U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

57–407 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024

S. HRG. 118–492 

A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL 

REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SPECIAL HEARING 

NOVEMBER 8, 2023—WASHINGTON, DC 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington, Chair 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

JON TESTER, Montana 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Vice Chair 

MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana 

CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi 

BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee 

KATIE BRITT, Alabama 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

EVAN D. SCHATZ, Staff Director 

ELIZABETH MCDONNELL, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Chair Patty Murray ........................................................... 1 

Statement of Vice Chair Susan M. Collins ............................................................ 4 

Statement of Hon. Xavier Becerra, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services ............................................................................................ 6 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 7 

Statement of Hon. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 12 

Childcare Stabilization ............................................................................................ 14 

Fentanyl Entering the Country .............................................................................. 16 

Immigration Policy Reform ..................................................................................... 16 

Border Security Technology and ORR ................................................................... 16 

Subsidizing Childcare .............................................................................................. 17 

Fentanyl at the Border ............................................................................................ 18 

Wall for the Mexico Border ..................................................................................... 19 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform ..................................................................... 19 

Ukraine ..................................................................................................................... 20

Asylum System ........................................................................................................ 20 

DHS Parole System ................................................................................................. 21 

LIHEAP .................................................................................................................... 22 

Screening at the Border .......................................................................................... 23 

Parolee Sponsors ...................................................................................................... 23 

Childcare .................................................................................................................. 24 

Immigration Reform ................................................................................................ 24 

Securing the Southern Border ................................................................................ 25 

Supplemental Request Impact on Border .............................................................. 26 

Southern Border Crossings ..................................................................................... 27 

Southern Border Crossings Risk ............................................................................ 28 

Southern Border Metrics ......................................................................................... 29 

Border Metrics and Data for Northern Border ..................................................... 30 

Substance Use Disorder .......................................................................................... 31 

Increase in Numbers at the Border ....................................................................... 31 

Supplemental Impact on Metrics ........................................................................... 32 

Decreasing the Asylum Backlog ............................................................................. 33 

Childcare .................................................................................................................. 34 

Family Case Management Program ....................................................................... 34 

Flores Settlement ..................................................................................................... 35 

Immigration Policy Changes ................................................................................... 35 

Retention Bonuses ................................................................................................... 37 

Border Security ........................................................................................................ 37 

Maui .......................................................................................................................... 38 

Hamas and the Border ............................................................................................ 39 

Safe Third Country Policy ....................................................................................... 39 
Page

IV 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 66 

Questions Submitted to Hon. Xavier Becerra: 

Questions Submitted by: 

Senator Joe Manchin, III ................................................................... 66 

Senator Kyrsten Sinema .................................................................... 67 

Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith ............................................................... 69 

Questions Submitted to Hon. Alejandro N. Mayorkas: 

Questions Submitted by: 

Senator Joe Manchin, III ................................................................... 72 

Senator Kyrsten Sinema .................................................................... 76 

Senator Lindsey Graham ................................................................... 77 

Conclusion of Hearing ............................................................................................. 78 
(1) 

A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENTS 

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2023 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met at 9:03 a.m. in room SD–106, Dirksen Senate 

Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray (chair) presiding. 

Present: Senators Murray, Durbin, Reed, Tester, Shaheen, 

Merkley, Coons, Schatz, Baldwin, Murphy, Manchin, Van Hollen, 

Heinrich, Peters, Sinema, Collins, Murkowski, Graham, Moran, 

Hoeven, Boozman, Capito, Kennedy, Hyde-Smith, Hagerty, Britt, 

Rubio, and Fischer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIR PATTY MURRAY

Chair MURRAY. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee will please come to order. 

We are here today to discuss the President’s Supplemental Funding Request for the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with Secretary Becerra and Secretary Mayorkas. 

We heard last week about the interrelated challenges we are seeing across the globe, and Senator Collins and I are continuing our 

work on a bipartisan package to support Ukraine, Israel, and our 

partners in the Indo-Pacific, and deliver absolutely vital humanitarian aid. As we heard last week, it is vital we do these together 

in one package and not break them apart, such as an Israel-only 

bill like the one that the House passed last week. 

We face connected threats across many regions, and we can and 

should be addressing foes, like Putin, and supporting allies and 

populations facing war and famine all at the same time. But it is 

also important we treat the challenges we face here at home with 

the same urgency, which is why I am pleased that President Biden 

has also requested supplemental funding to keep the child care sector afloat, to help communities recovering from disasters, to fight 

the fentanyl crisis, address the needs at our southern border, continue affordable broadband for families, prevent a pay cut for brave 

wildland firefighters, and more. 

And while today’s hearing focuses on requests for HHS and DHS, 

I am going to continue to work with my colleagues to meet all the 

key priorities that the President has outlined. But I want to be 
2 

clear to Republicans who think there is a chance to jam a huge farright wish list on immigration: The recent proposal that revived 

Trump’s border wall, closed our doors on asylum seekers, and rewrote immigration laws is not going to go anywhere. We need to 

focus on the ideas that can actually get widespread bipartisan support, that address the causes of migration that is almost entirely 

absent from the proposal, and meeting the operational needs, like 

those we are here today to talk about. We need to focus on serious 

proposals. 

Now, today we are here to address many of the challenges that 

are at the top of mind for families back in Washington State. I hear 

about the child care crisis everywhere I go, and I know my colleagues are hearing from parents and businesses with some of the 

same stories. Now, I have been talking about child care since I 

came here, and to this day, it is a top priority for me. Just last 

month I actually visited a child care center in Shoreline Community College, which is where I used to teach, and I heard from families, first-hand, about how incredibly hard it is right now. 

I want us all to remember that you cannot have an economy that 

works for working families without a strong child care system, and 

right now, our child care system is just plain broken. I fought hard 

to create the Child Care Stabilization Program that supported 

220,000 child care providers and nearly 10 million kids and prevented thousands of programs from closing their doors. 

This funding did exactly what it was supposed to do. It stabilized 

the child care market; it allowed child care providers who operate 

on razor-thin margins to retain the staff they needed and avoid 

major price hikes for our families, and kept serving kids. But that 

funding has now expired, and our child care system is once again 

hanging on by a thread. If we do not act soon, the child care crisis 

is going to keep getting worse, and it will hurt our economy in the 

process. 

Child care providers are facing impossible choices today, reducing their pay, laying off staff, raising prices, serving fewer families, 

and shutting their doors because the math just does not work. 

This, of course, means parents are getting squeezed even worse as 

child care gets harder and harder to find and even harder to afford. 

In Washington State, parents in the Tri-Cities area spend a fifth 

of their income on child care, right now tens of thousands of Americans are being forced to miss work because they cannot get child 

care. Make no mistake; that hurts businesses and it hurts our entire economy. 

And since the Stabilization Funds have run dry, this problem 

will only continue getting worse unless we take action. We are talking about even greater damage to our economy, billions in lost 

wages, revenue, and growth, and we cannot let that happen. We 

have made important bipartisan progress in strengthening annual 

child care funding, including in our Senate Labor HHS bill this 

summer. But we have got to do more to meet this crisis and act 

on the President’s request. So to my Republican colleagues, let us 

work together to address this growing economic problem in all of 

our States. 

And of course, there are the other issues that Congress needs to 

act on as well. The President has requested additional funding to 
3 

address the fentanyl crisis head-on, to meet operational requirements and needs at our Southern border, and improve the USCIS 

(United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) processing 

capacity. It is important that we work together in a serious bipartisan fashion to address those challenges. 

We are facing significant numbers of encounters at the border 

each day and seizing record amounts of fentanyl. Just as we did 

with the fiscal year 2024 Homeland Security bill, this committee 

needs to work in a bipartisan way to address the reality that our 

Federal agencies are dealing with on the ground. 

When it comes to the opioid crisis, I have sat down with so many 

people on the front lines all across my State, first responders, 

healthcare workers, patients who are in recovery, parents who do 

not know what to do when their child is suffering from an addiction. I have heard so many heavy stories that I bring with me to 

work every day, stories that demand action from this Congress. 

And I know every Member on this dais has heard similar heartbreaking stories about the devastation of the opioid crisis. None of 

the people we represent who are on the frontlines of this crisis 

want us to play politics with their lives. So I hope we are all able 

to have a very serious, respectful conversation about real solutions 

to this crisis. Let us talk about funding for mental health and substance use disorder treatments, and let us talk about health and 

public safety, and let us absolutely talk about stopping fentanyl 

from entering our country and our communities and disrupting and 

dismantling the transnational criminal organizations that are producing and trafficking it. But we cannot grandstand for political 

points. The President has requested critical funding to modernize 

our illicit drug detection systems and technology to stop fentanyl 

from coming into our country, to break up the supply chains that 

are used to produce it in the first place, and support those fighting 

the opioid crisis in their communities. We have got to act on those 

requests as well as the President’s funding requests to meet operational requirements and needs at the Southern border. And I hope 

that instead of wasting time on partisan non-starters, we actually 

can work together, all of us, on common-sense bipartisan solutions 

to help us humanely manage encounters at the border, process 

claims of non-citizens seeking protection under our Nation’s asylum 

laws while continuing our country’s long tradition of welcoming 

people who flee violence and persecution. 

We need to fund basic DHS needs like short-term facilities, 

transportation, medical care, and other related activities that provide a humane environment for asylum seekers while in DHS custody, and support the critical work of border communities, NGOs 

(non-governmental organizations), and our frontline staff. We 

should all be able to agree that we need to make sure that the folks 

who safeguard our borders have the resources they need to do their 

jobs safely, humanely, and effectively, and that reducing the 

USCIS backlog is a good thing, as it is continuing our work to welcome refugees from across the world at a time when so many people are suffering. Which is why we also need to fund HHS programs to prevent drastic cuts for states and organizations around 

the country who are helping refugees settle. To be clear, these are 

refugees who are fleeing persecution around the world, including 
4 

Rohingya and Uyghurs refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee 

Admissions Program, Cubans who are fleeing the oppressive regime there, and Ukrainians who are fleeing the war. Making sure 

we can adequately support the resettlement of these refugee populations is not just the right thing to do, it also supports important 

national security and strategic interests. So let us talk about serious bipartisan ideas to address these challenges. 

And let us be clear, tackling everything, from the child care crisis 

to the opioid crisis and beyond requires more than supplemental 

funding, it requires us to pass our strong, full-year appropriation 

bills like this committee has put forward. When we operate on one 

CR (continuing resolution) after another, our agencies are stuck in 

neutral. They cannot plan for the future; they have to delay initiatives and investments; and they are far less equipped to meet the 

pressing challenges we face. 

Just about every national security official has told us it hamstrings their work to keep America safe. So I hope we can continue 

to make bipartisan progress on supplemental funding to respond to 

the urgent needs at home and abroad, and our annual appropriations bills to set up our nation for success in the year ahead. As 

we talked about last week, there are some pressing needs across 

the world right now, but there is no reason for that to stop us from 

responding to needs right here at home too. 

At such a crucial moment, we cannot afford to treat this as a 

zero-sum game. We are the United States of America. We can, we 

should, and we must stand with our allies around the world and 

tackle the challenges our families face here at home. I strongly believe that, and I am going to continue doing everything I can to 

make sure we rise to the occasion and provide all the resources 

necessary to meet this moment. 

I will turn it over to Vice Chair Collins. 

STATEMENT OF VICE CHAIR SUSAN M. COLLINS

Vice Chair COLLINS. Thank you very much, Chair Murray, for 

holding this second hearing on the administration’s supplemental 

budget requests. I look forward to hearing the testimony of both 

Secretary Mayorkas and Secretary Becerra on the President’s 

emergency supplemental requests for their Departments. Just as 

last week, we heard from the Department of Defense and the Department of State. 

Before I address the focus of this hearing, let me personally 

thank both Secretaries for their responses to the horrific shootings 

that occurred in my State in Lewiston. Secretary Mayorkas deployed nearly 100 personnel from various DHS components to assist State and local officials and the affected families. Thank you 

for that. The Department of Health and Human Services personnel 

offered critical behavioral and mental health services in the wake 

of this tragedy. I am grateful for these efforts. 

Turning to the President’s supplemental appropriations request, 

I look forward to discussing with both Secretaries what is required 

to provide effective border security to stem the flood of illegal migrants and fentanyl into the United States. For fiscal year 2023, 

the U.S. Border Patrol reported a record 2.5 million encounters 

with foreign nationals entering the United States along the South-
5 

west border without authorization. Think about that number. That 

means that there were nearly twice as many encounters at the 

Southwest border as there are people in the entire State of Maine. 

And that enormous number does not include what Border Patrol 

agents describe as the ‘‘got-ways’’, those who did not turn themselves in and eluded capture. 

Communities throughout our country are struggling to absorb 

the influx of migrants as they are released pending an adjudication 

of their claims, a process that can take years. In Portland, Maine, 

a city of 68,000 residents, more than 1,600 asylum seekers have arrived since January. Sanford, Maine, which has a population of 

22,000, has had nearly 400 migrants arrive since the month of 

May. The cost for Sanford, a much smaller city, to provide food and 

housing assistance to recently arrived asylum seekers is more than 

three times as much as the city spends for residents needing assistance. 

Not only has the failure to control the border led to unchecked 

migration, but also it has contributed to the illegal drug crisis. The 

Mexican drug cartels are using the chaos at the southern border 

to facilitate their trafficking operations. Using cars, trucks, and 

other modes of distribution, they are sending record amounts of 

fentanyl into our country, enough to kill every American many 

times over. 

Maine, like so many other States, has seen record increases in 

recent years in the number of overdose deaths, nearly 80 percent 

of which are fentanyl-related. We lost 462 Mainers in the first 9 

months of 2023 to fatal overdoses; 341 of these deaths are fentanylrelated. An out-of-control border poses a real threat to our homeland and our people. 

Since fiscal year 2021, 282 individuals apprehended by Border 

Patrol at the southwestern border were on the terrorist watch list 

compared to only 11 such individuals in the previous 4 years. Additional resources are necessary, but they are only part of the answer 

to these national security and public health crises. Targeted funding must be accompanied by policy changes that ensure that our 

borders are secure, that our immigration system is not exploited, 

and that it is fair to those who legally immigrate. 

And let me be clear, immigrants who have come to our country 

legally have contributed greatly to the fabric of our economy and 

our communities. I very much look forward to our discussion today. 

Thank you. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you, Vice Chair Collins. We will now, very 

briefly, introduce today’s witnesses and move to their testimony. 

I am very pleased today to welcome Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, Xavier Becerra, and Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. Thank you to each of you for coming 

today and taking your time to be with us and to answer our questions. 

And we will now begin with opening remarks. Secretary Becerra 

we will begin with you. 
6 

STATEMENT OF HON. XAVIER BECERRA, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Secretary BECERRA. Chair Murray, Ranking Member Collins, and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President’s Emergency Supplemental Funding Request for 

the Department of Health and Human Services. I am pleased to be 

here with Secretary Mayorkas to answer your questions. We work 

closely and depend on each other regularly to address critical domestic priorities and national security interests. 

At HHS, we are working to lower health care costs with better 

care for more Americans. Among our top priorities, are strengthening behavioral health and addressing the overdose epidemic, we 

are making meaningful progress on these issues thanks in large 

part to the past support from Congress, but to continue that forward movement will require ongoing attention and adequate funding. 

The President’s Emergency Supplemental Funding request pro- poses $22.2 billion for HHS, the largest and most urgent request, 

$16 billion, will ensure millions of American families do not lose access to affordable child care. Emergency funding will also be deployed to help local communities battle the scourge of opioids, including illicitly manufactured fentanyl. 

The President’s request will fund critical heating and energy assistance to households as we quickly approach the cold of winter. 

And these funds would make sure our system supporting refugees, 

including our Afghan and Ukrainian brothers and sisters, continue 

to support our State and local partners. 

Finally, and of course, our request ensures that communities, 

first responders, and survivors of tragedy will continue to receive 

customary disaster recovery and response services through HHS; 

whether it was the residents of Maui devastated by the wildfires; 

the people in Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina 

whose homes and livelihoods were ripped apart by dangerous 

storms; or the families of Allen, Texas, Monterey, California, and 

most recently Lewiston, Maine, shattered by mass shootings, our 

recovery and response teams were there for them. If there is one 

thing that is sadly predictable, it is that there will be more disasters in the future. With your support, HHS will be ready. 

Child care, Madam Chair, you said it. Child care in this country 

is either unaffordable or unavailable for millions of Americans. The 

average cost of child care ranges from $5,000 to over $17,000 a 

year depending on where you are in the country. That is like college tuition for most families, but for kids who have not even started kindergarten. Prices are unaffordable for families even in the 

lowest priced areas. 

Providers, meanwhile, operate on thin margins, and child care 

workers receive disgracefully low wages, lower than almost any 

other occupation. Child Care Stabilization Funds helped raise 

wages for workers. Parents need affordable, high-quality child care 

options so they can work or go to school or participate in training 

programs or simply support their families. It is vital to the success 

of our communities; it is vital to our economy. 

Too many families who are forced to choose between keeping 

their paycheck or caring for the child, can you imagine trying to 
7 

sleep at night? The President’s American Rescue Plan (ARP) in 

2021 made it possible for child care programs to stay open during 

the worst of the pandemic. And here, I have to thank so many of 

you who worked so hard to get those child care funds. Hundreds 

of thousands of child care providers and millions of children benefited from the ARP’s Child Care Stabilization Grants. 

Left unaddressed, the crisis in our child care system threatens 

to undermine our progress as a nation. Tens, if not hundreds of 

thousands of kids and parents in each of your States could lose out 

on coverage unless Congress commits to additional funds. The 

emergency funding request would shore up the child care sector 

and mitigate the likelihood that providers will close their doors or 

raise child care fees for families in the face of a child care workforce shortage. 

As with child care, the urgent and emergent challenges we must 

address, and opioids, and fentanyl, and in meeting our legal obligations to our newest Americans require all-of-government approaches. For that reason, we come before you with the President’s 

Emergency Supplemental Request. I am grateful for Congress recognizing the importance of these issues. And I look forward to discussing our emergency funding request with you. I yield back. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. XAVIER BECERRA

NATIONAL SECURITY AND DOMESTIC PRIORITIES SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST

Chair Murray, Vice Chair Collins, and Members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to speak today on the Administration’s supplemental funding request for critical national security and domestic priorities. I am pleased to appear 

before you today, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to serve the 

American people. The Biden-Harris Administration is delivering on its promises— 

lowering costs for families, protecting American lives from the devastating impacts 

of challenges like the climate crisis and the opioid epidemic, and ensuring America 

can compete to win in the global marketplace. 

The supplemental request proposes $22.2 billion for the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS), including $2.3 billion to continue resettlement support 

for Ukrainian arrivals and providing for Cuban and Haitian entrants, $16 billion 

to ensure millions of American families don’t lose access to affordable child care, and 

$3.8 billion for domestic disaster response, resources to support communities against 

the opioid epidemic and to counter fentanyl, and to help families afford home heating costs. The investments within HHS complement the request across other agencies and are needed to meet the needs of the American people, support our communities, and protect our Nation and its interests. 

Supporting Refugees 

As of mid-October, the United States has welcomed approximately 188,000 

Ukrainian parolees. Based on the pace of arrivals during this year, we estimate another 80,000 will arrive in FY 2024. To ensure the Office of Refugee Resettlement 

(ORR) can serve the Ukrainians expected to arrive during this period, we are requesting $481 million for FY 2024. Our request ensures that Ukrainians have access 

to vital services while balancing fiscal constraints and our expectation that sponsors 

will meet their responsibilities to Ukrainian arrivals. 

In FY 2023, there were over 530,000 arrivals eligible for refugee benefits, with 

Cuban and Haitian Entrants comprising 325,000 of those, over 60 percent. While 

predicting arrivals is inherently uncertain and dependent on numerous factors, we 

currently estimate that Cuban and Haitian Entrants could continue at the current 

pace or could even increase to over 500,000 in FY 2024. The Administration requests an additional $1.9 billion for the Refugee and Entrant Assistance Account to 

ensure ORR can support the current and anticipated populations eligible for refugee 

benefits, including the increased number of Cuban and Haitian Entrants. Without 

additional funding, ORR would not have sufficient resources to support States, communities, and new arrivals. Newly arriving refugees would have to endure months 
8 

without access to benefits, and refugees who have been in the United States for just 

a few months would lose access to English classes, job training, housing, medical 

care, school enrollment, and overall services that support self-sufficiency. HHS 

knows from experience that refugees and others such as Cuban and Haitian Entrants can successfully adjust to life in the United States, achieve self-sufficiency, 

and make positive contributions to their communities, but it is critical that States 

and our community-based partners have the resources they need to support these 

eligible new arrivals in this critical time period. 

Supporting Access to Affordable Child Care for Families 

From the beginning of this Administration, President Biden and Vice President 

Harris have been focused on expanding access to affordable child care for working 

families. That is why the President secured the largest one-time investment this 

country has ever made in child care to prevent a sector that was already in troubleand a sector that millions of families rely on-from spiraling further downward. What 

is undisputable today is that the child care stabilization program worked. Over the 

last 2 years, all 50 States and D.C. used child care stabilization funds to help more 

than 225,000 child care providers stay open or reopen so that the parents of nearly 

10 million children could get to work. One in three providers reported they would 

have closed permanently without those funds. Over 97 percent of rural counties received aid in most States. Over 96 percent of all counties received aid. 

We also know that child care strengthened families’ economic recovery. According 

to a report that the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) released yesterday, the stabilization program: 

—Saved families with young children who rely on paid child care approximately 

$1,250 per child per year by slowing the rise of child care prices. 

—Helped hundreds of thousands of women with young children enter or re-enter 

the workforce more quickly, increasing the labor force participation and employment of mothers of young children by an additional 3 percentage points. 

—Boosted the child care workforce and helped raise the real wages of child care 

workers, increasing the availability and reliability of child care options and ensuring the workers who take care of our children receive fairer pay. 

The CEA found that, taken together, these investments had a benefit-cost ratio 

of about 2:1, meaning the benefits of these funds for the broader economy outweighed the costs of the investment. 

As I said, the sector was in trouble even before the pandemic, with a more than 

10 percent steady decline in center-based child care providers between 2012 and 

2019, and unless Congress steps in, those declines will continue. 

Failure to sustain Congress’ child care investments threatens to drive providers 

out of business, increase parent fees, or both. For families, this would mean higher 

out-of-pocket costs, fewer options for care, and more women leaving the workforce. 

This is why the President has called on Congress to provide $16 billion to extend 

the child care stabilization program, which will help child care providers stay afloat, 

allow parents to continue working and earning, and keep children in quality care. 

Families with young children can’t work, go to school, or get job training if they 

don’t have child care. If we don’t give child care providers-mostly small businessesthe support they need to serve their communities, working families across the country will suffer the consequences. Unstable child care is a main reason workers leave 

their jobs. 

The Administration has assembled an estimated state-by-state breakdown, which 

highlights the funding each State would stand to receive, the providers funding 

could reach, and the children who could benefit with the additional year of child 

care stabilization funding. 

It is essential that Congress acts quickly. There are already reports of providers 

needing to raise parent fees to help cover operating costs that were subsidized by 

child care stabilization funding, or reduce staff wages, exacerbating challenges in 

hiring and retaining qualified staff. Some providers may be forced to close without 

additional resources. If this trajectory continues, hardworking families will pay the 

price. 

The President knows that we need a long-term solution, which is why his past 

three Budgets have proposed transformative investments to expand access to highquality child care to most Americans. We stand ready to work with Congress to ensure all families can access affordable, high-quality child care, and all child care 

workers are compensated fairly. But, today, we need an immediate short-term solution to make sure our families across the country can find the child care they deserve. 
9 

Supporting Critical Nutrition Assistance through the Special Supplemental Nutrition 

Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) 

In addition to the critical national security and domestic priorities included in this 

supplemental request, the Administration continues to call on Congress to provide 

full funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children, also known as WIC, which is a critical program for the health of nearly 7 million women and children, including nearly half of all babies born in this 

country. For decades, there has been a bipartisan consensus to ensure that every 

eligible pregnant woman, new mother, and infant and young child has access to this 

vital nutrition assistance. At this time of increasing food insecurity, we should not 

be putting access to healthy food at risk. 

Supporting Communities through LIHEAP 

The Supplemental request includes $1.6 billion for the Low Income Home Energy 

Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to help low-income households cover home heating 

costs, settle unpaid utility bills, and make cost-effective home energy repairs to 

lower their heating and cooling bills. 

Maintaining safe indoor air temperatures is critically important, particularly for 

households with older adults, individuals with disabilities, and young children as 

these populations are more vulnerable to even modest temperature changes. The 

program typically is only able to serve about 20 percent of eligible households. In 

recent years, LIHEAP has received additional funding through a variety of supplemental appropriations allowing the program to reach more than six million households, increase benefit amounts, forgive past-due utility bills, expand cooling assistance, and improve the efficiency of home heating and cooling equipment. This funding is critical to preventing drastic service and benefit cuts compared to last year. 

Addressing the Overdose Crisis 

While some progress has been made in addressing the overdose crisis, illicitly 

manufactured fentanyl continues to devastate communities across the country. Provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates 

that over 107,000 overdose deaths occurred in the United States in 2022, with close 

to 70 percent of those involving fentanyl. Methamphetamine, xylazine, and other 

dangerous substances are increasingly complicating the situation for States, Tribes, 

and territories. For example, CDC reports that the percentage of fentanyl-involved 

deaths in which xylazine was also detected increased 276 percent between January 

2019 and June 2022. Polysubstance use brings with it not only mortality, but other 

health and social consequences. 

The Supplemental request includes $1.3 billion in resources and technical assistance to States, territories, and D.C. through the Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) State Opioid Response program to help 

address unmet needs regarding fentanyl and polysubstance use in our communities. 

The Supplemental request also allocates specific funding to addressing this crisis in 

Tribal communities. CDC reported that in comparison with other demographic 

groups, the American Indian and Alaska Native population had the highest drug 

overdose death rates in both 2020 and 2021, at rates of 42.5 and 56.6 deaths per 

100,000 persons. An additional $250 million will be directed to the Indian Health 

Service to expand substance use services run both by Indian Health Service and 

Tribal Nations. 

