Transcripts For CSPAN House Hearing On Trusted Traveler Programs 20240711

Testimony from the dhs regarding its decision to ban residents of new york state from trusted Traveler Programs like global entry. Like global entry. On february 5, senior ghs official chad wolfe wrote to new york officials to inform them of the ban, without notifying congress and the members of the new york state delegation who sit on this authorizing committee. Mr. Wolf cited new yorks green light law, a justification for the ban, stating that the law, quote, compromises cbps ability to confirm whether an individual applying for ttp membership meets Program Eligibility requirements. Mr. Wolf then stated, quote, because the act prevents dhs from accessing new york dmv records in order to determine whether a ttp applicant or reapplicant meets Program Eligibility requirements, new York Resident wills no longer be eligible to enroll or reenroll in cbps trusted Traveler Programs. After that announcement, this committee continued to receive inaccurate and misleading testimony that repeated the Central Claims made in mr. Wolfs letter, that new york state was unique in denying the access to dmv records. At a minimum, the testimony gave a false impression about the uniqueness of new york states green light law and the supposed ramifications of cbps inability to access new york state dmv information. In march, for example, mr. Wolf told the committee, quote, new york law specifically prohibits cbp from going into that dmv database. They need information contained there that they can only get there to that trusted travelers. They have done that above and beyond any other state. There is no other state that prohibits that information so thats specifically why we took that action, with new york and for that action alone. In summary the committee was led to believe that new york was the only state that didnt provide dmv information to cbp and that such information was so critical to vetting applicants to the trusted Traveler Program that because new york didnt provide it, cbp had to ban all new york state residents from applying or reapplying for the program. While the ban was in place for new york state residents including for residents who already participated in the program and who were prescreened and deemed trustful, it had a detrimental effect at our northern border. Over the summer, the ban was lifted, and we learned that other u. S. Jurisdictions provide the same access to their dmv records to cbp as new york did. Yet, residents of these jurisdictions were not banned from participating in the trusted Traveler Programs. In fact, todays witness mr. Robert perez made this clear in a supplemental declaration he submitted on the matter to the District Court in new york. We also learned information that raises questions about whether dmv data is actually used to vet every trusted Traveller Program applicant. Unfortunately, we learned this information only from the Court Filings in this case, on this issue. Dhs did not proactively reach out to the committee or correct the committees understanding until the committee wrote to dhs after reading the filings. And were here today because we still dont have the necessary information from cbp on their decision. There appears to be only two explanations for the inaccurate misleading testimony that the Committee Received from dhs. Either senior dhs officials had a shared and profoundly inaccurate understanding of how the programs they manage actually work which would be extremely troubling in its own right, or the only other option is that senior officials intentionally [inaudible] key details about the process in order to justify a completely political decision to declare all new York Residents ineligible for participation in the program. The president wanted to punish new york for its green light law and this was the retribution plain and simple. In a transcribed interview with the committee, mr. John wagner, cbps former Deputy Assistant commissioner informed us that he, quote, should have been aware that two territories gave cbp no dmv information. He also said he, quote, should have known that several states and other jurisdictions did not share driver histories. So why didnt he and other senior officials know this . We still dont have the answer to that. Dhs has refused to cooperate with the committees investigation. Dhs has not provided the documents we requested or not made available for transcribed interviews the employees we requested. During the course of an entirely voluntary interview with mr. Wagner, dhs attorneys repeatedly halted straightforward lines of questioning effectively undermining the purpose of the interview. And today dhs provided only one of the four witnesses this committee has requested. We hope that mr. Perez can tell us which explanation is correct, but we will continue our investigation until we know for sure. Further given that the department stated that the dmv data is so critical to assessing the eligibility of applicants to the trusted Traveler Programs, we would also like to know whether the enrollment of applicants from other states or territories that provide only some or no dmv data has created risks. Similarly, we would like to know exactly what dmv data cbp receives regarding applicants from foreign nations including whether that data is reliably accurate. Obviously we also want to know why dhs officials dont understand the programs they manage and whether this is creating security risks. I therefore call on dhs to immediately provide all the documents we have requested and to provide complete answers to our questions. This information is essential for our nations security. I look forward to hear plg perezs testimony hearing mr. Perezs testimony and i thank him for appearing. The chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. Higgins for an opening statement. Thank you, chairwoman. Thank you, Deputy Commissioner perez for being here today. Madame chairwoman i was saddened to hear the passing of a cbp officer in california, and i would like to express my condolences to his family and the entire agency. Last year new york state passed legislation referred to as the green light law. This law is arguably made communities throughout the entire country less safe. The law barred new york state drivers license and vehicle registration information, driving related criminal history information, drivers license and corrections images, among other information as commonly requested by Law Enforcement from being divulged on residents being shared with customs and Border Protection and immigration and customs enforcement. The sponsor of this law said before the state assembly that it would only impact investigations on immigration related violation and that criminal investigations would not be impacted. However. Criminal investigations have indeed been impacted by the states law and the totality of negative consequences are much farther reaching. All four u. S. Attorneys for the state of new york have had press releases in february stating that the green light law is impacting active criminal investigations across the board. Cbp and i. C. E. Are on the front lines of defending homeland from terrorism, transnational crime, dangerous gang members, narcotics including fentanyl, counterfeit products including pharmaceuticals, Human Trafficking, child exploitation, and other very Important Missions. The green light law limits the departments Situational Awareness at border crossings, interior check points, and where high volumes of drug and human smuggling interdictions occur. Peace officer patrol stops and Homeland Security investigations including criminal activity on the dark net are all impacted by the green light law. There are more than 19 million residents of new york state. New york state license vehicles and travelers, transit borders, seaports and airports across the country. The impact of the laws not new york specific. It affects communities throughout the United States. The green light law also requires an individual to be notified of cbp or i. C. E. , requesting information about them, outside the scope of the exception. If an i. C. E. Officer is investigating a Human Trafficking case, involving an illegal immigrant who resides in new york state, and attempts to access related dmv data, the state law requires that individual to be tipped off. Thats contrary to Law Enforcement procedures across the country and does not help criminal investigations. The green light law wrongfully assumes that state dmv data is mainly accessed for civil immigration and violation purposes. The reality is that more than 86 of individuals arrested by i. C. E. In fiscal year 2019 had criminal convictions or pending charges. The green light law furthers the lefts agenda to rather tie the hands of federal Law Enforcement to ignore some federal immigration laws and to attack and call for the dismantlement of i. C. E. And cbp. Not all of my colleagues across the aisle feel this way, but it is part of the National Narrative and is directed from my democratic colleagues. The fracturing of information shared between federal, state, local Law Enforcement is not a good idea. This law values the ability of an illegal immigrant to get a drivers license over the safety and security of the homeland. The new york state legislation knew it had gone too far, amended the original language in april of this year to allow for some information to flow to cbp, and i applaud that effort. What could have been a goodfaith effort to come together and fix this problem devolved into an escalated attack on Law Enforcement by making it a felony to share dmv information with cbp or i. C. E. Outside of narrow exceptions. Easy mistake to make. This move is a direct contradiction to the 9 11 Commission Report on the importance of information sharing. It intentionally poisons the well with federal, state, and local partners on joint task forces to counterterrorism, Gang Violence and drug trafficking, all seen as a best practice to keep violent criminals off the streets. Instead of speaking about dangerous precedent, the green light law has said some of my colleagues seem more concerned with taking shots at the administration. An election year, we have seen that from both sides. This committee should be objective about our observations and conclusions. It is interesting that we would attempt to impact Career Department Homeland Security officials just weeks before an election. Its undeniable that new york state took unprecedented action in blocking cbp and i. C. E. Access to dmv information, currently available to all other federal, state, and local Law Enforcement. This is unique to new york. It is not 100 unique the complexities of this law that one covered as the investigation unfolded. But new york is certainly alone in the totality of the circumstance. Today i would like to hear on the record about how this new york state law is still negatively impacting cbps Homeland Security missions. I want case examples on the record about the hoops cbp must still jump through to