Transcripts For CSPAN2 House Hearing On Trusted Traveler Programs 20240712

We can then today in our continued effort to understand whyt this can be received inaccurate and misleading testimony from dhs regarding its decision to ban residents of new york state, trusted Traveler Programs, like global entry. On february 5th, senior dhs official chad wolf 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 as 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 residents will 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 this access to dmv records. At a minimum, the testimony gave a false impression about both 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 vet trusted travelers. Theyve 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 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, Chilling Effect at our northern border. Then all of a sudden, 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 the supplemental declaration he submitted on the matter to the District Court. We also learned information that raises questions about whether dmv data is actually used to vet every trusted Traveler Program applicant. Unfortunately, we learned this information only from the Court Filings 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 inaccuratet and misleading testimony the Committee Received from dhs. Either senior dhs officials had a shared and profoundlyy inaccurate understanding of how the programs they manage actually work, which would be extremely troubling in its own right. Or, option two, senior officials intentionally obfuscated key details about the applicant vetting 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 r new york for its green light law. Pa and this was the retribution. Plain and simple. In a transcribed interview with the committee, mr. John wagner, cbps former deputy executive assistant commissioner, informed us that he, quote, shouldve t been aware that two territories gave cbp no dmv information. He also said he, quote, shouldve 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 know. And dhs has refused to cooperate with the committees investigation. Dhs has not provided the documents we requested. Dhs has 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 tellt us which explanation is correct, but we will continue ourr investigation until we know for sure. T, further, given that the department stated that 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 applicantsra 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. Pp obviously, we also want to know why dhs officials do not understand the programs they manage, and whether this is creating Security Risks. I therefore call on dhs to immediately provide all of 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 hearing your testament and i thank him for appearing. The chair now recognizes the Ranking Member off the subcommittee, the gentleman from louisiana mr. Higgins, for an Opening Statement thank you, chairwoman rice, and thank you Deputy Commissioner perez for being here today. Madam chairwoman, i was sad to the passing of 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, that has disturbingly made communities throughout the entire country less safe. The law barred new york state drivers license and vehicle registration information, drivingrelated criminal histore information, drivers license and corrections images, among other information on residents from being shared with customs and Border Protection andor immigration and customs enforcement. Ts the sponsor of this law said before the state assembly that it would only impactld investigations of immigrationrelated violations and that criminal investigations would not be impacted. However, criminal investigations have in fact been impacted by this state law and the totalitys of negative consequences are much farther reaching. All four u. S. Attorneys for the state of new york put out ang press release in february sounding the alarm that the green light law is impacting active criminal investigations across the board. Cbp and ice are on the front lines of defending the homeland from terrorism, transnational crime, dangerous gang members, narcotics including fentanyl, counterfeit products including pharmaceuticals, Human Trafficking, child exploitation, among other important missions. The green light law limits the departments Situational Awareness at border crossings, interior checkpoints where high volumes of drug and human smuggling interdictions occur, peace officer patrol stops, and Homeland Security investigations including criminal activity on the darknet. There are more than 19 million residents of new york state. New york state licensed vehicles and travelers transit borders, sea ports, and airports across the country. The impact of the law is not new york specific, it effects communities throughout the United States. The green light law also requires an individual to be notified if cbp or ice requests information about them outside the scope of the exception. If an ice officer is investigating a Human Trafficking case involving an illegal immigrant who resides in new york state and attempts to access related dmv data, state law requires that individual toe be tipped off. That is 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 Violation purposes. T the reality is more than 86 of individuals arrested by ice in fiscal year 2019 had criminalc. Convictions or pending charges. R the green light law furthers the far lefts agenda to tie the hands of federal Law Enforcement, ignore federal immigration laws, attack and call for the dismantlement of i spent cbp. Not all of my colleagues across the aisle feel this way but it is the National Narrative directed for my democratic colleagues. The fraction of embarkation information shared between federal, state and 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 Legislature knew that it went too far. Thats why they amended the original language in april of this year to allow for some information flow to cbp. And i applaud the effort. However, but look at it than a goodfaith effort to come together and fix this problem, devolved into an escalator attack on Law Enforcement by making it a felony to share dmv information with cbp or eyes outside of narrow exceptions. Its an easy mistake to make. This book 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 