the committee comes back into order. we'll now begin a second round of questions, same seven-minute time as the first round. although, senator padilla, before i start the second round, you were not here for the first round and you have not had a chance to ask a question so you are recognized for your questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate this opportunity. and thank you to the three leaders participating this morning. i want to touch on an issue that's a challenge in so many sectors, that is the power, the danger of misinformation. we all know that despite the arduous journey from central america or elsewhere to the united states, migrants continue to make the dangerous trek to the u.s. border in hopes for a better life. many are fleeing unemployment or natural disasters, maybe corruption in their home countries, violence or other factors. and it certainly makes coming to the united states appealing. another factor, however, is misinformation, particularly from smugglers who share messages over a variety of platforms, including but not limited to whatsapp, with the promise of safe passage to the united states for a large sum of money. now, while most immigrants are being turned away or expelled from the southern border because of the cdc's title 42 rule, misinformation continues to spread. i would love to hear from secretary mayorkas about just the impacts you're observing of misinformation but also what the department of homeland security is doing to combat this misinformation both at the border, in central america, or elsewhere. >> senator, thank you very much for your question because you are focused on a very significant issue. indeed, the smuggling organizations peddle misinformation and deceive vulnerable individuals and families into believing that the border policies of this administration are different than those that we have in place that we are executing. we of course disseminate information ourselves. but we're very mindful of the fact that that is not enough. we work very closely with the department of state to have trusted voices in the countries of origin, to disseminate accurate information with respect to our policies and practices. and the critical fact that our border is not open. i think one example of that is this past sunday. i spoke with journalists who reach the haitian community, the haitian diaspora community. and i communicated the critical and critically needed messages. they then disseminated that in creole through their outlets to reach the diaspora community and that was propelled further on social media thanks to the partnership of the department of state and other partners. >> that's great. that will be an ongoing challenge as well. second, more of a statement than a question, but i want to go on record in the following. as most will admit, what's happening at the border isn't acceptable on so many fronts. and i too want to strongly condemn the inhumane treatment of haitians or anyone else who is fleeing violence or natural disasters and seeking protection in our country. i've heard your statement, mr. secretary, about the need to create more safe and orderly pathways of legal migration to the united states so that people do not have to make the dangerous journey to the southern border by other means. i want to make sure i reserve sufficient time for ms. abizaid. as of september 14, some 64,000 afghans have been brought safely into the united states. many of these individuals were allies of the united states military, have ties to the united states, or represent vulnerable populations who are currently being targeted by the taliban. i understand that many of my colleagues have raised questions as to whether or not there has been sufficient vetting of these individuals prior to their arrival to the united states or entry into the united states. in your role, can you please share with us or give us a better appreciation and understanding of the vetting process that afghan refugees, parolees, evacuees must pass before being allowed to be admitted into the united states? >> thank you, senator, for the question, especially because it gives me the opportunity to really highlight that the entire intelligence community working in collaboration with the fbi, dhs, and other partners in the agency did to surge resources to make sure the appropriate vetting of these individuals was undertaken. the intelligence community role and ntct's role is one part of a system of screening and vetting. it is something that we typically get information from our partners overseas to understand individuals, the information about individuals seeking to come to the united states. we use that information and run it against our ic databases to make sure if there's any derogatory information that might have bearing on whether that individual should come or not, that we bring that to bear as adjudicators decide the status of an individual. the work that we undertook as part of the afghan evacuation operation absolutely considered that screening process as part of it. and those screening efforts are ongoing for the population of afghans that are seeking entry into the united states. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, senator padilla. well, as we've been discussing throughout this hearing, we have been subjected to consistent cyber attacks, ransomware in particular, attacks against critical information. and secretary mayorkas, in your opening statement you discussed a number of activities that dhs is engaged in and attempted to mitigate these attacks or prevent these attacks from occurring in the first place. as you know, and i believe you've been briefed and your staff has been working with ranking member portman and i on legislation to provide the government with incident reporting on cyber incidents and ransomware attacks in particular, but broadly encompassing all cyber attacks. so secretary mayorkas, could you tell this committee how this kind of authority to collect this information, how will that help you to prevent cyber attacks from occurring in the first place and ensure that our critical information will operate the way it should? >> mr. chairman and ranking member portman, we're very grateful for this committee's support for the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency. that legislation which calls for a new reporting regime will be of tremendous value in elevating the cybersecurity of this country, because it really requires a public/private partnership. and if in fact, for example, a company that suffers a cyber incident provides that information to us in the federal government, then we can ensure that a replicant of that harm is not suffered elsewhere in the country. if everyone is compelled to provide incident information to us, then we learn from one, we learn from two, and collectively then we disseminate to all. and that raises the cyber heej hygiene of the landscape writ large. >> thank you. director wray, can you tell the committee how this legislation would help you? >> absolutely. i think the key will be to make sure the information reaches the fbi real time. because i testified in response to an earlier question, speed, hours, matter in this particular arena. getting the information from the private sector on a more consistent and timely basis will be critical for us at the fbi as well for i think five reasons. one, it allows us to better understand the full extent of the threat of particular intrusion sets nationwide. second, it enhances our ability to warn about trans tactics, techniques, procedures, in a much more meaningful way. third, it allows us to