House Hearing on “Threats to the Homeland” with DHS Transcript

. To own up to it or deal with any of that. So rather than getting their own house in order, they direct baseless attacks at the administration and Secretary Mayorkas in particular. We know the extreme MAGA members are desperate to impeach someone, anyone at all. They’re on a crusade to impeach the secretary, although there’s zero justification for it. Unlike the Trump administration, the Biden administration has followed the law on border security and immigration. Claiming asylum at the border is lawful. If my Republican colleagues don’t like the law, well, they are in the majority. Try to change it.

(00:45)
The prior administration also refused to provide information sought by Congress in more than 100 congressional inquiries. But this administration has been and continues to be responsive to Congress. It is my understanding today’s hearing is Secretary Mayorkas 27th time testifying before Congress after being confirmed as secretary. Under his leadership, DHS has responded to more than 1400 congressional letters and produced more than 11,000 pages of documents to this committee alone. Secretary Mayorkas is carrying out his responsibilities as Secretary of Homeland Security, but Republicans don’t like this administration’s policies. Cabinet secretaries shouldn’t be impeached over policy differences. That’s not what the Constitution says.

(01:39)
That’s not what the founders intended. They certainly shouldn’t be impeached to distract from Republican failures or to appease the extreme MAGA element that has overtaken their party. Rather than this impeachment distraction, we should be focused on how Congress and the administration can work together to secure the homeland. That’s what this committee has done since its inception. That’s what we were sent here to do and that’s what the American people expect of us. It’s a shame my Republican colleagues are working their own agenda. This committee and this Congress and our homeland suffers because of it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record and I’m pleased to have an important panel of witnesses before us today and I ask that our witnesses please rise and raise their right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give before the Committee on Homeland Security, the United States House of Representatives will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you. You may be seated. I would now like to formally introduce our witnesses. The Honorable Alejandro Mayorkas was sworn in as Secretary of Department of Homeland Security by President Biden on February the 2nd of 2021. Mr. Mayorkas has had a 30-year career as a law enforcement official and a lawyer in private sector.

(03:15)
From 2013 to 2016, he served as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and as the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services from 2009 to 2013. The Honorable Christopher Wray became the eighth director of the FBI on August the second, 2017. Mr. Wray started his law enforcement career in 1997, serving in the Department of Justice as an assistant US attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. The Honorable Christine Abizaid was sworn in as the director of National Counter-Terrorism Center on June 29th, 2021. She’s the eighth senate confirmed director and the first woman to lead the United States’ Counter-terrorism Enterprise. Previously she served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia. I thank all the witnesses for being here today and I now recognize Secretary Mayorkas for five minutes to summarize his opening statement.

Chairman Green, Ranking Member Thompson, distinguished members of this committee, in September, the Department of Homeland Security published the 2024 Homeland Threat Assessment laying out the most direct pressing threats to our security. Already in the weeks since the assessment was published, the world has changed. Hamas terrorists horrifically attacked thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Israel on October 7th, brutally murdering, wounding, and taking hostages of all ages. In the days and weeks since, we have responded to an increase in threats against Jewish, Muslim, and Arab-American communities and institutions across our country. Hate directed at Jewish students, communities, and institutions add to a preexisting increase in the level of antisemitism in the United States and around the world. As the last month has shown, the threat environment our department is charged with confronting has evolved and expanded constantly in the 20 years since our founding after 9/11.

(05:21)
Today, individuals radicalized to violence can terrorize using a vehicle or a firearm. A transnational criminal organization needs only to conceal 2.2 pounds of fentanyl in a commercial truck or passenger car crossing through our land port of entry to kill as many as half a million people. Lone actors and nation states such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, and the People’s Republic of China can use computer code to steal sensitive personal information, shut down critical infrastructure, and extort millions in ransom payments. Compromising deepfake images can exploit and ruin the life of a young person. Extreme heat, wildfires, and devastating hurricanes are increasing in frequency and severity. And our department’s founding rationale, the threat posed by foreign terrorists using weapons of mass destruction remains.

(06:18)
The 260,000 men and women of the Department of Homeland Security work every day to mitigate these threats and many more. I am immensely proud to be here today on their behalf to discuss the work they do, the challenges they face, and most importantly, the support they require from Congress to do their jobs. Thank you for the opportunity to do so. I would like to focus today on two such means of critical urgent support. First, Congress must not allow key DHS authorities to lapse. Our department’s authority to implement the Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards expired on July 28th. That means the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is barred from inspecting over 3000 high risk chemical facilities including one in Shepherd, Texas where an explosion last week forced nearby communities to shelter in place for hours.

(07:13)
We are also barred from identifying who is accessing them and whether they are stockpiling dangerous chemicals. Historically, more than a third of inspections identify at least one gap in a facility’s security. Our counter drone authority will expire on Saturday challenging among other missions, the secret services’ ability to protect the president and vice president and customs and border protection’s ability to patrol the Southwest border and intercept cartel drones faring drugs and other contraband through the air. Our department’s office of countering weapons of mass destruction authority will expire on December 21. That would hinder our ability to detect biological and elicit nuclear material threats and safeguard against the use of AI in the development of biological weapons as President Biden charged us with doing last month in his executive order on artificial intelligence.

(08:11)
Finally, key elements of our intelligence collection authority under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will expire on December 31. Expiration would leave our country vulnerable to attacks supported by American citizens and it would cripple our ability to identify and secure American citizens who are the targets of such attacks. Renewing each of these four authorities is common sense, bipartisan, and critical to our national security. This is not a moment to let our guard down. Second, we need Congress to allocate sufficient resources to enable our nation’s frontline officers to carry out their difficult jobs and keep the American people safe. Last month, our administration requested critical supplemental homeland security funding that would help us do just that.

(08:59)
This funding package would allow us to more effectively combat and discourage fentanyl, stem the impacts of historic migration, and accelerate work authorization for eligible non-citizens. This funding will in short make a critical difference in our department’s operational capacity and in our national security. Ensuring the safety of the American people is a national imperative and a governmental obligation. I look forward to partnering with Congress to deliver for the men and women who keep our country safe. I look forward to working with you to address the threats and challenges America faces today and in the years to come. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Secretary Mayorkas. I now recognize Director Wray for five minutes to summarize his opening statement.

Thank you and good morning, Chairman Green, Ranking Member Thompson, members of the committee. It’s been more than five weeks since Hamas terrorists carried out their brutal attacks against innocent Israelis, dozens of American citizens, and others from around the world and our collective efforts remain on supporting our partners overseas and seeking the safe return of the hostages. But this hearing focused on threats to our homeland is well-timed given the dangerous implications the fluid situation in the Middle East has for our homeland security. In a year where the terrorism threat was already elevated, the ongoing war in the Middle East has raised the threat of an attack against Americans in the United States to a whole nother level.

(10:34)
Since October 7th, we’ve seen a rogues gallery of foreign terrorist organizations call for attacks against Americans and our allies. Hezbollah expressed its support and praise for Hamas and threaten to attack US interests in the Middle East. Al-Qaeda issued its most specific call to attack the United States in the past five years. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula called on jihadists to attack Americans and Jewish people everywhere. ISIS urged its followers to target Jewish communities in the United States and Europe. Given those calls for action, our most immediate concern is that individuals or small groups will draw twisted inspiration from the events in the Middle East to carry out attacks here at home.

(11:25)
That includes homegrown violent extremists inspired by a foreign terrorist organization and domestic violent extremists targeting Jewish Americans or other faith communities like Muslim Americans. Across the country, the FBI has been aggressively countering violence by extremists citing the ongoing conflict as inspiration. In Houston, we arrested a guy who’d been studying bomb making and posted about killing Jewish people. Outside Chicago, we’ve got a federal hate crime investigation into the killing of a 6-year-old Muslim boy. At Cornell University, we arrested a man who threatened to kill members of that university’s Jewish community. And in Los Angeles, we arrested a man for threatening the CEO and other members of the Anti-Defamation League and I could go on.

(12:16)
On top of the so-called Loan Actor threat, we cannot and do not discount the possibility that Hamas or another foreign terrorist organization may exploit the current conflict to conduct attacks here on our own soil. We have kept our sights on Hamas and have multiple investigations into individuals affiliated with that foreign terrorist organization. And while historically our Hamas cases have identified individuals here who are facilitating and financing terrorism overseas, we continue to scrutinize our intelligence to assess how that threat may be evolving, but it’s not just Hamas. As I highlighted for this committee in my testimony last year, Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, has directly or by hiring criminals mounted assassination attempts against dissidents and high ranking current and former US officials including right here on American soil.

(13:20)
Or take Hezbollah, Iran’s primary strategic partner, which has a history of raising money and seeking to obtain weapons here in the United States. FBI arrests in recent years also indicate that Hezbollah has tried to seed operatives, establish infrastructure, and engage in spying here domestically, raising our concern that they may be contingency planning for future operations in the United States. And while we are not currently tracking a specific plot, given that disturbing history, we are keeping a close eye on what impact recent events may have on those terrorist groups’ intentions here in the United States and how those intentions might evolve. Now I want to be clear, while this is certainly a time for heightened vigilance, it is by no means a time for panic. Americans should continue to be alert and careful, but they shouldn’t stop going about their daily lives. All across the country, the FBI’s men and women are working with urgency and purpose to confront the elevated threat.

(14:28)
That means working closely with our federal, state, and local partners on our FBI led joint terrorism task forces, taking an even closer look at existing investigations, and canvassing sources to increase awareness across the board and doing all we can, working with our partners to protect houses of worship here in the US. Bottom line, we’re going to continue to do everything in our power to protect the American people and support our partners in Israel. Now, protecting Americans from the threat of terrorism is and remains our number one priority, but as you all know, the range of threats that we battle each and every day is enormous from cyber attacks to economic espionage to violent crime and narcotics trafficking and everything in between. The problems we tackle aren’t getting any easier, but we have continued to work to outpace our adversaries. We disrupted over 40% more cyber operations last year and arrested over 60% more cyber criminals than the year before.

(15:31)
We’ve got easily 2000 active investigations across all 56 field offices into China’s relentless efforts to steal our innovation and intellectual property. And over the past two years alone, we’ve seized enough fentanyl to kill 270 million Americans. That’s more than 80% of all Americans. Just this month, working with our partners, FBI Boston seized nearly 8 million doses of fentanyl and methamphetamine laced pills and powder including nearly 20 pounds of fentanyl laced pills that had been pressed to look like heart-shaped candy. That’s one of the largest single seizures in New England history and demonstrates the deadly reach of the cartels trafficking dangerous drugs to every corner of our nation.

(16:22)
I am incredibly proud of the 38,000 skilled and dedicated professionals of the FBI who tackle all these complex challenges and I think it is our shared responsibility to make sure that they’ve got the tools they need to keep all of us safe. Indispensable in that toolkit against foreign adversaries are the FBI’s FISA 702 authorities and I’m happy to talk about all the things the FBI has done over the past couple of years to make sure we’re good stewards of our 702 authorities, but I can tell you it would be absolutely devastating if the next time an adversary like Iran or China launches a major cyber attack, we don’t see it coming because 702 was allowed to lapse.

(17:11)
Or with the fast moving situation in the Middle East, just imagine if some foreign terrorist organization overseas shifts its intentions and directs an operative here who’d been contingency planning to carry out an attack in our own backyard and imagine if we’re not able to disrupt that threat because the FBI’s 702 authorities have been so watered down. I want to close by thanking you for your continued support of the FBI’s men and women who work tirelessly and selflessly to protect all Americans and thank you for having me here today. I look forward to your question.

Thank you, Director Wray. I now recognize Director Abizaid for five minutes to summarize her opening statement.

Thank you. Chairman Green, Ranking Member Thompson, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This hearing is especially timely as we continue to monitor the response of global terrorist actors in the wake of Hamas’ tragic and brutal 7 October terrorist attack. The attack affected Americans directly including over 32 who were killed and those who were taken hostage. While Hamas itself continues to focus its operational activity in the immediate region, Hamas’ attack and the conflict that it has precipitated has reverberated across the globe among an ideologically diverse array of threat actors.

(18:36)
Whether it be members of Al-Qaeda or ISIS, individuals inspired including those motivated by a racial or ethnic animus or groups considered to be a part of the Iranian aligned axis of resistance, terrorists and violent extremists are exploiting multiple core grievances to fuel violence. Among these grievances are the renewed salience of the Israeli- Palestinian issue, the already heightened atmosphere of antisemitism globally, and narratives that call for violence as a result and a refocused attention on US military involvement in the region and our relationship with Israel. All of these are amplified by graphic images and emotive content shared over social media in a way intended to drive groups and individuals to political violence.

(19:27)
Here in the United States homeland, our current heightened threat posture is driven primarily by our concern that individuals may increasingly mobilize for attacks particularly against Jewish, Arab, and Muslim communities. This is consistent with our years long assessment that those inspired to terrorism, rather than those directly linked to hierarchical organizations, are the most likely to carry out a successful attack on US soil. Outside of the United States, we are monitoring the activities of foreign based groups, particularly ISIS and Al-Qaeda, which view the US as their primary enemy and have publicly called for attacks in the wake of October 7th.

(20:11)
Their ability to orchestrate attacks from their core operating arenas has been diminished by years of counter-terrorism pressure, but while these groups have disaggregated and become more focused in their local regions in recent years, they have a presence across a wide swath of territory from West Africa to South Asia and we are on the lookout for any attempts by their members to leverage this crisis to rebuild and refocus against the United States. Iran and its proxies including Lebanese Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia militants, they’re a major concern principally for their ability to generate attacks in the Middle East, including those that have significant escalatory consequences.

(20:55)
While we have no intelligence to indicate Iran or its proxies had foreknowledge of Hamas’ October seven attack, we remain focused on Iranian and Iranian linked activity in support of Hamas and directed against US interests since the outbreak of the conflict. Thus far, Iranian aligned militant groups have conducted over 50 attacks against US forces in Iraq and Syria using rockets and unmanned aerial systems. This is in addition to several instances of Israel focused attacks missiles and UAS attacks by the Yemen based Houthis and the daily paramilitary attacks on Israel by Hezbollah, which also happens to be a globally capable terrorist organization. Even as the United States comes under attack, we assess Iran and Hezbollah are trying to walk a very fine line in the region, avoiding overt actions that risk opening them up to a more direct conflict with Israel or the United States while still exacting costs by enabling anti-US and anti-Israel attacks. Iran’s current regional activities come on top of an already aggressive global posture over the last several years, including attempted attacks in the United States aimed at Iranian dissidents or in retaliation against former US government officials that it deems responsible for the 2020 death of Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani. It is clear that even in today’s heightened threat environment, significant CT pressure brought to bear against terrorist groups over the last two decades along with investments in effective CT defenses here at home has resulted in an overall diminished directed terrorist threat to the United States homeland. However, as evidenced by the events of the past six weeks, the threat landscape is highly dynamic. Our country must preserve its CT fundamentals to ensure constant vigilance.

(22:56)
Among these fundamentals is the intelligence collection enabled by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides key indications and warning on terrorist plans and intentions and supports international terrorist disruptions. I respectfully urge Congress to reauthorize this vital authority not only for its CT benefits but for the benefits it brings across a range of national security challenges. At the National Counter-Terrorism Center, we are part of a whole of government CT architecture that is foundational to our national security. And though built with 9/11 as its backdrop, this architecture has proven adaptive to today’s environment and capable of addressing an inherently unpredictable range of terrorist adversaries. For those who serve as part of the CT community, I would like to end with a thank you. Your years of dedication to the CT mission has done so much to protect this country from terrorism. The United States has relied upon you time and again and today is no exception. With that, I welcome your questions.

Thank you, Director Abizaid. Members will be recognized by order of seniority for their five minutes of questioning. An additional round of questioning may be called after all the members have been recognized. I want to also acknowledge the many members on this committee on both sides of the aisle who have been fighting the terrorist attack in their service in the United States military. So those who are veterans here who have been doing that and those in the government service doing that before you came to Congress, thank you for your service. I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. Director Wray, since January of 2021, approximately 1.8 million illegal alien got aways have evaded border patrol and entered our country, and this doesn’t even account for the unknown Got aways which former border patrol Chief Raul Ortiz testified before this committee could be about 20% of that number meaning the real number of got aways is well over 2 million. Can the FBI guarantee the American people that known or suspected terrorists, including any from Hamas or other terror groups, are not amongst those got aways?

Well, certainly the group of people that you’re talking about are a source of great concern for us. That’s why we’re aggressively using all 56 of our joint terrorism task forces-

But there’s really no way for you to guarantee that Hamas isn’t in those?

Well, again, as you say, there’s the unknown unknown and the known unknown, but what I can tell you is that our 56 joint terrorism task forces are working their tails off to make sure that they suss out and identify potential terrorist suspects, whether they’re on the watch list or not.

You think that increased number increases the threat to the American citizens?

I think anytime you have a group of people in the United States that we don’t know nearly enough about, that is a source of concern for us from a perspective, in our lane, of protecting Americans here.

So wording it maybe another way, if that number were lower and the border wasn’t as open as it is, we’d be safer?

I think greater fidelity about who’s coming in this country and how they’re getting in is essential to making sure we protect Americans from all sorts of threats including a potential terrorist attack.

Yeah, I do too. Director Wray, since taking office, we’ve had, with the policies that are implemented at the border, 6.5 million Southwest border encounters and a total of 7.8 million nationwide. Does it concern the FBI that the policies of this administration and the Department of Homeland Security are allowing this unprecedented number of unknown and unvetted people into the country? I know it’s a rewording of the previous question, but go ahead and answer.

Well, again, I want to stay in my lane. When it comes to physical security, border security, I want to defer to Department of Homeland Security on that.

That increased number is increasing the challenge before you and the FBI, right?

But certainly, I can tell you that we have seen an increase in the number of so-called KSTs attempting to cross in the last five years and we are concerned not just about the people who are watch listed. I’m talking about those who could have gotten in some other way and about whom you may not have sufficient information at the time they came in to identify them as a source of-

Those individuals that are watch listed that we talk about, why do you think in four years before this there were only 11 and suddenly there are 294 in the past few years? Why do you think that’s so?

I can’t really speak to that issue. Not in my lane. I can tell you that the threats that come from the other side of the border are very much consuming all 56 of our field offices, not just in the border states. That’s why I made the point for-

Sure. I agree. If I heard you correctly, what you just said is not every state in the country is a border state now. Is that what you just said?

Well, I didn’t mean-

The threats to every state-

To put it that way, but the threats that come from the other side of the border are affecting every state.

Absolutely, 100%. We ask the governor of Massachusetts, she’s screaming at the top of her lungs about the situation at the southwest border. Your boss, the Attorney General came in and said to us that it was very clear the cartel strategy was to take advantage of the current policies, overwhelm the crossing sites, and then use the border patrol agents being overwhelmed by that group to then bypass. Do you have any reason to disagree with him that that’s the cartel strategy?

I wouldn’t have any reason to disagree with the Attorney General.

Do you find it interesting that two months after that, Secretary Mayorkas came in and said he was unaware of that cartel strategy? Do you find that interesting?

I am not familiar with Secretary Mayorkas’ testimony.

That testimony, yeah. He came in to us and told us that he was totally unaware that that was the cartel strategy despite your boss in the Senate clearly recognizing that it is. Let me just say this in the few seconds I have left. I’d like to ask each of you to take back to the people who work for you that despite our political differences on this dais, we deeply appreciate the men and women who are manning their posts and doing the best they can for this country. As someone who went down range and was in a helicopter that had bullets ripping through the bottom of it, I understand the courage that it takes to do the jobs that you and your people do. And so I want to make sure I ask each of you, despite our political differences, to take this message back. We are deeply appreciative of the men and women who man their pose for this country’s safety. With that, I yield to the Ranking Member.

Thank you very much. Let me paraphrase what the chairman just said. While we praise our men and women, when the opportunity comes to put the money where the praises are, Democrats on this committee have consistently supported the funding of DHS’s budget, we’ve consistently funded the FBI’s budget and our intelligence gathering agencies because we understand that those men and women who put their lives on the line deserve all the resources. Now taken from that, we’ve not on the democratic side ever voted against one of your budgets. We understand it. We can differ on the policy, but we don’t differ on the fact that you need the investment. There are some members of this committee who’ve even advocated defunding the FBI. Now, I can’t in my wildest dreams imagine if we had an impotent FBI where that would put us. Director Wray, for those advocates who wanted to defund the FBI in this country, can you give us a snapshot of what that defunding would mean for the security of the homeland?

