```

[Senate Hearing 118-492]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       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
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         

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

                               __________
                               
                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
57-407 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                 
 
                     COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                    PATTY MURRAY, Washington, Chair
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Vice 
JACK REED, Rhode Island                  Chair
JON TESTER, Montana                  MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut      SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia          Virginia
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
GARY PETERS, Michigan                BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              KATIE BRITT, Alabama
                                     MARCO RUBIO, Florida
                                     DEB FISCHER, Nebraska

                     Evan D. Schatz, Staff Director
              Elizabeth McDonnell, Minority Staff Director
                            
                            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
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

 
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 clear to Republicans who think there is a chance to 
jam a huge far-right 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 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 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 Southwest 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 fentanyl-related. 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.
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 
proposes $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 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 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 trouble-and 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 
businesses-the 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 high-quality 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.
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 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.
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 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 
enforcement. 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 anti-Semitism 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 
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 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.
    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 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?
    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 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?
    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 multi-prong 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.

                                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?
    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 
case-by-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----
    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; 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.

                               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, including 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 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?
    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----
    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 freedom-loving 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.
    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.
    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 
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, 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----
    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 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 according 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, 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.
    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.
    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 short-term 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 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?
    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?
    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 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 
anti-Semitism, 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 enables 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 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.
    Secretary Mayorkas, is included in the supplemental funding 
request 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?
    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.
    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----
    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 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.
    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 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 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-hands-on-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 
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.
    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-the-year 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 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. Senor 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.
    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, 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 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 
in-state 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 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----
    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 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 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 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 ending, 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?
    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 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.
    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 whole-of-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 home-cooling 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 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 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/
healthcare-insurance/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;
    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 
        year-round to address the needs of those living in warmer 
        States?
    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 formulas-the 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.
                                 ______
                                 
           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.?
    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.
    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 House-passed 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.
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ UC, as defined by 6 U.S.C. Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
                                 ______
                                 
             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 pre-booking, 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 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 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.]

                                 [all]
```