FY 2027 Department of Homeland Security Budget Hearing

Secretary Mullen, thank you for being here today to testify on the President's fiscal year twenty twenty-seven budget request for the Department of Homeland Security. I'd like to turn first um to Vice Chair Murray for any introductory remarks she may like to offer.

Uh I will pass until my question, so I'm good.

Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to see a former colleague back before this committee. I wanna take a minute to express my appreciation for how you've stepped into your role at DHS. You've been a stabilizing force at a department that was struck with multiple shutdowns while carrying out an extraordinarily complex and multi-faceted mission. Your workforce has too often been used as political pawns, denied their well-deserved salaries and placed under unimaginable stress. because of the dysfunction of this body and it's unacceptable. I'd also like to credit your leadership since assuming the role of secretary. We can all see how your experience in the Senate has shaped your view of the department and how the department should interact with Congress. I am very pleased with the level of transparency that is now coming out of DHS. Thank you. You've also taken the initiative to step up, review previous decisions, and exercise your own independent judgment the pa- best pathway forward of DHS. I can tell that you have a strong vision for the department and care deeply about its mission and look forward to hearing about that today. Mister Secretary, this hearing falls against the backdrop of a very tense situation at one of your facilities in New Jersey. Let me be clear, all Americans have the right to protest the government and you will meet no bigger supporter of the First Amendment than myself. But the situation we've seen unfolding at the facility goes well beyond peaceful protest. It's devolved into violence and riots, including against law enforcement personnel working to keep Americans safe. It's simply not acceptable to salt, assault ICE officers or obstruct law, lawful federal operations. I hope that my colleagues will join me in condemning this violence and the chaos that we've seen in the last few days. Let's turn to the matter at hand. We are here today to hear about the resources that you need, and I believe it's especially important opportunity to hear about where your priorities are as a new secretary. The budget was released less than two weeks after you assumed this role, so I wanna recognize that you inherited much of this proposal. While I know that you support this budget and will defend it enthusiastically, it's important to get an a window into where your priorities are and where you the department going in the coming years. When I look at the department, I see countless critical missions, including work done by the men and women at CISA, the Coast Guard, ICE, CBP, TSA, and Secret Service, and other component agencies under the DHS umbrella. And then I look to you, Mister Secretary, to provide us with your vision for this future and how and the resources that you need to best do your job. We can't really address the topic of our twenty twenty-seven funding bill without addressing reconciliation. I am beyond disappointed that we were unable to fund ICE and Border Patrol through the bipartisan appropriations process. While fierce disagreements amongst Democrats and Republicans are not new, breaking apart appropriations bills over a refusal to fund basic operations of the government is truly uncharted territory. I hope the actions in this Congress remain an outlier and not a new precedent. As disappointing as this process has been, I wanna stress my support for passing the reconciliation bill and provide the necessary funding for ICE and CBP to do their job. Today, we also have an opportunity to discuss agencies that have been overlooked historically due to the disagreement of the immigration enforcement and appropriations process. Just this April, we saw another attempt at President Trump's life, reminding us how important this secret service is. And we cannot let them continue to be stretched too thin. TSA has had a great need for increased investment in screening and equipment procedures. It's also an opportunity for us to examine foundational systems like those managed your HR or finances or make investments that can set the department up for success for the next twenty years. Investments that are critical to the unsung heroes of your workforce that sometimes can get lost in the shuffle of pressing needs. With respect to my home state, I am very proud that Alabama is home to so many DHS equities and so many hard-working dedicated public servants who show up every day to help fulfill the mission of keeping Americans safe. Beginning with the Coast Guard, I am pleased that its enlisted leadership training center of excellence will be officially established in Birmingham later this week. To fulfill its mission, increased training capacity is needed now more than ever. It is paramount we provide resources to train cadets, build vessels, and procure air assets. It is also clear that the department under this administration is focused on putting agency back into the hands of state and local municipalities by training and equipping them to respond to emerging situations. Both FEMA's Center for Domestic Preparedness in Anniston, Alabama and the National Computer Forensic Institute in Hoover, Alabama provide key resources to ensure local officials across the nation are equipped with the knowledge, skills, and tools needed to protect and serve our country. I was profoundly disappointed to see that the FY twenty-seven budget request includes a reduction of funding for the National Computer Forensic Institute which helps state and local authorities respond to, prosecute, and prosecute cyber crimes. I don't need to tell you, Mister Secretary, that computer crimes are only becoming more sophisticated and that we need more points of security by state and local officials, not fewer. I look forward to further discussions on the NCFI and I appreciate how the Secret Service has been responsive to my initial concerns about the future of the facility. As with budget requests, there are still some questions outstanding that we need to get a better understanding of what we need to do to actually be able to draft this bill. For example, wanna understand the future of TSA and what you think that looks like. It seems like we're moving in a direction of less resilience on federal screeners, but we do need a better understanding of where you want that to go in five, or you see it going in ten years. We also will be looking forward to discussions about the future of FEMA, now that the review council has finished their report and has a better understanding of the plan and pathway forward. Lastly, we look forward to continuing to engage the department on how funding provided through reconciliation process is being executed and how it intersects with base funding. Mister Secretary, in conclusion, I appreciate you appearing before us to testify on FY twenty twenty seven budget request. You have an incredibly difficult job and have stepped into it during in a very important and difficult time. I wanna thank you for your service to the people of the United States, and your commitment to keeping them safe. I look forward to your testimony today and to working with you during fiscal year twenty twenty seven. And I would now like to recognize uh the ranking member for his opening remarks. And Mister Ranking Member, do you mind if I recognize the chairman first? Thank you. Would you?