secure the homeland and what more needs to be done to reverse this wellintended but perhaps shortsighted law. I want to know if someone residing in the country illegally who receives a new york state issued drivers license can obtain nexus status, which in some instances it acts in lieu of a passport. I want an update on data sharing agreements made to ensure cb pshg can fully vet cbp can fully vet trusted advocates. I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit in opposition of the green state law for the record from the u. S. Attorneys of four districts of new york, federal Law Enforcement association, the new York State Association of chiefs of police and the new york state sheriffs association. I ask unanimous consent. So received. I yield back. Thank you, madame chair. I thank the Ranking Member. Members are reminded that the subcommittee will operate according to the guidelines laid out by the chairman and Ranking Member in the july 8th col qi. Members not sitting on the subcommittee will be permitted to participate in todays hearing. I now welcome our witness. Our witness today is mr. Robert perez, the Deputy Commissioner for u. S. Customs and Border Protection. In this role he serves as the agencys senior career official overseeing the personnel who work every day to protect our nations borders. During his 28year career in federal Law Enforcement, mr. Perez has also served as the director of Field Operations in cbps new York Field Office and in detroit, michigan, and held various other positions at cbp headquarters. Without objection, the witnesss full statement will be inserted in the record. I would now ask mr. Perez if he would like to summarize his statement for five minutes. Thank you, chairwoman rice, Ranking Member higgins and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss u. S. Customs and Border Protections trusted Traveler Programs and other related issues regarding the state of new yorks green light law. Cbps trusted Traveler Programs are designed to provide preapproved low risk travelers with expedited arrival processing at our nations ports of entry. Cbp uses department of Motor Vehicle or dmv data along with other Law Enforcement information to determine Program Eligibility of new and existing applicants. Earlier this year, new York Residents were declared ineligible for cbps trusted Traveler Programs due to the lack of sharing of dmv information with cbp. At the time of that decision, it was our understanding that new york stood alone in not providing dmv information to cbp. While new york remains unique to our knowledge in terminating our access to all dmv information, cbp has since discovered other jurisdictions that do not provide dmv information to our agency either in whole or in part. Immediately following the discovery of additional jurisdictions, cbp provided clarifying statements to the court in the Southern District of new york to prevent any misunderstandings made during the course of that ongoing litigation. As well, i appreciated the opportunity to brief the members of the committee of this committee and of the new york congressional delegation on the details of this matter, back on august 4th and august 5th of this year. We also began accepting ap collations for enrollment applications for enrollment from new york state residents and soon thereafter began engaging the other states and u. S. Territories to identify a path forward for our agency to receive the relevant dmv information we believed was being provided, but that in fact was not. While cbp regrets the confusion caused by this situation, it is important to note the serious concerns that remain with new yorks green light law, which explicitly prohibits dmv records from being shared with cbp. I share these concerns with the committee today as the Deputy Commissioner of cbp but also informed by my nearly 28 years in Law Enforcement including having previously served as the director of cbp in new york city for over eight years. has rose to our state and local Law Enforcement departments. Specifically the law prevents cbp from accessing, using or sharing dmv records from other Important Mission related purposes including identifying vehicles used in illicit activity, verifying the identity of a vehicles owner before traffic stops and utilizing the information or investigations into criminal activities such as narcotics trafficking, i had Identity Fraud and terrorism. In contrast, the trusted Traveler Program vetting limitations we discovered while important as likely only prevented cbp from identifying potentially disqualifying information for Program Applicants and members from certain jurisdictions based on misdemeanor Motor Vehicle offenses. What is more concerning are the threats to officer and agent safety and the safety of the communities they serve. Under laws like that of new york, an officer and agent approaching a stopped vehicle may not know if the registered owner or occupant are associated with a look out for active and may be unaware of prior involvement in illegal or suspicious activity. Of equal concern is the inability to freely share relevant information state and local Law Enforcement partners that pursue and the interest of Public Safety. As a career Law Enforcement officer charged with protecting the security of our country and the American People , i find it professionally unacceptable that anyone would consider limiting information sharing among Law Enforcement agencies, particularly with the knowledge of the tragic lessons weve all learned in past attacks on our nation. I look forward to your questions. I think the witness for his testimony and will remind the subcommittee we will each have five minutes. I think theres only three of us, as long as thewitnesses is okay with that to question the witness. I will now recognize myself for questions. Mister price, we now know from the filings made by the department of justice in federal District Court in new york and from your own elemental declaration in that case that there were other us jurisdictions that provided limited or even know dmv data to cdp like new york did. According to dojs filings, guam and the Virgin Islands quote, do not provide any dmv data to any user of the inlets system to get the mz data. Further, and again i will quote, the district of columbia,us territories, puerto rico, guam and the us Virgin Islands and six states, new york, connecticut, florida and hawaii do not provide responsive to cdp for queries for driver history. And yet without this access cbp continue to process and approve applications for residents in connecticut, florida, illinois, new jersey , district of columbia andthe us Virgin Islands. So my first question mister president , do you know why mister wolf claimed he had to ban the residents of new york state from the program while dhs continued toprocess applications for residents from these other jurisdictions i just named. Thank you madame chairwoman. From cdps perspective, what i can tell you is at the time and only up until sometime in july during the court proceedings, when some questions were asked and we subsequently did a deep dive technologically on our oit customs to see what exactly was being returned to us by way of responses, it was only then that we as an agency became aware of what was being transmitted. The returns we were receiving and the lack of response versus negative responses if you will. Thats what unearthed ultimately these nuances if you will for differences in these other states as you listed in territories where we were getting partial returns and some returns for those who were in the program to transmit that information. In the cases of the territories they were then made aware they were not even transmitting into the platform so that was everybodys understanding of until that point in time and not unlike without getting into too much detail but not unlike i shared in the briefings i provided last month. It wasnt until and only because through the trusted Traveler Programs that we query in batches because of the volumes of information that come back and forth their. The way that system had been designed and one of the things we are fixing is the manner in which those returns come back so those flags were not readily evident we were made aware that other than new york we had these other anomalies in the other states and if i could make one other point, new york remains very unique in this regard. When we query into new york as i sit here today new york provides a definitive response reads all ri which meansorganizations identifier restricted. These we singularly are the only state and territory im aware of that provides us that affirmative negative response to a query. This is in light and despite the fact that inapril they said they would turn it on for the trusted Traveler Programs. To date they have not that in and of itself presents and gives the people on our staff a much more readily identifiable response as opposed to these very unique systems across every state. They all do itdifferently. Its a challenging it systems and i dont want to bore you with those details. The it system you did a deep diveon, that has always been within your ability to do a deep dive into that system to get additional information, is that correct . It was our staff who did that deep dive. It was our focus well before this you have access to that information to do a deep dive to understand what information you get from the various states if you wanted to, you could be that do that the dive but it wasnt until this happened that you did. Correct. Heres my question, you said on numerous occasions ourunderstanding was new york was unique. What i am trying to understand is what was that based on if you made that decision that new york was unique before you ever did that deep dive . What was that understanding you and others had that made new york so unique . And can i just say, i dont mean to interrupt butim going to , i apologize. I think its important to put my questions in light of other things that were happening around the time, from the time new york hasthe green light law. After that was passed, a new york colleague of ours, Police Department apparently made reference to how close green light law was hindering local Law Enforcement and she did that after a tweet. Which was retweeted by the president of the United States which tells us he was aware of this green light law and retweeted what congresswoman stephan said about it. He has, the president has also made comments on multiple occasions about punishing states that he perceived as sanctuary states. So i think its important to kind of put all of this in light of that. New york passed a green light law, elise tonic said its going to hinder Law Enforcement. The president retweet that he makes multiple statement about punishing actuaries state. And you are a cities like new york city and new york state and then after the actual enactment of the green light law which came at the end of last year , this action is taken on five understand what your understanding and your colleagues