counter terrorism, gang violence, and Drug Trafficking seen as a best practice to keep violent criminals off the streets. Instead of speaking out about the dangerous precedent the green light law has set, my colleagues seem more concerned with taking shots at the administration. An election year, weveve seen that from both sides. This committee should be objective about our observations and conclusions. Its interesting that we would attempt to impact Career Department of Homeland Security officials just weeks before an election. It is undeniable that new yorkti state took unprecedented action in blocking cbp and ice accessct to dmv information currently available to all other federal, state, and local Law Enforcement. This this is a unique to new yo. Its not 100 unique complexity of t this law that one covered s investigationon unfolded. But new york is certainly alone in the totality of the circumstance. Today i want 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 well intended 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 acts in lieu of a passport. I want an update on data sharing agreements being made to ensuree cbp can fully vet trusted traveler applicants. Madam chair, i would like to ask unanimous consent to submit statements in opposition to the new york state green light law for the record from the u. S. Attorneys for the districts of new, federal Law Enforcement officers association, the new York State Association of chiefs of police and the new york state sheriffs association. I ask unanimous consent. So received. And iiv yield back. Thank you, madam chair. I think the Ranking Member. Members are reminded the subcommittee will operate according to the guidelines laid out by the chairman and Ranking Member in the july 8 colloquy. Without objection members not sitting on the subcommittee will be permitted too participate in todays hearing. I now welcome our witness. Away dissipates mr. Roberts perez, Deputy Commissioner for u. S. Customs and Border Protection. In this role he served as the Agency Senior career official overseeing the personnel who work every day to protect our nations borders. During his 28 year career career in federal Law Enforcement mr. Perez has also served as the director of fieldpe operations n cbps new York Field Office and in detroit, michigan, and help various other positions at cbp headquarters. Without objection the witnesses full statement will be inserted in the record. But not as mr. Perez if you would like to summarize this statement for five minutes. Tha 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. or share dmv information with cbp in violation of the statute potentially presenting risks of personal liability for our personal as well as there were a state and local Law Enforcement partners. Specifically, the law still prevent cbp from accessing, using or sharing dmv records for other important missionde relatd purposes including identifying vehicles used in illicit activity, verifying the identity of the vehicles on or before traffic and using the information for investigations into criminal activity such as narcotics trafficking, identiy fraud, gang affiliation and terrorism. In contrast, the trusted program leading limitations we discovered while important and likely only prevent cbp from identifying potential disqualifying information for Program Applicants and members of certain jurisdictions based on misdemeanor Motor Vehiclele offenses. 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 thats not exactly correct but im going to explain what and how that played out your new york was the sole entity, state or territory, that shut us down from something that was already being provided for. All the other states and territories that were providing something, we were getting some dmv information. What we unearthed and what we discovered was theres one aspect of the multiple queries, the drivers history that was not being returned by some of these states. But, madam chair, just final statement. Im just trying to figure out, again, some jurisdictions didnt provide any or some. New york you discovered was not going to come and, therefore, you gave them separate treatment. We at the time believed that new york was unique in not providing anything. It was couldnt you check back in your database toto show that should other jurisdictions where the trusted Traveler Program was being approved despite not having the dmv information . That was what we only unearthed later on in july, congressman. At the time that we shut new york down it was our understanding of our belief that we were getting the returns on the dmv information complete from every other jurisdiction. It wa only after later on, months later, that wee discoverd otherwise. If i can just a quick concluding statement. I hear what youre saying. Im bothered though because you took action against the state of new york without fully bedding the facts venting the facts. Its almost are punishing new york for what they are doing yet the other jurisdictions continue to operate and get the benefits of trusted Traveler Program without providing dmv information. That to me is an act of punishment against the a certan jurisdiction. In my opinion, as elected officials, government officials here to serve the public, our citizens, you were supposed to serve the citizens. For you to take that kind of action without knowing the facts of alarms. T state of new york like the state of california, we are trying to operating system or economy or society based on what we have to work with your we have the horrible immigration system. Last time we had Immigration Reform bill was under the great california president nd reagan. Todayia in california what we ty to just make sure people are driving our streets, know how to drive. That means have drivers license, our insured, that when the Police Officer pulls them over they have an id and we know who they are. Thats why wanted people driving with drivers licenses. Its not to providing every with anyli privileges. Its a Public Policy issue. Thats what we tried to do, and im sad because you took action against the state of new york but you didnt have to. You kind of went back and just check your records and see who was not providing you with dmv records all this time. Madam