Senate Homeland Security Committee Hearing Part 1 Transcript

Today’s hearing is an important opportunity to discuss the wide range of threats facing our nation. I’m grateful that our top national security and law enforcement officials are here with us this morning to provide critical updates about what their agencies are doing to address threats to the homeland. This year, this hearing comes at a crucial moment. We are seeing a heightened threat environment in communities across the country in reaction to the ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel. Many Americans are fearful that increased tensions around the conflict could lead to violence in their communities here at home, as incidents of anti-Semitic, anti-Arab, and anti-Muslim hate continues to grow. Terrorism, and in particular domestic terrorism, fueled by white supremacist and anti-government ideologies, remains one of the most serious threats to our homeland security, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how their agencies are working to address both international as well as domestic terrorism.

(01:05)
Our nation also faces emerging threats from biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological weapons, especially if those weapons fall into the wrong hands. I have long been concerned about the danger this poses, which is why I led the effort to reauthorize the office of countering weapons of mass destruction and will continue to work towards that end. We must also reauthorize the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program and ensure that facilities that store or produce chemicals are secure from terrorist threats. We’ll also discuss the significant threat that cyber attacks pose to our national and economic security. Bad actors such as foreign agents from China and Russia, cybersecurity criminals and so-called hacktivist groups are constantly adapting, posing a serious risk to our critical infrastructure, and to our election security. I am proud of the bipartisan work that this committee has done to strengthen American cybersecurity. Our bipartisan reforms are helping to protect schools, federal agencies, state and local governments, and other targets from cyber attacks.

(02:14)
That said, there is a whole lot more we must do to stop criminal hackers and foreign adversaries from exploiting network vulnerabilities, and I look forward to discussing those topics here today. The use of unmanned aircraft systems in our country has also rapidly increased, and while these tools help our economy and law enforcement personnel, they also bring serious security risk. Drones can threaten manned aircraft operations, target large public gatherings, and even be used to transport contraband across our borders. I look forward to hearing what our witnesses have to say about the threat of unmanned aircraft systems and the urgent need to reauthorize the counter UAS capacities of the federal government, which are set to expire later in November.

(03:02)
One of the most serious challenges we face and one of the toughest to tackle is that of climate change and natural disasters. This is an existential threat to our planet and continues to affect our national security. As extreme weather events become more common, we have to spend more resources on disaster recovery. Climate change also poses direct threats to our security infrastructure, affecting ports, manufacturing facilities, transportation routes, and many other parts of our supply chains. Today we’ll hear more about how our national security agencies are addressing climate change and what else we must do to mitigate this threat.

(03:38)
Finally, this hearing presents a unique opportunity to discuss border security, as we learn more about the administration’s work to secure our northern and southern borders, prevent human trafficking, and stop the flow of deadly drugs like fentanyl into our communities. The full range of these threats, from terrorism to drones to climate change, pose great danger to our communities and our panel of witnesses will provide an essential perspective. They’ll help us understand what our agencies are doing to mitigate these national security threats and what more Congress and the administration can do to keep every American safe. I look forward to a very productive discussion. Ranking member Paul, you are recognized for your opening remarks.

In 1976, the Church Committee issued its final report revealing decades of widespread abuse by federal intelligence agencies against US citizens. The bipartisan church committee outlined countless examples of how the federal government used powers that were meant to counter foreign threats against its own citizens in an effort to protect society. These abuses happened under presidents of both parties. Domestic groups like the NAACP and the Women’s Liberation Group who engaged in nonviolent lawful political expression were targeted and surveilled for contradicting the approved government initiative and narrative. Intelligence agencies use their powers to serve ideological purposes, attempting to covertly influence social policy and political action. The government distorted and exaggerated facts, leveraged mass media, and attacked the leadership of groups it considered to be threats to the social order. One of these so-called threats to social order was Martin Luther King Jr.

(05:23)
The purpose of the church committee’s years-long investigation was to expose the intelligence agency’s unlawful overreach into the private lives of Americans. The committee hoped that its findings would result in more transparency and accountability to ensure that these abuses never occurred again. They say history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Unfortunately, as we sit here today, I fear that our federal government is still undertaking many of the same tactics that the church committee found to be unworthy of democracy and occasionally reminiscent of totalitarian regimes. Federal agencies, including the FBI and the DHS, continue to operate in a manner that is outside the scope of their authorities, wasting taxpayer dollars and infringing on the rights of Americans.

(06:12)
Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the federal agencies, including the FBI and DHS, likely violated the First Amendment. In fact, the judge said it was one of the worst, if not the worst violation of the First Amendment in American history. By coercing social media companies to remove speech the government disagreed with related to the origins of COVID-19, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine efficacy, and the Hunter Biden laptop stories, FBI and DHS regularly met with social media companies and pressured them to remove content it deemed as misinformation, including posts and accounts that originated from within the United States and including posts and accounts that are verifiably true.

(07:02)
And the censorship of the constitutionally protected speech on social media is just one example of the executive branch actions in recent years weaponizing the federal government against its people. The FBI continues to misuse hiss authority under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. You would think we’d be going after foreigners, but we are using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to go after Americans, as we observed and was done with individuals participating in the George Floyd protests. Unconstitutional access to Americans’ activities was instituted against those in the George Floyd protests. DHS warned of violence from Americans who questioned the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and protested government overreach associated with pandemic mitigation measures. These agencies, charged with protecting the security of our nation, targeted parents who protested restrictive COVID-19 policies at school board meetings and labeled Catholics as potential domestic terrorists. It is hardly a surprise that the faith of Americans in their government is dwindling.

(08:12)
Instead of focusing on rampant violent crime across the nation and the unprecedented crisis at the border, FBI and DHS are using their resources to surveil and censor law-abiding Americans engaged in constitutionally protected speech. When the federal government’s activities are improperly focused, inward legitimate national security threats go unnoticed. The Church Committee highlighted the important point highlighting that the FBI placed more emphasis on domestic descent than on organized crime, and its effort to combat foreign spies suffered because of its focus on American protest groups. The narratives from the past and the present draw a concerning parallel. The lessons of the Church Committee report resonate nearly 50 years later, yet the cycle of executive branch overreach continues. The American people deserve accountability from the federal government, and Congress cannot continue to abdicate its constitutional duty to conduct oversight. As the Church Committee aptly pointed out, power must be checked and balanced, and the preservation of liberty requires the restraint of laws. It is our responsibility to ensure that the principles of American democracy endure, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with me to do just that.

It is the practice of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to swear in witnesses, so if each of our witnesses would please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you’ll give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Thank you. You may be seated.

(09:58)
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is the seventh Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Secretary Mayorkas has led a distinguished career over three decades as a law enforcement official and a lawyer in the private sector. He has served as the department’s deputy secretary, as Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services and at the Department of Justice, as Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California. Secretary Marcus, thank you for appearing before our committee once again. You are recognized for your opening statement.

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

(11:45)
Today, individuals radicalized to violence can terrorize using a vehicle or a firearm. A transnational criminal organization needs only to conceal 2.2 pounds of fentanyl in a commercial truck or passenger car crossing through our land port of entry to kill as many as half a million people. Lone actors and nation states such as Russia, Iran, and the People’s Republic of China can use computer code to steal sensitive personal information, shut down critical infrastructure, and extort millions in ransom payments. Compromising deepfake images can exploit and ruin the life of a young person. Extreme heat, wildfires, and devastating hurricanes are increasing in frequency and severity. And our department’s founding rationale, the threat posed by foreign terrorists using weapons of mass destruction, remains. The 260,000 men and women of the Department of Homeland Security work every day to mitigate these threats and many more. I’m immensely proud to be here today on their behalf to discuss the work they do, the challenges they face, and most importantly, the support they require from Congress to do their jobs.

(13:05)
Thank you for the opportunity to do so. I would like to focus today on two such means of critical urgent support. First, Congress must not allow key DHS authorities to lapse. Our department’s authority to implement the chemical facility anti-terrorism standards expired on July 28th. That means the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency is barred from inspecting over 3000 high-risk chemical facilities, identifying who is accessing them and whether they are stockpiling dangerous chemicals. Historically, more than a third of inspections identify at least one gap in a facility security. Our counter drone authority will expire on November 18th challenging, among other missions, the Secret Service’s ability to protect the President and Vice President, and Customs and Border Protection’s ability to patrol the Southwest border and intercept cartel drones ferrying drugs and other contraband through the air.

(14:11)
Our department’s Office of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction authority will expire on December 21st. That would hinder our ability to detect biological and elicit nuclear material threats and safeguard against the use of AI in the development of biological weapons as President Biden charged us with doing yesterday in his executive order on artificial intelligence. Finally, key elements of our intelligence collection authority under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will expire on December 31st. Expiration would leave our country vulnerable to attacks supported by American citizens and it would cripple our ability to identify and secure American citizens who are the targets of such attacks. Renewing each of these four authorities is common sense, bipartisan, and critical to our national security. This is not a moment to let our country’s guard down.

(15:14)
Second, we need Congress to allocate sufficient resources to enable our nation’s frontline officers to carry out their difficult jobs and keep the American people safe. Two weeks ago, our administration requested critical, supplemental homeland security funding that would help do just that. This funding package would allow us to more effectively combat the scourge of fentanyl stem, the impacts of historic migration, and accelerate work authorization for eligible non-citizens. This funding will in short make a critical difference in our department’s operational capacity and in our national security.

(15:56)
Ensuring the safety of the American people is a national imperative and a governmental obligation. I look forward to partnering with Congress to deliver for the men and women who keep our country safe. I look forward to working with you to address the threats and challenges America faces today and in the years to come, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Director Christopher Wray is the eighth director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Director Wray began his law enforcement career over two decades ago, serving in the Department of Justice as an assistant US attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. He has also served on the President’s corporate tax fraud force and supervised the Enron tax force, in addition to playing a key role in national security objectives for the department. Director Wray, welcome back to the committee for your testimony here today. You’re recognized for your opening statements.

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Paul, members of the committee. Discussions about the most pressing national security threats, what we face and what we’re doing to tackle them, are always important, but it seems especially well-timed this year with the dangerous implications the very fluid situation in the Middle East has for our homeland security. The reality is that the terrorism threat has been elevated throughout 2023, but the ongoing war in the Middle East has raised the threat of an attack against Americans in the United States to a whole nother level.

(17:34)
Since the horrific terrorist attacks committed by Hamas against innocent people in Israel a few weeks ago, we’ve been working around the clock to support our partners there and to protect Americans here at home. We assess that the actions of Hamas and its allies will serve as an inspiration the likes of which we haven’t seen since ISIS launched its so-called caliphate several years ago. In just the past few weeks, multiple foreign terrorist organizations have called for attacks against Americans and the West. Al-Qaeda issued its most specific call to attack the United States in the last five years. ISIS urged its followers to target Jewish communities in the United States and Europe. Hezbollah has publicly expressed its support for Hamas and threatened to attack US interests in the Middle East, and we’ve seen an increase in attacks on US military bases overseas carried out by militia groups backed by Iran.

(18:43)
Here in the United States, our most immediate concern is that violent extremists, individuals or small groups, will draw inspiration from the events in the Middle East to carry out attacks against Americans going about their daily lives. That includes not just homegrown violent extremists inspired by a foreign terrorist organization, but also domestic violent extremists targeting Jewish or Muslim communities. We’ve already seen that with the individual we arrested last week in Houston who’d been studying how to build bombs and posted online about his support for killing Jews, and with the tragic killing of a six-year-old Muslim boy in Illinois and what we’re investigating is a federal hate crime.

(19:27)
But as I said a few moments ago, on top of the homegrown violent extremists and domestic violent extremist threat, we also cannot and do not discount the possibility that Hamas or another foreign terrorist organization may exploit the current conflict to conduct attacks here on our own soil. We have kept our sites on Hamas and have multiple ongoing investigations into individuals affiliated with that foreign terrorist organization. And while historically, our Hamas cases have identified individuals located here who are facilitating and financing Hamas’ terrorism overseas, we’re continuing to scrutinize our intelligence to assess how the threat may be evolving.

(20:17)
But it’s not just Hamas. As the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, the Iranians, for instance, have directly, or by hiring criminals, mounted assassination attempts against dissidents and high-ranking current and former US government officials, including right here on American soil. And along those lines, Hezbollah, Iran’s primary strategic partner, has a history of seeding operatives and infrastructure, obtaining money and weapons and spying in this country going back years. Given that disturbing history, we are keeping a close eye on what impact recent events may have on those groups’ intentions here in the United States and how those intentions might evolve. For example, the cyber targeting of American interests and critical infrastructure that we already see conducted by Iran and non-state actors alike, we can expect to get worse if the conflict expands, as will the threat of kinetic attacks. But across the country, in each and every one of the FBI’s 56 field offices, we are addressing these threats with a sense of urgency.