understanding was based on if it wasnt based on any dive that was done at the time that new york state residents were banned from the program. Thank you madame chairwoman. From my perspective and i can tell you again from the cdp perspective, what we were basing our understanding on and the lack of anything that told us at the time that required anything further than what we had been doing for years candidly in a very complex it exchange if you will by virtue of what is transmitted by 50 states, territories and the life that is very unique into return for specifically trusted Traveler Programs, there is nothing that made agency at the time readilyaware of any of these anomalies. We all knew that issue thats the truth and that part of what it is that weve subsequently begun to fixonce we discovered these anomalies. I understand what youre saying but once new york was banned, my colleague from new york, our colleague from new york, me and i know congresswoman clark from new york, we all started sounding about, what is new york being punished when other states withhold the same information is not as if you cdp for mister walt were not aware that there were claims that new york state was being treated differently than other states similarly situated. So mister walt claimed that he had to ban the residents of new york state from the program. While at the same time dhs continued to process applications for residents from those are other jurisdictions. Why . I may madame chairwoman. Very specific difference that still remains respect to what was occurring even then with new york. New york band and stopped transmitting any and every bit of information that they were prior and still capable of transmitting area that is still unique. Was having with the other states and territories, we were still receiving these returns. Again, there was nothing we were aware of readily by virtue of what we were receiving from those returns with respect to the trusted Traveler Program that would have alerted us to the fact that there was one of a several aspects of the data that was being provided to us that was in fact not being returned. But we were receiving information from every single one of those jurisdictions, something from them from the ones who were in. But it was not enoughand this is my question. Shouldnt Agency Charged with running this program know how it actually functions . How could you not know how these programs work before you band 19 Million People from participating in them . And a more disturbing question is it doesnt seem that all of the states that weve identified that were similarly situated, i didnt say exact but similarly situated as to where new york was still to this day mister wolf has taken no action against those states to ban any of the residents from those states from participating in the trusted Traveler Program. Can you understand why the protection and perhaps when we get to the bottom of this reality looks as if new york state was being punished because it was in the president of the United States words, a sanctuary state. Can you understand yes, sir no perception that new york state was being punished. The residents, not cuomo because he can go wherever he wants. Im talking about the thousands of people in new york state who rely on the trusted Traveler Program to travel for work, their livelihood, put food on the table. Can you understand that that is the appearance, yes, sir no. Madame chairwoman, i can absolutely understand how some people might get that impression. Im going to tell you that is absolutely not. That is not the case madame chairwoman. Respectfully, im letting you know as the senior career official in cbp meeting for cdp we were basing what it is we weredoing on what we understood the facts to the affect time. Was there to medication whether through email or reports within your agency that talk about your understanding about how new york was unique. I would imagine there were emails area not sure if there areemails but im pretty sure there probably are some. Without looking into the matter. That makes sense so in july the committee requested four categories of documents regarding the decision to exclude new york state residents from the tpp program. Nobody documents have been provided in response to the committees request. You have any documents with you here today i can shed some light on why, where this understanding came from new york was unique. I dont have them with me today but what i can share with you madame chair is that those are actively being worked on. I know the committee appreciates, i know you appreciate sometimes it takes time to go through and compile everything thats being asked but there is a comforting factor here as the attorneys in our agency and department has shared with me , thats the ongoing open litigation that requires further review and analysis before those documents are provided but my understanding is as soon as we are ready we will provide and be responsive tothat request. Its not that heavy lift i would think. You have them all in your possession, it doesnt take lawyers that long to figure out whats relevant to a request from a committee that has oversight over the agency but i think it has more to do with this i am afraid. In july of this year, dhs announcedthey were lifting the ban on new york state residents applying for trusted travelerprograms. That was on july 23. That same day, following dhs announcement that they were lifting the ban federal judge jesse furman of the Southern District of new york asked dhs how the rehearsal would affect the lawsuit pending before judge furman. At that time the government, the government, not cost and not this committee, not a political thing, it was the government sent a letter withdrawing their motion to submit the case because they decided the motion and their case was based on inaccurate and misleading statements made by dhs officials concerning the differences between new yorks law and similar id laws across the country. In order for the Southern District i believe which was the issuing agency to come to that conclusion, they had to have in their possession some kind of paperwork or oral testimony that enabled them to come to the determination that your assumption, your understanding were incorrect and in fact possibly false which is why they withdrew it from the job because they did not want to give the imprimatur of their office and the credibility that goes with it to people and an agency that had given inaccurate, misleading, potentially knowingly false information and i think its important to put it in the context of that too. Ive gone over my five minutes and i now recognize the Ranking Member , Mister Higgins for his question. You madame chair. Deputy commissioner, you for your 20 years of service in Law Enforcement. Let me clarify that i have a lot of friends across the iowa and two of my colleagues across the iowa that i have the deepest respect for our seated before you here today. And i know that madame chairwoman as a passionate and very focused representation for the people of new york. And from my perspectives, my background in lawenforcement and yours , we must recognize that the purity of that, the seeking of truth here because i believe i think we can resolve this thing area id like to see it resolve. Id like to fix it and move on. We had obligations with this committee so that being said, when customs, and its been indicated that this is somehow politically driven. And i understand that suspicion. And todays environment in america. But when customs and Border Patrol Protection Officer or ice dealing with transnational trying, gangs, narcotics, products, Human Trafficking, when they call in for data on a someone at the head, theyre interacting with reasonable suspicion they need Background Data on, is anyone worried about . You know is there checks the president suites before you go forward with aninquiry . I wouldnt expect not. I dont know of any. You focus on the interaction of that moment in order to publish mission and peacefully and within the parameters of the constitution in recognition of his rights of the individual, you move forward with that interaction nobodys checking any fleets. Commissioners, is my understanding that ce uses national Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems that birds has analysts who access state territory and local level data that could preclude from qualifying for cdp trusted travelerprograms. What after the law went into effect, when your officers to tory information from trusted Traveler Program data, then an error message here is an mark. In writing members i mentioned previously was a very specific singular response, similar in the sense that theres no other or territory im aware of provide this type of response. Lets move there in the interest of time and the website, see it has over hundred 50 message types including the mva related data. There are a few states and territories do not provide some or all the mva types but still provide a range of other datatypes and inlets. So is new york state only jurisdiction return error message for all datatypes when it ce attempted to query the trusted Traveler Program betting. It is my understanding that yes,specifically stating for eye restriction. Was quite a long and the Virgin Islands did not provide the mva related data to analysts while silver my other data. If you receive error messages from guam and the Virgin Islands . Not that im aware of. The best of your knowledge analyst data ever been used to disqualify a resident of juan or the us Virgin Islands a cbp trusted Traveler Program . Not that im aware of. As the department initiated conversation with blanche or the Virgin Islands or districts that are sharing partial dmv data work out an agreement to access that data and if so whats the status of thoseconversations . We have, we immediately began to initiate those conversations with all those jurisdictions. Varying states of status across the board again, given the difference between capability of each of the states in the territory whether they even have the information readily available. Some dont even gather it up and automated. Its really as alluded to earlier hundred 50 types of data in the system. It is literally when youre dealing with anentire country and all the us territories all over the place by may , that makes itcomplex. Nonetheless large urban to the request in the end we expect to get all the data that we require from all the states andterritories. For your answers, the chairwoman will, i like to give the commissioner an opportunity to respond to the phrase level retribution. Its been presented that the actions taken that were discussing here today by the cdd are retribution for new yorks position on some things and the president , its been used by the new York State Attorney general, the term politicalretribution and if that code by the majority. To describe the departments decision to exclude new york state residents from enrolling for me and rolling in cdd trusted Traveler Programs earlier this year. I dont believe that accusation is true and again, with the spirit of trying to get past this thingsee a resolution , would you care to comment on that accusation that the cdd actions based on political retribution, with your answer i willclose madame chair. Ranking member as i mentioned a moment ago, from my perspective from where i sit in my position and representing the state, i assure you it was not. It was based on the facts time and frankly the facts that still remain. New york remains unique. Unique in the returns when we are trying to access the mva. We are totally shut out as an agency from getting a new york where in they have the capability to provide data to us readily and in fact prior to the streamlined lobby. That remains unique even before they make the amendments their law in april, which made it a classy c felony to share data and where they provided for the ability to at least share partial for the use of the trusted Traveler Programs. As i sit here today we still receive nothing from new york. Absolutely nothing. Returns that from the system as i referred to before being respected. Negative message that is a unique aspect of new york dreamlike law andthe impact it continues to have one cdd. Medicare, i feel. My time is expired. The chair recognizes you mister Ranking Member. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california mister correa. Back in madame chair, thank you for being here today. I wanted to follow up with some of your statements you said a while ago in terms of facts. You mentioned that the green light law in the state of new york came to your attention when you started getting error messages essentially from ip inquiries so to speak. Yet you all new at this dreamlike law in its specifics was heading your way before it was actually implemented. Yes, number. I dont recall specifically myself having knowledge and when it is i became aware of when they passed the law. I know a casket. It became effective where we began the officers, agents on the frontline began getting error messages in december oflast year. The reason im asking is your professional organization and as you said a very complicated job you had to do. Ugandan relations people are pretty on this stuff. Until you weigh in advance this is what is going to happen. If you have those capabilities, im getting concern about what capabilities you really have. The state of california drivers license law six years ago. I was in the statelegislature when i. I can tell you that ice was in sacramento talking to us about the law way before it was passed. Way before it was signed for you to say you only figured out this law, the greenland wall was going to create challenges for you after it was implemented leaves me puzzled here. If im a congressman, i dont recall any outreach and exchange from the cd level of any. So the state of new york legislature. Is your statements esther perez that you were caught completely off guard with a green light law and its application and its details until after it was actually signed into law . My personal understanding is yes. Or the whole department . Im also not aware of the agency being consulted. But you would be following this agency was business it is to follow this kind of legislation. You did in the state of california and new york has got 20 million residents so you figure you probably have a heads up on this, just a statement. Century program. Trusted Traveler Program. Its a very complex application process. Very extensive, you go into a personscriminal background. A lot of records. Yes, no . For the trusted Traveler Program, yes. So understanding how and when the dmv information is used is important. And a supplemental declaration whereas mister cosco, he stated and im going to quote him, while available dmv records may be queried through national Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems by tpp, vetting officers to complete their assessment and determine Program Eligibility for the tpp applications does not as a matter of policy require that vetting officers initiate manual queries of ni for every tpp applicant but may initiate manual query available to dmv records so my question is, is dmv data always use to that every applicant in the trusted travelerprogram . Let me be that. Is dmv data always use to that every applicant to the trusted Traveler Program . The dmv data is part ofthe totality of data. Is it always used. It is my understanding that it is. Its always used, dmvdata is always used by vetting officers. Dmv data is always required by trusted Traveler Programs. Its my understanding congressman that the dmv data is part of the suite of information and queries done uniformly to assess the risk associated with applicants are trying to participate in the trusted Traveler Program. As i mentioned before it was through the analysis and deeper analysis on what it is we were returning of no response versus positive negative responses essentially and that discovery of what was coming to us in its totality versus what was coming to us in pieces and are incomplete then we subsequently identified that there were some jurisdictions that were not providing us total information from the dmv that required. If i can make a comment about california. Let me in those madame chair, go ahead. I think its an important distinction and im glad you raise it in california. Just about the practicality of what was enacted because i think its important for the committee to understand and know how the new york law still stands unique and when it comes to data sharing and the utilization of the data itself, while california and other states have passed green light laws has some restriction on use of the dmv data that we receive, it has no bearing, none whatsoever on what it is we need to do with other Law Enforcement missions, on how it is we adjudicate the trusted Traveler Program and our ability to share is unhampered and we still doget returns from california. Its very different than what is happening. In this year of 2020 what percentage of applicants have dmv data been used as part of the vetting process . For the trusted Traveler Program. Understanding is again that is part of protocol, that is part of the standard protocol. , standard perspective to be clear if i may, respectfully, now that we know that while weve been querying dmv information and believing that for example the us territories that have not had the capability to provide to us clearly we have been adjudicating some applications where those returns have notbeen returning to us. So. So you have been adjudicating and essentially approving trusted Traveler Programs in other jurisdictions outside new york without having dmv information. That is what we discovered what we are remedying at the moment congressman. I guess if you live indoes me madame chair , you shut down new york for not providing you that information but there are other jurisdictions that you continue to work with when new york was shut down given the dmv information or lack thereof. Yes, no . Know, so it is my understanding that subsequent to that decision being made was new york, there were conversations with new york to try to find a mutually agreeable remedy and the path forward. I dont want to be argumentative with you, i just want to get the facts here. You shut down new york because they wouldnt give you dmv information yet other jurisdictions continued to have their trusted Traveler Program applications approved without dmv information. Is your statement here today in this committee that you just didnt know you were processing other jurisdictions so you continue to process them but new york kind of came to your attention and therefore you shut them down. Thats not exactly correct congressman but im going to explain what and how that plays out. New york was the sole entity, state or territory that shut us down. Its something that was already beingprovided. All the other states and territories were providing something, we were getting some dmv information. What we are and what we discovered was there one aspect of the multiple queries, driver history that was not being returned by some of these states. Final statement here. Im just trying to figure out again, some jurisdictions didnt provide any or some. New york you discoveredwas not going to and therefore you gave them separate treatment. We at the time believe new york was unique in not providing anything. When you check in your database to show that you had other jurisdictions where the trusted Traveler Program was being approved despite not having that dmv information . That was what we learned later on in july again, at the time that we new york down it was our understanding and our belief that we were getting the return from the dmv information complete from every other jurisdiction. It was only after later on, months later thatwe discovered otherwise. Handles the concluding statement. I hear what youre saying. Im bothered though because you action against the state ofnew york. Without fully vetting the facts. So it would its almost as though youre punishing new york for what theyre doing. Yet the other jurisdictions continue to operate and get the benefits of a trusted Traveler Program without providing dmv information that the is against the certain jurisdiction. And in my opinion as elected officials , Government Official is here to serve the public arecitizens , its supposed services and and for you to take that kind of action not knowing the facts raises a lot of alarms. State of new york the state of california, where to operate a system or economy or society based on what we have worked with. We have a horrible immigration system. Last time we had immigration reformbill was under the great california president reagan. Today in california what we try to do is make sure the people that drive in our streets will help drive a have a drivers license are insured. That when the Police Officer pulled them over, they have an idea and we knowwho they are. Thats why we must have people riding with drivers licenses. Its not providing you with a religious, its a Public Policy issue. Thats what we tried to do and im sad because you took action against the state of newyork. You didnt have to. You kind of went back and check your records to see who was not providing you with dmv records all this time. Here. Thank you very much. Mister correa the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. Humanitarian commissioner perez, thank you for being here thank you men and women who serve underneath you for thisservice you provide every day to our country. As we talk about trusted Traveler Program, theres actually couple different brands underneath the trusted Traveler Program is correct. Correct punishment. I was able to find at least five of the tsa reject being one. The program, nexusprogram, Sensory Program the fast program. What would all five of those programs being under the global umbrella of the trusted Traveler Program. It would become his men, the only clarification is the tsa project is administered by different agencies other than cd. Also tsa obviously