provide support for a greater number of victims and collect more evidence and therefore bring more cases. fourth, it allows us to help connect seemingly unrelated incidents into attribution to a single act to make sure we're holding them accountable. last but not least, it allows us to follow the money and in many cases seize it. i can't underscore enough how important that is. our strategy is to go after the actors, their infrastructure, and their money. and legislation like this would help us do that. as long as we get the information real time. >> thank you. on march 2021, national intelligence report assessed that domestic violence extremists were, quote, the most persistent and lethal threat, unquote, to the united states. the fbi has found the same. i helped pass a requirement in the fiscal year '20 ndaa that required both the fbi and the dhs to report data on this threat. yet both of your agencies took close to a year to provide roughly half of the response that we were looking for. a year to provide half. director wray, in the case of the fbi, half would be a very generous assessment of what the fbi provided. it's considerably less than that. if we can't get that kind of data, it's difficult for us to understand what the efforts are, what efforts are being made and how we might be able to support those efforts. you have reporting requirements under the law, and i would hope that you would comply on time and in full. can i get a commitment that we can get the rest of that information that's well over a year past the expected date? >> well, certainly you can have my commitment that we're going to do better and work with you as quickly as we can to get you the information that we can. part of the challenge that we're not happy about is of course the pandemic hit and many of the people that we're involved in pulling together the information were either otherwise occupied with the significant domestic terrorism operations that we had or otherwise sidelined. the other part of it is, as i understand it, a lot of the information may be information that wasn't collected or kept in a way that the committee might have been looking for. so you are absolutely right that we need to do better than we have and you have my commitment that we will better than we have. but i understand we have a regular cadence now of engagement with your staff, prioritizing the items that you need soonest. you have my commitment we'll work with you on that. >> i appreciate that. we'll continue to reach out to get that to happen. experts have assessed that in the last five years, domestic extremist groups have expanded their use of online platforms to recruit, plan, export, and spread violence and terrorize americans. last week i wrote a letter to the heads of facebook, twitter, and youtube, seeking information, including their efforts to coordinate with federal, state, and local governments to detect and to prevent online extremist efforts. so my question to you, director wray, we're less than a year past the violent january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol and an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power which is without question a dark stain on our history. all of which was planned, organized, and spread online. so my question is, what specific steps is the fbi doing now to combat the use of social media to plan domestic terrorist attacks? can you give us a sense what have you are doing? >> certainly when it comes to social media, when we get tips and leads, we're trying to make sure those are being prioritized and pursued. we're trying to improve our own communications with the social media companies. that partnership, as you and i have discussed before, in the election influence context has continued to improve. we're trying to leverage that a little bit. among the other things we're trying to do are build out our human source base better so that we can separate kind of the wheat from the chaff within the social media information that we get, because the volume of this stuff is just astounding. and then last, we're also looking at better use of data analytics, again to try and see if we can separate the wheat from the chaff within the information that we get. certainly when it comes to looking at social media, there are longstanding department of justice policies, the so-called attorney general guidelines and the diag that have been in place 16, maybe more years that kind of govern what we can and cannot do and it gets to be a complicated subject to explain. but we are committed to aggressively acting in this space just as we are in others. i would say of course i know dhs also plays a very important role in looking at social media and we benefit from the partnership with them on that subject. there are things that they can do as part of their mission that we can't and don't. >> thank you. ranking member portman, you're recognized for your questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start by saying i appreciate what the men and women who work for you do every day. they wake up every morning and try to figure out how to keep our country safe. and i think every member of this panel appreciates that and commends them. i do think our policies are making it hard for them. and that's what this is really about today, is what can we change policy-wise to reduce rather than enhance the threats to our homeland. as i said earlier, i think it's extraordinary that over these 20 years we haven't had a major mass casualty attorney terrorist event. we certainly had our share of attacks but not the kind we saw on 9/11. and that's a tribute to them. but our policies worry me. and i would like to dig a little deeper on a couple of them quickly. i appreciate we said on social media, director wray, certainly cybersecurity, we look forward to you, mr. secretary, working on legislation on the cyber threat and ransomware. but these two issues we talked about today, one is the afghan evacuees, and the potential problems we may have if we don't have a system in place, a policy in place, that makes it easy for you and others able to do their job. second is with regard to immigration. getting back to what has been said about those individuals who were evacuated in this hasty and chaotic process, we left people behind, we all know that. we left american citizens behind. but mostly we left behind people who had helped us. but we also had people get on these flights to leave who as far as we know at this point had no connection to us in the sense of helping us or helping our allies. and secretary mayorkas, your information is probably different than mine based on what you have said today. we have pushed and pushed, as you know, and i'm frustrated we can't get a classified briefing to get to the bottom of this, but in my view we don't need a classified briefing, we just need to know who these folks are. by the way, it may surprise some of our constituents to find out that when these folks come over, 60,000 here, 120,000 total, 60,000 still overseas, they're permitted to walk. in other words, when they land in dulles or land in philadelphia, they're allowed to leave. is that accurate, mr. secretary? just a yes or no, please. >> no, that is not entirely act, senator. there are conditions for parole for those who are paroled into the united states, that are mandatory. >> if they choose to walk, they're able to do that. >> they must receive, for example, certain immunizations in order to enter the interior of the united states. >> well, i mean, okay. so they have to get -- >> there are mandatory -- >> they have to get a shot, that's fine, but they are permitted to come into our country. and, you know, i -- my staff has been out there to see the arrivals. i have a friend who went to meet his interpreter who he served in afghanistan, you know, they said you can take him with you, but if you do, he could lose his benefits, i understand that. but my point is we don't have a system in place to keep people who want to walk. the other question is, who are these people. 