chair, thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Correa. The chairman of recognize the gentleman from mississippi, mr. Guest. Thank you, madam chair. Commissioner perez, i think you and the men and women who serve underneath you for the service day tou provide every our country. As we talked about the trusted Traveler Program theres actually several different programs underneath the trusted Traveler Program, is that correct . Correct, congressman. And i and i was able to findt least five of the tsa precheck being one of the global entry program, the nexus program, the Sentry Program and the fast program. With all five of those programs the under the global umbrella of the trusted Traveler Program . They would be. Complication clarification i would make is that tsa precheck is administered by Different Agency other than cbp. Also tsa obviously and the department of Public Security so we in cbp dont have oversight regarding the implementation of that program. All the of the programs you mention are run by cbp. Talk about the general purpose ofpu these programs specifically the one that, the program cbp administers. It really is a Risk Management, very critical Risk Management tool that enables us to identify again prevented, low risk travelers prevetted that we can subsequently approved for this trusted travelers status so that when there traveled across the borders, whether it be an airport, seaport or land border, they getan expedited privilege d the ability to clear the board and a faster manner. Thereby reducing the burden on the front line men and women of the agency, and how it is the ss risk which becomes again very critical in an ever present environment of finite resources when youre trying to identify serious risks to the homeland. Ess that you have to discuss, the correct . Correct is information necessary to properly that individual so directly not so much, only in very much an internal process from cd, because we are leveraging other systems as well with respect to performingthose background checks , they are as you might imagine at times and can be informed by the interagencycollaboration. Thats what i want to talk about. When im putting iinformation sharing, can you the federal government be able to access other information data systems and federal systems thproperly that individuals if they would be a proper candidate for these programs, is that right . The vetting program for these different programs is something that is cbp centric but further informed by all that interagency collaboration and how those collaborations, how the Data Exchange does inform our other holdings are leverage in order to limit risk do background checks for vetting of anybody into these programs. Is dmv related to that information, is that one data set that you allow to that applicants forthis program . It is is your belief and i 3 3 3 p 3 3 3 33o o 3 3 3 3 3 o 3 3 o o 3 3p o 3 o p o 3 o o 3 3 o o 3 3 3 3 3 o p 3 p3 3 o 3 p 33 3 o 3 o p3 o 3 3 p 3 o 3 o o 3 3 o o 3 p pp 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 o 3 o 3 3 3 o o o 3 3 3 3 o 3 3 3 3 p 3 3 3 o 3 3 o p3 3 33 3 3 p 3 p 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 p 3 p o p 3 p33 3 o 3 o p 3 o 3 p 33 op o o o p o 3 p 3 3 p p3 p 3 33 33 o 3 o o 3 3 p o p o 3 o 3 o o 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 t 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 evidenced that we were not receiving the data that was being queried from any of those jurisdictions. It was clear by virtue of the fact that for most, save the us territories not transmitting at all we were receiving something, getting some sort of positive return on those queries whereas with new york which is still true we were getting a unique identifier informing the agency that the query and information being asked for was restricted. That was unique then with respect to the queries and it is my understanding that remains unique. Nonetheless without getting into the myriad of the complexities of the it systems we are immersed in fixing those in working with the states and territories to find a path forward so they can giveus the completed information but that is essentially how that played seout in my understanding. I hope that explains it mister perez, wouldnt you then agree that it was a serious Security Breach beyond what you were doing with the new york if in fact those data points were not being processed by all these otherjurisdictions . I would not congresswoman, i would not characterize it like that at all. I wanted to get your characterization because in new york state youre now saying you would not characterize the fact that you didnt have this detailed information coming from all these other jurisdictions. Its very contradicted but let me move on. Given mister wolf claimed that new yorks mecbp data was so essential to 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. What Security Risk as the cbp created in our nation by enrolling applicants from us jurisdictions that have provided limited or no dmv data . To that point congresswoman its not unlike i mentioned in my Opening Statement , that we would ouhave otherwise and 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 by 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 risk of who it is that was let into that program. Essentially youre saying theres not and why did mister wolf claim that dmv data was needed to vet applicants in the first place . Was he ignorant of thefacts or was he misleading the committee . In order to order to be approved into a trusted Traveler Program we expect all those applicants meet the strictest threshold with respect to what it is those qualifications are read that includes getting atthe information that we are required from the mv, to dmvs around the country and from the territories in order to potentially identify disqualifying data. The inherent risk associated from a National Security perspective by virtue of our ability to leverage criminal information by a wide array of other types of sources including interagency collaboration and our own holdings is a part from how it is we go ahead and vet and approved folks for a privilege to be able to come across a border in a much more expedited and fashion and be deemed low risk. Nonetheless that privilege also does lean on the dmv information that we get from those dmv locations and are dmv offices