especially careful if not skeptical of investing in the space and protections for people have every right to make these decisions for themselves. >> thank you for wedding go-ahead. >> good morning and thank you for taking my call, and i wanted to get a comment about the scam coming out of hong kong where people pretend to be, looking for relationship and before you know it, the convince you to invest in crypto. ...

about $100,000 or so. so, is there a way to this is a pig butchering scheme that unfortunately has become -- it has become very popular among scammers. because i think it works. and people who are perpetrating this have managed to collect in total we do not totally know the universe of victims here. the estimates are in the hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions that these perpetrators have managed to rip people off for it. and again as one of these situations if you do not know somebody that you have met

online, you are trusting them, you've never met them in person. at a certain point there ask you to buy something and telling you that got a can't miss investment opportunity. that should set off a lot of red flags for people. the way they typically gain trust in this game is they will tell you that your investment just doubled or tripled or something and you should make a withdrawal against the account you just set up. to gain some confidence in it. to prove in fact this was real. people do this they figure they've crossed some sort of threshold and establish the legitimacy of the thing they are investing in. then they will double down into this investment. and that is when the scammers will make off with your money and you'll never hear from them

again. that whites known as a pig butchering their fattening up there victims for this kill. it is horrible there been away too many victims to this. pretense on the particulars of the case. a lot of these are being done over these name brand crypto exchangers we have talked about. they have different records when it comes to work with victims and work with law enforcement authorities to help recover funds and make them whole. it is a massive problem. >> is to ken calling from roosevelt michigan, good morning. >> i have a question. is this what made off of this in second he gave a billions can

they go back and get it from them people because they know and help the 46000 people got ripped off, that is a question i have, thank you. >> same thing when their drawing comparisons to a lot of fraudsters. they've seen this come up right a classic bonsai scheme. elizabeth holmes, you name it he joins a list of fraudsters who rose to prominence and had these kind of outside personalities and then were revealed to be scammers. i think we will see the full extent of this in time. as far as the political dimension of this, it is very

interesting. i think it's something that distinguishes as he understood that he could get a real competitive advantage for his company by crafting the rules that of been discussed but not really written yet by spending a lot of time and a lot of money in washington winning political favor. bodying up to the regulators and shock in the short amount of time i think managed to ingratiate himself with the right people. it was really on the verge of a major wind at the favored piece legislation that he helped craft that was going to help establish his company and handful of others as safer bets and his investment pieces relied on this. it was going to wait and a lot of institutional investment that had been hugging the silence a bit nervous about the lack of

regulatory clarity. he was close to getting there. i think that bill is probably on hold for now as lawmakers turned to fact-finding and trying to understand exactly what happened here. he spent about $40 million in the midterms and made in the second biggest democratic donor of the cycle all besides george soros. had a partner at his firm was giving on a similar scale a little bit less but over $20 million to republicans. that explains a lot to the rapid entrée the innermost circles of power in washington. an individual return them or give them to charity. the fact is the super pacs that are not given directly to candidates spending money and

primaries on add support for these candidates. so the candidates are not technically -- they were not coordinating with the super pack. i would be surprised if you saw support he spent in those races returned by candidates that emerge victorious. >> let's hear from george in albany, georgia go ahead. >> i have a question and a comments. my question is is that legal weight they are doing people you put your money. my comment about it i would say 85 or 90% of the people putting money in that they ain't got no money anyhow. they need to pull their regular money in the regular bank and see with the bank is going to do, that is it. >> okay, go ahead tori newmark

go ahead. >> sec is investigating this entire collapse for the say they were already investigating months ago issues around compliance by the exchange. now the justice department is investigating to think there are some jurisdictional questions about exactly how far the reach extends considering the main platform he was operating in the hedge funds were both headquartered offshore on purpose. he also had a u.s. arm. it was a little brother trading platform that did a sliver of the volume. to be compliant and offered a much more limited menu of trades to customers and people were not really using it so much.

this is something that investigators will be looking at. he has lawyered up in the question about criminal liability is definitely a live one. >> the chair of the financial committee maxine waters of california said this about the collapse. it has posed trendous harmony. we have over 1 million users. they invested their hard earned savings into the crypto currency exchan only to watch it all disappear within a matter of seconds. unfortunate this is one out of ny examples that have collapsed just this past year. that is why with great urgency icom along with my colic ranking member mchenry to hold a hearing to investigate the collapse of ftx. but tory reported in your article on this maxine waters is one of those. tori newmark was actively lobbying. >> i'm sorry, sam bank been

freed was actually lobbying. >> he was lobbying the financial services committee. his big play was to try to get the cftc the commodity futures trading commission establishes the primary regulator for this space. they would have oversight over at lee's spot markets there be a compliance regime for exchanges they would then also register at the cftc. the important thing about that is it would take authority away from the scc which is overseen by maxine waters committee and is considered to be a much tougher regulator. they have six times the staff. they have investor protection

mandate. they have decades of experience writing enforcing rules around investor protection. where cftc really starting from scratch. and presumably the industry would get a seat at the table and helped craft the rules that would apply to them. he was pushing a bill through the senate and committee that was going to enshrine the authority of the cftc. and they have jurisdiction over the cftc it is an end run around traditional financial regulators that maxine waters overseas. he's not being picky about who he lobbied. he was covering the hill very quickly skip one more quick call the house is coming out momentarily. susan and south carolina go ahead with your comment or question. >> hi, i've been on here so long to my question finally got answered. it was about he used the money

for on the donations he made to the democratic party's. i think that money needs to go to charities back to the people that lost the money will this make it easier to get some sort of bill passed through. >> it underlines the urgency of establishing some rules for the industry. whether that means the congress moves faster to get this done, or the regulators move into this vacuum and start enforcing more aggressively and doing their own rulemaking absent legislation is something we're going to start to get an answer to in the weeks and months ahead. >> economic policy reported for the washington you can follow has reporting and "washington post".com. also on twitter at torrey

neumayer, apologies on that. thank you for being with us this morning, tori. >> thanks for having me.

quorum call: i wanted to share today i wanted to put a face on this debate.

markley three faces let me introduce you to our right, my dear friends, margaret, denise, and their daughter maria. just to tell you a little bit about them. how this underlying issue impacts them. the marriage and long partnership that my dear friends denise and margaret share, began in oklahoma in 1981. they were there as organizers working to pass the equal rights amendment in that stage. they were organizing support for the era so that we might add a few simple words to the united states constitution. specifically equality of lights under the law should not be

denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of sex. that they met one another during a struggle for social justice, surprised no one who knew either denise nor margaret. for relate the pursuit of equality and equity and justice as well as life partners. the movements for women's rights lgbtq rights, educational affordable housing and economic justice, they are all inextricably linked. their first date occurred in december of 1981. over coffee in oklahoma city. net campaign commits unsuccessful close in 1982 they

chose to move together to madison, wisconsin. i vividly recall meeting them shortly thereafter in the autumn of 1984. now denise hails from milwaukee, wisconsin. margaret from webster city, iowa. and they were incredibly and are incredibly committed to one another. but they also determined as they got a little older that something was missing. i actually want to say someone was missing. and denise and margaret's journey to find that someone was arduous. yet they never gave up. in 2003, after working with an adoption agency for many years, denise received a video of their

daughter. this lovely brown eyed maria. in the family that you now see here this is actually several years old she's now a sophomore. a little bit dated. but i wanted to put a face or a series of faces on this. i do such an all-american family in such an all-american story. as everyone knows about the debate we are about to enter is that marriage was not an option for margaret and denise until after the decision. the things most people take for granted are things that couples like margaret and denise have to

think about and had to figure out how to they protect one another. how do we protect their family. we often think when we think about marriage of the wedding, the ceremony, the celebration. but we do not often think about the hundreds upon hundreds of rights and responsibilities that civil marriage confers upon couples. you know, margaret and denise were telling me about their recollection of when the city of madison passed a domestic partnership ordinance, allowing them to register. and when that happened for the first time they could be on one another's health insurance. that is something married couples kind of take for granted. that they can have one another on their health insurance. they had to think a lot about what they would do in an

emergency situation where one might be in the hospital. because without marriage you are technically legal strangers. and literally if margaret were in the hospital after an accident for example, denise without having the appropriate papers with health care power of attorney, it would be viewed as a legal stranger. and potentially denied access. adoption is something that has made many a family in the united states. and yet prior to marriage rights denise and margaret had to make a choice only a one would have the official adoption. the thin they had to go through a whole bunch of legal rigmarole if you will so that margaret, if

need be could go to a parent-teacher conference. or to pick maria up at school, had some documentation at the school that she too was a parent. estate planning. you have to think about that but you had to think about that intently prior to marriage rights being conferred. i wanted you to get a quick chance to meet margaret and denise and maria. because they reflect the experiences of literally tens of millions of people in the united states. and it is why the obergefell decision was so key.

now i want to switch to a focus on why it is so critical that we adopt the respect for marriage act. because obergefell now is the law of the land. but, there is great concern that, that legal precedent could be in jeopardy. some of my colleagues have questioned the urgency and maybe even the necessity for passing the respect for marriage act. some have asserted there is no threat to these rights in america. some have said there is no case currently making its way up to the united states supreme court challenging these rights. so there is nothing really to worry about. others have suggested that proponents of the respect for marriage act are raising the

issue just to drive further division for americans, among americans. i believe there is an urgency to pass the respect for act in order to heal such division responsibilities that throw from their marriages will endure. right now, millions of americans are family members, our neighbors, our congressional staff members and certainly our constituents are scared. scared the rights they rely upon to protect their families could be taken away. they are scared for good reason. regardless of your position on the issue of abortion, the highest court of the land has just overturned a precedence of nearly 50 years.

in the same legal arguments the supreme court rested upon from reverse roe versus wade could just as easily be fly to reverse numerous other occasions reported to families, related to intimate relations to contraception, and marriage. in the wake of the supreme court's decision to overturn roe versus wade in the dobbs case access to abortion care or denial of such care has been left in the hands of the state. by the way in wisconsin we are subject to criminal abortion law that was passed in 1849. one year after wisconsin became a state and before women have the right to vote. certainly for they served in the legislature that serves to rule upon their rights. there are landmark cases related

to marriage that could be threatened should the supreme court one such case is versus virginia. that was decided in 1967. that state laws prohibiting or unconstitutional based upon the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment. and it's liberty provisions. at the time of the loving decision, 16 states have laws banning interracial marriage. you might be surprised to learn it took until the year 2000 for the last state to repeal the law on answer book banning interracial marriage. another landmark case relates to same marriage. and obergefell the hodges the

supreme court in 2015 equal protection and due process of the 14th amendment prohibits states for outlying same sex languages. some 35 states across the country prohibit same sex marriage in laws, constitutions or both. and the so-called defense of marriage act bars federal recognition of same by a narrow five -- four. that was still on the books. given the landscape it is not unreasonable for same sex and interracial couples to be fearful for the protections of their marriages are in real

jeopardy. the fact the constitutional principles of liberty, privacy, self-determination and equal treatment under the law upon which roe versus wade was originally decided the same constitutional principles on which the loving and obergefell case were decided. that makes the supreme court reversal of roe versus wade all the more shocking and frightening to those in inter- racial same-sex marriages. even if the court may someday revisit these cases, there is no urgency right now since there is no case struggling for same marriage that's currently making up -- making its way up to the supreme court. but if you think about today's world, given the supreme court's use of procedural mechanisms

this reach the supreme court ever before. music pay attention to the concurring opinion of justice clarence thomas for the dobbs decision. in his opinion, justice thomas explicitly said that the rationale used to overturn roe versus wade should be used to overturn cases establishing rights to contraception. same sexual relations and same sex marriage. is essentially providing an open invitation to litigators across the country. to bring their cases to the court. inevitably, instilling fear among millions of americans. the supreme court should not be in a position to undermine the

stability of families with the stroke of the pen. so now congress must act. and congress is acting with a full throated endorsement from the american people. within 70% of americans support marriage equality the majority of democrats, republicans, and independents. this legislation unites legislation. with the respect for marriage act we can ease the fear that millions of same sex and interracial couples have that their freedom by passing this bill we are guaranteeing same sex and interracial couples regardless of where they live. but that marriage are legal they continue to enjoy the right and responsibility that all other marriages are afforded.

