tv Hearing on Improving DHS Management Operations CSPAN July 30, 2021 11:09am-1:49pm EDT
minute, i will be happy to adjourn the meeting, because you places to be and commitments to meet. >> thanks so much. >> thank you. >> much appreciated. thank you, senator. >> thank you madam chairman, madam secretary. c-span is your unfilted guide to government including sparklight. >> the greatest town on earth is the place you call home called sparklight and it is your home, too. right now, we are facing your greatest challenge, and that is sparklight working around the clock to keep you connected. we are doing our part so that it is easier to do yours. >> sparklight along with c-span is doing our part to give you a front row seat to democracy. the house homeland security
management and operations at the office of the house homeland security committee answered questions of moralee and homeland security. the committee will come to order. we are coming to order to answer questions about the threats to the homeland. and we will call the order to order and can the chair can call the meeting in recess at any point. we may refocus the committee to address any threats facing our nation, and this conversation is coming at a timely moment as we approach the 20th anniversary of
the 9/11 attacks. dhs was established in 2003 to respond to terrorist attacks within the united states. since then, the range of threats that the department must manage has expanded well beyond foreign terrorism. today, dhs has also tasked with confronting the threats posed by the coronavirus, cyber attacks, violent domestic extremists and climate change. it is critical that the department assess the full range of threats facing the country and align the resources accordingly. unfortunately, under president trump, the department had a myopic focus on immigration and border security at the expense of its other mission. dhs has suffered grave reputational and operational damage carrying out the last administration's failed
policies. some have embraced the notion that dhs must be dismantled, but it is not the answer. instead, we must reform dhs to enhance accountability and transparency, earn americans' trust and improve workforce moral. earlier this month, i introduced a dhs format so that the deal ensures a strong and integrated core to secure the homeland while ensuring accountability, transparency and protection of americans' civil rights and civil liberties. this legislation reflects a recommendation made by those who have closely examined the challenges facing dhs. including the center for new american society, the atlantic council and the center for american progress. all three organizations identified the need for increased oversight of the
department's law enforcement operations. for example, my bill addresses that need by creating an associate secretary position to oversee certain operations. additionally, my bill seeks a greater role for both the office of privacy and the office of civil rights and civil liberties to strengthen constitutional programs and activities and all three organizations also recognize that improving the morale among the dhs workforce must be a top priority, the dhs reform act authorizes several programs aimed at identifying and addressing the causes of low employee morale. we have before us representatives from these organizations, and i look forward to discussing in greater detail their recommendations for transforming dhs.
as a department looks to refocus this operation to address emerging threats and long-standing challenges, the committee on homeland security stands ready to assist. unfortunately, the committee lacks the jurisdiction to deliver a full dhs authorization bill or to advance legislation that reflects oversight finding beyond a few narrowly tailored areas. today, remaining committees and subcommittees have jurisdiction over parts of dhs and no single committee is involved in all measures relevant to the department. i'm working to change that as i engage the house leadership and other committees. fixing the jurisdiction over dhs is only one of the 9/11 commission that has yet to be resolved. this issue has hobbled both the committee and the department for the last 15 years.
it is long past time for it to be addressed. for dhs to be successful in carrying out the wide-ranging missions, it needs to have a confidence of the american people and its partners in the homeland security enterprise. i look forward to discussing with the members today how we can reform dhs to do just that. with that, i recognize a ranking member, the gentleman from new york mr. katko. >> i want to address your concerns and it is long past time to fix that and the issues you raised. and i want to talk about the issues of the department of homeland security and thank the distinguished witnesses for appearing before the committee. we are approaching the 25th anniversary of the department of homeland security.
we are standing at a crossroads and we can choose to work together and enact meaningful changes to benefit the country or choose to go about business as usual leaving the american communities vulnerable. nearly 20 years ago, congress established homeland security by combining 22 separate federal agencies. the intent was to ensure that government would be able to connect the dots of the many threats addressing the american people, excuse me, and to prevent another 9/11 from happening. and to the kr credit, homeland security has been successful from preventing many other attacks or threats to the homeland. i have been astonished to hear from some of my colleagues from other side for radical changes and budget cuts to weaken or abolish the homeland security missions that would protect americans' lives everyday. i cannot say how dangerous i believe this rhetoric is to be as it sends all of the wrong
messages to our adversaries. while there is no doubt that the department must continue to evolve and mature, the missions are critical to the national security to improve and not be degraded. 9/11 was hastened to step up and not degrade the threats facing our nation. and we must step up and not nimbly respond to the threats to our nation. we are to respond and coalesce a unified culture to respond. the 22 agencies have largely operated independently and keeping their own policies and cultures intact. homeland security has struggled to support centralized functions for, e excuse me, centralized support functions for components such as acquisition and i.t. functions and management, and among the accountability offices. and though we have made progress, there is more to do. and i am encouraged to know that financial systems, modernization
is back on track, and key to ensuring that the homeland can support all of the components efficiently and are good stewards of the taxpayer dollars. however, homeland security is to support other functions necessary to put the department in the best position to support the key critical missions. homeland security is making progress in anticipating and addressing the new and evolving threats to the homeland such as those related to cybersecurity. in 2018, homeland security in congress took action to address the cyber threats by establishing the cybersecurity and infrastructure agency or cisa to act as the lead cybersecurity sharing, and private sharing with the private sharing. we had our district to stop further cybersecurity attacks to assist homeland security and
governments. the overwhelming take away was the free and voluntary services that cisa provides. now is time to double down on the investment, and with the landscape that we face, there is no other option. i believe it is a pre-eminent homeland security that we face, and it is dizzying to think about the cyber threats that we are facing just seen over the last several months, and the espionage campaigns on networks and devastating networks on the pipelines and the food supply, and the transit systems and critical i.t. services and the bad guys are emboldened and we must continue the full court press. today, the homeland security continues with the human capitol progress, and we have been piloting for 300 cybersecurity professionals as part of the 60-day workforce sprint. and we have succeeded as initial hiring goal of 200 new cybersecurity personnel by 50%, and it is calling it the largest
cybersecurity hiring initiative in the history. that said, the department's authority to nimbly hire top talent in the cybersecurity arena remain too flexible. we can not be boxed in by legacy mindset and inertia. for this to work, we need to sustain inertia to be flexible. we need to be the quarterback of to dot gov domain, but we will be hard pressed without additional funding. i firmly believe that we need to be a $5 billion agency in the next five years. today, the nation is facing vastly different threats than the one that struck on 9/11, and that means we need an dhs to adapt better than it does now. we need a homeland security to identify and mitigate new threats. the threats are ranging from china's global power and influence to global instability and cyber crime.
and in recent years, the global crimes have hamstringed in senior positions and turnovers, and this must change to formulate strategic plans. the department would benefit from a thorough assessment and whether it should keep doing those thing, and if there is something that it should be doing that it isn't, and what we should do about that. this is where another quad rin yal review would be value. this is a exercise in strategy prepared by law every four years, but one that dhs has not been able to accomplish since 2014, seven years ago and this is unacceptable. i urge the leadership to commit to this effort. and this is time for congress to implement to the leadership to buckle down and answer the hard questions and inspire the workforce to contribute to making homeland security into the department the american people want and need.
homeland security is effective and nimble in responding to disasters, thwarting attacks of all kinds and steward of trust. and it is a vital agency to recover from disasters and navigating complex interconnected world. despite this work, homeland security has struggled to earn the trust of the american people, and the confidence of partners and stakeholders. integrating the disparate missions of the department and ensuring it is nimble enough for pressing threats is paramount to the security of our nation. so, let's roll up the sleeves and figure out what we need to do to protect and safeguard the american people better than we do right now. thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back.
mr. chairman, i am unable to hear you. >> thank you very much. and the gremlins, i guess, they have gotten me, too. and other members of the committee are reminded that under the committee rules that opening statements may be submitted for the record, and the members are reminded that you may operate according to the guidelines of the ranking member of the colloquy and the remote procedures. and now, welcoming the panel of witnesses. our first witness is ms. kerry cordero, and the senior fellow at the center for new americans' security and author of the report titled "reforming the department of homeland security and enhanced oversight and accountability." the next witness is mr. tom warren, the future of the dhs project at the atlantic council.
he previously served as the dhs deputy secretary of counter terrorism policy. the third witness is ms. patrina mulligan acting vice president for the national security and international policy at the center for american progress and author of redefining homeland security, a new framework of dhs to meet today's challenges. the final witness is mr. frank cipilo who is the director of auburn university's lekragt institute for cybersecurity. he directed president bush's security advisory council. without objection, the full statement will be inserted into the record. i now ask ms. cordero to summarize her statement for five minutes. >> chairman thompson, and
ranking member katko, thank you for appearing before you today on the important topic of homeland security. for the past two years i have led a project for the center of security for reforming dhs with the purpose of intelligence and integration of the department's work. i am grateful for the opportunity to share the insights developed through this project and to work with this committee going forward in connection with the important oversight and legislative responsibilities. i am particularly delighted to be joined by my friends and colleagues, katrina and tom and frank who have insights to share with the committee. as vi written in my testimony, my grounding is in counter intelligence lawyer, and as a result of the formative experience, vi zero interest in going backward and undoing nearly 20 years of changes to the laws and institutions that kept the country safe from an act of terrorism on the scale of september 11th.
