Oversight Hearing – Potential DHS Shutdown Impacts

[Gavel sounds.] Good morning. Thank you all for being here. For the rest of you that are here, I don't know why you're here. It's a homeland hearing, but I guess you didn't have anything better off, so welcome to you too. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security will come to order. I'm pleased to be joined by the subcommittee's distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar, as well as the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Cole, and the full committee ranking member, when she gets here, Ms. DeLauro. Welcome to our distinguished panel. I sincerely thank you for being here, especially on short notice. I'm going to do something out of character for me, so I hope it doesn't jinx everything. I'm going to do a brief opening statement. The focus of this hearing is fairly straightforward. Absent the passage of a continuing resolution by Friday night, the Department of Homeland Security will shut down. We have already passed the deadline when bill text should have been shared with members in accordance with the 72-hour rule in the House. At this point, finalizing the bill before the 13th seems like a very tall order. A shutdown has gone from a distinct possibility to a probability. But not all components will equally share the pain during a homeland shutdown. Congress made a historic investment in border security and immigration to the tune of $191 billion last year, but outside of ICE, most of this funding is long-term investments, not day-to-day operations. So while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, most of whom didn't vote for the homeland bill when it was being considered in the House last month, they all played a very important part in putting that legislation together, and rightfully so. So we will not focus on ICE and CBP. Those agencies' missions will be largely unaffected by a shutdown. For those of you that just got into town, the policy committee for homeland, Mr. Garbarino's committee, yesterday held a hearing which talked about ICE and Border Patrol, so the policy issues associated with those agencies in an ongoing sense had an opportunity for a full hearing yesterday in the policy committee. Instead, the pain here will be felt by the men and women of TSA who will once again work to keep our airways safe without a paycheck. There will be uncertainty for the Coast Guard men and women who have no choice but to show up for work. It will slow down shipbuilding. It will reduce the amount of funding in the Disaster Relief Fund just weeks after massive winter storms affected wide swaths of the country. It will show up for Secret Service agents who put their lives on the line to protect the nation's elected leaders and their families will likely work without pay. It will increase the workload and pressure on our frontline cybersecurity defenders at CISA who will work with less staff and without pay. And of course, the dedicated civil servants across the department who are furloughed will not receive a paycheck. So if we shut down the department over ICE and CBP enforcement actions in Minneapolis and my colleagues' list of policy demands, here's what will happen: immigration and removal operations will continue, wall construction will continue, anything funded by reconciliation dollars will continue. The good work of the department does outside of immigration enforcement will come to a screeching halt, and that's what today's hearing is about: money to agencies that will be affected by a shutdown. I'll now turn to my colleague Mr. Cuellar for his opening remarks. The floor is yours, sir.