this will give millions of loving couples the certainty, the dignity and the respect that they need and they deserve. for my dear friends for margaret and denise and their daughter maria, passing this legislation will remove the weight of the world from their backs. for they were just like the rest of us about the cost of living and staying healthy and saving for retirement? passing this bill will take away a worry that someday there marriage might be on the chopping block at no fault of their own. i failed to mention it but i was so honored back in december of 2018 to be a co- presider at their wedding. the wedding took place 37 years

after they first met and became a couple. and it happened on maria's sweet 16 birthday. but, for the millions of other americans and same sex and interracial marriages this shows the american government and people see them and respect them. with that i encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed to the respect for marriage act. and to help come together to move our country forward. and with that i yield. >> madam president. kirk senator from maine progress thank you madam president. madam president, i rise today to express my strong support for

the respect for marriage act. a bipartisan bill that senator baldwin and i have introduced with our colleague senator feinstein, senator portman, senator sinema, and senator tillis. madam president, this bill recognizes the unique and extraordinary importance of marriage on it individual and societal level. they would help promote inequality, prevent discrimination, and protect the rights of americans and same sex and interracial marriages. client would accomplish these goals while maintaining and indeed strengthening important religious liberty and conscious protection. i am proud to be the lead

republican sponsor of this legislation. and i am grateful that a similar bill passed the house with the strong bipartisan support. madam president, as the senate considers and prepares to vote on this historic legislation, i would be remiss if i did not begin by recognizing the tremendous progress that lgbtq with individuals in this country, and our country have made in recent times and achieving equal rights. it was not long ago that patriotic americans could not be honest about their sexual orientation while fighting to protect our country, our

freedom, in the armed forces. i led the fight with former senator joe lieberman of connecticut to repeal the discriminatory don't ask don't tell law. it was not long ago in america that a person could be fired merely for being gay. i strongly supported the employment nondiscrimination act known as ende which passed the senate in 2013 and would have prohibited such discrimination. seven years later, the supreme court held the civil rights act protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. and it was not long ago in america that the individuals could not marry the person whom

they love if that person were of the same sex. the supreme court landmark decision in obergefell found the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed by our constitution. madam president, let us remember that we are talking about our family members, our friends, our coworkers, our neighbors. i am proud to have stood with them and i will continue to stand with them in efforts to protect and secure their rights while at the same time steadfastly protecting and respecting religious liberty. the respect for marriage act would accomplish two primary

goals. first it would guarantee that a valid marriage between two individuals in one state is giving full faith and credit by other states. meaning that states must recognize a valid marriage for purposes of public act, judicial proceedings and rights arising from a marriage regardless of that couples sex, race, ethnicity or national origin. that means that same sex and interracial couples can rest assured that their marriages will be recognized regardless of the state in which they have lived. we need to remove the cloud that is now over these couples that is causing them such consternation as my colleague from wisconsin has mentioned.

second, it would require the federal government to recognize the marriage between two individuals if the marriage was invalid in the states where it was performed. if we do so by getting rid of a lot of us on the book known as a defense of marriage act which has been invalidated by the supreme court's ruling and yet it remains on the books. would these changes, federal law would provide that all married couples are entitled to the right and responsibilities of marriage. this includes for example, making medical decisions and receiving spousal benefits and programs like social security and medicare. as well as those benefits termed from the surface service in our armed forces.

to remove any ambiguity about the intent and scope of this bill, i have worked with my senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle as well as with a coalition of religious organizations to develop an amendment designed to clarify the language. in address concerns with concerns that have been raised to the house version of our bill. first and foremost, this legislation would not diminish or abdicate any recent such as liberty conscious protection accorded to individuals and organizations under the united states constitution and several laws including the first amendment and the religious freedom restoration act. sure, our amendment.

this is now explained explosively in our bill. the amendment also makes clear that this bill only applies to valid marriages between two individuals. and other words it does not authorize or require recognition of polygamist marriages. they are already prohibited in all 50 states. this really was a distraught dog is strong argument. but we have made it clear nonetheless in our amendment that in no way with the government or other states be required or authorized in any way to recognize polygamist marriages. moreover, the amendment clarifies that the bill could not be used to deny or alter the

tax-exempt status or any other status, tag treatment, grant, contract agreements, guaranteed, educational funding, loans, scholarships, lights and certification, accreditation, benefits, rights, claim or defense not arising from a marriage. of course any other rise eligible person or entity. others just words? note church and synagogue no mosque, no temple, no religious education and institution would have to worry that somehow there tax-exempt status would be in jeopardy if they do not perform same sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs. so let me repeat that.

this has been coming up time and again. for the first time and consistent with the first amendment and the laws of many states this legislation would make clear in federal law that nonprofit religious organizations and religious educational institutions cannot be compelled to participate in or support or the celebration of marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs. and madam president, i would ask that an excellent analysis by the first amendment partnership be included on this issue in the record at the end of my

statements. madam president, some have said this bill is unnecessary because there is little risk the right to have a same sex or interracial marriage recognized by the government will be overturned by the supreme court. regardless of one's views on that possibility there is still value in ensuring that our federal laws reflect that same sex and interracial couples have the right to have their marriages recognized regardless of where they live in this country. i strongly believe that passing this bill is the right thing to do. on the american people agree. indeed more than 70% of

americans support marriage equality including a majority of democrats, republicans, and independence. as a right in the "washington post" op-ed with my colleagues andrew baldwin, millions of american families have come to rely on the promise of marriage equality and freedom and responsibility that come with making the commitment of marrying the one you love. interracial marriages need and should have the confidence that their marriages are legal. simultaneously we must also recognize people of good conscience may disagree on issues related to marriage.

it's more than just a legal union. it is a religious institution grounded in their faith. as justice kennedy writing for the majority of the supreme court explained in the obergefell decision, marriage and their view is by its nature a gender differentiated union of man and woman. this view has been held and continues to be held in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world. fluent on to explain that neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. the same principle applies to our legislation. on that is explicitly acknowledged in the amended bill. it is important to me that our

bill would not affect or diminish in any way religious liberty conscious protection. any interpretation of this legislation that would limit the applicability of these for individuals or entities because they have religious objections to same sex marriages would be contrary to the plain language of our bill. and madam president i would ask unanimous consent that a series of letters from religious organizations that endorse the religious of our bill be entered into the record at the conclusion of my statement. >> without objection brick works they include letters from elder

jack gerard from the church of jesus christ of latter day saints. from melissa read from the seventh-day adventist church. from nathan dimon from that union of orthodox jewish congregation. from a host of other organizations. christian colleges and universities on institutional religious freedom alliance. when ken schultz of the first amendment partnership. we have worked very closely with all of them. in closing madam president, let me once again salute the leaderships of senator baldwin as well as senator portman, senator tillis and senator sinema for their tireless efforts on this important

legislation. let's do the right thing. let's vote to proceed to this important bill and let us pass it. i urge all of my senate colleagues to join me in supporting the respect for marriage act. thank you, mr. president.

>> the committee will come to

order. first off i would like to thank our witnesses for joining us. and for your continued service to the american people. this hearing is an important opportunity for this committee to hear from the nation's top national security and law enforcement officials about the threats facing our nation. and how congress could assure the federal government is prepared to protect our communities from them. more than 20 years ago, september 11 terrorist attacks changed our nation forever. in response congress created a department of homeland security. our entire national security apparatus focus on keeping americans safe from international terrorism. however, it more than two decades following that the taxi threats to our communities have evolved and have become increasingly complex. while we must continue to monitor international terror threats there is no question

that we must be better prepared to defend against our top national -- what are top national security officials including those before us here today have called the most lethal terrorist threat to americans, domestic terrorism fueled by white nationals and antigovernment ideologists. yesterday i released a report detailing the results of my investigation. alarmingly my investigation found dhs and the fbi are not adequately addressing the evolving domestic terrorist threat. despite a requirement a lot written by myself and senator johnson, dhs and fbi have failed to effectively measure, ensure comprehensive data on the threat posed by violent domestic extremists and specifically white supremacist and antigovernment violence. without this competence of data it is impossible for congress and for this committee to determine whether our nation's

counterterrorism resources are effectively aligned to tackle the domestic terrorism threat. we need data driven approach to prevent deadly incidents like the january 6 capitol breach, the tragic shooting in buffalo and countless other domestic terrorist attacks that have been fueled by hateful extremist ideologies. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about what resources and tools their agencies need to effectively collect data on domestic terrorism and to prevent these crimes. today we will also the opportunity to discuss the significant threat that cyber attacks pose to our national and economic security. i'm proud of bipartisan work, senator portman and i have bled this congress to enact some of the most significant reforms in our nation cybersecurity policy and history. our reforms will ensure dhs has the tools, the resources the authorities needed to protect critical infrastructure, state and local governments and other

targets from cyber attack. however, there's more that must be done to continue securing our vulnerability some criminal hackers and foreign adversaries print out forward to discussing these topics today. what are the most serious threat in one of the toughest to tackle as a threat posed by increasingly severe natural disasters and climate change. this is an existenial threat to our planet. unless it is addressed it will have a significant impact on our homeland security. today it will hear more about how her national security agencies are tracking these challenges and how they are planning to address the security threats they present no into the future. we also have a challenging situation at our southern border. today we will discuss the administration's work to secure both our northern and southern borders and prevent illegal trafficking and stop the flow of deadly illicit drugs like fentanyl into our communities.

