Come to order. I apologize. The gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, chairman. Mr. Mayorkas, members of this committee, please turn your attention to the video screen. All americans, not only the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens of legal immigrants with. The Public Service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That is why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more, by hiring a Record Number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens than ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring. By barring the Welfare Benefits daily and the budget i will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens or arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the work space as recommended by the commission headed by former congresswoman, barbara jordan. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our Immigration Laws we have seen in recent years and we must do more to stop it. [applause] mister secretary, i can understand why you didnt stand with me and my colleagues and clap. You didnt want to clap at that because you and joe biden believe just the opposite of what president clinton just said. You believe in open borders and complete chaos. Did you notice the bipartisan support in the chamber . As a video was played, everyone was clapping. In that chamber. But if i were in congress in 1995, i wouldve also stood because i wasnt. I stand here today. Other than president donald j trump, the greatest president in my lifetime, with the most safest and secure order of, i believe president clinton understood just how important Border Security is to our nation. But boy, oh boy, have times changed . 28 years later, the left is has gone off the rails. Theyve gone completely nuts. Theyve done just the opposite of what the leader of the Democrat Party, president clinton, stood for on Border Security in 1995. This committees Ranking Member, he was in congress in 1995. I assume he stood, i may assume he stood, it seemed like the majority, if not all, the entire chamber, they stood. Matteroffact, mr. Clinton delivered his speech in the third year of his first term. And he was reelected in 1996. Bob dole won by an for 8 million votes, won the Electoral College 300 7259. He has the support of the American People and im going to assume the Ranking Member also voted for bill clinton in 1996. We have two other members, miss jackson and miss lofgren, they were both freshman at the time. I will assume they stood during that powerful speech as well. You know why they supported and voted . They voted for legislation in 1996 strengthening our Immigration Laws and i applaud them for that. So what has changed, folks . What has changed with the Democrat Party . I will tell you. If you wouldnt have heard president clintons voice or seen his face you would have thought donald trump delivered that speech. I dont believe that president clinton was called a racist a white supremacist who hated immigrants as the left and the Dishonest Media have painted john j trump to be. Mr. Mayorkas, there is a reason why you and joe biden have allowed 5. 5 Million People across our southern border. This is about votes and elections. I have a report from the Heritage Foundation titled, tracking movement of illegal aliens from ngos to interior of the usa. Why do you think ngos have Illegal Immigrants . Well 431 of the 435 congressional districts. The truth is, it remains of the democrats progressive policies are not acceptable to americans. Heritage abstained approximately 30,000 cell phones that were tracked to ngos along border safety. They tracked approximately 22,000 devices at 20 ngo locations in january, 2022. The same devices were later traced to 431 separate u. S. Congressional districts and of the 52, the highest rate was 71 of them where republican congressional districts. The report revealed that the flaw of Illegal Immigrants means a continued rise and supply, surplus labours. That surplus dries down the wages of existing middle class and lower class jobholders until they leave the job forces and then they are forced to go on welfare with the hopes that they will become loyal supporters of the democrats. Thats what this is all about. If this is not about votes, if this is not about votes, one party rule keeping the democrats in power, i make the suggestion if, you put the American People first, you should refer back to trumps border policies, but you will not because you hate him. You despise the man. So, give bill clinton a call and then he can help you with a border crisis that president clinton stated, we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of law. You, sir, have betrayed constitutional order, neglected your duty, and violated the trust of the American People. And as a nation of law, i look forward to your impeachment. That, i yield back. So recognize the gentleman from california, mr. Colin. Mister secretary, last year, you testified before this committee that this administrations policies were not responsible to the surge of illegal border crossings. And today you, have testified that this administrations policies are responsible for what you claim is a decline in the border crossings. So, why is it that you deserve credit when numbers go down, but not blamed when numbers go up . Congressman, two points. One, the approach that