(21:36)
Among other things, that means working closely with our federal, state, and local partners through our FBI-led joint terrorism task forces to ensure that together we stay laser focused on mitigating threats, taking an even closer look at existing investigations and canvassing our sources to improve our intelligence, and then sharing that information with our partners, and doing all we can, working with our partners, to protect all houses of worship and people of all faiths here in the US. Bottom line, we’re going to continue to do everything in our power to protect the American people and support our partners in Israel.

(22:19)
Now, protecting Americans from the threat of terrorism is and remains our number one priority, but as you all know, the range of threats we battle each and every day is enormous. From cyber attacks to economic espionage to violent crime and narcotics trafficking and everything in between, and none of the problems we tackle is getting any easier, but we have continued to work to outpace our adversaries by disrupting over 40% more cyber operations last year and arresting over 60% more cyber criminals than the year before. We are aggressively working to protect America’s economic security from China’s relentless efforts to steal our innovation and intellectual property, with around 2000 active investigations across all 56 FBI field offices. And over the past two years alone, we’ve seized enough fentanyl to kill 270 million people. That’s more than 80% of all Americans.

(23:28)
Now, I am incredibly proud of the FBI’s 38,000 skilled and dedicated professionals who tackle these complex challenges to protect their fellow Americans, which leads me to my final point. I think it is our shared responsibility to make sure that the FBI’s men and women have the tools they need to keep us all safe. And indispensable in that toolkit against foreign adversaries are the FBI’s FISA 702 authorities. It would be absolutely devastating if the next time an adversary like Iran or China conducts a major cyber attack. We don’t see it coming because 702, one of our most important tools, was allowed to lapse. Or, with everything going on in the world, imagine if a foreign terrorist overseas directs an operative to carry out an attack here on our own backyard, but we’re not able to disrupt it because the FBI’s authorities have been so watered down.

(24:36)
So, I’m happy to talk more about all the things the FBI has done in the last few years to make sure we are good stewards of our vital 702 authorities, but I want to close by thanking you again for having me here today, and I’m happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you, Director Wray. Director Christine Abizaid is the eighth Senate-confirmed Director of the National Counter- Terrorism Center. Previously, she served on the National Security Council staff as both director for Counter-terrorism and Senior Policy Advisor to the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism. She has also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia, as a senior intelligence analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency. Welcome to the committee, Director Abizaid. You are recognized for your opening comments.

Thank you. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Paul, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss today’s terrorism landscape. This hearing is especially timely as we continue to monitor the response of global terrorist actors in the wake of Hamas’ tragic and brutal 7 October terrorist attack inside Israel. The deadliest day in Israeli history resulted in the deaths of over 1400 people, including more than 32 Americans, thousands injured, and over 240 civilians and soldiers taken into Gaza as hostages, at least a handful of which are Americans. Now entering the fourth week of the conflict, we have seen reactions from terrorists and violent extremists across the ideological spectrum who are exploiting the renewed salience of the Israeli-Palestinian issue for their own causes, often threatening attacks against particularly US Israeli and Jewish interests worldwide.

(26:34)
Now, this comes at a time when the intelligence community had been tracking an overall reduced threat emanating from terrorist actors in the Middle East and was focused on a more discreet, though geographically dispersed, terrorist threat. How this conflict unfolds in the coming days, weeks, and months, and the degree to which it helps renew otherwise declining terrorist actors across the globe, will require careful monitoring. Let me review the terrorist actors of most concern in the current environment and those who are most likely to shape the future of the threat to the United States.

(27:11)
In the United States homeland, Jewish, Arab and Muslim communities are facing a heightened threat environment. Here, we remain concerned about lone actors mobilizing to violence against innocent civilians inspired by Hamas’ attacks or by other groups’ calls for terrorism. This is consistent with our years-long assessment that the individual or small cells of violent extremists, whether inspired by Al-Qaeda, by ISIS, by a racial or ethnic animus or other causes, are the most likely to carry out a successful attack in the United States or Europe. In addition to lone actors, hierarchically organized groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS remain of concern. They are seeking to capitalize on this moment, to galvanize supporters, and organize for attacks. Their ability to do so from their core operating arenas is much diminished after years of counter-terrorism pressure, but we are monitoring closely any attempts to leverage this crisis to rebuild or refocus against the United States.

(28:17)
Of particular concern are the ISIS and Al-Qaeda affiliates in West and East Africa, the Al-Qaeda branch in Yemen, and the ISIS branch that is operating out of Afghanistan. More regionally, Iran and its proxies are a significant concern, principally for their ability to generate attacks in the Middle East that could have significant escalatory consequences. While we have no intelligence to indicate that Iran or its proxies had foreknowledge of Hamas’ 7 October attack, we remain focused on Iranian and Iranian-linked activity in support of Hamas and directed against the United States since the conflict’s outbreak already. Iranian-aligned militant groups have conducted over 24 attacks against US forces in Iraq and Syria using rockets and unmanned aerial systems. This is an addition to the daily attacks on Israel by Lebanese Hezbollah, and at least three instances of Israel-focused missile and UAS attacks by the Yemen-based Houthis.

(29:22)
While these groups have the capability to conduct more sophisticated attacks than they have thus far demonstrated, we assess Iran, Hezbollah, and their linked proxies are trying to calibrate their activity, avoiding actions that would open up a concerted second front with the United States or Israel, while still exacting costs in the midst of the current conflict. This is a very fine line to walk, and in the present regional context, their actions carry the potential for miscalculation, thus requiring heightened scrutiny in the region as we monitor for signs that the conflict could spread.

Now, Iran’s calibrations today come in contrast to its more aggressive posture globally over the last several years. This includes its plotting in the United States where, for example, it attempted several times to intact an anti-Iran activist and it has sought to retaliate against former US government officials that it deems responsible for the 2020 death of Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani. And for its part, in addition to being a regional political and paramilitary organization, Lebanese Hezbollah is a globally capable terrorist organization. Its last successful extra regional attack was in 2012 when it attacked Israeli tourists in Bulgaria, killing seven and wounding at least 30. Now it is clear that over the years, significant CT pressure brought to bear against terrorist groups, along with investment in effective CT defenses here at home, has resulted in an overall diminished threat to the United States Homeland. This is true even in the current context of a heightened environment that’s tied to the Israel-Hamas conflict.

(31:11)
However, as evidenced by the events of the past month, the terrorist threat landscape is highly dynamic and our country must preserve CT fundamentals to ensure constant vigilance. Among these fundamentals is the intelligence collection enabled by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides key indications and warning on terrorist plans and intentions, supports international terrorist disruptions, enables critical intelligence support to, for instance, border security, and gives us strategic insight into foreign terrorists and their networks overseas. I respectfully urge Congress to reauthorize this vital authority, not only for its CT benefits, but for the value it brings across a range of national security challenges. Another of the United States fundamental CT pillars is found at the National Counter-Terrorism Center, which I am fortunate to lead, and CTC serves as the primary organization in the United States Government to analyze and integrate international terrorism information.

(32:17)
We conduct strategic operational planning for CT activities, we ensure all agencies have access to and receive needed support to execute CT plans, and we serve as the central and shared knowledge bank on known and suspected international terrorism and terrorist groups. My organization is part of a whole of government CT architecture that must work across a spectrum of the threat landscape to quickly identify new threats and overcome enduring challenges that might allow space for terrorists to advance attacks. The United States must be careful to preserve this CT architecture to address an inherently unpredictable range of terrorist adversaries, even as we confront a myriad of other national security challenges that play out both overseas and here in the United States. Let me end with a thanks to the CT professionals of the intelligence, diplomatic, military and law enforcement communities, whose dedication to the CT mission has done so much to protect this country from terrorism. It is a community that the United States has relied upon time and again and today is no different. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Director Abizaid. I want to start off the hearing with a little bit of important housekeeping for our witnesses here. I want to remind our witnesses of your responsibility to respond to inquiries and requests from Congress. The oversight responsibilities that we have here in Congress are our core facet of our democracy, and the executive branch and the executive branch officials must be responsive to a request from members of this committee. Questions for the record should be answered promptly and accurately, which is not what we have been seeing.

(34:12)
Director Wray, there are instances where questions for the record are not answered by the FBI until over a year after the hearing has taken place. In fact, we still do not have responses to our questions, for the record, from last year’s threats hearing. Director Wray, that’s simply unacceptable. You have had a year waiting for OMB clearance and that’s simply not a valid excuse. We do not accept that at all. Can I have your commitment, as well as our other witnesses here, to prioritize QFRs for this hearing and return members’ requests as promptly and as quickly as possible? And what is that timeframe?

Well, certainly you have my commitment that we will do everything in our power to move the QFRs, the Questions For the Record as quickly as possible. As your question noted, unlike correspondence exchange, QFRs, Questions For the Record, have to go through this interagency OMB clearance process, so we don’t have complete control over that, but I will do everything in my power to try to expedite and move that process along to the extent that it’s within my power.

Well, I hope your power is enough to do it in less than a year, considerably, like other agencies all across government do. Secretary Mayorkas?

Mr. Chairman, you have our commitment.

Director?

You have my commitment as well.

Great, thank you. All three of you have spent a great deal of time in your opening comments talking about the increased threat as a result of the conflict in the Middle East. Also want to bear in mind that we’ve seen hate crimes increase even prior to this conflict. I think the FBI report shows a 36% increase in anti-Semitic hate crimes occurring before the war as well. This is indeed a significant threat and I appreciate all of you focusing on that in your opening comments. But Secretary Mayorkas, one tool that we have to protect nonprofit organizations, particularly houses of worship, is the Nonprofit Security Grant Program. Could you tell this committee how important that program is and the need for additional resources to protect particularly houses of worship?

Mr. Chairman, the Nonprofit Security Grant Program is of vital importance to faith-based and other nonprofit institutions around the country. The funding that we distribute to thousands of such organizations enable them to secure their facilities so individuals of all faiths can attend their places of worship in a safe and secure environment. Whether it’s the installation of cameras, the employment of security guards, other important security features, the funding we provide enables target-rich and very often resource-poor institutions to equip and empower themselves to keep their facilities safe. It is of vital importance and that is why we have requested additional funds of Congress for that program.

Thank you. Secretary, the potential terrorist use of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agency agents is one of the most serious threats to our nation, as you mentioned in your opening comments. And you play a critical role in addressing these weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, the lapse in the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism standards, commonly referred to as CFATs, authorities in July has undoubtedly weakened DHS’s ability to regulate high risk chemical facilities storing these weaponized chemicals. Could you explain a little bit more in depth what vulnerabilities were created when CFAT’s program expired in July and why it’s so essential that we extend those authorities?

Mr. Chairman, we review the security procedures that facilities around the country adhere to, or are supposed to adhere to, when they store and work with chemicals that can be used for destructive purposes. And as I said in my opening statement, about a third of the time upon our review, we find deficiencies in the security protocols and a deficiency means a vulnerability. Whether it’s in the improper storage or it’s in the hoarding of particular chemicals without the appropriate safeguards, whether it’s the failure to vet individuals who deal with high level security chemicals, the vulnerabilities that are created by the inability for us to enforce the chemical anti-terrorism facility standards is really a significant problem for our homeland security. I do respectfully urge Congress to renew that authority for us, especially at this time of a heightened threat environment.

Secretary, we also have another authority, the CWMD office that basically serves as the focal point for the DHS to counter these threats and others. That will expire on December 21st of ’23. Could you explain as to why it’s so important that we have an extension of that critical authority?

Mr. Chairman, we see adverse nation states conduct research with respect to their capacity to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States of America in the future. I met with our workforce in our CWMD office just this past Friday, our Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction office. They are fearful that their critical authorities that they employ every day to keep the homeland safe will indeed expire. I gave them cautious, cautious assurance that Congress would not allow that to happen because of the criticality of the authority that we employ every day.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Ranking Member Paul, you’re recognized for your questions.

Secretary Mayorkas, is DHS still meeting with social media companies to discuss content moderation?

Ranking Member Paul, you and I have discussed this before. We do not meet with social media companies for the purpose of instructing them to take down content.

You have never had any meetings with the social media companies to discuss content moderation?

