 million in reductions, reducing travel, training expenses, facilities upkeep, and so on, anticipating furloughs. So we hope to avoid this. On the other hand, we are still talking about funding levels that are keyed to the unfortunate realities of the Budget Control Act and the fact that as a sign of the failure to address the real drivers of the deficit, namely tax expenditures and mandatory spending, as a result of that failure we are dealing with repeated reductions in appropriated spending and the reality of sequestration one way or another. Either we encounter the direct reality or we bake it into our appropriations numbers. Anyway, I wonder if you could reflect on that and what kind of preparations, contingency planning it requires you to undertake at this point. Mr. Kerlikowske. When I came into this job, I certainly-- and during the confirmation process--I knew the issues around security pretty well. Of course, you know that we are the second-largest revenue collector for the United States government after the IRS [Internal Revenue Service], and we have this huge economic footprint for trade and travel. Repeatedly, all of the groups that have talked to me from the private sector said: The one thing that we really need from CBP is consistency and predictability. And of course we need that when it comes to a budget also. Some of our budget folks are sitting in the back. The amount of time and effort that is spent in preparing directives and memorandums and contingency planning for whether or not we will have a shutdown to whether or not we are going to have adequate resources is a huge amount of time, and I think that that creates some difficulties for us. You know, I have lived, being a police chief, with city councils and mayors, and this is the budget; this is how you need to work within the chief financial constraints of that particular city. But it is that lack of predictability and understanding that, one, costs us a lot of time and planning; and, two, makes our relationship with the people that drive the economy of this Nation, the private-sector businesses, it makes our relationship a bit more difficult. We have a federally advised committee, a federally approved advisory committee, some of the largest companies in the United States. And I meet with them four times per year, and I will have breakfast with them tomorrow. So traders, shippers, importers, exporters, on and on and on. These are important issues to them, and I know they are important issues to certainly the members of this subcommittee. Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Well, we are about to the last hour. I know that Lucille has one additional question she will ask, and I will recognize her for it. COUNTER-NETWORK OPERATIONS Ms. Roybal-Allard. As I mentioned earlier, I was able to visit CBP's National Targeting Center a few weeks ago where I had a very good briefing with the Deputy Commissioner and the NTC staff. And I just want you to know that I was very, very impressed by what I saw and by NTC's capability to manage risk in both the passenger and the cargo environments. Related to the NTC, we provided $4.5 million in the fiscal year 2015 bill to help CBP establish a counter-network operations capability. Understanding that there may be limits as to how much you can say in an open hearing, what can you tell us about how CBP is using these funds? And also with regards to the fiscal year 2016 budget request for $14.7 million for NTC's counter-network capability, how would these additional funds be used to further develop counter-network operations? Mr. Kerlikowske. The feedback from our people at the targeting center is that they were unbelievably appreciative of your visit and your willingness to learn and understand what they were doing. And the targeting center for passengers and cargo has been in existence for awhile, but we really didn't have that comprehensive look at the use of a targeting center with multiple agencies to go after smuggling networks. So we can arrest the same 15- or 16-year-old 18 or 20 or more times for smuggling human beings across the border in Mexico, but the key is not to go after that 16-year-old who is doing it. The key is to go after that network. And so whether it is people like, well, General McChrystal and Lieutenant General Flynn when they determined in order to break a network, you have to counter a network; all of this is based upon then technology and information. So being able to transmit information to our Federal counterparts and not have to do it on a phone call, but rather to do it, one, instantaneously and through a pipe, those are the kinds of things that that money is being spent on. There are also some really good private-sector organizations that have been dealing with this and have been giving us some of this information. All of this I think really will go to support the Secretary's Southern Border and Approaches campaign, which is to knit together the Coast Guard, ICE, and CBP to go after the networks and to break the backs of these smuggling chains. MIGRANT DEATHS: REDUCING AND PREVENTING Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you. Also the fiscal year 2015 report emphasized the importance of reducing and preventing the deaths of migrants crossing the southwest border in remote and inhospitable areas. Have advancements in situational awareness in the geospatial intelligence areas of the border also improved your ability to detect those in distress in order to more quickly provide assistance? And is the Border Patrol working with civil society organizations to help reduce migrant deaths? Mr. Kerlikowske. I have been at a number of those meetings with the Border Patrol and those nongovernmental organizations [NGOs] that provide the beacons or the alerts. I have met with a number and actually got to recognize and appreciate the work that our Border Patrol rescue people do, BORSTAR [Border Patrol's Search, Trauma, and Rescue]. They are tremendously helpful, the number of rescues and people. There are not more than 4 or 5 hours that go by that I don't get some message on a BlackBerry about the work that they are doing. And I meet regularly with these nongovernmental organizations. Crossing that border is incredibly dangerous. We have to get that message out repeatedly in a variety of ways. But people are still going to come to this country the same way and for the same reasons that lots of other people want to come to the country: Safety and security and economics and education opportunities for their children. And so they are going to make that dangerous journey. There shouldn't be a death penalty involved in attempting to make that journey, and the Border Patrol agents and the NGOs and the people whom I know and I have worked with are just as committed to saving life as to us enforcing the law. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kerlikowske. Thank you. UNITY OF EFFORT Mr. Carter. We have run out of time, but the Unity of Effort that Secretary Johnson proposed in 2014, is something I had a conversation with him about early on when he came onboard, and I support it wholeheartedly. I think it is a great use of resources. And I am assuming that CBP fits right in the middle of that package. Mr. Kerlikowske. That joint task force between Texas and California is headed by Robert Harris from the Border Patrol. Mr. Carter. Cutting through all these other questions as you look forward on this stuff, because I think it is going to be a good utilization of resources, I have always wondered why you only have limited resources? When you have a surge coming and you really need more planes, if there is a Coast Guard station right down the road, why can't they send you some folks up there to help you? We are all part of one Department. And, so, I am very supportive of this. As you look down the road and then move along, what other spending issues might be coming up, when working with joint task forces, that come to your mind. Share that information with us, because we are going to be looking down the road at this joint task force work that is going to happen. I am sure there is going to be some costs involved. Some of them will be shared between the agencies, but some of it we will have to come up with. And so we would like to have your ideas because you are an important part of our decisionmaking. That is all. Thank you very much. This has been a very good hearing, and we have enjoyed being with you. We will adjourn this one and get ready for the next one. Mr. Kerlikowske. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Carter. Thank you. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Thursday, April 23, 2015. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY WITNESS HON. W. CRAIG FUGATE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Mr. Carter. All right. We are a little late getting started, but we kind of ran over a little early. We will try to move along a little faster. I call this hearing to order. Welcome, Administrator Fugate, to talk to us today to discuss the fiscal year 2016 FEMA budget requests, and, Administrator, thank you for being here. And thank you for visiting with me the other day. I appreciate that, and looking forward to hearing from you. FEMA has, as you know, a very important mission. You support our citizens and first responders in their greatest time of need. You build capabilities in order to prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from a wide variety of threats and hazards. Since 1979, FEMA has had a single vision: A Nation prepared. Administrator, you do that extremely well. We appreciate that. In 2014, FEMA responded to 45 major disaster declarations. This number is down from 62 in 2013. The high water mark was 99 in 2011. However, there is also a significant amount of recovery and mitigation work that continues from post disasters, including Hurricane Sandy. Your fiscal year 2016 budget request for $390 million above the fiscal year 2015, despite large unspent balances. $340 million of requested increases is for the disaster relief fund. I look forward to discussing whether the increase is appropriate given the recent decrease in major disasters and the substantial carryover balance from previous years. Your budget request also includes significant increases related to climate change initiatives such as a Climate Resilience Task Force and requiring climate change to be considered a developing pre-disaster mitigation plans. In a shrinking budget environment, I would like to hear more about how these initiatives meet the FEMA mission. With respect to first responder grant funding, your fiscal year 2016 budget includes a request to fund a consolidated grant program which is not authorized. And this is the fourth consecutive year you have proposed this grant program, a proposal that has continually been denied by the Congress. Also your funding request for grants is, once again, $300 million less than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2015. I look forward to hearing more about why the new grant program is needed, and why the requested funding levels are appropriate. Before I end, I would like to extend my condolences to the FEMA family for the untimely death of Deputy U.S. Fire Administrator Glenn Gaines. Chief Gaines dedicated his career to the mission of fire safety and rescue. We are proud of his contributions at both the Federal and the local level. Administrator, your written statement has been placed in the record, and we will ask you to summarize that in about a 5- minute period of time, but first I would like to recognize Ms. Roybal-Allard, our distinguished ranking member, for her opening remarks. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Roybal-Allard. Good morning, Administrator. We appreciate your joining us this morning to discuss FEMA's proposed budget for fiscal year 2016. FEMA's disaster response performance under your leadership continues to earn plaudits around the country. On many levels the agency has become more efficient, professional, and effective under your watch. There are still areas of concern, however, including recent problems with the National Flood Insurance Program. It appears that fraudulent damage assessments led to significant underpayments to many homeowners following Hurricane Sandy. And while FEMA's improper payment rate has been significantly reduced since Hurricane Katrina, we still hear concerns about individuals who receive debt letters from FEMA months or years later. The agency is requesting $11.2 billion, including $6.7 billion for major disasters under the Budget Control Act cap adjustment. Excluding this major disaster funding, the request totals $4.5 billion, $115.1 million or 2.6 percent above the current year level. Despite the overall increase, I was disappointed to again see a proposed $224 million reduction in State and local discretionary grants, or a 17.6 percent. The cut is actually $288 million, or 19 percent, when considering discretionary State and local grants and training grants. The cut to grant funding is once again paired with a proposal to consolidate the State and local grants into a single national preparedness grant program. But it isn't yet clear to me that stakeholders' concerns with this program have been addressed. Once again, the budget proposes a cut to the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, and transferring it to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I was glad to see that the budget proposes a significant increase for the pre-disaster mitigation program as well as a major increase for flood mapping. Given the difficult funding environment that we face, I hope we can still find a way to provide increases for both of these valuable programs, and I look forward to a good discussion this morning. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Carter. All right. Administrator, we will recognize you for 5 minutes. Opening Statement: Administrator Fugate Mr. Fugate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you recognizing Glenn Gaines. Glenn was a firefighter's firefighter. I was fortunate enough to attend his funeral. His home county, where he was fire chief laid him to rest with honors. So I appreciate that and that recognition. I also want to thank the chairman and the ranking member and staff for the difficult part of budgets. Our job at the administration within the resources we have is to make recommendations to you in our budget. You have the unenviable task of then trying to appropriate funds on the basis of all of the conflicting priorities that you face. That process, though, is the regular order of how it is supposed to work. And when we have a budget that you have done that in and the President signs into law, we have the stability to execute our mission. And, again, we will present, you will appropriate, and we will execute. And in that regular order, the taxpayer is best served. That is something I think, again, I want to thank you for each of the years that you have been chairman and going all the way back to Congressman Price when he was chair, the work that you do to try to put together a budget and meet all of the different competing needs. And then the last part I wanted to talk about was in our mission, one of the things I heard early on was, you know, you guys have a lot of programs. How is this all tied together? What are you getting with this money? How are you demonstrating? Where are you getting your efficiencies? And we did not have a good story to tell. And we have been working on that. And so we looked at our strategic plan. And what we try to do now is, most strategic plans I think sometimes are what we call a shelf document. We wrote it. It is submitted. They passed it. And then you can't find anything else that you will see referenced in that strategic plan. We took a different approach. We are not going to write a shelf document. We wrote what we thought is our mission. We looked at being survivor centric. And this gets to some of the challenges I am seeing in flood insurance. It wasn't survivor centric. We are making those changes. We have to go where disasters are. Just because it works in Washington, D.C., does not mean it is going to work out in a mudslide in Oso, West Virginia--or in Washington State--or down in California with our drought or up in New Jersey when we are dealing with Sandy. Things have to work where the disasters occur and the people are. You have to build your program around the worst-case scenario, the catastrophic disasters. We saw what happened with Katrina when you try to scale up. It didn't work. And disasters do not come one at a time, as 2010 and 2011 showed us. We were dealing with multiple disasters across the country. So you have to build systems and build capability around those types of events. Not what you are used to doing or the way you used to do it. You have got to build resilience into it. We are spending a lot of money paying for losses that, quite honestly, I ask the question: Why was that not insured? Why was it not insurable? Why are we rebuilding it time and time again? And why is the taxpayer seeming to be the insurer of last resort, yet nothing is being done to reduce those losses in the future? Then finally, probably one of the huge challenges that we face that we are working on is internally as a crisis agency, we tended to deal with our day-to-day management as by crisis only. We never built the foundations to run an organization that was built around catastrophic disaster response. And this goes all the way back to hiring. If you are not hiring the workforce to respond to catastrophic disasters, you are just not going to be successful. If your IT [information technology] systems aren't secure and resilient, they are not going to be there when you need them. We are still having to use spreadsheets to put together data from collection across various grant platforms that don't talk to each other. So we have to work on the foundation of FEMA, modernize that, while reducing costs. And one of our examples is in the austere budget we are working in, do I need nine office buildings in the D.C. region? And the answer is no. We have consolidated down--we are down--going down to three. We will eventually get down to two. Pending any moves to St. Elizabeth, we have significantly reduced our footprint because we would much rather have our staff and our equipment to do our jobs versus having offices with doors for everybody. So we are taking those steps to move there, but everything comes back to, Are we building, as a Nation, the capability to manage and respond to catastrophic disasters and leveraging resources at local, State, Federal level, private sector, volunteers, and NGO [non-governmental organization], and finally the public? Because although we use the term ``first responder'' a lot to talk about the people with lights and sirens, I have been to a lot of your States. I have been to a lot of disasters. The first responder that I usually see is a neighbor helping a neighbor, and we have to recognize that the better prepared our communities are, the better our response will be, the fewer lives we will lose, and the quicker we will move into recovery. So, Mr. Chairman, I am ready for your questions. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] DISASTER REQUIREMENTS FUNDING Mr. Carter. Well, very good. That is a good summation and a big picture. Administrator, your budget requests $7.3 billion to fund all known disaster requirements, including funding for new events. Is it sufficient funding to address Hurricane Sandy needs as well as other ongoing disaster requirements, including projections for expected future disasters? I note that you carried over almost $7 billion from fiscal year 2014 to 2015 to include over $2 billion in base discretionary funds. Why do you continue to ask for new appropriations when you are carrying over significant funds from prior years? I think that the balance in the DRF as of the first of this month is $10.5 billion. Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the outstanding work that is still to be done in Sandy and going all the way back to Katrina, we are basing the request on the amount of work that we are anticipating can get done. There are variables there that as State and locals go through this process, their timelines will drive when we are able to make those awards and obligate those dollars. So as we continue to move forward, this is based upon what we know are projects that are in the system, projects that we know are coming online, as well as maintaining the capability to deal with disasters outside of the known world. Part of this too is also ensuring that we maintain a balance within the DRF, and that--Mr. Chairman, I want to explain this, because I think when we talk about the balances of the DRF, it is not just the disasters that have happened. It is what could happen. And one of the things we learned after 2011 is if we don't maintain balances there for large systems, we force Congress into going into supplemental funding discussions oftentimes without a lot of the information about a disaster. By maintaining a balance, and we have been working with a balance of about $1 billion, and we have some justification behind that, behind what it took to respond to Sandy and what it could to respond to a large hurricane or other event, it gives us the ability not to turn off previous disaster work, which we have had to do before. It allows us to respond to the immediacy and the immediate lifesaving needs and individual assistance needs, and it gives Congress time to deliberate a supplemental package if required once the facts become known. We saw early in the floods in Colorado that with this balance, we were able to meet the needs without a supplemental, although early on people thought it would require a supplemental. As the facts bore out, you had fully funded us. It had anticipated events of that size. We did not have to disrupt any other work going on in previous disasters. So again, Mr. Chairman, I will work with you and your staff because this is a moving target. And, again, I don't want to build large balances there that I don't justify, but I also want to maintain a reserve in that balance so that if we do face the next large-scale disaster, I am not having to come to you for a supplemental before we have all the information or potentially shut down recovery work going in previous disasters. But as to what that balance should be, how much we should be carrying over, I will work with you on that, but I just want to make sure that as we do that, we keep in mind that I am trying to also ensure that as a fiscal steward, I am not placing you in the situation of looking at a supplemental early into a disaster because I am running out of money, and we don't have all the information to make the best determination of how much we may need to manage that event. HURRICANE KATRINA PROJECTS Mr. Carter. Just out of curiosity, Katrina was over 10 years ago. Wasn't it? Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir. Mr. Carter. Do we still have projects we need to finish following the Katrina disaster? Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, we still have projects we have not finalized. I have been working with the mayor of New Orleans, which has several of these large outstanding projects, and he and I are in agreement that by June, if our staffs have not hammered out the final agreements on that, he and I will personally engage to get this resolved, and we are both of the mind that this has taken far too long. And this is one of the things that you helped us with the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act. You gave us tools to hopefully head off some of these open-ended obligations that never seem to get resolved, particularly with Katrina at 100 percent. It has given us new challenges as to trying to get to what is eligible versus what else may be there that is getting, you know, looked at and trying to separate out 10 years later what was actually caused by Katrina and what wasn't so we fund what we have need to fund. Mr. Carter. That seems to be a bottomless pit of money. I would like to see a grand total of how much we have spent on Katrina, but I bet it is a figure that will curl your hair. Mr. Fugate. From FEMA's side, Mr. Chairman, we will prepare that, and I have a--I think a--what the boundary is for how much more, but until I actually have final projects, I cannot say for certainty what that final number is going to be. But one of our largest projects, again, we are working with the city--it is not even really a city project. It is a water and sewer board project of trying to get to the final settlement on that so we are not, you know, next year still talking about, well, how much more will we be paying on Katrina? We will know how much we are going to owe. It will be obligated. It may take them several more years to draw all that down, but we will know what that bill is. [The information follows:] Representative Carter. I would like to see a grand total of how much we have spent on Katrina. RESPONSE. As of April 30, 2015, FEMA has obligated $42.6B for emergency and major declarations related to Hurricane Katrina. WILDFIRES Mr. Carter. Well, you know, I live in hurricane alley and tornado alley, and, you know, we are all for getting help. But that sure seems like a long time. Let's talk a little bit about wildfires because this is something we have a lot of in our State. Not in the big woods, but out on the plains where they go 100 miles an hour and burn up the whole panhandle. Address what FEMA can and can't do under existing authorities, and where is the line between Federal and State responsibilities for wildfires, firefighting equipment, and whether it is on Federal lands or on private lands. Mr. Fugate. Well, because of the economy acts on Federal lands, the authorized and appropriated agency is the U.S. Forest Service. If it is on State lands or private lands or individual landowners or municipal or government property, that really comes down to the State. And one of the two programs that we have--or actually the major divisions--is a program called the Fire Management Grant Program, which is authorized in the Stafford Act using DRF funds to support a State when firefighting costs exceed their annualized routine cost. Basically it is designed to deal with extraordinary wildfire seasons. And it has provisions to pay for various aspects of that, including staging, pre-staging equipment, the response cost itself, and some of the other agencies that may be required. The other program would be a major Presidential disaster declaration. Primarily, when we get into large impacts to either individual assistance because of the number of homes destroyed that weren't insured, or because of damages to uninsured local or State property. But the--one requires the President to approve, and that is the declaration for a major disaster. The fire management grants were given that authority to make those determinations in conjunction with a principal adviser who is usually a forest service retiree that can assist in that. But it is based upon the State's impact. States-- usually their State Forestry Commission or Division of Forestry manage this. And it is based upon if it has exceeded, or is exceeding their budget--what they normally do. We treat it similar to snow where you have routine recurring fire expenses when you have extraordinary cost, and you have events where you have loss--significant loss of property or the potential for that, then the fire management grants are awarded and then it is a 75 percent cost share of the eligible cost. Mr. Carter. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Roybal-Allard. DISASTER DECLARATION PROCESS Ms. Roybal-Allard. Administrator Fugate, FEMA's current process for making recommendations to the President for major disaster declarations may not always consider all the relevant factors, including localized impacts. Both the fiscal year 2015 House and Senate reports ask FEMA to review its disaster declaration process and consider revising its criteria to more effectively evaluate the need for Federal assistance. Do you agree that improvements are needed in FEMA's disaster declaration process? And if so, can you give us an idea about the kind of changes FEMA is considering? Mr. Fugate. Well, given my interaction with various Members of Congress, I can tell you there are those that say I declare too many disasters and those that say I don't declare enough. And as a wise man once said, all disasters are local. So California, Illinois, Florida, other States, New York, they have large populations but also have small rural communities. Oftentimes they find themselves at a disadvantage, because, in many cases, people think disasters locally that are significant should warrant a Presidential declaration, but when taken in light of the State, State capabilities and State resources, we oftentimes determine it did not reach the threshold. And I guess this is the challenge of communication. Disasters are not based upon the localized impacts. They are based upon the ability of the State to manage those impacts. And when it exceeds that capability, that is where you look at the Stafford Act supporting it. You do look at some of the trauma at local levels, but most of the time this is really about