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Let me begin by saying how much respect I have for you and for the way you lead this subcommittee. Homeland security is never an easy bill, and it never should be. It deals with real risks, real people, real consequences, and I appreciate the seriousness you brought to this work, and I appreciate the bipartisan spirit that has allowed this subcommittee to function even at times of very difficult moments like now. We're meeting today at a very important time. In just a few days, if Congress doesn't act, the Department of Homeland Security could face a shutdown. And while the American people may hear the word shutdown and think of Washington politics, what that really means is delayed disaster response, weakened cyber defenses, and uncertainty for the men and women who show up every day to keep this country safe. This is not theoretical. Every member here represents transportation security officers, and they work long shifts to keep our airport security secure. Every member relies on FEMA when disaster strikes their state or their district. Every member depends on CISA as cyber threats target hospitals, pipelines, schools, and local governments. Every member recognizes the critical role Secret Service plays and will be playing this year with security around the World Cup and the American 250 celebrations. Every member counts on the Coast Guard, men and women who carry out 11 statutory missions, often under extreme conditions, often with limited resources, and always with professionalism. So let me be clear from the very beginning: the public servants of the Department of Homeland Security have the full respect and support of Congress, Republicans and Democrats. They deserve stability, clarity, and leadership from us. That bipartisan commitment has already shown itself. This subcommittee, working together, rejected proposed cuts to FEMA and CISA. We supported the increased funding for FEMA and the Coast Guard, and those shared priorities are the reasons why I supported a fiscal year 2026 DHS appropriation bill. We agree on more than we disagree. We agree that border security matters. We agree that enforcement matters. We agree that accountability matters to the taxpayers and to the Constitution. And we should say plainly that strong borders and the respect for human life are not competing values. They're American values, and we are capable of honoring both at the same time: strong borders and the respect for human life. And that's why the events that we witnessed last month in Minnesota, the tragic loss of two American citizens, should concern every member of this subcommittee, regardless of party. When enforcement actions lead to outcomes like that, we have an obligation to ask the hard questions and to make sure our laws and policies are working as intended. There's reasonable bipartisan ideas worth discussing: prioritizing enforcement resources on individuals with serious criminal records, ensuring that the proper warrants for searches of private property are enforced, providing clear guidelines to officers so they can do their jobs effectively and communities can have the confidence in the process. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I sent you some of the proposals in legislative language that I think are very rational and are basically not creating new laws but are enforcing the policies and the laws that are there. For example, the use of force that homeland has had, I think it was dated February 2023, just enforcing what's in there already: policies and laws, training that are there already. And I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand that the status quo cannot be carried on. We may differ on the scope or the pace of reform, but we all share a responsibility for making the system work. That's why I'd hope that the conversation today may also include ICE and CBP leadership. I understand there was a meeting yesterday, but I think homeland could address this issue if we wanted to, the appropriations. The reality is that nearly 90 percent of the department will continue operating even if Congress fails to complete its work by the end of the week. If we are serious about avoiding a shutdown and about fixing what needs to be fixed, those voices need to be part of this discussion. So Mr. Chairman, here's my ask, and it's a sincere one: let's use the days ahead to convene a bipartisan good-faith effort to resolve the remaining issues at the heart of this funding fight and keep DHS fully operational and give the American people the security and the stability that they expect. If you recall, Chairman, we all came up with a bill that was agreed on by the Senate, by the House, by the Democrats, by the Republicans, until the second shooting came in. I understand dynamics change, but we're almost there. We were there, Democrats and Republicans and everybody, but the second shooting brought different dynamics, and I think we can get there to address that. So shutting down the Department of Homeland Security doesn't make our border stronger, it does not make our community safer, it does not honor the public servants who depend on us to do our jobs. So I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, and I look forward just as much to working with the colleagues on both sides of the aisle to finish this bill and move this country forward. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thanks to the gentleman from Texas. I now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, the ranking member of the full committee, Chairman Cole, and the floor is yours, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, my friend. And before I say this, it's the first time you and I have had the opportunity to appear in public since you announced your impending retirement. And you didn't tell me ahead of time, or you know I would have tried to talk you out of it. But I just want to tell you how proud I am of you and the manner in which you've risen up through this committee, the manner in which you've chaired one of the most difficult committees that we do have. I know you will give us 100 percent in the time that you'll still be here. I wish you well in whatever your future endeavors are, but I just want to thank you for your service. I want to thank you for your friendship. You know, we don't always agree on both sides of the aisle, but I bet you there's not anybody on our committee that doesn't respect you and appreciate you and regard you as a friend. And I feel the same way about your ranking member as well, but we'll talk about that in a minute. But again, you're going to be missed. And thank you, and I'm sorry we've given you your most difficult task right here at the end of your career. That may have had something to do with your leaving, I don't know. But thank you for the way you've represented this committee in a bipartisan way and the service you've rendered our country and particularly your leadership in trying to get this extraordinarily difficult bill through at a very, very challenging time. So thank you. You bet. Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member Cuellar, thank you both, and I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. Every member at this dais has an Article I responsibility, and every member here, regardless of party, knows how damaging a shutdown is, both to the power of the purse and to the American people. The consequences are real, and so should our conversations in relationship to the situation at hand. I find it's a we're in a very difficult position right now that has made this this bill the epicenter of a controversy that is larger than the appropriations itself and probably doesn't belong in this particular venue. But I'm proud of the bill that this committee produced and that you and the ranking member voted for, and I appreciate that bipartisan effort to try and deal with a challenging bill at a very difficult time. That final full-year legislation that you presented was negotiated in good faith across chambers and parties and included funding for body-worn cameras and de-escalation training, two things that my friends on the other side requested and I thought they were excellent requests and excellent suggestions, and I think they improved the bill. They invested in FEMA and cybersecurity efforts, upheld the missions of the Coast Guard and TSA. Our homeland security measure is not a single-issue bill. Treating it as such ignores the full scope of impacts before us and abandons responsible governance. Further, these actions will not achieve the objectives that Democrats claim to seek. After years of failed border policies, lax enforcement, and uncontrolled mass migration, President Trump and Republicans acted decisively to stop the chaos. Through reconciliation, Congress delivered historic resources to secure the border, protect the homeland, strengthen ICE and CBP, and support public safety. So no matter what opponents say or do, immigration enforcement, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, will continue. But if we persist in holding government funding hostage and force a third shutdown in less than four months, it'll be a dramatic mistake and will put our national security at risk. These risks, by the way, aren't hypothetical. TSA personnel and other federal workers will be forced to work without a paycheck again. Coast Guard operations will face uncertainty and disruption again. Counterterrorism and cybersecurity capacity will be slowed again. FEMA resources will be reduced as winter storms barrel across the country. Law enforcement training will be canceled and obstructed, and a pay raise that we secured for air traffic controllers remains in limbo. Operational support, workforce morale, and the day-to-day missions that keep the American people safe will all suffer as a result. I know the panel before us will provide clarity on impacts that are being overlooked. And I'll end with this: the appropriations process shouldn't be used as a proxy for other policy disputes. Discussions on reform, oversight, and accountability across government can happen without leveraging the funding of agencies as collateral. And I appreciate our witnesses for being here today. Let me make a few off-the-cuff comments if I may, Mr. Chairman. Again, I want to thank you and I want to thank the ranking member for working together and voting together to give us a good product. And I want to thank the ranking member of the full committee for working with us to make some changes and additions that I think were good changes and additions and I think will improve the process. I also want to thank the ranking member of the full committee for working with us on process in the sense that we understood that this was a very challenging time, that this committee was caught in the focus of a controversy that nobody up here had anything to do with creating. And she laid out a path that I may not be able to vote for this, but here's a way we can get the funding through. And she kept her word at every stage of that path and gave me very good and practical advice that would allow members on both sides of the aisle to vote their conscience but would not interrupt the funding of these critical agencies in front of us. And for that, I will always be grateful to my friend. I want to thank our leadership for working with us to repackage, you know, a six-bill package in ways that, again, would allow us to move forward where we agreed, would allow members that had principled difference of opinions to express those differences on the floor and yet still move forward and not risk the funding. I have to tell you, I'm much less pleased with our colleagues on the other side of the rotunda. You know, quite frankly, we did for them what we did here, that is, tell us the way you want the legislation to package it so you can pass it. And we gave them exactly what they asked for, and we gave it in exactly the form they asked for. And I don't doubt for a moment the people that I were working with, you know, were acting in good faith. Our counterparts in the Senate are valued partners to the ranking member and me, and I admire and like both of them. But I have to tell you, a leadership that allows their negotiators to agree to one thing and then upsets that agreement, which was done, by the way, in the first shutdown, you know, has led now to a second and potentially a third shutdown of parts of the government. And so I don't have a lot of respect for that leadership on the Democratic side in the United States Senate because they have injected issues that are not part of the appropriations process twice into the process. You know, first on things like Obamacare premium support, Medicaid, things that this committee has zero to do with. And the issues they are concerned about in the homeland area are issues that are not appropriations issues. Nobody's arguing about the amounts of money in this bill. Nobody's arguing about what how this committee distributed them. They're arguing about practices and policies, and that's legitimate. It's not legitimate to use this bill as a hostage and use the men and women that you supervise and work with as pawns in a larger struggle. They should get paid. They should get the resources they need. They should get them on time. We can work out the other issues. We should not be holding your respective agencies hostage and the men and women who have put their lives on the line in many cases, who have served us faithfully, should not wonder whether or not they're going to get paid, their families should not wonder whether or not they're going to get supported. We can work out these other issues. I will tell you personally, I think it's unconscionable if Congress leaves and does not solve the problem. I'm sure Munich is a great place. I've been there many times. The beer is outstanding. But we don't need to go to a defense conference someplace in Europe when we're not taking care of the defense of the United States of America and the agencies that you are all involved with are critical to that defense and do their job, you know, every single day. I would be embarrassed to walk past a TSA agent that wasn't getting paid so I could go someplace else. That's my personal opinion. That's not necessarily the opinion of my leadership or anybody else, but we should stay here and get this resolved. We should make sure that men and women that we have already put in a terrible position once for 43 days don't have to go through it again. And so I just feel very strongly about that. I know there are good-faith efforts going on to talk about these things, but I'm tired of politicians making a political point at the expense of men and women who do their job every single day and don't ask for anything other than what we promised them to do their job. So that's just my opinion, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to take it. But again, I want to thank you and the ranking member of this subcommittee. I want to thank my colleague, the ranking member of the full committee, for working in good faith, finding common ground, getting us right to the verge of funding the government and leaving a path open to continue to work on areas where we disagree and make changes, which again, my friends on the other side have made some excellent suggestions, some of which we incorporated in the final product. So we're going to keep working it, but it's an enormously frustrating thing for me and I'm sure it's an enormously frustrating thing for every member on both sides of the aisle on this panel. We ought to finish our job and fund the government. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's now my pleasure to recognize the gentlelady from Connecticut, the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, for her opening statement. The floor is yours, ma'am.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to echo my friend and my colleague, Congressman Cole, the chairman of the full committee's comments. I have had the opportunity of working with you the last several years, and whether it is in subcommittee or full committee, engaging on issues that you care about, that we care about, it has always been a civil, a respectful, and an honest discussion of what we are trying to effectuate. And so in that context, for me, that is the hallmark of how we do our business here is when we can disagree about a number of issues and yet we can find the way to, you know, to help to try to make a difference. That's a hallmark, I might add, of the Appropriations Committee, which is historic in the sense that Democrats and Republicans have come together around compromise and moved the bill forward. I've said over and over again, my colleagues have heard me, that the appropriations process is the center, it's the heart and soul, it's the guts of the federal government. If there is no agreement on both sides of the aisle, both houses, this government shuts down. And there are serious consequences about shutting that down. And we have worked in order to eliminate that, but we have also, and I thank the chair of this subcommittee and the chair of the full committee to understand that the power of the purse resides in the Appropriations Committee. And we have provided in all of our bills, including in the homeland bill, the guardrails that quite frankly the administration and the Office of Management and Budget have tried to eviscerate and to take that power of the purse, transfer it from the Congress and set it in the executive. And quite frankly, I believe that what we have done at the subcommittee and at the full committee levels is say no. No. We are going to make the decisions that reflect what the American people have asked us to do on their behalf. So I want to thank you. We will miss you and your personality, but your commitment to making this government work and the reasons for that. You know why you've come to serve here, and it's been a pleasure. I will also say a dear friend, and we're going to differ on some things and we can differ strongly, but we knew we had a mission. And the bills that were passed, all 11 of them and the ones last week, will make a hell of a lot of difference in the lives of the American people and address what is their single biggest issue today, and that's their cost of living and affordability. Not a hoax, a reality. And the bills that we have fostered and put forward address that issue four-square. And for that, I too treasure the friendship that I have with the chair of the full committee in order to understand to get things done and to make a difference. And let me move to today's hearing. And I thank you for this, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to be blunt here with you. Let us be perfectly clear about what we're doing here today. This hearing is not about solutions. This hearing, in my view, is for show. This is supposedly a hearing about funding for the Department of Homeland Security, and yet the Secretary of Homeland Security is in hiding. Secretary Noem should be here today. She should be explaining why her department is arresting and deporting American citizens. Why is it pulling law-abiding residents out of their cars, beating them in the streets? Why it tear-gassed an infant and a pastor and blinded a young man? She should be answering here for the shameless lies that she has told about two American citizens who were killed in cold blood by her agents. But she is not here. She is hiding because she knows that her conduct is indefensible. There are also no representatives here from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection, the two agencies at the heart of this matter. Democrats requested that they be present. Why are they not here? That should tell you everything you need to know about what this hearing is really all about. It is not to address the real concerns of millions of Americans over the unchecked brutality of officers within those agencies, brutality that has left two Americans dead and countless others seriously injured. No, the goal is to pretend they do not exist while perpetuating the fiction that Democrats are opposed to funding for disaster relief or cybersecurity or the Coast Guard or Transportation Security Administration or Secret Service, when nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is the Republican leadership that has chosen to hold your agencies hostage to avoid implementing reforms that they know are necessary to keep our community safe from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ...enforcement and the Customs and Border Patrol. I have introduced today a bill that would fully fund every agency that is represented in this hearing today. Remember that as my Republican colleagues pose leading questions to our witnesses about what a shutdown would mean for their agencies. I've read the testimony. My bill sets Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding aside while negotiations over needed dramatic reforms continue separately. ICE cannot be abolished, but I will not provide a single cent for those agencies until dramatic changes are made. We will not provide a single cent for those agencies until real changes are made. The vast majority of Americans are overwhelmingly support the reforms that the Democrats have laid out. Requiring agents to get a warrant from a judge before they kick in someone's door. Preventing U.S. citizens from being detained or deported. Stopping agents from camping out at schools, at hospitals, at churches. Requiring the use of body cameras, removing the masks, presenting identification on uniforms, allowing independent investigations into misconduct. Establishing a legally binding use of force policy and ending the roving patrols that harass bystanders based on their race are all reforms that are backed by a strong majority of Americans. My Republican colleagues know these reforms are necessary. If they really believed everything was fine, they would have those agencies testifying here today. They would not be afraid of the questions of myself or my Democratic colleagues would ask them if they are behaving in a way that was worthy of further funding. Instead, my Republican colleagues have set Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol to the side for a separate conversation. I am grateful, so grateful to the witnesses who have made the time to appear here today. The work that you and your agencies carry out every single day is crucial. My Democratic colleagues and I fought hard to ensure that your agencies receive the resources that you need when we are negotiating the full year funding bill. I might add, we did work in a bipartisan way to address these issues. These provisions are reflected in the measure that I have introduced this morning. I want to protect your mission. I want to protect the progress you make and the further progress that you can make. I want to protect provisions that we secured that stop Secretary Noem and President Trump from permanently dismantling FEMA. The Secretary appeared before our committee and indicated that FEMA should be eliminated. When I questioned the interim director and said should it be eliminated or should there be reforms? He stated that it shouldn't be eliminated, but there should be major reforms. The next day he was fired. The very next day he was fired. I want to include the language that we agreed on that would prevent President Trump from hollowing out the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, especially as the volume and sophistication of cyber attacks increases relentlessly. I want to protect the resources we secured for the brave men and women of the Secret Service who put their lives on the line every day and who historically have worked to protect every single president of the United States. And I want to make sure that the United States Coast Guard receives the more than half a billion dollar funding increase we fought for during our negotiations so that they have the resources to respond to drug smuggling, human trafficking, and natural disasters that threaten our country. I am proud to be in the state that represents the Coast Guard and in the city of New Haven, Connecticut, with the Coast Guard facility. I want your men and women to be well taken care of to be able to carry out their job. All of these provisions are included in the legislation that I have introduced today. If funding lapses on Saturday, it is the Republican leadership who will bear the responsibility for the impacts that we will hear about today. I thank the chairman and I yield back.

Thank you, Madam Ranking Member. We'll start out with the opening statement from Admiral Allan. Without objection, the witness's full written testimony will be entered into the record. With that in mind, we would ask you to please summarize your opening statement in five minutes or less. Admiral, the floor is yours.

Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member Cuellar, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the severe impacts a government shutdown would have on your United States Coast Guard. As a vital instrument of national power, the Coast Guard controls, secures, and defends the U.S. border and maritime approaches, facilitates the safe and secure flow of commerce, and responds to crises and contingencies that may come without warning. As a proud member of the Department of Homeland Security and the only armed force under DHS, every action the Coast Guard takes is dedicated to protecting our nation. The American people depend on us and we provide a remarkable return on investment, but only with consistent and predictable appropriations. A lapse in appropriation requires the Coast Guard to suspend all missions except those for national security or the protection of life and property. A funding lapse has severe and lasting challenges for our workforce, operational readiness, and long-term capabilities. More importantly, a lapse lasting more than a few days will halt pay for the Coast Guard 56,000 active duty, reserve, and civilian personnel. This is not a distant administrative issue. The uncertainty of missing paychecks negatively impacts readiness and creates a significant financial hardship for service members and their families. Missed pay erodes the trust our men and women have in the nation they serve and those who lead them. Shutdowns cripple morale and directly harm our ability to recruit and retain the talented Americans we need to meet growing demands. The work our crews perform every day is dangerous and challenging. Our people deserve the resources they need to perform their duties safely and efficiently. The Coast Guard gunner's mate manning a weapon in the Straits of Hormuz should not have to worry if their family will be able to pay rent while being shadowed by Iranian vessels. Our aviation survival technician deploying from a helicopter into treacherous seas should not have to worry if their family can buy groceries this week. These jobs require dedication, focus, and attention to detail. Any distraction puts the member, mission, crew, and unit at risk. Short-term solutions only provide temporary relief. No one in our military should be forced to live with this uncertainty from paycheck to paycheck. A shutdown also erodes mission readiness. Certain training stops, including training for pilots, aircrews, and boat crews who must build and maintain proficiency to operate in hazardous conditions. Our cutters, aircraft, and boats further degrade as scheduled maintenance is deferred and the flow of spare parts is cut off. This results in grounded aircraft, static cutters, and a multi-million dollar parts backlog that takes time to fix. We are unable to pay our contractors, including small businesses who rely on timely payment to ensure cash flow and survive. We cease activities that do not protect the safety of life or property from imminent danger, including routine patrols, some fisheries enforcement, maintenance of aids to navigation, and commercial vessel safety inspections. The National Maritime Center closes, halting the issuance and renewal of credentials for thousands of U.S. merchant mariners who rely on valid credentials to work and who are vital to ensuring the flow of commerce throughout the U.S. ports and waterways continues. The ripple effect causes delay in vessel inspections, financing, and regulatory approvals that can cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars every week and translates to higher prices for Americans everywhere. I urge you to continue your support of the men and women of the Coast Guard by not allowing funding to lapse. To keep our crews and assets ready to serve the American people, we require the resources necessary to fulfill our vital missions. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Admiral. Next we'll go to Administrator McNeill for TSA. The floor is yours, ma'am.