All right.

Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. Ranking Member Murphy.

Uh thank you, Chair Britt. Uh thank you uh Secretary Mullen for being here today. Um, Mister Secretary, I I think you were crazy uh to have taken on this job. Um, but at your confirmation hearing you did promise that you would get DHS out of the headlines. Uh, we took you at your word, uh but nothing has really gotten better. Um, in fact, you spent the first two months of your tenure threatening to suspend international arrivals in states represented by Democrats. Not only would that throw our entire air travel system into chaos, It's completely illegal, which underscores the main issue of this hearing. The reason why Democrats and Republicans were not able to find agreement on the underlying DHS appropriations bill is because never before in the history of our nation has a federal agency been run so far off the rails as the Department of Homeland Security. Every day this agency is breaking the law at scale and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars. DHS does not implement the law any longer. It makes up the law. Don't take my word for it. Ten thousand times in the short eighteen months this administration has run DHS, judges have overturned this agency's immigration decisions. Essentially, every case that gets before a judge gets overturned. The agency has locked up American citizens. It has killed peaceful protesters just for getting in the way. It has applied a completely made-up set of immigration laws and deported hundreds of thousands of immigrants who broke no laws, who were playing by the rules, who had legitimate claims to stay in the United States. A federal judge recently cited DHS for violating ninety-six different court orders in one single state. Not that this agency violated the law ninety-six different times in that state, no. On ninety-six occasions, DHS was caught violating the law, was ordered to obey the law, and ninety-six times ignored the judge in one state. That is stunning, and it should be unacceptable to anyone on this committee who claims to care about the rule of law. To make matters worse, this agency is spending money like stone drunk sailors. Let's just take the massive detention centers that you are building. In Social Circle, Georgia, DHS allegedly paid almost one hundred and twenty nine million dollars for a property previously valued at twenty nine million dollars. In Socorro, Texas, a property previously valued at eleven million dollars was sold to DHS for around one hundred and twenty three million dollars, a one thousand percent mark-up. Somebody is getting rich, fabulously rich off of those deals. Or take the company GeoGroup. GeoGroup was a small contractor in twenty twenty four, net income of about thirty one million dollars. But then GeoGroup made enormous contributions to the president's political operations, and a revolving door started between GeoGroup and DHS. Tom Homan worked for the GeoGroup, now works for DHS. David Venturella, a GeoGroup executive, is now poised to be the next head of ICE. And guess what happened? In just a year, As its executives have gone to work for the agency, as the political contributions flowed to the president, their revenue went from thirty one million to, wait for it, two hundred and fifty four million dollars, an eight hundred percent jump in just one year. When President Trump came into office, ICE's budget was ten billion dollars. Today, with the obscene cash infusion this Republican Congress has given your agency ICE's effective annual budget is now Eleven times that. One hundred and fifteen billion dollars. And with these real estate deals and these contractor deals, at times the agency seems to be lighting this money on fire. But for this committee, that should be unacceptable. Because the money that is being wasted, it is earned by plumbers and security guards and teachers. They entrust it to us to spend it wisely. We swear an oath when we arrive here to assure that their money is not used to fund unconstitutional or illegal behavior. Every single day this agency is violating the constitution and the law. This cannot continue. For Congress to approve of this budget, you must assure us that this Sherman's march of illegality ends. You must stop padding the pockets of immigration industry CEOs. You must rein in this out of control overspending. But as I stated at the outset, the worry is the opposite is about to happen. You are reportedly considering suspending international arrivals at airports in states represented by Democrats. You will say that is because you disagree with our state's immigration policies, and that is your right to disagree. But the law unquestionably does not give you the right to close international travel in states that don't have the same political leanings as your party. And so I will say the same thing that I said to your predecessor in this forum. I know that you do not like our nation's immigration law. You believe that it lets in too many people. You don't like state's immigration laws that treat immigrants fairly. But the law is the law. Your disagreement with it does not give you the permission to just make up a different law. If you want more authority, if your agency wants more authority, if you want stricter authority, come to Congress and ask for it. Do not ask us to fund an agency. that just makes up its own law.