What we have done in the past, Ranking Member Paul, as I shared with you previously, is we along with other federal agencies, have met with social media companies in a public-private partnership to speak of the threats to the homeland so that those companies are alert to them. We do not instruct them-

Do you think a threat to the homeland is a discussion of vaccine efficacy?

I do not, Ranking Member Paul, and I should say-

If you’ll have your staff read, and I think it’d be good for you to read also, the Missouri versus Biden case. It lists time and time again discussion of constitutionally protected speech that has nothing to do with national security. When you say you didn’t meet to do that, yes, you were meeting, you just disagree with the characterization of it. Were you meeting with social media companies to discuss content moderation? Your answer to that is no?

What my answer-

That’s the specific question. Did you meet with them and were you meeting with them to discuss content on the internet?

My answer remains the same, Ranking Member Paul, that we met on a periodic basis with other federal agencies and a group of social media companies to speak with them about the threat environment that the homeland faced.

Right, and this included discussion of vaccine efficacy, mask efficacy, Hunter Biden’s laptop. Are these meetings still occurring?

Ranking member Paul, they are not. We do not participate in any such meetings.

And the reason the meetings aren’t occurring is because a federal judge placed an injunction on you and the Biden administration acknowledged that they’re not having the meetings. You at least acknowledge that the court is talking to you about this and saying what you were doing was violating the First Amendment. Director Wray, same question. Is the FBI still meeting with social media companies?

We are having some interaction with social media companies, but all of those interactions have changed fundamentally in the wake of the court’s rulings.

That’s an acknowledgement that perhaps you weren’t just talking about national security, child pornography and human trafficking, right? You had other areas of discussion that did involve constitutionally protected speech?

No, no, that’s not an acknowledgement of that.

Well then, how did you change your behavior?

Out of an abundance of caution, in order to make sure that we don’t run afoul of any court ruling, I would say, by the way, of course, that the injunction has been stayed by the Supreme Court.

Did anybody from the FBI ever discuss constitutionally protected speech with social media organizations?

Not to my understanding.

Vaccine efficacy? Never discussed any post concerning vaccine efficacy?

Well, certainly not because to my understanding, as you know, the FBI was the first, and for a long time, the only agency in the intelligence community to assess that the COVID origin was most likely from a lab leak. The idea that we were engaging-

I commend you for that, but the Twitter files and other indications, as well as in Missouri versus Biden, list many cases of both DHS and FBI discussing constitutionally protected speech, vaccine efficacy, mask efficacy. People who said, “My brother got the vaccine and died yesterday,” and the brother actually did die, but proof of cause and effect is one thing, but taking down posts like that was part of the discussion in these meetings.

Not by the FBI. We would not have been engaging with social media companies about vaccine efficacy to my knowledge, certainly.

Director Wray, in 2017, the Department of Justice issued subpoenas to members of the House Intelligence Committee, congressional staffers, as well as Senate Judiciary Committee staffers to turn over private information. Were you involved with that investigation? Aware of it at the time?

I’m not familiar with that specific investigation.

This had to do with the leaks, I believe, we have never been told completely, but the leaks concerning the Crossfire hurricane and the leaks concerning the conversation between Flynn and Kislyak that was wiretapped, that was classified, that somehow got out. But you’re not aware of anybody from the Congress being investigated?

Well, as I sit here right now, that’s not something that’s ringing a bell for me.

Do you see a problem with the Department of Justice issuing subpoenas to congressional staffers who are providing oversight to the very organization that’s issuing the subpoenas?

Well, certainly anytime there’s an investigative activity that touches upon a separate branch of government, namely the legislative branch. It has to be done extraordinarily carefully and there are all kinds of policies that the department has in place to make sure that that’s done appropriately.

Director Wray, did the FBI pay Twitter money to moderate content moderation?

I’m not aware of us paying money to moderate content, there or anywhere else.

What was the $3 million for that the FBI gave that’s been revealed in Twitter files, which has been characterized by those writing the Twitter files as payment for content moderation? Basically they said Twitter, you guys were meeting with them all the time and you had them taking down so many posts. They said, “Well, gosh, it’s a lot of work. Why don’t you pay us?” And so you did. You paid them $3 million. Are you aware of the payment?

I’m not aware of that specific payment, but I can tell you that when it comes to payments going back well over four decades, when we are required by federal law, when a company, like in this instance a provider, goes through expenses to produce information, we’re required to reimburse them for those expenses. I think that a lot of the questions about payments revolve around exactly that.

And you will repeat under oath that there was never any discussion of the FBI to take down constitutionally protected speech? You think it’s all national security, child pornography, sex trafficking, no discussion of constitutionally protected speech? Because this is all going to come out and a lot of it’s come out already in depositions. But you’re saying there was never any discussion, by any of your agents in any of these meetings, of constitutionally protected speech being taken down?

To my knowledge, our agents conducted themselves in compliance with the law throughout.

Same question to Secretary Mayorkas. You’re not aware of your agents ever discussing any constitutionally protected speech with any of the social media companies?

The same answer as Director Wray provided to you, Ranking Member Paul.

Thank you, Ranking Member Paul. Senator Hassan, you’re recognized for your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you and the ranking member for having this hearing. To our witnesses, thank you for being here today. Thank you for your work, and please thank the women and men who serve with you for their extraordinary work all directed at keeping us safe, secure, and free. I want to start with a question to Secretary Mayorkas and Director Wray. We’re dealing with a constantly evolving fentanyl epidemic in this country. Transnational criminal organizations in China and Mexico change tactics frequently, but they continue to be responsible for the vast quantities of fentanyl that is smuggled into the United States. An issue that I and other senators raised with senior Chinese leaders last month, including President Xi, on our recent bipartisan CODEL. Some Chinese exporters even advertise their ability to evade customs and inspections and seizures as they advertise the availability of precursors. When it comes to US law enforcement, what specific steps are DHS and the FBI taking to disrupt and dismantle the transnational criminal organizations that are supplying chemical precursors and manufacturing and smuggling fentanyl and other drugs into the US? And we’ll start with you, Mr. Secretary.

Senator, we have a multi- pronged approach to the scourge of fentanyl and attacking the transnational criminal organizations that pedal and smuggle in it. We have transnational criminal investigative units resident in other countries to dismantle and disrupt the cartels, along with our law enforcement partners in those countries. We have operations here that our personnel undertake to stop the flow of precursor chemicals, to interdict the equipment that is used in the manufacture of fentanyl and to interdict the finished product. Operation Blue Lotus is one example. Operation Artemis, and so many others, we have surged our personnel and resources to in fact interdict more fentanyl than ever before.

Thank you. Director Wray?

We’re participating in a number of ways. I think the first that I would mention is our Safe Streets task forces are focused on the gangs that are here distributing fentanyl and other dangerous drugs. We just, for example, just this past month, I guess in September, our Phoenix office working with our partners seized something like 400,000 pills. That kind of seizure is becoming almost routine. There’s the distribution side here by the gangs, our transnational organized crime task forces are focused on the cartel leadership, the source of supply. We have, I think, 380 investigations just into cartel leadership that we’re conducting. We also, I think a third I would mention is we have something called JCODE, which focuses on dark net trafficking and dismantling dark net marketplaces of fentanyl and other substances.

(50:48)
We also have things like a prescription drug initiative that’s focused on pill mills and the providers that contribute to the problem. And then on the last thing I think I would mention is we do a number of things to try to raise awareness. A while back, working with DEA, for example, we put out a movie called Chasing the Dragon, which was put into schools everywhere. And we have a number of similar outreach efforts to try to reach students and others on the awareness side. Distribution, supply, dark net, prescription drugs and awareness.

Thank you very much and thank you for your efforts. I want to follow up on another theme that Director Wray raised in his testimony, and I’ll actually pose this to Director Abizaid and Director Wray; after Hamas’ attack in Israel, I think we’ve all grown concerned, and Director Wray, you mentioned it, that the attack will embolden other terrorist organizations. Have the Hamas terrorist attacks been used by other terrorist organizations in their messaging and propaganda? And I’ll start with you, Director Abizaid.

Yes, it’s absolutely been a feature of messaging and propaganda since the attacks. We’ve seen it from Al-Qaeda affiliates, almost every single one. We’ve also seen it from ISIS, which ideologically isn’t aligned with a group like Hamas, but is still leveraging this current conflict to try and sow the kind of violence, bring adherence to its cause in an exploitative way.

Okay. And Director Wray, how does the FBI assess the impact of this propaganda on the threat of homeland violent extremists or other lone wolf actors?

We have for some time expressed concern, including in our hearings with this committee each fall, that lone actors, homegrown violent extremists inspired by foreign terrorist organizations are in many ways the biggest threat we face here in the homeland. And those lone actors will draw inspiration from all sorts of things. And so to have this many foreign terrorist organizations this explicitly calling for attacks, significantly, as I said in my opening statement, significantly takes the threat level, the threat environment, the risk, to a whole ‘nother level here.

Thank you. A question for Director Wray and Secretary Mayorkas, really following up again on that theme, Hamas’ depraved terrorist attack against Israel and the resulting war has really shaken Jewish, Muslim, and other communities all across the world. And Hamas’ attack comes amid a growing crisis of violence against religious communities in the United States. New Hampshire Jewish leaders tell me that their congregants are scared to go to synagogue. They are scared to attend, even in the cases where a synagogue is able to hire private security to protect worship services. What are your organization’s assessment of domestic threats against religious communities following Hamas’ terrorist attack and what steps are your organizations taking to protect houses of worship and other faith-based organizations? And we’ll start with you, Mr. Secretary, and then Director Wray.

Senator, we are indeed, as Director Wray communicated, in a heightened threat environment. We in the Department of Homeland Security, in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are taking a number of steps. We are providing information and intelligence to our state, local, tribal, territorial, and campus law enforcement partners. We issued a joint intelligence bulletin together in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of October 7th. We are distributing funding, as Chairman Peters referenced, through our nonprofit security grant program to further secure places of worship. We are engaging extensively with faith communities, speaking with them about the steps they can take to ensure that the individuals who practice, continue to practice their faith, which is so foundational, are able to do so with a sense of security. We have protective security advisors in each state throughout the country who are providing critical advice to faith communities, and communities by the way, of all faiths.

Thank you, and briefly, Director Wray.

We are tackling it both through investigations and outreach and intelligence sharing. Investigations, both through all 56 joint terrorism task forces, and on the hate crime side, we’ve elevated hate crimes to a national threat priority. We’ve done lots of outreach with the Jewish community, both nationally with organizations, I’ve personally participated any number of times, and then each of our field offices does as well. We’ve done active shooter training for those houses of worship, et cetera, but the reality is that the Jewish community is uniquely, uniquely targeted by pretty much every terrorist organization across the spectrum. And when you look at a group that makes up 2.4% roughly of the American population, it should be jarring to everyone that that same population accounts for something like 60% of all religious-based hate crimes. And so they need our help.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, thank you for your indulgence.

Thank you, Senator Hassan. Senator Johnson, you’re recognized for your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Mayorkas, I think you’re familiar with my chart. I started developing this as chairman of this committee. Dates back quite a few years now. It’s changed over the years. It used to be titled Southwest Border Apprehensions. That’s back in the good old days when we actually apprehended, detained, and oftentimes deported. For some reason… Well, I know the reason, that under your administration, you’ve changed it now to encounters. Now it’s titled Southwest Border Encounters because now we encounter, we process and disperse, and it seems like your solution to the self-inflicted wound to America is we’ve just gotten more efficient at processing. I can’t quite honestly think of a greater threat to America than what is represented by this chart. And this chart represents this administration’s open border policy. It’s a travesty. Director Wray, you said in your testimony, the threats, they’re not getting any easier to deal with. Would having a secure border, would that make your job easier?

Well, I will let Secretary Mayorkas speak for border security, but I will tell you that the threats that we have to contend with that are attributed to the border; cartel violence, distribution of fentanyl, et. cetera, are a major-

I have limited time. The answer is yes. Your job would be a whole lot easier if you weren’t having to deal with over 70,000 special interest aliens coming from countries that are of concern to us. Your job would be a whole lot easier if this year we hadn’t actually encountered 169 people on the Terror Watch List. Secretary Mayorkas, I’ve asked you this in the past. What numbers are represented here? How many people has this administration let in by encountering, processing, dispersing, or that have come in as a known or unknown gotaway. Approximately, I don’t need an exact number. What do we got?

Senator, let me say-

I need numbers. Again, don’t filibuster me. How many people has this administration let into the country?

Let me say at the outset that our job would be a lot easier if the broken immigration system was fixed once and for all.

No, Mr. Secretary, I want a number. How many people have you let into this country?