in the apartment of Homeland Security so we see have oversight of regarding the implementation of theprogram, all the other programs you are on my cd. Talk about the general purpose of these programs physically, the one that , the programs cbp administers. It really is a Risk Management. Very critical on Risk Management tool that enables us to identify presented, low risk travelers we can subsequently approve this trusted traveler status so that when they are traveling across borders, whether it be an airport, seaport or land border , they get expedited privilege under the ability to clear the border in a faster manner. Thereby reducing the burden on the frontline men and women of the agency and how it is they assessments of again very critical in her presence environment of finite resources when youre trying to identify serious risks to the homeland. For an individual to qualify for any of these programs we witness, there is a vetting process that you have to discuss, the correct . Correct is information necessary to properly that individual wine for any of the programs under the trusted Traveler Program . So directly, not so much. Only in that vetting process cd. Nonetheless because we are querying and leveraging other systems as well and with respect to performing background checks, they are as you might imagine times and can be informed by the interagency collaboration. Thats what i want to talk about. When im talking information sharing or the purpose of this is important that you and the federal government to access other information data systems. State systems, federal systems that probably that individuals to see if they would be a proper candidate for one of these programs, right. Is congressman. The vetting of the program itself for these programs, the vetting process is something that is cbp centric but nevertheless again further informed that injury collaboration and how those collaborations, how that Data Exchange and how that Information Exchange does inform our other holdings are leveraged in order to assess risk and do background checks vetting anybody who applies into these programs. Let me ask you this, is the envy related to data information, is that one day assess that you allowed to that applicants in this program . It is. And is it your belief and i know based on testimony earlier, is your belief that dmv information is available is always used. There may be times where the information, we know theres certain states that dont because of state laws that provide information when available, that is one of the sunsets of data that is used travelers for this program. It is congressman and those queries are readily being made and those are the returns we get as i described earlier. Let me close with this. When we had states in our territories you are one refused to provide information at all. Or in some cases where they severely limits the information that they are sharing , does that have to the potential to make the traveling public lesssafe. It would seem to me that one you were data set that you are the agency would be able to look at so in theory, by refusing to share information transfer, refusing to share with the federal government, could that put numbers of the traveling public at risk an individual was to qualify for what was under the trusted Traveler Program but yet there would be information that was withheldthat may have flagged that individual and prevented them from being cleared . Absolutely congressman and this takes us to another troubling aspect. Uniquely troubling aspect of new yorks green light law. Aside from the trusted Traveler Programs, the inability to share that information for all sorts of other enforcement purposes and mission sets. Not just for the impact it has immediately on us but the impact it has with our state and local partners and any of those who might otherwise be able to share that information with us over the course ofinvestigation of all types as i mentioned in my opening statement. That might then further informed not just the mv data that comes to us but other systems and holdings and investigations that could inform us as to why somebody might not be otherwise eligible or found to be eligible for a low risk travel program. One last question, do you believe new york state green light law which would negatively impact Public Safety . My professional opinion is absolutely yes. No further questions madame chairman, i yield back. Thank you mister guest and the chair recognizes the gentle lady from new york ms. Clark. Thank you chairwoman and i think the Ranking Member higgins. At todays hearing follows mister waltsappearance before the committee in march. I asked him several questions about the decision to ban new York Residents from participating in the trusted Traveler Program. For example i askedand i quote , can you please explain how it makes the United States safer to allow residents of a foreign country to enroll in the Global Entry Program but to bar residents of new york state . After some back and forth mister walt said dhs did not have all the information required to that an applicant from new york. Mister wolf also said and i quote, what i had to take into account was making sure that the whole global entry system was not compromised. Then i asked whether there was no other way of doing that other than banning all new yorkers andmister wolf eventually said and i quote , there is not. You can understand then mister perez how it was a surprise to me when an in Early September you file a supplemental declaration with the District Court in which you said and i quote, while cbp officers responsible for vetting applications including applications for the Global Entry Program do consider dod record information in their adjudication of such applications, based on information identified by cbp on july 17, 2020, it is now clear that dod data is not and was not at the time of my signature or my previous declaration available in whole or in part to the cbp vetting officers for a number of jurisdictions including new york. How could cbp have been unaware prior to july 17 of the fact that some jurisdictions were not providing some or all of the data that mister wolf claims were so essential to vetting applicants to the trusted Traveler Program that new York Residents had to be excluded from the program because new york wasnt providing this data . Thank you congresswoman and ill try to claim that again without getting too far into the technical weeds as ill say. But i do want to also make one other statement as well on that because congressman correa two, i want you all to know that cbp, we own the fact that we tested two and we are under the impression that we were receiving all this data and that we were absolutely convinced that this data was coming back to us and then subsequently unearthed it back in july. So we own that, thats something were owning and were fixing and i want to make sure that gets on the record clearly. Just to go back again and try to explain congresswoman how that played out. The way it was explained to me by our office of Information Technology professionals is as follows. Is that because of the nature of the queries and how they typically run in batches, the volume associated with that and the technical aspects of how those returns come back to the agency, when those queries were made there was nothing readily evident that we were not receiving the data that was being queried from any of those jurisdictions. It was not clear by virtue of the fact that for most, save the us territories who were not transmitting at all we were receiving something. We were getting him sort of positive return on those queries whereas with new york which is still true, we were getting a unique identifier informing the agency the query and information bearing asked for was restricted. That was unique then with respect to the queries and it is my understanding that remains unique. Nonetheless, without beginning getting into the myriad of complexities of the it systems we are immersed in fixing those in working again with the states and territories to find a path forward so they can get us the completed information but that is essentially how that played out my understanding and i hope that explained it. Wouldnt you agree there was a serious Security Breach beyond what you are doing with new york if in fact those data points were not being processed by all these other jurisdictions . I would not congresswoman, i would not characterize it like that at all. I wanted to get your characterization because you said new york state, what youre now saying is you would not characterize the fact that you didnt havethe detailed information coming from all these other jurisdictions. Very contradicted but let me move on. Given mister wolf claimed the and the data was so essential in determining eligibility for enrollment in the trusted Traveler Program that new yorkers had to be thrown out of the program because new york wasnt providing that data. Whats the risk that cbp created by enrolling applicants from us jurisdiction that had provided limited or no dmv data. So to that point congresswoman, its notunlike i mentioned in my opening statement. We would have otherwise might have approved applications that would have provided for some sort of dmv related offenses of the trusted traveler applicants who would have been found otherwise disqualified i virtue of some dmv related misdemeanor issues, other than that there is no other subsequent consequence of what it is and how it is with respect to the rest of who it is was let into that program but. So essentially youre saying theres none. And what it was mister wolf claimed that data was needed to vet applicants in the first place. Was he ignorant of the facts or was he misleading the committee. In order to be approved into a trusted Traveler Program on this woman, we expect that all those applicants meet the strictest fresh old with respect to what it is those qualifications are. That includes the information that we are required from dmv, to dmvs around the country and from the territories in order to potentially identify disqualifying data. Her risk associated from a National Security perspective by virtue of our ability to leverage rental information and a wide array of other types of sources including interagency collaboration in our own holdings is suffering a part is we go ahead and that and approval for a privilege to be to come across a border in a much more expedited and passion the low risk unless privilege , that privilege also does lean on the dmv information that we get from those dmv locations and their dmv offices from around the country there may again some violations particularly for people who drive cars are dmv related would disqualify you a trusted Traveler Program. On that note mister perez, a privilege you ask citizens are afforded. But while new York Residents were being prohibited from their role inthe trusted Traveler Program , cdg continue enrolling Foreign Nationals in the program. We were congresswoman. Those are by way of bilateral specific, bilateral