Supporting Communities Through Disaster Recovery 

The request proposes $683 million across HHS to help recover from multiple recent natural disasters including the devastating wildfires in Maui, the Guam typhoon, hurricanes in Florida and the southeastern United States, floods in California and Vermont, tornadoes in Mississippi and other natural disasters across the 

country. The request includes funding to rebuild and repair infrastructure damaged 

in disasters. This includes $160 million within the Health Resources and Services 

Administration (HRSA) to award funding to Health Centers located in Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated disaster areas to respond, recover, and mitigate current and future disaster events and ensure continued access 

to high quality primary care for underserved populations. 

Disasters can significantly disrupt vital services, access to equipment, and the 

safety net networks that support communities and vulnerable populations. My senior leaders visited Maui and witnessed firsthand the needs across the community. 

The supplemental proposes to create a Disaster Human Services Emergency Fund 

within the ACF and to provide $150 million for Hawaii’s human services organizations and providers to collaborate and flexibility meet the most critical human services needs resulting from the Maui wildfires. This approach will support essential 
10 

human services including harm reduction for vulnerable populations such as youth 

and families involved in the child welfare system, domestic violence survivors, runaway and homeless youth, and individuals who have experienced or are at risk of 

human trafficking, and the continuity of culturally appropriate services such as crisis sheltering, child care, mental health counseling, and cultural and language preservation. The new fund builds on the concept proposed in my budget for FY 2024 

and will provide funding to the State in a more efficient and effective manner as 

the State recovers. An additional $19 million for the ACF would help rebuild and 

repair two Head Start Centers in Lahaina that were destroyed in the wildfires, repair other damaged facilities, and serve children temporarily through other services. 

We also request $12 million to provide more immediate human services case management support for Hawaii for service coordination and support of survivors of the 

wildfires. 

Through the Administration for Community Living (ACL), we request $19 million 

to address the severely disrupted Aging and Disability Networks that provide vital 

services and programs to older adults, people with disabilities, and their family 

caregivers. Without these services, older adults and people with disabilities will be 

unable to live independently in their own communities. There are major losses 

across the Aging and Disability Networks and its service providers, including to 

buildings and operations at senior centers and meal sites, the offices of the Hawaii 

Council on Developmental Disabilities, and the Maui Center for Independent Living. 

At the same time, the Aging and Disability Networks are facing increased demand 

for their services, including nutrition services, personal care assistance, legal advocacy, assistance with identifying accessible housing, replacing durable medical 

equipment, and more. The supplemental requests additional funding for the Aging 

and Disability Networks to provide gap-filling services for older adults, including 

older Native Hawaiians, people with disabilities, and their family caregivers for 

both immediate and long-term response and recovery. 

We are requesting $144 million through SAMHSA to address two main needs 

identified in Maui. The first is the need for targeted support to address the trauma 

experienced by children. The supplemental would invest in programs that address 

both short- and long-term needs for children including in school settings. The second 

is the need to address the potential increase in alcohol and drug use through targeted prevention and treatment in both adults and youth. The supplemental would 

invest in various SAMHSA programs to address these critical needs. 

The supplemental request includes $68 million for CDC to provide critical public 

health expertise to State and local health departments and communities recovering 

from the impacts of natural disasters including the wildfires in Maui. CDC would 

provide critical occupational health expertise to address the hazards faced by firefighters and other responders. 

Finally, the request includes $111 million for the Administration for Strategic 

Preparedness and Response (ASPR) to support three priority program areas: 1) replace and preposition medical caches, 2) improve infrastructure and information 

technology, and 3) enhance the ASPR Medical Reserve Corps. These additional investments would not only help with the recovery of the Maui wildfires and other 

natural disasters, but better prepare us for future threats. For example, adequately 

prepositioning critical public health and medical supplies in locations outside the 

contiguous United States enables us to provide immediate response during an emergency event by mitigating the risk associated with disrupted transportation networks, communications, and supply chains. Investing in satellite and cellular communication equipment that are critical during an emergency—when Wi-Fi may not 

be readily available or cellular communications may be degraded due to power outages and damage—will allow us to better respond in the future. 

Conclusion 

I want to thank the Committee for inviting me to discuss the Administration’s 

supplemental request on national security and domestic priorities. The supplemental reflects the Administration’s commitment to stand with communities as they 

recover from extreme weather and climate disasters for as long as it takes, combat 

the opioids epidemic, meet the needs of working parents, and invest in national security. Thank you for your dedication and partnership in our shared goal to improve 

the health, safety, and well-being of our Nation. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Secretary Mayorkas. 
11 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Thank you, Chair Murray, Vice Chair Collins, distinguished Members of this Committee. 

Every day, the 260,000 men and women of the Department of 

Homeland Security enforce our laws, secure our border, and safeguard our communities. They have seized more fentanyl in the last 

2 years than in the previous 5 years combined. They have removed 

or returned from the United States more than 350,000 non-citizens 

since the ending of pandemic-era rules under Title 42. They have 

arrested the leaders of transnational criminal organizations and 

are disrupting and dismantling the smuggling organizations that 

exploit the vulnerable. They help families everywhere, from Hawaii 

and Mississippi to Florida and Vermont, rebuild after the devastation of a natural disaster. They support communities during tragedies like the one that struck Lewiston 2 weeks ago, and get local 

stakeholders across the country the resources they need to help 

prevent another such attack. They do all of this and much more despite being perennially underfunded and inadequately resourced. 

That is why our Administration has submitted the critical supplemental border and homeland security funding requests we are here 

to discuss today. 

It would be a disservice to the American people and to the men 

and women who safeguard our homeland not to approve it. Consider fentanyl, drug overdoses have been a leading cause of preventable American deaths every year for a decade, driven over the 

past 5-plus years by this incredibly cheap, incredibly potent opioid 

smuggled into our country by cartels, primarily via cars and trucks 

driven by American citizens. 

Our administration has repeatedly asked Congress to help us 

modernize our ports of entry to ensure we can expedite lawful 

trade and travel and focus our efforts on bad actors. We continue 

to call on Congress to fully fund the personnel and resources needed to achieve this goal and to fully deploy new imaging technology 

to enhance our ability to inspect all vehicles and trucks that enter 

our country. 

Our National Security Supplemental Funding Request will help 

do so, sending 1,000 additional officers and investigators to ports 

of entry, deploying over 100 cutting-edge detection machines across 

hotspots, and funding additional international anti-trafficking operations. 

We are facing economic, political, and climate instability across 

the world exacerbated in the aftermath of the COVID–19 pandemic, instability that is fueling the greatest level of global migration since World War II. This is also true in our hemisphere. Despite operating under the constraints of a broken immigration system that Congress has failed to update since 1996, our administration has pursued a comprehensive strategy to manage this unprecedented migration. 

Our strategy includes expanded lawful pathways for migration, 

strengthened consequences for unlawful entry at the border, removing a record number of individuals found to be ineligible for protection under the law, and increased partnership across the region to 

curb irregular migration. The same supplemental funding request 
12 

will increase these efforts, enabling the hiring and deployment of 

1,300 new border patrol agents, 1,400 attorneys and staff to support immigration cases, and 2,700 new asylum officers and staff. 

It will expand our capacity for safe and humane border enforce- ment. It will provide $1.4 billion to communities that need additional support, and expedite the issuance of work authorization 

documents for eligible non-citizens. Within our homeland extreme 

heat, wildfires, and devastating hurricanes are increasing in frequency and severity, and Congress’ support of FEMA’s (Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) has 

not kept pace. Our Domestic Supplemental Funding Request would 

allocate $9 billion to the Disaster Relief Fund, enabling us to deploy more first responders and better support recovery projects 

whenever and wherever disaster strikes. 

In the wake of the horrific Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel 

on October 7, we have seen an increase in threats against Jewish, 

Muslim, and Arab-American communities and institutions across 

our country, adding to a pre-existing increase in the level of antiSemitism in the United States and around the world. 

Our Department’s Nonprofit Security Grant Program requires 

additional support to meet this new mandate. The domestic supplemental funding requests would do so, providing the program an additional $200 million and allowing us to help mitigate violent extremist and terrorist attacks. Ensuring the safety and security of 

the American people must be more than just a talking point. 

We owe those who protect our country better. We owe them the 

funding, resources, and support needed to do their dangerous and 

difficult jobs. We owe them this supplemental funding package. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our administration’s 

proposal with you today. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS

Introduction 

Distinguished Members of the Committee: 

I am proud to submit this testimony on behalf of the 260,000 people across our 

Nation and around the world who make up the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS or the Department). The people of DHS are our most important and vital resource. Serving alongside them is the greatest honor of my life and supporting them 

and their critical work has been my top priority since taking office. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss critically needed funding to equip DHS with the people and tools it needs to prevent cartels from moving 

fentanyl through our Ports of Entry (POEs) and to enforce our immigration laws in 

an orderly, effective, and humane way. At this time of unprecedented hemispheric 

and global challenges, we must come together to strengthen our ability to protect 

the American people. I strongly urge Congress to give the men and women of DHS 

the resources and support they need to achieve our safety and security mission. 

The Department continues to implement a border security strategy focused on enforcement, the expansion of lawful pathways, and agreements with regional partners. The plan has increased the number of law enforcement personnel along the 

border and the expedited removal of noncitizens without a legal basis to remain in 

the United States thanks to enhanced enforcement processes and historic diplomatic 

agreements. Since May 12, 2023, we have removed or returned over 336,000 individuals, including more than 50,000 individual family unit members. This compares to 

225,000 removals and enforcement returns during the same period in 2019, which 

was the comparable pre-pandemic and pre-Title 42 period. At the same time, we 

have implemented the largest expansion of lawful pathways in decades. Progress 

has been made, but more funding is required to control the unprecedented flow of 
13 

hemispheric migration and to increase our efforts to combat the Transnational 

Criminal Organizations (TCOs) ruthlessly trafficking fentanyl and other deadly illicit drugs. 

Last month, the Administration submitted a supplemental funding request to 

Congress that would provide $8.7 billion for DHS to cover projected shortfalls, enhance enforcement and processing efficiencies, procure and operationalize the latest 

technologies, and hire additional personnel. It would also fund additional support 

for communities and nonprofit organizations receiving migrants, through the Shelter 

and Services Program (SSP). 

To be clear, this supplemental funding is like a tourniquet—urgently needed and 

critical in the short-term, but not a long-term solution to a deep-seated problem. 

Our national immigration laws, having last gone through major revisions by Congress in 1996, are severely out-of-date and our system is completely broken. Only 

Congress can bring our immigration and border security systems into the 21st century. Our administration is eager to work with Congress to deliver for the American 

people and the men and women who protect our country. 

Separately, the Administration submitted a supplemental funding request to Congress for $9.2 billion for DHS that would fund support for communities facing violent extremism and communities facing extreme weather and climate disasters. 

Countering Fentanyl 

The supplemental funding request includes more resources for the fight against 

fentanyl: $1.2 billion for additional personnel and investigative capabilities to prevent cartels from moving fentanyl into the country, primarily through POEs. 

Through Federal law enforcement efforts such as Operations Artemis, Rolling Wave, 

and Argus, CBP and ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) have increased 

the interdiction of fentanyl, fentanyl precursors, and contraband such as pill presses. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, ICE HSI conducted more than 5,000 fentanyl-related 

arrests. 

The funds in the supplemental funding request will enable both CBP and ICE to 

apply the lessons learned and combat the tactics of the TCOs that control the 

fentanyl trade. CBP would be able to hire 1,000 CBP Officers, make a significant 

investment in Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment deployment, and ICE HSI 

could enhance domestic and international counter- fentanyl activities, in coordination with domestic law enforcement agencies and the Department of State. 

Securing the Border and Funding a Safe, Orderly, and Humane Immigration System 

As border encounter numbers continue to fluctuate, this Administration is committed to treating individuals and families humanely as we expedite the removal 

process and deliver tougher consequences under Title 8 of the United States Code 

for those who do not have a lawful basis to remain in the United States. The supplemental requests $6 billion for border enforcement to reflect the evolving needs of 

the Department and funds additional resources for CBP, ICE, and USCIS to cover 

projected shortfalls and hire additional personnel to help right- size a system that 

was not built to manage the level of encounters we are experiencing. 

CBP’s requirements include an additional 1,300 Border Patrol Agents to work 

alongside the 20,205 agents requested in the FY 2024 President’s Budget. The supplemental funding would also include 300 Border Patrol Processing Coordinators 

and support staff to help ensure Border Patrol Agents can focus on their critical national security mission in the field. 

USCIS’s requirements include an additional 1,600 Asylum Officers and associated 

support staff to hear migrant claims and facilitate timely immigration dispositions, 

including expedited removal for those without a valid claim to remain in the United 

States. As required by statute, expedited removal is not possible if USCIS Asylum 

Officers are not readily available to interview those asserting a fear of return. Supplemental funding will provide the critical resources USCIS needs to significantly 

expand its current credible fear interview capacity. 

Additional ICE detention beds are needed to sustain the significantly increased 

use of expedited removal and provide necessary surge capacity. Increased surge capacity of up to 46,500 beds will allow DHS to process more border crossers on expedited timelines and swiftly remove those without a legal basis to stay in the country. With more displaced persons in the hemisphere than ever before, it is of vital 

importance that we add this capacity in order to prevent overcrowding and dangerous conditions in Border Patrol facilities and avoid a high number of releases directly to border communities. 

We are requesting additional funding for transportation, including an increase in 

removal flights and resources for Alternatives to Detention, in part to resource our 

Family Expedited Removal Management, or FERM, program. The supplemental 
14 

funding request also includes funding to grow the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor with 1,470 additional attorneys and support staff to complement the Department 

of Justice’s 375 new immigration judge teams to adjudicate and process immigration 

cases more quickly and help reduce the caseload backlog that has been building for 

years and years. 

Support for Communities Receiving Migrants 

Through the Emergency Food and Shelter Program—Humanitarian and SSP, border and interior communities and nonprofit organizations receiving migrants have 

been allocated nearly $800 million in FY 2023. The ongoing need and demand for 

support is tremendous; therefore, the supplemental funding request includes $1.4 

billion for additional SSP grants to local governments and non-profits for temporary 

food, shelter, and other services for recently arrived migrants. 

Noncitizens who use a CBP One appointment to present themselves at a POE and 

those granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) are eligible to apply immediately 

for work authorization, which enables them to support themselves and their families, reduce the burden on receiving cities, and contribute to the United States economy. We are taking steps to speed approval of work authorization applications for 

those who are eligible. Coupled with ongoing efforts to streamline and improve 

USCIS processing across all form types, the supplemental funding request will promote timely access to employment authorization documents for noncitizens. 

Support for Communities Facing Extreme Weather and Climate Disasters 

To help communities recover from and rebuild after extreme weather events and 

natural disasters, an additional $9 billion is required for the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund. This funding will enable FEMA 

to continue supporting critical response efforts and recovery projects in communities 

across the country. This includes support for recovery needs arising from specific 

disasters, including wildfires on Maui, the Guam typhoon, hurricanes in Florida and 

the southeastern United States, floods in California and Vermont, tornadoes in Mississippi, and other natural disasters across the country. 

Support for Communities Facing Violent Extremism 

Additional funding is critical to ensuring the safety and security of faith-based 

communities currently facing an elevated threat environment. As we continue to 

monitor the unfolding events in Israel and Gaza, we must ensure our communities 

have the resources to be alert, vigilant, and prepared. The supplemental funding request would provide an additional $200 million for the Nonprofit Security Grant 

Program, which would allow more nonprofit organizations across the Nation to protect themselves against potential violent extremist or terrorist attacks. 

Conclusion 

As DHS enters its third decade, the Department will continue to evolve and rise 

to the challenges posed by an ever-changing threat landscape. It is a great privilege 

to represent and serve alongside the DHS workforce that has time and again demonstrated exceptional skill and an unwavering commitment to keeping our country 

safe. 

The President’s Supplemental Budget Request includes the necessary funding and 

authorities for DHS to carry out its wide-ranging mission. I am grateful to this 

Committee for its continued support of DHS. I look forward to our continued work 

together and to answering your questions. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you very much to both of our witnesses 

this morning. We will now begin a round of 5-minute questions of 

our witnesses. And I ask my colleagues to keep track of your clock 

and stay within those 5 minutes. 

CHILDCARE STABILIZATION

Secretary Becerra, as I talked about in my opening remarks, we 

have a child care crisis in this country, and it is an economic crisis 

that is really worsening. When the pandemic hit, and the child care 

sector was pushed to the verge of collapse, Congress recognized the 

need to act, and we delivered the Stabilization Funding to make 

sure those programs could stay open, and keep prices down, and 

continue serving our families. 
15 

It worked, and the stabilization program provided funding in 8 

to 10 licensed child care programs across the country and to nearly 

7,000 programs just in my home State of Washington and served 

nearly 10 million children nationwide. But that funding expired 

September 30th, and unless we take action, more parents are going 

to be forced out of the workplace; small businesses are going to be 

left without the employees they need; and families, along with our 

entire economy, are really going to feel the consequences. So it is 

important that the administration has requested this funding to 

continue to stabilize the child care system. 

Can you talk to us about the consequences that it would be to 

working families and our economy if we fail to extend this funding? 

Secretary BECERRA. Absolutely, Madam Chair. And again, thank 

you for all the work that you and your colleagues have done to 

place us where we are today with funds like the Stabilization 

Funds that you passed in the last year. It is just in the definition 

of the word. If we do not have those Stabilization Funds, we destabilize not just families across America, but our economy, because 

there will be people who have to leave the workforce because they 

will have to stay home to care for their kids. 

There are small businesses. The vast majority of our child care 

programs are small businesses, they will go under. There are people who are already telling us that they relied on the Stabilization 

Funds to be able to increase wages for their workers so that they 

would not leave. Now, remember, they are competing against the 

fast-food shops, the Walmarts of the world who pay more, in many 

cases, than they do. 

They were able to increase wages a bit to try to keep those workers who prefer to care for kids. It would be devastating, there is 

no doubt that Americans would lose not only income but opportunities for their kids, and we would lose a lot of small businesses in 

America. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. And another one of my top priorities 

is the fentanyl crisis, and just last year, there were nearly 110,000 

drug overdose deaths fueled in large part by fentanyl. In Washington State, fentanyl is driving the increasing rate of overdose 

deaths among children and teens. Making sure synthetic opioids, 

like fentanyl, do not cross our borders is really important, and I 

know the administration is focused on this. It ramped up its efforts 

and conducted successful operations that have resulted in an additional 10,000 pounds of fentanyl seized over a 2-month period. That 

is roughly a 17-percent increase above the preceding months. But 

seizing those drugs alone will not solve the problem for communities that are really ravaged by this crisis. 

Secretary Becerra, I will start with you; and then to you, Secretary Mayorkas. Talk to us how about additional funding through 

the HHS will address the harm our communities are facing? 

Secretary BECERRA. Madam Chair, there is not a State or not a 

community in America that does not need more assistance to tackle 

the opioid crisis now driven mostly by fentanyl. Some 70 percent 

of these overdoses, as a result of opioids, are really now driven by 

fentanyl. We need to do much more. They will tell you we can help 

with the prevention and the treatment. Secretary Mayorkas, I 

know will talk about the interdiction, but without the help, we are 
16 

going to lose Americans. We know it, and we are doing everything 

we can for making Naloxone more available to people to save lives, 

but also working with those on the ground who have been saving 

lives from day one. We want them to have the resources they need. 

FENTANYL ENTERING THE COUNTRY

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. And Secretary Mayorkas, what will 

the President’s supplemental request allow you to do to stop 

fentanyl from entering our country? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Chair Murray, it will assist us significantly 

in our interdiction efforts. We already have done an extraordinary 

job. The men and women of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) and Homeland Security Investigations have engaged in a 

number of operations, Operation Blue Lotus, Operation Artemis, 

which is surging our personnel and our technological resources to 

the ports of entry where the majority of the fentanyl is smuggled 

into our country. We are working with our international partners. 

The $1.3 billion that the supplemental request calls for will assist us with additional personnel, additional technological resources, and the ability to work with our international partners to 

really drive an encompassing approach to our interdiction efforts. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Vice Chair Collins. 

IMMIGRATION POLICY REFORM

Vice Chair COLLINS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Mayorkas, you mentioned that it had been since 1996 

since Congress passed comprehensive immigration reform. The 

supplemental request includes funding to help strengthen enforcement, but it does not appear to include any policy reforms. Is the 

administration open to working with Congress to include policy reforms that would deal with the underlying reasons for the surge as 

we consider the supplemental? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Vice Chair Collins, we need the funding 

that we are requesting immediately, that we are requesting in the 

supplemental. We have advocated from day one for immigration reform. It is unanimous that our broken immigration system is in 

dire need of reform. On the very first day of his administration, 

President Biden presented Congress with a blueprint for that reform. We fully endorse the need for policy changes not in piecemeal 

form but in a comprehensive form. 

BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY AND ORR

Vice Chair COLLINS. Let me turn to the supplemental funding request. You mentioned that there is funding for new technology and 

an additional 1,000 personnel at ports of entry. However, the request omits funding for border security technology between ports of 

entry, which is, in my view, a major problem. You said just last 

month that effective border security requires a smarter, more comprehensive approach, including state-of-the-art border surveillance 

technology. With encounters between ports of entry at an all-time 

high, do you support adding funding for border security technology 

between ports of entry, where most people are coming through? 
17 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Vice Chair Collins, we certainly do, and 

our annual budget does indeed call for that type of technology, including, for example, automated surveillance towers, the ASTs, 

that are so effective and that are force multipliers. What we have 

sought in this supplemental is to address the most emergent needs. 

For example, additional border patrol agents and, critically, additional case processors so that we can push those agents out into the 

field to do the jobs that they were sworn to do. 

Vice Chair COLLINS. We are working on the funding that you 

have requested, and I hope that we can work together to address 

some real concerns about the funding requests as well as the policy 

issues that I have mentioned. 

Secretary Becerra, you are asking for an additional $1.9 billion 

for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), yet your fiscal year 

2024 budget request was for an increase of only about $830 million. 

Now, it has been clear since long before the budget was released 

that the number of unaccompanied children, refugees, and other 

entrants was growing, and that ORR would need additional funding. Given those facts, why did not you request more funding 

through the normal budget process? 

Secretary BECERRA. Senator, thank you for the question. As you 

know, and as Secretary Mayorkas can attest, it is never a known 

commodity or quantity, the number of people that will show up, the 

number of refugees that will need help. We are still, for example, 

receiving Ukrainian refugees. We thought 100,000 refugees might 

come to our shores, we are now over 180,000, and we think that 

we may—our estimates are projections are that we may have another 80,000 Ukrainians who may be coming in. 

What we have to do is continue our obligation that this country 

has always had to those who seek protection from persecution 

when they come to our shores. Without that support—and this 

money is focused on refugees, without that support, the services we 

provide in partnership with local communities would really suffer, 

but local communities would still have to provide that support. 

SUBSIDIZING CHILDCARE

Vice Chair COLLINS. Finally, Mr. Secretary, I have long been a 

strong supporter of improving access to quality affordable child 

care. I do not think extending pandemic subsidies is the way to do 

that. Instead, I have focused on expanding the Child Care Development Block Grant Program. We increased funding last year by 30 

percent. This year, under Senator Capito and Senator Schatz, we 

have increased—Senator Baldwin, sorry—we have increased the 

funding by another 9 percent. Wouldn’t it be better to invest additional child care funds in a program that directly helps subsidize 

child care costs for low-income families? 

Secretary BECERRA. My staff can be in your office immediately 

after this hearing if you would like to discuss how we get there, 

because you are absolutely right. We need a long-term solution. I 

think most everyone sitting at the dais would say that. But while 

we get to that long-term solution, we need something for those 

small businesses that are going to close tomorrow. We need something for those parents who are looking for a quality child care 

service today, and without the Stabilization Funds, we will lose 
18 

ground, we will lose businesses, we will lose families having care 

for their kids. 

Vice Chair COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chair MURRAY. Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Chair Murray, and thanks to both 

Secretaries for being here today. 

FENTANYL AT THE BORDER

Secretary Mayorkas, you said something in your opening statement which I want to return to. And that is the majority of narcotics and fentanyl coming into the United States comes in through 

ports of entry transported by U.S. citizens. Is that correct? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is correct. I believe it is more than 90 

percent. 

Senator DURBIN. More than 90 percent; more than 90 percent 

comes through ports of entry transported by U.S. citizens. As Willie 

Sutton, when asked why he robbed banks, said, ‘‘It is because that 

is where the money is.’’ Isn’t it pretty clear that that is where we 

ought to focus our efforts, at least our startup efforts, to deal with 

this fentanyl crisis? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Most certainly, Senator, and that is indeed 

where we are focusing our energies, both with respect to the deployment of technology and the law enforcement operations that we 

undertake. 

Senator DURBIN. So is the Biden administration putting their 

money where their mouth is in terms of asking for money that will 

help you fight the fentanyl crisis at the border? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. We most certainly are. 

Senator DURBIN. Does it include not only increased numbers of 

personnel but also new technology? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Yes, it does, Senator; the non-intrusive inspection technology, which is so effective in scanning vehicles of all 

types. 

Senator DURBIN. While I certainly agree with Senator Collins, we 

should be concerned about the other 10 percent that is coming 

across the border. What are we doing about that? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. We are deploying our personnel to the fullest extent possible to interdict narcotics. We need our CUAS 

(counter unmanned aircraft systems) Authority reauthorized that is 

our counter-drone authority. The cartels seek to smuggle drugs via 

drones in between the ports of entry. Our counter-UAS Authority 

expires before the end of this year. We need that dramatically. 

Senator DURBIN. Now, that is something we can do that makes 

a difference immediately? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Yes, indeed. 

Senator DURBIN. And certainly, the administration’s request for 

more money when it comes to fentanyl intervention at the real 

source is time and money well spent, correct? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. It is. It saves lives. 

Senator DURBIN. Now, let us talk about the other issue before us. 