Well, I mean the FBI in the last year, for example, has arrested over 18,000 violent criminals. That’s about 50 per day, so defunding the FBI would mean that many more violent criminals out on the streets terrorizing neighborhoods. We have, as I said in my opening statement, about 2000 active investigations into Chinese economic espionage. Restricting our funding would be a gift to the Chinese Communist Party. The FBI has about 380 investigations into cartel leadership. Uplifting our funding means more power to the cartels. The FBI has investigations into a hundred different ransomware variants and each one of those has scores of victims.

(32:21)
Limiting our funding means more hacks, more intrusions, more damage to critical infrastructure. China alone has the biggest hacking program in the world by far. They’re not slowing down, they’re not restricting their funding, so from our perspective, it’s not just about the hardworking career professionals of the FBI and their families and their kids that would be affected. More importantly, it’s state local law enforcement who are counting on us more and more and more importantly than that, the American people that we’re trying to protect from gangs, the Chinese government, cyber hackers, cartels, child predators, et cetera.

Ms. Abizaid, can you say what resource deficit would mean for your agency?

Yeah, thank you very much. I mean, the National Counter-terrorism Center has a couple of important missions. We’re the primary center for the United States government to analyze and assess the foreign terrorist threat. We work on screening and vetting of individuals that are trying to enter the country. We support DHS and FBI in that mission with the intelligence database of known and suspected terrorists. We do a lot of work across state, local, tribal, territorial, and federal authorities to do the kind of information sharing that’s absolutely essential, especially in a dynamic threat environment like we have today, to keep everyone informed and armed with the information they need to protect against exactly the kinds of threats that we’ve outlined here for you today. So decreased funding for the National Counter-Terrorism Center, decreased funding for any piece of the overall CT architecture that works collaboratively together has an impact on our ability to stay ready against the terrorist threat.

Thank you. Secretary Mayorkas, there’s a supplemental proposal being put forth by the administration. Can you share with us what that means for DHS?

Ranking Member Thompson, that supplemental is dedicated to our critical mission of securing our border and also battling the scourge of fentanyl. Those funds are needed for personnel, technology, facilities, and additional support resources critically needed to advance our mission. We are under-resourced and have been perennially.

Thank you very much. I yield back.

The gentleman yields. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the House of Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. McCaul.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me say my thanks to all three of you, your employees. You work so hard to protect this country. Having served at the Department of Justice for many years and the Chief of Counter-Terrorism and National Security, I think you don’t hear that very often these days. And also, I agree with you, director, that 702 FISA is a critical element to securing and protecting Americans, and I will fight very hard to get that reauthorized.

(35:51)
Moving forward, Director Wray, we’ve had over about 7.5 million encounters at the southern border. We’ve had 7,000 special interest aliens. We’ve had nearly 200 on the terror watchlist. When I chaired this committee, and when I got the briefings, the first question I ever asked was, “How many SIAs? How many on the terror watchlist?” 200 is alarming to me. Does that give you concern?

Certainly, the numbers give us concern. I think it’s important though in some ways to realize that numbers alone don’t even really tell the problem, and we’ve all seen how much damage just a small number of foreign terrorists could cause. I mean, sometimes people, as crazy as it sounds, tend to forget that it was 19 people who killed 3,000 people.

That was point I was going to make. It only took 19 to create 9/11, and that’s alarming. I just got back from Israel. I saw the Hamas videos. It is very disturbing. I know you’ve testified previously that Hamas could either inspire attacks or maybe get into the country. The problem is we don’t know who these 200 people are, and to your point, how many others got in that we don’t even know about.

(37:21)
Why won’t either you or the secretary provide us with the full, complete, accurate information as I used to get when I was chair of this committee? Who are these 200 individuals? Who are they? Is Hamas on the list? We know the SIAs include countries like Iran, Lebanon and Iraq. That gives me great pause. We provide that to this committee.

Well, we will certainly continue to engage with the committee in closed session with numbers and information. As you know from your past experience with this issue, for one thing, the numbers themselves change literally moment to moment. And so, it’s important for us to be careful to be accurate and timely with the information we’ve got.

(38:12)
But then, I think the second-

And it could be in a classified setting, that’s how they used to do it when I was chair of this committee. I don’t have that information. My governor in the state of Texas, who has to deal with this problem on a daily basis, cannot get this information.

(38:29)
I understand before 9/11 we had walls up, sharing information, connecting the dots, but this is 2023. I mean, it seems to me we should be able to share that information.

Well, I’m happy to have my staff follow up. I know we’ve had a lot of engagements with the Hill over different numbers and populations of individuals. And so, I guess I’d have to circle back to figure out exactly what happened there and what hasn’t.

I would like, as an American and a Texan, I’d like to know personally.

(39:05)
Mr. Secretary, there was an Austin SWAT officer killed in my hometown, who was on the terror watchlist, the SWAT officer murdered by someone on the terror watchlist. And the family involved was Mohammed Nasser. Do you have any information about this?

Mr. Chairman, we’d be pleased to provide you with whatever information we have in the-

Please do. And let me just say, 18 U.S.C. Section 2(a) states, “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids and abets council’s command, induces or procures its commission is punishable as the principle.”

(39:53)
Human trafficking, a criminal enterprise in this country now with people with no legal status, an entire population seven times over to be killed by fentanyls, 12 billion total, 300,000 people dead due to fentanyls. Sir, I would argue that you’ve been aiding and abetting the deaths and the criminal enterprise that has occurred in this nation.

(40:26)
I see my time. Well, I got 15 seconds.

No, you don’t.

Oh, I’m 15 seconds over.

Yeah, you’re over.

I’d still like to go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

It’s going the other way.

(40:38)
The gentleman yields. I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just for informational purposes, there are Americans on the terror watchlist as well. So, I would suggest we take in all the information with respect to that.

(41:04)
I want to thank the witnesses for making themselves available today. Director Wray, in 2021, more than 26,000 Americans lost their lives by homicide. Close to 21,000 of which were committed with a firearm. The same year, 61 of 73 law enforcement officers who died from felonious assault were killed by firearms.

(41:38)
While we’re seeing more states, specifically reliably Republican voting states adopt more permissive gun laws, we’re also seeing a rise in anti-government and violent extremists targeting law enforcement. How dangerous is it to be in law enforcement right now under these circumstances and how do we rectify the threat to the men and women of law enforcement?

Well, certainly, this is a dangerous time for law enforcement. As you mentioned, 2021 was the deadliest year for law enforcement, I think since 9/11. And this year the pace is awfully close to what 2021 is, and I say that with a level of personal familiarity with it.

(42:39)
In 2021, we had two of our agents killed in Florida, attempting to execute a search related to a child exploitation case. And a task force officer of ours in Indiana gunned down right outside of our offices. And every time, one of the things I decided I was going to do when I took this job now six and a half years ago was every time an officer is shot and killed in the line of duty anywhere in the country, I called the chief or the sheriff myself and talked to them and express my condolences on behalf of the FBI. I have a little writeup on the family, a photo of the fallen officer, and I’ve made something like 350 of those calls. And being in law enforcement is dangerous enough. What it shouldn’t be is wearing a badge, making you a target, and we’re seeing way too much of that in today’s America.

Okay. Let’s see. Can you explain why 60% of guns used in violent crimes in New Jersey, the state I represent and have lived in all my life, come from Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida? What do those states have in common that make them dangerous exporters of criminal firearms?

I’m not sure I could speak to the specific circumstances of each of those states. Certainly, straw purchases and gun trafficking is an ingredient that drives the violent crime problem that we have in this country. It’s one of many things that drives that problem.

Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I’d like to yield the final minute of my time to Mr. Goldman.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I asked to yield just to respond to something that my distinguished colleague from Texas just said, who I know has served for a long time as a federal prosecutor, as have I, and as has Secretary Mayorkas. I think it’s incredibly dangerous to accuse Secretary Mayorkas of aiding and abetting crimes, as you well know, you need to have the intent to do that, and it is clear that whether you disagree or not with Secretary Mayorkas’ approach to dealing with the border, that to accuse him of aiding, betting crime is very serious and is, I think, unwarranted in this situation.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes.

Look, I live in a border state, you don’t, and I’ve dealt with this issue for 25 years. I’ve never seen it this bad. It’s his dereliction of duty that has created this problem in the United States. 7 million people, how are we going to deal with that? No legal status, human trafficking, fentanyls. Look, we will disagree on this one, but I have to say that the change of policy has created this problem, and he knows better. He was a U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, like you were. He knows better.

Will you yield for one second?

I yield back.

Actually, the time has expired. So, if someone else wants to yield to these gentlemen, you certainly may do that. But the time has expired and we’d like to continue on, so that everyone gets their opportunity. But I do appreciate the dialogue.

(46:38)
I believe now we are with Mr. Higgins, the gentleman from Louisiana. Sir, you’re recognized for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, ultimately, as we consider threats to the homeland in our annual hearing on that topic, with leading members of the executive branch before us, it’s important to reflect upon the simple fact that ultimately Americans are quite capable of defending our own soil, our own cultures and communities against foreign invasion or against armed depression from within.

(47:21)
However, it’s far more threatening to our republic if our own government facilitates criminal invasion, and it is incredibly threatening to our citizenry if our government’s highest levels of law enforcement coordinate organized campaigns of weaponized oppression, harassment, investigation, arrest and prosecution, and imprisonment of free Americans. That, Mr. Chairman, is a primary threat our homeland indeed faces today.

(48:04)
Secretary Mayorkas, I’ve noted you as a worthy adversary, sir, for two and a half years, but my issue is not with you today. I’m done with you. I’ve completed my investigative work. It’s quite extensive. I’ve filed my articles of impeachment against you and I’ve provided my investigative work to the appropriate committee. So, let me just say that my articles have been filed and my time with you is done.

(48:41)
Direct Wray, last year, you might recall, sir, our exchange regarding the FBI’s involvement on January 6th and prior. I’m happy to jog your memory. To quote, according to the record I asked you, “Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the Capitol on January 6th, prior to the doors being opened?” You responded, I quote, “Again, I have to be very careful of what I say.” To which I said, “It should be a no. Can you not tell the American people, ‘No, we did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the Capitol on January 6th?'”

(49:28)
A year has passed. We sit here again a year later. We, the people still do not have a definitive answer from you or anyone else in the Biden administration regarding the FBI presence and participation in the months leading up to the November election and in the weeks and days prior to January 6th and on January 6th here in D.C. We can’t get a straight answer, although we have a tremendous amount of evidence harvested and reviewed over the course of the last year, which you will see in September. Steven D’Antuono, formerly in charge of the FBI’s field office in Washington D.C., testified to the House Judiciary Committee that he was aware the FBI informants would attend the Stop the Steal rally thrown on January 6th. You confirm that the FBI had confidential human sources at the Stop the Steal rally on January 6th here in D.C., sir?

Congressman, as we’ve discussed before, I’m not going to get into where we have or have not used confidential human sources, but what I can tell you-

Okay, we’ll move on.

You asked for a definitive answer.

We’ll move on. It’s my time.

Yep.

You said no, you’re not going to answer. That’s cool. We’re watching.

Mr. Chairman, may I answer?

The moment will come. This is my time.

(50:56)
Earlier this year, an FBI informant who is reported to have, his quote under oath, “March to the U.S. Capitol with fellow Proud Boys members on January the 6th.” He said he was communicating with his FBI handler while people were entering the U.S. Capitol. Can you confirm that the FBI had that sort of engagement with your own agents embedded into the crowd on January 6th?

If you are asking whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6th was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and/or agents, the answer is emphatically not.

You’re saying no?

No. Not violence orchestrated by FBI sources or agents.

Let’s move on. Are you familiar with, you know what a ghost vehicle is, director? You’re director of the FBI, you certainly should. You know what a ghost bus is?

A ghost bus?

Ghost bus.

I’m not sure I’ve used that term before.

Okay. Well, it’s pretty common in law enforcement. It’s a vehicle that’s used for secret purposes. It’s painted over. These two buses in the middle here, they were the first to arrive at Union Station on January 6th, 05:00. I have all this evidence. I’m showing you a tip of this iceberg.

Mr. Chairman.

These two buses are painted completely white.

Mr. Chairman, point of order.

Point of order. Sure.

He’s run over the time.

I understand. But you’ll recall that Ms. Jackson Lee’s been allowed to go two minutes before. I’ve been very fair in letting people finish their questioning throughout my tenure as chairman and I’ll continue to be fair on that regard.

(52:44)
But I will make a note to the members, if you could stay as close within your time as possible, we have a lot of people that want to ask these gentlemen questions. So with that, the gentleman yields.

(52:53)
But your point, I’ve been very fair in this Mr. Ivy with everybody on this side of the aisle, just as much as-

I don’t think I accuse you of being unfair, Mr. Chairman. I’m just making a point of order.

You’re making a point, okay. Thank you.

(53:04)
I now recognize Mr. Correa.

May I close this statement, Mr. Chairman?

No, I think your time is expired Mr.-

I note that other members across the aisle have been granted time and I object to my question being closed. This is a very significant hearing, Mr. Chairman, and these buses are nefarious in nature and were filled with FBI informants dressed as Trump supporters, deployed onto our Capitol on January 6th. Your day is coming, Mr. Wray.

You’ve made your point, Mr. Higgins. I now recognize Mr. Correa of California for his five minutes of questioning.

You’re the chairman, but-

The gentleman could yield to you, Mr. Ranking Member, if he wants. You’ve been recognized.

I’ll yield to you, the ranking member.

The rules of the committee says that once the chair calls the time, it’s done. So I mean, those are the rules of the committee.

Thanks for pointing that out. Mr. Ranking Member. I think he yields to you, Mr. Correa.

Chairman, I want to thank you very much for holding this hearing and I especially want to thank the witnesses today in front of us. Mr. Mayorkas, Mr. Wray and Ms. Abizaid. You’ve got a difficult task in this country today. The title of this committee is Worldwide Threats of the Homeland Security. First of all, you’ve got the challenge of finding a needle in a haystack.

(54:35)
Domestic terrorism, I’ve got a chart here from the ADL that shows the number of incidences, national level, you’ve got to play defense here in the U.S., as well as defense overseas. And I agree with my colleague, Mr. Mike McCaul, the things have never been so bad. We’re coming out of COVID right now. We’ve got countries, essentially failed economies, failed democracies around the world, worldwide refugee movement. And on top of that, I understand, Mr. Wray, that you essentially declared a possible heightened state of alert for the country. Is that correct? Something of this sort, that we’ve just got to watch the things that are going on right now?

I’ve testified and I feel very strongly that we are in a heightened threat environment.

And I couldn’t agree with you more. We’ve got two wars going on at least, areas of conflict around the world. And I’m here really to ask how can we help you do your job better. I’m not going to be here to ask for an impeachment or hold you accountable. I’m here to make sure that you’re able to hold the line 100%. We can’t afford to have another Uvalde in our country. We can’t afford to have another 9/11. So, I’m here really to listen to what it is, what resources do you need to do your job.

(56:05)
And I’m going to start out with, Mr. Mayorkas, do you need more or less analysts? This is a big job. How do you find a needle in a haystack? Do you need more analysts or less at the Homeland Security? Can that help?

Congressman, we have submitted a request for supplemental funding. We need additional personnel, resources to include facilities and technology. The men and women of the department-

And we need technology, sir. We need good intel. We need to make sure that we’re able to work with our allies, our law enforcement, state, local, federal coordination. That’s why Homeland Security was created, because of the silos that existed before 9/11. Coordinate good intel to make sure you’re able to do your job.

(56:57)
CBP One, do you get information off of that? Do you let people just into the country? Or do you take their information? What kind of data do you require for CBP to work?

Congressman, CBP One is a process that we employ that enables us to screen and vet individuals before they arrive at the border, to enable us to make a determination whether or not they should be allowed in.

Do you ask for biometric information? What is it exactly that you collect there to make sure that the folks that are applying are essentially vetted?

Congressman, we confirm identity and we screen and vet them to make sure that they do not pose either a public safety threat or a threat to our national security.

Thank you.

(57:50)
Director Wray, what is it that we can do as Congress to help you make sure that you do your job better? Make sure that 100% nobody scores on us?

Well, Congressman, I appreciate the question. Certainly, the budget requests that we’ve submitted both in the ’24 budget itself, but also the supplemental are all things we desperately need.

(58:13)
Second, reauthorized 702 in a form where we can actually use it to protect Americans here from foreign threats.

(58:23)
Third, Secretary Mayorkas highlighted, which I think can’t be highlighted enough, the need to reauthorize the counter UAS authority, which is going to expire at the end of this week if something isn’t done. And that is authority, that if it’s gone, no one, not DHS, not FBI, no one here can protect Americans from that threat.

(58:43)
So, those are a few of the things that would be very important from the FBI’s perspective.

And let me say that I appreciate the three of you being here today because we need to make sure that the public out there on Main Street understands the good work you’re doing. You may be controversial, but that’s part of the democratic system, but you’re doing a good job protecting our families back home. And I just want to make sure people understand that we need to work as a team to make sure the job gets done.

(59:13)
Ma’am, any thoughts on what resources you need to do your job?

I would associate myself with my colleague’s comments here. FISA 702 authority is absolutely essential for the counter-terrorism mission.

(59:26)
And to your point about working as a team, the counter-terrorism architecture that we’ve built across the intelligence community, law enforcement community, defense, diplomatic, and Homeland Security professional community needs to be sustained and sustaining that at the levels we requested it would be incredibly helpful.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, I yield.

The gentleman yields. I now recognize the Vice Chair of the committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Guest, for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To all our panelists, thank you for being here today, particularly in the threat environment that we face. Director Wray, you state in your report that the threats we face as a nation have never been greater, and I agree completely with that. Secretary Mayorkas, you also talk about the threats in your report, where you say, “Terrorist threats in the United States remained heightened. Hamas attacks on Israel along with other events have sharpened the focus of potential attacks.” And you go on later to say, “The increased prospects for violence…” You talk about the increased prospect for violence in the United States.

(01:00:33)
And so, at a time in which we face increased threats domestically, where we see internationally events continue to seem to spiral out of control, I want to talk specifically about the events that are transpiring along our southwest border.

(01:00:52)
Mr. Secretary Mayorkas, I have behind me a chart that has the encounters of CBP. This was taken off of the CBP website. And just want to walk through some of the information contained there. Based upon the research that I’ve done, it appears since the president took office, since you became the Chairman of Homeland Security, that there’s been roughly 7.4 million encounters along our southwest border. If you were to put all those people in one geographic area, that would represent the seventh-largest state in the United States, between Arizona and Tennessee.

(01:01:33)
We see that the last month prior to you taking office, that there were 95,000 encounters along the southwest border. We see that the numbers reported here by your department, September of ’23, the last reporting numbers show that that number has spiked now to 341%, an increase of almost 250%. We know that as part of the problem, the president appointed the vice president to be the border czar, to help try to stop the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America. That appointment was made in March of ’21. In March of ’21, the end of the month, there was reported 192 encounters. Now, we know, again, the number of encounters are over 341,000. And so, under her watch as border czar, we see that the increase is 75%. And so, the numbers have grown exponentially under your and the vice president’s leadership. One of my questions to you is do you look at the daily encounter numbers that are put out by your department? Is that a statistic that you look at on a regular basis?

Vice Chairman Guest, it is in fact, and the numbers about which you speak are reflective not only of a challenge at our southwest border, but rather a challenge of migration throughout our entire hemisphere-

And I understand that. And so, you do look at the numbers, you do look at the daily reporting numbers, and I want to harken back to an interview in 2019. At that time, with former Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, during the Trump administration, as we were seeing 4,000 immigrants a day coming across the border. At that time, the former director of Homeland Security had an interview with MSNBC and he said, “My staff would tell you that if the number of daily apprehensions was under 1,000 the day before, that was a relative good number. And if it was above a thousand, it was a relative bad number, and I was going to be in a bad mood that day.” He also went on to say, “On Thursday,” and again, this was in March of 2019, when Donald Trump was president, “There were 4,000 apprehensions. I know that if 1,000 overwhelms the system, I can’t begin to imagine what 4,000 a day truly looks like. We are in a crisis.”