those are difficult missions that must be accomplished insuring lawful international trade and travel can continue to flow smoothly at our point of entry and keep states like my home state of michigan a hub for international commerce. as our national security agents continue to tackle these long-standing threats they must also be prepared to counter emerging ones. over the last few years the threat posed by unmanned aerial systems or drones has become increasingly powerless. small drones which can be purchased off-the-shelf at any electronics store can be a weapon iced by malicious actors to damage our nation's critical infrastructure or inflict mass casualties. today's drones could be used to launch remote attacks on everything from government buildings, two crowds at public events, including large sports stadiums. we cannot the current authorities that help address this brave threat expire in

december. and i will continue to working to ensure this important authorities understand it and they are updated. similarly, weapon iced biological mother senator portman, to reauthorize look forward to passing as soon as possible for the scope of these and many other national security threats congress and the administration to work together to keep americans safe for tam pleased to welcome back each of our witnesses they can hear more about how agencies are working to effectively carry out this a daunting and essential mission. and i look forward to a productive discussion. but, before he turned things

over and want to just take a moment to recognize my colleague senator portman who is retiring this year. rob, i will tell you it has been an absolute pleasure to work with you over the past two years in this committee. i am grateful for all of your hard work and your diligence to help us pass such meaningful bipartisan legislation through this committee from providing important financial relief to the u.s. postal service, strengthen our ability to detect and deter cyber attacks more secure and effective for taxpayers. it's only been a real pleasure all the work you did will certainly never be forgotten. oxygen yields me for just a minute, five seconds i just want to say i'm tom and i approve that message. [laughter] is likening staff director i

know you so well. [laughter] pam, you just have an exceptional team. you've been exceptional and incredible team accomplish a lot who wish you godspeed as wellin your future as well thank you, thank you so much for that. without ranking member portman you are recognized for opening remarks request thank you, mr. chairman. just to respond appreciate the relationship we've had in the work we've gotten done for this committee's done a lot on the bipartisan basis. some of it does not get any notice because it is noncontroversial by the time we finish our process. but in the process or thank you and of members of the committee for working with us to pass and

dozens of bills that are making important difference to our constituency. to you and to david weinberger of your staff, not tom but david. [laughter] we haven't agreed on everything but we find common ground where possible and move the country forward to thank you very much for that. today is my last hearing as ranking member print be appropriate b this hearing because it is so important to the oversight responsibilities of this committee and more portly important to our country right now purple have unfortunate proliferation of threats facing the homelands. and i appreciate the fact the right people are here today were forced to be able to address those concerns and particularly welcome, we look forward to hearing from you. as the respective leaders of your agencies you are responsible for overseeing thousands of career employees, men and women who wake up every

day that national counterterrorism center, with the mission to safeguard our nation. behalf the entire committee to think those employees who are patriots every fall to sign level we've had this hearing. we are a little late this year because of scheduling issues. it's really important we hold that it is a time to stand back a little bit and reflect on where we are and how we can work together to address these potential threats and active threats. i can become no greater priority for this committee. i'm going to start with the crisis of the southern border. because sadly i am leaving at a time when we have not made the progress we should have made on a bipartisan basis. again we have to raise these issues and attempt to solve some of these very significant problems. the failed border policies from this administration has insured not only donations borders

remain unsecure, but foreign adversaries, trends and other nefarious actors can too easily enter our country now and therefore threaten the safety and the security of our public. so this issue has not gotten better it has gotten worse for the pastor the border patrol apprehended more than 2 million total unlawful migrants that is up 143% since 2019. in this chart behind me shows in color the blue, green, red of where we have been fy 21 and fy 22 figures are on the right. we just got the final figures for fiscal year 2022. and unfortunately it tells a very dramatic story of us failing to secure that southern border. this does not include a number of god always of individuals who are not detected. what we hear from the border

patrol is the number of god always has increased significantly as well. these are criminals often who engage in human trafficking. criminals involved themselves in the drug trade. and so this is about people but it's also about the fact that we have a record number of sentinel shipments coming through the border of the ports of entry in between ports of entry now but we know this from anecdotal evidence but also because there's a record number of seizures of these deadly of sentinel shipments into our communities. and fentanyl of course is what is causing the most number of overdose deaths at the time we have it record number of overdose deaths in our country. ohio we think it is between two thirds and three quarters of the deaths are related to this one drug, deadly fentanyl which is primarily coming across the mexican border now. so, this is many tough couple of years. the worst two years of unlawful

migration and the worst two years of drug seizures in our nations history. so i look forward to talk about that part of got to figure out how to move forward again on a bipartisan basis of got to figure how to fix what is a clearly a broken system. another issue i want to address today is the withdrawal from afghanistan what that means in terms of the united states would act consisted with us and our allies who are left behind to suffer under taliban rule at me and want more than 36000 afghans with no record of ever having partnered with this and with whom may have ties to tears groups who were brought into our country without proper screening and vetting. i appreciate the fact, you are here to talk about that in addition to secretary mayorkas. this is one again i think we made mistakes and we can correct those mistakes. we can go back. no you starting to do that from testimony we have had locally and privately.

we had this unfortunate chaotic and precipitous withdrawal but that because a lot of issues. one was throwing people into our country there were not properly screened three reports from two inspectors general, documenting the failures of dhs vetting and then for a link known or suspected terrorists into our communities. and yet we just do not have acknowledgment of that problem from dhs. so president biden requested and received an additional $15 million for the fbi to conduct counterterror investigations of known or suspected terrorists among the afghan evacuees released into our country by dhs pretty astra $15 million to get to the fbi to do this additional vetting. and yet the administration says it's not a problem this to her inconsistent of course. so perhaps we can talk about those views on the panel this morning. we all recognize the great threat posed by our adversary such as russia, iran, and china are rely on disinformation tactics to weaken our democracy. i think there is consensus about

that. but at home we've got to be much more careful around issues of domestic speech. you must respond to imminent threats of violence. i don't think anyone on this committee disagrees with that. but censoring constitutionally protected speech is an entirely different matter. to be precise that should be redlining. hope we can all agree the nice its government should not sense of the speech of our own citizens. speech, differences of opinion and political viewpoints are not a threat to democracy but actually the bedrock of it. we know it now dhs disbanded us disturbing disinformation governance board after significant public outcry. we also know has continued its efforts to curb speech of the guise of countering this information is disinformation. the entanglement fbi dhs associate platform for the purpose of controlling narratives is something we need to talk about today. it's a deep concern all americans have really not cross that redline. recent reports allege dhs is colluded with tech the reforms

of the biden ministration political views including the afghanistan withdrawal and things like the origin of covid. our democracy is also under threat because congress administration about unwilling to confront the systemic threat of u.s. intellectual property by china. it is undermining our national security and economic security. secretary wray has been outspoken on this is no country that has a more threat to innovation ideas and economic security than china". i cannot agree more. but, every day china reinforces the findings are very sophisticated of this committee, showing the staggering extent of the chinese government efforts to conduct influence and espionage in our country and steal american technology, research and information for the military and economic benefit. so dressing with the communist party child is doing is more urgent than ever forget the safeguarding act which is out of this committee hasn't blocked from becoming law because the unwillingness of congress to

confront this issue. cyber attacks or other significant issue facing every sector of our country. we talked with us a moment ago% repeaters we have made some progress and i appreciate that. cyber attacks are growing on the ra multiplier for adversaries. we have to understand these as issues are going to continue to use. our economic and security is dependent on technology. got to make sure we are not vulnerable here but compounding the problem is inherent difficulty of interpreting cyber attacks to criminal groups for terrorism is a serious threat to our country. this year's on the terrace gain entry into the night stay tuned attacked the synagogue in texas in a separate exit ohio based islamic state plotted to assassinate former president bush we are not out of the woods in terms of the islamic terrorist threat. i remain convinced that we can deal with these issues on a bipartisan basis. as we have in the past. but i am concerned about the threat posed by foreign terrorist organizations

especially in the wake of our withdrawal from afghanistan, al qaeda continues to pose a threat the islamic state continues to expand and mobilize printed writing sponsors she had tears groups target key u.s. interest and government officials consistently part of groups organize when they regroup and evolve. you must restore confidence in the american public were committed to protect your nation from terrorism, espionage and other homeland security threats. this should be a bipartisan effort. will have the same goal, a safe secure american homeland. so that said i look for to the test by this morning mr. chairman but most important with the response to questions regarding the record the administration addressing these threats will do going forward together but i will note that only last week to receive overdue answers to questions we have from lester's hearing. that took over a year but help in this case will get more prompt responses to committee questions that are posed. thank you, mr. chairman look for to the testimony. >> thank you ranking member portman. before swearing the witnesses i

just want to make sure everyone knows how this will proceed. both our witnesses and members. we're going to have two rounds of questions today per the first round as we normally will do will be seven minutes for each person by the second round we will have five minutes per person on the second round due to time constraints with all of our witnesses. i am going to enforce those time limits perhaps a little more aggressively than i have in the past for everyone .7 minutes first-round five minute second round. it is the practice of the home unsecured and government affairs committee to swear in witnesses periods of each of you would please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> thank you you may be seated.

secretary mayorkas the seventh secretary of the department of homeland security over his distinguished 30 year career as a law enforcement official a nationally recognized lawyer per disturbed as a department's deputy secretary as director of citizenship and immigration services the department of justice assisting in a six attorney the district of california. mr. secretary thank you again for being here before the committee you may proceed with your opening remarks. >> chairman peters, ranking member portman, distinguished members of the committee thank you for inviting me too join me today. next week marks the 20th anniversary of the homeland security act being signed into law. this act brought together many components to safeguard foreign terrorism in the wake of the

devastation wrought on septembe. it remains the largest reorganization of the federal government's national security establishment since 1947. it is a testament to the great that we face as a nation from terrorism brought to our shores, by foreign actors in foreign terrorist organizations. risk foreign terrorism poses to the homeland by increasing our capacity to prepare for and respond to those events. foreign terrorist organizations remain committed to attacking the united states from within and beyond our borders. they use social media platforms to amplify messaging intended to inspire tax in the homeland. they have adapted to changing security environments, seeking new and innovative ways to target the united states. the evolving terrorism threat to the homeland now includes loan actors of small cells, domestic

violent extremist to further some political or social goal or act on a grievance and homegrown violent extremist looking to advance the interests of a foreign terrorist organization. from cyber attacks on her critical infrastructure, to increasing destabilizing efforts by hostile nation states the threats facing have never been greater responsible behavior in cyberspace. our adversaries hostile nation the nomination state cyber criminals continue to advance in capability and sophistication. their methods vary but their goals of doing harm are the same. hostile nations iran and north korea cyber criminals around the world continue to sharpen their tactics and create more adverse consequences. there it ran somewhere our turn hospitals, pipelines, electric grids and water treatment

plants. to wreak havoc on her daily lives. they exploit the integrated global cyber ecosystem to sow discord, undermine democracy and erode trust in our institutions, public and private. the cyber operations threaten the security of every american and many others around the world. in particular china is using its technology to tilt the global playing field to its benefit. the leverage sophisticated cyber capabilities to gain access to the intellectual property, data and infrastructure of american individuals and businesses. russia's unprovoked invasion of ukraine intensify the risk of a cyber attack impacting her critical infrastructure earlier this year. state aggression is a heightened risk of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear related threats to americans as well. while fast emerging technologies like on-demand aerial systems

artificial intelligence, internet communications crypto currencies are helping societies be more productive, creative and entrepreneurial they also are introducing new risks. transnational criminal organizations are deploying these technologies to commit a wide array of crimes as they continue to grow in size, scale, sophistication. with respect to unmanned aerial systems in particular it is vital that congress act before the end of this year to extend our authorities in order to protect to the people from malicious drone activity. the risk of targeted violence perpetrated by actors abroad and at home is substantial. emerging technology platforms allow individuals and nationstates to fan the flames of hate on personal grievances to large audiences and are encouraging people to commit

violent acts. those driven to violence soft targets, faith-based institutions, institutions of higher education. racial and religious minorities but government facilities and personnel including law enforcement and the military. addressing these threats requires a whole of society approach across federal, state, local governments. the private sector, none profits, academia and most importantly every citizen. congress may not have predicted the extent of today's threat environment when our department was created 20 years ago. our mission has never been more vital. our components have never collaborated more closely. our extraordinary work force is never been more capable in our nation has never been more prepared. we must harness the same deliberative and bipartisan