We have been, during the Biden Administration, overwhelmed at 

the border by the numbers who have come in or have tried to enter 

into the United States. Is that correct as well? 
19 

Secretary MAYORKAS. The numbers have been unprecedented, 

Senator. 

Senator DURBIN. And can you tell me your explanation as to why 

that occurred? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, that is not something that is specific to the southern border of the United States. That is a global 

phenomenon. We have the largest number of displaced people in 

the world today since World War II, and that is something that is 

gripping our entire hemisphere. There are approximately 2 million 

Venezuelans seeking shelter in Colombia. We have an unprecedented gang problem in Ecuador that is causing an unprecedented 

number of Ecuadorians to flee. We have a situation in Haiti which 

is dire. This is something that involves corruption, poverty, violence, natural disasters. And in a post-COVID environment, we are 

seeing just a level of migration throughout our hemisphere. 

WALL FOR THE MEXICO BORDER

Senator DURBIN. The first item suggested by the Republicans, if 

we are going to discuss immigration, is a 900-mile addition to the 

wall between the United States and Mexico. Can you comment on 

the impact of such a wall? What it might cost? How long it takes 

to build? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. It costs billions and billions of dollars, it 

takes years and years to build, and it is not as effective as a multiprong strategy that includes critically the latest technological advancements? We need a 21st century solution to what we are experiencing as a 21st-century problem. It is not the time for brick and 

mortar. We need to meet the moment with technological innovation, and our extraordinary personnel. 

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

Senator DURBIN. Let me just close by saying I have spent a large 

part of my Senate career on the issue of immigration. As Chairman 

of the Judiciary Committee, it is in my jurisdiction, and I have 

been frustrated that we have been unable to initiate a true bipartisan effort to solve our immigration challenges and the crisis we 

face today. I was with the Gang of Eight, and several members of 

this committee as well, that produced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform which passed the Senate, was never taken up by the 

Republican House. 

I am ready to sit down again to make that work. This notion that 

we have to do significant immigration reform in the next few weeks 

or we will not send money to assist the people in Ukraine or other 

causes important to our national security I think is mistaken. I 

agree with the Chairman who said: Pinning our efforts in this critical area of supplemental appropriation on comprehensive reform is 

really not realistic. I do want to undertake that in a serious way. 

And I am sure you will join in that effort if we do. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I most certainly will, Senator. 

Senator DURBIN. I yield. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Graham. 
20 

UKRAINE

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I was also in 

the Gang of Eight, and to my Democratic colleagues, securing our 

border is part of the problem. We have to do more, I get that. The 

challenge before us is to help Ukraine, is to help Israel. I want to 

do that. The majority of people in my party think Ukraine we have 

done enough. I do not. If you want me to be able to vote for this, 

you are going to have to help me deal with the following question: 

Why are you so intent on helping Ukraine; you are not doing much 

about our own country when we have a border that is completely 

broken? 

I reject the idea this is a global phenomenon problem. I think 

you are misdiagnosing the problem. This is policy changes you all 

instituted that I told you would not work, and we now need to fix 

that. Trend lines: 2020, 458,000 encounters, 2023, 2.5 million; we 

need to change that, don’t we, that trend line? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. We most certainly do, which is precisely—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. 2019 is an important year as well. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Well, I am worried about tomorrow. The 

highest encounters in September, things need to change, do you 

agree, like now? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Indeed. And that is precisely why we have 

sought our supplemental funding and why we continue to—— 

ASYLUM SYSTEM

Senator GRAHAM. All right. Thank you. The supplemental makes 

everything worse, not better. Okay, next. You said something I 

want to agree with. You told Senator Lankford that basically the 

asylum system needs to be reformed from top to bottom. Do you 

still stand by that? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I do. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. What is the denial rate of asylum 

claims? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Well, Senator, we would have to break it 

down. The asylum system has an initial screening rate, as you 

know the credible—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I think the final—the final determination is 

about 90 percent of the claims are eventually denied. Am I in the 

ball park? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I believe that is inaccurate. It also 

depends—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Well, what percentage of claims? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. It also depends on the demographics. 

Senator GRAHAM. No. I am asking you a simple question. You are 

the head of DHS, and you cannot tell me how many asylum claims 

are approved versus denied? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Generally, generally speaking across the 

board on a macro basis, it is approximately 75 percent. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. So if 75 percent are denied, would you 

work with me to change the initial screening standard? 
21 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I will work with you to achieve a 

comprehensive solution because a piecemeal solution will lead to 

remaining problems. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, if you are expecting comprehensive immigration reform between now—you are not—that is not going to 

happen. Will you work with me to fix the asylum system? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I will continue to work with you 

to fix the immigration system that is fundamentally broken. 

DHS PAROLE SYSTEM

Senator GRAHAM. Less parole. How many people—here is the law 

on parole: ‘‘The DHS Secretary may, in his discretion, parole people 

into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he 

may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian 

reasons or significant public benefit.’’ There were 240,000 people 

paroled this fiscal year. Did you do a case-by-case analysis? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, we complied with the law. 

Senator GRAHAM. So there is a file for all 240,000 where somebody determined they meet these criteria? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. There is an individualized determination 

made by all personnel—— 

Senator GRAHAM. On all 240,000? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Okay. 

Senator GRAHAM. And I can see that? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Yes, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. I am asking for that. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Very well, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. So in your opinion, 240,000 people were individually screened and granted parole? You are not blanket paroling 

people, are you? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is correct, Senator. We will—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Is your testimony under oath that you are not 

giving blanket parole from people from four countries? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, we have—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. And Haiti. 

Senator GRAHAM. And Haiti. So you are telling me that you have 

looked at every person, and you gave them parole on an individual 

screening basis. Is that what your testimony is? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, we have a parole program for—— 

Senator GRAHAM. No. Did you do what I asked you? Did you follow the law or are you giving blanket parole? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. We followed the law. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. The law requires an individual assessment. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, we make our decisions on a caseby-case basis. 

Senator GRAHAM. There is 280-something people on the terror 

watch list that we know of. Where are they? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, the terrorist screening data 

set—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Where are the people? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. The individuals whom we encounter that 

are on the terrorist screening dataset—— 
22 

Senator GRAHAM. Are they out of the country? 

Secretary MAYORKAS [continuing]. Are screened—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Are they out of the country, or are they in the 

country? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, they very well may be out of the 

country, they may even—— 

Senator GRAHAM. But you do not know. There are people on the 

terrorist watch list, and you cannot tell me where they are at. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is not my testimony. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, okay. Where are they? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, if you would allow me—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Yeah. Please. 

Secretary MAYORKAS [continuing]. The opportunity to answer. Individuals who are encountered at the southern border—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

Secretary MAYORKAS [continuing]. Who are in the terrorist 

screening data set—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

Secretary MAYORKAS [continuing]. May not necessarily be known 

as suspected terrorists, number one. Number two, individuals who 

pose a threat to our national security are an enforcement priority 

for us. They are the priority that are subject to removal. Also, if 

we make a determination that it would not be safe to the American 

people that they be released into the United States, we detain 

them pending their removal—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Can you give me an analysis of all 200—I 

know I am over time. Do think you are doing a good job? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator? I am incredibly proud to support 

the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Senator GRAHAM. I did not ask about them, I asked about you. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is my—that is my answer. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Well, I think we need to change this system, and you are completely out of touch with the nature of the 

problem. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I very much look forward to working with you to change the system. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Reed. 

LIHEAP

Senator REED. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

First, let me address Secretary Becerra. Secretary Becerra, this 

issue has come up by my colleagues also, that is the LIHEAP (Low 

Income Home Energy Assistance Program) Program. We expect 

this winter heating prices to go up. We expect the number of people 

seeking assistance to go up. So the administration’s supplemental 

request of $1.6 billion seems to be a step in the right direction. Do 

you have any additional comments in terms of how we can help 

people in this heating season? 

Secretary BECERRA. Senator, first, thank you, and some of your— 

many of your colleagues for the work that you have done to make 

sure that we can keep pace, because essentially what the President 

is requesting is to keep pace with you and many of your colleagues 

were able to secure last year. So we are not getting more money; 
23 

we are just trying to make sure we do not fall behind, because as 

you know, the cost of heating is going up. The global energy crisis 

and the global climate crisis are having an impact for families, and 

so this money simply makes sure that during the debt of winter, 

people do not die, as we know they do if they do not have the 

money to pay for heating expenses. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. 

And Secretary Mayorkas, could you explain the procedures at the 

border when you encounter someone who is on a list of the policy—— 

SCREENING AT THE BORDER

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, we screen and vet individuals 

whom we encounter at the border. If an individual is determined 

to be a public safety threat, or a threat to our national security, 

they are a priority for removal. If we do not believe it is safe to 

release an individual when they are subject to immigration enforcement proceedings, then we detain them in Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. That is pursuant to the Policy Memorandum that I promulgated on September 30th of 2021. 

Senator REED. Now, if an individual reaches the border, your emphasis is to sort of come—presume if there is any doubt at all, the 

worst, and hold that person, is that a fair—— 

Secretary MAYORKAS. We make an individualized determination. 

Our U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel are expert in 

doing so. We screen and vet individuals against a number of holdings across the Federal enterprise, and we make a decision of custody or not custody, depending on the profile of the individual, and 

our professional assessment, based on the information we have. 

PAROLEE SPONSORS

Senator REED. And those individuals who are paroled in the 

United States, have basically cleared this process, and in fact, typically, as I understand it, they have sponsors that will accept them, 

and the sponsors are also evaluated for their credibility and their 

reliability; is that accurate? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator REED. And in fact in many cases, the sponsors are religious organizations; that is my understanding? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. There are religious organizations; there are 

faith-based organizations; there are nonprofit organizations; there 

are businesses; and there are individuals as well that serve as 

sponsors for parolees from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, or Venezuela. 

But we do indeed screen the individual potential parolees as well. 

Senator REED. And do you have a feedback loop with local law 

enforcement authorities about the behavior of these individuals in 

the United States? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. We work very closely with our State, local, 

tribal, territorial, and campus law enforcement partners. 

Senator REED. Well, thank you very much. 
24 

CHILDCARE

Secretary Becerra, again, this issue is touched on, but I think it 

is critical. We learned in the pandemic that child care was not 

something nice to have; it was essential in order to get to work, in 

order to maintain, really, family coherence, and being able to succeed. We provided additional resources at ARPA (The American 

Rescue Plan Act of 2021) to do that, and those resources have been 

exhausted, so now we have to go ahead, and I believe we are doing 

that in this legislation, a $16 billion request to help our the child 

care system in Rhode Island. 

Our local organizations calculated that child care in my State is 

unaffordable for 90 percent of families. It means that it costs more 

than 7 percent of total income. The irony, of course, is that child 

care workers are paid about $13 an hour, which is not exactly extravagant. So we have this dilemma. That is why I think we need 

to get this money out as quickly as possible. Can you comment? 

Secretary BECERRA. I fully concur. And to save not just those 

families but our economy, we should get to work and getting those 

monies out there. It was used—those stabilization dollars kept 

businesses afloat, and kept families with a decent quality of child 

care. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank you. 

Chair MURRAY. Senator Moran. 

Senator MORAN. Chairwoman, thank you. Thank you, and the 

Ranking Member, and the Vice Chairman, for hosting this hearing. 

Secretary Mayorkas, thank you for agreeing—thank you for 

agreeing to be here. And welcome to Secretary Becerra as well. 

I indicated in my opening remarks last week in this room about 

the importance of your presence, in my view, for us to deal with 

a supplemental dealing with national security. And I continue to 

believe that the circumstances we face on our borders and elsewhere around our country continue to be a national security challenge for us. I have been to the border numerous times, particularly in the last 2 or 3 years, in each circumstance and conversations with law enforcement, Federal and local, as well as my own 

view in talking to Border Patrol agents and seeing, firsthand, the 

apprehension of foreign nationals on our border, including those 

from China. 

IMMIGRATION REFORM

I am anxious for our efforts to deal with Israel, and Ukraine, and 

the challenges we face in the Middle East, but I am also interested 

in making certain that we take this opportunity of the supplemental to come together. We have heard in this conversation this 

morning, by a number of my colleagues how they have worked on 

immigration reform, border security issues reform, without success. 

And I would hate for us to miss an opportunity in this circumstance. If we can put a package together that would be supported by Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and in the 

House. 

We have seen the largest increase in migrants crossing our borders, unfortunately, in the past few years. There are many push 

and pull factors that would contribute to that circumstance, includ-
25 

ing the deterioration of conditions in other countries, as you indicated in your opening statement. But I am also concerned about 

what appears to be an attitude toward immigration pull factors, 

the policy decisions that suggest to migrants that making the dangerous, life-threatening journey, to and across our southern border 

will be rewarded; rewarded by being released in the United States, 

being rewarded by no hearing, no ultimate outcome determination. 

And you recently wrote in an opinion, it was on the board here 

that Senator Graham indicated he agreed with your statement, 

‘‘Only Congress can bring immigration and border security systems 

into the 21st century.’’ Are there not things that can be done in 

this supplemental that can address that, at least in part, that we 

can reach an agreement on with the administration, and Republicans and Democrats in the Senate? 

And also, how would you change those seeking—migrants seeking asylum to present themselves at legal points of entry, limitations on parole, stricter punishment of visa overstays to limit those 

pull factors and to reduce illegal immigration? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, thank you very much for the opportunity. The Supplemental Funding request that we have submitted would assist us tremendously in our border enforcement efforts with respect to the hiring and deployment of personnel, the 

procurement and implementation of technology. What we need is 

an encompassing solution to an encompassing problem when we 

speak of policy changes. 

For example, the backlog in Immigration court proceedings has 

been building year over year, over year for at least 10 years. That 

is why the time in between encounter and final adjudication of an 

immigration enforcement case is years and years long, when we 

speak of a pull factor. And if, in fact, we had a path to legalization 

for the millions of people who have been contributing so much to 

this country, we would so acutely alleviate the Immigration court 

backlog, shrink the time in between encounter and final adjudication. So it really requires a comprehensive approach to what is 

such a comprehensive problem. 

Senator MORAN. Well, Mr. Secretary, while I might agree that 

comprehensive reform or changes are advantageous, it has been my 

experience and my entire time in Congress that we keep waiting 

for comprehensive reform, and as a result we do next to nothing. 

And I hope that you, the administration, will use this opportunity 

to seriously work with those of us who are willing to make changes 

to defeat this circumstance in our national security, this challenge, 

at least in the things that we can agree upon today, and continue 

to work on the things that we cannot agree upon. Otherwise, my 

entire time in Congress will be waiting for a comprehensive reform. 

Thank you. 

Chair MURRAY. Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member, appreciate you holding the hearing. I want to thank you both 

for being here. 

SECURING THE SOUTHERN BORDER

Look, my top priority is defending Montana and keeping our Nation safe. It is just that plain and simple. That means getting the 
26 

situation at the southern border under control. I have said this directly to you many times before, Secretary Mayorkas, and I reiterated it to President Biden last week, this administration needs to 

do more to secure our border. 

You guys have to do a better job prioritizing additional funding 

and resources that Congress gives you to stop the deadly flow of 

fentanyl, which you talked about in your opening statement; 

fentanyl that is taking the lives of Montanans, and folks all across 

this country. 

When I talk to Border Patrol agents, our men and women in law 

enforcement, they tell me the same thing. They need more manpower, they need more technology. We have to know who is coming 

into our country, and what they are bringing. And that starts with 

the folks on the ground and giving them the tools they need to get 

the job done. I do agree with some of my Republican colleagues 

here today that, in addition to additional border secure funding, 

Congress must also step up and pass bipartisan policy reforms to 

fix this broken immigration system. 

Congress needs to stop playing politics with the border. Congress 

needs to roll up their sleeves, and we need to do our part to implement meaningful solutions to address the chaos at our border, address workforce issues, and keep our country safe. 

So Secretary Mayorkas, I have taken a look at your supplemental 

funding request. I see money to hire agents, to detain and remove 

folks, to install more technology to combat fentanyl. But what in 

your proposal is actually going to plug the holes in our border to 

stop those intent on illegally entering the United States?’’ 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I think it is precisely what you 

have identified and what our supplemental contains, when we talk 

about hiring, for example, additional personnel to conduct the case 

processing, that means we can get more Border Patrol agents out 

into the field, which is where they belong to do the jobs they swore 

to do and they signed up to do, which is apprehend individuals who 

are seeking to evade law enforcement. Hiring additional Border Patrol agents accomplishes that as well. The technology that we seek 

to deploy it is force multiplying. And so all of the things that we 

include in our supplemental achieve precisely the outcome about 

which you inquire. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST IMPACT ON BORDER

Senator TESTER. So I will tell you what I was told about the supplemental. I thought it was very helpful, but did not see a lot that 

would directly impact the areas in between the station. Your testimony last month, I believe in front of the HSGAC (Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee) Committee, said that in 

fiscal year ’23 there were about 600,000 people that entered this 

country illegally. That is a lot of people. That is a lot of people. Do 

you feel confident in this supplemental that you can shut that 

down, those 600,000 that are coming in? Do you have faith that 

you will be able to, significantly, reduce that number? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I do. 

Senator TESTER. And do you have any goals in mind there, and 

you anticipate you will be able to do it with manpower and technology, I assume? 
27 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Manpower and technology, yes, will significantly advance our efforts. Senator, as you well know, you and I 

have spoken over the years. The phenomenon of got-aways has 

been a challenge ever since our Department was created. In fact, 

in the first decade of our creation, the number of got-aways was far 

in excess of what we are experiencing now. But personnel and technology are the two key elements to that effort. 

Senator TESTER. I would just tell you that it is really important, 

and I think in a bipartisan way, really, really important, especially 

considering what all has gone on in this world, that we know exactly who is coming across that line. And if this supplemental does 

that, we will hold you accountable to that. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, let me be clear. The supplemental 

will assist us in advancing our mission dramatically. It is the funding that we require in addition to our annual funding. We also 

need the system fixed. It is not just funding that will cure all of 

the challenges. We need our immigration system fixed. The President submitted a proposal on day one of this administration. We 

have to work on that and build on that. That too is a critical element to meet our challenge. 

Senator TESTER. I could not agree with you more. We need it 

fixed. And I think we need to come together. We need to fund 

Israel funding, we need to fund Ukraine funding, we need to stop 

playing politics, and we need to get it fixed. We need to help you 

do your job and then we need you to hold you accountable to do 

that job. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

SOUTHERN BORDER CROSSINGS

Secretary Mayorkas, how many people have entered the country 

illegally across our southern border since the Biden administration 

took office; a number? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, it is over 6 million encounters at 

our southern border. 

Senator HOEVEN. And how many of those 6 million are still in 

the country? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I can get you that information. 

Senator HOEVEN. So do you know? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I don’t want to miss—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Would you provide us with a number of how 

many of those 6 million that crossed our border illegally are still 

in the country? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I would be pleased to provide you with any 

data that you request. 

Senator HOEVEN. Of the two-and-a-half million that crossed our 

southern border illegally last year, how many of them remain in 

the country? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Again Senator, I would be very pleased to 

provide you with the data with respect to how many removals have 

been effected; how many voluntary removals, how many forced removals, how many expulsions, how many individuals are—— 
28 

Senator HOEVEN. But you came to the hearing today and you do 

not have those numbers? You are the Head of DHS, and you came 

to this hearing today without those numbers? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is correct. And I would be pleased to 

provide you with that data. We certainly have it at our disposal. 

SOUTHERN BORDER CROSSINGS RISK

Senator HOEVEN. We have asked for them before, and we have 

not got them, so we will be looking forward to getting them. Do you 

think that millions of people crossing our border, illegally creates 

the risk of a terrorist attack in our country? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I think that the men and women 

of the Department of Homeland Security do an extraordinary job 

of ensuring the safety and security of—— 

Senator HOEVEN. That was not the question I asked. I said, do 

you think that millions of people crossing our border illegally every 

year, two-and-a-half million last year, creates the risk of a terrorist—with what is going on in the world, people coming from 

more than a hundred different countries crossing here illegally, you 

do not even know how many of them are still here. You came here 

today without that information. Do you think that creates the risk 

of a terrorist attack in our country? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, you mischaracterize my testimony. What I should—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Yes or no? Do you think that creates a risk? 

Millions of people come here, are here illegally, we are not even 

talking about the got-aways, how many got-aways are in our country here illegally? Does that create the risk of a terrorist attack in 

our country? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Let me assure you—— 

Senator HOEVEN. A simple question. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Let me assure you, Senator, that the safety 

and security of the American people is the single highest priority 

of the Department Homeland Security. 

Senator HOEVEN. So you would say it does create a risk? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, we look at—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Do you believe that—do you believe that border 

security is national security? This supplemental is about security, 

right? It is about making sure that we have a secure, not only a 

secure country, but that we lead in terms of security for freedomloving people in the world. Don’t we start with national security 

here at home? Border security—is border security part of national 

security? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, border security is indeed part of 

homeland security and national security. 

Senator HOEVEN. If that is the case, then as Senator Graham 

said, as Senator Moran said, don’t we need to make sure that as 

we look at this supplemental, we have security for our southern 

border as part of what is included? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Absolutely. Senator, this supplemental—— 

Senator HOEVEN. So we do need to have that in the package. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. This supplemental, Senator, advances our 

security mission by enabling us—— 

Senator HOEVEN. All right. 
29 

Secretary MAYORKAS [continuing]. To hire the personnel and the 

technology—— 

Senator HOEVEN. I understand. I understand. Now, if you agree 

that we need to secure the southern border as part of this package, 

and I just went through a lot of metrics, and you do not know the 

answers to it, you are sitting here today, and you did not give me 

the numbers. You say: Well, I will go get the numbers, you as: I 

do not have them here today. I do not know what they are. If we 

are going to have security in this package, don’t we need some 

metrics so we can show the American people that, in fact, we are 

reducing the encounters, we are reducing the number of people 

that are here illegally, we are reducing the number of people on the 

terrorist watch list that are coming across, we are reducing the 

number of got-aways. We need metrics to show that, don’t we? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Yes. 

Senator HOEVEN. So you would agree that that needs to be part 

of this supplemental package? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Would you agree with that or not? You just 

said we need to secure the border as part of the package. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I am not sure what your question is now. 

Senator HOEVEN. We need some kind of metrics and tracking to 

show that we are in fact reducing the number of people coming 

here and staying here illegally as part of this supplemental package; do you agree or not agree with that? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, we can set—we can discuss what 

metrics are best to show the progress that we make, whether it is 

funding—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Of course, we will discuss it. The question is 

whether we need to include it. Do you think we need some way to 

track that we are making progress on this problem? Look at the 

chart. Should that just keep going up infinitum, or should we start 

bringing it down? And how do you know if you do not have some 

metrics as part of this package? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, we—— 

Senator HOEVEN. So do you think they ought to be included or 

not? It is not—it is a pretty simple straightforward question. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Would you just answer it? 

SOUTHERN BORDER METRICS

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, we need funding for additional 

personnel and technology to advance the security of the border. 

Senator HOEVEN. You still will not simply say we need metrics 

to show that we are solving the problem and bringing down the 

number of people who come and stay here illegally? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, that is not what I am saying. 

Senator HOEVEN. So you agree? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I am very pleased to confer with you to 

identify the metrics that show progress in our efforts to secure the 

border. What I am sharing with you is that this supplemental is 

needed to achieve that advanced border security. We need additional personnel, we need additional technology, and that does not 

seem to me to be particularly controversial, quite frankly. 
30 

Senator HOEVEN. And as you are hearing here, we are going to 

need some way to track that performance that you are actually 

solving the problem, rather than let it continue to get worse, particularly at a time when we have to worry about terrorists coming 

into our country. Border security is national security. Thank you, 

Mr. Secretary. 

Chair MURRAY. Senator Shaheen. 

BORDER METRICS AND DATA FOR NORTHERN BORDER

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Secretaries Becerra, and 

Mayorkas for being here today. I want to stay on the metrics question, because Secretary Mayorkas, as we have heard this morning, 

most of the discussion about our borders has to do with the southern border. But in fact, what we are seeing is increased encounters 

across our northern border as well, and in particular, the Border 

Patrol Swanton Sector which covers, as you know, five counties in 

New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire, over to Maine, has seen 

more than a 500 percent increase in encounters between 2022 and 

2023. 

Now, the Border Patrol does not keep this data disaggregated for 

Vermont and New Hampshire. Our office has requested the number of encounters that have taken place in New Hampshire over 

the last year, and we are being told that that information is not 

something that can be provided to us. When we ask why, we were 

told it was not kept, but we keep the number of encounters, so it 

can be disaggregated. When we asked again, we were told that 

there is a Freedom of Information Act case regarding this data that 

prevents sharing that information with my office. 

We have investigated the law. That is not correct. I am not part 

of that case. And the Freedom of Information Act plainly states: It 

is not a justification for withholding information from Congress. We 

need accurate information so that we can know how to address law 

enforcement issues, communication issues, and our northern border, just as we do at the southern border. So as you know, you received a letter from our office requesting this information, can you 

commit that you will get us this disaggregated information? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I commit to working with you on 

this. My understanding is that we do have it specific to the sector, 

but not broken down by state, I am looking into that with my colleagues, and I know that you have asked for this information a 

number of times, and I commit to working with you on that. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. We are happy to provide some 

people to go through the data to disaggregate New Hampshire from 

Vermont so that we know exactly what we are talking about. So 

I do not think personnel should be an issue there. One of the other 

challenges we are having at the northern border, and I know all 

of us who have states that share a border with Canada have many 

of these same issues, but it is the communications to have law enforcement be able to talk to each other, be able to talk to other officials, to CBP agents, and in New Hampshire, our Pittsburgh station relies on satellite Internet service, which lacks the reliability 

of wired broadband. So that it is very hard sometimes to process 

and screen vehicles that are entering from Canada. It is difficult 

to be able to make those communications work. Again, will you 
31 

commit to work with us to explore solutions to address that at the 

northern border? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Yes, I will, Senator. 

SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. Secretary Becerra, as you mentioned in your opening remarks, the substance use disorder epidemic has had a heartbreaking impact across this country. New 

Hampshire has been one of those States that has been among the 

hardest hit. Last year, we had the highest number of fatal 

overdoses that we have had since 2017. It was a 15 percent increase over 2021, and I appreciate the administration’s requesting 

supplemental State Opioid Response (SOR) Grant funding to continue to combat the epidemic. I think that is very important. 