I should also comment-

Okay, I’ll give you the number. It’s about 6 million, about 1.7 million as known gotaways. Now, again, we don’t know who these people are, we just know that they’ve come to this country and they’re residing somewhere. Where are all these people residing? Where did the 6 million people go?

Senator, you speak of encounters and let me share with you-

No, would you answer my questions? Where did these 6 million people go? Are you keeping track of them? To what extent do we have a handle on where these 6 million people are in America?

Senator, as you well know, when an individual is indeed released, they are released into immigration enforcement proceedings and are subject to removal if they do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States.

You’re not answering the question. Where do these people reside? We know we’ve got about 100,000 in New York. And New York Mayor Adams says it will destroy New York. That’s, by the way, less than 2%

… 2% of the 6 million people. So less than 2% 100,000 is going to destroy New York. What’s happening around the country? I’m not going to get answers from Secretary Mayorkas, so Director Wray, what are you doing to track these people and investigate the potential threat?

So we are tackling it through a variety. It means that there are some categories I would put kind of in the terrorist watch list category. And there, it’s our joint terrorism task forces that are working with partners throughout the law enforcement community to try to identify-

How many agents… How many agents do you have tasked to investigate potential terror threats coming into this country and those 6 million people, and particularly the 1.7 million got-aways. How many agents are on investigating that flow of illegal immigrants?

Well, I don’t know that I can give you the exact number, but let me try to-

Give me a ballpark. Ballpark. Is it-

Let me it this way.

Is it a hundred? Is it a couple hundred? Is it… I mean, just a ballpark.

Well, I would say we have several hundred agents who are tackling the threats that come from the border, both from a national security side, a counter-terrorism side, and from an organized crime or violent crime side.

So how does that compare to the number of agents you had on, for example, investigating the January 6th protesters? How many agents… At the height of that investigation, how many FBI agents were assigned to that task force?

Well, I don’t have exact numbers, but what I would tell you is that I-

A ballpark. A ballpark.

I feel relatively confident that the number of agents working on threats that are attributable to the border far exceeds the number of people working on the January 6th investigations.

What about the height of the January 6th investigations?

Same answer.

Same deal. Okay. Mr. Secretary Mayorkas, what is the average… or the range of trafficking fees? I mean, because by the way, we have a 100% secure border on the Mexican side, right? I mean, very few people are crossing into this country without going through human traffickers, so they have to pay a trafficking fee. What is that range of trafficking fees?

When you speak of trafficking, Senator, you mean smugglers?

No, I’m talking about the human traffickers. The people coming across are paying what? A $7,000 fee? A 10,000? A 15? What is that range?

Several thousand dollars per person.

How do they pay that off? How does a young woman pay off $10,000 to $15,000 human trafficking fee?

Tragically, Senator, they often spend their entire life savings to pay a small-

Well, they also tragically get put into the human sex trade. Correct?

There are all sorts-

Director Wray, are you investigating that? Are we busting up some… We saw The Sound of Freedom, that that movie. What investigations are you doing in terms of the sex trade that is going on because of the Biden administration’s open border policy?

We have a number of task forces that are focused on human trafficking, especially sex trafficking all across the country. And last year, we rounded up, I think, maybe a thousand or so predators of that sort. And so that’s probably the main vehicle through which we’re tackling this, which is a significant, significant problem.

Of the 3000 special interest aliens coming from these countries that are of concern to ours, how many of those people are you keeping track of? What happens to them? Are we detaining them? Are we deporting them? Or are we granting them asylum?

Well, as to deportation and asylum, I would leave that to the agencies that handle that.

But you’re aware of the 73,000 special interest aliens, correct?

But I’m aware of special interest aliens. I don’t have the numbers.

What are you doing to track them?

So if we have a fully predicated, appropriately predicated investigation, then those people are squarely within scope of those investigations.

How many active investigations do you have on 73,000 special interest aliens?

I don’t have that number here. I can see if that’s something we can get for you in a follow-up.

You can expect a Q-fer for on that one. Thanks.

Thank you, Senator Johnson. Senator Sinema, you’re recognized for your questions.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Fiscal year 2023 saw a record number of encounters in the Tucson sector, over 350,000 individuals. Arizona continues to bear the brunt of the federal government’s failure on the border. For years now, Arizona communities have stepped up to do the federal government’s job, and managed migrants released from CBP facilities. But recently that problem has become even worse. Since September 12th of this year, over 10,000 migrants have been released into small communities across Arizona. These communities have been forced to step in to provide emergency support to migrants without sufficient resources. In Bisbee, a town of about 5,000 people without bus service to either Tucson or Phoenix, local leaders turned the city council chambers into an emergency shelter so that migrants would no longer be dumped in a grocery store parking lot.

(01:04:58)
Now this is not the time for partisan rhetoric. Our current system is not working and communities and migrants are suffering. Our communities are in crisis, and dangerous drugs like fentanyl are killing thousands of Americans each year. We must make meaningful, lasting change to solve these issues and secure our border, keep Arizona families safe, and ensure that migrants are treated fairly and humanely.

(01:05:19)
My first question is for you, Secretary Mayorkas. Since September, the southwest border was so overwhelmed by migrant encounters that CBP has reassigned port officers from southwest borderland ports of entry to help process migrants. These reassignments have increased wait times at Arizona ports, and operations were recently suspended at the Bridge of America’s port in Texas. Reassigning port officers hinders legal trade and travel between the U.S. and Mexico, and has an immediate impact on the economies of border states. Our border ports are already under strain from the border crisis because they’re processing hundreds of migrants each day. They cannot afford to lose more officers. So what steps is DHS taking to return southwest border port officers to their ports, and to prevent the need for such reassignments in the future?

Senator, thank you very much. And you and I have spoken about the challenge in the Tucson sector. We’re taking a number of steps. Number one, we achieved an enforcement milestone in negotiating with Venezuela our ability to repatriate Venezuelan nationals who do not qualify for relief in the United States. Since then, we have seen a significant drop in the number of individuals from Venezuela encountered at our southern border.

(01:06:32)
Two, we have sought from Congress additional funds for the hiring of additional field office personnel in Customs and Border Protection and other resources to address the chronically underfunded U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other federal agencies.

(01:06:53)
And three, we are hopeful that the broken immigration system under which we operate will be fixed.

Thank you. As you know, Arizona communities are at a breaking point. We don’t have sufficient resources to handle the high numbers of migrants, and the Shelter in Services program is not doing enough to support them. One of the major issues is that FEMA is not allowing any margin of error for A-numbers. We’ve spoken about this before. With so many migrants being released each day, the NGOs are struggling to keep up, and there’s a natural amount of human error. FEMA has stated that there’s no allowance for human error, and anytime there’s a mistake in an A-number, the NGO does not receive reimbursement for services for that migrant. Additionally, handling a set of A-numbers without any guidelines or best practices creates significant liability for Arizona’s NGOs.

(01:07:40)
As you and I have spoken, I’ve requested that FEMA, and indeed said that they must, include a 3-5% allowance for a margin of error for recording A-numbers. FMA must also include guidance for NGOs on how to safely handle this sensitive information. Is this something that DHS can administer and implement administratively? And if so, will you commit to working with me to support the NGO network in protecting confidentiality and providing services?

Senator, I do commit to working with you, to continuing to work with you on this issue. There is a tension here. On the one hand, you correctly identify the potential for human error and how we need to accommodate for that. On the other hand, what we do not want to do is distribute funds to an organization for the processing of an individual who has evaded law enforcement, and not been processed and put into immigration enforcement proceedings. We will work with you, and you have my commitment.

Thank you. This question is for the panel. Earlier this month, the FBI and DHS issued a joint public service announcement warning of an increase of reports of threats against Jewish, Muslim, and Arab communities and institutions due to the horrific terrorist attack in Israel and the ongoing Israel- Hamas war.

(01:08:54)
From the senseless murder of a 6-year-old boy in Illinois to over 300 recorded anti-Semitic incidents between October 7th and October 23rd, hate and the threat of hate-based violence is exploding across the country. Director Wray, what additional steps is the FBA taking to track hate-based violence across the United States, and what additional support do you need from Congress? And for Secretary Mayorkas and Director Abiyat?

Abizaid.

Abizaid. How… I mean, I was not close at all. How does the accuracy of data regarding hate-based violence or threats of violence help your organizations better protect the U.S.? Director Wray?

So we’ve done a number of things. First, we’ve increased the outreach to state and local law enforcement and others to improve the reporting of hate crimes, as well as outreach to faith-based communities. Because one of the things we know about hate crimes is that there are chronically under-reported, so we’ve had a lot of engagement there, and that undoubtedly contributes to the increase in reported hate crimes.

(01:09:58)
But in addition to that, we’ve created a domestic terrorism hate crimes fusion cell to try to get at offenses hate-based, violent extremist offenses against the faith-based communities, which could be either domestic terrorism or hate crimes. And so the idea was to bring the expertise of both together. That has in turn led to some of the first proactive hate crimes cases, including in particular, the one that I can think of, is a disruption of a attempted bombing of a synagogue.

(01:10:28)
So we’ve had a number of cases like that that we’re doing. So we’ve also elevated hate crimes to a national threat priority. So it’s extensive outreach to faith-based communities, and it’s extensive investigations. Just in the few years that I’ve been director, we’ve had quite a number of attacks or attempted attacks on synagogues that we have disrupted. Attempted bombings of synagogues in Colorado and Nevada, attempted shootings up of synagogues in California. Obviously, we had the Colleyville situation. I personally have been to the crime scene at Tree of Life. So it is a major problem and something we’re actively engaged in.

Senator… Forgive me. Senator, the tracking of information enables us to most ably and efficiently allocate the resources we have to the communities most in need at a particular time.

And Senator, our organization is focused on the foreign nexus of a threat, and anything that helps us better understand what’s happening here domestically, and understanding in the context of the global environment is critically important. So whether that’s racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist attacks here, in Brazil, in Bratislava, whether that’s Al-Qaeda or ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks here, or in any other part of the world, that total picture of the global threat environment is absolutely critical to our understanding.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator Sinema. Senator Lankford, you’re recognized for your questions.

Chairman, thank you. Thank you all for being here. Secretary Mayorkas, let me set a context piece in here that you know extremely well. You served during the Obama administration as well, and working on immigration issues. And you and I have spoken about this often, and you’ve been very clear to be able to say the system is broken. In fact, the last time we had this hearing, we had the same conversation. I pulled a quote on it. You said, “The asylum system is broken. Our entire immigration system is broken. There’s unanimity about that. We have hope that Congress will reform a broken system.”

(01:12:35)
I went back and pulled the asylum numbers from 2010 to be able to see how many asylum requests did we have across our southwest border in 2010. In 2010, we had 21,000 asylum requests for the year across our southwest border. Now we often have that in three days. It’s an enormous shift. You also had a piece that you just put out, an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, where you state that “The supplemental funding request is not a long-term solution to a deep-seated problem. We need changes in our national immigration law.” So I’d like to zero in on that conversation today.

(01:13:17)
What are the key changes that need to happen in the law? And I’m going to go through quite a few issues here. Hit the high points. What are the things that need to be able to change?

Senator, we need a functioning system that marries labor supply with labor demand. We need a functioning system in the asylum arena so that our core value of providing humanitarian relief to those in need who qualify is actually executed with efficiency and with speed, and the ability to remove individuals who do not qualify is similarly executed with efficiency and speed.

(01:13:59)
We need to provide a lawful pathway to citizenship for so many millions of people who have been resident in the United States and productive contributors to our country’s prosperity. We need to take care of the young people who know no home other than America, the Dreamers who have contributed so much. Those are some of the elements-

[inaudible 01:14:22], several of those things don’t reduce the number of people coming. They’re dealing with people that are already physically present here. And as you and I both know, if there’s a family member physically present here, that incentivizes another family member to be able to come and to be able to join them. That actually accelerates the process. When we have 21,000 people requesting asylum in 2010, and we have millions now, how do we reduce that flow specifically on asylum? Is it clarifying the definition of asylum? What is that that needs to happen on asylum?

So we have taken important steps in that regard within the context of a broken immigration system-

Is policy changes needed?

Yes, policy changes are needed. But let me, if I may, Senator, provide context. We have currently right now in the world the greatest number of displaced individuals in decades and decades. And that is true with respect to our hemisphere.

I get it. I get it. But I don’t mean to interrupt on this. I’m limited on time. But that doesn’t excuse… for instance, the Wall Street Journal had a piece this past week about 45,000 Indians coming to the United States to request asylum, and it tracks the different flights to different countries they are going through, including France, to be able to get to the United States, to be able to catch a flight, to be able to get a truck, to be able to come over to our border and request asylum.