spirit in which this department was created to combat the vast threats americans face today. i look forward to answering your questions. quest thank you secretary mayorkas. directive for christopher wray's eighth director of the federal grove investigation. director wray began his law enforcement career over two decades ago serving the department of justice as the assistant u.s. attorney for the northern district of georgia. he has also served on the presidents corporate fraud attacks foreskin supervised the enron tax for support in addition to playing a key role on the national security objectives for the department. director wray thank you for appearing before this committee once again your opening remarks request morning chairman peters, ranking import many members of the committee. honor to be here today on behalf of the fbi 38000 men and women to discuss some of the most pressing threats facing our

homeland. when it comes to the current threat landscape, what makes our current situation unique and i would add particularly serious is the fact we are seeing so many different threat areas all elevated at the same time. i'm proud of the work the fbi's agents, analysts and professional staff are doing all across the country and around the world every day to rise to that challenge and protect the american people. protecting the american people from terrorist attack remains the fbi's number one priority. as i've said before the greatest threat we face on the terrorism front here in the homeland is from what are effectively loan actors are small cells. whether you are talking about a domestic violent extremist acting in furtherance of some ideological goal, or a homegrown violent extremist looking to advance the interest of a foreign terrorist organization. these actors often move very quickly from radicalization, to

action and often is easily obtainable weapons think, gun, knife, car, crude iud. it's really intelligence community speak for everyday people going about their everyday lives. overseas, isis and al qaeda still aim to inspire, plan and launch the united states and their allies as the strike this summer constitute in afghanistan following our withdrawal is very real. our ability to gather intelligence on the ground inside afghanistan. that is just a reality. all that places a premium on our continued collaboration with our partners both within the u.s. government and internationally

and use all the tools available to us countries like china russia north korea are all growing more aggressive, more brazen, more capable. they are coming at us from all angles to undermine her core democratic institutions, our national security and our rule of law. of those countries the greatest long-term threat to our nation's ideas, innovation, and economic security, our national security is that from china the chinese government aspires to equal or surpass the u.s. is a global super power and influence the world with a value system shaped by un- democratic authoritarian ideals. but we are confronting that threat head on. three weeks ago for example we unsealed charges against 13 individuals pretend of them chinese officers and government

officials for a variety of criminal efforts to exert influence right here in that u.s. on behalf of beijing. we have scores of investigations into the china threat in all 56 fbi field offices. on the cyber front, china's vast hacking program is the world's largest by a mile. they have stowing more of america's personal and business stated than every other nation combined. but of course china is not our only challenge in cyberspace. not even close with the fbi cyber investigations are growing in frequency, scale, and complexity consistent with the evolution of the threat. we are investigating over 100 different ransom ware variance. each with scores of victims as well as a host of other novel threats posed by both cyber criminals and nationstates

alike. and, and it is becoming more and more difficult to discern where the cyber criminal activity ends and the nationstate activity begins as the line between those two's continue to blur. just last month for example we listed the indictment of three iranian nationals for their rolls in a multiyear scheme to compromise the networks of hundreds of organizations. many of which offer critical services americans rely on every day. to these sorts of actors, nothing is off-limits. not even for example boston children's hospital which they set their sights on in the summer of 2021. now fortunately, fortunately before they could successfully launch their attack we received a tip from a partner and working closely with the hospital we were able to identify and defeat the threat. protecting both the network and the sick kids who depend on it. our opponents in this space are

relentless and we have to keep responding in kind. i can assure you we are going to continue to be aggressive and creative as we read joint sequenced operations with our partners against those adversaries. removing their malware, taking on their botnets and hunting them down all over the world. now that is just a snapshot really of some of the many threats we are tackling and does not even include things like our efforts to combat violent crime this summer working with our state and local partners we arrested on average 50 violent criminals every day. our continued on human trafficking where this august to the annual operation cross-country under partners located in more than 200 victims of human trafficking. many of them little kids. the transnational crime section is doing in partnership with agencies like dhs to investigate

the movement of people, drugs, guns and money into the united states across our southern border. the abrupt and depth of the threat to the fbi's dedicated men and women are tackling each and every day is staggering. and i continue to be inspired by their commitment to our mission of protecting the american people and upholding the constitution. and i know we will continue to answer the culprit thank you again for having me here today. and i will be happy to address your questions. >> thank you, thank you director wray. doctor kristine abizaid is the eighth confirmed director of the national carriages him center print presentation of the national security council staff is both director for counterterrorism and senior policy advisor to the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism. she has also served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for afghanistan, pakistan and central asia. as a senior intelligence analyst

for the defense intelligence agency. thank you again for appearing before this committee but it's good to have you back you may proceed with your opening remarks. >> thank you very much. chairman peters, ranking member portman and members of the committee. thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the overall terrorism landscape. despite significant progress in diminishing the terrorist threat to the united states, the country continues to face a diversified transnational and in many ways unpredictable threat environment at home and abroad. an array of actors whether foreign terrorist organizations, state sponsors of terrorism, or loan actors are shaping the nature of today's threat. this changed environment exists among an ongoing transition for the counterterrorism community wert ct while still critical is one of many competing priorities the u.s. national security must be postured to address.

in today's testimony i will start by giving an overview of the terrorist threat to the homeland, return to the overseas threat environment and end with some comments on the importance of our continued efforts. regarding the united states homeland, terrorist organization such as isis and al qaeda remain committed to attacking inside the united states. however, unlike 21 years ago the threat today is more likely to take the form of an individual attacker inspired by these groups rather than networked and hierarchically directed plots. in fact, since nine 11:30 seven of the 45 isis or al qaeda linked attacks in the homeland have been inspired by these groups rather than centrally directed by them. this trend toward loan actors threats inside the united states extends beyond isis and al qaeda. it also characterizes the threat we face from domestic actors such as racially or ethnically

motivated and violent extremist, militia extremists and anarchists. in particular, the racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist threat has the most obvious lengths to transnational actors whose plots and professed ideology encouraged mobilization to violence by those vulnerable to their messaging. this threat is fluid, it is fragmented, lacking in hierarchical structures with proponents around the globe framing actions around the concept of leaderless resistance. transitioning to the overseas environment, terrorist movements worldwide continue to dominate the threat to americans. isis and al qaeda continue to aspire u.s. and other western interest overseas. but have been more effective at pursuing operations against regional and local adversaries. for its part isis, iraq, sierra intact centrally led organization that will most likely continue to pose both a global and local threat.

this, despite the death and february. while significantly weaker than its peak in 2015 through 2017, isis leaders from iraq and sierra have been successful at spurning branches and networks across africa and as far as south and east asia with its two most effective branches currently operating out of west africa and afghanistan. likewise, a kind it maintains its regional affiliate structure positioned effectively in parts of north and east africa, the middle east, and to a lesser extent south asia. the july death of longtime al qaeda leader was a strategic and symbolic setback for the organization. but it did not put an end to al qaeda. in particular, in the middle east al qaeda in the arabian peninsula is a destabilizing actor in yemen and remains mostly most intrepid and fillets

intent on attacks inside the u.s. homeland. two other prominent al qaeda affiliates also stand out both for the growing regional influence in their significant capabilities. the out based in somalia -based affiliates. of note, we continue to monitor for signs al qaeda has chosen a successor, now three months since his death. in addition to al qaeda affiliate leaders we are particularly focused on the role that ironic base legacy leaders may play in the future of the organization. transitioning from suny turns to threats emanate from ironic its partners and its proxies, iran continues to plan, encourage and support plots gives the united states both at home and in the middle east where we have a significant u.s. military presence. ironic and lebanese hezbollah has plot attacks against former u.s. officials to retaliate for the death i rgc raised the

threat both at home and abroad for those that ironic deems responsible. in closing i would just highlight the complexity of the international terrorism and extremism environment that i just outlined continues to demand a collaborative, agile and sufficiently resource counterterrorism effort to mitigate terrorist threats to the united states. it is clear the significant pressure brought to bear against terrorist groups over the last two decades, along investment in effective ct defenses here at home has resulted in a diminished threat to the united states homeland. and his partners across the government are working toward a sustainable and enduring level of support to this mission that maintains the strategic success. in fact, the role of an ctc today is perhaps more important than ever. charged with integrating and analyzing all terrorism information across the united

states government and sharing that information with partners both foreign and domestic. organization like ntc's see kiddush were ct remains a foundational element of national security, even as other organizations must shift to other pressing priorities.

we provided to each of the witnesses yesterday. was also available through the website the homeland security committee website to read in its entirety. in the report we found that the spike being required by law my investigation found dhs and fbi had failed to systematically track and report data on domestic terrorism. they have not appropriately allocated resources to match the current threat and are not allowing definitions of domestic terrorism to ensure consistency across investigations of these crimes. quite frankly it's hard to address the rising threat if we can't quantify and define the scope of a problem so that we can tailor the appropriate response to it and the agencies appeared not to be doing that. we have seen think tanks and nonprofits collect more completions of data about domestic terrorism attacks

within the u.s. government has been able to do. why has the fbi been unable to collect and report data about domestic terrorism despite a federal law requiring you to do so? mr. chairman, i know all too well that there been frustrations in the reports that have been generated under the law that you are referring to. we have made progress for the report and we are committed to continuing to make progress. some of the issues go further back in time in 2015 for example, we were using paper so the ability to go back and track earlier than 2015 i know has been a source of tension at times. in addition, state and local law enforcement and tribal law enforcement are not required to report domestic terrorism incidents to us so while we do get lots of reports it's not as

systematic as we would like it to be. and you mentioned the terminology change. we've changed terminology over time for good reasons but there's some risk having a sort of apple to arrange affect in the comparisons to those working with the committee on this topic and our data tracking limitations should in no way be confused with our commitment to prioritizing this issue. i elevated racially motivated violent extremism to the national threat priority all the way back in june i think it was or the summer of 2019. we have searched resources to address that and the peace of investigations and arrests over the first three and a half years as director doubled when the case of arrests even tripled, so we have been working hard but we do need more resources in this space and our fiscal year 2022

budget asks for more resources to help address domestic terrorism threats. >> i appreciate your work on this and you're right the second report was better than the first, and i would hope we could work closely together to make the third report even better. that information is obviously critical for us to understand the scope of the problem and to design the appropriate responses, but i appreciate your active engagement in that. i also remain extremely concerned about the threat posed to the nation from bad actors using unmanned aircraft systems known to disrupt our society or worse to conduct a lethal attack on the nation. earlier this year, this committee unanimously passed a bill offered by senator johnson and i to protect our nation's airports, critical infrastructure and public spaces from these evolving threats.