75% of them are not green card holders, are not citizens, they're not siv holders, they're not even applicants for siv you. indicated otherwise. so we just need to get to the bottom of it. you want to know, i assume, just as we want to know, how we can ensure who these people are. the notion that they have been vetted as we normally vet, how can we vet people? are you going to call the taliban government and say is this information about this individual accurate? of course we can't. normally we would be able to contact the government. we didn't have an embassy because we evacuated it. so we couldn't go through a normal screening, director abizaid, to what you said earlier, we couldn't go through the normal screening process because we didn't have the visa officials in the foreign office there to do it. so i'm just going to leave that out there because, i mean, i have lots more questions on it and i could push on what we've heard. but let me just say, yesterday, when the state department was pushed on this, and we were asked how many of those parolees applied for siv or were family members, the state department said, quote, none of us really know, end quote. if that's the answer, fine, but if the answer is, as you said today, mr. secretary, you know, they're all accounted for and we know who they are, we would certainly like to know that. with regard to immigration. this obviously as a huge crisis right now on the border, again, hundreds of thousands of people last month. let me hold up these charts. one is, with regard to encounters at the border, we've seen this chart, senator johnson's got a much more colorful, interesting chart. this is where we are. and i've condensed it a little bit just to start, you know, in the 2018 time period. this is when president biden was inaugurated, we see this big increase, so we all know about that. this is why policies, again, are making the job much harder for the people you work with to be able to keep an orderly and legal process at the border. this is obviously a crisis. but here is the second one. maybe keep them together, if you can. hold this one up too. this is the people who are coming to our border from outside of mexico or el salvador, guatemala, honduras, so-called northern triangle. look at that. that increase is much more dramatic. and these are people who come from latin america but they also come from romania. i mean, they're coming from all over the world. we've obviously seen them coming from haiti. the haitian -- the photos of what's going on there, it's obviously a humanitarian crisis, it's discouraging to see. what we're told, what we're told is very different from what we've heard today. we're told by i.c.e., customs -- immigration customs enforcement that only 350 haitians have been flown back to haiti out of the 13 to 15,000 you said were there. you're telling us today we're taking care of it, the number is well below 10,000. that must mean they were either removed to mexico or released. i don't think they were removed to mexico because part of the problem with title 42 is mexico is not taking people unless they're spanish speaking from latin america. so we just -- again, we need to have our information clear. and in terms of why they came, i think this idea of a pull factor is very real. you know how i feel about the asylum system, i think it's a pull factor. i told you, i visited some of these countries in latin america and central america recently and the presidents of these countries say we don't like what you guys are doing, you're pulling our good people away, you're pulling our young people away, we want them to stay here, actually. but they're coming to the border not because of disinformation necessarily, as senator padilla talked about, and i appreciated his question, a lot of it is accurate information, because a smuggler can say, a human smuggler can say to a family, give me 10,000 bucks and i can guarantee you he'll get in. the mayor of del rio said section 8, not 42, was being applied to haitians, and the word got out, the smugglers heard about it, and they said haitians are getting in under section 8, in other words they're permitted to come into the country, and boom, in they came, of course. on section 42, the rodney scott letter which we got by snail mail, so i didn't get it until over the weekend, and we've circulated it to all the offices now, but -- and it's part of the record today, he says, in october 2020, he was told that 91% of total encounters were processed under title 42 and expelled, people were expelled in an average of 90 minutes. he said, a report i received in august 2021 indicated that nearly 53% were granted exceptions from title 42 with the majority ultimately being released in the united states. i understand what you're saying about recidivism, some of these are people who have been stopped more than once, that's why the numbers are higher, but if it's because of title 42, then it would have been much more true under the previous administration than this administration because we've gone from, if these numbers are right, 91% were processed under title 42 and expelled in 90 minutes and 53% now are being granted exemptions at least as of august. so, you know, title 42 may be short-lived for reasons that are beyond our control in the judicial branch, i understand that. but then we need an alternative. we've got to figure out a way to discourage people from coming to our country by letting them know the border is not open, you can't just come and say that you claim asylum and be able to come in the united states indefinitely. you have to be able to prove that. and as you know, mr. secretary, it's something you and i have talked about a lot. until we get to that point, those haitians told, hey, we're applying title 8, which means you can come into the country, rather than title 42, they'll keep coming. this notion that this all can be solved by investing in latin america, particularly the northern triangle countries, that's our response and the administration typically is -- we're going to invest in the northern triangle countries, i'm not against that, we've done a lot of it in the last five years, we'll see, that's not the ultimate answer, i think. but these are all people who came in from outside of mexico and outside of the northern triangle. so are we also going to have a program to stop the push factor in these other countries including some countries outside of latin america? anyway, my time has expired. i apologize for going over time. as you know, mr. secretary, i have a passion about this, i want to get it right so we have an orderly, lawful process so the most generous country in the world in terms of lawful immigration can continue to be so, but a system that actually works for us, for latin america, and for the rest of the world. >> senator carper. >> our thanks to secretary mayorkas, to director wray, and director abizaid, for joining us today and your leadership. you've taken on really tough jobs. i've had tough jobs in my life and they don't begin to compare to what you're doing. thank you for taking on all these responsibilities, working with us and others. i have a question for secretary mayorkas and director wray