we are taking expanding lawful pathways into consequences for those who did not use them is working, but i want to communicate that the challenge remains. The challenge is a person one on our southern border and has been for decades. What we need mister secretary, youre speaking in general terms and i think this is why many of us on the committee are frustrated with the lack of accountability, that you have shattered all records in terms of the border crossings. You say that you have nothing to do with the dramatic change in policies you had and theres a great decline. You cite that is evidence that youre doing a good job. And i think that is why so Many Americans have lost faith in this administrations ability to secure the border. But i want to actually reference some remarks he made that i found somewhat encouraging. This is on the topic of he made these remarks early in your tenure, april of 2021 at the ucla, the the Immigration Law and policy center. You said this. You said, you referred to an example of someone who crossed the border illegally and went on to commit sex offenses. And you said, i do not believe that individual should be released into the community. You said, i think the states turn that individual all over to ice directly. You had, i think thats a Public Safety need. You went on to say that after such a person has served their sentence, if they were a citizen, there might be no way to keep them out of the community. But you said, i have a tool at my disposal with respect to an individual who unlawfully enter the country. You said, i feel strongly about this. This is a tool that i have at my disposal, its a tool that i feel obligated to employ. Im going to protect the public, he said. Very strong statement in favor of detainees and yes, over the last couple years, we have seen the actual use of detainers decline dramatically. Fiscal year 2021, there were 65,000. Fiscal year 2022, 78,000. Thats about half the average during the trump administration, about one third of the average during the obama administration. So, if detainers are such a powerful tool why have you use them so sparingly . Congressman, let me communicate a very important point. That individuals who pose a threat to Public Safety or National Security are detained. That is the immigration policy the department of Homeland Security under my leadership. Why are you detaining the new last predecessor . Well, one is our detention capacity is limited which is why we prioritize Public Safety and National Security. Number one. And number two, detainers are sometimes not honored by particular jurisdictions. I want to move on to that in a second, but just briefly, has the white house directed you to limit the use of detainers . Congressman, that is a yes or no question. Has the white house . Congressman, know they have not. Thank you. So, on this topic of jurisdictions not honoring detainers you have been critical of these socalled sanctuary jurisdictions. In a 2022 speech to the u. S. Conference of mayors, you said, some of your cities have declined to cooperate with immigration authorities on the removal of the apprehension and removal of individuals, even if those individuals pose a Public Safety threat. You said, i will be coming to you and asking you to reconsider your position of noncooperation. The Public Safety, the publics wellbeing for which we are all charge is, i think, an issue, you said. So, mister secretary, you agree that sanctuary policies threaten Public Safety . Congressman, what do you mean by sanctuary policies . The definition that you give right there, where you said the declining to cooperate with immigration authorities on the removal of the apprehension or removal of individuals, even if those individuals pose a Public Safety threat. Are those sanctuary policies, as you define them, a threat to Public Safety . Sanctuary policies are defined differently by different communities. But to your definition. If i may is a threat to Public Safety . I do not consider it in the service of Public Safety to release an individual into the community when that individual can be released to immigration and Customs Enforcement for proper removal. Thank you. Do you oppose policies that forbid local authorities from cooperation, cooperating with ice . I am aware of some that i do oppose. Do you oppose california sanctuary state law . Im not familiar with the particulars of that law. Have you encounter that californias restrictions on cooperation with local, federal immigration . Congressman, i believe it is imperative that we cooperate with one another, jurisdictions cooperate with us, when it serves Public Safety need. Thank you. Im out of time, but i would like to restate, for the record, that policies you said that you oppose our overriding the ability of local jurisdictions to cooperate, thats exactly what california sanctuary state law does. Thank you and a yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. I thank the chairman. Mister secretary, thank you for being here, thank you for your testimony. I know it has been a long day today and i am certainly grateful to you for your service to our country, and i wonder. I have some questions about fema, as you may recall, we have spoken previously with respect to its Natural Disasters that we faced in the state of colorado, which i had the honor of presenting to