however, 2021 is not not 2001 and the threats to country faces today is not then. and misaligned terrorism, and natural disasters and pervasive gun violence are affecting americans on a daily basis. dhs must adapt to current and emerging threats while improving the internal oversight and accountability. in short, i don't want us to develop a dhs to meet today's threats, but i want to see the dh, is that has the legislative framework and organizational capability and trained and expert workforce to be ready to meet today and tomorrow's threats. i am heartened by the committee's willingness to take on this work. though there were advanced warnings, our nation was unwilling to take on the pandemic that has killed over 600,000 americans. as someone who had a front row view to the prompt and decisive bipartisan action that congress and the government took to
respond to the 9/11 attacks the inefficiency response of the government as it emerged in 2020 is impossible to ignore. dhs in particular was created to protect the country from foreign threats, yets it appeared to play no meaningful role in warning the country or response in the pandemic of the virus' spread across the country. another warning to protect the democracy it was not foreign terrorists, but the domestic terrorists who attacked the congress on january 6th, though it was not an intelligence failure, our security apparatus could have done more. dhs through the secret service leads national security and should they have been subject to the rigorous planning and rigorous protocol, the events that we witnessed would not have reached the level of severity that it did. the protection of the kons tulgsal system and the
effectiveness of transfer of power was thanks for the heroic action of the capitol police and the district of columbia's metropolitan police department. we have to secure the capitol and other election officials and judges in this environment of political violence. a review of the protective measures for improvement will be a component of the newly select committee formed under the chairman's leadership. in my written testimony includes a set of recommendations some of which are reflected to in the bill, and the dhhs bill will pave the way for a bert dhs. and as you move it out of the committee, i hope you will include some of my recommendations into the report. to highlight a few, i strongly support the position of the associate secretary to bolster the department, and that
proposal was a key recommendation of of may 2020 report and from the independent review of my colleagues. in addition, i recommend that congress update the mission of the homeland security act. dhs cannot do the best work if the statutory mandate, organization and funding is inextricably tied to a threat of a prior era while other threats are a growing menace. updates of the statutory menace might help the morale missions that the committee is concerned with. and also, the law enforcement missions need to mature. dhs was not created to serve as a federal police force reserved for states and local tis and nor a domestic security service, and that was strongly rejected after the 9/11 attacks, and the risks of resisting the law enforcement
measures are to be strongly disregarded. i thank you for allowing me to testify, and i look forward to working with the committee. >> thank you very much. i ask mr. warwick to summarize his statement in five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. catco, and allow manage to testify today. it is clear that dhs needs all of the help it can get. it is the third largest cabinet, and it has over 200,000 employees and the missions include some of the country's most important challenges. there are many dhs missionaries that need attention and it has management challenges throughout the department for most of which is morale with 2020 having been a particularly tumultuous year. at the outset, mr. chairman, i would they the atlantic council, itself, it does not take position on legislation, and views expressed are those of
individual experts. i do want to thank the senior advisory board and former secretaries and acting secretaries and more than 100 experts on homeland and national security who contributed to the findings and recommendations and to the technical support to their hel and dic and to understand the dhs's organizational and unique responsibilities, but the conclusions are mine. so it is on that basis they want to offer my endorsement of the dhs reform act of 2021 which embodies some of the best thinking of how dhs needs to be reformed. i also urge the members of this committee to continue your efforts to make the department more effective and protecting the american people from nonmilitary threats. mr. chairman, any comprehensive assessment of dhs starts with
the refocus of the mission. at this point, all of the readings of reporting a gree. our report said that the most urgent threat when we released in september of 2020 was the covid-19 pandemic and the greatest long-term threat to lives and infrastructure comes from climate change, and that dhs should prioritize its work in these areas. i'm obviously very pleased to see that biden administration has taken up both of these challenges with the priority that pit deserves. but one other important point that i need to make is that our report calls for dhs to take on the overall mission of defending the united states and the american people from nonmilitary threats. dhs's missions currently include protecting american democracy from cyber attacks, protecting the critical infrastructure and election security and countering foreign state misuse of the
media platforms and all i group under the umbrella of protecting american democracy. it is true that dhs needs to maintain the level of resources and measuring the missions and one of the hall marks of the department as you said, mr. chairman, it is adding missions, but none of the other missions are going away. and just as the department of defense have men and women of uniform to lead the nation against military threats, dod is not the right place to lead the defense of the nation against nonkinetic threats and so if the dod bumper sticker is we fight and win america's wars, dhs needs to think of the mission as we lead the defense of the nation against nonmilitary threats. this is what dhs needs to move towards. dhs also needs to think of communications as a core mission and win the trust of the american people by how it takes on what it does. it also needs to modernize the
public/private partnerships because that is how dhs tackles the dangers from climate change. dhs moral is another important challenge. let me ask the clerk to put up slide number two for the committee to take a look at. one of the things that we have all noted is that dhs has ranked last in the annual surveys of employee morale since 2010. the data from the september-october 2020 data is that dhs is last among the large cabinet departments and agencies in the federal government, but our analysis has shown that morale at the dhs is not a hopeless task, but far from it. dhs has had numerous success stories and frank taylor between 2014 and 2017, and sarah saldana from customs enforcement, and tech sales and john kelly of the secret service between 2017 and
2019, and if i could ask the clerk to show slide three. thanks. unfortunately, in 2020, morale at one of dhs's two success stories the u.s. citizenship, and immigration services fell off of the cliff, and cis fell from 90 subagencies to 339th out of 411 and the reason of the drop deserve a hearing of their own. and dhs have other success stories and most of the components are in response to the covid pandemic, and protecting the 2020 election showed that their morale improved because i believe of the combination of the good leadership and commitment to the importance of their missions. there are a number of other reforms that need to be made that enhance morale, and this committee's hearing on may 4th on the tsa workforce coincided
with the workforce that tsa be the first work reform and pay and workforce need to be prioritized. secretary mayorkas announced this is his pry tear june 3rd and now it is important to inform that dhs get the necessary funding. you can take the slides down, thanks. there are other challenges that dhs needs to address, and strengthening the headquarters and better coordination of policies is and research, and also, establishing a secretary to coordinate law enforcement activities without micromanaging what the law enforcement agencies need to do, and dhs needs to integrate more civil rights and civil liberties and private protections and rotate people in and out, and what you, mr. chairman, and mr. catco said about consolidating the
congressional oversight needs to be a priority. so with that, i will be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. >> thank you very much. the chair recognizes mr. mulligan, ms. mulligan to summarize her statement for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman thompson and representative catco, ik too, appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. for the past year, vi led a study on dhs focused primarily on re-examining the first order questions. what does america need from department of homeland security today, and how has it changed in last 20 years? but rather than tell you about our conclusions, i'd like to take three quick minutes to show you. you can start the video now. >> almost immediately after the september 11th terror atk thes
the bush administration started to create the homeland security. >> dozens of agencies charged with the department of homeland security will be located under one cabinet with the mandate and legal authority to protect our people. >> from the start, dhs was focused on terrorism and immigration enforcement adopting a never-again attitude toward a 9/11 terror attack often coming at the expense of the department's attention and focus on the other missions. the missions have evolved, but some have been frozen in time. nearly 20 years after 9/11, it is time to re-examine whether the department is fulfilling the needs of americans today and how the calibrate the missions to best serve the nation going forward. the largest threats to americans' safety and prosperity come from within as well as beyond the borders.
>> cyber attacks against the u.s. -- >> sea levels are rising -- >> and the largest wildfire in state history -- >> and hundreds of white nationalists from across the country -- >> where is the ppe? where are the ventilators. >> 600,000 deaths. >> we need help. dhs can deliver real value for those americans who live, work, study and seek safety here. americans need dhs to recalibrate and investing safety and services to fill the gaps of unmet needs in the united states and reducing a dominant focus on law enforcement encountering external threats. >> and opening new vaccination sites across the country. >> and passengers --
>> rescuing passengers -- >> and dhs needs to re-evaluate what it means to keep america safe. this new vision would articulate a new role for the department in connecting, communicating, facilitating, helping, and in addition to helping, protecting, and enforcing, and now after 20 years recalibrating a threat model to services model. >> the homeland security department is to have a model of welcome. >> we have new challenges and opportunities facing the nation, and the biden and harris administration can transform the department to provide more value to the americans for those who
visit with safety and opportunity. >> thank you. so before i close, i wanted to emphasize two things. first, dhs has the potential to meet today's moment. second, though the panel today reflect a diversity of the viewpoints, we agree on several areas of reform. i would encourage this committee to focus on closely the areas where we are speaking in unison. to highlight a few, we agree that we are to assure the prosperity and security of americans and to reform and not dismantle. we agree that dhs should have a broader view of what it takes to keep the nation secure. and we agree that dhs should have a broader role of keeping
the nation safe and protecting the civil liberties of americans and we agree that more oversight and restraint is needed for dhs's law enforcement functions. thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and i look forward to hearing your questions. >> thank you very much. and now i recognize our fourth member to summarize his statement. >> i, too, thank you for the opportunity to testify. as my colleagues have said the array of threats to the country have evolved substantially over time, and so, too, must the national architecture for encountering the threats. i commend the committee on the proactive approach to tackle some of the important reform. allow me to begin with history
and context and nothing as fancy with the colleagues with the cool videos and the like, but dhs was established, i think that as we have all now made clear directly in response to the horrific terror attacks of 9/11 and we went through the largest reorganization of the federal government since the national security act of 1947. and preventing and preparing for and responding to terrorism was the driving force behind the department. at the same time however, dhs and continues to have a wide set of important missions. the most prevalent and pressing threat today is cyber. the system is blinking red, and this is the area where we must work the hardest and double down the efforts and not at the expense of other missions and threats, but in addition to them. and consider the events of the past six months alone in which we have seen a rash of incidents from solar winds and the microsoft exchange hacks
targeting the supply chain to the kacera ransom attacks including the u.s. pipelines and the food supply. ransomware attacks are hitting epidemic proportions and targeting entities from schools to businesses and no one and nothing is off limits. i was pleased to see this morning the government's new ransomware campaign, since it is really important for the government to speak with one voice and bring everything together. dhs must be well structured and well funded to meet the cyber mission. continuity of leadership is a vital first step. and meaningful maturation requires the posts and the echelons be filled. and jen easterly's confirmation was important first step, and next we need to codify the assistant director to a five-year term, and elevating the role to insure continuity across the organization.
fortunately congress and dhs have undertaken significant actions for the increase of cyber attacks and codifying the cyber state of distress, and the response and recovery fund will ensure adequate preparation, and funding the ability to surge critical resources and coordinate asset response. dhs must continue to be, continue to support their principle partners in the governmental and tribal and private sector. we cannot forget that it is ultimately about finding meaningful ways to enhance those on the front lines. reaching this far requires people and skill and deep bench to meet the mission, and building and sustaining a workforce so that the caliber and size needed by the department and beyond is truly an urgent priority, and the most effective way to get there is to proceed in a multi-pronged approach including in-career
training and retention efforts and k-12 and postsecondary initiatives and special emphasis in my eyes ought to be accorded to veterans and including a more diverse cybersecurity workforce. to fulfill the interagency partnerships, cisa must be reinforced, and should be codified and i am happy to get into that in q&a. and moreover, our approach to government is too scatter shot. and the national defense authorization act was to target government networks and that is a good start where we require substantially more sustainability than presently exists. and where we can have greater impact in the near term is to translate the nouns into the verbs where we talk about private/public partnership, and this a list of top priorities
for us, and i see congressman langeman has joined and a real driver on the commission, and a newly created driver office within ciso is a driver and should be stood up asap, and a driver of coordination for cyber-based activities, and prior tis set by the new cyber director. and the commission has recommended that a joint collaborate environment with cisa at the center be established by law for the purpose of sharing cyber threat data among the federal entities and the u.s. government and private sector. both national and economic security urgently demand greater visibility across the entirety of the supply chains, and i am happy to get into that more into the q&a portion. and also, the systemically
critical infrastructure be subjected to benefits and burdens and the idea here is to impose cyber incident reporting requirements on cici companies and more intelligence communities. and good to see a ration of activity on the hill of bills and incident reporting and i'd like to commend ranking member katco of his five pillars to go a long way to where we need to go. and also, we have a long way to go to adapt to the cyber imperative which is continuing to evolve, and cisa needs to be equipped with the accountability and resources to get to job done especially in relation to the most critical infrastructure. mr. chairman, it always a privilege to speak to this
robust committee, and i look forward to answering any questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. i thank the witnesses for the testimony. i will remind each member that he or she will have five minutes to question the witnesses, and i am now going to recognize myself for such questions. you know, one of the problems that we have had long-standing with dhs is the morale of the workforce. all of you have done studies on it. can you suggest to the committee anything you think that we might do to get morale off of the bottom? a lot of us are concerned about that, the missions are important, but if your workforce is not where it needs to be in
terms of morale, there's some challenges with it. so ms. codero, we will morale h committee knows a persistent issue in the department. i think a couple things. first with respect to the mission as you know i recommended that congress update the statutory mission of the department. i think there are operational reasons to do that and also morale reasons to do that. right now four of the core mission sets pertain to terrorism and yet we know that is out of sync with the day-to-day activities of what many of the work force engaged in. so i think if the mission of the department as it is laid out in law, as it is mandated by congress, if employees could see their daily work reflected in
that mission, that would be a helpful thing. i also think that one of the issues with the department as all of us recognize is that the independent agencies within the department operate very autonomously with less oversight structure and less common culture. there have been in the round tables i've conducted of experts there have been various former officials all who have said the different secretaries tried to do a unity of culture and then with the next secretary that effort sort of fell off. it has never been able to grow throughout the course of the department. i think a joint duty program would be useful in that respect so we could have individuals as they are rising in their career rotate amongst the different components. they would get a better understanding of their colleagues, of the other mission sets of the department, and what we would do is start to create a
core of future leaders who have better appreciation for their colleagues, missions, operations throughout the rest of the department. >> thank you very much. mr. walworth? >> yes, mr. chairman. we took a look at a number of the specific components that had the greatest morale problems and had in mind some of the successes that other components have had, because there really are lessons that can be applied in places in the department. in the case of tsa addressing the low pay and the work force issues where people perceive that promotions are handed out unfairly and that good work is not recognized and rewarded, is something that your committee and you and others have taken a direct interest in with the tsa work force act. so pushing that through i think will be one of the most important steps that this
committee could take to help. obviously i welcomed the secretary's efforts. we just have to make sure he gets the resources he needs to implement that. the problems at customs and border protection cbp are going to be a bit more difficult. chief magnus if confirmed by the senate is going to have to take a number of steps to deal with the legacy of an era in which cbp hired a great many people but the perception is that not all of them are up to the level of professionalism that the department really needs to have. some of the things that have been identified in terms of professionalization i hope if done right will increase the pride that cbp officers feel about their mission. >> thank you very much. i have to try to get to ms. mulligan and mr. silifro before
my time runs out. ms. mulligan? >> so quickly, i agree that updating the mission and instituting a joint duty type program are excellent suggestions. i think the one thing that i would focus on and emphasize is the politicization of the department is also a driver here and one of the ways the committee can help address that is by ensuring that there are more career civil servants in leadership positions across the department, because that is what helps sort of create a buffer and help reduce the sort of sharp, political shifts between administrations that end up impacting day to day what you think your mission is and how well you think you are serving that mission. >> thank you very much.