Good morning Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, Ranking Member Cuellar, and Chairman Amodei, and the distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify before you today on behalf of the Transportation Security Administration. I'm honored to be here and grateful for the long-standing and productive partnership TSA shares with this subcommittee. DHS and TSA were created on the heels of 9/11 to help the United States stay a step ahead of terrorists and bad actors. A lack of funding and predictability of resourcing will pose significant challenges to our ability to deliver transportation security with the level of excellence we expect and Americans deserve. We need Congress to pass DHS's budget for fiscal year 2026. TSA's critical national security mission does not stop during a shutdown. Around 95 percent or 61,000 of TSA's employees are deemed essential and continue to work to protect the traveling public during a shutdown while not getting paid. These TSA employees live and work across the nation within your communities, securing over 430 commercial airports and performing incredibly challenging and demanding jobs. I would like to take a moment to recognize the TSA workforce for their unrelenting efforts day in and day out to secure the nation's transportation systems. During the recent 43-day shutdown, TSA personnel continued to report to work without pay and kept our operations running smoothly, ensuring millions of passengers arrived at their destinations safely and securely. While average wait times across the country remained within our established standards, TSA saw increased rates of unscheduled absences and localized spikes in wait times as the shutdown dragged on and the cost of coming to work became more and more untenable for our frontline workforce. We heard reports of officers sleeping in their cars at airports to save money on gas, selling their blood and plasma, and taking on second jobs to make ends meet. Many were subject to late fees from missed bill payments, eviction notices, loss of childcare, and more, all the while expected to serve their country and perform at the highest level when in uniform. Twelve weeks later, some are just recovering from the financial impact of the 43-day shutdown. Many are still reeling from it. We cannot put them through another such experience. It would be unconscionable. Today I am joined by several outstanding TSOs I want to recognize for their service to our nation. They represent TSA's core values and are top-performing, dedicated team members and leaders in their respective airports in Texas, Iowa, and Arizona. Maggie Robinson McGee, she serves as a TSO and joined TSA after witnessing the tragedy of 9/11 and she's a plank holder for the agency and has worked in San Antonio International Airport for 24 years. Not getting paid during the shutdown created significant challenges and personal hardship for her. Yolanda Mendoza serves as a lead TSO working at Eastern Iowa Airport for eight years. During the shutdown, not knowing when she would receive her next paycheck weighed heavily on her, caused anxiety, and affected her spouse and children as well. It reminded her that shutdowns don't just impact government operations, they disrupt households and create real fear for families who rely on stable paychecks to stay afloat. Jonathan Abtehi serves as a lead TSO working at Tucson International Airport for eight years. After missing multiple paychecks, he had no choice but to put everything on his credit cards. Even after the government reopened and he received back pay, he is still playing catch up financially due to the high interest rates on the credit cards. And Patricia Pittman, she serves as an explosive detection canine handler working at Ronald Reagan National Airport for 10 years. During the shutdown, she was forced to draw funds from her retirement savings as well as food donations to provide for her family until she received her first post-shutdown paycheck. She is accompanied today by her canine Rosh. We are incredibly fortunate to have them on our team. In addition to the grave impact on the TSA workforce, without budget certainty, we are at risk of critical technology deployments being pushed even further out. A lack of adequate funding and capital investment for technology impedes our ability to give the workforce the tools it needs to do their jobs. The FIFA World Cup is only 121 days away, kicking off on June 11, when America will welcome millions of visitors from the world over to our country. TSA will be front and center, welcoming travelers and fans safely and securely through our airports as they travel to see the games. We need to ensure we are adequately prepared, both from a staffing and technology perspective, and we do not have the luxury of time. The nation cannot afford the safety and security of the traveling public to be threatened by budget uncertainties. On behalf of TSA, I respectfully urge Congress to provide full year funding without delay. Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member Cuellar, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I thank you for your support of TSA and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Madam Director. Doctor. Now I've got a name that has four out of the five vowels in it, so people have difficulty pronouncing that. You, however, sir, are the Olympic gold medal champion. So rather than try to fake it and bluff my way through or whatever and by the way, it's like this is the phonetic pronunciation. You got to be kidding me. That helps me with nothing. So what I'm going to do is say it's a pleasure to see you here today, Doctor. The floor is yours, please proceed.

Chairman Cole, Ranking Member Cuellar, and Ms. DeLauro, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Madhu Gottumukkala and I serve as the acting director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA. Before joining the federal government, I oversaw statewide technology and cybersecurity operations for the state of South Dakota. Earlier in my career, I worked across telecom, wireless, and health technology sectors. Those experiences shape how I view and understand the state and local governments and the critical infrastructure operators experience risk on the ground. I'm honored that President Trump and Secretary Noem asked me to serve at CISA. I deeply value the dedication and professionalism of our workforce, whose tireless efforts ensure the safety and security of our nation's critical infrastructure. Since President Trump took office, CISA has been laser-focused on fulfilling the mission the Congress gave us to support, strengthen, secure our nation's critical infrastructure. Our work today is squarely aligned with the agency's original statutory purpose. That means working with the government and private sector partners to ensure the digital and physical systems that our nation depends on remains resilient. CISA has strengthened our operational capabilities to detect and to respond to cyber threats. We deepened collaboration across government and industry and continue to provide guidance to our critical infrastructure. Under the Trump administration, CISA is focused on our number one priority, that is protecting and defending the American people. We also continue to share threat and incident reports, coordinate intelligence across the federal government, and partner through structured meetings and threat briefings to strengthen the resilience nationwide. As the operational lead for the federal cybersecurity, CISA strengthened its coordination with each agency to promote the adoption of risk-based common policies and best practices to effectively respond to the ever-evolving threat landscape. And please understand, the federal government cannot fight our nation adversaries alone. We must empower our partners. That is why CISA has worked alongside our state, local, tribal, territorial governments, delivering tailored resources, training, and technical assistance to help our partners anticipate, withstand, and recover from threats. And these efforts help ensure Americans can continue to rely on essential services. However, a lapse in funding would impede CISA's ability to continue the good work. At CISA, a shutdown would degrade our capacity to provide timely and actionable guidance to help partners defend their networks. Operations would become strained and service delivery delayed in core mission areas such as cyber response, security assessments, stakeholder engagements, training, exercises, and special event planning. And it would force over a third of our frontline security experts and threat hunters to work without pay even when the nation-state actors intensify efforts to exploit the systems that Americans rely on. And during a shutdown, CISA's activities are limited to sustaining the essential functions that are necessary to ensure the safety of human life or protection of property. Notably, this would mean that our efforts to achieve a final rule on cyber incident reporting as required by the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act would be paused and further delayed. And work to implement binding operational directives that protect federal networks from significant cyber threats, such as the one that we released last week on mitigating risk from end-of-support edge devices, also could be paused. I want to be clear, when the government shuts down, cyber threats do not. And our adversaries work 24/7. Even a brief lapse can have lasting consequences on small businesses, federal networks, and American taxpayers. And the adverse effects of shutdown are not just felt by our agency alone, but extend to the communities we serve as delays or disruptions may impact our collective ability to protect and support the national infrastructure security. Funding for CISA is essential to safeguarding the nation's critical infrastructure. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Doctor. Deputy Director Quinn, please proceed. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member Cuellar, members of the subcommittee, and of course Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro. Thank you for being here as well. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today about the impacts of a shutdown on the Secret Service and our zero-fail mission. As you know, we execute a dynamic mission of protection and investigations. We protect our nation's leadership, we investigate financial crimes, and we conduct protective intelligence investigations around the world every day. I began my career in 1998 in the New York field office. It is now my distinct honor to represent the men and women of our great agency as their 24th deputy director. I know this job well. I have a long and deep history with the organization and can tell you that the more than 8,000 men and women of the Secret Service are among the hardest working personnel in federal government. Our personnel across all job categories routinely work extraordinary hours and do extraordinary things. They sacrifice greatly to execute our zero-fail mission. No one in the Secret Service is spared from the impact and extreme demands required to be successful on our job. It goes well beyond a missed birthday, a missed holiday, or extreme periods of travel. It truly is a lifestyle of sacrifice. A DHS shutdown would include our agency. The reality is the next day everyone will show up. We will continue to protect and serve and to the casual observer, there will be no visible difference. However, gaps in funding have a profound impact on our agency today and into the future. There is no pause button on our mission. The paychecks may stop, but the work will continue although morale fades as bills come in and the job that is already difficult is made more difficult. The impacts of a shutdown do not fall neatly within our core function, rather they manifest in areas where the results are not readily recognizable. At the top of the list is needed reform. The assassination attempt on President Trump's life brought forward hard truths for our agency and critical areas for improvement. Airspace security, communications and IT infrastructure, hiring and retention, training, overarching technological improvements. We are today on the cusp of implementing generational change for our organization. A shutdown halts our reforms and undermines the momentum that we, including all of you, have worked so hard to build together. The impacts may not be seen tomorrow, but I assure you we will feel the ripple effects for some time. Delayed contracts, diminished hiring, halted new programs will be the result. We have been working hard to address needed reforms and many of these efforts will stop with a shutdown. New personnel are not hired or at minimum hiring efforts slow down. New programs are paused and our efforts to train, equip, and deploy the best and the brightest begin to lag. We've already begun planning for the multiple national special security events for 2026 and of course the 2028 Olympics. This critical work will continue during a shutdown, however in many cases it will be on the backs of our greatest resource, the men and women of the Secret Service. Our difficult mission becomes exponentially harder during a lapse in funding. Other national programs such as the National Computer Forensics Institute and our support for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children either come to a halt or at minimum is impacted greatly by a shutdown. We are poised to reach new heights of excellence with the most dedicated workforce in law enforcement and we will find ways to get the job done, albeit at the expense of our people and progress. Make no mistake, government shutdowns have real and lasting consequences. Plans for the future are put on hold and the opportunity for meaningful change is lost. The men and women of the Secret Service, Director Curnin, and myself are committed to progress, change, and reform. I respectfully ask that DHS be funded at the levels that will enable our success. We cannot do it alone and unfunded. I thank you for your support and look forward to taking your questions.