from around the country y and there may be again some violations particularly for people who drive cars that are dmv related that would disqualify you from a trusted Traveler Program. On that note mister perez it is a privilege and its a privilege that us citizens are afforded but wiley new york residents were being prohibited from enrolling in the trusted Traveler Program the cbp continued enrolling Foreign Nationals in the program. We were congresswoman, those are they way of bilateral arrangements made with those foreign governments. In order to have some of their nationalsapply into the program. Theyre very strictly laid out as far as requirements under what needs be met. The vetting capabilities but because of dealing with different governments, Different Countries they are all unique again those are specific agreements brought 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 the foreign governments to bring to bear doand collate and analyze on their end is related dmv like and or driver related offenses therein as well. Madam chair, ive gone over my time and if there is an additionalround i have additional questions. Mister president , if i can say youve spent 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 thats exactly why we. Are here. And in fact we tried to get transcribed interviews which were a great way to be whable to kind of dive into anda get into the weeds , not in this setting and you were 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 truly going to understand what happened here so thank you for that. The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from arizona, miss lesko. Thank you madam chair. I do not have any questions. Ill just make a brief comment. Thank the gentleman from 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 this size not to share information that vital for National Security with federal agencies in order to get trusted Traveler Program which is just a courtesy. Its not like a right for everybody to have. That somehow they think thats bad. 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 would agree with and without highyield back. Thank you miss lesko. We now go into round two of questions and ill recognize myself for hopefully five minutes. Mister perez, on june 2 the committee wrote to dhs taking documents and information regarding the Trump Administration decision to promote mister nigel farage despite travel restrictions in place toprotect against the spread of the coronavirus pandemic. So that it allowed him to travel so that he could attend a Campaign Rally stage by President Trump in tulsa oklahoma. The e committee arrested these documents by june 26 and 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 recruiting Mister Farage to visit the United States to attend President Trumps political rally . Thank you madam chairwoman, im not but ill take that back to inquire on your behalf. The decision by cbp to admit a Foreign National who happens to be an ally of the president provides an interesting counterpoint to the administrations efforts to intentionally disadvantaged 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 ar any y official position. When Committee Staff requested further information on cdp regarding Mister Farages travel to the us , farage provided an email that stated Mister Farage was initially denied boarding while attempting to fly from the United Kingdom to the United States but quote, after conducting a thorough review of the relevant acts andcircumstances , the hs determined Mister Farages travel would be permissible under an exemption that allowed entry to quote, any alien whose entry would be in theNational Interest. Do you know what National Interest was served by permitting Mister Farage to enter the unitedstates. Im not aware madam chairwoman of the exact exemptions that were applied. When Mister Farage wasallowed to enter. I just told you, i quoted that is travel was determined to be permissible under an exemption allowed entry to quote, any alien whose entry would be in the National Interest. Partly madam chairwoman, for clarification. What im not aware of our is particular detail that would have led to him beingeligible for that exemption. Were you part of that exemption determining it was in the National Interest toallow him into the unitedstates . You know who made that decision . It would have been either depending on the exemption if nim not mistaken it would have been either r senior staff at the agencymeeting cdp or the apartment depending on the waivers. So when you say senior staff, who specifically would you be referring to. It would have been in the thoffice of Field Operations which is again,the entity within edd overseas entry into the port of entry. And if it wasnt cdp, as you said it could have been or people at the Department Meeting dhs, who would have made the decision dhs. It would have in upon my understanding is hinged upon the authority being leveraged. My presumption is that would have been more so hours there may be other exemptions again depending on which one was being utilized. For under the purview of departments authority but id have to go back and double check that madam chairwoman. Just to clarify it seems if you are allowing entry into this country based on it being in the National Interest, that is a decision applying that exemption is a decision that would have to be made according to you at the very top of either ttp or dhs. It would have been made on a senior level within our agency, not necessarily having to come to my level of authority wouldhave been and was subsequently and delegated down. It and executive level. Did mister will make this decision as far as you know . That is nothing that im aware of. Are you aware of any communication. With the trump campaign, viscvis the decisionmaking finding this to be in the National Interest . Not at all, none that im aware of. Thank you, i dont have any further questions and i will now recognize the gentleman from louisiana, Ranking Member Mister Higgins. Thank you madam chair. Deputy commissioner, it occurs to me about our task force is the amendment of the new york law earlier this year which perhaps was a good faith intention to existing, readily admit that but i dont know of any interactions that were requested at the time. The legislature, state legislature was making