secretary, as you are aware these are set to expire next month on the 16th. can you explain the consequences of allowing these authorities to lapse? >> i'm deeply appreciative of yours into senator johnson's bipartisan effort propose legislation to not only continue our authority to counter the systems but also to expand it critically. yvette need is very grave. speaking of the increased efficiency sophistication and capability of drones in terms of their visibility and speed with which they can move and distance with which they can move and also the load that they can carry. this poses a threat and we see it very often sometimes by

innocent operators who mistakenly interfere with the airspace and calls aircraft to reroute their journeys too bad actors and we see it quite tragically in the war zone that russia created with its unprovoked assault on ukraine. these are extraordinarily sophisticated tools that can carry drugs and can launch weaponry. we must be able to counter it. it is only an increasing threat and we hope that congress passes the legislation you and senator johnson have proposed. >> i'm going to keep strict to seven minutes. the director of the fbi is the lead on protecting gatherings like the super bowl and other areas. how concerned are you about these authorities lapsing? >> we are deeply conservative appreciate the leadership on this topic. if that is important for americans to understand that

authority is not reauthorized next month the public gatherings like the super bowl in arizona, like new year's eve and times square, like formula one in las vegas. i can go on, none of those will have protection from this threat. all the times that we have deployed with the authorities and the committee has led the passage. we've located hundreds of drones that have been acting in violation of federal law each time and as the threat continues to grow, we are investigating even as we speak several incidences within the u.s. attempts to weaponize drones with homemade ied's and that is the future that is here now and this authority desperately needs to be reauthorized. >> thank you, director. with eight minutes left of my time. ranking member portman, you are recognized for your question. >> i want to thank you anna senator johnson for working in a

bipartisan basis to put together this legislation i am a cosponsor of it. i know the house has a different view but we've got to get this one done. we just heard about the importance of it so thank you both for working on this issue. it's less than a month when it expires, so we've got to move them quickly. i spoke in my opening statement about the appreciation we have for the men and women you represent. we just learned of the customs and border protection agents shot, one fatally during the suspected drug smugglers inspection in puerto rico. this just happened and our thoughts and prayers are with the family of the agent that was fatally shot and also with those that were wounded but i think that it's a reminder of the sacrifices that the individuals that you represent here make up every day and we owe them our

support. it's a dangerous time and this is an unfortunate example of that. with regards to the southern border, we talked a lot about this over the months and years how do you take a broken system and fix it because clearly if you look at this chart behind me, it's broken. we have had all kinds of charts in the committee and discussions about it. there was an interesting back and forth recently between president biden's chief border patrol who works for you as you know mr. secretary and the state of florida, the attorney general for the lawsuit the southern border and i just thought i would go over that quickly. this has been the worst year of apprehensions ever in the last fiscal year. but the second worst was last year and so these numbers speak for themselves. more than 2 million apprehended

between the ports of entry. this summer when the chief of border patrol was questioned by the state of florida he gave his and her as under oath and i would ask unanimous consent to place the transcript of the testimony into the record mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> i've got to ask you the same questions that the chief of border patrol was asked to see if you agree and if you could please, yes or no answer as he did, the first question is the southern border currently in crisis, yes or no? >> ranking member portman, the entire hemisphere is suffering a migration crisis. we are seeing an unprecedented movement of people from country to country. it is not restricted to the southern border. we are seeing unprecedented movement of people throughout the western hemisphere and i think the case of venezuela is

the most compelling example. the population between 25 and 28 million people approximately 8 million of them have left the country. columbia is hosting 2.4 million -- >> i would ask for a yes or no answer. i've been to columbia twice in the last year. very aware of what's going on with regards to the displaced people and for that matter nicaragua and cuba but the question is all the more pressing so what are we doing about it? should we be changing our apologies out at the border to deal with it. so my question to you again is the southern border currently in crisis, yes or no? >> second question would you agree that the unprecedented number of unlawful migrants are entering the united states right

now? >> yes or no? >> ranking member portman, the number of encounters that we have had at the border and i think it is approximately 2.3 million this past year is the highest on record. >> so the answer is yes. and it looks like you agree with him on that. when president biden took office is it true the number of migrants trying to enter the united states has increased, yes or no? >> it has and there are many different factors that contributed to that. >> i ask you these questions and obviously the answer was yes. he was candid and gave short answers. we can't fix the problem unless we acknowledge it and unless we understand the facts. we can't fix the problem unless we are willing to be honest.

>> for years and years but again look at this chart. this is the number so it's gotten far worse and we don't have time to go into the details how we fix it but we talk about this a lot, mr. sec. if we don't give more resources, this isn't going to end but we will figure out a way to provide for deportation when people are here illegally and committing other crimes, this will continue. so we are unfortunately looking at a situation where you mentioned columbia and they believe that this is a pull factor. the policies and the leadership it might seem counterintuitive to some people but some of the best and brightest are leaving because we are not putting in

place the right policies. so many other questions and we will get the chance in the second round. going back to the cyber attacks we talked about earlier, the agencies that have been compromised concern is greatly. they issued a joint advisory with a compromise of the federal agencies using this vulnerability. we have that as a part of this record. we've discussed this vulnerability and another example of the issues. my time is expiring here in a second but can you just tell us which agencies or agency was compromised with regards to this latest announcement you made regarding the iranian government sponsored attacks? >> ranking member portman, that identity hasn't been disclosed and i need to speak with my colleagues to determine whether i would be compromising any security interests in doing so.

>> are you confident that they have been expelled from the federal networks? >> i will confer with my colleagues for the effort of the bad actors. >> we are considering as you know the reauthorization for the modernization act to trigger reporting to congress. would this be considered a major incident? >> you are recognized for your seven minutes of questions. >> to each of the witnesses, welcome. our families put up with a lot and we just want to thank your families for sharing with us especially as things giving

approaches. first, tom ridge from pennsylvania, from erie pennsylvania. we were congressmen together, same freshman class, we were governors together for a number of years and he remains a very close friend. when i think back i joined this committee i was selected and i want to say 22 years ago. when i try to decide what committees to be on they said get on the governmental affairs committee. i said i'm interested and he said former governor and state treasurer to care about things working well you you should join and i did. we ended up the whole world changed. the nature that we faced is unbelievable. it's just incredible how the

world has changed in not so good ways and i want to say a special thanks to each of you to help us try to address the threats that are coming almost every day. on the second round of questions and questions of the other two witnesses. but again my first question i know your job is not an easy one. leaving a workforce of a quarter of a million people whose duties range from aviation to border security enhancing the cyber posture responding to natural disasters, protecting the homeland and i hope everyone here today can respect that and that your dedication and service to the nation is commendable. that goes for both of the witnesses here today and i think you again for your service. as we continue to see a number of encounters at the southern

border, the department of homeland security has been leading a whole of government response to address these challenges and to help keep our borders more secure. can you talk about changes in the migration patterns that we've seen at the southern border in the last year and a half and what policies has the department put in place to address these challenges? specifically, can you speak to the investments in border technology and legal migration pathways and your level of engagement with other countries and the range of given the migration patterns have been a hemispheric challenge, please? >> senator carper, thank you for acknowledging the challenge that the positions present. for the ranking member portman i mentioned the tragic loss of one of the frontline personnel. several other gravely wounded.

i was briefed on the situation early this morning. these are brave members of the air and murky in operations with customs and border protection so the difficulty of this job cannot be compared to the difficulty that our frontline personnel face every day and their bravery and selfless service should be recognized and i thank you for acknowledging that. the migration patterns in the hemisphere have changed dramatically. when i was the deputy secretary, we were very concerned about migration from the central american countries of el salvador, guatemala and honduras. we have encountered now the highest level. the demographic challenge is even more acute because the diplomatic relations are obviously quite strained and we are able to remove as easily

individuals from these countries of origin. thus far at an early stage and very successful response to the migration in particular we have six lines of effort. we have surged resources to the southern border, personnel, technology facilities, transportation capabilities. we have increased the processing efficiency and we are digitizing our processes, modernizing them so that the intake process and the screening and vetting process is enhanced and more efficient. we are delivering consequences for the unlawful entry and we've increased the level of prosecution. when individuals seek to evade law enforcement we've sought to bolster the capacity of the nongovernmental organizations and state and local jurisdictions. we are conducting a disruption

campaign against the smuggling organizations and the transnational criminal organizations and we are also working very closely with our partners to the south to deter a regular migration. the declaration that was signed speaks powerfully of that. we need countries throughout the hemisphere to enforce the humanitarian relief as well as the levels of enforcement so this is a multipronged effort to address the multinational challenge throughout the hemisphere. >> the description in 25 you visited me when i was a stranger in your land. did you welcome me when i was a stranger in your land.

the last one is hard. in fact they were all difficult but at the last one is especially hard. in the effort that people are going to risk life and limb to come to this country and relocate, many of them, hundreds of miles to return borders and some of us think why don't we give them the opportunity of the want to come. the embassies and consulates would you respond to that idea please just briefly? >> senator carper, our laurels are laurels of accountability. we have an asylum system that is one of the sources of pride in the country and we enforce the law, but an individual qualifies for humanitarian relief they are under the law entitled to remain

here and if they do not qualify, they are to be removed and we are and forcing the locals in every respect. >> thank you so much mr. chairman. >> senator johnson, you are recognized for your questions. >> director, you made a comment here in answer to the questioning that you were committed to working with this committee. you will excuse me if i find those words ring incredibly hollow. i had to subpoena you as the chairman of the committee and i really didn't get anything. i had written repeated letters with no response whatsoever or a non-response. it's one of the reasons i'm grateful to all of the whistleblowers coming forward to the various committees and various members. people of integrity within your organization's blowing the whistle on the corruption at the highest levels of the fbi.

first question, do you commit publicly that the fbi will not retaliate against the whistleblowers. the compliance with all of the other areas. >> senator grassley wrote you a letter in july, 2020 in which he said the whistleblowers office reported the officials initiated a scheme to downplay derogatory information from hunter biden for the purpose of shutting down activity related to the criminal exposure by labeling it, quote, disinformation. that is a familiar term. that scheme was hatched in august of 2020. also included, he said august 2020 the fbi supervisor analyst opened up an assessment

that was used by fbi headquarters to discredit negative hunter biden information is disinformation and cause investigative activity to cease. have you responded to the letter that he wrote over three months ago? >> i know there've been a slew of letters and we've responded to do a number of them. >> have you looked into those charges that there was a scheme hatched to downplay the information, have you looked into that personally? >> as we speak we have a number of personnel matters and for reasons i'm sure you can appreciate. >> i understand how you remain above the law by using that excuse repeatedly. >> august 2020 both senator grassley and i received an

unsolicited briefing by members of the fbi which i knew immediately was a set up. no new information whatsoever. i knew it was a set up and i was correct because nine months later it was leaked to the "washington post" to smear me. i've written you publicly a number of times asking who directed the debriefing. are you prepared to tell me who directed that briefing now? >> first off i can't discuss the briefings more broadly and that is a long-standing practice. >> tell me why have you refused to meet with us, privately tell us who directed that briefing. >> if i'm going to finish my answer to the question is a long-standing practice not to discuss the briefings. we have as my understanding responded to the letter that you sent. >> it's bureaucratic is what

that is. >> to provide a senior executive of the fbi to walk through in detail. >> but not specifically who directed a briefing that is used to smear me. have you looked into the leaking, have you investigated that? >> i'm not going to discuss specific investigations to the briefing question and who directs it. let me be clear about this. when it comes to the defensive briefings, there is not a single person who makes that decision. that's an inner agency process that was set up by the prior administration signed off by the former president, the office of the director. >> there are persons in that inner agency so there would be persons, we should know who those persons are. why won't you tell us who directed that briefing?