initially. the question is, mr. secretary, in your testimony, you discuss how china represents a threat to u.s. economic competitiveness. senator portman, i spent a fair amount of time as the lead on the senate subcommittee on investigations, and we agree with that fully. in past years, director wray has stated that the bureau views china as one of the greatest threats to our nation due to their counterintelligence and economic espionage interests as it relates to targeting economic assets and seeking information related to our intellectual property. as we pivot to our national security posture, you address near peer adversaries as opposed to traditional threats and actors. could each of you, mr. secretary, director wray, speak to how your agencies are working together and separately to combat the threat that china poses to our national interests and overall security? mr. secretary. >> thank you very much, senator carper. let me identify three different lines of effort that we are executing in response the threat to our economic and therefore national security that china poses. number one, of course, we have the infringements and theft of intellectual property and we're working very closely in response to that with the federal bureau of investigation. secondly, in the service of human rights on the one hand and a fair marketplace, a competitive marketplace on the other, we are stopping the importation of goods that are produced in whole or in part through forced labor. third, we are addressing pure criminal activity. the theft of property by organizations emanating from the prc. we are also of course addressing the cybersecurity threat that has emanated there and has attacked some of our federal agencies. >> okay, thanks. you can hold it right there, if you will, and let me yield to director wray. thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you, senator, for the question. as you know, this is something i feel, to use senator portman's term, very passionately about. i think there is no country that presents a greater threat to our innovation, our economic security, and our democratic ideas than the people's republic of china, which is why we have over 2,000 active investigations tied back to the prc government across all 56 field offices. it's an almost 1,300% increase in economic espionage investigations tied to china than a decade ago. we're opening a new investigation that's tied back to china about every 12 hours, as i said in my opening. it covers pretty much every sector of the economy and every state in the nation. one of the things that we stood up now 18 months or so ago, two years ago, was a counterintelligence task force structure modelled after the joint terrorism task force model that worked so well on the terrorism front. so we have a national counterintelligence task force here in the d.c. area, and then we have counterintelligence task forces in every field office. and those in turn bring on partners from other federal agencies, in some cases even state and local agencies. so that's a big part of our effort. the other thing i would say is it's not just investigations. the reality is we're not going to be able to investigate our way out of this threat. and so a big part of our field offices work together with our partners. i've talked a lot, for example, secretary mayorkas about critical infrastructure and that piece of it, is trying to get out to the private sector, out to the academic sector, and try to help them understand the threat better so that they better harden themselves against the threat. so those are some things -- >> that's good, that's encouraging. mr. secretary, as you mentioned in your testimony, the department of homeland security center for prevention programs and partnerships also known as cp3 aims to expand the department's ability to prevent terrorism and targeted violence through the development of local prevention frameworks. cp3's office has been rebranded multiple times, as you know, in the past. in fact it used to be called the office for community partnerships. previous congresses, i've introduced legislation, bipartisan legislation, actually, to codify this office in order for there to be consistent leadership and resources for it. is cp3 or a similar office to counter the rise of domestic terrorism something that congress should work now to codify and what benefits would that provide to the department and to efforts to combat domestic terrorism given it is one of the top threats facing our homeland? go right ahead. >> senator, i'm very grateful for your support of the office and for the department as a whole. this office is centered around empowering and equipping neighborhoods, communities across the country, to address the threat of domestic violent extremism, home-grown violent extremism from the ground up. we dedicated for the first time a minimum of $77 million in fema grant funds dedicated to this growing threat. i very much look forward to working with you to see how legislation can best strengthen that office. we think it's a critical component of our homeland security enterprise. >> thank you for that encouraging response. a question, if i can, for director abizaid. is there a question you have not been asked? is there a question you have not been asked, because you prepared for this hearing, that you wish you had been asked? for the next minute, just tell us what that question is and give it at answer. thank you. >> generally i've been advised the fewer the questions, the better. i would say that in general, the global terrorism landscape remains a top priority for us as a government and for the national counterterrorism center which was purpose-built to, in the wake of 9/11, connect the dots related to the terrorist threat overseas, related to how it may present itself in the domestic context. and we've worked very hard over the last 14 years of our existence to make sure that we're fulfilling that role appropriately. i've been really proud coming on board at the national counterterrorism center to see not just the work of nctc but to see the work that we're doing across the intelligence community and across the ct community to stay vigilant against the threat, however it may evolve. and we have to be very serious in understanding that it will in fact evolve again and vigilance is required. >> great. thank you for that question and for the answer. to all of you today, thank you for your leadership. it's great to see you and we're grateful for your leadership. thank you so much. >> thank you, senator carper. senator johnson, you're recognized for your questions. >> director wray, have you read the michael sussman indictment? >> i've had a chance to glance at it but i haven't had time yet to read through it. >> i would suggest you and everybody else read that because it really does lay out exactly what happened to create this political turmoil for two or three, four years, really, during the trump administration. it lays out how the hillary clinton campaign paid for, through michael sussman, completely false allegations that trump was cooperating with the alpha bank, planted that story, had an audience with james baker at the fbi so the fbi would open up an investigation so that they could report that news. same exact dynamic in terms of the false deal dossier that contained russian disinformation which the fbi knew about certainly no later than january of 2017. you worked at the justice department, as did michael sussman. did you know michael sussman? >> to my knowledge i've never met the man. >> but did you know him by reputation? >> not particularly, no. >> do you think