(01:04:08)
And so, my question to you, if Secretary Johnson said 1,000 immigrants a day when he was in the position that you [inaudible 01:04:18], if that was a bad day, and that 4,000 a day was a crisis, what is a bad day for you, Secretary Mayorkas? Because we see now that the numbers have exploded. They’re no longer 1,000 a day. They’re not even 4,000 a day when this article was written. There are over 11,000 a day. And so, in the last 20 seconds, what number to you represents a bad day when we see the number of apprehensions increase dramatically? So, I’ll give you the remainder of my time to answer the question and I’ll yield back.

Vice Chairman Guest, we do not minimize the significance of the challenge at the southwest border and we are intensely focused on it.

Is there a number? Would you like to give a number? I asked for a number. That was my question. What number to you represents a bad day? And are you refusing to answer the question?

Vice Chairman Guest, as I said, we do not minimize the significance of the challenge at the southwest border.

That wasn’t my question, Mr. Mayorkas. I asked a simple question, give me a number, and you’re filibustering and you’re refusing to answer the question. What is that number?

I have answered your question-

No, you haven’t, Mr. Mayorkas. You’ve not answered the question.

I can do hand signals at this point.

Mr. Ivy, if you let him answer the question, or maybe if you would like to answer for him, because clearly he does not intend to answer my question.

I think it’s… You-

Is it not a fair question?

I’m just saying you’re over your time. That’s all.

We don’t need any more points about over the time, okay? As I just sent to you, I think it was just last week, I let Mr. Correa vote after we had gaveled out. I am gracious here and I’ll be gracious to both sides of the aisle.

And Mr. Chairman, I would ask-

I don’t want any more interruptions about time being expired, please. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to direct the witness to answer the question.

(01:06:04)
Do you have a number?

I have answered it to the best of my ability, Mr. Chairman.

Clearly. I now recognize Mr. Carter.

Mr. Chairman, if I might.

Point of order?

I’m just asking, are you basically suspending that rule or… What’s-

Look, I have since the beginning, and this is the last time I’m going to answer this question today, Mr. Ivy, allowed people to continue a question, train of thought that extends outside their time. I’ve done that on both sides of the aisle and I am not going to articulate or waste any more of these gentlemen and this gentle lady’s time defining the policy as I’ve executed it since the beginning of my chairmanship.

(01:06:47)
I think now, the next person-

Let me say this, Mr. Chairman-

You are not recognized, Mr. Ivy.

Well, I’m sorry, but if I-

You are not recognized.

You’re not following the rules that we have voted on and accepted at the beginning.

Point of order, the ranking member’s recognized.

Mr. Chairman, we adopted a set of rules, and I try not to get involved.

Go ahead.

I have to explain my point of order.

Go ahead.

And the rules clearly specify everything that’s being raised.

I have never once, Mr. Ranking Member, heard-

I have not completed.

Finish your thought.

Thank you. So, I’m saying that we adopted the rules on how we conduct business. And anytime a member raises the question, it’s consistent with the rules. Now, if that becomes a problem, then I think we have to modify our rules, because that’s how we operate. That’s what congresses are required to do. That’s what committees are required to do. And for people to ignore the rules is inconsistent with the rule. So, I’m just saying to you, follow the rules that we adopted.

We’re going to continue the policy as I have been doing it since I’ve been the chairman, okay? If you’re in the midst of a thought, we’re going to let you go past your time.

(01:08:10)
And number two, I haven’t heard anyone raise an issue on the left when I’ve allowed people on the left to go over time. Not once, Mr. Ivy, have you said when one of your members has gone over five minutes, “The person’s time is up.” Fascinating to me that you’re only doing it when it’s on this side of the aisle.

If I might have a chance to be heard.

Please. Yes.

All I’m saying is that under the rules, we have a right to raise the point of order when somebody goes over the time. You’ve used your discretion to permit additional questioning if you want to, but to say I can never raise a point of order that’s consistent with the rules doesn’t make any sense. I mean, it’s just a clear violation of the rules that were adopted. And by the way, the rules were adopted, I don’t think they were adopted unanimously. There was a Republican decision to adopt these rules. So, these are your rules.

No doubt about it. But the point I’m making is it’s intriguing to me that we’re consuming this time over this issue while I’ve never once heard you raise the issue when I’ve allowed Ms. Jackson Lee to go two minutes over.

I’ve never objected-

But today it’s an issue in the midst of a very important hearing.

Anybody can raise a point of order on the time-

You’re absolutely correct.

I’m not blocking anyone from doing that, but I think I have the right.

You do.

I request the right to preserve that, to raise the point of order when there’s an obvious-

It’s an excellent point. Now, can we move on? Thank you.

As long as you give me the authority-

Mr. Carter, the ranking member of the subcommittee on Emergency Management, the gentleman from Louisiana is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today. I’m heartbroken by the innocent lives that have been lost and civilians being targeted by hateful terrorist groups like Hamas. This is outrageous and inevitably leads

… leads to tragic consequences. Condemning these atrocities and protecting innocent lives at all costs is pivotal. Our discussion on worldwide threats is important for the American people so we can further address such issues void of partisan brinkmanship. We all must do better. Director Wray, our nation’s HBCUs produce some of the brightest who enter our ever-growing workforce. Repeated threats to these institutions have caused widespread disruption on campuses by shutting down classes and campus activity. Mr. Wray, could you please briefly update us on the FBI’s activity and things that you’re actively doing to monitor and combat such events in the future?

Well, thank you, Congressman. Certainly, the threats that we saw against HBCUs were appalling and there’s absolutely no excuse for putting campuses, students, faculty, staff in a position where they can’t go about their lives at school in fear. And so we have actively been investigating the threats as they’ve come in. As you know, there was an arrest related to some of the threats, involved a juvenile who was responsible for a number of the threats.

(01:11:25)
I think, more importantly, we’ve doubled down on our engagement with HBCUs. I’ve personally engaged with a number of HBCU law enforcement heads. We have an increased partnership with campus law enforcement over the last two years. That’s including in this recent threat environment. We’re very careful to include campus law enforcement in all of our law enforcement partner calls. We have campus liaison officers in effect appointed in each one of our field offices to focus specifically on engagement with academia. So that’s a big part of it. It’s not just the investigations and the analysis, but also the outreach.

How has that been ramped up with the recent hate speak for Muslims, and Jewish brothers and sisters, and Palestinians? We see this over boiling because of what’s happening in the Middle East, spreading and boiling into the college campus environment, as well as just our general communities. We know that Hamas is the true threat, but because of these risks, we’re seeing this bleed over into a level of hatred for innocent people who have nothing to do with Hamas.

Well, certainly, we’re in an environment where the number of tips and threats that are being reported to us have gone up significantly since October 7th. We were already, as I testified earlier, already in an elevated threat environment, even before October 7th, and it’s gone to a whole nother level since October 7th. The biggest chunk of the threats that have been reported into us by a good margin are threats to the Jewish community, synagogues, Jewish prominent officials, things like that. We also have a large number of tips and leads related specifically to Hamas and radicalization and recruitment. We do also have some threats to Muslim Americans that have also been called in. And so we are urgently running down every tip and lead we get and trying to mitigate them and engaging. I think the thing that distinguishes the post October 7th environment even more than the pre October 7th environment, one of the things that distinguishes it, is how [inaudible 01:13:50]-

Director, I don’t want to cut you off. You’ve got an important job. We appreciate the hard work that you and the men and women of your department do. Very quickly, Secretary Mayorkas, the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction, CWMD Office will sunset, you acknowledged this in your opening remarks, if Congress does not act. I understand that there are few vehicles which you’re working on to ensure that CWMD continues to operate. As you know, last night, we passed a temporary measure in the CR that will extend the sunset through February of 2024. If this is not made permanent, if we’re not able to move forward with a permanent measure, how does that impact your ability to protect American cities and to protect our country?

Congressman, thank you very much. It is an incredible detriment to our ability to secure the American people. Just in the last two days, a local law enforcement officer equipped with some of the equipment that we provide to detect a radiological nuclear material, in fact, was wearing a device that detected an abandoned material in a very unsafe location that could’ve caused a tremendous amount of harm to people in the surrounding community. This is a vital authority that we absolutely need.

Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.

The gentleman yields. As a point of order and informing the committee, votes have been called. We’re going to do two more members, Mr. Bishop and then Mr. Swalwell. We’ll recess and we’ll reconvene 10 minutes after the final vote. I now recognize the Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop from North Carolina, for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I listened to your opening statements, I’m floored by the fact that I perceive a dramatic shift in the positions of each of you from the testimony that you gave and the way you answered questions just last November. Director Abizaid, I want to begin with you. Last time, I asked you this, “Director Abizaid, does the National Counter Terrorism Center assess a significant threat from the historic level of uncontrolled crossing at the southern border?” And your answer was, “We don’t, actually.” The Judiciary Committee has released a document that says there are confirmed 1.7 million got- aways. Maybe one of you has a better number than that. Millions have been processed and released to the extent that the Mayor of New York, Eric Adams, says that New York City is being destroyed. All of you are aware of those things. Director Abizaid, do you continue to maintain that there is no material risk of organized terrorism from this massive infiltration both of people minimally encountered and almost two million people neither encountered or vetted whatsoever?

I appreciate the question and we absolutely recognize the kind of vulnerabilities that are associated with border security across all of our ports of entry across southwest border and otherwise, but I would maintain, and I talk to my analysts about this on a regular basis, that as we look at the global terrorism environment, as we look at foreign terrorist organizations’ intentions to try and seed operatives into the United States, we don’t have indications that are credible or corroborated that those terrorist organizations are trying to do that at this time.

You are aware, are you not, ma’am, you remember I made this comment the last time, the 9/11 Commission Report talked about the system blinking red, there were obvious risks. Director Wray sat next to you just a few minutes ago and you’ve changed your tenor, too, Director Wray, and you said that you observed that it took only 20 to take down the World Trade Center. So among 1.7 million coming in, not interdicted by the federal government or any government, why is that not an obvious risk to you that we could have organized terrorism? How many cells could you create of 20 people-

Sir, if I may-

…. that could do something like that?

… I’d like to clarify, we absolutely recognize the risk. In fact, if you look at the kind of counter-terrorism enterprise that we’ve built that’s focused on collecting overseas, that’s focused on border security, that’s focused on screening, vetting, watchlisting individuals and terrorist identities, it’s absolutely a risk that we understand and a vulnerability that we worked very hard over the last 20 years to shore up. So my comments relate to the intelligence about foreign terrorist plans and intentions-

You’ve deployed that-

… and it is not a statement about what risk we think we have. We recognize the potential risk.

I’ll stop you and reclaim my time because you shouldn’t be going on. That seems to me even more astonishing because you’ve sat in this administration almost since its beginning alongside Secretary Mayorkas while elective policies have been pursued to allow that to happen, uncontrolled immigration processing millions of people through border patrol posts, CBP and Border Patrol, to overwhelm those agencies so that this unbelievably and historically unprecedented number of got-aways could come through. You’ve all given it [inaudible 01:19:22], you’ve all permitted it to happen and said nothing publicly about what you now acknowledge to be a material risk. And it seems to me we’re going to see the manifestation of that risk. Secretary Mayorkas, in your testimony, both written and oral today, you said the world has changed since Hamas’s attack in October. What’s changed about Hamas?

Oh, Hamas has been and continues to be a terrorist organization.

Exactly. And so does Hezbollah, and so do all the others, including Al-Qaeda. Nothing’s changed. And you have supervised elective policies that have allowed this level of flow into the United States. Isn’t that true?

That is not true.

Oh, you haven’t done it electively. You couldn’t have changed anything to attenuate the flow. Is that your testimony?

Congressman, our policies are directed at securing the border.

Can you give me a quick answer? Could you have changed anything to attenuate the flow?

Congressman, we are seeking to address the flow every single day. [inaudible 01:20:30]-

Boy, that’s amazing. And you’ve continued to say that sort of thing, and I agree with Mr. Higgins, it doesn’t warrant much asking. Let me ask you, Mr. Wray, we’ve seen now this spectacle of hundreds of thousands of people waving Palestinian flags, attacking the gates of the White House, vandalizing places. You’ve expended, in fact, so has Mr. Mayorkas, expended tremendous resources to stop foreign malign influence. With millions of people coming into the country unvetted, is that at all a foreign malign influence operation now operating in the United States homeland?

We view it as a threat. I don’t think we view it as a foreign malign influence threat, but that’s just terminology.

Do you know whether it is or not? In other words, do you know whether those protests are, in significant part, the product of people who have been allowed into the country, the millions, illegally?

We have not seen intelligence that would indicate that. I do want to add, though, Congressman, when it comes to my testimony from last year, I specifically said, and I’m looking at the transcript last year, that we had a concern from a national security perspective, that we’d seen an increase in the number of KSDs attempting to cross over the past five years, and I specifically brought up the case that we brought against an individual who tried to smuggle in foreign nationals to assassinate [inaudible 01:21:49].

I’d be working hard to cover my posterior, too. You did say more than [inaudible 01:21:53] did, but you didn’t come forward and say that what she said was completely wrong, and you should have.

The gentleman yields. I now recognize Mr. Swalwell, the ranking member of the Cyber Subcommittee, the gentleman from California, for his five minutes of questioning, and we will recess after his questioning.

A longtime friend of mine who works in the intelligence community once told me, Eric, that the challenge with our job is that we’re only known for our failures, that most Americans have no idea about the successes that we achieve on behalf of the American people every day. And whether it’s fentanyl seizures at the border or a terrorist plot that’s disrupted, most folks don’t know about it and aren’t able to thank you for it. And when they do see the work, they see it in a public hearing like today. So I just want to thank you.

(01:22:46)
I also want to thank Director Wray and Secretary Mayorkas for sending to my congressional district a couple of weeks ago some of your staff from the special agent in charge in San Francisco to the CISA Office to assist us in hosting a cybersecurity summit for our small business community. It was very effective and helpful and I think they have a better sense of where they should go.

(01:23:11)
Director Wray, I wanted to ask you about the extrajudicial killing of a Sikh leader in Canada that occurred outside of Gurdwara. My district has one of the largest Sikh populations in the United States. As individual, Dr. Pritpal Singh, who’s the Founder of the American Sikh Caucus, lives in Fremont, which is in my district. He’s very publicly acknowledged that he was warned by the FBI about his own safety and I just want to know what the FBI is doing right now to protect individuals in the Sikh community from any threats to them because of who they worship, what they believe.

Without talking about any investigative work that we’re doing, other than to note that part of what you’re describing involves an increase in violence and threats against people for their views, for their beliefs, for example, the transnational repression that we talk about so much is certainly a variation of that, and we’ve seen that from the Chinese and the Iranians, for example, but when it comes to the Sikh community here, we do have quite a number of efforts to engage in outreach to raise awareness about who to call, what to be on the lookout for, to understand what a hate crime is, for example, because one of the things we know about hate crimes is, whether they’re against Sikhs or anybody else, is they’re chronically under under-reported. And part of that is for people to understand what a hate crime looks like so they know when to reach out to law enforcement.

(01:24:49)
So we’ve tried to raise awareness, and it ties into your broader point about the intelligence community in terms of prevention, quietly preventing things. Our vision statement is ahead of the threat, and if we are successful in being ahead of the threat, of course, the threat doesn’t end up coming to fruition. It’s a little bit like being the holder for a place kicker. You can distinguish yourself if the kick goes smoothly, but it’s hard not to be noticed if the kick doesn’t go well.

At the end of the year, Section 702, Director, expires, and this is a part of the law that allows the intelligence community and law enforcement to investigate and stop credible threats to the United States, to our homeland, to our people from abroad. Could you conceive a greater case of self-sabotage to create a vulnerability to the United States than letting Section 702 lapse at the end of the year?

I think letting 702 lapse would be shortsighted at best and dangerous in the extreme at worst. To be clear, 702 is what allows us to get eyes on foreign threats overseas that pose national security threats to people here in the homeland. And as somebody who was in FBI headquarters on 9/11 and spent an awful lot of my time in the Bush Administration in the years after that engaging with the victims and the families of the 9/11 attacks, we should never be in a position where we can’t say we did everything constitutionally and legally in our power to see the threats when they’re coming, and that’s what 702 enables us to do. And especially in this heightened threat environment with, as I said in my opening statement, a rogues gallery of foreign terrorist organizations calling for attacks against us, the idea that we would deliberately blind ourselves to information that is lawfully in our possession just strikes me as crazy.

And do you believe a foreign national terrorist suspect should be afforded the right to a warrant requirement?

No. And I don’t think there’s any court that suggests otherwise. There’s a lot of people throwing around the words unconstitutional in this debate, and yet I don’t think there’s any court that has found that the way in which 702 is used is in any way a violation of the Fourth Amendment or the Constitution.

Because these are foreign nationals overseas?

Yes, correct.

Thank you. Yield back.

Gentleman yields. We will recess until 10 minutes after the last vote and we will text out that exact time once we have it. Thank you.

(01:27:39)
The committee will come to order. I now recognize, and we’ll start back in order, I think Mr. Swalwell completed our first session this morning, we’ll now hear from the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Mr. Gimenez from Florida, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is to Secretary Mayorkas. Secretary Mayorkas, when President Biden first came into office, one of the first things he did is he changed all the Trump-era policies related to the southern border. Did you agree with those changes?

Congressman-

That’s a yes or no answer, sir, please. I don’t have much time. Do you agree with them or not?

Congressman, he changed some of the policies and I do agree with those changes.

Okay. And subsequent to that, have you had a number of conversations with the President when you’re making substantive changes or implementing new policies at the border? Have you relayed that to the President and the President, has he said that he’s in agreement with your recommendations or has he made recommendations to you or actually given your orders and said, “No, I want to do this?” Do you agree with everything, all the policies that have been implemented since you’ve been the Secretary of Homeland Security?

Congressman, I’m not going to get into the specifics of my conversations with the President, but please-

That’s air enough. I’m going to reclaim my time. Thank you very much. So apparently, I don’t know if you talked to the President or not. Fair enough. So either you do things on your own or you do things in consultation with the President. You’re still part of his administration.

(01:29:18)
There’s a lot have been said about the funding of DHS. And so in fiscal year 2020, there were 458,000 encounters at the border. In fiscal year 2021, there was 1,734,686 encounters at the border. That’s a 400% increase. There was no really significant change in the funding. So this whole narrative that somehow funding is the issue, funding’s not the issue. The issue is policy. And the policies that have been implemented by this administration and your department in particular have led to this catastrophic failure of our immigration in the United States, where you have a 400% increase in the number of encounters at the border with the same amount of money, both in fiscal year ’20 and ’21.

(01:30:16)
Now, in fiscal year ’22, things got even worse. There are 2.378 million encounters at the border. And we also know there’s been a significant increase in the number of got-aways to the point where almost two million people are in this country that we haven’t the faintest idea who they are, we don’t know where they came from, we don’t know where they are, and we don’t know why they’re here. And so again, Director Wray, does that pose a threat to the security of the United States? The fact that there’s two million people here, we don’t know who they are, why they’re here, what they’re doing here, have you got any worries about that?

Well, certainly, the population that you’re talking about is a source of concern for us.

All right. One other question for you, Director Wray, you say that the FBI, you work on detecting threats, et cetera to the United States and the homeland. Exactly why are you doing that? What is the purpose of detecting threats and mitigating threats to the homeland?

Well, our mission is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution.

Very good. Protecting the American people, that’s exactly right. The number one terrorist organization that has killed the most people in the United States, do you know what that is?

That would be Al-Qaeda.

And how many people have they killed, Americans?

Well, in the neighborhood of 3,000.

3,000, okay. Across the border, there’s the Mexican cartels. They are pumping fentanyl into the United States. You know how many people they’ve killed?

I don’t have that number, but it’s eye-popping.