(01:15:43)
So it’s a very different thing to be able to say we have migration happening around the country when really what we have is a pull factor, one of the greatest economies in the world that people that want to be able to come here to work, go through the process to be able to do whatever it takes to be able to get here because then they can request asylum and cross our border. They’re going through multiple other countries that would definitely be safe countries to be able to go in, but they want to come to the United States, and I don’t blame them. It’s a great country. But they’re not coming through a legal pathway in that. They’re coming through with an asylum definition that’s so broad that it’s inviting them to come, and it’s just accelerating. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Senator, there are many different concepts that you articulated in the statement proceeding the question you posed to me. The asylum system needs to be reformed from top to bottom.

Okay. All right. I’ll be glad to be able to jump in on that. It’s been interesting. A lot of people don’t know this, that a lot of people are coming across the border, they’re remaining to go through a series of hearings for something called withholding. That is a number that’s rapidly rising as well. Are there changes needed in clarification to be able to make sure that decisions can be made faster on the issue of withholding?

Yes. Senator, you were speaking of withholding of removal?

Yes.

It is one element. The companion element is the convention against torture. Our system needs to be able to work efficiently and expeditiously while not compromising due process.

How do we deal with recalcitrant countries as well? You’ve dealt with that in Venezuela, for instance, as you mentioned earlier. We’re now one year into the Venezuela program. If we go back a year ago, we had about 22,000 Venezuelans that are coming through in a month. This past September we had 66,000 in a month that came across. You’ve now made an agreement with Venezuela. They’re accepting people back. And as you mentioned before, the numbers dropped dramatically. When suddenly we’re actually not allowing people to come in, it goes from 66,000 in one month to when we start returning people, suddenly, that number drops dramatically. Things haven’t changed in Venezuela, but they’ve changed in how we’re applying that policy, and we saw a dramatic decrease in the numbers there.

(01:17:52)
So recalcitrant countries is where I want to be able to start. Is there a need to be able to qualify that? And the second one, is there a lesson to be learned from what’s happening in Venezuela that we actually are consistent in returning people back? There’s a more immediate consequence. We get an immediate drop in numbers.

Senator, our model is to build lawful pathways and to deliver consequences for individuals who do not avail themselves of those lawful pathways. Our ability to repatriate create individuals to the countries of origin when they do not qualify for relief under our laws is of vital importance. And what we have been able to accomplish with respect to Venezuela is a very powerful example of that.

Okay. You asked for additional funding for detention beds there. What is the right number to be able to have to be able to process individuals near the border, to be able to make decisions, and to be able to respond rather than having to release so many individuals on their own recognizance and saying, “We’ll follow up with you in the days ahead. We don’t have time to process now.”

Senator, we have been employing expedited removal as one-

But most people are actually not removed quickly. Though they have the title “expedited removal,” it may be years before they’re actually removed.

We actually have been able to remove people under that process expeditiously as its title would indicate. And the additional detention beds that we have sought in our supplemental funding request is to be able to expand expedited removal consistent with the model that I outlined.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Lankford. Senator Rosen, you’re recognized for your questions.

Thank you, Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Paul, and… for holding this important hearing. I also want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. And Secretary Mayorkas, I want to thank you for working with my office and the entire Nevada delegation to ensure that the upcoming Formula 1 Grand Prix, just in a few weeks, has a federal inter-agency security support it needed. We raised that tier rating and we appreciate it.

(01:19:56)
I’m going to go right into border security, Mr. Secretary. As you know, fentanyl is destroying communities across the country. Nevada, no exception. According to the CDC, we lost a staggering 949 Nevadans to opioid overdose deaths in 2021 alone, and the problem only continues to get worse. As I’ve stated before, stopping the influx of these deadly drugs starts by strengthening our border security through a significant increase in resources. That’s why earlier this month, I joined with several of my colleagues in urging President Biden to allocate additional funds and resources to end the flow of fentanyl at our southwest border.

(01:20:36)
So Mr. Secretary, as the Senate considers the administration’s supplemental funding request and looks to prioritize what is most critical for that package, what additional resources can Congress allocate to DHS specifically to strengthen your ability, the department’s ability to detect and intercept fentanyl at our ports of entry so we can address the worsening crisis?

Thank you very much, Senator. The scourge of fentanyl has been building year over year for more than five years. We have sought in the supplemental funding request additional resources for the Department of Homeland Security to combat the fentanyl epidemic. Specifically, we have sought approximately $850 million for enhanced technology, our non-intrusive inspection technology. We have also sought funds for additional officers so that they can deploy to the ports of entry where the predominant amount of fentanyl is smuggled through passenger vehicles and commercial trucks, so that we can interdict more of the fentanyl. We are accomplishing that at an unprecedented level because of the incredible personnel that we have, and the strategies that we are employing to maximize results.

Thank you. I want to move now to something that is a rising, rising antisemitism. How do we counter that? So following Hamas’s brutal October 7th terrorist attack on innocent Israelis, our nation has witnessed a dramatic increase in antisemitic threats and incidents targeting Jewish Americans, including Jewish students being threatened and harassed on college campuses. According to the Anti-Defamation League, reported incidents of antisemitism have increased by 388%… 388% compared to the same period last year. Government agencies have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of Jewish Americans. I’m encouraged that the administration supplemental budget requests includes a significant allocation for the life-saving nonprofit security grant program, which I have been calling for.

(01:23:02)
There is still so much more to be done. Last week, Senator Lankford and I led a bipartisan bicameral letter to DHS and FBI requesting their immediate attention to this crisis, and a briefing on the current threats assessment, the inter-agency coordination efforts, and preparedness and resiliency measures that are in place to prevent and respond to violence against Jewish Americans.

(01:23:27)
So to Secretary Mayorkas and then Director Wray, can you please commit to providing members of Congress with this briefing we asked for, and could you outline the specific actions your agencies are taking to prevent and respond to this alarming rise in antisemitic violence?

Senator, you certainly have my commitment for that briefing. It was just a couple weeks, I think, before the terrorist attacks of October 7th that I attended and spoke at the Eradicate Hate Summit in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and met with survivors of the Tree of Life tragedy. On October 8th, I participated in a convening hosted by the Anti-Defamation League, where more than 700 participants heard for me with respect to the threat landscape, and what we would do to address the aftermath of the horrific terrorist attacks.

(01:24:26)
Since then, we have engaged every day with the Jewish American community as well as other communities of faith that feel under tremendous threat to educate them about the steps they can take to ensure the safety and security of their worshipers and their members. We have deployed our protective security advisors in each state to work with communities of faith. We have shared information and intelligence with our state, local, tribal, territorial, and campus law enforcement partners in partnership with the FBI. I have spoken with a number of leaders of colleges and universities with respect to their need to take leadership, and to ensure the safety and security of the students on their campuses. We are doing a whole series of actions to address this moment.

Thank you. Director Wray.

Absolutely. I look forward to having our folks participate in the briefing that you requested. I will say that this is a threat that is reaching in some ways sort of historic levels, in part because as you know all too well, the Jewish community is targeted by terrorists really across the spectrum. Homegrown violent extremists, foreign terrorist organizations, both Sunni and Shia, domestic violent extremists. And in fact, our statistics would indicate that for a group that represents only about 2.4% of the American public, they account for something like 60% of all religious-based hate crimes. And so we’re trying to do our part both by tackling it through our joint terrorism task forces, hate crime investigations, outreach both nationally and locally at every field office level, intelligence sharing, training. I know I’ve spent a lot of time engaging with SCN, for example, ADL and others, and we also created a fusion cell that brings together the expertise of both our hate crimes folks and our domestic terrorism folks to make sure that we’re seeing the full landscape and doing our best to be proactive in this space.

Thank you both. I look forward to that briefing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Rosen. Senator Scott, you’re recognized for your questions.

Thank you, Chairman Peters. Thank each of you for being here. Thank you, Secretary Mayorkas, for returning my phone call the other day. And Director Wray, thank you again for the change you made to your call center operations after the Parkland shooting.

(01:27:04)
The savage brutality the world witnessed on October 7th and has learned more about over the past three weeks is indescribable. Babies beheaded, we just learned of a young lady beheaded, we have stories of young girls raped and then burned alive, people shot point-blank. It’s just unbelievable. More than 1,400 people, including 33 Americans have been killed. More than 200 people, including Americans, were taken hostage by Iran-backed Hamas terrorists. I think it’s put all of us, and it’s put the world on alert. And I know our Jewish families all across my state and all across the country are pretty scared to death right now, what’s going on.

(01:27:42)
It’s also showed that these terrorists don’t require advanced weapons systems or sophisticated war strategies, and they need guns and vehicles. We saw a similar low tech attack on 9/11. 19 terrorists murdered 2,977 Americans after taking over planes with box cutters. So I’m gravely concerned that our country is once again missing the clear signs of danger, and that the risk of a terror attack on American soil coordinated orchestrated by a foreign terror organization is higher than it’s been in decades.

(01:28:10)
The mission of the FBI begins like this: “To protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats.” Director Wray, so I trust this threat is something you’re clearly focused on, and that’s what you’ve said in your testimony so far today. Everyone, and I know we’ve had a lot of talk about how we’ve gotten here, and there’s a lot of colleagues who have talked about that today, but let’s focus on where we are, and what we ought to be doing next.

(01:28:36)
We also know we have a lot of people in the United States from countries who have large populations of people, and even leadership who hate Jews, just absolutely hate Jews and the American way of life. We know that 70,000 Afghans came into the United States largely unvetted after the botched withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2021. CBP data from between October 2021 and October 2023 shows that agents encountered 6,386 nationals from Afghanistan. So that’s almost 77,000 people from Afghanistan largely unvetted, as well as 659 from Iran, and 538 from Syria. Now let’s remember, it only took 19 terrorists to do 9/11. Agents also encountered 164 people from Lebanon, 139 from Yemen, 123 from Iraq.

(01:29:27)
Director Wray, on Sunday, October 15th, you told reporters that “Here in the U.S., we cannot and do not discount the possibility that Hamas or other foreign terrorist organizations could exploit the conflict to call on their supporters to conduct attacks on our own soil.” I think it’s important to understand that what you’re saying here, and that we have to make it very clear to the American people that the threat of terror is real and rising in the United States, and I think we’d all agree on that.

(01:29:52)
So just to be clear with the American people, what I’m hearing from you today is that the threats are on the rise, and our homeland is at great risk of

Danger. So that’s where we are. So now let’s talk about where we go.

(01:30:04)
So Director Ray, that morning my 11-year-old grandson was with me and so we watched as the Hamas terrorists came across, and started hearing the stories. So I was trying to explain to him what a terrorist is. So how would you define a terrorist?

Well, I think a terrorist is somebody who commits violence in furtherance of some ideology, or political, or social goal. Is probably the best definition I would use. Okay.

In media interviews you have repeatedly spoken about the potential for threats posed by lone wolves. In the wake of the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, is it fair for the American people to interpret this as you or the FBI are not concerned at all with a coordinated attack by foreign terrorists on Americans here, on US soil?

No. That would not be how they should interpret it. That’s why I said we cannot and do not discount it. It is true that over the last several years, and I think Director Abizaid said something similar in her opening statement, that we went through a period where the traditional structured foreign terrorist organization threat in the US subsided some, in favor of this ISIS-inspired, let’s say, attack.

That’s passed.

But while that threat hasn’t gone away, to be clear, that threat has not gone away. What has now increased is the greater possibility of one of these foreign terrorist organizations directing an attack in the United States.

(01:31:33)
We haven’t seen evidence that it’s actually happening yet, but what we have seen is, and I listed them off in my opening remarks, one terrorist organization after another calling for attacks.

So we should wake up.

It is a time to be concerned. We are in a dangerous period.

So the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security issued a report last month warning that foreign terrorist organizations are looking to capitalize on the ability to easily enter the United States at our southern border.

(01:32:03)
So Director Ray, is the FBI able to track all threats and prevent these individuals from conducting an attack on US soil?

I couldn’t say that we were able to detect all individuals. The people that we know about, as Secretary Rumsfeld used to say, the known known, we’re quite good at together with our partners. But it is the unknown, unknown that I worry about quite a bit.

So Director Ray, can you say that we do not have either individual foreign terrorists or terror cells affiliated with foreign groups currently operating in the United States?

Well, we’re not tracking that. But again, I come point back to what it is, the gaps in our intelligence are real. And it’s something that we have concerns about.