james baker knew michael sussman? >> i really can't speak to whom james baker knew. >> do you think it's credible that james baker, james comey, andrew mccabe, lisa -- peter struck, lisa page, who michael sussman was and who his clients might be? >> senator, i certainly understand why you're asking the question -- if i could just finish. given that this is an ongoing criminal case being brought by the special counsel with whom we are actively cooperating -- i want to make sure i -- >> that's fine, i won't get an answer. let me just make the final point here. so either the fbi was completely clueless or corrupt but they didn't check into whether michael sussman might have been working for the hillary clinton campaign before they opened up the investigation to leak to the press which put this nation through three, four years of political turmoil. there needs to be political account accountability. i hope john durham will have a whole lot more that he'll be revealing because i got a whole lot of nothing from subpoenas. listening to your exchange with senator paul, you said it was unacceptable what happened. that's good, i'm glad to hear that. but you were confirmed in august of 2017. in february of 2018, the senate intel committee was briefed by bill priestap and the bottom line is bill priestap of the fbi said it was credible even though it contained russian disinformation. now, that was under your watch. do you have an explanation on that? >> senator, as i said, we've been working very closely with special counsel durham and i want to be careful not to start talking about things that may be -- >> okay, that's fine, so another nonresponse. in february 2020, senior democrats produced a false intelligence product, classified, leaked it to the press, accusing senator grassley and i have, uh, soliciting russian disinformation, disseminating it, completely false, i can't tell you how many news stories were written about that. by the way, i held a hearing on russian disinformation as part of my foreign relations committee responsibilities in 2015. i'm well aware of the problem of russian disinformation. so i didn't need a briefing that the fbi requested to give me. so i didn't ask for this briefing in august 2020. when i went into the briefing there was absolutely no relevant information. it was a completely bs hearing. and i asked the briefers, who directed you to give me that briefing? all they can say, interagency. there are people in the interagencies. i wrote a letter immediately asking first of all what was the -- what was the backing --s but backup material for the briefing? i asked who directed it. i knew it was a setup. i knew it would be used just like the false intel product was used previously. so i wasn't happy. then lo and behold, in late april, early may, it was leaked. that briefing was leaked to "the washington post," again, accusing me of, you know, disseminating russian information. nothing could be further from the truth. it's false. so i got a number of questions which remain unanswered. i sent you a similar letter. what backed up the august briefing? who directed that briefing? to this day i have gotten no response. now, how -- how is it so difficult to -- and by the way, senator grassley, former president pro tem of the senate, former chairman of the senate judiciary committee, is asking the same questions. why is it that we can't meet with you? why is it you will not provide us that basic information of who directed a briefing to two u.s. senators that was then leaked for political purposes, used against us, false, why won't you answer that very basic question? >> so, senator, i want to be a little bit careful of what i can say. >> oh, you want to be careful, yep. yeah, go ahead. >> i want to be a little bit careful about what i can say in this kind of setting without getting into specifics. i understand this is an important topic you to. before we deliver a defensive briefing like the one that you're describing here, we follow a standard defined process that involves interagency discussion, deliberative process, to figure out whether a defensive briefing is even warranted. just to take a step back though, because it's important, the entire process of -- >> listen, you're just describing a process. and i understand the process. great. the process obviously broke down. there are all kinds of processes, putting in safeguards in the fisa court, that were obviously violated in that corruption investigation. i'm just asking a simple question, why won't you tell me in detail who was engaged in that process? so i'm asking you to provide that answer. i'm asking you to give me a briefing, meet with me and senator grassley. we deserve to know the answers. quite honestly, the american people deserve to know the answers. secretary mayorkas, real quick, in my 30 seconds left, you said you've gotten some numbers on the border. are you willing to finally share them? out of the 1.3 million who have been apprehended, i get the complications, there have been multiple arrests of the same individual, fine. so the relevant piece of information would be how many people have you dispersed in america out of those 1.3 million people, how many people have been released into the interior either with a notice to appear or even worse, a notice to report, and again, you have to live in a fantasy world if you think they're going to report, but go ahead, how many people have been released? >> senator, i apologize, i do not have that data. i was reciting the data of encounters, apprehensions, use of title 42, and use of title 8, expedited removal. i will provide the data you have requested. i do not have it at my disposal. >> i'll be expecting that information very soon, okay? thank you. >> senator johnson. senator lankford, you're recognized for your questions. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. mayorkas, you have tens of thousands of people right now that are coming at the border. you have tens of thousands of people that are underneath bridges. as we've seen under several international bridges at this point, they're in the process of moving some of those folks out of the country. what is the process for actually relocating individuals under title 42 authority out of that area under those bridges? you've started that process with the haitians but walk me through quickly the process because i have multiple other questions. >> yes, what we do is we look at where our capacity is at other processing centers. this goes to an apparent miscommunication i've had with ranking member portman for which i apologize. what we do is we look at processing capacity. we then move the individuals from del rio as needed to ensure safety and security. we move them to the other processing centers so that they may be repatriated to haiti or other countries from those various processing centers. we are increasing the frequency and number of the repatriation flights each day. >> okay. you expect to be able to move all those individuals out in the next how many days? >> our goal is to do so within the next ten days or nine days. we expect to see dramatic results in the next 48 to 96 hours. and we'll have a far better sense in the next two days. >> and what do you anticipate is coming at you as far as additional numbers? because obviously this number grew exceptionally quickly of haitians and of others from all over the world coming. >> so we are watching that, senator lankford, very, very carefully. i do want to note that some individuals turned back yesterday by reason of our measures, which i have described in this hearing. and we're hoping that what we are