those amendments to the law you i dont know if there was a great deal of interaction with cdp or ice or dhs in general to arrive at a language of the law. As amended would ask the thing because the make it a felony, to share dmv information, with cdp or ice outside of narrow exceptions, how does that impact our Task Force Activities with other federal Law Enforcement agencies like dea, us marshals, can you explain how the green light law at as amended has impacted dhs relationships with our other 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 secretly with respect to the evolution of new york green light law. The lack of the ability to share information then frankly the cooling effect if you will for a practical perspective of now the consequence potentially for anybody to share that information by virtue of the class c felony. So please explain to america because i know background and maybe washington here in congress do as well clarify the task force as it meets and moves forward, its a bunch of guys in a room, and some undisclosed location, talking about the developments in case and so how could another federal Law Enforcement agents not share data that it had access with members of the task force that included ice or customs and Border Protection that this information is designed to be shared, thats what the task force does to combine their investigative conclusions and what your suspicions are etc. To arrive at the next step in that task force investigation. So how is it impacted the realities of your Task Force Operations t . Im very curious about that. Thank you Ranking Member. I describe it inthis way as you alluded to. Those task force environments are dynamic environments tand many in many respects their imperfect. Their imperfect and so far it is by bringing the task force and all those varying elements together that one enabled the other in a very dynamic way and over the decades that ive been in this profession ive seen the evolution of the utility in being able to readily share on the frontline what it is and all that it is each and every agency, Law Enforcement professional and bring by way of experience aland actual information and data to bear when looking for delusions and answers and leads if you will on the multitude of threats that we are pursuing. In the interest of Public Safety. The impact of not being able to share readily, again, at the very least i would imagine it is awkward for those who are involved in there if not quite difficult. And concerning because again now in the case of new york theres a very real consequence by way of a criminal conviction. Oranges awkward. Oranges awkward so let me ask 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 with, between cbp, dhs, ice and the newyork legislature , can you just answer us candidly, is there a way forward there if all parties were willing to address the amended law . I believe so Ranking Member. We have amongst the outreach weve done as i mentioned earlier to all those other jurisdictions with respect to dmv information weve reached back to new york now and ask them frankly because of back in april part of their amendment was to turn some information back on for the in the interest of being able to vet for trusted traveler. Weve done that outreach to begin with that, they have yet to respond and turn that information on but to your question i believe so. Theres always a path forward in order to for people to understand more acutely what the perhaps unintended consequences of some of what it is that theyve done truly are. Again, as somebody who worked in new york city directing this agency for over eight years i will tell you particularly in that space throughout the country is that information is being leveraged and utilized throughout the country at times by virtue of the nature of the investigations that are being had and the linkages that are being made officers and agents in this role , all over the country that has a very serious impact on our ability to do all the other type of work we do in order to keepour communities safe. Thank you for your answers madam chair. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from california mister grant. Thank you madam chair. I have a couple followup questions and i agree with Mister Higgins, the more information the better. We have a lot of bad guys to do us harm outside thecountry and inside the country to. Weve got a lot of domestic terrorism so i think the sharing of information is important and i hope they get there, respecting the objectives of the statein terms of their Public Safety objectives as well as yours. You touched on Something Interesting which was the foreign Traveler Program under the trusted Traveler Program. And you made mention something about the dmv like data so i think theres like 11 countries that we have kind of a foreign trusted Traveler Program, is that correct . Is that sharing of the information of those 11 countries , similar dmv data, tell me is that first of all do we have treaties with those countries . Do we have sharing agreements, sharing data agreements with them left and mark only understand more about how we work with these foreign nations to make sure we are all secure. Absolutely congressman and i dont have the list readily available but im looking to see. Its a little more than a dozen Different Countries and what it is essentially is these are specific Bilateral Agreements made with those. Us directly with our counterparts to o in fact not just me but often times exceed what it is that we typically would require with strespect to trusted Traveler Program vetting. Again when were talking Foreign Countries not all of them are created equal in what it is they can provide inning the data and information they would procure. So again, its a select rule that has sgotten to that point where weve been able to play these arrangements and what i was referring to is i asked myself as we were expanding and i was learning more about that type of expansion was whether or not dmv like and or driver associated histories and driver associated information by way of violations and misdemeanors not unlike we weigh those details into consideration for vetting into our ttp programs into the us, that was something we were asking the Foreign Countries to vet on their side as well as part of the bilateral arrangements