the cost of rebuilding. It is about the uninsured losses. And so as we looked at this on one hand, I am also being told I declare too many disasters. So we are looking at these factors. We are looking at more clarity in that to give States a better idea what local factors we do look at. We do look at trauma. We do look at disadvantaged populations. But in taking in light against the size of a State and the State resources, it is, again, a challenge. And I know there has been several attempts to look at more rural areas of large population states. Well, could we not do something differently there? Again, we will work with Congress, but as we see the Stafford Act, it is really based upon a Governor's request and the State's capability, and what a State could do in those situations with the resources they have before we go to the Stafford Act. HAZARD MITIGATION GRANTS Ms. Roybal-Allard. Fire management grants tend to be relatively small. And one awarded last week to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection earlier this week was just over $1 million. But they are extremely important to wildfire-prone areas like California that regularly have wildfires, such as the one that we experienced last week. This is of even greater concern, especially for California, during these times of drought. We included a provision in the fiscal year 2015 bill that authorized FEMA to provide hazard mitigation grants to the recipients of fire management assistance grants. Given that the fiscal year 2015 bill was enacted less than 2 months ago, can you comment on how FEMA plans to implement this authority? And will there be limitations or expectations related to how States will use these hazard mitigation funds? Mr. Fugate. Traditionally hazard mitigation funds have only been made available in a major disaster declaration that the President has authorized. So part of our challenge is going to be the fact that we are now including hazard mitigation outside of our Presidential disaster declaration and what are the ramifications of that. Once we have clear direction on that, I think as far as administering what would be eligible, generally if we were in this situation, we make hazard mitigation dollars available to the Governor to disburse within the program, not even tied to the hazards that caused it. Governors sometimes, because they may have had an event but they have other things they want to get to, have used their mitigation dollars--an example, they may have floods, but they used the mitigation dollars to build safe rooms for tornadoes. So we give the States a lot of flexibility. We also allow the Governor to determine where they are going to designate those hazard mitigation dollars, if it is just for the counties declared, if it is statewide. And within the program, I don't think the issue of administering the grants is going to be getting to the fact that we have not provided hazard mitigation grant dollars outside of a major Presidential--we have never provided them for fire management grants. We don't provide them for the emergency declarations, which are also declared by the President. So this may increase the threshold and oversight required to get fire management grants in the future if it is determined that a--adding mitigation will treat this more as a--as an event that requires the Presidential approval versus what we can approve on our own. EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. The budget, again, proposes to reduce funding for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program by $20 million, or 16.7 percent. And, again, it proposes transferring the funds and administrative responsibility for the program to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We included language in the fiscal year 2015 statement directing FEMA to develop both a plan for outreach to stakeholders, and a transition plan prior to reproposing the transfer of the program. Congress was, of course, late in getting the fiscal year 2015 funding to you, but I hope that you can still respond to my question regarding the statement language. First, can you remind us of the basic rationale for moving the Emergency Food and Shelter Program over to HUD, and then what kind of stakeholder outreach has been conducted? And do you feel confident stakeholders, particularly the Emergency Food and Shelter board, understand and are supportive of transferring the program? Mr. Fugate. Well, the reason why is straightforward. Although the word is emergency, this program is for homeless shelters and for food banks. Although we work with them in disasters, it is not a core mission of FEMA. And so I have read numerous reports from Congress and the General Accounting Office that says agencies should avoid duplication of programs that should be somewhere else that are better equipped or have that as their core mission. So this is not saying that food banks and shelters aren't important. We think they are. That is why we recommend a transfer versus an elimination. We have been doing outreach. Quite honestly, it is somewhat flattering and disconcerting that a lot of the groups would prefer to work with us. So I think there--it is who you know versus what may happen in the future. But we think that HUD is the appropriate agency. We have been working with HUD. I will not tell you that everybody is in agreement on this, but we have been doing outreach--you know, doing the outreach. We have been talking to people. We have been explaining why we want to do this. Because, again, it is not our core mission. We think it is an important function. And we do work with these groups in disasters. But if you go back to why they were placed in FEMA, it is more of an appropriations decision. And we think that, you know, now that we know more about what the capabilities are, what the program does, we think HUD is a better home for it long term, closer to HUD's mission, groups they work with through other parts of the grant programs. So it is not a shirking of responsibility. And I am sure there are some folks that because they work with FEMA a lot would prefer it to stay with FEMA. I will, of course, do what the Congress directs us to do with the appropriation. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And just very quickly, is there a plan in place for transitioning the program, and will it continue to exist as a distinct program with this current program structure? Mr. Fugate. As I understand it, we are in discussions with HUD. I would have to have staff get back to you. Last note I saw was it was in their counsel's office. But we have continued to work on this pending the decision from Congress where this program is and to what level it is funded. But I will have staff respond back to the details of where we are at in those discussions. [The information follows:] Representative Roybal-Allard. Is there a plan in place for transitioning the program with this current program structure? RESPONSE. FEMA and HUD have jointly developed a draft transition plan, and outreach strategy for engaging local stakeholders, in support of the proposed transfer of the Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) to HUD. HUD leadership is presently reviewing the transition plan and FEMA and HUD look forward to briefing the House and Senate appropriators when the plan is finalized. FEMA is keeping the National Board apprised at the board's monthly meetings of all progress and developments concerning the proposed transfer. FEMA and HUD leadership continue to meet on elements required to successfully transfer the program. A separate working session, which includes representation from FEMA and HUD, is being planned by the National Board by the end of June to discuss the proposed transfer in FY16 and to review and analyze the McKinney-Vento Act in terms of what authority may be needed to permanently transfer the program for all out-years. Mr. Carter. Mr. Frelinghuysen. URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE PROGRAM Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fugate, you have a well-deserved reputation for evenhandedness. Thank you. And from time to time, I have witnessed you fending off a lot of political action. And may I say you have always done it in a very professional way. I just wanted to thank you. A burr under my saddle for quite a number of years is something called New Jersey Task Force One. This is an urban search and rescue team that was first--first non-New York group to be on the site of that incredible disaster of September 11, 2001. I have repeatedly written, and certainly have since I know that Secretary Johnson is one of my constituents, but I have repeatedly written him and you and urged the committee to designate that very professional team that has been at it for a long time as one of your--as one of your teams, and I certainly want to renew that plea today that those--that that team continues to do a remarkable job. And I note in the study that FEMA recently conducted a exercise up in the New York/New Jersey area that related to tanker cars on trains, and we have chemical alley up there, all sorts of things that could be highly explosive, in the hands of terrorists could be extremely dangerous to people in my region. And I just would like to renew that plea because it is not as if they aren't trained. And I am not sure--if you care to respond, I would be happy to hear your comments. Mr. Fugate. Well, because you have told me that I am oftentimes not political and pretty straightforward, it is really a funding issue. That team receives its funding probably at the local level and with some of the Homeland Security grants that come through this committee. If we made them a Federal team, it will come out of the existing Federal dollars for the urban search and rescue teams, and we