>> in the report on hunter biden into the corruption issued in the september 2020, november 2020 have you read those reports? >> i haven't had a chance to look at it. >> do you see any sign of the information of those reports? the easy answer is there is no russian disinformation. that report is completely clean of any interference of foreign influence although we have been falsely accused including by the chair man of the committee of spreading russian disinformation. are you aware of the fbi having any involvement whatsoever in october 19, 2020 public

statements by 51 former intelligence officials? >> i'm not aware of any of them in the fbi and what you're describing. >> the reason i ask is if it's true in august of 2020, the fbi initiated a scheme to downplay it seemed it may be part of the scheme. for the traditional letter stated at the laptop had all the earmarks of the russian information operation. that was totally full. we know that the laptop is completely authentic. the point i am trying to make is the unsolicited briefing that was leaked in may of 2021 was

used to smear me and interfere into the u.s. senate election of november 2022. one of the whistleblowers to my committee stated that the fbi was no longer going to interfere in the elections or something to that effect. the fbi is not going to change the outcome of the election again. the fbi certainly tried to. are you going to investigate that? because that is the interference let's face it. this letter by 510 officials, this interfered in the 2020 election to a far greater extent than anything russia or china ever could have failed to accomplish. you have to acknowledge that it has to be investigated by and i have no --

thank you for holding this hearing today and to the witnesses for being here. and i want to add my prayers and thoughts for the officer that was fatally wounded. i think it's fair to say the people in new hampshire into the united states are holding these brave men and women in our prayers. i also wanted to take the opportunity though he's stepped out for a minute to thank the ranking member portman for his years of service and for his work on the committee and for the bipartisan work that he has led. and again, to all the witnesses but more importantly to the men and women that you lead, thank you to them, the families the first priority of the government is to ensure the safety and

security. for the other two witnesses when we held a hearing a year ago, some assessments indicated that in the wake of the united states withdraw from afghanistan, al qaeda would have the ability to reconstitute itself. what is the national counterterrorism's assessment about how the capability to threaten the u.s. homeland? it is quite limited. in part thanks to the operation but also because of the al qaeda elements that are still present or not focused on external operations as far as we can

tell. primarily the threat from al qaeda should be disaggregated from that. i think given very unique circumstances around that group and its relationship with the taliban and some of the specifics for which it has evolved over the years. >> do you agree with this assessment and i will start with you, director. >> i would add a couple of things to what they had to say. we are very concerned about isis k. as time progresses, i am concerned that we will have fewer and fewer good sources of information about what al qaeda is and isn't doing, so we always have to be mindful of secretary

rumsfeld said and we are very concerned about al qaeda and isis and the ability to inspire attacks even from over there so those are a few points. >> thank you. secretary? >> i think the point that my colleagues have made underscores the broader point that we've spoken about the evolving threats but we should keep in mind that the threats of the past remain the of the present. i want to move on to a different topic. every week a drug seizure makes headlines but the flow in southwest border is unrelenting. the drugs dhs seizes for a fraction of the total of the criminal organizations attempt to smuggle into the country.

what specific steps is dhs taking to stem the flow of the drugs crossing the border and what additional resources are you using to address this problem and what additional resources do you need? >> it is a fact the smugglers seek to transport controlled substances, illegal drugs into the united states primarily through the ports of entry, through trucks, vehicles and the like. we have searched the technological resources that can detect the effort to smuggle those dangerous substances specifically for example nonintrusive inspection technologies. we've deployed the operating lapses of the personnel scientists can detect the substances and weaken the seizure immediately and refer to

law enforcement the persons that have sought to smuggle them. what we need is more resources like that and we hope congress passes the fiscal year 2023 budget. we are already six weeks into the new fiscal year without the resources that we need financially to invest in that technology and deploy additional personnel as well. >> one additional question given my time, over the last few years, cyber attacks have plagued the state and local governments and other public entities. towards that end as part of the infrastructure law, senator cornyn and i held a program for state and local entities to improve their cybersecurity. the application period for the first year of the grant program concluded just this past tuesday. i understand the department of homeland security is still reviewing applications, but can you explain what the goals are for the first year of grants and

how you intend to achieve them? >> we are so grateful for that grant program. it's a multibillion-dollar grant program over several years. the first year of its implementation we are dedicating 185 million in resources to the state and local. this is all about building their capacity to enhance the security of the cyber ecosystem. in cybersecurity, senator, we say we are only as strong as our weakest link and the fact of the matter is that there are for get rich and resource poor localities that we need to strengthen and that is what this grant program is going to enable us to do. >> so the goal right now is making sure the state and local governments that have applied get the resources they need and focus on strengthening that level of cybersecurity, is that fair to say as a priority? >> yes.

thank you very much. >> thank you. senator, you are recognized for your questions. >> director, is facebook or any other social media companies applying private messages or data on american users that isn't compelled by the controlle government or the fbi? >> there is not in response to the legal process. no subpoena they are just supplying information on the users. >> i don't believe so, but i can't sit here and be sure of that as i sit here. >> can you give a yes or no because it is a very specific question because if they are, it's against the law. for the electronic communications with any person or entity and once it's conquered all of this was done to protect the privacy of people to feel like we could send an

e-mail or message to people without having that information given over. it's a very specific question. will you get with your team of lawyers because this is the law if you are doing it then we need to go to court to prevent you from receiving this information. >> i can tell you i'm quite confident we are following the law. >> that's not the -- >> but i will also follow-up to make sure we get more information, more detailed information. >> is the fbi obtaining anonymous social media data and then using technical methods to peers the anonymous nature of the data? >> people purchase data all the time and we sort of tolerate it for advertising and things because it's anonymous data. are you purchasing what is said to be anonymous data in the marketplace and then piercing the anonymous nature to attach individual names to the data? >> when you ask about anonymous data i was thinking more in terms of -- >> talking about the data that is out there and are you

purchasing the data and then piercing the anonymous data? >> we use the term commercial data as probably longer than i can explain here but again, let me have a -- >> so you will not answer the question whether you are attaching names to the anonymous data? >> it is a more complicated answer than i can give here. >> so far we are 0-but you are pledging you will answer the question. we will write a letter into the team of lawyers will write back letters that say nothing and you won't answer the question. these are very specific. this is whether we can have confidence. i want to have confidence. >> you are not telling me the answer and the answer is are you collecting data and not to compelled by a warrant that would not be in compliance with the law but you will not answer that you're not collecting the

data. >> we are following the law and we would have somebody follow up with you in more detail specifically. >> are you getting data from them that is not compelled and are you piercing the anonymous nature of that technically? >> are you receiving private messages from social media companies through the use of confidential human sources? >> facebook, social media companies, people working over there that you are paying or who are volunteering to give information even though you are now saying we will get around the law by using confidential human sources. >> just to be clear you mean a human source inside the company? know, i don't believe so. we have had situations where we had these sources not employees of the companies but who report to us on their own communications. if the two of us had a

communication that the secretary was the human source he could report to us about what he is saying. >> i would like the answer to be more specific from your team, not that i don't believe so but that you are or are not using the resources within facebook. we get back to the idea whether you are getting information outside of the process because the question, the next question is are you taking the information and getting around and coming back and using that as a predicate to get the information you've already been given? with the accusations and the question they say somebody says january 6th was great. here's information on this guy then you're taking it and using

it as a predicate to say now let's go to the court and get a real warrant. >> we get tips and leads from all over the place from members of the public, from businesses, from community leaders and others government partners all the time and we use the tips that we read too often form -- >> we are not receiving any tips or -- >> you may think that it's well to get all of this without a warrant that people volunteer to you but many of us are alarmed that you're getting this information in the private communications between people because it is against the law for facebook or social media companies to give it to you but it's also against the wall to receive it so you will have to specifically go back with your

team and we evaded the law we are good people, there are doubts because this has been reported. there would be a great deal of tolerance if it is the foreign maligned influence but the question are you also receiving information on so-called domestic. what would that mean, is someone questioning whether the paper ballots are an accurate way of running election and is that good enough to be getting the private information because we have a political lease with the way the votes were counted were recorded in the country yet is that something that you are collecting information on, or are they giving information on private things you've told them it people question the election and we want to hear about these people so they are giving you this information. i will give you two classic

examples with some frequency. if we supply information to say facebook or any number of other technology companies about foreign accounts, russian intelligence service for example, when they look in the system they often find others related to those and find tips back. that's one example. second would be a situation where a technology company encounters a threat of violence on the platform on the services and they provide tips to us and we follow up on those. >> there's not a lot of disagreement about that. the question is when we start to talk about political speech and that is the question are you receiving things that could be interpreted and we want to know if you're not going to admit whether it's political speech, someone who questions it as someone who is mad about something that is going on.

we are receiving this information from facebook and others and going around the constitution to come back and try to get more but then once you read it there's been no actionable intelligence on this but this is an active program that you've got. you should admit to us whether you have a program going after the speech. >> we investigated violence, not a speech. >> senator, you are recognized for your questions. >> thank you and the service you give to the country on this. we have lots of questions about the process and how things are going on. we talked about title 42 for about 18 months and i've asked you the question what happens when title 42 goes away, and for 18 months you said we are working on it. judge sullivan stepped in and unilaterally canceled out title 42 so we are in this old situation where dhs is in one

court asking to extend title 42 a little longer and another court asking to cancel title 42 altogether but we are waiting to figure out what happens now and how many are about to cross the border and what is the plan to deal with this mass migration and illegal immigration. we've announced what we would do in april of this year and have been executing on the plan. it is six different lines of effort and i will review them very quickly given the limited time. the resources to the southern border including personnel, technology, facilities

capabilities and transportation, medical support. number two, increasing the customs and border protection processing efficiency to mitigate potential overcrowding. we've been digitizing for example our electronic files, the immigration files. when placed in proceedings. we are enhancing the consequences for unlawful entry especially with respect to individuals that seek to evade law enforcement including removal detention and criminal prosecution when warranted. for, seeking to bolster the capacity of the nonprofit organizations, state and local officials working very closely with them. fifth, we are targeting and disrupting the smuggling organizations and the transnational criminal organizations in fact, we have affected more than 5,000 arrests and more than 6,000 disruption events and that means the rest

of individuals, the breakdown of smuggling houses, the seizure of the instrumentality that these organizations use and are working with partners to the south to detour and i spoke earlier in response to the ranking members question about the fact that this is a tremendous hemispheric challenge we are seeing the movement of people and the demographics of the population we are encountering at the border has changed dramatically. >> it has. there's a couple of challenges. one is the numbers came in for october. it's the third highest number in recorded history. so, while those were implemented, the numbers continue to accelerate and this goes back to the estimates when title 42 goes away it was an expectation from intel to be able to say that they surged even greater. in the policy to be able to determine based on title 42 what

we are trying to figure out is what is the plan because the plan you articulated lead to the single number and history. >> a couple viewpoints if i made. number one, the number of encounters is not equal to the number of unique individuals. it's title 42 creates a potential for the ease of recidivism. number two, we are working with our partners to the south and mexico with respect to the end of title 42 and whether we will be able to continue the program with respect to venezuelan nationals and use our title aged authorities. but we also have other opportunities ahead of us because as that is what we sought to do earlier and we will resume this effort is an enhanced use of expedited removal which is a title aid authorities so we are looking at the consequence regimes and how we can most effectively employ

them. >> while we are examining it seems the numbers continue to rise. we expect it's going to accelerate even higher. there's an expectation your department is going to change the number dramatically. what percentage of the individuals encountered at the southern border do we know the criminal history for the country that they are coming from. for the criminal history or the terror watch list that we know the criminal history of the country they are coming from. do we know that history? >> i will have to get back to you on that and whether we have the capability of identifying the percentage.

i will certainly get back to you with whatever information we can provide. >> it's important because there's an assumption that the 2 million plus individuals encountered in the last 12 months have been vetted in some way at the southern border they've been checked and we don't know if these individuals are fleeing poverty or from the law. we don't know. there is a check to see if there's an american criminal history record but we don't know if they have a record or where they are coming from. >> so, as my colleagues here will attest as well, we conduct the screening and vetting and have a robust screening and vetting process and it's not just with respect to criminal history in the united states.