arrangements made with those governments. In order to have some of their nationals apply into the program. Theyre very strictly, laid out as far as requirements and under what needs to be met. The vetting capabilities that because of doing with different governments and Different Countries are all unique so again, those are specific agreements want to and about by virtue of collaboration with those foreign governments and our counterparts and subsequently upon approval from both countries of the potential applicants are those individuals subsequently approved into the program. I might add one of the aspects that we do ask that foreign governments do bring to bear and collect and analyze from their end is related to dmv light and were driver related offenses therein as well. Madam chair, im going over my time and i have some additional questions. Mister president if i can say, you had numerous times during your testimony here today that you said you didnt want to get into the technical weeds. With members of congress and yet that is exactly why were here. In fact, we tried to get transcribed interviews which are a great way to be able to dive into and get into the weeds, not in this setting and you have not made available for that purpose so im imploring you to please feel free to get into the weeds because its only by getting into the weeds that we are going to truly understand what happened here thank you for that. The chair now recognizes gentle lady from arizona this lesko area. Thank you madam chair. I do not have any questions, ill just make a briefcomment. I the gentleman for coming to testify today. Thank you for your work, thank you for your employees work to keep our country safe. I have to say, i continue to be mystified by my democratic colleagues who somehow think its awful that if a state decides not to share information that is vital for National Security with federal agencies in order to get trusted Traveler Program which is just a courtesy, is not like a right foreverybody to have , that somehow they think thats bad area i think its a good thing. So i applaud you for keeping our country safe. Keeping our communities safe and standing up for what i believe the majority of americans agree with and with that i will. Thank you miss lesko. We will now go round of questions and ill recognize myself for hopefully five minutes. Mister president on june 22 the committee wrote to dhs seeking documents and information regarding the trump administrations decision to permit mister nigel arrived and traveled to the United States from the United Kingdom despite travel restrictions in place to protect against the spread of the coronavirus pandemic. So that it allowed him to travel so that he attend Campaign Rally stage by President Trump in tulsa oklahoma. The committee requested the documents by june 26 as with so many of our documents, other document requests, this one too as gone unanswered. Do you know the date by which the department will provide to the committee all the documents it has requested regarding the process of approving mister arrived to the United States to attend the president from political rally. You madam chairwoman. Im not but ill gladly take that back to inquire on your. The decision to admit by the cbp a Foreign National who happens to be an ally of the president provides an interesting counterpoint to the administrations efforts to intentionally disadvantage us citizens residing in new york. At the time Mister Farage was admitted, an executive order was in effect suspending the entry into the United States of people who had been in the United Kingdom in the previous 14 day period. You will also note at the time Mister Farage was the leader of a Political Party but did not appear to have any official position. When Committee Staff requested further information from cbp regarding Mister Faragestravel to the us , cbp provided in an email that stated Mister Farage was denied boarding when trying to fly from the United Kingdom to the United States but after conducting a thorough review of the relevant facts and circumstances, dhs determined Mister Farages travel would be permissible under an exemption allowed entry to quote, any alien whose entry would be inthe National Interest. Do you know what National Interest was served by permitting Mister Farage to enter the United States . Im not aware madam chairwoman of the extent of the exemptions that were applied when Mister Farage was allowed to enter. I just told you, i quoted that his travel was determined to be permissible under an exemption that allowed entry to quote, any alien whoseentry would be in the National Interest. Me madam chairwoman, im not aware of the particular details that would have led to him beingeligible for that exemption. For you part of thatdecisionmaking determining it was in the National Interest to allow him into the United States . Do you know who made that decision. It would have been either depending on the exemptions, if im not mistaken it would have been either senior staff of the agency meaning cbp for the department depending on the waivers. When you say senior staff, who specifically would you be referring to. It would have been in office of Field Operations which is again, the entity within ce that oversees entry intothe port of entry. And it wasnt ce, but as you said it could have been cbp or people at the Department Meeting dhs,the would have made the decision dhs . It would have hinged upon my understanding is the authority being leveraged. My presumption is it would have been more so hours that there may be other exemptions depending on which one was being utilized that fall under the purview of the departments ofauthority but i have to go back to double check that. Just to clarify it seems if you are allowing entry into this country based on it being in the National Interest, that that is the decision, applying exemption is a decision that would have to be made according to you at the very top of either cdb or dhs. It would have been made at senior level, not necessarily having to come to my level of authority would have been was subsequently delegated down again. At an executive level. Investor will make this decision as far as you know . That is nothing that im aware of. Thank you madam chair. Deputy commissioner what about her test for his . If the amendment of new york law earlier this year, which perhaps was a goodfaith intention to fix this thing. Too readily admit that, i dont know of any interactions that were requested at the time that the Legislature Come the state legislature was making those amendments to the law. I dont know if there was a great deal of interaction with the cbp or i. C. E. Or dhs to arrive at a language of the law as amended that would fix the thing because to make it a felony to share dmv information was cbp or i. C. E. Outside of now exceptions how did that impact the Task Force Activities with other federal Law Enforcement agencies like ada, u. S. Marshals . Can you explain how the greenlight laws amend it has impacted the dhs relationships with their federal Law Enforcement agencies specifically regarding joint Terrorism Task forces etc. Thank you Ranking Member and that was as troubling as any development that came up subsequently with request to the devolution of new yorks greenlight law, the lack of the ability to share information but then frankly the cooling effect if you will from a practical perspective of now the consequence to share that information by virtue of a felony. Right and please explain to america because i know because of my background and many watching here in congress do as well but clarify the task force as it meets the moves forward. Its a bunch of guys in a room and some undisclosed location talking about the development in the case and so how could another federal Law Enforcement agents not share data that it had access to with members of the task force that included i. C. E. Or customs and Border Protection that this information was designed to be shared. Thats what the task force does, to combine their investigative conclusions and what their suspicions are etc. To arrive at the next step in that task force investigation. So how has it impacted the realities of your Task Force Operations . Im very curious about that. Thank you Ranking Member but i would describe it this way. As you alluded to those task force environments are dynamic environments in many respects they are imperfect. They are imperfect insofar in it is by bringing the task force and those bearing elements together that one enables the other in a very dynamic way and over the decades that i have been in this profession i have seen the evolution of the utility and being able to readily share on the frontline what it is and all that it is that each and every agency, Law Enforcement professional can bring by way of experience in actual information and data to bear when looking for solutions and answers and leads to be well on the multitude of threats that we are pursuing in the interest of Public Safety. The impact of not being able to share readily and again at the very least i would imagine it is awkward for those who are involved in that, if not quite difficult and concerning because again now theres a very real consequence by way of a criminal conviction. Orange is awkward. Orange is awkward. Let me ask you in the interest of perhaps moving towards some potential resolution here, if the criminal impact of sharing information under the amended new york law was further amended based upon deeper communications between cbp, dhs, i. C. E. In the new york legislature, can you just answer is candidly, is there a way forward there if all parties were willing to address the amended law . I believe so Ranking Member. In fact we have a among the outreach we have done as i mentioned earlier to all those in the jurisdictions with respect to dmv information we have reached back to new york as well and asked them frankly back in april are there amendments to turn some information back on in the interest of being able to better trust that dashed the debtor trusted traveler. They have yet to respond to that in turn that information on but to your question i believe so. There is always a path forward in order for people to understand more cutely wet perhaps the end intended consequences of some of what it is they have done truly are. Again as somebody who works in new york city directing this agency for over eight years i will tell you throughout the country because that information is being leveraged in the lies throughout the country at times by virtue of the nature of investigations that are being had in the linkages that are being made by officers and agents in this row all over the country. That is a very serious impact on our ability to again do all the other type of work that we do in order to keep our communities safe. Thank you for your answers and madam chair thank you for holding this hearing today and i close my questions on that. Thank you mr. Higgins. The chair now recognizes gentleman from california mr. Correa. Thank you