Thank you, sir. Admiral, the floor is yours.

Chairman Cole, Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member DeLauro, and Ranking Member Cuellar. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the shutdown impacts at FEMA. I'm Gregg Phillips, associate administrator for the Office of Response and Recovery, and I look forward to our conversation. Over the last year under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Noem, FEMA continues to transition into a lean deployable force that empowers state and local governments to lead disaster response and recovery. No longer is FEMA a bloated DC-centric bureaucratic organization that has often failed to deliver after years of mismanagement and mission drift. The agency is now refocused on its core mission. Additionally, FEMA and the department instituted sweeping reforms to its grant programs, eliminated egregious waste, fraud, and abuse and the misuse of taxpayer dollars. Under this administration, Americans have come first. Gone are the days of ideologically motivated projects, the use of FEMA funds to house illegal aliens in luxury hotels, and initiatives that do not save lives or protect property. FEMA is now focused on serving American taxpayers after disasters strike. In their hour of greatest need, FEMA is there. In just the first year of this administration, red tape has been cut and the processes have been updated. In recent days, DHS and FEMA led an immediate and coordinated response to a historically severe winter weather emergency that simultaneously impacted 30 states. FEMA funneled critical resources directly into the states in support of governors and emergency managers, staged more than 300 generators, seven million meals, three million liters of water, and 650,000 blankets to sites across the country. Finally, FEMA ensured that its 28 urban search and rescue teams were not just on standby but ready to action on day one. Had this winter storm happened under a lapsed appropriation, coordination with the state partners and movement of resources would have lagged. Under lapse in appropriations, FEMA will not be able to continue carrying out any missions other than life-saving and supporting disaster response efforts. FEMA's disaster relief fund has sufficient balances to continue emergency response activities for the foreseeable future and life-saving and life-sustaining activities are an accepted activity under DHS's lapse plan. That said, if a catastrophic disaster occurred, the DRF would be seriously strained. A government shutdown would severely disrupt FEMA's ability to reimburse states for disaster relief costs and to support our recovery from disasters. Delays in deploying financial assistance to affected communities would hinder timely disaster results. States and communities would be forced to wait for long-term response work to continue. A lapse in appropriations would also result in the furlough of many FEMA employees, limiting the agency's ability to coordinate effectively with the state, local, tribal, and territorial partners. This will hinder communication, planning, joint operations, effective disaster relief outcomes, and complicate recovery efforts. Crippling FEMA's central operations and recovery-related work will come at the expense of the American people. FEMA plays a central role in supporting the continuity of government, consequence management, and national security missions. A delay in year-long funding could undermine the readiness for our major incidents including terrorism and large-scale disasters by disrupting critical preparedness and response activities including readiness. A government shutdown will erode public trust in the federal government's ability to respond to emergencies. And even though emergency response activities will continue during the shutdown, communities as we saw in Mississippi feel vulnerable during the disaster and unsupported at critical times, leads to lasting effects in public confidence and resilience. Finally, not only is hurricane season quickly approaching, but FEMA continues to prepare for and respond to other threats like flooding, tornadoes, wildfires, earthquakes, and the recent winter storms. Without appropriation, this long-term planning and coordination with state and local partners will be irrevocably impacted. For example, a... ...lapse in funding will cause significant disruption to training for first responders, such as the cancellation of resident courses at the National Disaster and Emergency Management University in Emmitsburg, Maryland. The import of these trainings cannot be measured and their absence will be felt in our local communities. In emergency management, time is always the most important resource. In summary, a federal government shutdown would have far-reaching and serious consequences for FEMA's operations and for the nation's ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. Thank you for your support and the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to your questions.

I am going to reserve my questions for the end after the other members have gone, but I do have one housekeeping thing that I want to get out of the way before we go to my colleague from Texas for his questions. And there are two of them. Doctor, this committee asked CISA a while back for a copy of your reorganization plan because you had been, not you personally, but it's like, hey, we want to know what your reorganization plan is. This committee's worked very hard in a bipartisan manner to make sure that you folks didn't get cut to insignificance funding-wise. It's my understanding that that plan is underway and we still haven't received it. So, not looking for a response, if you got it ready, then get it by Friday at close of business, which is 6:00 PM here, we better have a copy of that plan or the reason why there isn't a plan and whatever is going on. We've been professional, we've been respectful, we expect exactly the same thing in return. Madam Administrator, there are many people on this committee who have people who went through the 43-day shutdown, the most recent one, and we're looking at another one who are talking about there's some program in your agency that's like, well, maybe it's sick leave, maybe it's whatever it is. We want a briefing, and it can be over the phone, we're trying to be respectful and professional, we want a briefing on, and I can tell you there's 40 people in Nevada, speaking only for my neck of the woods, there's 40 people in Nevada who still have unresolved shutdown pay issues, whether they were charged for annual leave or whatever the heck. We expect access to somebody who is in a position to speak for your organization before the close of business Friday to say, here's what we got or whatever, but so far we've got not much. So, thank you very much for your professionalism and respect. Mr. Ranking Member, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly join you in those requests. First of all, I want to thank all of y'all. We appreciate the work that y'all do and appreciate the men and women that are sitting behind you and the men and women that are out there in the field. So we say thank you and we agree we should fund you the way we should be doing. I think we all agree that the agencies you all represent are important to our national economic and public safety, and that's why we do not want to see you all held back while we continue the negotiations, as the ranking member has said, your sister agencies of CBP and ICE. That said, there is some reporting that agencies have been assigning and detailing personnel to assist the department, specifically CBP and ICE, with border security, immigration enforcement. Just recently, one of the news outlets reported that dozens of FEMA staffers were being assigned to support deportations. Last fall, we saw similar reporting of management-directed assignments, the MDAs, given to employees at CISA, FEMA, TSA, Coast Guard, 60 days to transfer or be terminated. So let me ask you all three questions, and again, briefly, that's for all of y'all, briefly give us that, and if you need to put it in writing, a reasonable time to be submitted to the chair and ourselves so we can share with the members. Number one, can you confirm if DHS has solicited your agency to supplement CBP or ICE for immigration enforcement operations? Number two, how much or how many of your resources are currently dedicated or detailed to CBP or ICE? Number three, do you know what kind of work they're performing for CBP and ICE? And again, whatever y'all can answer now or in writing. And then the other one is specifically to the Admiral. My understanding is Coast Guard, I think we did talk about this, expanding their presence to the border, Hidalgo and specifically on the Rio Grande. This is something that I've advocated for many years. In fact, I secured language to one of the reauthorizations requiring the agency to conduct a mission analysis study regarding the Coast Guard presence along the Rio Grande. At that time, your prior leadership was taking a different position. They said we do blue waters, not brown waters. We only do international. And at that time, you were at the Great Lakes, and I reminded them that the Rio Grande is an international waters. And of course, you know the type of assets, you can't bring in any cutters there because of the water levels, but airboats, birds, assets can be used, and especially if you're going to be down along the border, the counter-surveillance of drones of the Mexican cartels is extremely important. So just briefly cover that, but I would ask that you all give us a briefing as soon as possible about that, because that's an area that we cover. So with that, whoever wants to get started on the first questions, let's start off with the Rio Grande work that y'all be doing down there. And then the questions to all of y'all, either in writing or briefly explain that to us.

Yes, sir. Thank you for the question and for the opportunity to talk about what we're doing with Operation Riverwall, which is 262 miles of the Rio Grande, starting from the Gulf of America going up. We have 400 members there. We have 44 boats. And as you know, the Coast Guard is the best boat drivers in the world. But the boats we're using there, they're new and they're different. We're using airboats, we're using rock boats is what they like to call them, but things that can work in shallow water. So it's absolutely within our current authorities and how we operate, and we will continue to be there. We've got a logistics center in Edinburg, and we're looking to make that more permanent to make sure that we're supporting our teams and our phase as we go forward. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Sir, on to your three other questions, the Coast Guard, as we operate with the interagency within DHS, we will be there. One of the values and one of the capabilities that we bring is heavy lift for the department. So we have been called on a number of times to provide heavy lift assistance with our C-130s, with our C-27s. We currently have two C-27s that are flying missions every day for CBP and ICE, and we are continuing to do that on a requested basis. Thanks, sir.

Ranking Member, I'm not aware of any DHS solicitation or TSA employee detailed to CBP or ICE at the moment, so just to answer your question, and we can get back to you with further details.

Ranking Member, thank you. The department has taken a holistic enterprise approach in filling some of the key and critical skill gaps across the department and the organization. While CISA has transferred some personnel management director reassignments over the last year, we had about 70 management director reassignments across all the components throughout. And in return, we also have received about 30 plus transfers to CISA that are qualified and who bring in a fresh perspective. Specifically to ICE, it's a handful of people that have been transferred, which are from different subdivisions within the agency.

Thank you. Regarding the management-directed assignments, we have not been impacted by any of those unless they were mutually agreeable and in very, very small numbers. In terms of support to the CBP ICE mission, for us, it's just the opposite. CBP continues to provide high level of support for us in major events, and we haven't been involved in any of the removal operations. Thank you.

Similar to Director Quinn, I think it's just the opposite for FEMA, especially during the storm, the way the DHS winter storm surge happened. We not only had a lot of people coming in, but our coordination was really across everyone else, whether we saw CISA was there, Department of War was there, the Coast Guard was there, they're there with us every day, the National Guard was there. And so our surge is more in than out, but I'm not advised in total as to either numbers or whether it's actually happening or not, but we'll take that for the record, sir.

Thank you all. I'll have our staff follow up with you all.

Thank you. The chairman of the full committee has left for other pastures and the ranking member of the full committee wants to be like me and go at the end. Thank you for being cool like that. And so the gentleman from Florida, the floor is yours for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, let's make no mistake about this. If there is a shutdown, it is a Senate Democrat leadership shutdown being manufactured. If your men and women are furloughed, if your men and women are forced to work without pay, it's because of the Senate leadership. No doubt about it. And today's meeting is about public safety that you all provide to this country day in and day out and in the near future. Think about the responsibility that you all are going to have around all of the NSSE events that are coming up, with FIFA World Cup, with all of the American 250 events, and we're giving you fits and stops of funding. That's hard to do in the best of times. You have to be able to hire, train, and retain men and women of character. They've got to be well-equipped, properly deployed, skillfully managed, and I can tell you that's tough on the best of days, in the best of budgets. But to then throw in this challenge that we're putting on all of you and the men and women that serve with you is, to me, it's just unconscionable. And you know, when Admiral Allan and I were serving back in Jacksonville when I was sheriff, I had a little saying that I love to talk about at our RDSTF meetings. I don't want to be the best first responder to a CBRN event. I want to prevent it before it occurs. That means that all of you have to be on top of your game. And for the Senate leadership to jerk these agencies around like this, again, it's just unconscionable. And so, particularly, CISA, you guys have got to get your act together. That reorganization, I, now maybe it's done and maybe it's sitting over there, but the chairman's right, we asked for that what, months ago? And we're still waiting. I hope you have an organizational plan. So if you'd like to respond, go ahead, Dr. Gottumukkala. Congressman, we have not initiated any structural reorganization that would affect our core statutory function. We remain committed to notifying the Congress if and when there will be any plans to do such changes. And what we're trying to accomplish is to make sure that we are assigning people in the right mission-critical areas so that we can statutorily meet our required areas of mission. So then you must have an organizational plan if you're assigning people where you need them. Congressman, again, we have the staff, we did not have any issues, impacts due to the staffing issues. We do have the corresponding people that do the job in those respective mission areas. And if we do any reorganization, we will be more than happy to actually share with you firsthand. Okay, I look forward to hearing that. Deputy Director Quinn, can you talk just a little bit about the burden that is put on the US Secret Service in dealing with these NSSE events? And you're going to have a ton of them. You guys thought the lead-up to the presidential election was horrible, this is going to be even worse, I'm afraid. Yes, sir. This year, not to even mention 2028, is going to be an enormous challenge. In terms of NSSEs, we have America 250, which is pending signature right now. We have our standing NSSEs, the United Nations General Assembly. We have FIFA, which presents a lot of unknowns right now. They're all designated SEAR events. We will be supporting as part of the whole government approach to SEAR events. Unknown exactly how much resources we're going to apply, but we also know that any of those SEAR events can quickly turn into an NSSE. Number of events are huge. The amount of resources that we have to put into all of those is going to be tremendously difficult in a lapse in funding. Fencing, personnel resources, long hours of overtime, all a significant impact to the organization. And listen, I'm assuming also, and I'll close with this, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, that like the presidential protection lead-up during an election year, you need those resources in advance. And some of the material that you need has to be ordered months in advance. And here we are about to lock down, stop your funding again. And I'm assuming at this point you're already beginning to accumulate necessary equipment, personnel, and other things that you're going to need in the near future that you can't wait until the day before the event to hire or buy or purchase. So can you talk a little bit about how those things could potentially be delayed by this shutdown? Yes, you bring a great point. Just one specific area is counter-drone technology. We need to be procuring high numbers of new equipment to be able to support FIFA and the major events this year. Supply chain issues are terrible within that particular capability. We're looking at sometimes six months. If we aren't ordering today, we're looking at not having specific amounts of gear to be able to support the mission, not to mention what we're looking for in 2028 and beyond. Thank you. We can't afford a shutdown. I want to thank all of you for your service to our country and to the citizens here. Thank you. I yield back.

You don't have anything to yield back, but thank you, Sheriff. The gentlelady from Illinois is recognized, the floor is yours for not a Florida five minutes, but let's try for an Illinois five minutes. Thank you, ma'am.

Yes, sir. Let's be clear about why we are here. Republicans have allowed ICE and Border Patrol to operate out of control, abuse their authority, trample civil rights, break the law, violate the Constitution, and kill US citizens, all while lying to the public about actions we can plainly see with our own eyes. So if my Republican colleagues were serious about keeping the American people safe, we'd be discussing how to protect citizens from their own government. Today, we should be hearing from Secretary Noem and the leaders of the agencies that are terrorizing and killing Americans. Instead, we're having this sham hearing with Republicans trying to shift blame, even though our Democrat leadership has already offered a funding proposal with safeguards to protect Americans from misconduct by federal agents. It seems the White House would rather shut down agencies like FEMA during historic winter storms than accept the bare minimum of accountability and transparency for ICE and Border Patrol. So here we are. Just to level set, Secretary Noem has not appeared before this committee since last year, before her agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti, before Greg Bovino terrorized my constituents in Illinois during Operation Midway Blitz, before more than 170 US citizens were illegally detained by federal agents, before five-year-old Liam Ramos was snatched on his way home from school because ICE wanted to use him as bait, and before countless other atrocities were committed on her watch. So where is she today? Since day one, Secretary Noem has violated our Constitution and the oath that she took to defend it. DHS's leader behaves as though congressional oversight is optional, and her negligence is enabled by my Republican colleagues. That negligence is apparent across the department. Four out of the five DHS components represented here today are being run by acting officials, not because qualified leaders don't exist, but because Republicans have abandoned even the pretense of governing. And now, after failing to confirm permanent leaders, refusing congressional oversight, and starving the components that they do not care about, Republicans want to lecture this subcommittee about the impacts of a shutdown on the agencies that they have neglected all along. I don't think that's going to fool the American people. The real Republican priorities are painfully obvious. My constituents can understand what it means that FEMA recently denied Illinois's request for a major disaster declaration after severe storms. And Mr. Phillips, I'm not going to waste our time today asking you why this decision was made. I think we all know why. My constituents can see what is happening here. They pay their federal taxes, but now that they need help to rebuild, FEMA tells them, sorry, you're on your own. That's not a result of a funding lapse. That is a policy choice. It is a policy choice that reflects a pattern of governing that treats some missions and some communities as expendable. Apparently, the Trump administration has enough money for immigration agents to rappel down from helicopters to raid an apartment building on Chicago's south side, resulting in zero criminal charges, but not to address flooding when heavy rain overwhelmed the sewer system a few miles away. And under Kristi Noem's failed leadership, it is not just disaster response that's getting shortchanged in order to pay for the secret police terrorizing American communities. Cybersecurity, transportation security, maritime safety, our nation's most valuable resources and secrets, all being sold out by the Trump administration. Meanwhile, agencies like Border Patrol and ICE, whose actions are opposed by 63 percent of American voters, got a blank check in the big ugly bill last summer, and now my Republican colleagues want to give them another one with no strings attached. So please, please spare us the fiction of Republican concern about paying federal employees or sustaining critical resources. This is not about resources, this is about choices. And it is also a choice to hold this sham hearing today instead of bringing Secretary Noem to answer for the unlawful abuses of power the American people have experienced under her leadership. This tells me everything that I need to know, so I have no questions for these witnesses, just one question for Secretary Noem: When will you stop hiding behind your subordinates, ma'am, and come explain yourself to this committee? And with two seconds left, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

To the gentlelady from Illinois, strong work. Thank you very much. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the entire panel for being here, for taking time to come and answer our questions about the impacts of this potential shutdown caused by our friends on the other side of the aisle on this. Make no mistake that it's not hard to understand. One, we are, we have continually in the previous shutdown and then obviously in the efforts in this one, we're voting to keep the government open and funded, and others are voting no on that. It's not more complicated than that. I do not believe this hearing is a sham by any means. I respect your time and I respect you all being here, letting us know what impact it has in your agencies and also in the men and women that work for the department and for the American taxpayer. So with that, I want to say that I believe strongly that shutting down the government and agencies and departments over policy disagreements is completely inappropriate and reckless. I've never supported a shutdown, and if Congress does not pass DHS funding measures, the result will be critical services to the public, as we've heard, including disaster response, law enforcement, cybersecurity, and emergency preparedness being delayed or suspended with increased risk across the department. That includes our men and women in TSA, and madam, you mentioned that, and you also mentioned one of our best here in Arizona, in Tucson, Jonathan, who I got the pleasure of meeting at the airport actually on the way here. We got here on the same flight. He came up and introduced himself and immediately knew why he was going to be here. We had a conversation based also on what you read and how that impacted him and many of his colleagues. And I can attest for that airport specifically, which I fly out of every single week, out and back in there, that they continually worked through the previous shutdown in the most professional manner. Never was able to tell that they were going through the stress that they were going through. So I do want to recognize their effort and all of them, Jonathan, great to see you here and thank you for being here. My question will start with you if I can, Ms. McNeill. As you know, during the shutdown, frontline screening is still required to take place, but we both know the kind of impact on staffing and morale shutdowns have on our men and women. So to your knowledge, what are the staffing issues that arise when there's a government shutdown, specifically on the employees left wondering when they will be paid next? And on that note, so I don't have to do a follow-up, I'm incredibly concerned about what, well, I'll leave it at that for now and then I'll come back to the other side, the other part.

All right, thank you, Congressman. So what we saw was incredible impact on our workforce, and you might not have seen it because they did such a tremendous job keeping our operations running and our wait times within standards. But the mental and emotional toll that it takes on our workforce cannot be understated. We saw a lot of folks have to take on second jobs, making for extremely long workdays. We did see, as the shutdown dragged on and on, a higher rate of unscheduled absences overall across the nation. Toward the end of the shutdown, that rate almost doubled, and in certain airports tripled, and that really does cause both strains on those that are working and obviously on our operations as well. We did also see a higher attrition rate during October and November of last year, 25 percent increase from that same time period the year before, which is quite concerning if we're looking at another potential shutdown, especially as we're entering spring break travel season and to prepare ourselves for the events coming at us this summer.

Thank you. Thank you for that answer. And then I have time for just one more, Mr. Phillips. I'm extremely worried about the solvency of the Disaster Relief Fund during a shutdown. I'm also incredibly concerned about what we saw last year, an unprecedented delay in obligating and expending funds from the DRF to assist states dealing with crisis on the ground. From my understanding, FEMA currently has roughly $27 billion in unobligated funding to respond to major disasters. However, the number decreases dramatically during a shutdown, is my understanding. Arizona obviously known for wildfires and not many more natural disasters that we face from other states, but fires are a big, big deal for us, along with flooding as well of heavy rain during the monsoon season. So can you speak to that, please?

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to respond. I spent a few days with Congressman Crane in Globe and in Miami, Arizona, with respect to the flood. And one of the challenges I think that we all face is related to the DRF, but really related to how rural America is treated by the DRF. There's some, there was some funding or some calculation challenges when the Stafford Act was first passed. They didn't update it, and that created an artificially low threshold for a major disaster. I believe that rural states, mine, yours in Arizona, and many others, many of you belong to or are representing states that are very rural. And I believe that much of the complication that we are seeing is really related to this artificially low threshold that allows more major disasters to be created, thereby allowing or sort of opening the door to more DRF funding. There's, it's policy, but it's also related to this committee, of course. But I think my view of this is that we would welcome an opportunity to really discuss this in some depth when this is over. But make no mistake that our ability to process any payments under the DRF is going to be diminished when, if there is a lapse.