unmute yourself. >> sorry, mr. chairman. i was saying i will be brief, which is very rare for me since i've never had an unspoken thought. but bottom line is i really thought that carey hit that question out of the park, agree with everything she said there. the one thing i would add is the mission by definition, if something bad happens that is how people are sometimes defining success. if we can find ways to flip that equation, i think that is critical. when it comes to cyber i want to double tap a couple points i raised. we need a more diverse cyber security work force, more women, people of color. the numbers are staggeringly low and i think there are ways that can change in terms of morale. bottom line is i know you are running out of time. i just wanted to add that one
point on cyber security. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. chair recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for testifying today. i really want to credit what ms. cordero said. i think that has been a major problem. we have limited time so i want to talk about some --. >> i think we are having some problems. i'm not able to hear him.
we'll come back to the ranking member. chair recognizes the gentle lady from texas for five minutes. >> good morning, mr. chairman. good morning to the witnesses. i'm glad to hear one of the witnesses highlight 9/11 since those of us who are senior members of the committee were here and certainly it was a cause for the creation of homeland security. i want to ask as we begin to look at reform i think the witness from the atlantic mentioned covid and one other issue but did not mention the actions of january 6th which is domestic terrorism. whoever wants to answer, do you not believe that that issue should be a crucial component of homeland security and reform should be focused on how quick a
response homeland security can offer because my disappointment was it was a discombobulated, unorganized response. the fbi was completely absent, particularly the director of the fbi, and the idea of a national security or domestic security agency did not seem to be present. if someone wants to take that answer i would also appreciate the gentleman from the atlantic as to why domestic terrorism wasn't one of his top issues. >> it is actually very much one of my top issues. it was an issue in our report we highlighted even in september 2020 needed more time and attention from dhs than it had been getting. all of that was driven home by what happened on january 6th. we've also taken a very detailed look at the events of that day and dhs while it is not responsible for collecting the dots it is very much responsible for connecting the dots. and dhs, ina in particular,
should have done a much better job of bringing that forcefully if necessary to the attention of leadership in the law enforcement agencies who found themselves unexpectedly on the front line that day. so there was a lot dhs could have done better and differently. >> thank you. our time is very short. you offered some reforms. do you have any reform that would relate to a quicker response and greater presence of dhs on a day like january 6th which we hope never in our life to see again in america? ms. cordero? >> thank you, congresswoman. i think dhs could have had two important roles in mitigating the day of january 6th. the first is as a warning role. this pertains to the role of intelligence and analysis. we actually at the center have a new report out that specifically is on proposals for congress to think about to reform the department of intelligence and analysis in the department so that office functions better.
right now it is neither living up to its expectations nor is it doing the job that folks expect it to do. in addition, there is a physical security component i assess that had january 6th been designated a national special security event with the secret service as lead under the leadership of the department that the physical security itself would have been much improved on january 6th. >> my time is up. are you suggesting that should have been done ahead of time? is that my understanding? >> yes, congresswoman. >> thank you. i'm sorry for the time shortage. as it relates to the pandemic, there was multiple confusion, layers of confusion. doctors, first responders using plastic bags to cover themselves, when fema became involved a singular agency, things began to turn the corner. do you have any thoughts about the reinforcing of fema, giving fema's administrator cabinet status, and as well the problems
we have with the staff for that where fema cannot work directly with local communities? can someone take that point up, please? >> sure. i'll go ahead and try. i think you're absolutely right that the role that fema had been playing and is likely to play in the future is going to be bigger and more central than the role that is played in the past. one of the things that i think is actually a success story of the existing dhs is how far fema has come in terms of developing systems and processes. what i envisioned long term is a fema that functions almost like a federal quarterback to augment lead departments and agencies and to build kind of institutional capacity that it can be used so that we aren't constantly relying on our military to aid in nonmilitary and nondefense related emergency response. and if we can build more of that
capacity within fema, i think it will be to the good. in terms of whether fema needs to be a cabinet level agency itself, i actually think a strengthened dhs central headquarters component could be effective without a cabinet level role, but i a hundred percent agree that fema's role needs to be larger in a reimagined dhs. >> just last let me get a response regarding the diverse work force. we know tsa and tso officers may be diverse but across the board how valuable is it that we have a more diverse work force with women and minorities? just someone can give a quick answer, mr. chairman, i'll be able to yield back. anyone wishing to take up that importance of diversity? i know one point was made about cyber but across the board we find that to be very challenging. >> you're absolutely right. this is one of the things that dhs has struggled in some areas to try to achieve.
and it does need to be the priority that i think secretary mayorkas and his team are now giving it to increase diversity in a number of very important areas. >> gentle lady's time has expired. chair recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for the technical difficulties here. thank you for accommodating me and thank you all for your testimony today. i appreciate your comments very much on the morale issue and i thank mr. cilluffo on his comments for the need for diversity within reel u the department as a whole. i want to focus my precious time here. a few years ago we never would have been able to anticipate how important cysa is going to be going forward and since my time as ranking member it seems we need to boost up the budget so
we -- so they can be the things we need them to be. i have often said we need them to be a $5 billion agency within the next five years. mr. cilluffo, if congress were able to make such an investment what could we expect in return? >> unmute yourself. >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman. ranking member, i just sang your praises ad nauseam so i did want to thank you in all sincerity for your leadership on recognizing the significance and for your prioritization around cyber security. i generally believe this is the crux of dhs's success going forward and the country expects
nothing less. basically any policy recommendation i think has to meet three different criteria. that is the marriage of authority, do we have clear lanes in the road, accountability, is there the appropriate oversight, and in cisa's respect both at the national cyber director and obviously this committee in congress, and resources. after all, policy without resources is rhetoric. so i do think that the 5 billion number sounds good to me. i couldn't give you a very empirically based answer to that but we're going to need more resources and we expect cisa to do more. we expect cisa to be the quarterback inside the federal government. we expect them to be able to do more across the dot gov network and in reality and i mention this in my oral remarks, it is really about the public/private partnership. if we're winning the battles in the beltway that's great. but at the end of the day it's
about enabling and empowering those on our cyber first defenders and this is where i hope we see the most impact. and i hope congress would hold cisa to account to achieve some of these objectives. >> i agree with you very much about the public/private partnership in general and the need to exchange the information against malicious attacks in particular. i want to ask you one other thing. that is about the homeland security advisory council. you served on it for many years under both democrats and republicans before the current secretary disbanded it. why do you believe it is important to have a homeland security advisory council made up of bipartisan security experts to advise the secretary and homeland security? >> well, thank you, congressman catco. i am certainly not going to make this about me, but at the end of the day, an advisory council needs to be mission driven and historically it has always been
nonpartisan and i genuinely hope that will continue to be the case. ultimately it needs to have a diverse set of views not just in the traditional sense but those who look at the homeland security enterprise from different perspectives as well. so i think that is important and it has had significant impact. so at the end of the day, any council is as good as the secretaries having trust in that and driving on the missions that they hold near and dear and obviously with people they can confide in. but my big takeaway on all this is i hope it remains as nonpartisan as it can be because otherwise it is going to be a shell. it is not going to be all that it can be. thank you, congressman katko. >> thank you. lastly, real quick, the homeland
security security council, any signals from the secretary to reconstitute it? >> since i am testifying before congress and i can't talk -- no, i have not heard anything. so -- since the initial letter went out to the entire council. >> okay. thank you very much, and mr. chairman, i yield back and thank you for your accommodation, sir. >> thank you very much. glad we were able to do it. chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island for five minutes. chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes.
unmute yourself. we're still not able to hear you. well, i see you are back. >> can you hear me? >> well, we'll go to mr. -- >> okay. mr. chairman do you want me to defer? >> we'll be back. >> whatever you prefer. >> we'll be back shortly. >> very good. >> i want to thank you mr. chairman and our witnesses for the testimony today. let me start with mr. cilluffo
again. appreciate your service and proud to have served with you and continue to serve with you as a commissioner. thank you for your service. unsurprisingly i agree whole heartedly with your focus on cyber security as the key emerging threat facing the country. yesterday the white house announced it had formed a ransom ware task force to address that scourge which i think is important. can you expound on the role of cisa and dhs more broadly should play in protecting the nation from ransomware particularly in the context of the commission recommendations? >> thank you. in terms of all of you've done in terms of the commission to advance our recommendations. bottom line here, in addition to cisa's critical role one of the primary recommendations we put
forward, translated into law, and now has its first national cyber director, is that of the office of the national director which i think serves as sort of the head coach to be able to finally get everyone talking on the same sheet of music, off of the same playbooks where offensive, defensive coordinators can work together and we can have full visibility. cisa does play a key role, and i think the first area it can have greatest impact and translate a concept into reality is around the jcpo or the joint cyber planning office. which can ultimately be the belly button between cisa and for defensive purposes not taking away from nci, jtf, and fbi's important mission in law enforcement and scaling opportunities to claw back ransomware, bit coin, and the like. but cisa does play a big role in being the belly button and center of gravity to be able to interact with our private
sector. and congressman, as you well know, this is a big emphasis for us going forward. if we want to see real progress, it can't just be the alphabet soup and i don't mean that pejoratively. it can't be just the inside the beltway sets of issues. it really has to be about how we empower and enable our front line cyber defenders and the private sector is front and center in all of this. they are the primary targets and not many companies went into business thinking they had to defend themselves against foreign intelligence services but that is precisely what we're dealing with today. how do we square that circle? priority one, two, and three and cisa plays a big role and i was pleased to see the stop ransomware campaign today because we're starting to see one voice one team. >> thank you. you encapsulated it perfectly. that was a very insightful answer. thank you.