and it is. They are the ones again ultimately verify all thosehe checks for us. We are doing our verification from our end. It is once both countries agree to a certain applicant be eligible to join the program that applicant is ultimately let in. When i was in the state legislature we address the issues of criminal code across state lines in trying to get out whether what you did in one state applied to the state of california so it would be elements of a crime. And im thinking about your jobacross International Lines , the 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 meet your qualifications in terms of similar behavior, that you would find objective in the us and in another country . You have specific elements or things that you look at . The short answer is yes congressman, i understand how you described it, my understanding as well but a lot of that criteria, a lot of all of that is done in the front end to make sure that both countries understand exactly what the expectation is on applicants and without getting into too much detail on the specific vetting which we gladly will provide in much greater detail for the committee in a close session because id rather not into the specifics. I would like to. I gladly share that but i can give you a few minor points generally , types of violations that are associated with a Motor Vehicle, division of Motor Vehicle or something therein, might not otherwise rise to a criminal violation. Necessarily, although it could be some sort of presentation that was less than accurate. It might have been some other type of driving and or vehicular violation or license related violation that had been administratively raises some red flags with respect to potential eligibility into the programs but again, there is a longer more detailed list there again we will gladly share in a closed session. Interesting that we talk about dmv like data Bilateral Agreements with other countries, sharing of data again from my state experience we had the state attorney general, state of california working with foreign attorney general and sharing other data because this is an interesting area. Bad guys, bad people all over the world you want to make sure you have those folks undersurveillance. And so do you look at other data beyond just dmv data when it comes to the trusted Traveler Program . Very much so congressman, not only here but with respect to those bilateral arrangements, that frankly acute huge part of what we do when we that for these trusted Traveler Programs. Were leaning on a multitude of holdings, not just our own but in interagency to make surepeople who actually are , that we can confidently for the privilege for those who we deem low. Its a terrific tool, we have 9 and a half alien participants in the trusted Traveler Programs now and it is a terrifically important tool for us to manage risk. So again, those thresholds, thoseexpectations are high and we do leverage a multitude of Law Enforcement information. Madam chairwoman, thank you very much and i will just ask we consider having a private discussion on some of the details of the foreign trusted travelprogram. I absolutely agree. And thank you. The chair recognizes the gentle lady from new york, ms. Clark. Thank you again madam chair and Ranking Member higgins. My time is short and i have a number of questions aboutthis decisionmaking process. When did you first become aware that new york had enacted the green light law and that it would cut off ttp access to the dmv database . To the best of my recollection when i became aware was in december of last year and it was reported to me that we were as an agency making these queries into new yorks dmv database i have a system that query. Receiving we were receiving so i was made aware or i recall being made aware december of last year. , can you be more explicit. To the rest of my regulation it was shared with me by staff at the agency. According to a few documents by the department to the committee on december 30 of 2019 a memo was sent to the heads of dhs operational component stating that and i quote, this memo went on to instruct each operational component to conduct an assessment of the impact of these responses by january 15. Did you have any role in receiving response to dhs query. As you mention it i have a vague recollection of the ask but i dont recall i actually reviewed the response that went back to the department. It would have been executive support that would have been tasked with providing. The secret service memo acknowledges that there were limitations on agencies access to dmv information. For example speak with states that and i quote allstate participate in driver history sharingillinois , puerto rico and the us Virgin Islands. As such it is the anxious new this year and even earlier that there were at least some onlimitations on the sharing of data related to with at least one operational component, were you aware and were there were limits secret Service Access to some dmv data is not you become aware . I was not congresswoman and i only become aware of some of these other agencies other than ice and some of their limitations over the last couple of months ive been really only myself with the totality of particularly the Court Proceeding and whats been going on with the court case of the new york but a very important point is there is a clear the station with respect to what a state might be sharing with one Agency Versus what it sharing with another. In fact meaning by virtue of the secret service, being able to get returns for certain states would not necessarily preclude forming cbp wasnt getting that information. A document dated january 2020 labeled memorandum with the acting deputy secretary from our court, with the subject and i quote, new yorks green light law, implications and recommendations. Produce to the committee again. Much of it is redacted. Did you have any role in opposing or reviewing this document or in making any of this recommendations regarding possible responses a green light law area if so, what was your role. So i do not recall the specifics but if it was signed by the tacting commissioner of the agency, i would absolutely expect that i did review that memo and approved it to be put forth for his signature. Again, i just dont have recollection and i dont have it with me on