One of the—I think we have two challenges in a State like New 

Hampshire. One is we have got a cliff that we are looking at, as 

numbers go down, we need to make sure that the funding is still 

going to be there, but also that there is flexibility to address how 

we use those funds. Can you talk about the importance of flexibility 

in those funds? 

Secretary BECERRA. Absolutely, Senator. And thanks for the 

work that you have done to make sure that SOR grants are available to every State, because we all continue to have issues in our 

communities. The flexibility becomes important because Washington, DC, does not know what is best for New Hampshire, just 

as it would not know what is best in California. We want those 

who are down on the ground, in New Hampshire, and California 

everywhere else in the country to know how best to address the 

opioids crisis, and so the SOR grants do provide flexibility. 

Some places are very rural, your State has a lot of rural communities, it is very different from my State of California where we 

have very densely populated areas. And so we want to make sure 

that we do not set up a cookie-cutter approach that uses California 

as a model, which may not work well for New Hampshire. We also 

want to make sure that if you want to treat—your state wants to 

treat youth because we are now finding that 10- to 14-year-olds, 

one of the highest rates of death occurs among 10- to 14-year-olds 

today, 10 and 14, 10-year-olds contemplating suicide or becoming 

drug addicts. 

And so we want to make sure that a state has the flexibility to 

use funds to tackle the crisis with our youth. So the more flexibility 

on the ground, locally, the better with the results will be. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Boozman. 

INCREASE IN NUMBERS AT THE BORDER

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all 

very much for having this important hearing. I had the opportunity 

to be Chair of Homeland Security in 2017 in that period in that 

Congress, and as you said, the men and women of the Border Patrol are wonderful people that do a wonderful job. The reality 

though is that they are—that right now, their morale is terrible, 
32 

and when you talk to them, they think the policy on the border is 

inappropriate and it is simply not working. 

By every metric, the border is a disaster, despite the rhetoric of 

the administration. The numbers reported by the Border Patrol 

have caught and known get-aways are off the charge. Our border 

States and our communities have been overrun, and now many of 

our major cities, most of them Democratic, are saying, literally, 

that you are in the process of destroying their cities. 

The polling indicates that the public agrees with all of that, they 

have little confidence with the administration’s border policies. And 

so, you know, you mention the numbers and how it has been growing through the years. In 2017, there were 2 million people running 

around the country waiting for adjudication. When the Biden Administration took over there were 3.6, now they are 6.5 million. So 

it has almost doubled. 

Right now the—you have got 800,000 people that have been adjudicated waiting for their day in court. These are people that have 

been said that they have got probable reason for asylum. What you 

are asking for does nothing to get those numbers down. I mean, 

that is the problem. That is what Senator Hoeven was talking 

about. We need metrics so that once we put what you are asking 

for in place, that you will have a significant reduction. And to do 

800,000 people, that backlog is impossible based on what you are 

proposing. Six-and-a-half million people running around waiting for 

some sort of adjudication, the list goes on and on. 

You mentioned fentanyl; I think you said, quote, ‘‘That you were 

doing an exceptional job.’’ It is the leading cause of death in Arkansas regarding overdoses. By July of this year, Arkansas State Police had seized 12 pounds of fentanyl, enough to kill everybody in 

the State. So your testimony and what is actually happening there 

is no—there is no basis in fact. So I guess, I guess the question is: 

What are we going to do about it? 

SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT ON METRICS

I agree with Senator Hoeven: We need some metrics. We need 

what—if we put in place what you are asking for, how is this going 

to address the numbers, the six-and-a-half million people that are 

running around here, how is it going to address the 800,000 backlog, and we are not talking about getting that down to—I think 

what you are proposing, at best, just keeps it as it is now, there 

is not going to be any reduction. Am I wrong in that? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Yes, you are. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So give me a reason for that? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Is it—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. Give me some numbers. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, first of all, I want to make it 

clear, the devastation of—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. Give me a reason that we are from—gone 

from 3.6 to 6.5 million? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, is it your assertion that the hiring 

of additional Office of Principal Legal Advisor Attorneys at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, with a complement of additional 

immigration judges, would not work to advance the immigration 

case backlog in Immigration court proceedings, is it—— 
33 

Senator BOOZMAN. I do not know. Tell me, how many? Tell me 

how many that would do, because I think probably what that 

would do is just maintain where we are at right now—— 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is absolutely false. 

Senator BOOZMAN [continuing]. With the people that are coming 

across. Well, give me the numbers that it would do it. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I can’t—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. Make it where it is false. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I would be very pleased to confer 

with you and Senator Hoeven to discuss the quantification of advancement that we would accomplish with additional funding. But 

I think it is rather axiomatic, quite frankly, that additional Border 

Patrol agents will advance the security mission at the southern 

border. I think it is rather axiomatic, quite frankly, that additional 

non-intrusive inspection technology at our ports of entry will advance our efforts to interdict fentanyl. We can discuss—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. What I want to know is this: If we put your 

program in place in fiscal year ’24, instead of having 800,000 waiting for adjudication, what number would that be? Instead of having 

6.5 million people running around here that have been running 

around for a long period of time, what would that number be in ’24 

and ’25? And you should know that because that is what we are 

trying to accomplish, is to make a dent in those numbers, to make 

a difference. I do not know if what you are proposing just simply 

keeps us where we are at. I do not know how it is affecting it. And 

it is sad that you do not appear to know either. I mean, if I was 

bringing forward a proposal to the—I am sorry, I will—but if I was 

bringing forward a proposal, I would know what it actually did. 

Okay? 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chair MURRAY. Secretary Mayorkas, do you want to respond? 

And then I will go to the next. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I think I have said—thank you very much, 

Chair Murray. I think it is rather non-controversial that the addition of personnel and technology in the system would advance the 

efficient operation of the system, would advance the security of the 

border, would advance the security of our country. And I think it 

is also equally axiomatic that fixing our broken immigration system, a fact about which everyone agrees, would advance it even 

more significantly. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. We are addressing the emergency of the— 

the emergent issues, the need for additional funding for our personnel and our agencies. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Merkley. 

DECREASING THE ASYLUM BACKLOG

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. And let me ask 

that same question a little bit differently. 

Secretary Mayorkas, if we were to acknowledge that the 4-year 

wait for asylum hearings is just way too long, and it is a tremendous backlog, what type of resources would it take to—you have 

asked for 755 million for more asylum officers, and immigration 
34 

service officers, Asylum Corp, and so forth. But what type of resources would it take, say, over a 2- or 3-year period, to bring that 

4-year backlog, say down to 6 to 8 months or something like that? 

Do you have any sense of the size of the challenge? Just a short 

answer, I am just trying to get a broad picture. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, the funding, the additional personnel, will make a material difference in that adjudicative time 

line in the context of a broken immigration system. We actually 

issued a regulation, the Asylum Officer Rule, that legally empowered us asylum officers to make the ultimate adjudication, which 

also brought that 4-plus year time line down to under 18 months. 

So we are very intensely focused on that reparative solution that 

is so vital to a more functioning immigration system. 

Senator MERKLEY. So the average time line has dropped to 18 

months? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. In the context of the Asylum Officer Rule, 

we did start to see tremendous acceleration. 

Senator MERKLEY. I will follow up. I will follow up with more detailed questions because I think it is a common concern, that that 

long wait time is, you need to have enough time for people to prepare their asylum case fairly but not so long that it is essentially 

years waiting while you fall in love, you have children, you get 

married, or whatever that complicates the whole damn system. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Agreed. 

CHILDCARE

Senator MERKLEY. I want to turn to you, Secretary Becerra, and 

just note that when I go to my town halls in Oregon, I have one 

in every county every year, every single town hall this year, child 

care comes up. People cannot find it. They cannot afford it. That 

is with the extra help that we have now, but that came to an end 

at the end of September. How important is it that we act for the 

child care funds that are in this emergency request? 

Secretary BECERRA. Important enough to say that in your State 

of Oregon, likely, more than 80,000 children will be impacted if we 

do not get the Stabilization Funds, likely more than 3,200 of your 

child care providers will be impacted and may have to close if they 

do not have the resources to pay wages, likely that you would receive for your state somewhere upwards of $150 million to help 

those who have—— 

FAMILY CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Senator MERKLEY. I think that is very helpful. Thank you. And 

I will say that this comes up in the context not just of families who 

need child care, but also in the businesses that are desperate for 

employees and know that the major source of potential employees 

are home providing child care, because there is not affordable child 

care, so it is a win-win for the family and for our businesses that 

need employees. Is that not the case? 

Secretary BECERRA. Absolutely. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Secretary Mayorkas, I want to turn to the Family Case Management Program. I have a report from the Inspector General on the 

Family Case Management Program in 2017, and it noted that ac-
35 

cording to ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), overall program compliance for all five regions an average of 99 percent 

for ICE check-ins and 100 percent attendance at court hearings. In 

other words, every family that had a case manager basically turned 

up for their hearings. 

Now, my various colleagues have said: We have a real concern 

about the long wait time. That people just disappear and do not 

show up for their hearings. But 99 percent at ICE, 100 percent at 

court hearings. What would it take to get a Case Management Program in place so that every family going through the migration system is part of a Family Case Management Program? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. So Senator, we have that in a pilot form 

through our Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. I would be 

very pleased to follow up with you with respect to what resourcing 

would be required to expand it far more broadly. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, because I was really struck by the 

effectiveness of that program. And one of the first things the 

Trump Administration did, they shut down the Family Case Management Program. I never understood, like, if you are arguing that 

people disappear, why would you shut down a program that ensures 100 percent attendance at court hearings? But I have also 

been frustrated that the Biden Administration hasn’t restored this 

program over the last 3 years to cover everyone. So I would love 

to see what resources that would take. 

FLORES SETTLEMENT

Finally, I want to turn to the Flores settlement. Anadith Reyes 

Alvarez, the 8-year-old died after 8 days in CBP custody. The Flores settlement said no one should be in CBP custody for more than 

72 hours. I know that a lot of changes were made following her 

death in custody. You might recall she had the situation of sickle 

cell and a heart condition, and the family made super requests. 

The little girl pleaded for help, and she died—and had a seizure 

and died. How close are we to actually honoring the Flores settlement so that no child is in CBP custody for more than 72 hours? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I am very familiar with the tragedy of that child’s passing. We did, indeed, take a whole series of 

measures immediately following that to understand how that occurred, why it occurred, and to make sure it does not occur again. 

We are in compliance with the Flores settlement. Children are indeed in our care for under 72 hours before we turn them over to 

our partners at the Department of Health and Human Services. 

And I would be very pleased to provide you with that data as well. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank both of you for 

being here with us today. 

IMMIGRATION POLICY CHANGES

Secretary Mayorkas, you wrote an op-ed arguing that the—in 

The Washington Post that the—and you have repeated it today, the 

immigration system is broken because Congress has not acted. You 

did say in response to Senator Graham that the policies need to be, 
36 

not piecemeal, I do not know if I am quoting you, I might have 

quoted one of the other Senators, not ‘‘piecemeal’’, but comprehensive. And he said in response: That is not going to happen. We 

know comprehensive is not going to happen. So why is incremental 

change—that we are trying to help you do a better job to pull down 

the numbers that we see. I mean, even, you mentioned 2019 was 

an important year. Well, that was less than a million, last year, 2.4 

million. So even in that retrospective of a year that you are pointing to as a year that was, you know, not emblematic of good policy, 

it still pales in comparison to where we are now. So give me two 

or three specific examples that we could do, policy change that 

would make a difference? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I think the President, on day one 

set forth a blue print, that—— 

Senator CAPITO. Well, pick three out of there that you think are 

the best, the most meaningful? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I am not—I would be quite hesitant to rank which ones are the best. But I continue to adhere to 

the approach that when we are speaking of a system that has not 

been reformed since 1996, that we need to reform it from top to 

bottom. For example, in the context of our country’s economic prosperity, I hear from businesses in every State across the country 

about their need for labor, and we have a remarkable demand for 

labor. We have an international supply for labor, and yet we cannot 

seem to marry the two. And so in the economic context, I would 

say that there is a tremendous opportunity, just as there is in the 

asylum context. 

Senator CAPITO. Okay, so—— 

Secretary MAYORKAS. And these are inextricably intertwined, 

and I believe that we should take an encompassing approach to a 

problem that is quite expansive in scope. 

Senator CAPITO. We are trying, I think, to offer the administration, ‘‘we’’ being the Republicans here in the Senate, offering the 

administration substantive policy changes that will bring these 

numbers down. You mentioned 1996 is when the immigration law 

was last changed. You have been operating under the same immigration laws that every other administration has been since 1996. 

The numbers, for example, in fiscal year ’14 were 568,000. We 

probably thought that was a big number back then. You have got 

the same laws, and still, you are five times more people coming in. 

It tells me the policies around the immigration laws that are written in 1996 that is causing the problems. And so those are the 

things that we can help you with to be able to afford change. 

I do not think saying, keeping an open border is going to help 

our economic situation. You have obviously testified, we do not 

know who a lot of these people are. So let us get to the length of 

the backlog. If you go to New York City, what is the average time 

that your case would be heard; your asylum case would be heard? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, it is an individualized case analysis, but I will tell you, on average, it is multiple years. In many, 

many—in too many cases, that it is the time of final adjudication 

of an asylum case because our case backlog is so significant across 

the system. 
37 

Senator CAPITO. So I have a figure of 10 years. I do not know 

that it is exactly 10 years, but it is probably somewhere between 

5 and 10. Much, much too long, and you agreed with that. So you 

and I know each other pretty well because I was the Chair and 

then Ranking Member on Homeland Security. Always trying to 

hire border agents has been an issue. So in the request—there is 

a request for another—1,000. You lost 700 last year from attrition. 

You are not even hired up to the amount that you can have now. 

How in the world are you going to hire an additional 1,000 officers 

when you cannot even hire up to the allotted amount that you are 

appropriated for today? 

RETENTION BONUSES

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, let me first express my gratitude 

for your support of the Department of Homeland Security throughout the time that we have worked together. We are intensely focused on hiring reform, not just the hiring process itself, but also 

making advances in the polygraph process that, as you know, has 

been a challenge for many years. We are intensely focused on that 

administrative aspect of the challenge because we need additional 

personnel. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. I would suggest, too, more pay, and 

better retention bonuses to be able to keep the people that you 

have. That is part of the package that we are putting forward here 

as ideas on ways to help. Thank you. 

Chair MURRAY. Senator Schatz. 

BORDER SECURITY

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Chair, and Vice Chair. Thank you, 

Secretaries, for your willingness to testify before the committee. 

Just one comment on the question of border security, and this is 

mostly for my Republican friends but also maybe for the Secretaries. 

Look, I think there is one theory of the case that says once we 

get into an immigration and border conversation, that the sort of 

old John Kerry aphorism, ‘‘Nothing is agreed to until everything is 

agreed to.’’ That is not my point of view. I just wanted to lay that 

out there. It is not that I necessarily agree with what is being proposed by Republicans, but I do believe we should look for incremental improvements that can be executed in a 10-day or 6-week 

legislative timeframe. And if we take Senator Graham at his word, 

that he is trying to land a supplemental that at least to some degree hinges on a good-faith effort on the border, we also have to 

understand that we are going to have to do this in chunks. And 

that in the context of an Emergency Security Supplemental, there 

may be some changes, I do not know what it is going to be, and 

I am not prepared to negotiate it over the dais. I am also not one 

of the key negotiators, but I just wanted to give you a flavor for, 

look, I think we are going to have to do some small things. And 

we cannot say: We cannot do anything until we do everything. I 

just think that is not a tenable position given the political configuration of the Congress and what we need to accomplish in the next 

6 weeks. 
38 

So Secretary Mayorkas, back to my singular abiding concern, 

Maui. As you know, the wildfires destroyed Lahaina Town and displaced about 11,000 people, and destroyed more than 3,000 properties, the majority of which were rental housing. So the problem— 

first of all, FEMA has been great, FEMA has been extraordinary, 

and we put some money into the DRF to allow them to operate and 

provide resources. The problem that we have right now is timing. 

The burn zone is still not cleared. 

MAUI

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is doing good work 

with the Army Corps and others. It is going to be a year and a half 

total before those properties are even rebuildable, and even in an 

accelerated timeframe, that means 2, maybe 3, maybe 4, maybe 5 

years before these units are back up online. And that depends on 

individual property owners making choices that benefit some of the 

rental unit population. So a lot of people are going to be forced to 

leave Maui. That is just a fact. Should the Federal Government 

help disaster survivors stay in their communities? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I believe that the answer is yes, 

that we should try to do everything possible to rebuild, restore, and 

improve the resiliency of a community. The challenge in Maui has 

been quite unique because of its situation, as you well know better 

than I do, as an island. And so, there was initially the need to remove the hazardous material. Then, as you correctly note, there is 

the debris removal, which will be time-consuming because of the 

geographic and other challenges that the island confronts. But I do 

believe in devoting resources and energy to the rebuilding of a community rather than solely an exodus from it. 

Senator SCHATZ. Okay. Thank you. And we are again, the FEMA 

people on the ground are excellent, but the thing that is causing 

me additional anxiety is that when they do their analysis, they 

have spreadsheets of how many people are currently being rehoused in hotels or in the long-term rental market, or in the shortterm rental market. And these numbers are dropping not because 

we are rehousing people in a more permanent situation, but because people are leaving the island. 

And I just wanted to flag that for you as a bad outcome. It is 

different than when you live on a continent, and God forbid something happens to your town, and you can take your FEMA money 

and find a place, you can put your stuff, if you have stuff remaining, and drive someplace and enter a new rental market, or purchase a new home with your insurance money, or with individual 

assistance money, or whatever you were able to scrunch together. 

That is just not an option in West Maui. And I just wanted to flag 

that for you. 

And you have been, you and your Department and FEMA have 

been extraordinarily flexible and responsive, but I do not want the 

memory of the fire itself to fade to the point where we fall back 

into normal bureaucratic positions and fail to recognize that 

West—Hawaii is the most isolated, heavily populated place on the 

planet, West Maui is even more isolated and even more expensive. 

And so as we think about helping these people to rebuild, it is not 
39 

a matter of giving them a voucher and allowing them to fly to the 

mainland. And I appreciate your continued attention to this. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Kennedy. 

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Secretary, and Mr. Secretary, thank you 

for being here today. 

HAMAS AND THE BORDER

Secretary Mayorkas, since President Biden has been President 

and since you have been Secretary, how many members of Hamas 

have come into our country across the southern border? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I am not aware of a member of 

Hamas crossing the border. 

Senator KENNEDY. Have you stopped a member of Hamas from 

coming in? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I am not aware of a member of 

Hamas being encountered at our southern border. 

Senator KENNEDY. Have you vetted all of the people who have— 

all of the 8.6, 8.4 million people who have come into our country 

illegally? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, you and I have spoken about this 

before. As you know, we screen and vet individuals whom we—— 

Senator KENNEDY. Have you vetted—have you vetted all of 

them? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, as you know, we screen and vet 

individuals whom we encounter at our—— 

Senator KENNEDY. You have not vetted all of them, have you? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, as I said, we screen and vet individuals whom we encounter at our border. 

Senator KENNEDY. I want to move on because, with respect, Mr. 

Secretary, to quote a public official in my State, it takes you an 

hour and a half to watch ‘‘60 Minutes’’, and you try to filibuster us, 

and use up our time. What is a Safe Third Country Policy? 

SAFE THIRD COUNTRY POLICY

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, a Safe Third Country Policy is a 

policy that provides as follows: That when an individual is fleeing 

their country of origin by reason of fear of persecution and they 

traverse another country that can provide them safety from that 

fear, then they may not qualify for humanitarian relief in their ultimate country of destination because they—— 

Senator KENNEDY. Let me stop you because you are watching ‘‘60 

Minutes’’ again. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Well, Senator—— 

Senator KENNEDY. A Safe Third Country Policy, you can tell me 

if I misunderstand this, Safe Third Country Policy says: America 

has joined the UN Treaty that says if you are being persecuted politically, or for race, or for religion in your own country, you seek 

asylum in the United States, but this is the Safe Third Country 

part: You have to seek that asylum in the first Safe Third Country 

that you enter. 

Is that basically correct? 
40 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Of the Safe Third Country Policy? Are you 

asking me, is that a correct—— 

Senator KENNEDY. Yes. I am. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Yes. But let me also just—— 

Senator KENNEDY. Okay. Let me ask you this, Mr. Secretary. 

Safe Third Country policies have been around for over 40 years, 

haven’t they? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I do not know; the—— 

Senator KENNEDY. They started in the 1980s, and of all places, 

Scandinavia, did they not? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I do not know, Senator. 

Senator KENNEDY. And the U.K. has a Safe Third Country Policy, doesn’t it? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, the U.K. is underway in addressing its immigration challenges—— 

Senator KENNEDY. Spain has a Safe Third Country Policy, 

doesn’t it? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, if you know the answer to the 

question, I am not sure why you are posing it to me. 

Senator KENNEDY. Greece has a Safe Third Country Policy, 

doesn’t it? Because I want to know if you know, you do not even 

know how many people are coming into our country. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is not—— 

Senator KENNEDY. Greece has a Safe Third Country Policy, 

doesn’t it? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I disagree with the statement that 

you—— 

Senator KENNEDY. I understand. But does Greece have a Safe 

Third Country Policy? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I do not know if it does. 

Senator KENNEDY. Canada, the EU, Turkey, Norway, they 

have—all have Safe Third Country policies, don’t they? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. It is interesting; you cite Canada because 

we negotiated—I negotiated the Safe Third Country Agreement—— 

Senator KENNEDY. Yeah. And the first thing that President 

Biden did, and you did, when you took office, was abolish our Safe 

Third Country policies. Now, in 2023, this is Senator Hoeven’s 

chart, how many—what percentage of the illegal immigrants who 

came across the southern border were not from Mexico; do you 

know? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I know that Third Country Nationals have been on the increase, the number of encounters—— 

Senator KENNEDY. What percentage of—— 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I can certainly, I can certainly—— 

Senator KENNEDY. You do not know. Okay. It is 71 percent, okay, 

are not—people who are not from Mexico. So if we had a Safe 

Third Country Policy, that means that 71 percent of the 8.4 million 

people that you have allowed to come into our country illegally, let 

me be conservative and use 6.6 million because the 8.4 includes 

get-aways, 71 percent of the 6.6 million people that you have allowed into our country illegally would not be heard in any way. 

They could claim asylum from political, or religious, or racial persecution, but they would have to do it in another country, more 

than likely, Mexico. Is that not the case? 
41 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, that is an incomplete and inaccurate accounting of the Safe Third Country—— 

Senator KENNEDY. And did you not say when we last spoke, and 

I proposed that, you thought it was a bad policy. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, let me share with you a prerequisite to a third—Safe Third Country Agreement, and that is 

a—— 

Senator KENNEDY. No. I am almost out of time, and I am not 

going to let you filibuster, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Well, Senator, I have to say that ‘‘60 Minutes’’—— 

Senator KENNEDY. I am just not going to let you do it. 

Chair MURRAY. Senator Kennedy, if he can respond. You are at 

a time. 

Senator KENNEDY. It is my time, Madam Chair, and I am going 

to use it the way I want. 

Chair MURRAY. Your time is expired. 

Senator KENNEDY. Here is what—well, you let others go on. 

Here is what I think, Mr. Secretary, I think you are a smart guy. 

Now, there are only one or two things going on here: either you are 

not qualified to manage a Costco Food Court, or you believe in open 

borders, and I think it is the latter. 

Chair MURRAY. Senator Kennedy, your time has expired. Thank 

you. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I would just say the following two things: 

number one, you are over too on that; you are inaccurate in both 

respects, number one. And I would like the record to reflect that 

‘‘60 Minutes’’ is not 45 minutes because I cannot seem to answer 

a question without being interrupted. I just wanted to make that 

comment. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, if you would answer a question and they 

were—— 

Chair MURRAY. Senator Murphy. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, 

Madam Chair, appreciate the recognition. 

Thank you for being here to both of you. That is the first time 

that I have heard a 4-second interrupted answer be described as 

a filibuster. I mean, you know, I think the most important part of 

these hearings is hearing the answers from our witnesses. I do not 

know that it serves this Committee very well to give you literally 

3 seconds to answer very complicated questions before asking the 

next one. 

And so I am going to ask you a question, Secretary Mayorkas, 

and I am going to give you the time to answer it. I think that you 

get a lot of criticism for implementing the law. It has been 40 years 

since we have come to a bipartisan agreement on how to change 

the law. We have tried many times to engage in that process, most 

recently in 2013 when we came to a conclusion in the Senate, but 

Republicans in the House of Representatives refused to take up our 

measure. 

This could all be a lot easier if we would decide, together, to 

come together and fix part of this problem, half this problem, all 

of this problem. But most of the complaints here are because these 

laws have not been updated in 40 years, and this administration 
42 

and every administration have been stuck with a mess caused by 

Congressional inaction. And so, this is a little bit of transference, 

as they say in the discipline of psychology. 

So you have asked for $755 million for USCIS in this budget. 

Typically, when we have been trying to push for money for this account in prior years, and I know this as Chairman of this subcommittee that oversees the Department of Homeland Security, it 

has been the Republicans who have pushed back. But tell us the 

consequences of underfunding USCIS at the level that it is underfunded today. Tell us how your hands are tied to try to efficiently 

manage the border if you do not have the resources you need, to 

properly do all of the functions that USCIS is engaged in at the 

border, and throughout our legal immigration system? Why is this 

really important? And why is it important for Republicans and 

Democrats to come together to support that funding? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, thank you for your inquiry. When 

we have more asylum officers and when we have more support personnel to assist them in accomplishing the mission that they are 

experts in performing, then what we are able to do is drive greater 

efficiency in the Asylum System, including shortening the time in 

between the time of the credible fear interview and the ultimate 

adjudication, including in between the time of initial encounter and 

the credible fear interview. 