>> as i mentioned i will get back to you and see if we have the data and if so, i will certainly provide it to you. >> we've asked the team and talked about the information in the decision-making process for the remaining mexico policy on this. we asked about that for a while and recently got a letter back saying there are no responsive documents that have been withheld. basically you have everything that we would have, but the implication is the decision-making process of who qualifies and who does not just left up to a case-by-case basis and there are no guidance documents. i find that hard to believe that there are no guidance documents given to anyone. i find that hard to believe and would like to get access to the documents.

>> there are important points to make with response to your concern. >> senator scott, you are recognized for your questions. >> i have had a very positive experience and you have a great team there and everybody does a good job. i think the last time you testified we had the opportunity to go to west virginia to see and i think i want to complement you on what you've done to revamp the call center operations. i'm sure it's hard to catch everything that goes on but i want to thank you for that. it seems we've got people dying, but here is my question it's been reported the party operating in the united states

in the effort to surveilled the chinese dissidents obviously shouldn't allow the most geopolitical rival in the regime to establish the stations at the u.s. with authority or jurisdiction. >> senator, like you i'm very concerned about this. we are aware of the existence of the stations. i have to be careful about the investigative work but to me it is outrageous to think that the chinese police would attempt to set up shop without proper coordination. it violates sovereignty and circumvents standard judicial law enforcement cooperation processes and the reason this is so important is because we have seen a clear pattern of the chinese government, the chinese communist party exporting the

person in the u.s. and we've had a number that you may have seen. the action right here in the united states harassing, stalking, surveilling people who they just don't like. it's something that we are talking with our partners about because we are not the only country where this has occurred. they don't have any right to be here, right? >> we are looking into the legal parameters of it. so i want to be a little bit careful on that but suffice to say i can tell you from the fbi director perspective i'm deeply concerned about this and i'm not just going to let it lie. >> does it affect homeland security at all? >> the threat of china is one of the most significant threats we face. it's not only a matter of

national security but a matter of homeland security in a number of areas. >> do you have the ability to shut them down? >> i would have to defer to the department of justice. >> so it would be under fbi. >> to the extent that the remedies might be some part of the justice department outside of the fbi that could also be a possibility into there may be a state department dimension that we are looking at. >> do you know if they are surveilling you? >> we have seen plenty where the government under the pretext of going after corruption have essentially used that as a vehicle to surveilled.

we found situations where they planted bugs inside americans cars for example. and one of the things we are seeing more and more is hiring private investigators to essentially be their agents if you will to conduct some of this work so this is something we are trying to call out and it's important that the chinese-americans at a chinese dissidents who are here know to call the fbi to report when they think they may have been targeted. >> you probably can't talk about it here. i would like to get a briefing on what they are doing at some point whenever it works out for you. >> we would be happy to set that up. so, director what i'm asking you to tell me if it's accurate or not so i'm not suggesting all of this is accurate, but it appears the doj has become politicized with regards to pro-life things. so, there is a recent rise and

high-profile for the federal law enforcement has become a partisan tool. there appears to be investigations for the pro-life community and it's the opposite of what happened with numerous fire bombings into violent attacks against churches, pro-life organizations and crisis pregnancy centers based on. so is this right? is it happening, not happening? >> let me say i firmly believe the fbi is going about its work doing the right thing in the right way. i'm glad you've raised this topic because it gives me an opportunity to speak to it. we have our view plainly expressed to all of our people including in the context of abortion -related violence is i don't care what side of the

issue you are on you don't get to engage in violence and we are equal opportunity when it comes to that. we have quite a number of investigations into attacks or threats against pregnancy resource centers, faith-based organizations and other pro-life organizations and you might be interested to know that since probably in the neighborhood of 70%. they are cases of violence were threat against her life where the victims are pro-life organizations and we are going after that through the joint terrorism task forces and criminal authorities. we have about 20 field offices involved in this and so we take it very seriously. you don't get to use violence to

express it. >> we talked about this before. it seems to me in the doj they might be doing the right thing. proactive about what you are i am pro- law enforcement as you know. i cannot defend you with no information. >> senator, we do not have the time for me too tell you how frustrated i sometimes get from some of the news reporting about our work in the misreporting about our work. the circumspection that we

display in regard to our investigations is based on rules and practices that are important to people having confidence in the integrity of our work and go back decades from multiple administrations. sometimes it can be very frustrating to agents on the ground when they see things being misreported about their work. we've all been taught we have to bite our lips and let the facts come out in the right way through court proceedings. sometimes that can be very frustrating it sounds like to youtuber. >> thank you, senator scott. what will have a second round real quick. >> it makes it hard for us, right? people come to us and say they must've done that. >> thank you, senator scott. consider how his deferred center romney. you are recognized for. >> thank you, mr. chairman think is senator hawley appreciate the chance to be able to ask a few questions.

director i begin by saying how much i preach at the work of your agents and how much i respect them for it how convinced them of their quality. one of my sons years ago interviewed become a member the fbi. he was turned down pretty is able to go on and get a degree at harvard business school and is done quite well so he survived. but we learn from that experience the qualifications for getting into the fbi are high indeed as they should be. and i have great respect for the men and women who work for the fbi. there's a great deal of discussion but the political orientation of the fbi. my experience with your organization is that is not the case by and large. i'm sure there are individuals monday 38000 and who work with you that political points of view. make lake thing to do things from time to time but are not appropriate. i hope you're able to evaluate them and evaluate where those come from and correct them. can you give us a sense of how

the resources the fbi are directed, how much goes into looking at various crimes and human trafficking? how much goes into terrorist related prevention? are there categories of effort that are carried out? there's a public perception the whole fbi we ought to defund it is only doing political work. what is the fbi doing? where are the resources devoted? >> if you were to look at our allocation of resources and i cannot give you the numbers off the top of my head. if you were to look at the allocation of our resources you would see the single largest chunk is devoted to traditional . the question is on the motion to proceed. yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? there is. there apeters to be. the clerk will -- there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 53, the nays are 23. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: in a few moments i am going to file cloture on the substitute amendment for the respect for marriage act as well as the underlying bill.

the substitute i am filing will contain the legislative text for the senate's session for the respect for negotiated by both parties. we'll hold a cloture vote son substitute amendment when the senate comes back in session on the monday after thanksgiving. let me be clear, passing the respect for marriage act is not a matter of if but only of when. i thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who led this bill and i have zero doubt that respect for marriage will soon be the law of the land. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 449, h.r. 8404, an act to repeal the defense of marriage act and ensure respect for state regulation of marriage and for other purposes. mr. schumer: mr. president, i call up amendment 6487. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, for ms. baldwin proposes an

amendment numbered 6487 to h.r. 8404. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: i have an amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 6488 to amendment numbered 6487. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered.

mr. schumer: i ask to -- i have a second-degree amendment at the desk prpb the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, popes an amendment numbered 6489 to amendment numbered 6488. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to refer to h.r. 8408 to the committee on judiciary -- 8404 to the committee on the judiciary with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, moves to refer the bill h.r. 8404 to the committee on the judiciary with instructions to report back fortwith with an amendment numbered 6497. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: i have an amendment to the instruction at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 6491 to the instructions of the motion to refer. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 6492 to amendment numbered 6491. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i send a cloture motion to the substitute amendment to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we,

the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the baldwin substitute amendment numbered 6497 to calendar number 449, h.r. 8404, an act to repeal the defense of marriage act and ensure respect for state regulation of marriage and for other purposes signed by 20 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the bill to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on calendar number 449, h.r. 8404, an act to repeal the defense of marriage act and ensure respect for state regulation of marriage and for other purposes signed by 20 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 1133.

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in all those in favor say eye. all those opposed. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, camille l. velez reeve of puerto rico to the united states district judge for the district of puerto rico. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 1133, came mile l. velez velez-rive of puerto rico to be united states district judge for the district of puerto rico signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye.

all opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 1147. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in all those in favor say eye. all those opposed. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, anne m. nardacci of new york to be united states district judge for the northern district of new york. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar 1147, anne m. nardacci of new york to be united states district judge for the northern district of new york signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call for the cloture

motions filed today, thursday, november 17, be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the legislative -- proceed to legislative session and be in a period morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 515, h.r. 521. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 515, h.r. 521, an act to permit disabled law law enforcement officers, customs and border protection officers, firefighters, air traffic controllers, nuclear materials courier, members of the capitol police, members of the supreme court police, employees of the central intelligence agency performing intelligence activities abroad or having specialized security requirements and diplomatic

security special agents of the department of state to receive retirement benefits in the same manner as if they had not been disabled. the presiding officer: is there an objection to proceeding to the measure? mr. schumer: without objection. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: finally, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only with no business be conducted on the following dates and times and that following each pro forma session, the

senate adjourn until the next one -- tuesday, november 22, at 5:30 p.m. and friday, november 25 at 8:00 a.m. i further ask when the senate adjourns on friday, november 25, it convene at 3:00 p.m. on monday, the 28th. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of calendar number 449, h.r. 8404, further, that the filing deadline for the first-degree amendments to substitute amendment 6487 and underlying bill be 3 a:30 p.m. on monday, november 28. final lay, cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on november 28. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is to further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks by

the senator from delaware. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i yield the floor.

all of us today. i would like to announce the resolution and what this will do is it will hold our government accountable for all of the funding for ukraine so i want to talk about that a little bit. but let me explain the situation we have here. congress has appropriated

$54 billion to aid in the ukrainian conflict and then our president has requested another $38 billion this week. the american people deserve to know where their money is going and how it is being spent. let's get this down a little bit. of the 54 billion appropriated by congress, 44 billion is for the eta to ukraine and other affected countries. and to who and what organization to their government in what way. how has the military assistance being appropriated, 23.3 billion is for military assistance.