Thank you, Senator Murphy. Um, Secretary Mullen, we will now turn to you for your opening statements. You'll be given five minutes for that, and then all of your written testimony will obviously be entered into the record.

Thank you so much, Chairman Britt and Ranking Member uh Collins. Um, or I'm sorry, Chair Collins and Ranking Member uh Murphy. You know, I do have an opening statement here, but wow, uh. Senator Murphy, the outlandish claims you made there is just flat wrong. Uh, I I you start saying we're breaking the law, and you really start looking at it and we're enforcing the laws that Congress did pass. Uh, that's reckless. When you start saying it's unconstitutional, what's unconstitutional that we're doing? We swore to uphold the Constitution, just like you swore to uphold the Constitution, for you to throw my two hundred and seventy-five thousand employees underneath DHS and with a broad stroke like that is reckless and irresponsible on your part. We're doing the job that Congress gave us the authority to do. And our men and women out there every single day is enforcing the laws. If you don't like the laws, you can change them. We're not picking and choosing which laws we enforce. We're simply enforcing the law. Period. Full stop. When you throw out reckless terms. And you start referring to our our our agents as being dangerous, unconstitutional, and lawless. That's why our agents, death threats, are up by eight thousand percent. I know that's not what you want. But your political theater, that's what it causes. When you start looking at assaults on our officers, they're up by thirteen hundred percent. Senator Murphy, is that what you want? I don't think it is. I really don't. But I understand the political theater. I understand wanting to get sound bites. And that was obvious because the whole time he was giving your testimony, he wasn't looking at me, he was looking at the camera. I get that. I get it. If you had poli- poli- uh, big- bigger political uh, ambitions, fine, just say it. But don't do it at expense. Of my officers? We wanna really talk about funding? You haven't funded my officers. CBP and ICE has been willing to do the job for free. Why? Because of a reckless administration. Prior to President Trump coming in and saving America, you had a reckless administration that was destroying America by letting millions of illegals into our country. We're a nation of laws, and we're going to enforce those laws. What separate us from other countries is because people respect the rule of law. There's a reason why people are flooding to our country and not flooding to leave. And it's our job to protect the homeland. And we do that every single day. Every day I walk into that office, I feel so blessed that President Trump gave me this opportunity because I protect my backyard as hard as I protect your backyard. And I do it with pride. And every one of the employees, all two hundred and seventy-five thousand employees at DHS, they do it with pride too. And they don't separate a blue state from a red state. We look at it as a whole. But your reckless tone is getting people hurt. And it's gotta stop. The fact that CBP and ICE hasn't been funded now for historical amount of time is absolutely appalling. It should never happen. But yet we're playing political games. If your party is for open b- borders and a amnesty, then be honest. Because if ICE can't do their job, then who's supposed to be getting the legals out? That's what they are stood up to do. That's what Congress passed and gave them an authority and created the agency to do. If you don't want custom on border patrol, and their job is to control our borders and the cus- custom entry points, if you don't want them, then be honest with the American people and say, " We want open borders." But don't sit there and accuse us of a such a bunch of stuff that you know yourself isn't true. I'll go back to this. It's an honor to sit here in front of you. I take it with great pride to be secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. And I'm surrounded with great men and women every single day I walk into that office. Regardless of what you say or some other people say, we're doing a great job. And we have a zero fail mission. And we take that to heart every day. And one of the people I'm surrounded with is Troy Edgar, my deputy. I couldn't do my job without the people around me. And so thank you, Senator Britt, thank you, Thank you Mayor Murphy, for allowing him to be up here with us. Cuz some of the questions he may be better suited answered. With that, I yield back.