It is eye-popping. And so again, the failure at the border, the failure of us taking significant action not only to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, and a lot of them we don’t even know who they are, that it poses a threat to the United States, the actual threat of the cartels that are not 7,000 miles away, they’re 20 miles away, they’re five miles away on the other side of the border, that are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year, and we do nothing about it, nothing. They’re right there. We know who they are, we know where they’re operating, and we do nothing about it. That is a dereliction of duty, Mr. Chairman.

(01:32:49)
And with that, I got one more, if you give me one more thing. Real quick, guns, planes, missiles, personnel, ships, boats, assassins, they all have one thing in common. Ms. Abizaid, do you know what that is? It’s money. Money, that’s what they have in common. So I’d like to know why the Secretary Blinken signed off a waiver for Iraq to purchase electricity from Iran, which will give them $10 billion in revenue. And that’s a rhetorical question. Thank you. I yield back.

Okay. The gentleman yields. I now recognize Mr. Thanedar from Michigan, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank ranking member Thomson, both of you, for having this hearing today. I also want to express profound thanks to the most honorable witnesses for your valuable efforts that give the people of this great country the safety they need to have prosperous lives.

(01:34:08)
As we discuss threats to the homeland here today, it looks like we will more likely avert a shutdown this time, but for the second time this year, the dysfunctional Republican majority has brought our government to the brink of a shutdown after weeks of infighting. Funding our government 45 days at a time has consequences. At the Transportation Security Administration, thanks to funding Democrats provided in the last year’s omnibus spending bill, workers are finally receiving the pay they have long deserved. However, pay increases were only funded for the final quarter of fiscal year 2023. So continuing at fiscal ’23 levels instead of passing a full year spending bill will have increasingly dire consequences for the agency.

(01:35:13)
Secretary Mayorkas, thank you for working with Congress to provide pay raises for TSA workers. What benefits is TSA seeing so far from pay raises and what consequences would you expect to see if Congress does not provide funding to increase TSA’s budget for fiscal ’24?

Thank you very much, Congressman, for your concern for the men and women of TSA. I want to thank ranking member Thompson for championing fair pay for that workforce for many, many years, and I’m grateful to Congress for achieving fair pay, finally. It has made a significant difference in the recruitment and retention of personnel who are vital to the security of the traveling public. If we lose that funding, we will return to recruiting and retention challenges, precisely when travel is booming once again in a post-COVID-19 world.

Thank you, Secretary. An as a former business owner, I understand the importance of making sure the employees get paid fairly and they have the benefits that they need because we are competing for these employees with the private sector and they can always walk. And we have seen a high level of turnover in the past, and that will continue, and that will endanger our safety. But more broadly, for all witnesses, how does continually funding the government by short-term continuing resolution affect your agency’s ability to execute your missions? I ran businesses and I never planned for 45-day budget. Usually, it’s a year, two year long, also have a five-year plan. That’s how most businesses operate. How does this short-term funding affects on how you run your agencies and how does that affect our national security?

Congressman, very difficult to plan in the implementation of important security-related and security-focused initiatives when one does not know with certainty whether the funding for those initiatives will actually come through. I should also add a different element of this. It creates tremendous worry and instability within the workforce. In fact, for example, our Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, I had an all employee town hall with them because they were uncertain about their future employment. That is not a situation that we can afford at a time when we need to advance the security of the American people.

Thank you.

I would add to Secretary Mayorkas’s comments that the funding approach that you’re describing is incredibly disruptive to our operations. As you say, planning is an essential part of any well-functioning organization and it’s very, very hard to do that. And I would second the concerns about our workforce as more and more of you have federal employees who are two-federal-employee couples, for example, and in a lot of places, they’re living paycheck to paycheck. So even with the law that was passed that ensures they will eventually get paid, which is a welcome development, in the short run, that’s incredibly stressful for people who are battling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their family’s heads.

Thank you.

I completely associate myself with my colleagues’ comments. I would only add that what we’ve described is a pretty unpredictable global environment right now, and in the national security world, we need a steady baseline from which we can operate and respond to crises. And so the added stress on the workforce of just being able to understand when and where their paycheck is coming from, I think, is one that we don’t want to really put on their shoulders.

Thank you so much. I’m over my time. So I yield back, Chair.

The gentleman yields. I now recognize Mr. Pfluger, the gentleman from Texas and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Counter-Terrorism, for five minutes.

Director Abizaid, thank you for your service. I’m not going to have questions for you today. Mr. Chairman, we started this hearing by listening to Secretary Mayorkas talk about climate change as a threat to our country and obscure policies that need reauthorization, but not yet one mention of the southwest border and the 169 plus known or suspected terrorist that have entered this country. So I think it just shows you where the mindset is, and the American people know that. Director Wray, you said in front of the Senate committee last week and you said again today, the reality is that terrorism threat has been elevated throughout 2023, but the ongoing war in the Middle East has raised the threat of an attack against Americans in the United States to a whole other level. Do you stand by that statement?

Absolutely.

If somebody is listed as a special interest alien or a KST, by the way, this is Trump-era KSTs and this is Mayorkas/Biden-era KSTs, if somebody’s listed as a KST, is that a concerning person, somebody who could do harm to the United States?

Well, to be on the watch list as a KST means that they’ve met the standard to be of concern.

So they’re concerning to the FBI. You’re looking for these people.

Yes.

Are there people that are listed in these numbers? I think the number was 169. They may have amended that from CBPDHS, but are there people that you are still searching for that we don’t know where they are in the United States, of the known apprehensions, KSTs, known or suspected terror people, match list to the Terror Watch List?

Well-

Are you still searching for people in the United States that we know match the Terror Watch List?

I’m not sure I can answer that here because it’s a constantly moving target.

Director Wray-

Yes.

… are there people that match the Terror Watch List that were apprehended by CBP that the FBI and other agencies are searching for in the United States?

There are certainly individuals who are the subject of terrorism investigations that we are searching for.

Are there people-

Whether or not they’re people … I guess the distinction I’m drawing is, while there’s obviously a lot of focus on the watch list itself, and I’ve tried to be clear in my testimony here this morning, one of the areas that we are of concern is individuals who, once here, information later comes in that identify [inaudible 01:42:22], and those people, we have-

Are there people you don’t know where they are that the FBI is searching for today?

Yes.

Yes or no? Yes. Secretary Mayorkas, is there a policy at DHS that requires CBP or any other agency involved with the vetting of individuals who match the Terror Watch List that requires these individuals to be detained? Does DHS have a policy of detainment for anybody who matches the Terror Watch list?

Congressman, on September 30th of 2021, I promulgated a policy that articulated quite clearly and quite expressly that individuals who pose a threat to the public safety of the American people-

Is there a policy at DHS and CBP that requires detainment of people who match the Terror Watch List? It’s very simple.

Individuals who pose a threat to public safety or national security are a priority for enforcement. And if, in fact, they pose such a-

Is every person that you have listed on the Terror Watch List detained right now?

And if, in fact, they pose such a threat, they are to be detained.

Okay. So why did you release people in the United States that matched the Terror Watch list?

Congressman, we do not release individuals who-

So you have detained every single person who matched the Terror Watch List that you apprehended at the southern border, 100%.

If you would allow me to answer the question-

Please answer it quickly. I don’t need a filibuster.

… if we believe that the detention of an individual is necessary to safeguard the safety of the American people, we continue to detain them.

Secretary, I’m going to reclaim my time. If you and any other agency labels somebody as a match to the Terror Watch List, do you immediately detain them?

Congressman, if you are referring to the terrorist screening dataset, the TSDS, we make a determination in the execution of our law enforcement responsibilities to detain an individual. If that detention is-

I believe that, based on your testimony and based on Director Wray’s, that there are people that you’re still searching for that you should’ve detained, and I want to find out more information on it. Furthermore, in 2023, your agency, Secretary Mayorkas, reported that there were over 24,000 Chinese nationals who have entered the United States illegally. That’s 1,000% increase from 2022. Are there people that you are searching for, Director Wray, Secretary Mayorkas, that have entered this country, and is there intelligence to suggest that the CCP is trying to use or directing the flow of CCP or Chinese nationals into the United States?

Well, certainly,

There are individuals who are affiliated with the Chinese government who are the subject of investigations that we have here, and some of those are people that we’re searching for. Now, how they came in, whether they came in illegally or not is a different question and I’m not sure I can speak to that here in the aggregate.

(01:45:17)
But what I can tell you is that I’ve been very consistent in saying that there is no country that presents a broader, more comprehensive threat to our economic security, our national security, our innovation than the Chinese government. And they use non-traditional collectors, not just traditional intelligence operatives to cause that threat.

Secretary Mayorkas based on Director Wray’s testimony, that he believes that this threat is at a whole other level and you are not detaining people immediately. I’m very concerned about the security of this nation and the fact that you have been derelict in your duty in securing [inaudible 01:45:55].

Gentleman’s time has expired.

I yield back.

I now recognize Mr. Carter. You went already. I now recognize Mr. Magaziner, the ranking member for counter-terrorism, the gentleman from Rhode Island for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for your leadership and to the men and women who work under you who keep our nation safe every day. You have our gratitude. And to Ranking Member Thompson and Chairman Green as well for calling this hearing. The director of National Intelligence has assessed that racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists present the greatest terror threats to our country. And I believe in your opening statements.

(01:46:40)
Our witnesses verified that assessment today. Racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists present the greatest terror threats to our country. Yet as I’ve been listening, not one member from the other side of the aisle has focused any of their remarks or questions on what the DNI and our witnesses have identified as the greatest terror threat to our country. So I’m going to spend my time today talking about this and asking you about it.

(01:47:09)
Because we know that over the last five years, more Americans have been killed on our soil by racially motivated extremists than any other type of terror. We saw it in El Paso, Texas where a racially motivated extremist killed 23 people in an attack explicitly targeting Latino and immigrant communities. In Buffalo, New York, where a racially motivated extremist targeted the Black community, killing 10 people. Allen, Texas, where an extremist espousing anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi ideology shot up a mall killing eight people.

(01:47:44)
Over the past decade, 145 Americans killed on US soil in domestic extremist attacks, primarily racially and ethnically motivated. The FBI currently has 2,700 open domestic terrorism cases and anti-government extremism poses a growing threat as well. We just learned the horrifying news that an associate of a January 6th defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring and plotting to murder 37 FBI employees in Chattanooga for the admitted purpose to retaliate against government conduct.

(01:48:21)
And of course in the wake of the October 7th Hamas terrorist attack in Israel, we are seeing a significant rise in anti-Semitic and Islamophobic violence across the country. The Anti-Defamation League reports that anti-Semitic incidents of harassment, vandalism and assault have increased by 388% over the same period last year. Just this week a Michigan man pleaded guilty to threatening to commit a mass shooting against the Jewish community.

(01:48:49)
The Council on American Islamic relations has similarly reported a 216% increase and of course, we are all familiar with the tragic death of a 6-year-old Palestinian American who was horrifically killed in a hate crime a few weeks ago. So given that this has been identified as the greatest terror threat facing our country, I’d like to give each of you an opportunity starting with Director Wray to talk about specifically racially and ethically motivated extremism.

(01:49:22)
What is the nature of this threat and what does the FBI need from Congress in order to meet it?

So first a point of clarification and when we talk about the greatest threat to the homeland, the greatest threat to the homeland is lone actors or small groups typically radicalized online using easily accessible weapons to attack soft targets. And that group of lone actors includes both, as you rightly say, domestic violent extremists as well as though that’s the clarification. Homegrown violent extremists who are individuals here who are inspired by foreign terrorist [inaudible 01:50:00]

(01:49:59)
So that’s what we call it at the highest threat level. Second, when it comes specifically on the domestic violent extremism side, domestic terrorism side, it is the case that over the last several years the most lethal activity has been conducted here in the homeland by racially motivated violent extremists in terms of the most lethality.

(01:50:23)
And then there’s a second category which you also noted in your question, which is anti-government, anti-authority, violent extremists, which is distinct, sometimes overlaps a little bit, but it’s distinct from the racially motivated…

Is that, for example, what we saw on January 6th, the anti-government or inspired by…

That would be one variation on it, but so would the violence that we saw in the summer of 2020. Anarchist violent extremists is all in the category of anti-government, anti-authority, violent extremism, and we’ve seen a lot of both. And so the volume in that category is probably the greatest. The lethality is probably the greatest on the racially motivated violent extremist side.

Congressman, let me share with you some of the work we are doing to combat this threat. We’re working very closely with our federal partners, notably the FBI. We’re working with state, local, tribal, territorial and campus law enforcement, our frontline personnel. We are engaging with communities in developing best practices for prevention models to be able to intervene when individuals are seeing somebody to send down a path of radicalization to violence.

(01:51:42)
We are, thanks to the support of Congress, distributing grant funds to nonprofit organizations. In fact, we have saw to $200 million increase in that critically needed grant program, the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to enable nonprofit organizations including places of worship, religious schools to secure themselves. We have protective security advisors in every state providing advice as to how facilities, places of gathering can best secure themselves.

(01:52:17)
Those are some of the steps that we are taking to combat this threat in an environment of critically needed partnership.

And if I may, Mr. Chairman, if it’s okay just to answer the question. Racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism over the last five years, as you noted, has created the most lethality for Americans, especially here in the homeland, but it is a global threat. At the National Counter-Terrorism Center, we’re focused on issues that have a foreign nexus and we would say that racially, ethnically motivated violent extremism certainly has a foreign nexus.

(01:52:51)
When you look at the motivation behind a shooter in New York who goes to a supermarket and kills Black Americans, that is motivated by manifestos that we see from New Zealand and from Norway and actually inspired later attacks that we saw in Slovakia. And so understanding the global dynamics around this type of terrorism I think is a really important piece of what we’re doing to try and keep up with an evolving threat dynamic that is affecting many countries.

Thank you for your work in this area. I yield back.

Gentlemen yields. I now recognize Mr. Garbarino, the gentleman from New York and the chairman of the subcommittee on cyber for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you Chairman. Thank you for the witnesses for being here. A couple of weeks ago we had some witnesses come in and testify about Iranian threats and I want to ask Director Wray. You said recently that you expect Iranian cyber threats to worsen if the conflict in Israel expands. Can you expand on that? What should we specifically be watching out for?

Well, I think sometimes people overlook the fact that Iran is one of only two countries to have committed a destructive cyber attack against the United States, and it’s been a few years since that happened. So they’ve already shown a propensity for that and we saw not that long ago an attempted cyber attack from Iran against a children’s hospital in New England. So this is an adversary that is engaged in conduct that is brazen and aggressive.

(01:54:29)
And it is very comparable in my view to what we see in terms of the lethal targeting that I described in my opening statement and to this committee last year. Which is a country which has attempted to assassinate an American journalist and human rights activist right smack in the middle of New York City and tried to assassinate current and former US officials here on US soil. And so the cyber threat that they pose in some ways shows a similar level of aggressiveness and brazenness.

So again, specific targets, not industries as a whole you think. I know other countries are focused specifically on possibly industries taking down an entire sector. Would you expect the Iranians to focus on, like you said, the hospitals’ specific targets?

I think critical infrastructure is obviously where we’re most concerned. I’m not sure that I could tell you sitting here right now, which of the 16 sectors, but critical infrastructure is where we would be most concerned about their potential cyber activity.

Thank you. Secretary Mayorkas. What’s DHS doing to prepare for these possible cyber attacks coming up? Because I know when Russia invaded Ukraine, we did the Shields Up program. Have you done anything since there’s been the war in Israel? What’s DHS doing?

Congressman, so day to day we work with our private sector partners. We have the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative that our CISA Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency operates. We are working with our partners in Israel. We are sharing information and best practices with them. We work very closely with them because they are in fact experiencing an increase in cyber attacks.

(01:56:17)
It’s taking a page out of the playbook that you mentioned, our incredible work with Ukraine in the Shields Up campaign. So we have many different lines of effort that we are employing on a day-to-day basis to protect critical infrastructure.

Thank you. I think one of those things is focusing on workforce. So Director Wray, you said earlier here that even if all of the FBI’s cyber agents and intel analysts focus exclusively on China threats, Chinese hackers would still outnumber the FBI’s cyber personnel by 50 to one. Is that still the case? What’s FBI doing to deal with that?

Well, that is still my assessment of the numerical disadvantage that we are at. China has a bigger hacking program than that of every other major nation combined and has stolen more of American’s personal and corporate data than that of every nation, big or small combined. So it is a scale that is significant. In terms of what we’re doing, in addition to trying to focus on recruiting cyber talent, both among agents but also computer scientists, data analysts, data scientists.

(01:57:25)
We are also focusing very heavily, and some of this is in the budget requests that’s up before Congress, focus on advanced training for our existing workforce because one of the things that I hear consistently from our agents who work this area is that while people who know the ones and zeros is incredibly important. If you’ve got a really good agent who’s got the good agent skills, if you get the right training, you can teach them a lot of the cyber stuff that they need.

(01:57:54)
And so we’re trying to raise the median cyber proficiency in the workforce, not just recruit our way out of the problem.

I appreciate that and we did meet with some of your agents on bipartisanship overseas, some of the work they’re doing and they’re doing a really good job overseas. I think especially with the share information. I wanted to focus lastly on antisemitism, that we’re seeing the rise in antisemitism, especially on college campuses. There are college campuses around that have student groups that don’t seem to be getting… That are promoting antisemitism but don’t seem to be getting funding from the universities. There’s one here in DC at a school here. Have you been focused on where they’re getting their funding from? Is it coming from outside sources? Is it coming from overseas specifically for these student groups that have caused a lot of rise in antisemitism on campuses?

Well, when we investigate funding issues, it’s in the context of something where we have a properly predicated investigation. So we’re not investigating funding in support of first amendment activity, just to be clear. But certainly we are, and have for quite some time, looking at funding of Hamas going in the other direction and including looking at Hamas’ use of cryptocurrency and things like that.

(01:59:17)
When it comes to groups here, if they are engaged in activity that is properly predicated as a criminal or national security investigation, then funding is of course part of what we would be looking at.

I know I’m out of time, but I think the focus on how these student groups are so well… They’re well-prepared. They are well governed. I mean the money’s got to be coming from somewhere. If it’s not coming from the universities, I think it’s coming from somewhere, but I’m out of time. I’ll yield back.

Gentleman yields. I now recognize a gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ivy, who is the ranking member on oversight.

That’s correct.

For five minutes.

Mr. Bishop of subcommittee. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I wanted to follow up on a couple of questions. One was to the director. At the end of Congressman Higgins testimony or questioning, he had a photo with two buses on it and I wasn’t able to… We tried to figure out what he was getting at, but it sounded like he was suggesting that there were FBI operatives who were… And infiltrated the January…

(02:00:22)
Two busloads of FBI operatives who had infiltrated the January 6th raid and I wanted to give you a chance to clarify on that.

I mean I haven’t seen the photo before, so I can’t speak to the specifics of his photo and what it does or doesn’t show. But what I can say and what I tried to say in response to his questions is that if somebody is asking or suggesting whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6th was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources or FBI agents or both, the answer is emphatically not.

(02:00:59)
And to suggest to the contrary, I think is a disservice to the hardworking men and women of the FBI who bust their tails every day to keep Americans including everybody up on Capitol Hill safe.

I want to add as well, I used to be an AUSA in this office here in Washington and actually was handling cases against them while the prosecutions were taking place. I do want to commend your office and the Department of Justice prosecutors for putting together 700 cases I think at this point, the vast majority of which have been successful. So I commend you for that. I did want to ask about FISA as well. I’m on judiciary. You testified about FISA 702.

(02:01:48)
As you know the time’s coming up for reauthorization on that. There are questions about whether the reauthorization should contain some statutory changes that put additional restrictions on your office. I know you’ve had some objections to that and said that your office has made some internal changes. I wanted to get a sense of hearing what those are though before I made a final decision on what I want to do with respect to that bill. There’s two actually.

Well, I’ll say two things. First on the impact of the changes and then what the changes were themselves. The most important thing for this committee and for Congress to take away on the changes we’ve made and the results of those changes which have now been found. You don’t have to just take my word for it. Look at the FISA court itself. The same FISA judge, by the way, who rightly criticized us earlier, found that our reforms that we’ve put in place have resulted in…

Yes, but if you could tell us what they are, I’d appreciate it.

So the changes include all sorts of changes to training, oversight, internal oversight, pre-approvals, new accountability.