doing now serves a deterrent because it backs up the words that we have spoken since the very outset, that irregular migration is not the way to enter the united states. it will not work. it is dangerous. and it creates a humanitarian challenge. >> it does. and that was actually the ongoing statement of the trump administration over and over again, to say why they put the mpp in process to discourage people from coming, doing the exact same thing you're doing, trying to get them to go back to their home country. there is this false belief i hear from some that if you're going to apply for asylum, it seems america is the only place in the world to apply for asylum for. so we have people from all over the world that are making their ways, paying cartels, wanting asylum. that's not the true definition of asylum. asylum is you go to the next safe place you can go, not travel through 14 countries to get to the spot you want to go to. there is a way to do regular immigration. that's what we would encourage individuals to do. mr. wray, let me put a question to you that you and i have not spoken about before but that is very important to me. there are individuals who are dealing drugs that have a dramatic effect on my state as they do on your home state. much that have is coming across our southwest border, we're very aware of that. some of that is being run by criminal operations inside our prisons. one of the pushes i've had for a while has been the issue of cellphones inside of prisons, because we see it in both state prisons and in federal prisons where we have drug cartels being literally run out of the prison still. it's one thing for a victim of crime to be able to end up and to be exposed to crime. it's another thing to realize that the person who perpetrated that is still operating their game. what can we do to actually facilitate getting cellphones out of prisons and what kind of cooperation do we need with other agencies to clear that? >> i think we have reasonably good work on that being done with federal prisons, the b.o.p., for example. as you say, with state prisons it's more of a range, depending on their resources. if it's all right, i would like to sort of take a little bit of time to think about that. >> let's do, let's keep going with that conversation. i've had this conversation with fcc and other folks, there are some regulatory issues that need to be done, some cooperation with multiple agencies. when you're a victim of a rape and your rapist contacts you by cellphone from their prison, that's got to be resolved. if you're a vitim of drug crime, you're dealing with that in the days ahead. on the cellphone issue, secretary mayorkas, i understand you've moved over the tracking of individuals crossing our border from an ankle monitoring and are experimenting with giving individuals a cellphone and they have to be able to check in on that cellphone once or twice a day, that the notice to report plus apparently is the terms being used. i'm not familiar with this process and trying to be able to figure out what's being done with that cellphone and what's happening if individuals don't check in they're given a cellphone paid for by the american public to be able to track them. is there a tracking device on all the time, are we able to track them constantly, if they don't check in, will we be able to pick those up? >> senator, if they do not check in, we make a determination based on the facts, whether or not they need to be the subject of a priority enforcement action for evading law enforcement and not honoring their obligations as a condition of their release on alternatives to detention. one of the things that we are looking at is assessing the efficacy of the phones and determining whether in fact they are a valuable enforcement tool. we're collecting data on that. i would look forward to providing it to you. >> how many people are in that process right now, do you know what the size of that pilot is? >> i do not, senator. we'll get that to you. >> these are all recent crossers that are getting it, correct? >> yes, they are. >> i would assume they would all fall under that priority, if they're a recent crosser, they fall under that priority of we need to scoop them up and check out why they're not reporting in. >> individuals who do not appear and report are considered a border security enforcement priority. >> that goes back to one of my questions before about just trying to get a good ballpark figure of how many people that fit into that priority group are actually having enforcement on them currently. i understand there's a new process on prosecutorial discretion that's being used by some of the attorneys to actually go before the court once folks have been obtained and go before the court, then attorneys for dhs and i.c.e. are saying, allows us prosecutorial discretion to release this individual. >> prosecutorial discretion is -- >> i'm talking about going to the court and requesting it. >> i believe that has been longstanding. >> we'll follow up and get additional details on this because we've received recent information, 6,234 cases that have been dismissed and then the process of those cases, once they're actually in the process, and some of them included some folks with a criminal record as well. we're just trying to get additional information. >> i look forward to providing that to you. i know that the office of legal counsel within immigration and customs enforcement has promulgated new guidelines for its attorneys. and if you don't have those guidelines we would be pleased to share them. >> that would be helpful. this goes back to the i.c.e. guidelines on detention, we're trying to get clarity on it. we had talked about it by august, you said we would have it by august, we don't have it. what are we doing on prosecutorial enforcement. this goes back to the deterrence individuals. if individuals are able to get into the country and they don't have any consequences on them, they'll continue to come or, come across the border with a child or find other avenues to get in. if there's not enforcement, it will continue to accelerate. >> senator rosen, you're recognized for your questions. >> thank you, chairman peters, appreciate the second round. i appreciate the witnesses sticking around, it's important. i want to build on some of chairman peters' earlier questioning, on our digital spaces, online. we know digital spaces are fueling the rise of domestic terrorism. extremists, they try to exploit the internet to recruit, to franchise, and of course unfortunately to plot attacks. so, secretary mayorkas and director wray, to both of you, how can congress better empower federal law enforcement officials to combat online hate before it escalates into any real world violence? how do you work with the digital platforms? and what kind of support can we provide you with whether it's through this committee or other committees of jurisdiction, to help you do this job? there this committee other committees of jurisdiction to help you do this job, secretary mayorkas, you can go first. >> thank you very much, senator rosen. you know, i've heard director ray speak compellingly about two forces that are converging to create the increase we have observed over the last few years. number one is the fact that we're speaking of lone actors or loosely affiliated groups of individuals, not the traditional organized structures, number one, and number two as he referenced earlier in the hearing, the fact that social media has a terrain that can so easily propagate misinformation, false information, and allow communications to occur among loosely