Thank you, Mister Secretary, uh, we're gonna go into the question and answer portion of the hearing. Each member is going to be given five minutes of time for their questions. The senators are gonna have an opportunity to to ask those questions in order of seniority and then uh arrival. If the five minutes is up, I will tap the gavel to note that to the senator that's speaking so that they can quickly wrap their question I'll give you an opportunity to respond um, we're gonna keep this to five minutes and we're gonna do that on both the Republican and the Democratic side so if I can have um cooperation there, I would greatly appreciate it. And then um I'll go ahead and start uh we are honored to have both Chair Collins and Vice Chair Murray with us here on this subcommittee, and um Ch- Vice Chair Murray I will um turn to you first.

Well, welcome, Mr. Secretary. I think From where I sit, I think it's pretty fair to say that DHS under President Trump has been a debacle. From day one we saw rampant abuse of power and corruption, from awarding millions in no-compete contracts to companies with direct family ties to DHS officials, to blatantly politicizing disaster relief and slow-walking or outright blocking funding to blue states like mine, to making this country less prepared for disasters and leaving communities in the lurch. And then you have the absolutely shameful, unacceptable, un-American conduct we have seen from some of ICE and Border Patrol members. After Republicans gave nearly two hundred billion last summer in their big ugly bill, with effectively no strings attached, President Trump and Stephen Miller built up a paramilitary force and essentially promised it immunity and set it loose on some of our American communities. We all witnessed the consequences, a family heading home from a basketball game that was tear gassed, a priest in Chicago shot in the head and body with pepper balls, an American citizen dragged out of the house in the freezing cold in his underwear, Renee Goode, Alex Pretti, others murdered in broad daylight. Those actions shock the conscience and have shocked the world, which is horrified by what has unfolded on American streets. So, going back as we negotiated the FY twenty-six DHS funding bill, I fought very hard alongside my democratic colleagues to secure very basic reforms to make sure nothing like that happened again. Steps like requiring body cameras and ensuring that the footage is retained and available. Restoring basic training and hiring standards. Requiring warrants. Ending racial profiling. banning enforcement actions in sensitive locations like schools and hospitals and houses of worship, taking off the masks and requiring visible identification. Those are very basic protocols the American people overwhelmingly support and by the way, police departments follow every day. But unfortunately, after weeks of back and forth and at times good discussions and good progress, Republicans did ultimately walk away from the talk talks to enshrine enshrine those protections into law. And they chose instead to circumvent Democrats through reconciliation and are now trying to fund ICE and border patrol for the remainder of Trump's presidency, not just this year, without any oversight or accountability measures in place. This is exactly what led to the horrors that we did witness in Minneapolis and across the country. And I want to be very clear, Secretary Mullen. I'm watching closely to see what steps you now take As the new DHS secretary, and I have to say, I have yet to see you take back the reins from Stephen Miller, because even now we are seeing some outrageous proposals. You plan to withdraw CBP officers from airports in cities that don't roll over for Trump? That is insane. It is not only dangerous, it would also spell economic crisis for blue and red states. Meanwhile, DHS is already on track to break last year's record for people dying in custody. And last week ICE agents tear gassed a United States senator who was simply working to peacefully mediate between ICE and protesters after federal law enforcement, we know, shoved a different senator to the ground last year. And you continue to deport to deport upstanding community members instead of the worst of the worst. accountability is desperately needed, and I know we will all keep fighting for that. So let me ask you, um, you know, throughout our negotiations over the twenty-six bill, the White House and Border Czar, Tom Holman, told us we didn't need to put any reforms into law because DHS was already making changes like uh ending the roving patrols restoring stronger training standards requiring body cra cameras to be worn by all agents and officers, And I know that at your confirmation hearing you said you do not support the warrantless search and and uh seizure policy the administration put in place. And you reportedly were recently talking about legislation to require judicial warrants restore training standards and protect sensitive locations from raids. But while you and Tom Homan say you've made some of those ch changes, the American people haven't seen the proof of that. So I wanna ask you today. What are your current training requirements for agents? Training requirements.