Let me stop you on that one. Pre-approvals, what are the pre-approval requirements that have been put in place now?

Well, there are a whole slew of them. Some have to do with when you have what’s called a batch query, when there’s a large number of query terms, that’s one, as an example. Certain kinds of sensitive query terms have to get run all the way up to the level of deputy director. I’d be happy to arrange a more detailed briefing because it is quite detailed.

That’d be great.

Among the other changes we’ve put in place is I created an entire new office of internal audit at the FBI that did not exist before.

Well, let’s do this. If you could supplement your testimony with the written… You may have done it someplace else, but if you could send me whatever it is that lays out the details of the changes you’ve made, I’d appreciate it. And Ms. Abizaid, I hope. I got close. You mentioned 702 in your testimony, but you didn’t have anything in your written testimony about it.

(02:03:47)
I was wondering if you could answer the same kind of question, what sorts of changes… Or you might think the current law is fine, but if you think the reforms that have been made are sufficient or what’s your position on that?

So I know the Department of Justice is engaged in a robust conversation about what kinds of reforms should be considered. I would only reinforce what I said in my oral testimony, which is that 702 is a vital authority for the CT community, and agility is key to that authority. So anything we do that reauthorizes it and preserves that agility will be incredibly important.

Well, fair enough. If you’ve got additional proposed reforms you’d like to suggest, please send those in writing too. I’d run out of time with respect to a couple of things here, but I did want to end with this. Mr. McCall, and I’m sorry he’s not here, but he had a chance to respond to Mr. Goldman. But the aiding and abetting allegation that was directed at you, Secretary Mayorkas, I thought was just inappropriate and incorrect.

(02:04:48)
And I just wanted to register that on the record. I know there’ve been some disagreements about the way you’ve run the office and that sort of thing, but I just don’t see how that’s productive. So with that, I yield back.

The gentleman yields. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzales for his five minutes of questions.

Thank you, Chairman and thank you witnesses for being here. I represent the largest border district in Congress. This border crisis is very real to us, not only for all Americans, but we’re at the forefront of it. I want to start with Secretary Mayorkas. In April, you told 60 Minutes the migrant surge across our border are resulting from disinformation by cartels.

(02:05:25)
I would go a step further and say that these cartels are terrorizing America, and it is long time that we labeled these cartels as terrorist organizations. I have a few questions for you. It could be either yes or no or brief in your response. My first question is this, and I’m looking for solutions. Would raising the credible fear standards improve our border?

Congressman, the asylum system and the immigration system as a whole is in desperate need of reform and I look forward to working with Congress on achieving that reform. It’s long overdue.

Do you think that would help?

I think Congressman, it is very difficult to take one element of an expansive system and say that is…

Let’s talk about a couple of other elements. I think it would work. Everyone I talk to is saying, raise the credible fear standards is a good start. I hope you would consider also being vocal on that. The second part, would increasing repatriation flights improve our border?

Congressman, we work with our international partners every day to increase the number of repatriation flights. In fact, our supplemental funding requests seeks additional funds to achieve that.

Do these repatriation flights work?

Yes.

I would agree with that. I’ve seen it firsthand. As soon as we turn on repatriation flights, the numbers go down. My third question, would increasing penalties to smugglers improve our border?

Congressman, I would like to analyze whether or not the severity of the penalties available are sufficient. I can tell you from my experience in the courthouse, in the courtroom as a federal prosecutor, that the delivery of consequences achieves an important law enforcement objection.

What I’m seeing is the consequences don’t match the crime and the crime, Americans are dying and it’s long time for us to match the crime to what is occurring. My last question for you, Mr. Secretary, do you agree we have a crisis at the southern border? Yes or no?

Congressman, I have been asked this question many times. Let me just assure you that we do not minimize the significance of the challenge at the border.

I’d like to now ask Director Wray. I agree with your stance on China. Firmly believe China is a grave threat to our nation on all different fronts, and I appreciate your stance on that. My question is, how substantial are the Chinese state ties to entities sending fentanyl ingredients to the Mexican cartels?

Well, I’m not sure what I can share in this setting on that, but let me try it this way. When it comes to questions about state ties and China, I think it’s important for Americans to understand that distinctions that we draw in this country between the government and say the private sector are distinctions that in the Chinese country, in the Chinese government and the Chinese state are distinctions that are blurry at best if non-existent.

(02:08:27)
And so we have certainly seen that entities in China, unscrupulous actors in China, are the primary source not just of fentanyl precursors, but of pill presses which are used to press the fentanyl and by the way of precursors for meth in the labs in Mexico as well. So whether or not that ties us back to the CCP directly, that I can’t speak to here.

Going back to my 20 years in the military, the Chinese Communist Party has interacted in every aspect of their government. Very, very briefly, if you could respond, do you think Chairman Xi can turn it on or off? Is he critical to turning these precursors or anything on or off?

There is not a doubt in my mind that if the Chinese government wanted to be more aggressive and serious about clamping down on precursors for fentanyl and meth and pill presses, there are all sorts of things they could do and we’d welcome their contribution to that.

I agree with you. I want to move on to the terrorist attack that happened in Israel. Following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October the seventh, there has been a rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. Would you agree?

Yes.

If someone here is in the United States on a visa and they actively support terrorism, what happens to them?

Well, I’m not an expert on visa revocation, but if they meet the appropriate visa revocation standard, then action is taken administratively to revoke their visa.

Right now it’s illegal. If you are here on a visa and you actively are supporting a terrorist organization, it’s illegal and you need to be deported. The question I have is how many cases has the FBI pursued in this route?

Well, visa revocation is not within our authorities. We obviously work with our partners and share information when we have evidence about somebody’s…

Have there been cases?

…terrorism. I don’t have a number for you here today, but certainly visa revocation is an important tool that the whole of government…

Has any occurred this year?

Have any visa revocations occurred?

Where you’ve worked with other partners. I’ll close out here, Chairman. That you’ve worked with other entities in the government to determine if these visa stays are indeed supporting terrorism.

I mean, I know that we’ve had all sorts of cases that have resulted in visa revocation, whether or not they fit the exact criteria of [inaudible 02:10:57]

There are active cases that you’ve been working on?

We view visa revocation as an important tool in the toolbox. The only thing I’m clarifying is that it’s not our tool, but it’s a tool we contribute to by sharing…

But you do contribute it. Thank you, Chairman. I yield.

Gentleman’s time has expired. I now recognize Mr. Garcia from California for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of our witnesses here today and for your service. I want to start Mr. Secretary. I know that this last Tuesday night, one of our colleagues also sits on this committee, really decided to waste our time with a very political stunt, which made some deeply unfair and untrue allegations against you, sir.

(02:11:39)
And while I’m glad that eight Republicans joined us in defeating that resolution, I’d like to take a moment to correct the record for the public and the American people. Mr. Secretary, yes or no? Is our country currently being invaded?

Congressman, that is a term that I find to be offensive.

And I do as well. Thank you. And is invasion… Excuse me, this is my time, Ms. Greene. Is invasion a responsible way to characterize people who come to the US to seek asylum?

Congressman, I’ve been asked very often in many hearings now. I heard one congressman actually cite that I’ve participated in 27 hearings. I didn’t realize the number was that large. I am not focused on language. I’m focused on the challenges that we face and making sure that we meet those challenges on behalf of the American people.

Thank you, sir. And is your agency working every day to stop fentanyl from coming into our country?

It most certainly is.

Thank you. And is it true that the overwhelming majority of fentanyl is in fact carried through ports of entry by American citizens into this country?

It is, Congressman.

Is it fair to say that an orderly border actually requires comprehensive immigration reform, which will require congressional action rather than just executive actions?

Congressman, immigration reform is vitally necessary to advancing the security of our border.

Thank you. And Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you, those are simple questions, but I think that your record keeps being distorted unfairly, and so I want to make sure to give you a chance to clear that up. And I think it’s also important to hear, we’re talking about security and our threats to the homeland, how the current head of the Republican Party spent Veterans Day just recently. So I want to read you this first sentence.

(02:13:30)
“In honor of our great veterans on Veterans Day, we pledged to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists fascists and radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, lie, steal and cheat on elections and will do anything possible whether legally or illegally to destroy America and the American dream.” Here we see Donald Trump calling his fellow Americans vermin and threatening to root out people based on their political beliefs.

(02:13:57)
This is the kind of rhetoric that reminds me of the worst types of dictators in history. And it’s not Trump’s first time using this kind of rhetoric. He told an audience in Iowa that immigrants were poisoning the blood of our country. That’s a quote. He has promised to violate federal laws in order to build mass deportation camps and promise to restore his Muslim ban. He even wants to cancel legal status for certain categories of immigrants.

(02:14:20)
Donald Trump, of course, has had dinner and hosted open Holocaust deniers and white nationalists, and we of course remember that he praised the white nationalists’ Charlottesville marchers who chanted, “Jews will not replace us.” And of course, he faces federal felony charges for his role in the January 6th insurrection. Now, Mr. Secretary Director Wray, I’m not going to ask you to respond directly to Donald Trump’s statements, but I think we can all agree that they’re not worthy of certainly anybody running for president.

(02:14:50)
And as we move into this election year, I’m deeply concerned about Donald Trump, particularly as he faces more and more pressure from his supporters that may try to invoke additional violence that we might see from fringe supporters of his. Now, Mr. Secretary, I wrote to you ahead of Donald Trump’s first indictment expressing concerns about his ability to provoke violent attacks. And I’d like to thank you for your ongoing attention to this matter and more broadly for taking on the challenges we have around white supremacy.

(02:15:18)
Around the huge actions that are happening across this country that impact a lot of people. We also know that Donald Trump isn’t the only politician that has a history of violent rhetoric in this country, and we need to call it out at every single turn. Director Way, I want to raise one final issue with you. The Anti-Defamation League found that in 2022, mass shootings in the US accounted for most extremism related fatalities last year with about 80% of those murders committed by white supremacists.

(02:15:48)
We saw that in the Dallas area mall case, in the Dollar General Store in Jacksonville, there’s an additional shootings after shootings. What would you need from Congress to help you better tackle this threat as it relates to mass shootings?

Well, our budget requests that went up in the fiscal ’24 budget request, includes a number of resources for counter-terrorism, including that would speak to this threat. That’s important because as you’ve heard in my testimony here today, the foreign terrorist threat is not only not abating, but it’s intensifying. And so we certainly can’t be put in a position where we’re having to rob Peter to pay Paul, if you will, to protect the American people from all forms of terrorist attack.

Thank you.

Also, I should say on the issue of mass acts of violence, mass shootings, putting ideology aside or anything, or motivation. I think there are also parts of the appropriation requests that go to our ability at [inaudible 02:16:51] to do background checks in a timely way and obviously make sure that guns are not purchased by people who are prohibited under existing law from having them.

Thank you, sir.

The gentleman yields. I now recognize the gentle lady from Georgia. Ms. Greene for five minutes of questioning.

Secretary Mayorkas. I want you to look at these innocent Americans. Do you see them?

I do, Congresswoman.

They are dead. They’re from Dalton, Georgia in my district. They’re dead because a 17-year-old likely affiliated with the cartels was smuggling illegal aliens into our country in Texas, breaking our laws. And this happens every single day in our country. Earlier this week, eight Republicans joined the Democrats and protected your job, but I want you to know you have a short time coming.

(02:17:48)
You can honorably resign or we are going to impeach you and it’s happening very, very soon. Mr. Wray, do you remember on October 18th when the Capitol Complex was illegally occupied, breaking same laws that you have hunted down Americans for from January 6th? Are you familiar with this?

I don’t recognize the picture that you’re holding.

Well, because maybe your agents haven’t been doing a good job into investigating the organizers that broke the law, illegally occupied this very building that we’re sitting in right now, and over 300 of them were arrested. Some of them attacked police officers. I haven’t seen on the news where the FBI is hunting them down with helicopters, tanks in the streets, raiding their homes with flash bangs, targeting these people, watching these people, throwing them in jail, for them to stay in pretrial in solitary confinement for years before they ever face trial.

(02:18:54)
You want to know what this says? I’ll tell you. This is one of the organizer’s phones and this is a chat and it says at the top, “Global antifada.” Now, while we’re talking about terrorism today, are you familiar with the term antifada?

I’ve certainly heard the term.

Do you know the definition?

I’m not going to try to define it.

It means Arab uprising or jihad. Are you concerned about jihad in this country?

I am and I have consistently testified to that effect.

Yes. But are you interested in using the FBI? You are the director of the FBI. Do you hunt down terrorists in our country, those that would be responsible for jihad?

Absolutely. And that’s why we’ve had jihadist inspired terrorism at our highest national threat priority level since the day that I started as FBI director.

Do you still use the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source? You use them. The FBI use the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source when targeting Catholics. Are you still using the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source?

Congresswoman, what I think you’re referring

… to is the so-called Richmond Intelligence Product, which as soon as I learned about it, I was horrified, withdrew it. We had an inspection done and part of the problem that we found with that particular product by that particular office is precisely what you’re talking about, the reliance on the Southern Poverty Law Center and the way in which they relied on.

Well, you relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center, but I would have you know, Mr. Wray, that this one right here, this person involved in the global Intifada group, that illegally … they broke the law, came in and occupied the Canon office house building, interrupted Congress, interrupted hearings. Right here Katrina Bleakly is the lead attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center. Were you aware of this?

Congresswoman, as I said, I haven’t seen the photos that you’re holding up before.

Well, I posted them on my Twitter account. It’s public. Maybe I-

Don’t spend a lot of time on Twitter.

Oh, I’m sure you do because the Department of Homeland Security, organized with other offices, has censored many Americans, including myself.

I’m not part of the Department of Homeland Security.

Right. Mr. Wray, you should be interested in investigating terrorism and this right here is proof that we had terrorists in our own office building, global Intifada, and you rely on the Southern Poverty Law Centers. Katrina Bleakly is one of the organizers. I’ll send this over to your office, so maybe perhaps you can stop targeting innocent grandmothers and veterans who walked through the capitol on January 6th and might actually go after people tied to Hamas, tied to Hezbollah and likely Iran. Mr. Wray, are you interested in members of Congress that are organized and participating in a Facebook group that has ties to Hamas?

We’re not investigating people for participating in a Facebook group.

A Facebook group that is tied to Hamas?

We have multiple investigations into individuals affiliated with Hamas and they’re active investigations.

You’re going to tell me as FBI director, you will not investigate Americans or United States members of Congress that are linked to known terrorist?

That’s not what I said.

Are you going to investigate or not?

We are going to investigate individuals who are affiliated with Hamas if they meet our standards for predication, which are long-standing standards set by this department and the prior department and the department before that.

I would hope to God that Intifada and Jihad and terrorists in our very country would be something that you would prioritize instead of a three-hour event that happened at the Capitol nearly four years ago, Mr. Wray. I yield back my time. Mr. Chairman.

The gentle lady yields. I now recognize Mr. Menendez, I think you’re up next, sir. Gentleman from New Jersey for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Wray, earlier in your testimony, did you say that defunding the FBI would be “A gift to the Chinese Communist Party”, “more power to the cartels” and “more damage to critical infrastructure”?

I believe I said words to that effect, yes.

I appreciate that. Not everybody was in the room during that part of your testimony. I want to follow up on what my colleague Mr. Higgins said about “armed oppression” as one of the primary threats to the homeland. I agree that armed oppression is a massive threat to our homeland, but we need to be clear about what actually constitutes armed oppression. In this country, minority groups are routinely targets of weaponized oppression. Armed oppression is when Black men cannot go safely for a run in Georgia. Armed oppression is when Black youth cannot wear hoodies in Florida. Armed oppression is being LGBTQ in this country and not being able to safely go to a nightclub in Florida. Armed oppression is living in a Hispanic community and being targeted while going to Walmart in El Paso. Armed oppression is being Black in this country and not being able to go grocery shopping in Buffalo without being targeted because of the color of your skin. Armed oppression is not being able to go safely to a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or any place of worship to practice your faith.

(02:24:15)
Domestic terrorists have targeted each of these locations and each of these groups in acts of armed oppression. Yet when we in the House Committee on Homeland Security established our committee oversight plan for the 118th Congress, my Republican colleagues refuse to include capital D domestic terrorism in our plan. That, in my opinion, is where this committee is failing when we consider our threats to the homeland. New Jersey’s eighth congressional district is home to what Homeland security experts call the most dangerous two miles in America, containing ports, airports, major rail lines, densely populate seas and chemical plants. I’m proud of the work that President Biden and the New Jersey Congressional Delegation have done to improve the safety, reliability and resiliency of critical infrastructure in North Jersey.

(02:25:01)
The Biden administration has aggressively protected our critical infrastructure from foreign adversaries with President Biden admonishing Russian president Vladimir Putin that certain critical infrastructure is off limits, a stark contrast of President Trump who proposed a joint cyber unit with Russia. Secretary Mayorkas, when considering the threat landscape, how does the department take into account the risk posed by having multiple critical infrastructure sectors in close geographic proximity?

Congressman, the proximity of elements of our critical infrastructure only increase the challenge that we confront, but we work very, very closely with our critical infrastructure partners. The great majority of this country’s critical infrastructure rests in the hands of the private sector. We work very closely with the private sector to ensure the security of our critical infrastructure. The remarkable men and women of the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency do a tremendous job.

On the issue of cybersecurity, I want to address the current threat landscape. When we talk about cybersecurity, we’re talking about threats that don’t just come up from nation states like Iran, but often from a network of proxies and affiliated groups. Secretary Mayorkas, how is the current conflict in Israel giving us additional insight about Iranian backed cyber threat actors?

I’m sorry, can you repeat the …

Of course. How is the current conflict in Israel giving us additional insight about Iranian backed cyber threat actors?

I think what we are seeing, congressman, and I’ll defer to my colleagues as well, the use of cyber as a tool in the repertoire of our adversaries and we’re seeing that play out in the Middle East conflict just as we have seen it in the context of the unprovoked Russian aggression against Ukraine.

I appreciate that. One more question for you. In your testimony, you mentioned how critical it is that the CFATS program is reauthorized. I’m particularly invested in the CFATS program because there are four facilities covered by the program in New Jersey’s eighth congressional district. How does the CFATS program help keep our critical infrastructure safe?

Congressman, the CFATS program, the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards, allow us to inspect facilities to ensure adherence with the security and safety precautions that are necessary to protect the surrounding communities. That is one aspect of CFATS. We must achieve the reauthorization of that program.

I agree. I just want to quickly address some of the ways that my colleagues have attacked Secretary Mayorkas here and in other hearings. Mr. Secretary, you and I have had our disagreements on policies, including recently on an ICE detention center in Elizabeth in my district, and I’m looking forward to your department’s response to my letter on that, but I have two quick questions for you. During your long career in public service, including 30 years as a law enforcement official and senior positions in the Department of Homeland Security under the Obama administration, did you take your responsibility to the American public seriously?

I have and I continue to do so.

When President Biden asked you a service secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, did you accept to help keep the American people safe?

I did, congressman.

Is that what you focus on every single day when you wake up to take this office?

It indeed is.

Thank you so much for your service, sir. I yield back.

The gentleman yields. I now recognize Mr. D’Esposito, the gentleman from the great state of New York.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Mayorkas, the crisis at the Southwest border not only impacts border states such as Texas and Arizona, but now every state is truly a border state. State and local leaders from sanctuary cities such as New York and Chicago are starting to feel the strain effects of the border crisis. Over the last months, we’ve seen dozens of arrests at the Roosevelt Hotel, which is housing migrants including crimes against children, assaults, traumatic beatings using no parking signs and assaults against my fellow members of the NYPD. There was a migrant that came into New York City that in his first 45 days in New York was arrested six times on 14 different charges, but there was no charges because the great district attorney, one that my colleague from New York, Mr. Goldman, has supported, the district attorney Alvin Bragg declined prosecution.

(02:29:35)
Governor Hochul has said there’s no room left at the inn. There is, and I’ve spoken as recently as 25 minutes ago to commissioners of police on Long Island who said there is zero communication from Homeland Security about the individuals that are coming into our communities. Less than two years into his tenure, Mayor Adams has faced challenges finding housing and feeding millions of migrants that have come from the border. Mayor Adams, at one point during a public speech said, and I quote, “The influx of migrants along the southwest border will destroy New York City.” Illinois governor, another Democrat, recently sent a letter to President Biden calling the influx “unattainable”.