i wonder if you could comment also though on the human capital challenges dhs is facing especially with respect to cyber security as we consider dhs reform. what should we be keeping in mind to attract the cyber talent that we need? >> well, congressman, obviously the numbers are staggering and frightening if you think about it in terms of the shortfall, in terms of the skilled cyber security work force. i think first and foremost we need to upscale and rescale and retain some of the best and brightest we have in place but i do think we need to look to ways to recruit more diverse, bring in more diversity into the cyber security community and women in particular make up less than 25% of the cyber security work force. that's just unacceptable. we need to redouble those numbers in a big way and
ultimately i think k through 12 is -- once you hit -- speaking from a university of course, i'm going to say post secondary and college education is a priority, and it is. but, ultimately, we have to get to the next generation when they're a whole lot younger. and cyber security needs to be part of the way they do cyber. ultimately we're talking about k through 12. i think we have a lot we can learn from some of our allies, notably astonia and israel in terms of how they are literally bringing in at the kindergarten level cyber security into the curriculum. i didn't give you a clean answer on that but it is all of the above. more of it. and faster. >> couldn't agree more. and focusing on k through 12 essential and also diversity. look, we're stronger when we have very different points of view and backgrounds that we can bring to the table to offer
expertise and talent and we have to work harder on the diversity part as well. i know my time is expired. i have other questions i'll have to submit for the record but thank you for those and thank you to the rest of the panel. i'm sorry i couldn't get to you for questions but thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> chairman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a few minutes i want to visit with you and highlight a few of the things you previously testified in your opening statement and also in the report you provided prior to your testimony. you say in your report that the most prevalent and most pressing matter that we now face is cyber. you say cyber is the area where we must double down and work the hardest to enhance our capabilities. you go on and talk about some of the more recent attacks that we've seen both late last year and this year, the solar winds, the microsoft exchange. you mentioned the u.s. pipeline which i'm assuming would be colonial pipeline, the food supply, which would be the jbs
cyber incursions and you talk about ransomware and how it is not just targeting these large, multi national corporations but they're targeting schools and businesses and hospitals. and then as you go on later into your port you talk a little bit about the deterrence factor. and you say actually while resilience supports deterrence it must not eliminate the need for a broader u.s. strategy to deter our adversaries by imposing real costs and consequences upon them. you go on specifically to mention cline and russia where many of the cyber attacks are occurring and for far too long they've been allowed to engage in cyber behavior that has damaged the united states and damaged both our national security and our economic security. so i would like if you would if you could take a few moments to talk about this broader u.s.
strategy of deterrence. it seems like we're constantly playing defense and we're not playing offense. that we're allowing the cyber attacks to occur in china and russia and other nations abroad but it seems that we are doing very little to engage any of those individuals. i know that we're talking about sometimes law enforcement challenges being unable to make arrests in foreign countries but for countries that shiel cyber attackers what more can we do? what should that broader u.s. policy of deterrence be? i think you may be muted again, very briefly. >> thank you. i think you framed that exceedingly well. not my words but yours. here is the bottom line. cisa has a critical role to play but we are never going to fire wall our way out of this problem alone. it would be sort of like if you're fielding a football team
of only having a front line and not having an offense. you need all of the above and the reality is we need to induce changes in bad cyber behavior. to do that we need to start imposing costs and consequences on bad cyber behavior. to do that we need to be willing to put some lines in the silicon. when those are crossed we have to have the political will, a, signal, and, b, follow through on our ability to respond. here is, without getting into anything classified because this is very public we have the greatest cyber ability right now and that is something that shouldn't be lost on the rest of the world. we also, though, need to be willing to deploy and employ some of these capabilities to ultimately change bad cyber behavior. for way too long the bad guys have been getting away with murder. this is unacceptable.
that said, we need to shore up our defenses. the last thing we want to do, because the initiative still remains with the attacker. our vulnerabilities are extreme so we have to bring all these pieces together. i am confident that the creation of a new national cyber director, which congress passed last year can help us get to that point. but here is the bottom line. not all hats are the same. not all hackers are the same. intentions vary. capabilities vary. at the very top of the list are peer nations russia and china. just beneath them iran, north korea. what they lack in capability they more than make up for with intent. and they have very little impunction to turn toward cyber to achieve their objectives. cyber criminals which five years ago were -- now they are at par with where nations were three to five years ago. so we've got a witch's brew here we need to deal with. the bottom line is we need to
start imposing costs, consequence, and follow through and bring all instruments to state craft and that includes the military instrument if done appropriately to achieve our cyber objectives. >> let me ask you one followup question and then i'll be out of time. do you think the administration is sending a strong enough message to our adversaries as it relates to cyber attacks and the response that we will take to defend ourselves using some of our offensive capabilities? >> you know, i have long been an advocate that we need to do more. i've been critical of all administrations in this particular space. i do think we saw some positive developments in terms of raising this issue directly with vladimir putin, but the proof is going to be in the pudding. are we going to actually follow through on some of our words and make sure they're not empty? the worst thing we can do is say
we take it seriously and not follow through. so i will be cautiously optimistic that we're moving in the right treks, but more is needed and i don't mean to go on and on and on, but china is the country we really need to be looking at closely over the long haul and so much more there is needed and too much to cover in this hearing but thank you, congressman. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman. thank you. chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you. i apologize for the difficulty before. this is -- this question is to ms. cortero and mr. warrick and ms. mulligan. the trump administration's abuse of dhs authority over the last
four years hurt the department's reputation and decimated actually the public trust in dhs actions. as a government agency, that depends on regular interactions with state and local communities. dhs is uniquely re liant on its relationships with the public. i'd like ms. cordero, mr. warrick, and ms. mulligan to answer the following question. what are the biggest factors that affect the public's trust in dhs and how can the department rebuild that trust? >> thank you very much for the question, congressman. so one of the reasons that i think dhs in particular is a department that needs this public trust is because it is so
operational and it touches people in a very personal way every single day whether it is citizens at the airport, or individuals, migrants trying to enter the country through various means, so it is up close and personal in a way many other federal bureaucracies are not. it also has an extraordinarily heavy law enforcement component that has grown over time and has become a very robust part of its operations. therefore, it is essential because of the factors that it be a department that operate according to the constitution, laws, rules, procedures and that the public have a good understanding of what those rules are. so one of the set of recommendations that i have put forth in several of the reports that i've written have been focused on redeveloping and modernizing the operational guidelines that the law enforcement components of the department work through, increasing the transparency, so
once we have rules and updated rules about how dhs officers and employees are interacting with the public, put those rules out there so people can see them and understand them. i'll pause there. thank you. >> thank you. mr. warrick? >> so i agree with everything just said. i won't resummarize it. dhs has extraordinary authorities and also in areas like cyber security everything we see makes it clear that there has to be even greater trust between dhs and the american people. so our recommendation is that dhs needs to look at everything it does through the lens of is this going to enhance public trust? that may not make everyone happy but it is going to be necessary because trust needs to be one of the greatest assets that dhs has going forward. >> thank you. ms. mulligan?
>> i think the reason we are all circling around the issue of dhs's law enforcement role is because that is a central place where the trust issues reside. in my view and as we've concluded in our report it is one of the reasons why we really ought to consider whether exclusively investigative law enforcement functions belong at a reimagined dhs. there will always be some role for law enforcement within the department because it will continue to need to protect, secure, defend, and enforce. the question really for this committee is i think are those the primary beliefs that the department adds value to the american people or is there an expanded role -- to communicate, facilitate, helps, and welcomes people to this country? and, you know, we argue that rebalancing those priorities, bringing them into balance with each other, is actually one of
the first things we can do to restore trust with the american people. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i was going to try to slide one more question in, but i will yield back. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back and very kindly. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. bishop, for five minutes. >> ms. cordero, i think it is a fair summary to say you and ms. mulligan have sort of been on the same page at least the two of you and maybe also mr. warrick on that de-emphasizing the law enforcement functions of dhs are a priority and you mentioned i think terrorism and also integration enforcement. i have, i think the clerk has a
chart that i've used a couple times before. let me see if the clerk has that and can put it up real quickly. everybody is familiar with this chart i think and we are getting ready to see results for june that will show that blue line to have ticked up yet again. and those are southwest border encounters by month. and so we're, again, what i've understood to be a 20-year high and it has reached a plateau and continuing gradually to increase. you can take the chart down, madame clerk. i just wanted to get everybody on the same page. the orange line that was on that was the 2019 fiscal year. and in your paper in march about sort of the reorienting homeland security department, you
suggested the trump administration policies on immigration have been unsuccessful, in that there had been an increase in 2019 in particular but what was notable is the orange line goes up and then it recedes. we're now up at this unusual peak that has continued at a plateau. does that not change your view about the -- about whether or not immigration enforcement continues to be an important priority for homeland security? >> congressman, i am not sure if you were directing that at me or ms. mulligan but let me start off and then she may have more to add as well. so perhaps -- let me explain a little bit what i mean when i am describing drawing down a little bit in terms of the law enforcement capacity of the department. i understand the concerns about border security and obviously there is a continued challenge
at the border with respect to immigration enforcement. so i have not suggested that we draw down on border patrol or the man power resourcing for that at all. what i am suggesting is that we make sure, number one, that the law enforcement components of the department do what their mission is. so for example when it comes to border patrol, i want to see border patrol agents working on border issues not being deployed into the interior of the country to do things that are unrelated to border patrol. a second piece we've focused on that i focused on in my writing has been on the investigative law enforcement capacity of the department. so this is what we call homeland security investigations which is a component of i.c.e. that is an area where i do wonder whether there are some duplicative actions and activities between the investigative function and perhaps other law enforcement components of the federal government where i think it would be useful to refocus.