Thank you for the question. Um, I I I wanna remind the senator that I was part of the negation uh negation negotiating those reforms. Um, and I think you're aware of that, so I actually know what happened during those.

I know you were not in the room, but I do know you were aware of them.

No, I was I was very involved in it.

Mm-hmm.

But you were not in the room.

Uh, the back and forth, no, I was very involved in it.

I was in the room, you were not in the room. I know you were That's a matter I asked you a question.

And and you know,

What is the training report?

and and Senator, you know that we agreed to all this stuff that you said? And the fact that you guys walked away because you had primary elections.

No,

We had agreed you had asked for three and we asked for nine.

Mister Secretary, we walked away because you would not put it in writing.

We had agreed to nine and you would never get to yes, and so we walked away and did reconciliation because you was never gonna get to yes between Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries and you know that to be a fact.

Mister Secretary, I

And you can't you can't pull the rule over my eyes because I was part of the

Mister Secretary, you can give your side,

negotiator negotiating that.

I'm telling you I was in the room and we and we turned away.

When you start talk

Yeah.

I wanna ask you, Jerry,

So I, it was interesting. I was involved in that too.

what are your training requirements?

So if you wanna start talking about training, we're gonna July first, we'll go back to the seventy-one, seventy-two hours of training. Uh, the training policy is gonna change a little bit because we're going to be doing crowd control, um, and a, and fit today's needs, but all training always is willing to change back and forth. When you start talking about, uh, warrants, I was very clear in my confirmation that, uh, judicial warrants are used when we're entering a residence unless we're in pursuit of a criminal. Um, or the criminal continues to evade by going from one place to the next, the next, the next, and we're trying to lock the person down. But, uh, it was very clear when it's, when, uh, when we started, uh, discussing that. Um, and, uh, a- and when, and on the sensitive locations, uh, it's been asked multiple times. We're not actively being at sensitive locations. We do sometimes have to pick up a felon. that is around uh sensitive locations, but we're not actively patrolling those. And uh and I think you know that to be true.

OK, and can you give this committee in writing what your train current training requirements are? You said as of July first. If you could give that to us so we can see what those are.

Yes.

Um, and how about the updated departmental protocols for agents engaging with protesters?

I'm sorry?

Yeah, you you have an updated department protocol for agents who are engaging with protesters. Can you describe that?

And and the time has expired, so if you can get your answer quickly,

Okay.

I'd appreciate it.

Uh, well, let me just ask you then, if you could give the committee in writing that answer, um, ha- uh, the, whether or not you've ended roving patrols and whether or not every officer and agent in the field is now wearing a body camera in writing so we can see what your protocols are.