(02:30:22)
New York City is facing a potential 15% cut across the board to city agencies over the next nine months. Why? To deal with migrants because of your failed policies. My question, and these are yes or no, no time to answer differently, do you agree with Mayor Adams when he said that the influx of migrants along the southwest border will destroy New York City? Yes or no?

Congressman, let me-

Yes or no, sir.

Congressman, I’m going to answer your question, that we do not underestimate the challenge of the southern border-

Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, it’s a yes or no question.

I’ve answered that question and let me also add-

Okay, do you agree with the Illinois governor who sent the letter to President Biden calling the influx unattainable? Yes or no?

Congressman, we work very closely with the cities to address-

Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, it’s a yes or no question. Yes or not?

I’m going to answer your question.

Does it concern you that Mayor Adam’s office asked a judge to stop a decades old right to shelter mandate, which requires New York to give place to sleep anyone who needs one? Yes or no?

Congressman, I can’t speak to the-

Does it concern you that the surge of illegal aliens crossing the Southwest border has overwhelmed our big cities like New York with approximately 60,000 occupying beds in traditional city shelters and in over 20 emergency sites? Yes or no?

Congressman, I am incredibly proud of the men and women of the department-

Does it concern you that Mayor Adams stated, and I quote, “We, the city of New York, are getting no support on this national crisis”? Yes or no?

Congressman, we are very proud of the work we do-

Does it concern you that as of August, 2023, New York City was paying almost $10 million, $10 million per day to provide services for illegal aliens? Yes or no?

Do I have a chance to answer your question?

Sure, if the answer is yes or no. You have had the opportunity to answer every one of my questions, but you refuse to answer the questions whether they’re yes or no. These are not trick questions. They’re not trick questions. The answers should unequivocally be yes. Every state is a border state. Every city is a border city, especially when it comes to bearing the cost of you and President Biden’s failed policies at the border. I agree with my colleagues, you should be impeached and that is why we are doing the work that this committee is doing because you have failed your oath. As someone who has taken oaths, probably the one most important besides being a member of Congress as a New York City police detective, I live that oath every single day. To answer the question that you were asked, do you wake up every morning?

(02:33:08)
You clearly don’t because from every moment, from the time that you wake up to the time that you go to sleep, your focus should be securing this border. There has never ever been such a disaster at our southern border as it is now, and that is because of your failed leadership. It’s a dereliction of your duty and quite frankly, the questions that I answered should have been unequivocally yes. But you sat there and you decided to answer it in another fashion and that speaks volumes and that is why this committee will continue working to put the facts together to make sure that we find a new Secretary of Homeland Security, one that holds this country and this nation as most important. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields. I now recognize Mr. Goldman, the gentleman from New York for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. My colleague from the Fourth District of New York, which does not include any part of New York City, has spent time as a NYPD detective and is now an expert on our border policy and the history of it as he leaves this room. Secretary Mayorkas, you were not allowed to answer a number of the questions that my colleague just asked you. I’d like to give you some time to respond if you would like.

Congressman, I would only say this, that we do not minimize the significance of the challenge at the southern border. We also understand the challenge at the southern border and the fact that it is reflective of a challenge that is gripping our entire hemisphere and in fact the world. Yesterday I spent time with my counterparts from the European Union who spoke of the challenges that they are suffering by reason of an historic displacement of people around the world. We work day and night, 24 hours a day, seven days a week to advance the security of our southwest border to advance the security of the northern border and to achieve our highest and most important mission, the safety and security of the American people.

I appreciate that and I also appreciate very much that policy disputes are not impeachable offenses and we can wax poetic and make big political pronouncements about whether you should be impeached or not. But impeachment is high crimes and misdemeanors, bribery and treason. A policy dispute and a disagreement about how we are managing the border is not impeachable. But I do want to give you just an opportunity because I know the administration under your leadership has actually taken numerous measures to address what you rightly point out to be a dramatic increase in the influx of immigrants to this country in large part because of the collapsing governments in central and South America, as well as climate disruption. Could you just describe briefly some of the measures that you have taken to address this influx in immigration at our southern border?

Congressman, the foundational point is the following and it’s a point about which everyone agrees, that we are working with a broken immigration system that has been in desperate need of reform for more than 20 years. I believe it’s since 1996. Number one, within the confines of that broken immigration system, we are implementing a model that does work and that is to build safe, lawful and orderly pathways for individuals to obtain the relief that the law that Congress has passed provides them and to deliver consequences for those individuals who do not avail themselves of those pathways. That is a model that is proven effective in the context of a broken immigration system and also in the context of a phenomenon, the phenomenon of migration of displaced people that is incredibly dynamic and changes month to month.

I appreciate very much your point, which my Republican colleagues do not seem to accept, which is that our immigration system can only be fixed by us. It requires legislation passed by Congress that cannot be managed separately and individually by the executive branch director. Director Wray, in my short time left, I want to focus on a testimony you gave a couple of weeks ago noting the tremendous uptick in antisemitic hate crimes. I believe you testified that even though Jews make up only 2.4% of the United States population, antisemitic hate crimes account for around 60% of all religious based hate crimes. You indicated that this comes from across the spectrum from the left, from the right, foreign terrorist organizations, homegrown violent extremists, domestic violent extremists. Can you expand a little bit on those heightened threats to the Jewish community now two weeks later and how the increase of antisemitic hate speech has impacted or affected or increased the threats of violence that the FBI has noticed since October 7th?

Well, so as you said, I have tried to be very clear that one of the things that jumps out at me and which is why we work so closely at the FBI both nationally and locally with the Jewish community is that the Jewish community is uniquely targeted by terrorism and hate really across the spectrum. Not that there should ever be a proportion for hate, but the idea that a group that makes up only 2.4% of the American public should be targeted with something close to 60% of all religiously based hate crime is abhorrent and should be abhorrent to everyone. We have seen over the last few years an increase not just in hate crimes overall, but an increase, a market increase, in antisemitic hate crimes, and that’s all with the recognition that hate crimes are, as we all know, chronically under-reported. We have had just in the past few years, we’ve thwarted plots to attack synagogues in Colorado, Ohio, Nevada.

(02:39:34)
We’ve made arrests for threats or attacks against the Jewish community in California to Michigan to New Jersey. We helped rescue the hostages in Colleyville and I could go on and on and that’s all before October 7th. Since October 7th, as I’ve testified, we’ve seen an increase in threats and reported threats, which cover this across the spectrum, but the biggest chunk of those, again by far, is threats to the Jewish community. We are aggressively investigating those threats, but we are also very purposefully and intensely doubling down on our engagement with the Jewish community, which needs our help and I think it’s incumbent on all Americans to stand together on this.

I appreciate that. I appreciate the chairman for indulging over time. I would just add that I do hope that the FBI makes a much more concerted effort to pressure local law enforcement agencies to participate in the collection of data on hate crimes, which is woefully deficient. Even that information that you have only includes about 21% of law enforcement agencies in the country. I thank you and yield back.

Gentlemen yields. I now recognize Ms. Lee, the gentle lady from Florida for her five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier this year I sponsored the bill to reauthorize the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, which passed the House 409 to one, but unfortunately has stalled in the Senate and the program has since expired. Secretary Mayorkas, I know you share my concern about the labs in this program and I would like to return to your testimony about the potential impact of the labs in the CFATS program and specifically would you speak to the role DHS has in the inspection of chemical facilities and how that changes when the program is allowed to lapse?

Thank you very much for your support, congresswoman, of the CFATS program. It is vitally necessary to the protection of not only the communities that surround the particular facility, but America as a whole. Without the CFATS authority, we’re unable to inspect facilities and ensure their compliance with standards that protect us against very, very dangerous chemicals and we are fortunate that we have not had an incident that has been a dramatic example of why this authority is so vitally needed.

Do you believe the likelihood or the threat of such an incident potentially occurring is greater when the program is allowed to lapse?

Absolutely, because what we are able to do is ensure that the standards are being enforced and that best security practices are being followed, and when we are not able to inspect and enforce those standards, we see facilities not employing them and creating a significant vulnerability.

Thank you, Secretary Mayorkas. Director Wray, I appreciate the testimony that you’ve given and the information that you’ve shared about your internal efforts at the FBI to address FISA reform and to address taking steps to address abuses to the 702 program and within the FISC and would like to discuss that issue with you. The House Committee on Judiciary and Intelligence have worked to come up with FISA reform ideas and legislation that would protect Americans’ civil liberties while still ensuring that law enforcement has the ability to conduct lawful and necessary surveillance. With the expiration looming at the end of 2023 and the threats that you’ve described ever-increasing to our homeland, I’d like to touch on how the FISA program itself and the 702 program assist in preventing plots to harm Americans and potential threats to the homeland. Would you please elaborate on why 702 is an important part of your work?

702 is critical to protecting Americans from foreign terrorist threats. If you think about why 702 was enacted in the first place, even though it’s focused on foreign adversaries overseas presenting national security threats, the whole reason we have it is to protect Americans here in the homeland from those threats. That part is the FBI’s part in running US person queries among other things. If you have a foreign terrorist organization overseas, any one of those ones that I listed off in my opening statement, who decides to task an operative here or to direct an attack here, it is more likely than not that 702 is going to be the thing that would allow us to anticipate or detect that.

(02:44:38)
If we were to deliberately blind ourselves to that information, we are taking a wildly irresponsible risk in my view. To give you an example, something like a hundred percent of our technically sourced intelligence about Hamas comes from 702. That’s just one terrorist organization. Why we would blind ourselves to that when it’s not constitutionally required, somebody needs to be able to explain to the families of terrorist victims of the future why something that we were not constitutionally required to do, we just decided to do, it made them and their family members less safe.

In your written testimony, you specifically touch on the concept of a warrant requirement related to US person queries in the 702 database and your assessment that would hamper law enforcement’s ability and the intelligence community’s ability to do their work and utilize the database. Would you explain why it is you believe that a warrant requirement for US person’s queries would be a challenge or a hurdle for you all to continue to do that work?

Well, the first thing I would say is that it’s quite clear under the case law that a warrant is not required constitutionally to run a US person query. This is information that is already lawfully collected and it’s our ability to run queries of the information that’s already lawfully collected. The second thing, though, is that the time, the stage in an investigation where 702 is really used is that the front end to quickly figure out what are we dealing with here? Do we have a threat that we have to pursue? Agility and speed are of the essence and trying to get a warrant requirement at the front end in that stage is really a non-starter. The delay that it would cause in allowing us to connect the dots, which is what’s happening when our people are running US person queries, it would basically make the tool largely useless.

(02:46:37)
The other thing that I think people tend to forget when they talk about a warrant requirement is that the vast majority of our US person querying is to identify victims in particular of cyber attacks. There’s no warrant that anybody would be getting to be able to run a query of a victim term. We would be essentially putting ourselves in a position where we wouldn’t be able to protect American infrastructure from Iranian cyber attacks, Chinese cyber attacks, Russian cyber attacks, North Korean cyber attacks. Again, I understand the mindset we take very seriously our role as stewards of these important authorities. That’s why I’m so committed to the reforms that we have made. That’s why I’m so gratified by the findings by the FISA court and other outside entities about the effectiveness of those reforms. But please, please don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back

Gentle lady yields. Now recognize Ms. Clark for her five minutes of testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you ranking member. I sincerely thank our panel of witnesses for both their service and their testimony here today and I’d like to extend that gratitude to the women and men in the federal enterprise under your leadership. Last congress, I partnered with my colleagues in the Senate and across the aisle to enact the cyber incident reporting for a critical infrastructure act, which will give the federal government the visibility it needs to identify malicious cyber campaigns early and better understand the tactics of our adversaries to prioritize risk reduction investments. Incident reporting is a critical tool in our ability to defend ourselves, but it is not the only place we need to invest time and resources. Competing incident reporting frameworks will undermine security, not enhance it because it forces a disproportionate focus on compliance with various reporting regulations over security and incident response.

(02:48:40)
The Cybersecurity Incident Reporting Council has acknowledged as much. Secretary Mayorkas, the Cyber Incident Reporting Council has identified duplicative federal cyber incident reporting requirements. The National Cybersecurity Strategy continues to task DHS with harmonizing the Federal cyber incident reporting requirements. How willing are DHS’s federal partners, including independent agencies, to do the work of harmonizing incident reporting requirements, and are you concerned that multiple inconsistent reporting requirements could frustrate the security value of incident reporting?

Congresswoman, this is a very important subject in a domain that is only becoming of increasing significance to the security of our critical infrastructure and in our country writ large. One, we are receiving excellent cooperation from our federal partners with respect to the Cyber Incident Reporting Council and its effort to harmonize reporting requirements. It is a challenge because there are also independent agencies that have particular mandates and they perceive sometimes those mandates requiring a different process, a different timeline than other departments and agencies do. We are all driving towards the same outcome of a cyber Secure America, but there are some tensions with respect to particular jurisdictions and we’re working through them and everyone has demonstrated impeccable motive.

Very well. Director Wray and Director Abizaid, I remembered like lemonade, it was stuck in my head, what do you make of the fact that the US-based persons who are primarily responsible for terrorism threats here in our homeland? I’m sorry, let me back up here. I kind of … Let me start. I am struck by an unclassified NCTC product entitled Foreign Terrorists Inspired, Enabled and Directed Attacks in the United States since 9/11 as of February 2023 that identified 47 attacks and concludes that of the 47, 41 involved US persons. I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are paying attention and will recognize that their fixation solely on threats coming over the southwestern border is dangerous. We cannot lose sight of the threats right here at home, and it is urgent that we work to counter radicalization of US purses.

(02:51:40)
Again, my question is, what do you make of the fact that US-based persons are primarily responsible for terrorism threats here in our homeland, and how difficult does this make it for the FBI NCTC to detect and thwart possible attacks, and are you having to shift your counter-terrorism approach to accomplish this?

Thank you for the question. It goes right in line with my testimony here today, which is that the heightened threat environment in the United States is being driven by individuals that are inspired to act. I think you’ve rightly outlined the number of foreign terrorist inspired, enabled, or directed attacks since 9/11 here on US soil and most of those have been inspired attacks. Some have been enabled, some have been … only three I think have actually been directed by foreign terrorist organizations. That history I think is an important context for the heightened threat environment we’re dealing with here today. That said, part of the reason that we’ve had that level of success is because of the very clear priority we’ve placed on screening, vetting, watch-listing terrorist identities, known and suspected terrorist databases on the classified side that really support border security efforts writ large.

My time is up. Mr. Chairman, again, as we move to Thanksgiving next week, I give thanks for you and the work that you do and to all of those families that sacrifice on behalf of the American people. Happy Thanksgiving to all my colleagues and I yield back.

Well said, Ms. Clark. Thank you for that. The gentle lady yields. I now recognize Mr. Luttrell, the gentleman from Texas for his five minutes of questions.

Good afternoon. 19 terrorists in September 2001 killed 3000 of our citizens, and then last month Hamas fighters invaded Israel. Ms. Abizaid, do we have a number on how many fighters, Hamas fighters, came into Israel? Do we have a round number on that?

I don’t have a number for you.

Mr. Wray, you know?

I don’t.

Almost a month passed. We don’t have a good accountability on what those numbers look like?

I’m sure we can get those for you. I don’t have them for you today, but it was a sizable number to a shocking degree.

How many deaths in Israel last month, total civilian?

We’ve seen the Israeli government revise their casualty estimates down to around 1,200. Again, a shocking number of deaths.

How many hostages remain?

There are over 200 is my understanding.

Mr. Wray, do you believe that in America or globally there’s a war on fentanyl?

Do I believe there’s a war on fentanyl?

Yeah.

I think there’s a whole of government effort to combat the scourge and epidemic of fentanyl.

Just the sheer number of deaths that we see daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly. I would-

I’m sorry, [inaudible 02:54:45].

I would just say sheer numbers that we’re losing to fentanyl and as a military man, I would think that loss would calculate a sheer conflict. My question is, do you consider our challenges against the fentanyl crisis a war,

Is that too bold of a statement?

No, look, I think bold language is appropriate when it comes to fentanyl. I will tell you that on the FBI end, when we are making gang arrests, we have seen, over and over again, violent gang arrests more often than not now include fentanyl seizures, that’s all over the country. That’s just one metric, but it shows the degree along with, for example, the case that I mentioned in Boston in my opening statement just shows it is a routine thing now for our people, working with our partners, to be making seizures of fentanyl, that in one seizure would be enough to wipe out an entire state.

I would add sex trafficking to the war as well, given the sheer numbers of individuals that are being held across the globe. Ms Abizaid or Mr. Wray, how many known groups or individuals in the United States are we monitoring for terroristic activity that we need to be concerned on? And Mr. Mayorkas, I know Mr. Pfluger asked you these questions with that chart, but I’m concerned, we’re concerned that; is there a substantial amount, again 19 for 9/11, let’s just say 200 maybe Hamas fighters came into Israel. Those are very small numbers compared to the damages that they inflicted. So, are we actively engaged on any terroristic watch list inside the United States that provide a absolute risk or threat right now?

Well, let me try to answer the question this way; we have, we FBI have, through our 56 joint terrorism task forces, have active investigations that relate to Hamas, that relate to Al-Qaeda, that relate to-

You said that very eloquently earlier, Sir, and I hate to cut you off.

Okay.

You don’t have to repeat yourself. My concern is, I want to know, can I go home and tell my people in Texas that we are in a safe place? There’s no viable risk that we need to be concerned about right now. Giving just the numbers that have come across the border, Mr. Mayorkas, these numbers, you get hit in the face with this every day, so I’m sure you know them well, but in ’18 we had six known registers. Then it goes down to 3, ’22 went up to 98. This year it’s 172 and already in ’24 fiscal year, we’re 13. So, again, this is a worldwide threat to the homeland. My concern is are we missing something? Where is our blind side? Is there one and are we addressing it? Either one of you.

So, as an intelligence professional, we’re always concerned about the gaps that we have, about the global terrorism environment. For my part, we’re very focused on foreign terrorist organizations overseas, what we can learn about their plans and intentions and the degree to which they have tried to seed operatives here in the United States. We don’t have-

Are you seeing them sowing those threads here in the United States?

We do not have credible or corroborated indications that they are trying to seed operatives into the United States for terrorist purposes through the southwest border or other borders. That doesn’t mean we’re complacent and it is a risk that we monitor and we evaluate every day.

Okay. Mr. Mayorkas, you mentioned in your opening statement, and I mimic Ms. Lee’s statement, about 4470 passed the House. It passed out of the Committee, through the House. It’s sitting in the Senate for CFATS. In your opening statements, you mentioned Shepherd, Texas. Do you know where Shepherd, Texas is?

Not precisely, Congressman.

I was hoping you would say yes, because I’m sure you wrote your opening statement. Well, Shepherd, Texas, that’s my district. I didn’t intentionally think you would throw darts at me, after our discussion, and I want to thank you for coming to my office after the first time that we met. You said you would do that and you did, so thank you very much. But that facility in Shepherd, Texas, a class A facility, very small. And do you know how the explosion happened?

Not precisely, Congressman. I’m aware of the fact of the explosion and how it underscores the criticality of the CFATS program.

It does, and it’s a human error, is how that inevitably explosion happened. But I don’t know if you’re aware of this now, but that facility is not under the CFATS regulation. And I just wanted to bring that to your attention since you put… I thought you were talking directly to me when you said that, so I wanted to make sure that you were aware that that particular facility does not, even though we support CFATS, that one does not live in that space. But thank you and again, thank you for coming to my office, like you said you would do.

Thank you Congressman.

The gentlemen yields and I think Ms. Titus has asked to defer to Mr. Strong and then come back to her. So we will grant that request. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Strong is recognized for his five minutes testimony.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Secretary Mayorkas, I want to follow up on Representative Pfluger’s question. In August, CNN reported that a human smuggling ring containing at least one individual with known ties to ISIS was responsible for bringing a number of Uzbek, which Uzbekistan migrants to the border who were subsequently were released into the country. And I do have that document, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to add that to the record.