Thank you. Chairman, I yield back. Arizona, they got the same clocks in Arizona that they got in Florida, huh?

To the gentleman from Hawaii, the floor is yours for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The central issue today is ICE reform. And this hearing is nothing more than an attempt to avoid, conceal, deny, and gaslight that issue. The central issue today is ICE reform. And if we can responsibly reform ICE, then everything we're talking about here is a moot point. Sooner we do that, the better we can get on with the rest of what we have to get on with all five of you. However, I'm going to repeat, because it may have been lost on people out there, what the ranking member said at the beginning, which is that this morning she introduced, and I'm on that bill, a measure that would in fact implement the bipartisan bicameral appropriations agreement for all of your agencies exactly as agreed to. Implement it right now. We can pass that bill and we can focus on ICE reform, which is where our focus should be. That bill is in the hopper right now. To my colleague from Arizona who just left, if you feel strongly about... ...shutting the government down as we all do, then join that bill and we can solve this problem now. And I'm not going to say this to all five of you because you are all part of the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security. You all talk directly to the Secretary. You all have the ability to say let's get this resolved. But I will say to your TSA agents and to your other agents who are in the field, who are dealing with uncertainty right now, that this is eminently solvable, that unfortunately you are being held hostage to a political negotiation that is designed to avoid facing ICE reform. And we have to reform ICE. We all have to do that for our country. And so if we're not going to get to the heart of ICE reform, then I'm at least going to ask you all some ICE reform-related questions. So Admiral Allan, your guardsmen are charged with the possession and exercise of lethal force. Under certain circumstances, they have the weapons and the ability to kill other people. How much training do they have before they are given that responsibility? How much training does a gunner on the front of a Coast Guard boat in the Caribbean have? How much training does a guardsman charged with scaling an ocean liner with a pistol strapped to his or her hip have before they do that, before they exercise lethal force?

Sir, thank you for the question and talking about our Coast Guard men and women who are out there doing tough and difficult missions. We start with eight weeks of boot camp. We go to eight weeks of boarding officer school. And then from there, we start on the hard journeys of specific, what we like to call C school, or those advanced school testing. And then we go on to team training and then we go on to...

Is it more than 47 days?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Is it more than three months?

Yes, sir.

How much more?

It depends on the position.

Okay, because yesterday Mr. Lyons testified that ICE agents in the field with lethal force, 47 days if you already have some law enforcement experience, whatever that means, three months if you start from scratch. Okay, so you're way more than that, right?

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you very much. And Ms. McNeill, I think the only agents you have with lethal force are Federal Air Marshals, is that right?

That is correct.

Okay, how much training do they have before they can pack a gun on an airplane and kill people if things get out of control?

They have extensive training as well as annual recurrent training that we put them through, sir.

Do they have more than 47 days?

I believe so, but we can provide the full...

Okay, how about do they have more than three months?

I think all in all, yes, and then plus recurrent training.

Okay, a lot more, right? Do they have background checks?

Absolutely.

Okay. And Mr. Quinn, apologize, you obviously have law enforcement officers in possession of lethal force, not just to protect the President, you have it for other purposes as well, right? For example, counterfeiting as an example, right? How much training do they have before they can go into the field with lethal force?

All agents and officers, including their time at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and our own training center, the James J. Rowley Training Center, get cumulatively around 30 weeks combined of training.

Okay, 30 weeks before they get to the point of lethal force.

Yes, sir.

In my Honolulu Police Department, you have to have six months of minimal training before you go out with an experienced officer, before you have any possession of independent lethal force on the field. And yet for ICE, for all of you, that would be insufficient in your specific circumstances. So that's the stakes with ICE and I'm out of time, I yield back.

Thank you to the gentleman from Hawaii who has made up for folks on the other side of the aisle with his professional use of time. That should be noted for the record. Gentleman from Washington, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll try to be cognizant of the clock. First of all, let me say that I believe that hearing from all of you, the agencies you represent, is totally appropriate. And with respect to my colleagues across the aisle, this is hearing what's truly at stake. Members of Congress and members of the public need to have the information that you're going to be giving us. The fact that HR 1 provided substantial funding to ICE and CBP, the actions that we anticipate, and things could change, but the things that we anticipate happening in the Senate ignore what is about to happen. And I for one 100 percent agree with you coming here to this hearing so that we know the impacts of the things that are truly being ignored. These things don't exist in a vacuum. So thank you for being here for what you're relating to us, it's vitally important. You know, the fact is ICE and CBP appeared, Mr. Chairman, in front of the authorizing Committee of Homeland Security just yesterday, I believe. And yes, I agree we need to hear from them here as well. But the fact that they are not here today, their absence does not detract from the importance of understanding the full impacts of what it is we're about to experience. So with that, thank you, and I want to, I'm not as efficient as asking all five of my questions in one sentence, so I'll start down the line. First of all, Admiral Allan, congratulations on your confirmation by the Senate and appreciate very much your leadership alongside the Commandant. As I mentioned, Congress made a long overdue investment in the service via the HR 1 passage. This investment is revitalizing aged equipment, enabling the Coast Guard to better care for its most valuable asset, and that's the people who are at the core of the service. So could you share with us that while HR 1 funding is available and still will be available, how will a shutdown impact the Guard's ability to continue executing that funding?

Sir, thank you for the question. As you know with HR 1, most of that money came for recapitalization of the Coast Guard. We did not get a lot for operations and sustainment. In the short term, what we're seeing was an agreement to come together to increase our O&S budget by almost $900 million. Dollar amount we think we need to start providing operators now to train and be able to man helicopters, patrol boats, and icebreakers as they are delivered. In addition, as we've talked a little bit about FIFA 2026 and USA 250, we are bringing on surge forces for contingency and crisis to be able to serve the American public and their safety and security. So without those O&S funds, that additional funding over and above what we had in fiscal year '25, we will have a deficit in what we're able to perform.

Okay, thank you. Moving real quickly, Ms. McNeill, excuse me. TSO officers work every day to keep our airports and the flying public safe. And we appreciate, even though it's a pain in the neck sometimes, I appreciate very much their work. We certainly saw their dedication in the last shutdown. Many of them, most of them showed up every single day despite not being paid. So I hope we don't put them in that position again. But could you share with us whether or not the Secretary will pay TSO and other frontline TSA workers if we shut down again? Will that be something that you'll be able to do?

I do not believe so. I think that the best way to ensure that our frontline workers get paid is through the passage of a DHS budget. So none of the components of the reconciliation money could go to that, not that I'm aware of.

Could you talk about the potential impacts at checkpoint security and wait times with an extended shutdown?

Absolutely, Congressman. So as the shutdown went on and on last time, what we did see was an increase in unscheduled absences, which means folks calling out because they could not afford to show up to work. You know, in weeks five and six of the shutdown, in some airports we saw that go up to three times the rate of unscheduled absences. And what we have to do in those instances is to start kind of consolidating and collapsing some of our operations, which means that not all of our lanes are open and that does lead to longer wait times. And we saw more and more of that as the shutdown went on. Now I will say the frontline did a remarkable job because across the system they still maintained operations, but we do see pain points.

Thank you. Since the Chairman's not paying attention to the clock, I might ask... [Laughter.] I'm listening to every word you say, so you're already 12 seconds over, go right ahead. Well, the only thing I wanted to, one more thing, not to diminish any of the importance, but Doctor from CISA, can you tell us with your staffing plan that we're anticipating during a shutdown, can CISA handle the increase in the cyber attacks that we're anticipating because like you say, they don't take a break when things are, when we're in a vulnerable position like we maybe?

Congressman, thank you. And real quick please because I'm under... Absolutely. CISA's activities during a shutdown are strictly limited to those that are essential to protecting life and property. We only emphasize or we only look at anything that is immediate need and an imminent threat. We will not be able to do proactive vulnerability scanning. As you know, our adversaries are always working 24/7. We will be on the defensive, reactive as opposed to being proactive and strategic in terms of how we will be able to combat those adversaries.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. I ask for forgiveness.

Thank you to the gentleman from Washington for his sensitivity. The gentlelady from Texas is recognized, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to say from the onset, Ms. DeLauro, I support your legislation. We do not have to see these agencies go without the operating funds that you all need if we pass your bill, which I support. I would like to plead with my colleagues. Our country is in a state of crisis and it is because of the massive amounts of money for the Department of Homeland Security authorized in the one big beautiful bill. And it's also because of the rampant corruption and incompetence at the White House and within the Department of Homeland Security. My colleagues on this side of the aisle have documented what's happening in communities all over the country. I'd like to share with all of you and with my colleagues what's happening in El Paso. El Paso is home, unfortunately, to the largest immigration detention facility in the country, Camp East Montana, with up to 5,000 beds. There is mass corruption and fraud occurring there. And I'd like to highlight a couple of those examples. The federal government is paying $1.24 billion to Acquisitions Logistics, a private company that is being paid to care for up to 5,000 human beings. They are being paid by the federal government to wash clothing three times a week. I can tell you that's not happening. In fact, when I was there a couple of weeks ago, women who had been apprehended in Minnesota and had been held at Camp East Montana for three weeks were in the same clothing they were arrested in in Minnesota. Three weeks, same clothes, you can imagine what three weeks of wearing the same clothing is like. They are, the private corporation is supposed to provide adequate food to the detainees. I've seen the food that is served to them and it's frozen. And so all of that gets tossed as waste. They are not getting the medicine and the medical care that the private corporation is being paid to provide. As I have elevated these issues, not just locally on site, I've elevated them to Mr. Lyons and Ms. Nome, neither of whom are here before us. And when they were before our committee in December, Mr. Lyons made big promises that he would answer all my questions. To date, he has not. He promised to give me and the Chairman and the ranking member a copy of this contract with this private contractor. This was in December, we still have not received this. I showed up yesterday to the authorizing committee's hearing, asked to be waived on, I was not allowed. I basically had to corner him and tell him about the fraud happening on his watch. And my question to DHS is, if you don't care about the human beings in custody at Camp East Montana, will you at least care about the massive fraud? This corporation is making $1.24 billion. Every time I've gone, I've witnessed the detainees basically having had to wash their own clothes with the little packet of shampoo that they get. And when I was there on Friday, their clothes are hung out to dry. Yet we are paying the corporation to wash clothes three times a week. Are we getting a refund? Are we not being charged for this? $1.24 billion of taxpayer money, all from the one big beautiful bill. This corporation needs to be investigated. Camp East Montana needs to be shut down. And by the way, the announcement has been that DHS is now buying warehouses to warehouse human beings. They've purchased three warehouses in my district for $122 million that they will now have to spend probably hundreds of millions of dollars on in order to retrofit to house 8,000 human beings. They can't even handle the 3,000 in private custody right now. So DHS is absolutely out of control. We can fund all of the other agencies, isolate what's happening at ICE and CBP. But colleagues, I am pleading with you for help. If the administration does not care about its humanitarian responsibilities, I am pleading with you to care about the fraud that is happening as a result of what's going on at Camp East Montana with Acquisitions Logistics and stop this massive expansion of facilities housing human beings without oversight. One last thing, I am now being blocked from providing oversight. The staff inside of Camp East Montana confiscated privacy release forms that family members were trying to get detainees to sign. And I've been told I can no longer speak to detainees unless I give ample notice. My staff is not being allowed inside anymore. We sued and won and I'm still getting obstructed. I'm asking for your help. I yield back.