the particular aspect of what was included there but i absolutely would have reviewed more likely than not that document. And i quote, cbp first recommends engaging with the state of new york to resolve the restricted 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 woman. I do understand that there was some engagement between the department and the state of new york but i dont recall that we in cbp had any subsequent discussions and or backandforth with tethe folks in the state of new york. Much of the memo is redacted, would you tell us what all the different recommendations sensitive to the acting deputy secretary were left in mark. I dont recall again the contents of the memo. And again, im not familiar with the reductions made. Nonetheless, again you could 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 in any discussion with personnel from cbp for dhs regarding how the department would respond to new yorks enactment of the green light law . If so, what were you involved in and when do they occur or participate pin and what was discussed . I was personally involved with several discussions and i was sharing with the dhs, my dhs counterpart as well as agency, superiors and counterparts the facts as i knew then and how the green light law in new york affected and continues to affect cbp. There were several conversations. I couldnt tell you specifically how many and when. Id have to go back and try to take a look at that but nonetheless i assure you that i was involved in those conversations in providing the facts as i knew them with respect to the new york green light law. For you also involved in anyof these conversations . Was mister wolf involved in any of these conversations . To the best of my recollection yes, i would have been at times breathing and acting secretary along with other superiors of the department and of the agency. When did you first become aware new york residents might be excluded from the trusted Traveler Program and how did you respond. Congressman, im going to respectfully say that decision came from the department. I really dont feel it appropriate for me to get into the particular details of the deliberative process of how that decision came about but i can share with you that ultimately dhsmade 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 area after the best of my recollection. How did you become aware . Again, to the best of my recollection i was made aware of this decision when the decision was ultimately made and shared with the state of new york. I may have been shared with me somewhat previously to that i just dont recall. Who informed you. Again congresswoman, im going to respectfully say that i dont believe it appropriate for me to get into the particulars of the deliberative process of that decisionmaking ocwithin the department and i just candidly dont have a recollection of who particularly would have informed me but what i can assure you is that i was on behalf of this agency providing facts that would have informed the ultimate Decision Makers in what it is that we would and should be considering with respect to that decision. Respectfully, im not asking about your deliberation. One had to have informed you that this decision to exclude new york wasmoving forward. Foall im asking you is who informed you . I just dont recall. Madam congresswoman, that would have come from the departments, thedecision was made by the department, who informed me i do not recall. But you made the decision that the response would be to exclude new york residents from the trusted Traveler Program. M. That decision ultimately i believe its a matter of Public Record i believe was a letter that was received the state of new york from the acting secretary so again, decision ultimately came from the department. So it came from mister wolf. I believe that was the written correspondence area i believe it was hissignature on the written correspondence. That was the best of my recollection. Were you told why this action was being taken and if so what were you told . Congresswoman, with all due respect i think that is particularly, its directly about the deliberative process and i am just letting you know that i was providing the advice and the facts as i knew it as best i could cbps perspective on what should inform the ultimatedecision that was made and at the time , i gave those facts as best as i could and with everything that we had available to us in order to provide the ovdecisionmakers the most amount of information they could possibly have prior to making that decision. What actions did you take or order within cbp to implement thisdecision . Once the decision was made we stopped accepting a new application for the trusted Traveler Programs andrenewals from her residence from the state of new york. Madam chair, with all due h 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 say to me that he does not have to share with us e the information of theirdeliberation. This is the height of insult to the American People and i believe that this requires that we have a secured environment in which to have this conversation. If this can happen in new york state this can happen to any state in the union at the whims of any individual within any administration and this is not what the American People have asked of us to do. I feel back to you madam chair but i have to say that mister perez, you have to be better than this. I feel back. Vacuum is clark and i agree that given the limited answers that weve gotten here today i think it would be a good idea to continue this conversation in a secure location so mister president , let me say this. I thank you for showing up today because that is more than Mister Acosta who is the actual director of the ttp, its more than he did read it more than mark morgan who is the acting commissioner of cbp did. Its more than scott blade is get ready for this, senior official performing the duties of undersecretary for strategy, policy and plans and assistant secretary of trade and department of Homeland Security. So you have done more than those three have done but i take exception to that you have consistently downplayed your own title. You are the Deputy Commissioner of cbp. That is a job with enormous responsibility, in normas discussion and an enormous a access to how decisions are madewithin the