[inaudible 03:00:13].

Unanimous consent to add this.

No objections.

Thank you. After learning of the ISIS connection, the Biden administration has been scrambling to determine the whereabouts of these Uzbek individuals. Secretary Mayorkas, has the Biden administration determined the whereabouts of all of these individuals? Have they all been detained? Have they all been vetted?

Congressman, we vet and screen individuals whom we encounter at the southwest border, number one. Number two, individuals who pose a threat to the safety of the American people, who pose a public safety or national security threat and whose release would advance that threat are in fact detained. They are in immigration enforcement proceedings and they will be removed if in fact they don’t have a basis to remain in the United States.

Have they been detained?

There are those who have been detained, because in fact we cannot be assured of the safety of the public and I would be pleased to provide you with greater details in a different setting.

Thank you Mr. Secretary. As you know, the Non-Intrusive Inspection System Program is critical for detecting illegal drugs such as fentanyl and other illicit contraband hidden inside cars, trucks and cargo entering the US legally through ports of entry. Secretary Mayorkas, you have stated in recent testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that DHS has surged resources to our ports of entry, as it relates to NIIS systems. However, DHS own numbers tell us that with the NIIS system only approximately 2% of passenger vehicles and 17% of cargo vehicles are even inspected for the detection of fentanyl and other contraband. Do you really consider that a surge of resources?

Oh, Congressman, we have surged not only the deployment of technology, the Non-Intrusive Inspection technology known by its acronym NII, but we have also surged forward operating labs to be able to analyze controlled substances that are interdicted and if in fact we identify them as fentanyl, then we take the appropriate prosecutorial action specific to the attempted importation of this incredibly fatal opiod-

Thank you Mr. Secretary. I reclaim my time, so thank you. Director Wray, I appreciate your candor when you testified last year that the border represents significant concerns to the FBI. Since then, the number of illegal border crossings, got-aways and those on the terrorist watch list attempting to cross into the US has continued to balloon. Would it be safe to say that the situation at our border is still of significant concern?

Certainly, the concerns that I articulated last year remain very much top of mind for us.

Thank you. Director Wray, I know that it is not your border policies that have gotten us here, but I would be remiss not to mention the strain that the open border puts on your workforce and their ability to carry out the FBI’s primary mission, but that is not what I want to talk to you about today. In your testimony, you mentioned the threat posed by criminal syndicates and nation states as it relates to cyber. Specifically, you spoke to the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party in this arena. I was glad you briefly mentioned earlier the impact of advanced training in cyber. Can you speak to the capabilities of the FBI Redstone in Huntsville, Alabama and specifically the role that Huntsville plays in combating the unique and evolving cyber threats posed by our adversaries?

Well, thank you Congressman. I am incredibly excited about everything that’s going on in Huntsville, including in particular, we view that as where we’re going to have, be the center of gravity for our advanced training, especially high-tech, especially cyber, especially innovation. We’ve been down there numerous times to check on the expansion and we’re now up to, I think, about 1900 employees down there, 19 different headquarters divisions have people there, so it’s a hub of activity and especially on the cyber side, I think it’s going to be a very important part of the FBI’s future.

Like I say, I appreciate that information. We’re very proud of how it has worked there at Redstone. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentlemen yields back and the Chair now recognizes Ms. Titus for her five minutes of questioning.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses, especially Secretary Mayorkas for being here today. As I’m sure you know, it’s exactly one year ago today that we sat in this hearing, with these exact same witnesses, the exact same issues, exact same questions, and here we are and this Committee has done very little other than talk about the border. I want to thank you first Mr. Secretary for working with me on the [inaudible 03:05:24] decision. This week is the week of the big race in Las Vegas and we worked at my office with your office very hard to get the security level raised to a level two and that’s been done and we appreciate that kind of cooperation. Also, I’ve introduced a bill to [inaudible 03:05:40] that program. It’s called a Special Events Program and Support Act. It’s bipartisan and so I hope we can continue to work together on that, because I think that that will be a good next step.

(03:05:53)
We listened to the story of the threats and who’s threatening us and how they’re threatening us and where they are and where they came from. Right now, we’re talking about what’s happening in the Middle East and how it has been translated to threats or violence in this country. Before, it was talking about it in the wake of the Supreme Court decision on abortion issue, so it seems like the methods are the same, but the motives changed by just whatever is politically on the agenda and it must be like playing whack-a-mole, how you deal with the threats. Would you tell us what you have in place to adapt or adjust to what the current news is that’s bringing out perhaps a new group of these homegrown terrorists?

Congresswoman, is that a question directed to me?

Yes, or Mr. Wray. Either one.

I would say that the two leaders seated with me and their colleagues in the intelligence and law enforcement enterprise are the best in the world, and that gives us visibility in terms of the threat landscape and allows us to operationalize the measures to meet that challenge.

I would say that we rely heavily on partnerships; state, local, not just with the federal agencies here, but in particular with state, local law enforcement, with the community, with the private sector in order to be able to try to anticipate where the threat’s going, so that we go to where the threat’s going to be and not waiting to always be in a reactive posture. Our goal is to be ahead of the threat and partnerships are the critical ingredient in that. Again, not just within the Federal Government, but with all those other very important stakeholders.

I know we have a fusion center in Las Vegas, where you have a strong presence as these agencies, but also the private sector. Nobody has more security than gaming does, that eye in the sky, so I think they are valuable partners. Excuse me.

Yeah, I would just add to what my colleagues said, that we have a workforce combined across our different agencies that is just full of tenacity and their job is to not sleep on threats. Their job is to understand, be curious and evaluate every single report that comes in and take it seriously and understand whether it reflects a real and credible threat, and whether it reflects a changing trend in the kind of dynamic that we’re facing here in the country and globally. And so, we’re really proud of that tenacious workforce.

Congresswoman, if I can just add, because Director Wray used a term that is incredibly important, that is the term of partnership, because he indeed is correct. It’s not just across the federal enterprise, but with our state, local, tribal, territorial, campus law enforcement, with the private sector and also very importantly with our international partners, it really does require a community of action.

Thank you. I would ask you, Director Wray, about something you expanded on in this report or your statement today, from a year ago, and that’s international organized crime, the retail crime that we see, organized retail crime. We’re going to see more pictures of that as we go into the holiday season, the smash and grab, the shoplifting that then the money is turned into human trafficking or drugs or guns or whatever. Can you tell us a little bit about how that’s a priority for you?

Well, we are in a number of states, supporting our state and local law enforcement partners who are really the first line of defense on that, but to the extent that there are national connections, national networks, to the extent that the crime that you’re describing contributes to some broader organized criminal activity, then we’re actively engaged and in some states, for example, we have dedicated task forces that are focused just on that issue. It is something that is heavily concentrated in a few geographies in particular, but it’s starting to become a more national trend.

It’s not just big-box stores anymore, it’s small stores. I was in a drug store and somebody came in, just raked off the eyelashes into a backpack and walked out with them. Now eyelashes aren’t power tools, but it’s a problem at all levels. So, appreciate you keeping an eye on that. Thank you, I yield back.

The gentlelady having yielded back, the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Brecheen for five minutes.

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Our decaying national security is on full display. We know the southern border is open. I think colleagues across the island know the southern border is open. Illegal aliens definitely know the southern border is open. The policies are what is causing millions to come to the border. Under the Trump administration, we saw a 45-year low of illegal aliens coming to the border, in 2019. Things have completely reversed. We are seeing the highest numbers in our nation’s history. President Biden, Secretary Mayorkas, leadership matters and there’s not been a federal law change that has provoked this, it’s the leadership from the top. Since February of ’21, Custom and Border Protection has reported over 6.5 million alien encounters at our southern border. Under this administration, an additional 1.7 million got-aways. That is 8.2 million total since this administration took office, and that is three times the population of Oklahoma. That means in three years, almost every year, the population of Oklahoma is coming illegally across our southern border.

(03:11:39)
Custom and Border Protection reports they’ve apprehended 294 known or suspected terrorists between ports of entry, under President Biden’s timeframe. Only 14 suspected terrorists were caught trying to cross the border during the entirety of the four years of the Trump administration. There is a passage in the Bible that I find interesting and I think it’s appropriate, Ecclesiastes 8:11. It says, “When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the people’s hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong.” It remains and has been lawlessness to cross that border, southern border, with undermining the rule of law and lawlessness is contagious. Lawlessness of an open border encourages lawlessness of the fentanyl drug trade. It encourages human smuggling. It encourages illegal aliens to drive without a driver’s license once they get here or go on, for those illegal aliens that are here, and commit additional crimes, because they remain hidden. And under your leadership, Secretary Mayorkas, we’re not deporting them to the levels that we were. We all know this.

(03:12:44)
Former Ambassador John Richmond was before this Committee yesterday. He said that criminal convictions by the Department of Justice against human trafficking is also down 48% since 2019. It’s amazing. I’ve got a couple of pictures here. It’s amazing what leadership can do. I want to hold these up. This is a Custom and Border Patrol agent cutting barb-wire, that the Texas Department of Public Safety put in place. This administration, leadership is bringing this about. Got another picture here. This is a loader, loader tractor, and it is lifting up barbwire also put in place by the Texas Department of Public Safety. Those images are pointing to the fact that a secure border is lacking and the border patrol agents, following the leadership, the culture of leadership, are doing what they can to undermine the rule of law. We know that there, as of last June, an illegal immigrant living in Ohio was charged with plotting to kill former President Bush by smuggling Iraqi citizens across the southern border. He applied for asylum the year prior, in March of 2021. An assassination plot against a former President of the United States that has ties to what’s happening at the southern border.

(03:14:07)
Director Wray, you testified in your opening statement that protecting the American people from terrorism remains the FBI’s number one priority. You also said this morning to our Chairman, and I’m quoting you, “Greater fidelity regarding who comes into the country makes us safer.” Director Wray, I understand you’re walking a fine line. I understand that you serve this President and I know that your position is something that you think about in what you say. There’s a statement in our culture that says blood on our hands and many people… If you’re interested where it comes from, it actually comes from the Torah. And I thought it was interesting, Secretary Mayorkas, you started this morning talking about what’s happened in Israel in the last 60 days. And in the Torah, in Ezekiel 33, Israel’s faced with an invasion, and how they defended themselves from that invasion. And in the Torah, in Ezekiel 33, it says this. It says, speak to your people and say; if destruction is about to come on the land, the people of the land take a man among them and make him their watchmen.

(03:15:08)
Gentlemen, think about the platform please that you’ve been given by this nation. And they make him their watchmen and he sees the sword of danger, destruction coming on the land and he blows the trumpet and warns the people. Then he who hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, his blood’s on his own head. But if the watchman sees the sword coming, the watchman who’s been put in that position by his people, sees the sword coming, destruction coming, does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned and the sword of destruction comes and takes the person from them, talking about the watchman, his blood will be required from the watchman’s hand. The individual, the people in that country will… From the watchman, he will have blood on his hands. Director Wray, are you doing all you can to speak to Secretary Mayorkas and President Biden, and crying aloud the destruction that’s coming to our nation, and potentially come if a terrorism attack hits us within the next years, months, have you done all you can to know that your conscience is clean on this front?

Congressman, my conscience is clean that I’m doing everything in my power to protect the American people from the threat of terrorism, from the threat of fentanyl, from any number of the other threats that we’ve talked about here today, and that includes working closely with the rest of my colleagues in government.

Mr. Chairman.

In my discretion, I’ll let Mr. Mayorkas respond.

I’ll take just a minute and I appreciate your exercise of discretion. I believe the Congressman said that in 2019 there was a decades long low in the number of encounters at our southwest border. That’s a remarkably stunning misstatement of facts, since in 2019 it was almost a hundred percent increase in the number of encounters over just the year prior. But I won’t correct all of the misstatements, the misstatements with respect to the [inaudible 03:17:01]. I just want to address one, because I am accused of all sorts of things in these hearings and I can take it. What I will not accept… I can take it, I just return to my work and I do the work of the Department of Homeland Security, incredibly proud to support the 260,000 men and women of that Department. But to say that the Border Patrol agents, who risk their lives every single day to protect our country, undermine the rule of law is beyond the pale. And I just want to make that clear.

Well, I think since you’ve impugned the member, I need to allow him to respond to that. I didn’t understand him. I thought I heard him to be indicting leadership, but Mr. Brecheen, you’re recognized for.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is a result of leadership. It’s a result of a culture that says one thing and does something else at the southern border. It’s lawlessness. And you take a company, you take a government entity, you take anything, leadership matters. And so this is lawlessness and somebody has to take responsibility for it. And in regards to 2019, one of the months you saw one of the lowest numbers in 45 years of recorded illegal immigration in 2019, in 1 one of those months. That information, I would stand by that.

The gentlemen yields back and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Crane, for his five minutes.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Want to start with Director Wray. Have the border security policy changes made under this administration, sir, made it more difficult for the FBI to keep Americans safe?

Well, I don’t know that I could cite it to specific policies. What I would say is that certainly the threats that we are contending with that emanate from the other side of the border, whether it’s fentanyl trafficking, whether it’s the increase in the number of KSTs that we’ve seen over the last five years, all those are things that make the work that the FBI has on our side of the border to try to get ahead of those threats more challenging.

So you don’t acknowledge that the increase in traffic that we’re seeing, the increase in individuals on the terror watchlist have anything to do with some of the policy changes of this administration?

Well, I didn’t say that. I think what I was saying is when it comes to border security and questions of how that’s supposed to be done, I defer to DHS on that. What I would say is the threats that we’re contending with, which come from the other side of the border, are certainly extremely challenging over the last several years.

Thank you, sir. In your professional opinion, what’s causing the increase of encounters of individuals on the terror watchlist and the traffic at our southern border?

I’m not sure that I have a professional opinion about immigration. We try to stay in our lane and focus on the issues that we’re contending with.

Well, actually sir, I know you’re a really smart guy. I know you do have an opinion. If you’re not willing to share it in this setting, that’s okay. But I know you’ve studied criminology, you’ve studied deterrence. You are the head of the FBI. We all recognize that, but I understand, sir, you’re in a tough situation here today. On that note though, Director Wray, is it fair to say that the now President of the United States, while was campaigning to become president back in June 27th, 2019, said this in multiple statements like it on the campaign trail, he said, “And those who come seeking asylum, we should immediately have the capacity to absorb them, keep them safe until they can be heard.” On September 12th, sir, 2019, “We’re a nation who says if you want to flee and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come.” Did you hear any of those comments by then candidate Joe Biden?

I’m not sure I can quote people’s campaign statements.

Do you think that has anything to do with the dangerous situation that we now see at our border and now within the United States of America?

Again, I’m not sure that I’m really the one who can speak to immigration dynamics.

I think you could speak to it, sir. I just don’t think you want to. Sir, about how many American citizens have been arrested for entering the Capitol on January 6th? If you can just give me an estimate, that’d be great.

Well, I don’t know how many were tied to that specific piece of it. I know that we’ve had upwards of 700 cases brought related to January 6th in one way or another.

Yeah, it’s definitely been hundreds. Okay. Sir, I’m interested, has the pipe bomber who planted bombs at the DNC and the RNC on January 6th, has he been arrested yet?

That is something we’re still aggressively investigating.

Okay. So you were able to arrest hundreds of individuals who were allowed into the Capitol, walked around, took selfies, but we can’t find the individual who committed the most dangerous crime and attempted to cause multiple mass casualty events at the Capitol, or around the Capitol.

Congressman, we have an entire dedicated team focus is specifically on this investigation. We’ve done thousands of interviews, again just in the pipe bomb investigation, thousands of interviews, visited thousands of residents and businesses, reviewed millions of pieces of data. There’s something like 39,000 video files. We’ve assessed 500 or something tips. We’ve done extensive public publicity, we’ve increased the reward money. We’ve got our lab working on it. We’ve got our WMD directorate working on it. We’ve got our Office of Technology division, our cellular analysis team, so the folks that we have working on this investigation are working very aggressively on it and I, as much as anybody, would like to see it solved, but it is certainly not for lack of effort and lack of priority. I can assure you of that.

Thank you, sir. Sir, do you find it interesting how many whistleblowers there are right now from your organization coming forward and testifying to Congress about the conduct of the FBI and how they no longer even want to work for the FBI? They’re willing to risk everything, including their livelihood, to come and talk to Congress about what they perceive to be a change in the culture at the FBI.

Certainly, I respect the role of whistleblowers in our system. It’s an important part of the way our system of government works. When it comes to the culture of the FBI, I’m very proud of our 38,000 people. I think you will be relieved to know that the number of people applying to be special agents from the state of Arizona has gone up over 135% over the last five years. And the view that you’ve just described, I don’t think matches what I hear from the 55 plus chiefs and sheriffs and other agency heads in the state of Arizona who’ve dedicated something like 200 plus of their task force officers to serve on our task forces. We’ve got about as many task forces officers on our task forces-

Real quick, sir, do you find their testimonies to be reliable or do you think that when you hear what they’re saying to Congress, do you think they’re pushing false narratives?

I’m not going to be weighing in on the accuracy of individual people who have made allegations against us. We take them all seriously. There have been plenty of inaccuracies lodged by any number of people about the FBI. We’re going to stay focused on our work and the people we do the work with and the people we do the work for.

Thank you, sir. I yield back.

The gentlemen yields. I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. LaLota, for five minutes of testimony.

Thank you Mr. Chairman for hosting this important hearing. Secretary Mayorkas, during Mr. Garcia’s questioning today, you claimed that 90% of fentanyl is carried through ports of entry, yet this comes a day after the Chief of the Border Patrol, Jason Owens, announced a seizure of over 300 pounds of fentanyl, which was not seized at a port of entry. In fact, the border patrol seized a record number of fentanyl between ports of entry last year, about 2, 800 pounds. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record Chief Owen’s social media post regarding this week’s fentanyl seizure. I’ll read for you, Chairman.

Without objection, so ordered.

“According to the CDC, over 150 people die every day from overdoses related to synthetic opioids like Fentanyl. Yesterday, USBP agents in Nogales and Wilcox, Arizona interdicted two smuggling loads consisting of over 304 pounds of fentanyl worth over $1.9 million.” The leading cause of death amongst Americans ages 14, excuse me, 18 through 45 is fentanyl overdoses. This addictive drug is responsible for nearly 70% of the United States’ 107,000 plus drug overdose deaths in the past year, and is 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine. Mr. Secretary, I think one of the biggest threats to Americans in every corner of this country is fentanyl. Do you agree Secretary Mayorkas?

I do Congressman, and I will tell you, if I may, that we are taking it to the traffickers.

We’re going to get into that in a second, Mr. Secretary. Last year, nearly 200 people died every day from fentanyl poisoning. That’s the equivalent of a commercial airliner crashing every day. Nearly 75,000 Americans in just one year. And the fact that criminal networks have been able to import and distribute an unconscionable amount of fentanyl under your watch, Mr. Secretary, is beyond negligent. Secretary Mayorkas, you have stated many times in the past and with great pride that you are, “taking it to the cartels.” With 75,000 Americans dead in just one year and cartels raking in billions of dollars and armed to the teeth with military-like weaponry and with enough fentanyl coming across our border to kill nearly every human on the planet, would you classify this as successfully, “taking it to the cartels”?

Congressman, we have not overcome the scourge of Fentanyl. And let me say this, we are taking it to an unprecedented degree to the traffickers. One death from this extraordinarily toxic and fatal opioid-

Are you pleased with your results, Mr. Secretary?

If I may, is one death-

Mr. Secretary, the question was about you taking it to the cartels. Are you pleased with your performance with respect to taking it to the cartels?

I’m incredibly proud of the work that the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security-

Okay. I appreciate that Mr. Secretary. Reclaiming my time, sir. You’ve stated in past hearings that you’ve interdicted more fentanyl than ever before, but the very people who work for you say that you’re only interdicting anywhere from between 5 and 10% at our ports of entry. Who’s right, Mr. Secretary?

Do you realize, Congressman, that there were over 57,000 deaths, overdose deaths, from fentanyl in the year 2020?

I appreciate the question, I’m going to ask you a question though. Who is right; you or the folks who work for you? They’re saying that you’re massively understating the fentanyl that’s being seized between ports of entry and that gets past our border between ports of entry and what you’re saying. Are you right sir, or are they?