>> let me interject and sort of redirect. what is the most important and imperative action at this point in time by homeland security that would precipitate an attenuation in that high and plateaued line of enforcement encounters at the south border? much as what was accomplished in the trump administration by seeing the thing decline rapidly? >> so, congressman, i appreciate the question. i don't think there is a magic bullet for solving the challenges at the border. i think when we talk about border issues we are really talking about a wide range of policy issues, the foreign policy as it relates to -- >> i'm sort of just seeing if anybody has a magic bullet. let me see if anybody who is a witness would want to jump in and say, not that it has to be a magic bullet but something that would precipitously reduce that
rate. >> representative bishop we need dose ian an immigration system that processes people fairly, justly, and very quickly. if you tried the run the supreme court the way we run traffic court there would be chaos. >> faster you're saying is the answer? >> justly and in accordance with the law yes. >> the flow? >> you need to be able to have people's cases heard so they don't have to either wait around for a result or be released awaiting a hearing. you ought to be able to design a system that avoids border crises like you've rightly pointed us to. >> i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri for five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentle lady from new york, ms. clark,
for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank our ranking member and our witnesses for your insights today. the center for the new american securities report notes dhs's cyber security mission has grown over time, but the authorities of its cyber security entity of its cyber security -- the cyber security and infrastructure security agency cisa have not kept pace. the national defense act of fy-2021 include several provisions to align priorities with the current mission including persistent, threat hunting authority, and the joint cyber planning office. but our work is hardly done. ms. cordero how has congress's failure to quip cisa with the authorities necessary to effectively carry out its cyber
mission undermined our national security posture and how could this mismatch between cisa's authorities and responsibilities be best addressed? >> thank you for the question, congresswoman. i do recognize that this committee and congress does have a renewed attention on cisa and is considering proposals to be able to strengthen it. so i appreciate this committee's work on that. here is what i think when i think about what would be a robust cisa that we want to have. it would be a cisa that has the capability, resources, expertise to warn both with respect to the dot gov and to prust and public, private sector partners and other public sector partners. it would have the ability to significantly assist in the remediation of cyber offense and it would have the capabilities to protect our democratic institutions. for example cisa has demonstrated it is capable of doing a lot when it comes to public sector partners to
protect and strengthen electoral infrastructure. so those are the things that i think would make a robust cisa. one of the things i've recommended in the past with respect to what congress can do, one of the recommendations of the sole air yum commission was to create a select committee in order to take on cyber issues across the board. in a prior report that i wrote with a colleague professor we recommended that there at least be an interim select committee on cyber so we can take the solarium recommendations and drive forward those recommendations so that they continue to have an impetus behind them and a legislative and oversight vehicle in congress to make them happen. >> mr. cilluffo, is there anything you would add or disagree with in that analysis?
>> i think ms. cordero is gutsy bringing up the congressional oversight but i do think that is an issue we need to look at and quite honestly your committee, the homeland security committee, needs to have the wherewithal and the oversight authorities to do its job across the department. but a couple things i'd raise. i brought up the system kali important critical infrastructure. i do think there is a time for incident reporting and making that required for the most critical of our critical infrastructures. i do think that the joint cyber planning office can get us a little closer to where we want to be on a public/private partnership. that is where the action should be and ultimately i think can move the needle the furthest. i am a big proponent of the national cyber director but one thing i haven't heard of yet today, supply chains are so important here. we are so dependent from a
component perspective weechlt have to start bringing, onshoring some of the key technologies and capabilities back to the united states. while that is an issue across the board, the truth is we have a whole, long way to go because we don't even have visibilities across our supply chains. after each incident it's like we're starting afresh and anew. >> very well. i would love to talk to you more about that. i want to get in one more question for our panel. that is multiple administrations have struggled to improve coordination between cisa and other federal agencies. and have tried to overcome turf battles to improve our cyber security posture. last year's national defense authorization act included language codifying the role of federal agencies that oversee critical infrastructure sectors and establishing the national cyber director. among other things despite efforts to clarify roles or responsibilities of cisa and other agencies coordination within the federal government to
promote the security and resilience of the nation's critical infrastructure is not where it needs to be. what more do you think congress will need to do to assure effective, strategic, interagency collaboration to address cyber threats against critical infrastructure? and are there other recommendations for instance for the cyber solarium commission from the cyber solarium commission that you believe would help foster better collaboration? it is for the entire panel. i'm sorry. i know my time is up. just quickly, any thoughts? >> i'll go first. we would certainly agree with what frank is saying about the need to designate critical infrastructure in cyber so that they have certain obligations and get certain benefits. that's one of the most important recommendations that needs to be adopted. >> and the one thing that i -- the one last thing i would add is i do think that one of the
issues that we can build capacity and we absolutely should in the ways that have already been outlined but we have to start creating an output out of dhs that is fit for purpose. in other words, dhs is going to fleed to do a better job, continue improving its ability to understand what the critical infrastructure providers that are outside of government actually need to be informed about and how to inform them in a timely way and with the level of specificity they can actually act upon. >> just one point i want to raise because i think it is important. cisa of course is at the center of a lot of this ak tufty vis-a-vis our critical infrastructure owner/operators. it is also the sector risk management agency. so what we used to call the ssa's, sector specific agencies that are working so doe for example plays an important role with grid security and needs to continue to do that and cisa can help enable that. so i think the new national cyber director we finally have a
head coach. someone who can bring together the offensive coordinator and the defensive coordinator on to the same field with the same playbook and all i ask is that congress enable chris english to be able to do his job as national cyber director. >> i appreciate that. mr. chairman, i yield back and i thank you all for your expertise today. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member katko and thank you for having this hearing and i thank the witnesses for testifying. as you all know we are truly living in extraordinary times. threats of all sorts whether cyber, ransom, or physical greatly threaten the safety and security of our great nation. in the past six months we have had -- seen ransom ware attacks like you've never seen before.
water treatment plants, facilities -- you name it, it's been attacked. russia, china, iran, and other dangerous adversaries are working to undermine our critical infrastructure, which is why it is important now more than ever for congress to work with stakeholders to produce effective solutions. in addition to our cyber vulnerabilities our border faces serious threats as well. unprecedented numbers of migrants have entered the youd states through our southern border. and yet the administration has done practically nothing to remedy this situation. enforcement officers in custom and border protection agents are over worked by anything we could even ever imagine. they have high, very high rates of burn out. witnesses have outlined in their testimonies it is no secret that the department of homeland security has its short comings
despite a high threat landscape. it is ironic, however, that the department is receiving very small increase in funds at this very critical time. ms. mulligan, in your testimony you said that dhs should shift toward a more service driven approach that treats immigrants as an asset to be managed rather than a crime issue or anything to be enforced. do you believe, simple question, do you believe in the rule of law? >> of course. >> okay. are you aware that the united states is facing the highest level of migrants at the southwest border in 21 years? in fy-21 over 900,000 migrants have been encountered along the southwest border. are you aware that under u.s.
code section 135 it makes it a crime to unlawfully enter the united states not at a port of entry? it is a crime. are you aware of that? >> i'm aware of persistently high rates of migrants presenting at the southern border, yes. over time. >> and are you aware that it is a crime? >> absolutely. not to present but to unlawfully enter is a crime. >> in fy-21 to date cbp has arrested 6,918 individuals with criminal convictions. how would you ensure that criminals and gang members who are smuggled into the country between ports of entry are actually caught because of the extreme danger that they present? >> i think it is incredibly important to understand that
we -- none of us today have argued for a dismantling or, you know, a radical shift away from any of the protecting, securing, defending, or enforcing missions of the department. i think bringing them into balance is what i've certainly testified about. in terms of safety and security at the border i think it is really important to differentiate between, you know, folks who are trying to enter the country who have the kinds of criminal records you're talking about and folks who are presenting at the border who don't. the overwhelming majority do not. now, it is the function of cbp to try to differentiate between those things but we shouldn't be treating them all the same. >> i understand that, but again, just going back to the previous statement, how can we consider this an asset to the country? i agree with you. we need new immigration laws. we need to change the system. i believe in legal immigration.
but should we just open our borders everywhere? or is it just in that area, in the southern border? how do we really approach this? why is it bad for our nation, a sovereign nation, to have borders to protect the people who live in the nation and then to actually put together a real, legal immigration plan? how can illegal immigration when, in fact, as we know, the illegal immigration that we have now children are being used, abused, children and women are being used as drug mules, being sexually attacked in order to get more people in our country. how can that be a good thing? how can it be right even for them when before we had agreements with the northern triangle, we had agreements with mexico in which those folks were held and treated decently there and were billing an actual border in our country. how can that be wrong? countries have borders. every country. mexico does. canada does. every country we know of pretty
much that speaks for itself at all has a border. how can we just let this happen? >> thank you for the question. i think that we absolutely should have a border and i am, you know, as a lawyer myself deeply respectful of the rule of law in this country but i do think that when we're talking about the threats facing the nation and we're prioritizing without infinite resources we do need to prioritize a range of threats that are posing in my view significantly heightened risks to american lives and prosperity, things like the pandemic, the cyber issues we've been discussing. those are threats that are impacting america's lives and their pocket books in ways that far exceed what is happening at the southern border. >> do you think fentanyl is a threat to america? because the numbers -- >> the gentleman -- the gentleman's time -- >> do you believe that is a
threat? it's all coming in on the ports of entry. >> excuse me. we're going to let you answer the question but the gentleman's time has long expired. >> thank you. >> i think fentanyl is absolutely a threat. and look, that is why it is tremendously important to have a department of homeland security that is focused on taking a broader view of what it means to keep the nation secure. one of the things that i find really heartening about the conversation we're having is that we're breaking out of, you know, focusing exclusively on terrorism as the only mission of the department. this gets back to what ms. cordero and mr. warrick had said earlier. we have to get to a place where we're defining what it means to keep the nation secure more broadly so that it includes all of the issues you're raising and so that those become part of the core mission of the department. >> thank you for your time. >> the chair recognizes the
gentleman from missouri, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate all of the witnesses today. i have just a couple questions that i wanted to try to deal with if i could. and one of them is, has already been dealt with, we've had this increased number of incidents on the u.s. airlines with unruly passengers. that has already been dealt with, i'll just, you know, get a response later from some of my colleagues. but if it has not been addressed, i would appreciate it if any of you who might want to respond to that if you can. >> representative, the issue of
security aboard airlines is one that tsa takes very seriously. federal air marshals are trained in this, airline flight crews are trained in how to deal with these situations. i think all of us have been a bit fraught about air travel over the last year. this is going to be an example of the kind of mission that dhs will always have to undertake and is one of the reasons why the law enforcement personnel, the federal air marshals that tsa had, are an essential part of protecting our aviation security system. >> thank you. i appreciate your response. we are having people fighting on the plane, passengers helping to control this, which is the good news, you know, and people don't want to wear masks because i
guess whatever side it is but they hate the other side more than they love their health. so it is a big mess. but i guess that is going to happen like a lot of other things for the time being. the center for american and progress report calls for dhs to refocus its work based on the safety and services model rather than threat oriented model. as i understand it, a safety and service does not ignore or reduce or downplay the risk that threaten americans, security prosperity, but it does focus, suggest we focus dhs where it is most effective and avoid duplicating the work of other federal agencies. can you describe how this safety
and service approach does address the foundational issues, long standing challenges, and expanding the dhs mission? >> absolutely. you're completely right that the safety and services model doesn't downgrade or or diminis the importance of the protecting and securing and enforcing missions that are sort of central and have been central to dhs since it was created. but as ms. cordero said earlier, dhs is one of the parts of the federal constellation of departments and agencies that most americans come into contact with more regularly than any other federal department and we rely on them when we go through airport security, when we come back from a vacation, you know, when we -- when disaster strikes in our hometown and we are relying on federal resources for help in a time of need and those are missions that in my view are
going to become more important in the next 20 years than they have been in the past 20 years and it argues for a dhs that takes pride in those missions and puts them -- brings them into balance with the other missions that it's been focusing on for the past 20 years. so, you know, our vision heading into the future is for a reimagined dhs that moves away from the origin story of 9/11 and focuses on how it can meet america's needs. >> does fema -- my time -- i can't say the clock, but does fema pull down things? i mean, fema is kind of a different part of this homeland security portfolio that, you know, our chairman is carrying around, but should that be under hud? hud has a community block grant
disaster component and it seems to me that that may be more appropriate for hud than -- than dhs. >> so i think -- i think fema definitely belongs in a reimagined dhs that's focused more on safety and services. if dhs -- if the future vision is primarily, you know a law enforcement, security provisioned department or agency then maybe, yes, i could see the kind of, you know, move that you are describing, but in my view there's something inherently integral between what fema provides and what is -- you know, what the threats are that are facing the country. having them integrated within the department of homeland security makes a lot of sense as long as those mission right side not being diminished as the headquarters level focus is
elsewhere. you know, i think -- you know, having seen firsthand emergency preparedness and disaster response when i was at the department of justice, i can say that, you know, fema has come a long way since hurricane katrina, what they do, they in my view are one of the success stories within the department. when you think about fema and the conversations that we've been having earlier in this hearing around cisa and the way it is acting as a threat adviser. there is a threat advisory role that you see over and over again at dhs that it does better than any of the federal departments or agencies and it needs to lean into those areas where what it is doing is adding unique value that falls between the cracks of where other departments and agencies are at. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member.