department. You in fact are listed multiple times seemingly in four different email discussions in the privilege log in Court Documents which indicate that you were fairly involved in the process of how all of these decisions were made. So i just want to be clear that we know that there are many documents that are likely responsive to the requests that this committee made in july. We know this because a oreport dated september 4, 2020 and filed by the office of the acting us 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 emailsand documents regarding this issue. It is extremely likely that any of these materials would be responsive to the committee for categories. Let me also be clear the existence of any type of litigation is not relevant, is not relevant to the departments obligation to provide to this committeethat 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 that 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 oversight. So im asking you specificallymister perez , by what date and we need a specific date will you provide to the committee all the documents we have requested t, noting these documents have already been identified and likely assemble given the statement that was made by doj to the Southern District in its report to the District Courts . I will gladly take that back madam chair to find out when exactly you should all expect us to be able to provide that. Right now i cant give you a specific date but ill gladly take that back to give you with an attempt to give you a specific date of when it is s you should expect that those responses to be provided. I think you are in a higher position to be able to give me the answer now but i will you lets say i dont know, till the end of the week so you can tell us because these documents have been requested. We know that they have been reviewed. We know thatthey have been collated. We know that the Southern District has access to them as wellagain, they said they reviewed more than 2000 emails and documents. Pacifically, 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. Your today and for giving answers that although i think 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. The usual language in a secure setting then we will take you up on that. Im going to add, im going to defer to the Ranking Member for anyclosing comments you would like to make. Just briefly,. Deputy commissioner perez. I argue Deputy Commissioner of customs and Border Protection . I answer. Are youacting secretary of the department of Homeland Security . I am not. Is it righteous that this committee would ask you questions regarding your own personal knowledge and actions of your performance of your duty as a Deputy Commissioner of customs and Border Protection . Absolutely, glad to respond. And would you consider it righteous or within the parameters of appropriate questioning of chain of command for us to ask you as the Deputy Commissioner of customs and Border Protection about internal discussions and deliberations of the acting secretary of department of Homeland Security . Again, i would respectfully date that i do not believe so. Nonetheless, having to provide a response and take the question, thats what here and i gladly take the question nonetheless. I am an elected representative of the house of frepresentatives for the third rdistrict of louisiana , south louisiana. We have seniority chain of command so to speak within our conference. The republican conference, my colleagues have a similar chain of command. Within the Democratic Caucus and my own office as internal deliberations. Athat are unknown to other officers. You could imagine. And theres no way that i can answer questions regarding the deliberation and internal communications of our leaderships, the means by which theyarrive at conclusions. That would be leader mccarthy or mike holly, represented steve kellys area they issued a statement and they, we are included because we are part of that conference. Same thing happens across the iowa. But when someone asked me how the leader mccarthy, one of the deliberationswere and the specifics were , what conversations were within his office, i would be able to answer because i wasnt there. So i think that mike holly earlier indicated that you are somehowwithholding data. You should not bible but within every organization where a chain of command and exists, there are parameters if we should stay within esregarding responding to questions. So i thank you for appearing before us today. I think youve been candid and forthright in your answers and i think my colleague ndand friend madam chair for holding this hearing hotoday. Thank you Mister Higgins and Mister Higgins my friend, i think that we all know how our individual leaders come to the conclusion that they come to. We just choose not to express them politely. And that may be the case here as well. So mister perez again, thank you so much for attending. With that i want to thank you or yourtestimony and the members for the questions. The members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for the witness and we asked you respond expeditiously in writing to those questions without Objection Committee record will be kept open for 10 days. Hearing over the business,the subcommittee standard. [inaudible]. [inaudible] saturday at 9 15 p. M. Eastern, donald trump junior on his book liberal privilege. And at 11 in her book the virginia dynasty, former second Lady Lynn Cheney chronicles the leadership of four of the first five president s from virginia. George washington, thomas jefferson, James Madison and james monroe and on sunday at 9 pm eastern on after words, former cia director john brennan speaks about his life and career in his book undaunted, my fight against americas enemies at home and abroad. Hes interviewed byNational Security reporter julian barnes. Watch tv this weekend on cspan2. Was live coverage of the Senate Confirmation hearings for judge amy barrett, starting monday with Opening Statements byjudiciary Committee Members judge barrett. Live coverage on cspan and cspan. Org. Listen live on the free radio and be ready to visit cspan to view a playlist ofillegal use. Good friday to you, more on that governor gretchen would in michigan story in a minutebut first to those polls that we mentioned. This is the usa today story from yesterday published