would dilute that. It has really more to do with the fact that we look at those Federal--the teams we look as Federal as we do fund a lot of their capabilities. We know there are a lot of other teams out there that have similar capabilities that are funded with the State and Homeland Security grants. So it really would be as we, you know, would consider if you added this team, would we see additional funds go into the urban search and rescue program for that, or would we transfer it out of the urban security funds, or how would we do that? So this is less about, no, they are a team. We would utilize them and have; through mutual aid from the Governors, these teams are utilized. But it really becomes a funding issue. We are capped at how many teams we have on the basis of. If we started adding one more team, I am afraid that we will have a lot more requests, and then it would come back to the appropriations staff to work with us of how would we pay for additional teams---- NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM Mr. Frelinghuysen. Respectfully, a lot has happened since 2001. And there were very few teams back then. And you have added substantial--your predecessors have added substantial teams to the overall national network. And I do think sometimes recognize somebody who has actually been doing the job earlier on perhaps would have been better. But there has been a substantial number of teams that have been added. Let me just focus and let me thank FEMA for some remarkable things you did in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Of course, there was a lot of consternation down here about the cost. A lot of it related to, you know, the Katrina experience, but on behalf of the people of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, and certainly the chairman and his predecessor and the committee staff, we are awfully grateful for all of the things that have been done. Could you focus just for a brief minute on some of the litigation issues that relate to--that sort of give, not you, but the program a bad name and a lot of the policyholders-- hopefully people take a look at what they subscribe to, but could you talk a little bit about that as part of the overall FEMA experience? Mr. Fugate. Yeah. In running a flood insurance company, I am afraid that what I have discovered is we were running a program that put more emphasis at times on protecting the fund than in servicing the policies. Almost all of the biases that I have seen, and I think has led to a lot of these lawsuits, has been the tendency to look at damages and put more risk on overpayment than--I mean, putting more emphasis on not making an overpayment because we would require the money back. The issue is whatever is owed, we pay. So this is one of the challenges. Why weren't these policies being fully serviced, because it is not a factor to us? If it is eligible damages, as the insurance policy, we would pay. But we think the bias was because they would have to recoup any money they overpaid, we intend to design a program that put more emphasis on not making overpayments. And I think that has resulted in setting up situations that result in the litigation we are dealing with. So my direction was pretty straightforward as soon as I became aware of this. If we owe money, pay it. If we think it is fraud, refer that for further investigation with the IG [inspector general] or Justice. If we are going into the litigation, and litigation costs are going to be, you know, such that it is going to be more than what we are talking, because these policies are capped at $250,000, then I said, move to settle. If there is no fraud there and we have honest disagreements, and sometimes, looking at these policies, we have set ourselves up in looking at what we are trying to exclude as eligible damages and what isn't, it is very difficult to get to those answers. So if we owe money, pay. That is, I think, the hard thing for me to understand: why we got in this situation. But I think it is because we weren't putting our customer at the same level we were the fund, and this goes back to being what we say survivor-centric. If we are going to sell a policy, we need to service that policy and we need to treat the policyholders in the same weight to their eligibility as we do to making sure we are eliminating any fraudulent claims. But I think we spent too much time focusing on not making overpayments than we were making sure we fully serviced those policies. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So the shift has been made to that degree? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fugate. The shift has been made. The leadership has been made. We are changing that program. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Mr. Carter. They just sent a notice that our next vote is about 5 minutes after 11:00, so we are going to try to get through this round anyway. So we are going to hold it to 5 minutes. Mr. Price. LESSONS LEARNED Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Administrator. I was just observing you are approaching your 6-year anniversary as the administrator of FEMA. And you have heard many plaudits this morning on your service, and I would like to add to those. You inherited an agency that was in great need of attention, in great need of reform, and by all accounts, you have had a lot of success in shaping up the agency after a very difficult period. I have appreciated personally your cooperation with this committee and with our emergency planners and responders in North Carolina. So I want to maybe ask a bigger-picture question, the sort of thing you were getting at in your opening statement, maybe elaborate that a bit. Your time as administrator, what are some of the lessons we might derive from that? What kind of problems and challenges have required the most of your time and energy? To what extent is the job done in terms of shaping up the Agency's various components and functions? What are the greatest challenges remaining? And to give a little specificity to this, maybe you could relate this to the strategic plan and the strategic planning process. To whatever extent you can, give your answer in relation to the objectives that you referred to in your opening statement, the objectives that the agency has set out for itself. Mr. Fugate. Well, with the management reforms and building that foundation, I think, we are moving in the right direction, but we are not going to be there quickly. And we are asking for some resources in grants modernization, other things to get there. But we have got to do a better job. We can't spend all our time fixing problems we are creating because we can't even hire people. Our IT systems are out of date and not secure; our procurement process was broken. We brought in new leaders. We have been making changes, but we have also made and held all of the senior leadership at FEMA accountable for management changes; there is an ownership issue here. You just can't tell your chief human capital officer to fix something if the rest of the department always works around them or games the system. Resiliency, this is probably one that I have the greatest potential to annoy the most people on, and that is, whether you think climate change is real or not. I have a bigger question to ask: Why are we paying out billions and billions of dollars on what anybody in the private sector would have insurance on? I am not talking about debris, roads, or things like that, but let's talk about fire stations, community centers, water treatment plants, schools, a whole host of public infrastructure that we only pay when there is no insurance. We are paying a lot of money, because in many cases, insurance isn't available. It is not affordable. And we have oftentimes used mitigation dollars to rebuild, but we always look at narrow slices of data in the last 100 years, and we still find it is not insurable. And so I think, again, as we look at the disaster criteria, I want to look at the threshold for disasters. Right now, we go back to the first dollars if you hit the threshold for the President-declared disaster. Tell me any other insurance policy that goes back to your first dollar. You always have a deductible. There is no deductible in this. It is a 75/25 percent cost share. So we spend a lot of time on small disasters that, quite honestly, are traumatic for local communities, but much of the cost borne with that, outside of the emergency response cost is what the uninsured losses are. So we are trying to change that and go, if we rebuild something--and we are doing this in New Jersey and New York--we are trying to look at mitigation not just because of the past data we have, but actually put enough into that to say, let's build it to where it is insurable, and affordable, and have the private sector manage future risk. We have not done a good job in this Nation of setting the paying point for risk and making sure that, as we make investments, we are not transferring risk to the taxpayer that exceeds what we benefit from that. I am not saying this is a zero-sum game. There will be some things that make sense for the public to absorb that risk. But in other cases, you look at how many times we go out to a structure that we are rebuilding or spending significant sums on that was not insured, and the rules say it should be insured after we have done that; yet, we go back later and the answer that we are getting is it was not affordable, it was not available, and you pay again. As a good steward, I think, yeah, that we should pay for the first time. We should rebuild it, but then we should be more stern and hold the accountability to ensure that risk going forward, but that means we have to build it in a way that it is insurable, that the insurance companies can make it available, or it is going to price local governments out of being able to do their basic function. Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Dr. Harris. FEDERAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARD Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. And, you know, before I start, I do want to thank FEMA for obviously the extensive help they have in my district, the eastern shore of Maryland, which you are from Florida, driving through the lower shore of Maryland looks like you are driving through the lower part of Florida. And that brings up one of the questions I have, which is this new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard that was promulgated by executive order in January. It is a little troubling because the--you know, our bill last year specifically said that none of the funds available in this act or any other act should be used to implement, you know, a Federal Flood Risk Management standard until the administration is soliciting considered inputs from governments, mayors, and other stakeholders. As you know, that was passed late in the year. And on January 30, the executive order was issued saying, ``The views of governors, mayors, and other stakeholders were solicited and considered as efforts were made to establish a new flood risk reduction standard.'' Were you involved in that, in the development of that standard for the executive order? Mr. Fugate. Yes, from the standpoint of the mitigation, senior leadership group that is part of the national response framework. Mr. Harris. And what were the mechanisms by which you solicited? Because I am still trying to find a mayor in my district whose input was solicited. And believe me, they have a vested interest in what the FFRMS looks like because so much of my district has now had an expanded definition because of the BFE plus 2 or plus 3 definition. So how was that input solicited? Mr. Fugate. I would not be able to tell you, sir, because I was involved--my staff was basically involved in what the standard would be, not the outreach at that point. We have been heavily involved since the executive order of doing outreach-- -- Mr. Harris. Let me just interrupt you for a second. From the time the bill was passed until January 30, was your staff paid to develop the FFRMS despite Congress' pretty clear language that says no funds shall be spent without soliciting input. So did your staff develop this without soliciting input? It is a simple---- Mr. Fugate. I understand it is a simple question. Our staff were working on the standard itself. There are other agencies involved. We have been charged by the administration to go out before this rule is finally implemented and do outreach, which we have been doing across the Nation. Mr. Harris. However, the executive order actually sets up a timeline for implementation, so one could interpret the executive order itself as implementation of the FFRMS, because it specifically says FEMA, for instance, before implementation is supposed to go and do this solicitation. So it sets up kind of a circular argument. I mean, the executive order itself sets up implementation. One could view that as implementation of the new FFRMS. So this is simple because, you know, the Antideficiency Act is pretty clear. When Congress says no funds shall be used, it really means no funds shall be used. And this administration has kind of a record on this. You know, you are just one in a series of people to come before this committee to address an issue of whether the administration is adhering to the will of Congress spelled out clearly in an appropriations bill. So I am just going to ask it one more time. To your knowledge, did anyone in FEMA spend money--and I will take it a little bit further because right now---- Mr. Fugate. Sir, the answer is yes, we were committing staff time at the direction of the administration to work on this as part of our assigned duties. Mr. Harris. Are your employees aware that this applies to everyone not just--the Antideficiency Act applies to every employee of the Federal Government, not just leadership? You know, excuse can't be, well, my boss told me to, if you know about this. Because my understanding is the section 404 is covered, section 203 is covered, the flood mitigation assistance program would be covered by changes to the FFRMS, so I am going to ask you an additional question. Are any of your employees in those sections, who handle those sections, at this point in time, spending any money to implement the new standard? That is, any planning, writing any projected plans of what the effect would be on these programs? Because this is the essence of what we do in an appropriation limitation riders to say you can't spend a dime. Are your employees in those programs, section 404, 203, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program--because that is what CRS has said, those are the FEMA programs that would come under this new mitigation rule--are they spending money in any way, shape, or form to develop a response to this new executive order? Mr. Fugate. Specifically, I cannot say yes or no. I would have to go back to research that. I can tell you we are using our funds to do the outreach and listening sessions across the country. As far as what staff had taken steps on any implementation, I would have to respectfully get back to you on that, by those programs that you have listed. [The information follows:] Representative Harris: Are your employees in those programs, section 404, 203, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program--because that is what CRS has said, those are the FEMA programs that would come under this new mitigation rule--are they spending money in any way, shape, or form to develop a response to this new executive order? RESPONSE: Consistent with the requirements set forth in section 749 of the Consolidate and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, FEMA has solicited and is currently considering input received from stakeholders during the public comment period for the revised guidelines pertaining to the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. Mr. Harris. Well, I would appreciate that, that you get back to me, because, again, section 749 in H.R. 83 is very, very clear. It says no funds. So please get back to me if, in fact, FEMA is, you know, coming before this committee to ask for funds for next year and actually disregarding the intent of the Appropriations Committee in this year's appropriations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar. GRANTS: PERFORMANCE MEASURES Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Administrator Fugate, I appreciate you bringing your training from the State level, and I think you have been doing a good job, and I appreciate the good work that you and your folks have been doing. Members, one thing I would like to point out is, back in 2010, we passed a law that called for more strategic planning on how we spend our dollars and make sure that we have performance measures to look at that. And, in fact, if you look at the Administrator's testimony, you will see a break down where it has strategy No. 1, strategy No. 2 following that law, so I appreciate the work that you are all doing. My question is, for many years, I had--if we give grant money to local communities, how do you measure the work that-- and we have been talking about this, I guess, almost for 5, 6 years. But how do you measure the work that if you give money to somebody that they are following the measures or the performance that we should instead of just giving money out? Because we have given out billions of dollars over the years. So what do we get for that bang of a dollar when we give them to local communities? Mr. Fugate. Thirteen lives saved just in one program. That has happened this year through some of the fire grants that were given to the Red Cross to place smoke detectors in targeted areas using big data that we derived from our National Fire Reporting Information System. It targeted our communities that had underrepresentation, did not have fire and smoke detectors, and have an unfortunately higher loss of life. We tied that together, and Red Cross reported back there has been 13 saved since we have done that. We use our fire or our threat hazard reduction reviews as they report up, as well as our State preparedness reports, and we can now show where States have built capacity in areas that they identify were their shortfalls and are now shifting those resources to the other areas of the 31 areas of categories that we look at to build resiliency and preparedness across the Nation. We have, in a lot of cases, anecdotal cases where we can show you because of investments in funds. One example, the mudslide in Oso, Washington State, where the people that were saved were saved with a helicopter that was equipped with a hoist. And rescue equipment provided through Homeland Security funds were--in many cases, the only people who survived were those who were extracted by helicopter, that and the Coast Guard did the saves. If that capability had not been there, we would have lost more lives. So we can go back to both point examples of where those investments have been involved and responses have changed as outcomes, as well as showing you the trend lines of how we are moving and improving preparedness. We also do this against the threats and hazards, and we do this in your catastrophic planning as part of our strategic plan. We know that we will never be a Nation that can fund one agency to respond to catastrophic disasters. That has got to be built up with State and local capabilities. The mutual aid, as the Congressman from New Jersey points out about the urban search and rescue team, we have to look at these as national resources. Whether or not we fund them directly, they are getting built with these Homeland Security dollars. So it is the capacity as a Nation, as we build local capabilities that are shared through mutual aid, in what we do; we are seeing these outcomes change. UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN: REIMBURSEMENT TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES Mr. Cuellar. Well, I appreciate, because I think you are one of the few folks that come before our appropriations and follows that strategy-type of thinking, makes sure that we are driven on performance. So thank you. Second thing is, I certainly want to thank the chairman, the ranking members, and the committee, because we added in this current homeland appropriation bill that we just passed just recently, language dealing with the unaccompanied kids, what we would reimburse poor communities on the border that had to deal with the kids coming in. There is some language there that calls for reimbursements to local communities. We have got to work with the State. I know the State of Texas--and I am going by memory--has from 2013, 2014 about $25 million. They haven't been drawn out but they are saying it is all obligated, which I do question, because it is 2013, 2014. 