affiliated individuals. i would like to give some thought to and speak with our partners, director wray to address this increased threat. >> thank you, i appreciate that because i want to give you the tools you need to protect us and that's terrific, director, do you have some additional information you would like to add about how you think we might help you in this space? >> well, without weighing in on specific legislative proposal, what i would say and i have spoken about this many times, i can't overstate the impact of default encryption and the role it's playing including in terrorism. what i mean by that is more and more, the information that's going to allow us, as i said to i think chairman peters earlier in an exchange separate the weak from the chaff in terms of social media is being able to with lawful process that is appropriate court warrants get access to those communications where the most meaningful discussion of the violence is occurring. and more and more, technology is moving in a direction where no matter how bullet proof the affidavit in support of the warrant, no matter how ironclad the independent judicial approval and no matter how horrific the criminal activity that's being investigated, we will be blind to it, and i think that is something that is worthy of congress's attention. >> well, thank you, i look forward to having some more conversations with you offline about that. i want to move over and talk about a little bit about the nonprofit security grants. i know we've talked about these before, and of course alarming rise in anti-semitism, again, we're talking about our domestic violent extremists here, and despite the alarming rise, the nonprofit security grants, they fulfill less than half of the applications we receive for grants this year, far outstripping the $180 million that congress provided for regulations for fiscal year 2021. so mr. secretary, giving the growing need for the nonprofit security grant program, again, we talked earlier about the community's understanding in how to best protect themselves from any attacks or make themselves -- any vulnerabilities that they have. how does dhs, we haven't given you enough resources, how can you fill this gap, and what else do you need from us to do? >> thank you very much, senator, i am engaged with the faith-based community on this very issue. we are ostensibly so, and i'm taking a look at our grant programs writ large across the board, not only the nonprofit security grants but the urban area security initiative grant program, some of its components, and like to see how those dollars can meet the threats to ensure that any gaps are closed. i'd like to circle back with you on what we find and what other support we need. i'm very appreciative. >> no, and i want to really circle back in talking about the formulas, as i spoke about earlier with critical infrastructure. we have to think about how our grants are funded, as well as the nonprofit security grants because we have critical infrastructure in many places and we want to be sure that those formulas reflect the broad spectrum of threats that we may see now, especially on the cyber front and other ways. so i really appreciate, again, all of you being here. i look forward to having more conversations and putting forth some meaningful legislation out of this committee as well as others. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator rosen. before ranking member portman and i make some briefing closing remarks, secretary mayorkas, i would like to ask you about some very concerning images that were released yesterday that appear to show border patrol agents whipping haitian migrants. these acts certainly are intolerable and a complete diversion from your agency's mission and my question to you is can you explain to the committee what you will be doing to address what americans saw looking at those images? >> i'm very pleased you asked that question. it has been upper most in my mind since i first saw the images late yesterday, mr. chairman. we commenced an investigation at my direction immediately. the office of professional responsibility within the department of homeland security's u.s. customs and border protection, number one. number two, we alerted the inspector general of the incidents. number three, i directed that the office of professional responsibility be present on sight in del rio 24/7 to ensure that the conduct of our personnel adheres to our policies, to our training, and to our values. i was horrified to see the images, and we look forward to learning the facts that are induced from the investigation and we will take actions that those facts compel. we do not tolerate any mistreatment or abuse of a migrant, period. i also want to say and i think it's very important to say that i saw two other powerful things yesterday, when i was there under the bridge in del rio. number one, i saw the vulnerability of the haitian population, the predominantly haitian population. we are speaking about vulnerable individuals in a tragic circumstance. i also saw the extraordinary work of u.s. customs and border protection, not only the united states border patrol but its office of field operations, as well as other agencies within the department of homeland security that have been surged to del rio to address the situation in partnership with state and local law enforcement personnel as well as the forces in civil society. we saw the american red cross, we saw world central kitchen providing food and supplies to these individuals. it's an all of government and all of local society effort there, and i want to say that the actions that we saw, the images that we saw do not speak of the incredible men and women of u.s. customs and border protection or of the department of homeland security as an institution. >> thank you for those comments. ranking member portman, do you have some closing remarks? >> i appreciate the time today. this is a long session, and predicted at the start, there are some challenging questions because we are facing so many threats, and at least on my behalf, i would say i think we need policy changes to be able to, again, let the men and women who are working for you who are so committed to their task, to do their job more effectively. we talked about the foreign terrorist threat. we talked about al qaeda and isis, and we talked about the way we withdrew having enhanced that threat at least in my view, and the need to have the eyes and ears on the region as we saw with the drone attack. we are in a challenging situation now. we talked about cyber threats. we talked about the ransom ware issue, the need for reporting legislation, which i hope we can get done soon on a bipartisan basis. we talked about illegal drugs coming in fentanyl in particular, the fact that with we have been doing hasn't worked, and particularly with this dramatic humanitarian crisis with the haitians coming, i mean, what we're doing is not working, and again, it's not just that the smugglers are providing disinformation to these poor families, not just in latin america, but around the world, it's the fact that they're providing accurate information. if you come to the border, particularly with a child, you can come in, that's unfortunately, the result of a policy that we have put in place that makes it a draw. so unless you're a single man coming to the border, you probably are being told the right thing, which is, you know, the united states a place where people want to come and live and work and we should be doing it in a legal and orderly way, so secretary, you and i were talking about more in that