We we don't have the money for all the cameras. We had it and uh the funding bill, but since you guys decided not to vote for it. We don't have the money to put it on all of our officers, but if you remember during the funding bill we had twenty million dollars set up for it,

Twenty, we had twenty in and uh,

and it's currently unfunded because the Democrats were refusing to fund CBP.

the We had twenty million in it, and I will tell you this, that that was not enough, but um, what I'd like to know is

Okay. We'll get it, we'll respond to you in writing.

if you will respond to that in writing what your current policies are, so we know that they are actual policies being implemented. Thank you.

We'll take that.

Thank you, Vice Chair Murray. I'll turn to Chair Collins for her questions.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Welcome, Mister Secretary. I'd like to ask you about a particular kind of visa, the H one B visa, which are for highly skilled international employees. Many rural areas in Maine face shortages of qualified medical professionals which makes attracting them and recruiting them critical to the health of our communities. While I can understand why the administration might consider assigning fees to H one B visas in the tech area or other sectors where there's a significant domestic workforce, that's not what we're talking about when it's medical providers. for rural areas. I wanna give you an example of a a hospital in Presque Isle, Maine, that's in northern Maine, very close to where I grew up. And recently this rural hospital was forced to pay the one hundred thousand dollar H one B V for a much needed surgeon. Would you be willing to consider carving out an exemption uh for medical professionals from this fee uh when a community can demonstrate that there is not um a medical profession professional available.

Senator Collins, thank you so much for the question. We we looked into this um We, uh, I was a misunderstanding when you and I visited a tad bit about this. Uh, uh, was this doctor currently in the United States or did you have to bring him in from outside the United States?

He he had to be brought in from another country and there did not used to be

Right.

a one hundred thousand dollar fee associated with that visa. The doctor qualifies for the visa.

Right.

That's not the issue. The issue is the extraordinarily high fee uh that the hospital in Presque Isle had to pay.

So we do have some authority and flexibility to be able to waive some of this on case by case. Uh, we had two hundred and eighty-six thousand applicants uh uh a year to date for the uh H one B visas. Uh, out of those um over two hundred thousand of them paid the hundred thousand dollars to to be able to come in because it's it it allows us to process them in a little bit faster of a manner um in fact when we do that we're able to process them about fifteen days because we're able to throw stuff out if people want to look for an exemption and come that process which we had roughly eighty thousand look for a different path forward uh it's takes about seven half months to go through that process to be able to to exempt them We can speed that up to some degree, but to actually have a carve-out, it would be difficult. We're happy to look into it, look at language, try to get it better, uh, because I agree, from a very rural area. I understand how hard it is to get get doctors, but I'd say most of them, when they need it, they need it then, and they're not willing to wait seven half months to get someone to come through, because it, we do still have to do our due diligence on going through their background and making sure they do qualify for it. But on these cases, and there's many several people, maybe not on this dais, but have called me since I've been in for eight weeks, has asked for me to look in certain some of these uh circumstances, and we're always happy to look into them and and see how we can work with you the best, possibly.

Mm-hmm. I'd I would suggest that there's a huge difference between bringing in a computer expert from another country to work in wealthy California in Silicon Valley,

I agree.

versus a much needed surgeon. to work at a rural hospital in northern Maine.

I'm just jealous you got a rural surgeon to come in cuz we're looking for him all over Oklahoma.

Well, you can't have this one, but Um, let me switch to another kind of visa that's extraordinarily important to the state of Maine and that's the H two B visa. As you know, um, many of our communities in Maine rely heavily on H two B visas for staff during our busy tourism seasons. Last year, just to give you an idea, more than thirteen million tourists came to the state of Maine and we're very grateful that they do. But that is ten times the entire population of our state. And they mainly come in the summer and the fall. So, employers in the hospitality sector are simply unable to hire workers to meet that demand. So that seasonal H two B program is critical. And the workers come, they work, and then they go back home. They're not trying to stay here. Um, they come back year after year. Um, there are ways that we could speed up the process for that. One idea the main chamber of commerce recently proposed to me is that employers who have long utilized the age two B program and have consistently followed the rules, uh, should have an exemption for a certain number of workers from the cap for employers if they have that good five year compliance record. Another idea would be reinstituting the returning worker exemption from the cap. Uh, that existed during President Bush's administration. It worked really well. It was the same workers coming back to the same seasonal, uh, businesses year after year. They became like family. And in fact, a lot of times the employers would keep their belongings for them in anticipation of their return. uh the next tourism season is uh the administration considering ways to simplify the h to b process visa process for employers who have followed the rules for five years or reinstituting the returning worker exemption.

So we've we've looked at this uh right now, year to day, I think we've had a hundred and seventy thousand or a hundred and seven thousand, uh, uh, H two B visas that's, uh, that's applied for FY twenty six. Uh, the number, I do have some flexibility with the number you guys gave that me gave me that authority in twenty seventeen. Well, not me, but, uh, the department. Um, but to raise the cap, which would mean putting the exemptions in place too, the way that we understand it. We was talking to council today about this. Troy was in the room with us. And so you're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong here. Um. But to raise the cap be higher uh above a significant number, Congress will have to set that new number or give me the authority to do so. And then we'll be happy to. Uh, I have uh, listen, being from, you know, the the construction background and understanding the farming and ranching background where it is very seasonal, we do need some flexibility there. Returning workers, I agree, if they've been able to go through the process over and over again, they're they're they come in with supposed to they leave when they're supposed to and there's no issues here. Um, I'd be I'd be happy to do something like that and streamline the process. Uh, we have been working with USCIS to try to streamline this. Uh, that's one of the most, uh, challenging things I have since I've walked in as secretary, is that we have handcuffed ourselves through so much bureaucracy that we're trying to cut back and get to the basics. And any way you see that a system can work better, Uh, uh, Senator Collins, I'll be happy to work with you, but I I'm limited on selling my authority.

Thank you. Thank you.

Roe, you have anything to add to that?

Thank you.

Okay.

Mister Secretary, you have now been at the department for just over two months. I realize you were there for just a little over a week when

My beard has turned gray since then, too.

I ca- yeah, I can see it, I can see it.

I know.

Um, you were there for just a little over a week when the president actually submitted his budget request. So I know you probably had very limited um opportunity to provide input into that while fully supporting obviously was what was put forward. I do wanna ask you from your perspective in the two months that you've been there and looking at the request in front of us what do you believe is most critical that we invest in um there at the Department of Homeland Security that that's in front of us today to make sure that we keep our border secure but we keep Americans safe and that the mission of Homeland Security y- you're able to fully execute that.

Thank you. Uh the biggest issue we're having right now is uh uh is with personnel because We went through a historic shutdown. Seventy six days, longest shutdown in in the government history. That's our fourth shutdown in a year. So you can imagine morale has been tough. Without people, it doesn't make any difference what you implement. Y- y- you're f- you're gonna fall short. Now, as I said when I first walked in that building two months ago, um, I inherited the greatest group of people, the most dedicated patriotic, uh, uh, workforce in the nation because they're all there working, still showing up for free. But some people couldn't. uh, sustain it. Uh, uh, it's unrealistic to think that someone's gonna show up and commute back and forth, because there is no uh, buses that stop out in front of St. St. Elizabeth. There is there isn't a um, you know, the the Metro that has a Metro stop right there. Everybody has to drive or play Uber to come back and forth, so it gets very expensive for them. Some couldn't sustain it. And we lost a tremendous amount of workforce, about about eight percent.

Wow.

And uh, trying to bring that workforce back and hire in the best and brightest and say, by the way, we've been shut down four four times in a year and I can't guarantee we're not gonna be shut down September thirtieth because we've already heard rhetoric from the left, saying they're willing to do that. That makes it very difficult for us to deliver on the mission. But I will say the two things that I've um uh that I've recognized that needs to happen uh uh uh uh chairman or chairwoman is, can I just call you chair?