there's never been a more important conversation having served in the military for two decades i don't think that there's been a time since 9/11 that we've faced the number of threats that we face right now, cyber threats, the rise of great power competition, the crisis that we have at our border, economic threats. i mean, they are all over. so what i would like to start with being a congressman from texas and representing a district that is very much feeling the pain from this crisis is specifically related to the border. mr. warrick, in your -- one of your testimonies or questions you talked about the morale of cbp officers and i couldn't agree with you more, it is at an all time low. they are being asked to protect us and yet the resources that they are being given and the policy that's being handed down is anything but protective of the job that they're doing. i'm interested to know with dhs's inability to really call the situation at our southern
border a crisis including the funding for hiring additional people, you know, what -- what are the additional impacts that you see on morale? mr. warrick, if i may, have you been to the rio grande valley or to the southern border in the last couple months? >> not in the last couple of months because obviously it's a lot easier to arrange travel as a member of congress than in the private sector. the challenges that cbp faces actually go back to something that predated a number of policies in the obama administration. there was a decision taken to change the way pay was -- and overtime was administered and that actually -- >> if i may, i'd like to really just kind of focus on the policies that we have right now and on the morale. >> yes. >> just recently at the border and talked to a number of just, you know, agents that are right there doing the national security mission, that's really what i would like to understand from your perspective. >> i would agree that chris
magnus if he's confirmed by the senate is going to have a challenge equal to any other major law enforcement organization going through some difficult times. it's going to take a lot of help and it's going to take support from the congress that should be bipartisan in order to try to address cbp's problems but they're deep and they go back to the hiring that was done when cbp felt it needed to increase its numbers and then there were problems that have been well-documented by both democrats and republicans in office. >> well, thank you for that. this is a -- we're going to enter an era where law enforcement is going to be -- is going to continue to scratch their heads wondering if the policies from above are going to actually support the mission that they're doing. we have a crisis at the southern border, the numbers do not lie and yet nothing is being done to address it. let me ask you a question that's completely unrelated to the border. i would encourage everybody on
this panel that we have to tackle this. there's more drugs, fentanyl was mentioned. it is impacting communities that are not on the border. my community is not on the border, it's going to impact every single one of our communities if not already. in some of our opening statements it was mentioned that the need of an associate secretary position is being required, somebody who concentrates on the law enforcement issues and that it would be a positive step in the reformation effort. i'm very interested in this because it sounds to me a little bit bureaucratic, an additional layer of bureaucratic red tape. what is this position really going to do. what is their jurisdiction going to be. anybody can answer. >> my view is it's going to solve the problems at cbp and ice and others have that they need solutions on but haven't been able to get the support at headquarters and with the congress that they need. i hope it provides any of that leadership over to carrie. >> anybody else want to comment
on that quickly. >> absolutely. this is the model of the justice department as well where there is an attorney general, a deputy attorney general and an associate deputy attorney general and all it does is it helps the department be managed better because the deputies and the associate can split up portfolios across the department so that the secretary can have a bird's eye view and they can focus more on particular components. so it's something that's worked in other departments. when i round tabled this with experts who had served across administrations, bipartisan group of experts, everybody agreed that this would be a productive thing for the department. >> well, thank you for that. i'm interested to see that because the deputy to the assistant to the deputy as somebody who served in the dod sometimes leads us into this bureaucratic nightmare where clear vision, objectives and mission statements are completely clouded and what i think would be helpful at this time for i.c.e. specifically since you brought that up is for the priorities to be handed down because right now they don't know the priorities and are not able to do their job to the full
extent. mr. chairman, thank you. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes the gentlelady from nevada, ms. titus, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we have heard a lot this morning about the serious problems within the workforce at dhs, we know that employees have low morale, they are not a very diverse workforce and also they are reluctant to leave their regular jobs for a temporary position with fema to go out and fight some of these disasters, especially caused by climate change, because unlike reservists they don't have job protection guarantees. i'm working on some of these issues with the help of the chairman. for example, earlier this year i introduced the homeland security acquisition professional career program act. it's passed the house, that was last april and it passed a senate committee just yesterday. it would target recruitment at
hbcs, veterans organizations and minority-serving institutions. i hope that our panel, especially mr. cordero and i believe the two people who are employees formerly of tsa maybe can weigh in on this and if that will positively help the workforce. i hope they will agree and help us get it out of the senate in a hurry. another problem that we've heard about, and we've heard a lot about the border today, is the lack of the latest technology at dhs. we don't seem to be able to catch up and deal with new and emerging threats and i'm especially thinking about unmanned aerial systems, we're seeing them more and more at the border as they come across with illegal drugs and weapons. i wonder if you know if we are working from dhs with department
of defense for the development of some kind of countermeasure or some kind of technology to counter these operations to prevent these kinds of occurrences at the border. because it seems like the department of defense does a lot of research in this area and we don't want to get siloed, we want to be able to reach across and partner and perhaps take advantage of some of that research. >> representative, that does, in fact, go on. the instrument packages that dod needs for its use of uavs is different from dhs's, but i'm sure a technology brief would be enormously beneficial to show you some of the things that cbp professionals would like to see in future technology. you're absolutely right, this is hugely important and very leveraging and a far more effective use of scarce taxpayer dollars than some other ideas i have heard. >> drugs seem to be a special
problem. it's not effective to shoot them down with a gun but you can't shoot them with a missile and then you have collateral damage. we do need some kind of technology to deal with that growing threat, i believe. would y'all comment about the workforce and how diversifying it and this bill might be helpful? anybody? >> i certainly support all efforts to diversify the workforce and i think some of the ideas that you've laid out in the bill are absolutely steps in the right direction. you know, i think part of the problem with workforce morale, also, though, stems from the politicization of the department and when you, you know, are down at the southern border as we were just hearing from a different representative and you're talking to folks who are living it day in and day out, part of the problem isn't just what they're being asked to do, it's how it changes over time
and how these issues are prioritized and then deprioritized. so having stable civilian leadership within the department is also a critical goal. >> well, we've certainly seen a number of people rotate in and out of that position over the last four years, many of whom were not qualified and stayed for only a short period of time and couldn't offer that kind of leadership that you need. also i think if we rewarded the work that we asked tsa employees to do, that might help with morale, too, not just in salary, but in some benefits and bargaining powers. >> i absolutely agree. >> okay. well, we will keep working on that and try to get it through. i thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to getting that technical briefing and maybe we can see how we can work on the drone issue as well. >> absolutely. >> i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back.
chair recognizes the gentlelady for five minutes, ms. meeks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have certainly heard about the threats facing our homeland and we have heard about the border like represent fluger, i visited the border and to me every state is a border state. last year we predicted at the pandemic many people such as myself that are both veterans and physicians predicted with our response to the pandemic that there would be an increase in deaths from drug overdoses with increased drug addiction as well as suicide and just today the des moines register published that 87% of opioid overdoses in iowa this past year as compared to 2016, 87% were related to fentanyl. as we know with the massive numbers of people coming across our border illegally and cbp having to process those
individuals, our agents are pulled off of the border from protecting the border so that is a tremendous problem that has only worsened during the pandemic. from the pandemic standpoint, this is for any of the witnesses, during the response to covid-19 this past year it's been painfully apparent that the federal government has all the necessary resources to, you know, respond to a true national emergency or disaster such as the pandemic. we saw that there was failure on the part of the cdc with testing and with the fda as well and every year congress appropriates billions of dollars in preparedness grants to state and local emergency managers and public safety partners. even in this last covid bill unfortunately there was not increased funding to noncompetitive grants to our public health workforce or public health grants, which are the people that are on the front line of treating this pandemic. many say that these grants have
become entitlement grants focused on sustainment and maintenance, resulting in crowding out of important investments in innovation and the ability to meet emerging threats and risks. in light of the national response to covid-19 should we overhaul these preparedness grants to ensure we build capacity at every level of government and more importantly be able to measure the return on investment to the nation with this significant investment. and any of the witnesses can respond. >> i would agree that there needs to be a complete overhaul of how we prepare for future pandemics. indeed just as there is now a january 6th commission, i think at some point, not to put too much of a burden on the chairman, at some point you all should think about a commission to investigate what needs to be done to protect us from future pandemics because as many people have said the response to covid-19 in early 2020 was a national disaster with the
number of deaths exceeding that of many of our major wars and we need to have you all in the congress lead an effort to try to deeply understand what went wrong because i can tell you from what i know it's a problem. >> thank you, mr. warrick. i would wholeheartedly agree. i'm on the select subcommittee on the coronavirus task force and i do think that our response to this pandemic and future pandemics in addition to supply chain manufacturing coming back to the united states, the origins of covid-19 which seems to be an issue with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we need to explore that and use the international community to set standards for disclosure and laboratory safety, especially when you're bio level 4. just to follow up on that, do you think states have the responsibility to obtain and maintain a certain level of preparedness for future pandemics and or cyber attacks? >> yes, but we can't turn upside down the federal responsibility
that also has to be part of the picture. >> thank you very much. mr. chair, i yield back my time. >> thank you very much. chair recognizes the gentlelady from florida, ms. dem mondays, for five minutes. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman and thank you to all of our witnesses for being with us today. ms. mulligan, multiple administrators -- or administrations have struggled to improve coordination. i am particularly interested in coordination, communication, transparency between sisa and other federal agencies that share responsibility. we have already heard it said that -- we've talk about the national -- the appointment of the national cyber director. we've heard it said just let him be able to do his job but despite efforts to clarify roles and responsibilities of cisa and
other agency forward nation within federal government to promote the resiliency of the nation's critical infrastructure is not where it needs to be. ms. mulligan, what more do you think congress will need to do to ensure effective strategic interagency corroboration or collaboration to address cyber threats against critical infrastructure. i would hope as we discuss so many issues today on this particular committee that we would not abandon our responsibility which our primary responsibility is the safety and security of our homeland in all areas of our nation whether it's an attack on the united states capitol or other areas. so, ms. mulligan, if you could just please talk about some of the challenges of coordination and what can congress do to help. >> so one of the biggest issues, i've served in multiple
different departments in the federal government from the intelligence community to the department of justice to, you know, part of the national security council staff and one of the issues that you see is confusion surrounding who is the lead federal agency. so one of the things that this committee can be extremely helpful in doing and as ms. cordero discussed earlier, is sort of relooking with fresh eyes at dhs's mission and being very clear about where we want dhs to be the lead federal agency and where we want it to support. when it comes -- you know, our recommendations at the center for american progress are that dhs should have the lead and be the lead federal agency in two really important areas that are central to the question you've asked. one is in connecting -- connecting federal resources and officials with state local, tribal and territorial officials and also with the public and
private sectors. what we find is that often each department and agency on their own trying to make those connections it's very confusing for the people who are the recipients of that outreach. if you designate dhs as the lead for handle the connecting mission, that's going to create a lot of clarity and it's going to empower dhs to do what it does quite well and cisa is a great example of this. the other place where i think multiple folks on the panel agree that dhs should have a larger role is around communicating is what i mean by communicating is communicating threat information and prophylactic actions that the public and private sector can take with companies, the american people, being the lead communicator about threat information is a really important way for dhs to, you know, invest in the resilience that you were just talking
about. >> thank you so much, ms. mulligan. mr. warrick, climate change is driving the range and complexity of a range of natural disasters including jobs, floods, wildfires. of course, this places an additional burden on fema as you can imagine. as these disasters become more complex their cascading effect becomes more unpredictable and thereby stresses the entire homeland security enterprise. i do believe they are directly related. can you describe the strategy dhs needs to use to address the security implications of climate change. >> so it's not dhs's mission, representative demings, to lower global temperatures but it is dhs's mission to make sure extreme weather, hurricanes, floods, wildfires do not rep dies american lives and american infrastructure. that means working closely with state and local governments to
make sure that codes are up to spec, that they have emergency assistance when they need it but it is especially important that we design for resilience. that all of the things that government does that touches our lives is done with an effort to try to protect us so that when one of these kinds of disasters occurs, it doesn't harm people, it doesn't destroy the infrastructure of our country. >> thank you so much, mr. warrick. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. gent allady yields back. chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for five minutes, mr. clyde.allady yields back. chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for five minutes, llady yields back. chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for five minutes, mr. clyde.e lady yields back. chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for five minutes, mr. clyde. there we go. thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow up on my colleague from texas's excellent comments. we talk about morale within dhs hitting the bottom and i would certainly agree. it's completely clear that when an agency's important work doesn't get support from top
leadership especially political leadership morale suffers. we can start by stopping the negative comments about i.c.e., about border patrol, about cbp, et cetera, when they are just trying to do their job and follow the law. when politicians purposely degrade them and threaten to defund them of course it's going to negatively impact morale. we should be supporting dhs efforts to follow the law, like continuing the construction of the border wall, which was written into the law by congress, but instead this administration is countering that law by executive order and the result is a biden border crisis. so now to ms. cordero, i have a question for you. in your briefing paper published by the center for new american security and called "the department of homeland security priorities and reform" you suggested, and i quote, dhs border security and law enforcement activities should correspond to components
authorized missions and refreshed departmental priorities driven by legitimate security and safety threats and needs. house and senate democrats have repeatedly called for defunding i.c.e. and cbp, yet border agents have intercepted known terrorists, gang members, sexual predators and interdicted thousands of pounds of illicit drugs and even some weapons. according to data published in june by cbp nationwide drug seizures were up 18% in may of 2021 over april of 2021. seizures of meth amphetamines increased 53%, seizures of heroin increased 17%, fentanyl inl creased 9%. in addition, 7,450 pounds of fentanyl have been seized so far in fiscal year as of the end of may, far surpassing the 4700 pounds seized at all of if i say ral year 2020. so a question for you, ms.