area but i would hope that today, you know, with everything going on, you talked about just surging border patrol to, you know, del rio to help. where did they come from? well, they came from shutting down check points all over the southwest. is that smart? you talked about the fact that, you know, there's so much focus there, we shut down the bridge there in del rio, commercial traffic ended. the economic impact on the community. what we're doing is not working. domestic terrorism we talked about the huge challenge of social media, the need to enhance the nonprofit grant program and other ways to deal with the root variable threat of domestic terrorism. secretary wray talked about how it's grown and the afghan evacuees, we have a difference of opinion about the facts and we need to know what facts are, and did what our moral responsibility of taking care of people who helped us, particularly given in the way we left, which left a lot of people in a vulnerable situation, and be sure we know who they are, and we're not putting ourselves in a position, foreign terrorists are looking for ways to get people into our country. that's something we of course all want to avoid and not take risks on, so we look forward to our classified briefing on that, if that's what's necessary to get the information. that's fine for us too. we want to get the information to be able to ensure proper oversight, and again, thank you all for being here today, and thanks for the people you represent here today to help keep our country safe. thank you, mr. chairman. >> director wray, i just want to go back to the first line of questioning and the question i asked you. i certainly understand and respect that as an ongoing investigation. the fbi's actions here may have cost millions of dollars, and possibly even more than that. the fbi in my mind is going to need to explain this action, we need to know who signed off on it, who was aware, and whether the cost of the bottom line of american families and businesses was considered in that decision process. we also need to know what operational benefits the fbi believed it would gain by withholding this information, and if you are actually successful. these are some of the questions that come to mind immediately, and, you know, this is just had to come immediately. we got this information not from the fbi, but we received in information by reading "the washington post." we hoped we would get information of this critical nature in a direct manner, not through reading it in a secondary source, and perhaps most importantly, we need to know if the fbi has done this before. and if it's occurring in other cases and i would expect a classified briefing that is substantiative, not just canned responses. and director wray, you know this committee is also working on cyber security legislation and i certainly plan to work and make sure the fbi is transparent so we can effectively carry out our legislative and oversight duties, and certainly i appreciate your commitment today in committee to briefing the committee, and i look forward to getting that scheduled as soon as practical. in closing, to join senator portman, all of my colleagues, in thanking the witnesses for being here today. we all recognize that you have extremely busy schedules and we're grateful you took the time to be here and to answer some tough questions and tough problems we're facing as a country. the committee is working to address many of the issues that were discussed today. i look forward to continuing our conversation about cyber attacks and what tools and information the federal government needs to better prevent breaches and attacks at our hearing coming up in a couple of days on thursday. senator portman, and i have been work on legislation related to reporting cyber security breaches, and ransom ware payments and i look forward to introducing and moving that legislation very soon. the committee will be continuing our oversight for security and border security at both the northern and southern board -- borders and on the multiagency efforts to screen and resettle afghan refugees. while we have spent several productive hours during this hearing, examining our nation's greatest security threats, there's more work to do for this committee to continue conducting the oversight that we are required to do and ensuring that our national security agencies are effectively focused on their critical missions, i look forward to working productively with my colleagues to ensure that we're doing everything, absolutely everything to safeguard the american communities. with that, the record will remain open for 15 days until 5:00 p.m. on october 6th, 2021, for the submission of statements and questions for the record. the hearing is now adjourned. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're sponsored by these television companies and more, including charter communications. saturday on american history tv at 8:00 a.m. eastern on lectures in history, former charleston mayor joseph riley, and professor kerry taylor look at why a new african-american history museum is built in the city joined by edward hall, author of "slaves in the family" and life of a clansman, and professor christopher leahy on his book "president without a party" about john tyler, ejected from his own political party while in office. book tv features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books, sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on afterwards, george will on his book "american happiness and discontents" on what he calls the unruly years between 2008 and 2020, interviewed by cnn political contributor amanda carpenter. at noon eastern, live conversation with, and her most recent "not a nation of immigrants" ms. dunbar ortiz talks about native american culture, the women's liberation movement and the founding of the united states. join our conversation with calls, tweets, texts and facebook messages. watch american history and book tv every weekend on c-span 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or visit c-span.org. "washington post" reporter craig whit lock begins chapter 15 in his new book the afghanistan papers this way quote hamid karzai's fraudulent reelection worsened a deluge of corruption that engulfed afghanistan in 2009 and 2010. dark money cascaded over the country. money launderers lugged suitcases loaded with a million dollars or more on flights leaving kabul so crooked businessmen and politicians could stash their ill gotten fortunes offshore unquote. we asked mr. whit lock to expand on this and other stories from his book "the afghanistan papers." >> "washington post" investigative reporter craig whitlock on this week's episode of book notes plus. you can listen to all of our podcasts on our c-span now app. two house homeland security subcommittees held a joint hearing on cyber threats and the may ransomware attack on colonial pipeline. several topics were discussed including improving cyber security, this hearing is just under two hours. >> maritime security and the subcommittee on cyber security, infrastructure, protection and innovation will come to order for today's hearing titled cyber threats in the pipeline, lessons

Related Keywords

Mexico , Honduras , Afghanistan , United States , Washington , China , Togo , Guatemala , Russia , Kabul , Kabol , Spain , Haiti , Romania , Americans , America , Afghan , Spanish , Haitians , Russian , American , Haitian , John Tyler , Joseph Riley , Al Qaeda , Christopher Leahy , Andrew Mccabe , Kerry Taylor , Edward Hall , James Comey , Michael Sussman , Hamid Karzai , John Durham , James Baker ,