We can conduct more credible fear interviews, and we can advance the system, because as we have discussed already in this 

hearing, the unacceptable fact that it is far too slow a process, the 

Asylum Adjudication process. That is because the system is broken, 

and critically we are terribly underfunded and under-resourced, 

and this supplemental gets to that latter point. 

Senator MURPHY. One of the things my Republican colleagues 

have talked about in this hearing is adjustments to the asylum 

standard, and I think that is a legitimate conversation to have, but 

that will necessitate to the extent that there is more or different 

work being done by USCIS, some pretty significant new resources. 

And so, I just put that on the table for my Republican colleagues 

who are coming to the table in good faith, for a conversation about 

changing the laws. 

Last question, Secretary Mayorkas, is just to talk for a minute 

about the Nonprofit Security Grant Program. I know how much 

you believe in this. I know that you have been very vocal about the 

incredible increase in anti-Semitic rhetoric and violence, as well as 

threats of violence against our Muslim communities. This program 

is badly underfunded compared to the amount of need. Talk to us 

about the gap that exists right now between the amount of money 

that is in that account and the amount of demand, in particular 

from synagogues, Jewish community centers, and mosques, to upgrade their security? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, very quickly. The rise in antiSemitism, and the latest data point I saw is that it has increased 

388 percent since October 7th. The Nonprofit Security Grant Program is tremendously oversubscribed. The demand for these funds 

from large and small institutions of all faiths far exceeds the 

amount of funding that we have. And it is critical funding that en-
43 

ables faith-based institutions and other nonprofit organizations to 

secure their facilities. 

It is places of worship; it is religious schools, and the like, whether it is personnel, cameras, gating, whatever the needs are in a 

particular jurisdiction, the demand is extraordinary in all-sized institutions. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Hyde-Smith. 

Senator HYDE-SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank 

you both for being here. 

Secretary Mayorkas, last week we heard from Secretaries 

Blinken and Austin about their requests for Emergency Supplemental Funding, and we are really trying to work hard to ensure 

that the funding they are requesting will actually help rebuild our 

own defense industrial base and support the protection of our allies 

and partners who are currently at war. And I have a really easy 

question, and it will take less than 5 seconds for you to answer 

this. Given the large amount of Disaster Supplemental Funding 

that has been requested for DHS, is it fair to call the situation at 

the border a disaster? And this is, yes or no, that should take just 

1 or 2 seconds. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. No. The disaster is the fact that we have 

a broken immigration system that we cannot seem to fix. 

Senator HYDE-SMITH. So the situation at the border, you are saying, is not a disaster? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is correct. 

Senator HYDE-SMITH. Okay. And of the 240,000 people who received parole in fiscal year ’23, how many people from China, Haiti, 

Nicaragua, and Venezuela are denied parole? How many of those 

were denied parole? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. If I may, Senator, the parole program is for 

Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, not individuals 

from the People’s Republic of China. And I would be pleased to provide you with that data, the success and failure rate of applicants 

for that program. I would be pleased to provide that with you subsequent to this hearing. 

Senator HYDE-SMITH. So it is not a blanket. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. It is not. It is an individual’s—individualized application where the supporter, the sponsor, if you will, is 

vetted and screened as well as the intended or potential parolee. 

Senator HYDE-SMITH. And what factors do not meet the threshold for receiving parole? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Oh. For example, if someone presents a 

public safety threat, if someone presents a national security threat, 

we would not grant them parole, those are two very easy examples 

to cite. We screen and vet because our highest priority is the safety 

and security of the American people. 

Senator HYDE-SMITH. Okay. I have a little time left. And of all 

the discussion, it is clear that the current border policies this administration has in place are failing terribly. You yourself last 

week said that there is a need for policy changes. And yet the funding requested in this supplemental will do little to secure our border. And instead, it will throw money at Sanctuary cities and inflate our asylum problems even further. What this administration 
44 

has is a policy problem, or perhaps more appropriately, an implementation of the law problem, not a funding problem. Please explain why Congress should provide you with billions more so-called 

‘‘border security’’ funding if you are just going to keep the same 

failed policies in place? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I respectfully disagree with the 

factual premise of your question. I do not think it is a failure of 

policy; it is the failure of a broken immigration system. It is also 

the product of an under-resourced, perennially, under-resourced 

Department. This supplemental will assist us in further securing 

the border by adding critically needed additional personnel and 

technology. And I will share with you that what we are experiencing is an unprecedented level of global migration, and that is 

also gripping the entire hemisphere. And with this—— 

Senator HYDE-SMITH. Yeah. I think we all know that. I have another question here for Secretary Becerra. Staying on the topic of 

immigration, Mr. Secretary, your Department’s Office of Refugee 

Resettlement is acting in defiance of the Hyde Amendment by 

using taxpayer dollars to transport pregnant unaccompanied alien 

girls across State lines to obtain abortion, clearly acting to circumvent pro-life State laws. Secretary Becerra, how many abortions for pregnant migrant girls has the Office of Refugee Resettlement illegally facilitated across State lines over the past year, and 

what was that cost to taxpayers? 

Secretary BECERRA. Senator, thank you for the question. I want 

to assure you that at the Department of Health and Human Services, we comply with the law when it comes to providing health 

services we are making sure Americans have access to the services. 

We make sure that we follow the laws that have been passed by 

Congress, including the Hyde Amendment. And so, what the services that we provide to those individuals who are within our care 

through the Unaccompanied Child Program, they will receive 

healthcare services, but it is all within compliance within the law. 

Senator HYDE-SMITH. Okay. If you wish to disagree with me on 

the legal aspect, let me put it this way. How many abortions for 

pregnant migrant girls has the Office of Refugee Resettlement facilitated across State lines over the past year, and what was that 

cost to taxpayers? 

Secretary BECERRA. So Senator, we make sure, in compliance 

with the law, that if, for example, emergency services are needed 

for an individual in our care, we would make sure that they provide those services. We also want to make sure that we assist any 

individual in being able to execute on their rights to have health 

care services, so we will assist—— 

Senator HYDE-SMITH. Do you know the numbers? 

Secretary BECERRA. I could try to get back to you on any precise 

numbers. 

Senator HYDE-SMITH. Okay. That is what I am asking for is just 

how much did it cost the taxpayers, and how many were there. 

Senator HYDE-SMITH. And my time is up. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. Your time is up. 

Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 
45 

Secretary Mayorkas, is included in the supplemental funding re- quest is over $2.5 billion for immigrations and customs enforcement. And I have had long-standing concerns about the conditions 

at the Torrance County Detention Facility where in 2022, the Department of Homeland Security’s OIG actually recommended immediately relocating all of the ICE detainees from Torrance until 

the facility ensures adequate staffing and safe living conditions. 

A later subsequent DHS OIG Report reaffirmed the same sort of 

basket of problems. And so what I want to ask, I have a very simple request for you. I want you to become personally familiar with 

this facility and its challenges. Will you commit to doing that? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I will. And I should say two things. 

Senator HEINRICH. Go ahead. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. One, the conditions in ICE detention facilities is indeed a priority. And for the first time we closed five facilities that did not comply with the conditions that we insist upon. 

I commit to you to look at the Torrance Facility Center. 

Senator HEINRICH. I look forward to working with you on that. 

Secretary Mayorkas, I also want to ask you to sort of, we have sort 

of glossed over what you said about the importance of technology 

at our land-based ports of entry. So I want you to expand on the 

technological investments that are incorporated into this supplemental and why they are so important, in particular, to detect illicit narcotics like Fentanyl. And please reiterate why it is also so 

important to focus specifically, because of the numbers, on those 

land-based ports of entry? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, over 90 percent of the fentanyl 

that is smuggled into this country is smuggled in through the ports 

of entry, predominantly via passenger and commercial vehicles, 

and non-intrusive inspection technology it is known as everything 

is, it seems in the government, by its acronym, NII, is a remarkably efficient force multiplier in enabling us to detect the ingenious 

ways that fentanyl is sought to be smuggled through those vehicles. 

Most recently I saw lengthy vertical candles hollowed out in their 

centers and pills hidden in them. The detection technology that we 

seek to enhance through this supplemental, I believe it is about 1.1 

billion, is just an extraordinary tool in detecting that, and enabling 

our Field Office Personnel, our Field Operations Personnel, to work 

on other elements of the port security. 

Senator HEINRICH. That 1.1 billion, how much additional capacity to scan incoming passenger vehicles will that give you? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I should, if I can correct myself, I think it 

is about 850 million of the technology. We also have some of the 

funds to balance for the officers themselves—I am sorry if you—— 

Senator HEINRICH. How much additional capacity will that give 

at our ports of Entry to catch the illicit substances? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Oh. It is by a multiple, Senator. It is just 

an extraordinary, advancement of our mission. 

Senator HEINRICH. Secretary Becerra, I want to ask you about 

the scheduling process and under the Controlled Substances Act, 

both HHS and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) have a role to 

play in scheduling. Can you talk a little bit about the unique expertise that HHS brings to that process that may not exist at DEA? 
46 

Secretary BECERRA. Senator, thanks for the question. Principally 

through the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA at HHS, it is 

our responsibility to try to give the science on substances so that, 

therefore, DEA can then decide where to classify that substance 

when it comes to being a narcotic or a substance that could have 

an impact on society. 

We undertake an effort to make sure that we update the science. 

We want to make sure that if we are scheduling a particular substance or drug, it is properly scheduled. And so whether it is all 

the fentanyl, and what we are seeing today with some of these 

drugs that are having an impact on our country, we want to make 

sure that they are properly, based on the science, schedule for activity. We also want to, for example, make sure that we can do the 

research that is necessary to determine how to schedule a drug. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Hagerty. 

Senator HAGERTY. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Vice Chair, 

thank you for holding this hearing today. Gentlemen, welcome. 

Secretary Mayorkas, I am going to turn my first question to you. 

I am having my staff pass around page 51 from the August budget 

proposal that you put forward in the supplemental request. 

Senator HAGERTY. What I would like to do is draw your attention 

to the language that is highlighted there in yellow. This is a 

breathtaking proposal that basically requests the authority for 

DHS to reprogram any amounts, any, all, existing, past, present, 

and future amounts of ICE funding, the ability to redirect that 

funding in its entirety, if that were your decision, to non-law enforcement activities, it is a litany of them listed there, including to 

nongovernmental organizations. 

In essence, it would allow you to defund ICE to some extent, 

maybe to its entirety, and place those funds to other purposes. I 

looked for this same request in your October budget proposal, and 

I did not find it. So Mr. Secretary, are you still requesting this? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I have never proposed the 

defunding of ICE. I would vigorously—— 

Senator HAGERTY. Secretary, that is the exact—please read this 

language that I handed to you here. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I would vigorously oppose the 

defunding of ICE. And please, recall that I served for 12 years as 

a Federal prosecutor, and I believe devoutly in the law enforcement 

mission of that agency. 

Senator HAGERTY. I am not asking you about your resume, Mr. 

Secretary. I am asking you about the language that is plainly here 

on the page. This language asks for the authority that we grant 

you the authority, DHS the authority to reprogram the funds that 

are intended for law enforcement and ICE, ‘‘The authority to reprogram to do a variety of things, like nongovernmental organizations’’, which are clearly not law enforcement. I mean, are you denying this would allow you the ability to reprogram even one dollar? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Let me, let me be clear, Senator, because 

it is—I would want to read this carefully and in the context. 
47 

Senator HAGERTY. I would hope you would have read it because 

you are talking about an $8 billion budget here. And you are here 

to defend this budget right now. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, Let me—well, let me be clear that 

there are different types of detention that work for different individuals to ensure their appearance in the immigration enforcement 

proceedings in which we place them; for example, there are individuals who pose a threat to public safety that need to be detained 

in a full custodial setting. There are individuals who do not pose 

a public safety threat as to whom we have some level of assurance 

of their continued appearance in enforcement proceedings, and 

therefore, we place them on alternatives to detention. There very 

well may be individuals that will continue to appear in their immigration enforcement proceedings if they are in a community-based 

residential center. For example—— 

Senator HAGERTY. Here is what this—this proposal though, specifically ask about the budget for the only law enforcement agency 

that we have that is charged with the deportation of people that 

have come to this country illegally, many of them with criminal 

records. And what this asks for is the authority to reprogram that 

budget to defund ICE and take those funds and use them for a variety of things, including giving them to non-governmental organizations. 

What it asks for, in essence, the way I read this, is to give ICE 

a different purpose. You have the ability to reprogram ICE and 

turn it into a travel agency that brings illegal immigrants here and 

sends them to hotels in New York City. You are going to turn this 

into an electromagnet if we were to allow you this authority. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is completely false. 

Senator HAGERTY. Then why is it requested in this manner, Mr. 

Secretary? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Is it—— 

Senator HAGERTY. Can you look at the language here and tell me 

that is not what you are requesting? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, is it your assertion that when we 

contract out to an organization outside of the Government to deliver greater efficiency of that—— 

Senator HAGERTY. My assertion is that you are asking for the 

ability to redirect or reprogram, is the technical term you use, to 

reprogram ICE funding to those sorts of purposes. That is a 

defunding of law enforcement, and placing those law enforcement 

funds, which we desperately need law enforcement—— 

Secretary MAYORKAS. So Senator, you—— 

Senator HAGERTY [continuing]. And putting them into custodial 

services, or anything that might make it more convenient or more 

attractive to come to this country illegally. 

Senator HAGERTY. Senator, so your assertion is that when we 

contract out, we are defunding the organization? 

Senator HAGERTY. No. And I would like to reclaim my time because I am running out of it. This is not an assertion. This is a 

plain reading of the language here. You are asking for breathtaking authority to reprogram to defund ICE. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Because in the—— 
48 

Senator HAGERTY. You are not backing away from this request. 

I am not talking about the custodial service. I am talking about 

your request to defund ICE up to the entirety of their budget. And 

I am going to do everything I can to stop that from happening here. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Madam Chair and Vice Chair, thank 

you for the opportunity to consider these important supplemental 

requests tonight. And I do hope, Mr. Secretary, that you give a 

prompt and fulsome answer to the questions presented by Senator 

Hagerty. It is my understanding this is not included in the current 

supplemental. I respect that you are being careful in not saying 

that, but that is what my staff are telling me. 

I have long followed a simple statement from President Biden 

back when he was Senator, ‘‘Do not tell me what you value, show 

me your budget, and I will show you your values.’’ And these words 

ring particularly true for me as I am looking at this broad supplemental request. Back in 2018, a bipartisan group of us, that includes many on this committee, introduced legislation that Senator 

Rounds and King carried. It was transformative. It would have 

paired the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien 

Minors) Act with what was then considered an eye-popping amount 

of $25 billion invested in border security over 10 years, $2.5 billion 

a year. This supplemental requests $13.6 billion, additional, for securing 

our border and for dealing with our broken immigration system for 

1 year. It is a dramatic investment. Money matters. Your request 

would include hiring thousands of new border patrol agents, ICE 

prosecutors, USCIS officers, customs and border patrol, immigration judges, and those who process claims for asylum; the nonintrusive inspection systems that we would use to interdict fentanyl 

crossing at the border at ports of entry, all of this matters. And I 

urge my colleagues to pay attention to the positive benefits for border security that would result from taking seriously and passing 

this supplemental. 

Mr. Secretary, DHS has requested authorization for a policy 

change in the supplemental as well, a change to allow electronic 

service of notices to appear. Could you help explain, briefly, what 

that would mean to be able to provide electronic service of process 

and why would it help DHS enforce the law? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, thank you. The electronic 

issuance of notice to appear gains tremendous efficiency, we are 

using technology to be able to provide a critical immigration enforcement document to an individual whose address we have confirmed. And therefore, we do not need to send an officer to that location to provide that same service. 

Senator COONS. Those of us who have been involved in law enforcement, or who are attorneys understand that individual service 

processed by hand, by paper, is far less efficient than this authority 

that you are requesting in the supplemental. Using technology to 

ensure you are able to charge everyone apprehended by border patrol while also helping migrants better understand and access and 

receive vital case management information is exactly the sort of 
49 

pragmatic compromise to strengthen our security that we should 

adopt on a bipartisan basis. 

Some of my colleagues, Mr. Secretary, have urged that we adopt 

again the ‘‘Remain in Mexico’’ program. Not just reinstate it but expand it to include every apprehended migrant who cannot be detained. Based on your experience with the program and your reasons for terminating it, rooted in administrative burdens, and individual safety and diplomatic challenges, can you speak briefly to 

the practicalities of resuming that program? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, you correctly cited three failings 

of that proposal. Number one, are the administrative burdens given 

the need for due process. Two, are the humanitarian considerations 

with respect to the conditions in which those individuals are placed 

during the pendency of the immigration enforcement proceeding; 

and three, the diplomatic challenges because, of course, Mexico is 

a sovereign nation and would require its consent to that implementation. 

Senator COONS. One of the criticisms I have heard, directly from 

several of my colleagues on this committee today, is that the President’s Border Supplemental Funding Request is only about managing the border, not securing the border. Respectfully, I think that 

distinction is false, and I think this request includes significant investments in things like non-intrusive inspection at the border 

ports of entry that would improve securing our border. A significant amount of this funding would go to rapidly adjudicating 

claims for asylum. Can you explain how swift adjudication of 

claims is indeed a part and parcel of more effective border enforcement? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, when an individual’s claim fails 

under the law, and we effect their removal swiftly, that swift removal serves a significant deterrent effect. And with respect to the 

false assertion that this is just managing the border as opposed to 

securing the border, I would cite for a perfect example, our request 

for additional funds for removal flights for individuals as to whom 

we have determined their claim is invalid, and we seek their 

prompt removal to their country of origin. That is an enforcement 

measure. 

Senator COONS. Well, thank you. We have a lot of work ahead 

of us to negotiate and navigate the challenges of the supplemental 

requests. I will conclude with two quick points. There are 14 Senators, including many on this committee, co-leading an Afghan Adjustment Act. It is my hope that 2 years on, we will finally do right 

by those who served alongside us in Afghanistan. And I could not 

agree more with the Chair’s opening comment, that we should not 

have an Israel-only supplemental jammed through in the next couple of weeks. We should consider all of the issues raised in today’s 

hearing for supplemental funding. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Secretary Mayorkas, under our current laws, if 

I am—I know I am correct on this, if you are—if you endorse or 

you espouse terrorist views and you apply for a visa that is denied, 

you are inadmissible, right? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I believe that is the correct language. 
50 

Senator RUBIO. So what if you already have a visa and then 

while in the U.S. with that visa, you espouse or support terrorist 

activity? Shouldn’t that be an automatic cancellation of that visa? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I would have to check the law, but 

I would understand that it might be a basis for the revocation of 

the visa, and the removal of the individual. I would want to check 

the law in that area. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, I think it makes sense that if you cannot 

get a visa because you espouse terrorist views, or endorse terrorist 

views, if you have a visa, then you do that while a visitor, we are 

talking about visitors to the United States, that visa should be canceled. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I would agree. 

Senator RUBIO. Okay, good. Because I am asking the administration to enforce that, and I hope you will. I think that is important. 

Let me get—you know, there is a lot of talk about immigration. I 

deal with immigration every day because, as you know, where I 

live in Miami, virtually everyone is from somewhere else, whether 

it is another state or, primarily, another country in South Florida. 

So everywhere I go, I just—I am just going to be real about 

how—what people tell me. This is what they tell me. I talked to 

a lady 3 days ago. She says her son, I forgot the exact—he may 

be in Honduras—she is going to Venmo him $5- $6,000, or Cash 

App. She is going to pay someone to bring him to the U.S. border 

where he will present himself to border officials. He will be admitted into the country at some point, released, he knows this because 

other people have done it. Depending on how he is released, within 

180 days, I believe you will have a work permit. And at some point 

in the future, he will have to show up for a hearing, maybe not get 

an immediate trial date, but he is basically, within the next 8 

weeks, he is going to be living in the United States. This is the pattern that they have established, and that they understand. And 

once he is successful at doing that, he will obviously tell people 

back home how he did it, and they will do the same thing. Is that 

not, in essence, what is happening? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I would, perhaps, Senator, qualify a few of 

the facts, but that is indeed a pattern that we see, which speaks 

to how broken our immigration system is, but how important are 

the policies that we have promulgated to prevent that scenario 

from occurring. And let me give you an example of the policy that 

we have promulgated to ensure that that scenario does not occur. 

What we have done is we have promulgated a regulation that provides, it is called the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways; our model 

is to build safe, orderly, and lawful pathways to come to the United 

States and seek relief under our laws and to deliver a consequence 

for those individuals who do not avail themselves of those lawful 

pathways but instead follow the pattern that you have described. 

Senator RUBIO. But as of right now, the pattern I have described 

is the prevalent one? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is one pattern, but the policy that we 

have promulgated, the model that we have architected is, in fact, 

a significant defense against that in the context of a broken immigration system. And our policy is working, although it is under 

challenge in the courts. Our circumvention of Lawful Pathways 
51 

Regulation is being challenged in one court, and our Lawful Pathways are being challenged, and so we get hit from both sides. But 

the model, the model is an optimal model that we are continuing 

to pursue during the—— 

Senator RUBIO. I understand. I do not mean to cut you off. I got 

your point. I only have a minute left. I want to get to one more 

question. My point on that, though, is the perception is as important as the reality. The perception right now still is. This lady told 

me this on Monday, so this is—I am not, you know, I guess I can 

tell you that is at least one person more that is coming. 

I want to talk—and Secretary Becerra, maybe this will involve 

you a little bit too, about a specific category, this refugee resettlement of Cubans, Haitians. But let me just focus on the Cuban one 

because I know that one well. So you come from Cuba, you are presumed to be fleeing political persecution, so you automatically are 

eligible for refugee cash, you are eligible for food stamps, you are 

eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, others who immigrate to this country have to wait 5 years for those and do not get the refugee cash, 

but within a year, depending if you are parole, you can apply for 

a green card, and then you can travel back to Cuba as often as you 

want, multiple times. You can take cash. You can buy stuff with 

the food stamps. I have seen it, okay? This is not—I did not read 

this in a magazine. I have seen it. They use the food stamps, they 

fill up these bags, and they take it back to Cuba, or they just transfer cash back. Some people go back to Cuba for 3 months at a time. 

They have been here a year. 

How, if you were fleeing persecution, how can it be that a year 

later you are spending summers in Cuba? How can it be that less 

than a year later you are traveling back six, eight times a year to 

Cuba? I have never heard of people fleeing persecution going back 

to a place repeatedly. There is an issue here, is there not? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, you—respectfully allow me to say 

that you have misdescribed the Cuban Adjustment Act and what 

happens when an individual from Cuba arrives in the United 

States because we do indeed remove individuals to Cuba. 

Senator RUBIO. Assuming Cuba will accept them and they are ineligible for some reason, right? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is correct. 

Senator RUBIO. But the overwhelming majority do not get removed? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is, yeah. 

Senator RUBIO. Which is fine, I am just saying if once you—I am 

not talking to the people that are here, once you are here, you are 

assumed here because you are a refugee fleeing persecution and 

you have a host of benefits, at a minimum. If a year later you are 

here on a refugee, but you are going back to Cuba six times, 

shouldn’t you at least lose the refugee status? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Let me follow up with your concern. The 

question being, if I understand it correctly, is if indeed an individual flees the country of origin by reason of fear of persecution, 

they obtain refugee status because that—— 

Senator RUBIO. Specifically Cuban, Cuban in this case, right? 

Secretary MAYORKAS [continuing]. Yes, because that fear has 

been affirmed, and they are now a refugee. Does their desire and 
52 

actually travel to the country of origin militate against the legitimacy of their claim? 

Senator RUBIO. And so a year later—— 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Baldwin. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I will follow up on that, Senator. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Mayorkas, failure to stem the flow of fentanyl at the 

southwest border has absolutely tragic consequences, as you know, 

for families across the country and including in my State of Wisconsin. Last year, more than 1,400 Wisconsinites died from 

overdoses, and between 2019 and 2021, fentanyl overdose deaths in 

Wisconsin grew by 97 percent. That is why in October, I called on 

President Biden to prioritize additional resources to strengthen security at the southwest border, to stop the flow of illicit drugs like 

fentanyl. And I am glad that the administration listened and is 

seeking $1.2 billion for the Department of Homeland Security for 

inspection systems and additional CBP officers. 

The administration’s supplemental request includes full funding 

for—excuse me, includes funding for urgent needs, and Congress 

really must act on this supplemental request in full. An all-handson-deck approach to addressing fentanyl trafficking requires commitments from international partners as well as local law enforcement. So I particularly want you to drill down on that. How is DHS 

working with law enforcement partners to both stop the initial flow 

of fentanyl into our country and then prevent its distribution within our borders? And how will that work be strengthened with the 

funding in the supplemental request? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Thank you very much, Senator. You are 

absolutely right that it requires an all-hands-on-deck approach and 

it is something that we have to work with our international partners to address, and we are indeed doing so. And let me cite just 

one example that is illustrative of the advances that we have made. 

Homeland Security Investigations, the premier law enforcement investigative agency within the Department of Homeland Security, 

housed at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has 

Transnational Criminal Investigative Units, TCIUs, that work very 

closely with our law enforcement partners to the south in Mexico, 

in the Central American countries, to address the production of 

fentanyl, to address the trafficking and the precursor chemicals, 

the movement of equipment, the movement of monies, all aspects 

of the transnational criminal organizations so that we dismantle 

and disrupt them. That is a perfect example of the international 

partnerships that we have advanced over the last 3 years. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. Secretary Becerra, we have heard 

a lot today, as you know, about the child care crisis and the consequences of inaction. But the expiration of the Child Care Stabilization Funding is not just a theoretical problem in Wisconsin. 

Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported on the ripple effect when a child care provider in a small town like Milton, Wisconsin, had to close their doors as the Stabilization Funding came 

to an end. 

The closure meant that a mom with two young children and a 

baby on the way could no longer afford or find child care that 
53 

worked for her family. So she decided to leave her full-time job, 

which now means that the dental practice where she worked is 

down one dental assistant and can only serve a fraction of the patients that they used to. So child care is not just a problem for 

working moms, although that ought to be reason enough to address 

it. It is also, as this Wisconsin example shows, a problem for everyone, that has significant ripple effects. 