cordero. just yes or no. do you agree that there is a legitimate security and safety threat at the southwestern border? >> thanks for the question, congressman. i agree that the border presents a current challenge for immigration and border security. i think that there in the political dialogue surrounding the border issues that there has been a melding of issues between those individuals who are seeking to cross the border for -- that present an actual security threat and versus those individuals who seek to enter the border for other reasons, fleeing the circumstances that they are in and that becomes -- that is a law enforcement issue. so i think there's a distinction between -- >> please. please. so, yes, so i'm assuming that's a yes. that you do agree there is a legitimate security and safety threat at the southwestern
border. >> i agree that border security can present security issues. i don't necessarily agree that every individual crossing the border is a national security threat. >> ma'am, i asked if there is a border threat. okay. now i want to transition, i want to commence cisa on launching stop ransomware.gov. i think that that will do a lot for private enterprise. now i've got a couple questions here, one for mr. warrick and then also i don't want to leave ms. mulligan out here. i would like you to answer this question as well. what information do you think the government both law enforcement and the intelligence community could more quickly share with the private sector on a regular basis that could help disrupt ransomware or other
cyber attacks? >> that would be information that people can actually take action on, encouraging them to make sure they have basic cyber hygiene in place, making sure that they understand what the minimal standards are for being a good citizen and probable business owner. this especially needs to be done for our small businesses that's a resource intensive activity but our small businesses need the help that they can get from a place like cisa. >> okay. thank you. ms. mulligan. >> i think cisa is doing a really exceptional job trying to wrap its head around that right now. they have had some notable successes, but i think the key building on what mr. warrick said is identifying ways for the federal government to share that are fit for purpose, that can be actioned by the public and private sector which isn't always easy for the federal government to translate what it
collects into usable information for folks who are outside the government, but i think our other key part is making sure that what cisa is doing that there's clarity about its role as the lead for communicating that information. part of the issue that i see playing out in the federal government right now is lack of clarity about who is in the lead, is it fbi or others and making sure that cisa has a leadership role. >> thank you. i want to get mr. -- >> gentleman -- the gentleman's time has expired. chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. barragan, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start by thanking ms. cordero for your response about dishing a security threat at the border. i wish our politicians would focus on the security threat posed by domestic terrorism. and when you have politicians
degrading capitol hill police and what happened at the capitol and saying these insurrectionists and these rioters were just another tourist visit at the capitol is hard to take seriously the conversation sometimes about security threats at the border. so let me just thank you for your response in making that distinction from people who are fleeing violence to what's actually a security threat. we should look at ourselves which is why i'm proud that our chairman is going to be leading this effort on the january 6th commission. with that let me move on to my first question. ms. cordero, let's start with you. since its inception the border security, immigration enforcement and law enforcement enforcement of dhs, customs and border protection, immigration, customs enforcement in particular, have grown disproportionately large and broad in scope, without the necessary oversight. key adjustments must be made in these areas to improve dhs's
safeguards and accountability in the next decade and beyond. ms. cordero, starting with you, can you tell us more about your proposed reforms in the areas of border security, immigration enforcement and law enforcement? >> absolutely. and thank you. thanks for the question, congresswoman. so i will tick through them quickly because we have made a lot of recommendations. as i've mentioned, updating the mission of the department i think is really important. developing the direction of updated and modernized operational guidelines for the department. i believe it was really sort of an unintended consequence that this enormous law enforcement capacity that really actually is greater in terms of manpower than even the justice department and all of of the investigative agencies has been concentrated in the department of homeland security. so when there's the responsibility of having all that law enforcement power, there needs to be sufficient oversight structures that exist
across the entire department. so creating operational guidelines, releasing them publicly, creating an oversight council that's headed by the head of policy in the department, creating the associate secretary who can have a greater management portfolio focused on the law enforcement capacities and then looking at things like transparency, training, hiring standards for the law enforcement components and giving them set priorities that reflect the current threat landscape. all of those things together are things that i hope that the congress and the administration will take on in order to bring this law enforcement capacity under appropriate oversight and accountability. >> thank you. ms. mulligan, is there anything you would like to add to any recommendations you may have in this area? >> so i think that -- i really sort of align myself with many of the recommendations that ms. cordero has already presented and i just think overall the
department is going to need to rebalance and have much more clarity about where we wanted to be prioritizing because as this hearing demonstrates there are so many different fronts in protecting america -- american security and prosperity that we're going to need to help dhs understand where we want it prioritizing and where it can free up investment in other resources. >> mr. warrick, do you have anything you want to add? >> no, i think those are excellent comments. there's obviously a lot that needs to be done and i think that good leadership at dhs headquarters needs to set the right tone without trying to micromanage or politicize what law enforcement and homeland security does. >> thank you. ms. mulligan, i want to say i'm a visual learner and i appreciated seeing your video in your opening remarks. i think it was a great way to
kind of show what's needed and the balance as was put in there. can you further in the last 30 seconds explain your recommendations for dhs to focus on a more public service oriented model and how it would fit within the larger role as the federal incidence response leader. >> thank you for that question and i'm very glad to hear that the video was useful. it's been a labor of love for us to try to illustrate what a reimagined dhs might look like. you know, i think the important thing to remember about dhs is that many of the missions that we're advocating for it to -- to focus additional attention on are missions the department already has. there are things because the department is regularly engaging in the facilitation of goods and travel -- you know, goods and travel across the borders that's regularly involved in communicating threat information and, you know, doing -- sort of serving as the nation sort of
crisis response through fema and what we're arguing is that those -- those missions are being deemphasized and deprioritized or have been in the past and a disproportionate amount of headquarters level focus has been really on what are essentially political priorities, enforcement at the southern border and -- and this focus on counterterrorism that we think is a bit out of synch with today's threat picture. so it seems very ripe at this point nearing the 20-year anniversary of dhs's creation to bring its missions and priorities into -- into better balance with what we actually want it to be doing. so it's those first order questions about what we need from dhs and how that's changed in the last 20 years is perfect for this committee to be focused on. >> thank you so much. my time session fired. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back.
chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. bash reno for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. also thank you to the ranking member for putting this hearing today. my first very is for ms. cilluffo, specifically i want to know what you think about what overlap you see between the office of intelligence and analysis and the office of operations coordination. how is dhs ensuring that these offices are not duplicative and are performing worthwhile functions. do you think they would be better equipped to coordinate and information share as one integrated unit? >> congressman garbarino, firstly, go islanders, i hope, my team from home. no, i think you raise a great question there and i'm a little dated in terms of some of the
head quarter functions but anywhere where you can see -- so one big take away in terms of dhs is they have not clearly delineated and defined the office of the secretary. so if you were to compare dhs with dod and even department of state there's a much greater awareness in terms of what the office of the secretary can drive and work on. part of that is because it's a collage, some call it the island of misfit toys, i don't look at it that way, it was a collage of 22 different but unique agencies and departments. i do think we need to be looking for any opportunities where we can streamline, we can enhance efficiency and most importantly coherence. one of the things that i'm pushing on which we haven't discussed today is around economic security and dhs's important role from a supply chain perspective. here you have an opportunity
given every -- every one of the components touches this i wish knew one way or another to streamline that and focus s it's a long-winded way of saying, i mean, yes, but i would need to look at it a little more closely. >> i appreciate that. i guess we will go to ms. cordero, if you have anything to add. >> i do, congressman. thank you. on intelligence and analysis in particular. so under our project we commissioned earlier this year a paper that was written by adjunct senior fellow christian beckner and he took a deep dive into ina and basically proposed for congress two different models, either go big or go small because ina is not making anybody happy. there's expectations, but its authorities don't match the expectations that we have for it as far as assembling intelligence recommendations. the go big model would be resource it more, give it more authority to be able to conduct intelligence analysis across a wider range of activities and threats. the other model would be to go
much smaller and have it perform more like inr at the state department where it really is just services, the secretary and other policy members and have that deconfliction with cisa. let cisa do their own intelligence reporting on cyber threats and ina be more tailored to serving the needs of the policymakers. they're very different proposals but our assessment is that congress should take a deeper look at this and pick one and then go with it so that we help ina move into its sort of next iteration where it can be more productive. >> i appreciate that and i will take a look at that study or that paper that you are talking about. ms. mulligan or mr. warrick, anything further? >> yeah, so i first want to thank you, representative, for being the first person who has mentioned the operations coordination office which gets no attention and, in fact, it's, i think, one of the -- even more than ina needs to be either a go big or go small type of
enterprise. it runs the operations center that ina staffs. that's what -- that's why they seem to have similar functions, buff ina is the classic intelligence organization with special authorities and capabilities that ops does not have and exactly is as carrie says, ina exists to serve not just the secretary, but also the state and local fusion centers as well as all other dhs personnel who need intelligence analysis. >> i appreciate that. ms. mulligan, anything to add or we beat this horse to death? >> i think we are all speaking in unison here. i mean, this really is a place where it either needs to be -- have the bigger mission or it needs to be more tailored to focus on filling a specific need that isn't being met elsewhere in the government, but trying to
straddle both worlds isn't working and i think it's an area that's ripe for a refresh. >> i love when everybody agrees. this is great. >> congressman, can i add one minor point just because it's historically relevant. so when we initially stood up the department of homeland security from the white house there was the intent to marry up the office of intelligence with infrastructure protection, what was then nppd and is now cisa. so it started on a different footing because in between that there was the establishment of the national counterterrorism center which obviously played a much bigger role, especially the dsop function to be able to support some of these missions. so in some ways ina started off in a very awkward kind of way, just in the for what it's worth. i think now is the time where you can start looking to whether or not we need to right size it, grow it but do it in a way that doesn't compete with the fbi and
the broader interagency because quite honestly they do some of this a lot better or narrowly focus it and let some of the components take on some of their unique subject matter areas, whether it's cbp and the board or cisa and the latest and greatest chinese or russian malware. >> i appreciate that and i yield back. i'm out of time. thank you, though. >> thank you. typical new yorker, take more time, but we appreciate it. chair recognizes another new yorker, mr. torres, for five minutes. >> the congressman is more senior than i am so i can defer to him. >> are you sure, mr. torres? >> yes. happy to -- >> okay. thanks. mr. thompson, is that okay? >> since he is the vice chair i will let him go with this one.
go ahead, mr. gottheimer. >> thank you, mr. torres. i thought, mr. chairman, you were going to call me a new yorker which would of course have been deeply insulting, as long as you compared me to mr. garbarino that would even be worse. i just appreciate you organizing this important hearing to discuss how we can strengthen the department of homeland security to better confront new and emerging threats and challenges. as we know the department was established in 2002 in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on september 11th as was just mentioned with a necessary focus on countering threats mostly from foreign terrorist groups. today nearly two decades later the threat landscape looks different. for instance, we have seen the rise of a diffuse, domestic and homegrown terrorist movement, especially white supremacists and racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists which director wray have testified were the primary sort of lethal incidents. if i can ask you a question how prepared is today's dhs to address the serious threats of
domestic terrorists and members of violent extremist groups like those including members of groups like the oath keepers and 3 percenters and proud boys involved in the january 6th attack on the capitol? >> it needs to be understood, representative, that dhs has very specific limited statutory roles in this area, lead investigative agency for criminal violations is the fbi and that needs to stay that way, but dhs needs to be able through its intelligence and analysis office to connect the dots to put together warnings for senior leadership. there needs to be greater clarity on whose job is it to look at social media and be aware of what people are saying. i saw the fbi director and my good friend jill san born kind of fumble that question a little bit in a hearing a few weeks ago. this is something that it really needs to have congress clarify whose authority it is to do what with respect to social media because there are significant privacy and other challenges in this area.
>> related to that if there's something that you would change the way dhs is structured to help protect us from this threat. >> we have a detailed report, my colleague mitch silver was put together that i will make sure is sent to your staff, but basically there needs to have an intelligence and warning officer within the national -- the director of national intelligence whose job it is to make sure that nothing escapes notice and that nothing gets politicized. this is especially important in domestic terrorism. >> a classified report or unclassified? >> our report is a think tank run by -- written by the former head of new york police intelligence for more than a decade and it's one of the more scholarly papers in addition to the one that chris beckner also put out which is also worth reading but you should talk to those two authors because they've got some really interesting things to say. >> without objection, mr. chairman, i'd like to put that in the record if that's okay. ms. cordero, could you describe
where dhs's office of intelligence and analysis fits into the various national security focused agencies conducting intelligence analysis and how does dhs rank compared with the fbi, for example -- dhs intelligence capacity? >> thank you, congressman. so ina, intelligence and analysis, is the component in the department of homeland security that is a part of the intelligence community. so that way it is able to both glean information from its intelligence community affiliation and disseminate it and share it with other federal, state, local, tribal partners in a way that they can receive that information. at the same time it also can receive information from the state and local network and the activities of the department itself and feed that information if it's relevant back to the intelligence community. so it provides an important link there.
i & a does not do what the fbi does in terms of its investigative authorities to disrupt and pursue criminal prosecution of domestic terrorism activities which oftentimes are prosecuted as other violent crime or weapons related or other times of criminal violations. so the department of homeland security never has and it would not be appropriate for it to have that investigative authority that disrupts potential terrorist activity. that resides still with the fbi. so i think the question for i & a is does congress want to expand its ability to conduct more intelligence analysis or does it want it to narrow and not be duplicative of what the fbi or the intelligence community is doing? and i think the reason these different reports that mr. warrick mentioned are important, including the one that we put out, is because i & a is at that
inflection point right now. >> thank you. i yield back my one second left to the vice-chairman. thank you, mr. torres, again, for yielding. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. chair recognizes vice chair of the full committee, gentlemen from new york, mr. torres. >> thank you, mr. chair. it's been said that there is a crisis of public trust in dhs. i wondering if -- and this question is specifically for ms. mulligan. do you share my concern that continuing the 287 chief program which expanded exponentially under the trump administration would only serve to perpetuate that crisis of public trust in the agency? >> thank you for the question. i do. i do. >> and, you know, if dhs is not effective at policing abuses among its own law enforcement
officials what reason is there to think that dhs would be effective at policing abuses among state and local law enforcement officials who have been deputized to enforce federal immigration law? >> you know, i think that -- i think that there is an incredibly important set of issues in the question that you raised that really gets at the heart of how important it is that we root out extremism within members of the federal and state law enforcement who were in positions of trust. it's particularly important in the law enforcement context, i think the numbers that we're seeing and the connection that is we're seeing in the indictments out of the january 6 event are very concerning and i think -- i've actually been pleased to see the department take some immediate actions and as well as the secretary of
defense because i think we have a problem both in our active duty military and in our veterans communities. >> you know, i served in the new york city council, we had oversight over the nypd which is a paramilitary force unto itself and what we often found was there was a small subset of officers who drove a disproportionate share of abuse and i'm wondering if that same dynamic exists within the ranks of dhs law enforcement and whether dhs has a system in place for tracking abuses among officers and a system for early detection and intervention. this question is for anyone who has insight into -- into the subject matter of the question. >> there were significant studies done by cbp under both democratic and republican administrations that declared the internal discipline system to be broken and if you talked to former cbp officials regardless of their party they will tell you that not all of those things that were broken have yet been fixed and this is
one of the reasons i think it's extremely important that chris magnus get confirmed as commissioner of cbp because he's going to have to take charge and make sure that many of these things have been addressed and as exactly as you say, representative torres, the good men and women of cbp know that there are a small number of bad apples among them and this has to be addressed. this is going to be one of the greatest challenges that i hope commissioner magnus is able to tackle right away. >> and i know we often speak of the need for an independent justice department, an independent attorney general. i don't often hear people speak of the need for an independent dhs or an independent dhs secretary. it seems to me there is less of an expectation of institutional independence when it comes to dhs even though it is fundamentally a law enforcement agency. is that a fair assessment?
how do we change -- how do we create an expectation of independence? >> secretary chertoff and secretary johnson have both spoken out very strongly that dhs needs to be as far as possible nonpartisan in the spirit that we have our uniformed military and our intelligence community be nonpartisan, that same ethic needs to be deeply baked into dhs. secretary napolitano was famous for joking when she became secretary she had her partisan bone removed. the point she made to the workforce was this was her expectation that the department needs to be outside of politics as much as possible, especially in its law enforcement missions. >> and i'm wondering how much of dhs's challenge is a function of mismanagement and how much of it is a function of just the youth of dhs? it has far less institutional
prem ri than agencies that have been around for decades, in some cases centuries and it's simply going through the growing pains of a new agency. what's the main cause of the dysfunction in dhs? is it simply growing pains or is it deeper than that? >> i think it's something else. i mean, to be -- to be sure, every young department or agency certainly one with the scope of size and responsibility that dhs has is going to have management challenges and that's why the oversight rules are so important but the cultural problem that exists at dhs in my view stems from its origins story as an agency that's really about countering terrorism and going -- you know, protecting america from others, and that mission and origin story has seeped into kind of what people they are to do and what attracts them to it in the first place.
what we have now, as we've heard throughout the day, is an organization that we need to be doing a whole lot of other things besides countering terrorism and going after bad guys, protecting, you know, a i lot -- protecting and providing services that americans really depend on, but -- and yet it has a workforce that is disproportionately drawn to kind of this militaristic, you know, military cosplay kind of role that i think is inherently problematic. one of the things that congress can do, gets back to something ms. cordero said earlier, is by adjusting its missions there's actually a lot that flows from that because people need to see what they're actually doing reflected in the missions of the department and they need to see those missions being elevated and prioritized and praised and incentivized and if the only incentives are to engage in
activity that is, you know, sort of hostile to the people that you serve, then you're going -- you're going to have a culture that looks an awful lot like the culture at dhs. >> my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman, for the accommodation. >> yes, sir. anything for the vice-chair. well, let me thank our witnesses, all four of you have been excellent, you absolutely have a real grasp of knowledge about the subject matter. one thing i didn't talk about and we will circle back, i mentioned it in my opening statement, the jurisdictional challenges for the department and responding to some committees and subcommittees. no other agency in government has that reach to respond to and
it makes it very cumbersome. so we plan to continue so work at that. let me, again, just thank you for the breadth of the knowledge. we understand cisa and its important role in part of the new dhs. our challenge for more than any other is how do we marry cisa with more mature agencies who don't like the new kid on the block and the colonial pipeline is a good example of what i'm talking about and i won't go into it, but i do see the need for some regulatory review on a lot of what we do on pipelines and other things because so much of it right now is voluntary and
unless you put some teeth behind the regulation then it's not going to be taken very seriously in my humble opinion. so we will be moving forward around that subject and i guess i'm trying to tease you all on your next report. that you go back and make an argument for. let me thank you for your testimony and the members for their questions. the members of the committee may have additional questions for the witnesses and we ask that you respond expeditiously in writing. before joining i ask unanimous consent to submit a statement for the record from the partnership for public service highlighting the importance of employee engagement and morale to overcome dhs's challenges. without objection, so admitted.
the chair reminds members that the committee record will remain open for ten business days. without objection, committee stands adjourned. thank you very much again. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more. including wow. >> the world has changed. today a fast reliable internet connection is something no one can live without so wow is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value and choice. now more than ever it all starts with great internet. >> wow. >> wow, supports c-span, as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. now a conversation from the mccain institute sedona forum with senator rob portman and former british prime minte