mr. Chair. I have a couple of followup questions and id agree with mr. Higgins the more information the better. The bad guy would do less harm outside the country and inside the country too. We have a lot of domestic terrorism and a rise in domestic terrorism so i think Sherry Sherry that information is important and i hope we get there respecting the objectives of the states in terms of their Public Safety objectives as well as yours as well. You touched on Something Interesting which was a foreign Traveler Program under the trusted Traveler Program. You mentioned something about the dmv like data so i think there is like 11 countries that we have a trusted Traveler Program come is that correct . The was that sharing of the information of those 11 countries similar dmv data . Tell me first of all do we have treaties with those countries . Do we have sharing agreements, sharing data agreements with them . Help me understand a little bit more about how we work with these foreign nations to make sure we are all secure. Absolutely congressman. I dont have the list readily available. Its a will more than a dozen Different Countries and in what is essentially and these are very specific ilec or lecrae meant. Vileno pronation . Pronation directing with their counterparts and in fact not just me but oftentimes exceed what it is that we typically would require with respect to trusted Traveler Program betting. Again when we are talking about a foreign country not all of them are created equal and what it is that they can provide the data and the Information Available to procure the datasharing arrangements we have so its a very select rule that is done to the point where weve been able to make these arrangements and what i was referring to is one of the questions that i disagree with myself as we are expanding and i was learning more about the type of expansion was whether or not dmv like or drivers is seated histories and driver associated information by way of violations is not like we way those considerations are betting into her ccp programs in the west and that was something we were asking the Foreign Countries to bet on their site as well as part of the bilateral arrangement. Now they are the ones again for verifying all those checks for us. We are doing our verifications on our end. Both countries agree to a certain applicants teeing eligible to join the program and that applicant is ultimately vetted. In the legislature we address the issues of the criminal code across state lines and trying to figure out whether what you did in one state applies to the state of california meets the elements of a crime and im thinking about your job across international lines. Dmv type of data. Is that kind of something that you do try to figure out whether a person who is applying for a trusted Traveler Program from another country, they would need qualifications and terms of similar behavior that you would find objective in the u. S. And in other countries . Are there specific elements for states that you look at . The short answer is yes, congressman and how you described it is my understanding as well but again a lot of that criteria is on the front end to make sure that both countries understand exactly what the expectation is on the applicant and without getting into too much detail on the specific betting which we will gladly provide more detail for the committee in a closed session because id rather not get into those specifics. I would like that. But what i can give you generally from different types of violations that are associated with a Motor Vehicle division Motor Vehicle or something that might not otherwise rise to being a criminal violation necessarily or that it could be some sort of presentation that was less than accurate. It might have been you know some other type of driving or in vehicular violation or license related violation that raises red flags with respect to potential of stability into the program but again theres a longer more detailed list that i will gladly share in a closed session. Madam chair of i can have 11 further question. Interestingly talk about dmv like data Bilateral Agreements with countries and sharing of data again from my state experience we used to have a state of attorney general state of california working with foreign attorney generals and sharing other data because this is an adjusting area. Bad guys and bad people all over the world would you want to make sure you have those folks under surveillance. And so do you look at other data via just dmv data when it comes to the trusted Traveler Program . Area much so congressman, very much so not only here here but for the respect of those same bilateral arrangement its a huge part of what it is we do when we bet for these trusted Traveler Programs. We are leaning on a multiple of holdings not just on our own but the interagency to make sure people actually it, that we can afford the prevalence for those who are deemed roeliff. Its a terrific tool. We over we have over 9. 5 million participants in the trusted Traveler Programs now and its a trick of the important tool for us to manage risk so again those thresholds and those expectations are high and we do leverage a multitude of Law Enforcement information. Madam chair i want to thank you very much and i would just ask that we consider having a private discussion on some of the details of the foreign trusted Traveler Program. Absolutely. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from new york ms. Clarke. Thank you again madam chairman and Ranking Member perez. My time is short and ive a number of questions. What did you first become aware that new york had looked at the green light law that would cut off cpbs access to the database . Congressman to the best of my recollection when i personally became aware was in december of last year when it was reported to me that we were as an agency making these queries into new yorks dmv battles date via the segue into those queries and receiving the negative returns that we were receiving so i was made aware or i recall being made aware in december of last year. How did you become aware . Can you be more explicit . To the best of my recollection congressman that was shared with me by staff at the agency. According to a few documents. By the department of this committee at december 30 of 2019 a memo was sent to the heads of dhs operational component and that quote certain state legislatures have passed laws and their Respective Department of vehicle dmv agencies from sharing information with the department. This memo went on to instruct quote each operational component conducts an assessment of the impact of these laws and respond by january 16, 2020. Did you have a role in developing in cdcs response to dhss where he . I dont recall congresswoman. As you mentioned i have a vague recollection that they asked that i dont recall that i actually reviewed the response that went back to the department. Would have been of subordinate of me who would have been passed with providing that information. Limited production provided by the committee including a memo from the u. S. Secret service for the secret service memo clearly acknowledge his debt to limitations for that agencys access to dmv information for example the secret service memo and that quote says that all states participate in driver history sharing except illinois puerto rico and the u. S. Virgin islands. As such it is clear that dhs new this and perhaps even earlier that there were at lease some limitations on the sharing of data related to drivers license with at least one dhs operational component. Were you aware in january that at least the Seeker Services and its not when did you become aware . I was not congressman and i only became aware frankly in some of these other agencies other than i. C. E. And some other limitations over the last couple of months as ive been really having to familiarize myself with the totality of particular the corporate sitting in whats been going on with the court case up in new york. Very important point here is that there is a clear distinction and can be a clear distinction with respect to what the state might be sharing with one Agency Versus what a state is in fact sharing with another. In other words meaning by virtue of the secret service as you mention not being able to get return or get information of some type of information from certain states and would not preclude that cbp wasnt actually getting that information. A document dated january 8, 2020 and labeled memorandum from the acting deputy secretary and the acting commissioner with the subject that quote new york greenlight law come implications and recommendations, was. To the committee again much of it is redacted. Did you have any role in reviewing this document or in making any of the recommendations in response to the greenlight law . If so, what was your role . Zerneck i do not recall the specifics but if it was signed by the acting commissioner of the agency i would absolutely expect that i did review that memo and approved it to beep put forth for his signature but again i just dont have wreck of the sun and i dont have it with me and i dont have recollection of what was included there but i absolutely would have reviewed more likely than not that document. And approved it. That quote cbps versed recommends engaging with the state of new york to resolve the specific access prior to implementing any of the recommendations identified below. To your knowledge did that happen and if not, why not . I dont recall to what extent and again the timing congresswoman. I do understand that there was some engagement between the department and the state of new york but i dont recall that we within cbp had any subsequent discussion and or backandforth with the state of new york. Much of the memo is redacted. Can you tell us the recommendation of the acting deputy secretary . I dont recall again the contents of the memo congresswoman and again im not familiar with the reductions made. Nonetheless again if you could gladly take back your question and see what if anything more can be provided to you other than what has already been shared. Were you ever involved with any discussion with personnel the cbp or dhs regarding how the department would respond to the enactment of the greenlight law . If so what issues were involved in and when did they occur and who participated in what was discussed . I was personally involved with several discussions and i was sharing with the dhs and my dhs counterparts as well as agencies the syrup appears in counterparts the fact that he knew them and how the greenlight love new york affected and continues to affect cbp. Again there were several conversations and i couldnt tell you specifically how many and when you do have to go back and try to take a look at back but nonetheless i assure you that i was involved in those conversations providing the facts as i knew them with respect to the new york greenlight law. Were you involved in any of these conversations . Ms. Mu was mr. Wolf involved in any of these conversations . To the best of my recollection yes. I would have been at times briefing but then acting secretary along with other superiors of the Department Head of the agency. When did you first become aware that new York Residents might be precluded from a trusted Traveler Program and how did you know . So congresswoman respectfully because the department or that decision came from the department are really dont feel its appropriate for me to get into the particular details of the delivered a process on how that decision came about but what i can share with you is ultimately dhs made the decision. My question was when did you first become aware . To the best of my recollection i became aware when the decision was made and was shared with the state of new york. Thats to the best of my recollection. How did you become aware . I again to the rest of my recollection i was made aware of the decision when the decision was ultimately made and shared with the state of new york. It may have been shared with me pray someone previously to that but i just dont recall. Who informed you . Again congress omen im going to respectfully say that i dont believe its appropriate for me to get into the particulars of the deliberate process of that decisionmaking within the department and i candidly dont have a recollection of who particularly would have been for me. What i can assure you is that i was, i was on behalf of this agency providing facts that would have informed the ultimate decisionmakers and what it is that we would and should be considering with respect to that decision. Respectfully im not asking about your deliberations. Someone had two of the informed you that this decision to exclude new york was moving forward. All im asking is who informed you . I just dont recall congress omen. That would have come from the department. The decision was made by the department who specifically and four and may i dont recall . Who made the decision that the response would be to include exclude new York Residents from the trusted Traveler Program, you dont recall . That decision i believe was a letter that was received by the state of new york from the acting secretary so again the decision ultimately came from the department. So came from mr. Was . I believe that was the written correspondence. I believe it was his signature on the written correspondence. Thats to the best of my recollection. Were you told why this action would be taken if so what would. Congress omen again with all due respect i think that is particularly directly about the deliberative process and im just letting you know that i was providing the advice and the facts as i knew it as best they could with cbps perspective on what should inform the ultimate decision that was made and at the time i gave those facts as best they could and with everything that we had available to us in order to provide the decisionmakers the most amount of information that they could possibly have riordan making that decision. What actions did you take or order within cbp to implement the decision . Once the decision was made we immediately stopped accepting a new application for the trusted Traveler Programs and renewals from residents from the state of new york. Madam chair with all due respect we are the oversight body of this agency and i am highly insulted by the fact that we could have an officer from this agency said to me that he does not have to share with us the information of the deliberation. This is the height of insult to the American People and i believe that this requires that we have a secure environment in which to have a conversation. If this can happen in new york state it can happen any state of the union at the whim of any individual within any administration and this is not what the American People have asked of us to do. I yield back to madam chair but i have to say that mr. Peres you have to be better than this. I yield back. Thank you ms. Clarke and i. Given the limited limited answers answers that we have we have gotten here today it would be a good idea to continue this conversation in a secure location. Mr. Perez let me say this, thank you for showing up today because that is more than mr. Acosta who is the actual director of the cbp, the trusted Traveler Program, its more than he did and its more than mark morgan who is the acting commissioner cbp did. Its more than scott glade do is get ready for the same official performing the duties of the secretary of strategy policy and plans an assistant secretary of Economic Security department of Homeland Security. Thats a mouthful. You have done more than those three have done but i take exception to the idea of consistently downplayed your own time and you are the Deputy Commissioner of the cbp. That is a job with enormous responsibility and normas discretion and enormous access to how decisions are made within the department. You listed multiple times seemingly in four different email discussions in Court Documents which indicate that you were fairly involved in the process of how all these decisions were made. So i just want to be clear that we know that there are many documents that are likely response to the request that this committee made in july. We know this because of reports dated september 4, 2020 filed by the office of the acting u. S. Attorney for the Southern District of new york with the District Court indicates the department of justice officials reviewed and i quote more than 2000 emails and documents regarding this issue. It is extremely likely that many of these materials would be response to the committees for categories of requests. That may also be clear that distance of any type of litigation is not relevant, is not relevant to the departments obligation to provide to this committee documents the committee has requested. You make it very difficult for us to engage in our constitutional responsibility on having oversight over these agencies and i hope the Ranking Member will agree with me that this is not a political issue. This is an issue of allowing committees, congressional committees to do their required duties so im asking you specifically mr. Perez by what date and i need a specific date, will you provide to the committee all the documents that we have requested noting that these documents have already been identified in likely assembled given the statement that was made by doj in the Southern District in its report to the District Court . I will gladly take that back and share to find out when exactly you should all expect us to be able to provide that. Right now i cant give you specific date but i will gladly take that back and give you in an attempt to give you specific date of when it is you should expect those responses to be provided. I think that you are in a high enough position to give me an answer now but i will give you lets say i dont know until the end of the week that you can tell us because these documents have been requested. We know that they have been reviewed. We know that they have been collated. We know the Southern District has access to them as well. Again they said they have reviewed more than 2000 emails and documents. Specifically on this issue that we are inquiring about so again i want to thank you for showing up. I want to thank you for your patience here today and for giving answers that could have been fleshed out a little more i respect the fact that you are agreeing to give us answers that will go deeper into the weeds to user language and a secure setting and we will take you up on that. Im going to defer to the Ranking Member for any concluding comments you would like to make. Just briefly, Deputy Commissioner perez, Deputy Commissioner of customs and Border Protection are you the acting secretary of the department of Homeland Security . No, i am not. Is it righteous that this committee would ask you questions regarding your own personal knowledge and actions of the performance of your duty as a Deputy Commissioner of customs and Border Protection . Absolutely glad to respond. Would you consider it righteous or within the parameters of appropriate questioning of the chain of command to for us to ask you is the Deputy Commissioner from customs and Border Protection about internal discussions and deliberations of the acting secretary of the department of Homeland Security . Again i would respectfully say that i do not believe so. Nonetheless having to provide a response thats why im here and id laugh we take the question nonetheless. I am an elected representative of the house of representatives for the Third District of louisiana, south louisiana. We have seniority chain of command so to speak within our conference, republican conference. My colleagues have a similar chain of command within the Democratic Caucus and my own office has internal deliberations that are unknown to other officers as you can imagine and there is no way that i can answer questions regarding the deliberations and the internal communications of our leaderships, the means by which they arrived at conclusions leader mccarthy or my colleague representative steve scalise. They issue their statements and we are included because we are part of that conference. The same thing happens across the aisle. If someone asked me how leader mccarthy, what the deliberations were in the specifics were, what the conversations were within his office i wouldnt be able to answer because i wasnt there. So i think that as my colleague earlier indicated that you are somehow withholding data that you should divulge that but with than ever because asian or chain of command exists there are parameters that we should stay within regarding responding to questions. So i thank you for appearing before us today predicting you have been candid and forthright in your answers and i thank my colleague and friend madam chair for holding this hearing today. Thank you mr. Higgins and mr. Higgins my friend, i think that we all know how our individual leaders have come to the conclusion is that they come to. We just choose not to express them publicly. That may be the case here as well. So mr. Perez again thank you so much for attending. With that i want to thank you for your testimony and the members further questions. The members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for the witness and we have put the respond expeditiously and writing those questions without objection the committee record shall be kept open for 10 days. Hearing no further business the subcommittee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] discuss the policy issues that impact you. Coming up this morning, we talk about legal challenges to the campaign 2020 battle. With the university of law professor. Member the heritage foundation. Watch washington journal live at 7 00 eastern. Be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text and tweets. Heres a look at where the balance of seats in the u. S. House currently stands. This is a press has them because were 200 eight seats, republicans 193. Leaving democrats tense each short of the majority. 34 house races remain undecided