Yeah, I like that. That's good.

Or friend?

Yeah,

For that one too.

works.

But I I um I, uh, the two biggest things that we have is, uh, uh, uh, DHS was stood up with twenty-two components and we grew very quick. And, uh, we've only been around for twenty years. And the foundation for the department hasn't been fully established, because we've been running hard every since. I mean, we're still trying to bring everybody underneath one, uh, and one campus. We have buildings, we have people spread all across the, the, the, the, uh, uh, the area, and, and Washington DC. Um, out of two hundred and seventy five thousand employees, um, we have, uh, less than half that will all work together. So to build a foundation to actually build upon is very important. So we need to go back and put the, and, and not put the brick and mortar, but actually put the foundation underneath us and, and get everybody out of their silos. Twenty-two components are in silos and we're not always speaking to each other. They're not working together as a cohesive team. And that's true s- in the last twenty years. One thing that can help with that is the technology allowing us to all interface. And as you know, technology is very expensive. But we are the largest law enforcement, um, uh, in in in the country, and we have the unique authorities that no other agency and no other law enforcement has, from cyber to sea, uh, uh, to land and and and to air. And with that, um, we need to be talking. So when, uh, a secret service has an interaction with somebody, that uh they're they're um uh uh what they're in interacting with we will also build a recognize throughout all the other agencies that maybe uscis has already had a interaction with, or ice or cbp or the coast guard and um we are currently getting bids on what that's gonna cost for and and that'll be important to us.

ok ok um uh mister secretary in my minute remaining i i do wanna ask you about tsa i noticed in this Yep. Only have twenty six seconds here, um, but ten or fifteen years down the line.

So, ultimately we wanna have uh, TSA is the most forward-facing government agency we have in the United States. They interact with more people every day than anybody, any government agency does. And we wanna have uh, uh, uh, best performers. Twenty or ten of our top uh, twenty airports are part of this program, but it's only deals with personnel. San Francisco Airport and Kansas City International Airport Both are part of this program. What we recognize with the shutdown is those airports didn't miss a beat. They were able to continue to perform. So what we're asking is let's let's expand on that since we know it's a success.

OK.

And let's partner with the public and let's partner with the private industry with some of the best technology to move us to the gold standard of traveling, moving down the road. And we can get there faster cuz private industry can adjust faster than we can, but to lower the mission or the requirement to keep our skies safe is uh is not an option. We want to actually elevate that and we can do that with the help of uh the private sector.

Absolutely, and appreciate the men and women of TSA and what they've done, um, particularly in some of the most challenging circumstances over the last few months. Um, now turning to Ranking Member Murphy.

Uh, thank you. Um, Mr. Secretary, this is from a federal court decision regarding uh ICE's activities in Minnesota. ICE is not a law unto itself. ICE has violated nearly one hundred court orders. This list should give pause to anyone, no matter his or her political beliefs, who cares about the rule of law. ICE has likely violated more court orders in January two thousand twenty six than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence. That's not a Democratic-appointed judge, that is a Republican-appointed judge. describing the scale of illegality. I understand your M. O. and others in the administration's M. O. is to attack us personally or to claim that we're inciting violence when we point out the widespread illegality. But this is a Republican appointed judge who is saying the exact same thing that I am saying. This is a really important discussion for us to have, because this is, whether you wanna believe it or not, the root of our disagreement is that it is very hard for us to figure out how to fund an agency that is violating the law. Again, that's not me saying it. That's a Republican-appointed federal judge. Now, this widespread violation of court orders admittedly largely happened before you got on the job. And as a senator, you always struck me as somebody who cared about the rule of law. And so maybe the easiest question is this. When DHS gets a court order um telling them that something they are doing is either either illegal and unconstitutional. Prior to you taking office, the approach was to ignore that court order. That's what this judge is saying. Ninety-four times you got a court order, you didn't implement it. Now that you are on the job, can you commit to us that if a court judges something ICE is doing, something DHS is doing as illegal or unconstitutional, tells you to stop, that you will comply with the court order.