Secretary, are we seeing similar effects in other states as the 

Stabilization Program ends, and how will the additional funding 

through this supplemental proposal reverse this trend? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, you are absolutely right. This is 

happening throughout the country. I have a particular case here I 

can cite to you from the State of Maine, Jordan Roswell (ph.) had 

a child care program in the State of Maine. She was able to keep 

it afloat because of the Stabilization Funds that she received. Once 

she saw the end in sight, she started to make calculations. She realized she would not be able to make payroll, and she made the decision, unfortunately, to close down her center. 

The impact left some 100 children and their parents, and these 

are parents, in many cases, who are professionals without child 

care. This is a story we are going to hear over and over again, because the Stabilization Funds acted immediately to do exactly that, 

stabilized many child care centers. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you 

Ranking Member Collins, for holding this hearing today. I thank 

you for joining us today, to Secretary Mayorkas and Secretary 

Becerra. 

As I said last week, there is a national security crisis at our 

southern border. fiscal year 2023 set a record of total encounters, 

almost 2.5 million. This September set a new monthly record for 

encounters along the southwest border, nearly 270,000. The Biden 

Administration also sets a new record of encounters of individuals 

on the terrorist watch list between ports of entry, 169 total arrests 

on the southern border. That is more than the previous three fiscal 

years combined. 

Secretary Mayorkas, that is not a record to be proud of. President Biden’s National Security Supplemental Request included 

$13.6 billion for the border and migration, including nearly $9 billion for DHS, with very few details of how DHS intends to spend 

that funding. Money alone is not going to solve this crisis. That is 

clear. We must make policy changes to that. And I appreciate some 

colleagues on the other side of the aisle who recognize that can be 

done incrementally, whether it is tightening our asylum standards, 

or limiting the use of parole to case-by-case basis, policies must be 

enacted to stem the flow of migration to our southern border. 

We have come to this hearing today to address emergencies. Natural disasters are emergencies. Our southern border is an emergency. Helping our friends defend themselves against brutal attacks, that is an emergency. But the latest supplemental request 

really stretches the definition of what an emergency is. For example, I agree that the child care shortage is a crisis and that 

thoughtful and sustained attention is necessary. 
54 

However, we need to be honest with the American people. We 

have to differentiate between emergency spending and long-term 

investment in our national priorities. The Child Care Development 

Block Grant is a bipartisan program with a storied history that 

should be supported, and it should be improved. ARPA created the 

Child Care Stabilization Fund to instead support a new program 

that had a firm expiration date of September 30, 2023. The program in ARPA was created through a partisan reconciliation package to address what we were told was the immediate child care 

emergency caused by COVID and prolonged lockdowns. 

COVID emergency funding was never intended to be indefinite. 

This committee knew it would expire. This Congress knew it would 

expire. The Biden administration knew it would expire. And Mr. 

Secretary, you knew it would expire. Knowing that it was set to expire in September of 2023, in your fiscal year ’24 budget request, 

you requested $9 billion for the Child Care Block Grant Program. 

But now, just a few months later, you are here and you are highlighting a completely manufactured cliff, asking for $16 billion to 

supplement regular order appropriations. That is not how to effectively run a government, and it is a concerning trend throughout 

this request. 

As a government, we cannot continue to bolster certain priorities 

through unsustainable, and really unreliable year-end emergency 

supplementals, instead of addressing priorities through regular 

order and budgeting. 

So Secretary Becerra, you state that if Congress does not provide 

additional funding for the COVID Emergency Child Care Fund, 

working families across the country are going to suffer the consequences with higher out-of-pocket costs, fewer options for care, 

more women leaving the workforce. And none of us up here want 

that. Not one person up here wants to see that happen. 

But my question to you is this: Do you believe that throwing in a request for $16 billion for an expired program into an end-of-theyear emergency supplemental request is an effective way to address one of the most pressing issues facing families? Why didn’t 

you address it in the budget request? 

You know, I joined this Committee, and I thank the Chairwoman, I thank the Ranking Member, for following regular order. 

You know, we went through hearings, we went through markups. 

But to me, this is going around the appropriations process, and I 

am upset by that. I think for a government to run, and for families 

and businesses to have certainty in their lives, we need to identify 

those priorities, be honest about them, and do it in regular order. 

And, sir, I do not believe this is. 

Secretary BECERRA. Madam Chair, I know time has expired, but? 

Chair MURRAY. You have 20 seconds—30 seconds for a response. 

Secretary BECERRA. Senator, I hope you will work, I know the 

Chairwoman has been trying to work to increase the funding for 

child care through the Child Care and Development Fund. But as 

you know, that only goes to certain families who qualify, and even 

then, that money only accounts for about one in seven of the eligible families who need child care. The stabilization money was 

meant to actually help providers, not necessarily directly to the 

families, because providers were going under. I hope you agree that 
55 

it is an emergency if a child care center that millions of American 

families depend on goes under. It is an emergency. It will be a crisis. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Peters. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sen ̃ or Becerra, good 

to see you. I have enjoyed our time serving together in the House 

years back. It is good to see you here before us today. I also want 

to thank you for your focus on affordable child care. Despite whatever the policy procedures are, it is a crisis, it is a major issue that 

we need to focus on. In fact, a September report from the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce estimates that my State of Michigan alone 

loses nearly $3 billion a year when working parents struggle to find 

child care. 

That is very real. A loss of $3 billion in my State, it means about $576 million in lost tax revenue, and another $2.3 billion loss for 

Michigan employers because of high employee turnover and absenteeism. This is something that we must be focused on all the time. 

As you cited in your testimony, the President’s Council of Economic 

Advisers report released this week found that the stabilization 

grants in the American Rescue Plan had a cost-benefit ratio of 

about 2-to-1. 

Now, I spent a lot of years in the investment business prior to 

being in elected office. If I told investors you get a 2-to-1 return on 

your investment, most people would grab that. This is a significant 

investment in the future of our country. And perhaps you could 

just expand briefly as to, once again, why this is an investment in 

our country and in our economy. And to actually be pennywise is 

truly being pound foolish. 

Secretary BECERRA. Senator, thank you. Every dollar we put into 

the Stabilization Fund for child care makes sure that a family can 

go to work and still know that the child will be taken care of. And 

by the way, I should emphasize that principally means a woman 

can go to work because more often than not, it will be the woman 

who has to sacrifice the job to stay home to care for the child. It 

means that we will see more small businesses stay in business because it is small business that is the driving force in this, the child 

care sector. And it means that several million children will continue to have quality child care. 

In your State of Michigan, without these Stabilization Funds 

that the President is requesting, some quarter of a million children 

likely will lose the child care that they have. 

Senator PETERS. And that is unacceptable. So thank you for that 

response. 

Secretary Mayorkas, good to see you here in another context. I 

see you usually in my committee. It is good to see you here today. 

My question is, with the conflict between Israel and Hamas, Jewish, Muslim, and Arab American communities are experiencing escalating rates of violence, hate, and harassment, as something we 

addressed last week in our committee. And as you know, your Department’s Nonprofit Security Grant Program, which I worked to 

reauthorize last Congress with Congressman Thompson and Senator Portman, it provides absolutely invaluable resources to protect 

the households of worship and nonprofits from these, acts of hate. 
56 

My question for you, Secretary, is if provided with supplemental 

funding for this program, how will the Department plan to expedite 

the grant process to ensure that funding gets into the hands of 

these applicants more quickly than the months, or longer, that it 

is currently taking? This is an immediate threat that needs immediate action. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, thank you very much for being 

such a champion of the program and advocating for the increase in 

funding. To date, the $200 million we seek in this supplemental is 

more—needed now than ever before. We have been, in fact, working within the Department to ensure that if, and hopefully when, 

we are provided this critically needed supplemental funding to that 

Nonprofit Security Grant Program, we get it in the hands of applicants very quickly. And we are looking at how we can really gain 

efficiencies in the application process to achieve that outcome. 

Senator PETERS. Well, good. This year has also been, as you well 

know, another record-breaking year for natural disasters, 24 events 

occurring so far that have cost over $1 billion. After almost running 

out of money over the summer, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund currently contains over $30 billion, thanks to Congress fulfilling the 

administration’s previous supplemental request and passing a Continuing Resolution. However, we know that rebuilding has just 

begun from many costly disasters. 

So my question for you, Secretary Mayorkas is, without the additional 9 billion requested by the administration last month, when 

do you project the Disaster Relief Fund to go into deficit? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I believe—I just conferred with 

FEMA about this, mid-year or later of ’24, we would have to begin 

to compromise the distribution of funds to only life-saving activities 

as opposed to community rebuilding and restoration, and other critical elements of our work. I believe that is the correct timeframe. 

I will circle back with you to confirm the accuracy of what I just 

represented. 

Senator PETERS. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Madam Chairman, thank you, and to the 

Ranking Member. Secretaries, thank you for being here today. It 

was just last week we were debating the aspects of the emergency 

supplemental related to national security, support for Ukraine, 

support for Israel. I think today’s conversation is equally important, and that is a focus on our borders here within the United 

States and a recognition that when there is unrest and war abroad, 

we are never safe on our own territory. And to assume that we are 

so is naive and ill-informed, ill-placed. So I appreciate the discussion that we are having today. 

Secretary Mayorkas, I heard you say multiple times here this 

morning that comprehensive reform is needed. I think we would all 

agree that comprehensive reform is needed. But I am appreciative 

of Senator Schatz’s comment, with recognition, with a recognition 

that we need to make some incremental gains here. We have got 

to do more to demonstrate to the people in this country that our 

borders are safe, that our borders are secure. And Mr. Secretary, 
57 

you cannot close your eyes to that chart that just shows the numbers increasing, and increasing, and increasing. 

We recognize that there are pressures globally that are putting 

pressures on us. But the people of this country are not feeling secure. They are not feeling secure about our own borders. And so as 

we work within the parameters of what I think is a very important 

emergency supplemental, Ukraine, Israel, supporting the Indo-Pacific, support for the border, meaningful support for the border, recognize that this side of the dais is not just talking to hear themselves talk, we need to see some reforms. That just putting more 

money into a broken system does not give people the confidence 

that they need. 

And I am with you. We need to have more men and women on 

the border. We need to have more technologies, but we also need 

to be able to look critically at some of the policies that we have in 

place and admit that they are just not working right now. So I 

hope you take that to heart. I hope our colleagues here realize that 

this is not an ‘‘us versus them’’, this is people in this country, 

whether you are in Washington, or Maine, or Alaska, or Maryland, 

who are not feeling secure right now. 

We are a long way from the southern border, but I will tell you 

that looking at the numbers that we see coming across our northern border, and the number of those on the terrorist watch list, 

what we are seeing—what we are seeing on northern borders are 

two and three times more, almost 500 individuals on the terrorist 

watch list attempted to enter the U.S. northern border points of 

entry. 

I appreciate what you shared with Senator Shaheen from North 

Dakota. You said that you did not have the ability to disaggregate 

by states, but you did by region. I would suggest to you that Alaska, that part connected to Washington through Canada; that is a 

region where we ought to be able to get that information. We have 

not been able to get it yet, and I would ask for your help in identifying that so that we can be better informed there. 

I want to bring it home to the people that I represent in Alaska 

who, yes, are looking at our northern border, but even more alarming than who may be coming across our northern border is what 

we are seeing coming into our State with regards to Fentanyl. And 

I am participating in a hearing this afternoon in the Indian Affairs 

Committee on Fentanyl in Indian Country. 

And in my State, we are looking at a situation right now where 

our smallest of small native villages are receiving amounts of 

Fentanyl that are breathtaking in their scope; 98 pounds of 

Fentanyl—excuse me—I underestimated; nearly 130 pounds of 

Fentanyl in the last 15 months coming into Alaska into communities as small as Savoonga and Tyonek. One shipment alone included 1,877 grams of Fentanyl to Savoonga, this is a community 

of 826 people on St. Lawrence Island in the middle of the Bering 

Straits; another shipment in March, 1,593 grams of Fentanyl 

bound for Tyonek, a population of 415, not accessible by road, by 

boat. 

Mr. Secretary, I appreciate what you are sending to IHS through 

this supplemental. It is $250 million. We have got to look really 

critically at what is happening to our Native American Alaskan 
58 

Native population with Fentanyl. My time has expired. I have not 

allowed for a response, but I hope you take seriously that we will 

not be able to get the support that we need for Israel, for Ukraine, 

for the Indo-Pacific, for the disasters, unless there is true, meaningful border security as part of this supplemental. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chair MURRAY. Senator Van Hollen. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank both 

of you for your service and your testimony. Secretary Becerra, 

great to see you again, it was great to serve with you in the House. 

And this is just by way of thanking you and the President for the 

requests you put forward on child care. 

In the State of Maryland, child care is more expensive than instate tuition at the University of Maryland, and that obviously puts 

an incredible strain on family budgets, and it obviously reduces, as 

you have testified today, the ability of people to enter the workforce 

if they are having to pay more in child care, in some instances, 

than they are making or certainly not making all of that work together. So the requests that the President has made will help 5,900 

providers in the State of Maryland and serve approximately 

172,000 children. This is a really important part of the President’s 

request. 

Secretary Mayorkas, I know we have covered a lot of territory. 

So just a couple of things as well, so thank you. To begin with H– 

2B visas, thank you for using your authority to expand those numbers. It is especially welcome in Maryland with respect to our seafood processors who simply cannot function without H–2B visa 

workers. And, of course, that hurts our entire economy as well. And 

I know Senator Murkowski and I have been working on this for a 

long time to actually get a seafood carve-out, but we appreciate 

your efforts in this regard. You and I have talked about it many 

times. 

I also want to salute your involvement in the White House Worker Protection Task Force, which is critical to establishing comprehensive safeguards for American and foreign workers. My colleagues have mentioned it, but the Nonprofit Security Grant Program was already essential, more important now than ever with respect to the rise in anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim attacks. And we 

need those funds to make sure that we provide the security to protect people against hate crimes in all their ugly forms. And that is 

included in your budget, right? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Yes, it is, Senator. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I also want to thank you for dispelling the 

myth that we hear all the time that Fentanyl is crossing the border 

through illegal points of entry as opposed to through points of 

entry coming in on trucks and other vehicles. And you have funding in this budget to improve the screening so that we can find and 

confiscate Fentanyl when it crosses our border; is that right? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Yes, it is, Senator. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Now, I would like to ask you about some 

of the measures you and the Biden administration have taken with 

respect to legal avenues for migration that can dissuade individuals 

from embarking on dangerous and unlawful journeys across the 

border, and the benefits of providing migration through legal ports 
59 

of entry. The administration has achieved some success in decreasing the incidents of individuals crossing unlawfully between ports 

of entry. If you could, talk briefly about what policies or actions you 

credit for the notable reduction in the approximately 200,000 migrant arrests made outside points of entry as compared to 1 year 

ago. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, our model is, as you referenced, to 

build safe, lawful, and orderly pathways to cut the smuggling organizations out of the equation. They are ruthlessly exploiting the 

vulnerable, to build those lawful pathways that enable us to screen 

and vet individuals before they arrive at the border, and then to 

deliver consequences for those who do not avail themselves of those 

pathways, but indeed arrive irregularly in between our ports of 

entry. And quite frankly, we achieved a milestone in negotiating 

with Venezuela its acceptance of repatriation flights in furtherance 

of that consequence regime. So it is really those two parts that 

make a whole in the approach that we are pursuing. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. And have you seen, compared to last year, 

more people accessing that approach? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. We have. And we also have as a process 

within that model, we have the CBP1 app, which is a technological 

innovation that allows people to make an appointment and arrive 

safely at our ports of entry, and it allows us to screen and vet them 

in an orderly way as well. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony. 

Chair MURRAY. Senator Britt. 

Senator BRITT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you both Secretaries for being here today. I want to start 

by acknowledging the sentiments of many of my colleagues about 

the urgent need for border security, for policy changes, and to 

changes in Interior enforcement. I just want to take a minute to 

ask a couple of questions. 

I am going to start, Secretary Mayorkas, when you testified on 

March 29th before the Homeland Security Subcommittee regarding 

the President’s fiscal year ’24 budget proposal for your Department, 

there were 6,610 encounters at the southern border. On Monday, 

that number was 8,500, which is eight-and-a-half times more than 

the 1,000 daily encounters that your former boss, Secretary Jeh 

Johnson, said would constitute a crisis. I know on that day, on 

March 29th, you did not say that we had a crisis. My question for 

you is today, do you believe that we have a crisis before us? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, let me make this point that is 

very important, because I have been asked, would I describe it as 

a disaster, would I describe it as a crisis; I do not diminish the significance and the complexity of the challenge—— 

Senator BRITT. Yes. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. No, if I may? I do not diminish—I do not 

diminish—— 

Senator BRITT. Well, I only have 5 minutes, and I only have 

three left. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I do not—— 

Senator BRITT. So is it a crisis yes or not? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I do not diminish—— 
60 

Senator BRITT. I guess, I am going to move on. 

Secretary Becerra, do you think that we have a child care crisis, 

an affordable child care crisis in this country? 

Secretary BECERRA. Senator, I do not think there is any doubt 

that—— 

Senator BRITT. Yeah. Okay. That is what I thought. Okay. But 

this is an emergency, Secretary Mayorkas. It is an emergency, 

though? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. It is urgent that we receive the funding for 

our personnel and our tools to enhance the security of our border. 

Senator BRITT. I think we just need use the words, ‘‘it is true, 

it is an emergency.’’ That is what this administration said, they put 

it in an emergency supplemental request. So let us treat it as such. 

Moving on, you did have a record year, though, in other ways. You 

put more people on the non-detained docket than the previous two 

administrations combined in the entirety of their terms in office. 

This administration had near low levels of removal and detention 

beds filled, and this administration set another record for encounters on the southwest border. And, as my colleague from New 

Hampshire mentioned, there was a 500 percent increase in the 

northern border in a five-county area that impacts the area that 

she represents. 

When we talk about this, we do not need to manage the border, 

as it says in one of your requests here, we actually need to secure 

it. So in doing that, this administration has kind of had different 

positions, and I want to clarify it. Do you believe that a border wall 

is part of the answer, yes or no? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. No. 

Senator BRITT. No. Okay. So I have trouble reconciling that with 

your—the rule that you signed issued on October 5th where you 

said, ‘‘Construction of physical barriers on the border of the United 

States would, in fact, prevent unlawful entries.’’ 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, so if I may explain. The Congress 

mandated that we employ a wall—— 

Senator BRITT. But you did not actually have to issue a rule. We 

could have done that. And one more thing—— 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is incorrect. 

Senator BRITT [continuing]. This administration and your Department, the Department of Homeland Security, issued a contract 

for a-half-a-million dollars in September of 2001 for the purchase 

and installation of a wall around this President’s beach house. So 

you do know walls work. You do know they are part of the solution. 

You do know they are part of creating security. But for whatever 

reason, you feel like the American people are beneath that, and I 

think that it is incredibly frustrating. 

I only have a minute left, so I want to move to Interior enforcement. When you are looking at the non-detained docket, I am concerned about the growth of the number of people in the Interior 

who are waiting years, if not decades, to have their cases heard before an immigration judge. So particularly if you look at this, the 

ICE officers, do they have—or do we have the number of officers 

needed? Do they have the support that they are needed in order 

to manage this case load of 6.3 million individuals, and rising? So 

now with 40 seconds left; do you, when we have, let us see, the one 
61 

million people that have had due process and need to be removed, 

do you believe that the ICE agents have—the ICE officers have 

what they need to be able to remove those? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, as our supplemental reflects, we 

need more Enforcement and Removal Operations officers. We need 

more support staff for them. Despite the constraint of inadequate 

resources, we have removed aggravated felons at a higher rate 

than the prior administration. We have interdicted more than—— 

Senator BRITT. I only have 17 seconds left, but you have only requested 45 more ICE officers, and the truth is, when you look at 

the 6,000 officers that we have and the 6.5 million people that are 

in the Interior, and the one million people that need to be removed, 

you are asking each of these agents to essentially—you have got to 

remove about 167 people if they were going to remove all 1 million 

in a year. We have got to be serious about what we are requesting, 

you all requested this 2 years ago, and either you are not serious 

about it, or my colleagues across the aisle did not want to fund it, 

because those 45 officers that you requested did not make it into 

the Omnibus Bill. I am hopeful that we not only have the 45 that 

were requested, but we have much more. They have an important 

job to do, and we need to make sure they have the resources and 

the officers to do it. Thank you. 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I would be pleased to speak with you, Senator, further about our supplemental requests because the data 

that you just cited is inaccurate. But I will follow up with you separately. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank 

both of you for this hearing. I think it is wonderful that we have 

both of you here. And I want to thank you both for your service. 

Most difficult subject, as you know. It has been a challenge for as 

long as I have lived, and was cognizant of the immigration problems that we have. 

So I am going to put it in layman’s terms. I have people asking 

me, they say: You know when we go to a football game or I go to 

a concert and I am hoping I can get a ticket and get in, and they 

tell me, I am sorry all the seats are sold. So to simply put it, we 

seem to be filled up. Our stadium is filled up. Do you have the ability or can you basically say, wait a minute, with all the laws and 

rules and regulations that we are basically working at the borders, 

who has this right or that right to come in, asylum, and all that? 

Can we just not say we are filled up right now and we cannot— 

have any more seats? Is that possible? Do you have that flexibility? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, we do not have that authority 

under the law. 

Senator MANCHIN. Well, we will have to change—we have to 

change the law to give you the authority to basically say, whether 

it is a pause or stop, whatever it would take that we cannot, you 

know, basically humanitarianly handle the people we are sending 

into the country right now. I am going to go into a few other things 

too because West Virginians are just asking questions. We are far 

removed from the border, my dear friend Senator Sinema is right 
62 

on the frontline, so we sympathize with all of our frontline Senators. 

But they are saying, you know, all the people that came in illegally and everything and they are getting all these benefits, cannot 

they get just a work visa like you did with Venezuela at a certain 

time you cut if off? To make them earn and pay for stay while they 

are here, pay their taxes until we are adjudicated and see if they 

really have earned the right to be here or not, but at least be productive while they are here. Is that possible, or does take a law 

change? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, it depends on how one has arrived 

in the United States. If, in fact, one has arrived under our lawful 

pathways, then one is eligible immediately for work authorization. 

For example, under the parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans. For example, under the CBP One app, if one 

has arrived irregularly in between the ports of entry—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Yeah. 

Secretary MAYORKAS [continuing]. Then one is eligible for work 

authorization 180 days after one has—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Why 180? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. That is the statutory requirements. 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay. So it is a statute. I am just looking for 

things that we could change to make all of our lives better and 

make sure that makes some common sense. So what we are saying 

is that there is more of them that have come here looking to get 

a status that allows them to stay here or not. But I am understanding that 80 to 90 percent of the people coming claiming asylum, even though we go through the process and send them somewhere, end up basically not meeting that condition of asylum. 

And the other thing, one other, I am sorry. When we talk fast 

we cannot—when we call third party. Okay, the third part, Third 

Country processing. What they have explained to me, we are playing defense on the one-yard line. Anyway, the ball crosses that goal 

line; that is a touchdown. Now if we were playing defense on the 

20-yard line, that means third party going into those countries 

stopping that, making sure we qualify that, that would make a big 

difference. Does that take policy change also? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. We have implemented that policy change 

within the constraints of a broken system. So we have set up secure mobility offices in various countries as triage centers to see 

whether individuals could qualify for relief in the United States. 

And if indeed we have made a determination that they do, then we 

are able to bring them safely and in an orderly way. I agree with 

your—— 

Senator MANCHIN. And here is the thing. The overview is this, 

is that everybody wants to blame whatever administration is in 

power. That is who we are going to blame. The bottom line is we 

are trying to fix things. And I know you have been getting beat up 

pretty good here. But the bottom line is, sir, I know you have—I 

have got faith in you. I know you have the knowledge. We need 

that knowledge, and we need the help, both Secretary Becerra with 

all his challenges too because they go hand-in-hand your two jobs. 

We need you to give us the direction of how we can make sure 

that the simple changes make a difference. The people in my state 
63 

are very, very red; they are very pro-Trump. Okay. And I respect 

wherever their philosophical beliefs. I have just told them this: you 

are okay to have your opinion, any opinion you want; you just cannot create your own facts to support that opinion. And I want to 

make sure they have the facts, and I want to make sure that we 

have a cure. And if you will work with us versus just condemning 

it, we can fix it. And that is what is happening in this country; we 

are putting policy and politics ahead of the people. 

The people are the last things in consideration with basically the 

deals that we are making here, or the laws that we are making. 

2013 there is a piece of legislation that most of us were involved 

that pay—were here in 2013, was a bipartisan bill; it would have 

been tremendous, because of politics and the House, the Republican 

John Boehner our friend, could not put it on the floor, or did not 

think he could. 

We do not want that to happen. So these little fixes I am asking 

you about, the stadium is full, sorry, you cannot come, okay. You 

are going to have to work if you are here until you are waiting to 

get adjudicated. Okay, you are going to pay for yourself and pay 

for your taxes; you are going to be productive; we are not going to 

give handouts; you are not going to be here 6 months, because I 

tell you if you are getting 6 months of handouts, you want another 

6 months, and another 6 months on top of that. That is what they 

are telling me. And if I can help you, sir, I am here, and I will do 

whatever I can. Thank you both for your service. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Sinema. 

Senator SINEMA. Thank you, Chair Murray and Vice Chair Collins, for holding this hearing; and thank you to our witnesses for 

being here today. 

The southwest border is in crisis, Arizona continues to bear the 

brunt of the Federal Government’s failures on the border, and the 

situation is only getting worse. Since September 12th of this year, 

over 14,000 migrants have been released into small communities 

across Arizona. These small communities do not have the resources 

or transportation options to handle migrant releases. 

In Bisbee, a town of about 5,000 people without bus service to 

either Tucson or Phoenix, local leaders turned the Council Chambers into an emergency shelter so that migrants would no longer 

be dumped in a grocery store parking lot. So now is not the time 

for partisan rhetoric. Our system is not working. Arizonans and migrants are suffering; our communities are in crisis. Dangerous 

drugs like fentanyl are killing thousands of Americans each year, 

and we have to reject the partisan echo chamber and work together 

to make meaningful, lasting changes to solve these issues, secure 

the border, keep Arizona families safe, and ensure that migrants 

are treated fairly and humanely. 