So Director Ray, what would you say right now to the American public? Because like in my state, I’ve got a significant Jewish population. They’re scared to go to synagogue, chabad, they’re scared to send their kids to day schools.

(01:33:01)
But it’s not just them. It’s other individuals. My daughters called me and said, should they be sending their kids to school? What would you tell Americans right now about the threat today as compared to before?

This is not a time for panic, but it is a time for vigilance. We shouldn’t stop conducting our daily lives, going to schools, houses of worship and so forth. But we should be vigilant.

(01:33:28)
You often hear the expression, if you see something, say something. That’s never been more true the now. And that’s probably partly why the American people are reporting more tips and leads to us, and we’re pursuing those threats and leads as vigorously and responsibly as we can.

Thank you. Thanks.

[inaudible 01:33:50], Scott.

(01:33:49)
Senator Marshall, you’re recognized for your questions.

Thank you so much. Mr. Secretary, approximately how many illegal aliens in this country, or here on asylum, have direct ties to Hamas, to Hezbollah, to the Islamic Jihad or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran?

Senator Marshall, let me assure you that individuals that pose a risk to our national security are our highest enforcement priority. The safety and security of the American public…

Do you have any idea how many numbers, what those numbers are? Is it tens, is it hundreds? Is it thousands?

An individual who poses a risk to our national security is our highest enforcement priority, and if…

So you don’t know the answer to the question.

And if detention is indeed warranted by reason of the risk they present, then we indeed detain them.

Do you have an answer for my question?

I believe I have answered your question.

No sir, you didn’t. I asked you how many have direct ties to Hamas, Hezbollah, Islam Jihad.

Senator, if an individual is identified as having a nexus to one of those organizations, we would consider them a risk to our national security and take appropriate enforcement action to include, for example-

Thank you.

Detention And removal.

Let’s back up. Will DHS, and when will DHS disclose the countries of origin of people arrested by border patrol on the terrorist watch list?

I’m sorry, can you repeat the question, Senator?

Yep. Will DHS, and when will DHS disclose the countries of origin of people arrested by border patrol on the terrorist watch list?

If you are referring, Senator, to the terrorist screening dataset, just to be precise, I would be pleased to speak with you in the appropriate context. This would not be it.

How many got-aways did CBP record in fiscal year 2023?

I believe, Senator, that number is over 600,000. And as I’m sure you are well aware, the phenomenon of got-aways is something that has been a challenge for the Department of Homeland Security for decades. In fact, it is a powerful example of a broken immigration system. That hopefully-

Thank you. I’m going to talk about Chinese nationals for a second. Would you agree with me that over 18,000 Chinese nationals, many are military-aged young men, have illegally crossed the southern border in fiscal year 2023?

Senator, I don’t have the precise number. But as I said, individuals who are encountered are placed into immigration enforcement proceedings, and if they qualify for asylum-

With all due respect, you would agree with me, it’s over 18,000 though.

I do not have the number at my disposal.

Do You know where the Chinese nationals are settling, where they’re working, why they’re here? How do you follow them?

Senator, if an individual has fled China and seeks asylum, and qualifies for asylum, for example, if they fear persecution…

I understand that.

By reason of their membership in a particular social group…

How do you follow them? That’s not my question. How do you follow them? Do you have a heightened concern for these people?

Senator, if an individual poses a risk to public safety or national security, they are deemed a priority and can be placed in detention if the facts so warrant. If indeed we determine, in the exercise of our law enforcement discretion, that detention is not required because they do not present…

We understand. We understand all that, Mr. Secretary, thank you. I want to go back to got-aways. I’m sure you’ll agree with me that under Mr. Biden, that at least 1.7 million God aways have evaded apprehension at our border.

(01:37:55)
How many of these known got-aways have convictions in their prior country for rape or murder? How many of these known got-aways have been prosecuted and deported?

Three points, Senator. Number one, as I articulated earlier in this hearing, we are seeing a number of displaced individuals throughout our hemisphere that is unprecedented. Number one.

(01:38:16)
Number two, we are dealing with a broken immigration system.

(01:38:19)
Number three, if an individual…

But not going to answer my question.

Three, if an individual…

How many of these known got-aways have committed crimes in the United States since you were sworn in?

Let me assure you that if an individual poses a risk to public safety pursuant to the enforcement guidelines…

But you have no ability to measure that.

Pursuant to the enforcement guidelines that I promulgated on September 30th, 2021, the individual is enforcement…

Many of these known got-aways are trafficking fentanyl?

The individual is an enforcement priority.

How many is known got-aways are trafficking fentanyl?

Senator, we well-know that the trafficking of fentanyl is not specific to a nationality. Tragically, we have individuals from various countries of origin. We have American citizens trafficking in fentanyl. Fentanyl is a scourge that we must all work together to overcome.

Okay, let’s talk about the 169 individuals encountered on the terror watch list between the ports of entry in fiscal year 2023. How many were deported, how many are jailed, how many are still in the country?

Senator, with respect to the individuals on the terrorist screening dataset, I would be pleased to provide you with the numbers in the appropriate context.

Of the over 75,000 special interest aliens who crossed our border illegally this fiscal year, what are their whereabouts? How are you tracking these people?

We have a number of ways of tracking them, Senator. If in fact they present a national security of public safety threat, we very well may detain them. If we do not believe that detention is appropriate, we have alternatives to detention. It’s known by its acronym, ATD. And we have various levels of supervision depending on the enforcement profile that the individual presents.

The folks back home, when they look at the evidence, they see that the DEA seized over 380 million doses of fentanyl in 20 22. 730,00 Americans died from fentanyl poisoning in 2022, mostly young adults, school-aged children, and that 90% of fentanyl comes from our southern border.

(01:40:27)
Considering that just last month our border patrol had almost 270,000 encounters, including 75,000 special interest aliens. Do Americans feel they’re more safe today or less safe today, under the policies of this administration?

Senator, we are taking it to the cartels, to the traffickers of fentanyl, in an unprecedented way with more resources and more efficient and productive operations than ever before.

But you would agree with me that Americans feel less safe today than they did before the start of this administration. And your testimony has only solidified the view that American people, that they don’t have the confidence in the job that you’re doing.

(01:41:11)
This is why I believe the defining issue in this next election is going to be exactly this. Are our families safer today than they were three years ago? Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, Senator Marshall. A little bit of housekeeping.

(01:41:25)
We have votes that have been called, and I’m going to be turning the gavel law over to Senator Blumenthal while I go vote. We have a few more members that have questions. Once we complete that, we’re going to take a break. All three of you have been here for a while, we’ll take roughly a 10-minute break. But we have a few more members that have the questions.

(01:41:42)
So before I hand the gavel over to Senator Blumenthal, Senator Butler, you’re recognized for your questions.

Thank you, Chairman Peters. And I want to thank the witnesses for your service, for your time, and for your testimony.

(01:41:56)
I’d like to pick up, Secretary Mayorkas, with my colleague, Senator Marshall’s, questioning around fentanyl.

(01:42:05)
The Cato Institute published a report in August, 2023, noting that United United States citizens make up 89% of all convictions of Fentanyl trafficking crimes, compared to 8.9% unauthorized immigrants this year.

(01:42:21)
Less than 1% of the people arrested at the border for making unlawful crossings possessed any fentanyl whatsoever. So Secretary Mayorkas, how is the department targeting your fentanyl strategies knowing that the overwhelming majority of our fentanyl traffickers are United States citizens?

Senator? There’s an additional fact that I’d like to share before I answer the question, and that is that more than 90% of the fentanyl that is trafficked across the border actually comes through the ports of entry, predominantly in passenger vehicles and commercial trucks.

(01:42:59)
And therefore, we have surged our resources to the ports of entry. And by resources I mean not only our incredibly talented office of field operations personnel in US Customs and Border Protection, but also our non-intrusive inspection technology and our forward-operating labs.

(01:43:19)
We have surged our resources, and we have done so in a very strategic way through operations that have been developed such as Operation Blue Lotus that yielded tremendous results.

Thank you for that.

(01:43:35)
Director Ray, this year’s DHS Terrorism Bulletin warned that domestic violent extremists we’re expected to target several vulnerable groups, including the LGBTQ+ community. The FBI’s Annual Hate Crimes Statistics Report revealed a 13.8% increase in hate crimes based on sexual orientation, and 32. 9% surge in hate crimes based on gender identity over the previous year.

(01:44:06)
This hatred, I think we all can appreciate, heartbreakingly so, has really impacted communities across the US. In just 20 days, our nation will be commemorating the one-year anniversary of the Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs that led to the deaths of five people, and wounded 17 others.

(01:44:31)
Director Ray, why do you believe that there’s been such a terrifying surge in hate crimes attacking the LGBTQ+ community?

Well, I’m not sure I know the answer. What I would tell you is that, I think it may be part of a broader phenomenon that we’re seeing in this country that people, no matter what their motivation is, no matter what their hatred or their ideology is, are choosing to express that hatred or motive through violence. And that’s where the FBI gets involved.

(01:45:06)
We do know that hate crimes in general are chronically under-reported, and so we’ve been trying to work with all affected communities to improve reporting so that we can have a more accurate picture about how much it’s increasing, and how much individual categories are increasing.

(01:45:23)
But there is a problem, a societal problem right now, of people manifesting hatred through violence. And it’s perfectly appropriate for people to have hateful views, and there’s an opportunity to call out hateful views in the right quarters. But violence and threats of violence is something that we cannot and will not tolerate.

I appreciate how you ended there ,as it helps me get to my next question. Director Ray, thank you for that.

(01:45:51)
This country, and the state of Maine, experienced life-altering shooting just last week. And as I know are the sentiments shared by my colleagues, the representatives of Maine and all of us here, a deep sense of sorrow for the lives lost last week.

(01:46:20)
Now, I know that the FBI collects data on active shooter incidents including what types of guns are used in committing homicides. How does the proliferation of mass shootings involving high-capacity weapons impact the bureau’s work to keep our nation safe?

Well certainly, individuals who are inclined to commit violent attacks, if they use a weapon that gives them greater capacity, have greater potential for lethality.

And do you find, with the bureau’s work, that it makes your work as an agency more difficult, more challenging? How does that, the accessibility of these weapons, the scope and scale of what is the lethality that is possible, how does that impact the work of your officers, whether in Maine or other instances where we’ve seen these type of weapons used?

Well, dangerous weapons represent dangers to law enforcement. And one of the things that we’ve seen over the last several years is an increasing threat to law enforcement. I think 2021 had the highest number of officers shot and killed in the line of duty in something like a couple of decades. And it is happening at a pace of about one every five days in this country. So law enforcement, which was always a dangerous job, is even more dangerous right now.

Thank you. Thank you for that. Secretary Mayorkas, I’ll end my questions with you. The SSP program is critical to all communities that are caring for recent arrivals to our country. I was encouraged to see the administration’s supplemental request, including an additional $1.4 billion in SSP grant funding for local governments and nonprofits.

(01:48:25)
This money, as you know, helps to provide food, shelter, and other services for recently-arrived migrants. However, I know my colleagues Senator Sinema and I are both concerned about money that’s going to border states, which are bearing the brunt of receiving migrants. Can you please share with us how that funding will be prioritized, including whether border states will receive their fair share?

Thank you very much, Senator. The Shelter in Services program, the SSP program, is critical in providing border communities and interior cities with the resources they need to address the housing and transportation, food and shelter of individuals who are in immigration proceedings under our law.

(01:49:17)
We have sought $1.4 billion. We have learned a great deal from our prior administration of the Shelter and Services program. And its predecessor, the Emergency Food and Shelter program. We do intend to engage extensively with border communities as well as interior cities with respect to the allocation of the funds, should Congress execute on what we believe is desperately needed. And we will be fair and equitable and ensure that the funds are distributed according to where the need is greatest.

Thanks, Senator Butler. Senator Carper.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I just want to begin by welcoming you, thanking you for what you do for our country and for what those who you lead are doing at this moment for our country.

(01:50:11)
This is an important hearing. I think we all realize that, and every year we realize at night. I must say when I left here to go to another hearing, I just felt, not a sense of despair or hopelessness, but a sense of gratitude that we have people like you and the hundreds of thousands of men and women you lead, who are willing to serve each state, sometimes at greatly risk to themselves, to look out for all of us and our families.

(01:50:39)
The threat landscape in our country continues to evolve, and it’s critical that the United States be prepared to respond to whatever comes next. In recent years, when we have held our annual All Threats Hearing, the panel has testified for us in this room that domestic terrorism is a primary terroristic threat in the United States. Specifically, the most consistent threat comes from white supremacists who commit acts of violence motivated by race or by religion.