You were much better than the other people who went over, so thank you very much for your professionalism. Gentlelady from Iowa, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it curious, and I appreciate the Chairman and the ranking member for holding this hearing today, but how some of my colleagues gloss over the fact that taxpayers were on the hook for billions and billions of dollars in soft-sided facilities to deal with a raging border crisis which we have now reversed course on over the last four years and we are fixing the problems that were created by the previous administration. I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. I'm sorry we have to have this hearing. I wish we weren't in the unfortunate situation of entering another potential government shutdown and putting thousands of good people who are working for your agencies at risk and their lives and their livelihoods. Yolanda, thank you for traveling here. It's nice to see you and I fly through the airport, CID is my home turf, and I appreciate the great work that you and your entire team have done. You're so professional. You've been assaulted personally, you have caught terrible things coming through security, you're keeping us all safe. So I want to say thank you to the men and women you work with for all of that steadfast support you have provided even in the uncertainty of what is happening here. It's a real travesty in my mind. Again, under President Trump, we have seen a complete reversal of the dangerous situation at our southern border. The illegal immigration crisis, our border is closed, those soft-sided facilities that were a suck on taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars a year are closed. We're having the lowest number of encounters in decades. We're also seeing how though bad actors continue to pop up even with a closed southern border, whether it be on our coasts, our ports of entry, or at our airports. So from the Coast Guard to TSA to CISA, these officers are showing up at work, our Secret Service agents, our FEMA employees, every single day they're showing up at work to do this job while going unpaid for weeks on end. And I'm sure there's incredible unease and uncertainty among your staff as we head into Friday. And for that, I am sorry. We are trying to fix this problem here today. So Ms. McNeill, I just want to talk first about TSA. We've already touched on some of the impacts to the workforce and some of the means that people are trying to feed their families by seeking out other employment opportunities to make those ends meet. Can you talk a little bit about what this means for not only morale for your workforce, but for potential recruitment? Because we have, you know, we have an aging workforce in many places, we have to have other people coming into the pipeline. What does this mean for that?

Thank you, Congresswoman. As I stated earlier, we are seeing a higher attrition rate in the October to November time period last year as compared to that same time period the year before, 25 percent increase. So that is a significant impact on our workforce. You know, we do hear regularly, I do in my conversations with the frontline workforce as does my TSA leadership, about the strain that this poses on them and how it is that they can go home and justify staying in a job where they might not be paid for six weeks. They have families to care for. And just yesterday we were talking with the officers who are sitting behind me and one of them mentioned that a passenger came through the airport and shared with him that they had been considering joining the TSA but could not, could not make that decision because of the uncertainties in budgeting for the agency.

So it is affecting recruitment as we speak, that uncertainty. You talk about the impact on our national security posture. You said, you know, that the government shuts down, cyber threats do not. That was a line that I will certainly take away from this hearing. And with the rise of China's use of cyber warfare, obviously CISA is just an incredible part of our firewall, such a key force in being able to keep our networks and the connected infrastructure safe. So can you describe the impact of a shutdown on your operations and the ability to maintain those routine cybersecurity measures that we rely on not only at the federal level but with our state and local partners like in Iowa?

Congresswoman, thank you. I think like I said before, our activities will be strictly limited to protecting life and property. But we will do everything we can to meet the mission during a shutdown. We will have about 35 to 40 percent of our staff, about 900 people, who will be working without pay. And uncertainty and those missed paychecks are a serious hardship. We have a dedicated and amazing staff that works 24/7 in obstructing some of those nation-state adversaries that we have. And these impacts are not something that we take lightly and the longer a shutdown drags on, the less sustainable it becomes for our dedicated employees and their families.

Certainly a great impact there. And then I want to move to FEMA because in Iowa we have a lot of severe weather. We have seen firsthand, we had the costliest thunderstorm in US history come through about six years ago, a derecho, $11 billion in damage. And we just got out of this 43-day government shutdown three months ago. How long, Mr. Phillips, does it take FEMA to recover from a government shutdown and are you still working your way out of the last one? Can you expand on that a little?

Yes, ma'am, we are in fact still working our way out of the last one. The challenge for us is not just on an ongoing basis, especially during recovery. So as we're helping your state recover from the big storm, the big things that happened, and it's recovery that is really hurt. Emergencies and response, so when it's really going down and we show up and our teams show up and we partner with the states, we support the states, that will continue. But the challenge is, especially as it relates to the DRF and money and how we process, it's the processing of that going forward that's really going to be hurt. And so I believe that the most important thing as it relates to the lapse from our perspective is not our ability to respond in the emergency, it's our ability to adequately support the states during recovery. With that said, ma'am, I've heard a lot about President Trump and Secretary Nome today. This is not the Secretary that I met during the winter storm. This is a Secretary who showed up, she was there with us sometimes through the night. She stayed, she worked with us, she cared about people. She and I had a conversation about leading with your heart, doing good and helping people. And that's the Secretary Nome that I know and I'm not sure where the rest of this is coming from, but I've had the great fortune in my career to work for a lot of great leaders. Secretary Nome is a great leader and I have no way to associate some of the comments I've heard with Secretary Nome.

Well, thank you very much for all of your service. You're doing a great job leading through a very tumultuous time and I appreciate it. Thank you for answering our questions today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

[Gavel sounds.] Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I'm glad to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about how difficult it's going to be for these agencies and for the people who work in these agencies and furloughs and families and so forth, all of whom we care about deeply. Please sign on to the legislation that I introduced this morning that says in fact what we will do is we will provide FEMA $32 million, a disaster relief fund, 20 percent increase to federal assistance, increasing the agency's ability to support response and recovery. Secret Service, we'll do overtime pay for agents. That's in the bill. Coast Guard, we were going to pay for Coast Guard. So my colleague from Hawaii pointed this out, this is not about all of you. It's not about your folks. We can take care of them. We agreed to do that in the bill. This is about ICE reform.

And I might add that as I say, where is the Secretary? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to know that during the shutdown, she was buying, she bought two private jets, came out of the Coast Guard money. Two private jets to fly all over the United States. Okay? So why wasn't that money used for Coast Guard and for the families there? And if there is, the other point that needs to be made here is 47 days of training. And you know there's also a $50,000 signing bonus for folks in ICE. $50,000. Who's going to... and who are we recruiting with those incentives? If there is a shutdown, it will be the responsibility of Republican leadership. The public blamed you in the last go-round, they're going to blame you now because you want to take responsibility for what ICE is doing. You will bear that responsibility and what the public feels about what's happening with ICE and CBP that are terrorizing US citizens and beating up and harassing American citizens around the country. It is about reforming ICE. That is what this issue is about. Now I want to ask a few questions of FEMA if I might. First of all, I wish my colleagues had been so vocal in the spring and so vocal during the shutdown about all of the difficulties that your folks were having. They were not very vocal about that. Secretary Nome was brave enough to appear before us last May. Where is she now? And I asked her if President Trump was planning to eliminate FEMA and she replied, and this was a quote, "FEMA as it exists today should be eliminated." I told you my story about the senior official who came, who then was summarily fired. To Administrator Phillips, do you think FEMA should be eliminated?

I think that Secretary Nome and President Trump have made clear that they believe that FEMA needs specific and detailed transformation. And I not only concur with that, but they asked me to come here and implement that. We're working through it since I've been here, or since I've been at FEMA. We've done, let's see, three major declarations...

No, you've answered my question. So let me go on. You may have to, the actions under Secretary Nome tell a different story. FEMA's tried to cancel billions of dollars in grants for communities across this country. $4 billion in BRIC, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, been promised to communities like mine. In my district, cancellation of a BRIC program has jeopardized $25 million that New Haven was awarded to protect our downtown against damage from flooding as we face increasingly serious storms. In Crisfield, Maryland, not far from here, $36 million lost in flood protection initiative with a town budget of only $4 million. A quote, "We're pretty much devastated. Without this, we know that we will be in a really bad position to protect our citizens, protect our property, protect our community, really to protect our way of life." A coalition of 20 states filed suit against the administration over its decision to shut down BRIC. December 11, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that the administration cannot terminate the BRIC program or redistribute its money for other purposes. FEMA still has not restored funding for the BRIC projects. The BRIC program directly supports strengthening communities across all 50 states. When will FEMA comply with the court orders to restore the BRIC program? And why has the administration not approved hazardous mitigation funding for any disaster since last March?

First of all, I've only been here for about 45 days. So what I'll tell you is that the directives that have been offered to me or presented to me by President Trump and Secretary Nome have been...

...recovery projects recently reported that the backlog of is that number accurate in the backlog of $17 billion? Do you know?

I'm well aware, but the the

Do you know whether it's a $17 billion backlog?

The challenges that are being faced currently are related to mostly to some of the misspending and some of the program integrity initiatives that we've put in place.

I know you're going to blame the prior administration. But you tell me now, is it $17 billion that you have in a backlog? If it's not 17, what is the number? How much is in final review that is waiting for Secretary Mayorkas' approval? That is what we we need to do. You know, we provided special authority under the continuing resolution for FEMA to spend up to $22.5 billion to address its backlog, meet the needs of our communities. Why have you only used I don't know how much. Do we have any report of how much money you have used? You don't seem to know whether it's $17 billion or what the hell the number is.

I know exactly what the number is. The challenge is that you're not willing to consider the answer. The answers are much more nuanced, much more complex than just what's out there. I can tell you this.

Numbers. This is an Appropriations Committee. How much what is the what is the backlog? What is that backlog? How much of it is being spent? How much is under review? We need to know that because we gave you authority under the last continuing resolution.

In the 45 days I've been here, ma'am, we have spent $3 billion in 45 days on 5,000 projects. We're going as fast as we can. We're committed to reducing the backlog. I can't go any faster than we actually are. And if this lapses, that's going to stop.