Secretary Mayorkas, in February of 2022, DHS formed the 

Southwest Border Coordination Center (SBCC) to coordinate planning, operations, engagement and interagency support. While the 

SBCC did not do nearly enough to help with resource coordination, 

they did relay helpful information to my office and answered questions in weekly meetings. But last week, my staff was informed 

that the SBCC is standing down; these weekly meetings are end-
64 

ing, which is making it more difficult for my staff to get updates 

on the situation in Yuma and Tucson sectors. 

This is especially concerning given the increasing number of ongoing migrant releases in small Southern Arizona communities. 

Will you commit to restarting these weekly meetings between CBP 

and my office so we can get these regular updates and ensure that 

our questions are answered in a timely manner? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, I look forward to working with 

you because the Southern Border Coordinating Center was ended, 

but we are institutionalizing the means of communicating with 

local jurisdictions. We are institutionalizing further all of the mission sets that the SBCC was performing. So I will follow up with 

you and get back to you immediately, because communication is 

key with communities impacted by the influx of individuals at the 

border. 

Senator SINEMA. Okay. We will follow up because we need a 

meeting every week. The current levels of migration are unprecedented, unsustainable. We have got to send a clear message to potential migrants that we will be fair and humane, but that we will 

secure our border and enforce our laws. Many countries are refusing to take back their nationals even after they have gotten a final 

removal order from the U.S. These recalcitrant countries undermine our ability to enforce our immigration laws. 

So, what is DHS doing to get these countries to accept their nationals back, and what authorities do you need from us in Congress 

to more effectively compel the countries to get their citizens returned to them? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. The challenge of recalcitrant jurisdiction, 

Senator, has been one that is decades-long. I worked on it back in 

2009, and quite frankly, when I was a prosecutor, a Federal prosecutor in the 1990s, it was a challenge then. And we are working, 

not just the Department of Homeland Security alone, but working 

very closely with the Department of State in an all-of-administration effort to get recalcitrant jurisdictions to accept the repatriation 

of their nationals. 

In fact, we reached a milestone in that regard with respect to 

Venezuela, where a few weeks ago, we negotiated an agreement 

successfully, and Venezuela agreed to take back individuals from 

its country who did not qualify for relief in the United States. So 

this is a persistent challenge and one that we are attacking persistently. 

Senator SINEMA. But Secretary, what do you need from Congress? What additional authority would you need from us in order 

to be able to return these people more rapidly? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. It is really a matter of international relations, but, Senator, let me pose that question to our experts and 

get back to you. 

Senator SINEMA. The Family Expedited Removal Management 

Program, which is called FERM, ensures that migrant families undergo their credible fear interviews in a timely manner. We know 

that the stated goal is to remove families within 30 days if they 

do not articulate a credible fear. How many family units have been 

enrolled in the FERM, and how many have been removed to their 

country of origin? And how many days does the process take? 
65 

Secretary MAYORKAS. I will get that data to you. I can share with 

you the top line that we have succeeded in removing more family 

members than the prior administration, and I will get that data to 

you. 

Senator SINEMA. The last few months have shown that many of 

our ports of entry do not have the necessary staffing or infrastructure to process the very high number of migrants that are coming 

in through our ports of entry while also facilitating trade and travel. What additional resources is DHS putting in place at ports of 

entry to ensure that trade and travel continues while migrants are 

being processed? 

Secretary MAYORKAS. Senator, it is such an important issue that 

you raised, and one that we have spoken about previously. Our 

supplemental funding request was, which is so urgently needed, 

seeks, I think it is $240 million for 1,000 new CBP officers from 

the Office of Field Operations, which work our ports of entry. 

Senator SINEMA. And Chairwoman, I know that my time has expired. One last comment I will make. It is obvious that DHS needs 

additional resources to help this process move forward. I would encourage the Department of Homeland Security and the administration to also recognize what I think is fairly obvious, which is that 

policy must be changed in order for us to get control of the situation on the border. The number of migrants who are crossing into 

just my small state alone every day is 8 to 10 times as much as 

it was under the Obama administration. Without policy changes, 

the cartels will continue to decide who enters our country, through 

what ports, and what times. Thank you. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. With that I want to thank all of our 

colleagues, who participated today. I want to thank Secretary 

Becerra, Secretary Mayorkas, thank you so much for your time, 

thank you for being here today. 

Senator Collins, would you like to make any closing remarks? 

Vice Chair COLLINS. Thank you. First, let me thank you, Chair 

Murray, for convening this hearing. I want to thank our witnesses. 

I do feel compelled to correct what I believe is a misimpression that 

was created in exchanges by two of our members with Secretary 

Mayorkas regarding fentanyl. 

What we heard was that 90 percent of fentanyl is seized at ports 

of entry. What that does not tell you is how much fentanyl is coming in through drones that the cartels use, which Secretary 

Mayorkas has acknowledged previously, and coming through from 

got-aways. So I think it is highly misleading to say that all we 

have got to do to stop fentanyl is to have new technology, which 

I do support, at our ports of entry. 

The second point I will quickly make is that DHS cannot ignore 

the role that Mexico and China are playing in the fentanyl crisis. 

The precursors, the pill pressers are coming from China to the 

Mexican cartels. So to say that this is mainly Americans that are 

smuggling it, that 90 percent comes in through ports of entry ignores very important factors that paint a different or at least fuller 

picture. Thank you. 

Chair MURRAY. Thank you. We have a lot of work to address the 

child care crisis and to meet all of our pressing challenges, including the national security priorities that we talked about in this 
66 

Committee last week. So I want everyone to know I am going to 

continue to do everything I can, and working with everyone I can 

to make sure we meet this moment by delivering supplemental 

funding that speaks to all of the urgent needs before us. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

With that, this hearing will end. For any Senators who wish to 

ask additional questions, questions for the record will be due in 7 

days, Wednesday, November 15th at 5:00 p.m. The hearing record 

will also remain open until then for members who wish to submit 

additional materials for the record. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Departments for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. XAVIER BECERRA

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOE MANCHIN, III 

Question. As illegal border crossings have reached record highs, so too have family 

crossings. In September, more than 103,000 parents traveling with children crossed 

the Southern Border illegally. According to the United Nations, one in four migrants 

moving within Latin America and the Caribbean are children. These are tragic circumstances, because often the families are taken advantage of by smugglers and 

lied to about the U.S. immigration system. 

The Family Expedited Removal System, or FERM, was designed to quickly decide 

the fate of migrant families, while ensuring children are kept with their families. 

While this has accelerated the process, thousands of migrant families are still being 

released into the U.S. for indefinite periods of time. 

How is the Administration ensuring the prompt but safe removal of children and 

families where warranted? 

Answer. The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is legally required to provide 

for the care and custody of all unaccompanied children from the time they enter 

ORR’s custody following a referral from the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) or other Federal entities until they are appropriately and safely released to 

a vetted sponsor. An unaccompanied child is defined as a child who has no lawful 

immigration status in the United States; has not attained 18 years of age; and, with 

respect to whom, there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States, or no 

parent or legal guardian in the United States available to provide care and physical 

custody. ORR is not an immigration enforcement or law enforcement entity, and 

ORR does not have the ability to remove children and families. 

Question. Drug overdose deaths continue to be at an all time high, with West Virginia continuing to lead the country with over three times the National average on 

drug overdose rates. 

Much of this has been due to the influx of synthetic fentanyl. We should be using 

every tool we have to combat this epidemic. 

We need to be stemming the flow of illicit drugs, improve access to treatment, address widespread overprescribing of opioids, and prevent substance use before it 

happens. 

Secretary Becerra, do you support the reauthorization of the SUPPORT Act, 

which lapsed on October 1st and provided important tools for addressing youth substance use among a number of other important issues? 

Answer. The SUPPORT Act includes a number of important programs that address the substance misuse and mental health needs of Americans across the country, and we will continue to work with Congress on efforts to reauthorize the law. 

Question. Secretary Becerra, it has been almost a year since your department released it’s proposed rule implementing the Jessica Grubb’s Legacy Act to align 42 

CFR Part 2 with HIPAA, can you provide an update on the timing of the final rule? 

Answer. Thank you for your question, Senator Manchin. I know this is one of your 

top priorities and HHS is working hard to finalize the regulations on the Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records. As you noted, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register on December 2, 

2022, and the comment period closed on January 31, 2023. HHS anticipates publishing the final rule in early 2024. 
67 

Question. Secretary Becerra, barriers to treatment, as well as the stigma attached 

to seeking treatment, is why very few Americans who are suffering receive the 

treatment they need. 

While I understand the Department’s commitment to fight this horrific epidemic 

by requesting increased funding for the State Opioid Response grants. There are no 

truly sustainable funding streams for expanding access to treatment for substance 

use disorder. 

That is why I introduced the bipartisan LifeBOAT Act. 

This bill would require pharmaceutical companies to pay a small fee—1 penny per 

milligram—on their opioid products and direct this funding to substance use treatment centers. 

Our national debt continues to grow and recently exceeded $33 trillion. It is incredibly important that we take commonsense steps to be fiscally responsible as a 

country. 

Asking the companies that created this epidemic to help pay for the treatment 

to undo harm they’ve caused seems like commonsense step forward to me. 

Secretary Becerra, will you work with me to move this proposal forward? 

Answer. Reducing barriers to treatment and stigma associated with seeking treatment for substance use disorders is a top priority for HHS. We are happy to work 

with you and your staff to provide technical assistance on the legislation. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KYRSTEN SINEMA

Question. I appreciate that the supplemental request includes $1.55 billion to provide treatment, harm reduction, and recovery support services for people struggling 

with addiction. Together with the $1.2 billion requested in the National security 

supplemental to stop the flow of fentanyl across our southern border, these requests 

reflect the importance of a comprehensive strategy. 

In making the request for treatment and addiction services, was there a wholeof-government calculation to ensure fentanyl funding requests in the National security space and in the health space were balanced and aligned? 

Answer. The supplemental request provides additional resources for the State 

Opioid Response grants in direct response to States’ request for more funding to 

help them address unmet, emerging needs related to fentanyl and polysubstance 

use. 

Question. When calculating funding levels, does HHS take into consideration increased housing, transportation, and workforce costs for States like Arizona with a 

higher percentage of high-risk populations living in Tribal or rural areas? 

Answer. The State Opioid Response allocations to States are statutorily established in a formula. The formula is based on the equal weighing of the State’s proportion of people with abuse or dependence on opioids who need but do not receive 

treatment and the State’s proportion of drug overdose deaths. Tribal communities 

are experiencing an increase in overdoses stemming from polysubstance use. The 

American Indian and Alaska Native population has the highest drug overdose rate 

of any racial or ethnic population. $250 million of the $1.6 billion request would go 

to serve Tribal communities. 

Question. As many States across the U.S. experienced this year, extreme heat can 

be dangerous for people in the same way as extreme winters. Arizonans have always 

known this. The National Energy Assistance Directors Association estimated in July 

2023 that 80 percent of program funds are used for heating, which leaves only 20 

percent available to help people with cooling. 

In making this request, how can HHS ensure LIHEAP funding takes into consideration the challenges States face to meet residents’ heating and cooling needs and 

to ensure LIHEAP implementation recognizes the health risks of both extreme cold 

and extreme heat in our States? 

Answer. HHS maintains the accuracy of the funding distribution formula by annually updating the climate factors-specifically heating degree days, cooling degree 

days, and home-fuel prices-and by continually updating the other external factors 

that enter into the formula, using the most recent valid data available. 

LIHEAP is a block grant that allows grant recipients to determine how to distribute the funds they receive across the year. This allows them to focus on homecooling benefits during periods of extreme heat and home-heating benefits during 

periods of extreme cold. HHS also provides technical assistance to help States prepare for and manage excessive heat and cold events. 

While LIHEAP is a block grant and States ultimately have the flexibility to use 

funds as they determine to best meet the needs of their communities, HHS is committed to providing grant recipients with technical assistance and tools to help them 
68 

make data-informed decisions about where they target investments. In addition to 

the resources mentioned above in response to question six, these resources include 

the Office of Community Services (OCS) Disaster Flexibilities Hub, which provides 

a one-stop shop for grant recipients to prepare for or respond to a disaster using 

OCS funding, such as LIHEAP. Additionally, HHS released a LIHEAP Cooling Season Toolkit and a LIHEAP Heating Assistance Toolkit, which includes a variety of 

outreach materials that grant recipients can use to reach households in need of 

heating and cooling assistance. HHS also released the LIHEAP Eligibility Tool, 

which allows households across the country to quickly identify if they might be eligible for LIHEAP assistance by inputting basic information like income and household 

size. 

Question. My office is fielding a large number of calls from Federal employees in 

Arizona who are trying to navigate the complex Medicare enrollment rules and are 

receiving conflicting information from Medicare and the Social Security Administration. Beneficiaries in Arizona are being told inaccurate or incomplete information 

about how Medicare interacts with their existing coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program or how eligibility is impacted by continuous coverage rules. As a result Arizona beneficiaries are now facing lifetime Part B late 

enrollment penalties. The complexity of signing up for Medicare and the burden of 

lifetime Part B penalties is why I support the BENES 2.0 Act (S. 1687) introduced 

by Senators Casey and Young to provide crucial education and outreach to Americans as they approach Medicare eligibility. 

Will HHS work with both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and 

the Social Security Administration to ensure Arizona beneficiaries who work for the 

Federal Government or have other types of coverage are receiving clear, accurate 

information about Medicare eligibility, how it interacts with other coverage, and 

continuous coverage rules? 

Answer. CMS shares your goal of ensuring that Medicare beneficiaries have access 

to accurate, comprehensive, and understandable information, so they can make informed health care decisions. CMS works collaboratively with its partners at the Social Security Administration (SSA) as well as the Administration for Community 

Living (ACL) to help ensure people with Medicare receive clear, accurate information about Medicare eligibility and enrollment options. 

More specifically, CMS provides SSA with instruction on Medicare enrollment 

rules through the SSA’s Program Operations Manual System (POMS), which is accessible to all SSA field agents and the public online (https://secure.ssa.gov/ 

apps10/). CMS meets with the SSA and reviews the POMS to ensure it is accurate 

and up to date. 

CMS has a close partnership with ACL and works with them throughout the year 

to ensure State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) counselors have the 

information they need to assist people with Medicare. In partnership with SHIPs, 

beneficiary advocacy groups and SSA, CMS provides on-the-ground assistance to 

current and potential beneficiaries regarding Medicare eligibility and enrollment 

matters. CMS typically meets monthly with SHIPs and provides training and outreach to them. In addition, ACL SHIP leadership meets with CMS and SSA at least 

monthly to ensure timely collaboration and technical assistance on Medicare beneficiary issues and questions. 

Within the agency, CMS works to ensure that our primary vehicle to educate people with Medicare—the National Medicare Education Program (NMEP)—is helping 

consumers, including Federal employees, understand the Medicare program, and 

providing the information that they need to make coverage decisions that work best 

for them and for their loved ones. A major activity of the NMEP is 1–800–MEDICARE. Beneficiaries may call 1–800–MEDICARE 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except for some Federal holidays) to get assistance with questions about the Medicare 

program, including eligibility and enrollment questions. 

In addition, CMS makes informational materials available to people with Medicare. This includes a printed ‘‘Medicare & You’’ handbook that is mailed to all Medicare households in September (unless beneficiaries opt out of receiving the handbook). This official guide to Medicare is also electronically accessible at https:// 

www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/10050-medicare-and-you.pdf and available to download 

at any time in English and Spanish. The handbook provides information about 

Medicare eligibility and the interaction between Medicare and other types of health 

coverage. Medicare.gov also provides information about Medicare eligibility, enrollment, and how Medicare works with other health coverage. 

Under the NMEP, CMS also works with national and local organizations to support and participate in educating the public. Participants in NMEP meetings include 

beneficiary advocacy organizations, the health care industry, employers and benefits 

administrators, government agencies, providers and general consumer and issue 
69 

groups. Together with CMS, these national partners reach out to other organizations at the State and local levels. They, in turn, work with Medicare beneficiaries, 

and other interested organizations and individuals, to help them better understand 

the Medicare program. 

Additionally, through the CMS National Training Program, CMS communicates 

Medicare and other program information that CMS partners find meaningful, comprehensive, and engaging, and can be used to effectively train the public. Sessions 

are held several times throughout the year and cover a range of topics that include 

sharing basic information about Medicare to focusing on updates that are more specific to the latest changes in the Medicare program. Upon request, the National 

Training Program also presents information to targeted audiences about how Medicare works with the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. More information on this training program is available at https:// 

cmsnationaltrainingprogram.cms.gov. 

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) also provides Federal employees with 

a number of resources to inform them how Medicare and FEHB coverage work together, including education and enrollment information—here are links to OPM Frequently Asked Questions about Medicare vs. FEHB Enrollment and the Coordination of Medicare and FEHB Benefits. Each FEHB plan brochure contains an extensive discussion in Section 9 about the coordination of FEHB with Medicare and 

other coverage. All plan brochures can be found at https://www.opm.gov/healthcareinsurance/healthcare/plan-information/plans/. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CINDY HYDE-SMITH

Question. Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of 36 state attorneys general wrote 

to Congress, expressing concern that Polaris, the organization with whom HHS contracts for operation of the National Human Trafficking Hotline, was not forwarding 

third-party tips made to the Hotline about human trafficking to State or local law 

enforcement. As the AGs said in their letter, ‘‘Congress and many States have taken 

steps to ensure that the Hotline information is widely disseminated so that citizens 

can report suspected trafficking directly to the National Hotline. Those tips are crucial to catching criminals, to recovering victims, to uncovering evidence of broader 

trafficking operations, and more. Those tips help local and State law enforcement 

to end trafficking and to help its victims.’’ 

The AGs went on to write that HHS’ Administration for Children and Families 

itself touts this function of the Hotline on its website, noting that ‘‘since its inception, the Hotline has provided more than 15,000 tips to law enforcement.’’ In fact, 

the Notice of Funding Availability States amongst its core purposes, ‘‘The NHTH 

Program... also receive[s] and report[s] tips about potential trafficking situations 

to law enforcement . . .’’ 

Attorneys General Lynn Fitch (MS) and Kathy Jennings (DE) wrote in a bipartisan op-ed recently, ‘‘We recognize that sometimes victims call the hotline themselves and may not be ready to make those connections . . . We get that, and we 

are not asking Polaris to report calls from victims who say they do not want their 

call reported. But we are asking them to send us the tips they get from the trucker 

who sees suspicious behavior on the road, the flight attendant who notices something unusual in the airport, the front desk clerk who sees something that does not 

make sense at their motel, or the citizen who sees the same woman being abused 

at the corner market week after week after week. Those tips matter. Reporting 

those tips can save lives.’’ 

Intelligence is the lifeblood of human trafficking investigations. It is how we disrupt human trafficking syndicates. It is how we rescue victims and start them on 

the road to being survivors. 

—Does HHS acknowledge that the Hotline, funded by Congress, is in part a vital 

tipline that helps to end trafficking and does HHS intend to work with State 

Attorneys General to restore this important function? 

Answer. Yes, the goals and operations of the National Human Trafficking Hotline 

(NHTH) include referring tips to law enforcement. Further, HHS has a long history 

of engaging and coordinating with law enforcement entities and will continue to 

work with these entities and State Attorneys General in addition to the grant recipient to strengthen relationships with referral partners in meeting the objectives of 

the hotline. The objectives of the NHTH, as outlined in the 2020 Notice of Funding 

Opportunity, are to: 

1. Operate the NHTH, a 24/7 U.S. National Hotline that receives signals through 

telephone, text, chat, and website; 
70 

2. Promote NHTH services to increase the identification and protection of victims 

of severe forms of human trafficking; 

3. Provide information and service referrals to victims of human trafficking using 

a trauma- informed, person-centered, culturally responsive, and linguistically appropriate approach in a timely manner; and 

4. Notify law enforcement agencies of potential cases of human trafficking, as well 

as instances when a trafficking victim is in imminent danger, and document emerging trafficking schemes to assist in the detection and investigation of trafficking 

cases. 

HHS monitors the activities of the hotline, which has continued to refer thousands of tips to law enforcement each year as required by the grant award. The hotline maintains numerous referral protocols with law enforcement agencies and community-based nongovernment organizations across the country. 

Question. As I asked in the hearing, Secretary Becerra, how many abortions for 

pregnant migrant girls has the Office of Refugee Resettlement illegally facilitated 

across state lines over the past year, and at what cost to taxpayers? 

—How many of these girls were screened for coercion related to their seeking an 

abortion, or informed of life-affirming alternatives? 

—And how many of them were late-term abortions after the first trimester when 

the baby can feel pain during the abortion? 

Answer. ORR has a legal obligation to care for all youth referred to its care. ORR 

works with its partners across the government to ensure that youth are safe and 

provided appropriate health care. As a matter of ORR policy, travel to access comprehensive medical services is permissible for youth in ORR custody. ORR policy requires, to the greatest extent possible, placement of youth in an appropriate location 

to support any health care needs, including placing those who are in ORR programs 

that are state licensed to care for pregnant youth. ORR abides by all applicable laws 

and complies with the Hyde Amendment as passed by Congress and does not pay 

for any abortion for which Federal funds may not be used under the Hyde Amendment. 

Pregnant youth in ORR custody receive non-directive pregnancy options counseling and appropriate specialty care referrals are made for further evaluation and 

care as soon as a youth in custody is discovered to be pregnant. Youth are notified 

that neither the Federal Government, nor care providers, may obstruct or interfere 

with their ability to access non-directive counseling about all pregnancy options including prenatal care and delivery; infant care, foster care, or adoption; and pregnancy termination. ORR does not interfere with or obstruct a youth’s choice with 

respect to their health care options. Further, while in ORR care and custody, youth 

are provided comprehensive information about and have access to family planning 

services and other reproductive health care. Family planning services include preventive care, pregnancy testing, emergency contraception, contraceptive counseling 

and supplies, and STI testing and treatment. ORR has strict confidentiality policies 

related to the health care information of the youth it serves, including regarding 

their reproductive health. 

Question. Secretary Becerra, I’d like to focus on how the Administration would 

spend the $1.6 billion dollars in its supplemental request for LIHEAP (Lie-heap) 

should we move forward with a domestic supplemental. The statutory guidance for 

LIHEAP hasn’t changed in nearly 40 years, and your department relies on complicated and opaque mechanisms for calculating how funds are distributed. 

For example, when the American Rescue Plan Act was passed in 2021, it included 

$4.5 billion dollars in emergency LIHEAP funding. Initial estimates for Mississippi’s 

allocation said our state would receive nearly $41 million dollars. However, when 

the Biden administration finally released the funds, Mississippi only received about 

$34 million, nearly $7 million less. Some warm weather States in our region saw 

significantly wider variations, while many northern States saw increases to their estimated allocation. 

—How are you ensuring that the way HHS administers LIHEAP is transparent 

and keeps up with changes in energy burdens, weather patterns, and population 

changes across the country? 

Currently, the way LIHEAP funding is allocated pushes the majority of the money 

to heating assistance, which benefits northern States. I understand the need for 

heating assistance as I hear from many of my colleagues on this committee who represent cold weather States. Still, we see increased temperatures throughout many 

southern States, like Mississippi, requiring more cooling assistance to help prevent 

heat deaths and illnesses associated with warmer temperatures. 

—How can you make sure this money and future funds will be available yearround to address the needs of those living in warmer States? 
71 

Answer. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) formula allocations are calculated based on the method specified in the LIHEAP statute and 

the applicable LIHEAP appropriations acts. In FY 2021, the American Rescue Plan 

Act (ARP) included changes from prior appropriations in how these funds were to 

be distributed. As a result, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) initial estimate that Mississippi would receive nearly $41 million in ARP funding was not in 

alignment with how Congress directed HHS to allocate funding. 

Since 2009, Congress has directed HHS through appropriations acts to distribute 

a specific amount of funding through the more recent of the two statutory formulasthe 1981 Formula and the 1984 Formula. The 1984 Formula, which calls for distributing LIHEAP funds according to each State’s share of all States’ low-income home 

energy expenditures plus two hold-harmless provisions, applies when the appropriation level reaches $1.975 billion. The 1981 Formula, which calls for distributing 

LIHEAP funds according to each State’s share of all States’ 1981 allocations, applies 

when the appropriation level is less than $1.975 billion. 

From 2009 until the passage of ARP, LIHEAP’s appropriations acts called for the amount run through the 1984 Formula to fall below the $1.975 billion threshold. 

However, ARP called for distributing $2.25 billion through the 1984 formula, which 

resulted in a portion of LIHEAP’s 2021 appropriations that exceeded the hold harmless threshold at the $1.975 billion level. This required the formula to be run at a 

combined total of $2.25 billion and at the hold harmless level to ensure HHS distributed allocations according to the language in ARP. 

The 1981 LIHEAP Formula uses static percentages for each State based on low 

income hearing expenditures, and this part of the formula benefits cold weather 

States. The 1984 LIHEAP Formula that is updated annually captures the following: 

(1) changes in the amount and usage patterns of energy consumption; (2) energy 

prices; (3) climate factors, including Heating Degree Days and Cooling Degree Days; 

and (4) population factors, including those of households with low incomes. 

HHS has been and remains committed to maintaining transparency about the 

funding formula allocation process. In 2021, HHS published the report: ‘‘Low Income 

Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) An Assessment of the Program’s Formula and Allocations of Funding Among States’’, including ‘‘Appendices’’ (which includes an assessment of the LIHEAP formula and allocations of funding among 

States). This report shows the formula’s statutory background, HHS’ approaches to 

updating the formula, running the calculations, the formula’s results, and various 

alternative scenarios. 

HHS also published a report on ways to reduce volatility in the LIHEAP allocation process: ‘‘Report to Congress Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 

(LIHEAP) Reducing the Volatility in Annual State LIHEAP Allocations as a Result 

of the Statutory Formula’’, which provides options for reducing volatility in annual 

state allocations. 