2015, I think--or the recent--the last one that you all just announced, you sent another $22 million. I would ask you to please work with the State of Texas, my colleagues there, to make sure that they understand about talking about enforcing the law, that the law does say that these moneys are to be used for reimbursement purposes for the communities, the poor communities on the border that have to deal with thousands of kids coming in. Mr. Fugate. We will take that work with our grants folks, and I will work back with your staff to make sure we are getting the appropriate language when we are talking with our State partners. Mr. Cuellar. Yeah. And your folks have been fantastic. They really have. I just want to make sure that the State of Texas, when we talk about border security, that it also includes this reimbursement on that. So thank you, Mr. Administrator, for the good job that you are doing. Mr. Carter. Thank you. Mr. Fleischmann. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, it is good to see you this morning. Before I begin my questions, I do want to harken back to a time when I was a freshman Congressman in 2011 and 2012. We had tornadoes come through east Tennessee, my district; in fact, I had been in office less than 4 years. And I want to commend and thank you all at FEMA for the way that you responded. In the first round of storms that were actually fatalities, and it was a disaster like nothing I had ever personally experienced. And FEMA was there and worked hard over the next several months to reimburse the communities. So thank you. I really appreciate your-all's efforts at that difficult time. I wanted to ask you some questions this morning. Your budget, sir, proposes level funding for the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, which is incredibly popular among States, and has been crucial in my home State of Tennessee. Your budget also proposes a number of funding increases, sir, including a re-proposal of a new national prepared grant program. Given the current fiscal situations and the many needs facing your agency, wouldn't it make sense for you to focus resources on proven efficient programs like EMPG, which employs a 50/50 cost share structure, and areas of highest need and risk? And do you have any plans to eliminate the EMPG program or any other current grant programs in an effort to shift resources to these newer perhaps unproven programs, sir? Mr. Fugate. The simple answer to your last question is no. And probably what makes the Emergency Management Performance Grants, I think, one of the best bargains for the Federal taxpayer is, unlike a lot of other grants, there is a 50/50 cost share. So it is a shared responsibility to build capability at State and local level. It has been increased by this Congress over time to levels that it had not been before. And, again, as we were dealing with sequestration and other budgets, we have been working hard. And I appreciate the staff here. This has been a grant that has been shielded against some of the other reductions. But, again, it is, as you point out, a good value. It has a cost share match at the State and local level. So it is a shared responsibility. And we have no intention of recommending that grant losing its identity or being consolidated. DISASTER WORKFORCE READINESS: PERFORMANCE MEASURES Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. This past year, you implemented a system to measure the readiness of your disaster workforce. Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir. Mr. Fleischmann. It is very similar to how DOD measures readiness and capability to deploy. What led you to develop this process, and how will it change how you train your staff, equip disaster personnel in the future? Mr. Fugate. We needed to target the drive, our investments and justifications of budget. I just couldn't say, well, I need 25,000 people. Well, what kind of people do I need? Who do I need? Do I really need 25,000? So we went back and did the data analytics and responded to a large catastrophic disaster, or a lot of other types of events. You know, we looked at 2011. We looked at what it took to respond to Katrina, what it took to respond to Sandy, and said, if you are going to build this, who do you need, and how many people do you need in each category, and what training do they need? So we are now driving this by an events-driven scenario; we are not just coming up with a number. We are also showing where we have progress, where we have gaps, and where we need to make investments both in training, equipment, and recruitment. And it is based upon the idea that disasters don't come one at a time, and we have to have the capability to begin that initial response. We can always add staff once we are in a response, but we have to have core staff there to deal with the initial response, and so this is what this number represents. It represents being able to respond to a catastrophic event with associated other activities that will be occurring to ensure that we can provide that initial response coordination. And it gives us very specifically, by category, a type of person and numbers that we need to achieve that. Then it gives us the measurement to say what progress we are making, and how much we need to invest to get there so that we can come back, as the appropriation staffer is saying, what is your justification? I can show them what the justification is. And, again, as part of this negotiated process, if I can't defend my numbers or back them up, I don't deserve the funds. DISASTER WORKFORCE READINESS: LEVELS Mr. Fleischmann. Okay, sir. As a follow-up to that question, then, we are currently at D-3 levels of readiness, which means you can meet moderate to single significant disaster staffing needs. When will you reach D-1, and will you need additional funds to get up to a D-1 level of readiness? Mr. Fugate. Well, D-1 would be optimized, and I am not sure that it is both possible, just because of the nature of the workforce, that we would get and maintain D-1. We will strive for each category, but what I think is more practical is getting us across the board to a D-2 category so we have that overall ability to deal with it. D-1, it is going to be hard to maintain that, but that is what we shoot for. But I think more realistically, with the resources we have and the time frames, our first goal is to move us into a D-2 category by bringing up enough of those scores to give us that capability. Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. Mr. Carter. Mr. Culberson. FEDERAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARD Mr. Culberson. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Administrator, I appreciate you being here today. I want to confirm my understanding is that FEMA did not consult with the governors or mayors; the White House did that consultation? Mr. Fugate. I would not be able to speak on the White House. I know what my staff were working on. My staff were working on the technical pieces of working what degree of elevation based upon elevation and how would we calculate that. Mr. Culberson. And the executive order is, as Dr. Harris said, does contain the implementation to language. And I also wanted to make sure to bring this to the subcommittee's attention, and you in particular, Mr. Chairman, that the way I read this, Mr. Administrator, that the previous executive order on the Federal Flood Risk Management standard was that those areas that are subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year, it is essentially a 100-year flood? Mr. Fugate. Yes. Mr. Culberson. And as in a case with BlueCross, when-- excuse me, whatever the Medicare reimbursement rate is on a particular service provided by a doctor, that tends to become the benchmark by which BlueCross, Aetna, and private insurance carriers then set their rates for what they are going to cover, and how much they are going to charge for it. Similarly, when FEMA does this and says this is what we believe the area that we are going to classify as under, you know, the Federal flood risk, that area then becomes subject to insurance premiums that are set according to your standard, the building codes, everything else, right? Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir. Mr. Culberson. And by this change, what they have done is gone from 1 percent or greater chance of flooding, you have changed that to .2 tenths of 1 percent. And is that a 1,000- year flood or a 500? I think it is 500. Mr. Fugate. It probably is 500. But the intention here is, and, as my understanding is, and what we had agreed to in this, this is only implying to Federal investment. Mr. Culberson. Well, Federally-funded projects, however just like I said with Medicare, when Medicaid reimburses at a particular rate that makes the insurance---- Mr. Fugate. We made a firewall between distant flood insurance. We are keeping this separate from flood insurance. We are not changing that. Mr. Culberson. Right. But---- Mr. Fugate. What we are saying is, if we are going to go build a critical infrastructure and rebuild it, a lot of times my cost-benefit analysis would not allow me to get to 2 to 3 feet, even if the locals wanted to, and we have had them flood out time and time again. Because that 1 percent risk in a coastal community in a storm surge usually gets wiped out. So this was focused on where we make investments in building with Federal dollars, Federal infrastructure or Federal grants to bring them up to a higher standard. And in some communities they already had this. In the city of New Orleans, you have to build 3-feet above that even though your 1 percent risk is below that. Mr. Culberson. Sure. Mr. Fugate. They were having to fight Federal agencies to comply with their own ordinances. So this focus is, if we are going to spend Federal dollars, we have got to build for the future. If we only do it 1 foot above base flood elevation, that is a significant investment. And if we get hit again, we are coming back for more money. We are just trying to make an investment that is an incremental cost increase in Federal dollars on Federal projects and constructions to not have to come back when it floods the next time. It is not tied to local ordinances. It is not tied to the flood insurance. Those maps are tied to a different program. Mr. Culberson. That may have been your intent, but I have already met with homebuilders in Houston and they are very alarmed by this, because it has already had the effect of having their insurance carriers contact them about driving up their insurance premiums, that it is going to drive up insurance premiums for homeowners. I am just telling you this is a fact. Mr. Fugate. Because the only company that is writing flood insurance for most of the country is the Federal Flood Insurance Program---- Mr. Culberson. This is already happening. Mr. Fugate [continuing]. We have not made--the notices they are getting for flood insurance are a different program not tied to this. Mr. Culberson. This is already the conversations. These are already happening right now, on the ground, right now. I can tell you, the homebuilders are up in arms over there, and you all are going to be hearing about it all over the country. And their buildings codes are going to have to--they are already being told you are going to probably have to change the way in which you--you may have intended it only apply to Federally- funded projects, but you are going to have to be extraordinarily careful. You have got two problems here: One, the administration appears to be, Mr. Chairman, in violation of the specific prohibition, as Dr. Harris pointed out; and then number two, the way you have designed this is that you have just now--the homebuilders just sat down with me on this and they are very alarmed because they are going to have--they said essentially what this does is put all of Texas south of I-10 and east of I- 35 in the floodplain. And it is going to drive up dramatically the cost of building, of insurance. Homebuilders are absolutely apoplectic over this, with good reason. And it doesn't appear you followed what the appropriations bill and law requires you to do. And this is a dramatic change, Mr. Chairman. And I notice also that it appears to be based on the climate action plan prepared by the President's National Security Council, which, of course to me, I wish he would pay as much attention to ISIS and what is happening in the Middle East as he has got his national security staff worrying about climate action. But that, I digress. But you have got two big problems here, and at least important, Mr. Chairman, and the subcommittee, that you have created a lot of problems that you say it may not have been your intent, but you have created a lot of problems and I think we are going to have to deal with, Mr. Chairman, to help alleviate concern and costs among our homebuilders in the private sector and, frankly, the State of Texas for that matter. Thank you, sir. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. And I am as concerned as Mr. Culberson about this issue. My folks in my State are very concerned about it. We have got a vote called. We have made it through a round of questioning, and now we are going to adjourn this meeting. Thank you for coming. As always, you do an excellent job of communicating with this committee. Please continue to do that. Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, and, again, on the basis of the concerns raised by several members about the Federal floodplain management standard, I will have staff prepare briefings, and we will sit down and have staff meet with members to go over the concerns. [The information follows:] Representative Carter. And I am as concerned as Mr. Culberson about this issue. My folks in my State are very concerned about it. Administrator Fugate. Mr. Chairman, and, again, based upon the concerns raised by several members about the Federal floodplain management standard, I will have staff prepare briefings, and we will sit down and have staff meet with members to go over the concerns. RESPONSE. Deputy Associate Administrator Wright met with HAC staff and Chairman Carter's staff on April 28, 2015. I have already got one extension I have built into the system, so I am trying to make sure we get everybody-- Mr. Carter. Well, floodplains really affect building in our State. Thank you. Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] W I T N E S S E S ---------- Page Fugate, W. C..................................................... 189 Kerlikowske, R. G................................................ 81 Saldana, S. R.................................................... 1 I N D E X ---------- Page U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP)......................... 81 Apprehensions: Counterterrorism Capabilities................................ 114 Numbers...................................................... 124 Process...................................................... 132 Automated Export System: Weapons................................. 118 Bed Space........................................................ 125 Biometric Entry/Exit Program..................................... 123 Body-Worn Cameras................................................ 131 Border Patrol Agents: Attrition.................................. 101 Border Security: Definition................................................... 129 Illegal Entrants Who Got Away................................ 120 Southern Border Crossings.................................... 123 Cargo Screening.................................................. 116 Counter-Network Operations....................................... 135 Criminal Misconduct Allegations.................................. 130 Customs and Border Protection Officers: Hiring................... 100 Directives....................................................... 107 Firearms Registry................................................ 119 Funding Requests, Prioritizing................................... 126 Migrant Deaths: Reducing and Preventing.......................... 136 Notices to Appear................................................ 125 Opening Statement: Commissioner Kerlikowske...................... 86 Polygraph Operators.............................................. 100 Preclearance: New Locations................................................ 128 Security Aspects............................................. 133 Professionalism Campaign and Fences.............................. 109 Sequestration Contingency Planning............................... 134 Sugar Cane....................................................... 108 Terrorist Activities, Fueling.................................... 115 Tunnel Detection Technology....................................108, 115 Unaccompanied Children: Mexican...................................................... 103 Preparedness................................................. 103 Unity of Effort.................................................. 137 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles......................................... 107 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)....................... 189 Disaster Declaration Process..................................... 209 Disaster Requirements Funding.................................... 207 Disaster Workforce Readiness: Levels....................................................... 221 Performance Measures......................................... 221 Emergency Food and Shelter Program............................... 211 Emergency Management Performance Grants.......................... 220 Federal Flood Risk Management Standard.........................216, 222 Grants: Performance Measures..................................... 218 Hazard Mitigation Grants......................................... 210 Hurricane Katrina Projects....................................... 208 Lessions Learned................................................. 214 National Flood Insurance Program................................. 213 Opening Statement: Administrator Fugate.......................... 194 Unaccompanied Children: Reimbursement to Local Communities....... 219 Urban Search and Rescue Program.................................. 212 Wildfires........................................................ 208 [all]