Well, let me just say this to you. It does not have to lapse. It doesn't have to lapse. But you've got folks who want and you probably are maybe of the same view, I don't know. But we ought to protect your agencies. We have provided money to your agencies. And we've been doing that. And it's been having to approve contracts over $100,000, backlogs, flying around the country in two jets with money coming from the Coast Guard. It is an abomination. And let me just tell you that and it's because under this administration and this Secretary that all of these things are happening. You have an opportunity and you can talk to your the people who are here. Sign on to the legislation that protects Coast Guard, that protects TSA, the workers who are out there. We want to make sure that you are paid. CISA, we want to take care of Secret Service, give them overtime pay, and we want to provide the $32 million to FEMA. That is what is what we can do. That is what the Appropriations Committee does. And what we shouldn't be doing is have people defending an agency that is lawless and rogue and terrifying people all over this nation. I yield back.

Thank you, Madam Ranking Member. I don't even get to say anything. Since I was since I went over a minute and a half, I was willing to give you some latitude, but

Thank you. I probably took more latitude than you were willing to give.

There's no probably about it, Rosa. Thank you. Would you like the gavel back? Great job. There you go.

[Gavel sounds.] The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Phillips, first I want to personally thank you. I want to thank you for the response that the men and women who serve under you provided to my home state of Mississippi. Earlier this week, I had the mayor of Oxford call me and she said, if you happen to see Gregg, please personally thank him for all the resources, all the manpower, all the support that you and those men and women who serve under you provide. And so thank you for helping my state and many other states across the nation during Winter Storm Fern. We saw the devastation. It was in many places worse than a tornado coming through because of the widespread damage caused by freezing rain and ice. And so please let the men and women that you serve with, please let them know how much I and my state appreciate them helping us in our time of need. To all of our witnesses, thank you. Thank you for your service. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for trying to carry out your congressionally mandated duty of keeping our nation safe. You know, as I sit here today, Mr. Chairman, and I've listened for over an hour, I've listened to these witnesses and members of our side be lectured over the upcoming shutdown. A shutdown that we are trying to prevent. A shutdown that is driven by the Democrats in the Senate as they separated out DHS funding and then forced us to vote on a bill that only allowed funding to continue for two weeks, knowing that it was very likely that we would end up right here in a government shutdown. You see, DHS funds more than just ICE. DHS pays the salary of 260,000 men and women over 22 different agencies. Three of our four largest agencies are here. And the men and women who serve under your command are just now digging out of the longest shutdown in government history that the Democrats forced us through in the Senate as they tried to attach unrelated legislation to a CR to keep the government funded. And so as I sit here, I'm actually somewhat offended. Mr. Chairman, I want for the record, I want the record to reflect that Secretary Mayorkas on December 11th testified before the Homeland Authorizing Committee, a committee that myself and Tony both serve on, that she showed up and she answered questions to that committee. I'd like the record to reflect that Commissioner Scott was at the Homeland Security Authorizing Committee just yesterday answering questions. And I would like the record to reflect that Director Lines was also there.

The record will so reflect.

And Mr. Chairman, I know you didn't have the chance to see all of the hearing, but this was one of the questions that Director Lines was asked in that hearing by Representative McGovern. Representative McGovern asked the director, do you think you are going to hell, Mr. Lines? And so as we sit here and as we are lectured on that we are unserious on the Republican side and that we don't take these issues seriously, as Representative McGovern had a chance to question the director of ICE, that was the questions that she chose to impose. And so I am offended by the fact that the allegations are that Republicans don't care about the men and women who serve under these agencies. I'll tell you that I have voted time and time again to fund the Department of Homeland Security, to fund the men and women who serve under you. And look, this is not a new issue. This is not anything that is new to this administration. As we were facing a potential government shutdown in 2023, this was the statement that DHS put about put out regarding the impact of that statement. And so I have here a statement that is found on the Department of Homeland Security website dated September 28, 2023, where the prior administration said, the Department of Homeland Security workforce is comprised of extraordinary public servants who safeguard this nation around the clock. The statement goes on to say any lapse in funding would disrupt this vital work, leaving Americans less safe as a result. It goes on to say those working without pay, including law enforcement, conduct such work as safeguarding and securing our borders, seizing illegal narcotics like fentanyl, combating child exploitation and child predators, identifying and arresting human traffickers, responding to national disasters, preventing cyber attacks, and protecting the U.S. government leaders and foreign dignitaries. The prior administration, the Biden-Harris administration, they identified the impact that government shutdown are going to have on the men and women that work on you, but more importantly, this statement says it will leave Americans less safe. And so I want to end with this, Mr. Chairman, I know I'm over time, but I want to leave you with this. Dr. Thanedar, a Democrat from Michigan who also serves on Homeland Security with Tony and I, when asked about this shutdown, this was the statement he gave. Dr. Thanedar said this, that he was willing to leverage, he used that word, willing to leverage FEMA funding for Republicans to meet his demands. And so as you leave here and as you return back to your agencies, please let them know that I personally want to apologize. I want to apologize for the fact that the men and women that you serve with, that you are being used as pawns in this. That this is not about policy change. That this is clearly only political theater and that the men and women that you serve under and serve with, that the Democrats are willing to use them as leverage to get what they demand. And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. Gonzales, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chairman. I represent nearly half of the overall southern border. There's not a thing that happens that isn't in my district in some form or fashion. Last night, the FAA closed airspace over El Paso. The initial reports were showing cartel operations. My first question is to Administrator McNeill. Did the FAA contact and notify TSA before that closure?

We were notified early overnight, early this morning.

You were notified before the closure happened?

Or after the closure happened? We received notice at around 4:30 this morning.

So after the closure had happened. Yes. So that's a problem. If there's a major closure, TSA should know that there's closure happening. So should other agencies within the government. My next question is for the FEMA administrator. Counter-UAS. A big part of this is counter-UAS. And to be frank, the United States is far behind our counter-UAS operations. But we're working towards it. In the big beautiful bill, we were able to get $500 million towards counter-UAS that specifically is going to be administered by FEMA. My question to you is, where are we at with that program? How is that rolling out?

We're rolling it out in a most expeditious way. The the sort of the amp up to it and the the pre-launch capabilities are already in place. We'll be fully ready to go in advance of FIFA.

FIFA. I'm glad you brought that up. We have major we have major events happening. And so if there is a lapse in funding, if if anyone votes against a lapse in funding, it isn't a matter of just playing politics, which you often see up here. It's a matter of life and death. It's a matter of, you know, these drone attacks, they're happening all over the world. This isn't a what if, this isn't a video game, this isn't a off in the near future. This is now. And we're counting on FEMA. That's why we appropriated those $500 million. We're counting on FEMA, Department of War, and Department of Homeland Security to get that done. So thank you for the update on that. The other part of this too, it's not just money. We're appropriators, we often see the world through the lens of funding. It's also giving the authorizations to these to these agencies. And I was really proud to get in the National Defense Authorization Act language. Language that that tackles drone countermeasures to protect the public safety and critical infrastructures. That's what we need to work through, right? We need to work through how those how that language is, how that language allows agencies to talk to one another. It's not it's not the right course if FAA is closing the 23rd largest airspace in the country without anyone knowing. So we need to work through that. My next question is for Administrator McNeill. What is your what is your current assessment of threats posed to drones to U.S. airports?

We have seen a lot of incidents both here in the U.S. and and overseas where drone sightings have shut down operations in in commercial airports. And so to your point about the passage of the authorities in the NDAA, we thank Congress for for that authority. Our Federal Air Marshals are very well positioned to take up that that mission space. And we've been increasing our training within the Federal Air Marshals and working closely with our colleagues across DHS to equip them with the right technology and train train them and deploy them, especially in advance of the large world events that are coming this summer.

Thank you for that. And thank you for your leadership on that. This is once again, this is a growing threat, right? This is a growing threat to airports. For any of us that live and work along the border, drone incursions are a daily thing, you know. It's not necessarily this one-off. This literally happens every day. For us in the El Paso area, it literally happens every day. For the first time, the U.S. government is now starting to counter some of these things. I think it's really, really great. And we need to do more of it. My last question, which I thought was going to be my first question, Admiral, turned out to be my fifth question, is for you. I'd like to get an update on first off, the men and women at Coast Guard are doing an incredible job. You are the tippy end of the spear, really handling what is happening in Venezuela. And I'd like to get an update on some of things that are working and how are your partners out in that theater.

Sir, thank you very much for that. We have crews that are working hand-in-hand with the Department of War, especially when we start talking to these motor tankers and making sure that there's not a proliferation of sanctioned oil coming out of Venezuela. We have that area well locked down. We are continuing boardings and some of those that actually got out of Venezuela, we have taken down in the INDOPACOM area with again a joint Coast Guard and DOD force.

How many tankers so far?

So far it's nine.

Nine tankers. Incredible work. And that's another reason why we cannot have funding lapse. Coast Guard should not take it on the chin because of politics. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.

Thank you, sir. So I've saved my questions for the end and guess what? I'm going to yield back. I don't notice anybody acting like they're real sad to hear that, but deal with it as best you can. So here's what's going on. For the get-back questions where you owe a member an answer, we would ask that you have those questions for them in their office a week from Friday. Now I don't know whether we're going anywhere, not going anywhere, but we're not trying to pretend like you don't have jobs. You do. We try to be respectful of that and oh by the way, so do we. So what we're going to do after the hearing is we're going to ask all members, I'm going to have Mr. Cuellar get a hold of his folks, say what do you figure your check-back stuff is? I'm going to do that with ours. And then we're going to share that with you. Say, hey, if it's a Coast Guard question, if it's a Secret Service question, if it's a whatever question, here's what we think is out there. Now if you're saying I can't possibly do this in seven days, then please say that instead of talk to the hand because the face isn't listening. I'm not accusing anybody of that. I'm just suggesting that would be a bad way to deal with those questions. And so the deadline for that stuff is a week from Friday. Except for those a couple of ones that I called out. And listen, if you're like I can't do that, then it's like call us and talk to us, please. There may be some additional questions members provide in writing and we'll ask you to respond to those in a timely manner. If you're wondering what the heck a timely manner is, we'll check and tell you so that you can tell us if you agree or not. Now this is a long-winded way of saying if you don't communicate with us, we're not going to be nice to you. I don't have a right to like what your answers are, but we do have a right to be treated as professionals with respect. And so I'd like to thank you all. This was no small task today. I hope you have some nice lunch plans to get, you know, get over all this stuff. And I will just say this. There is value in transparency and people talking in the open. That's what happened here today regardless of what anybody may have assigned to dereliction of duty or whatever the heck. And I want to put this on the record. The reason that Secretary Mayorkas wasn't here today, I made the decision not to ask her. And the reason that I made the decision was to go, I want to talk to the operational people that are in that department. And the reason that I didn't say, well let's get ICE and those guys in here again is because within 24 hours in front of the policy committee, sorry if that was a mistake, that was mine too. So it's not like we're avoiding anything. But with all that, I'd like to thank you for appearing here today. We look forward to continuing to work together collaboratively. And this meeting stands adjourned. [Gavel sounds.]