In order to maintain a funding formula that adequately captures changes in energy burdens, weather patterns, and population changes across the country, HHS 

annually updates the data sources used in the 1984 Formula using the most recent 

valid data available. 

As a block grant, LIHEAP allows grant recipients to determine how to distribute 

funds across program components (heating, cooling, crisis, weatherization, etc.) to 

best meet the needs of their communities. This flexibility allows grant recipients, 

particularly those in warm-weather States, to provide home-cooling benefits during 

the warmest periods, including during extreme heat events. With limited resources, 

all grant recipients must weigh and strike the right balance between heating, cooling, crisis, and weatherization for their service territory. 

HHS has employed a multipronged strategy to strongly encourage LIHEAP grant 

recipients to use funds to aid vulnerable communities during periods of extreme 

heat. This has included issuing updated guidance on extreme heat flexibilities, releasing the LIHEAP and Extreme Heat Dashboard (an interactive geographic information system tool that tracks heat stress needs and cooling assistance trends 

across the country), and providing States with a variety of tools and technical assistance related to cooling assistance and extreme heat (including webinars on extreme 

heat and LIHEAP flexibilities, spotlight videos on cooling assistance programs, and 

a social media toolkit to help LIHEAP grant recipients conduct cooling assistance 

outreach). 

In FY 2022, LIHEAP provided $623 million in cooling funding and served over 

824,000 households with cooling and summer crisis assistance. 

The significant funding Congress made available under ARP, LIHEAP grant recipients were able to offer additional benefit amounts, develop and offer new cooling 

programs, and implement or expand emergency appliance repairs and replacements 

programs to address energy needs and lower energy burdens. 
72 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOE MANCHIN, III 

Question. We are in a national emergency. We need to shut down the border until 

we regain operational control. 

For the second consecutive fiscal year, the number of illegal crossings at our 

Southern Border surpassed two million. Illegal Southern Border crossings in Fiscal 

Year 2023 were more than five times as high as in Fiscal Year 2020. 

As I predicted, removing Title 42 without a concrete plan has resulted in a surge 

of migration towards the border. Border crossings this September were 20% higher 

than last September. 

I am concerned that the Administration’s proposed supplemental package is woefully inadequate and provides too much funding for ‘‘managing the chaos’’ rather 

than ‘‘securing the border.’’ Make no mistake, I will not support any supplemental 

that does not prioritize enforcement, detention, and prompt removal operations. 

Do you agree that the historic level of illegal border crossings threatens American 

national security and is unsustainable? 

Answer. Securing our Nation’s borders remains a top priority. DHS works tirelessly to secure our borders through a combination of highly trained personnel, 

ground and aerial monitoring systems, and robust intelligence and information sharing networks. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) leverages technology, personnel, and analysis to detect, deter, and prevent the entry into the United States 

of terrorists and their weapons while welcoming all legitimate travelers and commerce. Individuals who are not eligible to enter the United States are subject to 

processing under Title 8 of the U.S. Code and may be subject to expedited removal. 

The United States Border Patrol also continues to expand on recent enhancements 

that include the hiring of nearly 1,000 Border Patrol Processing Coordinators and 

the use of contract data entry and security to allow more agents to return to enforcement duties between the ports of entry. Other border enhancements include the 

deployment of innovative surveillance technology, executing the closure of gates and 

gaps in border infrastructure, and additional procurement of unmanned aerial systems. Through this layered border security network, we have a better understanding 

than ever before of who is attempting to enter the country and can focus our enforcement efforts more effectively to address potential threats. 

DHS is working within its existing authorities to drive policies aimed at relieving 

the impacts of this situation. However, only Congress can act to bring about a sustainable solution by updating our outdated immigration system through legislative 

action. 

Question. Rather than release them, what steps can DHS take-using existing resources-to detain and remove migrants who have a low likelihood of being admitted 

into the U.S.? 

Answer. Since May 2023 and through October 31, 2023, DHS removed or returned 

over 355,000 individuals, including more than 54,000 individual family members. 

DHS has removed or returned more individual family members in the last 6 months 

than in any previous full fiscal year. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses its limited detention resources to detain noncitizens to secure their presence for immigration proceedings 

and/or removal from the United States, specifically those that are subject to mandatory detention. ICE also detains those it determines to be a public safety or flight 

risk during the custody determination process. 

Custody determinations are made on an individualized basis and after considering 

the totality of circumstances, primarily considering risk of flight and threat to national security and public safety. ICE also takes other factors into consideration, including whether a noncitizen has a serious medical condition, is the primary caregiver of minor children, or other humanitarian considerations. 

Question. Mr. Secretary, the reality is too many people with non-credible asylum 

claims believe they can enter the U.S. and simply be released. This requires deterrence, because things will not change unless people hear directly from their friends 

and family that the U.S. does not have open borders. 

I understand you recently agreed that ‘‘the asylum system needs to be reformed 

from top to bottom.’’ This should be policy priority number one, because it can make 

an immediate change in conditions at the border. Reforming the asylum system will 

reduce the chaos and allow us to start regaining control. 

Do you agree that raising the threshold required for receiving asylum would have 

an immediate effect in reducing number of migrants released into the U.S.? 
73 

Answer. The Biden Administration have taken steps to reduce irregular migration 

across the Western Hemisphere, while facilitating the safe, orderly, and humane 

processing of migrants. 

In May 2023, the DHS and the Department of Justice finalized a new rule to further incentivize individuals to use lawful, safe, and orderly pathways to enter the 

United States. This rule, known as the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways (CLP) 

rule, built upon efforts to combine lawful pathways with consequences for failure to 

use them, by placing certain limiting conditions on asylum eligibility for those who 

fail to use those pathways. Absent an exception or reason to overcome the presumption of asylum eligibility, noncitizens who are subject to the CLP are screened at 

the higher ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ of establishing that they face persecution or torture in the designated country of removal—rather than the lower ‘‘significant possibility’’ standard. The percentage of noncitizens found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture has decreased under CLP. 

Question. I am concerned that the Administration’s national security emergency 

supplemental does little to nothing to regain operational control of the border. 

There’s almost as much funding for processing, transportation, and payments to 

local governments as there is for Border Patrol and ICE. That’s not how you fix the 

problem; that’s how you maintain the status quo. 

I plan to offer amendments to any supplemental or FY24 appropriations bill that 

would redirect domestic migrant relocation funding towards physical border security 

and faster removal operations. 

Do you agree that in order to curb unprecedented levels of migration, that ICE 

needs additional resources for enforcement, detention, and removal? 

Answer. We agree that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) needs 

additional resources, which is why our supplemental funding request asks Congress 

to provide critically needed funding to equip the Department with the resources it 

needs to enforce our immigration laws in an orderly and effective way. 

Specifically, we requested funding for additional detention beds to sustain our current significantly increased use of expedited removal and provide necessary surge 

capacity. The Department’s experience after the lifting of Title 42 demonstrates that 

enacting quick consequences on those who fail to use available lawful pathways 

works. Additional ICE bedspace will allow DHS to process more recent border crossers on expedited timelines when we see increased encounters and swiftly remove 

those without a legal basis to stay in the country. The Department is also requesting $660 million for transportation, including an increase in removal flights, and resources for Alternatives to Detention in part to enable our Family Expedited Removal Management (FERM) program. 

ICE uses its limited detention resources to detain noncitizens to secure their presence for immigration proceedings and/or removal from the United States, as well as 

those that are subject to mandatory detention or for those whom an ICE officer determines is a public safety or flight risk during the custody determination process. 

Currently, ICE is not funded to hold the number of noncitizens it has in custody 

for the duration of their immigration proceedings. The funding requested in the supplemental would support the current demand for detention beds and expedited removals, and offers additional funding for surge capacity. 

ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers make custody determinations on a case-by-case basis and after considering the totality of circumstances, primarily considering risk of flight, national security threat, and risk 

to public safety. ERO also considers other factors, including when a noncitizen has 

a serious medical condition, is the primary caregiver of minor children, or other humanitarian considerations. ERO has more than 7,600 law enforcement and non-law 

enforcement positions nationwide. As the ICE docket grows, staffing levels have 

been static over the past decade. To better manage growing workloads, ERO requested an increase of 234 new positions and a base payroll restoration of 284 positions in the FY 2024 President’s Budget request. 

Question. How would supplemental funding be used to limit the release of migrants into the U.S.? 

Answer. ICE’s Fiscal Year 2024 supplemental funding request would provide 

surge capacity for up to 46,500 beds, plus $10.5 million for Service Processing Center infrastructure improvements (restoring 1,370 beds currently unavailable due to 

facility issues) and $121 million for detention facility improvements. 

Question. Another way to stem the tide of irregular migration flows could be to 

allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to work more closely with foreign governments. 

This authority would allow you and DHS experts to work more collaboratively 

with the State Department to help countries address the root causes of migration. 
74 

Mr. Secretary, do you believe such authority is necessary and would help curtail 

the massive migration flows we have seen over the past 2 years? 

How would you envision DHS using this authority? 

Answer. The Department’s success requires cooperation with foreign governments, 

multilateral organizations, and other international partners. To that end, DHS already works very closely with the Department of State and foreign governments on 

a number of issues, including migration. DHS’s operational components collaborate 

with international partners while the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans coordinates DHS’s international activities to advance the Department’s strategic and policy objectives and raise security standards globally. 

Question. The mass release of migrants into the U.S. is an unsustainable security 

and economic threat to many of our communities. It is crucial that Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) has the necessary detention bed capacity to temporarily 

detain migrants instead of immediately releasing them. 

I understand that the current Senate Fiscal Year 2024 Homeland Security appropriations bill provides for a 7,500 lower daily detention capacity than the Housepassed Homeland Security appropriations bill. It is imperative that ICE’s daily detention capacity meet the emergency unfolding on the ground. 

Do you agree that expanding ICE’s detention capacity would increase deterrence 

and reduce irregular migration flows? 

Answer. The Department has requested funding to expand ICE’s detention capacity. ICE’s Fiscal Year 2024 supplemental funding request would provide surge capacity for up to 46,500 beds, plus $10.5 million for Service Processing Center infrastructure improvements (restoring 1,370 beds currently unavailable due to facility 

issues), and $121 million for detention facility improvements. 

Question. The proposed supplemental appropriations package requests 

$849,000,000 for the procurement and deployment of additional non-intrusive inspection (NII) systems to detect and counter illicit drug activity and human trafficking. If enacted, this request would add to the $70,000,000 in procurement funding for NII included in the Fiscal Year 2023 Omnibus Appropriations bill. Meanwhile, the supplemental package does not include funding for ‘‘between the ports’’ 

border technology or policy proposals that would ensure CBP procures the force-multiplying autonomous technology now deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border. 

At a time when CBP’s encounters ‘‘between the ports’’ are at historic levels, how 

does the Administration rationalize a significant request for NII at ports of entry 

without providing funding for ‘‘between the ports’’ border technology? 

Answer. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 supplemental request is intended to build 

upon the investments requested in the FY 2024 President’s Budget. The President’s 

Budget request includes funding for border security technology between the ports 

of entry as follows: 

—$332.4 million to expand CBP’s infrastructure and capabilities as the Department of Defense (DoD) draws down its support activities at the Southwest Border—including: 

—$136 million for additional Integrated Surveillance Towers (ISTs), and $38 

million to sustain existing ISTs; 

—$66.4 million for the Common Operating Picture (COP); and 

—$92.1 million for the hiring of 565 frontline and support positions to be deployed in place of DoD personnel. 

—$27.2 million for Border Enforcement Coordination Network (BECN), which includes IT systems, equipment, and services that support the planning, detection, classification, and analysis of illegal border activity. 

Furthermore, investment in non-intrusive inspection (NII) significantly improves 

CBP’s ability to detect hidden contraband and people while maintaining travel volume through ports of entry. In FY 2023, CBP officers used 340 large-scale NII systems to scan over 9.2 million conveyances, which resulted in the interdiction of more 

than 127,000 pounds of narcotics, approximately $2.8 million of undeclared U.S. currency, and identification of 124 undeclared passengers. 

Question. As illegal border crossings have reached record highs, so too have family 

crossings. In September, more than 103,000 parents traveling with children crossed 

the Southern Border illegally. According to the United Nations, one in four migrants 

moving within Latin America and the Caribbean are children. These are tragic circumstances, because often the families are taken advantage of by smugglers and 

lied to about the U.S. immigration system. 

The Family Expedited Removal System, or FERM, was designed to quickly decide 

the fate of migrant families, while ensuring children are kept with their families. 

While this has accelerated the process, thousands of migrant families are still being 

released into the U.S. for indefinite periods of time. 
75 

1 UC, as defined by 6 U.S.C. § 279(g)(2), as a child who: (A) has no lawful immigration status 

in the United States; (B) has not attained 18 years of age; and (C) with respect to whom: (i) 

there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or (ii) no parent or legal guardian 

in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody. 

How is the Administration ensuring the prompt but safe removal of children and 

families where warranted? 

Answer. Since May 2023 and through October 31, 2023, DHS removed or returned 

over 355,000 individuals, including more than 54,000 individual family members. 

DHS has removed or returned more individual family members in the last 6 months 

than in any previous full fiscal year. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ensures removals are conducted in a lawful, safe, and humane manner. This is particularly true with the removal of family units and children, both accompanied and unaccompanied. Removing family units, which consist of parents or legal guardians along with their noncitizen child(ren), requires complex coordination, management, and facilitation efforts 

to safely remove them from the United States. 

Family units remain in a non-detained setting until a final order of removal is 

issued and a removal plan is finalized. Generally, ICE transport contractors-Child 

and Family Protection Care Specialists who are specially trained to interact with 

families and children-are assigned to assist with transportation. Families stay together during transport and while in staging space. ICE ensures family units are 

returned in the appropriate clothing for the current climate conditions of the departure location and destination. 

In Fiscal Year 2023, ICE worked with its agency and department partners to 

launch several family-focused initiatives to address the large numbers of family 

units seeking to cross the Southwest Border in recent years. These initiatives are 

geared toward the fair, humane, and expedited processing and removal of family 

units that do not establish eligibility to remain in the United States. In May 2023, 

ICE launched the Family Expedited Removal Management (FERM) process, which 

focuses on noncitizen family units processed under expedited removal proceedings 

with credible fear under Title 8. Through FERM, certain heads of household are 

placed on Alternative to Detention (ATD)—Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) technology and, as a condition of their parole, are closely supervised 

while their families await interviews to assess credible fear of persecution or torture 

claims. Additionally, in June 2023, ICE operationalized the ATD Family Unit Removal Initiative, which focuses on compliant family units enrolled in ICE’s ATD— 

ISAP that have exhausted all available forms of relief or protection from removal 

for which they may be statutorily eligible. The program identifies family units that 

are eligible for immediate removal based on executable final orders of removal and 

creates individualized removal plans. 

Similarly, prior to removing unaccompanied children 1 (UCs) who do not have a 

lawful basis to remain in the United States, ICE notifies the country of origin or 

removal in advance. 

To safeguard the welfare of UCs, ICE has established policies for removing UCs 

that align with the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. ICE 

policies include: 

—Returning UCs only during daylight hours; 

—Recording transfers by ensuring that receiving government officials or designees 

sign for custody; 

—Returning UCs through a port designated for repatriation; 

—Providing UCs with the opportunity to communicate with a consular official 

prior to departure for their home country; 

—Preserving the unity of families during removal; and 

—Ensuring each UC is returned in the appropriate clothing for the current climate conditions of departure location and destination. 

To implement a removal order for UCs, the United States government must obtain the receiving country’s approval for the UC travel, receive a corresponding consulate-issued travel document, and identify an in-country family point of contact 

that ICE personnel validate and utilize to advise family member(s) of the UC’s travel/impending arrival. Once the foreign country approves travel, ICE arranges the 

UC’s transport. If the return involves plane travel, ICE personnel accompany the 

UCs to their home country. ICE uses both charter and commercial airlines for the 

repatriation of UCs. 
76 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KYRSTEN SINEMA

Question. In my hometown of Tucson, we host the largest gem and mineral show 

in the world every year in February. As a result, hotel space becomes very limited 

in Tucson during this time of year. 

The Tucson-area relies on hotel rooms as overflow shelter during periods of high 

migration. However, the new Shelter and Services Program does not allow for prebooking, meaning that we will have a serious shortage of overflow shelter in Tucson 

very soon. 

This is unacceptable. Congress appropriated this funding to support local communities like Tucson and to prevent street releases, which harm communities and migrants. What is DHS doing to ensure this program works for the communities it is 

meant to support, and allow NGOs to pre-book for hotel rooms as necessary? 

Answer. The Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program (SSP) Notice of 

Funding Opportunity (NOFO) includes a restriction against pre-booking hotel rooms 

to ensure that all funds are fully used in providing services directly to noncitizen 

migrants. Pre-booking hotel rooms using SSP grant funding may result in rooms not 

being used and thereby taxpayer dollars being potentially subject to waste, fraud, 

and abuse. Instead of pre-booking rooms, SSP recipients are encouraged to use 

grant funding for allowable costs to increase capacity, which may include renting 

additional shelter space and purchasing supplies (such as cots, etc.) to help alleviate 

shelter space constraints for noncitizen migrants. 

Question. A new processing center recently became operational in Nogales, Arizona. However, the Nogales Border Patrol station did not receive sufficient resources or personnel to run this center. This has put significant additional strain 

on Border Patrol agents. 

What has DHS done to ensure the Nogales processing center receives sufficient 

resources to secure the border and ensure migrants are treated fairly and humanely? 

Answer. The U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) is assisting with coordination of material 

and personnel support to the Tucson sector as a whole, which is then disseminated 

to the stations at the sector’s discretion, including Nogales. To ensure the processing 

center has sufficient resources, USBP is using Border Patrol Processing Coordinators; has secured contract personnel to support processing, transport, escort and detention duties and detailed agents from other sectors; and utilizes the Department 

of Homeland Security Volunteer Force to relieve agents from performing administrative duties, allowing them to resume patrolling the borders. 

Question. Due to the high number of migrant encounters, Border Patrol agents 

are spending increasing amounts of time processing migrants rather than focusing 

on their primary mission-securing our border. What additional resources or authorities would ICE ERO need to take on more migrant processing to shift that burden 

away from the Border Patrol so agents can get back into the field, where they belong? 

Answer. The Department’s October 2023 supplemental request included resources 

needed to maintain ongoing border enforcement operations through the end of Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2024 and investments to expand enduring capacity for our border security. The request acknowledged the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) need 

for more personnel, and included additional U.S. Border Patrol Agents, Border Patrol Processing Coordinators, and professional support staff. The supplemental also 

requested additional resources for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to 

first fill critical gaps to maintain operations in FY 2024, while expanding capacity, 

through additional Enforcement and Removal Assistants and increased detention 

beds. 

Ongoing Congressional negotiations regarding supplemental funding to support 

border security have highlighted the importance of ensuring CBP, ICE, and U.S. 

Citizen and Immigration Services are all properly resourced to ensure timely and 

efficient migrant processing. This includes further increases to personnel, facilities, 

and transportation, in addition to new authorities, beyond the request in October. 

Question. According to a recent report, the USCIS backlog has over 5.2 million 

cases, with more than 8.5 million cases pending overall. These numbers don’t exist 

in a vacuum. When pathways to lawful immigration are plagued by understaffing, 

it intensifies the crisis at our border and causes painful waits for families that are 

trying to play by the rules. 

What is your strategy to ensure sufficient USCIS staffing necessary to reduce the 

backlog and restore punctuality to our immigration system? 

Answer. USCIS will continue to implement a multipronged approach to make 

progress in backlog reduction that includes increased hiring, expanded overtime 

hours, information technology investments to promote more efficient processing of 
77 

cases, digital processing, video interviews, streamlining processes, and regulatory 

and policy changes. 

USCIS received $275 million in appropriated funding to address the USCIS backlog and support for the refugee program in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022. By the first quarter of FY 2023, USCIS stopped the growth of the net backlog, and at the end of 

FY 2023 reduced the backlog by more than 760,000 cases—a 15 percent decrease 

from FY 2022. In FY 2022, the number of completed cases increased by 19 percent 

from 7.2 million completions in FY 2021 to 8.6 million completions. In FY 2023, 

USCIS completed more than 10.7 million cases, an increase of 24 percent. These increases in case completions are a result of an ongoing hiring surge, additional overtime hours provided, and technological improvements made possible through FY 

2022 Congressional appropriations. 

USCIS also issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in January to adjust certain 

USCIS fees; the new fees allow for USCIS to more fully recover its operating costs, 

reestablish and maintain timely case processing, and prevent the accumulation of 

future case backlogs. In order to eliminate the current backlogs, USCIS would still 

require continued congressional support. The intention of the new fee rule will allow 

USCIS to keep pace with incoming inventories and avoid future backlogs. 

Accelerated hiring is a top priority to reduce the backlog, meet operational requirements, and achieve the USCIS mission. Despite attrition, prior budget constraints, the previous hiring freeze, and new positions available as a result of $275 

million in Congressional appropriations, the agency achieved great strides in hiring 

and reducing vacancies. 

Despite these efforts, USCIS projects the backlog will remain consistent through 

FY 2024 due in large part to a forecasted increase in receipts and the inability to 

augment current staffing levels without the support of Congressional appropriations 

for backlog positions. The FY 2023 President’s Budget requested $765 million to reduce USCIS application and petition backlogs, support the increased refugee admissions ceiling, and fund asylum processing. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2023 did not, however, include continued funding for positions for asylum processing 

or addressing USCIS backlogs. The FY 2024 President’s Budget requests $264 million and 795 additional staff positions to support backlog reduction. With appropriated funding, USCIS will expand current efforts through increased capacity (with 

additional Full Time Equivalent employees, overtime, expanded contractual support, 

and other administrative expenses) as well as a continued focus on efficiency. 

Fee-funded staff in the FY 2022/2023 fee rule are estimated to keep up with incoming cases, holding the backlog at its current levels. The requested backlog reduction staff and overtime will be used to decrease the backlog. Even with these investments in people, processes, and technology, it will take a sustained, multi-year effort 

to eliminate the backlog entirely. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM

Question. Through the end of October 2023, 269,744 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans were granted parole under the CHNV parole program 

created by the Biden Administration. Please describe the process by which the agency made a case-by-case determination for each of these 269,744 individuals. 

Answer. For the Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV) parole 

processes, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will consider issuing advanced 

travel authorization on a case-by-case basis only for individuals who have a financial supporter who has been confirmed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Each potential supporter is vetted by the U.S. government to help ensure they are able to financially support the beneficiary. USCIS also reviews the 

statement provided by the potential supporter, in their Form I–134A, explaining 

why the potential beneficiary merits a favorable exercise of discretion. CBP conducts 

screening and security checks on each potential beneficiary to determine if they 

should be authorized to travel to an interior port of entry to seek a grant of parole, 

which is determined on a case-by-case basis upon arrival. As part of this determination, CBP conducts additional screening and also may access the statement that the 

supporter submitted with the Form I–134A that explains why the beneficiary merits 

a favorable exercise of discretion. 

Question. How many individuals who applied for parole through the CHNV program have been denied parole? 

Answer. To the extent that your question refers to how many Form I–134A USCIS 

has non-confirmed, as of November 30, 2023, USCIS has non-confirmed approximately 42,660 Form I–134A filed by individuals seeking to be supporters under the 
78 

CHNV processes. CBP has denied advance travel authorization to 11,401 individuals who had confirmed supporters. 

Question. How many individuals with records within the Terrorist Screening 

Dataset who were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in FY 2023 

were subsequently deported and/or removed from the U.S.? 

Answer. If an individual poses a threat to national security or public safety, we 

deny admission, detain, remove, or refer them to other Federal agencies for further 

vetting, investigation and/or prosecution as appropriate. As of December 15, 2023, 

55 individuals with Terrorist Screening Dataset records have been removed by ICE 

after being apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Fiscal Year 

2023. The Department of Homeland Security refers questions on watchlist status 

changes, ongoing investigations, and immigration courts to the Department of Justice. 

Question. In FY 2023, how many individuals with records within the Terrorist 

Screening Dataset who were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

in FY 2023 were allowed entry into the U.S.? 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) coordinates with the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) on all subjects encountered who are on the Terrorist 

Screening Dataset. For further information, DHS defers to DOJ. 

Question. How many individuals with records within the Terrorist Screening 

Dataset who were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection remain in 

ICE custody pending immigration proceedings? 

Answer. As of November 8, 2023, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) had custody of 70 individuals with records in the TSDS who were apprehended by CBP in Year 2022 through 2024. 

Question. According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 908,669 aliens 

were given ‘‘humanitarian release’’ by U.S. Border Patrol in FY 2023. 

Were any of these aliens granted parole? If so, how many? 

Answer. Of the 908,669 noncitizens released for humanitarian reasons in Fiscal 

Year 2023, 303,954 were processed as parolees before being released. 

Question. How many of these aliens were served with notices to appear? 

Answer. Of the 303,954 noncitizens processed as parolees before being released, 

57,944 were issued Notices to Appear. 

Question. What statutory authority does DHS have to give ‘‘humanitarian release’’ 

to illegal aliens? 

Answer. Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, in his or her discretion, to ‘‘parole into the United 

States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case 

basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any [noncitizen] 

applying for admission to the United States . . .’’ Notably, a parole does not constitute a lawful admission into the United States nor a determination of admissibility. 

Question. According to a recent Buy America Wavier, DHS believes the current 

production of U.S. manufactured nitrile gloves is insufficient to meet the Department’s needs. DHS has committed to immediately transitioning to domestically produced nitrile gloves when they become available. A company located in South Carolina has built a 400,000 square foot facility, funded by private investment, to 

produce U.S-made nitrile gloves. This company has the ability to produce nitrile 

gloves in 4mil, 5mil, and 6mil thickness that meets or exceeds American Society of 

Testing Materials (ASTM) D6319 requirements. My staff has attempted to contact 

your office about this matter. 

Is your department aware that there is a company producing U.S. manufactured 

nitrile gloves that has the ability to fulfill its needs? 

Answer. Yes. The Department is currently conducting the requisite testing on 

nitrile gloves provided by Nephron and another domestic manufacturer. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

The Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., Wednesday, November 8, the hearing 

was concluded, and the committee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

Æ