(01:51:14)
In the last month, as a result of the horrific terrorist attack in Israel committed by Hamas, and the ensuing war in Gaza, both of which have tragically left thousands of innocent civilians dead and hundreds held hostage, we have seen a rise in anti-Semitic and Islamophobic rhetoric and threats in the United States.

(01:51:37)
The nonprofit security grant program was established, I think in 2004. It was established as a means of providing security funding for nonprofit organizations at high risk of terrorist attack, including religious organizations.

(01:51:54)
And I have a question. Mr. Secretary, how is the Department of Homeland Security communicating with high-risk communities about this grant program in light of the increase in reports of threats against Jewish, against Muslim and Arab communities and institutions?

Senator, first and foremost, thank you for always being a champion of the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security, and across the federal enterprise. Your words of praise, sometimes delivered from the Senate floor, reverberate throughout our department and are profoundly appreciated by all.

(01:52:39)
The nonprofit security grant program is a critically important tool in equipping places of worship, schools, other nonprofit organizations with the funds they need to build their own security so that their members can be safe and secure. We have seen in this administration, an increase in the funding for that nonprofit security grant program. We have, specific to your question Senator, engaged in extensive outreach to communities of all faiths to make sure they’re aware of the program.

(01:53:20)
We’ve also made the application process easier so that it is more accessible. Because we well-recognize that there may be target-rich institutions that are resource-poor, and we have to make the program available to all.

Good, thanks. Thanks for that. Another question if I could, Mr. Secretary, for you.

(01:53:44)
Early this month, President Biden announced a supplemental funding request, as we all know, that includes $13.6 billion to address the needs at our border. The request would allow DHS to fund efforts to counter fentanyl trafficking, support border operations and personnel needs, and support state and local organizations that pay for shelter and services for migrants were released from DHS custody.

(01:54:14)
My question, Mr. Secretary is, could you just expand for us for a few minutes on this supplemental request? And share with us, if you would, why the funding for these efforts in your departments is so critical?

Senator, two foundational points. One is that we are dealing fundamentally with a broken immigration system. And the additional funding, which is critically needed, is a tourniquet. The enduring solution is to fix the system, number one.

(01:54:46)
Number two, we are seeing an unprecedented level of migration throughout our hemisphere not only at our southern border, but also throughout our hemisphere and quite frankly around the world. What we have sought through our supplemental funding request is additional resources in a number of different ways.

(01:55:09)
More agents and officers. Every single year since 2006, we have relied on the Department of Defense to supplement US Customs and Border Protection personnel. That is not a model of government efficiency. So we have sought additional personnel not only in US Customs and Border Protection, but in immigration and Customs Enforcement and in US Citizenship and Immigration Services, so we cover the spectrum of the immigration process. The enforcement, the processing, the asylum adjudications, and the like.

(01:55:46)
We have sought additional funds for facilities, detention facilities, to ensure that we can continue to expand our implementation of an expedited removal. Soft-sided facilities, given the number of individuals we have to process.

(01:56:03)
We’ve also sought additional transportation resources so that we can move people efficiently, and as needed from a border patrol station to an immigration and customs enforcement facility. Or so that we can actually remove individuals so that we have the flight capacity to run as many removal flights as is warranted.

(01:56:27)
Those are some examples of the enforcement resources that we have sought and the processing resources that we have sought in the supplemental funding request.

My time’s not sufficient to allow me … Ms. Abizaid, I don’t have enough time to let you respond as well. I’m going to just say the question for the record, and ask you to respond in writing. But here’s the question, if you would.

(01:56:53)
Director Ray and Director Abizaid, how has Iran’s role, either directly or indirectly, in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East impacted the threat landscape in the United States? And if you could respond to that for the record, I’d be most grateful. Thank you all again for your service and for your leadership. Thank you.

Senator Hawley is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Mayorkas, let me start with you. You’re familiar with the chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Are you familiar with that?

I am.

Do you know what it means?

I do.

Can you explain it to us?

Senator, that is a chant that speaks of Palestinian desire for its homeland, and a very expansive definition of its homeland at the expense of the independence of Israel.

Well, indeed. I mean it calls for the elimination of Israel, does it not?

It does.

So my question to you is, should students who are here on a visa, who gather and chant that slogan, and actively advocate for the elimination of Israel and attacks on Jewish individuals, whether in the Middle East or here in the United States as we’re seeing on college campuses, should those students have their visas revoked?

Senator, I believe you are referencing a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act, about which you have written to me. And I am very familiar with your assertion that that statutory provision requires the revocation of their visa.

Should they have their visas revoked? I’m asking you.

We are assessing your legal assertion. It is a matter of legal interpretation of the statute.

Well just as a moral matter. I mean, should students who are here, foreigners who are here in this country, accessing our university system and advocating for the killing of Jews, should they be allowed to stay here at our leisure?

Senator, it is a matter of law, and it requires a legal interpretation. And I am not in a position to provide that legal interpretation. And let me add something.

Wait, no. Wait, wait, wait. My time is very limited. I have to say. I think your answer is disappointing, but let me ask you something else. Let me ask you about people who say other things. What about people who say things like, on October the seventh, “F Israel,” I’m cleaning up the language here. “F Israel, the government and its military. Are you ready for your downfall?”

(01:59:43)
People who say things like, “F Israel, and any Jew who supports Israel. May your conscience haunt your dreams until your last breath Palestine will be free one day. F Apartheid Israel, and any Israeli.” This is pretty extreme

… extreme rhetoric, don’t you think?

Senator, I do, and I think there is a distinction between espousing or endorsing terrorist ideology and speech that is odious, that does not rise to that level.

Fair enough. This person works for you. This is Nejwa Ali, an employee of the Department of Homeland Security, who posted these comments on October the 7th. That’s not all she posted. She also posted this graphic. Now, this is a fake graphic, I want to be clear, but I think we understand it. This is a paraglider, a Hamas paraglider, depicted here with a machine gun, flying into Israel. She posted it under her online alias, with the celebratory, “Free Palestine.”

(02:00:54)
Mr. Secretary, what’s going on here? Is this typical of people who work at DHS? This is an asylum and immigration officer, who is posting these, frankly, pro-genocidal slogans and images on the day that Israelis are being slaughtered in their beds. What have you done about this?

Four things I’d like to say to you. Number one, your question, to suggest that is emblematic of the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security is despicable.

(02:01:27)
Number two-

I’m sorry. This person works for the Department of Homeland Security. Have you fired her?

That was one of four answers.

Have you fired her?

One-

Have you fired her? Don’t come to this hearing room when Israel has been invaded and Jewish students are barricaded in libraries in this country and cannot be escorted out because they are threatened for their lives. You have employees who are celebrating genocide and you are saying it’s despicable for me to ask the question.

(02:01:57)
Has she been fired?

Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Secretary?

After the consumption of Senator Hawley’s time, I’d like to speak.

Has she been fired?

Because I will not be-

We would like an answer. Would you-

Because I will not be given the opportunity-

Has she been fired?

So, that individual has been placed on administrative leave, number one.

So, she’s not been fired?

Number two-

Why has she not been fired?

Number two, the individual was hired in 2019.

Why has she not been fired?

Number three, I cannot speak to an ongoing personnel matter.

Why has this person not been fired? Your answer is you can’t speak to it? This isn’t sufficient to fire her?

I am not in a position to speak to an ongoing personnel matter.

This isn’t sufficient to fire her, that’s what you’re telling me?

That is not what I’m saying.

But she’s still on your payroll as we sit here today?

That is not what I’m saying.

She’s still on your payroll as we sit here today?

Senator-

She was an asylum and immigration officer, how many cases did she adjudicate?

Senator, I’m not in a position to speak about an ongoing personnel-

I’m not asking about that. I’m asking you how many cases she adjudicated.

My answer remains.

Did she adjudicate any cases involving Israelis seeking asylum in this country?

Same answer.

Well, let me just point you to what else she posted on social media, where she drew attention to the fact that she is an immigration and asylum officer; #immigrants, #asylumseekers, #palestine, #refugeeswelcome. This is on her LinkedIn post, where she has her professional affiliation posted. So, I think the American people deserve to know, has she admitted, contrary to law, individuals who should not be in this country or denied Jewish refugees, whose genocide she’s advocating, asylum that they deserve?

Same answer.

You’re not going to tell us what this person’s done? Are you conducting a review of her cases at least?

Senator, as I have said over and over again, I cannot speak to an ongoing personnel matter.

You said that you will not. I can’t believe that you would come to this committee knowing this, you know about this, I’ve written to you about it, you know all about it, and you come here unwilling to answer. And suggest that it is wrong of me to ask you the question.

(02:04:13)
Quite frankly, Mr. Secretary, I think that your performance is despicable and I think the fact that you are not willing to provide answers to this committee is absolutely atrocious.

Mr. Chairman, may I?

If you’d like to have a minute to respond, you may.

I would like to. I would, and I’m not sure I’ll limit it to 60 seconds.

That’s fine.

Number one, what I found despicable is the implication that this language, tremendously odious, actually, it could be emblematic of the sentiments of the 260,000 men and women of the Department of Homeland Security, number one.

(02:04:54)
Number two, Senator Hawley takes an adversarial approach to me in this question and perhaps he doesn’t know my own background. Perhaps he does not know that I am the child of a Holocaust survivor. Perhaps he does not know that my mother lost almost all her family at the hands of the Nazis. And so, I find his adversarial tone to be entirely misplaced. I find it to be disrespectful of me and my heritage, and I do not expect an apology, but I did want to say what I just articulated. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, can I just respond, since he has referenced me personally?

Senator Hawley, we need to move on.

(02:05:40)
Senator Romney, you’re recognized for your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(02:05:47)
I’m going to spend most of my time looking at the threat against Jewish citizens and against Muslim citizens as well, and get a sense of what we can do to try and reduce the degree of violence and threat towards these individuals.

(02:06:06)
But before I do, I just want to turn back to the chart that was put up by Senator Johnson early on. If you could put that up again or just hold it up again. I find that so alarming and so revealing, that it’s a little stunning.

(02:06:23)
This is the point, Secretary Mayorkas, when you came into office. And if that were my record, I would resign in shame, or I would have fashioned a piece of legislation designed to solve that problem, and worked like crazy to get it passed. I don’t think you’ve done either one of those things. You said several times to Senator Lankford, for instance, that the asylum system is broken and we need to fix the asylum system, but you’ve been there three years. I don’t know that you’ve proposed legislation to fix the asylum system that would change what you’re seeing here. Am I wrong? Have you proposed legislation that would fix asylum?

We have quite a number of suggestions with respect to how to reform the asylum system, Senator Romney, and I’m very eager to work with you to achieve those.

In what way? If you had one thing you could do about fixing the asylum system that you think would bring that back to historical levels, what would it be?

Well, first of all, Senator, we’re dealing with an unprecedented level of migration in the hemisphere, and that cannot be forgotten in the discussion of what reform is needed and what we are experiencing.

Yes, and what led to that unprecedented level of immigration illegally into the country happens to coincide with your becoming secretary of the department that’s responsible for border security and President Biden becoming president. The key factor that’s changed here is your administration. And so, again, I don’t know how you can continue to come before this committee with that record, without saying, “This is what has to be done.”

(02:08:11)
Now, I’m going to turn instead to the topic which I think is most pertinent right now with regards to protecting our Jewish citizens. And I look to the commissioner, Director Wray at the FBI, and ask, of the attacks of a religious nature, you said some 60% are directed towards Jews in this country, is that right?

I did, and those are estimates or statistics that are before this conflict began.

Oh, so it’s probably gone up since then?

I would expect that, but we don’t have good numbers yet because it’s so fresh, but I think that the point that I was trying to make there, which I really think Americans need to understand, is how wildly disproportionate, if you could ever use a word like proportionate in something like this, that is. 2.4% of the American public, 60% of religious-based hate crimes. They’re getting it from racially and ethically motivated violent extremists, ISIS-inspired violent extremists, foreign terrorist organizations, whether they be Sunni like Al-Qaeda or ISIS, or Shia like Hezbollah. And so, this is a group that has the outrageous distinction of being uniquely targeted, and they need our help.

What proportion of these hate crimes has been directed towards Muslims, for instance? If 60% were towards Jews, what percent towards Muslims?

I don’t have that percentage, but it’s obviously quite a bit smaller than 60% by definition.

And you attribute that attack on Jews to these hate groups, I presume, these terrorist groups and hate groups that focus on Jews, is that right?