congress, particularly wildfires. I very much appreciated the partnership with the department and your sub agencies. Before i do that, i just want to give you an opportunity, i know it has been a very contentious hearing. To the extent that you would like to clarify anything or, you know, perhaps expand on a prior answer that you didnt have ample opportunity to do so . Congressman, i very much appreciate the invitation. I cant recall there were quite a number of times i have not been able to complete my responses, but i look forward to the opportunity. To answer your question. I do think it is important, you know, for those americans who are watching to perhaps provide them with some context about the various ways in which youve served our country. Maybe you could just talk a bit about before you were appointed and confirmed as secretary of Homeland Security, what kind of work did you do . Congressman, i am in, i think its my 22nd or 23rd year of federal service. I joined the federal government because this country has given so much to my family. We came here seeking refuge from the takeover of cuba. I began my federal service as an assistant United States attorney. As a federal prosecutor. I work in that capacity for almost nine years before i was appointed by president clinton. Fighting crime . Yes. Taking on organized crime, taking on cartels, taking on Gang Violence . Yes. Smugglers, all sorts of crimes. I was the largest federal judicial district in the country, Central District of california. I was then nominated, appointed and nominated, then confirmed as the United States attorney. On a bipartisan basis . Yes, it was unanimous. I returned to federal service in 2009 as the director of the u. S. Citizenship and immigration services. And then moved from that position after approximately four years, i became the deputy secretary of Homeland Security. I returned to federal service after that has the secretary of Homeland Security. And about 22 years or so. I will say, mister secretary, what i said previously. We are grateful for your service in Law Enforcement and while we have any disagreements with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, from a policy perspective, perhaps ideological differences, i would hope that they would show you the appropriate respect and recognition, for the work that you have done as a Law Enforcement officer. Someone who has worked in Law Enforcement for the last 25 years or so. I want to talk a bit about as i mentioned, we had, in colorado, some of most destructive wildfires in our States History all happen in the last several years. And in particular, in my district, in colorado, as you will well remember, the marshall fire, which was the most destructive wildfire in history of our state, economically and tragically. We lost the lives of two community members. There have been recent concerning reports that femas Disaster Relief fund, the d r f, which is the main funding source, as you know, through which to provide support to state, local, and travel governments responding to Natural Disasters, Natural Disasters, excuse me, is in danger of running out of funding before the end of this year, potentially even next month. I wonder if you can elaborate on what that shortfall is, when you predicted may run out of funding and how that would impact the feasibility to support communities disaster because of course, there are many votes in congress, myself included, who are championing efforts to ensure that this shortfall does not happen. Congressman, we are seeing an increase in both the frequencys severity and Natural Disasters, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, floods. And the Disaster Relief fund that fema administers is the primary vehicle that enables fema, the department of Homeland Security through fema, to distribute individual and public the communities devastated by those Natural Disasters. If that were to run out, our ability to assist communities, our neighbors, our friends, our loved ones, to recover from and rebuild after a Natural Disaster would be virtually eliminated, almost eliminated. We are hopeful that the disaster will receive the requisite funding because the money we expect to run out certainly is perhaps on august. Thank you, mister secretary. I couldnt agree more and we will do everything in our power to ensure that fund is replenished. On that, you have my word. With that, mister chairman, i think i yield back. Thanks, chair yield to mr. Hageman for five more minutes. Thank you. First amendment to the United States constitution rests on the principle that no person or institutions, including the government, has a monopoly on the truth and the viewpoint based speech by the government is dangerous, may even spell the death of a constitutional republic. Under the First Amendment, the government has no power to restrict the expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. As the Supreme Court has explained, if theres any fixed start in our constitutional it is that no official high or headache and prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, national, religion, or other matters of opinion. Labeling misinformation does not strip it of its First Amendment protections. That is so, even if the speech is untrue. At some false admins are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of use and public and private