No, you’re actually mistaken with respect to your characterization of the statements, Congressman. I’d be very happy to clarify for you, if you’d give me the opportunity. The fact that we are interdicting an unprecedented amount of fentanyl does not mean that the scourge of fentanyl is diminished. We are seeing an increase-

I’m going to reclaim my time, Mr. Secretary. With respect to the fentanyl that’s coming across our border, not at ports of entry, how much fentanyl is coming across our border between ports of entry?

I’d be very happy to provide you with data with respect to the different means by which fentanyl enters our country. By air, we have an interdiction facility.

I’m familiar with the process, Mr. Secretary, but specifically with respect to known got-aways, how much are they trafficking into our country?

Congressman, I would be very, very pleased to provide you with whatever data you inquire about. We certainly are providing this Committee with a tremendous amount of data with respect to all of the mission sets that we perform.

I wish next time you would come with some more specific information, Mr. Secretary. But Mr. Chairman, with the remaining time I have, I want to shift gears and talk just for a moment about antisemitism on college campuses. New York State, my home state, is home to more than 2.2 million Jewish Americans, the largest population of Jewish Americans in the entire country. And according to the American Jewish Population Project at Brandeis University, over 21% of Jewish Americans live in New York State. Unfortunately, since the terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7th, many Jewish students, some of whom are my constituents, don’t feel safe merely going to class due to the rise of antisemitism on college campuses. And as we’re all well aware, a 21-year-old student at Cornell University, located

… located in Ithaca in New York State was arrested just two weeks ago for threatening to “shoot up” a Jewish student in a predominantly kosher dining hall on that college campus. Thankfully, the federal law enforcement intercepted threats posted online and arrested him before it was too late. Director Wray, I’ll ask you some questions in another setting, Sir. Thanks for your time.

You can always submit those in writing and ask Director Wray to send them to you. The gentleman yields. I now recognize Ms. Cammack, who has waived onto the committee for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it’s great to be back at Homeland. Secretary Mayorkas, good to see you once again. Director Ray, good to see you. Ma’am, thank you for appearing before the committee today. I’ll jump right into it, Director Wray. Recently, I have been apprised of information that is concerning regarding individuals that are encountered at the border who, during the process of interviewing in the field, specifically using an I-213 form, the match for their ID comes back as inconclusive. That information is then subsequently redacted and listed as derogatory. When members of this committee, as well as other committees, have attempted to get access to this information it has been denied. Why is this information in these field interviews with these individuals who have then subsequently been found to be on the suspected terror watch list, why is that information derogatory and why has the FBI neglected to share that information with Congress?

Congressman, I’m not familiar with the particular redactions in question, so I’m happy to have my staff follow up with you and figure out why there’s a disconnect. Certainly, I know we’ve provided all sorts of information to this committee in a variety of forms and I’m happy to see what it is that’s missing and why.

Well, and I think you have demonstrated a willingness to work with this committee and others. So could you commit in the next 30 days to providing the committee staff on Homeland Security all of the unredacted field interviews?

Well, what I can commit to is that I will follow up with my team to find out what the heck is going on and if there’s information that we can provide that we haven’t, we will.

No information should be redacted and there can be no good reason… If you can’t provide me with a reason why the information is listed as derogatory right now, then you should commit to full transparency to Congress. And that can be in a skiff, that’s fine in a classified setting, but this committee staff should have full access to the field interviews, especially as it pertains to individuals that have been apprehended or encountered at the Southwest border with ties to terrorist groups. Yes or no?

I’m not trying to be obtuse. I promise I don’t. Since I’m not familiar with the specific redactions, I would ask to be able to go back with my team and find out why it’s redacted. And if there’s a reason for it, if it is valid, we will discuss that with you. And if there’s not a reason, we’ll provide you the

Director Wray, within 30 days, if you can provide this committee in writing a rationale as to why that information is redacted and what classifies it as derogatory, that would be incredibly helpful.

We’d be happy to get back to you within 30 days.

Okay, perfect. And I’m going to follow up because I want to be sensitive to the time here. Can you confirm, I know my colleague August Feluga from Texas had followed up with Secretary Mayorkas on the issue of Uzbek nationals and their ties to the confirmed ISIS smuggling ring. Can you confirm that you are currently and actively investigating the Uzbek nationals that were connected to this ISIS smuggling ring? Yes or no?

Yes, ma’am. We have very focused on this particular threat stream. We have a number of active ongoing investigations related to it. I will say that we have so far not identified any intelligence that the individuals came to conduct terrorist attacks, but that’s not the same thing as suggested that we don’t take it extremely seriously and that we’re not working it very aggressively. We have lots and lots of agents working on this-

But they did come through a connected terrorist network?

The network that is in question itself has some ties to ISIS, which is part of why we were concerned. That’s why we’re taking it so seriously. So what I want to be clear about is not in any way to have my answers suggest to you that we’re not taking this extremely seriously and that we’re not working it very aggressively. I’m just also trying to avoid undue alarm about what we found so far. So far is a key set of words there. So far.

Okay. I’m going to have follow up questions for the record with you, Director Wray. Secretary Mayorkas, I don’t want you to feel left out at all. So I want to touch really quickly on the Homeland Intelligence Experts Group that raises some really questionable concerns about the department’s impartiality and objectivity. So isn’t it true that on September 19th, 2013, the department announced the establishment of the Homeland Intelligence Expert Group to provide advice and perspectives on intelligence and national security efforts to the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, INA, and the department’s Office of Counter-Terrorism and their coordinator? Yes or no?

We recently announced the group. I’m not sure the-

Yes. Perfect. So isn’t it true that the composition of this so-called experts group includes former top level intelligence officers, James Clapper, Brennan and Paul Kolbe?

I believe so, yes.

Okay. So are you aware that Clapper, Brennan and Kolbe all signed a now discredited public statement on October 19th, 2020 that incorrectly implied the New York Post reporting about Hunter Biden’s laptop and influence pedaling that was supposedly the product of Russian disinformation?

Congresswoman, these are distinguished members, former members of the intelligence.

But this is a simple yes or no. Did they or did they not sign the letter?

I don’t know the answer to that question, but I-

I do. They did. Are you aware that on October 19th, 2020, the statement used by various media organizations and social media businesses to downplay and censor the Post reporting before the 2020 presidential election?

I’m sorry, with the indulgence of additional time, Mr. Chairman, could you ask that question just at a bit of a slower pace?

Are you aware that on October 19th, 2020, the statement was used, the statement that was signed by Brennan, Clapper and Kolbe was used by multiple media organizations, social media businesses, to downplay and censor the story about the Hunter Biden political influence right before the 2020 presidential election?

I am not tracking that, Congresswoman.

Wow. For as much time and effort as you are putting into a Homeland Intelligence Experts Group, that seems shocking that you wouldn’t be tracking that. Are you aware that another member of this newly created group then Associate Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice Tashina Gauhar, I’m sorry I am messing up her name here, was extensively involved in the FBI’s probe into baseless allegations against President Trump’s campaign colluding with Russia?

Congresswoman, let me share with you what I can tell you with confidence is that the individuals who were selected to the Experts Group are very distinguished and reputable members, former members of the intelligence community, and we’re incredibly proud to avail ourselves of their expertise and judgment.

[inaudible 03:37:48] time has expired.

Thank you. I yield.

I want to now yield to the ranking member for his closing statement.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We’ve had quite a lengthy hearing about threats to the Homeland. I thank our witnesses for their indulgence and patience and it’s appreciated. A couple of things I wanted to add before I do my closing comments. Asylum laws are the laws of the land. As I said in my opening statement, if you don’t like them, you’re in the right forum to change them, but you can’t criticize people who are following the law just because you don’t like it. I guess you can, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense. I chaired the January 6th committee. I saw a lot of things that went on in this country is clearly not who we are as Americans. I thank the FBI for doing one heck of a job in trying to identify those individuals who attacked this great institution of ours and let the courts determine innocence or guilt. Mr. Wray, I thank you for that.

(03:39:18)
Apart from that, as I said in the start of the hearing, we face serious threats to the Homeland from many fronts, a war in the Middle East that may inspire attacks here in the US; foreign and domestic terrorism and cyber attacks; rising antisemitism and Islamophobia and related violence. Also threats to our democratic institutions, our values as well as our way of life. Serious threats demand action from serious people, not politically motivated attacks, not inflammatory language that divides us rather than unite us, not grandstanding. What is perhaps most troubling is the way my colleagues have twisted facts. Success in interdicting dangerous drugs is suddenly a failure. Success in removing people who should not be in the country is suddenly an impeachable offense. Mr. Chairman, it’s upside down. Democrats remain committed to working with the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the National Counter-Terrorism Center to address all these threats.

(03:40:37)
Democrats are also ready to back up that commitment by supporting the personnel and resources necessary to carry out this critical mission. As I said, a lot of us talk tough, but when it comes time to putting the resources behind the talk, many of my colleagues don’t do it. But then we criticize the men and women who are tasked with the responsibility of caring forth the direction of keeping us safe. So I hope after we close the hearing, the president has submitted a supplemental budget that will address a lot of the issues that have been discussed and expressed from a concern standpoint. I look forward to the new speaker calling it up at some point for us to discuss it. But if we don’t provide the resources, if you say you are concerned about the threat environment, Israel, Ukraine, other parts of the world, we have to support it.

(03:41:50)
We have yet to get agreement on making that happen. We have to continue to be the world leader and in order to do that, we have to take responsible action. So this committee has always historically been bipartisan, one of the more bipartisan committees in Congress. I look forward to trying to get us back to that bipartisanship. We can disagree, but the manner in which we disagree in my humble opinion is not who we are as Americans, not who we’ve demonstrated on this committee since its inception. So that’s what the dedicated public servants also who work to keep us safe do every day. So, again, let me thank the three individuals here, but all the men and women actually who are positioned all around the world who keep us safe. Thank you so much. On my side, if resources is what you need to get the job done, I commit to support the resources for the men and women to do the job and I yield back.

The gentleman yields and I wanted to thank the witnesses for being here. A lot of work goes into preparing for these I know and a lot of work goes into doing the jobs that you do. I also want to thank our staff that helps put on these committee hearings. Again, a lot of work and I know the members pour themselves into preparing for this, so thank the members as well. Director Wray, I want to thank you today for your honest admission that the risk is increased secondary to this war. And you also said in questioning by me from me that this known got away group is a big, huge question mark that there are no guarantees and so thus there’s an increased risk from that.

(03:43:55)
The question is how did we get to those known and unknown got aways so large, well over 300%? I mean, you can add up the last two presidencies in this just three years. It exceeds the last 12 years. Well, as I said earlier, I think policies were working. They were removed. People tested the system. They realized you could get in and just be released. They called home and millions came. This migration crisis is a self-inflicted crisis. One we created by the change of our policies and it’s put Americans at increased risk as you’ve acknowledged. And I think I used in my opening statement the analogy of the [inaudible 03:44:40] bar that stops carting. That bar will be overwhelmed. I think we all get that and that’s what’s happened at our Southern border with mass waves of cartels. With this mass wave of people, the cartels have seized the opportunity to overwhelm Customs and Border Patrol and bypass them and get the fentanyl into the United States.

(03:45:02)
How else could we explain the fact that fentanyl was $95 a hit on the street when this Secretary of Americas came into office and it’s now 25 to $26 a hit in Tennessee? It’s simple: to supply and demand.

(03:45:21)
These catch and release policies that Mr. Mayorkas, I think, has implemented is the cause of the problem. You have to ask yourself why wouldn’t… With the way these catch and release policies are working now, and I mean that’s really what happens. You look at the CBP One app, 98% of the people who do that get to come into the country. So if you get to come into the country, why wouldn’t you just turn yourself into Customs and Border Patrol? Why would somebody even go around Customs and Border Patrol now because you’re going to come in and get parole and get into the country? Well, it’s because they don’t want to be caught, and that scares us even more considering that it’s 2 million people. I also want to thank you, Mr. Wray. You admitted that your department is looking for people right now on the known terrorist watch list. I think your question, you answered to Mr. Pfluger. And Mr. Mayorkas kind of didn’t really answer the question on whether or not if they identified somebody, 100% of the time they kept them. There was some discussion about a system that was implemented to determine if the person was a risk. We know because we talked to the Customs and Border Patrol agents that there is no policy that if they’re caught on the terrorist watch list, that they’re immediately detained in 100% of the cases. So these policies not to do that, which make no sense to us, have put Americans at risk. And interestingly enough, your agents who are now having to find these individuals somewhere in our country, those decisions, those policies not only put the American citizens at risk, they put your agents at risk because they’re out there now having to find these individuals.

(03:47:09)
The truth is the current policy in the Department of Homeland Security does not require immediate detention of these people, and that is wrong. Yeah, I asked Director Wray if the policies of his colleagues are making it worse for the FBI. That was one of my questions and you kind of… I get it. Professionalism, you walked around that question, but I think it’s clear to every American that these policies at our Southern border that are willful decisions, those changed policies have increased the risk of not only the Americans in this country, but also the law enforcement all over this country to include the FBI.

(03:47:52)
Now, I want to take issue with several of the comments that my colleagues on the minority side have said. Some of their accusations today. The ranking member said that Republicans were AWOL. Now, I’m a military guy. That term means something to me. AWOL is an acronym that stands for absent without leave, meaning you don’t show up to your place of duty. In my recollection, in all of our committee hearings, the only time someone didn’t show up to a hearing was when the Democrats refused to show up at a border hearing. When we had a hearing on the border, all the Republicans were there. Not a single Democrat showed up. So as far as I’m concerned, there’s never been a time when Republicans have been AWOL, but there certainly was a time when the Democrats were AWOL.

(03:48:38)
The ranking member also said that a lot of the discussion we’ve had is a difference in policies and things like that. I have to tell you I agree on some of that, but it’s pretty clear that Americans are at risk by decisions that have been made. There’s nothing wrong with us investigating that and pointing it out to the American people and trying to find the cause; and if those decisions have put Americans at risk, holding people accountable. Today, the ranking member, very interestingly, didn’t mention Hamas in his opening statement, didn’t mention Hezbollah, he didn’t mention the cartels, he didn’t mention the CCP. The only thing he seemed to want to talk about was the MAGA Republicans and President Trump.

(03:49:28)
I find that interesting, and I’d like to point that out for the record that in our world threats hearing, the ranking member didn’t talk about any of that. The ranking member suggested that we have a member in our party that wants to defund the FBI. We’re not defunding the FBI, but I’ll tell you, some of their members want to defund ICE; have said it many times on the record, more than just one. We had one member of our side that said the defund… Many of them have wanted to defund ICE and they’ve talked about defunding law enforcement all across this country for years. So I was a little offended by the fact that he brought that up, but I wanted to set the record straight on that one.

(03:50:13)
The ranking member also suggested that we are criticizing the men and women of your departments, and I would never do that. I worked for a lot of great military leaders in the day, my time in the Army, but occasionally we had a leader that was not effective and I’d never be critical of that unit’s soldiers, always the leader. Our criticism’s not the men and women of DHS, Mr. Secretary. Our criticisms are your policies that you’ve implemented that changed everything when you came into office and changed the flood of migration and changed the fentanyl flow into this country. And tragically now with a war in the Middle East and heightened risk to the United States because we’re supporting their other great enemy, Israel, at much greater risk.

(03:51:12)
I also want to correct this notion because it keeps coming up that 90% of the fentanyls being caught. Well, that’s not true. 90% of what comes across the border that is caught is caught at the crossing sites. That’s an accurate statement. But to say that you’re catching 90% of the fentanyl, you don’t know the denominator. You can’t figure the percentage. I wish people would be intellectually accurate when they make statements, but they just seem to clinging to things that aren’t true. There’s also this accusation that just because people want border security that we’re somehow racist. We heard that again today. You would think that that would just get tired and be thrown out. The people coming across the Southern border when I was there, there’s a huge group of Russians. They’re whiter than I am.

(03:52:06)
This notion that you’re somehow racist because you want border security, it’s really insane. I can assure you this, the people who are all over this nation right now yelling from the river to the sea the destruction of Israel, I’ll eat that Red Bull can if there’s a Republican in that group. I also want to thank you, Ms. Abizaid. You brought up the homegrown and the lone wolfs and all this stuff, and you gave some really compelling testimony. I’m from Tennessee and what happened in Chattanooga several years ago at that recruiting station is just an example of what you’re talking about. Keep saying that over and over again. America needs to know about this. They are actively trying to flip people in our country and to convince them to hurt Americans. And that incident in Chattanooga, we in Tennessee will never forget it, and I thank you for bringing that point home.

(03:53:09)
Now, Mr. Mayorkas has said that we need to add dollars. The truth of the matter is there was no budget change between the last administration and this administration, but you can look at the graph. It’s like this and then like this. It ain’t about dollars, although we’re not against. If you look in H.R.2, we put more dollars into that technology, pay for border patrol people despite what some people have said. You also mentioned, Mr. Mayorkas, immigration laws. And, yes, they’re broken. They need to get fixed. But the truth of the matter is that the Immigration and Nationality Act is being subverted right now. Courts have ordered you to do it a different way than you’re doing it, so I’m not even sure if we did change the immigration laws you’d even abide by them. The ranking member mentioned that the asylum laws, we need to change that, but we’re not living according to the definition of the asylum laws now and detaining people. We’re actually sending them to hotels and sending them away while ICE detention beds sit empty despite what the law says. More resources? No, this is a policy issue. The policies were changed by the secretary, and the results are people came. Some on the terrorist watch list being chased by the FBI loose in our country, thousands dead to fentanyl, millions disrupted by the cartel crime, thousands of children lost in the system, thousands of people trafficked and billions of taxpayer dollars. The New York mayor, who happens to be a Democrat, says it’s going to cost his city $12 billion right out of the taxpayer dollar, not at their choice. They didn’t vote on this. You just moved the policies out of the way. Here, let me write the check because that’s what Mr. Mayorkas wants us to do.

(03:55:08)
And now as I said, with the conflict in Israel, we are faced with an open border coupled with a heightened threat as we give assistance to the, as I said, the only other country or group of people that the terrorists hate more than us, Israel. The abysmal failure to secure our Southern border has put every American at risk, even a baby crawling around on the floor of a VRBO who encounters fentanyl left by the previous renter, dead to crime, to human trafficking, to billions of money going to some of the worst human beings on the planet: cartels. And now of course international terrorists.

(03:55:57)
Before I finish my comments, I want to say a few things because you guys have raised some really good points and I want to just give you some assurances. CFATS. The house passed it. We’re pushing the Senate. We have a CFATS working group to try to get it in a posture where the Senate will actually approve it, but that side of the building is controlled by another party. We passed it over here. We’re waiting on them. No, we’re actually trying to get it in a posture that they’ll actually support UAS. We’re working very diligent to get that done. You’re right, Director. FISA, there’s a special committee that is working on this. I promise you that will get done. CWMD of course was on the CR that just passed, so it’s done. It’s over on the Senate side waiting. Those are very valiant, are very… I agree with you. Those things need to be taken care of. We’re working on it.

(03:56:53)
Mr. Wray, thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Abizaid, thank you. Mr. Mayorkas, thank you. I know you rearranged your schedule to stay a little later, and I get that and I deeply appreciate it. It’s clear that you believe you’re doing a great job. I mean, I’m not hiding it. We’re looking into all this because we on our side think that you’re not. We’re in our last phase of a five phase process that you’re following in the press just like the rest of my constituents and people across the country. We’re going to finish that up, I think sometime around December. I’d love to know today if you commit to come back, we’ll finish that thing out, I think maybe in December. I mean, does that sound reasonable to you? Will you be able to come back for that?

I will honor the request of this committee.

Thank you. Again, I want to reiterate my point about the people of your departments. It’s hard work protecting this country, protecting the citizens of this country. And I know the men and women who do that professionally as a career deserve the utmost of our respect, and every one of them has it from us. Our frustrations are not with them. It’s not. It’s with leadership that we think has made bad decisions. And with that, I’m concluding my closing remarks. The members of this committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we’d ask that the witnesses respond to those in writing if you get any. And pursuant to committee rule 7D, the hearing record will be held open for 10 days for those written statements. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.