Well, yes, but of course they cover the waterfront, and that’s the point that I’m trying to make. They, unfortunately, have the distinction of being targeted by every group.

How do they communicate their directions to attack? What’s their vehicle for getting that out? Certainly, not in the New York Times and not on NBC. How do they get their message out?

Well, social media plays a huge part of it, just like it does messaging on almost everything these days.

Can you take action or do you take action to try and eliminate to the extent possible or reduce the access these groups have through social media? Is there a way of doing that or is it like, “No, there’s so many different dark web and other vehicles, that their message gets out whether or not we try and interdict it?”

There are instances where foreign terrorist activity in the world of propaganda crosses into the material support to a foreign terrorist organization space, but now you’re getting into a legal area that I’m not the expert on.

(02:10:56)
What we really need is eyes and ears in the community, people letting us know when they see something of concern so that law enforcement can take appropriate action, and that’s why we spend so much time engaged in outreach to state and local law enforcement as a force multiplier, to the faith-based community as a force multiplier in effect, and to the private sector. People sometimes overlook that piece, but some guy goes into Home Depot and wants to buy a bunch of ball bearings and fertilizer and doesn’t seem to know anything about what either one could be used for, we want the guy in Home Depot calling law enforcement saying, “Something’s off.”

Well, I deeply appreciate the work that your 37,000 employees at the FBI do to try and keep our homeland safe, and have done so remarkably well despite this level of threat. I would, at the same time, look to see if there’s not something we can do. I understand we don’t want to interdict constitutionally protected speech, but what is constitutionally protected speech? Certainly, foreign agents don’t have constitutionally protected speech, because they’re not subject to our constitution. I presume bots don’t have constitutionally protected speech. American citizens do, but even then, citizens offer various forms of hate, and I don’t know how you make the assessment of how you reduce the communication of hate across our social media that’s clearly leading to the level of attacks that are being perpetrated against people of faith, and particularly Jews.

Well, there is a role for different parts of society in dealing with the issue. Where the FBI fits in is dealing with violence and threats of violence. And when it crosses into that line, it doesn’t matter what you’re ticked off about or who you’re ticked off at, that’s a line you don’t get to cross in our system, and that’s where the FBI kicks into action.

Thank you, Director.

Thank you, Senator Romney. Senator Blumenthal, for your questions.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all of you for being here today. Thanks for your work on behalf of our country and to the many, many men and women who work in each of your departments, whom many of them I’ve come to know.

(02:13:19)
The threat of violent extremism, Director Wray, is not new after October 7th. In fact, I think the intelligence community has warned repeatedly that the most persistent and lethal threat to our internal security is in fact violent extremism. And I accept that we need more eyes and ears, we need more vigilance. If you see something, say something. But would there be additional legal tools that would be helpful to you in pursuing hate crimes which are not speech, they are not constitutionally protected, they involve violence, they involve physical threats, or results, are there additional legislative tools that we could give you?

Well, certainly, we need the resources to address the issues. None of the threats that I described in my opening statement or my questions here today are threats that I would say are fading away. They are all significant and they require attention. And everywhere I go, someone’s got very good ideas about things the FBI should do more of. It’s not very many responsible ideas of things that we can, at scale, do less of.

Well, let me ask you specifically. The nonprofit security grant program, it was about $300 million. Last year, the president proposed increasing by 200 million. That seems, to me, a fraction of what is necessary. We need to spend a $1 billion on it. I’m seeing in Connecticut again and again and again synagogues, mosques, churches, community centers spending scarce resources to hire security guards. Shouldn’t that be a matter for the federal government to help prevent threats of that kind?

Well, now you’re, of course, asking about grant programs which have a very important role here. The FBI’s not a grant making agency, but the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security both, and maybe some other agencies, would have a place for that, and those do help.

Do you think we should increase that kind of investment? Obviously, it’s prevention, but you’re in a much better position, especially in terms of resource, to conserve your efforts if violence is prevented.

I can only speak from the FBI’s end obviously. We spend an awful lot of time at the national level and at each one of our field offices engaged with communities of faith and the various national associations at the national level. And security is, of course, the number one topic we’re engaged with them on, and they all need more help.

Well, I’d appreciate your support for increasing that amount. As well as, Secretary Mayorkas, let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, enforcement of sanctions against Iran, Department of Homeland Security has a central role. Senator Ernst and I are proposing bipartisan legislation to provide a fund within the Department of Homeland Security for better enforcement, because your agents around the world, among many other duties, are responsible for investigating Iran’s violations of sanctions that are there because Iran’s using the revenue from those illicit oil sales to fund Hamas. Hamas wouldn’t exist, it wouldn’t be a threat, it couldn’t have attacked on October 7th without resources provided by Iran, which in turn derived from those oil sales. Shouldn’t we provide you with more resources to enforce those sanctions?

Senator, we would welcome the additional resources for Homeland Security investigations. I very much look forward to working with you on that legislation, and our personnel do tremendous work in HSI, along with our federal partners, to enforce our sanctions regime and hold those who seek to circumvent it accountable.

Thank you.

(02:17:43)
Ms. Abizaid, you seem to have escaped a good deal of controversy today, and I’m not about to embroil you in it, but you did make, in your testimony, a very, I think, important observation, and I’m going to quote it, “Over the last several years, Iran has plotted against the United States, other Western interests, and Iranian dissidents more aggressively than they have at any time since the 1980s,” and you go on. Can you provide us specific instances since October 7th? And are you concerned about the threat of possible Iranian sponsored terrorism? Obviously, they don’t send Iranian nationals somewhere, they use their proxies, just as they use Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, the jihadists. Are there reasons for concern in the homeland?

Thank you for the question and for including me in the discussion here today. I would say that Iran is the poster child for state sponsor of terrorism. It has long pursued terrorist proxy relationships. It has long pursued international operations, including especially over the last several years, not just focused on former government officials that it considers responsible for Qasem Soleimani’s assassination, but also against Israeli interests and other interests worldwide. We’ve seen this pretty persistently.

(02:19:21)
I will say that stands in contrast to what we’ve seen since October 7th. And at this current moment, I would not have any indications of an Iranian threat inside the United States that should be of concern. That said, Iran has a significant escalatory capability. That if it intended to be escalatory in this current conflict, we should be very concerned. And so, the work that director Wray has talked about, the work that we collaborate on in trying to counter Iranian sponsored terrorist attacks all over the world, that is critically important for us to stay vigilant on in this current environment.

Thank you. I’d like to pursue that line of questioning with you. I don’t have time today because my time has expired. And I also will submit for the record a question on artificial intelligence. Senator Hawley and I have a framework, the president announced one yesterday. I think your agencies have a critical role to play.

(02:20:28)
Let me just conclude on the point that Director Abizaid raised about potential foreign attacks, we still, in my view, have failed to hold accountable for the attack on 9/11 in support of the families that have sued Saudi Arabia. There is still information that the FBI could provide. I have had various meetings with your personnel, Director Wray, and they have sought to be cooperative, and we’re going to pursue those questions. I just wanted you to know that we’re continuing to focus on it, your folks are engaged with us, and I hope we reach a successful conclusion. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Just for the members and the witnesses, we’ve got one more question from Senator Ossoff and then we’re going to take a 15-minute break and then we’ll be back for a second round. We’ll change from seven minutes per person to five minutes, but there’ll be a 15-minute break following Senator Ossoff’s questions, you’re recognized for them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses, thank you for your service to the nation.

(02:21:37)
As several senators have raised, and as you’re well aware, Secretary Mayorkas and Director Wray, there’s significant apprehension, concern, fear in the Jewish community in Georgia and nationwide, as well as in the Muslim community, as the domestic political discourse has become so polarized, as various hate groups and factions have expressed hateful speech, and as threats have been made. You’ve both, over the last year, and I commend and thank you for this, been highly responsive to my office as we’ve worked to connect your personnel with institutions and communities in Georgia who require the forms of assistance and counsel that you each respectively offer.

(02:22:14)
Secretary Mayorkas, in your case, helping communities and institutions to mitigate and understand threats. Director Wray, in your case, helping communities and institutions to have a point of contact with federal law enforcement in the event they receive threats, and applying your investigative tools to investigate threats. Given the heightened level of concern and fear and threat at this moment, I would just like a commitment briefly from each of you, that you’ll continue to make yourself available to my office and to Georgians who require your help.

Most certainly, Senator.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

(02:22:46)
Director Wray, I was able to help secure through the Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant Program, the DOJ program that helps coordinate U.S. attorney’s offices and state and local law enforcement, some additional resources to Georgia, which of course is your home state, and we’re proud of that, in order to fight violent crime. In particular, in middle Georgia and in Chattahoochee Valley. I have had a great experience working with your Atlanta field office and your personnel in Georgia.

(02:23:14)
Will you commit that the FBI and your personnel and teams in Georgia will remain responsive to the needs of local and state law enforcement agencies as a violent crime and gun crime continue to take a serious toll?

Absolutely. For us, violent crime is a major, major priority, and including in Georgia, there’ve been a number of very significant, very impactful violent crime take-downs in the state just since the time we’ve been engaged in this ongoing dialogue. I know, for example, down in the southern part of the state, in Brunswick, our task force down there arrested something like 74 Ghost Face gangsters. And sure enough, within about three months, the Brunswick PD was able to report about 50% fewer fentanyl overdoses, which is a pretty significant impact.

(02:24:11)
But we’ve had huge take-downs like that really all across the state, up in Athens, in Adel, in the middle southern part of the state, obviously in the Atlanta area. And I’m a big fan of Project Safe Neighborhoods, having been heavily involved in the first version of it when I served in the Bush administration.

Well, I see you’re well-prepared to brief on Georgia and I appreciate that, as always.

It’s close to home.

Yes.

(02:24:35)
Secretary Mayorkas, the Nonprofit Security Grant Program for synagogues, for mosques, for HBCUs, it’s clear to me that there’s a need for more resources because we have institutions in Georgia who are applying, their applications have merit, there’s a real need. The program’s oversubscribed. That’s not your fault. We allocate the funds. But will you please commit to working with the OMB and the Congress to try to rightsize that program so that there are sufficient resources for the institutions who require that additional security support?

Yes, I will, Senator.

Thank you.

(02:25:11)
Director Wray, in September, Senator Blackburn and I launched a bipartisan inquiry to understand how FBI’s capacity to investigate child sexual abuse can be augmented, particularly given the alarming and disturbing growth in online child sexual exploitation, concern that the scope of the threat may be outpacing the Bureau’s ability to respond. And we have not yet received a response to the September 13th letter that we sent to the FBI. Will you please commit to get that back to me in short order?

I’m not sure the exact timeline, but we’ll of course get you a response to your letter as quickly as we can. Certainly, this is an area that’s of great importance.

(02:25:58)
And we, for example, had something called Operation Cross Country, which was a two-week operation that we did all across the country that located something like, just in that two week period, 59 child victims of sex trafficking, 59 additional actively missing kids, arrested hundreds of predators. If you look at the year overall, we’re rescuing thousands of kids from exploitation and rounding up thousands of predators. And I am very concerned that if some of the current budget proposals that are swirling around up here were to go into effect, you’d have fewer kids rescued.

And Director Wray, that leads to my next question. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children or NCMEC, which as you well know is tasked by Congress to receive reports of missing and trafficked to children from state and local agencies across the country. In Georgia, between 2018 and 2022, there were nearly 1,800 reports of missing foster youth, and it is well understood by the Department of Health and Human Services and by law enforcement that foster youth who go missing are at acute risk of trafficking and other forms of abuse and exploitation. Can you please characterize the FBI’s efforts and understanding of the particular threats posed to foster youth from human traffickers, sex traffickers, and others? And will you commit to working with me to enhance the FBI’s ability to locate and free children who may be trapped by criminals?

Let me follow back up with you in more detail on the specific issue of foster youth as a particularly vulnerable victim set, but I will tell you that we work very closely with NCMEC. I’ve been over there myself. I consider them a very valuable part of this whole response to the threat. But it is a major, major problem across this country. We have kids, even in this day and age, being victimized and exploited by predators, really all across the country.

And NCMEC does a great job. They are a highly credible organization. And I’d like to get that data in front of you, so you’re aware of the scope of the threat to these foster children in Georgia. Will you take a look at it when I send it over to you?

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Director Wray.

Thank you, Senator Ossoff. We are now going to take a 15-minute recess. I’m going to be briefly down on the Appropriations Committee, so Senator Hassan will be gaveling us back in right at 12:45 from our recess. So, see everybody back here at 12:45.