is that what we are talking about? let's talk about the eta to ukraine. here in the news we are finding out about the situation with the crypto currency. so, as american people taxpayer dollars are they going to fund aid in ukraine but yet it's really funding something else. 8.9 billion for the humanitarian assistance including emergency food and assistance for ukraine and ukrainian refugees in the region and for other countries directly impacted by the conflict. again, what other country and how much money went to the other country and what organizations are involved? who runs these organizations and why did they get the contract is? 11.8 billion and other assistance including for the

direct budget support to ukraine and development aid and other assistance to ukraine and other affected countries what development aid, what assistance, who is running this? these are all the questions the american people have. now think about it like this. separately from congressional appropriations, the biden administration has already committed a $17.6 billion in security assistance directly to ukraine since the start of the war just this year. it's been about ten months. the biden administration has also authorized 23 drawdowns under the presidential drawdown since august of 2021 for a total value of $10.6 billion. now let's compare that, all of this to what the board are bordr received. the border patrol asked for $15.46 billion to secure the

border of the united states. president trump's border wall would have only cost 22 million with the money we sent to ukraine we could have already secured our border, but we are not doing that. we are ignoring the dangers happening at our border into the national security crisis that is happening in our country while we are completely protecting another country's border and also waging a proxy war with russia. we had 5 million people cross our border illegally since joe biden took office. and let's compare that to how many russians have invaded ukraine. 82,000 have invaded ukraine. i think the american people and the taxpayers of the country deserve to know why the biden administration and this congress is so interested in funding the protection of ukraine's border and not the protection of our border. that's a very good question. i also want it to be known that

approximately 56,000 americans die every single year from fentanyl poisoning. this is a tragedy that's happening and it's practically invisible. now, while we have injured ukrainian soldiers walking the halls of congress, and i just saw them today and they are being paraded around and it's tragic and heartbreaking to see they've been injured in this war, a war that america shouldn't be participated in but they are used as pawns to talk people like us into funding the protection of ukraine's border but not the protection of our border and that is extremely wrong but all of the families that lost loved ones, 56,000 dying from fentanyl, we don't see them walking the halls of congress. and that is tragic. our job is to use the american

taxpayers dollars for our country and the security of our border and for americans, but that's completely being ignored. so, what this resolution will do, let me explain it is a privileged resolution so i entered in today. now they have 14 days to decide what they are going to do with it. those are the days we are in session. then if they make no decision, i can force this resolution to the house floor for a vote and guess what congress gets to decide? if the committee is to say they want nothing to do with it and refuse to tell the american taxpayers and people of this country that they will not show transparency and provide all of the information that i'm demanding and my colleagues here are demanding, and we are asking for everything to do with military civilian and financial aid. if they refuse to be transparent, then i will be pushing this to the floor for a vote. and then if congress votes this

thisa town, guess what the messe will be to the american people. it will be you don't get to find out what's happening with your money. they will be telling the american people know, and i think that is a very bad message to tell the american people when it comes to the security of our border, the protection and safety of american citizens especially when being compared to a foreign country. a country that is not a member of nato into should negotiate for peace in this war and that our military, our taxpayers should not be funding. we are funding their budget, do you know that we are funding ukraine's budget with $11.8 billion going to assistance including for direct budget support. the question is is ukraine now the 51st state of the united states of america and what

position, this is outrageous and the american people deserve answers. with that i would like to turn over to my friend from kentucky. >> there've been 18 to 19 votes and it's getting hard to count because they don't have individual votes. the last time they had an

individual votes was roughly $40 billion. there were 56 members of congress but the support has eroded since then. so much to the point the last time she connected to the disaster relief to florida. sending money to ukraine and throwing fuel on the fire we are not going to have an up or down vote. she's going to include it with response to viruses and more tropical storms and hurricanes. it's all going to be there so if you don't vote for this then she will go out and have a press conference like she did last time you say republicans didn't

vote to help these people. i want to put out some numbers here for you so you can compare what we are talking about. the amount of money we are talking about. we are talking about billions, not millions and i've been fact checked on this so don't bother fact checking it now. we have spent more in ukraine than all of our roads and bridges in an entire year, and entire infrastructure. the roads and bridges, the real infrastructure. we don't spend as much on that as we spend on ukraine. i think that's despicable. priorities are all out of whack and i will finish with this. we are trying to find out where the money went. what we really need is a full audit and i hope that we will get the full audit. we need an inspector general. in afghanistan, we were spending about $50 billion a year.

the special inspector general of afghan reconstruction committee reconstructive or military money and the waste, fraud and abuse. every report showed that our money was being wasted and going to fraud. and they know if they get in inspector general that has the credentials of somebody like john, we are going to find the same thing in afghanistan and it's high time to stop sending any more money. don't spend another penny to ukraine or start auditing where the money went. with that i will turn over to my good friend from florida. >> the days of endless cash and

military material are numbered in the days that are required to act on the well-thought-out resolution of inquiry and they are numbered when we get into the majority. i will not vote for one more dollar to ukraine. i will not vote for one more piece of material to ukraine. we are far too entangled in this conflict. i believe we've extended this conflict and i call on the secretary defense to declassify the inspector general report on the compliance with our existing regulations regarding teen of custody with material going to another country. there is a report now. you all can't read it. the american people can't read it but i wish the american people could see the extent to which our laws have been violated and our regulations have been ignored when it comes to the end of the chain of

custody we are supposed to have for this equipment. i heard from constituents who gone down regent said they see some of the most exquisite american military equipment scattered about ukraine whether or not it's going into the fight in a righteous way. the american people are not going to support this without review, without asking tough questions and the incoming republican majority should not and will not and i now yield to my friend from georgia. >> thank you. the total lack of oversight in the ukraine funding is actually very dangerously deliberate. we had an oversight briefing this morning and we talked about evidence. back in july i offered an

amendment to establish in inspector general for ukrainian military aid to oversee the billions of taxpayer dollars being sent to ukraine by this government. in defense of ukraine's sovereignty. i wish that amount of money would have come to our southern border in defense of our sovereignty but that wasn't the case. it went to ukraine's border. it was voted down by the democrats. they don't want an inspector general. others billions of dollars going to ukraine and no inspector general. it's a slap in the face for washington to continue to squander billions on protecting the sovereignty of the borders while intentionally not defending hours. with the troubling revelations and legitimate questions that have emerged regarding the funding, it's essential that we provide the american people the

transparency that they deserve and prioritize the well-being of our republic and not someone else's and i'm proud to join the congresswoman in this funding inquiry. >> my friend from alabama. >> add to that point in time the parliament was concerned about our energy policy and how we were allowing to move the pipe planning to start production so at that time even then the parliament to solve the issue, but when i got here i begin to talk to the members. the same group of people here gave trump such a hard time about a few billion dollars from the southern border.

it was a little too much money and now we are looking at 40 million with little to no oversight. we are sending the money over there with no oversight. it's not good for the american taxpayer or the american people so with that i think you and appreciate you doing this. >> i would like to introduce one of our newly elected freshman members of congress that will be joining us in january. cory from florida. >> thank you so much. i just wanted to add to what the rest of our colleagues have said. we are stewards of the american taxpayers money. we are supposed to be looking at not just transparency but accountability for these things. for far too long we have had a fiscal irresponsibility that led to the $31 trillion. we need to be looking at

protecting our own borders, protecting americans here at home and protecting our constitutionality. we shouldn't go around thinking we have the answers. as we see we are not a escalation for the ideas threatened by the russians. we need to think about the geopolitical lineup between china and iran and what that means for us but we also need to be able to hold those accountable as many of us know they've continued to assemble on the borders and what did china do? delayed the invasion to continue. if he has that type of capability why aren't we talking about the de-escalation of this to stop the escalation from the funding of this.

we need to think about the one road one build initiative that they are trying to attack by extending the border re-creating the maritime silk route cutting off the hemisphere supply chain and attaching the u.s. dollars to the global currency. this is the ultimate goal and the way for us to defeat at that in my opinion is to invest here at home to protect our southern borders and to hold those accountable. with that i will yield back. >> we will open up for questions now. what happens if they put it on

the floor again and pass it is this something you've talked to them about and how do you plan to prevent that in the next congress? >> i've been open and honest there've been a few of us that have voted no to every single penny to go to ukraine, and i'm one of them. i voted no from the beginning and i will continue to vote no. there's always been a change in the conference. there was the few of us that voted no from the beginning. that each spending bill that came through, the numbers grew. so you've heard leader mccarthy say publicly that he doesn't see very good odds for ukraine going forward into the republican-controlled conference. the american people are who we represent and i can tell you right now my district isn't interested in continuing to fund the war in ukraine and defending the border wall that's being

evaded every single day. >> going back contemplating [inaudible] >> i believe when america invests in itself and we strengthen our border and our military and we show the world that we are very, very focused on protecting our nation, our sovereignty and our freedoms and our borders and the american people, we signal strength to the rest of the world. the withdrawal in afghanistan what we are telling the world right now is by choosing to invest in a proxy war in ukraine against russia while ignoring other situations in other countries of the world we are more interested in the money

laundering scheme and the business energy than we are about a security. so i believe when america invests in our souls and we care about the american people and our tax dollars it will grow our strength economically, at the border and not allow the mexican cartels to control the border across human trafficking and drugs that are killing the american people. when we invest in ourselves we are telling the rest of the world and of the world leaders we are not going to be used anymore and the american people are sick and tired of being used. >> i'm not saying it's a condition. i'm speaking on behalf of my district and what most americans feel. i don't see a connection there at all.

we are doing what we know is right and that is what we will continue to do. >> we don't dictate what goes on in the conference. what i would hope for is regular order and then we get away from the things pelosi is doing such as attaching disaster relief for florida to creating a disaster in ukraine. it's just in mortal and despicable to do that and i would hope that our own leadership doesn't do that. if they are going to ask us for vote that gives an independent a separate vote. >> what is your response to that? >> when we go to the border and

speak with border patrol agents and we are there on the ground that isn't at all what we are being told. the cato institute is not the border patrol. there is a big difference there. down there stopping illegal aliens and drug trafficking, i'm sorry you will have to get a direct source [inaudible] those are good questions and first of all let's go to the

first part of the question. if they choose to vote this down that's going to tell the american people know, you are not allowed to know what is happening with your money that you work hard for every single day and that you follow the law and pay your taxes to the government to trust with your money they will be telling them know so that will be the signal to the american people and i think they deserve to know that. for next year absolutely i would introduce this again and also call for the full audit. that's what we want, to audit ukraine and that needs to happen. we voted no to send money over there that we are also going to audit what is happening in ukraine. >> i think there's a lot of

things you just mentioned. i know it's under investigation and i think you will see a lot more investigations going on in that so that is something that needs to be sorted out and investigated. there needs to be a lot given and we look forward to finding out what happened there. >> do you have the support from the leadership of the resolution have you talked to them about it? what was his response? >> he said i'm having a press conference at four and he said okay. >> do you believe that ukraine sent money back to the democratic party of the dollars? >> i don't know what happens but it sure does look bad. he has three letters like i do.

he's apparently going to file bankruptcy and is the second largest donor to democrats this cycle. he was in charge of the crypto currency fund in ukraine through the national bank and the question is did the usa dollars go into that fund. that is a question that we need to know and i really believe in a lot of the documents if they are able to hand them over and they should, what would they have to hide. everyone deserves to know where the money is going. we definitely want to know if any taxpayer dollars went into that fund and did it go back into his pocket for him to donate to political candidates. those are the kind of questions we would want to ask regardless what political party it is because that just shouldn't happen and i want to give everybody else a chance to

answer questions. >> one of the things i want to add to this is we have to look at connecting the dots. every single person, all my colleagues, everyone on the press floor we deserve to know where our money is being spent and utilized. to recognize the fact that both times russia violated the sovereignty of ukraine, and in 2014 when the russians came across the violations of random that the federation, the united states, ukraine and northern ireland is a part of the signatory. why are we not utilizing the treaties and agreements that are a mechanism for sanctioning why would we can on tuesday, november 22, 2022.

adjourn: link back squatting in a diner for

internetwork is even harder providing lower income students access to affordable internet, so homework can just be homework. connect to compete. >> along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy.